Dual Loyalty

As frequently in international politics, the direct financial transfers are not the most important aspect. I would genuinely be interested to read an article making the case that it serves American interests to enable Israel to colonise and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian Arabs in Jerusalem and the West Bank, given the huge negative externalities that this creates for the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds. It's actually very difficult to make that argument, so the rebuttals drift into various nods to Jewish/Israeli nationalism, the rights of conquerors, and what-about-Chechnya-ism. But direct US interests in Jewish colonies on the land conquered in 1967, not so much.

I agree wholeheartedly with this post. I've made the same point in comments before. If people keep repeating this point, then at least it will force defenders of the current policy to either:

1. admit that we support Israel even though its not in our best interest, but because its "the right thing to do"

-or-

2. explain how it is in our best interest. Here, you'll probably get an argument about how Israel is a beachead of democracy in the region and the front line in the war on terrorism. These arguments can be rebutted pretty easily, I think.

I do have one question, though. Are we in some way committed to providing a certain amount of aid to Israel and Egypt as a result of the Camp David peace agreement? If that's the case, can we somehow get out of it? Maybe get them to break the peace or something?

The amount of foreign aid is besides the point--it's what done with the aid that's the problem. The policies pursued by Israel--and supported and funded by the U.S--undermine U.S. security. It's an obvious, almost banal point, one that the fucking Baker commission understands, but few American liberals--not even Russ Feingold or you, Matt--are willing to condemn the policies--expanding illegal settlements in the West Bank, laying siege to Gaza--that are directly undermining American (not to mention Israeli) security.

A good message to Israel (and the American public) for a brave Dem (Jim Webb) would be: we'll stop giving you money until you stop making us less safe.

i think the argument diehard israel supporters would make would be something along the lines of supporting a bastion of "democracy" in the middle east, and hope that it just get left at that.

Martin Kramer has written a good argument for US support of Israel. Summary:

From a realist point of view, supporting Israel has been a low-cost way of keeping order in part of the Middle East, managed by the United States from offshore and without the commitment of any force.... In contrast, the problems the United States faces in the Persian Gulf stem from the fact that it does not have an Israel equivalent there, and so it must massively deploy its own force at tremendous cost.

Kramer's article can be found here.

From a realist point of view, supporting Israel has been a low-cost way of keeping order in part of the Middle East, managed by the United States from offshore and without the commitment of any force.

Where is that? This is exactly what I'm looking for.

Personally, I agree with the policy of ending all our financial support for Israel until their policy changes. That is, I think what we need is less, not more, US engagment in the whole Palestinian dispute. We should just wash our hands of the whole mess.

But, that's just not going to happen. I think it would be suicidal for politician to advocate that.

"From a realist point of view, supporting Israel has been a low-cost way of keeping order in part of the Middle East..."

Well, yes, Kramer and other see Israel as an American outpost, a arm of Empire, but the real question isn't whether to support Israel or not; it's whether to use that support to leverage policies that help rather than hurt or country.

Or one more objectively threatened like Taiwan

Whether or not that's actually the case—which I imagine will be an irresistible sidetrack—isn't the end of the question. We could just not spend the $3 billion in annual aid. I don't think we would, given that our aid to Israel isn't totally predicated on a threat assessment/interest projection.

I think there's more reason to think that America imposes bad policies on Israel than there is to think that Israel has turned America into a vassal state.

When OVP is spiking a comprehensive negotiated peace treaty between Syria and Israel, the relationship looks a bit more complicated than many would like to think.

If we actually had a treaty of alliance with Israel it would make a lot of these problems easier.

"I think it would be suicidal for politician to advocate that."

I disagree; I think there's a silent majority or sizable minority--liberals, libertarians, nationalists--who are sicked and tired of pols kissing up to AIPAC. It would take the right politician, probably a Democrat, but someone could pull if off, I'm quite sure.

I've never read or heard a coherent defense of Israeli settlement policy in the occupied territories. Most attempts to defend such activity either rely upon religious irredentism, lapse into the tu quoque fallacy, or content themselves with merely impugning the motives of the attackers.

The Tamil Tigers use suicide bombing more than any other terrorist group. Why don't we send tons of aid to Sri Lanka?

Well, there's a big chunk of aid to Israel that we're obligated to provide, so there isn't much point in justifying that. But the rest, I think, is actually justified by our intent to maintain a well-armed--and thoroughly dependent--ally in the region. Israel is our junkyard dog.

Obviously, the care and feeding of one's junkyard dog is not something one discusses in earshot of those the dog is intended to bite. So, although there is an element of the "cowed by the Lobby that Does Not Exist" to the fact that we don't discuss the whole proxy state issue, I think it has more to do with the fact that we're trying to lean on the Arabs without actually discussing it in public.

From a realist point of view, supporting Israel has been a low-cost way of keeping order in part of the Middle East

This is a very good point. I think it's pretty well indisputable that, without Israel's efforts, Lebanon would be in a state of virtually continuous civil war, and Syria would be a brutal, terrorist-backing, anti-US dictatorship.

I can eat glass, it doesn't hurt me.

Matt there are extremely realist principles behind US aid to Israel:

1) Israel has a nuke. Not one, a bunch of unkes. Every one of its neighbors has invaded it and some are still technically in a state of war. This both gave Israel a perfectly good reason to acquire one, especially because a nation of Holocaust survivors has a very justified fear of apocalyptic worst-case scenario, and it also means it is heavily in the US interest to make sure that Israel is militarily and economically strong enough to not be threatened existentially by invasion because that could mean the end of the frigging world. Golda Meir apparently threatened to drop the bomb all over the Middle East in 1973 if Egypt succeeded in destroying Israel.

2) We bought things with that aid. Peace with Egypt for example - a country which, by the way, receives the second most foreign aid from us for that very reason.

My biggest concern is that AIPAC doesn't even always represent Israel's interests - they're more associated with the right wing in a country that has reached an increasingly centrist consensus.

And finally, what should we be trying to pressure Israel into doing right now? We don't even know who is in power on the Palestinian side, let alone if we can start a Camp David type negotiation. I hate settlements, but a few new trailers up in the West Bank, while counterproductive, is not a big deal in the grand scale of negotiations right now.

I think it's pretty well indisputable that, without Israel's efforts, Lebanon would be in a state of virtually continuous civil war, and Syria would be a brutal, terrorist-backing, anti-US dictatorship.

Don't forget "Saddam Hussein would have a nuclear program."

On a more serious note - does anyone know exactly how much aid the US has to supply under the 1979 treaty, and how much is discretionary?

