BioPhyllis Bennis is a Senior Analyst at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC. She is the author of Before and After: US Foreign Policy and the September 11 Crisis , Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power. and Understanding the US-Iran Crisis: A Primer. Comments from Registered Members | (Register or log in to make your comment.) | shel_tr 2009-06-18
Of course, it was predictable enough. After all, it's just me vs. all of you -- AND I OUTNUMBER YOU!! And you can't deal with it. So you resort to OUT AND OUT LYING!! Hilarious, you are pathetic! | shel_tr 2009-06-18
I hope all see something happening here. dart does not know me. How could he possibly say I belong to anything, and am linked anywhere? He doesn't know me. This is clear to all, yes? So, why should he be able to slander and libel me here, simply because he enjoys anonimity courtesy of the Internet?? Usually, I waste time reading thru his drivel, but this time I'm just totally uninterested. dart, you've driven yourself to an previously unseen level. I'm going to bed. Over and out. | dart 2009-06-17
Good to see that shill is now fully exposed.It puzzled me why someone would contribute to a public forum and give out personal details true or false.He is clearly trying to puff himself up,creating an aura of knowledge, status, respectability (in the usury trade appropriately) at the same time a normal sporty, home-loving family man.Yet heroic and capable fending off a multitude of enemies like david and goliath.Obviously emotional and committed but of course utterly wrong.He fails to realise that a comments thread is for information sharing not battle there is no clanning together in opposition to him.Anyone who spouts BS will soon be admonished by the rest.It`s a democratic principle. | dart 2009-06-17
There is a rarely mentioned simple truth explaining zionists` bogus comments concerning Iran.The republic is committed to support Palestine but it`s occupied by zionists ,decent religious judaics, christians and muslims and therefore could not be attacked with nuclear or bio weapons.The zionist genocide of muslims would remove that inhibition.With this in mind their propaganda machine runs at full blast on the nuclear weapon deception with a view to neutering legitimate Iranian defences, creating political destabilisation returning the country to a puppet dictatorship.Unopposed, except by moral outrage and legal considerations to be duly ignored, the zionist entity could then do with its muslim minorities as it wished.The west would dress up its military action supporting action as `war on terror.`Naturally to suggest that Iran would attack the world`s third greatest nuclear power is ridiculous while religious nutjobs in israel make the reverse far more likely. | dart 2009-06-17
Having identified the fascist background of Nuttyyahoo ( apologies to yahoos) readers here might like a little refresher on this piece of work.This is the racist who said the attack on Iraq was good for Israel ignoring the loss of life.This is the man who opposed the peace efforts of Rabin and encouraged violent opposition.This is the man who is bracketed with Rabin`s assassination-here is the Ostrovsky link : http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0198/9801030.htm He is also associated with Young Fascist Jews-an organisation intent on arab expulsion.He was elected because he does not want peace.He is owned by BO`s owners.Two actors :one stage manager.Script of pure evil. | pedro270569 2009-06-17
and the empty talk continue with the purpose of avoid peace and maintain war industry | JenniferB2 2009-06-17
The Pirate Bay has now changed their own startpage to say :
The Persian Bay.
Click here to help Iran!
They are offering a service targeting Iranian to be able to communicate through unstoppable domains using new technology. The site has already gain momentum and many Iranians are inserting messages about demonstrations, times and locations and cannot be censured by the Iranian Government.
Check the site out for more information
http://thepiratebay.com
or
http://thepersianbay.com
This is your gateway to free communication since the Iranian Government has blocked all other ways of communication! If you are in Iran, this is the place for you!!
