"...I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state..."

Not really concerned about the racial/ethnic
makeup of America is he?

He has just made the belief in wild-eyed
conspiracies obsolete as he essentially confirms
that his primary foreign policy goal is to
defend another nation.

Treasonous!

JH -- Assuming you're not joking (and frankly, taken by itself I would have assumed your comment is a joke), did you actually bother to read the speech before you found a remark to yank out of context? Did you assume we wouldn't read the speech?

I can understand how people like J.H and Derek may disagree with the President's caring a little or a lot for the security of a foreign country. What I can not understand is how they can think his, and other Republican adminstration's, have done this to please a hyphenated ethnic group (as they would term it) that consistently gives 70% to 80% of their votes and a disproportionate amount of their money to the GOP's opposition. I suspect the main reason is that the GOP's position contrary to interest would weaken their main claim, that the policy to supprt Israel is so wrong that it can only be supported by coercion or by interest.

Wow. We're about to see hyperventilating of world historic proportions from Europe and the Arab world.

1.
...the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security...

does make Bush outrageously pro-Israel, since it's most definitely not the goal of the current Palestinian leadership and those who support it.

2.
Other treasonous presidents, it would appear, are Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush 1, for their strong commitment to safeguarding foreign countries (in this case against the threat of Soviet expansion.)

3.
Israel is very fortunate to have the impassioned support of President Bush and a considerable swath of the American people. I believe it is very grateful for this support. Having said that, it should be clear that were Israel to depend solely on American support for its existence, it would cease to exist.

4.
Every time I hear these expressions of support, the cynic on my left shoulder muses whether it's meant to balance the administration's relationship with Saudi Arabia, and/or to mute or deflect criticism of that problematic (?) relationship from "the usual suspects."

MG,

If you want to pretend that Jewish groups have no influence beyond votes, go ahead. It's impossible to have a discussion with someone who's got his head stuck in the ground.

To the larger issue, this symbiotic relationship is not only bad for the U.S., but it's really not good for the Israelis themselves. The problem is both countries have mistaken the process for the goal. Israel obsesses about getting American aid, and the U.S. obsesses about finding a solution to what may very well be an insoluble problem. Both countries lose sight of the fact that Israel's security is damaged in the long run by becoming unhealthily dependent on a government subsidy and U.S. interests are damaged by our over-identification with one side in a conflict. And really, if free money is bad for welfare recipients, what magic makes it good for the Israelis?

The U.S. should phase out its aid to Israel over a 5-10 year period. This way the Israelis will have the incentive to make needed reforms to their government and defense posture, and they won't have to be beholden to Washington's fits of pique. The U.S. for its part can disentangle itself from the fight, and reduce (though not eliminate) the toxic debates we have over here on this issue.

It goes without out saying, of course, the same thing should happen with other countries on the dole.

Barry,

You're right about the corrupting influence of the Saudis. That's another dysfunctional relationship that needs some serious correction.

Derek:

Your point, when you made it less carefully, but more honestly, was that President Bush: " in his shameless pursuit of Jewish money and influence, he's outsource our foreign policy in the Mideast to the Likud government".

That is not an argument about influence but a delusion of control by Jews.

He has for the most part outsourced his Mideast Policy to the Likudniks. That isn't about "Jews," as not all Jews are Likudniks. Or are you going to make that racist claim?

Look, the people who crafted his Iraq policy are all intimately tied to the Likud party and have been advocating the very policy he's put into place. From the PNAC plan in the late 90s up until now this has all been on paper, and Bush has agreed to largely hoping, among many other things, to win Jewish support. To deny this is to refuse to reason from the facts available.

Not all Jews are Elders of Zion either.

Again, I repeat what I wrote earlier. You've lost the arguments, so now you play "gotcha!" and take refuge in trying to accuse me of thought-crime.

You're better than that, OJ.

Derek:

I don't think it's a thought crime. People who feel evenbts are beyond their control oreven understanding tend to grasp at ways to understand them. Often conspiracy comes into play. George Bush is a universalist American in the tradition of the Founders, Lincoln, Wilson, Reagan, etc. That justifiably frightens people. In particular it upsets folks who have it pretty good here and no desire to get entagled abroad.

Your problem is you can't accept that enduring theme of our history and seek explanations for it in dark places--like control by Jews.

Derek: What exactly does "Likudnik" mean to you, since Bush endorsed Sharon's plan, which was rejected by the members of Likud, who I would assume are the natural folks to call "Likudniks", unless we are speaking in code again...

You're giving no credit to the President or those of the rest of us who are not Jewish, who honestly feel that Israel, while by no means perfect, is unquestionably the side on the moral high ground. Why do we think that? Besides the fact that Israel is a democracy surrounded by thugocracies, it seems undeniable that if Israel disarmed, it would be destroyed, while if the Palestinian disarmed, they would have their state.

Derek --

I am sorry for being confused, but you keep moving the goal posts. Your first accusations (here and in other posts) allude to a broad, moneyed Jewish influence. Clearly, there can be little interest on any Republican adminstration to follow a pro-Israeli policy purely as a fucntion of gathering electoral favors.

You "clarify" the issue by suggesting that the problem is the cabal known as neo-cons, which without broad money or influence (it must be those big juicy brains) have been able to corrupt Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. Yet, this was not the original red herring you raised.

Bush's Israel policy is the product of our reaction to September 11th, Arafat's continuation to disgrace himself, and the simple fact that Likud IS the current government of Israel. (Among a million other reasons.) Moreover, I have heard Erud Barak a number of times praise president Bush's prosecution of the war on terror and it sounded indistinguishable from what you would hear from Sharon. In addition, he was clear in saying he (and Israel and the US) had been betrayed by Arafat and the Arab world when concessions were sought and given. You ignore all of this before cavalierly assuming a Likud-neo con inspired con. (And by the way, given that Bush is supporting Sharon's unilateral withdrawal when Likud is not, perhaps Bush is not a Likud puppet but just a Sharon puppet.)

But to quote you: there is no point arguing with someone who has his head stuck in the mud, opps, ground.

I never claimed some broad, unitary influence. What you call "moving the goalposts" is actually your projecting your beliefs onto me based on a few posts--never a good idea. I've simply stated the money and the influence are there and politicians adjust their policy accordingly. If my wording was confusing, then I do apologize. You might do well by next time asking for a clarification instead of flying off the handle.

As far as I can tell, Bush's policy has been pretty much the same since he took office, make meaningless gestures to Palestinians (talk about a state) but never back it up with any substantive action. Worse, he's appointed individuals, such as Elliot Abrams, into critical MidEast policy positions even though they clearly have an emotional attachment to one side in the conflict. He then takes this to Jewish lobbying groups (though not Jews in general) and gets their support, both financial and rhetorical.

Now, I'm not going to say that the other side has been perfect. They have been far from it. But that's not point. The point is, we're heavily identified with one side in a conflict whose outcome has no direct bearing on our national security, and we're in this mess partly because of very powerful ethnic lobbying groups who reduce our leader's room to manuever.

Brian,

Despite the claims made, I have never said Jews control every aspect of the conversation. Nor have I even said we should support the other side or that Israel is entirely wrong. What I have said is that Jewish lobbying groups do exert a powerful, and perhaps unhealthy influence (and not just for the U.S., but for Israel and Jews at-large as well).

Now perhaps you agree 100% with our policy. Fine. But what happens when a new group of immigrants, say Muslims, come in and do the very same thing, using the very same tools? This is not healthy for any republic. This is why I wasn't thrilled with the news of Indian lobbying groups forming up.

Brian,

In answer to your question, I would say by Likudnik, I'm referring to the circle of neocons who run our mideast policy and who have excessively close ties to the Likud Party. These include, but are not limited to, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas[?] Feith, Eliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, Thomas Donnelly, Michael Ledeen and others. Some are in power, others are not. Many are Jewish, but some are not. Their policies, however, do have the support of most Jewish lobbying groups (which, once again, I'll will concur does not represent all Jews).

Derek:

George Bush runs our policy and he's doing it because he's an evangelical, not a pawn of the Jews.

Strawman. I never said he was a pawn. You wrote that.

He's an active player. I'm sure his beliefs play a role, too, but they are influenced and exaggerated by the people he surrounds himself with, and by his desire to curry favor with Jewish lobbying groups and PACs.

In addition to the president, we haven't also touched on the power and influence wielded by these groups in Congress, who tend to be more pro-Israeli than even the President.

What does Congress have to do with the war? They rolled over like a whipped cur. And the Democrats oppose Israeli interests despite getting Jewish money and votes. Indeed, American Jews are generally less pro-Israel than conservative Christians.

Derek:

Are these Likudniks exercising such influence with or in opposition to the oil companies?

I Have made a contribution to JNF and asked them to plant trees in Israel to honor President Bush.

Derek and JH are Trolls. Do not feed Trolls.

Derek Copold is no troll.

It is, however--or ought to be--instructive to remember that his views reflect (as far as I can make out) that body of opinion that believed unequivocally that the First Gulf War was fought at the instigation of Israel and her nefarious supporters, that it was fought only because it was in Israel's interest to do so, or because Israel was the main beneficiary. As I recall, the argument went so far as to claim that Gulf War I was against America's wider foreign policy interests.

With which the current attitude is perfectly consistent.

In 1991, American foreign policy was driven by the "Amen Corner." Now it's being driven by the Likud (though it was pointed out, rather cleverly, above that the Likud seems to have put itself in opposition to both Sharon and Bush; but never mind, I guess).

(One might also make the point that it is only because of the Likud that American foreign policy has concluded that---take your pick---the Saddam should cease to be a threat to the US and/or Iraqis should not have to continue to live under his thuggish regime, and/or establishing accountable Arab countries is a goal that will have ramifications for US security in the years to come (a.k.a. "the long view"). Presumably, it is also because of the Likud that the Taliban were overthrown and continue to be pursued in Pakistan, and a (one hopes, a long-term) more accountable government. But then, some might point out that it's only because of the Likud that the US is in this thing anyway, because who really was responsible for 9/11?....)

Now, it would certainly be better for Israel's interest (and everyone else involved) for Israel to get off the "American dole"; though presenting the issue as Israel being "on the American dole" is a value statement clearly indicating the belief that all assistance in this relationship is a one-way street.

Question: Is it possible that the US reaps some benefit from its relationship from Israel unknown to those who believe that the relationship is against US interests? Or is it "lose-lose" for the US all the way? (And if the latter, what might prompt such a conclusion.)

So what benefits does the US actually get from supporting Israel?

Not flaming, just curious.

Ali:

The three intractable conflicts of the 20th Century--Israel/South Africa/Irealand--shared one common trait, each was geographically located at a vital naval point. We no longer think in such terms, but they meant something forty-fifty years ago.

Today Israel is important because it is part of the anaconda with which we have the Arab World surrounded and because if push came to shove we know they'd go nuclear, even if we were too scared to.

That said, it has probably caused more problems for us than it has solved if considered only in realist geostrategic terms..

Can't say I know much about nukes but doesn't the US Navy have subs and aircraft carriers which could easily launch missiles and bombers from the Arabian Sea or the Mediteranean{sp?}?

News to the Irish, I'm sure....

Ali:

Now we do--but we were only too happy to have the Afrikaaners, Israelis and Brits running those places in the 40s-50s.

Barry:

Notice we never cared about what the Brits did in Northern Ireland?

I guess you didn't infer but the point of my
comment was that Bush is willing to support
Israel as a mono-ethnic (or at least a dominant
ethnic) state, while we on the other hand must be content to be some sort of Marxist utopia
where people are magically transformed into
"New Men". I believe there is a racial core to America without which it cannot survive,
despite what you may have been led to believe.

No I am not a troll, but it is telling that in
so-called "conservative" circles I would get labeled as such for having such a heterodox position on Israel.

J.H.

Israel isn't America. Your suggestion that we should become more like it seems at odds with your general anti-Semitism.

J.H.

Heterodox? I think you have all too many friends.

Peter,

There are oil interests at play as well. They have their own views. Sometimes they accord with the neocons, as in Iraq, which created what you might call storm conditions that led to the war.

OJ,

Congress controls the purse strings. That their opposition was muted shows what constraints they operated under.

Barry,

No, my own view is not that the First Gulf War was fought solely for Israel's benefit, though obviously, the Israelis did have an interest in that war and made their feelings known directly and through their American lobbyists.

The First Gulf War (of which I was a participant) was due to the same "storm conditions" I cited above. Looking back, I believe we all would have been better off letting the locals deal with Hussein. The Arabs would have turned on themselves and OPEC would have shattered. Indeed, being threatened by Iraq, Syria and Egypt would have been more congenial to reassessing their relationship with the Israelis, possibly even allying with them.

Barry's question about the benefits of supporting Israel makes me nervous because those who ask it tend to make certain assumptions that are no more objective or rational than the support Israel gets from evangelists. Having done a guest stint in the Canadian Foreign Ministry many years ago, I am convinced that the problem of Arabists in Western foreign ministries stems from staring at this huge swath of land on the map and succumbing to a romantic notion that riches and influence in Araby are there for the taking if only this irksome little country could be contained or sidelined. What evidence is there that, but for Israel, the area would generally be more peaceful, democratic or more pro-West or that American influence would be greater? Do people believe their gas would be cheaper?

The genius of the Arab world is how it has convinced so many that Israel is "blocking" some resolution or accommodation (through uncontrollable popular passions the leaders can't control) that would benefit us all. This is also the source, I believe, of the current rise in anti-Semitism.

Israel is there. Why does it need to prove its usefulness any more than Holland or Bangladesh?

OJ,

When the British committed atrocities in Northern Ireland, we were not identified with them because we don't subsidize them. The same cannot be said of Israel. This is why I want to phase the aid out. Both countries long-term interests are damaged by our current policy.

Peter,

I agree that even if Israel had never come into existence, the Middle East would still be a hellhole, and we would still have our problems. However, our one-sided (and ultimately unhealthy) support tremendously complicates the problem.

Derek:

Controls the pursestrings? How were they going to bring the troops home when Bush said no?

Of course we subsidize the British--war debt, Marshall Plan, WWII, etc...

.

OJ, you're not being serious here. Those subisidies were over long before the trouble in Northern Ireland exploded. Fairly or unfairly, we are not identified with the British nearly as much as we are with the Israelis. That's a fact.

As to Congress, they gave Bush his authorization to use force, and they could have insisted on a declaration of war. They also write and approve the very subsidies were talking about.

Washington's policy has been, since 1967, to guarantee Israel's security, Israel's existence, against those who would destroy it (at least, against those who have threatened to do so, and who have acted accordingly).

This makes the US undeniably (and unconscionably) one-sided; and for this reason, it cannot be remotely considered as a balanced arbiter in the conflict between Israel and her neighbors.

For although the US has, of late, stated the conditions under which it would support the creation of a Palestinian state, it has never, ever guaranteed the existence of either Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Iraq, or the Emirates.

And that is the whole shameful one-sided story.

Barry
Unfortunately, or inadvertantly, the US did guarantee the existence of Saudi Arabia in 1991.

Maybe it was just a case of temporary insanity.

Bush sez:

"In its [antisemitism's] cruder forms, it can be found in some Arab media, and this government will continue to call upon Arab governments to end libels and incitements."

Oh yeah? Then why the #$^@ are we still sending the Egyptians $2,000,000,000/year?

And when are the "targetted assassinations" of Saudi clerics going to start alreadu?

Sorry Ralph, never happened.

The US has never protected Saudia Arabia. Never redeemed Kuwait. Never helped the Muslims in Kosovo. Doesn't help Egypt. Or Jordan. Never tried to assist Muslims anywhere. Afghanistan? Iraq? Forget about it.

How do we know this?

Simply because the US supports Israel. And thus, by definition, can't be an impartial arbiter in the conflict.

(Actually, though, it's quite true that one might claim that I'm totally wrong, that the US indeed has supported certain Arab countries and has helped certain Muslim polities. But I think you'd find the overall response would be "So what?")

Remember, perceptions rule. Not reality. Screw reality (especially when it doesn't fit your perceptions).

(Not to worry, overly, though. The reliabiliity of Arab clients/allies is something that great nations who dabble in this neck of the woods are forced to discover from time to time. E.g., Aneurin Bevan, Leonid Brezhnov. One wonders which American administration it will be.)

Oops. Should have said, "Sorry Ralph and h-man,...."

And should be "Brezhnev."

Barry - I'm a bit puzzled by your response.

I'm all too aware of how much we do for Muslims, and how little we get in return. Which is why I want to get a liittle more hard-@$$ in our dealings with them. One of my complaints about Bush is that he's trying too much of his "uniter not a divider" fluff with the Muslim world, much of which makes Ted Kennedy look honorable and trustworthy.

I was not kidding with either of my questions/policy proposals. I think we would be perfectly within our rights to start lobbing cluster bombs at madrassas and "Islamic Universities."

Seems I haven't yet mastered the questionable art of irony. I'll have to work harder at it. Apologies.