March 16, 2006
THE NEW JERUSALEM AND THE OLD:
The Israel Lobby (John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, 3/23/06, London Review of Books)
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.
You have to be pretty estranged from America not to get that the connection is fundamentally religious and dates to the Founding. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 16, 2006 10:53 AM
What an even-handed and dispassionate article! But what is this "October War" they keep talking about?
Posted by: David Cohen at March 16, 2006 12:28 PMYes, fundamentally religious and of no strategic value what so ever. More bad policy.
Posted by: exclab at March 16, 2006 12:47 PMReligion is American policy.
Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 12:51 PMIsrael certainly receives a lot of aid, but so does Egypt for the same reason. Intelligence sharing with Israel is hardly unilateral. The US gets plenty of quid pro quo.
The primary reason for support is an issue of Honor. For all its faults, Israel is a democracy and to have abandoned it to dictatorships that were Soviet client states would have shamed us. Likewise after 1991, Israel remained the only democracy in a sea of dictatorships and terrorists.
The Israeli lobby is influential, but would not have been anymore successful than the Irish lobby in regards to Northern Ireland had Arabs been the equivalent of the UK. Instead, its more like the Cuban-American lobby and the earlier Chiang/Taiwan lobby who were equally successful in their spheres because their opponents were dictator states.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at March 16, 2006 1:04 PMit's the least we can do given we left the death camps running for years after we knew what was going on there. thanks fdr, you did the dems proud.
Posted by: toe at March 16, 2006 1:15 PMIf the Arabs were the equivalent of the UK, there wouldn't have been any problem.
One problem with the "Israel lobby" thesis is that most Jewish money goes to the Dems, while the Reps are more pro-Israel.
Posted by: David Cohen at March 16, 2006 1:38 PMAmericans aren't Realists. Thank God.
Posted by: b at March 16, 2006 1:41 PMIt was a Jew who financed the Continental Army, while the Continental Congress was bickering. At the end of the Revolutionary war, General Washington petitioned the Congress to reimburse him, Congress, as slimy as always, refused. The Jew, whose name I forgot, died penniless. Read David McCullough's 1776.
The most obvious reason why we support the Jews is: we are like the Jews: we depend on ourselves and don't whine about our misfortunes, at least before political correctness comes along. Like Israel, we fight back.
I support Israel as the only (excluding Iraq) democracy in the Middle East. When that fact changes, I'll revisit my support.
Posted by: Rick T. at March 16, 2006 2:43 PMAre these guys like Sid Blumenthal, going overseas to publish what won't fly here?
I am sure they would be very happy to be kept waiting by Bashir Assad for 6 hours, like Warren Christopher was.
I am sure they really believe Saudi Arabia offered Israel a "peace" treaty.
I am sure they really think Syria is not an enemy of the United States.
I am sure they wish the $140 billion given to Israel over the past 60 years would have been better spent on higher education - but where I come from, that's called featherbedding.
And through it all, while they don't dare say it directly, it seems they believe that the Arabs are saner, more deserving of US attention, and just more important than Israel.
Oh well, they can pat themselves on the back - they did their post-graduate deed for the day. Perhaps they should write about the poor Sunni next.
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 16, 2006 2:54 PMWow, what a pair of idiots.
Mearsheimer and Walt missed two key points before I stopped wasting my time on their drivel:
For at least the past two decades, the net effect of America's Israeli policy has been to shield Arab nations from Israel, not, as they suppose, to protect Israel from the Arab nations.
This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US backing.
Chris Durnell and Rick T. explain why only the deranged could believe the above.
Posted by: Noam Chomsky at March 16, 2006 2:58 PMI support Israel because they're friends who went through a very bad patch and needed somebody watching their back while they re-grouped and got their act together. Should we ever need a helping hand, they're one of only a handful of states who would come to our aid, I believe, to their last standing man. Israeli aid isn't likely to be needed, but it's comforting to know it's there anyway.
I'd very much like to have similar good friends among the Arab states, but so far none of them have given us reason to think of them as friends.
Israel is only in a democracy when you accept a valid the fact that anyone who was not jewish was kicked out, killed, scared out, pushed out, had thier land confiscated, humiliated, disenfranchised or marginalized.
