Monday, 11 February 2008

SLIP SLIDIN' AWAY

Ken Berwitz

Slip slidin' away
Slip slidin' away
You know the nearer your destination
The more you're slip slidin' away

Who would have thought that Paul Simon, 30 or so years before the fact, could write a lyric about Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign?

Who would have thought that in Mid February the Republican Party would have a single candidate, with considerable crossover appeal, relatively certain to be its presidential nominee.  And who would have thought that the Democratic Party would be in the middle of a death-match between two candidates instead of serenely coronating Queen Hillary as its reightful heir?

I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like in the Clinton campaign today.  Barack Obama is on the verge of not only winning the nomination per se, but of blowing Ms. Clinton straight out of the water.

On Super Tuesday Mr. Obama won 13 of the 22 states, with Clinton winning only the major blue-as-blue-can-be states that either of them would be prohibitively favored to win anyway.  Over this weekend Obama won four out of four additional states.  In a matter of months Mr. Obama has gone from nowhere to leading in the delegate count.

Ms. Clinton's immediate reaction, at least so far?  She has re-arranged the deck chai...er, changed campaign managers.  Yeah, that should turn things around in one second flat.....

The fact is, if Ms. Clinton doesn't let it all hang out and fast, she is going to lose.  Therefore, whatever information she has to damage/destroy Obama better come flying out of her right now.  Not later.  Or she is cooked. 

Yes, it is true that, if she does, Ms. Clinton (as I've blogged about numbers of times already) will inherently alienate and infuriate a large segment of the Democratic Black voter base - which she absolutely must retain in order to win the presidency. 

Should even a small percentage of Black voters (say 10-15%) react by either writing in Barack Obama's name or declining to vote for president at all, it is a near certainty that the Republican will win.

But I'm not sure Ms. Clinton has the luxury of forgoing the kinds of attacks that could cause this reaction.  Like they say in those ads for the New York State lottery, "you gotta be in it to win it".

It seems to me that Hillary Clinton's first order of business must be to win the nomination.  If she doesn't, it won't matter how Black voters feel about her.

Worrying about how to undo the damage she will sustain among Black voters?  That's another story for a later time.


OBAMA'S FLAG PROBLEM, OR 'VIVA FIDEL!! VIVA CHE!!"

Ken Berwitz

This comes to us from www.newsbusters.org.  See if it doesn't make you sick:

Another Flag Issue for Obama?

By D. S. Hube | February 11, 2008 - 17:12 ET

Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Obama already has an issue with wearing American Flag lapel pins, and even with putting his hand over his heart when the American National Anthem is playing. It will be interesting to see how he'll react (if at all) to the flag hanging in one of his new campaign offices in Houston, Texas.

Yep, that's right -- that is the national flag of Cuba hanging on the wall with none other than Che Guevara superimposed on it.

Check out the video here. .

We already know that Barack Obama's voting record is unfailingly left wing.  We already know that he will not wear an American flag pin.  That's bad enough by itself.

But if he does not demand that the Cuban flag, with the mass murderer che guevara on it, immediately be taken down, he disqualifies himself as a presidential candidate and a U.S. Senator.

It's bad enough that Obama wants no part of our flag.  Is it possible that he prefers castro and guevara's flag to it?

----------------------------------------------------------

NOTE:  The article references Mr. Obama being averse to putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.  Since the link to reference this claim is not working I don't know if it is true and have therefore not written about it.


POLL DATA: BUSH VERSUS CONGRESS

Ken Berwitz

As regular readers know, I periodically take the major political polls (easily found at www.pollingreport.com) and show the difference between President Bush's approval ratings and those of the Democratic controlled congress. 

Well, today's the day.  Here are the last 8 such polls for the congress and the President:

PRESIDENT BUSH Overall Job Rating in national polls

 


 

  See also: Complete trend

Survey

Approve

Disap-
prove

Unsure

Approve
minus

 

 

Dates

%

%

%

Disapprove

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

  AP-Ipsos

2/4-6/08

30

66

*

-36

 

.

 

  CNN/Opinion Research

2/1-3/08

32

67

1

-35

 

.

 

  CBS

1/30 - 2/2/08

27

65

8

-38

 

.

 

  USA Today/Gallup

1/30 - 2/2/08

34

61

5

-27

 

.

 

  ABC/Washington Post

1/30 - 2/1/08

33

65

2

-32

 

.

 

  FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV

1/30-31/08

33

60

7

-27

 

.

 

  NPR LV

1/29-31/08

38

56

6

-18

 

.

