Daniel: I agree with you, but unless you go further I'm afraid that your recommendation can be accused of incoherence.

One cannot pick and choose from the ISG report and say, for example: let's push for a peace initiative in the Israeli-Arab conflict while ignoring Iran.

Here's why:
Our hostility to Iran empowers Hezbollah (natural proxy pushback by Iran), which in turn weakens Israel's deterrence (the little of it that's left) and makes any serious peace move in Israel political suicide.

What I am saying is that, while I am with you on the urgent need to mount a diplomatic offensive,
not to include Iran in that calculation is bad policy (though maybe good politics).

Let me put it differently: in Iraq the US lost and Iran won. Until the US engages Iran on Iran's terms, there won't be peace in the middle east. We can thank Bush and his neocons for that but that's a different issue. Bad policies have a cost. Here the cost is to makes friends with the ayatollahs.

So, any Dem willing to go out on a limb with a call for a peace initiative in the Israeli conflict(s) had better state a policy of engagement with Iran. Otherwise he/she is wasting everyone's time.

Now if anyone here can argue why and how Israel can get peace while Iran is our sworn enemy, I am all ears.

Daniel -- I'm a serious admirer of yours but I think the wrong policy viz-a-viz Israel could be a huge pit of snakes.

Getting them actively on board involves going back to pro-active American conflict resolution efforts on the Israeli-Arab front...

Of course we shouldn't abandon Israel or assistance with conflict resolution in that area. And we can be far-sighted: Israel's damn-foolish moves on Lebanon and other nastiness may simply be the fall-out of bad governance -- we've had a touch of that ourselves. Nonetheless, the US, while remaining Israel's friend and ally, absolutely must stop treating Israel like a "special" friend and ally and make it clear that our primary interest is in peace and stability in the Middle East and we'll play no favorites.

There may be some progressives who are in a snit about Israel. And then there are others who have a real case and who should be listened to. But I don't know any progressives who are against serious diplomatic... well, I guess they wouldn't use your word "offensive" but rather "effort." A serious, even-handed diplomatic effort.

As for Iran, the history of our relationship with that country should tell us why the Iranians have good cause to distrust us. The current problem is that they have an ambitious, closed-minded, hothead president as bad as Bush. Well, maybe not quite that bad.

Iran distrust us? You are obviously morally confused. Iran is the rogue, terrorist nation, Iran is the one who threatened genocide against the Jews of Israel while it developes nuclear weapons, and Iran is the leading supporter of terrorism in the world today. I hardly think the onus should be on America.

As to this foolish statement: "...make it clear that our primary interest is in peace and stability in the Middle East and we'll play no favorites."
................
Where do I begin to explain the utter moral bankrupsy of this statement. The idea that we should treat rogue, terrorist states the same as our democratic ally Israel is simply appalling. Of course we should play favorites, of course we should favor free nations over rogue dictatorships. This is the problem with liberals, they are simply unable to make moral distinctions and insist on this absurd notion of "evenhandedness" in the Middle East.

Tell it to the 10 U.S. soldiers who died today. And their families. On Christmas Eve. This Report should have been issued in 2002, before the War began, and should have said the entire basis for the war was a fraud and going into the war would cause all those advocating for it to become culpable for crimes against humanity under international law. Oh ... and tell this good news to the families of the soldiers who are going to die tomorrow.

I think the comments of LEL66 and Douglas Watts echo my original comments, to whit: these ISG recommendations don't address our Iraq policy directly enough to be worth a thread.

I commented directly on the ISG military recommendations, which are foolish. Those recommendations would endanger our troops for the sole benefit of providing more political cover to those who administer the current mess.

This is the problem that should be discussed re the ISG, not American-Israeli relations.

if Dem's misread the map, there will be a growing rift between two constituencies in the Democratic camp—the foreign policy progressives/pro-peace camp, and the Jewish community that voted 87% Democrat in the recent midterms. Dem's do not have to outflank the Republicans on the right when it comes to Israel policy in order to maintain Jewish support

It is statements such as this which make non-Jewish voters wonder whether American voters who are Jewish have the best interest of Americans and America at heart.

There is just something distasteful and unpatriotic about any group  or community of American voters predicating their vote for an American President on the best interest of some foreign country as opposed to America. American voters should not ever have divided loyalties when it comes to what is in the best interest of some foreign country vs. Americans. When this country was attacked on 9/11 American citizens who were not pro-Israel were not given a free pass. They were killed because they were Americans.  What moral right does any community have to place the lives of all American citizens at risk, in terms of their votes,  based on their pro-active stance for the interests of another  country?

It is one thing for a community to risk their  own lives for what they believe in and quite another to presume they can determine the risks for an entire nation of citizens by dominating the course of foreign policy by their votes for the best interest of a foreign entity.

This just seems to be extremely unAmerican, morally wrong  and unprincipled when it is America's interest which should come first, for all American citizens. It was this same sort of pro-Israel stance that resulted in RFK being assassinated by a Palestinian more than thirty years ago. As the senator from NY he had to cater to the Jewish community and vote for all those weapons for Israel to use in their war against the Palestinians. America was deprived of his Presidency because he was beholden to the democratic Jewish vote as their senator.

Yet, here we are 30 years later with folks talking about the Jewish vote being dependent on American foreign policy being pro-Israel as opposed to pro-America's best interest. Have we learned nothing?? When does America come first with the Jewish community? How many Americans have to die for Israel's best interest,..how many?

 To continue along this path is a mistake of historic proportions that has been repeatedly demonstrated by the terrorist actions Nazi's, Palestinians. Saud's and Muslims WWII, RFK,  the bombing of the WTC to 9/11. How many American casualties will be enough? What will it take for Jewish Americans to realize that America's best interest  and foreign policy should not be held captive to Israel's interests.

The neo-cons, who are predominately Jewish,  had their day. We have lost over 3K  lives, another 20K maimed and limbless in the ME pursuing the neoCON strategy to make the ME safe for Israel. The war is a complete and utter disaster, Israel remains unsafe and the foreign policy, based on that ideology is  one of the greatest debacles of all time and has destroyed American's standing globally in terms of goodwill and leadership. What will it take for the Jewish community to be pro-American, when it comes to the Presidency and their vote? 

What is best for Israel is not necessarily what is best for America and America should be the priority when it comes to casting the vote for the President of this nation,.

If a community can not value American citizenship enough to vote pro-America for the President of the USA then they need to renounce their citizenship and move to the foreign country whose interests they prioritize over the lives and interest of their fellow Americans and  country.

WRB,

As I started reading your post I felt that I agreed with you initial point of wondering. I think though that you've skipped the tracks a little further on.

I don't think an appeal to the morality of supporting the MotherLand (I almost typed FatherLand but think that may be too loaded a phrase) is appropriate or effective. I think that you've also mistated the Neocon's prime objective in this war.

Oil.

And because we are slowly approaching the climax of a worldwide struggle for the last of the oil I think we also have to face the worldwide class struggle we are sinking into. In many ways I see the Isreali issue as a chess piece in this struggle. Maybe more than a pawn but certainly not the queen.

This struggle for oil is existential, particularly for the class that owes its' existence to that frankenstein entity, the international corporation and as such will not be given up lightly. I expect that we will see many, many more deaths before the rest of us start becoming fully aware of what is at stake.

Meanwhile, it may behoove us to not become too narrowly focused on a nationalistic perspective. It will only serve the aims of the uber-rich.

What "centuries old conflict"? The Shia and Sunni lived fine in Iraq until now. Israel was a prime source of pressure on the US to attack Iraq, and Israel is pressuring the US to attack Iran too. You can't now deny any responsibility for the consqeuences. Israel is becoming an albatross around the US's neck.

No, peace will come by appeasing the racist Likudnicks in their ethnic eradication of Palestinians and annihilation of other Middle Eastern states as they attacked Lebanon. Sheesh.

J. McCutchen

Well you can forget any PAL/Israeli peace initiative.

Olmert just skewered that ISG proposal.

None should be surprised for after all Olmert was lavishly praising Bush and his IRaq adventure just days ago as a boon for Israel

What else should we expect ..the ISG is a partial birth abortion

I think the actions of the Israel Lobby should be distinguished from the American Jewish Community as a whole. There are many Jews who do not know what is going on --and who would disapprove if they did. But those millions of middle class Jews are not the billionaires who finance the Democratic Party.

I think it is also true that Big Oil was the major group seeking to use 911 as an excuse to use US military power to seize the oil reservoirs of Iraq and the Caspian Sea. But I think Cheney was only able to pull off that malign action by cutting a deal with the Israel Lobby.
Bush lied us into Iraq -- but the Zionist New York Times was just as big a liar.

Big Defense was another group backing the war -- not only because the US needs to spend huge sums for the Iraq war --but because the Middle East is a huge market for arms sales. "Killing is our business -- business is good."

We are only having a debate now because thieves fall out. Big Oil wants a strong puppet government installed to protect their future investments.

But the Israel Lobby is happy to get out of Iraq now -- Saddam is no longer a threat and an Iraq with 3 factions involved in endless civil war will never be a threat to Israel. Plus the manipulations of the Lobby are not well hidden and there is growing nervousness over the cost in American blood of past lies.

hass,

Israel was a prime source of pressure on the US to attack Iraq, and Israel is pressuring the US to attack Iran too.

Prove it.

Likud is not running Israel, and it was a Likud leader who pull Israel out of Gaza. It was Ehud Barak a Labor Party leader who agreed to te Clinton Plan and which Arafat refused to agree to. Lebanon? You must have missed the news about Hezbollah.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

J. McCutchen

Olmert: Iraq and Mideast Conflict Unrelated

That's today....

This 2 weeks ago:

Iraq war was good for Israel: Olmert The Iraq war was a boon for Israel's security, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Wednesday, voicing fresh endorsement for a Bush administration sapped by the unpopularity at home of its Middle East policies.

The mid-term election losses of U.S. President George W. Bush's Republican Party were widely considered a repudiation of his decision to topple Iraq's Saddam Hussein as part of a vision of democratizing the region and bolstering allies like Israel.

Olmert avoided explicit comment on the Republicans' fortunes during Washington talks with Bush earlier this month. But in a speech to visiting American Jews, Olmert made clear he had few regrets about the changes wrought by the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"I know all of his (Bush's) policies are controversial in America. There are some who support his policies in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq, and some who do not," he said.

"I stand with the president because I know that Iraq without Saddam Hussein is so much better for the security and safety of Israel, and all of the neighbors of Israel without any significance to us," added Olmert, who was speaking in English.

"Thank God for the power and the determination and leadership manifested by President Bush"

I think we need to be more aware of the extent to which our political leadership has found it convenient to demonize Syria and Iran --- and why so many Americans have found it equally convenient to believe them. Of course we have to deal with unfriendly nations carefully, but treat with them we must. The nations of the Middle East aren't distinct nations but overlapping tribal areas with a variety of cultures, "sectarian" interests which don't respect recent, artificially set borders. It makes no sense for us to impose our cultural and political templates on them and then get dangerous hissy-fits when they try to stop us.

Our biggest obligation as a nation is to get off the oil tit. Among other things we could and should be doing is educate ourselves a whole lot better in Middle Eastern languages and cultures. And finally, before we allow our leaders to get us so hot under the collar that we think of diplomacy and negotiation as "appeasement," we need to make sure our political leadership is intelligent, competent, know what they're doing, and are telling the truth. If we'd done even half of the above before 2000, we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now.

The road to Baghdad might run through Jerusalem, unless you are Joe Lieberman … Then it runs through the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Snerd

Yes they have been rampaging through Gaza since the Palestinians since the the Israelis left have kidnapped one of the soldiers and have been constantly firing missiles into Israel.

I understand the desire to explain everything the Palestinians do is great but the Palestinians not the Israelis are responsible for their own fate.

To further clarify the situation from the BBC: "Palestinian PM Ismail Haniya has reiterated that his Hamas-led government will not recognise Israel."

As long this is the situations the Israelis are going to kill Palestinians and there is no one to blame but supporters like yourself and the Palestinians themselves.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Colin Powell warned President Bush of the Pottery Barn rule re Iraq: You break it, you own it.

Sunnis may have been opposing Shiites for centuries but Iraq was not a divided sectarian country until after the invasion - the invasion which Israel and the pro-Israeli neocons foisted on the US through their AIPAC lobbyists. Israel is directly implicated in the situation there, and Olmert's declaration that Israel will not cooperate with the US in implementing the ISG recommendations shows - yet again - how much of an "ally" ISrael really is to the US>

You quote Olmert like its something important. You do realize that Olmert's approval ratings are about as bad as Bush's, and since we prefer foreigners not interpret what Bush is saying as the consensus in the United States, or even the majority opinion, we shoud extend them the same courtesy....

Oh, yes, Israel forced the US to go to war in Iraq. I'd forgotten that our Commander in Chief was from such a prominent Israeli family.

I must have been thinking of that other commander-in-chief, you know, the one who hears the voice of God in his head and comes from an oil family with close ties to the Saudi Arabian government, all the while having a messed up relationship with his father, the last president that invaded Iraq.

Surely there was no reason to invade besides those evil Jews...

Now perhaps you could put down your copy of the Protocols and join us here in reality?

Likud is not running Israel, and it was a Likud leader who pull Israel out of Gaza. It was Ehud Barak a Labor Party leader who agreed to te Clinton Plan and which Arafat refused to agree to. Lebanon? You must have missed the news about Hezbollah.

Israelis elect a right-wing leader who manages to successfully pull out of occupied territory. We elect a right-wing leader who manages to ineptly invade and occupy territory. Yet somehow all Israelis are to blame for Sharon and Olmert, whereas nobody on this board is at all responsible for Bush.

The hypocrisy never fails to amaze, does it?

I know a little research could help everyone gain some insight into what is being discussed.

First

Read Harretz, the liberal Israel daily newspaper.
Its online English edition can be found at http://www.haaretz.com.
As with all information sources read over time and find information about the writer.

You not only get a view of all the mid-east but also can read things about the US that will never be seen here. In fact in you are not interested in the Israel/Palestinian conflict Haaretz's articles addressing the US is worth reading daily.

The other place for information is B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
This page http://www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp you will find very informative maps of:
Map of the Separation Barrier, Sept. 2006, PDF
Map of the Separation Barrier and checkpoints in the Jerusalem area, September 2005, PDF
Map of forbidden roads, PDF
Map of the settlements, PDF
Map of the Gaza Strip, pre-disengagement, PDF
Map of the southern Hebron hills, PDF

These maps are very necessary to understand the discussions of the situation in the area.

I have not see the information published so completely. Looking at the maps you can see the things graphically that has been described insufficiently with words.

On this page there are topics that inform.
http://www.btselem.org/english/list_of_Topics.asp

Daniel maybe you could suggest a few sites to read. Also others who have credible sites that would provide insight could list some suggestions.

-----------------------------------------------
Today, are we searching for I deals or Ideals?
-Thinking

J. McCutchen

Nice try Ehud...

Israel Is Not Linked to Iraq, Except That It Is - New York Times, Week in Review

"THE day after the Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq was released, Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, rejected the part that urged the United States to refocus on the Israeli-Arab conflict because all Middle East issues were, it said, “inextricably linked.”

Mr. Olmert responded, “The U.S.’s problems in Iraq are entirely independent of the problems between us and the Palestinians.”

Yet Mr. Olmert’s own recent statements and actions belie his argument"

hass,

Of course, the Israelis are already denying - quite lamely - that they had anything to do with getting the US in this mess in Iraq. And while they're pressing the US to attack Iran too, at the same time they're trying to deny any responsibility for the consequences of that move too.

To hass Israel must prove the negative in the face of extreme prejudice, much the way Representative-elect Keith Ellison was compelled to prove the negative before the audience of Glenn Beck.

Zionista,

Israel puts pressure on US to strike Iraq -- The Guardian, August 17, 2002" Israel signalled its decision yesterday to put public pressure on President George Bush to go ahead with a military attack on Iraq, even though it believes Saddam Hussein may well retaliate by striking Israel.

With foreign policy experts in Washington becoming increasingly critical of the wisdom of a military strike, and European governments showing no willingness to support an attack, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, wants to make it clear that he is the US president's most reliable ally.

"Any postponement of an attack on Iraq at this stage will serve no purpose," Ranaan Gissin, a senior Sharon adviser told the Associated Press yesterday. "It will only give Saddam Hussein more of an opportunity to accelerate his programme of weapons of mass destruction."

Israeli intelligence officials had new evidence that Iraq was speeding up efforts to produce biological and chemical weapons, he added..."

and with regards to Iran, I guess you haven't read the obsessed rhetoric at the 2006 AIPAC Conference: 2006 AIPAC Conference Transcripts

nor what the war-hawks are talking about in Israel: Olmert's drums of war

Then we get into a whole other realm -- How much does/did Israeli intelligence and AIPAC influence Congress (esp. our Dems) into voting for the war?

I really think you need to broaden your research on how Israeli intelligence contributed to the Iraq war, and how that intelligence was provided TO the Brits. Also, with Franklin, I'm sure he's just the tip of the iceberg. And while you mention it, yes it was Franklin that went TO Rosen -- went to Rosen to try and get himself a better job in US intelligence:

"...Mr. Franklin was also applying for a position at the N.S.C. in early 2003 and asked Mr. Rosen to "put in a good word" for him, according to a filing on Wednesday by prosecutors as part of the plea agreement. Mr. Rosen said, "I'll see what I can do." F.B.I. Widens Investigation in New Jersey Espionage Case

Regarding the working relationship between Israel and US intelligence:

"...Democratic congressman David Obey, who is investigating the OSP, said: "That office was charged with collecting, vetting and disseminating intelligence completely outside of the normal intelligence apparatus. In fact, it appears that information collected by this office was in some instances not even shared with established intelligence agencies and in numerous instances was passed on to the national security council and the president without having been vetted with anyone other than political appointees."

The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon's office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam's Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

"None of the Israelis who came were cleared into the Pentagon through normal channels," said one source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.

The exchange of information continued a long-standing relationship Mr Feith and other Washington neo-conservatives had with Israel's Likud party..." The spies who pushed for war

...and we are all still waiting to hear what Jane Harman has been up to?

"Oct. 25, 2006 - While reportedly under investigation for her ties to an influential pro-Israel lobbying organization, California Rep. Jane Harman last month hosted a private dinner for the group that was attended by two top Bush administration officials—Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

The Sept. 13 dinner took place at the home of Harman, the ranking Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and was attended by over 120 top financial backers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The highlight of the evening was a panel discussion in which Harman played the host, questioning Negroponte and Chertoff about Mideast developments, international terrorism and homeland-security issues, according to an AIPAC official.

The dinner was hardly an unusual one for AIPAC. The group often arranges such elite pow-wows at the homes of senior members of Congress and government officials (one in the mid-1990s was hosted by then Vice President Al Gore) as a way for AIPAC to both demonstrate its political clout and to provide a perk for major donors..." What’s for Dinner?

Oh yeah, the Brits have soooo much influence... Give me a break!

Neocons may be predominantly Jewish, but I venture a guess that much fewer than 87% of neocons did not vote for Democratics ticket. Think shows that there is quite a bit of difference between neocons and "Jewish community".

Lieberman got a bit more than 50% of Jewish vote, but to a degree it could be because he obfuscated his hawkish positions and claimed to be liberal on social issues -- as he largely is.

Moreover, if I have quite a few family members in country X and my elected representatives keeps explaining that supporting interests of X and of America bears no contradictions --- why should I disbelieve? I actually happen to believe that indeed, there is no contradiction, but, alas, current policies are foolish both for Israel and for USA.