Petraeus and Israel…Continued

Thank you for joining us for today’s edition of Joe Klein v.s. Commentary.

It would be nice if groups like AIPAC lobbied Israel to be a more thoughtful ally and stop expanding its settlements, especially given the American blood that has been shed in the region–but America’s best interests don’t always seem to be the top priority for these people.

That’s because, in some cases, they aren’t American. Or in the cases where they are American, they see themselves as Americans second and Israelis first.

No kidding.
.
I hope someday to have someone crave my attention the way Joe crave’s theirs.

They are lobbying Israel to be a more thoughtful ally. The way to do that is to support their democratic initiatives. Israel’s support the settlements because it will be good for Israel.

The point is goofy. You can disagree with the settlements but just because the Israeli people or AIPAC don’t agree with you doesn’t mean they’re not thoughtful. A larger point is you don’t support Israel because it pleases or displeases Arabs. Either Israel is acting properly or not. If the arabs want to attack us because they disagree with us that’s a separate issue. It’s not their place to dictate our posiiton. That’s moral and intellectual cowardice.

Max Boot’s point, and it wasn’t the 1st post on Petraeus at Contentions, was that the initial report greatly exaggerated the claim. 1st they put words in his mouth he didn’t say. 2nd, Petraues didn’t say nor did the chart say settlements were making it dangerous for soldiers. There were a number of other inaccuracies as well. Petraeus didn’t ask for Palestine to be placed inder Centcom control. The chart mentioned Palestine as part of a series of regionals issue which affect the area as a whole. That’s merely stating the obvious.

The fact is it’s a dead thread. The left wanted to make something of it and Petraeus himself shot it down.

He’s a glutton for punishment. Not too long ago he blasted Krauthammer for his aggressive stance on Iraq and the surge saying it was a pity he was in a wheelchair. Else he may have been able to go to Iraq and get a more nuanced view. It wasn’t 5 minutes Podhorentz pointed out FDR managed in a wheelchair and Krauthemmer got Iraq correct while Joe was one of the most severe critics of the surge.

It was a truly preposterous posting by Klein but to his credit he admitted it. Now he needs to get back.

Hey, if the offense Joe takes from the Commentary cabal pushes him to advocate for a more rational, real-world approach for Israel and the rest of the Middle East, then I’m more than happy for him to use the likes of Max Boot et al. as his foil.

Here’s another topic Joe Klein knows nothing about.

I stand with Klein or anybody else who offers some rational perspective to knock down the right wing zionists, christian and jewish. This thing has gone insane. There is a question that the right wing Israeli government’s actions cause danger for Americans fighting their wars? There is a question that those wars are predicated to begin with on the Israel cause?
.
I remember first seeing the film The Little Drummer Girl long ago, before I really knew what it was all about. I thought, that is some really ugly stuff happening. Well, it’s still happening, I don’t know how many years later. Enough is enough. Fix it, please. No chance. Israel and their punks in the USA, again, all right wing jewish and christian zionist fascists, are like the beggar on the side of the road saved by the good Samaritan, respond by punching the well intentioned man senseless. The beggar is Israel. The parable of goodness has turned into one of horror and insanity.

Thank you for staying on top of this, Joe Klein. Disregard your detractors, who, incidentally, are the ones who know nothing about this issue. Their reflexivity precludes any semblance of critical thought on such issues as the tactics of AIPAC, the policies of Israel, or the strategic interests for the US in the special relationship.

Useless contribution, jbaustian. You can’t do better than that?

You are absolutely correct, rdw56. Joe thought he was throwing raw meat to his adoring multitudes and it went over like a lead balloon. Gen. Patraeus is a true patriot and is committed to keeping America safe. Anyone with an IQ understands that being supportive and friendly to Israel, is going to inflame Arab nationalism….so be it. There is nothing we can do to alter this circumstance, except abandon Israel and that is NEVER going to happen. (much to the chagrin of our anti-war liberals and Sean Penn)

exiled-

This is a non-starter. To the extent the left was going to use Petraeus they had to report his position accurately. Now it’s clear he did not say what they said he said. I knew that because the original story Andrew Sullivan referred to never quoted him directly and never provided any links. Now the arguement is over misquoting Petraeus.

As much as I generally agree with you on this issue, I must take the opportunity to highlight a rather major oversight in your perspective here, what, in my opinion, amounts to a severe obstacle to progress. I often see unquestioning support of Israel characterized as a right-wing position. Unfortunately, this is more than a right versus left face-off. It’s an American deficiency. Support for Israel is American as apple pie. It’s flagrant on both sides of the aisle. The shameless groveling at Israel’s feet is ubiquitous, the adulation of AIPAC deafening. I know this is probably not your intention, but laying the blame at the feet of right-wingers is a partisan talking-point. Truth be told, the left is just as guilty, rivaling the right in complicity without equivocation. We cannot address the illogic of it all without rightfully holding all participants to account. Washington is the problem. All of it. Until we recognize this simple truth, and stop giving the left a facade to hind behind, there is no prospect for resolution, no hope for balance.

Yes, everyone else is practicing reflexivity, but not you.

rdw56, let’s stipulate that this whole thing is all a leftist conspiracy. Now, please tell me what the goal of this conspiracy is.

rdw~
This issue for me is not what Petraues did say or did not say. It’s a matter of what Central Command is saying. It’s always a positive moment, for me, to hear the United States military challenging the soundess of a given Israeli policy. It’s healthy as their primary motivator should always be US interests, regardless of what effect that may have on any other state.
….
mrein~
Now you are catching on. Bravo.

Exiled, I don’t challenge any of what you say. I do tend to knee jerk with right wing outbursts. You speak with an eye on Israeli support. Actually, I also recognize that the Little Drummer Girl was initially a leftist supportive of Palestinians. I would extend my view of left/right support on both sides as not productive. It’s just that the Palestinians have been whipped to the ground, Israel is the prevailing bully, I am with the underdog, and mostly I resent that all the world is paying for it. Time for the final check (invoice).

For starters, the 1600 housing units which are so controversial are in an area which, during the Camp David discussions in 2000, Yassir Arafat initially agreed would be on the Israeli side of the border.

Joe Klein, as usual, take the position that if a Democratic secretary of state thinks Israel is acting badly, then it must be true. And that whatever Netanyahu does is wrong.

I am still waiting for Joe Klein to say something original or even intelligent.

Klein seems to give credibility to statements David Petraeus never made, on a topic which was not the focus of his presentation, as reported by sources unfriendly toward Israel (to say the least).

Typical.

You know, I’ve actually not seen The Little Drummer Girl. My mother has told me many times that I should watch it, but I haven’t been able to find a movie rental place that carries it.

I was hoping that the middle east would be big on Sec Clinton’s visit to Russia. It seems to be far down the agenda for Russia. Nuclear arms squabbles, the US defensive shield in e. europe, and building the nuclear reactor in Iran are on top. Russia in the meantime is making lucrative deals in France (ships) and India (nuclear energy plants). Not that they don’t have their own muslim troubles, but that all leaves the US fighting zionist wars and falling on it’s face. Really sad.

I am reflexively skeptical about anyone who blames the world’s problems on “Zionists”.

Or who grants credibility to those who do.

I should not have to explain myself. You know what I mean.

It’s only low on the agenda when the US comes to town. Russia, Germany, France, the UK, they all know that to work with the US for a more balanced approach to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is futile. They act unilaterally, and sometimes in concert with one another, towards this end, but I think they are disillusioned with the prospect of the US being an honest broker. They’re just being pragmatic. Why waste time working with the US, whose positions are unwavering, when they can at least dream of accomplishing something, anything, by doing it themsleves? That’s why, when in dialogue with American officials, the world has learned not to waste energy talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

That’s certainly better.

By the way, it wasn’t just Arafat. Abbas took the same position about Ramat Shlomo in 2008.

jbaustian, thanks for your civil response. I would argue that we are beyond the issue of right or wrong on the settlement issue. Israel has settled half a million people in space that Palestinians see as their own. In the process, Israel has displaced Palestinians from their own space. Israel is taking over territory that would belong to the Palestinian state, which has been reduced considerably since the 67 war.
.
So…in the spirit of conciliation, peace, resolution, what Israel is doing is destructive. Not just there. In the world.
.
The Petraeus issue is just a pissing contest, of no use to anybody. Given that all of the dangers of war are attributable to the whole Israel thing anyway, lets not quibble over further dangers ancillary to that. I think the military term is collateral damage, such as the dead children buried in Gaza that Israel dismisses as collateral results of the slaughter there.

Exiled-
.
“hear the United States military challenging the soundess [sic] of a given Israeli policy”
.
Actually, the military didn’t challenge the soundness of an Israeli policy. It just observed that the perception that the U.S. favors Israel angers “moderate Arab” states. So it was U.S. policy. And it did not relate to the lack of peace between the Palestinians and Israelis either. It’s that those states hate Israel and hate that the U.S. has a close relationship with Israel. Maybe we should pick our allies based on appeasing others, but it doesn’t seem noble or wise. It doesn’t seem like a good idea to decide our foreign policy based on the threats of others.

Exiled, You do need to make a distinction there between Left and the right’s support for Israel. While the politicians on the left and the right are more or less unconditional, thats not the case with the liberal media and liberal people.
.
And the reason why politicians on the left are unconditional is because they are boxed into that position by the righ wing media/commentators and right wing US/Israeli politicians. Even a minute tilt away from Israel and labels “Anti-Semite”, “Terrorist sympathiser”, “Self hating Jew” get stuck on your head.
.
According to Bibi, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod (I gues you can include Joe Klien as well) are all self hating Jews.

formerlyjames: dead children in Gaza? Would they be dead if Israel had not _unilaterally_ pulled out of Gaza? Probably not. So before wishing that Israel should evacuate additional territory, maybe you should anticipate what the Palestinians will do with that territory? Or maybe just decide what is important to you: territory, or peace?

I don’t think anyone on this forum has blamed the world’s problems on Zionists. We’re merely pointing out problems caused by Zionism. Not all problems, not every problem, just problems. And, why did you put Zionists in quotation marks? Zionism is an ideology, people who ascribe to it are referred to as Zionists. Even Zionists use these terms. There is nothing sinister about using the term Zionist. Are you skeptical, too, about the existence of Zionists?

Yes, I know what you mean. I apologize to you as I did to Exiled for cavalierly tossing around labels such as zionist and right wing. I just can’t help myself sometimes.
.
But I am not religious and I hold zionism in some distain. To me, the Navajo Nation has more right to take over New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona as Israel has to do what they have done.
.
As for the spill over into the world, there is not doubt in my mind that it has cost the world astronomically. For one of many examples, next time you miss a flight because of long security lines, think of zionism. That’s a fact jack.

Exiled, just catching up here, but you should listen to your mother. It has been a while since I have seen it, watched it several times a long time ago, but The Little Drummer Girl is one of my all time favorites. Again, at the time, I was fairly ignorant of the issues, but it was still a riveting excellent film. I need to see it again now, too now that I know more about what it is all about.

A. We don’t need to be over in that region, Mr. Klein. That our troops have been at war in that region for the better part of a decade is the punishment we bear for delusions of grandeur on the part of Mr. Bush, and the tacit approval of the rest of us Americans, in spite of common sense and plain fact.
.
B. When our troops have fought in place of Israelis – particularly Gulf War I – it was at our insistence, not theirs.
.
The airs you put on over this issue are way too great. Did Israel ask us to get involved to this degree, or did America just assume that it would call the shots, as usual?

Mr Nice Guy: Iran has been at war against the US since 1979. The US Central Command was established in 1983 because it was belatedly recognized that the US had permanent strategic interests in that area. George W Bush did not break new ground with his policies, he just put a little teeth behind them — which is always a good idea if you want your adversaries to take you seriously. (Barack Obama: just a hint, it makes more sense to get tough with your adversaries than with your allies — allies are good to have, sometimes.)

jbaustian, I don’t follow what you mean about Israel’s unilateral withdrawal. There must be something I am not aware of. I was referring to children killed in hospitals, school refuges, and homes as a result of the Israel assault. That is just one of the crimes committed by Israel. Use of white phosphorus projectiles is another. White phosphorus is something that is unnecessary for any tactical purpose and causes horrendous damage to human tissue. That alone by itself represents a severe indictment of the supposed intent of the assault.

So, earl, if what he supposedly said (which you say he didn’t) were true, that would make him a traitor? And that would affect support of Israel how? You baffle me. There is absolutely no logic to what you say, from left or right. You are simply amazing. Your mind resides in some neverland beyond anything anyone can imagine.

FormerlyJames: do not pretend to be unaware of the constant missile attacks from Gaza against Israel. (And there would have been more except for Israel’s interceptions of several shipments from Iran.)

Also, do not pretend that you don’t know that the targets of those Hamas missiles were only civilian targets — Hamas did not care to direct its attacks against military targets. No Palestinian militant group has ever differentiated between civilian and military targets — they usually try to avoid messing with the IDF, that’s too dangerous.

Lastly, do not pretend that you did not know that Hamas fighters intentionally used civilians as human shields.

jbaustian, there you go again. Iran was attacked by Iraq in t980. I guess you could say that Iran was at war with the US since the US joined the aggressor, Iraq and Saddam. You see, there had been this unpleasantness about the US displacing a democratically elected government in Iran and installing a brutal dictator. Eventually the Iranians rose in revolution and ran the US thug out. They also took over the US embassy and held many American captive for a long time. Then…oh, never mind. Just go back to your dream world.

jbaustian, One of the so-called “self hating” Jew Richard Goldstone, (of United Nations Human Rights Council) prepared a report on the Gaza invasion and the events leading to it.
.
The outcome: Hamas welcomed it. The state of Israel rejected it.
.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.pdf

Yes, I do know of the terrorist missile attacks. I also know that few were successful because they were very primitive. I also know that there is technology available to counter such primitive attacks. I also know that Israel possess much more sophisticated missiles which they used to reduce themselves to the level of the terrorists, but much more effectively and deadly. The effectiveness and deadliness was because they killed people who had no missiles or weapons of any kind. They were laying in hospitals, homes, schools, streets. They were not terrorists. The terrorists did not care who their missiles hit and thankfully they were not very successful. I will cogitate over how Israel may be more civil and honorable than the impotent terrorist rocket launchers.
.
I know you mean well. We disagree. Never the twain shall meet, unfortunately.

Formerlyjames: Iran has been at war with the US since it invaded sovereign US territory, the embassy in Teheran, and seized the diplomatic staff as hostages. That is unquestionably an act of war. Several administrations since then have pretended that a state of war did not exist between the US and Iran, but the fact remains that Iran never addressed our complaints.

Pretending that Iran never committed an act of war, or that it was so insignificant that the US should ignore it or downplay it, is exactly the sort of non-response that only encourages the extremists who are still in control of that regime. Iran is hardly the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.

The war between Iran and Iraq came LATER, at a time when the US and Iran were already at war. Iraq and the US were not allies, just as not all the countries that went to war against Napoleonic France were friendly allies.

Maverick: excuse me if I do not kneel and worship the United Nations or any of its plethora of bureaucracies. The world would be a better place, IMO, if the UN followed the League of Nations into obscurity.

During the first Intifada, local officials of the UNHCR were found to have taken the side of the Palestinians, UN vehicles were used to transport fighters, weapons, and explosive devices. No one not a partisan of the Palestinians would ever go into that zone, as it would not be safe. The Palestinians hardly ever attacked UN representatives, as they recognized them as political allies not as neutral observers.

jbaustian, you are correct. The Iranian revolutionists seizing the US embassy was an act of war. It was a war act in retaliation of the US having already in 1953 initiated the war. America was the Japan in Iran’s Pearl Harbor.
.
You refer to a period during the Carter administration which followed developments that had occurred long before him. I am not a fan of that administration, although I greatly admire Carter as an individual. Anyway, if that was a war, I would welcome it again compared to what we have now. We are living with wrong-headed decisions during that era. If we could only revisit it and deal with it more effectively. Know what? Won’t happen. Our Department of State and CIA and Israel know better. So do you, right?

Exile,

Mrien nails it. If you are going to use Petraeus or Central Command to support your view you must quote them accurately. If you do not quote them accurately the issue becomes your credibiliy and not the topic. This is the problem with Fox. The days when ABC might carry a bastardized quote knowing the correct quote won’t be found are over. Or not carry a quote. Whatever. Andrew Sullivan and the gent who started all this made sure not to report actual facts or quotes. They referred to Centcom charts without showing the charts. That’s a sure sign they’re hiding something. Joe Klein did the samer thing. This nonsense doesn’t work anymore.

There is now an actual quote from David Petraeus DENYING what Joe is trying to suggest was his position. This is how you refute and defeat the MSM. This has become noise, useless chatter.

Formerlyjames: The US and Iran were not in a state of war from 1953 to 1979. In fact they had very friendly relations, and the US was the principle arms supplier to Iran during the 1970s.

You may argue that the Shah was not a legitimate ruler, but in fact he was the leader of a government recognized by all other nations. That is usually a reliable measure of legitimacy.

> Russia, Germany, France, the UK, they all know that to work with the US for a more balanced approach to ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is futile. They act unilaterally, and sometimes in concert with one another, towards this end, but I think they are disillusioned with the prospect of the US being an honest broker.
.
Is it solely that America can’t be an honest broker? I don’t think so. As you point out, a number of countries, including Israel, have tried, either together or independently, at some point, to get this thing resolved. Yet, for some reason, it never seems to happen.

jbaustian, thank you for that update. I am sorry if I implied that this war you speak of existed during the reign of the puppet regime installed by the CIA. I stand corrected.

“Maverick: excuse me if I do not kneel and worship the United Nations or any of its plethora of bureaucracies. The world would be a better place, IMO, if the UN followed the League of Nations into obscurity.”
.
Along with UN, let’s also tear up the Geneva convention, NATO and all the multilateral treaties that we have !!
.
In other words, Start shooting the messenger, if you dont like the message !! Never mind the fact that:
1. The message contains factual instances of human rights violations ON BOTH SIDES!
2. The messenger himself was Jewish.

Maverick: my point is that, based on past performance, the UNHCR and a number of other UN agencies have taken sides in the conflict.

Additionally, the UN bureaucracy is thoroughly corrupt, as witness the Oil-for-Food scandal and the Global Warming scam which, had it succeeded, could have funneled tens of billions of dollars annually into the Swiss bank accounts of Ban Ki-Moon and his associates.

The UN is now the largest criminal enterprise in the history of the world. At the least, the US should withdraw and also request that it move the HQ out of New York. The US should only join international organizations when it shares the political values of the other members. The UN gives preference to dictators, especially anti-American dictators.

As for NATO and other multilateral treaties, presumably these should remain in effect so long as they benefit the US. There are many countries which are friends to the US, and we do not need formal treaties that bind them to us, or us to them. We should not join organizations that seek only to bind us, to keep us from doing what is in our own national interest.

ROFL.. I really am.
.
You are basically saying the all refrees should be abolished because,in the past, one of them incorrectly sent you to the penalty box
.
After this, I don’t see any point in continuing this discussion.. Good bye and God Bless.

Mr. Nice Guy~

A. We don’t need to be over in that region, Mr. Klein. That our troops have been at war in that region for the better part of a decade is the punishment we bear for delusions of grandeur on the part of Mr. Bush, and the tacit approval of the rest of us Americans, in spite of common sense and plain fact.

I do not understand your allegiances. How can you slam Bush’s “delusions of grandeur” while giving a pass to the likes of Sharon and Netanyahu? I would venture a guess that you despise neoconservatism. You do realize that neoconservatives are the offspring of the Likuds, yes? You do realize that Sharon and Netanyhau hold the same delusions of granduer as Bush? You do realize that the Israelis are incessantly pushing for regime changes in Iraq, Syria, and Iran? How can you feel so content in criticizing counterproductive US policies in the region while ignoring the near unanimous approval of such policies in Israel? Are you naive? Disingenuous?

B. When our troops have fought in place of Israelis – particularly Gulf War I – it was at our insistence, not theirs.

Partially true. We insisted that Israeli troops refrain as that would worsen the situation in ’91. However, the mere fact that American troops are in the region now is at the behest of Israel, not in lieu of. Point in case, Ariel Sharon established ad hoc unofficial intelligence units to sell the war on Iraq to the Bush Adminstration. They manipulated intelligence and helped frame not only the inherent treat posed by Saddam Hussein but also the existence of WMD. Mossad was unprepared to convey these false reports to the CIA, so Sharon established his own units. They then turned to Syria in 2003 and prodded the Bush Administration to take out Assad. Now, they are drumming up support for strikes against Iran. The Israelis crave the toppling of all these regimes for regional transformation. This is delusional and dangerous, and has direct consequences on American troops.

The airs you put on over this issue are way too great. Did Israel ask us to get involved to this degree, or did America just assume that it would call the shots, as usual?

Yes, they did ask. Repeatedly. Forcefully.

Jbaustian~
Iran did not have to be our enemy. Prior to the election of Admadinejad we could have greatly improved relations with Iran. Our, and the Israelis’ treatment of Iran, however, has isolated it and marginized moderate voices. We (the US and Israel) created Admadinejad. In 2003, Iran made a proposal to the United States. Iran would do the following:
1. Stop funneling money, arms, and support to Hezbollah
2. Cease all support of any “terrorist” groups
3. Openly support, and work towards a two-state solution, by default recognizing the right of Israel to exist
4. Assist the US in quelling the Iraq insurgency
5. Provide the US with intelligence relating to Al Qaeda
6. Work to stabilize Afghanistan
.
In return, Iran wanted two things. One, the freedom to develop civilian nuclear capabilities. Two, they wanted the US to remove the military strike option on Iran. Very, very, very reasonable and prodcutive proposal.
.
The Israelis immediately got on the phone and began undermining this proposal. The US ignored the Iranian offer. Has it occurred to anyone that the fact that Iran has been in the crosshairs of the US and Israel for years may be a factor in its desires to now pursue military nuclear capabilities

In other words, Iran requires a nuclear deterrent to offset the hotheads in the neoconservative and Likudnik blocs. We really should not be shocked or worried that Iran is attempting to build up its deterrent capabilities.

MNG~
The reason that nothing has come to fruition as of yet is simple. First, at times, the Palestinians have rejected any idea of peace, because they were inherently opposed to the existence of Israel. This is not so much a problem any more. Nearly everyone has latched on to the idea of a two-state solution. I know you’ll find this provocative, but the main obstacle is Israel. Israel does not necessarily reject peace, but it does reject concessions. Israel, Labor, Kadima, and Likud all speak of Eretz Israel, of Greater Israel, of Judea and Samaria. It is completely at odds with the tenets of Zionsim that Israel relinquish lands beyond the 1967 borders. She will only do so if she feels that by not doing so she will lose the support of the US. In this respect, aside from Israel, most blame lies with the US for not demanding that with such unprecedented American support must come concessions for peace. That we have not demanded this is proof to the world that we are not an honest broker.

Why is it Iranians, Ukrainians, Georgians, and Greeks have demonstrations where some throw rocks, but when some Palestinians throw rocks, that is called out as uniquely violent. Guess what, you go march up against the IDF and see what you get shot in the forehead with.

Exiled_At_Home: you said “Iran did not have to be our enemy.” In fact, the current regime has no reason to exist except to oppose “The Great Satan” and “The Little Satan”.

The notion that it ever made a serious peace overture is absurd. The truth is that, for a few months following the US ouster of Saddam in 2003, Iran sought to avoid a direct confrontation with the US; this period of relative calm was brief and ended only after Iran found that the US was busy in both Iraq and Afghanistan and did not have the resources available to fight Iran at the same time.

Also, Iran never stopped supplying weapons, training, and logistics to its proxies, especially Hamas and Hezbollah; and at least some groups in Afghanistan were supported by Iran.

jbaustian,
You are an Israeli agent. It’s abnormal for anyone to spend as much time as you do posting comments, and fighting tooth and nail to falsify the truth, defend Israeli aggression, war mongering, and portray Israel’s victims as terrorists. Israel is the manifestation of terrorism, illegality and USA should not part with its national interest for the sake of a horde of gangsters and out laws. It’s nice to admit the truth, so people know who is who, and respond accordingly. Hence, an American is an American concerned first and foremost with America’s national interest, and Israelis and others who write in this forum should clearly state their identity, and that’s a fair request. Regardless, none American’s or anti American’s are so easy to identify for most.

“…but America’s best interests don’t always seem to be the top priority for these people.”

This is hilarious. America’s best interests have never been a priority for Israel. Why should they be? Please. Have you seen the bumper stickers they sell at the shops in the Old City?

I attended a meeting at the Jersusalem consulate back in March 2008. It was about the efforts of a certain task force there to build institutions in Gaza. Like intelligence, counterintelligence, law enforcement, etc. It was a concerted effort, loosely US-led. And everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, believed it could have worked even with Hamas in power. Except the Dept of State under Condoleeza Rice (at the direction of others, of course) and the Embassy in Tel Aviv. Why? Because Israel was opposed in truth, if not on paper. (I won’t use the word policy here, because in Israel it has a meaning that is…er…too convoluted.)

The embassy in Tel Aviv must keep the consulate in Jerusalem at arms length, because the consulate is thought to be too sympathetic with Palestinian interests. American military observers from the consulate couldn’t even enter Gaza, because the Embassy in Tel Aviv was too damn sensitive to the pressure from the Government of Israel.

Of course, nobody will admit to this absurd game the Israelis and Americans play. Intransigence? Inefficient? These are not the words I would use. I don’t envy Patreus. And I wish Boot and his ilk would take up basket weaving or something. There, I said it.

What was the takeaway from my brief flirtation with diplomacy in this region? A quote from a very high ranking member of that task force: “We have seen the enemy. And the enemy is us.”

The problem is that no one in authority really wants peace in the Middle East. The US government is unwilling because support for Israel translates into American jobs in the defence industry. The Israelis don’t want peace because they have nuclear weapons and the Arabs do not, and the Israelis need to expand their territory to absorb the needs of their increasing population.

Arabs do not want peace because then they may have to pick up the bill which the Europeans, riddled by guilt, have been paying for so long. And the Europeans do not want peace, otherwise why appoint Tony Blair as their special envoy?

The Iranians do not want peace because a belligerent Israel legitimises their military expansion, and the Chinese, the next world superpower, are happy to see the US pour billions of dollars of Chinese money into the only country in the region that has absolutely no resources worth having.

Exiled_At_Home… You forgot to mention the Iran-Contra affair, when the US under Ronald Reagan sold arms to Iran via
.
Of course, in those days, Saddam Huissain was an ally and Osama Bin Laden was a CIA funded “freedom fighter”. So I guess we can ignore that era as a crazy era when you didnt differentiate between friends and enemies….as long you sold lot of arms to each other.

jbaustian
There we go again, invoking Iran’s name into Israel’s perpetual war mongering and blaming Iran for Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movement against Israeli aggression. According to international law HAMAS being a liberation movement fighting to free the people of Gaza from Israeli oppression, siege and intimidation has the right to seek support from every member of UN including USA to fight Israel, albeit USA political class are a bunch of washed out cowards controlled by the likes of Israeli AIPAC, thus no luck, and not many western nations support this cause. However, HAMAS is an elected entity and most world nations recognize it as a legitimate “read elected” Palestinian authority and some countries provide aid and support to people of Gaza through HAMAS based on that reality. The same is true about Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is part of the political establishment and has enormous public support. Therefore, Iran’s support to both groups is completely legal and compliant with UN charter.

Iran is no enemy of USA and never will be. We are their enemy because we interfere in their internal affairs and fund many terrorist groups to cause harm and instability in Iran. It’s no secret that US Congressional leaders secretly agreed to George W. Bush’s $400-million funding request in 2005 for a major escalation of covert operations against Iran.
Observers say that it is through such covert funding that the US arms and finances anti-Iran terrorist groups such as the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO) and Jundallah.
In fact MKO has a camp in Iraq “CAMP ASHRAF” located 60 miles north of Baghdad in Deyala province managed and protected by US forces, and many members of MKO entered Iran’s south western region from that camp and committed terrorist operation during the past few years and many were captured by Iran’s security forces. The same is true about Jundallah “Soldiers of God” which operates in Iran’s south eastern borders from Pakistan and recently Iran captured Jundallah’s leader Abdolmalek Rigi on a flight en-route to Kyrgyzstan from Dubai, along with one of his deputies after their plane was brought down by Iran’s security forces in an airport in the Iranian Persian Gulf city of Bandar Abbas. According to confirmed reports, he was en-route to meet his American contact in a military base in Kyrgyzstan. Iran never financed or armed any group to attack USA, and all media stories about Iranian arms in Iraq or Afghanistan are mere propaganda by Israelis and their agents to demonize Iran, and no evidence ever provided to prove these phony stories.

The film derives from a book with the same title, by John LeCarre. As I recall, the film is quite faithful to the book. So if all else fails, you can probably get the book from the public library or buy it cheap, used, on Amazon or half.com or some other site that sells used books.

Fascinating! Do the American, Israelis and Arabs REALLY want the State of Palestine to exist side by side with Israel? and a link to the Gaza strip without access to its own coast?

Given the current Israeli coalition government which is so far the the right that the Shas have fallen over the edge does one see any end to the disputes? I don’t think so.

Over at the Post Charles K has provided yet another example from Blame the US First gang.

being born almost 2 decades after 1967 I almost always find myself asking questions about the period between the end of the war 1945 and 1967…
it seems to be a mysterious Black Box in history.
How did the Jewish State came in to existence in that part of the world and who decided it?
is there some very dark secret thats been hidden in this period or is it just my ignorance!!

AIPAC needs to catch up with Netanyahu and Eldad.
When Netanyahu, whose sons are Bible champions and whose father is a historian, proclaimed Mechpelah as the place where Judaism begins, Netanyahu announced the Bible rightness of the Two State Solution: a nation for each son who buried Abraham namely Ishmael (Palestine) and Isaac (Israel) as recorded in Genesis 25.

The Covenant that AIPAC and CUFI and others use to stake Zionists claims to Israel is found in Genesis 15-17 where God rescued Ishmael TWICE from Sarah’s plans to kill him and where God promised the land to Ishmael and his brothers – plural.

AIPAC must decide if it supports the Covenant. If not, AIPAC will erase its claim to Israel, save the US $3billion a year in entitlement payments to Israel’s citizens, and effectively end the existence of Judaism.

England used the Covenant in Genesis 15-17 to create a homeland for the Jews in the Balfour Declaration of WWI 1918 or so.

Without the Covenant, the Balfour Declaration is invalid.

Prior to Balfour, the lead Zionst Theodor Herzl was content to have a homeland for the Jews in Africa or South America.

John Hagee and CUFI may be misleading Christians if he is against the Two State Solution that Genesis 15-17 and Genesis 25 requires.

You can find the perspective you seek at
http://www.mymoreperfectamerica.wordpress.com/.

PM Netanyahu has already identified a Biblical rational for the Two State Solution – Mechpelah.

Details at that site.

PM Benjamin Netanyahu has already declared a Biblical rationale for the Two State Solution by claiming Mechpelan (Genesis 25)

For more details see http://www.mymoreperfectamerica.wordpress.com/

AIPAC just needs to catch up on its Bible studies like Netanyahu’s sons have.

It will save the US about $3billion a year if AIPAC does this.

I support Israel because the Bible requires that I do. The Bible also requires that I support a state for Palestinians.

Netanyahu acknowledged this when he claimed Mechpelah for a Heritage Site. Genesis 25.

Also, the Balfour Declaration supports the Genesis 15-17 Covenant story that is the foundation of Jewish culture. In that story, God did not promise the land exclusively to Sarah’s son but God promised it to Abraham’s 8 sons.

So, without the original covenant, there is no Judaism and there is no Israel.

For more, go to http://www.mymoreperfectamerica.wordpress.com/

Exiled:
.
“Point in case, Ariel Sharon established ad hoc unofficial intelligence units to sell the war on Iraq to the Bush Adminstration. They manipulated intelligence and helped frame not only the inherent treat posed by Saddam Hussein but also the existence of WMD. Mossad was unprepared to convey these false reports to the CIA, so Sharon established his own units. They then turned to Syria in 2003 and prodded the Bush Administration to take out Assad.”
.
That’s fascinating stuff. I’ve never heard that before. Where can I read more about this?

jbaustin~
I love it! I explain how Iran does not need to be our enemy today because in 2003 they offered a very reasonable and fair proposal, and your response is to say that the current Iranian regime, under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, does not desire peace with the US. Let me explain again. In 2003, when Ahmadinejad was not the Iranian president, Iran offered to cease supplying arms, resources, and support to Hezbollah and other groups, to help stabilize Afghanistan, to help quell the insurgency in Iraq, and to recognize Israel’s right to exist. What they wanted in return was the freedom to develop civilian nuclear capabilities and for the US to take the threat of military action off the table. The US refused. Ahmadinejad’s hard-line government is a direct response to the contined rhetoric coming out of America about bombing Iran. You are right that Iran still funnels resources and weapons to rogue groups and undermines our efforts and our troops in Iraq. But that does not suggest that they never offered to do otherwise. Were we to have negotiated with them in 2003, we might not be where we are today.

mrein~
It is fascinating, you’re correct. Both the US and Israel established unofficial intelligence units in the lead-up to the Iraq war, the sole raison d’etre was to bypass Mossad and the CIA by “creating” intelligence, rather than gathering intelligence.
.
In an article about the Office of Special Plans (OSP) that was created by the neoconservatives, The Guardian reported on July 17, 2003:

The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered conduit to the White House not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam’s Iraq than Mossad was prepared to authorise.

You can read the full article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jul/17/iraq.usa
.
Another source would be the February 9, 2007 Defense Department Report entitled: Review of the Pre-Iraqi War Activities of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
.
You can also read more extensively on these events in Walt and Measheimer’s book.

Exiled_At_Home…: you wrote, “I love it! I explain how Iran does not need to be our enemy today because in 2003 they offered a very reasonable and fair proposal, and your response is to say that the current Iranian regime, under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, does not desire peace with the US. Let me explain again.”

No need to explain again. Ahmadinejad is just the latest tool of the radical ayatollahs. It does not matter whether or not he was president in 2003 — Iran’s policy toward the US has been unrelentingly hostile since the revolution in 1979, and whenever negotiations were held they always ended badly. Ahmadinejad may be less sane and more dangerous than his predecessors, but his policies are the same: Death to America and Death to Israel.

deanadam: you write, “Iran is no enemy of USA and never will be,” then proceed to contradict yourself. When two countries are at war, or one is at war even if the other isn’t paying close attention, then by definition they are enemies.

To all of you: this has been an interesting discussion. But my focus this weekend must be on basketball, so have fun amongst yourselves.

deanadam: I am not an agent of Israel — but I am a friend of Israel, an ally of Israel, a friend to peace-loving Arabs whether Palestinian or not, an enemy of all Islamist extremists whether Sunni or Shi’a, an enemy of Hamas and Hezbollah, and an enemy to those who give aid and comfort to Islamic terrorists. I guess that would include you, whoever you are and whatever nationality you might be.

a conspiracy? I don’t think so. Dump reporting yes, Sullivan didn’t quote Petraeus and the story he linked to didn’t quote Petraeus now provide any of the powerpoint charts. I was an unsubstantiated report.

It was also quickly refuted by Petraeus himself.