Stay the course.

What course? Course implies that we have a plan and direction.

Marc thinks the U.S. missed a chance for a "Suez moment," though that obviously isn't something the Bush administration ever had in mind anyway.

I see Kevin misses the difference between Israel's actions today and Egypt's actions in the Suez crisis. In the Suez crisis, it was proper for the United States to order Egypt not to attack other countries because it was Egypt's fault that the Suez crisis occurred in the first place. To the contrary, in the war on Hezbollah, it was Hezbollah who killed and kidnapped the Israeli soldiers, thereby starting this entire battle. So Egypt was wrong in the Suez Crisis while Israel is right in the War On Hezbollah because Hezbollah started it. Of course, I'm not surprised at your liberal false moral equivalence between the two situations.

Right, Al. The Middle East was fully at peace before those Hezbollah guys started this all two weeks ago.

In any just and rational world, George Bush and his entire administration would be tried for crimes against humanity--both crimes of commission and those of omission. The administration's refusal to step in and stop the fighting is at once outrageously shortsighted and historically monstrous.

But Bush, as Condi and his enablers have been swift to point out, believes that he personally is much, much smarter than all those historians, diplomats, Middle-East experts, and foreign heads of state. For a guy who has never once successfully managed anything, and who spent the first 2/3 of his life in a drunken and rebellious stupor, he sure has balls--though no brains.

Too bad we and generations of Americans to come will be paying heavily for this imbecile.

No one could have anticipated this.

Oh my. Marc is incensed. This administration has the incredible habit of always doing the wrong thing on purpose.

"No one could have anticipated this."

Damn straight. And all we've got to do is get Kofi to get on the phone with Bashad and this shit's over.

No, no, no, Kevin, the Democrats have it right. We must only support Israel. In fact, people who criticize Israel are unfit to speak to the United States Congress, and only the appeasing, anti-Semitic Bush administration would suggest such a thing.

Did I get the wrong script?

If the sentiment of peoples in the Middle East are increasingly blaming the US, then what's the logical conclussion to that? More terrorist plots and attacks, particulary softer targets abroad. And so what's our response? More war, and furthur crackdown on brown people, our civil rights, our "private" communications systems, and our sanity. Why can't people like Al follow these things to their logical conclussion, and realize that we are cutting off our nose to spite our face with this hardline attitude with a big Fuck You to anyone not named Israel? But hey, we have a War President. He's said it many times. I've never heard him call himself a Peace President.

Just the side effects of being a Empire!.................The next 6 months in the ME will be Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Well, like it or not, public opinion in this country generally supports Israel. If the 'al-Jazeera' public is just becoming aware of this fact-- they've been kidding themselves.

GWB is a uniter -- uniting the world against the US and Israel.

Bravo. Good show.

America is totally alone on this. And more than most Americans might realize, America is being blamed for Israel's actions.

Of course! The USA is to blame for EVERYTHING that happens in the world. Surely everyone on this site knows that!

I see Kevin misses the difference between Israel's actions today and Egypt's actions in the Suez crisis. In the Suez crisis, it was proper for the United States to order Egypt not to attack other countries because it was Egypt's fault that the Suez crisis occurred in the first place. To the contrary, in the war on Hezbollah, it was Hezbollah who killed and kidnapped the Israeli soldiers, thereby starting this entire battle. So Egypt was wrong in the Suez Crisis while Israel is right in the War On Hezbollah because Hezbollah started it. Of course, I'm not surprised at your liberal false moral equivalence between the two situations.
Posted by: Al on July 26, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Al, you have no idea what Kevin was probably talking about. The "Suez Moment" Kevin is referring to is when Eisenhower forced Britain and France to stop military operations. He threatened to sell American reserves of the British pound and also used the UN to rebuke Britain and France. This would mean getting tough with your ally to force a cease-fire. You can argue whether or not it is proper for Bush to follow a similar path, but before you comment on anything, at least know the history.

Being large and in charge was the promise of the neo-con foreign policy.

When has the current administration ever been able to get out in front of a problem?

I guess somebody might way we were out front when we invaded Iraq, but we quickly squandered any advantage we had there. Since then we have always been playing some other guy's game. That is what we are doing in Lebanon. We are emerging as the bad guys in Lebanon because we are letting everybody think the Israelis run our foreign policy. Hell, I am not sure they don't.

Anybody else tired of the current administration's fumbling foreign policy?

Will someone please explain what the U.S. interests are in supporting Israel? Is it support for democracy? Is it holocaust guilt? What?

Is there a website that explains this?

Why is the U.S. willing to incur so much hatred from the islamic world and elsewhere on behalf of Israel?

The course I mentioned earlier is standard US faire: claim support for democracy as long as the state maintains the top-down elite run system of capital over labor; support free elections as long as the right candidate wins, if the wrong candidate wins denounce the elections and place a US friendly puppet in power, mislead Americans with washed down and inaccurate media reports that often cover one side of the issue if covered at all, that course.

US supports Israel because of (in historical order) guilt, cold war, and now, religous fanaticism which regards the middle east at the starting point of end times. The AIPAC influence over congress is huge, and the organization of Jewish interest is amazing.

Will someone please explain what the U.S. interests are in supporting Israel? Is it support for democracy? Is it holocaust guilt? What?

Is there a website that explains this?

Why is the U.S. willing to incur so much hatred from the islamic world and elsewhere on behalf of Israel?
Posted by: Flummoxed on July 26, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Well, considering only about 18% of Jewish-Americans are truly supportive of Israel's dumbest policies, such as the Palestinian occupation, I'm guessing it isn't due to American Jews. 18% of 3% of the population isn't large. Also, about 1/3 of American Jews feel no connection to Israel and another 1/3 feel the US is too close to Israel. My guess it is part Holocaust guilt, part the fact that questioning our Israel policy is not seen as a polite topic of conversation among the media class (similar to actually exploring American-run slavery in Northern Marianas or how drug criminalization makes the problem worse) and part Protestant anti-Semitism. A significant portion of this nation's Christians believe that if the Jews take over all of Biblical Greater Israel, Jesus will come back and force the Jews and other non-Christians to convert or suffer eternal damnation. The most popular book series in the country after Harry Potter is the Left Behind series, whose story arc follows similar lines. There is probably also some residual Holocaust guilt that has led to the creation of Judeo-Christian civilizational identity, which casts Arabs and Muslims as the Other as Jews were once the Other in Europe and America.

Well... historians will be busy for the next 500 years figuring out Dubya's "Lion in Winter" presidency.

Little nut, you're a commie! How could you make such unpatriotic statements! Capital over labor, US friendly puppets in power (Saddam), misleading the public! Don't you love 'Merica?! Harry Truman was a great president, not to mention Teddy Roosevelt! What's wrong with...(waking up) wha... Mama...can I go play baseball and eat some apple pie?

Just occurred to me, maybe the US is holding off evacuating Iraq until after Saddam is executed. If we left earlier, who knows what might happen?

An overwhelming majority of American Jews - 73 percent - describe themselves as moderate or liberal; 23 percent label themselves as conservative. Only 19 percent voted for Bush in the 2000 elections...

http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp509.htm

Now that the Left is clearly aligning themselves against Israel, I wonder how the Jewish vote in the U.S. will be impacted in future elections?

Will American Jews start to realize that support for Israel is becoming a Conservative-only value in this country?

US supports Israel because of (in historical order) guilt, cold war, and now, religous fanaticism which regards the middle east at the starting point of end times. The AIPAC influence over congress is huge, and the organization of Jewish interest is amazing.

While blaming rapture-seekers is fun, the AIPAC influence is probably a bigger factor; remember that, as the al-Maliki episode shows, Democrats in Congress are often no less, and sometimes more, unquestioningly loyal to Israel as are Republicans in Congress or those in the White House.

Two things. First, I have a lot of sympathy with the view that the US has a fair share of responsibility to shoulder in the Lebanon situation. The Bush administration assumed office and essentially abandoned the Israel-Palestine situation. When they finally decided to re-engage, the situation had already markedly deteriorated. Add to that the refusal to talk with Syria and Iran, and to exert any leverage on them to rein in Hezbollah (or to talk with Hezbollah) through them, and you have the situation that led to the situation we find ourselves with now. Diplomacy used to exist and the world was a more stable place for it. What we have now is not a failure of diplomacy but a lack of it.
Second, I would like to see someone somewhere draw a distinction between (a) Israel's justification for responding to repeated and escalating Hezbollah attacks (with increasingly sophisticated weaponry) (What is a country supposed to do? Sit and take it, while its whole northern border needs to be evacuated?) and (b) the nature and extent of Israel's attack. The wisdom of the military strategy AS STRATEGY is not being discussed much. I for one support Israel wrt (a) but have some very substantial concerns about (b).

On an unrelated topic...Kevin, you wouldn't happen to have any words of wisdom or direction of where to find some on the collapse of the Doha round of trade talks?

Holocaust guilt, and Jews in general, have NOTHING to do with the recent trend toward demonizing Arabs and Islam among Fundamentalists.

They hate Islam for the same reason they have a problem with Mormons; both religions claim to be new-and-improved versions of Christianity, which is incredibly blasphemous and annoying to them. And then the specifics of Muslim life as understood by Americans just makes it that much worse.

Will American Jews start to realize that support for Israel is becoming a Conservative-only value in this country?
Posted by: sportsfan79 on July 26, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Well, the type of support you cite is not popular among American Jews (see the numbers above). Most Jewish-Americans know that anti-Semitic driving for the second coming of Christ and waiting for the murder of all Jews is what drives conservative Christian policies on this. Most are also ashamed of the most self-destructive of Israeli policies, especially occupation. Even most Israelis are anti-settler. Israel's self-destructive policies are only really popular among the Israeli far right, the American right, various terrorist groups that rely on such policies for recruitment and Martin Peretz. The only American Jews who support such policies tend to be the 18% single-issue voters who are also ethnocentric bigots. The right can have them if they want.

机票|北京机票|北京飞机票|北京打折机票|北京特价机票|北京航班查询|北京学生机票|北京国际机票|航空公司

酒店
北京五星级酒店
北京四星级酒店
北京三星级酒店
北京酒店
如家快捷酒店
200元以下酒店
可上网酒店

Will American Jews start to realize that support for Israel is becoming a Conservative-only value in this country?

That big conservative Nancy Pelosi and her criticism of al-Maliki's stance against Israel's present policy.

If unquestioning support for Israel is definitively Conservative, the Democratic Party is the more Conservative party in Congress at the moment, if only because the Republicans are caught between blind support for Israel and blind support for Bush's policy in Iraq which implies the same support for the government there...

I wouldn't call myself a "commie," I like the things I own, I just don't have a desire to steal other people's property.

Reality Man wrote:

Well, the type of support you cite is not popular among American Jews (see the numbers above).

Yeah, I saw your post above, but ignored it because I didn't believe your numbers were based on "reality" (pardon the pun). And there was no supporting link.

Second, I would like to see someone somewhere draw a distinction between (a) Israel's justification for responding to repeated and escalating Hezbollah attacks (with increasingly sophisticated weaponry) (What is a country supposed to do? Sit and take it, while its whole northern border needs to be evacuated?) and (b) the nature and extent of Israel's attack.

Any distinction between justification and what is sought to be justified is somewhat artificial; the two are necessarily linked. The justification must justify the thing actually done, not some different or lesser thing.

Now that the Left is clearly aligning themselves against Israel,

There's no "clearly" about it. Much of the criticism of Israel's behavior is by liberal supporters of Israel, like myself, who are opposed to Israel's actions in Lebanon precisely because they think that these actions are bad for Israel in the long-run. Israel is sacrificing its ultimate interests for the sake of cheap momentary gain.

By the way, the link you referenced above (http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp509.htm) is from 2003. Rather a lot has happened since then, and Bush's support among all Americans, including Jews, has cratered.

Trying to destroy Hezbollah would be like trying to destroy America's Southern Baptists. Attacking the organization that represents the largest religious group in any country is only going to steele the population's resolve to resist and retaliate. The only way to subdue a majority is through systemic terror, like the Palestinian model Israel has developed. The Shi'a of Lebanon know this and is why they support Hezbollah. Iran knows it too and is why they support Hezbollah. Arabs know it and is why they support Palestinians and now the Lebanese and oppose the US. Now that the population knows it, Arab despots are beginning to worry, too.

Iran's political power is not won from military might or aggression, like America's. The electorate of the US is unable to understand their military aid to Israel makes them responsible for the terror Israel is able to inflict on its neighbors. It is liberals, leftists and those with morals who must take this issue to the politicians, but since even the leading Democrats and liberal opinion makers accept the platitude Israel must destroy all who oppose its oppression, the chances of ending military aid and the enmity of the Arab majority are not good.

The US/Israel alliance is polarizing the world in ways not seen since WWII. Silent complicity has always been US policy throughout the world (Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Egypt, Congo, (Or worse) Haiti, South Africa, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Cuba, etc., etc., etc…), but never before have the eyes of the world been so focused on the US as it continues with its familiar tradition of foreign policy that is becoming all too clear to the world. Free elections can put radical terrorists in power and with Congress following the president with a lemming like allegiance we can hope for nothing more than more of the same.

Does anyone else has the impression that Condi comes across not as a statesman that a Secretary of State normally should be, but as a high school political science student too eager to add one more accomplishment to her college application, never mind what the achievement.

Since the number of Jews who have answered the questions raised by this article is few, and the number of Jews who have ignored it is almost all, and it is so relevant to what is going on in Gaza and Lebanon, I feel it needs to be posted again:

WHY DOESN'T THE MEDIA PUBLISH THIS? I wonder indeed.

Israel Fakes a Provocation (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Gilad Shalit)

The following passages in italics are from:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/26/wmid26.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/26/ixnews.html

Last night two Israeli soldiers were killed and another kidnapped in a dawn attack by Palestinian militants who tunnelled under Gazas heavily protected border.

The attackers, believed to number seven or eight, surprised Israeli forces when they appeared at first light through a tunnel on open ground 300 yards inside Israel near a kibbutz.

Gaza is built on old semi-consolidated sand dunes. It is extremely unlikely that anyone could tunnel 500, or more, yards in the sandy ground of Gaza (300 yards into Israel plus 200 yards of no-mans land plus more to the tunnel entrance), without the tunnel collapsing at some point.

They split into three groups before launching simultaneous attacks on three Israeli defensive positions - a look-out tower, plus a tank and an armoured personnel carrier, both dug in, facing Gaza.

If you were only seven or eight, would you split into three groups? If you were only two, or three, would you attack a tank over flat ground, manned by four soldiers waiting inside to kill you?

They blew open the tanks rear doors with a missile fired from point-blank range before tossing grenades inside. Two of the tank crew died and another was severely wounded but the final crew member, the gunner, was forced out of the wreckage at gunpoint.

The rear doors are blown off and a few grenades popped inside. Tanks are not made to fall apart. Blowing off the rear doors would have taken a blast sufficient to seriously hurt those inside. The grenades would have then made mincemeat of them. One wonders if it is standard practice to wear a bulletproof vest inside a hot tank. One would think that the tank would be bulletproof enough not to require such a vest. Can Israeli tanks stop bullets, or not?

Later reports, from the New York Times and Guardian, tell use that Shalit suffered only minor injuries to his abdomen and one arm, even though everyone else in the tank was severely wounded or killed. Shalit would have been less than three feet away from those killed (there is no spare room in a tank).

Israeli trackers said they found his blood-stained bulletproof vest close to the Gaza perimeter fence.

The militants force Shalit to take off his bulletproof vest and leave it close to the Gaza concentration camp fence, in order to help the Israelis with their investigation.

By the way, whose blood is it on his bulletproof vest? Did his minor wounds bleed profusely, or was it the other soldiers blood and guts all over him. Pity their bulletproof vests didn't save them.

Meanwhile, two other militants attacked a nearby concrete watchtower.... The troop carrier was also damaged in another attack but it was unoccupied. The attackers then escaped back into Gaza by cutting their way through the perimeter fence.

Interestingly, the attackers escaped easily by cutting through the (electrified) perimeter fence, yet cutting through the perimeter fence in order to get in, was so hard to do, that they burrowed through half a mile of sandy ground instead. Something wrong with this story, perhaps?

After all this commotion, the soldiers in all the nearby Gaza concentration camp guard-towers, manage to miss a few Arabs running the 300 yards, over flat ground, back to the perimeter fence, miss them when they cut through it, and miss them running across no-mans land to safety. Anyway why, you may ask, did they not return through the tunnel they had painstakingly dug? Perhaps, they wanted to prove the total incompetence of the Israeli soldier.

If you believe this sad tale, I have a bridge to sell you.

The Hamas political leadership sought to distance itself from the incident last night when a spokesman said it had no knowledge of the fate of Cpl Shilat. Ghazi Hamad, a spokesman, said: "We are calling on the resistance groups, if they do have the missing soldier to protect his life and treat him well."

Yes, the Hamas political leadership had no idea of the fate of Cpl Shilat, as the story is a total fabrication.

The Jew press then claims that the Popular Resistance Committees, the armed wing of Hamas and the (previously unknown) Army of Islam were jointly responsible for the kidnapping of Shilat.

Why three groups you may ask?

The reason for three groups, is so that each of them might believe that the other has the "kidnapped" soldier, when, in fact, none of them have him. He is sipping coffee in Tel Aviv.

And why did a "previously unknown" group put up its hand?

Well, just in case one of the groups had doubts that the other group had the "kidnapped" soldier, they certainly couldn't be sure the "previously unknown" group didn't have him,... because after all, they don't have any idea who is leading, or anyone in, this unknown group.

So the reason for the weird "I did it arrangement," is so that the Jew press can claim that the Arabs claimed responsibility, when all they have done, is to NOT deny they did it.

Oh yeah, the "previously unknown" group is a Jew invention. It doesn't exist, except in the Jew newspapers.

If you are not already convinced that the whole story is a fabrication, ask yourself; What were the four Israeli soldiers doing in the tiny confines of that dug-in tank? Ask your self; How long were they going to continue sitting in that tank? All day perhaps, or till they roasted in the desert sun? Or, till another group of four took over on the next shift? And of course, having four soldiers in just one tank, wont provide a defense, so there will have to be hundreds of tanks and hundreds of soldiers all sitting in these tanks,...

all waiting,... all waiting,... all waiting,.... for exactly what?

Waiting for Palestinian children to throw stones at them, perhaps? Perhaps, waiting attentively for militants to dig a half mile tunnel through sandy soil, pop up, and rush them over flat ground, but not attentively enough to see them approach? Perhaps, they were waiting for the Egyptian army to materialize, Star Trek like, from their bases hundreds of miles away on the other side of the Suez canal? I dont know,... you tell me why?

Yes, the story is a total fabrication. A fake provocation to start a war. Yes, the Jews are evil people.

Stefan wrote:
Israel is sacrificing its ultimate interests for the sake of cheap momentary gain.

Interesting statement.

You think the conflict with hezbollah is about monetary gain? Serious question. I had thought it was more about ideological conflict.

Of course! The USA is to blame for EVERYTHING that happens in the world. Surely everyone on this site knows that!

read the title of the post

You think the conflict with hezbollah is about monetary gain?

again, try reading what you are commenting to

'Does anyone else has the impression that Condi comes across not as a statesman that a Secretary of State normally should be, but as a high school political science student too eager to add one more accomplishment to her college application, never mind what the achievement.'
--nut

My brother, who is a college professor, knew Rice when she was a professor, then provost at Stanford. He said she was a hack as a professor and all of her peers had nothing but disdain for her back in the day. He said she has shamelessly parlayed her race and gender to get positions for which she is utterly unqualified. In fact, she has failed her way all the way to Secretary of State.

Who knows? She may fail all the way to the top, just like our idiot president!!!

nut wrote:
Does anyone else has the impression that Condi comes across not as a statesman that a Secretary of State normally should be, but as a high school political science student too eager to add one more accomplishment to her college application, never mind what the achievement.

No.

Of course, I'm not sitting there beside her during every meeting and negotiation. But she strikes me as intensely intelligent, and I have a great deal of admiration for her.

You think the conflict with hezbollah is about monetary gain?

The immediate approach seems to be about momentary gain; the fundamental conflict is about identity, retribution on both sides stretching back for decades, indeed often generations, identity politics, proxy regional and global geopolitics, ideology, and a lot of other things.

watcher is a madrassa trained sophist.

Oops, I said identity twice.

Come to think of it, maybe that's not a mistake.

again, try reading what you are commenting to

wtf are you talking about? You are wasting my time.

I don't know that Condi Rice as President of the United States would qualify as "failing to the top."

she has failed her way all the way to Secretary of State

The Peter Principle explains the entire Bush regime.

sportsfan spewed:

wtf are you talking about? You are wasting my time.

No, you foul-mouthed fool. You are wasting our time with your inability to distinguish between the words "momentary" and "monetary".

He said she was a hack as a professor and all of her peers had nothing but disdain for her back in the day

Mainly she lacked rudimentary social skills and a desire to do academic work. The leadership of the academic counsel back then reminded me a lot of John Bolton's office at the UN. When your goals are unpopular it's the only way to get things done.

cmdicely wrote:

The immediate approach seems to be about momentary gain; the fundamental conflict is about identity, retribution on both sides stretching back for decades, indeed often generations, identity politics, proxy regional and global geopolitics, ideology, and a lot of other things.

Thanks dicely. Please elaborate on the first clause of the first sentence. Who's gaining? Sharon? Isreal's power elites? And what are the gains? Land-grabbing?

Doubtless, in any conflict there will be those who's central preoccupation is profiteering. But stephan's original statement was that the conflict was about monetary gain. That's a strong statement.

I just have to say, WTF is with the Democrats protesting Al-Maliki's speech. It's like they didn't learn a thing about the run up to the Iraq war. They're just lining up to out hawk Bushco again just like 2002. We'll be at war with Syria and Iran before November if they keep pulling this crap.

I'm so ashamed of our congress yet again. Look a little deeper people, this thing started with the shooting of a Palestinian family on the beach in Gaza several months ago and now Israel is bombing a semi-functioning democracy back to the stone age with US made weapons (I guess Lockheed needed some new orders for "smart" bombs). This is just another 911 in the making for us.

I don't know that Condi Rice as President of the United States would qualify as "failing to the top."

From her point of view, of course not.

From the point of view of the nation, that's another matter. We have already seen the disastrous consequences of an utterly unqualified person holding the Presidency.

Disputo wrote:

No, you foul-mouthed fool. You are wasting our time with your inability to distinguish between the words "momentary" and "monetary".

Yep, I'm guilty as charged. Totally read "momentary" as "monetary".

You might want to look up "foul-mouthed", though.

...the fundamental conflict is about identity, retribution on both sides stretching back for decades, indeed often generations, identity politics, proxy regional and global geopolitics, ideology, and a lot of other things.

I'm still confused as to why the U.S. has put its arm into this historical snake pit. Is this worth all the death and destruction (not to mention provoking terror) -- unless of course some security or special resource (like oil) is involved. Islamic terrorists could conceivably set off a nuclear device in the U.S. because of our almost fanatical support of Israel.

It's a silly idea I guess but why not just transplant the entire israeli population (with financial incentives) to Utah or Miami or New York. It would be less costly in a lot of ways and would definitely be an overall asset to the country. Let the sunnis, shiites, christian arabs in that region fight it out amongst themselves.

foul-mouthed: using foul or obscene language

wtf: who/what/why the fuck? The universal interrogative particle.

fuck: copulate, usually obscene

Thanks dicely. Please elaborate on the first clause of the first sentence. Who's gaining?

The present government, by doing everything possible to look tough and uncompromising; the gain is momentary, because the course of action doesn't serve long-term stability and security on the border or otherwise, and indeed undermines it.

OT: Lieberman Camp Bars Lamont Supporter From Event

Lieberman once again proves he's a Republican in disguise, at least in terms of political tactics and racism against arabs.

Will someone please explain what the U.S. interests are in supporting Israel? Is it support for democracy? Is it holocaust guilt? What?

Hezbollah is a savage terrorist organization that has made unprovoked attacks against Americans. Hexbollah has killed hundreds of Americans. That's one obvious reason why it's in America's interest to see Hezbollah degraded or destroyed. In fact, the destruction of this barbaric group is in the interest of all civilized nations.

Bush saying the same thing over and over and over and over again -- like watching dry paint -- thank you MoDo.

