Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditPro-Israel activists in the United States and Israeli defense officials are already getting energized in opposition to the idea of a NATO military force in Palestine, as part of an arrangement for security guarantees in connection with an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. General James L. Jones, Obama's national security adviser, spent much of the past year on a Palestine mission for the State Department, and he favors the idea of a NATO presence there.
Personally, I agree with the opposition to the idea. Jones, a former NATO commander, is an outspoken advocate for an expanded, out-of-area role for NATO. But there's no need to station NATO forces along an Israeli-Palestine border.
In Israel, the Jerusalem Post says that Israeli defense officials are mounting a preemptive strike against Jones' plan:
During his meetings with Israelis, Jones has proposed that a NATO-based international force deploy in the West Bank in the interim period between an Israeli withdrawal and the Palestinian forces becoming able to curb terror activity. ..."NATO is a very bad idea," [an Israeli] officer said. "No other country in the world has successfully dealt with terror like Israel has. There is a need for continuous combat; NATO will not want to endanger its soldiers on behalf of Israeli citizens."
Still, Israeli is building closer ties to NATO, and this week Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a candidate for prime minister, flew to Brussels for talks with NATO.
In Washington, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a pro-Israeli thinktank, is also wary of the idea. At a "Security First" forum at WINEP last week, J.D. Crouch and other analysts were skeptical of the idea. Said Crouch, according to a WINEP summary:
An international force could become a target for rejectionist groups, such as Hamas or al-Qaeda affiliates, or a propaganda tool for Iran. Also, the Palestinians might see the force as occupiers, not intermediaries. For their part, Israelis do not want to outsource security, since potentially either the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) or Israeli settlers could come into direct conflict with that force. Furthermore, given the current environment, the third party would effectively be a peace enforcer, not a peacekeeper. The force would have to conduct robust counterterrorism and intelligence operations, but it is unlikely that a NATO force would be available with the will and capability to sustain such a commitment.
With everything else on this plate, there will be a temptation for Obama to avoid dealing with Israel-Palestine. That would be a big mistake. Both Clinton and Bush II left it to the waning days of their terms in office, with disastrous results. (To be fair, Clinton paid more attention to it than Bush, who initially refused utterly to deal with Arafat and the PLO and who supported Israel's massive invasion of the West Bank and its assault on Lebanon, with no balance.) But starting with proposals to inject NATO into the region is a bad idea. NATO is an anachonism, and it ought to be disbanded, not expanded.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Pro-Israel activists in the US are one of the greatest threats to our Middle East foreign policy (and our national security) if left unchecked. I agree with Robert Dreyfuss that NATO is not the response to the Israel/Palestine problem. It is amazing to me how much power representatives of Israel have in America. The interests in Israel behind these representatives seem to have so much power in America that our own national interest is cast aside in the pursuit of the agendas of the interests.
Posted by syfriendly at 12/17/2008 @ 1:30pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/17/2008 @ 12:42pm
Sorry, LVLIB, the "Arafat had AIDS" theory was debunked....today, as a matter of fact in the NY Times (boo! hiss! Liberal Times!!!!).
It's just been fostered by right-wingers such as yourself...based on propaganda out of Israel.
BTW, there is REVERSE "Arafat had AIDS" propaganda too...which is from the other side who say that Israel POISONED Arafat with AIDS. Any reason to believe that?
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 3:53pm
Why do we still have NATO again?
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/17/2008 @ 6:03pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/17/2008 @ 12:42pm
The U.S. never had any qualms dealing with "unrepentent terrorists" and "thugs" in the past, if it furthered U.S. interests. Other than your unqualified support for Israel due to religious reasons, why was it "correct" to do so in this instance?
Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2008 @ 9:15pm
NATO is a symbolic term here; the Palestinians need protection from the most religious fascist state in the history of mankind. The Israelis moved out of Gaza, but they kept firm grip on Gaza air space, territorial water, and controlled the entry of all commercial supplies to Gaza. Furthermore, after the Israelis left Gaza, they confiscated one quarter of Gaza's land and declared it security zone baring entry to that land by Palestinians. Then the Israeli propaganda machine in the US started the public relation game of accusing Hamas of lobbing missiles at Israel; after the so-called generous Israelis have given them all their land back. What could anyone expect Hamas to do after their kids are being starved by the Israelis? If Gaza is the model which is going to be implemented in the West Bank, then some kind of international protection is needed to ensure the safety of the Palestinians from the Israeli advanced terror tools. The Israeli are known for using their F-18's and F-15's to blow civilians to pieces.
How could someone call Arafat terrorist without mentioning criminals such as Sharon, Peres, Shamir and the top military commanders in the Israeli Army. These criminals have made careers in murdering innocent Palestinian civilians and confiscating their land to be passed on to zealot Jewish settlers who just moved in to Israel from Russia and New York. Arafat, at least, was born in Jerusalem and never evicted or stole anyone's home
Posted by CripThink at 12/17/2008 @ 10:52pm
comanchenation,
You truly think that Arabs attacked Israel in 1967? Let me then enlighten you about the Zionist dream of reviving the Greater Israel from the Euphrates to the Nile River and then to erect the Second Temple. Israel attacked and occupied Arab lands in 1956 and 1967 to pursue the Zionist Dream of Greater Israel; this notion is enshrined in the Zionists Psyche. It is based on the notion of the Chosen People who were given the land by God at the expense of millions of Palestinians. The Palestinians were expelled from their homes by murder and terrorism and I can name names of Israeli leaders who participated in this crime; I wonder how cruel can God be?
