Monday, December 11, 2006

A Clean Break

A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Early Neocon thinkers were closely associated with Israel's right-wing Likud Party; some went on to write a 1996 paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," that urged incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to roll back Syria, work to effect regime change in Iraq, and refuse to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians. I suggest that the old title be reprised with new content.

A second generation of Neocons, including Robert Kagan, William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, continued to believe in American exceptionalism and the virtues of force, but they added an idealistic note: America should not just battle evil but also promote democracies around the world. For application of Neocon's uncritical thinking, bromides and policies, readers can visit my Kool-Aid Kafeteria.

In a very real sense, it seems to me, that certain precepts of the recent Irag Study Group report offer an alternative Clean Break from the past five years (post 9-11) of Bush-Cheney's Middle Eastern foreign policy as well as a new, realistic and more promising Strategy for Securing the Realm. As a matter of fact, the ISG's recommendations delineated below represent what many of us - speaking for myself, of course - hoped for, expected, and thought Bush was promising to a joint session of Congress on September 20th 2001.

The ISG Report recommends in its Executive Summary:
Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.

As the United States develops its approach toward Iraq and the Middle East, the United States should provide additional political, economic, and military support for Afghanistan, including resources that might become available as combat forces are moved out of Iraq.
Of course, the barn door's open now and the fox and the wolf are raiding our chickens in Iraq. With our pants down in Iraquagmire, we will be misleading ourselves if we think we can just make nice and draw a get-out-of-Iraq-gracefully card. Hard decisions will have to be made by an American leadership which is credibility-challenged at the moment, nationally and internationally.

But on the regional level a clean break must be made from the past five years to free us up to do that right thing. I submit that requires two decisive changes:
  1. A public decision to severe any linkage between American policy and Israeli expansion and retention of their settlements on the West Bank. That means guaranteeing Israel's territorial integrity up to the 1967 borders, and nothing else. Aid to Israel should be stopped until its government adopts a credible schedule of withdrawal from those settlements.

  2. Legislation which requires the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires those who receive funds or act on behalf of a foreign government to register. AIPAC has been for too long the most powerful and best known pro-Israel lobby that has distorted American foreign policy away from pursuing our national interests as well as constricting appropriate Congressional oversight.
On these two issues, American long term interests in the Middle East compel a clean break in behalf of securing the realm.

53 Moderated Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good points. Money talks. We give Israel well over 3 billion a year for what.?
Carter recently said that the Israeli program against the Palestinians is worse than Apartheid.
Gaza is the largest prison camp in the world.
The U.S. and Israel with their policy, are starving the Palestinian population.
A human needs 2,000 calories of food a day to survive. Many of the Palestinians are now getting 1,100.
Over time a person getting 1,000 calories will die of starvation.
Over a longer period a person getting 1,100 will get malnutrition, bad enough to die also.
It would seem this is being done on purpose.

We are the ones that actually built the wall they are constructing with our money and machinery.

The 67 borders or else, should be our position.

Why are we allies with the most hated people in the world.?

Why are they the most hated.?
Well for starters why did they drop over a million cluster bombs on Lebanese civilians.? They also used white phosphorus shells when they were bombing their civilian structures. That's kind of like napalm.

Why do we support religious regimes.? They call themselves a Jewish State.
Why support religious bigotry.?

Life is precious they say, unless you are not Jewish. Then it is dirt cheap.
This dangerous group , along with the U.S. may very well be on their way to starting world war Three.

12/11/2006 07:04:00 AM  
Blogger Seven Star Hand said...

Hey Vigilante,

We are witnessing the last throes of so-called representative democracy...

Just how wise is it for billions of souls to to be at the mercy of a proven idiot just because those with the most money put him in power? GW Bush and the greedy scoundrels that surround him are stunning evidence of the utter folly and failures of government driven by money, religion, and politics. The so-called modern state of Israel is another prime example of the fallacy of this deceptive and unjust model of democracy driven by plutocrats using religion and politics to exploit their citizens and others.

It was clear to me that GHW (papa) Bush was crying recently because he's suffering from the stress of realizing that the debacles caused by his son are ultimately traced to the Bush family's aristocratic ambitions. In other words, the old man and his cabal cronies are just as much to blame for Irag and other evils as the clueless son he foisted upon the world stage. That is why family consiglieri James Baker and smoking man Eagleburger were called in to set the stage for little W's demise.

Royalty, aristocracy, and plutocracy always were and always will be bad ideas and we have been forced to suffer through yet more proof of this. Do you think GW's feelings are more important than the wealth and power of the empire? We're now witnessing the praetorian guard fulfilling their most sacred duty; saving the empire from an insane emperor. Unfortunately for them, it's too little too late.

12/11/2006 07:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The last throes of representative Democracy happened between1938 and 1948.
You make some good points though.

Dems and Repubs are both working for the same Man. Corporatacracy , money scammers.

12/11/2006 07:29:00 AM  
Blogger DB Cooper said...

Is there anyone here who still believes there's a chance for a Palestinian state? If so, where? Are there bus tickets available for purchase? Or, has that bus already left the station?

12/11/2006 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger LittleBill said...

I went back through all your "read more's" to the very end. Why the hell aren't we getting rid of these two men by impeachment? I'm sure I heard Nancy Pelosi say that there would be no impeachment after the Dems take over. Why in God's name did we reelect her?

12/11/2006 12:49:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I presume we give Israel $3 billion a year for self-defense against it's surrounding, very populous, Israel-hating neighbors. If withdrawing our support of Israel will not seriously comprimise her security, let's do it.

Maybe we can use some of that money to resume funding Hamas' Palestine infrastructure again...

If we are just getting morally purist with our government aid money, I'm sure we can save our funds elsewhere as well.

I also condemn Israel's policies against the Palestinians, and many other blunders; I see Israel's government as manipulators, occupiers and assassinators who must clearly choose a more just path to achieve peace. I would like to see U.S. policy put pressure on Israel to withdraw and concede Arab territory to Palestine.

As for skip sievert's comments, to condemn Israel for being Jewish is to cross a line that we seldom draw for our own country. The fact that Israel is predominantly Jewish with such policies causes me a lot of pain, and I advocate for better policies. But we can equally condemn us for being hypocritical Christians, and others for being hypcritical Muslims, Hindus, what have you. So why do our more enlightened citizens get a moral pass for what our government does but Israel's don't? Israel has strong peace activists and a growing reform movement, what does your rhetoric mean to them? What does this religious finger pointing solve? Yeah, we're all really cynical and disappointed! Obviously, Israel has been comfortable, and other countries are comfortable, being religious hypocrits. And as I said to an elite Mexican who was brutally criticizing corruption in our government, "You might want to clean up your own backyard before taking our inventory."

Life is precious. Yes. I'd like a current list of religions and countries that keep that noble idea front and center (perhaps the Pope?).

As for being the most hated people, are you limiting that to Israeli Jews, Israeli people or is does that include all Jews? I realize there's ample evidence, but how did you determine that particular rating?

I think I have all the answers for Israel too, but I've never had to live there and that gives me a small sense of humility about the nation's situation. In terms of how people treat people--what goes in comes out. Victims' second nature is to victimize. It's not an excuse, but what has to "go in" to Israel's new set of tools is a way to live as a peaceful mouse in a neighborhood of hungry cats.

Don't think for one moment that those cats are eager to support a peaceful, economically sustainable Palestine--if they were, being some of the most wealthy nations in the world, they could have stepped up already. Israel and Palestine have to do it--endlessly inviting and praying for the Arab world to help (a gesture clearly at odds with the Arab dictators' self-interests)--and, wow, I personally wish WE would have built Palestine already as our ally, before Hamas got popular (with competative contracts).

Peace.

12/11/2006 02:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

urban pink , I was not condemning Israel for being Jewish. I was pointing out that Israel is a Jewish state , by their own admission. A religious state.

Any religious state is going to be run by bigotry , as all religions are belief systems , and therefore subject to bigotry of abstract belief being seen as fact.

I would remind urban pink that the same Jewish stories of murder and hatred on the orders from their Mr.god are being taught there every day in their schools.
Bible stories.
The first documented genocide in human history if true, was the murder of the Canaanites , who became the most reviled people in history , due to Jewish propaganda in their bible.
A remnant population of Canaanites survived in the northern area of Byblos and Arvad. This group were later known as Phoenicians , and occupied the area known today as Lebanon.

The Jewish god ordered every man , women , and child put to the sword , as it says in the Books of Moses.
This approach to business is not lost on their neighbors.
If you multiply the given numbers of towns and populations , you wind up with a figure of 1 million Canaanites that god order murdered for the apparent reason that they could cause trouble in the future.

You asked , so this is the answer I am giving about why many dislike this group in that area. These stories are still taught to the Jewish Children. Thats religious brainwashing to my mind.
It is also hatemongering, and perpetuating lies.

How about passover where god kills all the Egyptian children and spares the Jewish children.? This story never went over well in Egypt as you might imagine.

Anyway if it makes you feel better , I don`t like the Christians or Muslims , or Hindus or any organized religion . I am an equal opportunity dis-liker of religious , belief system bigots.

You asked.

12/11/2006 03:08:00 PM  
Anonymous pekka said...

What a sensible take on the complicated and long neglected key issue in the Middle East! This is one of your very best, Vigil.

12/11/2006 06:37:00 PM  
Blogger Blogging4Food said...

Urban Pink, I can vouch for Sievert not being anti-Semitic. He doesn't have that track-record on the blogosphere, anyway. He's been pretty consistent as a equal opportunity organized religion-basher. To him, ALL Organized religion is the root of evil.

Skip is not any easier on democracies or republics. Skip's arguments rarely are multi-dimensional and always hyperbolic. But I have elsewhere indicated my interest in his faulting democracies.

It seems to me he can make a point here: in the world history of recent centuries, Western democracies or republics have been responsible for much unnecessary evil: colonialism, imperialism, racism, slavery, apartheid, etc., down to turning Palestine into a prison camp and Iraq into hell on earth. I say unnecessary in the sense of not being necessary for defense.

Democracies have escaped blame for these anti-humanitarian excesses for two reasons:

1) They haven't been as awful as their authoritarian peers.
2) Whatever they have done, has been done with the blessing of the ballot box, (leaving aside issues of degrees to which entire populations were polled as opposed to a privileged minority). If we think about it we can see how democracies have within themselves a poisoned fruit: when they go bad, they go very, very bad. They cannot correct themselves very quickly. (Look at Vietnam, Iraq.) Because, perhaps, responsibility for error can be defused to the entire electorate?

In this light we see Bush's campaign to spread democracy in the Middle East so that - presumably - democratic Israel will have company. Assumptions of exceptionalism on the part of 'democracies' and 'republics' are part and parcel of this freedom crusade: they never war on themselves, right?

Well, I say this crusade to give the Middle East a new birth in demokracy has done much harm and even much evil. It has gone a long way to prove Sievert's Law to much of the real world: constitutional government is a sham capable of doing much damage, death, and destruction to much of the world.

Personally, I cannot stand Skip Sievert. But philosophically, in the first decade of the 21st century, I have to concede he has some points to make. In Bushworld idiots like him seem perfectly correct twice a day.

12/11/2006 08:12:00 PM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

Nice post Vigil. Don't let the smears get you down, Skip. Zionazis play the same tune anytime they're called out on their racism and BS. Arabs(Muslims, Christians and Jews), despite being the largest group of semitic people are "anti-semites." Jimmy Carter is an "anti-semite." Pokemon is an "anti-semite." Theres no end to it. Any frank discussion on Israel and its war against the peoples of the Middle East is out of the question.

12/11/2006 09:32:00 PM  
Blogger Vigilante said...

Pekka, that's high praise in my book. You are my sternest critic.

You make a pertinent point, Dr. Maxtor, but I cannot allow you to characterize Urban Pink as a 'zionazi' - if that was your intention - unchallenged.

She is very combative. That's why we pay her big bucks to stop by when she's in town!

12/11/2006 11:31:00 PM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

That was not the intention Vigil. That being said, I always find it amusing how some are willing fork over billions to a "state" which is in violation of dozens of UN resolutions, possesses WMDs, spys on its principal benefactor, and regularly commits terrorism claiming self-defense.
The ol' "they were hiding behind rockets" line gets a little old after the 4563th time.

12/12/2006 02:47:00 AM  
Blogger Messenger said...

That's where AIPAC comes in, Doc. AIPAC has been, for years, the semi official political optometrist for Congress - fitting them with opaque lenses through which they view Israel. AIPAC has not expanded into European centers, right? Not in Canada, right Pekka?

