I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that all of us (with the possible exceptions of Dick Cheney, Bob Novak, Karl Rove and my asshole cousin Howard) would willingly lay down their lives for a cause greater than themselves. I would take a bullet for my loved ones or a cause I truly believed in.

But now, as the fog of deception cast over this country by the administration begins to clear, and the damage caused by the evil puppeteers actually running this country from the smokey back rooms begins to come to light, I find myself asking the same question over and over again....
Where is the Honor here?

The Senates recent 90-9 Vote on the Treatment of Detainees was reported as "a Bipartisan Rebuff of the White House"

But the burning issue in my mind remains....

NINE US SENATORS AND THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ARGUED AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION, AND IN FAVOR OF TORTURE????????? This isn't your parents America, nor is it the USA I know, love, and attach my loyalties to.

I kept imagining I was hearing the sounds of crystal shattering in the distance....

The situation in Iraq is extremely complex.
Anyone who believes we should simply remove the troops at this point, is either really stupid, or really naive to reality.

But what we DO need to do immediately, is remove George W. Bush and Richard Cheney from office.
And while we're at it, send the Nazi whore Anne Coulter to the Chicken Ranch for some discipline.

That, I would gladly vote in favor of.

Heres a couple of side by side headlines I think gives you a really good idea of the state of our Leadership today.

** House votes to cut $700 mln in food stamps **
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?id=2005111818110002569401&dt=20051118181100&w=RTR&coview=

** Congress Helps Self to $3,100 Pay Raise **
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802165_pf.html

As I've said many times, they're ALL a bunch of fucking crooks. Led by the Great Satan, Dick Cheney, and his lapdog court jester, Dubya (i'm gonna start calling him Dubby... after the house elf in Harry Potter)

That's the Rant. Shalom & Good Day

PS - Want to fix the problems in the Middle East? Give the Israeli's free reign to clean house. Put THAT in your pipe and fire it up!
(this one was for my good friend, respected colleague, and acknowledged Arab supporter Xiaoming. Wanna dance? I promise not to step on your toes, if you promise to keep the dialog "kosher" lol)

Whooooooooooooo!!!

if he's a supporter of Hamas,Islamic Jihad, or the PA!

None of them, not even the Baath Party or the Muslim Brotherhood r Hizbollah either, insofar as thier objectives are inconsistent with the well-being of the US.  I only support them to the extent that they oppose Israel, and their opposition is directed at the agents and the core institutions of the State of Israel.  So yes, I'd condemn suicide bombers on city buses, but no, I'd feel differently if a truck bomber drove into the Knesset of Mossad Headquarers or IDF headquarters
or the Likud Party Central Committee conference.

And yes, no contradiction here, as I've clearly stated MANY TIMES that US support of Israel is a policy which is a total disaster for the US and not in any way consistent with or supportive of this country's well-being in the Near East.

I'll have to take up the challenge from DoctorGonzo, so...

But before I go, i'd like to ask you, and all interested parties, to please state one [1] clear way in which support for Israel has helped the US, and please avoid vapid generalities [they're reserved for me!] like "They're An Indispensable  Ally In The War On Terror"].  Thanx, please excuse typos.

-- Modified on 11/19/2005 2:23:38 PM

-- Modified on 11/19/2005 5:21:31 PM

Throwing down the gauntlet, eh?

Let the Iraelis settle the problems of the Near East, eh?  Did you get this gem of an idea   from some babe you tried to cruise at a Haddasah meeting recently? [this is humor, LOL I hope].

They can't even solve the problems they've created for themselves in thier 57 years of existence.  Let alone the problems they've created for others - namely US - without pepetually demanding increased aid levels  but also petulently insisting that we allow them to "take the gloves off" and deal with those wascally Arabs.

Put this in my pipe and smoke it?  Sounds like you've been smoking something already, much more potent than tobacco.

Your turn for the substantive riposte as this was just boilerplate.

I agree 90%.   I'd want to read the bill before I asked opponents WTF they were thinking, and IMHO it's legit to oppose issues for minor or procedural reasons - but generally, I think it's time for us to get a little more serious about world leadership, and I think this is a fair example.

As for the White House, I think that impeachment in the absence of SPECIFIC good cause, eg direct connection with a wilful legal violation in Plamegate, just radicalizes and damages US politics more.  I think the Repubs need to be given the chance to salvage their administration, and I'd help them if I thought they'd behave responsibly.  Eg, McCain's predecessor Goldwater was the one who broke the news to Nixon, that he should resign for the good of the party.  I could imagine McCain helping force Bush's hand in reforms.  But I suspect that Dubya is likely to be a "go-down-in-flames" mentality, and if he takes the Jesus wing of the Republicans with him, it may be worth the price.

I don't think any kneejerk reaction, like bailing out, is a good plan.  And I don't think it's a good idea to publish a timetable.  But I think that getting some realistic plan, instead of using Iraq as a smokescreen for rearranging domestic finances in favor of Bush's cronies, is an absolute necessity.  

I'm afraid that what changed Murtha's mind was information from inside the bureaucracy, and these people usually have a fair and conservative grasp of what is going on.  He may be right, that bailing is the best plan.


Ch 1:  As for the Israelis, no, they won't clean up the mideast by themselves, not even if they're getting fire support from the entire coalition.   They can clean up their area, but the Palestinians have remained a thorn in their side for years, that will not be solved by force alone.   And if you think they're going to go into Sudan or Kurdish areas and pacify them, you need to know that blitzkrieg is incredibly simpler than police actions.

-- Modified on 11/19/2005 2:27:40 PM

to maximize our influence in the area by keeping things stirred up.

It could be.

Well, like some old grandmotherly-types [but not mine] might have said - penny wise and pound foolish.

There's lots of quotes about reaping the whirlwind, reaping what one sows, dismounting after riding the tiger, etc... all of them probably applicable here.

That's like destroying your life preserver to prove what a great swimmer you are.  It can be done anothr time, much more simply, and with much less risk to oneself.

I don't mind if the political ledership of this country wants to be Machiavellian and engage in Bismarkian realpotitik - i just ask that they recognize some limits and be smart about it.  Supporting Israel, and making dozens of countries out enemy thereby, in some quixotic quest to maximize our influence in the Near East to me fails the "smart" or even the "common sense" test.

If this be the work of geniuses, please dear God bring on the clowns instead.

an arab supporter but a selective supporter of suicide bombings directed at government institutions (eg parliament, IDF Hqs.; presumably no innocent civilians work there,and if they do well,it's collateral damage).Makes you wonder if your friend supported the suicide bombings against the Saudi govt.It wouldn't surprise me if your friend is a "holocaust denier" too.

With good friends like that who needs enemies?

Really, all these negative feelings re me and we've never even met.  You don't even respond directly to my postings any longer.  But that's your privledge.

Well, when you can assure me that there is never ANY collateral damage/civilian casualities as a result of Israli miltary actions, I'll concede your point.

Any civilian caussualties from the King David Hotel? Nah!

Any civilian casulaties from the Invasion/Occupation of Lebanon in 1982? Don't be ridiculous!

Any casualties from the Phalngist-perpetrated masacres at the Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut in 1982, a masacre aided and abetted by the IDF?  How DARE I ask THAT?

Any civilian casulaties from Israel's now defunct overlordship on the Gaza Strip? Silly goose!

Any civilian casulaties from Isrel's ongoing overlordship on the West Bank? Heaven forfend!

Any civilian casulties from Israel's Pearl Harbor-like sneak attack on the Osirak Reactor in 1981?  [And of course, NO ONE doubts the veracity of THOSE WMD claims made by Israel].  Stupid question alert!

Any civilian casualties from...?  By now I think you've got it.

Yes, some innocent civs would be injured/killed in an attack on the Knesset, or the IDF HQ, or the Mossad, or the Likud Party Centrl committe building.  But as these are central institutions of the Israeli polity, it can't be helped, and
as many of the individuals in those locations are in some attenuated way servants of the policies of Israel which has given rise to the violent and murderous acts taken against Israel, in some of those case it can be construed as some sort of rough justice, as there is no way they can be considered immune from violent actions being directed at them.

Might or might not support suicide bombings against the Saudis, depending upon a bunch of different circumstances.  Send me a hypothetical and I'll post an expalnatory response. But I'd rather the various antagonists bagged suicide bombings, assassinations and the like. And it's amusing to see a supporter of Israel forced to defend Saudi well-being, however insincerely and even if only rhetorically for the sake of argument.

No, not a Holocaust denier.  What gave you that idea?  Desperation?  Frustration?  Anger?  Pettiness? Inability to understand the simple points I argue?

I don't think Jack In The Crack views me literally as his friend, despite the number of postings we direct at each other.  More like a vague aquaintance he likes to debate for whatever reasons.  I enjoy him immensely, as I do pretty much everyone on this board.

PS.  It's OK to respond directly - only my rhetoric is violent, and only sometimes, and perhaps because it's used in pursuit of an unworthy cause?

Peace and good health to you Riem.  Wven if you don't respond directly.

-- Modified on 11/19/2005 10:46:35 PM

Xiaoming, you caught me offguard with your admission you would support a homicide bombing against "Knesset of Mossad Headquarers or IDF headquarters or the Likud Party Central Committee conference." This troubles me personally, as both my niece and her husband work in the Knesset building. You will therefore understand you have left me no choice but to view you as a threat to my family.
But I'm sure you didn't mean it personally. Just as long as the innocents killed are mere Israeli Jews because their lives are not worth the same as their Arab counterparts. Is that it? No, of course not, i'm being totally sarcastic here.
Right? (continued)

I must say you sound like you really don't care if all the Israeli's are driven into the sea to drown and be food for the fishes. Funny thing, thats exactly what Gamal Abdel Nasser said. Right before he invaded Israel only to be so badly rebuffed it took over 50 years, and twice that many Arab petrodollars to shift the perceptions of the world to view tiny Israel, with a population of 3.5 million Jews, as a dangerous threat to 1.5 billion Muslim Arabs.
Come on Xiaoming, you claim you aren't an anti-Semite, but everything you say makes me feel like I'm listening to someone who believes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be true.
Really Xiao, try , if you can, for just one minute, to put yourself into my shoes, and listen to yourself with my ears. you sound pretty damned scarey to me sometimes. Not scarey as in BOO. But scarey as in dangerous.

Actually, it was a Bnei Brith meeting, and you should have seen her. She had a rack you could land a chopper on. Well, if you were an Israeli pilot, anyway.
Dude, in 1949, when the UN created the State of Israel, David Ben Gurion and Golda Meir begged the Arab merchants and farmers and sheepherders to stay and work the land together with the Jews. But Nasser of Egypt, and the Arab leaders of Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon informed the Arab merchants and farmers and sheepherders that they should leave everything and go to the temporary shelters, and after the Jews were driven into the sea, they could go back, reclaim not only theirs, but the Jewish lands as well.
That was 1949. Five Arab countries with a combined military force of 2.5 million troops invaded the nascent Israel, only to be rebuffed. That is why there are refugee camps in areas like Gaza. They weren't set up by the Israeli's, but by the Arab leadership, who used these Arab citizens of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Iraq as pawns against Israel.
In 1956, the Arabs again attacked and invaded Israel, only to come up against General Moshe Dayan, who conquored the Sinai desert and took it from Egypt. But for the first time in history, conquored territory was returned to the vanquished in a gesture of peace. The first attempt at land for peace.
1967, 1973, the list goes on and on. In each and every case, Arab countries in a unified attempt to wipe Israel off the face of the map failed miserably.
But where were the Palestinians in 1949 1956, and 1967? There weren't any. They were all Arabs who had been displaced out of their Arabic countries for whatever reasons. all of a sudden, a man born in Egypt holding a Syrian passport is a Palestinian, and Palestinians were forcibly thrown from their homes by the horrible evil Jews who use the blood of Muslim children to bake their foul Passover matzoh.
Does that jive with your view perhaps?

PS - Tobacco is deadly for you, why would I want to smoke it?

i'm not going to play the game of listing all the attacks perpetrated by Arabs against innocents. I do not have to.
In 1971, I was an 18 year old on a work study program in Israel. Part of that program took me to a Kibbutz in the Beit Sha'an Valley an area bordered on three sides by Arab counries Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. The central location of this kibbutz made it an ideal social hub for the Valley. It was also the most renowned child care center in Northern Israel, replete with special bunkers for the children to lie and sleep in, deep in the ground, protected from danger. Or so you would think. Animal husbandry in the form of turkey farming, agricultural contribution in the form of cotton fields, and a huge child care center for all the children of the Valley to come to elementary school. Truly a vital strategic military target, worthy and tactical.
Because of a major military callup at the time (the cease fire hadn't happened yet), I was among a small group who were asked to do guard duty. This meant we drove around the perimeter of the kibbutz every 30 minutes for the duration of the shift.
The attack came at 3am from the direction of Syria. The first wave was a series of Katyusha rockets that struck randomly around the outer perimeter. The jeep I was riding in was knocked over when a rocket landed nearby. I was thrown clear, but the driver I had ben sitting next to and speaking with 10 seconds earlier had been hit by shrapnel, and decapitated. I passed out from the pain of a piece of shrapnel the size of a football sticking out of my leg and came to some time later in the medical ward of the kibbutz. Everything else that happened, I learned second hand, or from the papers the next day.
A second wave had infiltrated the kibbutz, and managed to toss a couple grenades into one of the bunkers. One with all the childrens paintings on it.

A total of 30 dead or injured, eighteen of them children, none older than 7 years old, who were killed in the attack on the bunker.

The next day, through the news, we learned the attack had been ordered, and actually led by a man named Yasser Arafat, who bragged about having ended the lives of "future Jews".

This was not the first, nor last of the terrorist attacks against innocents. You think homicide bomber fanatics are a recent phenomenon of the Arabs? Bah... Arafat had been attacking innocent targets since the early 60's. In 1964, THREE YEARS before Israel conquored and reunified Jerusalem, Yasser Arafat was launching terrorist atacks against Jewish settlers, typically the most vulnerable, as befits the evil little coward he was.
So please Xiaoming, if you re going to present lists of innocent victims of the Israeli-Arab conflict, try to remember that Jews and Israelis also count as people, worthy of being counted when they are killed by Arab treachery. And there has been much of that going back to 1949. A time when NOBODY referred to any Arab people as Palestinian. They were all Trans-Jordanians, Egyptians, Lebanese Muslims, Iraqi's, and Syrians. and they already hated Jews, having sided with Hitler (feh! feh! yuk yuk yuk!) during WWII.
Which reminds me... you aren't a Holocaust denier from what i can see. But I do believe you are misguided in your perceptions of the Middle East.
Its late. good night.

The really really REALLY good stuff.

Only a slight correction:the atrocities you mention go back to 1929 & 1936 incited by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem(Haj Amin Il Husseini)- the palestinian Ayatollah who later spent WWII siding with Hitler.As you point out there weren't really 'palestinians' just an arab society ruled by clans of which one was the Husseini clan.When the UN decided in '47 to partition Palestine into 2 states the jews accepted it but the 'palestinians' (as well as the other arab countries) rejected it and launched a war of extermination that backfired on them.[BTW,the US contribution then was mainly a YES vote during the UN debate, but most of the arms with which Israel defeated them came from France, Cechoslovakia as a proxy for the USSR].Well,based on historic precedent a victor's justice always prevails but not to mideast countries still mired in medieval thinking! Israel, has learned the hard way that force is the only currency in the neighborhood and will relinquish "occupied" territories only when REAL peace is accepted by the whole damn neighborhood!

If these "targets" are held to be off-limits, we've essentially rendered the Israeli government invulnerable as attacks against purely civilian targets are risible and contemptible and worthy of condemnation.

By analogy, think of how we as Amrericans react to 091101.  Yopu almost never hear a word about the attack on the Pentagon. I think because most people intuitively feel that, without regard to their love of country and their hatred of the attackers, the Pentagon can only be seen as the nerve center of the US worldwide military/political effors which piss off so many people and drive some of them to such murderous extremes. Same principle.  Just like the attack on the King David Hotel in 1946, which was used by the British Manadotry authorities to house some of their staff in Palestine/soon to be Israel, but which involved civilian fatalities.  Just like the attacks OUR country inflicted on Baath Party HQ in Baghdad not so long ago.  And on Saddam's military headquarters, etc..  If the israelis want to fight, they [and you] have got to be prepared tp take casualties.  I can't sugar-coat this pill for you.

The loss of every life in this conflict is a tragedy, all the more so because so much of it is totally unnecessary.

It's trite as hell, but people get killed in war, all too often total innocents.  If the choice is between suicide/homicide/martydom bombing a busload of civilians or truckbombing the  IDF HQ, which is the less shitty alternative in terms of loss of innocent lives?  Unless of course, the Israelis, along with all the other claims they make for their superhuman political virtue, consider themselves beyond any opposition of any type by anyone for any reason.  The Isrelis have got to realize that they've screwed over a lot of people, these people have long memories and a thirst for revenge to match.

The priciple is not that much different from strtegic bombing, which involves [potentially] loss of innocent lives and destruction of targets not always clearly connected to the "center of gravity" of the state apparatus [fer example, the cruise missile attack on the Sudanese aspirin factory in 1998?].

Not pleased to hear about your family connections in the Knessett building and of the examples I provide this one I the least defensible except for it's symbolism.  But remember the speculation about 091101 hijackers  wanting to crash a jetliner into the US Capitol building?  Not a military target per se, but clearly a central institution of the American gov't which is hated by so many [wrongly of course] around the world.

Your last sentence, I'm sure you meant that rhetorically.  I'm no more a threat to your extended family than Santa Claus.  But, if that's the POV you want to adopt, isn't it just as logical for angry Palestinians and their emotional/political compatriots to view you, a defender of those [the Israelis] who have done them so much wrong for so long, as an enemy?  See where that leads?  See what it might be taken as a justification for [gramar?].

I'd perfer that the Palestinians preacticed Ghandian non-violence, butthat doesn't seem to be in the cards anytime soon.

Peace and good health to you DoctorGonzo.

I do put myself in your shoes, as as I try to do with most people I meet.  But because you [and me] think something is so doesn't make it so.  That trick was reserved for The Gipper.  i'm not awfully impressed by tlaes of Israeli vulnerabilty to the Arab masses, but I don't deny there is something there to be taken into account.

But have you tried to put yourself in the shoes of the Palestinians for a moment?  Do you believe the causse of Israel is so self-evidently great and clean and pure as to be beyond any question or reproach or opposition?

The Protocols... c'mon you yourself have admitted that I'm clearly not an anti-Semite, that my opposition to israel is based on political disagreements.  Not pleased to see you resurrect this one, but muy disappointment will pass.

The "being driven into the sea" trope is one I haven't heard in close to 40 years, since before the Six Day War.  It might have been a realistic fear in 1948, it hasn't been for quite awhile.  I can't believe you are resurrecting this one as well.

As for posing a threat, which party to the conflict in the Near East has intervention forces able to strike at some distance? at will? with almost total and arrogant impunity? Sure ain't the Palestinians, they don't even have possession of their homeland.  Which country has been able to strike at will and with impuity at Iraq [1981], Lebanon [1978 and 1982], Uganda [1976 - OK margainal casse, this was a hijacking rescue effort]. So you'll pardon me and pardon the Arabs if they're not exactly tranquil and beatific about the benign intentions of Israel.

Don't ferget - beyond the existential hatred of Israel felt by some Arabs [and I readily admit this to be the case, i don't know what can be done about it, and that's gonna have to be another post], think of how the major problems Israel faces are of it's own making - possession of the Golan Heights [remember them?], occupation of the West Bank, occupation of the Gaza Strip [since disgorged but I fully expect the Israelis to be back there by at least the end of 2008 if not sooner].  I live in NYC, and we have a very peculiar political culture - juries on occasion have rendered multi-million $$$ damage awards to criminals injured by the police in the course of the criminal's activity, w/o any allegation of improper conduct on the part of the local constabulatory.  When I heard cries about the plight of the Israelis faced with a united front of implacable Arab hostility and opposition, I think of that.

PS. Nasser did not originate the "drive the Jews into the sea" line but he sure made it popular.  It was originally coined by the leader of an Arab irregular force in the 1948 War Of Independence [happy, I'm using the Israeli terminology].  Can't remember his name, but if you look at an excellent book "O, Jerusalem" by Larry Collins and Dominic La Pierrere [spelling?] you'll find his name and a photo.  Happy reading.

Best to you this Sunday morning, DoctorGonzo.

Terrible indeed,  Wish the Palestinians would confine themselves to targets more purely and logically military and political - like the Mossad HQ, the IDF HQ, the Knesset, the Likud Party Central Committe building, etc...  See my point?  [And, coincidentally, at the outbreak of the 1st Intifada when the Palestinians threw rocks at Israeli soldiers, policemen, and armed settlers I don't remember any restraint in the condemnation leveled at the Palestinians at that time.  If possible, it was even more hysterical than usual.  See what iImean.  Even when they attack the institutions of the Israeli state, they're in the wrong.  What a Palestinian resister to do? You can understand how the VERY WORST element comes to the fore in this situation].

What you desribed is not defensible in any way.  I do not defend these actions.  Targeting civilians per se is wrong, be it by the PLO, the IDF or SAC.

But every side can bring horor stories to the table, the Palestinians have theirs as well, and it's not getting anyone anywhere.  Which I know sounds like a BS copout to you [and to me as well].

So let me pose a question - if attacks on civilians are clearly wrong, and attcks on things like the IDF HQ are wrong, what is left for the Palestinians to do?  Ghandian non-violence?  Submit meekly and weakly?  Emigrate?  Demographically overwhelm the Jewish population and transform Israel from within? [and this may happen after you and I are extinguished biological entities].I suspect only one [submit] of these alternatives could ever meet with your approval, which makes me wonder if in the end, like many supporters of Israel, you're not just a total hard-liner [sorry, can't think of a better word] who is willing to brook no opposition to Israel at any time or place and from any quarter and for any reason.  If that's the case, fine with me, everyone's got to believe in something and there are worse beliefs to internalize.  But it does make your arguments suspect, as if it's not one thing it will be another thing you choose to use to defend Israel and attack the Arabs.  Again, your choice but somewhat lacking in candor.

I'll tell you, I'd stop actively criticizing the Israelis if just one of them would say something honest like - "you know, very little of what we do as a political entity and as individuals
supportive of that entity is or can be defensible, but we're scared shitless for excellent and obvious reasons and we feel we have no choice but to act as ugly and as cruelly to our opponents as our enemies have acted toward us throughout history. Our next mistake can be our last mistake. This is the true defeat of the Jewish people."  When I hear something like this from a mainstream and authoratative source - like an important gov't minister - I'll devote more of my energies to some other int'l political outrage.  But until then...

Please excuse typos.

Thank you for not believing that I am a Holocaust denier.  Despite our diffs, always a pleasure.

Can you post a photo?

The thrust of your chronology overall is correct.  Too bad the Arabs couldn't have accepted the Jewish state, but perhaps they saw this as the culmination of decades of Westren colonialism and a 30-year screwing over at the hands of the British Mandatory authories.  Or perhaps they saw it as the Arabs being forced to expiate the sins of European genocide-meisters?  They would have a point.  Or another betrayal of promises made to them by the British in WWI?  But the damage is done, and we have to live with the consequences.

Some years ago I saw something in the NY Times. Some British and US papers were declassified, and some of them dealt with the question of Arab government broadcasts to the Arab population to leave the area.  Seems neither the British nor the US was aware of any such broadcasts being made.  It was, of course, a standard tactic of the Jewish/Israeli forces to make these broadcasts [often for partly humanitarian reasons, to minimize the number of civies in the way of the fighting.  That it would later have other benefits to the Israelis goes w/o mention].

Israel attacked in 1956, using the nationalization of the Suez Canal as a pretext to involve the French and the British.  But yes, prior to that there had been a long series of tit-for-tat raids by Egypt into Israel and vice-versa.

Despite the number of Arabs in the aggregate, except for the first 10 days of the Yom Kippur War in 1973 they've never been united nor coordinated, and the Israelis have been able to sit back and pick off those bozos one at a time,  and with unlimited supplies of the finest weaponry the American taxpayer can provide.  Even when he thiks it's a horrendous mistake to do so.

Have to laugh when people mention the one-time support of Israel by France, a policy which lasted until 1961.  Given how ridicule of France [totally deserved in many cases] is part of the standard rhetorical kit of so many supporters of Israel, I wonder how they deal with the cognitive dissonance this must produce.  And Czhechoslovakis? Part of the Soviet Commie Empire [now defunct?].  How does the Israel-is-the-best-friend-of-America crowd square that one?  Taking aid from an ally and vassal of Stalin?  Hmm, good thing red-baiting is dead.

