Israel Lobby in Action

I almost never write about Israel. Someone who supports the Jewish state but opposes the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, as I do, generally gets flack from all sides. Too many on the left are reflexively anti-Israel. But too many in the so-called American mainstream are too quick to back whatever military excursion Israel undertakes--no matter how unproductive or misguided.

Nowhere is the knee-jerk support of Israel more clear than in the debate in Congress this week--or lack thereof--over the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Leaders of both parties have been quick to forcefully condemn Hamas and Hezbollah while offering unconditional support for Israel's bombing of civilian Beirut.

Just take a look at the draft copy of the resolution under consideration in the House:

"Be it resolved that the House of Representatives reaffirms its steadfast support for the state of Israel; further condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for cynically exploiting civilian populations as shields...calls for the immediate and unconditional release of Israeli soldiers held captive by Hezbollah and Hamas; (and) affirms that all governments who have provided continued support to Hamas or Hezbollah share responsibility for the hostage-taking and attacks against Israel and, as such, must be held accountable for their actions."

Only a few senior statesmen have raised an alarm about the ferocity of Israel's response. Rep. John Dingell, the longest serving Democrat in the House, called the Israeli counterattack "disproportionate and counterproductive."

"The use of force has brought about a tragic amount of civilian deaths and has weakened a promising democracy in Lebanon," Dingell said in a statement. "The United States-–as a leader of the free world--must take immediate steps to bring about a cease fire so that negotiations may begin."

Likewise, Senator John Warner, the hawkish Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has been a lone voice in holding up legislation in the Senate viewed as unnecessarily slanted toward Israel. "Our support for Israel is very strong, Mr. President, but it cannot be unconditional," Warner said on the Senate floor yesterday. "I urge the Administration to think through very carefully how Israel's extraordinary reaction could affect our operations in Iraq and our joint diplomatic efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue," he added in a statement.

Why are so few in Congress following the advice of Dingell and Warner? Perhaps it's because of the influence of what professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt call "The Israel Lobby," particularly its largest player, AIPAC.

Even former Bush and Clinton Administration Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, a sharp critic of Mearsheimer and Walt, admits that AIPAC exerts a disproportionate grip on the Congress. "It's pretty clear that they are a significant force on the Hill," Ross recently told NPR, "And that shouldn't be underestimated."

Comments (145)

1. Though I support Israel's right to defend itself, I think its current actions are ultimately going to be counter-productive. What if the Lebanese government is to fall as a result of this current conflict? We could be looking at another Lebanese civil war, which would have dire consequences for every country in the region, including Israel.

   Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 1:21pm

2. Present U.S. policy in the Middle East will lead to a unhealthy backlash against Israel. It is in Israel's best interest to show restraint and not be the Bush Administration's poodle.

   As many Israelis, Palestinians and other citizens of the Middle East know, peace will not come to the Middle East until the Israeli/Palestine issue is resolved. A two-state solution will not resolve the problem -- a one-state solution will be the only peaceful answer.

   The opponents to a separate state of Israel are adamant about their positions and will not relinguish this thought. Both sides are beyond a rational answer to the issue because they perceive that God is on their side -- thus it will be a battle to the death of Israel and Palestine unless more rational people take charge.

   Lastly, the Bush Administration is being hypocritical with its Middle East policy and Israelis should take note of this hypocrisy. Moreover, all parties should remember that those who live by the sword can also die by the sword.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/18/2006 @ 1:49pm

3. You'd think that our MBA president might realize that our Israeli franchise is just not in the right location. I suggest a going out of business sale and a move to Guam or the Marquesas, where they can enjoy the protection of the ocean and close proximity to the burgeoning Asian markets. We can even discuss a dismantling and relocation of the Temple Mount.

   Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/18/2006 @ 1:53pm

4. With the AIPAC Spy trial coming up next month in America, this is just the distraction that was called for, at just the right time.

   The Poppy Bush Crime Family is so guilty of so many things on so many levels, their only hope is to control Congress and its investigative capabilities forever.

   They thought the had the next elections in the bag through the backdoor of the electronic voting machines, but it appears the world is hip to that scam.

   Their only choice is total war, full blown mayhem, a series of false flag attacks on the US Mainland and a wag-the-dog proclamation of Avian Flu to keep a frightened and compliant population locked in their homes.

   Gameoverville is just around the corner.

   America has been totally looted.

   the armed forces have been intentionally degraded, and Israel will become the world's only super power, having confiscated the vast majority of the planet's oil reserves.

   Sadly, our troops are in Iraq to be ambushed and die there.

   Picture two train robbers heading for the Mexican border with bags of gold strapped to their horses.

   At the border, one gets greedy, shoots the other, then takes his horse and his gold over the finish line.

   We're the dead guy.

   But, but, what about all of our nukes...we control the world, right?

   No.

   Israel's software has been installed throughout the most critical systems in the United States, thanks to all of the AIPAC Moles who refer to themselves as Senators and Congressman.

   Who really controls America?

   "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

   The so-called Christian Zionists, the Holy Roller end of timers who are acting in concert with the Oil Whores - in what they believe to be a "Partnership With Israel," these are what the Likudists refer to as"

   "useful idiots."

   The word "Double-cross" doesn't even begin to describe what comes next.

   In the words of Henry Kissinger, these Goy will soon be viewed as little more the "Useless Eaters" in the eyes of the Likudists, as they maneuver to align with their next strategic partner, China.

   The Arrogant and Powerful Americans are simply patsies in an elaborate sting operation, for all the marbles.

   When your "mark" is as susceptible to blackmail as is George Bush Senior, Cheny, Rummy and the rest of these criminals - and the (s)elected President has the intellect of an avocado - and you have the banksters and the Media under your own control...the end game is a foregone conclusion.

   Is this easy, or what?

   Posted by plunger at 07/18/2006 @ 1:57pm

5. ORAIBI1952: That last statement applies to everyone, right?

   Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 1:58pm

6. PLUNGER: Dude, are you serious?

   Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 1:59pm

7. "We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours." Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces - Gad Becker, Yediot Ahronot 13 April 1983, New York Times 14 April 1983.

   On 04 September 2001 a demonstration was held in Jerusalem to support of the Idea of the State Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. It was organised by the movement Bead Artzein ("For the Homeland"), headed by rabbi and historian Avrom Shmulevic from Hebron. According to Shmulevic, "We shall have no peace as long as the whole territory of the Land of Israel will not return under Jewish control.... A stable peace will come only then, when Israel will return to itself all its historical lands, and will thus control both the Suez and the Ormudz channel.... We must remember that Iraqi oil fields too are located on the Jewish land."

   What is "Eretz Israel?

   THIS is Eretz Israel:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

   "We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves." Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

   "We should prepare to go over to the offensive. Our aim is to smash Lebanon, Trans-Jordan, and Syria. The weak point is Lebanon, for the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine. We shall establish a Christian state there, and then we will smash the Arab Legion, eliminate Trans-Jordan; Syria will fall to us. We then bomb and move on and take Port Said, Alexandria and Sinai." David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.

   "It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, of 14 July 1972.

   "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." Ariel Sharon, Israeli Foreign Minister, addressing a meeting of militants from the extreme right-wing Tsomet Party, Agence France Presse, November 15, 1998.

   "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, October 3, 2001, to Shimon Peres, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

   Posted by plunger at 07/18/2006 @ 2:02pm

8. Gertrude - Yes, all parties.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/18/2006 @ 2:04pm

9. Understand...

   Those who occupy the halls of power in Washington WANT WWIII - this has been their goal from the outset. This is why they activated the 9/11 False Flag attack, which Cheney himself directed, as witnessed by Norm Minetta.

   Bush and Cheney and their AIPAC bosses packed the Bush Administration full of self-professed Zionists and dual-citizenship moles specifically to enable all that has followed.

   All of this was scripted before they ever took office.

   There will be no peace talks, and no peace.

   Israel, The Crown, Carlyle and Big Oil don't profit by peace, they profit by war...TOTAL WAR.

   This is the biggest resource grab you could ever fathom, but you don't need to simply imagine it, just read the PNAC.

   Israel is calling all the shots, and we are paying the price.

   The next false flag attack in the US is coming soon, and it will be nuclear, per Cheney's direction.

   The plan involves jumbo jets flown into Nuclear containment vessels at power plants in at least three major US cities - in concert with Bird Flu Warnings designed to help enforce the Martial Law requirement to keep would-be patriots in their homes.

   Make no mistake, a Fascist Dictatorship has inserted itself at the head of your government, and they are not going to stop until they have destroyed this Democratic Republic. George Bush Sr. is effectively the President, Cheney is the VP and Shrub is the puppet.

   It's all coming in the next three months, unless forces within the military physically intervene.

   Have a nice day.

   Posted by plunger at 07/18/2006 @ 2:06pm

10. Chandra Levy and Monica Lewinsky – "Swallows" for Israel.

    Isn't it interesting that Lieberman's name pops up in the case of two similar-looking tarts, who were "Honey Pots" (or "Swallows" - the term used to describe women in the employ of Israel whose job is to compromise US Officials) for Israel's Mossad?

    Note that his article dated less than TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO 9/11.

    Police to return to parks in Levy case Experts: Condit damaged own reputation

    July 22, 2001 Posted: 6:07 PM EDT (2207 GMT)

    Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut, said it wouldn't be productive to focus on Condit's conduct. In 1998, Lieberman was the first prominent Democrat to criticize Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

    Lieberman said the two matters are different and he declined to say whether Condit should resign, as two Republican lawmakers have said.

    "The Chandra Levy case is a missing persons case. And I think we all ought to let the law-enforcement authorities focus on finding Chandra Levy and relieving the terrible trauma and nightmare that her family and friends have gone through," Lieberman told Fox News Sunday. "And when that is over, politicians can begin to speak out."

    Saturday, a spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney, said Cheney met with Condit around the same time Levy was logging off her computer in her apartment May 1.

    Juleanna Glover Weiss said the meeting happened between 12:30 p.m. and 12:50 p.m. in Cheney's office in the House of Representatives. The meeting was "at Condit's request," she said, and included Cheney and some of Cheney's staff discussing the California energy crisis.

    http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/21/missing.intern/index.html

    CHENEY ORDERED THE HIT TO PROTECT THE 9/11 OPERATION?

    Posted by plunger at 07/18/2006 @ 2:06pm

11. ORAIBI1952: Good.

    By the way, I wasn't trying to cause trouble or anything: I just wanted a little clarification.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 2:08pm

12. Posted by TJBEHRENS1 07/18/2006 @ 1:53pm

    As wild as your idea sounds, it might have legs! Ha!

    No really though, think about this. The current state of Israel was plunked down in its place roughly 60 or so years ago. Who lived there before that for hundreds (thousands?) of years. A mix of folks, but they were primarily Muslim. Most of all the mid-East crises are generally the result of arbitraray (well maybe not really...they were drawn with malicious intent) line drawing by the Western powers in the first part of the 20th century. (Of course, this is an oversimplification and there is going to be somebody jumping on my general observation saying its not accounting for this or that factor...but I think its generally accurate.)

    Wouldn't it be nice to have a do-over on all those lines and move them to were they seem to inspire more peace rather than wars? Isn't it amazing what "lines" will do to some people.

    For instance, would the people of Florida like it if the U.N. said Floridians, your state is now the homeland of all Native Americans and their decendants. They will have the right to occupy this land and to govern it. If you don't like it then you can leave. I'm not sure most Floridians wouldn't go without a fight. And of course, Walt Disney would construct its own Army to defend against the "infidels."

    I'm divided on the one-state vs. two-state solutions. I feel that if Palistinians were given a legitimate area to call a state and left alone, they might do okay. I have the same feelings about Iraq...why not carve out a Kurdistan, Shia-istan, and Sunni-stan? On the flip side, one-state solutions seem more logistically feasible, but it will take overcoming thousands of years of grudges and prejudices. Both "solutions" have pros and cons.

    What isn't up for debate is that our current President is neither qualified nor willing to find a long term, peaceful solution. After all, his solution for the current Israeli conflict is to "call up Syria" or have "Kofi call up somebody."

    Posted by BlueTexan at 07/18/2006 @ 2:08pm

13. Gertrude - Israelis should realize that the American people are probably not ready to commit national suicide. Whereas, the opponents of Israel are willing to commit suicide and perhaps some Israelis -- I believe the Israelis to be a rational and so are the opponents to a state of Israel.

    The destruction of the Lebanese government by Israeli forces is one of the aims that I believe Hezbollah desired. Too bad Israel became overly dependent on the empty and hypocritical rhetoric of the Bush Administration and didn't listen to people who really care about the Israeli people. If the Bush Administration really cared about the Israeli people, then they would be brokering a cease fire that would stop the killing of Israelis and Lebanese.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/18/2006 @ 2:10pm

14. Gertrude - I didn't think you were attempting to create trouble. I felt your comments were honest and constructive; and so are mine.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/18/2006 @ 2:11pm

15. ORAIBI1952: Yeah, I agree for the most part. Bush has done absolutely nothing to improve the situation, which I think is utterly irresponsible.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 2:17pm

16. BlueTexan,

    When I talk about a one-state solution, fundamentally I'm thinking of a confederacy consisting of semi-autonomous smaller states divided by geography and not by religion. National governance would be divided equally and stringent oversight by an international body.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/18/2006 @ 2:18pm

17. "Too many on the left are reflexively anti-Israel."...DANG!, Mr Berman.

    That IS going to catch you some flack.

    Plus, might I assume from the 3 posts I'm NOT seeing that, like a Pavlovian dog, somebody mentioned "Israel" and PLUNGER and/or RESE have gone Cut & Paste happy again?

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 2:19pm

18. Gertrude,

    I hope the Israelis will view Bush's attitude toward this current conflict in light of his efforts toward New Orleans -- I see great parallels between the two.

    Remember, everything to Bush is just politics. When Bush told McCain that in South Carolina, he was being very sincere.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/18/2006 @ 2:20pm

19. ORAIBI1952: I agree with your assertions. But I would go even further: I think everything (unfortunately) is about politics today.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 2:27pm

20. Will GERTRUDE-GUY now call Ari Berman an anti-semite as he did myself on John Nichol's "Lebanon" thread because I included an article that mentioned the israel lobby? Gee, I'll never know- he's in the ignore bin.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 2:28pm

21. FROMREDBIRD: The coward returns!

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 2:29pm

22. Posted by ORAIBI1952 07/18/2006 @ 2:18pm

    I think your position is very ligitimate. I just worry that it will (without sufficient international oversight) will continue to be the playground for extremist that feed on the less educated and aware. For instance, will extremist stop bombing Jewish parts of Israel even if Muslim Palestinians are given equal representation in government? I'd like to think so, but you can't be sure. If the states are seperate, would that also solve the problem, not sure either.

    But, the religious and ethnic groups have done it before. For instance the period in Spain when Christians, Muslims and Jews seemed to co-exist quite nicely.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 07/18/2006 @ 2:30pm

23. BLUETEXAN: Good analogy. I think most Israelis and Palestinians would accept peace; I think the hardcore extremists on both sides would continue to cause problems, though.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 2:33pm

24. Gertrude,

    Unfortunately for us citizens, you are probably correct about everything being politics nowadays.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/18/2006 @ 2:37pm

25. FROMREDBIRD, you're a sissy.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 2:37pm

26. ORAIBI1952: I hope I'm not . . .

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 2:38pm

27. Getrude and BlueTexan,

    I must break off this discussion now (have an appointment with a politician -- speaking of politics), but I look forward to continuing this thread.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 07/18/2006 @ 2:39pm

28. ORAIBI1952: Bye.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 2:40pm

29. You're all wasting time and energy. The Lebanon destruction will continue. The policy of US/israel is to destroy the Arabs to such a degree that they have no choice but to accept israeli domination of the entire Middle East. We'll see if it succeeds and if the American people are foolish enough to let themselves be used in this way by creatures who truly despise them. It's the law of the jungle.

    The Jews and Arabs in one-state has about as much chance as a snowball in hell. The basis of israel is "Jews only" and many if not most of them teach their children to hate Arabs from an early age. I've seen it right in the US from visiting israelis. I even saw a 12 or 13 year old israeli tourist, a girl, accuse someone of "being an Arab" who wasn't. Her words were, "You can always tell an Arab", as if it were a crime.

    The law of the jungle. That's all there is now. israel has, over the years, applied it assiduously, believes in it completely, and shouldn't expect anything different back. It's too bad that America had to be dragged into this moral cesspool with them but that's the way it is.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 2:41pm

30. But, the religious and ethnic groups have done it before. For instance the period in Spain when Christians, Muslims and Jews seemed to co-exist quite nicely.

    Posted by BLUETEXAN 07/18/2006 @ 2:30pm

    That was only the case when the Muslims ruled Spain. When the Christians took over it was Inquisition-time. History perhaps tells us something about the present. What is it really that is the underlying problem? The Muslims? History indicates otherwise.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 2:45pm

31. FROMREDBIRD: Are you drunk?

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 2:46pm

32. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 07/18/2006 @ 2:41pm

    "It's too bad that America had to be dragged into this moral cesspool with them but that's the way it is."

    I don't know that the America was drug into this thing...we jumped into it head first. See, the Rapture can't happen if there's no Israel. That's is probably the number one reason why we care about Israel so much. Most people will deny it, but I've heard very few other reasons why we should care so much.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 07/18/2006 @ 2:48pm

33. FROMREDBIRD: "The policy of US/israel is to destroy the Arabs to such a degree that they have no choice but to accept israeli domination of the entire Middle East."

    And the proof you have for this claim is . . .?

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 2:48pm

34. Say; these posts by the tin foil hat crowd reminded me that the anniversary of Woodstock is coming up next month.

    Posted by woodyee at 07/18/2006 @ 2:48pm

35. BLUETEXAN: The United States has been quite close to Israel for quite some time, even before Christian Evangelicals became so prominent in American politics.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 2:50pm

36. WOODYEE: Dude, just ignore FROMREDBIRD; he/she has lost it (if he/she ever had it).

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 2:51pm

37. ZERO: "And the people keep dying, in droves."

    Did you hear about the market massacre in Iraq yesterday and the suicide car bombing today?

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 3:00pm

38. HELTER SKELTER!! IT'S COMING DOWN FAST!!

    Posted by woodyee at 07/18/2006 @ 3:01pm

39. Posted by GERTRUDE 07/18/2006 @ 2:50pm

    True, but our undying commitment to them is bolstered by them today.

    I think we initially supported the creation of Israel because we felt sorry for the Jews after what happened during WWII. Also, we didn't want any more Jewish immigrants, so we needed to find a place for them. But I think there was an underlying current that Chrisitans supported the reconstitution of Israel, its just become more prominent over the last 20 or 30 years.

    Posted by BlueTexan at 07/18/2006 @ 3:02pm

40. The basis of israel is "Jews only" and many if not most of them teach their children to hate Arabs from an early age.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 07/18/2006 @ 2:41pm | ignore this person

    Do they?...or is that "teach them to hate Arabs" thing a bit "interpretive".

    Like, if they teach them they were attacked by Arab countries 3 times, had calls made by Arab leaders for the total destruction of themselves and their country, and were victims of civilian-targetted terrorism for 40 years....is that "teaching them to hate Arabs"?

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 3:08pm

41. And, yes, as Ari points out, the American national government largely could give a shit about anyone besides Israelis in that region. Could it be the presence of Christian Zionism in the Republican flanks? Could it be Lieberman-esque "Democrats" cheering for the Israeli massacres?

    Posted by ZERO 07/18/2006 @ 2:57pm

    And this is the unkindest cut of all. I had high hopes for Russ Feingold. So much for the Democratic Party as far as I'm concerned. They're worthless. I'm just not, under any circumstances, going to vote for a zionist appeaser, ever again. You have to finally draw the line somewhere and sometime.

    Feingold posted a statement on his Web site Friday saying, "I stand firmly with the people of Israel and their government as they defend themselves against these outrageous attacks." [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 3:09pm

42. BLUETEXAN: It's a fact that Evangelicals (some, anyway) strongly support Israel. However, I think their influence on American politics has been overly exaggerated. I don't think the actions towards the Middle East of Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and even Bush II necessarily reflect a religious attitude, but rather a strategic or ideological attitude.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 3:11pm

43. I think we initially supported the creation of Israel because we felt sorry for the Jews after what happened during WWII. Also, we didn't want any more Jewish immigrants, so we needed to find a place for them. But I think there was an underlying current that Chrisitans supported the reconstitution of Israel, its just become more prominent over the last 20 or 30 years.

    Posted by BLUETEXAN 07/18/2006 @ 3:02pm

    That two million dollar bribe to Truman probably had something to do with it, too.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 3:11pm

44. FROMREDBIRD: Sissy.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 3:12pm

45. FROMREDBIRD: "That two million dollar bribe to Truman probably had something to do with it, too."

    Is that a baseless allegation that I read? Or do my eyes deceive me?

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 3:14pm

46. FROMREDBIRD: "zionist appeaser"

    Define, please.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 3:15pm

47. Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 3:15pm

48. That two million dollar bribe to Truman probably had something to do with it, too.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 07/18/2006 @ 3:11pm

    Which has to qualify as the best investment in human history. What have they gotten back- $180 billion, $300 billion? What's the point of keeping track anymore?

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 3:16pm

49. LVLIBERTY1: Please tell FROMREDBIRD that I think he is a sissy for putting me into his ignore bin.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 3:18pm

50. "Too many on the left are reflexively anti-Israel."---Ari Berman

    Last 4 or 5 posts from FROMREDBIRD, maybe?

    Posted by Mask at 07/18/2006 @ 3:20pm

51. why the endless conspiratorial commentary? why not see this for what it is: contest for land between two determined parties, one willing to compromise because it values peace while the other is convinced time is on its side and therefore is willing to engage in armed conflict until it gets its way. question is pretty simple: is there anything at all that can convince palestinians to compromise, or as israelis have asked for a couple generations, will palestinians one day love their children more than they hate israeli children?

    Posted by nk at 07/18/2006 @ 3:29pm

52. MASK: "Too many on the left are reflexively anti-Israel."---Ari Berman

    Last 4 or 5 posts from FROMREDBIRD, maybe?"

    Yeah, I would say so.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 3:33pm

53. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 07/18/2006 @ 3:17pm

    Bad URL. Curious to see the site that puts forward "Israel's international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible" as a serious argument.

    contest for land between two determined parties, one willing to compromise because it values peace while the other is convinced time is on its side and therefore is willing to engage in armed conflict until it gets its way. question is pretty simple: is there anything at all that can convince palestinians to compromise, or as israelis have asked for a couple generations, will palestinians one day love their children more than they hate israeli children?

    Posted by NK 07/18/2006 @ 3:29pm

    This doesn't really add much to the commentary already made here. Can you simplify the situation even more beyond "Israel good people, Palestinians bad people"? Your thinking seems so unnecessarily complex.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/18/2006 @ 3:34pm

54. TJBEHRENS1: How about, "Israeli fanatics are assholes, Muslim fanatics are assholes"? It's not very complex, but I think it makes some sense.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 3:37pm

55. You're all wasting time and energy. The Lebanon destruction will continue. The policy of US/israel is to destroy the Arabs to such a degree that they have no choice but to accept israeli domination of the entire Middle East.

    Boy, you've gone into tinfoil-hat land. Israel certainly is aspiring to the destruction of Hezbollah (and won't acheive it).

    LL

    2. The fact that there is no "Palestinian nation or people". It is a late creation solely for the purpose of fulfilling item 1.

    The existence of the Palestinian nation is a fact created, not by proclamations, but by the history of the area since 1967. That created a severance between the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and Jordan that led to the development of a national consciousness. If you think that doesn't exist, just try floating the idea of calling them Jordanians. Further, Jordan has long renounced any claim to the West Bank.

    Israel's international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel's admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel's people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.

    First, the Old Testament is NOT an instrument of international law. Basic current geo-political claims on it is an act of religious zealotry, not respect for history. It is consequently totally irrelevant to any just solution of the questions of Israel and the Palestinians. The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate and the UN partition certainly do legitimize Israeli existence but it doesn't follow from that that the Likudnik claim to the West Bank is valid. None of these sources support that. Further, uninterrupted Jewish settlement and a Jewish state are not the same thing. That uninterrupted settlement represented only a minority of the population.

    Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 3:43pm

56. Gertrude,

    NOW I get it. Thanks!

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/18/2006 @ 3:44pm

57. surely no one here could approach the level of sophistication you bring to this discussion, and the rest of us are reduced to very simple questions reluctantly asked with shameful red faces. so here is another: israel first agreed to a two state solution even before it attained its independence, when the parcels granted it barely, but accepted nonetheless, constituted a viable state. in your infinite wisdom, when do you think there will be a palestinian leadership brave and bold enough to finally agree to such a deal?

    Posted by nk at 07/18/2006 @ 3:46pm

58. TJBEHRENS1: Your welcome.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 3:52pm

59. NK: Who are you asking this question?

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 3:52pm

60. . . israel first agreed to a two state solution even before it attained its independence, when the parcels granted it barely, but accepted nonetheless, constituted a viable state. in your infinite wisdom, when do you think there will be a palestinian leadership brave and bold enough to finally agree to such a deal?

    Posted by NK 07/18/2006 @ 3:46pm

    The Jewish immigrants owned 7% and the UN "gave" them 57%. Such a deal for the Palestinians! That statement would be laughable if it weren't for it's homicidal content.

    By the way, when will you be brave and bold enough to agree that I own 57% of all your property? Or, do I have to buy 7% (or less) of it first?

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 4:01pm

61. Chill out, FROMREDBIRD. Pretty soon you'll be passing out invitations to your next Neo-Nazi meeting.

    Posted by woodyee at 07/18/2006 @ 4:05pm

62. You're all wasting time and energy. The Lebanon destruction will continue. The policy of US/israel is to destroy the Arabs to such a degree that they have no choice but to accept israeli domination of the entire Middle East.

    Boy, you've gone into tinfoil-hat land. Israel certainly is aspiring to the destruction of Hezbollah (and won't acheive it).

    Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 3:43pm

    Gee, there's really no evidence at all for my "tinfoil-hat" viewpoint at all, is there? Not the least. Bejeezus.

    I will grant that you are proabably right about the likelihood of Hezbollah being destroyed. I never said that israel would succeed. I only spoke of their desires and intentions. It's positively silly that you would call this a "tinfoil-hat" idea. For Christ's sake, the israeli "Clean Break" plan is available in a written record.

    After demolishing Lebanon they will want the rest of the world to police the remains. And, the US will be helping them push for that. Let's wait and see how accurate that forecast is.

    Anyone who thinks that the broad outlines of this weren't worked out beforehand between the US and israel is completely in the dark.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 4:14pm

63. WOODYEE: Yeah, no kidding.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 4:15pm

64. US unconditional support for Isreal may lead the world into WWIII. Isreal has every right to defend her self but treating Palestanians like slaves will not bring peace to Isreal PERIOD.

    Posted by jossai at 07/18/2006 @ 4:15pm

65. WOODYEE: Please, please tell FROMREDBIRD that I think he is a sissy for putting me into his ignore bin.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 4:16pm

66. of course, the "homicidal" action was taken then by the palestinian arab community and the surrounding arab states deciding to intervene illegally in palestinian affairs. had the palestinian jews and palestinian arabs at the time been left to sort through their affairs without homicidal meddling by the rest of the arab world, it's entirely likely a settlement would have been achieved long ago. as for your percentages, why do you omit the first partition and fail to acknowledge in your bogus arithmetic that the home for the jews envisioned by the balfour declaration (no one has ever claimed it was supposed to be precisely 50-50 in any case) was based on a considerably larger palestine, and that consequently it was, indeed, the palestinian jews who willingly accepted the short end of the stick given the large number of palestinian arabs who uncomplainingly accepted citizenship east of the jordan. and, finally, yes, palestinian jews is the right term given the long history of unbroken jewish presence in palestine, so that your denigration by use of the term "immigrant" is correct only if you are suggesting the movement of peoples dating back at least a couple thousand years.

    Posted by nk at 07/18/2006 @ 4:17pm

67. The existence of the Palestinian nation is a fact created, not by proclamations, but by the history of the area since 1967.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 3:43pm

    There's no need for a "Palestinian nation" to trigger an ethical standard. It's wrong to murder someone and steal their land. That's the discussion that both you and the LL creature are pretending doesn't exist. You're just pretending in a different way.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 4:20pm

68. I don't understand why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is placed on a level of importance above everything else. Haven't there been conflicts in Asia, Latin America, and Africa which have been far more brutal and bloody than the one in the Middle East? And why haven't these conflicts gotten more attention from lefties and conservatives alike?

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 4:24pm

69. of course, the "homicidal" action was taken then by the palestinian arab community and the surrounding arab states deciding to intervene illegally in palestinian affairs. had the palestinian jews and palestinian arabs at the time been left to sort through their affairs without homicidal meddling by the rest of the arab world, it's entirely likely a settlement would have been achieved long ago. as for your percentages, why do you omit the first partition and fail to acknowledge in your bogus arithmetic that the home for the jews envisioned by the balfour declaration (no one has ever claimed it was supposed to be precisely 50-50 in any case) was based on a considerably larger palestine, and that consequently it was, indeed, the palestinian jews who willingly accepted the short end of the stick given the large number of palestinian arabs who uncomplainingly accepted citizenship east of the jordan. and, finally, yes, palestinian jews is the right term given the long history of unbroken jewish presence in palestine, so that your denigration by use of the term "immigrant" is correct only if you are suggesting the movement of peoples dating back at least a couple thousand years.

    Posted by NK 07/18/2006 @ 4:17pm

    You've liberally salted your history with the typical falsehoods but tell me one thing. Why does some British bastard in a hotel in Europe have the right to "give" a Jew that he met for coffee the privilege to start flooding Palestine with immigrants from Europe?

    What a sick joke. That's what zionists refer to for the "legality" of their "state".

    The Balfour Declaration didn't partition Palestine at all, by the way, you erudite historian.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 4:29pm

70. There's no need for a "Palestinian nation" to trigger an ethical standard. It's wrong to murder someone and steal their land.

    And which murders, exactly, took place during the Israeli settlement of the first half of the 20th century (and please don't use 1948, as that was largely a stand-up war, not murder)? Further, you don't specify how much of that extra 50% was Arab-owned land and how much was public land. Finally, you offer no proof that Israeli immigration displaced anyone (again, as opposed to the 1948 War).

    Gertrude

    I don't understand why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is placed on a level of importance above everything else. Haven't there been conflicts in Asia, Latin America, and Africa which have been far more brutal and bloody than the one in the Middle East? And why haven't these conflicts gotten more attention from lefties and conservatives alike?

    Persistence?

    Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 4:34pm

71. The Daily Star Lebanon | Ramsay Short Beirut

    BEIRUT: It is just a scrap of paper with some roughly scribbled words on it, written 89 years ago in a London hotel. But that scrap of paper, or lot number 217, to be sold at a Sotheby's auction of Fine Books and Manuscripts in New York on June 16, holds the founding remarks of what would become the future Jewish state of Israel.

    The note reads: "H[is] M[ajesty's] G[overnment] accepts the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the Nat[iona]l Home of the J[ewish] P[eople]. HMG will use its best efforts to secure the achievement of this object, and will discuss the necessary methods and means with the Z[ionist] O[rganization]."

    That's right. What is going under the hammer in five days time is a draft written on hotel stationery of the Balfour Declaration, the British government's statement that agreed in principle to the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

    The link no longer works. The Daily Star has probably been bombed into rubble at this point.

    Please note the words- "written 89 years ago" and the words "Palestine should be reconstituted as the Nat[iona]l Home of the J[ewish] P[eople". Wow! There actually was something called Palestine? Maybe this British asshole just made it up on the spur of the moment. Maybe the Muslim mosque of al-Aqsa was built in 638 A.D. by beings from another solar system.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 4:39pm

72. BRUNOWE: Maybe . . .

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 4:41pm

73. Gertrude

    I don't understand why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is placed on a level of importance above everything else. Haven't there been conflicts in Asia, Latin America, and Africa which have been far more brutal and bloody than the one in the Middle East? And why haven't these conflicts gotten more attention from lefties and conservatives alike?

    A good question to ask would be- "why have we been paying hundreds of billions of dollars of our taxes to create this conflict"?

    Assuming that you wanted to ask a good question.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 4:44pm

74. FROMREDBIRD: I haven't read anybody who says that the Palestinians don't deserve to have a homeland. What pisses me off is that, when you really think about it, what the hell is the point of this argument anyway? It's really easy for us (myself included) to make assumptions about a situation thousands miles aways and thousands of years old when we are not affected directly by this conflict.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 4:44pm

75. FROMREDBIRD: Why isn't that question a good question? What, the lives of Asians, Latin Americans, and Africans don't mean as much as the lives of Israelis and Palestinians?

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 4:45pm

76. And by the way, jackass, "we" didn't create this conflict. The Israelis and Arabs did that all on their own.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 4:46pm

77. Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 4:49pm

78. Mr. Berman's quite right in pointing out that far too many on the left offer knee-jerk condemnations of any Israeli policy. It's just as true that too many on the right resort to tarring any criticism of Israeli policy with the label "anti-Semite," which is probably the most emotionally charged insults of the past 100 years.

    I'm personally of the opinion that Israel has then right to defend itself. Whatever one thinks of the legitimacy of the Israeli state, they're a nation of better than six million people that is recognized by international law, is a representative democracy and, like it or not, has set up shop in the Middle East and it's quite obviously not going anywhere. That being the case, Israeli citizens are just as entitled to safety as the rest of the world, including the Palestinians and Lebanese.

    Their actions in Lebanon aren't an indiscriminate attempt to kill Lebanese civilians -- it's a response to a raid across their borders by a faction of a neighboring government and the kidnapping of two of their soldiers. They've gone a bit overboard in the level of their response, if you ask me, but they didn't pick this particular fight.

    Hezbollah, on the other hand, after violating Israel's sovereignty and kidnapping two of its soldiers, has been launching missiles into Israeli cities with the express purpose of killing civilians -- there is no other intent there but to kill civilians. That's indefensible.

    All of this is not to say that Israel hasn't acted irresponsibly or maliciously against the Palestinian people -- for which I'm the first to criticize them. There are atrocities on both sides of the fight, but it's intellectually dishonest to decry Israel for civilian deaths when Israeli civilian deaths are the primary, if not sole, intent of their enemies.

    That said, it's also important for everyone to remember that Israel is very much like the US -- the population runs the gamut in political beliefs, there are hawks and doves and the moderate middle, just as in the US. Painting every Israeli with the same broad stroke is the same as basing your opinion of Americans on the actions of the current administration.

    Posted by breasonable at 07/18/2006 @ 4:49pm

79. BREASONABLE: Well said.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 4:51pm

80. Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 4:51pm

81. MASK, yes, it was PLUNGER, with a large number of "proof texts" about Zionist conspiracy to control the bulk of the Middle East.

    When LVLIBERTY1 says, "Israel's international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel's admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel's people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence."

    It is critical to toss in the first bit, because of course neither the partition resolution, nor the admission of Israel into the UN, nor the recognition of the state of Israel, gives Israel right to occupy the West Bank indefinitely while denying the residents of the West Bank a vote in the quasi-democracy that exercises sovereignty in the area.

    And none of the points give Israel, Syria or Iran license to undermine self-determination in Lebanon. However, Lebanon does not have a big brother to finance an army, so it simply has to suffer while Hezbollah and Israel have at each other.

    Posted by BruceMcF at 07/18/2006 @ 4:55pm

82. There's no need for a "Palestinian nation" to trigger an ethical standard. It's wrong to murder someone and steal their land.

    And which murders, exactly, took place during the Israeli settlement of the first half of the 20th century (and please don't use 1948, as that was largely a stand-up war, not murder)? Further, you don't specify how much of that extra 50% was Arab-owned land and how much was public land. Finally, you offer no proof that Israeli immigration displaced anyone (again, as opposed to the 1948 War).

    Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 4:34pm

    Just like bombing Lebanon isn't murder? Thanks for the ethical instruction.

    Let's see- israelis are living in miserable refugee camps because they were expelled by violence from the land that they lived in for a thousand years and their children are suffering high rates of malnutrition under the Palestinian occupiers who came from Europe and America. OK- I figured it out. The israelis are the victims.

    I see you want to resurrect the "public land" BS again. Why does an occupying power like Britain have the right to give public land in Palestine to Jews from Europe and America? Can the UN give public land in the US to Hezbollah?

    A conversation with someone who wants to appease zionism really couldn't get any more childish.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 4:55pm

83. thank you for making my point. OF COURSE balfour did not call for partition; it called for a home for the jews. the two partitions were subsequent to balfour, so that your percentages based solely on what was happening in 1947 are meaningless at best, though they clearly reveal both ignorance and bias, if you will forgive the redundancy. why are you only exercised about balfour and not versailles 1919 and other contemporaneous european actions that created a host of arab states with equal or less legitimacy? given french mandatory control over lebanon and syria, and british mandatory control over palestine and iraq, all in 1920, and the installation of bogus regimes meant to create instant nationhood for many in the region, why is it only the jews' success in forestalling annihilation that pisses you off so much? and as for the final insult referring to erudition and history, please don't strain your comedy gland.

    Posted by nk at 07/18/2006 @ 4:57pm

84. FRBird

    The only thing childish is your petulance. The point is that the British administered the land pursuant to a League of Nations/UN Mandate. That gave them the right to distribute the public land, especially as it was the UN (as the responsible authority) that signed-off on the partition agreement). The comparison to the US is a complete non-sequitur as the US isn't/wasn't under the administration of an international body, or hadn't you heard?

    Just like bombing Lebanon isn't murder? Thanks for the ethical instruction.

    You clearly need ethical instruction, so my pleasure. To casually dismiss every killing in the 1948 War as murder is to eliminate the distinction between private violence and violence in war--yet another prodigious leap of illogic on your part.

    BREASONABLE

    Although the Israelis didn't pick this fight, the level of their response is more than going overboard--it is an attempt to somehow force the rest of Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah (probably not within Lebanon's capacity--certainly not under Israeli fire) and to wipe out Hezbollah military (not doable--damage certainly but not destroy).

    Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 5:05pm

85. Their actions in Lebanon aren't an indiscriminate attempt to kill Lebanese civilians --

    Hezbollah, on the other hand, after violating Israel's sovereignty and kidnapping two of its soldiers, has been launching missiles into Israeli cities with the express purpose of killing civilians -- there is no other intent there but to kill civilians. That's indefensible.

    it's intellectually dishonest to decry Israel for civilian deaths when Israeli civilian deaths are the primary, if not sole, intent of their enemies.

    Posted by BREASONABLE 07/18/2006 @ 4:49pm

    Gee whiz! You know, it's almost impossible to figure out why 99% of the Arab deaths caused by israel so far in this conflict are civilian and only about 50% of the israeli deaths caused by Hezbollah so far in this conflict are civilian.

    Also, let's see- Israeli pilots can fly over their targets in a leisurely manner and look at them since Lebanon has no air force. Hezbollah is firing rockets at targets as much as 30 miles distant and they don't have any ability whatsoever to scout their targets.

    Bullshit. Israel is targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. It's the basis of their strategy- punish the Arabs until they submit to Israeli overlordship. The law of the jungle.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 5:07pm

86. . . why do you omit the first partition and fail to acknowledge in your bogus arithmetic that the home for the jews envisioned by the balfour declaration . .

    Posted by NK 07/18/2006 @ 4:17pm

    OF COURSE balfour did not call for partition; it called for a home for the jews.

    Posted by NK 07/18/2006 @ 4:57pm

    All I can say is, "Thanks for reading the text of the Balfour declaration that I posted."

    I've also spent enough of my time today revealing the zionist-appeasement bullshit. You wanted the law of the jungle. Don't whine when you get it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 5:16pm

87. FRBird

    The only thing childish is your petulance. The point is that the British administered the land pursuant to a League of Nations/UN Mandate. That gave them the right to distribute the public land, especially as it was the UN (as the responsible authority) that signed-off on the partition agreement). The comparison to the US is a complete non-sequitur as the US isn't/wasn't under the administration of an international body, or hadn't you heard?

    Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 5:05pm

    I guess that puts you in the catbird seat, doesn't it? It's someone else's land that's being stolen, not yours.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 5:19pm

88. FROMREDBIRD, I don't disagree that the deaths have been disproportionately Lebanese. Death is death, and I'm of the opinion that the sort of moral relativism that comes from weighing numbers against one another is very much an easy way to slip into inhumanity. Which does not excuse Israel's actions in the past -- I'm no apologist.

    And it may be a weak defense, but I will say that it's also worth noting that disproportionate civilian casualties or no, Israel did leaflet a great deal of Hezbollah-occupied southern Lebanon warning civilians to leave the area. Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas give the same consideration to Israeli citizens.

    I don't disagree with you. But I'll still stand by my statement that it's intellectually dishonest to decry Israel for civilian casualties when the sole tactic employed by their enemies is Israeli civilian deaths, if not by rocket attack then by explosive belt. Don't give Hamas and Hezbollah the same free pass you're unwilling to give Israel.

    BRUNOWE, I agree. The level of response has been counterproductive, and destabilizing the Lebanese government will only breed further attacks on Israel, and the same sad cycle will continue.

    Posted by breasonable at 07/18/2006 @ 5:20pm

89. Just like bombing Lebanon isn't murder? Thanks for the ethical instruction.

    You clearly need ethical instruction, so my pleasure. To casually dismiss every killing in the 1948 War as murder is to eliminate the distinction between private violence and violence in war--yet another prodigious leap of illogic on your part.

    Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 5:05pm

    I guess that also explains why it's alright for the US to kill Iraqis- because it's a war. The UN has also acquiesced in our occupation of Iraq so it's ethical to drive the Iraqis out of Iraq and take their oil. Isn't it? That's your reasoning so I would guess that you are foursquare behind Iraq occupation cheerleaders like LL, CPT, Rio Bravo, etc. Or, does that reasoning only apply to israel and nowhere else in the world? I'm the one making prodigious leaps of illogic? You really are a very, very good ethical instructor. The law of the jungle.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 5:26pm

90. In all this jibberish, can anyone tell me what Israel CAN do to prevent itself from being threatened and attacked? Tear down more settlements and give up more land? Convert to Islam? Please tell me, oh mighty all-knowing liberals! Than, can you also tell me the magic solution to dealing with terrorist dictatorships like Iran and Syria. I'm sure the answer will involve some srot of appeasment, so can you be specific as to what type of appeasment?

    Posted by barry25 at 07/18/2006 @ 5:33pm

91. And it may be a weak defense, but I will say that it's also worth noting that disproportionate civilian casualties or no, Israel did leaflet a great deal of Hezbollah-occupied southern Lebanon warning civilians to leave the area. Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas give the same consideration to Israeli citizens.

    Posted by BREASONABLE 07/18/2006 @ 5:20pm

    It's a shame those Lebanese had their spaceships in the shop for repairs when they got those leaflets. It's also a shame that those naughty israeli pilots decided to strafe and rocket the refugees who did try to flee in ordinary old cars.

    I'm also sure that as soon as Hezbollah get THEIR spaceships out of the shop they'll start leafletting.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 5:34pm

92. In all this jibberish, can anyone tell me what Israel CAN do to prevent itself from being threatened and attacked? Tear down more settlements and give up more land? Convert to Islam? Please tell me, oh mighty all-knowing liberals! Than, can you also tell me the magic solution to dealing with terrorist dictatorships like Iran and Syria. I'm sure the answer will involve some srot of appeasment, so can you be specific as to what type of appeasment?

    Posted by BARRY25 07/18/2006 @ 5:33pm

    They could have shared the land of Palestine in a reasonable manner with the Palestinians. That's what the great majority of Palestinians have always been willing to accept. There are polls to prove it. That would leave Hamas out in the cold.

    The problem is that israel wants all of it. If a majority of isarelis don't want that then they should stop electing governments whose objective is exactly that.

    And, how the hell did you get off my ignore list? I must have had a hell of a weak moment when I took you off.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 5:40pm

93. No more today. Bye, bye. There's a limit.

    Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 5:41pm

94. Fromredbird, what would constitute a " reasonable manner " for sahring the land of Palestine! Furthermore, you state that the Iraelis should stop electing gov't.s that want all the land! You have no problem, though, with Palestinians electing a terrorist organization to govern them! This, in my opinion, makes the Palestinian people fully responsible for the evil and murderous acts of Hamas! The Israelis made huge concessions recently with the pullout of Gaza and destruction of settlements! This was met with more attacks. Nothing short of the outright destruction of Israel with ever satisfy these hateful, intolerant, dirtbags! Just ask the Pres. of Iran! Sharon tried to appease them with a pullout , against the wishes of many Israelis, and look what happened! These people cannot be reasoned with, the hatred is ingrained in them!

    Posted by barry25 at 07/18/2006 @ 6:38pm

95. Lvliberty, I couldn't agree more! I am afraid, however, that there are many more that see things the way fromredbird does!

    Posted by barry25 at 07/18/2006 @ 6:42pm

96. Hezbollah launched a completely unprovoked attack on Israel by invading it killing 8 soldiers and capturing 2 others. So what does the left-wing media do? They do what they always do and bash the Jews for trying do protect themselves by destroying Hezbollah sites and infrastructure. Maybe if they killed 8 Hezbollah soldiers and captured 2 others, that would be fine. Or if Hezbollah blew up a bus, then Israel should blow up a bus too.

    After reading comments from people like PLUNGER, (or is it RESE) it is clearly evident that the Left unfortunately has become increasingly anti-Semetic over the years. Something the right-wing used to be.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 07/18/2006 @ 6:42pm

97. ZERO: I wonder if you have the some indignation when it comes to the terrorist massacres in Iraq. Yesterday gunmen ran through a Shiite market and killed 50 people, and today a suicide car bomber killed an additional 50 people.

    Now, lest I be misinterpreted, I am in no way making excuses for the Israelis. Their current actions have brought only destruction and destablization, and I hope they cease their operations immediately. But it makes me somewhat irritated when I hear people get angry over one injustice, and then refuse to comment on another which is equally devestating and destructive.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 7:48pm

98. ZERO: "The Israeli pig needs castration. There will never be peace if the Israelis, throughout their history, never make a sustainted attempt to be accountable for their history as a nation and to build real relationships with the people who already lived in the region and are Israel's chosen neighbors."

    I agree with the last part, but it's a two-way street. Muslims must come to recognize that Israel has a right to exist. And there will never be peace if Muslim extremists continue to exploit the situation in order to push their theocratic agenda.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 7:55pm

99. "Gertrude: the violence in Iraq is terrible! Just terrible! And if the US hadn't invaded, it wouldn't be happening!"

    And if my grandma had wheels should would be a bicycle. It is not 2003 anymore: we are there now, and there is really nothing that can change that.

    Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 7:57pm

100. Feingold's declaration of support for the Israeli massacres was terrible but expected. The impact of the Israeli lobby on the American government is alone huge on our position in the region, and Feingold, among others, probably has unusually close connections to organizations like AIPAC. The Democratic Party is rife with figures who will violate every moral principle they claim to hold, and backpedal on every promise, when it comes time to go to bat for Israel.

     Posted by ZERO 07/18/2006 @ 6:00pm

     It's disappointing in that I could find no previous overt appeasement toward the zionist lobby by Feingold. This statement of his leaves no question that he will appease the zionists no matter what the circumstances are. I, honestly, would have voted for him even if he had no more than a centrist position on the question of israel/Palestine. But what I'm seeing from him is simply a repeat of the zionist propaganda.

     There is nothing in the Democratic Party worth saving. I know that there are some Democrats who are ethical and relatively unequivocal in their refusal to go along with anything that the zionist lobby wants but they are few and far between.

     Meanwhile, continually discrediting all the bunk here from the zionists who range from neo-fascists like LL to those fine hybrids, the "domestic liberal/israel uber alles" variety is a waste of time and energy.

     America is damned and there's no saving it. It's a beautiful country that was unfortunate enough to be populated by an ugly people. The imperialism and cultural chauvinism has taken up permanent residence in their consciousness and asking them to give it up is like asking them to give up their lives.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 7:59pm

101. ZERO: Also, I;m getting tired of people blaming the United States for the terrorism in Iraq. Nobody made those assholes go to Iraq; they went on their on volition with the clear purpose to kill as many people as they could and to create as much chaos as they could.

     Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 7:59pm

102. "Is it possible, in the weeks to come, that Israel will kill more Lebanese than the number of soldiers the US has lost in years in Iraq?"

     Is it possible that in the years to come that more people will have died from the sectarian violence in Iraq than in the entire Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

     Truly, I am getting tired of the body count game.

     Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 8:01pm

103. ZERO: Well, you know what? I couldn't really care less what you do. You are clearly the paranoid type, and honestly, talking to people like you makes me want to vomit.

     Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 8:03pm

104. FROMREDBIRD: "America is damned and there's no saving it. It's a beautiful country that was unfortunate enough to be populated by an ugly people. The imperialism and cultural chauvinism has taken up permanent residence in their consciousness and asking them to give it up is like asking them to give up their lives."

     Wow, that isn't elitist or anything! Well, if you hate it so much here, please by all means leave. I'm sure your Hezbollah friends will give a warm welcome.

     Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 8:05pm

105. Gertrude: clearly you are an idiot. THe "terrorism" in Iraq - and there is a lot of that - as well as the INSURGENCY in Iraq - and there is even MORE of that - are the fault of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

     And I am tired of dim-witted fools like you refusing to acknowledge that truth, not that truth needs *your* help to stand on its own feet.

     Meet my ignore list, hamster.

     Posted by ZERO 07/18/2006 @ 8:01pm

     He's just a troll who repeats what he sees on TeeVee. I ignored him this morning when he produced the regular-as-clockwork "anti-semitism" against me when I included an article that mentioned the israel lobby. Has he launched that charge against Ari Berman yet? Never mind- I care, right?

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 8:06pm

106. It isn't going to amount to anything, not in this lifetime.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 8:08pm

107. FROMREDBIRD and ZERO: For those who have not put me on their ignore list . . . These two are prime examples of political cowardice. They throw insults around, and when the same treatment comes back their way, they act like children and hide behind their ignore list. I urge all of you, regardless of political beliefs, to give these fanatics the same treatment they have given to everyone that disagrees with them.

     Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 8:14pm

108. BARRY25, when you say, "In all this jibberish, can anyone tell me what Israel CAN do to prevent itself from being threatened and attacked? Tear down more settlements and give up more land? Convert to Islam? Please tell me, oh mighty all-knowing liberals!"

     Why restrict this to liberals. Obviously the present policy of fortress Israel isn't working, so it really is an open question for all sides.

     As long as the the occupied territories continue to be the occupied territories, those in the Arabic language sphere will be opposed to the occupation.

     However, a bona fide cessation of the occupation does not guarantee peace. There are still plenty of non-democratic regimes in the neighbourhood that might find a benefit in attacking Israel. Look, for example, at the example of Lebanon, which is constantly being attacked or occupied by its neighbours. And the neighbours of its neighbours, if Iran gets the A-bomb.

     So, the present policy is a long, drawn-out suicide, but there is no guarantee that another policy is not a quicker suicide. The alternative that provides for the most defensible borders is a one-state solution, but actually offering the vote to those currently disenfranchised is always a difficulty trick to pull off.

     Posted by BruceMcF at 07/18/2006 @ 8:28pm

109. ZERO: You see I think Bush is responsible for what the AMERICAN military does. Consequently, I think "resistance fighters" or "terrorists" or whatever you want to call them are responsible for THEIR actions. Why is that so damn difficult for you to understand?

     Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 8:35pm

110. BRUCEMCF: Yeah, I think a one-state solution might be better than a two-state solution simply because a Palestinian state might not be strong enough to resist being exploited by its neighbors, Israelis and Arabs alike. Therefore, I think Palestinians should be given the same rights that Israelis possess, and thus be treated as equals.

     Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 8:39pm

111. By the way ZERO, you are a sissy of the highest order. You clearly don't have the cajones to challenge me directly, so why don't you run off to your little corner and dream your nasty little dreams.

     Posted by Gertrude at 07/18/2006 @ 8:41pm

112. You see I think Bush is responsible for what the AMERICAN military does. Consequently, I think "resistance fighters" or "terrorists" or whatever you want to call them are responsible for THEIR actions. Why is that so damn difficult for you to understand?

     Posted by GERTRUDE 07/18/2006 @ 8:35pm

     But this doesn't make sense unless you see no link between the US presence and the actions of the insurgents. Was it just a coincidence that the latter began immediately after the former?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/18/2006 @ 9:10pm

113. I mean, you can blame the insurgents for a brutality that is their own. But their path to ascendency was paved by us, even if we sit at the end of the line dumbfounded by their depravity, thinking, "Huh. Sure didn't want this to happen."

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 07/18/2006 @ 9:12pm

114. Fromredbird

     You've clearly bitten yourself and gone mad. Your responses speak more of bile than actual reason. First re the tin-foil hat remark--you didn't say destruction of Hezbollah, you said domination of the entire Middle East. Does that includes Iran and Saudi Arabia?

     I guess that puts you in the catbird seat, doesn't it? It's someone else's land that's being stolen, not yours.

     Which is an implied admission that you don't have a response to the fact that there is a key difference caused by the jurisdiction of a competent international authority.

     That's your reasoning so I would guess that you are foursquare behind Iraq occupation cheerleaders like LL, CPT, Rio Bravo, etc. Or, does that reasoning only apply to israel and nowhere else in the world? I'm the one making prodigious leaps of illogic? You really are a very, very good ethical instructor. The law of the jungle.

     The difference is that the US had neither a claim of self-defense or a UN resolution. Israel defended itself against Arabs who rejected a solution by the UN that was the authority in the area.

     Your willingness to disregard that in both cases indicates that it is you who are embracing the law of the jungle.

     LL

     As such it is legal as all journals would be if they provide historical reference as circumstantial evidence backing a claim of land possession.

     I would posit further based upon your statements the following question: Do France, England, Germany, Poland, etc require a document from the UN to establish their sovereignty? All have been conquered and under the thumb of outside occupying powers at different points in their history. Yet no one questions their legitimate sovereignty today.

     But they never ceased to be the majority of people in that land. In Palestine, the Diaspora meants that the Jewish nation was no longer anything but a tiny minority and remained that way for 1900 years. The situations regarding the countries you mentioned aren't even close to parallel.

     What would you do if someone was attempting to place another country in the middle of your own nation?

     The West Bank isn't in the middle of the nation, it's next door to it. Likewise, the idea that the 1967 borders aren't defensible to a country with Israel's military preponderance is not a defensible argument.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 9:22pm

115. GERTRUDE, when you say to ZERO that, "You see I think Bush is responsible for what the AMERICAN military does. Consequently, I think "resistance fighters" or "terrorists" or whatever you want to call them are responsible for THEIR actions. Why is that so damn difficult for you to understand?"

     You are arguing as if responsibility is a hot potato, with one person (organization, gvt.) holding it, and everyone else free and clear.

     Now, say that a city government is presented with two designs for an intersection. They are told that one design is safer, but more expensive, and they go with the other. And it turns out that there are more accidents in that intersection as a result of their action.

     Of course, the drivers who drove recklessly (or drunknely, or incompetently) through a poorly designed intersection are responsible for their actions. And at the same time, the city government is also responsible for selecting a dangerous intersection design.

     By the same token, the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are responsible for their actions. Indeed, given that most of them profess to be followers of Mohammad (sp?), when they target noncombatants, they are violating a very clear proscription from Mohammed.

     But the US government is also responsible for creating a situation which breeds terrorists.

     I think we get this bizarre habit of thought in US politics that "only one side is to blame" from the two-party system. So we'll be charging that system to.

     Posted by BruceMcF at 07/18/2006 @ 9:47pm

116. Fromredbird

     You've clearly bitten yourself and gone mad. Your responses speak more of bile than actual reason. First re the tin-foil hat remark--you didn't say destruction of Hezbollah, you said domination of the entire Middle East. Does that includes Iran and Saudi Arabia?

     Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 9:22pm

     Your ingenuousness is absolutely precious. You don't see israel vociferously urging on conflict between Iran and the US, do you? You never noticed israel threatening to attack Iran if the "West" didn't, did you? Oh, wait, let me guess- that doesn't count because it "makes sense'. After all, Iran might attack America someday with nuclear weapons. Someday. You don't see israel urging on conflict between the US and Syria, do you? You don't see israel's current war crimes in Lebanon as a joint policy of the US and israel, do you? Of course you don't. Because you've bought into it hook, line, and sinker. Oh, wait, I'm sorry- you only swallowed half the sinker. That's your moral "get out of jail free" card. As in: "the Palestinians had their country given to foreigners by 'competent international authorities' therefore they have no choice but to accept it. But I feel sorry for them when I see bombs landing on them."

     Why don't you stick it up your ass? That's where it belongs.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 10:30pm

117. Why don't you stick it up your ass? That's where it belongs.

     I'd say the same thing to you but you're so busy talking out of yours that it would shut you up entirely. No big loss. That outburst alone speaks volumes about the quality of reasoning you bring to the table.

     As to this being a policy to somehow bring the US into conflict with Iran and Syria--well it was Hezbollah that started it; it was Hezbollah that illegally stayed armed after 2000. If there is any possibility of Iran and Syria being connected to this it lies in their wanting to maintain Hezbollah as an ally in that area, not in Israeli actions. The Israeli overraction couldn't possibly be because they were caught off balance by the success of the Hezbollah action, couldn't it? But of course it's easier to accuse the Jews of plotting behind the scenes, isn't it?

     Next you'll be saying that

     Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 10:52pm

118. I guess that puts you in the catbird seat, doesn't it? It's someone else's land that's being stolen, not yours.

     Which is an implied admission that you don't have a response to the fact that there is a key difference caused by the jurisdiction of a competent international authority.

     *** Your favorite saw of "competent international authority" is clearly "might makes right". The law of the jungle. The "Western" domination of the world at the time of the partition of Palestine means, in your hypocritical reasoning, that the strong had the right to void the ethics of rightful ownership and "give" someone else's property to a third party that they had an affinity for. ***

     That's your reasoning so I would guess that you are foursquare behind Iraq occupation cheerleaders like LL, CPT, Rio Bravo, etc. Or, does that reasoning only apply to israel and nowhere else in the world? I'm the one making prodigious leaps of illogic? You really are a very, very good ethical instructor. The law of the jungle.

     The difference is that the US had neither a claim of self-defense or a UN resolution. Israel defended itself against Arabs who rejected a solution by the UN that was the authority in the area.

     Your willingness to disregard that in both cases indicates that it is you who are embracing the law of the jungle.

     *** Your self-regarded "legal" point is bullshit because the partition of Palestine was never implemented. The partition resolution required a 60 day waiting period between the end of the British Mandate and the declaration of any state. The British, the zionists, and "$2 million" Truman colluded to produce a fait accompli by means of violent conquest. The case can be easily made that the UN Iraq resolution was a superior justification in comparison to the abrogated UN partition of Palestine.

     In any case, the US has exactly as good a claim of "self defense" as the zionists who were pouring into Palestine under the wing of British imperialism. They were attacked after they got to Palestine just like American troops were attacked after they got to Iraq.

     Both your "points" are invalid so please explain to me why America doesn't have equal or better moral justification to drive the Iraqis out of Iraq and claim their oil and land than the zionists had to do what they did to the Palestinians. You can only argue "special treatment" and moral immunity for israel. The law of the jungle. I have made my case based on facts, not personal preferences and baseless assertions as you have. ***

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 11:20pm

119. "one of our main problems was that Palestine was not ours to dispose of"

     Harry S Truman, Memoirs of Harrv S. Truman, vol. 2: Years of Trial and Hope (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1956 (p. 144).

     Loy Henderson, at that time the State Department's chief of Near Eastern affairs warned that partition would not only create anti-Americanism but would also require U.S. troops to enforce it, and he stated his belief that partition violated both U.S. and UN principles of self-determination.

     Thomas A. Kolsky, Jews against Zionism: The American Council for Judaism. 1942-1948 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), p. 168

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 11:23pm

120. BRUNOWE, when you say, "As to this being a policy to somehow bring the US into conflict with Iran and Syria -- well it was Hezbollah that started it; it was Hezbollah that illegally stayed armed after 2000. If there is any possibility of Iran and Syria being connected to this it lies in their wanting to maintain Hezbollah as an ally in that area, not in Israeli actions."

     On the other hand, knowing Hezbollah's connections to Iran, it would certainly be in the interests of any faction in Israeli politics that wanted to pick a fight to escalate with Hezbollah on any opportunity and as rapidly as possible.

     And bombing civilian neighborhoods in Beirut on the pretext that Hezbollah leaders live there - with sufficient warning to allow anyone in the Hezbollah leadership to get away - has got to count as fairly extreme escalation.

     Of course, this can be explained as putting pressure on the Lebanese government to reign in a bunch of Shia wingnuts. That is, raining death and destruction on civilian non-combatants in order to pressure their government to give into your demands.

     Of course, it would seem that Hezbollah doing that with rockets is the justification for the Israeli armed forces doing this. Except that its OK for Israel to do this because ...

     ... well, I can't work that one out. Clearly Israel had a right to retaliate against Hezbollah for the rockets, but taking out Lebanon's ports, airport, and bombing civilian neighborhoods in Beirut back to the stone age for the crime of having a heavy Shia population doesn't seem like Israel is all that concerned with targetting Hezbollah as such.

     Posted by BruceMcF at 07/18/2006 @ 11:27pm

121. As to this being a policy to somehow bring the US into conflict with Iran and Syria--well it was Hezbollah that started it; it was Hezbollah that illegally stayed armed after 2000.

     "Illegal" because might makes right, US/israel rules, and the laws of the US/israel jungle must be obeyed. After all, how can israel walk all over Lebanon whenever it wants to when there are people there with small arms and anti-tank bombs? Unacceptable.

     But of course it's easier to accuse the Jews of plotting behind the scenes, isn't it?

     Next you'll be saying that

     Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 10:52pm

     Gee, why don't you go ahead and say it? You know what I mean. It gets frustrating, doesn't it, when all the facts are against you? Go ahead, come on- ANTI-SEMITIC! There I said it for you. Feel better now? It's almost as good as proving something for a change but that's never going to happen. Not when you're trying to be the defense counsel for nazi-like israel.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/18/2006 @ 11:31pm

122. BRUCEMCF

     I agree. Israel's response was excessive and it's aimed at shaking down Lebanon to somehow act against Hezbollah. For example, the naval blockade could've done the job of interdicting shipments to Hezbollah without bombing the ports.

     I don't doubt that Israeli is exploiting the Hezbollah action to try to bring Western pressure on Syria/Iran but the strength of their overraction is more a questions of having been smacked in the muzzle by Hezbollah while they were in the middle of the Hamas issue than a deliberate plot to bring about a general war.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 11:31pm

123. it was Hezbollah that illegally stayed armed after 2000.

     WRONG. Illegal because the Taif accords that ended the Lebanese Civil War called for the disarmament of all militias and illegal because of UN Security Council Resolution 1559.

     It gets frustrating, doesn't it, when all the facts are against you? Go ahead, come on- ANTI-SEMITIC! There I said it for you. Feel better now? It's almost as good as proving something for a change but that's never going to happen. Not when you're trying to be the defense counsel for nazi-like israel.

     You haven't provided facts, just rants. Further, I hardly have to say anything of the kind when you compare Israel to the Nazis and practically state that you'd like to see the Israelis driven into the sea.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 11:34pm

124. Both your "points" are invalid

     Your self-regarded "legal" point is bullshit because the partition of Palestine was never implemented. The partition resolution required a 60 day waiting period between the end of the British Mandate and the declaration of any state. The British, the zionists, and "$2 million" Truman colluded to produce a fait accompli by means of violent conquest.

     It is nothing of the kind. It was the Arabs (inspired by the Nazi-collaborating Grand Mufti) who initiated hostilities (that would be the law of the jungle) in an attempt to undo the UN partiton.

     In any case, the US has exactly as good a claim of "self defense" as the zionists who were pouring into Palestine under the wing of British imperialism. They were attacked after they got to Palestine just like American troops were attacked after they got to Iraq.

     Wrong again. The US initiated armed force. Zionist settlement, almost half of it done NOT under the wings of the British, was hardly an attack by an army. Your inability to distinguish between the two destroys any claim you have to be presenting facts.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 11:40pm

125. "Illegal" because might makes right, US/israel rules, and the laws of the US/israel jungle must be obeyed. After all, how can israel walk all over Lebanon whenever it wants to when there are people there with small arms and anti-tank bombs?

     should've preceded my post starting WRONG. Illegal because the Taif accords that ended the Lebanese Civil War called for the disarmament of all militias and illegal because of UN Security Council Resolution 1559.

     So treaties and UN Security Council Resolutions mean nothing to you but you're not in favor of the law of the jungle.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/18/2006 @ 11:41pm

126. it was Hezbollah that illegally stayed armed after 2000.

     Illegal because the Taif accords that ended the Lebanese Civil War called for the disarmament of all militias and illegal because of UN Security Council Resolution 1559.

     *** You're going completely bonkers now. The Taif Agreement (not "Accords") occurred in 1989 long before 2000 and UN Resolution 1559 occurred long after 2000 at the end of 2004. Your point is rather moot anyway since Hezbollah was not a party to the agreement. I guess that doesn't faze you, though, since the Palestinians were not a party to the "agreement" that gave away 57% of their country.

     By the way, why hasn't the UN ordered the US to withdraw from Iraq if the occupation is illegal, as you say? Is it because might makes right in the US/israel unilateral world and the law of the jungle is the rule that we're operating under? Go ahead, say yes. It won't hurt for long. ***

     It gets frustrating, doesn't it, when all the facts are against you? Go ahead, come on- ANTI-SEMITIC! There I said it for you. Feel better now? It's almost as good as proving something for a change but that's never going to happen. Not when you're trying to be the defense counsel for nazi-like israel.

     You haven't provided facts, just rants. Further, I hardly have to say anything of the kind when you compare Israel to the Nazis and practically state that you'd like to see the Israelis driven into the sea.

     Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 11:34pm

     *** Uh, huh. Does that explain why you had to invent the "Israelis driven into the sea" quote and then try to shove it in my mouth? Because you're the one providing the facts? ***

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/19/2006 @ 12:01am

127. israel is nazi-like.

     What really bothers you about that statement is that it is reasonable.

     You can stick that, too.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/19/2006 @ 12:03am

128. Both your "points" are invalid

     Your self-regarded "legal" point is bullshit because the partition of Palestine was never implemented. The partition resolution required a 60 day waiting period between the end of the British Mandate and the declaration of any state. The British, the zionists, and "$2 million" Truman colluded to produce a fait accompli by means of violent conquest.

     It is nothing of the kind. It was the Arabs (inspired by the Nazi-collaborating Grand Mufti) who initiated hostilities (that would be the law of the jungle) in an attempt to undo the UN partiton.

     In any case, the US has exactly as good a claim of "self defense" as the zionists who were pouring into Palestine under the wing of British imperialism. They were attacked after they got to Palestine just like American troops were attacked after they got to Iraq.

     Wrong again. The US initiated armed force. Zionist settlement, almost half of it done NOT under the wings of the British, was hardly an attack by an army. Your inability to distinguish between the two destroys any claim you have to be presenting facts.

     Posted by BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 11:40pm

     The Arabs attacked when the zionists illegally declared a state and sent their miraculously-appearing-from-nowhere armored cars and tanks out to attack the Palestinians and drive them out.

     Prior to the end of the British Mandate: . . . the next day at the United Nations, Austin called for a special session of the General Assembly to consider a temporary UN trusteeship for Palestine.

     On April 16 the United States formally proposed the temporary trusteeship. The Arabs accepted it conditionally; the Jews rejected it.

     In mid-April, the Irgun and LEHI (the Stern Gang), two Zionist terrorist organizations, attacked the poorly armed Arab village of Deir Yassin, near Jerusalem, and killed 250 men, women, and children. The Arabs retaliated by killing many Jews the next day. Before the British left in May, the Jews had occupied much additional land, including cities that were to be in the Palestinian state.

     (David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence in the Middle East (London: Faber and Faber, 1984), p. 124ff. The attack on Deir Yassin (which occurred even though the village had a peace treaty with its Jewish neighbors) was only the worst such action by Zionist forces including the mainstream Haganah and Palmach. Reports of the massacre panicked many Palestinian Arabs into fleeing from their homes. David Ben-Gurion was reported to have said that "without Deir Yassin there would be no Israel." Wilson, p. 140.

     "The Arabs initiated it." The rallying cry of zion.

     More of those shitty facts that you hate.

     Posted by fromredbird at 07/19/2006 @ 12:16am

129. israel is nazi-like.

     What really bothers you about that statement is that it is reasonable.

     You can stick that, too.

     No, the statement doesn't so much bother me as give me an insight into your hyperbolic thought processes.

     You're going completely bonkers now. The Taif Agreement (not "Accords") occurred in 1989 long before 2000 and UN Resolution 1559 occurred long after 2000 at the end of 2004. Your point is rather moot anyway since Hezbollah was not a party to the agreement. I guess that doesn't faze you, though, since the Palestinians were not a party to the "agreement" that gave away 57% of their country.

     Again, you either don't know or choose to ignore the relevant history. The Taif Accord is relevant. The fact that it occurred in 1989 isn't. The connection with the year 2000 is that Hezbollah at least had some rationale for not disarming prior to the Israeli withdrawal in 2000 but had none afterwards. Secondly, why does the fact that 1559 was passed in 2004 make it irrelevant? The point, again, is that Hezbollah has neither legal reason nor any pretext for staying armed unless they wanted to start things up with Israel.

     Further, the Taif Accord was agreed to by the Lebanese Deputies to Parliament. They are the ones who had the right conclude agreements, not a bunch of self-appointed Islamist vigilantes, so Hezbollah's not being a party to the agreement is irrelevant.

     Uh, huh. Does that explain why you had to invent the "Israelis driven into the sea" quote and then try to shove it in my mouth? Because you're the one providing the facts?

     Now you're just flat out lying. I never said it was a quote, I said it represented your sentiments on the subject.

     Is it because might makes right in the US/israel unilateral world and the law of the jungle is the rule that we're operating under? Go ahead, say yes. It won't hurt for long. ***

     You're the one who defends Hezbollah keeping their own armed force that isn't accountable to the Lebanese government. You're the one who has announced that UN Resolutions and treaties don't apply when you don't agree with them. You're the one who has defending Hezbollah running the risk of embroiling Lebanon in its dispute. You're the one advocating the law of the jungle.

     "The Arabs initiated it." The rallying cry of zion.

     It was the Arabs who rejected the partition plan. It was the Grand Mufti who proposed emulating Germany in how to deal with the Jews. That attack was going to take place whether a state was declared or not, and Arab attacks on Jewish convoys and neighborhoods did commence as soon as the partition plan was announced. Oh, and the Irgun massacre at Deir Yassin took place on 9 April 1948, the war started in November 1947. Typical of those facts that you like to ignore to cite a crime that took place five months into the war and use that to blame the Jews for starting it.

     The Arabs attacked when the zionists illegally declared a state and sent their miraculously-appearing-from-nowhere armored cars and tanks out to attack the Palestinians and drive them out.

     First, Israel didn't declare a state until May 1948. As I pointed out, hostilities had begun in November 1947. Another basic fact you chose to ignore, although you have no problem making up armored cars that the Haganah didn't have in November 1947.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/19/2006 @ 12:51am

130. The Israelis and the Arabs were made for each other. If they both had nuclear weapons, they would have blown each other to hell by now. Why is it that the Isralies cannot protect their own military people from being captured by a few Arabs? They supposedly control all of Israel. Arab and Jewish and Christian and any other people over there. They started a war over 2 soldiers? Those two guys might be as good as dead, who knows. But Israel is systematically destroying the economy of Lebanon over this. If they are trying to destroy Hesbolah, they are doing a very bad job of it. Those guys are scatterd all over by now. Destroying the buildings won't work.

     How this ties into the US congress, I do not know, except that we will stand by and let this happen for a while. Oh yeah we will evacuate the Americans, if we can manage to do it without getting our helicopters shot down.

     Have you noticed that the President of Iran is being really quiet about all of this? You know why? He knows we will use it as an excuse to bomb his nuclear facilities. Good thing the Russians don't seem to be too upset about this, because they could cause some real problems if they felt like it.

     You know, Israel "defending" itself by invading another country is like the US spreading "Freedom" in Iraq by destabilizing their country. Freedom from Saddam Hussain yes, but Political Freedom? Only if you have a gun and your own band of criminals to back up your freedom of speach.

     You know why we are still in Iraq today? We forgot to take the explosives and weapons away from the Iraqi army during the invasion. Now that stuff is the fuel for the bombs that get us killed over there. I think now mostly Iraqis get killed, but still a major blunder, thanks to Donald Rumsfeld and his blitskrieg tactics. It didn't work Donald, face the facts. Sorry for dragging Iraq into this, but the topic is war after all.

     Posted by tdryther at 07/19/2006 @ 03:41am

131. TJBEHRENS1: I do not disagree with you when you say that America created the situation in Iraq; that always seemed pretty obvious to me. The problem is that these terrorist attacks don't even make sense from a "resistance" standpoint; they're currently aimed primarily at Iraqis and, whether the groups responsible are Sunni or Shiite, I don't see how massacring your fellow countrymen fits into any wider framework of a legitimate "resistance".

     Posted by Gertrude at 07/19/2006 @ 06:15am

132. By the way, I'm sorry if I come across as a dick in some of my posts on Iraq. It's just that I've become very frustrated with the general apathy towards the situation in Iraq, and it angers me greatly that both liberals (or progressives, or whatever) and conservatives seem to just ignore all the horrible news that is coming out of there.

     Posted by Gertrude at 07/19/2006 @ 06:20am

133. Posted by FROMREDBIRD 07/18/2006 @ 3:11pm

     Neither of you have a clue. It was the Brits who were instrumental in getting a country for the Jews. You'll find it all in the Balfour Declaration. That's when the Brits ruled most of the world and when the US was only a small actor on the world scene:

     "The British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, wrote to Jewish leader Lord Rothshild, to assure him that his government supported the ideal of providing a homeland for the Jews. The British hoped thereby to win more Jewish support for the Allies in the First World War. The "Balfour Declaration" became the basis for international support for the founding of the modern state of Israel. The letter was published a week later in The Times of London as reproduced here."

     BALFOUR DECLARATION 1917

     November 2nd, 1917

     Dear Lord Rothschild,

     I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

     "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

     I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

     Yours sincerely,

     Arthur James Balfour

     Posted by lrjones4 at 07/19/2006 @ 07:27am

134. ZERO:

     Israel isn't carpet bombing Lebanon you idiot. I'm sure you don't even know what the definition of that term is. Dresden was carpet bombed. Israel is targeting Hezbollah positions. Given the extremely high population density of the region, there could be significantly more civilians killed than there already has been.

     Given that you are an apologist for Islamict fascists whenever they deliberately kill Israeli civilians and condemn Israel for no matter what they do, it is apparent to anyone that you do not like Jews very much. Keep telling yourself that this is not true. Maybe you'll believe it yourself someday.

     Posted by Zeddmen at 07/19/2006 @ 10:24am

135. ZEDDMWN

     Israel isn't just targeting Hezbollah positions. They are targeting civilian infrastructure. Tripoli in the North isn't anywhere near Hezbollah territory and there was no reason for hitting Beirut airport. Both these attacks are typical of the wider Israeli strategy of beating up on Lebanon as a whole in the deluded idea that Lebanon will be thereby induced to defang Hezbollah.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/19/2006 @ 10:51am

136. BRUNOWE:

     Hezbollah operates throughout Lebanon, not just in the southern region. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to aquire weapons both from Iran and Syria and conduct attacks on Israel.

     Furthermore, with 23 seats in Parlament and 2 Cabinent positions, Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese government, and is able to draw upon the resources of the country everywhere.

     Posted by Zeddmen at 07/19/2006 @ 10:59am

137. ZEDDMEN

     First, Hezbollah is present in the south, the Bekka and s. Beirut, not in the country as a whole. Further, the fact that Hezbollah took an opposite tack to the rest of the Lebanese people regarding Syrian withdrawal suggests that they are very divergent from the govt., Parliamentary representation notwithstanding. Finally, having only 2 seats out of a Cabinet of 25 hardly gives them access to the whole resources of the country.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/19/2006 @ 11:18am

138. ORAIBI1952 said: "Present U.S. policy in the Middle East will lead to a unhealthy backlash against Israel. It is in Israel's best interest to show restraint and not be the Bush Administration's poodle."

     Yagottabekidding, I can hear Bush yapping everytime the Israeli's and AIPAC pull his lease. The unhealthy backlash the US has suffered and will suffer for its one sided pro-Israeli policies is what Americans should be be worried about. I also love those who say we must stand by Israel as they are the only ones who stand with us against the terrorists - well there wouldn't be any F***ing terrorists to stand up to if we hadn't let Israel lead us around on a lease! Enough is enough, its time to get out of the entire Middle East completely and cut off all aid to Israel, Eqypt and the rest of them. Israel won't disappear - they have a couple hundred nukes to make sure of that - no more American lives, dollars and wars for Israel!

     Posted by bsfree at 07/19/2006 @ 1:32pm

139. BRUNOWE 07/18/2006 @ 11:31pm sez, "I don't doubt that Israeli is exploiting the Hezbollah action to try to bring Western pressure on Syria/Iran but the strength of their overraction is more a questions of having been smacked in the muzzle by Hezbollah while they were in the middle of the Hamas issue than a deliberate plot to bring about a general war."

     General wars don't seem to happen very often as a result of deliberate plots. They seem to more often happen as a result of a plot to wage limited war that spins out of control.

     Posted by BruceMcF at 07/19/2006 @ 2:38pm

140. So, ZEDDMEN, when you said on 07/19/2006 @ 10:59am "Hezbollah operates throughout Lebanon, not just in the southern region. If they didn't they wouldn't be able to aquire weapons both from Iran and Syria and conduct attacks on Israel.

     Furthermore, with 23 seats in Parlament and 2 Cabinent positions, Hezbollah is a part of the Lebanese government, and is able to draw upon the resources of the country everywhere."

     Then you are admitting that Israel is not targetting Hezbollah but is hitting Lebanon at its most vulnerable points, hoping that as a side effect it will be harder for Hezbollah to wage war.

     In what way is that a viable long run strategy for Israel, unless they are trying to provoke a war with Syria while being able to sell it in the US media markets as being a defensive reaction to a Syrian move back into Lebanon?

     Posted by BruceMcF at 07/19/2006 @ 2:43pm

141. BSFREE 07/19/2006 @ 1:32pm, you should be warned that when you say, "Enough is enough, its time to get out of the entire Middle East completely and cut off all aid to Israel, Eqypt and the rest of them. Israel won't disappear - they have a couple hundred nukes to make sure of that - no more American lives, dollars and wars for Israel!"

     ... this is a very conservative position you are taking ... George Washington's Farewell Address, isolationism and all.

     Posted by | ignore this person

     Posted by BruceMcF at 07/19/2006 @ 2:46pm

142. BRUCEMCF

     General wars don't seem to happen very often as a result of deliberate plots. They seem to more often happen as a result of a plot to wage limited war that spins out of control.

     A sad and frighteningly accurate and relevant observation.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/19/2006 @ 3:06pm

143. BRUCEMCF

     If a general war were to break out (God-that-exists-for-rhetorical-purposes-only forbid), one wonders of Dubya's "Israel has a right to defend herself" would go down along with the Kaiser's "blank check" to Vienna.

     Posted by brunowe at 07/19/2006 @ 3:25pm

144. BRUCEMCF

     I think it might be Jeffersonian as well, as in Jeffersonian Democrat (sorry about the misspelling of leash in the original post, somedays you are just so pissed off).

     Posted by bsfree at 07/19/2006 @ 7:37pm

145. Posted by BSFREE 07/19/2006 @ 7:37pm "I think it might be Jeffersonian as well, as in Jeffersonian Democrat (sorry about the misspelling of leash in the original post, somedays you are just so pissed off)."

     Yes, of course. George Washington, of course, was a consensus candidate, and could reasonably be described as the first and last non-political-party President. Jefferson was conservative in the "small government" sense ... it was the Hamiltonians who were more ambitious in terms of the power of the national government.

     Posted by BruceMcF at 07/19/2006 @ 8:13pm