Only in our America!

It is not a Jewish thing. It's a right-wingnut and Likkud thing.

12/12/2006 06:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you , drmaxtor , Ah yes , sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Learned that on the playground.
Free speech is a marvelous thing. Without it we have nothing.

So Bush is doing a listening tour.? Any one else laugh when they heard that.?

Isn`t Lou Dobbs pointing out a few things about special interest lobbyists in his new book. ? Maybe Vigilante could post an excerpt or two of it.?

So there are over 30,000 lobbyists in Washington.?
Government by special interest , and not in the best interests of Americans , but actually in our worst interests.

Btw, just as an historical reference point the vast majority of Jews in Israel are not Semites.
They are of Turkic/European origin from Southern Russia and Eastern Europe.
They were converts originally from Khazar , and some other places that adopted Judaism in the 8th and 9th century a.d. - Judaism is not , I repeat, Not a racial identity , but a religion/belief system.
There is NOT a genetic component. It is an abstracted belief system.
Only.
I always laugh when people call people that make fun of Judaism, Anti-Semitic.
The only so called Semites in that area are the Arabs.
How`s that for ironic.? The rest is clap-trap belief.
Arthur Koestler an atheist who came from Eastern European Jewish family background, wrote an interesting non-fiction book titled - The Thirteenth Tribe - on that subject. Suggested reading for those that are interested.

12/12/2006 06:49:00 AM  
Blogger Malfrat said...

This is interesting:

A handful of Orthodox Jews have attended Iran's controversial conference questioning the Nazi genocide of the Jews - not because they deny the Holocaust but because they object to using it as justification for the existence of Israel.

Rabbi Friedman told BBC Radio Four's PM programme that he was not in Tehran to debate whether the Holocaust happened or not, but to look at its lessons.

He says the Holocaust was being used to legitimise the suffering of other peoples and he wanted to break what he called a taboo on discussing it.

The main thing, he argued, was not Jewish suffering in the past but the use of the Holocaust as a "tool of commercial, military and media power".


BBC

12/12/2006 07:15:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm sure I heard Nancy Pelosi say that there would be no impeachment after the Dems take over. Why in God's name did we reelect her? "

I understand her position. Face it, there is HUGE hatred and mistrust for her from oh, most of the country. She cannot afford to involve herself in an impeachment crusade. Outside of her immediate constituency she does not have anywhere near the political capital to even openly endorse it.

Besides, yes they deserve to be impeached but even though I've signed every impeachment petition circulated in the last several years I'm ambivalent.

At this stage of the game, with a bit under 2 years left, would it make enough of a difference by the time it could become a "done deal" to justify the amount of time and attention such proceedings would take? I'm not a fan of cutting off our noses to spite our faces. It's just possible America might be better served to pursue criminal charges post-'08 elections.

"Isn`t Lou Dobbs pointing out a few things about special interest lobbyists in his new book. ? Maybe Vigilante could post an excerpt or two of it.?"

If Vigilante starts quoting Dobbs I will be forced to take drastic action. Like having a large contingent of middle-aged and older matrons run nekkid down his street. It won't be pretty.

12/12/2006 08:17:00 AM  
Blogger Etzel Pangloss said...

"every revolution requires an enemy"

"I thought long and hard before I chose the jews"

I'm paraphrasing Hitler.

I hope (and i'm sure) i'm wrong but isn't chaos abroad a great foreign policy?

12/12/2006 08:20:00 AM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

Yeah I'm familar with Koestler's book, Skip. Zionism has been a disaster for the Jews, and they know it.
I wouldn't put much faith in anything Lou Dobbs has to say. CNN's version of the Pillsbury doughboy would be out of work if he dedicated an iota of airtime to AIPAC and co. A European version of AIPAC is in the works FYI.

12/12/2006 10:42:00 AM  
Blogger HILLBLOGGER & Hillblogger Jr said...

Skip,

Am quite certain that some of the almost 3 billion dollars that the US gives to Israel via FMF have also been used to develop their nuclear weapons' build up.

I wonder if PM Olmert's recent so-called slip up that Israel is a nuclear power is indeed a slip up particularly in the wake of the revelation that the Saudi agenda includes an ambitious pan-Arab nuclear industry...

12/12/2006 11:05:00 AM  
Blogger Cyberotter said...

Good Stuff again and well written

12/12/2006 11:46:00 AM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

The Israelis have had nukes since the l960s thanks to Britain and France. The Samson Option by Sy Hersh is required reading on the subject.

12/12/2006 12:31:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sy Hersh.? I wouldn`t trust anything by him or Noam. Amy Goodman's favorite disinformation specialists.

Are they real alternative. ? No .

They are reformists that never get at the heart of any real issues. They are left wing political pundits , and that is nearly as bad as being a politician.

I put Hersh and Rush Limbaugh and Chomsky and Amy Goodman and Al Franken in the same disinformation political special interest disinformation propaganda zone for right and left interests.

These are all political flunkies.

Divide and conquer is their expertise. They all write books on political brainwashing topics for their special interest groups.
Part of the problem.

12/12/2006 03:27:00 PM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

Thats news to me. What disinformation has Amy Goodman put out there, Skip? I wouldn't lump her in with Franken and Limbaugh.

12/12/2006 05:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not.? Some are left wing, some are right wing. Whats the difference.? Both support the system. They think of themselves as reformers , but they are not. They are dissemblers who put out propaganda. Status Quo propaganda.

They all write endless streams of books to the delight of the uninformed or brainwashed , that think our Corporatacracy can be reformed. It can`t. It is run by political/religious thugs , and corporations for one reason and one reason only, to make money.

12/12/2006 06:13:00 PM  
Blogger Blogging4Food said...

Dr. Maxtor, ignore Skip Sievert. When it seems he says something incomprehensible, it's because he has a random mind. His clock runs backwards, so he is only randomly correct twice a day, as I have said. All of us in here have gotten used to his accidental truths. The rest of the time we place him on "IGNORE".

12/12/2006 06:14:00 PM  
Blogger MadMike said...

I must agree with "not your mama." The Democrats do not need to waste valuable time impeaching this fool. Time will end his reign of despair. Sadly, we will have to put up with him until then.

There are many more important issues facing the newly elected Congress and they should be focusing on moving forward with an active agenda, not backwards with thoughts of retribution. Impeaching Bush serves no purpose. History will judge him as he deserves: The worst president...EVER.

12/12/2006 06:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That sounds awfully passive mad mike.

Bush may well bring us into a larger war that destroys and kills millions before this is over.
He is a dangerous maniac. A religious nut, and would it surprise anyone if he turned directly on the American people.?

Any one who will do one thing to one person , will do it to another.

He has proven that he is a homicidal maniac, driven by crazy belief system claptrap.
This could get a lot worse.
He is not an Emperor or a King. Why wait for history to judge this guy.?

Ignore at your own peril Food Blogger. Hey, just when you seemed to be acting a little less coggish you come down with a strong dose of coggishness.
Sticks and stones. Ha.

12/12/2006 07:07:00 PM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

How can Amy Goodman be a part of the corporate structure when she has spoken out against it so many times? I'm not following you here, Skip. If you can refer me to any information as such, I'd be willing to look at it.
As for Bush, I really don't believe he's man of faith, no matter what he claims. I'm Muslim and have studied and met many decent Christians to know that Bush isn't one of them. He's a liar in more ways then one, just like the armagedonists who voted him into power.

12/12/2006 07:41:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check out the movement I belong to if you care to .

12/12/2006 08:34:00 PM  
Blogger Blogging4Food said...

Yeah, DrMaxtor, when Skip says "Check out the movement I belong to if you care to " you know that's the rub:

What can Sy Hersh, Noam Chomsky, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Amy Goodman, et. al. possibly have in common? Clearly, they are all well published authors with a large established readership. Not like our jealous Skip Sievert peddling his book here. He's just an infantile technoBRAT, basically. To him, we are all cogs.

12/13/2006 05:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not peddling anything you idiot. My book is free. The electronic copy.

Oh , and please do not make my mouth say the things that you want to believe.

That is called disinformation.

And why engage in such vitriolic nonsense anyway. ? This is not about myself , or my book.

12/13/2006 07:33:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can only guess that my criticism of sievert has been lumped in with whoever Dr. M. refers to as "zionazis" because I believe that the state of Israel should exist; it falls on deaf ears that I advocate a smaller Israel (and Jerusalem) and harshly criticize Israel's policies toward the Palestinians.

If one fundamentally does not care whether Israel survives or gets obliterated, then I guess I can imagine how my point of view might seem extreme.

I would hope, though, that people might admit this position outright--it's kind of relevant to those of us who are trying to work out a solution for the country.

"You're either part of the future or get out of the way," John Mellencamp. Jimmy Carter, it seems, is part of the future.

For the record, I never called anyone anti-semitic. I try to avoid labels because, as Phyllis Diller observes, they separate us.

Peace.

12/13/2006 02:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.S. Thank you, Vigilante, you remind me that I carry on my father's (Christian) combativeness.

12/13/2006 02:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Roger Russell said...

Yes, an open and full debate on the Israeli-Palestinian situation can be beneficial, but it must include all the facts. A crucial one is that anti-Israel Palestinians and the Arab groups that support them are committed to the eradication of Israel. If Carter does not include that fact, one that clearly explains most of the "oppression" of Palestinians, he cannot join the debate. Any failure to address it is clear evidence of conscious or unconscious anti-Israel bias.

12/14/2006 09:00:00 AM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

Thats interesting Roger, you support an open debate yet place the oppression of Palestinians in quotation marks.
The only country which got wiped out was Palestine. Israel, on the other hand is an colonial settler apartheid state.

12/14/2006 09:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good reality check drmaxtor.
Why do people like to blame the victims. ?

The Israeli`s are happy to murder anyone for their promised land.
Who promised it.?
Their ingenious Mr.god.
God is their real estate agent.?
That is what they brainwash their kids with. Religious bigotry rules the middle-east from every direction.
This will result in something terrible happening with the weapons available, unless it is stopped now.

12/14/2006 09:48:00 AM  
Blogger Soros' Proxy said...

Doctor Maxtor, I doubt very much that you would go on the record supporting the existence of a State of Israel, even limited to its 1967 borders?

12/14/2006 11:27:00 AM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

I'll have to part company with you on that one Skip, most Israelis are athiests but misuse religion to justify their occupation and ridiculous claims. Its more politics more then anything.
Soros, I am a supporter of the Saudi Peace Plan of 2002 which calls for full diplomatic Arab recognition of Israel in exchange for a return to pre-1967 borders, with the Palestinian right of return and cessation of settlement activity. Many of you probably never heard of this plan because the media barely paid attention to it, and the Israelis rejected it outright.

12/14/2006 12:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually we are in accord.
The 67 borders, and right of return .

12/14/2006 03:52:00 PM  
Blogger Messenger said...

"Pre-1967 borders"? Not exactly, Maxtor.

12/14/2006 05:24:00 PM  
Blogger Messenger said...

Borrowing liberally from the Saudi 2002 proposals, I ask What's a Reasonable Settlement? Just for the purpose of discussion, of course.

12/14/2006 05:52:00 PM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

Skip, I meant your comments about the role of religion. Why no right of return for the Palestinians, Messenger?

12/15/2006 09:38:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I understood drmaxtor.

Anyway you look at it religion/belief is tied into the monstrous situation there.
All these groups act out of bigoted, abstracted rationales.
This is the trouble, politics, and religion, are happy companion travelers.
Religion has always been used to justify ridiculous claims.
That is one way to control people for the politicians. Trick the people into believing all kinds of interesting nonsense.
Motivate people to work for the cause, as foot-soldiers.
What is the cause.? Authoritarian fascist control of the population by the power possessors, in order to line their pockets with so called money, and enforce their belief systems.

12/15/2006 10:11:00 AM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

A little too quick on the draw there skip, the conflict is not a religious one, nor does it have its roots in religious differences.

12/16/2006 08:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can anyone explain to me how the Palestinian "right of return" would allow Israel to remain the predominantly Jewish state that it is today?

If a predominantly Jewish state is of no concern to you, then I assume that you have no sympathy for a minority religion gaining a majority position in one solitary state in the entire world.

I have no idea what it would be like to live in a state where my religion is the majority, but then I happily choose to live here...but I think about what it would be like to live in a place where my personal beliefs and customs were part of the mainstream culture--something many Americans take for granted.

As far as I understand it, the Palestinian right of return would be akin to the United States giving a right of return to Mexicans whose ancestors left because the U.S. conquered half their country (only much more devastating to Israel than it might be to us as a nation). Do those of you who support a right of return also support the reversal of that act of colonialism (and others)? I'd be interested to know...

12/16/2006 10:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure why not.? We can give the country back to the Indians and pack off back to Europe.

Any other absurdest examples.?

America is a nonsectarian country by the way.

Israel is a Jewish state. A religious state is ruled by religious bigotry.
Naturally they hate the Palestinians, because of their different belief system.
Their Mr.god has ordered any one different to be killed in the past , so that example is held up and used for an example today also.

The Jews in Israel would not have had these problems if they had just moved to Waco , and joined the other odd-ball religious cults.

With their history of genocide and overt murder of non-Jews as documented by their Bible , they are in for some future problems that I do not envy.
Crash test ahead.
Atomic weapons.?
I pity the people that live in that area.
Religious brainwashing and its effects are the seeds of bigotry , and war. Politics and religion act hand in hand to humiliate , and control the human spirit.

12/17/2006 09:21:00 AM  
Blogger Messenger said...

Urban Pink asks,

"Can anyone explain to me how the Palestinian "right of return" would allow Israel to remain the predominantly Jewish state that it is today?

Yes, I agree. But there's a new proposal out.

12/17/2006 08:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This proposal is unrealistic.

It is anti-Palestinian. Why should people that lived somewhere before , not be allowed to return.? It was their land , that was stolen.

Your idea presented is a dead end , and a non-starter.

12/18/2006 07:12:00 AM  
Blogger DrMaxtor said...

I noticed that Urban Pink puts the Palestinian Right of Return in quotation marks. Yet seems not to have much to say about East European Jews who colonized and continue to subplant the local Palestinian population. What "right" do they to do this?
The idea that a Jew from Brooklyn, Moscow and Kiev has more "right" to steal Palestinian territory then the Palestinians who have lived their for thousands of years is absurd and criminal.

12/18/2006 01:24:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Dr. Maxtor,

I put "right of return" in parentheses because it is an idea. I do not think Israel had a "right" to colonize, I do not think Palestinians have a "right" to return. I think the history of war in the region is a history of war, and I currently support the continued existence occupying power (with better policies), just as I support our own occupying power (with better policies). I certainly do not support one dirt clod of further colonization by Israel (they've got a lot of stolen land to give up as it is).

Israel is absolutely geared toward a Jewish nation, but does not require citizens to be Jewish; the United States is geared toward a Christian nation, and does not require its citizens to be Christian. Both governmental bodies are technically secular; In the beginning Israel was a sanctuary for Jews, the U.S. was initially a sanctuary for protestants--their attitudes toward religion (majority vs. minority) are surprisingly similar (I might even give Israel the advantage on that one...)

Comparing the two as colonialist nations is not absurd.

12/18/2006 09:39:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You are certainly entitled to that opinion Miss Pink. You and Vigilante dismiss the right of return out of hand.
America is geared toward being a Christian nation that does not require its citizens to be Christian.? Did you pull that one out of your belief system.? Ha.

I believe you do not have much credibility in your thinking there. That again is an absurd comment. You justifying Israels monstrous occupation of Palestinian land using the U.S. as an example.? Ridiculous.

So you support our current occupation of Iraq also , but with better policy`s.?
Well , I guess that also says a lot as to your being a credible thinker.

You support it for the sake of Israel.? Or for the sake of the Oil Company`s.? Or because you like the Idea of us destabilizing the region.? Why do you support the occupation of Iraq.?

Have you ever murdered anyone personaly, or do you just do it from afar with editorial comments about keeping the Gaza prison camp , or re-affirming our occupation/destruction of Iraq. You support both.

So you support Israel as an occupying power, but think they should give up the land they stole.?

Guess what,? , what you are saying does not make sense.

12/19/2006 06:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Skip,

I will forever ignore your comments from now on. In them I see willful ignorance, vastly incorrect assumptions about my thinking, and enormous jumps to make links between unrelated events and situations. Oh, and I'm rubber you're glue.

12/19/2006 08:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To clarify my above statement, I was speaking of our historical occupation of the United States, not Iraq.

12/19/2006 08:20:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home