Perpetuating False Myths: The US Constitution - Discussion I

Dr. Louise Mayo, History professor emeritus of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania reacted to my post on "Perpetuating False Myths - The US Constitution" with this exposition:

Your history is largely right on, but I think that you are not entirely fair to the New York Times article and not as nuanced as the real story is.  The article does not really say that the founders wanted a weaker government than the Articles of Confederation, but it does, largely correctly, point out that there was fear about one branch of government becoming too powerful, hence the elaborate system of checks and balances.  Indeed the writers of the Constitution rejected (unfortunately in my opinion) a parliamentary system in which there is for the most part a single branch.  Under that system, which exists in most of Europe, the party that is elected has the power to enact the basic legislation it has promised the voters that it would. The minority cannot block the measures introduced by the majority. (Of course the fly in the ointment occurs when there are three or more parties, making compromises and deals essential.)  Had we such a system here when Obama and the Democrats won big majorities in 2008, they could have passed their program without any real problems or much compromise.  That is not to argue that the Republicans in the Senate are following constitutional precedent when they, while still in the minority, successfully block appointments and the executive's ability to carry out laws.  In the past, the unwritten understanding was that a president could have the appointees he wanted who reflected his point of view, with only occasional exceptions. I cannot remember a time in history when the opposition party was so single-mindedly determined to insure that the President fails and uses the bludgeon of threatened filibuster to block just about everything and everyone.

Which I tried to rebut with:

Thank you for your input. I am glad that I provoked you into commenting.

However, I question that the "elaborate checks and balances" were intended to cause gridlock. First I question whether the "Checks and Balances" that the Times and you both refer to were a concept at the convention. I can find nothing in the Constitutional debates that indicates that it intended the Supreme Court to act as a restraint. As a matter of fact, before Marbury vs. Madison was decided it was assumed by President Washington that the Court had no such power and that the veto power was to be used to reject what the President considered unconstitutional.

So aside from the bicameral legislature which I contend was the result of the compromise outlined by me, the only other check or balance is the President's veto. While my reading in this area, I am sure, is not as extensive as yours, I have found nothing to indicate that the bicameral legislature was intended as a check or a balance. I am sure that you are correct that the founders considered a parliamentary system, which I agree would be better than what we have, but I contend it was rejected, not because it would not be enough of a check on power, but rather because it did not satisfy the two faction at the convention, as I stated. Also there was precedence for it in the British system, which had the House of Commons and the House of Lords (bicameral) with the King being the Chief executive, the President in our system.

I keep hearing the words "checks and balances" but I am not even sure that those words were used at the convention. I believe, though, of course, I may be wrong, that this is a modern invention.

As a matter of fact there was great concern that the Constitution gave the federal government too much power; hence the demand for the Bill of Rights, which I grant you was intended to limit the power of the federal government, but that is different from the contention that the Constitution itself was intended to hamstring the government as a way of making sure it does not overstep.

Can you cite anything that would indicate that the bicameral legislature was intended as a check or a balance, rather than the need for compromise as I have argued.

As for doing an injustice to the Times, even if I was wrong here, and I don't concede that I was,  there are many, many instances of the Times feeding into the paradigm of the Right. For example its distorted writing by Judith Miller in support of Iraq war, its slandering of Gore and Kerry and its reluctance to report on Watergate, see e.g: The Media II - Falsehoods about Gore, The Media! (Watergate/Clinton) and The Media III - Falsehoods about Kerry.  I could cite many others and may return to that subject at a later time.

After further research I added:

Since dispatching the message below, I tried to search for any mention of checks and balances in the records of the debates at Philadelphia. I could find none.

I then went to the Federalist Papers where I did find a reference to checks, but not to balances in Federalist No. 51 and where Publius writes:

"First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people."

But I don't find that adequate or convincing proof that the bicameral legislature was intended as a "check and balance" even if possibly Hamilton or Madison used something close to such an argument on its behalf.

As you can see I am perfectly willing to prove myself wrong and will happily (well maybe not happily) concede that I was wrong if any evidence, other than that it is the conventional wisdom even among historians, can be adduced by you or me or anyone else. However, I am always suspicious of conventional wisdom, even if held by a distinguished group, absent convincing evidence.

The discussion concluded with Dr. Mayo's following observations which largely quoted further from Federalist No. 51. Her comments are in parentheses and bold.

So I think this discussion is going in circles.  Here are the relevant sections of Federalist 51:

It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconvenience is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. (Idea of 2 branches as checks on each other.)

In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.

It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure (this) method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.

(By the way this shows a realization of judicial branch's role) A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.

(The 2 branches of the legislature is not the central point, but it is also clear that one was to represent the people and the other representing the states, as you rightly point out, was also NOT chosen by the people deliberately to provide counter-weight to messy popular "passions.")

Let me conclude with, what has become a somewhat esoteric, though very interesting discussion, by pointing out that Dr. Mayo is unable to quote from the minutes of the convention itself (though of course there were no official minutes, only the recollection of participants at the convention) and neither she nor I can find any reference to this issue in the Federalist Papers except in one out of eighty-five, and this was in an attempt to sell the document, hardly a reliable way to determine the intent of the authors.

But I say the argument is esoteric, because the principal cause of the gridlock, is not the existence of the two Houses, but the use of non-Constutional means to obstruct, most particularly the filibuster and the willingness to cause untold damage to the country, unless its agenda is adopted. In this connection the Times article, whether having a basis or not, feeds into the false paradigm that the problems we have encountered are the results of the structure of our government, rather than the deliberate obstructionism by any and all means of one of our parties.

Perpetuating False Myths: The US Constitution

As the Republican Party continues its campaign to hold the Nation hostage as a means of forcing their radical program down the throats of the American people they depend on the propagation of many myths that serve to justify both their programs and their tactics.

Many of these myths turn around our founding fathers and their intent in the creation of the Constitution. We hear over and over again, until by the mere use of repetition, it becomes a truism, that the purpose of the Constitution was to limit the powers of the Federal government. Nothing could be further from the truth!

At the time that the Constitutional convention was called, the thirteen states that had won independence from Britain, were in a very loose alliance under a document called the Articles of Confederation, which had been agreed to by the Continental Congress on November 15,1777, but which had not been ratified until 1781. The War of Independence ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris. The Constitutional Convention convened four years later in 1787, and was convened because the Articles of Confederation did not confer sufficient powers on the Federal government and was causing gridlock. Among its many weaknesses was the fact that it could only be amended by unanimous vote, and that it did not have the power to prevent the states from acting in their own individual interests, instead of in the interests of the whole, e.g., “Rhode Island's imposing taxes on all traffic passing through it on the post road that linked all the states.”

For more details click here.

“Virginian James Madison has been called the Father of the Constitution. He arrived in Philadelphia for the Convention almost two weeks early so that he could start thinking about what he wanted the Convention to accomplish. From his point of view, there were a few main problems with the Confederation. The states were under no obligation to pay their fair share of the national budget; they violated international treaties with abandon; they ran roughshod over the authority of the Congress; and they violated each other's rights incessantly.”

See here.

As can readily be seen, from this history, the founding fathers, and Madison in particular, did not draft the Constitution in order to limit the powers of the Federal Government or to create gridlock, as a front-page article in the New York Times’ Week in Review contends under the title of “Standstill Nation."

The Constitution was intended to do away with the gridlock of the Articles of Confederation, and to decrease the power of the states. Contentions so often heard to the contrary are not only misleading, but downright false. The New York Times, “that paragon of liberalism” is simply playing into the false paradigm promulgated and perpetuated by dint of repetition by the Republican party in order to justify its program of emasculating the Federal government, and in fact emasculating all government, in so far as it tries to serve the vast majority of its citizens who have not been fortunate enough to acquire great wealth.

The New York Times article propounds a notion that in order to create gridlock the Founding Fathers created two Houses. While the existence of two Houses certainly does not further the smooth functioning of government, it is nothing short of silly to suggest that they were created for that purpose. This among many of the other myths propounded ignores the fact that the document was not the product of careful evaluation of all its possible consequences, but rather the product of endless compromise. There were those who felt that the legislative branch should simply be representative of the individual states, and therefore the Senate was created giving each state regardless of its size, two Senators, who were to be selected, not by the people, but by the legislatures of the individual states. See Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution (This was not changed until 1913 when the 17th Amendment provided for the election of Senators by popular vote.)

Others felt that the people, according to their number, should be in control of the legislature of the United States, and argued for what came to be the House of Representatives.

The creation of the two Houses was the compromise worked out to satisfy these contending factions, not as the Times article contends, to create gridlock. What utter nonsense!!

In any case, today’s gridlock is not so much the result of the existence of the two Houses but rather the result of one of our parties being determined to use parliamentary tactics to thwart the will of the majority, and impose its will on the Nation. Toward this end they have created non-constitutional requirements to pass legislation, having, for example, instituted the 60 vote rule in the Senate, a requirement nowhere to be found in the Constitution. (While the filibuster was used before it became a tool of party policy, it was used only by individuals or small groups, most frequently to thwart civil rights legislation. It was not until fairly recently that it became a tool of one of the major parties, creating a new hitherto unknown requirement of sixty votes to pass any legislation or confirm any Presidential appointment.)

Similarly Tea Partiers and Republicans in general, keep relying on the provisions of the US Constitution and its first ten amendments, totally ignoring the 17 amendments that have followed, unless they happen to favor their agenda. Most particularly, they would like to negate the 14th amendment and take us to an antebellum era. The Civil War was fought, the secessionists and state righters lost, and the 14th amendment is the law of the land, and in so far as it contradicts the provisions of the tenth amendment, it overrides that amendment.

What the Times and other so called liberal newspapers are doing is allowing the "Right" to dismiss any liberal sounding article or columns as just the "usual liberal" views, while taking the many Right wing fulminations that come from the page of the Times as, "even the Times says," making it sound as the ultimate affirmation of falsehoods and myths.

What the media should be doing, is setting the record straight, shining a light on truth, and exposing lies, instead of trying to prove its non-partisanship and its non-liberal bona fides by propounding lies and feeding into the myths that support the agenda of one party and a fanatical group of radicals trying to impose their will by non-Constitutional and reckless means.

Expansionism Abroad - Discussion IV

Ivan Garret of Fort Lee, NJ sent me two items without comment, one entitled "A Letter to the Editor of Edinburgh U" which you can access by clicking here and another to which I gave the title "Sophistry and Hate Mongering" which you can access by clicking here, prompting me to respond as follows:

Dear Ivan,

I have been reluctant to respond to your two e-mails because I make it a policy not to respond to articles forwarded to me without the sender's view with regard to the article. I do not consider it appropriate to ask me to spend time commenting on an article when the sender will not take the time to express his own view. I will make an exception in this case, but will not do so in the future.

The articles are quite different from each other. The Edinburgh U. letter is right on the mark. It makes it clear that it is not complaining about, "ordinary criticism of Israel" but rather "a hatred that permits itself no boundaries". There is no doubt that some of the attacks on Israel have their foundation in the virulence of anti-Semitism, and the letter points out that the 270 students who sponsored this attempted boycott chose Israel for its opprobrium when there are so many other states which aught to stand far in front of Israel for condemnation of its policies. Why Israel is a reasonable question and one cannot escape the suspicion that anti-Semitism lies at its root.

However, as the author states, fair criticism is another matter and Americans who with their taxes give more support to Israel than to any other country have more than enough right to such fair criticism and even to demand as a condition of such support that policies inimical to the interests of the US and even to the interests of Israel itself must be changed. In the long history of this relationship President Eisenhower called for sanctions in the UN when Israel along with England and France threatened to seize the Suez Canal.

Just as Americans have not only a right but a duty to criticize policies of the US that are immoral or simply ill advised, so Jews, with their special relationship to Israel have that same duty and right.

For Israel and its lobbies to claim that all criticism is founded in Anti-Semitism is ill advised, unsupported and an outrage. No, Israel is not an apartheid state, but if the policies of the settler movement and of Netanyahu are carried out it will become one, and while there is no discrimination against Arabs or Muslims in Israel proper, its unending occupation of Palestinians in their territories, who do not have the rights of Israelis, gives some credence to this charge.

Now, the diatribe attributed to Dennis Miller is another story. It actually was written by Larry Miller as long ago in 2002, and circulating on the Internet ever since. To say there are no Palestinians is to deny their humanity. Clearly it does not matter whether we call them Palestinians or by some other name. They are people who lived in Palestine for generations, and even centuries, long before the state of Israel was founded. The author says: "Before the Israelis won the land in the1967 war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, the West Bank was owned By Jordan, and there were no Palestinians." By that reasoning there were no Jews during the diaspora. The fact is, and facts can be unpleasant, that a Palestinian territory existed long before the area was occupied by the various states that occupied it. In 1922 the then League of Nations created The British Mandate for Palestine. this was only a few years after the British issued the The Balfour Declaration in 1917 which became the foundation for creating a modern Jewish homeland in, yes that's right, in Palestine.

But it doesn't matter what we call them. There are people living in the West Bank and they are not going to disappear. They will either be allowed to have their own country large enough and contiguous so as to be politically and economically viable, which means the '67 lines with modifications or be ejected, which amounts to ethnic cleansing, or will be incorporated into Israel without the right to vote, (an apartheid state) or they will be allowed to vote which would end the Jewish state.

Those are the choices!!! No amount of sophistry can change that.

As for terrorism, I don't think we should be too quick to condemn all terrorists. I was recently in Jerusalem and a sign on my hotel reminded me of what the Irgun, from which Likud sprang, did.

Whether such notice was given is in dispute.

The rest of that letter is simple pure hate mongering, and I will not dignify it by even responding.

Allen Schechtman, who had forwarded the Letter to the Editor of Edinburgh U and who I copied with my remarks, rejoined as follows:

I did not see the choice of a two state solution. Although Jordan usurped much of the Palestinian land and they keep tight control on them since they make up the vast majority of the population, (and slaughtered thousands of them) there still exists the hope and possibility of a two state solution. This assumes that the Palestinian state not be used as Gaza has been which is to destroy the infrastructure and industry left behind and turned into an armory and missile launching site. The mideast was carved up by Europe into a dozen countries. People were shifted, evicted renamed tribes were ignored etc. Yet one questions the legitimacy of those states. Only the tiny piece of land set aside for Jews where they had a continuous presence for 3000 years including during the diaspora was denied acceptance.

I replied:

Indeed that is what I have been talking about and urging all along. When I spoke about ethnic cleansing etc. I meant those were the only possible alternatives to a two state solution. See my extensive posts on my blog beginning with "Hostage Taking at Home and Expansionism Abroad" and the three posts following "Expansionism Abroad - Discussion" "Expansionism Abroad - Discussion II" and "Expansionism Abroad - Discussion III," all of which directly or indirectly seek a two state solution, but which express my fear that the Netanyahu government is not interested in a two state solution, or at least not one that would give the Palestinians a viable economic entity. The desire under all sorts of smoke screens, appears to be to expand settlements indefinitely and to shrink any possible future Palestinians state into a tiny canton which would not be viable either economically or politically. The Israeli settler movement appears to have gained ascendency and is now the primary force propelling Netanyahu policy.

And it is not true that the piece of land set aside for Jews was denied acceptance. It was created by UN mandate and is recognized by most countries of the world, including Egypt and Jordan. One does not have to be anti-Israel to have the humanity to be concerned about the Palestinians, not only in Palestine, but in their diaspora.

What I am urging is what has been US policy for decades and what has recently been reiterated by our President. This is the only way to a two
state solution.

I question your comments on Gaza but that would take too long to fully address.

Expansionism Abroad - Discussion III

Eddie Bernstein Esq. of Boynton Beach, Florida asked the rhetorical question:

How can Israel negotiate with people who are sworn to destroy Israel and not recognize it?

I responded:

You are simply repeating one of the endless evasions that the Israeli government uses because it believes that there is nothing to be gained from peace. Terrorism has ended, the occasional rockets from Gaza are only a nuisance, and are certainly not an existential threat, so who cares if there is a formal peace. Now the dream of many, to occupy all of Palestine seems within reach. Of course it means what has always been considered to be unacceptable results, i.e. either ethnically cleanse the Arabs from all of Palestine, or make them non citizens within the Jewish state, or force them into small enclaves where they would lead an even more miserable existence than they now have, and which would, essentially be Apartheid, or a combination of these. But that appears now to be acceptable. Rabin must be whirling in his grave, and even David Ben-Gurion must be muttering in his. Certainly Theodor Herzl  never thought that his dream might lead to such a travesty.

You say, 'How can Israel negotiate with people who do not recognize it?' This is reminiscent of the days when we were faced with a USSR and the question was then, 'how can we negotiate with a country bent on world domination.' Thank God we did!!!!

How can Israel negotiate with people who do not recognize it. That in itself is misleading, for the Palestinian Authority has recognized Israel and so you lump all Palestinians with Hamas. And it will be months yet before the two merge, a time when negotiations could yet be concluded.

And as to Hamas it would be more appropriate to ask how can they negotiate with a country it does not recognize. The point is one can negotiate with anyone who is willing to negotiate with you.

Recognition is the end of negotiations - not the beginning. Has Israel recognized a Palestinian state. Shouldn't they be required to recognize it before negotiations can begin?

It is all of one. There is nothing to negotiate about if the Netanyahu government is intent on occupying all of the West Bank, which apparently is what they intend. There will never be a defensible border according to this bunch, except on the Jordan river, and as for the Palestinians, "they are not human anyway."

What it means to a Jew, above all, is to walk righteously before the Lord. Israel, which at one time appeared to be the "shining castle on the hill", is betraying the most fundamental tenets of what it means to be a Jew."

Allow me to add that it also is in Israel's security interests to achieve a peace now. With the Arab spring we have a whole new balance. Before Israel could count on Egypt and the other Arab states putting their relationship with Israel and with the US above their allegiance to the Palestinians. That is no longer true and if they feel that their brethren are being mistreated, new hostilities are a possibility. Egypt has already ceased cooperation with Israel on the blockade of Gaza. On the other hand if the Palestinians make peace with Israel that rage in the Arab world will be dissipated. Even Hezbollah in the South of Lebanon would have a hard time justifying new hostilities. This is the time for Israel to choose peace or endless war.

Is the messianic desire to occupy all the biblical land, i.e. Judea and Samaria really worth it.

If the Israeli government can't see these things than it is up to Americans in general and American Jews in particular to make it clear where its true interests lie.

With peace with the Palestinians, Israel might even be able to count on the Sunni Arabs to stand with it in its confrontation with Iran.

Eddie Bernstein gave further voice to his concerns when he wrote:

I understand what you are saying. What Obama said that he would modify 1967 borders with swaps and Netanyahu over-reacted. However, Hamas is sworn to Israel’s destruction and it is hard to negotiate with someone who wants you destroyed. Many Israeli’s would like a two state solution. However that is a no-no for most Palestinians and other Arabs. It is hard to negotiate with someone like that. I am being too simplistic ?

I replied:

Yes, I do think you are being to simplistic. There is no question that it is very hard for Palestinians to give up the right of return. They feel they have been made victims to make up for the Nazi atrocities in which they had no part. They dream of returning to their ancestral homelands. But they also have come to grips with reality. According to Wikileaks Abbas agreed to give up the Right of Return during the last round of negotiations, but did not want it to be known unless a final agreement was signed, but before that could happen the Israeli government fell and Netanyahu became P.M.

So close and yet so far. If Israel truly wanted peace they would stop expanding and building settlement, thus gobbling up more and more Palestinian territory and reducing the area where eventually all Palestinians from their diaspora will have to settle. They are now settled (if one can call it that) in refugee camps in various Arab countries, such as Lebanon, Syria, etc. where they are not wanted and are denied permanent residency and citizenship. Their situation is desperate. Where is humanity? Can't Israel let them return to an economically viable Palestine where after generations of inhuman suffering in those camps they can get citizenship and begin to build some sort of life.

Surely, if they can't come back to Israel they should be entitled to that.

Most important, stop the expansion and the building of settlements on the remaining Palestinian lands.

Leonard Levenson Esq. of Manhattan, NY added to the discussion with the comment:

The right wing in the US is obviously pandering to the "Jewish vote" in the US. Ironically, continued tensions between Israel and the Palestinians make for a much more dangerous Middle East and a more dangerous situation for Israel. A contiguous Palestinian State via unhampered underground travel between Gaza and the West Bank will remove some of the daily, abrasive fuel feeding the Arab Extremist cause. A prosperous Palestinian state may even encourage population shifts by the 1.8 million Israeli Arabs to a Palestinian state thereby satisfying the call for Israeli purity so often heard from a small percentage of Israelis and a larger number of American Jewish extremists. Bravo for Obama on this one.

Finally, I commend to the reader an article by Richard Cohen in the Washington Post entitled: Israel - Time for Netanyahu to ditch his do-nothing policy" as well as an article by by Hendrik Hertzberg writing in the New Yorker. 

As I have said time and time again, We should all support a Jewish homeland in Israel. But that does not mean supporting every policy of its government without questioning its soundness on both humanistic principles and true Israeli security, rather than  than allowing the hijacking of the Jewish homeland by a bunch of fanatics who are bent on annexing all, or most, of Samaria and Judea (The West Bank) without regard to Palestinian rights or welfare.

As for who one can negotiate with, one can never know who one can negotiate with until one has tried to do so in good faith. An exchange of recognition of Israel in exchange for recognition of a Palestinian state, along the borders both Bush and Obama, and every US President before them have advocated, should be the goal.

Those who deny the humanity and legitimate rights of the Palestinians, must be marginalized and rejected. That is being truly pro-Israel!!!

Expansionism Abroad - Discussion II

Ernest Hauser of the Bronx, NY raised the following question:

"did i hear obama use the word CONTIGUOUS when talking about gaza and the w.bank?"

I replied:

You are correct! The President said:

"The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."

Ehud Barak proposed a tunnel connecting Gaza to the West Bank. See here, which is apparently what the President referred to. The distance between the two enclaves is 5 miles. When it is considered that the tunnel between Britain and France extends for 31 miles and is under water, a 5 mile tunnel under land is quite practicable. How many miles underground does our subway run? Barak further explained that "The preferred way to do it would be to dig a tunnel that would be under Israeli sovereignty, but under totally free and unobstructed use by Palestinians..."

Netanyahu has not expressed a position on this but we may assume he is opposed, as he is to all plans that would bring the occupation to an end.

Nevertheless, the Right Wing Blogosphere went into overdrive. Glenn Beck compared this to attempting to connect Alaska and Washington state, while his faithful sidekick Stu Burguiere compared it to connecting South Carolina and California. Beck concluded that "there's no way to do this, and the President knows it" and a search of Google simply using as key words, "Obama contiguous" brought forth: "Obama's 'Contiguous' Palestinian State Could 'Split Israel in Half" (CNS News) and "Is Obama saying he wants Israel cut in half" (Hyscience) as essentially the same is repeated over and over.

And Republicans join the chorus:

-Mitt Romney: Has the President “thrown Israel under the bus”

-Michele Bachmann: Has he “once again betrayed our friend and ally, Israel”

-Tim Pawlenty: Made a “mistaken and very dangerous demand”

-Newt Gingrich: “given the Palestinians a huge break”

Well, it turns out that here again all this outrage is manufactured.

Obama simply repeated what Bush had said, without controversy:

“I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the armistice lines of 1949 to reflect current realities and to ensure that the Palestinian state is viable and contiguous.” (emphasis added)

In fact, Ariel Sharon, the former Prime Minister of Israel endorsed this idea. An article printed on the website of the Jewish Federations of North America explains:

"According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference."

Since this exchange with Ernest Hauser I have researched this point further and found that it apparently was not intended to refer to creating contiguity between Gaza and the West Bank, but rather to the West Bank being contiguous and not to be broken up by Israeli settlements deep with its  territory. As was pointed out in an article in the Daily Beast, a liberal news web-site, "The settlement of Ariel, which Olmert hoped to swap for land inside Israel, juts like a bony finger 13 miles into the northern West Bank. According to the 2003 Geneva Initiative, keeping Maale Adumim, another large settlement for which Israel might swap land, requires a thin land bridge across a Palestinian state to Jerusalem." 

I particularly urge my readers to read this article in the Daily Beast which explains how Obama was trying to aid Israel by setting up a basis for blocking UN recognition of a Palestinian state.

I also would urge readers to read Thomas L. Friedman's column written as long ago as 2003 where he said:

"Palestinians find themselves isolated in pockets next to Jewish settlers — who have the rule of law, the right to vote, welfare, jobs, etc. — and as hope for a contiguous Palestinian state fades, it's inevitable that many of them will throw in the towel and ask for the right to vote in Israel.

Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian pollster, has already found 25 to 30 percent of Palestinians now supporting this idea — a stunning figure, considering it's never been proposed by any Palestinian or Israeli party."

It is not president Obama who changed the terms for a settlement, it is Netanyahu, and Republicans who opportunistically produce knee-jerk reactions of criticism to anything and everything our President does.

Expansionism Abroad - Discussion

Since posting my my commentary,"Hostage Taking at Home and Expansionism Abroad," I have had four exchanges - one relating to hostage-taking and three relating to expansionism abroad. I am posting them in four separate posts.

This is the second.

Robert Malchman Esq. of Brooklyn, NY wrote:

"The reason there was an outcry over Obama' s 1967 borders comment is that he phrased it really badly. He's now had to go to AIPAC to clarify what he meant.

I agree that what he meant is not and should not be controversial, but the way he initially said it made it sound like the pre-'67 borders were the "starting point," i.e., should be taken as the status quo from which Israel would have to negotiate concessions to keep certain parts of the occupied territories. I assume you don't believe Israel should hand back the Golan Heights, which would put a knife to northern Israel's throat in the hands of the mad dictator Assad? Or that East Jerusalem, which is now open to people of all faiths, should be returned to its pre-'67 status as closed off to Jews by an Arab government? The "starting point" is the current borders, from which the Arabs can negotiate concessions from Israel, such as by recognizing its right to exist and ceasing their support for terror attacks. That's what Obama should have said."

I responded:

I don't think the facts support your conclusion. In his first speech the President said: "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." Nothing could have been clearer. The problem arose, not from any lack of clarity on the part of the President, but from the deliberate mis-representations which followed. This prompted unnecessary further clarification before AIPAC.

Of course the '67 borders must be the starting point. Otherwise what is the starting point. The end-point envisioned is the swaps that would alter that border to allow the facts on the ground to be taken into account. Thus the '67 borders are the starting point and the negotiated deviations therefrom are the end point. That has always been envisioned, and the only reason that it caused an outcry is that Netanyahu is no longer satisfied with this, now wanting to annex the whole West Bank, or at least most of it. It is the dream of the settlers and the religious fanatic to make all of "Samaria' and "Judea' part of Greater Israel. That is outrageous, and Republican support for that position shows their total lack of respect for human rights. Such a position cannot bring peace and if successful would crowd Palestinians into even worse conditions than they live in now, and/or would disenfranchise them within a greater Israel or would create an apartheid state, or would result in ethnic cleansing. Certainly letting a Palestinians majority vote in Israel is not, nor should it be envisioned.

The Golan Heights were clearly not part of the paradigm, since we are talking about negotiations with the Palestinians and not the Syrians so that does not enter into the equation and no one other than you has suggested that this is relevant here. As for "East Jerusalem" that is again part of the negotiations. But a distinction must be drawn between that part of Jerusalem which has always been part of Jerusalem and the Arab outskirts which Netanyahu is trying to annex to Jerusalem by what is already ethnic cleansing and which in previous negotiations by Ehud Barak were in fact to be ceded to the new Arab state, to be used as its capital.

If the starting point is the current borders than what is being negotiated is how much more than what has already been occupied should be ceded by the Arabs, rather than what has always been envisioned, i.e. that for Israel to keep most of its current settlement blocks, it must cede an equal amount of territory, to be agreed upon. Even the "clarification rejected this when Obama repeated, "1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" and added, "By definition, it means that the parties themselves - Israelis and Palestinians - will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967."

As for Jerusalem, I was amused when Israel was asked to stop expanding its settlements around Jerusalem, Netanyahu declared "Jerusalem is not a settlement, it is our capital." Of course Jerusalem is not a settlement and that that was not the point. The issue was the growing settlements in Arab territory adjoining Jerusalem, and the Arab eviction from such territory. But it should be noted that even the question of Jerusalem being Israel's capital has not been recognized by a single country in the world. Not a single country including the US has its embassy in Jerusalem.

If you feel that Israel should take even more territory form the Palestinians than it already has, than we simply disagree!!!

Allow me to add that there has a great deal of misunderstanding regarding East Jerusalem because of very poor press reporting.

The term East Jerusalem is misleading and may be used to refer to either of the following:

-From 1948 to 1967 it referred to the 6.4 km (2.5 sq. mi) Jordanian part of the city, just as “West Jerusalem” referred to the Israeli part of the city.

-In June 1967, after the war, Israel de facto annexed some 70 km (27 sq. mi) including not only Jordanian Jerusalem but also 64 km (25 sq. mi) from the West Bank, including territory which previously belonged to 28 villages and also to municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala and included them in the expanded municipal boundary of West Jerusalem, making it the largest city in the Israel.

The term “East Jerusalem” may be applied to the area of the expanded Jerusalem that was captured by Israel in 1967, which lies north, east and south of the former East Jerusalem.

I am against Israel giving up any part of Jerusalem proper including that part of "East Jerusalem" which had been occupied by Jordan before the '67 war.
But the 25 sq. miles which were never part of Jerusalem and were taken from the West Bank and which previously belonged to 28 villages and also to municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala were never part of historic Jerusalem, are occupied mostly by Arabs except for those who have been expelled, and should be ceded to a Palestinian state to form its capital under the pseudo name of Jerusalem or East Jerusalem. I haver  never understood the determination to expand the holy city of Jerusalem beyond its traditional boundaries where no Jewish holy places are located, and which have never been occupied by Jews.