Israel Feeling Rising Anger From the U.S.

[ElNono]

Israel Feeling Rising Anger From the U.S. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/world/middleeast/16mideast.html?hp)
By MARK LANDLER and ETHAN BRONNER

WASHINGTON — An ill-timed municipal housing announcement in Jerusalem has mutated into one of the most serious conflicts between the United States and Israel in two decades, leaving a politically embarrassed Israeli government scrambling to respond to a tough list of demands by the Obama administration.

The Obama administration has put Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a difficult political spot at home by insisting that the Israeli government halt a plan to build housing units in East Jerusalem. The administration also wants Mr. Netanyahu to commit to substantive negotiations with the Palestinians, after more than a year in which the peace process has been moribund.

With the administration’s special envoy, George J. Mitchell, suddenly delaying his planned trip to Israel, the administration was expecting a call from Mr. Netanyahu, after a tense exchange last week with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

On Monday, however, Mr. Netanyahu sounded a defiant note, telling the Israeli Parliament that construction of Jewish housing in Jerusalem was not a matter for negotiation.

He is struggling to balance an increasingly unhappy ally in Washington with the restive right wing of his coalition government.

The prospects for peace in the Middle East seemed murkier than ever, as a year’s worth of frustration on the part of President Obama and his aides seemed to boil over in its furious response to the housing announcement, which spoiled a visit to Israel by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

“What happened to the vice president in Israel was unprecedented,” said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Where it goes from here depends on the Israelis.”

But the diplomatic standoff also has repercussions for the Obama administration. Its blunt criticism of Israel — delivered publicly by Mrs. Clinton in two television interviews on Friday and reiterated Sunday by Mr. Obama’s political adviser, David Axelrod — has set off a storm in Washington, with pro-Israel groups and several prominent lawmakers criticizing the administration for unfairly singling out a staunch American ally.

“Let’s cut the family fighting,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut. “It’s unnecessary; it’s destructive of our shared national interest. It’s time to lower voices, to get over the family feud between the U.S. and Israel. It just doesn’t serve anybody’s interests but our enemies’.”

Relations between Israel and the United States have been uneasy ever since Mr. Obama took office with a plan to rekindle the peace process by coupling a demand for a full freeze in Jewish settlement construction with reciprocal confidence-building gestures by Arab countries.

Neither happened, and Mr. Obama, who is not as popular in Israel as he is elsewhere around the world, was forced last September to make do with Mr. Netanyahu’s offer of a 10-month partial moratorium on settlements in the West Bank. But the president was outraged by the announcement of 1,600 housing units in an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem during Mr. Biden’s visit, administration officials said.

Mr. Obama was deeply involved in the strategy and planning for Mr. Biden’s visit and orchestrated the response from Mr. Biden and Mrs. Clinton after it went awry, these officials said.

The administration has used language intended to telegraph anger, defining the dispute not only in terms of the damage it could cause to the peace process but to the American relationship with Israel.

“That is a whole different order of magnitude of importance,” said Daniel Levy, a former peace negotiator who is senior fellow and head of the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation, a research group.

The last time relations between the United States and Israel became this strained, analysts said, was when James A. Baker, then secretary of state, clashed with the Israeli government in the early 1990s, also over settlement policy. The United States ended up withholding loan guarantees from Israel for a time.

Mr. Netanyahu said the announcement of the housing development had surprised even him, and he apologized for its timing. But Mr. Obama feels that Mr. Netanyahu should have been in clearer control of the construction process and that he should have done what was needed to stop it, according to officials in Jerusalem and Washington.

There is a feeling among officials in Washington that the Netanyahu government does not fully grasp how angry Obama officials have grown. But there are signs that it is sinking in.

The Israeli ambassador in Washington, Michael B. Oren, used the word “crisis” about his country’s relations with Washington for the first time since taking up his job last year, in a telephone briefing to colleagues over the weekend, according to an Israeli official.

Still, American and Israeli officials also made clear that the core security issues binding the two countries were not in jeopardy, and that what was happening was closer to a married couple having a bad fight rather than seeking a divorce.

In the murky vocabulary of diplomacy, the scheduled talks due to start under American supervision are viewed by the Israelis mostly as “proximity” discussions, in other words procedural talks rather than substantive negotiations. But the Palestinians want the discussions to be as substantive as possible, an approach Mrs. Clinton demanded in her call to Mr. Netanyahu on Friday.

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said in an interview in his Ramallah office that the Palestinians and Israelis had exhausted direct negotiations and that it was time for America to take a more direct role. “We have a trust level below zero between the two sides,” he said.

The settlement episode has enabled the administration to turn the tables on Mr. Netanyahu, some analysts say. But the question is whether it will be able to extract more concessions from him now.

“The heart of the matter is whether the proximity talks are going to be productive, in the sense of opening a corridor to direct negotiations that will lead to a peace agreement,” said Martin Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel.

The timing of the dispute could not be more awkward for the administration, coming a week before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most influential pro-Israel lobbying group, meets in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu and Mrs. Clinton are both scheduled to speak to the group, which has condemned the White House’s tough stance.

Mr. Biden may meet with Mr. Netanyahu while he is here, officials said. But there is no meeting planned between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu because the president will be traveling in Indonesia and Australia, a conflict which one official joked suits the administration well right now. “This may not be the best time for a face-to-face,” he said.

[Winehole23]

In connection with this contretemps, what Gen. Petraeus said to Adm. Mullen and Mullen relayed to Israel wrt the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is striking:


The Petraeus briefing: Biden’s embarrassment is not the whole story

Posted By Mark Perry http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/091022_meta_block.gif Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 11:05 PM

On Jan. 16, two days after a killer earthquake hit Haiti, a team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command (responsible for overseeing American security interests in the Middle East), arrived at the Pentagon to brief Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The team had been dispatched by CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus to underline his growing worries at the lack of progress in resolving the issue. The 33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing stunned Mullen. The briefers reported that there was a growing perception among Arab leaders that the U.S. was incapable of standing up to Israel, that CENTCOM's mostly Arab constituency was losing faith in American promises, that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region, and that Mitchell himself was (as a senior Pentagon officer later bluntly described it) "too old, too slow ... and too late."

The January Mullen briefing was unprecedented. No previous CENTCOM commander had ever expressed himself on what is essentially a political issue; which is why the briefers were careful to tell Mullen that their conclusions followed from a December 2009 tour of the region where, on Petraeus's instructions, they spoke to senior Arab leaders. "Everywhere they went, the message was pretty humbling," a Pentagon officer familiar with the briefing says. "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." But Petraeus wasn't finished: two days after the Mullen briefing, Petraeus sent a paper to the White House requesting that the West Bank and Gaza (which, with Israel, is a part of the European Command -- or EUCOM), be made a part of his area of operations. Petraeus's reason was straightforward: with U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military had to be perceived by Arab leaders as engaged in the region's most troublesome conflict.

[UPDATE: A senior military officer denied Sunday that Petraeus sent a paper to the White House.

"CENTCOM did have a team brief the CJCS on concerns revolving around the Palestinian issue, and CENTCOM did propose a UCP change, but to CJCS, not to the WH," the officer said via email. "GEN Petraeus was not certain what might have been conveyed to the WH (if anything) from that brief to CJCS."

(UCP means "unified combatant command," like CENTCOM; CJCS refers to Mullen; and WH is the White House.)]

The Mullen briefing and Petraeus's request hit the White House like a bombshell. While Petraeus's request that CENTCOM be expanded to include the Palestinians was denied ("it was dead on arrival," a Pentagon officer confirms), the Obama administration decided it would redouble its efforts -- pressing Israel once again on the settlements issue, sending Mitchell on a visit to a number of Arab capitals and dispatching Mullen for a carefully arranged meeting with the chief of the Israeli General Staff, Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi. While the American press speculated that Mullen's trip focused on Iran, the JCS Chairman actually carried a blunt, and tough, message on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that Israel had to see its conflict with the Palestinians "in a larger, regional, context" -- as having a direct impact on America's status in the region. Certainly, it was thought, Israel would get the message.

Israel didn't.http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not _the_whole_story

[Wild Cobra]

Typical authoritarians in our government.

[Winehole23]

How so?

By authoritarians am I to take it you mean Petraeus and Mullen?

[Wild Cobra]

How so?

By authoritarians am I to take it you mean Petraeus and Mullen?
Hell no. President Obama thinking he knows how to make things work over there.

[ElNono]

Hell no. President Obama thinking he knows how to make things work over there.

Like when we invaded Iraq?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

[Winehole23]

Hell no. President Obama thinking he knows how to make things work over there.For example, by sending Adm. Mullen to convey the effect Israel's intransigeance in the peace process has on the credibility and prestige of US forces in the region?

Or maybe the WH denying CENTCOM's (i.e., Petraeus's) request to include the West Bank and Gaza in it's sphere of operations.

Was that too authoritarian for you?

Expressing official US displeasure at the announcement of new settlements in East Jerusalem during the VP's visit. Was that over the line?

What exactly are you bitching about, WC? Good friends sometimes disagree, or have divergent interests. That's what this furore really seems to be about to me.

[sook]

WC...don't be a fucking moron, did you even read the article?

Israel NEEDS to remain an ally, but they are being reckless right now!

[RandomGuy]

I guess we will get to see just how powerful the pro-Israeli lobby is.

I have said for years that what is in Israel's best interests is not what is in American best interests. I think sometimes we have lost sight of that.

[ploto]

I have said for years that what is in Israel's best interests is not what is in American best interests. I think sometimes we have lost sight of that.

I agree.

[nkdlunch]

this is all planned. Israel and US get in a "fight", Israel attacks Iran, US comes as "mediator" and everything is well.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Its amazing how Israel seems to have the US by the balls these days. Seriously now, how exactly does the US benefit from the Israel/US relationship? 'cause it seems to me Israel doesn't really seem to have the US best interests at heart.

[nkdlunch]

Its amazing how Israel seems to have the US by the balls these days. Seriously now, how exactly does the US benefit from the Israel/US relationship? 'cause it seems to me Israel doesn't really seem to have the US best interests at heart.

you forgot about the thousands of Jewish millionaires that fund entire US political campaigns?

[ploto]

...over one-third of those Americans who support Israel report that they do so because they believe the Bible teaches that the Jews must possess their own country in the Holy Land before Jesus can return....

Their beliefs are rooted in dispensationalism, a particular way of understanding the Bible's prophetic passages, especially those in Daniel and Ezekiel in the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation in the New Testament. They make up about one-third of America's 40 or 50 million evangelical Christians and believe that the nation of Israel will play a central role in the unfolding of end-times events. In the last part of the 20th century, dispensationalist evangelicals become Israel's best friends-an alliance that has made a serious geopolitical difference...

Dispensationalists believe that the Temple is coming too; and their convictions have led them to support the aims and actions of what most Israelis believe are the most dangerous right-wing elements in their society, people whose views make any compromise necessary for lasting peace impossible...

According to the prophetic texts, partitioning is not in Israel's future, even if the creation of a Palestinian state is the best chance for peace in the region. Peace is nowhere prophesied for the Middle East, until Jesus comes and brings it himself. The worse thing that the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations can do is force Israel to give up land for a peace that will never materialize this side of the second coming. Anyone who pushes for peace in such a manner is ignoring or defying God's plan for the end of the age.


http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/End-Times/On-The-Road-To-Armageddon.aspx

[Oh, Gee!!]

WC...don't be a fucking moron, did you even read the article?



no, he heard about what he should think about it from Rush

[symple19]

Netanyahu makes me sick, and the Israelis are becoming more and more of a nuisance. Stop building fucking settlements, and stick to defending what you already have. I am somewhat sympathetic to them having to deal with constant security threats, but so many of those could be mitigated by reigning in the loony, conservative, hard-liners in their government.

The US should start taking a harder line, and when AIPAC starts whining about it, give em' the middle finger. (yeah, right)

The US should also make very clear that Northern Iraq is off-fucking-limits to any Israeli aircraft, as is Turkish (and thereby NATO) airspace. This is in regard to any Israeli attempt to act out against Iran. If they violate it, shoot em' the fuck down and teach them a lesson, one they wouldn't soon forget

[EVAY]

I see this as a direct challenge to Obama, and he needs to address at least as forcefully as he is, and perhaps more.

Israel is an ally worth having. They should not, however, be the determinant of all US foreign diplomacy in the region.

[EVAY]

Typical authoritarians in our government.

WTF? Man this doesn't even make any sense!!

[coyotes_geek]

Its amazing how Israel seems to have the US by the balls these days. Seriously now, how exactly does the US benefit from the Israel/US relationship? 'cause it seems to me Israel doesn't really seem to have the US best interests at heart.

I wouldn't say Israel has the US by the balls. We're using them as much as they're using us. Israel uses the U.S. as the big brother who will come and beat the shit out of any nation that tries to fuck with them. The U.S. uses Israel as the hired muscle who can go mix it up with Hamas and other assorted "meanies" that we don't like, thus allowing us to keep our hands clean.

[Wild Cobra]

WC...don't be a fucking moron, did you even read the article?

Israel NEEDS to remain an ally, but they are being reckless right now!

No, like always, the democrats are being stupid when it comes to Israel.

[Wild Cobra]

this is all planned. Israel and US get in a "fight", Israel attacks Iran, US comes as "mediator" and everything is well.
Israel doesn't need an excuse to attack Iran. I'll bet they have strike plane in place, and are just waiting for enough information collected to show the world they are right in doing so.

[Wild Cobra]

Its amazing how Israel seems to have the US by the balls these days. Seriously now, how exactly does the US benefit from the Israel/US relationship? 'cause it seems to me Israel doesn't really seem to have the US best interests at heart.
How do their actions affect ours? They are all about protecting their own nation. Our politicians don't have a clue to what they deal with. When it comes to how Israel deals with it's neighbors, I think they are real softies.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/End-Times/On-The-Road-To-Armageddon.aspx

The worse thing that the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations can do is force Israel to give up land for a peace that will never materialize this side of the second coming.
Now I agree with this, but not for biblical reasons per se. I see it that the countries around Israel believe it is necessary to destroy Israel. Until the Muslims can be convinced that their religion is wrong, there will never be peace over there. Any concessions by Israel are a fools errand.

[Wild Cobra]

no, he heard about what he should think about it from Rush
Who did you hear it from that anyone who believes as Rush does heard it from Rush?

You are a total fucking moron. Did you know that? I don't listen to Rush. I have maybe tuned in to his show once this year. I only turn the radio on when I'm in the car, and I am seldom in the car during the hours of his show.

[ChumpDumper]

No, like always, the democrats are being stupid when it comes to Israel.What is being smart when it comes to Israel?

Letting them dictate our foreign policy for us and giving them $3 billion a year for that privilege?

[George Gervin's Afro]

How do their actions affect ours? They are all about protecting their own nation. Our politicians don't have a clue to what they deal with. When it comes to how Israel deals with it's neighbors, I think they are real softies.

And you have a better idea than our politicians?

Is it ok to embarass your allies? Oh wait, I am speaking to Mr. "freedom Fries' himself..never mind. You obviously like embarassing our allies when they agree with you but you are also ok with them embarassing the US.. how patriotic of you..

[Wild Cobra]

Netanyahu makes me sick, and the Israelis are becoming more and more of a nuisance.

How are they a nuisance? What have they done to you?


Stop building fucking settlements, and stick to defending what you already have.

They are at a constant state of war. Hell, I would simply bulldoze away from my border as far as those mortars can go and plant some surface crop, or daiseys. Unless their neighboring nations are going to stop attacking them, I say Israel has the right to fight back as they see fit.


I am somewhat sympathetic to them having to deal with constant security threats, but so many of those could be mitigated by reigning in the loony, conservative, hard-liners in their government.

Then go over there and become a human shield.


The US should start taking a harder line, and when AIPAC starts whining about it, give em' the middle finger. (yeah, right)

Are you a Nazi? Are you a Muslim?


The US should also make very clear that Northern Iraq is off-fucking-limits to any Israeli aircraft, as is Turkish (and thereby NATO) airspace.

Bad move. Israel would fly over if they needed to anyway, giving the middle finger all the way.


This is in regard to any Israeli attempt to act out against Iran. If they violate it, shoot em' the fuck down and teach them a lesson, one they wouldn't soon forget

Why don't you move back where you belong, to Iran?

[George Gervin's Afro]

How are they a nuisance? What have they done to you?

They are at a constant state of war. Hell, I would simply bulldoze away from my border as far as those mortars can go and plant some surface crop, or daiseys. Unless their neighboring nations are going to stop attacking them, I say Israel has the right to fight back as they see fit.

Then go over there and become a human shield.

Are you a Nazi? Are you a Muslim?

Bad move. Israel would fly over if they needed to anyway, giving the middle finger all the way.

Why don't you move back where you belong, to Iran?

WC is losing it..:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I see this as a direct challenge to Obama, and he needs to address at least as forcefully as he is, and perhaps more.

Israel is an ally worth having. They should not, however, be the determinant of all US foreign diplomacy in the region.
US diplomacy should not try to circumvent what Israel thinks is best for them. We are not a very good ally when we try to impose elitist liberal values on them.

[ChumpDumper]

US diplomacy should not try to circumvent what Israel thinks is best for them. We are not a very good ally when we try to impose elitist liberal values on them.WC believes the US is at its best when it cowers in fealty to its Israeli overlords.

[Wild Cobra]

WC believes the US is at its best when it cowers in fealty to its Israeli overlords.
Wow...

What an imagination you have to extrapolate such a view. Sounds like something a 3rd grader may come up with.

[ChumpDumper]

Wow...

What an imagination you have to extrapolate such a view. Sounds like something a 3rd grader may come up with.You should probably review your responses to symple19 before declaring another poster immature.

Tell us all your perfect Mideast foreign policy.

[mogrovejo]

I have said for years that what is in Israel's best interests is not what is in American best interests. I think sometimes we have lost sight of that.


I agree.

Why?

[mogrovejo]

Israel should keeping going against an

THis administration bends over American enemies that adopt hard stances against American interests and is belligerent towards traditional American allies. I still remember when according to some experts here it was a smart move to defer to Russia in the ABM issue because it would buy the Kremlin cooperation with Iran. We've seen how that worked.

So, it's obvious in the bests interests of Israel to act against the America interests as much as possible.

[Winehole23]

Why?Because the US and Israel are not the same country. The two national interests are not completely coextensive.

[ChumpDumper]

Israel should keeping going against an

THis administration bends over American enemies that adopt hard stances against American interests and is belligerent towards traditional American allies. I still remember when according to some experts here it was a smart move to defer to Russia in the ABM issue because it would buy the Kremlin cooperation with Iran. We've seen how that worked.

So, it's obvious in the bests interests of Israel to act against the America interests as much as possible.Good, then we can stop giving them billions of dollars.

It's no longer in our interest.

[mogrovejo]

Obama has crossed the line (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=171110)

By ISI LEIBLER
16/03/2010 06:42
Recent hostile outbursts by the US gov't must be viewed in the context that the US-Israel relationship has been on a downward spiral since Obama.

The bureaucratic fashla of our dysfunctional government to forestall the announcement of a new housing project in Jerusalem during the visit of US Vice President Joe Biden provided a pretext for the Obama administration to launch one of the harshest condemnations ever leveled against us by a US government. But while the timing of the announcement was appalling, it involved no breach of undertaking.

In fact, the Obama administration had previously publicly praised the Israeli government for making a “major concession” by imposing a settlement freeze which explicitly excluded Jerusalem.

The campaign was personally orchestrated by President Barack Obama. His Vice President Biden accused us of “endangering US lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Despite Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s abject apology, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused him of “insulting” the US. Obama’s chief political adviser David Axelrod even claimed that the Israeli government was deliberately undermining peace talks.
[B]
These hostile outbursts must be viewed in the context of the fact that despite strong ongoing support for Israel by the American people, the US-Israel relationship has been on a downward spiral since the election of the new administration. Former Mossad head Ephraim Halevy attributes this to Obama’s determination to rehabilitate Islam’s global tarnished image.

Yet his strategy of “engaging” Islamic rogue states has been disastrous. The effort to prevent the nuclearization of Iran by appeasing the Iranian tyrants backfired with the ayatollahs literally mocking the US. The response of Syrian President Bashar Assad to US groveling and the appointment of an ambassador to Damascus, was to host a summit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hizbullah terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah and ridicule the US demand that he curtail his relationship with Iran. President Obama did not consider this “insulting,” prompting the editor of the Lebanese The Daily Star to say that “the Obama administration these days provokes little confidence in its allies and even less fear in its adversaries.”

The Arab League refuses to modify its hard-line against Israel. It insists that Israel unconditionally accept the Saudi peace plan, a full retreat to the ‘67 borders and the implementation of the Arab right of return which would signal an end to Jewish sovereignty in the region.

THERE ARE now ominous signals that to obviate their failures, White House strategists are cynically distancing themselves from us in order to curry popularity by capitalizing on the anti-Israeli hatred which has engulfed the world.

Despite continuously incanting the mantra that it remains committed to the alliance with Israel, the White House is not behaving in an even-handed manner. Obama does not disguise his animosity and repeatedly humiliates our prime minister. The administration “condemns” us for building homes, not in densely Arab populated areas of Jerusalem but in Jewish suburbs like Gilo and most recently Ramat Shlomo which most of us regard as Israel no less than Tel Aviv.

Instead of condemning the brutal Palestinian murderer of an Israeli civilian in December, the US requested “clarification” after Israel apprehended the killers who the PA extolled as heroes. They failed to block a UN Security Council resolution criticizing Israeli police for protecting worshippers at the Temple Mount from Arabs hurling stones at them. They even condemned us for authorizing repairs on Jewish heritage sites over the Green Line.

In stark contrast, the US has not publicly reprimanded the PA on a single issue over the past twelve months. It is unconscionable that neither the White House nor the State Department conveyed a word of protest concerning the ongoing incitement and spate of ceremonies sanctifying the memory of the most degenerate suicide killers and mass murderers. Not even when our peace partners President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad personally partook in these ghoulish ceremonies. In fact, during Biden’s visit, the PA announced that they would postpone a ceremony to name a public square in Ramallah to honor Dalal Mughrabi, the female monster responsible for the abominable 1978 massacre in which 37 Israelis including 13 children were butchered. Nevertheless the ceremony took place and the PA TV interviewed Mughrabi’s sister who stated: “This is a day of glory and pride for the Palestinian people. We must unite, and our rifles must unite, against the enemy who steals our land.” The US failed to register a protest.

NETANYAHU HAS extended more concessions than any other Israeli leader. His government immediately agreed to negotiations with the Palestinians. In contrast, Abbas told The Washington Post that being confident that the US would ensure that the Palestinians obtained whatever they sought, he saw no benefit in negotiating with the Israelis. This scenario is now being realized.

Netanyahu also overcame Likud resistance to a two-state solution and acceded to a temporary settlement freeze which no previous Israeli government was willing to consider. He authorized the release of prisoners and reduced checkpoints, even compromising the security of Israeli civilians.

Yet, far from acting as an honest broker, the US effectively endorsed most of the Palestinian positions and is poised to pressure Israel into making further unilateral concessions.

In a recent chilling document, reiterated by Biden in the course of his condemnation of construction in Jerusalem, the US assured the PA that the principal objective of the “indirect” negotiations was not peace, but the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and that parties who adopted negative positions would be dealt with “in order to overcome that obstacle.”

Our relations with the US will now be further tested.

Obama is surely aware that recent statements by his administration will only embolden the Palestinians and Jihadists to be more extreme in their demands, making it inevitable that the talks will almost certainly fail. Some may infer that this is precisely his intention. We will then be blamed for the breakdown and the US, with the backing of the Quartet and others, will then seek to impose a solution upon us.

There are certain red lines which no government of Israel may cross. Netanyahu, on this occasion, must stand firm. The current crisis transcends political or ideological differences between Likud, Labor and Kadima. All mainstream parties should unite and convey to President Obama that Israel is a sovereign state and will not automatically bow to diktats of the US administration. They need to make the US administration and public understand that no government of Israel will agree to freeze construction in Jerusalem, the heart and soul of the Jewish people.

We may not be a superpower but the Obama administration will hesitate to pursue a path which rejects the consensus of the nation. A demonstration of unity against the unprecedented attacks on Israel’s sovereignty by the Obama administration will also encourage the American people and Congress to publicly support and assist us to reaffirm the traditional alliance and bonds of friendship between our two nations.

It will hopefully also encourage the Obama administration to relate to us with at least the same level of courtesy and respect it extends to rogue states.

[lefty]

Now I agree with this, but not for biblical reasons per se. I see it that the countries around Israel believe it is necessary to destroy Israel. Until the Muslims can be convinced that their religion is wrong, there will never be peace over there. Any concessions by Israel are a fools errand.
You are such an ignorant moron :rollin

[ChumpDumper]

Simple solution, Israel: stop cashing our checks.

[Wild Cobra]

You are such an ignorant moron :rollin
Thank-You.

That's a compliment coming from you. If you had said I was intelligence, I would be worried with that coming from your viewpoint.

[Winehole23]

Once the US lobbies Israel on behalf of it's own interests in the region, it is hysterically accused of not playing evenhandedly and capitulating to anti-semitism and Muslim extremism.

For merely disagreeing and expressing official displeasure at a rather obvious faux pas on the part of Israel. Right.

[lefty]

Thank-You.

That's a compliment coming from you. If you had said I was intelligence, I would be worried with that coming from your viewpoint.
Pfft... :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Obama has crossed the line (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=171110) I'm sure one can find a Palestinian editorial that's just as pissy.

Still no explanation as to why Israel needs to be so reflexively obeyed by the US.

[mogrovejo]

The double-standard and the anti-Israel prejudice is unbelievable. The inability of this Administration to stand up a single time against radical Palestinians - not even a word of protest for their barbarian acts - is appalling.

One cant' avoid wonder why all this hatred towards Israel. Why can't Obama at least act neutral?

[mogrovejo]

Maybe what he really wants is to interfere in the internal political process in Israel? Maybe that was the point of Leibler editorial.

It seems to me that if this is the case this Administration isn't being very bright and their efforts will backfire - as per usual.

Not to mention the factoid of using public resources and the diplomatic and governmental apparatus (and prestige) of the republic to aid a political ally in a foreign country.

[ChumpDumper]

The double-standard and the anti-Israel prejudice is unbelievable. The inability of this Administration to stand up a single time against radical Palestinians - not even a word of protest for their barbarian acts - is appalling.

One cant' avoid wonder why all this hatred towards Israel. Why can't Obama at least act neutral?Why does the US need to condemn every perceived slight on both sides?

What does that accomplish?

Does it get Israel closer to its claimed objective of peace?


Maybe what he really wants is to interfere in the internal political process in Israel? Maybe that was the point of Leibler editorial.

It seems to me that if this is the case this Administration isn't being very bright and their efforts will backfire - as per usual.

Not to mention the factoid of using public resources and the diplomatic and governmental apparatus (and prestige) of the republic to aid a political ally in a foreign country.Stop whining or stop cashing the checks.

Or both.

[Wild Cobra]

The double-standard and the anti-Israel prejudice is unbelievable. The inability of this Administration to stand up a single time against radical Palestinians - not even a word of protest for their barbarian acts - is appalling.

One cant' avoid wonder why all this hatred towards Israel. Why can't Obama at least act neutral?
Maybe it comes from his "Muslim faith?" Before someone jumps on me for that, remember, his own words... "My Muslim Faith."

[Bigzax]

why fight a lost cause.

[Winehole23]

The double-standard and the anti-Israel prejudice is unbelievable. The inability of this Administration to stand up a single time against radical Palestinians - not even a word of protest for their barbarian acts - is appalling. Just last month, straight from the horse's mouth:


Hamas's firing of Iranian-made rockets at civilian targets in the South "has to be brought to a stop," US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama told The Jerusalem Post after completing a tour of Sderot on Wednesday.
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=108717

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe it comes from his "Muslim faith?" Before someone jumps on me for that, remember, his own words... "My Muslim Faith."You're a disingenuous twat.

[mogrovejo]

It seems the US is now lead by such an inept guy that he can't even stop writing checks, if he desires to do so. Amazing. That kind of person is usually found in a Salvation Army hospice.

[ChumpDumper]

It seems the US is now lead by such an inept guy that he can't even stop writing checks, if he desires to do so. Amazing. That kind of person is usually found in a Salvation Army hospice.Israel keeps cashing them and provoking its enemies.

Amazing.

[Wild Cobra]

You're a disingenuous twat.
How can you compare me to a Traveling Wave Amplifier Tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWT)? That was it's acronym until the tea-bagger renaming mentality came along.

Yes, I have played with TWATs... Both types.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It seems the US is now lead by such an inept guy that he can't even stop writing checks, if he desires to do so. Amazing. That kind of person is usually found in a Salvation Army hospice.

Is insulting an ally a bad thing to do?

[mogrovejo]

Of course, during the campaign Obama was much more Israel friendly, but I suppose that by now everybody is conformed to his legendary duplicity and hypocrisy.

Obviously ,their fanatical fanboys are so excited with any perceived criticism of this Administration, especially when it also collides with their prejudices, that they'll flat out lie and pathetically try to transform what Obama did as a candidate more than 1 year ago is passed as what he did just last month.

[Wild Cobra]

Is insulting an ally a bad thing to do?
In this case, it's retarded, or should I say Libtarded?

[ChumpDumper]

How can you compare me to a Traveling Wave Amplifier Tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWT)? That was it's acronym until the tea-bagger renaming mentality came along.

Yes, I have played with TWATs... Both types.I am not calling you an amplifier tube.

I'll stick with idiot if that makes it more clear to you.

You are a disingenuous idiot.

[Wild Cobra]

I am not calling you an amplifier tube.

I'll stick with idiot if that makes it more clear to you.

You are a disingenuous idiot.
Well, they day a libtard like you thinks I'm smart, I'll start to worry.

[George Gervin's Afro]

In this case, it's retarded, or should I say Libtarded?

Wow the US is insulted and the obama haters (very patriotic before Obama) now side with another country...

[mogrovejo]

Is insulting an ally a bad thing to do?

Well, not necessarily, but if you want to keep allies, it's very probably a bad thing to do. Unless the insult is not on purpose, in that case an apology should suffice.

This administration cant' keep treating all their allies without any kind of courtesy and then don't expect to be paid in the same fashion.

[ChumpDumper]

Of course, during the campaign Obama was much more Israel friendly, but I suppose that by now everybody is conformed to his legendary duplicity and hypocrisy.

Obviously ,their fanatical fanboys are so excited with any perceived criticism of this Administration, especially when it also collides with their prejudices, that they'll flat out lie and pathetically try to transform what Obama did as a candidate more than 1 year ago is passed as what he did just last month.You seem to be just as fanatical a fanboy of Israel, with strong prejudices of your own.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, not necessarily, but if you want to keep allies, it's very probably a bad thing to do.

This administration cant' keep treating all their allies without any kind of courtesy and then don't expect to be paid in the same fashion.So Israel will stop cashing the checks?

Is this the threat?

[Wild Cobra]

Wow the US is insulted and the obama haters (very patriotic before Obama) now side with another country...
How was the US insulted? Maybe the leftist elites, but surely not the USA.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Of course, during the campaign Obama was much more Israel friendly, but I suppose that by now everybody is conformed to his legendary duplicity and hypocrisy.

Obviously ,their fanatical fanboys are so excited with any perceived criticism of this Administration, especially when it also collides with their prejudices, that they'll flat out lie and pathetically try to transform what Obama did as a candidate more than 1 year ago is passed as what he did just last month.



So now you are complaining about broken campaign promises? Were you born yesterday or something? You do realize he isn't the first to do so.. I figure you do but you seem to lack any intellectual honesty like all of the other Obama haters...

[nkdlunch]

How was the US insulted? Maybe the leftist elites, but surely not the USA.

wow you are stupid. If you had any comprehension skills you would understand how Israel insulted USA. (Hint: announce their "settlement" plans the day the USA VP is in town)

[ChumpDumper]

Obama was supposed to keep his campaign promises to Israeli citizens. That's how it's supposed to be in the United States, right?

[mogrovejo]

So now you are complaining about broken campaign promises? Were you born yesterday or something? You do realize he isn't the first to do so.. I figure you do but you seem to lack any intellectual honesty like all of the other Obama haters...

I'm not an Obama hater, I complain about broken promises regardless of who's breaking them.

Why dont' you want people to criticize Obama if he's the one fucking up? That's weir to me. I don't have that kind of attitude, sorry.

Your idea that a politician shouldn't be criticized because others have done the same in the past is pretty weird. Are you sure you've never criticized politicians under the same conditions? Or are you being an hypocrite?

[Wild Cobra]

Have any of you liberals visited Israel, or do only conservatives vacation there? Maybe you should experience a few days there before to try to take your Utopian ideas of peace to them.

[clambake]

they have no real interest in peace.

[ChumpDumper]

Have any of you liberals visited Israel, or do only conservatives vacation there? Maybe you should experience a few days there before to try to take your Utopian ideas of peace to them.Can they be sovereign without $3 billion a year from us?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Have any of you liberals visited Israel, or do only conservatives vacation there? Maybe you should experience a few days there before to try to take your Utopian ideas of peace to them.

Why do they need our help then? Why not just stop taking our money and handle the security situation on their own?

[Winehole23]

they'll flat out lie and pathetically try to transform what Obama did as a candidate more than 1 year ago is passed as what he did just last month.Fooled by the time stamp, and by not reading past the lede. My bad.

Still, Obama condemned Hamas rocket attacks in January of last year, and more or less held his tongue during Cast Lead.

The State Department had this to say a couple of days ago:

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/11/1011047/state-slams-israel-on-blockade-palestinians-on-hatred

On the whole, your own contention that Obama hasn't uttered "not a single word" against Palestinian atrocities appears to be factually challenged. Your penchant for exaggeration is showing. Again.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do they need our help then? Why not just stop taking our money and handle the security situation on their own?
Why do you need the government's help? Why do we borrow from China?

We simply lend at a lower rate than other nations I bet. If we do give them money, someone thinks it's in the national interest. Ask them. I have no desire to give them money.

[ChumpDumper]

Why do you need the government's help? Why do we borrow from China?

We simply lend at a lower rate than other nations I bet. If we do give them money, someone thinks it's in the national interest. Ask them. I have no desire to give them money.So you are in favor of cutting off all aid to Israel?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why do you need the government's help? Why do we borrow from China?

We simply lend at a lower rate than other nations I bet. If we do give them money, someone thinks it's in the national interest. Ask them. I have no desire to give them money.

I'll answer the question for you. They need our help far more than we need theirs so it would be to their benefit to not piss us off.

[Wild Cobra]

So you are in favor of cutting off all aid to Israel?
Before I answer that, I have to assess the reasons better. I am currently reviewing:

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel
Jeremy M. Sharp
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
December 4, 2009 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf)

[Ignignokt]

Never ever mistake me for having any love for jews.

But i am pro israeli only because i understand the dogs arab leaders and fanatics are. I don't support them for being "God's People", i support them for having won their right to their land since the 67 war, which they won. It's their land. If the arabs want to take back some of that land, tell them to go fuck themselves. They waged a war, they should live by the results.

Israel should not give up any part of it's land just to appease the arabs ridiculous demands to have the right of arab return only to endanger the israeli populace once they lose their sovereignty. Their demands are irrational. Us telling them to act and play along is idiotic and a waste of time.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT...

We are funding them, a little common courtesy would be nice. And they should respect us.

But now i'm starting to get fed up with these shitheads in Israel and the AIPAC.

That's what you get for supporting a guy with a muslim background, who attended a church that had antisemitic rants. You jews deserve everything you get for being so dumb to take a chance with Barrack OBama.

No sympathy for AIPAC and it's treasonous travelers who have spyed on our country.

[ChumpDumper]

Before I answer that, I have to assess the reasons better. I am currently reviewing:

U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel
Jeremy M. Sharp
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
December 4, 2009 (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf)
So it's safe to say this:

I have no desire to give them money.
was bullshit.

[Wild Cobra]

So it's safe to say this:


I have no desire to give them money.
was bullshit.
LOL...

Do you know how to parse sentences? Sometime necessity outweighs desire.

[Ignignokt]

Chumpdumper is king of nothing and sucks at everything, but WC...

U 2 need to read the article before you spout shit. You look retarded.

[nkdlunch]

Israel should not give up any part of it's land just to appease the arabs ridiculous demands to have the right of arab return only to endanger the israeli populace once they lose their sovereignty. Their demands are irrational. Us telling them to act and play along is idiotic and a waste of time.


Israel should also not take any land that is not theirs. Which they have been doing and obviously plan to continue doing, thus the reason uncle Sam is pissed off

[mogrovejo]

Israel should also not take any land that is not theirs. Which they have been doing and obviously plan to continue doing, thus the reason uncle Sam is pissed off

Which land has Israel took that isn't theirs?

[Wild Cobra]

Israel should also not take any land that is not theirs. Which they have been doing and obviously plan to continue doing, thus the reason uncle Sam is pissed off
Like I said. Bulldoze down all the places mortars can be fired from. Would that be better than having communities that can watch for the mortars? Is that more acceptable to you?

[Ignignokt]

Israel should also not take any land that is not theirs. Which they have been doing and obviously plan to continue doing, thus the reason uncle Sam is pissed off

cept.. it is theirs. They gave up that land after winning it to appease america's interest with the oil countries, on conditions that the Palestinians wouldn't launch attacks and be good neighbors. Well rinse, wash, repeat. The Palestinians never live up to their end of the bargain and we're surprised why there never seems to be peace.


cmon, don't be so dense. Just because you're brown doesn't mean you have to take up the side of every brown person on earth. The Palestinians don't give a shit, would take up slaves, and murder mexicans if they saw fit. Fuck them.

[nkdlunch]

Which land has Israel took that isn't theirs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446

United Nations Security Council Resolution 446, adopted on March 22, 1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem".[1] This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.

In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"

[nkdlunch]

cept.. it is theirs. They gave up that land after winning it to appease america's interest with the oil countries, on conditions that the Palestinians wouldn't launch attacks and be good neighbors. Well rinse, wash, repeat. The Palestinians never live up to their end of the bargain and we're surprised why there never seems to be peace.


cmon, don't be so dense. Just because you're brown doesn't mean you have to take up the side of every brown person on earth. The Palestinians don't give a shit, would take up slaves, and murder mexicans if they saw fit. Fuck them.

just because you're white as a ghost doesn't mean you have to act it.

Read and educate yourself. The settlements are considered illegal by USA and the rest of the world. :)

[Ignignokt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446

United Nations Security Council Resolution 446, adopted on March 22, 1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem".[1] This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.

In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"

Like i said. they've acquired those territories when they kicked arab ass. They won. To the victor goes the spoils. The UN doesn't know shit, see africa, see the lebanese confrontation.

So now that you're giving weight to UN resolutions. The U.S. had the right to commit actions against saddam no?

[Wild Cobra]

Which land has Israel took that isn't theirs?
http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOnlineEdition/images/maps/border-changes/1973.jpg (http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOnlineEdition/chapter-9.html)
I think since giving up all that land has done no good, they should take it back.

[nkdlunch]

Like i said. they've acquired those territories when they kicked arab ass. They won. To the victor goes the spoils. The UN doesn't know shit, see africa, see the lebanese confrontation.

except they continue to take territories as we speak. So wrong again.



So now that you're giving weight to UN resolutions. The U.S. had the right to commit actions against saddam no?

USA also considers them illegal.

[Ignignokt]

just because you're white as a ghost doesn't mean you have to act it.

Read and educate yourself. The settlements are considered illegal by USA and the rest of the world. :)

wow.. i'm white. That's news to me.

Thanks for assuming and further fueling the stereotype that all us "indian" looking mexicans are ignorant.

The rest of the worlds oppinion and the U.S's oppinion on legalities are not the final authority on what's just.

Do you smoke pot, or not?

The US thinks pot is illegal. So i guess you don't.

[nkdlunch]

wow.. i'm white. That's news to me.

Thanks for assuming and further fueling the stereotype that all us "indian" looking mexicans are ignorant.

The rest of the worlds oppinion and the U.S's oppinion on legalities are not the final authority on what's just.

Do you smoke pot, or not?

The US thinks pot is illegal. So i guess you don't.

well my indian brother. I apologize.

as for the Pot comparison, FAIL.

[Ignignokt]

except they continue to take territories as we speak. So wrong again.



USA also considers them illegal.

you mean.. sovereign territories from syria and the S.A?


They won those territories and in the 67 war, then gave them back on conditions of peace. The P's didn't hold their end of the bargain, so therefore the israelis are just taking back what they gave on conditions of promise.

Glad you participated.

[nkdlunch]

you mean.. sovereign territories from syria and the S.A?


They won those territories and in the 67 war, then gave them back on conditions of peace. The P's didn't hold their end of the bargain, so therefore the israelis are just taking back what they gave on conditions of promise.

Glad you participated.

refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip

[Ignignokt]

well my indian brother. I apologize.

as for the Pot comparison, FAIL.


I know.. it doesn't help your cause.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOnlineEdition/images/maps/border-changes/1973.jpg (http://www.mythsandfacts.org/ReplyOnlineEdition/chapter-9.html)
I think since giving up all that land has done no good, they should take it back.They should break their peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan and start a war now?

Great thinking, genius.

[nkdlunch]

I know.. it doesn't help your cause.

nah. Comparing a domestic social issue with an international religious conflict is just... dumb.

[Ignignokt]

refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip

did israel seize control of those in the 6 day war? Did they not?

[nkdlunch]

did israel seize control of those in the 6 day war? Did they not?

so you are in favor of letting Israel take all land they can? (Because they do it kicking arab ass?? :rolleyes)

because the whole conflict is that Israel plans to annex the rest of Old Jerusalem, where Arabs are now. You are in favor of allowing them that?

[Ignignokt]

nah. Comparing a domestic social issue with an international religious conflict is just... dumb.

Is anyone here saying both are equally severe and pertinent matters? But they have one thing in common.

the US condemns the actions of both as illegal. You're trying to use the U.S.'s view as a final source of authority in one argument, but dismiss it in another. Whether it's two different issues or not. I have shown that you are not consistent with the way you chose a support for your argument.

If you want us to only take your source of authority half of the time, why should we?

[Wild Cobra]

you mean.. sovereign territories from syria and the S.A?


They won those territories and in the 67 war, then gave them back on conditions of peace. The P's didn't hold their end of the bargain, so therefore the israelis are just taking back what they gave on conditions of promise.

Glad you participated.
I agree, and I think you and I don't agree very often...

[Ignignokt]

so you are in favor of letting Israel take all land they can? (Because they do it kicking arab ass?? :rolleyes)

because the whole conflict is that Israel plans to annex the rest of Old Jerusalem, where Arabs are now. You are in favor of allowing them that?

bullshit.


That's not in any charter of the Israeli govt, and is just hearsay. No official document that the Israelis promulgate show that.

On the contrary, The PLO's charter does say that they want to drive all the jews to the sea. And for one thing, I'm not stating that israel should take Syrian and Lebonese lands, just that they should be able to take back what they already fought for when they were attacked.

Don't bring that weak shit here.

[nkdlunch]

bullshit.


That's not in any charter of the Israeli govt, and is just hearsay. No official document that the Israelis promulgate show that.

On the contrary, The PLO's charter does say that they want to drive all the jews to the sea. And for one thing, I'm not stating that israel should take Syrian and Lebonese lands, just that they should be able to take back what they already fought for when they were attacked.

Don't bring that weak shit here.

of course it's not on any charter :rolleyes

but the writing is on the wall. And the settlements plan proof. End of story. next.

[Ignignokt]

I agree, and I think you and I don't agree very often...

really, you just don't read my posts very often.


Not surprised.

[Ignignokt]

of course it's not on any charter :rolleyes

but the writing is on the wall. And the settlements plan proof. End of story. next.

If you are willing to believe that Israel has bad intentions on little to no evidence, but willing to dismiss big evidence, history, and outright mission statements that clearly illustrate the Palestinians bad intentions, then you're a lost cause.

And about the settlements being proof of arab conquest is just pure baloney. The israeli's are not taking new lands for which they have not already offered on conditions after the 67 war. Your argument is still weak.

[nkdlunch]

If you are willing to believe that Israel has bad intentions on little to no evidence, but willing to dismiss big evidence, history, and outright mission statements that clearly illustrate the Palestinians bad intentions, then you're a lost cause.

And about the settlements being proof of arab conquest is just pure baloney. The israeli's are not taking new lands for which they have not already offered on conditions after the 67 war. Your argument is still weak.

yes they are. open your eyes.

your argument is not much stronger if at all. :)

[RandomGuy]

The crisis has brought to the fore two deeper worries for the Israeli government. For the first time, a senior American general has linked publicly America’s failure to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with its military fortunes in Iraq and Afghanistan. “The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favouritism for Israel,” General David Petraeus said in testimony prepared for a Senate committee this week. Israeli officials and pro-Israel activists in America have been rattled by the surfacing of such sentiment. This is a “particularly pernicious” argument, says Abe Foxman, national chairman of the Anti-Defamation League and a prominent spokesman for American Jews. It “smacks of blaming the Jews for everything.”

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15715808

There it is in a nutshell.

Any criticism of Israel is almost automatically painted as anti-Semetic.

[RandomGuy]

If you are willing to believe that Israel has bad intentions on little to no evidence, but willing to dismiss big evidence, history, and outright mission statements that clearly illustrate the Palestinians bad intentions, then you're a lost cause.

And about the settlements being proof of arab conquest is just pure baloney. The israeli's are not taking new lands for which they have not already offered on conditions after the 67 war. Your argument is still weak.

Israel has over many decades, rather steadily forcefully relocated Palestinian villages. We have looked the other way on a lot of the rather unethical things they have done, from the fletchette artillery rounds used in the recent skirmish in Gaza, to the "shoot first, ask questions later" stuff..

Israel is our friend, and should be, but I think we should be a bit more fair when it comes to what they do.

The fact that the general's testimony from congress has finally gotten the message through that our overly uncritical and hypocritical stance when it comes to Israel hurts us politically in the Middle East does not come as a surprise to me.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15715808

There it is in a nutshell.

Any criticism of Israel is almost automatically painted as anti-Semetic.

Well, my criticism is they have become soft. They should have decimated their attackers in December 2008. The Palestinians only respect strength. Unless Israel makes it too painful for them to keep attacking, they can expect it again.

Am I anti-Semetic?

[Ignignokt]

yes they are. open your eyes.

your argument is not much stronger if at all. :)

you lie.


The Palestinians want east Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the 1967 war, to be the capital of a future state; Israel claims all of Jerusalem as its capital.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hfN-O_PsuDUAvRqVJauM5zDQhY9w

like i said, nothing new that they are capturing than what they won in the 67 war, offered to palestine, on conditions of peace.

[LnGrrrR]

By supporting Israel, is it possible we create more problems and enemies than we stand to gain by allying with Israel?

[DarrinS]

Was Obama's confrontation with Israel premeditated?

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/the-crisis?page=0,0





JERUSALEM—Suddenly, my city feels again like a war zone. Since the suicide bombings ended in 2005, life in Jerusalem has been for the most part relatively calm. The worst disruptions have been the traffic jams resulting from construction of a light rail, just like in a normal city. But now, again, there are clusters of helmeted border police near the gates of the Old City, black smoke from burning tires in the Arab village across from my porch, young men marching with green Islamist flags toward my neighborhood, ambulances parked at strategic places ready for this city's ultimate nightmare.

The return of menace to Jerusalem is not because a mid-level bureaucrat announced stage four of a seven-stage process in the eventual construction of 1,600 apartments in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood in northeast Jerusalem. Such announcements and building projects have become so routine over the years that Palestinians have scarcely responded, let alone violently. In negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, the permanence of Ramat Shlomo, and other Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, has been a given. Ramat Shlomo, located between the Jewish neighborhoods of French Hill and Ramot, will remain within the boundaries of Israeli Jerusalem according to every peace plan. Unlike the small Jewish enclaves inserted into Arab neighborhoods, on which Israelis are strongly divided, building in the established Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem defines the national consensus.

Why, then, the outbreak of violence now? Why Hamas's "day of rage" over Jerusalem and the Palestinian Authority's call to gather on the Temple Mount to "save" the Dome of the Rock from non-existent plans to build the Third Temple? Why the sudden outrage over rebuilding a synagogue, destroyed by the Jordanians in 1948, in the Old City's Jewish Quarter, when dozens of synagogues and yeshivas have been built in the quarter without incident?

The answer lies not in Jerusalem but in Washington. By placing the issue of building in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem at the center of the peace process, President Obama has inadvertently challenged the Palestinians to do no less.

Astonishingly, Obama is repeating the key tactical mistake of his failed efforts to restart Middle East peace talks over the last year. Though Obama's insistence on a settlement freeze to help restart negotiations was legitimate, he went a step too far by including building in East Jerusalem. Every Israeli government over the last four decades has built in the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem; no government, let alone one headed by the Likud, could possibly agree to a freeze there. Obama made resumption of negotiations hostage to a demand that could not be met. The result was that Palestinian leaders were forced to adjust their demands accordingly.

Obama is directly responsible for one of the most absurd turns in the history of Middle East negotiations. Though Palestinian leaders negotiated with Israeli governments that built extensively in the West Bank, they now refused to sit down with the first Israeli government to actually agree to a suspension of building. Obama's demand for a building freeze in Jerusalem led to a freeze in negotiations.

Finally, after intensive efforts, the administration produced the pathetic achievement of "proximity talks"—setting Palestinian-Israeli negotiations back a generation, to the time when Palestinian leaders refused to sit at the same table with Israelis.

That Obama could be guilty of such amateurishness was perhaps forgivable because he was, after all, an amateur. But he has now taken his failed policy and intensified it. By demanding that Israel stop building in Ramat Shlomo and elsewhere in East Jerusalem—and placing that demand at the center of American-Israeli relations—he's ensured that the Palestinians won't show up even to proximity talks. This is no longer amateurishness; it is pique disguised as policy.


Initially, when the announcement about building in Ramat Shlomo was made, Israelis shared Vice President Biden's humiliation and were outraged at their government's incompetence. The widespread sense here was that Netanyahu deserved the administration's condemnation, not because of what he did but because of what he didn't do: He failed to convey to all parts of his government the need for caution during Biden's visit, symptomatic of his chaotic style of governing generally.

But not even the opposition accused Netanyahu of a deliberate provocation. These are not the days of Yitzhak Shamir, the former Israeli prime minister who used to greet a visit from Secretary of State James Baker with an announcement of the creation of another West Bank settlement. Netanyahu has placed the need for strategic cooperation with the U.S. on the Iranian threat ahead of the right-wing political agenda. That's why he included the Labor Party into his coalition, and why he accepted a two-state solution—an historic achievement that set the Likud, however reluctantly, within the mainstream consensus supporting Palestinian statehood. The last thing Netanyahu wanted was to embarrass Biden during his goodwill visit and trigger a clash with Obama over an ultra-Orthodox neighborhood.

Nor is it likely that there was a deliberate provocation from the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, which runs the interior ministry that oversees building procedures. Shas, which supports peace talks and territorial compromise, is not a nationalist party. Its interest is providing housing for its constituents, like the future residents of Ramat Shlomo; provoking international incidents is not its style.
Finally, the very ordinariness of the building procedure—the fact that construction in Jewish East Jerusalem is considered by Israelis routine—is perhaps the best proof that there was no intentional ambush of Biden. Apparently no one in the interior ministry could imagine that a long-term plan over Ramat Shlomo would sabotage a state visit.

In turning an incident into a crisis, Obama has convinced many Israelis that he was merely seeking a pretext to pick a fight with Israel. Netanyahu was inadvertently shabby; Obama, deliberately so.
According to a banner headline in the newspaper Ma'ariv, senior Likud officials believe that Obama's goal is to topple the Netanyahu government, by encouraging those in the Labor Party who want to quit the coalition.

The popular assumption is that Obama is seeking to prove his resolve as a leader by getting tough with Israel. Given his ineffectiveness against Iran and his tendency to violate his own self-imposed deadlines for sanctions, the Israeli public is not likely to be impressed. Indeed, Israelis' initial anger at Netanyahu has turned to anger against Obama. According to an Israel Radio poll on March 16, 62 percent of Israelis blame the Obama administration for the crisis, while 20 percent blame Netanyahu. (Another 17 percent blame Shas leader Eli Yishai.)

In the last year, the administration has not once publicly condemned the Palestinians for lack of good faith—even though the Palestinian Authority media has, for example, been waging a months-long campaign denying the Jews' historic roots in Jerusalem. Just after Biden left Ramallah, Palestinian officials held a ceremony naming a square in the city after a terrorist responsible for the massacre of 38 Israeli civilians. (To its credit, yesterday, the administration did condemn the Palestinian Authority for inciting violence in Jerusalem.)

Obama's one-sided public pressure against Israel could intensify the atmosphere of "open season" against Israel internationally. Indeed, the European Union has reaffirmed it is linking improved economic relations with Israel to the resumption of the peace process—as if it's Israel rather than the Palestinians that has refused to come to the table.



If the administration's main tactical error in Middle East negotiating was emphasizing building in Jerusalem, its main strategic error was assuming that a two-state solution was within easy reach. Shortly after Obama took office, Rahm Emanuel was quoted in the Israeli press insisting that a Palestinian state would be created within Obama's first term. Instead, a year later, we are in the era of suspended proximity talks. Now the administration is demanding that Israel negotiate over final status issues in proximity talks as a way of convincing the Palestinians to agree to those talks--as if Israelis would agree to discuss the future of Jerusalem when Palestinian leaders refuse to even sit with them.


To insist on the imminent possibility of a two-state solution requires amnesia. Biden's plea to Israelis to consider a withdrawal to an approximation of the 1967 borders in exchange for peace ignored the fact that Israel made that offer twice in the last decade: first, when Prime Minister Ehud Barak accepted the Clinton Proposals of December 2000, and then more recently when Prime Minister Ehud Olmert renewed the offer to Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas, says Olmert, never replied.

The reason for Palestinian rejection of a two-state solution is because a deal would require Palestinians to confine the return of the descendants of the 1948 refugees to Palestine rather than to Israel. That would prevent a two-state solution from devolving into a bi-national, one-state solution. Israel's insistence on survival remains the obstacle to peace.

To achieve eventual peace, the international community needs to pressure Palestinian leaders to forgo their claim to Haifa and Jaffa and confine their people's right of return to a future Palestinian state—just as the Jews will need to forgo their claim to Hebron and Bethlehem and confine their people's right of return to the state of Israel. That is the only possible deal: conceding my right of return to Greater Israel in exchange for your right of return to Greater Palestine. A majority of Israelis—along with the political system—has accepted that principle. On the Palestinian side, the political system has rejected it.

In the absence of Palestinian willingness to compromise on the right of return, negotiations should not focus on a two-state solution but on more limited goals.

There have been positive signs of change on the Palestinian side in the last few years. The rise of Hamas has created panic within Fatah, and the result is, for the first time, genuine security cooperation with Israel. Also, the emergence of Salam Fayyad as Palestinian prime minister marks a shift from ideological to pragmatic leadership (though Fayyad still lacks a power base). Finally, the West Bank economy is growing, thanks in part to Israel's removal of dozens of roadblocks. The goal of negotiations at this point in the conflict should be to encourage those trends.

But by focusing on building in Jerusalem, Obama has undermined that possibility too. To the fictitious notion of a peace process, Obama has now added the fiction of an intransigent Israel blocking the peace process.

The administration, according to a report in the Israeli newspaper Yedito Aharonot, is making an even more insidious accusation against Israel. During his visit, wrote Yediot Aharanot, Biden told Israeli leaders that their policies are endangering American lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. The report has been denied in the White House. Whether or not the remark was made, what is clear today in Jerusalem is that Obama's recklessness is endangering Israeli--and Palestinian--lives. As I listen to police sirens outside my window, Obama's political intifada against Netanyahu seems to be turning into a third intifada over Jerusalem.

[Winehole23]

Someone, anyone, please tell me: what substantive shift has there been in US policy toward Israel, to educe such dark and dire tones? What has substantively changed?

[Ignignokt]

By supporting Israel, is it possible we create more problems and enemies than we stand to gain by allying with Israel?

Why do utilitarian arguments always trump moral arguments when it comes to progressives?

[LnGrrrR]

Why do utilitarian arguments always trump moral arguments when it comes to progressives?

So supporting Israel is moral, now?

And I think you should check the beam in your own eye. Support for endless imprisonment of people who might be terrorists, or might not be, certainly leans towards the utilitarian side of the scales. So does warrantless wiretapping. So does enhanced interrogation. I'm sure there are more to be counted.

[Wild Cobra]

By supporting Israel, is it possible we create more problems and enemies than we stand to gain by allying with Israel?
Only if you want to ally with terrorists.

[Wild Cobra]

Someone, anyone, please tell me: what substantive shift has there been in US policy toward Israel, to educe such dark and dire tones? What has substantively changed?
Democrats control the government and think they can bring Utopia to the world by being passive.

[LnGrrrR]

Only if you want to ally with terrorists.

So non-support of Israel automatically means siding with terrorists?

Is it possible in your world, WC, to not ally with EITHER country? To remain neutral? Or is neutrality impossible in your view?

[Winehole23]

Can you be more specific, WC? Name some US policy toward Israel that has changed since Obama took office. You're still talking atmospherics, and your emphasis on passivity is not well-grounded IMO.

Increasing troops in Afghanistan, taking the fight to the Taliban, and expanding Predator strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia hardly seems passive to me.

[Ignignokt]

So supporting Israel is moral, now?
No but the argument for support should be a moral one, not a utilitarian one.


And I think you should check the beam in your own eye. Support for endless imprisonment of people who might be terrorists, or might not be, certainly leans towards the utilitarian side of the scales. So does warrantless wiretapping. So does enhanced interrogation. I'm sure there are more to be counted.

LOLOL... ok.. support of endless imprisonment of people who are enemy combatants and probable terrorist stems because they do not follow the geneva conventions, a moral argument.

Warrantless wiretapping of foreign groups and enhanced interrogation that doesn't break the law, can be argued as moral. The justifications are utilitarian, because fighting terrorism should be looked at from a moral and effectiveness standpoint.

Supporting a govt in a religous ethnic conflict, i think it's foolish to consider a utilitarian approach when it's more of a matter of life and death for both sides, rather than just detainment of certain individuals.

But, even at that. Progressives are assholes enough that if they think they have the moral strong point in an argument they still bust out the utilitarian argument proving they have no soul.

How many times have you heard.."well enhanced interrogation doesn't work anyway.", or "having a strong stance on alqueda is going to alienate our allies"..

[Wild Cobra]

So non-support of Israel automatically means siding with terrorists?

Is it possible in your world, WC, to not ally with EITHER country? To remain neutral? Or is neutrality impossible in your view?
I didn't mean it that way. However, I have a feeling if we stopped supporting Israel, they might take harsh action against their next aggressor. Our support has come with the price of moderation.

Maybe it would be a good thing.

Can you just imagine what a nuke on Mecca would do, with the threat of destroying all Muslims when faced with a "us or them" scenario?

[Wild Cobra]

Can you be more specific, WC?
Sorry I can't. Sometimes it's just that gut feeling, and gears turning in the back of the head that cannot be properly verbalized. I'm sure you know what I mean. It happens to all of us from time to time.

Name some US policy toward Israel that has changed since Obama took office. You're still talking atmospherics, and your emphasis on passivity is not well-grounded IMO.
Historically and statistically, democrats have simply wanted to separate us from Israel. Republicans embrace Israel.

Increasing troops in Afghanistan, taking the fight to the Taliban, and expanding Predator strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia hardly seems passive to me.

Democrats have already put themselves in the position that Iraq was not a threat, Afghanistan and Iran are.

Or are they going to flip-flop again?

[LnGrrrR]

LOLOL... ok.. support of endless imprisonment of people who are enemy combatants and probable terrorist stems because they do not follow the geneva conventions, a moral argument.

This is assuming that everyone captured is an enemy combatant. Are you willing to state such?



Warrantless wiretapping of foreign groups and enhanced interrogation that doesn't break the law, can be argued as moral. The justifications are utilitarian, because fighting terrorism should be looked at from a moral and effectiveness standpoint.

Since when does "breaking the law" have to do with morality? Do you think the government is morally justified in snooping through your communications to prevent terrorism? If you say yes, that strikes me as a very utilitarian argument (as you state).


Supporting a govt in a religous ethnic conflict, i think it's foolish to consider a utilitarian approach when it's more of a matter of life and death for both sides, rather than just detainment of certain individuals.

But my point is that it is not life and death for America; it is life and death for Israel. By supporting Israel, there is certainly a possibility that we are making enemies of the enemies of Israel. Would we be better served to let Israel fight its own battles? (I'm somewhat playing Devil's Advocate; I'm also looking for well thought out, grounded arguments for supporting Israel that takes into account the negatives of supporting them.)


But, even at that. Progressives are assholes enough that if they think they have the moral strong point in an argument they still bust out the utilitarian argument proving they have no soul.

Both sides use moral and utilitarian arguments. Heck, Iraq was a conservative's example of both.

Moral: We must give them freedom!
Utilitarian: It's ok if we kill a bunch of people or screwed stuff up, because better not to have Saddam in charge of possible WMDs.

Both sides use both tactics with abandon.


How many times have you heard.."well enhanced interrogation doesn't work anyway.", or "having a strong stance on alqueda is going to alienate our allies"..

People argue that enhanced interrogation doesn't work as effectively as 'regular' interrogation because there are salient data points to back that up. Your other argument is also utilitarian in nature. I don't see how that makes someone an asshole, though.

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't mean it that way. However, I have a feeling if we stopped supporting Israel, they might take harsh action against their next aggressor. Our support has come with the price of moderation.

Maybe it would be a good thing.

Can you just imagine what a nuke on Mecca would do, with the threat of destroying all Muslims when faced with a "us or them" scenario?

That's my point though. Israel seems like they have enough armaments to defend themself, and MAYBE THEY SHOULD.

Like the little kid in school who gets bullied and relies on his bigger, older friend to back him up. Eventually, the kid needs to learn how to punch people out.

I am tentatively fine with Israel taking up their own defense. I think you'd find that they'd think twice about 'dropping a nuke', as they wouldn't have much international support then. Especially without America over their shoulder to watch out for them. In fact, they might have to rely on diplomacy, amazingly enough.

And if they didn't? Well, the consequences are on their head... not America. Sounds good to me.

[Winehole23]

Sorry I can't. Sometimes it's just that gut feeling, and gears turning in the back of the head that cannot be properly verbalized. I'm sure you know what I mean. It happens to all of us from time to time.You got nothing. Maybe that's because nothing has really changed, policywise.


Historically and statistically, democrats have simply wanted to separate us from Israel. Republicans embrace Israel.
Statistically? Can you support this, or is this more gut feeling?


Democrats have already put themselves in the position that Iraq was not a threat, Afghanistan and Iran are.

Or are they going to flip-flop again?Gut feeling again?

[Ignignokt]

That's my point though. Israel seems like they have enough armaments to defend themself, and MAYBE THEY SHOULD.

Like the little kid in school who gets bullied and relies on his bigger, older friend to back him up. Eventually, the kid needs to learn how to punch people out.

I am tentatively fine with Israel taking up their own defense. I think you'd find that they'd think twice about 'dropping a nuke', as they wouldn't have much international support then. Especially without America over their shoulder to watch out for them. In fact, they might have to rely on diplomacy, amazingly enough.

And if they didn't? Well, the consequences are on their head... not America. Sounds good to me.

dumb assumption.

If we stop our support financially for israel, the UN will sanction them and levy economic penalties. There will be a chance for either russia or china to arm syria or iran, me thinks syria. It will get ugly.

[Winehole23]

If we stop our support financially for israel, the UN will sanction them and levy economic penalties. There will be a chance for either russia or china to arm syria or iran, me thinks syria. It will get ugly.Presumes the US will cease to use its UN veto in Israel's favor.

Silly assumption.

[sook]

Never ever mistake me for having any love for jews.

But i am pro israeli only because i understand the dogs arab leaders and fanatics are. I don't support them for being "God's People", i support them for having won their right to their land since the 67 war, which they won. It's their land. If the arabs want to take back some of that land, tell them to go fuck themselves. They waged a war, they should live by the results.

Israel should not give up any part of it's land just to appease the arabs ridiculous demands to have the right of arab return only to endanger the israeli populace once they lose their sovereignty. Their demands are irrational. Us telling them to act and play along is idiotic and a waste of time.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT...

We are funding them, a little common courtesy would be nice. And they should respect us.

But now i'm starting to get fed up with these shitheads in Israel and the AIPAC.

That's what you get for supporting a guy with a muslim background, who attended a church that had antisemitic rants. You jews deserve everything you get for being so dumb to take a chance with Barrack OBama.

No sympathy for AIPAC and it's treasonous travelers who have spyed on our country.

I actually agree with this statement. If they give up land, I think it would be never ending circle of needs again. That is why I think "Stopping building of settlements" is the way to go. Just stop expanding, whats been done has been done.

I always thought you were heavily biased, but I agree with your statement. That last statement that they jews deserve it is wrong thouhg. I have many jewish friends who don't advocate Israel, Freidman, the author of the article is jewish himself. I think jewish americans are clearly more american that Israeli.

[Gummi Clutch]

The U.S and Israel need to remain allies, stupid liberals on here that offer a plan on the other extreme need to get their heads out of their asses.

Now with everything aside....

What israel just did was downright disrespectful, and as a strong proponent of theirs even I have to say that at the moment our interests do not coincide. They need to wake the fuck up and realize that allies don't do that to each other.

I am republican but I would appreciate if Wild Cobra would shut the fuck up. Your not going to get your own radio show by saying stupid shit you attention whore. Don't try to bring the rest of us down with your nonsensicle bullshit, I would very much like to keep my IQ intact.

Please ignore Wild Cobra, he DOESN'T speak for the rest of us.

[Wild Cobra]

Please ignore Wild Cobra, he DOESN'T speak for the rest of us.
Could that be because I am not a republican?

[Wild Cobra]

What israel just did was downright disrespectful, and as a strong proponent of theirs even I have to say that at the moment our interests do not coincide. They need to wake the fuck up and realize that allies don't do that to each other.

Just what did they do to us?

[Gummi Clutch]

Just what did they do to us?
Is playing stupid your new shtick now or what? Why do you continually ask questions you already know the answer to, me and you both know you aren't that dumb.


Lets see, Israeli President announces plans to build new settlements on the DAY president Biden comes over for peace talks? Now lets see, any normal person pretending not to have down syndrome would acknowledge that to be a clear answer from Israel about how they want to progress with peace talks, which are WAY out of the question when just discussing settlments. It is a clear sign of disrespectful conduct, something ALLIES do not do to each other. I may not like biden, but he is representing something bigger than just himself...an ENTIRE FUCKING NATION.

Now how about this, a top pentagon official was quoted as saying "Its too old and too late...", openly stating how Israel is fucking our status in the mideast by doing this. Don't bother replying to this unless you want to crawl out of your little vagina and demonstrate some RUDIMENTARY reading comprehension..ok?

[Gummi Clutch]

Could that be because I am not a republican?
GOOD, Because your actually a FUCKING MORON.

[Bender]

GOOD, Because your actually a FUCKING MORON.

president biden?

[Wild Cobra]

Lets see, Israeli President announces plans to build new settlements on the DAY president Biden comes over for peace talks?
That isn't doing something to us. They never agreed not to build in east Jerusalem.

My God... Get a grip!

[RandomGuy]

Well, my criticism is they have become soft. They should have decimated their attackers in December 2008. The Palestinians only respect strength. Unless Israel makes it too painful for them to keep attacking, they can expect it again.

Am I anti-Semetic?

What Israel is essentially doing is fighting a low intensity conflict, i.e. a counter-insurgency.

The "use bigger bombs" thing pretty much goes counter to modern US military understanding of how such things should be fought.

Often that response, although gratifyingly emotional, is also one of the worst things you can do.

Take some time to read the most recent counterinsurgency manual. It is a distillation of all the nation-building experience we have gained over the last 40+ years, and was the driving strategy behind the "surge" in Iraq.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/119629.pdf

What you advocate here, "i.e. use bigger bombs and wipe them all out", is not only ineffective, but would actually make things very predictably worse.

Why do you advocate such an ineffective solution?

[Wild Cobra]

What Israel is essentially doing is fighting a low intensity conflict, i.e. a counter-insurgency.
<snip>
Random, I would agree with you if this was a different enemy. Being driven by religious fanatics, it's a whole different game. Those fanatics need to be exterminated, and short of that, the people who harbor them out of fear, will do so unless they fear harboring them more.

War is ugly. There is no clean way to stop the fanatics.

[Winehole23]

There's religious fanaticism on both sides, and as Extra Stout used to say, the Israel-Palestinian conflict is essentially a war of irredentism (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&defl=en&q=define:irredentism&ei=NVKiS6yjCsuztgeV2vifCg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAYQkAE).

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3449474&postcount=101http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3449474&postcount=101

[RandomGuy]

Random, I would agree with you if this was a different enemy. Being driven by religious fanatics, it's a whole different game. Those fanatics need to be exterminated, and short of that, the people who harbor them out of fear, will do so unless they fear harboring them more.

War is ugly. There is no clean way to stop the fanatics.

Your underlying assumption that they are all "religious fanatics" is fallacious as well.

Religious differences, although important, is not *the* main driving factor, but one of several, the most important of which is resentment that their country was essentially invaded and occupied.

Do you always over-simplify everything like this?

[Wild Cobra]

Your underlying assumption that they are all "religious fanatics" is fallacious as well.

No, I don't believe that. Please don't make assumptions about my beliefs, they will throw you off track.


Religious differences, although important, is not *the* main driving factor, but one of several, the most important of which is resentment that their country was essentially invaded and occupied.

I'm sure there are some with that viewpoint, but I cannot believe that's what makes them fight us the way they do.


Do you always over-simplify everything like this?

I don't think I am. I know there are more complexities, but if you could removed the "jihad" aspect of it, the remaining who would fight are far easier to subdue.

[RandomGuy]

No, I don't believe that. Please don't make assumptions about my beliefs, they will throw you off track.

I'm sure there are some with that viewpoint, but I cannot believe that's what makes them fight us the way they do.

I don't think I am. I know there are more complexities, but if you could removed the "jihad" aspect of it, the remaining who would fight are far easier to subdue.

You mean like Ireland was for the British?

Virulent nationalism has motivated suicide attacks before in human history. Killing masses of civilians just requires that you de-humanize them, and that doesn't take religion, although religion is certainly used to do that.



Sometimes, the more force is used, the less effective it is
Any use of force produces many effects, not all of which can be foreseen. The more force applied, the greater the chance of collateral damage and mistakes. Using substantial force also increases the opportunity for insurgent propaganda to portray lethal military activities as brutal. In contrast, using force precisely and discriminately strengthens the rule of law that needs to be established. As noted above, the key for counterinsurgents is knowing when more force is needed—and when it might be counterproductive. This judgment involves constant assessment of the security situation and a sense of timing regarding insurgents’ actions.

There is a time and place for killing, but "guns blazing" approaches didn't work for the US in Vietnam, didn't work for the Soviets in Afghanistan, didn't work for the Germans in WW2, the British in India etc. etc. etc.

[sook]

wtf?


New FBI Files Alleging AIPAC Theft of Government Property and Israeli Espionage Released

03.10.10, 10:59 AM ET

WASHINGTON, March 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Declassified files detailing an FBI investigation targeting the American Israel Public Affairs Committee are now available on the Internet. AIPAC was investigated after it acquired and circulated classified government information provided in strict confidence by US industry and worker groups opposed to AIPAC sponsored economic legislation.

The 50 pages now available as portable document files (PDF) include:

FBI reports of Israelis circulating classified documents in the US Congress, "compromising" the authority of the U.S. President. http://irmep.org/ila/economy/06201984.pdf

US Trade Representative concerns that AIPAC was tactically "divulging" classified information supplied by US industries opposed to AIPAC lobbying initiatives. http://irmep.org/ila/economy/06211984.pdf

Reports from the International Trade Commission that AIPAC and Israeli operatives "usurped" US government authority and that an Israeli intelligence service operative was working undercover on AIPAC's staff: http://irmep.org/ila/economy/08131984r.pdf

Internal Department of Justice prosecutorial opinions that "theft of government property" had occurred: http://irmep.org/ila/economy/08301984.pdf

An FBI director order that the Washington Field office give the AIPAC investigation top priority after Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard was caught on video surveillance stealing classified US national defense information: http://irmep.org/ila/economy/11151985.pdf

FBI special agent interviews of Israeli minister of economics Dan Halpern who claimed diplomatic immunity. Halpern admitted passing classified US documents to AIPAC but refused to name his source: http://irmep.org/ila/economy/03071986DHALERN.pdf

FBI special agent interviews of AIPAC's former director of legislative affairs detailing how he made copies of the classified documents for AIPAC's lobbying use after being ordered to return them to the US government. http://irmep.org/ila/economy/02131986DB.pdf

FBI interviews of key AIPAC employees involved in handling the classified US government information (full document listing): http://irmep.org/ila/economy/

According to research director Grant F. Smith, the newly released files present startling new insights into AIPAC's activities in the United States. "These files, available on the Internet for the first time, reveal activities that undermined rule of law and governance. They have wrought massive economic harm to American businesses and workers. We urge all concerned Americans to carefully review and ponder the implications of these FBI files and other documents now available from the Israel Lobby Archive."

The Israel Lobby Archive, http://IRmep.org/ila is a unit of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington. The Archive digitizes declassified documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act filings with law enforcement, economic, diplomatic and intelligence agencies. IRmep is a Washington-based nonprofit that studies U.S. Middle East policy formulation.