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.

Not to mention the dozens, or probably hundreds by now, of extraterritorial assassinations that Israel no longer even bothers to conceal, and that Israel supporters are supposed to admire as examples of Israeli courage, ingenuity and grit.

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.

Then Israel damn well ought to consider American interests before it destabilizes the region.

For an analysis that I found useful see www.billmon.org

Here is an excerpt.

If I had to pin it down, I would say the big difference between this crisis and similar past episodes is how completely off balance the Israelis seem to be – lurching from reaction to reaction without any clear plan or strategy. The Gaza incursion was thrown together, more or less on the fly, which led to some embarrassing public squabbling within the Israeli cabinet. The attempt to decapitate Hamas’s civilian leadership by arresting the entire Palestinian cabinet smacked of improvisation, and largely failed. Hezbollah’s intervention clearly took Jerusalem by surprise, which is probably why the response has been so disproportionate: the Israelis are rather desperately trying to regain the initiative.

What’s strange about this is that the Israelis started with the initiative, at least tactically. I’m told an incursion into Gaza was actually in the works before the Palestinian attack on the frontier post – although the original plan has been for a smaller search-and-destroy operation aimed at suppressing, or at least harassing, the Hamas rocketeers. Whether the Palestinians knew this and managed to get a jump, or were just lucky with the timing of their cross-border raid, the result is that the Israelis were left scrambling to come up with a response, and it showed.

Strategically, the Israelis appear to be at an even bigger disadvantage. The big Gaza invasion, like the little one originally planned, looks suspiciously like a political operation, not an effective military measure. Its primary aim appears to be to reassure the Israeli public that the Palestinians will not be allowed to attack with impunity. In military terms, the rockets out of Gaza may have been just pinpricks, but symbolically they were extremely damaging, because they revealed the total failure of Sharon’s grand strategy of unilateral disengagement. The skillful attack on the border post, and the successful capture of an Israeli soldier, only drove the point home.

The failure of Sharon’s master plan – which is also the raison d'etre for the current Israeli government – is ultimately what this crisis is about, as Juan Cole correctly pointed out in a Salon article last week. Except where Cole sees a deliberate Israeli attempt to create a “failed state” in the Palestinian territories, I see only an increasingly frantic search for a way to avoid the consequences of one, a search which is leading the Israelis to lash out in ways the rest of the world (save for the United States, which will always see the conflict through Israeli eyes) views as increasingly cruel and vindictive.

I'm not passing moral judgments here. I’ve never been able to turn a blind eye to the war crimes of one side or the other – rationalizing the suicide bomb that blows a bus full of Israeli civilians to bloody bits while crying tears of outrage over the destruction of a power plant that provides clean water to tens of thousands of Palestinian mothers and infants, or vice versa. To me, the conflict has long since come to resemble a war between lunatics, and one doesn’t pass moral judgments on the behavior of the insane, not even the criminally insane

Two kids fighting over who has the better imaginary friend...

Don't bother responding to the pro-Israelis with facts. They know that the Israelis are the good guys and the half billion or so other residents of the Middle East are the bad guys. If Israel conducted full scale ethnic cleansing and genocide in the region, or conducted a nuclear attack, these would all be justified in the minds of these people because an Israeli child was blown up outside an ice cream store last year.

"Considering that both attacks were green-lighted by Iran" - I want proof, not the assertions of someone who is so blatantly pro-Zionist. These biased assumptions stated as fact should not be permitted in what is generally a very evenhanded blog.

But evenhandedness and a sense of proportion are thrown out the window by all sectors of the media when it comes to their beloved Israel.

Perhaps we should call territories "compactification zones", as they are not "camps".

The goal of fencing around people in an area as small as possible has some similarity to the idea of concentration camps (if I recall, British originated this idea by concentrating Boers during Boer war), but there is a big difference in degree. So, perhaps, "compactification zones".

Sorry I know for anti-Semites like yourelf the truth is a problem. What a shame.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Hezbollah is Iranian ally and proxy, but perhaps no more than Israel is our ally and proxy. So we are green-lighting bombardment of Beirut etc.

In any case, without speculations that now we will proceed with an attack on Iran itself the oil prices would not be shooting up. Perhaps we should go ahead -- I never liked all those SUV owners (not as humans, but as gas guzzlers).

True, but I think that in this context and in the context of many anti-Israel rants the "concentration camp" claims are usually made in reference to Nazi Germany, in particular because a) people think that it is ironic that the Jews would be doing something to the Palestinians similar to what the Germans did to them and b) because they know it is the one thing they can say which is guaranteed to make supporters of Israel (and in particular Jewish ones) really, really upset. In a survey of many anti-Israel commentaries you will frequently find people comparing Israel with Nazi Germany.

You are just another one of the anti-Semitic asses on this site. What a jerk. Gaza, formally Egyptian territory, never Palestinian, was captutured from the Egyptians.

Has the Palestinians been willing to negotiate with Israel who knows when they could have had a state. Instead Arafat when not stealing billions in aid money chose to engage in war with Israel.

You are fundamentally a racist. You refusal to credit Arabs with any choice in their acts or responsibilty them is racist. Daniel A. Greenbaum

Who funds Hezbollah?
Are you really suggesting that Hezbollah was prepared to plunge the Middle East into war with the approval of their paymasters?

Your facts are still wrong. The Iraelis were on a patrol within Israel when Hezbollah attacked murdering 7 Israelis and kidnapping 2.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

As the Walt Mearsheimer "Israeli Lobby" pointed out that American Jews both give money and vote disproportionaly Democratic. This is true even as the blogshere American Left is largely anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.

The immorality of the America Left as represented by the bloggers here is evident. What will be interesting to see what long term impact this has on Jewish support for Democrats.

I wonder for example if Lieberman won't be helped by the indecency of many here.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Kevin Drum comments on Baer, and later is on the case. So far it looks like Baer is wrong. Not surprsingly from what he's said in the past according to your own post. Please think things through more carefully and critically Mr. Baer, you will only benefit from it.

Hamas was elected because Fatah was widely perceived as being corrupt. The perception was, of course, correct. If elections were to be held today, it is questionable whether Hamas would be returned to power, but there is no clear alternative to either Fatah or Hamas. But given the Israeli Einsatz it is likely that Hamas would win handily.

Olmert's over-reaction is that of a petulant child.

Are you prepared to cite examples of over-the-line "indecency" or are you relying on the general assumption that some of us thinking that Israel is both shooting itself in the foot and muddying up American interests with a disproportionate response to aggression to be proof of said indecency?

And since the style of the times requires stating the obvious to avoid being labelled a anti-American kook etc., Hizbollah perpetrated bad and evil things and continues to do so and kidnapping people is bad and of course Israel has the right to attack military targets actively engaged in operations against her territory.

oouch..very perspicacious comment... love your wit

I haven't heard any official comment from the Bush administration that points the finger at Iran and Syria.

I think that is what  Klein means by subliminal and undercover.

This is true even as the blogshere American Left is largely anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.

Sometimes I agree with what Israel does and sometimes I disagree with their actions...but when I disagree with their actions it doesn't mean I am anti-semitic.

Just as Zionism doesn't equal racism...opposition to Israeli actions does not equal anti-semitism.

Daniel, Daniel, Daniel let me do your work for you:

anti-semite, anti-semite, anti-semite, anti-semite,
anti-semite, anti-semite, anti-semite, anti-semite,anti-semite, anti-semite, anti-semite, anti-semite,anti-semite, anti-semite, anti-semite, anti-semite,anti-semite, anti-semite, anti-semite, anti-semite.

There that feels better doesn't it. Now just sit down and relax take a nap. I've done most of your work for you. You can go online and get after the rest of the anti-semites this evening.

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?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Considering that both attacks were green-lighted by Iran...

Considering that you don't actually have any evidence to suggest that, and considering that Israel is using the "kidnapping" of the Israeli soldier as an excuse to carry out its pre-planned agendas whilst pretending to be responding to an "Iranian" attack...

Kidnapping. LOL!! When Israel goes around throwing innocent children into prison, no one calls it "kidnapping" yet when the Palestinians capture an armed, uniform-weaing member of the occupation forces that have been shelling civilians and murdering innocents, he's been "kidnapped" ! LOL!!

OH I see. The US finances Israel. Therefore the US is responsible for, say, Israelis murder of twelve-year-old Mohammed al-Dura as he cowered behind his father. www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_dura.php

Yes, everyone "wants to exterminate Israel" - Israel is always the victim, and everyone else is always the aggressor. Poor little innocent Israel. Its all just one big anti-semitic conspiracy.

Even Israelis recognize that ISrael has been forcing Palestinians to live in Bantustans and open air prisons. Concentration Camps? If the shoe fits . . .
http://middleeastwindow.com/node/251

Daniel, you are absolutely foaming at the mouth. What you say here has nothing whatever to do with my comment. You do realize that, don't you?

hass,

Considering that you don't actually have any evidence to suggest that....

Good grief.  Like you had any evidence to suggest this --

Are you suggesting that Israeli agents ARE NOT active in Iraq?

The way you cherry-pick intelligence you'll make a great Young Republican when you grow up.

If the Israelis can strongarm the Lebanese Government into attempting to disarm Hezbollah, Lebanon will sink back into civil war. Perhaps Olmert and his crew are stupid enough to think that would be good for Israel. So, bomb Beirut!

They also pointed out that the average American Jew was against the war in Iraq, while Israel obviously was all for it. So I suppose for you that means the average American Jew is "anti-Israel" and "anti-Semitic"?

And now the whole "blogosphere" is "anti-Semitic", Greenbaum?

Give it a rest - you sound pathetic.

We know who funds Hizballah. So what? Funding is not ordering every single action they take.

Yes, it is quite possible that Nasrallah was prepared to ESCALATE (not "plunge the ME into war", since you don't know what he was thinking) as retaliation for the Gaza invasion - or even as retaliation for earlier events, since Nasrallah seems to have said they were planning their kidnapping even before the Gaza kidnapping.

In any event, Hizballah performed a kidnapping, as they have done in the past and which resulted in hostage negotiations and swaps.

THIS TIME it was Israel's DECISION to widen the war and attack a neighboring sovereign state which was NOT in control of the actual actors involved in the kidnapping.

And if you'll reread my post, I said the initial Hizballah attack was on the Israeli side of the border. Originally a report I read mentioned that Israelis had been killed on the Lebanese side of the border which is true - they sent a tank over and it got blown up, then they lost more men when they tried to retrieve the tank bodies.

"where the Palestinians get to run their own school system (which, by the way, promotes prejudice against Jews)"

Which, by the way, involves Palestinian school children being attacked by Israeli soldiers and settlers on their way to school - a consistent strategy used by Israel to oppress the Palestinians.

"Palestinians also have their own media and government."

Well, they did until Israel kidnapped most of the ministers in a collective punishment condemned by just about everybody except the US.

"Israel's behavior is far from perfect, but there is no indication that its intentions are genocidal..."

Which means you've never read any Zionist literature or the public statements of high-ranking Zionists and Israeli officials (to say nothing of the radical right settlers) for the last century about driving out the Palestinians.

"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."

This is too ridiculous. The money we give Israel only serves to strengthen Iran, and make everybody in the Middle East hate the US for supporting a Nazi state engaged in ethnic cleansing. It would be like the US supporting Milosovec in the Balkans in suppressing the Kosovars, as a recent example.

"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."

You are truly an ignorant person. Israel has the 13th largest military in the world, including a nuclear arsenal estimated at 100-400 nuclear weapons, including nuclear warheads on cruise missiles on submarines. Since when does a country with that level of military power need US support to defend itself against a bunch of ragtag Arab armies that have been defeated several times even when acting in concert against Israel?

One word: Vanunu.

The more I read this site, it becomes clear that neocon pundits and Zionist thugs are battling it out with people who see through the rationalizations of the former which support the disastrous foreign policies of Bush and the neocons.

That's his job at AIPAC, apparently.

Interestingly, somebody noticed that Wolf Blitzer and CNN has mentioned the one Israeli woman killed yesterday on practically EVERY newscast they've done - but only ONCE mentioned the Israelis killing FIFTY Lebanese civilians so far in their onslought.

And now I find out Wolf Blitzer used to work for the Jerusalem Post AND used to work for AIPAC.

Gee, who woulda thought?

The LA Times has already answered this nonsense.

Hamas and Hizballah are funded and supported by Syria and Iran to a considerable degree.

Nonetheless, both organizations can and have operated independently from their sponsors.

Even the Israeli official quoted in the LA Times article admitted he has NO direct evidence that Iran called the shots in this case.

That ends the discussion unless you have something more substantive than Zionist propaganda.

Listen to the media "report" and regurgitate the Israeli comments blaming Iran and Syria. And you can bet that all the reporters are getting "off the record" comments from all the usual suspects saying the same thing.

Oh, yeah, that IS the message from the White House and Tel Aviv - time to attack Syria and Iran. That is the whole purpose of this escalation.

It's fascinating. A couple soldiers get captured - or "kidnapped" (what's the difference? Beats me...) by their enemies. Their country proceeds to attack a neighboring country which country's government has no control over the ones responsible.

The soldiers country then in turn blames two OTHER countries as being behind it. These two other countries just HAPPEN to be the two countries most threatening to the soldiers country and just HAPPEN to be two countries that the US wants to do regime change on.

Gee, it's all so simple - Syria and Iran are "bad guys" - like Saddam was a "bad guy".

Time to go to war again.

What's fascinating is how for one minor act of whatever you want to call it, terrorism or whatever - like that guy in Sarajevo who started WWI - we end up with a major war involving at least four or five countries in the Middle East.

And yet somehow, in WWI, we didn't say that one guy started the war. But today we say the terrorist group who kidnapped the soldiers "started the war."

What's wrong with this picture?

Read the post above yours and the Justin Raimondo article referenced in the post above yours.

This explains the "logic" in detail.

The way you cherry-pick intelligence you'll make a great Zionist thug when you grow up.

Oh, wait, you're grown up.

It's been known for the last three years that Israelis are operating in Iraq.

See this Seymour Hersh interview at the DemocracyNow! Web site.

Money Quote:

"SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, it's simply, as you said, Israel did very much support the war and I'm sure some of the people in the audience know there's even internal investigations going on now inside Israel into whether there had been falsification of evidence on weapons of mass destruction and some of the falsification had been give ton the United States before the war. Obviously as an Israeli once told me, it's wonderful to wake up in the morning and see America in the east, you know, in Iraq to the east of Israel. And so for Israel obviously getting the United States into the Middle East was very important. But once we got there, we did it so badly that by last summer, there was a lot of concern. One of the concerns being we were ignoring the fact that Iranian -- Iranians were coming across the border and helping the resistance to organize. No Iranian was taking any offensive action against America. They were simply helping their allies who were against us, to organize as I said. And eventually what happened is they moved into the Kurdistan. The Israelis have had long standing ties to the Talibani and Marzani clans Kurdistan and there are many Kurdish Jews that emigrated to Israel and there are still a lot of connection. But at some time before the end of the year, and I'm not clear exactly when, certainly I would say a good six, eight months ago, Israel began to work with some trained Kurdish command does, obstensively the idea was the Israelis -- some of the Israeli elite commander units, counter-terror or terror units, depending on your point of view, began training -- getting the Kurds up to speed. I think the initial goal was to help the United States fight the insurgency. We were doing very badly. Our special forces were not able to find the opposition, despite all the value our Delta Force and SEALS simply weren't able to accomplish the mission that we thought they could. That is through interrogation and house-to-house searching, find the people that were running the opposition against us, the growing opposition. I think, of course, there was a lot of miss judgment. One of the big ones being that last fall we concluded there was a finite number of 5,000 people or so who were involved in leading the insurgency. Remember those statistics that were given to us by Abizaid and Sanchez, the American army commanders there. It seems clear now that was a huge mistake that was as a widespread disaffection, probably inspired by our actions as much as anything else. In any case, once there, Israel got into terrific trouble with turkey. Turkey is Israel's -- the whole point of Israel's survival mechanism is to final non-Arabs and like them, like Kurds. In fact case of turkey, they establish add very good relationship with a largely Islamic country, a very progressive country. And in terms of being Islamic, not fundamentalist. Israel, I think something like 300,000 Israelis vacation every year in turkey. It is a great place to go. Good shopping, etc. And Israel's jeopardizing that long-standing relationship now. Because the Turks have gone batty about Israeli's support for Kurdistan simply because that also suggests that the Kurds will do, as they're threat tong do, go independent. And also move to seek the oil. Therefore, the Kurdish borders are about 40 miles or so from Kirkuk, the large oil field in Northern Iraq. And all of this is very dangerous. It would spark another great conflict up there if Kurdistan goes independent. The Turks would not tolerate. That is not acceptable. There is huge Turkish minorities inside -- Kurdish minors inside Turkey, inside Syria, inside Iraq, inside Iran and all those countries would feel very shaky. For example, two million Kurds live in Syria. They would feel very shaky by an independent Kurdistan. It is a destabilizing move by Israel. A move that they see in their good interest. As you said, the Israelis are actually helping to -- are involved on the ground, I understand, inside Iran. They're not inside Syria. But Israeli agents are working to collect intelligence on Iran because Israel sees Iran as its great menace. Not only because of its potential nuclear weaponry, Iran, we don't know exactly what Iran is doing with nuclear weapons. But also because Iran, as everybody agrees, if there is a winner in this mess in the former Iraq or whatever we want to call it now, it is going to be Iran. They are going to emerge as the strongest country. They have the -- they have a large population. They're going to emerge as the winner politically of the whole mess."

What was said was that there was no evidence that Iran or Syria specifically ordered either the Gaza kidnapping or the Hizallah kidnapping.

Maybe I am making a leap of faith but in my mind there is no doubt Hezbollah took the Israeli soldiers hostage at the request of or with the blessings of Syria and Iran.  In taking this position I am in no way saying it justifies the use of military force against Syria and/or Iran.  I feel Israel's military response to the taking of the hostages was an overreaction.  I see the Bush Administration trying to exploit the crisis to justify more military action to further their GWOT agenda.  In saying that I am not saying that military action is warranted...in fact it is completely unwarranted imo.  The last thing I would be doing is making a suggestion that involves "violence".

But that doesn't change the fact the Hezbollah does nothing without direction or approval from Syria and/or Iran.

A sad fact is that many governments come to power by killing people. A superpower realizes this and reacts to outrageous acts committed by these governments with DIPLOMACY. Nixon went to China despite the fact that the Chinese leaders supported the murder of dissidents. Diplomacy allowed the muderer Khadafi of Lockerbie fame to return to the "acceptable" government list.
Bush wants to democratize the Middle East. The initial result is a Hamas government in Gaza and at least 1 Hezbollah member in the Beirut government. The Lebanese and Palestinian governments are both, in reality, incapable of exerting force to suppress the fundamentalist militants within their borders.
The response to strikes by a minority of the Lebanese and Palestininan population is the blockade of the borders and halting of transfer of goods into and out of both regions. The result is suffering of Muslims who had nothing to do with the kidnappings that were used to justify the Israeli military strikes. One expected outcome will be the radicalization of moderate Muslims. The only solution is diplomacy.
The Bush administration should have stated that while they did not like how the election in Gaza turned out, they believed in deocracy and would stand by the results. Hamas should have been told that they were directly responsible for the Palestinians in Gaza. any success or failure was on Hamas' shoulders. Withholding funds because Hamas won was self-defeating. The other choice Palestinians had was a corrupt Fatah party. If Hamas was receiving funds to feed their population and direct their government, but still committed the kidnapping, there would less of a question of an incompetent Hamas government. The Gaza restrictions gives Hamas an out.
Hezbollah's stronghold is within the first 10 miles of Lebanon's southern border. The entire population (Christian and Muslim) is suffering for the acts of fundamentalists within this area. The result more anti-Israel and anti-US feelings.
Are many leaders in the Middle East corrupt and vicious. Yes. But we are actively seeking access to markets in China, calling the non-democrat Putin a friend, and listing a dictatorship in Pakistan as an ally in the war. Thus a superpower will often deal with less than honorable governments. Israel will continue what it considers defensive acts until the US takes an active role in resolving the conflict.
Condoleeza Rice was an incompetent national security advisor, but I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as Secratary of State. The current events show that I was too generous. The absence of even a representive in the region is an atrocity.

I just came back from a thread elsewhere.

Greenbaum was calling Arnold Evans an anti-Semite, so he decided to have some fun with me. He said he wasn't pro-Israel, but he thought Greenbaum was having so much fun calling everyone anti-Semitic that Arnold wanted to try it.

So he called me an anti-Semite and a Nazi, and a bunch of other things, after prefacing it by saying he hoped I wouldn't be offended.

I returned the favor by calling him a "Zionist thug.'

We both felt so much better after that. We now see why Greenbaum does this stuff - it's fun.

But I'm still buying some ice cream to eat tonight anyway...

White Rose

If starting a regional war in the Middle East was Bush's primary aim from the beginning then everyone needs to apologize for calling the administration corrupt and stupid. Why would a regional war in the nation be a bad thing for the United States in the long term? For one, multiple enemies would destroy themselves both militarily and economically. Second, a ruined region would not only turn toward the suddenly emergent American companies, they would come to RELY on them whether they fall for the ruse or not. How is that bad for the United States in the long term? Yes oil prices would shoot to unsustainable levels, but is that such a bad thing in the long term? Even Mr. Environment Al Gore can appreciate what $6 a gallon gas can do to the Petrolium Complex currently afflicting the United States. Why, it could cause us to get serious about "fixing" it, much as he says we 'absolutely must do or we'll all die next week.'

The real question, aside from whether a Middle Eastern war was Bush's grand design, is whether American oil companies are willing to pony up and unveil their post-oil intentions.

What Al Gore fails to mention in his Hollywood "masterpiece" is that energy companies already have their oil "alternative" under lock and key. It was industry which propelled the United States to the forefront of nations after the turn of the 20th century. Time has allowed other nations to catch up.

It will be energy that propells the U.S. back to the forefront. A true petrolium alternative (not electric or hybrid mind you; that's just silly) would suddenly cause all of our enemies to just...disappear.

A question: If Bush's intent all along was to play the proverbial Franz Ferdinand of the Middle East, what was his intention?

A Middle East civil war would work to hurt his beloved oil interests (as well as the interests of his Neocon friends) because crippled supplies of crude would work to STOP Americans from putting petrol in their tanks.

Perhaps the question proposed at the outset should be enlarged to: If Bush's ultimate intent is to start a crippling, region wide war in the Middle East, and if such a war would create devastating problems for his own dear oil industry, what "further" agenda is he attempting to serve?

Energy stupid!

I'm not saying Bush himself has much to do with this. I believe even Cheney himself is becoming somewhat of a puppet (if he hasn't been from the beginning). The real puppetmasters of the "Neocon" mantra are the gentlemen who preside over the oil conglomerates. They have cleverly picked a couple of whipping boys in the forms of Bush and Cheney. The nation, nay the world, has bought the script completely.

It took a World War to get the United States addicted to oil. It will take another war to break that addiction in favor of another one...

There are reasons why American oil companies and energy companies ALL seem to take a keen interest in the doings of the Bush administration. And that reason is not coincidence.

Shocking isn't it?  Especially in the land of inflamed rhetoric. ;-)

RJB

If you read the post clearly it makes perfect sense. But if you want me to sum it up, here goes:

The entire world is addicted to oil. Though profits from oil are at all-time highs right now, other factors such as Chinese demand and anti-American sentiment in the Middle East will work to turn the oil paradigm against the U.S. To regain its standing as lone world superpower the U.S. must find the "next big thing" after oil. I believe they have already done this but have simply not disclosed it yet.

Starting a regional war in the Middle East serves two huge needs: both contain the stamp of American design. The first is commercial imperialism. A devastated region would allow American companies to gain a strategic foothold in the Middle East. Everything from McDonald's to Wal Mart. The second thing, and most important, is that the oil supply infrastructure of such a war would so cripple supply that the world would almost require an alternative. That is where the American oil and energy congolmerates would "unveil" their intentions and thus prolong the monopoly.

Brilliant really...

White Rose

You don't like it because we were "deceitful?"

Moral arguments are like assholes, everyone has one.