One is inclined to wonder if the delay in U.S. efforts to broker a cease fire in the current Middle East conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is an indication of a waning confidence in the direction of the efforts of the Secretary of State as well as some further expanding neoconservative influence with the President. The fact that the administration has indicated that there must be an enduring solution rather than any rapid efforts to negotiate a cease fire seems to support the neoconservative belief that threats must be dealt with from a position of strength…even if that includes a lengthier period of military engagement. The delay in dispatching Rice to the region seems to be significant.

Not unlike the Harriet Miers situation, a Bush pal has been tagged by a group of neocons for rejection. While this may be full scale speculation, it isn’t an impossibility given the neocon agenda goes back some thirty plus years to Team B and they believe they are close to finalizing their influence on foreign policy.

Read the full article here:

www.thoughttheater.com

"No one could have anticipated this."

Or that people would hijack airliners and ram them into buildings.

Candi is two for two.
.

I'm still confused as to why the U.S. has put its arm into this historical snake pit.

The US hasn't suddenly decided to put its arm into the snake-pit; its been embroiled in almost every element I listed that contributes to the conflict almost from the beginning, certainly since the middle of the Cold War.

'Flummoxed' posted:

"Will someone please explain what the U.S. interests are in supporting Israel?"

Their common interests (under these current regimes) are that they both are engaged in illegal military occupations.
.

The USA is to blame for EVERYTHING that happens in the world. Surely everyone on this site knows that!

sportsfan, your silly and dishonest straw man aside, the fact remains that Israel's deadly and disproportionate destruction of Lebanon's civil and political infrastructure is occurring with the US government's explicit, forget about tacit, blessing. The perception of this fact, I contend, is not at all in the US's interests, and Condi Rice's skills at prevarication -- although well known and oft employed -- are simply not up to the task of sheileding the US from this undesirable outcome.

It seems fairly clear that the Bush administration, unable to generate sufficient interest domestically for attacks against Syria and Iran, pushed the Israeli's to engage in an unprecedented overreaction to whatever provocation arab militants next raised against Israel in the hopes of starting a general conflict involving Syria and Iran that would allow the US to justify expanding the scope of its own military actions in the region.

The Israeli reaction, particularly based on past precedent, is grossly greater than the incitement, which was no more egregious, and really quite less, than many previous incitements which were met with very limited responses without provoking any increase in the type and level of radical arab attacks.

So far Syria and Iran haven bitten, and Rice is bitterly disappointed - you can see it on her face.

Once again, the GOP proves it has no clue about how the Middle East operates, what motivates the relevant actors in the region, or how to truly reform the region towards peace.

Roadmap to Nowhere, indeed.

...Hezbollah has killed hundreds of Americans.

When? Where? recently?

The US hasn't suddenly decided to put its arm into the snake-pit; its been embroiled in almost every element I listed that contributes to the conflict almost from the beginning, certainly since the middle of the Cold War.

I didn't mean to inply that our involvement was sudden -- only, since wwii, misguided and confusing at least to the ignorant American public (I mean, me).

ex-liberal: Hezbollah is a savage terrorist organization that has made unprovoked attacks against Americans. Hexbollah has killed hundreds of Americans. That's one obvious reason why it's in America's interest to see Hezbollah degraded or destroyed. In fact, the destruction of this barbaric group is in the interest of all civilized nations.

The US is a savage terrorist nation that has used its power and resources to assist mass murderers in the Middle East, and elsewhere around the world, has engaged in the detaining and torture of innocents, has flouted international law and the treaties it has signed, has murdered scores of innocents in Iraq and throughout the Middle East either directly or indirectly, and supported the stealing of land and resources from Arabs . . . so, according to your own criteria, it is in the best interests of the world and all civilized nations to see the US destroyed and you have handed the arab terrorists all the justification needed for their actions.

Being large and in charge was the promise of the neo-con foreign policy.

Yeah, I thought one of the benefits of Bush's Excellent Adventure in Iraq was supposed to be that unfriendly nations would be intimidated by the display of american might.

Yet we have Iran and North Korea both openly defying us -- and in ways that pose alarming security concerns, and about which Bush seems able to do nothing, to boot!

Meanwhile, far from securing Israel as a side benefit, Hezbollah (and Hamas, let's not forget) saw fit to not only provoke Israel, but to do so by attacking her soldiers, not citizens. And, I might add, in the face of Israel's wanton destruction in Lebanon, Hezbollah has not melted away, but conspicuously chosen to stand and fight.

I thought Iraq was supposed to prevent those sorts of problems, Bush Apoloigists? In the reality based community, though, Bush's abject failure (which, sadly, seems to be all but forgotton by our attention-deficit media) seems to have undermined US national securityto a truly staggering degree.

I expect the Republicans won't be taken seriously on national security for a generation.

Gregory wrote:
sportsfan, your silly and dishonest straw man aside, the fact remains that Israel's deadly and disproportionate destruction of Lebanon's civil and political infrastructure is occurring with the US government's explicit, forget about tacit, blessing. The perception of this fact, I contend, is not at all in the US's interests

We live in a democracy, sir. Any congressional support or resolution is guided by democratic process. If you don't like it, you are free to petition your elected representative.

I happen to support the current mood in congress, and I support Isreal's right to exist. I also understand that they are facing an enemy who's very ideology does not accept the existance of Isreal.

It's also very humorous to parse what I've come to think of as the "Liberal Gripe of the Week":

"U.S.'s non-involvement is to blame for the hezbollah conflict!!"

And of course, if we got directly involved, it would change to:

"Bush's unilateral action de-stabilizes hezbollah conflict!!"

I happen to support the current mood in congress, and I support Isreal's right to exist.

Gregory,

As a (presumedly) American citizen, why is your support for Israel so strong -- even at the risk of damaging U.S. interests and exposing us to terror?

sportsfan79 (aka, bushlicker69): And of course, if we got directly involved, it would change to:

You of course, in your mental deficiency and stupidity, opine with the assumption that there are only two courses of action possible: unilateral and non-involvement.

Which is why conservatives are failing so miserably and why the Middle East after a relatively peaceful period during the Clinton administration has gone to hell in a handbasket under Bush.

You must love to see American soldiers die to cover for Bush's mistakes.

You are shameful, immoral, and above all, stupid beyond all belief.

The "stronger hand" advocated by Kevin and Lynch would have been to help Hezbollah achieve what it wanted. What sense does that make? The liberals' perspective generally is how to negotiate and seek peace with terrorists/jihandists. It simply cannot be done in an effective manner. Terrorists have to be killed, brought to justice, and/or weakened to marginalization. That does not happen by talking to them. It the US stands for the right principles, ultmately those principles will prevail and the last chapter of the sad Middle East saga will be that the Arabs turn away from terrorism and live in peace with Israel, i.e., Egypt, Jordan, etc. Arafat pushed the last chapter back 20 or 30 years, but it will still arrive. Bush's approach produces progress toward the last chapter, as does the Israel military actions of the last couple months.

Reality Man said: "Will someone please explain what the U.S. interests are in supporting Israel? Is it support for democracy? Is it holocaust guilt? What?"

The present is actually the result of many realizing that the HolyCo$t is a load of CRAP.

The Israel project has to be finished before the status quo collapses totally.

The way things are going, the Israel project is dead anyway.

sportsfan79 (aka, bushlicker69): I support Isreal's right to exist . . .

No, you clearly support their "right" to steal arab lands, discriminate against arab citizens, defy UN resolutions, and murder innocent UN observers and clearly don't support the Palestinians' rights to life, much less existence as a state.

The arab terrorists are an abomination, but that doesn't make the Israelis saints - except in your fantasy world of dualism where if one side is wrong the other must be right.

"The liberals' perspective generally is how to negotiate and seek peace with terrorists/jihandists."

That statement would be funny if it weren't so absurdly ignorant. Are you suggesting that libruls want to seek peace and negotiate with, say, UBL? Do you think all of us pinko commies want to hug and kiss the Taliban? Really, man, you've got to get out more (i.e., do something more than just listen to Rush and Fox).

"Terrorists have to be ...brought to justice, and/or weakened to marginalization."

But wait, I thought that the War on Terror had nothing to do with law enforcement?

and murder innocent UN observers

I don't know about murder but the Israelis were contacted six times and asked to stop bombing in the area of the observers:

The [Irish foreign] ministry said on Wednesday a senior Irish army officer had called Israeli military liasion officers at least six times to warn them that Israeli munitions were landing close to UN installations in the region.

"On six separate occasions he [the officer] was in contact with the Israelis to warn them that their bombardment was endangering the lives of UN staff in South Lebanon," a department of foreign affairs spokesman said.

The dead were Canadian, Finnish, Austrian and Chinese nationals.

Kind of aside, but I remember that back when Afghanistan was the "central front" in the "War on Terror", one place that was of extreme interest was the Horn of Africa, where there was much concern that failed states would provide an environment that would allow Islamist groups to repeat what had happened with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Much was made of the deployment of US troops to various points throughout the region as a forward presence that would prevent this from happening.

Not so much attention seems to be being paid in the media now, however, to the fact that Islamists possibly linked to al-Qaeda are taking over Somalia (largely from US-backed warlords, rather than the internationally recognized government), perhaps with direct backing from Eritrea, with some risk of provoking a wider war in the region.

brian: The "stronger hand" advocated by Kevin and Lynch would have been to help Hezbollah achieve what it wanted. What sense does that make?

Hizbollah achieved what it wanted when Israel invaded - religious war and an end to any peace process.

At least, that's what conservatives claim is Hizbollah's goal, except when claiming their goal is something else becomes more convenient to their own partisan goals.

Bush's approach produces progress toward the last chapter, as does the Israel military actions of the last couple months.

Yep, and the insurgency is on its last legs in Iraq!

Clap harder, brian, clap harder.

Windhorse: I don't know about murder . . .

Criminally negligent homicide (aka, murder), even giving the Israelis the benefit of the doubt.

Bush's approach produces progress toward the last chapter,

...of the Apocalypse of St. John the Divine.

"I'm still confused as to why the U.S. has put its arm into this historical snake pit."

If you really want to understand American foreign policy, you have to know this:

George W Bush is a Jew (who pretends to be a Christian)!

This partly explains the weirdness of the man and why he never acts like a Christian.

Here, have a look at him praying at the Wailing Wall.

He could be praying to Allah, but it doesn't look like it. And what is that funny cap thing on his head?

Yes, Bush is a Jew, he has Jews all through his family tree.

For example, Levi Pierce and his mother Barbara Pierce (Levi and Barbara are related) are both Jews.

Pierce is an Americanization of the Jewish name Perez/Peretz/Peres. The name is of Hebrew origin. According to Genesis 38, Pharez (the spelling Perez is also used (in the First Book of Chronicles)) was a son of Judah born to Tamar (who incidentally, was Judah's daughter in law (Judah, the father of the Jews, was a dirty old man)).

In case you are interested Levi and Barbara Pierce are related as follows:

Thomas Holbrook (d. 1677) m. Jane Powys
.John Holbrook m. Elizabeth Stream
|.Hannah Holbrook m. Ephraim Pierce
| .Ephraim Pierce m. Mary Low
|  .Mial Pierce m. Judith Round
|   .Nathan Pierce m. Lydia Martin
|    .Isaac Pierce m. Anna Fitch
|     .LEVI PIERCE m. Betsey Slade Wheeler
|      .Elizabeth Slade Pierce m. Courtland Philip Livingston Butler
|       .Mary Elizabeth Butler m. Robert Emmet Sheldon
|        .Flora Sheldon m. Samuel Prescott Bush
|         .Prescott Sheldon Bush m. Dorothy Walker
|          .GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH m. Barbara Pierce
|           .GEORGE W. BUSH, US President
.Thomas Holbrook m. Jane Kingman
 .Peter Holbrook m. Alice Godfrey
  .Sylvanus Holbrook m. Naomi Cook
   .John Holbrook m. Zilpah Thayer
    .John Holbrook m. Rhoda Thayer
     .John Holbrook m. Mercy Hill
      .Chloe Holbrook m. James Pierce
       .Jonas James Pierce m. Kate Pritzel
        .Scott Pierce m. Mabel Marvin
         .Marvin Pierce m. Pauline Robinson
          .BARBARA PIERCE

Doesn't that mean BUSH's mother is his cousin? Always though Bush was inbred.

In the 2004 US election you got to choose between the Jew Kerry and the Jew Bush.

Some choice,... like the choice between the front side of a piece of paper, or the back side.

So the result of the election has already been decided before you get to "choose".

I would rather have the Iranian type of election.

And here's a couple of snaps of Bush's grandaddy,.. sure looks Jewish to me:

Prescott Sheldon Bush with Ike.
Prescott Sheldon Bush with Nixon.

"...you got to choose between the Jew Kerry and the Jew Bush."

I choose the Jew Jesus!

The other day, I went to see a movie in town, and they had Gummy Jews at the concession stand! Fancy that...

Not so much attention seems to be being paid in the media now, however, to the fact that Islamists possibly linked to al-Qaeda are taking over Somalia (largely from US-backed warlords, rather than the internationally recognized government), perhaps with direct backing from Eritrea, with some risk of provoking a wider war in the region.

Maybe because the DoD is too busy selling cheap weapons to potential terrorists in their bargain basement sale to address the problem???

Thousands of items that should have been destroyed were sold to the public, the report said. Much of the equipment was sold for pennies on the dollar.

The list included circuit cards used in computerized Navy systems, a cesium technology timing unit with global positioning capabilities, and 12 digital microcircuits used in F-14 Tomcat fighter aircraft.

At least 2,669 sensitive military items were sold to 79 buyers in 216 sales transactions from November 2005 to June 2006.

"DOD has not enforced security controls for preventing sensitive excess military equipment from release to the public," the report concluded. "GAO was able to purchase these items because controls broke down at virtually every step in the excess property turn-in and disposal process."

Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., chairman of the House Government Reform Committee's national security panel, will hold a hearing on the matter Tuesday. Earlier GAO reports also had found lax security controls over sensitive excess military equipment.

"During previous hearings we learned DOD was a bargain basement for would-be terrorists due to lax security screening of excess military equipment," Shays said in a statement Friday. "Based on GAO's most recent undercover investigation it looks like the store is still open."

So this is what it's like when tough, security-minded adults are in charge. Was it brooksfoe who said we should just nuke New York ourselves and get it over with ?

You know, one thing I do enjoy about the Israel threads is that the anti-semites ('watcher') manage to out-crazy even the Bush cultists ('sportsfan79').

As a (presumedly) American citizen, why is your support for Israel so strong -- even at the risk of damaging U.S. interests and exposing us to terror?

Flummoxed, although I too support Israel's right to exist, you attribute the defense of Israel's current conduct to me, when it was expressed by sportsfan.

"watcher," would you kindly take your cut-and-paste bullshit and cram it? Thanks in advance.

sportsfan worte: I also understand that they are facing an enemy who's very ideology does not accept the existance of Isreal.

Which (as I grow tired of asking, you betcha) justifies Israel's indiscriminate attacks against civilians, to say nothing of its deliberate destruction of Lebanon's civil and political infrastructure, exactly how?

And even if it is justified, in what way does Israel's indiscriminate attacks against civilians, to say nothing of its deliberate destruction of Lebanon's civil and political infrastructure, solve that problem?

I have a couple of solutions to the problem:
Solution One: Get the hell out of the mid-east; go balls out on alternate energy to get rid of our dependency on oil; for every a-bomb developed by arabs in mid-east give Israel two (we got plenty); and, build one heck of a good missile defense and port inspection system on money we save!
Second Solution: Kick out about 1/3 of our illegals and move the 6-million+ Israeli's to a corner of Texas (on water, similar climate.) If they refuse, wish them luck, tell them we'll see them in the next life and proceed with Solution One.
No matter what we do we lose!

"Is there a website that explains this?

www.aipac.org ?

Flummoxed, although I too support Israel's right to exist, you attribute the defense of Israel's current conduct to me, when it was expressed by sportsfan.

Gregory, apologies.

Sportsfan, Everyone has a "right to exist". But oes the U.S. have any obligation to vigorously support Israel's right to exist at our own expense? Why Israel and not, let's say, Somalia or Quebec?

"Does anyone else has the impression that Condi comes across not as a statesman that a Secretary of State normally should be, but as a high school political science student too eager to add one more accomplishment to her college application, never mind what the achievement."

Posted by: nut

Yeah, I'm noticing something like that. She's definitely real testy as opposed to diplomatic.

Just another Peter Principle Bush Appointment

Conservatives told us the commies were crazy, but that MAD would work as a deterrent against their nukes, even though they didn't care how many of their people died in a counterattack.

Now they tell us that the Arab fundies are crazy, but that MAD won't work as a deterrent if they get nukes.

Pakistan and NK have nukes already, but conservatives tell us that MAD will still work, even though they also claim these two countries are filled with and led by crazies (that is, when they don't need to promote Pakistan as a loyal and necessary allie to the Bush administration) and their leaders clearly don't care how many of their people die in a counterattack.

I can't keep up, so can some conservative loonie make a decision one way or the other and tell us whether MAD works against crazy people or not?

Hey, maybe watcher can take us all the way back to the Jew Adam and the Jew Eve!

Or, as I realized the other day, you don't have to go any farther back than the Jew Noah and the Jew Noah's wife, since everyone but their family was killed in the Deluge.

How about it, watcher? Let's hear YOUR lineage?

(Oh, and PS, Jewish MALES don't count. Lineage must be through women only.)

I like AluminumKen's idea at 3:35 PM. Can we move the Jews to Crawford?

If Hezbollah killed Americans, it was in Lebanon or elsewhere in the ME and the Americans were almost all soldiers. When Americans kill Shi'a, through their Israeli proxy or on their own in Iraq, the Shi'a are civilians in their homes or in their cars fleeing. I might add that the numbers of dead are not comparable. Thousands of Arabs dead vs. hundreds of Americans. If Hezbollah deserves destruction because of its violent actions, then what does the US deserve?

I agree that Hezbollah deserves rebuke for the violence it commits, against anyone, but so does Israel and so does the US. As an American, it is my first responsibility to end the violence my country commits, and the way to do that is suspend military aid to Israel and remove its military from Iraq. After we do that, let us then address the wrongs of others and determine if they were not reacting to our violence.

I do understand why Americans dislike Hezbollah, but Hezbollah has ever put a military force in a garrison on US soil. I would also remind those Americans who are repeating Israel's call to destroy Hezbollah, that not even Reagan attempted to retaliate in this way and that the killing of those Marines happened a long time ago. Let us try and find a way to peace rather than continue with the ages old cycle of retribution for retaliation.

Avocate for God wrote: The US is a savage terrorist nation...and supported the stealing of land and resources from Arabs ... you have handed the arab terrorists all the justification needed for their actions.

Three responses:

1. I believe the US has been better-behaved than most other countries. E.g., playing the leading role in saving the world from Fascism in WW2 and from Communist dictatorship in the Cold War, in wiping out smallpox, in saving Europe's economies after WW2 via the Marshall Plan, etc. Furthermore, I live in the US, so I'm not neutral as to who wins. Even if AfG were correct in the contention that the US is just as evil as Islamic Terrorists, I would still rather see the US win and Hezbollah lose than vice versa.

2. The idea of "Arab lands" sounds close to racism. Land is owned by countries. Just because someone is an Arab doesn't entitle him to land that was once owned by different Arabs 70 years aago. Similary, just because land was owned by whites at one time doesn't mean that blacks or Asians can't own it today.

3. Islamic terrorists don't need or want my justification for attacking us. They have their own justifications, involving their interpretation of the Koran, their desire for hegemony in certain areas, etc.

What they should have done for the Rome conference is invite all the other countries that regularly get attacked by an army of religious fanatics with thousands of missiles who occupy part of a neighboring country. I'm sure Israel would be happy to learn from the restraint that all these other countries have practiced. ...

They could also invite those Arab countries that put pressure on Hamas and Hezbollah for a ceasefire last year. ...

But now we've lost the support of people like "watcher". Such a tragedy.

So, am I missing something, or is Watcher actually making some compelling arguments that people don't want to listen to? I mean, the whole conspiracy theory on the attack of the Israeli outpost is not wholly unreasonable, and think about it: If Bush co. could have faked 9-11 to get the populace's unquestioning support, don't you think they would have?

As for the "military solution" to getting rid of Hezbollah: make them obsolete, or eliminate their need to fight. There's a great story about a group of Arab terrorists organized at the behest of a government/power elite in the 80s, but after they were no longer needed, the government needed a way to stop them. Did they ruthlessly kill them, or bomb their homes, risking injury to innocent people and furthur fanning the flames of hate? No. They found them all wives. And once they had a reason to live other than fighting, once they had children, they no longer wanted to fight. We need to stop throwing more tinder on the fire and make them obsolete. But when we behave as international terrorists, that won't happen.

Ken Hirsch sarcastically opines:

They could also invite those Arab countries that put pressure on Hamas ... for a ceasefire last year.

No need for any Arab countries to pressure Hamas last year. Hamas was observing a unilateral cease fire that lasted 16 some-odd months until the Israelis decided to bomb a Palestinian family lounging on a Gazan beach.

Let's not forget what really started the latest round of violence.

Hezbollah has never put a military force in a garrison on US soil.

Marc thinks the U.S. missed a chance for a "Suez moment,"

The United States may very well encounter a "Suez moment."

In 1956, Eisenhower used financial pressures to force England to cease supporting Israel. That marked the end of England's superpower status.

Nowadays, it is the United States which is vulnerable to such finanical pressures -- and it will be interesting to see how long it will take unti, in like manner, similar financial pressures are applied against the United States to force it to cease and desist from providing Israel with any further aid.

"The Jew Adam and the Jew Eve and the Jew Noah,...."

Cal Gal -- you silly or something?

Jews are by definition the descendants of Judah (who apparently made out with his son's wife).

Adam was NOT a Jew.
Eve was NOT a Jew.
Noah was NOT a Jew.
Issac was NOT a Jew.
Abraham was NOT a Jew.

ex-liberal: I believe the US has been better-behaved than most other countries. E.g., playing the leading role in saving the world from Fascism in WW2 and from Communist dictatorship in the Cold War, in wiping out smallpox, in saving Europe's economies after WW2 via the Marshall Plan, etc. Furthermore, I live in the US, so I'm not neutral as to who wins. Even if AfG were correct in the contention that the US is just as evil as Islamic Terrorists, I would still rather see the US win and Hezbollah lose than vice versa.

The fight is between Israel and Hizbollah, not the US and Hizbollah.

The fact that you see the US and Israel as congruent entities is informative.

Now we know what your problem really is, a disconnect from reality and fact.

In any event, the choice between two evils is still evil and doing good does not establish credits that can be used to do evil or excuse evil that is done.

Can anyone answer the following question: why does the US and their proxy in the ME, Israel, consistently follow a course of action clearly not in their own best interest? The more you kill the more they recruit. It's kind of that simple.

"OJ Simpson - NOT a Jew"

Poor watcher - still waiting for those nice young men in their clean white coats ...

Watcher gonna do when they come for you?

ex-liberal: Land is owned by countries.

That should come as a shock to other American conservatives that believe that individuals also own land.

But your position seems to also be that if a thief avoids capture until the person from whom he stole dies, then the relatives of that person have no claim over the property the thief stole - whether it be a car, jewelry, cash, or land.

Somehow, I think other law and order American conservatives will disagree with you.

Islamic terrorists don't need or want my justification for attacking us. They have their own justifications, involving their interpretation of the Koran, their desire for hegemony in certain areas, etc.

Or maybe as payback for the US directly or indirectly murdering their friends and family, overthrowing democratic regimes that the US didn't like, stealing resources and money from their countries through proxies, etc, etc, etc.

Islamic terrorists don't need or want my justification for attacking us. They have their own justifications

...which, shamefully enough, are being parroted by american pundits to justify the civilian cost of Israel's assault on Lebanon.

sportsfan79:

Even if AfG were correct in the contention that the US is just as evil as Islamic Terrorists, I would still rather see the US win and Hezbollah lose than vice versa.

"Just as evil," but is there any point at which you draw the line? What if the U.S. were more evil? Would you rather see it win then also?

Disputo said:
No need for any Arab countries to pressure Hamas last year. Hamas was observing a unilateral cease fire that lasted 16 some-odd months until the Israelis decided to bomb a Palestinian family lounging on a Gazan beach.

Let's not forget what really started the latest round of violence.

Why yes, Hamas and Hezbollah were completely peaceful over the last year, except for the hundreds of mortars and rockets. In fact, not a single month has gone by since Israel withdrew from Gaza that didn't have rockets and mortars. See, e.g. http://www.jr.co.il/terror/israel/index3.htm.

Hamas, of course, has denied all responsibility for the attacks that occur from the territory they control.

Land is owned by countries.

No, soveriegnty over land is exercised by "countries", and not as a matter of right vesting in the "country", itself a convenient fiction, but simply as agents by which the people living on the land exercise their natural right to self-governance.

"Read the whole thing to see how he thinks things might have worked out if America had played a stronger role."

You mean a la Clinton? America had enjoyed so much Moslem support during those years, they when the WTC towers toppled, they were dancing in the streets.

Yeah, we should really care what the Arab street thinks.

""Just as evil," but is there any point at which you draw the line? What if the U.S. were more evil? Would you rather see it win then also?"

That explains why liberals are so pro-Moslem and anti-American I guess.

"Let's not forget what really started the latest round of violence."

It is important to understand that

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

IN GAZA they fabricated a (clearly false) story in their newspapers about a "kidnapped" soldier.

IN LEBANON the Israeli Death Force sent troops into a disputed piece of SYRIA (Shebaa Farms: it was stolen from Syria by Jews in the Jew surprise attack of 1967, so the legalistic Jews decided they did not have to return it to Lebanon when they withdrew in 2000) knowing full well how Hizbollah would respond to an intrusion by Jew troops into Arab lands. Hizbollah responded exactly as they have in the past. No surprise here. The Jews used this as an excuse for their pre-planned Nazi attack on Lebanon.

In short:

THE JEWS STARTED BOTH THE MASSACRES IN GAZA AND LEBANON.

and as to Ken Hirsch's false claims. I hope folk know they are false.

ceilingfan97, you attributed a post to me that was written by somebody else. Get your head out of your keester.

I read your blog, as well as Eschaton, Hullalbaloo, Firedoglake, and Brad DeLong every day. I despise everything that the Bush regime is doing to undermine American democracy both at home and abroad. However, many of the blogs seem to be taking some pleasure in Israel's problems. I fail to see how failure on Israel's part to disarm Hezabollah is anything but a catastrophe for us and for Israel. If Hezabollah is this much of a problem now, how much worse would they be in two years, or five years, or after Iran has nuclear weapons? I have no trouble discerning who in the Middle East is 'on our side'. It is not Hezabollah, nor is it Hamas, nor is it the Arab street. I wish liberals would be a bit stronger in acknowledging what is very clear to the American people. Our only reliable ally in that region is Israel, for better or for worse.

CalGal wrote:
I like AluminumKen's idea at 3:35 PM. Can we move the Jews to Crawford?

Why not? I have many jewish friends, and they're all great, hard-working people. I'm sure Dubya wouldn't mind having them in Crawford.

And as an added bonus, they'll all be voting Republican by 2008. Welcome to the party, my Jewish friends!

ceilingfan97, you attributed a post to me that was written by somebody else. Get your head out of your keester.

People who cannot distinguish between "monetary" and "momentary" shouldn't throw stones....

I have no trouble discerning who in the Middle East is 'on our side'. It is not Hezabollah, nor is it Hamas, nor is it the Arab street. I wish liberals would be a bit stronger in acknowledging what is very clear to the American people. Our only reliable ally in that region is Israel, for better or for worse.

MaryLou nailed it!

Didn't you get the memo, MaryLou? Libs don't support Israel.

Ken Hirsch avoids the point by claiming:

In fact, not a single month has gone by since Israel withdrew from Gaza that didn't have rockets and mortars.

Yes, indeed, many homemade bottle rockets have been fired into Israel from Gaza since the withdrawal, killing no one. On the other hand, Israel has killed 144 Gazans since they pulled out.

Why are you such a bigot that you care nothing for the lives of Palestinians?

"Why yes, Hamas and Hezbollah were completely peaceful over the last year, except for the hundreds of mortars and rockets."

Maybe I should expand on Ken Hirsch's lying comment.

It is meant to deceive by implying that Hezbollah has lobbed hundreds of mortars and rockets into Israel over the last year (before the latest round). This is not true.

It is true, however, that Hamas, or some other pissed Palestinians, have lobbed mortars and rockets into Israel regularly.

This "accidental" mixing of truth to imply a falsehood is a common propaganda technique.

People who cannot distinguish between "monetary" and "momentary" shouldn't throw stones....

If your gold standard for criticism is misreading a word, then we've got a whole board full of people who "shouldn't throw stones"...

Yet they do. And will likely continue.

However, many of the blogs seem to be taking some pleasure in Israel's problems.

Which blogs, specifically, and please give examples supporting this supposed appearance.

I fail to see how failure on Israel's part to disarm Hezabollah is anything but a catastrophe for us and for Israel.

Israel's current policy is a catastrophe for more than just the US and Israel (though they are among the nations for which it is a catastrophe), and not just (or even primarily) because it hasn't disarmed Hezbollah.

If Hezabollah is this much of a problem now, how much worse would they be in two years, or five years, or after Iran has nuclear weapons?

Iran having nuclear weapons is largely irrelevant to how bad Hezbollah is. Inasmuch as Hezbollah is used as an agent of Iranian influence, if Iran had the credible threat of direct force against Israel, it wouldn't need terrorist pawns as much.

I have no trouble discerning who in the Middle East is 'on our side'.

That's pretty easy: no one.

It is not Hezabollah, nor is it Hamas, nor is it the Arab street.

Nor is it Israel; all four have their own interests, are on their own side, and very often have actual or perceived interests directly at odds with the interest of the United States.

Gregory wrote:
Which (as I grow tired of asking, you betcha) justifies Israel's indiscriminate attacks against civilians, to say nothing of its deliberate destruction of Lebanon's civil and political infrastructure, exactly how?

Sometimes I think the problem with people is not the people themselves, but their perception.

Gregory, the point of view of your post assumes in a moral relativistic sense that of the two factions, ISREAL is the one that does more indiscriminate killing of civilians, and willingly uses more fanatical terroristic methodology.

My viewpoint is exactly the opposite.

Make that "ISRAEL".

sportsfan79:

you attributed a post to me that was written by somebody else.

Sorry. You all look alike to me. But since all wingnuts think alike also, why didn't you answer the question?

With allies like Israel, we don't really need enemies.

Captain said: "So, am I missing something, or is Watcher actually making some compelling arguments that people don't want to listen to? I mean, the whole conspiracy theory on the attack of the Israeli outpost is not wholly unreasonable..."

What you are missing is that almost every Jew here, is not here to discover the truth, or to find a better way, or whatever,... they are here to influence you in a certain direction, to make you believe LIES, their LIES.

Like the many lies told get America into the Iraq mess. Like the many lies told about 9/11. Like the many lies told about the HolyCo$t,.....

But your position seems to also be that if a thief avoids capture until the person from whom he stole dies, then the relatives of that person have no claim over the property the thief stole - whether it be a car, jewelry, cash, or land.

Somehow, I think other law and order American conservatives will disagree with you. Advocate for God

Don't say that too loudly around native Americans. The Lakota or the Cherokee or some of the others just might ask for their land back.

Stealing land is a tradition that goes back thousands of years. In England there are a lot of descendants of the Angles and Saxons who are still pissed at the Normans. Of course, there are descendants of Britians who don't have much of a brief with the Angles and Saxons. Who can forget the Vikings. They took land all the way from Great Britian to Russia.

The point of this is that at some level we are all displaced persons. There is no end if the world starts enforcing ancestral clams. What is done is done. Tomorrow is what counts.

Finally, you are the Advocate of God, right. Doesn't the bible have some comment about not visiting the sins of the father on the son?

I am just afraid that Israel has overplayed a hand that appears strong, but that in the long run has its problems. Look at this, for example: Population of neighboring countries Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Palestine: 206,713,358. Population of Israel 5,842,454. I do not think it is useful for Israel to adopt policies such as collective punishment. There was a time where a US guarantee of fair borders might have resolved matters, but after Iraq the Middle Eastern countries do not fear the US and after Lebanon even the moderates are rejecting us.

It's all fine and good to say the other countries are bad and Israel deserves to exist. But how to achieve that over the next century say, that's the question. Continuous war is not an option for Israel.

Gregory, the point of view of your post assumes in a moral relativistic sense that of the two factions, ISREAL is the one that does more indiscriminate killing of civilians, and willingly uses more fanatical terroristic methodology.

Seems more like, to me, that his point of view is that indiscriminate killing is absolutely wrong, moral relativism isn't involved, and one combat force indiscriminately killing civilians doesn't justify an opposing combat force indiscriminately killing civilians, so that Israel is not excused from responsibility by the accusation, even if true, that Hezbollah does it too, or more, or whatever.

David in NY wrote:
It's all fine and good to say the other countries are bad and Israel deserves to exist. But how to achieve that over the next century say, that's the question. Continuous war is not an option for Israel.

That's very true, and a really good point, also.

One interesting point from your e-mail is the population disparity of the factions. It's interesting to note that there is also an equally significant military disparity, but in the opposite direction.

Basically, Israel has the military might to turn the region into a parking lot. The only thing stopping them is their own restraint (thank God).

So it almost seems as if Israel is playing a bit of a PR game, essentially restraining themselves in deference to world opinion.

Hamas, of course, has denied all responsibility for the attacks that occur from the territory they control.

Posted by: Ken Hirsch on July 26, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

"Of course" they clearly never did "control" otherwise they would not have been fighting in the streets with Fatah, or had their buildings destroyed by an outside force, or had their politicians kidnapped by same.

How can the US' fpreign policy possibly be successful if the prism through which the actors look at the world is so severely distorted. Moreover, when their sight proves to be faulty they make no adjustment.

C. Rice is spoken of as always trying to pick the direction of the presidential wind and trimming her sails to the same course. Before her, the State Dept. had 4 years of seeing how cards were dealt; I'm sure their dissent is very muted. Our intelligence services know their reports are expected to serve their political masters. It's the classic case of the king with no clothes.

How the heck would we have ended the war in Korea without talking to our enemies. Following the Cuba crisis, we continued multilateral negotiations with the Soviets on all sorts of matters.

The prism through which this administration squints is heavily tinted by self-generated propaganda about the world that exagerates the strength of all manner of "terrorist" ogganizations and governments while simplifying the solutions to ones that have been disproved in the past. They are not receptive to any tone of moderation or subtlety.

The fact that they are so stubborn, unable to conclude that the preconceptions and judgements upon which their foreign policy has been based have been proved wrong, unable to adjust their assumptions, does not bold well for any improvement in the future.

This administration has probably made the biggest mistake in judgement the US has ever made.

One of the persistent motifs of right-wing talk radio in recent years has been that the Arab street doesn't matter (although according to Thomas L Friedman we should worry about the Arab basement; I myself am especially concerned about the Arab root cellar, and in certain instances the Arab sub-basement, and wine closet).

To date this they have largely been vindicated. The Euro-elites huff and puff about American foreign policy, but it stops there; the Democrats are complicit. And save the occasional demonstration, or disturbing public opinion poll, the people of the Arab-Muslim world by and large tolerate American policy in their neighborhood.

Unless people are willing to back their indignation with action - general strikes, mass civil disobedience, draw a line in the sand - the Bushists and their friends in Tel Aviv will continue to do as they've been doing.

cmdicely wrote:
Seems more like, to me, that his point of view is that indiscriminate killing is absolutely wrong, moral relativism isn't involved, and one combat force indiscriminately killing civilians doesn't justify an opposing combat force indiscriminately killing civilians, so that Israel is not excused from responsibility by the accusation, even if true, that Hezbollah does it too, or more, or whatever.

Maybe so, dicely. But I don't really think that's a fair rationalization. It's all well and good to say "indiscriminate killing is absolutely wrong". OF COURSE it is.

However, if you were the one trapped in the situation, what would you do? Repeat the mantra "indiscriminate killing is absolutely wrong", and sacrifice yourself and your loved ones? Maybe you would, I don't know.

But I do know that I wouldn't. And I don't blame Israel for fighting back, either.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the HolyCo$t?

Read the whole thing to see how he thinks things might have worked out if America had played a stronger role.

Judging from the actions and the rhetoric of Hizbollah and Iranian leaders, nothing but a strong military intervention to disarm Hizbollah could have prevented the military build-up of Hizbollah. The build-up occurred right within sight of UN observers.

You had deeper thoughts when you were avoiding Lebanon altogether.

sportsfan:

I think you overestimate the value of military power in the long run. I don't think Israel could turn the Middle East into a "parking lot." The US certainly can't do that to Iraq. That's for a lot of reasons, not necessarily military. The clearest is that genocide is a long run loser. Bad PR, you know. And not likely to work, either, unless carried out in ways too much like events of the last century to contemplate easily.

And I don't think most folks are seeing "restraint" in Israel's actions, although, I suppose it is, if killing all or most of 200,000,000 neighboring peoples is the alternative.

The US may have missed a chance for a "Suez moment", but many people around the world did not, courtesy of the Internet.

Israel's support is melting away, courtesy of the Internet.

The Internet is a big difference between 1956 and now.

But I don't really think that's a fair rationalization.

I'm not sure "rationalization" has anything to do with it.

However, if you were the one trapped in the situation, what would you do?

Not engage in indiscriminate killing of civilians, which does nothing to address the situation.

Repeat the mantra "indiscriminate killing is absolutely wrong", and sacrifice yourself and your loved ones?

Indiscriminate killing does nothing to protect the people threatened by Hezbollah.

So, again, your entire argument is based on a false dichotomy, the idea that Israel has no choice but to sacrifice its own civilians, or engage in indiscriminate killing of civilians itself.

But I do know that I wouldn't.

No, I'm sure you'd be the first to push for some indiscriminate killing so that you and your loved ones would be in even greater danger.

"This administration has probably made the biggest mistake in judgement the US has ever made."

Or at least has remain consistent in it's ability to make recurrent "global" mistakes in judgement.

I don't think Israel could turn the Middle East into a "parking lot."

Israel's nuclear arsenal could likely turn at least its immediate vincinity into one, or at least an area devoid of human of civilization.

Of course, it couldn't do so very selectively, and Israel itself would be part of the wasteland, especially with an assist from Syria's massive chemical arsenal, which is as much of an open secret as Israel's nuclear arsenal.

Rice, like her boss, is capable of making egregious errors, errors that just jump out and stun me despite the fact that I am no Middle East expert.

Remember Bush talking about a Crusade? On a 1-10 stupidity scale, that was a 10.

Now Rice has done it. She spoke of a “new Middle East” growing out of the violence. Now observers are observing “enraged scorn” in reaction to that remark. How can you be that foolish? That arrogant? That clueless? That... that... Geez.

Yep, the United States is going to re-make the Middle East in a fashion that suits our all-powerful Western-Christian nation. And we are gonna do it while feeding and nourishing the worst nightmares of the Arab/Muslim world, marketing the terrorist world view as best we can.

Condi is in way over her head. She and her boss need to be fired.

little ole jim,

Remember "Operation Infinite Justice"?

MaryLou: Our only reliable ally in that region is Israel, for better or for worse.

Israel has been anything but a reliable ally.

They've done virtually nothing for the US, at least compared to what the US has done for them, and have actually worked against US interests on many occasions despite the US begging them to do otherwise.

And, Ron, there is a great difference between battles long ago fought and lost (between native Americans and whites) with generations in between the fighting and a continuous battle lasting only decades for stolen land that hasn't ended since the day after the land was stolen - not to mention that a large percentage of the native American claimants simply aren't in existence any more because whites wiped out whole families and tribes, which is not the case in the Middle East where relatives of former landowners could likely be found.

But, but, Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle east !!!!!!!! [as my whittle heart goes pitter-pat].

If your gold standard for criticism is misreading a word, then we've got a whole board full of people who "shouldn't throw stones"...

The problem wasn't that you misread the word, the problem was that you clung to that misreading even after several people, with increasing exasperation, had pointed your mistake out to you. To make a mistake is one thing, to refuse to acknowledge that mistake, pretend you were right all along, and insult the people who pointed it out to you is...very Republican, actually.

The HolyCo$t is payback for having a hand in killing the Jews in Europe by doing nothing, Americans! Remember?!

Advocate for God

When does a claim for ancestral land die? Or do different rules apply to different people? Are you suggesting that stealing land justifies the total genocide of a people. What do they call it in the bible--banning? Didn't Saul get in trouble with God for not wanting to commit genocide?

My family is from Oklahoma, Indian territory. I bet ya my cousin the geneologist could track down a hundred living descendants of the Cherokees run out of the Southeastern United States within 5 minutes.

"Operation Infinite Justice"

Almost sorry you reminded me. To me, the language used by Bush/Rice/Cheney/Rumsfeld is so revealing. It highlights a level of ignorance we just can't afford.

We seem to have moved beyond any lingering Holocaust guilt or regrets for the "mistake" that is Israel. Now, thanks to aWol & Co., we are in End Times territory.

Some of this began to surface toward the end of Reagan's reign, but the Bush I and Clinton years carried us in other directions.

Now we hear that most Americans and their representatives believe in literal interpretations of the Bible. We are in real peril if they get their way.

Oh, well, this is swell.

What will really be swell is when Iraqi Shiites do the same thing, and the U.S. backed PM does nothing to stop them.

The idea of "Arab lands" sounds close to racism. Land is owned by countries.

Culturally speaking, being an Arab is based on the language you speak. Muhammad said,"Men yatakalam Al-Arabiah, fa huwa Arab." "He who speaks Arabic, is an Arab."

When does a claim for ancestral land die?

If the claim is based on events prior to 3 September 1189.

Stefan wrote:
To make a mistake is one thing, to refuse to acknowledge that mistake, pretend you were right all along, and insult the people who pointed it out to you is...very Republican, actually.

My post of 2:04p.m.:
Yep, I'm guilty as charged. Totally read "momentary" as "monetary".

Wow. Apparently, to bold-faced lie even with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary is very... Democrat.

Hezbollah represents the largest religious/political and poorest group in Lebanon. The US iron clad alliance with Israel disables our ability to deal with the majorities in many Arab nations, including the Shi'a of Lebanon. These majorities are always going to prevail politically in the long run. Hezbollah is not a threat to the US unless the existence of Lebanon's Shi'a should become a target of Israeli extermination with US gifted weapons. Hezbollah is a threat to Israel's domination of southern Lebanon and a threat to the historical wealthy ruling Sunnis and Christians because it represents the largest political faction in the area that has finally obtained some political power.

I am reminded of the US support for the apartheid government of South Africa. It was apparent that someday the majority was going to take over the government, despite all of the terrible killing and oppression the Afrikaners were able to commit, yet the US 'strategically' took the wrong side of that issue for a very long time. I do not think it is ever strategic to go against the majority in these kind of conflicts. Events worked out for the US and South Africa, but the US going against the majority in Iran did not work out too well.

cmdicely, I'm dissappointed by the dishonesty of your post from 5:48p. It totally discounts the entirely self-evident fact that there are tough choices to make during conflict.

Events worked out for the US and South Africa

You mean to say that liberal support for Mandela's terrorist group didn't end with the white South Africans being pushed into the sea?!!!!

3 September 1189 cmdicely

The coronation of Richard the Lion Heart is as good a day as any, I suppose. As I recall the Normans butchered 30 jews that day in honor of the occasion.

*sigh*: wtf are you talking about? You are wasting my time.
Posted by: sportsfan79 on July 26, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely, I'm dissappointed by the dishonesty of your post from 5:48p. It totally discounts the entirely self-evident fact that there are tough choices to make during conflict.

Dishonesty is like when you ignored the several posts of yours that met Stefan's exact description and posted the belated apology that occurred after all of them to pretend that Stefan was lying about you.

Dishonesty is not failing to characterize the decision not to engage in willful indiscriminate (Not making or based on careful distinctions; Random; haphazard; Confused; chaotic; Unrestrained or wanton; profligate) killing as "difficult".

Yes, there are difficult decisions to make in combat. The decision not to engage in indiscriminate killing isn't one of them.

What will really be swell is when Iraqi Shiites do the same thing, and the U.S. backed PM does nothing to stop them.

Already happening:

"MEHDI Army militiamen loyal to the renegade Iraqi cleric Moqtada al Sadr claimed yesterday that they were raising a "volunteer brigade" of 1500 veteran insurgents to fight alongside Hizbollah in southern Lebanon."

This development perhaps is a clue to GWB's real strategy here -- to allow Israel to turn Lebanon into the "flypaper" that pulls all the insurgents out of Iraq, thereby allowing GWB to declare "Mission Accomplished Redux" and leave....

*sigh*: wtf are you talking about? You are wasting my time.
Posted by: sportsfan79 on July 26, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Yep, and the way time work is, 1:57 is actually BEFORE 2:04. And the response you posted was to a totally different person.

Basically, anyone interested in my infamous "misread word" (shameful!) can go upthread to approx. 1:45 and read for themselves. The truth speaks for itself.

Oh, great.

So Bush has succeeded in turning Iraq into a failed state exporting Islamic extremism to destabilize the region?

Jihad is on the march!

cmdicely wrote:
Dishonesty is like when you ignored the several posts of yours that met Stefan's exact description and posted the belated apology that occurred after all of them to pretend that Stefan was lying about you.

Again, anyone interested go upthread and start reading. I think the start is at 1:51p. You guys don't have a leg to stand on.

Yes, there are difficult decisions to make in combat. The decision not to engage in indiscriminate killing isn't one of them.

Playing semantics to dodge a question.

When does a claim for ancestral land die?

Well, since many Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from their land by the Zionists are not only still ALIVE but actually are still in possession of the keys to their homes, I'd argue that their claim is still valid.

Of course, if you are an ethnocentric bigot, your views may vary.

Playing semantics to dodge a question.

The question was simply a childish false dichotomy: Do you engage in indiscriminate slaughter or sacrifice your family?

That's not a real choice that exists.

"Israel has the military might to turn the region into a parking lot. The only thing stopping them is their own restraint (thank God)"

Well, that and the fact that Israel would not long survive such an act.

People who cannot distinguish between "monetary" and "momentary" shouldn't throw stones....
Posted by: Stefan on July 26, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

When I read his initial reply, I thought it was a Freudian slip on sportsfan's part...

LisainVan wrote:

Second, I would like to see someone somewhere draw a distinction between (a) Israel's justification for responding to repeated and escalating Hezbollah attacks (with increasingly sophisticated weaponry) (What is a country supposed to do? Sit and take it, while its whole northern border needs to be evacuated?) and (b) the nature and extent of Israel's attack.

With all due respect, cmdicely, I agree with LisainVain, and I think your response is not apropos. LisainVain is reasonable to suggest that Israel is justified in responding somehow to "repeated and escalating Hezbollah attacks (with increasingly sophisticated weaponry)," and to question "the nature and extent" of Israel's response. Many intelligent, thoughtful supporters of Israel, in fact many patriotic Israeli citizens and media pundits, question Israel's response on moral grounds and on practical military grounds.

Moreover, some of those in the "questioning" community believe that they already have the answer — that Israel has overreacted; others are living in the question and are awaiting more evidence.

I can see the replies already, "What more evidence is needed that Israel has overreacted?" But to those "living in the question" the evidence is more than just the death, pain and suffering dealt to innocent Lebanese. Among the considerations are, will Israel's military response achieve any desired results, and could these results have been achieved less destructively? To observers living in the question, that's the missing evidence.

With all due respect, cmdicely, I agree with LisainVain, and I think your response is not apropos. LisainVain is reasonable to suggest that Israel is justified in responding somehow to "repeated and escalating Hezbollah attacks (with increasingly sophisticated weaponry)," and to question "the nature and extent" of Israel's response. Many intelligent, thoughtful supporters of Israel, in fact many patriotic Israeli citizens and media pundits, question Israel's response on moral grounds and on practical military grounds.

Everyone in the world is justified in responding somehow to anything they don't like. The only thing that ever changes is what is justified.

The idea of "Arab lands" sounds close to racism. Land is owned by countries.

actually, it's not a racist statment. yours is a very Western-centric statement because Arabs do not think as much in terms of nation states as the West does. remember, for example, that the West Bank, Jordan, and Iraq used to be amalgamated not so long ago and you'll understand why the Iraqis take the goings-on with the Palestinians so personally.

earlier, there was the Caliphate, and the Ottoman Empire (yes, I know Turks are not Arabs) but you'll understand that our idea of nationalism and the Arab definition is quite different.

Arabs do not think as much in terms of nation states as the West does. remember, for example, that the West Bank, Jordan, and Iraq used to be amalgamated not so long ago and you'll understand why the Iraqis take the goings-on with the Palestinians so personally....the Arab definition is quite different.

Michelle, there are neighbothoods that once were populated by white people only. So, you can understand why the Ku Klux Klan used terrorism to drive out black people who moved into those restricted neighborhoods. No doubt the KKK definition of racism is quite different from yours and mine, but so what? You and I call the KKK racist.

The question was simply a childish false dichotomy: Do you engage in indiscriminate slaughter or sacrifice your family?

It's not a childish question, it's the real world. And inability to answer the question with anything but a dodge is the #1 reason Democrats aren't in power.

Also, the very point of the earlier post was that in a morally relativistic sense, the "indiscriminate" adjective applies much more to hezbollah than to Israel. Given Israel's significant military capability (which is greatly underestimated by many on this thread), they have practiced restraint.

It's not a childish question, it's the real world.

No, its not. In the real world, indiscriminate slaughter does not make you safer.

Also, the very point of the earlier post was that in a morally relativistic sense, the "indiscriminate" adjective applies much more to hezbollah than to Israel.

Yes, and my point is that even if one agrees that that is true, it doesn't license the Israeli action.

If a cop recklessly and indiscriminately shoots civilians, it is not justified because he was hoping in the process to get a bad guy who had started the fight, was trying to kill the cop, and had recklessly and indiscriminately shot more civilians in the process.

First sportsfan couldn't tell the difference between "momentary" and "monetary".

Now he can't distinguish between "indiscriminate" and "unrestrained". (eg, I know this will *blow* sportie's mind, but Israel can be acting both indiscriminately *and* with restraint.)

Really, there is little use in arguing with illiterates.

If a cop recklessly and indiscriminately shoots civilians, it is not justified because he was hoping in the process to get a bad guy who had started the fight, was trying to kill the cop, and had recklessly and indiscriminately shot more civilians in the process.

Yeah, but in sportie's world, since the cop left his shotgun in the trunk, he was using "restraint" and therefore was not acting "indiscriminately".

Ron: I bet ya my cousin the geneologist could track down a hundred living descendants of the Cherokees run out of the Southeastern United States within 5 minutes.

Of the specific Cherokee that owned specific land?

Obviously, you can't read.

Go re-read my post - I said nothing about a general return of land to people who may be related to people who may have owned some specific area of land.

Land ownership was significantly different 70 years ago than it was 200 years ago or even 150 years ago.

You can look it up.

This isn't about "ancestral lands" and you either know that and are deliberately being obtuse or you don't understand the English language or world history.

If a cop recklessly and indiscriminately shoots civilians, it is not justified because he was hoping in the process to get a bad guy who had started the fight, was trying to kill the cop, and had recklessly and indiscriminately shot more civilians in the process.

Horrible analogy.

Again, I don't fault you or Disputo for it, though. As I said, the liberal lack of understanding and lack of will for defensive action is what keeps the right in charge. In essence, your rebuttals can be equated to those of your party. No solutions, just complaints.

You want to hit Hiz, fine, but there has to be more the just hit a "hit them hard" tough talk stradegy when undertaking this type of mil op. We see the same lack of a plan in Iraq. Ok, you took saddam out, now what? Does IS have a secret agreements with NATO to guard the new buffer zone, is there a coordinated effort to get moderate Arab countries on board with this action (even secretly while they trumpet outrage to thier arab neighbors), or how bout a coodinated effort with the US and Condi handling the diplomatic front while ISbonbs the crap out of everyone? The answer is no. This crisis is Katrina all over again for the Bush admin. IS has flown off the handle with regard to Hiz and Leb and other countries are trying to figure out how to respond. This is the current level of US and IS FP? Punch drunk fighters swinging away hoping to hit something other then the canvass. christ, could we have a worse president in a more critical spot?

Captain said: "Forgive my ignorance, but what is the HolyCo$t?"

The HolyCo$t (sometimes spelled holocaust) is a lie about the mass-killing of Jews in Europe in the 1940's.

It is important to look at the holocaust evidence, or lack thereof, for yourself, but one indication that the story you have been told is a fable is this:

These are photos of plaques at Auschwitz (click on the links to have a look):

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 4 million "victims".

This plaque was on display at Auschwitz from 1948 until about 1990 (note the "4 million" victims).

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims".
Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims" (Deutsch).

These plaques are currently on display at Auschwitz (English and German).

Note the dramatically reduced number of victims, now only 1.5 million (anderthalb millionen).

A casual reduction in the number of deaths by some 2.5 million.

Deaths at Auschwitz drop by a whopping 2.5 million, but 6,000,000 dead Jews, remains the same.

Why did you never hear about the Jew reduction of deaths at Auschwitz. I mean a reduction from 4 million to 1.5 million is quite significant, you must agree.

If Jews can reduce the number of dead from 4 million to 1.5 million, then why do they jail people like David Irving for just questioning the numbers who died.

There are many, many more problems with the HolyCo$t fable, but one must take one small step at a time.

Solution One: Get the hell out of the mid-east; go balls out on alternate energy to get rid of our dependency 　　新华社北京7月25日电 中国外交部副部长杨洁篪25日与安提瓜和巴布达、巴哈马国、巴巴多斯、多米尼克国、格林纳达、圭亚那合作共和国、牙买加、圣卢西亚、苏里南共和国、特立尼达和多巴哥共和国的代表在北京举行了中国和加勒比建交国外交部间第三次磋商。 ">on oil; for every a-bomb developed by arabs in mid-　【提要】为了向中国“渗透”，盘踞在“金新月”的国际贩毒集团近两年越来越多地采用搭乘国际航班的贩毒方式 ">east giv　据中国日报特稿 美国前总统克林顿在黑人中曾拥有很高的支持率，因此在卸任后才会把办公室安置在黑人文化重镇、纽约哈莱姆区，并在入驻当天受到盛大欢迎。 ">e Israel two (we got plenty); and, build one heck of a good missile defense and port inspection system on money we save!

Second Solution: Kick out about 1/3 of our illegals and move the 6-million+ Israeli's to a corner of Texas (on water, similar climate.) If they refuse, wish them luck, tell them we'll see them in the next life and proceed with Solution One.

No matter what we do we lose!

Solution One: Get the hell out of the mid-east; go balls out on alternate energy to get rid of our dependency on oil; for every a-bomb developed by arabs in mid-east give Israel two (we got plenty); and, build one heck of a good missile

The Jew poster of Chinese, strikes again.
Does this code affect certain browsers or something.

sportie says:

Horrible analogy.

Bald assertion. We win.

Of the specific Cherokee that owned specific land? Advocate for God

Obviously you don't know anything about history. The Cherokees had deeds and everything. They were considered one of the civilized tribes. Andy Jackson and his white supporters decided they needed their farms. Yeh, I bet the actual decendants of actual property owners could be found for actual properties.

It is funny, today I have been called an anti-semite and pro-jewish pig. All I have done is advocate peace.

Amazing, both sides are of a kind. All they can say is KILL,KILL,KILL FOR THE HOME TEAM. GOD'S ON OUR SIDE.

婚纱摄影
婚纱影楼
网页制作
网站制作
网站设计
设计
网页设计
网站建设
网站推广
北京网站推广
北京网页设计
北京网站建设
网站推广
双线空间
ＰＨＰ空间
ＡＳＰ空间
网站空间
虚拟主机
域名注册
法语
钟表
塔钟
钟表
家用中央空调
格力中央空调
琥珀
助听器
助听器
助听器
助听器
助听器
发电机
发电机组
柴油发电机
发电设备
发电机出租
康明斯
发电机
发电机组
柴油发电机
发电设备
发电机出租
康明斯
法国留学
法语培训
进口轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
轴承
进口轴承
skf轴承
fag轴承
轴承
进口轴承
进口轴承
直线轴承
skf轴承
nsk轴承
充气床
充气用品
充气游泳池
野营用品
户外用品
充气船
气垫床
充气床
充气用品
充气游泳池
野营用品
户外用品
充气船
气 垫床
钓鱼船
帐篷
六合彩
户外帐篷
瑞士军刀
运动手表
中央吸尘
家用中央吸尘
商业中央吸尘
吸尘器
中央吸尘系统
工业吸尘
风灶清洗
通风清洗
中央空调管道清洗
机器人
清洗机器人
检测机器人
法语|法语培训|法国留学|留学法国|法语学习
中央吸尘|家用中央吸尘|商业中央吸尘|吸尘器|中央吸尘系统|工业吸尘|风灶清洗|通风清洗|中央空调管道清洗|机器人

at 2:06, Flummoxed proposed "why not just transplant the entire israeli population (with financial incentives) to Utah or Miami or New York."

At 3:35, aluminumken adds to the notion: "Kick out about 1/3 of our illegals and move the 6-million+ Israeli's to a corner of Texas (on water, similar climate.)"

And at 2:06, at 5:30, David in NY points out the demographic reality surrounding Israel and observes something that I think is crucial:"Continuous war is not an option for Israel."

The obvious bold stroke, the way to truly create a "New Middle East" is to offer 20,000 sq kilometers of Texas or Florida to the Israeli's as a New Jerusalem, a new independent country. Instead of paying $400 billion plus to fight wars that we are destined to lose, we could use that money to resettle the people of Israel in what was formerly the US.

Without Israel to kick around, the ME Arabs would lose their major rallying point, and return to their dysfunctional, oilrich, non-modern ways. The Israelís would have a land of milk and honey. The US wouldn't have to fight and lose proxy wars 6,000 miles from home.

And if we gave Israel the land between Mexico and the US, heh, we might be able to avoid illegal immigration AND solve our ME problems at the same time. Now THAT would be brilliant leadership.

today I have been called a... pro-jewish pig

Doesn't sound very kosher....

Given the above response: lets try again:

In 1988 there was a trial in Canada (Zündel's trial).

Charles Biedermann, a representative of the Red Cross (ICRC), was called as a witness.

He said, that as of December 31, 1976, the International Tracing Service of the Red Cross was in possession of the names of 357,190 who died in the entire German concentration camp system.

He also said, that as of December 31, 1983, the International Tracing Service of the Red Cross was in possession of the names of 373,468 who died in the entire German concentration camp system.

Biedermann was shown a large, two volume work entitled Gedenkbuch prepared by the Federal Archive in Koblenz and published in 1962 as a gift from the Federal Republic of Germany to Israel.

The book records the names of those Jews known to have died in the German concentration camp system. It contains about 129,000 names.

What do you think of these numbers from the Red Cross and German government?

You can read more about them here: http://www.ihr.org/books/kulaszka/10biedermann.html

Everyone in the world is justified in responding somehow to anything they don't like. The only thing that ever changes is what is justified.

The ages old cycle, never ending river, the bottomless pit of human existence.

Kevin,

Forgive me, I'm not sure what you mean by a "Suez" moment. Do you mean forcing Israel to surrender what it has achieved in war against the Arabs? Why would that be that in America's interest?

I suppose one could argue that it's in America's interest to cast Israel overboard, help the Arabs drive the Jews into the sea, and reap the benefits in cheap middle eastern oil for the next couple of hundred years. It's all about oil, I guess, if that's what you care about. Gee, I wonder whatever happened to "no blood for oil?"

Happily, though, I note that the American public overwhelmingly supports Israel at this juncture as it is clear that Hezbollah, Hamas and their supporters throughout the Arab and Persian world have no interest in peace with Israel, no interest in a "two-state" solution except as a way station on the way to a no-Israel solution, and are only interested in destroying Israel. That is why no American politicians of any stature - not a single prominent Democrat or Republican - is taking the anti-Israel line that so many of your correspondents do.

The dead were Canadian,...

Well, Canada's PM and his foreign affairs minister just gave the Israelis a pass on that one.

DBL,

Nobody here (except, perhaps, for one obvious crank) wants to see Israel "destroy"ed.

We're thinking that maybe Israel is destroying itself. We're guessing that without American military support, Israel might discover some humility, get its poop together, and learn how to make peace.

Sorry for my rhetorical "we". Of course I don't presume to speak for anyone else here.

Will someone please explain what the U.S. interests are in supporting Israel? … Flummoxed 1:09 PM

More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.
As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously undesirable – neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire.
A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.

You are wasting my time.sportsfan79 1:57 PM

Hezbollah is a savage terrorist organization that has made unprovoked attacks against Americans. ex-liberal 2:12 PM

In all my life, I have never seen such a complete failure as the Bush foreign policy and their complete lack of understanding of what motivates people and nations. The neo-Con idiot, William Kristol, is making the same claim about Iran as he made about Iraq: Invade and the people will rise up and support the US. Any fool, but Republicans and neo-cons, know that an attacked people will rally around against the attacker.

believe the US has been better-behaved than most other countries…

That was a long time ago. In the meantime, the US has acted like one of our previous fascist enemies, invading foreign countries for no valid or legal reason.
2. The idea of "Arab lands" sounds close to racism

That is silly. I know Might Is Right is Republican orthodoxy, but ethnically cleansing a territory and claiming it from the previous inhabitants doesn't make it right.

3. Islamic terrorists don't need or want my justification for attacking usex-liberal 3:59 PM
I am sure they don't want your justification, they have their own: our support for an invading and occupying power, our support for repressive dictatorships and our efforts to control their natural resources.

According to Juan Cole, quoting Arabic sources, the Madhi army has launched a campaign against the Brits in the south of Iraq.

Pax Dubya.

Ex-liberal:

“1. I believe the US has been better-behaved than most other countries. E.g., playing the leading role in saving the world from Fascism in WW2 and from Communist dictatorship in the Cold War, in wiping out smallpox, in saving Europe's economies after WW2 via the Marshall Plan, etc. Furthermore, I live in the US, so I'm not neutral as to who wins. Even if AfG were correct in the contention that the US is just as evil as Islamic Terrorists, I would still rather see the US win and Hezbollah lose than vice versa.”

We were well-behaved in WWII and in general, during the Cold War, and in instituting the Marshall Plan (which I believe was our finest hour) and the latter resulted in making staunch allies out of former enemies. That was 50-60 years ago.

Are we doing anything comparable today? Yes, we do some foreign aid. But we are also invading and killing. In WWII we were attacked ourselves by the Japanese, and we helped the British and the Europeans to repel attacks from the Germans. The Germans were the aggressors then. WE are the aggressors now. No amount of spurious justification by you conservatives can change that. So, no, I don’t think that at this point in history, the U.S. is better-behaved than most countries.

Moreover, smallpox eradication was a WHO effort. The United States certainly contributed a great deal, but so did many other countries. In fact, the United States could not have done it alone, because local authorities and citizens in all countries had to cooperation in innoculating populations to the point where smallpox had no hosts. Today, since people born since around 1980 or so are no longer vaccinated, should smallpox escape from its controlled little reservoirs in the CDC and in Bioapparat in Siberia, the epidemic would be HUGE, and would again require a worldwide cooperative effort to eradicate.

“2. The idea of "Arab lands" sounds close to racism. Land is owned by countries. Just because someone is an Arab doesn't entitle him to land that was once owned by different Arabs 70 years aago. Similary, just because land was owned by whites at one time doesn't mean that blacks or Asians can't own it today.”

How many Blacks or Asians are forcefully taking land over from current inhabitants? Also, how would you feel if the land and house you own were forcefully wrested from you? Would you let it be taken with no reaction?

Here in the States we can call police, we can go to court. The Palestinians had no such recourse. I believe there was some attempt to pay them, but they were given no choice. I’m not saying that Israel has no right to exist. But they should admit that they seriously botched the original settling in the area, and withdraw to the pre-1967 borders.

We Americans can hardly take a high moral road here, as the majority of our land was forcefully wrested from various native groups over several centuries. I’m not saying that we should just give all that land back. Almost all of us living today had nothing to do with it since the last land grabs took place at the beginning of the 20th century.

Other peoples historically also have wrested land from original inhabitants who have often in turn ousted others. Genocide has been practiced by many peoples as well.

The fact that it has been widespread historically doesn’t make it right. We need to make UN treaties outlawing taking of land from current inhabitants for the sake of others.

Sportsfan:

“And as an added bonus, they'll all be voting Republican by 2008. Welcome to the party, my Jewish friends!”

Perhaps your Jewish friends are different than mine. I was married to a Jewish man for 24 years, and knew all his relatives. And I have Jewish friends. They are all liberals, and a recent poll shows that only 18% of American Jews are Republicans.

My liberal Jewish friends and former husband and inlaws are liberals for the same basic reasons that I am. We want the poor to be fed and clothed. We want all working people to be paid a living wage at the least. We want decent health care for all Americans. We believe that cooperation and diplomacy yield better longterm results and that war should be done as a very last resort. We are concerned not just about American lives but for all human beings. We want a clean environment and understand that we cannot as a species continue to foul our own nest, and that the longterm good for all of us on this “fragile earth, our island home” have no choice but to live here and so should cooperate to make it the best place we can. Along with other issues important to liberals.

My liberal Jewish friends and ex-husband and inlaws do have a special feeling for Israel, but are also capable of recognizing when it is wrong. And in this situation Israel has WAY overreacted, to the longterm detriment of itself, the Mideastern countries, the U.S., and should this situation really blow up into a world war, to the detriment of all humans on this planet.

My liberal Jewish friends and exes aren’t going to start becoming Republicans because, frankly, at this point what the Republicans stand for would be anathema to them and to me.

“Gregory, the point of view of your post assumes in a moral relativistic sense that of the two factions, ISREAL is the one that does more indiscriminate killing of civilians, and willingly uses more fanatical terroristic methodology.
My viewpoint is exactly the opposite. ”

However you regard Israel vs. Hezbollah or other Arabs in a moral relativistic sense, Israel has killed far more Arabs than Arabs have killed them. And certainly in the current situation, more indiscriminate killing of civilians has been done by Israelis. Saying that this is justified because some of the “terrorists” have expressed a desire to eradicate Israel is attempting to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

The Arabs, despite vastly overwhelming the Israelis population-wise, could only obliterate Israel one way: that being if vast numbers of the various populations were to band together and basically make a human killing wall, simultaneously invading Israel from all sides. Do you think that this is likely to happen? I don’t. The Arabs simply lack the firepower to obliterate Israel; the opposite is not the case.

“Again, I don't fault you or Disputo for it, though. As I said, the liberal lack of understanding and lack of will for defensive action is what keeps the right in charge. In essence, your rebuttals can be equated to those of your party. No solutions, just complaints.”

At this point, there are no good solutions. And regardless of what you believe, Israel’s current course, and our current course in Iraq, are creating more “terrorists” who will continue to use any methods at their hands to kill and drive out those they consider to be oppressing them, with some justification.

Nobody is right in this situation. Everybody has blood on their hands. Everybody also has legitimate grievances. So continued war is only laying the groundwork for future war.

Diplomacy is difficult and takes a long time where there is such a history of bloodshed and broken promises on all sides. But with diplomacy it is possible for all participants to get a little of what they want, if they’re willing to give a little.

I think it says something that some are offering part of Texas (or where ever) to Iraelis but not to Palestinians.

Does this mean that we have some guilt in creating Israel? Or that Israelis are more meldable to the US than Palestinians? Or that we racially assimilate Jews ('cos I'm sure they weren't including Arab Israelis) better than Arabs? Would we give them their own nation?

I don't think these people thought it through.

I don't think they expect an Israeli nation in Texas or to import Arabs. Hmm. Interesting.

Now think again. If we had the same racist problem here in the US. How would we deal with it?

I hope with more energy than the Mid-East!

Thursday, July 27th, 2006
They Were Once Vikings

Jens Orback, Democracy Minister in the Social Democratic Swedish government:

“We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.”

From The Brussels Journal

hat tip to Karen

-- Oak Leaf

Stability and moderation, yes.
Violence and extremism, no.
At least that's what they're saying in Beirut and Tel Aviv:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/743208.html
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=74273

Angry Al - I notice that you do not disagree with my assessment that Hezbollah, Hamas and their supporters in the Arab and Persian worlds want to see Israel destroyed, and are unwilling to enterain any kind of "peace" proposal that entails the future security and survival of the State of Israel. They want a "cease-fire" only to gain time to re-arm, not as a prelude to any kind of meaningful peace negotiation. I am encouraged by the fact that you do not disagree with this assessment of the facts.

Certainly some of Kevin's readers want to see Israel come to an end, too, and are quite explicit about it (Michele, rmck1, et al.) Many others are indifferent to whether or not Israel survives and are motivated by pacifism ("peace now" or "better red than dead"), or imagined left-wing solidarity with the so-called anti-colonial forces of the third world, or just plain ignorance. Outright Jew haters are probably a minority (although I would insist that any application of double standards to Israel is plain, old fashioned anti-Semitism, all gussied up).

Anyway, since you apparently agree with me that Israel is facing an entrenched army on its Northern border that is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and that initiated the current hostilities with cross-border raids and rocket launches, what exactly would you have Israel do to protect itself? Forget about civilian casualties for the moment. As the chief UN humanitarian official, Jan Egeland, pointed out the other day, most of them are the direct result of Hezbollah deliberately locating its operations in the middle of civilian populations (see http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/hezbollah_cowards_to_blame_for_civilian_slaughter__u_n__big_worldnews_uri_dan__with_post_wire_services.htm). Egeland harshly criticized Hezbollah for boasting that more Arab civilians had died than Hezbollah fighters - which Hezbollah had brought about. So what exactly would you do?

notthere:I think it says something that some are offering part of Texas (or where ever) to Iraelis but not to Palestinians....Does this mean that we have some guilt in creating Israel?

This thread is over, but as one of "these people" who proposed, only half in jest, that we offer 20,000 km of Texas to Israel, I thought I'd give an honest response to your observation.

I have three reasons.

The first has to do with justice. Back in 1948, when the Jews and western Europe were reeling from the horrors of the Holocaust, it seemed a good idea to fulfill the Zionist dream and restore the nation of Israel. The claim was 2000 years old and based on the sacred scriptures of the Jewish and Christian people. Did we consult the people living there, who don't accept the authority of those Jewish and Christian scriptures? No. That was an injustice, and yes, we should have some guilt over that.

The second has to do with practicality. Other Arab nations hate Jews. Using the Palestinians and other civilian populations as pawns, they have refused to incorporate or assimilate the Palestinians into their own nations, because they want to destroy Israel. Because we support Israel, they also hate the US. So let's say we offer 20,000KM of Texas to the 10 million Palestinians for a Palestinian state, and say they accept and move here. That might win us some Arab goodwill, but not necessarily: The Arabs don't hate us because of the Palestinians. They hate us and Israel because they hate Jews. So remove the Palestinians, and the six million Israelis would still be surrounded by implacable enemies who want to destroy Israel. So offering a bit of Texas to the Palestinians wouldn't solve THAT problem.

Plus, the Palestinians are presently surrounded by people who share their language and religion. In the new Palestine on the Gulf coast, Palestinians would be surrounded by neighbors that don't share their language or religion and whom they presently hate (see Arab goodwill, above). On the other hand, the Israelis do not now have neighbors that share their language or religion so that would be a neutral to them, but they would gain neighbors that would not be dedicated to their destruction.

Finally, my third reason is that I do not see how Israeli can win peace, long term. The only reason Israel still exists is because they have more fire power than anyone else and they have been willing to use their power ruthlessly. But the demographics are against them--the Palestinian & Muslim population is growing at twice the rate of the Jewish population. What can the US do to help Israel? Wars and firepower go only so far. Should we set out to level the Middle East and attack Syria, Iran, and Pakistan to ensure Israeli's long-term survival? The US once had the authority to pressure both parties for peace, but today the US is addicted to Arab oil and weakened by our actions in Iraq. What can we do to help Israel and the ME?

We both know that 20,000KM of Texas is not going to be ceded to Israel, and even if offered, that Israel would not accept. Who would trade Jerusalem or Tel Aviv for Galveston? But I just don't see how this chapter of the story of Israel is going to have a happy ending. The situation is an incredible mess, everyone is to blame, and it just keeps deteriorating,