The End of Zionism

I think one aspect of the US/Israeli relationship that hasn't received enough attention is that it has involved a certain level of moral hazard. Because Israel knows that the US will unconditionally back it, both financially and in other ways, that leaves them free to continue policies that would otherwise be unsustainable. If the US had taken a completely hands-off policy toward the region over the last 30 years (including no aid giveaways), my guess is that the Israelis and Palestinians would both be a lot better off.

This is nothing new, of course. The jewish colonisation of Palestine has always relied on British and US support (less Britain and more US as time went on). Currently it relies on both US support and, at the least, no outright EU opposition.

Speaking of waxing philosophical. . .

Fortunately, even the government of Ehud Olmert, widely criticized as incompetent and corrupt, seems to understand that, on this issue at least, it cannot fail.

This locution is very commonly used by GBW and his supporters: "We cannot fail." It's not quite meaningless, but all it really says is "We think this issue is very important." Unfortunately, in this case and in many others, people seem to be using it as some sort of support for thinking that really stupid actions have any chance of success. "Why do we think military confrontations in the Middle East will be successful? Because we cannot fail."

A question: Is there anyone here, starting with MY, who believes that if Israel withdrew entirely from the West Bank tomorrow it would no longer have to worry about its survival? I ask this as someone who thought the settlements were an abomination when they were first built, and who would, if he were in a position to do so, force their removal today. But I don't for a second believe that all would be well if they disappeared tomorrow. Do you? Really? And if not, what alternative solutions to the issues Oren and Halevi raise can you offer?

The most compelling argument for a general American withdrawal to the Western Hemisphere north of the equator is what Zionism, teamed up with the Military Industrial Complex, has done to our foreign policy.

It's amazing that AIPAC and their clones have been so successful in creating entirely unconditional U.S. support for any Israeli policy that does not involve compromise.

There simply is no meaningful disageement at any level in the representative U.S. goverment about "support" for Israel. Witness the absurdity of Chuck Schumer scolding Bush for not making Allawi say nice things abou the Jewish state.

The "Criticism = Anti-Semitism" canard cannot remain a viable way to stifle debate in the U.S. American and Israeli interests diverge too greatly - the price of unconditional support is becoming too high.

Well, offering a complete removal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem (i.e. all settlers put into the land conquered in 1967, not just in the West Bank) could, yes, make a big difference to Israel's situation and perhaps achieve a cold peace like the Israeli-Egyptian peace. Achieving such a peace would require however much more than removal of settlements, and would involve a reorientation of Israeli policy from one of crushing and ethnically cleansing the indigenous population of Palestine to one of mutual accommodation and compensation.

But doesn't acknowledging that Israel has become a kind of ghetto implicitly regognize that Israel is in danger? And isn't that danger less in the short to medium term onrushing Persian hordes than some apocalyptic fruitcake pressing the button in Tehran? And isn't the danger in the longer term nuclear weapons technology simple and inexpensive enough for terrorist networks to develop them on their own?

I have questions.

If a chief reason the Palestinian leadership is afraid of making peace is the prospect they will lose their one point of unity (opposition to Israel), and plunge into a tribal and sectarian civil war, doesn't it make sense for Israel, America and the international community to ensure that Palestine becomes a middle class nation as quickly as possible? Isn't that kind of economic development as imperative for much of the rest of the Arab world? Aren't middle class nations less likely to plunge into sectarian civil wars, and even if they do break apart aren't they more likely to do so peacefully?

Won't Israel at some point have to sell off a good deal of its publically owned land (which as I recall is much of the country) and won't at least a portion of that fall into Arab Israeli and foreign hands? Won't Israel be forced by international norms and the Arab baby boom to offer full civil equality to non-Jewish Israelis even if the emerging Arab majority chooses not to rebrand Israel as a non-Jewish state (Israel is liable to continue to depend on religious tourism as part of its economic lifeblood, and the growing tide of evangelicals worldwide who might like to visit the place won't want to hear that the apocalypse may not be coming after all, or no?)?

The irony here is that, as Oren and Halevi concede, it would be impossible for Israel to wage this war without American support. This means, however, that on the Oren/Halevi analysis, the Zionist project has already failed.

It would be impossible for Israel to wage any sustained war without US support. But Israel is perfectly capable of nuking Tehran unilaterally. The Zionist project has had an ace in the hole since the 1960s. This is why the prospect of a nuclear Iran is so terrifying to Israeli hawks... it negates their key advantage and forces them to rely entirely on limited wars with outside support.

However, for a tiny state surrounded on all sides by enemies, the nuclear option has always been a phony option. Israel can't nuke Gaza or Hebron... that would be national suicide. Thus, the hawks need an occupied buffer zone to protect them from enemies they can't nuke. And to maintain an occupation they need a great power ally on the Security Council, such as the US. And since American support is essential, they need a mighty arm-twisting lobby that uses every trick in the book against its political enemies. And thus their lobby accuses its opponents, even Jewish opponents, of anti-Semitism.

And the wheel goes round and round.

I'm generally sympathetic to Zionism. I really am. But the efforts to sustain the State of Israel through regional military hegemony are simply not going to last forever. Without a peaceful settlement, the clock is going to run out on Israel eventually, be it tomorrow or 200 years from now. The Likudniks may think the nuclear option is the key to their security, but they can never use it. It would almost certainly cost them their American support, end any hope of peace with the Islamic world, and start the countdown to the end of Israel.

"A question: Is there anyone here, starting with MY, who believes that if Israel withdrew entirely from the West Bank tomorrow it would no longer have to worry about its survival?"

It would have to worry about its survival less than it does now. Withdrawing entirely from the WB would actually free Israel military to focus on military problems, and not policing angry, subjugated Palestinians, and protecting lawbreaking settlers.

Why is that so hard to understand?

"I ask this as someone who thought the settlements were an abomination when they were first built, and who would, if he were in a position to do so, force their removal today. But I don't for a second believe that all would be well if they disappeared tomorrow. Do you? Really?"

Yes, really. And I find your questions very strange, as if, underneath it all, you, like the crisis Zionists, think that Israel is some fragile little plant that will be trampled underneath the Muslims hordes.

It's not true.

"And if not, what alternative solutions to the issues Oren and Halevi raise can you offer?"

The settlements have nothing to do with Persian nuclear capabilities. You are comparing goulash with strudel and allowing O & H to frighten & bamboozle you.

Restraining Iran takes an international effort that can only happen if the Israelis show good faith with respect to the Palestinians.

Why is that so hard to understand? If a Hungarian whore like me can understand this, why not smart guys like you?

Thank you for saying this. The political reality is that only a Jew can say this and even then, only barely. Which is why I think "monomaniacal" commenters like myself keep going at sites like this; we're essentially petitioners.

It is rather unfortunate that Hezbollah and Hamas seem to have established, in the minds of many observers, that Palestinian and southern Lebanese policy toward Israel is "if you stop occupying us, we'll use the land you've withdrawn from as a staging ground to attack you." However, simply reducing the number of hostile people over which Israel has dominion would help out in terms of typical young Israel soldiers not having to walk through hostile cities being shot at. Even if the Arab states including a future Palestinian state are still hostile to Israel, that would be more of a sort of conventional military problem of the sort which Israel is quite good at addressing, and less of a problem of having to rule people who hate them, where Israel isn't so great.

Is there anyone here, starting with MY, who believes that if Israel withdrew entirely from the West Bank tomorrow it would no longer have to worry about its survival?

Israel, due its location and the nature of its birth, will always have to worry about its survival. Attacking Iran may postpone the expiration date, but it only makes the final outcome even more likely by postponing any possibility of regional peace and stability.

Israel can't maintain a regional imbalance of power and loyal foreign allies forever. Only by taking difficult, painful steps toward peace can there be any hope of long-term survival. Can I guarantee that giving back the West Bank will save Israel? Of course not. In the short run it may lead to more violence. But it will improve Israel's relationship with the rest of the world and greatly improve the chances of eventually achieving a stable peace.

PS I also find it outrageously amazing that Oren & Halevi appeal to the international community whose opinion Israel has flouted consistently since 1967, with respect to the settlements. They remind me of that great scene in A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, which I have kindly looked up on IMDB for you:

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

Oren and Halevi stand for a reckless philosophy that has abused the law, morality and common decency -- with the help of one feckless US Administration after another.

The hell with both of them.

Case closed.

isn't that danger less in the short to medium term onrushing Persian hordes than some apocalyptic fruitcake pressing the button in Tehran?

The answer is, of course, 'no'. Why do some people assume so readily that the people who run Iran (not A-jad) are utterly irrational? This is why the previous discussion of bigotry is so important. Guess what? Persians are the same species as everyone else, and as such are unlikely to invite the vaporization of their country. This question starts to look, after a while, like projection: there seem to be perfectly good reasons, on the other hand, to worry about the apocalyptic fruitcakes in Washington DC. Top o' the world, ma!

At the risk of seeming like a lame-ass self-promoter...

I wrote a blog post about this and other similar recent Yglesias posts...I'm just linking to it because I'm too tired to cut-and-paste and edit it into a comment here...

Basically, I'm not happy with the new anti-Zionist focus of this blog. I don't think anti-Zionism should be the cornerstone of a new liberal approach to foreign policy.

Mr. Noah:

If the imminent threat of an unprovoked, illegal, inevitably catastrophic war on Iran by the neoconservative dead-enders in our government ever subsides you will no doubt see a change in focus here. Until then, your concerns take a back seat.

As for those concerns themselves -- you clearly believe "Zionism" should be the cornerstone of any approach to foreign policy, liberal or otherwise. Anything short of that amounts to "anti-Zionism" in your book.

How did you stumble in here? Where the fuck do you get off making those kinds of insinuations and demands?

Why is Martin Peretz so obsessed with Israel anyway? Is it because his wife isn't Jewish and according to his own outmoded tribalistic beliefs his Judaism will die with him? Is the reason he is such a hardcore maniac about Israel because he feels an irrational guilt at his own dereliction of tribal duty?

Mr. Noah,

Regardless of what you think the right thing to do is, vis-a-vis Israel, I think its pretty obvious that our support for Israel IS the root of most of our problems in the Middle East. At least, that was true before our little misadventure in Iraq.

I think most supporters of Israel think we should support Israel because "its the right thing to do", even though it is not, strictly speaking, in our best interest.

That AIPAC and their ilk can so dominate U.S. foreign policy, as well as media commentary, is just another example of how easily the current political system can be leveraged by the few for their own ends.

Brendan:

If the imminent threat of an unprovoked, illegal, inevitably catastrophic war on Iran by the neoconservative dead-enders in our government ever subsides you will no doubt see a change in focus here. Until then, your concerns take a back seat.

You make it sound like this blog can prevent such a war. :P

You think the best way to prevent a war with Iran is to warn about the power of the "Israel lobby"?

As for those concerns themselves -- you clearly believe "Zionism" should be the cornerstone of any approach to foreign policy, liberal or otherwise. Anything short of that amounts to "anti-Zionism" in your book.

You think everyone has to either make Zionism the cornerstone of their foreign policy approach, or make anti-Zionism their cornerstone? So anyone who isn't a knee-jerk Israel-basher is a knee-jerk Israel-booster? Is that how you think it is?

You don't even know what my "book" says. Don't go making your little assumptions.

How did you stumble in here? Where the fuck do you get off making those kinds of insinuations and demands?

Frickin' troll.

Jim W -

I don't really agree. I think our oil dependence is the root of most of our Middle East problems. Even if there were no Israel, the Middle East would still have all of the world's cheap oil, and so we (or the Republicans, anyway) would still be trying to control it.

Israel is small, and it's a recently formed country, so I think that "just getting rid of Israel" sounds like an easy and convenient solution to our problems. But I think that's just fooling ourselves - the oil would still be there.

Mr. Noah:

No, I'm not a troll. Not hardly.

I'll respond to one thing you said.

"You make it sound like this blog can prevent such a war. :P"

I'm not sure what ":P" means (maybe someone can clue me in), but that statement amounts to a taunt to the commenters and host of this site. You win. You're probably right that this blog can't stop an attack on Iran. You're sickening.

Let me refresh your and everyone's memory of your original post. You suggested -- said outright, really -- that MY believes "anti-Zionism" should be "a cornerstone" of foreign policy. That was a slander against MY, it's there for everyone to read, and you can't take it back. You shot your wad too soon, wanker. That's the last I respond to you. I'm confident of the opprobrium you'll meet with from others.

