Obama's Monkey Wrench Diplomacy

honesty2 2 years ago

Thank you Mr. Cutler for presenting a thoughtful and relevant article. With all that is going on in the world, one would think that there would be more in this paper about such important issues (without the grandstanding and buffoonery). Have I missed it, or has anyone at this paper mentioned the Boeing issue? The president and the War Powers Act (now over 60 days)?

dustyrhoades 2 years ago

You know "pre-1967 borders" had been the Bush administration's position as well, right?

honesty2 2 years ago

Yes, I do. I don't agree with the pre-1967 borders. Please don't attempt to classify me Mr. Rhoades.

honesty2 2 years ago

My error. Thought you were replying to my post.

dustyrhoades 2 years ago

You'rrre so vaiiin, you prob'ly think this post is about you...... ;-)

honesty2 2 years ago

You're off key!

dustyrhoades 2 years ago

Not the first time.

teufelhunden 2 years ago

That is about all he can do is reach into an old bag o' tricks. It's all about playground antics.

skylinefirepest 2 years ago

Hey Dusty....you are aware that Bush has been gone for over two years now, right?? The bull hockey stops with the inexperienced lying Obama now, got it??? Just wanted to remind you!!

dustyrhoades 2 years ago

That whooshing sound you just heard? It's the point going over your head.

I'll use smaller words next time so you might understand.

nolabel 2 years ago

"inexperienced" and go ahead and throw "naive" in there...so "inexperienced" that OBL was killed on his watch vs a terror attack. The President's position is the same as Bush's and Clinton's. The AIPAC received him and his speech well today. Nut N Yahoo is not negotiating in good faith in my opinion. Not serious at all which is why he and the right wing will meet and pander to one another this week.

OldPilot 2 years ago

Cutler got this one right. While many former and the current president have stated the "official" position of the USA is that the 1967 borders must be the starting point of negotiations I think all have understood and understand that absent some huge, virtually impossible changes in the middle east the fact is the concept is unworkable.

hotdiggity 2 years ago

The American people when voting in the next Presidential election should recall what the Israelies often quote, "Never again".

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

@ honesty2

"Thoughtful and relevant?" Seems like a typical knee jerk "Israel can do no wrong" and "Obama can do nothing right" screed. Disappointing that this transparent propoganda came up as the top result of my "Netanyahu" Google search.

@ oldpilot the 1967 borders, endorsed by the world court, international court of justice, and UN general assembly is only unworkable if Israel lacks the will to compromise and wants to continue murdering Palestinians with impunity and imposing apartheid / Warsaw ghetto conditions on those it doesn't kill, with tacit support from the U.S., empowered by the billions it receives from the US tax payer to purchase advanced weaponry.

There is nothing inevitable about a David defeating a Goliath, so the continued obtusenes of Israel's knee jerk supporters may just result in another tragic story of an oppressed and people - the Palestinians.

honesty2 2 years ago

Don't get me wrong, I would love a peaceful resolution. I do believe that Israel has a right to defend herself. Perhaps one would have more sympathy for the Palestinians did they (and the other border countries) not commit numerous attacks on Israel. Please recall that the Palestinians were twice offered statehood, and they refused each time. Re: relevance- would you not say this is relevant? Re: your search- perhaps you were just looking for an article that ran more to your thinking?

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

I was looking for some substantive remarks from Netanyahu as to why Obama's proposal - which recognizes the same reality that all critical thinking people do - is "unrealistic" - because after reporting the controversy to a close friend he asked after N's reasoning.

teufelhunden 2 years ago

Well said.

teufelhunden 2 years ago

That was in response to honesty2's post not zen1spinoza's!!

honesty2 2 years ago

Thanks.

geoffcutler 2 years ago

you googled Netanyahu, and this column came up? Sweet!

Hey Steve, Hunter...this little paper of ours sure has some legs, doesn't it?

Perhaps you might go back and read the piece, and you'll see I was trying to be somewhat sypathetic with our inexperienced president. Not an easy thing to do.

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

"Our inexperienced president." Could you be any more arrogant? I suspect a racist attitude at the core of this statement, no less because you are surrounded by like minded people.

After 8 years of Bush II, it is refreshing to have a president who is not totally inept and who actually can put a sentence together without inviting ridicule. On the other hand, don't "misunderestimate" the potential of the idiot brigade to make a comeback: Palin and Gingrich are waiting in the wings.

honesty2 2 years ago

Certainly the president does not have "vast" experience. Would "limited" experience qualify? Personally I don't find that remark arrogant, and I certainly don't see anything racist in it. In regards to "can put a sentence together without inviting ridicule"- I will say the president is a decent speaker. However, we all know he relies heavily on the teleprompter. Even with that, he often has to backpedal just as he is doing now with the Netenyahu/Israel issue. Can people have a discussion without being so blatantly partisan?!

blessherheart 2 years ago

What President did not rely on a teleprompter since they have been available?

dustyrhoades 2 years ago

Anyone who trots out that TelePrompTer nonsense, after it's been demonstrated repeatedly that every President has used one since its invention, has forfeited all right to be taken seriously, especially on the issue of 'non-partisanship."

honesty2 2 years ago

There you go again. Now I admitted he was a good speaker, no? Did I say no one else ever used a teleprompter? No. I do think he uses one more often (less off the cuff remarks), thus reducing chances of "inviting ridicule".

None 2 years ago

Bush didn't use a telepromter ~ his mind didn't work that fast to read those scrolling words. Duck...another shoe. That old sly fox with a sheepish grin. Someone tell me what experience did GWB have to be President? Cow tipping perhaps?

nolabel 2 years ago

President Obama doesn't use "teleprompters" when he is being interviewed and when he is answering questions at a press conference. He did not use a "teleprompter" when he beat John McCain in every debate that they had. The "teleprompter" smear was made up by the right wing so it is hard to take someone serious when they say don't be "partisan," but bring up the use of a teleprompter. Maybe he should use his hands eh? When a person is giving a speech it makes sense to use a teleprompter. All of the news media uses teleprompters. The difference between President Obama using an teleprompter vs others that use it, he writes many of his own speeches. His speech writers sometimes tweak his speeches or he sometimes changes what they have written. The race speech that he gave in PA during the election was written entirely by him. He authored books that weren't "ghost" written by anyone else, and won a grammy for one. So in the end the teleprompter is a non issue. Contrary to your comment, he has said many "off the cuff" things that have landed him in trouble. The reason why he uses it more often is because he gives more speeches. People love to hear him speak unlike some President's past.

geoffcutler 2 years ago

Mr. or Ms. zen1spinoza,

I would suggest to you that in order for you to insinuate that I am a racist, you would a) probably have to know me, and b) know what is inside my heart. The second, unless you possess such clairvoyance, which I doubt, is then an impossibility.

Further, a quick study of logic should reveal to you that the first fallacy of logic, "Post hoc," is that, and put simply, Because A, not always B. Therefore, because I think the president inexperienced, does not necessarily mean that I have racist attitudes, or am a racist.

Otherwise, you played the race card well.

geoffcutler 2 years ago

Exhausting, isn't it?

nolabel 2 years ago

"Contrary to impressions that he was surprised by Obama's speech, reports on Sunday confirmed he was told over 24 hours ahead of time that Obama would propose a Palestinian state based on 1967 borders, and had called Washington to try to get the president to change his mind and his text -- without success."

"When Obama went ahead, Netanyahu, who was about to board his flight to Washington, issued a strong statement rejecting the suggestion. Officials seemed taken aback and an aide, asked if Netanyahu had been forewarned, said: "No comment."

"In radio interviews on Sunday, however, Israeli ambassador to Washington Michael Oren on Sunday confirmed that Netanyahu was informed in advance. Asked by Israel Army Radio, "Why create a crisis?," Oren said: "We do not feel that there is a crisis. There are differences.."

"Obama's proposal that talks start on the basis of Israel's 1967 borders met with howls of protest in Israel. A right-wing group called for an anti-Obama protest at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv on Sunday."

"But some Israeli media also asked if Netanyahu himself stoked an air of crisis."

Net N Yahoo is not negotiating in good faith, but the President's speech at the AIPAC today seemed to be overwhelmingly accepted.

honesty2 2 years ago

And Netenyahu's speech to Congress met with 29 ovations.

nolabel 2 years ago

The President's speech to the AIPAC can be found here. http://www.cspan.org/Events/Pres-Obama-Impatience-Growing-for-Peace-Deal/10737421659-7/

skylinefirepest 2 years ago

Zen...could you be a little more specific?? Dusty apparently thinks that I can't get words bigger than four or five letters so would you please tell me what is racist about my comment?? I'll tell you ahead of time that there's not a racist bone in my body, but then you are a Liberal so you will probably just call me names anyway! And yes, Obama is totally inept, inexperienced, a confirmed liar who has put this country into a dire financial situation ( but I guess that's what you want to leave for your kids and grandkids, huh? ), has done nothing about the job situation, has done nothing about our oil supplies being bought from countries that hate us, has not kept many, if any, of the campaign promises that he made, etc. He has not been an advocate of "open" government, has appointed diehard Liberals to the Supremes, has distanced us from our allies, has put through Obamacare without listening to the will of the people, and now is giving waivers to all his union buddies...I could go on but you get the idea. I don't like this sorry excuse for a president and very little of what he stands for. As bad as Bush was, he at least loved the troops that he sent into harm's way and he served his country...unlike Obama who hasn't done so much as served as a Boy Scout!! And, Dusty, if you would say something other than bowing at the feet of the LiberaL gods, I might go back to school and learn a few extra big words so I could follow your rants.

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

Oh my, you did use the term "inexperienced" in your post. However, I wasn't responding to you, as that prior post, and this one, confirm you as an ideologue incapable of independent thought (a prevalent malady among the "right" in this country, despite their exceeding by far the worst aspects of "group think" among the old communist left). As such, were it not for the fact that you directed this missive to me, you wouldn't be worth much breath.

I was instead responding to geoffcutler who actually posted the words I quoted ("our inexperienced president"). And yes, it is my OPINION that those who continue to label him "inexperienced" after he has been the (successful) leader of the free world for the past 2+ years, are harboring a resentment that he doesn't look and think like them.

No need to rebut here all of your misinformation. Anyone with web access can debunk it in short order. I am however totally incredulous that anyone who can type can believe that "[Obama] put this country into a dire financial situation . . ."

If you are talking about the debt, it increased from $5.7 Trillion to $10 Trillion under Bush, who's administration also orchestrated the bank bailout and the $180 Billion bailout of AIG, which put $ directly into the pockets of banks and corporations who invested in AIG's bonds, to be funded by the taxpayer. "Tax and spend" liberals have always been far more fiscally responsible than "Spend more (on war) and tax less" Republicans.

Your hatred of Obama prevents you from seeing that it is the super-rich, with whom I doubt you rub elbows, who have put the rest of us into financial straits by enriching themselves further by picking the public purse. The way out of our predicament is to claw the funds back, starting with the elimination of the Bush tax cuts.

Bflat 2 years ago

zen, how was it all GWB's fault and just who was sitting in congress when the votes on the budget were done? Seems to me that congress approves the budget. Explain why all the worthless money is now being printed and why China is spending so much on hard assets to get rid of the US dollar.. There was warning about the banking thing, too, but that goes back to long before GWB..low or no down payments & enforcing laws on making loans to stimulate the economy had the opposite effect. It wasn't all subprime either. Politics is a very complex subject with so many complicated details, but the economy has not improved in the last 2 years. In fact, it has grown worse and the foreclosure rate is high and unemployment rate is high. There is no denying those facts.

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

I didn't say it was all GWB's fault. I was rebutting the claim that it was all Obama's fault.

And it is disingenuous to say that unemployment / foreclosures are high now under Obama (equally cynical is the statement that gas prices are higher now than when he took office - implying, without stating that there is cause and effect), when the housing bubble bursting, just as Obama was sworn in, is the biggest factor in all this, and Obama's stimulus has resulted in declining unemployment (I have issues with many of the specific programs however).

Dollar worthless? It is strengthening as we speak and its biggest decline in value occurred over 2001-08 (http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/dollars-biggest-decline-2001-08/).

"Enforcing laws on making loans"? Uh, no, lack of oversight or regulation resulted in private banks making liar's loans (subprime was a private bank phenomenon, Freddie and Fannie never major players: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/origins-of-the-crisis-fake-and-real/).

Two years ago unemployment was 9.3%. Today 8.7%. That seems like an improvement to me, but I am also aware that many good jobs have been eliminated and the new jobs aren't so good. I think we are a long way from having a strong economy, but blaming the white house incumbent for the problem is laughable. The issue is income inequality in this country. The rich have appropriated (from public funds as well as private, winner-take-all compensation programs in corporations) far more than they have earned. We need to reduce their influence in government and have them make a more significant contribution to social programs, which a significant majority of Americans support. Consider that the hedge fund managers pulling down $1 Billion per year pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than you do. Instead the rich are using their financial clout to buy influence, set the agenda by deflecting attention from their excesses, and put the burden of absorbing the economy's contraction and slow growth on the most vulnerable.

Ever watch reality television? It's just anectdotal, but a number of these shows demonstrate that many of the rich are useless, narcissistic parasites. The whole American enterprise is set up to sustain and reward their lifestyle and choice. If the enterprise is breaking up on the shoals of financial crisis, they are the ones who need to cough up the funds to get the ship mended.

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

*and put the burden of absorbing the economy's contraction and slow growth on the most vulnerable:

"House Republicans are proposing a cut in the WIC nutrition program that would force WIC to turn away 325,000 to 475,000 eligible low-income women and young children next year. This cut — part of the 2012 appropriations bill that Rep. Jack Kingston, chairman of the House agriculture appropriations subcommittee, unveiled today — would break a 15-year commitment by Administrations and Congresses of both parties to provide enough WIC funding to serve all eligible women, infants, and children who apply."

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

Graphic on the national debt

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/what%E2%80%99s-driving-projected-debt/

honesty2 2 years ago

I guess your definition of "successful" and mine are completely different.

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

no points for bringing down Bin Laden?

honesty2 2 years ago

.25 points I give most of the credit to the Navy Seals, CIA who did most of the work. All O had to do was say "yes" or "no". If he didn't say "yes", I think it would've leaked out that "we" had the chance to get OBL and didn't.

geoffcutler 2 years ago

Ooooh! Good point!

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

So y'all don't think Obama devoted more resources to pursuing Bin Laden than Bush, who squandered hundreds of $billions, thousands of young American lives, and our standing in the world by pursuing an ill advised adventure in Iraq based on lies? That brings up another good point - I'm sure you guys agree that Dick Cheney should be sent to prison for outing CIA agent Valerie Plame, right?

honesty2 2 years ago

Do you think the US agents should be prosecuted a la Holder for advanced interrogation which assisted in finding Bin Laden?

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

see McCain on this point - torture did not lead us to Bin Laden

honesty2 2 years ago

Check views from Panetta, Rizzo, Mukasey but that part wasn't really my point. I really had wanted to know about the agents being potentially prosecuted by Holder.

jimt 2 years ago

Cuter: "Obama also said, "while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel." Well, Israel isn't secure, so how is there any basis for negotiation?

Why would the Israelis consider pulling back from what they consider a buffer zone of defense before Palestinians renounce the terrorists among them and make some type of promise to the Israelis that the terrorist attacks will end?"

I made the following point to a commentator (Old Pilot) in reference to a letter that also admonished Obama for his comments.

"If I recall correctly, and I do, Israel was able to defend itself quite handily within the 1949 Armistice border in the six-day war of 1967, and because of behind-the-scenes political accommodations with Jordan in place by 1973, it was able to defend itself quite handily in the October, 1973 War as well.

If there is ever a peace treaty with the Palestinians it means, by definition, that both parties agree to its terms. Any peace treaty will be based on roughly the 1949/1967 armistice/border lines demarking Israeli and then Jordanian territories. Now the West Bank will become Palestine instead of being part of Jordan. Moreover, any peace treaty will place limits on the size and types of weaponry an independent Palestine may field. Everybody who is familiar with the history of the various attempts at peace negotiations since the Oslo Accords knows this. Everybody who is familiar with International Law with regard to occupied territories following a war also knows that it is illegal to build settlements on the occupied territory for permanent use by the occupier's civilians. Accordingly, the position of the United States has always been that these Israeli settlements are illegal and an obstacle to negotiating a lasting peace between Israel and a future Palestinian state.

The bottom line is that Israel will retain a massive military superiority over any future Palestinian state, a state that will almost certainly have to forgo fielding tanks, artillery, anti-tank missiles, surface to surface missiles, and fighter aircraft, as a condition of statehood and peace with Israel. So the argument that Israel's borders with such a state would be "indefensible," ignores both the political reality that each Party accepts the border as legitimate and ongoing Israeli military superiority."

So the concerns you have will, by definition, be resolved as part of the negotiations process. If they are not, there will be no agreement. Obama knows this. Netanyahu knows this too. He was grandstanding for his "base" in Israel, and for the Republican Party, which is for all practical purposes, an ally of Netanyahu's Likud Party in Israel. Bush's remarks several years ago were, curiously, not challenged publicly by the Likud Party or denounced by the Republican Party, ( nor were they criticized by the Democratic Party). Wonder why that was?

jimt 2 years ago

Who gives a damn what you think?

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

Nobody. This guy isn't responding to your post, he probably didn't even read it, he's responding (below) to his own one-sided view of the situation

honesty2 2 years ago

jimt that's rude, and I will have to admit that it's much easier to read a shorter post. Keep it civil?

dustyrhoades 2 years ago

What, James, he should have done what you're so prone to do: three or four successive posts? And the fact that you come out with some glib, generic reply rather than address what's been said has been duly noted.

jimt 2 years ago

If Israel were to make peace with the Palestinians it presupposes that the Hamas problem has been dealt with. That they'd been marginalized. Of course there cannot be peace so long as Hamas continues to reject Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State. Of course there cannot be peace so long as Hamas resorts to terrorism. Keep in mind that Hamas has terrorized and killed far more Palestinians that Israelis over the years.

In short, your putting the cart before the horse. If the majority of Palestinians believe that the State they can achieve through the peace process gets them most of the West Bank, in a contiguous land mass, East Jerusalem,jointly held by Israel and the Palestinians, as their Capital, and a piece of territory through the Negev connecting the Gaza to the West Bank, they will, in my judgment turn on Hamas in a heartbeat. Hamas exists because of the political turmoil a lack of peace creates, as Palestinians argue and fight over the best means to achieve peace. With a peace treaty in place both the Palestinians and the Israelis can deal with Hamas, by violence if necessary, in short order.

Hezbollah is a tougher problem, as they are based in a third country, Lebanon, and act as a proxy for a fourth country, Iran. But here too, I believe that a peace treaty with Fatah would give the Israelis essentially carte blanche to deal with Hezbollah. But in any event, peace with Palestinians is not dependent on destroying Hezbollah.

honesty2 2 years ago

Right about Hamas and Hezbollah. Obama himself has said (a couple of years ago?) that Jerusalem should not be divided. I see that you have said "jointly held". Wonder how that would work? That would be really sticky.

geoffcutler 2 years ago

Jimt- I get what you're saying, but I think the reason Israel has such a strong military is that they've had no choice based on the history of Arab aggression, and now terrorism. The West Bank is used as a buffer zone of defence by the Israelis because of how small the teritory of Israel proper is, (one of Netanyahu's points to Obama in Friday's news conference), and in particular, the proximity of East Jerusalem to territory that Palestine covets in final negotiations. It won't happen. The real bottom line is, as I said in the piece, there will be no final agreement until the terrrorism stops completely. Israel won't negotiate a final peace until the Palestinian Authority bans from their midst, Hezbollah and Hamas. Faced with the same situation, The United States would nothing different. As mediators, we cannot, and should not ask of our Israeli allies to do what we would not do ourselves. Netanyahu has made this point on more than one occasion. Peace is sued for after hostilities stop, and not before.

jimt 2 years ago

"Peace is sued for after hostilities stop, and not before."

No, experience in the 20th and 21st centuries prove that asymmetrical warfare peace is not sued for at all. The "defeated" party simply refuses to be defeated and give up.

The Palestinian Authority cannot ban from their midst Hezbollah and Hamas members or supporters anymore than Israel can ban from its midst ultra-conservatives who advocate expelling Arab-Israelis and utterly destroying all Arab resistance fighters and those who could become resistance fighters, or advocate reconstruction of the biblical territories of Israel because it is God's will that it should be so.

What the Palestinian Authority can do is make Hamas and Hezbollah irrelevant by achieving what their violence cannot, e.g. an agreed upon peace treaty with Israel that creates an independent Palestinian State with contiguous territory on the West Bank, a Palestinian strip across the Negev that connects the Gaza Strip with the West Bank, a settlement of the "right of return" issue that does not require Israel to actually allow any return, and detailed limits on the type of armaments and independent Palestine "army" can field.

Doing these things would further isolate Hamas and Hezbollah from mainstream Palestinians, make it easier for the international community to crack down on arms shipments to them, and, ultimately and if it comes to it, enable the Palestinians, with the active support of the international community, to reckon with them militarily. Things they cannot do at present because they lack both the military means and the political will to do so.

Why is the United States talking to some elements of the Taliban? I suggest it is for the reasons I've suggested above. We want to undermine the Taliban's recruitment of jihadists by convincing them that important political objectives of their's can be achieved without resorting to violence. Why do you think Rabin met with Arafat? Why do you think Barak, Arafat, and Clinton met for so long at Camp David. Ultimately Arafat proved to be too insecure to make peace. Will Abbas?

Can Abbas might be the better question? I don't know. But he won't so long as the Israelis make Palestinian cessation of all violence against Israel, for an unspecified amount of time, and Palestinian acceptance of an undivided Jerusalem under the Israelis sole control, and acceptance of all Jewish settlements being incorporated into Israel preconditions to the START of peace talks, which is the Likud Party's current demands.

jimt 2 years ago

First sentence let out the word "in", the part sentence should read that ....in asymmetrical warfare peace is not sued for at all."

But I'm glad you get what I'm saying...it's well beyond James' comprehension.

Lastly, I've grown-up quite nicely thank you. I still love the Grateful Dead, Phil & Friends (especially their 2006 tour with Joan Osborn on lead vocals), The Dead, and now Furthur. You can check out, and download for free, their concerts on Live Music Archives.

geoffcutler 2 years ago

"Why is the United States talking to some elements of the Taliban?"

Good question! I don't get it, and I never will. Why are we still beholden to OPEC and the Saudis? I don't get that either.

But again, Israel, minus daily terrorism and bombs going off in their streets, their homes, their discos, hotels and schools, blowing up innocent men, women and children, like those who died on 9/11, would be happy to accommodate peace with the Palestinians.

Your contention that the Palestinian Authority couldn't do away with Hezbollah or Hamas if they wanted to is nonsense.

America has been played like a fiddle, Arafat being the greatest of the fiddlemeisters.

Israel is the ally here. I'm confused by your unyielding defences of the non ally, those with terrorists among them. The same as those who blew up the World Trade Centers on 9/11. Evil is evil, there aren't varying degrees.

jimt 2 years ago

"Your contention that the Palestinian Authority couldn't do away with Hezbollah or Hamas if they wanted to is nonsense."

Really? Who won when fighting broke out between Fatah and Hamas in the Gaza Strip? Israel attacked Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006. Did Israel destroy Hezbollah? Hardly. Israel launched a significant offensive against Hamas not long ago. Did they destroy Hamas? Hardly. So how do you expect the Palestinian Authority to do so?

