Nice summary of all the illusions you and the "progressives" labor under.
I do agree with you that there is no point in pretending there is a major differences between Abbas and HAMAS, there isn't. They want the same thing, i.e. the eradication of Israel, but they have different ideas about how to go about it and they each want the incoming aid money for themselves and their cronies, and they may disagree about the role of Islam in their societies, but ideologically, regarding Israel, there is no signficant difference.
Your claim that Abbas can sign a peace agreement with Israel is nonsense. Even if he wanted to (and he most certainly does NOT), he couldn't because he is not a free agent. All the neighboring Arab states plus Iran have their fingers in the pie. If he really were to sign such an agreement giving up vital Arab demands like a full "right of return" he would be denounced as a traitor and everyone would be demanding his head. What the Arabs want, including Egypt, with its phony "peace agreement" is an ongoing war of attrition with Israel (note Egypt's ongoing flooding of the Gaza Strip with weapons, for example).
You claim he could sign an agreement based on the Taba talks in 2001 or the Geneva document. ARAFAT TURNED THE TABA TERMS DOWN FLAT. Why do you think Abbas could accept them? He would be accused of betraying Arafat's legacy.
Your claim is that "Abbas could deliver". FANTASY. This is because "HAMAS is no longer in the gov't". Who cares who is sitting in the Palestinian 'government'? IT HAS NO MORAL AUTHORITY among the Palestinians. Bismarck once stated something like "blood and iron determine a nation's future, not majority votes in parliaments". HAMAS has a strong presence with weapons even in Judea/Samaria and Abbas has ALWAYS refused to disarm them or crack down on them, even before they won the election to their parliament when he still had total control of their gov't.
MJ then says there will be a "referendum" to ratify this supposed agreement. Who has the right to vote? The Arabs in Judea/Samaria/Gaza or do we have to include the supposedly millions of Palestinians outside these territories. Many will say they have the right to vote since it involves their fate as well, by giving up the "Right of return". And what if it passes, will the losers accept it, or will it ignite a civil war. After all, Abbas himself has ignored the results of the elections that brought HAMAS to power by illegally disbanding their gov't. Even after they won the election , FATAH refused to hand over many levers of power. Thus, a referendum over such a sensitive matter could never be held or honored if it was carried out..

MJ and his fellow "progressives" refuse to see the truth...there is NO possibility of there being a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in the foreseeable future. Most Israelis understand this. It is about time that MJ do so as well.

This General Oron you quote seems to be as deluded as the other "progressives". She says she would "encourage Egypt, Saudia Arabia and South Africa (?!) to bring about a FATAH - HAMAS reconciliation". What does she think has been going on for a year? Didn't the Saudi's with their gigabucks negotiate an agreement between the two leading to forming a "national-unity gov't". How long did that last? Did it ever work? She is typical of Israeli Leftists in the Establishment--they project their own hopes and dreams onto the Arabs and then convince themselves "if I were an Arab, I would do what the Israeli Left thinks is in their best interests". This is typical of the old Labor Party Socialist ideology (and that of the "progressives" here) that says "really, everybody in the world is the same and has the same values and if we just educate them they will end up being like us". A good example of these delusions is the belief that the Arab intelligentsia would be for peace because the Israeli intelligentsia is for peace since it is (wrongly) believed that educated people are more "universalistic" or less "nationalistic". That may be indeed true in Europe, the US, or Israel, but it is NOT true in the Arab world. In reality, the Arab intelligentsia is MORE extreme than the less educated parts of Arab society.

Two in a row!

To me, MJ's analysis seems naive.

There's no reason to assume that Bush's speech had anything to do with solving the Israeli-Palestinian controversy. To the contrary -- it's intention is to further isolate Hamas and to be able to later charge it -- and especially, Iran -- with undermining the "roadmap" or the "peace process" or whatever it will be called this Fall when it all, as expected, falls apart.

One more black mark against Iran to put in its "permanent record."

I suspect the speech will prove most effective in achieving the goals it was intended to achieve.

Deluded peaceniks ALWAYS refuse to honestly debate skeptics like bar_kochba or myself.  Time and again, we rebut point by point the fallacies, fantasies and fictions posted virtually every day here and elsewhere.  The typical response is either an ad hominem insult or else ignores the arguments altogether.

Still a pathetic coward.  And now one guilty of moral equivalence as well.  So supporting the Jewish communities in the West Bank is now the same morally as supporting al Qaeda.

Disgusting.

The fact is that bar_kochba overstates his case.  But he debates honestly and engages your arguments.  You are too much of a wuss to do the same.

Hey, brave Brad, what's your real name and who do you work for? We all know you have a high enough testosterone level to produce kids, but seemingly not enough to sign your name to your posts. For all we know, you are a plant who posts here only to help disprove the canard that all Jews are bright.

HA!

Damn it!

I can't do this today; real work beckons like a screaming baby at 3 am. Will everyone just chill!!!!

MJ has drafted a comprehensive overview of what is going on with respect to current peace efforts. There are lots of different viewpoints.

Everybody, take a deep breath, think of little sugar plums and stuff, and rethink where we want this weekend thread to go.

Man there is a lot of stuff in this piece. As just one example I haven't read Michael Oren's latest piece in the WSJ that MJ cites too. Has anyone else? Maybe somebody else has and can tell us about it.

Who says I am against peace?

Certainly, not I. I said you were against a "peace agreement."

bar_kochba: I would oppose such an agreement . . . as much as I might object.

That may have been where I got the idea. Ya think?

I'm throwing the bullshit flag on this, but I hardly think it's necessary.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but all of bar_kochba's posts generally come across as vile and insane. They're also remarkably monotonous, which is the big sin.

The typical bar_kochba post is usually involves a rant about evil and corrupt palestinians, evil and corrupt arab governments which oppress their own people, some paranoid ode to impending genocide, an apocalyptic vision or two. Kochba saves particular ire for those traitors within Israel and America (the 'left') who undermine Israel by projecting their own delusions onto Arabs, not realizing how awful and subhuman they are. Of course, the left is itself awful, subhuman and hate filled. And usually there's room left at the end for a personal attack on MJRosenberg.

Bar_Kochba's posts only accidentally relate to the topic he's posting on. It seems that he's obsessive in his message and doesn't care all that much about the details he's allegedly responding to. He's merely repeating his message.

To be truthful, the only significant variation in Bar_Kochba's posts is his length. Sometimes its a hundred words, sometimes its a few hundred. It's tedious and uninteresting. Having read a few dozen, I realized that they were all the same that that they would be the same ever after. So I stopped reading them.

I do, from time to time, post an acknowledgement so that Bar_Kochba will not feel that he's speaking into a void. So basically, I'm trying to be nice to him.

But generally, I don't think that should go so far as to actually have to read his stuff.

For you, Ellen...

When oh when will you guys get it - Israel does not want peace. Israel wants land.
Here, take a look at this map (link) and let the facts speak for themselves.

Please back off, Valdron. You're taunting him.

The only thing that map says is that the Palestinian Aabs should have accepted the offers of statehood in 1937 and 1948. By constantly rejecting every single offer they end up with less and less.

And you're just as much of a wimp as MJ Rosenberg.  Engage the arguments.

The evidence that the Arabs aren't serious about a true peace with Israel is MUCH stronger than the thin wisps of evidence that they are.  Why is it "bullshit" to point that out?

And please don't respond by saying that Israel does this or that, or isn't serious itself.  That's changing the subject.  The topic is Arab attitudes.  Why do you think they are ready for peace?

That's it! Chickenhawks like BradtheDad will never tell it to the Marines! Keep pressing him to tell us his name. Any guy whose only claim to fame is his sperm count must be one tough hombre.

Absolutely no one should be challenged at this site to give up his anonymity, give his "real name" or do anything that would identify himself and cause possible harm or retaliation upon himself. Brad has never claimed to be anything but a private citizen as most posters at this site are and for you to torment him and accuse him of cowardice is wrong. This is your job, you've made yourself a public figure and you must take the negative comments about your work as well as the positive comments. Brad is under no obligation to do the same and neither is any other poster.

This isn't your site, and you have no right to demand that posters be barred, give up their anonymity, be censored or be ignored by other posters in any way, shape or form.

Bev, I can't demand anything. But I can point to the obvious distinction between those of us who stand by our work and those who don't. And I will.

This is a blog, Bev. It ain't life or death. If I
wasn't the clever phrasemaker that I am, I would resort to the utterly trite, "get a life." But I won't.
Have an intense weekend.

PS. You ask where it will all end. I can only respond with the famous poem that addresses the issues raised by my calling for a ban on the talented BradtheDad. Where, indeed, will it end?

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnt

I often disagree with bar_kochba132, and provacative as he is, he does provoke thought. What do you offer, Valdron? A clever turn of an occasional phrase, you are indeed blessed with the ability to articulate some degree of humor in written form. Not an easy talent to cultivate. Unfortunately, this particular manifestation of talent is wasted on an otherwise mean and insipid dullard. You add nothing of substance to the discussion in terms of reasoned perspective, supported argument or enlightened observation. Some great insults, though -- if that's one's idea of a good time.

I guess it's not part of the software, but I really wish this forum had Ignore User functionality.

Yeah its their fault that Israel kept taking their land from them...

Of course, you're LYING again, bar_kochba132.

According to Israel's own chief negotiator Gilad Sher, at Camp David the Palestinians presented a map of the West Bank as they envisioned it in a peace accord, as reported in his Just Beyond Reach: The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Negotiations 1999-2001, published in Hebrew in Israel in 2002. Contrary to popular belief and American-Israeli spin, the Palestinians did in fact make a counter-offer at Camp David. It was Barak who rejected the Palestinian proposal...
A similar Palestinian counter-proposal was also presented at the final round of peace talks in Taba on Jan. 23, 2001, showing Palestinian acceptance of Israel's annexation of 3.5% of the West Bank (compared to Israel's Taba proposal of 6%). The Camp David map also showed that the Palestinians accepted the idea of a land swap, under which Israel would incorporate West Bank settlements in exchange for land of equal size and value. Barak had proposed larger settlement blocs, and an unequal exchange of territory.

SOURCE: Barak’s Chief Negotiator Gilad Sher Explodes The Myth of Camp David: The Palestinians Made A Counter-Offer, [PDF] Analysis and Translation from the Hebrew by Gidon D. Remba

Proof yet again that Israel does not want peace, Israel wants land.

Brad, I don't understand why you are so angry. I have never in my life heard anyone say that Israel would be amenable to the peace terms that BK proposes. That is what I thought was bullshit. It is not a criticism of Israel, just a misrepresentation of the state of the world--in other words, bullshit.

I'm not going to get in an argument with a troll. It's a waste of time for everyone involved.

I disagree and I'm sure you're not beholden to that position either. Everyone who has access to the internet does not have a right to post on this site. Sites like these, i.e. political sites, really don't function unless the community is coherent. Trolls like davai, bar_kochba, and abdul-hass are just here to destroy the coherence of the community. I wouldn't be in favor of banning Bradthedad, but those three need to go.

