[quote]Gkhan wrote:
No, believe me, I understand.
But my thoughts are this: Pakistan’s a nuclear power. When a bomb goes off on a bus somewhere, Pakistan tells the US, give us aid, or those terrorists who blew up the bus may one day run the country and get in control of the nukes. And thus: another blackmail scheme.
[/quote]
Oh, I see what you mean. Yes that’s certainly part of it.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
A jewish state were arabs are second class citizen which proceed to ethnic cleansing of Palestine. How come that does not qualify as religious extremism and terrorism. [/quote]
You fail to realize the Palestinians are living behind walls and are being governed by the same people who put them there: Hamas.
They did their best to distabilize the peace process in the 90’s with Arafat which could have resulted in 2 states. And because of a series of deadly bus bombings, Israel responded by putting them behind walls. No bus bombings…possibly their own state…bus bombings, life behind walls. Nice how that worked out.
They say killing terrorists creates more terrorists…I say terrorists perpetuate the situation to create more terrorists.
[quote]loppar wrote:
On a side note, check out the book “Israel and the US foreign policy” for a detailed analysis on how Israel manages to influence US foreign policy Even against their own interests. Pretty fun reading.[/quote]
You mean “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” by Mearsheimer and Walt? Here’s a good review of the work:
“The Israel Lobby” is a flawed thesis based on poor logic, somewhat insufficient research and constantly biased polemicizing of American foreign policy. Opinions masquerade as fact and the central character of “the lobby” metamorphosizes at will like silly putty to fit whatever situation M&W describe.
I will divide the book into 3 themes and limit my examples of problems to a few points apiece per thematic exposition.
The first theme is a revisionist view of Israel’s history for the purpose of maligning it making it unworthy of anyone’s support. This polemic takes up the first third of the book - no similar argument is made regarding the behavior of Israel’s adversaries - it’s as if Israeli actions take place in a vacuum
a)Historian Benny Morris, cited liberally in a supporting capacity, differs strongly with the misapplication of his writings and points out the problems in an article in The New Republic, archived here: Debunking anti-Zionist historical myths: Benny Morris tears apart Walt and Mearsheimer- Zionism-Israel Web Log. To Morris’ analysis I would add that whatever assets Israel might have had in weapons or manpower prior to Independence in 1948 was muted by the scarcity of munitions (ie: bullets, shells) caused by the British blockade against armaments to the Jews that did not affect the Arabs. Israel’s main source of bullets was a single small clandestine factory in Rehovot hidden underneath a laundry used by the British. If the war in 1948 was a foregone conclusion then why did the Arabs pursue the war at all, why did the Israelis lose more battles than they won and why did over 6000 new Israelis (1% of the population) have to die fighting it?
b)On pp 37 M&W state that Eisenhower could credibly threaten to withhold aid however U.S. aid to Israel during the Eisenhower years US aid averaged 63 million dollars per year and was mostly used for resettling Jewish refugees from Europe and Arab lands. M&W ascribe a much greater weight to US economic influence than existed as France was Israel’s major military supplier.
Where the US did withhold 23 million in aid was over a riparian dispute over diversion of waters from the Jordan River by Israel which was handled by negotiations under an existing treaty.
In contrast M&W fail to mention a similar incident in 1963 where Syria and Jordan embark on a more serious project aided by the Soviets to divert the headwaters of the Jordan around Israel, cutting off most of Israel’s water supply. The attempt to revive the project in 1966 and the blowing up of several water pumping stations in Israel’s north are missed entirely as a contributing cause for war in 1967.
c) Also on pp 37 M&W criticize Israel for agreeing to withdraw according to UN 242 post 1967 only if it rec’d US military aid - M&W channel the consistent Arab approach of ignoring the other clause in 242 - “secure borders free from threats of force”. As Israel’s UN ambassador at the time Abba Eban once said - “What is the use of a United Nations presence if it is in effect an umbrella which is taken away as soon as it begins to rain?”. Given the UN withdrawal of its buffer forces on Nasser’s orders Israel would need more than written guarantees. M&W are no historians and there is not even a cursory discussion of the content of the Sadat/Begin/Carter peace accords and why that formulation was successful and necessary.
d) On pp 92 they repeat the meme of “A land without a people for a people without a land” saying that it was an oft repeated Zionist theme - except it wasn’t. Early Zionists were quite aware of an Arab presence in the Mandate area and discussed it openly as a potential ethical problem. The phrase itself was rarely used by Jews and had its origins prior to modern Zionism - in the writings of Christian travelers to the Holy Land in the 19th century! Indeed you find the phrase used constantly in the propaganda of anti-Zionist writers, not the other way around, which indicates the bias in M&W’s use of sources. Ref: "A Land without a People for a People without a Land" :: Middle East Quarterly
e) Missing too is any mention that 40% of Israel’s population consists of Jews who families were forced out of Arab countries. Whereas on pp 92 M&W state “(European) Crimes against Jews justify backing Israel’s existence, but its crimes against Palestinians undermine its claim to special treatment.” Poppycock. The book The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History by Ibn Warraq and Andrew Bostom show that the Arabs both in and out of Palestine were up to their armpits in anti-Semitism ranging from pogroms fomented by the Mufti of Jerusalem in 1929 to a 1947 document showing an Arab League plan to dispossess the Jews of Arab countries of their rights, their property and their claims to citizenship. In 1948 the Palestinians had several choices - either to stand with their neighbours against the invading Arab armies whose stated intent was to eradicate the Jewish presence, run away so as to both avoid and facilitate the slaughter or to join in against the Jews. All of these choices were made and I think it behooves those who made these choices to accept the consequences of their actions. Yes, some Palestinians were driven out, but many were asked to stay. One must also remember that the Jews were ENTIRELY ethnically cleansed from areas in the Mandate held by the Arabs, and later they were ethnically cleansed from Arab countries as well. http://www.justiceforjews.com/
The second theme is an attempt to craft an image of “the Lobby” as a unified force while minimizing other factors. For M&W “the Lobby” is any pro-Israel group or individual that M&W happen to disagree with - a kind of enemies list that they hope the reader will lump together and then dismiss.
a) For the most part members of the Lobby are identified as being Jewish. This feeds into the canard that Jews by nature work together and put “Jewish” interests ahead of “American” interests. No other characteristic of members of the Lobby is given - so we don’t learn what the religious affiliation of other players other potentially common factors. Which leads to the presumptive charge that M&W are in fact anti-Semitic. I think not, but only in the sense that a craftsman who makes burglar’s tools is not a thief. They are upfront that they think the activity of what they label “the Lobby” is legitimate; that they are not talking about a “cabal” and that there is nothing sinister about the lobby’s activities. The declamations ring about as hollow as Marc Anthony’s protestations that “Brutus is an honorable man”. While M&W deny , they leave open the implication for others to pick up on - and one can see this in some of the other reviews and comments here at Amazon.
b)When it comes down to Iraq M&W jettison most of what they consider the lobby and focus solely on a group of people identified as neocons. What they neglect to mention is that these neocons are simply policy advisors chosen by the people at the top to provide analysis and justification, but not to make the final decision. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk: “The Buck Stops Here!”. Ultimately it is the President who makes and is responsible, not his advisors. He chooses his advisors and whether or not to accept their advice.
c) It is instructive to view the debate on the book at the London Review of Books . http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/ At about mid point watch Dennis Ross shake his head in frustration as Mearsheimer rejects his first hand account of what happened at Camp David. Missing too in the book is Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar’s account of Arafat’s apparent last minute rejection of Camp David which he describes as a crime against the Palestinian people, or former president Clinton’s assessment ‘I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you (Arafat) have made me one.’"
d) On page 142 M&W minimize the influence of the oil lobby by stating that their lobbying interests are limited to tax law and drilling rights. Because it would weaken their case M&W don’t even mention Cheney’s relationship with Halliburton which is an oil industry SERVICES company which profited obscenely from the rebuilding of Kuwait and subsequently Iraq. Nor do they tackle the influence of the various NATIONAL Arab oil companies which profit more from a higher price for oil than US Oil Companies and use the presence of US troops in the region to add security to their shipping routes and stability to their regimes.
e) M&W put forward the claim that “the lobby” was instrumental driving the US into war with Iraq. Martin Kramer successfully deconstructs the arguments and the timing and concludes that Israel did not advocate such a war but was instead convinced to lend its verbal support for it.
Further Lawrence Wilkerson, who was a member of the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff and later Colin Powell’s deputy chief of staff informs us that “The warning against an invasion of Iraq was `pervasive’ in Israeli communications with the administration” , Wilkerson recalls. “It was conveyed to the administration by a wide range of Israeli sources, including political figures, intelligence and private citizens.” http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39051
With voices in “the lobby” on multiple sides of the issue and Israel itself opposed to the venture it is disingenuous of M&W to conclude that it had any influence one way or the other - had the White House and Congress not opted to go to war then “the lobby” would have been “blamed” too - so such an assignation is somewhat meaningless.
f)On pages 69, 316, 318 and 331 they site Zogby polls supporting their position that Israel has a negative image in the world. Of course the answer you get in a poll often depends on who’s sponsoring the poll and what kind of a result they are looking at. What M&W fail to point out is that James Zogby is head of the Arab American Institute and also works as a senior analyst at his brother John Zogby’s polling firm. The AAI is a pro-Arab Lobby group. Clearly this is a lobbying effort as well, completely legitimate, yet M&W err in not pointing out the motivation and the source.
M&W play fast and loose with other polls as well. On page 331 they cite two polls taken in late July 2006 gauging the reactions of American to Israel’s role in the ongoing war in Lebanon. M&W focus on those who reacted negatively which is less than half, but there was something else going on at the same time - something called “fauxtography”. Associated Press was showing images of Beirut showing a much wider expanse of destruction because they had been photoshopped. Later revelations showed that the message coming out of Lebanon had been carefully crafted and staged by Hezbollah who staged presentations of “damaged” Red Cross ambulances as well as other fakery for the press. The Red Cross Ambulance Incident. Using a poll asking about American opinion in light of the revelation of these media manipulations and biased reporting would have been far more telling.
The last theme concerns itself with what M&W feel American policy in the Middle East should be.
a)On pp 60 M&W argue that the US and Israel are not actually partners against terror since Al Queda and the Palestinians are not actually linked and Palestinians have not attacked US targets - ignoring several cases where they did precisely that though not on US soil. They miss the point that the terrorism (ie: suicide bombings in Iraq) is similar in kind, that the techniques are the same and therefore there is a benefit in sharing knowledge on measures taken against this kind of warfare where unfortunately the Israelis have had far greater experience. The fight against terrorism is indeed a common interest contrary to M&W’s conjecture and a reasonable policy objective.
b) However the elephant in the room that M&W miss is AFGHANISTAN. M&W have little grasp of modern American history or the goals of the United States post WWII. Their summary of these goals appears on page 337 and is short and inadequate. One should begin by looking at a map and note where America has gone to war: Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Iraq. The central themes of US foreign policy are: 1. containing America’s two main ideological competitors: China and Russia. 2. Maintaining a playing field tilted in favor of American business interests. 3. Keeping additional ideological competitors from establishing themselves. These are the main goals of both the political branch of the U.S. government and the State Department. All else is secondary. Afghanistan makes perfect sense - it’s not about getting the oil for Americans, it’s about controlling the flow of oil to the competition.
c)On pp 91 M&W state that “Israel’s democratic status is undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a “viable” state of their own” which is quite presumptive because it is not up to Israel to make a Palestinian state viable - it is up to the Palestinians. Chaim Weizmann once said that he would accept any size state at all - even as small as a postage stamp. Ben Gurion accepted a fragmented territory that few called viable, especially considering the hostility of the neighbors, but accept it they did. On the surface several other states would not be considered viable (Singapore for example) except for the skill and industry of their people. It is also apparent that Hamas and Fatah historically have had little taste for actually achieving statehood and the responsibilities that go along with it, rather they have viewed the exercise as a staging process leading to the destruction of Israel.
In terms of mideast policy It is primarily the Americans who have created this idea of Palestinian statehood and shaped the peace process in this direction bringing the Israelis and the Palestinians along - no lobby required at all.
d) M&W feel that the U.S. incursion into Iraq did not serve American interests. I agree, but neither did it serve Israeli interests. Saddam Hussein was effectively under control - there was no reason to upset the apple cart. M&W feel that Iraq has been a failure and are looking for scapegoats. For M&W the clock stops at the point of decision to invade. American policy goes further into the conduct of the war and into the goals of what America is trying to achieve afterwards. I would submit that the goal of the United States has been to prevent a mutually genocidal war between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and that this goal has been largely achieved. I further submit that the US is committed to a rebuilt Iraq in the face of adversity from militants both domestic and foreign to Iraq and in this I hope it does succeed as a reconstructed and stable Iraq would be saving grace for America’s image abroad.
e) In the final chapter M&W argue for a policy of “offshore balancing” whereby the United States pulls back its troops world wide, let local governments deal with their problems and instead try and influence foreign policy from afar. This is by no means a completely isolationist approach (cf: George Washington’s admonition against foreign entanglements.) Further, if M&W would reflect on the US/Israel relationship, offshore balancing is precisely what is going on here - there are no US troops in Israel as there are elsewhere and the US uses Israel as a message to the Russians and the surrounding Arab states of US influence and power in the region.
In the end I cannot recommend this book. The gaps in logic and understanding are encyclopedic. M&W indicate that what they would like is a debate about how “the lobby” influences U.S. foreign policy without an understanding of what U.S. foreign policy is and what it should be. Rather than looking at what the goals of the policy should be they conclude that we should do no more than take a cue from adversaries such as bin Laden in formulating US policies by giving them what they want in the vague hope that if we give up our principles we will be more popular.
[quote]joebassin wrote:
A jewish state were arabs are second class citizen which proceed to ethnic cleansing of Palestine. How come that does not qualify as religious extremism and terrorism. [/quote]
Well put!
[quote]Sifu wrote:
What is your point? Do you believe Israel shouldn’t have nukes? [/quote]
March 18, 2009
Military.com|by Bryant Jordan
The Army has let slip one of the worst-kept secrets in the world – that Israel has the bomb.
Officially, the United States has a policy of “ambiguity” regarding Israel’s nuclear capability. Essentially, it has played a game by which it neither acknowledges nor denies that Israel is a nuclear power.
But a Defense Department study completed last year offers what may be the first time in a unclassified report that Israel is a nuclear power. On page 37 of the U.S. Joint Forces Command report, the Army includes Israel within “a growing arc of nuclear powers running from Israel in the west through an emerging Iran to Pakistan, India, and on to China, North Korea, and Russia in the east.”
The single reference is far more than the U.S. usually would state publicly about Israel, even though the world knew Israel to be a nuclear power years before former nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu went public with facts on its weapons program in 1986.
Several years later investigative reporter Seymour Hersh published “The Samson Option,” detailing Israel’s strategy of massive nuclear retaliation against Arab states in the event it felt its very existence was threatened. Israel’s nuclear arsenal has been estimated to range from 200 to 400 warheads.
Yet Israel has refused to confirm or deny it’s nuclear capabilities, and the U.S. has gone along with the charade.
As recently as Feb. 9 President Barack Obama ducked the question when asked pointedly by White House correspondent Helen Thomas whether he knew of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons. Keeping the blinders on is necessary politically in order to avoid a policy confrontation with Israel.
By law, the U.S. would have to cease providing billions of dollars in foreign aid to Israel if it determined the country had a nuclear weapons program. That’s because the so-called Symington Amendment, passed in 1976, bars assistance to countries developing technology for nuclear weapons proliferation.
Given the U.S.'s long history of selective blindness when it comes to Israeli nukes, it’s unlikely that the Joint Operating Environment 2008 report compiled by the Army amount to much more than a minor faux pas.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz, in a March 8 article on the report, observed: "It is virtually unheard of for a senior military commander, while in office, to refer to Israel’s nuclear status. In December 2006, during his confirmation hearings as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates referred to Israel as one of the powers seen by Iran as surrounding it with nuclear weapons. But once in office, Gates refused to repeat this allusion to Israel, noting that when he used it he was â??a private citizen.’ "
Personally, I am rooting for the underdog Iranians against those racist Jewish pigs in Israel.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]method_man wrote:
Personally, I am rooting for the underdog Iranians against those racist Jewish pigs in Israel.[/quote]
We wouldn’t have expected otherwise.
BTW, did you of all people just call someone racist? LOL[/quote]
Did you really just compare a poster on a webboard with a nation of conniving white, Jewish devils who used religion as a pretext to ethnically cleanse Palestine for themselves?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]method_man wrote:
Did you really just compare a poster on a webboard with a nation of conniving white, Jewish devils who used religion as a pretext to ethnically cleanse Palestine for themselves?
[/quote]
[/quote]
Many black people in Montana?
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Ha ha, it’s not even English![/quote]
I am sure the Zionists appreciate the support from Japan. And well put is English.
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]method_man wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Ha ha, it’s not even English![/quote]
I am sure the Zionists appreciate the support from Japan. And well put is English. [/quote]
LMFAO!
Thanks for this post.
It’s always reassuring to know just how stupid the person posting something you disagree with is.
Hell, I’m honestly relieved to know that you are this much of an idiot! Ha ha![/quote]
It’s more like you have to reassure yourself that I am an “idiot” to compensate for your own deficiencies.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]method_man wrote:
Many black people in Montana?[/quote]
Your best post in this thread.[/quote]
Proud the fact that Montana is a lily white state? When you are not posting crosses here you are probably lighting them on fire.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]loppar wrote:
Yep, its them.
[/quote]
Saudis weren’t behind 9/11. Small numbers of ISI/Army in Pakistan MAY have had prior knowledge - I don’t think so. Mullah Omar certainly did.
[/quote]
Mwuahahahhaha----
Oh no, just because it was financed by Saudis and carried out by Saudis, clearly the Iraquis and the Afghanis are to blame…
Sigh…
[quote]Chushin wrote:
Go back and ponder our exchange ^^^, son.
If you STILL don’t get it, then you are even dumber than I think.[/quote]
I “get” it. In your world-view anyone who doesn’t agree with your entirely kosher view of the Middle-East is an “idiot.”
Iran is not a threat to the US. Iran is a threat to Israel, just like Iraq was never a threat to US, just Israel. It is largely Jewish and Zionist/Fundamentalist Christians who snookered the US back to the US, with the American taxpayer holding the purse strings for a war that Israel benefited from.
You’re not even American, so it’s not your tax dollars hard at work for the Israeli lobby. This is not to mention all of the US troops killed, maimed and suffering from various disorders because of these IDIOTIC police actions that the US government wages on the behalf of the Zionist lobby. And the price tag for all of these wars won’t effect you either, as the US is passing on the debt from these police actions/wars to future generations. So do me a favor, seeing as though you’re not even fucking American, stop telling Americans to waste our tax dollars and lives for another Middle-Eastern conflict that benefits Israel.