Obama’s Dangerous Diplomacy

[Editor’s note: As a presidential aspirant, Hillary Clinton condemned “cowboy diplomacy” that alienated America’s allies; as secretary of state in the Obama administration, she has practiced it, leading the recent onslaught against Israel for its decision to construct housing in a city that it considers its rightful capital. For some perspective on the administration’s disproportionate response, Front Page is joined by Joel Pollak, a human rights lawyer and author from Skokie, Illinois. Pollak is currently the Republican nominee challenging Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky in Illinois’ 9th congressional district. Pollak discussed the radical shift in the administration’s policy toward Israel, why human rights law does not support the administration’s terrorist detention policies, and standing up to Rep. Barney Frank.]


FPM: The Obama administration’s recent row over Israel’s announcement of new settlements in Jerusalem seems much ado about nothing. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier announced a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction as a good-faith gesture, he specifically excluded Jerusalem, a position that has been held by all Israeli prime ministers in recent decades and which, initially at least, was not protested by the Obama administration. Moreover, as you’ve pointed out in these pages, Ramat Shlomo, the neighborhood where the 1,600 homes are to be built, is not some remote outpost; it is in a part of East Jerusalem that is almost certain to remain part of Israel in any future Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. How then do you account for the severity of the Obama administration’s response – everyone from Vice President Biden to Secretary Clinton to presidential advisor David Axelrod has publically condemned Israel in the past few weeks – and the hard line it has taken against Israel?

Pollak: There are two reasons for the severity of the response. One is a radical shift in policy. This administration is abandoning the commitments of its predecessors to allow Israel defensible borders that would include some territory across the 1949 armistice line (the 1967 line, or Green Line). Instead, it is adopting the Arab (Saudi) peace initiative, which seeks complete withdrawal to the armistice line. The difference might not amount to much, in terms of total land area, but it is a radical and dangerous shift in the way we approach the conflict, and it has severe implications for the future of Jerusalem.

The second reason for the severity of the response is that this administration–even more than its predecessor–cannot admit its mistakes. It refuses, for example, to acknowledge that its first year of Mideast diplomacy, based entirely on Israeli and American concessions, has been a failure. So it has doubled down on Israeli concessions, much the way it has doubled down on unpopular domestic policies in the belief that people will eventually submit to exhortation by the president.

I also think there was a degree of blunder in the whole crisis–not just on the Israeli side. Vice-President Biden responded in a (sadly) characteristic way to a perceived slight. He insulted the U.S. more than Israel ever did by making a show of being humiliated. Great nations do not fly into hysterics over housing decisions by friendly foreign governments. Biden’s antics–and the administration’s follow-up–also made the U.S look weak by showing that we were not prepared to support our strongest ally. Even if we had truly been damaged by Israel’s housing announcement, the administration wasted whatever leverage it might have had by backing Israeli PM Netanyahu into a corner. For an administration that purports to believe in diplomacy, this was a poor example of it.

FPM: The Obama administration’s position seems to be that Israel’s settlement activity in East Jerusalem is sabotaging the “peace process” with the Palestinians and preventing negotiations from taking place. David Axelrod has put it in nearly those exact terms. What do you make of this argument?

Pollak: Settlements are not the problem. The Gaza disengagement in 2005, which uprooted all settlements and soldiers from the territory, was met with an escalation of terror. The fact that the Obama administration does not seem to remember that is very troubling.

FPM: It has been suggested that the U.S.-Israel relationship is the most strained that it has been in nearly four decades. How would you describe the current state of that relationship and what can both sides do to mend it?

Pollak: The relationship between the American people and the Israeli people is stronger than ever. The relationship between the two administrations is functional. But the relationship between the Israeli people and the American administration will not be repaired easily. What Israel can do to repair the relationship is to remain committed to its own defense. Self-reliance and strength breed respect. That is the basis on which the close relationship was built after Israel’s victory in the Six Day War. What the U.S. can do to repair the relationship is to get serious about Iran. Announce that we will support a pre-emptive Israeli strike against Iran if the need arises. Indicate that we will target Iranian political institutions as well as military institutions if the nuclear program is not stopped. Offer real and active support to the Iranian democracy movement. I believe that would go a long way to restoring the trust of the Israeli public in the Obama administration. Also, recognizing Jewish claims in at least the Jewish parts of East Jerusalem would have some effect in moving both administrations past the most recent debacle.

FPM: Some have argued that the administration’s disproportionate condemnation of Israel will only embolden anti-Israel extremism in the Middle East – whether from Palestinians or from Iran. Do you agree and how big of a concern is that?

Pollak: I agree. It has already emboldened anti-Israel extremism elsewhere, including in the U.S. It is a huge concern because it makes diplomacy–the very diplomacy to which this administration is committed–far more difficult. It resets Palestinian and Iranian expectations at impossible levels, and encourages a culture of incitement against Israel. For example, Hamas used the Obama administration’s criticism of settlements to attack the re-construction of a centuries-old synagogue in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, which Jordan had destroyed after it occupied the area in 1948. They turned a housing issue into an international religious conflagration. It was a foreseeable outcome.

FPM: When Obama advisor David Axelrod recently went on cable news shows to condemn Israel, it highlighted the fact that some Americans Jews, particularly on the Left, have a vision of what it means to be supportive of Israel that is radically different from how most Jews would understand the concept. Another example might be J-Street, the self-styled “pro-Israel, pro-peace” activist group that, despite its claim of supporting Israel, nevertheless opposed Israel’s military campaign against Hamas. How do you explain the disconnect between the putatively pro-Israel aims of such people and groups and the actual implications of the positions they take?

Pollak: I think many well-meaning people on that side of the issue fail to understand the disconnect between sentiment on one hand and logic on the other. I met someone involved in J Street the other day, who told me he was opposed to a military option on Iran, partly because the Iraq war had gone badly. Fine–that is a defensible position, even if I don’t agree with it. He then went on to say he opposed sanctions against Iran as well. Now, if you oppose military action, and you oppose sanctions, what are you left with? Defeat and destruction. I think after a certain point, when idealism stands in bold defiance of reality, it ceases to be excusable. As Orwell argued during WWII, at some point the subjective impulse of pacifism crosses over into effective support for fascism. I think many of those folks don’t realize what they’re arguing, though some should by now.

FPM: You are a human rights lawyer and a graduate of Harvard Law School, so I am interested in how you see the Obama administration’s decision to close Guantanamo Bay and to hold civilian trials for terrorist detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. For instance, the administration has indicated that it may seek to transfer some of the detainees to Thompson prison in your home state of Illinois. Are such policies what human rights law prescribes, as the administration has repeatedly suggested?

Pollak: Human rights law, in my view, prescribes exactly the opposite–namely, that we maintain a separation between the military and civilian worlds. Granting war criminals access to the generous protections of the civilian court system may also encourage terrorists to attack civilian rather than military targets, especially since the administration still intends to try the bombers of the U.S.S. Cole in the military system. I believe there are better alternatives to holding all of our detainees at Guantanamo Bay–we could use several different military prisons overseas, for example–but until we find those alternatives, we should not rush to implement decisions made for political rather than security reasons. In my state, the majority of people do not want terror detainees captured on foreign battlefields to be brought to U.S. soil–neither to Illinois nor to any other state.

FPM: You first gained fame (or infamy, in some quarters) in 2008 when you asked Rep. Barney Frank during his appearance at Harvard how much responsibility he bore for the financial crisis. At the time, you didn’t get much of an answer. So, let me ask you: How much responsibility do politicians from both parties have for the financial crisis and how would you rate the government’s handling of that economic crisis to date?

Pollak: I believe they bear a great deal of responsibility. They weakened the principles of risk and reward that provide the foundation of our economy and our financial system. I think the government has not handled the crisis well at all. Both the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration seem to have made the problems worse, if they can be said to have addressed them at all. The massive spending and bailouts have placed this country’s future growth–its future solvency–in danger. To the extent that our economy has begun to show some positive signs, I believe credit is due to the persistence and faith of the American people, not to the self-interested interventions of politicians.

FPM: This past weekend, the Democrats finally passed the health care bill that they have been pushing for the past year, though they did so using procedural tactics that were controversial, to say the least. What do you make of the substance of the bill and did the Democrats’ ends in this instance justify the means?

Pollak: The bill prepares the way for the nationalization of health care in America. It does nothing to address the problem of cost, while placing the quality of care at risk. The goal–as Democrats stated openly on many occasions–was to show that radical change could be accomplished, in order to prepare the way for further radical changes and a massive redistribution of wealth. In the process, they undermined public faith in democracy by casting aside the ordinary rules of political deliberation. We need to start over–not just on health care, but on restoring the faith of the American people in our constitution and in our institutions of representative government. It took only one year to destroy what took many years to build: trust. It may take many more years to restore that trust. As difficult as that will be, and as long as it will take us, we have to begin today.

FPM: Joel Pollak, thanks very much for joining us.

  • jewdog

    American Mideast policy could be summed up as encouraging moderation. It started under Bush with the idea that if we suppressed the radicals and set up democratic infrastructures, the moderates would materialize and become the dominant force. They haven't.
    In Iraq, the persecution of Christians is out of control, and in Afghanistan, a "mistranslation" of the Quran got two men 20 year jai lterms, and the Taliban leader who destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhas is in the parliament.
    Meanwhile, the Israelis still can't do enough to encourage the moderates, despite the election of Hamas, the terror after Oslo, and the recent rededication by the PA of a square in Ramallah to a female terrorist.
    Yes, moderates exist. There is something to be said for our strategy, but it misses the mark. The real problem is that we refuse to admit that islam is fundamentally a violent, supremacist system which has been resuscitated by trillions in petrodollars.
    The real solution is energy independence or the seizure of the oil fields, not chasing half-truths to absurd lengths.

  • Ron Grant

    There is a saying in my part of the world,perhaps in yours' ,too."Give them an inch,they take a mile." Not very flattering,but describes the actions of the early Zionists and present day Israelis in their claims and occupation of Palestinian land.I certainly would not want present day Israel on my borders given their history and treatment of their neighbors.But given Canadian experience iin both World Wars,I suspect the Seven Day war would have ended differently.
    We talk about a politicians sense of entitlement,well it is not unlike the Zionist or Israeli sense of entitlement,supported by the religious right .Who do you think you are…gods' people?
    Do you not recognize that the hundreds of thousands of Jews from Europe who emigrated to mostly Arab settled Palestine shares many qualities with similar movements by Europeans to South Africa,Rhodesia and India?The lands were occupied ,the countries colonized.Do you not recognize the de facto ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that resulted in a majority Jewish presence in Israel proper?
    Denial does not relieve the Jews of their moral obligation to their victims,any less then the excuses of Nazis,Boers or White colonialists elsewhere in the past.
    Sure, Israel is between a rock and a hard place but that is a result of choices made by the Zionists,less so the Palestinians.The Western world has an obligation to both Palestinians and Israelis for their part in creating Israel and her continued support at the expense of the Palestinians.Whether through sanctions or diplomatic isolation as with South Africa and Rhodesia the West must bring pressure on Israel to allow the Palestinians the dignity of a just peace and a viable homeland and country. Obama has shown both courage and common sense in recognizing the long suffering of the Palestinians and America's obligation to their welfare even at the expense of her friend Israel.Let us hope Israel nor her supporters will prevent a final just peace in the region.God Bless America.

    • Ron Grant

      "Let us hope Israel nor her supporters will prevent a final just peace in the region.God Bless America."
      Should read "Let us hope neither Israel nor her supporters will prevent a final just peace in the region.God Bless America."

    • xman

      It must make you sick just thinking that you were born 65 years too late to pour the Zyklon crystals into the showers of Auschwitz. No doubt, you'd love to see Auschwitz back in business, the showers full of Jews, the cans of Zyklon lying in wait and the crematoria fired up, eh evil pig.

      • Ron Grant

        "It must make you sick just thinking that you were born 65 years too late to pour the Zyklon crystals into the showers of Auschwitz"

        Not really,if only for the possibility that my family and I might be the next victims.You know,first there were the Jews,….then the communists,….then the homosexuals,….then you and me……
        Muchiboy

    • Tom W.

      Part 1

      You are obviously a consumer of propaganda rather than a student of history! Palestine wasn't and I repeat wasn't a country, after WW 1 the French & British took apart the Ottoman Empire for themselves via the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. These two European powerhouses gave each of themselves legal ownership of the Middle East via mandates. The French took control of Syria, while the British took over Mesopotamia and Palestine; none–I repeat none of these areas where ever independent nations. The French & British just drew the boundaries of these mandated areas, take a look at the absolute illogical eastern border of of Jordan and how it suddenly narrows where it meets with the narrow western border of Iraq. This part of the problem of the Middle East, Arabs have bought into these nonexistent borders and have become extremely tribal over their hold on to their territories when in fact they're all Arabs! There are no such people as Palestinian Arabs, Syrian Arabs, Iraqi Arabs and Lebanese Arabs! Look at a map, see the Arabian peninsula, just as large as that is so too was the entire region (unbroken up) where the French and British decided to meddle in and create a bunch of false borders to create their mandated territories!

    • Tom W.