1967 preemptive strike, and given the amazing succes of the Israelis there, I really gotta wonder just how close the Arabs astually were to acting.

C'mon, the mass of the displaced Arabs were inhabitants of the land formerly known as Trans-Jordan/Palestine.  Some of them were living and working abroad, that's how they came to be in Syria, Egypt, etc.. [not unlike the illegal Mexican aliens I see aroundmy neighborhood, few of whom I bet identify themselves as anything but Mexican]. The identification of themselves as Palestinian as oppossed to something else is simply explained as an irredentist, nationalist reaction to their dispossession at the hands of the Israelis.  And what the heck - the Palestinians have the argument, the Israelis have the land and the guns.  So who's kidding who here?

Passover Matozah?  Christian blood?  Blood Libel. Gee, are you tryingto provoke me.  what if I asked analogous questions? I suspect you realize that this is beneath you and you're probably embarrassed to type it.  C'mon, you know better.

Love a healthy rack.  Sure you don't have a picture? And about how old was she?

BTW, an ATF of mine is a Morrocan Jew born there when it was a French colony.  She's got some rack [but she's getting on in years], a moodswing personality and dubious views of the Israelis. Political discussions in between activity with her can be interesting as hell. At one point she lived in Israel and worked as a tour guide - or so she aays.

On the subject of anti-semitism I find it useful to follow the advice of a judge(?)when asked how he'd define pornography: I don't know how to define it, but I can recognize it when I see it.

Xiaoming, one of the primary reasons I decided to chance reopening Pandora's box with you was because despite my obvious distaste at your point of view and your political leanings vis a vis the Middle East, you manage to maintain a semblance of rationality in your dialog... and you do have a way of being civil and polite while sticking the knife in your opponents back. Very rare talent indeed
Admittedly, I'm not as adept at keeping my more primal emotions in check as you are. I do not know your history, whether you have experienced first hand the types of trauma and conflict that I have described. I have no doubt that it is those first hand experiences which flavor my passion on the subject matter.
I do not know your lineage. but i'm guessing from the comments you've made in the past, you are neither Jewish, nor Arabic in nationality or "race". Ergo, the point of neutrality, would probably go to you. Which makes you a more likely choice for me to attempt dialog.
But do you have a personal agenda with regards to the Middle East? Somehow, I don't think so.

In response to your question... actually, there was an option you neglected to cover. Let's come back to that.

"what is left for the Palestinians to do?  Ghandian non-violence?  Submit meekly and weakly?  Emigrate?  Demographically overwhelm the Jewish population and transform Israel from within?"

Ghandiesque non-violence would have ben a more effective technique had they tried it in 1949. As a matter of fact, there would be peace now if they had.

Submit meekly and weakly? Come on Xiao, we both know that was the biggest mistake made by the Jews, Communists, homosexuals, Gypsies and the rest of the 14 million people Hitler killed in WWII. and though it pains me to say so, I acknowledge the similarities on the surface in appearances between the walls of the Warsaw Ghetto, and the Protective Barier being built by the Israeli's. Of course the Warsaw ghetto was just a small part of a much larger plan - Hitler's quest for a Judenrein Europe.
Much the same as the Arab worlds desires for the Jews.

Emigrate? Oh, you mean return to their homes in the Arab countries that threw them out in the first place because they were considered non-essentials? Well, ya know... they don't have to emigrate. Maybe if they had used some of the billions of dollars they get from friendly governments for infrastructure instead of bomb belts there might be some progress.
Maybe if the Arab oil sheiks took only 10% of the $500 million dollars they spend annually on anti-Semitic propaganda and public relations, and usd it to build a hospital in Ramallah, but hey, thats different.

Demographically overwhelm, etc etc. Xiaoming, are you the last person to recognize that that is EXACTLY what their plan is. Why do you think they are so utterly intransigent on their "right of return". Never could understand how, out of the 50,000 Arabs who were "displaced" by the creation of the State of Israel, there are now a couple million claiming right of return. Some of them have never even been to the Middle East.
Mark my words... in the long run of political chess, the Arabs will yield the capital of Jerusalem to the Jews before they will yield their claim to right of return.

continued...

If I may add a few points. Not only did the arab countries refuse to absorb the "palestinians" into their societies but actually expelled all jews from their own countries who ended up in israeli "refugee"(Maabarot)camps later to be fully absorbed into israeli society.If the arab countries really cared about their "refugees" why didn't they follow suit and absorb their own brethren refugees? Obviously, they kept hoping  their initial goal about israel would be achieved at a later date....and so it went on for them from one disaster to another never learning from experience....until Egypt's Sadat finally decided to settle, while Jordan's king Hussein quietly maintained all along good relations with israel.In fact, Golda Meir in '48 travelled incognito to meet Jordan's King Abdullah to dissuade him from entering the '48 war.He agreed, and for that reason was assassinated!Britain, who actually opposed the partition plan and hoped to re-enter palestine via the back-door then let Jordan's army led by the British Glubb Pasha to enter the war.

Palestinian & Jewish communities living alongside each other before WW2, at lower levels of conflict, but conflict nonetheless; and that the exodus of WW2 refugees, combined with the vacuum caused by British withdrawal, was the long fuse of the conflict?

What's the roots of the Palestinian-Jewish conflict?  Resources?  Ideology?  Can they be separated, or does it go back so far that it's cultural?

I don't find it shocking that there is long term conflict over migrations - very common that there has been - and especially in the area that is a geographic crossroads and the cradle of western civilization.

What I find a little more shocking and incurable is the determination that it should run its violent course; and my suspicion is that I'm not gonna change anybody's mind, and maybe it just has to run its course.  People will either (a) get tired and find their own solution, or (b) kill each other off, and meanwhile, I have other things to do, thank you.

consistent thread along the lines Dr G has described - I hear it in the papers, in independent research, and from people with direct contacts (in the course of my work, I hear many people's stories from many places) and there is the consistent strain of *intent* - that suicide bombings of malls is an Arab policy, not a Jewish one; that killing "future" enemies (ie children) is an Arab policy, not a Jewish one.   The various Arabs will use conventional weapons when they can (eg Saddam's use of missiles against Israel in 91) with exactly the same results as when the Israelis use them (actually, SCUDs are area weapons that are hard to aim at any small target, and the IDF generally at least aims at a target with some military value), ie there is collateral damage.  The issue of specific intent (as a lawyer would describe it) is pretty clear.

Life and its conflicts make all of us guilty in the sense our hands are bloody - but that theological knowledge does not help us get on with our lives, or help our families.  One must be willing to act decisively in self-defense.  I have no time for hand-wringing generalized theological guilt, I'm too busy working, or playing.

And as John Keegan points out, war is ultimately a cultural issue; but I really would not like to fight for the values of specifically targeting civilians for the purpose of creating terror.  That is really not my personal idea of my contribution to civilization, and yes, I feel strongly enough about it that I would be willing to squeeze the trigger on a nuke if I thought it was necessary.

how should migrants be treated?

How do we treat Latins, and why?  How do the Kenyans treat Somalis?  How do the French treat the Muslims, how do the Germans treat the Turks?

How do we treat the Indochinese?  Foreign students?  Russian brides?  How do the Brits treat the Irish?  the wogs?

Is the UN gonna enforce any of this?  Or what?

Personally, I suspect that if a people have no better idea than to shoot at somebody, they can't claim to be surprised by return fire, nor should they claim to be persecuted when it turns out they've fired on somebody who turns out to be a better fighter than they are.  That's the breaks of the game.

I once knew a guy, this is true, who would try to say Pandora's Bbox and it came out "Panorama's Box."

No gainsaying your experience, and as you surmise, I'm not ethnically identified with either of the contending parties.  But what I gain in neutrality I perhaps lose in understanding [albeit at perhaps a primal level]?

Thanks for the compliments - I think? In not sure exactly when or where I stuck a knin my opponent's back [presumably you?] but if you could point out the relevant examples I'd be grateful. Nothing kills discourse on this topic like the rush to slap labels on one's opponents.  Like questions of race and sexuality, someone in this debate is always going to "lose it" eventully and accuse their opponents of the worst posibble motives.  And I've found it's always so much more enjoyable to keep one's head while my opponent is losing his.  Adds to the spice of the whole thing.

There are probably more alternatives than the ones I listed, but those seem like the most obvious ones.

I'm with you - too bad the Arabs did not have the foresight and the generosity to accept the original 1947 Partition.  Given the history of western colonialism at the expense of the Arabs, I guess that was too much to ask.  So we have to go from there. And don't forget, Jordan's King Abdullah was secretly not opposed to the Jewish state, but took a different line publicly [take a look at "Collusion Accross The Jordan"  I think by Benny Morris].

You slide over the "submit meekly and weakly" option, while noticing the surface similarities. Perhaps it's best you do, as the similarities are what strike so many as relevant.

You latch onto emigrate, based on your contention that the bulk of the Palestinians originally lived elsewhere than what has now become Israel.  What if the Pal;estinians proposed a deal?  Only the Palestinians  who lived in the area designated as the Jewish partitioned area and their descendents would return to Israel, on the condition that all persons and descendants of those persons who arrived in Israel AFTER the partition vote by the UN in 1947  return to their original country or another country willing to receive them?  Sound fair?  Somehow I don't think you'd buy it.  Even though many of those Israelis so effected, Jews expelled from Arab countries, would be allowed to stay inasmuch as their country of origin [Syria, Yemen, etc...] would be unwilling to receive them.  To make the deal even sweeter, I'd be wiling to have the US accept every single one who could not return to his/her country of origin and would not be interested in emigrating to some other country. I still think you would not accept the deal. Because the existence of A State of Israel is ultimately an end in itself, so you'll defend it at all costs.

Right of Return versus Law of Return. I think the propaganda loses here for the Israeli side are potentially limitless, hence the Palestinians would be even more inept than ususal if they ever gave up pounding away on this.  And it makes the most enlightened of the Israelis and their supporters pause to comtemplate.  Yes, I realize that demographically the Palestian/Arab population of Israel will eventually swamp the Jewish population of Israel.  But beore that happened i'd expect to see the Israelis fix the problem by further politically restricting the rights of Israeli Arabs,or finding some new untaped sorce of putatively Jewish immigrants to ingather [like the Ethiopian Jews in 1984?] or even more drastic measures.  Many moons ago, back in my higher educaion days, I wrote a paper based partly on this premise [at the time the South Africa exaple was prominent and the parrell seems worth exploring].  In fact, this seems to be a collarary of the submit meekly and weakly option, breed prodigiously.  Of course, the Palestinians then would inherit a crappy stste with an aggreived minority [the Jews] who had once been just recently been the overdogs and will not take lightly to having been transformed into the underdogs.  What a mess.  Talk about Phyric victories.

I read an interesting book  recently - "Agents of Atrocity: Leaders, Followers, and the Violation of Human rights in Civil Wars" by Neil J. Mitchell.  It's brief [appx 230 pages with footnotes] and has an interesting chapter on the Israeli/Palestinian violence. I don't know if you have time to red for pleasure, or if you perfer to spend your leisure time hobbying or in more active pursuits, but take a look.

Peace and good health to you, enlightening as always.

Always loved that thought, it was Justice Potter Stewart, and that line is far, far better known than anything he ever wrote in any opinion he handed down from the bench.

While we're on this thought, let's also consider tried and true gems like :

1. appearances can be deceiving ;

2. things are not always what they seem ;

3. look beneath the surface of things ;

4. the truth is hard to find ;

5. truth is stranger than fiction.

You're propounding the the Larry Summers syllogism :

1. Israel is The Jewish State ;

2. to oppsse Israel is to oppose the Jews ;

3. opposition to the Jews is anti-Semitism ;

4. opposition to Israel is [de facto] anti-Semitism.

Not to pounce on Harvard Prez Summers, he's not the first guy to argue that line, but he's definitely the first to make that reasoning explicit.  Less power to him for it.  And a bunch of hugh raspberries as well.

Personally, I refrain from my version of this.  It's also a syllogism and here's how it woiks :

1. you support Israel ;

2. support of Israel has proven to involve many disasters for the United States ;

3. by supporting these policies, you shown that you wish harm to befall the US ;

4. therefore you are an enemy of the US.