MJR, I've a lot of complaints about Brad's opinions, but I don't think it's at all fair to raise the anonymity issue. (He also keeps a less loony level of dialogue than BK, although he did wrongly lose his temper here and call you a name.) Plenty of posters make up a screen name, and there's plenty of conventional support for it.

Brad gives his first name, which is all one could ask. It's at least as explicit as the abbreviated names most of us fall back since we figure registering demands it. Nor do I worry about people who go further to come up with a cute or ideological identifier. At least we know what extreme Zionista belongs to, right? I admit that the "the Dad" has an implicit claim of moral high ground that grates on me, but again that's entirely his prerogative. I think we'd a discussion when Etzioni used screen names as an excuse to avoid us.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

I have never in my life heard anyone say that Israel would be amenable to the peace terms that BK proposes.

Then you just don't know very much, do you?  Four times, in 1937, 1947, 1979 and 2000-2001, Israel has been amenable to a partition of the land.  Four times it was rejected by the Arabs.  The Arab world is unstinting in its demonization of Israel.  Bar-kochba's point is that if there were evidence that Arab attitudes had really changed, Israel would be ready immediately to make peace.  That's ALWAYS been true.

Why did the Camp David Accords happen in 1978-1979?  Do you think Israel would have given back the Sinai if Egypt's leadership took the same attitude as the current Palestinian leadership?  No f**** way.  What made Camp David possible was Sadat.  He went to Jerusalem.  He spoke to the Knesset.  He engaged Israelis and said he understood their fears and was ready to make peace.  No other Arab leader, with the possible exception of King Hussein of Jordan, has EVER done that.  Why?  Well even if they wanted to, all they have to do is look at what happened to Sadat.

I admit that the "the Dad" has an implicit claim of moral high ground that grates on me

LOL!  Actually it's just what my Dad called me when my first child was born.  No claims of moral superiority need be inferred.

The demand that I reveal my real name has to be, hands down, the silliest, most infantile thing I've ever seen on this or any other site that purports to discuss issues seriously.  It's illustrative of why I maintain that MJ Rosenberg is a pathetic coward - intellectually unserious, sanctimonious and immature. 

What's sad about all this is that underlying all his cant, there's a serious position waiting to come out.  One that is worth engaging and debating on the merits.  But every time anyone does that forcefully, he doesn't respond, choosing instead to play to the peanut gallery and call you a "Likudnik" or a "neocon".

It is long overdue, keep hope alive.

So, on Israel-Palestine, I will not address anything written by fact-free ethnic nationalists like Bar Kochba, Davai, BradtheDad, the now disappeared Daniel Greenbaum, and a few others.

What makes you think this represents a change?  You are already too much of a wimp to address anything that doesn't conform to your already fixed in stone beliefs.   

Furthermore, only someone trapped in a far-left bubble would call me a "Meir Kahane type".  Kahane, let's remember, advocated the forcible removal of all Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza, something that I and everyone else here would consider a moral travesty.

But it's all the same to you isn't it?  Anyone to the right of you is a Nazi.  Anyone who isn't for immediate unilateral surrender to the Arabs is an "ethnic nationalist". 

What's hilarious about the "ethnic nationalist" charge is that you call yourself a Zionist.  It's pretty hard to be a Zionist and not be an ethnic nationalist of some sort.  I'm reminded of the quote attributed to F. Scott Fitzgerald: "The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."  By that standard, you are Einstein.

What thoughts does bar_kochba provoke? Are there actually ideas behind his invective laiden diatribes? Is there a glimmer of a notion here or there that makes it worth wading through the spew?

What do you offer, Valdron? A clever turn of an occasional phrase, you are indeed blessed with the ability to articulate some degree of humor in written form.

Isn't that enough?

Unfortunately, this particular manifestation of talent is wasted on an otherwise mean and insipid dullard. You add nothing of substance to the discussion in terms of reasoned perspective, supported argument or enlightened observation.

Insipid dullard? Wow, keep that up and people will start telling us to get a room.

What is there to add to this discussion, Zionista? Seriously. What is there that is meaningful for anyone to contribute that can be heard over the incessant hate-filled screeching of a bar_kochba, the unthinking racism of a davai.

For pity's sake, Zionista, have you paid attention to any of these endless Palestinian/Israel threads? Haven't you noticed that they always go the same way with the same cast of characters arguing over the same buzzwords, throwing the same lies and accusations. Has there been a single f*cking palestine/israel thread that ever turned out to be contructive, that didn't amount to voices shouting past each other?

And what about you? Aren't you in there occasionally shouting past, raising the same old same olds, staking your ground and dishing out the usual worn out arguments. What the hell do you ever bring to the table that anyone ever needed to hear, much less wanted to hear?

So kiss my ass. You want insipid dullards, look to a mirror. The difference between you and Bar_Kochba is merely that you're slightly more sane and civil. It's a difference I approve of, but don't push me.

Every goddammed Israel/Palestine thread degenerates into farce, and it will keep on degenerating into farce, largely because of the efforts of posts like those of Bar_Kochba, and with the eager and willing toleration of those posts by people like you who enjoy the spew but don't have the guts to indulge it themselves.

Well cry me a river.

In a situation like that, do you know what the only meaningful contribution is? What the only meaningful contribution can be?

Mockery and contempt.

So fill up.

So we can have a sympathy party of all like-minded folk here? MJ is not going to engage with those who "are entirely driven by their ethnic identity?"

It is precisely those who are motivated by their partisanship who are creating a good part of the problem and it is their arguments that need to be addressed.

Abdul Hass at least engages Bar-Kochba. Bar Kochba relying on conventional wisdom and the then foreign minister states that Arafat turned everything down flat and just waited for concessions. Hass retorts that Israel's negotiator states publicly that Arafat made a counter offer. What I need to know was this a 'real' counter-offer which could possibly lead to a real agreement or was it a retreat to initial demands or poisoned by something known to be unacceptable? I am not an expert on this but what is the expert opinion on this point? Who is right and on what evidence?

Abdul Hass argues that Israel did not take land after the 1967 War because it did not want to take more land that it could digest. It is true that Israel could not have 'digested' as much as it could have taken but it is also true that Israel ended up with far less land than it could have then digested and did return some of it for peace.

Engage, engage and engage. If people are wrong in their opinions state why and provide your evidence. Simple name calling is school yard stuff and while I enjoy clever name calling and engage in it myself it most often solves nothing.

jhaber,

At least we know what extreme Zionista belongs to, right?

Do tell.

You call names, hiding behind a silly label.

Says "madison1776."

Brad - Egypt demanded the entire Sinai back in order to do a peace deal. Israel agreed and we had a peace agreement.Do you think Sadat would have done the deal with only 90% of the Sinai? If Israel offered the entire West Bank back including East Jerusalem, I believe we would have a peace agreement with the Palestinians. However, keeping the Ariel and Ma'ale Aduumim settlement blocks along with those surrounding Jerusalem makes a deal MUCH more difficult. You might think 91% of the West Bank is a good deal but not everyone agrees.

Now I am not suggesting we necessarily give up Ariel and Ma'ale Adumim but it should be on the table. Right now, Israel thinks it's bargaining position is stronger so it does not have to make as many concessions as Taba represented. If Israel and the Palestinians picked up where Taba left off, I think a deal would be concluded within a year.

MJ's article is hopelessly optimistic. Bar_kochba's conclusion "there is NO possibility of there being a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians in the foreseeable future. " is unfortunately a closer approximation of the current reality. There is something else about Bar_kochba that I think we should all understand: His views are close to the mainstream of Israeli public opinion. His views also represent the thinking of such people like Eliot Abrams and the Aipac lobbyist that really control US ME policy today.

In terms of internal US politics, I think the best course for progressives to pursue is simply to pressure the US to withdraw its military presence from the ME. As time goes on we must pressure the post-Bush US government the let Israel fight its own wars. We should eventually let Israel know that she is an independent country who controls her own fate but that when she gets into future wars over Southern Lebanon, seizure of West Bank lands and whatever retaliations against Gaza, that she is on her own. We will not fight with her.

There should be a recognition that the US cannot be an honest broker in these conflicts. We should simply step aside.

But challenge the CW on the Middle East and academe quakes.

Lord with so much money and time spent honing that Middle East CW into a Israeli lance challenging it seems like...well...a communist plot?

…no wait a Nazi plot? It gets so darn confusing.

And here I though spewing tepid, obviously overstated and too, too dramatic CW was an integral part of McCarthyism. He was on the political right wasn’t he? With the revisionist set it's so hard to tell.

The things I don't know could fill a book or two.

Pre-1967 borders weren't on the table in 2000. A "partition of the land" is not what BK said. He said, any "gov't would agree to withdraw to the pre-67 lines."

BTW, I don't know what word this is: f****. Since you're removing some letters, I assume it's something bad, but "fuck" only has 4 letters. And in this case, it would be conjugated "fucking."

Why limit it to conjugation?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I agree the BK crew gets to be distracting and ends up bringing down the level of the discussion.

I want to go back to syvanen's point.

MJ's polyannaish views can sometimes leave you scratching your head. Is the man serious?

However, if Abbas can show Hamas supporters that he has achieved a final status agreement with Israel, he would likely gain full legitimacy with almost all Palestinians.

This is not just absurd: it's doubly absurd.
First, because Abbas/Olmert will never achieve final status agreement. If you believe that Olmert has the political capital to decide the dismantling of Ariel, Har Homa, Kiryat Arba, Hebron, etc, and the relocation of over 100,000 settlers, then I know a guy in Brooklyn who has a nice bridge for you. And, remember, Olmert is supposed to do all of that with a Bush administration breathing down his neck that won't even allow him to talk to Syria!

Second, MJ seems to forget that Abbas has lost most of his legitimacy among Palestinians. He's their al-Maliki.

Look, I'd love to share MJ's optimism, but I fear it's based on too much wishful thinking.

It takes time. The palestenians are trading land for spent Q3130A, but some would argue at not a fast enough rate.

Is this the best argument MJ has?

"As for the people here I think are anti-Jewish (not anti-Israel but anti-Jewish or racist for that matter) I will continue not engaging with them."

Finaly you admited that there are anti-Jewish here.

Why don't you tell us who they are?
Why don't you do it?
Why are you so scared? I'm confused?

How do you fell to be considred serious by MJ?

Israel needs two things from US,
1. selling advance weapon.
2. Blocking anti-Israeli resolutions in UN.

Mmmm. All you people respond to MJ. Without him, you are nobodies. You should thank him, Davai, Brad, Bar Kochba and the rest of you fruitcakes for
giving you a voice. If I were MJ, I'd go away and then you would all just disappear. You are like satellites and MJ is your sun!

Quite possibly more of the 'Arab' intelligentsia's writings and leanings are reported in the Israeli press than here?

Ya think this might be possible? Possibly they have a greater interest in attending to what their neighbors are saying?

Trying to understand what the other side is thinking is vital.

If you disagree with his description of the views of the Arab Intelligentsia, demand his evidence or present your own. Don't claim that because he is an Israeli partisan that he cannot comprehend what the 'Arabs' are saying.

