More House Members Stand Up to Israel Than in '06
The House just approved its version of the praise-filled pro-Israel resolution approved yesterday in the Senate. And though I've yet to see a co-sponsor tally that would show any senator courageous enough to resist the lure of AIPAC, the stiffened-spine caucus in the House reached 26 members today: 4 who voted no and 22 voting "present" in a gesture of stoic disapproval.
Compare today's outcome to 2006, when the combined total of no and present votes was only 12, and we could be seeing a slow but welcome shift of the dialogue towards political leeway for lawmakers to criticize Israel. The Minnesota Independent has the statement of Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), who wasn't present to vote in 2006 but pointed out that the resolution is "void of any relation to the hellish reality that is being inflicted on the citizens of Gaza right now."
"Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory." -
Pat Buchanan
McLaughlin Group, June 15, 1990
January 9, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scary, but true.
When I watch Democrats talk about Israel I feel like I'm watching the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers...they just get this weird glazed over look in their eyes and they just start...talking like Republicans, like their brains have been...removed. Ahhh, it sends a shiver up my spine.
(Yes, I realize there was no brain removal in Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but that is how they act, and aliens aren't real)
January 9, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Campaign contributions will do that to ya...
January 9, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pat Buchanan is a Nazi muffin with a history of blatant anti-Semitism. He often expresses agenda similar to Hamas--a sort of neo-Darwinian political philosophy. Basically, he is of the opinion that, like any state (in his opinion), Israel should be able to sink or swim according to the whim of its neighbors rather than be supported by the US.
Do you really want to line up behind Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan? Might as well bend over now and start practicing "Yes, Master!" in front of a mirror.
January 9, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Israel should be able to sink or swim according to the whim of its neighbors rather than be supported by the US."
Well, he almost got it right. Israel should be able to sink or swim according to its own merits rather than be supported by the US. It's Congress's mantra, 'my Israel right or wrong', that's the problem.
January 9, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pat Buchanan has been given a corporate-media pass on his history of homophobia and anti-Semitism. He never heard of an accused Nazi or collaborationist war criminal hiding in the US, but what he would publicly defend them or, at least object to deporting them back to where they came from or to Israel for trial.
He may be correct on some FEW issues and in some aspects of his opposition to USA's Gulf adventurism, but he is not a good person to make political common cause with . . . it would only show pro-Israeli people, particularly Jews, that their suspicion of anti-Semitism equating to anti-"Zionist aggression" is at least partially justified.
January 9, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about a different take ? Why don't we aim for a political elite which is independent of Israel without necessarily following Pat Buchannon ? I think your argument is ridiculous on its face. This is the same argument used in europe by the Israelis: if you oppose our policies, then you are an advocate for the holocaust. Stupid.
January 10, 2009 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I do endorse Buchanan's remarks. That's why I posted them. That and the fact that they are obviously true as your ad hominem screed in response attests
I guess I'll just stand guilty as charged of "anti-semitism"
Doesn't bother me, the same old playbook of demonization from the Israel Lobby.
January 10, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a disgusting bigot, but please keep it up because it makes it so much easier to show decision-makers that all of Israel's opponents are crazed.
January 10, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buchanan's status as a racist, reactionary blowhard doesn't preclude him from being right on occasion. However I always thought that quote was of limited use: Congress (and the US elite press) is actually Likud occupied territory.
The fact is that the permissible range of opinion in the Israeli press and the Knesset is much broader than in the US Congress and mainstream press. Here everybody seems to have to be Bibi Netanyahu, so they can claim to be a "friend of Israel". Of course that's bullshit; any rational consideration of Israel's long term interest -- indeed it's long term survival -- lands one squarely in Jimmy Carter territory, which in US politics gets you accused of anti-Semitism.
This does Israel no favors -- it strengthens the Israeli right's hand far more than their actual appeal at home would.
January 10, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pat Buchanan, the man who supported former Nazis war criminals: John Demjanjuk, Karl Linnas, and Arthur Rudolph.
And you cite him to buttress your point? LMAO.
January 10, 2009 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, another 210 members and it would actually matter! At this rate we'll have a Congress with a spine and peace in the Middle East in...a hundred years maybe?
January 9, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll believe Congress has a "stiffened spine" when I see its members tell AIPAC to take a hike and cut off American military aid to Israel. Until then, it's all wishful thinking and talk.
Defending oneself is one thing; perpetrating devastation on the innocent is quite another.
January 10, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
America should not be taking sides. Both parties are wrong and must work together to come some resolution. America does its self a disservice by enabling Israel, especially when they're wrong.
January 9, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was reading an article on Slate(I think) a few days back about a statement made by George Washington concerning this issue. From what I remember, he implied that the US should not take sides in issues between other nations. The favored nation would use it to their advantage while the disfavored nation would feel rebuffed and hostile towards the US. Perhaps Congress should spend more time reading what the founding fathers had to say before they commit the US.
January 10, 2009 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was wrong ...it's Salon and the article is by Glen Greenwald titled : George Washington's warnings and U.S. policy towards Israel
Here's the url : http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/30/democracy/index.html
I need more coffee to wake up.
January 10, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Three R's of the Israel-Palestine conflict remain Retribution, Righteous indignation, Retaliation.
It is a strange irony that as Ehud Olmert announced his resignation as Prime Minister the former Mayor of Jerusalem said things that still cannot be uttered in the U.S. Congress without risking slander and/or oblivion.
Here is an excerpt from Ehud Olmert's interview with Yedioth Ahronoth:
Olmert: We must make these decisions, and yet we are not prepared to say to ourselves, "Yes, this is what we must do." We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians, meaning a withdrawal from nearly all, if not all, of the [occupied] territories. Some percentage of these territories would remain in our hands, but we must give the Palestinians the same percentage [of territory elsewhere]— without this, there will be no peace.
Yedioth Ahronoth: Including Jerusalem?
Ehud Olmert: Including Jerusalem...
- George Conk, New York City
January 9, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
George, I'll second that with the observation that the 3 Rs work both ways, creating a deadly (in this case, literally) cycle. We appear to have the worst situation possible here - both sides have legitimate grievances and can point at atrocity and broken faith on the part of the other.
Olmert has put his finger on the solution. He can do that, of course, because it was part of his resignation.
January 9, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
When it comes to discussing inflammatory issues concerning Israel, the Israeli media never ceases to amaze me. Would that 5 per cent of our media had half the balls that Haaretz has, we would be a 100 times better off today. An example:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1054158.html
January 9, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, it is messed up how Israel's own media will report the truth, but our media won't dare utter anything unbiased. I can't think of any other example of dissent being MORE acceptable in the country in question than in a separate country on the other side of the planet.
January 9, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I saw Buchanan on Morning Joe.... He had an excellent point... When Poncho Villa came across the border and killed Americans, we didn't attack Mexico. We went in and got the scoundrel.
The Palestine people are not throwing rockets...Hamas is... Caging up a people, denying them decent treatment... unless they do what? That's common decency? Have we lost all our morals?
The people sitting in Washington are too scared that the Jewish community will not donate to their re-election campaigns....so we can say...they are a caged people as well..... they have to agree or they will have to go out and get a real job...
January 9, 2009 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dink, don't be such a boob! You can whine and complain about Jewish conspiracies all you want (along with Pat and his ilk). None of this, however, explains why no one in the "international community" has raised a voice condemning Hamas for everything that it's been doing in Gaza--including, oddly enough, bombing Israel indiscriminately with rocket fire.
I love reading all the horseshit about a "disproportionate response". It's OK, apparently, to rain terror on others as long as your targeting skills and technology are in the stone age. It's OK to have an official position of your governing party an elimination of an entire nation (last I checked, this was called genocide). The only thing that's preventing Hamas and Hezbollah from succeeding in their genocidal aspirations is their ability gap. Their resources, skills and technology are simply no match for Israel. Do you have any doubt that had they had the capacity, they would bring their genocidal plans into fruition?
Please, spare us the moralizing until you can see straight.
January 9, 2009 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry buck. but that is just too one sided to let go..... How many Israelis were hurt or killed with the rockets? 3,4,5 ???? How many innocent people in Gaza were killed? 300, 400, 500??? The profound atrocity of this war is that anyone can form an opinion that equates human life at 100 to 1 and still tries to claim to be the victim.
The second point that has me really upset with the Israeli propaganda war is that those "southern Israeli towns" are actually the places the Palestinians were evicted from in the ETHNIC CLEANSING operation that made those towns PURE JEWISH without any of the Palestinians who called those places home for centuries. So now they are prisoners in the concentration camp of Gaza and can be murdered for keeping hope alive that they will someday be allowed to return to their homes in those "southern Israeli towns"
'Might makes right' eh buck?
January 10, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much, buck, for speaking plain truth to infuriating nonsense.
January 10, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "including, oddly enough, bombing Israel indiscriminately with rocket fire ..."
If we were to apply some measure of equality, indiscriminate rocket fire from Hamas would mean they'd be hitting everything in the middle east.
Perhaps you're just as racist as the Israelis when they openly state that the normal ratio for revenge is at a minimum of ten Palestinians to one Israeli (now well on its way to 100 to 1) ? Gaza is a concentration camp, and no amount of the bullshit AIPAC line can change that particular fact on the ground one bit.
January 11, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buchanan must have failed History. The Villa Expedition never captured Pancho himself. I can see where that whole scene would appeal to Pat's cowboy instincts, but it was in fact a failure.
It's a mystery why anyone lets that Nixonian stooge on teevee.
January 11, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could someone tell me why Israel is the third-rail of Washington? I'm serious here. I mean, I understand that a politician will get slammed by AIPAC and called anti-Israel by merely speaking honestly and thoughtfully about Israel and Palestine. But has anyone even tried to do that recently? Were careers ruined and lives destroyed by speaking up on these issues? I just don't see it. And I don't think most Americans give a rats ass about Israel or Palestine either.
Betty McCollum tangled with AIPAC in 2006 after an AIPAC lobbyist said:
McCollum's response to that attack included this:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19063
As is obvious from today's vote, she was re-elected. Yet even she could only manage a "present" vote today when her own statement later suggests she wanted to vote no.
So what is Washington afraid of? How did we come to this? I think I need a history lesson.
January 9, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely agree. I think if people would just stand up to them they'd find that AIPAC isn't all powerful. Certainly they have power, but I think their influence is overstated. Obviously a few members have stood up to them and lived to do it again. Unless a member lives in a district with a ton of hawkish Jews (and most don't), I can't see how AIPAC can do that much damage (although they will try to fund their opponents out of revenge).
If I were a member of Congress I'd do what McCollum did and tell them to kiss my ass. I'd rather risk losing my seat after a battle with AIPAC than to compromise my principles.
January 9, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think fear for one's physical safety is real (why take chances? It's similar to the gun lobby).
We allow Israel to assassinate designated targets within this country's borders, unless I'm mistaken about what I read just after Katrina. Staging an "accidental" death is not out of the question.
Even the "we're nuts for Israel, you know" intimation may be all it takes. The He-Crazy argument.
January 9, 2009 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please name one instance when someone acting on behalf of the Government of Israel deliberately physically harmed an official of the United Staes Governemnt or any American citizen in the U.S. You are a disgusting bigot, but please, please keep up your conspiracy theorizing because it makes it so much easier for my friends and me to persuade decision-makers that opponents of Israel's policies are a just bunch of fucking lunatics.
January 10, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peaches,
Politics is about representation. USA today recently had an article about the faith of those who represent us in Washington. One of the most startling statemetns was that while Jews make up 2% of the US population they are disproportionately represented in Congress. With 5x the representative population than their US population.
this influences USA Foreign Policy to a huge degree. And makes AIPAC more viable.
Recall, how McKinney was run out of office because of her remarks.
January 10, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
you're still only talking about 10% of the congress. if you could get born-agains to stop unquestioningly supporting israel, then you'd make a dent.
January 10, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
My real point is that anytime you have a group with common interest disproportionately represented then their political interests can dominate. Peaches queried:
Could someone tell me why Israel is the third-rail of Washington?
I believe disproportionate representative has a lot to do with who sets the agenda, particularly when they chair powerful committes, like Levin, Spector, Boxer, Feinstein, and Schumer do.
January 10, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
and my point is there are a lot of non-jews who are just as reflxively pro-israel. some are end-timers, some agents of the military industrial complex, some just have no problem with killing arabs.
January 10, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
But that is because they get run out of office when they do not support AIPAC or the pro-Israel agenda.
January 10, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So what is Washington afraid of? How did we come to this? I think I need a history lesson."
Peaches, several posts down I provide an initial "history lesson", this was intended as a reply to you, but I pushed the wrong button, sorry. I do profess my astonishment that McCollum is still there, but you see she held it at "present."
As to the ideas that "they're not so powerful," I think this is exceedingly naive and so do they.
January 10, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sadly, I think most of increase has been due to significantly more Democrats in the House, and not an evolution of caring or spinal formation. If you are comparing to a '06 vote, then that would have been the 109th Congress, with Republican control. It would be interesting to see if anyone actually changed their vote, or if it was entirely due to new membership. If I had energy right now I'd dive into voting records..
January 9, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."
Pat Buchanan may be a lot of things but nailed it with that.
And Ehud Olmert may be looking at Sainthood... um... well, maybe not Sainthood...
January 9, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since they will probably get grief for being so 'anti-Israeli' I would encourage (those of us who find US policy re. Israel so distorted) everyone to contact those who didn't support this resolution and voice your support.
January 9, 2009 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a constituent of Betty McCollum's, I am more impressed than I ever thought I'd be! Betty isn't known as much of a wave-maker, but good for her!
January 9, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well, expect her to be targeted for political doom. Free speech in USA has its limits.
January 10, 2009 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Political doom is right.
And here is how it happens..just follow the money.
In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.
An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.
Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.
There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
In fact, the congressmembers know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don't know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much "hard money" into any candidate's election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks.
Although AIPAC, Washington's most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can't hide all of the results.
Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well.
Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel.
According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African.
Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person.
The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel's 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli.
Shocking Comparisons
January 10, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please give us the figures for U.S. aid to Israel between 1949 and 1967.
January 10, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't u read? 4th paragraph from bottom..gives 49-94 figures. I know Sinai I&II doubled aid in the 70s. It still does not offset the total aid spent on Israel.
How about you tell me what Israel does for American that warrants that type of aide. Just how the hell is it in America's interest to spend all that money on Israel.
And why should I as a taxpayer support this type of excessive aid to a country that lacks a history of being a staunch American ally like the UK has been?
BTW.
When I say excessive what I mean is,the aid program to Israel has amounted to the largest voluntary transfer of wealth and technology in history, far more than all American aid given to rehabilitate Western Europe under the Marshall Plan after World War II.2
January 10, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yay! Nothing like a little Israel bashing to get TPM readers lining up behind Pat Buchanan. If being on his team doesn't get you to reconsider your position, what will? Surely you'd react "proportionately" to rocket fire in your neighborhood...
January 9, 2009 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I had stolen my "neighborhood" from the residents who lived there for centuries and had herded them into a concentration camp close enough for a few rockets to reach ..... maybe I would think if I hadn't fucked those people over so bad, they wouldn't hate me so much.
It helps to know a little history and not pretend this started with rockets from Gaza.
January 10, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you live in the USA and are not a Native American (or descendant of Africans brought here involuntarily) then you DO live in a neighborhood that was stolen from the original, or at least the indigenous, inhabitants . . . who were rounded up and put onto "reservations" . . .
January 10, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
1949 - two states. Israel was willing to live with that, the other side was not.
January 11, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what would really hurt Hamas?
Dismantling illegal settlements.
January 10, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with this theory is that all of the Jewish settlements in Gaza were taken down (some of them forcefully by the Israeli Army) when Israel pulled out of Gaza. No Jewsih settlements whatsoever were left. Then the Palestinians held elections and put a terrotist organization in charge in Gaza. The result? Random missles launched every day from Gaza into Israel. Hamas runs videos on its official television station cursing jews as "Crusaders" and "the brothers of apes and pigs" while praising suicide bombers. Article Seven of the Hamas charter concludes:
"The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:
"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).
So, obviously it's the Isreali settlements that were forcing Hamas to shoot unguided missiles into Isreal.
January 10, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Much bullshit here. Where to start ? First, the settlements were removed from Gaza because Sharon realized that if Gaza were to become part of Israel, all those sand people would multiply so fast, Israel would soon become a Jewish minority democracy, a very unwelcome result indeed. Second Hamas is a terrorist organization because the buffoon in chief went along with Sharon's Elmer Fudd impersonation and labelled them terrorists. Third, rockets fired at Israel every day ? Bullshit. Next, if you're going to quote Islamic text as advocating violence against Jews, you had better cover your ears the next time you prepare to listen to the rant that comes out of the extremist community in Israel. Why don't you listen to the actual players on the ground instead of repeating the diarrhea expelled by the MSM ?
January 11, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Lies, all lies". Great thought process.
Ingorance like this is mind boggling.
January 11, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Open consideration of these issues ended with AIPAC's successful targetting of Sen. Charles Percy in 1985. Since then, it's "Everybody, get in line!" Anyone who questions this is an anti-semite, always (ask President Carter).
"Among politicians considered unfriendly to Israel who AIPAC has helped defeat include Cynthia McKinney, Paul Findley, Earl Hillard, Pete McCloskey, Senators William Fulbright and Roger Jepson, and Adlai Stevenson in his campaign for governor of Illinois in 1982. The defeat of Charles H. Percy, Senator for Illinois until 1985, has been attributed to AIPAC-co-ordinated donations to his opponent after he supported the sale of AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia. Donations included $1.1 million on anti-Percy advertising by Michael Goland, who was also a major contributor to AIPAC. Former executive director of AIPAC, Tom Dine, was quoted as saying, "All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians - those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire - got the message"."
The above Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States is itself attacked on Wiki as not neutral, since it provides unhelpful details: what it should say is merely that AIPAC works to help USA navigate in tough world in a myriad of positive ways.
January 10, 2009 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, that last bit was meant for PeachesNYC.
January 10, 2009 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
AIPAC is making work for the ADL? This entire ball of wax is anti-semitic.
BTW, why was Sarah Palin flown to DC within 48 hours of being picked to go before AIPAC for vetting? Am I the only one who noticed that?
January 10, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
No. Obama had to speak to AIPAC as well. It is all very public.
January 10, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the past the U.S. was able to negotiate peace agreements in the Middle East that benefited Israel as much as the Arab countries. But now we only support Israel and as a result we lost our leadership. That has to return, and the only way to restore it is to return to being a leader of peace who can listen to both sides. Israel does have the far superior military power over Hamas. That's the point! Hamas is not a real threat to Israel, and Israel has the military capabilities to achieve their defensive goals without causing so much suffering and destruction. Bush and Cheney support what Israel is doing. Something to consider.
January 10, 2009 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, my stepson is Jewish so I don't want anyone to think I'm anti-Semitic or anything. No, I have much respect for Moderate Jews.
With that said, Jews make up 2% of the American population but make up about 20% of our elected Federal Government officials.
This tells me there is undue influence for Israel at work.
Otherwise.... Let's see, Blacks make up 12% of the American population but only 2% of our elected Federal Government.
Remember, we want to protect our oil interests (usually said in the News as "Protect our Interests in the Middle East") and Israel gives us great cover.
I try to understand the Palestinians but my family just can't seem to (and yes, they are Democrats - they just claim well if Mexico was bombing us....).
January 10, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you on the disproportionate representation. The Mexico analogy is just specious and doesn't hold water.
January 10, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Marcia,
I would like you to document where you get your "20%" figure.
This website has one tally for the 110th congress
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewcong110.html
It gives 13 senators and 30 members of the house. That total is 43. The denominator in this calculation is 100 Senators + 435 members of the House + 1 VP (non-Jewish)+ 1 President (non-Jewish)= 537. Correct me if you are aware of some other federal elected officials. Total then is 43/537 = 8% not 20%. Again correct me if I have my math wrong or if you have another more expansive list of the Jewish elected members of the federal government.
Yes, this means Jews are over-represented in the federal government, but your quantitative exaggeration is big enough that I would call it a qualitative exaggeration as well - meant to make the idea of Jewish control of things more menacing.
Beginning your statement with the assertion that you are not anti-semitic because your stepson is Jewish is a little comical. Maybe you're aware of the frequently lampooned statment "Some of my best friends are Black" or Jewish or whatever. The joke is that this is the usual preambulatory statement to something subtly racist or anti-semitic.
Jew are over-represented in elected office because of the established tradition of Jews entering the professions (especially law) - the frequent springboard for elective office - and another tradition of participation in civic life, especially in America but also elsewhere.
African Americans are under-represented because they remain largely a socioeconomic underclass in the US.
Jews in congress are overwhelmingly Democrats. Most are supporters of Israel, frequently coming from states or districts where support for Israel is strong. Support for Israel is very strong across broad swaths of the American population and among its elected representatives from both parties and among Jewish and non-Jewish politicians.
I don't know whether you are anti-semitic or not. I assume not since you say you are not. However, in this short piece, you have used two standards from the anti-semite's playbook:
1) an attempt to immunize yourself from criticism of your ideas as anti-semitic by citing a single social/familial connection to one Jewish person
2) casual overstatement of the influence of Jews' power, a mainstay of historical antisemtic attacks such as "the Protocols of the Elders of Zion"
I have spent the time responding to this because I think it's important to not let these sorts of comments go unchallenged.
Ron
January 10, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, sir, for identifying the signs of bigotry whether deliberate or unintentional.
January 10, 2009 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ron,
Here is what I found:
Jews continue to be well represented, at least in terms of raw numbers, on Capitol Hill. Though Jews are only about 2% of America’s total population, Jewish lawmakers already represent nearly 10% of Congress. They include 29 Jews in the House and 13 in the Senate.
All but three — Virginia’s Eric Cantor in the House, and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Norm Coleman of Minnesota in the Senate — are Democrats. Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman is considered an Independent, but he remains a registered Democrat despite his hearty support for Republican nominee John McCain. Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders also caucuses with Democrats.
January 10, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"courageous enough to resist the lure of AIPAC"? How about considering the possibility that supporters of Israel's attempt to stop the daily onslaught of missiles upon its own women and children might believe it has the right to do so?
Yes, the Israelis living in bomb shelters are avoiding death -- in most cases -- but also yes, Hamas deliberately draws deadly fire on its fellow citizens. Where is the outrage?
January 10, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It bears repeating, folks:
"Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."
"Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."
"Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."
Israeli occupied territory encompasses Capitol Hill.
"Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."
"Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."
"Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory."
To be blunt: Dump Diane!
January 10, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
What response would you have suggest to the daily launching of unguided missiles into Israel from Gaza by Hamas? Should Israel have responded "proportionally"? Does that mean shooting an equal number of unguided missiles back into Gaza?
January 10, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something less than a rate of 100 dead Palestinians to 1 dead Israeli would be nice.
January 10, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the concept of sending an equivelant number of unguided missiles back into Gaza would appeal to you? Somehow I don't think so. Rather, I suspect if Israel responded in that manner, you would be calling for prosecution of the entire Israeli cabinet for war crimes.
January 10, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
marcNYC poses an interesting challenge.
I'll begin by saying that in this cycle picking a starting point is always arbitrary. I begin with 1948 and 1967. My core position is that Israel is legitimate and has earned its legitimacy by conquest and successful nation building. And that the post-1967 occupation and settlements are illegitimate. And that resistance is therefore legitimate. Where that puts Gaza I'm not sure.
Now to the Bronx-Manhattan war. Sporadic rocket fire by Bronx bombers landing in Manhattan with random damage and a few casualties would yield hi-tech smart-bomb and computer guided artillery shelling with high explosives by the Manhattanites.
Attacks on Bronx gun and run targets - launchers in school yards, backyards, etc. would yield high non-combatant casualties in the Bronx.
The Bronxites voted overwhelmingly for the political party of the bombers, which also runs the medical clinics and the charter schools.
How much would Manhattanites care about the non-combatant Bronx casualties? Not much. And that seems to be the approximate situation in Gaza.
January 10, 2009 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You keep writing this response and I hate to tell you, it's childish. What Israel should do is try to solve the problem in a clear-headed way. This escalation of violence is having negative political effects that will haunt Israel for years and do nothing but slow down the peace process which is, ultimately, necessary. There is no other choice for Israel or Palestine besides peace or dissolution. Period. Any other options would require ethnic cleansing (and don't think both or either side isn't capable of that, it's the one slim constraint that the world community's gaze directed there puts on the actors involved).
Hamas was losing popularity in Gaza before this war (because they could not provide for the people and kept picking fights with Fatah) now, the "Arab street" has rallied behind Hamas and not just in Gaza, all over the Middle East (witness the sympathy rockets from Hezbulah).
And I'm sorry, trying to justify the death of hundreds of civilian children hiding in UN schools in a densely packed urban terrain by saying that Israel has a right to a lethal temper tantrum is nuts. They have no more right to it, and it will do them no more good than storming Iraq did us. This operation has next to no hope of improving the long-term security of Israel and that would be the only possible reason that it could be justified (pragmatically if not morally). Honestly, has decimating a civilian population ever persuaded people to believe/behave more moderately before? No. The backward neo-con theory that unrestrained shows of force will get you whatever you want has been proved false. I read Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and co. believed decimating Iraq would have the side benefit of persuading Iran that they had no choice but to behave more moderately.
We see how that's turned out.
January 10, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
My first response as an AMERICAN, MarcNYC would be to sanction Israel.
Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population
Americans can use that money right here at home to work on our domestic and economic issue.
My first response as an AMERICAN would be to not send $300B in aide to Israel this year. That number would be halved.
My first response is Israel should not be paid their money in one lump sum each year, but in quarterly installments like every other country.
Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.
In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years.
January 10, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are a disgusting bigot, but please, please keep it up because it makes it so much easier for my friends and I to persuade D.C. decision-makers that the "blame Israel first" crowd is just a bunch of Jew-haters. I thank G-d that nobody with any influence over American foreign policy pays the slightest bit of attention to people like you.
January 10, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last time random, unguided missiles were fired in a manner in which Hamas has determined to launch them into Israel was when Hitler (who was elected Premier launched unguided missiles into England. The response was to firebomb Dresden. Obviously, the English should have shown restraint.
January 10, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Firebomb Gaza? Is that your suggestion, Marc?
January 10, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just suggesting that there is historical precedence a response to the use of unguided missiles against civillian populations that is much more draconian that Israel's response.
Are you suggesting that, having been elected by the Palestinians, the brave resistance fighters of Hamas should be allowed to shoot unguided missiles into Israel and be immune from any kind of response because those fearless soldiers hide in Mosques and use schools as weapons warehouses?
January 10, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was suggesting the Israeli response to Hamas' missles is heavy-handed in its infliction of civilian casualties. I also think it is wrong to equate Israel with Hamas. I thought Hamas was a gang of thugs that uses human shields. Israel is supposed to be a free Democracy that respects basic human values.
January 10, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this operation had any chance of success, I would be all for it. But you have to know that this is doomed to failure, because of the reality on the ground. It is next to impossible to finish off Hamas without killing an unconsionable amount of innocent people. The backlash caused by that outweighs any benefit Israel can gain from "casting a lead".
January 10, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the limits of retaliation, Marc?
January 10, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd stop at firebombing.
At what point, if any, is retaliation (some would call it self-defense) justified, George?
January 10, 2009 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Firebombing is a war crime. Today and at Dresden.
Retaliation and self-defense are not the same.
I think retaliation as commonly used is not justifiable.
The basic standard of self defense is no more force than necessary.
Reasonably careful efforts to destroy the military power of an enemy are justified.
Thus Hamas shelling of civilians in retaliation for Israeli targeted assassinations is not justified.
In the circumstances of the Gaza embargo Hamas attacks on Israeli military forces may be justifiable.
In the circumstances of Gaza, with the civilian population trapped, the current scale of attacks by Israel is unjustifiable on proportionality grounds, given the scale of the threat.
Then there is the related question - whence will the vision come to break the cycle?
I have been thinking of Yitzhak Rabin a lot lately.
January 10, 2009 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certain elements in both societies are empowered by conflict. This is why Rabin was assassinated. This is why terorrist organizations like Hamas resort to the use of devices such as unguided missiles to reignite simmering hostilities.
BTW - Israel had ceased targeted assassination of Hamas officials since the turn over of Gaza, so I'm not sure how the use of unguided missiles is related. If the blockade is the issue, why weren't any missiles launched into Egypt? Perhaps because the Article Seven of the Hamas Charter says that "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees".
January 10, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Israel Kills 4 Militants in Gaza Strip
By ISABEL KERSHNER and TAGHREED EL-KHODARY
Published: November 16, 2008
NY Times
JERUSALEM — Israeli officials ratcheted up their tough talk on Sunday after an airstrike killed four Palestinian militants in Hamas-run Gaza, but both sides left the door open to restoring a truce that has broken down.
January 10, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Retaliation is a two way street.
Those "Southern Israeli towns" that are the target of random rockets were in fact the homes and farms and orchards of the Palestinians that are now herded into the concentration camp of Gaza. The ethnic cleansing of "Southern Israel" was so complete that we can barely remember the time before apartheid was enforced at the barrel of a gun.
If my grandfathers farm was stolen from my family I would feel the same way the Palestinians do. If Israel wants peace then give back what was stolen and quit trying to steal more.
January 10, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give back all of Israel? That was settled in 1949. But then again, I guess I'm just one of those Crusaders the Hamas Charter rants against.
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
January 10, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you steal someone's land and force them into a concentration camp don't be surprised if when they get the chance to fuck you up a little they will.
Then when you "retaliate" and kill them at a rate of 100 to 1 saying still you are the victim, don't be surprised if people start to call you out on your bullshit.
January 10, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 1949 2 states were established. That wasn't good enough for one side.
Noone can condone the conditions under which many Palestians live, but to place blame for this solely on Isreal is an act of self-delusion.
January 10, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, marcNYC, for trying to inject truth in a morass of lies.
January 10, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whiterosebuddy: you suggest that the problem is that there are too many Jews in Congress relative to their percent of the population. What do you suggest - that we have a quota system to keep their numbers down?
You also seem to intimate that these numbers are a result of some nefarious conspracy. These Jewish representatives were ELECTED, with most votes coming from non-Jews. As such they are doing what their constituencies want them to do - otherwise they wouldn't be re-elected. Like it or not, they are more in touch with the wishes of the people they represent than you.
January 10, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I do not suggest that is a problem. What I am saying is that the common interest & support of pro-Israel agenda dominates the agenda disproportionate to what the majority of Americans want.
This is achieved as well by AIPAC financing campaigns to defeat all politicians who do not support the pro-Israel agenda.
I did not suggest, imply, intimate nor infer that this is a nefarious conspiracy whatsoever. What I did to was highlight how a group with a common interest can dominate our foreign policy and aid.
I think it is completely false that the elected representatives are doing what their constituencies want. Most Americans have no clue how AIPAC has dominated our foreign policy and aide.
In poll after poll Americans want to treat the Palestinians equal to Israel. However, the foreign policy agenda has not responded to the electorate and the fact that Jews chair powerful committees in the Senate, means Israel's interest are supported to a degree that is detrimental to the overall interest of the America.
Particularly, when it comes to our national debt, and having to borrow money to fund the aid we send to Israel.
We need that money for domestic issues.
Polls show that my thoughts are correct on this issue.
The majority of Americans and American jews support a two state solution.
AIPAC doesn't. AIPAC has the money. and AIPAC defeats candidates who do not support their agenda.
January 10, 2009 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simply put, for every Israeli civilian killed one less million in aid to the Pallestinians. For every Palestinian civilian killed one less million to Isreal.
January 10, 2009 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Criticize Israel for what? Defending itself against terrorists? Sweet.
January 10, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Rich in NJ, for trying to inject truth into a morass of lies.
January 10, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that has troubled me about American political opinion in the last 10 or 15 years is the shift in support for Israel along ideological lines.
There was a time, perhaps as far back as when Bush I was in office, when those on the right were the relative opponents of Israel, while those on the progressive side (of which I consider myself a part of) formed the bulk of Israel's supporters. Now, it's the right that is more supportive of Israel, while a segment of the left often takes the side of the Arabs.
Given the way the Palestinians under Arafat rejected the Clinton/Barak peace plan in 2000, and how some of the Arab factions are supportive of the forces that attacked us on 9/11, I find it inexplicable and deeply troubling.
January 10, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Schor, please examine the following list whihc I took from J Street's website of persons whom J Street endorsed for Congress, many of whom voted on the pro-Israel resolution (some of the candidates on this list alas were not elected so of course they didn't vote).
Candidates for U.S. House endorsed by J Street in October, 2008 :
Ethan Berkowitz (D, AK-At-Large)
• Rep. Bill Delahunt (D, MA-10)
• Rep. Michael Capuano (D, MA-08)
• Rep. Geoff Davis (R, KY-04)
• Rep. Barney Frank (D, MA-04)
• Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D, NY-22)
• Dan Maffei (D, NY-25)
• Eric Massa (D, NY-29)
• Rep. George Miller (D, CA-07)
• Gary Peters (D, MI-09)
• Jared Polis (D, CO-02)
• Rep. Charles Rangel (D, NY-15)
• Rep. Adam Schiff (D, CA-29)
• Rep. Hilda Solis (D, CA-32)
• Rep. John Yarmuth (D, KY-03)
Among them are three Committee Chairmen (Reps. Rangel (Ways and Means), Frank (Financial
Services) and Miller (Education and Labor)), senior Members of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee (Rep. Delahunt) and the House Appropriations Committee (Reps. Schiff and
Hinchey), leading Members of the Hispanic (Rep. Solis) and Black (Rep. Rangel) Caucuses, two
retired naval commanders (Mr. Massa and Mr. Peters) and a former member of the multinational
Sinai peacekeeping force (Rep. Davis).
Then look at the list of the 31 Representatives who opposed the resolution or voted present:
---- NAYS 5 ---
Kucinich
Moore (WI)
Paul
Rahall
Waters
---- ANSWERED “PRESENT” 22 ---
Abercrombie
Blumenauer
DeFazio
Dingell
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Farr
Grijalva
Hinchey
Johnson (GA)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Lee (CA)
McCollum
McDermott
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Olver
Payne
Sanchez, Loretta
Stark
Watson
Woolsey
Now, tell us, how many of J Street's favored candidates really stood up to AIPAC and refused to support the resolution? Did Barney Frank? NO. Did George Miller? NO. Did Charlie Rangel? NO. Did Adam Schiff? NO. Did newly elected Members Dan Maffei and Eric Massa? NO. Well, you get the idea--J Street is a joke.
January 10, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I now see that Reps. Miller and Hinchey did vote present, so as to them I erred in my post of a minute ago. However, my point that most of the candidates endorsed by J Street actually supported AIPAC's position on tyhe resolution remains valid.
January 10, 2009 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
And one more thing: of the 390 who voted AIPAC's way are a lot of very liberal Representatives with whom the people who regularly read this site would agree on everything but Israel. If you think it's becaause they're afraid to cross AIPAC, some of then are, but not Representatives who would be re-elected easily even if AIPAC didn't exist, like Representatives John Conyers in Michigan, Patrick Kennedy in Rhode Island and Rob Andrews in New Jersey, Linda Sanchez in California and Jose Serrano in New York. These members don't need campaign contributions from pro-Israel pacs to be re-elected. And if you think they voted the way they did because there are a lot of hawkish Jews in their districts--what a joke. Do you have any idea how many hawkish Jews live in the Detroit district represented by John Conyers, or the South Bronx district represented by Jose Serrano? ZERO
They voted this way because they know that Israel is imperfect in its tactics sometimes, but right in the main to defend its citizens.
January 10, 2009 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are all afraid of AIPAC, period. Afraid of being called anti-semetic. The entire Congress is afraid of not being re-elected if they cut off U.S. funds being used to fight this wrongful war and admit that the historical destruction of Palestine as a nation is just as much the fault of the United States as is Great Britain.
The historical war for the fight to keep their country was not begun by Palestine.
The behavior of the United States Congress to not stand up to Israel/AIPAC is both a national and an international disgrace.
Shame is not a word our congressional members know.
January 10, 2009 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is such a fallacy to say that someone is a bigot for disagreeing with Israeli policy. I am amazed that there are so many people who are obviously very intelligent and good people, will use this line, when it is an obvious fallacy of logic. I feel sad for the obvious conflict that must happen somewhere in the soul of Jews who support Israeli brutality and dehumanizing actions. The Jewish tradition is wonderfully rich in the art of soul searching, in the search for truth, towards the depths of morality. This has blessed our nation and indeed the world. But it seems when it comes to any question about Israel that all goes out the window, and a narrow-minded tribalism takes its place. You will see brilliant minds latching on to absurd rhetoric, claiming the power of innocent victimhood no matter the situation. And the horrific deaths of six million are prostituted to serve the further brutalization and dehumanization of another people. It is a sad situation regardless, where tribalism leads to hatred, arrogance, entitlement, and suffering on both sides. And in a way the thing that makes me the saddest is that with the death of each Palestinian child Israel and those who support this lose some piece of their soul.
January 11, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
And where is the Palestinian or broader Arab soul searching over the use of unguided missiles. (The only other time that such missiles were used was by Hitler against England. How did the Allies respond?)
January 11, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"How did the Allies respond?"
Massive retaliation against civilians.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Dresden.
The "only other time"?
The short list:
"carpet bombing" in Vietnam.
The Christmas bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong.
January 11, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
George, Where is the Arab soulsearching? Where is the condemnation for hiding weapons in houses of worship? Where is the condemnation for putting a military headquarters in the basement of a hospital? Where is the condemnation of a Charter that states:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."
January 11, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hasn't the PLO made clear that it is prepared to accept a two state solution?
I don't think one can measure the Arab world or the Palestinian nation by such Hamas declarations any more than one can measure Jews and Israel by the proclamations of certain Israeli movements about Eretz Israel and the right of Jews to settle all of historic Israel as they define it.
What is needed is a recognition that the embargo of Gaza has undermined the peace process - which is what Sharon and his allies intended when they withdrew from Gaza.
January 11, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And teh Egyptian decsion to close the border? How does that compute?
January 11, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recognition of Israeli power.
January 11, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is getting good. We're really digging down now.
So Isreal controls both US and Egyptian foreign policy. Trilateral Commission inolved as well?
January 11, 2009 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trilateral Commission? That is silliness. There are no puppets here.
Egypt has a treaty with Israel which defeated it in 1967.
Hamas - (which Israel at one point encouraged as a diversionary force) is an obstacle to the two-state solution long favored by Egypt.
To help Hamas rearm would engage Egypt in military confrontation with Israel - which they don't want for obvious reasons - including that Egypt's government is secular and is itself threatened by the same forces that killed Anwar Sadat.
January 11, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I was saying...
The Times now reports
Crisis in Gaza Imperils 2-State Plan
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: January 11, 2009
CAIRO — With every image of the dead in Gaza inflaming people across the Arab world, Egyptian and Jordanian officials are worried that they see a fundamental tenet of the Middle East peace process slipping away: the so-called two-state solution, an independent Palestinian state coexisting with Israel.
Egypt and Jordan fear that they will be pressed to absorb the Palestinian populations now living beyond their borders. If Israel does not assume responsibility for humanitarian aid in Gaza, for example, pressure could compel Egypt to fill the vacuum; Jordan, in turn, worries that Israel will try to push Palestinians from the West Bank into its territory.
In that case, both states fear, they could become responsible for policing the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel, undermining their peace treaties with Israel.
January 11, 2009 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
As to Sharon's intent to pour formaldehyde on the peace process by withdrawing from Gaza see this 2004 Haaretz interview with Dov Weinglass.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=485929
January 11, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: The Senate vote for Israel: By voice with no objections.
Q: Why dosen't Israel want to be the 51st state?
A: Because then it would have only two senators.
January 11, 2009 5:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good for Kucinich, et al. Still AIPAC rules. Obama's chief-of-staff is a dual-Israeli citizen, his foreign policy team (Dennis Ross, H. Clinton, etc.) are pro-AIPAC and so is Obama.
But the questions still remains--
Will Obama pursue the same failed policy toward Israel as Bush? Namely, we'll do whatever you say!
This is the path to disaster--actually we're already there in the Middle East.
Every day Israel grows larger, Palestine grows smaller. And, everyday more people who hate this country are being created.
Time for a divorce., No more F-16's, helicopters, free money for Israel.
Both Israel and the US preach a two-state solution but they practice the creeping erasure of the Palestinians.
Obama/US needs to end the blockade of Gaza and set up a UN force to monitor the peace. Do not let Israel be the judge, jury and executioner of the Palestinian people.
January 11, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
from the Guardian
"A group of Britain's most prominent Jews has called on Israel to cease its military operations in Gaza immediately, warning that its actions, far from improving the country's security, will "strengthen extremism, destabilise the region, and exacerbate tensions inside Israel".
"Describing themselves, as "profound and passionate supporters" of Israel - and supporting its right to defend itself against the "war crime" of Hamas rocket attacks - they added that the current tactics threatened to undermine international support for Israel.
***
Prominent rabbis, academics and political figures are among the signatories, including Rabbi Dr Tony Bayfield, head of the Movement for Reform Judaism; Sir Jeremy Beecham, former chair of the Labour party; Professor Shalom Lappin of the University of London; Baroness Julia Neuberger; Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of Liberal Judaism; Rabbi Professor Marc Saperstein, principal of Leo Baeck rabbinical training college; and lawyer Michael Mitzman, who set up Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for the Home Office."
January 11, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is only one efficient solution to bringing peace to the Middle East and it is that the U.S. needs to cut all aid to Israel. And there is only one wo has the intellectual and soon also the constitutional power to do this - Obama. That so many in D.C. report to AIPAC rather than to the People only shows they are weak minds and just need to be shown some leadership for the good of America and Israel to eventually come home on this. Even the hardliners in Israel know this is possible and that it would change the game entirely. It's that simple.
January 11, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink