40 thoughts on “Bibi: Tom Friedman and Bill Clinton, Great Satans – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. ” In Bibi’s eyes that makes Tom the Great Satan, perhaps even greater than Ahmadinejad”

    LOL. You are really out there, aren’t you?

      1. It’s not in Ravid’s report.

        Ravid has two passages relating to “little/big satan” and Ahmadinejad. The paragraph relating to Ahmadinejad talks about how Liberman left during Abu-Mazen’s “as though” he was Ahmadinejad.

        The second paragraph relates (humorously, as no one actually thinks Bibi perceives Friedman as a “big satan”) to Bibi’s unhappiness with the Israeli media and Tom Friedman. Ravid did not write or even suggest that Bibi sees Friedman as a worse enemy than Ahmadinejad – you simply made that up.

        You took a mishmash of things, cobbled them together and created something new altogether. Also, the title of this posts that Bibi was heard saying that Clinton and Friedman are “satans” – which is obviously false.

        1. By the way, “Great Satan” is the term used by Iran to distinguish the US, whereas “Little Satan” is used to describe Israel.

        2. You simply don’t understand irony. Just as Ravid was being ironic in his use of the terms Great and Little Satan, so was I.

          For those of “little brain” who haven’t the ability to detect nuance, I’ll explain the origin of my use of the term in my post. In one paragraph Ravid describes BIbi’s rage at Friedman’s chutzpah. In the next, Ravid writes:

          …Tom Friedman was upgraded to the rank of Great Satan

          It stands to reason that if Lieberman sees Ahmadinejad as the Little Satan & BIbi sees Friedman as the Great Satan that it’s reasonable to infer that they see Friedman as as great or greater danger to Israel than Ahmadinejad. Again, we’re not being literal here. We’re using irony and sly humor (I know that’s beyond you).

          If Bibi sees Friedman as the Great Satan and detests Clinton’s statements about him, it’s entirely reasonable to link the way Bibi would view both Clinton & Friedman.

          Look, I simply have no patience for this. If you want to waste yr time coming up w. reasons to be critical that are ludicrous & sophomoric, I warn you I’ll quickly lose patience.

          Keep your arguments to substance, that means issues that are important and substantive.

          1. [beyond bored with this topic–when I say a topic is done, it’s done; if you try to publish again on the subject you risk being moderated]

  2. Given that the charter of the Likud Party, of which Netanyahu is leader, states unequivocally that they will never allow a Palestinian state anywhere west of the River Jordan i.e. in the West Bank, the statement delivered today by the UN Assembly Quartet, is complete nonsense – and they know that full well.

    It is merely another exercise in procrastination on behalf of the American Israel lobby in order to increase the half a million illegal settlers already in the West Bank. Obama is following instructions from his political paymasters – he is entirely impotent in the matter. Soon, of course, he will be gone and another president will take his place, one suitably willing to continue to enforce AIPAC’s agenda.

    Were this just a matter of American national politics, then the world would have little interest. Unfortunately, the US is still the world’s superpower that controls international and national politics and regimes. And the power that controls the superpower is the Israel lobby. If anyone needs confirmation, then just read the statement! No mention of the continued illegal settlements or of the PA application for the recognition of a Palestinian state and membership of the UN.

    This is not only the theater of the absurd but the theater of future war, death and destruction.


    1. Yes, I appreciate your take on this. That is the point, we are moving firmly towards future wars, death and destruction.

      The abandonment of any historical reality for the religious myths now prevalent is a precondition to support the violence to come.

  3. How satisfying to learn that Avigdor Lieberman has declared without equivocation that our Prostitute In Chief has delivered on the world stage the finest speech of his career, and our PIC has made many many speeches. In fact, he is known for making speeches, some even including stuff about justice and such. Not that the two-state solution is any longer that – a solution. Israel does not have, and probably never has had, any intention of compromising its 1967 West Bank land grab. I do wish, though, that Israel would show enough respect for its chief client, the United States, by being at least less embarrassingly obvious in wagging the dog even though 2012 is fast approaching.

  4. I watched both speeches, Abbas and Bibi. They both did a good job, but were speaking more to their constituencies than to the audience at the UN. The Abbas speech was primarily political in nature; Bibi’s speech was primarily religious in nature. Abbas grounded most of his logic in international law; Bibi often relied on the bible. For me, Bibi’s speech was informative, and the first time, given the mumbled press in the US, I ever have heard Israel’s concerns and point of view so clearly drawn out. The most stunning was the desire to have permanent placements of the IDF throughout the territory of the future Pal state, because “the US has troups stationed in Europe”. This type of demand is so stunning because it is so unrealistic. (US troups are invited.) The problem with the Pal’s situation is that as long as they keep lobbing rockets over the border, Bibi’s coalition will have only more evidence to press forward with its views on security and little incentive to compromise. The Pals are going to get their representation in the UN, but until Israel feels more secure, and the settlement issue is solved, then the Pal state will be little more than an empty shell. And when will that happen? Your guess is as good as mine.

    1. “US troups are invited”

      You are right, but your perspective is rather narrow. US troops weren’t invited to neither Germany nor Japan at the end of hostilities (WWII) they forced a long term military presence in both countries as a part of the surrendering agreement.

      Bibi is right, A Palestinian state should be demilitarized, with some long term IDF presence over the Jordan River valley and other strategic places in Judea and Samaria, without it there will be no peace, and without the Palestinian recognizing the state of Israel as being a Jewish state (as was decided by the UN) there will be no peace. The Palestinians said no to recognizing a Jewish state in 1947, 1967 and they are still doing so today. Same old.

      1. I agree with your perspective, but the demands are unacceptable to the other party, and there is no way to make them acceptable. So now what?

        In terms of Germany and Japan; at this time, the US presence is invited and agreed to, not imposed. The initial conditions for the US presence are irrelevant, and also do not match the PM’s strategic vision (because current conditions do not match the strategic vision in the way that the conditions in Japan and Germany matched the negotiated settlement). Actually, the US/Jap/Ger situation involved a retreat and retrenchment of US forces, not a geographic expansion, and this is opposite to the PM’s vision.

        Again, there is no way to get agreement on this, but perhaps an international force for say a 25-year interim period might be negotiated. Who knows? But to insist on a strategic goal that one already knows is unacceptable complicates things, and the PM definitely is not the only one doing this, as you know.

        For example, in terms of recognition of Israel, is there a difference between recognizing Israel cf. recognizing Israel as a Jewish state? Is this rhetoric, or is there a practical difference that can be implied or anticipated? There probably is a fear on the P side of what this term actually means in practical terms. In any case, the P’s probably are holding that recognition as a “bargaining chip” in the negotiations. Again, no way to solve this.

        Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a way to solve any of this, but I pray the parties eventually do.

        1. Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is extremely important as it will determine the limited number of 3rd and 4th generation refugees that will be allowed into Israel on Humanitarian basis – The previous Israel PM – Olmert – suggested 5,000 and Abu-Mazen turned away from negotiations into his UN one sided action.

          as for your comparison, to the current terms under which the US forces establish their presence in Japan and Germany, in my opinion you are looking at it the wrong way. You are talking about an agreement that will define the end of the conflict that’s why it is valid to compare it to other end of conflict agreements such as the peace agreement of Israel and Egypt (Israel withdrew it’s forces over a period of 4 years) and the US presence in Japan and Germany.

          1. “Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is extremely important as it will determine the limited number of 3rd and 4th generation refugees that will be allowed into Israel on Humanitarian basis ”

            Pardon my French, but this looks like demanding your prospective marriage partner to provide a declaration, signed in the presence of a notary, that you are the coolest man who ever walked or will walk on the surface of the earth — all in order to prevent her from cheating on you afterwards.
            In negotiations it’s necessary to understand that a cigar is just a cigar, and if you want to buy one, you should say so. If Israel wants to limit the return of refugees, it is an issue to be discussed in the negotiations and to be written down in the final agreement, if such is ever achieved. Demanding the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, as a pre-condition for negotiations, is a poor means to achieve that goal.
            Concerning the retention of Israeli military bases in Palestinian territory, it is also an issue that can be discussed in the negotiations — but raising it as a condition for negotiations serves no purpose but to humiliate the Palestinian leadership, and the latter can hardly be expected to comply.

          2. Meni, Your nonsense sound extremely pail after the announcements concerning the latest quartet initiative coming from both Israel and the PA. While Israel is willing to accept the no precondition negotiation initiative, Abu-Mzen announced he will not.

            But don’t let the fact deter you.

          3. Erp… I was reacting to your rationalization of the “recognize Israel as the Jewish state” demand. That demand is meaningless in the context of negotiations (as distinct from an attempt to avoid negotiations). If the government of Israel abandons this demand, it will only prove my point. But meanwhile, it does not appear that Netanyahu abandoned this demand.

          4. Meni, Israel and the Palestinians have been negotiating for the last 18 years more or less.
            To make peace, Israel would have to withdraw back to the 67 lines with agreed upon line swaps (which is far more then was granted by UN resolution 242)
            The Palestinians would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, accept the fact that their state will be demilitarized forever. all the countries in the region would have to agree on a solution to the refugee problem (giving them local citizenship and establishing a compensation mechanism for both Jews and Arabs)
            And both sides would have to be creative in finding a solution involving Jerusalem.
            at this point everything has been on the table for years, the Palestinians are not willing to compromise (please read Clinton’s book), and that’s why there is no agreement, and no peace.

        2. And the Palestinians are not holding the recognition of Israel as a “bargaining chip”, they refused through our mutual history. They refused in 1947 and resorted to war, they refused after the six day war and established their 3 famous “No” in Khartoum declaration of 1967 (no to Negotiation, No to recognizing Israel and no to peace) and unfortunately they refuse today.

          1. Hi Shmegegi,

            Your post on the “limited number of 3rd and 4th generation refugees” answers the “bargaining chip” issue, and why this is not agreeable to the other side.

            Alas, no solution in sight.

          2. Edward, recognizing that you can’t get all you want is the first step towards a peace in between us and the Palestinians.

            Israel for a peace is willing to give a lot. Historically its Judea and Samaria that were the center of the Jewish life. In San Remo conference and the Balfour deceleration the Jews were promised a home land in the territory extending into what is Israel today and Jordan, the deal the British made with the Hashemite and the Saud families, brought an end to that.

            Israeli’s are willing to withdraw from most parts of Judea and Samaria, and give the Palestinian an equal land swaps, Israel is also willing to be creative with respect to Jerusalem . In return we are asking to retain the Jewish nature of the state of Israel and the end of conflict. The Palestinian refuse to grant us both.

            if you’ll read Bill Clinton book (my Life page’s 936 – 946) to Clinton it is clear that the Palestinians would like to achieve, a Palestinian state (clear of Jews as their ambassador to the US stated a week ago – http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-09-13/palestinian-israeli-jews-future-state-israel-PLO/50394882/1) and a state with an Arab majority instead of Israel, that is the sole reason they are not willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, and to the surprise of the Blog owner, neither the US or Europe support that Palestinian notion.

      2. Bibi is right, A Palestinian state should be demilitarized, with some long term IDF presence over the Jordan River valley and other strategic places in Judea and Samaria, without it there will be no peace, and without the Palestinian recognizing the state of Israel as being a Jewish state (as was decided by the UN) there will be no peace.

        Absolute horse manure. In a real peace, there will be NO Israeli troops on any Palestinian territory. None. There could be international peacekeeping troops there, but not Israelis. Israel will have to get over the notion that they can determine the parameters of a settlement or the Middle East in general. It is Israel that will have to fit into the region & not vice versa. As for a Jewish state, if that’s what you require you can fight for the next 1,000 yrs for one till the last Jew dies & Israel is declared extinct. That’s how long it will take you to get yr “Jewish” state. Now a state, no problem. Israel can be a state in the region anytime. But not a supremacist Jewish state of the type you & Bibi envisage.

        And if yr purpose here is to explain why a Jewish state is obligatory go elsewhere. This is really the wrong place for you & you will persuade no one of the justice of yr cause.

        1. “There could be international peacekeeping troops there, but not Israelis. ”

          Absolute BS, israel has a bad experience with international peacekeeping forces specially in Lebanon, in which they are very successful in forcing resolution 1701. Israeli troops will be part of the agreement.

          ” you can fight for the next 1,000 yrs for one till the last Jew dies & Israel is declared extinct”

          Mr. Nostradamus, history shows you wrong. When it comes to war, Israel did well in the past, and will do well in the future. You may be scared for the future of Israel (living your life in Seattle) we…not so much.

          1. israel has a bad experience with international peacekeeping forces

            Israel has a “bad experience.” Well boo-hoo. I’d say the frontline states and the thousands of civilian citizens of these countries killed by the IDF have a far worse experience w. the IDF than Israel has had w. peacekeepers. And you know what, it’s no skin off the world’s back. If you want to rush headlong to oblivion and self destruction far be it from any of us to stop you. Continue being a pig headed obtuse SOB. The world won’t care when you & your country are wiped off the face of the map, and solely for yr own intrasigence & rejectionism. But let it be said that there were those who hoped for things to be different. Who posited a future of peace for two peoples. They were ignored by numbskulls like you. Shmegegis, if you will.

            When it comes to war, Israel did well in the past

            Yes, only 3,000 killed in 1973, the last time Israel faced a truly formidable army. With more such “victories” Israel will sucuumb even more quickly than it otherwise would based solely on its pigheadedness.

    2. “For me, Bibi’s speech was informative, and the first time, given the mumbled press in the US, I ever have heard Israel’s concerns and point of view so clearly drawn out.”

      Roche, that pure BS. US MSM does nothing BUT parrot Israel’s and AIPAC’s POV. As for Bibi’s nonsense about security, it’s all bull hockey and nothing more than more and more delay to get more ‘facts on the ground’ of illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Bibi and Israel will never allow a peace deal because they would have to stop stealing land and resources once Palestine becomes a state recognized by the UN.

    1. Go tell that to the people of Southern Israel, who are constantly being fired upon from the Gaza strip, after Israel withdrawn it’s settlers, synagogues and even graves from Gaza.

      1. Shmegegi,

        Everyone knows about the violence perpetrated by both sides, an endless progression of TIT for tat, but in great disproportion.

        But the question is how to solve the problem.

        If either side continues to insist on a settlement that is unacceptable to the other side, then there can be no solution, a recipe for stalemate. So the logical follow is that anyone who continues to insist on outcomes that are obviously impossible for the other side to accept are de facto in favor of the current stalemate, and this explains the disproportionate scorn against the current GOI, since I has vastly superior military, economic, and technological power — World public opinion is sympathetic to the under-dog, real or perceived. This is why yet further negotiation is needed, perhaps for another quarter of a century, who knows.

        In a way, it is a simple calculas. Israel has the muscle to keep the status quo, and to continue to expand settlements, and so on. What is the cost? The cost is world public opinion, and continued hostility and generations of profound and resolute hatred by one-quarter of the world’s population at a minimum, increasing isolation, and continued reliance on a crippled superpower, the US, which is declining in influence, now having lost all leverage in the Middle East because of the veto against its own long-professed two state policy.

        So the simple calculation is “does the cost outweigh the benefit”? For the time being, we know the answer as found by the current GOI — the cost TO I is far less than the benefit, so stalemate is the optimum policy to achieve the objectives.

        Of course the PA made the same calculation in making what will be a successful bid for recognition.

        If the problem was so easy to solve, someone would have done so by now.

        1. Edward, the way to solve differences is to via negotiations.
          Israel will accept the latest Quartet initiative, Abu-Mazen already announced it is unacceptable.

          Abu-Mazen will resort to Arafat action’s, a month after returning from Camp-David the second Intifada erupted, we know from document sized in Arafat’s headquarter it was directed by him, in my opinion despite his statements Abu-Mazen will do the same.

        1. Of course it’s off topic, you will report the alleged burning of olive orchards by settlers, but you will never report the murder of a 25 years old father with his less then one year old baby by Palestinians. Indeed a hard hitting “analysis” of the middle east conflict.

          1. This is not an alleged act. I linked to the site which reported it. Now you will in the next 24 hours provide evidence that this event did not happen as described or you will be moderated, warned & subject to banning should you violate the comment rules again.

          2. You should quite smoking.
            in this post : https://www.richardsilverstein.com/2011/09/23/settlers-burn-palestinian-fields/

            There is no link to an article, or any other link.
            The fact that such an event received no media coverage other then your blog…shines on the credibility of your entire post.

            I am still wondering when will you report on the murder of the Israeli baby. I guess that with your resentment and dislike of settlers as reflected by your own many words, i shouldn’t expect that.

          3. Here is the link to the Dair Jarir arson assault:

            Same story reported here:

            I originally saw this tweet, which alerted me to the story:

            This is a story of similar fires in the Jenin area which occurred last month:

            …Soldiers set fire to dozens of dunums (1 Dunum= 1000 square meters) of olive groves and almond fields causing heavy damage in the village of East Barta’a in the southern region of Jenin governorate.

            Locals said troops posted at the Barta’a checkpoint stopped fire vehicles from Jenin’s civil defense service from arriving to fight the blaze.

            They said Israel forces had been burning grass piled on the sides of the roads where they were patrolling, when fire spread to nearby olive groves.

            Meantime, locals reported that a gang of Jewish settlers burned down tens of dunams of farmland in the dismantled Jewish settlement of Homesh and directed verbal insults at Arabs and tried to assault the vehicles of Palestinians who drove along the road between Jenin and Nablus.

            Witnesses said the settlers set fire to hundreds of olive and almond trees as Israeli military forces remained idle.

            Typically, the Hasbara blogger brigade is claiming that the photo, which accompanied the story from a Palestinian activist site about this recent fire in Seelat al-Draher, also accompanied stories about similar fires in other Palestinians villages. Which must mean that any claims of settler arson fires are lies, right? In fact, the original site which displayed this image did not claim the picture was from Seelat al-Draher (I made that mistake, which I’ve since corrected). It used the image as representative of the type of fire it was actually portraying, which actually happened in Seelat al-Draher in the past few days. Could someone help me find the website which displayed that picture? And it was from a Palestinian website, that I recall.

            Perhaps we can allow our hasbarist friends to feast on actual images of actual Palestinian arson fires set by settlers in the recent past. I’m sure my readers can come up with some good ones. But we have to play by the hasbarist rules & be sure of where the image was shot, name the village and if possible the date of the fire.

            Here are several diff. arson attacks all within the past few days. And all from yr settlers friends:


            If I don’t get an apology from you you’re toast.

            And as for the picture accompanying this post, I was looking for an image that would depict graphically what a settler fire looked like & found this one. The site where I found it said it was a fire in the village of Seelat al-Draher outside Jenin. Others claim it isn’t. That’s besides the point. There are hundreds of pictures of Palestinian fields burned in settler arson attacks. There are thousands of such attacks. To focus on the claim that this image portrays a fire in one village and not another is beyond lame. The point is the arson and settler crimes against Palestinians. Hasbarists seek to divert attention from the real story, because when they’re forced to do so they’re on ground they know they can’t defend.

          4. Apologize for what ?
            You didn’t post a link, you added it after i told you that. Besides the only two places this picture is shown is your blog and another blog who linked to your blog, had it been true, it would have been front page news in many of the media outlets.
            I am so sorry i offended you old sweet feelings, the lack of media coverage shows that this is not a very credible piece of news.
            quit smoking

          5. the only two places this picture is shown is your blog and another blog who linked to your blog

            That is a lie. I found the picture at a Palestinian website which reported the fire at Seelat al Draher. You are banned. Good riddance to bad sack of crap rubbish.

  5. Richard, the world isolation of Israel is exactly what you predicted many, many years ago when you returned from your years in Israel. The US, for supprting these despicable policies, is increasly isolated, as well. I cannot understand how the Jewish community in the US could not see the peril in supporting the occupation and settlements. And I cannot understand how Aipac would put the US in grave peril by demanding US support for these policies. If Jews, anywhere in the world, were treated the way Israel treats the Palestians, the Jewish community would be enraged and demanding US support for those beleagurered Jews. All of this has cost Americans dearly in a part of the world that comprises 1 and 1/2 billion people in 57 countries. Doesn’t Aipac and Israel understand that a weakened US is bad for Israel?

    1. “If Jews, anywhere in the world, were treated the way Israel treats the Palestinians…”

      This is the crux of the conflict, isn’t it? There won’t be peace in the Middle East until Israel treats the Palestinians as Jews themselves would want to be treated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link