« Francis Boyle on racism and the academy | Main | AIPAC Bares All to Quash Lawsuit »

21 November 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Apparently the F35s aren't enough. They want Pollard too.





I only disagree that this is the first time in history the US has rewarded Israel for bad behavior.
We have rewarded them for 60 years for their bad behavior.
The only American leaders that I can remember standing up to Israel and the Jewish Lobby influence are Eisenhower, Kennedy (on Israel's nuclear facitities) and Bush I on US aid because of Israeli settlements.
But the WH is not the real problem in my opinion, it is congress that is the problem.



'Why' o-Why does D.C. keep trying to put lipstick on a pig (Israel), why?


FoolBama is going to look so foolish in the Arab/Islamic World when this blows-up in his face, but probably this is the result desired by his advisers.

If Israel uses the F35s to attack Iran, the blow back is going to hurt American interest even worse.

So what are we getting out of this other then surrendering our Security Council leadership for two years?

Nothing, this is shameful.

Pollard will probably be released in the next temper-tantrum.

William R. Cumming

Interesting if public statement?


Ambassador Kurtzer is right! Once you enter the slippery slope of bribing Israel to stop bad behavior for a brief moment, you lose any credibility with diplomacy everywhere. Now, of course, Bibi is throwing in another demand: Immediate release of Jonathan Pollard. Today is the 25th anniversary of his arrest, while climbing the fence at the Israeli embassy in Washington. On Thursday, Barney Frank and a few other AIPAC Dems releasesd a letter signed by 39 members of Congress, all Democrats, demanding his release on clemency grounds. The letter argued that the normal sentence for passing secrets to a "friend" is 10 years, and that the sentence served is excessive. Bibi said he'd have unanimous cabinet consent on a Pollard for 90 day settlement freeze deal. Notable that not one Republican would sign, even though there are plenty of hardcore Zionists among them. Another suicide pill by the Democrats, inviting the Republicans to nail them on national security grounds. Also today, Uzi Arad, national security advisor to Bibi said they have a written document from the Obama Administration, spelling out the terms of the deal over settlement freeze, and the only item to be worked out in more detail is payments on the F-35s.


The idea of this deal is so dumb that it must have come from Dennis Ross.


Would you care to describe the procedure for "de-circumcision"?

And of course there is such a thing as a self hating Jew.

Their psychology is to say the least,quite complicated after several thousand years of getting their butts kicked periodically.

Is Kurtzer? I don't know. But considering who he keeps political company with. He has a running start on it.

Patrick Lang


"considering who he keeps political company with..."

You mean the editorial page of the Washington Post?

As for de-circumcision, I don't know. My father was of the opinion that you should "wear it off." pl


Actually as part of the freeze deal the US has promised never to make anymore foreskin jokes.


The 39 Dems letter on Pollard must be under lock and key.
I can't find a copy of it with their names any where
However in interviews and comments Barney Franks is belaboring the point that no republicans would sign onto the letter. Jewish fundraising for the Dems I suppose, but it's gonna cost them votes if it happens.


Yeah! What Kurtzer said, where is our Three Billion? We are buying our F35's and contributing special forces to Afghanistan, and what does Australia get? A lousy Two bit Christmas card from the White House! A Chinese meal tonight is starting to look attractive.


Here is my answer to the Pollard deal...

Foxtrot, Uniform, Charlie, Kilo.. Tango, Hotel, Alpha, Tango...

This is not a deal. Its blackmail.

Allen Thomson

> Would you care to describe the procedure for "de-circumcision"?

By coincidence, I was just reading that, in Helenistic times, like the 3rd century BCE, cosmetic devices were available so that the circumcised could participate in Greek athletics without having the other participants make snide remarks.

I don't know the details, and would rather not.

Mike C


Don't worry too much about those F-35s, it's going to be years before anyone sees a combat-coded example (at least, if ever).



I'll trade you, all we are getting in Michigan is the bill.


