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.

I don't think that would kill any politician, Howard. It might mellow a few out though...

I'm sorry but advocating a two-state solution while one state continues to murder and ethnically cleanse the people of the other yet-to-exist state isn't a solution. Its about time some US candidate when to AIPAC and said "Look, Your security is not our top concern. OUR security is. And you have to give back all that you stole from the Palestinians for the sake of OUR security - and if you don't then welcome to the Axis of Evil."

Period. No more mealy mouthed-ness. Hillary is too close to AIPAC and needs to show some backbone.

Suit yourself. I'm on record on this website complaining that they all pandered to AIPAC too.

I didn't recast your question, I said that I've answered it several times besides which Kristof didn't use the phrase, the petitioners did on their cover page. They said Hillary Clinton was an "uber war supporter" and "unevolved". My point was that if these petitioners who are all involved as peace activists for Israel alienate a potential president, it isn't going to be helpful to them or their cause. It isn't necessary for them to trash any candidate to promote a petition to praise Kristof, who with his colleagues, has spent the last twelve years trashing dems and liberals.

Using the word "uber war supporter" has sinister connotations in a political context, despite the popular cultural use of the word. If Coulter said it about a dem, I wonder what people's reaction would be?

Well it's better than being the other way, isn't it?

Why don't you read the books? It can't hurt and it might help.

Our son will be in Iraq in a few months, so yes, I'd like to see an end to this conflict or any other conflict, and not just for our son but for everyone's children.

I don't see where you got that from the paragraph you quoted. The point I was making, Hass, is that I don't vote for a candidate based on their position on Israel, I vote for the candidate I think will be best for the U.S.

I couldn't care less what AIPAC thinks, if all the candidates or none of the candidates pander to AIPAC it wouldn't affect my vote, I'm going to vote dem.

"That in a nutshell is what is happening in Gaza."

That may be what is happening, but when thugs cross that internationally recognized border to kill and kidnap Israelis, Israel has the right to act in self-defense. That's not just me talking; that's Obama and every other Democratic candidate with any chance of being elected. Go vote for senile Gravel and kooky Kucinich if you don't like it, schmuck.

I don't hold out much hope, Emet.

Of course, I didn't think the Berlin Wall would fall in my lifetime, either, so don't go by me.

Nobody who makes decisions in Washington takes those PDA wackos seriously, except Kucinich and his friends.

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.

So you say both sides are guilty, but only the expansion of the settlements is the fatal flaw?  Why wasn't Arafat's cynical use of terrorism, his use of the media to incite hatred and his revolving door prisons also part of Oslo's fatal flaws?  Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

A Peace agreement is absolutely paramount to Israel's long term survival.

Jesus H. Christ, every time I hear this, I feel like my head is going to explode.  Signing some big agreement that will be immediately rejected by every radical from Casablanca to Tehran and won't change the situation on the ground in Gaza, Jenin, Ramallah and Nablus WILL NOT BRING PEACE.  Everyone always focuses on the big, high-profile treaty.  Forget it.  It won't work.

I think it's time to try a whole new approach.  One that takes a clear-eyed view of the limits of a big negotiation like the 2000 Camp David summit.  The better approach is one that is local in scope, modest in goals and is focused on improving quality of life for ordinary Palestinians and security for Israelis.  Focus on reducing crime.  Focus on improving the economy.  Take a page from successful urban police tactics.  Do SOMETHING other than pine for a big splashy peace treaty.  Forget it.  It won't work.

No, that's not the problem. Republicans have a credibility ceiling of somewhere between 46% and 49%. (In 2004 it was 55%.)

The predictable trouble is another Dean-Kerry type split in the Party being generated by, well, the unregenerate Dean following. We have more to worry from a few percent morons going with some Third Party candidate or staying home. Nothing was left unsaid, no stone was left unthrown in '04. But exit polling and interviews show swing voters turn out to have voted based- despite all the noise generated)- on merely three issues: economy (for Kerry), social issues (for Bush), and on 'fighting terrorism (for Bush). Swing voters split 2-1 for Bush.

When asked to explain their vote, the Bush-voting swing voters always came up with some Republican talking point about Kerry, no matter how debunked the point was. They would admit knowing the point to be untrue. They would commonly resort to another debunked allegation about Kerry when the pollsters told them the first one wasn't true, and then admit to knowing it wasn't true either. They admitted to actually liking Kerry, too. The exit interviewers concluded that they were ashamed of voting for Bush but were determined to do so out of resistance to change.

We're not in the days anymore where Democrats have to run to very high moral ground to have any chance of success. About 53% of voters nationally reject Republican policies in all major policy areas- it's now a matter of consolidating them. If Al Qaeda pulls off another major attack in a major allied country (UK or Israel), Republican rejection clears 60% and they're beyond contention in '08.

It's too early for Obama and too late for Edwards, as I see it. The next Pres. term is going to markedly resemble '93-'96 anyway- uncreative and full of cleaning up the fiscal idiocy, repealing bad law, rebuilding international relations, and just getting federal government agencies functioning again.

"schmuck"

Emet18 - Is that the best you can do - name calling? There are a lot of us Jews who disagree with Israel's positions. We post our opinions here and you post yours. Neither one of us has a "tablet" of the answers straight from G-d.

Have you ever considered if maybe you could be wrong in your positions? I sure have about mine. If indeed you are correct and a peace agreement leads to Israel's demise, it will be the core of my faith and my relatives who die. These are things I weigh very heavily in formulating my positions on Israel and I still come to the conclusion that a peace agreement along the lines of Taba/Geneva is essential to Israel's future.

The war of "extermination" was the extermination that the Israelis brought upon civilians - men, women and children - farmers and innocent people whose only sin was that they weren't Jewish and who inconveniently lived in the "Land Without a People"

Israel is NOT entitled to hold occupied land, an is NOT entitled to engage in ethnic cleansing. Israel is an ILLEGAL RACIST APARTHEID STATE that can only survive because it robs US taxpayers - and the WHOLE WORLD KNOWS IT. Sorry, too bad for you.

Thanks, M.J. I did sign and leave my comments in support of Nick Kristof. I am saddened, but not surprised at the backlash you are experiencing right here at TPMcafe as a result of the fact that you wanted to thank him for wanting a debate, a discussion, a discourse. It's just another example of how it works: Someone brings up Israel's role in the conflict; AIPAC and their minions silence any further discussion about it~they do that by vilifying whoever brings it up. Wash, repeat; wash, repeat.

Many thanks to those who have the courage to keep trying to have an honest discussion about what is going on in Israel and in the Palestinian Territories. I am in awe of their courage, their heroic moral dedication and their tenacity. They are the peacemakers.

While we are thanking Kristof perhaps a thanks to the AJC for their defense of President Clinton:

"President Clinton Thanks AJC for Efforts on New Carter Book

Former President Bill Clinton, in a handwritten letter to AJC Executive Director David Harris, voiced appreciation for his efforts to expose the inaccuracies in President Jimmy Carter’s book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Thanks so much for your articles about President Carter’s book. I don’t know where his information (or conclusions) came from …” said Clinton. “I’m grateful.”"

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Speaking of nazis

This new post by Mr. Rosenberg relates to American Jews, as have several recent ones. Do American Jews support Israel because they fear that the rest of us might become nazis and turn against them and they have to flee to Israel? In that case, the rest of us should be on our high horse feeling offended. Or do they support Israel out of clannishness with other Jews? (Surely the world has plenty of other minorities with good reason to fear oppression/persecution/murder.)

I dunno, Bev, she still hasn't explain the $100,000+ on cattle futures. And really, if you read up on it, it looks completely dishonest and sleazy. Its a completely legitimate issue and she should have had to answer for it. Lyons and Conason are whiners.

Typical of the man who used BOTH political parties' high level influence to avoid wearing the uniform of his own country, influence that surely could have gotten him a safe, cushy slot (Republican Gov. Winthrop Rockefeller and Democratic Sen. J. William Fulbright) but who said upon leaving the US presidency that he would be willing to fight and die for Israel.

You write Hillary is Bush is Hillary.

I sincerely hope that the Democrats have another nominee and I acknowledge that Hillary has many liabilities, including pandering to powerful lobbies, but Hillary is NOT Bush. For one thing, her IQ is probably at least 50 points higher.

That was my point. It is sinister in the context, if Coulter had said it, people would be outraged.

brendat,

...wouldn't you say that the total failure of the Democrats to put up any kind of a political opposition as the Bush Administration was systematically dismantling both international law and the Constitution has proved Nader's argument right?

That's not how the legislature works.  Minority party members have no control over the legislative agenda.  If you want to see how great multiparty legislatures work, check out the British parliament and Israeli Knesset.

The biggest disappointment I have with the new Democratic legislative majority is the complete lack of progress to advance the restoration of media regulations.  Democrats in congress cannot expect a fair hearing of their legislative agenda while a conglommerated media commited more to its shareholders than to the public interest inhibits a level playing field in the proverbial marketplace of ideas.  It should have been among the first 100-hour priorities in the new congress.

You're kidding, right?

The press throwing their weight towards Bush in 2000 didn't help, and it didn't help in 2004. They trashed Gore so badly in 00, I'm surprised he won. They were brutal and I don't see this coming election to be much better.

A digression, but there are three classes of dachshunds, starting with the standard, which was bred to chase badgers, while the two sizes of miniature were for smaller underground game, such as rabbits.

My late Peter was a semi-rescue; a pedigreed dog (Graf Peter von Pfanne) who was a small miniature dachshund born without testicles, so he never grew beyond pupply size. This defect made him ineligible to be a show dog, and, in many cases, breeders euthanize such. Since he clearly was not going to affect the breed, he was kept, but as the runt of the litter, of absolutely bottom status in the pack. He needed tranquilizers for the first year we had him.

I believe that he demonstrated certain acts that might be analogies to some things in politics.

There was a large feral rabbit in our neighborhood, which apparently had no underground warren. Peter would try to chase it, but his speed was no match. One day, however, he cornered the rabbit, and his increasingly desperate barks indicated that he had absolutely no idea what to do with it. Eventually, the puzzled rabbit, perhaps 20 pounds to Peter's 4, took a leap that caught him in the ribs and sent him sailing, as the rabbit departed. Peter hid under the couch for the next two days.

I am reminded of this in some attack ads, with Rove in the role of the rabbit.

In like manner, Peter loved to eat inedible things. We rushed him to the vet one day, with apparently serious gastroenteritis developing significant thrust from the posterior. I can describe his eyes only as looking like the display of a slot machine just after the handle was pulled.

He recovered, but it was a mystery until we found the empty 1-pound jar of Vaseline under the couch. A four-pound dog eating a pound of Vaseline reminds me of Randy Cunningham's desire for increasingly large and indigestible bribes, which still took a time to diagnose.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

This is a little OT, or maybe I could justify it as being part of the meta topic, but anyway, I've been looking for something like this for some time and here it is.  I take seriously the discomfort of many Jewish posters who feel that Israel is being unfairly singled out ("What about Darfur?"), or that Israel is required to adhere to "higher standards", and are suspicious that this is an expression of ethnic hatred. I think this piece from Salon puts into proper context  the current investigation into the US/Israel relationship.

"Until 9/11 and the Iraq war, this state of affairs was of little concern to anyone except those passionately interested in the Middle East -- a small group that has never included more than a tiny minority of Americans, Jews or non-Jews. If the pro-Israel lobby wielded enormous power over America's Mideast policies, so what? America's Mideast policies were always reliably pro-Israel anyway, for a variety of reasons, including many that had nothing to do with lobbying by American Jews. And the stakes didn't seem that big.

"But in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq war, that all changed dramatically. 9/11, and the Bush administration's response to it, made it inescapably clear that America's Mideast policies affect everyone in the country: They are literally a matter of life and death. The Bush administration's neoconservative Mideast policy is essentially indistinguishable from AIPAC's. And so it is no longer possible to ignore it -- even though it is a notoriously touchy and divisive subject.

"The touchiest aspect of all is the role played by pro-Israel neoconservatives in laying the groundwork for the Iraq war. Much of the media has been loath to go near this, for obvious and in some ways honorable reasons: It feels a little like "blame the Jews." But that taboo has faded as it has become clearer that "the Jews" are not the ones being blamed for helping pave the way to war, but a group of powerful neoconservatives, some but not all of them Jewish, who subscribe to the hard-right views of Israel's Likud Party. This group no more represents "the Jews" than the Shining Path represents "the Peruvians."

Can American Jews Unplug the Israel Lobby? by Gregoire Kamiya

For the rest of the piece, which BTW features a great interview with M.J. Rosenberg, here is the link:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/20/aipac/

You address Brad's point as if the Palestinians who were part of Jordan and Egypt in 1967 did not try to exterminate Israel. You blithely ignore the assorted terrorist groups that have murdered Israelis, and Americans, going back to the late 1960s.

If you have noticed there is a wide spread desire in America to stop Mexicans and others from crossing our borders because they want to work here. Israealis have to worry that when Palestinians move around they are planning to attack Israeli teens and children.

The moral standing of Israel is very simple. They have greatly reduced the acts of terrorism against their people even as missiles continue to be fired at Sderot.

Tell me what is the Palestinian moral standing for murdering Olympic Athletes, blowing up school buses, pizzarias and discotheques?

It is very hard to take the great moral crusaders all that seriously when the regular acts of murder by the Palestinaians against Israelis, Americans, Jordanians(remember Black September?) and now more recently against each other is not taken into account.

Daniel A. Greenbaum