Actually scottk, I did make time to read it. (though that won’t keep me from posting ridiculously long posts on a variety of tops other than Barack Obama) Please keep in mind, since you’re real new around here, that you don’t have to read a single word of my posts. At least for the moment, there’s still THAT much freedom. Like, nobody is holding a gun to your head or anything, saying that you ‘must read’ and comment on my posts. So, I don’t want to to feel under any obligation to do that. OK?

As for the speech, I did read/watch/listen to it, though I had better things to do with my time.

And, there’s nothing new to add that I haven’t already said. He agreed to keep giving Israel the same money that the US has been giving them for decades. (I don’t know why we’ve been giving Isreal $3billion a year for so long, but…I’m not ‘in charge’)

He also made a major blunder promising Israel that Jerusalem could be it’s capitol, because I don’t think that’s what the last agreement says. Then again, as I’ve said before, there have been SO MANY broken promises/treaties/conventions/etc from Israel over the years, that I’ve honestly lost track.

Still, Obama should have stayed away from discussing that situation until he’d read an update. I don’t think it would have done him a whole lot of good, seeing as how billions of others have attempted the same, and it doesn’t ever make any difference. Nor will it.

The issues with the Israel/Palestine conflict can ONLY be resolved when the International Community finally takes up their responsibility to apply the necessary pressure to Israel, via sanctions or total isolation from the rest of the world. I honestly don’t know what it will take.

So, sorry to disappoint you Scott, but there really wasn’t anything at all remarkable about that speech, other than what I’ve already pointed out, which none of you people ‘get’. I’m sure the AIPAC members picked up on it. They know perfectly well that there borders can’t be secure until they finally DEFINE them, and Obama did articulate that. But, it was lost on most of you.

Now it would really be far more interesting to hear what McCain talks about with them. But alas…that is all done far more secretively, so we never really know.

Have a good one scotty. I’ll keep writing. You don’t have to read. Just let your mouse just do a zip-scroll right on past anyplace you see my name.

Toodles.

just read thru this whole thread.  can anyone ever win an argument with cyrena?  just when u think u got her a torrent of words comes at u that will make an ordinary mortal’s head spin.

when her guy barack comes to power, let all us truthdiggers petition the white house to get her to head up the israeli/palestinian peace negotiations.  after all, she’s told us that she’s researched the problem for some months now. (as opposed to the majority of truthdiggers who are merely opinionated, not informed)  poor saeb erakat and his israeli counterpart would sign any agreement she proposed just to avoid the endless onslaught of verbiage that she’d be able to throw at them.  and in the meantime, while she was at her new post, the battered egos of truthdiggers who have been on the stinging end of her comments would have time to recover.

so, until early november, i suggest avoiding any posts criticizing barack.  after all, this could undermine his quest for the presidency. (even tho most of us who criticize him will be voting “for” him as opposed to mcCain)  and for those of u brave enuf to still criticize barack..be prepared.  cyrena will see thru your criticism and let u know that your REAL problem is either personal/emotional(u feel inferior to the whip-smart barack) or ideological(racist)

Obama supporters who are blind to his mistakes and shortcomings are no better than the people around Bush.  We don’t need another cult; that’s what got us into Iraq.  Vote for him but don’t be blind.

Alas! I got side-tracked responding to the hyperbole, and forgot to decode the fine print here, for all who have obviously missed it. Now this is from what PT posted earlier, since I haven’t had time to read the entire speech that Obama gave to AIPAC. (and I’m not sure when I will)

But, let’s break this down…just this little bit could be difficult for those without a history of this conflict.

•  “The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper, but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized, defensible borders.”

~The Palestinians need a state that is CONTIGUOUS and COHESIVE~

Now, for any person in the AIPAC audience that was paying attention, this should be ring some warning bells.

Here is the definition of CONTIGUOUS:
1. ADJOINING

-sharing a boundary or touching each other physically

2. NEIGHBORING

-situated next to something else or EACH OTHER

3. CONTINUOUS

~connected together so as to form an unbroken sequence in time or an uninterrupted expanse in space

For anyone paying any attention to the past few decades of failed peace agreements, specifically in respect to the two-state plan, or even the ‘land for peace’ part of it, THIS has been one of the major obstacles. Israel wants to agree to give up ‘a piece here’ and a piece there, to the Palestinians, which obviously WILL NOT WORK. The Palestinians cannot be expected to accept a chunk here, and a chuck there, and actually create a Palestinian State from it.

Here’s COHESIVE

1. UNIFIED

~sticking, holding, or working together as a united whole.

Again, if we’re still talking the 2-State solution, (and that’s the solution that Obama is choosing to embrace) then that means that Israel is on notice, (even though they’ve always ignored such ‘notices’ in the past) that they cannot occupy territories and/or claim them in any way that prevents the Palestinians from having their own UNINTERRUPTED space/land. IOW, Israel cannot be a model of the US, which claims all of the contiguously connected land, IN ADDITION to Hawaii, Alaska, the US Virgin Islands, and all of the other ‘territories/states’ that are NOT physically connected to the rest of the “US”.  No. Israel cannot do that.

Here’s the rest:

•  ~ Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized, defensible borders.”

This is what Obama is saying. Palestinian people must –do this- and what Israel should be HEARING, is the obvious…The Palestinian people CANNOT DO this, UNTIL Israel makes it clear what their BORDERS ARE!

Israel has very DELIBERATELY FAIID to commit such terms to paper or other documentation, (which is why Israel doesn’t have a Constitution) because they wanna be able to ‘claim’ everything. So, in order for Israel to have it’s Jewish State, and it’s recognized ‘defensible borders’, they are going to have to PUT THOSE IN WRITING, which is what Obama MEANT by RECOGNIZED borders. They have to be borders that are committed to paper, and RECOGNIZED by the International community.

Now Obama didn’t break this down for them (AIPAC and Israel) but for anyone who was paying attention to the words that he DID use, they should know very well what these words MEAN.

This is why I mentioned the fine print earlier. For anyone willing to sort it out, (which means going over the history) he or she would eventually realize that THIS is the fundamental step toward resolving the human rights atrocities that Israel has perpetrated, as well as the alleged ‘security issues’ that Israel claims to have. IOW, if Israel would get back to its own defined borders, as internationally recognized, they wouldn’t have to worry about any ‘security’ issues, and they could continue to be just as Jewish as they wanna be, WITHIN their OWN boarders.

Jimmy Carter recoqnized his duty; Obama could have done the same.

Beerdoc,

You still miss big picture. I’ll try once more.

NOBODY (that I can see here) is giving Obama a ‘pass’ on ANYTHING! What I would ask you however, is why you somehow believe that it has become HIS JOB, to take on the duties (single-handedly I might add) that the entire International Community has not yet been able to accomplish? And, why do you think he is capable of such? Do you believe him to be superman?

You ask here, (obviously from a very rhetorical standpoint, since nobody is likely to disagree with the rhetoric)

•  “... How can a tiny minority siphon off so much of the national treasury to continue a policy that the late Rachel Corrie referred to as ethnic genocide, and the pragmatic view is to let this continue?”

This more hysteria that you’re spinning on. WHO THE HELL HAS SUGGESTED that this ‘ethnic genocide’ SHOULD CONTINUE? You’re spinning out on this doc..all over the place in fact. 

Just in one post, you’ve decided that Obama’s FAILURE to address these atrocities of over 40 years, in a speech to a group of American Jews (who are clearly more influential in US policy than they should be) is somehow the SAME as him ‘condoning’ these actions.

Now I would debate whether or not we are now a ‘democratic republic’ or that we have been in the past decade. But, I don’t think that ANYONE is going to argue that ANY “Tiny minority” should be able to siphon off so much of the national treasury in order to continue to perpetrate crimes against humanity. No ‘tiny minority’ should have been able to siphon off close to 6 trillion, and leave us in debt for the rest of our natural lives either, but somehow, in less than 8 years, that’s exactly what the Dick Bush Cabal has been able to do. Is that Obama’s fault as well? HE should have stopped them, right? Not US…just him.

So, your rhetoric in making that suggestion, as if that’s what Barack Obama is suggesting, pretty much amounts to bullshit. What you’re saying is that that if it were not for the US aid to Israel over the past however many decades, Israel wouldn’t be committing these atrocities, and somehow…Obama has signaled that it’s OK with him, even though he’s had ZIP to do with any of it, because he hasn’t been around that long. I think you make yourself sound really foolish here.

Then you say this, and that pretty much wraps it up, making reasoned conversation with you - minus all the drama- highly unlikely.

  “Perhaps you truly are blinded by the snow job that Barack Obama is perpetrating.”

NO! I’m one of a small population of the “NON-group think” mentality and it is VERY DIFFICULT for ANYONE to put a ‘snowjob’ over on ME! I question EVERYTHING, from the beginning, (drives some people nuts) and look for explanations and legitimate ‘dot crossings’ where they need to be made.

So contrary to what you’re displaying here yourself, I am neither “dazzled by the brilliance, NOR baffled by the bullshit” because I understand all too well how emotion can distort reality to the point of making it counter-productive to any useful resolutions.

Yours is a narrow view, guided by some very obvious antagonism for Obama, and I admit that I don’t understand it, because the guy simply hasn’t been around long enough to commit the kind of offenses that would prompt such responses, UNLESS THEY ARE VERY PERSONAL, and emotionally/ideologically driven. That would seem to be the case with you and your opinion of Obama, though I certainly would have no reason to know WHY that is.

I have a larger view of the world I guess, and that’s a good thing for my own field of work, where the primary focus is on human rights and dispute resolution. Narrow views never work, and the emotion has to be set aside, to get to the root of the problems.

I don’t like AIPAC or it’s influence at all. I KNOW, (from years of study) what atrocities Israel has been guilty of. But your rhetoric of ‘tying our fate to another country’ is bullshit.

Obama could have taken a pro-Palestinian position by simply stating that that is the position of the rest of the civilized world not some far out lunatic fringe group.  People would listen to that.  He has a platform from which to expose the human rights catastrophy in Gaza.

One of the most laughable (if it were not so tragic) is this nonsense about taking the pragmatic view, when it comes to condoning one of the most hideous injustices in the world, sponsored by the United States government. But who am I to complain? I’ll leave that to former President Jimmy Carter, who said “peace not apartheid”.
But just in case, anyone gets upset about bursting their Obama bubble, I recall what Martin Luther King Jr. said about their are some things that you should be “permanently maladjusted”. The U.S. policy towards Israel is for me, one of those.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/87084/

For all of those who for the sake of equivocation give Obama a pass, I say, give truth a chance. The injustice that is Israel stealing land from the Palestinians, in defiance of UN resolution 242. Of course, despite all the ridiculous talk about the rule of international law, the United States chooses which of these standards are applicable. As former Secretary of State Madeline Albright put it: “We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 as ‘occupied Palestinian Territory’. In the view of my government, this language could be taken to indicate sovereignty.”

I stand corrected on my earlier (and more dated) understanding of the terms/recommendations/agreements on Jerusalem. So, I’m posting this from a forum that is associated with the Obama campaign.

As you can see, apparently the issue of Jerusalem is back in the hot seat of US policy, (well, as I can see from the fact that my mailbox has been overwhelmed with post from this forum, on this topic) since Obama made his address to AIPAC.

From Bird alone at The IR International Relations Forum
Re: Jerusalem: Why it’ll be back on the table.
“I believe by history, Ben Vos was referring to East Jerusalem’s history - on which I believe I was accurate in stating that Israel did not capture it until 1967, which weakens Israeli claim over all of it.
Here’s what compromise is likely to look like on the Jerusalem issue :”
TABA SUMMIT (2001)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taba_Summit
Both sides accepted in principle the Clinton suggestion of having a Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and an Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Both sides favored the idea of an open city. The Israeli side accepted that Jerusalem would be the capital of the two states: Yerushalaim, capital of Israel and Al-Quds, capital of the state of Palestine. Both parties accepted the principle of respective control over each side’s respective holy sites. Israel’s sovereignty over the Western Wall would be recognized although there remained a dispute regarding the delineation of the area covered by the Western Wall and especially the link to what is referred to in Clinton’s ideas as the space sacred to Judaism of which it is part. Both sides agreed that the question of Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount has not been resolved.

GENEVA ACCORD (2003)

http://www.geneva-accord.org/general.aspx?FolderID=250&lang=en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_accord
The parties shall have their mutually recognized capitals in the areas of Jerusalem under their respective sovereignty. The Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem will be under Israeli sovereignty, and the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem will be under Palestinian sovereignty. The parties will commit to safeguarding the character, holiness, and freedom of worship in the city. The parties view the Old City as one whole enjoying a unique character. Movement within the Old City shall be free and unimpeded subject to the provisions of this article and rules and regulations pertaining to the various holy sites. There shall be no digging, excavation, or construction on al-Haram al-Sharif / the Temple Mount, unless approved by the two parties. A visible color-coding scheme shall be used in the Old City to denote the sovereign areas of the respective Parties. Palestinian Jerusalemites who currently are permanent residents of Israel shall lose this status upon the transfer of authority to Palestine of those areas in which they reside.

***********

As I mentioned, this topic has ‘lit up’ my mailbox, and anyone interested can log on to either the Obama website (and join this or any of the forums) or maybe try to goolge it otherwise.

I don’t want to post any more on THIS topic, on THIS thread, since these issues don’t have anything to do with Marie Cocco’s very unprofessional journalistic efforts. If there is discussion to be had on this, it should not be in anyway connected to anything that Marie Cocco writes. It definitely gives undeserved credit/attention to any measure of fact and objectivity which she NEVER conveys in any of her biased hype.

No, I don’t really take comfort in the thought that he is actually ‘lying’ because I don’t know that he is beerdoctor. He’s a Statesman and a politician.

I DO know that none of the posters here, seem to have any idea of the on-going negotiations that have seemed to be never ending, in terms of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Based on that, I believe that people, (and that would include YOU here, with NO disrespect intended) need to EDUCATED themselves on ALL sides, (and at every venture) of this issue, before they start making assumptions.

That was really my point. That and the fact that I don’t believe that US should be using the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as the measure by which we should choose our own president. THAT is the FAR LARGER point!

So no, I’m hardly ‘equivocating’ to blindly defend any position that Obama has taken. In fact, I remain one of FEW on this forum, who actually brings up LEGITIMATE criticism on some of his positions.

Unfortunately, what I see here from the majority, are uninformed attacks based on a lack of information that requires first, a knowledge of the conflict, (and yes, that could take many, many, months of consistent study to grasp) and next, a below superficial insight into how this all plays into US policy.

And again, I mean no disrespect or offense in saying that. It just is what it is, and I don’t see it on this forum.

I am going to post an update to my own very DATED understanding of the agreements that have been brokered over the years, in respect to Jerusalem. (this one will include the TABA Summit, of 2001, and my own reference in the earlier post was from before that. (there have been SO many).

And, that again proves my larger point. The Israeli/Palestinian Conflict is NOT ABOUT Barack Obama, other than for those who might be obsessed with that conflict to the detriment of many domestic issues facing us as US citizens. Or, those who might be looking for any available excuse to undermine his electability in the reality of the political environment of this 9th year of the 21st Century. I’ll let you decide if you fit any of those parameters.

Meantime, look for the other post. It will be just above this one, and it will be the last thing that I provide on this particular thread, since I’m basically put off by Marie Cocco’s style of journalism.

The reality is, you equivocating only reveals how far you will make excuses for ‘your’ candidate. Objectivity? Read the Illinois Senator’s latest AIPAC speech. You really take comfort in the thought that he is actually lying?

Not good enough cyrena. You say: “Now if Obama could have avoided addressing AIPAC-at all-I would have been happier. Since I know perfectly well that such a move (or non move) would have cost him the election,” That certainly says it all. I thought we lived in a democratic republic. How can a tiny minority siphon off so much of the national treasury to continue a policy that the late Rachel Corrie referred to as ethnic genocide, and the pragmatic view is to let this continue? Perhaps you truly are blinded by the snow job that Barack Obama is perpetrating.
On Democracy Now! John Pilger pointed out that Senator Obama reminded him of Robert Kennedy, but not in the glowing mythical delusional way that is common now. No, the junior Senator from Illinois, despite all of his soaring rhetoric, is in fact, a typical, equivocating politician. If you think he is going to end the war in Iraq, think again. If you think he will not go to war with Iran, think again. That betrayal will seem incredibly hideous, because of the blind faith of people who refuse to accept him at his word.
Vote for Obama because he favors womens’ rights. Vote for Obama because he strikes a cool pose. But may the heavens help you, if you atuaaly believe he is going to do a blessed think about the hell fire this country is consumed by.
No, Zionist expansionism is not inflammatory, it is the truth. Tying our fate as a country, to any other state, IS an act of treason.

Ed put out the JACKPOT question/issue here, as is the reality of the past 3 or more decades

•  “Is there ANY other sphere of policy in which all the presidential candidates must publicly, loudly, and passionately take a position explicitly contrary to law and to official US doctrine?”

And the answer is…NONE!

Nope, this is EXCLUSIVE to the poison of the Israel influence, which I’ve already acknowledged, on countless occasions? In NO OTHER sphere of policy, ‘must’ ANY presidential candidate be ‘required’ to make these public statements, which are contrary to law and to the official US Doctrine (on the other hand, exactly WHAT IS ‘official US Doctrine” here in the year 2008?) in order to have an opportunity to be elected to the office.

And yet…it IS WHAT IT IS! Additionally, it needs to be CHANGED, and this influence needs to be REMOVED from our policy once and for all. Lambasting our own presidential candidate (who didn’t create this policy or the poisonous influence) will accomplish exactly WHAT? Do we have an ALTERNATIVE candidate who CAN BE ELECTED, who will NOT be required to go through these motions, IN ORDER to be elected? If so, put ‘em up on the platform.

If NOT, (and we know that such a person does not exist) than consider this, wise words from another poster, at a different thread, on a different issue.

Felicity writes:

By felicity, June 5 at 8:52 am #
Re: Re: Tsk, tsk
“Cyrena, I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama is absolutely brilliant, plays his cards very close to his chest and is always about 100 steps ahead of us ordinary mortals.  I’m beginning to think that what you and I may see as gaffes or faux pas or weaknesses or whatever on his part aren’t.” 
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080604_the_nightmare_ticket/

Let me add that I agree with her in this observation, and have said as much myself. I reality, I do NOT (necessarily) see much of what the majority of you see as ‘gaffes, faux pas’ or weaknesses on his part. Rather, I see them as part of a brilliant strategy that we may not have privy to in completely understanding, or being able confirm. Because THAT is part of the strategy. He MUST, respond to the nature of this disease in a way that will repair it, and to that extent, he’s not necessarily gonna ‘spell it out’ for us.

Another statement, from another poster several months back, also puts this in context..Dr. Know-it-all said very simply, in a discussion on a related topic,

“I hope Obama’s lying”.

Meantime, for those of us who REALLY have this major problem that Ed has explained by his very question, MAYBE WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING. i.Q. has suggested the same, and I’m aware of at least one group of Jewish Americans (in addition to those that iQ provided) who have come together to do exactly that: diminish the influence of the Jewish Lobby on US policy.
Again, back to the language of the text that one of you has provided in reference to this issue with Jerusalem:

•  “Al Jazeera reports Obama’s comments appalled many Palestinians who see occupied East Jerusalem as part of a future Palestinian state.”

Read it again, and see if there is not an inherent problem in this ‘view’ of the many appalled Palestinians…WHY do many Palestinians “‘see’ East Jerusalem as part of a future Palestinian state”, when the international community, in the form of a hopeful resolution of this conflict, has proposed that ALL of Jerusalem remain as an internationally common area, ‘OWNED’ BY NONE, and accessible and available to ALL?

And how is this problem ‘overcome’ when Israel is illegally occupying part of it, while the Palestinians are claiming that it should be part of a future Palestinian state? BOTH are contrary to the attempted resolution of the International Community.

If we’re gonna talk about this, we need to know what we’re talking about, with OBJECTIVITY to what is already in the reality.

Maybe not so ‘treasonus’ beerdoc, read the ‘language’ again, and in context with the 60 year old conflict as well as Int’l Law, and the dynamics (in violation of those laws) that were established long before Obama came along.

********

Part 1 of 2

With all due respect to the concerns expressed here, I think nobody is doing themselves any good in focusing on the disaster of Israel as a basis for judging the merits of Barack Obama as a US president, to address OUR needs.

The ‘language’ here…Obama *supports* Zionist EXPANSIONISM is inflammatory, and in the reality of the day, worthless. While I clearly do not approve of the US providing ANY economic aid to Israel, NO ONE should be surprised that Barack Obama addressed AIPAC, because he wouldn’t be elected otherwise. That is the saddest of testaments to the poison that has been allowed to infiltrate our government at the highest levels.

What is also a REALITY, is that neither Barack Obama or any other US president can make a claim about what is to become of Israel. The WORLD Community has already determined that, and HIS only obligation (to Israel or the Palestinians) is to uphold whatever decision the international community makes. And, the last I heard, Jerusalem was NOT to be ‘divided’ (which is what Obama reaffirmed) but rather was to remain as common international community. Now if I’m correct in my understanding of what the UN has previously decided in reference to Jerusalem, then Obama is out of line in ‘claiming it’ as the Capitol of Israel. That is NOT for ‘him’ to decide. As for the rest of his speech cited here, I don’t have a problem. Israel SHOULD have clearly defined borders, and SHOULD be secure and sovereign, as should Palestine. I don’t believe that has EVER been disputed. What is in dispute, (for over 40 years now) is WHERE those borders ARE and the only ‘security’ that can be provided to Israel, is WITHIN those borders!

So, after so long of US cooperation with Israel’s crimes, Americans as well as Palestinians are ‘reading into’ Obama’s remarks, something that isn’t necessarily there. The fact that Palestinians should also be secure in their own state IS addressed in his remarks, and the bottom line, as I’ve already mentioned, is that this is nothing new. We all know that. We also know, (though Barack Obama may not) that it is has become less and less a reality for Palestine to enjoy a sovereign state status because of the now very permanent infrastructure that Israel has established over the years in the West Bank and other areas. So is he being disingenuous or is he being naïve? Maybe both.

Or…maybe he knows what few of the rest of us seem willing to comprehend. He didn’t create the atrocities of the Israel/Palestine disaster. Neither did the Palestinians, and neither did the majority of the American population. Consequently, this should not be ‘our’ problem, nor should ‘our’ President be unilaterally responsible for repairing it. However, he ALSO knows, (as should we if we take the time to look below the surface of these remarks and consider the appropriate context in which –and to WHOM- they are delivered) that if he’s gonna fix anything, or even contribute to the change in the dynamics here, he’ll have to get his hands dirty.

Unfortunately, if one wants to capture and/or contain the alligator, one much be prepared to get into the swamp to do battle with it. And, that can (and maybe should) be ONE of Obama’s challenges, once he gains ADMISSION to the swamp.  But not the ONLY one!

Part 1 of 2

With all due respect to the concerns expressed here, I think nobody is doing themselves any good in focusing on the disaster of Israel as a basis for judging the merits of Barack Obama as a US president, to address OUR needs.

The ‘language’ here…Obama *supports* Zionist EXPANSIONISM is inflammatory, and in the reality of the day, worthless. While I clearly do not approve of the US providing ANY economic aid to Israel, NO ONE should be surprised that Barack Obama addressed AIPAC, because he wouldn’t be elected otherwise. That is the saddest of testaments to the poison that has been allowed to infiltrate our government at the highest levels.

What is also a REALITY, is that neither Barack Obama or any other US president can make a claim about what is to become of Israel. The WORLD Community has already determined that, and HIS only obligation (to Israel or the Palestinians) is to uphold whatever decision the international community makes. And, the last I heard, Jerusalem was NOT to be ‘divided’ (which is what Obama reaffirmed) but rather was to remain as common international community. Now if I’m correct in my understanding of what the UN has previously decided in reference to Jerusalem, then Obama is out of line in ‘claiming it’ as the Capitol of Israel. That is NOT for ‘him’ to decide. As for the rest of his speech cited here, I don’t have a problem. Israel SHOULD have clearly defined borders, and SHOULD be secure and sovereign, as should Palestine. I don’t believe that has EVER been disputed. What is in dispute, (for over 40 years now) is WHERE those borders ARE and the only ‘security’ that can be provided to Israel, is WITHIN those borders!

So, after so long of US cooperation with Israel’s crimes, Americans as well as Palestinians are ‘reading into’ Obama’s remarks, something that isn’t necessarily there. The fact that Palestinians should also be secure in their own state IS addressed in his remarks, and the bottom line, as I’ve already mentioned, is that this is nothing new. We all know that. We also know, (though Barack Obama may not) that it is has become less and less a reality for Palestine to enjoy a sovereign state status because of the now very permanent infrastructure that Israel has established over the years in the West Bank and other areas. So is he being disingenuous or is he being naïve? Maybe both.

Or…maybe he knows what few of the rest of us seem willing to comprehend. He didn’t create the atrocities of the Israel/Palestine disaster. Neither did the Palestinians, and neither did the majority of the American population. Consequently, this should not be ‘our’ problem, nor should ‘our’ President be unilaterally responsible for repairing it. However, he ALSO knows, (as should we if we take the time to look below the surface of these remarks and consider the appropriate context in which –and to WHOM- they are delivered) that if he’s gonna fix anything, or even contribute to the change in the dynamics here, he’ll have to get his hands dirty. Unfortunately, if one wants to capture and/or contain the alligator, one much be prepared to get into the swamp to do battle with it. And, that can (and maybe should) be ONE of Obama’s challenges, once he gains ADMISSION to the swamp.  But not the ONLY one!

Part 2 of 2

Now as much as I am committed to the Palestinian cause, and righting the wrongs perpetrated against them, that is NOT the ultimate priority for OUR President. Yes, $30billion dollars in a lot of money to be sending to Israel. $6Trillion on a destructive and never-ending war is a larger concern to me at the moment. To be very clear, there are OTHER priorities for the US president, than resolving that conflict. So in this case, I am as annoyed by the criticism from Arab and/or other supporters of the Palestinians to OUR presidential candidate, as I am of the influence and interference of Israel.

I believe that the US can and should cooperate with the international community to bring about a resolution to this longest atrocity in the histories of the 20th and 21st Centuries, but I’ll be damned if all of that burden should be shouldered by the US President, or be anything more than a minimal consideration in the priorities that we use to select OUR President.

Now if Obama could have avoided addressing AIPAC –at all- I would have been happier. Since I know perfectly well that such a move (or non-move) would have cost him the election, I’m putting it in the proper politically pragmatic space where it should be, at least for the realities at hand now. But this should still stand as a warning to those of us who WILL vote for a president in November, that it is WE who are voting for what should be the best interests of US, in America. I respect these outside opinions, (from the Palestinians) but the decision is not for them to make, (anymore than our actions should be guided by Israel)  and our own survival is as important as the survival of those in the midst of that conflict.

So, let’s move it along folks, and wait until we get Obama elected, before we start dictating what and how much the US should do in respect to this issue. And yes, once he is elected to the job, then ‘we’ CAN and should dictate this to him, in conjunction with the rest of the International Community.

Today’s tribute to the memory of RFK on democracynow included a question and answer session with college students in 1966 and I was shocked by way Kennedy responded to a question about the war in Vietnam.  It wasn’t his position on the war which interested me as much as the way he spoke.  I had completely forgotten what politicians sounded like back then compared with how they sound now.  Today we get nothing but canned rhetoric indistinguishable from the canned rhetoric of everyone else in Washington.  Kennedy had command of language and he spoke straightforwardly and extemporaneously with ease.  This is unheard of today, but I remember now that Eugene McCarthy spoke the same way and George McGovern did also.  Today politicians are afraid they might say the wrong thing so everything is canned and it is dreadful to listen to.

The vast majority of voters who preferred Mrs. Clinton will figure out that their interests will be better served with a vote for President Obama compared to President McCain, whether he uses just the right language to ask for their support .. or not.  one would hope.

For a politician to give a speech on peace and security in Palestine and Israel without even mentioning the illegal settlements demonstrates a lack of sincerity.  Regardless of the requirements of international law, the U.S. and Israel will remain rogue states no matter which of the two men is elected president.

Aegrus, fortunately you don’t hold the fire-hire authority. No one here actually addresses her thesis except you (you always were a more balance thinker), and you seize on this: Obama won Montana. Don’t know much about Montana, do you? It’s a few BIG ranches and some very liberal enclaves in places like Missoula. Not unlike Iowa, but a lot prettier. Not a particularly working class state, in the lunch-pail sense. Mostly white, though, tht’s true. But then, NOBODY said Obama has trouble attracting white voters, only working-class voters who aren’t of African American descent (many of whom understandably are excited to support Obama).

If you don’t like that fact, ok. But it’s still a fact. And Marie is right, Obama hasn’t done much to show he’s really on their side. I think he is. You think he is. Marie probably thinks he is, too. But unless THEY think he is, it doesn’t matter. That’s all she’s saying. What a traitor!

These aren’t specifically lobbies, but they are reporting the disturbing facts about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. So spread the word. i suggest avoiding terms like “anti-Israel Lobby lobby” because American sensibilities are well trained to bristle at language which sounds anti-jewish. i choose to engage the issue from the angle of: we have a moral responsibility to hold Israel accountable for its actions as we would any other civilized nation.

Amnesty International

Human Rights Watch

Ed Harges, I agree that something has to change. Perhaps a first step would be a national referendum, so the American people can decide whether to continue the military welfare program to the state of Israel. At AIPAC yesterday Senator Obama said: “$30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade - investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation.”
If we are to survive in this country as a responsible republic, such mindless policies have to be stopped.

Purple Girl, at first i thought your moniker was an indication of your bipartisan sympathies, but it has become clear to me that it refers to the color of your outrage! Give ‘em hell Girl.

P.T., I read the transcript of Senator Obama’s AIPAC speech and it was absolutely appalling. For example, he said: “I deeply understood the Zionist idea - that there is always a homeland at the center of our story.”
What story is that? That a second injustice justifies a former injustice? The worst is this: “Those who threaten Israel threaten us.” How can anyone who is supposed to be as intelligent and empathetic as Barack Obama, utter such treasonous words? To risk the security of the American people, and I do mean all of us, by throwing are fate in with that aggressive troublesome, military state, is truly a form of calculated insanity.

The Clintons are very excited at the prospect of Obama campaigning for HIllary’s VP bid. The Obama camp remains quiet as they deliberate whether $20 mil is a fair price to pay for the honor.

...the bald eagle will be replaced by a penguin? We’d look like total wusses, but get mad props for geek sheik. w00t!

Could it be that the paralysis of widespread cynicism is what allows our country to be hijacked by the people you feel so helpless to?

“Why bother? THEY will never let us ____________.”

The truth is you are the creator of the construct you feel so oppressed by. Some of us get out and actually work for change. You’re more than welcome to join us when you grow tired of feeling sorry for yourself.

On his first day as the Democrats’ presumptive nominee, Senator Barack Obama traveled to Washington to address AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Sen. Barack Obama: “Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper, but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized, defensible borders. And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Al Jazeera reports Obama’s comments appalled many Palestinians who see occupied East Jerusalem as part of a future Palestinian state. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said, “This is the worst thing to happen to us since 1967…He has given ammunition to extremists across the region.” Here in this country, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader criticized Obama for not mentioning the humanitarian disaster in Gaza caused by the Israeli blockade. Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri also criticized Obama’s speech.

Sami Abu Zuhri: “These statements assure that there is a total agreement between the two American parties, the Democratic and the Republican, on support for the Israeli occupation at the expense of the rights of Arabs and Palestinian interests. And these statements slash any hope in any change in the American foreign policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict.”

Aegrus, you took the words write out of my mind again on Marie here. I read this late last night, and didn’t even bother commenting, because Marie is a lost cause.

I recognized it ages ago. The irony is that she is one BITTER white woman!

Now let’s hope I’m not banned for saying that, because in all fairness, it is SHE who should be banned!

They are either too Robotic or ignorant to realize their Racist ideology was pushed out 40 yrs ago. Maybe they need a reminder that there is a Party which shares their small minded ideas- neo Con Corp owned Repugs, who love to use your small minds agaisnt you to further their profiteering causes.
As a Dem I am Welcoming those disenfrnachised True Republicans who have been pushed aside by the ‘Religious right’ and “Profiteers’ who infiltrated and Seized their Party decades ago.
Granted we have further ‘tidying’ to do in Our party, but we will do so in the next round of votes.
I for One, Life long Dem, would Love to once again squabble with my formible ‘tightwad’ Foes, My Co patriots for Small Gov’t, My soul mates in Responsible foreign Policy.I reject and abhorr Reverse Sexism as a tool which undermines the Basic Tenent of True Equality for All.- Respect and a seat at the Table is matter of EARNING it while competing on a LEVEL playing Field, It is not Special Priviledges, Treatments or accomadations. Which undermines the entire reality of Equality.
So if You are a Racist, a Hell Bent “open thedoor for me” ‘Feminist’ or a Corporationist lackey Get the Hell Out Of this Democratic party.the Neo Con Reds who support The sociopathic oppressive Religious Extremeist(our version of the Taliban)are the Ones for YOU!
We REAL Dems will Not Give Up OUR party for Your Sick and disgusting agenda!Obama is Not Our Solution- he is Merely OUR first Shot Over Their Bow!

I’ve heard that rumor, but nothing confirming it as accurate as of yet. The ultimate slap in the face to me is that the Clinton camp won’t ask for the vice presidential nomination from Obama, implies they are 100% ready for her to be the VP yet there is no real assertion from Hillary herself she cares at all to be Obama’s Vice. We all know what happens when we listen to Hillary’s campaign surrogates’ disinformation prior to a formal address by Clinton.

Essentially, they want the Barack Obama campaign to offer her the job specifically so she can slap it away indignantly saying, “VP? How dare you belittle me this way! I’m fired up and ready to go! Kiss my ass, Barack Obama!”

The money situation won’t be a problem. They might have squandered forty-million dollars, but Hillary is going to be big business post general election. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have extremely lucrative speaking and book-writing opportunities next year. They’ll make fifty-million in a month.

blueshift, I read a blogger in New York today who said that the office of the President is undergoing a change similar to installing a new operating system on a computer. What the country is trying to do is change the Presidency from a proprietary Windows system, to an open source Linux system. Ubuntu anyone?

Aegrus, the latest is that Senator Clinton will only formally endorse Senator Obama IF they agree to pay off her campaign debts. Marie Cocco is kookoo for Coca puffs.

Marie Cocco has a FOX News Implant in her head. She is a traitor.

Big news, Hillites, Obama won Montana… one of the whitest states in the Union on Tuesday. Working white problem? I don’t think so. The factual inaccuracies people parrot is unbelievable. Cocco should be fired for perpetuating these false claims and gross adherence to spin. Opinionist. Get a blog, Marie. That’s the only place opinion like yours belongs.

America is an alternate world that prizes conversion experiences….and Obama will gain plenty of converts. The conversion process usually involves an ‘altar call’ and Obama will issue them now. He has beaten his opponent without destroying her, and by letting her supporters support her. That over, now he will ask them to join him. And they will in large numbers, except for the rural white Appalachians, who were probably Republicans who hate McCain.

You really have to acknowledge the stones of Senator Clinton. She talks about the 18 million voters like they are her personal bargaining chips at the poker table. Many of the people who supported her could never see how little regard she really has for them. Why else did she bring up ‘hard working white people’? Why else would she bring up the pastor of a church? A church for whine’s sake, with the caveat “you choose which church to attend”. That idiotic slander reveals she does not give a rat’s ass about the separation of church and state, or even simply, the decency of human privacy. She also had the temerity to call Senator Obama an elitist, while she, being a member of the 100 million-dollar-plus set, is not. And now Marie Cocco is dishing out advise for the Obama campaign? This article is a sad caricature of opera. Opera buffo.

you got your fervent wish: the black man won the nomination.

He can’t win the ELECTION, but so what? you at least have a black man who RAN for President.

What I’m wondering is why Hillary isn’t doing a Liebermann and running as an indie . . .she could surely get more votes than Nader ever did or even Perot, and she just MIGHT win the election because as bad as she is, she’s ten million times better than McCain . . . and even stupid people can see that.

My own private feeling is that we won’t be allowed to HAVE an election this year; maybe not for ten or fifteen more when we can have elections like Stalin used to have and Saddam used to have.

She (Hillary) tried to tell you without coming right out with it that no black man would win the Presidency, but you didn’t pay attention, and now you have a nice shiny black candidate who can’t win the election. Congratulations.