The Quakers have a long history of administering medical aid to the wounded of both sides in armed conflicts, including the American Revolution. So... I'd guess they're applauding Israel's humane actions? And I... uh, hope they enjoy this brief ray of light in the darkness?

Ha! Just kidding. I know this space is reserved for irrational screeds against Marty's enemies du jour. Of course there's no logical connection between news event A and hurled insult B. Of course we're all with Marty, and we hope the Quakers live to be very, very sorry for believing that the light of God inheres in all humanity. Crackpot lunatics! With their reckless pacifism they'll be the death of us all.

You have never drawn us a picture, Marty, of your alternative to talking. In all these rants, you never describe the Marty Future, once you've nobly convinced everyone that diplomacy is off the table. Will invading Iran cost mere thousands of American lives? Will Israel's neighbors respectfully decline opportunistic retaliation, even if the American and Israeli armies are laughably overextended and immobilized? Will the Iranians greet us as liberators? Just let us know!

Marty:  The "Quakers and the other faux-sweet Christians " have to plot a very serpentine path through which to walk, careful not to bump, perchance, into any rock or piece of verdure that might compromise their vision. If they are to continue to believe that Ahmadinejad and Hamas are gente buena, they must be extremely cautious not to let any fact-like knowledge to taint that absolute hermetic innocence. So there is no danger in their hearing about such a story. Too risky for their delusional amour-propre.

They remind me of that Southern belle, Blanche Dubois, who had to be very careful  to preserve the illusion that she is still a young woman, always in perpetual panic about who sees her and at what time of the day, going out only at night and always in darkened places so as to preserve her own  fantasy. LIght and truth were not her friends.

I have only one qualm with your post. How can you say "May God bless Roy" without blinking? If there was such a thing as God, would he allow a 12 year old boy to become so sick?

bdgreen,

Since you are writing about alternatives, where is your proof that appeasement works?

It's nice to know that the Quakers who were executed in 17th century Puritan Massachusetts for daring to practice religious freedom were just a bunch of tyrant-appeasing fools.  Clearly to want to talk to Achmadinnerjacket is automatically to endorse every single component of his ideology.  Why else would anyone talk to anyone else?

In any case, closer to reality, it seems to me that Quakers have generally been on the right side of history -- although I don't agree with every position they take -- in thinking hard about why hatred and violent irrationality are so attractive to human beings who are capable for much better.

 " Of course we're all with Marty, and we hope the Quakers live to be very, very sorry for believing that the light of God inheres in all humanity. Crackpot lunatics! With their reckless pacifism they'll be the death of us all." bdgreen

The snide comment doesn't change the fact that the Quakers and the Mennonites have decided among other "peace loving folk" have decided that dealing with people who want to kill Jews is the road to universal peace and brotherhood.

This isn't the first time for the Mennonites. In 1933 they welcomed Hitler's victory in Germany.

Submitting to tyrants is not the best way to achieve peace.  Gandhi too believed in peace, he also believed that Jews should have practiced peaceful civil disobedience against the Nazis.

God save us from peace loving people like these, and from the bdgreens; their peace is the peace of the grave.

Maybe Israel is just remembering that it was King Cyrus of Persia that ended the captivity of the Jews and allowed them to return to the Promised Land and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and it was his people(the Iranians) who throughout recorded history had been looked to as their protectors.

Well, if they took in a sick boy and offered him treatment they did nothing but their obligation. Period.

lesserliz said:  “Maybe Israel is just remembering that it was King Cyrus of Persia that ended the captivity of the Jews and allowed them to return to the Promised Land and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and it was his people(the Iranians) who throughout recorded history had been looked to as their protectors.”

Jews are not as ignorant as you are.

Jews were indeed protected and saved according to tradition by King Cyrus who was a Persian monarch and not an Iranian. However, there is also the tradition of the book of Esther which records a near escape from genocide by some Persian officials.

Moreover once the Muslims took over the Jews suffered grievously there. Segregation Ghettoization, the wearing of identifiable clothing to mark them as Jews (by some accounts the “yellow patch” on clothing was introduced by the Muslims in Iran.

Jews were in some places not allowed to go out while it was raining because the rain would wash of their bodies and “contaminate” the waters used by Muslims.

Even today in some rural areas Jews can’t drink from the same water fountains as Muslims nor swim in the same pools.

Liz who indeed has a lesser knowledge of history likes to shoot her mouth off with her so called “peace message.”

People who blindly peddle “peace” are just as bad as war mongers.

ironyroad said:  "In any case, closer to reality, it seems to me that Quakers have generally been on the right side of history -- although I don't agree with every position they take -- in thinking hard about why hatred and violent irrationality are so attractive to human beings who are capable for much better."

Have they? What was their position on fighting Hitler?

It's not a question of human being "being capbale of being better," to the Quakers an other peace groups humanity is by definition peace loving and the if there is war and aggression it's because  of some misguided and greedy individuals. It's also because of the Capitalist system which encourages greed.

This is why so many of these groups prefer anti modernist tyrants to Westerners who want to fight for their freedom.

luispc said:  "Well, if they took in a sick boy and offered him treatment they did nothing but their obligation. Period."

What bullshit.

Why didn't Portugal "do their obligation," then?

About cyrus and the Iranians:

"The Iranian government is in the final stages of constructing a dam in the country’s south that will submerge the archaeological sites of Pasargad and Persepolis – the ancient capital of the Persian Empire. The site, which is considered exceptional in terms of its archaeological wealth and historical importance, houses the tomb of the Persian King Cyrus. It was Cyrus who liberated Babylonian Jewry from their exile in the famous Declaration of Cyrus…

Ezra HaLevi of IsraelNationalNews.com points out:

The Iranian ayatollahs are planning on destroying the tomb as part of a general campaign to sever the Persian people from their non-Islamic heritage; Cyrus was thought to be a Zoroastrian and was one of the first rulers to enforce a policy of religious tolerance on his huge kingdom. "

1389blog.com/.../iranian-ayatollahs-seek-to-destroy-persepolis-and-the-tomb-of-cyrus

Here is Selma, who blogs from Tehran, writing about Cyrus:

"Well…see what we were and where we are … all we want now is to “dwell in peace”!"

antiutopia.wordpress.com/.../cyrus-cylinder-and-persians

_____

So please don't let's pretend that the Ayatolah regime in any way reflects the spirit of Cyrus. And by the way, the easy attempt at shrinkage by calling Ahmadinejad a cute belittling name won't wash. He is in fact too evil to wish away by mere linguistic sleight of hand.

«Why didn't Portugal "do their obligation," then?»

The boy didn't ask for treatment here, because if he had it would have been given. It would be that  or a national scandal.

The same thing would happen in Israel. And did happen, as one would naturally expect. And I'm sure Israelis that took the boy did not consider their act to be extraordinary or particularly heroic. As I'm sure the majority of Israelis would consider unacceptabe if help had not been given.

So, my point is precisely that: fortunately, Israel complies with standards of international humanitarian decency. And that's not a thing to boast about. To do it (and, worst of all to do it in the tone Peretz did it, publicizing his private hatreds) even puts Israel and Israelis in a fake position... Transforms something good into something that smells like propaganda (which I'm sure it was not since, as I said, Israel recognizably complies with standards of international humanitarian decency).

So Peretz should sometimes silence himself. That if he truly is a friend Israel. The way he puts things is sometimes entirely counterproductive. This one being a particularly clear case.

If indeed Quakers  "were executed in 17th century Puritan Massachusetts for daring to practice religious freedom", one would have expected a little more compassion towards other religious groups suffering the same persecution by the the likes of the men whose favour those very same Quakers are trying to curry.

""it is the Bahai community that has been suffering the bleak fate assumed to be that of the Jews. It is the Bahais who are not recognized by the Iranian constitution. Decades ago, Khomeini branded them, among other unsavory terms, a political sect and not a religion, circuitously defining them as plotters against the regime. Iranian Bahais have been accused of espionage for every major power save the Chinese, and simultaneously so. They are not allowed to worship. Their properties are vandalized. Even their dead know no peace, as their cemeteries are systematically destroyed.

Their children cannot attend schools, nor can Bahai academics teach. That is why in 1987, unemployed professors, in an act reminiscent of the Middle Ages, established underground universities to educate the Bahai youth.

Last month, six Bahai leaders were arrested. They had already been accustomed to routine weekly harassments and interrogations, which is why some of their wives have taken up sewing blindfolds to keep the guards from forcing dirty ones onto their husbands’ eyes. What is most alarming about this particular arrest is that they have not returned home and are being kept incommunicado."

www.forward.com/.../13602

I'm wondering what could possibly account for someone's attempt to mitigate for the moral illiteracy that these groups are manifesting by courting Ahmadinejad's non-existant good will.  What's the rationale? That their intentions are pure? That through their sweet talking they will manage to convert him into a rational human being?

