Gee, was the Liberty attempting to run a blockade?

What's incoherent about Ebinger's piece (aside from the turgid
prose; is he an ESL graduate?) is that he references the Liberty
(darkly, but without asserting a theory of his own about the
attack) without explaining why that event informs the blockade
confrontation.

I really don't know what he's trying to say, other than Israel is
inherently violent in regard to boats, and that it's not a good
idea to make Israel's strategic foreign policy our own (brilliant!
thanks!). I guess by inference we could say that they are not *as
violent* as they used to be, against boats.

I mean, seriously, some of these guys in DC need to go mow the
yard or something. It will be more productive.

Memo to self: do not go sailing near Israel.

Searching for the Truth About the USS Liberty

posted over at counterpunch

By WARD BOSTON

Forty years ago this week, I was asked to investigate the
heaviest attack on an American ship since World War II. As
senior legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry it was my job
to help uncover the truth regarding Israel's June 8th 1967
bombing of the USS Liberty.

On that sunny, clear day 40 years ago, Israel's combined air
and naval forces attacked our American intelligence-gathering
ship for two hours, inflicting 70 percent casualties. Thirty four
American sailors died and 172 were injured. The USS Liberty
remained afloat only by the crew's heroic efforts.

Israel claimed it was an accident. Yet I know from personal
conversations with the late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd -- president
of the Court of Inquiry -- that President Johnson and Secretary
of Defense McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack
was a case of "mistaken identity".

The ensuing cover-up has haunted us for forty years. What
does it imply for our national security, not to mention our
ability to honestly broker peace in the Middle East, when we
cannot question Israel's actions even when they kill Americans?

On June 8th, survivors of Israel's cruel attack will gather in
Washington, DC to honor their dead shipmates as well as the
mothers, sisters, widows and children they left behind. They will
continue to ask for a fair and impartial congressional inquiry
that, for the first time, would allow the survivors themselves to
testify publicly.

For decades, I have remained silent. I am a military man and
when orders come in from the Secretary of Defense and
President of the United States, I follow them. However, attempts
to rewrite history and concern for my country compel me to
share the truth.

Admiral Kidd and I were given only one week to gather evidence
for the Navy's official investigation, though we both estimated
that a proper Court of Inquiry would take at least six months.

We boarded the crippled ship at sea and interviewed survivors.
The evidence was clear. We both believed with certainty that this
attack was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and
murder its entire crew.

I am certain the Israeli pilots and commanders who had ordered
the attack knew the ship was American. I saw the bullet-riddled
American flag that had been raised by the crew after their first
flag had been shot down completely. I heard testimony that
made it clear the Israelis intended there be no survivors. Not
only did they attack with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli
torpedo boats machine-gunned at close range three life rafts
that had been launched in an attempt to save the most seriously
wounded.

I am outraged at the efforts of Israel's apologists to claim this
attack was a case of "mistaken identity."

Admiral Kidd told me that after receiving the President's cover-
up orders, he was instructed to sit down with two civilians from
either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite
portions of the Court's findings. He said, "Ward, they're not
interested in the facts. It's a political matter and we cannot talk
about it." We were to "put a lid on it" and caution everyone
involved never to speak of it again.

I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been
released to the public is not the same one that I certified and
sent to Washington. I know this because it was necessary, due
to the exigencies of time, to hand correct and initial a
substantial number of pages. I have examined the released
version of the transcript and did not see any pages that bore my
hand corrections and initials. Also, the original did not have any
deliberately blank pages, as the released version does. In
addition, the testimony of Lt. Lloyd Painter concerning the
deliberate machine-gunning of the life rafts by the Israeli
torpedo boat crews, which I distinctly recall being given at the
Court of Inquiry and including in the original transcript, is now
missing.

Congress?

Let the survivors testify. Let me testify. Let former intelligence
officers testify that they received real-time Hebrew translations
of Israeli commanders instructing their pilots to sink "the
American ship".

Surely uncovering the truth about what happened to American
servicemen in a bloody attack is more important than
protecting Israel. And surely forty years is long enough to wait.

Ward Boston served as chief counsel to the Navy's Court of
Inquiry into the attack on USS Liberty and as a naval aviator in
World War II on the carrier Yorktown, and as an FBI agent prior
to his assignment to the Navy's Judge Advocates General Corps.
He is a graduate of the Law School of the College of William and
Mary, and a resident of Coronado, California.

No Fletcher.
Does this mean that the Munchhousen syndrome by proxy of the Persian nuclear threat should be reviewed, at least as to priority?

So Steve, did anyone mention "Yes we Kan" to you while you were abroad?

Col Pat Lang has this over on his blog.

"As I posted several years ago, The flight leader reported that he
had the ship in sight and that it was displaying an American
flag. He asked if he was still ordered to attack the ship. The
answer was yes. My wife remembers that I mentioned it to her at
the time. This was in the winter of 1967-68. I was attending the
year long career course for military intelligence officers at the
army intelligence school at Ft. Holabird, Maryland. i was taking
an elective course in cryptology taught by staff from the nearby
national cryptologic school at Ft. Meade. the transcript was in a
booklet prepared fby the staff for some other course but used in
this one as well. There are lots of old people out there who saw
this. pl"

Posted by: Patrick Lang | 07 June 2010 at 11:53 PM

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2010/06/e
rnie-gallos-letter.html

"some of these guys in DC need to go mow the
yard or something."

prison yard would be more appropriate

Boston's position is supported by this website, run by two
survivors of the attack:

http://www.gtr5.com/

Boston is labeled a liar -- and an erratic one -- by a fellow
aviator and JAG, Jay Cristol, who offers his discussion and
extemporaneous notes from his conversations with Boston, here:

http://www.thelibertyincident.com/docs/boston-comments.pdf

Cristol notes that there are more conspiracy theories extant
about the Liberty than there are about Kennedy's assassination.

I regret that in my efforts to lampoon Ebinger I made light of
the event itself, and by implication the extensive loss of
American lives and grievous wounding of over 200 sailors. That
was tasteless.

and for the hasbara dept...take note.

"Flotilla was successful: NBC Nightly News airs searing report on
Gaza ‘prison’
by PHILIP WEISS on JUNE 8, 2010 · 23 COMMENTS
It finally happened. A network news show did an honest report
about conditions in Gaza. Tom Aspell's report was on NBC
tonight. The blockade reduces children to collecting pebbles for
concrete and keeps anyone from leaving-- "it sentences them to
life in a 140 square mile prison." Half the population is under
15. The hospitals can't deal with premature births, the children
are traumatized and act out aggressively.

All that was missing was a trip across the border, and a
demonstration of the vast difference in standard of living
enjoyed by the Israelis of Ashdod-- in the "western" country
Israelis are always bragging on. (I really don't understand how
someone can observe this persecution and collective
punishment, so reminiscent of images I grew up with of life in
the Warsaw ghetto, and believe in the Zionist project.)

Also bear in mind: we would not have had this report but for the
people who were killed on the Mavi Marmara. (Thanks to
Seham.)"

fast forward to minute 12:35

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#37581514

What is more alarming than Israel's political, strategical, and
tactical mistakes, is the collective bunker mentality that
determines the decisions right now.

According to the current Israeli leadership, Turkey is now a
hostile Islamist country, supporting the terrorists. The criticism
and moral outrage from Europe is nothing more than centuries
old anti-Semitic ghosts in new disguises. Asia doesn't care -
except for those affiliated with Al Qaeda. And the US President,
the black leader with his Arab middle name, is not trustworthy.

Right now Benjamin Netanyahu reminds me of a psychiatric
patient who in his own imagination is cornered by the outside
world, equipped with a roomful of lethal weapons and holding
his own people - most of them suffering from the Stockholm
Syndrome - as hostages.

Who's gonna talk to the desperado? Who will he trust?

Perhaps someone should make an attempt to communicate with
him via some close family members that he still trusts - abroad
or at home?

I just returned from Israel Sunday and I agree with Norheim that the bunker mentality prevails in Israel more so than anytime I can remember since 1956 when I started going back and forth a couple times a year.

Here is a quote from Michael Oren in an article which just appeared in Tablet.

“Our critics don’t get it,” Oren said. “In Jenin, we went house-to-house and sent 23 soldiers to their death. But if we’re going to be called war criminals no matter what we do, then maybe that changes our thinking.”

I take that as a threat to go bonkers if it doesn't get more love. But Oren is just reflecting the mood I found in Israel this trip. What is ridiculous is that Israel need not be in a bunker - it is stronger economically and militarily than it has ever been. No one doubts that Israel can and does yield a VERY strong stick. This should be coupled with a soft diplomatic voice but instead Israel insists on yelling. It is the latter, more than the stick, that is causing Israel so much grief.

jdledell,

the fact that you, from firsthand experience, confirm my
impressions, is worrying. On another thread you referred to a
TPM thread where you went more into details regarding your last
trip to Israel. Neither I nor Nadine found the thread. I think I'm
not the only reader of The Washington Note who would be
interested in reading more about your fresh impressions - either
by pasting your TPM comment here, or recounting some of it.

Raising this issue now is of course aimed squarely at putting Israel in a bad light. There's no point in pretending that Ebinger is simply looking for historical precedents for a lack of perfect alignment between US and Israeli strategic interests. I mean, he could have used the 1956 Sinai campaign for that. Or the relatively recent issue of Israeli military sales to China. Both illustrate the point far better but of course lack the incendiary emotional quality of an Israeli attack that killed US servicemen. So the report isn't well-meant in that sense; it's aimed at throwing gasoline on the fire.

I agree with kotzabasis above that Clemons's disclaimer is too cute by half. We aren't in the realm of honest discussion; at best we are in the realm of emotional acting out. The clue is Ebinger's use of the word "impunity." He isn't focused on the strategic issues here -- it is Israel's attitude that bothers him. It's all very personalized and emotional.

Which is Clemons's weakness as an analyst as well.

Ebinger graduated college in 1970. That makes him about 62 years old, probably an age when he is ready to take some risks to express some of the disgust at what passes for ME policy in the
US administration (s) and governance over the years.

Unlike Steve, and definite I think I understand why Ebinger goes all the way back to the Liberty
attack, and certainly why he references the consequences for Americans of ME turmoil on energy prices and embargoes. The Liberty attack
Represents about the most egregious example of the disconnect between US foreign policy interests and Israel. Being a bit more cynical, it highlights the unholy connection that exists.

A blockbuster of a wide ranging piece, that must make mealy mouthed politicians and MSM choke on their cocktail weenies. Maybe the current is shifting after all???

edit at 9:48, with apologies:

Ebinger graduated college in 1970. That makes him about 62 years old, probably an age when he is ready to take some risks to express some of the disgust at what passes for ME policy in the
US administration(s) and governance over the years.

Unlike Steve, and definitely unlike Drew's misfocused comment, I think I understand why Ebinger goes all the way back to the Liberty attack, and certainly why he references the consequences for Americans of ME turmoil on energy prices and embargoes. The Liberty attack represents about the most egregious example of the disconnect between US foreign policy interests and Israel. Being a bit more cynical, it highlights the unholy connection that exists.

A blockbuster of a wide ranging piece, that must make mealy mouthed politicians and MSM choke on their cocktail weenies. Maybe the current is shifting after all???

edit of 9:48 comment just above, with apologies:

Ebinger graduated college in 1970. That makes him about 62 years old, probably an age when he is ready to take some risks to express some of the disgust at what passes for ME policy in the
US administration(s) and governance over the years.

Unlike Steve, and definitely unlike Drew's misfocused comment, I think I understand why Ebinger goes all the way back to the Liberty attack, and certainly why he references the consequences for Americans of ME turmoil on energy prices and embargoes. The Liberty attack represents about the most egregious example of the disconnect between US foreign policy interests and Israel. Being a bit more cynical, it highlights the unholy connection that exists.

A blockbuster of a wide ranging piece, that must make mealy mouthed politicians and MSM choke on their cocktail weenies. Maybe the current is shifting after all???

"We aren't in the realm of honest discussion; at best we are in the realm of emotional acting out. The clue is Ebinger's use of the word "impunity." He isn't focused on the strategic issues here -- it is Israel's attitude that bothers him. It's all very personalized and emotional." (Larry B)

Point taken to some extent Larry. But since when has the "debate", or lack of it, over the US devotion to Israel been based on real (US) strategic issues, except to ignore the strategic mess the US gets in by being joined at the hip in policy perception. The 'debate' is foremost on emotional terms, it is that which the AIPAC types and the Israel Firsters count on primarily to keep honest, strategic discussion from taking place.

