Secretary of State Clinton Addresses Gaza Conference

Hillary Clinton attended the Gaza Reconstruction Conference today, along with Special Envoy Mitchell and officials from 80 countries and international organizations.  The meeting focused not only on a plan to repair the damage from the 3 week attack by Israel, but also a plan to rebuild the Gaza economy and lift the Israeli blockade.  Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has proposed the US backed Palestinian Authority control and distribute the $5.3 billion that was pledged today.  This is a point of contention with many Palestinians, as Hamas has control of Gaza and also won the majority of seats in the recent election.

Secretary of State Clinton praised the presentation from Prime Minister Fayyad, saying it was as good as she’s seen from anyone. She also appeared to make it clear that US financial support is contingent on management by the Palestinian Authority, saying “that the international community is committed to.. help the Palestinian Authority's efforts to improve the lives of all the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank.” She further pointed to the “responsible Palestinian partners, including President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad,” when discussing progress in the lives and governance of Palestinians. Any rumors that Senator Kerry’s visit to Gaza is a signal of a change in US policy towards Hamas appear to be unfounded.

When asked if she shared President Sarkozy belief that there would be a Palestinian state by the end of the year, she said she believed with all her heart it could be done, if those involved were to say “yes, let's take a chance on peace, and let's provide the opportunity for the Palestinian people to build and create a better future for their children.”

Mrs. Clinton gave a sincere commitment that the US would work towards peace and gave a personal wish for a brighter future for the children, who are always of primary interest to the Secretary. A child in Gaza has the same right as a child anywhere in the world to a good education, to health care, and to a better future. Parents in the West Bank have the same right as parents anywhere in the world to a good job, to housing, to a better opportunity for their children.

That is what motivates me, and I believe that will be the basis on which we discuss how best to realize the goal of a two-state solution, a comprehensive peace, and a better future for Israeli and Palestinian children.

Keep up to date on foreign affairs with our page on Secretary of State Clinton's Travels.

Crosspost: http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog/?p=188

Tags: gaza conference, Hillary Clinton, israel palestine, Secretary of State Clinton (all tags)

Comments

62 Comments

Re: Secretary of State Clinton

Thanks for your post, I have been following Hillary's trips as SoS and this one should be very interesting.....

by nikkid 2009-03-02 05:44PM | 0 recs
She's doing her best, and bless her for it

But, Israel isn't giving up its colony.

by Geekesque 2009-03-02 06:09PM | 0 recs
they have no colony

of any sort. As long as Palestine hasn't agreed to a state, which Arafat pissed away 9 years ago, Israel will protect itself from inside Israel. Once HAMAS quits their terror, or after Israel has checkmated it in war, there will be a Palestinian state.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-02 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: they have no colony

No colony, really?

Well, just what is this 40 year long military occupation all about? Any idea what all of those Israeli only villages, towns, and virtual cities in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are doing there? And let me not forget to mention all of the Burger Kings and Starbucks available in those settlements to everyone, except Palestinians.

It is called COLONIZATION!

by MainStreet 2009-03-03 05:53AM | 0 recs
their colony is called the West Bank

Israel does not want a Palestinian state and never has.  It wants the West Bank.  Israel gave Arafat an offer it knew he couldn't accept so it could, with Bill Clinton's help, blame the failure of the "peace process" on Arafat.

by JJE 2009-03-03 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: their colony is called the West Bank

Believe it or not, you can still hear people talking about the "generous offer." Clinton and Ross claimed that Clinton offered Arafat 97% of the Palestinian territories, only Clinton failed to mention that he, let alone Barak, could not quite get those 150 settlements off the lands.

Dennis Ross, a right wing Zionist, I can understand his lies. But Clinton's deception is really troubling.

by MainStreet 2009-03-03 07:13AM | 0 recs
Not to mention

all the ridiculous restrictions Israel wanted to impose that would have made the Palestinian entity essentially an Israeli protectorate.

by JJE 2009-03-03 07:46AM | 0 recs
Nah.. Clinton has always been a neocon...

...sold her soul to the devil a long time ago.

Some of her neocon NY AIPAC speeches were really barnstormers.  Totally owned by the MIC [more $ coming from that sector than any other candidate in the primaries], and total handmaiden to the AIPAC lobby.

Power and arrogance corrupts -- she's been cornered by the powers that 'brought' her.

I'm really troubled about Obama.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2009-03-03 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Nah.. Clinton has always been a neocon...

ahhh...when talking about dynasties it can be so confusing.

I always believed Clinton I was less antagonistic and hawkish than his wife...  scary thought that.

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass 2009-03-03 09:08AM | 0 recs
When did Israel stop expanding

its settlements?

by Geekesque 2009-03-03 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: they have no colony

Does Israel have an obligation to quit its terrorism?

Does Israel have an obligation to stop building settlements in the occupied territories?

Is Israel prepared to tell all settlers in the occupied territories to vacate their homes?

by Carl Nyberg 2009-03-03 09:14AM | 0 recs
there is no Israeli terrorism,

only fighting for freedom, liberty, democracy, and western values. As long as the Palestinians don't agree to a state, which they turned down in 2000, Israel is still gonna build settlements, which I don't agree with but thats what they are going to do. Israel doesn't strap bombs to itself in buses, cafes and schools.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-03 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: there is no Israeli terrorism,

How is bombing civilian areas from aircraft different than bombing civilian areas by foot?

What are "western values"? Are "western values" a right to take land? A right to economically and strategically dominate?

Why do the Palestinians have to agree to anything to get a state? If Israel can veto the existence of Palestine, do Palestinians have the right to veto the existence of Israel?

Saying Israel is fighting for "freedom, liberty and democracy" is a joke. Israel is fighting for domination, ideology and land... oh, and I forgot, simple bigotry.

Israel isn't stealing land in the occupied territories to promote the freedom of Palestinians... or for their liberty... or for democracy. Israel steals land because that's what Zionism does. It steals land from Arabs and other non-Jews and gives the land to Jews. That's what Israel has always been about.

by Carl Nyberg 2009-03-03 09:39AM | 0 recs
"Zionism...steals?"

you might as well replace that with Jews. You of course know the old stereotypes of Jews being thieves right? Your true colors have shown.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-03 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: "Zionism...steals?"

Are you arguing that it's OK to steal land to create a homeland for Jews b/c past anti-semitism portrayed Jews as dishonest merchants?

Lakrosse, do you acknowledge that at least some of the land occupied by Israel and Israeli settlers was transferred extra-legally?

by Carl Nyberg 2009-03-03 10:32AM | 0 recs
Ethno/religious tribal chauvinism

is not a Western value.  In fact it's the opposite of what America stands for.  Everyone created equal and judged on the content of their character vs. citizenship based on who one's mother was.

by JJE 2009-03-03 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Ethno/religious tribal chauvinism

So the US does not and has never had immigration / visa quotas?  The US does not discriminate against its illegals and minorities?  The US is a pure meritocracy!  Wow - this is news to me!  It looked for a minute like what we have here is a good ol' boys club where if you went to the right business school and knew the right people, you were home free - and if not, you are screwed!  I'm not sure we are the model for others to emulate at this point...

by mikes101 2009-03-03 03:25PM | 0 recs
Does the US constitution

specify that it shall remain a majority White/Christian nation always and forever?  Is that the founding purpose of the United States?  Is any white Christian permitted to immigrate so as to maintain a white Christian majority.

Very telling that you rely on the most shameful acts in American history to justify what Israel embraces as its fundamental vision.

Sorry, the backwards ethnic tribalism that is the founding principle and purpose of Israel is the opposite of Western enlightenment principles.

by JJE 2009-03-03 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Does the US constitution


Very telling that you rely on the most shameful acts in American history to justify what Israel embraces as its fundamental vision.

The US is a Judeo-Christian nation founded on these values, much as Israel is a Jewish nation also founded on basic Judeo-Christian values.

Also, I never said that these US actions were just.  Hailing the US as an example of meritocracy is wishful thinking - we are very far from it.  We may hold everyone to be equal, but in reality we are so far from that as to be laughable.  Universal healthcare?  Universal education?  Universal transportation?  Nope, nope, nope.  Safety nets?  Not really.  Open to all?  Nope.  Welcome your poor, your tired, your huddled masses?  More like let's deport them all to Mexico.

Israel is a Jewish state, but it has Arab citizens - it arguably treats its people much better than the US treats hers.  There are many, many Muslim states across the globe - what's your beef with them?  Israel is no more based on tribalism than the US is - in many cases it is probably more of a model for us than we should be to them.

by mikes101 2009-03-03 05:01PM | 0 recs
Judeo-Christian nation?

Did you just get back from CPAC?  Find me the references to Judeo-Christianity in the Constitution.  Take your time, I'll wait.

I didn't hail the US as a meritocracy.  I hailed the American ideal of equality regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, etc.  Those are basic Western Enlightenment principles that Israel necessarily rejects because it seeks to be a state for one religious/ethnic group.  Whatever the merits of welfare state entitlements, they are completely irrelevant to those principles.  A Jim Crow society with universal health care is still a Jim Crow society.

Your reference to US deportation policies is completely laughable considering that Israel won't even permit the return of people who lived in what is now Israel sixty years ago.

by JJE 2009-03-03 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Judeo-Christian nation?


Find me the references to Judeo-Christianity in the Constitution.  

I think pretty much any constitutional scholar would agree with me, thanks.


Your reference to US deportation policies is completely laughable considering that Israel won't even permit the return of people who lived in what is now Israel sixty years ago.

And the US won't permit the return of people who lived in the US 200 years ago.  It is called immigration controls.  Like 'em or leave 'em, that's just the cold hard reality.  Borders.  Damn those things.


A Jim Crow society with universal health care is still a Jim Crow society

Actually, this is sort of besides the point but I think I fundamentally disagree with that statement - a society that provides education, healthcare, safety, opportunity, etc. for all citizens regardless of race, color, creed, etc is not a Jim Crow society.  Like the US.  Like Israel.

And all the Muslim nations?  Is your position total silence?  Or is your position that they should adopt the US constitution as well?  If the latter, well then -- wake me when that happens...

by mikes101 2009-03-03 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Judeo-Christian nation?

I think pretty much any constitutional scholar would agree with me, thanks.

Oh really?  Because I know several, and they don't, thanks.  And I don't think this road is going to lead you someplace you really want to go, since there wasn't a single Jewish person among the Founders.  So maybe you should amend your statement to say that this is a Christian nation.

a society that provides education, healthcare, safety, opportunity, etc. for all citizens regardless of race, color, creed, etc is not a Jim Crow society.

Yep. Too bad Israel doesn't meet those criteria.  Ever heard of the Jewish National Fund?  Ever heard of "Jewish Only" roads?

Why on earth do you think Muslim nations are relevant?  Israel isn't a Muslim nation, so what do Israeli practices have to do with Muslim nations?  Do you really think this deflection fools anyone, or do you just hate Muslims and have a deep-seated emotional need to see them condemned?  Do I have to talk about Hindu nations as well?  How about Buddhist nations?  Atheist nations as well?

by JJE 2009-03-03 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Judeo-Christian nation?

TR'd for not responding to a direct question and then suggesting that I have a need to condemn Muslim nations.  Absolute idiocy.

by mikes101 2009-03-03 07:53PM | 0 recs
When you can't debate

troll rate!

by JJE 2009-03-03 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: When you can't debate

Dude, I have debated you before and it was an utter and complete waste of my time.  I'm going to have to agree with Canadian Gal in her assessment of you.

by mikes101 2009-03-03 08:10PM | 0 recs
you don't debate

you wave your hands about irrelevant issues and spew ad hominem.  It really doesn't bother me that your fellow fan of misdirection and ad hom agrees.  You're both too emotionally and personally invested in knee-jerk pro-Israelism to have a rational conversation on this topic.

by JJE 2009-03-03 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: you don't debate

I believe in a country's right to defend itself from rocket attack.  And I believe that 1948 and the subsequent territory gains of Israel are as legitimate as 1776 and the subsequent territory gains of the US through war and other acquisitions.  If the US were to give back Texas to Mexico for "peace" or something, that would be very generous of the US, but they are under no obligation to do so.  That's my basic world view.  And I think it's the basic world view of most Americans.  So, I really have no interest in debating these basic points with you.  It's not pro-Israel, it's simple politics.

by mikes101 2009-03-03 08:23PM | 0 recs
This is why you fail

You don't think your positions through, and you don't appear acquainted with the basic facts of the situation.  Israel hasn't "gained" territory.  It keeps the West Bank and Gaza as "occupied territories", not part of Israel.  If Israel's 1967 gains were legitimate then why hasn't it annexed the West Bank?  Why does it keep the WB population (except for the "settlers" of course) in a stateless limbo as an occupied territory rather than taking possession?  Because doing so would require it to allow the people living there to vote or it would be like apartheid South Africa de jure rather than just de facto.  Has that never occurred to you?  Do you ever wonder why Israel to this day has done nothing to stop the settlements in the West Bank?

This exemplifies your problem.  You don't appear acquainted with the basic facts of the territorial situation in Israel, and you only see the pro-Israel side of things.

by JJE 2009-03-03 08:38PM | 0 recs
Speaking of fail.

Who are you to assume what I know or don't know?

The West Bank is a bargaining chip for eventual peace.  Has that ever occurred to you?  Why did Israel dismantle their Gaza settlements and leave Gaza?  Was that not an act of good faith towards peace?  Obviously if Israel was a global superpower like the United States, it would not have to act so politely - it could just say "screw you Mexico / Indians / France / etc, we are taking / have taken your land.  Deal with it."

Let's review:
Israel has gained territory, but they are potentially willing to give some / most / all of it back to live in peace with their neighbors in a 2 state solution.  Until then, they will continue to build settlements - and I'm guessing that some of the settlement land slowly gets taken off the table for bargaining purposes, so it's in the Palestinian interest as well to resolve this issue in say, the next 10 years as opposed to the next century.

Again, this is the reality of the situation.  This isn't a failure to understand something on my part.  This isn't a pro-Israel perspective.  This is realpolitik.

by mikes101 2009-03-03 09:09PM | 0 recs
Your words

reveal the depths of your ignorance and naivete.  I don't have to assume anything.  This latest comment offers nothing to undermine that proposition.

The withdrawal from Gaza was a calculated move to facilitate continued settlement in the West Bank.  A good faith gesture would have been part of a larger negotiation in accordance with Oslo, not a one-off unilateral act.  Israel doesn't care about Gaza.  The West Bank is the prize.  You don't have to take my word for it.  Sharon said it himself:

The Gaza withdrawal would allow Israel to delay negotiations, and a Palestinian state, until such time that their leadership abandons violence. The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress. The disengagement is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians."

- Ariel Sharon, Haaretz, October 8, 2005.

Hard to use the West Bank as a "bargaining chip" when you've spent decades moving people from Russia and Brooklyn into it.  Not to mention that you've contradicted yourself.  Why would a state playing "realpolitik" with "bargaining chips" just throw one of its chips away?

Save the lectures about realpolitik until you've gained a basic understanding of the history and competing interests in the situation.

by JJE 2009-03-04 12:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Your words


The Gaza withdrawal would allow Israel to delay negotiations, and a Palestinian state, until such time that their leadership abandons violence.

Sounds reasonable to me.  No violence in exchange for peace.


Save the lectures about realpolitik until you've gained a basic understanding of the history and competing interests in the situation.

Oh please - Mr. I hang out with constitutional scholars - yet I won't name them to protect their identity.  And Mr. I refuse to evaluate Israel as a Jewish nation in a global context where there are many nations that are Muslim.  Ignorance indeed.

by mikes101 2009-03-04 06:13AM | 0 recs
What a clown

Here you go with the dishonesty again.  Snipping the quote, bringing up irrelevant Muslim nations to deflect the issue.  With defenders like you no wonder Israel is about as popular as Iran.

by JJE 2009-03-04 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: What a clown

You are the one doing the deflecting.  Israel does not exist in a vacuum.  Answer the damn question - should Muslim countries be forced to adopt a strict separation of church and state?  Should the US stop cramming Christianity or Monotheism down our throats by giving us Christian holidays as federal holidays, putting language like "In God We Trust" on our currency, forcing us to swear in on the bible, etc?  If you are going to get after Israel on this issue, I say let's get after everyone.  Israel is a tiny Jewish nation, and I say it's fine if it stays that way - that was the entire intent of Israel.

And I don't think 60% of the American people support Iran according to the latest Gallup polls... so don't know where you are coming from with the "Israel as popular as Iran" talk.  Maybe in your inverted universe, but not the real world.

Think I'm through with you again - I am more interested in debating the specifics of a two state solution than hearing your drivel.

by mikes101 2009-03-04 08:50AM | 0 recs
Sure

it would be nice if all countries adopted a strict separation of church and state.  The difference between us is I don't run around defending backwards entho/religious tribalism, while you do.  I'm a Western liberal committed to enlightenment principles.  You're an ethnocentrist who only cares about "your people".

But of course this is all irrelevant.  Either you can defend Israel's discriminatory nature on its merits or you can't.  You can't, which is why you bring in other countries.  It's an old debating trick but it doesn't work past high school.

It may come as a news flash to you, but the United States isn't the only country in the world.  This is "where I'm coming from with the Israel as popular as Iran talk."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pd fs/06_02_09bbcworldservicepoll.pdf

I suggest you broaden your perspective and learn some basic logic, particularly the rule of relevance.
 

by JJE 2009-03-04 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure


Either you can defend Israel's discriminatory nature on its merits or you can't.  You can't, which is why you bring in other countries.  It's an old debating trick but it doesn't work past high school.

Actually, this is a question of significance.  Israel was designed to be a Jewish state, just as several others are designed to be Muslim states.  Is that the ideal for all countries or for a majority of people?  Probably not.  Is it ok if we have a few exceptions to the ideal for people who want to live a Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or other type of lifestyle?  I say sure.  You say no.  I cannot defend Israel as a model for the rest of the world to follow, but I think it is fine in the global context.


It may come as a news flash to you, but the United States isn't the only country in the world.  This is "where I'm coming from with the Israel as popular as Iran talk."

The fact that we live in the most "englightened" society on the planet, and 60% of our people approve of Israel says something to me.  That's Obama-esque numbers.


I suggest you broaden your perspective and learn some basic logic, particularly the rule of relevance.

I have a different world view than you and you can't handle it.  Your problem, not mine.  Israel will continue to exist as a Jewish state forever - deal with it.  You want to create a secular meritocracy?  Try focusing on a country where they seek that as the ideal like the US.  Sheesh - relevance.

by mikes101 2009-03-04 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure

Is it ok if we have a few exceptions to the ideal for people who want to live a Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or other type of lifestyle?  I say sure.  You say no.  I cannot defend Israel as a model for the rest of the world to follow, but I think it is fine in the global context.

Except that's exactly what you were doing.  To wit:

Israel is no more based on tribalism than the US is - in many cases it is probably more of a model for us than we should be to them.

If you're now acknowledging that Israel is the same as all the other backwards religious/ethnic fiefdoms, then we agree.

The fact that we live in the most "englightened" society on the planet, and 60% of our people approve of Israel says something to me.

We don't live in the most enlightened society on the planet.  Far from it.  You are confusing ideals with reality again.

Israel will continue to exist as a Jewish state forever - deal with it.

And it will be attacked by the people it ethnically cleansed and their descendants forever.  Deal with it.

by JJE 2009-03-04 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Sure


Israel is no more based on tribalism than the US is - in many cases it is probably more of a model for us than we should be to them.

Specifically, I mean that Israel is going to have some provisions for being a Jewish state, just as the US is to some degree a Christian state.  You may not like that.  You may call that "tribal".  Whatever - tribalism IS reality.  But in most regards, Israel is probably a better state than the US - more along the lines of Canada - that should be a model for us.


If you're now acknowledging that Israel is the same as all the other backwards religious/ethnic fiefdoms, then we agree.

I think Israel is far ahead of most of these places.  This is, I think, beyond question.  Heard of women's rights?


And it will be attacked by the people it ethnically cleansed and their descendants forever.  Deal with it.

Wow.  Someone's not happy with the idea of a two state solution.  Do I see violence forever?  Nope - I'm very optimistic that Obama will be able to bring peace to I/P, which will result in a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state.  So no, I won't deal with it, I will remain an optimist - but thanks for playing...

by mikes101 2009-03-04 11:27AM | 0 recs
Wrong as usual

Specifically, I mean that Israel is going to have some provisions for being a Jewish state, just as the US is to some degree a Christian state.

This is just complete nonsense.  Do you even understand Israeli and US immigration policy?  Any person who can prove that they are Jewish can move to Israel.  The United States does not permit any person to immigrate so long as they can prove they are a white Christian.  The United States has a majority of Christians but it was not founded with the purpose of being a state dominated by white Christians.  The policy of the United States government is not that it must remain a white Christian country.  The United States is a pluralistic country that prohibits discrimination based on ethnicity and religion.  It is majority white and Christian for historical reasons, but whites are expected to be in the minority within 50 years.  Israel, by contrast, discriminates against non-Jews explicitly and has as explicit government policy the maintenance of one ethnic majority.  Can you not understand the difference?

Wow.  Someone's not happy with the idea of a two state solution.

No, someone isn't a naive fool who doesn't understand that Israel does not want a Palestinian state.  There will never be a two-state solution because Israel does not want one.  It pretends to so that useful idiots will continue to support its ongoing colonization and ethnic cleansing.

by JJE 2009-03-04 01:38PM | 0 recs
You are wrong - history will bear it out


The United States is a pluralistic country that prohibits discrimination based on ethnicity and religion.  It is majority white and Christian for historical reasons, but whites are expected to be in the minority within 50 years.

Right.  No quotas here.  No H1-B problems.  Green card?  Step right up - that will be 15 years, give or take a decade.  And whites are expected to be in the minority in part because of the vast quantity of illegal immigration to this country and probably further amnesty efforts.  Doesn't change the fact that these people were not welcomed to our "pluralistic" country.

You just don't get it.  Countries can control their borders and allow in whoever the hell they want.  Period.  The US has not been particularly good at this over the last 10, 20, or 50 years.  I don't see why you choose to gripe and moan about Israel.  Yes, they are a Jewish state - it's not a mystery to anyone.  And as I've said before it is perfectly acceptable for a state to be a Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or other state - it can do as it wishes.  That is what being a sovereign nation means.  And I happen to see absolutely no harm in a state of 10 million people having a policy that encourages the Jewish faith.


No, someone isn't a naive fool who doesn't understand that Israel does not want a Palestinian state.  There will never be a two-state solution because Israel does not want one.  It pretends to so that useful idiots will continue to support its ongoing colonization and ethnic cleansing.

Cry me a river.  Most Israelis want peace.  Most Palestinians want peace.  Therefore, peace will happen.  Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not with the Palestinians getting all of the West Bank back, but it will happen.  And then you'll have to find something else to direct all your pent up frustrations and irrational hatreds.

by mikes101 2009-03-04 06:11PM | 0 recs
You're just clueless

Countries can control their borders and allow in whoever the hell they want.  Period.

Yep, and when they do it on the basis of race and religion, like Israel does, that makes them bigoted.  The US restricts immigration by country, not race or religion.  You're really making an ass of yourself ignoring this distinction.

Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not with the Palestinians getting all of the West Bank back, but it will happen.

Yeah, keep wishing for that pony after 60 years of not getting it.  How gullible.

by JJE 2009-03-04 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: You're just clueless


Yep, and when they do it on the basis of race and religion, like Israel does, that makes them bigoted.  The US restricts immigration by country, not race or religion.  You're really making an ass of yourself ignoring this distinction.

Yes, saying we won't allow in any Mexicans is so much better than saying we won't allow in any Catholics.  Ass.

by mikes101 2009-03-05 06:47AM | 0 recs
We do allow Mexicans

It's amazing you manage to tie your shoes in the morning, bigot.

by JJE 2009-03-05 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: We do allow Mexicans

We have different quotas for different countries and different skills of people.  Same damn effect as discrimination in my book.  Who's helping the needy kid from Mexico through open borders?  Probably not us.

I'm all for everyone (including Israel) adopting completely open borders (with certain provisions for criminal checks and the like), but until that happens, I'm all for countries being able to do as they please.

Bigot?  Please.  Quit being a child.

I favor a two state solution, and you apparently (from what I've gathered from previous comments)favor Israel's destruction.  Who's the racist?  Who's the nihilist?  In my book, you are.  Israel is, to quote you, "just as backwards as some of the Muslim countries" in terms of their immigration policy.  Well, that's a sad reality that we're just going to have to deal with until radical changes throughout the globe occur - when everyone adopts open borders.

by mikes101 2009-03-05 07:33AM | 0 recs
More stupidity

Skill discrimination is the same as racial and religious discrimination?  So I guess Microsoft should hire pasty chefs to code the next version of its OS, lest it be liable for discrimination?  You're piling inanity on inanity.

You're defending policies explicitly designed to favor one ethnicity over all others and ensure that ethnicity retains a majority forever.   That makes you a bigot in my book.

Also, if you actually think Israel should have open borders, which I doubt, then you also favor the destruction of Israel.  Do you think for a minute about what you type.

by JJE 2009-03-05 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: More stupidity


Also, if you actually think Israel should have open borders, which I doubt, then you also favor the destruction of Israel.  Do you think for a minute about what you type.

I said my ideal would be for open borders.  My ideal would probably also be communism.  And, in my ideal world there would be no need for a place like Israel because things like the Holocaust would not happen, anti-Semitism would not exist, and a home state for Jews (or anyone) would not be necessary - because everyone could freely practice their religion or express their beliefs anywhere in the world they chose to do so.

But, since we are far from the ideal world, I favor the Jewish state.  Call me a bigot if that makes you feel good - I think you are acting and thinking too small to see the real issues at play here.


Skill discrimination is the same as racial and religious discrimination?  So I guess Microsoft should hire pasty chefs to code the next version of its OS, lest it be liable for discrimination?  You're piling inanity on inanity.

No, I'm not.  At the end of the day, who are we helping through our immigration policy?  We are not helping those that need it - we are cherry picking the best and the brightest from the world over.  Our immigration system is badly broken.  You can call that better than Israel if you'd like but I still say it's a travesty of a system that de facto does nothing more to help anyone in need than Israel's system does.

by mikes101 2009-03-05 10:44AM | 0 recs
Got it

Racism is ok because the world is imperfect.  Truly your moral integrity and reasoning skills are a light unto the world.

by JJE 2009-03-05 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Got it

What's your stance on Affirmative Action?

I support it, because it corrects past injustices.  You can't just set people free from slavery and then say "go get a job at IBM" and expect them to be on an even playing field.  Conservatives are the ones who might call this "reverse racism", but they do not understand the historical context.

Similarly, you can call Israel racist if you want, but you do not understand the entire reason for its existence in doing so.  It was established as a Jewish state in order to preserve the religion of Judaism and the Jewish people, in correction for past injustices.  Does that mean that some Palestinian families have been hurt in the process?  Sure, and I would lament that just as I find it sort of unreasonable when someone does not get into Harvard Med School when they have the best scores because a minority is benefitting from affirmative action.  However, I support Affirmative Action, and I support Israel, and I support corrective action for past injustice.

by mikes101 2009-03-05 07:08PM | 0 recs
Terrible analogy

Affirmative action is designed to remedy current discrimination and promote diversity.  Correcting past injustices is an unconstitutional rationale for affirmative action.  See, e..g Grutter v. Bollinger.

Even if we accepted your flawed premise, there is a huge difference between allowing a very small relative number of individuals to receive an advantage based on their race and establishing an entire country explicitly based on ethnocentrism whose raison d'etre is to privilege on group over all otehrs.  The notion of an ethnic state is a relic of a bygone era.

You are aware that affirmative action is supposed to be a temporary solution, right?  So why should Israel be any different?  Jewish appear to be pretty safe in the United States and Western Europe.  By your reasoning, therefore, you should be calling for an end to the notion of a Jewish state.

by JJE 2009-03-05 09:48PM | 0 recs
My analogy is spot on

I am not discussing the constitutional validity of Affirmative Action - I am telling you why I support it as a Democrat.

I am not calling for an end to affirmative action, nor will I call for an end to a Jewish state.  But yes, I do agree that ideally these are temporary solutions.  So I would say when there are no more Muslim or Christian states in the world, there would also seem to be no need for a Jewish one, and I would call for its end.


Jewish appear to be pretty safe in the United States and Western Europe.

Yes, with armed security around all synagogues for each service... and yet synagogues are still defaced and Jews are still attacked in hate crimes, even here in the US.  Plus, the Jews appeared to be pretty safe in the 1850s in Western Europe and Russia.  Look what happened - in the democracy of Germany a party of hate took power and chose to exterminate the Jews.  Can you guarantee me that this cannot happen again in a democratic state?  No, and that is why we have Israel.  It is a safeguard to help prevent the atrocities of the past from occuring again.

Furthermore, the main point is still:
When historical wrongs have happened, it is justifiable in the liberal tradition of thought to attempt to right those wrongs and help disadvantaged groups.  This is not the same thing as racism unless you ignore the historical context.  Period.

by mikes101 2009-03-06 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Terrible analogy


allowing a very small relative number of individuals to receive an advantage based on their race and establishing an entire country explicitly based

Just one further point - the country of Israel is what - the size of Rhode Island, with a population of 10 million or so.  This is actually helping less people correct a historical injustice than Affirmative Action, which serves about 40% of the population of the US whose population is now approaching 350 million.

If Israel is not helping a "very small relative number of individuals", then I guess we have different definitions of small.

by mikes101 2009-03-06 05:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Got it

Similarly, what is your stance on requiring certain percentages of federal contract dollars to go to minority owned businesses?  Isn't that "reverse racism"?  Shouldn't the "best business" win no matter what?  

I support those efforts because I feel that minority-owned businesses have been at a disadvantage historically and probably still at present which needs to be corrected.

Similarly, I support efforts to support the Jewish people in today's world as they were subject to the decimating loss of 5-6 million people 60 years ago and anti-Semitism which continues to this day.  

Corrective action means - "We realize that racism existed AND / OR still exists, and we are going to do something now to try to fix that".  In the context of Judaism, replace the word "racism" with anti-Semitism.

Does that mean I support killing Palestinians or preventing a homeland for them?  Only an idiot would think so.  I want the Palestinians to have their own state.  To the fullest extent possible, I also want them to live in Israel, just as I want everyone to have a fair chance in life even in the paradigm of Affirmative Action / minority contracts.

And as I've said, ideally one day there will not be a need for things like Affirmative Action, minority-owned contract targets, and a state with a religious affiliation like Israel, but these things are correctives - they are not undertaken to be the cause of further problem, although obviously all of these things cause problems and perceptions of unfairness.  And the corrective action will probably take generations to have its intended effect.  But I think it is fully in the liberal tradition to recognize that the world is not perfect, and sometimes that means helping to prop up the little guy.

by mikes101 2009-03-05 07:23PM | 0 recs
They hate us for our freedom. eom

by Geekesque 2009-03-03 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: They hate us for our freedom. eom

Palestinians want to infringe on the freedom of Zionists to steal land.