Jim W:

For heaven's sake. Did you really advocate "getting rid of Israel" (that lying little fucker "Mr. Noah" has the effrontery to put the phrase in quotes)? Don't engage his smears.

Israel is small, and it's a recently formed country, so I think that "just getting rid of Israel" sounds like an easy and convenient solution to our problems.

Who are you addressing with this? Who has offered "just getting rid of Israel" as a solution to anything?

This means, however, that on the Oren/Halevi analysis, the Zionist project has already failed.

I've thought that for years. Whenever the wanna-be AIPACites get a little too concerned about divestment campaigns (which I oppose too -- they usually involve some horrible double standards) or the US not giving enough money to Israel, I've wondered aloud -- "but what about the Zionist goal of an independent, self-supporting [the first generation of Zionists actually didn't sound that much different than Gandhi, in their own way] Jewish state?" ... the response to this would be an incredulous stare. Herzl must be rolling in his grave about now.

its pretty obvious that our support for Israel IS the root of most of our problems in the Middle East. At least, that was true before our little misadventure in Iraq. (Jim W)

Our problems with Iran started in 1953 when the CIA sponsored a coup to overthrow Iran's democraticaly elected government, which wanted to nationalize British Petroleum's oil.

I think most supporters of Israel think we should support Israel because "its the right thing to do", even though it is not, strictly speaking, in our best interest.

Many Americans think God wants us to support Israel. Others see Israel as a traditional ally and friend. But many of our foreign policy elite think "We have to protect Israel" sounds better than "If we have control the oil, we can control the world."

The problem with the whole "zionism" vs. "anti-zionism" argument is that it creates a strawman opportunity for everyone without addressing the basic problem, which is that Israel has been acting moronically since about 1982 (and pretty unwisely before that) with the encouragement of the United States. That's the problem, and it needs to be fixed. Israel can and should exist, but until it stops acting so foolishly (at the behest of many of my co-religionists) it will never be able to have real security. And the first thing it needs to do is recognize that the way it is treating the palestinians is making things worse, and just because we're the one's doing it doesn't make it any better than when cossacks came through the pale of settlements to kill my relatives back in the 1890s.

I'm sorry I was out when this first posted. It would have been nice simply to compliment you, Matt, on one of the most insightful blog posts about the structure of the US/Israel/Palestine/Middle East issues I've seen—before the place turned into a saloon brawl, as these comment threads inevitably do.

"Why do some people assume so readily that the people who run Iran (not A-jad) are utterly irrational?"

I think the point here is that Washington and other western governments don't know if Iran is a rational actor. You will say that Mr. Jong Il regularly makes annihilationist threats against the west and I will say that North Korea is Stalinist dictatorship, and that classical deterrence worked with the Soviet Empire and its satellites.

Iran is of course not a Stalinist dictatorship but a Shiite Muslim theocracy whose leaders are given to waxing poetic about the coming apocalypse (whether they actually believe this to be the case seems unknowable; was Hitler a cynic or a true believer? did it matter?), probably sponsoring terrorism abroad, and certainly fostering a culture of suicide bombing (ever read VS Naipaul's fantastic piece about the Iranian marttyr brigades in the Iran-Iraq War?), not to mention promising to destroy Israel nearly every week.

Or, as SNL recently put it: "...also creating a climate of Islamophobia: terrorism."

whose opinion Israel has flouted consistently since 1967, with respect to the settlements. - zsa zsa the whore

Perhaps I've dranken too much Zionist propaganda kool-aid, but it seems to me that the settlements didn't start until a while after 1967. I know the international law anyway about such settlements says one thing, and Israel ought to be an example following such laws in accordance with Israel's Biblical mission to be "a light unto the nations" (btw ... what's the deal with people saying criticism of Israel and/or Zionism is anti-Semitic? were the Prophets anti-Semitic for criticizing Israel as it existed in their day? and anyway, doesn't Zionism rather contradict Jewish teachings? ... although you wouldn't know that from the way much of organized Judaism has embraced Zionism ...), but how often is this law actually followed?

Look, Israel "won" the occupied territories in a war in which Israel, while striking pre-emptively, did so in response to internationally accepted standards of causus belli (sp?). It tried, albeit in a very half-assed manner (and rejected certain avenues that would have led to a resolution -- for some reason Israel does have a tendancy to make half-assed and in bad faith steps to peace and when they get rejected outright the Israelis complain "how do you expect us to give up even more when we don't have partners with which to negotiate?"), to negotiate territorial concessions after that war (and to whom would Israel "hand over" the land? to Arab states which occupied it before? to a Palestinian organization dedicated to Israel's destruction?). So what should Israel have done?

If states winning wars are supposed to return the land afterward, should the US return the South-west to Mexico? Should Poland be shifted back to it's pre-WWII location? Israel perhaps morally ought to do the right thing, but it's ridiculous for the international community to keep harping on Israel's "illegal" actions when what Israel is being asked to do is so unprecidented.

Brendan:

No, I'm not a troll. Not hardly.

Sorry, I meant Trollish-American.

I'm not sure what ":P" means (maybe someone can clue me in)

If you look at it sideways, it looks like a face sticking its tongue out...

that statement amounts to a taunt to the commenters and host of this site.

Not at all. I wish this site could stop an attack on Iran. It's very unfortunate that it can't. But why should my concerns about the future of liberalism "take a back seat" until after the Iran issue goes away? What I meant to say was, this isn't the National Security Council, and I'm not putting anyone in danger by discussing something other than the Iran issue.

You're sickening.

No YOU're sickening. No YOU're sickening. :P

You suggested -- said outright, really -- that MY believes "anti-Zionism" should be "a cornerstone" of foreign policy. That was a slander against MY, it's there for everyone to read, and you can't take it back.

I did say that, and I'm not taking it back. It wasn't a slander at all. I just disagree with that opinion. I don't slander people who don't slander me, and that includes Matt.

Of course, I might be wrong. I might be over-interpreting Matt's posts. He might not believe that at all. But it seems like he does, or is starting to. But even if I'm wrong, I have no reason to take back what I said, because I just said the impression I'm getting.

You shot your wad too soon, wanker.

Ooh, "wanker." Well you're just a...a...a POO-POO HEAD! So there!! :P

That's the last I respond to you.

At least I have something to be thankful for...

Honestly, Brendan, you need to calm down. All I said was that I don't think anti-Zionism should be a main plank of liberal foreign policy. That's not a slander. The fact that Matt seems to be drifting closer to an anti-Zionist focus worries me, but it doesn't mean I think he's a bad guy, by any stretch of the imagination. So chill.

About 500 years ago, a Persian provoked a war. Since then, nothing.

I don't think Israel faces an existential crisis whatsoever, aside from their theocratic/democratic crisis. By this point, I'm unaware of any halfway serious political groups that want anything more than a return to 1967 borders, which--by the by--WAS resolved by the UN. This includes Admadinejad, who hopes that "the Zionist regime will be erased from history" which is Regime Change.

It's makes me laugh until my tears are dry when Israel complains that Hamas "doesn't recognise it." WE DON'T RECOGNISE A PALESTINIAN STATE!!!! That what "nonrecognition" is, when you deny that a region is sovereign.

The only crisis in a post-withdrawal Israel would be the fundamental issue pointed out by Ben Gurion: that they can be a Jewish state or a democratic state, but not both indefinitely. However, as long as it remains primarily a Jewish state, withdrawal is impossible. Why? Because the ground is holy, and Zion is a renewal of the covenant; to return the Holy Land to the goyim would be sacrilege. Why don't we recognise Likud as expansionist theocrats?

"Why do some people assume so readily that the people who run Iran (not A-jad) are utterly irrational?"

And in case it isn't clear: the possibility that Iran may be a rational actor is the reason you negotiate with them. And the possibility that Iran may not be a rational actor, or otherwise unwilling to cease and desist its nuclear weapons program is the reason you prepare for other contingencies.

Why do some people assume so readily that the people who run Iran (not A-jad) are utterly irrational? - jonnybutter

Well, of course the failure to understand that many of the actors in the ME are acting quite rationally is exactly why the international community has been unable to broker any settlements of any sort there. Indeed, if the actors involved were irrational, all settling the problems of the ME would require is sitting everyone down and forcing them to think things through rationally.

But the Palestinians already are acting entirely rationally: how would you act if what happened to them happened to you? The Israelis are acting entirely rationally: why should they compromise on territory when every concession they make territorially ends up getting used to launch rockets at them? Etc.

It's hard enough to get people to act rationally. It's even harder to get them to stop.

Because the ground is holy, and Zion is a renewal of the covenant; to return the Holy Land to the goyim would be sacrilege. Why don't we recognise Likud as expansionist theocrats? - Luke

And they don't even get their theology right, unless the Likudniks are fundie Christians in disguise. The modern Zionist state hardly involves such a renewal.

I didn't say anyone here advocated "getting rid of Israel". But getting rid of Israel would be the absolute least pro-Israel policy that the U.S. could conceivably support - and I'm saying that even that wouldn't end our Middle East problems.

That's all.

Of course Zionism has failed. Instead of a refuge for Jews and a return to their historic homeland, Zionism called for an adversarial relationship with Palestine's indigenous population, thereby creating the ingredients for the problems Israel faces today. We're talking a century of political, economic and military terror meant to tilt the tables against the land's natives to better advance Jewish interests and control.

Continuing along this path will only make Israel's situation more tenuous, especially if the US is further embroiled in bucking up the Zionist agenda by helping neuter any and all resistance to it. It will only be a matter of time before the US tires of this no-win game.

I'm a believer in ending partition, as I see inclusion and acceptance as the key to peace. Sooner rather than later.

DAS, the same international alliance that established Israel's legal right to exist also established in its charter document that there would be no more conquests of territory. Establishment of law is the essential progress of civilization. I understand that lots of Israelis really really want the West Bank; but the world really really wants international law and an end to conquests.

Note: I completely agree with what IP Guy said.

I think that improving the Israel situation is important. But I don't think it'll come close to solving all our Middle East problems.

I didn't say anyone here advocated "getting rid of Israel".

No, what you said was: "I think that 'just getting rid of Israel' sounds like an easy and convenient solution to our problems." But you didn't say to whom this sounded like an easy and convenient solution. Now we know your answer: to no one in particular.

Brendan's right. Wanker.

I think DAS is asking good questions, and this is a point where my thinking has changed over the last few years. My response is that people focus too much on moral or legal questions, and not enough on pragmantic ones. In the case of Mexico or Poland, the wars were decisive and you did not have a bunch of conquered people seeking to get their own state.

If Israel had pushed the Palestinians out, and if they were not surrounded by countries that are united in their opposition to Israel, then they could have just annexed the conquered land and it that would have been that.

Or, if they had returned the land in return for security guarantees, that would have been that. But this in-betwen policy of slowly grabbing little bits of land, restricting the rights of people who are living there, is like constantly pouring salt on a wound. So, I think their policy is a bad one on pragmatic grounds.

Also, land gets conquered all the time and then returned to the natives. Look at India, Africa, the Phillipines, etc.

Uncle Kvetch:

I'm sure it sounds like an easy solution to someone.

Why am I the wanker instead of you? You haven't even addressed any points I made. Neither did Brendan, for that matter.

The capital of Israel isn't Tel Aviv, it's Jerusalem.

I'm sure it sounds like an easy solution to someone.

I'm sure it does too. The point is that it wasn't proposed as a solution, explicitly or implicitly, by anyone here...and yet you saw fit to include it in your argument. You clearly came here to do battle with strawmen of your own creation. That makes you a wanker. Or a weasel, if you prefer...I'm not picky.

Uncle Kvetch -

You're right. It is a straw man.

In retrospect I should have said "even getting rid of Israel completely wouldn't solve our Middle East problems, so people shouldn't allow themselves to start down that line of thinking." Which is what I meant to say.

But it doesn't make me either a wanker or a weasel. I'm not trying to trick anyone. So chill, and don't be a Brendan.

"However, as long as it remains primarily a Jewish state, withdrawal is impossible. Why? Because the ground is holy, and Zion is a renewal of the covenant; to return the Holy Land to the goyim would be sacrilege. Why don't we recognise Likud as expansionist theocrats?"

Jesus Christ. All we need is "Blood Libel: Myth or Reality" and an accusation of deicide and we'll have hit the anti-semitic trifecta.

