The "Israel" (or swear allegiance to any other country but one's own)issue in the USA election is a scandal! A country which discriminate a big part of its population, and I can go on and on and on, all under the cover of "God gave Israel to the Jews" - says who? To mention just a small point(one of many): King David conquered Israel from other nations and this conquering system has continued through the years! Somebody has to put thing straight!

That Americans have positive feelings toward Israel is not the same thing as gushing about a foreign nation-state in a presidential debate. It's odd and we all know why. The days are over when AIPAC could boast of its power but then accuse people of anti-Semitism if anyone pointed it out.

So it's odd, mainly because a good portion of the intelligentsia and the US public (the majority of the latter supports the establishment of a Palestinian state, even though facts on the ground in the West Bank and East Jerusalem make that practically impossible today), now grasps that there are two sides to the conflict, and that if political leaders adore one side they are then co-belligerents to the conflict. They certainly can't broker any peace agreement from that position.

Everyone gets it, and while the US drags behind Europe, it's clear that there is an international movement for Palestinian rights on the internet that isn't going away.

So, we're all living through the weird case of everyone knowing that it's now ritualized obligation to bow before Israel if you want to be elected President of the U.S. out of some fantasy about "Jewish voters" suddenly switching en masse to vote Republican. There isn't a chance in hell of that happening, but it seems the flipside of "loving" Jews in America is fearing them.

Jewish Americans are a diverse group who nonetheless vote Democratic most of the time. There is no reason today a Democratic presidential nominee couldn't announce that there are two sides to the conflict and both sides have interests that must be taken into account.

We have political inertia cum sentimental attachment re: Israel that has become predictable theater. As Bob Dole would say, "You know it, I know it, and the American people know it."

there are synagogues in egypt. they usually have ministry of _____ level of security around them.

It's a group of Jews and friendly gentiles that is the new liberal counterweight to the Likudnik-style neocons running AIPAC, and who up to now have controlled the discourse in America about Israel. (Which is of course why AIPAC apologists at TNR and elsewhere hate it with a passion.)

Kudos to you and Mr. Rutten for a very interesting and informative interview.

Hi all,

I though this was a pretty good attempt to engage the rather simplistic and alarmist column from Rutten, but I do think there is something that needs to be done whenever confronting a journalist who is insisting that 'Americans' or the 'US' doesn't take 'Islamism' seriously enought. First, make that person *define* 'Islamism.' Second, point out that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Abrams, Kristol, Feith, Kagans et. al., Negoponte, etc., etc., ad nauseam, all *do* share Rutten's beliefs. They have been and still are making policy for the US government. Who is Tim's column aimed at, and what separates him from the neo-cons who started the Iraq war? Where is his alarmism about Iran different from Judy Miller on Iraq? Those are questions Rutten should be asked as well.

That US commentators and especially politicians misinterpret Iran is pretty clear - some, perhaps most, do so on purpose. But they also misinterpret Europe's stance, when they write about Europe agreeing with measures against Iran. We in Europe aren't worried about Iran at all. We are worried about nuclear proliferation. Whether it's Iran or Saudi Arabia which gets nukes makes no difference: it starts an extremely dangerous arms race.

The fact that Israel already has nukes doesn't change this logic. It would be better if Israel didn't, but a nuclear arms race in the Middle East will have little to do with Israel. The potential nuclear countries, including Iran, simply aren't very concerned about Israel, certainly not enough to wage nuclear war, or any other kind of war, against it. (And Hezbollah is primarily a force for Shiite empowerment within Lebanon; to consider it as a group whose first aim is to harm Israel is really too Israel-centric.)

So yes, we Europeans participate in putting pressure on Teheran. But that is NOT because we think Iran is an aggressive country or constitutes a direct risk to any other country. And I don't think Americans understand that nuance.

And other than Israel, is there any country for which candidates for the American presidency could get away with proclaiming their "passion" and "love"?

If you don't love Israel, you gotta be an anti-semite. And who wants to be one of those? Especially if, like me, you're Jewish.

You remind us of this every other day, then the next day try to tell us that there is a "right-wing" controlling everything. It's an illusory debate. We know Palin is an idiot, we get it. We know the media is a joke, that's why we're not sitting in front of the tube right now. Obama and all the Dem leaders agree with Bush on every major issue, you explain this to us and then still promote your pathoObamania.

I've always been curious. What is your family background? Where did you grow up? You are one of the few that seems to follow the stories written about Ahmadinejad regardless of writer.

I have to admit my own background is very shallow. I only care because I used to date a Persian and amazingly enough, they aren't all monsters. I don't think Syria and Iran's leaders wish the US well though. Leaders have different goals than average citizens.

Nice dodge.

Speaks volumes.

But I just can't seem to work up

Too much

Israel "passion."

Conclusion

Bashar's love affair with Hezbollah is attributed by some observers to naivete. "A Syria that can be manipulated by Hezbollah, which acts, in turn, under Iranian guidance, could well miss the crucial moment when Iran and Hezbollah attempt to spark a huge conflagration . . . on Israel's northern border," says Israeli commentator Ehud Ya'ari. "A weak and naive Syria acts as an accelerator for Hezbollah, not a brake."

Such interpretations are founded on the conventional wisdom that Hezbollah remains first and foremost an Iranian proxy. However, Iranian funding for Hezbollah was long ago surpassed both by contributions from expatriate Lebanese Shi'ites and by revenue from the movement's array of commercial businesses in Lebanon. Since Syria and its Lebanese satellite are capable of impeding these money transfers, Hezbollah's financial situation is ultimately more dependent on its relations with Damascus than with Tehran.

Hezbollah does, in fact, appear to be gearing up for a major conflagration with Israel. According to Israeli intelligence reports, Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah have accelerated, and the group now has an estimated 7,000 Katyusha rockets capable of hitting Israeli territory throughout the Galilee and up to the outskirts of Haifa. Hezbollah is also nearing completion of an extensive defense line deep in the heart of south Lebanon, designed to obstruct the advance of invading Israeli tanks.

It is likely, though, that if Hezbollah is planning a dramatic escalation of hostilities with Israel, it will come at a time of Syria's choosing.