Because Israel doesn't want to grab more at a time than it can hold at one time.

That makes absolutely no sense as a responce to my comment. Once again, if all Israel wanted was land, why did it offer to return in Aug of 1967 all the land it captured in June of 1967? As history has shown, it could hold that land for quite a while. Why did Israel return the Sinai? Your assertion is pure nonsense.

MJ your post postulates that;

The central problem with the Bush approach is that it is predicated on the idea that one can establish a vibrant democracy at peace with Israel in the West Bank while the other half of Palestine, Gaza, is ignored.

So naturally;

[you] can't quite understand why neither the Bush administration nor the Israelis understand that their embrace of Abbas, while dismissing the elected Hamas government, has the effect of turning the West Bank into the Republic of South Vietnam while converting Hamas into the Viet Cong. We all know how that turned out.

Try to doubt yourself long enough to understand that Bush knows that the war for Greater Israel is a failed war and that continuing to drag out the defeat harms the interests of the U.S. ruling class.

Bush knows that the leadership of the PLO is currently Abbas who co-founded Fatah with Arafat and that the U.S. has not spent the last forty years trying to bring a Fatah led state into existence. But Bush will spend the next eighteen months doing just that.

Bush knows that Abbas is not a sell-out who is about to abandon the Palestinian people of Gaza, but a leader who will see that they are funded and supplied and included in the affairs of the Palestinian government, even if currently outside of the direct control of the Palestinian Authority he leads.

U.S. policy of preventing democracy in Vietnam failed. U.S. policy of backing every rat-bag regime in the Middle East failed spectacularly.

Bush is now supporting democracy because there is now seen to be no viable alternative.
Leftists always insisted that the previous policies would fail and they have.

No Palestinian leader will put up with any Zionist fantasy about keeping some of the conquests from the failed war for greater Israel (now dragging into its fortieth miserable year) without a negotiated swap of other territory such as was proposed in the Geneva initiative.

Despite the delusions still held by ‘moderate’ Zionists that they can have a peace deal and still make the conquest of East Jerusalem stick, it has no more credibility than the stupidity of the holy Hebron enclave of settlers surviving any peace deal.

Just as General Oron realizes “You think they are going to be satisfied living well thanks to Israel and the United States while their relatives suffer?" that Hamas controlled Gaza is a reality that Abbas will work with and just as ‘Oron …believes that "final status" Israeli-Palestinian negotiations can be commenced right now with Abbas, despite the temporary internal Palestinian split, something President Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad themselves favor.’

So might commentators consider that GWB also thinks that ‘the foundation’ for that final status negotiation, that he has just spoken about in the July 16, speech will be solidified with the coming conference to the extent that those final status negotiations (that you think are both realistic yet fanciful under the Bush administration) will commence shortly thereafter.

‘If t’were well it were done then t’were well it were done quickly’ for Bush and Rice the Republican party (and even Blair).

The Geneva Initiative has really exposed what the limits are to a deal and it was not one where the Palestinian people had to cop just ‘…an official presence in East Jerusalem and some solution to the refugee problem.’

The Palestinian State will undoubtedly be established with East Jerusalem as its capital. After all everyone except the most deranged Zionists realize ‘no Palestinian – and certainly not Abbas – is going to accept a truncated pseudo-state full of Israeli settlements, checkpoints and highways for-Jewish-settlers-only.

Bush and the rest of us all know that Abbas, as head of the PLO, has the authority to negotiate a final status deal with Israel along the lines …of the Geneva Initiative.

But because

Of course, the peace deal with Israel would have to be put to a referendum (under international supervision) in the West Bank and Gaza and probably in the Palestinian diaspora as well.

And to
…’save Abbas or even re-legitimize him in the eyes of his people. Only one thing can do that. Successful final status negotiations now.

And again because
The name of the game is establishing a viable contiguous Palestinian state.

It is safe to assume that Bush knows what is required.

Yet the following seems to sum up what a lot of hard-nosed skeptics and leftists as well as pseudo-leftist journalists are saying about the latest Bush speech.

Haim Malka, fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said there was little new in Mr Bush's speech and questioned what could be achieved without the involvement of Hamas. "It's important that the US engages in diplomacy," he said. "But this seems like the repackaging of an old policy. What the administration needs is a new strategy not a new conference."

Mr Bush is not the first occupant of the White House to turn his attention to the Palestinian problem in the closing stages of his presidency. Bill Clinton also intensified efforts to find a settlement during his final months in office.

Philip Gordon, another senior fellow at Brookings, says Mr Bush's last-ditch diplomacy holds much less promise than his predecessor's did. "Clinton genuinely thought he could pull it off because all the pieces seemed to be in place. There is much less optimism this time round," he says. "Bush is doing it more to avoid being accused of not doing anything."

Yet the writer knows that ‘Mr Bush became the first US president to declare explicit support for the creation of a Palestinian state. (…in a White House speech in June 2002,) Apparently Clinton thought he could pull it off, but failed to even utter the two words side by side. Clinton didn’t talk of ending the occupation but rather of settling the dispute. The West Bank was an area of dispute then but under Bush it is an area under occupation that belongs to another distinct people called Palestinians that deserve their own state.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to take Bush seriously because IMV he seems to have his eye firmly on the ball. He is not trying to achieve a forty year old U.S. goal of bringing justice and a State to the Palestinian people. He is about ending a failed forty year war for the conquest of Greater Israel that the US funded all along.

People will recall that not so long ago we had to put up with U.S. Administrations and Zionists going on about ‘disputed territories’. Bush talks clearly of occupied territories. That ‘disputed’ fantasy is gone with the wind. The U.S. used to talk of Samaria and Judea now they talk about a Palestinian state with realistic borders. For many years the U.S. and the Zionists just talked about Arabs and wouldn’t even call Palestinians by that name.

Here we have another ‘leftist’ talking about the sad reality of Israel having to give up on wild dreams of grabbing the sacred sites of religious Jews such as Hebron, yet the wall was not built to leave settlers on the other side!

For many years it has been apparent that the war has comprehensively failed, and that the Zionists would have to face a shattering defeat when the U.S. pulled the plug. The current U.S. Administration is now pulling that plug. There are hundreds of thousands of settlers that will be moving over the next couple of years. But a deal will be done first. There will not be any unilateral scramble behind the wall and ‘that’s that, because we are a fact on the ground’. There used to be a collection of facts on the ground in Gaza as well but they are no longer facts on the ground.

Bush does not have to concern himself with Gaza as the Palestinian people no longer have to bother with Zionist settlers in Gaza. He is concerned with making it plain to the world that the coming deal (that the Israelis also require) is being brokered by Condi Rice. It is safe to assume that the U.S. Administration knows that continuing the failed war is not in U.S. interests and that the deal will have to be along the Geneva lines.

That’s why Bush is saying.

These negotiations must resolve difficult questions and uphold clear principles. They must ensure that Israel is secure. They must guarantee that a Palestinian state is viable and contiguous. And they must lead to a territorial settlement, with mutually agreed borders reflecting previous lines and current realities, and mutually agreed adjustments.

Patrick

Good post, Patrick. Thanks. The only problem I have with it is the phrase "Bush knows" but I assume you mean "the Bush administration." I doubt Bush knows much about this conflict.

PS, as to my thoughts on Hebron, see this piece. It appeared in my regular IPF Friday spot, in the Beirut Daily Star, and in numerous outlets worldwide. If you want to see the photo I took of the net the Palestinians put up to protect themselves from the shit and other debris the settlers dump on their kids, go here

Hebron Horrors

The reality of Hebron was brought home to me during my stint as an official US observer of the January 9th Palestinian election. Our eighty-person National Democratic Institute group was broken into forty teams and then dispatched throughout the West Bank and Gaza. My partner and I were assigned to a dozen polling places in Hebron, the second largest city in the West Bank.

Hebron is a city considered holy by both Jews and Muslims because of the presence there of the Cave of Machpela, traditionally thought to be the burial place of Abraham, the patriarch of both Judaism and Islam. Predominantly Arab, Jews also lived in the city, adjacent to the tomb, until 1929 when a pogrom launched by Arab fanatics resulted in the murder of 69 Jews and the end of the Jewish presence in the city.

In 1967, following the Six Day War -- with Israel now in control of the West Bank, including Hebron -- ultra-religious Jewish nationalists pressured the Israeli government to permit Jewish settlers to reclaim, and move into, properties that had belonged to the Jewish community prior to 1929.

The government refused. It arranged for Jewish worship inside the tomb but not for civilian settlement inside the city, which it considered to be both impractical and provocative. Only a tiny group of extremists (many from outside Israel) had any interest in living inside Hebron and – in the midst of a city of 160,000 Palestinians – they would need to be defended by hundreds, if not thousands, of soldiers.

The settlers moved in anyway, establishing illegal outposts in the heart of Hebron, which have been tolerated by successive Israeli governments for 36 years. Following the Oslo agreements, the Israeli army withdrew from all Palestinian cities except Hebron, where troops remained to defend the settlers. In 1997, the Israeli army withdrew from 80% of Hebron, remaining only in an area labeled H-2 which includes the Cave of Machpela, the Casbah (Arab market) and the Jewish settlements.

Some 400 settlers live in H-2 in the midst of 30,000 Palestinians.

Last month, I visited H-2 despite being told by an Israeli friend that it is “the worst place in the West Bank.” How so? “The settlers there are religious fanatics and dedicate their lives to terrorizing the Palestinians with the goal of driving them all out. The Palestinians can’t fight back because the army won’t let them. On top of all that, the settlers hate the soldiers almost as much as they hate the Palestinians because the soldiers try to curb their activities. These soldiers are in a situation where they have to defend fanatics who routinely refer to them as Nazis.”

But, he added, “so long as the settlers are there, the soldiers must remain as well. Snipers, shooting from the hills, have killed Jews [including a two year old, Shalhevet Pass] and, so the soldiers need to be there, no matter how much they hate it.”

I walked into the heart of H-2 following a short inquisition by an IDF soldier. My first stop was the Ibrahami Mosque, which encompasses the Tomb of the Patriarchs. As I walked down the steps toward the mosque, a young Palestinian made the point of informing me that I was following the same route Jewish zealot Baruch Goldstein took when, in February 1994, he burst into the mosque and shot dead 29 Muslims at prayer.

Goldstein is a hero to the Hebron settlers. His burial place (in a tourist park named after Meir Kahane) was turned into a shrine where settlers annually celebrate Goldstein’s murder spree with parties and games. (In 2004, police arrested some of them for holding an illegal celebration of both the Goldstein murders and the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin). For Palestinians, of course, the Goldstein massacre is a symbol of the ultimate threat.

I left the mosque and walked through the mostly deserted Casbah toward the settlers’ neighborhood. There wasn’t much to see, just settlers strutting around with rifles and a few Arabs trying to sell their wares in what was once a thriving market and is now mostly abandoned. And there is the graffiti in English and Hebrew promising death to all Palestinians.

