“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Sunday, November 13, 2011

'blaming the Jews and the Jewish state for their enemies’ behavior is what passes for polite conversation among Western elites today.’ - Carloline Glick

With Friends Like These...

By Caroline Glick

The slurs against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu voiced by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama after last week’s G20 summit were revealing as well as repugnant.
Thinking no one other than Obama could hear him, Sarkozy attacked Netanyahu, saying, “I can’t stand to see him anymore, he’s a liar.”
Obama responded by whining, “You’re fed up with him, but me, I have to deal with him every day.”
These statements are interesting both for what they say about the two presidents’ characters and for what they say about the way that Israel is perceived by the West more generally.
To understand why this is the case it is necessary to first ask, when has Netanyahu ever lied to Sarkozy and Obama? This week the UN International Atomic Energy Agency’s report about Iran’s nuclear weapons program made clear that Israel – Netanyahu included – has been telling the truth about Iran and its nuclear ambitions all along. In contrast, world leaders have been lying and burying their heads in the sand.
Since Iran’s nuclear weapons program was first revealed to the public in 2004, Israel has provided in-depth intelligence information proving Iran’s malign intentions to the likes of Sarkozy, Obama and the UN. And for seven years, the US government – Obama included – has claimed that it lacked definitive proof of Iran’s intentions.
Obama wasted the first two years of his administration attempting to charm the Iranians out of their nuclear weapons program. He stubbornly ignored the piles of evidence presented to him by Israel that Iran was not interested in cutting a deal.
Perhaps Obama was relying on the US’s 2007 National Intelligence Estimate about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. As Israel said at the time, and as this week’s IAEA report proves, it was the NIE – which claimed that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 – not Israel that deliberately lied about the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It was the US intelligence community that purposely deceived the American government and people about the gravest immediate threat to US national security.
Israel, including Netanyahu, was telling the truth.
So if Netanyahu never lied about Iran, what might these two major world leaders think he lies about? Why don’t they want to speak with him anymore? Could it be they don’t like the way he is managing their beloved “peace process” with the Palestinians? The fact is that the only times Netanyahu has spoken less than truthfully about the Palestinians were those instances when he sought to appease the likes of Obama and Sarkozy. Only when Netanyahu embraced the false claims of the likes of Obama and Sarkozy that it is possible to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians based on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state west of the Jordan River could it be said that he made false statements.
Because the truth is that Israel never had a chance of achieving peace with the Palestinians.
And the reason this has always been the case has nothing to do with Netanyahu or Israel.
THERE WAS never any chance for peace because the Palestinians have no interest in making peace with Israel. As the West’s favorite Palestinian “moderate,” Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Egypt’s Dream TV on October 23, “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I will never recognize the ‘Jewishness’ of the State [of Israel] or a ‘Jewish state.’” That is, Abbas will never make peace with Israel.
Acknowledging this, on Tuesday Netanyahu reportedly told his colleagues that through their recent actions, the Palestinians have abrogated the foundations of the peace process. As he put it, “By boycotting negotiations and by going instead to the United Nations [to achieve independent statehood], they [the Palestinians] have reneged on a central tenet of Oslo.”
That tenet, which formed the basis of the Oslo peace process, was “land for peace.”
As Netanyahu explained, Israel gave up land within the framework of the Oslo Accords. In exchange the Palestinians committed to resolve their conflict with Israel through direct negotiations that would lead to peace. Their UN gambit, like Abbas’s statement to Egyptian television, shows that the Palestinians – not Israel – have been lying all along. They pocketed Israel’s territorial concessions and refused to make peace.
So why do the likes of Sarkozy and Obama hate Netanyahu? Why is he “a liar?” Why don’t they pour out their venom on Abbas, who really does lie to them on a regular basis? The answer is because they prefer to blame Israel rather than acknowledge that their positive assessments of the Palestinians are nothing more than fantasy.
And they are not alone. The Western preference for fantasy over reality was given explicit expression by former US president Bill Clinton in September.
In an ugly diatribe against Netanyahu at his Clinton Global Initiative Conference, Clinton insisted that the PA under Abbas was “pro-peace” and that the only real obstacle to a deal was Netanyahu. Ironically, at the same time Clinton was attacking Israel’s leader for killing the peace process, Abbas was at the UN asking the Security Council to accept as a full member an independent Palestine in a de facto state of war with Israel.
So, too, while Clinton was blaming him for the failure of the peace process, Netanyahu was at the UN using his speech to the General Assembly to issue yet another plea to Abbas to renew peace talks with Israel.
Clinton didn’t exhaust his ammunition on Netanyahu. He saved plenty for the Israeli people as well. Ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Palestinians freely elected Hamas to lead them, Clinton provided his audience with a bigoted taxonomy of the Israeli public through which he differentiated the good, “pro-peace Israelis,” from the bad, “anti-peace,” Israelis.
As he put it, “The most pro-peace Israelis are the Arabs; second the Sabras, the Jewish Israelis that were born there; third, the Ashkenazis of longstanding, the European Jews who came there around the time of Israel’s founding.”
As for the bad Israelis, in the view of the former president, “The most anti-peace are the ultra-religious who believe they’re supposed to keep Judea and Samaria, and the settler groups, and what you might call the territorialists, the people who just showed up lately and they’re not encumbered by the historical record.”
BY RANKING the worthiness of Israel’s citizens in accordance with whether or not they agree with Clinton and his friends, Clinton was acting in line with what has emerged as standard operating practice of Israel’s “friends” in places such as Europe and the US. Like Clinton, they too think it is their right to pick and choose which Israelis are acceptable and which are unworthy.
On Wednesday we saw this practice put into play by British Ambassador Matthew Gould. This week the Knesset began deliberations on a bill that would prohibit foreign governments and international agencies from contributing more than NIS 20,000 to Israeli nongovernmental organizations. The bill was introduced by Likud MK Ofir Okunis with Netanyahu’s support.
According to Haaretz, Gould issued a thinly veiled threat to Okunis related to the bill. Gould reportedly said that if the bill is passed, it would reflect badly on Israel in the international community.
Last month, Makor Rishon published a British government document titled, “NGOs in the Middle East Funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.”
The document showed that in 2010, outside of Iraq, the British government gave a total of £100,000 to pro-democracy NGOs throughout the Arab world.
In contrast to Britain’s miserly attitude towards Arab civil society organizations, Her Majesty’s Government gave more than £600,000 pounds to farleftist Israeli NGOs. These Israeli groups included the Economic Cooperation Foundation, Yesh Din, Peace Now, Ir Amim and Gisha. All of these groups are far beyond Israeli mainstream opinion.
All seek to use international pressure on Israel to force the government to adopt policies rejected by the vast majority of the public.
So for every pound Britain forked out to cultivate democracy in 20 Arab non-democracies, it spent £6 to undermine democracy in Israel – the region’s only democracy.
And the British couldn’t be more pleased with the return on their investment. Speaking to Parliament last year, Britain’s Minister of Middle East Affairs Alistair Burt said the money has successfully changed Israeli policies. As he put it, “Since we began supporting these programs some significant changes have been made in the Israeli justice system, both civilian and military, and in the decisions they make. They have also raised a significant debate about these matters and we believe these activities will strengthen democracy in Israel.”
In other words, as far as Britain is concerned, “strengthening democracy” in Israel means tipping the scales in favor of marginal groups with no noticeable domestic constituency.
These shockingly hostile statements echo one made by then-presidential candidate Obama from the campaign trail in February 2008. At the time Obama said, “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a[n] unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”
Scarcely a day goes by when some foreign leader, commentator or activist doesn’t say that being pro-Israel doesn’t mean being pro-Israeli government. And like Obama’s campaign-trail statement, Clinton’s diatribe, Sarkozy and Obama’s vile gossip about Netanyahu and Britain’s self-congratulatory declarations and veiled threats, those who make a distinction between the Israeli people and the Israeli government ignore two important facts.
First, Israel is a democracy. Its governments reflect the will of the Israeli people and therefore, are inseparable from the people. If you harbor contempt for Israel’s elected leaders, then by definition you harbor contempt for the Israeli public.
And this makes you anti-Israel.
The second fact these statements ignore is that Israel is the US’s and Europe’s stalwart ally. If Sarkozy and Obama had said what they said about Netanyahu in a conversation about German Chancellor Angela Merkel, or if Netanyahu had made similar statements about Obama or Sarkozy, the revelation of the statements would have sparked international outcries of indignation and been roundly condemned from all quarters.
And this brings us to the other troubling aspect of Sarkozy and Obama’s nasty exchange about Netanyahu. Their views reflect a wider anti-Israel climate. 
Outside the Jewish world, Sarkozy’s and Obama’s hateful, false statements about their ally provoked no outrage. Indeed, it took the media three days to even report their conversation. This indicates that Obama and Sarkozy aren’t alone in holding Israel to a double standard. They aren’t the only ones blaming Israel for the Palestinians’ bad behavior.
The Western media also holds Israel to a separate standard. Like Obama and Sarkozy, the media blame Israel and its elected leaders for the Palestinians’ duplicity. Like Obama and Sarkozy, the media blame Israel for failing to make their peace fantasies come true.
And that is the real message of the Obama- Sarkozy exchange last week. Through it we learn that blaming the Jews and the Jewish state for their enemies’ behavior is what passes for polite conversation among Western elites today. 
caroline@carolineglick.com

53 comments:

  1. "First, Israel is a democracy. Its governments reflect the will of the Israeli people and therefore, are inseparable from the people. If you harbor contempt for Israel’s elected leaders, then by definition you harbor contempt for the Israeli public. And this makes you anti-Israel."

    Paranoid whining rubbish.

    Obama reflects the will of the American people in that he was elected. He and congress make up our leaders. Holding them in contempt does not make one anti-American.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If One person calls you an ass you can shrug it off.

    If Two people call you an ass you might want to think about it.


    If Three people call you an ass it's time to go "buy a saddle."

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's time for Bibi to "Saddle Up."

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is not about Netanyahu.

    Here's the takeaway:
    Because the truth is that Israel never had a chance of achieving peace with the Palestinians.
    And the reason this has always been the case has nothing to do with Netanyahu or Israel.
    THERE WAS never any chance for peace because the Palestinians have no interest in making peace with Israel. As the West’s favorite Palestinian “moderate,” Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Egypt’s Dream TV on October 23, “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I will never recognize the ‘Jewishness’ of the State [of Israel] or a ‘Jewish state.’” That is, Abbas will never make peace with Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The second fact these statements ignore is that Israel is the US’s and Europe’s stalwart ally."

    There is no lock on truth. if two parties both claim truth and still differ, then there is no singular truth. If truth is claimed by one party, denied by another, one is wrong. Truth is an absolute.

    Israel is an independent country that has shared interests with Europe and the US. Shared interests can be congruent with a philosophy and out of sync with the particular requirements of each individual state. Israel is a sovereign nation amongst equals. Not more equal, not less. Israel’s problems with her neighbors have gone on longer than the Cold War. Israel has no choice but to come to an accommodation with her geographical consequences. If Israel believes that she is right and everyone else is wrong, that is a belief that usually ends badly.

    ReplyDelete
  6. All the world's a stage,
    And all the men and women merely players:
    They have their exits and their entrances;
    And one man in his time plays many parts,


    Netanyahu is merely another man playing his part in a larger drama.
    Forget about Netanyahu, remain focus on the ongoing story in which Abbas is currently trying to gain recognition for the PLA government and control of Palestine(as usual at the expense of the Israelis)

    ReplyDelete
  7. The transcendent question here is whether free people will remain passive in the latest growing threat of hatred. Will free people, knowing better, once again turn their backs?

    ReplyDelete
  8. If we were spending the money over seas here at home, our economy would be much imporoved. America has been far too active in determining the form of government of other sovereign nations. Our track record has been abysmal from Central America to Vietnam to the Carribean to the Middle East and the Far East. More often than not we create and then over-throw one despot after another, each worse than his predecessor. I agree with much of your views. We should have left Saddam, Mubarak and Ghadfi in power and leave them to resolve their own problems, but I de believe that Israel is unique. That said I stand firmly with Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Given recent history, I think the answer is, "Yes, free people will turn their backs on the growing hatred."

    I understand that, but what I object to is accepting lies, propaganda and irrationality as a basis for apathy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. .

    Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview with Egypt’s Dream TV on October 23, “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I will never recognize the ‘Jewishness’ of the State [of Israel] or a ‘Jewish state.’” That is, Abbas will never make peace with Israel.


    While the last statement, that Abbas will never make peace with Israel may be true in practical terms, the previous quote by Abbas isn't proof of that statement.

    He has said he has no problem recognizing Israel as an independant nation state, that is practical reality. However, he refuses to to sign any agreement calling it a "Jewish State" which implies an acceptance of Zionism.

    There is a big difference.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Of the republican candidates at least two, Romney and Newt, support going after Iran. Bachmann too I think. The others seems a little hard to read. It's hard to imagine Obama ever actually trying to do something about the problem. So our foreign policy is going to be decided at the voting booth.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  12. America does have stalwart allies, England, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. All have shed blood and treasure and were with the US when the need arose. There are many others including Poland, Denmark, Holland, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Turkey and South Korea. We have had differences with most of this group at one time or another. Remarkably we have few stalwart allies with Latin America and have differences as well but have had very good relations with may of them. I have never heard from any of them a cry of, “Why is everone picking on me?"

    ReplyDelete
  13. He has said he has no problem recognizing Israel as an independant nation state, that is practical reality. However, he refuses to to sign any agreement calling it a "Jewish State" which implies an acceptance of Zionism.

    There is a big difference.


    I doubt he would have a problem with the Islamic Republic of Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  14. .

    Of the republican candidates at least two, Romney and Newt, support going after Iran.


    Easy to say standing in front of the rightest wing of the right wing.

    Laughable to assume given the current opinion of tens of millions of Americans.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  15. Quirk wrote:

    "He has said he has no problem recognizing Israel as an independant nation state, that is practical reality. However, he refuses to to sign any agreement calling it a "Jewish State" which implies an acceptance of Zionism"


    I don't think accepting Israel as a "Jewish State" implies an acceptance of Zionism. One can be Jewish and not be a proponent of Zionism. I think the problem many have with Israel being deemed a "Jewish State" has to do with the discriminatory nature of a State being Jewish. Now I don't think that would be the reason Abbas would cite for his objection rather he would point to the Refugee crisis and the right of return as the prime reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  16. .

    I doubt he would have a problem with the Islamic Republic of Israel.


    Possibly not. I merely pointed out that the statement by Caroline Glick is incorrect.


    You have pointed out that,

    ...what I object to is accepting lies, propaganda and irrationality as a basis for apathy.

    yet you seem to lack the ability to read the Glick article and see that there are a number of instances where it is skewed to a particular politcal view.

    Still, you are the one that bemoans that inability in others.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  17. When I see a serious and sustained movement for the end of the Islamic Republics, I will take seriously arguments for the end of a Jewish State.

    ReplyDelete
  18. .

    Now I don't think that would be the reason Abbas would cite for his objection rather he would point to the Refugee crisis and the right of return as the prime reasons.


    Then you would be wrong. Abbas was recently asked specifically about why he refuses to recognize a "Jewish State". I have given you his answer.

    I have a birthday party to attend today. If I get some time later I will try to dig up the article.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  19. When I see a serious and sustained movement for the end of the Islamic Republics, I will take seriously arguments for the end of a Jewish State.


    That's fine, but it has nothing to do with the subject we were discussing.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  20. I don't have any problem seeing that Glick is "skewed" towards Israel nor do I see a problem with that.

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Well, they can have their "Islamic" Republics, and "Jewish" Republics, and "Christian" Republics,

    As long as they leave me the hell out of it.

    I live in a Secular Democracy, and I like it just fine that way.

    ReplyDelete
  22. .

    You forgot the smiley face Ruf.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  23. Who is calling for the end of a Jewish state? Israel has a right and obligation to be cautious about immigration to Israel. I wish we were so cautious. Do not expect constancy in people’s expressed points of view. A black caucus is good. A white caucus is bad. A Jewish state is good in Israel. An Islamic state is bad in Turkey, and do not even think about a Christian state.

    Conclusion? Don’t fall for any of it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If Romney and Gingrich are all in for another war, this time with Iran, I’ll be damend if I vote for either of them. Are they nuts? Cain has overstayed his fifteen minutes. Perry is not going to make the cut and neither is Santorum or Bachman. Huntsman did not come off well at all IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  25. That would probably be a "show-stopper" for me as well.

    ReplyDelete
  26. If I get the feeling that the Republican Nominee is the least bit interested in getting us into another War in the Mideast? . . . . .

    I guess I'd have to break a life-long habit, and pull the lever for the "D." I'm leaning that direction, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Could we have an opportunity before the next spin of the Republican wheel-of-fortune to watch each of the candidates be waterboarded and don’t you just love the lonesome falling star, Governor Malaprop, or is it just me misunderestimating him?

    ReplyDelete
  28. “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I will never recognize the ‘Jewishness’ of the State [of Israel] or a ‘Jewish state.’” That is, Abbas will never make peace with Israel.

    I'll never accept the 'Christianity' of the United States, or a 'Christian' America. So I guess that means I'll never make peace with America.

    I'm glad President Lincoln never accepted the 'Slavery' of the Confederate States of America', or made peace with a 'Slave' CSA.

    I'm glad President Roosevelt never accepted the 'Nazism' of the German Empire, or made peace with a 'Nazi' Germany.

    I'm glad President Reagan never accepted the 'Communism' of the Soviet Union, or made peace with a 'Communist' Russia.

    ReplyDelete
  29. My, how the stature of two dwarfs grow with just the right turns of insulting phrase with reference to Israel's head of state; proving true the words of that great Jewish sage, Paul Simon, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

    Mr. Obama may be destroying his own country, but he suddenly becomes a foreign policy giant with the slander of the leader of Israel.

    Thankfully, things have not yet reached a point where Messrs Sarkozy and Obama can vent publicly, to applause. Unlike Netanyahu, who stands before the UN or next to the president at the White House to clearly state Israel's case, Sarkozy and Obama are reduced to whispered, timid, girlish gossip. I think that is how things will remain as long as the vast majority of Americans support Israel. And that's the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The NYT really screwed the pooch on that article. More on that Here

    ReplyDelete
  31. “We’ve entered a make-or-break scenario,” said Thomas Klau, a German who heads the Paris office of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The present situation with Italy now is sustainable for days, perhaps weeks, but not months. This new chapter either writes the endgame of the euro zone, or it precedes a much bigger leap into political and economic integration than all those made so far.” NYTimes

    ReplyDelete
  32. Syria calls for Arab League meet to avert suspension

    “Non-Arab Turkey, after long courting Assad, has lost patience with its neighbor's failure to halt the violence and implement promised reforms and now hosts the main Syrian opposition and has given refuge to defecting Syrian soldiers.

    Turkey's foreign minister is to meet Syrian opposition members in Ankara later on Sunday, a clear diplomatic signal of its growing discontent with Damascus. Turkey called on Syria to guarantee the safety of Turkish diplomats and for those behind the embassy attacks to be prosecuted. Ankara also warned its citizens against non-essential travel to Syria.

    Turkey has threatened to impose its own sanctions on Syria since early October but has yet to do so.”


    It would come as no surprise to find Turkey also motivated by territorial aggrandizement. They might still have on hand those plans they and the IDF worked up for sharing airspace against an unspecified adversary. The Turks know as well as the Israelis that in the absence of his air and armor, Dr. Assad is doomed to the fate of the late Libyan Duck of Death.

    ReplyDelete
  33. “Overall, support for Israel has been on the upswing since 1967. In the 1970s, the average level of support for Israel was 44%, in the 1980s, it was 46%, and, in the 1990s, 47%, including the record highs during the Gulf War. Since 2000, support for Israel is averaging 51%.”
    ___”record highs during the Gulf War!!!!”, Is that what I read? Why, I thought that was the time when the wicked, wicked Israelis were blackmailing the little ole USA.



    “Polls also indicate the public views Israel as a reliable U.S. ally, a feeling that grew stronger during the Gulf crisis. In May 2011, CNN found that 82% of Americans believed Israel is “friendly” or an “ally.”

    “Meanwhile, support for the Arabs/Palestinians has actually declined in the last two decades from an anemic average just below 15% in the 1980s to less than 11% since 2000. On average, Israel is favored by more than 3 to 1.”


    Yep, partner, looks like we need a bunch of asses saddled. :-) …maybe do a little bear ropin’…

    LINK

    ReplyDelete


  34. HONOLULU – Searching for help, President Barack Obama lobbied the skeptical leaders of Russia and China on Saturday for support in keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed menace to the world, hoping to yield a "common response" to a crisis that is testing international unity.

    Yet Obama's talk of solidarity with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Chinese President Hu Jintao was not publicly echoed by either man as Iran moved anew to the fore of the international stage -- and to the front of the fierce U.S. presidential race.

    Obama, at home in Hawaii and holding forth on a world stage, also sought to show aggressiveness in fixing an economy that has weakened his standing with voters. He pushed Hu about American impatience with China's economic policy, touted the makings of a new pacific trade zone and showered attention on the lucrative Asia-Pacific export market.

    The United States' vast worries about Iran grew starker with a report this week by the U.N. atomic agency that asserted in the strongest terms yet Iran is conducting secret work with the sole intent of developing nuclear arms. The U.S. claims a nuclear-armed Iran could set off an arms race among rival states and directly threaten Israel.

    Russia and China remain a roadblock to the United States in its push to tighten international sanctions on Iran. Both are veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council and have shown no sign the new report will change their stand.

    With Medvedev on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific summit here, Obama said the two "reaffirmed our intention to work to shape a common response" on Iran.

    Shortly after, Obama joined Hu, in a run of back-to-back diplomacy with the heads of two allies that hold complicated and at times divisive relations with the United States. Obama said that he and the Chinese leader want to ensure that Iran abides by "international rules and norms."

    Obama's comments were broad enough to portray a united front without yielding any clear indication of progress. Medvedev, for his part, was largely silent on Iran during his remarks, merely acknowledging that the subject was discussed. Hu did not mention Iran at all.

    White House aides insisted later that Russia and China remain unified with the United States and other allies in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and that Obama, Hu and Medvedev had agreed to work on the next steps. Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said the new allegations about Iran's programs demand an international response, and "I think the Russians and the Chinese understand that. We're going to be working with them to formulate that response."

    As the president held forth on the world stage in his home state, Republicans vying to compete against Obama for the presidency unleashed withering criticism in a debate in South Carolina. It was a rare moment in which foreign policy garnered attention in a campaign dominated by the flagging U.S. economy.

    "If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon," said Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann warned that Iran's attempt to develop a nuclear weapon is setting the table "for worldwide nuclear war against Israel."


    If anyone can explain the Russian (and Chinese) attitude on all this, please do.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  35. Israel and the U.S. against the rest of the world. If Americans really knew the facts behind the insanity. Some day they will.

    ReplyDelete

  36. Sales of hybrid petrol-electric cars, regarded not long ago as the cool cutting-edge of vehicle technology, are plunging due to the weak US economy and dramatic improvements in traditional internal combustion engines.

    US sales of Toyota’s Prius, by far the most popular hybrid model, were 9.4 per cent lower in the first 10 months of this year than in January to October 2010. By contrast, overall light-vehicle sales rose 10 per cent.

    Other models have taken an even harder knock. Demand for the hybrid version of Ford Motor’s Fusion midsized sedan shrank by almost half, compared with a 15.4 per cent gain for the petrol-driven model. Sales of Toyota’s Highlander sport utility vehicle hybrid tumbled by 37 per cent, including a two-thirds drop in October compared with a year earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Teresita said...
    “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I will never recognize the ‘Jewishness’ of the State [of Israel] or a ‘Jewish state.’” That is, Abbas will never make peace with Israel.

    I'll never accept the 'Christianity' of the United States, or a 'Christian' America. So I guess that means I'll never make peace with America.

    I'm glad President Lincoln never accepted the 'Slavery' of the Confederate States of America', or made peace with a 'Slave' CSA.

    I'm glad President Roosevelt never accepted the 'Nazism' of the German Empire, or made peace with a 'Nazi' Germany.

    I'm glad President Reagan never accepted the 'Communism' of the Soviet Union, or made peace with a 'Communist' Russia.




    getting dumber by the day.....

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous said...
    Israel and the U.S. against the rest of the world. If Americans really knew the facts behind the insanity. Some day they will.

    Sun Nov 13, 06:50:00 PM EST



    From the polls, it appears that the vast majority of Americans do get it. It should not be surprising that Israel's enemies do not.

    ReplyDelete
  39. PS: America's enemies

    That would include most of the policy makers within the Department of State. Read what Harry Truman thought about. Eisenhower would learn the same lesson following the Suez debacle.

    You know, just because there were/are some thoroughly ignoble Jews does not equate to Hamas being "good" - Lynn Redgrave's demented agitprop notwithstanding. But, of course you do :-)

    ReplyDelete
  40. This is the way to take care of business

    Iran missile development commander killed in explosion
    An explosion at a Revolutionary Guard base in Iran killed a senior commander in charge of the country's missile development programme, the authorities have said, prompting speculation Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service was involved.

    ReplyDelete
  41. :)
    They blew up a whole bunker load of missiles along with a bunch of revolutionary guards, with the help of some kurds, I read.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  42. Iran and Israel are already at war and have been for some time.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  43. I write for a hobby, looks like this:

    In 2037 the tangled human carpet of greater Puget Sound City washed right up against the steep front of the Cascade Range, which on the "wet" side met the lowlands the way a wall met a floor, with very little in the way of foothills. The richly forested valley of the Green River narrowed around I-86 where the freeway, a railroad, a giant water pipeline, and the river all squeezed between twin behemoth mountains and delivered Sheriff Vic to the sprawl of so-called modern civilization.

    Victoria left the freeway in a Gordian knot of overpasses, underpasses, and spiraling viaducts that finally smoothed out onto a landscaped eight-lane byway at Four Corners and a five-minute red light.

    Here, Edgewood Mall with its attendant mini-malls spread around the mighty crossroads with a sprinkling of big black glass office suites clustered together in business "parks" randomly sprinkled from here all the way to the hypothetical Seattle core far away to the northwest. Behold: King County. And yes, Victoria was the chief law enforcement officer of all of this sprawl, in theory.

    In practice, King County was a patchwork of small incorporated cities with their own local police, while the State Patrol ruled the network of highways tying it all together. Victoria and her some thirty deputies pa- trolled the unincorporated areas and that was dwindling by the month. Still, it was an elected position she had secured twice in the last six years, and a traditional launching pad to higher office.

    American McMonoculture was self-regulating and self-propagating. Every McFastfood place, every McSupermarket, every McOil-change place, every McGasmart, were franchises exactly identical to ones found anywhere in North America, or for that matter, anywhere in the whole McWorld. Only the gray skies and scattered clusters of tall pines set this place apart from any suburb in California or Virginia. The United States had achieved this appalling uniformity at the turn of the century, and the rest of the world was rapidly following suit.

    Jobs were shifted from one country to another until the workforce which accepted the lowest compensation for their labor was found. Corner "Mom & Pop" grocery stores and restaurants disappeared as they were replaced by cookie-cutter franchises of Safeway, Walmart, Best Buy, Barnes & Noble, and Starbucks.

    Family farms disappeared to be replaced by endless tracts of clone McMansions painted in just two different colors and spaced just six feet apart. Every morning and afternoon four-lanes of commuters tried to squeeze down two-lane country roads to and from work thirty miles away, driving alone in identical SUVs carrying ten dollar gasoline pumped from one of two different gas brands (Exxon-Mobil-Shell or Texachevron-76) into twenty-five gallon tanks.

    On the radio, market researchers conducted surveys to determine which songs did the least to "harsh the workplace mellow" and these songs were put into endless rotation on stations across the FM dial, which itself was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Clear Channel.

    In twenty-theater megaplexes, mindless computer generated Hollywood crap was shown with the ethic of "get the kids in, show them the Falling Galaxy, and get them out", and everything that made each corner of the world unique and wonderful was choked off, bought out, and co-opted by the gray forces of standardization as the culture, the religion, the politics, and every facet of everyone's life became conformed to the principles of the fast food restaurant...

    ReplyDelete
  44. as the culture, the religion, the politics, and every facet of everyone's life became conformed to the principles of the fast food restaurant...

    Not bad, Miss T.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  45. Cheery little thang, ain'tcha?

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  46. I think it's going to look a lot different than you suspect, T.

    A lot of the trends you're seeing are the result of a "car culture" built around fossil fuels.

    As the abundance of fossil fuels diminishes "culture" will morph into its next stage.

    This stage will, probably, include:

    1) More "livable" cities with more green spaces, and more local, walkable communitie tied together by more electtric transportation.

    2) Less Commuting

    3) Less Pollution

    etc

    Now, admittedly, predicting the future is pretty much a "mugs game," but . . . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  47. President Barack Obama said “enough’s enough” on the lack of movement by China on currency valuation, even if there has been “slight improvement” in recent months.

    “Changes are difficult for them politically, I get it,” Obama said at a news conference today that concluded a summit with Asia-Pacific leaders in Hawaii. Still, he said, “enough’s enough.”

    Obama, who met yesterday with China’s President Hu Jintao in Honolulu, said that as China’s influence rises leaders of the world’s second largest economy must take more responsibility for making sure trade is fair and that intellectual property rights are respected.

    As Obama seeks to reassert U.S. interests in Asia, he is using increasingly strong language to press China on trade, currency and intellectual property. The U.S. contends China’s currency is kept artificially low, putting American businesses at a disadvantage and driving up its trade surpluses.

    China has pushed back against the pressure. After Obama told Hu yesterday that the U.S. public and businesses were losing patience with China’s policies, the Chinese Foreign Ministry released a . . . .


    Obama: Enough is Enough

    ReplyDelete
  48. Rufus II said... I think it's going to look a lot different than you suspect, T.

    Well, it's art, and I'm "painting" this little lost corner of King County around the Green River Gorge, called Gonorrhea Gulch, the last refuge of the individual (for better or worse), and I needed to place it within a "gray" background of monoculture.

    ReplyDelete
  49. They blew up a whole bunker load of missiles along with a bunch of revolutionary guards, with the help of some kurds, I read.

    The next step will be for Israel to attack the SIGINT ship USS Freedom in the Persian Gulf, kill 34 sailors, wound 100 others, and say that Egypt, er...Iran did it.

    ReplyDelete
  50. T,

    ...enjoyed your vivid dystopian description...I see much of it in the making, traveling as I do. One of the few redeeming qualities of the French is their stubborn refusal to conform - instead plastering the most mundane implement with panache, i.e. the use of polychrome glass for both form and function (embedded IT at a touch of a hotel wall!)

    But then you have to go spoil my first cup of morning tea with the ill disguised slap at "you know who".

    Israel 16
    Others 0

    With discipline, you could be a first-class writer. (Indeed, some of your work is just that) Just watch the ill-conceived cheap line for applause. We all want recognition, but may I suggest that a body of work in the entirety is the best avenue.

    Good day, dear lady!

    ReplyDelete
  51. The cause of osteoporosis isn't well understood, but certain factors are known to aggravate your discomfort once the inflammation has set in. Here are some of the most consistent revenue you will receive comments or questions that the public health profession has a tradition of promoting health and preventing harm through the use of a medicated shampoo.

    my site - youngbusiness.info

    ReplyDelete