Shmuel Rosner's, the U.S. columnist for Haaretz, view is that all those running for President are pro-Israel. At the time he was specifically defending Obama but suggested the whole debate was silly.

The Democrats were driven into a ditch in the 1990s? Nixon, Reagan, Bush (1) and Bush (2) would suggest it was a lot bigger trend than just the 1990s. The first decade in which a Democrat was re-elected since FDR.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The Post Reports re: Mark Penn:

 In 1981, he and business partner Doug Schoen helped reelect Menachem Begin, one of the most right-wing prime ministers in the country's history, and emerged with a new outlook on the Middle East.

and

His client list includes. . .  British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose campaign he advised when Blair won a historic third term in 2005.

Perhaps MJ or one of the readers more aware of the nuts and bolts of professional consultants can answer this one.  Is this normal?  It strikes me as strange that a person would actively work on political campaigns in three countries.  It it o.k. to do this for some politicians in some countries but not for other politicians elsewhere?  I can imagine the ruckus if a private American citizen worked on the political campaign for one of the candidates for the Turkish or French presidencies.

I don't care much whether or not the guy worked for Lieberman (well, I do, but not as much as some of the other readers probably do).  I don't care whether or not he lives in a $5 mil. mansion...so does John Edwards.  I care quite a bit when he hosts "like-minded friends" for salons featuring the likes of David Brooks, no friend to Democrats of my stripe, and not much of a friend, MHO, to democrats of any stripe.  If this is the kind of person tweaking Senator Clinton's campaign, my estimation of her is not raised any. 

aMike

Thanks, MJ:

I guess one can morph "a chicken in every pot" to "a yoghurt in every yurt."  :-)   But for the life of me, I wonder how a person can know multiple cultures well enough to avoid having to extract one's foot from one's mouth all the time. 

Seems to me, too, that this comes a bit close to private individuals conducting foreign policy, at least to the point where they work to elect specific individuals with specific policy objectives in mind. 
Ah well... off to the dentist, exchanging one podium for opening one's mouth for another less enjoyable one.

aMike

Actually, history has shown that all Presidents follow more or less the same policy on the Israel/Arab conflict. They try to be "evenhanded" and "pro-Israel" at one and the same time. All ideally would like Israel to withdraw to the pre-1967, create a Palestinian state and have peace. The problem is they have all learned this is NOT possible. Some Presidents are very active trying to impose a settlement or push the sides into negotiations, others see that their predecessors failed so they try a hands-off policy and simply try to manage the problems. There is a common misconception that if the President would really try, try, try and use every pressure trick he has up his sleeve, he could force a settlement, but history has shown, particularly with Bill Clinton, that this can't work.
We also must define what a "pro-Israel" President is. Almost all Presidents are called "the most pro-Israel President of all-time". What is the definition of a "friend"...someone who will stick his neck out for you when you are trouble. By the definition, Lyndon Johnson was the best friend Israel ever had. He refused to pressure Israel during the Six-Day War and allowed Israel to knock out all its enemies, he refused to pressure Israel to withdraw from the territories captured in that war, and he had the UN accept Security Council Resolution 242 which is very favorable to Israel, not demanding a total withdrawal, giving Israel internationally legal status in Judea/Samaria/Gaza (this is among the reasons that the claim that the settlments there are "illegal" is incorrect). It is a mystery to me why Bill Clinton is considered a friend to Israel, he coddled terrorist chieftain Arafat (invited him IIRC 12 times to the White House, a record for that administration), he kept blabbing in front of Jewish groups the mantra "we know Israel is taking risks and you can count on us to back you up", but when the moment of truth came in October 2000 and Arafat began his terrorist war against Israel, Clinton turned his back, refused to back Israel (claiming he was "neutral"), refused to carry promises of weapons deals with Ehud Barak, refused to release Jonathan Pollard AFTER HE PROMISED TO DO SO, etc. and kept pressurin for more and more concessions in the talks that went on at Taba while the terror war was going on.

The bottom line is, for those in the US who want to vote for a President who is "good for Israel", I would say it doesn't really matter in the end. In fact, with "friends" like Bill Clinton and George Bush in the White House (Bush pressured Sharon to destroy Gush Katif bringing a disastrous war on Israel and also prevented any serious Israeli response to Arafat's terrorist war in 2000-2002) maybe it would be better for Israel if a more openly unfriendly President would be in the White House, forcing the Israelis to stand on their own two feet instead of relying on Uncle Sam for everything.

As was pointed out in a previous thread,
the "neo-cons" came out of the Left, so
it may not be hard for them to return to
there, seeing as how their foreign policy adventures have failed.
However, the Democrats supported the American invasion of Iraq so I don't understand what Lieberman's crime is.

James Carville, who was Clinton's advisor
also worked in Ehud Barak's campaign for Israeli Prime Minister in 1999. It is now common for these guys to work in different
countries.

