JUST IN! Five Presidential Candidates Offer Their Positions On Israel and Its Relation With the USA
The Jerusalem Post has just published the responses of five Presidential candidates on the question of how each of them would deal with Israel.
Their answers tell us something about how they would handle the Middle East -- not to mention how risk averse they are as candidates.
The responses are worth a read. Note the difference in approach among the five (including among the Dems) with some stessing the peace process and some ignoring it altogether. Some only talk about Israel while some also discuss the Palestinians.
I understand that these statements must be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, there are differences here.
And they matter.
What's the importance of Israel as a strategic ally and how would your administration manage ties between the two countries?
Contributors: (read it all or click on name to read post)
The question was sent to John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Sam Brownback. John McCain: Late last year, I had the opportunity to visit with the families of two Israeli soldiers - Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser - who were captured last summer by Hizbullah during a cross-border raid. My visit with the loved ones of these brave and noble young men reminded me of the great sacrifices the Israeli people have made to defend their sacred soil and win their rightful status as a beacon of freedom and faith. To this day, Eldad and Ehud continue to be held captive. Indeed, Israel has never had the opportunity to take a holiday from history, for it has been tested more, in less time, than any nation on Earth. The tests continue today in the form of suicide bombers and rocket fire and in the existential threats issued routinely by the Iranian president. Long considered a dear friend to America, today Israel is our natural ally in what is a titanic struggle against Islamic extremists - an enemy whose sinister nature I need not explain to the people of Israel. If elected President of the United States, I will strengthen America's bedrock commitment to the security of the State of Israel. First and foremost, we must continue to provide Israel with whatever military equipment and technology required to retain Israel's qualitative military advantage and to defend itself. Just as important is the strengthening of our diplomatic ties. As President, I will invite Israel to play a leading role in the League of Democracies that I have proposed - an organization of like-minded nations working together in the cause of peace. I would work to further isolate the enemies of Israel such as Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah and I would never pressure Israel to make concessions to states or movements committed to its destruction. Finally, Teheran's pursuit of nuclear weapons plainly poses an unacceptable risk to the international community, and Israel above all others. Recently, it was reported that the Iranian regime has begun enriching uranium at an accelerated pace, which means we are that much closer to seeing Israel's security being placed in grave jeopardy. As President, I will pursue every option at my disposal to neutralize that threat. We cannot and must not allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. I will make sure the American people understand that if we are to defeat the extremists that threaten our way of life, Israel's security cannot be compromised. Hillary Clinton: Israel is an important ally and strategic partner of the United States. Our nations are united by shared values, a commitment to democracy, and a belief in the dignity of men and women. We are also united by a common strategic interest in fighting back against the forces of terrorism and nihilism. Israel and the United States have worked together for years on national security objectives, including developing innovative defense technologies. Today, as the United States deals with issues of homeland security, we are also learning from Israel's experience in preventing attacks and preparing emergency responses. I believe the relationship between our countries should be that between allies, based on mutual respect, appreciating our shared values and a shared commitment to national security policies that reduce the danger of terrorist attacks on free and democratic nations anywhere in the world. Recognizing the very real challenges we face, I believe we must think rationally and strategically - and jointly - about how our values and our beliefs can be translated into effective action. It is not enough for us to say the right things; we've got to be smart and tough enough to do the right things that will protect American and Israeli interests now and forever. It is with these principles in mind that my Administration would work to sustain, nourish, and enhance the vital partnership between America and Israel. Barack Obama: Israel is our most reliable ally and the only established democracy in the Middle East. Israel's security and close US-Israel cooperation is the linchpin of so much of what we want to achieve in the Middle East. The United States and Israel share important interests - promoting a peaceful Middle East, combating terrorism, and encouraging reform in the Arab and Muslim world. We share adversaries - Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah. And we share deep economic, cultural, academic, and scientific ties that benefit both our nations. The special relationship between the United States and Israel requires an open and honest dialogue, and strong personal ties, between our nations' leaders. As President, I would maintain regular communication with the Israeli Prime Minister, and instruct members of my administration to do the same at all levels. I would continue and deepen the strategic dialogue between our nations' defense establishments, insist on fully funding military assistance to Israel to ensure it can defend itself, and expand cooperation on the development of the Arrow and other missile defense systems. Israel's security - which is of vital importance to the United States - can best be guaranteed by reaching negotiated peace agreements with its neighbors. But Israel must have credible partners with whom to negotiate. As President, I would actively involve myself in the effort to strengthen moderate Palestinians and others who can be such partners, and to make such negotiations successful, while working to isolate and weaken those who seek Israel's destruction. But I would never try to dictate to Israel what its security requires. The United States should never try to drag Israel to, or block Israel from, the negotiating table. Finally, I would pursue a comprehensive strategy - of direct engagement, increased economic pressure through international and US sanctions, and keeping the military option on the table - to keep Iran from achieving its goal of acquiring nuclear weapons, which is a danger we cannot tolerate. Just last week, I introduced legislation to make it easier for states to divest their pension funds from companies that support Iran's oil and gas industry. Israel does not have the luxury of ignoring the Iranian president's genocidal threats, and neither should the United States. Mitt Romney: In January, I had the good fortune of traveling to Israel, a beautiful, historic and diverse country with a people I respect and admire. America's friendship with Israel is based on our common interests and common values. Israel's democracy has flourished and its economy has prospered in spite of multiple wars it has had to fight and the diplomatic and economic isolation by most of its neighbors. Israel is a trusted friend and ally in an increasingly hostile region. Israel stands on the front lines of the struggle against radical Islam's jihad, whose goals are not confined to the Middle East. Indeed, Jihadism's goal of destroying Israel is coupled with its desire to overthrow modern Muslim nations and replace them with a caliphate, and to assault our security and our way of life on a global scale. Among the many existential threats that Israel faces today, Iran poses the most serious. Iran's leaders are determined to destroy Israel, dominate the region, and spread the poison of fear and intolerance far beyond their borders. I believe the United States, Europe and others can and should do more to exploit the vulnerabilities of Iran's regime. To this end, I have outlined a strategy consisting of economic sanctions, greater cooperation with modern Muslim states, a stronger military, and support for progressive Muslim communities and leaders. As President, I would put this strategy to work in defense of US interests, in defense of Israel and for the sake of peace and stability in the Middle East and beyond. My administration would also remain focused on stopping the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hizbullah, insist that the Palestinians abandon terror and recognize Israel's right to exist, and actively work towards a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict where Israelis and Palestinians can each live in security and dignity. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the Six Day War, these threats remind us once again that we must never take Israel's security for granted and that the price of freedom is perpetual vigilance. As President, I will continue America's efforts to realize fully the vision articulated in the aftermath of Israel's victory in 1967 by that great solider and statesman, Yitzhak Rabin, for the right of the people of Israel to live in its own State free, independent, in peace and tranquility. Bill Richardson: I am firmly committed to one of the United States' closest and most important allies - the State of Israel. Throughout my career, I've steadfastly supported Israel, obtaining a consistently pro-Israel voting record in Congress and defending Israeli interests as Ambassador to the United Nations. As Governor of New Mexico, I'm proud that my state has invested heavily in Israel's economy. We re-opened New Mexico's trade office with Israel and in 2005 generated $27.7 million in Israeli-New Mexican trade. We also invested $10 million in the form of Israel bonds. This is the first bond purchase of its type in New Mexico's history. While George Bush has sought to support Israel, his actions have made Israel less secure in my view. Syria is stronger than ever. Iran's influence in the region has increased and is now in a stronger position to procure nuclear weapons. As President, I will: For the past fifty years, the United States and Israel have been linked by common values and interests. I believe that our two nations also share a common future. Neither can prosper without the safety and security of the other. The challenges that confront us are formidable, but under my administration, the United States will stand alongside Israel to protect the citizens of our two nations and work towards a lasting peace in the Middle East. In the process, the special bond between our two countries will only grow stronger. Sam Brownback: I am tempted here to discuss all the reasons why I support Israel, to thank the people of Israel for bringing the message of G-d into this world, and to explain my commitment to a united Jerusalem that has always been, and should always remain, the capital of the Jewish people. But I will limit my answer only to the importance of Israel as a strategic ally of the United States. The simple answer is to point out the strategic benefits of allying with the only democracy in the Middle East. These benefits come in the form of economic opportunities, military cooperation, and political stability - all of which are derived from a shared system of values. But this is only part of the answer. I submit that the United States and Israel share not only democratic values, but also a common moral vision. We are engaged in a great struggle against militant Islamo-fascism. Our enemies have many targets - Western democracies, free societies, moderate Muslims - but if you listen to our enemies' words and follow their actions, they single out America and Israel. Why? Our two nations represent the greatest threat to the Islamo-fascists because, at our core, we strive for goodness. We seek wisdom, compassion, and humility. We aspire for moral excellence. While campaigning I have said that if America ever loses its goodness, it will surely lose its greatness. Herein we see the importance of Israel: that it remains good in the face of darkness and hostility. America learns from Israel's example. We learn when the people of Israel take great risks for peace, when Israeli response teams are first on the ground in disaster sites around the world, and when Israel removes from danger thousands of Ethiopian Jews and welcomes them into the country with open arms. In my administration, I would center diplomatic ties with Israel on the fact that Israel's existence is not only fully justified, but in fact it has enhanced the Middle East and the world. My administration would continue to support a peace process, but only from this perspective. Too often it seems that Israel is viewed by others as a burden - an obstacle to stability that must be overcome. Nothing could be further from the truth. To be sure, Israel has problems and difficulties, and my support for any particular Israeli policy or government would not be unconditional. However, my administration would always reaffirm that at its heart Israel is good, and because of that, Israel can help America and the world be great. |
There sure are differences here. Hillary talks only about Israel and how we and the Israelis have identical interests. She offers not even a token reference to peace. Pure hardline Aipac stuff.