Arab Governments are willing participants in the Gaza blockade; they are a bunch of puppets created by the US government. Gaza is relying on the good will of the free people of the world. Ships from Europe are beginning to challenge the Israelis and break the Gaza siege. This is very similar to the mass international movement which broke the back of the Apartheid regime of South Africa. The children of the Warsaw Ghetto in Israel are guilty of creating another Warsaw Ghetto in Gaza.
Posted by CripThink at 12/18/2008 @ 01:52am
<i>Posted by CripThink at 12/18/2008 @ 01:52am </i>
Well, for one thing, they most certainly DID invade Israel both in 1948 and 1973. Also, given that Israel had been invaded in 1948, its preemptive strike in 1967 seems to be about one of the clearest justifiable cases (troops literally massing on your border AND blocking of an important waterway AND expelling UN peacekeppers). Surely you don't mean to suggest that Israel's neighbors are anything remotely close to innocent in all of this.
In addition, to my knowledge this policy-driving "Zionist Dream of Greater Israel" is nothing more than propaganda that's been ripped from the Protocols and softened only marginally in the process.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/18/2008 @ 03:14am
It is simply an historical fact that Israel crossed border and attacked first in 1967. Israel's Zionist obsession with grabbing all of Palestine is proven by the fact that Israel refuses to define its borders. This is unique amoung nations. And speaking of terrorism, Israel commits state terrorism every day with the starving and captivity of 1.5 million people in Gaza. Israel removes Palestinians from their homes and steals their land daily. Palestinians aredenied basic human rights on a massive scale in the cruel illegal occupation, supported by U.S. aid to Israel. No one has the courage to vote against Israeli interests. (When Sheila McKinney did, the Democratic power structure ran a well-funded candidate against her in the primary. She was removed. Message sent to other Congress members.) Crip is right: Israel has become a cruel fascist state, ironically like Nazi Germany. It occupies and brutally oppresses millions with many exjudicial killings. It attacks and occupies its neighbors with impunity. No wonder billions of Muslims are angry at the U.S.--- we fund Israel. The Israeli lobby owns Congress and the U.S. mainstream media. (Have you ever heard a critical word about Israel on CNN or anywhere else?) Any outside military force would be good for Palestine. Then they might stop the killing of Palestinians by the brutal Israeli Army occupation force.
Posted by philbq at 12/18/2008 @ 06:51am
Of course the Israeli's think it's a bad idea NATO being involved...they would not have as much free rein to do what they like. It's about time someone took a stance against this notion that Israel have the last say in everything...I am sick of us defending them at every turn. Israel think they are the keepers of the castle and it's gone on way too long and there needs to be some intervention here by other forces. Let's get some honest brokers involved here and we keep our noses out of it for once....because if Israel say they don't like the idea of NATO you can bet the store we will try and shelve that idea so we can accommodate them.
Posted by Caj at 12/18/2008 @ 08:31am
Any NATO force would naturally include U.S. forces. Under an Obama administration the IDF would not be able to get away with the indiscriminate bombing and other attacks on West Bank and Gaza residents, plus all the other repressive tactics used presently by the Israeli government. Too many watchful eyes. So it's no big surprise that Israel and it's US interests (AIPAC?) are not big fans of this proposal.
As for NATO's involvement, it's clear that the organization has cleared the original boundaries of its mandate that evolved during the cold war.
So perhaps there needs to be a new military organization tasked with peacekeeping in the Middle East, Africa and other trouble spots worldwide. Something more muscular than the current UN force structure.
Posted by jackwells at 12/18/2008 @ 10:27am
In addition, to my knowledge this policy-driving "Zionist Dream of Greater Israel" is nothing more than propaganda that's been ripped from the Protocols and softened only marginally in the process.-----Posted by Thrawn at 12/18/2008 @ 03:14am
THRAWN, ask LVLIBERTY.
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2008 @ 10:45am
<i>Posted by philbq at 12/18/2008 @ 06:51am</i>
Your entire point about the 1967 war is fatally nonresponsive to the point that I made. Yes, Israel crossed the border, but you neglected a crucially important fact: troops were massing on Israel's borders at that time. As I already pointed out, this is the textbook case of a justified preemptive strike.
Also, the myth of an all-powerful Israel lobby is just that...a myth. Ironically, if you want to see a clear case where it's disproven, take a look at the invasion of Iraq. Israel did NOT want us to invade Iraq, yet we did anyway. And yes, by the way, I HAVE heard critical words about Israel on news stations before (including, unless my memory is mistaken, on some Fox broadcasts, which I don't tend to watch all that often).
Posted by Thrawn at 12/18/2008 @ 10:47am
Arafat, at least, was born in Jerusalem and never evicted or stole anyone's home Posted by CripThink at 12/17/2008 @ 10:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person
no he wasn't, you twit. he was born in Cairo.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 10:59am
Thrawn, hello. apropos out lasr discussion, further research reveals that I was as wrong about Japan, as you were about germany.
I'm reading a fine book, John W Dower, "Embracing Defeat, Japan in the wake of WW2"
the two postwar occupations in Japan and Germany could not have been more different from each other.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 11:04am
Israel has become a cruel fascist state, ironically like Nazi Germany.
Phil, you are just out of your mind with this. whattalotofnonsense.you are foaming at the mouth.
I disagree with Israel's west bank policy, which while cruel has not resulted in anywhere near the casualties US policy in Iraq has.
there is nothing fascist about the state of Israel, it is a democracy, the only one in the region.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 11:09am
how bout the UN?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/18/2008 @ 11:10am
I don't think NATO belongs in Afghanistan, or Israel. UN peacekeepers are another story.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 11:13am
I looked it up on the Nobel Prize zeb site and it did say Arafat was born in Cairo, but also said that "other sources" mention Gaza and Jerusalem as his birthplace.
http://nobelprize.org/ nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/ 1994/arafat-bio.html
Posted by Mistral at 12/18/2008 @ 11:40am
So is blackcoptermedia.com,, give them a spin.
Posted by sidthekidney at 12/18/2008 @ 11:57am
Posted by Mistral at 12/18/2008 @ 11:40am | ignore this person | warn this person
thank you. I was unaware of the "dispute". sorry for the invective.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 12:04pm
I think a force of countries, under combined leadership of those countries sending peacekeepers/troops should be sent. The countries should not be easily described as Western or Arab. I suggest Ghana, India, Bolivia, Chile, Thailand and Malaysia. Or pick your own, this is a fairly random selection.
Posted by mikeymikemike77 at 12/18/2008 @ 1:08pm
The Settler movement in the West Bank would probably be more inclined to violence. You might also see some terrorist's activity similar to the Irgun or the Stern Gang that operated against the British before Israeli Independence. I think the Arabs picked up a few tricks from them. I am in general agreement that NATO's activities should be restricted to defending Western Europe. I do not like seeing it become an offensive alliance moving into new territory. NATO operations in Afghanistan could be interpreted as a reaction to the 9/11 attack on the U.S. as a NATO member. It would therefore qualify as a defensive reaction to an attack on a member nation. However, except for the British, the war in Afghanistan is not regarded with any enthusiasm by most of the NATO countries. Also, while Israel has a strong caucus in the American Congress, support for Israel is weaker in Europe. Europeans would not be enthusiastic about any military involvement in that mess. Israel needs a peace agreement with the Palestinians. While many in Israel recognize this fact, but, Israel has historically relied of the use of force and not diplomacy. Old habits are hard to break.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/18/2008 @ 1:30pm
Democracy in Israel today is very much similar to democracy in the white apartheid regime of South Africa. In the racist South Africa, democracy was for Whites only; in fascist Israel, democracy is for Jews only. How could a declared Jewish State be democratic to non-Jews? Many Christian and Muslims places of worship have been converted to night clubs or places to house livestock. Israeli Police opens fire and kill non-Jew demonstrators. The Israeli Army is constantly confiscating lands and demolishing houses of non-Jews inside Israel under the flimsy pretext of state security. These practices are reminiscent to democracy practiced in Nazi Germany
Posted by CripThink at 12/18/2008 @ 1:36pm
Why DO we still need NATO? This is the real story, and what no one seems to be asking enough. Glad to see the comment by freiheitz!
"Jones, a former NATO commander, is an outspoken advocate for an expanded, out-of-area role for NATO."
Rupert Murdoch was claiming recently Australia should become a member (article on the huffingtonpost.com). NATO hired an ex Coke exec to help it market and do rebranding (article on truthout.org).
It does sound crazy but if Australia, then hypothetically why not Israel or even Palestine in NATO?! Then they'd at least be forbidden to fight each other. ..
Seriously, why isn't anyone talking about just phasing out NATO. The cold war ended and none of our structures reflect the new order very effectively.. Palestine was an old colony of Britain and France anyway, it should be Europe's problem, not the American taxpayers'.
Posted by Nicolette at 12/18/2008 @ 2:00pm
"I think a force of countries, under combined leadership of those countries sending peacekeepers/troops should be sent. The countries should not be easily described as Western or Arab. I suggest Ghana, India, Bolivia, Chile, Thailand and Malaysia. Or pick your own, this is a fairly random selection." Posted by mikeymikemike77 at 12/18/2008 @ 1:08pm
I think that's a good model. It's more or less what I was alluding to in my earlier post. But those forces would need both military and political "muscle" to carry out any mandate.
That is to say, they would have to be taken seriously and be given sufficient latitude to make on-the-ground assessments and take appropriate action in whatever country they were deployed, without having to get clearance from 10 different governments in order to act.
The abysmal failures of some UN peacekeeping efforts have been demonstrated repeatedly over the last few decades, because they are limited in firepower and constrained by political considerations.
Posted by jackwells at 12/18/2008 @ 2:58pm
Posted by Nicolette at 12/18/2008 @ 2:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Australia is a member of SEATO, the asian equivalent of NATO.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 3:41pm
I love the way Israel's protagonists proclaim that it is the only democracy in the Middle East as if by proclaiming it, it is true. Israel in fact is a theocracy, because it wants to be, and remain,a Jewish state. Cripthink is correct. I lived in apartheid South Africa, so I would think I know a little about what apartheid was and how antithetical to democracy it was. Israel has disenfranchised the Palestinians, just as white South Africa did to the blacks. The blacks (and Palestinians) are denied equal commercial opportunities. In fact, while both had ghettoes, South Africa never built a cement barrier fence like Israel has done. The South African regime never deprived the blacks of water, food and medical aid as Israel has done to the Gazans which is tantamount to genocide.The S.A. regime never bombed civilian homes as Israel has done. International sanctions worked brilliantly in S.A. because it had two visionary leaders who wanted to have peace without bloodshed. The Israelis have decided they would have more control over the Palestinians even with bloodshed, rather than assimilate them into a true democracy or have a two state solution.The Israelis want to continue their genocide without anyone (like NATO or the UN) interphering, and it's high time we put a stop to this fascist madness.Boycotting Israeli goods and travel, with international sanctions will contribute global attention to this fascist regime, which claims entitlement to this barbarism and whatever else it wants to do,because of its victimisation in the holocaust. And that includes having an illegal nuclear arsenal without IAEI signatory status.And it still has the chutzpah to complain when the signatoried and threatened Iranians want to have the same.
Posted by mystic at 12/18/2008 @ 3:52pm
Israel have this grand notion that they are the rightful owners to anything that the Palestine people own....they take their land and can't imagine why the Palestine people are actually angry!!!!!! How is it right for someone to come into your homeland and set up settlements against your wishes? Would that be allowed by the Israeli people if the Palestine people did the same and took over their land and did the same...I think not. Of course that could never happen because we wouldn't allow it either, we will defend Israel no matter what.
Posted by Caj at 12/18/2008 @ 3:57pm
Israel in fact is a theocracy,
it is in fact a lie. many lies follow. Israel has a million arab citizens, they vote, they are in the Knesset. you are a hate speech mouthpiece and a liar.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 3:58pm
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 3:58pm
Actually, you see the problem we face here (magnified 10X in Israel/Palestine)...
on one side the LVLIB crowd who are "Israel can do no wrong" and "They are assigned by GOD to take over everything south of Turkey and west of Iraq"....
on the other, the "reflexively anti-Israel Left" (as Ari Berman HERE called them) of CripThink and others who always trust the Palestinian leadership, are apathetic or dismissive of Israel's concerns.
The truth of course lies more to the middle.
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2008 @ 4:29pm
All the borders in the ME were created by the colonial powers. the '48 war left Israel slightly larger than the mandate.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 4:46pm
Sure MASK, a middle of the road solution such as those always pushed by the Israeli Occupied White House and Congress. What would be a middle of the road solution with someone who stole your house and back yard? Is deeding half of the stolen properties to him an acceptable half-way solution to you?
Posted by CripThink at 12/18/2008 @ 4:51pm
Thank you Crip and Mystic for supporting my point: Israel behaves like Nazi Germany in many ways. It is my understanding that Jews in Israel receive loans and benefits that others cannot. That is the definition of a theocracy. And anyone denying the awesome disproportionate influence of the Israeli lobby on U.S. politics and media is simply ignorant or dishonest. Israel practices state terrorism on Palestinians every day.
Posted by philbq at 12/18/2008 @ 4:53pm
It is my understanding that Jews in Israel receive loans and benefits that others cannot.
this was the case in the US until very recently.
Nazi germany? you are a jerk, go f*ck yourself with that tripe.
as long as palestinian rockets rain down on Israelis, the worst right wing elements of Israeli society will hold sway.
the answer for everyone there is half a loaf. no one will get ALL they want.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 5:37pm
his was the case in the US until very recently.
with the word white substituted for jew, of course..
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 5:38pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/18/2008 @ 5:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you got that right.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 5:44pm
Recent German public opinion polls show that 81 percent of Germans do not believe their nation should support Israel militarily if it were attacked. Fifty-seven percent of Germans think that their government should not even send money if Israel were attacked. More shocking than both these statistics, however, is that these polls show that almost a third of Germans have no qualms about comparing today's Israel with fascist-era Germany. http://thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5624.3948.0.0
Posted by mystic at 12/18/2008 @ 6:02pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=mystic
zu Befehl, Herr Gauleiter.
most Germans have never met a jew.
Israel needs no one to defend them, they have shown to be quite capable of doing so themselves.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 6:06pm
almost a third of Germans have no qualms about comparing today's Israel with fascist-era Germany. http://thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5624.3948.0.0 Posted by mystic at 12/18/2008 @ 6:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
there are a lot of neo nazis in germany, especially in the economically devastated east.
Incidentally, I have never considered returning to germany, a country I resided in for a dozen years as a child. why? there are no jews there, compared to NYC.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 6:12pm
that goes also for Austria, the land of my birth.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 6:16pm
Dubios and Lvliberty1,
Who gave the British Empire the Goddamn right to tell anyone how much to have or not to have of their own land? By 1912 Jews who lived in Palestine were less than %7 of the total population. In 1917 the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, made a declaration to Lord Rothschild, in a secret letter, to grant Jews a homeland in Palestine. In return, Lord Rothschild promised to use his influence to bring more American involvement in WWI. So before Zionist jerks like you lecture others on their historic background, you should stop fabricating history to make it look as Palestine and Palestinians did not exist before the creation of Israel in1948.
So you want a pure Jewish State in Palestine? How about if America was declared a Christian Nation? How much would you like that? I bet that your Zionist asses will cry uncle. You don't like it and you will raise your infamous Anti Semitic banner. You will decry violation of your constitutional right. However, it is OK to screw up 6 million Palestinians and treat them like third class citizens in a Jewish Apartheid theocracy called Israel.
Posted by CripThink at 12/18/2008 @ 7:01pm
When anyone criticizes Israeli oppression, they are labeled "anti-Semetic". That is a misnomer. Both indigenous Jews and Arabs are Semetic people. Hebrew and Arabic are Semetic languages. Arabs and indigenous Jews are ancestral brothers and sisters. But most of the Jews in Israel are from Europe, and are not Semites. So the term "anti-Semetic" is inaccurate. The proper term is "anti-Jew", which I am not. I simply believe in freedom and civil rights for all peoplew. And Israel is denying the civil rights of Palestinians. This I abhor and cannot be silent.
Posted by philbq at 12/18/2008 @ 7:49pm
In return, Lord Rothschild promised to use his influence to bring more American involvement in WWI.
er, no. it was thought that jews influenced Russia. it was done to keep Russia in the war. a futile effort.
ALL the countries of the ME were created by the colonial powers France and England.
these borders will most likely never be redrawn. Israel is here to stay, so you can forget that.
that said, Israel and its neighbors must come together for peace. it's been done before, peace with Egypt. and it can and will be done again. it will have to be negotiated.
Israel's influence on US policy is wildly overestimated by the rabid dogs on these pages.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 8:15pm
And Israel is denying the civil rights of Palestinians. This I abhor and cannot be silent. Posted by philbq at 12/18/2008 @ 7:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you will enjoy credibility when you are more evenhanded. the Israelis killed by rocket attacks from the west bank and Gaza are just as dead as the palestinians killed by Israeli army.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 8:23pm
Actually it is my understanding that the silly rockets fired by Hamas kill very few Israelis. Far more Palestinians are killed by the Israeli occupation. In any event, the rockets are an act of frustration by Hamas because Israel refuses to stop killing Palestinians and stealing their land. And the U.S. keeps funding Israeli oppression and apartheid.(I oppose Hamas tactics.) Emile, you seem incapable of discussing Israel in a civil manner without throwing personal insults. That is typical of Israeli supporters. They keep bringing up the Holocaust while Israel oppresses Palestinians. I call that moral hypocrisy.
Posted by philbq at 12/18/2008 @ 9:00pm
DuBOIS,
So when will Israel define its borders once and for all to live in peace with its neighbors? Will Israel returns all the fertile land and water resources stolen from Palestinians? Individual Israeli settlers in the West Bank are allocated 8 times more water per capita than the average Palestinian; another form of discrimination. When will the Israelis demolish the racist wall which was designed to steal 20% of the best fertile land and water aquifers of the West Bank?
Israel will not stay just because of your wishes; the racist South Africa was a nuclear state like Israel, but that did not help. Uncle Sam will, eventually, get tired of carrying the Star of David on its back, Israel is becoming a financial and moral burden on America's shoulders; Americans are tired of subsidizing this tiny racist entity. We are tired of you bribing our politicians, spying on us and of your dual loyalty. We are tired of your AIPAC and your Fox News and all your agents in the mainstream media distorting facts and taking us into wars which we don't wish to fight. America has paid dearly because of the deception of the Neocons taking us to the Iraq war; and now they are back pushing us to attack Iran. We are tired of fighting for your religious fairytale.
Posted by CripThink at 12/18/2008 @ 10:17pm
They keep bringing up the Holocaust while Israel oppresses Palestinians. I call that moral hypocrisy.
Posted by philbq at 12/18/2008 @ 9:00pm |
I agree entirely with your whole post, couldn't have put it better myself.
Posted by Caj at 12/18/2008 @ 10:19pm
They keep bringing up the Holocaust while Israel oppresses Palestinians. I call that moral hypocrisy.
Posted by philbq at 12/18/2008 @ 9:00pm |
I agree entirely with your whole post, couldn't have put it better myself.
Posted by Caj at 12/18/2008 @ 10:20pm
Posted by philbq at 12/18/2008 @ 9:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
don't you dare lay this at my feet you creep.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 10:32pm
Posted by CripThink at 12/18/2008 @ 10:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
how did that south africa thing end? through negotiations, the same way the egypt israel enmity ended. you keep avoiding that.
I do not trust onesided views such as yours, though you are correct on Israel's faults. compared to our gov't, the Israelis however are pikers
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 10:38pm
When all is said and done, it is amazing how hypocritical this administration was about protecting America, conveniently "forgetting" that the main categorical reason why America was attacked on 9/11 (and the World Trade Center in 1993)was the completely one-sided pro-Israel policies of America. And what's more this is not going to change under the aegis of the AIPAC saturated foreign policy team. Well be wary Israel-- and a much weakened deleveraged America-- Russia has your number and won't take any s**t, like missiles pointing directly at Russia in Poland, or air fields in Georgia from which Israel intended to launch its attack on Iran .The AIEA is giving its report on Israel's nuclear status soon, and world opinion against Israel is building; It is clear that Israel does not, and never did, want to have a two state solution. International sanctions against Israel would knock some sense of reality into this hegemonic barbaric country.
Posted by mystic at 12/18/2008 @ 10:42pm
America has paid dearly because of the deception of the Neocons taking us to the Iraq war; and now they are back pushing us to attack Iran.
and what pray tell does that have to do with Israel?
you cannot remove the guilt by saying the jews made us do it.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 10:42pm
Im love the way those who know they are losing an argument resort to vulgarity. Reminds me of a governor in Illinois.
Posted by mystic at 12/18/2008 @ 10:48pm
that the main categorical reason why America was attacked on 9/11 (
this is a lie. Bin Laden attacked because of the american troops in Saudi. Bush removed the troops. mission accomplished.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/18/2008 @ 10:54pm
A man died on Monday after a long battle with cancer, and after the Israeli occupation authority's siege blocked him from travel abroad for treatment, Palestinian medical sources said. Case closed.
Posted by mystic at 12/18/2008 @ 10:59pm
<i>Posted by philbq at 12/18/2008 @ 7:49pm</i>
As surprised as I am to agree with you on something, your point about the word "Semitic" is just correct. That is a linguistic term, not a cultural/religious term, and it does indeed apply to Arabs as well. I think this is why many (including the Holocaust Museum) have tried to "create" a new word (i.e. antisemitism) to describe the phenomenon that anti-Semitism was meant to encompass.
<i>Posted by CripThink at 12/18/2008 @ 10:17pm</i>
Let me say this again, because apparently it did not register last time. Representatives from Israel did NOT, I repeat, NOT want us to go into Iraq. They OPPOSED the war. Why? Because they didn't want Iran to have a strategically advantageous position in the region. They weren't all that nervous about Iraq at the time, but they were (and are) DEFINITELY concerned about Iran. Even if Iraq had been successfully converted into a democracy, it still would not (at least for quite some time) have nearly the military balancing capability that Iraq did. So...as I said before, the Iraq war decisively disproves the "all-powerful Israel lobby" nonsense, as though more proof were needed.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/18/2008 @ 11:56pm
Thrawn...that is such B.S. All the leading opinionmakers for the Israeli lobby were all over the corporate media selling the Saddam threat of WMD: Frank Gafney, William Kristol,Richard Pearle, Daniel Levine,William Safire,Joseph Lieberman,Peter Beinart,etc. To say that the Israeli lobby did not want the Iraq War is a rotten and obvious lie. I guess you are desperate to defend Israel. It has turned out very badly for Israel, bacause Iran is now the ascendent power in the region. But there is no doubt that Israel and its U.S. agents wanted to get rid of Saddam. Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 12:28am
Thrawn: You talk rubbish and to show you up, I dare you to post verfiable journalistic international sources for what clearly are defensive lies: Israel did promote the Iraq war, and in fact Netanyahu confessed it benefited from the war.Don't even get me started with 9/11, Dov Zakheim etc. In fact, ever since Israel lied and covered up the USS Liberty incident in 1967, murdering American crewmen in the false-flagged process, has it had absolutely no credibility. Iran is Iraq repeated all over again, except America this time is weakened and deleveraged. I am of the opinion it is our worst and most dangerous enemy because it masks itself as a "friend".
Posted by mystic at 12/19/2008 @ 01:02am
U.S. unquestioning support for Israeli aggression and occupation of Palestine is the biggest reason for Muslim terrorism against the U.S. and U.S. citizens.
Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 01:40am
<i>Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 12:28am </i>
All right. Define for me who exactly constitutes the "Israel lobby." Are you arguing that neoconservative writers who are also Jewish constitute part of this ill-defined network? And don't try making the "but you're just covering for them" argument. If you can't define in relatively precise terms who you're alleging is conspiring, you have nothing more than meaningless assertions. And on top of that, ad hominems aren't real arguments.
As far as the specific claim itself, 2 points:
1) Israel considered, and still considers, Iran to be a far greater threat to them than Iraq. Sharon, in his public statements, made it manifestly clear that he feared Iran FAR more than he ever feared Iraq. Since any invasion of Iraq posed at least the risk of empowering Iran, it stands to reason that Sharon would oppose it. I suppose the "Israel lobby" COULD flatly contradict Sharon, but you have to do some work to prove that.
2) It is just empirically true that members of the so-called "Israeli lobby" held multiple conversations with the Bush administration trying to dissuade them from war with Iraq. They supported it once it became clear that it was inevitable, but up until that point they did not. Contrary assertions on conspiracy theory sites aren't enough to outweigh this.
3) How did Israel benefit exactly?
At the very least, it is far from obvious that the "Israel lobby," if you can even define it, had any kind of controlling influence in bringing about Iraq. If you're going to make this claim, you have the burden to prove it. When doing so, consider also groups such as the Saudi Lobby (ex: Prince Bandar), whose interests are often contrary to those of Israel. To assume that Israel always wins out is plainly mistaken.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/19/2008 @ 03:16am
<i>Posted by mystic at 12/19/2008 @ 01:02am </i>
What utter nonsense. The 9/11 "Mossad did it" conspiracy theories have never been anything more than speculation held together by great imagination and bad arguments, so I wouldn't rest too much on that.
On the false flag incident, this accusation is stronger but still carries little substance. One, no one has ascertained any motive for the Israeli military to just attack a known US ship. That's a pretty big problem for the conspiracy approach. Two, even if there had been SOME motive, the evidence is still fairly weak and speculative anyway. Certainly, it's not strong enough to cite as a definite accusation.
And what about Zakheim, exactly? Is selling US technology to Israel in plain public sight somehow an act worth demonizing?
Ultimately, none of your accusations really hold water. They are based on sheer speculation derived (ironically enough) from a pre-determined position that the evidence is distorted to fit. They bear little relation to reality, and if you intend to suggest otherwise, you should probably bring evidence.
Also, don't forget that the person who levies accusations bears the burden of proof. If you claim Israel led us into Iraq, and has done all these bad things, it's your burden to prove it, not mine to disprove it.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/19/2008 @ 03:23am
Moving NATO troops into Palestine would provide greater witness to the ongoing crimes committed in that region. U.S. troops will be dutifully issued blindfolds. As for a political solution to the Palestine conflict, we must turn our eyes much closer to home. The Israel Lobby is the most powerful lobby in Congress. Saying this brands me a card carrying rascist (I know, I know..) but I do not intend to run for Congress. The U.S. sends $10 Billion per year in arm-twisted "aid" to one of the richest countries in the world, Israel. This amount is about two-thirds of the revenue needed to repair all of the wetlands around New Orleans. Americans need to stop buying "Gaza diamonds" to the tune of nearly $7 Billion a year as a program promoting moral reflection for Tel Aviv. But don't expect anything out of our government. They have been purchased, cut, and set. See any flaws?
Posted by BushCamWildlife at 12/19/2008 @ 05:40am
Moorer, who as top legal council to the official investigation ofn the USS Liberty agrees that Israel intended to sink the USS Liberty and blame Egypt for it, thus dragging the United States into a war on Israel's behalf. This seems to be a common trick of Israel. Starting with the Lavon affair, through the USS Liberty, to the fake radio transmitter that tricked Reagan into attacking Libya, to potentially 9-11 itself, Israel's game is to frame Arabs and set them up as targets for the United States. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ussliberty.html http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/israel_9-11_truth.html http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spyring.html?q=spyring.html http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1047.shtml
Posted by mystic at 12/19/2008 @ 07:35am
In the corporate media, the writers I mentioned are always promoting Israeli interests and would never criticize Israel. Currently, you might add Charles Krauthammer. Of course, virtually no one in politics or media is courageous enough to criticize Israel. It is career suicide. The agents of Israel are very powerful in this country. To deny this is to deny gravity. Everyone in politics knows it. Look at what happened to Charles Percy and Sheila McKinney. They criticized Israel and their political careers were destroyed. Now everyone in Congress is scared of AIPAC and the Israeli lobby mouthpieces. There is a code of silence. And Israeli oppression continues.
Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 09:09am
During the Gulf War 1991, Saddam fired scud missiles into Israel. That is when Israel decided to get rid of Saddam. Iraq was seen as the only openly dangerous nation in the region. So the pervasive Israeli lobby in the U.S. was pushing for war with Iraq, with the U.S. doing the paying and dying, of course.
Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 09:40am
Posted by CripThink at 12/18/2008 @ 4:51pm
Since you don't like "middle of the road"....What IS the NON-"Middle of the Road" solution, Crip? Eliminate Israel and give it all back to the Palestinians?
Always hear a lot of bitchin' from the RAIL side....what's your proposal?
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 09:47am
"The 9/11 "Mossad did it" conspiracy theories have never been anything more than speculation" (Thrawn) The five dancing Israeli fiasco is all on tape,nothing conspiratorial about their arrest,nor with their interview on television in Israel after being allowed to flee back to Israel, money, passports and explosives had been found in their van, nothing speculative about that, statements like "We wanted to film the event when it happened (since we knew it was going to happen)--nothing conspiratorial about that, are Mossad agents dressed as Arabs speculative? Your claims of "conspiracy" are like calling all critics of Israel "Anti-Semitic"...intimidation tactics are so eighties. The enemy of people who like lying is really YouTube, and the internet in general...politicians cannot lie like they used to anymore because there is a huge body of evidence on tape. Shucks. Global P.R. is working against Israel and that's why disgraced corrupt Olmert came out with this amazing "resolution" recently.
Posted by mystic at 12/19/2008 @ 10:00am
A democratic secular state for all inhabitants of that land Mask; not based on the superiority of one race or one religion. And certainly, not based on biblical prophecies; what is wrong with that? A truth and reconciliation commission, as it happened in South Africa, to bring a measure redemption to those with valid claims of injustice.
Posted by CripThink at 12/19/2008 @ 10:13am
Mask...Israel must return to its 1967 borders. East Jeruselem must be the capital of the Palestinian state. U.N. resolutions mandate that Israel give up all land seized in the 1967 war which Israel started. This is the framework for a peace deal, but Israel will not agree to this, becase it has an imperial Zionist obsession with controlling all of Palestine. And the U.S. will not push Israel to the table because of the strong rich Israeli influence here. The obstacle to peace is Israel.
Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 11:06am
Any rational true friend of Israel as a "Jewish" statewould support a two-state solution. There are only three choices for Israel:(1)to continue as an aparthied state with the world increasingly disgusted by the brutal occupation and oppression of Palestinians;(2)officially annex the West Bank, whih would require giving the vote to Palestinians , or else Israel would no longer be a "democracy". This would result in a non-Jewish majority in Israel, which would mean that Israel is no longer a "Jewish" state; or(3)agree to the creation of an independent Palestinian state on the internationally-recognized 1967 borders. Most sensible Jews would pick (3).
Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 11:40am
<i>Posted by mystic at 12/19/2008 @ 07:35am </i>
Huh? That doesn't even make any sense! If it was apparent to us all along that the aircraft involved belonged to Israel (which according to your own posts it was), "they wanted to blame it on Egypt" seems like an argument desperately in search of a motive.
<i>Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 09:09am </i>
You're getting closer, but I don't think you've answered the question. Who or what precisely is the Israel lobby? As I've said before, the statement that you cannot criticize Israel and maintain your career is plainly false; I've seen people do it numerous times, including even a few times on Fox.
<i>Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 09:40am </i>
Did they really? There are two problems here. First, you're ignoring their much greater concern about Iran, and I think that's kind of problematic. Second, what is your evidence that Israel decided at that point that Saddam would have to go? They had bombed the Osirak reactor about ten years prior, but hadn't seen fit to do much against Saddam since.
Oh! ONe other little detail there, btw. If Israel felt threatened enough to destroy Iraq's nuclear reactor, and yet this was the same country the US was giving support to (including chemical weapons), what happened to the all-powerful Israel Lobby?
Posted by Thrawn at 12/19/2008 @ 12:44pm
The efficacy of NATO forces might be judged by how well they have done in Lebanon.
There, after the summer war of 2006 various countries, including France, Italy, Spain and Germany agreed to provide 15,000 men to carry out UN Resolution 1701 which was unanimously approved on 11 August. It called for disarmaming Hezbollah and the withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon. Both those countries agreed.
But soon both the Lebanese government and the UN changed their minds. On August 27, 2006, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that UNIFIL would only interdict arms at Lebanon's request. And Lebanon made no such requests even as Iranian arms poured in via Syria.
As a result Hezbollah remains in southern Lebanon, and with more weapons and missiles than before the 2006 war.
Moreover, Hezbollah's Fadlallah declared that the UN force had "come to protect Israel, not Lebanon".. Such UNIFIL units that confronted armed guerrillas have been attacked. Last year Spain, for example suffered six fatalities to radio controlled roadside bombs. Two Irish soldiers were injured by such bombs this year.
Doubtlessly, a NATO forces in Gaza will either become a shield behind which Hamas will shoot its rockets, or, if the NATO force does its job impartially, it will be accused to protecting not Gaza but Israel, and will come under attack from nebulous forces which Hamas claims to have no control over.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/19/2008 @ 1:39pm
Most of the world is unaware that Israel supports the Mugabe regime. Mossad agents, using diplomatic passports, regularly travel between South Africa and Zimbabwe to assist Mugabe's security and intelligence agencies. Israeli security companies provide Zimbabwe's police and military with tear gas, water cannons, anti-riot gear, and anti-riot armored vehicles.
In return for support for Mugabe, Israel has access to Zimbabwe's gold and diamond resources http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4144.shtml
Posted by mystic at 12/19/2008 @ 7:20pm
Posted by mystic at 12/19/2008 @ 7:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Israel is by no means alone in this.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/19/2008 @ 7:23pm
U.S. unquestioning support for Israeli aggression and occupation of Palestine is the biggest reason for Muslim terrorism against the U.S. and U.S. citizens.
Posted by philbq at 12/19/2008 @ 01:40am
You are absolutely right, that is exactly how I see it as well....as long as we cow tow to Israel there will never be peace over there. Palestine needs a voice in all this and it never has one as far as the US is concerned, it all falls on deaf ears!!!
Posted by Caj at 12/20/2008 @ 10:41am
it's Kowtow. nothing bovine about it.
kowtowing before the palestinians, as many do here, is not bringing us closer to peace either.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/20/2008 @ 10:47am
kowtowing before the palestinians, as many do here, is not bringing us closer to peace either.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/20/2008 @ 10:47am
Your answer is what then...just let Israel ride rough shod over the Palestinian people???? Surely peace can only be obtained if both sides are brought to the table,whether we like the chosen leaders of either party or not. We can't dismiss talking to Palestine simply because WE may not like who they have chosen as their leader. That will always continue to be a problem with the US, because they uphold anything Israel chooses to do and nobody Palestine chooses as leader is good enough for Israel. They have far too much sway in that region with the help of the US backing at every turn...how can peaceful talks ever get underway when Israel hold all the cards???
Posted by Caj at 12/20/2008 @ 5:21pm
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank members of your own administration -- Secretary Rice, as well as Mr. Hadley -- those people who worked with us tirelessly."
http://tinyurl.com/48j65l
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/20/2008 @ 7:49pm
Well, that is all very admirable and about time too I would say...how come though we never saw this happen with Arafat when he was the leader of Palestine???? Could it have been that WE didn't recognize him as the chosen leader of Palestine so therefore we couldn't talk to him. We only address people who WE deem appropriate for the situation, it does not matter who may be appropriate for in this case Palestine's choice of leader at the time Arafat. So you see we still pick and choose who WE will talk to at the end of the day.
Posted by Caj at 12/21/2008 @ 09:32am
It might be fine with you, but Bush realized that you don't honor or respect someone who kills your people without any regret or apologies.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/21/2008 @ 10:28am
You make a good point in the sense of that being how the Iraqi's don't honor or respect Bush for doing just the same thing to them!!!! It's amazing how everyone is a terrorist when they don't fall in line with what we believe. So you don't see what the Israeli's do in Palestine as an act of terrorism then, that only occurs when it's reversed!!!! You don't see any resemblance to Cheney and Bush in being terrorists or murderer's then seeing as they did the exact same thing in Iraq...killing innocent people with no apologies to this very day, and they knew that war was unnecessary and yet they went anyway. So don't go around blaming everyone else for their blood thirsty ways, when we have the same kind of folks in charge of this country and I hope there will be an investigation on them and the they be brought to trial for what they have done all in the name of "Democracy and Freedom"....just empty useless words!!! I'm glad we will be getting a new President who at least will be prepared to talk to other countries...friend or foe before getting involved in anymore senseless wars.
Posted by Caj at 12/21/2008 @ 5:09pm
Posted by Caj at 12/20/2008 @ 5:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
you are arguing with yourself here, bub. I have been presenting my argument here for years and that ain't it.
Posted by emile duBois at 12/21/2008 @ 9:38pm