"When I expressed commiseration to an Israeli diplomat over the ''bad news'' in the Middle East, he expressed hope that ''good news'' -- a ''new paradigm'' is on the way. He added: ''The problem is that we have been too soft.'' In other words, Israel had erred in not moving earlier against Hezbollah's military capability in southern Lebanon and was determined to do so now.

Using military force to achieve the ''new paradigm'' wins either enthusiastic or tacit support across America's ideological spectrum. Apart from hesitant pleas for Israeli restraint from President Bush and his administration's officials, the U.S. political community has been cheering on the punishment of Hezbollah. Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is a voice in the wilderness suggesting U.S. policy is dangerously isolated by the Israeli alliance."

[Yeah, maybe so, but that won't last if Hagel's presidential aspirations are serious.  Wait for him soon to change his tune].

"Never before have the United States and Israel been so close, and never before has support of Israel been so universal among American politicians. That inhibits the leverage Bush is able to exercise, on behalf of his country, as an honest broker seeking a peaceful solution in the Middle East. He is seen as Israel's uncritical supporter. Members of Congress, normally free with their comments about everything, have been silent about the economic carnage that could result from the current escalation in the Middle East (including a prospective epidemic of suicide bombings in Israel)."

[Bush has no intention, and probably never had any intention, of acting as an "honest broker."  I mean, how could he?  Look at all the Israel-happy NeoConMen bozos he appointed. And worse yet, took their advice! And the thought that anuyone, after 40+ years of supine and craven US support for Israel could see the US as an "honest broker" is, to paraphrase Wm Buckley Jr., an idea so silly only an intellectual could or would take it seriously.  Novak's coments re Congress need no expalnation].

"The U.S.-Israel alliance was transformed after the Six-Day War of 1967, when the United States replaced the Soviet Union and France as Israel's patron. In 1988, a joint memorandum designated Israel as a ''major'' American ally. But it was not until 2001 that the current intimacy between the two governments was reached. Stratfor, the private intelligence service, reported on the day of the 9/11 terrorist attacks: ''The big winner today, intentionally or not, is the state of Israel.'' I wrote then: ''Whatever distance Bush wanted between U.S. and Israeli policy, it was eliminated by terror.'' Engaged in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush stepped back from the drudgery of promoting Israeli-Palestinian accommodation."

"Nearly two decades before 9/11, American politicians had learned how dangerous it was to be at odds with Israel. American supporters of Israel focused on two longtime Illinois Republicans -- Rep. Paul Findley in 1982 and Sen. Charles H. Percy in 1984 -- and defeated both for re-election. Since then, few office seekers have dared criticize Israel."

[Don't know much about the Findley case, but the Senator Percy case is an excellent example.  His crime -- he said a few lukewarm words of support for the "comprehensive peace" strategy which was in vogue circa 1975.  And, of course, Percy was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee in 1981, the year of the AWACS sale to Saudi Arabis.  AIPAC neither forgives nor forgets -- and Congresspersons certainly draw the appropriate lessons].

"That is especially true of anybody harboring presidential ambitions -- including Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden and Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. They are critics by nature but were markedly uncritical of Israel when they appeared together on NBC's ''Meet the Press'' Sunday. ''I think it's a secondary question whether Israel's gone too far,'' said Biden. A few moments later, Gingrich asserted: ''It is explicitly wrong to bring pressure on the victim'' -- that is, on Israel.

Hagel, who is considering a possible 2008 presidential race, deviates from this pattern. ''I'm a supporter and friend of Israel,'' he told me, ''but I'm also for a sane situation in the Middle East. We have to worry about the Muslim states. We are increasingly alone in the world.'' While asserting Iran and Syria bear ''some responsibility,'' he talked about a ''combustible environment'' that could ''engulf the whole world.'' To Hagel, ''this is the most dangerous situation we've been in'' since formation of the state of Israel 58 years ago."

[The example of the acid-tongued and often egregious Robert Dole will serve as an example.  Never publicly outspoken on either side of the issue, in the summer of 1988 or 1989, in the aftermath of an Israeli military operation in Lebanon which resulted in the rvenge killing of US Army Colonel Higgins, he had the nerve to voice this emminently sensible sentiment [not the exact quote] : "a little greater sense of responsibility on the part of Israel would be a welcome change."  Well, the Kansas Senator was treated to an unrelenting verbal beating the likes of which fall only upon those foolish enough to question any word or deed of Israel - as the daily output of this very Board testifies. [So much so, I suspect, that his later bout with erectile dysfunction must have seemed like a summer on the Riveria with Claudia Schiffer by comparison.  But I digress]. Anyway, long story short, by the time 1996 rolls around and Senator Dole is running for Prez, he sounds like he was channelling Ari, Bibi, Sharansky, Kahane and Alan Dershowitz at their most bloodthirsty. And that's saying some! I predict a similar fate for Senator Hagel in the snows of New Hampshire and the pastures and croplands of Iowa].

"Hagel was one of the first public figures last week to propose sending a prestigious former Republican secretary of state -- either James A. Baker III or Colin Powell -- to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. Implicit in that suggestion was the belief that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was not up to mediating the Israeli-Palestinian struggle and that outside assistance was needed."

[What's the point of a Presidential envoy?  Poor Philp Habib had a heart attack in 1981 for his troubles, James Baker is considered a rabid anti-Semite by some, and Powell's stock is more than dimished at this point.  Anyway, it's a logical non-starter, as the US plainly has no crdibility to act as an "honest broker."  And I really don't think that that point is so difficult to grasp that Novak takes an entire column to make it].

"There was no hand of any American visible when I reported from Israel three months ago, and Israelis seemed happy about that. Newly installed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was intent on Israel unilaterally drawing boundary lines with a desiccated, noncontiguous, economically nonviable Palestinian state. With no negotiations taking place and Washington pressing for none, thoughtful Israelis outside the government assured me of a return to violence, one way or another, sooner or later. It came sooner."

[Yep, it sure did.  And like a bad penny, it will always come back to us.  Thanks AIPAC.  BTW, the only US "hands" Israel digs are the ones shoveling out bushels of $$$ and arsenals of weapons.  After that, the US in on it's own].

I originally saw this column in the NY POST, a Rupert Murdoch property, and which, like all his US media properties, hews to a straight and narrow Israeli line -- or should I say  Israeli hardline?


In the NY Post it ran under the heading "Boxed In By Ties To Israel."  How apprpriate, I thought, as that box looks like it's going to become a coffin for many.