See how that worked?  I never use this myself, as guyz who support Israel IMHO are cosmicly misguided and wrong, but by no means enemies of this country. Anyway, I feel they're already behind the 8 ball having to argue in behalf of such a self-destructive policy, why burden them further with implied accusations of disloyalty and treason?  After all, I'm no Senator McCarthy.  I just wish they would show the same forebearance re the tiresome and totally stale and predictable charges of anti-Semitism. So the anti-Semitism rhetorical WMD, please, Please, PLEASE put it back in it's hardened silo, take it off alert status, and double-check all your command-and-control procedures.  In spite of our diffs, I'll be thankful.

Can you please show me where anything I've written on the topic of the Near East is anti-Semitic, motivated by hatred of the Jewish people and the Jewish faith?  I would appreciate it very much.

Peace and good health to you.

As unsupportive of the Israelis as I am, I concede readily that they have been more responsible in their use of violence than have their Arab/palstinians enemries.  Part of it is, as a duly constituted state, they can be, at least with regard to comparisons between them and the Palestinians.

I just wish for once they'd get off the high-horse they have become so accustomed to riding and admit that, yes, their hands are bloody as well.  Perhaps not as bloody as those of their many enemies, but bloody nonetheless.

And in the US, most of us ust kep on buying these shoody goods the Isrelis constantly peddle to us.  Even me, and I'm a careful political consumer on this issue.

I have no existential argument with the Israelis, just political ones, and it's their bottomless self-righteousness that pisses me off to no end.

Quite true, and the inconsitencies of British policy from 1918-1948 made matters even much worse.  They alternated from supporting the Arabs to supporting the Jewish populations based upon, it seems, who posed the greater threat of violence at the moment and who could be a more useful ally in Britian's broader foreign policy universe.

The conflict is simple - the Isrelis, via their ability to organize and manipulate greater levels of force compared to the Palestinians and their Arab cmpatriots, have been able to sieze the territory under dispute and organize it politically to their advantage while dispossessing the Palestinian population.  This condition will continue to exist until the Palestininas are themselves able to organize and manipulate greater levels of force and volence than are the Israelis, and so dispossess the Jewish population and politically organize the teritory for the benefit of the Palestinian population.

One hopes the Palestinians will be more maganimous and far-sighted in victory than have been the Israelis.  But i'm not optimistic. I'm outright pessemistic.  But perhaps at the very least the US will be quits of the whole crappy situation at last?

Some of the hatred that's been generated now seems to feed on itself I fear - it's killing for he sake of killing on both sides for a small number of actrs.

You submit only one of the alternatives you produced would work for me. Guess what, there was an alternative you forgot about. Peaceful co-existence. (pause for a moment while that radical notion is intellectually digested). You dismissed my statement that the residents of the newly created State of Israel were asked to stay and work together with the Jews. But you neglect to mention the simultaneous Declaration of War against Israel by the entire Arab world.
You are quick to point the finger of blame on Israel, but you seem to forget that the CHARTER of the "Palestinian Authority" expressly calls for the total destruction of the State of Israel, and Genocide against ALL Jewish people.
You neglect to acknowledge the almost uninterrupted flow of blatant Jew-hating diatribes, from the Blood Libel canard published just this past May by the GOVERNMENT SPONSORED NEWSPAPER in Saudi Arabia, to the perpetual depiction of Jews in Arab elementary school texts as monstrous evil child-eating cannibals.
you obligingly overlook the fact in all Arab school texyts, there is no acknowledgement of the State of Irael other than as the Zionist Entity.  And you support them.
Jews are not allowed into Arab countries. Jewish engineers are expressly and specifically excluded from working in Saudi Arabia.
Jewish soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia during Gulf 1 were encouraged to hide their identities, to remove their mezuzzah's and Stars of David from around their necks. Why? Because the Arabs don't ant any Jews in their country.
They don't want these so-called "Palestinians" either. Otherwise, why else are they so insistent on being allowed to go to work inside israel, when their own Arab governments and "Muslim Brethren" won't give them the time of day unless there's a bomb belt attached to the timer. And you support them.
On 911, Israel called for a Day of Mourning in solidarity with the families of those killed.
The "Palestinians" you so ardently support, were dancing in the streets and cheering and firing their guns in the air... footage shown only briefly on international television before it was finally squashed from public view. Heaven forbid we should let the world see the truth about the Arab Muslim mentality.
And you support them?

In closing, i wish to share with you the following comparison: Arab leaders from Nasser to Saddam Hussein to the piece of SHIT Arafat to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran have all called for the total unmitigated genocide of the Jewish people.

By comparison, the late great Golda Meir,former Prime Minister of Israel most famously said:
"I can forgive the Arabs for killing my children, but I cannot forgive them for forcing me to kill THEIR children."

Shalom, and thanks for reading.

MAGNANIMOUS???
When I was in Israel in 1964, i saw Jewish gravestones being used as latrine covers.

When the Arabs were given control of an area which included Josephs tomb, the first thing they did was desecrate EVERY Jewish artifact inside the tomb.
MAGNANIMOUS MY ASS!!!
Xiao, you really sound like a shill for the Arabic revisionist history club in this post.

OK, not the best word, but I hope if the Palestinians ever dispossess the Israelis the Palestinians will be far-sighted enought to treat the Jewish population with in the manner they, the Palestinians, wanted to be treated since 1948.
The actions you site deinitely give pause.

It's hard to support the Arabs given how hatefully a minority of them behave, and the unwillingness of the better elements of Arab society to criticize the worst elements of Arb society.  No argument there, the Arabs definitely have not shown the Jewish population the type of treatment they demand for themselves.  and on this point, I cannot fault the Israelis for being cautious and wary.

DoctorGonzo, take a deep breath, slowlly count to 10, and try to calm down.  You'll feel better, and I don't want to lose you as a correspondent.

Thanx.

Not to worry, thats what vaporizers, energizers, and sexy providers are for.
But btw, I also do find time to "read". Audio books. i'm driving about 20 hours a week or so on average, and thats a goodly amount of book. If the books and sources you have sited are available in some form of audio book, I would be glad to read them as well.
Shalom

Defnite big grin aad strongyt LOL!

Moses, and is more a question of the human condition than a particular right or wrong.  As far as that's true, then a solution (if that's what we want) is in dealing with today's situation, not trying to unwind a few millenia of who did what to whom.

