A good sign indeed.  Thanks for your work with IPF that helped make it happen, MJ.  Yasher koach.

Israeli security forces killed 660 Palestinians in 2006 - three times more than in 2005, according to an Israeli human rights group. B'Tselem, which monitors human rights in the occupied territories, said the figure included 141 children. At least 322 had taken no part in hostile acts, the group said. In the same period, the number of deadly Palestinian attacks on Israelis has fallen - 23 Israelis were killed in 2006 compared with 50 last year. The Israeli military renewed ground operations in the Gaza Strip after militants captured an Israeli soldier in a border raid in June. Since June, Israeli troops have killed about 405 Palestinians in Gaza, including 88 children. More than half of the casualties were civilians, B'Tselem said. As of November, 9,075 Palestinians were being held in Israeli jails. This number included 345 minors, it said. Of these, 738 (22 minors) were being detained without trial and without knowing the charges against them, the group said.

JERUSALEM, Dec. 28 — After coordination with Israel and the United States, Egypt has sent weapons and ammunition into the Gaza Strip to forces loyal to the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, Israeli officials said Thursday. Senior Palestinian officials, including Mr. Abbas’s spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, denied the report. Mr. Abu Rudeineh called it “Israeli propaganda aimed at aggravating the situation between Fatah and Hamas.” But Israeli officials knowledgeable about the shipment confirmed a report in the daily Haaretz that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had approved the shipment in his meeting Saturday evening with Mr. Abbas.

JERUSALEM, Dec. 26 — For the first time in 10 years, Israel said Tuesday it will build a new Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, prompting Palestinian anger and American concern. The announcement, by the defense ministry and settler groups, seems to run counter to the prevailing effort by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who has offered a series of gestures to the Palestinians after a meeting with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, several days ago.

John Berger and 93 other authors, film-makers, musicians and performers call for a cultural boycott of Israel

I don't think the author would share your view about some Zionist conspiracy, Rabbi. I think his point is that AIPAC misrepresents the views of the pro-Israel community. I agree with that. Most pro-Israel people I know, hate AIPAC's obnoxious heavy-handed tactics and oppose their goal of keeping the occupied territories.

But you are wrong if you think there is a Zionist conspiracy. AIPAC is no more representative of Jews or Zionists than Al Qaeda is of Islam and Arabs.

TiVo, I agree with you. I'm at a loss how to change the situation either. I think the problem is that the AIPAC types are single issue fanatics while people like me have lots of issues: Israel, the war, environment, gay rights, affirmative action, livable wage, etc.
I don't vote or give money based on any single issue. The AIPACers only care about one thing. As a single issue lobby that hands out millions of dollars, it is way more powerful than those groups MJ is writing about.
The irony is that the AIPACers not only harm America, they harm Israel. They lobbied for the Iraq war and look at the damage it has done both countries.
Maybe the AIPAC espionage trial in '07 will force them to register as a foreign agent which would end their influence on the Hill. But I'm sure the fix is in on that score.
One thing we can do is to tell our Democrat politicians that we care about the Middle East as much as the AIPACers do. You think Hillary would be the 100% AIPACer she is, if her Manhattan liberals told her what they think about the Middle East. But they don't. We don't care as much as AIPAC, and that is the sad truth.
You can be so much more effective if you care only about one single issue and not about our country at large.

I hesitate to point out that with Israel getting half of our foreign aid budget, Americans have a say. If Israel was truly independent i.e. not living on our aid, we wouldn't.
Also, American lives are endangered by the blowback from Israel actions on the West Bank, etc.
Most Israelis would be happy if the US applied pressure to get Israel back to the '67 borders and then guaranteed those borders.
But the Republic of AIPAC would not be happy at all because their role would be over.
In any case, any American whose tax dollars help support Israel has the right to weigh in on this question without fear of AIPAC or anything else.
Believe me, if Israeli taxpayers were supporting Americans, they would not hesitate to weigh in. Would they?

Come on, Davai! Who in government cares what the American people think? A party was turned out of control in Washington, primarily because the people are sick of the war they started, polls confirm that poplularity of that war is below 25%, and the people who "matter" in Washington still want to send more troops.

Americans may have been willing to provide the muscle to guarantee those borders in the past. They probably are somewhat less willing to do so now. But at least that is a policy and a clear goal, as compared to the insanity that going on now. I think there would be more support for such a position than for what you are advocating.

I've never suggested I know what is best for Israel. I have suggested that I have an idea what is best for the United States with respect to Israeli use, for example, of US weapons.

For example, Israel was supplied with AN/FSQ-36 and/or AN/FSQ-37 Firefinder radars that, among other things, track rockets back to the source. Normal US direction is to transmit, electronically, the radar coordinates back to a battery of M109A5 howitzers, which, when the target is in a populated area, fire M107 unitary shells in response, fuzed for airburst. These shells do not use cluster munitions and minimize collateral damage, while being quite lethal.

Israel, however, has apparently linked their Firefinders to M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS), which were sold to Israel with the caveat they be used only against troops in the open. Specifically, Israel asked for emergency supplies of M26 rockets for the MLRS, rockets that carry 644 cluster munitions each and have a dud rate (effectively a minefield) on the order of 10%. M26 rockets have been replaced in the US inventory for several reasons, collateral damage being one of them.

I do believe the US has a better sense of proper employment of the weapons it designs than does Israel, even ignoring conditions of their sale.

Care to snark some more, or deal in substance? Whether Israel knows what is best for it is irrelevant to me; what they do with US weapons decidedly is not.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Sorry to inject some contrary facts into Mr. Rosenberg's celebration of IPF's clout, but on this issue as with the placement of the American Embassy in Jerusalem, it is not surprising that the pro-Presidential discretion forces prevail. The Republican party leadership in both houses was persuaded ON THIS ISSUE to give Bush and Rice more flexibility than some pro-Israel groups wanted. On the big issues like how much aid Israel gets and whether that aid will be at all conditional on the Israeli government making concessions to Hamas, Assad and Hezbollah--the kind of issues the Israel-haters here really care about-- the IPF and Americans for Peace Now are going to have far lesss influence.

The IPF and APN should propose to cut U.S. aid to Israel if its territory doesn't conform to Mr. Rosenberg's map, and then let's count the votes in both houses of Congress to see how much clout they have.

This Sage character believes that the fact that Congress capitulates to AIPAC is proof that Senators and Congressmen/women
believe the bs they are forced to vote for.
AIPAC is as popular with Congress as the forces that rammed through the Terry Schiavo vote.
If it were not for AIPAC funnelling millions into campaigns, AIPAC would have virtually no support in Congress and the pro-peace, pro-American, pro-Israel groups would have 90% support.

But it is not going to happen. Mr. Rosenberg is naive. So long as Congress is on the take, by virtually every special interest including AIPAC, AIPAC wins. Enact public financing of campaigns and AIPAC's case is judged on the merits and loses.

But again. I hope the AIPAC espionage trial in '07 shuts them down. Imagine. Two top employees on trial for espionage and it still dominates. The power of money and nothing else.

Also, the ability to enlist 50,000 dupes, robots and automotons
to its cause.

Mark Weinberg,

I hesitate to point out that with Israel getting half of our foreign aid budget, Americans have a say.

This thread is getting really ridiculous in your obsessions with AIPAC..
‘If it were not for AIPAC funnelling millions into campaigns, AIPAC would have virtually no support in Congress and the pro-peace, pro-American, pro-Israel groups would have 90% support.”
And then what? AIPAC didn’t not prevent Bill Clinton from offering in 2000 plan . for practically “to get Israel back to the '67 borders”. Moreover his wife won an election in New York state after that.

Early elections were unnecessary and holding them was a bad idea. Both Abbas and the Israeli government wanted parliamentary elections delayed. But the US government told the Palestinians to go ahead.

Nor did the Palestinians or the United States agree to Israel’s stipulation that only political parties which reject violence, should be allowed to compete.

On January 25, 2006, elections were held for the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), ... this was the first election to the PLC since 1996 subsequent elections had been repeatedly postponed ...

The first elections since 1996, held in 2006 are early elections? This is a clear indication of MJ Rosenberg's attitude toward democracy in the Middle East.

The Palestinians and US also did not agree to Israel's stipulation that Israel decide which parties can run. This is a progressive? The Republicans stood for unwarranted and illegal invasions. No progressive would "stipulate" or support another country's stipulation that Republicans be barred from participating in elections. Should the Palestinians stipulate that Likud cannot run in Israel. This is another clear indication of Rosenberg's attitude towards democracy.

But why bother, Rosenberg has already explicitly spelled out is attitude towards democracy:

Personally, I never much cared whether Israel's neighbors were democratic so long as they were willing to live in peace with Israel.

Jordan, for instance, is not a democracy in the western sense but it is precisely the kind of neighbor Israel needs. Egypt is not a democracy but is at peace with Israel. A democratic Egypt probably would not be. So let's lay the democratic crusade aside (which, of course, we do anyway if we don't like the choices made by the voters in these various countries).

Polls show that Americans support Israel in the high 60s. Rosenberg has a very different view of what Israel should do. It has very little support in Israel. If Israel had a more rational election system perhaps he would have more political support but than he does. It is probably reassuring to believe the AIPAC that is rather unimportant to most American Jews, but who support Israel anyway,is a cabal thwarting your correct policy.

Blaming AIPAC is easy. Convincing people that when Hamas says they want to exterminate Israel they just kidding is probably a lot harder.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Arnold Evans is right. I am not overly concerned about democracy in the Middle East.
I am not Elliot Abrams. I think the neocons are nuts.
I'd like to see a peaceful Middle East but whether it is democratic or not is not my concern.
Along those lines, I think our leading democracy exporting President, Woodrow Wilson, was the second worst President we ever had. He was a big democracy man and a vicious racist!

Presumably, if you have a solid argument for democracy, it should be universal. Could you share your plans for freeing the downtrodden masses of Singapore?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yes. I kind of figured I was right. :?

So let's spell this out, there are 100 million people in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, to name three pro-US/relatively pro-Israel dictatorships.

If the five million or so Jews in Israel lose their majority status, ie the Jewish state ends, that is too high a price to pay for 100 million or so people to have any say in their nations' foreign policy.  Therefore, to ensure that 5 million Jews have the luxury of living in a Jewish state, an acceptable price is that 100 million Arabs live under repressive dictatorships.

While we're here, let's talk about Iraq.  Iraq's voters, like Egypt's voters, are likely to favor Palestinians that you oppose.  A democratic Iraq, combined with Iran would put tremendous pressure on Jordan and would greatly ease Iranian access to Lebanon. 

An independent democratic Iraq would probably fund and sponsor groups like Hamas and Hezbollah independent of Iran.  Like a democratic Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia, a democratic Iraq would certainly not impose the condition that Hamas must recognize Israel to be eligible for assistance.

What is an acceptable price for avoiding that outcome? Another 3000 dead US soldiers whose mission was to ensure that Iraq never becomes independent enough to implement a democratically selected foreign policy?

You are a bona-fide opponent of democracy. Wilson had bad qualities, but among his good qualities is that he believed in democracy.  Washington was a slave-owner as was Jefferson.  But among their good qualities was their commitment to democracy.  You are presenting democracy in the Middle East as a bad thing in itself because it threatens Zionism.

Do you consider yourself either liberal or progressive?  Do you reconcile this by believing that you are a partisan for Israel before you are liberal - or do you consider your opposition to democracy to be a progressive position?

Since you believe democracy for 100 million Arabs should be opposed in favor of Zionism,  it is good and courageous that you say it openly.  It seems most supporters of Israel would prefer to smudge or dodge the subject.  But while you are courageous for expressing your position, the position itself is reprehensible.