      Part 2

      After WW 1, the British were especially grateful to two allies for helping them win the war. The first were Jewish scientists (just as Jewish scientists aided the Americans during WW 2), one which really stood out was Chaim Weizmann who became the director of the British Admiralty Chemical Laboratories in 1916; he was as important to the British as Robert Oppenheimer was for the Americans during WW 2. Weizmann's chief wartime contribution was a method of making acetone (the main ingredient in the British artillery shells to make cordite). The other ally of the British were the Hashemite tribe in western Arabia, the tribe held the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina. It was the Hashemites that were the key tribe that held together the Arab Revolt against the Turks under the command of a British officer named T.E. Lawrence (aka. Lawrence of Arabia).

      Due in part to Jewish scientists such as Chaim Weizmann, the British wanted to reward the Jews by giving them ownership of the Palestine mandated area (which today is the Gaza Strip, Israel, The West Bank and Jordan). Regarding the Hashemites; Sharif Hussein ibn Ali was leader of the tribe during WW 1. After the war his incredible ambitious son Faisal took his Arab army all the way up to Syria and in Damascus, Faisal quickly announced he was the King of Syria! But the French would have none of it and just as quickly kicked his ass out of their mandated territory.

      And just as the British portioned up their mandated areas, so too did the French, they split of a small section of Syria in order to protect the Christians, this little section of land later became Lebanon! How ironic that the French ideals went in vain when the remainder of Muslim Syria slowly took control of Lebanon; the Christians went from being a majority to a minority. Again all these nations are phony–please remember this fact!

    • Tom W.

      Part 3

      Now back in Arabia, there was another very ambitious tribe called the Saud tribe, who did diddly squat for the British during the war. But after the war this eastern Arabian tribe decided to take over all of Arabia, notice this kind of story never surfaced in the European newspapers after the war because the European couldn't have cared less and looked down upon the Arabs as tribal savages. The British who owed the Hashemites a huge debt gratitude for helping defeat the Turks, just sat on their ass as the Saudis invaded western Arabia and took control of Mecca and Medina. The Europeans were right, the Arabs were savages because the Saudis kicked the Hashemites out of Arabia!

      So now Britain's former Middle Eastern WW 1 ally the Hashemites were homeless so the British endowed the Hashemites a vast amount of their mandated territory in order to make up for the Hashemites loss of the Arabia. So the British broke up the eastern portion of Palestine (80% of the entire mandated land of Palestine) and also renamed the Mesopotamia mandated area to Iraq; this entire area now became the new Hashemite kingdom! Think of that, the British gave a transplanted Arabian tribe a new kingdom whose borders ranged from the Jordan River to the western border of Iran. One tribe trying to control all this territory, you can see how the British set-up a new Arab on Arab conflict.

    • Tom W.

      Part 4

      Now in terms of Iraq, there were already so many different tribes that the locals resented the British giving the Hashemites rule over them. Since the time the Hashemites were installed as a puppet regime in Iraq, there was constant violence to overthrow them. All this violence culminated with a final a bloody coup in 1958. In terms of the eastern portion of the Palestine mandate, once again this area was never an autonomous region run by Arabs. As soon as the British partitioned Palestine, the eastern region was renamed by the British as Trans-Jordan. But once the Hashemites moved in, they renamed it as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan! All of a sudden Palestinian Arabs became citizens of a foreign tribe and when people say that Jordan is Palestine, now you know why! The British just kept the name Palestine to the 20% of their mandated territory which was left.

      In the 1920's & 1930's when the Jews tried to press the British on the old promise of giving the Jews rule over Palestine, the British just created studies called white papers (various white paper were published in 1922, 1930, 1937, 1938 and 1939). Essentially due to Arab riots against Jews, the British tried to placate Arab unrest by putting on severe restrictions on where the Jews could live in Palestine (those Jews who lived in Palestine). Also the British put a halt to all Jews trying to flee the rising tide of European out of control anti-Semitism. In the end, just before WW 2, the British rescinded their promise to create a Jewish state in the remainder of their mandated territory of Palestine!

    • Tom W.

      Part 5

      After WW 2, the Jews were furious at the British for denying them access to Palestine to escape the mass extermination of the European Jewish population by the Nazis and all of their sympathetic Jew bloody thirsty cohorts! That's why most of the Jews that survived the Holocaust hated Europe and wanted to get the hell out of there but the British still prevented Jews who were seeking to come to Palestine from entering! All boats loads of Jews trying to come to Palestine were diverted to Cyprus, where the British confined all the Jews to fenced in camps. As a result, the Jews had no choice but fight to get a piece of land which the British promised them! It was only because of the Jewish resistance that eventually the British decided to leave Palestine. But the British deliberately stabbed the Jews in the back when they left Palestine, instead of officially giving the Jews recognition that Palestine will be handed over to the Jews. The British handed over their mandate to the new formed United Nations; everything after this fact is illegal! The British should have essentially owned up to their obligations, especially after what the Jewish scientists did to help them win WW 1.

      But upon leaving Palestine, the British already rewarded the Hashemites years before by giving them Trans-Jordan and Iraq. Legally, they promise Palestine to the Jews, it's illegal to rescind a contract or an obligation because of physical and/or verbal intimidation but that's what the British did with all their white papers before WW2. The British gave into Arab intimidation as a result, they left the Jews in Europe to be slaughtered and after WW 2, they still refused Jewish entrance to Palestine–all due to trying to placate the hotheaded racists Arabs!

    • Tom W.

      Part 6

      So now the salient point is that the British had no one to blame but themselves when the Jews decided to form various underground groups that violently attacked British troops in post WW 2 Palestine. Even if let's say the British didn't alter their ways before WW 2 and kept to the final conclusion of the 1939 white paper which was to rescind it's offer to create a Jewish state in Palestine.

      After seeing the horrors of the European Holocaust of the Jews, the British should have had the balls to immediately apologize to the Jews for denying them refugee in Palestine! Also the British after WW 2 should have had the guts to admit the mistakes of earlier giving into Arab aggression because of the lessons learned from initially appeasing Nazi aggression prior to Germany's invasion of Poland. The British government should have said that thanks to Chaim Weizmann and other loyal Jewish scientists (and they should have named other key Jewish scientists), we owed the Jewish people a debt of gratitude for helping us defeat Germany in the first world war. Unfortunately, we didn't keep our word, we gave 80% of Palestine to the Hashemites and then we went back on our word to give the Jews the remainder of Palestine all because we were cowards, we just wanted to appease the Arabs. The British should have said that as a result, we will be rewarding the remainder of our mandate of Palestine to the Jewish people in the hope that in time our wrongdoings to the Jewish people will be forgiven by allowing the Jews to finally have a homeland after 2000 years! The British government will financial assist all Arabs unwilling to live in the Jewish State of Palestine and who wish to relocate to any of the surrounding Arab countries.

      That's all the British needed to do after WW 2!

    • Tom W.

      Part 7

      Finally, on exiting Palestine the British decided to once again screw the Jews over, everything after this is absolutely illegal! Rather than owing up to its legal obligation to give the remainder of Palestine to the Jews, the British government just handed over its mandate of Palestine to the newly formed United Nations! Understand that it was the British and French that broke up the Ottoman Empire after WW1 and rewarded themselves by creating out of sand new boundaries to territories that never ever existed as autonomous Arab countries. The British drew these new lines in the sand, it was the British that decided to keep these areas as mandated lands until they could finally dispensed of them. These mandates aren't mortgages, you can't give another country and/or international body ownership of mandated property. It was up to the British to decide what to do with their mandated lands, dispense them and then leave. They dispensed most of their mandate for good and bad to the Hashemites, it was illegal for the British to leave Palestine before dispensing its remainder to any party or more than one group. But the British handed over their mandate of Palestine to the U.N. which is completely illegal!

      Of course the U.N. had no obligation like the British did to the Jews so the U.N. decided to illegally partition Palestine into an unworkable plan of mini states portioned out to the Jews and Arabs. Despite the Jews agreeing to this, which they shouldn't have done, they should have told this world body that the British promised Palestine to them–period! Instead the Jews agreed to this stupid plan which would have given them 10% of the original British mandate of Palestine. Understand, there were no Arab Palestinians, the U.N. partitioned Palestine into Jewish and Arab states! Why was there nor has their ever been a cry by the Arabs to keep the name Palestine in Trans-Jordan before the Hashemites declared it has their own tribal kingdom?

      So my bottom line my dear Ron Grant, is that unlike you, who just spouts off propaganda talking points that are purely anti-Semitic and attempt to reverse history, such as declaring the Jews are the greedy party in the Middle East. I've proven that it is the Arabs, through their hatred, tribalism and downright greed that fulfill the saying, "Give them an inch, they take a mile." Yes, I agree it's not very flattering but it describes the Arabs to a tee! So as soon as you started trash talking about greedy Zionists and stealing Palestinian land, I decided to set the record straight by stating historical facts!

      It's time you got your head out of your ass and stopped reading Muslim revisionist Middle East history! By the way, when the Jews accepted the stupid U.N. partition of Palestine, about 800,000 Jews were expelled from Arab countries. The Jews are the real refugees, their fellow Jews immediately absorbed them without any financial aid from the U.N. into the newly established State of Israel. The Arabs who fled Palestine were Arabs–period! These Arabs weren't legally entitled to a second Palestinian state, they fled expecting the Jews to be slaughtered by the Arab armies. Why do these Arabs need to be compensated at all? But instead they're called Palestinian refugees who have been on a U.N. sponsored welfare program since 1948! They're only Arabs, just as the Jews took the responsibility to absorb their refugees, it was 100% the responsibility of those Arab countries that took part in the invasion of Israel to have absorbed these Arabs (who they promised they would finish off the Jews)!

      Ron–you're completely ignorant, arrogant and an anti-Semite to not only read but to believe and spout back Islamic historical revisionist crap! You owe us all an apology for you post–we're waiting……………

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Rifleman Rifleman

        Great posts, thanks for the excellent input. Those with Mr. Grant's views can only fool people ignorant of geography, history, and culture.

      • Ron Grant

        "Ron–you're completely ignorant, arrogant and an anti-Semite to not only read but to believe and spout back Islamic historical revisionist crap! You owe us all an apology for you post–we're waiting………….."

        Funny isn't it that we humans can go to the same schools and universities,study the same history books and have such divergent opinions on such important matters.And great that we both live in neighboring countries and societies that allow us to have these opinions.And thankful that we can debate these differences on this forum.Thank you David Horowitz
        Muchiboy

        • Tom W.

          Yes, I went to university and have 2 degrees, however my knowledge of the Middle East is from self-study! The information I gave you was due to reading a combination of articles, books on history (of various periods not just the past 100 years), autobiographies and yes from the Internet (but from reputable sources not from anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and Islamic historical revisionists sources).

          Finally, my rebuke to you is based on you spewing back talking points taken directly from the exact opposite sort of sources that I've gained my personal knowledge from–that's my point! What you posted was not and I repeat not an opinion because an opinion is based on a person's judgment. My long post was a completely original thought that I summarized from many sources about these subjects (the history of the Jews, WW 1, post WW 1 world politics, etc.); I made a personal judgment call attacking your propaganda based post whereby you just spewed back historical revisionists lies regarding the Jews and the history of Palestine. I guess you completely missed the point an argument back up by facts–didn't you!

          Now please tell me by the historical record where you're right and I'm wrong. I'm damn serious, please tell me based on the facts alone where a real country (not a post WW 1 British mandated named territory) called Palestine was ever an independent Arab country and Zionists invaders from Europe became the illegal occupiers of the land! OK–that's sounds very simple doesn't, so now please prove it! Because after all, that's the thesis on which your attack on Zionists ("Give them an inch,they take a mile") is based upon!

          That's why I say you owe all of us an apology–duh…do you get it now? So either prove your so-called opinion by facts based on the real historical record of the Middle East or immediately apologize to us for being an anti-Semitic parrot, who just repeated the ugly historical revisionist lies from Jew hating sources!

      • Ron Grant

        Tom W.
        Firstly,thank you for the history lesson.Me thinks you burned a lot of the midnight oil.I will be saving your response for future reference.
        No where did I make reference to a past country of Palestine.Hopefully some day,but it will unfortunately be over somebodies dead body(ies),Israeli and Palestinian.However,like it or not,the geographical/political unit of Palestine was occupied by Arabs,Christians and Jews,the majority being Arab.So I call these Arabs Palestinians…bite me.Now get over it.
        As to there being no Palestinian Arabs,look again my Zionist friend,the day Israel was re-created by the UN and the Western powers,that is the day the Palestinian nation was borne.Ironic,eh.The same might be said for Polish Jews,French Jews and Iraqi Jews becoming Israelis.Seems to me you can't see the forest for the trees.And what's more,(are you sitting down?),we're ALL Gods children.
        As to your reference of phony nations,just where does the re-creation of an ancient biblical Jewish state with hundreds of thousands of Polish ,French, German, American ,etc. Jews fit?You must see that the re-creation of Israel by the colonialists was as much a part of the machinations of these powers as those you site.
        Given the numbers of European Jews fleeing the Holocaust to returnsettle (Zionist term) or occupycolonize (my terms) land in such a small and contested place at a time when the world was changing (my God,the world had just fought and won a terrible war to end a brutal regime that carried out a policy of Genocide on a gentle and brilliant race ,colonialism was coming to an end ,the modern world we know was just beginning) was both arrogant and an anachronism.I will point out the anger you show at the British for failing to help your people in their time of need.It really was a failure of humanity.And we all owe the Jewish people an apology.How much finer a world we would have if those millions of Jews who perished had been alive to contribute to the humanities,arts and sciences.Sorry.
        Yet,you dismiss as "racist Arabs" the very people that would be displaced by those same European Jews.They have their story,too,Tom.I recall in Golda Meirs' autobiography where she says that at one time Yiddish (E.European) was the most common of the language she heard in the circles of power.And she herself emigrated to Palestine from America.Where is your humanity,Tom?You deny there are any Palestinians (a form of genocide in itself) and you deny them the right to feel indignant at their loss.
        Again,Tom,I read the very words you wrote,but in the end my conclusions are very different and sometimes opposed to yours.But then we're not arguing math or physics,more what to do with the facts before us in very human matters.In matters of economics,philosophy and human behavior we humans still have a long way to go.Muchiboy

      • Ron Grant

        Tom W.
        Firstly,thank you for the history lesson.Me thinks you burned a lot of the midnight oil.I will be saving your response for future reference.
        No where did I make reference to a past country of Palestine.Hopefully some day,but it will unfortunately be over somebodies dead body(ies),Israeli and Palestinian.However,like it or not,the geographical/political unit of Palestine was occupied by Arabs,Christians and Jews,the majority being Arab.So I call these Arabs Palestinians…bite me.Now get over it.
        As to there being no Palestinian Arabs,look again my Zionist friend,the day Israel was re-created by the UN and the Western powers,that is the day the Palestinian nation was borne.Ironic,eh.The same might be said for Polish Jews,French Jews and Iraqi Jews becoming Israelis.Seems to me you can't see the forest for the trees.And what's more,(are you sitting down?),we're ALL Gods children.
        As to your reference of phony nations,just where does the re-creation of an ancient biblical Jewish state with hundreds of thousands of Polish ,French, German, American ,etc. Jews fit?You must see that the re-creation of Israel by the colonialists was as much a part of the machinations of these powers as those you site.
        Given the numbers of European Jews fleeing the Holocaust to returnsettle (Zionist term) or occupycolonize (my terms) land in such a small and contested place at a time when the world was changing (my God,the world had just fought and won a terrible war to end a brutal regime that carried out a policy of Genocide on a gentle and brilliant race ,colonialism was coming to an end ,the modern world we know was just beginning) was both arrogant and an anachronism.I will point out the anger you show at the British for failing to help your people in their time of need.It really was a failure of humanity.And we all owe the Jewish people an apology.How much finer a world we would have if those millions of Jews who perished had been alive to contribute to the humanities,arts and sciences.Sorry.
        Yet,you dismiss as "racist Arabs" the very people that would be displaced by those same European Jews.They have their story,too,Tom.I recall in Golda Meirs' autobiography where she says that at one time Yiddish (E.European) was the most common of the language she heard in the circles of power.And she herself emigrated to Palestine from America.Where is your humanity,Tom?You deny there are any Palestinians (a form of genocide in itself) and you deny them the right to feel indignant at their loss.
        Again,Tom,I read the very words you wrote,but in the end my conclusions are very different and sometimes opposed to yours.But then we're not arguing math or physics,more what to do with the facts before us in very human matters.In matters of economics,philosophy and human behavior we humans still have a long way to go.Muchiboy

        • Tom W.

          My final reply:

          I consulted a friend who thought I was crazy in trying to justify the truth to any non-Jews! This isn't an insult to non-Jews, it means that history and facts speak for themselves and when a third party intervenes by accepting an aggressor's skewed take on why he/she is a victim then there's no reason to even engage in a conversation with that person more or less even acknowledge him/her!

          In simple speak this means that Islam is unfortunately going on a mini upsurge in the beginning of the 21st century, as this religion increases in its exposure so too does all its immoral baggage that comes with it. Muhammad hated the Jews because they (rightful) chose to ignore his arguments that he was a prophet (as part of the continuation of the well known biblical prophets). The bottom-line is that rather feel confident in himself and just move on with his life, Muhammad became overly obsessed with demonizing the entire Jewish population in Arabia! Muhammad made his rounds at trying to convince the various Arabian Jewish tribes that he was a prophet and when he was ignored, he went on a killing, looting and raping spree of every Jewish community!

          Now with the present day upsurge in Islam, all the ugly insults, blood libels and demonizations of the Jewish get thrown back into society. Unfortunately there's a whole hosts of left wingers, academics, nongovernmental organizations and just a bunch of loony fellow travelers that have taken as their cause to blame Jews (and Israel) based on all Islam's interpretation why the world is justified at blaming the Jews. As such, my friend said that once a person like Rachel Corrie lose her soul to the lies of Islamic propaganda, you should not only forget about conversing with her, you should not even allow yourself to give recognition to such a person!

          My bottom-line to you is that you're on your way to losing your soul! If you honestly believe the lies that not only there's a distinctive Arab society called Palestinians but you believe Zionists have a program of genocide against them, then not only will I refuse to engage you in a conversation but I can't recognize you! Everything the Muslims say about the Jews is the exact mirror opposite of their actions and behaviour! It's the Muslims that deny the Jews had a Temple in Jerusalem and it's the Muslims that are currently destroying as much of the ancient Israelite archaeological record as possible. It's also the Muslims that indoctrinate their children from an early age in school and on TV programs that Zionists are the occupiers of Palestine. It is also through sick and twisted children shows that Muslims create beloved Walt Disney like characters that speak ill of the Jews and then get murdered by Jews! I could go on and on but see, you refuse to see the truth and prefer to believe the lies of Muslims. Therefore I wasting my time, why don't you to Gaza, chain yourself to the front door of a house that is really just a front for a smuggling tunnel connect to Egypt and stare down an Israeli bulldozer!

          Good-bye!

          • Ron Grant

            Tom;I don't give a damn about Islam when arguing the Palestinian case.Simply put,I think the Palestinians were and continue to be mistreated by the Zionists and now Israel.While acknowledging the special case for the Jewish diaspora in the re-creation of Israel I make a special case of occupation and colonization of Palestine by the Zionists and Jews.It is simply the other side of the coin in this argument.If you don't like it,too bad.That is the nature of all arguments.In the real world,as America has told Israel,it is not acceptable to just take your ball and go home,as much as Netanyahu would like.Non engagement while an option for you and I is not a viable nor wise option for Israel and the Palestinians.Muchiboy

  • watchful

    Now with Europe become so anti-Semitic and so many Jews leaving I think they would need more housing.

    I'm not a Jew but I completely support Israel's right to exist and to defend herself.

    Obama said he would side with Muslims and he is doing just that. Here in America the Muslims are working with the Leftists because they both desire communism.

    Obama is doing everything he subtly can to work with them. Will the day come when we are forced to choose death or conversion to Islam? If we keep going the way we are our children or grandchildren will be making that choice. That is what they said they will do and that is what they are doing. Obama is not of the mind to stop them.

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    Illegitimate Obama's government implements Islamic agenda and is an enemy of Israel! The best Israel's weapon against Obama is to acknowledge illegitimacy of Obama and help to end his illegal governance.

    Obama/Soetoro's presidency violates the US Constitution for the following reasons.

    1) With only one parent American citizen (the mother), he is definitely not natural born citizen. http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.h

    2) He has never produced any valid proof even of his ordinary citizenship.

    3) His Indonesian citizenship relinquishes his natural born citizenship even if it were valid at his birth.

    4) He is a felon, a social security fraud. His social security number belonged to a dead person and starts with digits 042 assigned to the state of CT where he never resided, as discovered by a Dr. Taitz collaborator.

    Therefore he has to be prosecuted as a felon – if America is still a nation of laws…

  • http://www.resonoelusono.com/NaturalBornCitizen.htm Alexander Gofen

    A department of foreign affairs of any nation of the world can file Quo Warranto, which then goes directly to the US Supreme Court and must be heard expeditiously. All that is necessary for the triumph of justice is that any court of the land order the discovery – and the impostor is finished.

    Learned people in Israeli government must know that. Do they have the guts to follow this way – this is another story. Yet they do have this opportunity to bury Obama, or at least blackmail him and to force him to shut up and never even think about infringing Israel's interests. Yes, Israel is literally sitting on the opportunity to topple our impostor and usurper – and to deliver herself from very possible terrible destruction.

  • Jeff

    The real question is whether a "palestinian" state would be desirable. The answer is that it won't be. It will just be another pro-terrorist state, and only result in war and catastrophe. The so-called palestinians should not be harmed, but they should be resettled in other arab countries, of which there are around 25. Israel needs land to grow; the arabs don't know what to do with the land they have now, which mounts to 500 times the land that Israel controls. We should advocate this position as the best possible "roadmap" to a long-lasting peace.

  • Ira Rubenstein

    America does not need Israel for anything! They cause us to die everywhere, and we send money to them at an amount greater than any American STATE gets.

    The current leadership has a policy. Push the Palestinians into the Sea, and squash them like rats. Surround them on the seas to starve them and prevent decent living conditions and education. Stop the retorica already, we know Israel will keep taking and taking as this is in their genes.