If I may be so bold as to say here:

While the neocons always look at the problem with the following question: "What is best for Israel?", I tend to look at it from "What is best for America?".

Somehow this can be spun as anti-semitic, racist and David Duke like :-)

The ultimate irony is (and remember, my position is I do not give a **** about Israel, one way or another) is that the neocons and the pro-Israel Lobby here in the USA REALLY IS BAD for Israel.

Yes, Saddam was a danger to Israel and from a realpolitik perspective had to be taken out.

But the price of taking out Saddam is a Shia, pro Iran state and possibly (even worse case scenario) actually does become a "Mad Max" kind of a situation, a la Somalia and an actual terrorist base, for al Kaida and others.

I do not think that, from a cold blooded pro Israel realpolitik perspective (the most cynical kind) taking out Saddam is ultimately worth destabilizing the whole Middle East (which "destabilizing the whole Middle East" was actually the neocons PLAN, starting with the "Clean Break" policy paper and then the PNAC organized to actually carry those policies out).

After all, no sane (and Saddam was secular, and could play the game) would DIRECTLY attack Israel with missiles, WMD, gas, whatever.

A terrorist organization, perhaps soon BASED in Iraq (after the US inevitably leaves) will have no qualms about doing so.

I have to say I really enjoy yours and Mr. Silverstein's blogs, they are a breath of fresh air and are written pretty well, and so are a joy to read.

Cheers!

In my defense, I have a few margaritas in me tonight and, anyway, when I post articles on my blog there is always the blessed "EDIT" option :-)

The 'settlements' won't go away and the arabs won't leave peacefully like they did in 1948.

The acceptance of a two-state solution by modern zionists is quite similar to their so-called acceptance of the Partition Plan of 1947. They'll draw out the negotiations over "final status" items for the next two generations, while attempting to cleanse Gaza and the West Bank with tanks, bulldozers, and strangulating seige.

Phil, I don't hear a peep out of you concerning the biggest elephant in our room: the warmongering against Iran. Are you afraid to express an opinion? or just onboard with the Party Line?

The lobby, I'm afraid, lives notwithstanding the best efforts of W&M, PW, RS and a few other admirable figures.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98

Yes, he did make some helpful pts. But this passage struck me as hopelessly timid & wrong-headed: "Barack Obama and John McCain…should be able to talk, in blunt terms, about the full range of dangers faced by Israel, including the danger Israel has brought upon itself.

But this won’t happen until Aipac and the leadership of the American Jewish community allow it to happen."

He expects that AIPAC & the Jewish gerontocracy will "allow" Obama & McCain to engage in "straight talk" about the I-P conflict? Meaning, that they both should be able to call a spade & spade & criticize BOTH SIDES? Come off it, man. What kind of delusion is this guy lingering under?

AIPAC is petrified of precisely this type of freewheeling debate. They won't ever "allow" it to happen. They'll have to be dragged screaming & kicking into such a debate. And if we wait for the "grandees" to allow the candidates to talk freely, we'll be waiting till Mashiach comes if not longer.