Do 2008 Election and $95 Oil Make This the Time to Rethink US Pro-Zionist Policies? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 11-04-2007, 01:55 AM

This is the catalyst reminding me that, IMO, the US people may be paying more than they can afford, and justify, as a consequence of a foreign policy so strongly supporting of Zionism. On the eve of the 2008 election, and with the economic pressures on the declining US middle and lower class, aggravated by $95 per bbl oil prices, isn't it in our national interest to investigate the money and opportunity cost impacts of very strong support for Zionist politics, versus lessening our seemingly hyper support for conservative leaning (militarily aggressive?) policy priorities of the Israeli government:

(Ruth Wisse opens with an attempt to discourage us from having even a discussion.....)

Quote:

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...cid=1123067972
Are American Jews Too Powerful? Not Even Close.

By Ruth Wisse
Sunday, November 4, 2007; B03

These days, it's becoming downright chic to hint forebodingly that America's Jews are just too powerful. But whether it's the political scientists John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt or former president Jimmy Carter, those who accuse modern Jews of having excessive clout are getting it precisely backward. In the real world, Jews have too little power and influence. They also have too little self-confidence about defending themselves.

Consider a basic paradox. Even anti-Semites often give Jews credit for having exceptional intelligence. Self-congratulatory Web sites reckon that Jews, who make up about 0.2 percent of the world's population, have been awarded more than 160 Nobel Prizes. But if Jews are so smart, why do 22 Arab League countries account for a tenth of the Earth's land surface while the Israelis struggle to secure a country that is 1/19th the size of California? If Jews are so powerful, why does Israel attract twice as many venture-capital investments as all of Europe, even while it's the only one of the United Nations' 192 member states that has been charged with racism for the crime of its existence? How powerful is that?

In fact, there's an excellent historical reason why Jewish intellectual achievement sits alongside political weakness. Simply put, Jewish achievement in other areas has come at the expense of political strength, and the strange relationship of Jews and power has made them history's favorite prey. Centuries of survival in other people's lands prevented Jews from achieving full acceptance -- and access to the levers of government. Some individual Jews may have lived large, but the Jewish people as a whole lived on sufferance, afraid to antagonize those from whom they sought tolerance.

These questions mean a lot to me. I'm often asked how I, a teacher of Yiddish literature, came to write about politics. But remember that the Yiddish language, developed by European Jews over almost a thousand years, was practically erased along with them in a mere six, 1939-45. So studying Yiddish literature, almost by definition, concentrates the mind on Jewish political disabilities.

When Jerusalem was crushed by Rome in the year 70 -- so brutally that, according to the historian Josephus, "no one visiting the spot would believe it had once been inhabited" -- some Jews stayed on, but the vast majority made their homes in foreign lands. For more than 18 centuries, Jews survived as a nation without three basic staples of nationhood: land, central government and independent means of self-defense.

Instead, Jews turned to strategies of accommodation. They provided goods and services to their gentile neighbors in return for being allowed to stay in the country. They became money-lenders, bankers, minters, craftsmen, midwives -- trades that gentiles would let them perform and that allowed Jews to observe their calendar, customs and religious laws. But they had no independent way to protect their achievements.

Unlike their Christian and Muslim overlords, Jews had good reasons to avoid irking those from whom they sought acceptance. The German poet Heinrich Heine, who called conversion to Christianity his "ticket of admission" to European culture, likened Jews to a prince whom "black magic" had transformed into a dog: "All week long he goes on scraping/Through life's excrement and sweepings/To the mockery of jeers of street boys." Only on Friday evenings, while ushering the Sabbath into his own home, does the dog resume its human shape. Heine saw that the humiliation of the Jews was offset by a moral serenity, and that their moral serenity was offset by acute political vulnerability.

The creation of the state of Israel in May 1948, after the carnage of the Holocaust, was supposed to change all this. But the newly formed Arab League made opposition to Israel the only common goal of its otherwise quarrelsome membership. The new United Nations, tribune of emerging post-colonial nations, did not protect Israel from assault, and over time the world body became a party to the Arab League's war against Jewish statehood.

Of course, Israel now had an army, and a formidable one at that. But the Israel Defense Forces did not change the Jews' existential condition as a minority; Israel was now a minority among the nations, contending with Arab states that sought to dominate or destroy it. Israel still lived by strategies of accommodation, trying to supply its neighborhood with useful services and goods such as medical, agricultural and technological know-how. In the 1990s, utopians such as Shimon Peres, now Israel's president, hailed a "new Middle East" of economic and political cooperation. When Peres and Israel's late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin installed Yasser Arafat as the head of a Palestinian proto-state, they began another doomed Jewish political experiment -- making Israel, as best I can figure, the first country in the world ever to arm its enemy in hopes of gaining security.

What about American Jewry? Mearsheimer and Walt allege that a Jewish cabal dictates U.S. policy in the Middle East, helping Israeli interests and hurting U.S. ones. So have American Jews really begun to mobilize effectively to protect Israel, or are people again overstating Jewish power and its supposed dangers?

Consider the halls of ivy where, if anywhere, the intellectual firepower of Jews might be expected to be on display in defense of Jewish interests. At Columbia University, the late Edward Said used his authority as a teacher of comparative literature to apologize for Palestinian terrorism and condone Arab violence against Israel, including, in one instance, by personal example. (In 2000, a photographer for a French news agency snapped him in southern Lebanon tossing a rock toward an Israeli position.) Much of the Jewish professoriat looked the other way or signed his petitions.

Elsewhere in the academy, Jewish professors themselves lead the anti-Israel barrage. In fact, Mearsheimer and Walt expected Jewish organizations to sponsor their talks and complained of "censorship" when the groups did not. Clearly, there is nothing quite as fun -- or as lucrative -- as baiting Jews.

This is not the whole story, though. American Jews have learned from experience, and the United States has encouraged their maturation. During the 1970s and '80s, American Jews who were inspired by the biblical imperative to "redeem the captive" helped free their fellow Jews under Soviet rule. The Soviet Jewry movement gained traction in part because its goals coincided with Washington's Cold War strategy of encouraging communism to collapse from within.

Likewise, in the post-9/11 fight against terrorism, American Jews can draw confidence from another intersection of interests, this time between Israeli and U.S. self-defense. The Arab war against Israel and radical Islam's war against the United States are in almost perfect alignment, which means that resistance to one supports resistance to the other. "We are all Jews now," former CIA director R. James Woolsey Jr. said after the September 2001 attacks. "We should all reflect upon the historic reality that when anti-Semitism raises its head, the rest of us, unless we are willing to live with a foot on our necks, will be the next targets." Since the days of Pharaoh, Jews have functioned as a lodestar of religious and political freedom: The Jews' attackers oppose such liberties, and their defenders promote them. The attackers have included Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, extreme nationalist parties from France to Poland, Arab autocrats trying to hold onto power and Islamist challengers trying to seize it. This rule of thumb has less to do with Jewish actions than with those who deal in anti-Jewish politics. A small people whose foes are prone to hugely inflate their image, Jews make a handy scapegoat for dictators. In its August meetings, according to the Hudson Institute, the "revamped" U.N. Human Rights Council directed three-quarters of its indictments of individual states against Israel -- and 2 percent against the thuggish regime running Burma.

I understand why some Jews and Israelis try to escape this assault through assimilation or denial, or even by joining their assailants. It's seductive to hope that by accommodating our enemies, we will be allowed to live in peace. But the strategy of accommodation that historically turned Jews into a no-fail target is the course least likely to stop ongoing acts of aggression against them. Indeed, anti-Jewish politics will end only when those who practice it accept the democratic values of religious pluralism and political choice -- or are forced to pay a high enough price for flouting them.

Isn't it time to question presidential candidates about their plans for relations with and aid to Israel? Can Israel, described as the fourth most potent military power in the world today, stand on it's own, without US paid military aid, and without being the overriding US foreign policy priority in the middle east?

Would oil cost less if the US normalized relations with Israel, i.e., showed no more favoritism or concern for Israeli government policy priorities than it does for those of Saudi Arabia? The modern state of Israel is approaching 60 years old. Is it appropriate to have a more arms length relationship with that now well established and thriving country, than the US has now? Is the US/Israeli diplomatic and military relationship less close than in 1973, in the aftermath of the surprise military attack by Egypt and Syria? If not....why?

The US is at the height of it's middle east oil dependence. Can it also afford to simultaneously maintain it's closest, most cooperative, and most synched foreign and military policy ever, with Israel? I have my doubts, and I wonder if we're driven more by Israeli government influence and christian fundamentalist influenced neocons, and to a lesser extent, by some American Jews, to be closer to and more supportive of Israel than it is truly in our own interest, to be.

Ustwo · 11-04-2007, 06:03 AM

Damn Jews, first Jesus, then the entertainment industry, now oil.

I think its high time we stop supporting the one true democracy in the entire region.

Cynthetiq · 11-04-2007, 06:11 AM

So you're saying that the $95/bbl is due to us being jewish friendly versus the supply and demand, ex. the increased usage of oil by China and India who have strong industries requiring more oil than ever before?

Ustwo · 11-04-2007, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

So you're saying that the $95/bbl is due to us being jewish friendly versus the supply and demand, ex. the increased usage of oil by China and India who have strong industries requiring more oil than ever before?

I'm more confused how the article ties into the concept in the first place. Being a short one and there being mercifully only one I read it and its conclusion is the opposite of hosts.

Cynthetiq · 11-04-2007, 06:33 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110201659.html

yes, it is mercifully short. I read from top to bottom and I did click the link that is labeled as a news.google.com, but it is actually a Washington Post link.

I'm not sure what this means in the host world of what is acceptable or not acceptable journalism or if it even has any bearing on this particular discussion, since he's the OP.

Ustwo · 11-04-2007, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110201659.html

yes, it is mercifully short. I read from top to bottom and I did click the link that is labeled as a news.google.com, but it is actually a Washington Post link.

I'm not sure what this means in the host world of what is acceptable or not acceptable journalism or if it even has any bearing on this particular discussion, since he's the OP.

I'm guessing that in his world view, the article is just so off base its wrongness should speak for itself? This is really why I stopped reading his threads so long ago, there is such a disconnect between the articles and what he says they say, or support. I am assuming he gets this stuff from a KOS like web site or the like.

roachboy · 11-04-2007, 07:24 AM

how is this a debate?
how is it not just ustwo making a series of personal attacks on host (starting in number 4, flowering in number 6) that take cyn's posts as legitimation?

the topic of american support for israel--particularly once you turn attention to gaza, the west bank and the modes of colonial occupation (from checkpoints to settlements and all that these imply)--is a particularly explosive one. because these debates tend to become emotional quickly, you would think it a good idea to proceed with more rather than less information to back your positions--and what do we have instead?

nonsense.

if you dont want there to be a serious debate about us-israel-palestine, why not just say it and be done with it?
at least that way, you'd be taking a position on your own and maybe even saying something rather than indulging the tiresome game of sniping at the length of host's posts.
i personally could not care less that ustwo finds scrolling to be an affliction.
i really dont care.
it is not an argument.
it is not interesting.

if you find the op to be a problem, make a substantive claim about it.

this is nonsense.

Ustwo · 11-04-2007, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

how is this a debate?
how is it not just ustwo making a series of personal attacks on host (starting in number 4, flowering in number 6) that take cyn's posts as legitimation?

the topic of american support for israel--particularly once you turn attention to gaza, the west bank and the modes of colonial occupation (from checkpoints to settlements and all that these imply)--is a particularly explosive one. because these debates tend to become emotional quickly, you would think it a good idea to proceed with more rather than less information to back your positions--and what do we have instead?

nonsense.

if you dont want there to be a serious debate about us-israel-palestine, why not just say it and be done with it?
at least that way, you'd be taking a position on your own and maybe even saying something rather than indulging the tiresome game of sniping at the length of host's posts.
i personally could not care less that ustwo finds scrolling to be an affliction.
i really dont care.
it is not an argument.
it is not interesting.

if you find the op to be a problem, make a substantive claim about it.

this is nonsense.

It started with nonsense, I gave it what it deserved.

Sorry you didn't like it.

mixedmedia · 11-04-2007, 08:36 AM

Rather than primarily support for Zionism, I consider our virtually unconditional support of Israel to be based more mundanely on our supporting of the only country in the ME that is like us. Israel is a reflection and thereby a validation of ourselves against the onslaught of alien cultures in our increasingly shrinking world.

And no, I do not think it is right anymore than I think what my own country does in it's own interest in many places is right.

That's not to say that I agree with the policies of our so-called 'enemies,' either.

I tend to think everyone is fucked up.

ubertuber · 11-04-2007, 08:46 AM

host, can you say something about why you think that reducing our support for Israel would affect oil prices?

I'm not sure that I think that economic concerns alone are enough to affect such a major policy change, but I am curious as to what the link between the two might be.

roachboy · 11-04-2007, 09:03 AM

what one makes of the us-israel relation is a function of what one looks at.

personally, i think israel should be understood as a nation-state like any other, one which has to abide by certain minimum standards for human rights and so which should be forced to end its occupation of the west bank, dismantle the settlements, take down the wall, take apart the checkpoints--change fundamentally its relations to the palestinian population.
period.

israel should be forced to stop its abuse of the population of gaza. period.

it is self-evident that much of the planet understands the occupation as carried out by dual nation-states, to the extent that the americans unconditionally support israeli policy. that policy is shaped by rightwing governments who, like the bush administration, attempt to use the discourse of "terrorism" to maintain themselves in power, prevent a coherent evaluation of israeli actions vis-a-vis the palestinians...

but it is self-evident that the interests of the israeli political right are not those of israel as a whole, that they do not represent anything like a representative cross-section of israeli public opinion. they represent more than anything else the power of the discourse of "terrorism" to shut down alternatives, lock in reactive and reactionary policies, and continue a repressive status quo--a situation which is expressed with particular clarity in the occupied territories.

nothing coherent has happened since the bush people took power, and nothing coherent will happen until they are out of power. much of the appalling situation in gaza can be blamed squarely on a bush administration fuck up, its "assessment" of the implications of the hamas election, the refusal to consider that allowing hamas to take power and be able to exercise it would moderate them. too boxed in by the limitations of the discourse of "terrorism" to be rational, too boxed in by the history of us-israeli relations (glossed with whatever whackjob millenarian ideology has wafted up from the ranks of evangelical protestants).

and the bush administration is the last collection of people on earth who could possibly be in a position to criticize another regime's use of the discourse of "terrorism" to prop itself up. so we have a unique combination of ideological paralysis and analytic incompetence in the bush regime and its policies--if you want to call them that--toward the israeli right, toward the israeli state dominated by the right.

so it seems to me that this relation is ripe for a reconsideration--i am not sure that it will happen--but it should.
it is still far too early in the presidential horse-race, far too much into the war of attrition geared around a conflation of the candidate with the deepest pockets with the candidate whose positions are most worthwhile for consideration as successor to the bush regime, to bother with trying to figure out who might most closely align with the need to rethink this relation.

mixedmedia · 11-04-2007, 09:08 AM

And I agree with the observations that roachboy has taken the time to form into coherent sentences this morning.

Rogue Element · 11-04-2007, 11:00 AM

An interesting, if misleading article you quoted there by Ruth Wise. I have to wonder if she has actually read Meirsheamer and Walt at all (not just this book, though it would be helpful). What they say is that the 'Israel Lobby' is in fact made up both of Jewish Americans, dual American/Israeli citizens and, the most overlooked and important faction, Christian Zionists.

As for the argument that it 'hurts' US policy, again that is not explicitly what they say. Meirsheamer and Walt are Realists, in foreign political theory lingo, they have a world view that says basically the entire globe is an anarchic system and furthering any other nations goals without benefitting from it is dangerous.

That's an important distinction, I feel. Because just as you have the well publicized and hawkish AIPAC, equally you have left wing Jewish groups, Jewish cultural groups etc who the US helps promote. Anything which does not help the USA and helps Israel is harmful, according to Walt and Meirsheamer, because international politics is a zero-sum game.

Now, the problem is, if you don't believe that, then the hypothesis doesn't hold. As it happens, I don't believe that to be the case, and while I am sympathetic to certain aspects of classical Realism, I think Meirsheamer and Walt's worldviews lack sophistication.

Anyway, onto supporting Israel. There are going to be costs to supporting Israel. It doesn't matter how right you think Israel deserves to exist, or whatever religious or political beliefs motivate you, this is a fact. The problem is of uncritical support, one-sided support, support regardless of what Israel does.

That is what the US needs to change. It needs to recognize some people simply do not like the country or its policies (I have to admit, I don't like its current policies much either) and just because you think they're on the side of right doesn't mean Israel will automatically prevail. In fact, the moralizing black and white dichotomy which seems to grip US foreign policy may be the bigger problem here.

But anyway, the point is that the US needs to think carefully about Middle Eastern policy. Move towards establishing a Palestinian state. Encourage NGOs to participate more in the region, building up a civil culture on which democracy for the region can be founded. Only by being an impartial actor in the region can the USA gain any respect as an arbiter in the conflict. Any other neutral nation lacks the resources to intervene in such a way. Standing by the side and going "well Israel is right and we must support it" is a conflict generating policy, because it solves nothing of the underlying systemic problems which cause conflict.

host · 11-04-2007, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogue Element

An interesting, if misleading article you quoted there by Ruth Wise. I have to wonder if she has actually read Meirsheamer and Walt at all (not just this book, though it would be helpful). What they say is that the 'Israel Lobby' is in fact made up both of Jewish Americans, dual American/Israeli citizens and, the most overlooked and important faction, Christian Zionists....

Welcome, Rogue Element. I agree with the points you have posted. I've quoted Mearsheimer and Walt extensively in this post because they offer a rare and prolific view from the "other side", and a recent series of follow up interviews. Are you Tajikistani?

I thought Wisse's article was over the top. It makes arguments exactly opposite the accurate state of influence American Jews sympathetic to Zionist policies of the Israeli government, actually exert on the American media, legislature, and on the US president.

<h3>What principles do we in the U.S. consistently stand for?</h3>

I asked my Turkish friend, a naturalized US citizen, a muslim who is intensely proud of the Turkish military's commitment to defending Turkey's constitutional description of separation of church and state, what the US could do to improve his opinion of it's (in his view) distrurbingly one sided foreign policy. He said that the most important change would be a truly even handed treatment of Israel and the Palestinian state.

