The linkage fantasy

on 57 Comments

Israel-supporters in the U.S. know they will lose if the issue is framed as a linkage: Palestinian grievances are endangering our troops. Jeffrey Goldberg does some digging: "I called the White House to ask if Biden actually said this. It would be quite something, of course, if he did."

There’s no problem, man. The press misquoted Biden.

However, the leading US blog dealing with counterinsurgency strategy (very close to McChrystal) says that if Petraeus did wish to bring I/P into his mandate then it would be a good thing. I presume that this is something that the IDF and their supporters (the Lobby) would not like: US military scrutiny of their operations in Gaza and Lebanon. 

US military doctrine in spite of high civilian casualties in Afghanistan doesn’t deliberately target civilian categories, unlike Israel (a point that Richard Goldstone also disputed). US actually works to explore how this can be mitigated. When civilians are killed then a US commander arrives and apologizes and attempts to make reparations. 

Abe Foxman calls the charge that the special relationship is endangering Americans "anti-Semitic."

What is ironic is that neoconservatives painted a seamless picture of a common Islamic threat facing America and its favorite partner in the region. Now when the linkages are made in a way that isn’t helpful to the Golden Calf Merkava state they backpedal and say Hey buddy there is no linkage.

JPost on Foxman:

The charge that supporting Israel endangers US soldiers, Foxman said, comes from the “linkage fantasy,” a point of view that “if you just resolve this conflict, everything else will fall into place: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, America’s war with fundamentalist Islam.”

[Political science prof Eytan] Gilboa, meanwhile, said that if not combated aggressively, this argument – if it gains traction among the American public – could undermine the widespread support in the US for Israel. “All Americans support their troops,” he said, adding that this particular argument was “very dangerous.”

The logic behind the argument is that the US feels it needs to maintain the pro-Western Arab block for the scheduled withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in August, and then later from Afghanistan, and that this block will crumble without a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gilboa said.

Gilboa said this argument might be an excuse being used by the US military to cover up its failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he didn’t think the Ramat Shlomo project was important to al-Qaida fighting the US in Iraq, or to the Taliban in Afghanistan. “It is complete nonsense,” he said. “This is dangerous, because it could hurt public opinion toward Israel, and increase anti-Semitism. There is a great need to do something,” he said, adding that US soldiers were being killed

57 Responses

  1. RickB
    March 16, 2010, 8:54 pm

    ‘US military doctrine in spite of high civilian casualties in Afghanistan doesn’t deliberately target civilian categories’

    Uncle Sam has his hasbara too!

    • Donald
      March 17, 2010, 6:47 am

      “Uncle Sam has his hasbara too!”

      Yeah he does and unfortunately some Israeli critics re signing on. Jerome Slater did this in a recent piece at his blog, echoing Judge Goldstone, and anonymous here is apparently another volunteer.

      Even if the US is supposedly taking care in Afghanistan, it’s a late development (and to be taken with a grain of salt). In Iraq, by Iraq Body Count’s very conservative estimate the US killed over 6000 civilians in the first couple of months of the Iraq invasion, and thousands have been killed in Afghanistan over the years. In Iraq, Fallujah was nearly flattened by the US (the claim that ALL civilians had evacuated is a convenient myth).

      • Donald
        March 17, 2010, 6:48 am

        “Israeli critics ”

        Oops. I meant critics of Israel.

    • Mooser
      March 17, 2010, 10:46 am

      “‘US military doctrine in spite of high civilian casualties in Afghanistan doesn’t deliberately target civilian categories’

      All anyone has to do is make the right noises on the I-P issue and we just roll over.
      If the US military gets in there, it’ll just make it worse for everybody. That’s what the US military does. Okay, we target civilians by stupidity, not on purpose. Must be comforting to the dead civilians.

      ‘Good Lord, McChrystal, the Jews and the Negroes are banding together! I’d rather be friends with Arabs than face that!’

  2. Charles Barwin
    March 16, 2010, 9:10 pm

    Is it possible that this whole dispute is staged, to convince people there is daylight between US and Israel in preparation of an Israeli attack on Iran?

    link to

    • Avi
      March 16, 2010, 11:44 pm

      Were the shipments the only new development in Diego Garcia or is the US beefing up its facilities there, as well?

      My question stems from the fact that the US military recently announced that it will be upgrading all the facilities in Guam as part of a modernization process.

      So, is it possible that the US is doing the same in Diego Garcia? If it’s munition shipments only that are being sent to the island, then Iran could very well be the target.

    • MRW
      March 17, 2010, 12:37 am

      If that’s true, Charles, then its time to move as far away from the US as possible. There is no way China is going to let its oil supply go up in flames.

      There’s something about all this that seems staged to me, but I’m not smart enough to figure out what it is or the angle. Is it to get rid of Yisrael Beitenu and the Shas?Is it to help Livni? Is it for real? Is it just what Petraeus says it is?

      I’m just fed up to the teeth with Mr. This-Is-The-Only-Job-I’ve-Got-So-There-Has-To-Be-Anti-Semitism-Here-Somewhere-Maybe-Under-This-Couch-or-I’ll-be-Jobless Foxman. He acts as if Jews are not to take responsibility for any of their actions, or even the perceptions they create….which to me is the most anti-semitic thing you can say about Jews. Foxman is a self-fulfilling cancer. He’s a crazy-maker.

    • annie
      March 17, 2010, 8:32 am

      charles, re that quote from Dan Plesch..he says the same thing in 07 : Iran – Ready to attack“American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day.”…”at least 10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying from the US or Diego Garcia.”

      from your link “Although the story was not confirmed at the time, the new evidence suggests that it was accurate. ” who’s new evidence? i don’t think we are about to attack iran. not that i have anything against natowatch (“This website, started in February 2010, is the hub of what we do.”) but i’d like a little more confirmation.

  3. syvanen
    March 16, 2010, 9:38 pm

    Here it is Tuesday late and the NYT has yet to give a story on Petraeus’s testimony today. That is the significant story and they are trying to ignore it. And the story today is not what Biden said last week but what our military leaders are saying today — namely US support for Israel’s efforts to annex the WB is endangering the lives of US troops.

    • MRW
      March 17, 2010, 12:12 am

      Well, Syvanen, this Jim Lobe IPS wire service piece was picked up by a couple of hours ago, so this isn’t going away anytime soon: Petraeus says Israeli-Palestinian tension causing anti-American sentiment

      Washington cancelled a planned trip to the region by its special Middle East peace envoy, while its top regional military commander warned that the failure to make progress in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and the “perception” that the U.S. favored Israel in that conflict were damaging to U.S. security interests and allies in the Arab world and helped al Qaeda and Iran gain influence.

      “Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations, Gen. David Petraeus, the chief of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom), told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

      “The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel,” he added.

      and this:

      While the delay in Mitchell’s trip underscored the administration’s continuing displeasure with the Israeli prime minister, however, Petraeus’s testimony before the Senate committee made it clear that the military brass increasingly sees the perpetuation of the Israeli-Palestinian/Arab conflict as a major obstacle to U.S. strategic aims in the broader region, a link that Israel and its supporters here have long rejected.

      In his prepared testimony, Petraeus, who until now has been hailed by many pro-Likud neo-conservatives here as the greatest U.S. military commander of his generation and possible presidential material 2012, argued that “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR (CentCom’s Area of Responsibility) and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.”

      “Meanwhile, al Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizbollah and Hamas,” he added.

      Elaborating on that theme, he said that “A credible U.S. effort on Arab-Israeli issues that provides regional governments and populations a way to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the disputes would undercut Iran’s policy of militant ‘resistance,’ which the Iranian regime and insurgent groups have been free to exploit.”

      “…(P)rogress toward resolving the political disputes in the Levant, particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict, is a major concern for Centcom,” he asserted, adding that the persistence of the Arab-Israeli conflict had an “enormous effect” on the strategic context in which we operate…”

      Daniel Levy, an Israeli former peace negotiator based at the New America Foundation here, said, “To the extent to which the latest events have given rise to a debate over whether there is linkage between a broader American security interest and a credible peace process, Petraeus weighed in today in the most unequivocal terms by articulating at some length not only the existence of that interest and linkage, but also just how front and centre it is to the military.”

      “What Petraeus made clear — and that should be a wake-up call for Israel — is that the unresolved Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the entrenched occupation are placing an increasingly unbearable burden on the U.S.-Israel relationship, and the best way to address it would obviously be to resolve that conflict,” he added.

      • dalybean
        March 17, 2010, 1:16 am

        Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post picked up the Petraeus testimony too and clarified that the subtle change in nuance of the latest from Hillary does not mean that the Administration is backing down. link to

      • MRW
        March 17, 2010, 6:44 am

        One paragraph from that Wapo article: An umbrella group, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, noted what it called the “continued incitement by the Palestinian Authority,” including a public celebration last week of Dalal Mughrabi, a [19-yr-old female] militant who took part in a 1978 attack that killed 37 Israelis and an American.

        and contrast with:

        Disguised, Irgunists planted a bomb in the basement of the main building of the hotel, under the wing which housed the Mandate Secretariat and part of the British military headquarters…..No evacuation was carried out. [3] The ensuing explosion caused the collapse of the western half of the southern wing of the hotel. 91 people were killed and 46 were injured, with some of the deaths and injuries occurring in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings.

      • dalybean
        March 17, 2010, 6:55 am

        This should be a formal State Department response to the whining from Israel on this issue.

      • dalybean
        March 17, 2010, 11:16 am

        The LA Times just printed a quintessential whining opinion piece called “Why Glorify the Murderers?” link to It screams out for a balancing piece for all of the things in Israel that are named after their own terrorists. And also that Israel elected their own terrorists to high office and glorified them, contrasted with its targeted assassinations on Palestinian leaders because they are so-called terrorists.

      • Citizen
        March 17, 2010, 6:19 am

        This post is in accord with the unredacted or edited 9/11 Commission findings regarding motive, and with the witnesses that testified before congress. (Not that
        that did any good.)

    • Donald
      March 17, 2010, 6:51 am

      Petraeus’s testimony is mentioned in a couple of lines today in the NYT at the very end of a “news analysis” by Mark Landler–


  4. radii
    March 16, 2010, 9:48 pm

    we all know how this works – only historians really care about what was really said and done and by whom

    in the moment-to-moment real world what matters is perception and the linkage has been made by no less than a sitting Vice-President with a son serving in wars that serve israel’s objectives

    wherever it came from the current perception is the Vice-President Joe Biden was insulted and humiliated while on a visit to israel and that it was done deliberately, and that israel has little to no regard for how its actions put American lives in jeapoardy

    … the proverbial cat is out of the bag – there is no going back

    • Avi
      March 16, 2010, 11:37 pm

      What has Foxman ever done for America?

      What has Dershowitz or Miachel Oren ever done for America?

      Do any of them have relatives, or children serving in the US military?

      We know of at least one American who volunteered to the Israeli military during the Gulf War and that person is Rahm Emanuel.

      “All Americans support their troops,” he said, adding that this particular argument was “very dangerous.”

      I find it quite ironic that as far as representation in the US military goes there are actually far more Muslims than Jews. In fact, Jewish American enlistment is at an all-time low.

      • Psychopathic god
        March 17, 2010, 6:56 am

        Michael Oren’s son serves in IDF in Intelligence.

      • Mooser
        March 17, 2010, 10:54 am

        “In fact, Jewish American enlistment is at an all-time low.

        Said he: “I don’t want to be a Knight!
        That’s no job for a boy who is Jewi-ish!
        Oh, would’st I could kick the habit,
        And give up smoting for good!”

        link to

  5. MRW
    March 16, 2010, 11:50 pm

    I am absolutely insulted by Abe Foxman’s statement in the JPost. How dare he say it is anti-Semitic for an American to care about American national security, when that wretched country threatens the universe with WWIII over paranoid fears because breeders in the West Bank want more playrooms.

    And who is this putz, Gilboa? He just can’t stop with the insults, can he: “[T]he resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an excuse being used by the US military to cover up its failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Hezbollah out-manoeuvred his puffed-up army in 2006. And their other big score was bombing civilians and torching babies ten minutes away in an imprisoned area the size of Detroit. Big world power.

    Then he charges: “This is dangerous, because it could hurt public opinion toward Israel, and increase anti-Semitism.” As if anyone gives a shit anymore. Fix Israel, then you wont have the problem, Gilboa. Learn the law of cause and effect.

    • syvanen
      March 17, 2010, 1:23 am

      That must be Chuztba. Israel and her lobbyist manipulate the US into war in Iraq. It is a war that cannot be won. The US army finally wakes up an begins to realize the impossible position they are in. So they try to extricate themselves from this losing Israeli alliance. And how do the Israelis respond — well Giboa accuses our army of using Israel as an excuse for their very own failures. This is a message that should be spread far and wide among our troops — Israel is blaming the US military for the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos. It is all their fault, neocons and the lobby have nothing to do with it.

      This Giboa really pisses me off.

      • MRW
        March 17, 2010, 6:06 am


        Here’s this from October 2006: ‘US withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous for Israel’ | Jerusalem Post
        link to

  6. VR
    March 17, 2010, 1:16 am

    “When civilians are killed then a US commander arrives and apologizes and attempts to make reparations.”

    Do you mean like this?


    Need I say more?

  7. annie
    March 17, 2010, 6:39 am

    phil, so true about Abu Muqawama, it is the go to COIN blog. note the disclaimer..)”Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.’) cnas being Center for a New American Security. note Board of Directors: William J. Perry COD under clinton..also father of mark perry.

    yep, this is represents a changing of the guards..away from the neocons

    • annie
      March 17, 2010, 6:46 am

      another thing..don’t forget what is happening this week..clinton’s trip to russia to met w/the quartet.

      U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will arrive in Moscow tomorrow for a two-day visit to push ahead with proposals for a new arms-control treaty and discuss the Middle East peace process.

      President Dmitry Medvedev will meet Clinton to discuss a replacement for the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expired in December. Clinton will also attend a meeting of the Middle East Quartet group of the U.S., European Union, United Nations and Russia after Israel sparked controversy with plans to build new housing in east Jerusalem.

    • annie
      March 17, 2010, 6:50 am

      sorry for screw up w/ acronym and other typos… perry was sec of defense under clinton. not a neocon.

      • dalybean
        March 17, 2010, 10:34 am

        The thing about Mark Perry at Foreign Policy being ex-Secretary of Defense William Perry’s son is striking to me, since that explosive story was leaked to him. Laura Rozen, you know, tried to diminish his credibility by calling him “an ex-Newsday stringer and former advisor to Yasser Arafat,” which the Israeli right wing tried to run with, calling him a “Hezbollah flunky.” It really drove home the Israel Lobby’s despicable tactics of character assassination. So I think that people should stop describing her as “the respected Laura Rozen…”

      • annie
        March 17, 2010, 11:34 am

        shit shit shit , dalybean i just wrote an extensive post w/lots of links and it was rejected for ‘spamming’. so, in a nutshell check my earlier sourcewatch cnas link and note

        “When President-elect Barack Obama released a roster of his transition advisers last week, many of the national-security appointments came from the ranks of the center,” reported the Wall Street Journal in November 2008. CNAS co-founder Michele Flournoy “is one of two top members of Mr. Obama’s defense transition team and is likely to be offered a high-ranking position at the Pentagon. … Wendy Sherman, co-head of the Obama State Department transition team, also serves on the center’s board of advisers and is expected to land a high-ranking post [in the new Administration]. Richard Danzig, a front-runner for defense secretary, is on the think tank’s board of directors. Susan Rice and James Steinberg, both of whom are on Mr. Obama’s short list for national security adviser, serve on its board of advisers.”

        also, andrew exum aka Abu Muqawama works for CNAS (check the url of that blog). this is no small fry think tank. google them and go to their website..check out the spencer ackerman link on the mullen doctrine and see if any of it sounds familiar to what we’ve been hearing lately. laura rosen probably did not do her homework on perry. at the Abu Muqawama link @ this main post upthrad (The linkage fantasy) check out both of the links to mark and his son Cal. this represents 3 generations of extensive knowledge in this field and the middle east. back when i was following events in iraq i used to read this blog all the time. i think mark’s foreign policy post is as close to the horses mouth we are going to get and cnas is as serious a departure away from the neocon think tanks as we are likely to see in this administration.

      • dalybean
        March 17, 2010, 11:53 am

        Excellent. Someone should ask Laura Rosen who she was taking dictation from. This is a blow to her credibility.

      • annie
        March 17, 2010, 12:09 pm

        agreed. of course i could be wrong. i could merely be a coincidence bill perry has a son named mark and there is another mark perry who is a journalist and author who’s got connections to cnas who is not bill’s son….but i doubt it ;)

      • dalybean
        March 17, 2010, 12:15 pm

        Me too. That’s why the character assassination on Mark Perry didn’t take.

      • MRW
        March 17, 2010, 1:52 pm

        thanks, Annie, I’m saving this post of yours to follow through later in the day.

      • MRW
        March 17, 2010, 1:55 pm

        i could merely be a coincidence bill perry has a son named mark and there is another mark perry who is a journalist and author who’s got connections to cnas who is not bill’s son

        Foreign Policy knows the difference, and so does Paul Woodward. Good enough for me.

      • dalybean
        March 17, 2010, 2:05 pm

        Mark Perry has a new book called “Talking to Terrorists,” too. And I’m pretty sure that Hillary Clinton said the other day that Hamas will be brought into the peace process. I can see why the Israel Lobby is so quick to smear Mark Perry through the hapless Laura Rosen.

      • annie
        March 17, 2010, 11:08 pm

        your welcome MRW.

        I’m pretty sure that Hillary Clinton said the other day that Hamas will be brought into the peace process.

        yeah, this is part of the engagement process that diverges greatly from the neocon MO. i hope you’re right.

      • annie
        March 17, 2010, 11:25 pm

        here’s an interview w/perry @harper’s circa 6/07. this was prior to israel kidnapping an imprisoning hamas leaders and the blockade. some choice quotes

        4. How much popular support does Hamas have?
        It slipped after Hamas won the parliamentary elections last year, especially because it could not meet the payroll for government employees. But my sense is that it has recovered because it’s been able to run an efficient government. You also have to remember that Hamas won every single metropolitan area in the West Bank during the elections, which is pretty stunning. It won a lot of support in Fatah constituencies that are traditionally secular. Abu Mazin is the one that is isolated. Not Hamas. He’s a weak leader without support from many within his own party. If he makes the wrong moves, Hamas could end up in control of the West Bank as well.

        can’t have that!

  8. pabelmont
    March 17, 2010, 8:23 am

    McCrystal HAS made it a matter of linkage. He has identified a USA national interest (furthering USA war progress) which is IMPEDED by SETTLEMENTS.

    I believe that another LINKAGE could be suggested — USA REFUSAL TO DEMAND REMOVAL OF ALL SETTLERS AND WALL.

    After all, even if in the USA people do not think about the settlements at all, do not know that they are illegal, and especially do not know the many ways that they violate Palestinian human rights — nevertheless (as McCrystal might have said and should say) the Arab “street” knows it perfectly well. And it is their knowledge which creates the linkage, because it endangers our troops.

    And, again, USA movement to cause the Israelis to REMOVE SETTLERS prior to and irrespective of progress on negotiations would greatly enhance USA reputation, in marked contrast to what we in fact have — continued IGNORING EXISTING SETTLEMENTS.

  9. Evildoer
    March 17, 2010, 8:37 am

    It is wonderful to see the high level of solidarity on this site with the victims of US aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq.

  10. annie
    March 17, 2010, 8:56 am

    on a practical level i’m wondering how it would impacts US interaction wrt our participation if dayton’s work overseeing PA moves from a eucom purview to centcom operations. here’s a recent eucom report about a meeting w/gates and (ehud) barack . makes me wonder if this is more about excising bibi out of the picture. the whole thing is quite curious.

  11. Charles Barwin
    March 17, 2010, 9:02 am

    Given that the US is supposed to be on the verge of a significant withdrawal from Iraq, I’m guessing something is going to happen to keep them there.

    Whether it’s done by the US, Israel, or both, some excuse will be made to keep our troops there, for the benefit of Israel.

    • annie
      March 17, 2010, 9:17 am

      charles, we didn’t build temporary bases. as i recall any withdrawal plans accommodate a significant american footprint remaining in iraq. there was never an approved plan for complete withdrawal, ever.

      • Charles Barwin
        March 17, 2010, 10:30 am

        I understand that complete withdrawal was never the plan. I’m arguing that the partial withdrawal likely has powerful opponents, and that partial withdrawal plan may have just been a bone thrown to the common people of the world.

        A catalyzing event would make the partial withdrawal “unrealistic at this time.”

  12. annie
    March 17, 2010, 9:13 am

    on reflection it is occurring to me it is not biden who was blindsided, it was bibi and his rightwing cohorts. things seem a tad coordinated to me. what are the chances the timing of military (petraeus), state department (clinton), and WH political apparatus (biden) all just happening to be on the same page simultaneously w/this agenda/narrative so dangerous to israel’s rtwg? narratives are always created along w/ agendas, to get them out front and center stage and who better than biden to deliver it. biden with those volcanic loose lips. the neocons are the ones getting blindsided. i’m lovin this!

    • dalybean
      March 17, 2010, 9:31 am

      Since Israel pulls a stunt like this every single bloody time there is a US official over there talking about peace, I’m tending to agree that the US might have been waiting for this opportunity.

      I also love that Netanyahu’s brother-in-law called Obama an anti-Semite and Netanyahu was forced to disagree.

      Also, the statements of the US government saying that “we have an unshakeable bond with Israel and will provide the security guarantee…” are starting to remind me of Obama’s constant refrain that “McCain is an honorable man…” We know how that turned out for McCain. He was reduced to a seething, dithering mess.

      • potsherd
        March 17, 2010, 10:21 am

        Israel pulls stunts like this every day, no need to wait for the opportunity. It’s only when they embarrass some foreign dignitary that they get noticed.

  13. annie
    March 17, 2010, 10:03 am

    Since Israel pulls a stunt like this every single bloody time there is a US official over there talking about peace, I’m tending to agree that the US might have been waiting for this opportunity.

    yeah and it wasn’t just any american official it was the highest ranking official aside from potus. it’s no coincidence biden went when he did. i bet the timing was chosen coordinated w/mitchel’s mission. with the health care legislation in its final phase let’s hope i/p takes center stage. my guess is obama would not have made this move if he didn’t have some serious moves up his sleeves to position himself and dems for the next election. i can’t imagine he’d create a set up in which all hell would be breaking loose right before an election, it seems inconceivable he’d hang the dems out to dry . i bet they have a plan in place that runs thru the summer and fall positioning themselves/US in a much stronger role wrt israel that appears as a win win and reaffirms a US alliance w/israel sidestepping the neocons. i don’t see how they could do that without strong backing from segments within the american jewish community. i bet they are planning on some upheaval happening inside israel’s political apparatus. my guess is they are coordinating w/certain israeli actors (maybe even their defense secretary).

    • dalybean
      March 17, 2010, 10:22 am

      Well their defense secretary approved 123 units on the West Bank about 2 weeks ago and the US excused it. They might have been priming the pump.

      Also, all of the news services are running pictures of Israeli undercover policeman, who appear indistinguishable from the Palestinians, beating on young boys. Since the print media is on lockdown by Israeli press management, they may be trying to tell the real story with their pictures. I just noticed this today.

      • potsherd
        March 17, 2010, 11:42 am

        haven’t seen those outside Israeli press

      • dalybean
        March 17, 2010, 12:05 pm

        For one, link to There was also a picture in the New York Times and at least one other that we were talking about this morning on another thread which I can’t seem to find, but the links are there.

      • annie
        March 17, 2010, 11:49 am

        i realize my comment about barak is highly speculative. “their defense secretary approved 123 units on the West Bank about 2 weeks ago and the US excused it.”

        do you have a link to this?

      • dalybean
        March 17, 2010, 12:12 pm

        112 units. link to

  14. Les
    March 17, 2010, 10:18 am

    As Juan Cole reminds us, we should give patriotic Jeffrey Goldberg his due and show him respect by properly naming him Corporal Jeffrey Goldberg. He’s a true Israeli patriot.

    • dalybean
      March 17, 2010, 10:40 am

      Serving with the IDF is fast becoming a badge of shame rather than a badge of honor as I’m sure Goldberg is beginning to realize.

    • MRW
      March 17, 2010, 7:04 pm

      Correction, Les: Israeli Corporal Jeffrey Goldberg.

  15. MHughes976
    March 17, 2010, 12:30 pm

    It’s just such an obvious truth that unreserved support for what are almost universally perceived to be unjust Israeli actions against Muslim makes it impossible to achieve full cooperation from the Muslim world, and that less cooperation from them means more casualties among American and British troops. Presumably the soldiers on the ground notice this every day and their commanders can’t for ever find circumlocutions to avoid mentioning it in their reports. Not that I think any British commander (and our troops are being horribly mauled) has mentioned it as yet.

Leave a Reply