Write a letter praising Nicholas Kristof? Won't that just encourage him in the drivel he usually writes on other subjects?

The attitude I'd encourage about him and all other NY Times op-ed columnists, other than Paul Krugman, is lofty disdain, not praise if they occasionally write something less stupid than usual.

Nick Kristof is a brave man! To voice even mild criticism of Israel's policies is to place his credibility in grave jeopardy. I'm impressed!

Israel has every right to pursue whatever policy they want, but so do we, and unthinking adherence to their policies is not in our own best interest.

Hillary isn't stupid--she knows what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians and when she panders to AIPAC she knows what she is doing. (If she doesn't then she doesn't deserve the Presidency for that reason alone.) Getting her to change her mind would be a question of changing her calculations on what is in her best long-term political interests.

If she's silly enough to stick with a bad policy out of personal spite at some insults tossed in her direction then she's no better than what we've got in office now and we will continue to have huge problems in the Mideast.

Mj, don't worry about poor Bev. All she cares about is getting Hillary elected.
But Hillary is toast. Dems will never nominate a pro-Iraq war candidate. Women will never vote for some gal who is famous cause her hubby was President.
As Andrew Sullivan said on Obermann yesterday, "The Republicans are toast in '08. Their only hope is Hillary."
The Hillary crowd are just like the Bushies. Enough!

The truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

That is why the Progressive Democrats of America has set up a "Thank You, Nick Kristof" website where the vast majority of us, who want to see Israel leaving at peace with Palestine can express support for the columnist.

I get a kick out of self-styled "friends" of Israel whose sole contribution to the debate about what we should do about the conflict is that we should have more criticism of Israel and enable people who lie about it. Right on the Thank You Nick Kristof page there is a link to the Thank You Jimmy Carter page, presumably by the same people.  Yes, admitted fabricator and distorter Jimmy Carter.  That's who we should thank along with Nick Kristof (who is not a liar or fabricator, just biased).

I still have yet to see anything resembling a new approach to actually making the conflict less bad on the ground (other than that Israel should just unilaterally surrender, of course) by this crowd. No one has any answer to the question of how Israel can count on peace after evacuating the land given what we've seen in Lebanon and Gaza.  All we get are vapidities about how Israel's security is dependent on peace. Well, duh!! Whose security is dependent on there being war? It's how to make peace more likely that's at issue here, along with maintaining Israel's current security needs.

But no, let's criticize Israel more. Absolutely. That'll make 'em see reason. And never mind if Israel has been vilified by much of the world for its entire existence and has been called "illegitimate", a "mistake", a "cancer", an "apartheid state" and various and sundry other things by the great and the good of America's intelligentsia in recent years.  More criticism is what will make the difference.  Riiiiight.

Rosenberg focuses on AIPAC because they are a rival for influence.  As long as they are around, his little organization will remain in the wilderness, tilting at windmills.  So the long-term project is to de-legitimize AIPAC by picking fights and stirring the pot of leftist hatred for Israel.

Come to think of it, this rather resembles the Arab approach to Israel.  De-legitimization through picking fights and making common cause with haters.

All I care about is getting a democrat elected and I'm not going to help the repubs by feeding them ammunition now.

You think like the bully on the playground where ganging up on someone means you win. You must really be desparate if you're quoting Andrew Sullivan - a noted prognosticator of the future.

Brad the Dad is a hack accountant in Hackensack. I'd rather hear from people like MJ who know their stuff than hear from some guy whose only claim to fame is fathering a couple of kids and filling out 1040's in April. As for Bev, I don't know what she's talking about. MJ used to be a rightwinger on Israel? I doubt it or it was before my time. Anyway, people change. Rabin did. Brad The Accountant and Bev the Hillary Gal can't. If MJ used to be a rightwinger on Israel, I admire him for repenting.

I didn't repent. Rabin recognized the PLO. The PLO recognized Israel. That changed everything. But I don't repent for being a big pro-Israel activist in my youth. I was, however, never anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian or pro-occupation. I'm just as pro-Israel now as I was then. In fact, more so. It's the status quo crowd that is anti-Israel.

Online petitions are only slightly better than doing nothing. You want to thank Kistoff send an e-mail with all of your contact info on it or send a letter snail mail.

I do not think these candidates are all the same on Israel, Iran or any of the other major global issues before us; and I personally think it is very important to work extremely hard to make sure HRC is not the Democrat who is elected. Unfortunately, this requires vigorous public criticism.

NYT columnists seem to be a particularly coddled and flattered species of media prima donnas. I don't think we should start passing out Profiles in Courage merit badges every time one of them says something true.

I did indeed. And went with AIPAC's Executive Director Tom Dine to the Clinton Administration
in 1993 where he made me his chief-of-staff at the Bureau of Europe and New Independent States at USAID.

I worked at AIPAC in 73-75 (as a volunteer starting at the Yom Kippu War when I was still in school) and as editor of Near East Report from 1982-1986. This was all before Oslo. Plus I lived in Israel for a couple of years.

All that demonstrates is that unlike some of the people here who are such zealots about defending the status quo, I have spent years in Israel and working for its security.

I'm not ashamed of that. At the same time, I don't take very seriously the views of people who make one trip to Israel every five or ten years, stay for a week, come home, read their synagogue newsletter and think they know anything at all about the place.

I'm not referring to you, Bev. I have no idea what your background is, if you speak and read Hebrew and Arabic or anything else. I'm just talking in general terms.

Here is example of honest fair commentary:
http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_5477293

Drug war failure may bring change
AFTER 75 YEARS, U.S. MAY FINALLY COME TO ITS SENSES
By Peter Schrag

“In a forthcoming article, Bill Piper, director of national affairs of the Drug Policy Alliance, a drug liberalization group partially funded by financier George Soros, points out that key members in both houses are backers of drug war reform and/or supporters of legislation that would bar the feds from cracking down on medicinal marijuana in the states that have legalized it.”

In contrast Kristof’s article is not an example of honest commentary.
He used MJ without any introduction:
“M. J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum headlined a recent column”
He also didn’t really introduce B’Tselem while he used misleading stats from B’Tselem’s report.
And now to pay back Kristof for MJ promotion,
MJ use TPM café to thank Kristof for MJ promotion article.

Look, MJ, I've told you this before, our goal should be to get a democrat elected. The comment in that petition of Sen. Clinton as an "uber war supporter" is a not so subtle insult insinuating that she's a nazi. It's a cheap shot and it has no place in democratic politics. It's bad enough what the repubs do and will do to any democrat nominated, but this kind of comment is out of line coming from a liberal or democrat. It isn't going to help your lobby and it isn't going to help you personally.

All three candidates pander to constituencies. All three have paid homage to AIPAC, but all three support a two state solution, and it just isn't smart to alienate any or all of them at this point and it isn't helpful to add to repubs ammo. Rhetoric is always for domestic consumption - but it is just that - rhetoric. All politicians offer platitudinous bullshit but the intelligent thing to do is to see what lies beneath.

Why anyone who needs a politician would want to start a pissing match and make a relationship adversarial when you don't have to is dumb. The peace activists are making this a contest between yourselves and AIPAC and instead of marginalizing AIPAC and making their position intolerable, you're making it an us or them situation.

The art of the deal is to make BOTH sides believe that they're getting something of value, it's not to make one side a loser and one side a winner. Both Israel and Palestine have to see that they both win at peace and both will walk away from the table believing they got what they wanted.

You're welcome.

I don't see why opposing a primary candidate is "burning bridges." Indeed, how can one conduct a race for the nominee under that assumption? I'm saddened by the polarization of the blogosphere when I read something like Mark Weinberg's comment. It replays both major Naderite mistakes: (1) whatever moderate to liberal Democrat isn't what you want = GOP; (2) I'm sitting this out. But BevD's just confusing opposition to her candidate and her boosterism with a kind of betrayal. I don't see it.

Kristof wrote a good column, so I also don't see why one has has to absolve oneself of it on account of all his other columns. (I won't even mention the comments that keep up the usual polarization of the Middle East conflict.) Anyhow, I don't think Kristof writes awful columns, a la Friedman, so much as columns that shouldn't exist, since most often he combines excellent reporting that ought to be in the news pages with poor, middling, or no policy analysis. It makes me sorry both about the limits of what The Times does report and the Peter principle that gives us the OpEd page.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

Posted in haste. Withdrawn in understanding.

Bev - ok you like Hillary, we all get that... but saying that all front runners 'want' a two-state solution isn't enough. I'm sure there are republicans that would advocate a two-state solution too ... Also, have you got those speeches where 'she' not Bill is championing a two-state solution with all the bells and whistles? All I've seen are Hillary one-sided AIPAC propaganda speeches? I've never seen any evidence that she is able to be a 'fair' and honest broker for a two-state solution?

Why is it that anyone who doesn't like nazi references about Hillary Clinton is a "Clinton supporter?" I'm for ANY democrat who is nominated. My point is that it is bad enough that we let repubs do that kind of thing, but to do it ourselves is just plain dumb.

My wish and my work right now is for Gore, but I'm not going to degrade ANY democrat who is in this race. I'm also not going to pretend that one candidate is "pro AIPAC" and the others are "anti-AIPAC" because from reading what they ALL said, I know that not to be true.

In March of1998, Clinton stated that a two state solution is the only solution that will bring about peace. I don't see where she's stated anything differently since then.

I dislike being put in the position of having to defend Clinton about this issue, but no matter which candidate it was, I would defend them and insist on the truth.

So am I to understand you were a Nader guy in Florida in 2000?

MJ,

I'll say! Kudos to Kristof, for smartening up the debate. Just judging by the reactions in this thread, he has been effective.

The time for being ostriches has long past.

Thank you for bringing this important commentary to my attention.

Yes, I think that it is a not so subtle reference to nazism. I doubt that I'm the only one who saw it that way.

The Taba Agreement was not a starting point, it was an ending point.

Moreover, The Palestinians rejected that and chose war. Why should they be rewarded for that choice by getting the same deal. From the 1930's until today, the Palestinians have rejected every single offer of a state that was made to them in favor of violence. And each successive offer has been less and less. There should be a price for the Palestinians choice of war over peace. And that price is that the next offer should be less generous than the previous.

In order to live in peace, it's going to have to leave Gaza and the West Bank in peace.

The Repubs are going to clobber Clinton anyway. It's going to be month after month of Monica, Gennifer, Paula, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Whitewater, Rose Law, and dozens of other sordid and semi-sordid Billary escapades from the 90's memory vault. Nominating Hillary is like the Republicans nominating Karl Rove for President - it's just nuts. She was in effect the chief political operator in the Clinton administration, and is sure to have a long paper trail of involvements in the nasty side of politics, including much of the strategizing on the handling of a traumatic and grotesque national scandal which I for one want to leave in the past. With HRC, it's going to be one swift boat crusing down the river after another, day after day. Why would we want to put ourselves through this torture and ultimate defeat when there are perfectly acceptable and much less sullied candidates available?

Even if I liked her politics more, admired her character more and trusted her more to do the right things in office, I'd say let's get HRC out of the race now before we end up with a totally doomed anchor of a candidate on our hands, one who pulls us all to the bottom. HRC just comes with way too much baggage. I have to think that all the Democratic political wise guys would be hitting the airwaves and telling her to get out if they weren't afraid of the Clinton machine.

I'm not going to play that game, Lally. I know what the word means, I know how it is used, and in this instance it was a slam. There is no other interpretation for the use of the phrase. Why is it necessary to make any kind of snide comments about any of the candidates?

All this praise for Kristoff who has never been a friend of liberals, has never been a friend to democrats and has bent over backwards along with the rest of his Times colleagues to trash the dems and their candidates.

It's very clear that you don't know how the word "uber" is commonly used and your interpretation is solely for the purpose of providing "proof" for your larger point about not speaking ill of Democratic candidates.

That position has some merit, but your bogus contention undermines your case.

This is exactly why this kind of trashing is so effective. The Clinton/Gore treatment and what is amazing is that we do it to ourselves. We not only help spread the shit we deliver the manure.

What do you think they're going to do to any other candidates? They did it to Clinton, they did it to Gore, they did it to Kerry and they will do it to the 08 candidate. By all means, help them out, push the script, make sure the narrative is in gear.

Dems are hopeless.

Sorry, but calling Hillary Clinton an "uber war-supporter" lessens the credibility of that site, the effort, and your posts. I realize that you are most likely an Obama supporter and it would be nice to disclose such things before linking to a site that is clearly anti-Hillary Clinton. Not that you have to support her, just nice to have a little disclosure.

No Bev, you don't know how "uber" is commonly used and your insistance that everyone else using it is wrong and you are right is nonsensical.

It's obvious that you are going to have a very rough time ahead trying to do a Don Quixote in mounting campaigns of umbrage in honor of your pet peeve in the months to come.

Don't waste your time battling chimeras as you willl never get Dems to STFU about their own candidates, especially during primaries.

Kristof does deserve kudos for his willingness to take on the Israel lobby and anyone who follows the issue knows it. So what if he's an imperfect vessel?

Get over it.

Forward has an article up for Friday's edition that surveys the predictably unfriendly debate emerging from recent calls for friendly debate over AIPAC's influence upon U.S. foreign policy.

That said, it's our opinion the "welcome" page at thankyoukristof.org indicting Hillary for exclusive "über-war" support and "AIPAC cheerleading" is hardly helpful to its cause if the cause is constructive dialogue on the state of American-Israeli foreign policy.

The petition itself "was" succinct and restrained; devoid of any reference to HRC or AIPAC. But "was" nonetheless since the signup page, as of 6:15pm ET, is currently disabled.

Still, Dems are obviously their own worse enemies when they refuse to play hardball with AIPAC leadership; beginning with Congressional Dems who capitulated on the "Iran" bill; continuing with candidates unwilling to confront AIPAC threats that insinuate support for "the other side" -- which it already does.

But playing both sides is nothing new, unique or exclusive to PACs of any kind. We don't fault AIPAC for its clout nor aims, including liberal quid pro quo for Israel's costly historical role (long predating both Iraq wars) as mideast proxy.

However, every "alliance" requires clearly defined roles & responsibilities. It's entirely fair to ask and establish -- considering the behavior of Congressional Dems and primary aspirants -- who's leading whom? What's a "leader" for, if not to lead? Does AIPAC (still) recognize and respect the necessary boundaries between Israeli and US national security? Foreign policy? And if it doesn't -- as recent spy scandals suggest -- how exactly are sheep supposed to train wolves?

Well don't vote for her in the primaries. My plan is to vote for Edwards unless Gore runs.

The point is that I'm not going to help repubs by trashing a dem or misrepresenting his/her position on issues.

It's just naive to think that if we somehow all collectively bite our tongues and whisper in corners, Republicans won't get any bright ideas about how to attack Hillary Clinton. They are already light years ahead of anything we can possibly say. They have been building up the dossier on Hillary for 15 years.

It is better to get all this stuff out on the table now. I can just hear the moans during the campaign after some new "surprise" attack: "Why, oh why, oh why didn't we see this one coming! Why didn't we do more to "vet" HRC during the primary campaign?" The answer will be because there was a conspiracy of silence not to bring any of the nasty stuff up during the primary process, because we're all on pins and needles about "right-wing talking points." But if we don't say anything that might be used as a right-wing talking point, we are going to have a totally sacharrine and ineffective nominating process that does not do enough to identify the best available candidate.

I believe in the vast right wing conspiracy as much as the next guy, but a whole lot of the ammunition that will be used against Hillary will be true, or at least have a non-negligible basis in truth. And that's the problem. Hillary hasn't been a stately Senator all her life. In her previous incarnation she spent eight years as White House consigliori playing political hardball against all of the Clinton's many enemies, and plotting strategy for dealing with prosecutors, media, etc. That kind of activity leaves a lot of bodies in it's wake.

I ask everybody to reflect for themselves on the many notorious episodes HRC was involved in during her career and time in the White House, and all the many accusations and charges and rumors that have been levied against her - and those yet to come. Which of those assertions do you think are true, and which do you think are just lying, right-wing smears?

If you think even some small portion of them were true, and that they have the potential to be incredibly damaging to the campaign, then it is best to deal with them now.

And if she is nominated, then what? Do you continue to hype the rnc line or do you do the research and do your best to shut it down? Why was it necessary in that petition to slam any candidate? That only makes sense if your goal is securing the nomination of a candidate, which is fine by me if you disclose it.

Have you read Gene Lyon's book, "Fools for Scandal"? Have you read Conason and Lyon's book "The Hunting of the President"? The reason this goes on and on is that no one stands up and says enough - just give us the facts.

The whole premise of the Oslo process in the 1990's was that it would be gradual. As trust was built up over time, there would be negotiations over more and more issues until finally there could be "final status" talks to end the conflict.  It was a nice theory, but there was little in the way of a buildup of trust.  Instead, there was a momentum that got established to keep the talks moving forward despite this.  But in fact the pressure to keep going was extremely lopsided.  Israel was pressured to turn over land (a tangible item) while the Palestinians were pressured to crack down on extremist groups, something they could ratchet up or down as it suited their needs.

This is why it is so exasperating to hear people blather on about needing to put pressure on Israel to "take chances for peace" or some such nonsense.  Even if you think the occupation of the West Bank is bad for Israel, the fact remains that if it's going to end, Israel needs SOMETHING in return.  What can the Palestinians offer?  Even if the Palestinian Authority wanted to promise peace, it has little or no authority over radical groups.  And the radical groups draw their strength from the people.  They don't exist independently of the people. 

The peacenik crew just seems to expect peace to "happen" as soon as Israel withdraws from the occupied land.  But they never explain how.  This is not a case of needing ironclad guarantees.  Everyone knows that you can't have 100% security.  But what commitments are the Palestinians willing to make to confront armed radicals?  What can they offer Israel that Israel can say, OK that's a good deal?  I've not heard of anything.  The discussion is always about the land, never the peace.

You're right that probably the best one could hope for is a lessening of tensions in the next generation or two.  But it is impossible to expect that Israel will give up the West Bank in exchange only for a lessening of tension.  Sorry, but that's not a good enough offer.

It may be that the only practical solution is the one that Olmert was elected on: unilateralism.  Withdraw from most of the West Bank with no agreement and declare Israel's borders permanent.  It won't bring security, but it might end up lessening tensions in the long run.  Of course, how it could be sold domestically in Israel is another story.

Explain to me how using the phrase "uber-war supporter" to describe someone everybody knows is AIPAC's favorite Democrat is "insinuating she's a Nazi."

Brad - The fatal flaw of Oslo was the tremendous expansion of the West Bank settlements. To Palestinians it became very clear that by the time Oslo's slow process came to a conclusion the only land left for Palestinians was Area A and B surrounded by Israelis in just about all of Area C. You know Bibi had NO INTENTION of ever giving up Israeli control of the West Bank.

Both sides have to stop playing games and the Israelis are as guilty as Palestinians. If Israel wants peace they have to pursue it seriously. No games, no cute maneuvers, no hidden agendas.

A Peace agreement is absolutely paramount to Israel's long term survival. I believe it is so important that Olmert should do NOTHING else until it is achieved. He and Abbas should lock themselves away until an agreement is reached - I don't care if it takes a year.

I'm so angry I could scream at the stupidity of it all. There are only about 2 or 3 armies in the world who could defeat the IDF - none of them in the Mideast. What is Israel so scared of?

I've explained this several times, and I could explain it several more times, but the point I'm making just doesn't seem to register with the posters here. I'm not going to convince anyone that a slam like that is a mistake. If you think anything is fair in politics as long as it is your own side doing it, then that is how you're going to play it.

If you've convinced yourself that only Clinton has trekked to the AIPAC temple and made obeisance to the pac, then you're convinced that's what happened and no amount of proof, no amount of research will convince you that Obama, Clinton and Edwards all have the same position on a two state solution, and both Obama and Clinton have refused "to take all options off the table" and both believe in trying negotiations and diplomacy with Iran regarding the nuke issue. This isn't my opinion, that is what they've all said. If you don't want to do the research, then don't.

I don't choose a candidate based on what I think is best or most favourable to Israel, I vote for the candidate I think is right for the U.S., and the only thing I do know, is that another repub president will not be right for the U.S. and a dem will be.

The prevalent view is that it is not enough for your candidate to succeed, the other candidate must be destroyed, which seems to be the prevalent view in the Middle East and probably why it will always stay the way it is. (And I don't mean you personally Wigmar)

Then don't vote for her. If she wins the nomination I will vote for her, if another candidate wins the nomination I will vote for him. Regardless of who wins the nomination I will vote for a democrat. I wouldn't vote for a republican if they ran Jesus Christ himself as their nominee.

p.s. Did you read those books? I'm curious.

Perhaps the stoning to death meant inhaling, really hard and really fast with reeeeeely good weed?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

J. McCutchen

Yesterday NewsHour featured a Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor, who received a Templeton Award for his work on appreciating the spiritual dimsension of politics and history. His view is that traditional power and economic models are insufficient to understand human conflict.

Tonight, first in a series Poetry of the Middle East

No I didn't read those books. But I know very well that there was a long and ruthless right wing campaign to sink the Clinton administration from early on. Tough. Just because HRC was a victim of the vast right wing conspiracy doesn't mean I have to think she is a swell character worthy of my respect, deference or assistance. I think she is a shady character, a calculating and thin-principled panderer and an overall mess on foreign policy - and I want her out.

Now maybe we won't be able to get her out, and we'll be faced with a crappy choice in the general election. This is America, after all. In such a case I would probably vote for HRC, even though I despise her, because I imagine she will be marginally better for the country than whatever despicable Republican is running. But it is my aim to do what I can to make sure we don't have to deal with that sort of Sophie's Choice, and I hope Democrats who are opposed to Hillary will take advantage of the opportunity we have now to lay into her and defeat her. Democrats are not all the same, and some could be very much worse for the country than others. I'm not going to sit back and watch passively as the Democrats nominate a candidate who is exceedingly likely to perpetuate a future of war and conflict for my son.