Recognizing Israel for What It Is

[Wordie]

Recognizing Israel for What It Is
by Ahmed Amr Tuesday, Mar. 07, 2006 at 5:34 PM

Condi Rice spent the better part of her recent visit to the Middle East trying to persuade Egyptians and Gulf Arabs to join the American-Israeli efforts to isolate Hamas and impose economic sanctions on the Palestinians. To put it mildly, she was told to take a hike.

...Here is an acid test for Angela Merkel and her ideological clones. If we were to roll back the clock to 1917, would Tony Blair’s British Parliament have the audacity to issue the Balfour Declaration? Would the Queen of England and Prince Phillip allow their names to appear on such a document? Would Bush make a State of the Union address calling for the removal of the Palestinians to make room for a state as Jewish as England is English? Would Angela Merkel step up to the plate and offer Palestine as compensation to the Jews for the sins of the Germans? Would NATO forces storm the beaches of Palestine to ethnically cleanse the Holy Land to accommodate the new arrivals? Would AIPAC and the Israeli lobby have the chutzpah to campaign for the mass expulsion of the native population to make room for their brethren in faith?

...Dov Weisglass is on extremely intimate terms with Secretary Rice. Condi’s Israeli buddy or “Dubi” -- as she likes to call him -- publicly boasts that the disengagement plan was his brainchild. He had this to say about his scheme in an interview with Ha’aretz in October 2004. “It is actually formaldehyde. It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that's necessary so that there will not be a political process with the Palestinians. That is the significance of what we did. The significance is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian State, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”

...It is now obvious that the Palestinians have been deeply radicalized as a result of unremitting and draconian repression and systematic collective punishment. The pervasive corruption in the ranks of Fatah didn’t help matters. Neither has it been lost on the Palestinians that the Oslo Accord and the Road Map were nothing more than an American-Israeli farce designed to prolong their agonies. With or without Hamas, the Israelis never had any intention of accepting a Palestinian state. When it comes to matters of recognition, let’s begin by recognizing Israel for what it is and Condi for what she represents -- an American political establishment that dances to any tune the Israeli fiddler on the roof cares to play.

Ahmed Amr is the Editor of NileMedia. He can be reached at: [email protected].

@

www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar06/Amr06.htm

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/1725383.php

[aquart]

1. Yeah, I'm real impressed with this.

Oh, why stop with 1917. Why not prevent the Crusades? The Diaspora? The Babylonian Exile?

The Palestinians want their homeland and I say, let's give it to them. It's called Arabia. Say, if they go home, will they be entitled to oil money?

[GDAEx2]

3. The Balfour Declaration

was a slap in the face to all the Arabs that picked up a weapon and opposed the Ottoman Turks. It can be argued that this type of near sighted policy is as much responsible for today's mess in the middle east as Shrub's meddling. Todays mid-east terrorists definitely took a page from early Israelis such as David Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin as they drove indigenous Palestinians from their "homeland".
I have to say that I am shocked by your lack of compassion for the Palestinians. I am hoping that this was intended to be sarcasm that I am missing (as I too often do).

[Coastie for Truth]

27. Do some serious reading

Your profile says you are from "Pittsburgh" - you have three very, very fine academic research libraries there -- Carnegie Mellon University, the University of Pittsburgh, and Duquesne University, and a very fine public library, the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh (right between Carnegie Mellon Univ. and the University of Pittsburgh).

University of Pittsburgh has a world class collection on the Ottoman Empire.

Okay--

1. "A Century Of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" by F. William Engdahl
2. "Sowing the Wind: The Seeds of Conflict in the Middle East" by John Keay
3. "British policy toward Syria & Palestine, 1906-1914: A study of the antecedents of the Hussein - McMahon correspondence, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, ..." by Rashid Khalidi (see, I present Palestinians)

Now. Do some research on the Hussein-McMahon negotiations and the Sykes-Picot Agreement.

You might come away with the impression that the most near-sighted of all of the near-sighted policy makers were the map drawing, political cartographers of the World War I victors.

[president4aday]

38. Who are you to say where the Palestinians homeland is? Or

what it's called.

[ugarte]

2. True, Israel is the beneficiary of British imperialism

just as the United States is the beneficiary of racial genocide and its own imperialism against Mexico. But let's deal with realities. Israel is not going anywhere, and the choice for Palestinians is either some kind of accomodation or eternal war.

[Wordie]

5. I think you missed the flavor of the article...

It was quite long and four paragraphs really can't do it justice, so it is perhaps understandable that you would do so, from just the little bit of it that I posted. I think the issue had more to do with the hypocracy of Condi and many other diplomats, both foreign and right here in the U.S., raising the issue of Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel, without ever having blinked an eye at the infinite number of ways in which Israel has not upheld it's part of any of the earlier efforts toward peace.

The author actually does deal with the comparison to the Native Americans, which we hear so often:

Zionists basically believes that their confessional pedigree gave them a natural right to dispossess the Palestinians of their hills, their sea, their villages and their farms. If Palestinian Muslims and Christians had volunteered to convert to Judaism, they would never have been forced off their lands. Apologists for Israel consider the Nakba an act of manifest destiny -- an ugly but necessary orgy of violence to restore the Holy Land to outsiders who were more “spiritually correct.” If the Palestinians had to be dumped into the wilderness to make room for the newcomers -- so be it. It was just tough luck. After all, Native Americans were forced to make room for the European intruders who coveted their lands.

Maybe this type of reasoning explains why so many North American Anglos feel a sense of affinity to Israelis. They both came, they both saw and they both plundered before making the necessary “improvements” to erase the memory of their victims. Most recently, the Israeli government has decided to create a “museum of tolerance” on Palestinian burial grounds.

There is, however, one significant difference between Palestinians and Native Americans. The Palestinians make up more than one percent of the population. In fact, they are half the total population of the original land area of historic Palestine. That percentage does not even take into account the majority of the Palestinian people who continue to live and die in exile.

And I would further add that because, in a different era with its different value system, the Native Americans were dispossessed of their homeland, that doesn't justify Israel visiting a similar fate upon the Palestinians. After all, earlier eras also brought us such injustices as slavery, but a modern, enlightened person would never seek to justify slavery on the basis of its historical fact.

On edit: I might add that this author's statements are perhaps a bit too hot, and I don't necessarily agree with all of them. For instance, I really don't think that the average North America Anglo feels an affinity with the Israelis for the reasons he speculates. Rather, I think it has to do with a confusion over the historical record (they tend to be unaware that the Palesinians are seeking to recover land that belonged to them and instead think it's all about anti-semitism. Then there's also the Evangelicals...who are persuaded by theological arguments.)

Nonetheless, the author is making the point that the roots of the I/P struggle lie in decisions made by a variety of governments, that do not stand up when viewed from the perspective of today's value system.

[pelsar]

26. wordie?....different value system?

And I would further add that because, in a different era with its different value system

israel was established in 1948, never in the worlds history was there so much destruction and human displacement...that was the value system of the time....the fact the palestenians and their arab brethren have never left that time period is probably THE cause of the continuation of the conflict.

how many refuguees and displaced people are still wandering around europe from WWII?....

[Wordie]

39. Sheesh, pelsar. Now that was really quoting out of context!

That was a discussion of the question of whether the US treatment of the Native Americans, several centuries ago, can be used as a justification of the current Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.

I don't think you are saying that the Holocaust really justifies the horrible treatment of the Palestinians, their loss of their ancestral lands, are you? Are you saying that the Israelis are justified in taking Palestinian land because of despicable and inhuman acts by Europeans that the Palestinians were in no way responsible for? I'm looking at this from a Palestinian perspective, now, as the author of this piece was doing. Can you not see the validity of this basic question?

[Coastie for Truth]

43. Try Caroline Finkel's "Osman's Dream"

for some discussion of the population trends.

To say "ancestral lands" is a little bit of a stretch, unless you are making the argument that having had ancestors anywhere in the region encompassing the world from Algiers to Yemen to the Caspian to the Black Sea to Budapest gives one exclusive claim to Palestine (and unless you are writing off the Sephardi and Mizrachi Jews indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa).

Do not misquote me - I am not making the absurdist claim that the Palestinians have no legitimate claim to Palestine. What I am saying is two fold:

1. From the time of Greece and Rome- the land of Palestine - and the land of the Ottoman Empire - had frequent population movement.

2. The Sephardi and Mizrachi were part of that movement and that population.

I have never suggested that the Palestinians be thrown out of Palestine ---- what I have suggested is that the Saudis and the Emirs of the UAE and of Kuwait and Bharain and Qatar should share their oil riches in a Palestinian Marshal Plan.

[pelsar]

47. validity of the question?

i can discuss the validity of the "basic question"...as long as absurdties are not involved:...which value system is being used? 1776? 1948 or 2006..and when you use 2006 are you referring to the values of Dafur?...America in Iraq? Russia in Chechniya? or American Professors in Berkley?

show me a value system of a country at war and use that to compare....

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. Seems a tad... um.... biased to me?

[Wordie]

8. How so?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. It presents one side

the Palestinian side. Which of course, is his right as an author of the piece. It is basically Palestinian talking points.

[Wordie]

12. As a counterpoint to the US/Israeli talking points, one can hardly blame

him, can one? I think the point that the author is making is that the US has for too long only listened to the Israeli side of things.

And while some of this may be "talking points," there is a lot that is worth consideration in this article, imho. I think you may be too quick to dismiss some of these arguments, without fully considering their validity. What, for instance, do you think of the comments of Dov Weinglass to Haaretz, as quoted from the article.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. No, I am not dismissing the validity at all

I'm just pointing out that it is not a piece that examines both sides. I certainly think there are valid points, but I also know it is a complex issue and there are valid points on the other side as well.

[Wordie]

20. I would agree with you there.

I think you will find, however, that articles that look at the entire situation from a truly balanced perspective are exceedingly rare, if they exist at all. If we had to wait for that perfectly balanced article that nobody would see as displaying any bias, I think that the I/P forum would not have many articles posted at all, if any.

The I/P conflict tends to result in very polarized viewpoints. Therefore, the only way the average person can get a perspective on what is really happening is to read a wide variety of those polarized viewpoints and try to synthesize his/her own understanding of the situation from them, imho.

The information typically available to the average American tends to be biased toward the Israeli side of things. I often post things more as a push-back against our own one-sided foreign policy, and the refusal of our own government to see the Palestinian side of things. Our own news media rarely questions this bias, nor do our politicians, so my own I/P posts are in some way an effort to balance that out.

Not that many DUers really spend much time in the I/P forum anyway. :(

[TallahasseeGrannie]

21. I agree with most of your post

the things I read are usually from the Palestinian point of view because I frequent mostly left-leaning blogs, although I hit a few of the right now and then.

I really am not up on the WWI history and the land and I do know a bit more about the Holocaust because I have inlaws who were lost in it. But it is such an emotionally charged issue, and I don't know if it will ever be resolved. There are so many cultural roadblocks in the way.

[Wordie]

23. Here in I/P...

many threads represent the more hawkish views on Israel. If you peruse the list the posts here, you'll see what I mean. I simply have no idea how many people actually read these posts in the I/P forum, but at any rate, as I said, I try to post things that when taken with those more hawkish threads, might give a person a flavor of what's going on.

I'm sorry to hear of the loss of your inlaws. The Holocaust was one of the darkest events in human history, that challenges us all to examine our own values and actions, in light of its undeniable example of just how far man's inhumanity to man can take us. I hope you didn't misconstrue the comments of the author as being dismissive of the Holocaust, as one other poster apparently did. I believe the point the author was making was that the Palestinians should not be made to suffer deprivations as the result of the Holocaust, as they were not the ones to inflict it upon the world - that was the Europeans.

But you are right - the issues are so emotional that it is difficult for us to talk about them rationally.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

36. No, I didn't misconstrue the author's points

and he is right. Put simply and perhaps simplistically, two wrongs a right don't make.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

37. No, I didn't misconstrue the author's points

and he is right. Put simply and perhaps simplistically, two wrongs a right don't make.

[cali]

32. Codswallop.

I can blame him with the greatest of ease, just as I can blame the administration for, if not their language, their terrible policies. One doesn't have to condone either, though I must say the comparison's a bit silly. This administration has committed real crimes. This guy's just spewing hate.

[Astrad]

6. The test of statehood

is to stand on your own. Neither a Palestinian state nor Israel is able to do that yet. Neither state really exists by any conventional definition. They are ongoing dramas yet to be resolved. The need to continually affirm Israel's right to exist affirms this. Israel is not alone in this. Taiwan is similar, as is Somalia, a number of the post-Yugoslavia nations, Iraq and others. The day Israel can exist without US military and financial backing is the day Israel is a nation.

[Coastie for Truth]

14. Is the US a Nation

How much of our public debt is held by the People's Republic of China -- and how fast are we selling off our assets to keep minimally on ur public debt (IBM selling itself to Lenovo and Hitachi, Westinghouse to Toshiba, Chrysler to Daimler Benze, our ports to British P&O and then to DP World).

And if our imported oil were cut off - we would descend into Balkan, Middle Eastern Chaos in a matter of months (See Jim Kunstler's The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century).

[Coastie for Truth]

7. Recognize the US for what it is

:rant:

We are the beneficiary of British Apartheid-Racism in developing the agicultural south, as well as our own racism and ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Native Americans, and our imperialistic wars against Mexico. And, of course, the Asian Exclusion Act, and the National Origin Quotas Immigration Act. And we still don't really enforce Brown v. Board of Education.

Read: Howard Zinn, People's History of the United States : 1492 to Present

[Wordie]

9. See post #5. None of our own errors of the past should be a

justification for Israel's errors in the present.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. Oh come on

Would Jesus Christ Himself have signed off on

The Council of Nice,
The Blood Libels
The Crusades
The Inquisition
The "Whatever" of little Edgardo Mortara
The Affaire Dreyfus
The Pogroms
The Holocaust
The promulgation of "The Secret Protocols of Zion"

and let's look broader, would Jesus Christ Himself have signed off on

Slavery
Jim Crow Laws
Plessy v. Ferguson
The taking of His Name in Vain by the Fundies
The Atom Bombing of Japan

[Wordie]

13. Of course not. Your point?

Neither would he have signed off on the things mentioned in the article, wouldn't you agree?

[Coastie for Truth]

16. Your point in posting the Amr flame bait?

[Wordie]

19. The article makes some extremely valid points.

That you don't like or agree with those points isn't a reason for me to avoid posting such an article.

[cali]

15. I read the whole article.

Pretty ugly. Pretty bigoted. Here are some other excerpts:

Those Palestinians who feel obliged to accept Israel as a concrete reality should merely be required to recognize it for what it is -- a racist colonial land grabbing settler state built on the premise that the native people of the land should be evicted based on a test of faith.

<snip>


It takes a truly insolent human being to demand that the Palestinians accept Israel’s “right to exist.” What exactly does that mean? To a Palestinian ear, this apparently lofty proposition concedes to Israel a historical right to inflict an ethnic cleansing campaign on an ancient and proud Eastern Mediterranean people? 
Should the catastrophe of mass expulsion that still scars every Palestinian family be accepted as a beauty mark in human history? Was the Nakba a good thing? Did Jews have a natural right to denude Palestine of its native inhabitants? It seems forgotten that it wasn’t the Palestinians who ventured into Europe to pick a fight with Polish and Russian Jews. Recognizing Israel as a concrete reality is one thing. But that reality comes with historical baggage that every citizen of Israel is obliged to shoulder. 

(The Holocaust reduced to the level of "picking a fight"? )

At this stage, the most we should ask of the Palestinians is a provisional recognition of Israel as a racist belligerent state that should immediately withdraw to the 1967 borders pending a final peace agreement. If Reagan could publicly recognize the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire,” the Palestinians should be equally accommodating and recognize Israel for what it is.


When it comes to matters of recognition, let’s begin by recognizing Israel for what it is and Condi for what she represents -- an American political establishment that dances to any tune the Israeli fiddler on the roof cares to play.

(Of course, conjure up that ancient image of Jews pulling the strings)

[Wordie]

18. I realize how difficult it is for some to consider the situation from the

Palestinian POV.

But to call the article, "ugly" and "bigoted" is quite a leap. I would agree that the language the author used is hot - not diplomatic, and that may be difficult for some. But remember that he is reacting to statements by our own Secretary of State that condoned an approach that would simply starve the Palestinians into acquiesence.

So, why exactly is Condi up in arms about Palestinian commitments under Oslo and the Road Map? Do Israelis really care whether they get or don’t get recognition from the new Palestinian administrators of the Bantustan in Gaza and the walled in “palitentiaries” in the West Bank? Does anybody seriously think that Israel would have negotiated in good faith if the “other” Palestinians had won the recent elections?

After the unilateral disengagement in Gaza, the Israelis are content with freezing the “political process” for years -- if not decades. This final quote from Weisglass sheds light on their master plan: "The withdrawal in Samaria is a token one. We agreed to it only so it wouldn't be said that we concluded our obligation in Gaza." It’s all smoke and mirrors and Condi has committed to provide Israel with infinite supplies of both essential elements.

It is worth recalling that former Prime Minister Netenyahu, the current leader of the Likud, called on the Knesset to formally cancel the Oslo Accords as far back as July of 2001. During his term in office, he did his very best to kill the agreement. I bring this up because the neo-con cabal that currently collaborates with Condi in formulating American foreign policy subscribes to Netenyahu’s political program.

Despite her secret agreement to derail the peace process after the Gaza disengagement, Condi spent five days trying to convince Arab states to join her in starving the Palestinians. Her new declared policy is to make the West Bank and Gaza ungovernable via economic sanctions against a Hamas led government. Some commentators might conclude that this is just a case of working outside her area of expertise -- Russian studies. Or maybe she had a memory lapse and forgot that she issued Sharon a “no-one-to-talk-to certificate” two years before Hamas’s surprise victory.

I know that there are some DU posters who protest loudly when there is any mention of neocons directing the shape of US policy toward Israel. The criticisms are based in anti-semitism, they say. But what are we to think of the actual facts of the situation? Are we to pretend that many of the authors of the "Clean Break" paper written for the hawkish Netanyahu don't really populate the upper reaches of the Bush administration? Are we never to speak of the influence of AIPAC on American foreign policy? If not to influence American foreign policy, what exactly is the function of AIPAC? Where does all that money they raise go, then? Should we pretend that our foreign policy is even-handed toward the Palestinians when it clearly has not been?

I'd also like to point out that nowhere in this article does the author suggest that the solution to all of this is the elimination of Israel as a state, however strong the language he uses may be. His language is not language that I myself would use, but I don't think it rises to the level of "bigotry" and I think his points are valid ones.

[cali]

22. Hmm,

well, there undoubtedly are DUers who have a difficult time considering the Palestinian POV, and if this is representative of it, I'm one of them. I hope it's not. And I'm genuinely sorry that you can't see the rage and bigotry in this piece.

Although I'm not sympathetic to this POV, I am sympathetic to the pligtht of the Palestinians. I believe that there should be an immediate end to the Occupation, that Israel should end its practice of targeted killings. I don't believe Israel has the right to withhold taxes from the Hamas Government. I think the wall is a bad idea. Israel needs to let the Palestinians breath. They can't be expected to negotiate in the state they're currently in.

I have no problem with criticism of neocons, and AIPAC isn't an organization I support.

