Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Celebrating American failure
Talking Points Memo reports that a host of prominent right-wing pundits-- including those Very Serious People at the Weekly Standard -- could not have been more delighted when the International Olympic Committee ousted Chicago during the first round of the voting for the 2012 Olympics. When the decision was announced, the editor reported, "cheers erupted."
As readers here know, I thought it was a mistake for Obama to get involved in this issue, and I predicted that the "right-wing smear machine" would try to exploit it. But hosting the Olympics would almost certainly have been a boon for Chicago -- a great American city -- and good for the United States overall. So why were these right-wing apparatchiks cheering?
Simple. They were happy because they could not care less about the actual United States of America or ordinary American citizens: What they care about is their privileged positions, political clout, and personal income. And those things depend on trashing the Democrats and trying to get the GOP back in power no matter what it takes, which at the present means seizing any pretext to bash President Obama. So if the IOC decision makes Obama look bad, they are for it, even if it means fewer jobs for Americans in the Midwest and less prestige for the country as a whole.
Am I being too harsh? Here’s a simple test: Have any of these organizations of individuals
issued an apology for their selfish and sophomoric behavior? The Weekly Standard removed a post from
its Web site describing the cheers that filled their offices when Chicago lost,
but that's a sign of embarrassment, not remorse. Right-wing gasbag Rush Limbaugh was openly unrepentant,
saying, "For those of you ... who are upset that I
sound gleeful, I am. I don't deny it. I'm happy."
So the next time you see or hear William Kristol or Rush Limbaugh wrapping themselves in the flag and waxing eloquent about how much they love "America," just remember: They were happy when the United States lost.
Bill Pugliano/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
desperate
Kind of a desperate attempt. I think you will not see any of the individuals or communities mentioned above celebrating American failure on a foreign policy, security, or domestic economic issue of significance. The Olympics are a prestige issue, and a fair amount of people think the sooner Obama realizes that his personal prestige is not that much of an asset on the international stage, the better -- for the good of the country. Most Olympics are a net economic loss for their hosts. I thought you were starting to get somewhere with the post about imagining Obama's speech in Bush's words (or was it vice versa?) -- it showed an attempt at critical thinking. But now you're back to your political comfort zone.
Such shamelessness
Very interesting post because these hurrahs are so extremely tasteless and public. One wonders whether they ever see themselves as ordinary Americans would construe them.
But let's be accurate: this kind of lowlife meanness is nothing compared to the the Joy felt in Israel and among these ghouls.. while America is stuck in a quagmire of killing fields in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ask the shade of William Safire and the other Israel imperialists! Whatever is good for Zion is good for world!
the sooner Obama realizes
Bingo. While it is completely childish to celebrate this loss, perhaps Obama will learn a lesson from this. If he can't even get the Olympics, he surely will not be able to sweet talk Iran into giving up its nuclear weapons program
Such childish behavior about a relatively unimportant event, however, pales in comparison to 51 percent of the Democratic party who wanted Bush to fail in 2006.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/FOX_230_release_web.pdf
What is the point here
Why the outrage? Is it because Republicans want the Democrats to be embarrassed and defeated? Gosh, who would have thought!
You're Too Kind
What they care about is their privileged positions, political clout, and personal income.
It's worse than that. Many are driven by pure spite and hatred, and a kind of free-floating bitterness and cultural resentment. They would cut off their own hands if it would make Obama and Democrats share the pain. They would cut their own salaries by $20,000 each if as a result they could avoid sending even $500 to the US government, whom they hate with a white hot passion for redistributing that $500 to people they view as lazy and parasitical blacks, immigrants and latte liberals.
Most Chicagoans are happy
Most Chicagoans are happy that Rio won. We don't want all the trouble associated with the Olympics.
I so wish the Rush Limbaughs of the world were ignorable
But, sadly many of the supporters (actually twisting) of your original Israel Lobby thesis, are among the ranters.
Walt Should Lighten Up . . .
1) Chicago made the Final Four cut in June of 2008 -- when Geeorge W. Bush was President. The Bush administration put a lot of effort into helping Chicago make the Final Four.
2) The Chicago bid had a lot of pluses--and a lot of minuses. At least as many minuses as NYC's 2012 proposal.
3) The USOC is long overdue for a heavy does of reform and restructuring.
4) Walt should lighten up.
======================================
The Boston Globe
October 3, 2009
Chicago Just Wasn’t IOC’s Kind Of Town
By John Powers, Globe Staff
If Juan Antonio Samaranch’s dying-man plea didn’t work for Madrid, Barack Obama’s recycled “together we can’’ mantra wasn’t going to do it for Chicago. This was Rio de Janeiro’s time, plain and simple. The International Olympic Committee couldn’t ignore South America forever. “It is time to address this imbalance,’’ Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told IOC members in Copenhagen yesterday, before they chose Rio to host the 2016 Olympics in a 66-32 landslide over Madrid. “It is time to light the Olympic cauldron in a tropical country.’’
Not that the Lords of the Rings needed an excuse to dust off their thongs and flip-flops and head for Ipanema. They’ve always been intrigued by exotic locales and Rio had been on the rise coming in. What was startling was the first-round knockout of Chicago, which most insiders had figured for a finalist but which managed only 18 of the 94 votes. “Either it was tactical voting or a lot of people decided not to vote for Chicago whatever,’’ mused Norwegian executive board member Gerhard Heiberg. “Nobody knows, but everybody is in a state of shock. Nobody believes it.’’
Not since 1976, when Los Angeles finished third behind Montreal and Moscow, has a US candidate been bounced so early. Chicago was finished before Mayor Richard Daley even got inside the convention center. “It just wasn’t our day to win,’’ shrugged bid leader Pat Ryan, whose committee spent nearly four years and $50 million mounting its campaign. “That’s just the way it goes.’’
Was Chicago simply not the IOC’s kind of town? Or was the smackdown more about how the rest of the world feels about America and how the IOC feels about the US Olympic Committee? New York’s package for 2012 was far from flawless, but it didn’t help that the US was in the middle of an unpopular war in 2005 and had an unpopular man in the White House.
The Iraq war may be winding down and Obama may provoke warmer feelings abroad than did George Bush but most of the countries that the IOC’s 106 members represent rightly or not blame America for the global economic meltdown. How much Uncle Sam resentment seeped into the vote can’t be known. What’s undeniable, though, is that the last few Games held in the States have been five-ringed headaches for the IOC.
Salt Lake City had the skating judging fiasco and the bribery scandal that turned the committee inside out and expunged 10 percent of its members. Atlanta had the Centennial Olympic Park bombing and a tacky commercialized atmosphere. Los Angeles had the Soviet boycott that was sparked by the US-led boycott of Moscow. Chicago couldn’t do a thing about the past, but had to live with it.
More burdensome was the USOC’s prickly relationship with Lausanne, most notably involving sharing TV rights and sponsorship cash. Though the parties had agreed to postpone negotiations until after the 2016 vote, the issue is far from being solved and the members likely reckoned that giving the Games to Chicago only would have strengthened the USOC’s hand.
The USOC’s ham-handed announcement of an Olympic network that would have competed with NBC didn’t help. Though chairman Larry Probst and IOC president Jacques Rogge patched things up over the summer after the USOC backed off, it was a major protocol breach signaling to the IOC that the USOC once again is being run by amateurs. “It was a defeat for the USOC,’’ said Swiss member Denis Oswald, “not for Chicago.’’
On the merits, Chicago had an excellent bid. Its venue package was attractive and the budget as reasonable as the usual Olympic dream sheet ever gets. Once the city agreed last month to underwrite the costs, the only major barrier was removed. Had Obama spent several days in Copenhagen schmoozing members individually, as Tony Blair did for London, it undoubtedly would have been more helpful than his last-minute drop-in - he didn’t even stick around for the balloting. But in the end, this vote was about geopolitics.
The IOC wasn’t going to name Tokyo so soon after going to Beijing. And though the 89-year-old Samaranch, the ex-president, reminded his former confreres that “I am very near the end of my time,’’ Madrid would have been the fifth European host in seven winter and summer Games. Rio’s best argument was the global map that its backers kept displaying, with South America big and blank.
This, finally, was the time to go tropical. Rio did a creditable job of hosting the 2007 Pan American Games and will stage the 2014 World Cup in soccer. Brazil has become a major economic player. What it craved was the kind of validation that only the Olympics can give. “Today Brazil was upgraded from a second-class country to a first-class country,’’ declared Lula, who’d been lobbying the developing-country bloc for months.
Not that Rio is going to be a walk on the beach. Crime still is a worrisome issue there and the city needs more hotels. But by 2016 the world will be desperate for a three-week carnival. Of the four Olympic bidders, only the Brazilians have enough sand and jiggle to pull it off.
The US entry didn’t make it past the first round in final voting for the right to host the 2016 Olympics:
FIRST ROUND
Madrid 28 votes, Rio de Janeiro 26, Tokyo 22, Chicago 18.
SECOND ROUND Rio de Janeiro 46, Madrid 29, Tokyo 20.
THIRD ROUND Rio de Janeiro 66, Madrid 32.
John Powers can be reached at jpowers@globe.com.
© Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
http://www.boston.com/sports/other_sports/olympics/articles/2009/10/03/chicago_loses_bid_for_2016_olympics/
I link to the article would
A link to the article would have sufficed and been more readable.
Agreed
Post a provocative quote and a bit of your own take, and I'd be much more likely to actually read the article than simply posting the whole text.
CAPTCHA: Times motors
There is a pattern of undercutting Obama
To understand why Obama and Bush supported Chicago for the Olympics, one need only refer to the Crowns and to the Pritzkers.
Yet it is impossible to ignore the possibility that a pattern of undermining Obama seems to be shaping up among the administration's internal Zionists and their allies outside government.
I point out in [wvns] The Epoch Battle of Our Time:
Joachim!
Welcome back! It is impossible to ignore that you are a one trick pony. Zionist this Zionist that. But since it's been so long, I can't resist engaging you:
Who are the Zionists in the Obama administration?
I'm going to start signing off with the CAPTCHA, it's often high-larious.
dispel Bachman (not the right spelling, but it counts!)
Should I Print Trading Cards for the Norwegian Shyster?
I concentrated in E. European and Jewish political economics in the 70s long before Professor Walt discovered the Israel Lobby.
Of course, I tend to look at modern American politics through that lens, but it is worthwhile to note that the eminent Russian and Soviet studies scholar Yuri Slezkine analyzed modern Russian and Soviet history through a similar lens when he wrote The Jewish Century.
You can try to slur me as a one-trick pony, but only a real shyster ignores the elephant in the room, and it completely distorts political analysis to ignore the critical historical role of the Jewish meta-population in Europe since Jewish merchants constructed the primary international trade network connecting the Medieval Christian and Muslim worlds. (For more blog entries see From Ancient to Modern Judaism.)
Anyway, Chop Shop Economics and Stealth Zionism identifies members of the most important and most sinister contingent of Zionist subversives within the Obama administration.
The Khaleej Times article of the same name by my wife Karin Friedemann provides more context.
[wvns] China Executes Former Top-Ranking Official contains a whole list of blog entries discussing Jewish Zionist (and earlier Jewish) corrupt conspiratorial manipulation in the financial industry inside and outside of various administrations (including that of Obama).
A lot of political and sociological literature addresses the disproportionate arrest of African Americans for violent crimes, but simply mentioning disproportionate Jewish involvement in financial manipulations brings hysterical charges of Antisemitism even though preeminent Yiddish author Sholem Aleichem used Jewish economic misbehavior as a major topic in his writings.
Isn't something wrong with this picture?
Pro-Israel Activists in the Democratic Party
Norwegian Shooter: pro-Israel activists in the Obama administration and the Democratic Party: would these names qualify?
Ann Lewis
Barney Frank
David Axelrod
Dennis Ross
Evan Bayh
Gary Ackerman
Haim Saban
Harry Reid
Howard Berman
Joseph Lieberman
Lawrence Summers
Mark Penn
Martin Peretz
Nancy Pelosi
Rahm Emanuel
Richard Holbrooke
Steny Hoyer
Try Googling any of those names in combination with Israel, AIPAC, Iran, etc. and see what turns up. To what degree are they pressuring Obama to escalate American conflict with Iran? Richard Holbrooke and Dennis Ross are the founders of UANI (United Against Nuclear Iran), yet another neocon front group. (Holbrooke was also a member of the PNAC). Mark Penn was previously employed by Menachem Begin. Ann Lewis blew a gasket when Zbigniew Brzezinski's name came up as a possible Obama foreign policy adviser. Haim Saban is one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party (the biggest?) -- by his own admission, Israel is his main issue. AIPAC arguably has much more influence in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party.
Another way to view and discuss Stephen Walt's posts: Friendfeed: Mideast Politics: Stephen M. Walt (In some ways, the discussion interface is more convenient -- and it is searchable.)
Slow down
I was trying to tweak Joachim, and was certainly successful with that. I know that there are plenty of pro-Likud members of the administration. I put Zionist in a different category however.
I know that 5 of your names are actually in the administration. Can you whittle it down for me?
Holbrooke was not a part of PNAC and is not a neo-con.
Holbrooke was a PNAC signatory
Norwegian Shooter -- did it occur to you to Google {richard holbrooke pnac} before making that statement? See for instance: A Complete List of PNAC Signatories and Contributing Writers Also check out the membership list of UANI: neocons feature prominently. Holbrooke is also associated with MEMRI, which is pushing the neocon World War IV meme. Holbrooke is up to his eyeballs in neocons and the neocon agenda. The Afpak War is largely an extension of the Iraq War, in line with the objectives of the notorious Clean Break paper. He is pushing the same PNAC line. And there can be little doubt that pro-Israel activists within the Obama administration and the Democratic Party would work to undermine Obama if they believed he was beginning to waver from the AIPAC line.
Thanks for the tip
The one letter Holbrooke signed, on Russia, included a broad range of people. Russia hawks are a much larger category than the neocon's Axis of Evil hawks. In any case, the letter was pretty bland and had 100 total signatures. Are you saying Madeleine Albright, Timothy Garton Ash and Joe Biden are neocons? And that's just the A and B names I recognized. So I won't agree Holbrooke's a neo-con on that piece.
I don't know about the other two. I'll check them out.
The Af-Pak war is certainly not an extension of the Iraq War. Af-Pak was largely abandoned by the neocons in 2003.
Certainly some Dem operatives, including those inside the administration, have been and will continue to press the AIPAC line, but the President has already wavered from the AIPAC line. He told them directly at the WH that his administration will not follow in lockstep with the positions of the Israeli government. And he has told Bibi that if Israel wants to continue avoiding final status negotiations by insisting on confidence building measures, Israel must start with a complete settlement freeze. No Iran first and no Arab recognition first. Those were the AIPAC line and Obama rejected them.
Finally, remember that George Mitchell is the second most important person on the Israel/Palestine issue. He was opposed by AIPAC for being "too even-handed." Well, get used to it AIPAC. I predict that Obama has more of that for them.
PS - If you click My Account to the right of the search box at the top of each page, and then click the Track tab, you will see the posts you commented on across all FP blogs and the number of new replies on each post. Still not perfect, but good enough. I encourage you to keep your comments here.
Foreign Policy's Discussion Software
Um... even with the tracking page, I keep noticing that the user interface on the Foreign Policy website is discussion-hostile -- I've been spoiled by using the best forum software on the planet for too long, I suppose. Identifying new posts in threads is much more difficult than it should be. No list view. No searching. No sorting. I'll be reading Walt here more often than not Friendfeed: Mideast Politics: Stephen M. Walt and I can also be found here Friendfeed: Sean McBride. I may leave an occasional comment here, but not pursue extended discussions, unless FP radically upgrades its software. (Oh: if you're interested in tracking Mideast news from dozens of high-quality feeds aggregated into a single feed, try this: Friendfeed: Mideast Politics)
It isn't just the right.
It isn't just the right. Speaking as a center left-winger disgusted by Bush I caught myself wishing that the presidential election was in 2006 when at his lowest approval (at the time I had no idea that his approval would sink even lower). I will grant that American conservatives do have something of a monopoly on the most questionable and filthy tactics possible however. Historically it seems that the conservatives* like to lash out with ever greater desperation when they start to glimpse at the end of something they hold dear. We should just be glad that somehow the Limbaugh's haven't managed to start off a new wave of right wing terrorism, I really do expect it to start eventually.
*By conservative I do mean U.S political conservatives, but also more broadly to mean reactionaries and the old elite.
Let's be honest.
Sorry, but this I can't accept. I'm not concerned about the domestic right wing politics here. I'm concerned about Obama's behavior and the damage it will do if he continues to speak and act this way and his advisers continue to see him through rose-colored glasses.
Obama's speech wasn't really about the United States, it wasn't even really about Chicago. It was blatantly about himself. I felt his primary motivation for wanting the Olympics in 2016 was so he could fulfill his vision of waving good-bye to the world after two terms in office with fireworks.
He needs someone to check his ego as he writes things like "Their interest wasn't about me as an individual." Hint hint, he implies... I'm a pretty awesome individual, aren't I? And then the reference to Chicago celebrating his inauguration at Grant Park on a "clear" November night as if to prolong and give off the pixie dust of his glory. The literary embellishments swirling with self-infatuation are upchuck-worthy.
His speech was pompous, and we need to admit it. As someone who wants the policies of this administration to bear fruit, I think his acting like this is going to hurt him and the US by extension.
I just hope the international flop, dissected as it is now being in newspapers the globe over, does not take away from us achieving our foreign policy aims. Obama's already having a hard enough time getting people to do as he says and not just nod and rebuff him. This fiasco didn't help.
You can bet though that Sarkozy and Putin and probably Medvedev and Hu Jintao, were laughing their butts off and humming with glee at Obama's pitiful narcissistic expose and inept fail.
Celebrating American failure - on the left
Professor Walt fails to recognize something so basic that I hesitate to even bring it up. What we on the Right were celebrating was a defeat for Barack Obama not America. If President Obama hadn't made this endeavor worthy of his political capital, I seriously doubt there would have been this kind of reaction. And trust me, if this had happened 2 years ago, the reaction would have been just the opposite, with the left celebrating and the right accusing the left of bad behavior.
Apparently the Left in this country had the opportunity to be gleeful about the defeats experienced by George W Bush, but Prof Walt would deny the same opportunity to those on the Right. And according to Professor Walt's "logic", I suppose I should feel bad when the House goes Republican in 2010? When the health care reform goes down to defeat?
It is laughable to read this kind of criticism. Stick to Great Power politics.
Wow what great logic
Yes, cheering for the failure of presidential ambitions is always a patriotic and worthy goal. That must be why you right-wingers didn't mind us Bush-bashers carrying on about how the former president shredded and whited-out parts of the Constitution for eight years.
"You did it first"? What great logic, especially considering that the left was protesting what the president was doing to the country, and now the right gloats about what the president can't do for the country.
Bush-bashing
I certainly didn't mind the Bush-bashing, as healthy criticism is part and parcel of a Democracy. If people want to spend their free time making Bush=Hitler signs by all means go ahead. I saw it as neither traitorous nor anti-American. Politics is a contact sport and those that don't want to get their elbows dirty should stay out.
It's the knee-jerk criticism that I can't stand. If you want to impugn the motives of the Right, by all means go ahead. It's just less time you talk about the substance of the issues which means you really don't want to talk about the substance. And that usually means you have a bad argument.
Ease Up, Dr Walt
The right has every right to gloat over Obama's humiliation, because, thankfully, NO ONE DIED. Unlike, say during the Iraq war, where, whenever there was a roadside bombing, the progressives did their own special victory dance - using the consequences of war to gloat over an embattled president and an unpopular country. Didn't hear much of the smarmy press calling them out.
So, if certain elements take pleasure in watching Obama's big fail, it's only because it proved a point made before he was elected: that being likeable, in and of itself, does nothing for America. To protect our nation and further our interests, our leader must reject the need to be loved by the world, and embrace being feared, even hated.
Sure, that's hard for our guy. Being a self-proclaimed "citizen of the world," he enjoys the accolades of Libya, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba and Russia. With friends like that, who needs enemies.
C'mon, Steve. Why are you
C'mon, Steve. Why are you stooping down to their level, playing their game?
"Expecting them to conform their behavior to someone else's idea of what is right and proper is ... well ... not very realistic."
--Stephen Walt, (from the blog post on China directly after this one on Limbaugh, et al)
I wouldn't expect anthing less from the right
They have no issues of their own, so they sit back, attacking Obama, and become even less relevant then they already are. But just think of the Republicans speaking out now.
Rush Limbaugh
Glenn Beck
Sean Hannity
Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachman
Michael Savage
These people are the face of the party. Shrill, bigoted, hysterical, no nothing, brainless idiots. Are these really the people the right wants to be promoting their agenda???
Seriously?
I hesitate to respond to such inanities, but you should be embarrassed by selectively choosing those people as the so-called face of the party. I could just easily pick out some choice examples from the Left, but it would be dishonest and you should know better. So I will offer some other examples from the Right, despite Professor Walt's nay-saying of David Brooks.
How about:
David Brooks
Peggy Noonan
Ross Douthat
Charles Krauthammer
George Will
Andrew Ferguson
Mark Steyn
PJ O'Rourke
Strangely, even the realists
Strangely, even the realists get sentimental.
Ha ha ha
Ok Mr Walt.
Let's compare.
One team roots for America and wants America to win.
A second team roots for everyone BUT America, and wants America to lose.
The first elected Bush - a man that wanted America to win.
The second elected Obama - a man that wants America to lose.
Logically, the team that wants America to win, will root for Obama to lose.
The team that wants America to lose, will root for Obama.
Toss the salad as much as you want, the rhetoric isn't interchangeable.
We're right, you're wrong.
Obama made himself look like a fool with the Olympics. No sane human being wants to go into a crime ridden city rusting out of its former glory - where kids get murdered by savages with baseball bats - even wearing uniforms.
There is a Carnival in Rio De Janeiro - and its better than anything Obama can put up. And hey, crime in the favellas? No worse than in Rosewood.
Which Illinois was it Barry O' served as senator?
Zionists Root for America? Yeah, right!
Of course racist Jewish Zionist subversives love it when the USA goes into debt to fight Zionist battles despite the immense damage to US national interests.
Zionist political economic oligarchs batten
As flawed as Goldstone's report on Gaza is, it does make abundantly clear
Here are some relevant blog entries:
flauting insanity
Your conclusions are inane and insane.
1) The Goldstone report doesnt' even insinuate that the IDF routinely engages in terrorism.
2) That all Israel advocates should be subject to asset seizures.
You're probably living in Gaza or the UK (same Islamic thing)- but in this Land of the Free and the Brave, we don't seize anyone's assets for advocacy. Hence even Jihad is your birthright - provided you don't contribute to known terrorist organizations.
Israeli advocates lobby for the defense of Israeli society, not acts of violence against the innocent. Terrorists, like Hamas, Hezbollah, and AQ, explicitly preach war on civilians, and the innocent. If that's what you want to "advocate" for, even that is your Civil Right.
But if you actually contribute financially to this Satanic machine explicitly aiming to murder women and children, then you deserve prison.
There is a difference between collateral damage and deliberate murder of the innocent - its called EVIL.
Which Report Did You Read?
Before discussing that question, I have to point out that Zionists by their own testimony and documentation (since the 1880s) are waging a (very dirty) demographic war against the native Palestinian population. At least as far back as the 1950s, orders to commanders (including Ariel Sharon) have specified that collateral damage should include large civilian casualties. Thus by AllanGreen's statement Israel is evil as is AllanGreen himself as a supporter of deliberate murder under the cover of collateral damage.
That issue asside, the Goldstone report I read described a pattern going back to the IDF's 2006 rampage through Lebanon.
Zionist subversives in Obama administration worked to deep six the report because after reading it only a Zionist could possibly deny that the IDF is a terrorist organization under the US law.
[There is also the issue of the Arms Export Control Act, but in general Zionist subversives within government, Zionist intelligentsia outside government, and Zionist plutocrats have prevented open discussion of Israeli violations.]
US anti-terrorism law is quite clear when it comes to aiding and abetting, material aid, and conspiracy to aid terrorism. Practically all Israel advocates should be arrested forthwith, and their assets should also be seized in accord with current US practice as [Khaleej Times] US Charities Paying for Sending Aid to Palestinians describes.
Because Undersecretary Stuart Levey is clearly not applying US law to American Jews in the same way that he applies it to American Muslims, he is preventing enforcement of US law in time of war and should be arrested immediately for Seditious Conspiracy.
Goldstone is a Zionist.
His daughter discusses the softening of the report in Goldstone's daughter: My father's participation softened UN Gaza report.
As a liberal Zionist, Goldstone seems to be engaging in some form of the well-known Zionist hasbarah defense of Zionist barbarism and bloodthirstiness:
1. we rock (invented the transistor),
2. they don't (oppress women),
3. you suck (genocided Indians)
4. everybody sucks (worry about Tibetans while we slaughter Palestinians).
In this case, everybody sucks amounts to an attempt to create moral equivalence between the Israeli State and Hamas under the Geneva Conventions.
When Goldstone misapplies the Conventions to Hamas, he is providing an analysis according to Jewish Shyster Law and not according to International Law.
The Geneva Conventions apply to Israel because Israel is a state and a signatory. Hamas is a resistance movement. Nuremberg Law applies to partisans and members of the resistance. Nuremberg Law is more than clear in the findings of facts and decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
Israel stands with regard to Palestinians just Nazi Germany did with regard to all occupied territories including the Sudetenland, which was annexed to the Reich under international agreement. See the Note in Time for Anti-Zionist Tea Party.
Until the Zionist interlopers leave or negotiate an agreement with the resistance, all Zionists today just like German Nazis back then are legitimate targets for the resistance anywhere throughout the occupied lands, which today comprise Stolen Palestine (pre-1967 Israel) and Occupied Palestine (East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza).
To understand the Zionist mentality I recommend Claudia Koonz's The Nazi Conscience. It describes exactly the mindset that I saw in Israel and still see among American Jewish Zionists.
To understand Operation Cast Lead, I recommend Chapter 7 "Operation Barbarossa and the Onset of the Holocaust, June - December 1941" of The Origins of the Final Solution Solution, The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939 - March 1942 by Christopher R. Browning.
This chapter in particular helps put the Goldstone Report in perspective and helps compensate for Goldstone's pettifogging.