Seriously, this is perhaps the worst case of craven appeasement to Israeli "interests" (other than our looking the other way when they kill our military personnel and citizens) I have ever seen. The Obama Administration must really be running scared after the election.

This "deal" is absolutely disgraceful. It's like Henry IV going to Canossa.

What was Obama thinking in even proposing this? It makes him look pathetic and weak, especially when Israel is guaranteed to breach wherever watered-down terms he comes up with.

Then again, why should I be surprised? This is, after all, the same gutless wonder who wants play nice bi-partisanship with the Repubs. It's another example of his detachment from reality.

As for Bibi, the new demand about Pollard shows just what an arrogant schmuck the guy is.

If we want peace in the Middle East, the way to start is by cutting off foreign aid to Israel. Of course it will never happen, but it should.

Roy G

Larry Korb is op-eding in the Jersusalem Post for Pollard's release:


I would appreciate some analysis of his claims about Pollard. He makes it sound like Pollard was caught shoplifting.

Margaret Steinfels

"What was Obama thinking in even proposing this? It makes him look pathetic and weak, especially when Israel is guaranteed to breach wherever watered-down terms he comes up with."

This seems to have been a deal cooked up by Hillary Clinton. The delay may have as much to do with objections at the WH as in Netanyahu's cabinet.

Patrick Lang


What do you think of the immoral behavior described by Rosen as taking place among AIPAC leaders and in their headquarters? pl

Margaret Steinfels

Robert Fisk calls it appeasement and he pins it on Secretary Clinton:


Freezing Netanyahu Despite the appearance of wild generosity, Obama and Clinton could have Netanyahu in a very tight spot by Gershom Gorenberg

... Based on the latest unreliable reports, two parts of it are not quite what they seem: what the Obama administration has offered Israel and what the administration is asking in return. The combined significance of these two parts is that Netanyahu's compulsive settlement building has him in a very tight spot.

... The offer of the planes is not exactly unusual in U.S.-Israeli relations. It fits the consistent policy since 1967 of giving Israel the means to defend itself, so that the United States will not have to. ... It's likely that the F-35 deal was already in the works and has now been made contingent on Israeli actions.

As for the diplomatic moves, these are all things that Washington is already doing. ...

In other words, the carrots are really sticks. The U.S. offer translates as, "When Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad carries out his plan to declare a state next year, you want us to veto U.N. recognition? Stop the cement-mixers. You want us to keep the inspectors away from your reactor? Please see the instructions above."

These are very significant threats. Are they worth wasting on a three-month, nonrenewable settlement freeze?

Look again at the other side of the deal. Renewing the freeze is intended to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. For Israel to get those "incentives," the administration reportedly requires that the first subject on the agenda be the permanent borders between Israel and Palestine -- apparently with the goal that both sides sign off on them even before negotiating the rest of a peace agreement. The logic is simple: "Mr. Netanyahu, you want to keep building settlements without them getting in the way of peace? Once you've agreed with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas on borders, you can build any part of the West Bank that you're going to keep. Then you can go to negotiate the rest of the peace agreement."

If Obama and Clinton avoid "clarifying" anything ..., Netanyahu will be in a very tight squeeze. If he wins Cabinet approval for the American plan, he will be under heavy pressure to agree on boundaries before reaching a full peace accord. If his government rejects America's offer, he will stand responsible before the Israeli public for possible Security Council ratification of Palestinian statehood, for not getting the F-35s, perhaps even for some very curious international inspectors asking for a good look at Israeli reactors.

Netanyahu has two obvious options for avoiding this dilemma: He could impose an open-ended, complete freeze on all settlement construction in occupied territory, including East Jerusalem, until a final-status agreement is signed. Or he could strive to reach such a deal in the next three months, in order to get his money's worth for withdrawal...

But the problem isn't just that Netanyahu's coalition partners aren't willing to do either of those things or that his own Likud Party might depose him. It's that Netanyahu himself doesn't want to reach an agreement and that he is the settlementoholic-in-chief. All of which makes it difficult for him to escape the bind in which Obama and Clinton have put him.

Interesting read.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad