I suggest that interested readers turn to Alfred Lilienthal's THE ZIONIST

CONNECTION, published by Dodd, Mead, N.Y., 1978. Read chapter VII Whose

Congress: Thwarting the National Interest. Enough said.

It has been my position for years that the Jews and Muslims should be left alone to fight their misguided "holy" wars. With any luck for the rest of the world they will kill each other off. Let them.

I don't see how it's the US's problem that they choose to murder each other in the name of religion. Both groups are sickening.

Kevin:

There is nothing wrong with criticizing Israel's POLICIES.

But VERY FEW critics of Israel do that.

I've seen people claim that all Israelis (and/or Jews) are backstabbers, thieves, apartheid, racists, fascists, et cetera. And when you challenge them on it, they claim they're criticizing Israel's POLICIES.

No they're not. They're criticizing Israel as a PEOPLE.

I believe you would call that a stereotype.

If you want to debate Israel's policies, that's fine. But let me give you an example.

Let's take the Fence.

A lot of anti-Israel folk scream and rant about the evils of Israel's "apartheid" fence. Or that it's just a "land grab" by Israel. They use these inflammatory buzzwords to get support.

But there's one issue a lot of them don't like to touch, and that's the terrorism that necessitated the fence. That the fence saved Israeli lives from terrorism. Which in turned, saved Palestinian lives from retaliation.

Every once in a while you meet someone who says, that Terrorism is part of the fence's reason, which is honest. They just don't like where the fence fell. Fine. That kind of stuff is debatable.

Others say the Palestinians have absolutely no choice but to be Terrorists, and that Israel's response should be capitulation. I think this is complete and unadulterated BS, and I could get into that another time.

If you discuss Israel like it's a real country, with real issues, and you can take their perspective once in a while... then perhaps there is something to talk about.

But when buzzwords are used about how Israel is "apartheid", "racist", "thieves" et cetera, that is often the mark of a closed mind that is already made up. In fact, that seems to be what people accuse me of when I call these same people "anti-semites." Which, I'm afraid, many of them are.

If you can't spot the people who use the debating tactics I described, perhaps you are not looking hard enough.

Bush and Cheney are not capable of being more sophisticated than that.

As far as M+S being sensored, maybe, but I dont thing either side of the political isle wants to be cast as a puppet of AIPAC. I remember Colin Powell working to get us into this Iraq thing at the U.N. Where Is he now? Was he Powell a puppet of the Jews? Lets keep responsibility where it belongs.

Wingspan:

There's a number of train wrecks in the imperialist (or "superpower") history of the U.S. I don't think I minimized the importance of Vietnam in my statement, or Iraq, for that matter. Your inference seems to be a non sequitur. But if I did that, that wasn't my intention at all and I am truly sorry.

Anyway, I think you are right; Iraq does eclipse the Israel issue. But I think they're somehow related - all part of a colossal train wreck. I'm just speculating here, but I find it interesting that Iraq seems to serve as a red herring to divert attention away from other issues in the Middle East. Perhaps this explains some of the silence in the States regarding the so-called "Israel Lobby?" And changing the subject, what about the self-censorship to which M&W and Cole point that is pervasive in the States, the so-called "liberal democracy?" That I find truly frightening.

Dear Okin,

Are you implying that Iraq or even Viet Nam were not bad train wrecks in American history? To say that Viet Nam was not a train wreck is to do a disservice to the 50 + thousand who died there. We don't know what the final cost to the U.S. will be in Iraq, but we know what will happen when we try to pull out. The same thing will happen that happened when we tried to pull out of Viet Nam.

We could have ended the problem in Israel/Palestine under the Clinton administration. The treaty that created Palestine was on the table with an Israeli signature on it, and Arafat would not sign. Clinton asked the Republican Congress to withhold aid from Arafat until he signed, and they refused. The situation in Israel goes on because the Republicans would not back Clinton up when the deal was on the table. Israel is no longer an issue in American politics. It is eclipsed by Iraq.

The creation of Israel was and continues to be a bad train wreck in the history of imperialism. It's just so terrible, it's absurd. I am NOT saying that Israel does not have a right to exist. Everyone has the right to self-determination, including the Palestinians. But Israel is a nation that was created by European imperialists at the expense of various Arab communities. These communities created the nation of Palestine in response to their displacement, which subsequently exacerbates the ethnic tensions in that entire region. Then the U.S., with their neo-imperialist designs, conveniently steps in.

And so, the hamster wheel spins even faster.

To dismantle the state of Israel is unthinkable, but to continuosly deny the nation of Palestine the right to exist and persistently treat them as the unwanted stepchild (e.g. "starving them out") will only elicit even more violence and enmity, if not from the Palestinians, then from neighboring countries. Mearsheimer and Walt's paper may have some flaws, but at least it's a starting point for thoughtful debate - something seriously needed in our infantile public square.

Does anyone notice how politicians have to bow to the AIPAC altar? They have 2-3 Officers indicted for passing National Security, espionage information to Israel--yet Cheney gave a speech there a few weeks ago--where else would he get 20+ rounds of sustained applause. This speaks volumes!

The neo-cons are Israel-firsters of the highest order. Any criticism of Israel is met w/charges of anti-semitism. Walt et alia, are not are not anti-semitic--their critics are anti-America-Firsters.

Why was Michael Kinsley and Robert Scheer forced off the LA TIMES--hint--they were critical of a certain-tiny country is the Middle East. Moreover, why would two renowned academics have to publish this paper in the UK?

There will be a groundswell against the Israel-firsters. Every educated person I know feels the same way. And the wall had been breached by Walt and Mearsh.

Res Ipsa Loquitor, Q.E.D.