I would genuinely be interested to read an article making the case that it serves American interests to make Israel the largest recipient of American foreign aid dollars.

Well, you could look at newsletters that Hal Lindsey and other members of the Religious Right political wing put out. God will withdraw his blessing from any nation that "turns its back" on Israel. No, really. Do you think it's a coincidence that the Western Roman Empire was destroyed only four centuries after the sack of Jerusalem? Or that Europe failed to prosper at any time in its history, except for a brief window in the late 1940's? Surely you'd agree that a few billion dollars in support of destabilizing policies is cheap compared to inviting the wrath of God.

Or did you want a non-batshit, realist argument? In that case, might I recommend Martin Kramer? He makes the good point that if we support Israel's most inflammatory policies, we get to stir up anger against us throughout the Middle East, and don't even have to commit our own military assets. Or something like that.

And finally, what should we be trying to pressure Israel into doing right now? We don't even know who is in power on the Palestinian side, let alone if we can start a Camp David type negotiation.

There shouldn't be any negotiations. Israel should withdraw to a decent approximation of the 1967 borders, put an electrified fence up, tell the Palestinians that they can go fuck themselves, and stop bombing them.

This "who's in power" stuff is pretty nonsensical, though— we manage to negotiate with all sorts of parliamentary democracies while they go through ridiculously extended transition periods of negotiation and government formation.

In the middle of an insightful comment, Dan Panorama says:

My biggest concern is that AIPAC doesn't even always represent Israel's interests - they're more associated with the right wing in a country that has reached an increasingly centrist consensus.

I'd go beyond that, even. By American standards, at least, Israel leans pretty far left on economic issues. For a while there, they were to our right on civil liberties, but Bush has taken care of closing the repression gap.

Israel should withdraw to a decent approximation of the 1967 borders, put an electrified fence up, tell the Palestinians that they can go fuck themselves, and stop bombing them.

What, and give up all that yummy arable land and water? No, they're pretty happy with the fence they've got.

Why should we dictate to Israel, or to the Palestinians, how to sort out their dispute? Its really not our problem. All we need to do is not support either side, and let them sort it out on their own. What's the danger in that? That it will allow the Soviets to gain influence in the region?

And, how long are we stuck paying off Israel and Egypt, anyway? Does anyone know?

FWIW, Drezner made the point on bloggingheads.tv, in reference to the Walt, Merschiemer paper, that Israel policy is a real problem for realist IR scholars: it's not just that our current policy seems wrongheaded to them, it's that the policy shouldn't exist under their theoretical model. So the "Israel Lobby" is really something of a deus ex machina for them: it explains the unexplainable.

Our realistic reason is theoretical nuclear blackmail.

Ok, that's a reason, but it's not why we dump money into Israel, it's because we have a shitty, pay for play system, and you get money for reciting "only democracy in the middle east" shibolleths, and you opponent will get paid if you deviate from the script.

Everyone here must read the Kramer piece Ragout links to.

It is the best defense I've ever read of the American-Israeli relationship, essentially taking the standard leftist critique of the relationship and stamping its approval on it. One of its primary virtues is how dispassionate it is.

It also probes what I found to be an uncompelling argument of Mearsheimer-Walt: this notion of an objectively "realist" "national interest" in the region.

Here's where Kramer is really wrong, though, dishonest, in fact:

"And speaking of Iraq, we are left with the argument that the United States went to war there at the impetus of Israel and the “Israel Lobby.” This is simply a falsehood, and has no foundation in fact."

This, itself, is simply a falsehood with no foundation in fact, as many commenters here can demonstrate at will. It just undermines Kramer's entire preceding argument. Other than that, the argument has the same weakness of the Chomskian critique to which it is so akin: it hasn't been dusted off in the past 15 years.

Things have changed in American politics. People like James Baker just don't run the show anymore. The Israeli lobby in Congress is more and more hysterical and maximalist, while the object of its lobbying has abdicated its authority to script a course separate from executive directives increasingly drafted by that lobby. There is also the media, who have become neoconservativism's unapologetic ideologists and "intelligence launderers", even as public revulsion at the war grows. This brings me to a little white lie in Kramer's piece I have to point out - he says, "(Mearsheimer's and Walt's) study could not be ignored." Well, it could, until it was published at lrb.co.uk (Walt also "resigned" from Harvard as a consequence of the study).

Israel should withdraw to a decent approximation of the 1967 borders, put an electrified fence up, tell the Palestinians that they can go fuck themselves, and stop bombing them. - Guy

Did that in Gaza. Didn't solve the problem. They kept lobbing rockets, kidnapping soldiers, and so forth; and there's no such thing as a perfect wall. Attacking Israel continues to be a politically beneficial position in internal Palestinian politics even after Israel disengages. That is, various Palestinian factions will continue to bomb Israel after disengagement for basically the same reasons Republicans bomb other countries: electoral advantage.

That said, putting the Wall on the '67 border would have been a lot better than putting it inside the West Bank.

If I understand Dan right, we should give aid Israel is capable of destroying neighboring countries. By that logic, a smart Iranian president should work hard to get a bomb, the better to benefit from American taxpayer dollars. And wouldn't American support for an Islamic state go much further to pacify Middle Eastern countries than support for Israel? I'm not saying we should do any of these things, I just don't see the logic of Dan's argument.

His last point is even more curious: Israel shouldn't try to negotiate with the Palestinians because the Palestinian government is in crisis. But would the Palestinian government be in crisis if Israel were willing to recognize Hamas as the winner of a legitimate election?

There are more than a few settlements being built. And the treatment of Palestinians is very, very bad.

mds:

I'm very skeptical about the whole notion that Christianists are pushing our Israel policy. The Christian right is a brigade of the Republican party, a hierarchical organization. Its memebers take directives, they don't give them. If the policy is war in Iraq and total identification with Israeli strategic interests, that's a directive, even if they dress it up for the faithful as some kind of eschatology.

I'm reminded of how in the 80's Jerry Falwell told his flock to buy krugerrands. It was not part of a divine mission, it was a directive he was presenting.

I suspect some on the left are eager to inflate the importance of evangelicals in crafting Israel policy, because it distracts from the more obvious explanations for things like, say, this summer's 410-8 vote, or the Herliya conference, or Hillary Clinton's and everyone else's obeisances before AIPAC.

Good post.

"mattsteinglass" can't be allowed to get away with his falsification or very recent history:

"Did that in Gaza. Didn't solve the problem. They kept lobbing rockets, kidnapping soldiers, and so forth."

Let's all remind ourselves of the chronology of this summer's events in Gaza.

