This concert of democracies idea is silly, and its a shame that its taking up all the space on a page that would be a great forum to discuss real issues that demand urgent attention.
You tried, but its time to call it quits on this topic. Maybe bring it back later when people are "ready" to hear it.
Right now, wouldn't it be good to try and delve into substantive issues?

Posted at December 19, 2006 3:00 PM in response to Fine-Tuning a Concert of Democracies

When the United States forms alliances with other nations, those alliances should be for the purpose of addressing a set of specific measurable goals that are regional in their scope, and specifically address U.S. interests.
For example, the U.S. forms alliances in the Pacific, in Europe and South America for specific purposes. The NATO alliance provides for defending strong US interests in Europe, and the overarching goal of preventing another European war.
Other agreements focus solely on commerce, which is entirely appropriate.
For global issues, we have the United Nations, which is already weighted somewhat towards the democratic nations. Better to bolster the United Nations than to invent a vague alliance with vague goals, based on a vague philosophy, and the popular politics of the moment.

Posted at December 18, 2006 8:18 AM in response to The Politics Behind the Concert

The basic issue in the West Bank is a Human Rights issue, that we, in the United States, should be familiar with. Israel currently holds the West Bank under occupation, in fact. The West Bank's borders are controlled by Israel, as is much of its territory (only 22% is actually controlled outright by the Palestinian Government). The residents of the West Bank WHO ARE NOT ISRAELI, who live within the Israeli zone of influence (i.e. 68% of the territory) are subject to Israeli military law. Their lands can and have been seized, and they can be held WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Due process is the critical issue, and it is what defines the Israeli occupation as both legally and morally unacceptable.
The interference of Israel in the Palestinians right to self-determination is also immoral and illegal. Self Determination is held as a sacred right for people. Its hard to see why Palestinians are somehow thought not to be deserving of that right.
Israel denies Palestians in the West Bank citizenship rights in Israel, but it allows them to come work in Israel, where Palestinians create a huge supply of cheap labor for Israelis. At the same time, Israel can, and often does, incapacitate the Palistinian economy in both the West Bank and Gaza, through seizure of natural resources (quarries, water), control of borders, control of export and import, and control over the movement of civilians. Palestinians cannot leave either the West Bank or Gaza without the permission of a Government in which they have no representation. This is a direct restriction of what we, in the US, consider basic rights, that are self-evident, including "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".
To enter Israel from Gaza, as most Palestinians must do, unless they are to restrict themselves to Gaza for their entire lives, they must go though a cattle shute, literally, not figuratively. The entry point to Israel is a 1/2 mile long space, about 15 yards wide, enclosed on all sides, and on top, by reinforced steel fencing. Palestinians must enter on one end, on foot, and walk to the checkpoint, where they are subjected to searches and can be denied entry to Israel on the sole authority of Israeli border guards. In effect, Palestinians seeking entry to Israel, regardless of age, sex, or physical condition, are treated like cattle, not human beings. At the same time, Israeli settlers can bypass these humiliations by driving on reserved roads (built on land seized from private landowners without compensation, ie. without due process) that are off limits to Palestinians. These measures are based completely on ethnicity and race, no jew in Gaza is required to go throught the Cattle shute, and so they are, undeniably, racist.
Israel claims to deny Palestinians their rights for security, but there is a very strong economic gain to Isrealis, who benefit from cheap labor from a population that can, in an instant, be confined to a small geographic area, with no contact to the outside world. Israel's policies also serve a minority population over the welfare of a much larger group (Settlers in the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza, over the entire Palestinian population). In the eyes of Israel, all Israelis Jews are created equal, but Palestinians are not, neither, for that matter are Israelis Arabs, who cannot apply or receive grants to be housed in Israeli settlements, which are built from funds from a government which taxes them, and requires them to serve in its military forces.
New settlements are being built on land from private Palestinian landowners, which is illegal, and immoral. These settlements are open to Israelis, but not Palestinians, nor are they in fact made available to Israel Arabs, or non-jews. So land is being seized from private landowners by a government which offers no due process to a certain ethnic group, specifically for the benefit of a different ethnic group, which has superior rights, and has legal and political representation. This is apartheid, any way you slice it.
Furthermore, Isreal uses settlements, and their security, as a reason to seize, without due process, natural resources, such as water supplies, which should be the collective property of the Palestinians in the West Bank. This is, again, both immoral and illegal.
Many Israelis do not support these policies, and are vocal in their opposition, however those opinions, as expressed in Israeli papers, do not often find their way to the US media.

Posted at December 14, 2006 9:48 AM in response to President Carter, Israel, Apartheid and The First Amendment

There is reason to believe that the ushering in of Baker/Gates and the ushering out of Rumsfeld (combined with Cheney's silence) means there is going to be a significant change in foreign policy, and that it will be an effective change.
41's Foreign Policy A-Team would be the best hope for getting back on the right track on Middle East Policy. 41 was pragmatic in his dealings in the region, and has been the only president to effectively reign in Israel, the overlooked (in the U.S.) key to US foreign policy leverage in the M.E. Movement on the Palestinian issue is key to support from moderate Arabs.
Baker and Gates represent the pragmatic view, Democrats may be best served by coopting their ideas, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.
Perhaps a greater danger is that the Democrats, tempted by election success, will try and propose a far-reaching plan with no chance of success. The Democrats should primarily provide accountability, and help bolster the Baker/Gates team. The Dems no longer have as much to fear from 43, they need to be cautious in helping to guide foreign policy.

Posted at November 14, 2006 3:00 PM in response to Is America headed back to the center?