text:
but now West bank and Gaza are Palestine country
Reader comments are listed below. Comments are currently closed and new comments are no longer being accepted.
but now West bank and Gaza are Palestine country
We who want the Palestinians to have a state and to live in peace and freedom, and believe this aggression to be fully provoked by Israel, and that Israeli state policies are unjust and oppressive, should nevertheless not sanction this sort of violence. For it is just this sort of violent and haphazard approach to winning a state that has brought out the worst in Israelis. We should be bombing Palestinians with books by Gandhi and American civil rights films, not out if some idealistic commitment to non-violence, but rather because it is only through non-violence that the powerless can overcome the powerful. Stop throwing stones and finally win over the Israeli swing voters.
Still, let us hope this brings the Palestinians the attention they deserve and that President Obama has the courage to stare down the Israeli lobby and push the Israelis to grant the Palestinians their long deserved state.
So it's fine if Israel end up killing countless children and civillians? It's fine if Israel have killed ENTIRE families in palestine? So I'm guessing it's fine that Israel murdered the 11 month son of a BBC cameraman too?
These recent attacks started because Israel killed the Hamas military leader. Do you really think that anybody would sit by and watch their leader be killed? Not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Israel are the ones to be weary of here, attacking when it's dark, targeting civilian rich environments.
It doesn't matter who you are, black or white or brown, homosexual or heterosexual, male or female, stand up for simple humanitarian rights- water, shelter, food and definitely no INNOCENT CHILDREN being mercilessly slain through cowardly rocket attacks in the night.
Stand up, open your eyes and take a look around you, don't just stick to reading the same paper or website everyday, they will be bias, they have their own agendas. Read and make the decision yourself of what is really happening; don't let them make it for you. We have a brain which gives us the ability to understand and analyse...so why not use it?
Oy, how pathetic. The Palestinians want to "puncture the Tel Aviv bubble" ?
It is the Tel Aviv area which has most reliably produced left- and center-leaning voters who support accommodation with the Palestinians.
Obviously, anyone wanting to "puncture" this is not looking for an accommodation.
At the same time, look at this other Economist article (link below) which correctly tells us Israelis are handling it all rather well. Nothing is "punctured" - except perhaps the aspirations of the Palestinians themselves.
hahaha....HAMMAS will be successful in distroying zionist regime INSHALLAH...isreals ppl should b thankful to palestinian ppl as they have left them to live in there country for so long nd look at there hospitality they r not even asking for ani rent... :-)...im not a palestinian im a citizen of pakistan name fawad khan lives in nowshera i have the right to criticise wat is wrong...not isreal is a tumor of this world....wrong borned...jews sucks
It is painful to contemplate how delusional these people can be. An old cliche by Golda Meir has it that peace will only come when the Arabs starting loving their children more than they hate the Jews. This article amply demonstrates how far we are still from that point. For them it is worth sacrificing dozens of lives for the great joy of firing a rocket at Tel Aviv. They deserve all that is coming at them.
You expect humans under an illegal blockade, living in an open air prison under an apartheid state to sit back and wait until peace comes from above and Israel decides to let medicine come through the tunnels?
Your views are in perfect agreement with a the fascist racist apartheid state of Israel.
if the palestinians want to win against the israelis, they need to resort to guerilla tactics -- hit and run strategies. they need to beef up their intell (the mossad is pretty damn good --they, palestinians, need be better at intell). they need to target and demoralize the israelis.... do this by targeting high value targets in israel -- their politicians, generals, their rich. disrupt their way of life, target their business infrastructure. if you leave the general/ average innocent israeli untouched, leave the women and children safe, then the world's sympathy will be on your side. shake up the israelis 'untouchable' psyche and instill fear in their minds.. make them prisoners in their houses.
i am not advocating this, simply stating that their past strategies have failed them. the suicide bombers have not worked. their rockets are ineffective against israel's us supplied and maintained weapons. hence when outclassed by your opponent, you resort to other tactics.
the alternative is to stay on the same track and wind up having your people utterly demoralized. nobody, not arabs, not the eu, not the us, cares about you palestinians. do not wait for or expect any one to come to your rescue.. your freedom is yours to win, so strategize and deliver.
they had the 'arab spring', you should now have your 'palestinian spring' and shake off your oppressor (israel)
You are speaking as if the Hamas have the ability to kill Israel's generals yet they somehow choose to kill a child instead.
Firing rockets is the best they can do at the moment, and their intentions are exactly what you said, to "disrupt (the Israeli's) way of life", and to "instill fear in their minds". You want them to "target high value targets in Israel"? Sorry they can't "target" anything, all they can do is to fire a rocket and pray it hits anything valuable.
You're right. Hamas needs to be armed with missiles with guidance systems and destroy all they unguided rockets that are useless and regrettably only sem to harm the wrong people.
Time to target the military and leave the innocent civilians alone.
Thats like asking midgets to play in the NBA. They are terrorists shooting blindly.
Iran's goal (and Iran is the puppet-master and pay-master for Hamas)was clearly stated in 2005: the goal is to reverse 300 years of Islamic military defeats through victory by Islam over the Infidel in Palestine.
Iran is there for only that reason. It is not "for the land." They have clearly said so. It is for military victory by Islam against the Infidel. Jihad. Holy War.
And after that victory, the next goal? "A world without the United States, a world without Zionism" Ahmadinejad, 2005 (translated in the New York Times)
And the next goal was pretty well spelled out by a Hamas leader just about one year ago:
"Today, we emphasize that our plan is not confined to the liberation of Palestine. The Islamic nation in its entirety will bring a smile to the faces of all the people in the world, and will wipe the tears from the eyes of all human beings.
Our plan is the cure for all the maladies of this Western civilization, which knows only to contain or kill, to control or destroy, to clash with people or to contain them.
"This civilization will not be able to withstand the great and glorious Islam, with its great humane platform. […]
"The Arab nation has begun to reap the fruits of the hot Arab spring. Yesterday, the Islamists won in Tunisia, tomorrow, they will win in Egypt, and then in Libya, until Islam, which rules in accordance with the Koran, will prevail throughout the land."
Al Zahhar, a Hamas leader, on Al-Quds TV on October 28, 2011.
hear and see him here:
[…]http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5814.htm November 14, 2011 Special Dispatch No.4282 MEMRI
to see Ahmadinejad's spelling out of Iran's goal for Islamic victory over the Infidel ["Infidel" means all peoples who are not Muslims]:
That was uncalled for. No need to denigrate midgets; they have no choice in the matter. The terrorists do have a choice. It would be an insult to vicious rabid dogs to compare them to the terrorists... so, please, let's not insult vicious rabid dogs by comparing them to Hamas...
By your comments you are another ill informed person that gets all the wrong news and believes it. Israel is not the one that has fired over 800 rockets. It is Hamas that is doing the attaching and Israel is only defending itself. What is so clear to me is that none of their neighbors are willing to give the Palestinians any land and the question is why not. Why is it that they only wish to take what is Israels when there is large amount of open land all around them? Why can't the Palentinian freinds give up some of their land? We all know the answer to that is not about the land it's all about killing and removing every Jew on earth. Well that will never happen. Everyone is seems to think that Israel is the problem and they are not. The rest of you are the problem. Israel is not the oppressor as you would say your believe syetem is your oppressor. God is on Irsraels side no matter what you think. Your mad because God made Israel his people.If you would open your mind you would see that God made a way for everyone to come to him, but your mind as been filled with lies so that you can't see the truth. So sad for you to live a life full of hate.
Kuwaiti Columnist: Hamas Is A Terrorist Organization
'Abdallah Al-Hadlaq, a columnist for the Kuwaiti daily Al-Watan, harshly condemned the double standard of some in the Arab media, who call Hamas's actions "resistance" or "jihad" and Israel's response "aggression," and added that Hamas is a terrorist organization killing innocent people.
He wrote: "When terrorist organizations, including Hamas, fire mortars and rockets from the Gaza strip on cities in the Israeli south and kill innocent women and children, the misleading media call it 'resistance' or 'refusal' or 'jihad operations,' but when Israel attacks these organizations' military and security installations inside the Gaza Strip in order to stop this terroristic firing of mortars and rockets, the media call Israel's self-defense 'aggression.'
These media outlets continue to discriminate and to call things by false names. They call the Israeli victims 'casualties' while Palestinian victims in the Gaza Strip are called 'martyrs.'
These media outlets do not hesitate to deceive when they call Hamas's attacks on innocent civilians in Israel's southern cities 'a right of the Palestinian resistance and jihad movements,' while calling Israel's defense of its people 'the Israeli occupation army's aggression towards Gaza.'
"The terrorist group Hamas has started a confrontation with the Israeli army that it cannot end. After they process the horror of the Israeli response, the Hamas leaders will say what the Persian terrorist, Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah, said: If I knew the Israeli response would be this severe, I would not have provoked it."[1]
[1] Al-Watan (Kuwait), November 17, 2012
Erdogan, Lord of Turkey (NATO): Israel is a terrorist state. Fullstop
The typical divide and rule of Israel brandname is very primitive. As Erdogan statement, the rays of enlightenment now approaching every corner of the Globe. I suggest Israel not to escape NASA telescope or EU military eyes. This is believe it or not is U-Turn. The Europe is a second Worldforce to police Israel. As far as 78%NATO witnessess that Palestine are in case with occupier Israel, it will safe for Palestinian Future, not Israel. The right or wrong always back to 1948, favor to the Palestine.
So the typical divide and rule, context of Kuwaiti columnist is absurd compare to what Erdogan (NATO) said. Europe especially refused to bailout Israel anymore because Israeli politics is similar with Stern-Hagganah politics. Naked truth, baby. Very naked truth.
Politics laundering of Great Israel is revealed long time. Israel is not the victim of Germans in WWIl. Jews is the victims. Israel is not Jews. Within their occupation, called Israel, there are Palestinians, Arabs, Caucasoid people. Israel is not Jews. Israel is new hitlerist. NATO know this with preparation of WWlll which would be likely started by Israel. No one can stop the very beast terrorist instinct of Israel.
I think the Barak will lose in fight with Barack when Israel go wild and strike EU cities. Goodbye dignity of bb.
Who found Israel? Hagganah and Stern & co. Political laundering of terrorist organization. Simple but not simplistic.
" Erdogan, Lord of Turkey ..."
Not even. I am the Lord of Turkey in our house; and I am going to roast it come Thursday...
Erodagan just got a serious smack down by the State Department for "inflammatory rhetoric "
The Turks have killed more Kurds then Palestinians or Jews killed in this conflict.
And TurKey is not stranger to genocide.............
Ergodan is transparent in his hypocrisy
The western media does the same this.I have hardly seen any major television channel condemn Israeli aggression.
The western media does the same this.I have hardly seen any major television channel condemn Israeli aggression.
Interesting that you see Israel as an occupying power. You see, Islam was actually the illegal occupier.
Islam only controlled the region after acquiring it through the sword and holy Jihad; before Islam's successful siege of Constantinople in 1453, Constantinople (named after Rome's first Christian Emperor, was Christian land, and had been, since 303 AD. . .1,450 years.
Enjoy it, you folks!
JFK, the Lord of America, was not able to roast and enjoy his on November 28, 1963...
"303"? I suppose you refer to 313, and even then...
Anyway, A.D. 303 + 1,450 years = A.D. 1753... Mahmud I was the Sultan in Istanbul (no longer Constantinople) at that moment.
"Interesting that you see Israel as an occupying power. You see, Islam was actually the illegal occupier."
But... the Roman Empire was the previous occupying power, and long before it the Hebrews when they conquered and occupied Canaan and massacred the Canaanites, and...
What was legal or "illegal" 1,500, 2,000 or 3,000 years ago?
Thanks. Although it is the quintessentially American holiday, I wish you a happy Thanksgiving, too. There is so much we all can, and should be thankful for. It is sad that so many have very little to be thankful for.
There is another very American addition to this already very American holiday: Turducken. It is a variation on the traditional English "three-bird roast". Quite nice, really.
Thanks. I have some American friends and I always wish them a happy Thanksgiving (mind you, they live far away, I don't do it so they invite me... :)
Gee, that Turducken looks delicious!. I will have to eat something right now.
Since assassinating Palestine's military leader five days ago, Israel has launched an offensive killing 100 Palestinians (and counting). This is just the latest assault of the 6 year siege and 45 year occupation of Palestine. Palestinian youth have resorted to throwing Molotov cocktails and hundreds of others protest non violently, while Israeli soldiers respond with lethal force. Palestine possesses only a minute fraction of Israel's fire power, and nights are filled with Israeli tear gas and gun fire while Israel detains dozens protesting the assassination and continued attacks. While Israel's assault on Gaza is precipitating a new wave of unrest, America, Britain and Israel continue to opposed Palestine's bid for the right to speak at the UN General Assembly.
Sounds like we need to invade Israel next… and oust its leaders.
" Sounds like we need to invade Israel next… and oust its leaders."
Uh, haven't you been trying to do just that since 1948?...
Tell that to the the family and friends of which 35 were killed and 40 maimed at a wedding attacked by a suicide bomber. Israel may use 2 ton bombs but to say Palestinian's don't use lethal force with at times equal results is a fantasy usually reserved for naive university students and the UK's Green party.
Columnists: Gaza Is A Pawn On Iran's Chessboard
Lebanese journalist Khayrallah Khayrallah wrote on the liberal website elaph.com that the Gaza war is a result of Iran's wish to demonstrate its control over Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood. The hope that Iran and Egypt would come to the Palestinians' rescue, he said, only reflects the breakdown of the Arabs' powers of reasoning:
"The Palestinian people and their cause are nothing but a bargaining chip for Iran. Sadly, some Palestinians believe that Iran is on their side and that it will [help them] get back Jerusalem. Some Palestinians also believe today that Egypt can be counted upon to start a new war in the region, when Egypt... [actually] has other worries having to do with overcoming its deep political, economic and social crisis...
"The Palestinians still dream that some Arabs and Iranians will leap to their rescue. They do not understand that the Iranian missiles in their possession are merely a tool – [a means] by which Iran can [demonstrate] that it has the first and last word in Gaza and that it controls key parts of the Hamas movement, as well as some small [Gazan] organizations...
"This is a breakdown of Arab reasoning, which fails to grasp that the war currently raging [in Gaza reflects] Iran's desire to show the Arabs that it can use the Muslim Brotherhood to realize its goals... [8]
[8] Elaph.com, November 19, 2012.
William Hague warned Israel. He knows who is Israel, a country of consistent Hagganah spirit. Its supporters dont believe a U-Turn Law. Drunken arsenalist.
What now? Would you mind trying that again in English?...
Maybe "we" need to invade Syria beforehand - but of course I forgot
Arabs massacring Arabs is normative behavior amongst you Moslems.
1. Rockets are not non-lethal.
2. Israel is not occupying land; Israel is a nation that acquired the land through war it did not want, and did not start. The land was actually illegally occupied by Islamic forces after they stole the land from the Christians in 1453.
Christians had held that land for 1450 years: Istanbul used to be Constantinople, you recall--the land of the first Christian Holy Roman Emperor. . .the man who gave us the Edict of Milan in 1313 proclaiming tolerance for all religions.
The Islamic Turks, through the sword and Holy Jihad, had conquered the land now called Palestine illegally, and lost it when they fought against the Allied armies in WWI.
I am not a Muslim. I'm an atheist and I believe religion only survives because people can't come to terms with their own mortality. They so desperately want there to be a god, and they find life easier to live if they choose to believe there is a god.
How come every time an Israeli tries to defend Israel's war crimes, they always talk about events that happened hundreds, or ever thousands of years ago, as if it has any relevance to the people or events of today.
Stop rehashing old stories. Stop trying to profit off someone else's suffering.
Surely there are people who would like to see the world burn. But if we are going to throw the word "terrorist" around, let us not be misguided by propaganda on both side. And come to the realization that both the Zionists of Israel (not Jews) and Hamas (not Muslims) are terrorists.
With that said, this isn't a war or us condemning Judaism, Jewish people, or Israel's right to exist.. There are Jews in Israel and right here in the U.S. who are speaking against their government... This is about injustice.
You are absolutely right. The Jews in the USA have issued the following press statement last night:
"Last month, we started discussing strategies for countering the policies of the Israeli government, which we believe has become increasingly dangerous for its citizens. We wanted to communicate our concerns to Americans with longstanding connections to Israel. Little did we expect the urgency of the moment.
By killing Hamas leader Ahmad Jabari on November 14, the Israeli government intentionally escalated the military struggle with Hamas. For a long time now, both sides have been using indiscriminate military measures – Hamas shooting rockets on Israeli civilians and Israel imposing different levels of siege. However, the recent assassination has made the threat of a new war immediate.
This renewed conflict has already cost civilian lives on both sides, and the death toll is constantly rising. Such casualties are a foreseeable result of war, and might have been considered inevitable if Israel was truly defending itself. But the Gaza campaign is by no means a measure of defense. It reflects a unilateralism and isolationism that is likely to deepen the insecurity of all of us for years to come.
Starting in the summer of 2011, a wave of protest put debates on social justice and civic equality at center stage. With ongoing unrest all over the country, the legitimacy of the government was called into question. As others have pointed out, generating a military crisis is a convenient way of diverting attention from civic equality. In a traditionally militarized Israel, this is truly the oldest trick in the book: "security" measures ensure that employment security or pension security are overlooked.
No less important is the fact that by escalating the conflict in Gaza, the government is generating long-term risks to life and limb. As Gershon Baskin has explained, Hamas authorities in Gaza have sometimes been willing to consider "pragmatic" measures. Destroying the minimal cooperation that existed with authorities in Gaza in the context of momentous political transitions in the Middle East is exposing Israeli citizens to irresponsible risks. In the context of the regional demand for democracy, it is likely to strengthen perceptions that Israel is an anti-democratic and anti-Muslim force, fueling immensely perilous hostility.
In the last few days, we have all taken part in actions that express solidarity with civilians under attack, both in Israel and in Gaza. Yet, as Israeli citizens in the United States, we feel we also have the role of setting off an emergency alarm. By unconditionally supporting Israel's military escapades, Americans are inevitably tying their own fates with an ally that seems to have gone rogue.
Popular pressure from within and from without of Israel, aiming to impose a ceasefire based on recognition of the elected government, can reduce dangers that Israel's war-mongering leadership is spawning.
-Neta Alexander, Yael Barda, Keren Dotan, Yael Even Or, Gal Katz, Nitzan Lebovic, Yoni Lebowitsch, Dotan Leshem, Itamar Mann, Liron Mor, Oded Na'aman, Naomi Safran-Hon"
One of the major problems with Israeli politics is that liberal Jews have left and/or are planning to leave Israel. That has increasing the voting power of right-wing war-mongering Israelis, who are not interested in "peaceful co-existence".
Great news. Could you so kindly provide the source for me to spread the news around.
EGYPTIAN journalist 'Imad Al-Din Adib wrote an article titled "Look For Iran In All That Happens" in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.
"The countries burned by the fire Iran started now see it as the 'Great Satan,' which ignites the fires of tension in the region... We are [merely] a pawn on the Iranian chessboard, and Iran does not care if the region is set on fire, if its economy is ruined, or if everyone is standing on the brink of a devastating war."[9]
[9]Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), November 20, 2012.
I agree. Both sides are to blame. The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
Credit the quote, please. It was Bertrand Russell who said that; and was dead on about those fools and fanatics of any/all kinds.
Well, well so all Israeli citizens are terrorists according to you?
Thank you for not including Jews in your list you must be a very tolerant person.
Not "the" Jews in the US. SOME Jews.
Not "the" Jews in the USA; "some" Jews.
Re: As Gershon Baskin has explained, Hamas authorities in Gaza have sometimes been willing to consider "pragmatic" measures.
Never has there been a negotiation in which Hamas has not included one non -negotiable factor that would bring about the demise of Israel. Never will there be, because these lands are consecrated to Muslims till the Day of Judgment.
Failure by "the" Jews in America to face the ultimate reason the Arab states did not absorb the very refugees they created by warring against the new state of Israel and losing) is the problem with these comments.
Conventional wisdom has been that the Arabs left the Palestinian refugees as refugees because they needed a distraction from their dictatorships' policies (even though after expelling an equal number of Jews the Arab states made housing quite available for the Palestinian refugees). That conventional wisdom is dead wrong.
The Arabs left the "Palestinians" as refugees because Islam does not allow any Infidel --most especially any Jew Infidel--to hold land once conquered by Islamic armes. Such land is literally believed to be "consecrated to Islam until the Day of Judgement". Hamas Charter of 1988, Article XI.
"This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement."
When it says "this is the law" above, it means:
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.
"Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. "
(same URL as above: Hamas Charter, Article XI)
How did this happen? The Charter tells "the" Jews, who haven't read it yet, apparently:
"As for the real ownership of the land and the land itself, it should be consecrated for Moslem generations till Judgement Day. Those who are on the land, are there only to benefit from its fruit." Interesting. Just being on the land does not confer ownership.
This Waqf remains as long as earth and heaven remain. Any procedure in contradiction to Islamic Sharia, where Palestine is concerned, is null and void."
(same URL: Article XI)
Go. Negotiate with that.
It seems that you live in the USA - your comments are theoretical and quite biased. The real issues do not relate to a few quotes - there are UN resolutions, ICJ rulings and opinions, international accords/agreements, etc. that should be used as the basis for moving forward towards a sustainable peace in that part of the world. I am presuming that you do not live there??
It seems that you live in the USA - your comments are theoretical and quite biased. The real issues do not relate to a few quotes - there are UN resolutions, ICJ rulings and opinions, international accords/agreements, etc. that should be used as the basis for moving forward towards a sustainable peace in that part of the world. I am presuming that you do not live there??
Good that Israel and Gaza are at it. Assad can continue to eradicate the opposition. On this issue the "Economist" doesn't give a death score every day. The Arab butchers continue and the world is only interested in the nasty Israelis who have the temerity to defend themseves.
The once prestigious "Economist" filling up its space with silly irrelevant articles to incite the pro Arab rabble further, screaming out their hatred for Israel and the Jews. This must have been the atmosphere in Nazi Germany before the start of the war.
Reading some of these blogs makes me want to shudder and I thank god that we have our own country again.
You prove the Israeli panic side. Life is not based on arsenal, Stone Heart.
Sorry could you explain what "yikes" means.
After having read some of the posts here, I must say that this thread is reaching a high level of stupidity.
Yes. Even all the op-eds, generals, elites of the world, in surprise about a high level stupidity showed by Israel.
Why add to it.....?
By Israel, but not only by Israel.
By Israel, but not only by Israel.
Egyptian journalist 'Imad Al-Din Adib wrote an article titled "Look For Iran In All That Happens" in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat. He stated:
"Iran plays a devastating role in the Arab arena while exploiting the regional tensions during the Arab Spring revolutions in order to heat up the region and harass Tel Aviv and Washington, which could eventually lead them to agree to negotiate with Iran on Iran's own terms...
The Iranians follow a simple philosophy: 'Start a fire in the region until the world complains about the flames and [world leaders] come to you asking for your intervention. Then you can bargain with them and receive what you want'...
I can see your point but I am amazed about how well manered and reasonable the debate is here when compared with other news sites' comment sections...
Well, I too take your point, this is The Economist, after all, and there are worse places, of course, but have you read the comments of the fanatics of both sides? Here and on other threads about Israel-Gaza. One of them proposed that Tehran be nuked!
I just get back to see your comment and found the clueless remark nukes - and the, let us say, "development" of the argument positing that nukes ended II World War etc.. What could I say? I stand corrected :(
Thank you. Comments like those (there were more, but I think they were deleted) made me mention the "high level of stupidity". Anyway, I obviously referred to the thread as such and to those who posted the stupidities, not to all those —including myself—who posted on it.
Some conflicts can only be resolved with force. Perhaps it's time we just let it play out and be done with it.
I almost hate to agree but you may be right. The people in this region (or at least their leaders) are beyond rational thought. It's a pretty sad state of affairs.
Too true.
I am really curious to hear what your rational thoughts might be on this subject.
Palestinian heros has full rights to defend itself against TERRORIST STATE Israel till sunrise from westward. the UN, the West, Economist, Anonymous, online international community, MEast experts, academic fora, and the World acknowledge that rights. A 63% US now behind Palestine Nation. WWlll will be started by israeli panic worldwide.
It is easy to calculate barbaric tendency of Israeli statehood at seconds. Emerging awakening of human rights worldwide movement. The dignity of Israel on the brink internationally as they optimizing arsenal without mind and heart. The stone heart state ever in panic situation. Isolated systematicaly by its own stupid dark deeds.
The current terrorist state of Israel is only shadowy form of Stern, Hagganah. It GENOCIDEs Palestine. Now Israel is giving up to respond its beast face. Dracula from MEast.
Because Hamas terrorists who want to annihilate Jews like Hitler did are innocent lambs.
Hamas are crazy religious radicals who are from the dark ages and have nothing to contribute to this earth except repression of religious freedom. I hope the Palestinians one day overthrow them.
Islam stole Constantinople from the Christians in 1453 in a terrible seige of the city and changed its name to Istanbul.
The Ottoman Turks were an illegal expanding military force of great cruelty and might and swept through the middle east, illegally establishing the Caliphate on lands that had not been theirs. They stole those lands and illegally held onto them until their defeat in World War One.
What have Hamas said or done that makes them radical and from the "dark ages"?
lets talk facts instead of throwing racist fascist jargon.
What have Hamas said or done that makes them radical and from the "dark ages"?
lets talk facts instead of throwing racist fascist jargon.
The Arab and Muslim leaders only provoke the Palestinian people to needlessly fight with Israelis and thereafter enjoy their death and destruction to create more hatred amongst Muslim and Jewish people.
On the other hand, the same Arab and Muslim dictators torture and kill innocent muslims,in their oun country in much larger number with impunity.The global media led by BBC and CNN ignore these events conveniently as they does not carry the 'glamour' of an Israeli Palestinian dispute.
One day this fact will be understood by moderate muslims/Arabs of the world but I fear, that will be so late that many more innocent Palestinians and other muslim families throughout the Islamic/Arab world will continue to suffer.
Palestinians should look for the future of their children and work towards acheiving durable peace with Israelis and stop being pawns in the hands of these hate mongers.
Further, as an immediate solution, Palestinians should ask these hate mongers to come to Gaza/West Bank and face the Israeli military instead of provoking them, which they are doing since last seven decades.
Everybody keeps talking about how Israels actions stand in the way of peace in the Middle East.
How come nobody ever mentions that the Arab world's continued desire to annihilate Israel is not helpful either.
The Arab world's hatred towards Israel is understandable. Israel is the result of the ONU's decision to give parts (the most fertile lands and strategic areas) the a Jewish government as an apology for what had befallen them during WWII. It was obviously met with great resistance from the entire Arab population, because, after all, who would accept parts of his land being "given" as an apology by the imperialistic forces that have been invading your lands and draining its riches and despising your people?
Israel was not satisfied with the lands that it had and invaded all of Palestine except for Gaza, which has been under siege for many years now. Israel also invaded parts of Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.
Israel also performs genocide against Palestinian people: it has a "tendency" to target civilians, especially children who are more than 50% of the casualties, women and young people in general. I also saw on TV, a long time ago, an Israeli woman saying that no matter how many Palestinians they kill, they still keep coming like ants. As I said, GENOCIDE.
I apologize for my bad English and I do not, in any way, support war, genocide or religion based hatred.
Hamas almost 100% targets civilians. Israel at least tries to avoid hitting them. But Hamas (and other smaller groups) operate in civilian areas, which makes it very hard for Israel to avoid civilian casualties.
Israel could at times show more restraint. But the blame for civilian casualties lies almost entirely with Hamas.
"...who would accept parts of his land being "given" as an apology by the imperialistic forces that have been invading your lands and draining its riches and despising your people?"
When people are on the loosing side of a war, as was the Ottoman Empire, they usually are willing to accept the terms of the peace agreement. This is how wars normally end.
"Israel was not satisfied with the lands that it had and invaded all of Palestine except for Gaza, which has been under siege for many years now. Israel also invaded parts of Syria, Lebanon and Egypt."
What are you smoking? Israel agreed to the Balfour Declaration and declared independence; the Arab states invaded Israel, not the other way around. In '67, Egypt started the war with re-armarment of Sinai and a blockade of Eilat. In '73 Egypt crossed the Suez and attacked.
Israel claims not to target civilians, they claim to target Hamas fighters who hide amongst civilians. There are clearly claims on both sides of this issue; given the general dishonesty and dirty tactics of Hamas, I tend to believe the IDF, but I will accept that there are surely cases where Israel has fired inappropriately. Nonetheless, when comparing an army who is occassionally less discriminating in their targeting than warranted to a terrorist organization that intentionally and deliberately fires on civilians, I'll side with the legitimate army any day.
If you do not support religion-based hatred, surely you object to the Hamas charter that calls for the murder of all Jews then right?
"Israel was not satisfied with the lands that it had and invaded all of Palestine except for Gaza, which has been under siege for many years now. Israel also invaded parts of Syria, Lebanon and Egypt."
Comments like this one, completely ignorant of the history of the region and of the fact that Israel has never started any of the wars resulting in loss of territory by Palestinians--not one--are indicative of a very narrow source of information on your part.
Let's start with this, which you obviously do not know, concerning the '67 war:
Here is what preceded the '67 war:
"It is important to understand that at this point Egypt had perpetrated six specific actions which, in international law, qualify as casus belli, legal justification for war.
1. Conspiring with other belligerent countries (in this case, Syria and Jordan) for a coordinated attack
2. Closing Israel's access to international waterways (the straits of Tiran)
3. Violating the terms of the 1956 armistice by re-militarizing the Sinai
4. Expelling the UN and USA peace-keeping troops form the Sinai
5. perpetrating illegal spy-plane fly-overs to reconnoiter Israeli sensitive areas
6. Massing troops and tanks on Israel's borders.
Israel could have legally launched a defensive war after any one of these casus belli. It chose, instead to try diplomacy, which not only failed to resolve the problem, but gave Egypt and Syria time to accelerate their own preparations for invasion."
You actually wrote: "Israel was not satisfied with the lands that it had and invaded all of Palestine except for Gaza, which has been under siege for many years now. Israel also invaded parts of Syria, Lebanon and Egypt."
Comments like this one, completely ignorant of the history of the region and of the fact that Israel has never started any of the wars resulting in loss of territory by Palestinians--not one--are indicative of a very narrow source of information on your part.
Gaza at one point indeed came under the aegis of Israel, as a result of a war she didn't start, but later,in hopes of peace, Israel withdrew completely, to be rewarded immediately by being attacked FROM Gaza.
Let's continue with this, which you obviously do not know, concerning the '67 war:
Here is what preceded the '67 war:
"It is important to understand that at this point Egypt had perpetrated six specific actions which, in international law, qualify as casus belli, legal justification for war.
1. Conspiring with other belligerent countries (in this case, Syria and Jordan) for a coordinated attack
2. Closing Israel's access to international waterways (the straits of Tiran)
3. Violating the terms of the 1956 armistice by re-militarizing the Sinai
4. Expelling the UN and USA peace-keeping troops form the Sinai
5. perpetrating illegal spy-plane fly-overs to reconnoiter Israeli sensitive areas
6. Massing troops and tanks on Israel's borders.
Israel could have legally launched a defensive war after any one of these casus belli. It chose, instead to try diplomacy, which not only failed to resolve the problem, but gave Egypt and Syria time to accelerate their own preparations for invasion."
"I apologize for my bad English and I do not, in any way, support war, genocide or religion based hatred."
So what hatred do you support? - maybe racial hatred. Calling the killing of Palestinians genocide is a real insult to all the MILLIONS of Jews and Armenians who were wiped out by the Nazis and the Turks. I would think that more Arabs are slaughtered by fellow Arabs each year than Palestinians killed in all the time that Israel has existed. But you lot don't care about that because Arab killing Arab is normative behaviour.
Your ignorance and hypocrisy sickens me.
Israel could show more restraint? While hundreds of rockets hit her territory? What is your address? We'd like to watch you show restraint. You could at times, you know. Since 2001, more than 12,800 rockets and mortars, an average of 3 attacks every single day, have hit Israel.
Your address again?
Firing hundreds of rockets onto the most densely populated, fenced in, area on earth is hardy trying to avoid civilian casualties. Look at the number of people and in particular, children that have been killed in the last few days and you will see there is not way to shell and not have civilian casualties.
Ghaza is a gold fish bowl with no way out, they are sitting ducks who are starved of food, medicine and basic necessities and they have had enough. They watch their land in the W.Bank being taken from them acre by acre on a daily basis and see that very soon there will be no land left for the Palestinians because Israel will have gobbled it all up. They know that they will loose their loved ones, but as the saying goes 'Rather die on your feet than exist on your knees'- or bellies in this case, they have gone past the knees stage.
Tragic that the word is happy to stand by and watch an entire people be subjugated and lowered to the level of pigs in the dust by a bully nation who use propaganda on a level that Goebbels himself would have been hard pressed to emulate, to justify their brutal elimination of a people.
The spark of hope is that people are finally looking beyond the propaganda and using their own eyes and owen brains to see the truth on the ground, and they are NOT happy with what they see. Israel must take care of it could see itself become the pariah of the world due to its inhumane actions.
Number of Israelis killed by fire from Gaza between January 1st 2012 and November 11th 2012: 1
(Source: United Nations)
Number of Palestinians in Gaza killed by Israeli fire during the same period: 78
(Source: United Nations)
Number of Israelis killed by fire from Gaza, November 13th-19th 2012: 3
(Source: press reports)
Number of Palestinians in Gaza killed by Israeli fire, November 13th-19th: 95
(Source: IDF)
Number of those killed in Gaza under 15 years of age: 19
Total number of Israelis killed by rocket, mortar or anti-tank fire from Gaza since 2006: 47
(Source: Wikipedia. This is disputed; another source says 26)
Number of Palestinians in Gaza killed by Israeli fire from April 1st 2006 to July 21st 2012: 2,879
(Source: United Nations)
Number of targets in Gaza struck by Israel, November 13th-19th: 1,350
(Source: IDF)
Number of projectiles fired at Israel from Gaza from November 13th-19th, 2012: 848
(Source: IDF)
Number that did not fall in "open areas": 35
(Source: IDF)
Number intercepted by Israel's Iron Dome defence system: 302
(Source: IDF)
Percentage of projectiles targeted by Iron Dome shot down, as claimed by Israeli military: 80-85%
(Source: IDF)
Number of kilos explosive equivalent in payload of Iranian-supplied Fajr-5 longer-range rocket deployed by Hamas: 90 (200lb)
(Source: Wikipedia)
Number of kilos explosive equivalent of Israel Military Industry's MPR-500 advanced-penetration precision-guided bomb: 900 (2,000lb)
Number of days before Israeli general election: 64
And the multiple bombing on UN schools where only WOMEN AND CHILDREN had sought refuge in Gaza 2008?
The killing of 5'000 children in the massacres in Lebanon in 1982 of Palestinian refugee camps? [almost entirely WOMEN AND CHILDREN].
The short distance shooting of children UNDER THE AGE of 3 in the streets of Gaza 2 days ago.
Supporters of the Terrorist fascist state of Israel tend to ignore that which we do not want to see.
This is a not so subtle warning from Israel to Iran, a warmup for potential future hostilities with Iran, and foremost an attempt by Israel to secure their boarders and free themselves up for action against Iran should it be necessary. If they attacked Iran and didn't secure Gaza first, I bet we'd see a concerted effort by Iran (probably happening already) and the Palestinians to make common cause against Israel potentially to devastating effect.
This is a predictable precursor to an israeli-iranian war... sadly. I desperately hope this can be avoided but how can this be seen in any other way?
This is textbook military strategy.
Realpolitik at its most transparent.
That's a great analysis, and it's what I've been thinking since this conflict began.
My sincere hope is that Iran will stop its nuclear program. I honestly think the best trade-off here would be Israeli nuclear disarmament for Iran abandoning their program.
Although I'm not entirely convinced that this would be the optimal decision for Iran. It's sad the message the West (and China/Japan) have sent recently with North Korea - having nukes pays and pays and pays.
North Korea and Iran will be able to forestall meaningful political reforms indefinitely and extort the rich world and hold us hostage with the weapons that we built.
Sad situation.
Interesting point. Israel would be wise to clear its periphery of rockets before an attack on Iran. Perhaps (and I hate to dabble in conspiracy theories) there's an assumption that Iran's armaments (being used by Hamas and Hezbollah), particularly the Fajr-5, may provide cause for escalation.
Iranian proliferation bodes very poorly for the entire ME, but it's difficult seeing an escape from the current trajectory.
No, Israel is a nation of survivors and their progeny. Their founders survived and escaped the murderous pogroms of the anti-Semitic Russians; many other managed miraculously to escape the Holocaust and the Nazi ovens; others --650,000--were expelled from the Arab states surrounding Israel that attacked these poor Jewish survivors as soon as they founded a state (i.e., got some weapons with which to fight their hateful enemies).
She's not giving up any nuclear weapons as a "trade-off". Not EVER.
Ancestral vengeance justifies any and all measures?
By that logic everyone deserves nuclear weapons. Including the Persians so they can nuke Macedonia in retribution for Alexander the Great.
Your emotional reaction is a little short sighted.
One big fat nuke over Tehran would also do wonders for peace in the Middle East.
thanks Economist for deleting my thorough and well considered comments slapping down this troll's hateful suggestion inciting nuclear war. Glad you have your priorities straight.
Yhea... WTF.
Last I checked there were several comments pointing out how insane his post was, and they got deleted? Odd. Does the Economist just automatically remove any post that gets reported, allowing for trolls to essentially delete anyone who calls them on their insanity? 'cause that seems an ill-considered policy.
I mean, I don't even remember anyone engaging in attacks on RumbaClave, just pointing out the obvious stuff like the fact that Tehran has more people in it than Israel...
Nukes ended WW11.
Its only a matter of time before a huge regional war breaks out in the MIddle East.
Syria is drawing in Turkey, Lebannon and Israel into their civil war. Iran backs and arms Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah. Shites hate Sunnis. The Saudis and Eqypt loth Iran and in Wikileaks Egypt is quoted as cutting the head of the snake (Iran) before it gets the bomb.
And who is the master mischief maker in the region ? Iran.
And in the end. Tehran will be wiped off the map the Israeli and US firepower and the Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein "Dimmies" will have to find a new cause.
Don't worry ,blatant anti-semitic blogs the "Economist" does not remove.
Its time Netanyahu, do the deal, give the Palestinians their state.
You can easily fire bomb a new Palestinian state into oblivion if needed so what are you waiting for ?
Votes from your coalition of nut jobs ?
The only way to deal with this is a peaceful solution, or wiping the Palestinians off the map. This worked very well for the Romans when dealing with the Jews.
Take the high road.
"...Hebron, a southern West Bank city and the stronghold of the clan of Ahmad Jabari, the head of Hamas's military wing, whose assassination on November 14th led to the Israeli offensive..."
For a casual browser of this topic, the lines above led me to believe that whoever assassinated Mr. Jabari had forced Israel to react hence was responsible for the current flare up.
Reports and analysis on the politics, economics and culture of the Middle East, in a blog named after the fruit-bearing shrub that grows throughout the region
The Economist explains: Who would pay a "mansion tax"
The Economist explains
Football and British politics: David Cameron's own goal
Game theory
Britain's election campaign: April 26th: The silence of David Cameron
The week ahead: A very normal affair
Football and politics: David Cameron's own goal
America's Ukrainian mission: Training wheels
Have you listened to The Economist Radio on Facebook?
The Economist Radio is an on-demand social listening platform that allows you to listen, share and recommend The Economist audio content
Test your EQ
Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
Want more from The Economist?
Visit The Economist e-store and you'll find a range of carefully selected products for business and pleasure, Economist books and diaries, and much more


text:
expand Menu
* Location
Current Location
Nights 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
My dates are flexible
Rewards number
Use Rewards points What's This?
Advanced search
Hotels For…
Deals & Packages
Free Wi-Fi for Marriott Rewards® members who book direct.
See Details and participating locations
View and Manage Reservations
Find specific reservations, including those made by phone or when not signed in.
Sign In to My Account
Sign In to view your current reservations.
Remember me What's This?
Remember me
English–US & Canada
Your Stay: 1 Rooms, 1 Guests/room Edit
Free Wi-Fi for Marriott Rewards® members who book direct. See details & participating locations
Sort by
TownePlace Suites Republic Airport Long Island/Farmingdale
Courtyard Republic Airport Long Island/Farmingdale
Melville Marriott Long Island
Residence Inn Plainview Long Island
Long Island Marriott
Residence Inn Long Island Islip/Courthouse Complex
Residence Inn Long Island Hauppauge/Islandia
Islandia Marriott Long Island
Courtyard Long Island MacArthur Airport
Residence Inn Long Island Holtsville
Fairfield Inn New York JFK Airport
Courtyard New York JFK Airport
Courtyard Rye
Fairfield Inn Medford Long Island
Fairfield Inn New York LaGuardia Airport/Flushing
Residence Inn New Rochelle
SpringHill Suites New York LaGuardia Airport
Residence Inn New York The Bronx at Metro Center Atrium
New York LaGuardia Airport Marriott
Courtyard New York LaGuardia Airport
The requested feature is not available for the selected dates. We'd still love to have you as a guest, though! A list of all available hotels appears below.
PointSavers offers up to 33% in point savings, depending on the hotel category and number of nights requested. This hotel is offering Seasonal Awards, so you can use fewer points when you book a stay during these dates.
1 Marriott Plaza Farmingdale, NY 11735
0.5 miles from airport
View Rates
Two Marriott Plaza Farmingdale, NY 11735
New Lobby
1350 Walt Whitman Road Melville, NY 11747
3.8 miles from airport
See details & participating locations
9 Gerhard Road Plainview, NY 11803
4.6 miles from airport
101 James Doolittle Boulevard Uniondale, NY 11553
9.1 miles from airport
7 Court House Dr Central Islip, NY 11722
11.8 miles from airport
850 Veterans Memorial Hwy. Hauppauge, NY 11788
12.3 miles from airport
3635 Express Drive North Islandia, NY 11749
14.6 miles from airport
5000 Express Drive South Ronkonkoma, NY 11779
17.5 miles from airport
25 Middle Avenue Holtsville, NY 11742
19.6 miles from airport
156-08 Rockaway Blvd. Jamaica, NY 11434
19.7 miles from airport
145-11 North Conduit Avenue Jamaica, NY 11436
21.2 miles from airport
631 Midland Avenue Rye, NY 10580
22.3 miles from airport
2695 Route 112 Medford, NY 11763
22.7 miles from airport
28-66 College Point Boulevard Flushing, NY 11354
35 LeCount Place New Rochelle, NY 10801
22.9 miles from airport
112-15 Northern Boulevard Corona, NY 11368
23.4 miles from airport
1776 Eastchester Road Bronx, NY 10461
24 miles from airport
New Hotel
102-05 Ditmars Boulevard East Elmhurst, NY 11369
9010 Ditmars Blvd East Elmhurst, NY 11369
24.6 miles from airport
(proof of eligibility required at check-in)
About special rates

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Product Description
The K-Swiss K-ona Shoe is an ultra light and stable shoe perfect for race-day or when you just need to get out and fly. At 9.5 ounces that K-swiss K-ona shoe is light enough to race up to a full marathon and with a direct injected urethane support cage and TPU midfoot shank it is supportive enough to use as a training shoe. The K-ona also encompasses tri-specific features such as drainage holes and a seamless upper for sockless wear. Add to the mix the incredibly cool Ironman branding and stylish colors and the K-Swiss K-ona shoe is as stylish as it is fast.
- 8.2 oz.
- Flexibility is enhanced by anatomically correct flex-grooves.
- Support is obtained with a direct-injected urethane support cage.
- Stability comes from a rigid TPU midfoot shank.
- Comfort is enhanced with a seamless upper construction.
Product Reviews
Customers also viewed


text:
Indianapolis Colts Gear
Indianapolis Colts Accessories
Indianapolis Colts Accessories Electronics
(55 items)
Product ID: 1075972
Main Content
- 10-15 Meter operating range
- 5 Buttons
- Decorated with the team logo and colors
- DPI switch
- Made in China
- Officially licensed
- Transmitter plugs into your computer's USB port and snaps into the mouse when you're done
- Wireless mouse
Colts Customers also liked:
Special event items are produced by manufacturers only after the outcome of a game
or event. These are advanced sale items and will ship immediately after they are
received in our warehouse.
Manufacturer direct items are shipped directly from the manufacturer. These items
are not available for international or expedited shipping.
Customized items can be personalized with options such as your name, your favorite
number, and/or designs. Some options may be limited by league rules.


text:
Similar images
View allKeywords
Rev. Jesse Jackson leads a march calling for an end to gun violence... News PhotoChicago - Illinois,Crime,Horizontal,Illinois,Justice - Concept,Law,USAPhotographer Scott OlsonCollection: Getty Images News 2013 Getty ImagesCHICAGO, IL - FEBRUARY 02: Rev. Jesse Jackson leads a march calling for an end to gun violence from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. College Prep High School to nearby Harsh Park February 2, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois. Hadiya Pendleton was a fifteen-year-old honor student at King School who was shot and killed while hanging out with friends on a rainy afternoon under a shelter in Harsh Park on January 29. A $40,000 reward has been raised to help find her killer. Pendleton was the 44th homicide recorded in Chicago for 2013. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)


text:
24-48 Hour Shipping Free UPS Shipping Free Drop Shipping Best Price Guarantee Money Back Guarantee Toll-Free Ordering Friendly Customer Service Home - Office Decor Holiday Gifts Corporate Gifts Fine Art Collectibles Retirement Gifts Wedding Gifts Awards Landscaping
Frederic Remington
Classical Studies
Life-Size Bronzes
Gift Certificates
Free Brochure
Lost Wax Casting Process
Policies & FAQ
Contact Us
Nude Girl With Bird This bronze statue by Fayral is handmade and cast in the traditional Lost Wax Casting Process. This insures a quality bronze sculpture that may be passed down from generation to generation. This is a beautiful nude bronze statue that will add to any art deco/ nouveau room. Size: Regular - 14" H x 5" L - $283.00 Sale $202.00
Safe, Secure, Friendly in-person ordering. Toll free at 1-800-664-4034
With thousands of bronze statues to choose from, FR Bronze has the largest selection all at wholesale prices to the public. [ F&R Bronze Site Map ] [ Home ] [ Products ] [ Contact-us ] [ Policies ] [ Free Color Brochure ] [ Gift Certificates ] [ Resources ]
© 2005 F&R Bronze Company Inc. firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
No matter what type of skin you have, your first line of attack against the impurities and environmental pollutants that can damage it and hide its beauty should always be a formula that eliminates these particles. Choosing the right kind of solution isn't always simple. After all, it is important for you to find the type of product that you prefer. You may want a solution that lathers up or doesn't lather up. You might also be searching for a formula that is oil free or alcohol free. Finding exactly what you want and need could be as simple as looking through our collection of ASAP Cleansers. Each one of these formulations comes from a brand developed by a cosmetic practitioner who took the time to create exceptional solutions for daily skin care needs.
Dr. Douglas Grose designed ASAP Cleansers to enhance the beauty of the skin while meeting specific needs, such as the elimination of impurities. Each of the ASAP Cleansers has been carefully researched and blended. When you choose ASAP Cleansers, you receive solutions that contain quality ingredients noted for their successful performance.
Blended in an effort to offer women choices that fight off environmental aggressors and the damage they cause for their skin care needs, the full line of ASAP Cleansers offer high performance and good results. Whether you spend two hours exposed to Mother Nature's environmental challenges of harsh winds, extreme weather, and the assault of the sun's rays or you spend a half a day, these formulas are designed to serve and protect your skin from harm.
Designed for individuals who simply cannot abide an oily cleanser, ASAP Daily Facial Cleanser is completely oil free. This highly effective product has been formulated to deliver deep cleansing capabilities that reach in and pull out impurities from the skin's pores, leaving you with fresh skin each and every time you use it. Blended with AHAs, this smoothing formulation eliminates the dead skin cells that dull your countenance, leaving it looking old and damaged. As a result, your skin also looks brighter and younger in appearance.
If you prefer a soap-free solution for the removal of impurities from your skin, you should be pleasantly surprised with the quality formula offered with the ASAP Gentle Cleansing Gel. This calming facial cleanser soothes the skin through its inclusion of aloe vera and white tea. This soothing cleansing solution creates a light lather that eliminates dirt, grime, and makeup from your skin, revealing a younger looking radiance. The gentleness featured in this soapless cleansing solution enhances its suitability for all kinds of skin, including dry and sensitive types.


text:
AnnaSophia Robb Pink Lipstick
A pretty pink lip complemented AnnaSophia's bold clutch perfectly.
AnnaSophia Robb Long Braided Hairstyle
From the front, AnnaSophia's 'do looked simple. But a closer look at the back revealed an elegant French braided ponytail.
Show AnnaSophia Robb Looks With:
Pink Lipstick also worn by:
more Pink Lipstick looks »
More From StyleBistro
even more beauty looks »


text:
Balkinization   |
Sunday, April 15, 2007
More on presidential dictatorship Sandy Levinson
I have gotten into hot water before by suggesting that our vaunted (and highly defective) Constitution in effect creates a partial presidential dictatorship. Some people, wrongly I believe, assume that the notion of "a partial...dictatorship" is an oxymoron. I will address that point more below. Others, just as wrongly, say that we can't describe the President as a dictator because, after all, he (and I won't bother adding the usual "or she" in this particular posting) is "accountable" to We the People, unlike "real" dictators.
Impeachment may be, as you say in your essay, politically pointless, but it would be incredibly significant from an institutional standpoint. A Bruce Fein has pointed out, the precedents of the Bush administration will sit around like loaded weapons, just waiting for the executive who can cite an urgent need. Perhaps amending the constitution would be a better long term solution, but the consequences of an unrestrained executive could present themselves much sooner. At the very minimum, Congress might at some point reconsider a censure resolution to assert their understanding of the separation of powers as it pertains to any number of controversies. Wouldn't such a vote be similar in effect to a vote of no confidence? Or are there constitutional problems with such action?
And its 645 days.
This post re-states some past arguments, so various replies can be equally cited. I still don't know why it would be so darn complicated to find "high crimes and misdemeanors" in this case.
It is not counting angels on a pin given the lists of violations raised by many people. I have this idea this is ignored for some sort of strategic point, akin to thinking that the modern administrative state was impossible since hey it wasn't really done ... before it was. The breadth of "dictator-like" powers is also interesting. Is prosecutorial discretion a problem then, esp. as decided from up high, perhaps if we can have a grand jury (representing the populance) decided whether or not to bring the case? If it decides yes, is it "dicatatorial" for a single prosecutor to decide to not bring the case to fruitation, perhaps for a reason not compelled by civil liberties concerns? IOW, any number of decisions boil down to acts of one. Not just in the executive dept. I'm sure some are troubling, like the power of individual senators (is senatorial courtesy overall, including for local officials, to be damned totally? etc.) in practice. Finally, to get anything done, the President (usually) has to compromise if Congress cares to challenge singular acts in various cases. Bush himself pulled back repeatedly, as various lists of his "flip flops" suggest. And, overall, over history, Presidents acted more carefully, even if their had the power not to do so. But, the concern is there, surely, and the professor supplies food for thought.
Sandy: I think the reason why people are offended by the claim that President Bush is exercising the powers of a constitutional dictator (i.e., unlimited powers in certain areas) is that they mistakenly think that a dictatorship means a totalitarian dictatorship. This administration, for all its faults, is clearly not that sort of dictatorship. A much better comparison, I would argue, is with the nations that borrowed presidentialism from us, namely the republics of Latin America. There the line between presidential democracy and constitutional dictatorship has long been blurred as presidents (and generals) used the fear of insurrection to augment their power. Similarly, President Bush has used the so-called war on terror to augment his power. If we want to get a good idea of what the consequences of what the war on terror will be, we only need to look south of our border. The consequences will be a blurring of the lines between presidential democracy and constitutional dictatorship. Miguel
I regard all of these comments as friendly. I would not object to an attempt to "censure" President Bush for "abuses of office." I agree with Nicholas (and, apparently, Bruce Fein) that the Bush presidency indeed has generated precedents that are available to successors who may wish to be equally "strong" presidents (such as, I suspect, Hillary Clinton).
As for Miguel's important point about the virtues of looking south for evidence, he is absolutely correct, just as he is with regard to distinguishing between "totalitarian" dictatorships (which Bush gives no evidence of aspiring to) and the more limited domain dictatorship to which Miguel draws our attention. I'd also note that Kim Lane Scheppele, a sometime contributor to Balkinization, is doing absolutely seminal work on the world-wide growth of executive power that is occurring partly in response to UN Security Council resolutions encouraging an "emergency-power" view of what is necessary to fight the "global war on terrorism." Part of her argument is elaborated in an article that recently appeared in the Georgia Law Review, responding to my own essay on "Constitutional Norms and Permanent Emergencies." I strongly recommend her response and, indeed, anything that she has published on the subject.
I completely agree with you about the Bush presidency, but I disagree to some extent about the remedies.
The basic problem is that we need to give the Executive some discretion in order to accomplish good. At the same time, of course, we'd like to prevent that discretion from being misused, but taking away the power also means taking away the ability when we need it. From my perspective, the real failures of the last 7 years have been the Courts (the decision in Bush v. Gore was indefensible); Congress (where the Republican majority sacrificed the national interest to partisan interests); and the press (which woefully failed to expose the lies and inadequacies of the Administration). For these reasons, I think the problem is broader than you suggest, but, perhaps, easier to fix. Good effects might come from relatively minor changes in the Executive such as reducing a veto override to 60 votes or eliminating executive privilege in order to assure transparency or writing the War Powers Act into the Constitution. At the same time, though, we need to focus on the failure of Congress and the courts to fulfill their responsibilities and of the press to change its "he said/she said" style of "reporting". Whatever we do with or to the presidency can't alone suffice; only countervailing power can do that.
May I point out that decreasing the votes necessary to override a veto would itself require a constitutional amendment, since the magic 2/3 requirement is in the text.
Changing executive privilege--I'm not sure that even I would favor eliminating it entirely--would presumably require a statute that could itself be vetoed by the President. And, of course, any prosecution for contempt of Congress appears to have to go through the DOJ controlled by the President. As for the failures of Congress, one of the reasons I have been so vigorously commending Darryl (no relation) Levinson's work is that he demonstrates that the "villain," if such it is, is the party system that leads members of Congress to play dead with regard to presidents of their own party. That we see a Democratic Congress now vigorously investigating the Executive is evidence of how the party system operates, in conjunction with separated institutions, rather than a sign that a reified entity called "congress" has suddenly determined to wake up from its four-year slumbers. I don't how much I would trust the present Congress to engage in significant oversight over a Clinton presidency for just that reason.
As for the failures of Congress, one of the reasons I have been so vigorously commending Darryl (no relation) Levinson's work is that he demonstrates that the "villain," if such it is, is the party system that leads members of Congress to play dead with regard to presidents of their own party.
I would agree. So long as the parties remain as polarized as they are today, our choices are divided government, with little getting done, or one-party government, with abuses running unchecked. Divided government is the lesser evil.
Sandy, it seems like you are describing a system that looks a lot like Mexico, only with the additional twist of a second, four year term.
That's worked out well.
[T]he "villain," if such it is, is the party system that leads members of Congress to play dead with regard to presidents of their own party. That we see a Democratic Congress now vigorously investigating the Executive is evidence of how the party system operates, in conjunction with separated institutions, rather than a sign that a reified entity called "congress" has suddenly determined to wake up from its four-year slumbers. I don't how much I would trust the present Congress to engage in significant oversight over a Clinton presidency for just that reason.
I am re-reading your posts that reference D. Levinson, such as this one... IS JAMES MADISON COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT? Whenever I see this observation and criticism of the two party system, and it's tendency towards polarization, even when the differences between the parties themselves are relatively minor, only becoming distorted and magnified by the lens of media, I am reminded of Duverger's Law. I'm sure most of you learned gentlemen are familiar with it. Hamilton could never have known about it. It wasn't "discovered" and become "law" until after 1960. I would agree. So long as the parties remain as polarized as they are today, our choices are divided government, with little getting done, or one-party government, with abuses running unchecked. Divided government is the lesser evil. If polarized and divided government is the lesser evil, and Monsieur Duverger is correct, we may be stuck with it unless we make some changes.
May I point out that decreasing the votes necessary to override a veto would itself require a constitutional amendment, since the magic 2/3 requirement is in the text.
Of course, but there are different dynamics to the situation. With an amendment there's no immediate partisan issue as there is with a veto. Thus, party loyalty isn't on the line. Relatedly, Congress has institutional interests which may incline them to support a lower threshold; it makes Congress more influential, after all. It's also possible to "sweeten" the amendment in order to avoid potential resistance. For example, it could be written so as not to take effect for 4 years, thereby making it unclear which party will benefit. Alternatively, it might be combined with some other issue of importance such as a line item veto. So long as the parties remain as polarized as they are today, our choices are divided government, with little getting done, or one-party government, with abuses running unchecked. Divided government is the lesser evil. I personally think gerrymandering causes much of the problem. If we could eliminate that (yeah, I know), there might be less incentive to wish for divided government.
Mark Field is absolutely right that we ought to be able to have a quite non-partisan discussion right now about whether we want the president elected in 2012 to a) have a policy-based veto at all or b) cut down the override requirement to 60% instead of two-thirds. This surely wouldn't require a convention. The real question, of course, is whether anyone in the "real" political system (to be distinguished from the blogosphere) would be willing to make such a proposal.
Professor Levinson:
I have a hard time seeing the President's range of plenary powers (which are primarily limited to foreign policy) to be any more "dictatorial" than Congress' much broader range of plenary powers. Plenary powers are not dictatorial. Rather, they are simply a division of duties. No plenary power granted to either elected branch is free from checks by the other branch. Congress may check the President's foreign policy powers through the power to declare war, raise money and approve treaties. The President has the veto. If the stakes are high enough, the Congress has the ultimate trump of impeachment. The President cannot remove a Congress. Institutionally, the Congress has far more power than the President under the Constitution. However, this is balanced somewhat by the fact that the Executive has one decision maker wielding power - the President - while the Congress can tie itself in knots and must rule through consensus. However, this in itself does not make the President a "dictator." Dictators can dictate policy. However, the President is subject to congressional and judicial checks and balances. You make an interesting point about the lack of accountability for a term limited President in his final term which is not shared by congressional representatives and senators who can run over and over again for a lifetime. However, I would also observe that a President who cannot run again is also at the nadir of his power because he cannot punish a recalcitrant Congress by running against it in the next election. Indeed, the off year election in a President's second term often results in substantial losses for the President's party in Congress, weakening him further. Thus, the Congress will begin ignoring the "lame duck" President more and more as time passes after the second election and especially when new faces take the lead for the party as the next presidential election gets underway. Thus, a President in his second term is more often reduced to second fiddle rather than promoted to dictator over Congress.
I think that both Mr. DePalma and I are correct. That is, a lameduck president's powers are certainly reduced in precisely the way he suggests. On the other hand, the President retains a great deal of formal power, and, as we see daily, he can exercise this formal power without having to get the consent of Congress. That is just what "plenary power" means.
And, of course, I don't think that impeachment represents a serious threat to most presidents. I continue to believe that the Republicans would never have impeached Clinton had they not been confident that the Senate would not convict and therefore put Al Gore in the White House, free to run as the incumbent. Impeachment can tie up a president's domestic agenda, as it most certainly did for Clinton, but it doesn't affect his formal military or foreign policy authority.
Mark Field:
or writing the War Powers Act into the Constitution.... Been there, done that. What we need to do is to getthe freakin' courts off their butts and get them to say that the Constitution means what it says. To my mind, the reluctance fo the courts to do so previously has to do with some deference in times of at least debatable threats to national security and interests. Maybe the present situation(s?) may make an excellent time for the courts to say "enough's enough" and rein in the executive usurpation of a sometimes-more-than-willingly-delegated war powers, and perhaps a closer look at whether in fact the "exigencies" cited for a need for the executive to engage in precipiate action w/o Congressional action really make sense. In my mind, they don't (and what the Founders thought that the limits on such unilateral executive actions were back then aren't too much different from what pertains today). Maybe with such a stoopid and unnecessary war, we have the right vehicle to really properly assess the proper roles of Congress and the executive.
Prof. Levinson:
I continue to believe that the Republicans would never have impeached Clinton had they not been confident that the Senate would not convict and therefore put Al Gore in the White House, free to run as the incumbent. Prof. Levinson: I think you ascribe to them more rationality than warranted, and far less hostility and anger. As for the consequences and sequelae, I suspect they were like the Underpants Gnomes. Cheers,
I too would be taken aback by the claim that the President of the United States is a partial dictator simply because at this point in time the word is defined more by current usage than the nature of the Roman office.
But Professor Levinson gets at some very fundamental value issues with his characterization. If I had to choose between (a) being ruled by a King who I could sue in common law court and whose powers were limited and dependent upon securing basic rights of the people, and (b) being ruled by a perfectly democratic body that had unrestricted and undelegated authority, I would choose the King. To me some of the most problematic aspects of some of the President's unchecked powers are that modern office holders don't feel a responsibility to use them. There are far more people than Scooter Libby who have a case for pardoning. Foreign policy is a tougher question. If the President really had dictatorial powers in that arena, we wouldn't be arguing about his powers in Gitmo. He could simply declare himself judge, jury, executioner, and court stenographer. Or rather, he could declare it and be unchallenged. I am surprised that Professor Levinson expresses the least concern about regulatory agencies. Veto and pardon powers are limited and defined, but regulatory agencies touch nearly every aspect of modern life. Here the King's powers are least guaranteed to be premised upon respect for the rights of the people, and they can do the most amount of active harm to ordinary Americans.
I think you ascribe to [the Republicans who impeached Clinton] more rationality than warranted, and far less hostility and anger. As for the consequences and sequelae, I suspect they were like the Underpants Gnomes.
I remember at the time that there were lots of ordinary Republicans who supported impeachment but didn't want Gore to be the incumbent. It's really a matter of a different irrationality: the Republicans impeached Clinton as a value statement rather than a practical measure. It was an expression of their moral contempt for Clinton rather than an attempt to accomplish a goal. I will leave it as an excercise to the reader to note other Republican policies that better serve to express a moral value than to accomplish their ostensible goal.
I sort of referenced the point earlier, but Mark Field is quite right in focusing at the breadth of the problem. I honestly fear that this is not always done here, and the hope for reform and change (consider all that was done just since early January in Congress) is deemed as too hopeless.
The presidency inherently has some problems, and unlike some here imply, Sandy Levinson has been say so before 1/20/01, but this one has been particularly so. And, the lack of adequate checks and balances (plus 9/11 ... before 9/11 his credibility was already slipping and after 9/11 helped the Rs regain control of the Senate) is a major part of the problem. As to Arne and the courts, a tragedy is that Bush v. Gore perverted the hope for an adequate check in this regard, though there is some hope given even Bush appointees realize some limits on executive power. The SC and lower courts in the immediate future, until grade school children go to college in various cases, will have the balance of power in large part controlled by Bush judges. It is a bit depressing.
JimM47... I am surprised that Professor Levinson expresses the least concern about regulatory agencies
Perhaps because they don't, as a rule, arrest, detain and execute you?
Maybe the underlying issue is that our system isn't all that well designed? That we're tinkering with a system that wasn't that competently designed in the first place, but was just a stop-gap measure?
We always work from the assumption that the US Constitution is a work of genius, that the "Founding Fathers" were exceptional, that our success as a nation over the last century and a half is due to their fine craftsmanship. This naturally leads to discussions on how to tweak the congress or the presidency. Is that true? If not, discussing tweaking is downright silly - it won't make a significant difference. Why would I suspect that it's not true? Well, as pointed out up-thread, the basic presidentialist model has been tried throughout the Americas, and has failed, often disastrously, everywhere but in the US. It naturally leads towards dictatorship, or at least to a destructive centralization of power. How are we different? One possibility is that our legal system is not Napoleonic but common-law, which creates a certain judicial friction against centralizing power. But the most obvious difference is wealth: our nation was founded at one edge of an extraordinarily wealthy continent, but whose native peoples were extraordinarily technologically unsophisticated. In South and Central America there simply did not exist the same opportunity to steal a continent - Central America had large cities, and South America is geographically split by the spine of the Andes. Additionally, North America is much closer via ocean trade routes with both Europe and Asia, giving it a huge trade advantage over our southern neighbors (the most successful of which, Chile and Argentina, were on those same trade routes before the opening of the Panama canal). So maybe, just maybe, almost any system would have succeeded that was friendly to business and technologically advanced. We didn't need to be geniuses, we didn't need a well designed political system, just a minimally competent system. Our advantaged position made it inevitable that almost any such system would succeed. And now we face a changed world and a matured nation: the cracks will emerge (and have been emerging), decade by decade. If that is so, tinkering with presidential power will do little to avoid the oncoming problems.
I very much appreciate RandomSequence's comments. They obviously are congruent with my own general critique of the Constitution, but they may actually be even deeper in their implications. For the ultimate question is whether any conceivable political system will offer that mix of "energy" and protections against tyranny that is at the heart of the liberal constitutionalist project. It would be foolish indeed for me to argue that any revised Constitution that came out of a constitutional convention, even if supported it in all respects, would in fact be a sufficient cure for the various ailments we face in the 21st century, ranging from global warming to the full economic awakening of Asia and, I suspect in coming years, Africa.
I've been waiting to see if anybody else would say it, but nobody has, so -- here goes: Lacking a mathematics of politics I cannot prove this, but I rather strongly suspect that any office powerful enough to be effective can be abused by an unscrupulous person. (Call this Godel's theorem of politics.) In a perfect world, a system designed around checks and balances would be sufficient to restrain such an executive, but as we see in the world we have, those whose job it should be to perform the balancing may instead be unwilling or unable to balance. The electorate may be misinformed or misled into returning those who have not done their constitutional duty, and how do you contemplate forcing the electorate to perform their portion of the task of upholding their freedom? A new constitution, while possibly fixing some problems with our current system, does not appear to me to have a good chance to fix any of the above problems, and they are at the center of the problems we face today.
Why should any particular office be effective? In all seriousness, in any security situation, you always partition effectiveness across numerous offices requiring consensus to act. Two different keys have to be turned to launch a missile. The Romans had two consuls who could block each other. The Spartans had two kings. Some European countries use coalition systems, so any significant policy change without consensus is likely to collapse the government. It's what is meant by checks and balances. But those checks and balances can not be static - in the dynamism of the real world, they need to be continually (at the rate of decades or centuries) re-partitioned. The "real" problem today is that a system designed to constrain a small bureaucracy is incapable of handling the massive bureaucracy of a world hegemon - see Rome for former examples. The bureaucrats (and their master, the president) outweigh the representative arms of the government. Our current system has too few points of capture to effectively control that bureaucracy (including the military). Of course, you're right by Godel that any formal system is going to have "bugs". Any election system can be manipulated to thwart the electorate, for example. But that just means that we are in a constant arms race, fixing bugs as new ones appear - that's just the "Red Queen Effect" in biology. Or is your position simply that the Swiss are smarter than we are?
Random Sequence:
The "real" problem today is that a system designed to constrain a small bureaucracy is incapable of handling the massive bureaucracy of a world hegemon - see Rome for former examples. The bureaucrats (and their master, the president) outweigh the representative arms of the government. That, I think, encapsulates the real problem today. The executive power of government, all government, has grown beyond what anyone in the 18th century could have imagined. A form of government that was perfectly reasonable then is out of balance now because of the vast growth in executive power. Also, the Founders assumed political parties would be limited to the legislature and the excutive would be above partisanship. So we have an executive vastly larger than anyone in the 18th century could have foreseen, with an unabashedly partisan leader. Brett, presumably, would say that we should cut back our executive to what it was in the 18th century and government will be back in balance, but I think the vast growth in executive power is necessary and inevitable for our highly complex, commercial, technically specialized society. Significantly, newer government than ours do more to curb the executive. Most European governments are parliamentary and dispense with an independent executive altogether. Most US states have multiple executive offices, independently elected. Either approach, as you say, would require a radical reorganization of our government.
I strongly recommend Beyond Camelot: Rethinking the Modern State (Princeton U. Press, 2005), which is directly relevant to this discussion. It is worth the time it requires to go through Rubin's often disconcerting arguments (and, for the record, I'm not sure his use of Camelot as a metaphor works very well). What is so disturbing is that he believe that we simply junk a lot of our ordinary concepts of analyzing politics and law, including, among other things, "democracy." It's far from a perfect book, but he tackles many of the most basic issues that arise if we try to make sense of our contemporary constitutional order (in a way that has nothing at all to do with one's particular views of George W. Bush).
I would posit three primary reasons why our Repuiblic has flourished while others have failed.
1) The Framers succeeded in their goal of creating a constitutional system which limits the exercise of government power to the bare minimum necessary to govern. The vertical checks and balances between the federal and state governments and the horizontal checks and balances between the three branches of government require and effective super majority consensus to exercise power. Given the failure rate among our representative systems, I think the Founders found the right balance. 2) Short of a military coup, there is no way a President can exercise anything close to dictatorial power. Because this is so, we are well and truly blessed with a military which (with the exception of military funding) generally stays out of politics. The military is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not to declare loyalty to any particular government. (However, as I posted before, I worry that this may change if the members of the military continue to come from the same families and membership in and support for the military continues to be a partisan affair.) 3) The Government generally respects the law. Probably because they were enacted with super majority support, there is no dispute over following the vast majority of laws. When there is a dispute between the branches or parties over the legitimacy of a law, the democratic branches have almost always respected the tie breaker function of the judiciary. For example, the caricature here of "King George" doesn't quite match the fact that the President has complied with court orders which have gone against him. Compare that with "KIng Abraham."
Random Sequence,
There may be no hope that we'll converge here, but let me just say a few things about your reply: Vesting effectiveness in multiple, rather than single positions, is pretty much a recipe for responsibility failures and for ineffective government. Why have government at all, if it isn't going to be effective? (That's rhetorical: I've got these strong libertarian leanings that answer that question for me.) I've never been a big fan of Roman government, nor of Sparta. As for the Swiss, what little real predictive or explanatory "political science" exists indicates that, the more homogeneous a society is, the more effective a pure democracy is likely to be, or so I've seen argued. My point was that the current failure in American government -- and let me state, for the record, that I absolutely agree with the Professor's assertion that we are currently living under a form of dictatorship, unaccountable to the wishes of the people -- anyway, the current situation appears to stem from a failure of the electorate to elect "good government" rather than directly from a hopelessly flawed constitution. If the problem does lie with the electorate, then it seems that fixing other problems are unlikely to be effective.
Post a Comment
There is a balance between completely ineffective and overly effective. We needn't go libertarian to reign in some "over-effectiveness". The electorate is not disjoint from the system. In other words, just calling people idjits gets us no where - we are idjits for a reason, and I say it's the system. You may be right about democracy working better with a closer common understanding. There's an easy fix to that - decentralize. Who thinks that a centralized nation of 300 million is a good idea? I certainly don't - hard to see how we could have democracy under those conditions. |
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |


text:
Worship as a Body
The psalmist declares, "I was glad when they said to me, 'Let us go to the house of the Lord!'" (Ps. 122:1; emphasis mine). Worldly distractions, bad theology, or indwelling sin can cause us to lose sight of why we …Read More
Sight, Place, and the Presence of God
A great debate and controversy over what is proper worship before God is going on in our time. As I have wrestled with this question, I keep going back to the Old Testament. I know this is a dangerous practice …Read More
Into the World
I've long been fascinated with those moments in Jesus' life when the veil of His human flesh gave way to a vision of His refulgent glory as the Son of God. What must it have been like to be one …Read More
Relevant, Old Paths
My dad was fifty-two years old when I was born. When I was thirteen, he asked me if I was embarrassed that he was so much older than my friends' dads. I told him I wasn't embarrassed but that I …Read More
The Pastor's Example of Evangelism
In his final letter, Paul charges Timothy, his son in the faith, to "do the work of an evangelist" (2 Tim. 4:5). By these words, the aged Apostle establishes the timeless standard for pastoral ministry, not only for young Timothy …Read More
Competent to Counsel: An Interview with Jay Adams
Tabletalk: Over the course of your life, what have you found to be your most significant ministry focus? Why? Jay Adams: As I look back on sixty-plus years of ministry, I suspect that the ministry focus on exegesis has more …Read More
I Am with You Always
What a wonderful way to conclude a gospel. The story of the God who came from heaven to earth wraps up with the assurance, "And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matt. 28:20). Though …Read More
In Defense of Words
What is a pastor? I was asked this question not too long ago by a teenage girl who apparently didn't know the meaning of the word pastor and was curious to learn. I must admit that I was somewhat shocked …Read More
All Things Well
Back before electronic calendars and smartphones, many of us used something called a Day-Timer. I got my first professional Day-Timer when I joined the staff of a church at nineteen years old. And though I haven't used a Day-Timer in …Read More
Reasons for Separation
Separation is a perennially tricky topic in the Christian church. After all, the Bible has much to say about loving neighbors and enemies, teaching that seems to stand at odds with the notion of separating from someone. Furthermore, at the …Read More
Browse select Tabletalk articles and columns exploring themes and topics across a spectrum of relevant issues.Topics
- All
- Angels and Demons
- Atonement
- Basic Reformed Theology
- Irresistible Grace
- Limited Atonement
- Perseverance of the Saints
- Total Depravity
- Unconditional Election
- The Church
- Church Discipline
- Church Leadership
- Creeds and Confessions
- God
- Holiness
- Sovereignty
- Heaven and Hell
- Heresies
- The Holy Spirit
- Jesus Christ
- Cross
- Incarnation
- Resurrection
- Justification
- Last Things
- Man and Sin
- Sacraments
- Salvation
- Faith
- Regeneration
- Scripture
- Systematic Theology
- Theological Views
- Roman Catholicism
- Music
- Apologetics
- False Teaching
- Atheism
- Book Reviews
- Children's Books
- Christian Classics
- Christianity and Culture
- Creation
- Ethics
- Fiction and Literature
- Philosophy
- Science
- Bible Figures
- Bible Interpretation
- Bibles
- Books of the Bible
- Gospels
- Covenants
- Introduction to the Bible
- Jesus' Ministry
- Life of Jesus
- New Testament
- Old Testament
- Parables
- Prophecy
- Sermon on the Mount
- Ten Commandments
- The Lord's Prayer
- Controversies in the Church
- Alcohol
- Arts
- Bible Translation
- Covenant Theology
- Creationism
- Education
- Gender-Neutral Language
- Law and Gospel
- Lordship Salvation
- New Perspective on Paul
- Politics
- Race
- Sabbath
- Spiritual Gifts
- Women in Ministry
- Marriage and Family
- Divorce
- Parenting
- Practical Theology
- Discipleship
- Evangelism and Missions
- Grief and Death
- Pastoral Ministry
- Preaching
- Worship
- Spiritual Growth
- Anxiety and Worry
- Apostasy
- Assurance
- Conscience
- Depression
- Doubt
- Fellowship
- Godliness
- Guilt
- Humility
- Joy
- Knowing God's Will
- Legalism
- Love
- Money and Stewardship
- Oaths and Vows
- Prayer
- Pride
- Repentance and Forgiveness
- Sanctification and Growth
- Service
- Spiritual Fruit
- Suffering
- Thankfulness
- Vocation
- American Church History
- Ancient Church
- Biography
- Eighteenth Century
- Enlightenment and Modernism
- Historical Theology
- Medieval Church
- Nineteenth Century
- Puritanism
- Reformation
- Seventeenth Century
- Twentieth Century