A few weeks back I wrote that there are too many Jewish Israelis in the American press, and Lisa Goldman, a writer in Tel Aviv, called me an anti-Semite. I’ve been working on a big post responding to her charge, but in the meantime I was back at it again last night, when I said that the New York Review of Books should stop hiring so many Israeli writers.
How do I justify such national prejudice? Especially when I’m here in Israel, where I’m meeting a lot of amazing Israeli journos and intellectuals who have walked their talk and are trying to change their country?
I admit that it is a national prejudice on my part. It reflects these feelings: after the Iraq war, I woke up to the incredible conflation of American and Israeli interests that the neocons were pushing in the U.S. discourse. I found it extremely confusing when everyone from Tom Friedman to Bill Kristol was saying that a suicide bomber in Tel Aviv was a reason for us to invade Iraq. Those guys were themselves confused about which country they cared about more. At this time, too, Jeffrey Goldberg emerged as the most important Jewish journalist in the U.S., in some measure because he had spent time in Israel and served in the IDF. He has been replaced, or is starting to be replaced, by Gershom Gorenberg, an American-cum-Israeli, who has written for the New York Review of Books and the Weekly Standard too. Meanwhile the New York Times began printing Zev Chafets, a former Israeli gov’t spokesman, on American political trends, and the American Enterprise Institute was paying Dore Gold $98,000 a year as a scholar, notwithstanding the fact he is a former Israeli ambassador living in Jerusalem and churning out Islamophobia.
It never ends. Rahm Emanuel, who volunteered at an IDF base, became the White House chief of staff, and another Obama appointee announced that Israel is her homeland, and Harvard names as the new dean of the Law School, Martha Minow, who has published an article with an Israel co-author saying that Israel’s treatment of detainees is a model! (Sorry if that irritates; I just returned from a demonstration for Jamal Juma, who has been detained on flimsy grounds because he’s a human rights worker, and I’m reading the Goldstone report, which says that 750,000 Palestinians have been imprisoned during the Occupation, and Omar Barghouti told me at the demonstration that imprisonment has touched every Palestinian family–something Dean Minow didn’t mention.) Oh and after the Gaza war, the New York Review of Books offered itself as a forum for Israelis to hash over the war. Not a Palestinian in sight. The New York Times has an Israeli reporter in its Jerusalem bureau, and lately the Washington Post announced that its next Jerusalem correspondent would be someone who had worked at the Jerusalem Post. Then there’s the New Republic, which really is the new republic–of US and Israel. It has featured Benny Morris and Michael Oren, both Israelis, one an ambassador, explaining why Israel is so cool.
Can you see why I’m confused?
It is true that my real objection is to Zionism in the American discourse, but not all of these folks wear their Zionist ribbons on their chests, and it’s hard enough sorting out American writers’ agendas let alone Israelis’.
So yes, on this score, I admit, I’m a bit of a nativist. I apologize here to all my Israeli friends and promise to work on my issues. But the special relationship has hurt America in the Middle East and part of the price of disentangling that relationship may be some discrimination against Israelis in the American discourse. Separation, partition; call it what you will. But the U.S. and Israel need to be two states, not one.
Related posts:
- 2 state solution needed in a hurry, for U.S. and Israel
- Unending myth of two-state solution has helped to destroy two-state-solution
- The JTA addresses the elephant in the room – Israel does not support the two-state solution
- Barring 2-State Solution, Israel Becomes South Africa–Without South Africa’s ‘Solution’, Israeli Minister Warns
- Zeitgeist Alert: The two-state solution is dead
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 180 comments }
Michael Scheuer is on CSPAN’s Washington Journal now taking questions from the grass roots. No holds barred Q & A rarely heard on USA TV regarding US foreign policy and
Israel. Live, on-going @ 8:21 AM.
His premise is the issue must be made known in detail to, and discussed by the American people. It is up to them to decide if the US should support Israel in the ways it has for so many years, or not. Israel has a perfect right to defend itself in any way it wants. OTH, the USA has no strategic interest in Israel. Nor in the Palestinians. Yet the USA has been spending its treasure and blood for Israel, including throughout the
last four USA presidential regimes. Again, Scheuer, our former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief 1996-1999, says anyone who cares about the USA should be allowed to speak up in public about “the special relationship.” The next segment (starting at 8:45 AM) will be on Campaign Financing.
No country has a right to exist. Countries don’t “deserve” to exist; they have a right to defend themselves. Scheuer writes for AntiWar. com; he’s starting up a new web site called “noninvervention.com.”
Scheuer is of the opinion that Truman made a big initial mistake regarding Israel
(this is supported by Truman himself BTW by information at the Truman Archives).
PS: Scheuer says he lost a good job last year by talking up on this taboo subject.
Ben Stein would call Scheuer an anti-semite, as he did so call Ron Paul recently.
Scheuer was the head of the Bin Laden unit in the CIA. He has been out pounding the pavement with his perspective which I think is incredibly relevant and fact based since before the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq.
Phil wrote an article about Scheuer’s dismissal from the Jamestown Foundation after some big donors complained because Scheuer articulated why Obama would just maintain the hasbara status quo, as he has done. Scheuer wrote his own article regarding how he was canned by the Israel Lobby’s minions:
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=14221
Israel Lobby, what Israel Lobby? What humanist could possibly be really interested in the USA’s best interests? Witty tells us that a humanist is “compelled” to support Israel “as Israel,” and that being a humanist OTH hand places a lower priority (less compelling for) on being “an American patriot.”
the worm is turning.
but
predictably, C Span scheduled a New York Times writer ?? Traub to scratch his fingernails on the Washington Journal chalkboard for 45 minutes, culminating in the usual hasbara: Obama made 2 mistakes: 1. he miscalculated his ability to push Israel to behave in a civilized fashion; and 2. Iran is being completely intransigent in refusing to give up “nuclear enrichment.”
Traub began his recitation by noting that Obama’s most important policy ambition was to tackle nuclear proliferation (of course, starting with Iran, which does not have nuclear weapons).
I can have a nuke, but you can’t. OK for Israel, India, Pakistan, but not Iran (or Iraq, or Syria). Guess the only one who has allowed international inspections, even though it has no military nukes by aggregate determination of the international inspectors?
Scheurer Q & A is being repeated on CSPAN now (@10:29 AM EST
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/01/04/HP/A/27963/Michael+Scheuer+Former+CIA+Bin+Laden+Unit+Chief+199699.aspx
All of this is news to me; I normally veer away from openly “anti-Semitic” (as confused with anti-Israeli) websites and articles, simply because they tend to go over the top.
But the conflation of Israel’s interests with America’s must stop. It is too harmful for both sides.
This may be the beginning of a divorce. I do hope so.
I gree with you that Israel must adopt a two-state system:
The word Jew is distinct from the word Israel; a)‘Israel’ is secular; being generally understood as the land or country which peoples maybe comprised by all races; Jews, Arabs, Christians, Europeans, etc., and b) ‘Jew’ is spiritual; being generally referred to a people of particular race that claimed to be descendants of Biblical Jacob, whose every member is Biblically ordained to practice the sole worship and faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
By virtue of its spiritual character, the ‘Jewish nation’ has no other choice but must become fundamentally ‘racist’; not in the form of racial segregation or apartheid in South Africa, slavery in Southern States of colonial America (before the American Civil War), prejudice by the German Nazis against the Jews, Gypsies, African blacks, anti-Semites in Europe, and enmity by the Islamic militants, etc. This Biblical ‘racism’ is a principle of sustaining the ethnic identity of the descendants of the Tribes of Jacob, and the ethnic religious separation from people or societies whom customs include practices that are contrary to biblical ordinances such as worshiping other gods, idolatry, sodomy, etc.
From the above mentioned concepts, if Israel does that one-state option, it signifies rejection of its becoming a Jewish nation thus, an indirect self declaration confirming the dissolution of the Jewish state.
If the two state option is applied, there could still be conflict between the Arab Palestinians and the Isralis. However, such conflict would be most likely on matters of territories, thus could be more defined being a contest between two distinct states , and categorical under international law. Not like the single-state option which conflicts would me more on internal, and cultural matters, which no other countries can appropriately intervene, thus less prone to international arbitration or mediation.
In that situation, the position of supportive countries like the USA related to the conflict are also more defined, and categorical.
The US and Israel ARE two states, not one. They are allies. They consult. They discuss and get to some agreement on most situations, except in rare cases.
The US and Great Britain are two states, not one. The US and Canada are two states not one.
Your fixation on the ethnicity of writers is off. You have the opportunity to criticize their content.
So the fact that Jews in America are using American blood and treasure to prop up a Jewish apartheid state has nothing to do with their “ethnicity”?
Its the content that is the issue, not their ethnicity.
You want to criticize their content, and make a better argument, please do so.
No the issue is how far their ethnicity affects their loyalty to the US. If YOU had to choose between the US and Israel, Witty, where would your loyalties lie?
If you are actually asking, that is a horribly vague way to formulate the question.
I get the somehow you came to think of political questions in that limited and prospectively fascist terminology.
I include a more complex set of questions.
As I’ve commented before, I am a humanist before I am an American patriotist. I don’t think in terms of American interest very much, as especially when defined in a way that Canadians have somehow different interests, whatever other sympathies they bear.
My humanism compels my support of Israel as Israel, and also compels my criticism of many Israeli policies.
Please take in how fascistic the questions of loyalty are in practice.
You have the ability to argue the content of issues, to argue which is better for the US, which sectors of the US, for civilians affected elsewhere, for geo-political stability, for the greater good in pursuing a longer-term project, or other perspectives.
Content. Policies.
I note that you did not answer the question.
Is it in the best interests of the USA to send military support to aid Israel if Israel attacks Iran? Is it the humanist thing to do? Is it in the world’s interest?
Should the USA allow Israeli attack jets over Iraqi air space? If so why? Why not? Are those fascistic questions?
So Witty’s humanism “compels” his support for Israel “as Israel.” OTH, he says he’s a humanist “before” he’s an American patriot. He says he doesn’t think of American interest very much. No compulsion there, that’s for sure. Can anyone say Israel uber alles? Humanism compels it.
Witty is a classic Israel-firster.
There is no way to answer that idiotic question.
More is said about the asker.
Absolutely, and it’s annoyingly fun to watch him enlist the principles of Humanism in support of Israel’s actions, indeed, even in behalf its Zionist ideological base, and in the fundamentals of exactly how the Jews made a state, and have expanded it, to insure them forever against anti-semite power over them. According to Witty (and his clone thinkers, especially here in the USA where they have benefited so much from the USA’s different [more universal]way of principled thinking), Humanism support Israel “as Israel” but American patriotism is not supported by Humanism, to the extent, people like Witty, born and raised, and protected, and allowed full freedom in the USA, can say they think being an American takes second place to being a Humanist, but, OTH, being a Zionist supporting Israel’s right to exist” as Israel” is not at all contradictory to being an ardent Humanist. Please tell me how and why Witty thinking equates Humanism with Israel existing as Israel (Israel is as Israel does, same as the USA is as it does–another pet peeve of mine), but does not equate Humanism with US existing as the USA? (USA is, as the USA does.) Anybody think Witty’s first loyalty is not obvious? Anyone think he owes lots of USA past and current grunts an apology? Don’t try to approach him; he will call 9-11 and some goy cops will race there to protect him. Your USA. Your Israel. Even after all this time, the Arab world has no real clue. They should talk to native Americans.
One of those rare occasions where I agree with you.
That has to be the most eloquent, disguised ad hominem that I have ever seen. Talk about a polished turd.
My comment is sitting there by itself, and it’s unclear who I am agreeing with–I meant, to some extent, I agree with Witty. I don’t mind that he has multiple emotional attachments–my objection to his loyalty to Israel is that it leads him to downplay or whitewash some of their crimes, as when he refers to their Gaza massacre as a justifiable war with “excessive targeting”.
But take someone like Michael Lerner–he’s obviously got a strong emotional attachment to Israel, but I don’t think you’d catch him saying something like that. So it’s not the emotional attachment as such, but what sort of behavior it causes.
Witty,
I see you are still around.
I don’t see much of this trumpeted humanism of yours when it comes to cheering for and defending Israel.
We all know perfectly well where your loyalties lie. We have deduced that from your posts many, many times. You are not fooling us, so try again and with a better answer this time. And make it honest, too.
Well, Witty, it’s precisely the contrary of a “horribly vague” question related to
where your loyalty priorities lie, and the measured expense to those involved in what you most prefer. How do you come down on an attack on Iran? How about direct or indirect support of an Israeli attack on Iran? How vague is that question? Can’t wait to hear your stance. Thanks in advance for sharing your view on where the country you grew up in, and which has afforded you every comfort and protection, should come down on this political question, a question
of which your ethnic brethren are beating the war drums for attacking Iran.
Witty, please clarify what you mean when you say “idiotic question.” You are merely name calling. We expect more of your pretense. Take a pill, sleep, wake up afresh and show us what your adjective “idiotic” means. Be helpful, not just
someone tossing slurs at the messenger.
Scheurer says Saudi Arabia is another country that we are throwing our blood and treasure at to support; a second country, second after Israel, that we are supporting
lavishly when doing so as we do is not in the best interest of the USA.
Saudi Arabia is another country in the Middle East that may fragment in the next few years, breaking into at least 4 separate states, once the last of the eldest Sudairi brothers is gone (Hejaz, Najd, ‘Abha and whatever the NW Shi’a part is called).
I spent a short time (one month) in Saudia in the 80s, and can confirm that the Najdis (around Riyadh) are some of the nastiest people I have ever met, while others, in Jeddah, for example, are perfectly normal.
At that time, the US was stationing AWACS planes in Saudia. The woman captain of one of them complained that she was hired to defend Saudia from the air, but was not allowed to drive a car in the Kingdom.
By the way, Saudia is older than the USA. The first Saudi Kingdom was founded in 1744.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia
Phil:
“… after the Iraq war, I woke up to the incredible conflation of American and Israeli interests that the neocons were pushing in the U.S. discourse.I found it extremely confusing when everyone from Tom Friedman to Bill Kristol was saying that a suicide bomber in Tel Aviv was a reason for us to invade Iraq. Those guys were themselves confused about which country they cared about more.”
Dick Witty:
“The US and Israel ARE two states, not one… Your fixation on the ethnicity of writers is off. You have the opportunity to criticize their content.”
Please continue to criticize the content of neocon writers and speakers, Phil; and continue to point out their common agenda and background patterns. You will continue to have plenty to point out, now especially in regard to the pattern in the lead up to the second attack on Iraq, and the lead up going on now to an attack on Iran.
no, they do not “consult,” Witty; Israel infiltrates, manipulates, and uses US agencies to do its dirty work:
Robert Kimmit, speech to WINEP: “We have restructured the US Dept of Treasury to –” bankrupt Iran. http://www.thewashingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2605
WINEP, of course, was established BY zionists (Martin Indyk) FOR zionism.
WHY the f@%# is a United States bureaucracy that has in its lap an economy in meltdown, concerned with aiding Israel in draining the Iranian treasury and economy?
Kimmit should be charged with treason, and WINEP should be shut down as a subversive organization.
A very strained thesis.
Allies negotiate a consented position. They don’t start with agreement. And, sometimes they don’t end at consent. But, they remain allies, and still consult even in disagreement.
Opponents or enemies end at opposing, seek to.
gonna call you Colander, Witty: “macaroni stop, water go ‘head.” You leak the same lukewarm water.
Israel is not our ally. Listen/read carefully when any (and every) Israeli talks about the US-Israel “special relationship.” The phrasing is crucial: “The US is our ally,” the Israeli will say; NOT, “WE are allies…” This is a decidedly one-sided relationship, and when it stops serving the needs of Israel, then Israel will kick the US–or what’s left of it– under the bus. It’s been done before.
Every traditional ally the US has had could invoke many common interests. Israel
has none in reality; yet the US gives Israel more one-sided support than any so-called ally the US ever had. We’d be better off claiming the Roma were our allies.
“Allies negotiate a consented position.
Israel is not now nor has Israel ever been a US ally. No alliance treaty exists between Israel & the US.
Not a fact that AIPAC broadcasts, neither the MSM … but in ‘67, after the 6 Day War & the Israeli seizure of Palestinian lands, LBJ offered Israel an alliance treaty. Israel refused, because all alliance treaties have, inter al, 2 requirements: that all signatory nations state clearly & precisely where their national borders lay; and that any signatory initiating military actions against a non-signatory must inform in advance all the other signatories to the alliance treaty.
Israel has always refused to accept these 2 standard requirements of any alliance.
Here’s, by the way, a question that has been on my mind for quite some time now.
You, as most supporters of Israel, say that the US and Israel are “allies”. Okay. But all the dictionary definitions of “ally” I looked up essentially said that an “ally” was somebody who supports you.
Now I can easily see how under such a definition the US is an ally of Israel. It supports Israel with lots of things like money, weapons, UN vetos etc.
But how is Israel an ally of the US? I’m totally perplexed here. Israel does not support the US materially, Israel regularly contradicts US political strategies and Israel, for all of its vaunted military capability, has never aided the US in war. What does Israel ever do for the US? Is there anything? (Don’t say “they trade with us”. Everybody does that. That doesn’t make China or Russia, to name two vastly more important economic players than Israel, US allies.)
It’s especially strange how conservatives, who usually are all for gain/loss calculating cynicism when it comes to alliances, still claim that Israel and the US are allies.
Exactly! You hit it. In what way is Israel an “ally”?
Actually, Israel does provide a fair amount of intelligence information to the U.S.A.
Some of it is even true.
Of course, most of it is of the “Nigerian yellow-cake” nature. Is an ally really an alley if he tells you to put on a blindfold and then walks you off a cliff?
Several regional America-Israel Chambers of Commerce exist to facilitate expansion by Israeli and American companies into each other’s markets.[45] American companies such as Motorola, IBM, Microsoft and Intel chose Israel to establish major R&D centers. Israel has more companies listed on the NASDAQ than any country outside North America.
The cornerstone of the vibrant U.S.-Israel economic relationship is the 1985 Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the first FTA ever signed by the United States. Over the last 20 years the FTA has enabled a sevenfold expansion of bilateral trade. Israel has become one of the largest trading partners of the U.S. in the Middle East and Israel’s prime export destination is the United States.
American military aid to Israel comes in different forms, including grants, special project allocations and loans. Approximately 75% of this aid is spent in the United States, providing American jobs.
One facet of the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship is the joint development of the Arrow Anti-Ballistic Missile Program. Designed to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles, the Arrow is the most advanced missile defense system in the world. The development is funded by both Israel and the United States. The Arrow has also provided the U.S. the research and experience necessary to develop additional weapons systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_relations
So the extent of Israel’s relationship is to take premium high paying jobs from Americans and ship them out of the country? Thanks for bringing that up, yonira.
The Arrow Anti-Ballistic Missile Program is also the biggest military technology boondoggle of modern history (and for all I know, all of history). Wonderful that Israel is facilitating the casting of US taxpayer money down that pit, too.
Israel serves a vital role in US policy. The role it serves is for the far right wing of US society – ie mainstream Republican. Nigerian yellow-cake was an important part of US foreign policy – the truth being immaterial to the fantastic benefit derived from it – ie: the ability to create large numbers of would-be terrorists.
So, yes, Israel is really an ally. It is not an ally to anyone to the left of – say Genghis Khan though.
Why is the Arrow system so flawed Chaos?
Wonderful that Israel is facilitating the casting of US taxpayer money down that pit, too.
I happen to have a very soft spot for empires that piss their money away instead of using it to murder people in order to expand their dominance.
And then, see also:
Japan says US missile defence test fails
And also:
U.S., Israel Abort Missile Test
Shelved missile shield tests NATO unity
(Sorry, I have to seperate the links out into multiple comments)
And finally:
Missile defense test aborted when target fails
Seeing a pattern here, regarding confidence in the missile defense shield?
It’s typical to realize that the first big scheme to take American jobs from our shores and give a foreign country advantage over our own working citizens (in the interest of elite corporate interests) was the sweetheart deal with Israel.
