Perhaps he felt this was a good time to finally fulfill his National Guard duty? He is incapable of absorbing what is going on, let alone mobilizing and demonstrating leadership.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Where's W? Where Dianne Feinstein is. This paragraph from her response to my letter re: Gaza

  Relations between the United States and Israel are crucial to stability in the Middle East, where the road to peace and prosperity continues to be fraught with many obstacles.  In this regard, Congress has placed considerable importance on the maintenance of a close and supportive relationship with Israel.  At the same time, Israel must take all measures to ensure the protection of innocent Palestinian lives in its fight  against terrorists.

Where's W? Same place DiFi is....a heads up the ass foreign policy with a blank check that Israel is freely using to destabilize the Middle East.

Problem with a Arafat...bomb him...Problem with Hamas..Bomb the PAL..problem with Hizbollah..destroy another state.

Israel's failed state policy has been around for over 20 years. So please Senator Feinstein...what in the hell are you talking about?

Our self-proclaimed war president does not do diplomacy. He just isn't ant good at using his words. For that matter he's not terribly good at making war either.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

"The Road to Peace Runs Thru Baghdad?"

Bush, with his NeoCon PNAC crowd, gave Israel the most dangerous blank check since Kaiser Whilhelm's to Franz Josef and did this from the very start of his administration.

I don't think that there has been a truly honest broker since Jimmy Carter. Granted, some may argue reasonably for Clinton's place.

But Bush? Honest broker? He's been fully complicit in the destruction of Arafat, Abbas, Hamas, now Lebanon.

He gives them all they ask for.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Baer, I will recall that these soldiers were snatched from sovereign Israeli territory. So what? Cut a deal for the hostages; take Abbas/Hamas up on their peace deal, get Cpl Shalit home tommorrow.

 Israel and the US have pursued a vicious and premeditated plan to destroy the Palestinian Authority and justify permanent, illegal occupation of the West bank.

You are right. I no longer buy such lame pretexts.

So much for the democracy canard. Remember, the neo-cons pushed the line that "democracies don't go to war with each other". Tell that to Lebanon. Who's next? Jordan?

I keep on recalling those 2 simple words uttered a couple years ago..."mission accomplished".  While our government has managed to get ourselves militarily and strategically bogged down trying in Iraq trying to control a civil war of our own creation...A war between Israel and Lebanon/Syria/Iran is beginning, Iran is developing a nuclear program and North Korea is launching missles on and like it was the 4th of July. 

And Bush fiddles as the world starts to burn... 

Kenneth:

2 things here.

1)Israel has been chomping at the bit to strike the Palestinians ever since Hamas wa elected. They only needed a "reason."

2)Where is W? Give me a break. If the president were to do ANYTHING here; even send troops to assist EITHER SIDE (not that they would be sent to support anyone other than Israel) the Democrats would piss blood over Bush continuing his war mongering ways.

I don't know where to start on this post.

"The kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit by Hamas was alarming enough, and the unprovoked, premeditated attack by Hezbollah over the northern border only deepened that feeling - rapidly and uneasily. Considering that both attacks were green-lighted by Iran, what becomes clear is that Iran is asserting itself as a regional player and making it clear to the world -- as the UN Security Council debates its future -- that there is a real price to messing with them. That is, this whole situation is much bigger than the Israelis and their terrorist antagonists."

Oh, really?

First of all, prove that Iran ordered the Hizballah attacks - and, no, quoting some US "spokesman" isn't proof. Blaming Syria is even harder given the problems they've had recently.

Second, what about the Israel massacres of dozens of Palestinian civilians and repeated violations of the Lebanese border in the months preceding the Hamas kidnapping.

"Hezbollah/Iran/Syria has upped the ante considerably -- forcing Israel to defend itself, go after its kidnapped soldiers, and to reassert its resolve and the resulting deterrence effect in the region. (Now for those, who see Israel as the "aggressor" -- and probably always will -- recall that these soldiers were snatched from undisputed sovereign Israeli territory.)"

Bullshit. Israel planned this operation in advance. Supposedly Hizballah also planned theirs in advance according to Nasrallah. It would be interesting to see who planned what in advance of who. Clearly Israel sees this as an opportunity to settle old scores in Lebanon, and perhaps in Syria as well, as well as ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran in concert with the manufactured "nuclear crisis".

As for the latter, as evidence I quote a Reuters report today:

"Iran's Foreign Ministry denied on Thursday Israeli suggestions that Iranian-backed Hizbollah guerrillas could take two captured Israeli soldiers from Lebanon to Iran, saying Jerusalem was "talking absurdities".

"I strongly deny such reports," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said. "Because of its desperation and increasing isolation in the world and because of the tension and crisis created inside Israel, it is now talking absurdities."

As for the Israeli soldiers being kidnapped on "undisputed Israeli territory", are we talking about the Hamas kidnappings or the Hizballah kidnappings? According to reports I've read, the Israeli soldiers involved in the Hizallah kidnappings were on the LEBANESE side of the border.

As for Bush "walking this back", how naive can you get? This entire situation plays into the Bush-neocon-Israeli playbook for destabilizing the entire Middle East for their benefit.

Justin Raimondo in his latest column at Antiwar.com clearly lays out the facts: this latest escalation was planned YEARS ago and is merely the second step of the "Clean Break" papers the neocons produced for the Israelis, in which the taking out of Iraq was to be followed by assaults on Lebanon, Syria and Iran.

This analysis from MSNBC's Jerusalem Bureau Chief - "Crisis allows Israel to pursue strategic goals - Analysis: Kidnappings give Israel excuse to neutralize Hamas, Hezbollah" - indicates that Raimondo is correct.

Another "Democratic" neocon...

I hope that Americans will give careful and well-informed thought to root causes and historical realities, in which case I think they will question why a supposedly "legitimate" state such as Israel has had to conduct decades of war against a subject refugee population without ever achieving its goals....

The guy is on Mars if he thinks the Israeli lobby won't prevail. The only way the Palestinians will get a fair hearing here is if they bribe US politicians like the Israelis do but I don't think the Palestinians have that  kind of money. Plus the Israelis have a great scheme going - they kick back a percentage of all of the money we give them instead of using their own. 

That this editorial was even published is a tiny bit encouraging and I  will acknowledge that FOX News actually tried to present the Palestinian viewpoint the other night. I think it was Shepard Smith who specifically said there was another side to story and then FOX went on to show the wanton destruction in Gaza and Smith talked about the hardships that the Palestinians were suffering.

Could someone explain to me why the Israelis did not tell the Palestinians that electing Hamas was unacceptable before the elections? Ditto for the US.

If the US and Israel had dictated who the Palestinians could and could not elect, it seems to me that a lot of this trouble could have been headed off. Why did Israel and the US wait until after the election to say "Sorry, Hamas is a no go?"

Who's kidding who here? The Israelis control every facet of Palestinian life from food to healthcare. The Israelis don't like what the Palestinians are doing, they just blow up their only power plant. Who cares about women and children? They are all would-be terrorists in the eyes of the Israelis.

I don't think the Israelis even consider the Palestinians to be human beings the way they are treated by the Israelis. Sort of a "concentration camp lite" approach if you ask me.

That $50 million of Palestiniana tax revenue stolen by the Israelis still burns me up.

US taxpayers are forced to give $250 million a week to Israel so the Israelis can a nice life and every Israeli citizen has access to excellent universal healthcare. Yet the biggest welfare queens in the world think they have the right to jerk the Palestinians around any which way they want to.

I'd like to jerk the Israelis around for awhile and see how they like it. If it were up to me , the government of Israel would knock off the freebies that all Israelis enjoy and have come to expect.

You want aid for defense? Cut the fat out of your budget is what I would say to the Israelis. Why should the US taxpayer support universal healthcare for the Israelis when we don't have it for ourselves? Lot of bullshit, if you ask me.

First, he's not "pushing the Israeli" line in this instance, if you read his post. He implies he's upset with what is happening and wishes there was some leadership from the U.S. to walk it back.

Second, Presidential candidates Gore & Kerry are American citizens

who stated many times during their campaigns that they were committed supporters of Israel.

(Ken Baer worked for both as a speechwriter among other things, look at his bio.)

If you voted for them, hopefully you knew that they had the same beliefs Ken Baer does. Or were you not aware that it's a typical Democratic platform to be a strong supporter of Israel, to say what Ken Baer said? Or did you think they were pretending?

Three examples of many:

Candidate Al Gore on Israel
(May 23, 2000)
Remarks by Vice President Al Gore to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference at the Washington Hilton Hotel, Washington, D.C., May 23, 2000:

Our enduring support for a strong and unshakable partnership between the United States and Israel; our commitment, our shared commitment to one of the cornerstones of America's national security, a strong, secure, peaceful and prosperous state of Israel. This will never change....

The Cause of Israel is the Cause of America"
By SEN. JOHN KERRY, early 2004

....In this difficult time we must again reaffirm we are enlisted for the duration--and reaffirm our belief that the cause of Israel must be the cause of America--and the cause of people of conscience everywhere.....

John Kerry Position paper, strengthening: Strengthening Israel’s Security
and Bolstering the US-Israel Special Relationship, July 2004

John Kerry believes that particularly in uncertain times like these we must reaffirm and indeed strengthen our special relationship with Israel, our most steadfast friend and ally in the region. His commitment to a safe, secure, democratic Jewish state of Israel is unwavering. It comes from a personal belief that Israel’s cause must be America’s cause.

John Kerry understands that anti-Semitism masked in anti-Israel rhetoric is a dangerous trend threatening both Israel and Jewish communities around the world. John Kerry has always fought against anti-Semitism and as president, he will take governments around the world to task for failing to address this escalating threat.....

Fighting to Move the American Embassy to Jerusalem: John Kerry has long advocated moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, Israel’s indisputable capital. In 1999, he signed a letter taking President Clinton to task for not moving the embassy.

Maintaining Israel’s Military Superiority: John Kerry understands that America must guarantee Israel’s military superiority and supports carefully restricting arms sales to Arab countries in the region. He opposed the sale of Maverick missiles and F-15 fighter planes to Saudi Arabia......

My own personal opinion doesn't necessarily coincide, but I find your rhetorical attack about citizenship etc., and the shock of others here on this thread at this as if it's not mainstream Democratic opinion for decades, is kind of wack; shock that a committed support for Israel is a common Democratic position is not reality, strong supporters of Israel are a significant part of the Democratic party!

People who want to change that about the Democratic party perhaps should think about more civil ways to "persuade" their fellow Democrats on this issue besides insulting them? Ya think? Of course, you can always go with a new version of Nader.

p.s. Howard Dean: ".....Through it all, the United States will maintain its historic special relationship with the state of Israel, providing a guarantee of its long-term defense and security....."

On comparing his views to Americans for Peace Now and AIPAC, when asked if his views of the Middle East were closer to APN's views, Dean said, "No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view." (Forward, November 22, 2002)

Now for those, who see Israel as the "aggressor" -- and probably always will -- recall that these soldiers were snatched from undisputed sovereign Israeli territory.

Do I really have to remind you that Israel has also snatched people from "undisputed sovereign non-Israeli territory"? I need only cite the case of Adolf Eichmann, who the Israelis snatched from Argentina in the late 1950s.

Other than this, it has become clear that (i) Olmert is reacting in the usual manner of a child who has been embarrassed, and (ii) neither side wants to take the steps necessary to provide for peace in the region, so, as far as I'm concerned, a pox on all of their houses. I've been reading about this silliness in the American "news" since I became a sentient being. If I weren't being taxed to pay for one side of the issue, I, quite frankly, would not particularly care what happens over there. Let them sort it out without my tax money.

I watched an American news report about the rocket blast in Haifa. The breathlessness and sense of panic in the report was such as might be seen if a comet from outer space had just struck the earth.

But attacks from Israelii helicopter gunships have been a routine occurence in Palestine for years, and I don't recall the same sort of worlds-in-collision hysteria in our media reports.

Kenneth Baer:

Aside from stating public support for Israel and subsidizing the country as we have done, what would you like to see President Bush do, exactly? Air strikes, maybe?

Were Bush to take military action on behalf of the Israelis, I suspect the reaction from China and Russia, not to mention Europe, would eclipse that of the the Democrats in the U.S. 

Please tell me what you want the U.S. to do?

It's not enough that we have without intention brought forth Iran as a power in the middle east?  What else would you like to see?

Where's Bush on this?

Scene: The Oval Office. Present: Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rummy.

Bush: Can we blame this on Saddam?

(Rice, Cheney and Rummy all shake their heads forlornly).

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Reading some of these remarks, one can only conclude that one of two things are going on here: Shocking ignorance, or even more shocking bias. Adolf Eichman? Did I read that correctly? A reader compares Hezballah's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers with Israel's capture of the mastermind of the death of millions? Then there's "I'd push Baer in front of a bus if I could." I thought this was a forum for intellectual debate, not hate-mongering.

I also thought this was a safe place for liberals. But do these readers stand with the only country in the Middle East that has gay pride parades? No, they stand with those who lynch people suspected of homosexuality. Do they stand with the country that has a female foreign minister? No, with the people who don't let women show their face in public.

Is the world truly upside down?

Okay, in order:

1) If Israel and the United States dictated that Palestinians could not elect Hamas, that would strengthen Hamas' chances of getting elected. Palestinians are generally virulently anti-American and anti-Israel. I don't think they would appreciate being told what to do by people they hate.

2)"The Israelis control every facet of Palestinian life from food to healthcare." I shouldn't even need to counter this, because if you believe this you are so naive that no reasonable argument will persuade you. The Israelis do not, in fact, control every facet of Palestinian life. I could go on and on about this, but a primary example is education, where the Palestinians get to run their own school system (which, by the way, promotes prejudice against Jews). Palestinians also have their own media and government. By the way, your first two arguments appear to contradict each other. If Israel controls everything in Palestinian life, then shouldn't they control the government, and if they controlled the government, would Hamas be in power? Think your arguments through.

3) To compare Israel to Nazi Germany is particularly egregious. Israel is not holding Palestinians in camps in which it exercises totalitarian control and in which its goal is the destruction of Palestinians as a race of people. Palestinians do live in poverty, and they are subject to bullying at the hands of the IDF, but this is not any different than the situation in any country facing an insurgency or signficant terrorist threat, so why are you singling out Israel for comparison with the Nazis? Israel's behavior is far from perfect, but there is no indication that its intentions are genocidal; to me, it simply appears that Israel acts with poor judgment in defense of its own security. Palestinians, by the way, enjoy far more legal rights than do Jews in most Arab countries. In any event, comparing Israel to the Nazis is an intellectual cheap shot and you know it.

4) $50 million? Arafat and the PA have stolen hundreds of millions...how do you think Arafat got rich? Where's the outrage against them? No, only Israel gets criticized for that.

5) MOST IMPORTANTLY, in your post and in other posts I have noticed that U.S. aid to Israel is taken completely out of a security-based context which is crucial to understanding it. Israel is the only democracy and our only truly reliable ally in a region in which we have vital security and economic interests. The U.S. gives aid to Israel both to ensure that our influence in the region is able to effectively counterbalance that of repressive regimes like Iran, to reward Israel for its support, and to demonstrate to other countries the benefits of an alliance with the United States. If you would rather see Islamic fundamentalists who keep women off the streets and kill anyone who disagrees with their extremist and intolerant vision of Islam dominating the Middle East, then yes, we can afford to cut support for Israel.

Lastly, the history of Israel has repeatedly shown that whenever Arab countries have a possibility of successfully inflicting damage on Israel, they choose to do so, as even in defeat the public opinion of their regimes is enhanced in the Arab world. When in war with Israel, the leaders and powerbrokers in Arab states have called not only for the destruction of Israel but also of its Jewish inhabitants, and Arab countries have never had any problems with lobbing rockets and missiles at civilian targets in Israel. Israel needs the military support of a great power like the United States to ensure that its citizens do not suffer genocide at the hands of an Arab onslaught.