Very dishonest of you, "mattsteinglass".

Did that in Gaza. Didn't solve the problem.

It came much closer than any other plausible policy would, though, which is the point. It's also the right thing to do, and would not incidentally give Israel the real and perceived moral high ground if it did need to blow things up.

It's interesting how contemptuously the uncritical of Israel crowd speaks of Palestinians. Palestinians don't *all" kidnap soldiers, lob rockets, and so on. Most of them just want to lead normal lives. And the only reason Israelis don't throw rocks like Palestinians is that Israelis have an army to do it for them. Or does the uncritical of Israel crowd care to argue that Israelis are somehow morally superior to other groups? Not a compelling argument, these days.

I guess I have to spell it out.

This summer the Israelis killed a family on the beach; the Israelis falsely claimed they had been fired on by rockets. Hamas retaliated by "kidnapping" an Israeli soldier. The Israelis, in turn, invaded Gaza and knocked out all their electricity and water.

Re: Did that in Gaza. Didn't solve the problem.

You mean didn't solve THEIR problem. Its not OUR problem, so who cares?

My problem with "dual loyalty" apart from the fact it's due to become Marty Peretz' new favorite "canard" bludgeon is that I don't really see any loyalty--to the U.S. or Israel--of people like Feith, Perle, Cheney, or their raving mad supporters like Pam Atlas. What loyalty do they show to the U.S.? Furthermore, what loyalty do they show to the common Israeli, or the youth of that country, when their priorities clearly conflict with any objectives of peace, which would involve a bare minimum of: not coordinating fraud and disinformation to fool Congress and the citizens of the U.S., like Feith did for the Iraq War; avoiding shady arms deals with warlords, a Perle specialty; not provoking, assassinating, negotiating in bad faith and not spending more on P.R. than assistance to Palestinians, as the Likud approach favors. None of this has to do with being Jewish, aside from the fact that Israel is a religious state supposedly committed to protecting Judaism. Plenty of Likudniks and neocons aren't Jewish.

What loyalty does it show to anyone when these people hoodwink an entire nation into a commitment of a trillion plus dollars and tens of thousands of lives lost or ruined? It doesn't even show a basic loyalty to humanity.

So "dual loyalty" my ass. People who favor and coordinate schemes of endless warfare are traitors to the species and the planet.

I do have one question, though. Are we in some way committed to providing a certain amount of aid to Israel and Egypt as a result of the Camp David peace agreement?

It is just so strange to see Matthew talk about Israel being a "weird target" for the $3 billion in aid, as opposed to Costa Rica or Bangladesh, without even acknowledging that the $3 billion is a de facto obligation of (St.) Jimmy Carter's Camp David Accords. It's not like we can simply say "giving that money to Bangladesh is better bang for our 3 billion bucks than giving it to Israel" and ship the money to Bangldesh instead. I'm sure Matthew is aware of this. So why does he continually ignore it?

Alex -

"If I understand Dan right, we should give aid Israel is capable of destroying neighboring countries. By that logic, a smart Iranian president should work hard to get a bomb, the better to benefit from American taxpayer dollars. And wouldn't American support for an Islamic state go much further to pacify Middle Eastern countries than support for Israel? I'm not saying we should do any of these things, I just don't see the logic of Dan's argument."

OF COURSE a smart Iranian president should work hard to get a bomb. That is the chief reason that this is exactly what they're doing. They want one for the same reason Israel does - once you get a nuke you can't be invaded. And I would be more than happy to shell out taxpayer dollars in some kind of negotiated agreement to either keep Iran from getting a nuke or to subsidize peace with Israel, both of which if done properly advance our interests. Same rules apply from the realist perspective to both countries thus the argument is logically consistent for both Iran and Israel, there's no double standard. Nuke = uninvadable. That's why countries realistically threatened with invasion (Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, Iran) rush to get them.

American support turning against Israel in favor of Muslim countries would only plunge us into World War III. What you may fail to understand is that Israel can not actually invade, occupy, or destroy any Arab country. They're a tiny little blip in the middle of a giant ocean of angry Muslim countries. Arming them means helping them defend themselves. The other countries, on the other hand, pose an EXISTENTIAL not a strategic threat to Israel and this is an unbelievably important distinction. A country that is realistically threatened with the cessation of its existence and owning a pile of nuclear missiles can do anything with its back against the wall. If Iran were to be attacked by Israel they just would lose some nuclear sites they shouldn't own in the first place. Not that I favor such action, but they're not comparable situations is the point.

Why would recognizing the Hamas government lead to negotiations? Their stated position, indeed their raison d'etre, is that there are no negotiations - Israel, as in all of it, is Palestinian land, end of discussion. And recognizing their government would in no way end their power disputes with Fatah, the basis for the current strife.

The money from the Egypt accord is far from the only money we slip to Israel, Al. You probably already knew that and were hoping nobody would notice.

Not sure what Al's getting at. Matthew doesn't mention the Camp David accord, therefore overwhelming American support for Israel is justified?

Not sure what Al's getting at. Matthew doesn't mention the Camp David accord, therefore overwhelming American support for Israel is justified?

Matt questions why nobody justifies our huge payouts to Israel. But there's no point in justifying payments that one is obligated to make. So all the Israel/Egypt payments need no justification. It's the other payouts that need justification. Al was hoping we would just ignore all those.

"What loyalty does it show to anyone when these people hoodwink an entire nation into a commitment of a trillion plus dollars and tens of thousands of lives lost or ruined? It doesn't even show a basic loyalty to humanity."

This is where arguments start ACTUALLY delving into anti-semitism. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld - not Jews, not "controlled" by AIPAC. You really think these guys wouldn't have gone to war if not for some sinister Jewish lobby whispering neocon justifications in their ear???? Bush was determined from the start to invade, everyone knows that. If you think that he was "hoodwinked" by some shadowy cabal of Jews in the Wolofowitz/Perle mold you are dangerously mistaken. This is yet another manifestation of the oldest of Jewish conspiracy theories - find the Jewish supporters of an unpopular policy and throw the blame on them.

Matt - you wonder why so many people who disagree with Israel policy get called "anti-semites." These conspiracists provide most of the basis for such attacks. It's a label applied way too broadly of course and you're generally accurate in pointing out when it's misused but this strain of thinking that our foreign policy is controlled not by Bush or Cheney but by their super-powered Israeli sleeper agants is as old and rational an idea as blood libel.

Camp David only stipulates that Egypt recieves a percentage of aid dependant upon what Israel recieves. So that amount could be reduced to zero instantly.

Camp David only stipulates that Egypt recieves a percentage of aid dependant upon what Israel recieves.

But we made a side deal with Israel to push them in the right direction.

dj moonbat - I'm interested in to what degree you think our aid to Israel doesn't stem from Camp David. I don't know.

The argument that Israel is our "junkyard dog" seems unconvincing.

The U.S. is the most powerful nation in human history, with the ability to annihilate, by conventional or nuclear means, any ME country in a few days without any commitment of ground forces (minimal losses).

So, for what reason would one with that kind of power and reach, not to mention wealth and buying power, have a dangerous dog that frequently breaks its leash and, in the least, constantly infuriates the neighbors by territorializing their yards and bark incessantly?

No bang for the buck and too much liability.

So, for what reason would one with that kind of power and reach, not to mention wealth and buying power, have a dangerous dog that frequently breaks its leash[?]

For the answer, read the Kramer article that Ragout links to above.

dj moonbat - I'm interested in to what degree you think our aid to Israel doesn't stem from Camp David. I don't know.

Both in terms of direct aid and stuff like loan guarantees, the U.S. has continued to give more aid to Israel since the Camp David agreement.

Dan Panorama--first, before you accuse me of anti-semitism, oh wait, too late!--

Well, firstly let me say that the verb "hoodwink"--to deceive by false appearance--is not something that only Jews are capable of and frankly I'm offended my your anti-semitic notion that it is. Secondly, my post clearly indicated that I consider Cheney part of the "cabal" and that I realize many neocons and even Likudniks are not Jewish, and that the "faith" of these people is frankly completely irrelevant since they are mostly amoral bastards and traitors to humanity. That goes for Cheney, his yes-man Bush, his other yes-man Libby and his entire network in the White House, and for all of those associated with PNAC. Whether any of these people are Jewish is irrelevant; it's their extremist, aggressive, Likudnik policy prescription for the Middle East on which I am judging them.

But yeah other than that what I wrote reads just like Protocols right?

Yes, I understand that. Part of the problem is that, AFAIK, Camp David is pretty vague about our obligations. I agree that we could scale down our aid to Israel without violating the spirit of the accords; the issue is how much. But I don't think it is correct to say, as Matthew does, that the "rationale" for our "heavy financial support" of Israel is unclear. The rationale for a lot of heavy financial support is quite clear - Camp David. The rationale for the rest of our support may be unclear (although it isn't to me), but even if we got rid of the "extra" (i.e., over and above Camp David) support, we'd pretty clearly be giving Israel "heavy financial support".

$3 billion is a de facto obligation of (St.) Jimmy Carter's Camp David Accords.

Oh come on. This "obligation" thing sounds like a canard. I don't know the details of Camp David, but the United States can abandon or ignore prior international commitments if it deems it in its interest to do so. It's done this many times. I'm not saying the U.S. should stop all its aid to Israel; I'm saying it seems wrong to pretend that a certain portion of that aid is untouchable for all eternity because of some deal we made almost three decades ago. Is the U.S. sovereign or isn't it?

Reviewing your comments, you're right, I leaped out at the "hoodwinked" part more than I should and missed your broader argument.

The argument that Israel is our "junkyard dog" seems unconvincing.

The U.S. is the most powerful nation in human history, with the ability to annihilate, by conventional or nuclear means, any ME country in a few days without any commitment of ground forces (minimal losses). Talk about deterrence.

So, for what reason would one with that kind of power and reach, not to mention wealth and buying power, have a potentially lethal dog that is not well trained, enormously expensive, frequently breaks its leash and, in the least, constantly infuriates the neighbors by territorializing their yards and that barks incessantly?

No bang for the buck and too much liability.

I'm saying it seems wrong to pretend that a certain portion of that aid is untouchable for all eternity because of some deal we made almost three decades ago. Is the U.S. sovereign or isn't it?

True. But I think the point is that the "rationale" for the $3 billion (or, per dj moonbat, whatever portion of it we want to consider stems from Camp David) - which to Matthew is unclear - is quite clear: upholding our Camp David committment. Of course that doesn't mean that we can't break that commitment, but it's not like we have to go searching for some mysterious reason we're giving all that money to Israel.

Dan Panorama:

You make a good point. There was no "hoodwinking" or skullduggery. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and others have their own, separate reasons for pursuing a set of policies that happen to jibe exactly with what recent Israeli governments have wanted. They are radicals who were at odds with the old "realist" establishment and had to look for allies among the neoconservatives. Cheney is the renegade par excellence here.

It is legitimate to call out Wolwitz, Feith, Wurmser, Libby, Miller, Shulsky, et al as inappropriately zealous advocates of the Israeli right, if not outright agents. They did, after all, campaign for a noxious Israeli rightest at the very time he was undermining a U.S. foreign policy initiative called the Oslo Accords. The political coalition behind invading Iraq definitely has several components. But it's still worth while knocking out the Israeli leg of the stool. If we get rid of them and their media ideologists all that's left are rank criminals and profiteers: how will they explain themselves to the public without this media infrastructure?

You also neglect to mention the political climate in the country generally. As a commenter here, "Ed Marshall" commented here recently, if you took all the Arabs out of the Knesset, it still wouldn't rival the U.S. Congress for Zionist nutbaggery. My favorite example is this summer's 410-8 vote. Meanwhile much, if not most, of the "anti-Semitic"-smelling criticism here is aimed not at the implementers in the White House, but against propaganda organs for neoconservativism like the NYT and the Post, which create a climate for public officials to be bribed into acquiescence with the whole neoconservative project.

Oh, man. As part of The New Republic continuing campaign to demonstrate that there's no Israel Lobby

Could you perhaps link to the article or post at TNR claiming that no such lobby exists? Two would be even better as that gels better with the description of "continuing"

Ah -- OK, fair enough Al.

DRR:

Skim through Yglesias's archives for links, lazybones.

The dual loyalties phrase is sorta funny. I have many more than two loyalties. I can't really count them. Far down in the pack is the loyalty to the U.S. government. Sometimes, that's even a negative thing - I'm happy to blame America first when America is the first to be guilty. I've never really met anyone with mono-loyalties, but I am sure they exist in nuthouses somewhere.

It seems to me that America's interests are sometimes not at all mine, even though I live here. But I like using American interest as a guide to thought, because - going back to the whole vocabulary of interest invented by Adam Smith in the 18th century - the virtue of it is that interest should bind us to peace - the invisible hand and like that - rather than war. As far as spending money goes, American disbursement of money to Israel has made them a pretty prosperous little country - so why not disburse an equal amount of money to the Palestinians? It would be a blip in the sea of red ink the U.S. happily floats on, and it would solve the right to return issue by basically paying recompense for past injustice. A pledge of 3 or 4 billion a year for the next decade would do wonders for the Palestinian government, and save the U.S. a mint too - not having to send armies overseas, for one thing, cause that is expensive. That would be a true expression of American interest. Unfortunately, it would cross that interest among some in Israel's governing class who are determined to make Israel a Middle Eastern superpower. I'm all for Israel being safe, but the superpower project is just bound to fail.