 

  NBC/Wall Street Journal

1/20-22/08

31

63

6

-32

 CONGRESS Job Rating in national polls

 


 

  See also: Detailed trend

Survey

Approve

Disap-
prove

Unsure

Approve
minus

 

 

Dates

%

%

%

Disapprove

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

  AP-Ipsos

2/4-6/08

22

74

*

-52

 

.

 

  ABC/Washington Post

1/30 - 2/1/08

33

59

8

-26

 

.

 

  FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV

1/30-31/08

22

66

12

-44

 

.

 

  NPR LV

1/29-31/08

28

65

7

-37

 

.

 

  NBC/Wall Street Journal

1/20-22/08

18

70

12

-52

 

.

 

  Diageo/Hotline RV

1/10-12/08

23

70

7

-47

 

.

 

  AP-Ipsos

1/7-9/08

26

69

*

-43

 

.

 

  Gallup

1/4-6/08

23

71

6

-48

Ok, let me save you the trouble of averaging them out.  For the last 8 polls, President Bush has an average approval rating of  32%.  Obviously that is not very good at all.

However, the Democratic controlled congress has an average approval rating of 24%.   And that's a lot worse on two levels:

-One is that it is a lot worse per se -- 24% is significantly lower than 32%

-But, far more importantly, President Bush is not running for re-election in 2008;  a large majority of congress is.  All 435 house seats and one third of the entire senate are up for grabs. 

This means that, assuming the data are correct (a very big assumption, admittedly), President Bush, with his average of 32% approval, is spectating.  But congress, with its average of 24%, is running on it.

It seems to me that President Bush is in a better place.....


R.I.P. TOM LANTOS

Ken Berwitz

I just received the sad news that Tom Lantos, nazi survivor, freedom fighter and long-time Bay Area congressperson, died a few hours ago.  The cause was cancer of the esophagus.

I often disagreed with Mr. Lantos' politics, but I always respected the man. 

Although Mr. Lantos turned 80 on February 1, until the cancer took him  he was vibrant and full of life.  Therefore I consider him to be gone well before his time.  Tragically.

May he rest in peace.


TED OLSON: BARACK OBAMA ADVISOR?

Ken Berwitz

Ted Olson is a highly competent lawyer, a  former Solicitor General of the United States and a man who has argued many cases before the Supreme Court.  He is also a rock-ribbed Republican.

So how does he become a valued advisor to Barack Obama?

Ok, I admit Mr. Olson doesn't actually work for Mr. Obama.  But he has offered to provide Obama with the kind of advice he may desperately need and which he's probably not going to get anywhere else. 

Here's what I mean, courtesy of The Wall Street Journal:

Clinton v. Obama: The Lawsuit

By THEODORE B. OLSON
February 11, 2008; 
What splendid theater the Democratic Party presidential nominating process is shaping up to be. And they are just getting started. The real fun would be a convention deadlock denouement a few months from now, the prospect of which is already quickening the pulses of scores of Democratic lawyers who have been waiting more than seven years for an encore of their 2000 presidential-election performances.

Press reports following super-duper Tuesday's primaries and caucuses gave Sen. Clinton a narrow popular vote lead over Barack Obama. At the same time, Sen. Obama's supporters were claiming a narrow lead among pledged delegates. The delegate count keeps changing, of course, and Sen. Clinton's team is also claiming a delegate lead, based in part on a larger share so far of what are known in Democratic Party circles as superdelegates: 796 slots (20% of the total) set aside for members of Congress and a menagerie of assorted elected officials and party Pooh-Bahs.

[Hillary Clinton]

These superdelegates, Byzantine hyper-egalitarian Democratic Party delegate selection formulas, and the fact that many delegates are selected at conventions or by caucuses rather than primaries, combine to offer the distinct possibility that by convention time the candidate leading in the popular vote in the primaries will be trailing in the delegate count.

How ironic. For over seven years the Democratic Party has fulminated against the Electoral College system that gave George W. Bush the presidency over popular-vote winner Al Gore in 2000. But they have designed a Rube Goldberg nominating process that could easily produce a result much like the Electoral College result in 2000: a winner of the delegate count, and thus the nominee, over the candidate favored by a majority of the party's primary voters.

Imagine that as the convention approaches, Sen. Clinton is leading in the popular vote, but Sen. Obama has the delegate lead. Surely no one familiar with her history would doubt that her take-no-prisoners campaign team would do whatever it took to capture the nomination, including all manner of challenges to Obama delegates and tidal waves of litigation.

[Barack Obama]

Indeed, it has already been reported that Sen. Clinton will demand that the convention seat delegates from Michigan and Florida, two states whose delegates have been disqualified by the party for holding January primaries in defiance of party rules. The candidates agreed not to campaign in those states. But Sen. Clinton opted to keep her name on the Michigan primary ballot, and staged a primary-day victory visit to Florida, winning both of those unsanctioned primaries. Her campaign is arguing that the delegates she won in each state be recognized despite party rules and notwithstanding her commitment not to compete in those primaries. Of course. "Count every vote."

As the convention nears, with Sen. Clinton trailing slightly in the delegate count, the next step might well be a suit in the Florida courts challenging her party's refusal to seat Florida's delegation at the convention. And the Florida courts, as they did twice in 2000, might find some ostensible legal basis for overturning the pre-election rules and order the party to recognize the Clinton Florida delegates. That might tip the balance to Sen. Clinton.

We all know full well what could happen next. The array of battle-tested Democratic lawyers who fought for recounts, changes in ballot counting procedures, and even re-votes in Florida courts and the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 would separate into two camps. Half of them would be relying on the suddenly-respectable Supreme Court Bush v. Gore decision that overturned the Florida courts' post-hoc election rules changes. The other half would be preaching a new-found respect for "federalism" and demanding that the high court leave the Florida court decisions alone.

Would the U.S. Supreme Court even take the case after having been excoriated for years by liberals for daring to restore order in the Florida vote-counting in 2000? And, would Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, the dissenters in Bush v. Gore, feel as strongly about not intervening if Sen. Obama was fighting against an effort to change a presidential election by changing the rules after the fact? Will there be a brief filed by Floridians who didn't vote in their state's primary because the party had decided, and the candidates had agreed, that the results wouldn't count?

In short, the way things are going so far, Sens. Obama and Clinton will probably be so close to one another in delegate count by the time of the convention that all those primary votes may be tabulated, but will turn out to be irrelevant to the outcome. Those 796 superdelegate politicians will decide who the candidate will be. Maybe no cigar or cigarette smoke this time, but back-room politics all the same. All those primary voters and millions in campaign expenses locked out of the room.

This may be one of those dj vu fantasies that won't happen. But it did happen before. And Florida has a quirky habit of popping up again and again in close presidential elections, having been a factor not only in 2000, but also the epic presidential election controversy of 1876. And Democratic lawyers have undoubtedly kept copies of the legal briefs they filed for Al Gore in 2000 into which their computers can easily substitute the name Clinton for Gore.

If it does happen, I'd be more than happy to loan Sen. Obama the winning briefs that helped secure the election of the legitimate winner of the 2000 election, George W. Bush.

Mr. Olson, a lawyer in Washington, D.C. and a former solicitor general of the United States, represented George W. Bush before the Supreme Court in 2000 in Bush v. Gore.

Now that is a fun offer.  Do you think Barack Obama will accept it, as one lawyer to another? 

Mr. Olson, I am sure, wrote this with his tongue damn near krazy-glued to his cheek.  But do I have to remind you of who Mr. Obama is running against?  Maybe he's got a point.


WHAT HAMAS TEACHES CHILDREN

Ken Berwitz

Maybe Daniel Gavron, the human ostrich who I blogged about earlier today, would be interested in the following video.  I picked it up from the invaluable site, www.littlegreenfootballs.com - and they, in turn, got it from the equally invaluable site, www.palestinianmediawatch.com

Since Mr. Gavron is of the belief that hamas is working for a long-term truce and de facto recognition of Israel (I'll give you a moment to put your jaw back in place) he might be interested in seeing what they teach their children:

Video: Hamas' Jew-Eating Rabbit

Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 10:34:38 am PST

In the Hamas kids show Pioneers of Tomorrow, the degenerates responsible for this sick trash have killed off their giant bee character Nahoul (dead because the evil Israelis stopped him from getting medical treatment), and replaced him with a malevolent rabbit that eats Jews.

Yes, really.

(Video player requires Flash Player.)

.

The scary part is that people like Gavron would probably view this video and STILL think the same anyway. 

I hope you're smarter than that.  How could you not be?


PROOF THAT HILLARY IS DESPERATE

Ken Berwitz

Now there is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is desperate.  None at all.

What's the proof?  Read this piece from www.mediabistro.com and notice who Ms. Clinton is praising.  I rest my case:

Monday Feb 11, 2008

Hillary Slams MSNBC...Praises Fox?!?

Capturewjla.JPG

The Hillary campaign recently took MSNBC reporter David Shuster (and MSNBC generally) to task for asking a guest on February 7th's "Tucker" program, "[D]oesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" MSNBC has suspended Shuster for his remarks.

Tonight, the Politico's John Harris asked Clinton for her thoughts on the situation during an interview that aired on Washington, D.C.'s local ABC affiliate WJLA:

Clinton said that her staff had sent her "some independent study" "which seemed to suggest that" "in terms of the fairness of the coverage," Fox News Channel has treated her campaign more fairly than MSNBC.

"I really am troubled by this pattern of behavior and comments that you hear" on MSNBC, said Clinton. Recently, two MSNBC hosts -- Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough -- have come under heat for comments deemed sexist by many and liberal media watchdog group MediaMatters has increased its scrutiny of the cable network.

The Clinton campaign recently suggested that Shuster's suspension was inadequate and Harris asked what Clinton thought would be a more appropriate punishment.

"That's not my job John," said Clinton. "That's the job of the people who run the network."

"They need to take a hard look. This is like the third time they've had to apologize and there are lot of things that they haven't had to apologize for that might have merited one. So I wish they would take a look at some of the patterns of demeaning comments made on their network."

To be perfectly honest, this is very faint "praise", of course.  What Ms. Clinton is saying, more or less, is that MSNBC's mistreatment of her is so advanced that even Fox looks good by comparison.  If I were Roger Ailes I doubt that I'd feel particularly edified.

But I have to admit that, despite the considerable validity of  Ms. Clinton's complaints, I am enjoying this little spectacle.  MSNBC has relentlessly excremented (how's that for a sanitized way of saying it) on Republicans, especially Conservatives, for years and years without a peep out of anyone.  It was perfectly acceptable. 

Only when it is a Democrat do the powers that be suddenly see this sorry cable news network for what it is.....and only to the extent that Ms. Clinton is affected.  You'll grow old waiting for even one word about keith olbermann's pathological, obsessive hatred of Bill O'Reilly.  That, it seems is still ok.

I guess it depends on whose ox is being Gored --- whoops, excuse me, I guess it depends on whose ox is being Clintoned.  Sorry, wrong candidate.


ED MORRISSEY ON SUSAN ESTRICH'S EPIPHANY ABOUT DEMOCRATIC RACISM

Ken Berwitz

Here is an excellent piece by Ed Morrissey of www.captainsquartersblog.com, on the apparent epiphany Susan Estrich has had regarding racism in the Democratic party:

Estrich: Who'd Have Thought The Party Of Identity Politics Has Racists?

Susan Estrich either wants to build credibility as a satirist, or her latest column provides a long-overdue look in the mirror for Democrats. Detecting more a whiff of the so-called Bradley Effect in primaries where Barack Obama holds solid polling leads only to mysteriously fall short of Hillary Clinton, Estrich diagnoses a latent racism in her party.

No kidding!

But, the fact is that there is a long pattern of what we in California call the "Bradley problem" in polling, after the former Los Angeles mayor who was elected governor in every poll, including the exits, except that he lost at the ballot box. Did I mention that he was African-American?

That was, according to the pollsters, the problem: about 10 percent of the electorate claimed that they were going to vote for him, and in many cases even told pollsters that they did, but they lied. ...

Doug Wilder, who wasn't elected to the Senate from Virginia, faced the same problem. We who are Democrats would like to believe that race is not a factor in the polling of our party members, but maybe we're wrong.

No one doubts, or at least no one who is honest does, that both racism and sexism come into play as people decide between Clinton and Obama, but could it be that people are more willing to admit that they won't vote for the woman than that they won't vote for the black?

If this is happening even among us good Democrats, what does that say about Obama's strength in a general election? Not pretty questions. Not a fair world.

I'm not sure why this comes as such a surprise. This is the party, after all, that routinely creates new victim classes along ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, and income lines. Their candidates spend entire campaigns talking about "two Americas" -- heck, on bad days, it could be fourteen or fifteen Americas.

Republicans argue for equality of treatment rather than creation of victim classes. The GOP's factions may be pulling it apart, but the factions exist along policy lines, not ethnic divisions. While Republicans could and should do a lot more to reach out to black and Latino voters, their correct impulse is to explain why Republican policies do more to break down barriers -- such as school vouchers and local control of education, tax reform and simplification, and the like -- rather than an extension of government handouts that have failed our inner cities for decades.

Now, after playing racial and ethnic politics for decades, Susan Estrich is shocked, shocked! to find out that some Democrats have racist and sexist impulses. I'll award her the Captain Louis Renault award for discovering that identity politics has its foundation in just such impulses, and in the end, the best remedy for eliminating them is to quit pandering on the basis of ethnicity and gender.

.

To read much of the mainstream media, you would swear that there isn't a racist bone in any Democrat's body.  But, like much of the advocacy journalism they pump out, it is completely untrue.

Personally, I have zero belief that Susan Estrich was unaware of  Democratic racism.  What I'm smelling is an attempt to harness it**** -- i.e. to convince voters that Hillary Clinton should be the nominee because "people will vote for a woman, but that Black guy is going to lose anyway, no matter what the polls and the primary voters say".

Or, put another way, Susan Estrich is decrying racism in order to promote her candidate - based on what?  Based on racism, that's what.  Vote for the WOMAN, she'll get more votes than the BLACK GUY.

That's some party of inclusion...........

----------------------------------------------

****Please note that I don't consider Ms. Estrich a racist per se.  But, the way this looks to me, she is not above using racism selectively to achieve her political objectives. 

How much of a difference is there between the two?  You decide.


ISRAEL'S BIGGEST ENEMIES?

Ken Berwitz

I sometimes think Israel's biggest enemies are not the people in hamas, fatah, hezbolla and countless other Arab and/or Muslim hate groups that wish it annihilated.  I sometimes think Israel's biggest enemies are the segment of Jews IN Israel who, with astonishing lack of clarity, have determined there is no threat in the first place. 

Yes, there are such people.  People who, like the New York Times editors who agreed to publish the following article, have their heads so deep in the sand that their hair gets muddy from the base of the Yangtze river.

One such person is named Daniel Gavron.  I never heard of him until today, but he has an op-ed piece in this morning's New York Times titled "Israel's Secret Success".  This title certainly fits, since the "success" he refers to is unknown to just about anyone but him and his fellow ostriches.

Let me show you what I mean by posting his commentary.  I have put the especially dense parts in bold print:

February 11, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor

Israels Secret Success

Jerusalem

SOMETHING strange is happening to us Zionists in the 60th year of the state of Israel: we are repudiating our astonishing success. If in the 1880s (the start of Zionist settlement in what is now Israel) or in 1948 (the War of Independence) or even in 1967 (the Six-Day War) somebody had said that one day virtually the entire world, including all the Arab nations, would accept the existence of the State of Israel in 78 percent of the land of Israel, he would have been regarded as either idiotically optimistic or clinically insane. That, however, is where we are today. We have won, but we are refusing to accept the result.

It is as if the captain of a team winning the World Cup, a triumphant Olympic sprinter or a victor of Wimbledon were to say: No, no. There has been a mistake. I didnt win, I lost. My victory is an illusion.

While it is true that the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, talks about wiping Israel off the map, and he might be developing the technical means to do so, he has also said that he will agree to whatever agreement the Palestinians accept. The Lebanese Islamic group Hezbollah is utterly hostile, but it is now focused on events in its own country.

The Palestinian Hamas, which rules Gaza, refuses to recognize Israel, but even that movement seeks a long-term truce, which is tantamount to de facto recognition.

Far more significantly, Fatah, the official Palestinian leadership, is negotiating peace with Israel. The member states of the Arab League, headed by Saudi Arabia, are on record as recognizing Israel within its pre-1967 borders. The worlds only superpower, the United States, is solid in its support of Israel under any conceivable president.

The other four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and the overwhelming majority of the members of the United Nations all recognize pre-1967 Israel.

Wake up, fellow Israelis, its over, weve won! What is more weve won a lot: more than 8,000 square miles out of the 10,400 square miles of the British Mandate for Palestine. And most Palestinians have accepted this territorially lopsided resolution of the 100-year-old dispute.

Problems remain, of course. We Israelis have made a shambles of our Zionist enterprise by establishing settlements in the Palestinian territories we have occupied since 1967. Either we must disentangle ourselves from the Palestinians, or else create a structure for sharing the land with them. Many of the flagship Jewish settlements are so deep in Palestinian territory that no matter how the borders were to be redrawn, the settlements would be left inside Palestine.

And the current talk of swapping settlement blocs in the West Bank for equivalent amounts of land in Israel near the border is unrealistic. For any two-state solution to work, we would need to conduct a complete withdrawal from the West Bank. Even so, the success of the Zionist enterprise would be astounding.

If we cannot summon the determination it would take for a complete pullback, might the world, led by the United States, try to force us to withdraw? It might, but it probably wont, so we are most likely looking at some sort of single state, bi-national state or confederation. What matters is that we are acting from a position of strength, and we ought to be investing our energy and creativity in working out a long-term solution with the Palestinians that will be acceptable to both of us.

What we should not be doing is what we are doing now: besieging and blacking out Gaza, killing and arresting dozens of Palestinians in the occupied territories every month, and constructing walls and fences between us and our neighbors.

The most recent suicide bombing in southern Israel has predictably prompted calls for a new barrier along our 145-mile Egyptian border. This is unreasonable. Walls, as recent events have shown, can be breached. Palestinian terrorism against civilians has decreased over the past years, even though the barrier separating Israel and the West Bank has many large gaps. It is illogical to suppose that this incomplete wall is the factor that has reduced terrorism.

The proposal to build an additional fence along the Egyptian border represents all that is wrong with our current policies. To cower behind a wall is to demonstrate again our loser mentality at a time when we have, in fact, won. The political settlement that the world is begging us to reach is the only way to ultimately stop the violence between us and the Palestinians.

Daniel Gavron is the author, most recently, of Holy Land Mosaic: Stories of Cooperation and Coexistence Between Israelis and Palestinians.

.

So much of what Gavron wrote is so stupid that it's hard to know where to begin.  maybe the best thing would be to go in order of the bold print excerpts:

-All the Arab nations accept Israel?  Is this some kind of test for slow learners?  The only way most Arab states "accept" Israel is based on the 1948 borders (in other words every war they fought to destroy Israel is now a do-over), with the so-called "right of return in force, meaning millions of palestinian Arabs stream into Israel and summarily turn it into an Arab state. 

Plus, who besides Gavron believes Arab nations accept Israel in any form at all?  If there was a war to vaporize Israel tomorrow, which side would they support?  Israel?

You could stop right here and know we're dealing with someone so dense that, by comparison, asbestos is cellophane wrap.  But let's go on;

-ahmadinejad is developing nuclear weapons and has said in so many words he wants Israel "wiped off the face of the earth".  But he doesn't REALLY mean it, he'll just go along with whatever those wonderful Israel-loving palestinian Arabs say;

-hamas, a terrorist organization committed, in its own words, to eliminating Israel through jihad, which took over Gaza by violence and which rains bombs and artillery on Israel every day, really doesn't mean it.  This is just their benign way of asking for a truce and showing how eager they are to recognize Israel;

-fatah, the other terrorist organization in charge of palestinian Arabs, which has never stopped any terrorist from any terrorist act against Israel and which names its parks and sporting events in honor of terrorist suicide/homicide bombers, is negotiating a peace with Israel?  This is the same peace they have been "negotiating" since the beginning of their existence and the same way they've been doing it;

-palestinian Arabs "recognize" pre-1967 Israel, which is to say 1948 Israel with the "right of return" in place? See my first point above;

-It isn't those peace loving palestinian Arabs who are screwing up the quest for peace, it is Israelis -- because they dare to build settlements in Gaza and in Judea and Samaria (the west bank). 

Well, why shouldn't they build them?  Why does a Jew have any less right to that land than an Arab?  Is it sovereign to some country that makes laws excluding all Jews? 

Arabs sure as hell own land in Israel.  Arabs sure as hell build on that land.

If Gavron is ok with all of Gaza and all of the west bank being "Judenrein" (thank you, adolf, for that concept), does he also think it's okey-dokey if Israel demands that all palestinian Arabs leave the country?  Don't bet on it.  Ethnic cleansing is a status Gavron reserves only for Jews;

-Then we have the brilliant and enlightened idea of not doing anything about the daily attacks on sovereign Israel. 

If Israel does not go in to try to stop the people responsible for attacking its people and does not build a barrier to keep them out, what does Gavron think will happen?  Does he think they'll all join hands with Israeli Jews, dance a hora around the bomb sites and then jointly turn them into flower gardens?

-Here's my personal favorite:  that palestinian Arab attacks have decreased even though there are gaps in the wall. 

Does it ever occur to Gavron that the attacks have dccreased because of where there IS a wall?  Maybe he can check the timeline of the wall's creation against the decrease in attacks. On the other hand that might be too logical, therefore too troubling for him;

There is an old saying:  "With friends like these, who needs enemies?"  Does it fit Daniel Gavron? 

You tell me.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!