I think it says something that you can't see how ugly this piece is, and that you're blind to its bigotry, I think what it says is that in your passion to see justice for the Palestinians you're willing to condone inflamatory and hateful speech. Simply because there are valid points embedded in it, doesn't justify what you refer to as "hot language".

Finally, no the author didn't directly call for the destruction of Israel, but it's clear that he doesn't believe it should exist. He calls it evil 6 ways from Sunday.

[Wordie]

25. Show me one example of bigotry in the piece.

And to criticize the article on the basis of "rage" isn't quite accurate, either. I do see a lot of anger in it. But can you blame the author for this? After all, what he is doing is responding to the recent plan to starve the Palestinians into submission.

And you're wrong also, imho, about this being a call for the destruction of Israel.

It’s time to put aside Zionist mythology and start dealing pragmatically with the tragic outcomes of this incessant conflict. The whole world should recognize Israel for what it really is, who initiated the conflict and who paid the ultimate price. Once that simple task is complete, Palestinians of all ideological stripes will be willing to sit down and work out some reasonable and permanent compromises to bring an end to this very dark chapter in the modern history of the human race.

Now, you may not agree with how the author has phrased some of that, but the ultimate intent is clear. He's looking for negotiation to resolve and bring a permanent end the crisis. That you may not agree with the level of blame he assigns to Israel for the conflict should not blind us to that fact. Are his conditions any more unreasonable than the calls to "starve" the Palestinians? It is quite clear he is in no way calling for the destruction of Israel.

[pelsar]

28. the auther is making foolish statements....

in his zeal to blame israel he states:

Palestinians of all ideological stripes will be willing to sit down and work out some reasonable and permanent compromises....of course by stating that he absolves all the palestenains of their sins and claims its all israels fault

the usual....palestenains have no responsability for their situation...its all israels fault....usual article that has no basis in reality, meant for the niave and uneducated

[Wordie]

31. But that wasn't the question in this subthread, pelsar.

I'm quite certain you see things very differently than this author does. But that doesn't make the author a bigot.

[pelsar]

35. how about ignorence?

when one claims however subtly that its all israels fault....then the author is either ignorent or something else....whatever that maybe...either way such articles have no worth in a serious discussion.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

46. show me a fair article....

that shows both sides....and ask me about it (as some do here)....and i'll have no problem in explaining what israel does to make it worse.....show me an article that says that palestenians have absolutly no responsability and i have nothing to add.

[Coastie for Truth]

29. It's in the preception of the reader

In the 1970's if a Dem said "neighborhood school" or "housing market value depends on schools" or "the school at the end of bus ride" or "classical academy" or "open enrollment" you risked being thrown out of Democratic Clubs, the Americans for Democratic Action, the ACLU, and all of the bases of Democratic power and influence.

[cali]

33. It's hardly that subtle

Why is everyone having such a hard time recognizing this article for what it is?

[Coastie for Truth]

34. It's block buster

But I live in the Metro SF area - and know the SF propensity for political overstatement.

[cali]

30. As I said

I'm sorry you can't see it. I pointed out some examples in my first post. You deny that those examples are valid.

The article is dripping with rage and hate. Not my kind of stuff wherever it comes from. I'm glad to condemn calls to "starve" Palestinians as well. It's my understanding that the US is going to continue funding for humanitarian purposes. I also think that we should continue funding the Palestinian Government, regardless of who's running it. The Palestinian deserve no less.

I adhere to a philosophy that turns away from language such as the author used. It's impossible to listen and learn from someone on a tirade. (tirade: a prolonged speech of abuse or condemnation). Yes, I'm sure you know what tirade means. In other DU forums I've criticised what I consider over the top language.

I actually believe what my tag line says.

[president4aday]

41. Quoting you...

" I believe that there should be an immediate end to the Occupation, that Israel should end its practice of targeted killings. I don't believe Israel has the right to withhold taxes from the Hamas Government."

Later you protest that "He calls it evil 6 ways from Sunday."

Why is a state that does everything you say, not "...evil 6 ways from Sunday."?


Hmmmmm ?

[cali]

42. Thanks for the question.

You touch upon one of my very favorite subjects: I call it The Theory Of Apparent Paradox. Here it is: Wherein two seemingly irreconcilable truths co-exist within the same time/space frame. Do you follow that? In other words, yes Israel does some bad things. that doesn't mean that it doesn't do some things right. Just as Hamas which has done some bad things isn't all evil. They have, for example, been responsive to the Palestinian people re social services.

Hint: Black and white thinking doesn't really solve much. Think axis of evil as an inane and banal foreign policy.

[president4aday]

44. What "things right" does Israel do with respect to the Palestinians?

If an example had come to mind, don't you think you would have cited it to support your argument?

[Coastie for Truth]

24. You posted

I know that there are some DU posters who protest loudly when there is any mention of neocons directing the shape of US policy toward Israel. The criticisms are based in anti-semitism, they say. But what are we to think of the actual facts of the situation? Are we to pretend that many of the authors of the "Clean Break" paper written for the hawkish Netanyahu don't really populate the upper reaches of the Bush administration? Are we never to speak of the influence of AIPAC on American foreign policy? If not to influence American foreign policy, what exactly is the function of AIPAC? Where does all that money they raise go, then? Should we pretend that our foreign policy is even-handed toward the Palestinians when it clearly has not been?

I will attempt to avoid cutesie ad hominems - but the underlined passage illustrates a profound lack of knowledge of Jewish-American politics.

Point 1. The Jewish-American "umbrella" organizations - ZOA and AIPAC - tend to have access to both the White House and the Israeli Government, and, to some extent to "talk the talk and walk the walk" of both.

Point 2. Given the role of Lobbyists in our government, there is a revolving door between the ZOA and AIPAC and government - just like the revolving door between academia and government. When there is a Democratic President in the US and a Left Prime Minister in Israel, ZOA and AIPAC are quite left leaning. You don't like it -- read:

Amendment I - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. - That's lobbying --- SCOTUS has said so

Point 3. The Jewish Vote - and manpower in campaigns - and cash for campaigns is for real -- and it is the most loyal caucasian bloc in the Democratic Party. Click on over to www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=118169&mesg_id=118169 and to the three links.

When George H. Bush's Secretary of State, Jim Baker, was reported to have said "(Expletive deleted) the Jews" - some say it cut 10% points off of George H's Jewish vote - from about 20% to about 10%.

Point 4. -- and being Jewish or a supporter of Israel or a "Zionist" (which some use as a synonym for "NeoCon" or "PNACer" is not illiberal.

[president4aday]

45. Your points 1,2,3, &4 may be true enough, but they don't

refute, or even address, what you underlined and take issue with in Wordie's post.

[Lithos]

48. Locking per I/P guidelines

Two reasons

* Please use discretion when referencing obviously biased or factually questionable material. Vanity websites are generally not as credible as the New York Times, the Washington Post or the UK Guardian and are likely to be locked. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself is the author readily identifiable and likely to be cited by the mainline world press or encountered in an alternate format (mass-published book, academic journal, newspaper article, radio or TV show).

* This article rehashes several anti-Semitic memes, namely echoing memes which claim Jewish control over US government and media.

- Condi once again demonstrated her total allegiance to the Israeli agenda.

- Regardless of the volume of canards generated by the Likudnik public relations campaigns and their media operatives in the West, the State Department and European community know every little detail about this conflict. The Israelis can win every public relations battle but the evidence of their crimes will endure in historical archives long after the headlines in the New York Times and CNN sound bites fade into a dim memory.

- Condi and her Likudnik neo-con foreign policy architects

- Is Condi confused about which government cuts her paycheck?

- When it comes to matters of recognition, let’s begin by recognizing Israel for what it is and Condi for what she represents -- an American political establishment that dances to any tune the Israeli fiddler on the roof cares to play.