"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. "

With a bit of adaptation, Orwell's words describe perfectly what these peace loving people are actually doing.

jackson, how dare you ask about Portugal? Don't you know the European mind? Europeans hold Jews in such high esteem that they expect them to be PERFECT. They themselves don't have to be perfect. They can burn Jews at stake, or gas them, or support the Arabs who want to kill every last Jew, as in 1973.

For non-Jewish Europeans, Europe is a pretty good place. When it comes to Jews, Europe is a piece of vomit. I'm all too glad I left it.

luispc 's last point would have had some merit if Israel were treated by the world as a normal country, like say, Portugal.  Unfortunately this is not the case. European societies are very susceptible to malicious defamation of Israel. I daresay many in them genuinely believe Israel to be all evil.

They lap up defamatory disinformation about how bad Israel, such as this one:  

www.independent.co.uk/.../palestinian-cancer-patient-denied-entry-from-gaza-into-israel-for-hospital-care-395363.html)  

but never get to hear of Israel's truly extraordinary humanitarian record, especially when it comes to treating its enemies' sick and disabled.

Therefore Marty Peretz, who is familar with this lopsided record, as anyone who cares a jot about Israel does, makes a point of highlighting what in regular circumstances would not have o be highlighted.

To not understand this very simple point is to be complicit with the maligners. Does luispc jump to right the record when Israel is defamed as speedily and readily as he/she comes out to remonstrate with Marty for "unseemly boasting" of Israel's goodness? If o, can we see some examples?

luispc,

Please give me specific examples of cases where a country under threat of annihilation from another country, gave advanced medical treatment to a citizen of the threatening country.  If this story merely represents routine compliance with "standards of international humanitarian decency", I am sure there must be dozens and dozens of such cases that you have at your fingertips.

Hershel Ginsburg,

Efrata / Jerusalem

Luispc,

Let me add another, ongoing Israeli humanitarian project which is assiduously ignored by the progressobabellian speaking churches in the USA.  Wolfson Hospital in Holon is the home to a fine organization called "Save A Child's Heart" (see, www.saveachildsheart.com/home1.html for more info).  SACH identifies children with surgically correctable heart problems who live in countries unable or unwilling to provide the requisite advanced medical / surgical care, brings them to Israel and operates on the kids, all free of charge.  The program also provides housing for the kid and a parent or guardian.

Not only is this service provided to kids from countries with whom Israel is technically at war, during the darkest days of the Oslo Accords Terrorism War the P.A. waged against Israel, the SACH program continued to bring in Palestinian kids (with the cooperation and assistance of the IDF) for surgery and when needed, follow-up, even when close relatives of some of the staffers were victims of that terror war.  I can tell you from first hand experience that SACH and SACH-like efforts are routinely ignored by the oh-so self-righteous "progressives" who regularly condemn Israel.

But back to you luispc, since Israel is merely merely complying with "standards of international humanitarian decency", I am sure there must be dozens and dozens of such cases where one warring party provided free, advanced medical care to a citizen of the other warring party.  So please please Mr. luispc, enlighten us and give us some specific examples that demonstrate that this indeed is nothing more than the standard of international humanitarian decency.  I am sure you have some examples at your fingertips.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

I presume that during the dinner with Ahmadinejad, the Quakers and the other peace loving groups, on the side of history, we are told, must have had plenty of time to ask questions. Did anyone ask him about this?

"A month ago, the Iranian parliament voted in favour of a draft bill, entitled "Islamic Penal Code", which would codify the death penalty for any male Iranian who leaves his Islamic faith. Women would get life imprisonment. The majority in favour of the new law was overwhelming: 196 votes for, with just seven against. "

"For one woman living in London, however, the Iranian parliamentary vote cannot be brushed aside. Rashin Soodmand is a 29-year-old Iranian Christian. Her father, Hossein Soodmand, was the last man to be executed in Iran for apostasy, the "crime" of abandoning one's religion. He had converted from Islam to Christianity in 1960, when he was 13 years old. Thirty years later, he was hanged by the Iranian authorities for that decision.

Today, Rashin's brother, Ramtin, is also held in a prison cell in Mashad, Iran's holiest city. He was arrested on August 21. He has not been charged but he is a Christian. And Rashin fears that, just as her father was the last man to be executed for apostasy in Iran, her brother may become one of the first to be killed under Iran's new law. "

www.telegraph.co.uk/.../Hanged-for-being-a-Christian-in-Iran.html

noga1 et al,

you are missing the point.

The Quakers, Mennonites and other "peace in our time, Inc." groups don't care about specifics.

They just care about peace and anyone especially people victimized by aggressors need to be ignored or silenced.  

This is why whenever one brings up an example of the vile behavior of regimes and their leader their answer is almost always the same: “but peace is more important than some Jews, Baha’i, or anyone else threatened by the tyranny of the ayatollahs.

To them the people who stand in the way of peace is not Ahmadinejad and his regime, but the people who want to fight them.

"Therefore Marty Peretz, who is familar with this lopsided record, as anyone who cares a jot about Israel does, makes a point of highlighting what in regular circumstances would not have o be highlighted"

I understand your point Nogal.

Well, but for me if one wants Israel to be treaten as a normal country (and I do want that) one must promote that normalcy. That's the hard way, but also the right way.

"So please please Mr. luispc, enlighten us and give us some specific examples that demonstrate that this indeed is nothing more than the standard of international humanitarian decency.  I am sure yu have some examples at your fingertips."

My country experienced several colonial wars last century (and pursuing them it was ruthless in a degree Israel never was, I'm ashamed to say). But medical treatment was never denied to sick children, whatever the party (on the contrary, it would probably be given in order to distinguish us from the "ruthless and savage rebels"...).

"jackson, how dare you ask about Portugal? Don't you know the European mind? Europeans hold Jews in such high esteem that they expect them to be PERFECT."

Not all Europeans think the same, as not all Americans think the same. And I do think that this specific remark is unfair when applied to many that try to keep a balanced  judgment and that even sympathize with Israel's torments. And there are many. Just read the European newspapers.

And in what concerns published books, just look at this example of a book written by many portuguese jews and non-jews (including our ex-President, Jorge Sampaio, half-jew), to see an example of pro-Israel Europeans:

www.difel.pt/.../product_info.php

Luispc,

Your analogy doesn't quite work.  In a colonial war, the colonist side is trying to maintain control over the colony.  Part of that effort is to win over the hearts and minds over the populace and that would include providing adequate medical care.

In the case of Israel vs. iran, Israel is a bit worried about annihilation by the hands of Mad Mahmoud and the Ayaltollahs.  A better example would be cases where e.g., Germany treated British kids or the USA treated Japanese kids during WW II.  Come on, I am sure you can give lots of examples of that.  After all it's a "standard of international humanitarian decency".

WRT SACH treating Palestinian kids, your analogy comes closer but still no cigar.  Israel WAS responsible for Palestinian welfare, but even there since 1977 and the autonomy provisions of Camp David 1, Israel has been trying to separate itself from the day to day responsibility.  Obviously the first big jump in this direction was the 1993 Oslo Accords which among other provisions explicitly stated that the P.A. would be responsible for Palestinian health care (supposedly Arafat wanted this provision, perhaps as a way of establishing and maintaining control of the Pals.)

Indeed, had Arafat invested a fraction of the $5 billion he took with him to the grave, he could have built a world class medical center that would have been the envy of the middle east.  But that requires actually caring about the welfare of your people.

There is yet another difference between the the Portuguese colonial situation vs. Israel and the Pals.  There have been any number of documented cases where the Pals exploit humanitarian passage, especially for medical treatment,  from the P.A. into Israel proper for the purpose of transporting bombs and / or carrying out terrorist attacks.  In most cases thankfully these attempts have been thwarted.  But not all. And so Israel has a legitimate interest in not allowing Pals coming into Israel in order to protect its own population.

One last point.  Portugal's relationship to its African colonies was just that -- colonial.  There was no deep historical (going back many centuries) connection to the land.  By contrast, regardless of the practical realities (which arguably are quite significant), in the case of Israel vs. the Pals, Israel has deep historical / national / religious ties to the land in dispute, ties which were recognized by international agreement (but now assiduously ignored by the "international community").  Indeed, in the case of Judea and Samaria (only recently re-named by the Jordanians as the "West Bank") we are speaking of the very heartland of Jewish history.  So the Israeli-Arab conflict is no where comparable to that of Portugal's colonial wars.

One other point worth noting.  From the article: "[Dr. Amos Toren, head of Sheba's Pediatric Hemato-Oncology Department] said the hospital kept the identities of patients from countries hostile to Israel secret, so that they would not face danger upon their return home."  This unfortunate necessity on the part of Sheba Hospital does not seem to be consistent with "standard of international humanitarian decency".

חג שמח -- Happy Holiday,

Hershel Ginsburg

Jerusalem / Efrata

When stating that analogy (and I agree that it is not entirely on the mark) I did in a context in which Europeans - and Portuguese in particular -- were being questioned.

And I did not want to sugest (not at all) that Israel was a colonial state. Particularly in what concerns it's territory recognized by International law.And in what concerns occupied territories, I do understand that this is a very complex problem and that many measures taken were so in legitimate defense of Israel's population, Jewish and non-Jewish.

So I understand the complexity of Israel's position from that point of view, knowing that the West Bank is probably the most difficult problem. Probably not because of historical ties (I think that it would be better to leave that sort of ties off this discussion...), but because of security, demographics and civil unrest among the Palestinians (of which I'm all too aware).

Going back to the topic, I still do not think it appropriate to address the fact that Israel gave treatment to an Iranian boy in the way Peretz did. That should be considered a normal fact and treated as such (I would have no problems if Peretz had said: I'm proud to say that Israel offered treatment...). If not, Israel is puten in a fake position. In an antithetical way it even means to confirm the position of those that keep accusing Israel of humanitarian flaws...

Luispc, don't let them browbeat you-of course Israel is a colonial state and a complete understanding of the true nature of Zionism’s colonial enterprise requires knowledge of this fact. Most of the Jews who went to Palestine in answer to Zionism’s call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews. The incoming Zionist Jews were mainly foreign nationals of many lands, descended from those who became Jewish by conversion to Judaism centuries after the fall of the ancient Jewish kingdom of Israel and what is called the “dispersal” into “oblivion” of its people. The notion that there were, are, two entire  peoples with an equally valid claim to the same land is an historical nonsense. The relatively few Jews with a valid claim were the descendants of those who stayed IN Palestine through everything. They numbered only a few thousand at the time of Zionism’s birth; they regarded themselves as Palestinians; and they were fiercely opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise - because they rightly feared that it would make them as well as the incoming, alien Zionist Jews enemies of the Arabs among whom they had lived in peace and security. (Though not even many of today’s Jews are aware of it, it is also a fact that the return of Jews to the land of biblical Israel by the efforts of man - one possible but woefully inadequate definition of Zionism - was proscribed by Judaism).

luispc:

The last paragraph in your comment does not make any sense at all, not to me, anyway.

What is fake about Israel extending humanitarian help to a sick Iranian boy?

How does speaking about it confirm "those that keep accusing Israel of humanitarian flaws..? "?

It's not so complicated, you know. Israel is constantly demonized in Leftist media, in Arab media, in the UN general assembly and in UNHR commission. Such demonization is not even questioned by those "peace loving" Christian groups who suck up to Ahmadinejad, the greatest defamer of Israel around. They don't even bother to hear what Israel is actually about. They are happy to allow the likes of Ahmad and the rest to define the terms in which Israel is to be judged. This is a travesty of any semblance of fairness.

What's wrong in citing the latest example to flat out contradict such a satanic view of Israel? Why does this bother you to such an extent?

Your position, notwithstanding the fine words about  "complexity of Israel's position ", is that Israel's good deeds, in defiance of world opinion, should remain unspoken about, unheard, suppressed.

How so? Why?

Is it because Israel cannot be allowed to accumulate a certain capital of good  will towards it?

For almost 60 years, the Geneva-based International Red Cross and Red Crescent Federation refused to admit the Israeli branch, the Magen David Adom (i.e., Red Star of David) to full membership in the Red Cross.  There were all kinds of pretexts offered for this exclusion but the real obstacles were Arab and Muslim countries, which wanted to block Israel from joining   humanitarian work abroad, in disaster areas and such like. Because Israel could not be seen to do good work.

Your position, gentle luispc, reminds me of that  Arab rejection front. Let's keep humanitarian work clean of any Israeli connotations. God forbid that someone may come to regard it as less than absolutely evil.

"The last paragraph in your comment does not make any sense at all, not to me, anyway."

It has to do with dialectics. If I stress a humanitarian action as something extraordinary I'm implying by antithesis that ordinarily that same action would not be adopted  (and consequently, I'm saying that those that attack me when they call me a wrong doer on a ordinary basis are right...).

One should not play the same game. One should say: what you are saying is nonsense since, ON A REGULAR BASIS, Israel has no lessons to take on humanitarianism.

Hope I was clear now.

I suppose that by the same rule of keeping mum about Israel's virtues, it will be deemed poor taste to take satisfaction  in this piece of news which confirms Israel's academic excellence :

"The Hebrew University of Jerusalem was ranked 93 in the world this year by the Times Higher Education survey, released last weekend. This means the university has jumped by 35 places since last year."

www.haaretz.com/.../1028408.html

I'm happy to note that, with the boycotting movement going from strengh to strengh, Israeli academics  continue to thrive and make a name for themselves.

Here is another little example of same:

"a periodical of Tel Aviv University's law dept (Theoretical Inquiries in Law) has been ranked top of all law periodicals published outside the US "

boycotted-uk-academic.blogspot.com/.../noodles.html

Lesserliz. No one is browbeating me. I don't think you're right in saying Israel is a colonial state. Historically the majority of Jews that today live in Israel ended up there because, in the places they came from, they were monstruously vilified and persecuted. And TODAY (which is what matters) they have no place to live but that State.

This for me is more than enough to justify the existence of Israel as a State.

And I think that if one wants to promote a peacefull solution, the right way surely is not to question a right of Israel to exist (to question it today is preposterous, from my point of view) and to forget the fact that Palestinians are not exactly making things easy.

We must demand the undertaking of responsibilities from BOTH parties. And not assume a demonizing position of Israel + paternalistic position towards the Palestinians. This won't help. It won't help at all. On the contrary: it will make things worse for everyone.

"It has to do with dialectics."

Dialectics, eh?

This of course makes it perfectly clear why Marty Perretz was not to talk about Israel extending a helping hand to a cancer-struck little boy, even though that little boy's name had to be kept secret because his own government would rather see him die than get treatment in Israel.

I know a few Quakers and respect them.  They don't believe in "peace" as a kind of abstract behind which any and all tyrannies and oppression can be justified.  They do however believe that there is nothing automatic or "natural" about hatred and aggression.  I think that it's ultimately a good thing to have some people around who are more assertive about the need to stop replicating social and political configurations that lead to violent conflict.

I also notice that nobody seems to challenge my point that to talk with someone is not to endorse their ideology.  Good, that's an advance, at least.

This is how breaking bread with a would be genocidaire is justified:

""Jesus ate with lepers and with tax collectors, and in the United States right now, Iran would be in that category," says Arli Klassen, executive director of the Mennonite Central Committee, an outreach arm for Mennonite and Brethren in Christ churches in the United States and Canada..."

www.ajc.com/.../breakingbread.html

The lepers were pariahs by virtue of their disease, in other words, victims. The tax collectors were pariahs by virtue of their means of making a living, which made them hated.

In what way is Ahmadinejad comparable to any of these cases? Only morally warped minds would equate a Hitler-wannabe, with these human beings.

I'm truly surprised at you, IronyRoad, that you continue to insist with such vehemence that this was a perfectly lucid act of reasonable ethics. It was anything but. It was an act of sabotage. Most Iranians are ashamed of their leaders with good reason. They cannot  say so without fearing retribution. Yet here are these people, clueless, welcoming such a person.  There is something obscene about this dinner party. The innocence and good intentions of these people is completely immaterial. If they want to interefere they should make damn sure they know what they are doing.

Even Obama has retreated from his initial promise to sit and talk to regime without pre conditions. I attribute this to his growing more familiar with the actual personas involved.

"...because his own government would rather see him die than get treatment in Israel."

From where I stand, that's his own governments problem. Not Israel's.

And if Israel wants to make a point, Peretz is making the opposite one by putting things the way he puts them. At least considering the way he is going to be understood by those that are permanently accusing Israel of humanitarian flaws... They are not going to be moved by this EXtraordinary gesture: they are going to take it as the EXception that confirms the rule... And Peretz will have made their understanding really easy (what he says is, in a way, the other side of the same coin).

The human mind works that way. There's nothing I can do about it.

The people you are talking about, luispc, are not going to be swayed any which way by any fact you serve them, which may mitigate for Israel. If something works for Israel, then something is wrong. Either it is a lie, or a manufactured propaganda, or whatever. These are not why it is important to keep making public what Israel is really about. Random readers whose minds have not yet been poisoned need to have the opportunity to know such information.

If we follow your principle, then these people will never get to hear about Israel's humanitarian record which may cast doubts upon the evil porrtrait  they will hear plenty about. When you are dealing with the kind of poisonous fertilization practiced hourly by "pro-Palestinian" activists, and you are not doing everything you can to counter that by concrete examples to the contrary, you become, willy-nilly, complicit in the crime of defamation.

Obama was originally unclear, but his comments were also deliberately distorted by others (as Kerry's were in 2004 about a "more sensitive" war on terrorism, which was deliberately misinterpreted to imply that he wanted to bring terrorists breakfast in bed, when what he clearly meant was a more focused strategy to fight them).  Obama obviously meant that the Bush theory of establishing a potential outcome of negotiations as the pre-condition that has to be fulfilled before negotiations take place at all makes no sense.

At the launch of his campaign, Obama spoke like the Quakers and Mennonites (and others), when he promised to sit down with US's enemies without any pre-conditions. That's what he said. I heard him with my own two ears. It was a vastly popular meme. The multitudes cheered crazily. Then the facts and events began to accrue and the word "preparation" began to show up in his promise, and the euphoric tone became more subdued. More recently I saw him accuse his adversary of twisting his words: he had never said he would sit down to talk unconditionally, he had never intended that he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, anyway. There were other members in that regime, more reasonable  (Not!).

Most recently he cited Kissinger as agreeing with his position.

While the other ex-foreign ministers talked just about negotiations with the Iranians, Kissinger said:  "Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran. And one utility of negotiation is to put before Iran our vision of a Middle East, of a stable Middle East, and our notion on nuclear proliferation at a high enough level so that they have to study it. And, therefore, I actually have preferred doing it at the secretary of state level so that we -- we know we're dealing with authentic."

From Obama's reference to Kissinger in particular I deduced that Obama’s thinking had already evolved beyond the simplistic formula of the other four FM’s and that he was beginning to get the gist of the complexity of talking to an implacable enemy. I was much heartened by his words because I have been following his thinking on this matter very closely, having a very personal investment in Iran's plans for Israel.

So now comes IronyRoad and declares that "Obama obviously meant that the Bush theory of establishing a potential outcome of negotiations as the pre-condition that has to be fulfilled before negotiations take place at all makes no sense."

No, he didn’t.  He meant exactly what most people understood him to mean. No preconditions is no preconditions, I seem to remember him saying.

Your interpretation of what Obama said is more likely what you think he should have said.

Are you claiming that  Obama’s message and understanding today are exactly what they were was two years ago? That he has not evolved and learned and reconsidered, and become much more centrist in his views?

Bernard Kouchner supports talking, talking, talking to the Iranians:

"Iran with an atomic bomb is unacceptable at all," Kouchner said, in keeping with a number of aggressive statements in the past on the issue. But how can it be prevented?" "Talking, talking, talking, and offering dialogue, sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. Is the alternative to bomb first - I think not," he said.

When reminded that France has been trying to talk to Iran for years with no success, Kouchner responded: "Since the election of President [Nicolas] Sarkozy our strategy was the same - sanctions but always dialogue. But you are right - dialogue with whom - we tried, we talked to the Iranians and a lot of people tried with no real result. But the last meeting was in Geneva with the Americans.

... Kouchner was asked if Israel were to attack Iran, would it not improve the basis for dialogue, considering that Syria started negotiating with Israel after Israel attacked it.

"It is not the same thing. Bombing a very little place, a factory, etc. The action that you are supposed to prepare is a vast and large action. War is never a solution, but sometimes I know it has been used, so let me be precise - we are not absolutely desperate - we have to start trying to get some allies, isolating [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, trying to help the people in favor of more modernity," he said.

"We never succeed in offering an alternative to the Iranian people. They all believe, because they are nationalists. Because it is a great country, because they are in a place where nothing can be solved in the region - we have to deal with that and certainly to talk with them, but with whom?" Kouchner said."

"...we have to deal with that and certainly to talk with them, but with whom?"

www.haaretz.com/.../1026323.html

This news belongs here:

"British Embassy in Tehran denies Visa to a Patient in Need of Urgent Care"

kamangir.net/.../british-embassy-in-tehran-denies-visa-to-a-patient-who-needs-urgent-care

Wine buyer Nick Room said: \"Drinking \'à deux\' will dispense with unfinished bottles of wine or feeling the need to finish off a full bottle. The innovative size will put a stop to wine buffs drinking wine past its best, and the new concept will cater