Guardian

Debunking the the Palestinian/Guardian narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict (Video)


H/T Chana

35 replies »

  1. Obama’s position has never differed from that of President Clinton, so where does this strange “obama must be in league with abass” come from?

    Is this another surreptitious “obama = muslim” campaign? Simply because he isnt white like other US presidents?

        • Only if you believe that the authorities have adopted this line and individuals are being burned at the stake or ethnically cleansed. Such analogies are just as offensive as the one that compares Jews and Nazis. The evil that is inherent in European society didn’t just begin with the Holocaust. The irony of this is that invariably it is the individuals who make such analogies who themselves are guilty of that which they complain about.

          • Ridiculous and supremely dishonest. You know full well I was merely making a reference to the no-win situation when it came to questioning.

            I was not making an analogy to the actual situations.

            But you and your idiotic supporters know that.

        • Actually Obama said that he never heard Rev. Wright preach anti-American sermons over his 20 year relationship with Rev. Wright.

          Obama supposedly never heard it while in the pews, never heard about it from his wife, or from fellow parishoners, or from the church newsletter.

          Either Obama is deaf, dumb, or he’s lying.

      • johnnywood-Texas,

        “I call Obama a muslim because I believe he is.”

        It isn’t easy to be a crypto-Muslim. A Jew is a Jew even if he doesn’t practice his religion, but a Muslim must at the very least live accord to the Five Pillars of Islam, among which is prayer. So far, pictures of Mao have been found in Obama’s White House, but no prayer rugs.

        Which makes for my general point about Obama’s ideological affiliation: There’s no need to attribute to being a Muslim what can be explained as standard Marxist sympathy toward Islam, the type you can find at any true-red neo-Communist website such as CounterPunch or Common Dreams. I believe Obama is a Marxist—certainly his economic policies are solid evidence of that. And that is sufficient to explain his anti-Israel position and actions as well. As concerns Israel, the Marxists and the Muslims are on the same anti-Zionist side.

        • I agree that he is a Marxist but he at the very least holds strong Islamic leanings even though he does not “pray five times a day” like a practicing Muslin is ordered to do. He says he is a Christian but he mocks the Bible and Christianity while speaking reverently of the “Holy Koran”.No Christian would do that.

          • “…but he at the very least holds strong Islamic leanings…”

            A sympathizer with Islam, in other words. No shortage of that in Progressivist circles (“Progressive” = Marxist by another name). Even among those of them who are outspoken in denouncing religion as “the opiate of the masses,” you find inordinate sympathy for that most unreformed of religions. That is because they recognize, beyond Islam’s religious content, its political program, a political plan in which, among other things, the bitterest enemy is the exact same as Marxism had tried in vain to fell when the U.S.S.R. still existed: The hated West.

            For Obama to view Islam admiringly as a movement of “resistance against Western colonialism” (one branch of which, according to the Marxist narrative, is Zionism) is as natural as it would be for Ward Churchill or Noam Chomsky. I see no reason to assume he’s a Muslim; it’s bad enough that the American electorate was duped into voting a Marxist to power, and I hope they never make that mistake again.

            • Well said but I still hold that as he was raised a Muslim and still has sympathy toward that “faith”. He is indeed a strong Marxist and I like you hope the American voters don`t “drink that cool aide” again.

    • If you’re responding to johnnywood, fair enough. But for all the points of disagreement I have with this website, it is hardly running a “campaign” along the lines of Obama = 5th column Muslim.

  2. i didnt even need to wait long to confirm my hunch, johnnywood from Texas helps me out just fine. Obama must be a secret mooslim… that must be the reason why he supports the position of most other democratic presidents before him on the Israeli/palestinian conflict. Surprisingly none of them prior to him were ever viewed as “suspicious” or “imams in chief”.

    the miracles that skin color can achieve.

  3. Just to be clear, the suggestion that Obama is a Muslim is just absurd.

    The video I posted debunks the Palestinian/Guardian narrative on the I-P Conflict, and only mentions Obama in passing. This blog is not concerned with the U.S. political debate and those who wish to advance Israel’s cause do not do so when they engage in gratuitous, morally unserious, swipes at the US President – whatever his faults.

    • those who wish to advance Israel’s cause do not do so when they engage in gratuitous, morally unserious, swipes at the US President

      i.e. a significant proportion of the readership you’re attracting.

    • Sorry, the video you posted makes way more than a “passing mention” of Obama. It actually caricatures him as pro-Abass several times and ends with portraying Obama’s support for pre-1967 borders as somehow “mysterious” even though this was about the same position as Clinton and GW Bush.

      Like i said, the miracles that skin color can achieve.

  4. The video is disingenuous nonsense. It claims that the two-state solution was “rejected” by the “Palestinian leaders” and “Arab states”. By Hamas? Yes. But otherwise?

    And Palestine never included what is now Jordan.

    Pathetically transparent propaganda.

    • A small addition to Hoi Polloi’s debunking of pretzelberg:

      pretzelberg,

      You never cease demonstrating your utter ignorance or (deliberate?) blindness to facts.

      “The video is disingenuous nonsense. It claims that the two-state solution was “rejected” by the “Palestinian leaders” and “Arab states”. By Hamas? Yes. But otherwise?”

      1. Hamas was elected in democratic elections.
      2. The so-called “moderates” (Arafat and Abbas) also rejected a Jewish state (50% of the two-state solution, according to mathematics that even you can’t deny).

      http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2959.htm

      3. “And Palestine never included what is now Jordan”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine

      Now what was that about “disingenuous nonsense”.
      Why don’t you learn some history before you write?

    • No it most definitely isn’t pretzelberg (did you say that for a dare?). I doubt that you could do a better and more disinterested job of explaining the history of the M/E conflict.

      Everything in it can be verified from historical reports, released government documents and other sources, including the MSM which were palplably more honest and ethical then than they are now.

      This is an excellent video which goes a long way towards making very clear the immensely complex history of this conflict, and particularly the nature of the Arab/”Palestinian” intransigence which has made lasting peace impossible hitherto. I believe that the Arabs rely upon ignoramuses in the West, who cannot be bothered to educate themselves fully about the intricacies of the matter before they come to any decision about it. Your reaction has certainly added to the evidence that this is the case and you are one among many.

      Pretzelberg, I am ashamed for you that your historical knowledge is so obviously lacking and that you do the equivalent here of opening your mouth and putting both your feet in it.

    • We Jews are used to such absurd insults. The same arguments were widely employed in Britain during World War II about Jews attempting to spread the news about the Holocaust.

      Trying to smear me with a link to those people?

      How utterly pathetic.

  5. David, just to reiterate.

    a) Obama is not a Muslim. This is simply a fact.

    b) Even if he was, that wouldn’t be any more relevant than if he was Jewish for, as CW continually demonstrates, Jews and non-Jews are both susceptible to pro or anti Zionist/Semitic leanings.

    c) The President’s policies should elicit praise or scorn based on their merits.

    d) Drawing attention to the religious tradition of Obama’s father, for instance, is a classic ad hominem attack.

    e) his “skin color” has no bearing on anything he does or doesn’t do.

    The video was posted because it quite clearly illustrates in my view, as well as a short video can, the true history of the Israeli-Palestinian (and Israeli-Arab) Conflict.

    Making the discussion about Obama distracts from the video’s broader message.

    • “Making the discussion about Obama distracts from the video’s broader message.”

      You might as well have a discussion with someone who believes that 9/11 was carried out by the U.S. government. Remove such absurd and offensive posts and stop allowing your blog to be hijacked by enemies of the Jewish people and state. In other words, by those who will exploit such mad posts to carry out their own particular anti-Zionist agenda.

      Having said all that, I see little difference between Obama worshipping at the the feet of a profound anti-Semite for many years and another candidate’s membership of the KKK. What would have been unforgivable in another candidate was almost instantly forgiven and forgotten in Obama’s case. I find it stunning that the Jewish community voted for him in such huge numbers. You would have thought they would have learned a lesson or two by now about the anti-Semitic FDR but obviously not. I expect such mistakes are easy to make when you don’t actually have to do the dying. “Shame” should be the epitaph of the generation of American Jews who supported FDR. Exactly the same epitaph should be placed on the tombstone of this generation of American Jews.

  6. Very good, except that Olmert didn’t give Abbas a map to take away (the rest is pretty much true, though; although he was a lame duck too, by then).

  7. Conchovor Olmert gave several versions of what happened to the map in several different interviews. His first version was that Abbas said he wanted to show the map to his cartographer and walked off with it, never to return, in others he said that Abbas scribbled down a version of the map. Some versions say that there were several maps.

    The accepted version is the first one, but we can all believe what sounds right to us, it makes very little difference. There is no peace.

      • I listened to Tariq Ramadan a couple of days ago in an IQ2-debate. He insists conversations must be deep, deeper, deepest.

        Therefore I guess the Merchant of Venice would be too obvious.

        The “nicest” thing about the piece is how la Sherwood spins the apparently almost complete inattentiveness into a positive event.

  8. It’s pure partisan politics to characterize Obama as “anti-Israeli” for articulating a vision of a two-state peace that is in most respects identical to those peace-deals offered by both Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert and supported by Clinton.

    And that’s even going by the facts as presented in this video.