Arab source: Mitchell wanted to quit over U.S. bias for Israel

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"An Arab political source said Friday that special U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell has requested to resign due to his frustration with the way the Obama administration has been handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to a Nazareth-based daily.

Hadith a-Nass reported that Mitchell's request stemmed partly from to his own failure to advance the resumption of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and also from his perception that certain elements within the State Department hold biased favor toward Israel.

The White House turned down Mitchell's request, according to Hadith a-Nass. No verification of the report was available."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1152588.html

[oberliner]

1. "An Arab political source"

So George Mitchell requested to resign, the White House turned down his request, and no one in the media had any knowledge of this happening except for a newspaper in Nazareth?

[monmouth]

2. Oh I'm sure the media knew about it but then Desiree decided to

resign, Tiger went to Rehab and Johnny Weir wore a real fur...Priorities ya know?

[shergald]

3. Is there something about "Arab" that you don't like or trust?

And by asking that question I'm not saying that you are an advocate of David Horowitz's Islamophobia, which subsumes, strangely, antiArab sentiments as well. They're all terrorists at heart, don't you know, at least according to Horowitz.

He also hated Howard Zinn, I understand. How do people actually grow up in America and become like that? Have no answer.

[oberliner]

4. Yes indeed - the lack of any name

"Arab political source" is meaningless, just like "Unnamed Israeli official" or "an insider who declined to be identified"

Ha'aretz is being sloppy by running what is essentially an article with no actual reporting other than to mention that another article in a different newspaper exists (with no named source provided to support its claims).

Is this journalism?

[LeftishBrit]

5. Agreed!

Whether an unnamed source is Arab, Jewish or Chinese, I would need more info to evaluate the reliability of the report.

[Violet_Crumble]

6. Yes. Let's hope Oberliner is now consistant in pointing it out in future...

..and it's not just a case of pointing it out selectively...

[oberliner]

7. I'm planning only to point it out selectively nt

[Violet_Crumble]

8. Figured that'd be the case, as that's how it's been in the past n/t

[azurnoir]

9. well it was good enough for

Lucianne (Goldberg) and a number of others

http://www.google.com/search?q=+Mitchell+wanted+to+quit+over+U.S.+bias+for+Israel+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

posted search as I am not sure if a link to Lucianne is permitted here

[oberliner]

10. All articles point back to Hadith a-Nass

I wonder how they got the scoop.

[azurnoir]

11. actually most point back to Ha'aretz n/t

[oberliner]

12. That is what I meant - the Ha'aretz article that cites only Hadith A-Nass

The unnamed/anonymous Arab political source in Hadith A-Nass is the only first-hand citation referenced.

[aranthus]

14. What a load.

In the first place, as others havbe already pointed out, the problem with the report is that it is unamed (and also unverified). Second, even though you obviously don't like Horowitz, at least tell the truth. Please post the evidence that he believes that either Muslims or Arabs are, "all terrorists at heart."

Apparently, you also don't like Americans. Can't say that you're making any friends over here either.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Yeah, how dare anyone turn up and insult David Horowitz!

Or is there another David Horowitz I'm not aware of? Coz the one I know of is a conservative and a racist and a bigot, and I don't give a shit if you want to accuse me of not liking Americans and not making friends here because I'll call that conservative scumbag what he is - a racist and bigoted wanker. I guess that'll get me crossed off some progressive christmas card lists at DU...oh well...

[shergald]

17. That's him.

And anyone on a left wing site who defends this guy is an interloper from Little Green Footballs, perhaps just visiting, or overstaying one.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. funny you should say that, actually there is another David Horowitz

Could it be that some people here have this David Horowitz in mind?

David Horowitz (consumer advocate)

David Horowitz (born June 30, 1937) is an American consumer advocate and former reporter/anchor for KNBC-TV in Los Angeles, whose Emmy-winning TV program Fight Back! would warn viewers about defective products, test advertised claims to see if they were true, and confront corporations about customer complaints. He is currently on the board of directors of the National Broadcast Editorial Conference, City of Hope, and the American Cancer Society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_(consumer_advocate)

When I first came across statements and read articles by David Horowitz; the right-wing extremist bigot and hate monger (and former Communist) - I was genuinely confused at first. I wondered to myself, gee, he seemed like such a nice guy on his T.V. show - what drove him over the edge to embrace the most radical end of right-wing American nuttery.

[shergald]

26. Sorry if that was a mistake on my part.

I just assume that the Horowitz in question is the "Islamophobist." Is that a legitimate word?

[Douglas Carpenter]

28. I'm guessing that the right-wing bigot, David Horowitz is the one most people on this forum have in

mind. But I do remember being confused first time, several years ago when I saw the name David Horowitz name crop up in regards to ultra-right politics

[shergald]

41. He's the one, the right wing Islamophobe.

[aranthus]

30. So disagreeing with Horowitz gives someone the right to lie about him?

Sad. I countered a very specific (and I believe utterly false) accusation. I challenged shergald to prove what he said. So far, he hasn't. That's all. I don't expect anyone here to like Horowitz, but first tell the truth.

[LeftishBrit]

32. The particular accusation is false and exaggerated; but it's true that Horowitz has said some pretty

bad things about Muslims.

While saying that not all Muslims are extremists, and (correctly) that most victims of Muslim terrorist groups are themselves Muslim, he has also come out with lots of both implicitly and explicitly bigoted crap. As I wanted to see *exactly* what Horowitz said in his recent speech at the University of Southern California, rather than relying on possibly inaccurate hearsay, I made the great sacrifice of looking it up directly. The speech was reproduced on Frontpage, to which I will not link, but here are the relevant bits of the speech:




'In point of fact, Muslim students far from being under duress are everywhere coddled on college campuses, where they are showered with special privileges – generous student funding, special access to university officials, and the opportunity to target individuals with whom they disagree with slanderous attacks that would not be tolerated from any other group.'

(If Jewish or African-American or Asian students were described as 'everywhere coddled' and 'showered with special privileges', I would consider it as decidedly racist/bigoted. The same here)


'What is at stake in this conflict at USC – and on campuses across the country – is the ability to assert that there are Muslims who have a religious hatred for others and who consider it a religious obligation to make war on them.
Of course there are also Muslims who dissent from these views and who find the genocidal sayings of the prophet Mohammed hateful and who would condemn the Muslim oppressions of women and gays and Christians. But so far not many have had the courage to speak up. Where are the Muslim organizations condemning genital mutilation?'



'At Temple University, the students had invited Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian I mentioned earlier. The Muslim Students Association together with Students for Justice in Palestine and other leftist groups immediately attacked Wilders as a “racist” and “Islamophobe” and demanded that the proposed event be banned. You would think that university officials would admonish the student protestors about tolerance and the importance of civility and intellectual diversity in a university setting. You might expect them to roll out the welcome mat for an important European politician such as Geert Wilders and to say, “We’re so glad you chose our campus, because now our students can learn about a crucial conflict over an issue of historic importance — whether Europe is going to reinstitute blasphemy laws or defend freedom – and to learn about it from the one of the historic actors.”'

(This is a misrepresentation of Wilders. The trouble with Wilders is not that he doesn't support blasphemy laws, but his views on foreigners and immigrants. Here are some of his expressed political proposals:

#Replacement of the present Article 1 of the Dutch constitution, guaranteeing equality under the law, by a clause stating the cultural dominance of the Christian, Jewish and humanist traditions.
# immigration ban of five years for immigrants from non-western countries. Foreign residents will no longer have the right to vote in municipal elections.
# A five-year ban on the founding of mosques and Islamic schools; a permanent ban on preaching in any language other than Dutch.)


Then came a lot of complaints about censorship of free speech, which would get more sympathy from me if Horowitz wasn't constantly engaged in witch-hunts against people whom he considers as too left-wing.

And it's not just Muslims who attract his bigotry; he's said some pretty horrid things about African-Americans, and about left-wingers.


Yes, he did not say that *all* Muslims are terrorists; and we all know that the poster who said that tends to ..er, exaggerate and to see everything in black vs white terms - rather as Horowitz does, come to think of it. But Horowitz is still a disgusting far-RW individual, who deserves not just disagreement, but absolute condemnation.

[aranthus]

33. I was only commenting on the specific allegation.

There are plenty of people on this board (like you) who can take Horowitz to task with his actual words, and who don't have to make up things about him (or anyone else). It's the making up stuff that I don't like.

[Douglas Carpenter]

56. people misquote David Duke , but like David Horowitz - he is still an evil bigot

David Duke does not say all black people or all Jews are bad and he denies that he hates them in any way -

David Horowitz and David Duke are pretty much the same. They are both articulate prophets of hate who are a danger to the country and the world.

The difference is David Duke does not get routinely invited by major mainstream American T.V. networks to give his expert opinion and I have never seen anyone in any liberal or progressive circle come to his defense - nor should they.

[Violet_Crumble]

34. No more than it does when it's an antisemite...

And I'm wondering why you rush to the defence of a bigot and a racist when people have only recently overexaggerated about an antisemite and accused him of wanting to see all Jews be killed you were nowhere to be seen. I spotted that bit of overexaggeration at the time but didn't care enough about the reputation of that particular bigot to say anything, so I really have to wonder why yr so worried about the reputation of a bigoted Arab/Muslim hater to rush in defending him...

So when I see you rushing to the defense of lies told about antisemites, then I'll believe you actually do have a problem with overexaggeration and there's not another reason for the spirited defense of a bigot...

btw, that last line of yr other post to shergold was really nasty and uncalled for.

[LeftishBrit]

39. And both are important to avoid

Not because any sort of bigot deserves defending; but because truth is important in itself, and our best weapon against all forms of bigotry.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. Then I really have to wonder why no-one seems to say anything here when it's an antisemite...

There was a very recent thread where the accusation I mentioned was made, and even though there were lots of people posting around the post where the claim was made, not one person stopped in to make sure that the record was set straight in a way that of course wouldn't be seen as defending a bigot. So I really have to wonder why people seem to only pop up and say anything when it's cases like this and it's an anti-Muslim/Arab bigot, not an antisemite...

on edit: While I've seen overexaggerations happen unchallenged in this forum quite a bit in the past when it comes to accusations about antisemitic writers, I was specifically thinking of a very recent instance where someone brought up Gilad Atzmon and accused him of wanting to see all Jews dead. I just went back to find the post and couldn't locate it and I suspect it was one of quite a few of that DUers posts that have been deleted (not because of what she said about Atzmon of course). Anyway, from now on, I'm going to be all over the overexaggerations about Hamas that get posted, coz that's another thing that never gets challenged and now I realise that I won't look a bit strange defending bigots, I'm sure no-one's going to question why I've started doing it ;)

[LeftishBrit]

48. People do

E.g. when false accusations were made by someone called 'Daylight' about Hamas being paedophiles and organizing weddings with little girls, several of us pointed out the factual errors. When a rather 'low information' poster recently suggested that Hamas were responsible for the Lebanon war, we pointed out that they weren't.

I didn't see the post saying that Atzmon wanted 'all Jews dead', or I would have probably pointed out that this was incorrect - the real truth about Atzmon is quite bad enough without any embellishment.

[shergald]

42. And so what was the point in question re. your boy Horowitz?

Sorry, but I seem to have too many posts up to keep track. No offense intended.

[shergald]

16. Anyone who doesn't like David Horowitz is a friend of mine.

Are you kidding? The guy is a bigoted Islamophobic meaning that he hates Arabic peoples just as much, and is especially big on Iranian bigotry. In other words, he's big time for the right wing Likud line.

[Scurrilous]

19. "They're all terrorists at heart, don't you know..."

And Nazis!!1!

Horowitz brings controversial ideas to Student Union (February 25, 2010)

<snip>

"On Tuesday evening, former New Left radical turned conservative pundit and author of such works as “Hating Whitey: and Other Progressive Causes,” and “Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left,” David Horowitz spoke in the Cape Cod Lounge in the Student Union."

<snip>

"As he took the stage, Horowitz began his speech with an attack on liberals.

“Universities were set up to be free institutions that taxpayers pay for. It is due to out of control spending on faculty and out of control governmental loans that tuition costs are so much,” said Horowitz.

He went on to call college professors lazy, claiming they only work “nine hours a week, eight months out of the year.”

He continued to claim that professors generally represent just one side of the aisle politically. Horowitz sat in on a 90 minute civil liberties class during Tuesday’s classes, which he felt did not show multiple viewpoints on the subject.

“The professor tried to sell students on the decency of the Supreme Court, and denied them key information,” he said, furthering that he believes an educator’s job should entail “teaching you how to think, not what to think.”

Midway through his speech, Horowitz spoke on an educational department with which his views are commonly connoted. Horowitz said that women’s studies departments’ goals are to “make students into radical feminists.”

On the issues of gender and racial hierarchies in society, Horowitz claimed such inequities do not exist in America. He also said, to much audience protest, that the women’s studies department “doesn’t actually care about women,” because of genital mutilation occurring in Islamic cultures.

Horowitz expanded on his view of education stating that “the entire liberal arts college cannot give you a good education.” The only department Horowitz felt was of value was the engineering college, because through science, he believes the department presents facts without political slant.

Horowitz also told the crowd his views on religion. He deemed Muslims radicals, citing a poll claiming ten percent of Muslims agreed with jihad, or holy war. Making numerous comparisons to Nazi Germany, Horowitz called the Islamic jihad worse.

“Islamists are worse than the Nazis, because even the Nazis did not tell the world that they want to exterminate the Jews,” he said. In another comparison to Nazis, he added, “there are good Muslims and bad Muslims just like there were good Germans and bad Germans.”

After an hour of speaking, Horowitz took questions. Numerous students asked him about the conflict between Israel and Palestine, to which Horowitz responded heatedly, “The Palestinians are Nazis. Every one of their elected officials are terrorists.”

http://dailycollegian.com/2010/02/25/controversial-author-horowitz-lectures-umass-students/

[aranthus]

31. Something he clearly did not say.

Citing a poll that 10% of Muslims agree with jihad (whether or not that's true) isn't saying that all Muslims are terrorists, is it? Even claiming that all Palestinian elected leaders are terrorists (whether or not that's true) doesn't say anything about all Muslims, does it? As I said in another post, I don't expect anyone to like Horowitz, but first tell the truth.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. Do you believe Horowitz is a bigot against Arabs and Muslims?

I'm curious to find out..

[aranthus]

64. No I don't.

He's an extreme conservative, who engages in more than a bit of hyperbole and broad statement, but I don't think that he's a bigot against Muslims or Arabs in general. I think the charge of bigotry is too often used to silence debate. Take the charge against Gilad Atzmon (which I did not see, and which you say has been removed; not aq bad thing). There are plenty of ways to refute him without claiming that he's an antisemite who wants to see all Jews killed. Both assertions are a lie. Same is true for Horowitz.

Take the claim that he thinks that Muslims are coddled on campus. Overstatement to be sure, but anti-Muslim bigotry? No, it's more like anti-academic and anti-Left demagoguery.

I think the charge of bigotry comes to easily with regard to most people.

[Violet_Crumble]

65. Well, thanks for being honest, I guess...

The problem is that he is bigoted against Arabs and Muslims, and for you to not see that at all really is disturbing.

Yr comment: 'I think the charge of bigotry is too often used to silence debate.' Strange that I've never seen you say that when it comes to charges of antisemitism, because surely someone who thinks that it's not bigoted to say that Muslims are coddled on campus isn't bigoted must surely think it wouldn't be bigoted to say that Jews are moddled on campus or that Jews get special treatment...

[LeftishBrit]

66. I disagree; I don't think you have to want all Muslims/Jews dead, or even hate them *all*, to be an

Islamophobe/antisemite.

Stating that members of any ethnic/religious group are unfairly 'coddled' at the expense of others is a pretty standard form of racism/bigotry, and is generally intended to arouse resentment by people of other groups. Saying it *once* might conceivably be explained in other terms, but Horowitz is pretty consistent in this view. Also, he demanded that the members of the Muslim Students Association sign a 'declaration against genocide' by Muslim states/organizations but did not expect all students to sign a declaration against genocide by *any* group. The use of 'genocide' is in any case a very loaded word in most cases (if he means terrorism, then at least call it that.) If someone accuses Israel of 'genocide', even if they don't say anything else about Jews in general, I would suspect them of antisemitism. If they then singled out a Jewish or Zionist organization with a demand to sign a declaration against 'Israeli genocide' I would be pretty sure of it. Same here.

I agree that his primary hatred is of the left, especially within academia, where his views remind me scarily of McCarthyism. (Like Gilad Atzmon or Nonie Darwish, he is ferociously rejecting his own original background here.) But this does not rule out other forms of bigotry.

[shergald]

52. That's stock Horowitz. I swear he's a paranoid who nightly looks under his bed for terrorists.

He is best known for sliming Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians every chance he gets, but he is also an alarmist, contending here and there that we have muslim terrorists in our midst.

[LeftishBrit]

20. Horowitz is indeed a far-right monster; but what on earth has he got to do with

Oberliner's post?

The idea that anyone who is mildly pro-Israel must be a far-rightist or an Islamophobe is not very different logically from the idea that anyone who is Muslim must be a supporter of terrorism.

[oberliner]

24. Apparently questioning the efficacy of an un-named Arab political source is Islamophobic

The knee-jerk reaction of calling someone "Islamophobic" is a typical thuggish intimidation tactic used to shut down discussion and label people as prejudiced.

It's a standard tactic from the anti-Hasbara playbook.

[LeftishBrit]

25. Now why *does* this sound oddly familiar?!

:hi:

[Violet_Crumble]

38. It doesn't...

Is it supposed to? Also, I don't understand why Oberliners falsely claiming that he was called an Islamaphobe in this thread...

[LeftishBrit]

50. It sounds exactly like some people accusing anyone who expresses pro-Israel views of following 'the

Hasbara playbook', etc.

This is NOT a reference to anything you've said, or to the vast majority of pro-Palestinian posters; but you must admit that there is a a minority of people who do talk/write like that; just as there are right-wing pro-Israelis who are too ready to attribute criticism to antisemitism, and e.g. any number of anti-vaccinators who claim that anyone who is pro-vaccine must be 'towing the pro-Pharma line'. Ideologues of all brands can end up using a particular speech style that assumes that all opponents are insincere propagandists.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. Oh, yeah. There's definately a small number of people who'd think like that...

..and they're on both 'sides'.

When it comes to the Hasbara handbook, as I laughed my way through it, I found myself reminded of some past and present DUers in this forum with the tactics, though I suspect strongly that what I see here at times is due to how peoples logic works when they feel very strongly about a topic rather than any reading of a handbook to get tips on how to 'debate'....

[Violet_Crumble]

55. I just found an example of this being done after our posts here about it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=302747&mesg_id=302831


Anyone who thinks people they disagree with are paid to post at DU are really living in a fantasy land...

[shira]

57. wow. You thought that was a serious question. (nt)

[Violet_Crumble]

58. It was an example of what LB and I were talking about...

And it's a really ridiculous thing for anyone to say....

[Violet_Crumble]

37. No-one called you Islamophobic...

So why would you claim they did?

[oberliner]

45. "Is there something about Jews you don't like or trust?"

If someone asked you (or anyone else) that question, are they not suggesting you are an anti-semite? I think you would call someone out if they were to put that question to you.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. Stop taking things out of context . He did NOT call you an Islamophobe...

This is what shergold said: 'Is there something about "Arab" that you don't like or trust?
And by asking that question I'm not saying that you are an advocate of David Horowitz's Islamophobia, which subsumes, strangely, antiArab sentiments as well. They're all terrorists at heart, don't you know, at least according to Horowitz. '

Note, that Shergold didn't say 'Arabs' and he made a point of saying he didn't think you were an Islamophobe...

[oberliner]

47. "I'm not saying you're an advocate of David Duke's anti-semitism..."

The poster did not make a point of saying they didn't think I was an Islamophobe. The poster wrote that they were not saying I was an advocate of "David Horowtiz's Islamophobia" - why the hell David Horowitz was even brought up is still sort of a mystery to me.

If you can discern what you believe the purpose of that poster's disjointed and bizarre comments were, then be my guest. As far as I can tell, it was to suggest that I was either "antiArab" or an "Islamophobe" based on the question I posed about the source.

You have made it quite clear that you do not feel that was the implication of the post. Other people are free to read it and draw their own conclusions if they so choose. If that poster wishes to clarify their intent, I would welcome that as well.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Yet again, they didn't call you an Islamophobe...

It's not a matter of being free to interpret how one chooses - you falsely claimed you'd been called something you hadn't been.

[oberliner]

53. I never claimed that anyone called me an Islamophobe

I'd appreciate it if you would apologize publicly for falsely accusing me of falsely claiming that I had been called an Islamophobe.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Yes you did...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=302644&mesg_id=302721

I'd appreciate it if you would apologize publicly for falsely accusing another poster of calling you something they didn't. And I'd appreciate an apology for anything else that I may have forgotten to mention :)

[oberliner]

59. No I didn't

Nowhere in the post you cited do I say that anyone called me an Islamophobe.

[Violet_Crumble]

60. Yes, you did and then you went on in a following post to confirm it...

If you weren't claiming that anyone was calling you an Islamophobe, what the hell was all of that about? Do you just randomly come out with stuff like 'Apparently questioning the efficacy of an un-named Arab political source is Islamophobic
The knee-jerk reaction of calling someone "Islamophobic" is a typical thuggish intimidation tactic used to shut down discussion and label people as prejudiced.' for the fun of it?

[oberliner]

61. No, I didn't

There is no statement in that post where I claim that anyone called me an Islamophobe.

Anyone who can read can look at the post and see that there is no such claim.

The statements made in the post are that apparently questioning the efficacy of the Arab political source is Islamophobic and that calling someone an Islamophobe is an intimidation tactic.

In neither statement do I accuse anyone of calling me an Islamophobe.

Nor is it "confirmed" in any subsequent posts.

As to why I made those two comments you cited, perhaps they were inspired by the same mysterious forces that inspired the poster to whom I was responding to mention David Horowitz, Islamophobia, antiArab sentiments, terrorism, and Howard Zinn.

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Yes, you did. I copied and pasted where you did it...

I posted the link to where you claimed you were called an Islamophobe, and you did confirm it in a later post to me where you insisted that they were accusing you of being an Islamophobe.

And here's my post where yr reply to my question confirmed it...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=302644&mesg_id=302807

on edit: to save time and effort on my part, after yr next 'reply', can you just click on this link and read that and go from there? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x302644#302807 thanks :)

[oberliner]

63. Nowhere in what you copied and pasted do I claim that someone called me an Islamophobe

And also nowhere do I insist to you that anyone was accusing me of being an Islamophobe.

Presumably no one is reading this exchange besides the two of us, however, all the messages are there for anyone to read if they choose to do so (although, I cannot imagine why anyone would) made even easier to access by your helpful links to this same thread within the thread itself!

In no post made on this thread do I claim that someone accused me of being an Islamophobe.

You can point to no sentence where I make this accusation - you are merely inferring things from what I've written.

I already went over the two statements in the first post that led to your initial false accusation against me.

Nowhere do I accuse anyone of calling me an Islamophobe in that post, as anyone can plainly see by reading it.

That being said, I do continue to believe that the "David Horowitz post" was meant to suggest that I was either "antiArab" or "Islamophobic" - otherwise I can make no sense of what it was trying to communicate in response to my question about the source.

I certainly do not believe, however, that anyone has accused me of being an Islamophobe and I have made no claim to the contrary.

If you want to share your thoughts on what you think that "David Horowitz post" meant that would be extremely helpful as clearly you do not agree with my (limited) understanding of what were the sentiments being expressed.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. Shergold didn't say or imply that at all...

He didn't say or imply that anyone who's mildly pro-Israel must be a far-rightist. And even if he was, the attempt to equate that with the bigotry of thinking Muslims support terrorism is really OTT. There's one or two 'supporters' of Israel in this forum who have made similar blanket accusations about those of us who support the Palestinian people and while I think it's inflammatory and should have no place in this forum, it's not bigoted...

[shergald]

43. Thanks for responding.

[oberliner]

13. The NY Post and Marty Peretz are convinced!

The Mitchell-haters seem to be taking glee in this anonymously-sourced story.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/george-mitchell-wants-quit-yipee

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/one_less_special_envoy_WWjYvYFzVMjPpQAfJ6iAPK

[LeftishBrit]

21. I do suspect that however the story originated...

it is now being used to a large extent to smear that evil left-wing Arab Communist George Mitchell, you know, the one who works for that Nazi Communist secret Muslin Obama.

:sarcasm: in case it is needed.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. Time for George Mitchell to resign By Stephen M. Walt

As for Mitchell himself, he should resign because it should be clear to him that he was hired under false pretenses. He undoubtedly believed Obama when the president said he was genuinely committed to achieving Israel-Palestinian peace in his first term. Obama probably promised to back him up, and his actions up to the Cairo speech made it look like he meant it. But his performance ever since has exposed him as another U.S. president who is unwilling to do what everyone knows it will take to achieve a just peace. Mitchell has been reduced to the same hapless role that Condoleezza Rice played in the latter stages of the Bush administration -- engaged in endless "talks" and inconclusive haggling over trivialities-and he ought to be furious at having been hung out to dry in this fashion.

snip:

When Netanyahu dug in his heels and refused a complete settlement freeze -- itself a rather innocuous demand if Israel preferred peace to land -- did Obama describe the settlements as "illegal" and contrary to international law? Of course not. Did he fire a warning shot by instructing the Department of Justice to crack down on tax-deductible contributions to settler organizations? Nope. Did he tell Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to signal his irritation by curtailing U.S. purchases of Israeli arms, downgrading various forms of "strategic cooperation," or canceling a military exchange or two? Not a chance. When Israel continued to evict Palestinians from their homes and announced new settlement construction in East Jerusalem and the West Bank in August, did Obama remind Netanyahu of his dependence on U.S. support by telling U.S. officials to say a few positive things about the Goldstone Report and to use its release as an opportunity to underscore the need for a genuine peace? Hardly; instead, the administration rewarded Netanyau's intransigence by condemning Goldstone and praising Netanyahu for "unprecedented" concessions. (The "concessions," by the way, was an announcement that Israel would freeze settlement expansion in the West Bank "temporarily" while continuing it in East Jerusalem. In other words, they'll just take the land a bit more slowly).

snip:

So what will happen now? Israel has made it clear that it is going to keep building settlements -- including the large blocs (like Ma'ale Adumim) that were consciously designed to carve up the West Bank and make creation of a viable Palestinian state impossible. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority, and other moderate forces will be increasingly discredited as collaborators or dupes. As Israel increasingly becomes an apartheid state, its international legitimacy will face a growing challenge. Iran's ability to exploit the Palestinian cause will be strengthened, and pro-American regimes in Egypt, Jordan, and elsewhere will be further weakened by their impotence and by their intimate association with the United States. It might even help give al Qaeda a new lease on life, at least in some places. Jews in other countries will continue to distance themselves from an Israel that they see as a poor embodiment of their own values, and one that can no longer portray itself convincingly as "a light unto the nations." And the real tragedy is that all this might have been avoided, had the leaders of the world's most powerful country been willing to use their influence on both sides more directly.

Looking ahead, one can see two radically different possibilities. The first option is that Israel retains control of the West Bank and Gaza and continues to deny the Palestinians full political rights or economic opportunities. (Netanyahu likes to talk about a long-term "economic peace," but his vision of Palestinian bantustans under complete Israeli control is both a denial of the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations and a severe obstacle to their ability to fully develop their own society. Over time, there may be another intifada, which the IDF will crush as ruthlessly as it did the last one. Perhaps the millions of remaining Palestinians will gradually leave -- as hardline Israelis hope and as former House speaker Dick Armey once proposed. If so, then a country founded in the aftermath of the Holocaust -- one of history's greatest crimes-will have completed a dispossession begun in 1948 -- a great crime of its own.

Alternatively, the Palestinians may remain where they are, and begin to demand equal rights in the state under whose authority they have been forced to dwell. If Israel denies them these rights, its claim to being the "only democracy in the Middle East" will be exposed as hollow. If it grants them, it will eventually cease to be a Jewish-majority state (though its culture would undoubtedly retain a heavily Jewish/Israeli character). As a long-time supporter of Israel's existence, I would take no joy in that outcome. Moreover, transforming Israel into a post-Zionist and multinational society would be a wrenching and quite possibly violent experience for all concerned. For both reasons, I've continued to favor "two states for two peoples" instead.

But with the two-state solution looking less and less likely, these other possibilities begin to loom large. Through fear and fecklessness, the United States has been an active enabler of an emerging tragedy. Israelis have no one to blame but themselves for the occupation, but Americans -- who like to think of themselves as a country whose foreign policy reflects deep moral commitments-will be judged harshly for our own role in this endeavor.

The United States will suffer certain consequences as a result-decreased international influence, a somewhat greater risk of anti-American terrorism, tarnished moral reputation, etc.-but it will survive. But Israel may be in the process of drafting its own suicide pact, and its false friends here in the United States have been supplying the paper and ink. By offering his resignation-and insisting that Obama accept it-George Mitchell can escape the onus of complicity in this latest sad chapter of an all-too-familiar story. Small comfort, perhaps, but better than nothing.

link to full article:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/22/time_for_george_mitchell_to_resign

[shergald]

27. Rumor or not, it is time for Mitchell to resign. He is obviously no longer supported by the WH.

It almost appears that he is being used to front for a pseudopeace effort by Obama, especially now that Obama has done an about-face on his Cairo speech. There was just so much hope then, which today makes the pessimism about Middle East peace seem deeper than usual.

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. unfortunately, the successive U.S. Administrations seem to feel the need to be seen

to be actively pursuing peace in the Middle East. But I would guess that the political price that would have to be paid to really advance a peaceful resolution to the conflict, is something neither the Obama Administration or any other U.S. Administration of either party is prepared to do. Sadly, as inadequate as it may have been, George Bush Senior probably came the closest to taking any real political risk on this issue.

[shergald]

44. Agree. But Obama certainly did stick his neck out only to find it chopped off later.

It seems that he got burned and now has withdrawn from the ring. The latest, low level talks is about the most transparent cover yet seen thus far from the administration. One last thread of hope: Obama wants health care on the record, then takes on the Middle East.

We can dream can't we?

[oberliner]

23. "There appears to be a monthly rumor, story that George Mitchell is resigning."

QUESTION: There’s been several Arab media or Middle Eastern media reports that George Mitchell offered his resignation, and just seeing if you might be able to confirm – it was – which was refused.

MR. CROWLEY: Sure.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, first of all, George Mitchell was sitting with Secretary Clinton and Minister Barak in the meeting in her office this morning. There appears to be a monthly rumor, story that George Mitchell is resigning. He is not, and he is on the job, and as we indicated, a critical part of the meeting today.

QUESTION: Would you – sorry, would you be able to – I mean, they’re citing that he’s frustrated. You know, is there – what are the hurdles that the U.S. is seeing right now in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What are the main --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, are we frustrated? Sure, we’re frustrated. As we’ve said over and over again for the past few months --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. CROWLEY: Hmm?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. CROWLEY: (Laughter.) We want to see the parties get in negotiations. We want to see the parties taking steps that create an impetus that moves you towards negotiation, not unilateral steps that create either tension or obstacles that can inhibit the return to negotiations. We think that these – as we’ve said many, many times, the issues that are complex, emotional, can only be resolved in dialogue between the parties, and the sooner they begin talks, the better.

So – but George Mitchell is determined, if you know him. He is – he’s engaged in discussions with the Palestinians, with the Israelis, with others around the region. And we’re all looking for that formula that can open the door to – for talks to begin.

QUESTION: Just --

MR. CROWLEY: Yeah.

QUESTION: So if these rumors keep coming --

MR. CROWLEY: He’s not resigning.

QUESTION: Right. But the rumors keep coming up, so I’m just curious why.

MR. CROWLEY: I have no idea. (Laughter.) I mean, look. He is – if you know George Mitchell, he’s committed to this and he is an extraordinarily patient man. When you look – when he talks about his experiences in Northern Ireland over several years, that – he understands that it will just take hard work and determination that finally will create that tipping point where the parties will commit, seriously address the issues, and move towards a settlement. So I don’t – I see nothing but determination in George Mitchell’s eyes.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/02/137359.htm