I pray to Buddha that this thing somehow gets reconciled before this whole weblog just becomes a refuge for stormfront.org members and every disturbed gentile with a monomaniacal obsession with the jooos.

Oh c'mon now Mr Noah, you can make up with Brendan too. It's a great start, and pretty soon ... peace in the Middle East.

DAS:

"If states winning wars are supposed to return the land afterward, should the US return the South-west to Mexico? Should Poland be shifted back to it's pre-WWII location? Israel perhaps morally ought to do the right thing, but it's ridiculous for the international community to keep harping on Israel's "illegal" actions when what Israel is being asked to do is so unprecidented."

States are supposed to return the land or annex it granting the inhabitants citizenship. Israel wants the land but not the people and has been unwilling to do either.

But..but..Gary...how can I make up with that poo-poo-head Brendan when he called me a "wanker"...and "sickening"...(sob)...(sniffle)...

It's hard enough to get people to act rationally. It's even harder to get them to stop.

My original comment was in response to the guy who suggested that the primary danger to Israel is 'some ideological fruticake' in Iran 'pushing the button'. I'm rather glad that the people who run Iran are rational enough to not invite the complete destruction of themselves and their country - kind of a, er, baseline rationality, don't you think? It could also be called 'rational' to not put your hand through a meatgrinder. Surely the goal is not to get people to stop being rational, but to move beyond the lizard-brain kinds of rationality to a greater one. As Jim W put it:

..[Israel's] in-betwen policy of slowly grabbing little bits of land, restricting the rights of people who are living there, is like constantly pouring salt on a wound. So, I think their policy is a bad one on pragmatic grounds.

You're right. It is a straw man.

Good of you to own that. In all seriousness.

In retrospect I should have said "even getting rid of Israel completely wouldn't solve our Middle East problems, so people shouldn't allow themselves to start down that line of thinking." Which is what I meant to say.

And I would still disagree vehemently (without calling you either a weasel or a wanker). You seem to be suggesting that criticizing the actions of any particular Israeli government, or questioning the uncritical support the US has offered Israel over the years, puts one on a slippery slope whose logical conclusion is "getting rid of Israel completely." I find this absurdly hyperbolic and more than a little offensive to MY and others here. It bears more than a passing resemblance to the ol' "You're with GWB or you're with the terrorists." It's poisonous thinking, and fundamentally anti-democratic.

Put another way, the difference between MY's position on Israel and "we should just get rid of Israel completely" is not a difference in degree, but one in kind.

I'm sorry but the statement that the Jews are incapable of defending themselves is simply not true, and is fully contradicted by 3,000 years of Jewish history. Israel was founded 3,000 years ago, and Jewish people have been able to maintain their land and their residence there for a very long time without any American assistance whatsoever. They have survived the collapse of many different empires in the area, and when the American empire joins the Babylonian, Roman and all the other empires on the ashheap of history they will continue to survive. They have managed to maintain possession of their land for thousands despite the efforts of many peoples to take it away from them, and they will maintain possession of it despite the efforts of the Palestinians to do the same. People really need to familiarize with some of the basic facts of history, and in particular need to acknowledge that this land has been Jewish for a very long time, and will be for the foreseeable future. Eventually the Palestinians will fade away along with all of the other peoples who mistakenly thought they could outfight the Jews.

Uncle Kvetch -

I don't think that MY is on a slippery slope that leads to calling for Israel's dissolution. But I think others may start on such a slope if they start thinking that "anti-Israle is the liberal way to be." Some people's slopes are more slippery than others'. As an example I'd cite Jostein Gaarder, author of Sophie's Choice, who called for Israel's dissolution after the recent Hezbollah war, on the grounds that Israel had violated the "syllabus of humanism." (Note that he called for the relocation and resettlement of Israel's Jewish population, not their slaughter.)

It seems to me little stretch to postulate that, if opposition to Israel becomes a plank of liberal foreign policy, many American liberals could end up sharing Gaarder's view.

But in fact, that isn't my chief concern at all. I'm not worried about Israel nearly as much as I'm worried about American liberalism. I think that if we focus too much on Israel and not enough on issues that are much bigger, more important and more ideologically clear-cut, we risk losing our way and losing our relevance.

And MY is something of leader in the online liberal movement, which makes him a minor leader in the liberal movement as a whole. So if he makes Israel-bashing his main foreign-policy plank, it pushes the whole liberal movement just a little bit in that direction. Which I don't like.

Anyway, I must now go get some work done before blogging forces me to drop out of grad school. Cheers! :-)

Whoa, Mr Noah. William Styron wrote Sophie's Choice.

Mike, um, haven't you heard something called the Diaspora....?

If the US gets egged on into going into Iran, gets itself trapped in Yet Another Quagmire--nebbermind what happens to the US economy when the Straits of Hormuz get blocked and China decides to start calling in its dues....there might be a bit of blame spread around, nu?

Israel has managed to work together with our nutty Christianists here in the US quite prettily so far to get heavy-duty support, but remember, these people are Rapturists willing to see Armaggedon as just around the corner. If the US goes down the tubes, they're going to be chomping at the bit to carry out their sadistic little fairy tale.

One of those interesting scenarios, but one to watch from a different continent.

"This is the fairly demented logic of the binational hawk movement in Tel Aviv and Washington. The United States and Israel will, side-by-side, engage in a series of endless military confrontations with the Muslim population of the region. This will allow Israel to avoid making unpalatable concessions on the Palestinian front, but carries the price of putting Israel in a situation that's only tenable with continuous American backing."

Yes, I'm sure that once the Israeli-Palestenian conflict is solved, all the problems Israel has with deeply illiberal neighbors of a different religion calling for it's people to be driven into the sea will melt away. Since the dawn of the state's beginning, it's neighbors antipathy has stemmed solely from the pain they feel for the cause of the palestenians. It's neighbors care deeply about the palestenian cause and in no way use the situation merely as a convenient cudgel with which it can bash it's enemy.

What's more this peace will spring freely from the hearts and minds of these leaders and will in no way require a US-Egypt esque "Money for non-aggression" bribery pact. Only tenable with continuous American backing indeed.

Talk about demented logic.

It's because the "liberal-left" has been and is so riddled with crypto-zionists that identifying contemporary Zionism as the Evil of our time is so necessary. And, for Jews like our gracious host or Tony Judt, Finkelstein, etc. to aggressively stress that point is vital. These people make "Dr. Strangelove" look like Andy Dick. Someone like Anthony Zinni's been around a lot of warmongers in his time- but ask him if he ever met anyone more sickening than Wolfowitz. Add to that the multi-pronged, multi-media amen corner, the Democrat quislings, the feckless moveon.org/michael kinsley drips and you can see how the neocons were able to just bore in with nary a protest. The other thing is that you've got credible patriots like Hagel and Murtha who well understand this insidious menace. Even someone like Chris Matthews for Christ's sake is sympathetic towards this noble goal.

"And, for Jews like our gracious host or Tony Judt, Finkelstein, etc. to aggressively stress that point is vital."

Yeah, there are a few good ones.

While I've agreed with much of the commentary here, I can't let this slide:

"It's because the "liberal-left" has been and is so riddled with crypto-zionists that identifying contemporary Zionism as the Evil of our time is so necessary." -- Trevor

Excuse me? contemporary Zionism is problematic, to be sure, and has given rise to a series of genuinely troubling (and in some cases, evil) things. To call it the "Evil of our time" hardly does justice to (a) what the Chinese are doing in Tibet, or to the Uigers, (b) the genocide happening in the Horn of Africa, and in a number of central african nations (c) what has taken place in Kashmir, (d) the AIDS epidemic in Africa, (e) widespread female genital mutiliation in a dozen different countries, (f) oh, and Osama bin Laden. Remember him?

This is exactly why critics of Israel don't get traction, when there's a lot to criticize.

DRR's most recent comment is nicely instructive. DRR quotes Matt talking about the long-term unsustainability of Israel's aggressive foreign policy, and then recasts the argument as a lame hippie straw man in order to completely avoid engaging with it.

"DRR's most recent comment is nicely instructive. DRR quotes Matt talking about the long-term unsustainability of Israel's aggressive foreign policy, and then recasts the argument as a lame hippie straw man in order to completely avoid engaging with it."

I quoted Matt talking about "unpalatable concessions" to the Palestenians in regards to Israel's safety from it's neighbors, as if that issue were somehow the difference between fear of nuclear annihlation from hostile neighbors & bi-religious harmony & criticized him for it. There are a number of ways I might characterize such a view but "hippie" didn't come to mind. If you also believed such a stupid scenario and were offended by my criticism than my apologies.

Crypto-Zionists of the world Unite!

DRR-- And you continue to argue with a straw variant of Matt's post!

...as if that issue were somehow the difference between fear of nuclear annihlation from hostile neighbors & bi-religious harmony...

I didn't say anyone here advocated "getting rid of Israel"

Then why do you put it in quotation marks?

"BUZZ! You still don't get it! Nobody is saying that harmony will instantly ensue from compromise and land-for-peace swaps."

Land swaps with whom? Peac with whom? I thought we were talking about Iran here?

I agree with IP Guy. Whatever you want to say about this issue, Trevor's comment that Zionism is "the evil of our time" is so ridiculous that it makes you question Trevor's motives.

In any case, the Ygelsias post above is very good.

Someone above mentioned reading VS Naipaul. His literature is good, but he also supports Hinduvta, which is a fascistic interpretation of Hinduism that turns it into a form of Hindu nationalism and fundamentalism. The most right-wing of Hinduvta supporters boast about the fact their movement has its roots in Nazi thought.

Of course Israel's problems wouldn't go away right away if it withdrew from Palestine, but they would go down. The number of Israelis who were killed by Hezbollah went way down after withdrawal. Israel launched the war over 2 soldiers getting kidnapped and then proceeded to destroy much of Lebanon's infrastructure, despite the fact that Lebanon is the nation in the region with the best chance of being a truly liberal, multicultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic democracy and a real medium-term ally of Israel. Hamas would lose its raison d'etre as an anti-Israeli force as the people would lose the occupation as a cause for any problems in Palestine. Hezbollah only finds support in Lebanon today because the Shi'ites fear that they will no longer be protected without Hezbollah, but the Palestinians do not have the same divides Lebanon does. The whole reason we support Moubarek in Egypt is that we fear his downfall would bring a government hostile to Israel. Egyptians know Nasser's revolution failed. The failure of Nasser and Moubarek are one of the reasons there are so many problems in the heart of the Arab world today. However, Moubarek's party uses the occupation as a way to shore up support. The Islamic radicals use the occupation as a way to get support. Once the occupation ends, they would need to focus on new forms of support. We would no longer have to support one of the corrupt Arab dictatorships that is one of the leading beefs of al-Qaeda.

How about we just swap. I'm perfectly willing to rename Minnesota "The State of Israel" and move out because of my lack of appropriate blood. Then you'd have a refuge. Unless of course there can BE no legitimate Jewish state without actually sitting in the Levant. But if that's what it took to stop all the craziness I'd be willing to do it.

"It's neighbors care deeply about the palestenian cause and in no way use the situation merely as a convenient cudgel with which it can bash it's enemy." - DRR

I think that if this were true, then Palestine would have created by Jordan and Egypt prior to the 1967 war. People seem to forget that the West Bank and Gaza were not part of a nation called Palestine; they were part of Jordan and Egypt, who at the time didnt give a damn about Palestinians.
The only reason the Palestinian cause is pushed is bc it focuses the attention of the citizens of middle eastern states away from thier own crappy dictatorships. Thier citizens can then rationalize that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' and think that thier Asad, bin Sultan, Amendinijeadcosdfadofinf, or Hussein is not so bad.

And to correct someone elses assertion in an earlier post: There would most likely be no Israel today without the US. Israel would have most likely been destroyed in 1973 had it not been for our airlift of equipment.

Also, to those who support the occupation or don't have problems with it, how do you feel about what the Chinese have done in Tibet and Xinjiang? How about the Russians in Chechnya, the Indians in Kashmir, the Turks and Iraqis in Kurdistan, the Indonesians in East Timor, the British in Northern Ireland, etc.? How do you feel about British, French and other empires of old? They all operate on roughly the same principles.

Israel would have most likely been destroyed in 1973 had it not been for our airlift of equipment.

