First, Rosenberg whines about Obama being pro-Israel:
"President Obama gave his first signal over the weekend that his policies toward Israelis and Palestinians will be the same in his second term as it was in the last three years of the first. He will do Prime Minister Netanyahu's bidding....Just five days after winning reelection, Obama told Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, that the United States will oppose a United Nations General Assembly resolution that would grant Palestine "non-member state" observer status in the world body."You as an educated person may understand why Obama is going to do this, but Rosenberg doesn't. Keep in mind that he said that Obama "does Netanyahu's bidding." It isn't the last time he invokes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories today. Let's let him dig himself deeper for a second:
"Of course, the Israeli government is opposed to that as it opposes any change in Palestinian status not agreed to by Israel. That is why Israel (and the United States) repeatedly insists that the Palestinians cannot take unilateral actions on anything. Any change in their status must be agreed to in the context of negotiations with Israel."OK...all this is true...let's see where MJ is going with this....
"This sounds sensible until one considers that the reason there are no current negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians is because Israel insists on its right to continue taking its own unilateral actions: expanding settlements and expropriating West Bank land. The Palestinians will not negotiate while Israel is chewing up the land they would ostensibly be negotiating over. Then Israel complains that the Palestinians are, horror of horrors, unilaterally going to the United Nations.So poor MJ is so confused! He doesn't understand why mean old Israel is allowed to build settlements, but the poor suffering Palestinians aren't allowed to go to the UN. Why don't you click below so that we can all find out why that is together?
Forgive me for saying something so obvious, but isn't the unilateral act of expropriating land and building settlements on them considerably more egregious than unilaterally taking your case to... the United Nations."
Here's the answer: The Oslo Accords, which the Palestinian Authority signed. Here's what the Oslo Accords, in article 5, have to say about settlements (emphasis added):
"It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest."The Palestinian Authority agreed that settlements would be resolved through negotiations. Settlements aren't "egregious," they are just one of the many issues that Israel and the Palestinians need to resolve. There is nothing in the Oslo Accords stopping Israel from building settlements, otherwise the Palestinians would have used that as a talking point long ago.
What do the Oslo Accords have to say about final status arrangements, aka a state of Palestine? This is article 1:
"It is understood that the interim arrangements are an integral part of the whole peace process and that the negotiations on the permanent status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. "Again, permanent status and the establishment of a Palestinian state would be decided through negotiation, not "unilateral actions." There is no question in anyone's mind that forming a Palestinian state would qualify as something that changes the permanent status of the region. In fact that's precisely why the extremists among the Palestinians don't like this plan. Forming a Palestinian state along the "67 borders" is like admitting that Israel is not "occupied Palestine" as they claim.
So for someone familiar with the Oslo Accords, someone who is clearly not MJ Rosenberg, Israel is being consistent to the agreement it signed with the Palestinians. Israel did not promise to end the settlements, but the Palestinians did promise to negotiate a permanent status. You can argue all day long whether this argument is "fair" or not, but it's the agreement the PA signed and they have to live with it. Meanwhile, the Palestinians are once again breaking their word.
So now that MJ Rosenberg has revealed his complete lack of knowledge about the Oslo Accords, he's moving on to pretending he speaks for the American electorate:
"Nonetheless, Netanyahu expects the United States to back his position because he assumes that the American Jewish community, through the "pro-Israel" lobby, will make it impossible for Obama to do anything but yield to his will.
He is right about that but only because it is unlikely that Obama will test that proposition. If he did, both Obama and Netanyahu would discover that American Jews are no more likely to follow Netanyahu's lead on the issue of Israeli/Palestinian negotiations than they did on deciding who to vote for. American Jews voted overwhelmingly for Obama despite Netanyahu's clear preference for Governor Romney and the clear evidence that the more hawkish candidate was Romney. Netanyahu is a foreign leader. Saying that American Jews will do his bidding is offensive. And it's wrong."First of all, it's hilarious that Rosenberg declares that "saying American Jews will do his [Netanyahu's] bidding is offensive. And it's wrong" but says himself at the beginning of the piece that "He[Obama] will do Prime Minister Netanyahu's bidding." I'm not seeing much of a difference there, they both seem offensive to me. Rosenberg's attempts to push both ZOG and the myth that American Jews don't support Israel is making him dance in circles.
I don't dare speak for what American Jews think of Netanyahu in general, unlike Rosenberg. I do know that the American Jewish vote for Obama, according to Rosenberg's own website, was based primarily off of the economy and health care. I'm not sure why Rosenberg can now say that American Jews voted for Obama to stick it to Netanyahu. There's not enough data there to make that conclusion, but that's never stopped Rosenberg before. It's entirely possible (but I can't say this for sure because I don't have the data) that most American Jews are completely aligned with Netanyahu but voted for Obama based on other issues besides Israel.
But let's move on, we've got ZOG to push:
"Although he[Obama] would prevail in the end, he does not want to begin his second term by going to war with a lobby which although not representative of most Jews is loud, powerful and flush with money. Additionally, it has hundreds of cutouts in Congress already worrying about funding for 2014. As for Netanyahu, the man is a loose cannon. It is hard to blame Obama for not wanting to go to the mat with him. Besides, Obama has his hands full preventing him from ensnaring us in a war with Iran."It's incredible to think in this day and age we still have people like Rosenberg writing for mainstream publications about Jewish interests controlling the US government with their money. Hey MJ, it couldn't be that the American government supports Israel because the American people do, could it? You'd think someone who is "pro-Israel" and "pro-Jewish" would take Occam's Razor over anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, wouldn't you? Let's not forget either that he said earlier that "the American Jewish community, through the "pro-Israel" lobby...." implying that the lobby is an arm of the American Jewish community. Yes, that contradicts what he has been saying for years. But this is boring MJ territory, let's move on to his final whine.
"Nonetheless, I do blame him. Yes, America has its domestic problems to deal with. But the Israeli-Palestinian conflict threatens our national interests worldwide. The Muslim world despises us largely because of it. The rest of the world disrespects us because we are so obviously in thrall to a tiny foreign country in order not to displease its influential domestic backers. The Israeli peace camp is on life support because we refuse to give it the help it needs to end the occupation and save its country. As for the Palestinians, we enable their endless suffering at the hands of the Israeli government which maintains its occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza because we are too intimidated to simply say "stop.""Another MJ paragraph long on rhetoric, short on facts.
Really, MJ, the "Muslim world despises us largely because of" Israel? Not because of the million plus dead in Iraq, the occupation of Afghanistan, or the drone strikes in Pakistan? Can we see a poll, please, or a shred of evidence to support this statement? No? All right, then. The truth is that the only reason why he wants us to care about Israel is because that's his subject of
The reason the Israeli peace camp is on life support is because it's divided in two, between the people who have woken up to realize the Palestinians don't want peace and the people like MJ who are living in dream land. Let's not forget how the Palestinians blew up the left's carefully constructed myhs during the Second Intifada either. Funny, how he doesn't seem to mind encouraging us to meddle in their politics, while he has been shrieking for months that Netanyahu "endorsed" Romney, which he didn't. No wonder we see long, factless, vaguely anti-Semitic rants like these posted on the HP. He wants us to join him in dream land.