My sole Iranian friend, a man with no religious interest, a 35 year US resident, experienced his sister's five year imprisonment, back in Iran, beginning at the age of 14, because she had visited him for a summer, in the US, and, upon returning to Iran in the early days of the late '70's Iranian revolution, refused to wear the head scarf, the hajib, at her school. My friend told me that his mother visited his sister every day during her 5 year imprisonment.
He walked up to me on friday, and said, "hey host...did you know that Israel has a law against Palestinians owning land in Israeli occupied Palestinian areas, unless the Palestinian grows crops on the land, but there is also a law against Palestinians growing crops?"
I don't know his source for this, and, in searching I haven't found it yet. This long time US resident is now so committed to returning to Iran to live (he hasn't been there since 1975...), that he is researching prices of everything from a cell phone, sound system speakers, and laptop computers, even wall outlet power adapters, comparing the costs of purchase in the US, vs. in Iran to decide when/where to buy, before his planned departure from the US, in about a year.

I'm guessing, considering their reactions to the thread OP, that Ustwo and Cynthetique are not engaged in conversations with reasonable American muslims from the middle east. Ustwo, do you reckon that you are perceived as approachable, in the eyes of an Iranian American, to be given the unsolicited "news" of the contradictory requirments of Palestinian land ownership, my friend described to me?

I think that we are in a crisis. The US foreign policy has effected the loss of the hearts and minds of my two muslim friends. Who will replace them in support of the US government, from among muslims of the world?

We puzzle about the silence of moderate American muslims. They are silent because they are shocked and disgusted. If we've lost even them, the folks closest and most sympathetic to us, what does that say about our prospects for dimninishing muslim militancy?

Even if my American Iranian friend had it wrong, considering the following, how wrong is he in believing that US support preference for Israel is unreasonable?

Quote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/21/news/map.php
Israeli map concedes Palestinians own land
By Steven Erlanger
Tuesday, November 21, 2006

JERUSALEM: An Israeli advocacy group, using maps and figures leaked from inside the government, says that 39 percent of the land held by Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians.

Israel has long asserted that it fully respects Palestinian private property in the West Bank and only takes land there legally or, for security reasons, temporarily.

If big sections of those settlements are indeed privately held Palestinian land, that is bound to create embarrassment for Israel and further complicate the already distant prospect of a negotiated peace when the two sides finally sit down to settle their unfinished war.

The data indicate that 40 percent of the land that Israel plans to keep in any future deal with the Palestinians is private.

The new claims regarding Palestinian property are said to come from the 2004 database of the Civil Administration, which controls the civilian aspects of Israel's presence in the West Bank. Peace Now, an Israeli group that advocates Palestinian self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, planned to publish the information on Tuesday.

An advance copy was made available to The New York Times.

The data - maps that show the government's registry of the land by category - was given to Peace Now by someone who obtained it from an official inside the Civil Administration. The New York Times spoke to the person who received it from the Civil Administration official and agreed not to identify him because of the delicate nature of the material.

The source, who has frequent contact with the Civil Administration, said he and the official wanted to expose what they consider to be wide-scale violations of private Palestinian property rights by the government and settlers. The government has refused to hand over the material directly to Peace Now, which requested it under Israel's freedom of information law.

Shlomo Dror, spokesman for the Civil Administration, said that he could not comment on the data without studying them. He said that there is a committee, called the blue line committee, that has been investigating these issues of land ownership for three years. "We haven't finished checking everything," he said.

Dror also noted that sometimes Palestinians will sell land to Israelis but be unwilling to admit to the sale publicly because they fear retribution as a

collaborator click to show

Is this "finding", even coherent? If our foreign policy is counter-productive, how could it be "right", if to be "right", includes developing/promoting policy in our best national interest? Should we have any relations with the saudi Royal family, or is the only consistent policy stance, one of condemnation of their absolute, and dictatorial rule?

Quote:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch12.htm

....The setting is difficult. The combined gross domestic product of the 22 countries in the Arab League is less than the GDP of Spain. Forty percent of adult Arabs are illiterate, two-thirds of them women. One-third of the broader Middle East lives on less than two dollars a day. Less than 2 percent of the population has access to the Internet. The majority of older Arab youths have expressed a desire to emigrate to other countries, particularly those in Europe.26

In short, the United States has to help defeat an ideology, not just a group of people, and we must do so under difficult circumstances. How can the United States and its friends help moderate Muslims combat the extremist ideas?

Recommendation: The U.S. government must define what the message is, what it stands for. We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors. America and Muslim friends can agree on respect for human dignity and opportunity. To Muslim parents, terrorists like Bin Ladin have nothing to offer their children but visions of violence and death. America and its friends have a crucial advantage-we can offer these parents a vision that might give their children a better future. If we heed the views of thoughtful leaders in the Arab and Muslim world, a moderate consensus can be found.

That vision of the future should stress life over death: individual educational and economic opportunity. This vision includes widespread political participation and contempt for indiscriminate violence. It includes respect for the rule of law, openness in discussing differences, and tolerance for opposing points of view.

Recommendation: Where Muslim governments, even those who are friends, do not respect these principles, the United States must stand for a better future. One of the lessons of the long Cold War was that short-term gains in cooperating with the most repressive and brutal governments were too often outweighed by long-term setbacks for America's stature and interests.

American foreign policy is part of the message. <h3>America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world.</h3> That does not mean U.S. choices have been wrong. It means those choices must be integrated with America's message of opportunity to the Arab and Muslim world. Neither Israel nor the new Iraq will be safer if worldwide Islamist terrorism grows stronger.

The United States must do more to communicate its message. ..

Quote:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html
Letters
Vol. 28 No. 9 · Cover date: 11 May 2006
The Israel Lobby

From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt

.....We agree that there is strong public support for Israel in America, in part because it is seen as compatible with America’s Judaeo-Christian culture. But we believe this popularity is substantially due to the lobby’s success at portraying Israel in a favourable light and effectively limiting public awareness and discussion of Israel’s less savoury actions. Diplomats and military officers are also affected by this distorted public discourse, but many of them can see through the rhetoric. They keep silent, however, because they fear that groups like AIPAC will damage their careers if they speak out. The fact is that if there were no AIPAC, Americans would have a more critical view of Israel and US policy in the Middle East would look different.

On a related point, Michael Szanto contrasts the US-Israeli relationship with the American military commitments to Western Europe, Japan and South Korea, to show that the United States has given substantial support to other states besides Israel (6 April). He does not mention, however, that these other relationships did not depend on strong domestic lobbies. The reason is simple: these countries did not need a lobby because close ties with each of them were in America’s strategic interest. By contrast, as Israel has become a strategic burden for the US, its American backers have had to work even harder to preserve the ‘special relationship’.....

....Probably the most popular argument made about a countervailing force is Herf and Markovits’s claim that the centrepiece of US Middle East policy is oil, not Israel. There is no question that access to that region’s oil is a vital US strategic interest. Washington is also deeply committed to supporting Israel. Thus, the relevant question is, how does each of those interests affect US policy? We maintain that US policy in the Middle East is driven primarily by the commitment to Israel, not oil interests. If the oil companies or the oil-producing countries were driving policy, Washington would be tempted to favour the Palestinians instead of Israel. Moreover, the United States would almost certainly not have gone to war against Iraq in March 2003, and the Bush administration would not be threatening to use military force against Iran. Although many claim that the Iraq war was all about oil, there is hardly any evidence to support that supposition, and much evidence of the lobby’s influence. Oil is clearly an important concern for US policymakers, but with the exception of episodes like the 1973 Opec oil embargo, the US commitment to Israel has yet to threaten access to oil. It does, however, contribute to America’s terrorism problem, complicates its efforts to halt nuclear proliferation, and helped get the United States involved in wars like Iraq.....

....We close with a final comment about the controversy surrounding our article. Although we are not surprised by the hostility directed at us, we are still disappointed that more attention has not been paid to the substance of the piece. The fact remains that the United States is in deep trouble in the Middle East, and it will not be able to develop effective policies if it is impossible to have a civilised discussion about the role of Israel in American foreign policy.

John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt
University of Chicago & Harvard University

You claim to want middle east peace and stable oil prices, but your policy is near unconditional policy preference towards Israel's conservative aggressive likud political party, contributing to near constant political tension, manifested in violence in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon, for the last five years.

You claim that support preferences for Israel are due to it's democratic principles, while US support for the Saudi dictatorial royalist government is necessitated by the Saudi position of world' largest oil producer. Do our democratic principles trump the expediency of the need for middle east oil, or do they stand above them?
-

Quote:

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...,00.html?imw=Y
Oil Prices: Don't Blame OPEC
Tuesday, Oct. 30, 2007 By SCOTT MACLEOD/DOHA

....Attiya says that rising prices are the end result of crises in places like Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria, which "create more fears, and speculators are very smart. They jump into the market and take this factor and create it as fear. They try to frighten the world. 'Oh, maybe the oil will be disappear. Oh, maybe there will be a war.' But with all the fears of the world, still the supply is very efficient."

Attiya told TIME that prices would rise further if the Bush Administration ever carries out a military strike on Iran, his Persian Gulf neighbor. "I hope and am confident that we will not see any war between America and Iran, and that all these negotiations will settle things amicably," Attiya said. But in the event of further conflict in the region, such as a threatened U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear installations, Attiya said, "I think there will be a big jump [in oil prices]." War would cause an actual drop in global oil supplies which, he explained, "will create a panic, a shortage in the market." ....

Quote:

http://www.motherjones.com/interview...arsheimer.html
Grabbing the Third Rail

Interview: Two professors respond to the backlash over their controversial paper on the Israel Lobby.

Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer
By Paige Austin

July 18, 2006

Every piece of scholarship carries risks. But for Harvard Professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer, the potential fallout from their paper "The Israel Lobby," published in the March 23 edition of the London Review of Books, was more dangerous than most. Declaring that the extent of the U.S.-Israel alliance had "no equal in American political history," the professors posed a distinctly uncomfortable question: "Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?"

The United States support for Israel, the authors argued, was motivated neither by strategic concern nor moral imperative. Instead, they identify the Israel lobby as the primary driver of this support. Were it not for the power of this community of pro-Israel advocates, the argument goes, the U.S. wouldn't cling so tightly to an alliance that is, in the authors' view, detrimental to American interests abroad. The professors, who were both early opponents of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, hold the Israel lobby partly responsible for that debacle as well: "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical,” they wrote. “[T]he war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure.".....

....MJ: What makes the pro-Israeli lobby different from other interest groups promoting their own agendas?

SW: There is not much that the Israel lobby does that isn't done by other groups like the Cuban-American lobby or other special interest groups. What is different is how effective they are. They've been widely evaluated as one of the most effective and influential interest groups in Washington. That's certainly what politicians like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich—who don't agree on very much, but agree on that—have said. So it's not that their activities are different, it's how effective they are: it's not what they do, it's how well they do it.....

....MJ: Couldn't America's historical affinity for Israel, or its sympathy with the country as a fellow democracy, also explain its support?

JM: The main reason there is a powerful affinity between Israel and the United States in our body politic is because we are not allowed to have an open and free-wheeling discussion about either Israeli policy or the relationship between the United States and Israel. For example, if we were to have an open and candid discussion about what the Israelis are doing in the Occupied Territories, there would be much less sympathy for Israel in the American public. And of course this is the principle reason why Israel's supporters go to great lengths to silence critics of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. In essence, America's present relationship with Israel could not withstand public scrutiny.

SW: It's not that the Israel lobby is the only thing that shapes American support and American sympathy for Israel. But it shapes the unconditional nature of American support—the fact that our support continues independent of what Israel's policies are. There are a variety of reasons why Americans tend to look favorably on the Jewish state and many of them are ones that I would agree with myself. John and I clearly state that we support Israel's right to exist and we also think that there are admirable features in Israeli society, so that's not really the issue. The point of the lobby is it drives those aspects of U.S. support that aren't in American interests. .....

....MJ: In the Foreign Policy <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3501">roundtable</a> on your paper, Shlomo Ben-Ami criticizes your argument for the lobby's primacy by citing examples of times when U.S. administrations have acted contrary to Israel's wishes. He mentions Madrid; Reagan's recognition of the PLO; Clinton's decision to hold Camp David. How do you account for what appear to be these occasional failures of the lobby?

JM: There are a handful of cases in the past where the lobby lost, but almost all of those cases date from the 1980s and the early 1990s. The lobby has grown increasingly powerful with time and it rarely loses nowadays.

SW: We never said that the lobby was all-powerful, or that it dictated every single thing that American presidents do. There are a number of situations that you can point to where the lobby has pushed on a particular issue and didn't get its way. But these issues often tend be pretty peripheral: they're not central, critical issues for Israel and they are ones where it's fairly obvious where the American interest lies.

The key thing to observe is that no matter what Israel does the United States continues to back them. They continue to build settlements even though every president since Lyndon Johnson has thought that was a bad idea. They spy on us routinely. They've given or sold American military technology to other countries. Also, according to Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and B'Tselem, they have conducted a wide variety of human rights violations, and yet none of those activities ever slow down American support.

MJ: You write in the report that the U.S. has a terrorism problem "in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel" and that U.S. support for Israel is a major cause of anti-Americanism abroad, especially in the Middle East. To what extent do you think that those problems would be alleviated by a diminishment in our support for Israel?

JM: There is no question that American support for Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories is a principle source of our terrorism problem, but it's hardly the only one. If the United States were able to put pressure on Israel and the Palestinians and actually solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, we would still have a terrorism problem—although we would have much less of one. The 9/11 Commission report, for instance, makes clear that Osama bin Laden's thinking about the attack was influenced by Israel's behavior towards the Palestinians. He even considered moving up the date of the attack to coincide with a visit to Washington by Ariel Sharon, and he wanted to ensure that Congress was targeted, because he believed that Israel's staunchest support came from Capitol Hill.

And it's not just bin Laden—people in the Islamic world more generally are deeply hostile to the United States because we support Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. As a consequence, huge numbers of people in the Middle East tend to be more sympathetic to bin Laden than would otherwise be the case. As long as the United States continues to support Israeli policy vis-à-vis the Palestinians, it will be impossible to win hearts and minds in the Arab and Islamic world and solve the terrorism problem.....

Quote:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...?story_id=3975

Current Article
Seven Questions: The Israel Lobby Revisited

Page 1 of 2
Posted September 2007
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt made waves in 2006 when they argued that a powerful “Israel lobby” distorts U.S. policies in the Middle East. Back with a new book expanding on the same topic, these noted realist scholars sat down with FP to explain why they are speaking out.

Greg Martin; courtesy of Mearsheimer and Walt
Real controversial: Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer have taken a lot of heat for their views on what they call the “Israel lobby”.

JM: Furthermore, watching what happened to Jimmy Carter after his book was published last year confirmed in large part many of the arguments that we made in the original article about how the lobby reacts when anyone criticizes Israel or the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Carter, who is a fundamentally decent man, a philo-Semite, and a staunch defender of Israel’s existence, was nevertheless called a Jew hater, accused of being sympathetic to Nazis and terrorists, and accused of plagiarism, all because he wrote a book that was critical of Israeli policy in the occupied territories.

Sun Tzu · 11-04-2007, 02:04 PM

These policies should have been rethought since the USS Liberty. I dont know how much could be repaired, so much damage has been done there will probably be blowback for generations. Being that Isael can obviosuly stand on its own; it would be more effective to stop giving away 3 billion a year that could be better spent here developing ways to stop having to pay $95 a drum.

Ustwo · 11-04-2007, 02:26 PM

Quote:

I'm guessing, considering their reactions to the thread OP, that Ustwo and Cynthetique are not engaged in conversations with reasonable American muslims from the middle east. Ustwo, do you reckon that you are perceived as approachable, in the eyes of an Iranian American, to be given the unsolicited "news" of the contradictory requirments of Palestinian land ownership, my friend described to me?

You would guess wrong. I'm willing to bet I have more Muslim friends than you have as they were a prominent part of my university program. I have a standing invitation stay with one if I visit Egypt.

It is BECAUSE of this interaction, that I put very little in what they say with regards to Israel. One of my better friends there, was a Palistinian whos family lived in Jordan. We were working late on a project and started to discuss the whole Israeli problem. My take was until the entire Jewish controlled area of Israel was no longer Jewish controlled, their will never be peace, he denied this. Then he thought for a moment and sort of smiled and said, something like 'Though we are taught a prophecy that they will be pushed back into the sea'.

My Egyptian friend I asked about the Taliban back when they were busy destroying the Buddhist statues. He said 'well you know, they can do what they do' and refused to take a stance on it. Later when we were talking about Egypt and how they are able to manage with Jews and Christians and he said, unabashed, that it was because they were ruled by Muslims.

The propaganda these people are fed daily by a government controlled press is amazing. What they perceive is happening will have very little to do with reality.

Oh and a side note, on 9/11 I offered to drive some of the Muslim girls home for safeties sake in case there issues, after all we had no idea what public reaction would be and no one doubted that it was Islamic terror, there isn't much other kind these days. They declined mine and another classmates offer, because they couldn't be alone with another man, problem was they were both Saudis and being women not allowed to drive. Not sure how they got back.

BTW these same women didn't get upset with anything including 9/11 UNTIL they saw the footage of the Taliban executing women. THEN they were pissed off and said 'A MUSLIM DOESN'T DO THAT!'

You see host it has BEEN my exposure to their culture, which has me skeptical there will ever be peace while Israel exists, and I'd rather not see it destroyed. As such I support the US military support of Israel and don't worry if it means some Theocratic dictatorships raise the price of oil in between killing homosexuals and oppressing their minorities while teaching their children that death in allahs name is glorious.

Sun Tzu · 11-04-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

The propaganda these people are fed daily by a government controlled press is amazing. What they perceive is happening will have very little to do with reality.

What people and what propaganda exactly?

Elphaba · 11-04-2007, 02:38 PM

I also wish you an enthusiastic welcome, Rogue Element. It's a rare thing that one of host's topics is treated respectfully with a response that carries the discussion forward.

I believe our lack of an even handed foreign policy in the Middle East has had a direct impact on our economy, specifically because of our oil dependency. Our unwavering support of Israel has allowed the Palestinian issue to fester for decades and has won us nothing but resentment and distrust in the region. We treat the Arab and Persian nation states as some unworthy "other" which somehow justifies our intent to steal their resources. Our current occupation of Iraq and our escalating rhetoric toward Iran has directly impacted oil prices. Had we been honest brokers in the region from the beginning, these countries would be trading partners rather than "evil" as Bush has painted them.

This thought may go too far astray from the OP, but I believe our unwavering support of Saudia Arabia has also had serious consequences to our well being as a nation. Our relationship with the House of Saud has contributed to the rise of Al'Q terrorism.

Cynthetiq · 11-04-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I'm guessing, considering their reactions to the thread OP, that Ustwo and Cynthetique are not engaged in conversations with reasonable American muslims from the middle east. Ustwo, do you reckon that you are perceived as approachable, in the eyes of an Iranian American, to be given the unsolicited "news" of the contradictory requirments of Palestinian land ownership, my friend described to me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I think that we are in a crisis. The US foreign policy has effected the loss of the hearts and minds of my two muslim friends. Who will replace them in support of the US government, from among muslims of the world?

From all the posts you have ever posted here, I don't see where you don't think we are in crisis.

If your friends are reflections of your thinking here, then no I don't have your definition of "reasonable" muslim friends. I have a good number of mulsim friends mostly coworkers who fled their homelands because of the atrocities they felt as injustices from their respective governments. I have an Iranian aunt who came over before the Ayatollah Khomeni decided to take the American embassy workers hostages.

Many countries have odd laws to discourage those that are considered outside of their scope. I don't find Israel to be any different. I can own land in Iceland, but I cannot own farm land. I cannot own a business in Iceland unless I have a citizen as a partner. I cannot own land in the land of my ancestors because I'm not a citizen. I cannot work in the land of my ancestors because I'm not European.

Again, you don't find any correllation to the high price of oil to the finite amounts produced and the increased demand of China and India as industrialized nations that require more oil than decades before? You point to the Jews and Israel as the reason?

host · 11-04-2007, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

From all the posts you have ever posted here, I don't see where you don't think we are in crisis.

If your friends are reflections of your thinking here, then no I don't have your definition of "reasonable" muslim friends. I have a good number of mulsim friends mostly coworkers who fled their homelands because of the atrocities they felt as injustices from their respective governments. I have an Iranian aunt who came over before the Ayatollah Khomeni decided to take the American embassy workers hostages.

Many countries have odd laws to discourage those that are considered outside of their scope. I don't find Israel to be any different. I can own land in Iceland, but I cannot own farm land. I cannot own a business in Iceland unless I have a citizen as a partner. I cannot own land in the land of my ancestors because I'm not a citizen. I cannot work in the land of my ancestors because I'm not European.

Again, you don't find any correllation to the high price of oil to the finite amounts produced and the increased demand of China and India as industrialized nations that require more oil than decades before? You point to the Jews and Israel as the reason?

No, I point to the policy of constant threat of pre-emptive attack of countries in the ME as the counter productive US policy. I think that policy is much more in what likud thinks is in it's interest, than it could possibly be, in ours.

The "crisis" is in the deterioration of the relationships between the US and much of the rest of the world, and it's effects on the purchasing power of the US dollar. As disturbingly, the deeds of the US government stand in direct contradiction to the words...words that claim a strong embrace and promotion of democratic principles.

How did the US political attitude about zionism evolve from here:

Quote:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/34900/page/1
A Case of Courage

Exclusive Book Excerpt: Truman and the birth of Israel.
By Michael Beschloss | Newsweek Web Exclusive

http://www.newsweek.com/id/34900/page/3

In 1917, the genial, quiet Private Jacobson clerked in an Army canteen at Camp Doniphan, Oklahoma, under Lieutenant Harry Truman. Truman wrote his girlfriend, Bess Wallace, back in Independence, that he had a "Jew clerk" running his canteen and that Jacobson was "a crackerjack." After fighting the Germans in France, the two friends opened a men's store in Kansas City, with Harry as salesman-bookkeeper, Eddie as buyer and many old Battery D pals as customers. Then came the postwar depression. "I lost all I had and all I could borrow," said Truman. "Our creditors drove Eddie into bankruptcy, but I became a public official, and they couldn't do that to me."

The friendship survived. during senator Truman's visits to Kansas City, the ex-partners drank bourbon, played poker, told off-color stories and joked about "losing our asses in that store." But the friendship did not include their wives and families. Jacobson's wife, Bluma, recalled that Bess Truman's Wallace relatives were "aristocracy in those parts" and that "the Trumans couldn't afford to have Jews at their house."

In the summer of 1947, Jacobson sat down at Kansas City's Hotel Muehlebach with Granoff and Frank Goldman, the national president of B'nai B'rith. He told them he would never ask Truman for a personal favor, but would "always be glad" to discuss with him "my suffering people across the seas." He had endless faith in Harry's "kindly heart." Granoff said the problem was getting more Jewish refugees into Palestine. Eddie said, "Harry Truman will do what's right if he knows all the facts ... But I'm no Zionist, so first I need the facts from you."

Arriving in Washington, Eddie called the president's appointments secretary, Matt Connelly, who gibed, "What the hell are you doing here without his permission?" When Jacobson and Granoff were ushered into the Oval Office, Truman said, "Sit down, you bastards!" As Eddie recalled, after Truman signed dollar bills for their children and asked about business in Kansas City, he and the president talked "takhles"—a Yiddish term that means "with serious purpose."

Making their case for a Jewish homeland, Granoff and Jacobson insisted they would never ask Truman to act against America's best interests. "You guys wouldn't get to the front gate if I thought any differently," said Truman. "You bastards are the only ones that never tried to embarrass me in any way."....

http://www.newsweek.com/id/34900/page/4

....In October 1947, Jacobson implored the president to back a U.N. committee's proposal for Jewish and Arab states in Palestine. He wrote, "Harry, my people need help and I am appealing on you to help them." <h3>Loy Henderson, assistant secretary of State, warned that if the U.S. had anything to do with founding a Jewish state, it would jeopardize oil supplies in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, and the "whole Arab world" would become the "enemy" of the United States.</h3>

The president endorsed Palestine's partition, but warned that the U.S. would not give money to a Jewish state, and that it lacked deployable forces to defend it from the Arab armies. Furious that Truman had overruled him, Henderson tried to whittle down the territory allotted for the Jews. He argued that the town of Jaffa was "essentially Arab" and that Arab herdsmen required the Negev desert for "seasonal grazing." But after making it into the Oval Office, Chaim Weizmann, chief of the World Zionist Organization, unfolded maps and persuaded Truman that losing the Negev would undermine a Jewish state by blocking vital access to the Red Sea.

In late November 1947, at the U.N.'s temporary quarters in a converted skating rink at Flushing Meadows, Queens, Palestine's partition came up for a vote by the General Assembly. Arguing that U.S. prestige would suffer if allies like the Philippines and Haiti were seen voting against it, Clark Clifford persuaded Truman to let his aides lobby for partition. As Clifford recalled, "I kept the ramrod up the State Department's butt."

In January 1948, Truman's secretary of Defense, James Forrestal, told him that enforcing partition might require as many as 160,000 American ground troops. Loy Henderson proposed that since partition could not be imposed without a military commitment that Truman would not make, the U.N. should govern Palestine as a trustee when Britain withdrew in May. <h3>Horrified that Truman seemed to be wavering on a Jewish state, Chaim Weizmann rushed to New York, hoping to see the president. But Truman told his aides he had seen enough Zionists: "The Jews are so emotional, and the Arabs are so difficult to talk with that it is almost impossible to get anything done." B'nai B'rith's Frank Goldman called Eddie Jacobson in Kansas City. The president was "washing his hands" of Palestine: "You must help us, Eddie."

Jacobson wired Truman, "I have asked very little in the way of favors during all our years of friendship, but I am begging you to see Dr. Weizmann as soon as possible." Tired of what he called Zionist "badgering," the president wired Eddie that the Palestine problem was probably "not solvable." Refusing to give up, Jacobson flew to Washington in hopes of changing his mind, and when Matt Connelly let Jacobson into the Oval Office, Connelly warned him not to mention Palestine. Truman told his friend, "Eddie, I know what you are here for, and the answer is no."

Surprised at his own "nerve," Jacobson asked the president to reconsider, which touched off an explosion. Truman bellowed that the "Eastern Jews" had "slandered and libeled" him since the moment he became president. He didn't want to discuss "Palestine or the Jews or the Arabs or the British." Let the United Nations handle it. Tears rolled down Eddie's face. He felt "shocked" and "crushed" that his "dear friend" was "as close to being an anti-Semite as a man could possibly be."</h3>

http://www.newsweek.com/id/34900/page/5

Jacobson's eye caught a replica of the courthouse statue in Jackson County, Missouri, that Truman had worked so hard to build. Improvising, he said, "Harry, all your life, you have had a hero. You are probably the best-read man in America on the life of Andrew Jackson." He recalled Truman sitting in a corner of their failed store, "reading books and papers and pamphlets" on Old Hickory. "Well, Harry, I too have a hero—a man I never met, but who is, I think, the greatest Jew who ever lived ... Chaim Weizmann. He is a very sick man ... but he traveled thousands of miles just to see you ... Now you refuse to see him just because you are insulted by some of our American Jewish leaders—even though you know that Weizmann had absolutely nothing to do with these insults ... It doesn't sound like you, Harry ... I thought you could take this stuff they have been handing out."

Deep in thought, Truman drummed his desktop, then swiveled in his chair to gaze at the South Grounds, turning green with spring. For what seemed "like centuries," Eddie held his breath. Then the president spun back around and uttered the most "endearing" words Jacobson had ever heard him speak: "You win, you bald-headed son-of-a-bitch! I will see him."

On Thursday, March 18, after dark, Chaim Weizmann was slipped into the Oval Office. The president could never pronounce Weizmann's first name, so he called him "Cham." Truman pledged to "press forward with partition." Worried about leaks, he did not even tell his secretary of State about Weizmann's visit.

The next day, Truman's U.N. ambassador, Warren Austin, seemed to reverse U.S. policy when he told the Security Council that since peaceful partition into Jewish and Arab states seemed impossible, the United States now believed that the U.N. should rule Palestine as the world's trustee. Informed that Austin had just trampled the president's private promise to Weizmann, Eddie Jacobson couldn't believe it: "I was as dazed as a man could be." Feeling "physically sick," he collapsed into bed for two days.

Unfolding his Saturday morning newspapers, Truman was incensed to read about his administration's "badly bungled" somersault on partition. "This morning I find that the State Dept. has reversed my Palestine policy," Truman told his diary. "The first I know about it is what I see in the papers! Isn't that hell? I'm now in the position of a liar and a double-crosser. I've never felt so in my life." Truman inveighed against the "people on the 3rd and 4th levels of the State Dept. who have always wanted to cut my throat." The president called in Clark Clifford: "How could this have happened? I assured Chaim Weizmann I would stick to it. He must think I am a s--t-ass ... My God, how can I ever face Weizmann again?"

Recovering in kansas City from what he called "Black Friday," Eddie Jacobson took a call from Chaim Weizmann, who told him not to "feel badly." Privately, Weizmann had been reassured that the president hadn't known of Ambassador Austin's speech in advance and that his commitment to partition still stood. Weizmann told Eddie he was now "the most important single man in the world. You have a job to do, so keep the White House doors open." Jacobson felt "encouraged" to "go on with the work which Fate put on my shoulders."....

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/ww1/weizmann.html
<img src="http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/ww1/images/weizmann.jpg">

1915 - During his research at Manchester University on synthetic rubber, he discovered the fermentation process to produce acetone, a vital ingredient for cordite. His discovery of the acid-resistant microorganism Clostridium Acetobutylicum would be used in England and the United States to make smokeless powder, but later would be the key to the discovery of penicillin.

1916 - The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement was signed May 16 carving up the Mideast between England and France. Weizmann had been influential in the diplomacy leading to the agreement, insuring that Palestine would be internationalized and later become the Zionist state. Many British Jews opposed transferring national allegiance from Great Britain to Palestine during wartime. Weizmann therefore urged Great Britain to publicly support Palestine, and his greatest achievement in the Zionist movement was the alliance with the British government that culminated in the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

1917 - The Balfour Declaration of Nov. 2 declared in public "His Majesty's Government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

1919 - Weizmann led the Zionist delegation to the Paris Peace Conference.

1921 - Visited the United States with Albert Einstein, was elected president of the World Zionist Organization, but American Zionists such as Louis Brandeis and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise who sought complete autonomy for a homeland opposed Weizmann's alliance with Britain and European Jews.

1930 - Weizmann resigned his position as president of the Zionist Organization to protest British treatment of Jews in Palestine, but still hoped his alliance with the British would lead to a homeland. Rabbi Wise however, told Weizmann the next year, ''You have sat too long at English feasts.''

1937 - Weizmann supported the Peel Plan for a partition of the mandate, giving Zionists a homeland of 2500 sq. miiles.

1944 - Weizmann opposed the "cancer" of the radical anti-British terror campaign of the Irgun Zvai Leumi fighters, calling its leader Menachem Begin ''a megalomaniac suffering from a Messianic complex.''

1945 - After the end of the war, Weizmann urged the British to decide the issue of a Jewish homeland

1946 - In December, Weizmann gave his last speech to a Zionist Congress, and was provoked by a heckler to declare again his opposition to Zionist extremists demanding immediate statehood or war: ''Would that my tongue were tipped with flame, and my soul touched with the strength of our great prophets, when they warned against following the paths of Babylon and Egypt which always led Jewry to failure. I fear that we stand before such dangers today . . . Go and re-read Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. . . . Zion will be redeemed through righteousness, and not by any other means.''

1948 - Israel declared its independence.

1949 - Weizmann became the first president of Israel.

....to here:

Quote:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...56C0A96E958260
Aides Disavow Mrs. Clinton on Mideast

By JAMES BENNET
Published: May 8, 1998

White House aides today disowned comments by Hillary Rodham Clinton about the need for a Palestinian state and insisted that she was speaking only for herself.

Mrs. Clinton's remark came when she told a group of Arab and Israeli teen-agers that creating a state of Palestine was ''very important for the broader goal of peace in the Middle East.''

With that statement, which was made in answer to a question, Mrs. Clinton stepped into a foreign policy minefield that American policymakers have always shied away from. The United States has never endorsed creating a Palestinian state, although President Carter set off a controversy in 1977 by calling for a Palestinian ''homeland.''.....

...when did we get to a point where Americans were accused of anti-semitism, for even discussing the appropriateness of the current level of zionist influence on the S government and it's foreign policy?

Cynthetiq · 11-15-2007, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

No, I point to the policy of constant threat of pre-emptive attack of countries in the ME as the counter productive US policy. I think that policy is much more in what likud thinks is in it's interest, than it could possibly be, in ours.

The "crisis" is in the deterioration of the relationships between the US and much of the rest of the world, and it's effects on the purchasing power of the US dollar. As disturbingly, the deeds of the US government stand in direct contradiction to the words...words that claim a strong embrace and promotion of democratic principles.

How did the US political attitude about zionism evolve from here:

....to here:

...when did we get to a point where Americans were accused of anti-semitism, for even discussing the appropriateness of the current level of zionist influence on the S government and it's foreign policy?

apparently this journalist in the NYTimes disagrees and cites 10% growth over the past decade to China since it now imports a considerable amount of oil. India as well since there are now many people who are no longer "poor" once TaTa motor corporation releases the $2,500 car, there will be even more people on the motorways there again, increasing demand.

I still don't see a zionist connection.

Quote:

November 9, 2007
Rising Demand for Oil Provokes New Energy Crisis
By JAD MOUAWAD
LINK
With oil prices approaching the symbolic threshold of $100 a barrel, the world is headed toward its third energy shock in a generation. But today’s surge is fundamentally different from the previous oil crises, with broad and longer-lasting global implications.

Just as in the energy crises of the 1970s and ’80s, today’s high prices are causing anxiety and pain for consumers, and igniting wider fears about the impact on the economy.

Unlike past oil shocks, which were caused by sudden interruptions in exports from the Middle East, this time prices have been rising steadily as demand for gasoline grows in developed countries, as hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians climb out of poverty and as other developing economies grow at a sizzling pace.

“This is the world’s first demand-led energy shock,” said Lawrence Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation of Washington.

Forecasts of future oil prices range widely. Some analysts see them falling next year to $75, or even lower, while a few project $120 oil. Virtually no one foresees a return to the $20 oil of a decade ago, meaning consumers should brace for an era of significantly higher fuel costs.

At the root of the stunning rise in the price of oil, up 56 percent this year and 365 percent in a decade, is a positive development: an unprecedented boom in the world economy.

Demand from China and India alone is expected to double in the next two decades as their economies continue to expand, with people there buying more cars and moving to cities to seek a way of life long taken for granted in the West.

But as prices rise, the global economy is entering uncharted territory. The increase so far does not appear to be hurting economic growth, but many economists wonder how long that will last. “These prices are too high and will end up hurting everybody, producers and consumers alike,” said Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency.

Oil futures closed at $95.46 on the New York Mercantile Exchange yesterday, down nearly 1 percent from the day before. But the price has become volatile, and many analysts expect the psychologically important $100-a-barrel threshold to be breached sometime in the next few weeks.

“Today’s markets feel like the crowds standing up in the final minutes of a football game shouting: ‘Go! Go! Go!,’” said Daniel Yergin, an oil historian and the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm. “People seem almost more relaxed about $100 than they were about $60 or $70 oil.”

Oil is not far from its historic inflation-adjusted high, reached in April 1980 in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution. At the time, oil jumped to the equivalent of $101.70 a barrel in today’s money.

For most of the 20th century, as it transformed the modern world, oil was cheap and abundant. Throughout the 1990s, for example, oil prices averaged $20 a barrel. Even at today’s highs, oil is cheaper than imported bottled water, which would cost $180 a barrel, or milk, at $150 a barrel.

“The concern today is over how will the energy sector meet the anticipated growth in demand over the longer term,” said Linda Z. Cook, a board member of Royal Dutch Shell, the big oil company. “Energy demand is increasing at a rate we’ve not seen before. On the supply side, we’re seeing it is struggling to keep up. That’s the energy challenge.”

More than any other country, China represents the scope of that challenge. As it turned into a global economic behemoth over the last decade, China also became a major energy user. Its economy has grown at a furious pace of about 10 percent a year since the 1990s, lifting nearly 300 million people out of poverty. But rapid industrialization has come at a price: oil demand has more than tripled since 1980, turning a country that was once self-sufficient into a net oil importer.

India and China are home to about a third of humanity. People there are demanding access to electricity, cars, and consumer goods and can increasingly afford to compete with the West for access to resources. In doing so, the two Asian giants are profoundly transforming the world’s energy balance.

Today, China consumes only a third as much oil as the United States, which burns a quarter of the world’s oil each day. By 2030, India and China together will import as much oil as the United States and Japan do today.

While demand is growing fastest abroad, Americans’ appetite for big cars and large houses has pushed up oil demand steadily in this country, too. Europe has managed to rein in oil consumption through a combination of high gasoline taxes, small cars and efficient public transportation, but Americans have not. Oil consumption in the United States, where gasoline is far cheaper than in Europe, has jumped to 21 million barrels a day this year, from about 17 million barrels in the early 1990s.

If the Chinese and Indians consumed as much oil for each person as Americans do, the world’s oil consumption would be more than 200 million barrels a day, instead of the 85 million barrels it is today. No expert regards that level of production as conceivable.

More realistically, global demand is expected to rise to about 115 million barrels a day by 2030, a level that is likely to tax the world’s ability to pump more oil out of the ground. Already, the world is running on a limited cushion of spare capacity; any interruption in supplies, whether from hurricanes or armed conflict, causes prices to spike.

“We don’t have any shock absorbers,” Mr. Goldstein said.

For oil companies, high prices have set off a frenzied search for new sources around the world. After a long lull in investments through most of the 1990s because of low prices, major oil companies have invested billions of dollars to bring in more supplies.

The trouble is that these big new developments take a long time, and companies have been hobbled by higher costs. The cost of drilling rigs, for example, the basic tool of the trade, has doubled in recent years. Analysts say it will take time, but new supplies will eventually work their way to market.

Supplies have also been hampered by political tension in the Persian Gulf, the war in Iraq, devastating hurricanes in the oil-producing Gulf of Mexico, production difficulties in Venezuela and violence in Nigeria’s oil-rich province. Many of these geopolitical factors have contributed to a political risk premium variously estimated at $25 to $50 a barrel. Recently, in just nine weeks, oil jumped from $75 to $95 a barrel for little apparent reason.

“Fifty-dollar-a-barrel oil seems so far away at this point,” said Thomas Bentz, a senior energy analyst at BNP Paribas in New York, citing a figure that seemed an impossibly high price for oil only a few years ago. “Oil will stop rising when we see demand destruction. We haven’t seen that yet.”

When will it happen? Veterans of the oil business, having lived through booms and busts, say no one should count on oil rising forever. Economic slowdowns in China or the United States — or especially, in both — would probably send prices tumbling.

It happened a mere decade ago, after the Asian financial crisis sent economies there into a tailspin. Global oil prices fell by half, from $20 a barrel to $10, in months.

“It would be a big mistake to think the laws of supply and demand have been abolished,” Mr. Yergin said.

loquitur · 11-15-2007, 02:54 PM

If Israel disappeared tomorrow there would still be high oil prices. Supply and demand wasn't created by the jews and won't go away if they disappear.

I find it interesting that the premise of the OP is that it's ok to leave a country of 7 million people to the tender mercies of genocidal neighbors because that will let us get cheap oil. The premise is wrong, but also horrifying. You don't have to agree with the particular steps Israel takes to protect itself, or even agree that all of them are necessary, to understand that there are many millions of people around them who want them dead and, given the chance, would do it without blinking.

Sun Tzu · 11-17-2007, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

If Israel disappeared tomorrow there would still be high oil prices. Supply and demand wasn't created by the jews and won't go away if they disappear.

I find it interesting that the premise of the OP is that it's ok to leave a country of 7 million people to the tender mercies of genocidal neighbors because that will let us get cheap oil. The premise is wrong, but also horrifying. You don't have to agree with the particular steps Israel takes to protect itself, or even agree that all of them are necessary, to understand that there are many millions of people around them who want them dead and, given the chance, would do it without blinking.

Charlatan · 11-17-2007, 12:40 AM

As one of only a few working democracies in the middle east, the west needs to continue supporting Israel. That does not mean the support should be carte blanche.

The US needs to work to keep Israel progressive and they need to ensure that Israel gets back to the table with Palestine.

At the same time, Palestine needs to get their collective heads out of their assess. The deal that was on the table at the end of the Clinton administration was a good opening offer. It gave Palestine 90 to 95% of what they wanted. Their response, instead of a counter-offer, was suicide bombings.

Neither side has clean hands in this affair.

Cynthetiq · 11-17-2007, 05:38 AM

i was just rereading this thread and i thought that the zionist "punishment" by host's posit is being doled out to the rest of the world. since the markets are all linked and everyone is paying the same price for barrel of oil, how could the US alone be punished for these zionist connections? wouldn't this price fixing be exclusive to the US? but it isn't.... that alone shows that there is no zionist connections.

Ustwo · 11-17-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Neither side has clean hands in this affair.

Thats something of a cop out I think.

'Give us everything we demand or we kill your civilians by strapping bombs to our young people' puts the blame pretty squarely on one side.

Peace with Israel is not in the Islamic leaders best interests, there will be no peace until this changes.

host · 11-17-2007, 09:41 AM

It's not 1948, Israel is a top ten military power with an offensive nuclear arsenal. US policy creates tensions which does affect oil prices, due to future uncertainty of supply, aggravated by US aggressive signals in the ME.

Almost all of you see nothing amiss in the pressure to stifle discussion of the outsized conservative Israeli influence on US policy.

This is not "normal", and we cannot justify spending this money, or the signals that it sends to the world. Why is it unreasonable to let a powerful, modern, afflunet Israel to stand on it's own, with the US in the background to help, as an ally, in an emergency?

Quote:

US and Israel in $30bn arms deal
US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns has signed a deal that will provide Israel with $30bn (£14.8bn) of military aid over the next 10 years.

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has said the aid will preserve his country's military advantage over other countries in the Middle East.

The new military aid package represents a 25% increase from present levels.

The US announced multi-billion-dollar arms deals with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other Gulf states last month.

Washington says it wants to help its allies in the Middle East meet their security needs and counter the growing power of Iran in the region.

'Investment in peace'

Mr Burns and Israeli Foreign Ministry Director-General Aharon Abramovitz signed the memorandum of understanding on the new aid package at a ceremony in Jerusalem.

Needless to say, given Israel's predicament, living in a region that is very violent and unstable, its military edge is of interest to our country, and we've committed to that
Nicholas Burns
US Undersecretary of State

It will see Washington transfer $30bn over the next decade, compared to $24bn over the past 10 years. The first payment of $2.55bn will be made in October 2008.

Mr Burns called the aid package an "investment in peace", saying "peace cannot be made without strength".

"Needless to say, given Israel's predicament, living in a region that is very violent and unstable, its military edge is of interest to our country, and we've committed to that," he said.

The money must be used to purchase military equipment from the US defence industry, although Israel will also be permitted to use 26.3% to buy equipment from local companies.

The arrangement requires Congressional approval, but Mr Burns said he thought there would be little opposition, the Associated Press news agency reported.

'Iranian challenge'

After arriving in Jerusalem on Wednesday evening, Mr Burns met Mr Olmert briefly.

US ARMS AID TO ISRAEL
$30bn over 10 years
1st payment of $2.55bn in 2008
Annual payments rising to $3.1bn by 2011
26.3% can be spent in Israel
Rest must be spent on US arms

Mr Olmert asked the US envoy to thank President George W Bush and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, for their efforts in bringing about the accord.

"The aid agreement with the US is an important and significant component for Israel, and proves once again the depth of the relationship between the two countries and the United States' commitment to Israel's security, and to preserving its qualitative advantage over other countries in the Middle East," Mr Olmert said.

While he is in Israel, Mr Burns is also meeting Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defence Minister Ehud Barak and other Israeli officials for "discussions on regional security, including the challenge posed by Iran".

The Bush administration said last month that it was offering weapons aid to other countries in the region, including $20bn for Saudi Arabia, $13bn for Egypt and $20bn to be shared between Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...st/6948981.stm

Charlatan · 11-19-2007, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Thats something of a cop out I think.

'Give us everything we demand or we kill your civilians by strapping bombs to our young people' puts the blame pretty squarely on one side.

Peace with Israel is not in the Islamic leaders best interests, there will be no peace until this changes.

I don't see it quite as a cop out. I wasn't putting a ratio of 50:50 or 60:40 of who is more or less to blame.

I agree that the suicide bombings are wrong.

But, continuing to exacerbate the problem by colonizing the West Bank and Gaza doesn't help. Building the wall in such a way that it removes access to an already limited water supply doesn't help. Strip searching Palestinian men in front of women on a regular basis doesn't help.

The list goes on and no... these are not as *harsh* as suicide bombs. Not even close.

Palestine had a peace offer on the table after Oslo that would have given them 90 to 95% of what they wanted. The answer, instead of a counter offer, was a campaign of suicide bombing.

The problem with Palestine (in general) is that they do not look to the future and building new things. They look to the past and dream of revenge. This needs to change. They need to start loving life more than getting revenge. Part of that solution needs to come from Israel and the rest of the world. Another big part needs to come from within.

Ustwo · 11-19-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I don't see it quite as a cop out. I wasn't putting a ratio of 50:50 or 60:40 of who is more or less to blame.

I agree that the suicide bombings are wrong.

But, continuing to exacerbate the problem by colonizing the West Bank and Gaza doesn't help. Building the wall in such a way that it removes access to an already limited water supply doesn't help. Strip searching Palestinian men in front of women on a regular basis doesn't help.

The list goes on and no... these are not as *harsh* as suicide bombs. Not even close.

Palestine had a peace offer on the table after Oslo that would have given them 90 to 95% of what they wanted. The answer, instead of a counter offer, was a campaign of suicide bombing.

The problem with Palestine (in general) is that they do not look to the future and building new things. They look to the past and dream of revenge. This needs to change. They need to start loving life more than getting revenge. Part of that solution needs to come from Israel and the rest of the world. Another big part needs to come from within.

I think the biggest issue is from the other Islamic leaders. They want their people focused on Israel, its their buggaboo to help deflect their own internal issues. They have helped the bombings both directly and indirectly, giving money to suicide bomber families to supplying weapons.

Until THIS part of the equation changes I don't see anything happening to the Palestinian benefit, they are the pawns.

11-04-2007, 06:03 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Damn Jews, first Jesus, then the entertainment industry, now oil. I think its high time we stop supporting the one true democracy in the entire region. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-04-2007, 06:11 AM	#3 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	So you're saying that the $95/bbl is due to us being jewish friendly versus the supply and demand, ex. the increased usage of oil by China and India who have strong industries requiring more oil than ever before? __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

11-04-2007, 06:33 AM	#5 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110201659.html yes, it is mercifully short. I read from top to bottom and I did click the link that is labeled as a news.google.com, but it is actually a Washington Post link. I'm not sure what this means in the host world of what is acceptable or not acceptable journalism or if it even has any bearing on this particular discussion, since he's the OP. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

11-04-2007, 07:24 AM	#7 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	how is this a debate? how is it not just ustwo making a series of personal attacks on host (starting in number 4, flowering in number 6) that take cyn's posts as legitimation? the topic of american support for israel--particularly once you turn attention to gaza, the west bank and the modes of colonial occupation (from checkpoints to settlements and all that these imply)--is a particularly explosive one. because these debates tend to become emotional quickly, you would think it a good idea to proceed with more rather than less information to back your positions--and what do we have instead? nonsense. if you dont want there to be a serious debate about us-israel-palestine, why not just say it and be done with it? at least that way, you'd be taking a position on your own and maybe even saying something rather than indulging the tiresome game of sniping at the length of host's posts. i personally could not care less that ustwo finds scrolling to be an affliction. i really dont care. it is not an argument. it is not interesting. if you find the op to be a problem, make a substantive claim about it. this is nonsense. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 11-04-2007 at 07:30 AM..

11-04-2007, 08:36 AM	#9 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Rather than primarily support for Zionism, I consider our virtually unconditional support of Israel to be based more mundanely on our supporting of the only country in the ME that is like us. Israel is a reflection and thereby a validation of ourselves against the onslaught of alien cultures in our increasingly shrinking world. And no, I do not think it is right anymore than I think what my own country does in it's own interest in many places is right. That's not to say that I agree with the policies of our so-called 'enemies,' either. I tend to think everyone is fucked up. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

11-04-2007, 08:46 AM	#10 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	host, can you say something about why you think that reducing our support for Israel would affect oil prices? I'm not sure that I think that economic concerns alone are enough to affect such a major policy change, but I am curious as to what the link between the two might be. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

11-04-2007, 09:03 AM	#11 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	what one makes of the us-israel relation is a function of what one looks at. personally, i think israel should be understood as a nation-state like any other, one which has to abide by certain minimum standards for human rights and so which should be forced to end its occupation of the west bank, dismantle the settlements, take down the wall, take apart the checkpoints--change fundamentally its relations to the palestinian population. period. israel should be forced to stop its abuse of the population of gaza. period. it is self-evident that much of the planet understands the occupation as carried out by dual nation-states, to the extent that the americans unconditionally support israeli policy. that policy is shaped by rightwing governments who, like the bush administration, attempt to use the discourse of "terrorism" to maintain themselves in power, prevent a coherent evaluation of israeli actions vis-a-vis the palestinians... but it is self-evident that the interests of the israeli political right are not those of israel as a whole, that they do not represent anything like a representative cross-section of israeli public opinion. they represent more than anything else the power of the discourse of "terrorism" to shut down alternatives, lock in reactive and reactionary policies, and continue a repressive status quo--a situation which is expressed with particular clarity in the occupied territories. nothing coherent has happened since the bush people took power, and nothing coherent will happen until they are out of power. much of the appalling situation in gaza can be blamed squarely on a bush administration fuck up, its "assessment" of the implications of the hamas election, the refusal to consider that allowing hamas to take power and be able to exercise it would moderate them. too boxed in by the limitations of the discourse of "terrorism" to be rational, too boxed in by the history of us-israeli relations (glossed with whatever whackjob millenarian ideology has wafted up from the ranks of evangelical protestants). and the bush administration is the last collection of people on earth who could possibly be in a position to criticize another regime's use of the discourse of "terrorism" to prop itself up. so we have a unique combination of ideological paralysis and analytic incompetence in the bush regime and its policies--if you want to call them that--toward the israeli right, toward the israeli state dominated by the right. so it seems to me that this relation is ripe for a reconsideration--i am not sure that it will happen--but it should. it is still far too early in the presidential horse-race, far too much into the war of attrition geared around a conflation of the candidate with the deepest pockets with the candidate whose positions are most worthwhile for consideration as successor to the bush regime, to bother with trying to figure out who might most closely align with the need to rethink this relation. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 11-04-2007 at 09:07 AM..

11-04-2007, 09:08 AM	#12 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	And I agree with the observations that roachboy has taken the time to form into coherent sentences this morning. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

11-04-2007, 11:00 AM	#13 (permalink)
Rogue Element Upright Location: Arctic circle	An interesting, if misleading article you quoted there by Ruth Wise. I have to wonder if she has actually read Meirsheamer and Walt at all (not just this book, though it would be helpful). What they say is that the 'Israel Lobby' is in fact made up both of Jewish Americans, dual American/Israeli citizens and, the most overlooked and important faction, Christian Zionists. As for the argument that it 'hurts' US policy, again that is not explicitly what they say. Meirsheamer and Walt are Realists, in foreign political theory lingo, they have a world view that says basically the entire globe is an anarchic system and furthering any other nations goals without benefitting from it is dangerous. That's an important distinction, I feel. Because just as you have the well publicized and hawkish AIPAC, equally you have left wing Jewish groups, Jewish cultural groups etc who the US helps promote. Anything which does not help the USA and helps Israel is harmful, according to Walt and Meirsheamer, because international politics is a zero-sum game. Now, the problem is, if you don't believe that, then the hypothesis doesn't hold. As it happens, I don't believe that to be the case, and while I am sympathetic to certain aspects of classical Realism, I think Meirsheamer and Walt's worldviews lack sophistication. Anyway, onto supporting Israel. There are going to be costs to supporting Israel. It doesn't matter how right you think Israel deserves to exist, or whatever religious or political beliefs motivate you, this is a fact. The problem is of uncritical support, one-sided support, support regardless of what Israel does. That is what the US needs to change. It needs to recognize some people simply do not like the country or its policies (I have to admit, I don't like its current policies much either) and just because you think they're on the side of right doesn't mean Israel will automatically prevail. In fact, the moralizing black and white dichotomy which seems to grip US foreign policy may be the bigger problem here. But anyway, the point is that the US needs to think carefully about Middle Eastern policy. Move towards establishing a Palestinian state. Encourage NGOs to participate more in the region, building up a civil culture on which democracy for the region can be founded. Only by being an impartial actor in the region can the USA gain any respect as an arbiter in the conflict. Any other neutral nation lacks the resources to intervene in such a way. Standing by the side and going "well Israel is right and we must support it" is a conflict generating policy, because it solves nothing of the underlying systemic problems which cause conflict. __________________ < Prententious/insightful filler goes here >

11-04-2007, 02:04 PM	#15 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	These policies should have been rethought since the USS Liberty. I dont know how much could be repaired, so much damage has been done there will probably be blowback for generations. Being that Isael can obviosuly stand on its own; it would be more effective to stop giving away 3 billion a year that could be better spent here developing ways to stop having to pay $95 a drum. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

11-04-2007, 02:38 PM	#18 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I also wish you an enthusiastic welcome, Rogue Element. It's a rare thing that one of host's topics is treated respectfully with a response that carries the discussion forward. I believe our lack of an even handed foreign policy in the Middle East has had a direct impact on our economy, specifically because of our oil dependency. Our unwavering support of Israel has allowed the Palestinian issue to fester for decades and has won us nothing but resentment and distrust in the region. We treat the Arab and Persian nation states as some unworthy "other" which somehow justifies our intent to steal their resources. Our current occupation of Iraq and our escalating rhetoric toward Iran has directly impacted oil prices. Had we been honest brokers in the region from the beginning, these countries would be trading partners rather than "evil" as Bush has painted them. This thought may go too far astray from the OP, but I believe our unwavering support of Saudia Arabia has also had serious consequences to our well being as a nation. Our relationship with the House of Saud has contributed to the rise of Al'Q terrorism. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

11-15-2007, 02:54 PM	#22 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	If Israel disappeared tomorrow there would still be high oil prices. Supply and demand wasn't created by the jews and won't go away if they disappear. I find it interesting that the premise of the OP is that it's ok to leave a country of 7 million people to the tender mercies of genocidal neighbors because that will let us get cheap oil. The premise is wrong, but also horrifying. You don't have to agree with the particular steps Israel takes to protect itself, or even agree that all of them are necessary, to understand that there are many millions of people around them who want them dead and, given the chance, would do it without blinking.

11-17-2007, 12:40 AM	#24 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	As one of only a few working democracies in the middle east, the west needs to continue supporting Israel. That does not mean the support should be carte blanche. The US needs to work to keep Israel progressive and they need to ensure that Israel gets back to the table with Palestine. At the same time, Palestine needs to get their collective heads out of their assess. The deal that was on the table at the end of the Clinton administration was a good opening offer. It gave Palestine 90 to 95% of what they wanted. Their response, instead of a counter-offer, was suicide bombings. Neither side has clean hands in this affair. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

11-17-2007, 05:38 AM	#25 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	i was just rereading this thread and i thought that the zionist "punishment" by host's posit is being doled out to the rest of the world. since the markets are all linked and everyone is paying the same price for barrel of oil, how could the US alone be punished for these zionist connections? wouldn't this price fixing be exclusive to the US? but it isn't.... that alone shows that there is no zionist connections. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!