Re: "...I think the point is that the "rationale" for the $3 billion...is quite clear: upholding our Camp David committment."

This is an easy hypothesis to test. How much did our aid to Israel increase after the Camp David agreement? If aid levels did not undergo a sharp increase right after Camp David, then this is not a historically relevent rationale.

My favorite example is this summer's 410-8 vote.

The best was the Syrian Accountability Act. It reads exactly like some kid at the local Hillel chapter got mad at the petition going around campus to divest from Israel, scratched out Palestine and Israel and filled in Lebanon and Syria. Afterword someone got nearly every last member of congress to sign it for a joke.

How much did our aid to Israel increase after the Camp David agreement?

In 1978, it was 1.8B. In 1979, it spiked to over 4B. Since then, it has fluctuated between 2B and 4B or so.

brendan--the "hoodwinking" I referred to was the hoodwinking of the American public and Congress, by a consortium of interests no doubt but mostly coordinated by Cheney and his people with assistance from Ledeen, Feith, PNAC people. I do NOT believe Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld got suckered into the Iraq War, I think they and the proper Likudniks have one in the same goal, the complete destabilization of the Middle East in order to assert Ameri-sraeli hegemony and let American military industry and Israeli weapons dealers profit from the warfare.

Dan Panorama--thanks.

Interesting chart, dj moonbat. Our aid to Israel increased by over $3 billion between 1978 and 1979. And our total aid to Israel is less than $3 billion - indeed, it is less in 2006 than during all of the Clinton years (which culminated at $4 billion in aid in 2000).

Another thought - if our administration is controlled by neocons that have "dual loyalties" (as per the title of this post), how come our actual aid to Israel has gone DOWN since the Clinton years? Odd. Or were the neocons really in control during those years too?

At any rate, one can clearly see that it was very rare to see aid to Israel in excess of 2B before 1979. After 1979, one never sees aid less than 2.5B in any given year, and sometimes it's more than 3B (or even, as Al notes, 4B in 2000).

The chart is garbage. It doesn't track loan guarantees and that's where the real rubber meets the road. They are routinely forgiven as riders and add up to far more than the on budget spending.

this strain of thinking that our foreign policy is controlled not by Bush or Cheney but by their super-powered Israeli sleeper agants is as old and rational an idea as blood libel

Seriously? You're claiming that the idea of blood libel is only (at most) five years old? Damn. I'm pretty sure it's much older than that, and it seems pretty anti-semitic for you to deny something so obvious.

The chart is garbage. It doesn't track loan guarantees and that's where the real rubber meets the road.

That's why it's a good way of looking at the aid that can realistically attributed to the Camp David agreement. The loan guarantees, as you say, are another source of support that cannot reasonably be attributed to those agreements.

This "dual-loyalty" talk is still very troubling to me. Firstly, because it implies that there aren't very strong realist reasons for backing Israel with aid. Second, it doesn't entirely appreicate that the political reality of Israel policy is dictated by far more than just Jewish lobbyists or Jewish votes in Florida, say. The vast majority of Americans today look at the situation in Israel and see it as Middle Eastern terrorists versus Israel. Which do you think they tend to support, with minimal background information, on a gut-level? This is more a symptom of the extreme radioactivity of terrorism and apologists for terrorism in American politics than anything else. Regardless of getting into dual loyalties, no Congressman wants to explain the nuances of his vote in the context of the Arab-Israeli to his constituents while his opponent is running some ad all day saying "Congressman so-and-so had a clear choice with Bill X - stand with us or stand with the terrorists. He chose the terrorists."

Don't know about the actual commintments from Camp David etc. but the amount of aid will be negotiated again shortly.

See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/823229.html .

This is more a symptom of the extreme radioactivity of terrorism and apologists for terrorism in American politics than anything else.

So there should be other countries in the world with representative governments that shovel money at Israel and cover their ass at the U.N. But there isn't. It's just us and Micronesia (and no one sane suggests they are there for any other reason than a quid pro quo).

The most laughable assertion in the Herf/Markovits 'free to be you and me' rant is this notion that Israel is always fair game for criticism here. I remember a little bit before 9/11 when Geraldo of all people questioned support for Israel and almost immediately Howard Kurtz had Tom Friedman on to nip it in the bud, followed by Wolf Blitzer having Dennis Ross on, followed by Jeff Greenfield with Ben Wattenberg...and Geraldo just buttoned it up for good. That was it- the only peep of disapproval of "The Jewish State" ever heard on TV. Peter Jennings who knew better kept his mouth shut. Everyone else was already toeing the line. The "left flank" headed by the little man with the old yenta's face (Bill Masher), and the buzzard of Boynton Beach (Charles Krauthammer) on the right. Tomorrow, if Apartheid Israel started rounding up Palestinian women and children to process them for the gas chambers- Dennis Ross would be on the network news saying: "It's being done in an orderly fashion", and then on MSNBC- Katrina Van de Heuvel would be on saying: "Yes, on the surface- it seems a bit mean, but, a lot of the children didn't seem to mind it." And, then the next day on the radio- Michael Medved, Dennis Prager & co. would be upset at some of the "anti-Semitic" coverage of the gassings. The day after that the N.Y. Times would have a story that questioned whether or not there were any gassings and if there were- maybe they were ordered by the Palestinian elders. Then, the whole thing would be chalked up to "Palestinian media brainwashing."

There are NOT very good reasons for backing Israel with aid. The aid we give Israel has made the entire region a tinderbox, and induced widespread hate of America. It has also emboldened Israel's repression of Palestians in the face of international pressure. It would actually be better for Israel and for the US if Israel were more answerable to the international community (with some caveats--I think that's fair). It is a question of perception, and perception, here, is everything.

Do you care to call the current Middle East stable?

Dan Panorama:

This expressed indignation at the "dual loyalty" charge is unfounded. The "AI" in "AIPAC" stands for "American-Israeli". It's not "JAPAC" for a reason. If your indignation is sincere, you're making the mistake of conflating attacks on the loyalties of AIPAC with attacks on American Jews generally. Otherwise, it's a common rhetorical tactic to short circuit scrutiny of, to pick the best example, a popular lobby like AIPAC that is not only overly influential but engages in espionage.

As to other points you make: citing "the vast majority of Americans'" sympathies towards Israel is irrelevant in talking about a system of government whose foreign policy is demonstrably impervious to the public's wishes. And your argument about Congressman not wanting to be labelled terra-symps is a circular one. Where do Congressman get the notion that being "evenhanded" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is akin to being soft on terrorism? Who are the ones calling Carter an anti-Semite?

Trevor:

Good reminders. "Dan Panorama" and similar commenters are essentially saying, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?"

"Trevor":

I only read the first part of your post when I shot off a response.

The second half is nasty and inflammatory. Maher is a war-mongering prick, but what does his appearance have to do with it? Why do the good people of Boynton Beach bear responsibility for Charles Krauthammer.

And, for all it's aggressiveness, Israel is not gassing people, so why throw this kind of a verbal bomb into the thread?

The aid we give Israel has made the entire region a tinderbox, and induced widespread hate of America.

I think it's unlikely that the Middle East would be peaceful or love us absent our support for Israel, but we haven't improved matters much, either.

DRR:

Skim through Yglesias's archives for links, lazybones.

Why don't you be a dear and help me out?

We can start off with one TNR article or blog entry stating that the "Israel lobby" doesen't exist. Hop to it.

brendan:

Trevor didn't say Israel was gassing anyone. He said if they "started" to..., which is different -- hypothetical as opposed to accusatory. His point was simply that if they did, the media would whitewash it. That's all -- and I tend to agree.

I thought he made the point well.

As for the “Buzzard of Boynton” remark, he was calling Krauthammer a name, not impugning the people of Boynton. He is kind of a strange bird after all. The name calling was rather clever, but name calling nonetheless.

It pains me to mention this, but there have been reports of gassing in secret prisons in the Negev desert. An intelligent, non-reactionary Palestinian man told me about it. I checked the claim with Amnesty international, and they have told me the gassing (not lethal, but gassing nonetheless) has been documented. As a Jew, I fear that what's going on in Palestine is worse than anyone knows.

http://www.vtjp.org/news/prisoners0804.php

DJ Moonbat-
You refute a claim I didn't make. I am only claiming that aid hasn't worked, not that it's the only problem.

alex:

"The aid we give Israel has made the entire region a tinderbox"

This truism is cast about indiscriminately. Be more precise in what you mean.

For a while now the aid has to be seen in the context of political support for building settlements in the West Bank, and a policy of repeated invasions of the West Bank and Gaza. The aid itself is not necessarily a problem, as other commenters above point out.

More recently military aid (think the illegal aid to Israel in this summer's Lebanon invasion) has accompanied a policy of actually goading the Israelis into aggression against Lebanon and an aggressive posture towards Syria.

Re: "Second, it doesn't entirely appreicate that the political reality of Israel policy is dictated by far more than just Jewish lobbyists or Jewish votes in Florida, say. The vast majority of Americans today look at the situation in Israel and see it as Middle Eastern terrorists versus Israel. Which do you think they tend to support, with minimal background information, on a gut-level?"

I think this is a good point. I think the Jewish lobby, etc, is the front end of a wedge, which by itself only explains a fraction of the support for Israel in this country.

I think a lot of the support is due to the fact that, once our country adopts a stable, long-term policy, common people tend to internalize and rationalize it, to the point where they come to see that policy as "the right thing to do". Media coverage reinforces this tendency.

The radioactivity of terrorism is another factor. We have military and technological dominance, and rationalize moral issues related to war in a way that is favorable to those capabilities and tendencies. And so, we see collateral damage inflicted during bombing missions, say, as morally neutral, while seeing the killing of civilians by terrorists as morally reprehensible. This, despite the fact that the latter numbers are usually orders of magnitude smaller.

Brendan,

What I mean is that the Arab world sees the aid as unfair, inasmuch as Israel is perceived as a military agressor. You're quite right that aid in the abstract is not a problem. But of course, we're not talking about aid in the abstract.

Trevor, Yehuda Cohn:

The comparison, even a tangential one, of Israeli human rights violations and war crimes to the industrialized genocide of the holocaust is inflammatory, even if it's not meant to be. Why couldn't you have picked a real example of the media burying Israeli crimes, notably the Jenin massacre in 2002?

Let me be frank: there's a reason I pick this site to voice criticism of Israeli influence on U.S. policy. MY is Jewish, as are many of the best commenters. I am appealing to them, precisely. Why make them regret their attempts to break the ice on this subject?

I must say: This seems like a great blog.

While there's a robust and passionate debate going here, the quality of discourse is high, and the tenor is quite civil -- unlike most blogs, and distinctly different from most right-wing blogs. It's particularly remarkable when one considers the subject matter at hand.

So bully for Matt.

It's my first time here, but I'll be back.

brendan:

Duly noted. I conceed the point. Will refrain in the future from any such comparisons.

Thanks.

A weaker Israel doesn't bring peace any nearer.
Quite the contrary.

And our "aid" to Israel is only in the form of subsidies to Mcdonell-Douglas, Boeing et all.

David:

If by "weaker" you mean less U.S. aid, I disagree with the premise: Israel is orders of magnitude stronger than its neighbors with or without U.S. aid.

That the money "is only in the form of subsidies to Mcdonell-Douglas, Boeing et all" makes no less noxious. In fact, more money to what some may call merchants of death can be repugnant in itself.

"Where do Congressman get the notion that being "evenhanded" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is akin to being soft on terrorism? Who are the ones calling Carter an anti-Semite?"

These are two only semi-related issues. The fact that lunatics like Peretz are playing the anti-semitism card like there's no tomorrow doesn't necessarily mean that it's the CAUSE of the environment that lets them get away with it. They certainly benefit from it, but that is not the same thing.

The cause, for better or worse, is not an AIPAC PR campaign but the last thirty five years of American interaction with the Muslim world. In order of appearance - cartel-induced oil crisis, Iranian hostage crisis, Achille Lauro hijacking, bombing of Marines in Beirut, WTC attack number one, 9/11, and everything in between. Now obviously these things are not all connected and only some of them directly involve Israel at all. But that's not how politics is organized today - with the help of Bush, but predating him as well, these issues have become black and white - with us or with the terrorists. An example of this was the Dubai ports deal - where Americans loudly refused to differentiate between the "good" Arab countries and, say, Iran. Ever hear that old 9/11 exploiting Alan Jackson song with that infuriating lyric, "I couldn't tell you the difference between Iraq and Iran?" That's the situation lawmakers are dealing with when they choose to go for a subtle nuanced approach on any issue involving terrorists, especially Islamic ones.

Israel, on the flipside, does not bear this kind of long tortured historic memory in the American national consciousness. Many have strong positive feelings towards the country if for no other reason than that they see Hamas and the PLO as similar to our enemies, if not directly connected, or assume that if the entire Islamic world hates Israel, they must be doing something right.

alex:

If you haven't read the Kramer piece "Ragout" linked to, I highly recommend it, even while disagreeing with it.

He makes I think a wrong argument well that such aid is actually stabilizing. And if you look at something like Mubarak's Egypt, isn't that regime the essence of such stability? Limited U.S-Israeli hegemony in the region has been a fact for a while and hasn't coincided with massive revolt.

What has really been destabilizing has been a new feature of U.S. foreign policy: neoconservative license. And this Kramer doesn't address at all.

The more I think about this, the more the "Israel" issue comes to for me consists of a few parts:

1. We have a narrow issue of security breaches, where Israeli agents like Feith, just to take an example, are running sham intelligence operations and the major Israeli lobby is a nest of spies and agents. I have a constructive suggestion for fixing this that will unfortunately never be implemented. Have prominent enlightened Jews wage a campaign in the media to denounce this phenomenon: Feith would be the perfect scapegoat. Then use his trial or public disgrace as an impetus for Congress to pass restrictions on the way AIPAC operates.
2. The American system of government is undemocratic and imperial and therefore manipulable by coteries and cabals. The cabal in power includes a faction devoted to advocating expansionist Israeli policies. The solution is for Congress to reassert primacy and restore republican government.
3. The media are neoconservative. I don't know what the solution to this is. It's legal to be a shill for Israel. The only way to fix this is to change hearts and minds.

Feith was an 'Israeli agent'???? I was under the impression he was a stooge for the Bush administration to help sell their case for war. He acted on their behalf not Israel's.

Second, what is this "constructive suggestion?" Jews should be asked to line up and denounce some guy in the Pentagon? They don't have to apologize for anything. Feith is his own man and can be held accountable for his own actions just fine without having to be condemned by every Jewish person in the country in some bizarre cable TV ritual. Many Muslims are outraged when they feel they have to apologize for every hateful statement that comes from an Islamic leader or for every suicide bombing that occurs and this is no different. No one should have to prove their "loyalty" by dumping on Feith or AIPAC.

Dan Panorama:

My last comment was sort of addressed to you.

This "last 35 years" argument is wrong. The last six years have been a kind of "clean break", to use a well-known expression. Even before that, the neoconservatives and their Democratic counterparts, the "liberal hawks" had their hooks in the Clinton administration and were dominating the debate in the press -- ultimately they accomplished the goals of fielding a Vice-Presidential candidate and make "regime change" official policy before Clinton left office.

Yours is a variation on the critique I make of Kramer and the left for not "dusting off" their analysis of the Israel-U.S. relationship.

One thing I couldn't help but note: to my delight, the Kramer apologia for the alliance resembled not only Chomsky, but Norman Finkelstein, slandered by many -- absurdly, obviously -- as an "anti-Semite".

Dan Panorama:

I have a question for you: Are there any Israeli agents in the United States?

Dan Panorama:

Why is my "constructive suggestion" so much worse than Soros's stated intent to create an anti-AIPAC?

Dan:

I could possibly agree on the second point, but there fertile ground for bredan to suggest Feith acted, at least in part, in the interest of Israel. It's more plausible than absurd.

After all, much of what Feith supported was remarkably the same as his proposed Israel strategy to Netanyahu found in "A Clean Break," which he helped author. And, wasn't Larry Franklin operation out of the Feith's OSP. Not probative, but there's the appearance of a conflict.

Let me understand the order of events here:

1. Bush/Cheney decide to go to war. They need a strategy to sell it.
2. The CIA intelligence isn't as good as hoped for.
3. So they lean on the Pentagon to come up with a more favorable sounding set of findings. Enter Feith.

Is there another context I should be reading into this? Unless at some point before Step 1, Feith convinced the administration with his doctored intelligence to go to war then where he got his strategy is largely irrelevant.

There's also the argument to be made that "that which one subsidizes, he regulates." We should be able to guide, albeit benevolently, much of the policy in the realm of our aid: Israel defense, that is.

And, Muslims are justified holding the U.S. in part accountable for Israel’s conduct in this realm under the theory that if you empower someone and they thereby act irresponsibly, you may be vicariously liable (don't give a gun to a drunk).

Yehuda Cohn:

Thanks for this reminder about Franklin. It puts a point on my suggestion that Feith is, literally, an Israeli agent. His qualification for the job seems to have been that he is partner in a Jerusalem law firm.

As to the second point, I'll stand by it, or tailor it: it doesn't have to be denunciation of Feith, per se, but how about a denunciation of AIPAC, the former head of which was charged with espionage? Let's not be naive: It would have to be a denunciation by American Jews. And I realize the word "denounce" is loaded.

Dan:

Think pre-2001. Feith's advocacy and actions.

Dan Panorama:

I made this point before but I'll make it again: saying Cheney and Bush wanted to gin up the war and saying Feith is an agent are not mutually exclusive. It just goes to prove that Cheney and Bush, if we didn't already know it from the Plame outing, are, literally, traitors arguably fit for the noose. They needed to enlist the worst sort of riff-raff to get their work done -- this included spies and agents like Feith.

It wouldn't be unfair to characterize Feith as having dual loyalties, though "agent" connotes something sneaky--he's operating right out in the open, e.g. his co-authorship of the "Clean Break" document which famously set out Netanyahu's notion of crushing Iraq to help break the Middle East opposition to Israel.

If Franklin and the other 2 AIPAC traitors are going away- why hasn't the FBI arrested Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ledeen, Michael Rubin, the whole kit & kaboodle? Didn't they all work at one time or another for Israel? Doesn't Wolfowitz hold Israeli citizenship? Or are they beyond accountability for Iraq? Aren't these people responsible for all the dead and maimed American soldiers, all the dead and maimed Iraqis? Are hearings never going to be held? For all the harm Pollard or the Rosenbergs supposedly did- it couldn't compare to the Crimes these people committed?

As for Bush and Cheney's desire to gin up pretexts for war on Iarq, think about why they wanted war in the first place. Was Feith influential there?

As for Bush and Cheney's desire to gin up pretexts for war on Iarq, think about why they wanted war in the first place. Was Feith influential there?

I think the pro-Israel justification for war was purely incidental for Cheney (and Rumsfeld), who had their own predispositions to invade.

Alright last comment because I got to run. But Moonbat's right - the pro-Israel justification for the war was a minor concurrence with the broader push for war. It would be very nice to pretend that the Iraq war was the result of some sleeper cell of pro-Israel "agents" and think that by ridding ourselves of their influence all would be well. But this isn't true, starts leading into some very dark and conspiratorial, and yes, sometimes anti-semitic, places, and ignores the reality of what happened. We let the Iraq War occur, on every level. A broad majority of not just administration officials, but lawmakers, and especially our own citizens supported, encouraged, and enabled this war. Richard Perle or AIPAC or anyone does not have any kind of power in this order, they're a coincidental bit player who were elevated in status because they fit in with Bush and Cheney's plans, not the other way around. This was a national failure, not the result of some set of "dual-loyalty" citizens.

Wolfowitz and Perle "coincidental bit players"? Who the fuck do you think you're kidding? If "Time Magazine" can call Wolfowitz- "The Architect of the War", and if Colin Powell can claim- "The JINSA crowd pushed us into the War" and if even Tom Friedman can lay the blame for this monumental disaster at the feet of "25 guys"...I think it's safe to say- that The Policy, The Plan, The Plot, The Clean Break, The PNAC Wet Dream was a neocon operation from start to finish. Rummy and Cheney were not the conceivers of this policy, and G.W. was but a callow despot eager to show daddy up. We know who's responsible for Iraq. And, four years into it, and they're trying to pull the same shit with Iran with God knows the consequences. These are the people no one but no one should let off the hook.

Agreed that the pro-Israel motivation for war was just one of multiple interests in wanting war. And, agreed it was incidental to Cheney and Rumsfeld motivation – although most likely one of the chief reason for Wolfowitz and Feith.

Also in the mix are military industrial interests. And the Christian Right's influence (although End-of-Timers have an Israeli aspect that's too weird to pursue here). And the Pro-America revenge for 9/11 folks (some part supported war because they believed the pretexts for war).

So, yes, there were many motivations. But, that's not what we're talking about here. In this thread we're looking closely at the pro-Israel aspects.

And feel quite compelled by Trevors last comment. It over-shaddows my more tepid version.

America and Israel are allies because they have almost identical strategies in the Middle East, though for mainly different goals. America's strategy in the Middle East is military dominance over the Arabs and Iranians to control the energy resources. Israel's strategy is military dominance over the Arabs and Iranians to control land and water resources.

Yes, it's also true that Old Testament Bible fundamentalism is extremely popular in America; but that contributes to America's Middle East policy more as propaganda than motive. 1000 years ago Western governments wanted to control trade routes through the Middle East, so they used religious propaganda about liberating the Holy Land to sell their crusades. Now they want to control oil and gas pipelines through the Middle East, and after all this time the same childish religious propaganda still works.

Trevor,

I'd hazard the guess that the reason the FBI haven't arrested Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ledeen, and Michael Rubin is that they haven't committed any crimes. (Although I admit that I have no idea who Ladeen and Rubin are). I don't know if any of them have worked for Israel, or held Israeli citizenship (though I doubt it). I do know, however, that working for Israel or holding Israeli citizenship are not crimes.

Oh, and your claim that Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush are not responsible for the war is, to say the least, hard to believe. I suppose you have some inside information?

Wow, it's pretty remarkable when Brendan is the one who's the normal one.

Noticed that, too, DRR. This topic is like flypaper!

"Oh, and your claim that Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush are not responsible for the war is, to say the least, hard to believe. I suppose you have some inside information?" (rags)

The didn't draft the policy. And, don't count on your boys remaining immune from prosecution. Even Pinochet had to gag on his curds and whey. Don't know Ledeen or Rubin? Get a crib sheet- neocon wackjobs 101.

Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush are not responsible for the war in Iraq because they "didn't draft the policy"?

I suppose the ultimate responsibility for the US torture policy lies with John Yoo? Damn, I was hoping that Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush would someday be prosecuted. But your "they didn't draft the policy" theory has convinced me of their innocence.

I wonder who's responsible for Bush's tax cuts for the rich? Probably the Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary. I hear the real responsibility for the Katrina screw-up lies with the guys driving the buses and ice trucks.

The undiscussed question is whey the West continues to provide the hostile Wahhabis and Ayatollahs with hundreds of billions of dollars a year for oil that isn't really even theirs. The result is that the West is funding both sides of this east-west war and building a resurgence of Islam. The few billion dollars a year spent on Israel, a stout ally, is a bargain by comparison.

The undiscussed question is whey the West continues to provide the hostile Wahhabis and Ayatollahs with hundreds of billions of dollars a year for oil that isn't really even theirs.

So whose is it?

I couldn't help chime in one last time on this thread.

Dan Panorama, dj moonbat:

I think if I'd have been asked a couple of years ago about this topic I would have sounded more like "Trevor". But my opinion of the Israeli part of the Iraq equation has changed (as "DRR" said, I now sound like the "normal" one), and both of you are misstating it; it falls between yours and Trevor's. You seem to be saying that because Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush had executive authority the Israeli-affiliated (and by this I'm not using code for Jews -- you could include Woolsey, Gaffney, minor players like Franklin, et al) neocon apparatchiks, notably Feith and Wolfowitz, bear little responsability. I think that's false: there's a whole bureaucratic faction of this people who were there to make themselves useful to criminals like Cheney. You also underestimate their capacity for executive decision making -- the most important "mistake" of the Iraq occupation was disbanding the Iraqi army. That was a decision Bremer took "after consulation with" Feith and Wolfowitz (google up Washington Post article from autumn 2003).

dj moonbat:

An "agent" can operate right out in the open. Every government tries to cultivate agents in the press, for example. So much the better if they can insert them into the bureaucracy or even positions of executive power.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

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

Sevgi Ve Aşk Platformu SanaSevdam.Net

thanks

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
seks shop
hikayeler
hikaye
sex
hikayetube
sex |
porno |
hikaye |
sex hikayeleri |
sex hikaye |
sex porno |
seks shop |
geciktirici |
penis büyütücü |
hikaye |
hikaye |
sex |
videohikaye.com |
sex |
porno |
hikayetube.com |
porno |
mirc |
yüzük |
güzel sözler |
elektronik sigara |
pilli sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara |
elektronik sigara

mirc

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

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

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 bacanak web tasarimci muhabbet

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
turk mirc
mircada
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
türkçe mirc
turkce mirc
turkçe mırc
turkce mırc
oper mirc
irc forum
Mirc forum
irc forum

cok cok thank you

thanks

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


ders


siyaset

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

thnk you