"Pat Buchanan was widely vilified by the neocons and the politically correct left when he famously described the Congress of the United States as "Israeli-occupied territory." Oh, what a conniption the liberals and the Commentary crowd had! That was during the countdown to the first Gulf War, when almost no one rose to object – and those who did, like Pat, were smeared for their trouble. Today, such an observation is hardly considered controversial: it is simply a known fact." -- Jason Raimondo

The threat of smearing people who offer any opposition to the policies of Israel is both powerful and real. Many have been called "anti-Semitic", even though the Palestinians are a Semitic people, for speaking out on the issue of the brutal occupation of Palestine by the invading "Jewish State". Then, once you are smeared as an "anti-Semite" the other smears are very easy --- as is economic retaliation.

Glenn, it is simple: the Democratic Leadership is afraid.

I forgot the link to the quote.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13990

"Terrorism" is the tactic of folks who have no cruise missiles or "smart bombs" to rain down on civilians. Until we acknowledge the root causes of Arab anger we are doomed to continue to pour zillions into an elusive security that could have been obtained with simple justice. I don't hold much hope. America and Israel are doomed. We will drown in our own ignorance and arrogance.

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice? .... Does that happen with any other issue?

My question back at you, Glenn: Doesn't this happen all the time?

Your second point--how strange it is that US politicians frame the arguments around what's in Israel's best interest, not what's in the US's best interest--I find interesting, especially since you frequently write about this kind of double-speak in your column.

The answer nearly always is that the politicians framing the argument do not actually believe what they're saying themselves, but they realize that if they were to argue what they actually do believe, they would weaken their ability to win what they really want.

In this case, I believe that most US politicians' hidden agenda is to keep Arab powers in the Middle East in check, to keep the Middle East from turning into a regional power that threatens US economic interests any more than they already can with their oil reserves. (I call this agenda "hidden" not because this is a secret--it is not--but because you're right that they certainly don't say this when talking about Israel.)

If politicians were to argue about their actual beliefs, they'd open themselves up to all sorts of counter-arguments about whether or not the US should intervene in a country's affairs, whether this is the right way to exert influence in a region, whether or not Israel should even exist as a country or not if it can't defend itself on its own, and so on.

If on the other hand, politicians take as a given the right for Israel to exist no matter what, and that it is clear that we need to defend our allies, then all these thorny counter-arguments can't even be made by their critics--there's nothing to argue against. Their critics (you, in this case) are left to call them out on their bs (which no one really cares about--politicians bs all the time) without being able to actually say, "Politician X said this CRAZY thing about how we should maintain world dominance" (something people might actually care about). The politicians win, and you--even in your valiant attempt--lose.

As I write this, I feel like you must sometimes when you write, "Is this not obvious?" It's the go-to political strategy of our day.

Keep on keeping on Glenn. We'll turn this world around yet.

Best,

Why do Democratic politicians view short-sighted Israeli interests as synonomous with American interests?

Mindless anti-Muslim bias? Appeasment of the Christian Rapturists? AIPAC money? Historical policy momentum?

It's certainly not based on representation of their constituents or realpolitik.

Israel's war on terror seems to be about as popular as America's. I seriously wonder if Israel has any ally other than the US? I wish Israel would grow up and join the neighborhood already, why move to the Middle East if you don't want to be Middle Eastern? We're all Semites so ditch the European airs and pass the hummus.

Glenn, I admire your courage. You get a great response to your articles and rightly so, you single-handedly get people thinking in a new way about this conflict. Over at open salon, where I write about the Middle East, the lack of response in comment form is practically deafening.

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=72007

But the underlying logic of both wars -- military attacks, invasions and occupations will end rather than exacerbate terrorism; the Muslim world only understands brute force; the root causes of the disputes are irrelevant; diplomacy and the U.N. are largely worthless

Aside from the advertising and rhetoric, I do not see much in the way of evidence for this logic to be the case. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that military actions such as these will increase tensions, prolong disputes and hostilities, and add to the ranks of terrorists as a recruitment tool. It's poring gasoline on a fire, and it's not a new tactic.

There are other logics involved, for both the United States and Israel. In the former, the business of doing war is big business so that "aid packages" in the form of munitions and weapons are just as good as an old-fashioned invasion. In Israel, a background of hostility works very well for right wing and orthodox parties that want to maintain a hardline on Palestinians and, most importantly, want to continue building settlements in the West Bank.

It seems to me, at this point, to be either disingenuous or naive to think there are any legitimate objectives for peace and stability in the Middle East in American and Israeli foreign policy. Subjugation and control are the prime goals. Neo-colonialism for neo-conservatives.