Pick up as orthodox a zionist historian you feel like, that was never in the cards, never part of the plan, never, ever going to happen by design.

Reality Man - very well said in the last post. (not the Hindu stuff, the middle east stuff)

The Lebanon war was extremely saddening and Israel would gain PR points by withdrawing from WestBank. But I am sure there would then be another cause or justification for why they need to continue fighting Israel. "move your capital back to Tel Aviv where it belongs"

Arafat did not accept 96%+ of the west bank plus more to be negotiated later because his backers in other states would hav enot supported it and he would have been assasinated. Those states have no incentive to allow for the creation of a Palestinian state because it would eliminate most of the rhetoric of hatred towards Israel (at which point they would have to hold free elections).

As far as Lebanon goes, it was a very sad and clearly bungled Israeli response. I do think, however, that they had every right to stop the rocket attacks.

Ed Marshall - I have no idea what you meant by your last post

It's far from clear, however, that it serves the interests of actual Israelis who, after all, don't have the luxury of just retreating to another continent when these schemes blow up catastrophically.

A lot of Israelis have dual nationality already and many that don't have right to citizenship of other countries (e.g. Germany). This is one reason that Zionists regard Iran as an existential threat. While Israel is the only nation in the Middle East with nuclear weapons, Israelis have nothing to fear. As soon as Iran gets a nuclear capability, then the already low level of immigration will probably change to emigration.

Perhaps one reason that MAD worked between the US and Russia was due to the size of both's stock of nuclear weapons. If it came to a war, the only thing to survive would have been the cockroaches. With Israel against Iran it is a different matter.

I was in a hurry, but no one on earth believes that the Yom Kippur war could have ended in The Destruction of Israel. The aim of the war was for the Egyptian government to either switch patrons or force the Soviets back behind them. There is an enormous amount of documental provenance that outlines this. It doesn't play as well as the bloodthirsty Arabs baying for Jew blood but it's the boring truth.

Sorry if this has already been addressed, but am I the only one bothered by the fact that this article doesn't even bother to try to present any reasons at all to think that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, but simply takes it as a given?

If I wanted, say, to advocate for an invasion of Georgia and Ukraine because I thought loose nuclear materials present an intolerable threat to US national interests, I could make a pretty concrete and reasonable case based on open source materials. Why would you not do so in an article like this? It's the difference between the sober presentation of a real threat attempting to persuade skeptics and propaganda.

Iran is of course not a Stalinist dictatorship but a Shiite Muslim theocracy whose leaders are given to waxing poetic about the coming apocalypse . . .

I've seen this meme in circulation for a long time, and I'm still waiting for someone to cite an example. In context, this means an example with political/military significance, not some meditation on the Day of Judgment that might be penned by any pious Christian or Muslim.

Unlike Tibet, the Sudan, you name it- the consequences of Zionism are one war which has inflamed the region, the buildup of another war (Nuking Iran) is happening...Ask the Europeans, the leaders of Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia- ask every responsible leader in the world what the biggest threat to world peace and stability is- and if they tell you "the situation in Tibet" you'll know you're truly delusional. Traction on Israel IS HAPPENING NOW precisely because more and more responsible leaders, scholars, activists etc., etc. are not falling into the crypto-Zionist quicksand of letting Israel and its Lobby, neocons, amen corner, "liberals" off the hook. Calling as it is: Zionism is THE EVIL OF OUR TIME is not only long overdue- it's goddamn refreshing. Does anyone really believe that as horrible as it is- genital mutilation could lead to a Nuclear Armageddon? Does anyone really believe that pooh-poohing Apartheid Israel's atrocities has helped the Palestinians, helped Israel for Christ's sake- helped anyone in any way at all? All or any of the commentators here who are irked or offended by the simple and horrific truth that Zionism is The Evil Of Our Time are (to use a shopworn but nevertheless accurate cliche) part of the fucking problem. In their misguided and in fact neurotic attempt to bury or minimize their own complicity in "The Jewish State"s Apartheid Evil- I repeat- are actually harming everyday Israelis, and Israel's chance to be a safe and secure nation. Oh, but they'd rather the focus be on a remote, Third World problem where the outright global danger Israel and all its high-level supporters can be relegated to a blip in the Toledo Gazette buried on page 29. Who do you think you're all kidding?

Trevor, that is just nuts. And attacking strawmen in the form of Tibet and genital mutilation don't help your argument much.

BG, In your heart- you know I'm right. You might as well call Jimmy Carter "a loon" or Colin Powell ("The Jinsa crowd pushed us into War") "a wacko" or the American Establishment ISG report "nuts" too-to buttress your callow sophistry. The facts are on the ground- not in your head. The Bill Kristol formulation ("Benevolent Global Hegemony", i.e. "We are the Zionists- you are the slaves"), The Israeli Occupation and all that it entails has put the world in peril. Nothing even comes close

"And not only are Israeli Jews threatened (not a new historical development) but they're incapable of defending themselves."

Uh...where did you get this idea? Under some set of assumptions it might make sense but without clarification it is more than just "questionable.".

Wouldn't it be nice if more than two people anywhere in the world could have a conversation on the Middle East without someone jumping in with their " Israelis / Zionists / Jews / Arabs / Muslims / Palestinians are evil" speach?

"Wouldn't it be nice if...?"

Absolute proof of how shallow people are actually worse than enemies

Yeah, it'd be nice to have pancakes with syrup in the morn.

Trevor, I was trying to be nice, but you're an idiot, so I'll stop. If you have paid even one iota of attention to what's been said on this board, you'd notice that (a) everyone here agrees (in one form or another) that Israel is acting moronically, (b) everyone agrees that the best way for Israel to achieve real security is to act properly towards the palestinians, (c) that we all agree that the Israel lobby in the United States has done far more to harm Israel than help it, and has driven the U.S. towards unnecessary wars, (d) the palestinians are suffering because the U.S. government does the bidding of AIPAC when AIPAC isn't even doing what's in the interests of Jews or Israelis.

But the injustice of what is happening to the palestinians is simply not even close to the worst thing that is happening in the world today. That does not mean it isn't horrible, and worth addressing. But there are many worse things -- and zionism is not the ultimate evil. To call it that undermines the effort to fix it. If you don't know what the Chinese have done to an entire nation in Tibet, or to the Uigher minorities in Western China, pick up a fucking book. If you don't know how many people are suffering in Africa because of civil wars between countries that you are simply too arrogant to care about (and I can assure you it is FAR more than have ever perished in every middle eastern war ever fought, combined), go read the fricking Guardian. If you don't know how many tens of thousands of little girls get their l;abias cut off (without anesthetic), then their clitoris removed and sewn closed so they cannot experience pleasure, go read Nawal El Saadawi. And if you can't understand that your animus towards Israel, while justified, is simply out of proportion to the evil manifeted there then you are clueless.

Jeez, and we're the ones who agree with you. Israel is a significant problem and has destablized the middle east. Well, Kashmir is a problem because of the outrageous behavior of India, and it has destablized the subcontinent and led to a lot of suffering by a lot of people -- more than in Palestine. Isn't that a problem too?

Get some fucking perspective, and quite being so narcissitic about your obsessions.

Trevor, and where were you when Kashmir nearly led to Nuclear war between India and Pakistan? That's simply not important, is it? And no, there is no "traction" on Israel right now -- that's the problem. The way to get traction is not with Europeans, it's with the American government, and that does not happen by pretending that the very most dangerous thing in the world right now is Israel, when it is not. It is very dangerous -- or, more specifically, blind support for it is very dangerous -- but you are minimizing a lot of suffering in the name of your own obsessions. There's an emergency happening right now in Africa, and a hell of a lot more people are dying, and it's being ignored because people like you can safely igore it.

"Trevor, I was trying to be nice, but you're an idiot."

IP (Idiot Puss?), I wasn't talking about your looks. .

It's not the scale of the War Crime I'm talking about, schmuck. It's the scale and dimension of the effect it's having world wide. 9/11 ANYONE? U.S. support for Apartheid Israel was the major reason 3,000+ Americans were murdered. Has that sunk in yet to your monomaniacal
"please, Mister, don't pick on Israel head? You can cry the blues, pick your nose, do whatever you do, but the debate within America has shifted (thanks to their losing the War in Lebanon, Carter, Walt & Mearshimer, a whole host of things) from: "Isn't the Middle East a mess?"...to- "What can be done to end the Israeli Occupation?" Maybe not completely, or even halfway there, but larger segments of the American public are incrementally becoming aware of what a liability our alliance with Israel is. With "friends" like Israel- who needs enemies? you know what I mean Vern? You can't fool all of the people all of the time. And, the other important factor is that a growing number of American Jews are getting pissed off at what Israel does in their name. And, to that- I say Mazel tov! The fact is- as ghastly as the plague and poverty in Africa is- it's not provoking a World War, not provoking terrorist mass-murder, not putting a major portion of all us Earthlings at risk of being killed. Zio-Nazism is.

Well, now we understand, don't we. Even though I (and almost everyone else on this board) HAS BEEN "picking on" Israel, that's simply not good enough, is it? No, we need to declare our fealty to your world view or we're complicit.

Oh, and U.S. support for Israel had nothing to do with 9/11 -- and Osama bin Laden agrees. Want to look that up, bub?

The fact that MORE people are being killed in other parts of the world is less relevant TO YOU because it isn't provoking terrorist mass murder that might put YOU risk -- which is why this is all about you, not about Israel.

American Jews (such as myself) are increasingly pissed at Israel and at AIPAC for what happens in our name. We're trying to change things. But dismissing out of hand the incredible evil that takes place in our world because it doesn't fit your personal obsession is the hackwork of a crank. And describing zionism as the evil of our time is sloppy thinking -- and ignores every other aspect of the mess in the middle east. Reductionist approcahes to foreign policy always fail. Always.

It's not the size of the crime, eh? Well, it should be. And that's the problem.

OK. I'm almost ready to vote republican for the first time in my 30 years as a voter.

Oh, and U.S. support for Israel had nothing to do with 9/11 -- and Osama bin Laden agrees.

That's insane. OF COURSE it had something to do with U.S. support for Israel. Moreover, this isn't some kind of obscure, difficult to locate information -- it's available to anyone with a modem and thirty seconds to spare.

I find it really, really, really weird that anyone would dispute such a basic, established fact.

we'll, don't let the door hit you, as they say

Okay, grh, I can see that this discussion isn't even worth having. All of those interviews with bin Laden where he talks only about U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia -- irrelevant. Like most of the Arab governments which he hoped to replace, he could have given two rats asses about the Palestinians unless it served his purposes (which it did only POST 9/11).

Make no mistake, we're complicit for supporting the Israelis, and the Arab world is complicit for failing to help the Palestinians. We're all guilty. But let's try to figure out what we can do that's useful to remedy the situation -- like figure out a mainstream alternative to AIPAC. Oh, wait, it's far more entertaining to rhapsodize ignorantly about how edgy we are like Trevor.

Never mind.

I always find this part of the discussion interesting, We can all acknowledge the violence, bloodshed & turmoil begotten by Israel; we can even identify the shameful role large swathes of wealthy American abd Israeli Jewry, but by no means all Jews, have in perpetuating this horror in the middle east. We can even acknowledge as adults, no matter how knee-jerk mud is flinged our way, that yes, the large majority of both American political parties are all but controlled by a bi-national cadre of ideological/theological zionists who would be regarded as nothing less than a 5th column if we could discuss this situation like adults.

Yet for some reason, whenever this process reaches it's logical conclusion; a full-scale condemnation of Zionism for the violent, tribal, racist, murderous religion it is, and the primary source of anti-arab (the real anti-semitism) dehumanization in the middle-east, certain people still close their eyes.

Well, fewer and fewer people are closing their eyes to the truth. After Atrios of Eschaton, a blogger I respected, smeared Alexander Cockburn falsely as an anti-semite (there's a surprise!) a few years back for once again telling the truth about our domestic zionist lobby, I wrote off any chance the blogosphere was going to seriously take a different approach to discussions of Israel and Zionism. I now seriously believe one of the primary fruits of on-line activism will be nothing less than an about face regarding how the U.S. approaches Israel & the Arab world.

I commend this author's willingness to approach this issue fearlessly & clear-headed. In my estimation he has joined the esteemed ranks of insightful commenters as Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, & Israel Shamir. Jews who have been consistently telling the truth about Israel & Zionism. Of course plenty of non jews have been frankly about these matters for years but that's neither here nor there. This blog is definitely a must-read.

IP guy:

All of those interviews with bin Laden where he talks only about U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia -- irrelevant. Like most of the Arab governments which he hoped to replace, he could have given two rats asses about the Palestinians unless it served his purposes (which it did only POST 9/11).

Dear god. Again: what motivates people to have strong opinions about things they obviously haven't spent fifteen seconds investigating?

Of course I never said the military bases were "irrelevant." You, however, said "U.S. support for Israel had nothing to do with 9/11." Also, "[Bin Laden] could have given two rats asses about the Palestinians unless it served his purposes (which it did only POST 9/11)." Both statements are preposterously wrong.

Bin Laden & Ayman al-Zawahiri, February 23, 1998:

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people...

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres...

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God...

9/11 report on timing of attacks:

According to KSM, Bin Ladin had been urging him to advance the date of the attacks. In 2000, for instance, KSM remembers Bin Ladin pushing him to launch the attacks amid the controversy after then-Israeli opposition party leader Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

9/11 Report on motivations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.

There's much, much more, of course, but I think this probably suffices. But the more interesting subject is, how could anyone with the least interest in this subject NOT know this?

==And to correct someone elses assertion in an earlier post: There would most likely be no Israel today without the US. Israel would have most likely been destroyed in 1973 had it not been for our airlift of equipment.
Posted by: yep on January 26, 2007 06:08 PM==

The Arabs had neither the objective nor the capability to destroy Israel in 1973. Even with the element of surprise and massive Soviet reinforcement, they were only aiming to recapture Sinai and Golan, and restore pride after the 67 humiliation. Obviously they would have gone on to Haifa, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv if Israel had completely collapsed, but that was never realistic or part of the Arab objective for victory. They were trying to finally win a round, not end the game.

==Calling as it is: Zionism is THE EVIL OF OUR TIME is not only long overdue- it's goddamn refreshing. Does anyone really believe that as horrible as it is- genital mutilation could lead to a Nuclear Armageddon?
Posted by: Trevor on January 26, 2007 08:50 PM==

Pakistan and India have been threatening "Nuclear Armageddon" for almost a decade. North Korea has nuclear weapons, unlike Israel does not have a record of restraint, and is conducting missile and nuclear detonation tests. But the Jews and our conspiracies and our sinister influence in the halls of power are "THE EVIL OF OUR TIME". Just like of every other time, right?

"Trevor's comment that Zionism is "the evil of our time" is so ridiculous that it makes you question Trevor's motives."

What is the cliched expression? Oh, "Beyond Parody!"

grh -- sorry for my sloppy use of the word "nothing," (you're right, that's incorrect) but I believe that the record shows (both in the 9/11 report and in other sources, including interviews with bin Laden throughout the 1990s) that the 9/11 attacks were not primarily or even substantially influenced by the Israelis or their actions, or U.S. support. You are correct that some of the individuals involved were radicalized by U.S. support for Israel, but that does not mean (and you acknowledge in your response) that this was the primary cause of 9/11.

In any event, that is off topic, and I apologize for that. But my initial point remains -- we need to address the injustices in Israel, but referring to zionism as the "evil of our time" accomplishes nothing except (a) diminishing other more serious humanitarian problems and disasters in the world (North Korea, being a prime example, Africa being another) and (b) using that type of inaccurate and inflamatory rhetoric guarrantees that the people who need to be convinced that changes are necessary and that AIPAC is a problem will never listen.

Nelson Mandela called the Palestinian fight for self-determination- "The moral struggle of our time." Hence, it follows that the 40 years and running Israeli Occupation and all its attendant horrors is the most IMMORAL SUBJUGATION OF AN ENTIRE PEOPLE of our time.

I love the beetweed who questioned my "motives" eaerlier. MY MOTIVES? What about YOUR MOTIVES? My motives are I'd like justice to prevail in THE MORAL STRUGGLE OF OUR TIME. My motives are I'd like to see the Palestinians finally catch a break. My motives are I'd like to see the threat of terrorism hanging over me and my fellow Americans go away.

Whereas, it seems obvious that the motives of every scurrying pissant who's tried (in vain) to "question the motives" of anyone who's identified Zionism as The Evil Of Our Time are to-

1. Silence or mute harsh criticism of Israel.
2. Try and keep the American public in the dark about how U.S. support for Israel was THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF 9/11. (that Brit Peter what's his last name? who wrote "The bin laden I know" corrected Anderson Cooper to say that bi Laden's been riled up about Israel's persecution of the Palestinians for years.
and...
3. To try (in vain) to convince the American people that anyone who's successfully reached a wide audience exposing the Evil of Apartheid Israel is in fact "an anti-Semite."

4. To somehow(in vain) persuade a gullible public that the murder of Rachel Corrie was just a "problemmatic, beaurocratic slip."

History is pissing on all your cowardly lies now, and just like Apartheid South Africa- Apartheid Israel's days are numbered. And, you can sniffle, and sob and howl about it until you're all chartreuse in the face. It ain't gonna matter a bit.

I like this Trevor guy.

"I've seen this meme in circulation for a long time, and I'm still waiting for someone to cite an example. In context, this means an example with political/military significance, not some meditation on the Day of Judgment that might be penned by any pious Christian or Muslim."

I suspect this won't satisfy you but it doesn't especially comfort any number of people either.

"The main rift is no longer between "reformists" and "hardliners", but between the clerical establishment and Mr Ahmadinejad's brand of revolutionary populism and superstition.

Its most remarkable manifestation came with Mr Ahmadinejad's international debut, his speech to the United Nations.

World leaders had expected a conciliatory proposal to defuse the nuclear crisis after Teheran had restarted another part of its nuclear programme in August.

Instead, they heard the president speak in apocalyptic terms of Iran struggling against an evil West that sought to promote "state terrorism", impose "the logic of the dark ages" and divide the world into "light and dark countries".

The speech ended with the messianic appeal to God to "hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the one that will fill this world with justice and peace".

In a video distributed by an Iranian web site in November, Mr Ahmadinejad described how one of his Iranian colleagues had claimed to have seen a glow of light around the president as he began his speech to the UN."

And just in case it needs to be repeated aloud the difference between Christian apocalyptics and Muslim ones is that Christian civilization has had a half-millenium longer to develop a secular society and governance. I wouldn't have trusted assorted Holy Roman Emperors with the Christian Bomb either. But, of course, it wasn't a factor then. Pat Robertson is a dick and a fruitcake but he isn't John Cotton.

No matter where you stand on things, everyone ought to listen to what former Zionist Benjamin Freedman had to say on the subject of Zionism www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Freedman.html

The late, great Prof. Israel Shahak kindly translated the Middle East Roadmap for us. While a little behind schedule with the Iraq-Iran war having failed to do the trick, it appears to be back on course: www.freearabvoice.org/ZionistConspiracy_DivideTheArabWorld.htm

A quick quote might be of interest:
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the
other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its
dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria.
Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power
which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon.

Of course, there's no question that Osama did 9/11; it's just unfortunate that Zionists turn up at all junctures in the drama. Very briefly:
1) PNAC's call for another Pearl Harbor
2) the sale of unprofitable, asbestos-laden WTC to Larry Silverstein who loads up on insurance covering terrorism
3) author of Patriot Act and 9/11 crime scene evdience remover in chief - Michael Chertoff
4) gatekeeper and author of the 9/11 Commission report - Phillip Zelikow
5) the Mossad film crew seen celebrating the WTC attack ("we were just there to document the event")
6) head of Pentagon accounting ($2.6 Trillion announcement missing on 9/10/01), Dov Zakheim

The interviews with journalist Christopher Bollyn at www.iamthewitness.com are an excellent resourch if you can't swallow unlimited coincidence.

For the stouthearted we can Praise Jesus we've got a free press to relentlessly investigate things and preserve our Republic for us.

In less enlightened realms, evildoers like Vlad Putin want to prevent people who hold duel citizenship from serving in gov't(www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/491). Pathetic.

North Korea has nuclear weapons, unlike Israel does not have a record of restraint . . .

Oh, please. The Korean war was over half a century ago. Since then the Israelis have engaged in far more violence outside their borders than the North Koreans.

Perhaps you feel the Israeli violence was always justified, but that is a subjective, highly debatable matter. For those who feel Israel's situation, and 'centuries of persecution', justify almost anything, characterizing the actual record as one of 'restraint' is true but not very meaningful.

For those who feel Israel's situation, and 'centuries of persecution', justify almost anything,

Thank you!! You just hit on one of my biggest pet peeves regarding how they justify their barbarism.

Could Israeli jews please explain just how many brown people "centuries of persecution" entitles them to kill & maim? The arab world would please like and answer this. K thnx bi.

Linus:

I suspect this won't satisfy you . . .

Of course it doesn't. It's just more of the same drivel:

Mr Ahmadinejad appears to believe that these events are close at hand and that ordinary mortals can influence the divine timetable.

In context, this seems to mean that Ahmadinejad 'appears to believe' that he can 'influence the divine timetable' by mundane actions like starting wars, as opposed to appealing to God in prayer. Otherwise it's irrelevant to the writer's speculations, and to our discussion here.

Interpreted this way, the claim is not supported by a scrap of evidence. We're just supposed to take the writer's word about what Ahmadinejad 'appears to believe'.

That Ahmadinejad's speech 'ended with the messianic appeal to God to "hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One . . .", is at least a little inconsistent with Ahmadinejad believing that the event is already 'close at hand'.

"In context, this seems to mean that Ahmadinejad 'appears to believe' that he can 'influence the divine timetable' by mundane actions like starting wars, as opposed to appealing to God in prayer."

Appeals to God to hasten the coming of the apocalypse in prayer are one thing. Appeals to God to hasten the coming of the apocalypse on the floor of the United Nations are something else.

As I said: I don't think we know if this man and the elites behind him are rational actors or not (or if his and their political calculus is wildly discordant with Washingon's, as Saddam Hussein's was). But the possibility that they are rational actors should lead us to make every effort to broker an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program.

But the possibility that they are not rational actors as well as the possibility of nuclear blackmail means that America cannot accept the prospect let alone the actuality of this regime possessing nuclear weapons. And if in the end it means a war with Iran it will have been the fault of the regime itself not the fault of America, or the west.

I don't think that any outcome in this case is anything like pre-ordained.

Linus:

But the possibility that they are rational actors should lead us to make every effort to broker an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Does that include the U.S. renouncing 'regime change'? How about ending American support for subversive groups like the MEK?

Such 'appeasement' is never going to happen. The Israeli lobby and its allies would rather tolerate an Iranian nuke than a rapprochment between the U.S. and Iran.

But the possibility that they are not rational actors as well as the possibility of nuclear blackmail means that America cannot accept the prospect let alone the actuality of this regime possessing nuclear weapons. And if in the end it means a war with Iran . . .

What if war wouldn't prevent Iran from getting a nuke, but only delay it a few years?

Re: Hence, it follows that the 40 years and running Israeli Occupation and all its attendant horrors is the most IMMORAL SUBJUGATION OF AN ENTIRE PEOPLE of our time.

With the exception of Iceland and some Polynesian nations (and maybe Madagascar), every country on Earth is inhabited by people who ancestors took it away from its previous inhabitants, some recently, some far back in history. This is obviously true of the US, but it's also true of ancient nations like Japan, Greece and Ethiopia. And the Arab nations. And Iran. Why should Israel be held to a much higher standard than about 180 other nations?

==North Korea has nuclear weapons, unlike Israel does not have a record of restraint . . .
Oh, please. The Korean war was over half a century ago. Since then the Israelis have engaged in far more violence outside their borders than the North Koreans.==

Who do you think North Korea could invade? South Korea again? China? Israel on the other hand could have flattened Egypt and Syria and annihilated the Palestinians, but has chosen not to do so, thank God. It's what the Arab nations do when they have the military advantage (Kuwait, Hama). Fortunately, Israel has shown extreme restraint, even against weak but mortal enemies.

On the Jews-with-Nukes theme that had Trever so worked up, Israel has had them for decades without using them or acknowledging them, whereas N. Korea does not have a history of unused nuclear capability, and is rattling that saber as loudly as possible. Therefore I regard N. Korea's nuclear arsenal as a greater threat to the world than Israel's, you fault me on this but neither of you has yet made a case otherwise.

==Perhaps you feel the Israeli violence was always justified, but that is a subjective, highly debatable matter. For those who feel Israel's situation, and 'centuries of persecution', justify almost anything, characterizing the actual record as one of 'restraint' is true but not very meaningful.
Posted by: David Tomlin on January 27, 2007 03:19 PM==

That blabber has nothing to do with anything I said. Of course I don't feel all of Israel's violence is justified, the targeting of civilian infrastructure in Lebanon last year was criminal and cruel.

aleks:

Israel on the other hand could have flattened Egypt and Syria and annihilated the Palestinians, but has chosen not to do so, thank God. It's what the Arab nations do when they have the military advantage (Kuwait, Hama).

Israel has repeatedly invaded it its neighbors - Egypt in 1956 and 1967, Lebanon in 1978 and 1982.

Therefore I regard N. Korea's nuclear arsenal as a greater threat to the world than Israel's, you fault me on this but neither of you has yet made a case otherwise.

Please don't conflate me with Trevor. I agree with those who have pointed out that his hyperbole is self-discrediting.

"With the exception of Iceland and some Polynesian nations (and maybe Madagascar), every country on Earth is inhabited by people who ancestors took it away from its previous inhabitants, some recently, some far back in history. This is obviously true of the US, but it's also true of ancient nations like Japan, Greece and Ethiopia. And the Arab nations. And Iran. Why should Israel be held to a much higher standard than about 180 other nations?"

Maybe because the Palestinians are still living there? Getting rid of the settlements would actually please a large majority of Israelis - many view the settlers as traitors who are loyal only to the Biblical idea of Greater Israel than the actual Israeli nation-state of today and be the right thing to do. The empires of old have pretty much all retreated and let the rest of the world be independent (except for a few exceptions like Russia in Chechnya, India in Kashmir, China in Xinjiang, etc. that are all indefensible). The French, for example, don't control Algeria any more, just like the British don't control Kenya or the old colony of Palestine. The demise of the Soviet empire let Eastern Europeans practice national self-determination.

==aleks: Israel on the other hand could have flattened Egypt and Syria and annihilated the Palestinians, but has chosen not to do so, thank God. It's what the Arab nations do when they have the military advantage (Kuwait, Hama).

david: Israel has repeatedly invaded it its neighbors - Egypt in 1956 and 1967, Lebanon in 1978 and 1982.==

Egypt chose the 67 war, intending to destroy Israel. Israel refrained from even annihilating Egypt's defeated and surrounded army, much less taking or leveling Cairo. Do you think Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and Syria would have exercised similar restraint and mercy if the tables were turned? I'm not saying that Israel isn't warlike.

==aleks: Therefore I regard N. Korea's nuclear arsenal as a greater threat to the world than Israel's, you fault me on this but neither of you has yet made a case otherwise.

david: Please don't conflate me with Trevor. I agree with those who have pointed out that his hyperbole is self-discrediting.
Posted by: David Tomlin on January 28, 2007 12:11 AM==

I don't consider you akin to Trevor at all, but in this case you attacked my response to him. A point can apply to you both without my thinking of you as allies or equals.

"Maybe because the Palestinians are still living there?"

That would seem to argue against Israel being the Evil Of Our Times.

"Getting rid of the settlements would actually please a large majority of Israelis - many view the settlers as traitors who are loyal only to the Biblical idea of Greater Israel than the actual Israeli nation-state of today and be the right thing to do."

I agree with this, although every bit of land returned to the Palestinians brings rocket fire closer to Israel's population centers. Before the return of Gaza and the Katyusha war in the north, I was a huge fan of returning Gaza and the West Bank to the Palestinians ASAP. Now it all seems hopeless.

"The empires of old have pretty much all retreated and let the rest of the world be independent (except for a few exceptions like Russia in Chechnya, India in Kashmir, China in Xinjiang, etc. that are all indefensible). The French, for example, don't control Algeria any more, just like the British don't control Kenya or the old colony of Palestine. The demise of the Soviet empire let Eastern Europeans practice national self-determination.
Posted by: Reality Man on January 28, 2007 12:40 AM"

Americans still control Hawaii though, and Puerto Rico, and New England and the Midwest. The descendants of Saxon and Norman invaders still occupy England. The Arabs still control Muhammad and his successors' conquests, besides Israel and Spain. The Vedic Aryans who conquered India are still there.

aleks:

Egypt chose the 67 war . . .

If you mean that Nasser expected Israel to attack in response to the closing of the Straits of Tiran, that may or may not be true. I'm interested if you have an argument or evidence on that point.

If you mean that Nasser had decided to order an invasion which the Israelis pre-empted, that is widely believed but false. See Abba Eban's memoir, Israel Through My Eyes. (Eban was Israel's foreign minister at the time. The 1967 war and its origin is covered in chapters 17 and 18.) See also Martin Gilbert, Israel: A History, p. 382.

Whether the Israelis were technically justified in treating the closing of the straits as a casus belli involves obscure points of international law on which I take no position. I do think invading Egypt was a disproportionate response, inconsistent with a policy of 'restraint'.

Whether Nasser intended to provoke such a response is irrelevant. That has to do with Egyptian policy.

Erratum: In my last post I incorrectly cited Abba Eban's memoir by its subtitle. The full title is Personal Witness: Israel Through My Eyes.

Ok, we can pretend that Egypt's possible provocation in 67 was closing the straits, or we could point out the mobilization of Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian forces on Israeli borders and Nasser's banishment of the UN buffer between the countries*. The fact that the Israelis were rightly confident in their ability to win the war does not change the fact that the Arabs provoked it, and again Israel's restraint is shown by the unwillingness to crush her defeated enemies, meaning that she'd have to fight two of them again under much worse circumstances 6 years later. Tell me that if the Arab armies had decisively smashed the IDF, they wouldn't have proceeded to finish the job and march on Israel's cities?

* As I understand it, the UN troops were all on the Egyptian side of the border because Israel had not allowed deployment on the Israeli side. This is irrelevant to the fact that Egypt simultaneously mobilized her forces, removed the buffer and threatened to destroy Israel, along with Syria and Jordan. In fact Israel's most important territorial gain, the West Bank and Jerusalem, came from defeating Jordan, and yet Israel had warned the King of Jordan to stay out of the fight. Unfortunately he believed Nasser's account of the early battles and joined for his share of the spoils.

Reality Man,

While I don't disagree with much of what you said, I should point out that you're wrong about one aspect of your argument:

"Maybe because the Palestinians are still living there?"

The Native Americans are still living here. The Inuits are still in Alaska. Shouldn't we give back our nation to them, by your logic?

The Native Americans are still living here. The Inuits are still in Alaska. Shouldn't we give back our nation to them, by your logic?

Well, if they hadn't been nearly genocided, probably.

That's how colonialism ends: Genocide, intermarriage, apartheid, binationalism. There really aren't any other options.

Tell me that if the Arab armies had decisively smashed the IDF, they wouldn't have proceeded to finish the job and march on Israel's cities?

Obviously no need, it's the children of light against the children of darkness. Evidence isn't necessary.

Ed,

I just wanted to compliment you on the most useful thing said during this entire discussion:

"That's how colonialism ends: Genocide, intermarriage, apartheid, binationalism. There really aren't any other options."

Essentially, every state has been formed in a crime of one variety or another. Every one (with those rare exceptions of south sea Islands and Madagascar, as someone else mentioned). So, in order to make things work, you have to choose. We chose genocide followed by intermarriage. The South Africans chose aparteid, followed by binationalism. The Brazilians chose intermarriage. The Mexicans have decided not to choose, and the white folks still run the place like it was 1895. Now Israel must choose. Most Israelis would choose a two nation solution. Is that ethically acceptable?

I don't know. I'm highly skeptical of two-state solution theory. For one, it's never even been seriously considered by the Israeli's. The recent Serbian proposals for Kosovo contain more elements of soverignty than any of the proposed frameworks for Palestine (that's not meant to praise Serbia).

I also don't think the refugees are going anywhere. They haven't gone anywhere in near sixty years, if you ask them where they are from they don't tell you the refugee camp, they tell you Haifa, Acre, etc.. They were largely fishing people, they have zero interest in living in the desert in the West Bank. I can't come up with any good reason why they have to.

"I also don't think the refugees are going anywhere. They haven't gone anywhere in near sixty years, if you ask them where they are from they don't tell you the refugee camp, they tell you Haifa, Acre, etc.. They were largely fishing people, they have zero interest in living in the desert in the West Bank. I can't come up with any good reason why they have to."

I guess because they lost a war to a non genocidal enemy. I'm sure the Jews expelled from Arab countries would love their homes and property back, but that's not going to happen, and Jimmy Carter doesn't lose sleep over them.

aleks:

Ok, we can pretend that Egypt's possible provocation in 67 was closing the straits . . .

I have cited sources - impeccable sources - and you respond with snark.

Do you even know who Abba Eban was? Perhaps you should find out, and then explain why he would tell lies to the detriment of the country of which he was a founder, and which he served for many years.

Let me clue you in on something blindingly obvious. In the United States, both mainstream liberal and mainstream conservative pundits are pro-Israel. That means they can tell pro-Israeli lies without fear of being contradicted where it matters.

The result is that people who don't read books, who get their 'history' from the op-ed pages, wind up 'knowing' all sorts of things that aren't so. A whole phony history of the Arab-Israeli conflict is featured daily on American op-ed pages.

Alan Dershowitz collected many of the most important lies in his egregious book The Case for Israel. But even Dershowitz based his defense of Israel's 1967 invasion of Egypt on the Straits of Tiran issue, without a word about pre-emption. (The 1967 war is discussed in chapter 13.)

Abba Eban is dead. So, when you're done snarking at me, perhaps you'd like to take the matter up with Alan Dershowitz.

"What if war wouldn't prevent Iran from getting a nuke, but only delay it a few years?"

I don't know what this is supposed to mean - that America invades Iran, becomes embroiled in a guerrilla war it can't win, leaves with its tail between its legs, and the old government returns to power? something else? - but my own view is that whether or not a robust insurgency emerges against a hypothetical American effort to occupy the country the most probable ultimate outcome is the same as Iraq: the partition of the country along sectarian lines. The Persians get Persia. The Azeris get Lower Azerbaijan. The Kurdish territory is integrated with greater Kurdistan.

It's my sense that if this happened the governments in each of the three new countries would be backward and corrupt by western standards but to greater and lesser degrees less illiberal (not to mention potentially crazy) than the current regime in Tehran. Persia would probably be no more a threat to the west than Serbia.

As for renouncing the idea of regime change in Iran, it probably doesn't matter one way or the other unless America invades the country.

This is Matt Yglesia's site, I felt an absence of snark would be poor manners.

I'll admit I'm a little confused. Are you saying that Egypt did not mobilize it's army, that Egypt did not vow to destroy Israel, or that Egypt did not dispose of the UN buffer as a pretext to invasion? Which or all of these is it, or did they all happen but not affect Israel's actions? I don't have a source saying that's hard to imagine, but it is.

If I'm not mistaken, blockading another nation's shipping is also an act of war, so I don't see how that proves Israel bears the lion's share of blame for the 1967 war. But announcing that you are going to annihilate your neighbor, massing on his border, and removing the fence between you would provoke even a neighbor with enough "restraint" not to finish you off when he'd beaten you. My position that Israel has shown restraint does not mean I think she reserves violence as a last resort, I believe I called Israel a warlike nation. Perhaps restraint wasn't even the right word to use. But my point is that Israel does show restraint in victory, when she could have pulverized Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and done far worse to the Palestinians. Obviously these would have all been horrible, criminal atrocities, and Israel is not to be congratulated for not committing them, but do you see those same parties showing equal mercy if they had won?

And you've clearly written me off as a brainless sheep, so there's probably no point in this, but you're not telling me anything new when you say that American politics and punditry are overwhelmingly and distortingly pro-Israel. I never said or implied otherwise.

"What if war wouldn't prevent Iran from getting a nuke, but only delay it a few years?"

I don't know what this is supposed to mean - that America invades Iran, becomes embroiled in a guerrilla war it can't win, leaves with its tail between its legs, and the old government returns to power? something else? [. . .]

Posted by: Linus on January 28, 2007 04:38 PM"

As America can barely sustain our undermanned efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think an invasion of Iran is even a remote possibility. It would be airstrikes, which the Bush Administration would convince themselves are all that's needed to cause Iranians to overthrow their government.

"As America can barely sustain our undermanned efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don't think an invasion of Iran is even a remote possibility. It would be airstrikes, which the Bush Administration would convince themselves are all that's needed to cause Iranians to overthrow their government."

But what happens if Iran retaliates against American forces in Iraq, against Israeli targets, or with terrorist attacks against western targets? What if the airstrikes against Iran happen after America has withdrew a significant number of troops from Iraq? What if the debate about Iran's nuclear program has been the chief foreign policy issue in the media for some time, and there is increasing support for a draft?

I don't claim to know where this is going, and I'm just debating from this side because it makes these threads more lively. If you were all dreary centrists I'd be forced to summon my inner leftist who at least has a sense of humor. (Wouldn't it be fun if Sully's blog had threads?)

PS Am I the only one to long to interact with some of the people who write those precious and touching letters to Sully (at least 7% of which can't have been written by Sully himself)? You know the ones: I'm basically a Neo-Nazi who believes the apocalypse is imminent and I'm pretty sure all the libs will go to hell but I had a really special encounter with my gay priest and now I don't want to kill all the gays anymore (just like some of them when I'm really mad and stuff). Or: I used to like totally be this complete pacifist lib and me and my friend were in Afghanistan handing out condoms and those Taliban guys were like totally rude to us so I like converted to Judaism and read a lot of Ayn Rand and now I'm like completely into war and flat taxes and stuff.

aleks:

And you've clearly written me off as a brainless sheep . . .

Not yet. But it's clear that you get your 'history' from the op-ed pages, or some equivalent, despite claiming to know better.

Example:

Are you saying that Egypt did not mobilize it's army . . . or that Egypt did not dispose of the UN buffer . . .?

Both these things happened. But you seem to be oblivious of the context of these events. You wouldn't be if you had read even one book by a historian on the subject. (I'm including professional historians even if biased in favor of Israel, but not blatant propagandists like Alan Dershowitz or Joan Peters.)

It all started with a dispute over water rights between Israel and Syria. The Syrians accused Israel of planning to invade Syria. Egypt and Syria had a mutual defense pact, and Nasser publicly promised to honor it if Israel attacked Syria. It was in this context that Nasser ordered the UN forces out of the Sinai, clearing the way for the Egyptians to open another front if Israel moved against Syria.

It was also in this context that Nasser said that victory for the Arab side would mean the destruction of Israel. He was not threatening to start the war himself, but warning the Israelis against doing so.

"But what happens if Iran retaliates against American forces in Iraq, against Israeli targets, or with terrorist attacks against western targets? What if the airstrikes against Iran happen after America has withdrew a significant number of troops from Iraq? What if the debate about Iran's nuclear program has been the chief foreign policy issue in the media for some time, and there is increasing support for a draft?"

Oh, it'll be a disaster. But I'm the sucker who thought "there's no way they're really that stupid, they must be bluffing" up until our tanks crossed the Kuwaiti border. As for the draft, I don't see it happening, even if it were necessary and good policy. It's too unpopular, a president and congress would rather fail at a military venture than institute a draft.

"I don't claim to know where this is going, and I'm just debating from this side because it makes these threads more lively. If you were all dreary centrists I'd be forced to summon my inner leftist who at least has a sense of humor. (Wouldn't it be fun if Sully's blog had threads?)
Posted by: Linus on January 28, 2007 09:43 PM"

I've wished that myself, I want to know why he disrespects people who still support Bush and Bush's war, but HATES people who opposed them before he did.

David Tomlin

"Not yet. But it's clear that you get your 'history' from the op-ed pages, or some equivalent, despite claiming to know better."

I'm not going to play "No I don't", "Yes you do" on this any longer. I've criticized Israel, and I certainly have no time for Dershowitz (or Kagan, or Kristol, or Krauthammer - I admit I'm unfamiliar with the name Joan Peters). I haven't read Abba Eban's book, but I'm putting it on hold at my library.

"It all started with a dispute over water rights between Israel and Syria. The Syrians accused Israel of planning to invade Syria. Egypt and Syria had a mutual defense pact, and Nasser publicly promised to honor it if Israel attacked Syria. It was in this context that Nasser ordered the UN forces out of the Sinai, clearing the way for the Egyptians to open another front if Israel moved against Syria."

And Jordan? What was their noble motive?

"It was also in this context that Nasser said that victory for the Arab side would mean the destruction of Israel. He was not threatening to start the war himself, but warning the Israelis against doing so."

Destroying Israel was longstanding policy. Therefore when Egypt prepared for war, it's hard to see Israel as the exclusive aggressor. As for the Straits, is it your view that blockading a nation's shipping is an act of aggression or that it isn't?

"I used to like totally be this complete pacifist lib and me and my friend were in Afghanistan handing out condoms and those Taliban guys were like totally rude to us so I like converted to Judaism and read a lot of Ayn Rand and now I'm like completely into war and flat taxes and stuff.
Posted by: Linus on January 28, 2007 09:56 PM"

I don't buy that A.S. writes the letters. I've seen no evidence, and tie goes to the runner. When you get a whole lot of correspondence, you can cherry pick the ones that serve your purpose without forging anything. In any case, I'm sure A.S. is smart enough to know Jews vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

aleks:

As for the Straits, is it your view that blockading a nation's shipping is an act of aggression or that it isn't?

I'm a libertarian. (And, yes, a fan, but not a disciple, of Ayn Rand.) I don't think you want to get me started on what constitutes 'aggression'.

When I first mentioned the Straits of Tiran you dismissed the issue with a sneer. Now it seems you feel the need to cling to it as a fall-back position.

This is what I wrote:

'Whether the Israelis were technically justified in treating the closing of the straits as a casus belli involves obscure points of international law on which I take no position. I do think invading Egypt was a disproportionate response, inconsistent with a policy of "restraint".'

Is this unclear, or did you just ignore it?

Whether the closing of the straits was technically a 'blockade' is itself one of the points at issue. It depends on whether the straits are considered to be an 'international waterway' or Egyptian territorial waters.

For me the important point is that the closure did not threaten Israel with substantial loss of life. Israel's escalation to all-out shooting war was at best disproportionate.

"When I first mentioned the Straits of Tiran you dismissed the issue with a sneer. Now it seems you feel the need to cling to it as a fall-back position."

Neither is the case. I still do not believe Egyptian threats and mobilization were of no consequence.

=='Whether the Israelis were technically justified in treating the closing of the straits as a casus belli involves obscure points of international law on which I take no position. I do think invading Egypt was a disproportionate response, inconsistent with a policy of "restraint".'

Is this unclear, or did you just ignore it?==

Fairly unclear. Why do you "take no position" on the issue you say was either the just or unjust cause of war? As for my supposed claim that Israel had a "policy of 'restraint'", my use of the word was in response to Trevor's claim that Israel is the great and unmitigated evil of the world. My point was not that Israel had chosen the path of peace, but that Israel had shown a great deal more mercy to defeated enemies than those enemies practice themselves. I have pointed this out since, but every time apparently it has been unclear or you have just ignored it.

==Whether the closing of the straits was technically a 'blockade' is itself one of the points at issue. It depends on whether the straits are considered to be an 'international waterway' or Egyptian territorial waters. ==

You claim to be the educated party here, and you say the closing of the straits was the primary issue, don't you know whether Egypt legally owns the straits?

==For me the important point is that the closure did not threaten Israel with substantial loss of life. Israel's escalation to all-out shooting war was at best disproportionate.==

Again, I do not think that Israel is a peaceful nation, although I'm uncertain of the history of military powerful nations allowing their commerce to be blockaded without response. On the other hand, if Israel had not captured the Gaza Strip and West Bank, we'd never have discovered that the people who lived there were Palestinians and not Egyptians and Jordanians. Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear how Israel forced the war upon Jordan.

"I don't buy that A.S. writes the letters."

Surely Linus couldn't have been just kidding about that.

"I've wished that myself, I want to know why he disrespects people who still support Bush and Bush's war, but HATES people who opposed them before he did."

Surely Sully isn't just a posturing lib who has spent his entire career sucking up to elite Washington (at a time when being a lib was worse than being a queer). Surely it can't be the case that Sully doesn't really hate anything other than the idea of having to get a real job.

It may be the case however that Linus doesn't really hate Sully (and to be sure probably doesn't even know him, but thinks he's liable to be a nice guy [that Linus simply enjoys picking on cause it's fun]). Has anyone noticed how Sully has increasingly stopped talking and started to ejaculate verbally? I think it may have happened when he stopped offering his readers a "conservatism of doubt" and started to proffer it instead.

Good comment.Thanks admin.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

thanksss

perde

jaluzi perde

stor perde

dikey perde

iso belgesi

iphone kılıfı

süper site

kozmetik

kolonyalı mendil

kolonyalı mendil

dolum

güvenlik kamerası

kamera

süper

sohbetim

joyturk tekstilkent joytürk mIRC Chat Video poşet imalat ambalaj paketleme iso güvenlik ıslak mendil chat muhabbet chat sohpet sohbet web tasarım

thanks

kenthaber

mirc

sohbet
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
gebze
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
facebook
face book
face turk
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
muhabbet
trkadin
hikayen
chat
sohbet
sohbet
marmara
gebze web tasarım
gebze webtasarım
sohbet
chat
moda
magazin
yemek tarifi
yemek tarifleri
kozmetik
diyet
Yakışıklı
Yakışıklılar
Anne Çocuk
Filmler
Filimler
Film
Dizi
sohbet
sohbet
chat
chat
diziler
gebze
asansör
hikaye
felsefe
reklam
webtasarım
facebook
face book
face turk
arkadaş
sinema
film
toplist
pagerank
muhabbet
masaj
masör
sohbet
kadın
youtube
sinema
sohbet
chat
gebze ticaret
forex
kredi
borsa
sohbet
chat
sohbet
Arkadaş

kelebek 

kelebek sohbet 

kelebek script 
kelebek
chat 
chat 
sohbet 
chat
sohbet 
sohbet
odalari 

sohbet odalari
sohbet
mIRC
mIRC yukle
mIRC indir
turkce
mirc
video izle
video
video seyret
vidyo izle
izlesene
videolar
tube
piknik
piknik
tube
picnic tube
piknik tub
youtube
you tube

video izle
radyo
radyolar
radyo dinle
canli
radyo dinle hit
muzik dinle
sarki dinle
chat
bedava
chat
chat sohbet
chatsohbet
chat
siteleri tv
tvizle
tv izle
canli tv
izle
canli yayin
tv seyret
canli tv
seyret
yabanci
tv izle
tv kanallari
canli izle
canli tv
msn
msnozel
msn
ifadeleri
msn indir
msn
avatarlari
msn
resimleri
msn
nickleri
dinle
muzik dinle
canli
muzik dinle
sarki dinle
sarki
sozleri
lyrics mp3
bedava mp3
mp3 indir
mp3 yukle
bedava
mp3 indir
cafe
sevgili
sevgili

sohbet siteleri

sohbet odalari
chat
sohbet

bedava sohbet
bedava
chat

hazir mesajlar
guzel
sozler
ask sevgi
ask
oyun
oyunlar
ideal oyun
oyun oyna

barbiy oyunlari
kral oyun
kelebek
kelebek
mirc
kelebek script
kelebek
indir

kelebek mirc

kelebek script
kelebek

kelebek sohbet
dizi
dizi izle
dizi
seyret
canli
dizi
bedava dizi
diziler

thanks you

nice work..

minikperi
kraloyun
kral oyun
oyunlar1
rixoyun
rix oyun
fixoyun
fix oyun
oyunlife
oyunmemo
oyunyolu
oyun99
oyun oyna
oyun sitesi
oyun siteleri
oyun ara
oyun
oyunlar
barbie oyunu
barbie oyunları
barbie oyunlar
barbie
winx oyunu
winx club
winx oyunları
winx
bratz oyunu
bratz oyunları
bratz oyunu
giysi oyunu
giydirme oyunu
kıyafet oyunu
giydirme oyunları
giysi oyunları
giysi giydirme oyunu
giysi giydirme oyunları
makyaj oyunları
makyaj oyunu
makyaj yapma oyunları
yemek oyunları
yemek yapma oyunları
pasta oyunları
pasta süsleme oyunları
futbol oyunları
çocuk oyunları
yarış oyunları
boyama oyunları
araba oyunları
araba yarışı oyunları
motor oyunları
basketbol oyunları
beceri oyunları
dövüş oyunları
manken oyunları
komik oyunlar
oda oyunları
spor oyunları
zeka oyunları
yapboz oyunları
cep oyunları
yeni oyunlar
oyunambari
oyuncambazi
oyun sitesi
oyun siteleri
oyun hileleri
hileler
çizgi film
cep oyunu
oyun oyns
oyun oyna
video izle
chip oyun
barbie oyunu
kız oyunları
sue oyunları
güzel oyunlar
pop oyunlar
pop oyun
popoyunlar
popoyun
popoyunları

Hot forum alanındaki diğer forumlardan farklı bir forumculuk anlayışıyla eğitim ve öğretim üzerinde çalışmaktadır.Ayrıca bu forum diğer forum siteleri içinde nadirde olsa bulunan diziler ( kurtlar vadisi,kurtlar vadisi pusu,yaprak dökümü vb.)Ayrıntılı olarak mevcuttur.Forumhot bünyesinde çalışan yüzlerce moderatör ve üyeyle geniş kapsamlı bir forumdur.

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
sohbet
forum
chat
online sinema
catlak
türk forum
turk forum
kafkas
kafkasya
ders
siyaset

Oyun oyunlar oyun oyna gibi kelimeler toner kartuş konuları yer almakta bedava oyunlar
2 Oyunculu Oyunlar - Yetenek Oyunları - Dövüş Oyunları - Aksiyon Macera Oyunları - Nişancılık Oyunları - Spor Oyunları - Yarış Oyunları - Zeka Hafıza Oyunları - oyun çocukta doğuştan gelen bir tabiat ve Allah'ın onda yarattığı bir içgüdüdür. Bunun temelinde çocuğun fiziksel gelişiminin mükemmel bir tarzda gelişimdirMotor Oyunları - Mario Oyunları - Savaş Oyunları - Strateji Taktik Oyunları - Yemek Pişirme Oyunları - Dekor Oyunları - Boyama Kitabı Oyunları - 3 Boyutlu Oyunlar - Hugo Oyunları - Sonic Oyunları - Webcam Oyunları - Peri Güzellik Oyunları - Battleon Oyunları - Süper Oyunlar - İlizyon Oyunları - Komik Oyunlar - Teletabi Oyunları - Giysi Giydirme oyunları - Makyaj yapma oyunları -çocuğun en özenli işidir. Yetişkin için iş ve kazanç ne ise onun için de oyun odur... Dış dünyanın kavranılması öğrenilmesi ve hayata hazırlanmanın en ... Kız oyunları - Çocuk Oyunları - işletme oyunları - varmısın yokmusun - Bebek Oyunları - Oyun - Animasyon - Oyun Oyna - Oyunlar - Oyun Cambazı - Bedava Oyunlar - motosiklet dergisi - animasyon - renkli toner tozları - fotokopi toneri - kartuş - toner - boş toner - boş kartuş - toner dram - toner chip - toner tozu - toner dolumu - kartuş dolumu - kartuş dolum malzemeleri - kartuş dolum makinesi - renkli toner dolumu - Bedava Oyun - Kral oyun
haber

You should bring up the piece by Broder about a year ago in which he contributed to the speculation on the frequency of the Clintons' sexual intercourse. Is that the kind of punditry that Klein is so enamored of?

You should bring up the piece by Broder about a year ago in which he contributed to the speculation on the frequency of the Clintons' sexual intercourse. Is that the kind of punditry that Klein is so enamored of?

You should bring up the piece by Broder about a year ago in which he contributed to the speculation on the frequency of the Clintons' sexual intercourse. Is that the kind of punditry

thnaks

Hello Men
gallery is fantastic "Sunset Waves" very good
I am Blog

Thanks you really perfect one writing.I m always follow you.

bacanak web tasarimci Alışveriş indir arkadas driver sohbet sohbet cinsel sohbet cet çet sohbet odalari sohbet cet odasi çet sohbet kelebekfm chat chat web tasarimkelebekfm kelebek fm kelebek radyo cet cinsel cet cet kanallari cet odasi muhabbet izmir sohbet script cet çet mirc chat sohbet sohbet odalari kelebek kelebek sohbet

izmir sohbet cinsel sohbet kelebek mirc operserv chanserv siir botserv zurna mynet ataturk universitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat kelebek script kelebek script kelebek mirc kelebek skript mric gazi universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,gazi sohbet,gazi chat,kelebek duzce universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,duzce sohbet,duzce chat ... ege universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,ege sohbet,ege chat,kelebek dumlu pınar universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dumlupınar sohbet ... memoserv, memo serv,memoserv komutlari mesaj komutlari irc mesaj ... mirc indir kamerali mirc yabanci mirc mirc 6.21
sesli tv seslisesli sesliask sesli fıkra sesliefsane sesliyiz sesli türkiyem seslialem sesli dini sohbet ... erzincan universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erzincan sohbet ... Yüzük Script mirc yüzük cet yüzük script 4 yuzuk sohbet yüzük chat ankara sohbet ankara chat ankara muhabbet ankara arkadas ankara.net erciyes universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erciyes sohbet,erciyes ... dicle universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dicle sohbet,dicle chat ... mirc indir,mirc script,mirc yukle,mirc,script mırç,mrc,kelebek ... kelebek cinsel sohbet cinsel chat kelebek mirc myrc script mirc programi turkçe mirc indir mric mrc ... izmir sohbet izmir chat izmir muhabbet izmir arkadas izmir cet çet kelebek sohbet odalari chat sohpet cet kelebek muhabbet çet ... arkadasbul askim - arkadas bul, arkadas arama, arkadas ara ... kelebek host iletisim bilgileri sitene sohbet ekle sitene chat ekle sitene sohbet odasi koy kelebek sohbet , chat kelebek sohbet , cet kelebek sohbet , canli ... sohbet Kizlarla Sohbet Kızlarla Sohbet, Bedava Sohbet Odası ... kelebek sohbet chat muhabbet amasya uiversitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat canakkale onsekiz mart universitesi sohbet chat odalari comu ... istanbul sohbet istanbul chat istanbul muhabbet istanbul arkadas

Sohbet
chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli chat

Sesli Sohbet
Sesli chat
Sohbet
chat

Sesli Sohbet
Sesli chat
Sohbet
chat

sesli sohbet
sesli chat

Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırc turk
mircada
mircturkiye
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc

cok cok thank you

mirc sohbet
sesli sohbet
sex chat
sohbet
antalya sohbet
aşk
aşk
bedava sohbet
canlı chat
canlı sohbet
chat
chatci
gay sohbet
görüntülü chat
görüntülü sohbet
gurbet chat
gurbet sohbet
gurbetci chat
gurbetci sohbet
guzel
irc
kameralı chat
kameralı sohbet
kelebek sohbet
kız msn adresleri
kız msnleri
kızlarla chat
kızlarla sohbet
kız sohbet
kural
chatci
lezbiyen sohbet
liseli sohbet
muhabbet
muhabbet chat
muhabbet sohbet
mynet
sms
sohbet
sohbetci
sohbetli
sohbetli
toplist
türk sohbet
türkiye sohbet
yerli chat
yerli sohbet

Thanks

simdi biz bu siteyi kasarken cinsel sohbet birde sohbet odaları
olarak kasmaya calıstık guzel sozler de ilerleme var ona birde mirc yaptık gun gectikce
kelebek script olarak hit alamaya basladık oda olmadı birde kelebek
radyo muz olsun dedik iyi kotu muhabbet oluyordu ama baktık kadınca
çet cet üniversite odaları
nda is yok donduk mirc indir e ondada tat tuz kalmamıs rüya tabirlerine zipladık izmir de oturuyorum iste ..
sonra da yavas yavas ilerlemeye basladık operserv chanserv memoserv nickserv komutlarını yazdık .. bir sonraki hedefimiz sohbet yada chat olacak insallah ..sex seks demi kassak acaba :)

ask oyun itiraf link degisimi siir

Thanks for the great work. !

muhabbet - sohbet odaları - mirc indir - mirc indir - çet - kelebek - script - mirc indir - arkadas - chat - sohbet odaları - kelebek - sohbet - radyo - çet - cet odaları - portalsohbet ekle -

kelebek - kelebek - turk sohbet - çet - muhabbet - muhabbet - turkce mirc - sohbet odaları - sohbet - cinsel chat - mynet chat -

izmir sohbet cinsel sohbet kelebek mirc operserv chanserv siir botserv zurna mynet ataturk universitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat kelebek script kelebek script kelebek mirc kelebek skript mric gazi universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,gazi sohbet,gazi chat,kelebek duzce universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,duzce sohbet,duzce chat ... ege universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,ege sohbet,ege chat,kelebek dumlu pınar universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dumlupınar sohbet ... memoserv, memo serv,memoserv komutlari mesaj komutlari irc mesaj ... mirc indir kamerali mirc yabanci mirc mirc 6.21
sesli tv seslisesli sesliask sesli fıkra sesliefsane sesliyiz sesli türkiyem seslialem sesli dini sohbet ... erzincan universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erzincan sohbet ... Yüzük Script mirc yüzük cet yüzük script 4 yuzuk sohbet yüzük chat ankara sohbet ankara chat ankara muhabbet ankara arkadas ankara.net erciyes universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,erciyes sohbet,erciyes ... dicle universitesi sohbet chat odalari ,dicle sohbet,dicle chat ... mirc indir,mirc script,mirc yukle,mirc,script mırç,mrc,kelebek ... kelebek cinsel sohbet cinsel chat kelebek mirc myrc script mirc programi turkçe mirc indir mric mrc ... izmir sohbet izmir chat izmir muhabbet izmir arkadas izmir cet çet kelebek sohbet odalari chat sohpet cet kelebek muhabbet çet ... arkadasbul askim - arkadas bul, arkadas arama, arkadas ara ... kelebek host iletisim bilgileri sitene sohbet ekle sitene chat ekle sitene sohbet odasi koy kelebek sohbet , chat kelebek sohbet , cet kelebek sohbet , canli ... sohbet Kizlarla Sohbet Kızlarla Sohbet, Bedava Sohbet Odası ... kelebek sohbet chat muhabbet amasya uiversitesi sohbet chat odalari au sohbet au chat canakkale onsekiz mart universitesi sohbet chat odalari comu ... istanbul sohbet istanbul chat istanbul muhabbet istanbul arkadas

thnks

thanks

thanks

sexshop

erotik market

出会いすぎ！
出会いＣafe
セフレマジシャン
メル友コレクター.net
無料出会い系サイト
人妻熟女浮気公認！
出会いの森
出会い系オンリー
メル友ちぇき！
ピンクの恋人
不倫ありませんか！
人妻Magic!!
無料出会い系サイト
スタビへGo!
セフレステーション
ご近所のアイシテル！
出会い探し
セックスフレンド大陸
結婚magic!!
出会い系-First Love-
メル友大好き！
出会いマン
童貞くんおねがい！
出会い系サイト無料
スタビSOS!
援助プチ交際！
ギャルゴールド
熟女リサイクル
メル友ちゃんねる

thanks you very much

thanks bedava sohbet

thanks..

saros
lig radyo
radyo dinle
dikili
antalya kaş
cam balkon
amasra
patent
güzel sözler
magazin
cam balkon
katlanır cam balkon
cam balkon
cam balkon
balkon camlama

extraordinarily good
Thanks Best Regards
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc ındır
kafkas
kafkasya
adige
irc forum
mirc forum
irc forum
mirc forum
irc forum
mirc forum
mirc
mirç
mirc inndir
türkçe mirc
mirc download
forum
sohbet
chat
catlak

Thanks you ßy_SuSquN

thanks

sexshopum.com
sexshopevim.com
sexshopum.net

penisbuyutuculeri.com

cam balkon

thanks..

neon tabela

thank you..

neon

thank you..

Thanks Site admin
mirc
mırc
mırç
mircturk
mirctürk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mırc indir
mirç indir
mirc yükle
mırc yükle
mirc yukle
mırc yukle
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc ındır
irc forum
mirc forum
irc forum
mirc forum
irc forum
mirc forum
mirc
mirç
mirc inndir
türkçe mirc
mirc download
forum
sohbet
chat
coders
codersfm
radyocoders
mirc coders
Radyo
ircd coder
forum coders
coders forum
mirc

thankS

tyy

tyy1