Don't they appreciate everything Israel has done for them?

by Carl Nyberg 2009-03-03 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: there is no Israeli terrorism,

2000?

Was that the myth of the generous offer you are talking about. If Barak said from the beginning that "settlements were off the table," how could there be a sovereign Palestinian state offered?

But you know that fact. So why are you trying to deceive people? The Second Intifada, by the way, was instigated by Sharon. After the IDF killed over 300 Palestinians including over 80 children, the Palestinians retaliated with suicide bombings.

That was unfortunate because Israel used them to create the most disingenuous propaganda program ever, the terrorist meme which cast Israel as the victim rather than the perpetrator of the terrorism. Only Jimmy Carter of late is honest enough to call it what it was: state terrorism on the part of Israel.

by MainStreet 2009-03-03 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: there is no Israeli terrorism,

well, sort of, they arm their kids and send them to kill.  

But, neither side is terrorist, one is an occupier and the other is the occupied.  the occupied resist occupation and the occupier enforces the laws it writes for its own interests.  

One side is strong, the other weak, the weak side has fewer crazies then the strong one, imp, but enough to give Israel an excuse to arm their kids and send them to kill.  

Hillary has a tough job here.  She and Barack are off to a great start.  The first thing that the Palestinians need is respect, for their rights and their suffering, so they don't have to keep provoking more suffering, so they know their being seen and heard.  The Israelis need to start thinking that there may be some changes, and they may need to adjust to change.  

by anna shane 2009-03-03 02:37PM | 0 recs
I'm confident there will be,

once peace is brought to Israel and the Palestinians and Iraq is free of US troops, a new world order, if Obama and his administration, like Hillary Clinton keep their focus and discipline, which they have in spades right now. This new world order will be a hands on but peacemaking role in middle eastern and world affairs, in which our European allies and even former foes accept but work with American hegemony, which is thankfully on its way back.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-02 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm confident there will be,

Israel will be the stopgap here, because it will refuse to relinquish its settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in order to make way for a Palestinian state.

This is guaranteed. Furthermore, Israel has no interest in the US talking to Iran or anyone else except the compliant states, like Jordan and Egypt. Israel wants the status quo so as to create the hostile climate needed to finally annex the Palestinian territories into Israel.

by MainStreet 2009-03-03 05:56AM | 0 recs
"American hegemony"

What is "American hegemony"?

Why is it a good thing?

Can we afford it?

by Carl Nyberg 2009-03-03 10:35AM | 0 recs
American hegemony

is the order led by America, that would benefit the world more than most other hegemons. We saw during the Cold War the poverty and destruction wrought by the other hegemon, the Soviet Union. As the sole remaining superpower, with more peaceful intentions than say Al Qaeda or Putinist Russia, which both would stifle freedom and democracy, the world would better from our hegemony than theirs.

by Lakrosse 2009-03-03 02:15PM | 0 recs
Clinton is a Liar

Right?

by iDemocrat 2009-03-02 11:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Addresses Gaza Conference

Hopefully, this conference is only the beginning of the US regaining control of its Middle East foreign policy. The keystone here is a sovereign Palestinian state of the kind described by Bush before the Annapolis Conference in 2008. No more excuses, no more red herrings like Hamas.

Israel must recognize the right of Palestine to exist, and for the Palestinians to be a free and self-determined people in a sovereign state of their own. The Apartheid model must be seen for what it is and rejected.

Thanks for this diary.

by MainStreet 2009-03-03 03:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Addresses Gaza Conference

Here is an example of what Hillary will confront in her quest for peace in the region via a Palestinian state. In a word, it is the continuing colonization of the Palestinian territories:

Peace Now: Israel planning 73,300 new homes in West Bank

By Sara Miller, appearing in Haaretz a few days ago.

A report by the Israeli left-wing NGO Peace Now released Monday says that the government is planning to build more than 73,300 new housing units in the West Bank.

Peace Now estimates that if all of the units are built, it would mean a 100-percent increase in the total number of Israeli settlers. The report says that some settlements, including the two largest Ariel and Ma'aleh Adumim, would double in size.

According to the report, approval has already been granted for the construction of 15,000 housing units, and is pending for a further 58,000 units.

One must support that, like all of the previous administrations, Hillary will be stalled and deceived eventually into accepting a token measure, like the dismantling of a few checkpoints.

by MainStreet 2009-03-03 05:48AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads