I have to confess that I am much less impressed with these “passionate” pro-Palestinian advocates than some other people seem to be; too bad the Palestinians and their advocates are not as passionate about peace. "Idealism" and realism are rarely compatible. A dispassionate knowledge of history would cure the disease that afflicts one or two of the commentators on this page, but do we really need to rehash old stories? Or would it simply be a waste of time?

It is a waste of time pointing out that Palestine is a geographical construct, occupied by different peoples at different times through-out most of its history, ruled by one empire or another—with the exception of the periods that the Israelites/Jews maintained an independent state there. The word “Palestinian” simply denotes the Arabs who live there, and who share a common religion (Islam) and language (or at least the "literary" Arabic that is taught in schools) with the rest of the Arab world, with some small differences in regional culture. Thus the “Arab World” is unique in history in that it comprises of many separate “states” across a broad, interlocked geographic area that seem almost interchangeable (Egypt’s Nasser dreamed of becoming the ruler of a “Pan-Arab” empire). The modern Arab states (Egypt might be an exception) are for the most part chunks cut-up by the British and French mandates after the break-up of the Ottoman empire.

It’s also a waste of time pointing out that the current demands by the pro-Palestinian advocates were already in place by the partition of 1948 (anticipated by the Balfour declaration in 1917). The Palestinians had no factual historical claim to their own state, but they refused to co-exist with an “infidel,” Jewish or Christian, even when it meant a state of their own. Although it is true that hard-line Zionists wanted all of Palestine, there wasn’t any way the international community was going to allow that—until the Palestinians essentially gave-away their state by conducting a mass exodus, becoming refugees not by necessity but by abiding by the commands of their decidedly unvisionary leaders.

It is seems a waste of time pointing out that even after having been beset by enemies on all sides bent on its destruction, the Israelis were still willing to barter all the land they occupied in the 1967 war for peace, but the Arab world allow that chance to slip away. In the more recent past, the lack of true Palestinian statesmen allowed chances at a legitimate peace slip away; Arafat, who at best was a capricious opportunist, did not deal in a honest way with serious peacemakers like Rabin, and after his assassination, Peres. Hamas suicide attacks in Israel derailed that first real chance for a lasting peace, but the Palestinians were given a second chance with Barak. Barak went against the wishes of even his own party by offering to “share” Jerusalem, but Arafat refused to compromise on this and the issue of the refugees returning to Israel—a right they had vacated 50 years earlier. Arafat’s all or nothing gambit failed. The Israelis tired of his game and voted Barak and the last best peace plan for the Palestinians out. That peace plan was taken off the table for good when the next round of Palestinian uprisings began.

And it is also useless to point out that the Palestinians are still unable to get their act together and speak as one coherent voice in favor of peace with Israel. If impoverished peasants in Mexico decided to lob mortars and missiles into Texas, it wouldn’t be hard to imagine the reaction of Americans, regardless of the grievances of Mexican peasants who have been harmed by price restrictions that benefit American farmers under NAFTA. Yet Palestinians in Gaza have chosen as their representative an organization, Hamas, that is bent on the destruction of Israel, and has repeatedly tested the patience and willingness of the Israeli people to deal with the Palestinians, who lobbed for months mortars and missiles into Israel without provocation before the Israeli army retaliated. All Hamas ever needed to do was recognize the right of Israel to exist. They will not do so. The Israelis want peace. The Palestinians, at least in Gaza, have chosen “leaders” who apparently do not. They had their opportunities, but the hand they played was violence and murder, and outside the Muslim world, events like Munich were far from public relations victories for the Palestinians and their cause. Now they must deal with the bad hand they left themselves with.

Israel can be justly criticized for continuing to build settlements on the West Bank, which calls into question their sincerity. But the lack of reciprocity to the concessions the Israelis have made in the past have with some justification produced distrust on the part of the Israelis in the Palestinians commitment to peace, which has always been a questionable commodity. All that Israel has asked for is recognition of its right to exist, but for Iran and the Arab world this has proved too difficult a pill to swallow, particularly since anti-Jewish propaganda has proved such a useful tool to focus the population’s attention away from domestic problems.

Those who forget the past, as they say, are bound to repeat it. Is this what you “passionate” pro-Palestinian advocates are suggesting—that we continue the several millennia-long pogrom against the Jews? It sure sounds like it to me.

I just began contributing to this blog last week. I hope that my few posts didn't contribute to Loretta's decision to flee. It wouldn't be the first time I was judged as being arrogant, belittling, or egotistical. It does seem from my narrow perch that some contributors to this conversation seem to have an agenda which they keep returning to. Personally I'm never that consistent in beating a single drum.

Has Obama Lost the Trust of Progressives, as Krugman Says?
Paul Krugman has an excellent column today arguing that progressives have backlashed so intensely over the prospect of Obama's dropping the public option because -- for reasons extending far beyond specific health care issues -- they no longer trust the President. Citing Obama's steadfast continuation of Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, the administration's extreme coziness with crisis-causing banks, and the endless retreats on health care, Krugman says that "a backlash in the progressive base . . .
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/08/21-14

To quote a friend on mine regarding the article;
"He nailed it for me. I've been greatly disillusioned by Mr. Obama. What party can I join as a lifelong Democrat when my party has left me behind?"

oooops... It was DRichards, not DDAy who mentioned Obama losing support among progressives.

President Obama is not Progressive. President Obama has NEVER been Progressive. President Obama is a wishy-washy, mediocre, just-right-of-the-middle-of-the-road, pro-corporatist centrist.

Say there- me and multi tasking again Does anyone have a link to that Democratic Underground Cartoon Thom was discussing after [thankfully, he explaned why I was throwing up as Rush Limbaugh was on my beloved am1090.seatttle.com! lol]

I have been screaming for the lefties to get out pictures. Per Thom's cracking the code and the instruction we get at our college, learning modalities are critical to getting Americans reading at the 5th grade level to understand.

Also, in Facebook this morning we now have a group of folks trying to boycott ABC for running a health care 'infomercial' http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=90389774460&ref=ts follow the link or put in search engine at Facebook 'health care Obama' and find some of these against their own self interest and tell them to join Thom's show!

From George Washington's Blog

Could a Third-Party Candidate Actually Win in 2012?
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/

Famed trend forecaster Gerald Calente is predicting that a third party candidate will be elected President in 2012. (If you don't know who Calente is, read the postscript below.)

Is he right?

Well, some of the most widely-read liberal writers are saying that progressives are fed up with the Democratic party, and feel that they have been tricked and ripped off by the Democratic leaders.

As Glenn Greenwald writes:

In a superb post the other day, Digby recounted what fueled the Naderite movement in 2000 and warns, presciently I think, that the willingness of Obama/Emanuel so blatantly to disappoint those to whom they promised so much (especially young and first-time voters who were most vulnerable to Obama's transformative fairy dust) will lead them either to support a third party or turn off from politics altogether:

Rahm Emanuel believes that the key to Democratic success is a coalition in which Blue Dogs and corporate lackeys mitigate progressive change on behalf of the moneyed interests which he believes the political system must serve. Regardless of his malevolent view of how the political system should work, on a political level, I think he's living in the past. . . .

But on a political level, the left has been betrayed over and over again on the things that matter to us the most. The village is pleased, I'm sure. But the Democratic party only needs to look back eight short years to see just how destructive it is to constantly tell their left flank to go fuck themselves. . . .

At the time [in 2000] nobody believed that an incumbent Vice President in a roaring economy would have a race so close that the Republicans could steal it. But we know differently now don't we? And you would think that the Democratic establishment would also know that because of that, it may not be a good idea to alienate the left to the point where they become apathetic or even well... you know. It can happen. It did happen. Why the Democrats persist in believing that it can't happen again is beyond me. . . .

Obama mobilized a whole lot of young people who have great expectations and disappointing them could lead to all sorts of unpleasant results. Success is about more than simply buying off some congressional liberals or pleasing the village. It's worth remembering that a third party run from the left is what created the conditions for eight long years of Republican governance ...

After 2000, what is it going to take for the Democrats to realize that constantly using their base as a doormat is not a good idea? It only takes a few defections or enough people staying home to make a difference. And there are people on the left who have proven they're willing to do it. The Democrats are playing with fire if they think they don't have to deliver anything at all to their liberal base --- and abandoning the public option, particularly in light of what we already know about the bailouts and the side deals, may be what breaks the bond.

It's really not too much to ask that they deliver at least one thing the left demands, it really isn't. And it's not going to take much more of this before their young base starts looking around for someone to deliver the hope and change they were promised.

On most fronts that matter -- civil liberties, national security, economic policy, servitude to corporate interests, even rising opposition to Obama's long-promised escalation of the war in Afghanistan -- that defines rather clearly what the Obama/Emanuel approach has been thus far.
What About the Right?

The Washington Examiner writes:
The fact that just doesn't register with Washington GOP establishmentarians is that the Tea Party Protests seen around the country in April were aimed as much against them as they were against the tax and spending policies of Obama and the Democratic Congress.
There are millions of libertarians and traditional conservatives (or "paleo-conservatives", in contrast to Neo-conservatives) in the U.S. who are very unhappy with the direction the Republican party has taken in recent years.

Post-Partisan Coalitions

There are many millions of liberals and conservatives who have become disgusted by their parties and have started judging candidates based upon what they are actually doing.

As just one example, there are millions of Americans who would support either Ron Paul as president and Dennis Kucinich as vice president or the other away around. Why? Both challenge the status quo, and have proposed legislation which will actually help the American people.

Conclusion
Based on the above trends, I believe that Calente could be right. A third-party candidate could win in 2012.

Good one Thom! I figured this caller was an opponent.

WHY SHOULD HEALTH CARE INSURERS EXIST

WHY DO I NEED TO CALL YOUR FRICKEN CEO FOR PERMISSION TO SEE MY DOCTOR?

We the People are the government. This is a major concept vital to getting our Republican brothers and sisters to see reason and in their own best interest.

Dobson's Focus on Pornography has zero to do with family standards.

Hey B Roll, Thank you for the info and for being careful and fair in attributing comments.
Hey DRichards, I'll add my voice to the idea that Obama is losing support from progressives. It is merely a statement of fact. I wish it was not the case and I am not about to bail out myself, but, i have been checking out my parachute, and looking for a suitable landing area if the engine cuts out. So far this hasn't been the flight I signed up for. P. Krugman could use a humor transplant, but, he's too smart, sober and earnest to ignore. Besides, it has been a long time since the radical left came out of their stoned and timid stupor and flexed any muscle politically. I can say this because I count myself amongst their ranks; not that I'm ever really very timid.
I can't say I'm firmly in Mr. Adlof's camp regarding Obama's true colors, but I cannot dismiss them with any certainty. I hope he's wrong. Time will tell and time is short.

That burger looks pretty good. I saw that on Wonkette a few days ago. Another low-carb fast-food option in addition to In-N-Out "Protein Style" and Carl's "Low carb $6" offerings...

Alright, I'm back. Now you are putting words in MY mouth B-Roll:-) That seems to just be a habit of yours--that you think you can make assumptions about what other people feel or believe and act as if the assumptions you make are true. So please don't do that to me. If you would like to ask me a question, please ask it, but don't then answer it for me as well.

I was responding to Mark's post about the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict, because it assumes his version of history is the only accurate one.

I enjoy reading everyone's posts. We are living with hot issues, so of-course there are disagreements and at times they are subtle. I get hot under the collar when people put words in my mouth or belittle my opinions, but I imagine everyone does.

It's unfortunate that people like Loretta don't have much interest in factual information, other than the ones they make-up to suit their own opinions. Arrogant? What is so arrogant about pointing out reality. I've read on this page absurd "discussions" critical of Thom's alleged pro-Israeli "bias." Being pro-Israel and being progressive are incompatible? Now who is way out there now? Don't these people have ANY knowledge of history? Any idea of cause and effect? Well, if I'm "arrogant," that is certainly preferable to being purposefully ignorant, esepecially to the point of being anti-Semitic.

Loretta,
I think a few of us ended up on a guilt trip; wondering who you were referring to.
I did think of asking for you to clarify who you were referring to, but you wrote that you would be taking a break (perhaps for the week?)

I'm glad you are back

But let's forget my complaints. They mean nothing.

Something interesting happened last week. Like most progressives, I don't have much money, so I shouldn't be going to a restaurant that offers $9 appetizers, but i went and had one anyway, (warm goat cheese rolled in hazelnuts and to die for red peppers--gosh it was good) And I watched all of the beautiful people milling around in their beautiful outfits with their flawless skin and expensive hair-dos. (I'm showing prejudice against the rich, sorry)

But the man who sat next to me happened to be one of the auditors for the city of Portland and we had a heated healthcare debate. Because I have read everyone's informative blog posts and listened to this program and done my reading. I held my gorund very well with him, and I got him to admit that he didn't know as much about the issue as I did and he would read up on it more before he made his decision.

But this accountant shared with me some very interesting facts, not only about Portland, but about cities across the US.

It turns out that many businesses and cities that have budgets approved year to year haven't been putting into those budgets the huge number of retiree benefits that will come due soon. Basically they haven't taken into account the health care costs they will be paying for people who have retired.

So what I took that to mean is that unless we do have a single payer plan when all of these benefits come due, many businesses and cities could have even more serious monetary problems when the baby boomer generation retires and they are forced to pay the health care premiums for people who are no longer working for them.

He said that Portland has started to fix this problem, but other cities haven't. This is heresay and I'm not an accountant, but it would be something interesting to look in to and if this is true it could help support the need for single-payer health care reform.

For what it's worth Loretta, so am I. (Glad you are back) DRichards, your corporate concerns are shared by me also.

May we always remember to attack the idea, and never the individual.

@ Loretta & Mark -

I'll with the admission that I'm easily as guilty as anyone - if not moreso - of the behavior that I'm about to admonish both of you for.

That said - This is NOT a chat room. There IS a chat room associated with this web site (www.thomhartmann.com/chat.php) but this ain't it.

This is a BLOG area - a place for people to post OPINIONS, of their own. Mine, yours, and another person's opinions do not need to be in absolute agreement with one another's. We should NOT take these to the realm of the personal, nor, imho, should we take what others say here personally.

Loretta - I understood instantly that Mark's initial post here today was a reaction to the frequent posts by the ultra-reactionary Rasta (NEVER a good idea - first, because I don't think Rasta bothers to actually read anything posted here, he just posts his nutso, hate-filled message of the day, then goes off to infect another blog, and second, because we should always seek to avoid feeding trolls). What made you think he was talking to or about you, I wonder?

Mark - Have you ever heard that where one stands is generally a function of where one sits? We're all entitled to our own interpretation of the historical record - Loretta's is as valid to her as yours is to you, and mine is to me, and while we may differ in certain ideas, none of us is entitled to berate the other over them ... not in here, anyway.

You two wanna argue? FINE - but take it outside ... to the chat room, where that kinda stuff belongs.

Peace,

Marc

Hi MS Staggerlee-

Are you employed by the Thom Hartmann Show to moderate this blog- just curious -

mstaggerlee:

I accept your comment in the spirit it was given.

Food Fascist:

If he does "run," the Democrats ought to have enough "sound bites" from this idiot to bury him under a thousand campaign ads against him.

Do those who hate the government hate America? They certainly hate the American government- Consider Wacko, TX is pronounced Wack oh

Debbie is an Ellen Radner in training! Good work reporting! - Pharma the enemy.

Back at you Food...At the risk of inflaming Mark I'd like to call you a Mensch, but it might be construed as too pro Israel to employ Yiddish, besides I don't know very many Arabic/Palistinian words. It's happened again...I've given myself a headache. I need a drink and some weasel stole the cork outa my lunch. Cheers