If killing is the issue, then again, it looks to me as if the, ah, indigenous personnel are the ones more determined to kill civilians.

you're in for a rough road in politics at any level - from domestic thru international.

I tend to ignore it.  Sometimes I think it's funny, sometimes it pisses me off.  All depends.

But the Israelis never struck me as particularly self-righteous, and can't even hold a candle to  say, those who call themselves feminists or "Christians", Jesse Jackson, the Arabs, etc etc.

Ch 1:  as for "duly constituted states", there seem to be about a dozen duly constituted Arab states, and on this point (ie, appropriate use of violence) there really doesn't seem to be much in way of differing opinions among them.  Would the PA behave differently than say the Syrians?

-- Modified on 11/21/2005 11:02:58 AM

Very, very much doubt it.  Based on Israeli's overall military superiority over any PA, it would be a classic case of deterrence.  All they could do is the tried and true tactic of encourage/support fedayeen attacks while denying all responsibility.  A trick which has worn alwfully thin even with me and brings devasting responses from the Israelis.  So, discrtion being the better part of valor...

[DoctorGonzo : Is THIS the "missing" response you are awaiting?  There's been so many back and forth I've honestly lost track; hope the holiday break allows me to catch up and sort through them properly.  I'm noticing more and more anger dirceted at me from posters who disagree with my opinions, such as they are].


Peaceful coexistence.  Very nice idea, and as a middle-of-the-road comfortable American I'm all for it.

BUT others might ask : whose peace?  what terms for coexistence? How does peaceful coexistence, when advocated by a partisan of the Israelis, benefit  a Palestinian dispossed and disadvantaged by the creation and growth of Israel?  See, it's just not that simple. To invoke peaceful coexistence sounds great, but it totally begs the questions that we've beaten about [if not to death] to the delight of some, the distress of [I suspect] a great many more, and the enlightenment of probably very few.  I haven't had my mind changed ; I'm sure I've changed exactly 0 minds of the folks who have read these posts.

You deliver an emotional  indictment about the rottenness of the Arabs, their almost visceral loathing of the Jewish state and all its works, but if you check back to that long series of posts appx six weeks ago I conceded pretty much every one of them. You've already won on this part of the argument - are you just getting carried away here?  Or is this part of the standard rhetorical repetoire of pretty much anyone who supports Israel?

Israel called for a National Day of Mourning.  I appreciate the gesture, and i'm sure it was mostly sincere, but gee, don't you think that's THE LEAST they could have done considereing how much the US - and that's you and me and Riem and Jack-In-The Crack and a host of others - have over the   decades done for Israel?  And absolutely no consideration of how their incessant demands for political backing from the US just MIGHT have caused some Arabs to hate the US to the extent that they do, and to perpetrate this act?  Nah, and despite everything we've writen and all the byways and sidetracks we've explored in these various posts, this is my bedrock point - support for Israel isa disaster for the US.  If it sounds like i'm an Arab lover for trying to make this point, so be it.

Palestininas cheering on 091101. Yes, i'm aware of that. And it got plenty of media coverage. But look back to a previous post [and this might have been directed to someone else in the thread] where i write that I support the Palestinains/Arabs insofar as their opposition to Israel DOES NOT damage the well-being of the US.  I think I've already implicity addressed the
many specific points you've raised by way of objection.   No, I have to condemn them for this.  But there's plenty of emotional and subjective reasons why some of them did this.  Pure BS to you and me, but, as you recently asked me to put myself in the shoes of an Israeli, can you not likewise put yourself in the shoes of a Palestinians ?

I'm not certain, but I think it's the PLO Charter, NOT the Palestinian Authority charter, which calls for the destruction of Israel.  And if you rmember, that was revoked in late 1988 as a condition of US recognition of the PLO.  Another little goodie from The Gipper.  Let me write something that might surprise you - I have no faith in the sincerity of that renunciation, made clearly ONLY under duress and US pressure. [If you've got a source for this claim can you please post it? Thanx].

The Golda Meir quote is well-known to me. Ii gotta tell you, I do not worship at the altar of Golda, and i can only hope she was sincere in those feelings.  My instinct tells me this was a quick toss-off, meant to sound great but having no real meaning for her.  But, at least she's self-aware enough to realize that vice must pay tribute to virtue and that a statement like the one she made, was necessary, however little or much she actually believe the words she mouthed.  I would like to believe Golda was totally sincere in voicing those sentiments.  But I've been disappointed before.

You've got another part to this, please bear with me as I formulate YET ANOTHER interminable, psuedo-intellectual and boring response.  To the delight of  - probably no one.

I'm afraid the peaceful coexistence ship sailed quite some time ago.  Rough seas and never very seaworthy to begin with, I'm afraid it went down with all hands and no survivors.

Shalom. Salaam. Peace.

-- Modified on 11/27/2005 4:37:52 PM

I'm always amused when a supporter of Israel is forced to acknowledge, however reluctantly and perfunctorily, the contributions of the Gauls to the initial wel-being of Israel.  Sure doesn't jibe with the current political line of Arab-appeasing, Saddam-coddling, surrender-happy, money-grasping France.  Even when you try to make a substantive point on behalf of Israel, it halfway backfires on you.  Unless you're one of the real political rarities in this country who supports Israel and has a positive view of the French?    And how likely is that?

Likewise, back in the bad old days of the cold war and Stalin and The Iron Curtain and captive nations and all of that, receiving arms from Czechoslovakia - an Eastern Bloc country - would definitely cause an eyebrow or two to be raised in a very unfriendly and non-understanding maner.  But, no matter - Israel HAS GOT TO BE SUPPORTED NO MATTER WHAT.  Good thing red-baiting has been out of fashion for lo these many decades.

The phrase "victor's justice" was coined as a putdown, it's not viewed as a good thing, often just ill-disguised revenge.  The Nuremberg Tribunals and The Tokyo War Crimes Trails were both, in some corners, referred to as victors' justice. So are you sure that you really understand what you're trying to argue when you make your point above about victor's justice not prevailing in the Near East?  The failure of victors' justice would be a good thing.  And conversely, if Israel were to benefit from or impose victors' justice that would be a severe negative mark against your idols in Israel.

Riem, please keep trying.

And have a great holiday.