Scoring Political Points on the Homefront on the Back of Palestinian Poverty
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn) ran as a new type of liberal in last year’s NYC mayor’s race. Yet, in his Brooklyn district, he’s been playing old time politics, posturing on Israel in the worst way, from the minute he was elected. He is consistently the most conservative voice in Congress regarding Israel and the Palestinians, siding with the most extreme elements among the Israeli settler population (for whom there is strong support in his district and some West Bank settlers probably even hail from there). His politics on this issue are way out of sync with his cultivated image as a liberal. Just this week he published an opinion piece in one of the most right wing papers around called The Jewish Press, a Brooklyn-based weekly that is a mouthpiece for the hard-core of the settler movement in Israel. In that paper he calls for cutting off aid to the Palestinians, post Hamas victory.
But from the day that Anthony Weiner entered Congress, he has sought to end all aid to the Palestinians, no matter who is in charge—and not just to the Palestinian Authority but to the entire non-governmental sector. It was reported that Weiner is about to introduce new legislation to cut aid to the Palestinians. So far, no new Weiner bill has been introduced. It’s possible that these reports are referring to legislation introduced by Rep. Weiner in March 2005, HR 1143 – to cut all aid to the Palestinians. Rep. Weiner has introduced legislation to bar all aid (direct and via NGOs) to the Palestinians in every Congress since he was first elected:
HR 1143 – 109th Congress
HR 1823 - 108th Congress
HR 1087 - 107th Congress
HR 5522 - 106th Congress (the first Congress
Weiner was part of).
I interviewed Weiner when he was running for Congress for his first term and asked him about the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I was writing about the congressional race for a magazine published in Israel. At the time, he told me that he hadn’t fully formulated his position on Israel, but the fact is that it’s been a given of American politics that the supposed safe space is on the right when it comes to Israel and he quickly gravitated there. That is simply not the case, no matter the Hamas victory. It's not surprising that a pol would play to his home base, but he shouldn't call himself a liberal--and promote himself as the Democratic Party's great liberal hope in New York if he's going to promote reactionary politics.
Weiner has consistently portrayed himself as a staunch supporter of Israel, but the support he has shown is to the most extreme elements inside Israel. This week, he faxed copies of his Jewish Press article with a ‘Dear Friend” letter to members of Jewish organizations. His opinions, as he expresses them, are way out of the U.S. American Jewish mainstream, though they probably do reflect opinion among many of his constituents in Brooklyn. They certainly don't reflect a healthy U.S. foreign policy that would promote democratic values in the region.
The fact is that right now the Islamic movement will gain with any mis-steps by U.S. congressmen or women or by the White House. If the Hamas victory has shown anything, one would hope it shows that grandstanding on behalf of Israel doesn’t help Israel, and doesn’t help bring democracy to the Arab world. This is a time for serious deliberation and thoughtful diplomacy. Politicians who call themselves liberal should be held to the same standard as those who call themselves conservative. They should stop playing politics with this issue.
The American Jewish community has consistently shown that it supports a two state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. In Israel, even with the Hamas victory, well over a majority of Israelis still support the same. If Weiner wants to make his point-that terror and fiscal malfeasance shouldn’t be supported with taxpayer money—a legitimate point-then why isn’t he arguing instead to transfer funds to build a viable civil society and non-profit sector that will deepen a move toward democracy among the Palestinians and while he’s at it, throughout the rest of the Arab world?
Though I think it would be a bad policy idea to cut aid to Palestine with Hamas in charge, for at least some kinds of aid it would be perfectly consistant for us to, provided Hamas continued its campaign. Could anyone really expect us to aid a government currently attacking an ally?
February 15, 2006 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congressional grandstanding on foreign-policy issues is generally harmful, particularly when it comes to foreign aid. Too many congresspeople view foreign aid as an easy source of bogus scandal-mongering and propaganda material for their campaign mailings to constituents, rather than as a serious and important issue with a tremendous impact both on foreign countries and on the US's standing in the world. And, of course, foreigners can't vote, so it's easy to showboat at their expense.
There's really no upside to the almost uniquely American foreign-relations phenomenon of foreign countries being forced to conduct diplomacy both with the State Dept. and with individual ideologically biased congresspeople from districts with interested constituencies. It mainly leads foreigners to mistrust the US's commitments and to avoid American aid for substantive purposes. European countries and Japan, where foreign policy and aid commitments are worked out as deals between parties in ruling coalitions, are more reliable.
The US should set concrete and realistic conditions for Hamas to continue receiving US aid, including recognizing Israel's right to exist. Individual congresspeople trying to use this issue to gratify their Likud-sympathizing constituents by sticking it to the Palestinians by whatever means necessary should be told by their party leadership to STFU.
February 15, 2006 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weiner on Israel is like a farm state pol on farm subsidy. Complaining about the individual is a waste of time. The only way to fix the problem is structural, i.e. make sure a Weiner can't influence our FP, because we know he's elected from a community that is unbalanced on that issue.
As far as his pandering to wingers in Brooklyn, well, obviously it either there are wingers there who are already reading this stuff and believe it, or there isn’t. If Weiner created the newspaper from scratch and mailed it to a community that wasn’t requesting it, well then I could see the outrage against him. But come on, he’s just catering to his constituents.
It's a little bit disingenuous to say the Brooklyn Jewish American community is so moderate and then say on the other that Weiner's pandering to wingers in Brooklyn is a real shocker. I think he's pandering to pre-existing wingers in the community which he represents, which are very supportive of an aggressive and muscular Israel, including assassinations, settlers, etc.
February 16, 2006 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's true, Weiner on Israel is like a farm state pol on farm subsidies. Both should be shamed and disciplined by those in their parties who have the broader national interest at heart. Furthermore, it's important to engage with and fight back against constituencies that make harmful and self-interested arguments, rather than let them seize their fields of interest for themselves. What Mort is pointing out is that there's a substantial American Jewish pro-peace majority which can make it clear to politicians like Weiner that jingoistic anti-Palestinian extremism carries a political cost, and it isn't accepted either by most Democrats or by most Jews. We have a responsibility to let him know that if he opposes peace between Israel and the Palestinians, he's going to pay a price for it. Weiner has to reckon with the opinions of Jews outside Brooklyn, as well as liberal Jews in Brooklyn, just as Sam Brownback has to reckon with the opinions of evangelical Christians outside Kansas.
February 16, 2006 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
GEORGE WASHINGTON'S
FAREWELL ADDRESS
(Published in Philadelphia's "American Daily Advertiser" September 19, 1796)
Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. .... In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur.
Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation prompted by ill will and resentment sometimes impels to war the government contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject. At other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim.
So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak toward a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government, but that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.
Why do we have this permanent alliance? How many times must we defend the pride of the the Grreater Israel when they punish Palestinians? or take more land? or project their policies on surrounding neighbors? Why do we have to be enslaved to defend, or that they should influence our politics? WE WERE WARNED THIS COULD HAPPEN.
February 16, 2006 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Weiner is a lot like the Cuban-American representatives from Florida. They both represent the most extreme and inflexible views of their constituencies. They are however representing real American voters.
An interesting point. I wonder how many Americans realize we have been subsidizing the Palestinians and that we give Egypt as much money as Israel?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 16, 2006 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You post crystallizes a very good point: the quandary of a legislative body with a diverse populace. A pol may be elected with extreme views embraced (not stating this is the case here) by their constituents, while being viewed as an outcast by the rest of the nation. I think what is important is that while such extremists are properly elected, they are sidelined in the national discourse and by no means given any form of power or authority.
February 16, 2006 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Time was when I would have said a big Amen to a post like this. I used to subscribe to the liberal orthodoxy that said that the fanatics who are the core of the settler movement were the main obstacle to peace.
Now I know better.
The fact is that the wingnut settlers are becoming more marginalized in Israel itself, and the centrist consensus appears to be holding, even with the loss of Ariel Sharon. While one might still bemoan their noxious influence on Israeli politics, the simple fact is that they are a whole lot less influential than they used to be. Consequently, ranting about them now is a waste of time as they are far from the biggest obstacles to peace. Indeed, to talk about them at all at this stage, when the Palestinians have just elected a radical government sworn to Israel's destruction, strikes me as completely bizarre.
I have another question: is the activity of a semi-obscure American Congressman really so important that it requires a full-throated denunciation? How come the fact that the Palestinians just elected a radical Islamist government only merits a mushy "we have to play our cards right, with careful diplomacy so as not to really muck things up?"
It seems we have a pretty good example here of the classic liberal double standard with respect to this conflict: Israeli extremists should be denounced while Palestinian extremists, who are now synonymous with the Palestinian government, should be treated with kid gloves.
February 16, 2006 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
cut, posted in wrong place.
February 16, 2006 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of. It depends on specifics. Regardless, I think the moderate Jewish community already knows what to do, and knows their fundamentalist elements better than anyone else. The majority of Jewish Americans are moderate, educated, and vote Democratic. Democratic presidents, with support from most of the Jewish American community, have done far more for peace in Israel than either of the Bushs or Reagan.
Btw, if one wants to go after the people who back the most militant aspects in Israel, it's the GOP. The neocons are totally in bed with the most hawkish Israelis. People in neo-con circles have even been busted for passing intelligence to Israeli agents. Also, some fundie evangelicals have a bizarre fetish with Israel and Armageddon, which is just totally crazy.
So if we're going to talk about positive change in the ME including Israel, let's start by looking at some kooks in the GOP who start wars there and back the most extreme militant aspects of Israel, while inflaming tension with Arabs at the same time, and selling both sides arms.
February 16, 2006 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no way to completely exclude fairly elected pols from policy, even if they're kooks elected by kooks. That would be anti-democratic and ultimately lead to more abuses of power. Our system is supposed to naturally marginalize kooks, as presumably only a small portion of the population is crazy. If our system was working properly, a 'winger' would be on the fringe and therefore marginalized, by definition.
As everybody knows, the main loopholes exploited by fringe groups to obtain undue and disproportionate power are: money + secrecy.
Close those loopholes and democracy works, without the need for totalitarian responses to wingers. Don't focus on the Weiners of the world, focus on shutting down pay-for-play politics, and shine more sunlight into government so the crooks and kooks can be detected sooner. Crazies like Weiner should then be marginalized automatically, and as an added benefit, their kooky electorate will learn over time they can't expect to subvert democracy via money and secrecy, which will force them to both reevaluate their beliefs as well as engage honestly in the public discourse as opposed to attempting to grab power stealthily. The same goes for all fringe groups, which despite even the best intentions have a corrupting and corrosive influence on politics in the long term.
BTW, a similar structural problem exists for TPMC's rating system, which is klunky and which inhibits a working democracy or market of information, and why the signal/noise ratio is plummeting.
February 16, 2006 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we have to look at the Palestinian and Israeli as a whole system which influences each other. Certainly militant actions by Israel increases militancy in Palestine, and vs versa. It’s a bit of a chicken and egg game.
But since we're discussing American domestic politics, and specifically what can be done about militant Americans pouring fuel on the fire, one really can’t equivocate between the Palestinians and Israel. Where is the pro-militant Palestinian pol we can criticize? They don't exist. There are only pro-militant Israeli pols to criticize.
I agree the initial post wasn't needed, and IMO doesn't add anything to TPMC. I also think Mort's outrage is misplaced. While Weiner may be an obnoxious fool, the neo-cons for example have a far greater effect on the region, and there is simply no comparison. Mountains and molehills.
That also goes to another point regarding structural problems I see in TPMC. I don't think the sort of post Mort made really belongs on TPMC, that it doesn't set a high enough bar. A great part of TPM's success was it's concision and considered perspective.
February 16, 2006 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You raise very good points, and I would add that a further requirement is an informed and active public. If the majority was aware and acting in their best interests then the very idea of extremists gaining power would be irrelevant. Of course, that is where the secrecy comes into play, which combined with a largely ignorant public is devastating for the political process.
February 16, 2006 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
that also goes to another point regarding structural problems I see in TPMC. I don't think the sort of post Mort made really belongs on TPMC, that it doesn't set a high enough bar-from Nick Doe , above
-------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't going to comment because I find the issue too difficult. (At the end of the day I feel I must support Isreal -how not ?- but also wish the Isrealis would behave better but also feel that is asking too much of human nature at any time and particularly during an intifada ). But my own inability to take a position makes me disagree with Nick and support anyone such as Mort who does. I'm glad her piece appeared and that the commentators were able to be reasonably civilized in reacting to it.
February 17, 2006 3:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Why does the US support Israel?
What tangible benefit does this country receive from the 6+ Billion dollars we pump into that country each and every year?
Tangible now. No slogans please
February 17, 2006 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Israel Readies Reprisals for Hamas Led Government
Second question: Is there any reason AIPAC should not be required to register as an agent of a foreign government?
February 17, 2006 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
For starters Israel is a democracy, the only real one in the Middle East. The United States tends to support democracies. We also give Egypt the same amount of money and billions to the Palestinians. In general in order to make sure that oil flows continually at a reasonable price we try to buy peace. If Isreal was not assured of American assistance it is not clear how many Arabs would be left.
We also get a lot of intelligence from Israelis, improvements on our military hardware and increasingly various hightech items.
Why shouldn't we support the only democracy in the Middle East?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 17, 2006 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure I understand the chicken and egg analogy. Since Israels creeation the Arabs have been trying to exterminate it. The Palestinians charter and efforts have been designed to eliminate all of Israel. The better analog is that when Sadat offered realy peace the Israelis leapt at the opportuity and gave Egypt back all of its territory except Gaza which it did not want.
Most Israelis, seem to have been very anxious to make peace. It its abscence they have been in favor of disengagement. It looks a lot like Israel is trying to keep its populace safe and otherwise going to ignore the Palestinians.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 17, 2006 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we have to look at the Palestinian and Israeli as a whole system which influences each other. Certainly militant actions by Israel increases militancy in Palestine, and vs versa. It’s a bit of a chicken and egg game.
This facet of the common wisdom is getting harder to take seriously despite its ubiquity. An honest approach to the situation should reveal a landscape of disputed national rights that goes way beyond the "chicken-egg" dynamic of a simple two-party conflict. Further, this has been consistent since the military response of the Arab establishment to the 1948 UN partition plan attacking the emergent state of Israel (instead of nurturing an emergent independent Arab Palestine envisioned by the partition plan), and on through to present circumstances that include the ongoing rejection of Jewish national rights in Israel by 19 of the 22 member nations of the Arab League.
February 17, 2006 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
A consistent ally in a volatile region.
Now please show us how your argument is based on anything more subtantial than pure convenience. In other words, your line of questioning appears intended to affirm a contrived conclusion that since the region's dominant totalitarian Arab establishment rejects non-Arab national rights in general (and Jewish national rights in particular), US foreign policy should therefore concentrate its diplomatic, military and economic support behind the Arab establishment.
February 17, 2006 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I admit my ignorance of the legal determination of such status. But srictly guessing, I would suggest that the requirement is waved for similar reasons as the Arab American Political Action Committee, for example.
Further, as long as the United States engages in foreign policy, and as long as the United States recognizes the legitimacy of the state of Israel in the context of a region dominated by a racist and totalitarian Arab establishment, I fail to see how it may be irregular for Americans to participate in relevant political processes by lobbying successive administrations and legislatures for sustaining such a policy.
February 17, 2006 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. The only real democracy in ME. Not particularly tangible.
2. US tends to support democracies -- when we do not plot to overthrow them, like unsuccesfully in Venezuela and succesfully in Haiti (this is just the latest President).
3. In order to make sure that oil flows.... aid to Israel is only detrimental (perhaps not very detrimental, but how it may help is totally beyond me).
4. We also get a lot of intelligence from Israelis. And we got the largest "intelligence failure".
5. Improvements in military hardware. Hm, in my view our military problems stem partially from relying on hardware too much.
6. This is incomprehensible: "If Isreal was not assured of American assistance it is not clear how many Arabs would be left.".
My biggest problem with unconditional aid to Israel is that it hurts Israel. If we would resolutely insists that no settlements are build (as we always demanded, however feebly), and that no wall is build within occupied territories (ditto, and we never had anything against a much cheaper and faster to buld wall along the "green line") the question of peace would be relatively easy to solve. All we would have to do is to offer aid but ONLY when our demands are satisfied. It is like states were forced to increase the drinking age.
February 17, 2006 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good comparison with AAPAC. I guess that one would have to measure the degree of coordination between an organization and a foreign government. Did the positions advocated by that organization ever differed from the policies of that government?
Perhaps there should be three differences of advocated positions per year. One is not enough, there should be "differences". Two are not enough because the first one did not count. But with three differences one could judge an organization as an idependent one, rather than a foreign agent.
February 17, 2006 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
The palestinians are in a situation of their own making. Now that they have been given the opportunity of electing their leaders, they have chosen to vote for continued war with Israel, so they get no sympathy from me for their plight. It's time the world held the palestinians and all arabs responsible for their actions.
February 17, 2006 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are under no obligation to fund the palestinians, especially since they have CHOSEN continued terrorism, continued rejectionism.
I wonder if anyone here is aware that the palestinians are the recipients of the highest per capita amount of foreign aid in the world.
For those of you wondering what we gain from our support of Israel (which actually is plenty), what exactly have we gained from throwing money at the palestinians?
February 17, 2006 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
February 17, 2006 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Today, the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, a committee containing several Bush administration cabinet members and chaired by Treasury Secretary Snow, approved handing over port security to a state-owned company out of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, a nation with a history of funding the al-Qaida network. But there are those who would rather that we all be outraged over our alliance with Israel.
February 17, 2006 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The day after Sharon was sworn into office he, along with thousands of Israeli military/police, marched on the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. The Mosque is the third most sacred place in Islam. Until that event, the Palestinians had primarily engaged in jeering and rock throwing. Among many journalists and others Sharon's act was inexplicable given what was guaranteed to result from it. And now we have the Palestinian people electing Hamas. And so it goes and will continue to go. We and the rest of the world have no business supporting with money or words either party. Nor is it our business to critisize either one. It was outside interference in the person of Lord Balfour who started the whole mess in the first place.
February 18, 2006 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your numbers and timeline are all off.
February 18, 2006 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The leadership in both parties would tell YOU to STFU because those leaders--especially Democratic leaders Reid and Pelosi-- know that American Jews contribute so much to their respective party organizations as is their absolute right as citizens. You and Joanne Mort and any Democrat that would like to see a Democratic Congress can fagetaboutit if the Democratic party is ever perceived by those contributors to be more sympathetic than Republicans to the thugs who think blowing up Israeli pizza parlors and discos is the way to conduct diplomacy. Just ask Charlie Rangel and anyone else who has ever headed the Democratic Congreesional Campaign Committee if Rep. Weiner is out of the mainstream on this. He'll think you were planted by Karl Rove to make life difficult for Democrats.
February 19, 2006 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Weiner's position on cutting off aid to the PA is no different from that of Rahm Emmanuel or Nita Lowey or Ben Cardin, or Henry Waxman or any other elected liberal Democratic Representative who understands that Israel cannot make a lasting peace with terrorists. If Abbas did what he said he would do two years ago and take on Hamas, Al Aksa, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah with the nearly 70,000 men in his supposed security services, so that these bands of bastards cannot continue to inflict terror, a majority of Israelis would support withdrawal from a substantial part of the West Bank.
You are seriously deluded if you think that the majority of American Jews who vote agree with you that we should be nice to Hamas.
February 19, 2006 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to ask Joanne Mort if she is no longer working for UNITE because its leadership thought she was wacko?
February 19, 2006 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your view of item one gives away the rest of your issues. By the way we did not try to over throw Chavez just too supportive of those who tried.
I think 3 sounds right but if Israel did not have U.S. support Israel would do what was necessary for its safety. That is more likely to be disruptive of oil flow.
The biggest intelligence failure? If you mean WMD in Iraq I think that hardly can be blames on Israel. It was sared by the U.N. Britain, France and Germany to name a few.
Five is the standard leftist view that make the left as almost as dangerous as Bush.
Six isn't comprehensible? My guess is that the United States has restrained Israel against taking action against the Arabs on numerous occaissions.
When Americans leave their settlements I will be more impressed with American demands for Israel to leave theirs. Afterall Americans had no business on this continent and did not gain territory
when their existed was attacked and the enemies were defeated.
What about the equal amount of aid we give to Egypt and to the Palestinians?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 19, 2006 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Israel Cuts Off Vital Palestinian Funds
That folks is what we'd theft in any US cour of law.
So here's a radical idea - Cut off all aid to Israel - $6 Billion - every dime.
See there's an agreement just waiting to be signed. You'd have it by the end of this year and wouldn't have to worry anymore about schills like Anthony Weiner (Likud/Brooklyn). And we'd have $6 billion a year (plus) that we wouldn't have to borrow from China and from our grandchildren
But that's a pipe dream isn't it? Israel never intended ot honor the Oslo Agreement, widely conceded now a still born..a partial birth abortion just as the US claims to be an "honest" broker - a fraud.
February 20, 2006 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
A meeting of the finest criminal minds -
Bend over America here they come againFebruary 20, 2006 4:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Such fair play! Hell this might be catching. But one problem - what Arab state p what power would they be registered as an agent of?
No you were right. You don't know much about these matters now do you
February 20, 2006 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Israel/AIPAC and the Likud Wing of the Democratic Party
Someone up thread demurred that he didn't know much about these things. I submit that is why the US defers to Israel on every significant point of dispute. Ignorance is bliss. Ignorance is Bush. Ignorance is what keeps the likes of Anthony Weiner and Tom Lantos in Congress when they should be in the Knesset.
Write your Senator. I did. I asked Dianne Feinstein to introduce legislation requiring AIPAC to register as an agent of a foreign power
Sh thanked me for my thoughts on Middle East peace. Well blow me down DiFi. How about answering my letter. What a Likud cat got your tongue?
February 20, 2006 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
February 20, 2006 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
As Mister Shin Bet goes to Washington, the question remains unanswered - why is Israel's national interest our national interest?Someone, I forget who now, remarked after 9/11 that we were all Isralis now (Was it Marty Peretz, Neo-Con wannabe?) Well we weren't all Israelis, then, now or ever. We're just doing their dirty work
February 20, 2006 4:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
More bad news for the Amen Corner...
As if Tom Friedman's conversion to the reality-based community wasn't bad enough now
Israel says that a terrorist movement has become a terrorist nation state.
Wow. Takes one to know one I guess. Or is that just a pretext to steal 55 million every month from the most oppressed, poverty stricken, terrorise people on the planet?
February 20, 2006 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
To Jexster
I wonder if the Middle East oil producers, raise the price of oil to help support the Palestinians, would anyone notice? Who would we blame? Would we NOW stop buying oil because these nation support a State, that America and Israel find objectionable. Yeah right!
February 21, 2006 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink