"This idea of two states for two peoples is a stupid and childish solution to a very complex problem."

So, one state solution it is.

I think the phrase "careful what you wish for" has some applicability here.

Posted by: PeakVT | May 21 2009 16:39 utc | 1

The clouds of conflict are gathering. Claims of destructive weapons, as if common weapons were not destructive, claims that priests or other members of the Catholic church used boys for their sexual recreation. Do you remember that this claims surfaced just before the attack on Iraq? The pope has just been in the Near East and preached peace and reconciliation, so now his flock is attacked so as to remove any conceivable shred of prestige that might remain there. Just before the attack on Iraq Law the Boston archbishop had complained about the harassment of Christians in Bethlehem that forced them to migrate and sure enough his office in Boston was destroyed. These are points that I wish to connect, if someone does not want to connect them that guy is free not to. I suspect there is some secret archive where all sort of rumors and truths are collected and at the appropriate time they are released. Slander is a little wind that grows and grows and becomes a cannon blast. That is from the Barber of Seville but it is in Virgil also. The storm is gathering. Will the USA be completely powerless? We shall see unless we be dead.

Posted by: jlcg | May 21 2009 16:41 utc | 2

"This idea of two states for two peoples is a stupid and childish solution to a very complex problem." ~B. Netanyahu.

In my naïvety, I'd always thought that: This idea of two states for two peoples is a simple solution to a very stupid and childish problem.

Unfortunately, I can understand the resistance to this, since a formally recognized state for the Palestinians would mean formally recognized rights... and this would elevate what was formerly a weekend hobby of indiscriminate slaughtering of the dispossessed into international acts of aggression. It's childish and stupid to insist that there be actual real-world consequences for anything.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 21 2009 16:48 utc | 3

Sorry, re-reading the OP, I attributed the quotation to Netanyahu himself. It was actually, apparently, unnamed plural senior members of his staff who said that. Not sure how they all made an offhand observation so identical that it can be put into quotation marks, nor why they don't deserve to be named when quoted, but I am no journalist.

Posted by: Monolycus | May 21 2009 16:52 utc | 4

@jclg -claims that priests or other members of the Catholic church used boys for their sexual recreation. Do you remember that this claims surfaced just before the attack on Iraq

1. For their "sexual recreation" is certainly the wrong expression for sadistic child-abuse.

2. http://dartcenter.org/content/abuse-in-catholic-church
It had nothing to do with Iraq. Those claims are older. The first lawsuits in the U.S. were filed in March 2001. The issue received national publicity when the Boston Globe picked it up.

From a Boston Globe reporter:

/quote/
Dart Center: How did you approach speaking with victims of sexual abuse in these cases?

Boston Globe: In the majority of cases, victims approached us. To explain: We began researching this issue in August 2001, and we published our first story — actually, package of stories — on the topic on January 6, 2002, followed by another package on January 7, 2002. A slew of follow-up stories came after that, as did another package of stories on January 31, 2002.

With each of those stories, and with many of the nearly 900 stories on clergy sex abuse that have since been published in the Globe, we included what we call our "tip box," which lists two phones numbers (one to reach a live reporter, one to leave a recorded confidential message) and an email address so readers could get in touch with us to offer information and comments. The message in the box was short and simple: "The Boston Globe Spotlight Team would like to hear from readers about this issue."
/endquote/

Posted by: b | May 21 2009 17:08 utc | 5

B I don't know that they were children, they may have been adolescents. Recreation is the correct word or do you think they were torturing themselves? The dates of release of this information is irrelevant to my case because the desire of atacking Iraq was much older that 9/11. Do you recall the meeting of oilmen in March of 2001. What did they discuss there? That has never been revealed.
There are secrets that are never revealed, do you remember the Korean airliner event and the erased tapes? One has to be extraordinarily candorous not to see the network of apparently random events that constitute a well thought out plan.

Posted by: jlcg | May 21 2009 17:26 utc | 6

Lieberman working on
final solution to Palestine "issue":

'Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Thursday that Israel and the United States see eye-to-eye on a final resolution to the Palestinian issue, and that "the argument is about how to get there."'

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087194.html

...the argument is "how to get there"....ya, I bet.

Posted by: mattes | May 21 2009 18:26 utc | 7

Bibi and his backers accusing the O team of being stupid and childish is nothing more than a case of the pot calling the kettle black...

Though I won't go so far as to say that the two-state solution is stupid and childish, I will say that it's pretty unrealistic, simply because the Israelis have stolen so much land from the Palestinians that they've been reduced to living like sardines packed tight in a tin can. So about the only way for the two-state solution to work is for Israel to return to its 1967 borders, thus providing the Palestinians with the necessary breathing room to once again live as free people.

Posted by: Cynthia | May 21 2009 19:17 utc | 8

@jlcg - I don't know that they were children, they may have been adolescents

It is no fucking difference between being 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15 if a 50 year old man violently and against your will fucks your ass.

Recreation is the correct word or do you think they were torturing themselves?

No, they were torturing the children. That is why the use of "recreational" is absurd. Of course it might be "recreational" for a sadists to see others bleed.

The pedophiles in the catholic church hierarchy are not something that came up because the U.S. wanted to invade Iraq. It being published had nothing to do with war on Iraq. The church never had much trouble with slaughtering Muslims. The pedophile and abuse allegations are much older and had been picked up in other countries as well as in the US much earlier than 2000. To now construct a conspiracy over the Iraq war to defend a church that never had qualms with pedophiles in its hierarchy is lunatic.

You may want to read what the Irish found out and published these days about the oh so holy church

http://www.childabusecommission.ie/

Systematic abuse since at least the 1930s.

Posted by: b | May 21 2009 19:32 utc | 9

B you are a fanatic, your fanaticism obtains satisfaction by finding fault with the USA or Israel or the Catholic church. I grant to them every defect and every sin but I include you among all the people that are sinners, you are no exception, actually you drip hatred for the USA. Your selection of links shows it. I try to use words in a value free way, not dousing them with outraged feelings.

Posted by: jlcg | May 21 2009 20:00 utc | 10

@jlcg - I have been a fan of the U.S. as long as I remember. That started as an American Boy Scout at the age of 11, I have more U.S. friends than non-German European ones, I have visited some 22 of the 50 states, I worked several years for big U.S. companies in higher management positions. So I am anti-American?

I would have no problem with Israel if it would not behave as bad as it does. I am not even on the Palestinian side of the issue. I would never demand for Jews to leave Israel. I just want Israel to behave within the norms of normal states.

I have no problem with the catholic church (or any other religious institutions) if it were not for the bigotry such always seem to have.

I do have problems with people who think that fucking a young boys asshole against that boys will is "recreational". What exactly does that re-create?

Posted by: b | May 21 2009 20:31 utc | 11

Let's lighten up, people need to be diverted with circuses about non-existant or ersatz 'terrorists'.

A Recipe For Terror: (pain d'jour)

1/ Take a handful of poor unwhite blokes who have never had a good look in at the 'merikan dream'.
2/ Add a pinch of prison pop psychology leavened with "The Dummies guide to Islam"
3/ Stir in make believe explosive using an an unprincipled agent provacateur
5/ Take the resulting fluff and lay out in the middle of a pattern of red concentric circles.
6/ Then beat up the fluffy mixture into a successful operation against a major terrorist attack.
7/ Enjoyable with friends around a TV.

Posted by: Debs is dead | May 21 2009 21:26 utc | 12

"...like sardines packed tight in a tin can."

...cockroaches in a bottle according to R. Eytan.

Posted by: dh | May 21 2009 21:32 utc | 13

And the Moon of Alabama entry in the General Self Contradiction section of the May "Moore's Paradox of the Month" contest goes to jclg for
"I try to use words in a value free way, not dousing them with outraged feelings."

Posted by: A Reader | May 21 2009 22:57 utc | 14

Speaking of the Catholic Church, after stumbling upon this news headline: "Obama Calls for 'Common Ground' on Abortion at Notre Dame", I can't help but think that O is gonna pander to the pro-lifers, just as he did to a whole slew of right wingers -- from the the gun-nutters, to the warmongers, to the pro-police-staters, all the way to the ones who've been astro-turfed into believing that O is out to soak the rich. So when O gets through throwing those on the Left a pro-choice bone, don't be too shocked to see that he's thrown them all under the bus, while the Right stands by, squealing with glee.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/16/obama.notre.dame/

Posted by: Cynthia | May 21 2009 23:43 utc | 15

It's now legal for R2L'rs to carry their semi-automatic guns into National Parks, so don't wear tie-dye shirts, you're just creating a convenient bullseye, and for G-d's sakes, cut out recreational fucking a young chicos' asshole against that chicos' will!
I mean, come on, we're all getting royally butt-fucked out of our entire life savings!
Everything else is like dropping your icecream cone on the ferris wheel. Toto por nada!

Posted by: Larry Ellison | May 22 2009 0:00 utc | 16

I've thought for some years MoA was a COIN operation of US:DE that took over the original Whiskey Bar and seamlessly drew away the leftist commentators it now has full database information on, except for those posts anonymously from blind boxes.

--

SOS!

Pravda: Russia Dumps US Dollar

The US dollar is not Russia’s basic reserve currency anymore. The euro-based share of reserve assets of Russia’s Central Bank increased to the level of 47.5 percent as of January 1, 2009 and exceeded the investments in dollar assets, which made up 41.5 percent, The Vedomosti newspaper wrote.

The dollar has thus lost the status of the basic reserve currency for the Russian Central Bank, the annual report, which the bank provided to the State Duma, said.

http://english.pravda.ru/business/finance/19-05-2009/107581-dollar_russia-0

This is devastating for the Dollar, in light of this news earlier in the week:

Brazil, China Sign Oil Deal, Call for Shift away from US Dollar

http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridgesweekly/46968/

--

You may now return to your 'cockroaches in a bottle fucking chicos' assholes'...

Posted by: Tante Aime | May 22 2009 0:22 utc | 17

jlcg wins troll d'jour!

ban him

ban him

ban him

ban him

ban him

Posted by: peanut gallery | May 22 2009 0:51 utc | 18

b-

Looks like a lot of heat in the kitchen today... There seems to be a lot of angry drunks that are focusing their outrage at the poor bartender. He's just serving up the drinks – don't shoot the messenger, get pissed at the people who have created all these messes.

Is b guilty for raping any young men? I doubt it; but we know from testimony that members of clergy have... torturers have, and some have done even worse (and there is worse).

Has b invaded any other country? Has he lied under oath to the united state's public? All b has done is provide a place where people who might give a shit about these injustices can come and debate them.

b is neither god or satan... he is just providing a place to exchange information... that we may at times take exception to his post and find something in one that outrages us, says far more about us individually than it does about b.

This is unless b is really god or satan or an elder of zion ;0 ... then he can read our thoughts and he's doing all this just to mess with our heads :)

Posted by: DavidS | May 22 2009 1:42 utc | 19

okay, i admit that more than three months of moderate sleep deprivation is starting to take its toll on me (i stood for several minutes just staring at the dancing patterns on the woven wood blinds the other daze as they changed shapes & colors) but damn if this thread ain't one of the most bizarre things i've read at MoA. the typepad problems yesterday, which made it feel like we were sitting around in the dark only using candles, was weird enough, but now it seems we're blazing into new territories.

Posted by: b real | May 22 2009 3:51 utc | 20

Cabin fever?

Posted by: DavidS | May 22 2009 4:16 utc | 21

off spring

Posted by: b real | May 22 2009 4:37 utc | 22

jclg, Congresswoman Jane Harman THIS MONTH called for the military disruption and partitioning of Iran along ethnic lines. She made this speech to an AIPAC audience that gave her rousing applause. The audience included many U.S. politicans, including Congresspeople and Senators.

Harman is one of the many U.S. traitors (I've defined this in another thread as being someone who places Israel's interests before America's) who is licking her chops in anticipation of all the Shekels that will be available for her re-election campaign.

How can anyone with half a conscience NOT be 'anti-American'? Search yours, exorcise your Neocon-Zionist ghosts and sign the petition. Salvation is yours:

http://www.petitiononline.com/iran200/petition.html

Jane Harman calls for the military Balkanization of Iran

Posted by: Parviz | May 22 2009 5:03 utc | 23

yep, lots of strange activity. how long ago does january 20th feel right now?

right now: swine flu lull, economic crisis lull, pakistan on the precipice, israel outed left and right and nothing ever happens. no sayonara gitmo, tribunals will resume, photos suppressed, phones still tapped, cheney gone berserker, drones killing babies, obama giving a commencement speech about aborting babies, which catholic priests oppose because they want to eventually fuck those babies when they plump up a bit.

strange shit.

and that probably not gay good old boy red state singer beat that make-up wearing sexually ambiguous though probably gay blue state singer for the crown of american IDOL.

now would be the perfect time for aliens, or a dirty bomb false flag terrorist strike.

i'd ask for another round, but i'm a little nervous what might happen...

Posted by: Lizard | May 22 2009 5:05 utc | 24

Once again, b's analysis proves prophetic:

Iran has offered the U.S. a transit corridor, and the U.S. is seriously considering it.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't -- while this bodes well for the U.S. in the short term, as its currency further erodes internationally it will prove, in the long term, to be only a holding action. China and Persia are destined to develop further ties.

Posted by: china_hand2 | May 22 2009 5:09 utc | 25

Lizard- "...which catholic priests oppose because they want to eventually fuck those babies when they plump up a bit."

The whole rant was sweet.. but that line, oh that line, makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

And Jan 20, 2009 might as well have been Jan 20, 2004...

Posted by: DavidS | May 22 2009 5:10 utc | 26

How can anyone with half a conscience NOT be 'anti-American'?

How can anyone with half a conscience uncritically support Obama's economic policy?

Search yours, exorcise your Neocon-Zionist ghosts and sign the petition.

Search yours, exorcise your casino-capitalist apologetics

Posted by: Lizard | May 22 2009 5:47 utc | 27

"How can anyone with half a conscience uncritically support Obama's economic policy?"

Who said anything about 'uncritically'? I was condemning not those who criticize but those who, like you, criticize without offering any alternatives, but you clearly wouldn't understand the distinction.

"exorcise your casino-capitalist apologetics"

Offering concrete proposals is not the same as 'apologizing' for Capitalism. If anyone should do any apologizing it should be your forefathers who created this Capitalist mess to begin with, a mess of such magnitude that there's nothing left for the reptiles and lizards to do but criticize. I'm still waiting for one, single, half-assed intelligent proposal from you, not what Obama SHOULDN'T do but what he SHOULD do and how the U.S. tax-payer and future generations of Americans are going to pay for it.

Come on, give me just one single half-assed proposal.

Posted by: Parviz | May 22 2009 7:41 utc | 28

jlcg @ 6:

Do you recall the meeting of oilmen in March of 2001. What did they discuss there? That has never been revealed.

Not true. I suggest you visit the Memory Hole, an indespensible source of information.

Parviz @ 28:

I was condemning not those who criticize but those who, like you, criticize without offering any alternatives, but you clearly wouldn't understand the distinction.

That's bullshit he did offer alternatives mainly bailing out the working public not Wall Street. What are you offering besides praise for Obama's continuation of Bush's policy and fearmongering if Lizard doesn't support them. This mess was caused by deregulation that created a gigantic credit bubble that was itself was leveraged behind obscure products wherein nobody knows what the real value is creating massive mistrust and a paralyzed market. A Judge stopped a forclosure because the bank couldn't even produce the paperwork showing who actually owned the mortgage because it had been securitized, bundled, tranched, chopped and passed off to suckers all over the World for lucrative fees. Obama is using taxpayer money to pay bonuses to the creators of this mess and insurance claims to foreign banks. This calls for regulation not propping up the scheme with state welfare.

The post:

Why is there no outrage

Because the public has seen this movie before. it's the smae old tune like a broken record. America offers the platitudes to the public and continues to finance and arm Israel. Every administration does it even Bush promised a Palestinian State by 2005 and another one before he left office. The only time the ME saw any peace actually made was under Carter and that was under the pressure of an oil crisis.

Posted by: Sam | May 22 2009 11:38 utc | 29

Let me rephrase this: Obama, Biden, Clinton are stooges, phony and two-faced.

The U.S. to Raise Military Aid to Israel

Despite expectations that the Obama administration will pressure Israel to accept a two-state solution and implement practical measures, the U.S. administration has sent signals that aid to Israel will, in fact, be raised. At the same time, the budget also imposes harsh conditions on the Palestinian Authority in order to receive aid.

According to the Israeli daily, Haaretz, the budget proposed to Congress for 2010 includes $2.775 billion in aid to Israel, compared to $2.5 billon budgeted for 2009. This is more than a 10% increase in total U.S. aid to Israel.

[…] The U.S. budget proposed to congress for year 2010 also calls for the administration to respect Israel’s claims on Jerusalem. This contradicts international law, which does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over the occupied territories of East Jerusalem. It also contradicts the Oslo Agreements, which defines all of Jerusalem as a territory to be discussed during the final stages of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

The proposed budget prohibits the establishment of new U.S. offices, departments, or agencies in East Jerusalem for conducting official government business with the Palestinian Authority. Moreover, the proposed budget stipulates that U.S .officers should not meet representatives of the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem, including its occupied areas.

All assistance to the Palestinian Authority is left to the discretion of the U.S. Secretary of State (currently Hillary Clinton), who is empowered to determine and certify to Congress that the PA recognizes Israel, is prepared to fight terrorism, and is ready to end the state of war with Israel.
Finally, the budget imposes a boycott on the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, prohibiting any form of assistance to this institution.

No conditions regarding developments on the peace process or recognition of an independent Palestinian State were imposed on Israel.

Obama – Yes I can’t.

Posted by: Juan Moment | May 22 2009 11:40 utc | 30

parviz, you have a nice set up going. first you demand that critics offer alternatives, and when we do (see past discussions) you chastise us for being impractical. i'm not playing your game. alternatives exist, you just lack the imagination to envision what a different future might look like.

i'd like to hear more about how the founders created capitalism, though. sounds like an interesting fairytale.

Posted by: Lizard | May 22 2009 13:01 utc | 31

Sam:

"That's bullshit he did offer alternatives mainly bailing out the working public not Wall Street."

If you call "a plan" printing $ 10 trillion and giving it to all home mortgage owners, all credit card owners and all laid-off workers, and then closing every bank and insurance company that's in trouble, thereby tripling unemployment and requiring another $ 10 trillion to keep them temporarily liquid, then I feel sorry for you.

A pity Father Christmas isn't here to implement your 'plan'.

Posted by: Parviz | May 22 2009 14:08 utc | 32

Parviz-

From my little ignorant corner of the federation, I'd have to say all finance is a fairy tale... regardless of its existing on Wall Street or just in the imagination of a few here at MoA.

There is gonna be pain before we're gonna feel any pleasure, it's just a question of who is gonna feel the pain the worse?

Bailing out banks that then paid bonuses to their employees is about as stupid as stupid gets. The autoworkers gotta take it in the ass, but if you're a white collar wall street playa' then the sky is the limit.

I know it's a crazy fantasy, but I would have like to have seen what the economy would look like if the fed gave ten trillion to the public rather than a few banks. But then I'm a kook :)

Posted by: DavidS | May 22 2009 14:23 utc | 33

silly parviz, i know helping people goes against your inclination to prop-up derivative rotten ponzi banks, but you continue to misrepresent what folks like me are saying.

closing every bank? no, silly parviz, no one is saying that. lots of smaller banks and credit unions are doing just fine.

if this economic crisis is as bad as the experts are saying, then helping people stay in their homes, and getting them back to work will have a more positive effect on the REAL economy than printing our way into hyperinflation.

you sound more and more like a shill aping for the finance industry with every comment.

Posted by: Lizard | May 22 2009 14:25 utc | 34

There were of course lots of alternatives the administration could have taken instead of bailing out wall street. Put the banks into receivership, put a realistic number on their "assets", recapitalize them accordingly and then put them up for sale again. Roubini and Buiter have discussed that several times. Yeah, the shareholders and bondholders would have been screwed - so what?

Instead now the taxpayer got screwed. Similar story with AIG. Declare CDS null an void, problem would have been solved.

There were lots of other alternatives like funneling Fed money through relative healthy credit 6 loans and cooperative banks instead through the big banks which did keep all the money and did not lend it.

The Obama administration did go the way that cost the taxpayer the most possible money and gave the bond and shareholders the least losses.

Posted by: b | May 22 2009 14:46 utc | 35

b-

Just a comment from someone who is as confused about this mess as anyone... and despite my not getting huge doses of MSM I still have an idea that the argument put forth has been several retirement funds were tied to these strange financial portfolios and that by letting the big boys fail then grandma and grandpa american were gonna be lucky to be able to afford canned dog food.

As I said, I'll wear my ignorance on my sleeve if it helps give anyone an idea about why the public hasn't physically looted Wall Street yet... the big folks have again convinced the small investor to "trust us" while creating a culture of sucking more wealth from the people... reminds me of trying to get the last dregs of a chocolate milkshake out of the cup's edge with a straw.

But if what they claim is true then I don't see how paying the bonuses that got paid helped anyone's retirement except perhaps the banker's.

Posted by: DavidS | May 22 2009 16:29 utc | 36