PDA

View Full Version : Mandatory Reading For Anyone Interested in the Middle East: The Israeli Lobby



Tom Odom
03-22-2006, 05:08 PM
To All,

As a long term ex-FAO on the Middle East and Africa, this subject was never far from my mind, especially after serving as a UN Observer in Lebanon and living in Israel. I am both pleased and amazed that Harvard, JFK School of Government, had the guts to publish this one. It pulls no punches and will undountedly draw much fire and abuse.


The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.



You can read an abridged version on line at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

And you can downlaod the full document from http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011 or http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=891198

I would recommend this be added to the SWJ Library.


Best all,

Tom

echoparkdirt
05-01-2006, 05:29 AM
I feel compelled to list a few links here in case people actually want to know more about the "Harvard Paper." In sum, the paper claims that there exists a dark "Pro-Israel Conspiracy" which has hijacked American policy against our own interests. It is remarkably consistent with other anti-Semitic texts, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, in positing the existance of a super-powerful Jewish conspiracy which takes advantages of Gentiles (such as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, etc etc) to further their own interests.

Here are some links you may want to check out in case you want to know more.
My favorite is

"David Duke Claims to Be Vindicated By a Harvard Dean" at http://www.nysun.com/article/29380 (subscription required)


http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/23227.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5342

http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/2006_04_12.htm

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19708

Jones_RE
05-01-2006, 03:30 PM
Although I disagree with some of the paper's conclusions (especially regarding Operation Iraqi Freedom), I don't believe it goes so far.

What the paper describes is not some conspiracy - conspiracies are conducted in secret, after all. The Israel Lobby instead describes "business as usual" on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Organized people with money and media access in Washington do quite well and Washington does well by them. You could title it "The Steel Lobby" or "The Tobacco Lobby" and get similar results.

Tom Odom
05-01-2006, 05:14 PM
What the paper describes is not some conspiracy - conspiracies are conducted in secret, after all. The Israel Lobby instead describes "business as usual" on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Organized people with money and media access in Washington do quite well and Washington does well by them. You could title it "The Steel Lobby" or "The Tobacco Lobby" and get similar results.

Agreed on the OIF points as well as your synthesis.

Tom

zenpundit
05-03-2006, 04:02 AM
I'm not terribly impressed with Walt/Mearsheimer myself but there is a very interesting and vigorously debated thread going on right now over at H-Diplo that fuses this topic with a discussion of Truman's motivations for recognizing Israel.

H-Diplo (http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/)

SWJED
05-07-2006, 10:56 AM
7 May Baltimore Sun commentary - Opening the Debate on Israel (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.lobby07may07,0,6211208.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines) by Norman Solomon.


... Routinely, the American news media have ignored or pilloried any strong criticism of Washington's massive support for Israel. But the paper and an article based on it by respected academics John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, first published March 23 in the London Review of Books, are catalysts for some healthy public discussion of key issues.

The first mainstream media reactions to the paper - often with the customary name-calling - were mostly efforts to shut down debate before it could begin. Early venues for vituperative attacks on the paper included the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times ("nutty"), the Boston Herald (headline: "Anti-Semitic Paranoia at Harvard") and The Washington Post (headline: "Yes, It's Anti-Semitic").

But other voices have emerged, on the airwaves and in print, to bypass the facile attacks and address crucial issues. If this keeps up, the uproar over what Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt had to say could invigorate public discourse about Washington's policies toward a country that consistently has received a bigger U.S. aid package for a longer period than any other nation...

If the barriers to democratic discourse can be overcome, the paper's authors say, the results could be highly beneficial: "Open debate will expose the limits of the strategic and moral case for one-sided U.S. support and could move the U.S. to a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel's long-term interests as well."...

In the United States, "the lobby's campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy for democracy," Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt assert. They point to grave effects on the body politic: "The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyzes the entire process of democratic deliberation."

While their paper overstates the extent to which pro-Israel pressures determine U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, a very powerful lobby for Israel clearly has enormous leverage in Washington. And the professors make a convincing case that the U.S. government has been much too closely aligned with Israel - to the detriment of human rights, democracy and other principles that are supposed to constitute American values.

The failure to make a distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel routinely stifles public debate. When convenient, pro-Israel groups in the United States will concede that it's possible to oppose Israeli policies without being anti-Semitic. Yet many of Israel's boosters reflexively pull out the heavy artillery of charging anti-Semitism when their position is challenged...

Merv Benson
05-07-2006, 02:47 PM
The current lack of debate on this issue is because the authors of this controversial paper will not debate their critics and for the most part will not even agree to interviews outside their bubble. Alan Dershowitz, who has published a reasoned rebuttal to the paper, has a standing offer to debate its authors, but so far there has been no response.

While some have attempted to distinguish between anti Zionism and anti Jewish arguments, for the Jews who reside in Israel, it is a distinction without a difference. Their enemys want genocide or at best a new disaporia. The Israelis are at war with a real estate worshipping death cult. Semantic arguments over whether those in the US who oppose the objectives of their enemy are facing opposition by antismites or people who believe it is not in the interest of the US to oppose the death cult's war may be an interesting academic argument for some, but it is a matter of life and death for Israelis.

Tom Odom
05-08-2006, 12:57 PM
Actually Merv, the authors answer Mr. Dershowitz and others in the current issue of the London Book Review, which carried Dershowitz's critique of the article after they had published a synopsis. See: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html

Death cult arguments aside, the issues are complex and no one wears a white hat in pursuing their own agendas. Both sides however like to build support through simplistic arguments that portray themselves as blameless. The result is a hardening of positions that has only gotten worse over the past several decades.

Tom

echoparkdirt
05-08-2006, 09:21 PM
M&W's "response" is extremely thin and doesn't respond to the substantive arguments against their pseudo-scholarly article. Attempts to create a "sophisticated position" which takes an "evenhanded approach" between a side that is attempting to destroy the other and another side which is attempting to survive is morally and strategically impotent.

I'm also not sure that one should "put aside death-cult arguments" -- for more and more, the Jihadist threat that took down thousands of Americans in NYC and DC is clearly part and parcel (http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/011150.php) of the Islamist thrust against Israel (http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/JihadAgainstJews.htm) and for that matter non-Muslims in Russia, India, Nigeria, etc. I'm also not sure selling out a small ally -- such as Czechoslovakia in 1938 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement) or Israel today (http://wolfgangbruno.blogspot.com/2006/02/european-case-for-israel.html) -- is the strategically correct choice when facing a global threat. America has always stood in the defense of besieged democracies, and you don't need to resort to "Jewish conspiracy" theories to explain that.

There will also always be "one grievance" that some in the West believe stands in the way of a detente between us and the Islamofascists. However, this is an illusion IMHO. As Victor Hanson (http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200410150823.asp) puts it


"We can no more reason with the Islamic fascists than we could sympathize with the Nazis' demands over supposedly exploited Germans in Czechoslovakia or the problem of Tojo's Japan's not getting its timely scrap-metal shipments from Roosevelt's America. Their pouts and gripes are not intended to be adjudicated as much as to weaken the resolve of many in the United States who find the entire "war against terror" too big, or the wrong kind, of a nuisance."

FYI, Norm Solomon -- who was quoted above in defense of the M&W paper -- is an old-line Marxist who is head of the Institute for Public Accuracy (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5400). This fine group took the Sep 11 attacks as a sign to blame America.


While the ruins of the World Trade Center and Pentagon still smoldered, IPA rushed to advocate appeasement and agitate against a meaningful U.S. response to the barbaric attacks. On September 12, 2001, IPA issued a press release touting the availability of some "experts" for interviews and summarizing their positions. Far from decrying the terrorists, one "expert" declared that American condemnation of the attackers "holds up a mirror to U.S. policy of causing massive civilian suffering in Iraq … we hope that along with the grief, we can … form deeper compassion and understanding."

Gary

zenpundit
05-09-2006, 01:31 AM
Because Israel's enemies have little to offer the United States of strategic value that they are not already selling us out of their own self-interest.

Israel is an expensive client state for the U.S. and it strives to put forward its own state interests before ours ( client, not a puppet) but Israel has certain capabilities and reliabilities thatother states in the region lack. Most of the other governments in the Mideast outside of Turkey and a few, tiny, ultrawealthy oil sheikdoms are suffering from varying degrees of dysfunctionality. Many are tyrannical, most are corrupt and a few are governed by monsters. The Palestinians, without minimizing their hardships, could not have chosen their representatives more poorly in terms of making a good impression on the rest of the world.

In a contest for the sympathies of America, the Arab side will lose continuously because their complaints about Israeli behavior pale in comparison to the bad image they themselves project by word and deed. Aspiring theocrats, terrorists and East Bloc trained gangsters are incredibly ineffective vehicles for human rights complaints.

Now, a peaceful, pro-democracy, liberal Palestinian movement - that might have a real impact on American perceptions but what is the likelihood of that ?

Tom Odom
05-09-2006, 05:43 PM
Zen,

Interests remain the key. And they are not the same as capabilities. The Israeli military machine is very capable on its own playing field, including its various opponents when they stay in the conventional role. As for current unconventional roles only time will tell; Lebanon and most recently Gaza was not a banner experience for the IDF.

That Israel possesses those capabilities does not mean they are useful to US strategy or interests; much effort, time, and money was spent in Gulf War I keeping those capabilities in check.

As for other interests in the region, the reason we have CENTCOM (or even earlier USSTRICOM/MEAFSA) is to maintain access to those who sell to us.

Tom

zenpundit
05-09-2006, 06:27 PM
Well, let's say for argument's sake that U.S. " flips" policy on Israel in order to pursue its national interests. For a change of such a magnitude - I assume you would agree that it would be significant - what concrete benefits can the Arab governments then deliver in return beyond what we are already receiving now ?

There's not really anything that I factually disagree with I disagree with in your response. Our aid to Israel is a leash on the extremity of Israeli behavior so when ( for example) the IDF was shelling Beirut, Ronald Reagan could pick up the phone and tell Menachim Begin to knock it off and the hard-boiled Israeli P.M. felt compelled to listen. Much like our aid to Egypt is a bribe to stay at peace with Israel and keep the largest Arab state in friendly hands.

That the US could secure grudging Israeli cooperation during Gulf War I. was possible primarily because of the longstanding relationship the two countries have maintained. It is not accidental that Israel was not involved ( except peripherally) in the last three major wars in the Mideast, that was U.S. policy to damp down the Arab-Israeli conflict.

As a matter of capabilities, what may be unused today may be wanted tomorrow. And given a choice, whose military would you want as a client, Israel or Syria's ? Or Israel and any 5 Arab states ?

Tom Odom
05-09-2006, 09:02 PM
Well, let's say for argument's sake that U.S. " flips" policy on Israel in order to pursue its national interests. For a change of such a magnitude - I assume you would agree that it would be significant - what concrete benefits can the Arab governments then deliver in return beyond what we are already receiving now ?

I am not advocating a flip in policy. I do believe that an more centrist approach (or balanced approach) would bring greater benefits for both US and ultimately Israeli strategic goals. I would say that neither Walt nor Mearsheimer advocate a flip either. Our efforts as an "honest broker" in the process over the past several decades has been overcome by our declarations as Israel's ally. The greatest single result of that schism was the steady expansion of the settlements on the West Bank and Gaza. Those settlements cost us--the US--greatly in the region and now they are costing Israel in dismantling them, at least in Gaza.

Reagan was not the "leash" that pulled the IDF out of Beirut, though we did push for that. Sharon's leadership ultimately pulled him back after he made the unilateral decision to go in.

As I said earlier, the Israeli military is designed for its own playing field; that design goes deeper than just the units and the equipment. Issues of sustainablity, deployability, and the economy itself play a large role on Israeli strategic and operational design. The single time that the IDF got involved in combined operations with Western military forces was during the 1956 War; the Israeli "threat" against the Suez Canal gave the British and the French the coordinated pretext to seize the canal zone. It was the US under President Eisenhower who stood against that slight of hand operation.

Meanwhile, we did build the 1990 coalition with Egyptian, Syrian, and other Arab forces because incorporating those forces served ours and their interests.

best
Tom

zenpundit
05-10-2006, 01:06 PM
Hi Tom,


Reagan was not the "leash" that pulled the IDF out of Beirut, though we did push for that.á Sharon's leadership ultimately pulled him back after he made the unilateral decision to go in.á

Excerpt from the diplomatic cable sent to P.M. Begin August 12, following the phone call from Pres. Reagan:

"...Israeli air strikes and other military moves have stopped progress in negotiations. I find this incomprehensible and unacceptable.
...I cannot stress enough to you how seriously I regard this situation. Ambassador habib must be enabled to fulfil these last steps in his mision. The cease-fire must be kept. Our entire future relations are at stake if this continues.
...Israeli military actions of the past several hours have made further alteration of that package impossible. If so, or for any other reason, the package must stand as it is, we will look to Israel to accept it fully without further discussion, so that the agony of Beirut may be ended"

[ emphasis mine]

Schultz, George P. Turmoil and Triumph, Page 70.

The former SecState goes on to write:

" Begin called President Reagan back within several minutes. ' I have just talked with the minister of defense and the chief of staff. Now there is no firing at all' he told the president."

Very tough language to use with an ally, essentially an ultimatum, yes ?
That there were factors internal to Israeli decision-making at play then in Lebanon, I do not doubt but the pressure here put on Begin was extraordinairy - if you proceed then you jeopardize American support for the state of Israel. Hence my use of the term " leash".

Alternatively, we could say U.S. support is a " safety-net". Regardless, it changes Israel's defense posture from the extreme dynamic that prevailed at the time of the Six Day War.

I agree with you on Israel's settlement policy BTW - a generally counterproductive effort on Israel's part with the exception, perhaps, of solidifying their hold on Jerusalem, nothing of strategic value has been added.

Tom Odom
05-10-2006, 04:25 PM
Yep tough language and certainly Sec State Schultz is a great source...

But I would still not say leash as in cause in effect; the actions preliminary to those phone calls were equally causal and most were internal to the Israeli decisionmaking apparatus. Sharon was known for using the phrase "creating facts on the ground" in his military and later political career. The decision to expand the "incursion" into Lebanon was his; Begin ended up holding the proverbial bag and ultimately hung it back around Sharon's neck when the Sabra and Shatilla camp massacres came to light.

But I would agree that Schultz and Reagan did the right thing; they did use pressure and they made it stick, at least temporarily. I remember watching the episode go ahead from the sidelines in Turkey, thinking the initial multinational mission to extract the PLO and take them to Tunis was a good move. But then the decision to go back in as nominal peace enforcers made me very uneasy.

The dynamic in the region that has changed the most is external to the region: the end of the Cold War. The USSR as a source of arms, advisors, and potential backer is gone. The Camp David Accords were instrumental in removing the Egyptian-Israeli dispute as a source for Cold War brinkmanship as in the October 1973 War. Afterwards, Syria was left alone with the USSR as its supplier; 1982 pretty much showed the Syrians were not up to taking the IDF on in a conventional fight. With the collapse of the USSR in the late 80's we soon saw Syrian forces deployed as Coalition forces against Iraq.

But now in the current conflict and changed global arena, I believe that certain realities must affect how we do business. Camp David is now nearly 30 years old; during those decades, its requirements have sapped the majority available foreign aid monies (the last figure I saw was around 90%). Neither Israel nor Egypt fit the economic profile for that level of assistance. I am not saying "turn off the spigot"; dramatic moves in foreign policy carry large risks. But with the press of needs elsewhere (outside Iraq and Afghanistan), reallocation of some of those monies is overdue.

Anyway enjoyed the discussion and that's the point.

Best
Tom

zenpundit
05-10-2006, 05:00 PM
Me too ! A stimulating conversation, thanks Tom!

Stu-6
05-12-2006, 10:21 AM
I don’t know a lot about lobbies but I have always questioned the wisdom of US policy towards Israeli. The friendship seems to be very expensive and completely one way. Of course these days I am somewhat leery of all foreign aid, on account of us being $8 trillion in the hole.

JJackson
04-17-2008, 12:16 PM
As an outsider looking in on the complexities of US domestic politics I wondered if this was for real or if it would be put-down at birth.
As someone who thinks the Palestinians might have a point and the closeness of the US/Israel axis is a barrier to finding a longterm solution in the ME - and so to the more general US GWOT- this seemed like a ray of hope.

US Jewish lobby gains new voice (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7349371.stm)


The group is billing itself as a counterweight to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the most prominent Jewish lobbying organisation in the US.

J Street says Aipac does not reflect the liberal views of a large number of its existing donors, let alone the mainstream of Jewish-American opinion.

Tom Odom
04-17-2008, 12:56 PM
I saw it too. Only time will tell but at least it offers some hope for discussion.

Tom

bourbon
05-18-2008, 05:38 PM
The Macleans.ca Interview: John Mearsheimer (http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20080425_114727_2004&page=1), The controversial author of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy on U.S. inaction in the Middle East, by Philippe Gohier. Macleans, Apr 25, 2008.


Q: What does George Bush’s departure mean for the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship?

A: All you have to do is look at the three presidential candidates and you see very clearly that they're falling all over themselves to maintain their strong allegiance to Israel and their commitment to keeping the special relationship intact. There's no reason to think that any of those three individuals will behave any differently than George Bush has behaved.

No presidential candidate and no president is going to cross the [pro-Israel lobby in Washington], because it is, in effect, like grabbing the third rail. Most people forget this, but in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush began to put significant pressure on Israel to withdraw from areas of the West Bank so we could get on the road to creating a viable Palestinian state. But the lobby went to work and Bush quickly backtracked. For the rest of his presidency, he's recognized that it does not make good political sense to cross the lobby.

Rex Brynen
01-12-2009, 06:01 PM
An interesting tidbit from the Jerusalem Post:

Jan 12, 2009 14:26 | Updated Jan 12, 2009 19:09
PM: Rice left embarrassed in UN vote (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231760642497&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
By JPOST.COM STAFF AND AP



Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday referred to the US decision to abstain from Thursday's UN Security Council resolution vote calling for a Gaza cease-fire, saying US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "was left quite embarrassed, not voting for a resolution that she herself had prepared and organized."

...

"Early Friday morning [Israel time], [we knew that] the secretary of state was considering bringing the cease-fire resolution to a UNSC vote and we didn't want her to vote for it. Suddenly, within ten minutes it became clear that, the vote was going ahead.

"I [called the White House and] said, 'Get President Bush on the phone.' They tried, and told me he was in the middle of a lecture in Philadelphia. I said, 'I'm not interested, I need to speak to him now.' He got down from the podium, went out and took the phone call. I told him that the US cannot possibly vote in favor of this resolution. He immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote for it. She was left quite embarrassed."

Tom Odom
01-12-2009, 06:24 PM
Pretty much classic, Rex. Arrogance and ignorance are always great partners.

Tom

bourbon
02-10-2009, 04:45 PM
Lobby? What Lobby? (http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=14221), by Michael Scheuer. Antiwar.com, February 10, 2009.

My speech seemed well received, but in January I received a call from Jamestown's president telling me I had been terminated as a senior fellow by the Foundation's board of directors. Why, I asked? He responded by citing my comments about Obama doing the "Tel Aviv two-step" and my description of Emanuel's record, both of which he said might be in a speech by Rep. Ron Paul. My remarks about Emanuel apparently sparked particular anger among the Foundation's directors, as Jamestown's president referred to them at least three times in a short telephone conversation. In any event, the president said several major financial donors to Jamestown threatened to withdraw funding if I remained a senior fellow, so I was getting the boot. Then he added that my every-other-week essays for Jamestown's Terrorism Focus (http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/terrorismfocusgta/) had attracted readers and praise for the Foundation, so the directors said I could keep writing for the journal. I declined this honor, which seemingly was a bribe made in the hope that I would not speak publicly about being terminated as a senior fellow for saying the current state of the U.S.-Israel relationship undermined U.S. national security.
It is disappointing to see this at The Jamestown Foundation, which I see as one of the better think tanks.

Rex Brynen
03-11-2009, 09:32 PM
Impartiality Questioned, Intelligence Pick Pulls Out (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/10/AR2009031003223.html)
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 11, 2009; Page A04


Charles W. Freeman Jr. withdrew yesterday from his appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council after questions about his impartiality were raised among members of Congress and with White House officials.

Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair said he accepted Freeman's decision "with great regret." The withdrawal came hours after Blair had given a spirited defense on Capitol Hill of the outspoken former ambassador.

Freeman had come under fire for statements he had made about Israeli policies and for his past connections to Saudi and Chinese interests.

Freeman's own frank comment on his withdrawal here (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/10/freeman_speaks_out_on_his_exit).

Entropy
03-11-2009, 10:19 PM
It's too bad, I think Freeman would have been a good pick.

Ron Humphrey
03-11-2009, 10:40 PM
What were the complaints or supposed issues with him?

Entropy
03-11-2009, 11:17 PM
His critics made two claims:

1. He was too critical or even hostile to Israel.
2. He was not trustworthy because he worked for Chinese/Saudi entities.

On the first count, that is a matter of perspective, but those who are the most supportive of Israel are the people who most opposed this appointment. His comments in the link Rex provides are pretty frank on that score.

On the second count, he denies it. I haven't seen much evidence one way or another. A lot of it seems to come down to interpretation of a few select comments he made in the past - quotes which he and DNI Blair say were taken out of context.

Ron Humphrey
03-11-2009, 11:30 PM
His critics made two claims:

1. He was too critical or even hostile to Israel.
2. He was not trustworthy because he worked for Chinese/Saudi entities.

On the first count, that is a matter of perspective, but those who are the most supportive of Israel are the people who most opposed this appointment. His comments in the link Rex provides are pretty frank on that score.

On the second count, he denies it. I haven't seen much evidence one way or another. A lot of it seems to come down to interpretation of a few select comments he made in the past - quotes which he and DNI Blair say were taken out of context.

Just wondering if anyone here actually knew of anything specific

Rex Brynen
03-11-2009, 11:38 PM
An interest commentary on Chas Freeman by his son can be found online at the Washington Note: Fathers and Sons: A Spirited Defense of Chas Freeman by his Politically Divergent Son (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/chas_fre/).

Stephen's Walt's comment at Foreign Policy is also interesting: On Chas Freeman's Withdrawal (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/11/on_chas_freemans_withdrawal).

George L. Singleton
03-12-2009, 12:50 AM
Egypt and Jordan have seen the light and are working with both Israel and the US.

Syria is having every week of late meeting with Israeli officials on the sidelines.

Lebanon's Christian minority government has long tried to get along with Israel, but the last few years of insanity, driven in my view by the radicals, not by Israel, has made moderation and common sense almost impossible in Lebanon.

Then their is gloomy Gus, Iran.

All of the them vs. us in the Middle East remains focused around religion and who gets what, especially the right(s) to Jerusalem.

Ken White
03-12-2009, 12:59 AM
downright supportive of folks who do not toe the party line. :D

Washington -- which hates people who do not toe lines -- could do with a few more rebels with or without causes. We've had three Administrations in a row which put way too big a premium on 'loyalty' (or subservience...).

I think Freeman's disposed to throw a grenade or two to see if everyone is paying attention. Nothing wrong with that...

Tom Odom
03-12-2009, 05:56 AM
downright supportive of folks who do not toe the party line. :D

Washington -- which hates people who do not toe lines -- could do with a few more rebels with or without causes. We've had three Administrations in a row which put way too big a premium on 'loyalty' (or subservience...).

I think Freeman's disposed to throw a grenade or two to see if everyone is paying attention. Nothing wrong with that...

Agreed, Ken. As NIC chair he is supposed to think outside the proverbial box especially when sitting on an NIE panel. That keeps the process somewhat honest rather than it becoming a directed exercise with a pre-determined conclusion.

Best
Tom

Jedburgh
03-17-2009, 02:15 PM
ISN Security Watch, 17 Mar 09: Costs of War: The Israel Debate (http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?lng=en&id=97791)

.....Freeman says the episode "raises some important issues for the country […]. The standard that has been established [by my critics] is the same as the one established by the Bush administration: Tell us what we want to hear."

His critics, he charges, "seem to regard intelligence not as information relevant to statecraft but rather as information […] to be mined for use in supporting political polemics from pre-determined positions."

Freeman says the episode has damaged the chances that the administration will be able to appoint anyone else with controversial views to such a post. What his critics seem to be demanding, he says, is "a vanilla personality who will dutifully articulate, in language as banal as possible, whatever the conventional thinking of the day happens to be."

Such an exercise, he argues, vitiates the very point of the post.

"If the answers (to policymakers’ questions) are pre-determined by politics, if only a politically correct answer is acceptable, why bother doing analysis at all?"

bourbon
04-20-2009, 04:26 PM
Sources: Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=hsnews-000003098436), By Jeff Stein. CQ Politics, April 19, 2009.

It’s true that allegations of pro-Israel lobbyists trying to help Harman get the chairmanship of the intelligence panel by lobbying and raising money for Pelosi aren’t new.

They were widely reported in 2006, along with allegations that the FBI launched an investigation of Harman that was eventually dropped for a “lack of evidence.”

What is new is that Harman is said to have been picked up on a court-approved NSA tap directed at alleged Israel covert action operations in Washington.

And that, contrary to reports that the Harman investigation was dropped for “lack of evidence,” it was Alberto R. Gonzales, President Bush’s top counsel and then attorney general, who intervened to stop the Harman probe.

Why? Because, according to three top former national security officials, Gonzales wanted Harman to be able to help defend the administration’s warrantless wiretapping program, which was about break in The New York Times and engulf the White House.

As for there being “no evidence” to support the FBI probe, a source with first-hand knowledge of the wiretaps called that “bull****.”

goesh
04-22-2009, 03:59 PM
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080189.html

Report: Olmert, Livni may face war crimes charges in Norway

-another spoon to stir the little pot with

jmm99
04-22-2009, 08:29 PM
A certain segment of the I Law "community" considers I Law to be incorporated into domestic (national) law en masse.

Another segment (the traditional US approach) looks at incorporation of I Law as a selective process, on say a treaty by treaty basis - and, in the case of the US, subject to override by the Constitution and by subsequent legislation. As such, when the US adopts I Law, it is treated like any other domestic law.

Based on the Israeli cases on targeted killings (which I've referenced somewhere in SWC), Israel appears to have followed more of an en masse approach in adopting I Law - as part of its organic, constitutional framework.

What the Norwegian lawyers are arguing is the concept of "universal jurisdiction" to try war crimes by any nation - whether it is directly affected or not. What this boils down to is that any investigating judge in a Code Law jurisdiction - or a prosecutor in a Common Law jurisdiction - can generate quite a bit of publicity and political spin if a broad "universal jurisdiction" is accepted in that jurisdiction.

Danny
04-22-2009, 09:42 PM
The authors go only so far and are unable to close the deal. Several observations here.

First, the authors repeatedly cite "the Lobby," as if some sort of diabolical plot is being directed against U.S. interests. They, like most people, have no idea where this comes from. Since this thread has been started and feelings will no doubt be hurt regardless of what position a post takes, I'll go ahead and weigh in.

There is something called Dispensationalism, which while it had earlier Church fathers, has its beginnings in the later Church by Charles G. Finney, with American fathers such as Scofield. It currently emanates from Dallas Theological Seminary. It believes, among many other complicated things, that Israel holds a special place in God's eyes, and that His people are dealt with differently in different dispensations. A literal thousand year reign will occur in Jerusalem in the future, and the only reason that America has stayed safe is because of its protection of Israel.

It is a sort of Zionistic Christianity, and while I am a Christian (of the reformational persuasion, i.e., Calvinian), I do certaintly do not adhere to this system of belief. I personally believe that it is badly mistaken, and poor and illogical hermeneutics. It was made popular in the revivalistic era, tent meetings and the like, and - listen carefully to me now - Protestant Christianity in America is SHOT FULL OF THIS THINKING. The importance of this is impossible to underestimate. I could line up quotes ten miles long, but you will simply have to take my word for this in lieu of having the time to prove my point.

The point is that the politicians, regardless of whomever they turn to, many of them, have a constituency that believes in the special place Israel holds. Large swaths of the South, much of the midwest and rural West, believe these things.

Israel policy is fabricated to appease this constituency, not the Israel lobby, or to cite the frantic and confused paper above, "the Lobby." "The Lobby" would be utterly powerless without American Christianity having been so heavily influenced by Dispensationalism. "The Lobby" rides the coattails of this belief system in America. It might be a well kept secret among military types, but real students of American culture know these thing. Again, I could line of the quotes until I put to you sleep, and list books until your eyes went red. Do make me have to do this.

Now. While I do not hold to this view in the least, I will also observe that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and our only ally. That has counted for something among those who don't hold the religious views I explain above.

As for the charges that the U.S. has suffered strategic liability for our support of Israel, that's just plain juvenile. Our dependence on oil is a choice we have made as a result of environmentalist lobbying and reluctance to pursue other energy infrastructure such as nuclear / hydrogen. To blame oil embargos on support for Israel is like getting mad at the police when they shut down your favorite dope dealer. The solution is to get off of the dope.

As for the shared terrorist threat, I believe, whether you agree or disagree, that the militant Islamists would target the U.S. anyway for dual but at times paradoxical reasons. They hate us when our country behaves like Christians because they (according to their belief system, whether shared by other Muslims or not) must convert us, forcibly if necessary.

Paradoxically, when we behave like pagans as we are prone to do with the Hollywood trash traveling across the globe to their children, they see us as polluters of their culture and religion. And we are.

We don't have to be aligned with Israel for them to hate us. All we need is the church and Hollywood, and we have lots of both. Globalization does it for us. Trash spews from U.S. TV studios, not just Israeli TV studios.

This was neither intended to be a pro-Isael or anti-Israel diatribe, nor an anti-Muslim diatribe, nor a call to jettison support for Israel or continue support for Israel, nor a call to go to war or sit doing nothing. Nor am I defending Congressmen or charging them.

What I am trying to do is explain better than the paper does where the real seed of support for Israel comes from in the U.S. (even if I don't support this view), and where the hatred of the West comes from. Many readers will be aghast at finding out that it doesn't all revolve around Israel. Their favorite whipping boy isn't really who they think it is.

The paper was sophomoric, and the authors should have done better research. Most college kids can Google Dispensationalism, Charles G. Finney, Scofield, Dallas Theological Seminary, and so forth, and attend a few Sundays in Baptist and Pentacostal Churches. If I'm the professor, the paper gets an F. I offer this as a clinical assessment, not having a dog in this fight. My point is entirely academic, not personal. Again, I am not a believer in this line of thinking. I am just a good and astute observer of what goes on around me.

Ken White
04-22-2009, 10:28 PM
...The point is that the politicians, regardless of whomever they turn to, many of them, have a constituency that believes in the special place Israel holds. Large swaths of the South, much of the midwest and rural West, believe these things.True and more important due to numbers than the so-called Jewish lobby. Recall the Presidents that have been the greatest supporters of Israel; Truman, Johnson and Carter...

The latter spent a great deal of our money in order to defang Israel's most dangerous enemy. His latter day shenanigans to justify his Nobel not withstanding.
Paradoxically, when we behave like pagans as we are prone to do with the Hollywood trash traveling across the globe to their children, they see us as polluters of their culture and religion. And we are.Also true and far more important to them than the Israel / Palestine issue.
Many readers will be aghast at finding out that it doesn't all revolve around Israel. Their favorite whipping boy isn't really who they think it is.Yep. A whole lot of people are focusing on the wrong targets. Plural...

Good comment, Herschel

Danny
04-23-2009, 03:42 AM
Thanks for the props, Ken. I have noticed over time that no matter how good an analyst is, the more s/he tends to focus on beltway issues and thinking, the less s/he tends to truly understand the people and thus the real source of power. It isn't a romantic notion; it's true. The source of power is in the constituency. The Pols know their own all too well, and know just how to get re-elected. The U.S. support for Israel is traced from the Pols directly back to voter sentiment. End of story. No amount of egghead reports can change that, whether we like that or not. It's just a matter of realizing what is, rather than what we wish it to be.

This is a beltway study (regardless of where it was actually conducted). The person who truly wants to understand these issues is best advised to get out of the beltway and institutions of "higher learning" and visit the American homes and churches.

ps: Sorry for the typos in the comment above. Typing too fast has its associated hazards (such as the terms "underestimate" which should have been "overestimate."

Ken White
04-23-2009, 04:03 AM
that I've wondered about for some time. Being a State is confining, being a group of 'stateless persons' can be rewarding -- fiscally and emotionally...

LINK (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200904u/palestinian-statelessness)

William F. Owen
04-23-2009, 06:04 AM
It is a sort of Zionistic Christianity, and while I am a Christian (of the reformational persuasion, i.e., Calvinian), I do certaintly do not adhere to this system of belief.

There are many types of Zionism, but all basically adhere to the idea of Israel being a safe haven for the Jews. That is it's most practical and realistic function. People who say Zionism is racism know nothing about it.

Make no mistake, the Holocaust created Israel. By 1945 every Jew in Europe knew they would never be safe again, unless they had their own country, and that's not always safe either...

goesh
04-23-2009, 12:30 PM
They know full well no verdict can be enforced and their actions only stretch a nasty political dichotomy further by fueling the fires of the blame game. The Palestinians will have much less compromising to do if Israeli leaders are found guilty of war crimes a Norwegian Court. Talk about a Hamas PR coup to bolster their claims of victory despite the rubble that surrounds them and the bloody in-fighting that still rages amongst themselves.

bourbon
03-16-2010, 01:13 PM
The Petraeus briefing: Biden’s embarrassment is not the whole story (http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not _the_whole_story), by Mark Perry. ForeignPolicy.com, March 13, 2010.

There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA, the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military. While commentators and pundits might reflect that Joe Biden's trip to Israel has forever shifted America's relationship with its erstwhile ally in the region, the real break came in January, when David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. Maybe Israel gets the message now.

Fuchs
03-16-2010, 04:22 PM
By 1945 every Jew in Europe knew they would never be safe again, unless they had their own country, and that's not always safe either...

I have to admire this god-like ability to see the future that is not shared by the other billions of people.

Let's say the survivors had their conclusions; the correctness of these conclusions is up for debate.

Besides, Zionism started in the late 19th, so the holocaust was at best a catalyst.

William F. Owen
03-17-2010, 05:23 AM
I have to admire this god-like ability to see the future that is not shared by the other billions of people.

Let's say the survivors had their conclusions; the correctness of these conclusions is up for debate.
It's got nothing to do with a "god-like ability to see the future" - The catastrophe which became the Holocaust was predicted, in very general terms, in Europe, as early as the 1870's. After 1945 there was a substantial body of opinion that it could happen again. Sure you can debate it, but so what?

Besides, Zionism started in the late 19th, so the holocaust was at best a catalyst.
Wrong. Modern Zionism started in the "late 19th Century" and was a very different brand of Zionism to that which came to exist post-1945, or even post 1948. Sure Ha Shoah was a catalyst. Again, so what?

Fuchs
03-17-2010, 05:14 PM
Wilf, I consider zionism as an ideology, and as pretty much every ideology is has its own myths to sustain itself.
The assertion that Israel is the only safe place for Israelites is its central myth.

I'm not a friend of myths and at times even trash my own countries' myths (myths linked to Marschall-Plan, trade balance surplus & Weimar republic plebiscites for example).
The zionist assertion that no other place would be safe is a) delusional because Israel is obviously not safe, b) the assertion of impossible foreknowledge and c) an insult to most other countries.

I'm not particularly interested in Near Eastern mythology, but there's a considerable chance I expose bull if I see it.
That's "so what".

Kiwigrunt
03-17-2010, 09:05 PM
This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgLg9zQH3vU&NR=1) should explain everything. :D;)

William F. Owen
03-18-2010, 06:14 AM
Wilf, I consider zionism as an ideology, and as pretty much every ideology is has its own myths to sustain itself.
The assertion that Israel is the only safe place for Israelites is its central myth.

And...? All ideologies are built on myths. Democracy? Christianity? Islam? if you want to sum all of them up with "so what?" then OK.

To whit,

a) delusional because Israel is obviously not safe, Would have been safer than Germany in the 1940s. - and the issues is safer, not safe. I can quote you many other examples, after 1948.

b) the assertion of impossible foreknowledge It's an aspiration. It's not prediction.

c) an insult to most other countries. I can live with that. I have very happy to insult countries that stood by and watch their Jewish populations predated up by either the people or the Government. I can start a list of you wish.

Dayuhan
03-18-2010, 06:56 AM
By 1945 every Jew in Europe knew they would never be safe again, unless they had their own country, and that's not always safe either...

Isn't the Jewish population of the US more numerous, prosperous, and secure than that of Israel? Never good to be too sure of what you "know".

William F. Owen
03-18-2010, 07:22 AM
Isn't the Jewish population of the US more numerous, prosperous, and secure than that of Israel? Never good to be too sure of what you "know".
Sorry what did I know?

Today I think there are marginally more American Jews than Israeli Jews with about 300,000 Israelis living or working in the US. I would submit that the Jewish population of Sweden is actually more "prosperous" and "safer" than the one in the US given. - and that is even given Sweden's deeply anti-Semitic culture.

I'm sure Pashtuns and Iraqis living in the US are safer and more prosperous, so I'm not seeing your point.

If you cannot understand the reasoning and power of an idea, (politics?) then it is no wonder some folks here struggle so much with the concept of culture.

Dayuhan
03-18-2010, 08:59 AM
Sorry what did I know?


Not you. The comment referred to this:


By 1945 every Jew in Europe knew they would never be safe again, unless they had their own country

They "knew" they would never be safe unless they had their own country, yet the very act of seizing a country and taking it for their own that left them less safe than many Jews who do not have "their own country". The prediction, or at least expectation, that Jews in Israel would be safer than those outside Israel was not entirely accurate. The predictions and expectations regarding the reaction of the non-Jewish population to the prospect of incorporation in a State where they would be by definition marginalized or excluded - a State "as Jewish as England is English" - might have been slightly faulty as well.

I do understand the power of an idea... and the power of the unintended consequences that so often arise when we submit to the power of an idea.

Fuchs
03-18-2010, 09:12 AM
And...? All ideologies are built on myths. Democracy? Christianity? Islam? if you want to sum all of them up with "so what?" then OK.

To whit,
Would have been safer than Germany in the 1940s. - and the issues is safer, not safe. I can quote you many other examples, after 1948.
It's an aspiration. It's not prediction.
I can live with that. I have very happy to insult countries that stood by and watch their Jewish populations predated up by either the people or the Government. I can start a list of you wish.

Stop trying to dodge points with such nonsense, please.


Your "So what" implies (as far as I understand English) that my counter-argument has little merit. It's thus inappropriate.


See the bunker buster thread on the "safer" argument. The comparison with the worst alternative is an idiotic line of reasoning. You need to compare with the best known alternative in order to identify the best overall option.
You disagree with yourself anyway:

There are many types of Zionism, but all basically adhere to the idea of Israel being a safe haven for the Jews.

About your "It's an aspiration. It's not a prediction":
a) It's afaik always verbalised as a prediction, I've never seen it verbalised as an aspiration.
b) It's still the assertion of impossible foreknowledge.

"I can live with that. I have very happy to insult countries that stood by and watch their Jewish populations predated up by either the people or the Government."

This is again a very, very poor application of logic.
NO country's majority should accept an ideology that insults all other states. That's outright stupid (and dangerous).

Besides; "countries" are illusions. The humans responsible for what happened in the early 40's are now 90+ years old or dead - in either case without any ability to exert meaningful influence (and they aren't the same as 55 years ago anyway).

The societies changed a lot as well - no Western society is even close to its state before '45.
In other words; your line of thought fits to the eternal collective guilt thesis. Your readiness to provide lists of historical examples instead of lists of arguments about why it might still be the same supports this.
The eternal collective guilt thesis is the stupid thing that makes people blame Jews for killing Jesus. Do you really want to argue on that level?

William F. Owen
03-18-2010, 12:47 PM
They "knew" they would never be safe unless they had their own country, yet the very act of seizing a country and taking it for their own that left them less safe than many Jews who do not have "their own country". The prediction, or at least expectation, that Jews in Israel would be safer than those outside Israel was not entirely accurate.

Do you really expect the collective and corporate reasoning of the Jews that survived the Holocaust to be either entirely rational or reasonable? Read the history. Having their own country was a way of having some control over their destiny and not being hostage to the assurances of others.

They "knew" because there were essentially 6 million good pieces of evidence.

I take the rest of your post to be another basis for the argument as to Israel's right to exist, which is always the argument used to basically say you don't need to exist?

Now, like the American here make not pretence as to their belief and patriotism in defence of their beliefs, I'm not pretending to do it either. I am telling how the issue is seen. You can nitpick all you like with your perception of the logic.

William F. Owen
03-18-2010, 01:18 PM
About your "It's an aspiration. It's not a prediction":
a) It's afaik always verbalised as a prediction, I've never seen it verbalised as an aspiration.
b) It's still the assertion of impossible foreknowledge.

Well then you are poorly informed on the idea. What's the last safe place for human called in the MATRIX? Clue is in the name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zion_(The_Matrix))? Is it actually safer? - or does it aspire to be safer?
Are you saying you don't like Zionists? OK. I'm happy with that. At least I know where you stand.


The eternal collective guilt thesis is the stupid thing that makes people blame Jews for killing Jesus. Do you really want to argue on that level?
No and I never did. - A Jewish quote for you from a Jewish Book: "The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself." - which is why Israel honours all the many Germans who stood against the Nazis. -
BUT That does not forgive the history of nations who victimised - and would continue to victimise Jews. It's unforgivable, thus should never be forgotten.

Fuchs
03-18-2010, 02:36 PM
You mentioned the right-to-exist issue (which is a really poor idea on an international internet forum).

Israel has a right to exist because
- it was recognized by the UN and many states, is thus a sovereign nation at least in its borders of 1967
- the present inhabitants exercize sovereignty.

It's similar to the Falklands issue; the legitimacy of control over some territory depends on the will of the inhabitants (and on whether it was taken away by force 'recently').
The legality of control over some territory depends on whether it conforms with international law.


Ideology does never play into this. Ideology does not illegalize or delegitimize possession of land nor does it legalize or delegitimize the same. The ideology of zionism does not legalize or legitimize the state of Israel. Thus no motivation of zionism can legitimize or legalize Israel through zionism.


The Western world's relationship with Israel is coined as much by lobbyism and more or less clever political games as it is by hypocrisy and the acceptance of myths.

It would serve us well to favour clarity of though over accepting mythology and ideology. The past Western-Near East foreign policy was obviously not very smart. It did not lead to a sustainable, favourable state.

marct
03-18-2010, 03:03 PM
Hi Fuchs,


Ideology does never play into this. Ideology does not illegalize or delegitimize possession of land nor does it legalize or delegitimize the same. The ideology of zionism does not legalize or legitimize the state of Israel. Thus no motivation of zionism can legitimize or legalize Israel through zionism.

Without getting into specifics, I would have to say that you are wrong, here. Ideology underlies international law, the nation-state system and its latest offspring, the UN.

Fuchs
03-18-2010, 03:18 PM
I'd rather characterize that as an almost universal agreement, a treaty signed by every nation. It designs an institution and lays out a framework as well as accepted and binding rules.

This may be traced back to philosophy like the contract social, not so much to ideology.

We disgress, though.

marct
03-18-2010, 03:27 PM
Hi Fuchs,


I'd rather characterize that as an almost universal agreement, a treaty signed by every nation. It designs an institution and lays out a framework as well as accepted and binding rules.

"almost universal"? Did you sign it? Did I? Did AQ? Nope, it is only "almost universal" in the sense that it was signed by a collection of representatives of the fictitious entities we can nation-states. If the underlying ideology is viewed as illegitimate, which it is by many including AQ, then it is not "almost universal".


This may be traced back to philosophy like the contract social, not so much to ideology.

Fuchs, do you seriously think that philosophical positions are not also ideological? They are the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of any ideological position - the formal system of the ideology.


We disgress, though.

Nope, we're getting to the root of the question ;).

Cheers,

Marc

William F. Owen
03-18-2010, 04:04 PM
The ideology of zionism does not legalize or legitimize the state of Israel. Thus no motivation of zionism can legitimize or legalize Israel through zionism
Forgive me, but Ya All*h! Zionism - in its many expressions and forms - is nothing to do with legality any more than Buddhism is.
It's an idea. OK it's an idea with actual physical expression now. Israel exists because of that idea. No Zionist, no Israel. It's that simple.
Zionism is not an idea seeking legality or legitimacy. It's an idea seeking security. My guess is the founding fathers of the US where no whole lot bothered by legality or the early Texans either!

Dayuhan
03-18-2010, 10:56 PM
Forgive me, but Ya All*h! Zionism - in its many expressions and forms - is nothing to do with legality any more than Buddhism is.
It's an idea. OK it's an idea with actual physical expression now. Israel exists because of that idea. No Zionist, no Israel. It's that simple.
Zionism is not an idea seeking legality or legitimacy. It's an idea seeking security. My guess is the founding fathers of the US where no whole lot bothered by legality or the early Texans either!

Very true. Israel was established on exactly the same principle as the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand: the principle that "superior" races are entitled to take land they want, expel, subjugate, or kill the existing inhabitants, and establish a nation. The only difference is that in the 17th-19th centuries this was seen as the natural order of things; by the second half of the 20th the "superior" races were starting to rethink that order and the "inferior" were starting to object, using the same tools that were used against them. Anyone proposing such a maneuver today would be seen as morally abhorrent (because you shouldn't do such things) and insane (because you can't).

The whole "right to exist" thing is incomprehensible to me... who could assign such "rights" in the first place? The Jews have the right to pursue their political objectives, the Palestinians have the right to pursue theirs. Both have elected to use violence. What's the difference? The Zionists seized the nation they wanted by force, including the use of terrorism. The Palestinians are trying to seize it back the same way. Again, what's the difference? The Zionists had their driving idea, so do the Palestinian nationalists. Just as the Jews "knew" they would never be safe and secure without their own country, the Palestinians "know" the same.

Any claim based on religious tradition is of course absurd. Anyone showing up in my neighborhood and announcing that his imaginary friend had instructed him to incorporate our town into a nation devoted to his security would be met with an immediate and violent rejection; I wouldn't expect anyone else to respond differently.

The relevant question here is is not about abstract and indeterminable "rights to exist". The relevant question is whether Israel has the right to perpetual and unconditional support from the US, and this American's answer there is an emphatic "no". US relations with Israel should be as US relations with anyone else: based on a balance of perceived short, medium, and long-term US interests. Israel wouldn't dream of putting our interests ahead of theirs, why should we put theirs ahead of ours?

William F. Owen
03-19-2010, 08:25 AM
Very true. Israel was established on exactly the same principle as the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand: the principle that "superior" races are entitled to take land they want, expel, subjugate, or kill the existing inhabitants, and establish a nation.
Very un-true. Where there white Christian Europeans living in US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand 3,000 years ago?
No.
Where significant populations of the same white Christian Europeans living continually resident in the same regions for 3,000 years?
No.

The whole "right to exist" thing is incomprehensible to me... who could assign such "rights" in the first place?
Not surprised. You've probably never had your right to exist threatened, and what you seem to have missed, it is a "Universal Right" - of all people - which is invoked in the modern context. Not an exclusive right.

Any claim based on religious tradition is of course absurd.
So any claim based on anything? Politics is absurd? Kinda why we have wars?

The relevant question is whether Israel has the right to perpetual and unconditional support from the US, and this American's answer there is an emphatic "no".
I agree, and I'm not an American. I think the US should makes better choices in this area, as in it's support for Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey to name but a few.

I'm disputing your personal view. I just jump in when people use falsehoods about Jews and Israel to further their political views. Of course I may also find it grotesque to be lectured on history and standards of behaviour by an American - but that's just me personally.

marct
03-19-2010, 12:38 PM
Hi Wilf,


Very un-true. Where there white Christian Europeans living in US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand 3,000 years ago?
No.
Where significant populations of the same white Christian Europeans living continually resident in the same regions for 3,000 years?
No.

Since Christianity didn't exist 3kya, that is a moot point. At any rate, why choose 3kya? Why not 1.3kya (that's what some Muslims use to claim their "right to exist" in Spain, a country they stole from my ancestors)? Does time eliminate any trance of the populace that was annihilated?

Actually, I'm not doing this to be a s*%t disturber, I'm doing it to highlight the problem with the types of claims that are often used to justify holding particular pieces of territory or anything else for that matter.


Not surprised. You've probably never had your right to exist threatened, and what you seem to have missed, it is a "Universal Right" - of all people - which is invoked in the modern context. Not an exclusive right.

All "rights" are social fictions that are accepted or dismissed based on whether or not a) they are useful to someone and b) whether or not they can be enforced. There is no such thing as a "right to exist" in nature, and the sillyness of assuming it can be seen by asking if a man drowning in the middle of the Atlantic has such a "right" and, if he does, how will it be enforced?



Any claim based on religious tradition is of course absurd. So any claim based on anything? Politics is absurd? Kinda why we have wars?

Yup; that gets to the enforcement part of what I was talking about.


I'm disputing your personal view. I just jump in when people use falsehoods about Jews and Israel to further their political views. Of course I may also find it grotesque to be lectured on history and standards of behaviour by an American - but that's just me personally.

When is a falsehood not a falsehood? Not a silly question, BTW, but one that gets to a central part of the process of claims-making, to whit interpretation and justificatory validity. Both of these are, IMO, situations where it is impossible to know an absolute truth unlike, say, range claims or numeric estimates.

Cheers,

Marc

Fuchs
03-19-2010, 01:24 PM
Judging by the bible, Israelites would need to give back Israel to other semites because they stole the country thousands of years ago with violence. The only exception would be the assertion that the land is god-given - hardly an effective argument today.
Btw, the Egyptians could claim their right to possess all Israelites as slaves by the "3,000 years and we simply returned home" standard.

Such thousands of years old claims are ridiculous and hold no water. The enforcement of all thousands of years old claims would yield WW3 and thus likely the end of mankind.

Whatever rights exist (and they exist more because they're respected than because they're claimed) - they fit to modern standards or are naught.

The "3,000 years and we simply returned home" thing is just another myth that's being used to distort perceptions and solving no problem.

Returning to the original topic:

I consider Israel as too small and too weak (relative) for ensuring its survival in the long run by its own. The state of Israel needs exogenous support - be it European and/or American.

A bet on just one alternative is very risky - it's better to spread the risk, reduce the systemic risk - and stay close to both US and EU.
One period with a strong French president and weak German & British heads of state would suffice to emphasize the more skeptical policy of France over the more cooperative policy of Germany, of example.
A single gaffe of Biden calling Israel a nuclear power with active mikes could activate that law that would cut military assistance immediately.

The lobby may work well in Washington DC, but lobbyism is not an as much reliable means to influence EU policy with its more than two dozen foreign policy capitals.

My conclusion is that a rational grand strategy for Israel would ditch myths, hypocrisy and minimize violence in order to bridge the political and cultural gap to Europe.
Girls in Bikinis on a beach don't necessarily mean that Israel is culturally aligned with Europe. Lebanon has them, too.
The gap to bridge is about the acceptance of standard and rules. A perpetual "we are at war because they threaten us, everything is allowed" stance alienates Europe (especially Continental Europe). The link is slowly eroding.


Mythology, ideology and the assertion of exceptionalism are a grand strategic disaster.

marct
03-19-2010, 01:32 PM
Mythology, ideology and the assertion of exceptionalism are a grand strategic disaster.

Agreed. Unfortunately, they are such stuff as politics is made of :wry:.

Dayuhan
03-19-2010, 01:46 PM
Very un-true. Where there white Christian Europeans living in US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand 3,000 years ago?
No.
Where significant populations of the same white Christian Europeans living continually resident in the same regions for 3,000 years?
No.


I don't see much relevance there. Suppose there had been some white Christians in the area for the last 3000 years... would that give another batch of white Christians the "right" to seize the land, impose nationhood on terms unacceptable to the bulk of the existing population, and eject, subjugate, or kill any who objected? Same answer: according to the standards of 200 years ago, yes, according to the standards of today, no.



Not surprised. You've probably never had your right to exist threatened, and what you seem to have missed, it is a "Universal Right" - of all people - which is invoked in the modern context. Not an exclusive right.

Actually my personal right to exist has been threatened a number of times, but that's hardly material. If the right to exist is a "universal right" than surely the Palestinians have the same right, no? In which case the question becomes not whether Israel had a right to exist, but whether the Zionists were entitled to assert that right at the expense of someone else's right to exist.

I don't see how anyone can claim that a "right to exist" translates into the right to establish a nation by imposing it on an existing population that doesn't want to be part of it, but if the Israelis have that right, then surely the Palestinians do as well: if one group has the right to expand the concept of a "right to exist" to the right to take whatever land they want as their nation, surely other groups can do the same. If the Israelis were entitled to seize the land they wanted for their nation by force and terror, surely the Palestinians are entitled to try to do the same. Good for geese, good for ganders... unless we assume that some have more rights than others.

And from marct...


Actually, I'm not doing this to be a s*%t disturber, I'm doing it to highlight the problem with the types of claims that are often used to justify holding particular pieces of territory or anything else for that matter... All "rights" are social fictions that are accepted or dismissed based on whether or not a) they are useful to someone and b) whether or not they can be enforced. There is no such thing as a "right to exist" in nature, and the sillyness of assuming it can be seen by asking if a man drowning in the middle of the Atlantic has such a "right" and, if he does, how will it be enforced?

Agreed on all points.

William F. Owen
03-19-2010, 03:33 PM
Dayuhan and Fuchs

Jews lived in "Jerusalem" >2,000 years ago. There were Jewish States >2,000 years ago, where Israel is now.
There were no modern American-Europeans in the modern US, Canada, South-Africa, Australia or NZ.

Now I am not saying you should accept that as a justification - cos you clearly do not. ... but you need understand that it is the basis for something central to a religion, a belief and a people/nation - which is my point.

You may not like Zionists. I have no issue with that, but do not tell me what Zionists believe - because you clearly do not know - or that they are wrong to believe it.

You may have your own version of Middle-East history.
Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds in middle-east knows the narrative is the facts. So do not tell me which version of history is correct, especially if you have a less than detailed understanding of everyone's version. The BBC and Wikipedia isn't going to help you.

So we can keep going around on this, but if you do not understand that there are things I believe in, -which I do no promote here- then do not be surprised when I seek to counter attempts to misrepresent the truth as I know/see it - cos you don't live with the problem.

Moderators: Please do not lock on my account.

marct Do you really expect this discussion to be rational or empirical? It's about belief and values - things that make men human and not animals.

marct
03-19-2010, 04:26 PM
Hi Wilf,


marct Do you really expect this discussion to be rational or empirical? It's about belief and values - things that make men human and not animals.

Actually, yes :D!

I know it's about beliefs and values. In a broader sense it is about "why we fight", whoever "we" may be :wry:. Now, I've never said that beliefs and values have to be either rational or empirical (most appear to be neither from where I sit) but, unless we want things to degenerate into incoherent shouting matches which I don't believe we do, then it means that it is probably a good idea to start talking about them in a rational manner. Doesn't mean that we will agree, but we can at least agree to disagree.

Wilf, I know that you were talking about the beliefs and values in an empirical sense, i.e. they are there and have become the basis of a particular position. That, to my mind, is cool and copacetic. However, it would be useful to bracket some of your statements with a few caveats like "This is the root narrative...", "These are the facts that underlie the claims...", etc., then we can move the discussion along. And, BTW, these comments apply to others as well.

I'm going to wax pragmatic for a minute: whenever we (or any group that isn't a brainwashed cult) starts talking about areas where emotions run high, it behoves us as rational people (i.e. the type I like to sit down and drink beer with) to talk softly. That doesn't have to mean that we, as individuals, don't have our emotional buttons; we all do. It just means that we need to sit on those emotions and/or use them as data and ask ourselves why we react that way :wry:.

Off the pragmatic soliloquy and back to my usual role as purveyor of useless trivia: I would argue, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, that the entire area of Israel and Palestine should be handed back to the Natufians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natufian). It would argue that, in Victim Poker (http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2007/04/the_right_kind_.html) terms, they have the best claim on the area :cool:.

Cheers,

Marc

William F. Owen
03-19-2010, 04:40 PM
marct

All good mate. I can "dig that", but in truth my issue is not what others believe but people telling me what I believe, or my beliefs are less valid because of a competing version of history, which just happens to be the sources of the issue.

I do not comment on the wisdom of US foreign "policy" or tell American what it is OK to believe about their history or what it means to American. That's just my choice.

marct
03-19-2010, 05:15 PM
Hi Wilf,


All good mate. I can "dig that", but in truth my issue is not what others believe but people telling me what I believe, or my beliefs are less valid because of a competing version of history, which just happens to be the sources of the issue.

I have the same problem quite often ;). Usually, it just amuses me although some times I want to get back to my ancestral way of dealing with twits (involving either swords or Wicker Men). The "my story is better than your story :p" attitude can be a real pain but, hey, it's something that we all do at times and I do like to laugh at myself :wry:. For some strange reason, I've found that that attitude tends to PO the real twits more than anything else...

Okay, now that we have gone through all of this, let me toss out a more general question: other than (continuing) warfare, how should we handle competing claims?

Fuchs
03-19-2010, 05:33 PM
Negotiate & compromise
or
agree to disagree
or
turn to hedgehog mode if you're already in control of the disputed thing.

Dayuhan
03-20-2010, 12:27 AM
Jews lived in "Jerusalem" >2,000 years ago. There were Jewish States >2,000 years ago, where Israel is now.
There were no modern American-Europeans in the modern US, Canada, South-Africa, Australia or NZ.

Now I am not saying you should accept that as a justification - cos you clearly do not. ... but you need understand that it is the basis for something central to a religion, a belief and a people/nation - which is my point.

Yes, we all know that there were Jewish States in the area, and that Jews have lived there, just as there have been many non-Jewish states and non-Jews in the same area. The question is whether this entitles one group with roots in the area to unilaterally declare it "theirs", on terms unacceptable to the others, and eject, subjugate, or kill any who disagree. According to the standards by which we evaluate such things today, nobody can claim that "right".

Yes, the history is central to a belief. When you choose to act on a belief, and to assert a "right" that you've assigned to yourself, you have to consider the extent to which your effort to assert your "right" intrudes on the rights of others. All too often when action is based on assumed rights, we forget that once we speak of rights, we have to concede that the people on the other side of the fence have exactly the same rights. If we use violence to assert our rights at the expense of someone else's they will do the same to us. Whether this is "right" or "wrong" is not something I'm entitled to judge, it remains true in either case. The Palestinians have their own history, and upon it they've based their own idea; the right of return. They cling quite passionately to that idea, for which in the circumstances it's hard to blame them. They choose to pursue that idea through violence... is that surprising?



You may not like Zionists. I have no issue with that, but do not tell me what Zionists believe - because you clearly do not know - or that they are wrong to believe it.


There are some I like and some I dislike... I've never let agreement or disagreement have anything to do with liking or disliking people. The Zionists have their own perspective, and sometimes forget that the perspectives of others deserve equal consideration.

If we speak of the original Zionists, none of us know what those now dead thought. We know what they wrote, what they said (to the extent that it was recorded), and above all what they did. All of this is in the public domain, and accessible even to those of presumably inferior national capacity.



You may have your own version of Middle-East history.
Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds in middle-east knows the narrative is the facts. So do not tell me which version of history is correct, especially if you have a less than detailed understanding of everyone's version. The BBC and Wikipedia isn't going to help you.

So we can keep going around on this, but if you do not understand that there are things I believe in, -which I do no promote here- then do not be surprised when I seek to counter attempts to misrepresent the truth as I know/see it - cos you don't live with the problem.


Many of us do have to live with the problem. Any American who lives, travels and/or does business in the Middle East or in the Muslim world has to live with it. Because of America's closeness with Israel, and because of the vast range of perception - accurate and inaccurate, with and without basis, and all shades in between - that surrounds America's closeness with Israel, the issue does impact Americans, sometimes severely. With or without justification, Americans are held responsible for the actions of Israel, over which they have little or no control... an awkward position to be in. Because of the relationship between the US and Israel, Israel's actions affect the US. If the Israelis aren't prepared to recognize this and adjust their actions, the US will have to recognize it and adjust the relationship.

Everyone in the picture knows/sees "the truth" in their own way, few of them agree, and all of them are inclined to believe that anyone who doesn't see it their way is less informed than they are. Rarely does anyone ever convince anyone else, but it's always a useful exercise to see the issue from the perspective of the guy on the other side.

PS: Moderators, please don't lock Wilf's account. If you have to lock someone's, lock mine, I spend too much time here already. And if you have to lock the thread, please let him have the last word ;)

omarali50
03-20-2010, 03:01 AM
Whatever I say may be discounted by some because I have a Muslim name, but I really think Israel is slowly but steadily closing off all its good options. And this unfortunate state of affairs (unfortunate because neither Israelis nor Palestinians are going to enjoy a long drawn out fight) is a product of monumental arrogance. The idea seems to be that the Arabs will remain asshats for all time to come and a few million Jewish Israelis will retain such a tremendous cultural advantage over them that nothing else will matter. This seems to me to be an unsustainable assumption. It would be better to make a reasonable deal while in a relatively strong position.....

davidbfpo
03-20-2010, 01:09 PM
So far on a quick reading of recent posts I see no reason - as a Moderator - to lock anyone's account. Everyone is staying within the rules. We know this issue can "run & run" and sometimes veers into acrimony. I am sure other moderators watch too.

Ken White
03-20-2010, 02:11 PM
I am sure other moderators watch too.Of course I do. When I'm awake and alert -- which is rarely...

Fuchs
03-20-2010, 09:09 PM
The Israeli Prime Minister says his nation's security is his top priority. Too bad he's undermining it.
By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK

http://www.newsweek.com/id/235229?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+newsweek%2FTopNews+%28UPDATED +-+Newsweek+Top+Stories%29

carl
03-21-2010, 03:50 AM
Okay, now that we have gone through all of this, let me toss out a more general question: other than (continuing) warfare, how should we handle competing claims?

Tom Ricks' Best Defense blog entry of March 19 has an entry that details exactly how we (by we I mean the Americans) should handle this.

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/

What it says basically is we shouldn't bother with it anymore. Decades and decades of trying has availed nothing. The Israelis do what they do and the Palestinians do what they do and we won't change any of it. So we give up trying, wish everyone well, stop paying other people's bills and express sympathy when what will happen, happens.

I am inclined to agree.

Schmedlap
03-21-2010, 06:09 AM
Tom Ricks' Best Defense blog entry of March 19 has an entry that details exactly how we (by we I mean the Americans) should handle this...
What it says basically is we shouldn't bother with it anymore...
I hate to give Tom Ricks credit for anything, but if that is his position then good for him. I hear lots of people say that Israel is a strategic partner in the Mideast, but I've never heard an explanation of why, other than something that they did during the Cold War. I root for them, but I can't see what the benefit is in staying involved with their disputes. By simply being involved, we are blamed for everything. Our involvement accomplishes nothing, costs lots of money, undermines any hope of public diplomacy in the region, and makes it more difficult for Arab leaders to deal with us on mutually beneficial initiatives. The obsession that the Palestinians have with a piece of land strikes me as beyond asinine and the manner in which they are exploited by their fellow Arabs and mistreated by the Israelis is disgraceful. The way in which they go about airing their grievances and "resisting" is doubly asinine. There is no good solution to this other than to step back and let the pieces fall where they may. If we have any role in the matter, it should simply be helping to contain any conflict that arises (meaning keeping Iran from lobbing nukes, warning Israel not to, discouraging other states from contributing military aid, etc). We've got a better shot at turning Kandahar into San Francisco than bringing peace to Jerusalem.

JeffWolf
03-21-2010, 06:25 AM
might have stated this point of view already:


America has no genuine national security interests at stake in either Israel or Palestine; if they both disappeared tomorrow the welfare of Americans and the security of their country would not be impacted a lick.

From his January 5, 2009 posting.

http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/01/is-israel-a-strategic-liability-for-the-us.php

William F. Owen
03-21-2010, 07:02 AM
I have the same problem quite often ;). Usually, it just amuses me although some times I want to get back to my ancestral way of dealing with twits (involving either swords or Wicker Men). The "my story is better than your story :p" attitude can be a real pain but, hey, it's something that we all do at times and I do like to laugh at myself :wry:. For some strange reason, I've found that that attitude tends to PO the real twits more than anything else...
I hear you brother. I'm not debating the "better story." I picked a side a very long time ago, based on for want of a word "a story."

"My story" is as valid as the "story" Americans tell themselves about their nation.
Why I get PO'd is folks telling me what "my story" is or why its somehow not the right one.
What you have here on SWJ is a few folk digging around to try and come up with "a story" that makes Israeli beliefs and causes less legitimate.

...and yes, as I've said before, I think Israel should ditch US military funding. The original funding was only predicated as a counter to the Soviet funding of Egypt and Syria, and the continued funding is based on the joint funding of Jordan and Egypt, as per the Sinai agreement.

....so no good reason to continue the funding. It's actually bad for the IDF.


Okay, now that we have gone through all of this, let me toss out a more general question: other than (continuing) warfare, how should we handle competing claims?
Right now, or in 30 seconds time? That goes back to the "story." This is what folks just do not understand. Rex Brynen is about the only guy here who actually understands the problem, - and Rex as someone who has committed his life to helping Palestinians, - I can sit and talk to Rex pretty objectively, because we know the "story" is the issue.

Personally, I'd start with Israel's 1970-1 peace proposal to Jordan, as a good starting point, but I'll let you all discuss that without my input.

Bob's World
03-21-2010, 09:19 AM
I believe that Israel suffers from the flip side of the same legitimacy coin that the Saudis, and many other governments that find themselves under frequent assault in the Middle East.

So long as there is a reasonable perception that Israel exists as a nation only through the support of the US and other such outside supporters, I believe they will be perceived as an "illegitimate" nation, and one that therefore is rightfully worthy of hate and destruction by those who believe they have a more "legitimate" right to be there.

As WILF quite rightfully points out the people of Israel feel quite strongly about their legitimate rights to be there. But, as I have said, it doesn't matter so much what the counterinsurgent believes, what matters is what the insurgent believes.

So my advice to all of these allied nations and to the U.S. is to develop a greater appreciation for the importance of perceptions of legitimacy, and to re-shape policy and engagement so as to enforce positive perceptions of legitmacy in these allies of their own right to exist in the eyes of those who attack them. This means the US must become much less of a blunt instrument in our approach to foreign policy. I don't see that as a bad thing.

Time will tell if the Israelies have the ability to hold their hard earned gains in that historic region; and paradoxically, by helping them less, the US actually helps them more.

My opinion.

marct
03-21-2010, 03:04 PM
Hi Wilf,


I hear you brother. I'm not debating the "better story." I picked a side a very long time ago, based on for want of a word "a story."

LOL - sometime we must sit down and quaft a few pints :D. I think that pretty much everyone chooses (or accepts) these types of stories at some time in their lives; it seems to be something that we, as a species, need to do.


"My story" is as valid as the "story" Americans tell themselves about their nation.
Why I get PO'd is folks telling me what "my story" is or why its somehow not the right one.

Oh, yeah, especially when the "discussion" isn't agreed upon in form or purpose :wry:.

Maybe it's because I grew up in an extremely multi-cultural setting, or maybe it was the acting training as a kid, but I realized early on how people operate on different stories even when they weren't aware of it. I spent years trying to come up with ways of talking about that (it's probably one of the main reasons why I went into symbolic Anthropology).

It's easy to see how stories, "narratives" if you want to use the hip academic phrase ;), can and do control actions, but it is really tricky to see how and when groups develop cross-cutting meta-narratives and the mental discipline to use them.



Okay, now that we have gone through all of this, let me toss out a more general question: other than (continuing) warfare, how should we handle competing claims?

Right now, or in 30 seconds time? That goes back to the "story." This is what folks just do not understand. Rex Brynen is about the only guy here who actually understands the problem, - and Rex as someone who has committed his life to helping Palestinians, - I can sit and talk to Rex pretty objectively, because we know the "story" is the issue.

Oh, hey, take a whole minute if you want!

Yes, I do agree that the story is the issue. It makes me sick to read / hear some of the stories that are currently running around (on all sides); they remind me too much of the War Scroll and similar apocalyptic insanities. Unlike you, I don't have to deal with it on a day-to-day basis; all I have to deal with is uncritical academics who "mean well" and just serve to inflame people.

Cheers,

Marc

Ken White
03-21-2010, 06:57 PM
We've got a better shot at turning Kandahar into San Francisco than bringing peace to Jerusalem.I could make a case for the fact that even including the 2+Bil a year to Israel (and a nearly similar amount to Egypt) the relationship does Israel as much or more harm as it does good.

Life at the top is lonely, adding 'allies' who can appear to be bought does neither the buyer or the ally any real favors.

GI Zhou
03-22-2010, 07:33 AM
Hi Wilf,

all I have to deal with is uncritical academics who "mean well" and just serve to inflame people.

They must be different to the erstwhile academics I have come across in Australian and American resrach institutes whoiare invariably pro-Palestinian and rabidly anti-Israel. Funnily they are also rabidly anti-Egypt and Jordan when questioned, so are just good old fashioned Yankee bashers wearing a new hat. Being but a humble ex-airman, sarcasm is lost on me.

marct
03-22-2010, 01:31 PM
Hi GI Zhou


They must be different to the erstwhile academics I have come across in Australian and American resrach institutes whoiare invariably pro-Palestinian and rabidly anti-Israel. Funnily they are also rabidly anti-Egypt and Jordan when questioned, so are just good old fashioned Yankee bashers wearing a new hat. Being but a humble ex-airman, sarcasm is lost on me.

Sounds about the same, although we have a lot of anti-American ex-Americans ;).

Ken White
03-22-2010, 02:44 PM
...although we have a lot of anti-American ex-Americans ;).comes in many guises... :D

marct
03-22-2010, 02:46 PM
comes in many guises... :D

I never said we didn't have any anti-American Canadians, Ken :D....

Ken White
03-22-2010, 03:10 PM
They have quite legitimate complaints about twitching Elephants. :cool:

The fleas who migrate due to twitching OTOH.... ;)

marct
03-22-2010, 03:13 PM
The fleas who migrate due to twitching OTOH.... ;)

LOL - hey, I would be glad to send them back :D. I got more than a touch "tired" of dealing with ex-Americans who kept trying to tell me what Canadian culture was all about; and being wrong about it :cool:. Unfortunately, they came for the jobs and stayed for the healthcare...... :(

GI Zhou
03-23-2010, 03:32 AM
It appeared a few of ex-Americans, who despise all things American, lumbered up on our shores into academia too. Many moved into cultural studies and economics, and yes also use our healthcare...... Any chance they might return?

Ken White
03-23-2010, 04:49 AM
The good news is those in Canada have become more Canadian than folks born there, so, with any luck, in Oz, the same thing'll happen and then they can lecture you on how to behave. :eek: :wry:

Bogans they will not be... :D

Kiwigrunt
03-23-2010, 08:02 AM
in Oz, the same thing'll happen and then they can lecture you on how to behave. :eek: :wry:


Wish them luck with that; we've been trying for years :p

Ken White
03-23-2010, 02:52 PM
"Those people wear natural fibers..." :D

Rex Brynen
03-23-2010, 09:57 PM
They must be different to the erstwhile academics I have come across in Australian and American resrach institutes whoiare invariably pro-Palestinian and rabidly anti-Israel. Funnily they are also rabidly anti-Egypt and Jordan when questioned, so are just good old fashioned Yankee bashers wearing a new hat. Being but a humble ex-airman, sarcasm is lost on me.

A good friend of mine--a former Israeli official, who previously served as one of the Israeli negotiating team--once corrected me when I used the terms "pro-Israeli" and "anti-Israeli." In his view, those who advocate Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem hardly qualified as "pro-Israeli" since they were damaging Israel's long-term national security interests. By the same measure, hardline Palestinian rejectionists were hardly being "pro-Palestinian" by supporting violence making unobtainable maximalist demands that only postponed the eventual achievement of Palestinian statehood.

Since then, I've avoided the terms because I think he was quite right. There is considerable sensible potential middle ground in this conflict (as the Geneva Initiative (http://www.geneva-accord.org/) highlighted), and it is probably best to avoid polarizing language that obscures the grounds for compromise.

As for Egypt and Jordan--frankly, most people who work in the region very much enjoy both societies (I've lived in one, and extensively worked in the other). That being said, the regimes lose some of their luster when you've seen friends there harassed by the secret police, imprisoned, or even tortured. :eek:

William F. Owen
03-24-2010, 04:41 AM
In his view, those who advocate Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem hardly qualified as "pro-Israeli" since they were damaging Israel's long-term national security interests.
Concur. - especially as some of the more extreme advocate violence against other Israelis.

Rank amateur
03-26-2010, 08:43 PM
Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds in middle-east knows the narrative is the facts.

So you're cool with anyone who considers the narrative in Matthew 27:25 "the facts." Because I'm not.

Bullmoose Bailey
03-31-2010, 08:40 PM
I acknowledge the validity of many of the points described. However the existence of a "lobby" is entirely inconsequential. Is the said lobby a force for good or ill?

I feel the Israel Lobby is more of a force for good on the whole.

In 2010 does US foreign policy officially have to be;
"No Jews Allowed" ?

Honestly?

Sylvan
03-31-2010, 09:10 PM
A good friend of mine--a former Israeli official, who previously served as one of the Israeli negotiating team--once corrected me when I used the terms "pro-Israeli" and "anti-Israeli." In his view, those who advocate Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank and East Jerusalem hardly qualified as "pro-Israeli" since they were damaging Israel's long-term national security interests. By the same measure, hardline Palestinian rejectionists were hardly being "pro-Palestinian" by supporting violence making unobtainable maximalist demands that only postponed the eventual achievement of Palestinian statehood.

Since then, I've avoided the terms because I think he was quite right. There is considerable sensible potential middle ground in this conflict (as the Geneva Initiative (http://www.geneva-accord.org/) highlighted), and it is probably best to avoid polarizing language that obscures the grounds for compromise.

As for Egypt and Jordan--frankly, most people who work in the region very much enjoy both societies (I've lived in one, and extensively worked in the other). That being said, the regimes lose some of their luster when you've seen friends there harassed by the secret police, imprisoned, or even tortured. :eek:

You are lumping two seperate things together.
Settlements in East Jerusalem and Settlements in the West Bank.

The whole discussion revolves around East Jerusalem. When the Jordanians controlled it, the banned jews from crossing over (in violation of the cease fire) and systematically destroyed all the synagogues. Is there any reason the jews would think their lot would be different under Hamas or the PLO?

It has always facinated my how the lines from 1949-1967 are sacred, pure and without fault. yet those in place since 1967-2010 are artificial outcomes of war that must be rectified.

Israel has given up significant chunks of land from 1967 till now.
What has the Arab world given up? What indication is there they will ever give up anything?

As for the monetary payments to Israel, these are a treaty obligation based upon Camp David. We bought the sinai from Israel and gave it to the Egyptians for a price. Why we bought the Sinai from Egypt AND continue to pay them always amazes me.

bourbon
04-01-2010, 03:34 AM
I acknowledge the validity of many of the points described. However the existence of a "lobby" is entirely inconsequential. Is the said lobby a force for good or ill?
I feel the Israel Lobby is more of a force for good on the whole.
It is consequential when its flagship organization is at the best in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938; and at the worst connected to ongoing espionage and influence operations by a foreign government against the US.

What good has our unconditional support for Israel done for us? What have we gained from it in the past 20 years? Are said gains worth the cost in American lives and treasure? Moreover, what good does it do for Israel’s national security?

In 2010 does US foreign policy officially have to be;
"No Jews Allowed" ?
Honestly?
This is a shameless and infantile comment.

Rex Brynen
04-02-2010, 03:07 AM
The whole discussion revolves around East Jerusalem. When the Jordanians controlled it, the banned jews from crossing over (in violation of the cease fire) and systematically destroyed all the synagogues. Is there any reason the jews would think their lot would be different under Hamas or the PLO?

I'm not missing the point--no one is talking about Jewish neighbourhoods/settlements in East Jerusalem becoming part of a Palestinian state. Having a look at the Clinton Parameters, or any of the negotiating documents from past negotiations.


It has always facinated my how the lines from 1949-1967 are sacred, pure and without fault. yet those in place since 1967-2010 are artificial outcomes of war that must be rectified.

One could say that about any set of borders, frankly. However it rather misses the point that for 10 years now, both parties have been negotiating (when negotiating) on the basis of adjusting the 1967 borders to reflect demographic changes, but on the basis of an equitable swap (now widely understood as 1:1). The peace process is in bad enough shape as it is without trying to pedal backwards.


Israel has given up significant chunks of land from 1967 till now.
What has the Arab world given up? What indication is there they will ever give up anything?

In the Arab narrative, of course, they've already given up 78% of historic Palestine (an area in which they would have comprised a majority in 1948, had refugees not been barred from returning).

Sylvan
04-05-2010, 05:56 PM
I'm not missing the point--no one is talking about Jewish neighbourhoods/settlements in East Jerusalem becoming part of a Palestinian state. Having a look at the Clinton Parameters, or any of the negotiating documents from past negotiations.



One could say that about any set of borders, frankly. However it rather misses the point that for 10 years now, both parties have been negotiating (when negotiating) on the basis of adjusting the 1967 borders to reflect demographic changes, but on the basis of an equitable swap (now widely understood as 1:1). The peace process is in bad enough shape as it is without trying to pedal backwards.



In the Arab narrative, of course, they've already given up 78% of historic Palestine (an area in which they would have comprised a majority in 1948, had refugees not been barred from returning).

The 1:1 has never included Jerusalem in the Arab negotiations. E. Jerusalem is non-negotiable for both sides, hence the impasse. The arabs specifically believe that ante-bellum borders are sacred. They aren't negotiating on anything to do with Jerusalem.

The Arabs have given up nothing. The lost land in armed conflict initiated by them. That they equate losing territory in combat to land given up in peaceful negotiations speaks volumes.
Israel has given up the Sinai (TWICE!), the gaza strip and de facto 80% of the West Bank all while at peace.
What did the arabs ever give up voluntarily?

Fuchs
04-05-2010, 09:10 PM
Jordania gave up its claim on the West Bank and Egypt gave up Gaza.
That's quite much.

Now you could point out that these were state claims and the "Arabs" as a people did not give up these territories - but then again it can be pointed out that a significant portion of the Israeli right never gave up the 80% of West Bank that you mentioned.

About Sinai; yeah, guess what? Germany gave up control over Paris as part of a peace treaty as well. Wanna cheer us?
I don't think that Sinai counts for much because it's not at the core of the territorial dispute.

Rex Brynen
04-05-2010, 09:22 PM
The 1:1 has never included Jerusalem in the Arab negotiations. E. Jerusalem is non-negotiable for both sides, hence the impasse. The arabs specifically believe that ante-bellum borders are sacred. They aren't negotiating on anything to do with Jerusalem.

Of course it hasn't been non-negotiable for both sides! To quote from the internal EU non-paper summary of the 2001 Taba negotiations (http://www.peacelobby.org/moratinos_document.htm) (generally acknowledged as accurate by negotiators on both sides):


Both sides accepted in principle the Clinton suggestion of having a Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods and an Israeli sovereignty over Jewish neighborhoods. The Palestinian side affirmed that it was ready to discuss Israeli request to have sovereignty over those Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem that were constructed after 1967, but not Jebal Abu Ghneim and Ras al-Amud. The Palestinian side rejected Israeli sovereignty over settlements in the Jerusalem Metropolitan Area, namely of Ma'ale Adumim and Givat Ze'ev.

The Palestinian side understood that Israel was ready to accept Palestinian sovereignty over the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, including part of Jerusalem's Old City. The Israeli side understood that the Palestinians were ready to accept Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and part of the American Quarter.

The Palestinian side understood that the Israeli side accepted to discuss Palestinian property claims in West Jerusalem.

Territorial compromise in Jerusalem was also discussed in the 2007-08 Annapolis round.

Such compromise, it might be added, involves the Palestinians effectively giving up hopes of including all areas of occupied East Jerusalem in a Palestinian state, and instead trying to maximize those areas which would become part of the state in the face of continued Israeli settlement activity.

Sylvan
04-05-2010, 09:37 PM
Sinai isn't at the core of the debate because its been dealt with. If Israel was still in the Sinai,it would be pretty core to Egypt.

any Palistinian admission that it was, "Ready to discuss" has zero value to me. There is no history of palistinian willingness to do anything BUT talk. Israelis have demonstrated several times they are willing to take concrete and painful steps for peace. With partners such as Jordan and Egypt, these steps have paid off. The PLO and now Hamas have never demonstrated anything except an ineptness at governing and a gift for graft.

The jordian's abandonment of greater trans-jordan was simply a reflection of reality. The monarchy had missed the bus on the marxist, pan-arabist movement and even if they had regained control of the west bank, the egyptians and syrians would simply have supported a palistinian insurgency against the monarchy.The Jordanians gave up something they didn't have and never would have regained.

A strong majority of the israelis realize that the west bank is not a viable part of israel. What % of the arabs are willing to admit the same about Israel?

bourbon
11-29-2011, 05:05 PM
The incomplete legacy of Dennis Ross: A top Obama Middle East adviser significantly damaged the Israel/Palestine peace process (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/20111123105555686451.html), by Robert Grenier. Al Jazeera, 23 November 2011.

It is easy to vilify Dennis for acting as "Israel's lawyer", as indeed I and others have done. But particularly as he has never made any real secret of his aims, his legacy deserves to be judged on its own terms. It is we and the Israelis who have made Dennis Ross. If he didn't exist, someone would have invented him. In his many years of successful advocacy, he has precisely mirrored both the strengths and weaknesses of his client, and therefore must be assessed as having represented his client badly: Like the Israelis, he is a brilliant tactician and a strategic ignoramus. A better advocate might have saved his client from himself. Instead, Dennis' many years of successful temporising have helped to bring Israel to the point where a two-state solution is no longer possible. Thanks in some measure to Dennis' efforts, Israel in future can be Jewish, or it can be democratic: It cannot be both. Having served Israel to the point of helping to destroy Zionism: That is the very definition of catastrophic success. Unfortunately, Dennis' record of ruinous achievement is not yet complete.

Ross states that he is leaving for family reasons. While one has no reason to doubt his familial devotion, his explanation seems partial, at best. In fact, Ross can move on because his work, in this administration at least, is done. Having successfully undercut George Mitchell and otherwise parried any immediate threats to Netanyahu, Ross can take satisfaction in the death of the peace process. There will be no more trouble from that quarter, and Obama's pliancy is now assured.

bourbon
01-22-2012, 04:48 PM
Secret Service investigating Jewish newspaper column that discussed Obama assassination (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/20/secret-service-investigating-jewish-newspaper-column-that-discussed-obama/), by Judson Berger. FoxNews.com, January 20, 2012.

In the Jan. 13 column in the Atlanta Jewish Times, Adler floated three scenarios for how Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would deal with a nuclear Iran and other threats in the region.

Adler wrote that Israel could order a strike on Hezbollah and Hamas, or a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

A third option, he wrote, would be to "give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States' policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies."

bourbon
07-30-2012, 08:44 PM
US sees Israel, tight Mideast ally, as spy threat (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=ya7G9m1m), by Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo. Associated Press, 28 July 2012.

Hidden pearls:

During the Bush administration, the CIA ranked some of the world's intelligence agencies in order of their willingness to help in the U.S.-led fight against terrorism. One former U.S. intelligence official who saw the completed list said Israel, which hadn't been directly targeted in attacks by al-Qaida, fell below Libya, which recently had agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program.
Syria probably would have been ahead of Israel on that list as well.


Some CIA officials still bristle over the disappearance of a Syrian scientist who during the Bush administration was the CIA's only spy inside Syria's military program to develop chemical and biological weapons. The scientist was providing the agency with extraordinary information about pathogens used in the program, former U.S. officials said about the previously unknown intelligence operation.

At the time, there was pressure to share information about weapons of mass destruction, and the CIA provided its intelligence to Israel. A former official with direct knowledge of the case said details about Syria's program were published in the media. Although the CIA never formally concluded that Israel was responsible, CIA officials complained to Israel about their belief that Israelis were leaking the information to pressure Syria to abandon the program. The Syrians pieced together who had access to the sensitive information and eventually identified the scientist as a traitor.

Before he disappeared and was presumed killed, the scientist told his CIA handler that Syrian Military Intelligence was focusing on him.