Might the 'Celebration' also be a way to throw a bone to the religious-right-rapture crowd? "Jerusalem must remain the undivided capitol of Israel" implies as much.

The 40 years following the 'victory' have seen the Palestinians suffer "terrible privations, physical isolation, and psychological disfigurement...For the Israelis, occupation has been...a grave security hazard and source of moral corrosion." 'The New Yorker' May 28. (Have to wonder what Iraq will look like in 40 years.)

As the Duke of Wellington said, the only thing worse than a great victory is a great defeat.

What this actually has to do with the Middle East escapes me but it has a lot to do with terrible legislating. For too long the Congress has passed bills that written in the most broad terms and have allowed to bureaucracy not just to carry out mandated policy but in effect to make policy. This is not something bureaucracies are intended for nor good at.

Meanwhile the Congress passes these endless commemorative or praise bills such as the one M.J. mentions but the Cheese week, etc ect. Congress, and the nation, would be much better off if the Congress legislated a lot less but in more detail.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I wonder if Congress is going to pass a resolution condemning Israel on the 40th anniversary of their deliberate attempt to sink the U.S.S. Liberty, an American ship operating as a listening post in international waters. They failed to sink the ship, but they did manage to kill 34 Americans.

Doesn't the term referring to Jerusalem as the "undivided capitol of Israel," often imply an exclusively Israeli capitol of Israel? The Palestinians are being encouraged by the Israelis to move elsewhere through a variety of means of questionably legality, such as the imposition of checkpoints, making travel in and out of the Palestinian portion of the city extremely hard, and the difficult rules and laws, capriciously applied, for obtaining (and keeping) residency papers. And the illegal Israeli settlement activity in and around Jerusalem has been proceeding at a fever pace. B'Tselem, The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, wrote a report on this phenomena in 1997, entitled "Quiet Deportation," and in the 10-year period since the report was published, the situation has deteriorated even further.

Whether or not they realize it (or care), it appears that deportation of Palestinians from Jerusalem what our Congress is endorsing in this bill. Maybe we should make passing a test on basic knowledge of the Israeli-Palestine conflict a mandatory requirement for office.

Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb

I would have no particular problem if you referred to the Liberty incident as Israeli-hating. My own reading suggests that it was not authorized at the high command levels, although both the US and Israeli commands were derelict in preventing the incident. In the Gulf of Tonkin, the comparable DESOTO patrols were done by fully armed warships in pairs, one with a portable electronics van.

I object strenuously, however, to any argument that Israel speaks for Jews that do not live in Israel, have no desire to live in Israel, and consider themselves represented and defended by their own countries, not Israel. It's really easy to throw around "Jew-hating" whenever Israel is criticized -- and perhaps unfairly criticized in this incident.

Had the SIGINT patrol been done by ships of the type used in the DESOTO patrols, there would have been no question of misidentification -- and also no question that the ships could defend themselves.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Okay: Yes, Jerry Nadler et. al. will be engaged in Arab-bashing, and in kowtowing to the more neanderthal segments of a Jewish lobby that, for the past 20 years, has not known what is good for it.

People like MJ may have less credibility on Capitol Hill today than the dinosaurs who dominate the AJC and ADL. But those guys -- and you, from the sound of you -- are dying off. Your brand of rhetoric already sounds fossilized to me, and I'm in my late 30s. There's a generational shift going on in American Jewish politics, and you are either going to have to move with it, or you will start to find yourself ignored and marginalized by the younger Jewish mainstream.

Accumulating Peripherals

Congress is celebrating the fact that the arabs failed to anihilate Israel. They are celebrating the 40th anniversary of Israel's defeat of her genocidal enemies. Not surprisingly, you would find something sinister in that, since I'm sure you and the rest of the people on this board wish Israel had lost that war and thus no longer existed.

You are a sick puppy. Especially now with Iraq, Lebanon, Al-Qaida and Hamas any talk about the I-P conflict looks totally insignificant. The I-P being the center of the universe is as valid as the flat earth; good luck and be careful not to fall of at the edge.

. . . passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity . . .

George Washington, Farewell Address

Says Genius Emet, man of G-d:
"Go to Borough Park in Brooklyn or Monsey, NY or Teaneck, N.J. or Waterbury, Ct.--thousands and thousands of Jewish voters under 40 whose views about what to do with the Palestinians make mine look like Kucinch's. Those Jews vote in every election, more of them vote in every election becaue they have lots of siblings, and they vote on one issue and only one issue, unlike you and your friends."
Wow. He's bragging about traitors, people who "vote on one issue and only one issue," Israel.
They live here, use all the benefits of the US and vote on the basis of a foreign country.
They should get the hell out.
Fortunately 90% of American Jews vote on the basis of what is good for America.
AS for all those candidates who profess to love Israel.
Right! They love Israel and will until we put in public financing of campaigns and discover that the leftwing get-out-of-West Bank and East Jerusalem position is shared by virtually every member of Congress.
Emet, you don't give a flying damn about this country except as Israel's arsenal. As Tom Tancredo would say, about people who love this country but are "illegal" and have no dual loyalties, go back where you came from.
You are a true shonde fur de goyim.

There is no doubt that the Leftwingers, who mouth the usual anti-Semitic tripe or the most modernists who give a pass to every murdering group so long as they aren't American or Jewish, speak for every few people. They come to Cafe and find their fellow travels who also speak for no one.

The irony of their sanctimony is that they support the least democratic elements in the world who oppress their own people particularly women and whose regimes are some of the most illiberal in the world.

What the people here will not perhaps cannot admit is that AIPAC is not just a rightwing luny group but they like the AJC B'Nai Brith speak for most Jews and indeed most American who may disagree with Israel on particular policies but don't believe unilateral surrender will result in anything other than a lot of dead Jews.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

J. McCutchen

The Right Wing's Israel Lobby: Purveyors to the Booboisie

'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century Across the world, a dangerous rumor has spread that could have catastrophic implications. According to legend, Iran's president has threatened to destroy Israel, or, to quote the misquote, "Israel must be wiped off the map." Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made

Those Jews vote in every election, more of them vote in every election becaue they have lots of siblings, and they vote on one issue and only one issue, unlike you and your friends.

I'm not sure the second part of your sentence here constitutes a semantically meaningful statement, but leaving that aside: you're bragging that the people you associate with are fanatical zealots who don't care about the environment, education, the health care system, moral values, abortion, or anything else in American political life other than supporting the settler line in Israeli politics? Way to make the Jews look good.

I hang out with Jews all over the world. You appear to hang out with Jews in certain conservative neighborhoods in the tri-state area.

Accumulating Peripherals

You are right Matt. I worked for AIPAC as a volunteer from '73-'75 and then as editor of Near East Report, its publication from '82-'86.
Back then we claimed 60,000 Members when we had 40,000.
But even if AIPAC has 100,000 members, that is a small percentage of American Jews.
In fact, all the Jewish organizations put together only add up to a few hundred thousand in membership.
So how do we find out what Jews think? Polls. And they all show Jews are overwhelming liberal, Democratic, strongly pro-Israel and in favor of the Rabin-Peres Oslo approach, not the ZOA hardline. The hardliners are the Jewish Republicans who garner 18% of the overall Jewish vote and 90% of the tiny Orthodox vote.
It's like the gun issue. The NRA claims to speak for all gunowners but polls show a healthy majority of gunowners favor gun registration and other restrictions on firearms. Who is heard? NRA.
Fact is, we don't live in a real democracy. We live in one in which special interests can claim to speak for majorities which they do not reflect.
The answer, of course, is campaign public financing.

I think we can pretty much take it for granted that America's role with anyone as an honest broker for anything is long over and gone.

Mr. Rosenberg, you are absolutely right about one thing: every poll of American Jewry shows overwhelming majorities who are stronly pro-Israel. Does that mean they favor the Avigdor Lieberman-Bibi Netanyhu expansionist approach? No, and on that we also agree.

But just as clearly those strongly pro-Israel Jews do not accept as truth the condemnations and calumnies against Israel that are a daily occurrence here, or the canard that supporting Israel's government's policies is traitorious to American citizenship, or the notion that peace can come if only the Israeli Government would just disapear and let Palestinians control what the international community granted to Israel in 1947-48, or the idea that it is illegitimate for
American Jews to participate fully in the political process, through organizing, voting and contributing, exactly to the same extent as Catholic Americans, evangelical Americans, Greek-Americans, and, for sure, Arab-Americans are free to do under the First Amendment.

I don't disagree that the Clinton-Barak plan has a reasonable chance. There are details that are not completely clear, as exactly how the West Bank and Gaza would be made contiguous in order to be exchanged for settlements in the OT. I note that the agreement does speak to resolving the sale of the Phalcon AWACS radar and electronics system, which, with a close ally, should never have risen to head-of-government level.

Syria, as far as those agreements, is a big question mark. Are they trying serious negotiations? Unknown, and, quite probably, necessary to be under the radar before diplomacy has to be conducted in news conferences.

Where I have the problems with Israeli acts and rhetoric starts with things such as the militarily disproportionate response in Lebanon, and the continued barrier and settlement expansion. I also have problems with rhetoric that the Palestinian question is insoluble, but not having the audacity to call for Endloesung.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Again the evidence, please. Show me one instance where anyone at AIPAC told a Member of Congress or an Administration official that AIPAC speaks for 6 million American Jews. AIPAC doesn't do that and doesn't have to do that. When its officials talk, the listeners know that it speaks for 100,000 dues paying members who are among the most politically active citizens in the country and within every state and every Congressional district. You got a problem with that? Take it up with Johnny Jay, Alex Hamilton and Jimmy Madison who encouraged as many factions as could be conceived--just like NARAL ProChoice America, the Sierra Club, Emily's List, the NAACP, and AIPAC two centuries later-- to do exactly that.

Determined to _REFUSE_ to learn even from the hard way.

When will Israel fulfill its obligations under the several UN resolutions ordering it to cease its illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, which any reasonable person recognizes as a provocation -- deliberate or otherwise?

No rhetoric, excuses, or ideological claptrap: Answer the question.

A message from Jimmy Madison to Emet:
"There is no comparison between NARAL, NRA, Sierra Club, NAACP, etc, because all those groups lobby for Americans and not for a relationship with a foreign government. AIPAC should be a registered lobby as are the lobbies for UK, Canada, Saudi Arabia, etc."
Also, "I hate dual loyalty. I had my differences with George Washington but when he said that America should avoid entangling alliances, the old man was talking about Israel."
Then he said you are a dickweed (18th century term for a person who knows little but talks alot).

People who claim U.S. citizenship and who are members or supporters of AIPAC or ADL are practicing sedition and should be treated as such.

I also have problems with rhetoric that the Palestinian question is insoluble, but not having the audacity to call for Endloesung.

Don't quite get your meaning. Are you saying you have a problem with NOT calling for genocide??
I know you don't mean that.
I would point out that there are more than the two options of "unsolvable" and "genocide", as for example, "live with conflict" in perpetuity, if that's what it takes. So to say that those are the only two options falls victim to FALSE DILEMMA, which seems to be at epidemic proportions in public discourse.

Sometimes it helps to review thing we already know implicitly but fail to take into account when making a particular point.

We often assume that various groups --more or less--hold political sway over our government and that our government is a sort of tree which gets blown this or that way depending on the net forces that impinge on it. We want to believe this because it appeals to an idealized version of democracy that never really obtains in reality.

The truth of the matter is that those in government have a powerful tool at their disposal. They can shape and empower groups at will. So for example we hear that Bush has forked over BILLIONS of dollars to the religious right with his Faith Based initiative. So those in government shape what groups will be in the ascendancy and which will be allowed to wither in the vine.

A complicating factor in this symbiotic relationship is that opinion-makers---i.e. the media--often are responsible to some degree as to who gets elected to office and who not.

So it is a system of interlocking relationships that is at work here.

Given this picture, it turns out that it is quite possible that the system will favor a course of action for the nation that might not exactly be the best course of action to take. Iraq is an example that comes to mind.

Unless we find a way to rectify this method of allocating power, we run the risk of getting involved in things that are not in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

One final problem: when we talk about the best interests of our nation, we seem to get a warm and fuzzy feeling about some kind of "family". But the reality is that there is no "our nation". There are irreconcilable factions that vie for power all the time.
This makes it all the more difficult to determine what we mean when we say that a certain policy is "good for our nation". Who's national interest are we talking about? The Middle Class, the poor, the upper 1%, Catholics...etc. Hardly anything is going to be good for each and every one of us who are Americans.

Utilitarians opt for defining the "good" as that which results in the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people.

Rawls has other ideas.

Libertarians embrace the implied anarchy.

Our system suffers from lack of transparency as to what is to count as the national interest. It is no consolation that other systems tend to be even worse. But here is where I think there needs to be more discussion.

The Jewish communities in Judea/Samaria are not "illegal". The pre-1967 borders that MJ and so many in this group view as sacrosanct were never recognized by anyone as an international border. Judea/Samaria are viewed as "disputed territories". Someone claimed the World Court said they are "illegal", but I have no idea whether its rulings are viewed as obligatory.
The US State Department and Israeli Supreme Court have ruled they are not "illegal".
In any event all (and I mean ALL) Jews resident in Judea/Samaria/Gaza and eastern Jerusalem before 1948 were ethnically cleansed from the area. Who said that is "legal"?
UN Security Council Resolution 242 which was passed after the Six-Day War does not require a full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines.

I wasn't aware that it is "against the law" for US Citizens, who live under a Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech and assembly are forbidden to lobby for the interests of another country they feel a connection to. What about the Saudis, Kuwaitis and others who are pouring millions of dollars into various politicians pockets? Did you hear about the Jaguar car Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia gave to Former Secretary of State Colin Powell? The US has never sent its soldiers to fight for Israel, but they have fought in Kuwait and Iraq. What do you say about that? What about the official Greek Lobby in the US that has played a major role in pressuring the US to adopt policies friendly to the Greek Cypriots which led to strains the US relationship with NATO-ally Turkey? What about the Irish Lobby in the US which interfered with the traditional US/UK relationship? Why don't you get worked up over these US Citizens lobbying in behalf of other countries supposedly to the "detriment" of US foreign policy. Or is in only the Jews who have to be held up to your high standards?

Here is your answer!

Once again, you're promoting the now totally discredited racist Zionist lie about how the Palestinians are new comers in order to justify ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinians by Israelis.

Jews were NEVER a majority there, and NEVER in total political control. Even according to the best Zionist historiography, the Jews ruled the area for only 600 out of 6000 years of its history. And even that does not give any superior rights to land today to a bunch of racist occupiers from Russia or Brooklyn.

As Rabbis Face Facts, Bible Tales Are Wilting
Michael Massing
The New York Times
March 9, 2002

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions — the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years — have gained wide acceptance among non- Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity — until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures...

Jerry Nadler is, in fact, my congressman, and a very good congressman he is. There may be a fair number of misguided young Jews in Borough Park who have Avigdor Libermanish pro-ethnic-cleansing attitudes on "what to do with the Palestinians", in your revealing formulation. On the West Side of Manhattan...not so many. There, people tend to think that persecution and dispossession of another people is unlikely to be "good for the Jews".

Accumulating Peripherals

Well, well, well, there you have it! We have a newspaper article (which you have repeatedly posted, apparently you have no other material) that "proves" the Jewish Patriarchs never existed. Who are these "rabbis" who have granted "wide acceptance" of this nonsense?
I attended a conference of Biblical archaeologists who completely reject this point of view, but you don't seem to quote them. I guess the New York Times is more reputable in "scholarly circles" than the archaeologists I heard.
The United Synagogue only represents a small percentage of world Jewry and even if they adopt these ideas it doesn't grant any legitimacy to your point of view. I can also quote articles, even from the New York Times, saying there is no such thing as a Palestinian people, so you had better start accepting that idea!

Lieberman is in favor of transferring sovereignity of Arab towns in villages to Palestinian Authority control and sovereignity. How is that "ethnic cleansing"? Amos Shocken, the post-Zionist publisher of Ha'aretz (do you read his web site www.haaretz.com ?) recently also said Lieberman was a "racist" for advocating this transfer of sovereignity, but then in a separate editorial, he wrote that the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, which are also under Israeli sovereignity, just like the places Lieberman is talking about, should be transferred to Palestinian control! Why is it "racist" to transfer Um-el-Fahem to the Palestinians, but praiseworthy to transfer east Jerusalem?

ISRAEL TO DECIDE 2008 US PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

In the run-up to the 2008 US presidential elections, The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition JPost.com has invited central presidential contenders to respond to questions on matters of importance to Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world.

We will be sending out questions to the candidates every two weeks or so. We started out with a relatively general inquiry about the importance they attach to the US's strategic alliance with Israel and how, if elected, they would work to foster that alliance (see below). The questions will get more specific as the campaign heats up.

The first question was sent to John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson and Sam Brownback.

http://blogcentral.jpost.com/index.php?cat_id=4&blog_id=73&blog_post_id=1145

Ever write your one of your reps in the US Congress and wonder why they never have time to write back? That's because they're too busy sucking up to Israel. The presidential candidates are putting on a show for the big money interests, like AIPAC and don't have time for us peons.

greg bacon
ava, mo

bar - You are being cute again. You know very well that there is a major difference bewteen East Jerusalem and the territories Lieberman wants transferred. In the latter case, these arabs have Israeli citizenship that they would lose. In East Jerusalem very few arabs have Israeli citizenship because it was not given when Israel annexed the territory. Because of that most East Jerusalem arabs never undertook the onerous and obstacle ridden path to naturalization. That is the reason the Lieberman transfer and East Jerusalem are treated differently by many of us.

All east Jerusalem Arabs are entitled to all government benefits. They are entitled to automatic Israeli citizenship, if they want it. They do not have to go through a "naturalization" process. Even though they do not vote in national elections if they don't have the full citizenship, they can vote in municipal elections, but they don't, in general.
Again, as I have pointed out, Arabs are rushing to get Jerusalem residency status, and none are leaving ot live in the "liberated Palestinian territories". There must be some reason for this.

MJ and others love quoting polls. "Polls showed that a majority of Israelis supported destroying Gush Katif" and Sharon and Peres used that as an excuse to avoid calling an election or national referendum to get true legitimacy for their act. Polls, especially on complex issues don't mean anything. So what if "most American Jews" supposedly supported the Oslo disaster? Sharon called a Likud party referendum on the Gush Katif destruction proposal (he at first promised to honor the results, but when he lost overwhelmingly, he said he made a mistake in calling it and then ignored it). I worked as a volunteer
in the "NO" campaign. I was able to convince several people who at first said they were for it to change their mind, once I explained the facts. This is why Peres once said "elections are undemocratic(!)", since it gives his opponents a chance to make their case.
Most American Jews are not very well informed about what is going on in Israel and they are not on the front line of facing the consequences if everything goes sour, just as what happened with the Oslo and Sharon's "Disengagement" fiascos.
If MJ were to call some American Jew who has never been to Israel, and asks the following question : "Are you in favor of the agreement Rabin signed with Arafat in order to bring peace and an end to the Arab/Israeli conflict?" you will get a VERY different result than if MJ asked "Do you favor the Oslo agreement plan which brings well-know terrorist Arafat to Israel, arms him and gives him money, knowing he has broken every agreement he has every signed, leading to bloody wars in Lebanon and Jordan, and realizing he will likely do the same in Israel"? (which is, of course, what happened).
The fact is that more knowledgable Jews in America, who have stronger connections to Israel, such as the Orthodox community whom MJ dismisses as being a marginal group, are more "right-wing". The majority of Israelis are also "center-right". So please stop boring us with these meaningless polls.

bar - You are full of it. Automatic citizenship?????? You've got to be kidding. My niece works in the Ministry of Interior and she has seen exactly zero citizenship applications by East Jerusalem arabs approved since 1998 when she started working there.

Arabs are rushing to East Jerusalem to preserve their status as residents. It's the only place where there still is an economy and a way to earn a decent living. Entitled to all government benefits??????? Have you seen the disparity between arab and Jewish schools in East Jerusalem???? It's even worse than in places like Haifa. Stop drinking the kool-aid. Israel isn't perfect and you lose credibility when your responses are pure propaganda.

From June 7 ECONOMIST:
Israel's 40 Wasted Years

ON THE seventh day Jews everywhere celebrated Israel's deliverance from danger. But 40 years after that tumultuous June of 1967, the six-day war has come to look like one of history's pyrrhic victories. That is not to say that the war was unnecessary. Israel struck after Egypt's President Nasser sent his army into the Sinai peninsula, evicted United Nations peacekeeping forces and blockaded Israeli shipping through the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel's victory opened the waterway and smashed its enemies' encircling armies, averting what many Israelis sincerely expected to be a second Holocaust. And yet, in the long run, the war turned into a calamity for the Jewish state no less than for its neighbours.

But you never phoned

Part of the trouble was the completeness of the triumph. Its speed and scope led many Israelis to see a divine hand in their victory. This changed Israel itself, giving birth to an irredentist religious-nationalist movement intent on permanent colonisation of the occupied lands (see article). After six days Israel had conquered not just Sinai and the Syrian Golan Heights but also the old city of Jerusalem and the West Bank—the biblical Judea and Samaria where Judaism began. In theory, these lands might have been traded back for the peace the Arabs had withheld since Israel's founding. That is what the UN Security Council proposed in Resolution 242. But Israelis were intoxicated by victory and the Arabs paralysed by humiliation. The Arabs did not phone to sue for peace and Israel did not mind not hearing from them. Instead, it embarked on its hubristic folly of annexing the Arab half of Jerusalem and—in defiance of law, demography and common sense—planting Jewish settlements in all the occupied territories to secure a Greater Israel.

The six-day war changed the Palestinians too. They had been scattered by the fighting that accompanied Israel's founding in 1948. Some fled beyond Palestine; others became citizens of the Jewish state or lived under Egypt in Gaza and Jordan in the West Bank. The 1967 war reunited them under Israeli control and so sharpened their own thwarted hunger for statehood. When, decades later, Egypt and Jordan did make peace with Israel, the Palestinians did not recover Gaza and the West Bank. This has left some 4m Palestinians desperate for independence but in a confined land choked by Jewish settlements—along with the fences, checkpoints and all the hardships and indignities of military occupation. Ariel Sharon, it is true, dragged Israel out of the Gaza Strip two years ago. But so what? The Palestinians will not consider peace unless they get the West Bank and Arab Jerusalem too. And Hamas, the Islamists who now run what passes for a Palestinian government, says it will not make a permanent peace even then.

Is there a way out? Yes: but making peace will take courage, and too much of the energy that should have gone into peacemaking has been squandered on the blame game. There is, admittedly, plenty of blame to go round. What right had the British, in 1917, to promise the Jews a national home in Palestine? Why did the Palestinians reject partition in 1947? Why did Israel colonise the territories after 1967? Why did the Americans let Israel get away with it? Why did the Arab states leave the refugees to fester in camps? The Palestinians are terrorists, Zionism is racism, Israel's enemies are anti-Semites. Yasser Arafat should have accepted Israel's “generous offer” at Camp David in 2000. But, hang on, Israel's offer was not so generous...

And so the quarrel spins, growing more bitter with each revolution and spreading far beyond the Middle East. What started as a national struggle between two peoples for one land is gradually, and often wilfully, being transformed into a war of religion, feeding poison into the wounded relations between Islam and the West as a whole. It is scandalous that the occupation has persisted since 1967. This conflict should have been resolved long ago, and its continuation is an indictment of all involved, from the warring parties for their intransigence, to regional powers that have exploited the Palestinian cause for self interest, to the great powers for their lack of sustained attention. It should end—but how?

It's not rocket science

The answer has been obvious at least since 1937, when a British royal commission under Lord Peel reported that “an irrepressible conflict” had arisen between the Arabs and Jews of Palestine and that the country would have to be partitioned. More recently, the manner of the division has become obvious too. Despite all Israel's settlements, demography and justice still point to a border based on the pre-1967 lines, with minor adjustments of the sort Bill Clinton suggested in 2000.

As Mr Clinton's failure at Camp David demonstrated, securing agreement for such a deal will be hard. The Clinton solution would require Israel to give up the bulk of its settlements in the West Bank, uproot a great many more settlers than it did in Gaza and share sovereignty over Jerusalem. The Palestinians would have to accept that most refugees would “return” not to their homes of 60 years ago inside Israel but to a new state in the West Bank and Gaza. Such compromises will hurt. But for either side to give less and demand more will merely tip the difficult into the impossible.

Right now both continue to offer too little and demand too much. Israel has at least abandoned the dream of a Greater Israel that bewitched it after the great victory of 1967. The illusion that the Palestinians would fall into silence has been shattered by two intifadas and every rocket Hamas fires from Gaza. Israel's present government says it is committed to a two-state solution. But it is a weak government, and has lacked the courage to spell out honestly the full territorial price Israelis must pay. The Palestinians have meanwhile gone backwards. If Hamas means what it says, it continues to reject the idea that Jews have a right to a national existence in the Middle East.

What self-defeating madness. For peace to come, Israel must give up the West Bank and share Jerusalem; the Palestinians must give up the dream of return and make Israel feel secure as a Jewish state. All the rest is detail.

The Orthodox community is 10%.
Utterly irrelevant and utterly uninvolved in American life.
(With the exception of Joe "Israel First" Lieberman).
I was at the AIPAC conference. 80% of the men there wore kipot. The students were mostly yeshiva kids.
These people are typical of nobody.
Bar Kochba and Emet18 are recent immigrants to this country and, one of them, is not even a citizen.
So who is AIPAC: former Israelis who left Israel to avoid military service, Orthodox Jews, Jewish Republicans, and yeshiva bochers.
Go to any campus. Most Jewish kids are indifferent to Israel. Of the ones who care about it, 75% are leftist pro-Meretz. The tiny rest are AIPAC loudmouths.
Ignore the minority of fanatics.
They count but only because they bribe Congress!

Nadler is also my congressman and I agree that he is a very good congressman. His range of interests is large and by any definition he is liberal or even further left Democrat. However, he is not going to sell out Israel to make a lot of Leftists happy.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Daniel G typifies the extreme right of the Jewish community. He says MJ is hostile to Israel. Hilarious. I think MJ has been involved professionally working to secure peace for Israel his entire life.
MJ is anti-Israel the way Willy Brandt and the White Rose were anti-German.
Daniel G can draw from that any inference he wants. He is a classic "Good German" who will fling invective at anyone who works to secure peace for Israel.
Daniel G, if Israel ever goes down, it will be you and your mindless chauvinist right wing ilk that is responsible for it. Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad have no better friend that Daniel G, Enemy of the Jewish People

I, BarKochba, don't understand what you are saying. What country do you claim I live in and who is not a citizen of what country? In order to clarify, I was born and raised in the US. I made aliyah to Israel 20+ years ago.

I am not sure what your point when you keep claiming Orthodox Jews are marginal. They are certainly a major factor within the Jewish community in the US.
If Jewish kids are "indifferent" to Israel, then why is the Birthright Program which brings previously unaffiliated young Jews to visit Israel so popular? Most previously indifferent young Jews that I have encountered get turned on to Israel and Jewish identity once they actually visit. Lack of information is the biggest problem. The large majority of informed Jews and Jews who have a strong connection to Israel (e.g. children who have studied there, those who visit frequently, etc) are more right-wing oriented.
If AIPAC were truly being the manipulating arm of an insignificant fringe group as you claim, why has no counter lobbying group been formed? As I understand, most of the really big Jewish billionaires give very little to Jewish causes or Israel, so why don't they open an anti-AIPAC lobby that supports US distancing itself from Israel? Soros talked about it, they certainly wouldn't lack for money, they could ally themselves with the Saudis and Gulf States lobby which is pouring huge amounts of money into the US political system, e.g. the millions Carter, Bush I, Clinton and others received. That, according to you, would be a very powerful counter lobby. The only problem is that what you are saying is incorrect. AIPAC has influence not because of some nefarious Orthodox Jewish conspiracy, but because it reflects both US Jewry's and general American public opinion's pro-Israel leanings.

WHEN OIL AND WATER MIX

05/26/07 "ICH" -- -- -The concoction becomes lethal. America’s relentless drive to dominate the Middle East and its oil, blends well with Israel’s insatiable appetite for water and unstoppable expansion. It is said that oil and water do not mix – but when they do, it becomes a lethal concoction with no easy solution. The fatal blend engulfing the Middle East today seems to have no end in sight other than darker clouds showering more innocent blood.

In an astonishing interview[ii], the world renowned Israeli military strategist, Martin Van Creveld, whose books are required reading for the U.S. Army officers, revealed that there was “no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us. We cannot say so too openly, however, because we have a history of using any threat in order to get weapons. And it works beautifully: Thanks to Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from U.S. and Germany. I think some people in Israel are deliberately exaggerating our fears because it prompts the response, "Oh, those poor Jews. They're going to have the Holocaust again. Give them weapons"[iii].

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17772.htm

And there it is: Two countries, one with an addiction to oil and the other, addicted to stealing the land and water resources of other countries.

Two junkies with nuclear weapons; weapons they are more than willing to use. And these two claim the moral high ground and warn other countries to not pursue nuclear technology or we will destroy you.
Soon, the USA will be involved in another illegal and immoral war, this time against Iran. And the "Likudniks" in Israel will sit back, laugh and have a glass of wine. Toasting their success in setting off this war between Christians and Muslims. With Israel waiting in the wings to scoop up the spoils.

MJ, here is the old "Jews, the warmongers of the world" canard. Just like the 1930's. What is your response?

bar - Why do you think comments pointing out what we perceive to mistakes and dishonest motives by Israel in certain situations is attacking Jews and Israel. I'm Jewish and I have dozens of relatives in Israel and the West Bank. Do I want them killed? Of course not. But I have made 35 trips to Israel in the last few decades including my first one in 1956 and I know a thing or two about Israel.

You have a point of view and opinions - fine. You express them here. Not everyone agrees with your opinions and you are NOT omniscient.Not everything you say is grounded in fact. Your comment about East Jerusalem arabs having automatic citizenship is bullshit and you know it. The same is true of your comment that East Jerusalem arabs enjoy the same government services as Jerusalem Jews. Pure unadulterated BS.

Just because some of us Jews are willing to examine issues that are important but may be unflattering to Israel does not make us anti-semetic or self-hating Jews. Perhaps where you live no one is critical of Israeli political and military decisions, but that is not true in the US or the most of the rest of Israel.

So please continue to post your thoughts, ideas and opinions here at TPM. Just don't be surprised or frightened when we don't agree. By the way, it was my relatives who responded to Sharon's call to grab the hilltops in November, 1998 as a result of his opposition to Wye River. We'll have to see how that opinion turns out, so far I don't think it looks so good.

That was worth more than just a guffaw...worth a chortle as well.  Had I been home, the laugh would have scared the cat.

aMike

Like I said, even taking Zionist historiography at face value, it does not give some guy from Brooklyn or Russia a superior right to land and the excuse for ethnic cleansing. If you don't like what the Rabbis say, go argue with them.

Personal attacks and insults also tend to indicate you are done with a debate, presumably because you are unable to come up with anything more creative.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Treat your enemy as an honored guest" [Miyamoto Musashi]

"When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." [Winston Churchill]

Mr. Rosenberg, do I correctly infer that you agree with what I have repeatedly stated,(even as some here have falsely accused me of advocating genocide): namely, that the only realistic avenue to an enduring peace is the Clinton--Barak plan of 2001, the same one approvingly cited in the article you have reprinted?

"such as the militarily disproportionate response in Lebanon"

Did Israel ever have militarily proportionate response in any other confflict?

What's the best example of militarily proportionate response in simular cucumstances by any other contry, that Israel should use as example inthe next conflict ?

"the Palestinians must give up the dream of return and make Israel feel secure as a Jewish state."

How ?

Israel's own history provides a recipe for a proportionate response in Lebanon.

Israel could have restored the "security zone" which it held for decades in South Lebanon. Probably nobody would have objected too much.

Instead Israel engaged in saturation bombing of Beirut, which was batshit insane.

"Answer the question"
Never. Next question?

MJ, this is an interesting article and one that I am (or maybe that until recently I was) inclined to agree with. However, I am increasingly concerned that the two-state solution that we've all been advocating is in reality an impossible solution. It seems so simple that (as the article says) "Israel must give up the West Bank and share Jerusalem; the Palestinians must give up the dream of return and make Israel feel secure as a Jewish state." But what if this is too simple to be realistic? If this compromise is more than either party can accept? I can't see Israel at this stage fully giving up the West Bank or sharing Jerusalem. Nor do I see the Palestinians totally giving up the right of return or being satisfied with just 20% of historical Palestine (and that 20% not even being contiguous). I fear that all the advocating for a two-state solution is now simply delusion. There is already a one-state solution (Jewish state, no Palestinian state). I fear that the idea of a two-state solution is now acting as cover for the right in Israel--allowing them to continue to pursue their goal of a one-state solution with the Palestinians marginalized (at best) or (if the most extreme on the right prevail) expelled. Meanwhile the lack of progress for the Palestinians (exacerbated by the delusion of a "roadmap" toward some two-state solution) only results in further radicalization and violence. If advocacy for a two-state solution is a massive exercise in self-delusion is it any longer helpful? Or is it actually harmful--a way of pretending that the truth isn't what the truth is. A convenient cover for the right--and a comforting delusion for the left?

In this same thread, I wrote that polls that are used to push some political position by using the argument "see, my position is supported by the 'majority'" are essentially meaningless.
First, I don't know who Shikaki is, but I do recall that his polls always show that there is a "majority" for whatever the current position of the Abbas and the so-called "Palestinian Authority" is. When Arafat was still alive, the "majority" was always for an ongoing suicide bombing campaign and against giving up the so-called "right of return". Now, since Abbas's position, as opposed to that of HAMAS's, is supposedly for the "2-state solution", then Shikaki shows a "majority" for that. Polls taken in a semi-totalitarian society like that of the Palestinians are even more problematic than the misleading polls published in Israel.
People who are being polled know that some higher-up with power might know what their answer is, and if it is "unpatriotic", there might be serious repercussions.

Similarly, these polls regarding Israelis positions on mythical, messianic political "solutions" to the Arab/Israeli conflict are meaningless. MJ himself says that there is a "majority" for giving up everything outside the pre-67 lines in return for "airtight" security guarantees. BUT ,everyone realizes that there is no such thing. All the polls that MJ and others who supported destroying Gush Katif claimed show a "majority" for that criminal act always was based on the unstated assumption that it would lead to quiet, because this is what Sharon and his gang (which were from the fearsome "right-wing Likud", if you will recall) promised. If you asked "are you for destroying Gush Katif, assuming that it will bring the extreme Islamists to power which will then lead to increased rocket fire on Sederot and Ashkelon [which is what indeed happened, as we on the Right predicted] and a war", you would get a majority against. In fact, polls now say a "majority" say the whole thing was a bad mistake.

If, as MJ says, everyone is "sick of the status quo", then why did HAMAS who explicity promises war until complete victory win the Palestinian election?

MJ, I hope that there is still hope for some solution that allows both peoples to share the land and live in peace. But honestly, I am beginning to worry that the conventional two-state solution (i.e., 1967 borders more or less, with a divided Jerusalem, and no right of return, but some compensation for Palestinian refugees) is not achievable. If this is the case, continuing to advocate for it only prolongs the problem.

Maybe we need some kind of massive effort to come up with new ideas. How about, for instance, some kind of federation of two states, one Jewish, one Palestinian, the citizens of which have equal freedom to live, move, and conduct business all over historic Palestine? Each state could maintain its own identity and have control over certain civil policy (including citizenship), but they would have common foreign and economic policies. This solution would allow the Jewish state to continue to exist as a Jewish (not multinational) state, but still give the Palestinians the right to live and do business on the land that they historically have occupied. Maybe it's completely unworkable--but it does seem to offer the possibility of giving both parties a lot of what they want (maybe more completely than can be achieved through two completely separate states dividing up a tiny sliver of land). I imagine others have other ideas--maybe much better ideas. But I would like to make a plea that we don't all get so fixated on a solution that we haven't been able to implement after decades of trying that we can't see other, possibly more workable, alternatives.

#1. Yes. Preempting the Egyptian air force in 1967, using appropriate weapons on a clearly military target, without any sense of retaliation or revenge.
#2. I'm not going to answer about other countries because you rarely are satisfied with an answer, but keep asking questions to support a tu quoque defense. Tu quoque is the idea, in international law, that any action is defensible if someone else did it; it translates to "you, too"!

Tu quoque has the ability to bring all nations down to the level of the worst. It is the antithesis of just war theory, in which actions need to be appropriate and ethical, within the context of the ethics of war. Rather than ask for examples, I suggest you read up on just war theory. Grotius, Augustine, and Aquinas were early pioneers. Later ideas are incorporated into the Lieber Code, and the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

"You got a problem with that? Take it up with Johnny Jay, Alex Hamilton and Jimmy Madison who encouraged as many factions as could be conceived--just like NARAL ProChoice America, the Sierra Club, Emily's List, the NAACP, and AIPAC two centuries later-- to do exactly that."

Lobbyists representing Israel, like AIPAC, have not had to register as agents representing a foreign government. Other groups, like the ones you've mentioned, have had to register or face fines.

What makes Israeli lobbyists so special that they can stay out of sight and not have to divluve their activities?

Maybe it's their Nuclear Weapons doctrine, as stated so eloquently by Martin van Creveld, the professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

"We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions," van Creveld declared in an interview in September 2003. "We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under."

Call it blackmail. Call it a threat. Or call it a cold, hard fact.
But, what should one expect from a nation--Israel--that makes it a policy for its snipers to shoot kids in the head?

greg bacon
ava, mo

My suggested alternative is a military garrison in Israel . Including us..

Israel’s security policy of massive retaliation against an attacker’s population and infrastructure is understandable and effective but also counter productive.

And a danger to us .If the Israelis and Palestinians had been living peacefully for the preceding 20 years , does anyone think 9/11 would have happened ?. Sure OBL had lots of bees in his bonnet but the sustained effort required to put Mohammed Atta and his fellow assassins into those four cockpits was fueled by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Which will also be true of the next attack on us . And the one after that. .

Israel’s safety-and ours- requires its being convinced that it does not suffer from an existential threat . Not a treaty , not a UN resolution. Boots on the ground. Soldiers stationed in Israel . Ours.

Not so much to counter Sharon’s fear of a half day tank drive from the Jordan to the beach . Rather because then an attack on Israel would automatically trigger a massive response from us. Which is why our derisory force in Cold War Germany provided security to the Europeans even tho it was a tenth of the Soviet one .

I’ve suggested several times , to universal derision , that we relocate our useless
US establishment from Europe to Israel . Or rather a serious chunk of it. Say a brigade. The rules of engagement being to assist in defending Israel against external attack. And only that.

It could instead be a Nato or UN force but only if it includes a large enough US component to guaranty that an attack on Israel would automatically create retaliation from the full US military . Ahmadinejab might be willing to contemplate the destruction of Tehran ( I doubt it) but his surrounding religious establishment is made up of mullahs not martyrs...

I can't, nobody can.

Yet you suggested it!

If you believe the US military is useless, how would it deter anything? Incidentally, a brigade is a rather small chunk of the US military, and also is not meant to be a self-contained force.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Is this to provide security after a political agreement (for two states, presumably) has been achieved? I don't see us guarding Israel's borders unless it's in the context of a wider peace deal.

Davai's question about what we'd do in response to a Hizbollah strike is actually a good one. If there wasn't a comprehensive peace agreement in place, I'm afraid we might just get sucked into the violence.

Hezbollah does not present an "existential threat" to Israel, period. You may be surprised to learn that there are ISRAELI MILITARY ANALYSTS who don't even believe that Iran constitutes such a danger. Of course, these people with actual military/security experience are not politicians or political wannabes who are popular with the American media and thinktanks.

BTW, "Hisbolla's" leader doesn't have a permanent residence and Hezbollah's security precautions have thwarted attempts by Israelis to get reliable intel about his whereabouts. Multiple invasions and occupations of Lebanon by Israel and the co-operation of Lebanse Christian and Shiite factions have taught Hezbollah well. They've had plenty of practice in dealing with Israel's security services and their proxies.

MENL aka the Middle East News Line has a little notice that the IAF is in the process of applying some lessons learned by the stupid summer war:

"The Israel Air Force has sought to revise policy on the
use of munitions against insurgency and low-signature targets.
The study was meant to learn the lessons of the war against Hizbullah inmid-2006 when the air force conducted a reported 15,500 sorties and failed to destroy the Iranian-backed militia's short-range rocket arsenal.

Within two weeks, the air force depleted its smart munitions and most of its general purpose bombs.

"We were using smart weapons freely without any regard to our supplies," a senior officer said.

The air force study was meant to determine what weapons would be required for low-signature and conventional warfare targets. Officials said the airforce would also seek to draft standards on collateral damage when battling insurgents in an urban area."
==============

It will be interesting to follow these developments.