Israel+America=Trouble?

“Mutt: First of all, your argument by insult is tedious and distasteful. When someone, even trolling, posts with approval of Pali terrorists - I've criticized them. I've posted links to the Hamas manifesto and pointed to their genocidal goals. The reason there are more arguments about Israeli policies is because there is more disagreement here on TT. Also, the fact that we have been giving Israel something close to 1,000 er year per citizen gives us more leverage and more responsibility for what Israel does.

I'm not anti-Israel. My ex was Israeli, which means my sons are dual citizens. My 18 year old son (who has hiked with AmyG, Mad River, and SirPete) arrived in Israel last week and will spend 6 months on a Kibbutz. Yesterday I learned first hand what it's like to hear of suicide/homocide bombings and wonder if your loved ones are OK.

Hamas and its kind are evil - hatred has overwhelmed their humanity. But just because one has evil enemies (as well as other enemies) doesn't mean that everything you do is just.”

“Also Mutt, I am surprised to see you concede that Israeli terrorism came first. There is a good case to be made that Palestinian, anti-Jewish, terrorism emerged in the 1920's (with Pogroms and the Hebron massacre) - whereas Zionist terror emerged in the 1930's.

One pattern that has been in place all along is that the anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist terror has generally been aimed to maximize civilian deaths. Seldom has this been true with acts of Zionist terror.”

“The reason there are more arguments about Israeli policies is because there is more disagreement here on TT

I'm not sure about that. Tilt and Violin both look at the Pali terrorists as legitimate freedom fighters, and go to lengths to defame Israel.

But just because one has evil enemies (as well as other enemies) doesn't mean that everything you do is just.

The difference is, Israel is a decent democracy. It's self effacing and capable of owning up to mistakes and punishing wrong-doers. Of course not everything the IDF has done has been just. But, the point here is that the AINOs use those injustices to draw a moral equation between the two. Just ask Tilt.

Also Mutt, I am surprised to see you concede that Israeli terrorism came first.

I did? I'd say that 99% of Israeli atrocities were in response to Arab atrocities.

There is a good case to be made that Palestinian, anti-Jewish, terrorism emerged in the 1920's (with Pogroms and the Hebron massacre) - whereas Zionist terror emerged in the 1930's

Yes, the Balfour Declaration triggered that terrorism. I do believe that Jewish atrocities followed the pogroms, before the '30's. I could be wrong about that.”

“Just kinda curious but why does Israel warrant our support? What do they do for us?

Not to be some sorta right wing crackpot but don't we support them because a) we feel guilty about WWII and b) the Jewish lobby in the U.S. is so strong? Other than that, I can't really see why we prop them up.”

“Rosey: Even more important than those two factors is the strong Christian evangelical support for Israel. There is also a reasonable abhorence for the kinds of things Israel is up against.”

“For anyone who hasn't seen it before, the Hamas covenenant will give you a good idea of what Hamas is really about. They are, at least, honest. I think it is Hamas's "Mein Kampf."

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm”

“One chilling part of the Hamas covenant:

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).”

“That runs completely counter to what the Quran teaches. The Quran doesn't come close to calling for the deaths of Jews or christians. Pagans yes, but not fellow monotheists as the Jews are or even christians who worship a manifestation.”

“The Quran confuses me a bit, but there are parts that certainly preach tolerance even for "idolators."

"If any of the idolaters ask you for protection, give them protection until they have heard the words of God. Then convey them to a place where they are safe." (Surat at-Tawba: 6)

And for Christians and Jews:

O People of the Book! Let us rally to a common formula to be binding on both us and you: That we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God. (Surat Al 'Imran, 64)

Note that the Hamas citation I pasted references a second hand report of something attributed to Mohamed, not the Quran.”

“The Quran also says:

"Dispute not with the People of the Book save in the fairer manner, except for those of them that do wrong; and say, 'We believe in what has been sent down to us, and what has been sent down to you: Our God and your God is One, and to Him we have surrendered'." (XXIX: The Spider: 45)

but then it says: "O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them..." (V: The Tables: 55)

so maybe the idea is tolerance without respect and a clear awareness that those people of the book who are exposed to Islam and do not accept it will go to hell.”

“Ped if you are really interested here is a site that is of the Reasonist movement of Islam. There is very little rhetorical bent to it. It is what you would call maybe literalist Islam as they follow what the Quran teaches and what it teaches alone. They have the entire English Quran there and the frequently asked questions give gobs of info and proof text as to what the Quran teaches exactly.

Through the course of many a on line arguments with unreasonable Jews who hate Muslims I have also compiled the master list of claims against Islam and the Quran and the answers to those questions. If the site doesn’t quench any thirst you have I can give you the list.

Submission.org”

“I'll break my usual policy of not responding to trolls just this once.

I've got a friend serving in the Israeli Army in the West Bank right now. As a resident of New Jersey, I'd be willing to bet I've got more Jewish friends, neighbors and coworkers than some jerk-off from Dogpatch.”

“LOL - Violin called someone else a troll!

"Usual policy" - Bwahahahahaha!

Thanks Adolph, you made my day.”

“LOL! Violin is as relevant as my Ab-roller machine! All dusty and I don’t them seriously!”

“I found a good site on myths about the media and Israel here.”

“Nigal - submission.org isn't working right now, but I'll try it again later.

I've read some of the Koran and have known and read some incredible people who were Moslems.

I think the Koran, like the Bible can be used to justify all manner of different beliefs and attitudes... but I'm not stating that with conviction, because I haven't read the Koran straight through.”

“August 26, 2004

It Takes Real Courage to Desert Your Post and Then Attack a Wounded Vet

Dear Mr. Bush,

I know you and I have had our differences in the past, and I realize I am the one who started this whole mess about "who did what" during Vietnam when I brought up that "deserter" nonsense back in January. But I have to hand it to you on what you have uncovered about John Kerry and his record in Vietnam. Kerry has tried to pass himself off as a war hero, but thanks to you and your friends, we now know the truth.

First of all, thank you for pointing out to all of us that Mr. Kerry was never struck by a BULLET. It was only SHRAPNEL that entered his body! I did not know that! Hell, what's the big deal about a bunch of large, sharp, metal shards ripping open your flesh? That happens to all of us! In my opinion, if you want a purple heart, you'd better be hit by a bullet -- with your name on it!

Secondly, thank you for sending Bob Dole out there and letting us know that Mr. Kerry, though wounded three times, actually "never spilled blood." When you are in the debates with Kerry, turn to him and say, "Dammit, Mr. Kerry, next time you want a purple heart, you better spill some American red blood! And I don't mean a few specks like those on O.J.'s socks -- we want to see a good pint or two of blood for each medal. In fact, I would have preferred that you had bled profusely, a big geyser of blood spewing out of your neck or something!" Then throw this one at him: "Senator Kerry, over 58,000 brave Americans gave their lives in Vietnam -- but YOU didn't. You only got WOUNDED! What do you have to say for yourself???" Lay that one on him and he won't know what to do.

And thanks, also, Mr. Bush, for exposing the fact that Mr. Kerry might have actually WOUNDED HIMSELF in order to get those shiny medals. Of course he did! How could the Viet Cong have hit him -- he was on a SWIFT boat! He was going too fast to be hit by enemy fire. He tried to blow himself up three different times just so he could go home and run for president someday. It's all so easy to see, now, what he was up to.

What would we do without you, Mr. Bush? Criticize you as we might, when it comes to pointing out other men's military records, there is no one who can touch your prowess. In 2000, you let out the rumor that your opponent John McCain might be "nuts" from the 5 years he spent in a POW camp. Then, in the 2002 elections, your team compared triple-amputee Sen. Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden, and that cost him the election. And now you are having the same impact on war hero John Kerry. Since you (oops, I mean "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!") started running those ads, Kerry's poll numbers have dropped (with veterans, he has lost 18 points in the last few weeks).

Some people have said "Who are you, Mr. Bush, to attack these brave men considering you yourself have never seen combat -- in fact, you actively sought to avoid it." What your critics fail to understand is that even though your dad got you into a unit that would never be sent to Vietnam -- and even though you didn't show up for Guard duty for at least a year -- at least you were still IN FAVOR of the Vietnam War! Cowards like Clinton felt it was more important to be consistent (he opposed the war, thus he refused to go) than to be patriotic and two-faced.

The reason that I think you know so much about other men's war wounds is because, during your time in the Texas Air National Guard, you suffered so many of them yourself. Consider the paper cut you received on September 22, 1972, while stationed in Alabama, working on a Senate campaign for your dad's friend (when you were supposed to be on the Guard base). A campaign brochure appeared from nowhere, ambushing your right index finger, and blood trickled out onto your brand new argyle sweater.

Then there was the incident with the Crazy Glue when your fraternity brothers visited you one weekend at the base and glued your lips together while you were "passed out." Though initially considered "friendly fire," it was later ruled that you suffered severe post traumatic stress disorder from the assault and required certain medicinal attention -- which, it seems, was provided by those same fraternity brethren.

But nothing matched your heroism when, on July 2, 1969, you sustained a massive head injury when enemy combatants from another Guard unit dropped a keg of Coors on your head during a reconnaissance mission at a nearby all-girls college. Fortunately, the cool, smooth fluids that poured out of the keg were exactly what was needed to revive you.

That you never got a purple heart for any of these incidents is a shame. I can fully appreciate your anger at Senator Kerry for the three he received. I mean, Kerry was a man of privilege, he could have gotten out just like you. Instead, he thinks he's going to gain points with the American people bragging about how he was getting shot at every day in the Mekong Delta. Ha! Is that the best he can do? Hell, I hear gunfire every night outside my apartment window! If he thinks he is going to impress anyone with the fact that he volunteered to go when he could have spent the Vietnam years on the family yacht, he should think again. That only shows how stupid he was! True-blue Americans want a president who knows how to pull strings and work the system and get away with doing as little work as possible!

So, to make it up to you, I have written some new ads you can use on TV. People will soon tire of the swift boat veterans and you are going to need some fresh, punchier material. Feel free to use any of these:

ANNOUNCER: "When the bullets were flying all around him in Vietnam, what did John Kerry do? He said he leaned over the boat and 'pulled a man out of the river.' But, as we all know, men don't live in the river -- fish do. John Kerry knows how to tell a big fish tale. What he won't tell you is that when the enemy was shooting at him, he ducked. Do you want a president who will duck? Vote Bush."

ANNOUNCER: "Mr. Kerry's biggest supporter, Sen. Max Cleland, claims to have lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. But he still has one arm! How did that happen? One word: Cowardice. When duty called, he was unwilling to give his last limb. Is that the type of selfishness you want hanging out in the White House? We think not. Vote for the man who would be willing to give America his right frontal lobe. Vote Bush."

Hope these help, Mr. Bush. And remember, when the American death toll in Iraq hits 1,000 during the Republican convention, be sure to question whether those who died really did indeed "die" -- or were they just trying to get their faces on CNN's nightly tribute to fallen heroes? The sixteen who've died so far this week were probably working hand in hand with the Kerry campaign to ruin your good time in New York. Stay consistent, sir, and always, ALWAYS question the veracity of anyone who risks his or her life for this country. It's the least that person deserves.

Yours,

Michael Moore”

“Questions About Bush's Guard Service Unanswered




By Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard / USA TODAY

WASHINGTON - At a time when Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has come under fire from a group of retired naval officers who say he lied about his combat record in Vietnam, questions about President Bush's 1968-73 stint in the Texas Air National Guard remain unresolved: (Related item: Bush urges end to TV attack ads by outside groups)

Some of the documents about President Bush's military service documents still have not been made public.

• Why did Bush, described by some of his fellow officers as a talented and enthusiastic pilot, stop flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972 and fail to take an annual physical exam required of all pilots?

• What explains the apparent gap in the president's Guard service in 1972-73, a period when commanders in Texas and Alabama say they never saw him report for duty and records show no pay to Bush when he was supposed to be on duty in Alabama?

• Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot despite poor qualifying scores and arrests, but no convictions, for stealing a Christmas wreath and rowdiness at a football game during his college years?

The White House has released hundreds of pages of records, but the files released so far haven't answered those questions. Since the documents were released in February, at least a half-dozen news organizations, including USA TODAY, have filed new requests for Bush's military records under the Freedom of Information Act.

In an e-mail to USA TODAY last week, presidential spokesman Dan Bartlett said: "The president has authorized the release of his records and we are complying with all requests. Some are taking longer than others, but all will be addressed."

Past military service and qualifications to be commander in chief have become a central theme in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Questions about Bush's record predate the current campaign. The apparent gap in his Guard service first surfaced before the 2000 election, when The Boston Globe reported that Texas Guard commanders were unable to account for Bush's whereabouts from May 1972 to April 1973.

Bush has not said what he did in the Guard during that period. Aside from a statement by a former Alabama Air Guard officer who said he saw Bush report for duty there in the fall of 1972, the only evidence he was at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama was a record of a dental exam on Jan. 6, 1973, at the base.

Bush said in a TV interview in February that he would make all his military records available. That month, the White House released more than 400 pages of Bush military records, including some duplicates, and said the documents were a complete catalog of his personnel files.

But some documents still have not been made public. The White House did not release Bush's medical records from his Guard files but allowed a group of reporters who cover the White House to review them for 20 minutes. They found nothing unusual. Kerry released some of his military records earlier this year. He has also declined to release his complete medical records but showed them to reporters as Bush did.

Since February, the White House has banned all Guard and military commanders outside the Pentagon from commenting on Bush's records or service. Requests for information must go to the Pentagon's Freedom of Information Act office.

The Pentagon last week responded to a 4-month-old request from USA TODAY for additional records from Bush's files by sending another copy of documents that were released by the White House in February. The documents do not address the unexplained year in Bush's Guard service or his decision to stop flying.

The Associated Press filed a lawsuit this summer requesting copies of Bush's military records stored in a Texas archive on microfilm. It sought information that might explain why Bush did not take his flight physical and whether he showed up for duty in Alabama in the fall of 1972, AP spokesman John Stokes said.”

“I understand that we like the Israelis. I know that there are cultural similarities between our nations. I realize that we have historical reasons for wanting a Jewish homeland.

What I don't see is how Israel has been helping our national interest in the past decade or so.

We can't usually bomb Arab nations from Israeli airports. Israel has no oil. Israel has kept us from having strategic relationships with many Middle Eastern countries. Our support of Israel has alienated us from our key, long-term allies in Europe.

Israel has every right to defend itself. If it has problems with Iraq and Iran, it should bomb them. It shouldn't make us do it.

BTW, I have no love for the Palestinians or other Middle Eastern nations. Many are vile, nasty and immoral. But they have something we need in abundance.”

“"What I don't see is how Israel has been helping our national interest in the past decade or so...."

Through funding campaigns of the Repubs?

There was a story about Delay and how teh main lobbying group from Israel called him "the best friend Israel has ever had".

I agree with you. The only thing Israel could provide us in teh past, was a foothold, which helped us in our containment policy. The only thing Israel offers the US today, is more terrorism for the future.”

““What I don't see is how Israel has been helping our national interest in the past decade or so.”

Sense when do we demand help on our national interests in order for us to support our allies? We support democracies all over the world with nothing in return. We send aid and money to countries that are NOT our allies and we get no support of our interests in these places. So why not Israel?

“We can't usually bomb Arab nations from Israeli airports.”

This is just simple pragmatism due to the hate the Arab nations have for Israel and the treaties Israel has with them. This is also why Israel isn’t allowed to lend aid to us when go into Arab countries. Any aid would be viewed as an offensive action by Israel against Arab nations and would bring all of Israel’s neighbors down on them.

“Israel has no oil.”

No but they, unlike the other mid-east countries, actually do have other things to offer besides oil.

“Israel has kept us from having strategic relationships with many Middle Eastern countries.”

Are you saying that because these Arab countries won’t deal with us because we support Israel that this is somehow Israel’s fault?

“Our support of Israel has alienated us from our key, long-term allies in Europe.”

Many of these “allies” such as France still have a heavy anti-Semitic tendencies (I hate the anti-Semitic card btw). Why should we pick our allies based on popularity? It’s like when two friends in a group have a disagreement and one of the friends tells you that you can’t hang out with them as long as you’re friends with their rival.

Just because the jocks don’t like the unpopular kid doesn’t mean we can’t be their friend.”

“I wonder when the last time the PLO did this,/a> was?”

“Nigal,

For many years, pre 911, we funded and allied ourselves with Pakistan and NOT India because it was in our strategic best interests to do so.

We keep Taiwan from declaring independence and living as a normal democracy because it is in our strategic best interests not to piss off China.

So, just because a nation is a democracy doesn't mean we have to support it. If we have larger strategic interests, then we probably shouldn't.

The question is, would we rather be able to run our cars and factories with oil and keep our economy strong, or do we want to support Israel?

But this line of argument is a sham because Israel doesn't allow self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza. It is a democracy in the same way that South Africa was a democracy before Mandela.

Also, our support of Israel is not based on economic factors. Israel's economy is not big enough to really matter to us. This is especially true when matched against the value of the oil stream from the other middle eastern countries.

While many Middle Eastern countries are royally f-ed up, they have shown that they can kill our people, take our money and make life difficult.

And because of our oil dependency, we NEED the Middle East. Let's deal with them straight up.”

“I guess the main question I still have RL is how is our relationship with Israel causing problems with relationship with other mid-east countries? Are there oil producing countries that won’t deal with us because of our relationship with Israel? And if we didn’t support Israel do you think the extreme Islamic countries would hate us any less?”

“yes Nigal - if America played a more honest broker role then Islamic Countries would dislike America less.

They really don't hate you because you're free.”

“Nigal,

I think that most of the Middle Eastern countries - at least the leadership - are go along to get along kind of people. They want to maintain power and keep the status quo.

Hosni Mubarak, the Saudis, King Hussein of Jordan and all the rest would just as well have good relations with the United States.

Unfortunately, they have to be at least somewhat responsive to public opinion or risk losing power. And I don't think that it is any secret that most people in the Middle East oppose Israel.

When that opposition is vociferous, the leaders of these Middle Eastern countries distance themselves from the U.S. Our strong support of Israel and unbalanced stance towards the Palestinians pushes public opinion against us. The leadership responds.

I am not arguing that we let our pants down for Arafat and Hamas.

What I am saying is that all the money we send to Israel should be paid back with a moratorium on West Bank settlements, a refusal to spy on US and deference to our national strategic interests in the region.

Sharon has played Bush. Bush is Israel's poodle. And the other Middle Eastern leaders have no cover to support us against public opposition.

Oil is more expensive. Americans lose jobs.”

“The South Africa analogy is useful in some ways, but the fact that Arabs who live in Israel have full citizenshi weakens the analogy. Yes, Arabs who live in Israel have a raw deal in some ways - but that's true of many minorities.

Let's criticize Israel, without over-dramatizing the reality.”

“Ped!

It depends on your definition of "Israel." The only useful definition at this point is "territory that one controls."

This is especially true when Israel continues to create permanent facts on the ground in the form of settlements in the West Bank. Their actions suggest a sense of ownership and permanent claims to the land.

So, when the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza start voting against Sharon, we'll talk about Democracy.”

“RL:

First off, there are international laws against Israel treating the West Bank as part of Israel. There was a huge outry and protest (rightfully so, in my opinion) when Israel declared parts of Arab Jerusalem taken in war to be part of Israel and declared all Arabs there to be Israeli citizens. The US controls Iraq right now, is it Apartheid that they can't vote for US elections? We control Puerto Rico permanently, but Puerto Rico doesn't get Senators, Congressmen or electoral votes? Is that apartheid, or a consequence of the fact tha Puerto Rico has never voted in favor of Statehood?

Secondly, in Africa no blacks could vote for the federal goverrnment. In Israel there is no racial or religious barrier to voting.

Third, their were areas where blacks were forbidden to live. That is not true for Arabs in Israel.

Fourth, there are plenty of Arab jews in Israel - so they racial analogy brakes down.

I'm not arguing that the occupation is benign (I do believe it was fairly benign until the early 1980s), or that the settlement policy is just. Nor am I arguing that Israels policy of granting Jews automatic citizenship, while denying entry to Arab Christians and Moslems who were born in Israel - but who left in 1949 (or sometimes later) - presents no problems.

What I do argue is that the Apartheid analogy generally sheds more heat than light.”

“The Puerto Rico analogy breaks down in the fact that they've had the right to vote for their particular situation. They also elect delegates in the presidential primaries. They also elect local officials. When the US wanted to continue bombing Vieques, the Puerto Ricans stopped it with democratic pressure. The Puerto Rican situation has no correlation to Israel/West Bank.

If the U.S. is still in Iraq in 2034, God help us, I would argue that the U.S. is not acting in a democratic manner.

Two questions in terms of the ethnicity question. Do residents of the Israeli settlements in West Bank vote in Israeli elections. Do the second and third generation "Israelis" in those settlements take part in Israeli elections? Would an Arab Israeli who moves to the West Bank be allowed to vote in an Israeli election?

But I am getting bogged down in semantics here. The point is that almost half of the population in the territory governed by Israel does not have democratic self-determination.

So, I would say that Israel is a country with some Democratic institutions rather than a full-fledged Democracy.

We CAN disagree on this. It's a matter of perspective.

The even larger point is that Israel is not a pillar of democratic virtue. We should feel no qualms about expecting strategic return from our Israeli investment. We should expect the same from the Palestinian Authority that we have given support to.

It is time for us to stop asking what the Israelis and the Palestinians want. That should not be our core mission in the Middle East. The core mission should be getting what WE want.

When Sharon ignored the Bush administration's pleas to stop building settlements and kept spies working in our government, it became clear that we are NOT getting what we paid for in Israel.

Let's reassess the situation and spend money where we get something.”

“Nigal I did go to your submission link again. It's interesting. I found this excerpt from the Koran:

[2:62]

Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a
righteous life, will receive their recompense from their
Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve. "”

“

Ending the neoconservative nightmare

By Daniel Levy

Witnessing the near-perfect symmetry of Israeli and American policy has been one of the more noteworthy aspects of the latest Lebanon war. A true friend in the White House. No deescalate and stabilize, honest-broker, diplomatic jaw-jaw from this president. Great. Except that Israel was actually in need of an early exit strategy, had its diplomatic options narrowed by American weakness and marginalization in the region, and found itself ratcheting up aerial and ground operations in ways that largely worked to Hezbollah's advantage, the Qana tragedy included. The American ladder had gone AWOL.

More worrying, while everyone here can identify an Israeli interest in securing the northern border and the justification in responding to Hezbollah, the goal of saving Lebanon's fragile Cedar Revolution sounds less distinctly Israeli. Perhaps an agenda invented elsewhere. As hostilities intensified, the phrase "proxy war" gained resonance.

Israelis have grown used to a different kind of American embrace - less instrumental, more emotional, but also responsible. A dependable friend, ready to lend a guiding hand back to the path of stabilization when necessary.

After this crisis will Israel belatedly wake up to the implications of the tectonic shift that has taken place in U.S.-Middle East policy?

In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The "clean break" was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of "Hashemite control in Iraq." The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task.

Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush.

The key neocon protagonists, their think tanks and publications may be unfamiliar to many Israelis, but they are redefining the region we live in. This tight-knit group of "defense intellectuals" - centered around Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Elliott Abrams, Perle, Feith and others - were considered somewhat off-beat until they teamed up with hawkish well-connected Republicans like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Newt Gingrich, and with the emerging powerhouse of the Christian right. Their agenda was an aggressive unilateralist U.S. global supremacy, a radical vision of transformative regime-change democratization, with a fixation on the Middle East, an obsession with Iraq and an affinity to "old Likud" politics in Israel. Their extended moment in the sun arrived after 9/11.

Finding themselves somewhat bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, the neoconservatives are reveling in the latest crisis, displaying their customary hubris in re-seizing the initiative. The U.S. press and blogosphere is awash with neocon-inspired calls for indefinite shooting, no talking and extension of hostilities to Syria and Iran, with Gingrich calling this a third world war to "defend civilization."

Disentangling Israeli interests from the rubble of neocon "creative destruction" in the Middle East has become an urgent challenge for Israeli policy-makers. An America that seeks to reshape the region through an unsophisticated mixture of bombs and ballots, devoid of local contextual understanding, alliance-building or redressing of grievances, ultimately undermines both itself and Israel. The sight this week of Secretary of State Rice homeward bound, unable to touch down in any Arab capital, should have a sobering effect in Washington and Jerusalem.

Afghanistan is yet to be secured, Iraq is an exporter of instability and perhaps terror, too, Iranian hard-liners have been strengthened and encouraged, while the public throughout the region is ever-more radicalized, and in the yet-to-be "transformed" regimes of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, is certainly more hostile to Israel and America than its leaders. Neither listening nor talking to important, if problematic, actors in the region has only impoverished policy-making capacity.

Israel does have enemies, interests and security imperatives, but there is no logic in the country volunteering itself for the frontline of an ideologically misguided and avoidable war of civilizations.

So what should be done, on both sides of the ocean?

It is admittedly difficult for Israel to have a regional strategy that is out-of-step with the U.S. administration-of-the-day. However, the neocon approach is not unchallenged, and Israel should not be providing its ticket back to the ascendancy. A U.S. return to proactive diplomacy, realism and multilateralism, with sustained and hard engagement that delivers concrete progress, would best serve its own, Israeli and regional interests. Israel should encourage this. Israel may even have to lead, for instance, in rethinking policy on Hamas or Syria, and should certainly work intensely with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in encouraging his efforts to reach a Palestinian national understanding as a basis for stable governance, security quiet and future peace negotiations. A policy that comes with a Jerusalem kosher stamp of approval might be viewed as less of an abomination in Washington.

Beyond that, Israel and its friends in the United States should seriously reconsider their alliances not only with the neocons, but also with the Christian Right. The largest "pro-Israel" lobby day during this crisis was mobilized by Pastor John Hagee and his Christians United For Israel, a believer in Armageddon with all its implications for a rather particular end to the Jewish story. This is just asking to become the mother of all dumb, self-defeating and morally abhorrent alliances.

Internationalist Republicans, Democrats and mainstream Israelis must construct an alternative narrative to the neocon nightmare, identifying shared interests in a policy that reestablishes American leadership, respect and credibility in the region by facilitating security and stability, pursuing conflict resolution and promoting the conditions for more open societies (as opposed to narrow election-worship). The last two years of the Bush presidency can be an opportunity for progress or an exercise in desperate damage limitation. It sounds counter-intuitive, but Israel should reflect on and even help reorient American expectations.

Daniel Levy was a member of the official Israeli negotiating team at the Oslo and Taba talks and the lead Israeli drafter of the Geneva Initiative.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/746312.html”

“Violin, so you DID go to the rally June 10 at Antietam”

“I did, where is Antietam?”

“First, Haaretz = Israeli New York Times.

Second, Mr. Levy seems to be very uninformed. First he criticizes America for not pushing Israel to deescalate and negotiate. I for one am glad America has finally decided to keep it's mouth shut and mind it's own business. Israel is not the 51st state. It is a sovereign nation with it's own policies. We would be stupid to demand they sit down and negotiate with Hezbollah. And it's idiotic for the EU to do the same. Tell ya what, when America and the EU sit down with Al Qada and negotiate with them, I'll support Israel sitting down with Hezbollah.

Third, it has become common knowledge (which of course no one wants to listen to) that Hezbollah had a hand in orchestrating the massacre at Qana.


Here's a great example of how the media is covering this whole thing. Reuters got busted using doctored photos and had to admit their crime in reporting. Shameful. Good catch by Little Green Footballs.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Bold_Distortions_and_Outright_Lies.asp
last edited: 8/07/06 7:58:46 AM”

“A U.S. return to proactive diplomacy, realism and multilateralism, with sustained and hard engagement that delivers concrete progress, would best serve its own, Israeli and regional interests.

MY GOD WHAT A GRAND SOLUTION!!!

What an assclown. He doesn't like Dubya's policies - that's fine, it has been amateur hour in the whitehouse lately. But his "vision" is simply to wish the milieu back to the late 90's. I'm afraid that's the extent of Liberal creativity.

Violin, keep posting stuff like this. It really demonstrates the groupthink you're so caught up in.”

“Let's look back to the late 90s...

Gas prices were in the $1 to $2 range.

Deaths in the Middle East were limited to one-off terrorist attacks. Not the 50,000 to 100,000 of the Iraq Civil War.

Although "peace" talks were unsuccessful, they created a stable framework in which each side could air grievances. Violence did decrease.

Everybody is looking for a magic bullet. There is no magic bullet. The inch-by-inch approach of the 1990s looks pretty good right now.

But I guess if you can't defend your own guy in the White House, you've got to find some liberal bogeyman enemy to trash.

Down with the Liberals!”

“"What an assclown. He doesn't like Dubya's policies - that's fine, it has been amateur hour in the whitehouse lately. But his "vision" is simply to wish the milieu back to the late 90's. I'm afraid that's the extent of Liberal creativity."

I believe it's called pre-911-head-up-their-assness.”