Incidentally, I am no fan of the neo-cons. I pointed out in another thread that I don't view them as particularly pro-Israel.
I, and the vast majority of Israeli supported get rid of Saddam in Iraq because of the WMD's (which we had been on the receiving end in the 1991-i.e. the Scud missiles) which it turns out didn't exist.
Few Israelis believed in the nonsense of "bringing democracy to Iraq" that the neo-cons were so found of. Had I known that the WMD's didn't exist, I would have opposed the American invasion, and it pains me very much, especially as a former American (current Israeli), seeing American soldiers
wounded and killed in that insane war and cursed by the very people they are trying to help.
I should point out that it was the "democratization" of Eastern Europe that brought Theodor Herzl to Zionism. Whereas the Hapsburg regime tried to keep blatant anti-Semites, such as Karl Lueger (anti-Semitic mayor of Vienna) out of power,
the demands for democratization brought populist anti-Semites to power there. Democratization of the Arab world will do the same.

being incapable of telling the difference between a neo-conservatism and liberal interventionism is very sad.

An isreal first presidential canditate surrounded by isreal first advisors and money men who have links to the backstabbing defacto rethug isreal firster LIEberman. I'm shocked.

It's a foolish gesture but I'm sending a tenner to Mike Gravel's campaign today.

I am not sure what your point is. I said I agree that the aid should be ended.
You are right, I have retained my US citizenship. So have millions of other people living in every other country in the world. The Soviet Union required people who managed to get out to relinquish their citizenship. The US is not like that.

You don't seem to realize that support for Israel in the US is popularly based, and reflects American public opinion, regardless what Mearsheimer and the other guy claim (i.e. AIPAC controls the US). In this week's New York Times, there is an article about former Saudi Prince Bandar's relationship with top US officials. He, and his uncles, the various kings have given millions of dollars in "gifts" to the Bush family and other former Presidents, including the saintly Jimmy Carter. The article says how Colin Powell's wife mentioned in passing to him how she would like to have a Jaguar automobile. A little later Bandar shows up with one and gives it to her, as a "gift".
Extrapolating from this, we can be sure that Arabs are pouring huge amounts into the political system. I am sure they are trying to get the Congressmen on their side. The fact that they have failed shows to me that Congressmen realize that their voters are in the pro-Israel camp and that the aid that is given has the support of the American people. I am sure you have seen the polls that show American public opinion is solidly pro-Israel.

So he says, "I couldn't agree with you more," and goes on to explain why he agrees, and you disagree with him?

Um...hello? Isn't there a problem here?

Penn has deep roots in the national security wing of the Democratic Party, along with other centrist Democrats -- some of them Jewish and pro-Israel, like Penn -- who saw the merits of invading Iraq before the war began.

In other words, he's a big f*&king idiot who should not be trusted with anything to do with our country's foreign policy.

And, seriously, what is the "national security wing" of the Democratic Party? You've got to be kidding me.

Does it not occur to reporters writing this crap that the "national security wing" of the Democratic Party GOT EVERYTHING WRONG when it came to national security???

MJ, seriously, how does a guy who thought it was a great idea to invade Iraq earn "brilliant tactician" status in your mind?

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

Not that I give penn credit for being a good tactician but great tacticians do not always make good strategists. And the Iraq debacle is the cornerstone of piss poor strategic "thinking."

I agree, there is a distinction.

So far, from the National Security Wing of the party, I've seen no brilliance in either department.

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

How influential is Penn's stance on foreign policy?  Interesting question, but I loved the opening of the article, on another note entirely.  He tells Gore that the latter's policies are going over great but not Gore personally.  I bet Penn got that right, and while we may or may not snipe at Gore for not taking courageous stances, it's yet another excuse to have me start ranting at the media that turned the election for Bush.  Score it again for debate commentators, Maureen Dowd, Frank Bruni, and the rest of the bunch complicit with the GOP spin machine. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Yeah it is pretty standard pro-Israeli stuff. If it makes you happy there are plenty of Jews who rather peculiarly won't support Hillary because she hugged Suha Arafat.

Many American political consultants work for foreign leaders. Why would it be illegal?

By the way the neo-Cons just show what happens when Leftists become Rightists and bring their assurance that they can change the world with them.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

No, Bev. Unlike Edwards, she stands by her vote.
He has repudiated his.
The only reason she voted for the war was political expediency. Did she believe Bush? Not too likely, and if she did, she's an idiot.
No one I know believed anything this administration put out about the war.
Anyone who did should flatout apologize.
She's a hawk and a neocon. She is not selling her soul for money or anything else. That is who she is.

No Madison, you are wrong. Maybe no one you know supported this war, but the majority of Americans polled at the beginning of it did support it, believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda were connected. Just because the majority of people in this country trusted this administration it doesn't mean they're idiots or hawks or neocons - it means that they were betrayed and lied to and tricked into a war by this administration and the media which failed in examining the "evidence and claims" of this administration. Sen. Clinton has said that "if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted for the authorization."

Why anyone should apologize for trusting and relying on their government to be truthful and honest, especially in such a grave matter as war is beyond me. The people who should apologize are those that lied and tricked us into this war. Why should the American people have to apologize for believing and trusting this administration? This isn't the fault of the victims, this is the fault of the perpetrators. Your comments remind me of something Gerda Weissmann Klein said when asked why the Jews so docilely went to the camps, (and I am paraphrasing) "we couldn't believe that anyone was capable of such wickedness, we simply could not imagine it." Who in this country could have believed this administration capable of such wickedness, disregard for human life and sociopathological lying?

I've found in life that senators, congressmen, pundits and other sundry politicos really don't know anymore than we do about what's going on in the world and are as reliant as we are on a free and diligent press to present facts and information. What's the first thing they do in times of national crisis? Turn on CNN, just like us. They are just as reliant on the administration to brief them on events, actions and strategy as we are.

 I've found in life that senators, congressmen, pundits and other sundry politicos really don't know anymore than we do about what's going on in the world and are as reliant as we are on a free and diligent press to present facts and information.

Ahh....but the free and "diligent" press relies on the senators, congressmen and punditry get their facts and information.

You've hit on the real problem in today's news media environment.  

Very little actual reporting goes on within that free press of ours...

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

Exactly. Look at this piece of reporting - written by Ann Kornblutt, whose earlier reporting on Sen. Clinton was biased and tainted, an emphasis on Penn's financial status (everyone hates rich democrats because they're hypocrites if they're rich)and not one quote or comment from anyone in the Clinton campaign or Clinton herself. The only person who benefits from this piece and whose friends and business associates are quoted is Mark Penn. It reads like a business prospective, ("hey look how powerful I am!") and tells us nothing of Clinton.

Because it's smart politics. Everyone in this country knows it was a mistake. Everyone is against the war.

What could the RNC say? "Hillary Clinton voted for this war, and now she says it's a mistake!"

Well, yeah.

(Note, I could care less about an "apology." That's largely irrelevant. What's essential is she admit she made a mistake. Bush doesn't admit mistakes, either...that's what's troubling.) 

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

What part of the following legalizes the West Bank settlements?

The Security Council [in UNSCR 242];

Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,

Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,

Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

(i) Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii)Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity

(a) For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;

(b) For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;

(c) For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;

3. Requests the Secretary General to designate a Special Representative to proceed to the Middle East to establish and maintain contacts with the States concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the Special Representative as soon as possible.

"James Carville, who was Clinton's advisor
also worked in Ehud Barak's campaign for Israeli Prime Minister in 1999."

After Bill Clinton could no longer run, his expert went and worked for a campaign in Israel. That's just a teensy bit different from what we have today, someone working for HRC who cut his eye-teeth in Israeli politics.

Oh, and on what scale does Ehud Barak = Menachem Begin?

I wonder of any of that aid finds it's way to pollsters...

;)

So now we know that Clinton, like the Republican Front Runners is just a Bush Lite Candidate.

Sad.

But better to know before the ballots are cast than find out later.

Thanks for the heads up!

There's been a paradigm shift in our country with the advent of the Internet that may signal early retirement for people like Carville and Penn.

I don't think Hillary is making the adjustment gracefully at the moment. If she cannot recognize the shift in the ground beneath her feet at this moment, I cannot support her candidacy for president.

Similarly, I am evaluating the senators running for president. If they cannot do their jobs in the position they currently occupy, then they are not fit to ask me for a vote.

I understand where you're coming from! I completed my review of the candidates several weeks ago.

I am frankly appalled by the over-representation of Senators on our list of Democratic candidates. It also does not escape my notice that we are "over-burdened" with candidates who either voted for the Iraq War Resolution and perhaps later recanted that vote (Clinton(?), Edwards, Dodd, Biden) or were not in a position to vote yet supported the war (Richardson).

IMO, this is a complete abrogation of their constitutional responsibility as part of a government based on checks and balances. That vote allowed these folks to affect Bush's policy and they took a hike. To their credit, the majority of Congressional Democrats voted correctly.

Who got it right? Pelosi; Byrd; Kennedy; Graham (now retired)and on and on. Not all of our leaders are having to apologize or point back to "signing statements" surrounding their votes. And none of this excuses the current radicals percolating all through the executive branch--they are ultimately responsible.

It takes me a lot of courage just to open my mouth, through these words, at this site. I have to admit by the level discourse, the insightful reference to all things political,historical, and even esoteric, and judging by the collective bio's at the 'cafe', not to mention the command of the English language, I am more than a little intimitated to be just sitting here trying to find the proper letters to punch on my keyboard... in other words I expect to insert foot in mouth ignoring the fact that my head is up my arse. You are forwarned!

I may be new to this whole blogosphere,internets thing. But that is exactly my point. I am a typical cog in the "majority of people in this country" other than that I still belong to a union, the Teamsters. Like most Americans, the human toil of earning a living, raising a family and just 'doing' life has excluded me from many of the joys in life, and part of that toil exacts getting one's news from the MSM. I mean I read the paper when I can, listen to a lot of radio (30yrs behind the wheel fighting f*?king traffic), CNN might be on if I get home in time for dinner. They didn't trick me.

I agree that we got the patriotic colors shoved up our collected a**, but Senator Clinton is not part of that collection. As any millionaire, ex-first lady, current Senator gets their news in a dense, highly parsed delineation, she can't use Sen. Durbin's pitiful classification secrecy excuse. Assuming the need to look strong on defense her vote was political expediency, either she is a chicken, afraid to go on record looking that way, or she is a hawk with talons and a beak that reeks with decaying human flesh, indeed our fellow Americans among others.

Trusting and relying on one's government about war is behond me. Even FDR saw the need to let Pearl Harbor happen - if that's what you mean by trust - trusting in his vision of the bigger picture.

..."Flags are bits of coloured cloth that governments use to first, shrink wrap people's brains and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead." Arundhati Roy

That was one eloquent post, Gary Small. Thanks.

"... merits of invading Iraq before the war began."

This is a joke, I hope. '...merits of invading Iraq." Unbelievable! ...and Clinton depends on this genius for advice? Oh, Broder (... oops,I mean brother). Why are brains in such short supply these days?Tom

I don't know what the poll numbers showed in March 2003 (after the SOTU) but just last night I looked up an LATimes poll taken on Dec 16, 2002 (after the Iraq war resolution vote in Nov 2002). In that poll 60% of the American public wanted inspections to continue.

In October of 2002, my son in the military called me to tell me he had his orders for deployment to Kuwait in February. This was before the war resolution passed in November.

I followed the run-up to war through the Israeli media which was enthusiastically reporting on the progress of the planning, training, staging, ETA's, joint American/Israeli special ops in Iraq, deployments of arms caches, missile batteries, etc months before our elected representatives were tasked with voting on the resolution.

I was grimly amused by the reoccuring reports in the Israeli media that they were continually being told to STFU by DC. It was the single most reliable resource for detailed information on the preparations for the war. Then came November and the flow became a trickle.

(1) The resolution talks about "withdrawal from territories", NOT "withdrawal from THE territories".

(2) Judea/Samaria/Gaza is defined in international law as "disputed" territories. Jews have been living CONTINUOUSLY in these territories for thousands of years. When President Jimmy Carter called the settlements "illegal", he went to the State Department International Law Department for confirmation and they told him he was wrong. The Israeli Supreme Court, virtually all of whose Judges arer on the far Left of the Israeli political spectrum and are quite hostile to the Jews living there has also said they are legal according to international law.

By and large, Americans do support Israel, as you correctly point out.

To the (thankfully diminishing) extent that this support is uncritical, it is for the same reasons that Americans scoffed at Japanese cars in the early 1960s-- ignorance, prejudice, lies, and public relations.

May we expect, then, that the foreign policy of the State of Israel will, in all its force and majesty, be applied to the usurpers of the lands in which the Iroquois Confederacy had been living for thousands of years?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Shmuel Rosner's, the U.S. columnist for Haaretz, view is that all those running for President are pro-Israel. At the time he was specifically defending Obama but suggested the whole debate was silly.

Anyone who quotes that AIPAC lackey, Shmuel Rosner at this site should be given 40 lashes with a wet noodle. Mention his name again & I'll scream (not literally).

Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>

I, and the vast majority of Israeli supported get rid of Saddam in Iraq because of the WMD's (which we had been on the receiving end in the 1991-i.e. the Scud missiles) which it turns out didn't exist.

Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>

The operative international decisions were the 1917 Balfour Declaration which recognized the Jew's right to build a homeland in the Land of Israel. This applied to the entire area Israel controls today, both pre-1967 Israel PLUS Judea/Samaria/Gaza PLUS what is today called the Kingdom of Jordan. This was confirmed by the 1922 League of Nations Mandate which was granted to Britain on the basis of the Declaration. In November 1947, the UN decided to give most of the territory to the Arabs but also partition this territory and give part to the Jews, mostly the coastal plane, Negev and Galilee regions. The Arabs rejected the UN resolution and invaded. They were defeated and Israel also got territories outside the partition lines. This is what is called pre-1967 Israel. In 1967, Nasser blockaded the Straits of Tiran (access in the Red Sea to the Israeli port of Eilat) which had been guaranteed by the UN and US in 1957 to be open to Israeli shipping. Nasser then signed military pacts with Syria and Jordan and announced publicly that his policy was now to eradicate Israel. Israel struck first, got control of the Sinai, Judea/Samaria/Gaza and the Golan Heights. Egypt signed a peace treaty in 1979 and Israel (foolishly, in my opinion) gave up the Sinai. Arafat refused an offer in 2000 to get an independent state pretty much within all of Judea/Samaria/Gaza plus billions of dollars in reparations.
There you have it. The last official disposition of the territories was by the League of Nations in 1922 giving the Jews rights to the ENTIRE area. Before that, the Ottoman Empire controlled the area for 400 years. There never was a "Palestinian Arab State" there, there were always Jews living in the area (including Gaza, Hebron, Shechem [Nablus], Jenin and of course Jerusalem and Jaffa (what is now the Tel Aviv area) in addition to Arabs, Christians, Druze and other minorities.

If the Iriquois were to make a claim to the UN, maybe there would be something to talk about.

Look, people have to be practical here. We're not the only people voting in the upcoming election and to expect any candidate to make accusations against Israel, or complain of their theft of land, or denounce Israel is foolish and a waste of time. It isn't going to happen. The American people by a vast majority support the state of Israel, its interests and its success. Any candidate who wants to be elected is not going to "consciously oppose Israel" on any matter and to do so is political suicide.

Penn is a pollster. He takes the pulse of the American people to gauge which way the wind is blowing and then frames issues for candidates which best reflect the position the American people hold on those issues. That is what he does, and all candidates employ people to do just that.

Look, democracy especially is based on trust. There must be a level of trust for the very reason you mentioned - people have to make a living among other responsibilities in daily life which forbids a daily monitoring and participation in government. That is why we elect representatives - so that they can carry on the business of government that we for various reasons cannot. We have to have some faith that those representatives will reflect our views and wishes in making decisions, because if we don't the whole idea of representative democracy falls apart - "the center cannot hold."

As a people, we must have ideals, we must have a collective faith and trust in our government, because without it we cannot be free to work for a better future for our families. The problem is that because of that trust and reliance we can and will be betrayed and manipulated from time to time by those with ulterior motives and our duty as citizens is to turn them out of office and elect those who will best represent us.

This level of trust extends to those whom we have elected - they in turn must trust that the information they are given to base decisions on is reliable and honest. Unfortunately, they can be lied to and manipulated as easily as we can be because they are just as human - they have the same varying levels of intelligence, of gullibility and naivete, of trust and reliance on others and belief in the system. (Colin Powell, anyone?) Becoming a representative or senator doesn't suddenly imbue humans with any particular insight or judgement on world affairs and in some cases it makes them even more isolated in decision making. Just like us they make poor decisions that are based on expediency, cupidity, self aggrandizement and all the other all too human faults.

Now if you can accept the fact that we can be manipulated because we have that level of trust and belief in the system, why is it impossible to believe that our reps are any less so? They have no particular lease on intelligence and cynicism and skepticism.
The shame and dishonour lies on those who used and twisted the system to further their own agendas, not on those who trusted them to do the right thing.

We have a situation now where we have to trust, we must trust, that a democratic candidate for president is going to turn this around and get this country back on track. We have no other choice because this is the system we have chosen. We cannot depend on the press to give us the truth, they've abdicated their responsibility so all we have is ourselves and our best judgement as to which candidate will have the will and the strength to do this.

First of all, one conventional bomb carried on a missile can ruin your whole day. Secondly, perhaps I wasn't being clear, but what I meant was that his SCUD missiles had the capability of carrying bacterialogical and/or chemical warheads (that was confirmed by the UN inspectors) and there was a great fear he might use them. That is why we had to don gas masks during each missile attack. Remember Saddam's words "I am going to burn half of Israel"? So we were not being paranoid, or "overstating the case".

Defending yourself, in the particular strategic situation you have created, is a choice that the Zionist movement has made. I don't mean that in any derogatory sense, but I also don't go out of my way to support Basques or Tamils or Chechens or Karens creating a homeland. Even if they do, human history suggests they will further fractionate. Clemenceau, I believe, was a wise man when he exclaimed "must every little language have its own country?"

I am concerned with the strategic interests of the United States, not of Israel. When there are mutual interests, as there certainly was during the Cold War, there was grounds for substantial military cooperation.

The I-P conflict certainly is not uniquely responsible for Islamic terrorism, but it is one of many factors that the extremists use for recruiting. To the extent that such terrorists are a threat to the US, the US needs to evaluate what alliances help and do not help with that problem. There is much US hysteria about the terrorist threat; "duck and cover" during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when living in a primary target area, is a bit more threatening than a 9/11 -- and my windows shook from the airliner hitting the Pentagon; there were a few moments after hearing a very loud BANG when I considered hitting the floor -- and then realizing that if the shock wave was going to blow in my windows, it already would have.

I believe you have questioned the wisdom of US military aid to Israel, and I thank you if I remember correctly, because there are situations where it may be in the separate policy interests of both countries to be perceived as having some distance between them. Essentially, I don't see the US as the world's policeman, or the guarantor of Israeli security. Israel is quite capable of defending itself, although if the financial and equipment tap from the US is turned off or reduced, there may have to be some changes in policy.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Some fine backpeddling on that WMD claim ther bar!

Hawkish Democrats can lead you to ruin.

The same Peter Beinert cynics who think the key to political power is to gin up fears and make macho poses do it at their own risk.

To quote my new political hero, John K Galbraith, "The voices for war are always loud and fierce, so they seem more numerous than they really are. The voices for reason and peace are quieter, but they are the majority."

Arent' the crusader types always on a mission? Since they consider themselves nobly charged with doing God's work, they get to yell the loudest - and when they're confronted with all the facts that preclude their triumphal dreams from coming true, they can cover them all up without guilt because the war is such a noble and important thing, these niggling annoying details aren't worth their time - and it's worth 'breaking a few eggs' of rationality and full disclosure (truth is the first casualty of war...) in order to execute this sacred, epic, noble cause of warmaking.

The JFK/LBJ 'liberal hawk' strategy is said by Peter Beinert to be the snake oil we can sell for political power. The problem though is to talk that talk, you eventually have to start a war. JFK/LBJ started Vietnam. Is that really what voters want now? Another Vietnam to follow the one we're having now?

I have to admit by the level discourse, the insightful reference to all things political,historical, and even esoteric, and judging by the collective bio's at the 'cafe', not to mention the command of the English language, I am more than a little intimitated to be just sitting here...

I'll add my welcome, too.

And don't worry, there's absolutely nothing to be intimidated about here. It sounds to me like you're opinionated and you speak from the heart -- that's pretty much all that's required.

You'll fit in just fine.

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

I find it surprising that someone who uses Kabbalistic terminology would use foul language to describe someone with whom he has political disagreements ("sack of ...").

As you probably know, critics of Carter's book have pointed out numerous factual errors, distortions and outright falsehoods.
Two that I recall are (1) his claim Israel struck Jordan first in the 1967 war. This is totally untrue. The Jordanians advanced into UN-controlled territory in Jerusalem and began indiscriminately shelling west Jerusalem.
(2) He claims that the Shomronim (Samaritans) are persecuted by Israel. This is a totally untrue. It is the Arabs who persecute them, including stealing their ancient Samaritan Torah scroll which was held for ransom for years (it still may be).
Also there is pressure to convert to Islam..

Then, there was his statement in the book which seems to have Carter, the pacificist, supporting the Palestinian suicide bombing campaign. It was so blatant that he backed off the statement in his appearance at Brandeis.

Given this, it would seem that there is indeed room for criticism of the book and so I don't understand why you made such a harsh statment against one of the book's critics.

I venture to say that Hillary, and most, if not all Democrats who voted for the war did so to protect their political ass and they knew it would pass with or without them. They knew the Republicans would attack them unmercifully if they voted against it. They figured it would be over quickly and be a success, just like Desert Storm. It was win/win to them at the time and f**k what happened during the war itself.

Now that this Iraq thing has turned out to be arguably the worst foreign policy decision in our history the bastards can't run away fast enough from their votes.

I think it was JFK that said; "Success has 1,000 fathers, failure is an orphan."

Even slime ball Tenet is pointing the finger elsewhere. Chickenshit politicians who care more for their seat in the House or Senate than they do the country are a scourge upon the land. A pox on them.

Take a look at the polls. Overwhelmingly Americans support Israel. Overwhelmingly they are pessimistic to the point where they believe that peace is not possible in the Middle East. They overwhelmingly support the position Israel holds of not negotiating with Hamas or Hezbollah. By a vast majority they support the cutting off of funds to the Palestinians. No candidate, NO candidate is going to get elected in this country by opposing Israel, Israel's policies or America's policy in dealing with Israel.

Now we can all be outraged, we can all think this is bullshit, but this is the reality of the political landscape in America right now. I'm just giving you the facts, Jack. I don't advocate them, I don't promote them, I don't like them even, but there are certain realities that must be faced. If you have the money to mount a pr campaign in support of Palestine, of the rollback to 1967 borders, of a two state solution or a peace settlement, then by all means spend it now, because it isn't going to get better for quite some time. Don't be pissed at me, I'm just telling you where it stands.

But right now these candidates are all we have. One of them will with any luck be our next president.

I don't expect inane comments from you. Could you maybe take a step back? Or do you truly believe that anyone who lived anywhere in the past can go back there and claim full rights and that applies to all descendents too.

FWIW I'm second generation American, I still have relatives in Yaffa (that's in Israel) and they've been there for too many generations to effectively count. And I used to have relatives of similar longevity in Syria but since they were Jews they got chucked in 48. Some came here, some went elsewhere. They had a great house and some nice land. Can I go claim it back? The rest of the family came from eastern Europe. Alas they're all dead. But I know where they lived in Sadagura. The pictures are nice. It's in the Ukraine now and Jew free. Think I could get my granddad's house back as a vacation place?

In general, I would rather stab myself in the eye with a pencil 23 times than vote vote a Republican.

I want Gore, after all, he did win the Presidency once.

Too bad American Jews aren't organizing to oppose this type of thinking.

The difference between your examples and what the Palestinians in the occupied West Bank (yes, "occupied," not "disputed") are enduring is that Israel's theft of their land is ongoing and illegal, it is being paid for by the US taxpayer, and it is being justified by the right-wing Zionists as an insane Bible-based form of super manifest destiny. Finally, the so-called "settlers," the beneficiaries of this theft, are in no way innocent.

And no, you can't go claim your relatives' land back, even assuming you would otherwise have been entitled to it, and assuming that it was in all cases stolen, and not abandoned. But I don't think Palestinians who left Israel ought to have a right of return either, as that would quickly extinguish the Israeli experiment before it has a chance to grow beyond its present disgraceful state. You, and they, should be compensated in lieu of having your stolen property back. They get nothing, you get nothing.

And the issue of the 2008 election will be the DECISION to go to war and they were in on it.

I saw a "Hardball" with Matthews pressing Romney's spokesperson about whether Romney would have taken the country to war on Iraq and that guy did not want to answer that question. He can't say "no" because the Republican base still adores George W. Bush.

We only have one serious, credible antiwar candidate, Obama, who can put that question to the Republican nominee.

I suggest you also take a step back and see exactly what prompted my comment. Bar Kochba had been making comments that Jewish possession for "thousands of years" justified the State of Israel. He responded with an incomplete list of 20th century agreements between colonial powers, such as the Balfour Declaration but not the Sykes-Picot Agreement, only after what was largely a reductio ad absurdum comment about the Iroquois. Actually, if we look at some recent Canadian decisions, such as a significant amount of British Columbia being given back to First Nations, it isn't so absurd in North America.

Dare I call a selective list of principally bilateral agreements between colonial powers "inane"? Perhaps it was redeemed by that paragon of peacemaking, the League of Nations? Too bad Haile Selassie isn't around to comment on its inanity.

Or do you truly believe that anyone who lived anywhere in the past can go back there and claim full rights and that applies to all descendents too.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Where faith can be blind, trust is more an intelligent expectation.

let me first state that I respect your position and agree with most everything of yours that I have read, particularly that it would be stupid for HRC to give the RNC that opportunity. And yes, I will support whatever candidate the Dems finally decide on - though in California I usually have the luxury of a protest vote.

"The shame and dishonour lies on those who used and twisted the system to..." pales when one includes the five supremes who are part of this gang of thugs who "furthered their agendas." It was obvious, even to this feeble mind, when part of their decision reasoned that it would unduly hurt the plaintiff if Florida went ahead and counted the votes. Well dah, Gore won, and if we actually carried out one of the most basic constructs of representative democracy baby George wouldn't have this opportunity to put the fruits of our two hundred struggle in a blender.

Back to that RNC opportunity. In her efforts to look like presidential timber-strong, she has positioned herself to look weak.

I have faith that she will make us all proud, but my trust has a limp.

On May 2, 2007 - 7:58am BevD said:

We also have an absentee press corp which when it is present, is fixated on clothes, personality and well, that is pretty much it.

Bev, real journalism is hard work, it requires time, footwork, and research; its much easier to either run with whatever the right wing noise machine throws out there, like stories from Drudge, or report on Democrat's hair cuts and haberdashery habits.

The MSM live in a shoebox, or better yet, a clothes dryer, where all the stories, opinions, reporters and columnists tumble around and mix together and what comes out are the Sunday Morning News shows all saying the same things and asking the same questions.

Steph asks Condi question "A", Russert asks
Cheney question "A", Schieffer asks Gates question "A".

When was the last time you saw any member of the MSM break an important story?

Consider this: David Broder ("Bush is poised for a political comback") is seen as "The Dean of the Washington Press Corps."

Bar, this is ridonkulous. No one existing today can claim a right to land on the basis that their coreligionists lived there FOURTEEN HUNDRED YEARS AGO.

It's not the Jew's land. It's land. Sixty years ago, it was land owned by Arabs. There is no possible way that you can think that the fact that because Jews lived on the land that is now Israel 1400 years ago, they therefore had a contemporary right to the land that superceded the rights of individuals who owned and lived on the land now.

I'm going to say something here that may get me in a lot of trouble, but it is imperative:

Jews aren't special. They aren't closer to god, or more holy. They don't get special rights and claims. They don't get to do things that other people don't get to do. In short, Jews are just like everyone else. Just as prone to mistake and wrongdoing. Just as prone to evil. And just as in need of law, restriction, and compassion.

Yes, it is because what you write isn't true. And I did point out your mistake.

You aren't going to persuade anyone. You just aren't. Perhaps it is your unfamiliarity with this series of tubes we call the interweb. Arguing on the internet is not an intellectually productive activity. You're not going to change people's minds.

I don't expect to change your mind on anything. That is why I don't get on redstate and yell at people.

I love your line about free speech, though. That is classic right wing troll. "I thought you lefties believed in free speech, but here you are restricting mine." Dude, that's not how free speech works.

There are plenty of places right here on the internet for you to have your neo-con, likudnik worldview validated. TPM Cafe isn't one of them.

Tom wrote: PS I believe the war resolution passed sometime in October 2002.

My son had his orders to deploy to Kuwait when he called me October 25, 2002.

Bush had no intentions of allowing the UN inspectors to complete their mission. He was rolling in regardless of the facts.

You bring a big smile to my face. And thank you for the history lesson, it's because of people like you I find this cafe to be one of the most vibrant places to direct my 'free' time, (i'm still atwitter at this whole 'internets' thing). I'm also glad my initial intimidations are fading. I stand corrected...maybe. I got my impression loving all things Gore Vidal, from my limited exposure to The Golden Age, and I found an elaboration at Pearl Harbor:An Exchange.

Speaking of conducting undeclared war, the reckless intent of the current administration whould have been exposed much sooner had the 107th congress negated this fraud that fatefull day.

Again, I appreciate the history lesson, but I'm still stuck on Pearl Harbor. I'm I as dense (or gullible) as I appear? Vidal doesn't even argue R.B.Stinnett's Day of Deceit, thesis based on the 1995 FOIA request because they where both being discussed concurrently at the NYTimes. Though he does cite "Charles A. Beard, our leading historian in those far-off days, wrote President Roosevelt and the Coming of War, 1941 (1948), in which he made the case that the Japanese attack was the result of a series of deliberate provocations by FDR, he promptly underwent erasure at the hands of the court historians in place, as always, to demonstrate that what ought not to be true is not true."

Though he "only respond(s) to one of Mr. Buruma's blithe footnote..." he assumes it's sufficient to hammer him: "...As this bold non sequitur suggests, Mr. Buruma himself is firmly lodged in the wrong tree."

So what's the deal? You are the expert here. Is my beloved Vidal blowing smoke? Please Howard, say it ain't so.

Flags are bits of coloured cloth that governments use to first, shrinkwrap people's brains and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead. Arundhati Roy

Jews have been living CONTINUOUSLY in these territories for thousands of years.

More like DISCONTINUOUSLY, especially for the past two thousand years. A lot of people had been living there for thousands of years, including the forebears of the Palestinians, who are mentioned in Egyptian texts from the time of Rameses III (prst -peleshet - Philistines) which was before the Hebrews arrived. Israel disappeared in the 7th c. BCE and Samaria was occupied thereafter by the Samaritans; not by Jews. The land was called Palestine /Palestina /Filastin (or even Syria, for that matter) for a longer time (and earlier) than it was called Israel or Judah. The claim will have to be made on other grounds.

The false claim of "continuous Jewish occupation" is tantamount to admitting that making refugees of the people who had been living there "for thousands of years" (and blocking their return) was a breach of international law.

Regardless what Carter's State Dept. or the Israeli Supreme Court thinks, the World Court ruled the settlements and the separation wall [they did not say "fence" but "wall"] illegal in July 2004 and demanded that it be taken down, and reparations paid for damages from its construction. It further ruled,

"the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (including East Jerusalem) have been established in breach of international law" [paragraph 120]

It looks like I should have left it at one. The pleasent welcome, from most, has led this babe in the woods astray. So I opened my mouth again and then I did my home work. Don"t get me wrong, I'm not running to you for help, I just wanted to share in the hilarity of the moment. I just read that the guy whose posts you won't even read, I not only befriended, I kissed his butt with a compliment,and I gave him a 5 rating. Boy! did I get sucked in, by a dreaded troll no less. Maybe I should have taken Wigmar1's blatent sugestion to heart, that I am man plaged with lesser intelligence. Oh my gawd! I hope this troll thing is not infectious. I mean does it rub off? Is there a cure? I'll be branded for life...Hilary, never admit to anything!

If it's true you don't read him, I think you might get a kick out of my responses. Have a look, transformation in three short posts.

The Jews are the only one to have a continuous physical, linguistic, cultural and religious connection in the Land.

This is simply not borne out by the facts. The Jewish occupation is not continuous; it was discontinuous. The Assyrians carted off the northern kingdom in 621. The Babylonians carted off the southern kingdom in 596. They came, they went, they came back. They were driven out by the Romans.

In saying the Philistines were the forebears of the Palestinians, I mean that the Palestinian Arabs, who lived in the land for centuries if not millenia, are doubtless descended from indigenous non-Jewish peoples. So, yes the Palestinians are descended from the Canaanites, religious discontinuity with Islam being irrelevant. The Jews on the other hand for the most part did not intermarry with any indigenous people, and so their occupation is only traceable as far back as the earliest Jewish settlement of the land.

The World Court is the highest court in international law.