« Review of the Kel-tec .32 automatic | Main | US Recognizes Libyan Rebels »

15 July 2011


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



The 'American Hasbara' a one former-Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton has said in a recent visit to Israel (said it on foreign soil no less) that our current U.S. President, quote: "the Most Anti-Israel President in the History of the State, without any question." unquote. Israeli governmental compensated U.S. Hasbara Bolton said such in an interview with the Jerusalem Post. Bolton also criticized Obama's policy with Iran. Remember that Bolton has in the recent past been walking the halls of the U.S. Congress talking to anybody would listen to his tripe, that our U.S. 'must' boom-boom Iran. Bolton, if his keester were to be strapped to one of those boom-booms that he wants dropped on Iran, would sing a different tune if his personal keester were put in the cross-hairs of his Hasbara bullshit!

Bolton is a numnutz there is no question, but a very dangerous numnutz. Too bad that DOJ won't go after him and force Bolton to register himself as an agent for a foreign power under FARA. Oops, I forgot DOJ doesn't even have the balls or backbone to go after an even worse agent for a foreign power called aIPAC (remember that the 'a' is 'silent'). Both are doing damage to our U.S. on behalf of a foreign power, and DOJ just 'yawns'.

Roy G.

I'm sure the Israeli agents provocateur are working overtime trying to stir the pot. The impression I have is that Mossad/settler skullduggery like that has only been effective when on the offensive, but these days, they are clearly back on their heels, and fighting from a reactionary position, so it seems the worm is turning.

Margaret Steinfels

Maybe the UN procedures are know to many of you, but I have been confused about who votes for what when.

Alvaro De Soto a UN official who has served in the ME gave this brief description at TPM. I found it useful.

"These are two quite different approaches. If the idea is to bring the Palestinians up to par with Israel by pushing forward a mirror image of the resolution that led to the creation of Israel, it should be a General Assembly resolution as was the case in 1947. But as a matter of international law, neither the UN nor any other international organization can give legal validity to the creation of a state. The UN is not in the recognition business; only states can recognise states...."

And second: "If the Palestinians were to pursue UN membership, a different procedure would apply. Ultimately UN membership is granted by the General Assembly if 2/3 of the members present and voting so decide, but the opportunity to take such a decision only arises if the Security Council puts its positive stamp on a membership application. There is no bypass mechanism, no uniting-for peace procedure in case of Council deadlock: The drill is that a state aspiring to membership writes to the Secretary-General signifying its desire to be accepted. The Secretariat's Office of Legal Affairs prepares a report on whether the basic formal legal requirements are met....This report goes to the Security Council which makes a political assessment regarding whether the applicant meets the substantive requirements spelled out in the UN Charter--whether it is peace-loving and otherwise committed to the obligations arising from UN membership under the Charter, including its financial obligations, and whether the Council judges that it has the capacity to meet those obligations. The Council votes, with the usual requirements of 9 votes in favor and no permanent members voting against. If it is approved it goes to the General Assembly."
Here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/11/what_the_un_vote_means--and_does_not/


Will the Sauds actually support this?

Patrick Lang


IMO. yes. The Israelis have deluded themselves about the "detachment" of the Saudis from Palestine. You, too? pl


I just assumed their rhetoric was simply rhetoric. What do they gain from supporting Palestinian recognition? Is it an emotional response? Is it driven by domestic sentiment?


I've never traveled in the middle east and I have no real appreciation how the issue affects the region. Clearly, the refugees are never going home. How would statehood alter the status quo?


First of all, my compliments to "J" for his aIPAC reference. The lower case,or silent,"a" captures exactly the essence of this organization.

Next Margaret's summary of the UN route is on the mark. As long as the US is willing to use its veto, there is a zero percent chance of Palestine gaining full UN membership. Nonetheless, it is important to proceed since it furthers continues the process of forcing Israel's reliance on the status quo will have to end someday. Perhaps, 130-140 nations in the GA will recognize Palestine this time. In a couple years they will try again and maybe achieve 150-160. Eventually, it might only be the US and Micronesia that hold out against Palestinian membership in the UN.

This process may have 20-25 years to run but every year the International pressure will increase on Israel to finally allow a viable, sovereign and contiguous state.

The BDS movement will be part of this process and ultimately what causes Israel enough pain to change their way of thinking about Palestinians.

Patrick Lang


Of coure it is an emotional response. That is what is called identity. Why do you think you are Jewish? pl


As far as I know the Saudis have always had pro-Palestinian sympathies. Granted other things may have taken precedence, such as fears of other powers and the desire to have the US as protection against those existential threats (1960s Egypt comes to mind). The relationship with the US has been very important for the Saudis for many decades. If the Saudis have moved on from the relationship with the US as a result of the Arab Spring and American support of it, then it should not be a shock that the Saudis may be more active in supporting the Palestinian cause.


The Great Empire of Murdoch seems to be tottering.

Here in Britain his media is neo-con central. For example, it is doubtful if Tony Blair could have amassed the support necessary to back the invasion of Iraq without the full-throated support of the Murdoch propaganda machine. Murdoch and Blair spoke many many times in the three weeks before the war.

Does he have the same influence within America? If his Empire falls will this have a meaningful influence, say, on Palestinian UN Recognition?


With the Saudis I think it is more calculated than an emotional response. They want to be seen as the "leaders" of the Arab world but have never taken to arms against Israel. The only was they have ever been able to compensate for this was by financial support.

Now they have a second dilemma in the fact that other nations are making their passive behavior be interpreted as weakness. Iran and its allies, both Shia and non-Shia have made major gains over the last few years. Turkey, which like Saudi was a passive player until Erdogan took over, suddenly has its fingers in a lot of pies. Now, its stance is looked at with some importance.

Saudi Arabia's own allies are falling to the Arab Spring. Allied with the fact that it has actively tried to create a counter-revolution to the Arab Spring it would I think therefore be suicidal for the Saudis to not back the Palestinians on this, at least in public and in the open.



It's like I've said, we as a species have been given such a beautiful marble on which to live, and we (sadly it appears) have to have all those little pricks running around mucking it up for everybody. Like Rodney King once said, 'Can't we all just get along?'. Not as along as the basic power/lust/ego thung leads them by their noses we won't. Somebody really needs to take Bibi's candy away from him, his constant 'sugar-highs' have to be playing havoc on his cardiovascular with all his ranting and raving.


This is one thang that Israel sure isn't adhering to.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

As adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, December 10, 1948

Come to speak of it, a lot of nations, leaders of nations, corporations, and bankers aren't either.

I doubt that the IMF has read it, nor the EU 'leadership'.

How can 'world government' (a.k.a. lust/ego/power trips) and 'human rights' co-exist with one another? We see the same thang at work only on a smaller scale in todays Mideast with Israel (wannabe world controller) with the poor dessicated Palestinians. I sure don't see Israel's bankers stretching out their hand with 'דמי חנוכה' for the Palestinians, do you?
And one thought it was חנוכה 24/7, right?

Ken Hoop

My best guess and it is only that,is the Saudis,generally,lied to themselves for a long time,that the U.S. from whom they profitted so much, would eventually throw off the power of the Israeli Lobby.

Charles I

Might not get to a vote, UN might be busy.

From the story on Robert Baer's radio interview on KPFK Los Angeles show Background Briefing:

"There is almost "near certainty" that Netanyahu is "planning an attack [on Iran] ... and it will probably be in September before the vote on a Palestinian state."

CIA veteran: Israel to attack Iran in fall.



Israel had ceased to be a democracy (though a dubious one) upon enacting the shameful “Boycott Law”

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