http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/992688.html

It comes fromthat excellent journalist Gideon Levy in Haaretz. Those fawning over Obama may do well to read this and it may help them understand why Obama was palin stupid for saying what he said and plain arrogant for not backing down.

Levy says:
“We already have a one-sided mediator of the type that gives Israel free rein to follow every whim of its occupation: America.”

Obama is clearly just another one sided mediator who gives Israel free rein.

Levy goes on to say;
“Instead we are getting a West that no longer makes demands on Israel, comes to terms with the criminal occupation and is heavy-handed only when it comes to the Palestinians.”

Obama is heavy handed towards the Palestinains and makes little if any demand on Israel.

The situation is madness and Levy writes excellently on why a balance need to be brought to bare on the situation to get the parties out of this mess.

Those who fawn over Obama’s speech should realise that they are simply backing a brutal occupation and making the situation worse for both parties.

As I said and many Israeli Commentators have said Israel doesn’t need dishonest brokers like Bush, Blair, McCain and now Obama it needs honest people to tell it that it needs to change track. It needs leaders in the West not biased cheerleaders.

Obama didn’t show any leadership in his speech he was simply a cheerleader to a brutal occupation. Obama is simply a Mugabe by proxy. He is no Carter or Clinton who at least got the sides talking.

Obama failed the region and the people and you people need to understand that. Levy’s excellent piece should make you ashamed for minimising what is going on and backing Biased Obama.

Would Murdoch as an ardent supporter of neoconservatives be willing to support Obama if Obama hadn’t made a right tilt on Israel? Nope so at least see what is going on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

Murdoch wouldn’t do that if Obama didn’t meet large parts of his right wing agenda. He hasn’t gone as far as Mel would like but hell getting approval from Murdoch shows the ground Obama has shifted.”

Murdoch reasons for backing Obama hardly seem right-wing…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/rupert-murdoch-says-obama_b_104018.html

Obama is now spoken of approvingly by Murdoch.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/2118953/Fox-News-presenter-taken-off-air-after-Barack-Obama-‘terrorist-fist-jab’-remark.html

Murdoch wouldn’t do that if Obama didn’t meet large parts of his right wing agenda. He hasn’t gone as far as Mel would like but hell getting approval from Murdoch shows the ground Obama has shifted.

I agree, and have known them long enough to know that. That sadly cannot be said of everyone. I was challenging the mindset which jumps to only seeing or addressing one side of the coin.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/10/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast

It is a similar inaction and lack of will now by America which is leading to so much torment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/11/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast?gusrc=rss&feed=worldnews

This is what Obama is happy to support a continuation of. There should be a sense of shame for those that continue to believe Obama is hope for change.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/10/opinion/edgreenway.php

Quite frankly is shows the gross stupidity of what Obama did and how Americans are funding the imposition of settlements to stop peace and compromise. The US Government has also been involved in funding settlements.

Frankly this should be enough to stop people saying Obama’s speech was good.

The policy which is being pushed by America is stop a peace between Israeli’s and Palestinians. This is funded by a small number of rich Jews and a large number of evangelicals. Obama is now part of this policy in light of his speech and he is appealing to these people at the expense of a growing opinion within Israel that concession is the only way to go.

Also worrying is that there are indications these people are prepared to overthrow elected Govts inb the region to achieve their aims.

Thus for those who supported Obama this is a worrying sign.

Refresh – I think Douglas and Katy have on a number of occassions said that Jews and Muslims live, mingle, work and shop together. They don’t hate each other. But the lack of progress on the issue of I/P is causing community issues.

Consider the comment in question:

‘Allegedly, Jews hate Muslims and Muslims hate Jews.’

And immediately we think anti-semitism. Does anyone want to comment on how some jews view muslims? Its not anything I’ve seen addressed before.

Would Obama find it acceptable for Olmert or Abbas to cede Texas and California to Mexico? No he wouldn’t so why the hell do you try and defend him doing it to the Palestinians.”

Wow! Douglas with the utmost respect this is indeed a strange statement.

So let me get this straight people find it acceptable for Obama to cede all of Jerusalem to Israel and indeed praise his speech here. Indeed you didn’t feel that was worthy of a Republican site or even an extremist statement.

Yet I ask if Olmert or Abbas ceded Texas or California to Mexico – which is no different to what Obama did you say I am making an extremist statement! Wow!

Of all the people you being an ardent fan of people deciding this I am suprised you are allowing Obama dictatorship powers.

Point. If you or anyone else thought that I thought Anas was anti semitic then I have not explained myself properly. Anas is undoubtedly not anti semitic. I consider Anas a mate. Whether he agrees with that is up to him.

Although we’d have to resolve his issues with t’other side before we could come to a complete understanding.

Anas, sorry about talking about you in the third person.

He said in the link provided he hasn’t changed position.

Many people involved in the Zionist Project are mellowing and realise the need to come to peace with the Palestinians and wider Arab world.

Many Jewish people here are Zionist but most will speak for peace and consiliation.

The fact is that Jews know in their hearts that most of the West Bank, Golan, East Jerusalem, Temple Mount will be given back. They know that.

So it doesn’t need Obama to put on his Santa Claus hat and derail what is becoming clear even to hardened Zionists. This just makes Obama a stupid ignorant ill educated wally in gifting something that he can’t ever deliver.

Waht Israelis and Palestinians need is people to help them towards peace. Many of Israel’s negotiators have said that they don’t need america to act as their lawyer. So Obama making neoconservative rhetoric isn’t a hope for change it is more of a hope he’ll get lost and stop being a stupid imbercile when discussing complex foreign policy.

It is also drawing on the Arabs that an accomodation is needed here.

Neither side can win and both are losing. Obama can either prolong this loss by making stupid speeches or he can behave like a grown up leader and bring both sides to perace. I know most of the world wants a US President who is a leader.

Your words would be more suited, I think, to a Republican, USA, site than here. Obamas’ folk did indeed change the meaning of his words. This is just a ridiculous and extremist analogy:

Would Obama find it acceptable for Olmert or Abbas to cede Texas and California to Mexico? No he wouldn’t so why the hell do you try and defend him doing it to the Palestinians.

As you say:

The Man was a stupid fool who made a dumbass speech that any infant in the Middle East could tell you was dumb. It really is that simple he was STUPID STUPID STUPID.

True. But he got himself sorted later. It does your case no benefit to deny the fact that he subsequently said, through an interpreter right enough, that jerusalem would remain divided and united. Apparently he was only concerned about border posts and barbed wire!

It is, I’d have thought, the nature of US politics, for any candidate to pull whetever strings they can. See it in that light, please?

No no, honestly not, and I don’t think Anas thinks so either. He was the first person to unreservedly condemn the antisemitic aspect of some of the comments on this thread. Anas and I often disagree on I/P and I freely admit that he drove me nuts when he first started commenting, but he has always been very careful to draw a line between the political side of it and the religious/racial (for want of a better word) side of it, which is not something that I have always given him credit for.

You can take him at his weasel words but the world isn’t.

Would Obama find it acceptable for Olmert or Abbas to cede Texas and California to Mexico? No he wouldn’t so why the hell do you try and defend him doing it to the Palestinians.

What you won’t accept is that he could have distanced himself from Hamas without needing to make such a gift.

Hell even Bush wasn’t so stupid when he was endorsed by undesirables. But Obama was plain STUPID and people can’t bring themselves to admit it.

The Man was a stupid fool who made a dumbass speech that any infant in the Middle East could tell you was dumb. It really is that simple he was STUPID STUPID STUPID.

In his speech, Blair spoke of the need for a lasting peaceful settlement – something he would eventually help bring about – and important, no constitutional change for Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of its people. This was important because it placed the emphasis of any future on democracy. Sure, unionists would have much preferred him to say ‘there will always be an Ulster’ and that Northern Ireland’s existence was sacrosanct – like Obama suggested about Israel – and republicans would have liked to have seen Blair place more emphasis (aimed at unionists) on the need to compromise and forget old tribal rivalries. But he played it straight down the middle. For a British Prime Minister to talk of wanting to maintain the union is not controversial nor unexpected, even to Irish republicans, so he was hardly being partisan. But he stressed the absolute need for both sides to work for a peaceful future through democratic means. I thought it was a very good speech.

Obama also tried to suggest there was a need for a lasting peace between the warring factions in the middle east, but to me he had already undermined this by his unwavering support for and absolute determination – through whatever means – of securing Israel’s future earlier in his speech.

Would Obama have been this passionate and dedicated in a speech to pro-Palestinian groups? Or would he have placed more emphasis on the need for them to tackle militants and recognise Israel’s existence and the need to compromise – basically blaming them for the current situation?

He certainly didn’t blame Israel for anything; as if everything they are doing is moral and legitimate.

Yes, I think Obama has done himself a lot of damage with this speech. Not necessarily his chances of winning the Presidency, after all, most Obama supporters aren’t going to vote for McCain, a Zionist, out of protest are they? But internationally he has lost credibility with the Palestinians and perhaps Arab governments. And maybe even with Iran, who would have regarded Obama as someone with whom they could do business – someone they didn’t distrust. And after all, like most American Presidents, it won’t be on the domestic front for which his tenure will be judged, it will be his foreign policy.

One last point. You know, I love a good conspiracy theory. They are bloody entertaining if nothing else. I don’t necessarily believe in them although I would never dismiss them simply as the work of cranks – people once theorised about Iran-Contra and that Iraqi WMDs probably never existed! But here’s one for you…..

Barack Obama wins the Presidency. Unnerved, since John McCain was a huge part of their plans, Zionist and oil-oriented policy makers in Washington, already in an advanced stage of preparing to attack Iran, make contingency plans in the event that Obama refuses to go ahead with the attack on Iran.

As the Zionists and oil men suspected, Obama opts for diplomacy and offers to relieve sanctions in return for Tehran’s absolute transparency over its nuclear programme and a guarantee, under UN observation, that it will never develop nuclear weapons.

Alarmed at this, Zionists (constantly paranoid about Israel’s Islamic neighbours) and the oil men (desperate for control of Iranian oil, guaranteeing a constant US supply and reducing China’s share) execute their plan: The assassination of Barack Obama.

Nothing elaborate. No book depository or grassy knoll needed. Just a lone crank with few friends and no immediate family. And how do they avoid any suggestion of a conspiracy? Simple. You release photos of the suspect (perhaps now shot dead by bodyguards) wearing a swastika t-shirt, whose home is a shrine to Hitler, the Third Reich and the white supremacist group with whom he was allegedly involved and who hatched a plot to kill America’s first black President, fearing he would become as iconic as King and inspire and new confidence and militancy in black America. (Plus, they can use it as an excuse to clamp down on the gun lobby and militia groups at the same time).

Yep. I love a good conspiracy.