Three weeks ago I reported that Newsweek senior editor Michael Hirsh said at a SAIS panel that the "Israel lobby" was pushing for an attack on Iran. Hirsh was liberated to state what is obvious, I ventured, by the effect of Walt and Mearsheimer–who notwithstanding the vicious reviews are operating like a depth charge.
The latest evidence for my position comes from Jim Fallows, who on his blog yesterday essentially endorses Walt-Mearsheimer. Quoth Fallows:
To the (ongoing) extent that AIPAC — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which calls itself “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby” — is trying to legitimize a military showdown between the United States and Iran, it is advancing its own concerns at the expense of larger American interests. The people who are doing this are not from one ethnic group in the conventional sense but are mainly of one religion (Jewish).
Fallows’s motivation is surely similar to Hirsh’s. He regards an attack on Iran as a horrible mistake, against "larger American interests." Now when he has the opportunity he is speaking out; as so many journalists failed to speak out in 2002. Good for him.
That said, Fallows’s overall take on Walt/Mearsheimer is unconvincing. He says that going back to Madison, government theorists have warned of the effect of "faction" in American politics. He says the Israel lobby is doing just what the Armenian lobby and the Cuba lobby are doing. The analogy is something of an insult to a reader’s intelligence. The Israel lobby is not on a par with these other lobbies. It spavines all our efforts in the Arab world and has clearly contributed to a foreign policy disaster in Iraq. The effects of the (yes: powerful) Cuba lobby are far more circumscribed. The Bay of Pigs is a long time ago, Cuba was incendiary when it was the tip of the spear of the Communist world. Now it’s just an isolated island with leftwing friends. I doubt that the Armenian "lobby" has gained traction for the genocide issue because of contributions to California political campaigns; though someone should hire me to do journalism on this issue. Its moment is arriving because of historical/cultural forces, not unlike the movement that dignified the Holocaust in the 1960s. I haven’t even gotten to the importance of Jews in the establishment, which Fallows is surely aware of.
The takeaway here, though, is that Fallows is brave; and his bravery is sure to be noted and emulated. Last night on Hardball, Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan had a charade conversation about the politics of attacking Iran, a plan they both deplore, in which neither dared educate their viewers by saying the words Israel lobby. Trita Parsi, Michael Hirsh and now Jim Fallows have done so.
What is happening right now is that it is OK for respectable people to blog about the Israel lobby, or talk about it at an academic discussion, but it’s not O.K. to say as much in a mainstream venue. Heavens no! Consider Hirsh. A week after the SAIS panel he wrote in Newsweek about neocons joining the braintrust for Giuliani (a wonderful piece of reporting that is getting a lot of pickup). Though he did talk about Israel-focused ideology, he didn’t mention the lobby. It’s just a matter of time before this sort of self-censorship ends.
Related posts:
- Newsweek Senior Editor Says ‘Israeli Lobby’ Is Shaping U.S. Policy Toward Iran
- Walt & Mearsheimer Perestroika Alert: Sy Hersh Says ‘Jewish Money’ Is Pushing Iran War
- Walt and Mearsheimer Have Already Created Perestroika
- Peretz Says NIE Shocker Re Iran Was Enabled by… Walt & Mearsheimer
- Bubble, Bubble: Journalists Grow More Direct About ‘Israel-Firsters’ and Iran
{ 44 comments }
Hardball conversation:
PJB did mention the neoconservatives….the burden is upon the general population to educate themselves about what is going on. PJB may be getting tired of taking arrows for his criticism of the War Party, the destruction of the American working class thru job outsourcing to India and China etc. As he approaches 70, the old Nixonian whom Nixon described as "intellectually brillant" according to Monica Crowley may be looking to a new generation to take up the fight. He may also be concerned about getting his contract with MSNBC renewed. PJB is a figure of hate for the Jewish community–they all parrot that he is "an isolationist bigot." Better to speak in code and hope that alert viewers can pick up on what he is saying or read his more candid remarks in the American Conservative magazine.
You yourself elevate the effect of AIPAC by the generalization that it is THE Israel Lobby.
What do you propose as a practical alternative in relation to Iran?
That would be substantive.
Deterrence works
1. Iran can be deterred. The old Soviet Union had 30K nukes and they never dared used one against the U.S. The War party wants us to worry about Iran with just a few possible nukes and no means to deliver them…..why would Iran commit suicide and use them against the U.S?
The real reason for AIPAC wanting war with Iran is that they want the US to do Israel's business for it. AIPAC may fear that a nuclear-armed Iran means more emigration from Israel and hence a weaker Israel.
A drop in tensions in the Mideast would lead to a drop in oil prices and expose the weaknesses of the Iranian regime. The new regime might simply drop the nuke program.
Giuliani advisor David Frum wrote the speech calling Iran part of the "Axis of Evil" a few months after Iran helped the US topple their mutual enemy the Taliban. Hence, the Iran regime's decision to develop a weapon of deterrence seems reasonable on their part. What would you expect a rational regime to do, Mr Witty?
Why should Americans die for Israel? What is at stake for America? So what if Iran controls the region for a while… All oil will be consumed within 20 years so the region wont matter at all to the U.S.
"It's just a matter of time before this sort of self-censorship ends."
Being careful (full of care) about one's words is not an example of "self-censorship", but is in fact mature freedom of speech.
This is all anyone needs to understand the Israeli lobby or any other special interest lobby or the people behind them. And the American founders warned us about this a long time ago. They understood that our "democratic tools" of representation and free speech would make America a perfect target and vehicle for those who would pervert those democratic engines and use this nation for their own foreign or special interest purpose.
I think we are approaching the point where we Americans must destroy our government in order to rebuild it on it's original principles and save the nation.
Geo Washington Farewell Address 1779
"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.
It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld.
And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other.
Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. "
PJB does mention the Israel lobby and more than once. So much so that the ADL has mounted a campaign against him:
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/buchanan_own_words/buchanan_intro.asp
It is hard to ask PJB to speak out more as he just get pillared. There are strength in numbers in this respect.
I also have to say if the push for a War with Iran picks up this stuff will have a lot more resonance. Right now, the push for war with Iran is in a strange stage, its not full on and its not off. This type of slow burn makes it hard to rally regular folks into opposition, but it may be effective at possibly slowly converting the general public. The reason is that the Israel lobby is about a number of levels involving a complex domestic political group that requires some thought, while many of the pro-War propaganda deal with scaring the American public, a much more direct visceral message. These two messages can't compare.
I think that making fun of the war mongerers and demonstrating that they are trying to scare people is an effective strategy, similar to what Jon Stewart and others have been doing.
Crap, the above comment really should have been proofread.
Either way, I don't think that Pat Buchanan speaking out more on this will change things. The truth is there is significant financial strength in the Israel lobby and its not going to go away. People can attack it in various ways, but it has enough money to fund and raise in prominence those that support it. That is the function of the well funded WINEP, JINSA and AEI think tanks. Money can force issues in US politics and in recent years, many groups have refined this to a science.
I am not sure what the solution is.
Here is an interesting essay from today's Guardian:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/10/23/libertarians-are-the-true-social-parasites/
Mr. Witty, you ask 'What do you propose as a practical alternative in relation to Iran?'
Would you please explain what *America* need do *anything* in relation to Iran? I certainly see how Iran is a problem for Israel, but explain how it is a problem for the U.S.
Iran: not a threat
Iran is no threat to the U.S. in any meaningful sense….The Zionists just want us to do their dirty work for them…..in the 1930's Zionists wanted us to go to war against Hitler…hmm why did the Zionists not just asasinate Hitler? Did they even try? Nope–just get the goyim to do the dirty work. At least in the 1930's we had Lindberg
to offset their propaganda machine. Today, we only have a few lonely voices like Ron Paul….notice how Hannity treats Paul after he wins the phone in vote on Fox news?
Bill Bennet's price at the AEI
I wonder how much the AEI pays Bill Bennett (Book of Virtues, $8M gambler) to sit on their board and encourage Americans to believe that Israel's existence is in the US national interest.
Is selling your country out for a few nickels virtuous, Bill?
All that will happen is that polite circumlocutions for "Jewish" like "neo-con" will be used instead. Everything will be very subtle.
That's one of the most disagreeable and in the long run most pernicious effects of the ADL/AIPAC repression, a sort of damp, poisonous ambiguity where lines between fair criticism and bigotry become blurred.
Oil is the reason the economic/power reason that the US is interested in the middle east.
We need it, and are kept and keep needing it. And, oil company electoral contributions demand that we secure US corporate access to it.
The Israel lobbies (conservative and liberal ones) are TINY relative to that effort and money.
Israel on the other hand is our ally, because it is a democracy and MANY citizens have mutual relationships. It is a relative to the US, whereas Iraq, Saudi Arabia, are at best clients currently.
Peace is preferable, but to infer that Iran is not seeking expansion of its power is really blind.
Mr. Witty, thanks for having the stones to reply to my query. But tell me this, please: if our main interest is getting oil, why don't we just cut Israel loose? I am sure oil would get much *cheaper*, not more expensive, if we stopped supporting the one regime that has become a rallying cry of opposition for Arabs and Muslim oil producing countries around the world.
Also, you seem to suggest that oil lobby money is forcing us to support Israel. Again, how does that follow? Israel has *no* oil; if we didn't have Israel to deal with, would our access to oil be easier or harder?
As for your comments about Israel being an ally rather than a client state – then why are we giving it so much foreign aid? Can it not stand on its own without America's help?
to: Mr Witty
Re: Iran and its ambitions.
Iran probably does not really want a nuke weapon. Why not? b/c it will only start a nuke arms race in the region. The Saudis will rush to get one etc
Iran ONLY needs a nuke weapon to deter a US ground invasion….what should Iran do given that the US has called it part of an axis of evil a few months after they helped us overthrow the Taliban?
Iran may want more power but how much? They may not be as stupid as Krauthammer and Co. and want to bite off more than they can chew.
Control the oil price? And drive the development of alternative energy even faster? Gimme break. Iran will probably try to cut the oil price.
Re the olil lobby: wrong again , Witty. Oil companies never lobby re foreign affairs. Nope. Nada according to Mearsheimer. Oil comapnies looby for lower taxes, depreciation and access to the everglades.
But nice try to distract the population from the real source.
BTW attack Iran and they may retaliate against the US food supply etc No nukes needed.
I agree that states often have enemies, But in the case of Iran you neo cons are doing the bidding of a foreign power. Eventually, the US majority will figure it out and then heads will roll. Dont anticipate too much due process then although we traditional conservatives will urge restraint.
Dear Witty..
Israel is a relative to the US?
Son…you really are deluded.
Having a 2% population of Jews and a handful of christian doomday end timers doesn't make the US related to Israel any more than having a 20% population of German Americans makes us "related" to Germany.
There are probably only two or three countries in the universe, that no matter what ever occurs, the US would have a "related" ally relationship in perpetuity with and they are all European.
Israel is a client state, it is of no use to the US strategically, and is only a client state due to the actions of US Jews and the Lobby.
Oil companies don't lobby for foreign policy.
Are you joking?
Israel is in close relationship with the US, and Americans from MANY angles, including official, geo-political, personal, as well as being a valid and mature democratic state.
There are so many critical and intimate reasons that the US should have an alliance with Israel.
There are many good reasons that every state in the region and the world should have good relations with Israel.
If Iran renounced its aim to remove Israel from the map, accepted Israel, then its political relations would be very different.
But, its theology and theocracy compels its ideology. Sadly, that puts an enormous obstacle between it and civility.
to: Mr Witty
Subject: chance for you to shine and prove Mearsheimer wrong…or else withdraw your claim
Let me repeat oil companies do not lobby re US Mideast foreign policy…why would they? why tangle with the Israel lobby? You are gonna lose versus the Israel lobby…the oil lobby has seen the end of many a great political career e.g. Charles Percy of Illinois. They see the political battlefield full of corpses killed by AIPAC. they wisely
avoid a fight with AIPAC.
If you have data on oil company lobbying PLEASE share it with us…you will have scored a factual blunder by Mearsheimer. COME ON NOW DONT BE SHY…SHARE YOUR DATA! (Maybe the ADL can provide some.Maybe you are the ADL :))
name anyone who has ever DIRECTLY challenged AIPAC and won? I cannot think of anyone. AIPAC's goals may be postponed but never annihilated.
Israel and its lack or relations:
That, my dear fellow is Israel's problem. Not mine. Perhaps if there were more US Jews in the US military than Buddhists (source Mr Weiss) then US Jews might be forced to think about putting America first.
And if Jews sense an underlying antipathy maybe they should examine their own actions so often influenced by dual loyalty.
e.g. in Argentina 10 years ago during that country's economic crisis representatives of world Jewry used to show up and urge Argentine's Jews to emigrate. Source NY Times. Hmm Mr Witty do you think that Argentines might have resented a transnational power coming in and kicking them while they were down…why did they not say..how can we help you to help your country, Argentina to be a better place. Instead, world Jewry says: let us brain drain this country for Israel's benefit. Hmm and you think that no one notices? Oh they say nothing because the social cost is so high. But people observe and draw conclusions. They still have private thoughts about such actions. AIPAC knows how shallow the affection is for Israel. Hence the bullying and retaliation against any Congressman who steps out of line.
Dual Loyalty is the essence of the World Jewish experience and not just the American experience, John B Judas could have written in the New Republic. Would you not agree?
Sadly, Mr Witty you cannot see the tragedy of Zionism. Zionism makes the claims of anti-semites plausible. The actions of the neocons proves them.
It really is a tragedy.Or perhaps we need to update the adage:
History repeats itself: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
All farce is based upon mis-identity. Figure out whom you want to identify with, Mr Witty and give them your full loyalty.
What a silly tirade.
"Let me repeat oil companies do not lobby re US Mideast foreign policy…why would they? "
To answer Witty's question, the practical alternative to war with Iran is peace. As the Iraq Study Group pointed out, the root cause of all our Middle East problems is the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and this was echoed in Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia. He said, "You know quite well that Palestine is an old wound, as old as 60 years. For 60 years these people are displaced. For 60 years these people are being killed. For 60 years on a daily basis there's conflict and terror. For 60 years innocent women and children are destroyed and killed by helicopters and airplanes that break the houses over their heads. For 60 years children in kindergartens, in schools, and in high schools are imprisoned and being tortured. For 60 years security in the Middle East has been endangered. For 60 years the slogan of the expansionists:'From the Nile to the Euphrates' is being chanted by certain groups in that part of the world." The Iranian president also has said that he would accept any peace deal approved by the Palestinians. He did not deny the holocaust but wondered why the Palestinians should suffer because of it. The Israel Lobby prefers to misquote him to push us into war and, of course, as inveterate expansionists, the Lobby will never accept peace.
Subject: Waiting for Mr. Witty's evidence on oil company's lobbying re our Mideast foreign policy
Come on Mr Witty…do prove Mearsheimer wrong…or retract your claim….again name one lobby that has ever taken on AIPAC and won.
Just one. Just once. Honestly, disabuse us of the perception re the Israel lobby.
Re dual loyalty:
None are so blind as those will not see. I notice that you refuse to address the issue.
Re Israel: The Iranians think Israel's existence is indefensible.
Israeli youth apparently dont think that the country is worth defending and dodge the draft.
Israel's Likudnik leaders are so worried about Iran that they want the US to do their fighting. Ok Witty, you will probably get your war with Iran. But I predict that it will be the last one we fight for you. What do you think that Iran will do? Just take it on the chin…oil will reach $200, the dollar will crash and the US will enter recession. Do you really think that you can control the turmoil that will ensue from a war with Iran?
This is a copy of a comment that I made on my blog following an observation from a reader who, like Phil, bristled at the thought of equating AIPAC with the other lobbies.
——-
I believe Fallows' aim here is to debunk the charges of anti-Semitism thrown at critics of AIPAC and the Israel Lobby in general. He goes on to point out the dangers of allowing such formations (factions) a free hand in distorting policies to suit a few at the expense of the "permanent and aggregate interests of the community." I would follow him and agree with him that much.
However, I agree with you that AIPAC & the rest of the Israel Lobby have established themselves as a much more potent force than either of the other lobbies inasmuch as their members and 'vassals' have penetrated the state apparatus to the extent that it is almost impossible to distinguish what is the US and what is not.
Indeed, on this matter, I note that Israeli scholar Daniel Levy, in one of his recent posts, seems to recognize that fact. He appears to have given up on the nation's "elite" and power brokers. He does not think that change would come from them. He wrote: "The urgent challenge is to construct a competing alliance. To steal a page from the hawks' playbook, let's call it Sanity Watch. The political leadership of the center-left in both Israel and America is unlikely to rise to the challenge. The drive for a coalition of sanity may have to come from civil society." –
http://www.prospectsforpeace.com/2007/10/how_about_a_peace_lobby.html"
Gene: I agree with your recent blog posting as well as with the bit you quote from Daniel Levy.
I agree with Gene and Levy also.
Although Levy as an Israeli wants the favored relationship of the US to Israel to continue, and I as an American do not, he still sees clearly what must be done. I have noticed that over the past year he has become even more realistic, or should we say pessimistic, about Israel's long term surivial if they don't change their ways.
I don't think it is really a question of Israel's survival depending on "changing their ways", but rather on changing their location.
