Viral Videos Of The Week: Appeasement At Munich Edition

Thanks for the video.  I'm still laughing.

What he did wrong, very wrong, was to completely misjudge the situation. Here was the leader of the free world, at the time, the British Empire was still an empire, who completely misunderstood the dynamics of the world, chose react, therefore, in the most inappropriate way, which lead to the death of tens of millions of people across the globe.

He utterly failed in his most basic duty, to protect his people, and if he took his duty very seriously, to protect those in other nations to--as Britain saw itself as a beacon of civilization.

Not only did he not comprehend the nature of Hitler, but he ignored the fact that Hitler was acting in direct violation of the Versailles treaty, building up a massive military--and he could not comprehend that this massive military would be used to kill millions and millions of people--although Hitler was never shy about his intentions. Chamberlain was guilty of a willful blindness to the realities of the world.

Faced with the greatest danger the world had seen to that point, Chamberlain failed to understand reality and made the exact wrong decision. And those two criteria are really the only two jobs a president or prime minister have--accurately see the world, make the right decisions.

Surely no one would praise Chamberlain for this gross incompetence.

Full context. And why is quote chopping so popular with Youtube around?

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/16/mccains-hamas-comments-context-restored/

Naftali,

Are you confident that Mr. Obama understands the Iranians better than Mr. Chamberlain understood the Germans? Or, will we have a New York declaration where President Obama declares peace in our time after securing Iranian promises over Czechoslovakia Israel.

But then, who really cares about the far off middle east. How does that effect us?

"How horrible, fantastic it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing. I am myself a man of peace from the depths of my soul"

The problem with dialogues with dictators: 

From the Oct 1,1938 Guardian:

Mr. Chamberlain, who returned to London yesterday from Munich, brought with him a no-war pledge signed by him and Herr Hitler yesterday morning. ***

The declaration was signed after a talk lasting an hour and a half - "a friendly discussion on all subjects of European politics" - between Mr. Chamberlain and Herr Hitler. There was no one else present except the interpreter. Before reading the declaration to journalists at his hotel Mr. Chamberlain said, "I always had it in mind that if we could find a peaceful solution of this problem of Czecho-Slovakia we should open the way to the general appeasement in Europe."

Asked whether he though there would now be general demobilisation, Mr Chamberlain said, "Well, we did not discuss dates but we hope that will come about practically immediately."

Did I just read that right Monsieur Jon?  Are you seriously suggesting that Obama would consider giving Israel away to Iran?  I would write more if I weren't doubled over with laughter.

Chamberlain did not give away Czechoslolvakia to Germany, only a piece of it. (a piece critical to their defense, but who's counting) Would Obama pressure Israel to give away pieces of Israel to allies of Iran in return for peace for our time? Yes.

Jon, America needs to do what is in America's best interest, and Israel needs to do what is in its best interest.  Israel is not Czechoslovakia circa 1938, and Iran is not Germany circa 1938.  Nobody can make Israel do what is against its interests; not America, and not Iran.  So we need to all stop insinuating that Israel is a helpless little baby that can't do anything without permission from others.

Honestly, about Obama, I have no idea what he's talking about. I mean they are beautiful speeches, and I love listening to him--but at the end, I don't know what he's saying. Not only are they self-contradictory, but his clarifications don't clarify. And his actions are self-contradictory also. He wants to build coalitions, but has no record of even trying to do that.

He speaks in ideals--but doesn't give specifics. But the specifics are very important to me. I've heard ideals since I was 12 years old, and I find it's the specifics that matter. Since Obama's not really clear, I feel I don't have much choice but to look at his advisory team. But that keeps changing from week to week and even they can't clarify what they are doing.

There have been very troubling quotes and actions from Gen. McPeak, Samantha Powers, and Robert Malley--quickly followed by Obama's staff (or is it Obama himself, that's not even clear) distancing himself from these folks or they themselves resigning.

I do know that the times are such where assessment had better be accurate and decisions had better be the right ones. I can't think of anything more dangerous than nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran. I think our energy policy for the past thirty years has been nothing short of complete foolishness.

These are things about which I'm waiting to hear in very clear English.

Something is wrong when the only politician on the world stage speaking clearly is the political leader of Iran.

"Would Obama pressure Israel to give away pieces of Israel to allies of Iran in return for peace for our time? Yes."

Just for clarification's sake, would those "allies of Iran" be the Palestinian people? And would those "pieces of Israel" be what are known to most observers as the Occupied Palestinian Territories?

Wow, if it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. How did he make it through high school, and I'm assuming college, without a general knowledge of history?

I don't think those living in Gaza and the West Bank are truly the allies of Iran--because if Iran gets the bomb, and uses it against Israel, those people will be just as dead. As will all people in a circumference with a radius centered in Israel going up to Cyprus. That includes Lebanon, parts of Syria, the precious Golan Heights and Saaba Farms, Jordan, parts of Egypt--heck, you can draw the circle just like I can.

The idea of occupied territory will go poof.

Would Obama pressure Israel to give away pieces of Israel to allies of Iran in return for peace for our time?

No. Obama might pursue Kadima policy as opposed to the Likudism of every previous president (except George H.W. Bush actually), but I wouldn't bet the house on it.

"Would Obama pressure Israel to give away pieces of Israel to allies of Iran in return for peace for our time?

No. Obama might pursue Kadima policy as opposed to the Likudism of
every previous president (except George H.W. Bush actually), but I
wouldn't bet the house on it."

So, in other words, yes. 

Gosh, are you one heck of a retard, Naftali! The whole point of the Chamberlain analogy/dis-analogy was that talking is not in itself a political concession. 

Read Obama's statements to the Big Three automakers in Detroit or to the Palestinians in Ramallah if you want specifics on how you draw a line in the sand - directly - with the balls to do so. But doing that might entail knowing how to use the internet.

The specifics aren't even what matters. This is a post about whether talking to someone and telling them what you disagree with them about or won't accept and why is better than sticking your fingers in your ears and giving them the silent treatment. But feel free to go ahead and get side-tracked on that bullshit "Obama is too Ambiguous" meme instead if it helps you. 

"Kadima policy as opposed to the Likudism"... So, in other words, yes.

No, but insane people might think, "maybe." 

On that internet thing, did you have trouble finding anything about the 3 years of talks between the EU, the UN, and Iran? What do you think they've been talking about for all of that time? What else can you tell them?

But, you know, if you have to call names and insult, go ahead if it helps you.

But you tell me, if he's against NAFTA, is he for tariffs? If he's for tax breaks for companies to keep their workforce in the US, that is, to use their profits to benefit the American people, is he for tax breaks for the oil companies to build new refineries or find more oil? Who exactly is speaking for him, if again, he is against NAFTA but has advisers going to Canada saying he doesn't mean that at all, where is the truth? Will he try to address a problem with an idea so bad it makes the problem worse?

All that his statements, and the surrounding details show, is that there might be a significant difference between what he says and what he really believes, what he says he will do, and what he will do. How about that icy reception he claims the automakers gave him--when the video footage is showing a rousing standing ovation?

Where exactly is the line between government assistance and his belief in self-reliance, since these two sentiments are usually right next to each other in his speeches? What exactly was Robert Malley saying to Hamas, does he have an accurate picture of what Hezbollah did in Lebanon and why they did it? Do the really have 'unaddressed grievances' or do they want power, pure and simple? And how are their motivations tied to Iran?

The whole point of the Chamberlain analogy has nothing to do with talking--it has to do with accurately assessing who you are talking to and understanding what they really want. Chamberlain got it completely wrong. He believed Hitler's soft words to him and discounted Hitler's hard words and vile actions for the previous five years. That's bad judgment--and as a result, tens of millions of people died.

But please don't address these points, because, you know, I'm a retard. Nice that you, who are not a retard, had such a clear grasp of the points regarding Chamberlain, since it's an analogy people were using even before the election cycle began and people had barely heard of Obama. I was really impressed by that.

You are retarded, Nafitally.

The whole point of the Chamberlain analogy was to continue in this Republican/Hillaricon tradition of conflating talking - (which is ALL that Obama proposed) - with CONCESSIONS.  Obama gave and proposed no concessions to the Big Three when he talked to them, he proposed no concessions when talking to the Palestinians, and he's proposed no concessions in talking to Iran. Funny that you pretend not to understand what Obama means when he says that strong leaders aren't afraid of talking. Because strong leaders aren't afraid of mere words. And they know the difference between words and concessions. 

I congratulate you on your ability to pretend that exploring all domestic policy options - while being more clearly resolute on some of them (no repealing of the gas tax, no authorization to invade Iraq in 2002, no to price controls in the housing sector) somehow makes Obama more ambiguous than Hillery - whom you've never accused of being ambiguous. And why he should be for domestic oil exploration, as if that's the sine qua non of encouraging the domestic labor markets generally with tax breaks, is something that only you can explain to me. Because only a retard would pretend that he didn't hear Obama close that gap by talking about the many more jobs that would be created in developing renewable energy. So, as a retard, why does this not make sense to you? Please tell me, for my sake. Because there are a lot of retards in America mucking up the political process by parroting these same retarded embellishments, and I would like to know how to communicate with them and what correctives to anticipate they will require. So as a retard who wants to help your fellow American retards, what did you not get about these stances? What was incoherent to you and why? And what will you still pretend to not understand after all this and why?

Thanks! 

Assuming that he said what's been reported that he said, a standing ovation only proves that he can be persuasive, Naftally. Which only argues FOR talking to Iran. Unless you want an American president to not persuade Iran. (Mimics incredulous Borat gesture here - "In U.S. and A. woman CAN vote, but horse cannot").

Make him ambassador to the auto industry. But what, original question, is he going to say to Iran that hasn't been said by the UN and the EU in three years?

I don't know which Anon or how many Anons there are here. But I'm not comparing Obama to anyone. I just said, taken as a whole, words and actions, that it isn't clear what he means when he speaks so beautifully.

What concessions does the auto industry want? Dialogue is fine when there are possible outcomes, but when one side is completely intransigent, such as the Iranians, what is there to talk about? What is there to talk about with Hamas and Hezbollah? How productive have 16 years of negotiations been with the PLO or Fatah?

You can frame this analogy with Chamberlain however you wish, but the folks who know history see actions that mimic Chamberlain as quite dangerous. I am not saying that talking is a bad thing--however, if my point about the need to talk was that we need to talk with those we are in conflict with--I would use Rockefeller's talking with the striking miners as an example of two sides who didn't understand each other coming to an understanding. If I or others use Chamberlain, they,we, are making the point of one side (Chamberlain) being naive and wrong.

Regarding your point about renewable energy--that proves my point of having an idea that ends up creating more problems. That's one reason there are now food shortages in various places in the world--the crops are not being used to feed people. If you aren't sure how increasing the supply of oil will lower the price of oil--then you don't understand very basic economics. And if you don't understand how lower oil prices will create jobs, again you just don't understand basic economics. And why you would want a retard to explain basic economics to you is beyond me. So you'll just have to do that work yourself. You might also want to learn about tax policy and economic growth, as well as the effect of price controls on the economy. You might be surprised to find out that a misunderstanding of these things can cause havoc--unemployment, recession, depression, things which, you know, hurt people.

If you want to talk to all of the other people you consider to be retarded, and this seems to be a large section of the population, I would suggest not thinking everything they say is so wrong they must have some type of brain damage. That might help. This is also very basic. How could you not know something so basic--unless--maybe you're the one who doesn't understand things. Ya think?

It doesn't matter what "concessions" he got from the auto industry. The whole point is a refutation of the idea that merely talking to someone that intransigent makes you look weak. Regardless of whatever changes he'd have gotten out of the Big Three, whatever concessions he'd get out of Iran, the whole point is that when you actually have the balls to say what you mean, merely talking to someone can make your side look stronger.

Food crops are not, strictly speaking, what's considered "renewable energy", Retard - let alone the ONLY form of it.

So I guess you'll have to forgive me for forgoing your "basic economics" lessons or reading through your points on Chamberlain, considering all that.

Yours Truly,

Anonymous

"But what, original question, is he going to say to Iran that hasn't been said by the UN and the EU in three years?"

Funny, Hamas suggests talking about a truce, Israel and its supporters happily decline, floating one preposterous non-reason after another why even the possibility of sparing the life of a Rafah or Sderot kid ought not be pursued. Obama declares a preference for diplomacy over militarism, and the bogus Chamberlain parallels appear. What is it about discussion that ruffles your feathers?

Are you proposing a general rule regarding negotiations, naftali? That talks of longer than three years duration ought be abandoned? Would you consider the possibility that the US enjoys far different standing from that of the EU or the UN when it comes to negotiating with Iran, and for that reason it's hard to extrapolate from their experience a likely outcome for US talks?

Spin this as you may, but your principled reluctance to support discussion reveals nothing more than a cowboy approach to the problems of Middle East.   

What's with Hamas apologists such as yourself, Ismail? There already is an effective, comparative truce by virtue of Israel's superior firepower. Agreeing on paper to Hamas' long-term goal of extinguishing them while they get carte blanche to re-arm IS stupid. That's even dumber than appeasement; it's a clear blow to your own self-interest in protecting lives.

It's good that Hamas has the level of stupidity to proclaim their goals outright, Ismail - not that Palestinian "public opinion" give them much choice. It saves Israel the trouble of explaining and proving (through attacks brought to you by Oslo) to the rest of the world, the continued goals, intentions and tactics of the Palestinian leadership. No need to be complicit in that! And even your Euro-buddies understand that. Too bad.

"What's with Hamas apologists such as yourself, Ismail?"

I have little taste for theocrats of any stripe and look forward to the birth of a secular state in all of historic Palestine in which the right of every citizen to choose his own personal variety of ecclesiastical delusion is protected.  This doesn't stop me from recognizing that Hamas represents vast numbers of Palestinians and that it is fantastical to suppose that its participation in negotiations can be wished away. In this radical idea I am joined by present cabinet members in Israel, a former Mossad chief and 65% of the Israeli public.

"There already is an effective, comparative truce by virtue of Israel's superior firepower."

And then there are non-ecclesiastical delusions. I am sure that the residents of Sderot and Ashkelon will be delighted to know that an effective truce exists, and that the Palestinian benefactors of that truce may now rise from the dead, happy to know that they couldn't have really been killed, there having been a truce in place at the time of their assassination. 

"Agreeing on paper to Hamas' long-term goal of extinguishing them while they get carte blanche to re-arm IS stupid."

I've made this obvious point before, but there is no accounting for the thickness of some skulls, so I'll repeat; complaining about the wildly unlikely potential of Hamas to "extinguish" Israel in the face of the actual, relentless and deliberate sociocide that Israel has practiced for 60 years against the Palestinians represents a degree of chutzpah unparalleled in modern political history. 

As for Hamas' goals, you're right that their stupid charter contains dumbass rhetoric that they should have renounced long ago. I can't explain why they haven't done so, but do you honestly think that they haven't so that they can point to it after they steamroller through Tel Aviv and say, "See, we told you so", as though it would be somehow exculpatory?

What I can explain is why folks like you love to disinter a ridiculous document written decades ago while ignoring the significant statements made more recently by Hamas spokespeople which effectively disavow that document's crazier threats. It's because you can't bear to realize that Israel's moment of absolute hegemony in the region has passed, and that it will have to negotiate with folks it doesn't like.

Really, what's the downside of negotiating a truce? Hamas will take the opportunity to re-arm? Seems they're doing a fine job re-arming without a truce. And what will Israel do? I'm sure Mossad will close up shop and open a chain of felafel stands, right? And the army will mount productions of "Fiddler On The Roof" instead of messing about training in those Merkavas. Of course, neither President Obama nor President McCain will release dollar one nor sell the teeniest clusterbomb to Israel-not while a truce exists, right?

So, really, what's the downside? An Ashkelon bubbe lives to observe another Passover with her family. A Rafah tyke gets to hang out in his house rather than beneath it. 

My way, there's a possibility, however remote, that Israelis and Palestinians can maybe enjoy life a little more. Your way, more killing.

L'chaim. 

Sorry, forgot to sign the above. But you knew it was me, right?

The tone was condescending, the points manufactured out of thin air, the argument thin as gossamer. Who else could write like that?

So, Hamas can figure out how to build rockets but that rubber thing on the other side of the pencil, that's a head scratcher. Look, you're going to have to fill that hole in your argument before anything else can happen between us. That hole is as big as an elephant in the room.

And we've been over your 'facts' about the Israeli public. So, you fix the hole, because I think there is a simple explanation--they actually want to destroy Israel and kill all of its citizens. That's pretty straightforward. I think that's also why they keep trying to get more powerful weapons, and it also explains why they keep attacking Sderot and Ashkelon. Cause they want to kill people.

Now for the Retard--since he or she remains Anonymous, let's use that name to make it less so, and to give this person some character.

Talking itself doesn't make you look weak--believing the words of liars and genocidal maniacs denying they are liars and genocidal maniacs is what makes you look weak and out of touch with reality. That is Chamberlain's legacy. Not that he talked with Hitler, it's that he believed Hitler.

So what does Obama mean, ballswise? Iran has been told for years that nuclear weapons are unacceptable--that they cannot acquire nuclear weapons--and yet after every round of talks they get closer to acquiring nuclear weapons.

Well, food crops may not be the only source of renewable energy--but there are now laws in place mandating the use of a certain percentage for fuel, and evidently it's enough for people to go hungry. You might have a better plan--and that's the point. I want to know the specifics of the plans, not just hear the ideals.

Of course I'll forgive you for not reading. That would probably hurt, and I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.

Naffy, your insults are about as weak as your argumentation - except when it comes to Ismail. But I assume that's because you two have a longer history going over this stuff. 

Nice point about credibility. I notice how you dance around the implication that Obama has some kind of absolute trust in Iran. That's because it's a ridiculous assertion. Enemies, by definition, don't have all that much trust in each other. Kind of like the way the U.S. and U.S.S.R. didn't trust each other all that much. Still didn't stop them from successfully negotiating a bunch of arms reduction treaties. Nor did it stop Reagan from having the balls to stand up to Gorbachev. But Hillary just does what she's told to say in order to get the most political expediency out of the situation and Bush says "screw you, I'm taking my marbles and going home", and McCain, who knows what McCain would do, other than find some advisor to help him understand the complexity of a situation and then leave it at that.

I like your admission of how, "well, you know, I guess food crops aren't the ONLY source of renewable energy" combines so easily with your red herring about state laws. And as for myself, well I PERSONALLY have all sorts of plans. One would be the food crop of algae - which releases levels of energy per area of growth that is orders of magnitude greater than that of corn or any other crop. Plus, people don't like to eat it all that much (other than hippies), so I don't foresee widespread starvation from diverting it to fuel. And since you still haven't mentioned a single, natural, non-food based renewable source, I'll just assume you're one of the few people in the world who's lived under a rock too long to have ever come across the concept of a windmill (currently the fastest growing energy source), a dam, or a solar panel. And I'll assume that, based on conversations Obama's had with GOOGLE executives revealing his adept grasp of technology policy, that he can craft a plan (if he hasn't already) that might be orders of magnitude above your grasp of the details, or just orders of magnitude above your grasp of how to search his speeches and policy proposals on the internet.

Glad to hear you're not an apologist for Hamas, Ismail. I'm sure your proclaimed "distaste" for them extends to civil disobedience, or organizing alternative or oppositional Palestinian civic organizations, or -- oh wait, then you wouldn't have Israel to bash for not assuming the responsibility that the Palestinians abdicated by not doing so. I see! How convenient. But it's better than being a wussy and risking getting shot by your understanding "brothers" for merely rallying around your own divergent opinion. Must be tough. But not anything that any Israeli or supporter of Israel has to "apologize" for.

[Insert tears here]

More fun to continue below: 

"complaining about the wildly unlikely potential of Hamas to "extinguish" Israel in the face of the actual, relentless and deliberate sociocide that Israel has practiced for 60 years against the Palestinians represents a degree of chutzpah unparalleled in modern political history."

Well, in the absence of any widespread principles demonstrated on the part of the Palestinians other than solidarity and extremist eliminationism, I'm wondering how chutzpah translates into Arabic. "Unparalleled" indeed!

"As for Hamas' goals, you're right that their stupid charter contains dumbass rhetoric that they should have renounced long ago. I can't explain why they haven't done so, but do you honestly think that they haven't so that they can point to it after they steamroller through Tel Aviv and say, "See, we told you so", as though it would be somehow exculpatory?"

Well, if you can't explain, try seeing the above. It's because of those lack of any other principles than the aforementioned on the part of Hamas and the Palestinian population that has become (and to an extent, has always been) more or less complicit in that gaping shortcoming. Nothing that Israel has can replace that crucial shortcoming of principles on the part of any Palestinian leadership with which they could then ostensibly work from. 

"What I can explain is why folks like you love to disinter a ridiculous document written decades ago while ignoring the significant statements made more recently by Hamas spokespeople which effectively disavow that document's crazier threats."

Israel's in the resolution business for good. Hamas' statements betrays the fact that they're not. So stop giving me Shi'ite taqiyah when it comes to disavowing threats.

"It's because you can't bear to realize that Israel's moment of absolute hegemony in the region has passed, and that it will have to negotiate with folks it doesn't like."

It doesn't have to, really. Just leave the Americans to negotiate with Iran, while the other Arabs pretend that they collectively comprise the other end of that balance of power. It's enough to work with. You Arabs hate admitting that you all have your own individual interests, let alone interests on the part of each state, but Israel's still just smart enough to see past what your pride won't let you admit. 

"Really, what's the downside of negotiating a truce?"

Other than the fact that there's no point to it? Not much of a downside (other than raising expectations of the naive Palestinian factions all over again on what they can't ultimately achieve with either FORCE or TALKING). Just a waste of time. A giant waste of time. As I said, it gives the world the opportunity to clearly see what the hold-up is. Again.  

"Hamas will take the opportunity to re-arm?"

Of course. That's pretty much the only thing they ever take an opportunity to do when it comes to their version of "foreign policy".

"Seems they're doing a fine job re-arming without a truce."

No need to make it any easier.  

"And what will Israel do?"

Probably something more creative than whatever bullshit your side is always wasting its time doing.

"I'm sure Mossad will close up shop and open a chain of felafel stands, right? And the army will mount productions of "Fiddler On The Roof" instead of messing about training in those Merkavas. Of course, neither President Obama nor President McCain will release dollar one nor sell the teeniest clusterbomb to Israel-not while a truce exists, right?"

This is funny, Ismail. Is this your way of creating a funny narrative to top off some real go-nowhere points? I must say, attempts at humor almost make me forget how terrible you are at argumentation, so there must have been some value in it. Nice Job! Know any good publishers?

"So, really, what's the downside?"

You mean, other than aforementioned giant waste of time and denying outside, global observers their newfound clarity in recognizing that the Palestinians aren't serious? 

"An Ashkelon bubbe lives to observe another Passover with her family. A Rafah tyke gets to hang out in his house rather than beneath it."  

Yes! That's it! Palestinian promises based on what value they intend to deliver in the way of protecting Israeli lives are so meaningful. They're almost believed.

"My way, there's a possibility, however remote, that Israelis and Palestinians can maybe enjoy life a little more."

Israelis are a lot less gullible than they were before 2000. They don't go for naively remote possibilities - especially when they come with the downsides I've mentioned.

"Your way, more killing."  

Is that really MY way?

Palestinians never want to admit they have any cards. Credibility might not mean much to you, but in the Western world and the peace they've achieved amongst themselves, its a currency worth gold - and one that the Palestinian culture might want to acquaint itself with. Once it gets over its anger/hatred issues long enough to learn something new for once. 

Yes, I just read about the Israeli discovery of biofuels from algae that feeds off of CO2 produced by power plants. I like that, I love it actually.

I never said Obama has some kind of trust in Iran--I asked what he is going to tell them that they haven't heard before. It was a question. Then folks started talking about Chamberlain, and if I recall, you missed the point about Chamberlain--the point being that he believed Hitler, not that he talked to Hitler.

I don't know what Obama will say to Iran, I don't know what Malley said to Hamas. Why doesn't Obama just say--I'll talk to Iran, and I'll tell them that if they don't stop the nuclear program we will blockade them from all imports. You want balls--that's fine. I'll accept that statement. But he's not saying that--he's talking like we need to truly listen to their grievances and understand where they're coming from. But if after watching this regime for 37 years, you don't know where they're coming from, something's wrong there.

And why is your energy plan more specific than Obama's? You have a good plan, but we need quite a bit more energy. Your plan is specific enough to debate. But you write that your are mostly assuming what Obama's plans might be. So are you guessing too? And my point about the food supply holds--my point is that someone could come up with a disastrous plan--which seems to be what's happening by diverting the food supply to energy. That's why I want specifics.

Regarding Ismail, yeah. He and I have a history. But until he can explain why Hamas can't figure out how to use a pencil eraser we don't have a lot more to say--and I'll be happy to pass the baton to you.

Naftali, there may be multiple reasons for whatever you or anyone else perceives to be the vague nature of Obama's statements on Iran. First off, it's important to continue to distinguish himself from the other two copy-cats. Showing willingness to actually conduct diplomacy attracts a strong domestic constituency, it prevents the Iranian people from assuming we've turned our back on them, and it keeps the Iranian leadership from feeling it's got too big for its britches. He doesn't have to say WHAT he WOULD say; he's not there to say it. Once a meeting happens is when you decide what you would say based on the context of what transpires during the meeting. And that encompasses a broad range of possibilities. We could end up walking out. No big deal.

Americans are getting a little silly to think they as an electorate can dictate and micro-manage the course of meetings that haven't occurred yet. It should be enough to elect leaders who distinguish between toughness and intransigence and are fickle enough to make foreign policy rather than to let it be made out of them. There is more of an art to foreign policy than all the armchair foreign policy analysts who proclaimed their existence after 9/11 realize - and I include both elites as well as the self-cannibalizing red/blue electorate as a whole in this category, and all the false dichotomies they never stop parroting.  

Also, Iran can be a great nation - strong enough to rival the Arabs (not a hard job there). It's in Israel's interest (for America) to appeal to them through engagement, if it can, under the auspices of the spheres of influence that exist outside of the Middle East and make them realize that their rising nationalism can be expressed through something other than competing with the Arabs' losing game of proving who can be most opposed to Israel. The last thing that needs to be done is to unnecessarily isolate Iran so that they have no one else other than the motley crew of Damascus, Hizbullah and the Palestinians to win the attentions of. The points to keep in mind are 1) that isolation has its drawbacks, 2) intransigence is not necessarily a show of strength, and 3) whether we like it or not, Iran is a great nation that understandably wants to be understood within that context. They're not a made-up one like the Palestinians.    

I've heard just about all of Obama's victory speeches, not to mention some defeated speeches--and looky here, I understand your point, I see where you are coming from--from two posts I know more about your stance on a number of topics than I do from listening to Obama. And that includes foreign policy.

Now, I'm not being a smartass here, but tomorrow night, after Obama speaks, write a post and translate that darn thing.

I'll write a translation while Obama's crowdsurfing.

Amin al-Husaini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, remains a controversial figure. The Palestinian leader, who was born in 1895 and died in 1974, first sparked controversy during his lifetime. As an officer in the Ottoman army during the First World War, he implemented the German idea of organizing jihad and terror behind enemy lines. (See my discussion here.) Later, he led the resistance against the British mandate authority in Palestine during uprisings in 1929 and in 1936. He fiercely opposed Jewish settlement.

But it is, above all, the Grand Mufti's close ties to National Socialist Germany that are the subject of ongoing debates. From 1941 to 1945, he lived for the most part in Berlin as a guest of the German government. The Nazis provided office space, vehicles and money, so that the Mufti and his entire entourage could stay active. In return, the Mufti used his influence in the Middle East on the Nazis' behalf and recruited Muslims for the Nazi war effort. On the airwaves of Nazi Germany's Arab language radio service, he called for a Holy War, a jihad, against the Allies and the Jews.

Some German authors, like René Wildangel, claim that it is still unclear whether and to what extent Amin Al-Husaini was informed about the Nazis' exterminationist policies toward the Jews. In a recent review of Klaus Gensicke's biography of the Grand Mufti, John Rosenthal expresses some doubts as well: noting that the fact that members of the Grand Mufti's entourage visited the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in 1942 is not sufficient evidence for concluding that he also knew what was transpiring in the death camps further to the East.

But in fact the full record of the available evidence, including both German and Arabic sources, leaves no room for doubt anymore. Indeed, the Grand Mufti's own words provide the most compelling proof. Memoirs of the Grand Mufti, edited by Abd al-Karim al-Umar, were published in Damascus in 1999. (See cover photo below.) In the memoirs, al-Husaini openly discusses his close relationship to SS chief Heinrich Himmler.

According to his account, he often met Himmler for tea and during these meetings the Nazi leader confided some of the secrets of the German Reich to him. Thus, for example, in the middle of 1943, Himmler is supposed to have told him that German nuclear research had made great progress: In three years, Germany could have an atomic weapon that would guarantee its "ultimate victory." As Reinhard Karlsch's recent book on "Hitler's Bomb" has shown, this assessment was not far off. Himmler presumably confided this information to the Grand Mufti on July 4, 1943. That is the date on a photo of the two men with a signed dedication from Himmler: "to his Eminence the Grand Mufti -- a Memento" (see below).

In the memoirs, the Grand Mufti also describes what Himmler said to him in that summer of 1943 about the persecution of the Jews. Following some tirades on "Jewish war guilt," Himmler told him that "up to now we have exterminated [in Arabic, tabdid] around three million of them" (p. 126 -- see Arabic excerpt below).

There is evidence, moreover, that the Grand Mufti knew about the Nazis' plans still earlier. In 1946, Dieter Wisliceny, a close collaborator of Adolf Eichmann in the "Jewish Affairs" division of the Reich Central Security Office, provided a written statement on the Grand Mufti to the Nuremberg Tribunal.

According to Wisliceny, at the beginning of 1942 Eichmann made a detailed presentation to al-Husaini on the "solution of the European Jewish question." The presentation took place in Eichmann's "map room" in Berlin: "where he had collected statistical graphics on the Jewish population in the various European countries." The Grand Mufti, Wisliceny recalls, was "very impressed." Furthermore, al-Husaini is supposed to have put in a request to Himmler to have Eichmann send one of his assistants to Jerusalem after Germany had won the war. The representative of Eichmann was to serve as the Grand Mufti's personal advisor: i.e. when the Grand Mufti would then set about "solving the Jewish question in the Middle East."

We can infer from other documentation that this was not just a vague idea. A declassified document on Nazi war crimes from the National Archives in Washington indicates that as of mid-1942 a special SS commando unit had plans to liquidate the Jews of Cairo following the capture of the city by German forces. (See detail below.) Gen. Erwin Rommel was supposedly disgusted by the proposition. The head of the SS unit, Walter Rauff, had earlier been involved in developing vans that served as mobile gas chambers. It should be noted that he was a German and not a Pole, as suggested in the U.S. government document.

In his memoirs, however, the Grand Mufti feigns astonishment at Himmler's remark. On his account, Himmler asked him how he would solve the problem of the Jews in his country. Amin al-Husaini says that he answered that they should go back to where they came from. To which Himmler is supposed then to have replied: "Come back to Germany -- we will never allow them to do that." But the Grand Mufti is here white-washing his own role in history. After all, in Berlin on November 2, 1943, he publicly declared that Muslims should follow the example of the Germans, who had found a "definitive solution to the Jewish problem."

So, naftali, you're passing the baton to your anonymous friend? Passing the seltzer bottle is more like it-you know, the one that accessorizes so well with the red nose and enormous shoes I imagined you must wear. How many others of you are going to emerge from that tiny car?

OK, anon, I'll waste a little of my time on you. For the sake of brevity and ease, I'll reference your points with brief excerpts and trust you'll be able to reconstruct from these your original misapprehensions:

"...oppositional Palestinian civic organizations..."

I know that it suits your enfeebled imagination to picture all Palestinians as bomb-hurling malcontents, but peaceful protests occur there with far more frequency than military operations. Of course, these protests are aimed at the Israeli occupiers and not , as you would wish, the protesters' fellow immiserated countrymen. Funny folks, aren't they, these Arabs? Imagine, marshalling their energies to protest and resist their occupiers rather than their compatriots. Perhaps we should look to Bernard Lewis or Raphael Patai for enlightenment re their primitive inclinations.     

"Well, in the absence of any widespread principles demonstrated on the part of the Palestinians other than solidarity and extremist eliminationism, I'm wondering how chutzpah translates into Arabic. "Unparalleled" indeed!"

This comment I'm leaving in its ignorant and unresponsive entirety. You'll recall, if the shiny objects haven't distracted you too much, that this was meant as a response to my point that Israel's mewling about the potential peril it faces while it performs ethnic cleansing and unceasing aggression upon the Palestinians is positively Olympian in its brazen defiance of logic and moral sensibility. You don't address any of this , of course, except in the sense that you provide yet another example of this disorder-calling Palestinians "eliminationist" while Israelis continue doing their best to throttle the life out of Palestine.

As for the rest, which "widespread principles" do the Palestinians lack? Each and every one endorses an end to occupation, most endorse a two-state solution-are these not principles? And why exactly do you refer to their support of "solidarity" as though that were a bad thing?

"... lack of any other principles than the aforementioned..." 

Again, the Palestinian leadership has been guilty of all sorts of malfeasance, but if honest leaders were the criterion by which states derived their legitimacy, we'd have no problem 'cause there'd be no Israel. But, bad as it's often been, the fact is that the Palestinian leadership has articulated principles designed to reach accord with Israel repeatedly (and often stupidly, as in Arafat's agreement to recognize Israel without getting a thing in return.)

"Israel's in the resolution business for good. Hamas' statements betrays the fact that they're not. So stop giving me Shi'ite taqiyah when it comes to disavowing threats."

Nice use of "taqiyah", a word that I notice has been wending its way through the more feral Zionist precincts of the Web. Again, let's compare Hamas' words with Israel's acts; rapid deployment of cluster bombs in Lebanon when peace was imminent, Sharon's famous "grab everything you can-what we get now, we keep", thereby demonstrating his commitment to peace. The list goes on... 

"Other than the fact that there's no point to it [negotiating a truce]? Not much of a downside (other than raising expectations of the naive Palestinian factions all over again on what they can't ultimately achieve with either FORCE or TALKING). Just a waste of time. A giant waste of time. As I said, it gives the world the opportunity to clearly see what the hold-up is. Again."

No point to it? How brave you are. What's another life or two or twelve? The cavalier insouciance of the punk, imaginary six-guns blazing, all hat and no cattle. A giant waste of time? I know you don't care a fig for the life of Palestinian children, but I'd love to hear you tell the family of the next Israeli killed how much of a time waster taking up your antagonists' offer of a truce would have been.   

" Of course. That's [re-arming] pretty much the only thing they ever take an opportunity to do when it comes to their version of "foreign policy"."

Well, no. Hamas called and observed more than one truce, unilaterally. Israel's response? Extra-judicial killings. You know, business as usual.  

"No need to make it [re-arming] any easier [by agreeing to a truce]."

How exactly will Israel's ceasing to collapse houses upon the heads of children make it easier for Hamas to re-arm? And why should Hamas not re-arm as long as Israel continues its siege? 

"This is funny, Ismail. Is this your way of creating a funny narrative to top off some real go-nowhere points? I must say, attempts at humor almost make me forget how terrible you are at argumentation, so there must have been some value in it. Nice Job! Know any good publishers?"

Here's another excretion I'm reproducing unedited, so perfectly does it embody your own personal brand of witlessness. I made the useful and apposite point that Israel, with its hugely superior access to funds and firepower, will undoubtedly use a truce to increase its already massive military advantage. Therefore, why squeak about Hamas doing something similar? Unless, of course, you're reaching for any reason, no matter how senseless, to keep Israelis and Palestinians in harm's way. Look, you're the one who'll have to answer to that next Israeli victim. I'd rather see him or her stay alive.

I did make this substantive point with some nod towards keeping the reader interested-irony, wit, you may have heard of these things. I'll try to keep in mind your limitations and stay more concrete next time.  

"You mean, other than aforementioned giant waste of time and denying outside, global observers their newfound clarity in recognizing that the Palestinians aren't serious?"

This is your response to my asking for the downside of calling a halt to the violence. Another rhapsody of non-responsiveness and question-begging. 

 OK, I've donated more of my time than you deserve. 

Naftali, great choice. I'm sure this new champion will handle the seltzer bottle with all the grace and aplomb we've come to expect from you. Now, do that thing where you smell the flower in his lapel and he squirts you...always a real crowd-pleaser. 

Honk, honk! 

Like or not, dude, we are entertainers now.  Remember, rock stars?

Anyway, what's there to talk about?  You said you couldn't figure out why Hamas has it in their charter, as does the PLO, to destroy Israel.  Now, why terrorist groups need a charter in the first place, that's a head scratcher.  But why they haven't figured out how to use an eraser--I think you've got to explain that.  Otherwise, we're just trading insults, and since you're not going to hire a writer, you may as well just give up.

Perhaps this is just a plateau, who knows? 

1. Please describe the political views and scope of support for these opposition groups whose existence you accuse me of willfully ignoring.

2. "As for the rest, which "widespread principles" do the Palestinians lack?"

Tolerance. Moderation. Secularism. Respect for rule of law. An understanding of American cultural values. 

"And why exactly do you refer to their support of "solidarity" as though that were a bad thing?"

Why do you pretend to ignore exactly what that limitations such an ebullient expression of merely that kind of solidarity comes at the expense of?

3. Honesty is one thing. But I think at some point you'd have to admit that Israel has a different standard for what it would take to consider one of their leaders "successful" than would the Palestinians.

4. "rapid deployment of cluster bombs in Lebanon when peace was imminent"

So that prevented the conflict from ending?

5.  "Sharon's famous "grab everything you can-what we get now, we keep", thereby demonstrating his commitment to peace"

Don't be an idiot. Sharon's statements to more astute audiences outlined the fact that he recognized how unprepared the Palestinians are for a peaceful acceptance of Israel as a reality, and redeployed in such a way as to enhance Israel's disentanglement from their dysfunctional and primitive state of affairs. He envisioned the conflict entering a long-term, slow state of disengagement during which the Palestinians could decide, on their own, to mature as a society and a political entity - if they so chose - at which point a realistic and more permanent settlement might be possible. They need a long-overdue time out and a reason to focus on something other than how Israel is somehow the cause of all their problems. Once they've emerged from their room it will be evident whether they've matured enough to stop the food-fights and can eat dinner with the grown-ups. 

6.  "Well, no. Hamas called and observed more than one truce..."

I'm not surprised that you don't refute my shot about the limited nature of what Hamas considers in deciding what constitutes its "foreign policy".

7. "And why should Hamas not re-arm as long as Israel continues its siege?"

I love the word "siege", as if eyeballs and geography didn't exist. Gaza is basically 90% land-bordered BY Israel. I suppose any closure is, according to your overly entitlement-prone attitude, a "siege". Other countries don't bitch about a lack of open borders with countries they are hostile to.

8. "I made the useful and apposite point that Israel, with its hugely superior access to funds and firepower, will undoubtedly use a truce to increase its already massive military advantage."

Yes, we know. Israel's superior firepower. Which is what Palestinian sympathizers like to keep the discussion locked down to when it is evident that they can't address the irredeemably entrenched and utterly dysfunctional state of their society and political state of affairs - which choke off their options regardless of asymmetrical firepower and funding. And then they find a way to blame that on Israel too.     

9. "I'd rather see him or her stay alive."

Well, then if you're serious, you might want to think about the underlying problem, which is why your culture is - in many ways, but principally politically - in such an entrenched state of conflict with his.  

10. The last point you attacked with an Arafatian sense of deference to "calls" for things, while conveniently ignoring the larger geopolitical context of the problem. Which is what I addressed and what Israel is, either wisely, accidentally or just by virtue of its own nature, appropriately doing.  

You can "dialogue" with me until you're blue in the face. The fact is that it's the society you defend that has miles more to go until it can even come close to receiving the level of respect that America gives to its Israeli counterpart and support that it gives to their country. At some point it's not just about subjective viewpoints but about cultural values that you won't admit that the Palestinians basically lack internally and can appreciate exercising this energetically only when it comes to criticizing Israel.  

"The fact is that it's the society you defend that has miles more to go until it can even come close to receiving the level of respect that America gives to its Israeli counterpart and support that it gives to their country. At some point it's not just about subjective viewpoints but about cultural values that you won't admit that the Palestinians basically lack internally and can appreciate exercising this energetically only when it comes to criticizing Israel."

Having reached my limit of tolerance for talking to walls (or what you might call "security fences"), I'll ignore your desperate flailings and concentrate only on your closing sentiments, reproduced above.  

I don't think Palestinians are asking for "respect", nor do I think that your assessment of their cultural achievements have any bearing whatsoever upon the only relevant question: what in the world are Israeli squatters still doing in Palestine after 40 years? Get your jackboots off their necks; then we can worry about respect.

Peace is impossible between Israelis and Palestinians for the simple reason. Palestinian identity is based upon the negation of a Jewish state. Asking the Palestinian people to make peace with Israel is asking them to give up their identity. I dont expect them to give up their identity. If the Palestinians ever succeeded, then the nascent Palestinians identity would soon merge into the caliphate. Neither Hamas, al Qaeda, or Iran want an independent Palestinian state. They just want to defeat the Little Satan. I dont care whether the Palestinians respect us, I just know that our struggle with the Palestinians is a zero sum game

Assuming that you're actually talking about settlers and not Israelis as a whole, what they're doing is taking advantage of the disarray bred by the lack of those vital cultural values (not the same thing as "achievements") which they (The Palestinians) eschew for the sake of intellectually conformist and politically authoritarian, national "solidarity".

I call that "The Last Wall".  

I think I've listened to your arguments reasonably well. Thanks for addressing mine; especially the last one - (and the only one addressed in your own last post) - upon which, you now evidently agree, that the conflict we've discussed, hinges.