News Obama's speech in Cairo, June 2009

[seycyrus]

Pro-Israel does not mean "death to Palestine"

 

[kyleb]

Does Harvard need to adopt his stance officially in order for his work to be considered academically qualified?

Of course not, but I don't see how the coverpage's statement that "Harvard University does not take a position on the scholarship of individual faculty members" rightly jives with Mheslep's claim that it was "posted on the Kennedy school's website under strict rules for inquiry", do you?

Which university published an official statement of support for the documentary you posted?

None that I know of, but then I never made such a claim either.

Seriously??

If you truly believe that, then I don't see how anyone can take your posts seriously...

The sad thing is many from the region believe as you do...I'm not sure whether to laugh my head off, or cry?

What region are you referring to? Best I can tell, the power of the lobby is commonly understood in much of the world, aside from many people here in the US refusing to take a serious look at the issue. Even many of the Lobby's big guns aren't bashful about their influence, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/07/04/050704fa_fact" :

aipac’s leaders can be immoderately frank about the group’s influence. At dinner that night with Steven Rosen, I mentioned a controversy that had enveloped aipac in 1992. David Steiner, a New Jersey real-estate developer who was then serving as aipac’s president, was caught on tape boasting that he had “cut a deal” with the Administration of George H. W. Bush to provide more aid to Israel. Steiner also said that he was “negotiating” with the incoming Clinton Administration over the appointment of a pro-Israel Secretary of State. “We have a dozen people in his”—Clinton’s—“headquarters . . . and they are all going to get big jobs,” Steiner said. Soon after the tape’s existence was disclosed, Steiner resigned his post. I asked Rosen if aipac suffered a loss of influence after the Steiner affair. A half smile appeared on his face, and he pushed a napkin across the table. “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”

So anyway, I am left wondering; do you have anything of substance you can present to back your argument?

Pro-Israel does not mean "death to Palestine"

Of course not, but Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank does mean death to Palestine, and that is exactly what the Israel governments which our Congress consistently backs by vast majority has been doing for decades. There is obviously the pro-Israel pro-peace lobby too, but they don't have nearly the influence on Congress as the one's who arranged that recent letter to Obama implying he should back off his calls for a settlement freeze.

 

[BoomBoom]

Of course not, but Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank does mean death to Palestine, and that is exactly what the Israel governments which our Congress consistently backs by vast majority has been doing for decades.

Oh I get it, so you are equating the pro-Israel lobby with something you call the "Death to Palestine" lobby. <sigh>

 

[mheslep]

From the cover page:


That leaves me curious to know; what specific standards are you suggesting the paper is required to adhere to?..

Rules set up by the Harvard dean for publishing working papers in rebuttal:

...In addition to requiring that authors be full-time Harvard faculty, the new policy would require that articles submitted be in academic format, with citations of sources, and that they be responsive to the intellectual ideas and evidence of the original paper and not contain attacks on the authors of the original paper...

By allowing the post Harvard affirms that the dean's requirements are met, nothing more.
http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...arvard_dean_opens_faculty_papers_to_rebuttal/

 

[kyleb]

Oh I get it, so you are equating the pro-Israel lobby with something you call the "Death to Palestine" lobby. <sigh>

Rather, it seems your are making conscious effort not to get it, as your response ignores not only my explanation of how the lobby is cheering on the death of Palestine though their support of settlement expansion, but my acknowledgment of the pro-Israel pro-peace lobby in the sentenced you truncated off in your quoting of my response.

Rules set up by the Harvard dean for publishing working papers in rebuttal:

By allowing the post Harvard affirms that the dean's requirements are met, nothing more.
http://www.boston.com/news/educatio...arvard_dean_opens_faculty_papers_to_rebuttal/

Ah, it seems we have different understandings of the term "strict".

 

[CRGreathouse]

I am familiar with Deshowitz's response.

Did you actually read it? If you did, it might be interesting to start a new thread to discuss it. (This is getting seriously off-topic here.) I'd like to follow that discussion, though I doubt I'd participate in it. For one thing, I haven't finished reading the papers -- I'm about 75% through one and not quite half on the other.

 

[kyleb]

I can't say I read it thoroughly, mostly just skimmed, but I feel I comfortable enough to with my understanding of his arguments to discuss them. But again, I didn't see anything of merit in the response to discuss, which is why I asked Mheslep to present whatever arguments might have compelled him to present it.

I disagree with your suggestion that such discussion is off topic here though, as the power of the lobby directly relates to the relevance of Obama's speech. That said, I'd happily participate in a thread dedicated to discussing the lobby if anyone cares to start one.

 

[mheslep]

...

Ah, it seems we have different understandings of the term "strict".

I've no doubt the guidelines are strict: comply or the dean would disallow its appearance. 'Rigorous' is the word I think you want to debate.

 

[kyleb]

I mean the standard that such papers "not contain attacks on the authors of the original paper" seems rather loose considering for example Dershiwitz's claim that Walt and Mearsheimer are compelled by an "interest in vilifying Jewish leaders and spouting conspiracy theories about Zionist plots against American interests."

Again, if you have found anything of virtue in Dershiwitz's arguments, I'm interested to know whatever that might be. As it stands I'm left to wonder what motivation you have for defending it, or for having bothered to present it in the first place.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I'd happily participate in a thread dedicated to discussing the lobby if anyone cares to start one.

I've started a thread for the discussion of these papers and the related issues:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2229465

I would welcome intelligent debate on the matter.

 

[BoomBoom]

Rather, it seems your are making conscious effort not to get it, as your response ignores not only my explanation of how the lobby is cheering on the death of Palestine though their support of settlement expansion, but my acknowledgment of the pro-Israel pro-peace lobby in the sentenced you truncated off in your quoting of my response.

I have yet to see anything from you with substance that provides any evidence whatsoever of the existence of any "Death to Palestine" lobby.

You make claim that the "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby is insignificant with no evidence just as I claimed the "Death to Palestine" is also insignificant.
We all want peace, after all...don't we?

 

[mheslep]

...Again, if you have found anything of virtue in Dershiwitz's arguments, I'm interested to know whatever that might be. As it stands I'm left to wonder what motivation you have for defending it, or for having bothered to present it in the first place.

Because a disinterested inquiry into the subject of Israeli or Jewish influence on US policy that takes one across that docu. video you posted should also have as a reference serious critiques of that video (paper). I have not otherwise defended the aspects of the Dershowitz rebuttal here.

 

[kyleb]

I am still left curious to know whatever you might see as serious in Dershowitz's critiques, and particularly whatever you might feel wasn't already recounted in the documentary I posted by interviewees such as Perle. If you have anything of substance to present in that regard, I do hope you will do so in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=318819".

 

[kyleb]

Oh yeah, I missed responding to this:

I have yet to see anything from you with substance that provides any evidence whatsoever of the existence of any "Death to Palestine" lobby.

You make claim that the "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobby is insignificant with no evidence just as I claimed the "Death to Palestine" is also insignificant.
We all want peace, after all...don't we?

Would that it were, but those backing Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank are demonstratedly more interested in land than peace, and are in effect wiping Palestine off the map.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Would that it were, but those backing Israel's ongoing colonization of the West Bank are demonstratedly more interested in land than peace, and are in effect wiping Palestine off the map.

Would you so demonstrate, ideally on the other thread? :)

 

[Gokul43201]

Bringing this back on topic, but connecting it to an upcoming event ... what effect, if any, do you think Obama's speech might have had on the undecideds voting in Iran's election on Friday? Might it have been just enough to convince a large enough bloc of fence-sitters that there isn't really any dire need for a hardliner anymore?

Recent opinion polls suggest that Mousavi might be positioned pretty strongly at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Opinion_polls

(Note: 19/3/1388 in the Iranian calendar = June 9, 2009 in the Gregorian calendar)

 

[mheslep]

Bringing this back on topic, but connecting it to an upcoming event ... what effect, if any, do you think Obama's speech might have had on the undecideds voting in Iran's election on Friday? Might it have been just enough to convince a large enough bloc of fence-sitters that there isn't really any dire need for a hardliner anymore?

Recent opinion polls suggest that Mousavi's might be positioned pretty strongly at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Opinion_polls

(Note: 19/3/1388 in the Iranian calendar = June 9, 2009 in the Gregorian calendar)

Very good point. I'd missed that the Iranian election was coming up. I don't know if the speech circulated in Iran, nor have any idea if it had any impact there on the 'the illusive Iranian moderate' as Gates calls them. However, if it could the speech could have helped, I'd be fine with Obama saying practically anything wisely calculated to help move that election, including refrains of "the cow jumped over the moon".

 

[AhmedEzz]

Bringing this back on topic, but connecting it to an upcoming event ... what effect, if any, do you think Obama's speech might have had on the undecideds voting in Iran's election on Friday? Might it have been just enough to convince a large enough bloc of fence-sitters that there isn't really any dire need for a hardliner anymore?

Recent opinion polls suggest that Mousavi's might be positioned pretty strongly at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Opinion_polls

(Note: 19/3/1388 in the Iranian calendar = June 9, 2009 in the Gregorian calendar)

From what I know, Iran did not air the speech nor did it circulate there at all. But that might be just newspaper's talk. In either cases, I don't think you can achieve what you are referring to with the Iranians by just this speech. However, from what the gossip, it seems that Nejad is decreasing in popularity and his less-conservative opponent is gaining the upper hand.

 

[kyleb]

From what I've seen, Ahmadinejad hasn't been particularly popular in Iran for a while now anyway. I don't see how the presidency of Iran is relevant though, it's not like he has any authority over their foreign policy anyway.

 

[mohd_adam]

I think that most of people in Islamic countries respect president Obama , and his speech in Cairo captured the hearts , but for me I think that nothing will happen... If president Obama really want to find solution for the problem of the terrorism , he must help in spreading democracy in the middle east.

The situation in the middle east :
1- America support the dictators in the middle east.
2- The dictators use the torture to control the people.
3- The people hate the dictators and America.
4- Some of young youth in the middle east become terrorists.
In my opinion If Egypt and Saudi Arabia became democratic countries , this will solve the problem of the terrorism...
**********
For me I emigrated from the middle east since a long time...

 

[AhmedEzz]

If president Obama really want to find solution for the problem of the terrorism , he must help in spreading democracy in the middle east.

What 'democracy' are we talking about? and how can its spreading decrease terrorism? and what can president Obama do?

 

[mohd_adam]

What 'democracy' are we talking about?
For example in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak is very sick and he will leave the power soon to his son or to General Omar Solaiman.. In Egypt the people want new government, for example the people want a person like Mohamed ElBaradei the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency..

what can president Obama do !?
President Obama can order Hosni Mubarak to organize election ( without falsification ) , in year 2005 , Bush ordered Hosni Mubarak to organize election ( without falsification ), this mean President Obama also can do the same, especially Hosni Mubarak now is very weak and very sick..

how can its spreading decrease terrorism?
In case Egypt became a free country , no more torture , no more insult from the police, this will make the youth of Egypt have hope in the future , consequently they will be far from the terrorism.. As we know Ayman Azawahri the strong person in Al qaeda is egyptian , and many members of Al qaeda are egyptian... if we have in Egypt a new government , we can persuade most of those youth to return to egypt for fair trial... the problem is that the police of Hosni Mubarak depend on torture , this police easily can rap the sisters or the wife of the accused to force to him to tell information, that is why most of terrorists prefer to fight until death because they are afraid... I believe that if Egypt became democratic country the terrorism will decrease...

 

[AhmedEzz]

What 'democracy' are we talking about?
For example in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak is very sick and he will leave the power soon to his son or to General Omar Solaiman.. In Egypt the people want new government, for example the people want a person like Mohamed ElBaradei the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency..

You refrained from answering the direct question, what do you mean by the word 'democracy' ?

what can president Obama do !?
President Obama can order Hosni Mubarak to organize election ( without falsification ) , in year 2005 , Bush ordered Hosni Mubarak to organize election ( without falsification ), this mean President Obama also can do the same, especially Hosni Mubarak now is very weak and very sick..

And he won again, does that mean we are a democratic country now? and by what 'standards' do you qualify a country to be a democratic one or not? Would you be happy if the Muslim Brotherhood leader was elected? (take Hamas for example)

how can its spreading decrease terrorism?
In case Egypt became a free country , no more torture , no more insult from the police, this will make the youth of Egypt have hope in the future , consequently they will be far from the terrorism.. As we know Ayman Azawahri the strong person in Al qaeda is egyptian , and many members of Al qaeda are egyptian... if we have in Egypt a new government , we can persuade most of those youth to return to egypt for fair trial... the problem is that the police of Hosni Mubarak depend on torture , this police easily can rap the sisters or the wife of the accused to force to him to tell information, that is why most of terrorists prefer to fight until death because they are afraid... I believe that if Egypt became democratic country the terrorism will decrease...

I am against torture, but I am also against terrorists. Every country has its own internal politics, and Egypt is no different. Therefore, you can't apply a European or an American 'version' of a country, to Egyptians. We need to develop our own form. This will take time but it is far better than letting chaos into the country. Take Iraq for example and you'll know what I mean.

Keep in mind, we have about 40% illiteracy and 50% under the poverty line (give or take a few %)

 

[mohd_adam]

Ahmad, about the problem of the terrorism , could you explain to me how we can fight the terrorism..

 

[Astronuc]

Ahmad, about the problem of the terrorism , could you explain to me how we can fight the terrorism..

Offer a better alternative.

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
-- Sunnah

Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
-- Tai Shang Kan Yin P'ien

 

[drizzle]

... if we have in Egypt a new government , we can persuade most of those youth to return to egypt for fair trial... I believe that if Egypt became democratic country the terrorism will decrease...

I don't think so, not that I disagree with you but it is not the only cause of youth’s anger, mind to talk about the big picture! what about Palestine, you know that Muslims are attached to it since it hold the third holy mosque and it’s under the enemy’s hand [not as a Jew state but as a Zionist one] despite watching Palestinians die every election season without acting… that would cause rage don't you think so Egyptian guy

...what 'standards' do you qualify a country to be a democratic one or not? Would you be happy if the Muslim Brotherhood leader was elected?

answer mohd_adam!
though I don't see it's wrong if they were elected ((without falsification))

I am against torture, but I am also against terrorists. Every country has its own internal politics, and Egypt is no different. Therefore, you can't apply a European or an American 'version' of a country, to Egyptians. We need to develop our own form. This will take time but it is far better than letting chaos into the country. Take Iraq for example and you'll know what I mean.

I agree

 

[Gokul43201]

From what I've seen, Ahmadinejad hasn't been particularly popular in Iran for a while now anyway.

That's a somewhat sweeping statement. Can you quantify what you mean by "particularly popular"? So far, the only quantified reports I've seen are the recent opinion polls, many of which are controlled by one or other of the main contenders, and few of which are consistent with each other. From news reports that I've heard/read, no one has any good idea of where the numbers lie, but most reporters have been saying that Ahmadinejad has pretty strong support among the rural and older demographic, while Mousavi's strength is in the urban and younger voters. And in the last couple weeks, it seems that Ahmedinejad may have only further disenfranchised this demographic by the internet blockades that have been popping up in convenient places. But then, he is giving away free potatoes to the poor, so that could help some.

I don't see how the presidency of Iran is relevant though, it's not like he has any authority over their foreign policy anyway.

It is relevant, and all the more when someone like Ahmadinejad is the President. For one thing, with virtually all of the media at his disposal, Ahmadinejad has the ability to shape public opinion in a Limbaugh+Murdoch kind of way, and that's a very big deal, especially with Ahmadinejad who is both a skillful orator and an astute politico. And any policy decision (domestic or foreign) is a lot easier to make when there's strong public support for it (even in a theocratic dictatorship). Secondly, having Ahmadinejad as President has not helped in any way to woo foreign investment (other than oil revenues, that is) in Iran, and that keeps the country isolated for longer. Third, his presence does not do much to help shape any kind of peace accord in the ME, it leaves the Israelis continually antsy and his mere presence serves almost to justify aggression against Iran.

Overall, it seems to me that between him and the public, there's a self reinforcing feedback mechanism that doesn't much help Iran in most any tangible way. And that feedback gets weaker if the public don't feel so much like they need a hardliner.

 

[kyleb]

That's a somewhat sweeping statement.

Rather just a statement of perception, based onhttp://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1536210,00.html" I've seen over the years. What have you seen to suggest otherwise?

As for your arguments in regard to relevance, I can't say I've seen any evidence to suggest who is the President of Iran makes a notable difference in any of those regards.

 

[Gokul43201]

Rather just a statement of perception, based onhttp://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1536210,00.html" I've seen over the years.

That report is consistent with everything I've been hearing on NPR (my primary news source). It says that there has been some erosion of support for Ahmdinejad, but it doesn't say that this is likely to be sufficient to prevent a re-election. Bush, for instance had a below 50% approval rating when he was re-elected. That's why I've been asking for a quantification.

As for your arguments in regard to relevance, I can't say I've seen any evidence to suggest who is the President of Iran makes a notable difference in any of those regards.

Most of my information comes from NPR radio, which makes it hard to cite, but I think it is pretty universally accepted that since Ahmadinejad has been in power, there has been a significant clamp down on the somewhat tenuous freedoms that Iran had been permitting till that point.

Googling gave me this: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,650214386,00.html

Since Ahmadinejad took office, government pressure has increased on Iranians who have actively promoted changes to create a more open society. As part of the crackdown, dozens of university students around the country have been barred from taking classes this year, and a substantial number of professors have been demoted or forced to resign.

A major reformist newspaper, Shargh, was shut down in September and several of its veteran journalists were barred from working. The government has blocked thousands of news Web sites and blogs in an effort to limit the access of Internet users to independent news outlets.

Over the summer, Rahai, the university chancellor, had the office of a reformist student group, the Islamic Association, leveled by a bulldozer.

 

[mheslep]

Mousavi's wife brings out the crowds in Iran. Baffles me how she's allowed to say what she does

The biggest roar of the afternoon was reserved for the main speaker, Zahra Rahnavard, Mr Mousavi’s wife. “You’re here because you don’t want any more dictatorship,” she declared. “You’re here because you hate fanaticism, because you dream of a free Iran, because you dream of a peaceful relationship with the rest of the world.” The candidate himself was nowhere to be seen…

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/06/10/the-iranian-circus-cont/

 

[LowlyPion]

Mousavi's wife brings out the crowds in Iran. Baffles me how she's allowed to say what she does

Michelle Obama draws big crowds here without Barack. Maybe the Mullahs in Iran aren't as in control as you would think.

 

[skippy1729]

Reply (belated) to post #9 by Kyleb:

Skippy: There also was a two state solution for Palestine in 1948: Israel and Jordan.

Kyleb: You are confused Jordan, is across the river from Palestine, and it gained it's independence in 1946.

Skippy: The original British Palestine Mandate of the League of Nations incorporated what is now Israel and Jordan. Palestine east of the Jordan river was partitioned by the British and renamed the Trans-Jordan. You correctly state that the Mandate ended in 1946 and Trans-Jordan became Jordan. In 1948 the remainder of the Palestine Mandate was partitioned by the British and the United Nations to be independent Arab and Jewish states. In 1949 Jordan annexed the West Bank which was a large portion of what was to have been part of the Arab Palestine state. In 1954 the indigenous Jewish population of Jordan was expelled by law. The Israelis have never expelled the indigenous Arab population.

******************************

Skippy: The Arab League nations told the Muslims in Israel to abandon their homes.

Kyleb: This is a commonly repeated misconception.

Skippy: Even Benny Morris (a pro-Palestinian historian) acknowledges that this occurred.

******************************

Skippy: The Jews did not expel them.

Kyleb: Militant Zionists expelled hundreds of thousands of Arabs, Muslims and Christians alike. See Wiki for a summery.

Skippy: Arab residents were allowed to leave battle zones and conquered towns. There are however instances of ethnic cleansing by the Arab Legion. There was a general Arab policy of executing all prisoners. The entire Jewish population of Kfar Etzion was executed. This is also acknowledged by Morris. There may have been some local cases where Arab evacuation was encouraged by the Haganah but there was no policy of expulsion.

And a word of advice: Beware of using wikipedia as an authority on ANY subject; especially one with political overtones.

****************************

Skippy: Many stayed and became Israeli citizens.

Kyleb: Some areas weren't ethnically cleansed, but they lived under harsh restrictions of martial law for nearly two decades and with more subtle forms of discrimination since then, and many Israeli-Arabs are internally displaced to this day.

Skippy: The Muslim Arabs in Israel have more rights than Jewish and Christian minorities in any Muslim state. They cannot serve in the military but few would want to. They may live where they choose. They may freely practice their religion. They vote and have members of parliament.

****************************

Skippy: The Arab League nations waged (and lost) three wars of aggression in 1948, 1967 and 1973.

Kyleb: Rather, while the 1973 war was a war of aggression started by Arab states, in 1948 Arab nations stepped in an attempt to stop the ethnic cleansing mentioned above, the 1967 war kicked off with Israel bombing Egypt, and of course you skipped over Israel's previous war with Egypt which was initiated by Israelis parachuting into the Sinai in 1956.

Skippy: As I have mentioned above the 1948 war was a war of extermination on the part of the Arab League and the Nazi Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Grand Mufti wanted a continuation of Hitlers Final Solution if Rommel ever got to Palestine.

The 1956 Suez crisis was initiated by Nasser when he nationalized the Suez Canal in violation of treaty. The Israelis were recruited by the British to aid in its recapture.

The events leading up to the Six Day war of 1967 have been well documented. Nasser expelled UN peace keepers from the Sinai, moved his forces to the border and blockaded the Straits of Tiran (an act of war). It was a pre-planned Arab aggression. The Israelis fired the first shot in a pre-emptive maneuver.

***************************

I was going to walk away from this thread but I am tired of the revisionist history that has become all too commonplace today. From his speech it appears that President Obama has succumbed to either revisionist history or political expediency. There is no moral equivalency between the West Bank settlements and the mass murder of civilians by the Palestinian terrorists.

Cheers, Skippy