But the most striking thing is the steel mesh screens that the Arabs have installed just above the heads of pedestrians to protect them from the garbage and excrement routinely dumped by the settlers from their second floor windows. The screens catch all sorts of disgusting stuff and lethal objects like cinder blocks, although liquid debris does make its way to the ground or on the heads of anyone below.

It’s an appalling sight. Imagine looking up and seeing and smelling the foulest debris just above your head, stopped only by mesh. But then everything about H-2 is appalling, including the fact that Israeli soldiers are forced to serve there.

Last summer a group of 70 soldiers who had served in Hebron created a photographic and video exhibit at a Tel Aviv college about their experiences there called, “Breaking Silence.” The exhibit, which was a huge success, described from the soldiers’ point of view, the dehumanizing experience that serving there had on them. Many spoke of the fear they had – not only of the Arabs or of the Jews – but of being terribly transformed as human beings by the experience.

One soldier spoke of being frightened by the “rush” he felt from giving Arabs orders. "I was ashamed of myself the day I realized that I simply enjoy the feeling of power…Forget for a moment that I think that all these Jews are nuts and that I believe we should leave the territories. But how dare [a Palestinian] say ‘no’ to me? I am the Law! I am the Law here!

“Once I was at a checkpoint, a so-called strangulation checkpoint, blocking the entrance to a village. On one side a line of cars wanting to get out, and on the other side a line of cars wanting to get in. I stood there, gesturing ‘you to do this,’ ‘you do that.’ You start playing with them, like a computer game. ‘You come here, you go there.’ You barely move, you make them obey the tip of your finger. It's a mighty feeling.”

A second soldier wrote: “The thing that…affected me emotionally…was when we had just arrived in Hebron. I was on guard duty, when suddenly, from one of the small streets, a settler girl shows up and shouts at me very urgently: ‘Soldier, soldier, come quickly, there's an Arab here who's attacking a girl.’ I got very alarmed and advanced with my weapon cocked. The scene that unfolded was of an Arab with his two children. He’s trying to protect them from another settler girl who's throwing stones at them. I blow my fuse and start screaming at her….She’s screaming back that they are Arabs and should be killed…and the father, poor guy, says, with helpless eyes, ‘We're used to it, we've been here a long time now, it's alright.’ "

A third soldier spoke of the day a group from abroad came to visit Hebron for the Jewish holidays. "One morning, a fairly big group arrived, around 15 Jews from France. They were all religious Jews. They were in a good mood, really having a great time, and I spent my entire shift following this gang of Jews around and trying to keep them from destroying the town. They just wandered around, picked up every stone they saw, and started throwing them at Arabs' windows, and overturning whatever they came across.

“There's no horror story here: they didn't catch some Arab and kill him or anything like that, but what bothered me is that maybe someone told them that this is one place in the world where a Jew can take all of his rage out on Arab people, and simply do anything. Come to this Palestinian town, and do whatever they want, and the soldiers will always be there to back them up. Because that was my job, to protect them and make sure that nothing happened to them."

Note that this soldier said that he had no “horror story” to tell, just an ordinary day for soldiers, not to mention Palestinians, in Hebron. And that is, of course, the greatest horror.

That is why Hebron is significant. In one neighborhood, in one city, on any given day, anyone can experience the occupation at its worst -- terrible for the Palestinians and terrible for the Israelis too.

If anyone tells you that the status quo is tolerable, just tell them about Hebron.

Crazy Davai! Armed racist monasteries where the monks slaughter innocent worshippers!!!!
You are a hoot!

You must be new here if you think that Bar Kochba is really trying to understand what the' other side' is thinking--Bar Kochba's 'understanding,' that comes across in all his posts, is that all Arabs are a mindless uncivilized horde, singlemindedly bent on the annihilation of Israel. It's not that he 'cannot comprehend,' but that his mind has been made up, that they are beyond hope or even discourse.

I agree that Israeli media does present a lot of coverage, however, Bar Kochba is the equivalent of an Israeli FOX NEWS viewer.

And how do either of those enhance the national security of the United States, as opposed to being popular with particular constituencies and lobbyists?

During the Cold War, the relationship had much more value, as a source of intelligence on Soviet weaponry and doctrine. Now that the US can buy Russian equipment from the Russians, that benefit is far less. There is considerable truth, when domestic politics is disconnected from international relations, that nations have interests, not alliances.

I would be seriously interested in thoughts on how the US-Israeli relationship benefits the US, when domestic politics is set aside. This is not a trick question.

Apropos of advanced weapons, does the US have a right to impose conditions on their use? What should be the US response when Israel violates conditions of sale, as with the M26 rocket?

I confess to being somewhat dubious about the value of the UN in enforcing peace in difficult situations. Perhaps I am being Machiavellian, but I'm not convinced that not vetoing anti-Israeli resolutions in the UN will particularly affect Israel's freedom of action. Not blocking them, however, might improve the US negotiating position with supporters of those resolutions. This comment is directed specifically to US use of the veto, not situations where a coalition can be organized that opposes the resolution.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I'm still trying to decide if you were complimented or insulted. :-)

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Yes, the world needs more enlightened atheists like Joe Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Walther Ulbricht, etc.

This article is full of gross generalizations. Just one was "Goldstein is a hero to Hevron Jews". In reality, he is a hero to a small group of Hevron Jews. There are indeed some extremist Jews in Hevron and I totally oppose what they think and what they are doing.

In any event, what do you think of the Palestinians who view as heroes suicide bombers who went into synagogue courtyards and blew up women and children there? In the Palestinian towns, they celebrate and give out candies and name streets after the perpetrators of these atrocities. Arafat himself praised suicide bombers and said they were "better men" then he was.
If you think that those who praise what Goldstein did are terrible people, then what do you think about Palestinians and Palestinian society (e.g. its official, state-controlled media) that praises suicide bombers?
If you are going to give me the line that "their violence is 'understandable' because they are under occupation", then I can only answer the Jews were "under occupation" far longer than any occupation the Arabs were under and FAR crueler, so therefore, if you justify Arab violence of this type, then you should also "understand" the violence Goldstein or Yigal Amir carried out.
MJ has referred to me as something like an "extreme ethnic nationalist" which he apparently views as something bad (I have no real problem being called that), but then what did that make his pal Arafat, what does that make Abbas, what does that make HAMAS, what does that make most Palestinians? They are most certainly extremist nationalists. How come MJ thinks it is okay for them to be this but not Jews?

Here is the key quote you make:
(I am sorry, I don't know how to make those nice windows with quotations from earlier postings)

-------------------
What's hilarious about the "ethnic nationalist" charge is that you call yourself (i.e. MJ) a Zionist.
------------------

There, you have put your finger on MJ's dilemma and the source for his hostility to us. He IS a Zionist. He JUSTIFIES 1948-the Palestinian Naqba (catastrophe). He thus feels he has to get this terrible onus off himself because we constantly remind him of what he views as his hypocrisy. He screams to the world "see, I am not one of THEM!", but the Palestinians and other Arabs DO view him as being the same as US! because he DOES, in the end, justify what the Arabs view (wrongly, but it is their perception) as what Abdul-Hass and many other "progressives" would say is "ethnic cleansing". This is why MJ never responds to Abdul-Hass, because, deep down, he is deeply afraid that Abdul-Hass is correct, yet something in him still wants to be a Zionist (the "pintele yid"?). This torments him and he spends his life trying to prove to other "progressives" that is really "one of them" when he never really can be.

The Balfour Declaration of November 1917 and the League of Nations Mandate of 1922 giving the British control of Palestine based upon fulfillment of the Balfour Declaration recognized what I called the Jewish People's rights in Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) which included Trans-Jordan (today's Kingdom of Jordan). This was whittled down to only a tiny fraction by the UN Partition resolution of November 1947 which the Arabs rejected. I am not sure how your point fits in with this. It seems to me that those who supported these decisions seemed to recognize that the Jews had "natural rights" in this land.

Decisions by political bodies do not constitute national rights. The Balfour Declaration, in part, was recognition of the contributions to the WWI effort by Chaim Weizmann. Incidentally, were the Sykes-Picot Agreement or the Hussein- McMahon Correspondence natural laws? Was the Kellogg-Briand accord?

The British were only in a position to make the Balfour Declaration due to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Did the British have a natural right to the area? If so, how could they give it away if it was naturally theirs?

On what basis did the League of Nations decide one people had a right to land when the Ethiopians, of comparable antiquity, did not?

It may seem to you that those political decisions recognized "natural" things. One of the legislatures of a US state voted in a resolution, defeated in the upper house, to make pi equal to three. Even if it had passed both houses and been signed by the governor, the value of pi would not change.

It is arguable that the Reichstag recognized the natural rights of the Leader Principle, or so the NDSAP delegates claimed. The framers of the US Constitution believed in democracy, as long as you were a white male.

Perhaps a more honest assessment of "natural rights", by a political body, was that the pursuit of happiness was an inalienable right. There was no right to catch it.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

e to the x, dx, dy
Cosine secant theta prime
3.14159
Caltech! Caltech! Rah!

Shabbat (the Jewish Sabbath) ends at sundown and Israel is 7 hours ahead of Eastern Daylight Time.

Your plea for mercy is duly noted. I'll get back to you on that. In the meantime, mockery and contempt will remain in place. Feel free to continue to whimper and beg.

No, he meant mockery.

"What is more insane than to vent on senseless things the anger that is felt towards men?" [Seneca]

"In order to act, you must be somewhat insane. A reasonably sensible man is satisfied with thinking." [Clemenceau]

To defend Bar_Kochba, he presented some ingenious arguments. To wit, there is no difference between Hamas and Abbas, and the proof is that Abbas did not disarm Hamas, moreover, Abbas is not trustworthy because he did not honor his constitutional obligation toward Hamas. Indeed -- if Abbas is screwing even those who are the same as he is, how much would he screw those who are not the same? If he could.

In that vein, are Arabs (and Iranians, who are also the same) dupes of the Left or vice versa? The Left is the world-wide sinister phenomenon, and destroying Israel is but one of many vile projects, beside family as we know it, innocence of children worldwide etc.

I would also object the accusation that Bar_Kochba sees everything in black and white terms. Everything seems to be black in his posts.

When I stated that Arafat turned down flat the Taba proposals, that was called a lie.

This is from the interview Ari Shavit did with Shlomo Ben-Ami
who was Israeli Foreign Minister at the time of the Camp David
Talks in 2000 and the Taba talks in 2001. He was present at all
these meeting and dealt with Arafat face-to-face.
As you read this, remember he is from the Left-wing of the Labor
Party, i.e. a "progressive", not an "extreme ethnic nationalist" like myself.

This is taken from Ha'aretz of 14 September 2001.

Regarding the talks at Taba:

Q- Did the Palestinians accept the map you presented them?

A-No.

Q- You and Prime Minister Barak set out on a journey to the bowels
of the earth, as it were, to the very heart of the conflict.
What did you find?

A- I think we found a few difficult things. First of all, regarding
Arafat, we discovered that he does not have the ability to convey
to his Israeli interlocuters that the process of making concessions
has an end. His strategy is one of conflict.

Q- Are you saying that he is not a partner?

A- Arafat is the leader of the Palestinians. I cannot change this
fact, it is their disaster. He is so loyal to his truth that he
can not compromise it. But his truth is the truth of the Islamic
ethos, the ethos of refugees and victimization. This truth does
not allow him to end his negotations with Israel unless Israel
breaks its neck. So in the particular aspect, Arafat is not a
partner. Worse, Arafat is a strategic threat, he endangers peace
in the Middle East and in the world.

Q- So he still does not recognize Israel's right to exist?

A- Arafat's concession vis-a-vis Israel at Oslo was a formal
concession. Morally and conceptually, he didn't recognize Israel's
right to exist. He doesn't accept the idea of "2 states for 2 peoples".
He may be able to make some sort of partial, temporary settlement with
us, although I have my doubts about that as well, but at the deep level,
he doesn't accept us. Neither he nor the Palestinian national movement
accept us.

Q - Your criticism goes beyond Arafat personally to include also the
Palestinian national movement as a whole?

A- Yes, intellectually I can understand their logic. I understand
from their point of view they ceded 78% of (historic Palestine) at
Oslo, so the rest is theirs. I understand that from their point of
view and they are not going to make a compromise with us....
But when all is said and done, after 8 months of negotiations, I have
reached the conclusion that we are in confrontation with a national
movement in which there are serious pathological elements. It is a
very sad movement, a tragic movement which at its core doesn't have the
ability to set itself positive goals. At the end of the process, it is
impossible not to form the impression that the Palestinians don't want
a solution as much as they want to place Israel in the dock of history.

self-delete

With all due respect,Madison,I disagree. Most pro-Israel people are doves. The Rightwing "pro-Israel" organizations are the hawks. But I have to admit, they have the $$$$ so, under our system, their voices are heard more.

If there was public financing of campaigns, the views of the vast majority of pro-Israel Jews who favor ending the occupation now would dominate.

But you are right. Davai and Bar K are part of a tiny minority here but are totally mainstream at GOP sites.

unlike your posts, I suppose?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

;)

MJ's statement "most pro-Israel Americans are doves" requires clarification. First, what does it mean to be "pro-Israel" in the US? Does it mean that (1) one accepts the rights of the Jewish people to self-determination in Eretz Israel but does not take an active day-to-day interest in what is going on there? (2) Or is it someone who views Israel as the aggrieved party in the Arab/Israeli conflict? (3) Or does it mean that one takes an active day-to-day interest in what is going on and either visits there, sends children to study there and contributes a signicant amount of money to Israeli causes and institutions? (4) Or is it someone who accepts the rights of the Jewish people to self-determination in Eretz Israel but views the Arabs basically as the aggrieved party and puts the onus on proving one's good intentions on Israel?

It seems to me that, except for people in the 3rd category, most American Jews have very little knowledge about the Arab/Israeli conflict and its historical background and have little idea what Israel is like and what is going on there. It is said most American Jews have never visited Israel, so this would really limit their awareness. Thus when Olmert says "Israel's vital interest is in the formation of a viable Palestinian state living side by side in peace with Israel", people assume he knows what he is talking about, even though this is a myth and Olmert knows it. He knows the Palestinians neither want a state nor are the capable of maintaining one. Most of the people in the first two categories will simply follow the Israeli gov't line, assuming they (wrongly) know what is best for Israel's security. Thus if Sharon says he is for an independent Palestinian state, most people in the first two categories, plus the fourth will agree. If he says that Israel must destroy Gush Katif in order for him to stay out of jail for bribery....oops, for "demographic reason" he just discovered the day before, they will go along with that. If on the other hand, the gov't says it needs to hold on to the Western Samaria region settlements (Ariel, Kedumim) to prevent rockets from falling on Tel Aviv, they will accept that as well, or if the gov't is committed to an undivided Jerusalem , they will go along with that, or if the gov't says security operations in the Gaza Strip that unfortunately bring about Palestinian casualties are necessary to prevent rockets from falling on Sederot, they will go along with that. AIPAC also follows the gov't line, whatever that may be, claiming the gov't knows what is best.
Does this mean they are "doves"? In addition, most people have some awareness of the fact that Israel is on the front line of the war against Islamic terror and this will cut slack for the gov't in the security realm in public opinion.
Given this, I would say only the the 4th category are really "doves", whereas the 3rd category, the most knowledgable are much more to the right. I would guess that the 4th category is a distinct minority of the US Jewish community.
In summary, I do not view an American Jew who says he is for creation of a Palestinian state as automatically a "dove" and do not view most "pro-Israel" American Jews as "doves".

Well, What's your definition of anti-semite?
People no longer express directly anti-semitics
or segregetionist points of views.
They hide behind code words and so on.

BTW, you seems to agree that
"As most of racists in the South moved to Republic party"

It's obvious, even so none of racists tell loudly anymore, "I hate niggeres"

The argument thus far with relevant terms replaced with symbols.

D: All X moved to the left.

V: Do you have any evidence that all X moved to the left?

D: It depends on what you mean by X.

This is just double talk, davai. It's like the administration's position on torture.

Bush: We do not engage in torture.

Critics: Under Bush's leadership, the CIA has interrogated people through waterboarding.

Bush: Well, it depends on what you mean by torture.

You're going to redefine common terms so that you can divide the world in non-standard ways that fit your world view. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

I'm kind of sad that I wasted so much time writing this response to you, davai.

While it is a digression, the ad companies that provide click-through revenue for web ads do not give the site any particular control over the ads that are shown. Indeed, those ads tend to be customized based on cookie information on each user; you and I may not be seeing the same ads.

I'll give you that there is little point in preaching to the converted. When you preach to people that are not converted, however, you will be more effective if you speak to them in a manner that builds on their current beliefs. Just to take a personal example, I do not believe any people has a right to land by "natural law", whatever "natural law" or "natural right" may mean.

You cited, among other quasi-colonial bodies, the ruling of the League of Nations in support of that position. I inquired how that there could be a natural right to Israel, but not, for a people of comparable antiquity, to Ethiopia. You did not answer. If you believe that Jews have a unique right among all people, come out and say that. I don't agree, but then, if you cite historical references such as the Balfour Declaration, be prepared, if you want to convince people of your point, to explain contradictions such as the Sykes-Picot agreement, or the self-perceived British obligation to Weizmann that led to the Balfour Declaration.

Likud, when last I looked, is an Israeli political party. I am not an Israeli. Why should I go to a British site and argue with Labor politicians, or to Russia and argue with Putin supporters? I thought you believed in national self-determination? My concern is with US policy, and how, among other things, US policy toward Israel affects the US.

If you want to convince me to support your positions, you are going to have to do so with arguments as to why those positions are good for the US, not for solely as good for Israel. If some policy is good for both, all the better, but I will need to be convinced.

That many US politicians support that policy to support constituents does not necessarily make the policies good (or bad) for the US. There are US politicians that supported the Iraq invasion because they believed their constituents wanted it. There are US politicians that support US policy toward Cuba that is widely believed counterproductive, but that is terribly important to certain constituencies.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I believe that Valdron is a a Canadian citizen. Why does he post here…he should have nothing to say about U.S. policy.

Oh, you're getting the bullshit flag again. Fifteen yard penalty, repeat first down.

First, the Arab/Israeli conflict is not dependent on the US for resolution. It's up to you all--the Arabs and the Israelis. We really don't have any control over the whole business.

Second, even if Irish Americans were "lobbying the British," they probably weren't showing up at coffee shops, or houses, or public spaces, and fucking yelling at everyone who walked by.

Then why do you participate in this group because this group has MJ, an American, butting his nose into another country's (Israel's) business, according to your definition of things? Why should it even interest you?

What are you talking about? It's American foreign policy that interests me. As a constituent of the United States, it is patently my duty and right to care about our foreign policy. There is a difference between me trying to convince Israel to do something and the United States' policy towards Israel.

If you haven't figured it out, we here at TPMcafe do not have any influence over our foreign policy. This is just an forum on the internet. It's not Congress or the White House or the State Department.

You come here and argue because you enjoy arguing, not because you really think you're going to convince anyone, or because you believe it is going to influence our foreign policy. It's just something you get off on. I guarantee there are plenty of other places where you can argue with people to your heart's content. But, please, give it up here.

Any non-American can tell us what they want to about our policies. Just don't try to meddle in our elections or rate our politicians based on the perceived need of their home country.

I wish more countries opposed the Iraq war and will forever regret that Blair enabled Bush to go to war.

As an Israeli, these things are of vital interest to me.

Thus it seems logical that I would try to convince Americans of my position,

especially since in this site MJ writes frequently about the Arab/Israeli conflict

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Your comment doesn't parse very well, but American should care about US interactions with other countries, and how those countries' policies affect the US. Americans need not unilaterally care about what other countries want to do in their own sphere of influence, unless those actions affect the US.

I don't expect Israel to have terribly useful positions about US-Mexican relations. Israel's position on US-Iranian relations, when the US is saber-rattling at Iran, is quite relevant to know. Especially if Israel is encouraging US hostility to Iran, when Israel but not the US is threatened, Israel's policies become quite relevant to the US.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

But MJ appears to object to Israeli citizens commenting on U.S. middle east policy which is of life and death interest to them.

Seems to me that the penalty should go to Reece.

Personally, I don't read very far into most of Bar-Kochba's posts. I tend to get the drift of what he's saying fairly quickly. Sometimes the tone is obnoxious, sometimes not. However, in reading actual entire post that Reece is referring to here, Bar-Kochba is making a salient point in a civil way.

Reece, you are using the words "bullshit" and "fucking". You're dismissing the relevance of Americans on the process as if that invalidates BK's point. However, this discussion is taking place on an American website and in response to an American author's opnions.

Moreover, it is a poor comparison to state that posting on an open comment section of a site like this is akin to yelling at everyone who walks by a coffee shop. When you're yelled at while "walking by" in a coffee shop, you are not voluntarily subjecting yourself to the content or tone of the yeller. Here, at this TPM comment section, you've already accepted the subject matter (that being, what MJ has decided to write about)and no one is forcing you to read any one particular poster (Bar-Kochba in this case). Seems significantly different to me.

As for MJ original query about why right wing Israelis comment on his articles: I don't see the oddness of it. MJ is an American who is writing, mostly from the left, about Israeli matters. Why is it out of place for Israelis, who disagree with him and who are most affected by what he proposes to comment?

Seems like what they have to say is quite instructive to the discussions at hand. Maybe I'm just too much of an accommodating and middle of the road kind of guy, but I do not find teh comments of Bar-Kochba or Davai to be anymore extreme (or any less helpful) than those of Abdul-hass or Madison1776.

I do not find Bar-Kochba's comments to be especially discourteous, but I believe I was responding to his specific point: he wishes to convince Americans that his views are correct. My response was that I, and many other Americans, are unlikely to change views to support his merely because his position is advantageous to the State of Israel.

I am not an Israeli citizen, so that which is vitally important to Israel, or to a particular political faction in Israel, is important to me insofar as it affects the United States. I suggest to Bar-Kochba that arguments in support of Israeli interests would be more compelling, to Americans, if they start with a reason why American interests are vitally affected by the position he desires be adopted.

This is a basic principle of civil argument in general, and certainly in the classic grass-roots approach to lobbying: arguing that a legislator should support something will get farther when the legislator is given a reason why his support will be advantageous to him, rather becauses someone, especially a non-constituent, is upset about something.

Further, I pointed out that when Bar-Kochba cited certain national (i.e., British) and international (i.e., League of Nations) documents/resolutions as supporting "natural rights", as if natural rights are a matter of resolution, that there were other documents/resolutions, by the same bodies, that argue against his position. I asked that he if he cites some authority, such as the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that it would be appropriate to comment upon the balance of all relevant positions, not just the ones that support his argument. The Balfour Declaration, in particular, was a response to a perceived British debt to an individual, and hardly supported either by the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, or the actions of Britain in pre-partition Palestine, 1917-1948.

If sports analogies are to be used, perhaps the penalty flag is not called for, but, equally, neither a touchdown nor first down signal has been justified.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Well, everything can come back on instant replay, but not this time.

If you'll note, I elsewhere, even on this thread, call for abdul-hass to be banned along with davai and BK. They are all disruptive trolls. It's not about balancing one out in favor of another. I haven't paid attention to Madison's posts, but I will now.

I don't generally like to argue the content of analogies, because everything eventually breaks down on close examination. But I think my original point stands even if it requires a small modification. Let's say we're sitting in a coffee shop talking about the arab/israeli conflict. Would it be acceptable for someone to come up and start yelling at you about their personal views? No, it wouldn't. It would be quite rude and generally unacceptable behavior. That is what is going on here.

It is also not unusual for davai, bk, and abdul-hass to hijack unrelated threads so that they can argue and often "yell" through caps about arab/israeli issues. That is very akin to yelling at random people who walk through public spaces.

It's not entirely relevant, though, since the point is that they have chosen ineffective methods of addressing the problems they see. I think I said that in just another post right here--we're not the Congress or the State Department or the White House. If Irish Americans lobbied Britain, they didn't do it by yelling at random citizens, even citizens who happened to be discussing the issue. If they did it, they did it through more effective means, probably by targeting officials, organizations, individuals, or groups that had the ability to affect policy.

I really don't find anything offensive in bullshit and fuck when used reasonably. No one wants a series of posts going back and forth with nothing but various profanities, but when used sparingly for emphasis and humor, it's neither problematic nor uncivil.

Howard covered the rest, I think

So, without indisputable evidence, the penalty cannot be overturned.

Reece,

...the Arab/Israeli conflict is not dependent on the US for resolution. It's up to you all--the Arabs and the Israelis. We [the US] really don't have any control over the whole business.

American arms manufacturers and dealers maintain roughly just over 50% of the market share, so it is in the greater interest of significant-enough numbers of American shareholders to sutain the Arab-Israeli conflict than to help resolve it.  Privatization is the dominant trend in US policies, and foreign policy is no different.

MJ,

Israel does not provide $$$$ aid to America

However, Israel is compelled to reimburse the US by investing its military aid strictly in US companies.

Given the reality of the UN partition resolution in 1948, what do you believe should have been the position of the various sides? I see no obvious wins for anyone.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Neither do I. I don't see an obvious win now.

I kind of don't care who our ally is in the middle east. It doesn't matter as long as there are functioning markets. We don't need to be friends with the Saudis so long as they are willing to trade with us.

Scratch that, we don't even need them to trade with us directly so long as there is an effective international market for oil. Hugo Chavez has threatened that he won't sell oil to the US, but in making it available to other countries he participates in the market. As long as Saudi oil is available--since oil is fungible--we don't even have to trade with them.

Reece,

For what it's worth, I do actually read your posts more often, and more completely, than those post from other folks whose names are being thrown around here.

Generally, your comments do strike me as thoughtful and civil. However, BK seemed to be getting a lot of flak and as I zeroed in on some of his shorter posts (to assess whether the criticism was well placed), your response to this one seemed misplaced.

I do agree that "bullshit" and "fucking" can be appropriately used without too much of a deviation from civil discourse. War and such is the real obscenity as far as I'm concerned. However, calling a penalty is a sports metaphor. Sports generally have a code of conduct that is somewhat more restrictive than war.

I also agree to the notion that the random crazy person who walks up to a private conversation in a cafe and yells is unpleasant. But, again, we're not forced to read anyone else's comments. So I still see a difference there.

Seeing as how there appears to be no mechanism for overturning the penalty called, I suppose that play will just have to continue.

Anyway, this kind of discussion is mostly a digression. I'll just remind myself (and anyone who will listen) to keep an eye on the ball.

There is a memorial to Baruch Goldstein in ersatz Israel, at Kiryat Arba, a page showing the memorial gravesite (that used to be at a NewKach website) is still available through google at Baruch Goldstein Memorial link

Incidentally, I am not aware of a sect of Palestinians that erects elaborate memorials to suicide bombers, or who carry on a practice such as described below:

During the Feast of Purim, The Friends of Goldstein are going to celebrate a feast near his grave to honor him, in appreciation of him...

I won’t belabor this. I was simply responding to MJ’s objection to the Israeli citizens posting here. I suspect he would have no objection if they agreed with him.

That said, isn’t the America first mantra considered rather right wing? Don’t progressives (and I assume MJ) advocate listening to the international community in formulating American foreign policy?

You neglected to mention the part of the article that said Wolfensohn felt like a 'nuisance' to Olmert and Weissglas. Given the timeframe, perhaps they were too busy with their 'realist' plans to bomb Lebanon to waste on such a dreamer.

Quoting Wolfensohn;

"There was never a desire on the part of the Americans to give up control of the negotiations, and I would doubt that in the eyes of Elliot Abrams and the State Department team, I was ever anything but a nuisance."

So, the PNAC Dream Team was against Wolfensohn, and kept him away from the table--which has nothing to do with 'Palestinian corruption.'

Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to post some links to your assertions of Palestinian corruption, as I had posted links about the endemic corruption in the current Israeli government...

I am not here to advocate a position on the Israel-Palestinian dispute since it is a no win proposition. I merely attempted to point out the hypocrisy of someone who advocates negotiations with any and all comers objecting to listening to the opinions of Israeli citizens.

You are being somewhat vague, and correct me if I misunderstand, but I assume you are speaking of MJ. While I again don't in any way speak for him, my understanding was that he recommending that all parties in the region need to be talking.

The role of the UN, US, and other outside groups may be less critical than those directly involved. Is it your position that the US is directly involved?

Two factors, and, as you suggested as other than a right-wing position, concern me. The more immediate is Israeli and US pressure to threaten military action against Iran. The second, which is a matter with continuing fallout, is the Israeli operation into Lebanon, with its effects on civilians and the deliberate oil spill. The effect on civilians specifically involved use of US supplied weapons in a manner forbidden by the terms and conditions of sale.

As you see, I am not making an observation on the Israel-Palestinian proposition, just like you. Apparently, you are more concerned with establishing hypocrisy in posting than in the entanglements of Israeli military desires, not against Palestinians but against Iran and Lebanon.

Incidentally, do you plan on making some original posts in which you take a position, or is that reserved for people whom you wish to criticize?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

"You come here and argue because you enjoy arguing, not because you really think you're going to convince anyone, "

GREAT !!!!!

My comments about hypocrisy were directed at MJ.

I conclude from the posts of his that I have read that he is an ultra left wing dove who advocates negotiations with any organizations no matter how vile as apposed to taking a hard line. I just found it ironic that someone with those views would become so upset at encountering some opinions that he disagrees with. He is clearly going to encounter worst when negotiating with difficult regimes.

While I confess to some confusion regarding slaying with a jawbone of an ass, and asses, not necessarily Democratic, overusing their jawbones in many hallowed halls of many nations, perhaps I should quote that noted ultra left wing dove, Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill: "It is better to jaw, jaw than to war, war."

Offhand, I cannot think of casualties, since the aforesaid use of the jawbone of a donkey, that were caused by conversation. Now, if unreasonable concessions come from talking, that is another matter entirely.

Talking, however, is a means of getting information. Sometimes, a chance comment, perhaps over coffee, on rare occasion brings a new insight. It may reveal a vulnerability of one's enemy.

Insisting on preconditions to talking, the meeting of which would really leave nothing to talk about, seems a common means of political posturing, by people and nations across the spectrum.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

"If there was public financing of campaigns, the views of the vast majority of pro-Israel Jews who favor ending the occupation now would dominate."

Yes, most of Israli, American Jews, Americans in general favor ending the occupation. There is no need to wait for public financing of campaigns.
I also favor ending the occupation.
It's not the issue.
The issue is is how to to make sure that Israel will be secure after ending occupation .

MJ and his fellow comrades never adress this issue.

I wonder why?

The US involvement in Vietnam and Iraq was wrong, and there was no way to fix it other than leaving. If Iraq, thirty years later, is in half as good a shape as Vietnam is today, I'd welcome that. Vietnamese Communism was, much as the Yugoslavian version, far more nationalist than Marxist, certainly when compared to the Chinese Cultural Revolution, or the killing fields of Cambodia -- where the Vietnamese fought the Khmer Rouge.

Why it's not in interest of US to let Arabs destroy Israel?

I will do whatever I can to preven this from happening and I don't care if call me a traitor.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Ummm...civilians are not allowed to be ethnically cleansed, even in time of war, and note that the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians has been a fundamental basis of Zionism from the very start and had nothing to do with wars.

Let me get this straight. You don't care about anyone who might affect the political process of the United States, which could decide to take a position against Israel's interests, if they don't claim to care about Israel. Incidentally, I am neutral, but not unfriendly, to quite a few countries. I know fine people in Ireland, Israel, India, and Iceland. Only one of those countries, however, routinely causes security entanglements for my country.

I don't wish ill for any of them, but it's rather unlikely anyone will invade Iceland or Ireland, and India, as opposed to Israel, isn't constantly whining that it is about to be overrun and has to have support. For that matter, of the two nuclear powers in that list, one is quite honest about its capability.

You are terribly obsessed, however, with someone who, you claim, says "I care about Israel a great deal." That would seem a position that might be more prone than I would be to take active steps in the defense of Israel, but you worry about him but not me.

Haven't had the opportunity for much study of logic, as elegantly developed in the study of the Talmud, have you?
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Howard.

"Frankly, I'm rather tired of the regional superpower whining about how it's about to be overrun. "

Funny you should say this as today, Defense Minister Ehud Barak made a rather more accurate assesment:

"Defense Minister Ehud Barak told fellow cabinet ministers Sunday that "Israel after the Second Lebanon War is the strongest country within a radius of 1,500 kilometers from Jerusalem."

The distance cited could be a hinted reference to Iran: the distance from Jerusalem to Iranian capital Tehran is 1569 kilometers."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/130363

"The rest either agree with Rosenberg that Israel needs to get the hell out of the Palestinian territories "

I agree that Israel needs to get the hell out of the Palestinian territories.
Most of Israeli, American Jews and Americans in general agree with this goal.
But nobody knows how to do this and not creat another Hisbollastan or Hamastan in West Bank.

But I agree that most American Jews and Americans in general don't agree with MJ, PEACE NOW or one-staters.

If such people take over Democratic Party,
this would be the end of Democratic Party.
Almost all of American Jews will leave Democratic Party.
There are not enough anti-Israeli people on the right to replace them.

Of course, Jerusalem isn't the closest part of Israel to Tehran, and the range of the Jericho II missile, with a 1000 KG warhead, is about 1500 KM. 1000 KG is considered adequate for a plutonium implosion or boosted fission weapon. The US has thermonuclear weapons less than that weight, but I've been somewhat dubious that Israel could develop thermonuclear weapons without a fairly robust testing program.

India is reputed to have tried and failed to get the simpler boosted fission technology. Israeli physicists have published on laser-based fusion; nothing in the open literature seems to say, one way or the other, if Israel has hydrodynamic or hydronuclear testing capability. AFAIK, no one who has built a thermonuclear weapon has gotten their without these techniques or atmospheric testing. Is hydrodynamic simulation up to the job? I'm not enough of a physicist to have an informed opinion.

-
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I am surprised that my posting of the interview with former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben0Ami did not elicit more comment. Here is a card-carrying "progressive" form the left=wing of the Labor Party who dealt directly with Arafat and his minions, confirming EVERYTHING I say here that gets MJ and others so upset: The Palestinians neither want a state nor are they capable of setting one up, the Arabs do not accept Israeli's presence in the Middle East with ANY borders and there is no possibility of arriving at any formal peace agreement with them.
His current position is that foreign forces should come in and take over the Palestinian areas.

Be as prickly as you please. Just do it all yourself, and, as you suggest, don't rely on the "good will" of the world -- or American military support. If you want American protection, move here, or at least sign a credible mutual defense treaty like the NATO agreement. Of course, that would mean declaring your nuclear capability. I'd be willing to support amendments to the NPT to let Israel, India, and Pakistan join as declaratory powers. Two of the three have declared.

Many Americans concluded 9/11 was a war with Islamic terror. Many Americans also regard Israeli-Arab relations as a recruiting poster for Arab terrorists.

You keep telling me why Israel should be afraid and prepared. Fine. Do so. Build your own cluster munitions to use against civilians, not our weapons that were sold to you prohibiting such use. After all, if you have "natural rights", won't those protect you?

You have the technical capability to preempt Iran should you feel it necessary. Do so. Don't expect American help.

Start convincing me why America's interests are protected by Israel, and I might feel more supportive of your getting US military equipment and supplies. Right now, I'd just as soon see a complete cutoff. There's very little you can't make yourself.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Got a better idea than having foreign forces come in? You are the one complaining that you are stuck in a war of attrition. Absent outside intervention or the physical destruction of the Palestinians, assuming there is no way to have peace, what's left?

I have previously suggested pulling out of the settlements, replacing them with Israeli military forces and, where appropriate, sensors. Modern counterbattery sensors, coupled with weaponry available to Israel, can provide a potent guard against rocket fire. Within the shorter range, you need to build structures that are resistant to GRAD-equivalent fire, and rely on counterstrikes against the longer-range.

Eventually, those Israeli troops could be replaced by multinational forces, not necessarily under the UN but with rules of engagement consistent with UN Charter Chapter 6.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

That's progress, agreeing on something.

By putting military forces into the settlements, and some fairly fancy sensors, possibly including surveillance drones, over the Territories, it would make it much, much harder even to set up rockets, much less fire them without immediate counterfire. It wouldn't be impossible, but it would be harder.

Part of the insurgent advantage, counterintuitively, is that they are using such weak weapons. In 1991, Powell told the Iraqis, who were using more visible artillery and radars, if they fired, they die. If they radiate (electronically) they die. If they move combat vehicles, they die.

Detection and counterfire technology has gotten a lot better. It's not an accident that most of the Iraqi fire is from IEDs, not rockets or mortars.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

The U.S. does get many benefits from its relationship with Israel. Among them is intelligence cooperation and a close relationship in the aerospace realm. Israel has made many upgrades of American military aircraft, Israel has provided parts of many aircraft, avionics, etc. Israel is at the forefront of computer technology and many American companies use Israeli know-how for computer chips and software. The US uses port facilities in Haifa and carries out joint naval maneuvers with Israel. In an emergency American aircraft know they can land in Israel. All the other American "allies" in the region have populations that are virulently anti-American such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia so how long can the US count on the gov'ts there being friendly and allowing them to use their facilities. Recall that the US used many Saudi military bases and air bases and finally under pressure from Al-Qaida and local terrorist groups, the Saudis forced the US to close its facilities there.

Unlike what you state, the relationship is hardly a one-way street.

Thou doth protest too much. First you say you care about how America's "one-sided" (i.e. friendly-to-Israel-cool-to-Palestinian) approach is "endangering" you and your children, then you say you "care" about Israel, then you say "you don't tell Israel what to do", then you "go nativist" again and say that you think that people who "don't give a damn about the 'well-being' of Americans" have no "right" to post here. You are making unwarranted value judgements. Who says disagreeing with you means they don't "give a damn about the well-being of Americans"? The majority of Americans THEMSELVES don't agree with you since they support a policy that is friendly to Israel and is cool to the Palestinians. They apparently can discern whom their friends and their enemies are better than you.

Now, you say you "don't tell Israel what to do". I had never heard of you before Oslo in 1993, but I bet you were one of those screaming to bring to bring Arafat to Israel. Well, they listened to you and it brought about unprecendented bloodshed on both sides, both Jewish and Arab....well if it is true you supported bringing Arafat then you most certainly did butt into both Israel's and the Palestinian's affairs and you and those who supported this insanity (foremost Rabin, Peres and the Labor Party) and now this disaster is on your hands as well. Note how 9/11 and the big increase in Arab/Muslim extemism occurred AFTER Olso and AFTER Israel recognized the (non-existent) right of the so-called "Palestinian people" to self-determination. The more Israel listened to people like you, the more it made concessions the MORE the extremism and antisemitism INCREASED in the world.
So following the policies you want (and which you claim you are not forcing on Israel) has brought one disaster after another.
So please don't claim you don't tell Israel what to do. And, by the way, why do you write in the Jerusalem Post, if you don't want to tell Israel what to do? You have given us this nativist "I care only about America" line, so why are you writing in a foreign newpaper, if you aren't trying to tell Israelis what to do? What is odd is that I recall the Jerusalem Post has been excoriated by some of the "progressives" here by the usual ad-hominem attacks of being "right-wing" or "ethnically nationalist" or whatever in spite of your participation there.

Reece,

Of course, if we don't sell guns to people, someone else will. The AK-47 is already "the people's gun"--the weapon of choice of militants and freedom fighters because it is cheap, available everywhere, and easy to maintain.

So, I don't really know what to do about arms sales.

It is a huge and daunting problem.  Maybe even the crux of the whole situation at this point.  As hard as it is to reasonably discuss the merits of firearms regulation here in the USA, the difficulty seems to rise exponentially in the arena of foreign relations.  But the first thing to do about it is know about it, and spread the word.

Stuff like this,

From 1991 to 2000, the U.S. delivered $74 billion worth of military equipment, services and training to countries in the Middle East, according to a Sept. 2002 General Accounting Office (GAO) report. You might expect that a majority of that military aid went to our staunch ally in the region, Israel, which has been cited repeatedly by the U.N. and Amnesty International for human rights abuses. However, military aid to Saudi Arabia—where a majority of the terrorists reported to be involved in the Sept 11 attacks were from—topped $33 billion for the period, outpacing aid to Israel by a more than 5-to-1 margin.

And this,

Arms fairs are a key part of the arms trade and there is an international circuit of them, from DSEi and Farnborough in the UK, to DefExpo in India, SOFEX in Jordan, African Aero & Defence in South Africa and Latin America Aero & Defence in Brazil. The attending companies are guaranteed potential customers in vast numbers: from military delegations to individual trade, government and armed forces representatives. They make contact, negotiate and sign contracts over the course of a number of arms fairs and a number of interim meetings. There is almost no possibility of regulation or accountability.

These circumstances have profound effects on the situation, even while we act so world-wearily cynical about the ideological effects of international diplomacy.  It is difficult material to accurately compile and follow, and alot less fun than trading insults, zingers and "gotchas."  But, unfortunately, even in discussions as rich in diverse levels of interests, expertise and articulation as the ones found on this site, the angle on the arms business and its urgent need for a broad serious attempt at accountability and oversight hardly comes up. 

And we haven't even gotten into the financial aspect of the weapons trade, where the Carlyle Group and even good old BCCI still get around.  Read John Kerry's The New War for a particularly unsettling realization of just how badly the American electorate blew a chance for some real leadership in this area (some might recall Ann Coulter's jabs at the Kerry campaign specifically related to that book, and how the approach to terrorism as a "crime issue" was dismissed and ridiculed -- just before the Swift Boat Vets for Truth [sic] attracted a month's worth of attention).

Perhaps you are right that the focus of criticism should be MJ, since the thread started with some of his writings. Personally, I think that's losing an opportunity for useful broader debate.

Bar Kochba, believe it or not, I really am willing to be convinced that there remains a strong mutual benefit to having a strong security relationship between the US and Israel. During the Cold War, there were very clear and obvious benefits for both sides.

You have said you want to convince people of your position. Please, please don't take any of this as a personal attack on anyone, but I confess that on an emotional basis, Davai's arguments tend to make me more annoyed at Israel than I rationally believe I should be.

You, BK, have some ability at argument. In this case, and I am not talking about MJ's arguments, to convince me and quite a few other Americans that strong support of Israel should be US policy, there has to be, indeed, reason to believe that supporting Israeli position is a benefit to the US' "own security and interests."

You state, not unreasonably, that MJ claims that Israel has to go along with US policy, "even if it is detrimental to its own security and interests." The Big Brother reference really isn't worthy of the argument. Turn the situation around. Why should the US go along with Israeli position, unless going along with such policy is advantageous "to its [the US] security and interests?"

I really am open to good arguments on why the US and Israel have common cause, as much or more as in the Cold War. All I hear from you, however, seems to be about Israeli interests, which, in isolation, are irrelevant to me.

As you have said before, Israel is "prickly" about others protecting it. Fine. Be prickly, but then be fully responsible for your own defense, without any benefit of US arms sales or military aid.

A really good start to gaining my confidence in Israel as a responsible partner, and I doubt I'm alone in this, is for Israel to declare itself a nuclear weapons state not signatory to the NPT. India and Pakistan have done just that, and North Korea, when I last checked, was withdrawing.

I am more than willing to work hard to amend the NPT to include those states that have never ratified it and, for reasons that seemed good to them, to develop nuclear weapons. In other words, I'd rather have those states on the inside of the tent than outside it. I believe that such NPT participation would tend to reduce such things as Iranian threats, not that Israel doesn't have an overwhelming deterrent against Iran.

Your move. If you want to convince Americans, present reasons that supporting a particular policy isn't only good for Israel.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

"that there remains a strong mutual benefit to having a strong security relationship between the US and Israel"

What if not?
Relationship between countries are not the same as relationship between companies.

Sorry, I can't follow your question. The subject of "what if not" is not clear, nor is it clear to which post this comment applies.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Important facts to remember regarding 9/11---whatever the exact motives of the terrorists who did it were, it had nothing to do with any specific policies Israel was carrying out. In Al-Qaida's initial propaganda, IIRC Israel wasn't even mentioned. Remember, 9/11 occurred AFTER
Israel recognized the Palestinians supposed "right to self-determination", AFTER Israel recognized the Palestinians chief terrorist organization, the PLO, as the official representative of the Palestinian people, AFTER Israel unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon, and after Israel, at Taba offered a basically complete withdrawal from Judea/Samaria and east Jerusalem. I am convinced the terrorists struck because they saw that "terror works", that Israel was in retreat from the terrorist PLO organization, and they saw that the US, (basically Clinton) refused to take any serious action after terrorist outrages in East Africa (the embassy bombings) plus the USS Cole incident. In addition there were the two terrorist attacks in Argentina against Jewish targets that went unanswered.
Terror thrives when its perpetrators see that it works. Al-Qaida and those like them never even make any political demands, they want everyone to be afraid of them and to make concessions to them. For example, Spain voting out its pro-US policy gov't, and now we have Prime Minister Gordon Brown in the UK announcing that the "war on terror" is over, there is simply "crime fighting", no "terror".

Or perhaps your only purpose is literary critique of MJ, rather than dealing with the actual issues.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Yes, I thought that was clear.

Yup, John, the rabble is roused

Zionista,

Those are much better points than have been made. We differ philosophically, I believe, on the idea of national rights necessarily being desirable, but we can agree to disagree.

I'd be far more willing to accept the propaganda hit on the US if Israel moved on three major issues, both of which act as ripples in the pond of international relations.

First, a prompt removal of all Israeli civilians, with appropriate compensation and relocation, from the Territories. Simultaneously, either the settlements would be replaced by manned military posts, or by sensors covered by firepower and with a clear message, much as on many key American facilities, that deadly force is authorized against trespassers. Those sensors and troops would have, as a primary mission, the prevention, interception, and counterfire on, any fire from the territories into Israel. Eventually, certain bases could be turned over to Palestine, or the Israeli troops replaced by multinationals, without interruption of real-time sensor information to the IDF and observers.

Second, Israel declaring itself a nuclear power, and, preferably in concert with India and Pakistan, work under US and other sponsorship to amend the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to allow these three nations to ratify as declared powers. I believe this would be stabilizing toward Iran.

Third, make a public acknowledgement that weapons sold by the US have been used, in violation of the sales agreement, against civilians in Lebanon in elsewhere. I would be willing to have the US replace all Israeli M26 unguided cluster munition rockets with XM31 guided unitary warhead missiles, subject to the destruction of the M26 stockpile and all other US supplied cluster munitions held by Israel.

There are other things that can be done, and, just as guest workers are an issue in the US, coming up with a better way of dealing with Palestinian workers and consumers in Israel is high on the list.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

You make many good observations. However, I must disagree with one.

However, a second major security concern is that Israel is heavily armed with nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, major nuclear countries have to be dealt with, since if relations with them sour they can pose a substantial threat in the future, even if relations are currently good. The US has no choice but to seek to maintain tolerably good relations with Israel.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

"ntelligence cooperation has been a value in the past, especially regarding then-USSR doctrine and technology. The latter now can be bought directly from the USSR."

Let's assume that there are no benefits to US or that the benefits are minor.
So what?
Is this your general point of view (let's don't talk about Israel) that you abandom a friend with whom you fought a long war agains the "evil empire" because you don't need this friend anymore.
And if this is your point of view, then I understand why you advocate that US should stop support Israel.

Then let's forget about Israel and let's discuus a general proposition of relationship between US and other countries who were useful to US at some point.

This particular friend continues to follow policies that put US citizens at risk and damage US interests in several other ways.

Anyway, I wonder how many Israelis think of any country as a "friend". Many of them seem to have a rather intense Israel Against the World attitude, and would surely drop the US relationship the moment they decided it no longer served the interests of Israel.

Dear LeftAhead:

So glad to hear that you have returned your home to the American Indians.

Sooner or later, in most first-year international relations courses, someone will quote Lord Palmerston, "nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests." There are are very few cases, although there are some, where there are permanent allies.

let's discuus a general proposition of relationship between US and other countries who were useful to US at some point.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Nice try--my land was purchased from the Mexicans, not stolen from the Indians.

Spare me the phony self-pity about abandonment by "friends". Israeli policy is entirely fixated on the survival and prosperity of Israel, period. That is it's first, last and middle preoccupation, and any foreign relationships it chooses to maintain are grounded absolutely and entirely in self-interest, with no admixture of other motives. As anybody who has ever had a true friend can tell you, no relationship based only on the temporary recognition of a mutually beneficial egoism qualifies as friendship. Israel has no friends; it has partners. And if at any moment it were to change its evaluation of the benefits to Israel of its current partnerships, it would drop or alter those partnerships faster than you can say "So long, friend."

It's interesting to note that Israel, a country whose very existence is an outright gift from Lord Balfour and the British Empire, carved with military and diplomatic steel out of the carcass of the Ottoman Empire for His Majesty's special Zionist friends, later chased its British protectors out of Palestine with a terror campaign, once the Crown's usefulness had expired. Gosh, you Israelis are just so damn friendly.

Curiously, there are many Americans who are intensely devoted to Israel or the Holy Land. One frequently encounters Americans singing songs of praise for Israel, blubbering over its every stone, stream and cave. Yet I can't say that I have experienced many examples of Israelis waxing sentimental and poetical about the glories of United States. So far as I can tell, America, for Israelis, is just a place where a large number of Jews happen to live, surrounded by a few hundred million buffoonish pigeons, easy marks for the ongoing Israeli con, and who can all be counted on to send endless supplies of lawyers, guns and money without question or cavil.

Friendly ol' Israel also conducts ceaseless espionage inside the United States, and conspires with its agents of influence to steer our domestic politics. It openly mocks US diplomatic requests, as it has for years, and yet the cash and weaponry keep flowing. It's leaders zealously promoted taking out Saddam Hussein, whom Israeli paranoids averred was one of the greatest threats since Hitler, while issuing instructions through its lobbying agents to keep the Israeli influence quiet, and then lied after the fact claiming that the attack was all the idea of the dumb Americans. Now while Americans are still in the process of getting killed in Iraq, along with a whole bunch of innocent non-WMD-possessing Iraqis, Israel is touting the threat of the newest Hitler, the one in Iran. And the pigeons appear eager as always get swindled.

Israel protects only its own, and I suggest America do the same, at least where Israel is concerned.

This can get complex, given Israel has its own advanced military manufacturing sector. The US has veto power over certain technologies that the US provided to Israel, whether or not Israel improved on them.

A good example where the US used its veto power is the proposed Israeli sale of the Phalcon airborne warning and control radar system to China. It should have been quite obvious that the US would not favor such technology going to China. Whether or not one wants to blame Israeli "merchants of death", or government policy, the incident did not exactly engender US trust in Israel as an ally.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

Carved out of another land....
chased the British crown out...

sounds like the Colonists after 1776.

The organized Jewish yishuv (community) rose up against the British when they unilaterally violated the terms of the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations
Mandate, both of which called for Jewish immigration to be maintained. In the 1939 MacDonald White Paper, the British unilaterally ended Jewish immigration and halted Jewish land purchases. Again, these were in violation of the Mandate. Even Churchill opposed these measures. This was a death sentence for 6 million people. It is not surprising that the Jews in Eretz Israel became annoyed.
In any event, by 1947 the British had pulled out of India and were pulling back in Egypt (Suez Canal Zone). The British Empire was finished. How long do you think they were going to stay in Palestine anyway, where they were not wanted?

The 1939 White Paper was "quite sane" from your viewpoint so long as you didn't have a death sentence hanging over your head in Europe. In any event the Arabs turned to terrorism against the gov't there as early as 1920 and repeatedly after that. I know it seems incredible to you that the Jews would be testy as a consquence of the world situation, but there you have it.

Incidentally, I saw a filmed interview with James MacDonald made around 1980 and he said the White Paper had nothing to do with the "ability of the country to absorb new Jewish immigrants", it was explicitly done to appease the Arabs whom the British wanted on their side in the upcoming war. He claims he felt bad about doing it as the Jews were building the country up successfully. Indeed, there are now something like 12 times as many Jews today in the country as there were then, so obviously there was room for more.

Apropos of some aspects I've mentioned here about Israel's nuclear status as well as the concern about Iran, I've done a Discussion Table post on updating world policy on nuclear weapons proliferation, but also steps for decreasing the probability of their use. I make specific suggestions about how Israel could gain more trust while continuing to address its own key security goals.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

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

I agree with you here, Bev, but have to point out that the whole "real name" thing is ridiculous anyway.

In a previous discussion about this issue, Howard pointed us to a webpage advertising a book by Howard Berkowitz as proof that he was who he said he was. But the average non-technical user of TPM Cafe really has no way of knowing whether the person posting here is the same Howard Berkowitz who published the book, or some precocious teenager posing as Howard Berkowitz. (I suppose the management, and those who are technically skilled enough to do some hacking might be able to verify it.)

So why insist on "real names" when the average user really doesn't have any way of knowing if the "real names" are real anyway? I happen to know of one circumstance where it was later determined that the person on a certain site who was making the most noise about how everyone should be using "real names" wasn't using his own!

(Sorry for using you as the example here, Howard. It's only to make the point.)

"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals..." ~~ Iraq Study Group

Often I've seen Zionista use memes or direct quotes that I've also seen on hasbara sites.

Kinda makes 'ya wonder...

I'm hiding under your bed too, Wordie.  Sweet dreams....

[Update]

Wordie,

The "reimbursement" thing sounds like a far rightwing talking point to me, and I've noticed others coming from this person, who is, on the other hand, clearly intelligent and in all things not Israel-related, seemingly quite progressive.

By the way, "this person" (one among "you people," apparently) maintains that there is room enough in "all things... Israel-related," for good old school liberal progress.  Meanwhile, it says something of one's perspective when one issue is enough to declare another's liberal bona fides illegitimate.

Only a portion of the aid to Israel is tied to U.S. purchases and these are arms purchases that Israel wants. Zionista seems to be "forgetful" these days. I recall that he made the same argument some time back and was refuted with sound supporting data.

To tie into Zionista's argument against arms proliferation up-thread, $billions in U.S. aid and technology has been given to Israel to build up a muscular MIC of their own. We are paying for development of arms, which Israel exports (much of it to China) undercutting our own manufacturers and our own national security policies.

This is just one way that our aid to Israel is more costly than the $billions we give it. The usually given figure of $3 billion per year in aid is more like $5 billion and we pay interest on top of that. In other ways, of course, our cost of supporting Israel is much greater (in the $trillions over the years?). How much aid does the U.S. government give the occupied Palestinian refugees? None.