question for M and Chris Alger

Could someone please explain to me why the Isreal v. Palestine conflict has become such a prominent piece of kitsch in the conservative v. liberal debate here in the US? Why do conservatives always side with Israel? Why do liberals always side with the Palestinians? Why do Americans give f#!@ about what goes on over there? Sounds callous I know but horrible things happen all the time in all corners of the world.

His views are here for eveyone to tead. It's very obvious.

probably its (the discussion in the media) a staged event.


but a lot of money flows between israel and washington, so theres your answer.


brad

More Zionist conspiracy! Mr.Alger would be proud!

what? theres really no power group that has interest in the palestinians. so im saying maybe some people just play devils advocate.


as to why theres support for israel, well, theres multibillion dollar ties between israel and US, and multimillion between israel and our politicians (look up PACs and see who the top special interest groups are) .


do you dispute any of this?


brad

Good questions. I don't know.

For me, the problem is unique in that its history reaches back many millenia and the issues of past political eras still get played out in this conflict. To understand it fully one needs to study the history of the region going back thousands of years. This cannot be said about many political conflicts of today. The history of this conflict is tied up in colonialism, "east-west relations", European Nationalism, Pan Arabism, WWII, etc.. That makes it very unique. Most of the land disputes of the colonial era are gone today, whereas this one persists. The fact that it is fought in the holy seat of two of the largest religions on the planet adds to people's interest as well.


Plus, because Israel is supported heavily by the U.S. I think Americans should care about their actions. I think it is a useful yardstick for measuring America's tolerance of agression and violence in an ally's behavior. To stand by while they assassinate people, bulldoze homes and police stations, torture prisoner's, hold people without trial, etc.. is an indictment of U.S. foreign policy. We cannot claim to have high moral standards regarding human rights worldwide if we continue to support this behavior.


That is my opinion.


KJS

Fine. You get rid of the terrorists and we'll make Israel stop doing that stuff.

just for the record, when the US starts to hold people without trial, torture and assassinate its own citizens, etc., then im definitely going to be a terrorist.


brad

1. If that should ever come to pass, please keep your attacks to the real targets: governmental, military or political figures. Don't go kill some little girl having a birthday party or innocent families at random. See the difference? Our founding fathers would have been terrorists had they savagely killed the families of those who supported Britain. Instead they showed some logic and human decency, and attacked the enemy soldiers while leaving the families of the Tories pretty much alone.


If you were to start killing other folks who were merely people eating cheeseburgers in a McDonald's because the US had turned into a tyrranical regime, you would be an even greater moron and a greater sinner than the oppressors. That is what I have against terrorists: they are IDIOTS who target the WRONG PEOPLE, people who have NOTHING whatsoever to do with their "beefs" (pardon the pun please;-)). This is an unforgivable sin against humanity and one of the stupidest actions anyone could ever conjecture.

geez, M , you respond to all my frivolous posts in great detail. youre right, those palestinians who blow up people at shopping malls are criminals and terrorists; i dont think anyone ever said you were wrong on that.


brad

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid, which it uses to steal the land of others at gunpoint in the name of racial supremacy. I think it's wrong, and because I'm an American I bear some responsibility to speak out against it. More pragmatically, the middle east is a flashpoint for modern wars, and cauldron of anti-U.S. sentiment. The last thing this country or Israel needs are policies driven by racism and dominated by violence.


I'm not sure where you get the idea that this debate is "prominent" in the U.S. I don't know of any prominent politician from either party that has criticized our bias or has advocated cutting lethal aid to Israel (unless you want to call Pat Buchanan prominent, but he's basically an American-firster and a borderline anti-semite). Stylistically, Gore was probably more slavishly devoted to Israel than Bush, Clinton (Bill) more so than President-in-Effect Baker, although I don't think these difference have much affect on policy. Serious criticsim of Israel is decidedly outside the mainstream in the U.S., although not anywhere else in the world, including Israel. Also, I think a lot of people are at least skeptical of rationales provided for the arms aid, the extra-judicial killings, the torture, harrassment, arbitrary detention and children shootings, but are afraid to say anything for fear of being tagged anti-semetic, a pretty nasty thing to be.


Why do Americans care? Most don't, which immediately says much about popular influence over foreign policy. The ones that do, jew and gentile alike, are often so blinded by romantic visions of holocaust survivors in tiny Israel fighting for their national life against racist Arab thugs that they find it difficult to confront the reality of what actually happens there. When I mention the basic human rights issues, or a nation of Paleistinians into their fourth generation of living in shithole refugee camps, the first response I almost always get is that this has to be someone else's fault.

'call Pat Buchanan prominent, but he's basically an American-firster and a borderline anti-semite'


how is he anti-semite?


brad

obviously you didnt see the photo of him wearing the knee-high black leather storm trooper boots ..and nothing else

From this morning's NYTimes:


"In the Gaza town of Khan Yunis, three Palestinian civilians, including a mother and her 14-year-old daughter, were killed early Tuesday when an Israeli tank shell hit their homes, Palestinian witnesses said. The army declined comment."


Notice that the IDF doesn't even try to justify it. Ha'aretz had more details on the killings:


"Miriam al Bahbasa, 40, her daughter Mona, 10, and Abd al Wahab a Najar, 18, were killed Monday night when tank shells hit their homes in the Gaza town of Khan Yunis. The IDF bombed the area in response to an infiltration attempt Monday to the Gaza Strip settlement of Morag."


It's a tank firing directly into homes in order to destroy them and kill their occupants. It isn't "collateral damage," or an accidental stray shot, or the inadvertent killing of civilian demonstrators standing in front of snipers. It's terrorism, American-bankrolled and American-backed, and it makes any protestor of terrorism directed against Israel or the U.S. that doesn't condemn acts like these with equal force a hypocrite who picks his sympathies by race. It is nevertheless a hypocrisy that is de rigeur for "respectable" politicians and pundits of the American mainstream.


The Times also reports that "A group of 1,200 retired Israeli security officials, meanwhile, proposed an immediate Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the dismantling of 40 to 50 isolated Jewish settlements in the West Bank."


I can't name two prominent U.S. liberals that have encouraged anything so radical, that is by U.S. standards.


The irony of this statement is that these are people who devoted their adult lives to protecting Israel and Israelis, people who live and have families there. Their conclusion that occupation means less security for Israel should be given a bit more weight than the so-called "supporters" of Israel, safe, comfortable and complacent 5,000 miles away, happy to make Israelis the endless instigators and victims of terrorism and related horrors, in order to vindicate their twisted notions of racial supremacy.

I have many other reasons for disliking Buchanan, so I haven't followed it that closely. The reason I prefaced it with "borderline" is that I think the case is circumstantial, although strong. He's certainly not anti-semitic in the manner of casual Christian or Arab bigots or stridently hateful like the neo-nazis, but his ambivalent references to Hitler, his outspoken defense of accused nazi war criminals (he was vindicated in at least one case, if I recall correctly), his fervent unapologetic Catholicism, his failure to condemn flagrant anti-semitism by the Christian and anticommunist rightists, his questioning of certain (minor) aspects of the holocaust, are disturbing in their consistency. Most damning is W.F. Buckley, Jr.'s conclusion that the charge of antisemitism against him was, to paraphrase, "not unjustified." He's also antigay and antiblack, and these things often go together.


Finally, his otherwise legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and U.S. support for it is sometimes couched in unecessarily racial terms, like his reference to Israel's "amen corner" in the U.S. But I wouldn't count his reference to Capital Hill as being "Israeli-occupied territory" as evidence of antisemitism, as others do, although I don't agree with it and wouldn't say it.

As long as there are people like Sharon and Netanyahu in place and dominant in the Israeli government, cooler heads will not prevail. Pressure needs to be exerted for all parties to stand back and come to the negotiation table in good faith. That table must include the chosen representative of the Palestinians, Arafat.