No more censure from the Iranian Government! The is your portal! Lets organize! | shel_tr 2009-06-17
Truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink. P.S. I'm Canadian. Never been in the IDF. But I applaud their efforts to provide a more complete picture of the facts in fora (such as this one) where an entire dimension of the truth is ignored, and where fundamental assumptions go untested by reality-checks. | shel_tr 2009-06-17
Truth: Very interesting! In response to your prior post, I provided serious issues that either need to be resolved in order to achieve peace or could be constructive "next steps" in that regard. Now, when your buddy is losing in his debate with me, you run to his rescue, to soothe his sobbing. Ha! U guys are HILARIOUS! I'll tell you what IS predictable: The fact that you provided nary a peep to my answer to you. You had none. To do so would have been an admission that blame does not rest solely with Israel. But that’s too sophisticated a POV for this lot. You guys prefer to imagine that the ME is a vacuum, that there is no context, and certainly no Pal terrorism or need for self-responsiblity. Be my guest! You'll just keep getting me identifying your weaknesses… | truth_seeker 2009-06-17
Here are some another useful links to describe shel_tr's tactics:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=forum%20troll
http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp
http://forums.seroundtable.com/showthread.php?t=233 | truth_seeker 2009-06-17
The last two comments posted by shel_tr effortlessly affirm my theory.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1056648.html
| shel_tr 2009-06-17
jbhnm (cont'd) Under Jewish stewardship, Bethlehem was free to access by Christians (not the case with Pal’s now!!), Muslims are free to access Al Aqsa, Ba’hai live entirely freely (in their Iranian homeland, not so much!!), gays & women live freely (need I say anything here??), etc., etc. “People thrown out of their homes and shot in the streets” – guy, you're confused, that happens in Gaza where Hummus kills Fatah. In Israel, Arabs serve on the Supreme Court, are members of parliament, and VOLUNTEER (!) for the IDF!! You are one ill-informed little dude! And then you had this gem: “For all I know you could intend to address their claims by getting rid of the claimants”– you can read, correct? If so, please read my prior responses regarding Pal self-sovereignty. You really need to raise the level of your game, bud… | shel_tr 2009-06-17
jbhnm: Of course they’re Hummus! LOL It’s not racism, it’s called “satire”. You really need to grow up. Agreeing with Israel is “racist”? There’s plenty of evidence supporting Israel (e.g. Palestinian and Arab terrorist bombings, mortars, kidnappings, etc.). Your claim is utterly ridiculous. And, to repeat, Egyptians / Saudis / Islamic editors in London would also be “racist” because they blame Hummus?? Of course they were facilitating negotiations! And the way to do that was to objectively place blame where it belonged -- on Hummus. “I don't think Hamas should be firing rockets” – hallelujah!! That’s all I’m looking for, an understanding that BOTH sides are to blame, and BOTH sides must make bold concessions for peace. But Israel must be Jewish. We’ve tried a Christian controlled Holy Land – that only worked for the knights. We’ve tried a Muslim controlled Holy Land – that was a backwater that didn’t work for ANYBODY (the Shia/Sunni don’t get along anywhere! LOL). Under Jewish stewar | truth_seeker 2009-06-17
Jbnhm: don’t pay any mind to shel_tr. He/she is nothing more than a shill or troll. The characteristics are all too common when it comes to the Israel/Palestine conflict. They will pretend to want peace in the ME, but then as their posts continue and one realizes they only want what’s best for Israel, they begin to insult people personally, while simultaneously, making self-aggrandizing compliments. Anyone who has access to the Internet knows that what shel_tr is saying is sheer propaganda. My guess is he/she’s has been found out on other message boards and is looking for someone to read his/her word as the truth. These trolls have become nothing more than predictable and pedestrian. | jbnhm 2009-06-17
For all I know you could intend to address their claims by getting rid of the claimants like your fuhrer Netanyahu wants to do. | jbnhm 2009-06-17
Yes I did say you were paid to show up. It's not a secret that Israel does pay people to go on liberal sites and supply them with talking points. There are multiple articles on it in the Israeli press. Now as for Jews having a continuous presence here again you show your racism religious discrimination. Why should it matter that Jews lived there. Why does their right to the land (which only the indigenous ones would legitimately be able to claim) compete with others because their Arab or Muslim or Christian? And even if there were Jews living there that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether people should be thrown out of there homes and shot in the streets. Nor does it justify founding a nation where people of one ethnicity or religious group have more rights while others are discriminated against. This 'argument' is entirely a non-sequitur. And saying that the Palestinian's claims must be addressed does nothing to show that you don't hate them. For all I know you cou | jbnhm 2009-06-17
shel I'm not annoyed because your opinion differs from mine. And one can be perfectly rational and angry. In fact sometimes it would be plainly irrational not to be angry. You're referring to Hamas as Hummus and your towing the Israeli line despite all the evidence against it are my evidence of your racism. And the fact that US dictatorial puppets are afraid of Palestinians because their cause insights those dictators own disgruntled populace is not any evidence of anything about Hamas. Besides most likely the statements the Saudi's make saying Hamas should stop are diplomatic statements that are trying to get both sides to stop the violence to facilitate negotiations. That has nothing to do with the justification they might have. And in any case I don't think Hamas should be firing rockets. My point was that those who defend Israel's policies are being hypocritical since Israel's violations are a hundred times greater in terms of number killed and length of time. Yes I | shel_tr 2009-06-17
Jbnhm (cont’d) In the meantime, U really need some anger management help. If U own a handgun, I’ll pray for the people around you… | shel_tr 2009-06-17
Jbnhm (cont’d) I’m here on my own, with just my knowledge and I’m taking U all on!) And U fail to comprehend even simple statements that I DO make (I said three kids, not four!). U say I don’t know history. Oooops! UR hypocrisy is showing. Jews have had a CONTINUOUS PRESENCE in the Holy Land for over 2,000 years! Have you ANY awareness of the depth of the archeological proof? Are U really so silly as to argue against physical evidence?!?! History doesn’t just start in 1967, or 1948, or the 1800’s. Jews have historic rights to the land of Israel. As I’ve posted previously, the Palestinians’ competing claim to the land, as well as their right to self-sovereignty, must also be addressed (how does your claim of my supposed hatred for Pal’s accommodate this statement that I’ve made repeatedly??). The thing U and UR buddies need to understand is that there is validity to BOTH sides’ narratives. In the meantime, U really need some anger management help. If U own a handgun, I’ll pray for the p | shel_tr 2009-06-17
jbnhm; Hee hee, I love it when U get so annoyed simply because my opinion differs from URs!! Ha ha! U really need to start exercising your rationality, rather than just your anger. I’m anti-semitic am I? Simply because I know that Hummus’ military adventurism jeopardized their own people?? Well then, I guess that Egypt (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/32294_Flying_Pig_Alert-_Egypt_Blames_Hamas), Saudi Arabia (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/01/saudi-arabia-hamas-gaza) and even the editors at Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (January 23, 2008) are also anti-semitic, cuz they all also blamed Hummus!! But nobody ever said anything about hating the Gazans, or Palestinians for that matter. No, the hatred is emanating from you, and your buddies. You’ve already falsely attributed statements to me (Y do U bother to suggest I’m paid to show you up? “The big, bad pro-Israeli must have help!! No fair! No fair!!” Whine, snivel, whine, whine! Ha ha, that’s just w-e-a-k!! I’m here on my own, with | jbnhm 2009-06-17
(continued) you've already shown your ignorance. Whose fault is it that whiteys came from Europe in the early 20th century and then decided to take the land from them by murdering and raping to intimidate? Is that the Palestinian's fault? Nope. It's racist idiots who pretend not to know the history like you who give Israel a bad name. Hamas is less guilty for the rocket fire than any Israeli apache pilot who fires his rockets into populated areas. At least the apache pilot knows his rocket is going to kill civilians. | jbnhm 2009-06-17
shel_tr I'm happy that you have 4 children (or rather I'll pray for them) but nothing you've said either refutes anything I've or is a coherent argument. You've not provided any real arguments you just talk about how much you've shown us up without actually saying anything more. You're like a rap star whose first hit is about how great his record label is. You just repeat the line, 'Well yea that's bad or unfortunate but whose fault is it? Is it Israel's or is it the dirty Muslim Arabs." You're obviously the most anti-semitic person on this site. (Arabs are Semites in case you're an idiot). The point I made and which you didn't bother to address is that no matter how many children you have no one on this site is going to be persuaded by your obvious racist bullshit. You're country is founded on ethnic cleansing and the rape and murder of people you hate because of their race or religion. If you say you hate them because of the rockets then you've already shown | shel_tr 2009-06-16
A-a-a-and then there’s Dart! Dart: I was going to respond, but your tirade just kept coming, and coming, and coming… Do you remember Foghorn Leghorn? (Think Bugs Bunny) He had this great line: “Boy, I say boy! Yo gums are flappin’, but you ain’t sayin’ much boy!” You certainly do have a lot of words! But it’s all unfinished thoughts, run-on sentences, incoherent / disjointed paragraphs. In short, it’s absolute gibberish. Voluminous, but gibberish nonetheless. I won’t be responding. It’s just too damn difficult parsing-out whatever it is that you think you’re saying... | dart 2009-06-16
(Cont.)..smokescreen for what is known as `law` wrapped within.The situation may evolve as follows:Its the perception that matters.Its unlikely that BO did not see that he could box himself in.Like Kissingerm,Brezezinski,Shultz,Nuttyobbo and the CFR he is a Rockefeller man and its their game he just reads the lines and looks out for cameras.Any removal of settlements will create discord that will be fully exploited by the fascist nottyyobbo.The jewish controlled media will run with with this to justify denouncement of the settlement removals.This will be drawn out over time so that more settlements can be imposed.Nutjobby will say "Look let me tell you! Removing more settlements will cause civil war or militant action against the government." Mossad will make sure there`s evidence to support the cameras.Chances for political solution will fade,tensions will return leading to more violence.Iran will be framed for preventing peace and fitted up with an attack excuse which BO will suppo | dart 2009-06-16
True to his format Shel arrogantly accuses others of that which he supports namely racism as described previously.Next blindspot is misstating the facts. The ill informed comment that `England was founded on religion` was intended to identify it with Is-ra-el which he tells us was similarly founded.Yet zionism is not a religion as such but a political system sold to judaic people as a religion.This much was admitted by the world zionist organisation founders, was well known by DLG,Curzon and rejected by many judaics from inception to this day.(google nkusa).Throughout europe,US and UK jewish-led movements deny zionism and call for observance of UN resolutions while calling for the boycott of Israeli exports in protest.There are many reasons that compel people to settle in israel which include poverty for (eg. east europeans),financial prospects,sheltering from crime (eg.oiligarchs) as well as religious observation.In the main the class dictatorship is secular.Religiosity is smokescr | dart 2009-06-16
In his unending praise for zionism for which Shel has declared his `love` on these threads he is quick to use emotive words like the absurd compound `Islamofascism`typically uttered by the moronic american president.Nuttyobbo is the son of the former secretary to extreme right wing israel founder Jabotinsky who had strong fascist ( really totalitarian) sympathies.Nuttyyobbo is the protege of Iraq warmonger George Shultz and is also part of the evil pro eugenics Rockefeller empire being married into that family.Yes the same family whose Standard Oil supplied Hitler through to 1944.A clearer picture of the fascism meted out by the Nazis could not be found outside Gaza.Unhappily for Shel the readers on these threads are not taken in by such stupid utterances. | dart 2009-06-16
Shel writes of `institutionalised hate`.To learn something of hatred have a look at the babylonian talmud.Read the sanhedrin laws.Know also that at the Nurenburg trials the nazi high command stated that their race laws were based on those of the jews.Note also that Israeli leaders have insisted on their right to be racist un bound by human rights law as confirmed by their boycott of UN race convention along with the criminal america.Recall too that some Rabbis sanctioned and urged the IDF to kill women and children in the january massacre.But of course condescendingly Shel says they must take responsibility for their hatred not that Israel put right its grievous wrongs.More. | dart 2009-06-16
Disregarding shels selfserving and irrelevant drivel about himself its notable that he/she only posts on the topic of israel despite many other important topics broadcast by TRNN. The posts have a recurring format:1.always try to smear the presenter eg.Pepe becomes Pedro.Disparage him if possible by writing eg.`complacent isn`t he`.2. Never ever discuss the precise issue presented. eg. on jewish media control post `aha` but don`t deny or accept the premise.3.Always change the subject.4.Always accuse opponents of having an `agenda` or hidden reason for disagreeing as well as trying to put that person down.To come: The blindspots in shels propaganda. | tommyj7648 2009-06-16
George Washington on Israel (and Egypt and Jordan too)
"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification." ~George Washington Farewell Address
| shel_tr 2009-06-16
Truth (cont’d) 3) Here’s the start of compromise: Pal’s must end their institutionalized teaching of hatred to kids in schools. It’s a simple beginning. With less Pal hatred, Israeli citizens would demand their government take further risks for peace (as they did when they returned Sinai to Egypt, withdrew from Lebanon, withdrew from Gaza, etc.). Overall, Israel is not blameless. However, as long as supposedly “innocent” Palestine continues to bomb pizza parlours & bars, mortar Ashkelon, kidnap soldiers (from inside Israel, no less!) and prevent Red Cross access (how’s THAT for violating international law!), then Pal’s will never achieve sovereignty. Instead of the pointless fixation on destroying Israel, they must start the nation building of Palestine. |
TranscriptPAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. Earlier on Sunday, Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, made a major policy speech which was purported to be a response to Obama's Cairo speech. In it he made some startling announcements—or he made no announcement all, depending on who you talk to. The Israeli right is saying he abandoned his leadership of the nationalist cause and he's given in because he accepted the existence of a Palestinian state. And the left is saying he accepted nothing, 'cause he wants a demilitarized Palestinian state, which most Palestinians wouldn't agree to. The White House has said his speech was a step forward.
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER (VOICEOVER TRANSLATION): I have already stressed the first principle, recognition. The Palestinians must clearly and unambiguously recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is demilitarization. The territory under Palestinian control must be demilitarized with ironclad security provisions for Israel. Without these two conditions, there is a real danger that an armed Palestinian state would emerge that would become yet another terrorist base against the Jewish state, such as the one in Gaza. Therefore we ask our friends in the international community today, led by the United States, for what is critical to the security of Israel: clear commitments that in a future peace agreement the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized, namely, without an army, without control of its airspace, with effective security measures to prevent weapons smuggling into the territory, real monitoring and not what is happening today in Gaza today. And clearly it is obvious that the Palestinians will not be able to forge military pacts.
JAY: Now joining us to tell us what she thinks of the Netanyahu speech, I'm joined by Phyllis Bennis with the Institute of Policy Studies and the author of Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer. Phyllis, tell us what do you think. Is this a step forward? Or what did this speech mean, if much at all?
PHYLLIS BENNIS, INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES: Well, I think what it says is that the ball is now very definitely in President Obama's court, not in Prime Minister Netanyahu's court. The speech had nothing new of substance. He did use the words "Palestinian state," something that the Obama administration has been pressing him on. But as you mentioned, Paul, this was not anything remotely resembling an independent sovereign state. It would be a state that would be forcibly demilitarized, not the question, for example, like Costa Rica, which chose to demilitarize, chose quite wisely, I think, not to invest money and resources in an army, in a military. This would not be that situation. This would be imposed demilitarization, meaning that the Palestinians would not be allowed to have the right of self-defense. They would not have the right to control their own airspace. They would not have the right to control their own borders. That was what Prime Minister Netanyahu put forward as the basic requirements that if those were accepted, then they could talk about the possibility of a Palestinian state.
JAY: Right now the Israeli right is saying that once a country's a country, whether it agreed to be demilitarized or not, what's to stop it from then becoming militarized? And this is like one step away from a militarized Palestinian state.
BENNIS: Well, first of all, what it means is: is it independent or not? What stops it from becoming militarized is Israeli control of the airspace, if the US allows them to do that; Israeli control of the borders, if the US allows them to do that. This is what we're talking about here. This is not equality; this is not sovereignty; this is not self-determination; this is not an independent Palestinian state. As Prime Minister Netanyahu put it himself, both states, meaning Israel and a so-called Palestinian state, would have their own flag and their own anthem. What they would not have is equality and—what they would not have is equality and equal independence, equal sovereignty, equal rights of self-determination.
JAY: Now, the speech had a lot to do with economic development. Bibi calls for Arab countries to come invest in Israel and Palestine. There'll be tourism. And there's this sort of vision of an uneconomic growth, and that's where the Palestinians should see their future if, quote-unquote, only they'll live in peace. What do you make of that vision?
BENNIS: Well, this is the same thing that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been saying all along, that his priority is not a Palestinian state. Yes, he used the words this time to pacify President Obama—hopefully, he didn't pacify him, but that was his goal. But he did not move away from his long-standing position that the only obligation Israel has is to help improve the living standard of Palestinians on the West Bank—not those in Gaza, about whom he said nothing, not those even living in Arab East Jerusalem, who are not considered full citizens of Israel, but solely those on the West Bank. Now the problem with this, and this is where it gets very dangerous, there's the danger that if President Obama drops the ball, if he does not take the next step of holding Israel accountable for what the Obama administration wants Israel to do, such as a settlement freeze, meaning, for example, they might choose to condition some or all of the $3 billion a year in military aid to Israel on Israeli compliance with something like a settlement freeze. That would be one very narrow, small first step. But the problem that we face here is that what President Obama is also hinting at is that he will push for normalization of relations between Israel and all the Arab states in return for these—what I consider fake concessions on the part of Israel. If President Obama says that it's a huge concession that Netanyahu use the words "Palestinian state", and now the Arab governments should answer that concession with a concession of their own, meaning normalized relations, then we're in trouble, because using the word "Palestinian state" is not a concession at all. What President Obama did quite dangerously in his important speech in Cairo was to refer to the Arab peace plan that was developed in Saudi Arabia in 2002 and say that the Arab governments should begin implementing that right away: they should begin the process of normalizing relations with Israel; they should exchange ambassadors; they should begin trade. What he left out was the crucial preconditions for that move by the Arab governments. Specifically, the Arab peace initiative says that normalization of relations economic, political, diplomatic, any other kind, normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab governments can only take place after—after—Israel withdraws to the 67 borders, ends the settlement process, solves the problem of Palestinian refugees' right of return in accordance with international law, and deals with sharing Jerusalem. Then there can be normalization. What President Obama did was to skip those steps and ask the Arab governments to go directly to the question of normalization. And that's what Prime Minister Netanyahu was calling for today when he said we want to open new negotiations with all the Arab states. Of course he does. He wants to normalize relations with the Arab states on the backs of the Palestinians.
JAY: There's an interesting poll today in Haaretz. Apparently, one in five Israelis do not think that a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat to Israel. I know there is something like 52 percent in one poll and 59 percent in another poll said they would support some preemptive action against Iran. But still it's a very significant split in Israeli public opinion whether Iran really is some kind of a threat. And Netanyahu's strategy over the last while and what is likely to be so going forward, to really make no concessions at all on the question of the Palestinian state and shift the conversation over to Iran, in terms of the new elections, in terms of where Israeli public opinion is, and in terms of the Obama administration, do you think he can shift the whole conversation away from the two-state issue to the Iranian issue?
BENNIS: Well, he's had a lot of support, particularly among his own far-right governing coalition, for doing just that. The poll that came out in Haaretz today was actually the opposite of what you said. Only 20 percent did say that they thought Iran would try to destroy Israel if it had a nuclear weapon.
JAY: Yeah, that's what I thought I said. One in five—yeah, what you said is what I meant.
BENNIS: One in five said that Iran would try to destroy Israel. That means four out of five think it would not. And yet almost 60 percent, almost six out of ten, say that they would support a preventive strike, meaning an illegal strike against Iran, even if it didn't threaten to destroy Israel. It's a quite extraordinary contradiction. But Netanyahu has gained a great deal of credibility at home by fanning the flames of fear about the Iranian nuclear program. And in this he found, of course, a very ready partner before he was prime minister in President George Bush. And what he's hoping for is that President Obama will follow the same pattern. This is where there's some ambiguity in the Obama administration. The administration has made clear its intention to open a dialog with Iran. And President Obama restated that in his speech two weeks ago in Cairo when he said that he was welcoming the possibility of new negotiations with Iran with no preconditions and based on mutual respect. That's exactly the language that the Iranian leadership, as well as many Iranian intellectuals, have used to describe what they want: negotiations based on mutual respect. On the other hand, many in Congress and some in the administration itself have continued to say that any negotiations must be matched by leaving all options on the table—not very subtle code words for leaving the possibility open of a military strike by the US against Iran. And Israel has declared over and over again that if the US does not succeed in their definition of disarming Iran, despite the fact that all of the US intelligence agencies agree that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, that they will feel that they have the right to attack Iran and will expect the United States to support that attack. That's the problem that the Obama administration is grappling with right now. How far are they willing to push the Netanyahu administration, which, frankly, could collapse if the contradiction goes further? Today, Netanyahu challenged his own political base by using the magic words that Obama had asked for: he used the words "Palestinian state"—of course without substance, but he used the words. And some of Netanyahu's supporters are already pulling back from that. Now, if he goes further, if President Obama goes further and actually begins the process of holding Israel accountable, for example by conditioning the $3 billion in military aid that the US will give Israel this year on compliance with a settlement freeze, just as one example, there will be an even bigger divide within the Israeli public. If Netanyahu puts himself in a position where he is challenging the US in a more profound way, there could be a break in the government coalition, and there could be a call for new elections. What happens after that could make things even more complicated, because a new prime minister would very likely be somebody like Tzipi Livni from the so-called centrist Kadima Party, who would position herself immediately as Barak Obama's best friend, a huge relief after the extremism of Bibi Netanyahu, but without making any substantive changes on the actual policies vis-à-vis Iran or vis-à-vis settlements on the ground. She would just use much nicer language.
JAY: Well, Netanyahu's drawn the line in the sand, which is a demilitarized Palestinian state, which he has to know is unacceptable to the Palestinians. So the ball's in Obama's court. Does he push Israel on this point or not? I guess we don't know that.
BENNIS: I don't think we know that. I think that the Obama administration is quite likely to accept the idea of a demilitarized state. There are some Palestinian diplomats who have actually said they would accept such a thing. The problem is I don't think they bring with them the Palestinian population. They would not be speaking for anything close to a majority of Palestinians. Ironically, I do think that many Palestinians, particularly those who have been active in recent years in building nonviolent protest movements across the West Bank that have been protesting the creation of the apartheid wall, that have been protesting the checkpoints that are preventing normal life, even as normal as it could ever be under occupation, but is presenting all motion, all movement in the occupied territories. These movements are thoroughly nonviolent. They're grounded in nonviolence as a strategy. But as a result, I think that there are many Palestinians who would want their state to be nonviolent and to be a neutral state without an army, a demilitarized state. But they are not willing to accept someone else imposing that on their ostensibly independent state. First you gain independence; then you make your own decision about disarmament or not.
JAY: Thanks very much for joining us, Phyllis. I guess the ball's back in Obama's court. We'll see how serious he is on these settlement issues. Thanks for joining us, and thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy. | |
 
You must log in as a registered user to save articles, or to view articles you have saved. Not a registered user yet? Register Here  
|
