Israel and Palestine: The Prez Candidates Can No Longer Pander Thanks to Us
The Presidential campaign is heating up which is amazing considering that we are a year away from the first caucus and primary. Not long ago, Presidential campaigns didn't start until the year of the election and sometimes well into the year. LBJ's campaign in 1960 did not start until days before the convention, but of course he didn't get nominated!
But here we are in February 2007 and, in both parties, the campaigns are in full-swing.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has barely been mentioned by any of the candidates. If past history is any guide, it won't be mentioned much and, when it is, only in front of Jewish audiences where ritualistic albeit effusive utterances of support for Israel will be offered.
That approach is not limited to this one issue. Candidates invariably tell audiences what they think an audience wants to hear. That will certainly be the case at next month's AIPAC conference where each candidate will try to hit as many applause lines as possible without actually saying anything that might constrain policy he or she actually becomes President.
It's a fine line candidates have to walk.
Hillary Clinton walked it fairly deftly at AIPAC's New York conference last week. She was cheered loudly for her statements of support for Israel, cheered just as loudly for her tough talk on Iran but received an icy response (and some heckling) when she made clear that she would negotiate with Iran before turning to more drastic alternatives.
Clinton surely knew that her measured approach to Iran would not fly with that crowd. But she also intends to become President and the last thing she is going to do is commit herself to is another Middle East war. She also knows that tough talk that will elicit applause at AIPAC is not likely to play very well with Democratic primary voters in New Hampshire, Iowa or pretty much anywhere else. Nor will saber rattling win her votes in the general election if she is the nominee. It would, in short, be politically suicidal for her to rule out talking to Iran.
Besides, she no doubt believes that any President must explore every other possibility before resorting to war. To her credit, she was willing to take her share of heckling for that.
But not on Israel-Palestine. If Clinton's speech is typical, speeches at AIPAC in March will enumerate every conceivable Palestinian failing without mentioning that just possibly the Israelis have done a few nasty things during 40 years of occupation. And her speech wasn't even that bad. It was restrained but it still could be distilled down to four words: Israelis, Good: Palestinians, Bad.
In the days before the internet, a candidate could get away with saying one thing to one audience and a contradictory one to another. President Franklin Roosevelt once said that it was hard for him to pursue his New Deal spending programs because, while speaking in Pittsburgh during his 1932 campaign, he promised to balance the budget.
"Just deny that you ever were in Pittsburgh," he was told.
But those days are long gone. If you say something to Arab-Americans in Detroit, the Jews in New York will see it on the internet within hours. Same with the United Mine Workers and the Sierra Club. Or the Archdiocese of New York and Planned Parenthood.
Former Senator John Edwards has learned that the hard way. He gave a hawkish speech about Iran at the Herzliyah conference in Israel (although, like Clinton, he did wisely endorse negotiations). The speech was a hit in Israel.
But back home it bombed. In fact, the strongest attacks on Edward's position were posted on his own campaign website. Edwards supporters apparently are not big fans of issuing military threats to Tehran. Of course, he could always deny that he ever was in Herzliyah!
Candidates simply have to deal with a new reality. If a statement will offend caucus goers in Iowa, perhaps one should think twice before uttering it in Beverly Hills. Someone in Beverly Hills is going to post the remarks and, within hours, the netroots will know about a candidate's double game.
This does not mean that candidates should avoid saying anything controversial out of fear of offending someone somewhere. No, it simply means that they should say what they believe and not pander to every crowd they appear before especially because the internet guarantees that the pander will be exposed to the broader audience.
So what is a candidate to say, particularly about the hot potato that is the Arab-Israeli conflict?
The answer is plenty and they are things that probably everyone of them believes and will not offend anyone other than the most extreme partisans of the Israeli or Palestinian cause.
It is this.
"If I am elected President, I will do everything in my power to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and a secure contiguous state for the Palestinians in West Bank/Gaza. As a supporter of Israel, I believe that Israel's surest route to security is by reaching an agreement with the Palestinians. Furthermore, I believe that achieving an equitable Israeli-Palestinian agreement will advance America's interests throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world. Peace between Israel and the Arabs will only be achieved by means of US leadership and I intend to provide it."
That should be the basic message just as it should be our basic policy.
Grandstand rhetoric about a candidate's undying love for Israel is meaningless if not coupled with the promise of leadership to help Israel secure peace.
This does not mean that a candidate should avoid expressing warm feelings about our Mideast ally. A majority of Americans share those feelings and would agree with any candidate who said that one of his or her priorities will be to ensure that Israel survives and thrives.
But no candidate should be allowed to simply stop there. Anecdotes about friendly and helpful Israelis are very nice but they get us nowhere. Americans, all Americans, need to know what a candidate would do end a conflict that not only threatens Israel's survival but has harmed American interests throughout the world.
Four years ago, Howard Dean was skewered because he used the word "even-handed" to describe the policies he would pursue in the Middle East. His explanations went unheard as his opponents and right-wingers jumped all over him. For them the even-handed remark offered them a twofer: the always welcome opportunity to pander and the chance to kill off Dean).
That wouldn't happen today because now the battle would be joined. Those who prefer the deadly Middle East status quo would holler and threaten. But those determined to break out of it would also be heard, and they would allow the candidate to get beyond the soundbite into a fuller discussion of the issue. Howard Dean backtracked fast in '04; the netroots (also known as Democratic primary voters) would not allow him to in '08).
The web opens up the process so that all voices can be heard, not just the usual ones who grab candidates at fundraisers and tell them which platitudes are most acceptable.
It's a new day. TPM is not just a fun place to gather information and most opinions. It (and our brothers and sisters in the blogosphere) can change the world.
http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=17190
February 9, 2007 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, the US has enough problems on its hands without dealing with Olmert and Hannya. Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Afghanistan are external problems while healthcare for all, poverty, education and deteriorating middle class are internal problems.
Its about time, the people whose center of the world is El Kodesh stop this nonsense. As important as the Israeli-Palestinian peace is, and opposite to the moronic Baker/Hamilton statement, it's now quite isolated and impacts none of the major problems the US has, Iraq in particular. The Arab states such as Egypt, Saudis and Jordan are way more worried about Iran than Israel.
OK guy, you have an official invitation to the 21th century and get of the Hannya pot.
February 9, 2007 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respectfully disagree that this should be our basic policy. I take exception to the assertion that agreement between Israel and Palestine 'advances' American interests in the ME and throughout the Muslim world. America's attempts at 'advancing' have resulted in an escalation of terrorism abroad and domestically. Further, I disagree that the only way for Israel and the Arabs to achieve peace is with US 'leadership' and I especially disagree that America should continue to provide leadership in the ME which is biased towards Israel, in turns of our foreign policy.
The basic message as you have framed it would be appealing to pro-Israel lobbyists and supporters but certainly not to the millions of Americans who find the ME foreign policy, to date, unacceptable. It begs the question of how has America gained from having Israel as a permanent ally?
This 'basic message' is not good policy for America nor America's standing in the eyes of the Muslim world or globally.
February 9, 2007 5:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ:
This post you have written should be prominently displayed on the bulletin boards in every 2008 presidential candidate's war room, and read by every American, Jew and non-Jew, who believes for one reason or another that a peaceful and stable Middle East is in the best interests of the United States.
I would only add the modest caveat that with the power that the blogosphere brings comes responsibility. The blogosphere promotes healthy debate and we do our best--on here, for example, with folks like Howard-- to police ourselves. Moving out to the world where people become more than screen names with strong opinions calls for a different approach to changing minds and forging consensus. No simple task.
Thank you MJ. Sometimes I think that in good faith you write things that, though relevant, you know are going to get the keyboards singing in response. But MJ this post is a home run hands down.
Bruce
February 9, 2007 5:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Bruce. I really believe we can change the terms of the debate.
MJ
February 9, 2007 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, you don't get it. The message I propose here would not be acceptable to AIPAC, no way, but is essentially what (according to the polls) the majority of Israelis and the vast majority of Palestinians want. It is essentially the position of Israel Policy Forum, American Task Force on Palestine, Brit Zedek, Americans for Peace Now, the Arab-American Institute and MOST Americans.
Those who think that either the State of Israel or the future State of Palestine should not exist would reject it. But this is a message for the center not the fringe.
Thanks.
February 9, 2007 5:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone who thinks that Israel-Palestine is not central to America's problems in the Middle East should talk to a Muslim sometime, and not just Arab Muslims either. Why is it that people accept the idea that Jews in America care deeply and genuinely about Israel but that Arabs and Muslims (many of whom live near Israel-Palestine) only use Palestine as a pretext.
I do not know a single Arab or Muslim for whom Palestine is NOT at the top of their agenda.
It has to be dealt with, and with justice.
February 9, 2007 6:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
One need not be on the fringe to disagree with this message. There is nothing centrist about continuing to commit America's 'leacdership' in the ME, when it has resulted in escalation of terrorism abroad and here at home. The fringe are those who agree with this message and they are warhawks, pro-Israel suporters as well as neo-cons. They are not individuals interested in what s best for America.
February 9, 2007 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have every right to support the status quo. It's a free country.
February 9, 2007 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like wrb above, I too focused on your statement:
...but my take on it differs from wrb's or the previous poster's, in that I think that the question of Israel-Palestine peace is very much one that the US should remain involved in (or, more accurately in the case of the current Bush Presidency, become involved in). One need only to remember that one of ObL's justifications for 9/11, and as stated in his fatwa, was the continuing support of the US of Israel's Occupation to realize that a resolution to the I-P conflict is very much in the best interests of the US. Our previous favoring of the Israeli side has only provided a recruiting tool for ObL. Additionally, there is the issue of basic humanitarian concerns regarding the Israeli treatment of Palestians in the OT, and how our disregard of these concerns plays in the rest of the world. Dean was right: only an evenhanded US approach can lead to a real peace in the region.
Consequently, I would suggest one change to the statement MJ has suggested that potential candidates use:
I add the word, "equitable" because I sincerely hope no candidate will support the apparent Israeli plan to annex additional Palestinian land in the West Bank, as such a plan is not truly a "peace" plan at all. Support for such a plan does not represent "US leadership," but would merely be more of the same pandering that MJ wisely recognizes has run counter to true US interests.
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
February 9, 2007 6:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I fully agree with you Wordie, except--with us we always have a caveat or two it seems :) -- that I think that the final line between the two states, in taking equity into account, has to be flexible enough (by both Israel and Palestine) to make sense in terms of security and the daily lives of people on both sides of the border. (I hope you take this for what it is: identification of a factor that will have to be addressed in negotiations, and not as a cloaked rationale for land grabbing).
February 9, 2007 6:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, why do you persist on framing this issue as to what the interests are of Palestinians, Arabs, Israel etc vs. Americans?
This is due to unbalanced media reporting and the failure for of this issue being able to be openly discussed. Jewish interest in America as well as here on TPM cafe consistently dominant and are pro-Israel and do not engage about the Arab-Palestinian/Israeli conflict from the perspective of America's interests. The discussion is slanted and framed as to what Israel wants, needs. How can Americans speak to Palestinian interests, when even Jimmy Carter a former President is shouted down and demeaned in the press for mentioning the apartheid conditions that Palestinians live under in Israel. This is our democracy?
More importantly, no one ever discusses how these issues are PRO-AMERICAN. Where is the pro-American lobby? Congress has been purchased by pro-Israel lobby to the extent that we never even hear political candidates nor elected PRESIDENTS discuss American's interests in terms of the ME foreign policy without American policy being held politically captive to the pro-Israel interests.
February 9, 2007 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cite source for any of those assertions please.
And for the record, I respectfully disagree that any AMERICAN policy should be established by what either Israelis or Palestinians want except insofar as it coincides with what is best for Americans.
I happen to strongly agree with the poster above that the U.S. is not, and has not been, an "honest" broker since that now-anti-semite of a president, Jimmy Carter, brokered the Camp David Accords. (heavy snark-asm)
The U.S. government is not trusted and cannot be trusted by most muslims. One cannot broker anything -- or sit at the negotiating table even -- if trust is absent.
Moreover, no true diplomacy can take place as long as there is a such a huge power differential between Palestinians and Israelis. Israel is a behemoth occupying military power all my itself, but when combined with the U.S. on its side so outweighs any other party in the region as to make "negotiating" a joke.
1947 was a long time ago. Poor little Israel doesn't need us to hold their hand.
That is not to say that the U.S. does not have a real interest in a resolution to Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Certainly, as MJ points out, the U.S. has a real interest in reducing the tension there - one of the sorest points among Arab/Muslims and the "West."
It is the means I differ with, not the ends.
The U.S. does not belong at the table. In my view the U.S. belongs at the end of a carrot/stick mechanism. Only the U.S. has the means to "encourage" both Israel AND Palestine to negotiate through offering or withholding economic aid.
Moreover, in my view, attempting to put a suggested policy statement in the mouths of candidates is counterproductive. Let them come up with their own policy statements. And may the best man or woman win.
February 9, 2007 6:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, equitable belongs in there. Thanks.
February 9, 2007 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not clear how you have arrived at the notion that MJ Rosenberg's call for the US to embrace the Peace Now position on Israel/Palestine is somehow a neo-con warhawk stance. Generally when I hear interpretations that pretzel-like, they tend to come from followers of Lyndon LaRouche.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
February 9, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. does not belong at the table. In my view the U.S. belongs at the end of a carrot/stick mechanism.
If you think about this again, I hope you will realize that that sounds like a message Dick Cheney or John Bolton would embrace. As a general policy, the US belongs at far more tables, and should be employing far fewer carrot/stick mechanisms. Carrots and sticks are for people who presume themselves to be masters, and who take others to be their beasts of burden. And please recall that for the past 6 years, the US has essentially not been at the table in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. We pretty much checked out after Taba, shrugging our shoulders and blaming everything on the Palestinians. Things in the world were far more peaceful while we were at the table than after we left it.
"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." - I.F. Stone
February 9, 2007 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The real question is whether we want progress or the illusion of progress. Simply supporting negotiations with whoever happens to be the Palestinian leadership at the moment side-steps the critical issues of how exactly a Palestinian state is to be built. Who is going to disarm the various militias? Who is going to ensure that areas Israel withdraws from don't become launching sites for rocket attacks?
The idea of Hamas signing onto a peace agreement is laughable. Fatah had its opportunity during Oslo and ultimately chose to competing with Hamas rather than suppress it. (Moreover, for Fatah to turn the clock back to 1998, it would have to fight a bloody civil war with Hamas at this point.)
I think we've learned well enough from the Iraq experience that NATO or American troops aren't a good answer. Other Arab troops as part of a comprhensive Arab-Israeli settlement? This seems like the best option, but extremely dicey given the stability of the various governments who would have to supply the forces.
I'm not throwing this out to defend the status quo, but rather out of frustration that no one is thinking creatively about how to come to a two-state solution. We've tried installating Arafat as a mini-Mubarak - didn't work; we tried holding elections in the absence of functioning civil society - it didn't work either. Rather than reading the umpteenth essay which simply asserts that a peace process has got to work, I'd like to see something that indicates how it can.
February 9, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you and your leftist ilk are being pandered to whenever anyone foolishly talks about negotiating with the insane, genocidal mullahs in Iran, when they know full well that such an undertaking would be absolutely pointless. Do you think that any of the Democratic candidates can really be so naive about Iran?
February 9, 2007 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is not what I want to hear from our next President. We should certainly encourage and support those in both camps who seek a fair and just peace but why should the US take the lead? We've tried that for 50+ years and haven't succeeded. Does Israel even want peace? It doesn't always seem like it.
February 9, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I sure hope that this debate changes. I've read AIPAC speeches from Frist and others, and I get the feeling that today's AIPAC is no better than yesterday's KKK. After reading one of Bill Clinton's speeches to AIPAC, and knowing that Palestinian leaders had access to it, I stopped believing that mainstream politicians were serious about "middle east peace;" they seemed to simply use the Palestinians as a bread and butter "heart string tugging" campaign issue.
February 9, 2007 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mhpine:
I appreciate your frustration about the lack of discussion about a viable plan and how you believe that the lack of such a plan presents an obstacle to effective negotiations. I also understand what looks to be your implicit contention that, in order to negotiate, you have to have someone to negotiate with.
Negotiations often have to be undertaken without there being a plan in place, and, of course, negotiations take many forms and are often on multiple tracks. Thus, there are often meetings going on between intermediaries that aren't properly characterized as negotiations across the table per se, and there are often informal talks between leaders and their trusted aids. The problem comes when, as with respect to the status quo in the Middle East, such channels are effectively cut off and the talks that occur are piecemeal and face-saving at most.
In short, you often don't get the solution until the hard work is done at the multi-dimensional barganing table. And the fact of the matter is that negotiated settlements often encapsulate terms that the parties to the agreement never would have agreed to before negotiations commenced. In fact, it has been stated more than once that a good settlement is defined as one that nobody likes.
February 9, 2007 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Peace between Israel and the Arabs will only be achieved by means of US leadership and I intend to provide it." Oh, you know, I dimly recall a time when the U.S. sought peace and peaceful solutions. I'd tell you when, but sorry: God is interrupting to tell me to go to war.
Seriously, I think the hope is greater than it may seem. In the past, it often felt like it was all the U.S.'s burden, or perhaps all one person's, whether Carter or Clinton. I suspect that the Saudi overtures are only the most visible sign of an interest in other nations in sharing some of the burden. They are tired of supporting a dysfunctional party in a dispute and afraid of the boost the conflict gives Islamic extremism, which is no doubt a more palpable disruption in Europe or Arab nations than in the United States. Thus, one has more negotiating partners and also more sticks as well as carrots.
Besides the benefits to the United States in pushing for peace, owing to the dangers of perpetual Mideast war, there are other reasons to pursue peace here that MJR could also have mentioned. One is implicit in all he writes, just the moral sense of not wishing to live in a world in which Palestinians go stateless and Palestinian families homeless or destroyed, without economic development and burdened by checkpoints, while Israelis live in fear and bear the costs of a major, perpetual military effort that makes them only more unsafe. Another is that enough Americans have personal and emotional attachments to the parties at war to make it an American concern. Another is that the U.S. actually gains in stature and power internationally by standing for peace in any part of the globe. (Witness Bush's damage.)
As far as the objections, which always boil down to, "but the other side will never be satisfied," it'd be more convincing and less childish if both sides weren't always using the same excuse.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
February 9, 2007 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
This lefty Zionist chooses not to condone your reference to "leftist ilk" or your allegations of foolishness and naivete direced at those of us, zionist or not, who seek peace in the Middle East through negotiations.
And please, I'm not interested in getting into a debate with you about who loves Eretz Y'srael or the U.S. of A. more. Candidly, I find what you have written to reflect an incomplete understanding of what is going on in Iran. I am not claiming a complete understanding either, but I submit that you are wrong if you think that the Iranian people have formed a consensus that is reflected in the saber-rattling of this or that mullah in that time-honored nation.
February 9, 2007 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about a reference to cutting off the billions of dollars of US aid that goes into directly and indirectly subsidizing Israel's apparatus of terror, expansionism and "settlement" construction?
How about a statement that donations to Israeli "charities" (ie: settlement building) will no longer be tax-deductible?
See, saying you're going to be "fair" is one thing (even then you'll get skewered by AIPAC because they don't think Israel should be held to the same standard as Palestinian) but doing something about it is something else entirely.
February 9, 2007 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Twentyoneth Century?
February 9, 2007 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
New reality: pandering Dems will make no warlike committment, unless they are inclined toward a political suicide.
In a stroke of genius, some guys designed two-for-one package: support of Israel and support of military threats (and perhaps military action) against Iran -- and quite possibly, the support for indefinite extension of the occupation of Iraq.
February 9, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since it is Israel that chooses to eat at the trough of the U.S. largesse of economic support, they ELECT to submit -- no one is forcing them.
Likewise, Palestinians submit to the carrot/stick of wealthier arab nations' purse strings and rhetoric.
I don't think its a matter of whether I choose to put either in master/submission positions rather that THEY choose them.
They could both elect to deal with eachother on an equal basis without the interference of their proxies -- or masters using the terminology that you put in my mouth.
In any event, you chose the term "master" --giving the whole thing a negative connotation. I prefer the term "leaders" -- again if they elected to take on that role.
I certainly agree that things were more peaceful while we were "at the table" -- but that was long ago and under CLINTON. And for all his pecadilloes with interns under his leadership the U.S. was more trusted in world affairs, although not entirely. See my original post on the issue of trust.
Palestinians, rightly or wrongly (rightly in my view) distrust the United States and percieve the U.S. to be entirely biased toward Israel. The U.S.'s perceived bias against arabs/moslems increases with every second we remain in Iraq and worse, escalates tenfold with the saber rattling vis a vis Iran. Escapades like last summer's invasion of Lebanon -- unimpeded by words of U.S. or deeds by the Security Council - do nothing to alleviate this perception.
The U.S. cannot come to the table with all that baggage. They cannot.
February 9, 2007 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thinking about the ultimate solution, however, ensures that the right parties are at the table. There's a difference between questions such as which settlements get dismantled or how much compensation the Palestinian refugees will receive and the more fundamental question of who will actually execute the agreement for the Palestinians. I think we need to radically rethink the role of Egypt, Jordan and the Saudis in any potential settlement. I don't think having them simply stay out the way, or providing behind-the-scenes support is going to be sufficient.
February 9, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I guess what I'm saying is that the people who should be at the table is actually part of the multi-faceted negotiations process. This is, after all, an international problem.
February 9, 2007 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Letters to the Times.
Re “Noted Arab Citizens Call on Israel to Shed Jewish Identity” (news article, Feb. 8):
Discuss.
February 9, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
George Soros is a man, he admitted his mistakes. Would you?
George Soros v. Martin Peretz
Only at TNR Online | Post date 02.09.07 Discuss this article (9)
Martin Peretz falsely accused me of having been a "young cog in the Hitlerite wheel" ("Tyran-a-Soros," February 12). I need to set the record straight. In 1944, when the Nazis occupied Hungary, my father arranged false identities for his family. He placed me with an official of the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture who claimed that I was his godson. In return, my father arranged a false identity for the official's Jewish wife. In my capacity as 14-year-old godson, I accompanied the official on a trip to inventory the estate of a wealthy Jewish family that had fled the country. That is the episode "60 Minutes" quizzed me about in the interview that Peretz quotes. In the same interview I also said "I had no role in taking away that property." The facts are documented in Michael Kaufman's biography, (Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire). I have also described the events at length in my own books and my father, Tivadar Soros, gives an account of our adventures in 1944 in his book Masquerade.
As regards my use of the term "de-Nazification," I am not too proud to admit this was a bad choice of words. I certainly do not put the United States and Nazi German in the same moral category. What I meant was that the United States needs to engage in a profound soul searching about the harm the war in Iraq has done to others and ourselves. Post-war Germany underwent such a process to its lasting benefit. Perhaps truth and reconciliation would have been a more felicitous expression, although it is also inaccurate because we need to be reconciled with ourselves not the terrorists. For the record, I am not equating the U.S. to South Africa either.
George Soros
February 9, 2007 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am unfamiliar with LaRouche.
I view it as a neo-con warhawk stance because it claims to need America's leadership (imperialist actions) to achieve peace, it pledges America to the goal of working towards that peace and it suggests that somehow it is in America's interest to pursue peace between Israel and Palestine. No such case has been made.
Which is why my question was how does America having, and presidential candidates continuing to pledge commitment to, a biased one-sided ME foreign policy that favors Israel benefit America? Nothing pretzel-like there. Unless, your perspective is so pro-Israel until you are unable to acknowledge that America's ME foreign policy should be about prioritizing America's interest not Israel's sovereignty.
Bottomline: This 'peace now'' pledge offers no peace for America, has plunged us into a war, lost American lives, has us in hundreds of billions of debt and escalated terrorist attacks on American soil. I do not want that type of 'peace now' in America nor presidential candidates making such a pledge in terms of our global role as a 'superpower'. We certainly are not making this type of pledge to any other countries so why should it be acceptable for our ME policy?
Are we going to make the same promises to the Cubans in Miami about Cuba, how about the Mexicans and Dominican Republicans...do we favor all these groups and their political desires regarding foreign countries as well?
February 9, 2007 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The US may no longer be in a position to lead. But at least it can follow or get out of the way. Indeed, since 1967 the US has mostly chosen the posture of getting in the way of a just resolution of the Israeli-Plaestinian conflict. So possibly the most important thing the US can do is stop doing that, and rejoin the rest of the international community.
The US should re-commit itself to UN 242, for which it voted in 1967, which is binding as international law, and which has been at the core of a broad international consensus on the conflict since 1967. The US government should also stop embarrassing our country by applying weasling sophisms to the interpretation of that document, and clearly affirm that it understands that resolution to require the withdrawal of all Israeli forces from all of the territories occupied in the 1967 conflict. This should be a red line. Without the existence of such red lines, any more "negotiations" on final status will only degenrate in the same way they did during the Oslo process.
The Palestinian matter is a question of international law and justice. It's not an issue to be resolved by coercive deal-making between highly unequal parties. It is especially not an issue to be decided by a negotiating contest between one pathetically weak and stateless negotiating partner on one side, and a double-nuclear power tag team on the other.
The United States can never be an honset broker of a Israeli-Palestinian settlement. A new administration might alter our policies somewhat in a more positive direction, but it is clear to all the world that the US has a partisan rooting interest on one side of the conflict, and it will ever be thus. So if we want to help, we need to get out of the way rather than purport to lead the way.
A "contiguous" Palestinian state means nothing. The parking lot at my office is contiguous. So is the guest bathroom in my house. At the end of the day, you get Israel once again trying to hand Palestinians the keys to the bathroom, and calling their offer to fulfill only a part of their international obligations "generous", while the US stands by, shrugs its shoulders and says smirkingly to the Palestinians, "don't look at us - we got you your damn negotiations."
Adding "secure" to the formula also does nothing but toss in some wishful thinking. There is no magic amount of West Bank add-ons that will turn a tiny parking lot state into a "secure" state. No matter what size that state turns out to be, it will be tiny - even more tiny than Israel - and thus inherently insecure. And clearly any corridor of artificial contiguity connecting the West Bank and Gaza will be perpetually vulnerable, and will do little to guarantee Palestinian security. Their security can only be guaranteed by outside forces - and for that purpose size is irrelevant.
The reason to support UN 242 is not that returning the occupied territories to the Palestinians will finally give them the security they crave. It won't. Any power or wanna-be power with a single nuke will be able to wipe them off the face of the earth with the flip of a switch. The reason for honoring UN 242 is to uphold law and justice, and restore just a bit the rapidly unraveling dignity of what used to be called the "international community". The issue is giving back something that what was illegally taken, and which the world made a commitment to restore.
February 9, 2007 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet there is so much doubt that Israel is an apartheid state.
It is time for the US to boycott all business with Israel and to prohibit international aid.
February 9, 2007 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or the reference about the amount of campaign money that comes from single-issue, neo-con influenced backers. High-level staffers whose background and influence has been in the pro-israel single issue political world.
Does $$$ talk and carefully hand-picked pro-israel staffers have more influence, or a bunch of bloggers -- ummm let me think?
On Hills AIPAC talk: Like she is really going to be blunt in her AIPAC 'minions' speech, I think her actions speak louder when she went to her ALL-HAWK think-tank Hillary campaign sponsored war meeting.
We need an HONEST broker in our next president, one who actually understands and stands by international law, especially when the US wants to stick its nose into other countries business, and a war is at stake.
February 9, 2007 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel and Palestine aren't comparable. With some exceptions, there are few Jews who do not understand that there have been numerous efforts not just to be bigoted against Jews but to experminate them. Even American Jews who are fairly secure, though since participating at TPMCafe much less so, know that Israel is the ultimate guarantor of the safety of Jews.
It what way do Palestinians or Palestine play the same role for Arabs? Initially when there was an effort to carve out a Palestine there was an objection that it was part of greater Syria. When Nasser and the Arab League created the PLO in 1964 it was designed to put himself at the head of a pan-Arab movement. Palestinians after the Gulf War were tossed out of the Gulf countries. Islamists want Jews, particularly the very successful Jewish Nation, out of the Middle East.
Carter a former President unfortunately has his facts wrong and effectively called another fomer President, Clinton, a liar. Bush a current President is called far worse than anything Carter has been called.
Fortunately the anti-Israeli crowd at TPMCafe represents only a very small group in America and even smaller number within the Democratic Party. I am not sure what Mr. Rosenberg is celebrating. Israeli and Arab negotiators have been trying to reach various agreements for 50 years. American Presidents have been involved in peacemaking since Kissinger stopped Israel from crushing the Egyptian Army. Until realism, which seems to be grabbing Egypt, Jordan and the Saudis also engages the Palestinians and the America Left there will be no peace, no Palestinian State and lots of frustrated yelling on the Left.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
February 9, 2007 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your paranoia is precisely why you are willing to commit atrocities. Neither your paranoia nor your atrocities are justified.
February 9, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The United States does endose 242 Dan K. I think what you're saying is that the U.S. interpretation of 242 is wrong, no? Isn't the dispute over whether return of territories in the resolution means return of all of the territories?
I am no fan of the occupation or of illegal settlements. But what do you mean when you say that Israel took the OTs illegally? Are you saying that Israel acted illegally in June of 1967, or that Israel has acted illegally since then by not returning the territories?
February 9, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Delete
February 9, 2007 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, John Edwards never went to Herzliya. He gave his speech over a satellite link.
This is another good article by MJR. I am encouraged that we are seeing finally a broadening of the discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Given the mess caused over the last three decades by our inability to debate rationally about that conflict more open discussion can only be beneficial.
February 9, 2007 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Then what is America to Jews in terms of safety? America where there are no terrorists attacks on Jews daily like in Israel? What is America to Jews ultimately?
February 9, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with this picture?
Announcement of House Hearing Next Week on Israel Palestine from the new Democratic House Committee on Foreign Affairs
SUB COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE
- Hide quoted text -
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C . 20515-0128
Gary L. Ackerman (D-NY), Chairman
February 9, 2007
***REVISED***
TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, to be held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building:
DATE: Wednesday, February 14, 2007
TIME: 2:30 p.m.
SUBJECT: Next Steps in Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process
WITNESSES: Mr. David Makovsky
Director
Project on the Middle East Peace Process
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
The Honorable Martin S. Indyk
Director
Saban Center for Middle East Policy
The Brookings Institution
***The Honorable Daniel Pipes
Director
Middle East Forum
Via Teleconference
***NOTE: Witness has been added.
February 9, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What's wrong with this picture?"
They all are f-ing Jews, Jews are everywhere. Let's unite and stop Jews from screwing America and whole world.
They already started 2 World Wars, and about to start third.
February 9, 2007 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Good, just so I understand what I think is your "America First" position, is it your belief that the U.S. should just get out of the Middle East, or do just think that the U.S. is on the wrong side of this issue, and that's why you are pushing for a boycott and a prohibition on international aid? If it's the latter, is your position fairly described as follows?:
America's interests are not Israel's interests. America should stop supporting Israel, and start supporting the Palestinians more by boycotts and aid prohibitions because that is in America's interest?
February 9, 2007 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davai,
MJ is not saying--I don't think he is anyway--that it's bad because they're all Jews, but these folks are known entitities and they happen to be Jewish. The point is that they are not exactly a reflection of a cross-section of the debate. You know Pipes, I know Pipes, and we all know Pipes. There is no counterweight to Pipes on Ackerman's schedule.
Bruce
February 9, 2007 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm shocked!
February 9, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have not answered my last question to you.
February 9, 2007 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jews? That's not the issue. Where are the Palestinians or Arab-Americans on this panel? Can anything be more colonial than an Australian, an Israeli and a crazed fascist Arab-baiter on a panel to discuss the Israeli-Palesinian issue.
February 9, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't recall that Good (I generally try and answer questions), but you are of course free not to answer my question. By the way, my question wasn't a trick question; I've seen you post quite a bit and I was trying to understand the basis for your screen name and how it fits in with your proposal for boycotts and aid restrictions against Israel.
P.S. I remember you asked me about the basis upon which I find Israel legitimate. I answered with a lengthy response and you replied to my answer with a lengthy response. If that's what you are speaking of, you might not have liked my response but I was, in fact, fully responsive.
February 9, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Jews? That's not the issue.
It's always the issue :-)
"Where are the Palestinians or Arab-Americans on this panel?"
Can you name a one of the activists who is not a crazed fascist Jew-baiter?
Most moderate of them are more extreme than Pipes.
In anyway, to follow your logic, where are the Palestinians or Arab-Americans in congess in press in government.
There are too many Jews and too few Arabs.
This is your bottom line.
February 9, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Israel should proclaim what it is along with the inevitable consequences. It cannot be a pure democracy, but it certainly can be more democratic than most other countries."
In any European country who would be making that argument?
And should the US go out of its way to defend such?
February 9, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I appreciate what you say about the uselessness of pandering, but there are some very important questions that candidates have to fudge, if not avoid.
First is Zionism - for an American presidential candidate to be elected, must he/she be a Zionist? The history of Zionism reflects racism of the worst order. If one is to be a true-believer Zionist, must one also be a true-believer segregationist. If the opposite is true, what is the consequence of that? A god-ordained Jewish State or not? Must Israel maintain hegemony in the region to assure the security of the god-ordained Jewish State? A kind of god-ordained hegemony.
Second what is our general policy in the Middle East generally and the Arab countries specifically? If we favor Israel, then all the Arabs are secondary and deservidly so because they are not god-ordained. Is this true? If it is not true, then what does fairness, justice, evenhandedness mean with regard to the Middle East?
Third, based on one's feelings about the first two items, does the U.S., Europe and Israel have any amends to make to the Arabs? If not, then, again, what does fairness and justice mean with respect to policy in this area?
It is not enough to denigrate pandering, one has to deal with these larger issues. Maybe pandering isn't so bad after all.
February 9, 2007 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean essentially the latter bslev, although one doesn't need to appeal to UN 242 to make that case. The resolution empahsized the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force - a principle that was already well-established in international law before UN 242 came along. It is clear that given the fact that Israel came to occupy the territories by force, and given the fact that Israel is using that occupation to settle the territories in addition to occupying them, that Israel is in the process of acquiring territory by force, and has been for some time.
It is my understanding that the US has refused to endorse the view that the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East should include the withdrawal of allIsraeli armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict. Instead it has indulged the minority Israeli interpretation that the absence of an explicit definite article "the" in the text of the resolution means that this part of the resolution can be fulfilled through the withdrawal of only some Israeli armed forces from some of the territories occupied in the "recent conflict".
Even though the US voted for UN 242, and officially endorses UN 242, it is my distinct impression that the US has not in recent years lead with it in its public statements and other diplomatic acts and representations, and has tended to bury it. Thus it would be a good thing for the US to, as I said, re-commit itself to UN 242, and the dominant interpretation thereof.
February 9, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't pretend to be so clueless davai. It's not that they are Jews. It's that the Saban Center, WINEP and MEF all have very pronounced pro-Israel orientations, and the three speakers invited also have individual records of pro-Israel partisanship and advocacy ranging on a spectrum from merely strong and vigorous to fanatical and zealous. Indyk was a head of AIPAC, Makovsky an editor of the Jerusalem Post - and Pipes needs no introduction.
The hearing purports to deal with the future of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace process. All three of the invited figures are appropriate invites to such a hearing. But Washington and its environs are also crawling with Palestinian journalists, Palestinian and Arab advocacy organizations, non-partisan Middle East scholars with area expertise and US Middle East diplomats with experience in Arab capitals. Yet none of these people are invited to the hearing. I wonder why?
February 9, 2007 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indyk? Puhleeeze!
(SOURCE: Washington Post article dated
Feb. 2, 1995, by Al Kamen, entitled "Choice for Israel Took Unconventional Route
- Quick Rise")
Indyk was given a US citizenship fast-track and appointed by Clinton to shape US foreign policy on the Mideast (where he implemented the "Dual Containment" stategy on Iran and Iraq) and was then appointed as the first Jewish ambassador to Israel, in violation of a rule that prohibited such obvious conflicts of interest (no Polish americans are sent as US amb to poland either) but the real conflict of interest was in the fact that Indyk was an active participant in the pro-Israeli lobby community and was brought to the US by AIPAC, and started his "Washington Institute for Near East Policy" in ordre to give "think tank" legitimacy & cover to AIPAC's policy proscriptions. So, a pro-Israeli activist was sent to represent US interests in Israel. Think about that.
So the bottom line is that the full spectrum of views are HARDLY represented by the likes of Pipes and Indyk and such pro-israeli agentsat these Congressional show hearings.
That's obvious but instead you're trying to label others as being racists for suggesting that Arabs and Palestinians may have something legitimate to contribute to the debate.
Incidentally, Martin Indyk was once stripped of his security clearance for passing secrets to Israel. The same happened to Perle and Faith - but they all managed to get top level policy jobs. It seems that passing secrets to Israel is no big deal anymore - even frmr CIA director Woolsey who is tight with the NeoCons has espoused releasing Pollard. Talk about Israeli infiltration!
February 9, 2007 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Davai: you are an anti-semite
February 9, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed that US foreign policy is about US interests, not promoting Israeli interests except when they promote US interests -- not the emotion of some US blocs.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 9, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are not speaking rhetorically, I'll mention my talks with very close friends, really extended family, in a mixed Muslim and Christian clan from Sierra Leone. The immigrants are all naturalized citizens or in the process, and the children are now in the second generation. One, about 14 or 15 now, is of a level of wisdom, charisma, and peacemaking ability to make one wonder what impact Ibrahim will have on the nation and the world.
It's hard to think how many hours I've spent talking about both race and religion with my friend Mariatu. She is an American who happens to be Muslim in religion. While I know how badly she wants to go on the Hajj, she is intent about not having her American patriotism challenged. In many ways, some of her fears of being painted with the terrorist brush remind me of my grandparents, emigrants from the Czar who remembered the secret police and the pogroms, showing real fear -- that I remembered from a young age -- as Joe McCarthy created a climate of fear.
Palestine isn't a big issue for her. Assimilated African-Muslim-American, I guess -- as I've mentioned, the Hajj is a goal, but her daughter is renowned for her glazed ham. Her big foreign issue is the violence and disorder in West Africa.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 9, 2007 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You do seem to have a binary view. An American does not have to be pro- or anti-Israel, any more than one has to be pro- or anti-Tibetan, or pro- or anti-Fijian, or pro- or anti-French. Well, maybe not so pro-Parisian.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 9, 2007 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason is that I am not an isolationist. I am not an American Firster. We live in one world and I don't limit my empathy to Americans.
February 9, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANK YOU!
This is not an either/or debate. We can certainly negotiate with Iran's leaders, as a way of reaching Iran's people, and we can still defend Israel in the process.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
February 9, 2007 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think ya'all nailed it in an excellent exchange. We can't expect extremists to change their minds overnight (hope is not a plan) but we can engage actively in a lengthy negotiation that will bring all parties, some not obvious at the moment, to the table.
Oslo failed. But it was still a great achievement, in a lot of ways. It came close. The problem is, since then, the US has given up.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
February 9, 2007 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Daniel,
Here, you're making an argument that I've never been able to understand, but that I've heard a lot. If I'm paraphrasing fairly, you're saying that Israel serves as a refuge of safety for Jews and that Palestine doesn't serve the same function for either Arabs or Palestinian Arabs.
I'm willing to grant that point.
But, and here's where I disconnect... is that the standard for having a country? I mean, can't a country be legitimate without serving as a safe haven for an ethnic or religious group? It strikes me that there's no such requirement for nationhood. It's enough that people live there and want to govern their own affairs.
Am I missing something? I'm not asking that rhetorically, by the way.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
February 9, 2007 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Davai: you are an anti-semite"
Finally, we discovered an anti-semite in this blog :-)
Do you suspect anybody else on this blog to be anti-semite?
February 9, 2007 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Seeking more information about the hearing, I went to the site of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, but find nothing about it there, although other hearings scheduled for next week are announced. Do you have a link or more information?
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
February 9, 2007 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If I am elected President, I will do everything in my power to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and a secure contiguous state for the Palestinians in West Bank/Gaza. As a supporter of Israel, I believe that Israel's surest route to security is by reaching an agreement with the Palestinians. Furthermore, I believe that achieving an equitable Israeli-Palestinian agreement will advance America's interests throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world. Peace between Israel and the Arabs will only be achieved by means of US leadership and I intend to provide it."
I think you are confusing goals and outcomes with process. It is called the peace process for a reason. The "Surest route" to "security" is reaching an "agreement".
What agreement? Israeli/Palestinian Negotiations about what? US talks with Iran about what? Talks for the sake of talking?
The reason why the "even handed" statement got Dean in trouble is because Israel wants to compromise and thier neighbors want it all. All or nothing. The only way to engage in talks or agreements with someone like that is to convince them that they might just get nothing.
There is a tendency by the left to imagine that if one side couldn't possibly budge, then put pressure on the side that you think you can bully, in this case Israel. Israel occupied the Sinai for one reason, because it was leverage, and when Egypt decided it wanted peace, it got the Sinai back. The same goes for the Palestinians.
Edwards remarks shows that he knows Iran is nuts and they can not be allowed to acquire Nukes, but he can't say that forcefully on Meet the Press because it sets off a chain reaction, that begs the question, what are you gonna do about it? Talks? Regional conferences? Sending a bouquet of flowers and a box of chocolates?
How is an offer from the US to talk with Iran going to solve anything when they have firmly announce that no gifts or trinkets or anything from the US will buy them off and deter them from acquiring Full Nuclear status. What does the US bring to a negotiating table like that?
If a candidate says Nukes are not acceptable, and the Iranians have categorically ruled out the carrot, then what is left other than a non-military or a military stick?
We are dealing with a regime who's hobby is Hitler worship and holocaust denial conferences, and the American holocaust deniers are emboldened when we sit in silence as they parade their genocidal promises. When message boards of left wingers denounce Joe Lieberman with "Mixed loyalty" slurs and worse, is it any wonder Elie Weisel gets stalked and acosted in a San Francisco elevator by an emboldened Holocaust denier?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070210/ap_on_re_us/wiesel_accosted
It is events like that, that make me shutter to think of the times we live in and see Jew hating come back into Vogue. First it was France and Austria and now right here in America.
I am not saying any one that opposes Israeli policies is in that camp, but just as we expect Muslims to stand up and vociferously denounce Al Qaeda. If we do not go on the offense (figuratively speaking) against the increased beligerance in France, Iran, South Lebanon, and even here in San Francisco, then we are all complicit in this new frightful era of hate.
If Pro Israeli groups here want to hear a candidate that cares enough about the peace and security in the mideast to reiterate our military responsibilites in the region then that candidate has a tough choice to make. Do you reiterate the security commitments we have made to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey as well as Israel, or do you holler "Redeploy" and then whisper, "and if you really need us we'll come back". As you said, no candidate wants to hint at another mideast war.
We all know, if we leave, we are not coming back. If Turkey or the Saudis were overcome by a widening regional conflict with Shias, Does Hillary or Edwards bring the troops back from Okinawa? We didn't in Cambodia. We averted our eyes. Remember, to his credit, McGovern recomended that we send troops to Cambodia, and his colleagues quietly laughed him off as impractical. Maybe, but he was right.
Candidates have a tough decision you are right. One set of audiences that demands clarification as if their lives depended on it. Another group that is not interested in clarification, just action and that action is, get out and forget the consequences.
Tough decisions is right.
February 9, 2007 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
removed.
not worth arguing with an idiot
February 9, 2007 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
For any one that is wondering, this genius edited his remark out....
here's what he said...
"...Fuck you asshole!
I'll back Iran over Likud anyday and so will most of the world!..."
I think he pretty much made my point. Fine at least we know where you stand, Seth. Like I said, there are some tough decisions people need to make. You have chosen to side with President Ahmedinijahd, because your hate has overcome your ability to recognize an evil hitlerian regime that advocates Genocide as their spiritual obligation to usher in the return of the 12th Imam.
I think you have advocated a poor choice.
February 9, 2007 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
No that's not all I said. I posted a link
And I called you a racist.It's not easy being a Jew in Iran, as the article makes clear. But it's a hell of a lot easier than being a Palestinian on the West Bank. And as I've said elsewhere, Iran may have an authoritarian government but there aren't many fascists among the people who live under it. I can't say the same thing for Israel.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH A BINATIONAL STATE? You racist motherfucker
February 9, 2007 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you "empathize" with the 900,000 Palestinians who were murdered & ethnically cleansed in accordance with the ideology of Zionism which envisions creating a purified Jewish homeland in palestine, which you identify yourself with?
February 9, 2007 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You assume that "US interests" are promoted by themselves and disregard the process - a process which has become totally infiltrated by Israeli agents of influence.
Foreign policy, like tax policy or trade policy or environmental policy, is formed as a result of lobbying and influence-peddling and sausage-making by self-interested politicians.
When candidates for the US Presidency make a regular habit out of pandering to the agents of a foreign power in the most disgusting way, declaring that the security of the foreign power is their foremost consideration etc., you have to start asking yourself a few questions about whose interests are being served.
I suggest starting with the Walt & Meirsheimer paper, though George Ball's Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present is better.
February 9, 2007 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
of course Israel can't be a pure democracy. Yes, some of the barnyard animals are more equal than others.
February 9, 2007 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but you're the one who has declared that "our civilization is better than theirs" so you have no leg to stand upon when you talk about "hate"
You want hate? Look into the mirror, Good German.
February 9, 2007 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say "it's not easy being a Jew in Iran? Ha, Ha , Ha....you gullible imbecile.
So you trot out this BBC article with pride that says there are 25,000 Jews "as proud of their Iranian culture as of their Jewish roots".
And you believe this propoganda? Just decades ago, do you know how many Jews were in Iran? 6 or 7 times that many! It is well known that these people live under a system of institutionalized persecution where every aspect of the culture including all government and legal status treats them as subhuman.
When the Ayatollahs took over they had their own version of krystalnacht, they arrested the leader of the Persian Jews and executed him. There are more Persian Jews in west hollywood today than in all of Iran. Of the over 120,000 persian Jews that left Iran, most will tell you that the ones that stayed behind are extremely limited in freedom of speech and are persecuted in the practice of their religion. The government restricts the use of Hebrew texts in Jewish schools and forces schools to remain open on the sabbath. The current leader of the few remaining Jews shocked the community recently when he wrote an open letter to Ahmenidijahd informing him of the insulting nature of his holocaust denial propoganda. Recent years have seen increased arrests for alleged "zionist behavior".
But, It ain't easy being a Jew in Iran, right?
You have the gall to put this propaganda on here of the Jew that is forced to say, "Imam Khomeini made a distinction between Jews and Zionists and he supported us".
So the other 90% of the Jews that left were Zionists? Oh but its a hell of a lot easier than being a palestinian on the west bank, right? And the citizens of Israel are Fascists and racists? And I too am a racist MF?
You did say that you support Iran over Likud! admit it! You are so consumed with hate that you would side with People that have a covenant of genocide that compels them to see us all burn.
Ahmedinijahd and his hitlerian thugs are your friends, not mine. You can have 'em!
February 9, 2007 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which brings up the question: why are Zionists so dishonest and immoral. I mean, its simply mind boggling that anyone would abuse the memory of the Holocaust to justify a genocide. ANd yet they do, and yelp out loud that THEY'RE the victims! They have absolutely no shame. What is it about Zionism that makes them so dishonest even with themselves?
Take MJ Rosenberg here - he proudly identifies himself as a lifelong Zionist, but remains totally silent when I remind him that Zionism=racist genocide. Its a historical fact pure and simple, that even Israeli historians have come to admit (and some even endorse it ) But he still refuses to acknowledge it. Its a problem with all of these so-called "Jewish liberals" - they want to try to paper over the nasty realities of what Zionism is, and what Israel is built upon. But they're only fooling themselves.
February 9, 2007 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If what you mean is the question if America is better than others, how does that figure into "Hate", or is America better than Germany? I'm not sure what your typically convuluted and cryptic non sequitur is implying. Or are you asserting that any practices or characteristics of any regime or civilization are equal in quality and value to humanity?
As usual Hass, I don't expect much out of your response.
February 9, 2007 10:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forget the past and rather pointless question at this point...
My screen name is a combination of my own misunderstanding of the rules as spelled out when I first joined this list (alpha numeric and spaces... If you are as computer intensive as I am, you read it as YOU MUST USE ALL THESE) and a poke in the eye at re-Publicans whose effort to dominate the patriotism business annoys me.
I am typically NOT America first and find your assertions that I am irritating. I raise the issue of American interest in the ME in direct opposition to what I perceive as frequent false assertions that the US has an interest supporting Israel. The US has absolutely no interest in supporting Israel. Israel has an interest in obtaining US support. So, Israeli behavior in clear violation of mainstream American morals seems pretty stupid to me.
The US DOES have an interest and, considering its own history, something of a strong imperative, in redressing racism and apartheid worldwide. Unjust intra-national practices that are supported by US international policy is what leads to terrorism against Americans both abroad and at home. Since I live and work within a few miles of the former World Trade Center, I think of this all to often.
I am advocating boycotting of Israel because international pressure on South Africa forced it out of apartheid, it is a model that works. According to the New York Times article that Seth linked to, Israel is moving deeper into apartheid at this time. Boycotts and other public disapprobation might bring home to the Israeli government what they so far seem to be overlooking, which is that they cannot thumb their nose at us forever and expect our support to continue.
If boycotts don't work, I would want to push them into the Cuba category, where travel to or from Israel is illegal and all Israeli funds held in the US is frozen. From my point of view, the time frame should be NOW. The voluntary war with Lebanon, the carnage in Gaza, and the Wall indicate that Israel has no respect for world opinion or the majority American opinion.
February 9, 2007 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for stating the obvious, but it needed to be said.
February 9, 2007 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And I too am a racist MF?"
"right of return" after 2000 years.
Between Israel and the Palestinians I support the Palestinians, but
between Europe and the Jews I support the Jews. You don't have the guts to say that. You sound like a German. And I side with the Turks.
Here, have some fun: Baruch Kimmerling on Benny Morris
Herr Haider,
Why won't you accept a a binational state?
Cause you're a fucking racist.
something else 4u:
Here's more. Condi: "Fax? I guess I forgot"I'm done with all of this. I've been spending time at a few blogs recently but I'm done. I have no patience for politics anymore.
February 9, 2007 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little historical context would be useful for all the commenters here. For a comprehensive, fact-laden study, try Michael Oren's Policy, Faith & Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present.
From the Washington Post review quoted on Amazon,
"As a historian, Oren is more storyteller than grand theorist, so as a study of the complex and contradictory motives of American behavior, his book is a bit thin. Nevertheless, three powerful themes emerge from his tales: that from the Founders onward, Americans have repeatedly tried to transform Arab and Muslim peoples -- politically, spiritually and economically -- to conform to liberal and Christian principles; that since the days of the Puritans, many Americans have been obsessed with the idea of "restoring" Palestine to the Jews; and that from the colonial era to the present, many (and perhaps most) Americans have regarded Islam as a barbaric, violent and despotic religion. Whether these purposes and perceptions have been intelligent or misguided, based on reality or fantasy, Oren shows that they have been the dominant features of our foreign policy tradition in the Middle East."
If you don't want to read the whole book, at least read the review. But the book itself is a great read, and a rewarding one. I heartily recommend it. I know that it has caused me to reflect more deeply on my own biases with regard to to the present-day difficulties.
"If God keeps hanging out with politicians, its gonna hurt His reputation." -- Molly Ivins
February 10, 2007 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
WRB:
I didn't mean to "irritate you" by probing where you're coming from, and if I did irritate you on that basis I am absolutely sorry. In any event, I respect your right to express your views and I do feel a responsibility to read what you write.
Bruce
February 10, 2007 6:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seth, I think if you knew any Iranian Jews who have come to this country (I think more live within 20 miles of where I live than are left in Iran), you would choose another way to make your points.
February 10, 2007 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lord Carodon, Britain's UN Ambassador at the time of the 1967 war, and a participant in the formulation of 242, wrote:
"Knowing as I did the unsatisfactory nature of the 1967 line, I wasn’t prepared to use wording in the Resolution that would have made that line permanent. Nonetheless, it is necessary to say again that the overwhelming principle was the ‘inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for the annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war. The sensible way to decide permanent ‘secure and recognized’ boundaries would be to set up a Boundary Commission and hear both sides and then to make impartial recommendations for a new frontier line, bearing in mind, of course, the "inadmissibility" principle."
UN Security Council Resolution 242 - A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity’, Caradon et al, 1981 [as quoted in Wikipedia, http://www.answers.com/topic/united-nations-security-council-resolution-242#wp-_note-7]
February 10, 2007 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many Jews in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, or in the other middle eastern countries referred to as politically "moderate" when compared to Iran?
It the context of the warmongering going in at the moment, and in the context on this site of MJ Rosenberg's asking if another holocaust is inevitable, which is of course warmongering by whining ("it won't be our fault will it?") the only question that matters is whether or not Iran is a threat and if so of what sort. If you want to learn something about Sunni Shia tensions and the struggle between reaction and reform in the arab wold you won't learn much at TPM Cafe, go to Arab-Links. Iran has chosen to side with reform, but for what reason? That's a question. Shia are the majority in Lebanon. "They have the quantity but we have the quality" as one of the famous Lebanese "moderates" said recently. What about Mubarak and the Saudis? Why do we back such repressive regimes? MJ Rosenberg has said on this site that Arab democracies are dangerous to Israel (someone else can look it up. it's been mentioned enough.)
So is Iran a threat, or are reformist movements a threat? Is Hezbollah more of a threat to the security of the United States than the unstable and thuggish Saudi monarchy? Than the Mubarak dictatorship? Than Pakistan?
Frankly, no. But these questions are never asked on this site -not seriously- except by a few commenters. The answers are taken for granted. The prerogatives of aggressive and expansionist zionism are assumed if not always defended outright.
I don't defend those prerogatives. I don't defend dictatorships, and I don't defend the Iranian government. But I defend the Iranian people: probably the most committed reformers of any population in the middle east, and more committed by far than Israelis, who are still mired in racialist fantasies of blood and sand and lebensraum.
I think I've made my point, if a bit sloppily. I said I was done and I meant it. I'm closing my here account at TPM Starbucks. I'm sick of having to argue simple points. Patience for politics is patience with idiots. I've lost what little I had had of that.
February 10, 2007 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K:
Another excellent post from you, thanks.
I guess I agree that the American interpretation of 242 is a "minority" view in the sense that most nations of the world believe that 242 requires Israel to withdraw from every inch of territory captured in 1967. But I do think that, if I understand things correctly, when the resolution was debated, the attempts of the Soviet Ambassador and the ambassadors of various Arab nations to have the resolution read that Israel would have to withdraw from "all of the" territories was rejected, and the resolution in its present form does not contain that language. I also believe that both Arthur Goldberg, the U.S. Ambassador and the British Ambassador who participated in the negotiations, corroborate my understanding. I do think that the Arab nations made a contemporaneous declaration at the time that they would read the resolution as you and most of the world now read it.
If that is what happened, I think the American construction would prevail in a court of law 99 out of 100 times just by applying age-old principles of contract interpretation, i.e. the decision to exclude something from a final agreement that is ambiguous has meaning.
I would be curious if anyone else has a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying negotiations leading up to 242.
In any event, what are the chances that there will be a settlement between Israel and Palestine if a condition precedent to the settlement is that 242 be construed in accordance with the "majority" position?
With respect to Camp David/Taba, didn't the failed negotiations contemplate some tinkering on the border on both sides? And, short of a land grab, isn't such tinkering more realistic if there will be a final settlement?
Your contribution to these discussions are appreciated by me.
Bruce
February 10, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, and for what it's worth Seth, you and I have gone at it over the last week or so, but I do hope you stick around.
February 10, 2007 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You clearly believe that a person with a German ethnic background or nationality is somehow defective or inferior, but your admiration and preference for the hate filled philosophy of Ahmedinijahd and the Third Reich is a disturbing throwback to an archaic and violent past that is the enemy of all civilized people. You should seek help.
February 10, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
If "help" were indicated for people based on their political philosophies, nobody would ever be able get an appointment with a therapist.
February 10, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read Hezbollah's charter. Genocide and Global takeover! How do you think a land on the mediterranean got to be a majority Shia country? The same way they ran the Jews out of Iran, they ran the christians et al out of Lebanon...how? Murder, torture, terror, violence, kidnappings, executions!
These are the killers you want to defend. You are lying down with genocidal maniacs in a bed covered in blood.
February 10, 2007 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you are suggesting the entire US political process is controlled by Israeli agents of influence, I disagree. I do believe there is too much influence and too many decisions where the US acts first in support of Israeli hardliners and thinks later, if at all.
There are other cases where smaller but potent blocs supportive of a particular policy toward another country dominates the decisionmaking process out of proportion and not necessarily to the global benefit of the US. Still, try to win a South Florida election without a strong anti-Cuban-government stance.
Again, you are assuming what I have read and not read. Personally, I tend to suggest sources I have found useful, unless someone asks directly for recommendations. -- Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 10, 2007 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seth Edenbaum is one sick guy. I don't mind self-hating Jews. I despise self-haters who become Jew-haters.
Seth is more obsessed with his biological Jewness than an Orthodox Jew.
My favorite is where he attacks MJR, a Jew who consistently defends Palestinian rights and opposes the neocons. And he's not some anonymous dude like Seth "I'm not a Jew" Edenbaum. He's out there fighting in Washington and within policy circles to change things.
But to Seth, MJR is a neocon (even though he hates the neocons) because MJR is a Jew.
But so is Seth, although alot more obsessed with being one than MJR. Maybe Seth is a neocon and not the self-proclaimed Larouchite he claims to be.
Seth, go see a shrink or get your Larouchite mentors to give you a new line.
You are a tiresome bore.
You are not a Jew. You are not a Jew. Okay. We promise never to think of you as a Jew, Arab, African-American or any of the groups you are so uncomfortable with.
You are a WASP! A real American. Not a Jew. OK.
February 10, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seth Edenbaum says he wants to leave. I sure hope he does. I'm not Jewish and as a gentile, his Jew-hating embarasses me. Even though he's Jewish. It's kinda sick. Also, he has no regard for the facts. In short, he's a head case.
February 10, 2007 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
George Soros is a man, he admitted his mistakes. Would you?
More to the point, will Marty Peretz?
February 10, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
TJ--
Read Michael Oren's book or any history of the conflict. The Palestinians have accepted the two-state idea since 1988. They adhered to Oslo every bit as much as the Israelis did and came close to an agreement.
Netanyahu himself telephoned Arafat to thank him for his efforts to stop terrorism.
I'm sure you know all this but oppose negotiations because they will lead to compromise.
That is your prerogative.
February 10, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think a person like him that is so consumed with hate that he would do so many mental gymnastics to support Ahmedinijahd over Israel is in need of some therapy or at least a long vacation.
February 10, 2007 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
bslev,
Perhaps a lawyer could jump in to help us, but I have always been under the impression that in the interpretation of a legal enactment the assessment of the legislative intent is a far more important jurisprudential consideration than the private intentions of those who wrote the draft. That intent is usually expressed during the debate on the enactment.
In the case of UN242, most of the members of the Security Council explicitly articulated their understanding that the "withdrawal" clause was to be interpreted as calling for the wthdrawal from all occupied territories. The US and Great Britain were non-committal during debate.
The British Ambassador - who was one of the drafters - has since stated that in his own mind the ambiguity was to allow for the possibility that a final status agreement would allow for a agreed-upon re-drawing of the boundary, but that everything must be understood in the context of the principle of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force.
During the Camp David discussions, which were supposed to lead to the implementation of UN 242, the Palestinian team did not insist on the withdrawal of Israel from all of the occupied territories, but attempted to secure American and Israeli agreement to the "principal of the exchange of territories": that is, the 1967 borders were to be regarded as the baseline of legitimacy, deviations from which would require an equal exchange of territories. The Palestinians were prepared to accept some of the Israeli settlements, if they could bring compensatory exchange of territories back to their people. The US and Israel did not accept this proposed baseline. Clinton exploded, and mocked the Palestinians and their attempts to adhere to international law and UN resolutions.
US diplomacy regarding the Israeli-Palestinians conflict took a giant step backward during the Clinton administration under the guidance of Clinton, Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, and probably forever eliminated the potential for the US to play the role of honest broker.
February 10, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do I get the feeling that you are going to throw this dispicable grenade out and then later try to qualify it.
You said..
Jews starting World wars?
...screwing America and the whole world?
Unite to stop them?
Help me to understand what you are saying.
February 10, 2007 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
dishonest, immoral, yelping, no shame, racist, nasty,.....etc.
You have some interesting adjectives.
February 10, 2007 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was following you until this,..
"you are a WASP! A real American. Not a Jew. OK."
Real American? What does this mean?
February 10, 2007 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well that's what it comes down to isn't it? WHen you're past all the feigns and distractions, Zionists eventually state that they espouse and endorse the ethnic cleansing of non-Jews from Palestine because "We" are better than "them".
You're the case in point.
So I should have included bigoted and ignorant to cover people like you who declare that "our civilization is better than theirs"....because frankly I for one don't what YOU to be the spokesman for "our" civilization.
February 10, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I definitely do not oppose negotiations. I oppose negotiations for the sake of negotiations. Can we agree that Oslo and other negotiations can be graded in such a way that some are more productive than others? Can we agree that regarding the two state question, we have made progress towards a goal since 30 years ago? I am not afraid of compromise. I know that Israel can give up their leverage only once and I expect that they should receive something in return. Security and a reasonable expectation that they will be able to continue to exist. I have been in negotiations before. Sometimes you have to step away from the table in order to refocus both sides on their goals.
Israel's goal is survival. Their challenge is to not hold out for a 100% perfect guarantee of survival. Not even the US has that. Palestine's goal is to win it all and have all of Israel in their control. The challenge of their leadership is to convince their people that less than 100% is acceptable; to convince their people that when they agree to a two state solution, that they mean it, not with a wink and a nod.
Has Arafat killed Israelis and Americans in terrorist acts, Yes. Has he ever exerted energy to take a break from the killing, yes. If Netanyahu makes that call, then good for him.
Israel could have rushed to the table in 1975 and given it all back at once. For what? We live in a society in need of immediate gratification yet we are dealing with a region where solutions can be multi-generational.
When JFK said “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty"
Survival, success, liberty...he is saying we value these things so much we ill fight more than 6 days, more than a limited air campaign, more than 3000 lives, more than 6 years, more than 6 centuries, we will never give up.
The Radicals in the mideast have said, A culture that does not believe in itself enough to defend its own existence and ideals can not expect others to defend it for them. Americans are our own greatest critics, will we not even bear arms to defend even liberty?
He also is saying we will support "any friend", even if it is tough to support Israel, it is the right thing to do. We have cajoled and pressured Israel plenty and they will be pressured again, as a friend.
Israel holds the final decision on what constitutes the best path for its survival. Everyone else possesses merely opinions. It is our obligation as friends to remain engaged, to encourage progress, but to resist a "clicker" impulse for immediate gratification. Our patience for a peaceful resolution can help Israel come to compromise safely and can help Palestinians resolve their internal conflicts so that they can compromise enough to have a homeland, although not as big as a homeland that they may want.
MJ, in my first post I mentioned my shock at the prevalence of hate on these left leaning meeting places. People like Seth and Davai. I don't see anything like this on the conservative boards. I know you are down on Neocons. I know that you are down on formerly liberal jews that now consider themselves conservative, but don't you feel uncomfortable amongst this vitriol? How can you not find it shocking? Why would it be a surprise to see Jews supporting conservatives?
The things I hear people saying on the left and in Europe and around the world are things I never thought I would live to see. People like Seth and Davai will say its the Jews that brought it on themselves (What's new). There is no excuse. How can this not be a shock to Freedom loving liberals?
February 10, 2007 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
removed.
No. I meant it, and I'll keep my word.
February 10, 2007 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
bslev: There is indeed a great deal of controversy regarding the interpretation of 242. Whatever the interpretation, it does seem to me that any further negotiations ought to proceed from the "all the territories" interpretation, with any adjustments to the border to be worked out to the satisfaction of the Palestinians, not just the Israelis.
Here's why:
However Resolution 242 is interpreted, it's clear that it relies for it's underlying principle on the Geneva Conventions, which state that territory seized in war cannot be annexed by an occupying country. Yet that's just what Israel has proceded to do, by it's policy of creating facts on the ground, namely settlement of the Occupied Territories by Israelis. The building of the Separation Wall is the most obvious case in point. The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, rendered in 2004, is clear where Resolution 242 may not have been (there's also a summary, here):
The Israelis dismiss this opinion by saying it is only advisory and therefore not binding. And so the increasing of the Israeli population in the OT has continued unabated, even during the withdrawal from Gaza! I think what troubles many watchers of the I-P situation is that for far too long the Israelis have simply been taking the disputed land for themselves.
I might add that one of the things that has made Hillary Clinton far less appealing to me as a candidate is the enthusiastic endorsement of the Wall that she made on a trip to Israel a few years ago.
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
February 10, 2007 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can and will assert what your argument assumes, and if its not correct then phrase your argument better.
No one said the "entire" political process is controlled by Israel - but US foreign policy process with respect to the Mideast IS IN FACT controlled and dominated by pro-Israeli agents of influence who have infiltrated the heighest levels of govt (such as the OSP in the Pentagon) and have led this country by its nose into a disaster in the Mideast. Israel is the source. Period. End of Story.
Pentagon Office Home to Neo-Con Network
See also
The spies who pushed for war
Agents of Influence
Everyone knows it. Denying this fact won't erase it.
ISrael will fight to the last US Marine.
February 10, 2007 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wordie:
First of all, I just turned on the computer at work so I could finally get some work done and here I am again!
Anyway, Wordie I hear you loud and clear with respect to what Israel has done since 1967. I hope you know by now that I'm not here to defend the conduct of the occupation.
I do think what ultimately matters is that, with respect to forging good faith consensus, what you write makes me more confident that good people with different perspectives on this conflict can come to agreement.
The key is that I think we both agree that a final two-state solution could ultimately end up including adjustment of the pre-67 borders by either or both parties. Of course, as you stress, the agreement must also effect that portion of UN Sec. Res 242 that requires secure, or as someone once said, equitable :) borders for BOTH sides as a condition of settlement.
So that's a good thing, I think, or hope, or both.
February 10, 2007 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You still haven't answered my question.
http://coffeehouse.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/feb/09/israel_and_palestine_the_prez_candidates_can_no_longer_pander_thanks_to_us#comment-205628
Are you asserting that all cultures and any characteristic of any regime is equally as good as any other for humanity?
You don't want to answer that, do you Mr. Moral relativity? Nazis are equal to Ghandi, The Khmer Rouge is equal to Mother Theresa? Lincoln is equal to Stalin? The US constitution is equal to the Nazi's final solution? Hojjatieh is the same as Pope John Paul?
Cultures, nations, ideals and national aspirations can be graded as better or worse. You are a dunce if you can't accept that.
The US is imperfect, but it is by far the best. Thats why i freely chose to reside here and not somewhere else. What is your excuse?
February 10, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
This medium is poor and underlying assumptions are often not expressed. In the democratic context, "America first" can be thought to imply rightwing indifference to the world at large, which I find offensive. I have, for example, been raising issues of Iraqi deaths in the Iraqi war for 4 years. The American discussion is 3,000 deaths. Only in the last 6 months has the Iraqi mayhem received any attention. That is 3 1/2 years tardy by my count. Then you suggest I have an "America first" attitude because I point out that the US interest involves exactly zero support for Israel, especially since the US has very strong interests related to almost all of the surrounding countries.
Israel has dug itself into a hole through its immoral behavior. The US has no need for Israel. The US has interests that are in conflict with Israel is a tiny insignificant country that makes a habit of annoying large significant countries that are strategically important. How self-denying does the US have to be to please a country that treats 15% of its own citizens as second class citizens and practices apartheid?
February 10, 2007 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ, I am appalled by some of these people. I guess I don't address the anti-semites around here because, like racists of all sorts, you just can't argue with them.
But believe me I despise them every much as I do the racist Jews. Not to sound too holy, I hate all forms of racism including the weird self-hatred of the Seth Edenbaums of the world.
You don't read the same conservative boards I do.
At TPM there are a few lunatics. Lucianne Goldberg
said once that if Ted Kennedy or Hillary Clinton were killed, she would have to shut down Lucianne.com because the celebrating would be so intense.
I think Free Republic, Lucianne, Little Green Footballs etc are dominated by hatred and racism.
February 10, 2007 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Realism would suggest that there are times where borders are an accident of history, or otherwise drawn to be an invitation to trouble -- think of the Danzig Corridor or the formation of Bengladesh whenever there's a question of territory being discontiguous. Absolute rigidity about the exact pre-1967 borders may be such.
A wall may be a reasonable interim security measure. Complete removal of settlements, with selected replacement by interim military bases, would seem a requirement. Final definition of the boundary, tied to bilateral security milestones for the removal of bases and barriers, would follow in negotiations. Multinational forces in some of the bases may be a reasonable idea.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 10, 2007 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, I assume you squirm at the impression that you give that the entire political process is controlled by Israeli agents of influence. It's your bad argument that gives me that impression. I couldn't possibly have a chip on my shoulder or take responsibility for the tone of my argument.
I do agree that the Israeli government and certain of its supporters are heedless of American deaths and cost in defense of Israeli interests.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
February 10, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, I have heard Lucianne Goldberg say nutty things before. Whether you think it a fair comparison or not, I have heard people compare her to Molly Ivins in the fact that through crumudgeonly and hyperbolic rants she attempts to inject humor into a hostile debate. Unfortunately, Goldberg is not funny and what is left is ugly and offensive remarks like the one you mentioned. I have pointed out before the right has had its share of Vince Foster/Marcy park nutjobs, but the prevalence is quite small really and the assaults on those nutjobs from conservatives can be quite fierce.
Liberals find it hard to believe that mainstream conservatives openly mock the Michael Savages of the world. If you want examples, I can give you examples of every major conservative talkshow host criticizing him as a marginal anamoly. (and Pat Buchanen is not conservative).
There are two reasons why what I see on the left is scary to me. One, it is not pointing at Hillary or Ted Kennedy or even the now commonplace jokes about Bush's assasination, it is directed at Jews. That includes every man woman and child. It reminds me in the 90s after Rodney King and OJ, liberals I knew would come up to me and say, "You'll be happy to know I am turning more conservative, I am fed up with the blacks". My response was always, "What makes you think thats conservative, thats racist".
The second reason it disturbs me, Regardless of how you see the leanings of the media or the voices of alarm in our society regarding tolerance, if we can't count on the left to be the canary in the coal mine regarding racial hatred, no one is going to listen to the right on the issue of anti-semitism no matter how loud they yell.
I will pay a visit to FR and LGF and see if I see what you do, but saying they are "dominated" sounds like a majority and from what I have seen last time I looked, I don't see that. Trying to be open minded over here.
Thanks for your response. It is a trend that I truly don't understand.
February 10, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think that your questions are worthy of attention - especially when you're making them up? WHo said anything about "all cultures any characteristics"? That YOUR sweeping generalization not mine.
See, unlike you I don't even classify cultures into an "us" and "them" to start with, so "comparing" them is a non-sequiter to start with. Its only lunatics like you who are pushing this "War of Civilizations" nonsense, which ultimately comes down to your own racist self-perception as being "superior" to others...and in fact you don't even know jackshit about them anyway except for what you've heard on right-wing AM radio hate fests. Remember how you claimed that Iran was trying to recreate the "caliphate" and I had to remind you that Iran has historically fought against "the caliphate" and its only wingnuts like you who talk about that nonsense?
February 10, 2007 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ:
That was very impressive. Thank you.
Bruce
February 10, 2007 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
TJ is appalling, not impressive. Israel is a RACIST society. If it wants to continue being a RACIST society, it should be ISOLATED. The US has trucked with racism far too much. Corrective measures here have taken far too long to take effect. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will live in a better society. The US has NO business providing any aid to Israel.
February 10, 2007 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought TJ's post was impressive not because I agree with everything he wrote, but because I could tell it was from his heart.
February 10, 2007 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have answered my question. You believe that Anthropology does not exist. You believe in moral relativism. Nazis and Buddhist monks are identical.
Once again you spout your gibberish and when asked to back it up, you run and hide under your bed.
As I said, if all countries are equally good, then there should be no reason for you to stay here,...thankfully. Please write when you arrive in Tehran.
February 10, 2007 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"countries" are arbitrary geographical designations, moron. They can't be "good" or "bad." And anthrologists don't go around classifying human cultures into "superior" or "inferior" types as you do.
And incidentally, who was arming and supporting nun-raping death squads in Latin America? Evil Muslims? Who was dropping napalm on little girls? Arabs? What "culture" did Hitler come from - Iranian? Idiot.
February 10, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Israel will have to come to terms with being a haven for Jews and for being a nation that protects its minorities. I agree that Israel hasn't done a good job in providing equal rights for its Arab citizens. I think the term "apartheid" is a term of provocation without much ultimate significance. Call it what you will, it ain't pretty inside Israel, and it's uglier in the West Bank.
Is Israel's security in the U.S. interest? Well, if peace and security in the Middle East aids the U.S., then preventing war, a real war, between Israel and its neighbors is a U.S. interest. In addition, I think that it's not in the interest of the United States to abandon a nation that was, as I understand things, a major asset to it during the Cold War. You don't abandon friends when their usefulness runs dry. My hunch is that Israel still provides the U.S. with assets that justify a close relationship. Of course, none of this means that the U.S. is under any obligation whatsoever to join Israel in war or to engage in war on behalf of Israel.
Finally, what does it do for the U.S. to withdraw assistance to Israel? Why assume that Israel will be a repeat of what happened in South Africa? And describe the end result if you do see an analogy to South Africa?
That said, I will repeat what I've written before. I think the U.S. can and should, where appropriate, condition aid to Israel on the basis of its conduct.
February 10, 2007 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
"countries" are what?....oh, you innocent small minded cretin. You don't believe in Anthropology and now I find that the United States constitution does not have any meaning to you as well.
Now that you have tossed out political science, why don't you run the table and toss out all social and behavioral sciences, since your brain is an arbitrary geographic location devoid of any thought. Write me from Osama's cave, ok?
February 10, 2007 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
dwg said:
I agree with almost all of the picture of the current situation you've presented here, but differ with your conclusion. Perhaps the best thing the US could do - and I mean this in the sense of advancing the interests of the US, not just the directly-involved parties - is to come to the table in the role of an honest, unbiased broker. Were we to do so, it would go far, imho, to repair at least a little of the damage we've done by turning a blind eye to Israeli excesses.
The Arab world, and perhaps especially the Arab street, is indeed keenly aware of the imbalanced approach we've been taking; it is a source of much resentment against the US. The next candidate must not continue in the Bush mode. It is an approach in which, for instance, a failure to meet Road Map obligations by the Palestinian side is considered highly egregious, while at the very same time, Israeli violations of Road Map obligations (Israel has not only continued the illegal settlement-building activity, but has significantly increased it during the Road Map years) are simply ignored at worst, or at best lip-service is paid to the need for Israeli compliance. A continuation of the Bush policy of favoring Israel would be a disaster.
If we cannot play the role of the honest, unbiased broker, then it's time for the EU and the other Arab states to assist in obtaining a solution,and for the US to bow out. It's clear the parties on their own are simply unable to do so.
Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery
February 10, 2007 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink