Where is W?
For those of us who follow the Middle East closely and are committed supporters of a strong US-Israel relationship, it's been a surreal and nerve-wracking few days.
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.
And as all of this transpires, where is W?
Well, the Washington Post's Dan Froomkin picks it up from here:
The Middle East is exploding and what is President Bush doing about it? Not much.
Here's the transcript of this morning's joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in which Bush sounded more like a bystander on the world stage than the leader of its only superpower...
Stopping off in Germany on his way to the G-8 summit in Russia, Bush reserved his greatest enthusiasm for tonight's pig roast -- technically, a wild-boar barbecue -- bringing it up three times. "I'm looking forward to that pig tonight," he gushed.
Forget for a second that neither side in this battle would eat the pig in question, Froomkin is onto something: the Middle East is spiraling into a regional war. 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.) The entire region is in flux with more moderate (e.g. Jordan) nations and less moderate, but Sunni ones (e.g. Saudi Arabia) alarmed by what an emboldened Iran would mean for their part of the world. And the American President is nowhere to be found.
While in the past there has been some skepticism in the pro-Israel community about "engaged" Presidents, these skeptics must realize that only an American President can focus the conversation and walk back this situation -- and unless you are itching for a three-front war with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria; the destabilizing of Jordan; and an escalation of terrorist attacks on targets in the region and abroad, then you'd want this situation walked back.
Of course, the President's handling of the Iraq war and the aftermath has diminished his credibility and ability to use American prestige and leverage in the region. But whatever is left is better than nothing -- and all we have until we elect someone new in 2008.










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.
July 13, 2006 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where are Dubya's fat cat Saudi friends, high tailing it out of the resorts and casinos of Beirut, ever uncaring about taking any responsiblity for Arab leadership and for peace in the region.
July 13, 2006 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Where's W? Where Dianne Feinstein is. This paragraph from her response to my letter re: Gaza
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?
July 13, 2006 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I stated in response to hoppy's post, Bush's attention has been diverted by the war in Iraq.
The U.S. was in a much stronger position to be an honest broker in the Middle East peace process before the war in Iraq. It has sapped our resources, diminished our prestige around the world, and strained relationships with many of our historic allies.
July 13, 2006 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 13, 2006 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Baer, how do we know that Iran has anything to do with us, other than generalized support for Hezbollah? Is it because Hezbollah wanted to send its hostages to Iran? That's pretty weak IMO.
Uh also, why ARE you committed to a strong US-Israel relationship? It has brought us nothing but trouble the last 45 years.
Finally, it's done more than diminsh prestige and leverage, it's diminished our military capacity to respond.
July 13, 2006 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 13, 2006 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Indeed. The Lobby's Think Tank division has picked up the talking points haven't they?
Sure it is Iran's interest. Sure it is in Syria's interest but there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the Hizbollah actions were even tacitly approved in Damascus or Teheran.
The US and Israel not Tehran are to blame here.
Weak indeed.
July 13, 2006 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 13, 2006 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
The autocrats in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the authoritarian Mubarak note well. Bush has unleashed the Street in a surge of democracy. A Sunni/Shiite populist front is more likely to come to pass than Baer's "walk back"
A veritable Red/Black/Green Revolution.
July 13, 2006 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
July 13, 2006 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Gee could you be more patronizing next time? Or at least more subtle about it than Rush Limbaugh?
Rare, refreshing and probably a violation of the Anti-Palestinian Terrorism Act of 2006. Tuesday WaPo OpEd by the PM of the Palestinian Authority
July 13, 2006 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
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...
July 13, 2006 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kenneth
I have to ask why you are committed to a strong US/Isr relationship?
According to your bio you are a US citizen. Correct me if I am wrong.
A lot of us besides you have been watching the Isr/Pal deal and the ME very closely and see an entirely different set of facts than what you are presenting.
So what's the deal here? Why are you pushing the Israeli line when you know that what they are doing is making things much worse in the ME for Americans and America?
July 13, 2006 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 13, 2006 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Now for those, who see Israel as the "aggressor" -- and probably always will -- recall that these soldiers were snatched from undisputed sovereign Israeli territory.)
I don't see Isreal as an "aggressor" but neither do I see Hamas or Hesbollah that way. I just see two sides in a war .
I expect Isreal will target what it calls terrorists but should more properly be called its opponents. And do that even tho "innocents" will be killed.
And I expect that its opponents will capture or "kidnap" Israeli soldiers. That's called 'being at war'.
I'm not bothered when either W or Diane Feinstein talks about our committment to Isreal. Personally I want Isreal to be safe and I support US involvement to ensure that.
But I don't agree that the conflict is between the Isrealis who are "right" , and another side "the terrorists" who are in the wrong because they kill Israelis. It's a war and in a war each side does war- like things.
I agree with W that Isreal has the right to defend itself. I find it perfectly understandable that it should re invade Gaza to stop the firing of missiles. But that doesn't mean that I think Isreal is entitled to do whatever it wants.
Personally I agree with Rabbi Lerner (thanks Juan) that Isreal went too far in destroying the Gaza power supply. Not because that was "collective punishment". Collective punishment is just part of war. The moral judgement comes into play in deciding whether a particular collective punishment at a particular time is justified.
It's possible to conclude that Hiroshima was justified but that the Administration's temporarily rejected plan to use a nuclear device in Iran ( see Sy Hersh ) is wrong. At this time.
It was appropriate for Isreal to invade Lebanon in the 80s and to go all the way to Beirut but wrong to enable the Marionites to slaughter Palestinians trapped in the camps.
Now it's appropriate for Isreal to bomb buildings used by Hamas leaders. Even tho the innocent family next door is killed. But it would be wrong for Isreal to fire bomb Gaza city.Now.
Thus I think Isreal's bombing the power supply was going too far . Was wrong. And W and Feinstein should have said that at the same time they said Isreal has the right to defend itself.
July 14, 2006 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
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...
July 14, 2006 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you, MN. Overnight, Iran's sponsorship has become a "fact". From what I read, it is a "fact" primarily because Israel says so and you know how it goes in Washington - it must be true if the Israelis say so.
Read Ken Baer's commentary with a healthy dose of skepticism. This is the same guy that was happy to promote an Iranian cartoon as a basis for war here in the TPM Cafe a few months ago.
And where did I have to go to watch said cartoon? MEMRI.
Shortly after Baer's post about the cartoon, I saw Newt Gingrich also promoting it as a basis for war on television.
Trust me, the cartoon was not any big deal and if we went to over it, I'd push Baer in front of a bus if I could.
July 14, 2006 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you looking for, an email from Iran to Hizballah? Anyone who knows anything about Hizballah understands that such an operation could not be taken without full Iranian support.
what about the the launching of missles by Palestinians into Israeli cities preceding the "Israeli Masscares"?
Israel may see this as an oportunity but that doesnt stop the fact that Hizballah and their supporters are to blame for this escalation. They launched rockets into Israeli territory crossed the border killed soldiers and kidnapped 2 more.
thank goodness. if he says so then i believe it.
thats just bullshit. Where do you get your reports from? 4 Israeli soldiers however were indeed killed on the Lebanese side of the border after they moved in to look for the kidnapped soldiers.
July 14, 2006 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Why are you pushing the Israeli line when you know that what they are doing is making things much worse in the ME for Americans and America?"
yes defending your country's citizens is surely the wrong thing to do.
July 14, 2006 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
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:
The Cause of Israel is the Cause of America"
By SEN. JOHN KERRY, early 2004
John Kerry Position paper, strengthening: Strengthening Israel’s Security
and Bolstering the US-Israel Special Relationship, July 2004
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)
July 14, 2006 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Anyone who knows anything about Hizballah understands that such an operation could not be taken without full Iranian support."
That is not true - as the Los Angeles Times points out today, Hizballah operates on its own as well as being supplied by Iran via Syria and frequently doing what Iran wants. An Israeli official himself admits in the story that he has NO direct evidence that either Iran or Syria ordered the Hamas or Hizballah kidnapping operations.
"what about the the launching of missles by Palestinians into Israeli cities preceding the "Israeli Masscares"?"
First, how far back in time do you want to go in tit-for-tat? Second, they aren't "missiles" - they are homemade rockets that haven't demonstrably caused any injuries except possibly one. The Hamas rockets are not the same as the Hizballah rockets. The Israelis killed at least thirty Palestinian civilians last month alone.
As for the border position of the Israelis, I stand corrected. The kidnapping appears to have occurred on the Israeli side of the border. It seems that the confusion is because the initial Hizballah attack was on the Israeli side of the border, but the Israelis sent a tank across the border, which was blown up, then the Israelis sent a unit across the border to retrieve the bodies (apparently unsuccessfully) and received further casualties.
However, there HAVE been numerous Israeli military incursions into southern Lebanon in the past, and vice versa, not to mention frequent Israeli Air Force violations of the border.
Not that the details matter - Hizballah has done this before on the basis that they and Israel are "at war" and Israel has prisoners of theirs, and the result was a negotiated release or exchange. This time Israel clearly intends to start a war with Lebanon, and probably Syria, while also trying to ratchet up the pressure on Iran to justify a military attack there by the US and/or Israel.
July 14, 2006 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Bush would be concerned much about the Democrats "pissing blood", Gettysburg. In any case, very few national Democratic leaders would get unduly worked up about US intervention on behalf of Israel.
Bush is following the same overall strategy he has followed since coming to Washington, where the Isaeli-Palestinian conflict was concerned. When Sharon was still in power, that strategy was called "let Sharon" win. Now the strategy is called "let Olmert win."
But if, as Kenneth Baer suggest, the Middle East is spiraling toward a regional war and the United States looks like it is not particularly interested in doing anything to break the spiral, then perhaps it is time to consider seriously the possibility that a regional war is precisely what Bush administration hawks have wanted since they invaded Iraq. When a warlike regime gets bogged down in one local conflict, they don't pull themselves out of it - they escalate.
July 14, 2006 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Middle East is spiraling into a regional war. 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.
Please try to retain some sense of context, and extend your memory beyond the last few hours. There has been a whole cycle of "ante-upping" going on for several months now, ever sice Hamas was elected.
Clearly Israel's military responses are more than about "going after its soldiers". This is a major operation which has clearly been well-planned, and surely has broader aims. Israel is blockading an entire country, assaulting its capital, and crippling its airport. These are the actions a country takes when it seeks to cut off re-supply lines in advance of further large-scale action. The soldiers have provided the pretext.
July 14, 2006 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
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?
July 14, 2006 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush and his neocons are simply following
'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm'.
http://zfacts.com/p/139.html
Regs, Shaggy
July 14, 2006 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
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
July 14, 2006 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
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!
Nobody's surprised, artappraiser. People just want to hear some reasons why "committed support for Israel" buys us nothing but the privilege of standing by helplessly while Israel trashes US interests in the Middle East, or even pushes the US Government toward trashing American interests in a war with Iran. Why is that?
July 14, 2006 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
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?
July 14, 2006 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Baer, your description of the events in the Middle East follow the necessary approved script for any acceptable discussion of a Middle East crisis by responsible members of either major political party:
first: the Arab provocation (check)
second: the rogue state backers (check)
third: the doughty Israeli (facing threats to its very survival) defensive response (check)
I guess you think this stuff will always sell.
July 14, 2006 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"yes defending your country's citizens is surely the wrong thing to do"
lh25 I hope that was a non-sequitor, because as a response to the actual question actually accuses Ken of what you are trying to defend him from.
Few question Israeli rights to self-defense, although many question the methods it has used in the past, the question is why does this become a matter of American National Security?
We have already seen this in the runup to the War on Iraq and the current escalation in Iran. In each case we had a country that was a self-proclaimed threat to Israel, and in each case was not an actual security threat to the US. Few Rightists cared to say it openly and fewer Leftists were willing to call them on it but it was interesting to see how many references to Saddam paying families of suicide bombers or Iranian missiles being able to target Israel pop up if you push them enough.
If the combined armies of Syria, Jordan and Egypt were attacking Israel with a combined assault I would agree the US and for that matter the United Nations would have a duty to intervene. But this is neither 1948 or 1967. The United States simply does not have a dog in this fight, other than of course its duty to try to keep this blaze from going regional. But early indications are that certain people are urging the US to load up its firetrucks with gasoline instead of water.
July 14, 2006 7:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
To compare Israel to Nazi Germany is particularly egregious.
To compare the occupied territories -- especially Gaza -- to "concentration camps" is not to compare Israel to Nazi Germany. Concentration camps were not invented by the Nazis, nor has their purpose generally been extermination. Credit for their invention is usually given to the British (Boer War), and the "fortified hamlets" policy in the Vietnam War is a good American-sponsored example.
July 14, 2006 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 7:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
...then perhaps it is time to consider seriously the possibility that a regional war is precisely what Bush administration hawks have wanted since they invaded Iraq. When a warlike regime gets bogged down in one local conflict, they don't pull themselves out of it - they escalate.
Yes! If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.....
July 14, 2006 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
For an analysis that I found useful see www.billmon.org
Here is an excerpt.
July 14, 2006 7:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm quite curious what it is Mr. Baer thinks Bush should do. Clearly we align with Israel every chance we get. Clearly Hezbollah and Iran does not listen to American presidents, and neither to their people. So aside from telling Israel to calm down (or increase if it so fits Mr. Baer's fantasy) their military actions, or tell Israel to reach out farther diplomatically (maybe I suggest impossible if they are still bombing them,) what would you like Bush to do?
I'm no fan of our president. But it seems to me that much of the animosity the Middle East has toward America is our tendency to meddle in their affairs. Unless someone can put forth workable solutions and actions, we need to watch from the sidelines.
July 14, 2006 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two kids fighting over who has the better imaginary friend...
July 14, 2006 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
I'll steal a line from Atrios, because i was thinking the same thing. Israel's response started with two kidnappings. So, Who in Iran 'greenlighted' anything? By what process? By whose authority? When? Who told you?
This "Iran is behind it all" crap had better have some real, quoted sources behind it and not some anonymous claptrap invented to support some theoretical narrative, because a great number of innocent people are about to die if cooler heads don't prevail.
-GFO
July 14, 2006 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where Is W?
I'll tell you: he is wherever he needs to be in order to busily broadcast subliminal ideas to the media. That's why we are hearing the meme bounce endlessly through media space that Iran and Syria are involved.
From ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Middle East on the Brink
Aired July 13, 2006-23:00 ET [with John Roberts interviewing Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein]
Are the Neocons using microwaves? What's the frequency? I haven't heard any official comment from the Bush administration that points the finger at Iran and Syria.
July 14, 2006 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
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".
July 14, 2006 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Hamas leadership is living in Syria. Syria and Iran have financed both Hamas and Hezbollah. What sort of proof were you looking for?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 14, 2006 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry I know for anti-Semites like yourelf the truth is a problem. What a shame.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 14, 2006 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israeli policy since 1948 has been to not allow their soldiers to be kidnapped without a response. Do you really think that Israel like the United States like every major nation doesn't have a war plan for many contingencies?
Israel hasn't been in Lebanon in six years and even the Syrian ambassador to the United States was caught on tape expressing his view how quiet the Israeli Lebanonese border has been.
I realize that it is alright with you for groups to want to exterminate Israel. You make no mention of the the missiles being fired from Gaza toward Israel since Israel withdrew from Gaza.
Tell me why don't the Palestinians lay down their weapons and build their society? Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 14, 2006 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
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).
July 14, 2006 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you are equating the capture of a Nazi who helped in the murder of 6 million Jews with the kidnapping of three Israeli soldiers in Israel, along with the murder of 9 other soldiers?
The more I read this site the more it appears the moral difference Bush and the posters here are slim and none.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 14, 2006 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is just another symptom of the sociopathology of this country where we're aghast that the Palestinians should have allies and backers and protectors because we're the ally, backer and protector of Israel. Are we so incapable of empathy and putting ourselves in someone else's place that we're shocked that the Palestinians may not be alone in fighting Israel, just as Israel is not alone in fighting the Palestinians? Some of us seem to think that we're the only country in the world and the world revolves around our pronouncements and only we have the right to decide what and who is right or wrong.
In Ignatius's WP post this morning he too wondered why this administration wasn't involved in this latest crisis, saying that "...America maintained a role as an honest broker between Israel and Arabs." I can't decide if he is disengenuous or delusional because the greatest problem we have in the Middle East is the perception they have that we're anything but an honest broker, and that we have always favoured Israel to the detriment of the other countries in the region. I wonder if these people just type this stuff up because they've always typed this stuff up this way, or if it ever occurs to them that everything they read in their papers might not be the only story in the world.
"Gee, why do they hate us?"
July 14, 2006 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
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
July 14, 2006 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Saudis, the Egyptians and the Lebanese all put the responsibilty on Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.
The Hamas and the Hezbollah attacks were make on Israeli soil. That alone makes it Hamas and Hezbollah's responsibilty.
Justin Raimondo says. So what? He knows what you spew because what he is a neo-Nazi?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
July 14, 2006 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
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
July 14, 2006 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taking in the comments on this thread I am really struck by how they have broken down along a pro-Israel - anti-Israel line. Not pro-Palestinian nor pro-Lebanese...just anti-Israel.
Anybody who doubts that Syria and Iran are giving support to Hezbollah's actions are naive or blind. But I don't think that is the point of Mr. Baer's post. The point is that the supposed last remaining world superpower is doing absolutely nothing to diffuse this situation in terms of showing leadership. Bush says "Israel has a right to defend itself"? DUH...no kidding Captain Obvious. Rice is urging for Israel to show restraint? That would be helpful. They are trying to frame this all as part of the GWOT to help their neocon agenda. When in reality this (in the here and now) is a conflict about regional issues and is being fought with conventional weapons and tactics.
I think some in the administration have floated Syria's and Iran's names out there trying to draw them directly into this conflict so we will have "justification" to use military force against either or both countries under the guise of the GWOT.
July 14, 2006 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
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
July 14, 2006 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read what I wrote, instead of what you want to believe that I wrote.
Kidnapping is as kidnapping does.
July 14, 2006 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
My main point is that I want to see some real (i.e., not rhetorical) evidence that Iran, Syria, et al. have any direct involvement in the planning and execution of these attacks.
The whole notion that terrorism must necessarily be state-sponsored is the kind of hidebound thinking that contributed to our Iraq debacle. Not to mention the kind of thinking that the Israeli hard-liners are exploiting to use us as their agents for destabilization in the greater Middle East.
July 14, 2006 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. To me this is nothing more than the same "WMD and AL-Q is in Iraq " propaganda that led up to us being in Iraq in the first place.
What we have here is the new story to serve as justification for the USA attacking Iran...which Bush already has told us he was going to do.
So now, we throw Israel in the mix, let them be the first ones to do the 'pre-emptive strike'...thus serving to force an alliance of Syria, Iran, Egypt and Jordan..to fight Israel...and we Americans will come in to the MIDDLE EAST war to 'defend' Israel.
How many times do we have to see this script before folks recognize it as a RE-Run???
July 14, 2006 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish I had an answer to that...maybe it's the constant, petty humiliations that are inflicted upon them everyday, the wholesale punishments meted out to their society, their pride, their religious convictions, their need for revenge and retaliation which seems to be equal on both sides, or their perception that the situation has been unfair since the beginning of time...or as Maj. Clipton saw in "The Bridge Over the River Kwai" it's "madness, madness..."
July 14, 2006 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
oouch..very perspicacious comment... love your wit
July 14, 2006 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is true even as the blogshere American Left is largely anti-Israel and anti-Semitic.
Bullshit strawman alert.
[edit] Note, responding to the general "blogsphere" statement. Not defending any of the inflammed rhetoric on this thread.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
July 14, 2006 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that is what Klein means by subliminal and undercover.
July 14, 2006 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
"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. "
Israel is a net security debit, not asset. Our agreements with them are entirely one-sided. We derive no benefits from the relationship, and incur great difficulties in our relations with other countries due to our support for them. Our only interest is moral. We do not want genocide inflicted on a country with which we share cultural traits, peopled by the descendants of those we abandoned to genocide previously. I am comfortable with that as a reason for supporting them and see no need to resort to fictitious portayals of Israel as a "friend" or an asset.
July 14, 2006 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
So why are the Israelis bombing Beirut? Aren't the rocket attacks coming from Hezbollah strongholds in south Lebanon? In my opinion the best way to ensure their safety is to take out the rocket entrenchments. Bombing Beirut may indeed turn Lebanese against Hezbollah, but what probably will happen is that the Lebanese will feel even more humiliated and powerless and resentful to Israel.
July 14, 2006 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Open your eyes America!
The notion that the actions of Hizbollah are unrelated to the events in Gaza is but another illustration of something I have been "kvetching" about in these pages for sometime, and that is the tendency of US foreign policy elites to myopia. Iran's nukes are not one problem; Iraq another; the Bush "Arab Spring" another; the NeoCon "Strategy for Securing the Realm another; the rise of political Islam another, and the War on Iraq, yet another.
The kidnapping of Gilad Shalit is not one problem, the US/Israeli plan to crush the freely elected government of Palestine by means of collective punishments and human suffering another. The "convergence" plan to annex unlawful conquests on the West Bank is not one problem and the Quassam rockets still another.
Welcome to the Greatest Strategic Disaster in the history of the United States. Take off the blinders. You haven't seen anything yet - and the US, thanks to George W. Bush's cowboy antics and kowtowing to Israel is powerless
The road to peace didn't run through Baghdad afterall.
Open your eyes and it is so damned easy to see what Israel is up to. Richard Haas to his great credit, knows what none of our America Abroad experts seem to. Last night on CNN he called for direct and unlimited talks with Iran on all regional issues and said it should have been done yesterday.
Now it may be too late. The Israelis are nobody's fools
Israel Crosses the LineAnd you read it here first… by Justin Raimondo
July 14, 2006 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
*OK, it was Cthulhu, but that might be too obscure for lots of people. (Is Dick Cheney an avatar of Yog-Soggoth?)
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 14, 2006 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone explain the logic behind the Israeli response in Lebanon?
While I don't necessarily agree with it, I understand the logic with respect to Hamas. Hamas has some sympathy for the people of Gaza, and the people of Gaza may be able to pressure Hamas. The people of Gaza are actually responsible for Hamas having power, and can be held responsible for Hamas' actions.
In Lebanon, we saw huge demonstrations of unarmed people protesting Hezballah. Hezballah then staged large armed demonstrations to make clear that opposition was pointless. Yet the Israelis are inflicting punishment on the Lebanese people rather than on Hezballah. Are they expecting the Lebanese people to exert pressure on Hezballah for Israel's benefit when they can't even do it to help themselves? Even from an amoral, selfish point of view, the Israeli tactics make no sense.
Njorl
July 14, 2006 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
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!!
July 14, 2006 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I realize that it is alright with you for groups to want to exterminate Israel.
Daniel, your rhetoric is no better than anyone else's around here.
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
July 14, 2006 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
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
July 14, 2006 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The same country that has "gay pride parades" shoots children as they cower behind their father, and then denies it, and then tries to blame it on the victim.
Face some facts about Israel.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_alaqsa_dura.php
July 14, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point exactly: tune in for the evening news to hear Brian Williams: "According to the latest subliminal and undercover statements from the White House..."
Has it come to that?
July 14, 2006 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
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
July 14, 2006 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rational thinking, Libertine? How dare you!
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
July 14, 2006 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
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?
July 14, 2006 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely. Didn't Bush already tell us he was going after Iran next? These strikes by Israel are nothing more than the tactic to get us there, just as WTC bombing got us into Iraq via the "Al-Q lie" We are going to attack Iran via the "Israel lie that Iran is behind this",
How much more blatant does it have to get? America wants to control the Middle East for the oil. We have de-stabilized the region via Iraq war and now Israel will use America's own 'pre-emptive strike" Bush doctrine ..to generate a full-scale war. Listen to Bush's rhetoric 'Israel has a right to defend herself' is that not the very same rhetoric he used in that standing on that pile of rumble in NYC with the firemen? "America will defend herself against all enemies"
Puhleeeze, this script is getting tired and old.
July 14, 2006 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
hass,
Good grief. Like you had any evidence to suggest this --
The way you cherry-pick intelligence you'll make a great Young Republican when you grow up.
July 14, 2006 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
lol..no...but Bush has stated on several occasions that Iran is the next country the US sees as a threat to democracy in the middle East...and the administration has made some strong remarks about needing to 'dis-arm' them of their ability to'enrich uranium'...so these subliminal messages have been circulating for awhile.
July 14, 2006 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
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!
July 14, 2006 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't question his loyalty to his country.
July 14, 2006 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd say Dick is more like a "Yug", if this quote from a Wikipedia entry is correct:
"In particular it be those of the minions that inhabit the noisome depths beneath the Earth's crust that lure men to their dreadful service through promise of wealth; for all the ore and riches of the world be theirs to dispense, aye, mines of gold and great heaps of inestimable gems [READ:OIL!]. Of these, the Yuggs, whose name the Scribe rendereth as the Worms of the Earth, are by far the most to be feared, for it is said there be many a rich and wealthy man bestriding the proud ways of the world today, the secret of whose wealth lies in acursed treasure brought to his feet by the immense and loathsome, the white and slimy Yuggs, whereby to purchase his service to their Cause, to the utter and most damnable betrayal of humankind, and the imperilment of the very Earth.
—excerpt from John Dee's translation of the Necronomicon[1]"
July 14, 2006 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the rest of the world calls the Israeli Lebanese response "disproportionate" and the Israeli Gaza response "war crimes".
"The Hamas and the Hezbollah attacks were make on Israeli soil."
Bullshit. They were made on soil DISPUTED by Hamas and Hizballah and the Palestinians and the UN since 1947 and before. And who cares where it occurred? The Israeli theft of Palestinian land and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians occurred everywhere in Palestine. Resolve that issue before you start babbling about "Israeli soil", to which they have no valid claim.
July 14, 2006 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"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?
July 14, 2006 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might also remind him that some Israeli settlers just kidnapped several Palestinian civilians, ostensibly in exchange for the Israeli soldiers.
July 14, 2006 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israeli policy in numerous cases of previous kidnappings of their soldiers has usually resulted in prisoner swaps or other negotiations.
THIS time they decided to attack a neighboring sovereign nation which had no control over the actions of the kidnappers (one may legitimately ask why they have no control, but since Israel invaded Lebanon in the past, I'd say they have a hand it the reason.)
As for the so-called "Gaza missiles", they are insignificant, causing but ONE unconfirmed injury, while Israel has repeatedly killed numerous Palestinian civilians, and holds some 9,000 prisoner, most without charges, in Israeli prisons where they are routinely tortured, not to mention destroying thousands of Palestinian homes, farmland, and more.
July 14, 2006 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
July 14, 2006 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The billmon piece is pretty good. Interesting that Israel intended an incursion into Gaza before the kidnapping - kinda puts the "they started it" bit back on the back burner - although of course it's been tit-fot-tat for fifty years.
The issue is whether Israel is flailing or intending to use this to achieve strategic goals for themselves and possibly for the US neocons in terms of attacking Hizballah, Hamas, and possibly even Syria and Iran.
I'd say it isn't clear who is in charge right now in Israel - Olmert or the military hardliners. I think Olmert, who has no military background, is being led by the military - willingly led, however.
I don't buy that Israel is "just flailing". It may be that their operations were not fully planned, but I suspect their intentions were to create and then make use of provocations which an eye to achieving some strategic goals that benefit Israel and the US neocons.
The number of Palestinian civilians killed in the previous month, as well as the attempts to crush the Hamas government via economic means, clearly were likely to provoke a serious retaliation by Hamas. What was remarkable was that the main Hamas movement spent a lot of time trying to come to an agreement with Fatah over a way to negotiate. It was, as far as anybody can tell, a splinter group that did the Israeli kidnapping. The Gaza invasion then clearly provoked the Hizballah action, EVEN if that action had been in the planning since BEFORE the Gaza kidnapping and invasion - the two possibilities aren't mutually exclusive.
The real evidence, however, is the timing - this is a US election year, and the Republicans are running on national security while trying to fend off accusations of incompetence on Iraq. Israel widening the war in the ME and blaming the Palestinians, Syria and Iran clearly plays into the hands of the neocons. Whether this was done in concert with the US neocons, or done by Israel on its own initiative - as I and others have predicted might be done - is unclear at this time.
For the record, I agree that the Palestinians who blow up Israeli civilians are idiots - they should be blowing up Israeli Zionist officials. If you're going to kill yourself anyway, take the risk and take out somebody important. But I never said Palestinians were smart - just oppressed.
July 14, 2006 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watching CNN coverage of this debacle I can only conclude that they're working overtime to make this "our" war and to champion the escalation of the conflict to include Syria and Iran. As per usual, Israeli victims/targets are noted but the 60 plus Lebanese (and 4 Brazilan family members) killed are rarely mentioned.
Today, that ignorant Kyra Phillips was actually arguing with a Lebanese (anti-Hezbollah) expat about Israel's destruction of the infrastrucure. She has clocked hours covering the Israeli strikes on all sorts of civilian targets yet seemed quite affronted by his contention that Israel was causing problems for ordinary Lebanese citizens by doing so.
There also seems to be an emerging meme (expressed by Israel's UN ambassador Dan Gillerman) that the Lebanese are secretly quite pleased by Israel's actions. Of course, the failure of the citizens of Lebanon to thank the Israelis is proof of Hizbollah's control.
July 14, 2006 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
July 14, 2006 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Anybody who doubts that Syria and Iran are giving support to Hezbollah's actions are naive or blind."
Nobody said that.
What was said was that there was no evidence that Iran or Syria specifically ordered either the Gaza kidnapping or the Hizallah kidnapping.
And without such evidence, where is the justification for attacking Syria and Iran over a terrorist group's actions?
Obviously the "justification" is that those "terrorist" groups are "supported" by those states. Duh. So what? That has been the case for years. In fact, Israel ITSELF supported Hamas as a way to fragment the PLO in the past. Not to mention that the US is supporting the anti-Iranian M.E.K. group in Iraq - at least to the extent of not doing anything about them - despite the fact that they are on the State Department's terrorist group list.
The issue is WHY are these states supporting these groups and WHY do these groups exist? And that brings everything back to: the US and Israel's actions in the ME.
Trying to do regime change on every state on the planet that "supports" some "terrorist group" would require attacking most of the states on the planet - and then the US committing suicide.
A more intelligent response would be to change US and Israeli policies to resolve the issues causing these groups to exist.
As Wash said in the movie, "Serenity", "Can I make a suggestion that doesn't involve violence - or is this the wrong crowd?"
July 14, 2006 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the post above yours and the Justin Raimondo article referenced in the post above yours.
This explains the "logic" in detail.
July 14, 2006 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, when will the MSM catch on? Why didn't they highlight the fact that with the Middle East exploding, while in Germany on the eve of a hugely important G-8 Summit in Russia, Mr. Bush was more interested in the pig he was eating for dinner, as Froomkin noted in his WaPo blog and Jon Stewart highlighted on the Daily Show. It was a crushingly embarrassing moment for America.
I thought I could no longer be shocked by the depths to which American leadership could sink.
July 14, 2006 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
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."
July 14, 2006 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey josh, below you jump on someone for questioning a supporter of israel's loyalty to the u.s. how you feel about one of your commenters calling the left blogosphere largely anti-semitic?
July 14, 2006 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Kidnapping is as kidnapping does."
I am not so sure. I know that the kidnapping of Eichmann, although an illegal act certainly by international law, was morally justified in a very deep sense. Some situations are sufficiently exceptional as to fall outside the law and this, for me, is clearly one such. But having said that, the kidnapping of the soldiers, as reprehensible as those acts must be, does not justify the scale of retaliation going on now, far from it. That is the morally indefensible part of the Israeli response; at some point this massive retaliation will backfire and the tragedy will be clear even to the Israelis and (less likely) to their American friends.
July 14, 2006 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And my point, as the LA Times also states in an article on the subject, is that your statement that they do NOTHING without direction from Syria or Iran is not true.
They CAN and HAVE acted independently at times, according to terrorism experts. They are funded and supported by Syria and Iran - not utterly controlled by them.
Now, whether they have "approval" is another matter. Most of the time I would expect they do. If, however, their actions threaten their sponsors - as this one may be doing - they might not. For that, we will have to wait and see. I suspect that regardless of "approval" or not, their sponsors may have no choice but to engage Israel as if they DID approve of Hizballah's actions.
It certainly seems clear to me that Israel's disproportionate military responses and accusations against Syria and Iran are clearly designed to provoke a wider conflict against those two countries - which just happen to be the two main countries Israel would like the US to do regime change on.
July 14, 2006 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
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...
July 14, 2006 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOD WILLS IT !! (loud huzzas and calls for revenge, leader exclaims, 'Killing infidels is the path to heaven')
July 14, 2006 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
July 14, 2006 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am not so sure. I know that the kidnapping of Eichmann, although an illegal act certainly by international law, was morally justified in a very deep sense. Some situations are sufficiently exceptional as to fall outside the law..."
Sorry, things really don't work like that. What you claim to be moral, others may disagree. And that is why there is law--even the chimera that is "international law."
Israel showed with the Eichmann kidnapping that it was--and probably still is--willing to pluck people from other countries for their own purposes. They can hardly be in a position to complain when others do the same to their people.
July 15, 2006 4:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shocking isn't it? Especially in the land of inflamed rhetoric. ;-)
July 15, 2006 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg,
When you get over your hangover and your head clears a little, if in fact that ever happens, you should rewrite this so that it makes a little bit of sense.
July 15, 2006 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
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...
July 15, 2006 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope..the administration is corrupt and the decider is decidely stupid.
I do not believe it is bad long term. I just beleive the way we went about it was deceitful.
My belief along has been that America wants to control the oil in the Middle East as leverage against China and Japan our bankers. China and Japan depend on the Middle East for 20-40% of their oil vs. the USA which only relies on the East for 5-10% of our oil. So controlling the global oil supply is the objective.
July 15, 2006 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
White Rose
You don't like it because we were "deceitful?"
Moral arguments are like assholes, everyone has one.
July 15, 2006 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
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
. …..energy companies already have their oil "alternative" under lock and key.
I made a partial list of your recent ridiculous and unsupportable statements about energy and it’s role in our current ME crisis situation and put them in a response to one of your posts on “Israel takes a Stupid Pill”. I take your non-response as admission or agreement that these statements cannot be supported. I look forward to you correcting me if I am wrong.
July 16, 2006 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink