Crisis in Gaza? Not for Obama or Clinton

"Israeli aircraft and troops attacked Palestinian positions in northern Gaza on Saturday, killing at least 46 people and wounding more than 100 in the deadliest day of fighting in more than a year."

"Hamas says Israel bombs Gaza Interior Ministry"

"Gaza residents are told to boil drinking water as purifying chlorine runs out"

"Escalating fighting renews threats of an Israeli invasion of Gaza"

"Rice heads to Israel"

That's the news of the day.

The next president will have to deal with the reality of a humanitarian, political and military crisis in the Middle East that grows worse with each passing year because of the internationally recognized reality that the United States -- while profoundly influential in the region -- fails to operate as an honest or effective player.

So what is the response from the Barack Obama campaign on this desperate day?

"Barack makes a surprise stop at the Sombrero Festival in Brownsville, Texas," announces his website.

And what of the Hillary Clinton campaign?

"Our campaign announced that we've raised approximately $35 million in contributions for the month of February," declares her website.

Search as one might at mid-day, but you won't find a statement on the exploding crisis in the Middle East.

Of course these candidates are locked in a serious competition that may be heading for some sort of conclusion with Tuesday's Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont primaries. But couldn't they at least bother to appear interested in the challenges that one of them might face as president?

None of us should be unrealistic. It would be ridiculous at this point to expect Obama or Clinton to display the concern for the plight of innocent Palestinians evidenced by Jimmy Carter... or even by the recently-engaged George Bush.

But failing to even discuss the burgeoning crisis in the Middle East sends a signal that should trouble people on all sides of the debate.

Carter told me a few months ago that the only way for a president to make progress toward peace in the region is to begin working on Middle East issues even before taking the oath of office.

If knowledge, concern and evidence of determination are not on display from the start, said the president who forged functional relations between Israel and Egypt, it will be impossible to advance the arduous process of peacemaking.

That Obama and Clinton are not inclined to look up from their campaigning for long enough to address an international crisis is probably to be expected. But that doesn't make it any less unsettling. And if their current disengagement foreshadows things to come, then the talk of "change" that has so energized the 2008 presidential race will almost certainly turn out to have been just that: talk.

Comments (141)

1. Forgive me for not sharing Mr. Nichols' concern. They of course have a duty to speak out against the atrocity as Senators but to ask them as candidates to focus on the world when they have a fight going on between them is asking a bit much at this point. However if they were a singular candidate and were up against a Republican challenger and were silent then you would have a legitimate complaint.

   Posted by yutsano at 03/01/2008 @ 5:58pm

2. One must forgive Mr. Nichols for being rather `ahead of the curve' on his worries. Nichols, The Nation's Leading Worrier....Heheheheh!

   Such a heavy burden........To worry or not to worry.....we can always count on good ol' John!

   Suggestion: Another tribute to Buckley...to offset Richard Kim's snarl!

   Posted by Happy at 03/01/2008 @ 6:25pm

3. and before the airstrikes what was flying out of gaza and into israel? pinatas? peace and love rockets?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/01/2008 @ 6:26pm

4. John Edwards would have been addressing this issue in his speeches and on his web site. What a shame that the candidate of most substance is no longer in the race. This is a complicated issue, and the candidates should address the crisis in some fashion.

   Posted by KristinBVT at 03/01/2008 @ 6:43pm

5. Posted by KRISTINBVT 03/01/2008 @ 6:43pm

   Wrong. Edwards wouldn't have. The candidates recognize that they can make the most change by getting into office. Edwards would have recognized that too.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/01/2008 @ 6:47pm

6. Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/01/2008 @ 6:47pm | ignore this person

   BING! but naderites don't want to win. they just want prevent candidates who might win so they can complain and carp more about how everything sux and how the system is set up to make hope stupid...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/01/2008 @ 7:05pm

7. Posted by JOHN NICHOLS at 03/01/2008 @ 5:43pm

   The peace process in the Middle East has not even reached the starting point yet. That will only happen after the Arab Nati0ns ALL settle Israel's right to exist issue and, as Golda Meir said, they learn to love their children more than they hate the Jews.

   Posted by Downtown at 03/01/2008 @ 7:27pm

8. In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: the House of Islamic Peace (Dar al-Salam), in which Muslim governments rule and Muslim law prevails, and the House of War (Dar al-Harb), the rest of the world, still inhabited and, more important, ruled by infidels. The presumption is that by natural law these domains will compete and fighting is inevitable therefore the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule. Those who fight in the jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds--booty in this one, paradise in the next. For most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense.

   dar-al-harb - house of war = non islamic world...israel = dar al harb

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/01/2008 @ 7:43pm

9. IBBLEBLIBBLE, before the air-strikes which killed 46 to 52 people, depending on the source, there were rockets flying in Israel, which killed 1 person. I guess you are of the 50 eyes for an eye school of thought.

   Even if there were no historical context of dispossession and ghettoization of an entire population, by a European people, landing off their boats on foreign lands and imposing themselves on the natives (yes, lets look at the Jewish-Palestinian conflict as a white vs brown struggle) the imbalance in the retributory violence is so reminiscent of what Nazis did in the territories they occupied every time the resisting people killed one of their occupiers that it makes me cringe, much like it made the last survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto cringe and condemn Israel.

   Let me now sit back and wait for you to call me (and the Israeli writers and peace-activists on whose views I base mine) anti-semitic.

   Posted by dimik72 at 03/01/2008 @ 7:48pm

10. US Presidents don't generally tend to get involved with attempting to solve this long running sore until they get deep into their second term, when thoughts turn from re-election to legacy. This is a great shame as the US is the only power in a position to play the role of honest broker, the only power able to hold influence over either side.

    It's amazing that the world's only superpower has outsourced so much of its influence to groups representing foreign interests. AIPAC does not represent majority Israeli opinion, but yields such an influence over US policy in the region. The same is true of the Cuban Americans who have persuaded the US to maintain its pathetic policy to Cuba all these years.

    Winston Churchill said that "Democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others". This is why. Florida's 25 electoral votes, and the militancy of the Cuban American population, have prevented a substantive change in US Policy which might actually help the people in Cuba, rather than collectively punish them.

    AIPAC have been remarkably successful in painting any critic of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic, a preposterous charge as the majority of Jews both inside and outside of Israel favour a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. It is no surprise that Hillary would be offering blessings at the Altar of AIPAC but they even have Obama bending over backwards to prove his pro Israeli credentials. I can only hope that once elected he actually has the courage of his convictions to take the bull by the horns and be more even handed. There is much support for the 2002 Geneva Accords, but without an honest broker in the Whitehouse, who actually understands the importance of honouring international treaties and that UN resolutions apply to Israel too, nothing will come of this.

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/01/2008 @ 6:26pm

    Qassam Rockets have been coming out of Gaza, one of which killed an Israeli civilian on Wednesday, the first civilian to be killed in 9 months. In response the Israelis have killed 76, mostly civilians. 76 since Wednesday, with 160 wounded and 14 in critical condition. I know some of you believe in the biblical ‘eye for an eye' but this is more Keyser Söze. This is only the latest example of collective punishment for the Palestinians having the temerity to vote for Hamas in what were free and fair elections of the type the Bush administration have been eulogising throughout the Middle East. Rather than grasp the opportunity presented by Hamas offering to enter a political rather than military process Israel, with the backing of the US and EU have been trying to starve the Palestinians into submission.

    Posted by audacity at 03/01/2008 @ 7:56pm

11. Posted by DIMIK72 03/01/2008 @ 7:48pm

    IBBLEBLIBBLE, before the air-strikes which killed 46 to 52 people, depending on the source, there were rockets flying in Israel, which killed 1 person. I guess you are of the 50 eyes for an eye school of thought.

    This is an example of the theory of "Proportionality" in response to an aggressive act. You fired one rocket at me; therefore I can only fire one rocket in response. This is a practice that prolongs conflict. It is a practice where your enemy gets to dictate your response to attack. Here's what I say, you fire one rocket at my city, and I have the option of firing between one and a thousand at your city. Think twice.

    Posted by Downtown at 03/01/2008 @ 8:01pm

12. I am interested in knowing what is an appropriate retaliation to individuals who are shooting missiles into a town where only one individual died? What response would be appropriate? I am sure you feel a response is needed. What response would that be?

    Posted by karnuba at 03/01/2008 @ 8:04pm

13. "individuals"

    Posted by KARNUBA 03/01/2008 @ 8:04pm

    There is the key word Kar. Find the Individuals. If there is a person in a crowd firing shots the police don't start firing indiscriminately into the crowd.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/01/2008 @ 8:09pm

14. ibble, i realize muslims have replaced bushco. as your number one enemy. but come on! check out yehuda shaul and his movement, "breaking the silence." he makes great points about occupations.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/01/2008 @ 8:13pm

15. Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/01/2008 @ 8:09pm

    Does the crowd have a responsibility to stop the "individuals" who's actions are putting them in harm's way?

    Posted by Downtown at 03/01/2008 @ 8:14pm

16. You are correct. Let us follow your solution to its logical conclusion. Where are the Gaza police to arrest this "individual"? I think we both know the answer to this rhetorical question. That being said what is an appropriate response from the neighboring nation who is not in charge of policing this individual? I am not sure the Gaza "police" would respond well to the Israeli police beginning an investigation within Gaza to find this "lone gunman". I have a feeling the "witnesses" to the shooting would be less than forthcoming. The neighborhoods that have been afflicted by the constant missile barrages certainly should expect their nation to protect them don't you think.

    Posted by karnuba at 03/01/2008 @ 8:19pm

17. I'm not worried in the least.

    Obama can "talk" anything into being.

    And if talking doesn't work, who gives a fuck. We've got more pressing problems here at home anyway.

    Bring ALL of the troops home. Lets rebuild our intercities using 82nd airborne labor.

    F$%& F)(* F&%$ the rest of the world. F#@$ 'em!

    Posted by bleedingheart at 03/01/2008 @ 9:22pm

18. well - not a big israel supporter but its not going away and as long as islamic jihad, hamas, etc. keep lobbin rockets, etc., israel is going to keep hitting back. and apparantly most of those hit were members of the organizations?

    death always sux and its awful civilians got in the way, but perhaps its as much if not more the fault of islamin jihad and hamas that they decided to launch rockets from civilian areas into civilian areas knowing such would bring retribution.

    as far as my views on islam - thats nothing new. doest mean i support the neocons, the war in iraq, nor writing blank checks every year to israel while they continue to sneak settlers into the west bank territories. indeed i think the neocons are wicked and stupid and their actions are inexcusable.

    sometimes, evil battles evil, like in ww2 when nazis and commernists dukes it out.

    i'm hoping that after the neocons are run out of office we will regain the moral high ground and intelligence that will be needed to defeat radical islam...

    but not understanding the REAL threat is not smart either.

    the danish cartoonist who drew those cartoons is ubder a death sentence and thats just one instance of how all your freedom of speech, if it conflicts with islam, will be endangered if you allow your toleration to abide intolerant evil...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/01/2008 @ 9:45pm

19. Israel has this nasty habit of swatting at gnats with sledgehammers, and for some reason ZERO pressure is brought to bear from the US. Some US leader needs to grow the huevos to tell the Israelis they need to back off. If the Mossad is supposed to be this deadly security force, I refuse to believe they couldn't just go in and apply a little surgical pressure. But so much of this is due to internal Israeli politics, as soon as the pro-peace movement gains more ground maybe we'll feel some big changes in Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.

    Posted by yutsano at 03/01/2008 @ 9:46pm

20. Yes, indeed--when a sovereign nation is attacked in an act of war, that nation must respond ONLY in direct proportion to the original attack. So when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, America responded by sending a squadron of aircraft to attack some Japanese warships in the Pacific, and that was that? When George W. Bush determined (God alone knoweth how) that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, the US, of course, was careful in its invasion of Iraq not to kill more Iraqi civilians than the number of Americans who died at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And if a Canadian province suddenly began shooting rockets at NY, killing 1 civilian, and the Canadian government was either powerless or unwilling to stop them, the US would do what--kill a Canadian provincial leader and let it go at that? I have a feeling the US would launch a full-scale invasion of Canada, and the civilian casualties would, indeed, be "disproportionate" to the original attacks. That is what happens when you commit acts of war. You tend to provoke a disproportionate response. I regret that it has come to this, in large part because the Bush Administration has squandered every opportunity to broker a peace while doing a great deal itself to fan the flames of war--BushCo's encouragement and support of the Lebanon invasion in 2006 is an especially egregious example. But in the end, the Israeli government has a right and a duty to protect its citizens.

    And yes, the presidential candidates should be addressing this situation now. Hillary Clinton runs "red phone" ads suggesting that she's better equipped, by virtue of some undefined experience, to confront a sudden crisis. Obama claims that his judgment trumps her experience. Fine--so now there is an immediate and growing crisis, and the voters might like to see what they are both made of.

    Posted by Hollie at 03/01/2008 @ 9:50pm

21. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/01/2008 @ 8:13pm | ignore this person

    my number one enemy is and always has been anyone who wishes to impose their unjust will on others and perpetrate evil. if i oppose a philisophy that encourages evil, so be it. there were plenty of germans in ww2 who were decent people. i hate naziism too, but don't hate all germans.

    i have no love for islam but don't mean i "hate all muslims"...i'm not going to lie about their religion, though, to avoid offending them.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/01/2008 @ 9:58pm

22. has anybody stopped to consider the fact that hamas and islamic jihad know full well what the results of lobbing a few rockets into israel will be...and do it anyway? ie - they are martyring their own people to achieve their goals (which, according to their rhetoric include 'wiping out israel').

    hmmm...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/01/2008 @ 10:05pm

23. Rather than grasp the opportunity presented by Hamas offering to enter a political rather than military process Israel, with the backing of the US and EU have been trying to starve the Palestinians into submission.

    Posted by AUDACITY 03/01/2008 @ 7:56pm | ignore this person

    Suggesting that HAMAS has abandoned the "military" process is a falsehood...let them starve out Hamas and put pressure on them to change their polices. When Hamas recognizes Israel and renounces violence....then i will say thats progress.

    Posted by CPT at 03/01/2008 @ 10:18pm

24. Posted by CPT 03/01/2008 @ 10:18pm | ignore this person

    strange when you and i are on the same side, is it not? lol...

    but not only does hamas not recognize the state of israel, but dont they still call for its destruction? actually amazingly forebearing of israel in many ways in my opinion.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/01/2008 @ 10:24pm

25. Little Johnny Nichols ---- "innocent Palestinians"

    I deploy any loss of innocent life, however when Palestinians fire mortar shell after mortar shell at the Israeli people it is beyond any reasonable persons expectation to think that Israel would do nothing in retaliation. Your use of the term "innocent Palestinians" in this context is akin to the type of propaganda Joseph Goebbels used to put out.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 03/01/2008 @ 11:07pm

26. check out the site i told ibble about, little tiny eensy beensy lenny mosse. it's an israeli soldier's site. yehuda shaul talks about the frequent murder of innocent palestinians. many times it is with absolutely no provocation. he did not see them as humans til he really examined himself. they terrorize and kill the palestinians, including children often for no reason at all. just to pass the time.

    i saw him on c-span and i've read his whole site. i am sure there is a similar situation in iraq. yehuda believes this behavior comes with any occupation.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/01/2008 @ 11:17pm

27. Posted by LOVELOKI 03/01/2008 @ 11:17pm | ignore this person

    i dont think it will phase him. why does he hate nichols so? how you doin?

    yeah - i looked it up...look...i sympthize with the palestinians, really. but i don't sympthize with islamic jihad nor with any group that has as a goal "the destruction of israel" and that crap. but as long as a majority of the palestinian people support such folks...i still sympathize, but...

    ???????

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2008 @ 12:20am

28. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/01/2008 @ 8:36pm

    Oh you know that for a fact eh? Here is a book by him. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8khCJTDD44

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 02:10am

29. Go there it's him advertising for his book saying that Jesus did not come to earth to be the Messiah.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 02:10am

30. That was meant for another thread

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 02:12am

31. Does the crowd have a responsibility to stop the "individuals" who's actions are putting them in harm's way?

    Posted by DOWNTOWN 03/01/2008 @ 8:14pm

    Not necessarily the crowds only mandate is to survive. In which ever way is possible to do that, which is what instinct will dictate.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 02:13am

32. I like how so many people here are standing up for the Israelis but when the tables are turned they denounce the Palestinians for responding violently. What about when Israeli soldiers shoot women and children? Blockade the abilities of palestinians to get to hospitals so they die from otherwise treatable problems. Face the facts kids. They are both at fault. They are both doing horrible things to each other. Neither of them is any cleaner than the other. We denounce Palestinian terrorists for targeting Israeli civilians, but when Israelis fire rockets into a populated zone you think they aren't more than willing to hit civilians too? Both of the groups hands are covered in innocent blood. So how does either of them truly deserve protection?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 02:23am

33. Posted by DOWNTOWN 03/01/2008 @ 8:14pm

    Oh and DOWNTOWN if you are then going to try to use my statement about only mandate being survival, to say that then the Israelis are doing what's needed to survive, thats not necessarily true. I doubt you would agree with someone saying they should use a baby as a human shield to survive.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 02:40am

34. IBBLE,

    I think part of the problem with your statements is that, when it comes to violence perpetrated by Islamic terrorists, you're happy to blame Islam and (by association) all Muslims. But you don't paint with the same brush when criticizing "Christian" or "Jewish" violence. Extending your theory would mean that all violence perpetrated by individuals of a particular religion makes all adherents of that religion "bad" or "dangerous."

    And while you may believe that (I don't know), that's not the kind of language you use.

    Posted by Rintrah at 03/02/2008 @ 07:16am

35. you're happy to blame Islam and (by association) all Muslims

    not happy to do any such thing. practically specifically stated i do not "blame all muslims".

    But you don't paint with the same brush when criticizing "Christian" or "Jewish" violence

    oh man - you've never seen me rage on christianity, have you? ask LOVELIBERTY. although i've bitched hard about israel and aipac, have no problem with judaism - its an ethnic, non-proselytizing religion...they don't try to force themselves on other faiths, so although i have some issues with ANY faith that is too dogmatic, if someone wants to be a religious dogmatist but is happy to keep it to themselves what do i care?

    Extending your theory would mean that all violence perpetrated by individuals of a particular religion makes all adherents of that religion "bad" or "dangerous."

    thats neither logical nor what i have said/believe. i've delineated some 5 forms of islam and many denominations of christianity which have moved beyond hard core scriptural literalism that causes problems becaus the scripture is problematical.

    i think you over-impute your probably decent, tolerant, view onto too many others and fail to see ugliness. you want so bad to believe that all problems can be solves by such decency and that when people say scary things they dont really mean them. i used to be like that too, but i don't think the record of history bears such out.

    mein kampf said some scary things and a lot of deccent people had a hard time believing the nazis really meant what they said, but they obviously did. if you read the writings of islam and understand that many muslims really truly believe and follow such...i don't see how you can not be disturbed, especially in light of whats going on in europe and the middle east.

    wiki "jihad" and read. google "europe islam" and read without imputing your decency and tolerance. sorry the world is the world, but it is and its not always pretty - in fact much of it is ugly, including many things held sacred and holy by a great many people.

    but especially look into whats happening in europe now, as well as muslim efforts to censor wikipedia...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2008 @ 08:24am

36. Posted by CCCOMFO1 03/02/2008 @ 02:23am | ignore this person

    you know...we can get all "hatfield and mccoy" about this and it serves NO GOOD PURPOSE. both sides have done some shitty crap and who started it? depends on who you ask. i think it was indeed origionally the israelis, but 60 years later and they ain't going anywhere!!!

    so if a large minority or small majority of palestinians insist on supportinc terror groups like islamic jihad and hamas...israelis are going to respond with death. if such terrorist groups refuse to really consider good faith negotiations and prefer to martyr themselves and their people to fulfil angry fantasies of wiping out israel i just cant have too much sympathy for them nor their supporters.

    and if there is hope to resolve this horrible situation, how can we know when islamic jihad and hamas shoot off rockets into israel knowing the israelis will respond bloodily, thereby retrenching the average schmuk palestinian in his/her hatred of israel and support of the terrorist fringe?

    on the other hand i have said for years that if israel will not in good faith cooperate and cease sneaking settlers into the west bank, they don't need the buzillions of dollars a year we send them...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2008 @ 08:36am

37. but i do indeed cry a river for the truly innocent palestinians who care not the least about destroying israel nor taking vengeance for the taking of vengeance for the taking of vengeance and so on...

    the palestinian children and the adults who JUST WANT TO LIVE SECURE LIVES IN PEACE are at least are the ones i really sympathize with, the innocent held hostage by the hatred and bloody vengeance fantasies of others...and hamas/islamic jihad are as much their enemies as is isreal...if not more so.

    for years i joined in the chorus of the anti-isreal left and jumped on the israelis for overreacting and such, but look at the character of the leadership (and in all truth, all to many of the average palestinians) of their enemies. time after time there have been opportunities for peace but...

    1. yeah - isreal has generally overreacted...and...

    2. many palestinians do not want peace without wiping out isreal...and thats just not going to happen.

    sooo...here we are. suffering comes so much more easily in this world of ever renewing suffering than its oppostite, and even if one is in paradise, such is transformed into hell the second one succumbs to rage.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2008 @ 08:56am

38. Nice job israel, its high time you stepped up to the plate and started dealing with the terrorist scum that surround you.

    Oh, do some leftists have a problem with jews defending themselves? I know we're supposed to be your noble victims, but that role has gotten tiresome. A lot of people say "jews play the victim", but I say you're looking at the results of us not being interested in being victimized when you see israel's reaction here.

    So why the bitching????

    Obama and Clinton are right to support israel on gaza, and no ibble, its NOT an overreaction, unless you want to tell me how "measured" your response would be if your children and family were threatened by these terrorists. Israel isn't trying to kill civilians, the palestinians are. They elected hamas, which says israel should be completely destroyed. What's the issue here???

    Posted by Stubine at 03/02/2008 @ 10:00am

39. Posted by STUBINE 03/02/2008 @ 10:00am | ignore this person

    lol - sure...how would we react to folks lobbing rockets at us from over the rio grande?

    AND i have to say that in terms of the hard line leadership of the palestinians, i fear that were isreal NOT to respond with massive smashing...it would be seen as weakness to be taken advantage of.

    the ball is in the hands of the palestinians. if they choose to follow groups like hamas and islamic jihad...what do they really expect?

    reality check time.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2008 @ 11:25am

40. Posted by STUBINE 03/02/2008 @ 10:00am | ignore this person

    ah - you're jewish? i guess judaism is my favorite of the abrahamic faiths. the only real problem i have with it is that it spawned the other two...but can't blame you guys for that...lol...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2008 @ 11:36am

41. Posted by ZERO 03/02/2008 @ 11:30am | ignore this person

    well...most people in this country, left and right, at least basically support isreal and both want to get elected.

    i'm in the strange (though not so uncommon) position of disliking (sometimes intensly) aipac while supporting (though not carte blanche style) isreal.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2008 @ 11:41am

42. Posted by ZERO 03/02/2008 @ 11:41am | ignore this person

    the only thing i kinda question about what you said is that regardless of the fact that isreal struck first in 67...the arabs were plotting isreal's destruction. but sure, yer right and again i don't want to get too much into the hatfield-mccoy aspect of this - its just not productive.

    maybe another 2 decades of the same old hell is needed before the palestinians and anyone else realize that isreal will not allow itself to be destroyed and will respond to provocation with massive force.

    sounds like a job for the un...

    but another point...what have the palestinians' arab brethren really done for them, in and out of palestine? sure they've provided humanitarian aid, but they've also provided other types of aid and encouraged violence.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2008 @ 11:57am

43. Posted by ZERO 03/02/2008 @ 11:47am | ignore this person

    they know almost enough, i think. i know more than the vast majority and although i definately don't find isreal blameless...i still support their right to exist and am agains those groups who do not want isreal to exist. 2 more decades of hideous suffering might burn out the palestinians enough for them to give up on the "destroy isreal" fantasy.

    cause with arguably the best military in the world and nukes...that aint going to happen.

    so...it ain't gonna happen, but they are going to keep provoking and preaching what really appears to be pretty close to genocide...

    ????????????????

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2008 @ 12:07pm

44. Posted by ZERO 03/02/2008 @ 12:01pm | ignore this person

    sure...i agree. i have reservations about isreal. but...

    ???????????????

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2008 @ 12:10pm

45. Sorry, got to go now, but on the topic of the candidates' silence, they're just kow-towing to Israel on the violence in Gaza - "nothing to see here folks, just move along" - and in a deeper vein, unless the profound injustice of those two open-air concentration camps is redressed, there will be no peace in the region.

    Posted by ZERO 03/02/2008 @ 12:09pm

    sure, zeke...me too...

    but wanting to get elected is a legitimate desire, and i don't know whats in the candidate's hearts, but there are legitimate reasons for their actions beyond kowtowing.

    there's all that jew money!!!! lol - just kidding, of course...mostly...lol...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/02/2008 @ 12:15pm

46. well,

    it just seems wrong that a bunch of europeans can suddenly appear and say,

    "this is my land. go away".

    wait a second that's how my country was formed. and yours, too.

    now i get it.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 1:20pm

47. israel will never be at peace until the people they dispossessed in 1948 (9) are given some of their land back and have the right to govern their own affairs.

    sure israel isn't going anywhere. just like the conquerers of america aren't leaving either.

    but to continue the same inhumane policies will just provoke more and more violent reactions.

    the current apartheid and swisscheesification are the cause of the israeli's torment.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 1:27pm

48. if the arab population of michigan got up and suddenly moved to florida or new york,

    these panderers would change their tune mighty quick.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 1:29pm

49. "Don't do upon others what you don't want done upon you."

    Is it not an irony of destiny that what the Nazis did to Jews is being repeated by Israel doing it upon Palestinians? Bombings, concentration camps, terror, ghettos, sounds familiar? And the Jews trying to undermine Nazi occupation by bombing or so Nazi installations, weren't they called 'terrorists'? Or is it because the Jews 70 years ago were Caucasian-Europeans and the Palestinians now are dark skin-Muslim-3rd worlders?

    Only when the US changes its position toward the center will Israel take this seriously enough to retreat and concede what is fair to the other part.

    Bottom line: the West by generalization and we specifically, are accomplices in this because Israel knows that we are not going to do anything to stop them.

    Posted by Frank42 at 03/02/2008 @ 1:51pm

50. Is it not an irony of destiny that what the Nazis did to Jews is being repeated by Israel doing it upon Palestinians? Bombings, concentration camps, terror, ghettos, sounds familiar? And the Jews trying to undermine Nazi occupation by bombing or so Nazi installations, weren't they called 'terrorists'? Or is it because the Jews 70 years ago were Caucasian-Europeans and the Palestinians now are dark skin-Muslim-3rd worlders?

    Posted by FRANK42 03/02/2008 @ 1:51pm

    i keep telling people this.

    i wonder if the folks in charge in tel aviv have ever considered it?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 2:01pm

51. True, the Obama and Clinton websites say basically the same thing on Israel - that we must staunchly defend it's right to exist. Fine, but read between the lines. Obama is getting foreign policy notes from Zbigniew Brzezinski, who spoke up in defense of Walt and Mearsheimer's controversial book "The Israel Lobby." I think Obama's Israel policy would indeed represent a break from the past, whereas Clinton has a strong base in the Jewish community who would continue supporting the current policy. I think it makes sense for Obama to not bring this to the forefront, it's a sensitive issue, and as exemplified by Walt and Mearsheimer, it's tremendously easy to attack someone as an anti-semite if they don't take a one-sided pro-Israel view. Both sides have committed unforgivable acts against the other, so it will take a balanced position to move forward on peace.

    Posted by yessirov at 03/02/2008 @ 2:36pm

52. The arguement is that Israel is only fighting back because their enemies want to destroy them. But by definition isn't what Israel is doing just a slower more strategic attempt to destroy the Palestinians. Don't be deceived Israel wants to destroy Palestine just much as Palestine wants to destroy them. They say they want to just be left alone in peace but why don't they stop occupying the West Bank and leave the Palestinians their small strips of land and their right to govern themselves. We call these people terrorists but we never look at why. We say they are terrorists because they use roadside bombs and suicide bombers but that is the only weapon they have. They don't get bazillions of dollars from America to buy advanced weapons systems. They aren't terrorists they are people fighting the only way they know how to fight. If using roadside bombs makes you a terrorist then America is a terrorist too because we have used roadside bombs that kill more civilians than enemies. Israel is choking the Palestinians slowly. Israel will destroy the Palestinians no matter what. They will continue to use minor attacks to lob large scale responses. They will continue to barricade these people in their prison camps, to the point that Palestinians can no longer get medical assistance in emergencies, and they will continue to block humanitarian aid. Don't be deceived Ibble Israel wants the death of Palestine too. So how then can you say one is right, one is wrong when they both want the same goal.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 2:47pm

53. Obama wants to win, so he distances himself from a much too complicated issue in the public conscious. No one wins an election as pro-Palestine, but he can't exactly applaud Israel either and open up that can of worms with the left.

    Another maneuver in 'Operation Vague Strategy' for team Obama. His candidacy has never been about specifics, just symbolic rhetoric... and it seems to be working!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 03/02/2008 @ 2:52pm

54. His candidacy has never been about specifics, just symbolic rhetoric... and it seems to be working!

    Posted by MATTMAN 03/02/2008 @ 2:52pm

    well, he's a professional after all.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 3:27pm

55. Zero, so is this about the Liberty or the palestinians? I notice that the folks who argue against israel always try the "shotgun approach" of every possible anti israel argument at once.

    Gaza and the west bank were occupied by israel (as opposed to egypt and jordan, which militarily occupied them before) in response to continued cross border attacks from both areas, and the military buildup of egypt, syria, and jordan. Again, and as always, ostael was responding to aggression directed mainly at its civilian population.

    Israel is not trying to accomplish anything with its occupation, and I'm not sure if they have a long term strategy for it. Again, a lot of their policies are responses to terrorism, and so don't have a long term aspect to them. My personal feeling is that settlements should only be pulled as part of a final peace agreement, which would of course also stop violence against israel. Since I don't see this even close to happening, I don't think israel should pull settlements yet.

    Also, gaza is not a "prison camp". Its a place where these people have always lived. These areas are not "refugee camps" either, unless you want to call New York a refugee camp for displaced pilgrims...

    Posted by Stubine at 03/02/2008 @ 3:40pm

56. And zero, THE PRC IS AHEAD OF US?

    What kind of joke is that? The PRC supports the genocide, the REAL genocide, going on in Darfur. I notice you lefties don't much care about that, since after all it is muslims killing christians. It never ceases to amaze me how reason goes right out the window as soon as israel gets mentioned...

    Posted by Stubine at 03/02/2008 @ 3:42pm

57. Frank: Comparing what israel is doing in any way shape or form to the nazis is despicable and offensive, as I imagine its intended to be. Comparing israel fighting back against terrorist aggression to the deliberate murder of millions is yet another great example of not only leftist antisemitism, but the utter idiocy of most anti-israel arguments.

    Posted by Stubine at 03/02/2008 @ 3:46pm

58. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/02/2008 @ 3:27pm

    "The Human Bumper-sticker!" I'm sorry bro, I had to laugh at that! I do love your style though!

    Posted by MATTMAN at 03/02/2008 @ 3:49pm

59. What kind of joke is that? The PRC supports the genocide, the REAL genocide, going on in Darfur. I notice you lefties don't much care about that, since after all it is muslims killing christians. It never ceases to amaze me how reason goes right out the window as soon as israel gets mentioned...

    Posted by STUBINE 03/02/2008 @ 3:42pm |

    I think you entirely missed his point STUBINE. His point was that even though they support atrocities like this. They STILL give more over the economy to humanitarian causes. While America who claims to be great for the world can't give as much of it's economy as a country who supports genocide. He wasn't saying the PRC is good. Look at the adjectives he used to describe it.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 3:55pm

60. Frank: Comparing what israel is doing in any way shape or form to the nazis is despicable and offensive, as I imagine its intended to be. Comparing israel fighting back against terrorist aggression to the deliberate murder of millions is yet another great example of not only leftist antisemitism, but the utter idiocy of most anti-israel arguments.

    Posted by STUBINE 03/02/2008 @ 3:46pm

    It's kind of like you calling everyone who doesn't agree with the support of Israel and anti-semite. I don't where you come off saying that. I don't dislike jews I still don't agree with the argument of supporting Israel. I have plenty of Jewish friends, who also don't agree with the support of Israel.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 3:57pm

61. Comm, my bad on that one, as usual I didn't fully read everything before I responded and yes I see his point. Though honestly, I wonder if those sorts of stats take into account private lending.

    I was referring only to the comparison between israel and "the nazis" when I made the antisemitism remark. Nothing else on this thread or really on this website is "antisemitic" and yes I know that term gets overused. I have responses for all of the arguments made against israel here, and none of my responses are simply "this is antisemitism"...

    Posted by Stubine at 03/02/2008 @ 4:03pm

62. Posted by STUBINE 03/02/2008 @ 4:03pm

    I respect your argument. I don't think you are just arguing that we are all anti-semitic. However I hear that used way too often when referring to the things happening between Israel and Palestine. I blame both sides equally which is why I do not support helping either side. We should be trying to broker peace not giving guns and ammo to one side which is a bigger promotion of war. We should be helping to find a common ground which is not what America has been doing. America doesn't support peace in the region they support the ability of Israel to exterminate their enemies. I am all for everyone living happily ever after but we won't help to accomplish that by feeding them guns. In a war where both sides have committed atrocities how can we help either side?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 4:13pm

63. CommL It does get said too often that people who criticize israel are antisemitic, I'll certainly give you that.

    I like your ideas, but I've just spent too much time reading what palestinians and other arabs actually have to say to believe that any kind of common ground is possible. Keep in mind that MOST arabs living in the arab world believe things like jews drink blood, jews have horns and goats feet, and israel's REAL goal is to expand to Iraq and Egypt! Would you even consider makingp eace with a group of people you honestly believed drank palestinians' babies' blood and wanted to take over half the arab world???

    I hate to be a soggy blanket in these discussions, but I think israel is theoretically ready for peace at any time. Israelis tend not to believe crazy things about arabs, and as a relatively stable western nation, they can be relied upon to come to agreements and stick to them. The leaders of the arab world, including Abbas in the west bank, do NOT speak for their people, and are always one coup away from utter irrelevancy. How can israel make peace with these? The other choice is hamas, which says jews are descended from snakes and israel has no right to exist.

    Perhaps the US should make more of an effort to be "even handed", but given what I've said above, how is peace possible no matter what we do? I don't believe the arab world will rest until they carry out another holocaust on israel.

    Posted by Stubine at 03/02/2008 @ 4:20pm

64. And looka here, I know it's none of by business but shouldn't the news coming out of Gaza be of some interest?

    Where are all the bleeding hearts, neo-cons, State Department feminists, etc? These folks were raring to go for Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur. But on the Israeli attack on Gazans, not a word. Where is Wesley Clark and his planes? Say Bill Kristol, how about invading Israel? Bleeding hearts, where are you?

    Is there some neo-con with the balls of a Winston Churchill calling for a NATO force to bomb back the Israeli's to their own border?

    Posted by hkaplan at 03/02/2008 @ 4:40pm

65. Back on-topic....it ain't happening, Mr Nichols.

    Barring some MAJOR crises in the occupied territories...the "new isolationism" holds sway. McCain will talk "Iraq"...as will Obama and Clinton to a smaller extent.

    But nobody wins the Presidency on foreign affairs and NEVER on "holding Israel accountable" or "re-starting the Peace Process".

    It's the econ....well, you know the rest.

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2008 @ 4:48pm

66. Mask, maybe Clinton and Obama actually agree that israel does indeed have the right to defend itself. I don't understand why it is that any supporter of israel must have been bought off or is brainwashed or something. Are you supporters of the arabs brainwashed by saudi propoganda? Did you let the jihad mickey mouse exert undue influence?

    If you can't respond to the arguments of those who support israel, you guys always turn to stuff like this.

    Hkaplan: Why would feminists support islamic fundamentalists?

    Posted by Stubine at 03/02/2008 @ 4:55pm

67. Friends, to use a term from John McCain, although, personally, I think he sucks, Obama is not the great white hope or even the great black hope when it comes to solving Middle East Problems. In fact, he offers no hope at all. (PS--he's an all-out Israel defender. Not that Clinton is any different) See below his message to our UN Ambassador, and former Enron/CIA agent, Mr Khalilzad:

    Perhaps George Bush can save us? Here's how. He can be a Nixon-like figure and solve the Middle East riddle. Bush, in this scenario, believe it or not, figures out how to accommodate the Israelis without screwing the Palestinians and visa versa (and saves his legacy).

    Here's how: Send a mixed NATO/Arab force to patrol the 1967 lines. End the creeping erasure of the Palestinians by the Israelis. (for some reason the Israelis think they are like the US who wiped out the Indians--can't happen as Israel lives in a sea of 100 million Arabs. Sure, Israel tries to divide and conquer but the Arabs are not having it. Israel suddenly becomes humble--end of problem. Bush garners huge applause--no longer is his presidency the most disastrous in US history. Condi Rice becomes the new prime minister (the second female after the sainted Golda Meier) of Israel -she has converted to Judaism! Peace reigns and Handel, that anti-Semite, writes a new oratorio!

    here's another choice item from Senator Obama,

    Dear Ambassador Khalilzad:

    I understand that today the U.N. Security Council met regarding the situation in Gaza, and that a resolution or statement could be forthcoming from the Council in short order.

    I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condemn the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in Southern Israel for over two years.

    All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this. Gaza is governed by Hamas, which is a terrorist organization sworn to Israel's destruction, and Israeli civilians are being bombarded by rockets on an almost daily basis. That is unacceptable and Israel has a right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians.

    The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel, and should make clear that Israel has the right to defend itself against such actions. If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.

    Sincerely, Barak Obama United States Senator

    A photocopy of the letter is here:

    http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n77/PJD123/ObamLet.jpg

    Posted by hkaplan at 03/02/2008 @ 5:30pm

68. Thank you hkaplan! I was starting to worry about Obama.

    Posted by Stubine at 03/02/2008 @ 6:18pm

69. I still have not received a response to my post last night that asked what a reasonable response would be-but that is fine. First off let me say that I do not feel disagreeing with Israel is anti-semitic and I haven't seen anyone else on this site imply it either so let us accept it and move on to the real issues: 1-Hamas has been elected by the palestininas in Gaza. The stated charter calls for the destruction of israel. It does not set forth expectations of Israel that could lead to peace ...say for instance "if israel was to return to pre-1967 borders ..". Hamas runs on the slogan we are the party that wants to destroy the state of Israel and they win. Let us switch things around. If an israeli politician ran on the slogan that he/she wanted to destroy and kill all palestinians in gaza and west bank that individual would lose badly. So can we move beyond this absurd concept that israel has some secret motive to kill the palestinians. It just doesn't jive with history. 2-After Israel historically left gaza (despite internal politics that stated it would lead to greater instability), what was the response by the surrounding palestininan and Hezbollah communities? There was near-immediate kidnappings of israeli soldiers in the west bank and along the lebanese border.

    Any conflict between two peoples that has lasted this long will have improprieties on both sides. Please do not feel I believe the israelis are innocent-I don't. And i also feel deep sadness for the palestinians who have had their nationality hijacked by terrorists and other nations (Iran/syria) self-interests. But civilized societies need to have certain expectations. One of these should be that a national charter should not include the stated destruction of another. Where is the negotiation supposed to begin with that as a backdrop?

    Posted by karnuba at 03/02/2008 @ 6:23pm

70. Posted by STUBINE 03/02/2008 @ 4:55pm

    STUBBY, I'm one of the moderates. You know, that falls in-between the "Israel is Nazy Germany" Left and "Israel can do no wrong" Right.

    Posted by Mask at 03/02/2008 @ 6:43pm

71. Our government has promised to send Israel, 30 billion dollars worth of weaponry over the next 10 years. Why would our politicians criticize Israel? They would be voted out of office.

    Posted by suez at 03/02/2008 @ 7:08pm

72. You know what should be done. Is broker some peace talks. Show palestinians that Israelis don't want to kill them. Let Hamas fall apart because of a new brokered peace between palestine and Israel. Then the Israelis can use their defense forces combined with Palestinian defense forces to track down the people who are firing rockets. Because in all honesty, if your brother, mother, sister, child, father whatever was killed in rocket attacks from canada, even though were the ones who provoked it by throwing grenades at the canadians, even though you did not support what the americans were doing in throwing the grenades, would you shrug your shoulders and say oh well we deserved it?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/02/2008 @ 7:50pm

73. Carter told me a few months ago that the only way for a president to make progress toward peace in the region is to begin working on Middle East issues even before taking the oath of office.

    When the Clintons had a chance to enact "change" in the Middle East, they failed because they waited until the last year of Bill's second term and the clock simply ran out before a deal between Israel and the Palenstians could be struck.

    If you want to know who is really capable of bringing about change, looking at the Clintons efforts in universal healthcare and Middle East peace reminds us that they had their chance and failed!

    It is all "talk" when you have already tried to bring about the change that you say you want with all of your so-called "experience", but have failed because of lack of judgment and political skill.

    Posted by Metteyya at 03/02/2008 @ 8:13pm

74. "The Human Bumper-sticker!" I'm sorry bro, I had to laugh at that! I do love your style though!

    Posted by MATTMAN 03/02/2008 @ 3:49pm

    just don't stick me on mask's suv.............

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 8:19pm

75. seems people say, "i've got my side."

    others say, "i've got MY side."

    seems few are on the side of THE PEOPLE on both sides.

    too worried about "books"......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 03/02/2008 @ 8:22pm

76. Perhaps the US should make more of an effort to be "even handed", but given what I've said above, how is peace possible no matter what we do? I don't believe the arab world will rest until they carry out another holocaust on israel.

    Posted by STUBINE 03/02/2008 @ 4:20pm

    If what you say is true, then the intervention by the U.S. won't do any good either. Stricly from a stand point of the United States, we shouldn't risk our nation for the standing of another nation and that includes Israel.

    Israel is a friend, but no more a friend to the U.S. than Canada, Mexico, Great Britain etc. I would bet my bottom dollar that more people of Mexican backgrounds live in this country than Israel. Do you hear our politicians talking about how they support Mexico and stand with Mexico? Hell no, and that is because immigrants from Mexico don't have a powerful lobby group like AIPAC.

    I feel for Israel being stuck in the middle of Muslim central, but the U.S. can not change that fact. I don't know what the solution is, but we Americans better worry more about what the hell goes on in our own country and get our ducks all in a row over here before we start trying to tell other countries how they should be run, and that includes Iraq.

    This isn't an isolationist position, it's a position of self preservation. The United States is in big trouble right now and we aren't up for solving the worlds' problems. Right now, we can't even solve our own problems.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/02/2008 @ 10:20pm

77. Israel's problems are Israel's problems. They made their bed so to speak.

    That the candidates are on 'IGNORE' - gives me hope. Americans are tired of being tethered to the Israeli genocide of Palis.

    I'm tired of my government behaving like a subsidiary of Israel Inc.

    Posted by ashleyb at 03/03/2008 @ 09:44am

78. Nice to see that Mark Canyon, our resident jew-hater, knows more about middle east history then any of the leftists on here. So why, mark, do you not support israel? You get everything right. The fact that they don't care about the real genocide in darfur, the hypocracy of the arab side, then you call the israelis "bastards". Explain that to me.

    Wolf: I'm not asking for intervention by the west or USA. You are right, it won't help. I'm fine for us continuing to aid israel, and keeping the UN off their ass so they can deal with these terrorists. As for peace talks or troops, forget it, waste of time and money.

    And israel is most certainly more of a friend then Mexico, which encourages illegal immigrants to come to america, and the UK, where the government is on our side but the people arn't. I would in fact say that israel is our only real friend out there. A friend in need is a friend indeed.

    Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 11:26am

79. Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 11:26am

    STUB....MARK called the Holocaust "one bright moment in history". He's a wee bit more than your average anti-Semite!

    (REF: Posted by MARKCANYON 10/06/2007 @ 1:15pm------BLOG | Posted 10/05/2007 @ 5:23pm Prison Reformers Finally Set Free by Matthew Blake)

    Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 11:45am

80. I am sure this comment will get buried amongst the other trolls and rants, but can anyone honestly tell me what the heck we are even doing in middle eastern countries? I understand who the largest lobby group in the US is and I understand the few rejects who want the US there so their oil profits remain intact and the entire military complex. But at some point, enough is enough. There simply is no logical reason for the US to be involved with middle eastern affairs. Why must the US always "intervene?" Why not other countries for a change like Sweden or Canada?

    Yes these are simple questions but these are simple questions that we need the majority in this nation to start asking.

    ...on another note, coming out against Israel does not make you a "jew-hater." That's the most ridiculous thing I have read in these comments.

    Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 11:59am

81. Mask, jesus! Well, like I said, he remains one of the few people on here who knows middle east history.

    Why the hate, mark?

    Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 12:01pm

82. STUB....MARK called the Holocaust "one bright moment in history". He's a wee bit more than your average anti-Semite!

    Ok...did not read that...however, I still stand by my statement that coming out against Israel and their lobby groups does not make anyone a "jew-hater." I understand Israel is an "ally" but wow, let's face it, at some point we are going to have to cut the relationship. It simply is not working for our benefit.

    Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 12:03pm

83. Pnord, that's such a sorry, overused argument. First of all, most peopel who critisize israel probably are jew-haters. Second of all, since israel is the most critisized and insulted nation on the planet, it seems clear that calling people "anti semites" isn't changing anything anyway, so why throw this in over and over?

    Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 12:06pm

84. not once have I seen here anyone mention the most important events in Israel's history. the peace process. Israel and it's neighbors Egypt and Jordan have made peace, with the help of US presidents Carter and Clinton, did I leave someone out?

    this is what has happened there since the last war. and that is what we must seek to continue.

    the bloodthirsty ones, may babble at each other as far as I'm concerned, in the ignore zone.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/03/2008 @ 12:08pm

85. Ahh, I was wondering how long it would take for someone to say that. The problem, as illustrated here, is that we can never argue against Israel without immediately being tagged and labeled as something we are not. It hardly is an overused argument.

    The relationship we have with Israel is simply not working to our benefit. I'm sorry, that's the reality. Attack me if you want, but that is not going to change the situation. It has nothing to do with religion/faith or anything along those lines. We simply cannot continue supporting them...and we cannot continue to support any middle eastern nation for that matter.

    Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 12:11pm

86. Any nation we arm to the teeth is not a friend, but a business partner. That has to end.

    Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 12:14pm

87. to those who are harping on the now 40 year old incident of the Liberty, I say, what about the US shooting down an Iranian civil airliner? Iran was not at war with the US, although we did support their enemy Saddam.

    Posted by emile duBois at 03/03/2008 @ 12:15pm

88. see http://www.medialens.org/ for a good update on the latest report of the UN on Gaza and what is really happening. the palestinians have catapults and the Isrealis have tanks, this isnt a fair fight at all. Rocket attacks that kill civilians are war crimes(3 dead 1 civilian2 soldiers), but to kill 112 in return (mostly civilians) is just evil and i simply dont believe that the majority of the Isreali population is for this. the fact that the USA gives billions in aid to Isreal make them complicit is war crimes. the geneva convention prohibits collective punishment. o wait the usa doesnt beleive in that anymore.

    Posted by kbilly at 03/03/2008 @ 12:31pm

89. First of all, most peopel who critisize israel probably are jew-haters.----Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 12:06pm

    Uh....can you PROVE that?

    Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 12:32pm

90. Phnord, I'm still wanting to know who is calling you an anti semite. You guys on the left always pull this argument out when palestinians become indefensible.

    And yes, israel is a friend. Probably our only one. As I said before, a friend in need is a friend indeed. Why on earth would arming them (i.e, keeping them alive!) mean that we are not friends?

    Where are you mark?

    Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 12:32pm

91. Mask, no, but after years of arguing online about this its the conclusion thats inescapable. Keep in mind this is The Nation website. Go to commondreams.org, zmag, or any other leftist site, not to mention europe and the muslim world, and its clear that what I'm saying is true.

    The comments on these boards, I believe, are mostly by lefty jews.

    Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 12:34pm

92. New York Times 23 September 2001 Serge Schmemann

    '...In the immediate aftermath of the strikes in New York and Arlington, many Israelis hoped that now, at last, the United States would understand what they live with, and that the reigning superpower would finally unleash its wrath against all terrorists and their lairs, whether in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan -- or Gaza and the West Bank. Indeed, the attacks effectively put Yasir Arafat on parole, even if they had nothing to do with his Palestinians. He had the spectacle of dancing Palestinians to overcome, as well as memories that he had sided with the Iraqis in the gulf war, and any new suicide bombing in Israel would push him into the enemy camp. ...'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 03/03/2008 @ 12:37pm

93. "First of all, most peopel who critisize israel probably are jew-haters."

    You just generalized against everyone as was my point exactly. You called the other fellow, the "resident jew hater"...OK, granted I may have missed that quote you pulled from him, but you still proved my point.

    "The comments on these boards, I believe, are mostly by lefty jews."

    Wow, calm down...what differences does it make if people who post here have a certain religious (or non-religious) outlooks?

    Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 12:45pm

94. Why on earth would arming them (i.e, keeping them alive!) mean that we are not friends?

    If you cannot see the difference between providing humanitarian aid and social support to a country versus supplying them with billions of dollars worth of military hardware...then there is no point in debating with you. Israel is armed like no other country by us. As I said, they are our business partners, nothing more.

    I have no problem with the US supporting Israel from a strictly humanitarian and social standpoint.

    Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 12:52pm

95. Phnord, yes, you DO have a problem with assistance to israel, as we are currently assisting israel, and you seem to have a problem with it!

    I suppose I would be way out of line for suggesting that someone who clearly has an issue with israel defending itself is an "anti semite" so don't worry about that!

    However, why the problem with israel defending itself? THIS is why we give them hardware, and yes, it IS humanitarian aid, as it is what israel needs to keep it alive. To say that this means we are not friends is patently absurd. We keep them alive with this aid, and you say this isn't friendly?

    Again, the left shows simply mind boggling double standards as soon as israel is involved. But of course, this has NOTHING to do with them being jewish.

    Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 12:56pm

96. I'm sorry....WHAT?!?!?!?

    "First of all, most peopel who critisize israel probably are jew-haters."----Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 12:06pm

    "The comments on these boards, I believe, are mostly by lefty jews."-----Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 12:

    So....they hate themselves?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 1:02pm

97. Mask, haha, yes they are self haters!

    I'm not talking about people on these boards mask, just take a look outside the Nation site and you'll see just what I'm talking about. Just check out the comment sections on Commondreams.org

    Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 1:05pm

98. In a climate where even the suspicion of being Muslim is a political liability, and powerful Jewish lobbies have a record of targeting those who do speak out and the lobby has been exposed for weilding too much influence in our politics, can you really expect any different?

    Posted by Lil at 03/03/2008 @ 1:08pm

99. Stubine, calm down, you are going overboard buddy. You can't go around saying that people who say something against Israel "probably are jew haters." That completely takes away your entire argument and simply is a gross attack against people.

    Yes I do have a problem with arming other countries to the incredible heights that we are with Israel. I do not have a problem with providing assistance to Israel. But clearly, compared with our "assistance" to other countries, we arming them on the basis of pure profit. Not to mention when our own citizens and our own country are in need of assistance.

    So calm down and quit making assumptions as to what "problems" I seem to have.

    Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 1:09pm

100. First of all, most peopel who critisize israel probably are jew-haters.

     Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 12:06pm

     what a load of nonsense........

     yep, the israeli government is insane.

     AND

     i hate these people?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

     Paula Abdul Maurice Abravanel Joseph Achron Stanley Adams (singer) Chris Adler (drummer) Kurt Herbert Adler Larry Adler Peter Herman Adler Richard Adler Samuel Adler (composer) Steven Adler Willie Adler Milton Ager Eden Ahbez Fred E. Ahlert Lynn Ahrens Harry Akst Alisha (singer) Herb Alpert Louis Alter Sean Altman Ames Brothers Ed Ames Harold Arlen Baruch Arnon Leopold Auer Emanuel Ax B Milton Babbitt Babydaddy Carmit Bachar Burt Bacharach Marty Balin Alex Band Joey Baron Blue Barron Barry Sisters Jeff Barry George Bassman Marion Bauer Eric Bazilian Shoshana Bean Laurie Beechman Benny Bell Joshua Bell Max Bemis Bob Berg Arthur Berger Irving Berlin David Berman (singer) Dan Bern Elmer Bernstein Leonard Bernstein Bette Midler discography Theodore Bikel Jack Black Jay Black Hal Blaine Marc Blitzstein Eric Bloom Jane Ira Bloom Fannie Bloomfield Zeisler Mike Bloomfield Bob Blue David Blue Hugh Blumenfeld B cont. Michael Bolton Victor Borge Leon Botstein Rob Bourdon Ruby Braff Michael Brecker Randy Brecker Fanny Brice Jim Brickman Matthew Broderick Adam Brodsky Chuck Brodsky Adam Brody David Bromberg Jason Robert Brown Lew Brown Michael Brown (rock musician) Carrie Brownstein Bob Brozman David Bryan Bumblefoot (musician) C Sammy Cahn Uri Caine Randy California Eddie Cantor Vanessa Carlton Eric Carmen Cass Elliot Saul Chaplin Martin Charnin Kenneth Chasen Chantal Claret Buddy Clark Al Cohn Marc Cohn Anthony Coleman Betty Comden Carol Connors (singer) Aaron Copland Chris Cornell Doug Cotler Creation (band) Linda Creed D Leopold Damrosch Walter Johannes Damrosch Richard Danielpour Eddie Daniels Krishna Das (singer) Dave Samuels Hal David Sammy Davis, Jr. Brad Delson Marcella Detroit David Diamond (composer) Michael Diamond Neil Diamond Ani DiFranco Disco D Antal Doráti David Draiman Ervin Drake Deborah Drattell Jacob Druckman Spencer Dryden Adam Duritz Richard Dworsky Bob Dylan D cont. Jakob Dylan E Elliot Easton Fred Ebb Gus Edwards (songwriter) Ramblin' Jack Elliott Abraham Ellstein Mischa Elman Ziggy Elman Howie Epstein Evan and Jaron Ray Evans F Donald Fagen Sammy Fain Perry Farrell Michael Feinstein Morton Feldman Emanuel Feuermann Sylvia Fine Sally Fingerett Doctor Fink William Finn Eddie Fisher (singer) Béla Fleck Helen Forrest Lukas Foss Gabriela Lena Frank David Freiberg Dean Friedman Debbie Friedman Kinky Friedman Marty Friedman (guitarist) Rudolf Friml Dave Frishberg Tatiana von Fürstenberg G Kenny G Adam Gardner Art Garfunkel Michel Gelbart Bruce Geller Arthur Gershwin George Gershwin Ira Gershwin Stan Getz Georgia Gibbs Terry Gibbs Miriam Gideon Josef Gingold Joe Gittleman Philip Glass Alma Gluck Louise Goffin Ari Gold (singer-songwriter) Aaron Goldberg Edwin Franko Goldman Maurice Goldman Rubin Goldmark Jerry Goldsmith Joel Goldsmith Adam Goldstein Al Goodman Benny Goodman Saul Goodman Steve Goodman Mack Gordon Mikalah Gordon Mike Gordon Nina Gordon

     stan getz?!?!?!?!?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 1:16pm

101. Phnord, allright, forget about the jew-hate thing, it's really not important anyway as I feel I can answer these comments without insulting people, so sorry if it came off that way. Honestly, I would rather this debate was conducted without the requisite racism, then to sit here and play gotcha...

     But I still do not understand your argument. Assisting israel means giving them weapons. This is what they need to survive. I suppose we could simply give them money instead, and let them buy the weapons, but I don't see any distinction here. Israel does not need food, or technology, or "social assistance". They need bullets and bombs and planes and tanks, or they all die. Its pretty black and white.

     I know we might not be able to support them forever, but I hope there is no confusion here. Our support keeps our greatest ally in the world alive. Without that support another holocaust will occur. Do we have a duty to prevent this? Of course not, but expect folks like me to continue to support our relationship for this reason, and until this reason goes away.

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 1:20pm

102. By the way Phnord, not to be a pain, but check out Lil's "jewish lobby" comments, right above yours...

     I'm not as crazy as I seem!

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 1:21pm

103. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/03/2008 @ 1:16pm

     And don't forget, FROSTY....as a critic of Israel you also MUST hate fellow countryman and starship captain hero, William Shatner!

     Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 1:33pm

104. Posted by MASK 03/03/2008 @ 1:33pm

     Oh...and Spock too!

     Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 1:33pm

105. Posted by MASK 03/03/2008 @ 1:33pm

     Vaal was a muslim...........

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 1:39pm

106. Yes, well I have often connected critisism with israel and membership in the Romulan Empire.

     Good luck finding this in the media though, the Romulan lobby manages to guilt-trip everybody over that incident with the green woman...

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 1:44pm

107. Honestly, I would rather this debate was conducted without the requisite racism, then to sit here and play gotcha...

     Exactly.

     The point is, is that we arm them beyond the point of defense. We arm them to such ridiculous levels that it's at the point of insanity. We cannot continue to plug so much military hardware into one nation without eyebrows being raised globally. This simply does nothing to promote peace, ending conflict and in my opinion is even more detrimental to the people of Israel. I don't buy your argument that we need to do this to keep them alive. We provide Israel more funding than the entire GDP of Spain.

     I am not getting your question on the Israeli lobby part? Are you implying that the poster is incorrect in saying there is a lobby group or that he/she is incorrect in saying they wield too much influence? Or are you arguing that they do not wield any influence?

     Too say Israeli lobby groups wield no influence is absurd as I believe they are one of the largest (if not the largest) lobby group, however, it's also absurd to say they do it illegally. If you do not like the influence of their lobby group, your beef is with the entire lobby system we have in place then.

     Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 1:45pm

108. I'm not as crazy as I seem!

     Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 1:21pm

     That remains to be seen...curious though...does that apply to political opposition parties WITHIN Israel? For instance, if a member of the Labour Party of Israel criticizes the Olmert government....is that anti-Semitism???

     Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 1:46pm

109. Mask, jesus, forget I ever mentioned anti semitism. I'll withdrawl all accusations as long as it means we can debate this issue without it constantly coming up on your side. I do not think you are an anti semite and I promise I won't mention it again!

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 1:48pm

110. Phnord, we are them enough to stay alive, what's ridiculous about it? I still don't understand your objection. Do you have a problem with ANY weapons going to israel, or do you think we just send them too many? And your comment about spain is wrong. We give israel 3.5 bill in aid every year. The country of Spain's GDP is almost one trillion...

     The poster didn't say "israeli lobby", they said "JEWISH lobby", but I'm going to stick with my promise made to mask.

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 1:51pm

111. Mask, I'm sorry I said anything about anti semitism! Forget I even said anything as I don't want to continue this on and on. I do not think you or the labor government is anti semitic and I promise not to mention it again!

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 1:52pm

112. Sorry I meant total aid...which is just about at that level. Israel is still the largest recipient of funding (economic, military) than any other nation.

     We simply cannot pump billions worth of arms into one nation and say we are for peace in the mid east. Do you not see the difference between providing aid and providing military weapons to one nation? It simply does not work that way. It has nothing to do with self defense anymore. It's completely beyond the point of self defense. We cannot pump billions worth of weaponry into any nation and expect peace in the middle east to come about.

     I'm sorry to say this but neither side in the whole debacle is without blame. Armament is clearly not working. We need other solutions. We need solutions that are not influenced by any profit margins, lobby groups, religious sects, underhanded politics or anything. More war has never brought about the end to war.

     Look, I am obviously coming off as one sided and I've got other stuff to do. I do not agree with any side of the middle eastern debacles. The only thing I know for certain is that the conflicts are simply bad for humanity and for the entire planet. It really gets old to wake up and read about what group bombed what again. I would much rather have America worry about its own affairs than to constantly have to "intervene" for whatever reason. Enough is enough.

     Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 2:14pm

113. PHnord, I'm feeling like a broken record here, but again, we give israel the weapons it needs to survive. Is this good for peace? I don't know, but its certainly good for the millions of israelis who would be dead without our help. Again, you may not agree with helping them and that's fine, but don't obscure the issue. Our aid is a life or death issue, its not about "peace".

     I do understand though, getting sick of the middle east and our involvement there. Unfortunetly, being jewish this is an attitude I cannot afford to take. If I were you I might very well be taking it though.

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 2:26pm

114. Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 1:52pm

     Look, BOTH sides have their zealots. And I'm sure there is a SEGMENT (small) of those who vehemently attack Israel that are anti-Semites....but most aren't. And even Ari Berman here at "The Nation" has mentioned the "reflexively anti-Israel Left".

     But there is also the LVLIBERTY contingent...most Christian fundas who actually believe that Israel is above ALL criticism and even care more about it than they do their own country.

     Somewhere in the middle is the truth.

     Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 2:27pm

115. "But I still do not understand your argument. Assisting israel means giving them weapons. This is what they need to survive. I suppose we could simply give them money instead, and let them buy the weapons, but I don't see any distinction here. Israel does not need food, or technology, or "social assistance". They need bullets and bombs and planes and tanks, or they all die. Its pretty black and white."

     What are the latest stats? Palestinians deaths 400 to 1 Israeli? Whose land is stolen? whose homes bulldozed? Whose country appropropriated and criscrossed with "jew only" roads and exclusive settlemnets while an entire people are starved out.

     i have nothing but contempt for those who cry victim in the face of this and I have nothing but contempt for those who are silent while chanting "Never again" for Jews only.

     http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/RespectingHolocaust.html

     Posted by Lil at 03/03/2008 @ 2:36pm

116. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.

     Posted by MASK 03/03/2008 @ 2:27pm

     yep.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 2:38pm

117. I don't know, but its certainly good for the millions of israelis who would be dead without our help. Again, you may not agree with helping them and that's fine, but don't obscure the issue. Our aid is a life or death issue, its not about "peace".

     Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 2:26pm

     that "help" sure isn't working out for the iraqis.................

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 2:38pm

118. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/03/2008 @ 2:38pm

     Problem is...conversation is dominated by STUBINEs or LILs.

     Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 2:40pm

119. Problem is...conversation is dominated by STUBINEs or LILs.

     Posted by MASK 03/03/2008 @ 2:40pm

     or loudmouths like nasrallah or ahmadinejad.........

     nobody wants to listen to the ordinary guy who needs a job and wants cable t.v..............

     HEY! that sure sounds familiar...

     Posted by frosty zoom at 03/03/2008 @ 2:47pm

120. Mask I am not the problem here, the terrorists are. I would not simply murder palestinians for being palestinians, whereas they will murder israelis, simply for being israelis. There's no comparison.

     Lil, we killed more nazis during WWII then they killed americans. Does this make us the bad guys? And the land was actually understand control of the british in 1947, and they split it between jews and arabs. Jews agreed, arabs didn't and have been trying to carry out genocide ever since. Learn the history before you go off about the holocaust and whatnot.

     Starved out? How many palestinians have starved so far?

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 2:48pm

121. Our aid is a life or death issue, its not about "peace".

     Where is the global aid from other countries then? Where is the military aid from other countries? If it's a life or death situation there then on a counter point, it's also life or death situation for the countries Israel bombs as well. It's a one sided argument always for whatever side you want to take. Too many innocent lives are lost daily on both sides for a lunatic, minority faction within each group.

     If Israel is such in dire need of military assistance on the matter of life or death, then why is it always solely the responsibility of America to arm them...if it were not for the fact that the US is making huge profits off this? Where is the support of Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Japan, Finland, [insert arbitrary country here]?

     Arming any side to the extremes as this is not a matter of helping anymore. Like I said, the amounts of weaponry and military aid is completely insane. It's not defending anymore, it's pushing more and more war and hostility for pure profit. No one is being helped by this.

     Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 2:57pm

122. Phnord, the other countries want israel to die.

     Man, I hate being such a soggy blanket.

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 3:11pm

123. Stubine...what is Israel's plan for when US military aid runs dry or slows down? Eventually it will happen, nothing can go on forever. What happens if the US simply cannot afford to fund Israel? (which we really cannot even today for that matter) What happens if the US says "Hey, this money needs to be invested back into America for our own needs."?

     Israel needs a plan to survive on its own without the aid of US military weaponry. Why can't it not develop a viable plan presently? If it's a life or death situation, such a plan would be absolutely critical for the survival of the nation. Why not take these steps in haste immediately?

     Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 3:16pm

124. Phnord, the other countries want israel to die.

     Right...and I am sure Israel's opponents are saying the same thing. The he said/she said argument doesn't work when arguing to a third party without any vested interests.

     Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 3:18pm

125. ...or are you implying Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Italy, Japan, Finland, [insert arbitrary country here] want Israel to die?

     If so...wow.

     Posted by phnord at 03/03/2008 @ 3:21pm

126. Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 2:48pm

     No, but like LIL you have a penchant for....."exaggeration", shall we call it? From your determination of the mind-set of "most critics of Israel"...to your telepathic ability to read the thoughts of "100 million Arabs" and their desire for American blood above all else?

     Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 3:27pm

127. Phnord, israel has a very sophisticated plan. It involves bending over and planting a kiss squarly on its own hindquarters, and saying "goodbye"!

     I might again be exaggerating. Maybe they don't want israel to die, but they certainly arn't going to lift a finger if it does. I couldn't blame them, if it wasn't for the fact that some of those same countries are constantly lecturing israel on its treatment of the palestinians.

     Mask, again, I said muslims, and I think that number is likely an understatement. Just take a look at indonesia, pakistan, etc etc. These are countries of hundreds of millions of people, where polls regularly show 50-75% of the populace supporting terror attacks against america. What conclusion should be reached?

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 3:52pm

128. IBBLEBLIBBLE, before the air-strikes which killed 46 to 52 people, depending on the source, there were rockets flying in Israel, which killed 1 person. I guess you are of the 50 eyes for an eye school of thought.

     Even if there were no historical context of dispossession and ghettoization of an entire population, by a European people, landing off their boats on foreign lands and imposing themselves on the natives (yes, lets look at the Jewish-Palestinian conflict as a white vs brown struggle) the imbalance in the retributory violence is so reminiscent of what Nazis did in the territories they occupied every time the resisting people killed one of their occupiers that it makes me cringe, much like it made the last survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto cringe and condemn Israel.

     Let me now sit back and wait for you to call me (and the Israeli writers and peace-activists on whose views I base mine) anti-semitic.

     Posted by DIMIK72 03/01/2008 @ 7:48pm

     Good point. Not a very balanced retaliation. That's like you stubbed my toe, so I cut off your foot.

     Posted by jin at 03/03/2008 @ 3:58pm

129. What's Obama (especially) to say while he's walking the Jewish tightrope? If anyone deserves criticism over the incident it's Israel. It can't, after all, be looked at as anything other than the case of a superior power ramming their far better death tech over a poorly equipped enemy.

     Posted by jin at 03/03/2008 @ 4:17pm

130. These are countries of hundreds of millions of people, where polls regularly show 50-75% of the populace supporting terror attacks against america. What conclusion should be reached?

     Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 3:52pm

     I don't know...could you cite some of those polls?

     Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 4:22pm

131. Posted by JIN 03/03/2008 @ 3:58pm

     So, what do you think of DIMIK comparing the Israelis...to the Nazis?

     Posted by Mask at 03/03/2008 @ 4:24pm

132. Posted by MASK 03/03/2008 @ 4:24pm

     It's a pretty fiery comparison, and I do not officially endorse the analogy (lol).

     Posted by jin at 03/03/2008 @ 4:36pm

133. ....why is it always solely the responsibility of America to arm them...if it were not for the fact that the US is making huge profits off this...

     Posted by PHNORD 03/03/2008 @ 2:57pm

     ...what is Israel's plan for when US military aid runs dry....What happens if the US simply cannot afford to fund Israel?...

     Posted by PHNORD 03/03/2008 @ 3:16pm

     Casually observing: If we "the US is making huge profits off" of arming Israel, there is no basis for you to project "when US military aid runs dry".

     You ought to run for political office!

     Posted by Happy at 03/03/2008 @ 5:58pm

134. The notion that what's going on in israel is a "white/brown" struggle is absolute nonesense as well. The israelis are white? Thousands of them are african, millions are sephardic, and as brown as the arabs. Many, in fact, ARE arab in every genetic sense of that term.

     The notion that israel can be compared to nazi germany is pretty idiotic as well. The ideology of hamas is what can be compared to nazi germany, the fact that they are unable to impose this ideology on israel doesn't make it any less insidious. Apparently, under your system of "morality", israel is to be condemned simply for winning. Sometimes, the bad guys lose. Sometimes, the bad guys have a darker hue of skin tone then a scandanavian. I don't see why this stuff is so hard for you people to understand.

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 5:59pm

135. Jin, so israel shouldn't respond to the constant attacks on its civilian population, simply because these attacks arn't very effective?

     What kind of reasoning is that? Israel should use whatever force it has to to end the rocket fire. If this means it kills ten thousand members of hamas, then so be it, hamas is the aggressor here. People like you would reward violent racism and aggression, while talking about "human rights", another thing about the left today that I just can't understand.

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 6:01pm

136. Ok mark, I respect your opinion a lot in fact. You are 100% right about the enemies of israel, but why do you have a problem with the israelis?

     And I still don't get the hate for the jews...

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 6:18pm

137. Its good to see The Nation doesn't censor your stuff.

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 6:20pm

138. Mark I don't get it you say you're the big bad anti semite, and then you TEAR UP this board with more logic and truth then The Nation has seen since 1865 or whenever it started.

     I hope you lefties don't have this guy on ignore, he's right on the money on all of these points. Some historical knowledge definitely helps put modern events in context.

     Mark explain your jew hatred.

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 6:32pm

139. ...he's right on the money on all of these points. Some historical knowledge definitely helps put modern events in context.

     Mark explain your jew hatred.

     Posted by STUBINE 03/03/2008 @ 6:32pm

     Hope he explains! The ME is a big part of his `persona'.

     MC is usually a fascinating read (and NO, MASK, do NOT mean I `defend' or share his most controversial but boldly stated view)!

     Posted by Happy at 03/03/2008 @ 7:43pm

140. Happy, other then that view he's 100% right on everything.

     Where are you mark?

     Posted by Stubine at 03/03/2008 @ 8:32pm

141. Mark, that's the saddest answer to an honest question I've seen on here. So, essentially, you think jews have special powers and are jealous.

     That's a complete break from your normally rational posts, and I honestly don't believe it. You are right on the money when it comes to the left though.

     Posted by Stubine at 03/05/2008 @ 11:42am