Neocon David Frum Distorts Reality To Push An Anti-Palestinian Narrative
Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum just posted pure pro-Israel propaganda on his blog, Frum Forum. In it he attempts to outline why a UN Security Council recognition of a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders would be counterproductive.
First, he disingenuously blames the failure of the latest rounds of peace talks on the Palestinians, and then concludes that for the UN to recognize a Palestinian state would be tantamount to giving Abbas cover to never speak with Israel again:
From the beginning of the Obama administration, PA President Mahmoud Abbas has refused to negotiate directly with Israel. Indirect discussions have stumbled along without result. Abbas has insisted he cannot talk without a settlement freeze. Then when he gets his settlement freeze, he explains he still cannot talk.
The beauty of the UN approach is that it provides a perfect excuse never to talk to Israel again.
What Frum fails to mention is that the United States government demanded that Israel freeze its illegal settlement expansions. By conveniently omitting this fact he implies that ONLY the Palestinians made such a ‘bold’ demand that Israel stop stealing their land as a sign of good faith in negotiating borders roughly along the 1967 green line (with occasional land swapping).
Could you imagine haggling with someone who wants to purchase your car, only to watch him park your car in his garage during the negotiations, and proceed to have a pal of his at the DMV change the title to his name? Frum seems to believe this is acceptable negotiating behavior.
The US government went so far as to offer the right-winged Israeli government an additional $3 billion in military aid, and to pre-veto any UN Security Council Resolutions for an entire year (thereby hurting its own standing in the world, by trivializing international law as it might one day impact its own ally’s illegal actions), if Israel would just agree to suspend settlement expansion for a mere 3 months.
So how does Israel respond to its largest benefactor — who provides it with $3 billion annually in foreign aid? Israel astonishingly refuses the offer. Why? Because in the spirit of Zionism-run-amok, Israel is determined to steal all of the Palestinian’s land, and will allow NOTHING to get in its way.
What Frum intentionally fails to mention is that the so-called ‘settlement freeze’ that Israel agreed to for a period of ten months — which strategically ended just before the 2010 US Midterm Elections — excluded East Jerusalem, an area that the international community recognizes as Palestinian territory.
What Frum fails to mention is that Peace Now, at eight months into the so called 10 month ‘settlement freeze’, reported that the moratorium on settlement expansion never actually occurred. The Israelis plowed right along with their illegal settlements:
The Main Findings:
- At least 600 housing units have started to be built during the freeze, in over 60 different settlements.
- At least 492 of those housing units are in direct violation of the law of the freeze.
- During an average year (when there is no freeze) approximately 1,130 housing units start to be built in 8 months in the settlements. The new construction starts during the moratorium constitute approximately half of the normal construction pace in the settlements.
- Some 2,000 housing units are currently under construction in the settlements, most of them started before the freeze was announced in November 2009.
This means that on the ground, there is almost no freeze or even a visible slowdown, despite the fact that legal construction starts have been frozen for 8 months. It also means that the Government of Israel is not enforcing the moratorium.
Frum states the following on the likelihood of a US veto over any UN Security Council Resolution which might acknowledge a Palestinian state along the internationally recognized 1967 borders:
Such a [UN] vote is not very likely to happen. The United States could and would veto it. (On Wednesday night, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to urge President Obama to veto any such UN move. The vote was unanimous. And that was the outgoing Democratic-majority House.)
He uses the term “Unanimous” to describe the vote taken by the US House of Representatives in making his point that the US Congress is firmly committed to pressuring the Obama Administration to veto any such UN Resolution.
I would recommend that Mr. Frum read this article which gives a behind-the-scenes look at how that AIPAC-sponsored resolution was passed. It shows how this so-called “unanimous vote” amounts to ten Representatives who voted on a bill that was rushed to the floor late at night, for fear it might not pass.
He then lies that the Palestinians have never acknowledged the state of Israel:
The UN approach may never achieve anything. It may leave the Palestinian people stuck in a frustrating status quo. But anything is better than a deal that would require a Palestinian leader to acknowledge the permanence of Israel. Back in 2000, Yasser Arafat told Bill Clinton that signing a treaty with Israel would cost Arafat his life. Abbas seems to have reached the same conclusion.
What Frum fails to mention is that in 1992, Arafat and the PLO DID acknowledge Israel’s right to exist in peace, and accepted a two-state solution. The Palestinians to this day STILL recognize Israel’s right to exist, despite the fact Israel refuses to remain bound by its internationally recognized borders.
Israel continues to this day, to steal Palestinian land (as if Palestinians don’t exist), and ethnically cleanses Palestinians from East Jerusalem. And yet, not a mention about any of this from Frum.
The audacity that such a prominent voice — who unfortunately is just one of many in our media establishment that seem to monopolize all middle east discussions with a dishonest pro-Likud narrative — would sign his name to such a blatant distortion of the facts, goes to the heart of why this country remains impudent in bringing peace to the Middle East.
Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly: Was For The Public Option Before He Was Against It
The disingenuous Bill O’Reilly …
Here’s Bill O’Reilly on September 16, 2009, understanding the significance of a public option, and saying that he supports it:
O’Reilly: I want for working Americans to have an option — that if they don’t like their health insurance, if it’s too expensive and they can’t afford it — if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the ‘folks’.
You can see the clip here:
Here’s Bill O’Reilly, yesterday, November 9, 2009 (with Brit Hume):
NOTE: Watch how O’Reilly pretends this ‘public thing’ is so insignificant he can’t even remember what it’s called. But he does know that it stinks; that the folks reject it — he claims all the polls show this, despite the polls showing the exact opposite. He claims it’s expensive — though the CBO has reported the public option tied to Medicare rates would reduce deficits by $110 billion over 10 years — and he says that politicians in the House are going to get punished if they support it. Brit Hume corrects him on the popularity:
O’Reilly: Now, there is a growing feeling in America — all the polls say this — that the ‘folks’ don’t want this ‘callouses’ — this government callouses, they call it um … you know … the ahh … public .. ah .. sector .. ah what is it, the public …?
Hume: the public option, you mean?
O’Reilly: … public option, whatever. Umm … the ‘folks’ don’t want it, and the politicians fear they’re going to be voted out of office, and the cost is astronomical. The Senate has a little more room, because they’re in for six years, not two, umm, but it looks like they have more than 55 votes to pass it and that means they could be fillibustered and never come up for a vote.
Hume: That’s what it looks like right now. The public option — actually some polls show the public option standing by itself is not at all unpopular, but kind of popular. That depends on how the poll question is phrased. But the public option is a loser, because it loses Lieberman, it loses Olympia Snowe, who is the one Republican who voted for it in committee, ah so the chances of anything with a public option passing is pretty remote.
You can see the clip here:
Why the switch, Bill? I suspect he’s laying the ground work for defending the forthcoming Republican Fillibuster. Poor Bill, if only he could erase that September video clip …
Talk Radio Inflates 4,000 Attendees At GOP Anti-Health Care Reform Rally To ‘Millions’
The audacity of this lie has got to make you laugh. Remember how Fox News ‘personalities’ inflated the 60,000-70,000 attendees (as reported by the Washington DC Fire Department) at the 9/12 March as ‘millions’? Well, the far-right have really outdone themselves this time. Think Progress reveals :
On G. Gordon Liddy’s radio show today, producer Franklin Raff, who was on the ground at the rally, told guest host Joseph Farah that the crowd is “just as big or bigger than” the 9/12 rally, which Raff estimated “at about a million.”
Capitol Hill police told NBC’s Luke Russert that the crowd was about 4,000. At around 2 PM eastern time, Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) posted an aerial picture of the crowd on her TwitPic page, clearly showing a crowd far, far smaller than “a million”
Heh heh heh … You can hear the G. Gordon Liddy radio clip over at Think Progress.
Now Fox News, Michelle Bachmann, et al have gotten in on the act, inflating the numbers by 5 to 10 times the actual numbers: