Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:28 PM ET, 02/18/2011

The U.N. veto and the real headline

By Jennifer Rubin

There are two versions of analysis going around concerning today's grudging veto by the Obama administration of a U.N. Security Council resolution seeking to condemn Israel's settlements as "illegal" and claim that they "constitute a major obstacle to the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive peace."

The first take goes like this: "All's well that ends well. Bravo, Mr. President for exercising the veto!" The second goes like this: "Obama messed up big time by trying to negotiate a 'compromise.' He disappointed the Arabs and Palestinians, broke his own pledge not to exercise the veto, upset American friends of Israel, and unnerved the Israeli government yet again."

The first is preposterous, but, regrettably, it's the tack taken by a number of Jewish organizations. This preserves the fiction for the groups' liberal members that the president is a great friend and stalwart ally of the Jewish state. It ignores the willingness of the U.S. to join in public excoriation of the Jewish state and to emphasize that the U.S. and Israel can be separated diplomatically with very little effort.

The second is correct, but incomplete. The U.S. did not merely exercise a veto, it issued a statement that was unprecedented in its one-sidedness and harshness. As The Post reported:

U.S. Ambassador Susan E. Rice said that the U.S. veto should not be seen as an endorsement of Israel's settlement policies, which the Obama administration has repeatedly denounced. But she said adoption of the resolution "risks" undermining U.S.-led efforts to pursue a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

"We reject in the strongest term the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activities," Rice said after the vote. "For more than four decades Israel's settlement activities have undermined Israel's security and eroded hopes of peace and security in the region."

But she added: "Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides and could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations."

Remarkably, not a single pro-Israel group made much notice of that. Not even one chastised the administration for singling out Israel -- the party that repeatedly has offered a peace deal, that offered a ten month freeze, and that engaged in direct negotiations -- while foregoing any hint of criticism of the Palestinians who walked out of talks, refuse to recognize the Jewish state, and continue to incite terrorism.

Sure, the U.N. once again has proven itself to be a hot-bed of anti-Israel rhetoric. But let's be clear what really happened this week. The U.S. representative, while reluctantly casting a veto, joined the pack of jackals that seek to make Israel the culprit for all that ills the Middle East. Shouldn't THAT be the headline?

By Jennifer Rubin  | February 18, 2011; 5:28 PM ET
Categories:  Israel  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Friday question
Next: Morning Bits


The writer of this article obviously ignores the fact that the Roadmap to Middle East peace (approved by the Quartet, Israeli and Palestinian authorities (PNA)) demands an Israeli freeze of settlement, including natural growth, in return for a PNA crackdown on terrorism. That's a roadmap that was drafted by the USA (involving the current administration's Mideast envoy George Mitchell). The PNA did its part: it cracked down on terrorism with testimonies confirming that from both Israeli and US officials.
The duplicitous remarks by Ms Rice only prove one thing: We should never expect a Democratic administration to put real pressure on Israel. The USA has failed as a Middle East peace mediator and therefore Let's add this to the other failures (economy, jobs..etc) of Mr President "Hope" Obama.

Posted by: Pal_London | February 18, 2011 6:39 PM | Report abuse

That veto was the purest pandering. The extreme hypocrisy of vetoing our own position harms the United States. While it enables the short term illegal conduct of Israel, it also hurts the long term survival of Israel. It was stupid. It was weak. It was the action of a wimp. Most of all, it will get Americans killed.

Posted by: MarkThomason | February 18, 2011 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Well put. The U.S. vetoed the U.N. resolution on narrow pragmatic grounds while essentially accepting its scurrilous accusations against Israel.

Posted by: eoniii | February 18, 2011 6:42 PM | Report abuse

The vetoed UN resolution was introduced by Lebanon, whose government is now controlled by Hezbollah, a terrorist group on the State Department's list. Why does the US apologize for vetoing a Hezbollah resolution attacking Israel? Why do we essentially agree with Hezbollah's critique? How many UN resolutions is Hezbollah currently violating?

Posted by: eoniii | February 18, 2011 7:06 PM | Report abuse

You keep acting surprised, as if what Obama has done here is any different than what he always does...he votes 'present' trying to give both sides their due...except, he simply cannot hide the fact that he is pro-Palestinian and this truth inevitably surfaces in a passive-aggressive manner towards Israel. Pro-Israel groups might stop trying to milk and honey Mr. Obama and come down on him with true virulence. Until they do, Obama will continue bullying Israel, if for no other reason than he can...because no one really stands in the way of his doing so.

~ Halli Casser-Jayne

Posted by: PolitiHAL | February 18, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse

The settlements are perfectly legal in the disputed territories, and if not for the pandering to oil interests and mollifying Arab terrorists that would be the narrative. As for the person who mentioned the roadmap,as long as Hamas is in power Israel has zero obligations to abide by its terms, as the Arab side is in continuous breach.

Posted by: pella5 | February 18, 2011 7:09 PM | Report abuse

With the exception of Ron and Rand Paul, US politicians have sold out their souls to Jewish money.

Shame on you Obama, you too continue making this great nation the joke of the world by pandering to WS crooks who have looted the treasury.

Posted by: dogsbestfriend | February 18, 2011 7:09 PM | Report abuse

What really happened this week? Obama and the USA lost what remained of our credibility in the Muslim world amd Obama raised a white flag to Israel's Congress, the one in Washington. We showed we have no foriegn policy other than Israel's. Rubin thinks the rest of the world is a bunch jackels at Israel's throat. She thinks Obama who further distanced us from the rest of the world vetoing this resolution didn't go far enough. Rubin and her ilk, full of self-rightiousness see US craveness and slavishnes to Israel as not craven enough. We have thrown away our street creds in most of the world to please Rubin etal and it isn't good enough for them. Me thinks they will pull this big dog's tail one day too far and the results will be catastrophic for everyone, but especially for her whole purpose in life; Israel. Ironically "the friends of Israel" are that country's worst enemies. But only history will write that final chapter and people like Rubin may not live to read it in a century. But anyone can now read the writing on the wall. This will not end without a war to the death in the Mid-East, probably an atomic war that will take so many lives there that there will be few tears spared over the loss of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and "state" of Israel.

Posted by: lastrebelstanding | February 18, 2011 7:29 PM | Report abuse

The anti-semitism is white hot here. I can imagine what it's like in the Middle East. "Jewish money," "Israel's congress," "slavishness to Israel." How many people really believe that the Protocols of the Edlers of Zion was a fraud? Well, let Obama try to appease them.

Posted by: adam62 | February 18, 2011 8:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments regarding "Jewish money" are disgusting.

As for the column itself, Jennifer takes her usual tack: No criticism of Israel allowed.

Posted by: mustangs79 | February 18, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

adam62, Israel's enemies are smelling blood. The Muslim Brotherhood's spiritual leader led Friday prayers today at al-Tahrir Square before an estimated one million of the faithful.

"In a special mention of the Palestinian issue, Al-Qaradhawi asked the Egyptian army to open wide the Rafah crossing and to pray for the re-conquest of Jerusalem by the Muslims, so that he and the Muslims could pray in security at Al-Aqsa Mosque. This part of his sermon was cheered and applauded by the crowd.[3]

He also said that he wants to give the Friday prayer sermon at Al-Aqsa mosque."

UN Ambassador Susan Rice no doubt applauds the sentiment, but the "Zionist lobby" won't let her say so.

Posted by: eoniii | February 18, 2011 8:35 PM | Report abuse

Jennifer Rubin has the most highly developed moral sensibility of anyone blogging today. Her beliefs might use a little refinement here and there, but her ability to formulate a judgement is beyond compare.

Posted by: JohnMarshall3 | February 18, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

All the young men and women who are fighting fpr freedom and democracy in the mid-east should learn from this that the US has never and will never stand for anything other than Israel. This lesson could not have come at a better time. Way to go Obama!

Posted by: goldhatresearch | February 18, 2011 9:50 PM | Report abuse

The first scenario is typical and reasonable. Anti-Israel resolution hits the UN security council. US vetoes it.

The second scenario, however preposterous, rises fully formed from the feverish imaginations of right wing bloggers. It, of course, must be the correct one.


Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | February 18, 2011 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Blah, blah, blah, settlements, blah, blah, blah.
Once again Obama bends over to appease the Palestinians and Abbas craps in Obama's hat. What does Abbas have to do to convince Obama that he does not want peace? Or what has Abbas done to convince Obama that he does want peace?
Only Israel wants peace and they have made the concrete steps to prove it by continuously giving back land with nothing to show for it but dead Israelis.
But while Iran and Bahrain kill their own people that protest, while Hezbollah takes over Lebanon and Iran continuously threatens the region the story is about settlements.
Why does Obama pressure Israel? Because he doesn't have the stones to put pressure on his enemies, only his allies.

Posted by: jay22 | February 18, 2011 10:18 PM | Report abuse

The timing of this veto could not have been better. The millions of young men and women fighting for freedom and democracy will now know with extreme clarity that the US is immoral and stand only for the Israeli nazis.

Posted by: goldhatresearch | February 18, 2011 10:24 PM | Report abuse

Sorry Jennifer: I don't see a "right turn." I see a "down turn" for Obama, and I hope many Americans will see that in 2012 - as they saw it in the last congressional elections.

With Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod leaving the white house and returning to Chicago to launch Obama's 2012 re-election campaign, Obama is a hostage of the Israeli PAC power, as well as a a mercenary of the American Jewry, and their Jewish media conglomerates. And he is ready to go over dead bodies to have himself re-elected. Obama's final answer, therefore is: "To hell with the Palestinian question, and to hell with the dead bodies piling up in Bahrain and Yemen!"

Let's not forget that Obama didn't take an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize for nothing, and his re-election prospects are similarly egotistic and not negotiable. Let the blood flow in Middle East, and let the PAC money and political contributions of the Jewish flow into my coffers, is Obama's last testament. Plus the Arabs are generally considered anti-Americans. Why bother to let the "one bird at hand," the Jews, for "two birds at Middle East's shifting sands?" After all He started his presidency as a humanist with a global vision, only to reveal himself later to the global audiences as a hypocrite whose selfishness is an affront to the human decency and dignity of all human races in the world - except our own! Nikos Retsos, retired professor

Posted by: Nikos_Retsos | February 18, 2011 11:06 PM | Report abuse

The US vetos a bill in the UN and yet condemns Israel in the same breath. In every attempt the Arabs have made to destroy Israel since 1948 they have lost, and Israel has never received any assistance in fighting the wars. Israel has for 30 years actively sought peace with its Arab neighbors, and has been rebuked and attacked at every opportunity. How short the memory of many in positions of power are, they play to those who hate us and spit on those who have never betrayed us. I pity this administration, and its policy towards both Israel and the Arabs.

"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Gen. 12:3

Posted by: opspwcjc | February 18, 2011 11:13 PM | Report abuse

To quote from the Christian scriptures, "Let your 'yes' be a 'yes', let your 'no' be a 'no'".

Barack Obama claims to be a Christian. It would be good if he acted like one.

Posted by: meta-materialist | February 19, 2011 12:54 AM | Report abuse

The world is not the same as it use to be, Obama has shown his ruthless side or could be the U.S does not know what its oppossing!! hahahaha there own words is what words! surely just shows the lack of thought of U.S when it comes to Israel, they are fearfull of the lobby, they don't care about there intrests but that of the lobby is held high....they say right is might, but America and Israel choose Might....the world choose right....oneday the palestinians will be free.

Posted by: BuushMohamed | February 19, 2011 6:11 AM | Report abuse

Obama has acted as a big brother among fighting brothers.Both must have respect for him to save peace and lives in Middle East.He is the well wisher of both but more than that he is a well wisher of the whole world.He is the president of US,a leader among most countries and he has to be impartial.If the sense is carried on,every one shall be happy,more so Palestine herself in the long run when Obama is going to continue as a friend of Palestine,according to the long history.

Posted by: ashok1 | February 19, 2011 6:46 AM | Report abuse

Come on Ms Rubin, let's be serious, do you really stick to your conclusion? "Sure, the U.N. once again has proven itself to be a hot-bed of anti-Israel rhetoric. But let's be clear what really happened this week. The U.S. representative, while reluctantly casting a veto, joined the pack of jackals that seek to make Israel the culprit for all that ills the Middle East."
Has Israel ever done something to prove the opposite? If the UN is the hot-bed of anti-Israel rhetoric you describe how do you explain Israel being always off of UN's hook? I trust you're well acquainted with the infinity of resolutions that have been blatantly violated by the state of Israel throughout the 20th century. And my question is why do you and the people who think alike always need to balance Israel's guilt with the Palestinians? Why do you always question UN never-applied policies towards that specific state and turn it into some kind of anti-semitism while it has never been the Jewish character of the state that's put into question but its segregationist methods?

Posted by: marjanebensoudahotmailcom | February 19, 2011 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Wake up! The U S has always Vetoed any Resolution against Israel.

If the U S did as many want and Leave the U N all those measures would get passed and so would attempts to Sanction US.

Quiting the U N and Permanent Seat on the Security Council with VETO POWER is forever off the Table!

Posted by: ddoiron1 | February 19, 2011 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I am willing to bet that Susan Rice's public tantrum was for the Saudis, because of what is happening in Bahrain.

Maybe the headline should be "Fatah and Hamas finally agreed on something" Considering the main protests in Ramallah last week were asking for Palestinian unity - I guess the other Palestinians were busy working on building projects - perhaps this is one small step to the on-again, off-again elections that make it so very obvious that Israel has NO ONE to negotiate with.

thanks eonii.

The United Nations is now illegitimate. The UN can not even make the Ivory Coast Gbagbo agree to a peaceful transfer of power. I just wish the entire UN would pack up and leave New York, maybe move to Zimbabwe or Burma, where the absence of fine restaurants will force the UN to actually work at something useful.

Posted by: K2K2 | February 19, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if the Washington Post ever intends to get a serious representative of the right wing to blog here. So far they're 0 for 2.

Posted by: veritasinmedium | February 19, 2011 9:54 AM | Report abuse

The US did not condemn Israeli settlements until the Obama administration that now made it a cause d'jour. Give the Palestinians and the other jackels in the Mideast an inch and they will find another reason not to make peace with Israel.

Posted by: billsv | February 19, 2011 12:17 PM | Report abuse

My transition from supporter of Israel to optimist for peace, to hope for justice has reached despair at the crazy talk, the outright lies the WP is willing to print. The USA is now owned by Israel and more and more mindlessly pro Israel politicians are elected here every year. The media is increasingly dominated by pro Israel money and I never believed in the conspiracy theories until now. Yes, it is an organized domination of American politics and media. Hope lies only in the the disgust of the rest of the world at morally repugnant Israel and the hapless USA. Maybe money cannot buy everyone. The eventual outcome is clear, only the time line is unclear. The USA will continue to lose respect, Israel will continue to dig its own grave and sooner or later will cease to exist having committed suicide by myth and hatred unable to expiate its tribal past.

Posted by: jj1123 | February 19, 2011 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Oops - sorry I thought this was a serious thread. I guess not when people talk about the super powerful Israeli lobby without anything to back it up.
If most Americans agreed about the Israel then I guess we'd hear about it from people other than those that hide behind fake names on blogs.
Are people saying we should support the Palestinians?
Are people saying we should just pull out of the Middle East?
Maybe we can all go live in a cave somewhere and hold hands and sing Kumbaya.
If you don't think its in the US interest to support our most steadfast ally, the country that is the first line of defense against the Jihadists. Then explain why - but of course - you can't.

Posted by: jay22 | February 19, 2011 12:54 PM | Report abuse

When the most powerful man in the world is compelled to give in to a lobby that ALWAYS puts Israel's interests ahead of those of the US, there is something seriously wrong with the political system that permits such a thing to occur.

Posted by: chet380 | February 19, 2011 12:59 PM | Report abuse

The Arabs tried to destroy Israel by conventional warfare and failed. They tried terrorism and failed. Now they want the rest of the world to do their fighting for them - and they have failed again, for now.

Posted by: DEEGEE-post | February 19, 2011 1:48 PM | Report abuse

Rubin and the rest of the Israel Uber Alles crowd need to start caring more about America than Israel. Israel has never been serious about peace. It has never negotiated in good faith. Pres. Carter found out this the hard way when he could never get Israel to live up to its promises. Sadat and Egypt did, but not Israel.

Wikileaks documents--conveniently given little coverage in the Post and the US press--show clearly that Israel has rejected every Palestinian attempt to compromise. Israel's goal is clear. It is to complete its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians that it began in 1947.

Israel has started every war it has fought, save in 1973. Its "War of Independence" was the same as the Reich's invasion of Poland in 1939, a war of naked territorial conquest. Both nations justified their wars of conquests on sick ideas of racial superiority. God made Aryans smarter than Slavs. God gave Israel to the Jews. Genocide all who get in the way.

Obama vetoed the resolution out of fear of The Israel Lobby. This is a pathetic humiliation of America by people who value a hostile foreign power more than the USA. They are no different than the German Americans who supported the Reich.

These are the same traitors who excuse Israel's deliberate attack on the USS Liberty. Who excuse Jonathan Pollard's unprecedented theft of the most highly classified documents and his delivering them to Israel. Who excuse Israel passing them on the USSR. Who excuse Israel selling top-secret US military technology to Communist China.

So the inevitable question to Ms. Rubin: To whom do you give your first loyalty, Israel or America?

Posted by: Garak | February 19, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Not only is everything you states substantively incorrect Garak (Israel fought 3 wars of Self Defense, 1948 was not a War of Conquest by Israel, it was the Arb states that rejected the Partition and attacked Israel, WikiLeaks showed that Abbas walked away from yet one more Israeli offer, the Liberty was a friendly fire incident), but your use of the dual loyalty canard is blatantly Anti-Semitic. Bravo, you show your true colors and the bigotry that’s really motivating the Anti-Israel crowd.

Posted by: *JRapp | February 19, 2011 6:32 PM | Report abuse

Garak, there is no evidence that Israel passed on Pollard's information to the USSR. The claim that Israel sold Patriot missile technology to China has also been debunked.

Posted by: eoniii | February 19, 2011 6:38 PM | Report abuse

I’ve never been able to understand the hostility some folks have toward freedom and liberty and those who further its spread. Appreciating Washington’s admonition against foreign entanglements as one intended for an emerging nation as well as for one that’s matured, I am nonetheless an advocate for aiding, encouraging, and abetting like-minded peoples in achieving some measure of what we have achieved so that the light of our beacon is cast worldwide. US foreign policy has been based upon this notion for some time. Has that time ended?

Throughout the world there are tiny collections, nation-states, of peoples who maintain some degree of self-determination, freedom, and liberty in bad neighborhoods whom the US has supported through trade, military sales, and foreign aid. Israel is but one example; South Korea and Taiwan are two others that come immediately to mind. It’s more than the fact that they are the underdog -- Americans love the underdog -- it’s that they are free and share the willingness to fight for their liberty that prompts us to support them.

It was not just economic ties and the bonds of blood and language that allowed FDR gain domestic support to Britain in the early days of the last world war; the fact that that nation maintained its system of popular elections to determine its government played the key role. There was no conspiracy to aid Britain: folks understood that they were a lot like us, under attack by overwhelming foreign forces, and needed a hand.

Folks who lament the influence of Jewish money regarding our support to Israel miss the key point that it ain’t the money, it’s the ‘tude them Israelis show in trying to keep their folks safe while maintaining a popularly elected government that causes most US citizens to support Israel. Is there any doubt that the freest Arabs in the Mideast are those who are Israeli citizens? (This is a trick question, so please document with links your critical response.)

When we as a nation write off Israel, we might as do the same for Wisconsin.

Posted by: SCMike1 | February 19, 2011 9:56 PM | Report abuse

I am amazed at the hatred and ignorance shown by many of those posting here. Israel was created, as was Palestine to give Jews from all over the world a country of their own as a direct result of Nazi extermination camps that the world did nothing to stop until it was forced to by Hitlers expansionism. I am amazed at how many of the pro Arab posters fail to mention that many of the founders of the Arab liberation movements in the 30's and 40's were trained in Nazi Germany. They also fail to mention that all wars that Israel has fought since 1948 were either in response to invasion by its neighbors or to stop the slaughter of innocents by radicals and militants who would never agree to any civilized mode of discourse to solve their disputes. Another fact many fail to mention is that the Jews and Palestinians worked together to force Great Britain to establish their nations one the Palestinians quickly forfeited by turning on Israel and a determined genocide of the Jewish people. Those who call for the destruction of Israel also call for the extermination of the entire Jewish race. If you find that hard to believe just listen to their sermons at the mosques. They will always demand more and more until they have achieved their goal of the extermination of the entire Jewish race. We are not dealing with rational people, we are dealing with extremists who are willing to see their own people suffer daily rather than seriously negotiate for the common good of both peoples. That the UN has given a platform for the spewing of this hatred is a clear testament to the failure of this grand experiment. This overall failure is no different than those of the League of Nations before it.

Posted by: opspwcjc | February 19, 2011 10:10 PM | Report abuse

Learn the truth: The settlements are NOT illegal
In international law, Judah, Samaria and even Gaza Strip are territories which have not established any sovereignty. If anything, the last time the land of Israel associated with any legal people it was Jews, not Arabs. That was determined by the victorious countries of World War I, which is also the position of international law to this day.
The legal historic process was as follows: Until the First World War the Ottoman Empire was the sovereign of the entire Middle East. After losing the war, it gave up its sovereignty throughout the empire, except Turkey itself. All Turkish territory relinquished sovereignty has been delivered to Britain and France by the League of Nations mandate and under international agreement. The terms of delivery of the mandate over the Land of Israel to Britain were drafted by the League of Nations in a document called The Palestine Mandate, and the document was approved at the San Remo Conference (Conference of the victorious nations.) It was then also ratified by the League of Nations and was also part of American law (remains in effect.) Even the UN is committed to the document since the UN Convention Article 80 states that it is not allowed to change the status of the territories allocated by the League of Nations to mandate regimes - the Land of Israel is one of them.
According to the League's decision, the Land of Israel was intended to re-construct the Jewish national home and not a word was mentioned about political rights or national rights to any third party. The decision defines the means to maintain their civil rights and rights of all religious and non-Jewish residents of the country, that's it.
Not to be understood incorrectly. This decision was not intended to harass the Arabs; on the contrary, their national and political rights were well-preserved by assigning them territories that were infinitely far more extensive than Israel. Yes, there were days when the international community saw this as just and proportionate balance between the rights of Jews and Arabs.
Judea and Samaria, I have to say were indeed occupied territory - they were seized illegally in 1948 and the international community has not recognized Jordanian sovereignty over them ever. In 1967, the occupied territories were freed by Israel. According to experts of international law, the only reason why Israeli sovereignty does not apply to them lies on Israel not declaring so. Once declared, they will be just as Israeli as Jaffa, Acre, Safed, Haifa and Beer Sheva. Hence as long as Israel will not give up its right to sovereignty over the territories - they are not legally occupied.
It's true, then, that international law forbids an occupying power to settle its citizens in occupied territory - but if you already rely on international law, it should be noted that according to it these areas are not occupied.

Posted by: Orientalist | February 20, 2011 1:52 AM | Report abuse

@Orientalist: The Zionist colonies in the West Bank are illegal. Israel's own legal experts recognized this as early as 1967. Theodor Meron, then chief legal advisor to the Israeli Foreign Ministry in 1967, issued a formal legal opinion explicitly and specifically stating this. See "The Etzion illusion" (Haaretz, 29-09-2008).

@eoniii: No, that Israel sold top-secret military technology to Communist China has not been debunked. Israel even apologized for. See "Shalom calls for swift end to China arms sale crisis with U.S." (Haaretz, 19-06-2005).

@*JRap: Israel did start all those wars. Even Israeli historians admit this. See The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe.

Posted by: Garak | February 20, 2011 8:42 AM | Report abuse

I would add to SCMike's points about why an overwhelming number of Americans support Israel is a point about the impact of popular culture. More than 20 million Americans watch NCIS every week, and millions more watch the re-runs on cable channels. In "Kill Ari, parts 1 & 2", Hamas sent Ari to commit a terror attack, and murder Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs , America's most popular television character. Former Mossad agent Ziva David has been part of Gibbs' team for more than five years.

There is no television program that expresses American values of loyalty, justice, and quest for the truth better than NCIS.

opspwcjc and Orientalist make other valid points. Alas, those who love the palestinian victimology narrative can not be moved by facts. They will shrug and say "the Jews had it coming" once the muslims finish the genocide.

I wonder what they will say, once there are no more Jews to murder, when the Arabs, Turks, and Persians substitute the Kurds...

Posted by: K2K2 | February 20, 2011 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Ha ha, I love it. Pro-Israel conservatives can't stand it when Obama takes their side.

I can't wait to hear how Palin, Huckabee, Santorum, et al, try to spin this to fit their "Obama hates Israel" nonsense. My guess: they'll simply ignore it. Their supporters won't notice.

Posted by: mukome | February 20, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

wow! someone above talked about "white hot anti-Semitism" on here, and were they ever right.

here's one of the ugliest of the comments--and also one completely wrong in every "fact" it gives us. "Garak" says:

"Wikileaks clearly that Israel has rejected every Palestinian attempt to compromise."

this is laughable. tell me Garak, can you list the dates of the Palestinian peace agreements that Israel rejected? because I can list the dates of the Israeli peace agreements the Pals rejected. I'd like to see your list. we all would.

"Israel's goal is clear. It is to complete its ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians that it began in 1947."

this is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever read on the internet--and that's saying something.

the birth rate in Gaza in 2008 was 5:1.
there were something like half a million Arabs in Palestine in in 1947. (they hadn't decided to call themselves "Palestinians" yet--that wouldn't happen until the 1960s.) there are now 2.4 million Pals in Gaza and another million or so in the West Bank. doesn't sound very genocidal to me.

you do understand, Garak, that genocide implies FEWER people as you go along, not more, right? I mean, are the Joos just really bad at it? (and here I thought they were supposed to be so smart!)

I single Garak out because he's combined stupidity and anti-Semitism in a very public and very ugly way. but really, he's no different from most of the people in the Obama administration or at the UN.

somehow, in a world crammed full of bloodthirsty dictators, crazy terrorists, and murderous drug cartels, only Israel is singled out for the kind of hatred we see here courtesy of Garak and his Islamofascist pals.

with the Middle East literally in flames, the UN decides it's time to condemn Israel again. it is a caricature of itself and we need to defund it NOW. I just wish we could also defund the Obama administration--guess that'll have to wait untl 2012.

Posted by: michiganruth | February 22, 2011 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Michiganruth does not seem to speak English. Garak says "ethnic cleansing" something that Israel does every day and does not deny, and Ruth converts that genocide, and starts counting bodies. The point is that Palestinians have been forced off their land, in what Alan Dershowitz calls a "fifth rate" offense, like urban renewal". Well, here is how David Ben-Gurion saw it, and recorded it in his note book,

"There is a need now for strong and brutal reaction. We need to be accurate about timing, place and those we hit. If we accuse a family - we need to harm them without mercy, women and children included. Otherwise, this is not an effective reaction. During the operation there is no need to distinguish between the guilty and not guilty."
- David Ben-Gurion's diary 1 January 1948

No member of Hamas has ever suggested such savage behavior. So, Ruth, you need to learn some history and learn the difference between ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Gaza and Lebanon are full of refugees, not dead people. And speaking of Dershowitz, urban renewal, "a fifth rate offense", is what blacks called "negro removal." It's not a fifth rate offense in Palestine, it is violation of human rights; a crime against humanity, like rounding up and herding Jews, a disgrace that reduces the security of every citizen of this nation, tyrants come to a bad end.

Posted by: harrisonppicot | February 23, 2011 9:50 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company