Great job, Steve.

thanks steve.. informative...

So, Mark Perry says "the core principles of Hamas and Hizbullah are not that distasteful to the United States"?

The core principles of Hamas and Hizbullah are the destruction of Israel, accompanied by a second Holocaust of its Jews. Hizbullah has even elaborated, saying they hope all Jews move to Israel so they can kill them all at once.

So glad you cleared that up, Mark Perry, you vicious piece of slime. He fancies himself an expert "coder-taker", that much is clear. The alliance with Israel should "not exactly be downgraded, but balanced" -- against our new allies, Hamas and Iran. The normal English phrase he's looking for is "sold down the river."

"Interestingly, he notes that we are beginning to engage the Taliban who are killing Americans while not yet engaging Hamas and Hizballah who are not."
(Steve Clemons)

I think you mean, "who are not at this moment killing Americans". Both have in the past. I remember Hamas killed some state dept types who had come to Gaza to offer scholarships, and I KNOW the Marines remember their 243 dead in Beirut, even if you don't.

There is btw, NO visible evidence that Petraeus or "the military" consider our relations with Israel "key". Petraeus went out of his way to deny Perry's insinuations; nothing in Petraeus report, which listed Israel as one difficulty among many, and way down the list, had supported Perry. But Perry wants to get his message out, and if he has to call Petraeus a liar along the way, that's just how the game is played. What a snake.

The comparisons to the insurgents in Iraq or the Taliban don't even begin to hold water, because in those cases, there were exploitable internal divisions in both orgs. Tribe-flipping is an ancient part of war in the Mideast. But Hamas and Hizbullah are not tribal organizations. Perry even admits that there is no such exploitable division in Hizbullah, and that talking about "moderates" is mere window-dressing for the rubes.

And notice the missing word? Iran. Iran pays hundreds of millions to Hamas and Hizbullah. Iran owns Hamas and Hizbullah. Does Perry want the US to pay them instead, or is this just his way of saying we should learn to love Ahmedinejad and his nukes?

Ahmedinejad's nukes?

Are you talking about those 200-300 nukes he's been storing in
the Negev desert? Scary stuff... and If we don't bomb Tehran
immediately, he may try to sell them to someone else, like South
Africa.

Here is more from the Guardian, from yesterday:

"Israel revelations resonate in global talks on establishing WMD-
free zone

UN conference aimed at international non-proliferation is
reportedly close to agreement

Julian Borger, diplomatic editor
Monday 24 May 2010 21.00 BST

Israel's nuclear dealings with the apartheid regime in South
Africa date back more than three decades but they continue to
resonate in global talks in New York this week.

A UN conference aimed at bolstering and modernising the
international non-proliferation regime is reportedly close to an
agreement on measures aimed at a ban on nuclear and other
weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.

Those measures would include the calling of a conference on
establishing a WMD-free zone by 2012, potentially involving
Israel and Iran, and leading to further steps to provide mutual
security guarantees if all parties agreed. A co-ordinator would
be appointed by the UN to arrange that conference.

If the drafts circulating at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) review conference are approved by the end of the week, it
would mark a significant victory for Egypt and other Arab states
who have long argued that Israel has not been subjected to the
same pressure as Iran or Syria, despite its development of a
secret nuclear arsenal. "Agreement on this issue is in sight.
"Even in the whole conference does not agree on an action plan,
the P5 [five permanent security council members] and the Arab
states would continue to work on it," said Daryl Kimball, head of
the Arms Control Association. "The Guardian's report about
discussions between Israel and South Africa regarding nuclear
[weapons] further reinforces the fact that Israel is outside the
NPT and possesses nuclear weapons.

"The calls from other countries in the region, that Israel join the
NPT, become all the more legitimate when such documentary
evidence becomes available, and the steps being pursued at the
NPT conference for pursuing a WMD-free zone become more
relevant."

Israel is not a signatory to the 1968 NPT agreement, and is not
taking part in the negotiations. But according to sources at the
conference, the Obama administration held high-level
discussions with Israel at the weekend to persuade it to go
along with plans for the 2012 conference, on the understanding
it would not be compromising its security. Although the
apartheid regime is long dead, and its nemesis, the ANC, is in
office, there are unanswered questions about the South African
weapons programme. Documentation and equipment was
destroyed before power was passed to a majority-elected
government. When officials from the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) were allowed into South Africa in 1993 to
inspect the remnants, it was on condition they would not ask
what countries had provided assistance. "We asked and we got
few answers," Robert Kelley, of the IAEA, said. "It was like they
pulled out an index card and read out a pre-prepared
response.""

(...)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/24/israel-wmd-
non-proliferation

The Arabs have known about Israels nukes for 40 years; it never made them get their own. They know Israel isn't trying to rule the Arabs. But Iran's will be different. Iran's will spark an arms race. We already see the signs.

It doesn't matter how many UN conferences are held which will always agree it's all the Jooooos fault and Israel should disarm.

And here is Donald Macintyre's take today in The Independent
(UK) on the revelations in The Guardian, and some background
info regarding Israel's ambiguity, going back to a conversation
between Richard Nixon and Golda Meir:

"Donald Macintyre: Revelations will not make Israel give up its
policy of ambiguity

Tuesday, 25 May 2010

Revelations in Sasha Polakow-Suransky's book that talks
between Israel and South Africa on the sale of missiles and
warheads took place a generation ago have turned a harsh new
spotlight on Israel's long-held policy of ambiguity over its
nuclear arsenal.

But while they come just as Israel faces renewed pressure to
come clean about its status as a nuclear military power at the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in New York
it would be a mistake to think that the game is yet up for that
policy, which still enjoys wide, if not unanimous, acceptance in
Israel itself.

Reaction in Israel suggests a media willingness to accept the
denial by Shimon Peres, now the country's President, that Israel
was trying to sell nuclear weapons to South Africa – and in the
process arguably obscuring the undeniable – and to many
abroad – highly embarrassing fact of the shadowy links between
the two governments at the time.

Israeli journalists routinely refer archly to "foreign reports" that
the country has long had a nuclear arsenal. In a recent such
article, the prominent Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit articulated
the views of many when he defended "the umbrella of opacity"
protecting Israel. He argued that in the past at least the world –
being then "moral rather than moralistic" – knew that having
seen a third of Jews murdered in the Holocaust it could not do
so again; and that it recognised that since Israel as a nuclear
power had acted with "deliberation and composure" its nuclear
reactor at Dimona had "stabilised the Middle East" by preventing
Israel's many wars turning into an all out "catastrophe".

Yet the world was not always so sure. A fascinating article three
years ago, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists revealed how
Richard Nixon overcame the severe doubts of many in the US
administration – shared by Nixon's predecessors Kennedy and
Johnson – to allow Israel to proceed with its secret nuclear
weapons programme. His own Defence Secretary, Melvin Laird,
fearing among much else that it would encourage proliferation,
warned him bluntly in March 1969 that the programme was "not
in the US's interests and should... be stopped". Yet the deal
under which Israel could proceed without admitting it was doing
so was struck that September at a one-to-one meeting between
Nixon and the then Israeli prime minister Golda Meir, the exact
details of which can only be guessed at till this day.

The authors concluded by arguing that it was time to revise the
Nixon-Meir accord, which was "burdensome for the US not only
because it is inconsistent with US values of openness and
accountability but also because it provokes claims about double
standards in its non-proliferation policy". And it pointed out
that without open acknowledgement by Israel of its nuclear
status it was impossible to include it in an updated NPT
agreement, let alone discuss ideas like a nuclear-free Middle
East.

There has long been speculation that Israel observed, if not
jointly organised with South Africa, a test of a nuclear weapon in
1979. Perversely, that might have provided a motive for close
military ties with the apartheid regime, since Israel's agreement
not to test a weapon was part of its accord with the US."

(...)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/donald-
macintyre/donald-macintyre-revelations-will-not-make-
israel-give-up-its-policy-of-ambiguity-1981961.html

Nadine projects her hysteria: "I think you mean, "who are not at this moment killing Americans". Both have in the past. I remember Hamas killed some state dept types who had come to Gaza to offer scholarships, and I KNOW the Marines remember their 243 dead in Beirut, even if you don't."

It isn't known who bombed the US convoy, killing three DynCorp contractors of the State Department in Gaza back in October of 2003. At this time Israel's brutal occupation of Gaza was at its worst, but all suspected parties denied targeting Americans and condemned the attack. It did occur just outside of a large refugee camp.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/16/world/3-americans-slain-in-blast-in-gaza-strip.html?pagewanted=all

As far as the suicide bombing attack on the Marine barracks, it is impossible for it to have been Hizbullah, since they didn't even exist at the time. Shi’a activists that earlier attacked the Israeli brutal occupation and the Marine barracks were likely the type of people Hizbullah wanted in their ranks, but Hizbullah's charter is dated 1985.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbullah#Foundation

It should also be noted that Hizbullah is only considered a terrorist organization by the usual suspects U.S. and Israel plus Canada. No other countries do.

The U.S. Need's to find some way to talk with the party's in the WestBank& Gaza.
Centcom is on the case.

Considering the participation and interest that all matters Israel usually generate on this blog, is Steve now engaged in a bit of diversionary strategy, designed to take the debate away from the foremost and epic emergency we now face?? How does Steve feel about the credibility and popularity of this Administration being SHREDDED by an epic display of corruption, incompetence, servitude to BP, and one of the most blatant displays of executive spinelessness that this nation has ever suffered through?

Across the board, it is obvious that the Obama Damninistration has exhibited unforgivable complicity and ineptitude in the unfolding catastrophe. Not only is their response to the post explosion gusher despicably inadequate, but the regulatory lapses and corrupt rubber-stamping of dangerous drilling practices qualify the Administration to be considered co-conspirators in the felonious mismanagement and destruction of the people's resources.

And there are currently around 150 deepwater drilling rigs in the gulf, all having recieved the same pseudo-regulatory free passes to circumvent responsible and safe drilling practices and procedures. Atlantis, a rig plagued with problems, and operating at a depth far greater than that of Deepwater Horizon, is currently continuing operations, a ticking time bomb.

As far as foreign policy goes, at this time, it is merely a distraction. If in fact "foreign policy" IS a relevant issue to a nation besieged by an unprecedented environmental catastrophe and emergency, the relevance is to be found in our refusal to accept the assistance of the Saudis and the Iranians.

what the u.s needs to do is to get one of those professionals
who were trained to deprogram members of those cults that we
read about.

without the support of the press, who isn't helping the issue by
obfuscating, misrepresenting and, looking the other way, while
making the claim that they present news for the sake of
representing the truth, there would be a lot less of a problem
for the u.s.

I wish the united states well in this endeavor but those in gov't
positions elected to represent their constituents are m.i.a.

If only for the sake of the palestinians, a solution is required.
When one adds the diplomatic consequences of this one sided
relationship, the u.s has to question it's own self interests.

There are both a human side and a political side to this story, if
the human side does not trump the political side then something
needs change.

poa sounds like steve is in the middle east far away from holes in the oceans floor, but surrounded by oil sheiks none the less...

This interview, and the comments from folk who value providing helpful information, are why TWN is an invaluable resource for people like me.

Regarding oil, the federal government apparently has no tools for dealing with this catastrophe - only the oil corps do, and they are unwilling collectively to marshall all of their resouces to deal with this oil geyser. Apparently, it would run counter to their "moral" obligation to their stockholders, or some such perversion of the concept of morality. To paraphrase Thoreau, corporations will become moral when their boards of directors behave morally as boards, which DeLorean pointed out they do not, regardless of their personal morality, which gets checked at the door when they sit down as a corporate board. Larry Kudlow is happy with the status quo regarding morality and corporations. Dylan Ratigan is not. And Chris Matthews, who is sometimes hard to listen to, is reflecting the kind of outrage that should be society-wide at this point. I must say the questions he asked last night were on point, and the attorney from Pensacola who is the lead in the class-action lawsuit against BP is raising pertinent issues. I reallly hope he is successful in utilizing the Federalist Society/Supreme Court notion that corporations are individuals with Bill of Rights protections to hold BP accountable in the same way we with actual personhood would be held accountable.

This godawful nightmare for the Gulf of Mexico might provide some breakthroughs regarding the accountability of corporations, although that is one really tough nut to crack. Obama's most important role might prove to be that he won't marshall the federal government to prevent breakthroughs. It is a much more important possibility than is generally recognized. Remember, the Bush administration wanted to destroy Greenpeace and marshalled the federal government to prevent every progressive initiative that it could.

Meanwhile, R.I.P., Mississippi Delta coastal marshes and islands. You brought a lot of happiness and seafood to America during your lifespan, which was very, very long, and you seemed poised for long life into the future, even though you had been subjected to all sorts of life-threatening insults by the oil-transport canals and 70 years of agricultural and chemical plant pollution of the Father of Waters.

Did I mention that as a society we are generally short-sighted, self-centered social/political/electoral failures for whom enlightenment is missing from the founding notion of enlightened self-interest?

Anyone who is enraged at what is happening to the Gulf of Mexico must look to what they have and have not supported, who they have and have not voted for, and whether or not they are willing to support the actual reformers and the kinds of reform that could prevent such catastrophes. Americans do not have a positive track record in this regard. Neither do people in the rest of the indusrialized world, the people ultimately responsible for the degradation of the planet as a biosphere.

BP is just a corporation that took advantage of the lack of regulation and the anti-government, anti-regulation mindset of Americans and their Reaganesque "Morning in America" mythologies.

Worth remembering is that it was BP and its British government lackeys who got Eisenhower to agree to the overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran, which Truman refused to do, by raising to the anti-communist holy warrior Dulles the spectre of Mossadegh being a comsymp, when all the man wanted was for BP to pay Iran a fair royalty on the Iranian oil they were extracting. Guess BP's "moral obligation" to maximize its bottom line trumped respect for Iranian national sovereignty, and Dulles was an easy dupe. Eisenhower I guess was still in his WWII us-them frame of mind when he got conned into this colossal mistake, a mistake for which we are still paying, given the chain of events from that coup to the present.

David,
I'm currently reading "All The Shah's Men" about the 1953 coup in Iran. If anyone reads it, it is really easy to be pissed at BP. Their arrogance knows no bounds. Of course, back then they were aided and abetted by Great Britain.

First came across that book at in independent bookstore in Asheville, North Carolina about 12 years ago. It was a real eye-opener.

Food for thought:

Partisans, Reviewed
by Jacob Heilbrunn

05.25.2010
http://tinyurl.com/33kg44m

Strange things are happening in the intellectual world. Andrew Sullivan, the former editor of the New Republic, has been steadily denouncing Israel, a country he once defended with equal ferocity, only to find himself denounced as an anti-Semite by his former colleague Leon Wieseltier. Peter Beinart, another former editor of the New Republic, has also been steadily denouncing Israel in the past week, a country he too once ardently defended, only to confess that he now believes that leading American Jewish organizations are reflexively quashing debate about Israel’s policies and alienating a younger generation of American Jews. Meanwhile, Paul Berman, in his new book The Flight of the Intellectuals, is busily decrying several of his peers as cravenly flinching in the face of Islamic terror.

Now comes the announcement of another ex-New Republic editor, Lawrence F. Kaplan, that he is resigning as editor of the bimonthly World Affairs. Kaplan’s move offers further evidence of the continued fallout from the Iraq War that has shaken up the world of neoconservatives and liberal hawks, a divide that Kaplan straddled as a senior editor at the New Republic, only to find his views profoundly upended by the war. Unlike many of the intellectuals who pontificated about the war from the remove of a cozy armchair in Washington, Kaplan repeatedly visited Iraq for months at a time to see the carnage and bloodshed and trauma firsthand. He sought out reality and became something of a realist.

In helping to relaunch World Affairs, a small journal that was, for many years, owned by Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and who herself was, at bottom, a realist rather than a crusading neoconservative, Kaplan wanted to focus on ideas, to let a thousand flowers bloom. He himself didn’t quite know what to think any longer about the big questions but wanted thinking to take place. Kaplan skillfully presided over a cornucopia of essays that, more often than not, possessed a nicely heterodox edge, whether it’s Barry Gewen, an editor at the New York Times, raising an eyebrow over blanket liberal opposition to torture or Andrew Bacevich hurling anathemas at the governing class, while attempting to resurrect the shade of Christopher Lasch.

But now Kaplan says that the intellectual world is so “atomized,” in his words, that it’s almost impossible to hold continuous discussions within one magazine. What’s more, intellectual debates often seem to be woefully detached from reality. He points to a scorching essay in the latest New York Observer by Lee Siegel about Paul Berman. Siegel dismantles The Flight of the Intellectuals, which alleges that Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash, among others, are cravenly cowering before the threat of Islamic terrorism. Siegel observes,

Mr. Berman is that terrible nightmare of the New York Jewish intellectual: the luftmensch, the man who eats and drinks ideas and lives bereft of life. For in the end, Mr. Berman's idea-besotted ignorance of the fate of other people has given his own ideas--such as they are--a rotten aspect. For years, he beat the drums of war like a misanthrope on amphetamines, and even now, seven years into the war in Iraq, after the deaths of thousands of Americans and the crippling of many thousands more Americans, and the death and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, this self-infatuated, foolish man is still beating the drums of war, without apology, and arguing like a medieval scholiast . . .
It’s not an edifying spectacle. World affairs will continue to rumble along, but will intellectuals have much to say about them or will they withdraw further into their petty, sectarian feuds, casting illusory glances at a vanished golden age, when their predecessors at Partisan Review supposedly engaged in great debates, even as they largely and blithely ignored World War II? It’s enough to make you think that those contemporary intellectuals who don’t ignore the past are condemned to repeat it.

Jacob Heilbrunn is a senior editor at The National Interest.

That was not only informative--but INTERESTING. Too bad the
American people don't see it that way. Perhaps if Mr. Perry could
frame the argument for them, they'd find the Israeli/Palestinian
conflict a topic worthy of their attention.
Well worth the 7 minutes of time!