Obama and Richardson clearly support Israel and care about it. But both seem to know that saying you care about Israel without suggesting a way to end the I-P conflict is BS. Does Hillary believe this garbage?
Add Aipac to Ari Berman's list of special interests
that own Hillary.
I sure hope I don't have to vote for her next November.
May 24, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot to mention. It's pretty awful when our Democratic frontrunner is worse on this key issue than Romney or even Brownback. Holy shit.
May 24, 2007 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
never mind
May 24, 2007 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which way the vomitorium?
May 24, 2007 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary the warhawk will keep us bogged down in perpetual war in the Middle East with no end in sight. She plans to demonstrate she is " tough enough to do the right thing" by flexing America's military might America is with a female President deploying the military and all our firepower as a display of world dominance. YIPES!!!...saber rattling par excellence.
Brownback sounds like the he went to the Rush Limbaugh school of foreign policy...islamofascits?! geez..totally inappropriate inflammatory rhetoric for a Presidential candidate.
Give me Obama or Richardson, at least they both give Peace a chance and talk about diplomacy and negotiation as tools to achieve accord and secure the peace.
Where is Dodd's statement?
May 24, 2007 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember the America-Abroad "concert of democracies" ?
Guess who's picked up on the idea? Yes, John McCain! I'm just laughing my head off!
AA acting as a Repub think tank! Too funny for words!
Is AA dead anyway? RIP
May 24, 2007 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Looks like the usual prattling of the pols.
The question is too easy. Here's one that requires more than the usual smarmy paean:
"If the State of Israel were abolished tomorrow, what difference would it make for US national security interests, a plus, a minus, or a wash and why?"
May 24, 2007 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing I found amazing (and discouraging) was how many far right U.S. respondents there were in the talk-back. Most were far more interested in getting the candidates to endorse a united Israeli Jerusalem than they were about how the candidates might go about achieving peace.
Telling.
Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb
May 24, 2007 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must admit up front I didn't read the full Jerusalem Post version, with feedback (didn't have the stomach for it), just the excerpts in MJ's post here, from which I have extracted the following, the latest variations of the pre-election pro-Israel two-step:
Shorter John McCain: Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. Vote for me.
Shorter Hilary Clinton: There are terrorists out there and in Israel they understand the terrorists and now we understand the terrorists and together we can fight terrorism. Like partners. So vote for me.
Shorter Barack Obama: Israel is a special place for special people and it occupies a special territory in our hearts which is why we have a special relationship with it and will bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. So vote for me.
Shorter Mitt Romney: It's really beautiful over there and prosperous and they deserve peace and tranquillity which is why we have to bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. So vote for me.
Shorter Bill Richardson: I've always voted pro-Israel and even though it would sound vapid and fawning to say that I've always voted pro-England or pro-Canada it doesn't sound that way at all to say that I've always voted pro-Israel and now I've put New Mexico's money where my mouth is. So vote for me.
Shorter Sam Brownback: Aliens ate my baby NO NO WAIT, I can do this. There is only one God and the Jews gave him to us. Now he's ours. Thank you. And he wants us to reunite Jerusalem so he can take over the world again. But Jews are good. Israel is good. Together we can be good. Good. Now vote for me.
May 24, 2007 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, the Jerusalem Post. It's got a smaller circulation than the Michigan State University "State News" daily, but it's flypaper for rightwing bigots of all stripes -- and, of course, groveling presidential candidates.
May 24, 2007 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
SeeDee
O-o-oh..madison1776, you mentioned aipac...you will be labelled a 'fucking Jew-hater' just as soon as Emet18 sees your comment...:-)
I tend to agree with most of what you wrote, though.
May 24, 2007 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a bit surprised that Hillary Clinton's statement presupposes a purely Jewish Israeli audience. I don't see terribly much that is concrete in it, though- it assumes that the audience's political views are at best tenuously committed to a bargaining process. There's acknowledgment and some validation given to the paranoia and violence-proneness that passes for political 'thinking', and nothing much else. (I do hate the word "nourish" in political speech, though. She likes and uses it often. It doesn't work, imho.)
Obama's view is very meticulous, nuanced, and interesting. But it's cerebral- you don't get the sense that he would knock heads together when it's called for or greatly invest himself in the problem. A disappointment is that he doesn't invoke concepts of majority and minority rights.
As for the Republican views, it's mostly old hat I have trouble taking seriously. Romney's is perhaps the most sensible.
As for the JPost reader commentary...grotesque.
May 24, 2007 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, I'm most impressed with John Edwards.
May 25, 2007 3:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will repeat what I stated in an earlier posting by MJ.
Virtually all Presidents since 1967 follow the SAME policies on the Israeli/Arab conflict, regardless of what party they belong to.
(1) All Presidents aspire to getting Israel eventually to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines.
(2) All Presidents aspire to creating a so-called "Palestinian" state within those borders.
(3) Pending a withdrawal to those borders all Presidents oppose Israeli building in Judea/Samaria but simply can't invest enough political capital to FORCE Israel to go along with this officially. Bush did succeed in getting Sharon to destroy Gush Katif, but it is unclear whether any Israeli government will attempt to do this again.
(4) No President can FORCE the two sides to reach an agreement based on the outline I gave above. The US has tried to force a government to its liking on Haiti and failed. Making "peace" between Israel and the Palestinians is a million times more difficult.
(5) No President can afford to alienate the Saudis and the other Gulf Arab potentates, no matter how abhorrent their anti-American propaganda is, no matter how much they spread virulent anti-Jewish/Chrisitian/Western Islamism around the world and no matter how they treat the millions of foreign workers in those countries as slaves with no rights.
(6) No President can force the supposedly "moderate" Arab states like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia and especially Egypt to lean on the Palestinians to make a reasonable "peace agreement" with Israel. Clinton tried this at Camp David and failed miserably.
Thus the bottom line is, for those of you out there who spend a lot of time worrying about how to get a US President who will "finally" force the sides to make peace....forget it. The Arabs will never agree to make peace on these terms and any President will be aware that US public opinion is generally friendly to Israel and would oppose any attempt to force Israel to make concessions that would endanger its existence. It can't be done and it makes no difference who the President is regarding this matter.
May 25, 2007 4:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
This may come as something as a surprise to you, but not everybody agrees with you and not everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "moron" or "bigot" or whatever epithet you can come up with, nor that every Presidential candidate who takes a pro-Israel position is "grovelling". I could just as easily say that Jimmy Carter is "grovelling" to the pro-Arab/anti-Israel crowd in order to milk a few more millions of Arab petrodollars for his Carter Center.
I always find it amusing how people who call themselves "progressive" frequently seem to have little tolerance for people or ideas they don't agree with. Yes, there are people in my camp as well who are intolerant and that is just as bad and I have little patience for them either. But it is important to remember, ideology doesn't make people good or bad, it is their character, or as we say in Hebrew "their midot" that make them good.
May 25, 2007 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been reading your postings over the last weeks, and what bothers me is not so much that you think that any kind of "peace" is impossible, but that you seem so pleased by that.
May 25, 2007 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure what you mean by "pleased".I have lived in Israel for more than 20 years, and have seen the so-called "intifada", Saddam's Scud War, the Arafat/Oslo Suicide Bomber War and the Lebanon II War. No one wants peace more than Isrealis and that includes the "Right wing" as well. However, we have learned that Munich-1938-style appeasement of totalitarianism (which is the state the Arab world is in) will only push real peace further and further away, exactly as we on the Right have correctly predicted since Oslo. I will be pleased when we get to the point that everyone understands that, because then, and ONLY then, we can start working to ending the violence. Violence will continue as long as the Arabs have hope that the "peace process" will keep giving them dividends like huge amounts of aid from the EU or concessions like Israel's disastrous destruction of Gush Katif. Once the world wises up and realizes that these things fuel the conflict, we can really get to a point where it cools down significantly.
Once the Arabs realize that the world will not tolerate violence and extremism, they will realize there is nothing to fight for, and the violence will eventually stop. Why is there is a civil war in the Gaza Strip?
NOT because there is "poverty" or "hunger" (there is no hunger in the Gaza Strip, there is plenty of food). It is because of the ever increasing aid coming from the outside. Gaza is filled with numerous armed militias who receive salaries but do no useful, productive work. They see the increasing aid flowing in from the outside, they see they have the weapons to go and try to grab it. The outside world is FUELING the violence with its aid and its toleration of HAMAS and FATAH terrorist groups. Cutting off the aid and cutting off the flow of weapons into the area (which Israel allowed by withdrawing from the Philadelphi border corridor with Egyptian Sinai) will end the violence, eventually. Similarly, the outside world telling the Arabs "we are not going to force Israel to do anything against its will, if you want peace you are going to have to prove it to Israel and to us by acting in a civilized manner, and resolving your disputes by talking instead of shooting and bombing". The Arabs will reply that it is a violation of their Islamic belief to recognize the existence or rights of a Jewish (i.e. "dhimmi") state,
something that Arafat told Clinton (i.e. he would be shot if he ever gave up the "Palestinian right of return" which Israel refuses to recognize or recognized Jewish rights to their holy place on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem), and which HAMAS states explicitly every day.
Only by recognizing the reality of the situation, not the endless wishful thinking expressed by MJ and others who comment here, can real progress to real peace (which will take generations to achieve) be made.
May 25, 2007 6:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I went on the 'long hard slog' through all of that rhetorical gobbledygook, and was unable to discern any meaningful difference between the statements. Further, I think they're all a bunch of corporate tools, so voting for any of em would be a waste of time and effort. Can we have an out-of-the-box thinker, someone like Nader, please? I don't care if you're an Israel fan or not, someday, a lot of other countries, Israel included, need to stand up, pull their socks up, and start behaving as though they were both willing and competent to start solving their own problems, for a change. You know, surprise us.
Our country has its' own problems, 9 trillion in red ink, public accountability long-ago lost in the dust, a runaway war party looking for any excuse under the sun to keep that party going, illegal immigration, an oil habit that won't quit, yeah, there's a lot of stuff to do on the home front, maybe if we, and other countries, spent more time, effort, and energy on dealing with those domestic hurdles, rather than just building up more mega-debt, we'd be a little farther along globally, as a byproduct. A lot of what seems to be going on in the world has a lot to do with the stupid oil, so the sooner that we get oil-independent, the further we'll be along in having our economic and political independence back from all the nice people around the world that see fit to draw our country into their problems. In other words, we can change channels away from the global Jerry Springer show, and start doing things like making sure that american high school kids graduate knowing how to read, add, and generally be something else than future welfare recipients. But, none of this particular batch of 'candidates' appears as though they'd be willing to lay a finger on that remote, too much money involved, most likely...
May 25, 2007 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, the GOP candidates compete with one another to see who can talk tougher, looking especially for an excuse to drag Iran into the story (but of course not embarrassing themselves by going a few miles further to mention Iraq, much less bin Laden). Obama sounds closer than I'd desire to the Bush approach of isolating Hamas and waiting for it to go away, although he's clearly not advocating a military solution at least. Richardson is most concrete, as well as the one pushing hardest for a negotiated two-state solution.
Clinton? I know she's still the Rorschach test for many with built-up anger on the left and right. But I don't see her statement as threatening militarism. It even asserts broad principles I can admire, uniquely including women. (There's a current wingnut canard that liberals aren't tough on Iraq and Iran because they don't care about the treatment of women under Islam, which is not even worth refuting.)
Rather, its problem is her real problem, which the polarization around her tends to overlook: she says basically nothing at all, and she takes enormous pains not to. (However, I do give her huge credit for sticking in recent months consistently with the anti-war faction in the Senate, and if she won't apologize to me, this is American government, not Catholic confession.) Finally, I am sorry they couldn't get a quote from Edwards, who keeps getting slighted by all coverage, in a way that's unfair and likely to doom a fine candidacy. Bottom line? I'll vote only with reluctance for Clinton, but otherwise anyone is fine, and anyone but the GOP.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
May 25, 2007 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You could ask the same about Denmark or Holland or S. Korea for that matter -- so why are we allied with them?
May 25, 2007 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be refreshing to hear a politician tell the truth and say we've done all we can, and until you have two sides willing to be serious about peace -- our options are limited and peace should not be expected.
History shows that these types of conflicts only end when one side finally gives up.
May 25, 2007 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you mean is as soon as the Palestinians accept your reality will progress to peace be made. Unfortunately, your reality is that the Palestinians give up any and all rights to justice, equity and humane treatment and do as they're told.
Every single charge you made about the Palestinians could be said with equal fervor by the Palestinians about the Israelis - the outside world is fueling the violence by giving aid to Israel, the flow of weapons to Israel is aiding and abetting the daily violence againt the Palestinians by the Israelis, the Israelis are undermining the Temple Mount and partitioning Jerusalem to cut off Muslim access to their holy sites and on and on and on.
The problem isn't outside forces determining the fate of the Israelis and the Palestinians, the problem is that both sides like the situation just as it is, and hope that by attrition they can wipe out the other side.
May 25, 2007 6:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many dollars in US foreign aid does Denmark receive? The Netherlands? S. Korea? And how much does Israel get?
May 25, 2007 7:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would be refreshing.
Are you suggesting a policy that goes beyond GW Bush's "benign neglect" to include withdrawing military, political and diplomatic support from all sides until they have exhausted themselves and are ready to come to the table?
May 25, 2007 7:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
He writes for and about Ha'aretz, but Bradley Burston published a recent piece about their own interactive feature titled "Talkbacks are for Cowardly Bigots," saying, among other things...,
May 25, 2007 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. This is pretty much what Bill Clinton said he did with Bosnia and Kosovo. He acknowledged that when you intercede is critically important to success, he called it the arc of conflict, and noted that only when the 2 sides are exhausted from fighting can you truly make a difference and have a positive outcome. While he took flak for not interceding sooner he understood and asserted that to have done so would have resulted in a long drawn out slog with the USA bogged down in a civil/sectarian dispute, with no hope of securing the peace which is what we have in Iraq.
May 25, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do the math -- we've had 50,000 troops in S. Korea for 50 years and a US fleet on constant patrol in their waters. The cost of that adds up to a lot more than we give Israel every year.
As for Denmark/Holland they were covered under the nuclear umbrella we provided during the Cold War and thousands of troops in Europe -- which we still have in place. Again, more billions.
None of these countries are vital to our security.
May 25, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
that's a good point and Lebanon is another good example. After a bloody war, every side understands violence will never resolve their differences.
iraq is headed for a civil war -- the only question is the scale. an NPR report this week with an Iraqi official who suggested the US is only delaying the inevitable, and that Iraqi's were going to have to deal with their harsh realities themselves.
Israel is very aware of the limits of force. Hamas, on the other hand, remains committed to the belief they can make a country of 6 million disappear with suicide bombers.
May 25, 2007 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
no, the support remains -- just nothing more than that.
May 25, 2007 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are all cowards on this issue. The reasonable stand is to tell Israel that if they do not cooperate with the Palestinians in short order they will cease to receive American foreign aid at all and will no longer receive American protection at the UN.
May 25, 2007 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The nuclear umbrella was for United States' own needs. Somehow I don't think the Dutch or Danes were terribly happy about living on a potential battleground between the East and West.
How do US troops stationed in S Korea compare to billions of direct aid given to Israel? Sounds like apples and oranges to me.
May 25, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
no the connecting dot is my wallet and yours because that's where the money comes from ultimately. Military aid to South Korea costs way more than we give to Israel, and if you add up the colllective direct aid/military we give to Egypt and Jordan -- it's on par with Israel. Throw in our commitment to Taiwan which also requires a constant naval prescence. Unreimbursed assistance for a nation's economic or political security is direct aid to me, it doesn't matter which US budget it comes out of.
May 25, 2007 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You make no sense. Korea, Taiwan, etc. are all about a confrontation with China. If you haven't noticed, the Koreas want to cooperate, it is the US that is in the way. Our aid to Egypt and Jordan is part of our aid to Israel, it is a bribe to keep them out of Israel. Take your blinders off.
May 25, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
If elected I will
o close all military bases outside of the US and bring those troops home except for one division which I will station in Israel with instructions to defend Israel against any invasion and to assist it in immediately entering adjacent Palestinian territory to destroy any site from which bombardment of Israel takes place.
o provide $10,000 to each Palestinian refugee
family that moves from a camp in Lebanon or elsewhere , and $5000 to the country which
agrees to accept it as full citizens. Repeat payments for the two following years declining 50% each year
o have full diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Government no matter what party is in control.
o provide financial support for the Palestinian medical system.
o announce the US supports the right of the Palestinian Government to be located in East Jerusalem .
o support UN resolutions which condemn Israeli
actions when we believe such condemnation is called for and not insist that it be "balanced" by a condemnation of some Palestinian or other Arab action.
o announce that Israeli settlements outside
the 1967 borders are illegitimate unless approved by the Palestininan government and that
our garrison in Israel will not assist in defending those settlements other than to
assist the settlers in leaving if attacked.
o condemn any Israeli air strikes against population centers including strikes intended to kill individuals who are known enemies of Israel
except for "smart bomb" attacks targetted against the specific residence of such enemies-even if others live there.
o state that we see no moral difference between
suicide bombing against Israel and such Israeli
air strikes against populated areas.
o provide visas for any Palestinian or Israeli
who wishes to study in the US provided in the case of the Palestinians that they pass a reasonable security check .
o make annual visits to both Israel and Palestine.
Signed
Someone who will be roundly condemned by both sides
.
May 25, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gotta laugh at the insanity sometimes else you'll cry!
May 25, 2007 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good 4 A Merica,
The same China who enjoys perpetual renewal of its Most Favored Nation status with the US.
Which only makes sense if Egypt and Jordan get Israeli approval for what they do with their US aid. According to this kind of reasoning, China's MFN status is a bribe to keep them out of Taiwan. "Blinders..." funny.
May 25, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to be realistic. The Jeruasalem Post is a right-leaning Israeli paper, so of course its readership is going to be right-wing. If you want moderate discourse, go to Haaretz.
May 25, 2007 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its not a bad set of ideas. I see a lot of promise here... except for one item:
o close all military bases outside of the US and bring those troops home except for one division which I will station in Israel with instructions to defend Israel against any invasion and to assist it in immediately entering adjacent Palestinian territory to destroy any site from which bombardment of Israel takes place.
