I wrote a day or two ago that the post you made then was one of your best; but this one tops that one. You just keep getting better on this topic.

It is a shame that our government does not listen to the people on the Israel issue, or the drug war issue, or the occupation of Iraq, or ...

What on earth can we do to get the USA government to stop being a subsidiary of the Israel government? Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

And you'll see why they do whatever AIPAC.

This is why J Street is so important: They are daring to push the discourse towards sanity, so that the political price for being sane won't be crippling.

There should be a "wants" after "AIPAC".

I'm always worried when people take "sides" in a conflict that is too multi-faceted to fit on a Fox "News" sound-bite. Let me make a few very brief points:

1) There is no "Palestine". The refugees in the West Bank/Gaza have had multiple opportunities to create a legal state and have rejected every overture. From 1947 to refusing to continue the ceasefire two weeks ago, they preferred war to peace.

2) It is not a "Israel-Palestinian conflict". Egypt has the same problem with the same range of people, and are handling the situation even worse. Sudan is currently fighting the same range of people over the same issues. The same conflict has infected the entire area, from Jordan and Lebanon to Morocco and Algeria.

3) Supporting a democracy over a gang who rejects legal oversight is hardly "taking sides". We are a world of law, and in this conflict, only Israel is answerable to the world court. When the West Bank/Gaza has a free press, a democratically elected government and allows international observers, we can begin to talk about it as a "side".

I don't support the current military action by Israel, but I understand it. I certainly don't support Hamas and their terrorist missile attacks. Given a choice, I back the democracy, even as I try to influence their anger. Most people don't even want the choice, they just want to ignore the whole thing. I don't respect that.

Do you actually not realize how completely -- even hilariously -- contradictory these two statements of yours are:

I'm always worried when people take "sides" in a conflict that is too multi-faceted to fit on a Fox "News" sound-bite.

And:

Supporting a democracy over a gang who rejects legal oversight is hardly "taking sides". We are a world of law, and in this conflict, only Israel is answerable to the world court. When the West Bank/Gaza has a free press, a democratically elected government and allows international observers, we can begin to talk about it as a "side".

If you turn on Fox News right now, all you will hear are various renditions of your second statement, repeated over and over and over.

um, wasn't Hamas democratically elected? hmmmm....

To me, another aspect of the pathology of the US-Israel relationship is that usually when one party is so dependent on another for major "hand-outs", those gifts come with significant strings attached. If the US is going to give so much support to Israel in terms of arms and money, we should have very significant terms attached governing how these resources are to be used.

The policy of the US government towards Israel is the same as the policy towards Wall Street on the bailout: unlimited resources and absolutely no accountability (and the occasional reward for particularly irresponsible behavior). What we should have instead is what the "Plantation Caucus" wants on the auto industry bailout where the terms of our giving should be coupled with conditions that would have the Israeli government (rather than the UAW) disband and restart itself according to our standards (that of the 70% of the people, not our "ruling class"). Sadly, that will never happen and Washington's words will linger as an unheeded warning.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081229_party_to_murder/?ln

Thanks for Nir Rosen link. Excellent.

The bombs now get "absorbed" by people in Gaza.

The Israel Air Force used a new bunker-buster missile that it received recently from the United States in strikes against Hamas targets in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, The Jerusalem Post learned on Sunday.

The missile, called GBU-39, was developed in recent years by the US as a small-diameter bomb for low-cost, high-precision and low collateral damage strikes.

Israel received approval from Congress to purchase 1,000 units in September and defense officials said on Sunday that the first shipment had arrived earlier this month ...

IAF uses new US-supplied smart bomb, Dec. 29, 2008

moonofalabama.org

What futher proof is needed that the blood being spilled in Gaza is on the hands of our congressional-M$M-military-industrial complex. We need to have war protestors, ala Vietnam, pour blood on the doorsteps of all those responsible.

This is more of my government and my Air Force’s insanity that precision delivery systems limit collateral damage (I feel dirty using their language) so it is permissible when facing such a horrible enemy that threatens the very security of our nation to accept some civilian deaths. Tell that to the university students who were bombed studying in their school or the terribly understaffed doctors and nurses who are lacking even the most basic medical supplies and all the victims who may survive and suffer serious medical problems for the remainder of their lives.

We encourage and support this slaughter and then blame those being slaughtered. I’m shaking as I type this because it is equally or even more revolting than the Iraq invasion. This is what happens when money controls our elections and we elect dregs who only care about getting elected and remaining in power and could care less about the tragedies they are responsible for.

As I said on a past thread, Obama has to realize that if he immediately doesn’t try hard to change our government’s course with our sick, hypocritical national security policy, he needs to explain to his daughter how he got that blood on his hands and is afraid to even try to wash it off.