All the corporations mentioned by yonira are waist deep in problems equal to
the German big industry corporations that were hailed after the war as
enablers of Nazi Germany. And they’ve all paid reparations. When is it the next turn of big industry?
US $ Grants to Israel (always forgiven–the USA absorbs the whole cost) are a device to avoid monitoring of
US loan conditions. No other country except Israel has this arrangement with the USA. The objective and result has always been to give unconditional cash to Israel, right off the top, and without any conditions.
Arrow is a total boondoggle. Israel ignores patent right protection and is a big a thief as China in this arena, where they have worked hand in hand to
make a mockery of Western concepts of one getting some protection for their own inventive energy designs and protections.
I think that the big problem with the missile shield is not that it is almost certainly a huge waste of money, but rather countries like China will act as if it is possible.
This will lead to a situation where, just to be sure, China and others will increase the numbers of atomic weapons etc. to make sure they can overwhelm such a system. In that sense, it is a huge waste of money, and will almost certainly make everyone less secure at the same time.
Yeah, back in the Cold War era Israel was an ally of the various thugs and killers the US supported. Benjamin Beit Hallami wrote a book on this–”The Israeli Connection”–back in the 80’s. Israel was a close ally of the murderous Guatemalan government, for instance and was involved in the Iran/contra affair, though Congress seemed to steer away from mentioning that. They were pals with the apartheid government in South Africa.
I’ve sometimes wondered if there was some sort of secret deal between the US government (or some aspects of it) and Israel to continue supporting our favorite murderous thugs when Congress prevented the executive branch from doing it. Or did they just get involved in this to sell weapons? I don’t know.
Several regional America-Israel Chambers of Commerce exist to facilitate expansion by Israeli and American companies into each other’s markets.
Did you perchance not read the following part of my previous post?
Don’t say “they trade with us”. Everybody does that.
As to the Arrow system, never mind its (apparently absent) effectiveness. The Arrow is built to fulfil Israeli needs, with American use being a very late afterthought. And nevertheless, it is partially funded and technologically assisted by the US. How is that not just another case of assistance the US renders to Israel, instead of vice versa?
Pro-Israeli hasbara continuously points to Israel’s success in advanced technology, including military technology. So why does such an advanced state need billions every year in U.S. aid?
Yonira: “American military aid to Israel comes in different forms, including grants, special project allocations and loans. Approximately 75% of this aid is spent in the United States, providing American jobs.”
The stupidity of this argument has always amazed me. If I give you a million dollars and you spend all of it in my store, even at a profit margin of 10% I’m still $900,000 in the hole. How can this possibly be a good deal for the United States?
American companies such as Motorola, IBM, Microsoft and Intel chose Israel to establish major R&D centers because of generous tax incentives.
Omne reason Israel has become one of the largest trading partners of the U.S. in the Middle East is that Israel is gven prefenrential status, to the point where Isreli compoanies even control a lot fo communications infrastructure, which Israel has been caught abusing.
American military aid to Israel is far greater than the official figures suggest. it is estimated that Israel has received over 1 trillion in aid.
The Arrow is hardly the most advanced missile defense system in the world, if it even works. it has failed tests that were even rigged to produce sucessful results.
Israel is a financial and diplomatic parasite.
You are very ignorant about American capitalism.
Plant and operations siting is thought out long and hard, considered very long term, and results from observation and assessment of opportunity.
Plant and operations siting in Israel is due to the success that the companies derive. It has extremely little to US funding.
That square peg just doesn’t fit.
Plant and operations siting are a secondary to tax incentives and and goevernment investment. Without such inticements, there are no plants, as is demistraed byt he fact that the largets Microsoft development centre outside of the US is in India, not Israel as many Zionists like to believe.
The sucess the companies derive from locatin gto Israel is not about Israel per se, but the deals those companies are offered. Gioven US government largesse towards Israel, it’s likelty that the US government further subsidizes these arrangements. After all, Israel’s skilled workeers are leaving Israel is droves.
“It has extremely little to US funding.”
You have no way of knowing that, but given US largesse towards Israel, it probably is all about US funding.
Missile defense systems don’t work as a matter of reality. Even if they are able to shoot down a missile, they are easily overwhelmed by multiple targets. It’s liek drugs in sport. The detection technology always lags behind the new developments.
Of course, if the Arrow system was so dependable, then Israel would not be worried about Iranian missiles would they?
A total of $3 billion in aid, distributed widely amounts to very little subsidy.
If corporations site in Israel, especially research, they are doing so for the developed infrastructure, developed educational institutions, history of delivery.
The $3 billion si just the tip of the iceburg. The US routinely includes suplmental funding. The US also funds Israel’s wars, like they did when they picked up the tab for the Lebanon war of 2006. Add to thsi the billions paid to Jordan and Egypt to play nice with Israel and the estimatge comes to about $15 billion per year.
There is no developed infrastructure, to speak of in Israel. Without aid, Israel would be a 3rd world country.
Of course there is developed infrastructure. You are ignorant about Israel, its people, culture, economy.
There are many important features to the Israeli economy that are better studied and utilized (if practical), than just cavalierly condemned.
You play fast and loose with numbers here, Shingo. $Trillions.
Israel is not weak, not dependant. It is a participant in and contributor to the world economy, even with its significant minority of ultra-orthodox that do not participate in the economy much.
What is moving forward to you? Palestinian development hopefully?
There is no future agrarian dominated society there anymore, maybe sadly, maybe not.
Witty, you live in the US. Who are you to talk to anyone about ignorance of Israel?
Infrastructure has nothing to do with culture.
So what are the important features to the Israeli economy that are better studied and utilized? Don’t lie to me about how well ecducated Isrselis are. In the developed world, they are average t best and most skilled workers work and live in other countries.
Yes, Israel has received over a trillion. Goole it.
If Israel were not weak or dependant, it would not demand and rely in teh largest welafre cheque in the world from the US. Israel’s contributino to the world economy is microscopic.
Whether the Palestinians had an agrarian economny or a service economy, neiother would survice with the blockade or massive bombings Israel routinely unleashes.
The way forward is to dismantle all settlements, create Palestinian state along the green line, completely lift the Israeli blockade of Gaza, force Israel to jon the NPT and pay reperatiosn to the refugees. That’s just for starters.
Where do you live Shingo?
Please have the discipline to not put words in my mouth.
I get that you interpret facts differently than I.
You don’t like that Israel is quite highly developed? You are speculating on whether Israel is developed because it has subsidies and donations, or whether it developed on some part on its own merits.
I hope you urge Palestinian development. So far you’ve only complained that I see, not encouraged. They are different.
In an environment of peace, Palestinian institutions would survive, and likely also contribute significantly to the world and regional economy.
I agree on the green line (with the exception of the Jewish quarter of the old city), I disagree on dismantling anything but agree that they should be paid for and not exclusively Jewish, I agree that Israel should lift the blockade of Gaza when Hamas firmly commits to never permit terror to originate from its borders, Israel joining the NPT is its business (maybe when India rejoins), on reparations I favor development aid and compensation for title issues (but not mass immigration).
Not so far off.
Where do you live Shingo?
At the moment I live in Sydney, though I tend to move around a lot in my line of work.
I don’t interpret facts differently than you. You spin and mould facts to suit you, and mis-represent them.
I don’t give a crap whether Israel is quite highly developed, though if it was, it would not rely on massive subsidies, massive diplmatic cover and massive donations to maintain it’s vaibility.
I don’t urge Palestinian development, but I pray for it. Encouraging is pointelss when you have a destructive and sinister occupier that is hell bent on dstrcution and preventing any such development. Peace is meanigless unless it is just. Hitler wanted peace, if he could have achieved his aims without violence.
Without dismantling anything there is no 2 state solution. The settlemtns and roads make a Palestinian state impossible to achieve. Even you know that.
Where do you get off inssiting that Israel should only lift the blockade of Gaza if Hamas firmly commits to never permit terror to originate from its borders, when even the Israelis government can’t reign in the violent settlers in the West Bank and Hebron? Should the Isreli government be held responsible for the Goldsteins of this world?
With Hamas shelling, it is not the renegades, but the agency of the government. Israel has committed (reluctantly and half-assed) to prosecute those that commit crimes against Palestinians in the West Bank.
Its a tragedy for Palestinians that your focus is not on their upliftment, but solely on political definitions, especially those that demonize rather than those that reconcile.
Back to nazi parallels I see.
I stay in one place. I’ve lived in the same couple towns for 23 years. I’ve never resided outside of the US, though I have traveled for at most 5 months in 1986.
I’ve been to Israel twice, seen it and the West Bank both, in different historical settings (not recent). I correspond with a couple Israelis regularly also from multiple settings and perspectives, none in the high-tech field directly, though I have corresponded with some Israeli innovators in fields that I am associated (sustainable economic development and transition).
“I don’t give a crap whether Israel is highly developed”. Another statement that conflicts with your prior assertions.
As Fayyad has indicated, the settlements can remain, integrated, as Palestinian citizens if they choose, complying with Palestinian law. That sounds reasonable to me.
Yesm, with Hamas shelling, it’s Hamas, but Hamas are not the only group that has shelled. Israel has never commited to prosecute those that commit crimes against Palestinians becasue those crimes were ordained from the government itself.
There is no point focusing on some etherial notino of upliftment, when the realities are that no upliftment will ever take place while the stae fo Israel keeps it’s boot on their jugular. You don’t like political definitions because they represent a reality that threatens you and your beloved Israel.
If the settlements were to reamain then the most extreme elements of Zionist society would have to agree to live under Palestinian governance adn they are to militant and radical to ever accept that arrangement.
Witty, if all US aid in all forms to Israel was cut off, Israel would be nothing at all in terms of world influence. Get a grip. Your square peg is your own mental box; outside of it, reality prevails.
Ditto Mooser’s comment. Even the rogue Palin jumped right on board. AIPAC and
MSM hasbara AND the end times=DY-NO-MITE! Right up the ass of our taxpayers, soldiers, our future. Truly, the USA deserves its unfolding fate.
To imply that the relationship between Israel & the US is similar to the relationship between the US & Canada or the US & GB, is stupid. In a normal alliance, you have giving and taking and both countries have similar ideals. What does Israel give to the alliance and more importantly, when was Israel’s ideals anywhere near American ideals?
The USA owes way more historical loyalty to GB and Canada, or to Australia or New Zealand than it does to Israel. And from the rotten sheiks of Arabia, at least we get oil.
Shafiq, you need to check out the CSPAN q & a of the Counterpunch guy & his wife; really, it’s old hat, what you need to know.
Would I find it on YouTube?
On cspan. They archive all their videos. Who is the counterpunch guy and his wife? I could find it if I knew the names.
Sammy: Flynt Leverett and his wife Hillary. Can’t remember her last name.
Can’t find one with the wife
http://www.c-span.org/search.aspx?For=Leverett
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/search-results.php?keywords=Leverett
Shafiq, here you go–the transcript:
http://www.booknotes.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1067
Cockburn and his wife.
Thanks. Will have a read through.
This is slightly unrelated but I found this in one of Cockburn’s articles
Wrong Witty,
Israel is not now nor has Israel ever been a US ally. No alliance treaty exists between Israel & the US.
Not a fact that AIPAC broadcasts, neither the MSM … but in ‘67, after the 6 Day War & the Israeli seizure of Palestinian lands, LBJ offered Israel an alliance treaty. Israel refused, because all alliance treaties have, inter al, 2 requirements: that all signatory nations state clearly & precisely where their national borders lay; and that any signatory initiating military actions against a non-signatory must inform in advance all the other signatories to the alliance treaty.
Israel has always refused to accept these 2 standard requirements of any alliance.
Shingo,
Very helpful piece of information. Thanks.
Answer that, Witty?
OTH, the USA has a lot of Memorandums Of Undertanding with Israel–all of them very beneficial and vital to Israel, all of them totally one sided–amazing.
What is the proportional number of non-Jewish Israelis in the Israeli press, and government? How many non-Jewish Americans are in either branch of Israeli democratic government? Are they comparable at all? If not, why not? Is it too much an ethnic selection question? Are their any ethnic limits by government fiat? How about in the EU countries? I ask as Israel is touted by itself and Western media
as a Western country in nature. We all know about the Arab countries and Perisa–but they are not touted as, nor do they say they are–democratic and filled with European and/or American values and traditions.
In the USA, no Arab entity, governmental or private, may own a port agency. Is there any similarly influential foreign agency of Israel similarly prohibited here in the USA?
How would the American Homeland Security and Foreign Affairs congressional committees, were heavily headed up by, say, Arab, or Chinese ethnic Americans? What if they were of German American background? Just asking.
“The US and Israel ARE two states, not one.”
Except one of them (Israel) has veto power over who gets elected to our congress or the presidency.
“It is true that my real objection is to Zionism in the American discourse, but not all of these folks wear their Zionist ribbons on their chests, and it’s hard enough sorting out American writers’ agendas let alone Israelis’.”
This has been happening for decades and anytime anyone brings attention to it theire are concerted efforts to shut you up, ban you, call a person an “anti-semite” etc. Several years ago I brought up NPR’s coverage of the Israeli Palestinan conflict. I mentioned the history of NPR’s coverage, I asked why the language at NPR was so different for the Palestinians and the Israeli’s. I asked why so many of the host of shows at NPR are Jewish? I asked did this effect their ability to be fair and balanced in their coverage. I asked why Terri Gross, Scott Simon, Neil Conan etc allow unsubstantiated claims about Iran to endlessly be repeated and do not challenge these unsubstantiated claims. I asked why Terri Gross not only does not challenge these claims but endlessly repeats them herself. I asked about the claims that numerous employees have claimed about NPR that there is a “pervasive cronyism” at NPR in regard to moving up the ladder there. I was almost banned over at FDL for asking these questions.
Pathetic
Judy “I was fucking right” Miller. Bob “groupthink” Woodward . This guy is riding on his alleged digging into the Nixon crimes (hell he was led there by Deep Throat) Anyone think he had another agenda other than the obvious?
Asking these questions about our MSM is critical. Hell we just witnessed the so called “liberal” media Rachel Maddow (an obvious PEP (progressive except for Palestine) along with Keith Olbermann and the rest of the MSM completely ignore the efforts in Cairo. Did NPR cover these efforts? I am not sure?
Rachel and the rest Ignored the Goldstone Report, ignored the Gaza Freedom March while endlessly covering the anti Iranian government protesters. Does anyone know whether Rachel covered the over a million Iranian protesters who came out in support of their government?
Hell there are plenty of blog clogs in the so called progressive blogosphere when it comes to these issues. Crooks and Liars might be the most closed down…not a mention of the Gaza Freedom March all week. Raw Story (not that I could find) Finally Firedoglake’s Siun addressed it after several of the flukie’s tried to address the march over at the Seminal.
The best spots for discussing these issues are here at Mondoweiss, Washington Note, Juan Coles. The best. Many of the so called “liberal” bloggers will not touch this issue. Have fallen in line with the MSM on this one.
Micheal Scheuer said some critical things (as he always does) about what is taking place in the Muslim world . Scheuer “80% of Muslims support what Osama Bin Laden has said” although only a fraction would pick up arms. Brought up the U.S.’s endless support of tyrannical leaders in this part of the world. Specifically Saudi Arabia.
Micheal also addressed how he has now personally and economically felt the sting of the I lobby during that interview
Scheuer said that Saudi Arabia has the “second” most powerful lobby in D.C. in regard to foreign policy after Israel
So worth watching and listening to what he had to say. I sent in an email about the Gaza Freedom March and how are so called “liberal” media did not give the gathering a second of coverage while giving endless coverage to the Iranian anti-government protesters. I asked Micheal what those who want a more fair and balanced stance in the middle east should do? Should those protest be held in Iran so Rachel and the rest will cover them. How they were silent completely silent on the Goldstone report.
Flynt Leverett was on yesterday about Iran. Sane, fact based comments and interview.
So worth the listen and lesson. Addresses how our MSM and so called liberal media allows an “incredible amount of demonizing” to take place in our media.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/01/03/WJE/A/27956/Flynt+Leverett+Penn+State+University.aspx
In the usual panel’s summary of the hi-lights of 2009 Washington Week In Review at the end of December, the panel discussed the protest against the regime in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, other terrorist hotspots–but the panel never mentioned the Free Gaza March stymied in Cairo as they spoke; in fact never mentioned Israel or the I-P situation at all. So much for PBS.
Kathleen, I think I love you. Are you free Feb 14? ;)
FAgetaboutit, I already sent Kathleen a valentine card.
Here you go folks. The line up for the Diane Rehm show that is live this morning (has been on vacation since Christmas and have had pre recorded shows the last two weeks)
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/
10:00National Issues Outlook
Health care, deficit reduction, job creation and Congressional mid-term elections: Political analysts weigh in on issues likely to drive national debate in 2010
Guests
E.J. Dionne, senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, Washington Post columnist, and author of “Souled Out: Reclaiming Faith and Politics After the Religious Right” and of “Stand Up Fight Back.”
Norman Ornstein, is resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute; coauthor with Thomas Mann of “The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track.”
Larry Sabato, founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia and author of some 20 books.
http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/10/01/04.php#29276
Listen to this segment
Show archives will be available approximately one hour after the program ends.
Pre-order a copy
CD |
Transcript
Share this
11:00International Issues Outlook
Foreign policy challenges in 2010: A look ahead at the U-S role in Afghanistan and Pakistan, elections in Iraq, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and global economic trends
Guests
Jessica Mathews, president, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Joseph Nye, University Distinguished Service Professor and also the Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Reuel Marc Gerecht, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, former Middle East specialist for the CIA
NOW IF YOU DO NOT MIND I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE A FEW POINTERS FOR GETTING THROUGH. I have literally gotten through hundreds of times over the last nine years on both Talk of the Nation and the Diane Rehm show.
If you call 1800-433-8850 and get through the screener. State your comment or concern clearly, then present a succinct and on topic question. You can even let them know that you may be a first time caller, emailer tweeter. They like new folks.
TODAY WOULD BE A GREAT DAY TO ASK THE QUESTION WHY NO MEDIA COVERAGE ON THE GAZA FREEDOM MARCHERS. WHY NO COVERAGE BY DIANE OR TALK OF THE NATION ON THE GOLDSTONE REPORT. ASK WHY IF YOU PLEASE OR ANY OTHER RELEVANT QUESTION.
Reuel Marc Gerecht will be on the second hour. He often repeats unsubstantiated claims about Iran. He was one of the big pushers of the invasion of Iraq. He is basically a liar. Listen carefully as to whether Diane allows Reuel to repeat the debunked by Professor Juan Cole that Iran “wants to wipe Israel off the map” or the unsubstantiated claims that Iran has or is after nuclear weapons.
Ask Diane if she is ever going to give any air time to the Goldstone Report or the Gaza Freedom Marchers? Would she have Phillip on or other folks who marched on her program to do a segment?
Ask what you want? But ask so millions can hear. She has a very large listening audience.
STARTS IN 20 MINUTES
drshow@wamu.org
1-800-433-8850 GO FOR IT
One of my favorite Professors (perhaps of all time) was Eugene Rothman who taught Middle East history. I will never forget what he once said, that every ethnic or racial or religious group puts forth its own PR, but it just happens that the Jewish community has the largest megaphone.
Whereas the Jewish community possesses no one single physical sound amplifier, it does have thousands of highly motivated and organized people who take any opportunity of a free press to put forth their views. I have always admired that about the Jewish community: they walk the talk. They expend the energy it takes to have real influence in a democratic system, whereas most other ethnic groups just bitch about the status quo to themselves at the dinnertable. I count my ethnic community among the latter.
As evidence of the mobilization of the Jewish voice, take a look at the bloggers or columnists featured on Huffingtonpost at any one time. You’ll notice that the percentage of Jewish voices amounts to anywhere between 30-to-75 per cent of the discourse. This is great considering that most of the posts are quite enlightening or, at the very least, stimulating.
The problem is, knowing that the Jewish community becomes mute or mealy-mouthed on Gaza and Palestine and Israeli indiscretions, the overwhelming presence of Jewish observers and opinionatti in the national discourse leads to intellectual constipation on issues of national importance.
True, Jews do exert a great deal of coordinated effort to dominate the microphones.
Hard for me to admire, however, inasmuch as the money they use to fund these efforts is either stolen — ie. Holocaust ‘restitution’ extorted from Poland, Germany, Switzerland amounted to tens of billions of dollars. That money did NOT go to ’survivors,’ it was invested in Brand Israel, whether building settlements or underwriting hasbara think tanks or funding junkets to Israel by US legislators and policy shapers.
Furthermore, I do not admire Israeli efforts because they lie. They lie. In the pro-Israel world view, it is legitimate to lie, cheat, steal, and kill if it advances the cause of Brand Israel. To lie, cheat, steal, and kill are not aberrations which actors for Israel carry out, they are policies present in the foundation of Israel if not from Herzl then certainly from Jabotinsky, ben Gurion, all the way to Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon, Olmert, and Netanyahu. Dishonesty is in the Israeli DNA.
I suppose it’s naive to believe that all governments and all interest groups do not lie. Certainly I understand that the US government lies to its citizens. However, that is not the credo that is enshrined in the US value system, it is not the vision the founding fathers had in establishing the US. Dishonesty and deceit are antithetical to the Enlightenment principles that informed Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington.
so no, I don’t admire Jewish energy in stealing the microphone and propagandizing the American people.
“True, Jews do exert a great deal of coordinated effort”
No, sorry, Zionist Jews, are the ones who do that, not “Jews”.
Please try to keep in mind that Jew was a designation imposed on a collection of monotheists and exists as a designation only in relation to Christianity. Somewhat in the way Americans designate all people with dark skins “Afro-Americans”. It was the white people who made dark skin the denominator, just as it was non-Jews who decided who was included under the rubric of “Jew”
And that Jews who are either disinterested or opposed to Zionism have no method or mechanism to prevent Zionists from claiming they represent the entire Jewish world. But you don’t need to make the same error, if you don’t want to.
Mooser, why are most of the moneybags jews so Israel Firsters? Is that not an accurate assumption? Is Soros different? Can you name some very wealthy American Jews who take a POV fairly similar to your own? That’s not a rhetorical question, just a question that arises when I look into AIPAC, for example. I am not baiting you. I think you have a deep involvement in objectivity, and you have put that into practice over your life, and you happened to be born Jewish. So I ask.
No offense intended.
I “don’t want to” “make the same error.”
I DO want the powerful noise machine that has and is causing so much heartache and bloodshed to stop. If I step on your innocent toes in the course of attempting to stomp out a fire started by zionist propaganda, I’m afraid we’ll just have to mark that in the column, “Collateral damage.” I suspect that anything I may say “in error” that may hurt your feelings, will not be quite as hurtful as were the sanctions US imposed on Iraq that killed half-a-million Iraqi children; Madeleine Albright felt the cost was worth the results. I bring that up because the same plan is being urged to be applied to Iran, and it is predominantly ‘zionists’ who are pushing that strategy. I don’t want my government to be tarred with that brush another time; NOT IN MY NAME. So if I “make some error” that hurts your feelings, in the process of trying to shut down a murderous plan, please forgive me and know that I have to consider that the collateral damage of hurting your feelings will be worth the price if it means that 70 million Iranians will NOT be subjected to threats of starvation and military attack.
They’re not. Soros isn’t and in Britain, many of them aren’t. It’s just that those who are Israel firsters and rich, put a lot of money into Israel-lobbying, whereas the others keep a low profile and decide to stay away from the I/P conflict altogether.
Extreme forms of shunning have worked well to silence questions. Didn’t work well in my father’s family, but that’s probably an exception. (My father didn’t care, and the Rabbi wasn’t willing to participate and hold a funeral for someone who was alive.)
I think its safe to generalize that anyone, rich or otherwise, will be rather careful about cutting all family ties by complaining about Israel.
Mooser, I fully agree. I would also add the self-described Christian Zionists who in recent years have had an increasing political influence in the US on the side of unconditional support of Israel.
What’s captivating is that the Jewish megaphone, most especially sounded through Israel and its loud supporters, drown out the whole rest of the world interested in
Humanistic values. It’s like Witty’s version of Humanism is wedded to the IDF, and the wedding’s result is a simple logic needed to drain all Gentile blood and treasure
for the chosen people. In short, it’s merely a matter of which is your top priority? The thumb nail of a Jew, or the whole hand of a non-Jew?
I wonder; the American foreign policy in fact supports Israel right or wrong both in official speech and in actual US dollars propping up Israel right or wrong. I think this is the USA heading for suicide.
I don’t think being an asshole does much to help the people you mention. It sounds to me more like you get a little bit of a tingle saying something that sounds anti-semitic in the name of saving innocent lives. If you mean “Zionist” then say “Zionist” and not “Jew”. It just takes a few extra keystrokes and you won’t have said something that was anti-semitic, and in the event that this blog’s comment section does have a large lurking readership, you’ll be in a better position to defend yourself from people who think that all critics of Zionism are actually anti-semites.
Some people think using the most extreme offensive rhetoric somehow makes them more authentic, more real. It doesn’t.
Whereas I think it is necessary to go farther than just to clarify “I am anti-Zionist, not anti-semitic”.
Its necessarily to clarify criticism of specific policies and practices, and NEVER be content with demonizing even an idea (that has many forms of expression.)
An example is the term socialist. There are have been MANY horrid forms of socialism in the world, suppressive, racist, ideological purges, MASS forced incarceration.
But, that doesn’t make every configuration of a socialist ideal invalid at all.
It is ideologically careless to say “I support all policies and practises that Zionists do, or Israel does” and ideologically careless to say “I oppose all policies and practices that Zionists do, or Israel does”.
You support all policies and practises that Zionists do, or Israel does, not becasue you are ideologically careless, but becaue you are ideologically racist.
Richard,
Everyone on this blog has mentioned what they dislike about Zionism – the fact that it involves displacing Palestinians and denying their right to live on a land many have lived on for hundreds of years. They see this as racist when the other part of Zionism dictates that any Jew, wherever they may come from, does have an unquestionable right to live on the same land.
Now unless you can have a Zionism that doesn’t discriminate between Jews and non-Jews, it is inherently evil idea.
You are lying about my views, Shingo.
Maybe you don’t understand them.
In all aspects of law, the state of Israel is founded on equal due process under the law.
Facilitated immigration is not a violation of that.
But, forced or opportunist current expropriation of land, and failure to compensate fairly for prior is not (that stands as expropriation in a color-blind court, NOT by the rhetorical self-definitions).
98% of democracy functioning should be CURRENT. The compensation or other judicial remedies to perfect title is oriented to making a fair current status, consent.
That’s fair, Richard, though as I and others have pointed out, I don’t think you personally go nearly far enough in denouncing the repressive aspects of Zionism. I don’t think it had to be racist and repressive in practice, but that’s how it turned out. From reading Tom Segev’s book on the Mandate period, I wouldn’t put all the blame on this on Zionism–as Segev tells it, Judah Magnes didn’t find allies on the Arab side. They mistrusted him. (It’s been awhile since I read the book, but that’s how I remember it.)
Nonetheless, mainstream Zionism has turned out to be pretty ugly in practice from a human rights standpoint.
“Facilitated immigration is not a violation of that.”
Facilitated immigration of Jews while not allowing Palestinian refugees or their descendants to immigrate is a moral contradiction.
What exactly do you mean by facilitated immigration. Denying the Palestinians the right to return to their homes whilst at the same time persuading as many Jews as possible, to take up residency in those exact homes, is, like Donald said, a contradiction. A contradiction that just happens to be one many liberal Jews and liberal Zionists, refuse to face up to.
I certainly understand your views Richard, and no I’m not lying either.
“Mainstream Zionism” has elements that are perfectly rational, disciplined, restrained, and elements that are opportunistic, illegal,cruel.
Its the elements and the actions that deserve criticism, with inquiry first.
After very much research, reading and directly dialoging on the Gaza/Israel exchange, I remain convinced that Hamas shifted the status of conflict there from periodic skirmishes to war.
I posted statistics from wikipedia of rocket attacks from Gaza and Palestinian deaths during the period in question, which confirmed my consistent assertions that the November 4 incidents were skirmishes that following the two weeks of skirmishes the intensity of conflict shifted back to near the cease-fire levels, with armed conflict occurring primarily between non-Hamas factions and IDF.
The number of rockets fired from Gaza ramped up enormously after December 17th, to levels not only higher than immediately previously, but nearly double the pre-cease-fire levels (which were then the highest on average over a few years).
That level of aggression and the manner that the range escalated from desert, to Sderot, to Ashkelon, to Ashdod, and then to Beersheba compelled and confirmed Hamas’ intention to be at war.
The Israeli actions were the actions of a nation at war, slightly less intense than in active war with a state.
That Hamas did not fight back intensely on the ground, instead going underground, does not change the nature of the original attacks.
Israel very quickly though exhausted all legitimate targets and should have quickly adjusted its strategy, but the initiation of a state of intense conflict was originated by Hamas.
Everyone in Gaza knows that Hamas and factions escalated far far more than was necessary, as much as they know that Israel responded far more intensely than was necessary.
That that conclusion is so widely held, defines the otherwise very disappointing mass response to the conflict.
It takes lying about the conflict to form a mass movement about this one stated in terms of demonization of Israel, rather than sympathy for Gazan civilians, and lying never supports movements very confidently or long.
There is a way to approach this that improves the lot of Gazans and other Palestinians, but calling Israel “nazi”, or “murderers”, or “racist” isn’t it.
Proposal is needed. A positive basis of action that actual masses can enthusiastically endorse, and entirely free from demonization and free from opportunistic rhetoric.
Witty tactic number 1. Semi-address the point he’s meant to be replying to and then go on about Hamas.
What elements of Zionism are ‘rational’ and from the elements that are opportunist and, how many define Zionism? How do you reconcile the apparent contradiction between the liberal Zionism you espouse and its discriminatory nature?
My two dissenting stands are:
1. Green line Israel/Palestine (with the exception of the former Jewish section of the old city) – That conflicts with all settlement expansion in East Jerusalem or elsewhere on the West Bank.
2. Equal due process under the law – Color blind application of law, testing of legislation against the democratic character of the basis law.
Zionism that is “enough”, not expansionistic, and democratic in application is progressive by my measure, more than just rational.
Anti-Zionism that has any element of suppression of “enough” Israel (green line as defined above) or demonization of its law (rather than reform), is more racist than what it pretends to object to.
Liberal Zionism can be argued on very confident merits, that the objective world for Jews and Israelis has changed considerably, that it is now feasible to renounce the occupation. If Zionists adopted the green line as border, and the Arab League offer remains in earnest, then that reconciliation would be consumated quickly, with very good outcomes (not perfect) for all parties (maybe not for Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran).
You’re lying again Witty,
Mainstream Zinism supported the massacre in Gaza, therefore it is not rational, unless you consider Gerard Kaufman (who referred to Israel’s actions in Gaza as Nazism) to be a mainstream Zionist.
We know you remain convinced that Hamas is to blame for what took place in Gaza a year ago, but your congvictino has nothing to do with what you have read, but your ideology. We have repeatedly challenghed you to produce what you have read which supports your postion and you have failed every time. If you had indeed based your position on reading material, you would believe otherwise.
The statistics from wikipedia of rocket attacks from Gaza and Palestinian deaths during the period in question are a red herring and of no relevance to the discussion as to who was responsible for insiting the conflict.
The number of rockets fired from Gaza ramped up enormously after December 17th, because Israel had rejected a Decemeber 14th prosal to return to a ceasfire.
The intention to be at war was Israel’s. israel vilated the ceasfire agreeemtn from day 1 (to lift the blockade) and Haaretz revealed that Israel intended all along to carry our the raid. Furthermore, Tzipi Livni told the world that Israel was never intneting to hold to a long ceafire becasue such a ceasefire was not in Israe’s startetic interests.
The Israeli actions were the actions of a nationthat wanted war, that wanted to prevent political settlement and that wanted to reinstate it’s deterrance capabilty. The only one who can escalate a war is thr party that starts it.
November 4th was the original attack.The initiation of a state of intense conflict was originated by Israel and it was Israel that rejected calls for a ceasfire. The US repeatedly vetod calls for a ceasfrire at the UN, and when a ceasfire was passed, Israel ordered Rice to abstain from voting for the resolution.
“Everyone in Gaza knows that Hamas and factions escalated far far more than was necessary, as much as they know that Israel responded far more intensely than was necessary”
False. Everyone is Gaza knows that Israel wanted to defeat any possibility fo a peaceful settlements and to use Gaza as a shoting gallery.
“That that conclusion is so widely held, defines the otherwise very disappointing mass response to the conflict.”
Where is your evidence that it is widely held?
You are a disgusting and vile propagandist adn revisionist Witty. Why you even bother to spread this garbage after it has been so widely discredited is anyone’s guess.
Of course it rests on evidence, not on ideology.
Did you review the statistics of rocket-firing from Gaza from June – December. The proponents of the thesis that the cease-fire ended on November 4 argue that the rocket firing returned to pre-June levels and that there was no marked increase from early December to late December.
That turns out to be untrue, that in fact that incidence of rocket firing from Gaza after the cease-fire formally ended doubled the pre-June incidence.
Hamas got impatient and launched war, childishly (literally, I know thats insulting) imagining that Israel would not respond.
Hamas bears and receives on the ground, a great deal of the blame for the status of war that ensued. Again, Israel overeacted, and was played by Hamas going underground, but the initiation of warring did occur and was distinct from skirmishing.
Its said that you don’t revise your conclusions with fundamental new data.
There is NO QUESTION that Gazan civilians suffered and continue to.
To the current situation, Israel should allow rebuilding materials, and should relatively relax its borders based on the relatively disciplined (not perfect) quiet, and very limited shelling of Israeli civilians.
Israeli officials fear that that is not due to a change in intent on the part of Hamas (even to leave each other alone), but solely due to the absence of rocket building materials.
I don’t know how to reconcile that dichotomy.
No one has argued whether there was a marked increase from early December to late December, but the late December increase can easily be explain by the fact that Israel had already began their siege of Gaza.
There is nothing fundamentally new about the data. The data is the same today as it was last year.
The fact that rcket fire increased from the beginning of December to late December is irrelevant. How many rockets Hamas chose to fire once the ceasfire was broken is of no consequence.
Its sad that you don’t revise your commitment to lies and propaganda.
Israel launched the war, as per their plans to do so, not Hamas. Please stop repeating that lie. 6 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli November 4th raid. Had 6 Israelis been killed, they would have definitely gone to war and you woudl have supoprted that action. You’re a hypocrite.
Once the war was started by Israel, you could argue that Hamas were responsible for their actions, but the war crime of starting a war had already been committed by Israel, so they bear the brunt of the blame. Israel did’nt over react, they simply acted. They wanted the ceasefire to end becasue the ceasefire was becoming a long one and as Tzipi Livni told us, a long ceasefire was not in Israel’s strategic interests.
Lies again Witty.
Hamas demonstrated heir intent when they stuck to a ceasefire for 4 months, and did so with great discipline. Hamas have demonstrated and voiced their intent. They support a 2 state solution and have ended their charter to destroy Israel.
Wierd response to data Shingo.
“The fact that rcket fire increased from the beginning of December to late December is irrelevant. How many rockets Hamas chose to fire once the ceasfire was broken is of no consequence.”
NO CONSEQUENCE.
Very odd. Thats like saying that once Israel determined that it was at war as a result of the Hamas escalation, that the scale and targeting of Gazan civilians was of no consequence.
Of course, it is consequential. What planet do you live on?
You’re just spinning garbage Witty.
When Israel is criticized with disproportionate action, Israeli apologists like yourself dismiss it on the grounds that wars are to be won and that Israel had the right to use every means at it disposal to allegdedly “defend itself”. No one kept any count of how many sorties Israel were flying daily, or the number of ordinance they were dropping from day to day.
Yet when it comes to Hamas, the number of rockets Hamas were firing AFTER Isael broke the ceasefire and after Israel escalated the situation from an act of war (the blockade they refused to lift) to an all out siege, that is suposed to prove that Hamas were itching for war?
You are out of your Zioncane induced mind.
And the planet I live of is one not inhabited exclusively by your Hasrba.
Just gace up to reality Witty. Israel broke the cesfire and esclated the war and Tzipi Livni explained to all of us why.
You are mistaken in paraphrasing my comments as “itching for war”, as in your accusation of planning for months.
They certainly decided to escalate, to unleash a punishment that would continue until military intervention.
They felt betrayed and retaliated, and did so to a scale that Israel determined had shifted from skirmish to war.
The numbers bear that out.
I presented the assertion that Hamas and Israel had returned to close to a cease-fire status approximately two weeks after the November 4 incident, but he dashed that. The numbers suggest that that in fact occurred, that Hamas (to the extent of central control), reduced its temporary shelling, but could not stop other factions.
Then after the formal ending of the cease-fire, they lifted all restraint.
In pressure cookers, restraint is needed.
Your rationalizations that “Israeli caused it” is absurd. Both contributed, tested, the will for restraint, but Hamas was the entity that went into “no holds barred”.
Its a great tragedy that that happened, that emotion combined with militant ideology trumped reason and progress.
Is it useful to argue the dynamics that brought about last year’s war against Gaza? The bashers say, “it was all Israel’s fault”. The defenders say, “But Hamas was ultimately to blame.” Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. (etc.)
The outcome of the war is that it looks ugly and brutal for Israel to kill so many people and to suffer so few casualties.
The lack of a long term plan by Israel regarding Gaza’s ability to have access to Egypt and the seas is clearly wrong as well. Although Richard Witty has expressed a plan of international supervision of open sea access, I have seen no such plan coming from the Israeli government. The relationship with Gaza (vis a vis the siege of the sea and the border with Egypt) must have a light at the end of the tunnel placed before the public by Israel.
(As far as Gaza’s access to Israel and to the West Bank that is access that can wait for a real peace rather than the end of the siege.)
Spare us the sanctiimonious BS Witty.
Haaretz reported that the war was planned 6 months prior, so don’t waste your time with denial.
Israel started the war, and maintained a blockade which is itself an act of war, therefore by definition only Israel could have escalted it.
Israel didn’t shift from skirmish to war. If 6 Israelis had been killed, you wouldn’t be referring to it as a skirmish but an outrage and the only numbers that bear that iout are the dates, Novermber 4th and December 14th.
The sugegstion that Hamas and Israel had returned to close to a cease-fire is an outright lie, beasue the US was vetoing calls for ceafires at the UN. if Isrel wanted a ceasfire and to save face, all they needed to do was ask the US not to veto such resolutions. Olmert boasted that he interrupted Bush giving a speech and ordered him to instruct Rice to abstain from voting for a UN resolutino that that US had drafted for a ceasfire.
We know that on December 14th, Hamas proposed a return to a ceasfire and Israel rejected it. The head of Shin Bet was quoted in Israeli sources on December 21 as saying that Hamas is interested in continuing the “calm” with Israel, while its military wing is continuing preparations for conflict.
“There clearly was an alternative to the military approach to stopping the rockets,” Pastor said, keeping to the narrow issue of Gaza. There was also a more far-reaching alternative, which is rarely discussed: namely, accepting a political settlement including all of the occupied territories.
Akiva Eldar reported that shortly before Israel launched its full-scale invasion on Saturday Dec. 27, “Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshal announced on the Iz al-Din al-Qassam Web site that he was prepared not only for a `cessation of aggression’ – he proposed going back to the arrangement at the Rafah crossing as of 2005, before Hamas won the elections and later took over the region. That arrangement was for the crossing to be managed jointly by Egypt, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority presidency and Hamas,” and as noted earlier, called for opening of the crossings to desperately needed supplies.
Israel wanted the war and planned for it because the longer the ceasefire continued, the greater the likelyhood that Israel would have to negotiate with Hamas.
You’re still rationalizing, listening to yourself rather than considering alternative interpretations.
I don’t know if Israel could have or should responded passively to the shelling from December 17 -27th. I don’t see the decision to respond forcefully as irrational.
And, your interpretation of the cease-fire ending on November 4, does not bear out by the numbers of rockets, Palestinian deaths, or pattern of degree of attacks.
That Hamas offered to extend the cease-fire on November 14 (on terms according to their interpretation, not the interpretation of the mediators, or Israel – claimed to have agreed to originally), indicates that they regarded the cease-fire as still in effect at that moment.
The international urging of a cease-fire occurred after the 10 days of shelling, and extended into the period of Israeli retaliation.
The dichotomy, according to Wondering Jew, is of either/or – either Israel started it, or Hamas started it.
My formula is different than that. My conclusion is that Israel reasoned that Hamas was initiating war (as distinct from skirmishes, in which six dying is a consistent number), and responded in turn.
In retrospect it was excessive. Guerillas hid, and Israel continued much longer than it needed, much longer than it had legitimate war targets. At initiation it was not excessive in scale.
No Witty, Israel didn’t heen to have responded passively to the shelling from December 17 -27th, because Hamas had already proposed a return to the ceasefire by the 14th and Israel rejected the offer.
Of course, Israel coudl have saved themselves the naguish and stuck to the ceasefire in the first place, but you insist on ignoring that very incovenient fact.
The ending of the cease-fire on November 4 is a fact that is not disputed by the number of rockets. How many rocekts were fired has NOTHING to do with the fact that it was a vilation of the ceasefire or that fact that Israel violated it. You are desperately clutching at straws to comflate the facts.
Hamas offered to retunr to the cease-fire on November 14, not siply extend it so stopo lying. Obviously Israel did not regarded the cease-fire as still in effect at that moment, otherwise they would not have requested teh US to veto such calls at the UN.
The international urging of a cease-fire occurred after the 10 days of shelling, and extended into the period of Israeli retaliation.
“The dichotomy, according to Wondering Jew, is of either/or – either Israel started it, or Hamas started it. My formula is different than that’”
Your formula is eviscerated byt he facts and the fact that no one, here and no pundit or articel written anywhere suports youe whacky thesis.
Hamas could not possibbly have initiated the war because Israel had long ago, initiated an act of war with the blockade. Your dismissisal fo the rais as s a skrimish that does not qualify as an act of war demomnstartes your insufferable hypocrisy and doubel standards. Only 2 Israelis soldefirs were killed in the 2006 skirmish with Hezbollah, yet that qualified as an act of war didn’t it Witty?
You must hate the fact you continue to be caught in your own hypocritical trasp.
The guerillas hid because Israel cotionued to pound Gaza fromthe air. No Israeli soldier would have entered Gaza with air support. The IDF are not that brave.
Typical Phil. The 750,000 Palestinians supposedly imprisoned since the start of the occupation and quoted from the Goldstone report is a total lie. It comes from a Palestinian spin organization “Addameer Prisoner Support and Human Rights Association”.
The Israeli prison system holds 8,300 people. Many convicted of major crimes and imprisoned for years. Where did Israel put the new 500 new prisoners a week?
http://www.goldstonereport.org/view-all-blogs/viewpost/236
Facility 1391? The Israeli Gitmo?
It’s always interesting to see the hate sites from which Julian imbibes.
Wow, another neoconservative “Swift Boats” blog. How very droll.
Julian, the numbers sometimes get confusing. If the number is not 750,000, then what is it? 75,000? 7,500? You tell me what number works for you. We know it’s thousands right? We agree on that?
Meanwhile, we have an ocean of ink and an Amazon rainforest of newsprint devoted to Gilad Shalit’s captivity.
I have great empathy for Shalit and I look forward to his release. Do you, as a Zionist, have the same empathy for the non-violent protesters and ordinary citizens who have been locked away in Israeli prisons without due process? Or are they all terrorists in your mindset?
Your source is fudging the figures it cites, and ignoring others.
In order for the 750,000 number to be accurate, it would mean roughly 500 arrests a week every week since 1967.
Every time I divide 42(years of occupation since 1967) into 750,000 I get 17857. That’s a per year figure. When I divide that by 52 (weeks per year) I get 343, not 500. Five hundred is 1.45 times 343, so your source has resorted to inflating the figures by an additional 45% to make a point about someone else’s alleged inflating of figures. Not a very auspicious start.
So the real average is then 343. So, is that figure plausibly accurate or is it implausible? An average number, of course, does not mean that every year, or every week in this case, the number is exactly the same. Its logical to conclude that in the immediate aftermath of the 1967 war, and during the two intifadas, that the weekly number would be considerably greater than the average, thus pushing the average up. In April 2002 alone, there were mass arrests reported by Israel that easily could have exceeded the yearly average of 17857. But still, is 343 an implausible weekly number, even for a “period of calm” (for Israelis)?
See here:
Source:http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/news/2007/09/one-thousand-tw.html
If you need yet another source, there is also this:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/8681.htm
Some of those undocumented are sent back to the OT without imprisonment, but others are imprisoned for varying lengths of time.
So, we’ve got two reports of relatively recent vintage (2007 and 2006, well after the end of the second intifada) where its entirely plausible, according to Israeli police sources, that over a thousand Palestinians are arrested each week. Three hundred forty three per week on average looks entirely within reason as an estimate, given that additional information from Israeli sources.
Then it depends on what you mean by “the occupation.” Since this report is discussing Palestinians in Israeli prisons, not just the WB and Gaza, the number should be 61 years. This is 12,295 per year, 236 per week.
And doesn’t even count the Palestinians murdered by the IDF and Border Police.
potsherd,
The Goldstone report specifically mentioned 1967
“209. Since 1967, about 750,000 Palestinians have been detained at some point by the Government of Israel, according to Palestinian human rights organizations.”
Thanks for that post–I’ve seen elsewhere someone claiming that the 750,000 figure was wildly implausible and while I didn’t take his word for it, I didn’t have any information to refute him.
As worded, it would include both people detained for an hour say at a checkpoint, as well as people detained in mass roundups. I think the number is believable.
By Israel’s own admission, 1000 of those prisoners have never been charged with anything. 400 of them are children.
It’s also notable that among all the Israeli voices in the US media, none are anti-Zionist voices. Where are the Uri Avnerys, the Amira Hasses? The fact remains that the strongest anti-Zionist voices are still Israeli, but this is another thing that no one would ever learn from the MSM.
Zionism is not a movement to ever be discussed on USA MSM. It’s a topic reserved for the big End Times tents of Hagee et al, and, more directly, by denizens of Jewish temples here in the USA, from secular, Reform to orthodox Jewish in practice. There are two flags that may stand in Jewish temples; only one is of prime importance;the other is only important to the extent it props up the blue and white one flag. You a patriot? Nice.
“So yes, on this score, I admit, I’m a bit of a nativist. I apologize here to all my Israeli friends and promise to work on my issues. But the special relationship has hurt America in the Middle East and part of the price of disentangling that relationship may be some discrimination against Israelis in the American discourse. Separation, partition; call it what you will. But the U.S. and Israel need to be two states, not one.”
Don’t worry, Phil, you are not a nativist. You aren’t a radical or an assimilationist, either.
The U.S. doesn’t need a two-state solution, Jews in American need a two-state solution, and fast, because the rest of America is tiring of the scam that is Israel and Jewish power. This is just another attempt to tie the two nations at the hip. America needs to be rid of the burden of Israel and its supporters, and to receive repayment of loans and see justice against those who have harmed us to favor Israel.
What happens in Israel concerns me not one bit, as long as the U.S. is not involved and we don’t get the refugees. I understand that the Palestinians are the victims, and have no problem with them taking every inch of territory back, and handing out justice as they see fit. Whatever happens, it shouldn’t affect me one bit.
The Israelis are famous for saying “We don’t owe anybody anything.”
Maybe the Americans should take that stance to heart and reciprocate?
It might be instructive to take a look at the way South Africa, in its Apartheid days, related to the US. You will find, I am sure, some very eery similarities.
Here’s an eerie similarity between the (revised) WASPS in the USA and the WASPS
in Israel, The Establishment Phil is fighting against precisely because the old US WASP establishment has been revamped (to what he does not concede is really in his own best interest, or in the USA’s best interest):
There is a group in Tel Aviv who are called “Wasps.” What “Wasps” mean is not the same expired Gentile connotation, but it’s White Ashkenazi Sabras with Proteksia, which means that you were born in Israel (and in partnership with the new USA AIPAC Establishment) and you’ve (both) got the right connections.
I doubt Phil’s quaker wife would approve. So she puts up with Phil.
Who would you rather have as your trench buddy, Mooser, or Dick Witty? They are both Americans. I will take Mooser any day, including over many Gentiles I’ve known. And I am more of a cat than a moose. Hey, what about Rocket J Squirrel?
I thank you for the dubious compliment, but I better warn you in advance, I will do my damnedest to avoid becoming any body’s “trench buddy”.
Mooser, ok, a cheap joke; do you even know what an entrenching tool is? Have you ever been dependent on the other guy in your machine gun trench? I doubt it.
But I’d still rather have you in it, than Witty. You might actually be as concerned about my continuity as your own. Every grunt likes that.
I’m not sure what you mean by this, but I don’t recall massive influence from supporters of South African apartheid within the U.S., and I don’t recall large-scale funding on the part of the U.S. or hordes of influential dual-citizens or lobbying networks.
America had no enemies in the Middle East until there was israel
israeli sympathizers, operatives and agents within our government, polity and wealth class are for israel first and everyone knows this
israel represents a clear and present danger to the United States due to that criminal nation’s influence over our banking, our politics, our war-making policy, our defense establishment, our media, etc. etc.
American and israeli interests are not the same
the arrogance of the israeli regime and their operatives and sympathizers here seems to know no bounds – but as one clutches a handful of sand ever more tightly, more grains slip through one’s fingers … israeli control is slipping and, like a house-of-cards, when their power collapses, it will collapse utterly
America had no enemies in the Middle East until there was israel
That is such a ridiculous comment. Most of the middle east was occupied until the creation of Israel. I would say the Ottoman empire was an enemy. we did fight a WW against them.
israel represents a clear and present danger to the United States due to that criminal nation’s influence over our banking, our politics, our war-making policy, our defense establishment, our media
replace Israel with Jews and you could have your own hate site radii, classy….
And how many attacks did the Americans suffer directly at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, pray tell? I can name at least two that the US suffered just at the hands of Israelis — USS Liberty, and the Lavon affair. Can you name three from the Ottoman Empire?
The USA should not even involved itself in WW1. And Wilson’s contributions to the peace treaty at Versailles were ignored, which means our idealistic doughboys’ deaths and maiming were kicked to the curb. And this, of course, set the stage for WW2 in Europe. There is nothing ridiculous at all about the statement that the USA had no enemies in the Middle East until there was Israel. It’s a statement referring to the soul of the man on the Middle East’s Main Street back in those times, not to the allied power regimes of old Germany and the Ottoman Empire. Rubber-stamping and funding of Israeli activities does represent a clear and present danger to the USA; and we don’t fall for your conflating of criticism of the state of Israel activities with anti-semitism. What’s not classy is your reduction of
Israel’s conduct to the conduct of world Jewry. You equate any critical analysis of Israel with anti-semitism. We here don’t fall for that. Go preach to Joe the Plumber or Pastor Hagee. Or anyone seeking USA elected office or wishing to retain such office.
I actually disagree, Citizen, insofar as Wilson wouldn’t have even been at the table were it not for US participation in WW1, and having even the chance to create something like the League of Nations, I think was important.
Other than that, I agree with everything else you say, including that last bit. Actually, it seems very fitting to me, picturing Yonira as the Sarah Palin of Mondoweiss.
Was being at the table to create the league of nations worth the doughboys’ lives when the usa POTUS was ignored at that table? The Germans actually believed in Wilson’s set points agenda–all ignored in reality, especially by the French, as if they were not as responsible for WW1 as the Germans or the Brits.
Here’s a take on the treaty of Versailles:
http://www.answers.com/topic/treaty-of-versailles
Wasn’t the Ottoman Empire pretty well done with by WW1? Britain, you know, and there was some friction with the Russians, da?
And the empire was fearfully mismanaged and ran out of resource, manufacturing and financial oomph, in addition to a disturbing lack of political unity?
At least that’s the way I remember it. An empire of hassocks.
Yoni, you really don’t want to take the stance that the Jews all over the world were just panting for Chain Weitz-man to form a state where kosher was the law! Cause they weren’t.
And you’ve got another big problem, my dear. Judaism as a religion is entitled to respect (I guess) and Jews should not be hated or persecuted for their religion. But once you form a state, you gotta play by different rules. If you ask me, only a Jew with an implacable hatred for his own religion would saddle it, hell, put its head in the noose of supplying the rationale for a colonial settlement project leading to statehood. Could there be a better way to prove to the world that Judaism has, when given the chance, an insatiable appetite for blood? But if that’s the way you see it, if that’s what you pray for each night before you slide your little toochis between the percales; “G-d bless Mommy, and Daddy, and all the Yonis, and please, G-d give me the house and land of a Palestinian, because I am a Jew, like you. Nuff said? G–d night G-d” don’t let me stop you.
The Ottoman empire was done with a long time before that – they didn’t call it the ‘Sick man of Europe’ for no reason. Britain kept it alive to keep Russia at bay. Once Russia and Britain became allies, the Ottomans decided to side with the Germans in the first world war in a desperate attempt to survive.
Yoniro you are factually wrong. The US has never fought a war against the Otttomans. In 1917 we declared war against Germany and fought in France but was not engaged in a single battle that included the Turks.
Not to mention the fact that the US simply did not declare war on the Ottoman Empire.
“That is such a ridiculous comment. Most of the middle east was occupied until the creation of Israel. I would say the Ottoman empire was an enemy. we did fight a WW against them. ”
WE fought a WW against the Ottomans? Do you have dual-citizenship, Yonira? If so, are you a native-born citizen of the U.S.? What draws you to support Israel? Few Americans who are familiar with the extent and expense of U.S. support for Israel, and the harm done by Israel’s supporters hold your position.
I’ve never been a fan of military history, or of WWI era history. But, if I’m not mistaken, the Ottomans were only lukewarm participants in the war, and were mostly out of the war by the time the U.S. entered. I wouldn’t say that the U.S. fought a war against the Ottomans, any more than I would claim that the U.S. fought against the Finns in WWII.
“Most of the middle east was occupied until the creation of Israel. I would say the Ottoman empire was an enemy. we did fight a WW against them.”
Absolutely dead wrong historically. Dead fucking wrong.
“Absolutely dead wrong historically. Dead fucking wrong. ”
Are you claiming that Israel didn’t liberate the Middle East, MRW? Tread lightly!
:-)
================
Yonira, you can avail yourself of the archives of The London Times pre-1916 to educate yourself. Your jejune pronouncements are irritating in addition to be profoundly off the mark.
Start with a search for Ambassador Henry Morgenthau.
typo: being profoundly off the mark.
RE: “Two-state solution needed, and fast– for U.S. and Israel!”
PHIL: There is no such thing as an American. Since the U.S. was “founded on Judeo-Christian principles”*, we are all Amerisraelis!
* so say the “conservatives” despite Dershowitz’s well-researched and very persuasive argument to the contrary
I believe that the United States never declared war on the Ottoman Empire or on Bulgaria during WW1 and was not party to the Treaty of Sevres, which was an attempt to dismantle Turkey.
MHughes, I don’t even remember how many treaties were involved in ending WWI, let alone the specifics, but your post seems reasonable.
Phil, I don’t think you needed to phrase this in such ‘nativist’ or negative terms. Seeking out ignored Palestinian or Arab voices (rather than still more Jewish and Israeli ones) would not be ‘discrimination’. There are reasons besides some American victimhood to sever the US-Israel alliance – namely, the primary victimhood of the Palestinians.
I have to agree with Richard Witty in preferring a humanist orientation (concern with the rights and needs of all people) above a narrow nationalist or ethnic one. (If only Richard would really follow that principle.)
“I have to agree with Richard Witty in preferring a humanist orientation (concern with the rights and needs of all people) above a narrow nationalist or ethnic one. (If only Richard would really follow that principle.)”
Yeah, exactly.
I consistently apply the principle.
I apply it by working for good, rather than fulfilling ideological litmus tests.
In particular, by urging MUTUAL sympathy and reconciliation, rather than confused ideological purity that expresses as aggression.
“Sever the US-Israel alliance”
How about transform it, rather?
You are not a humanist. You advocate superior rights for Jews. Period.
And about alliances, why not have a US-PA alliance? Do you want alliances with all countries? It seems to me that would make the concept meaningless, and some picking an choosing is necessary. So, from a humanist perspective, why should the United States choose Israel given the severity of its human rights abuses? Surely you wont be so hard-headed as to argue there aren’t potential allies out there with much cleaner records. There should (at the very least) be no alliance as long as there are crimes against humanity like occupation, apartheid, and blockade.
Perhaps you don’t know what a humanist is. Its not a political position Robin. Its a worldview, an understanding of universal sympathy, NOT of universal advocacy.
The United States has a very considerable relationship with Israel and Israelis in multiple areas, that remain and will remain. Many economic, academic, cultural, inter-personal, religious (Christian and Jewish primarily), military, intelligence and strategic relationships.
A good friend does (and is doing) urge and push for their friend to be the most humane possible. The US is seeking to mediate, not to advocate.
So long as the control of oil is mostly in the hands of those that desire a free oil market (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Indonesia, Mexico, the vast majority of the world oil flow), the US relationship with Israel will not lapse. It is only in pandering to oil powers that are revolutionary in nature, that the US would even consider fundamentally revising its relationship with Israel.
Following the 1973 war, and subsequent Arab oil embargo, relationships with Saudi Arabia grew very strained. With Saudi Arabia and others deriving more of their income from American corporations than from oil directly, they are far more concerned with the stability of the world economy, than they are ideological in any way.
”Following the 1973 war, and subsequent Arab oil embargo, relationships with Saudi Arabia grew very strained. With Saudi Arabia and others deriving more of their income from American corporations than from oil directly, they are far more concerned with the stability of the world economy, than they are ideological in any way.“
Wrong. In 1975, Kissinger offered the Arabs a deal. He would raise the price of oil if they would buy our debt; he promised to make them very rich. The price of oil is controlled through the World Bank.
Perhaps you don’t know what a humanist is. Its not a political position Robin. Its a worldview, an understanding of universal sympathy, NOT of universal advocacy.
1. There is no such thing as a non-political worldview, and the ones that claim not to be political are the most political of all.
2. Your cobbled-together views of “negotiation”, “sympathy”, “reconciliation” whathaveyou are not humanist. They are redundant platitudes. No normal person will ever say that he, in principle, prefers violence to negotation, that he is in favor of everybody despising each other, or that he supports long-term emnity over reconciliation. To voice adherence to the bare minimum standards of any civilized society is not humanism. (Though I will grant it sets you apart from some of Israel’s more rabid supporters.)
Just remember Witty has said that he is a humanist first before being an American, and a humanist second, after his allegiance to Israel. I forget the exact word he used in the latter context, but “allegiance” is the correct extract.
You could also substitute addiction. He said it a couple days ago–anybody got the exact verb he used to show his loyalty priority?
No Richard,
You don;t apply it for th sake of humanism. You apply it for the same of advocatring that Israel is never held accoutable.
He is the Energizer Bunny of Hasbara isn’t he? He gets wound up and he just keeps going and going…
How many people in Israel have died from rocket attacks since the second intifada? Any sources? The only one I have claims 15 people died over 8 years.
http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/gaza-2008-micro-wars-and-macro-wars.html
While 5000 Palestinians were killed in the same time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/30/israel-and-the-palestinians-middle-east
Is that right?
Hey, the Pals could be more efficient if Uncle Sam supported them like he does Israel.
Just don’t expect any Israeli to be grateful. Or any Palestinian…
Comments on this entry are closed.