I came across a blog entry today that is almost unique in my experience, in how it openly discusses the dual loyalties question, while being part of a very mainstream blog, Talking Points Memo. I thought you might be interested. It's short.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/israeli-or-american-its-anyone.php

Paul Craig Roberts wrote yesterday:

"April 5, 2008. Today the London Telegraph reported that "British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the US-backed Baghdad government. A strong statement from General David Petraeus about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a US attack on Iranian militiary facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment."

The neocon lacky Petraeus has had his script written for him by Cheney, and Petraeus together with neocon warmonger Ryan Crocker, the US governor of the Green Zone in Baghdad, will present Congress next Tuesday and Wednesday with the lies, for which the road has been well paved by neocon propagandists such as Kimberly Kagan, that "the US must recognize that Iran is engaged in a full-up proxy war against it in Iraq.

Don't expect Congress to do anything except to egg on the attack. On April 3 the International Herald Tribune reported that senators and representatives have made millions of dollars from their investments in defense companies totaling $196 million. Rep. Ike Skelton, the Democrat chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is already on board with the attack on Iran. The London Telegraph quotes Skelton: "Iran is the bull in the china shop. In all of this, they seem to have links to all of the Shi'ite groups, whether they be political or military." Etc.

See:

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts04052008.html

and let these pukes, who after all have connived and conspired to organize genocide against the Palestinians for decades, get away scot-free ?

the best medicine is ones own, thinks me, but that would perhaps be a bit too harsh, just as "dolcetto tones" are way too lenient. a middle way, like disenfranchising them wholesale, would be better suited to put an end to the horror in the ME once and for all times.

I think its better to promote an alternative means to promote alternative policy, than to remain loyal to a flawed message.

"Addressing asymmetries in the peace process–as this book has advocated–does not mean tilting away from Israel." Well actually, it does. – Phil

OMG, how can one be an honest broker, while remaining openly tilted toward one of the parties? It's like the mediator in a divorce case announcing, "I'm a lifelong friend of your wife's, but I'm gonna be fair to you too, little buddy." Yeah, right; can I keep my left testicle?

Haven't read the book, but the "Ten Lessons to Guide Arab-Israeli Peacemaking" posted there gives a good flavor of it.

http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/lasensky_kurtzer_press/top_ten.html

This ethereal little ukase should be titled "Mirage of the Technocrats" — every single point concerns U.S. domestic policy. In their pre-Copernican cosmography, America is the center of the universe. Exempli gratia: "Use the diplomatic toolbox judiciously and pay close attention to developments on the ground." Kurtzer and Lasensky sound like feckless yob trainspotters, skulking round the marshalling yard in greasy anoraks, poor sods, clutching spanners and oilcans to minister to dragging brakes and squeaky bearings. Let's get this peace train back on the tracks, they plead.

What would Kurtzer and Lasensky do, confronted with a cunning foot-dragger such as Dov Weisglas, who's proclaimed that peace will be made "when Palestine becomes Finland"? Scrappy little Israel would run rings around them; this is not tiddly-winks at a State Department tea party.

The Bush-Baker skirmish of 1991 probably was the sole instance in forty years when the U.S. actually, briefly, withheld funding from Israel (of supplemental loan guarantees, not its guaranteed $3 billion a year spoiled-child allowance). This is the ONLY mechanism which will show Israel that the U.S. means business about stopping those settlements. Saying that "some domestic advocates for Israel were unnecessarily alienated" is a rose-tinted rationalization: it WAS, and IS, necessary to alienate them, because their stance on funding is "Israel, right or wrong."

Only when Kurtzer's dulcet tones are met with Six Gun Richard Witty summoning his inner rage to call him a "puke" will Kurtzer understand that in this armed bun fight, the Lobby will take no prisoners.