Such behaviour is a foundation of civilization I will admit. It's certainly a basis for american democracy. On this day I enjoy the benefits derived from such behavior.
But just because this is true, does not oblige me to support Israel. I think we should cut em loose. They'd probably be fine.
Posted by: exclab at March 16, 2006 4:47 PMAll good reasons for supporting Israel.
Another is that like ourselves, they are a people of the wagon train. They have trekked forth and wrested the land from the not-folk.
In fact, they have done so twice, the first time setting the example on exceptionalism and manifest destiny which we ourselves have followed.
If that were not enough, there is a very sound strategiv basis for our alliance with Israel: it commits us to stand our ground in the unfinished matter we have with the Spiritual Jailhouse.
Israel is our hostage against temptation to weaken in the struggle, to attempt to buy peace for out time with defeat in the future.
Posted by: Lou Gots at March 16, 2006 5:11 PMGots
your crazy. I love "not-folk". Where did you get it? Where do you get "Spiritual Jailhouse"?
Carry on.
Posted by: exclab at March 16, 2006 5:26 PMexclab,If you're interested and not just pulling everyone's chain, hang around and learn the glossary for this place.
I'm sure Lou will be glad to explain the "spiritual jailhouse" on his own terms, but I take it to mean Islamofascism.
Posted by: jdkelly at March 16, 2006 6:36 PMThe world wants them gone, just like they want US gone.
If we don't hang together, we'll surely hang separately.
Posted by: Sandy P. at March 16, 2006 6:39 PMOf course Israel would be fine, but we wouldn't.
Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 6:41 PMExclab: Thanks. I pretty much make it up as I go along. "Not-folk" is a translation of a foreign idea expressive of Caananites and Indians. The feel is for unassimilable aliens in the way of manifest destiny.
"Spiritual Jailhouse" is a spin-off from the notion of the FORMER SOVIET UNION (Let Te Deum and Non Nobis be sung!) as the jailhouse of nations.
Just as the FORMER SOVIET UNION kept itself together by brutal terror and suppression of communications, so a certain RICO masquerading as a world religion maintains itself by crushing religious freedom, persecuting missionaries and threatening converts with death.
When they stop acting that way, we may then consider them civilized human beings.
Reply Obj.: No one should waste our time with what other religions may have done hundreds of years in the past. The standard of world civilization is what that standard is now.
Posted by: Lou Gots at March 16, 2006 6:49 PMExclab:
I would wager there are more Arabs in Israel (and they vote, if I remember correctly) than there are Jews in most Arab countries. I can't blame them if they did, however. Having your enemies start a couple of wars to wipe you off the map might do give one that idea.
I am slightly confused why most of the rest of the world wants to change the rules of war when the Israelis win. Who else has had to give back land after after they've won wars fair and square, especially since they didn't start them.
As far as I'm concerned the Israels can take whatever land they want, put a fence around it and say y'all come take it back if you can.
Posted by: Rick T. at March 16, 2006 6:57 PM"...the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel." The centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been and always will be to keep the oil flowing! Israel has always been a friendly island in a sea of sharks from which the US could militarily intervene into the region if needed.
You all know it's always the fault of the Jews. From the Black Plague to 911, just ask your local Jew hater.
Look around the world and find me a country worth living in that is Judenrhein. A country with no Jews is not much of a country.
exclab;
This
Israel is only in a democracy when you accept a valid the fact that anyone who was not jewish was kicked out, killed, scared out, pushed out, had thier land confiscated, humiliated, disenfranchised or marginalized.is flat out delusional. One of the constant themes on this very weblog is that Israel faces an internal demographic problem precisely because many Arabs did not leave. And until the recent elections in Iraq, the only place in the Middle East where Arabs were enfranchised was Israel. One is left wondering, in fact, how Israel could have disenfranchised any Arabs since none of them got to vote before the founding of Israel.
P.S. Can you cite any actual examples of your claim with regard to Arabs who remained in Israel after the 1948 war?
if a group of people can't hold their land by force of arms, then they are only caretakers for the group that can take it. compete or die. cry all you want, if you think it will help (it won't).
Posted by: toe at March 16, 2006 8:06 PMLou "Non Nobis"? I take that to mean " not ours". Is it a hymm or a coinage? I never heard the phase, but then that's not controlling.
Posted by: jdkelly at March 16, 2006 8:14 PMJd Kelly: "Non Nobis" is an Anglican Catholic hymn celebrating victory. "Not to us, O Lord, but to thy Name, be glory given."
The line, "Let Non Nobis and Te Deum be sung," is a quotation from Shakespear's Henry V, spoken by the King on the field of victory after the battle of Againcourt. Most movie versions of the play will have the hymn sung.
Posted by: Lou Gots at March 16, 2006 8:46 PMThank you, as always, Lou. Guess I'd better reread Henry V. Most folks only remember (in the wrong context) "Let's kill all the lawyers" You and I could both take that personally, but hey.... We understand.
Posted by: jdkelly at March 16, 2006 8:58 PMWell, on this point I diverge from most of you. I will respond to AOG though. The Israelis harrased, killed, bombed ect. to get people to move out of areas of Palestine. After the various wars, perpetrated by Israel's neighbors with provacation, as stated above, the people, who, understandable frieghtened, moved from thier houses in order to be safe. Then they were not allowed back. Thier houses were confiscated. This is all documented fact. I can not believe am talking about his. Israelis say this happened.
There is no demographic problem in Israel. If the arabs move back they can elect the government they want and the jews can elect who they want. It is democracy right? How can you have demographic problem in a democracy?
Posted by: exclab at March 16, 2006 9:10 PMIf there were enough Indians to sway our elections we'd either kill them or deny them the vote.
Posted by: oj at March 16, 2006 9:24 PMexclab;
I understand that many Arabs left Israel for a variety of reasons, including the ones you cite (although, as someone else mentioned, you leave out the roughly the same number of Jews who fled from Arabia to Israel at the same time).
But I am not discussing them, I am talking about the Arabs who did not leave. Your claim, and I quote again, is "anyone who was not jewish was …". I am asking you defend that claim. I consider the Arabs who remained in Israel an obvious and clear counter-example. Are you claiming that I am mistaken, that it is a document fact that every single Arab left Israel? That there are, for instance, no non-Jewish members of the Knesset?
I kept checking back here because I was waiting to see in what form exclab would be disabused of the ridiculous statement that Arabs were forced out of Israel. Nicely done guys.
Why do trolls always have a chip on their shoulder? It's a most unattractive trait.
it's the chip in their brain that worries me. leftists root for the borg.
Posted by: toe at March 16, 2006 10:31 PMOf course there are arabs still in Israel. And as I said they are humiliated and urged to leave. And yes many were forced out. Sorry but its true. A young Moshe Dayan was one of the people doing it. The jews had thier terrorists too. Its an established weapon of war.
I still don't know what a troll is. I get the accusatoin from the left and the right.
Posted by: exclab at March 16, 2006 10:59 PMAck, Agincourt.
I feel for the French. Charging through a chokepoint, up a hill, towards massed archers.
It was exactly parallel to going "over the top" in The War to End All Wars, charging into withering machine-gun fire in no-man's land.
The Israelis harassed, killed, bombed etc. to get people to move out of areas of Palestine. After the various wars, perpetrated by Israel's neighbors with provocation...
The early Zionists were a rough bunch, to be sure, but through the '30s there was only unrest in Palestine, not civil war. The Arabs and Jews largely co-existed.
It was only after the Palestinian Arabs rejected the formation of their own nation in '48 that the current dynamic was born, and it didn't mature until after all of the other Arab peoples in the region failed the Palestinians, and the Palestinians betrayed the other Arabs.
Remember, the wretched state of the current Palestinian Arabs isn't solely, or even mostly, the fault of the Zionists of the '40s or the Israelis of the '60s.
The bulk of the blame must be laid at the feet of all Arabs as a whole, and the Palestinian Arabs in particular.
As is oft-quoted, "they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity", and truer words were never spoken. They've made a lifestyle out of self-pity and a refusal to boot-strap.
Posted by: Noam Chomsky at March 17, 2006 1:05 AMAround here, a troll is someone who pops up, brays a few disjointed talking points (usually leftist, but not always), and leaves without engagement.
Based on that, exclab probably isn't a troll. However, I will point out that his imputation of immoral equivalence to Israel is not really correct. Of course the Israelis harassed the Arabs who stayed (after 1948). After all, the Arabs started the war and to everyone's surprise, Israel was much tougher than expected. And they got better at war, while the Arabs got worse (except for the Egyptian's first week in 1973). But the harassment didn't last, and the Arabs became citizens. Are there any Jewish citizens treated as well in any Arab country?
Exclab's belief in 'democracy' for Israel is betrayed, though, by his endorsement of the right of return. Both sides know that this will never happen, but the Palestinians won't drop it, because then they will have to look around and say "OMG, this is it. This is what we have done with the land that is ours. This is how we have allowed everyone to screw us for the past 40 years. This is how we have screwed ourselves for the past 40 years. And what do we do now?"
Hamas might not be able to 'recognize' Israel for psychological reasons (to be generous). But to become a 'state', the Palestinians have to move, collectively, in a different direction. They have to decide on a "better" tomorrow rather than a more fomented today. Israel has pretty much made its choice - the wall, a few settlements, and next to nothing on Jerusalem. That isn't going to change now.
And if Al Qaeda burrows into the territories, then the US will have to make some choices, too.
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 17, 2006 1:09 AMFor the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel.
Last I checked, the relationship with Saudi Arabia has also been pretty special, even if, for the purpose of the above polemic, it's not especially convenient to mention. (Nor is the financial support for Egypt or the support for the creation of Palestine.)
Should be noted, however, that those whose goal it is to entirely deligitimize the Jewish state believe that the last hurdle to overcome is American support for that rogue, apartheid, illegal entity; hence they must continue to chip away, chip away, chip away.
Things will change pretty quickly when the US finishes off the opthamologist (and the other dinosaur Ba'athists in Syria).
Posted by: ratbert at March 17, 2006 7:49 AMexclab;
OK, we've gone from "ethnically cleansed" to "humiliated" as the rotten foundation of Israel's democracy (which was your original point). Is your claim now that Israel's democracy is a farce because the local Arabs were "humiliated"? If not, what exactly is your point?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 17, 2006 10:21 AMChomsky,
I thought you guys were Westphalians? What obligation do the other Arab countries have to arab palestinians? None.
The arabs attacked Israel because of what Israel had done was to set a state where no one but jews wanted it. All Israel's nieghbors abhored the idea. What if the Mormons decided to make Salt Lake Ctiy the capital of a new country? Would we be pissed. Of course. We would say - No one wants this buy Mormons, Is this fair? IMO it would not make sense.
Posted by: exclab at March 17, 2006 11:22 AMex:
No, we're anti-Westphalian. Only regimes which meet the Judeo-Christian Anglo-American test of liberal democracy are legitimate.
Posted by: oj at March 17, 2006 11:31 AMWas Arthur Balfour Jewish? Harry Truman?
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 17, 2006 12:52 PMexclab;
Then I have no idea what your point was, other than just being annoying and dude, that's my job.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 17, 2006 3:00 PMWhat obligation do the other Arab countries have to arab palestinians? None.
Broadly speaking, that way of thinking is exactly why you don't understand why America supports Israel so strongly.
What obligation do the citizens of Idaho and Utah have to the residents of New Orleans ?
The only thing the communities have in common is that they're American citizens; everything else is different: Race, culture, effectiveness and ethics of governance...
But, that one thing in common was more than enough. Not only did the whitebread conservative Republican religious fanatics of Idaho and Utah see the necessity of spending public monies on the Gulf Coast, but they also sent millions of dollars worth of private aid, plus thousands of volunteers.
(Idaho and Utah were chosen for maximum contrast only; obviously, legion were the numbers of communities, religious groups, and charities that provided aid).
As Lou Gots says, folk support other like-folk, wherever they may be. Much of America believes that the Israelis are part of our tribe, that they're family.
That's also why we still support Taiwan, long after the time has passed when it was in America's interest to be poking the PRC in the eye.
But specifically, the other Arab countries counseled the Palestinian Arabs to reject a nation of their own next to Israel, fuelled their fantasies of "driving the Zionists into the sea", and attacked Israel alongside the Palestinian Arabs.
When they lost, they refused to accept it, and spent the next fifty years using the Palestinian Arabs as a political club with which to bash Israel, instead of advising the Palestinian Arabs to buckle down and make something of themselves.
THAT is why the other Arabs have a responsibility to the Palestinian Arabs, even if kinship is rejected; they were co-conspirators, allies, and gave them very, VERY bad (and self-serving) advice for decades.
Posted by: Noam Chomsky at March 17, 2006 4:34 PMi want to appologize for the blog-bot i have been testing here. it showed a little promise initially, then it durbined on me and i had to hillary it. again, sorry.
Posted by: toe at March 17, 2006 4:48 PM
"As Lou Gots says, folk support other like-folk, wherever they may be. Much of America believes that the Israelis are part of our tribe, that they're family."
That actually makes sense although I do not agree with the mode of evalutating alliance that it suggests. Thinking about this I am also remembering something OJ said which was (if get it right) american foriegn policy is religious. This may be correct. I don't like it but its probably true and probably not alterable. I think its a waste of time and american treasure. But these days what isn't.
Some side notes on things people said:
Jewish terrorism in Palestine started shortly after Balfore and continued until the establishment of Israel. Harrasment of arabs, Moslem or Christian was carried out by the new government after that.
What the Israelis are doing is not ethnic cleansing. The arabs are not on list of those hated in any deep cultural historical way. Israelis just don't care about them. If you watch "Munich" there is a fascinating scene where Golda Mier says that the arabs are "incomprehesible". I think this is an important way of seeing the Israeli position. They just don't care. In the beginning, if someone was living on the land that considered Israel, they did what they had to to move them. When they complained, thier complaints didn't make sense because they did not relate to the proposed Israeli state. When the state was created everything that could be done was done to move these people out.
Israel would not exist without the direct aid of the west. So the fussy ethical questions that west keeps asking about its creation - Israel - are of great concern to the Israeli government. The west is not sure it did the right thing, but it can't make up its mind. That makes it uncomfortable. So Israel does everything it can to keep those fears quiet. And does it very well.
The arab attack of Israel is completely understandable. Israel was a nation created by the west on arab land. No country in region supported it. Why anyone thinks this attack was unpredictable or wrong doesn't read history.
The problem with Israel that the west has is not the problem I have. Israel is a thing on the map that reminds the west of its own past - a past it has not decided what to do with. Israel reminds the west of the really terrible things it has done. Israel is not the worst by a long shot. As colonial mess-ups go, its not completely terrible. In many ways it was a remarkable experiment. It combined capitalism and elements of communism in something fairly homogenous. Its isn't the native american story or the Congo which were just unrelently distructive.
But the facts of Israel make the west jumpy and emotional. To censure Israel means admitting to other mistakes and that is simply impossible. That would be loosing face. Under such conditions it is difficult for the west to see clearly.
If it did it would act much more in its own interest. It has created a gap between us and sources of oil. China, I fear, will fill that gap.
Posted by: exclab at March 18, 2006 11:47 AMWe act as a restraint on Israel, not a prop for.
Posted by: oj at March 18, 2006 11:51 AMexclab, I'm curious, did you object to India being forced by world opinion to give up a large portion of its territory to create the Moslem state of Pakistan?
Another thing, it's not the colonial mess-ups, as you call them, that created today's problems, it's the post colonial mess-ups that are of far longer duration and have had far more serious ramifications in suffering and famine. It's to our ever-lasting shame that we've allowed the U.N. to starve and exploit third world people in the same of world socialism.
Posted by: erp at March 18, 2006 3:13 PMOn Pakistan. That was truly a mess. One of the English mess ups. Yes I think Pakistan was probably a bad idea. And it didn't solve the problem. There are still Hindus in Pakistan and Moslems in India. I think its better to let people work out thier problems together. Which probably make me a hippy on this blog.
The UN is partly our fault but on the other hand, what do you do with the UN? Its a really wierd organization. Occastionally it is very useful. Occasionally its shooting itself in the foot. Occasionally its getting in everybody's way. If corruption is a germ then the UN is the perfect breeding ground. A buearocracy without an authority.
We have done the UN thing wrong, but how do you do it right? I don't know. It seems to help. It seems to hurt. Sometimes I think, just get rid of it. Other times, you look at the Rwanda thing, and the only people jumping up and down and screaming were UN operatives, on the ground in central africa. And the Churchs. But not even the UN establishment wanted to hear these guys and was always telling them to shut up.
I'm certainly not afraid of the UN as some people seem to be. People seem think its a conspiracy. Like the zionist conspiracy ZOG. After what jews have been through you kind of wish thier was good conspiracy going. If Zog does exist, its lousy. Like UN, it will not be taking over the world anytime soon. Or the CIA. People fear the CIA. If only it really was that good.
The colonialism jargon I did use carelessly. Lets face it, as long as one country is bigger and richer than another, it will dominate. People call Israel the last vestige of colonialism. Well so what? Its not a term that helps. People will be dominated, that doesn't make it colonialism per se. What the US does is not really colonialism.
One example will suffice to show that colonialism still has an effect though. I think you can say the Congo is still under the direct effect of what the Belgians did. This is colonialism on a level of violence and horror higher than any. It really was a new thing and, I think, set the stage for the horrors to come. The spanish in mexico could not have gotten this bad. The wierd thing is not many people know about it. But the present day Congolese problem is the same one that stood in 1910 when King Leopold gave up control.
But that I think is the only example. Other countries problems stem from other factors as well as the legacy of colonialism.
We can probably ditch the colonial vocabulary at this point I think.
Yes, the colonialism of continental Europe was malignant--that of Anglo-America rather benign.
Posted by: oj at March 18, 2006 5:35 PMkurtz was dutch.
Posted by: tow at March 18, 2006 10:26 PMYikes! After reading exclab's latest comment, I feel so dizzy I must lie down with a cold compress on my head.
Posted by: erp at March 19, 2006 2:22 PMerp:
Don't worry - even he doesn't really know or understand all that he attempted to say.
It is sufficient to trust your instinct that there are just a lot of words, dressing up the view that the existence of Israel somehow endangers the world.
And while he says we didn't get the UN 'right', somehow I doubt he means that the UN should be more accountable, more open, more forceful, and more American.
On the bright side, after reading his comment, I guess he would blame the French for the genocide in Cambodia.
And finally, is there a documented case of Jewish terrorism in Palestine before, say, 1935? 1940? 1945? Weren't the early acts of violence directed at the British, and not Arabs?
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 19, 2006 7:50 PM
Clearly you guys are slamming me without knowing what your are talking about.
Kurtz may have been dutch. That is not the point. Leopold was Belgian. He is the one who contracted the franchise.
The Jews attacked the british and the arabs.
The french and cambodia is a wierd idea. The cambodia problem was firstly a cambodian internal problem exaserbated by american carpet bombing.
No I think the UN should probably be dismantled as I said.
You guys just need people to sit on the fence in the right place so you can shoot em. You think you love american because you insist that it never makes mistakes.
What ever.
Posted by: exclab at March 21, 2006 9:37 PMex:
Of course we make mistakes, like leaving allies in Vietnam and Cambodia in the lurch.
Posted by: oj at March 21, 2006 9:58 PMETA may be disbanding. Thats good news for Spain but ETA is one of those things that no one notices. There is much hew and cry about how the Israelis wanted thier homeland back, thier claim going back ooo 3000 years when they took it from who ever had it before them. They have not lived in the area most of that time and a much shorter period than other groups. The Basque have lived on thier terroritory the entire time they demanded independence. They started demanding it when the Romans took it from them. No one knows how long they have lived there because they were there before everyone else. Thier language isn't even Indo-european. It doesn't belong to any known language group. Support for ETA has always been small. Israel? People can't concieve of a condition in which they wouldn't.
You see my point.
Actually I am completely backing up OJ's point about US foriegn policy and religion.
Posted by: exclab at March 22, 2006 10:30 AMThe Basque think of themselves as a nation, so they are one.
Posted by: oj at March 22, 2006 10:58 AM