Neither the Israelis or the Palestinians or Al Quaeda would let you stick a division of US troops on any Israeli or Palestinian territory. Frankly, nobody but Neocons and Robber Oil Barons wants US troops stationed in the Middle East, even for peace-keeping. Certainly Israel doesn't. Reagan was smart enough to realize this in '83 and if it wasn't for the Bush family we would have stuck with that...
May 25, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with youa bout Israel being aware of the limits of force (especially after last summer).
However, I don't think you have stated Hamas's position at all. From everything I've read that they have said, the suicide bombers are just a tactic to keep face. Their goal is to eliminate Fatah, then consolidate strength, and then in several generations they will be ready to destroy Israel. They do not appear to be so unrealistic as to think they can make an entire country disappear with suicide bombers, they are just willing to take a long view.
May 25, 2007 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think we are not still locked in the Cold War confrontation with China, you must have no interest in foreign policy at all. You are simply a proponent of Israel. I previously assumed you lived in Brooklyn and occasionally commuted to Israel. But to offer this view suggests that you live in Israel and occasionally visit the US.
In any case, the roots of our policies in South Asia, anywhere north of the Philippines (a former US protectorate after the Spanish-American War) except Japan (defeated by the US in War and thus, temporarily, a US dependency) involved the CONTAINMENT of China after WWII. You might have heard of the Domino Theory? It was the justification for both the Korean and the Vietnam Wars. US infusion of resources in South Asia north of the Philippines except in Japan is specifically in confrontation of China.
As to BRIBES to Jordan and Egypt. Why would you expect the use of the BRIBE be subject to approval by a third party? The US has absolutely no interest in Jordan except with respect to bribing it to leave Israel alone. It does have some interest in Egypt with respect the the Suez Canal, but no more so than dozens of other countries. If Israel didn't exist, their would be no motivation to donate more than the same token amount we donate to any country. Our foreign aid to Egypt is a bribe to leave Israel alone. So, effectively, both the aid to Jordan and Egypt is indirect aid to Israel.
I cannot imagine why you think any of these US relations concepts are controversial. It is with great restraint that I have avoided asking about your intelligence. Could you, for example, compare US foreign donations to Egypt with those to Panama in the last 5 years, and explain the differences without referring to Israel?
May 25, 2007 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aside from making angry a lot of Americans and Israelis, and blowing Democratic election chances, what will that do? The Israelis can't cooperate with the Palestinians, so then you cut off foreign aid and American protection. Well, Israelis don't need US foreign aid. US Congressman need to give Israel foreign aid (its a backdoor way to funnel pork to US defense contractors). The Israelis can make up the money other ways (sell weapons on the world market to US enemies, seize money from the Palestinians, spend less on defense by buying less smart bombs and more dumb bombs that just kill more people).
Similarly, if American protection at the UN ceases the Israelis will find another friend. Maybe China. More likely Russia or France. Some country with a veto that would like to make the U.S. look bad on the world stage. Israel got along fine for the first few decades of its existence without US support, and it would survive again without it. Meanwhile, America would have lost its only bargaining chip over Israel, and most likely our Arab allies would be quite mad at us over that.
You're just like George Bush, you overestimate US importance... we have to work with other countries, not dictate to them.
May 25, 2007 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
No dictating. Let them live without our money or our protection at the UN. Israel is an insignificant country. One day we talk about the Democrats not being able to win without the South. The next it is Democrats cannot win without the Israeli faction. Too bad we don't have Democrats who worry about progressive policies in the US. Israel has been the instigator of bad action for 50 years. They are a rogue nation. They have official apartheid. Yet Democrats won't take a courageous stand against them and interfere when other nations do. Time to say No.
May 25, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, sure you can say those those things, but that doesn't make what you say true or the JP talkback any less full of bigotry. As rhetoric that appeals to people who draw the same distinctions, or lack thereof, that you do, but that doesn't change that certain distinctions made are legitimate and relevant ones, and others bogus.
Well, as more or less a liberal, I agree that I don't extend full tolerance to all ideas. Classical right wingers are inherently immoralists, reactionaries are necessarily bigots, i.e. selective immoralist- it's inherent in their selfdefinitions. Where you are wrong is to confuse, conflate, and level a broad but situational tolerance (which liberals practice until faced a situation of having to condone inexcusable immorality) with an abstract universal of tolerance.
Ideologies do reflect character. Some are much more prone to condoning murder and impoverishment of their opponents. Some- perhaps most- exist for the practical purpose of giving their supporters a sense of selfconfidence and herd security and providing excuses to do the foolish and wrongful things they desire a priori. The system of excuses embraced and the failings of character go together, inseparable as the dancer and the dance.
May 25, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who started the Korean War? To suggest the Koreas would be a big, happy re-united country if not for the US is an idea i haven't heard any serious analyst propose.
There are about 200,000 political prisoners locked up in a gulag the size of Rhode Island, which gives North Korea the prize for the worst 3rd-world hell on Earth. You really need to study the psychology of dictators.
Jordan is one of the most important moderate Arab governments in the Middle East, which would make them very important to us as an ally with or without Israel.
May 25, 2007 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you haven't checked your calendar lately, it is now 2007. The Korean war was OVER in 1953 The Koreas are seeking closer cooperation... The US is odd man out.
I see you are ducking the challenge about Egypt. Jordan gets peanuts. Egypt is the second biggest winner in our foreign dollar game. If it isn't a great big wet kiss to NOT bother Israel, then please explain why it (1) follows on the the Camp David process and (2) is any more than we would give to any other chickenshit dictatorship that happened to be of strategic interest?
May 25, 2007 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Egyptian aid was part of the deal Carter made, which is one reason Carter made a one-term exit, but we agreed to it and have to follow through. The more substantial aspects of the package required Israel to pull out of the Sinai, which they did. It's a historical example that Israel is ready to make serious compromises, if they have a serious partner for peace.
If you actually believe the "peace and unity" message coming out of Pyongang, i've got a few authentic antiques available on ebay.
May 25, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good 4 A Merica,
Of course. Because Egypt was beating up on Israel so well up until Camp David.
Ouch....
May 25, 2007 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be so sure that a nuclear umbrella is that expensive. Once you amortize the weapons development cost, which the US was going to do anyway, the weapons, in overall terms, aren't that expensive. Something like a B57 nuclear depth charge and tactical bomb, for use on a P3 antisubmarine warfare aircraft, might indeed cost a million or two.
Compare that with the costs of feeding, maintaining, and training an armored infantry brigade for a year, along with its equipment and support costs. It surprises many people that the incremental cost of tactical nuclear weapons weren't that high. In some case, it may even be that the more effective "smart" weapons may actually cost more.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 25, 2007 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Good 4 America,
Please come clean and admit you are really working incognito for Bibi Netahhyu and Avigdor Lieberman, two right wing Israeli politicians, who fervently wish that a President Nader or a President Kucnich will do eaxctly what you advocate. That would have only one result: a landslide victory for them and a mandate to exterminate every single Palestinian in the West Bank and Gaza, annex both areas to the pre-'67 borders. and announce that with no need to work with the U.S. on a two-state solution, there will NEVER be one.
You obviously have never met an Israeli. Please go to Hebron and Kyriat Arba and talk to some Israeli settlers and see if any of them give a tinker's damn about losing U.S aid. Then go to Sderot and ask the folks there if they would like to see all Palestinians in Gaza dead--even if all U.S. aid were cut off--so that the constant terror they have endured since Israel withdrew from Gaza will stop.
May 25, 2007 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
My cousins and the millions of Israelis who survived Nazi death camps to found a democratic haven for the Jewish people are not rogues.
As politely as I can muster: people like you make Henry Ford's anti-semitism look good.
May 25, 2007 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Odd. If it is a haven for the Jewish people, why are there significant Jewish populations in other countries, of which they consider themselves loyal citizens? Let's not deal with questionable civil rights for Jews. Why have all Jews in the US not moved to Israel? You don't even need to explain the Hasidic rationale.
Failing to be able to make such an explanation, the truism, without any insult being implied, is that Israel is a haven for Jews who believe in Zionism. I would have no problem hearing Israel described as a haven for people of that belief.
I've never especially liked it when American activists self-appoint themselves a "$FOO leader", where $FOO is some ethnic or religious group in which the "leader" has never stood for election. The rather frequent refrain that Israel speaks for all Jews is equally anti-semantic.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 25, 2007 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what Israelis really want is an excuse "...to exterminate every single Palestininan in the West Bank and Gaza..."?
Did I read you correctly, Emet18?
May 25, 2007 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's get this straight. Palestinians have endured Apartheid for 60+ years and brutal suppression since 1967. Israelis have, by your account, endured constant terror for 8 or 9 months. So the Israelis are aggrieved.
I don't know whether Israel can exist on its own at this time. But I doubt it. It is a dependency of the US as it has been for its entire existence. If the US withdrew its support, Israel would very soon cease to exist. Sure, they have atomic bombs, but it cannot use them in defense without contaminating itself. It has no natural allies. Egypt and Jordan tolerate it because they are bribed to. The South Africa it aligned with was the apartheid South Africa, oops. China is aligned with its opponents. Turkey has other worries, and, in any case, is also acting to placate the US.
If the US withdraws its support, Israel is ALONE. They may like this idea, but, as the US has found in Iraq, being alone, or having only bedraggled friends, is not so great.
May 25, 2007 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Good 4 America, I have better things to do that debate a dolt. Just go to the library and read how Israel defeated four Arab armies in 1948 and the Egyptian Army in 1956 without a dime of U.S. aid, and defeated three Arab armies in 1967 with far more limited U.S. aid--essentially a couple of F-4's which it paid for-- than what Israel receives today. If you doubt that Israel has the resources to kill every single Palestinian in order to survive you are more of jerk than is now apparent.
Your beloved Palestinians had better hope that U.S. aid to Israel never stops, because the day it does is the day that Lieberman and Netanyhu using the IDF will feel entirely free to kill them all and annex all of the West Bank--if that is what it takes for Israel to be secure-- without blinking an eye.
May 26, 2007 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said Israel speaks for all Jews. I will say Israel is a haven for Jews who fear persecution in other countries, and --whether you like it or not-- thanks to people like me it will remain one. That not every Jew in the diaspora has emigrated there, because, thank G-d, fewer Jews feel persecuted in 2006 than in 1948 does not negate my point that Israel was founded to be such a haven.
May 26, 2007 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you didn't read Emet18 correctly, Red Planet. What is clear, however, is that you will read into anything that which supports the conclusion to which you want to jump.
May 26, 2007 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Emet 18 has finally jumped the shark!!! "Just go to the library and read how Israel defeated four Arab armies in 1948 and the Egyptian Army in 1956 without a dime of U.S. aid, and defeated three Arab armies in 1967 with far more limited U.S. aid--essentially a couple of F-4's which it paid for-- than what Israel receives today."
The most salient point about the 56 war was that Israel fought it with England and France at its side.
Emet needs to g- back to c-llege because his writings are idi-tic. He's not a m-r-n but cl-se.
-ut -f respect t- him i'm leaving the O's -ut -f certain w-rds. It's a beautiful day and I'm -ff t- the z--.
May 26, 2007 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
Perhaps because history does not happen all at once, and that all individual Jews really don't "speak in one voice" and tend to have two stong legs each and minds of their own. Nevertheless, Jews have historically taken their lumps in groups. Consider as well the demographic reality whereby the two largest Jewish communities in the world, at roughly 6 million apiece, are currently found in Israel and the US. Consider as well that a US Jewish community of any significant number is older than the state of Israel, and that it lacks the history of persecution (at best) that had been common in other diaspora communities.
Exactly how frequent, really?
May 26, 2007 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you think that Israel is not a complete US dependency, you are as naive as one can possibly be. They can complete their genocide if they want. Slow genocide is so boring anyway. Their former pals, the white South Africa, tried that and finally had to give up.
It is time for the US to isolate Israel. Let 'em show their true "morals." If the US backs off, I know of no one who is going to come to their rescue.
May 26, 2007 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently you are not reading Emet18 correctly. He is clearly advocating genocide.
May 26, 2007 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have proved my point; one exception to a generalization means the generalization is flawed. If there is a Jewish population of equal size to that of the State of Israel, than Israel is "a" Jewish state, or a "Zionist" state, but not "the" Jewish state in the sense that the Vatican is "the" Catholic top management.
Incidentally, when I use the term "Zionist", it is, in no way, meant to be disparaging. It simply means that an adherent believes Jews should live in Israel and be part of the Israeli state.
As far as frequency of Israel speaking for all Jews, count how many times people refer to "the" Jewish state and that its travails are paramount to all Jews.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 26, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
We do not disagree that Israel is a perceived haven for those Jews that fear persecution. If you said it was the state for those Jews who chose to go there for reasons of culture, religion, or safety, I would have no objection.
Whenever you describe it as "the" Jewish state, I get a strong sense of your belief that all Jews have a moral obligation to support it. I get a strong sense that, at some level, you want all Jews to emigrate there, regardless of conditions in their home country.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 26, 2007 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, if the violators of international treaties would clear out of their illegal squatting, perhaps they would not be targets.
May 26, 2007 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I make this suggestion from time to time and get
this same sensible reply.
Against that is my feeling that for Israel to alter its security procedures (for example its bombing of Beirut last summer) it needs to be convinced it is really....secure. That while it may , will , continue to suffer atrocities its conflict with its Islamic enemies will cease to be "existential".
And my feeling that it does need to alter those security procedures in order to end that conflict - or at least change it into a cold peace.
Yes stationing US troops in Israel is a bad idea. Maybe it's the least bad idea.
BTW by accident as I write Thomas Ricks in Baghdad is calling to "This American Life" and suggesting that the least bad idea for what we should do in Iraq is something along this same line: remove most of our troops and end our attempt at national building but leave behind a 30,000 person US force to remain as a security guarantee.
May 26, 2007 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is not the US's problem. Israel is its own problem. It has dug itself into its own mess. The US needs to STOP providing it protection. Israel is the little bully child with a big bully parent. If we take the parent away, the child will figure out how to get along with the other children. If it is stupid, it might get knocked around in the process.
May 26, 2007 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Been there . Done that. Six million people were killed.
May 26, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
This time Israel is the bad guy.
May 26, 2007 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've taken up enough space in this thread.
May 26, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fear is the force that makes monsters. In this case Israel is the monster. How many people must die because your cousin and countless other Israelis are looking over their shoulder for a Hitler that is not there and are willing to kill everyone in their path to play it safe. Israelis have become genocidal monsters claiming god given rights to a land that belongs to other people. They have been dispossessing, marginalizing and killing those people for the better part of a century. Hitler's brutality does not give Israel the right to its own brutal genocide. I tire of this crap. Stop killing people.
May 26, 2007 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
By dispossessing other people. One genocide does not justify another.
May 26, 2007 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not fear being called names by one who advocates genocide.
May 26, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, the old "moral equivalency" argument.
All I know is that Rachel Corrie's parents went to Rafiah to "identify" with their daughter's terrorist friends. In the last year, non-Arabs have become targets for kidnappings, even extremely pro-Arab, anti-Israel non-Arabs like this BBC journalist Johnston who was kidnapped a couple of months ago and is still being held. A couple of Arab "friends" of the Corrie's tried to kidnap them. Their host managed to rescue them and told them to flee to Israeli controlled-territory....YES, ISRAEL,
in order to be safe, they weren't safe in Palestinian-controlled territory. Isn't that odd? Israel is the incarnation of evil in their eyes, yet they have to flee to Israel in order to be saved from their Palestinian "friends".
May 26, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally do not believe aliyah--emigration to Israel--is religiuosly required under those tenets of Judaism with which I identify, the Reconstructionsit branch. I simply want Israel to continue to exist as a secure haven for Jews anywher on the planet who face persecution.
May 26, 2007 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Stop killing people"
Was that to me or the Hamas leaders?
May 26, 2007 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't advocate genocide, but I acknowledge one fact that you won't: the people of Israel have no intention of submitting to another one, and if the only way to stay secure is to commit it, they will. So if you don't want that to haappen, hich I know you don't, tell your friends in Hamas and Hezbollah to--as you put it--"stop killing people.
May 26, 2007 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the clarification. Can you see how describing Israel as "the" Jewish state, without additional explanation as you just gave, can, in sound bites, come across as requiring aliyah?
On another threat, I happened to mention McVeigh as an example that all terrorism does not come from Islamic extremists. In like manner, given that Jews are safe in a reasonable number of countries, most notably and statistically important being the United States, a message that Israel always remains the haven seems a slap at American, etc., Jews.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 26, 2007 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody came to Israel's rescue in 1948, 1967 or 1973. Nixon and Kissinger came to Egypt's rescue
two weeks after the Yom Kippur war started lest Ariel Sharon drive his tanks all the way to Cairo and lead to an overthrow of peo-Western Sadat. The U.S could stop every dime of aid to Israel tomorrow, and doing so would not save a single Palestinian. What is saving those Palestinian lives is the reluctance of the current Israeli Government to shatter those bonds between Israel and the U.S.--the same ties you deem to be worthless-- by acting with the kind of ruthlessness that wouild stop Israeli civilians from being killed within the pre-'67 borders.
May 26, 2007 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I said there was no U.S. aid to Israel in '56, and I was absolutely right. We both know Ike insisted Israel give up the territory it won. The British and France helped, but only a fool would downplay the military prowess that Israeli forces showed by themselves in that war.
May 26, 2007 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have to agree; there was no US aid, and actually US protest, in 1956.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 26, 2007 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
These are your genocidal words...
"will feel entirely free to kill them all and annex all of the West Bank--if that is what it takes for Israel to be secure-- without blinking an eye."
Please. It is outrageous to deal with killers here. Until the Israeli admit their moral fault there will be no progress.
May 26, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Israelis do most of the killing, so perhaps they should do most of the stopping.
May 26, 2007 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Big Democratic Donors.
Hillary.
'Nuff said.
May 26, 2007 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was absolutely frightening to me. How is it that American politicians can be so interested in supporting Israel. The U.S. gets absolutely NOTHING from this relationship at the moment. The United States gives aid and a true cart blanche to Israel to do whatever it feels it should do in order to fight the Palestinians. I, unlike most of my countrymen, have sympathy for the Palestinians. They were literally removed from their homes, and kicked out of some of the most choice land in the region (although still... not the best). While I will be accused of anti-Semitism for saying this, I will say it anyway: If you think that the terror tactics employed by the Palestinians are awful and abhorrent(with which I would agree), it must also be said that the tactics of the Israeli government in destroying Palestinian resistance are at least equally as brutal, as many more Palestinians have been killed than have Israelis in the violence. At this point, as well, the peace process is at an impasse because the Israelis refuse to give up any significant territorial concessions, and both they and the U.S. are effectively cutting off the Palestinian people from being able to trade at all, which has led to serious problems ranging from shortages of food to medical care problems. I think that the United States should demand that with our aid money will come the condition that Israel must make meaningful concessions to the peace process.
May 26, 2007 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you guarantee that the Jews will REMAIN safe in many countries that they are safe in today. Much of the world was UNSAFE for Jews 70 years ago. And take France, for example. Jews were safe there 70 years ago, but suddenly on 22 June 1940, they became unsafe (day of French-German Armistice in World War II). In the US, Jews were safe even after 22 June 1940, but the US was not able to take in the MILLIONS were were unsafe at that point. Zionism takes a long-term look at the Jewish condition and anti-Semitism. BTW- I am an Orthodox "Religious Zionist" and I view Zionism primarily through the prism of Jewish Religious tradition, but the other considerations I mentioned above also play a role, particularly for those who do not relate to the "relgious" arguments.
May 26, 2007 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I don't understand is: How is it that one can use one genocide (the Holocaust), to justify the displacement of a people (the Palestinians). Peoples other than the Jews have been decimated by genocide (the Chinese by the Mongols, any native American tribe you could name by the Europeans/US settlers, etc.), and yet we have not used that as an excuse to give any of those groups other peoples' land. I would be perfectly alright with the idea of the U.S. having given some of its own land, perhaps similar in climate to the Jews (say Arizona or New Mexico), but to give the entirety of the "Holy Land", which does not belong to the U.S., to Israel (and if you think it would have happened without U.S. support, you need to have your head examined), is the height of hubris. We donated other people's land to atone for another people's genocide. When will the U.S. atone for the genocide of the indiginous peoples of our land, and whose land will we give them?
May 26, 2007 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are changing the subject from the specific point I made about the US citizen Jewish population. Having lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis and other situations where real, not figurative, annihilation was an issue, I can't guarantee that the US will be safe for all citizens. If you want intellectual honesty, don't shift the point from the specific issue I raised about the United States, a country with a Jewish population roughly equal to that of Israel and in no danger. I already stated that Israel can certainly be a refuge for other countries' citizens that feel endangered. I sincerely doubt Canadian or British or Australian Jews are apt to be the focus of a pogrom, or citizens of quite a few other states.
The world situation has changed, just a bit, from 70 years ago, if you haven't noticed. Your point about danger in France was true at the time, but was caused by a little thing such as an invasion of France by a major military power committed to anti-Semitism. What country offers a plausible and comparable threat to Western Europe? Was there a NATO force in 1940...oh, that would have been confusing, since Germany is a major part of European defense.
The United States is not the refuge of last resort for any threatened population in the world. Make Israel the country of last resort for Jews, but don't pretend it speaks for all Jews or that Jews in many countries won't fight to the death to protect their country -- and have countrymen that will fight to the death for their fellow citizens.
Again, if you want to call Israel the Zionist state, I don't see anything wrong with that. It's an accurate descriptor.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 27, 2007 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
I don't see the problem. There are Arab communities thriving in many parts of the US as well, but there is no problem with there being Arab states among the family of nations. There simply is no other nation-state in the world where the national language is Hebrew and the Hebrew calendar measures common Jewish history and life-cycles of Jews. An isolated community here and there may do so as well, but isolated communities here and there observe and respect all sorts of traditions and customs in an unofficial way.
Again, so what? No one bothers Arab-Americans over the existence of 22 member-nations in the League of Arab States.
You have come back to this point repeatedly, so I respect that it is obviously a major issue with you. But as close as I can figure, you take issue with an argument asserting that national rights precede human rights. Again, at present the two most significant Jewish communities are the US and Israel. But if we go back to when there was no Jewish state, the human rights of Jews in Europe, for example, were hardly guaranteed by those that were respected in the US. The Jewish community in Europe remained existentially vulnerable between policies of Germany and Britain -- specifically, between the Final Solution and British White Paper of 1939. An apparently functional Jewish-American community was exposed as nothing more than Americans (not that there's anything fundamentally wrong with that).
By the same standard, Palestinian communities in the US should not prohibit the establishment of an indpendent Arab Palestine beside a secure Jewish Israel. Are you prepared to argue the illegitimacy of the Palestinian national movement on the grounds that Palestinian-Americans enjoy human rights in the US?
May 27, 2007 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
But it is no less accurate to refer to Israel as the Jewish state. Similarly, the neighborhoods around Chicago's Milwaukee Avenue contain the highest concentration of Poles outside of Warsaw, so we should stop calling Poland "the Polish state"; and Dearborn, Michigan, is home to thousands of Arab-Americans, therefore we should call for the immediate disbandment of the Arab League.
May 27, 2007 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your point about Arab states is not equivalent to the US states. If there were an Arab-Muslim state, it clearly would be the state that controls the Holy Places of Mecca and Medina. Saudi Arabia, in that role, is quite unsympathetic to immigration.
If Israel said it was the last resort for Jews facing persecution, I'd agree that was a human rights argument. If you say Israel has a national right to speak for all Jews and that Israel is the proper homeland for all Jews, I consider that a great insult to the Jewish population of countries, such as the US, where the Jewish population has no reason to feel in significant danger.
Insisting that Israel is "the Jewish state", as opposed to "the state of the Zionist philosophy", plays into the hands of anti-Semites that claim all Jews think of their Jewish identity first and their allegiance to their home country second. I suppose one could say the Vatican is the "Catholic state", but it doesn't argue that people should make the Latin equivalent of Aliyah to it.
Indeed, the main state, in modern history, that also argued, with hypocrisy agreed, that it was the "$FOO State" was the fUSSR as a Communist state.
You make the point that I take exception to an argument that national rights, presumably Israeli, take precedence over human rights. If I understand what you are saying, yes I do. While I do not believe in world government, I also believe that ethnic nationalism is not a good thing. If a country wants to feature ethnic nationalism, that's the choice of its citizens. Don't expect me, however, to support US policies that encourage ethnic nationalism. If a particular country is endangered by ethnic nationalism, I have no desire to see it get US military aid.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 27, 2007 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
During the Cold War, Israel was a valuable strategic ally to the US, in providing information on Soviet military doctrine and equipment. There has been worthwhile intelligence cooperation, admittedly with Israel spying on the US, and, in all probability, the US spying on Israel.
Since the fall of the USSR, however, the strategic value is less obvious. There may still be valuable intelligence cooperation, which I hope is constantly reviewed, with due secrecy, by an appropriate Congressional as well as Executive body.
Certain Israeli tactics, especially in Lebanon, have been disproportionate. Some of the counterguerilla tactics in the OT, from experience with other peoples in other wars, tend to generate more recruits.
While I do not argue that the I-P conflict is the principal rallying point of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism against the US, it is a factor to be considered in the strategic balance.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 27, 2007 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now you are trolling.
May 27, 2007 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
ralph489,
Unfortunately, you are presenting a flawed reading of history. Jewish and Arab national rights in former British Palestine are not mutually exclusive. As far as "other peoples' land," there is simply no other place on the planet where the Jewish people had both national self-determination and a continual communal presence other than Israel. The US did not give Israel back the Jews, the United Nations did. Further, the UN called for partition of former British Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Arab League rejected the partition and chose to fight a war to put an end to the Jewish national movement in former British Palestine. Eventually these circumstances have led to the situation we know today.
May 27, 2007 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure the world situation has changed in the last 70 years. Tell me, how many people in, say, 1920, could have predicted the world situation that there was in 1940 or 1945? Who would have thought a genocidal maniac would have arisen in Germany? Sure, many people, including Marshal Foch thought the Versailled Treay was only a cease-fire that would last for 20 years (!), but even he would have had trouble believing something Hitler would arise. Jewish history isn't just about the last 70 years, it is about the last 4000 years. The situation of the Jews has been continually tenous for the last 2000 years, since the destruction of the last Jewish autonomous or independent polity in Eretz Israel.
Anti-Semitism is a permanent fixture of world culture. Sure it has its ups and downs, but it is always there, sometimes in a most murderous form. Look at some of the postings in this very forum, that completely deny the threat Israel faces. They say that 5 million Jews are a terrible threat to 1 BILLION Muslims, instead of the other way around, which is the actual situation. Just like like many in Germany believed that 600,000 Jews were a dangerous threat to 80 MILLION Germans. They pretend the Palestinian situation is isolated from the whole Muslim/Middle Eastern context.
What I read simply confirms in my mind what I know, Israel must remain on its guard for the indefinite future, and that real "Peace", as opposed to a damping down of the current violence, is a chimera.
May 27, 2007 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's interesting maybe is that we rarely use locutions like "the Polish state," or "the French state," or "the German state"--and when we do use these phrases, we are usually refering to the state's institutions of government, not to its status as a homeland for a particular ethnic group. The equivalent usage in reference to Israel would, of course, be the Israeli state, not the Jewish state.
May 27, 2007 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Knock yourself out, build the largest nuclear force you can, and be on constant guard. At one logical level, it would appear that your security would be maximize by preventively killing anyone who might threaten you. Some US commanders in the Indian Wars would kill children with the argument "nits become lice," but, in today's reality, we consider them monsters.
I just happened to look at some inaccurate reporting by CNN. It has a gallery of an "Israeli rocket" hitting a target in Gaza. As best as I can tell, it's not a rocket, in the military definition of an unguided projectile, but a Maverick guided missile.
Using guided missiles is far more responsible than, for example, responding to single unguided rocket fire with salvoes of antipersonnel cluster munitions, as Israel did in Lebanon. By all means, and I am not in the least being sarcastic, Israel should attack targets that have attacked it. I would not object to preemptive attacks on a target such as a rocket storage point.
Now, it may be the fault of the MSM for oversimplification, but I have seen enough strict military censorship by the IDF to believe there is an endemic problem. The more Israel documents why and how it hit certain targets, there will, almost certainly, be better justification than undefined "retaliation". Israel was its own worst enemy in Lebanon, apparently using disproportionate techniques when more accurate means were in its forces. If there was a reasonable military justification, it was suppressed.
Between the US and USSR, Mutual Assured Destruction, grammatically incorrect, ethically terrible, but pragmatically useful, established a situation of stability. Without further detail, of course Israel is not a threat to a billion Muslims. More specifically, Israel with 200-plus nuclear weapons could reasonably be perceived as a threat to neighboring non-nuclear states.
No, I agree, the historical land of Israel will never have peace as constituted. As an American, however, I'd prefer to focus on worldwide human rights, rather than being an enabler for Israel's fortress mentality.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 27, 2007 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, the fault falls to the UN, but the WHITE EUROPEAN UN under almost complete US control at that time. (Where is the UN headquarters located? When was it put there? Why?) Israel is a European Colonial state cannibalizing Palestinian lands. The aboriginal are still fighting to prevent this. Because the Israelis are aggrieved against GERMANY, they claim absolute right to stay there. Israel has no moral status and is acting as a rouge state while committing crimes against humanity. It is too bad those pesky aboriginals won't just go away or die.
May 27, 2007 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
He clearly advocates genocide and I quote his advocacy in genocide below. You are just trying to suppress discussion. You are just refusing to admit it. He is outrageous as you often are, although you have never advocated genocide.
I see you rated my actual quote of his genocidal words as troll as well. I take it you are afraid to have his behavior pointed out.
May 27, 2007 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
For you, the lament is "why don't those pesky Jews just go away"? You are not the first to state this.
Before 1948, you and your ilk cried "Jews to Palestine!". Now you cry "Jews out of Palestine!". Obviously, "Palestine" isn't what really bothers you.
May 27, 2007 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Howard,
It is far more accurate to say that Israel is the national and political homeland for the Jewish people, and that is very different from saying that Israel speaks for all Jews. But who (beyond a Foxesque "some people") actually says that "Israel speaks for all Jews," anyway?
May 27, 2007 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mind reading? I so appreciate that. If you read more carefully you would note that I am arguing that the Israelis (who, as you point out, have official Apartheid in FAVOR of Jews) wish the pesky Palestinians (the aboriginals) would go away.
I live in one of the most Jewish cities in the country and get along with my neighbors just fine. I really do not have any interest in people's superstitions, I myself do not practice any that I know of.
I do, however, care that people use in-group vs. out-group status to conduct genocide against others. Pretend it is what you like, Israel is in the business of slow genocide some days and fast genocide other days.
May 27, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go for it. The Oil $Billions haven't changed a thing, I am sure.
May 27, 2007 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, what Emeit18 wrote was,
You selectively cut and paste from his comments to assert that he says something quite different. For some reason, you need to believe Jews are genocidal. Only you can explain why. Meanwhile, taking fragments of other participants quotes out of context in order to mischaracterize their sentiments is trolling.
Good 4 A Merica,
Ridiculous. Disagreement is not censorship. You have a right to your opinion, and with it comes a responsibility to support your argument when challenged in an open discussion.
May 27, 2007 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good 4 A Merica,
"The aboriginal" had their national rights in former British Palestine supported and affirmed by the UN partition that established two states: one Jewish, one Arab. It was the Arab League that walked out on the UN General Assembly and invaded the emergent state of Israel. And when the fighting stopped, Jordan and Egypt controlled a good deal of the territoriy intended for Arab Palestine. If the Arab establishment were as committed to nurturing Palestinian national self-determination instead of dispatching the Jews of theirs, there likely would never have been the war nineteen years later that brought Israeli occupation to those territories.
The national rights of Jews and Arabs in the former British Palestine are not mutually exclusive -- and when you deny the national rights of Jews by characterizing Israel as a "European Colonial state cannibalizing Palestinian lands," you are assuming the position of warmonger.
May 27, 2007 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good 4 A Merica,
Bullshit. Otherwise, why wouldn't have Israel simply annexed the territories by now?
May 27, 2007 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, the post I quoted was in in the morning and the post (above) you rated zero was in the morning, while his denial of advocating genocide was in the afternoon. My subsequent post citing his words follows his denial. He advocates genocide then denies it. That is NOT the same as not advocating it.
As to suppression, the use of "troll rating" is not discussion, it is suppression. You are just using sophistry.
By the way, I find it extremely offensive for you to project onto me a stereotypical view of Jews. I don't see people in stereotypes. I am discussing individuals and the government of the state of Israel.
May 27, 2007 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Purple State,
Only if you willfully ignore the components of Jewish national identity. By your standard, Israel could be referenced as the Hebrew state too. What difference does it make?
Israel is a country where Israelis do business and legislate its civic requirements in Hebrew and determine who is a citizen of Israel. Germany is where German people do business in German and determine who is a citizen of Germany. Likewise, Libya is a country where Arab people do business in Arabic and determine who is a citizen of Libya. What is common to all of these countries and more are the ethnic foundation of their civil institutions.
May 27, 2007 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
And why have they not stopped the illegal outposts? Why do they provide military protection for them as soon as they crop up?
May 27, 2007 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Short version... Europeans take half your land and tell you to be happy. You reject this. You are the bad guys. After 60 years you are supposed to have given up. Anyone who thinks otherwise is antisemitic.
May 27, 2007 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the comments that follow, please understand that I am not using "Zionist" with any negative flavor. I don't think that we disagree that self-identified Jews that choose to live in Israel are Zionists. Certainly, I've encountered American Jews that keep talking about moving to Israel, perhaps when they retire, or, for whatever reasons, have a spiritual tie to Israel and accurately support it.
A very good friend of mine started out as something of an enemy. He's a Christian fundamentalist evangelical, and thoroughly annoyed me by countering every objection I made, to any position he had on morality, by quoting Biblical verses. It took him several years for me to accept that those were semantically null to me. Our friendship developed as we realized that we often wanted the same result, even if we took very different routes to get there.
I find it close to semantically null when you speak of "the Jewish people", given, for example, that there are Jews, even physically in Israel (Mea Shearim) that reject Zionism. There are a great many Western citizens that consider themselves Americans or Britons or Canadians that happen to be religiously Jewish.
As far as the question of conflict of interest of assuming Israel speaks "for the Jewish people", I will cite some unfortunate but real events. While I have no idea how it is now organized, for many years, when James Angleton was head of CIA counterespionage, he kept direct control of clandestine matters dealing with Israel, rather than letting it fall under the appropriate geographic division. Angleton, who was a professional paranoid, which is not necessarily bad in counterespionage, distrusted American Jewish staff members with respect to Israel. Direct espionage such as the Pollard case also brings up the issue of mixed loyalties. I don't like either situation, and cannot feel that it is due, in part, to Israel's position that it is the home of "the Jewish people", rather than of Jewish Zionists.
I don't consider that "Foxesque", but unfortunate. I don't consider Israel in the same league of ally as the English-speaking nations that share intelligence and have a strong commitment not to spy on one another.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 27, 2007 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, now I am relieved. Some of your best friends are J......s
BTW...your Jewish best friends also displaced the aboriginals in the US, better get outraged about that, but, on the other hand, you also displaced them too....oops, I forgot, all populaton transfers before 15 May 1948 are irreversible, oh, but the only population transfer that bothers you is the Jewish/Arab one, the creation of an religiously pure Muslim state in Pakistan doesn't bother you, although this led to the almost complete ethnic cleansing of the Hindu population (in addition to millions of dead), but I guess you don't have many Muslim good griends which would allow you to prove your good will to them like you proved your good will towards us Jews to me by showing us your love and friendship to us by pointing out how you get along so magnificently with your Jewish neighbors; of course then there was the mutually complete ethnic cleansing between Greece and Turkey in the 1920's, but I guess you don't have as many Greek or Turkish friends as you do Jews to prove your love for them, anyway that was before 15 May 1948, so it is in any case irreversible; also there was the ethnic cleansing of Germans from the Sudetenland, Silesia, Pomerania, East Prussia, but I guess you don't have good Czech, Polish or Russian friends to prove your non-descriminatory brotherhood. Then, of course there was the mutual ethnic cleansing of Serbs and Croats will thousands of dead, but I guess you don't have so many good Serb or Croat friends with which to prove your good will to them, so you remain silent....etc.etc.
May 27, 2007 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many errors do you make in this.
1. You confound the "some of my best friends" tokenism with "I live in a city that is has a large Jewish population." Clearly if I didn't feel comfortable with that I could move. You exhibit your social biases by imputing biases to me.
2. It so happens that there are plenty of Muslims here in NYC, too. As I said, I am indifferent to people's superstitions as long as they don't use them as a basis for immoral behavior, such as apartheid, ostracism, or genocide.
3. There are Greeks and Turks here. At the moment I don't know anyone who is Greek, but I have had Greek friends in the past. I have several Turk friends at the moment and have been to Turkish cultural events several times this year. Is that okay with you? Actually, I have been to some Jewish cultural events this year too, is that okay?
4. One of my very best friends is Polish. Is that okay with you?
5. As far as I know, I don't know any Prussians at the moment. Neither do I know any Croats or Serbs or Czechs. Actually, I likely know people of all of these origins, what I don't know is the fact that they are of these origins.
6. Is there some other smart ass question you want to ask? You see, I live in an ethnically diverse location. I really don't care about anyone's ethnic origin or practices as long as they exhibit respect and tolerance of their neighbors both locally and in the world.
That is the problem with Israel, it is an Apartheid country. Apartheid is immoral.
As to the problem of the US colonialism, I agree it is a problem. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a way to deal with removing 300 million people from the territorial US (minus a few million who are ethnic aboriginals). Where would they go? The solution is some form of integration. Which, as it happens, the US has been busy engaged in for some time. We also pay reparations and actually provide EXTRA rights to the ethnic aboriginals.
Compare that to Israel, where the ethnic aboriginals, who still outnumber the colonials, are herded onto reservations, treated brutally, ethnically cleansed, restricted in rights, and treated as half-human.
There is a difference in these two practices. End apartheid now.
May 27, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You did not respond to my questions. What about the so-called "apartheid" that Pakistan did and does practice against non-Muslims? Why aren't you outraged about that? Millions died in that one. What about all the other examples I stated? Yet you only dump on Israel for the population transfer that occurred. The others are okay in your eyes? Do you know that most, if not all Arab states make Islam the official religion, and one consequence of that is that is illegal (officially, the death penalty) to convert from Islam to another religion? Why don't you complain about that? Why don't you complain about the MILLIONS of foreign workers in the Arab states who are basically slaves with no rights? No one talks about it. In Saudi Arabia, foreign workers are forbidden to bring Bibles and conduct religious services. They can also be summarily expelled. (The New York Times Sunday Magazine recently mentioned these things) Why don't you and all the other "progressives" complain about that? It is worse than "apartheid". None of you talk about boycotting them, just Israel.
May 27, 2007 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I, in fact, have previously posted in response to other threads, that the US should not provide any funds to Pakistan, which, in addition to any faults you may find, is responsible for the international spread of nuclear terror. Frankly, I believe the Pakistani government is, possibly second to our own, the worst government in the world.
May 27, 2007 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tu quoque was rejected by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 27, 2007 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Following Howard's point:
1. I would be happy if we could stop using oil based energy, so that we would not be supporting the outrages you mention. Tell me how we do that?
2. We do not, as an official policy of the US, spend $6 billion in foreign aid to the nations you mention, the way we do to Israel (including the bribes to Egypt which are indirect aid to Israel).
3. I do not recall any US intervention in UN resolutions to protect the nations you mention.
4. Although I do not doubt that there are dubious foreign worker practices in the countries you mention, I do not consider the NY Times an unbiased source.
May 27, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good 4 A Merica,
You will not get any argument from me favoring the establishment of exclusive cities in foreign, unannexed territories. It has been bad policy ever since it began in Hebron in 1968. But it is not genocide.
May 27, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionista, you are the one that equated annexation with genocide. The outposts are just slow annexation.
May 27, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It says something that you have to rephrase an adverse argument in order to invent something you are more comfortable responding to. But you are certainly not responding in good faith to any comment of mine.
Go ahead and argue that Jews have no legitimate national identity of their own, but then don't start whining when others raise issues over the antisemitic implications in such assertions.
May 27, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Howard, but I still don't get it. I have grown confident in the good faith of your argument, so maybe I simply have a tin ear for your point.
Anyway, the overall discussion here is fishtailing again and I have softball to play. Have a righteous and poignant Memorial Day, Howard.
May 27, 2007 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
If predominantly Eastern European Jews wanted a country, why didn't they do what everyone else in Europe did in the late 1800s, that is band together and kill off other EUROPEANS to form a country? No, they moved into a hostile territory and tried to push out the aboriginals.
The whole issue is over European arrogance. You keep talking (in behalf of the Jews) about ME, ME, ME! The problem is that it isn't about YOU. You are the invaders, the thieves, the land grabbers. You cite what, to the Palestinians is irrelevant, your own history of suffering as justification to annihilate others. That only makes you monsters. You have become what you fear.
May 27, 2007 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have fun. Baseball is more of a mystery to me than the I-P situation.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
May 27, 2007 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice that Governor Richardson made the point that Pretender Bush's policies have made Israel less secure. Seems like a valid point to me. I am baffled when I read that Israelis or diaspora Jews say that Bush has been "the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House."
With friends like that . . . you get even more enemies than you had before!!!
Richardson's point bears repeating by the other Dem candidates if they want to offer more than merely platitudinous support for Israel.
May 27, 2007 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is quite simple. If Israel annexed the occupied territories, it would have to do one of the following:
(1) grant citizenship to all the Palestinians living there. Israel being afraid of Palestinians "taking over", it is not willing to do this. A policy based on this might actually work, but will never be tried.
(2) Institute an official apartheid policy, like South Africa had. This would get them even more international flak than they already get; the current situation is functionally equivalent anyway.
(3) Expel the Palestinians by force, provoking war with neighboring countries, who don't want the Palestinians. Not sane.
(4) Commit actual genocide against the Palestinians, which Israel will not do (none of its politicians are nearly that evil).
The current status of the occupied territories is quite suitable for keeping the Palestinians as second-class citizens. It is actually rather similar to the way Indian Reservations operate in the US, where they are legally "separate nations" when it disadvantages them but not when it advantages them. It really has been a colonialist operation, though much less nasty than, for instance, the European conquest of the New World.
So of course they haven't annexed them.
The unlucky thing for Israel as a colonial power is that demographics are against it; the colonial theft of native lands in the New World succeeded largely because Native American populations dropped precipitously while European populations rose.
May 28, 2007 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why the slow genocide they are committing now is any less evil than doing it all at once.
May 28, 2007 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you think the Haaretz Talkback section constitutes "moderate discourse" then you haven't spent much time reading any of them.
Haaretz itself provides moderately progressive discourse. But not the Talkbacks.
Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>
May 29, 2007 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>
May 29, 2007 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
How, pray tell, can a President FORCE the two sides to reach an agreement? Clinton did exactly what you wanted, knocked Barak's and Arafat's heads together and failed, giving us a war as a result. What will Obama or whatever savior do that his predecessors didn't do? Why do you assume Democrats can do it but no Republicans? Bush I was quote openly cool to Israel, how much success did he have? The Bush family is far, far closer personally to the Arab world than any Democrat. The Saudi Royal Family are personal friends of the Bush's and donated IIRC $20 Million to Bush I's Presidential Library. Yet Bush II hasn't succeeded.
In regards to FORCING an agreement, Bush is using actual military force on Iraq to impose democracy on them. This should much easier than an Arab/Israeli peace agreement because everyone involved is Iraqi, Muslim and Arab (except for the Kurds who are not causing any trouble). But, it is not working out, even though we are constantly told that All Muslims/Arabs are brothers and love one another. Muslim/Arab attitutes towards Jews are a whole different kettle of fish.
May 29, 2007 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we see that Obama has to kotow to the Israel lobby, just like everyone else. If a candidate does not do this, he has no chance of getting the nomination. Yes, the Israel lobby is that powerful. Disgusting, but Obama nevertheless remains the best option among the candidates.
What we need is a candidate that has the guts to say what needs to be said, "The first thing that the United States needs to do is to force Israel to stop its policy of creeping anexation of the West Bank by stopping the expansion of the settlements by cutting off economic aid if Israel does not do this.
President Eisenhower is the last President who had the balls to stand up to Israel..
May 29, 2007 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"No one wants peace more than Isrealis and that includes the "Right wing" as well"
But they only want peace on their terms. Who doesn't want peace on his terms?
Israel could make peace with Syria any time it wanted to. This would end Syria's support for Hamas and Hesbullah and normalize trade relations. But the price would be to return ALL of the Golan Heights to Syria, and Israel is not willing to do this.
The key to peace with the Palestininas is to give back the land that was illegaly occupied after the 1967 wars in violation of United Nations resolutions and remove the illegal settlements. More realistically, a compromise using mutually acceptable boundary swapping could be worked out. Israel would keep access to the wailing wall and the main settlements, but would compensate the Palestinians by ceding an equivalent amount if Israeli territory to the Palestinian state. There are areas in Israel in which the majority of the population is Palestinian, like Nazareth, and ceding this territory to the Palestinans would have the added advantage of reducing the Palestinian population in Israel.
May 29, 2007 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama says "and keeping the military option on the table - to keep Iran from achieving its goal of acquiring nuclear weapons, which is a danger we cannot tolerate."
This is extremely dangerous. There is no VIABLE military option againt Iran. Any attempt to use a military option against it will lead us into a quagmire that will make Iraq look like a picnic. The United States did not got to war with the Soviet Union when Stalin was in the process of obtaining nuclear weapons, and Stalin was a lot more dangeous than Iran can ever be. Iran aquiring nuclear weapons will be a lesser evil than a hopeless military quagmire with Iran.
May 29, 2007 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink