Obama's speech in Cairo, June 2009

  • News
  • Thread starter Astronuc
  • Start date
In summary: The Israelis have left Gaza and get rocket attacks in return. Why should they make any more territorial concessions?The Israelis aren't entitled to anything, let alone more territorial concessions, but the Palestinians are entitled to statehood, self-determination, and the right to live in peace and security without oppression. The Palestinians are also entitled to the return of their refugees, and to compensation for their loss of property and suffering. The Israelis are not entitled to discriminate against their own citizens, or against the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The Israelis are not entitled to the Palestinian lands that they have been occupying for over 60 years. The Israelis are not entitled to build settlements on stolen land. The Israelis are not entitled to annex
  • #36
kyleb said:
Obama has popular support by a good margin here and I see little chance of change there, but all the same there is a powerful political machine against him, so what he can actually accomplish is still very questionable.

I hope you aren't talking about this right wing hijacked Republican juggernaut of "No".
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Astronuc said:
Are there better sources in English but written by Arab or Muslim journalists? I'm also quite aware that these views are those of a few people quoted in western media. There are millions more voices to be heard - but how to find them.

Particularly considering MERMI's long demonstrated ideological bias towards demonising Muslims, http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD238409#_ednref2" looks rather promising.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
LowlyPion said:
I hope you aren't talking about this right wing hijacked Republican juggernaut of "No".

I am talking about the vast majority of Congress being in the pocket of the "death to Palestine" lobby, and that lobby being useful idiots for the military industrial complex along with the settlement industry. The massive support for http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/28/1005474/aipac-backed-letter-gets-329-house-signatures" . This isn't a matter of one wing or another, but rather the support of Israel's ongoing conquest of Palestine spans far and wide across party lines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
kyleb said:
I am talking about the vast majority of Congress being in the pocket of the "death to Palestine" lobby, and that lobby being useful idiots for the military industrial complex along with the settlement industry. The massive support for http://jta.org/news/article/2009/05/28/1005474/aipac-backed-letter-gets-329-house-signatures" . This isn't a matter of one wing or another, but rather the support of Israel's ongoing conquest of Palestine spans far and wide across party lines.

That resolution is about as useful as the attempt to get a resolution to make next year the year of The Bible. As to the JTA they don't have Congress in their pocket against Obama's evenhanded approach. That letter is luke warm spit that few would object to in any event.

I think you are imagining genies were there are only whispers of shadows. There's no juggernaut of a conspiracy. It seems that Israel was motivated to get their licks in before there was a new administration with backbone and a brain, because I think Netanyahu got an earful his last trip. No more ineptitude in the White House and Israel can stop whining, right along with the other parties in the Middle East and stop finding ways to not get along, and instead find ways to progress.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
That letter is just one of countless examples of the "death to Palestine" lobby rallying Congress behind the the Israeli government position I could provide. As for Obama's even handed approach, back when Bush Sr. tried the same Congress left him blowing in the wind, and the lobby support piled behind Clinton who let the lobby run the show, and Bush Jr. did the same.

While you assume I am imaging things here, I get the impression that you really just haven't been following this issue nearly as close as I have. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878" .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
kyleb said:
...Here is a documentary which explores the workings of the lobby reasonably well[/URL].
Here's an academic reply to Walt and Mearshiemer, the prominent speakers in the documentary.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
I am familiar with Deshowitz's response. If you bother to watch the documentary, it is discussed there. Anyway, I can't say I've seen anything academic from him on the subject though, is there anything in his arguments you would care to present specifically?
 
  • #43
kyleb said:
I am familiar with Deshowitz's response. If you bother to watch the documentary, it is discussed there.
It's mentioned by Perle, not discussed.
Anyway, I can't say I've seen anything academic from him on the subject though,
The paper was posted on the Kennedy school's website under strict rules for inquiry, so Id say it qualifies as an academic work. I list it now only as a reference to be considered when examining the work by the authors in the video.
 
  • #44
From the cover page:
The author of this paper is solely responsible for the views expressed in it. As an academic institution, Harvard University does not take a position on the scholarship of individual faculty members, and this paper should not be interpreted or portrayed as reflecting the official position of the University or any of its Schools.

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

Anyway, it's been a while since I watched the documentary, but I'm pretty sure Wilkerson brings up Dershowitz's response in it as well, and the much of the arguments he has made are addressed throughout the documentary, including Perle's contests being presented as recounting from Dershowitz's.
 
  • #45
kyleb said:
That leaves me curious to know; what specific standards are you suggesting the paper is required to adhere to?

Does Harvard need to adopt his stance officially in order for his work to be considered academically qualified? Which university published an official statement of support for the documentary you posted?
 
  • #46
I do not trust him.He is still "Uncle Sam"

cizgiyorum.jpg
 
  • #47
kyleb said:
I am talking about the vast majority of Congress being in the pocket of the "death to Palestine" lobby, ...

Seriously?? :rolleyes:

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? :smile::cry:
 
  • #48
Are you denying the existence of such a lobby, or you denying that it is a majority?
 
  • #49
AhmedEzz said:
Are you denying the existence of such a lobby, or you denying that it is a majority?

I am denying that any such lobby pulls any weight whatsoever...we probably have a Nazi lobby too. Every country has their "wacko" populations.
 
  • #50
You really deny the existence of a strong pro-Israel lobby in the US?!..gimme a break :(
 
  • #51
Pro-Israel does not mean "death to Palestine"
 
  • #52
Office_Shredder said:
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?
Office_Shredder said:
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.
BoomBoom said:
Seriously?? :rolleyes:

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? :smile::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?
seycyrus said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
kyleb said:
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> :rolleyes:
 
  • #54
kyleb said:
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/
 
  • #55
BoomBoom said:
Oh I get it, so you are equating the pro-Israel lobby with something you call the "Death to Palestine" lobby. <sigh> :rolleyes:
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.
mheslep said:
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".
 
  • #56
kyleb said:
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.
 
  • #57
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.
 
  • #58
kyleb said:
...

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.
 
  • #59
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.
 
  • #60
kyleb said:
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.
 
  • #61
kyleb said:
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?
 
  • #62
kyleb said:
...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.
 
  • #63
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".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #64
Oh yeah, I missed responding to this:

BoomBoom said:
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.
 
  • #65
kyleb said:
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? :)
 
  • #66
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)
 
Last edited:
  • #67
Gokul43201 said:
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".
 
  • #68
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #69
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.
 
  • #70
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...
 

Similar threads

News Did President Obama's Speech in Moscow Improve US-Russian Relations?
Replies
2
Views
3K
News Why Americans Love Obama's Kill List
Replies
13
Views
4K
News Court: Obama Administration Flouting the law
Replies
24
Views
9K
News Can Romney regain credibility after his Cairo/Libya Embassy blunder?
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
News Should the US veto a UN resolution granting Palestine statehood?
4
Replies
124
Views
9K
News Obama & Chavez: Respect Despite Tensions
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
News Was Obama's Re-Taking of the Oath of Office Necessary?
Replies
31
Views
4K
News Is the Recession Really Over? Experts Declare End in June 2009
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
News Will Obama's New Plans for Domestic Oil Drilling Lower Gas Prices?
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Obama's Commitment to Israel: A Closer Look
Replies
19
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top