Showing posts with label israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label israel. Show all posts
Friday, July 27, 2007
Saudi Arms Deal Is Desperately Stupid
Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. On July 15th, the LA Times revealed that 45% of insurgents attacking our troops came from this despotic monarchy. 50% of the Saudi insurgents come in as suicide attackers.
Today, it was revealed that Saudi Arabia provided forged documents about Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki giving secret assistance to radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr in order to destabilize the goverment. The Saudis are arming the insurgency. They are funding the insurgency. Tomorrow, the NY Times reveals the reward they receive for destabilizing Iraq and the region.
— The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to total $20 billion over the next decade at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.
The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.
Saudi Arabia gets advanced weaponry, Israel gets more military goodies and this is designed to make the region more secure? When the next crisis in the middle east occurs, now you don't have to wonder why.
Friday, May 11, 2007
The Israeli authorities are planning to build three new Jewish neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, an area regarded as occupied land under international law.
The plan, which has yet to receive final approval, would involve building about 20,000 homes.
The Palestinian chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said the plan destroyed efforts to re-start the peace process.
Sure, Israelis need places to live, and the Hamas led Palestinian government are a bunch of lunatics, but is this really that great of an idea? Tel Aviv is not such a bad city. Why do the Palestinians and the Israelis insist on pissing each other off regularly? Is it just custom at this point? I am sure that suicide bombers will start strapping on vests soon, because that obviously is a solution that works.
We are doomed.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Alan Derschowitz believes that Jimmy Carter is too hard on Israel, and not critical enough of arabs. To prove this, he writes an article for FrontPage Magazine, the brainchild of lunatic David Horowitz. Horowitz, while not trying to shut down academic freedom on college campuses has become a favorite of right wing media exposing his former "comrades" on the left. Horowitz turned from radical marxism to radical right wing kookery without ever taking a reflective pause in the middle. That Dershowitz would align himself with a person who rejects academic independence, in order to criticize Jimmy Carter's lack of independence is a bit ironic. A highlight from the article.
The entire premise of his criticism of Jewish influence on American foreign policy is that money talks. It is Carter, not me, who has made the point that if politicians receive money from Jewish sources, then they are not free to decide issues regarding the Middle East for themselves. It is Carter, not me, who has argued that distinguished reporters cannot honestly report on the Middle East because they are being paid by Jewish money. So, by Carter's own standards, it would be almost economically "suicidal" for Carter "to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine."
By Carter's own standards, therefore, his views on the Middle East must be discounted. It is certainly possible that he now believes them. Money, particularly large amounts of money, has a way of persuading people to a particular position. It would not surprise me if Carter, having received so much Arab money, is now honestly committed to their cause. But his failure to disclose the extent of his financial dependence on Arab money, and the absence of any self reflection on whether the receipt of this money has unduly influenced his views, is a form of deception bordering on corruption.
I have met cigarette lobbyists, who are supported by the cigarette industry, and who have come to believe honestly that cigarettes are merely a safe form of adult recreation, that cigarettes are not addicting and that the cigarette industry is really trying to persuade children not to smoke. These people are fooling themselves (or fooling us into believing that they are fooling themselves) just as Jimmy Carter is fooling himself (or persuading us to believe that he is fooling himself).
So Carter is like a cigarette lobbyist in denial. I think Dersch is the person in denial here. Are the arab states worse than Israel. Yes. This is ALWAYS where Alan ends his analysis. If Carter is corrupted by Arab financing, how is that different than the vast amounts of pro-likkud financing in the US. I carefully distinguish between hawkish lunatics from Israel and the US on one hand, and the Israeli citizenry on the other.
The politics of Israel is a minefield waiting to explode on anybody who ventures near it, but Alan Derschowitz' arrogance and blindness on the subject compels me to respond. Israel has tortured suspects not convicted of any crime (so have we). Israel responds to attacks with force many times greater than the original provocation (so do we). Israel has gotten in bed with some very bad people, like the Apartheid regime in South Africa(so have we).
My government has also done some wonderful things. So has the government of Israel. I criticize Tony Blair often. It does not make me anti-brit. We apparently can not discuss the middle east in this country without names being thrown, tempers reaching the boiling point, and the debate eventually being stifled.
I criticize my government for the wrongs it commits out of a love for my country, and because I expect better of it. It's a mature love. Israelis commonly criticize their government for their blunders. Today's report on Olmert's "leadership" during the Lebanon crisis is a great example of that. Citizens continually complain, agitate against the policies of their leadership.
People like Alan Derschowitz help create the dishonest debate we have in this country. So, I have a proposal for him. Get in a debate with Carter but with a different set of ground rules. Be critical of your own side for a change. There are grievances by everybody. Carter must discuss the ways (which are myriad) that the arab states are doing terrible things. Derschowitz must go through a laundry list of ways in which Israel should improve.
It will never happen, but until we stop doing my side right or wrong, the middle east will continue to be the cesspool of hatred that continues to harm the poor, the powerless, and will not create a common good.
P.S. Dersch being a proponent of torture and the ticking clock scenario does not really help out his moral authority here. Just saying.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
In another unsigned editorial today, neo-con war supporter Fred Hiatt of the Washington Post bashes Nancy Pelosi for her trip to Syria. The editorial needs to be dissected because it is such a stunning example of intellectual dishonesty that it should be exposed for all it's glory.
HOUSE SPEAKER Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad. After a meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in Damascus, Ms. Pelosi announced that she had delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that "Israel was ready to engage in peace talks" with Syria. What's more, she added, Mr. Assad was ready to "resume the peace process" as well. Having announced this seeming diplomatic breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi suggested that her Kissingerian shuttle diplomacy was just getting started. "We expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.
nly one problem: The Israeli prime minister entrusted Ms. Pelosi with no such message. "What was communicated to the U.S. House Speaker does not contain any change in the policies of Israel," said a statement quickly issued by the prime minister's office. In fact, Mr. Olmert told Ms. Pelosi that "a number of Senate and House members who recently visited Damascus received the impression that despite the declarations of Bashar Assad, there is no change in the position of his country regarding a possible peace process with Israel." In other words, Ms. Pelosi not only misrepresented Israel's position but was virtually alone in failing to discern that Mr. Assad's words were mere propaganda.
Wow, Pelosi apparently has egg on her face. She heads to the middle east. She lies about what Israel said to her, and then she totally got taken in by that butcher in Syria. What was she thinking? Here is time for a reality check. Israel ALWAYS says that their policy isn't changing even when it is being shifted. We also have to consider that Olmert is playing to several audiences here. He is playing to the hard liners in his country, he is playing to the international audience, as well at to commander cuckoo bananas.
In fact, those congress members who have met with Assad were sent there by Bush apparently. So, Bush sends some wingnuts to Assad, and they come away and say that Assad is an evil butcher. No surprise in that. Pelosi comes talking to Olmert, who explains to her what is going on, but tells her in private that he is really flexible in working with Syria. Olmert cuts her out when the Bush administration bitches to him about Pelosi trying to conduct foreign policy.
It's a bit more nuanced than what Fred Hiatt is suggesting. This is typical of a Fred Hiatt editorial though. All neo-con spin is more important than getting at anything near the truth. Fred Hiatt continues this editorial and gets even worse.
Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president. Two weeks ago Ms. Pelosi rammed legislation through the House of Representatives that would strip Mr. Bush of his authority as commander in chief to manage troop movements in Iraq. Now she is attempting to introduce a new Middle East policy that directly conflicts with that of the president. We have found much to criticize in Mr. Bush's military strategy and regional diplomacy. But Ms. Pelosi's attempt to establish a shadow presidency is not only counterproductive, it is foolish.
Now, we know what this is all about. Fred Hiatt is afraid Pelosi is going to curtail his glorious war in Iraq so it's time to take her to the woodshed. Fred Hiatt does not point out that Syria co-operated with Bush on terrorism, or that our government sent people to Syria to be tortured under the rendition program. Yes, Syria is a brutal government. We use them for their brutality as a matter of fact.
The Bush doctrine of calling somebody an enemy and never talking to them again because we only use diplomacy with friends is an interesting theory. By interesting I mean categorically stupid, historically false, and bound to be a failure, just like the war that Fred Hiatt is afraid that Pelosi might bother to stop.
Nothing is a greater example than the Uk soldier crisis. Bush's theory was that we yell and scream and insult. The UK thought talking might work. Thank goodness Fred Hiatt was away from the typewriter yesterday. His advice likely would have been that the Brittish step aside for those masters of diplomacy known as Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and Condi Rice.
This all being said, I do have concerns about Pelosi engaging in diplomacy in the region as a member of the house. The problem is that somebody has to do it. There is such a leadership gap, our worldwide credibility is so shot, that peace will not be possible under this administration. Nobody trusts us. Nobody trusts you Fred Hiatt, except for your devoted fans at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Update:
There is other stuff on the homepage too. Just saying ;)
Sunday, March 18, 2007
RUSALEM (Reuters) - The United States said on Sunday its ban on direct aid to the Palestinian government would remain in place but it broke ranks with Israel by authorizing contacts with some members of the new unity administration.
The U.S. consulate in Jerusalem said Washington would continue to shun Hamas ministers in the power-sharing Palestinian cabinet but permit contacts with non-Hamas members on a case-by-case basis.
The decision to allow some contacts marked a shift in U.S. policy and a split with Israel, which said it would boycott the new government in its entirety, including non-Hamas ministers.
That is very white of us. Because of course, economic sanctions have worked so well in the past to make countries love us. I mean take a look at Cuba for example. The policy will work as soon as we can pay off Castro's doctors.
The people of Palestine voted for Hamas. I disagreed with their decision, but the choice was theirs to make. They took the unprecedented step of actually compromising, and allowing some powersharing with Fatah that lost the election. What more do we want here exactly? A revote? Best two out of three?
Do we honestly think that several more years of living in squalor is going to teach the Palestinians a lesson and they will embrace us for giving them the tough love they needed? What is the objective of this policy? Where in the past has following this policy produced the results that are desired? Or are these the actual desired results? More conflict in Israel and Palestine means more unstable mideast which helps keep oil prices high. You don't have to be a radical conspiracy theorist to believe that the Bush administration is doing about everything in it's power to destabilize the region. Incompetence or Evil?
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Sad story from the BBC about an Israeli woman and a Palestinian man who committed the crime of falling in love.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.
There also are reports that the US and Israel are seeking to get countries including Iraq to allow Israel to use their airspace to launch attacks against Iran. Israel is officially denying the speculation. However a defense official did was talking to the media.
Britain's Daily Telegraph quotes an unnamed Israeli defense official as saying planning negotiations are under way for all possibilities, including strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities.
Armegeddon's coming soon, and I don't have a thing to wear.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.
No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.
Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.
Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.
My guess is that the evidence will be compelling but not confirming. Fundamentalists will scream from the rafters that this is blasphemy because it goes against the bible. Committed atheists will want to believe this story even on evidence that isn't absolute, and we will all learn nothing from this other than how to scream at each other louder.
Should be fun.
Effi Shafir/AP
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