Only a few decades ago most of Israel's neighbors had very little education and could not operate complex weapons systems or execute sophisticated asymmetric strategies. With the information revolution that has all changed and the Islamic "awakening" makes these changes purposeful. Israel no longer represents education and brains surrounded by illiterate savages.
In short the days of what I call the, "Bwana lights Zippo, awes worshipful natives syndrome" is no longer operative. And short of turning the Middle East (and all its oil and natural gas) into a radioactive desert, the Israelis just cannot generate enough shock and awe anymore to make the region ultimately habitable for them.
I understand that North Dakota is losing population at an alarming rate, maybe that would offer a solution.
And I think you guys are mostly talking to yourselves, preaching to the choir.
There is no truth to confront in your posts John.
The oil lobby selected and then "elected" George Bush and Dick Cheney. The most that AIPAC does is screen.
I doubt that you share the worldview and social real life worldview of Phil Weiss. The only thing I would suspect that you share is a common irritation, a common stimuli.
But that irritation will pass. And both you and Phil will then have to decide what is important to you.
If you move on only to the next irritation, then this period of time will not have been a learning experience.
"Alan Greenspan, former chair of the Federal Reserve, has declared that "…the Iraq war is largely about oil" in his recently released memoirs. "People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are," said the Republican Senator from Nebraska Chuck Hagel to law students of Catholic University last September. "They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs.""
from: Counterpunch 23rd October
It is rare that I agree with Richard Witty but this is one such memorable occasion. The argument about the (in)activity of the oil lobbies seems to me only partly relevant. Cheney, Bush and Rice all have a background in oil. Cheney already showed in 1999 that he was keenly aware of the issue of "peak oil", the likelihood that ere long oil production will go down while demand will increase.
It has been argued that the US can get its oil in a normal way, via the market. Yes, but when supply is running out the market won't help.
Then one ensures supply by military might denying the resource to competitors for regional hegemony.
The fact that this military gamble doesn't seem to work and has issued in a huge waste of lives and resources is another matter.
Also one thing doesn't exclude the other. The idea to serve Israel with this invasion might have been there all along.
James Baker is lawyer to the oil companies.
The Baker Commission recommended getting out of Iraq. Nothing that comes out of James Baker is not 100% backed by the oil companies.
This recommendation was rejected out of hand, with the help of the Israel lobby.
Also, the oil companies actively opposed the sanctions on Iran. Those sanctions mean US companies can't do business with Iran. They hurt the oil business and they hurt US competitiveness.
Again, the oil companies lost that battle as well.
Thank God, the oil companies don't have unlimited power.
The Israel Lobby (if you mean AIPAC) is also not omnipotent.
The oil and other mineral lobbies are enormous.
NOONE can say that the oil companies have benefited enormously from the current administrations policies or lack of.
The capital that is the oil industry is utterly enormous.
Historically, the oil lobby pandered to oil sheiks, and then to nationalized oil interests, while maintaining the stick clearly in its back hand.
There is no single reason that the US made war with Iraq. To suppose so, is really to not study it.
There was ONE decision-maker however, and one body that empowered that decision-maker. They ARE accountable for their decisions.
AIPAC only has voice and some money. Others also have voice and money.
That was "noone can say that the oil companies have NOT benefitted"
"The only thing I would suspect that you share is a common irritation, a common stimuli."
That, folks, is the Witty way of warning you are an antisemite.
"But that irritation will pass. And both you and Phil will then have to decide what is important to you."
This is the soft threat. You either behave yourself, or else…
In the past americans were able to perceive a craven person behind a sweet-tongued mask, but today all that one needs is to presend himself as a jew and americans will instinctively immerse themselves in disbelief suspention, eager to listen and learn, and be conducted to their own end.
"The Baker Commission recommended getting out of Iraq. Nothing that comes out of James Baker is not 100% backed by the oil companies."
Yes, but that might be because the Baker commission could see what Bush/Cheney apparently don't want to see: that this military gamble hadn't come off.
Anonymous.
To perceive a threat from me, you must be genuinely paranoid, believing your own propaganda.
Incidentally, I have never seen anything very informative about Cheney's possible motivation. If any one can point me to it I would be obliged.
Yes, the man is a ruthless so and so. Yes, he almost seems to like military mayhem for its own sake. But that is as far as it goes.
It seems to me that he, who is not only at the end of his career but also (with his history of heart attacks) probably close to the end of his life, is beyond the reach of the Israel lobby. Has he ever shown any gratuitous love for Israel?
Also, he seems to be rolling in dough so, unless he suffers from 'old age avarice', personal gain doesn't seem to come into the equation either.
The man seems, furthermore, far too cynical to believe in the neocon fairytale about spreading 'democracy' and 'freedom' to those who are in darkness.
Couldn't it be that he, in his own twisted way, believes to be serving the national interest (as different from the private interest of the various oil companies) by ensuring that the US has a military grip on the main region that provides a resource that ere long might be in very short supply?
He couldn't of course own up to this motivation because it would be an open acknowledgment that the reasons cited earlier for attacking Iraq were a pack of lies.
Also, a too blatant attempt to grab the world's main supply of oil for the benefit of one particular nation might have the rest of the world up in arms.
Perhaps Cheney sees himself as the misunderstood silent patriot who suffers calumny and obloqui for the sake of his country.
Arie Brand, I believe Naomi Klein's thesis in her recent book applies directly to Cheney. (Along with a cult of other rather authoritarian, corporatist leaders throughout the world.)
I do not believe for a second that the oil companies, whose massive wealth and whose owners' massive private wealth is broadly invested, and not at all dependent on access to any one market anyway, would object to essentially taking Iraq and Afghanistan off line and the price of oil jumping to, let me check here, $87.88/barrel in January 2008 up from, let me check here, $15 (2006 dollars) in 1998…
(Purely coincidentally, that's the year there's a decade+ low in the price of oil, and that's when the American branch of the Likud hatches its plan to set the Middle East on fire…)
"and that's when the American branch of the Likud hatches its plan to set the Middle East on fire…)"
I thought it was 1897, no er 1921, no er 1939, no er 1947,8,9, no er 1956, no er 1967, no er 1978, no er 2000.
What year did Nassar decide to set the middle east on fire? What year did the PLO decide to set the middle east on fire? What year did Iraq decide to set the middle east on fire? What year did Al-Quaida decide to set the middle east on fire? What year did Iran decide to set the middle east on fire?
Sorry Richard, no one but a hear-no-evil, see-no-evil Zionist like yourself could possibly think that pathetic-assed Nasser and his toybox army could "set the Middle East on fire"…
And no one but a Zionist could see the disastrous effects of Zionist colonialism and blame everyone but the Zionists.
"What year did the PLO decide to set the middle east on fire?"
Are you by any chance referring to the year in which that bulky political pyromaniac walked up to the Al-Aqsa mosque surrounded by hundreds of riot police?
That was the year 2000, Richard.
Read some history already.
The PLO set the whole world on fire with hijackings, bombings, insurrections, from the late 70's until now.
From 1994 – present there is the opportunistic ambiguity of the Al Aqsa Martyrs being associated and controlled by Fatah (who controlled the PLO largely for that whole period), and then somehow being independant of Fatah.
I think that Israel should though negotiate with Abbas, and establish genuinely respectful diplomatic relations, so that in the overwhelming areas of common need and objective, they can cooperate.
Palestine needs trading partners, access to educational institutions, access to hospitals, access to work, access to integrated regional infrastructure.
The whole world is hindered by the waiting.
And, its possible. The gaps should be bridged. If it means trusting Fatah to establish a more confident policing capacity, Israel should do it.
"Read some history already."
To refer to the activites of the PLO as "insurrections" (mind you you are talking about people who are trying to get a fragment of their own land back from foreign invaders) betrays what kind of 'history' you have read: zionist propaganda screeds.
Just an FYI…Richard Witty is not only not Witty but he is a pro Israel awfulness who lives in his head.
That guy has been moroning around the internet for so many years it makes me want to puke stating how Israel has a right to exist.
Go live in Israel then "Witty" who is not so Witty.
Go to the front lines pal.
Let's finally get one thing straight. The President of Iran did not call for whiping a certain Sh-ty little country in the Middle East, as a French Diplomat once described Israel, off the face of the earth.
Here is what Amadenijahd actually said, "The Iman (Khomeni) said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".
In other words he is quoting Khomeni and the message is the regime must vanish just as the USSR vanished.
"What do you propose as a practical alternative in relation to Iran?", Richard Witty asks. How about LEAVING THEM ALONE. Is Amerika so lost to zionazism that it simply cannot imagine NOT attacking and murdering millions of innocent people? Are you all REALLY that demented? If so, may your vicious semitic god help you, because everyone else in the world will very soon be out to exterminate you. That is what happens to rabid dogs. LEAVE IRAN ALONE. Deal with your OWN war criminals.
Comments on this entry are closed.