So tell us, just how can the Palestinian Authority do away with Hamas and Hezbollah? Israel has state-of-the-art fighter/bombers, artillery, drones, and tanks.

You said,"...Israel, minus daily terrorism and bombs going off in their streets, their homes, their discos, hotels and schools, blowing up innocent men, women and children...." Israel has not been attacked from the West Bank by the Palestinian Authority. I know you believe that every suicide bomber who enters Israel from the West Bank must have Palestinian Authority blessing, but U.S. intelligence doesn't. They are individuals associated with Hamas and/or Hezbollah, but they are not acting with the passive or active consent of the Palestinian Authority. By analogy I guess, U.S. police should be able to interdict all drugs coming into the country and all weapons being illegally bought and sold in the country. It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant some people can be when asserting that foreign governments can simply stop their citizens from doing things that we don't like if they really wanted to when we can't stop our own citizens from doing some things that we don't like.

Further, I'm not defending the Palestinians. Your aping your ideological pal James in believing that anyone who doesn't see things your way is either naive or siding with the bad guys. You don't make peace with friends. You make peace with enemies or you fight them until you've utterly defeated them. So tell me, just how is Israel going to utterly defeat Hamas and Hezbollah? Or better yet, tell the Israeli Defense Forces and the Mossad, because neither seems to have your insight.

My position has been that of the U.S. Government since 1967, the two sides have to sit down and resolve their territorial and other issues based on principles of international law and in a way where each side feels it has more to gain from achieving peace than it has to lose. Placing prior conditions to the beginning of such talks may make for good electioneering politics, good breast-beating, and provide a sense of moral superiority. It just doesn't bring peace.

DaveyNC 2 years ago

Mr. Cutler, a well done opinion piece. But let's throw a little rock 'n' roll into the mix: http://goo.gl/4vxzH

Nicely summed up, don't you think, by an Israeli-born Jew? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sim...

geoffcutler 2 years ago

I now wish I'd been as much into KISS as Jerry Garcia and the Dead. Very blunt, very right, and very cool!

jimt 2 years ago

Cutler,

You were into the Dead?

You obviously didn't learn much from them. Or maybe you couldn't understand the words?

Kinda like James. He too has a big, big problem understanding words (or at least what they actually mean).

jimt 2 years ago

Should I post C-SPAN's video of McCain's remarks to "undecimate" it?

moonchild7 2 years ago

I get it now Geoff..you were into THE DEAD?! You just can't think in any rational, caring and understanding way after listening to their bland, self-absorbed jams. The Doors, Pink Floyd, neil Young and Led Zeppelin...they will put your mind and ideas where they need to be. Oh and Israel and the Palestinians? The CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS and RADICAL groups of both sides want nothing to do with each other. If both sides don't STOP teaching HATRED for one another to their children then it will continue to be peaceless and hopeless. None of them are GOD'S CHOSEN ONES! We are all Children of GOD and Mother Nature. President Obama was absolutely RIGHT to say everything that he did. SOMEONE had to do it; he(and Hillary) seems to be the only person brave enough to say what needed to be said.

jimt 2 years ago

Self absorbed jams? Moonchild, you just don't get it. By the way, in their first few years Pink Floyd was a jam band par excellance. Check out the album Ummagumma

geoffcutler 2 years ago

MC7 - Pure Prairie League, New Riders of the Purple Sage, Little Feat, Bob Marley (saw him live twice), Marshall Tucker, Dickie Betts, Long John Baldry, Allman Bros., Rolling Stones, etc. listened to, saw most live at one point or another, and still listen to them all. Some people tend to grow up, others don't. Doesn't mean I didn't get the music or ever stop enjoying it. Just because you come across as someone whose last trip stuck, doesn't mean you've got some corner on Rock n' Roll

None 2 years ago

You go Moonie ~ I like your threads. Keep up the good work and don't worry about those in the cheap seats. On this one I agree with James May 23, 2011 at 10:27 a.m. "especially when that post completely ignores the threat of Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon".

Our government can't deal with home grown terrorists and keep up with expired visa's. But the US expects Israel to allow suicide bombers closer to their boarders. Way too many images of buses opened up like tin cans to allow terriorists to move into town.

None 2 years ago

Your last paragraph is exactly right. Well said.

None 2 years ago

So by your logic, Israel should expand even further to the North, East, and South? It's not the position of the borders that enable terrorists to "move into town," it's the state of war.

None 2 years ago

State of what war? Muslims hate everyone who is not Muslim. Their philosophy is to kill all infidels, non-believers. If that is a state of war, then the entire world is at war. Israel is just a lot closer than western countries. Terrorists’ do not have to apply for a visa, or schedule a connecting flight to kill innocents.

None 2 years ago

No, jimt. You have it backwards. Terrorists and suicide bombers should not be able to get closer to Israel to inflict their damage. Same goes with the terrorists who, daily, fire rockets into Israel.

moonchild7 2 years ago

I have that album Jimt believe it or not. Check out INTERSTELLAR OVERDRIVE from 1966! Those English boys JAM much better than those guys from our West Coast. WW II was such an horrible and tramatic experience for them that they created the best music this earth has ever heard.

buddysmith 2 years ago

i heard that the UN wants america to give alaska back to russia, louisiana back to france, and california back to mexico, is their any difference?

jimt 2 years ago

Yes.

A. The UN does not want the U.S. to "give back" the territories you mentioned.

B. The U.S. purchased Alaska from Russia. The U.S. purchased the Louisiana Territory from France. And Mexico deeded California to the U.S. as a result of the Mexican-American War.

No territory Israel occupied after its wars have ever been sold or deeded to Israel by the country whose territory was occupied. No territory Israel has annexed has been recognized by any other country, including the U.S. that I'm aware of.

buddysmith 2 years ago

duh?

OldPilot 2 years ago

Suspect many of the writers of less cogent opinions are neither Jewish or have spent time in Israel.

jimt 2 years ago

OldPilot,

Your point exactly?

James, your inability to understand the written word never ceases to amaze me.

moonchild7 2 years ago

For three school years from 1966-68 I attended a Public Jr. High School in the suburbs of Wash. DC. The majority of the student body(7th-9th grade)were Jewish. The next largest group were Muslim, and there were a few of "us" gentiles left to fill out the school. In fact SO FEW of us GENTILES that the school had to actually close on the JEWISH HOLIDAYS! For someone like me, a bit shy and unschooled in the area of RELIGIOUS AGGRESSION I was mostly an observer of my fellow students behavior. And it was a very resolute "We are the Chosen People" and YOU ARE NOT behavior. The tensions were very high between the Jews and Muslims. Some of the guys were expelled for fighting. I tried my best to stay out of their way but at times both groups let it be known that "THEY" were of a better lot. Somehow I survived...but the girls were especially mean. I am so thankful that my parents NEVER brought me or my brothers and sister up to believe we were BETTER than anybody else. While we attended church maybe a few times a year, it wasn't BURNT into our BRAINS! It is DESTROYING the WORLD and up and until HUMANITY stops the insanity of continuing to teach those hateful philosophies nothing will ever much change.

geoffcutler 2 years ago

Jimt, MC7, Hope you're watching this speech by Netanyahu in front of Congress.

jimt 2 years ago

Read the speech. Beyond the usual boilerplate and platitudes the only new suggestion from Natanyahu was that in a final peace some Israeli settlements might lie outside Israeli territory.

"The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. But we must also be honest. So I am saying today something that should be said publicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that ends the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated."

Hardly a game changer, still coming from him it's a positive step. Note also that he explicitly stated that Obama's call for negotiations based on the pre-67 war borders included the notation that there would be agreed upon land transfers between the two parties, something the Right in this country always seems to forget to mention, as did Mr. Cutler in his column.

The principle differences between James, Cutler, and I seem to be that they insist that a long set of pre-conditions must be met by the Palestinians BEFORE the negotiation of a peace treaty, e.g. the end to all terrorist activity against Israel, the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah, or at least their renunciation of violence and by all Arab parties the recognition of Israel as a Jewish State. I see these conditions as the PRODUCT of a peace treaty.

I'm certain we all agree that Israel should exist as a Jewish States; that all of its neighbors recognize it as a Jewish State, and that the International Community, including Israel's neighbors, recognize the international borders resulting from negotiations with the Palestinians and the creation of Palestine as legitimate.

jimt 2 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

jimt 2 years ago

The "we" referred to you, me, and Cutler, as should have been made plain by the topic sentence of the previous paragraph.

moonchild7 2 years ago

Netanyahu says he is willing to compromise, to make tough choices. Now the Palestinians, PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah(WHATEVER) MUST do the same. Moderate MUSLIMS where are U? Lets get this going now. Stop the BS. No one is any better than anyone else. We ALL deserve to be here, get over it and let's have PEACE, LOVE and UNDERSTANDING.

geoffcutler 2 years ago

MC7- I'm impressed! Good post.

honesty2 2 years ago

I think one of the problems is that Muslims are not allowed to/are afraid to speak out against Islam or challenging any of its tenets.

Bflat 2 years ago

There is no such thing as moderate or non moderate Islam. The moderates are not Muslim at all. Study up and you will find out more about it. Terrorism, tyrrany & subjugation of women is the very essence of Islam. It is a religion based on human submission, justification for agressive war, vilifies non- believers and prounounces death on enemies. Stip the Koran of all negative, hateful, anti Semitic material...and the result is a very tiny book! What it really is amount to a Totalitarian Ideology...a political ideology with religious trappings. I just don't see peace coming any time soon in the Middle East.

teufelhunden 2 years ago

No kidding...awesome!

OldPilot 2 years ago

"nolable", it's not "Nut N Yahoo" or "Net N Yahoo". If you are trying to be funny it isn't, otherwise it's just insulting. If you think the Israeli PM isn't negotiating in good faith look up Lt. Col. Yonatan Netanyahu. He was the older brother of the current Israeli PM and was killed in action on 7/4/76 at Entebbe, Uganda, the sole Israeli Defense Force casualty. An Air France flight was hijacked by the PLFP. The PLFP was and is part of what is now the PLO/Fatah governing the West Bank, the "reasonable" Palentinean faction, as opposed to Hamas governing Gaza, which simply weants to eradicate Israel. All non-Jewish passengers were released, all Jewish passengers held hostage. The IDF rescued 103 of the 107 Jewish hostages, 3 were killed during the rescue, one elderly lady was killed by Ugandan forces at a local hospital. The Israeli PM isn't negotiating in good faith? With all due respect you have not the faintest idea of what you are talking about.

geoffcutler 2 years ago

OldPilot- Tell it!

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

Don't need to reach back to 1976 to catalog Israeli atrocities. On May 31, 2010 the IDF stormed the Mavi Marmara and murdered 10 peace activists trying to bring humanitarian aid to blockaded Gaza, which Israel was trying to starve into submission. Again, the comparison with the Warsaw Ghetto is not, I think, too strong, in terms of the fascistic sensibilities of those imposing collective punishment on the Palestinian people and committing murder with impunity.

geoffcutler 2 years ago

Whatever credibility you didn't have, you will now never have. Yuck!

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

... and with that geoff cutler heads back to his sandbox, muttering nyaah-nyaah, nyaah-nyaah under his breath.

geoffcutler 2 years ago

I'm not going anywhere muttering anything. Your post was offensive and ugly.

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

Hmmm, I would have thought you might have reserved such comments to describe the postings such as that of "toda" above, who said "Muslims hate everyone who is not Muslim." Any objective observer who has not been cowed into submission acknowledges that Israel is imposing worse than apartheid conditions on the Palestinian population. Your evasive dismissal of my post is just a cowardly way of defending the murder of innocents by the IDF that I referred to.

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

click on your link, it returns "page not found"

you are simply spreading lies and disinformation

honesty2 2 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLU... Try this one.

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

For anyone who would like the full story of the Mavi Marmara, there is a wealth of background, testimony, and video at the following links:

http://www.democracynow.org/search/mavi+marmara/1 http://www.democracynow.org/search/mavi+marmara/2 http://www.democracynow.org/search/mavi+marmara/3

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

Whether or not Israel "wants" to brutalize the Palestinians, they are in fact doing so. You are the one spreading lies, distortion, and propaganda, and you must keep the narrative up to shield yourself from the truth.

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

Sorry, I won't dance to your tune. I'll watch your video, but I'll invite you to watch one of mine as well.

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

jeez, that's the best you can do? people using makeshift weapons, acting in self defense against an invading force with lethal arms?

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

... in international waters ...

honesty2 2 years ago

Turkel Commission (http://www.turkel-committee.gov.il/files/wordocs/7896summary-eng.PDF) rather long piece so you may just want to go to Wikipedia overseen by international observers First minister and Nobel Peace Prize Winner of N. Ireland and a former military judge from Canada

teufelhunden 2 years ago

Bravo OldPilot!

moonchild7 2 years ago

Fareed Zakaria(CNN and Time Mag)wrote this on May 20th, 2011: "A few weeks after 9/11 I wrote an essay titled, "Why They Hate US", exploring the roots of this Muslim rage....The central problem I argued, was that the stagnation and repression of the Arab World-40 yrs of tyranny and decay-had led to deep despair and finally to extreme opposition movements. The one aspect of Arab society that dictators could not ban was religion. So, the mosque became the gathering ground of opposition movements and Islam-the one language that could not be censored-became the voice of opposition. The US became a target because we supported the Arab autocracies." Fareed has a very good show on CNN on Sundays called GPS, he knows what he's talking about. He also has said that the Arab Spring with it's youth leading the way want a modern life NOT a 7th Century life. It's going to be struggle but hopefully we'll soon see a good change in the Middle East that is based on respect for all .human beings.

honesty2 2 years ago

Let's hope the Muslim Brotherhood does not take over so that the change will be a positive one. From recent polls, however, it seems many there want Sharia Law to govern their countries.

I would have to say the Muslim rage goes waaaaayyyyy back (periodically inflamed perhaps). I suggest everyone read the Koran and decide for yourselves. Note to those thinking I'm making a blanket statement about Muslims- I don't think all Muslims want to wage war. But, their holy book,, hadiths and history sure don't do much for peace. Isn't Mr. Zakaria the great Obama adviser/consultant/or no they just had a couple of conversations?

honesty2 2 years ago

Anytime

teufelhunden 2 years ago

honesty2-you're right on!

tbwash 2 years ago

It sounds to me Mr. Cutler like you may be the one tossing around the monkey wrench. Unfortunately yours, like so many others, is aimed at destroying every attempt our President has made to engage in smart, well thought out, political strategies. Do you really believe that a man as smart and deliberate in his thinking as our President has proven to be, would make a speech including the language that he did without any thought as to how it would be received by the Prime Minister. And to drag Hillary Clinton into it as if he should get her permission first. Your comments sound like nothing more than the same extreme right, conservative, radical tea party retoric we've been hearing for awhile now. We should all, especially progressive minded people, keep a careful eye on the guy who accuses the other of thowing monkey wrenches.

zen1spinoza 2 years ago

Well said.

geoffcutler 2 years ago

Not even Nancy Pelosi is with the president on the pre-1967 border thing,(see today's WSJ, pg. A13), so I guess the answer to your question is, in this particular case, no I don't think Obama acted as smart as you say he is in delivering that part of the speech. Especially since he was specifically asked not to by our ally the day before.

buddysmith 2 years ago

I didnt vote for obama last election, and unless the republicans run palin, probably wont in 2012. I think Obama is a very smart man, a great role model and generally comes across as a nice guy, however, I think his remarks on Israel will cost him the next election. I feel it is political suicide to say anything negative about Israel when there is a campaign coming up. smart man that gets very bad advice it seems!!

geoffcutler 2 years ago

Ah...nothing like a bright and sunny new day to wash away the ills of yesterday.

Until zen1spinoza's comment about Israelis as fascist murderers, a comment he/she has every right to make, I had no opinion on our right to anonymity at this site. Now, I'm not so sure.

We're a small community. A lot of us know one another. Debate of differing opinions and ongoing dialog is generally productive, and ultimately aims to find common ground, or good.

With that in mind, why shouldn't people be allowed their anonymity should they wish it? But what of bomb throwers? The commenters who attack personally, or whose comments just feed rancor and contention with no aim in sight, least of all good.

People should be able to say whatever they want, but zen1spinoza, would you have said what you did using your own name? If not, then maybe there is something to the notion that civil debate could be maintained were The Pilot to require it of commenters. Finally, I don't think "cowardice" is an apt description for those of us who do come on here under our real names.

jimt 2 years ago

I have a suggestion.

I think everyone would benefit from seeing the movie "Endgame."

Here's a synopsis of the film:

"Vantage Point director Pete Travis turns his attention from high-profile political assassinations to the high-risk talks that ushered in the end of apartheid while securing the release of Nelson Mandela in this historical drama starring William Hurt, Chiwetel Ejiofer, Mark Strong, and Johnny Lee Miller. The time is the late '80s, a crucial period in the history of South Africa. President P.W. Botha is hanging on to power by a thread as the African National Congress (ANC) takes up arms against apartheid and the country tumbles toward insurrection. A British mining concern called Consolidated Gold is convinced that their interests would be better served in a stable South Africa, and they quietly dispatch Michael Young, their head of public affairs, to open an unofficial dialogue between the bitter rivals. Assembling a reluctant yet brilliant team to pave the way to reconciliation by confronting obstacles that initially seem insurmountable, Young places his trust in ANC leader Thabo Mbeki and Afrikaner philosophy professor Willie Esterhuyse. It is their empathy that will ultimately serve as the catalyst for change by proving more powerful than the terrorist bombs that threaten to disrupt the peaceful dialogue. As the story shifts between Mandela's jail cell, Botha's chambers, ANC headquarters, and a rented car occupied by a British bureaucrat, the prospect for peace becomes more than just a distant hope."

I think the key moment occurs when after a couple of years of discussions that did not include any members of the South African government, a South African joins the talks. He happens to be the brother of new South African President F.W. DeKlerk. After talking to DeKlerk by phone, his brother asks the ANC representatives what "prior conditions" they would demand to enter into direct talks with the white South African government; the reply "none."

By thesis, throughout this discussion is that if BOTH the Palestinian Authority and the Israelis would agree to direct peace talks with no pre-conditions they might achieve something tangible. Historically both sides have always demanded pre-conditions. So intermediaries, like the United States have to find rhetorical formulas that allow each side to save face before entering into bilateral talks. Maybe nothing would come of such talks. But it's worth a try.

jimt 2 years ago

I have a suggestion.

I think everyone would benefit from seeing the movie "Endgame."

Here's a synopsis of the film:

"Vantage Point director Pete Travis turns his attention from high-profile political assassinations to the high-risk talks that ushered in the end of apartheid while securing the release of Nelson Mandela in this historical drama starring William Hurt, Chiwetel Ejiofer, Mark Strong, and Johnny Lee Miller. The time is the late '80s, a crucial period in the history of South Africa. President P.W. Botha is hanging on to power by a thread as the African National Congress (ANC) takes up arms against apartheid and the country tumbles toward insurrection. A British mining concern called Consolidated Gold is convinced that their interests would be better served in a stable South Africa, and they quietly dispatch Michael Young, their head of public affairs, to open an unofficial dialogue between the bitter rivals. Assembling a reluctant yet brilliant team to pave the way to reconciliation by confronting obstacles that initially seem insurmountable, Young places his trust in ANC leader Thabo Mbeki and Afrikaner philosophy professor Willie Esterhuyse. It is their empathy that will ultimately serve as the catalyst for change by proving more powerful than the terrorist bombs that threaten to disrupt the peaceful dialogue. As the story shifts between Mandela's jail cell, Botha's chambers, ANC headquarters, and a rented car occupied by a British bureaucrat, the prospect for peace becomes more than just a distant hope."

I think the key moment occurs when after a couple of years of discussions that did not include any members of the South African government, a South African joins the talks. He happens to be the brother of new South African President F.W. DeKlerk. After talking to DeKlerk by phone, his brother asks the ANC representatives what "prior conditions" they would demand to enter into direct talks with the white South African government; the reply "none."

My thesis, throughout this discussion is that if BOTH the Palestinian Authority and the Israelis would agree to direct peace talks with no pre-conditions they might achieve something tangible. Historically both sides have always demanded pre-conditions. So intermediaries, like the United States have to find rhetorical formulas that allow each side to save face before entering into bilateral talks. Maybe nothing would come of such talks. But it's worth a try.

bfalkens 2 years ago

I read through this article, but I'm really not interested in it. The article does not offer any interesting points or valuable information, and is completely biased (which is obviously allowed).

I think people that call Obama detractors "racist" need to stop. What is the point of calling a racist a "racist," or a person who is neglibly racist a "racist." Anyone who claims he is not a racist is a liar. We are all racist in a some way, or can become racist based on experiences.

Instead, I have a question.

Is the tea party destroying the Republican Party?

geoffcutler 2 years ago

Okay...I've tried to bite my fingers on this, but what do you mean by "What is the point of calling a racist a "racist," or a person who is neglibly racist a "racist." Anyone who claims he is not a racist is a liar." ???

moonchild7 2 years ago

And where does this come from? "Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.......Deuteronomy19:19. The Koran has NOTHING on THE BIBLE(Old Testament). They are one and the same. HATE for HATE.

honesty2 2 years ago

New Testament? And the 10 Commandments kinda make a lot of sense to me.

honesty2 2 years ago

Have you read the Koran yet?

Bflat 2 years ago

The interpretation depends on what context one wishes to make. Take away all the hatred from the Koran and you will still have a very tiny book.

tallsteve8609 2 years ago

Same goes for most religious texts, including the bible.

moonchild7 2 years ago

honesty2 and Bflat, you don't understand the "argument". Book vs Book. And which came FIRST? THE BIBLE or THE KORAN? Muslims and Jews both believe that Jesus was a Prophet.

honesty2 2 years ago

But then Muslims chose to follow a very questionable fellow. NO ONE can critize their prophet without fear of death. I mean, have you read up on him?

moonchild7 2 years ago

And just how many "Heathens", "Witches", "Idolators", "Unclean", "Athiests", "Unbelievers", so on and so on, have DIED and/or been put to DEATH in the NAME of CHRISTIANITIES GOD?" A LOT.

honesty2 2 years ago

I think we're talking about the present.

moonchild7 2 years ago

Really? Okay then. Seems that this past weekend an 89 yr old guy from California who has this thing called "FAMILY RADIO" and calls himself a CHRISTIAN predicted that the END of the WORLD was nigh. BUT, guess what? It didn't end. There were some people SO UPSET at this that in one case a man jumped off the roof of his apt. to his death and a mother in California cut the throats of her two children so they wouldn't have to "ENDURE" the Apocalypse. This radio man says he's a CHRISTIAN? What kind of CHRISTIAN scares(and takes their $$$$)people into KILLING themselves and their children? This is nothing but selfish HATRED taking advantage of the weak-minded, just like the RADICAL MUSLIMS do to their followers.

honesty2 2 years ago

There are radical/extreme elements everywhere. This man is more cult-like and his beliefs were based on his own interpretations, not Scripture-based. I do think that if you look at sheer numbers of those murdered/killed in the last ten years you would find radical Islam at the base. I'm sorry you have such a problem with religion. I tend to believe in a benevolent and loving God and wish you peace.

Obama's Monkey Wrench Diplomacy

More like this story

Comments

May events