How quickly might the winds shifts to where Israel promoters have to engage in debate on a level playing field?

Ebinger: ". . .let us take a few minutes to reflect soberly on whether the time has not come to once again be a honest broker."

I like the way he puts it. Considering the ownership of the US government by banks, oil companies and Israel we must deduce that "the time has not come to once again be a honest broker."

And what's that "once again" all about, anyhow?

"Good luck to Ebinger in holding back the storm that no doubt will hit him inside Brookings and out"

Wheres "Questions"? It would be interesting reading about the last time a journalist was "retired" for insulting the tobacco lobby.

Blahblahblah........

Yes, historical references are only to be used when it serves Israel's purpose, right Birnbaum? You Firsters just can't stand it when people stray from the mandated narrative can you???

Perhaps we should get even more recent, and be citing Israel's attempted murder and successful maiming of American citizens in the West Bank, eh??? Something you pieces of shit don't seem to want to discuss, seeing as how there is NO DEFENSE for it.

Comical seeing you crawl under Kotz's rock. Of course, its a rock you you belong under, but enlightening indeed seeing you admit it.

"If Steve relishes his new vocation as agent provocateur", then
kotzabasi relishes his as agent provocateur squashateur
disqualifier.

you"re oh so erudite Kotz, you have lost your ability to think.

Kotz the accuser.

discredit away.

I think Steve ought to be commended for his coverage of the
many issues that americans are interested in, better to
understand.

Farewell Helen Thomas
by PAUL WOODWARD on JUNE 9, 2010

"It’s good that Helen Thomas will no longer be in White House
press briefings. Not because she sullied the reputation of the
Washington press corps with a few undiplomatic remarks, but
because those who lack her boldness and bluntness will no
longer be able to use her presence to foster the illusion that
American journalism still values courage."

"Her words were “unconscionably callous and vile,” said Andrew
Sullivan. “Thomas deserved what she got,” said Dana Millbank.
Both saw her departure as a loss, yet just as President Obama
deemed her words “out of line,” no one in Washington was
willing to go to the heart of what she said."

"In 1948 three-quarters of a million Palestinians were driven out
of their homes by Zionists in order to make room for the
creation of a Jewish state. For that reason, Helen Thomas, an
American of Lebanese descent, apparently believes — as do most
people in the Middle East — that the Jewish claim to “own” the
land on which Israel was created is a claim based on religious
dogma rather than historical fact."

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/06/farewell-helen-thomas.html

Jimmy the Greek, "thighs"

Campanis "necessities"

Off the top of my head. Probably there are many many others out there.

Oprah, disparaging, was it meat, sued?

Look up product disparagement laws in general.....

Recent news item about bloggers and posters who are being sued by businesses for off hand negative comments....

Posted by jdledell, Jun 09 2010, 9:01AM - Link
>>>>>>>>>>

jdledell, I read your post at TPM yesterday but now it has disappeared and is not found even under
'other recent' post.
Maybe you can use your account to find it and post here.

Don't look now, Steve Clemons, but your animus against Israel is showing clearly.

Kotz and Birnbaum, you both have a point.

The paradox in this context, is that the foreign policy realists
who prefer a more detached US-Israeli relationship know that
they'll have to cross an emotional minefield to get there: "Emotion
is an extension of realism by other means." Of course this may
backfire - resulting in more melodrama, less realism.

“Our critics don’t get it,” Oren said. “In Jenin, we went house-to-house and sent 23 soldiers to their death. But if we’re going to be called war criminals no matter what we do, then maybe that changes our thinking.”

That's not a threat to "go bonkers" jd. It's a realization that your critics don't want you to improve; they want you to lose. And if that's the case, it's extremely stupid to listen to them.

If you're going to be called a war criminal for any military action, it might as well be an effective one. The real problem with Israel's recent wars is that they have been ineffective: Hizbullah and Hamas were left standing. If you're going to be called a war criminal no matter what, you're much better off winning and restoring your deterrent capacity. This is not "bonkers". This is realpolitik.

"He real problem with Israel's recent wars is that they have been ineffective." Exactly right. Israel has already lost. It can no longer conduct pogroms in the neighborhood with impunity. Israel can't even hijack ships in the neighborhood with incurring the wrath of the international community. Poor Israel! [Crocodile tears.]

Israel has had 60 years to negotiate peace from a position of strength, but with the exception of Rabin, all governments refused. Likud worked to end Oslo and refused to entertain even the concept of peace with the Palestinians. Now, rather than negotiate at all, the "religious" nationalists running Israel would prefer go bonkers, an ultimately suicidal course.

So long as the Israel Firsters retreat to the notion that there is a military solution, and security for Israel based on military means, they continue to show appreciation for exactly how precarious the future of Israel is.

The default position to losing total rubber stamp approval from the US for every brutish Israel act is, or should not be, more brutishness. At least that's neither an ethical, nor a strategic winner over time. The recent spate off criticism of Israel is more detached from reticence to offend the US. This will only increase as the US adjusts it's stance on a number of issues to reflect realities, primarily the results of economic realities.

"It's a realization that your critics don't want you to improve; they
want you to lose." (Nadine)

Yeah. Listen to your encouraging mum, but never ever listen to
your critics!

On this point about realpolitik nadine is correct, and the US is a much larger offender than Israel.

Why does TWN dwell so much on Israel's war crimes and not on the US's much larger ones? (Helen Thomas might be able to tell us, were she still around.)

Fallujah, courtesy of the US Marine Corps, made Gaza look like a tea party.
"Numerous sources reported that coalition forces cut off water and electricity, seized the main hospital, shot at anyone who ventured out into the open, executed families waving white flags while trying to swim across the Euphrates or otherwise flee the city, shot at ambulances, raided homes and killed people who didn't understand English, rolled over injured people with tanks, and allowed corpses to rot in the streets and be eaten by dogs. Medical staff and others reported seeing people, dead and alive, with melted faces and limbs, injuries consistent with the use of phosphorous bombs."

And these were the people the US "liberated"!

To all those in DC who have been behind the curve on Israel for a decades....better catch up boys.
The world and the people are way ahead of you on Israel.

AND...if our politicians don't do a 180 it's going to get even more blunt and wide open. People who never even heard of the USS Liberty are gonna hear about it.

So far most political critics on Israel do the 'we have to talk lovingly to, and reassure our Israeli friends to get them down off the ledge".
With Ebinger and some others recently, we are now creeping into the "hummm, maybe Israel isn't our friend, maybe we don't owe them anything, maybe we ought to go back and look at exactly what Israel has done to the US during our 'friendship'".

A first year psychology student could tell you you can't talk people like the US zionist and Israelis down off the ledge.
The more you reassure and talk nicely the more they will take it as license to continue to get away with even more violence and aggression and criminality...just like they have done for 65 years.

But don't take my word for it...just keep watching.

"On this point about realpolitik nadine is correct, and the US is a much larger offender than Israel. "(DonB)

Yes, and interesting how this line of reasoning is the same that was taken by the late visitor to the comment section, "jeff", speaking of "investigation', who really appeared to care little about investigations but really wanted the focus off Israel's bad behavior. Now I don't know, maybe nadine really is offended by US military criminality. But, generally neocons, favor it, and want more of it.

I'm kind of in the Don Bacon camp. But, you know, one (even of Steve's prodigious energy) can do just so much. By the way, I expect some resident zionist commenter to pipe up pretty soon to remind us how very popular Israel is among the US populace. Like we should be surprised?

Paul, Israel has spent the last twenty years listening to its critics, to its own detriment. Israel was always judged in a one-sided fashion. But now the double standard has reached levels seen previously only in Soviet or Nazi propaganda. The world is as outraged that any single man should die at the hands of an Israeli as it is indifferent to a million men dying at anybody else's hands.

Today's cause celebre is the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty. Last month's totally unprovoked topedo attack on a South Korean warship by North Korea? Shhh, don't talk about that at all, don't even notice it. Them Norks got nukes, no telling what they might do. Of course, as everybody knows, Israel also has nukes, yet nobody on earth is scared that Israel might react to criticism by shooting some of them off. Which, according the world's judgment, makes Israel the greatest war criminal on earth and buys North Korea a pass.

Latest news from the Middle East (via Reuters):

"Israel eases embargo on food and drink allowed into Gaza
hours before U.S. President Barack Obama due to host
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Washington.

Israel is easing its Gaza embargo to allow snack food and
beverages into the Palestinian enclave, Palestinian officials said
on Wednesday, following an international outcry over Israel's
raid on an aid flotilla.

(...)

The Palestinian officials, based in the West Bank, said that as of
next week, Israel will allow a wider variety of food, such as
potato crisps, biscuits, canned fruit and packaged humous, as
well as soft drinks and juice, into the Gaza Strip.

"They will send the first course. We are waiting for the main
course," Palestinian Economy Minister Hassan Abu Libdeh said
in Ramallah.

(...)

Israel says its blockade of Gaza is necessary to choke off
weapons supplies to Hamas Islamists who run the enclave and
are opposed to Abbas's peace efforts with the Jewish state."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-
eases-embargo-on-food-and-drink-allowed-into-gaza-
1.295135

DonS, I would be more impressed by your deep care about human rights if it was in any way proportional to the number and severity of human rights abuses, instead of being entirely confined to the relatively few human rights abuses charged to the US and Israel.

Anybody who suffers far worse at the hands of tyrants knows he had better not look to you guys for any notice. You couldn't care less.

Posted by larry birnbaum, Jun 09 2010, 9:36AM - Link
So the report isn't well-meant in that sense; it's aimed at throwing gasoline on the fire.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

*That's the point. Did you know that if one of your engines on your plane catches fire the sop is to flood it with more fuel to blow it out?
Think about it.

"We aren't in the realm of honest discussion; at best we are in the realm of emotional acting out. The clue is Ebinger's use of the word "impunity." He isn't focused on the strategic issues here -- it is Israel's attitude that bothers him. It's all very personalized and emotional."

*You don't get it do you? To arouse your 'average' public to action you appeal to their emotions.
If not for the role emotions play in the average human's perceptions and decisions, all cars would be black fords.
You should get it...the 'emotional' pull is the way the Jews have been controlled by the nationalist zionist and the way the zios have 'played emotionally' on the US and world with their victimhood meme.
For you to say that we aren't in the realm of honest discussion is too too amusing! Israel and the zios aren't, never have been, and most likely never will be capable of honest discussion....honesty to the zios is like daylight on a vampire.....fatal.

Besides, you can' win or even answer logically (or honestly) in a discussion of 'strategic issues' re Israel...your only reply there always boils down to...but the holocaust!, but the holocaust, but the holocaust!..the bible, the bible says it's allll ours!

The USS Liberty, Pollard, the King David Hotel bombing that killed Americans and Brits and a host of other Israeli crimes against their own benefactors and supporters is getting down to what is 'Honest'.

"The world is as outraged that any single man should die at the
hands of an Israeli as it is indifferent to a million men dying at
anybody else's hands."

Cherrypicking?

Wasn't that what Jeff said too the other day? That the Americans
were responsible for stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan that made
Israel sound like an innocent girl scout? And you applauded his
outburst, right?

But every time some commenter here expresses his/her outrage
regarding the million men, you attack him/her for his/her rabid
anti-Americanism. For cherrypicking.

The only legitimate outrage in your eyes is the outrage directed
against Muslims or Venezuela. That's not cherrypicking. That's
objectivity and unbiased judgement.

And whenever someone here actually criticizes the repressive
regimes in the Middle East, you autistically ignore their
comment, and the next day you accuse him or her of sleeping
with the Jew-haters. And so forth... ad nauseum.

The winds are finally shifting.

Too good to miss.

What would Obama have said about Bull Connor?
June 9, 2010

On Thursday evening, three days after the Israeli attack on the activists attempting to bring aid to the people of Gaza, Larry King interviewed President Obama on CNN. Towards the latter part of the interview, the President was asked about his thoughts on these events.

KING: Couple of other things. Former President Carter has condemned the Israeli raid against those ships in the flotilla trying to break the blockade of Gaza.
Where do you stand in that? A former American president has condemned it.

OBAMA: The United States, with the other members of the U.N. Security Council said very clearly that we condemned all the acts that led up to this violence. It was a tragic situation. You've got loss of life that was unnecessary. So we are calling for an effective investigation of everything that happened. I think the Israelis are going to agree to that -- an investigation of international standards -- because they recognize that this can't be good for Israel's long-term security.
Here's what we've got. You've got a situation in which Israel has legitimate security concerns when they've got missiles raining down on cities along the Israel/Gaza border. I've been to those towns and seen the holes that were made by missiles coming through people's bedrooms. Israel has a legitimate concern there. On the other hand you've got a blockage up that is preventing people in Palestinian Gaza from having job opportunities and being able to create businesses and engage in trade and have opportunity for the future.
I think what's important right now is that we break out of the current impasse, use this tragedy as an opportunity so that we figure out, how can we meet Israel's security concerns, but at the same time start opening up opportunity for Palestinians, work with all parties concerned -- the Palestinian authority, the Israelis, the Egyptians and others -- and I think Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process once we've worked through this tragedy. And bring everybody together to figure out how can we get a two-state solution where the Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side in peace and security.

KING: Premature then, to condemn Israel?

OBAMA: I think that we need to know what all the facts are. But it's not premature to say to the Israelis and to say to the Palestinians, and to say to all the parties in the region that the status quo is unsustainable. We have been trying to do this piecemeal for decades now. It just doesn't work.
You've got to have a situation in which the Palestinians have real opportunity and Israel's neighbors recognize Israel's legitimate security concerns and are committed to peace.

Many Democrats, especially Jewish-American Democrats, believe that this is an acceptable and even-handed diplomatic response to the recent tragedy.

What if President Obama was a non-Christian white man holding the office of President of the United States and he was interviewed on May 6 1963, just 3 days following the attack on civil rights activists in Birmingham, Alabama

King: A couple of other things. Former President Eisenhower has condemned the use of high power water hoses and attack dogs by Birmingham officers against the students marching to the downtown area demanding equal rights.

Where do you stand in that? A former American President has condemned it.

Obama: My administration has said very clearly that we condemned all the acts that led up to this violence. It was a tragic situation. You've got injuries that were unnecessary. So we are calling for an effective investigation of everything that happened. I think Mayor Butwell, Commissioner of Public Safety Connor, and the rest of Birmingham's leadership is going to agree to that - an investigation of Federal standards - because they understand that this can't be good for their long term security and stability.

Here's what you've got. You've got a situation in which White citizens of Birmingham have legitimate security, economic, and moral concerns when they've got people of other races and religions protesting and boycotting in their downtown. I've been to that downtown and seen the effects it has had on local businesses. White citizens of Birmingham have a legitimate concern there. On the other hand you've got a system in place that is preventing Black citizens of Birmingham from having job opportunities and being able to create businesses and engage in voting and have opportunitites for the future.

I think what's important right now is that we break out of the current impasse, use this tragedy as an opportunity so that we figure out, how can we meet White Birmingham's security, economic, and moral concerns, but at the same time opening up opportunities for Black Birmingham, work with all parties concerned - the NAACP, SCLC, Birmingham officials, Southern leaders, and others - and I think Northern leaders can have a positive voice in this whole process once we've worked through this tragedy. And bring everybody together to figure out how can we get desegregation where Black and White citizens of Birmingham can live side by side in peace and security.

King: Premature then, to condemn Bull Connor and the other Birmingham officials?

Obama: I think that we need to know what all the facts are. But it's not premature to say to the citizens of White Birmingham and to say to the citizens of Black Birmingham, and to say to all the parties in the area that the status quo is unsustainable. We have been trying to do this piecemeal for years now. It just doesn't work.

You've got to have a situation in which Black citizens of Birmingham have real opportunity and White Birmingham's neighbors recognize White Birmingham's legitimate security, economic, and moral concerns and are committed to peace.

This reading is far from acceptable, even-handed, and diplomatic. On the contrary, it is condescending and offensive. To many people, in the United States and throughout the world who care about a just end to this dangerous conflict, President Obama's answers to Mr. King were equally condescending and offensive.

If Presidents Kennedy and Johnson did not support civil rights activists and stand up to the terrorizing Southern officials, then African Americans might still be subjected to segregation. And President Obama never would have had the opportunity to be in the office he now holds. It is time for this President to stop being diplomatic and start supporting occupied people, as well as human rights activists, and stand up to terrroizing Israeli officials.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

There's the white race and there's the black race, between which there is no difference.
Then there's politicans, a race totally different from most humans.

I ordinarily don't cross post but for those who asked here are the two TPM blog posts. The first is before I left and the second is when I returned.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/j/d/jdledell/2010/05/israel---youve-gone-too-far-th.php

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/j/d/jdledell/2010/06/israel-gaza-the-wheelchair-sag.php

Paul, Barry Rubin wrote this with the likes of you in mind:

"It is important to understand three things:

--Israelis are acting on the basis of their knowledge and experience. Some people abroad write in bewilderment as if Israelis are paranoid or don’t know what the world thinks. They know very well what the world thinks. They also know that several thousand Israeli lives were sacrificed on the belief in the 1990s that the Palestinians and Syrians were ready to make peace and also that the world would support Israel if it took risks for peace. They also know the nature of Hamas, as well as Hizballah and Iran.

Incidentally, no people in world history have tried longer and harder the approach of apologizing, conceding, avoiding violent responses even while being slaughtered, trying to prove their worthiness as citizens (or even to be allowed to live), depending on logical arguments to persuade those who hate them, and throwing themselves on the mercy of others than have the Jewish people. Having tried such things for centuries, and within living memory, Israelis are understandably skeptical about the utility of such methods, despite more of the same constantly being recommended to them.

--Israelis know that when people are lying about them and slandering their country the response is not to blame their leaders but to give low credibility to their critics or those who claim to know better how they can obtain security. Just as revolutionary Islamists are being taught by Western reaction that being intransigent and violent produces gains, Israelis are being taught that making concessions ultimately means greater dangers, no compensation, and even more criticism.

I always think here of an essay written by Ahad ha-Am, the great essayist who lived much of his life in Tel Aviv. A century ago, he wrote along these lines: How do we know that we are right and our critics are wrong? Because we know ourselves and we know that we don’t use the blood of little children to make matzos. The same situation applies today."
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/06/what-motivates-israeli-policy-and.html

How can we ignore the Liberty?
It's very important to understand that Israel believes that it can murder US citizens---even its military---with no consequences.

If Israel is unable to maintain it's military naval blockade then the only option is to put boots on the ground in Gaza, a military occupation. For as long as a state of war persists an occupation will be the only remaining method to keep weapons out.
Is this preferable to those who want the blockade lifted ..just curious.

Can anyone offer an alternative to a blockade or an occupation , other than helen thomas's.

Does anyone claim that Hamas will not arm themselves, if only for so-called, self-defence.

Thanks jdledell for sharing your impressions. I don't know which
part is most depressing - the current collective mood, or the
development on the ground:

"I had a chance to drive around the West Bank on this trip and
found a stunning level of new construction. Settlements are
laying new foundations everywhere so that when the ban is lifted
in September, these new units will be completed quickly."

Larry Birnbaum, could you please explain to us the rationale
behind colonizing the buffer zones?

"If Israel is unable to maintain it's military naval blockade then the only option is to put boots on the ground in Gaza." Been there, done that, it didn't work.

Israel's policies towards its neighbors are bankrupt, and it has lost any moral high ground it ever had. Worse, it suffers from a severe case of imagination deficit disorder.

If Israel goes down, it will be a result of its inability to imagine anything but a military solution.

On the subject of recent, ugly (see helen thomas ) anti-israel comments: I have witnessed this unbecoming, (unbecoming to free people )herd mentality in America every time one of your presidents launches a military campaign.

Canadians have long credited this to the very localized focus of your regional newspapers and complete dearth of attention to international news, I don't know...but it seems to me that public opinion seems to me inordinately pliable...I think the current crop of anti-israel comments are simply part of the WH attempts to pressure israel in the settlement brouhaha.

There are no shortage of useful idiots who will fall on the sword for some short term gains the WH could use to nudge american jews along to their way of thinking. The WH is selling these people the rope to hang themselves with and when they have seved their purpose they will shorten the leash on these people,and the ones left standing, will be left blowing in the wind.

Mark L, you haven't read very much on the Liberty, if you assert so.

Marcus, Israel's critics reject the idea of blockade, not because they
wish for boots-on-ground occupation, but because they reject the
legitimacy of Israel proper. An illegitimate nation may embargo no
ground.

Taken to its end-game, of course, this attitude ensures a nuclear
conflagration.

The captcha widget on this site is the most retarded of all on inner
tube-land.

Leave it to someone with a name like 'Birnbaum' to dismiss Israel's massacre onboard the LIBERTY on the basis it was 'ancient history'. Israel's ENTIRE existence (as well as the reason we have lost 5,000 of our young people fighting these wars for the benefit of the Jewish state) is based upon 'ancient' history, notably the Old Testament and the more recently-misnamed 'Holocaust'. Israel's supporters simply cannot carry on a rational conversation when their pet project in the Middle East is the topic of discussion, as it has become something of a tin god to them and by extension, infallible.
For an interesting take on Israel's attack on the USS LIBERTY, check out LIBERTY survivor Phil Tourney's new book "What I Saw That Day" found at Amazon.com as well as his excellent podcasts at http://theuglytruth.podbean.com

which is slimier?

the attack on the DCC Liberty where well-placed DC liars and Israeli liars won the propaganda wars

or

the Flotilla Disaster where well-placed (and silent) DC liars and Israeli liars so far have won the propaganda wars

pick your poison

make "DCC Liberty" USS Liberty

and I salute those who served!

"What paul calls the buffer zone , is actually the heartland of
ancient Israel (...) and the arabs living there are squatters who
have acquired some rights but nothing that rises to level of
declaring national soveirgnty."

There can be no doubt that Marcus' explanation for colonizing
the buffer zones on the West Bank makes much more sense than
the official Israeli arguments.

On a previous thread Nadine put forth the transparent nonsense
that the attack on the Liberty was a "simple mistake". Odd, then,
that on this thread, in response to an article about that very
incident, she avoids that canard.

It is the truth that dares not speak it's name.

but of course there is also the little matter of;

continuous jewish occupation for 3500 years

an Israeli/Hebrew kingdom that lasted 1400 years

the involuntary expulsion from same

It is regretable that the israeli government has never asserted more eloquently,the historical roots of the jews claim to judea and samaria,I have long held that if proudly and loudly explained,that this would alleviate alot of the muslim hostility and undermine the argument that Israel is simply a refuge destination for the remnant of europes jews.

I think Israel has made a mistake by taking for granted that people of the world (especially the muslim world )fully understand why Israel and not Uganda or Alaska or Poland and Germany.

Muslim governments and religous authorities have expended untold energy on de-legitamizing even erasing the ancient jewish precence in Israel,for the precise reason that they know this, more than anything else could lead to more acceptance of Israel, modern Israel is afterall an ancient prophecy fullfilled,from a book that the muslims themselves consider divinely inspired.

I am not in the least way religous,but the islamists are,so why not give them an argument they can wrap their minds around. I don't think they give a hoot about land titles,un declarations,international law etc. but they do profess to be inspired by these ancient texts and it is only certain Christian prophecies that claim armegegdom is percipitaded by the destruction of modern israel, Islam has no such specific prophecy in part I'm sure because at the time the Koran was written,the authors could not imagine a re-born Israel,let alone predict it.

Except for the accusations of being fanatical religous nutbars ,I don't see the downside to trying to assert their historical roots in the land.

Afterall, every archealogical find in Israel has 100% backed-up and validated the biblical narrative, without exception.

Drew,
You don't need to read the reams of bullshit on the Liberty to reach a conclusion.
You don't even need to believe the numerous eyewitness reports which confirm that the attack was deliberate and that the US flag was flying.
All you have to do is compare the Liberty with the type of vessel the Isreali's said they mistook it for to see the attack must have been deliberate. There was no way to make that mistake.

Marcus, put a sock in it.
The Jews lost the land 2000 years ago. They had no more claim on Palestine than the Gypsies have on Kashmir.
And aren't you hasbara types always explaining that losers have no land claims? This is why there is no right of return.

"After all, every archeological find in Israel has 100% backed-up and validated the biblical narrative, without exception."

It doesn't matter. Only a moron would think that the world should attempt to govern itself and decide its territorial disputes on the basis of who lived where 3500 years ago.

By the way, my "people" are the tribe of homo sapiens, and my understanding is that homo sapiens originated in Africa. Can I expect to join soon in the glorious ingathering of homo sapiens to Africa? There is some nice land there that I have my eye on.

Thanks, Steve, for adding some context to the current situation in Israel. I was not aware of the attack on the Liberty and the account you posted is, indeed, compelling.

Regardless of all the sturm und drang that many of the posters seem to relish on this site, I feel capable of distilling truth from fiction, or at least those descriptions that sound more credible from those that sound less so.

Keep 'em coming!

Referencing the USS Liberty is thoroughly appropriate and traces the instances where US interests and Israeli interest diverge to our detriment.

The US can only hold the moral highground when it is fair and honest and stands on the side of human rights for Palestinians, too.

Ebinger makes it crystal clear that our current wars for oil in the Middle East, started over OPEC, was precipitated by the USS Liberty debacle and our laissez-faire approach to Israeli encroachments in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jeruslaem...Talk about a "domino theory", all downhill...Israel scuttles every peace negotiation because they deprive Israel of "justification" for their continued illegal land grabs.

I applaud Ebinger for using the "S" word for Israel...I myself called for sanctions yesterday.

samuelburke....thanks for the Woodward piece...I said yesterday on this site that I was glad Helen would nor longer be lending the daily farce at the WHPC legitimacy.

larry birnbaum...we are not in the realm of hoest dicussio here??? What is this "we" shit, white man? Speak for yourself.

Yes, marcus, 2000 is too big a number. It is the number of civilians that Israel killed in Lebanon and Gaza during its last two pogroms...

A light unto the nations? More like a fuse!

POA, iraqi civlian deaths aren't war crimes, they're
what I would call 'man-made disasters.' Have some
empathy, like president obama and his homeland
security chief.

jd, thanks for retrieving your posts -- and thanks for the good news. The salient statement you need to take on board is, "Just as revolutionary Islamists are being taught by Western reaction that being intransigent and violent produces gains, Israelis are being taught that making concessions ultimately means greater dangers, no compensation, and even more criticism."

For twenty years Israelis have made concessions and tried to see it the other guy's way. Scream as much as you like that it's not enough, it's undermined by this or that, whatever -- the fact remains they did it, and got punished instead of rewarded from all sides for doing it. Meanwhile, the Palestinians haven't made one step towards peace, and many steps towards Al Qaeda and Iran, and they reap rewards all around. To not expect the Israelis to say "enough, already" is folly.

MarkL, I just got tired of going over a 43 year-old friendly fire incident. I have a suspicion drew could tell you something sensible about the possibility or impossibility of friendly fire incidents happening in the middle of an intense shooting war, and I also suspect (actually, I know) you wouldn't listen to sense on the subject. The mere fact that this ancient history is being dragged in now -- while North Korea's completely unprovoked sinking of a South Korean warship LAST MONTH is being ignored -- is just another sign that Obama has declared open season on Israel and Jews.

DonS, I don't give a damn that you are American or Jewish if it means you will condemn America and Israel to death for misdemeanors while ignoring the felonies of their enemies. Everybody in the world should wish you come from their worst enemy's country, as you believe in shitting on your friends and family and kissing up to enemies who want to kill you. You have to be very well protected to be infantile enough to think like this.

I forgot to post the Marcus quote that prompted my post, above.....

"Again, if someone has any kind of ideas that would allow israel to lift the blockad (other than helen thomas's) I would be curious to know" - Marcus

roaring infidel, you don't seem all that interested in conversation... i you and nadine locked in a room together is a creepy thought... it wouldn't represent an attempt at a settlement, but just the opposite..

Personally, I would prefer seeing Marcus in that room with
"roaring infidel"; both equipped with sticks and stones and
eternal parables.

Walter Russell Mead:

"The American peace and disarmament movement almost destroyed human freedom. The peace movement gave intellectual and moral respectability to the cause of isolationism: the belief that the United States could safely ignore the unraveling of the world’s fragile economic and political order as British power waned after World War I. But these idealistic professors, students, preachers and general all-around-good-guys were naive, self-righteous, and smugly sure that arms cause war."

Gee, he could be talking about you, Paul.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/06/08/goo-goo-genocidaires-the-blood-is-dripping-from-their-hands/

"DonS, I don't give a damn that you are American or Jewish if it means you will condemn America and Israel to death for misdemeanors while ignoring the felonies of their enemies. Everybody in the world should wish you come from their worst enemy's country, as you believe in shitting on your friends and family and kissing up to enemies who want to kill you. You have to be very well protected to be infantile enough to think like this." (nadine)

You take a rather long time to call me a self hater, Nadine.

Shall I return the favor and call the a lowly jackbooted traitor?

I presume your recent escalation in rhetoric has to do with long hours at the hasbara and the fact that, for once in a long time, everything is not coming up roses for the Israeli propaganda machine.

Have a nice day.

Israel has gotten away with murder for too long. Time to pay for it.

Several books and the BBC documentary USS Liberty: Dead in the Water argued that Liberty was attacked in order to prevent the U.S. from knowing about the forthcoming attack in the Golan Heights, which apparently would violate a cease-fire to which Israel's government had agreed.[4][dead link] Russian author Joseph Daichman, in his book "History of the Mossad" states Israel was justified in attacking the Liberty.[58] Israel knew that American radio signals were intercepted by the Soviet Union, and that the Soviets would certainly inform Egypt of the fact that by moving troops to the Golan Heights, Israel had left the Egyptian border undefended.[59]

Lenczowski notes that while the Israeli decision to “attack and destroy” the ship “may appear puzzling”, the explanation seems to be found in Liberty's nature and its task to monitor communications on both sides in the war zone. He writes, “Israel clearly did not want the U.S. government to know too much about its dispositions for attacking Syria, initially planned for June 8, but postponed for 24 hours. It should be pointed out that the attack on the Liberty occurred on June 8, whereas on June 9 at 3 AM, Syria announced its acceptance of the cease-fire. Despite this, at 7 AM, that is, four hours later, Israel’s minister of defense, Moshe Dayan, “gave the order to go into action against Syria.””[60] He further writes that timely knowledge of this decision and preparatory moves toward it “might have frustrated Israeli designs for the conquest of Syria’s Golan Heights” and, in the sense of Ennes’s accusations, provides “a plausible thesis that Israel deliberately decided to incapacitate the signals-collecting American ship and leave no one alive to tell the story of the attack.”[61]

U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Barbour, had reported on the day of the Liberty attack that he "would not be surprised" by an Israeli attack on Syria, and the IDF Intelligence chief told a White House aide then in Israel that "there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow,"[62]

In 1983 Noam Chomsky pronounced the attack "clearly premeditated," adding that "the general reaction of the press and scholarship" to the incident "has been silence or misrepresentation." Chomsky added that "It has been suggested that the Israeli attack on the U.S. spy ship Liberty was motivated by concern that the U.S. might detect the plans for this attack [on the Golan Heights]

"Arab states: Israel nuclear danger reinforced by its aggression.

Arab states target Israel at UN nuclear debate, urge Israel to join
global anti-nuclear arms pact NPT.

By Reuters

Israel, presumed to have the Middle East's only nuclear weapons
arsenal, condemned the push at the International Atomic Energy
Agency meeting on Thursday as being fuelled by countries
which question Israel's existence.

Western countries warned that honing in on Israel could
jeopardize broader steps aimed at banning weapons of mass
destruction in the Middle East.

"What the region needs is to come together in a cooperative,
consensual way," Washington's envoy Glyn Davies said. "This is
not going to happen if the parties of the region engage in
name-calling, if they wag fingers at each other."

It was the first time the IAEA's policy-making board tackled the
topic since 1991, coinciding with wider scrutiny of Israel after
its raid on a Gaza-bound aid convoy and a UN conference which
put its nuclear policy in the spotlight.

"Israel continues to defy the international community through
its continued refusal to accede to the Non Proliferation Treaty
(NPT)," Sudan's envoy Mahmoud El-Amin told the 35-nation
meeting in Vienna on behalf of Arab states.

"The Israeli nuclear danger is reinforced by [its] aggressive
policies towards Arab countries," he said.

By shunning the 40-year-old NPT Israel has not had to reject
atomic arms or allow the IAEA to probe all of its nuclear sites.
India, Pakistan and North Korea are also outside the NPT.

Signatories of the pact - nearly all of the world's nations - last
month called for a conference in 2012 to discuss banning
weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. If realized, the
zone could ultimately force Israel to join the treaty.

Iran, angered by a fourth round of UN sanctions passed against
it on Wednesday over its nuclear program seized on the debate
to accuse the West of "double standards" and discrimination.

(...)
He said the West's reluctance to discuss Israel while pressuring
Iran was "very worrisome" because it protected those outside
the NPT and could provoke members to withdraw from it. He
said Iran had no intention of doing this as of now.

Iran is seen by Western nations as an NPT renegade and bomb
risk for hiding sensitive nuclear activity. They say Israel is not
comparable because it is not in the NPT while Iran is. Many
developing nations say that this is precisely the problem."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/arab-states-
israel-nuclear-danger-reinforced-by-its-aggression-1.295362

"Arab states target Israel " !!!! Quel suprise !!

The achilles heel of these dispicable israel bashers is and alway`s will be their alliances with totalitarian arab regimes..

So lets see ...uhmm... Libyia condemns Israel,wasn`t that the country that had a clandestine nuke programn that was only revealed after G.W.bush scared them silly ?

Syria another pillar of rightousness regime...I don`t think so.another secret nuke progrmn that the world can thank Israel ..some other time I guess,for taking out.

Pakistan; the biggest nuke proliferator in the world period.

Osirak,Iraq;again the world can thank Israel some other time.

Iran;say no more,wink,wink,nudge,nudge. Paul can you spell Qum.

Sudan; I wouldn`t be surprised at anything those bastards do to the christian south.

These countries are pauls moral guideposts ,it`s pathetic really.

One more thing; it was the UN`s IAEA under the leadership of el bariedi who by the way is the eygptian brotherhoods prefered candidate in the up-coming eygptian presidential election,this same LYING S.O.B.as head of the IAEA allowed Iran to inrich uranium to 20%...it would all be so farcical and cartoonish ..if they weren`t talking about nuclear bombs,

The children really should be kept on street corners ,let then smash honest storekeepers windows ( POA for example)if they must, but please,keep them away from adult subjects.

Israel’s ’self-defense’ narrative falls apart
by PAUL WOODWARD on JUNE 10, 2010
"video emerged appearing to show two Israeli soldiers first
pummeling with their boots and then shooting one of the victims as
he lay at their feet. To stand above an injured man and then finish
him off with rounds from an assault rifle can by no ones estimation
be described as an act of self-defense."

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/06/israels-self-defense-narrative-
falls-apart.html

Larry Birnbaum does not seem to understand that I owe Israel no loyalty at all. I owe my own country loyalty, but loyalty to any country other than my own is entirely optional. I don't have to give Larry Birnbaum a reason why I choose not to support Israel any more than I have to give an Englishman, or an American Anglophile, a reason why I choose not to support Britain or Germany, my racial homelands.
Having said that, I was willing to let this particular sleeping dog lie until Jay Cristol published his deceitful book. If he wants to rub my nose in my own cowardice for not speaking out, fine. I will speak out. I believe Israel deliberately tried to sink the Liberty and kill any survivors. I believe Israel committed war crimes against the USA. I believe LBJ was afraid of the American Jewish community and other supporters of Israel.

Israeli commando executing American activist, contra to the lies and fabricated scenario of the IDF and hasbara. Images are surfacing. Will they get coverage in American MSM??

http://www.juancole.com/2010/06/video-shows-israeli-commando-executing-american.html

Tony Judt in the New York Times:

"Israel Without Clichés
By TONY JUDT
Published: June 9, 2010

THE Israeli raid on the Free Gaza flotilla has generated an
outpouring of clichés from the usual suspects. It is almost
impossible to discuss the Middle East without resorting to tired
accusations and ritual defenses: perhaps a little house cleaning
is in order.

No. 1: Israel is being/should be delegitimized

Israel is a state like any other, long-established and
internationally recognized. The bad behavior of its governments
does not “delegitimize” it, any more than the bad behavior of
the rulers of North Korea, Sudan — or, indeed, the United States
— “delegitimizes” them. When Israel breaks international law, it
should be pressed to desist; but it is precisely because it is a
state under international law that we have that leverage.

Some critics of Israel are motivated by a wish that it did not
exist — that it would just somehow go away. But this is the
politics of the ostrich: Flemish nationalists feel the same way
about Belgium, Basque separatists about Spain. Israel is not
going away, nor should it. As for the official Israeli public
relations campaign to discredit any criticism as an exercise in
“de-legitimization,” it is uniquely self-defeating. Every time
Jerusalem responds this way, it highlights its own isolation.

No. 2: Israel is/is not a democracy

Perhaps the most common defense of Israel outside the country
is that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” This is
largely true: the country has an independent judiciary and free
elections, though it also discriminates against non-Jews in ways
that distinguish it from most other democracies today. The
expression of strong dissent from official policy is increasingly
discouraged.

But the point is irrelevant. “Democracy” is no guarantee of good
behavior: most countries today are formally democratic —
remember Eastern Europe’s “popular democracies.” Israel belies
the comfortable American cliché that “democracies don’t make
war.” It is a democracy dominated and often governed by
former professional soldiers: this alone distinguishes it from
other advanced countries. And we should not forget that Gaza is
another “democracy” in the Middle East: it was precisely because
Hamas won free elections there in 2005 that both the
Palestinian Authority and Israel reacted with such vehemence.

No. 3: Israel is/is not to blame

Israel is not responsible for the fact that many of its near
neighbors long denied its right to exist. The sense of siege
should not be underestimated when we try to understand the
delusional quality of many Israeli pronouncements.

Unsurprisingly, the state has acquired pathological habits. Of
these, the most damaging is its habitual resort to force. Because
this worked for so long — the easy victories of the country’s
early years are ingrained in folk memory — Israel finds it
difficult to conceive of other ways to respond. And the failure of
the negotiations of 2000 at Camp David reinforced the belief
that “there is no one to talk to.”

But there is. As American officials privately acknowledge, sooner
or later Israel (or someone) will have to talk to Hamas. From
French Algeria through South Africa to the Provisional I.R.A., the
story repeats itself: the dominant power denies the legitimacy
of the “terrorists,” thereby strengthening their hand; then it
secretly negotiates with them; finally, it concedes power,
independence or a place at the table. Israel will negotiate with
Hamas: the only question is why not now.

No. 4: The Palestinians are/are not to blame

Abba Eban, the former Israeli foreign minister, claimed that
Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. He was
not wholly wrong. The “negationist” stance of Palestinian
resistance movements from 1948 through the early 1980s did
them little good. And Hamas, firmly in that tradition though far
more genuinely popular than its predecessors, will have to
acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

But since 1967 it has been Israel that has missed most
opportunities: a 40-year occupation (against the advice of its
own elder statesmen); three catastrophic invasions of Lebanon;
an invasion and blockade of Gaza in the teeth of world opinion;
and now a botched attack on civilians in international waters.
Palestinians would be hard put to match such cumulative
blunders.

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak — bombing civilian targets
was not invented by Arabs (nor by the Jews who engaged in it
before 1948). Morally indefensible, it has characterized
resistance movements of all colors for at least a century. Israelis
are right to insist that any talks or settlements will depend upon
Hamas’s foreswearing it.

But Palestinians face the same conundrum as every other
oppressed people: all they have with which to oppose an
established state with a monopoly of power is rejection and
protest. If they pre-concede every Israeli demand — abjurance
of violence, acceptance of Israel, acknowledgment of all their
losses — what do they bring to the negotiating table? Israel has
the initiative: it should exercise it.

No. 5: The Israel lobby is/is not to blame

There is an Israel lobby in Washington and it does a very good
job — that’s what lobbies are for. Those who claim that the
Israel lobby is unfairly painted as “too influential” (with the
subtext of excessive Jewish influence behind the scenes) have a
point: the gun lobby, the oil lobby and the banking lobby have
all done far more damage to the health of this country.

But the Israel lobby is disproportionately influential. Why else do
an overwhelming majority of congressmen roll over for every
pro-Israel motion? No more than a handful show consistent
interest in the subject. It is one thing to denounce the excessive
leverage of a lobby, quite another to accuse Jews of “running
the country.” We must not censor ourselves lest people conflate
the two. In Arthur Koestler’s words, “This fear of finding oneself
in bad company is not an expression of political purity; it is an
expression of a lack of self-confidence.”

No. 6: Criticism of Israel is/is not linked to anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews, and Israel is a Jewish state, so
of course some criticism of it is malevolently motivated. There
have been occasions in the recent past (notably in the Soviet
Union and its satellites) when “anti-Zionism” was a convenient
surrogate for official anti-Semitism. Understandably, many Jews
and Israelis have not forgotten this.

But criticism of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews, is not
predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism. The same is true of
contemporary anti-Zionism: Zionism itself has moved a long
way from the ideology of its “founding fathers” — today it
presses territorial claims, religious exclusivity and political
extremism. One can acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and still
be an anti-Zionist (or “post-Zionist”). Indeed, given the
emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a
“normal state” for themselves, today’s insistence on Israel’s
right to act in “abnormal” ways because it is a Jewish state
suggests that Zionism has failed.

We should beware the excessive invocation of “anti-Semitism.”
A younger generation in the United States, not to mention
worldwide, is growing skeptical. “If criticism of the Israeli
blockade of Gaza is potentially ‘anti-Semitic,’ why take seriously
other instances of the prejudice?” they ask, and “What if the
Holocaust has become just another excuse for Israeli bad
behavior?” The risks that Jews run by encouraging this
conflation should not be dismissed.

Along with the oil sheikdoms, Israel is now America’s greatest
strategic liability in the Middle East and Central Asia. Thanks to
Israel, we are in serious danger of “losing” Turkey: a Muslim
democracy, offended at its treatment by the European Union,
that is the pivotal actor in Near-Eastern and Central Asian
affairs. Without Turkey, the United States will achieve few of its
regional objectives — whether in Iran, Afghanistan or the Arab
world. The time has come to cut through the clichés
surrounding it, treat Israel like a “normal” state and sever the
umbilical cord.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/opinion/10judt.html/

IDF commandos execute American citizen:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/06/10/idf-executed-mavi-marmara-victims/

Where's the outrage?

The New York Times continues its cover-up of egregious IDF behavior, refusing to treat the execution of the American citizen Furkan Dogan as news. Their website lists him only in a story about how Turkey was coping with the deaths of activists and again on Robert Mackey's blog.

If this had been Neda, a young Iranian women killed by an unknown assassin, then the Times would have hyperventilated with righteous indignation.

But when a young American is executed by Israel, the Times goes on snooze control.

Objective reporting RIP.

Paul, Tony Judt is twisting himself into contradictions, trying to explain how you can be totally anti-Zionist yet acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Short answer: you can't. He goes through the usual prevarications of explaining how the chorus of anti-Semites demanding Israel's destruction don't actually mean it, you're just being paranoid to imagine it and suppressing free speech. What a load of horse manure.

Meanwhile for some happier news: the NYT notices that that 7% GDP growth in the West Bank is making Ramallah a hip travel destination:

Ramallah Attracts a Cosmopolitan Crowd
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/travel/06next-1.html

A bit different from the sob story of desperate refugees the Pals keep feeding the Western media, no?

Erdogan is implicated in sending 40 IHH agent provocateurs on the Mavi Marmara. From Haaretz:

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan knew in advance that activists aboard a Gaza-bound aid flotilla planned to attack Israeli troops, Israeli intelligence officials have said.
Activists hold down an Israeli commando on the Gaza-bound ship Mavi Marmara, May 31 2010

In a report published this week, a group of independent investigators from Israel's intelligence community found that activists aboard the 'Mavi Marmara' were part of an organized group that was prepared for a violent conflict.

Last week Israeli commandos killed nine pro-Palestinian activists when they boarded the Turkish-owned boat, part of a six-ship convoy trying to break Israel's maritime blockade on the Gaza Strip

The report, published by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (known in Israel by its Hebrew acronym Malam), said activists who attacked commandos with clubs and knives were supported by the Turkish government.

Malam is a privately run but is widely seen as an unofficial branch of Israel's intelligence community and has in the past been a medium for passing Israel's intelligence findings to the public.

The report said while most of the Mavi Marmara's 500 passengers were humanitarian volunteers who underwent security checks before boarding the ship at Antalya in Turkey, a group of 40 IHH activists had boarded the ship in an Istanbul port beforehand, keeping apart from the rest of the passengers throughout the journey.

This hard core of activists boarded the ship without checks and was equipped with communications equipment, flack jackets embroidered with Turkish flags, and gas masks, Malam said.

According to the report, the group turned the upper deck into its headquarters, blocking it off to other passengers. It had a clear internal hierarchy, with specific activists nominated as commanders.

Bülent Y?ld?r?m, the leader of the IHH, an Islamic organization that planned the voyage, was on the Mavi Marmara and briefed group members about two hours before the Israeli Navy intercepted the ship. Their main objective was to hold back soldiers by any means, and to push them back into the sea.

As they had been banned from bringing wepaons aboard, IHH members improvised weapons including metal rods and knives cut from the ship's metal rails, which they used to attack the soldiers.

According to a witness aboard the ship, a confrontation broke out when the ship's crew heard IHH members sawing the railing into metal rods, but they were unable to confiscate them from them.

IHH activists also gathered all the knives from six cafeterias on the ship, as well as axes from fire extinguishers on the deck, all of which served as weapons against Israeli commandos .

Before the takeover, IHH ordered all other passengers into the hold of the ship and told them to remain there. Only journalists and security personnel were allowed access to the deck.

Video footage matched testimonies from passengers who claimed they witnessed any violence, as they were denied access to the deck, where the clash occurred.

The testimonies are also similar to the version given by the Navy commandos who said that they fought with a group of approximately 50 people who used every weapon available to attack them.

Eight of the nine dead were identified as IHH members.

Files found on laptops owned by the IHH members pointed at strong ties between the movement and Turkey's prime minister. Some of the activists even said that Erdogan was personally involved in the flotilla's preparations.

They also said that they knew in advance that their chances of making it into Gaza were slim, but their initial goal was to "to expose Israel's true face to the world."

An IHH journalist said during his investigation with Israeli security forces that "the Turks set a trap for you and you fell straight into it." He also said that the recent flotilla was the first in many.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/probe-erdogan-knew-gaza-flotilla-would-be-violent-1.295144

Nadine, this is such and exciting fictional thriller, can you please please provide the next installment ASAP . . .

"The report, published by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (known in Israel by its Hebrew acronym Malam), said activists who attacked commandos with clubs and knives were supported by the Turkish government.

"Malam is a privately run but is widely seen as an unofficial branch of Israel's intelligence community and has in the past been a medium for passing Israel's intelligence findings to the public."

Privately run, eh. Would that be like AIPAC east? Inquiring minds want to know. "A medium for passing Israel's intelligence findings on to the public." Would that be like a propaganda organ within a propaganda organ??

Nadine, it's best to leave Tony Judt alone; he's dying of a neurological disorder (he's talked about this himself quite openly in print). I'm not suggesting that his comments reflect any type of dementia (which is a feature of late stages of the particular disease that he has); his comments are in character with his entire career. Suffice it to say that it is hard to contemplate how Judt could be less influential than he is. He mostly appeals to a cadre of far-left ideologues who are so hopelessly confused that engaging them is almost a complete waste of time and effort. Judt is essentially inconsequential as either an intellect or an opinion-maker.

By the way, I don't know if you saw the results of the recent Dutch elections, but it appears that Europe is continuing its lurch to the right.

The Dutch Liberal Party (which paradoxically is one of the conservative Dutch Parties) won the most seats (31) which is up 9 seats from the previous election. The Labor Party (which is a leftist party) won 30 seats which is down 3 from the previous election. The CDA (the governing party which is also conservative) went from 41 seats to 21 seats.

Most interestingly, Geert Wilders political party defied the expectations of some and experienced explosive growth. Wilders' Party is the anti-immigrant party. Wilders calls for banning head scarves, prohibiting the sale of the Koran and deporting thousands of Muslim immigrants.

Wilders is actually on trial for racism (in the Netherlands you can actually be indicted for what you say, which in itself says alot). Despite all of this, or maybe because of it, his party more than doubled its representation; it went from 9 seats to 24; an increase of 15 seats. Wilders' party is now the third largest in the Netherlands.

What's really interesting is that Wilders' Party won 15.5 percent of the Dutch popular vote. In Israel, during the 2009 election, Avigdor Lieberman's Party (Yisrael Beiteinu) won only 11.7 percent of the vote of the Israeli electorate. Considering what's frequently said about Lieberman, I guess we now have to conclude that Europeans (or at least the Dutch) on average are 33 percent more racist than the Israelis. Considering European history; it’s not hard to believe, is it?

What do you think, Nadine; do you think we're likely to see seven or eight Washington Note posts in the next couple of days about how abysmally bigoted the Europeans are? Do you think we're likely to see even one?

Or maybe Steve is only interested in bigotry if the person espousing it has a Jewish sur name.

There's a name for that too; isn't there?

"Or maybe Steve is only interested in bigotry if the person espousing it has a Jewish sur name.

There's a name for that too; isn't there?" (Wigwag)

Oh, surely you are just imagining it, Wigwag. Wait for some more posts about breaking news like the USS Liberty. Maybe Steve has some breaking news about Deir Yassin.

The more I think about it, the reason Helen Thomas "tripped up" (i.e. got recorded saying what she believes) was because Obama has legitimated "Jews go back to Auschwitz" as a form of political speech. She was on the White House grounds and a rabbi was recording her, there was nothing secret about it. She was a reporter for sixty years, she knew all about being recorded for attribution. She thought Obama had her back.

As for the Europeans, I don't expect them to go quietly into Eurabia. Considering their politics, it may be difficult to set up nationalist parties that are for free markets and individual liberty which don't have fascist tendencies; but I hope they can. Wilders doesn't seem at all fascist or xenophobic from what I've seen, thought the leftist media keeps trying to call him that.

Somebody has to be anti-fascist, and it's not going to be the Left, since the Left has become pro-fascist.

As for the Europeans, I don't expect them to go quietly into Eurabia. Considering their politics, it may be difficult to set up nationalist parties that are for free markets and individual liberty which don't have fascist tendencies; but I hope they can. Wilders doesn't seem at all fascist or xenophobic from what I've seen, thought the leftist media keeps trying to call him that.

Somebody has to be anti-fascist, and it's not going to be the Left, since the Left has become pro-fascist.

That's an interesting point, Nadine; the bigotry of the European left is now such a prominent feature of the program it advocates, that Wilders and his Party seem mainstream by comparison. No wonder Wilders is one of the most popular politicians in the Netherlands. The real irony, of course, is that its Wilders, who criticizes Islamic ideology (at least as it's practiced in the Netherlands) for its homophobia, misogyny, anti-Semitism and religious extremism. Do you remember the days, Nadine, when those liberal ideas were proffered by the left and eschewed by the right? My, have times changed.

By the way, I don't know if you've read any of Judt's books, but he is one of the worst writers that you will ever read. I've read a couple of his epics including "Identity Politics In A Multilingual Age" (he edited it) which was dimwitted and most recently "Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945." which was so awful that its hard to exaggerate how bad it was.

Judt's articles for the New York Review of Books are so invariably shallow that they remind me of a classified ad that I recently read (and cut out) of our local penny saver newspaper in Ft. Lauderdale.

It went like this,

"WANTED: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. P.O. Box 322 Oakview, CA 93022. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before."

So what do you think, Nadine; do you think Tony Judt might have written that ad?

Count on Wigwag and Nadine to silently approve the IDF's execution of Americans, such as Rachel Corrie, Tristan Andersen, or Furkan Dogan.

But there would be hell to pay if a Palestinian or an Iranian ever killed an American or an Israeli. There's even hell to pay when an unidentified gunman kills someone named Neda in the streets of Tehran.

But when Americans get executed--silence. Appalling.

"a group of independent investigators from Israel's intelligence community found that..."

Now that's an interesting phrase. Sort of like, "a group of independent engineers from BP."

Dan Kervick, it means "independent of the government". Do you now discard any evidence from the Israeli press -- a democracy with a free and highly critical press -- and believe only pronouncements from totalitarian governments? This report was from HaAretz, which has about as much love for the Netanyahu government as the New York Times did for the Bush administration.

It's not as if the accounts even differ much from the Israeli and Turkish side. The Turks are BOASTING of having ambushed and beaten the Israeli commandos. It's you lot of pseudo-pacifists (Walter Russell Mead's term "goo-goo genocidaires" fits to a T) who are crying that innocent lambs were slaughtered. Not the Turks!

"WANTED: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. P.O. Box 322 Oakview, CA 93022. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before."

So what do you think, Nadine; do you think Tony Judt might have written that ad?" (Wigwag)

Well, that ad certainly makes you curious about the circumstances of the 'once before'. Judt writing may be dropping from its already low standard, but then why does the NYT give him so much space on its oped pages. Do you remember the days when the NYT supported Israel against terrorists who wanted to destroy it?

"WANTED: Somebody to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. P.O. Box 322 Oakview, CA 93022. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. Safety not guaranteed. I have only done this once before."

So what do you think, Nadine; do you think Tony Judt might have written that ad?" (Wigwag)

Well, that ad certainly makes you curious about the circumstances of the 'once before'. Judt writing may be dropping from its already low standard, but then why does the NYT give him so much space on its oped pages. Do you remember the days when the NYT supported Israel against terrorists who wanted to destroy it?

"...why does the NYT give him so much space on its oped pages." (Nadine)

I went back and looked and as far as I can tell from the New York Times archives, they've never published a Judt op-ed before. I could be mistaken, but I didn't find anything else by Judt himself every published in the Times (there are several reviews of his books).

My guess is that they printed his op-ed because he is dying.

No Wigwag, they printed Judt's op-ed because they like his opinion, on top of Chabon's a few days ago, and a whole procession of leftist nitwits before that. Never accuse the the NYT of not seeing what direction the wind is blowing from the White House! They are going to need that FTC-proposed bail-out of newspapers Real Soon Now they way their finances are going.

"Do you now discard any evidence from the Israeli press?"

No. But Haaretz wasn't reporting out its own independently uncovered evidence. It was simply reporting on the contents of a report prepared by some "independent investigators from Israel's intelligence community." The question isn't whether you believe Haaretz; it's whether you believe the Israeli intelligence community - specifically, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (Maram), an organization which is an "NGO" appendage of the Israeli defense establishment.

And yes, I do tend to disregard supposed evidence offered by Israeli intelligence, as I would discard evidence offered by other intelligence services from other countries. In a crisis like this, such agencies are paid to lie for their country and push out propaganda. For what it's worth, I also would believe anything that Turkish intelligence or US intelligence might be serving up right now. I am only interested in reports from genuinely independent journalists and investigators.

Of course, they won't even mention the name of a dead US citizen, Furkan Dogan, except in a story about how Turkey was coping with the deaths of activists and again on Robert Mackey's blog.

At least Rachel Corrie got some coverage, mostly in the form of a play called, "My Name is Rachel Corrie." I guess mention of Furkan Dogan will have to wait for the play.

But the NY Times is so biased against Israel!!!

In the previous post, the penultimate sentence should have been:

"For what it's worth, I also WOULDN'T believe anything that Turkish intelligence or US intelligence might be serving up right now."

And I wouldn't believe much of what the NY Times is serving up right now.

Sad that neither Nadine nor Wigwag can condemn the assassination of unarmed Americans, whether activists or whether members of the crew of the USS Liberty...

So, Dan, if you automatically disbelieve everybody in a position to know anything, and you reject their evidence, what do you believe? What your own prejudices tell you?

This is hysterical...the zionits are looking for a new sugar daddy and protector. Suddenly they have decided they have "shared values" with Russia.
We should encourage this idea....send Israel into Putin's loving arms...LOL
Volia....the world's Israeli problem solved.

Pro-Israel groups must adapt to the new world

By JENNIFER LASZLO-MIZRAHI
06/07/2010 22:03

The dueling videos of Israel’s raid on the flotilla heading for Gaza – from the Israeli and from the activists’ sides – are being viewed by millions and influencing public opinion worldwide. America’s pro-Israel groups must pay close attention to the video phenomenon, the condemnation of Israel’s action by many governments, the effort to get all members of the UN Security Council – especially Russia and China – on board for a fourth round of Iran sanctions, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty conference’s final resolution last month in which 189 countries singled out Israel, and the US’s National Security Strategy issued last month. These developments must signal pro-Israel groups – including the one I head, The Israel Project – that it’s time to change course.

When world leaders are condemning Israel first and asking questions later and the “Dean” of the White House press corps, Helen Thomas, says that Israelis should go back to Poland and Germany, it is tempting to burry our heads in our hands and simply say “the world is against us and it will always be the case”. But that is simply not the truth. As Herzl said, “Im Tirzu, ein zu agada” (if you dream it, it can be). Nobody wanted the flotilla incident to end the way it did. However, now is NOT the time for silence or despair.

So we ask the question: What can we DO about it? Or, what MUST we DO about it? Inaction in not an option. And we can’t keep doing the things we have been doing. They’re simply not working. We must change.

For decades the underlying assumption informing most activities in the pro-Israel community has been that only the US-Israel relationship really matters. That is no longer valid.A strong US-Israel relationship is necessary, but not sufficient for the future.

The world order is rapidly changing. China is America's banker. Greece's debt causes a steep decline in stock exchanges worldwide. America has 186,000 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Countries including China, India and Brazil crave energy to fuel their economic growth. Events and policies in numerous countries affect Israel. These include Security Council members – particularly Russia and China on Iran and nuclear issues – and Arab and Muslim states.

President Barack Obama is viewing American foreign policy and national interest through the twin prism of globalization, which is referred to twice in the first paragraph of his introduction to the new White House National Security Strategy document, and international cooperation. Globalization, the president writes, has “opened the doors of opportunity, but “has also intensified the dangers we face – from international terrorism and the spread of deadly technologies, to economic upheaval and a changing climate. The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone,” the document declares.

“America has not succeeded by stepping outside the currents of international cooperation.” The introduction states that America’s “strength and influence abroad begins with the steps we take at home” and that “we will build new and deeper partnerships in every region.”

THESE ARE the tenets that now guide American foreign policy. They shape America’s relations with Israel and the Arab world, and its approach to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Time and again, Obama and members of his administration have declared their commitment to a two-state solution, saying it is in America’s interest. These tenets indicate that, in dealing with Israel, the US will consider the impact of its policies, actions and statements on its need for positive outcomes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and on the need for good relations with Russia, China and the other UN Security Council members. Though the US is the world’s only superpower, our country is not as powerful as it was last century.

The pro-Israel community must internalize these new realities. Given these and the daunting challenges Israel faces, including a prism where the kind of Palestinian state (i.e. peaceful vs. an Iranian-backed “Hamastan”) matters immensely to its security, we must adapt and change the way we do business. We as a community continue doing things right, but are not doing the right things. Our strategies are outdated, akin to shining the chrome on a broken model-T instead of getting a new car to take us where we need to go.

Unfortunately, some in the pro-Israel community still want to use the models that do not work in the new order. Some pray for an Obama defeat that will bring back the old order. But no matter who wins elections, it is not coming back.

Tom Friedman was wrong when he declared the world was flat; that would imply a beginning and an end. Quite the opposite is true. The world is very much the globe it is – where something happening on any side of the planet can go around and almost immediately affect the other side.

Pro-Israel groups, therefore, must grasp the new order and craft new strategies. Developing robust programs for China and Russia – which can each veto Security Council resolutions – has become critically important.

Russia is a member of the Quartet road map for peace (along with the US, EU and UN), and wants to be a major player in the peace process. It is also a major arms supplier to Iran and Syria, many of whose weapons end up the hands of Hizbullah and Hamas. Thus, it is important to provide Russian reporters and leaders with key facts about Israel, reasons why a nuclear Iran is against Russia’s best interests, and the dangers of selling sophisticated weapons to states that sponsor terror.

Importantly, Russia is already warm to Israel – a country with more than one million Russian speakers, significant shared values and many business ties.

China’s ability to shape world affairs, and its economic influence, are growing exponentially. As of February, China held nearly $900 billion in US Treasury securities, making it the largest foreign holder of US debt. Contact with media and leaders in China could give that country a more complete portrayal of Israel by which to judge its policies and alter the Chinese public’s perception of Iran.

Expanding outreach to the Arab and Muslim world, to Europe and other members of the Security Council, is also an important new avenue for the pro-Israel community. At The Israel Project, for example, we developed programs for Russia (limited polling and focus groups since 2002 and reporter lists since 2008), the Arabic-speaking world and are reaching out in 10 languages to 53 countries. But we have a long way to go.

As we see the statements and headlines condemning Israel around the world, now is the time to act. As Charles Darwin pointed out, “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.” Israel cannot afford America’s pro-Israel groups operating in a world that was or that they wish it to be. The world has changed, and we must, too.

The writer is founder and president of The Israel Project, which educates reporters and leaders about the Mideast. theisraelproject.org

Adios, people.

This blog's comment section ain't what it used to be.

Tony Koran of Time and rootlesscosmopolitian.com

June 6th, 2010
What the Gaza Flotilla Tells Us About the Future of the Mideast

Thus my latest in the National:

‘We’re the only ones who believe them,” a US official was quoted as complaining last week in response to Israel’s account of its attack on the Gaza aid flotilla.

The bloodshed on the high seas and the resulting diplomatic fallout is a reminder of just how far US influence has fallen in the region, and the grim prospects for the US president Barack Obama reversing that trend as long as the US continues to accord Israel special status.

Indeed, in a statement that would have evoked howls of protest had it been made on Capitol Hill, the Mossad chief Meir Dagan last week told a Knesset sub-committee that Israel is turning “from an asset to the United States to a burden”.

The drama of last week has forced the US and its European partners to concede that the Israeli blockade on Gaza is untenable, as is its underlying policy – shared by Washington and the Europeans – of refusing to engage with Hamas as an intractable fact of Palestinian political life.

The fact that a group of defiant civil society activists – backed by the Turkish government – has forced that acknowledgement is a sign of how far the balance of power in the Middle East has shifted.

It is a change that will also have implications for how the Iranian nuclear standoff is resolved.

Even before the flotilla debacle forced the US to postpone its attempt to bring a new sanctions resolution to the UN Security Council, the effort to isolate Tehran over its nuclear programme was in trouble.

Sure, the American administration claims to have Russia and China signed on to a new sanctions resolution. But both countries have demanded that any new measures be gutted of the ability to seriously hurt Iran. They insist that Tehran satisfy the transparency concerns reiterated last week by the IAEA, but also maintain that a solution can be achieved only through dialogue.

On the negotiation front, the only game in town right now is the fuel-swap agreement brokered with Iran by Turkey and Brazil. Those countries, both of which are currently on the Security Council, were outraged that the US simply ignored the proposal despite the fact that it largely resembled the deal offered to Iran by Washington last October and that Mr Obama himself had encouraged his Brazilian and Turkish counterparts to pursue the deal.

Sure, the agreement doesn’t halt Iran’s ongoing enrichment of uranium, but the same was true for the deal offered by the US last year.

The former IAEA chief and potential Egyptian presidential candidate Mohammed ElBaradei urged the US and its allies to reconsider. “I was surprised at the reaction that some countries would continue to say that they want to apply sanctions, because if you remove over half of the material that Iran has to Turkey, that is clearly a confidence-building measure. To say that we are going to apply sanctions nonetheless despite this deal, I think would be completely counterproductive.” He added that while “there is a fear about Iran’s future intentions, [it] can only be resolved through negotiations and trust”, for which there’s plenty of time because “nobody is suggesting that Iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons.”

There was more bad news for Iran at the conclusion of the month-long Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, which Washington had naively hoped would build support for sanctions.

Instead, the conference called for action on achieving a nuclear-free Middle East, and for Israel to sign the NPT and subject its own nuclear capacity to international scrutiny. The Arab states led that initiative, making clear that while they supported efforts to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, they rejected the principle of Israel maintaining a regional monopoly on nuclear force. The Obama administration had little choice but to back the nuclear-free Middle East principle, but warned that it would not support a process that “singled out” Israel or put its security in question.

The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu instantly vowed not to sign the NPT, and to boycott a regional summit on the issue two years from now. Far from being “singled out” by others, Israel in fact singles itself out by being the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East – the trump card of its sense of security – and by refusing to sign the NPT. The American nod and wink to Israel’s nuclear status was also a diplomatic victory for Iran, which accuses Washington of applying a double standard.

Pax Americana, it seems, is slowly in decline. Mr Obama’s promising words in his Cairo speech a year ago have delivered no substantial change in US policy in the region, and Ankara seems no longer willing to tolerate the suffering being imposed on Gazans with Washington’s tacit consent. In taking this position, Turkey is channeling regional public opinion, and doing so in a way far more credible and effective than the hollow antics of the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And the challenge to the blockade may have succeeded: the blockade’s stated purpose, after all, was to throttle the Gazan economy in the hope that collective punishment would turn the civilian population against Hamas. That’s a policy now being deemed untenable even by the United States – something that would not have happened without the flotilla.

Exposing the failed Gaza policy has also reignited calls for the US and its allies to recognize the futility of trying to conduct an Israeli-Palestinian peace process as if Hamas simply didn’t exist. Pressure is mounting for the West to find ways to try and integrate Hamas into more stable political arrangements.

None of this lets Iran off the hook in terms of its NPT obligations, of course. But the consensus among the key players is that the Iran standoff will be resolved through a negotiated compromise. What the events of last week have taught us is that the global and regional balance of power here is shifting in ways that make it unlikely for conflicts in the Middle East to be resolved on terms set by the US and Israel

Tony Koran of Time and rootlesscosmopolitian.com

June 6th, 2010
What the Gaza Flotilla Tells Us About the Future of the Mideast

Thus my latest in the National:

‘We’re the only ones who believe them,” a US official was quoted as complaining last week in response to Israel’s account of its attack on the Gaza aid flotilla.

The bloodshed on the high seas and the resulting diplomatic fallout is a reminder of just how far US influence has fallen in the region, and the grim prospects for the US president Barack Obama reversing that trend as long as the US continues to accord Israel special status.

Indeed, in a statement that would have evoked howls of protest had it been made on Capitol Hill, the Mossad chief Meir Dagan last week told a Knesset sub-committee that Israel is turning “from an asset to the United States to a burden”.

The drama of last week has forced the US and its European partners to concede that the Israeli blockade on Gaza is untenable, as is its underlying policy – shared by Washington and the Europeans – of refusing to engage with Hamas as an intractable fact of Palestinian political life.

The fact that a group of defiant civil society activists – backed by the Turkish government – has forced that acknowledgement is a sign of how far the balance of power in the Middle East has shifted.

It is a change that will also have implications for how the Iranian nuclear standoff is resolved.

Even before the flotilla debacle forced the US to postpone its attempt to bring a new sanctions resolution to the UN Security Council, the effort to isolate Tehran over its nuclear programme was in trouble.

Sure, the American administration claims to have Russia and China signed on to a new sanctions resolution. But both countries have demanded that any new measures be gutted of the ability to seriously hurt Iran. They insist that Tehran satisfy the transparency concerns reiterated last week by the IAEA, but also maintain that a solution can be achieved only through dialogue.

On the negotiation front, the only game in town right now is the fuel-swap agreement brokered with Iran by Turkey and Brazil. Those countries, both of which are currently on the Security Council, were outraged that the US simply ignored the proposal despite the fact that it largely resembled the deal offered to Iran by Washington last October and that Mr Obama himself had encouraged his Brazilian and Turkish counterparts to pursue the deal.

Sure, the agreement doesn’t halt Iran’s ongoing enrichment of uranium, but the same was true for the deal offered by the US last year.

The former IAEA chief and potential Egyptian presidential candidate Mohammed ElBaradei urged the US and its allies to reconsider. “I was surprised at the reaction that some countries would continue to say that they want to apply sanctions, because if you remove over half of the material that Iran has to Turkey, that is clearly a confidence-building measure. To say that we are going to apply sanctions nonetheless despite this deal, I think would be completely counterproductive.” He added that while “there is a fear about Iran’s future intentions, [it] can only be resolved through negotiations and trust”, for which there’s plenty of time because “nobody is suggesting that Iran is on the brink of developing nuclear weapons.”

There was more bad news for Iran at the conclusion of the month-long Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference, which Washington had naively hoped would build support for sanctions.

Instead, the conference called for action on achieving a nuclear-free Middle East, and for Israel to sign the NPT and subject its own nuclear capacity to international scrutiny. The Arab states led that initiative, making clear that while they supported efforts to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons, they rejected the principle of Israel maintaining a regional monopoly on nuclear force. The Obama administration had little choice but to back the nuclear-free Middle East principle, but warned that it would not support a process that “singled out” Israel or put its security in question.

The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu instantly vowed not to sign the NPT, and to boycott a regional summit on the issue two years from now. Far from being “singled out” by others, Israel in fact singles itself out by being the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East – the trump card of its sense of security – and by refusing to sign the NPT. The American nod and wink to Israel’s nuclear status was also a diplomatic victory for Iran, which accuses Washington of applying a double standard.

Pax Americana, it seems, is slowly in decline. Mr Obama’s promising words in his Cairo speech a year ago have delivered no substantial change in US policy in the region, and Ankara seems no longer willing to tolerate the suffering being imposed on Gazans with Washington’s tacit consent. In taking this position, Turkey is channeling regional public opinion, and doing so in a way far more credible and effective than the hollow antics of the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

And the challenge to the blockade may have succeeded: the blockade’s stated purpose, after all, was to throttle the Gazan economy in the hope that collective punishment would turn the civilian population against Hamas. That’s a policy now being deemed untenable even by the United States – something that would not have happened without the flotilla.

Exposing the failed Gaza policy has also reignited calls for the US and its allies to recognize the futility of trying to conduct an Israeli-Palestinian peace process as if Hamas simply didn’t exist. Pressure is mounting for the West to find ways to try and integrate Hamas into more stable political arrangements.

None of this lets Iran off the hook in terms of its NPT obligations, of course. But the consensus among the key players is that the Iran standoff will be resolved through a negotiated compromise. What the events of last week have taught us is that the global and regional balance of power here is shifting in ways that make it unlikely for conflicts in the Middle East to be resolved on terms set by the US and Israel

"Sad that neither Nadine nor Wigwag can condemn the assassination of unarmed Americans, whether activists or whether members of the crew of the USS Liberty..." (John H)

Not just sad, really evidence of their propaganda mindset, and repetition and hammering lies after lies. It has become obvious that this comment section is a podium for their propaganda. POA is right to feel discouraged. He's done yeoman work, albeit colorful.

I do not make the simplistic distinction "I'm right, you're wrong". I 'm talking about the non stop propaganda and lies regardless of whatever the corresponding commenter may be attempting to engage.

Someone a few days ago suggest perhaps implementing a voting mechanism to indicate what the reading public relates to positively. An imperfect mechanism, perhaps, but the level of propaganda has become outrageous.

Exchanges like,

"Or maybe Steve is only interested in bigotry if the person espousing it has a Jewish sur name. (ndine)

"There's a name for that too; isn't there?" (Wigwag)

. . . slamming our host are unfathomable. Or Wig wag proclaiming in one post that Tony Judt is dying, go easy, and then proceeding to slam him mercilessly. As for her partner in propaganda, nadine, apparently nothing is to low for her bloodymindedness.

"...if you automatically disbelieve everybody in a position to know anything."

I don't disbelieve everybody in a position to know anything. There were many people on the Mavi Marmara, and there were many Israeli soldiers participating in the raid. Their accounts are all gradually coming out through various media. Genuinely independent reporters will be able to examine this full record and build coherent narratives from it. A true and full account will be assembled in that way, not by government intelligence agents.

The Israelis have already been caught doctoring the electronic records they confiscated, and then releasing the doctored materials. Either they are people with something to hide, or they don't have anything to hide but they stupidly act like people with something to hide. Either way, they have poisoned the well of information coming out of the Israeli government.

And I regard the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center as part of the Israeli government. They have an office in the Israeli Defense Ministry. They seem to be one of those outfits commonly used by government intelligence and propaganda departments - a front company or "NGO" used to pump out government information without an explicit government brand.

Anyway, as I said almost right after this raid occurred, the attitude people take toward it is going to depend on their attitude toward the quarantine of Gaza itself. The Mavi Marmara did not attack, board or ram an Israeli naval ship. Rather, armed Israelis forcibly boarded the Mavi Marmara. If you think that the quarantine of Gaza, and the naval blockade that is part of it, are justified, then you are likely to look at the boarding as a legitimate means of enforcing that quarantine. If, on the other hand, you think that the quarantine is odious, then you are likely to think that people who are attempting to lift that blockade by delivering supplies and putting themselves in harm's way as a result are the good guys.

This boarding is just one more belligerent act in a running Israeli campaign of economic and military warfare against Gaza, and that campaign against Gaza is just one part of Israel's long running war against the Arabs of Palestine. The Israelis are the aggressors in that war, as is proven by their insistence on expanding into and colonizing Palestinian territory. Whatever skirmishing did or did not take place on board the Mavi Marmara following the boarding is less important than those more fundamental contextual facts.

"For what it's worth, I also WOULDN'T believe anything that Turkish intelligence or US intelligence might be serving up right now." (Dan k)

That's the point, isn't it? This isn't about, or shouldn't be, who's got the heftiest slanted intelligence. In the end, institutions become victims of their own propaganda, and we become further disconnected from even a semblance of fact based policy.

Posted by DonS, Jun 11 2010, 7:16AM - Link
"Sad that neither Nadine nor Wigwag can condemn the assassination of unarmed Americans, whether activists or whether members of the crew of the USS Liberty..." (John H)

Not just sad, really evidence of their propaganda mindset, and repetition and hammering lies after lies. It has become obvious that this comment section is a podium for their propaganda. POA is right to feel discouraged. He's done yeoman work, albeit colorful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't blame POA. But I am curious why some of you even engage or respond to wig, nadine and marcus and encourage their obvious insanity and mental illness.

I have been on this blog since it's inception and seen every piece of propaganda of the kind they spew debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over with actual evidence and facts.

Intelligent discussion and offerings on here ended 2 years ago and now 50% of the comments are propaganda hasbara and the other 50% are those replying to them as if hasbara nutcases could be talked to intelligently or brought to admit their delusions and obfuscations.

I share POA's disgust, the threads here have become nothing but a circle jerk of hasbara zios and their enablers.

More on the extraordinary showing of Geert Wilders in this week's Dutch elections:

Not only did Wilders increase his party's share of the vote far more dramatically than any other Dutch political party; and not only did Wilder's party win the third largest proportion of the Dutch vote; and not only is it likely that Wilders will have a place in the next Dutch Government; and not only did Wilder's performance speak volumes about how the Dutch feel about Muslim immigration; and not only did Wilders exceed the share of the vote achieved by Avigdor Lieberman's party in Israel by 32 percent; but in a delicious irony, Wilders Party received the highest number of votes in the Hague, which of course, is the home of the International Criminal Court.

How long before the anti-immigrant parties in France, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Norway and Sweden achieve the same success as Wilder's party? Europe is changing before our eyes. Can’t you just hear the dirt being piled on the grave of the European left?

Will we see a post at the Washington Note on this stunning Dutch result and what it says about Europe?

Don't count on it; when anti-Islam parties are successful in Israel it's a cause celebre. When those parties meet with even greater success in Europe, it's met with a stony silence.

Why is it that one set of standards applies to Europe and some of the favored Arab regimes while a completely different standard applies to Israel?

Never mind; I know the answer.

Hmmm ... yes, it's amazing that Steve isn't all over this Dutch business, given the centrality and high importance of Dutch-American affairs in the US foreign policy portfolio. Maybe we'll have to cancel our $30 billion dollar aid package to the Netherlands; reconsider our support for the endless Dutch occupation and colonization of Flanders; think twice about the incessant Dutch demands for sanctions and regime change in France, and its frequent threats of war against France; withdraw our vetoes for four decades of UN sanctions against the Dutch; and worry ourselves much more about the effects of the blowback of the Dutch-American partnership on the well-being of US troops fighting our two ongoing wars in central Europe.

Of course, just because Dutch affairs are so important to America, I wouldn't want to single the Dutch out for special attention or anything.

But as Nigel Powers once said, "There are only two things I hate in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures ... and the Dutch!"

A Washington Post poll on Helen Thomas..
http://views.washingtonpost.com/post-user-polls/2010/06/should-helen-thomas-be-removed-from-the-white-house-press-room.html?hpid=topnews

POA don't say Adios..if you do, they win...jist ignore them..you know, please don't feed the trolls.
Carroll, thanks for the articles...

Hmmm ... yes, it's amazing that Steve isn't all over this Dutch business, given the centrality and high importance of Dutch-American affairs in the US foreign policy portfolio..." (Dan Kervick)

The United States houses more than 70 thousand U.S. troops throughout Europe( including 55 thousand in Germany) charged with the responsibility (in part) of protecting the Netherlands. U.S. taxpayers pay tens of billions of dollars to subsidize the protection of the Europeans because, of course, the Europeans would rather have the United States pay for their defense than pay for it themselves. This is only one of several ways that American taxpayers subsidize wealthy Europeans.

As Europeans vote for political parties that are openly hostile to Muslims in significantly greater percentages than the Israelis do, it is not only consequential for the United States but worth remarking on.

As Dan surely knows, the moral outrage directed by many at this blog, both commentators and Steve Clemons himself, towards Israel is motivated by far more than the Israeli-American partnership.

No one is suggesting that the recent Dutch elections should motivate an obsessive Steve Clemons to write as many posts about the Netherlands as he has about Israel. But the fact that one of America's main European allies just voted for a political party that is implacably hostile to Muslims in significantly larger numbers than Israelis voted for Yisrael Beiteinu, is far more consequential than Dan pretends it is.

The fact that the only reason it came up at the Washington Note at all is because I mentioned it, speaks volumes.

And as long as we're talking about hypocrisy; does anyone remember all those people who assured us that Obama/Biden would be more respectful of civil liberties than Bush/Cheney?

Those people might find this interesting,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12leak.html?hp

marcus...dreams about 1938 Germany???Just because I don't think Palestiians should pay the price for 1938 Germnay does not mean I think anyone deserves that. Don't project your our disdain and hatefulness toward others onto me.

Being held accountable.

From Haaretz

Polish authorities arrested an alleged Mossad agent suspected of attaining German passports involved in the assassination of Hamas strongman Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai in January, according to Der Spiegel cited by French news agency AFP on Saturday.

"He was arrested in Warsaw and is suspected of being involved in illegally obtaining a (German) passport," AFP cited a spokesman for German federal prosecution to German magazine Der Spiegel.

"It's now up to the Poles to decide if they are going to hand him over to Germany," the spokesman said.

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was killed in January when a team of assassins broke into his hotel room and killed him silently, leaving a 'do not disturb' sign on the door. The hotel security cameras caught images of the alleged killers sharing an elevator ride with Mabhouh prior to the assassination.

Since the killing, Dubai police have identified over 32 suspects, releasing photos of 27 people who were allegedly involved in the assassination based on alleged forged passports.

The Mossad has been implicated by the Dubai police as having masterminded the assassination, but Israel has said there is no proof tying Mossad to the incident.
The Der Spiegel article, which is expected to be published on Monday, said the Israeli suspect Uri Brodsky was arrested in early June on arrival at Warsaw's airport.

Brodsky is suspected by German authorities to have helped a member of the hit squad obtain a German passport in June 2009.

I'am going to be channeling POA until he comes back.

Latest Neocon insanity: kick Turkey out of NATO - Harper

IN RETALIATION FOR THE ISRAELI ATTACK ON THE GAZA AID FLOTILLA

The silly season just got positively bizarre. In the aftermath of the Israeli armed assault on a Turkish-flagged aid ship, bound for the Gaza Strip, some of the more rabid American neocons have demanded, in no uncertain terms, that Turkey must be punished by being kicked out of NATO. Yes, you heard me correctly. Israel carried out an act of international piracy, and cold-blooded murder in international waters, and Turkey must be punished. Has someone dumped a shot of LSD-25 into the water cooler at the American Enterprise Institute?

It is pretty obvious that a talking points memo went out from the Israeli embassy or some other locale, because in a matter of days, many of the usual suspects—Daniel Pipes, Stephen Schwartz, Michael Rubin, and Victor Davis Hanson, not to mention the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA)—all came out with the identical, preposterous notion that Turkey is the perp and Israel the victim.

On June 8th JINSA issued Report #995, claiming, “Turkish government support for the IHH ship in the Gaza flotilla is now well understood and the anti-Semitic ravings of both official Turks and the Turkish media have made Turkey’s intention to split from Israel clear… The Hamas-Turkey relationship has grown as the Turkey-Palestinian Authority relationship, the relationship supported by the United States and the EU, has declined. Rapproachment with Russia, Syria and Iran, and the Iran-Brazil-Turkey enriched uranium deal are more of the same.”

The JINSA screed ends with a threat and a demand: “Turkey, as a member of NATO, is privy to intelligence information having to do with terrorism and with Iran. If Turkey finds its best friends to be Iran, Hamas, Syria and Brazil (look for Venezuela in the future) the security of that information (and Western technology in weapons in Turkey’s arsenal) is suspect. The United States should seriously consider suspending military cooperation with Turkey as a prelude to removing it from the organization.”

JINSA, of course, includes such neocon icons as John Bolton, Dr. Stephen D. Bryen, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, Richard Perle, Stephen Solarz, Kenneth Timmerman and R. James Woolsey.
The same day that JINSA issued their pronouncement, Daniel Pipes delivered his rant, proclaiming that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a more dangerous radical Islamist than Osama bin-Laden. “If once only a small band of analysts recognized Erdogan’s Islamist outlook, this fact has now become obvious for the whole world to see. Erdogan has gratuitously discarded his carefully crafted image of a pro-Western `Muslim democrat,’ making it far easier to treat him as the Tehran-Damascus ally that he is.”
And what might be Pipes’ remedy? “Turkey has returned to the center of the Middle East and the umma. But it no longer deserves full NATO membership, and its opposition parties deserve support.”
Victor Davis Hanson took an extra few days to come out both barrels blazing against Turkey’s NATO membership. He penned a June 10th National Review Online assault, “The New Wannabe Ottomans,” blaming Turkey for allowing the flotilla of aid ships, bound for Gaza, to leave from a Turkish port, thus forcing Israel to attack. But the diatribe was nothing new. He observed: “Lately, Turkey has reached out to Iran and Syria. Both habitually sponsor Mideast terrorist groups and have aided anti-American insurgents in Iraq. Turkey and Brazil recently offered to monitor Iran’s nuclear program, sidestepping American and European efforts to step up sanctions to stop Teheran’s plans for a bomb. Erdogan’s anti-Israel attacks often match those of his newfound friends, Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah’s Hasan Nasrallah… What is behind Turkey’s metamorphosis from a staunch U.S. ally, NATO member, and quasi-European state into a sponsor of Hamas, ally of theocratic Iran, and fellow traveler with terrorist-sponsoring Syria?”
Hanson’s answer: “Turkey senses a growing distance between Tel Aviv and Washington, and thus an opportunity to step into the gulf to unite Muslims against Israel and win influence in the Arab world.”
And guess what Hanson poses as the solution: “Turkey’s new ambitions and ethnic and religious chauvinism are antithetical to its NATO membership. The U.S. should not be treaty-bound to defend a de facto ally of Iran or Syria, which are both eager to obtain nuclear weapons… In response, the U.S. should make contingency plans to relocate from its huge Air Force base at Incirlik… If Erdogan is intent on a suicidal reinvention of Turkey into a pale imitation of Ottoman hegemony, we can at least take steps to ensure that it will be his mess—and none of our own.”
If I didn’t know something about the neoconservatives, and their worship of the late Leo Strauss, I would be a bit more stunned by the sheer chutzpah of their deceptions and sophistic defenses of Israel’s baffling and indefensible actions. But I am not shocked, having lived through the neocon’s golden age during Bush and Cheney. We are still paying the price for their “Clean Break” with reality. Let us just hope that between Bob Gates, Jim Jones, and Hillary Clinton, they have enough of a sense of humor, and enough of an appreciation of the Israeli disinformation machinery, that they won’t be lured into buying these tall tales and doing something foolish.
10 June 2010 in Israel | Permalink
TrackBack.

"Maybe we'll have to cancel our $30 billion dollar aid package to the Netherlands; reconsider our support for the endless Dutch occupation and colonization of Flanders; think twice about the incessant Dutch demands for sanctions and regime change in France, and its frequent threats of war against France; withdraw our vetoes for four decades of UN sanctions against the Dutch; and worry ourselves much more about the effects of the blowback of the Dutch-American partnership on the well-being of US troops fighting our two ongoing wars in central Europe."

Agreed with these lines of Dan, is there any further info about this?