Libertine

There is no doubt that in reading the Israeli press that there is a sense in Israel that the IDF has let Bush down. It seems if anything there is some distress that the Israel is too dependent on the views of Bush and Rice.

In terms of peace I am not sure why you equate Bush's terms and the Israels. Bush seems to want to see the overthrow of various regimes. Israel would like to live in peace behind secure borders.

When are the Saudis and the other moderate Arabs going to use their clout within the Arab world to deliever the Palestinians to sch a deal?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

If Israel wants to live in peace, it has a strange way of going to that goal.

Abdullah's plan was rejected out of hand, without a counter-offer --- an alleged proof in a total lack of interest in the peace process.

Instead, Israel has chosen a secutity doctrine that does not seem to be acceptable to anyone living in the close proximity. To wit, neighbors are not allowed to have any weapons -- lest they pose a threat, they can be kidnapped at any time, and they should live in a state of complete blocade, lest they have chances of getting any weapons.

And most of them should live in small plots of land, separated from each other by roads they are not allowed to enter.

As far as more substantial neighbors are concerned, Israeli proxies are busy promoting the idea that we should attack them (Syria, Iran, or, as someone proposed, Syran). Israeli concept of safety is predicated upon a total lack of safety for her neighbor -- not a stable concept, and not a good basis for negotiations. Hence the concept of "unilateralism".

Doesn't Prince Turki have some enormous skeletons in his closet?

Call me Michael Moore, call me a Zionist (for the first time ever!) but one of the frighteningly bizarre things about the last 5 years is the way the Saudis got away without paying any price at all.

This is the leffwing fantasy. Israel has no goal of eliminating Hezbollah but it is hurting it severely. It rain into the Baalbec region shows Hezbollah also can be reached anywhere. Israel is also now launching a much more massive ground offensive.

The idea that Israel has been humilated is amusing but mythical. I don't seen Syria rushing to assist their allies Hezbollah and you will notice that Lebanon cringes while Hezbollah uses it for a sacrificial lamb.

As for how Israel is seen in the ME, who cares. The Arab leaderships have spent 50 years blaming Israel for their failures. Now that the Shiaa pose an actual threat to the Sunni regimes in Saudi Arab, Jordan and Egypt they are caught in a trap of their own devising. Speak the truth and risk being overthrown by their own people, stay silent and allow Israel to do what is necessary without any input from the Arab governments.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

You concern for the Lebanese is so touching and so phoney. The "hospital" was an Iranian training base. It wasn't bombed it was stormed by commandos. Besides the minor details you got wrong in yoru anti-Israel diatribe you also have your morality backwardd. You want to protect the Lebanese? Have Hezbollah stop firing at Israel and disarm.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

great way to adress Turki's argument, I guess it is called ad hominem

This is the leffwing fantasy. Israel has no goal of eliminating Hezbollah but it is hurting it severely.

Those crazy leftwingers:

The Israeli army does not aim at killing the leader of the radical group Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah, but at liquidating the group itself, the head of the Israeli army's northern command General Udi Adam said in interview with national radio station Kol Israel.

“To kill Hassan Nasrallah is not one of the aims of the ongoing offensive in Lebanon,” the General said. “Nasrallah may continue making statements. What matters is the liquidation of Hezbollah,” he added.

Piotr,

Abdullah's plan was rejected out of hand, without a counter-offer --- an alleged proof in a total lack of interest in the peace process.

That's not accurate....

CNN:

The Israeli government reacted to the Saudi proposal with caution, but Alon Pinkas, the Israeli consul general in New York, said Israel is ready to discuss the initiative

"Look, the Saudi idea has a lot of positive elements in it, which is why we have never dismissed it at face value," Pinkas said. "Quite the contrary, we said we will endorse and enter a dialogue with the Saudis or anyone else -- indeed in the entire Arab world -- if they are serious on the normalization issue. The thing is, that life in the Middle East has taught us to be extremely skeptical and extremely wary of these kind of declarations until they are actually delivered in the Arabic language."

The Guardian:

Aides to the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, said the term "normal relations" was too vague and rejected any right of return for refugees, though reference to a "fair solution" may leave some room for negotiation. An aide to the prime minister said: "The new fact that the Saudi crown prince was able to get the peace initiative passed is a very interesting development, something that should be pursued, but it has to involve direct negotiations with Israel."

Washington Post:

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has expressed the wish to attend the Arab League Summit in the Lebanese capital of Beirut later this week, and has asked the United States to intervene in his favor.

"I suggested I'll go to Beirut to talk to the Arabs directly about what might be achieved," the prime minister said in his interview with the Washing[ton] Post published on Saturday.

"I would welcome an American initiative to advance such a move," he declared.

Sharon told the paper that he intends to present the Arab leaders with his own peace plan, which "comprised of three stages":

The first stage would be a ceasefire as defined by the Tenet plan and the implementation of the Mitchell recommendations.

The second would consist of a "long-term interim agreement granting the Palestinians territorial contiguity without naming final borders."

The third stage would be the establishment of final borders to be "determined by the future relations between Israel and the Palestinians and in the spirit of UN resolutions... 242 and 338."

A senior political source said Saturday that Sharon made the suggestion during talks with visiting U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney early this week.

"Sharon said that he was ready to go to the Arab summit in Beirut to present Israel's views on the Saudi proposals. It is important the Arab states hear Israel's views," the source was quoted by reports here as saying.

"Cheney took note of it... but there has been no answer from the Americans,¡±the source added.

But Israel's and the US's goals, independant of one another, more times then not are the same Daniel.  I accept in good faith and believe the argument that Israel only wants to live in peace with it's neighbors.  Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are obstacles to that goal.  Those obstacles need to be removed or rendered moot before there can be peace in the region.  Judging by the Saudi, Jordanian and Egyptian reaction condemning Hezbollah's acts the moderate Arab countries realize that Hezbollah's actions are an obstacle too.  But you are right Jordan and Saudi Arabia have not taken a very active role in pushing for a peace initiative up to now.  But Israel's actions will make it more difficult for them to assume that role because of the increasing hostility towards Israel within their populations.  I will not condemn Israel for defending itself per se.  But Israel's devastating attacks on Lebanon right now are are having a very chilling effect on the prospects for peace with their neighbors...and the Bush administration is cheering on/encouraging Israel as all this occurs.  

Hezbollah may have gotten stronger in the course of the six years since Israel left Lebanon. They haven't gotten stronger since the conflict started. They are firing a lot of missiles but they are not hitting too much.

If "a terrorist organization" can't be hurt then not only will lots of Israelis die but so will lots of Arabs, Europeans and Americans. The American left's proclivity to surrender when things get hard is disconcerting. Fortunately most peoplee don't list.

Israelis are upset at the IDF for not bring more force to bear. It looks like that force is not being applied to Southern Lebanon. The Irony is the people who are so sure that Hezbollah can't be stopped are the same people who whine that Israel is fighting this as a war and not a game of patti-cake.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Yes, or at least it is most important that Israel's neighbors fear Israel.

I think if Israel follows your prescription they will be dead before you know it. The idea that you show weakness and the other side will respond in kind is deadly.

If the Arab world every wants to break the news to their peoples that Israel will not be exterminated and a deal should be worked out then I think Israel should leap at the opportunity.

Olmert has even gone so far as to say that this war in Lebanon encourages him to proceed with his plan to withdraw from the West Bank. The setter groups are going wild. What more to you expect an Israeli government to do?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Hezbollah may have gotten stronger in the course of the six years since Israel left Lebanon. They haven't gotten stronger since the conflict started. They are firing a lot of missiles but they are not hitting too much.

In so far as Hizbullah benefits from unified Arab state criticism of Israel (and the U.S.) and to the extent that it benefits from the unified Muslim response (Sunni support of Shi'a), it is hard to say Hizbullah has not gotten stronger, politically at least, as a result of this conflict.

I look at this mess and I look at the extent to which the US is contributing to it and can only come to one conclusion: Bush really does want "permanent war." He and Condi are standing by, wringing their hands in public, and plying IDF with weaponry on an expedited basis when the red light goes off.

The conflict is turning out very, very badly for Israel. Damned if I can figure out why and how they got themselves into this position, a situation in which they're suffering enormous losses in respect in the international community while Hezbollah (which I'd swear is not the real target) enjoys surges in popularity, even among those who once royally disliked it.

If this is indeed a "proxy" war, then it sure looks like permanent war is the purpose. What's going on behind the scrim while we argue about how many babies, who's guiltiest, who's an anti-Semite?

Just a shot in the dark, but if I were organizing a program, I'd look for a speaker who's a defector from the Project for a New American Century -- if only to remind all of us where much of the madness originates and what may still be driving the US into endless war, whether through total engagement or "by proxy."

so what you are saying is that accusing israel of something which it has admitted doing and apologized for is equivalent to the blood libel?

Let me get this straight. Hezbollah are "not hitting much", but pose mortal danger to Israel and need to be wiped out? Is Hezbollah an existential danger or an ineffective band of outlaws? You can't have it both ways.

Apparently Hizbollah can have it both ways.

You are comparing Mr Greenbaum's conflicting statements to those of Hizbollah?

Perhaps we might be allowed to expect higher standards of intellectual rigor from each other than that.

The American left's proclivity to surrender when things get hard is disconcerting.

Not nearly as disconcerting as the American right's proclivity to drop bombs in lieu of a foreign policy...

so what you are saying is....

Perhaps the Saudi's could sell jet fuel and laser guided munitions to Israel while it's bombing Lebanon?

Or perhaps the Saudi's could join the coalition of the willing and send thousands of troops to take the strain off America's occupation of Iraq? I hear that there's lots of vacancies on the C_alit_n _f t_e W___in_.

In the meantime, who exactly is Saudi Arabia invading? Whose land are they dispossessing? Hmmmm.

Okay, all kidding aside. Perhaps Americans in could set their pompous condescension aside and look clearly at what the Saudi's bring to the table.

They are the natural born diplomats and politicians of the Arab world. The Sauds, for one of the first times in modern history, managed to unite a bunch of warring bedouin tribes in an area so chaotic and messed up that no one... not even the Ottoman Turks had ever claimed it. Look at pre-WWI maps, arabia was the last blank spot on Earth. Not only did the Sauds form a coalition, they preserved their independence from Britain. No small accomplishment, compared to the rest of the middle east.

They held that coalition together for over eighty years, outlasting the Soviet Union by whole decades.

They founded OPEC, wielding a pack of oil countries from three continents and as fractious as cats into a coherent organization and made it effective.

They hold two of the holiest cities in the Muslim World and have managed to be fair handed and honest brokers in their administration.

I think that I'd take a Saudi peace plan a lot more seriously than anything that the United States puts out.

The Israeli press is supposedly concerned about letting Bush down?

Are the "Israeli press" as blind to reality as the dangerous fools in DC who are muttering the following nonsense?:

"In private talks our friends in Washington are angry at us, they are disappointed – particularly in light of the military achievements so far – but they are fighting to the end for us. "Your incompetence will kill us", this sentence is frequently being heard by Israelis in touch with officials at the White House."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3285050,00.html

Perhaps it's time for Israeli decision makers to take a real measure of just who their "friends" are. Clearly, the buffoons in the WH complaining about Israeli incompetence have a credibility problem when it comes to judging such things, not to mention accepting uncomfortable realities.

Then again, perhaps the friends are admitting they fear that Israel's actions will indeed, kill (more of) "us", especially those of "us" on the frontlines in places like Iraq, for instance.

Nah.

"wiseass" So you feel that you have a right to deliver personal insults to people, Zionista.

It's one thing to crap on or misrepresent a person's views. But it's another thing to shit directly into a person's face. 'Wiseass' is a half step short of calling someone an 'Asshole'. No one has called you an 'Asshole' Zionista, and neither I nor Tom Washere have resorted to personal attacks.

just like the belief that Israel somehow enjoys and desires the slaughter of children is Valdron's prerequisite to be horrified by Qana.

I have to reply to this, because it is clear that you have either misunderstood or misrepresented my original post on this.

If you read, it is very clear that I am not making any reference to Israeli's taking pleasure in the slaughter of children. Nor do I deal with what the Israeli's do or do not desire. Ohmert has apologized for the slaughter of children.

However, on this front, there is a genuine moral question. If you bomb a country, you do risk killing women and children. So the act of bombing a country carries with it the tacit willingness to murder women and children, as a consequence or side effect, if not an actual target. In practical terms, women and children who are killed are just as dead.

In this particular campaign, the evidence is that Israel has hit far more civilian targets than military ones, has killed at least ten times as many civilians and noncombatants as Hezbollah. So there are very legitimate grounds for questioning Israel's actions here.

I note, for the record, that not only was I not making blood libels or suggesting that Israeli's were jerking off to children's corpses. Rather, I was responding sarcastically to a statement by Daniel's boasting about the raid on the Baalback hospital. If Daniel feels that crowing about a hospital attack is a celebration of Israel's military prowess, then I think I'm entitled to mock that. Please note, I was not directing an insult at Daniel's person, I was targeting his words.

Now, to return to the beginning. I'm not going to call you an asshole. But I would ask that you reconsider your posts and perhaps make an effort to treat people who disagree with you with courtesy and thoughtfulness.

And none of this 'he started it' or smart ass 'you first' nonsense. The reality is that the only conduct you can truly control is your own.

valdron beat me to the punch, and put it much more eloquently than i could have. i reread his initial post that prompted your comparison with the blood libel, and the context of his remarks seems pretty clear to me. i'm not sure if comparing his remarks to the blood libel was a rhetorical device or if it's genuinely based on the belief that valdron is a really serious anti-semite. if it's a rhetorical device it seems a bit rich for you to call me a wiseass. if you genuinely think he's a really serious anti-semite then you're either not paying attention or you must know a great deal i don't.

Ah, religion. The libel of blood as a component of matzoh. Matzoh is actually much more like the communion host, so when one considers the Miracle of Transsubstatiation, one gets a fascinating interfaith mixture of doctrine and demonization.

I'm going to go eat a cracker and ponder theology. No, I didn't mean a southern one.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

But it's remarkable how few ideas come out of the left when it comes to fighting terrorism.

Maybe that’s because it’s a loaded question. Maybe that’s because fighting terrorism means not spawning terrorism through our actions. The right took over this government with a huge surplus of funds and then goodwill following 9/11 but has squandered both. In my lifetime, I’m sure I will never again see the amazing revelation of the whole world united in sympathy and solidarity with America right after 9/11, though I expect the decline and hatred of us that we’ve engendered since then will continue.

If you take the position that terrorism is not an ideology and all terrorists are not members of the same club with the same grievances and motivations, perhaps pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Muslim states, mass civilian killing and destruction of countries (the entire strategy of destabilizing the M.E.) is not the answer.

In fact, going after the terrorists who have attacked you through intelligence, international cooperation and policing instead of “collective punishment,” might be one idea. Not spending our resources and our children’s resources on some grand neo-con, neo-imperialist agenda or some Judeo-Christian Crusade against the Muslim world to create a new M.E. order might be one idea. Of course when you say fighting terrorism you really mean just fighting, right? [end rant]

Israel may not enjoy the slaughter of children, but it responds in Rhett Butler mode "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".

And there is Israel's problem and America's problem in the Mideast. Nothing we say or do speaks louder than our callous disregard for their lives and particularly the lives of their children.

"In private talks our friends in Washington are angry at us, they are disappointed – particularly in light of the military achievements so far – but they are fighting to the end for us. "Your incompetence will kill us", this sentence is frequently being heard by Israelis in touch with officials at the White House."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3285050,00.html

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The White House must really live in a fantasy world if they can complain to the Israeli's about their lebanese military efforts after the USA's "stirling" effort in Iraq.

Israel may not enjoy the slaughter of children, but it responds in Rhett Butler mode "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn".

Yes. Israel is being judged by their actions and not their stated 'intentions'....as well they should be.

What's that all about? Your guys make the mess and then berate the rest of us for not explaining to you how to clean it up? All of a sudden we're "mommy" who's letting you down? So now we need to insult "mommy" for being smart?

As others have said eloquently, "leftists" wouldn't have gotten themselves into this. See? "Leftists" learn the lessons of history. Lordy I wish "rightists" would do the same.

I challenge you to point me to an article or speech written by a center-left authority that put forward concrete ideas to combat terrorism that doesn't essentially say that the US needs to change its foreign policy or Israel needs to make more concessions.

If the US's changing its foreign policy or Israel's making concessions would work, then maybe those suggestions shouldn't be dismissed out of hand as not being legitimate solutions to the terror problem. What you're really saying is that the solutions the left has proposed are unacceptable to you because you really want war.

PW,

Your guys make the mess and then berate the rest of us for not explaining to you how to clean it up? All of a sudden we're "mommy" who's letting you down? So now we need to insult "mommy" for being smart?

As others have said eloquently, "leftists" wouldn't have gotten themselves into this. See? "Leftists" learn the lessons of history. Lordy I wish "rightists" would do the same.

Brushing aside the neo-Freudian clutter, PW does have a valid point.  The approach of Bush-Cheney & Co. has certainly mucked things up on a grand scale.  It will take massive brain power and herculean will to clean up their mess, and it is the height of chutzpah to put it on "the left" for not delivering the goods.

That said, an honest and effective approach to history has hardly been any party's strength along the political spectrum.  Those who insist that we can fight our way to security remain ignorant of its desperate consequences; while those who propose that concessions from the only non-Arab state in a region dominated by Arab supremacists ignore the lack of results from the concessions that have been made (that is, when the willful ignorance of any concessions at all hasn't dominated the narrative).

while those who propose that concessions from the only non-Arab state in a region dominated by Arab supremacists ignore the lack of results from the concessions that have been made

Oh, you mean like when Israel gave back the Sinai and Egypt made peace and signed a peace treaty? That sort of concession? Darn those wiley Egyptians!

What sort of concessions lead to the Jordanians traitorously entering into a peace treaty with Israel, and then sneakily abiding by it?

Or like when Israel gave back the Golan Heights and Syria refused to make peace? Oh wait!!! Israel refuses to give back the Golan heights, and that's why every peace initiative the Syrians make founders.

Hmmmm...

Would Israel withdrawing from the Gaza, but keeping control of its borders, remaining as an occupying power, and turning it into an Indian Reservation for 1.8 million people be considered a concession?

Would Israel building a wall through the middle of the Occupied Territories be considered a concession?

Would Israel deciding it was unilaterally going to annex the parts of the occupied territories it wanted and had illegally settled be a concession?

I dunno, it strikes me that there's a difference between concessions and self serving 'show pieces.'

While its nice to see Zionista's post coming half way towards reality, I think that the journey still isn't quite finished.

But hey, good for you so far.

Purple State,

So, what authority does Daniel Pipes have on policy making, besides being just another in a long line of right wing demagogues?

In fact, the reaction to the Saudi proposal isn't unlike the reaction of Arafat to Barak's proposals. Dismiss them completely and give up talking. What good does that do?

That is a distortion with no basis in fact...

CNN:

The Israeli government reacted to the Saudi proposal with caution, but Alon Pinkas, the Israeli consul general in New York, said Israel is ready to discuss the initiative

"Look, the Saudi idea has a lot of positive elements in it, which is why we have never dismissed it at face value," Pinkas said. "Quite the contrary, we said we will endorse and enter a dialogue with the Saudis or anyone else -- indeed in the entire Arab world -- if they are serious on the normalization issue. The thing is, that life in the Middle East has taught us to be extremely skeptical and extremely wary of these kind of declarations until they are actually delivered in the Arabic language."

The Guardian:

Aides to the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, said the term "normal relations" was too vague and rejected any right of return for refugees, though reference to a "fair solution" may leave some room for negotiation. An aide to the prime minister said: "The new fact that the Saudi crown prince was able to get the peace initiative passed is a very interesting development, something that should be pursued, but it has to involve direct negotiations with Israel."

Washington Post:

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has expressed the wish to attend the Arab League Summit in the Lebanese capital of Beirut later this week, and has asked the United States to intervene in his favor.

"I suggested I'll go to Beirut to talk to the Arabs directly about what might be achieved," the prime minister said in his interview with the Washing [sic] Post published on Saturday.

"I would welcome an American initiative to advance such a move," he declared.

Sharon told the paper that he intends to present the Arab leaders with his own peace plan, which "comprised of three stages":

The first stage would be a ceasefire as defined by the Tenet plan and the implementation of the Mitchell recommendations.

The second would consist of a "long-term interim agreement granting the Palestinians territorial contiguity without naming final borders."

The third stage would be the establishment of final borders to be "determined by the future relations between Israel and the Palestinians and in the spirit of UN resolutions... 242 and 338."

A senior political source said Saturday that Sharon made the suggestion during talks with visiting U.S. Vice President Richard Cheney early this week.

"Sharon said that he was ready to go to the Arab summit in Beirut to present Israel's views on the Saudi proposals. It is important the Arab states hear Israel's views," the source was quoted by reports here as saying.

"Cheney took note of it... but there has been no answer from the Americans,¡±the source added.

There is absolutely no risk on the part of the Arab establishment to backing up their rhetoric by opening diplomatic relations with Israel.  But without ambassadorial or diplomatic exchange, there is no substance behind the rhetoric of the Saudis or the Beirut Initiative.

I vote for foolish.

I do not mean tat BradtheDad is a fool, but here he proposed a liar's paradox. Moreover, it appears to me to be an original argument, hence his own invention.

I would still aplaud untrollish avoidance of the boiler-plate positions, as well as an attempt to clearly state his position (which made the logical fallacy so clear).

I am pretty sure, however, that Brad meant "without retreat from our current priorities in our foreign policy", or some other variation of the boilerplate "... would mean that the terrorists already have won."

Characterization of all insurgent movements across the world as "terrorist" was a very foolish idea, leading to efforts against insurgents in Nepal, agaist opponents of atrocious opponents of Myammar regime etc. Somehow we managed to avoid labelling Sudanese genoside in Darfur as "anti-terrorist activities of the government and its supporters", but we are almost there --- definitely, our diplomats did not offer any concrete solutions for Darfur.

Another issue is a humungous number of military bases we mantain arounf the globe -- financially, a boondogle, politically -- our bases are oftern inflaming the public opinion in most friedly spots, like Japan and Philippines, so one can imagine their impact in not-so-friendly spots.

Another issue is our efforts against governments that we really should not care about, like Chavez and Aristides.

Issue after issue, USA would gain from a healthy retreat from the current manic foreign policy posture.

An official statement by an IDF spokesman nearly constitutes the proof to the contrary, so yes, in the light of that statement it is highly improbable that Israel hopes to "liquidate" Hezbollah. Like when IDF claimed that they responded to rocket fire when they demolished a shelter with women and children in Qana. Or when IDF denied that Gaza children were killed on a beach by their artillery (they proposed a "staged explosion"). I truly have a hard time recalling a true statement from IDF.

There may very well be Worldwide Conspiracy forming in cyberspace.

Note this report of an uptick in attacks on Israeli and US websites with participation by hackers having no connections to the "Ummah".

http://www.zone-h.org/content/view/13937/30/

It's a flat world after all.