December 2011 Archives

0
In every job that must be done there is an element of fun.
The N.E.M.
 
Peers,
 
      Michelle is somewhat dazzled by Dante’s post this morning.   Michelle:  Hon, Dante writes to ask whether you understand the difference between a hypothetical and a possibility.  He says you’ll never understand probabilities if you don’t understand possibilities.    President:  Well, I find Dante’s cartoons to be hypothetical at times.  Take another look at the two cartoons pasted below.  I’m not always sure I know what he’s talking about.  Michelle:  Dante was afraid you would say something like that.   President:  What do you mean?   Michelle:  Well, he’s writing to encourage you to be more scientific in your thinking.   President:  What does he mean by that?   Michelle:  He asks you please to watch this video:  Quantum Physics is Changing Reality (09:25).  He asks you to watch it all the way thru and to let him know if you have any questions.  You’ll need to think outside the box, of course.  You do know the word “simultaneous”, don’t you?   President:  Yes.  Michelle:  Then the possibilities are endless.
 
Cheers,
Peace,
Roy

Comic Relief for a world SCREAMING for peace

The N.E.M.
Peers,
 
      Michelle opens her e-mail and begins to chuckle.  Michelle:  LOL  Hon, Dante wants to know whether you’re prepared for the Quartet meeting on December 13 and 14.  He says he trusts that you are.  Because he promised his Allies on AOL that they will finally see you in action, demonstrating savoir faire and diplomatic finesse in abundance.  President:  LOL  I’ll not disappoint them.  But tell Dante that I decided not to use the one-liner that he sent in his last post.   Michelle: You mean the one-liner Dante found in one of E.E. Cummings’ poems?  The one he suggested you use when you negotiate with Benjamin Netanyahu?  Which was explained so very clearly in the cartoon pasted below?   President:  Yes, that’s the one.
 
      Michelle:  Dante writes that he, too, has had second thoughts about the E.E. Cummings one-liner.  He now thinks it would be more appropriate for you to use a less abrasive one.   President:  Does the lad have a less abrasive one-liner in mind?   Michelle:  Well, he suggests that you fax Bibi a copy of this essay in advance of the Quartet’s meeting: Israel’s Negotiating Strategies and send word (in advance) that you would like to discuss the essay with him the next time the two of you are alone.  President:  Hon, that essay is a repeat.  Dante has sent it several times in the past.  I’ve already read it twice.  And you and I read it together.  You remember, don’t you?   Michelle: Yes, but does Bibi know that you’ve read it?  And, if so, have you discussed the matter with him?  One-on-one?  Face-to-face?  Man-to-man?  At length and in depth?   President: Well, maybe not in so many words.  Fast forward.  What else does Dante have to say?
 
      Michelle:  Dante says that if you’re not feeling sufficiently courageous the next time you meet with Bibi, i.e., if you’re feeling lily livered that day, there’s something else you can do.  You can give him a copy of this carefully-chosen feature article which was written by an Israeli Jew:  Culture of Fear.  Then, you can gently whisper two words into Bibi’s ear:  “I understand”.  After a poignant pause add: “Let’s talk.”  (pause)  Wow.  Dante has a great idea this morning.  How shall I answer him?   President:  Thank Dante for his recent suggestions.  Tell him I’ll take them into consideration while I work on my strategy in advance of the Quartet meeting.  (pause)  Do you think Dante will be satisfied with my answer?   Michelle:  Oh, Hon, I think he will be.  He trusts you to recognize a good idea when one is presented to you so succinctly, under your very nose.  President:  I’ll admit that it’s an excellent idea.  I feel as tho I’ve been thrown a touchdown pass.  Michelle:  Altho….   President:  Altho what?   Michelle: Well, Dante writes that a number of his Allies are talking about the possibility of organizing an on-line grassroots campaign to persuade Chuck Hagel to run for President in 2012.  Chuck represented Nebraska in the U.S. Senate for twelve years and earned the respect of both sides of the aisle.  If Chuck can be persuaded to run as a Republican, he can aim for the GOP Convention … in Tampa, Florida … which starts August 27 … which gives us plenty of time.  Of course AOL can always sponsor him as an Independent candidate.  President:  Sometimes I suspect that Dante is trying to finesse me.  What else does he say?  Michelle:  LOL  He says he’ll remain loyal to you if he sees progress made at the next Quartet meeting.  He says he’ll keep us up to date on Chuck’s campaign.  He says:  “They’ve not got him to agree to run yet.  Peace, Dan T.”
 
Cheers,
Peace,
Roy

We’re all adults here.

The N.E.M.
 
Peers,
 
      Michelle is surprised at the abrupt language Dante is using in today’s post, but she understands the urgency of the situation.   Michelle:  Hon, Dante says he found a one-liner you can use the next time you meet with Benjamin Netanyahu behind closed doors and the negotiations aren’t going well.   President:  Oh yeah?  What’s the one-liner?   Michelle:  He said he found it in a poem written by E. E. Cummings (1894–1962).   President:  I didn’t know young Dante was into poetry.  What’s the one-liner?

      Michelle:  Dante says you’ll have to use it with a smile on your face.  Let your smile inch in the direction of a smirk, but don’t get too smirky.  You’ll need to project an attitude of total confidence to persuade Bibi that you’re serious.   President:  What’s the one-liner?
 
      Michelle:  And that you mean business.  For maximum effect, you’ll have to wait for an opportune time to use it, or it’ll be interpreted by the media as inappropriate.  President:  What’s the one-liner?   Michelle:  Speak with a cavalier tone in your voice, and you’ll dazzle Bibi speechless.  He’ll be blithering all over the place when the two of you speak with reporters.  He may not even repeat what you said.   President:  What’s the one-liner?   Michelle:  “There is some sh*t which I am not required to eat.”  President:  Wha… ????   Michelle:  Before you get excited, Hon, read the postscript.   President:  (pause)  I don’t understand.  Is Dante suggesting that I lose my dignity?  Is he hinting that I should abandon the LOD altogether (the Language of Diplomacy) because Bibi is such a slippery fellow when he gets defensive and shifts into a theatrical mode?   Michelle:  Hmmmm…  Well, let me answer your question this way.  Dante says that he and his Allies regard you as the Leader of the Free World, and they are expecting substantial progress to be made in the Holy Land Peace Process … at the next meeting of the Quartet … which is just a few days from today … in Jerusalem …. on December 13 (Tuesday) and December 14 (Wednesday).   President:  They’ve got a reasonable expectation.  I’ll grant them that.  But I’m not certain that I want to use the one-liner.   Michelle:  You decide about that, Hon.  Just remember that Dante and his Allies have those dates marked on their calendars, and so do I.  Please don’t forget to read the postscript.
 
Cheers,
Roy
 
P.S.   From Wikipedia:  “Born into a Unitarian family, Cummings exhibited transcendental leanings his entire life.  As he grew in maturity and age, Cummings moved toward an “I, Thou” relationship with God.  His journals are replete with references to “le bon Dieu” as well as prayers for inspiration in his poetry and artwork.” 

0
Note:   Jon Stewart is causing everybody to laugh at the Republicans running for President.  Maybe if we weren’t able to laugh at politicians they would drive us crazy.   Peace, Roy

In a message dated 12/11/2011 12:40:09 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, samiaorama@gmail.com… writes:

(Thanks, Samia.  R)

Thanks Zeina.  You would think they are running for elections in Israel.  Samia

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:33 PM, Zeina Khoury <zskhoury@gmail.com…> wrote:

0
When the going gets tough, that’s when the tough get going.
The N.E.M.

 

Peers,
 
      Michelle has a red alert for the President this morning.   Michelle:  Dante says you’ve been challenged to a debate.   President:  Who by?   Michelle:  By Newton Leroy (“Newt”) Gingrich.  Newt says he will call for seven debates.  Each debate will last three hours, and he won’t object to your using a teleprompter.   President:  That’s the most outrageous thing I’ve ever heard.  What else does Dante write this morning?
 
      Michelle:  Well, as you know, Dante is an Independent voter who’s registered as a Democrat because he likes to vote in the Democratic Primary.  He’s thinking about changing his registration to Republican so that he can vote in the GOP Primary this time.  President:  How does he figure?   Michelle:  He wants to vote for Newt.  President:  Really?  Whatever for?   Michelle:  He believes that debating Newt will stimulate you and invigorate you … and … the best that’s in you will finally come out.  President:  Tell our presumptuous young grad student that….  Michelle:  Wait, Hon, he writes more.
 
      Michelle:  Dante invites your attention to Paul Woodward’s essay pasted below.  The subject of the essay is sure to be the main subject in the next Presidential Debates.  President:  What makes Dante so sure?   Michelle:  Because the Arab-Israeli conflict is the central problem facing the world today.  And, as you know, the conflict is directly related to the world’s economy as much as to our own.  Whoever wins the debates will be the next President.   President:  (pause)  I understand what he’s saying.   Michelle:  From my perspective, Hon, Dante knows what he’s talking about this time.   President:  Scroll down and let’s read what Newt has to say.
 
Cheers,
Peace,
Roy 

Click here: Gingrich favors rapid expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank — calls Palestinians ‘terrorists’ — War in

… with attention to the unseen

Gingrich favors rapid expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank — calls Palestinians ‘terrorists’

by Paul Woodward on December 11, 2011

Having stirred outrage by calling Palestinians an “invented people,” in last night’s GOP presidential debate New Gingrich went even further by saying, “these people are terrorists.”

I guess if he becomes president, at least the United States will have to abandon the pretense that it has any role as a mediator between Israelis and Palestinians.

In a conference call organized by the National Council of Young Israel and broadcast on The Yeshiva World News on Friday, Gingrich took a question from Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America.

Klein is more forthright than some of Gingrich’s other Zionist friends might be — he unequivocally opposes a two-state solution.

Last year he said: “As much as we all want Israel to have peace with the Arabs, Israel can and will survive and thrive without it — as they have since 1948.”

Israel doesn’t need peace — this is the conviction that explains the Israeli intransigence that long ago turned the so-called peace process into a charade.

What those who don’t believe in peace do believe in, is the need for the United States to ensure that Israel maintains its “qualitative military edge” — a commitment that the Obama administration has supported even more strongly than its predecessors.

A nuclear-armed Iran would undermine Israel’s military hegemony in the Middle East and so many of Israel’s supporters are willing to back another war — usually on the pretext that it would prevent a second holocaust — rather than tolerate a significant shift in the regional balance of power.

In spite of the hysterical campaign propaganda that some American politicians are now using, “[f]ew in Netanyahu’s inner circle believe that Iran has any short-term plans to drop a nuclear weapon on Tel Aviv, should it find a means to deliver it,” according to Netanyahu confidant, Jeffery Goldberg.

Klein’s question for Gingrich was on the expansion of settlements, but the strategic perspective they share is that Israel can continue to exist and prosper in a permanent state of war. From that perspective, the two most important features of the relationship between Israel and the United States are that the U.S. continues to maintain a steady flow of military aid and it remains willing to engage in wars that Israel cannot fight alone. It comes down to blood and money.

Note too that a necessary condition that helps ensure that Americans will acquiesce in fulfilling this need is that we must also share the Zionist faith in the sustainability of permanent war.

The unshakable bond that unites Israel and the United States — a bond that in American politics has become an object of cultish devotion — is an absolute faith in war. Perhaps the only thing that will be able to shake that faith will be economic ruin.

Klein: What is your position about the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] and the right of Jews to live in communities there at this present time?

Gingrich: Well, it depends on where exactly you define the boundaries. I do not oppose any development in the [Israeli occupied] areas, because I think that’s part of the negotiating process. To the degree that the Palestinians want to stop the developments they need to reach a deal in which they recognize the right of Israel to exist… As long as they are waging war on Israel, they are in no position to complain about developments. I think the whole peace process has been absurd and has created a psychologically almost impossible position for the average person because once you say there’s a peace process you wonder why the Israelis aren’t being more forthcoming. But if you say, look, we’re still in the middle of a war. They’re still trying to destroy the country — they’re still firing rockets, they still have terrorists coming in — then you all of a sudden understand what the real situation on the ground is, and in that setting, why would the Israelis slow down in maximizing their net bargaining advantage?

In other words, settlement expansion is a bargaining tool and thus the more Israelis there are living in the West Bank, the better Israel’s negotiating position.

As a Palestinian negotiator once said, this is like trying to divide a pizza with someone who is intent on eating the whole pie before it gets divided.

The Washington Post reports on responses to Gingrich’s claim that the Palestinians are an “invented people”:

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin sharply criticized Gingrich’s comments as cynical attempts to curry support with Jewish voters and unhelpful to the peace process.

“The vast majority of American Jews (including this one) and the Israeli Government itself are committed to a two-state solution in which Israelis and Palestinians live side-by-side as neighbors and in peace,” Levin said in a statement. “Gingrich offered no solutions — just a can of gasoline and a match.”

Reuters reports:

[Hanan] Ashrawi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation Executive Committee, said Gingrich’s remarks harked back to days when the Palestinians’ existence as a people was denied by Israelis such as Golda Meir, prime minister from 1969 to 1974.

“It is certainly regressive,” she said. “This is certainly an invitation to further conflict rather than any contribution to peace.”

“This proves that in the hysterical atmosphere of American elections, people lose all touch with reality and make not just irresponsible and dangerous statements, but also very racist comments that betray not just their own ignorance but an unforgivable bias,” she said.

Fawzi Barhoum, a Hamas spokesman in Gaza, said the Gingrich remarks “were grave comments that represented an incitement for ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians.”

0
Note:  There’s a curious article pasted below.  The world will soon learn whether or not Newt is a mercenary.  Or is this a new publicity stunt?  Whichever, let’s do some fast thinking.  Newt has taken sides on a political issue on which the American public could not be more polarized.  I refer, of course, to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  Almost everybody is taking sides. Perhaps it would facilitate the peace process if we bring our differing views out into the open and deal with the issue once and for all.  Newt announced that the first thing he would do if he’s elected President is move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.  Newt regards Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal and undivided capital.  Others of us insist that Jerusalem must be undivided and SHARED in accordance with International Law.  We’ve a place to focus.  President Obama has made promises regarding the Holy Land issues.  He has a well-spoken policy which is yet to be implemented.  Newt would attract a following.  A national debate at the grassroots level is in order.  Contact The White House.  An international debate is in order, too.  Please read on.       Peace, Roy  

Click here: Michael Savage Offers Newt Gingrich One Million Dollars To Drop Out Of Race