quad

Triple

Double

OK 'random X',

Are you serious about what you are writing here: you no longer respect the democracy of this land???

Are you seriously accusing the President of the USA to be running a 'Jihad like' threat against the people of the USA???

Is that really what you think???

Are you then going to follow through with actions consistent with this line of thought???

Let us all know, because if that is the case, YOU represent an official threat to the USA and its head of state, and all Americans, witnesses to this fact, have a duty to report you as a potential threat.

So what is it 'randomX', are you serious??? Or are you just talking 'Rambo tihs'!!!

The ADL?!?!?! Abraham H. Foxman!!!

Are you sure you want to go there!?!?!

The very organization and its 'mainman', whom BILL O'Reilly referred to in the following manner:

'... the Anti-Defamation League an 'extremist group ' and its national director [Abraham "The Claw" Foxman,] a 'nut... '

Now I am not a fan of neither O'Reilly nor Fox, but I have to admit that is a comment with which I agree.

I'll make a deal with you 's1lowhand', regroup and READ enough on B'Tselem and Finkelstein FIRSTHAND, and with an open mind, and come back with your findings.

If you do that, I promise to 'hold fire' on the WELL KNOWN and most public destructive criticism on the 'defamation league' and Mr. Foxman (you read right, defamation league!!!).

Firsthand - open mind, FAIR!!!

NO FAVORED SIDES! That could sum up the objective view taken by Malley, B'Tselem, and Finkelstein.

As for the...

'... let 'em fight it out, and may the best man ... win...',

... I would suggest, in keeping with taking no sides, rewording the '..let 'em fight it out...' with the following variation :

'... let 'em TALK it THROUGH, ... AND MAY THEY BOTH (ALL) WIN!!!...'

HUM!!!

- End of slavery
- Women's voting right
- Civil rights battles

Must all have been BAD BILLS, 'cause they all went through hell before landing!!!

Anyone suggesting today we should...

... take away women's voting rights!?!?!?

... go back to slavery (maybe white slavery for balance!?!?)

... or go back to segregated everything!?!?!?

Real Change is always met with Real Resistance.

Obama promised Real Change, and promising to provide 30 million + people with health coverage is met with Real Resistance!!!

At the end of the day, after all the resistance will have voiced and accounted for (years of fun and excitement), I doubt very much that the enlightening Constitution of the USA would argue against justice and fairness for ALL of the 'WE THE PEOPLE'!!!

That is a complete reversal of what's on record. I can not conceive that you might be suggesting that 'Ross's' account would be unbiased, while Malley's would be biased.

Ross's unilaterally blasts and blames Arafat, while unilaterally glorifying Barak!!!

Obviously you haven't read the Malley/Agha article!!!
(http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380)

If you had read ALL of it, you would have found attribution of faults to the three main participants: US, Israel and Palestine (part 5).

Furthermore, you couldn't possibly be saying this if had read Malley/Agha's reply to 'Gidi Grinstein' account.

No mention of any fault committed by Barak in Ross's account, except for this totally juvenile spin doctor statement:

'... Did Prime Minister Barak make mistakes in his tactics, his negotiating priorities, and his treatment of Arafat? Absolutely. Did the American side make mistakes in its packaging and presentation of ideas? Absolutely. Are Prime Minister Barak and President Clinton responsible for the failure to conclude a deal? Absolutely not...'

Diplomacy 101: theRe is ABSOLUTELY no way in hell, you can make mistakes in tactics, negotiating priorities AND TREATMENT OF PRINCIPAL COUNTER PARTICIPANT,

... AND HAVE 'ABSOLUTELY' NO PART IN THE FAILING OF HIGHLY SENSITIVE PEACE TALKS!!!

In your attempt to reverse the bias on Malley/Agha, you are only intensifying the Ross's ridiculous public relation spinning at blaming Arafat for the failing of the WHOLE PEACE PROCESS!!!

Now, you would have been correct to mention that Malley doesn't lay BLAME on any party for the failing of the talks, contrary to Ross's insisting bias to do so.

If C.D. 2000 taught us anything valuable, it is precisely that we must all move beyond the 'blaming' game, if we are committed to achieving a just peace, perceived as such by both parties.



Well, I'll take at your word, and trust what you say.

In so doing, I invite you to consider the following:

1) read the Malley/Agha's premise and full article, with the open mind I trust you have:

'... In accounts of what happened at the July 2000 Camp David summit and the following months of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, we often hear about Ehud Barak's unprecedented offer and Yasser Arafat's uncompromising no. Israel is said to have made a historic, generous proposal, which the Palestinians, once again seizing the opportunity to miss an opportunity, turned down. In short, the failure to reach a final agreement is attributed, without notable dissent, to Yasser Arafat.

As orthodoxies go, this is a dangerous one. For it has larger ripple effects. Broader conclusions take hold. That there is no peace partner is one. That there is no possible end to the conflict with Arafat is another.

For a process of such complexity, the diagnosis is remarkably shallow. It ignores history, the dynamics of the negotiations, and the relationships among the three parties. In so doing, it fails to capture why what so many viewed as a generous Israeli offer, the Palestinians viewed as neither generous, nor Israeli, nor, indeed, as an offer. Worse, it acts as a harmful constraint on American policy by offering up a single, convenient culprit—Arafat—rather than a more nuanced and realistic analysis...'

(Introduction to their article: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380)

2) Familiarize yourself with the brilliant, rigorous and unbiased
works of B'Tselem: 'The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (http://www.btselem.org/English/ )

It acts as a powerful observer and defender of democracy, human rights and International Law. It is documenting ALL violations against democracy, human rights and International Law, regardless of its originators. NO SPIN IN SITE!!!

3) Finally, I strongly recommend you read Norman G. Finkelstein's account of 'Ross's' spinning work of the C.D. 2000. And while you're there, take time to familiarize tourself with 'Finkelstein's' work. I trust you will be impressed by his intelligence and courage in truly defending the integrity and dignity of the Holocaust. He dedicated his whole life in denouncing the 'fraud, falsification, plagiarism, and nonsense' about the holocaust, done by people of his own camp strictly with the intent of exploiting and profiting from the sacred event.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/finkelstein-on-dennis-rosss-the-missing-peace-the-inside-story-of-the-fight-for-middle-east-peace/
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/finkelstein-on-dennis-rosss-the-missing-peace-the-inside-story-of-the-fight-for-middle-east-peace/

IMHO, this string of neutral observers and objective critics: Malley, B'Tselem, and Finkelstein, serve an open minded process for a Universal solution, as opposed to a self-serving one, regardless of the one that it serves!


Respectfully.

Of course we're still friends!!!

And from one friend to another: let me just say that you truly are all over the place!!!

... not necessarily a bad thing ...

Took good note of your 'warning':

'... No one liner answers here. Better have a good reason you can put here to extole the good Obama has done!!!...'

But reading the paragraph which followed your 'warning', dealing with YOUR 'opinions' on the President, it would appear that for those whom choose to 'BASH' Obama, 'ONE-LINER ANSWERS' and 'NO REASON' at all will do just fine!!!

Enjoy your 'wonderland' ride.

In the meantime, since Obama took office, what the rest of the world uses as economic indicators, ALL POINT UP!!!
(since you don't appear to bother much with back-up info, I didn't think it necessary to post any myself).
But the indicators are there for everyone to confirm the 'springing back' from the bottom of the 'Bush' barrel.

To name a few relevant areas of progress:

Avoided a predicted depression, AND out of recession (GNP upward since Bush)

Deficit growth slowed drastically (since Bush)

Debt growth slowed drastically (since Bush)

Employment trends reversed (coming down vs climbing, since Bush)

As for your comment of Obama's 'lack of grasp of International Politics' goes, where have you been?!?!?! The international community sure doesn't agree with you. Maybe you meant Bush!?!?! It sure applied to him. But you have not to worry about that, Bush is no longer in office.

If you're not happy with the rate of progress, that's one thing.

To be oblivious to the progress that has been achieved in such a short period of time, is nothing short of pathetic. We're not back dancing on rooftops yet, and there is still hard work ahead, but we are out the 'dark hole', and that is definitely PROGRESS!!!

Fox will never 'spin' enough BS, to 'outfox' the NUMBERS.

'... It's the numbers stupid!!!...' to paraphrase a 'Clintonian' era piece of wisdom!!! And the numbers do not agree with your beliefs and convictions!!!

Two could play this misleading game of 'out-of-context' quotes, though I as a rule, I choose to refrain from it. Malley reports reports what was said without filters.

If you enjoy picking from the buffet, only that which you like, don't come with your 'editorial spins' expecting to be taken seriously. Heck , Ross is still spinning the 9 year old story today. That is a serious biased agenda. Imagine, He too would have been quoted in history books as Savior Clinton's right hand man!!!

I twice provided the link to the Malley/Agha article. For anyone in good faith, the important differences in accounts and conclusions of the event, between Ross's and Malley/Agha do not require your's or Ross's, or anyone else bias editorial spinning. It generously stands on its own merit.

I said that the Malley/Agha's view was nuanced where Ross's isn't. I also said that the Malley/Agha perspective point to a solution, which helps orient today's talks, whereas the Ross account simple isolated a culprit of the C.D. 2000 talks.

We can all learn something from the progress and failures listed in Malley/Agha's account to build peace today, unlike Ross's account, which simply would have us all believe that it was useless to deal with Arafat.
Well, god or Allah bless his soul, Arafat is no longer with us. Ross's biased account was irrelevant then, and is 'dead' today.

The Malley/Agha's account on the other hand is still very much, in its nuanced wisdom, very pertinent in understanding the far right abortion tactic of the current aborted round of 'Mitchell' talks, which were planned to take place this week.

Now, I said that I clearly didn't expect you would agree with the more nuanced and objective Malley/Agha account and conclusion. But this exchange doesn't only concern you 's1owhand'!!!

Let the unbiased read the Malley/Agha and Ross articles, and let the verdict fall.

The whole free world has spoken against Israel's handful of hardliners (Not Israel as whole, just their far right fundamentalist hardliners).
I have a feeling unbiased posters here would end up reflecting the same overwhelming proportion of people finding that there is
'... quite a bit of sand in the hardliners gears...'

Again 's1owhand', I am definitely not trying to sway you. I am very clear you have your personal view on this matter,

... and that you ABSOLUTELY agree with yourself!!! :)

'thomas',

Look up hypocrisy and divisiveness in the old Webster, in a christ-like perspective.

Then read the comments you have posted above.

In my view, they are a perfect example of 'pseudo-christian-fundamentalist-radical-conflict-seekers': the perfect manifestation of the ...

... 'I am absolutely right (I have MY god on my side), and you're absolutely wrong ('cause you don't agree with ME and MY god)!!!'

If you still don't get it, ... don't bother replying. There would be nothing I, or anyone else could add to address such state of absolutism.

You seem to unable to take into account that there are other versions of the C.D. 2000 and TABA rounds than that of your friend Ross.

Ross & Malley were part of the same negotiating team for the US. Their accounts of the situation io general and their conclusions in particular, are drastically different.

Ross concludes with little nuance, '...It's all Arafat's fault!!!...'

... while Malley, provides a much more nuanced account, concluding that the preparation leading up to C.D. 2000 and the talks themselves, were a comedy of errors on all sides.

Clinton's ego, on the eve of leaving office, just wanted an agreement such that history would remember HIM as the 'savior' who came to Jerusalem!!!

Barak too was at the end of his term, and was presssured by his buddy Clinton to make an offer, ... any offer!!! to Arafat.

Well, Barak not wanting to let his buddy down, made a unofficial 'ridiculous offer', cantons, checkpoints, fragmented territories, and and an Israel sovereign Palestinian Capital!!!

Arafat in the meantime, was never in the loop. True he didn't counter offer. As anyone with a brain whom hasn't been included in pre-negotiation; wasn't made privy to what was going to be served, knows better than to irresponsibly jump into hasty counter proposals.

If Arafat made a mistake, it was to present himself to what was is referred to as a negotiating trap!!! Elementary Watson.

I don't expect you 's1owhand', to agree to any of Malley's account. You're bias position is much too conveniently served by Ross's.

Beyond Ross's, Malley's, 's1owhand' and 'voileazur's opinions ans positions on the matter, it remains to be acknowledged, that two US negotiators prepare, attend and comment on exactly the same events, with radically different views.

Moreover, the free world agrees with the Malley acount: enough with the under the table games, and let's settle this once and for all, in a fair, cards on the table manner!!!

By the way, 9 years later, Ross, in his latest book, claims that the Israelo-Palestinian crisis is no longer the most pressing issue facing that part of the world, that it is rather the Iranian crisis to which we should all pay attention!?!?!?

If Ross's bias isn't clear to you 's1lowhand', it is clear to the rest of the world. And that is the encouraging light at the end of the tunnel.

P.S.1:
For anyone interested in a US made, different angle on this discussion, do take the time to read the following article on the Malley account of the C.D. 2000.

P.S.2:
Excessive use of 'laughing emoticons' are an obvious metaphor for 'excessive sweat under the armpits' 's1lowhand'!!!
Maybe you are only interested in your position on this question, and of course, we are all entitled to that.
But a question remains:

'... isn't your position, and that shared by Israel's far right, the exact element that is in the way of any possible peace in this conflict!?!?! ...'

It is wisely said that true peace can only become possible when both sides stop making one another wrong!!!

isaac_dede,

I am impressed and humbled by your authenticity and transparency.

I was tempted to reply to 'thomas's post, but after reading the manner in which you addressed it, I was wordless. That's an event in itself!

And if msharmony is reading this, we can tie this very interesting thread of 'isaac_dede' to the exchange we were having earlier about 'sane' christians needing to take on the restoring of christianity's integrity by standing up with compassion, love and intelligence, as 'isaac_dede' is showing here, to the conscious and unconscious hypocrisy of some, which has dislodged the essence and focus of a 'Christ-like' inspired life!


Hat's off to you 'Isaac-dede'!

I will be sincere with you msharmony, and suggest that you know exactly what is hypocritical in the 'pseudo-christian' discourse.

Look for the different forms these 'pseudo-christian-fundamentalists' 'wars' will take in forcing 'change' on everything that isn't in 'their image' of what's right!!! That is divisiveness, and ...

... DIVISIVENESS IS ALWAYS HYPOCRITICAL. IT IS NEVER CHRIST LIKE!!!

... from one whom doesn't necessarily share your beliefs, but agrees that whatever defines Jesus Christ, HYPOCRISY and DIVISIVENESS were never attributes of his reported character and ingrained values!!!

Again folks, it is christian fundamentalism, an all other forms of religious 'fundamentalisms', that is at the heart of all evil; the 'we're absolutely right, an you're absolutely wrong' attitude of fundamentalists.

The MSharmony(S) of the christian world will never be a problem or a threat to anyone. You msharmony, and christians like you, give christianity a good name.

But while your group of christians might represent a majority, the fundamentalists, the most vocal and 'loud' fringe of 'pseudo-christians', are doing all the damage and leaving christianity looking like the most closed-minded, backwards, and divisive institution known to man.

Until the majority of sane christians realize this, and work systematically to restore integrity to their institution by denouncing the fundamentalists and destructive ways, christianity will remain perceived as the hypocritical evil bully of the planetary back yard!

Your comments are most subjective and unilaterally defend a failing minority position carried by far right Isreali fundamentalists, and defended by 'Bibi' in the Knesset, whom will never accept any compromise such as the 'two-state solution' which is now the only 'good faith' attitude, for any possible peace talks in town!!!

Free world allies , including the USA and Canada, along with B'Tselem: 'The Israeli information center for human rights in the occupied territories', and a majority of Israelis, denounce this dogmatic position held by the dogmatic far right, and which you express in your posts.

Without saying so honestly, a far right fringe of the Israeli camp, is dead set against a two-state solution, which comprises an Israeli Jerusalem, and a Palestinian Jerusalem, among other fundamental factors, and is doing everything it can to undermine and derail any talks which carries at its core, a two-state solution.

This latest 'surprise announce' of Jerusalem settlements expansion, is nothing other than a premeditated act, and a serious 'bad faith' move on the part of the annoying far right camp.

It succeeded AGAIN, in derailing planned peace talks, which George Mitchell, the President's special envoy, had been planning for months.

This 'territory expansion announcement' tactic from the far right Israeli camp is the farthest thing from surprising, as Nathanyaou allegedly claimed (didn't know!!! is a blatant lie!). It is has been a trademark signature of the Israel's far right for the past two decades.

The hypocritical 'coup' has been perpetrated to Secretary of State Jim Baker, under Bush sr, Madeleine Albright, under Bill Clinton, and again under Condoleeza rice, under Bush son, coincidentally occurring on the eve of resuming peace talks every single time.

Much like the christian fundamentalist fringe is representing a serious liability to the GOP in particular, and the USA as a whole, the fundamentalist (uncompromising) far right and dogmatic minority in Israel has most definitely become a serious liability to Israel as whole.

It's high time that the Knesset realize that the USA, and a 'two-state' nation peace agreement, are far more important to the safe and prosperous future of Israeli people, than the religiously dogmatic and delusional positions of its far right fringes.




'frivolous'!!! The far right fringe is most dishonestly toying with the most sensitive settlement, at the heart of any possible peace agreement.

'... The Israelis are not colonizing the West Bank and Gaza...', they're doing far worse than that, THEY'RE COLONIZING THE PROPOSED SECTION OF PALESTINIAN JERUSALEM, AT THE CORE OF A TWO-STATE PEACE SOLUTION !!!



The above paragraph is totally unfounded. As we stand, and for the past couple decades, it is the Israeli government (through its far right fringes) whom have clearly demonstrated their refusal to 'negotiate'!!!

As long as Nathanyaou or any other leading coalition of the Knesset, keep supporting the religiously dogmatic and delusional positions of its far right fringes, it is Israel as whole that is persistently showing bad faith by derailing and refusing to come back to a 'two-state' peace talk process.

The answers from a well conducted survey, are exactly that: 'answers from a well conducted survey'.

But there is a reality gap between 'saying what one might do, given 'xyz'' (first degree threat), and 'actually DOING IT!' (acting on threat).

That being said, 29% of doctors are pissed ever since they've heard from their 'pharma' and 'Big Ins. Co.' that their bonuses would be drastically reduced should the reform go through!!!

Now, in the event that they carried out their 'spoiled rotten' threat, it would in itself, accomplish a significant restructuring of the health care system right there.

Those 'greedy' health practitioners, motivated only by obscene revenue, would make room within weeks, for 'vocation' driven health practitioners, whom would still be earning stellar incomes when compared to the average 'Jack'; incomes they fully deserve.

So will they leave??? ... cannot be treated as fact in any way shape or form so far, and matters little in the long run.

The only fact which this article delivers, is that hours or days from passing the health reform legislation, the 'fat cats' whom stand to get trimmed from the process, are raising the 'fear mongering noise' to 'stellar' levels!!!

To be expected!!!

The heading of this thread is misspelled...

... it should read 'FEAR check', not fact check!

... and, the bill being on its final straight, the most 'powerful lobbies' around are sparing no expense in
... spreading fear,
... spreading fantasies,
... smearing intelligent people,
all of it ON HYPER DRIVE, in a last ditch attempt to maintain their fiefdom!!!