I Hear They're Also Funding North Korea

The main obstacles to political and economic reform in the United States are . . .

You mean "political and economic reform in the Arab world".

Did he really capitalize AIPAC as "Aipac"? Isn't that wrong? And if it's wrong, doesn't it show--just as the LRB's miscapitalization of the "l" in "Israel lobby" demonstrated about W&M--that Brooks is an anti-semite?

Also, "a general recognition that"-- in "to be a general recognition that the Arab world had fallen behind, and that it needed economic, political and religious modernization"--should be "an unwillingness to listen to anyone who pointed out the general fatuousness of explanatory claims that." He seems to believe that the problem is that we've stopped listening to comic book explanations of the world. That's not someone with whom you can argue; he genuinely lives in a world that's different, in ways large and small, from the one the rest of live in. I can't wait till he decides that Fanon had a point, and we need to start kicking the shit out of teh Muslim Oppressors for the sake of kicking the shit out of them.

And any observer of US politics would tell you that US politicians and the media have been deflecting attention from their own, and Israel's, shortcomings and onto the need for the Arab world to undergo 'political and economic reform' for decades. David Brooks' article is only the latest example of a mighty collection.

Re otto

Ah yes, Mr. otto continues to try to convince us that if only the State of Israel would go out of business, all would be well in the Moslem world. Thus, if Israel went out of business, suddenly the Shiites and Sunnis would love each other and nary a cross word would pass between them ever again. Also, the influence of the radical Muslim fundamentalists would magically disappear overnight. It's all very simple, you're just stupid if you don't understand it.

"Mosl-homicid-ians"

Did he really capitalize AIPAC as "Aipac"

This is NYTimes style for long, pronounceable acronymys. They also write "Nafta" instead of NAFTA. I think it's weird.

My understanding is that the capitalization of "Lobby" in "Israel Lobby" was a result of the LRB's style conventions. So "Aipac" remains definitive proof that Brooks's column is worse than the Protocols of Zion.

Yes, SLC. Iran's primary anger regarding the US has nothing to do with the fact that the CIA instituted a coup of the country in 1953 and installed a brutal dictator; instead it's all based on anger at Israel.
Iraq's primary anger has nothing to do with the fact that the US was happy to help Hussein to power and then, just to seal the deal, created a post-Hussein situation that is even worse than what went before; again the primary concern of the average Iraqi is "getting back" at Israel.
The average Egyptian, likewise, is far more interested in Israel than in the fact that the US showers money on their dictator and even tells the rest of the world what a marvellous
democrat he is.
How clearly I now see the world.

I've no idea if the ME would become more peaceful if Israel left, but I'm damn sure it would if the US left.

Of course these issues are not unconnected. One reasons that we support undemocratic governments in the ME is that we want to support governments which can accommodate, no matter how two-facedly, our support of Jewish colonialism.

we want to support governments which can accommodate, no matter how two-facedly, our support of Jewish colonialism.

It's possible that it works the other way around, too. We might, in part, support the existence of Israel--and more, an Israel that is regarded with hostility by its neighbors--so that when the West does (or has to do) something unpopular in the region, those Muslims who are angered to action have somewhere to bomb that isn't actually in the West. That is, just as some claim that Israel gets a lot out of our ME policy at a cost to us, it's possible that we get a lot out of our policy at a cost to Israel.

SCMT, counterintuitive!! But unlikely. What you propose would imply a US policy in the Middle East fervently opposed by Israeli lobby groups in the US, since we would be sticking Israel with the costs of our policies. The opposite is of course true. You could of course imagine a world where Israeli lobby activists dominate a US policy area just in order to encourage Arab countries to bomb Israel but then we are entering bizarro world.

Mmm, I'm not so sure. I can imagine a man who (a) believes that "sexual freedom" harms women's interests by making it easier for men to behave caddishly, (b) notes that various women's groups also support "sexual freedom" because they believe it helps, rather than hurts, women, and (c) therefore supports those groups, because he wants further license to behave badly. (No, I'm not that guy. I've met him, though, and so, probably, have you.) Moreover, because we're talking about a number of interactions that might be characterized according to his estimation or that of the women's group, I can imagine that each side might be able to fairly point to a number of individual interactions in support; that is, it's not clear that it's a "One Rule To Describe Them All" situation.

SCMT: If you think that we're in a world where Israeli lobby activists dominate policy towards the ME just in order to encourage Arab countries to bomb Israel, what can I say other than I look forward to your book manuscript! Start with a warm-up article in the LRB -- that way you get good feedback to strengthen your ideas.

Re Maynard Handley

Mr. Handley should be aware that my response to Mr. otto was meant sarcastically. For his information, Mr. otto is an enthusiastic Israel basher who is absolutely in favor of eliminating the State of Israel, as is his hero Norman Finkelstein. As can be seen from a later comment of his relative to the accusation of "Jewish colonialism," he is probably, at the least a borderline antisemite.

However, it should be pointed out that the Shah of Iran, Mubarak, and Saddam Hussein aren't any worse then another dictator, thankfully now deceased, who was not supported by the Uniter States, namely Hafaz Assad, the author of Hama rules. In fact, Mr. Assad makes the Shah and Mubarak look like angels by comparison. It is also doubtful that the Shah was worse then his successors, the mullahs currently ruling Iran. For the information of Mr. Handley, in 1982, Mr. Assad surrounded the Syrian city of Hama with several hundred artillery pieces and proceeded to bombard the city at will over a 2 day period, killing an estimated 20,000 people. Unfortunately, it appears that rule by ruthless dictators is endemic in the Arab world (by the way, Saddam probably wasn't much worse then his predecessors, Nuri as Said and Abdul Kassem who were pretty ruthless fellows also).

: If you think that we're in a world where Israeli lobby activists dominate policy towards the ME just in order to encourage Arab countries to bomb Israel, what can I say other than I look forward to your book manuscript!

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Likudnik-oriented activists believe that our ME policy helps Israel, but it's at least possible to believe that at least some people--say some subset of longtime civil servants--responsible for setting ME policy believe our policy is helpful to us in a way that costs the Israelis. (That is, they don't support the policy to hurt the Israelis; rather, the policy requires a harm to the Israelis, but it benefits the US, and that's really all they care about.) The two groups have different beliefs about the effect of the policy. That seems like a pretty commonplace state of affairs in the world, foreign policy or not.

Shorter SLC: Finkelstein is your hero! 1938! Borderline antisemite! David Duke! Lindberg! [Repeat and remix]

Your purpose on this site seems only to remind everyone of the stupid name-calling aspects of pro-settler discourse. Are you auditioning for a job at TNR?

It would of course be much more difficult to accuse Israel of colonialism if Israel hadn't put 100,000s of settlers into the land Israel conquered in 1967.

Cue: 1938! Finkelstein! etc

"some subset of longtime civil servants"?

SCMT: I don't know any influential approach to interpreting American politics that attributes any significant power to 'some subset of longtime civil servants'. The dominant approach is one of rather interest group politics, which points rather in a different direction.

I don't know any influential approach to interpreting American politics that attributes any significant power to 'some subset of longtime civil servants'.

That was meant as an example. I chose it because I see references to such power all the time from the Right and sometimes from the Likudniks--the CIA hates the Administration, State still has a lot of Arabists, DOJ (and specifically, Civil Rights Div.) is filled liberals, etc.

What we have witnessed since 2003 is the United States flanking Israel to the right on, amazingly enough, issues related to Israel. Im pretty certain this has no precedent in our relationship with the state. Their was a time earlier in his presidency when this was not true - Bush is not his father, of course, but neither was he an Arch-Zionist when he took office. (as some people like to pretend)

The Israelis are far more sophisticated and thoughtful than our political thinkers here in the States. They know the consequences the actions of this president have on both them and the region. They live there, unlike the scholar warriors at the AEI. There is an emerging consensus that peace talks with Syria might be a good idea - Israel is far too weak to be starting any wars right now. Obviously, this administration opposes such measures.

Also, the most extreme supporters of Israel do not need to be lobbied. They are grassroots Christian Zionists, there is a lot of them, and their views represent the most radical 5%, Kahanist wing of Jewish Zionists.

Sure, you're right that there can be career bureaucrats with a different policy preference from issue-specific organised interests, but when the two clash the interest groups always win -- at least that's the general consensus on US politics. So the State Department has Arabists who watch, irritatedly, as US enables the colonisation of the West Bank, so the Council of Economic Advisors watch, irritatedly, as agricultural subsidies are handed out etc etc.

but when the two clash the interest groups always win -- at least that's the general consensus on US politics.

You have to distinguish, I think, between action and motives. If both want the same actions, even when for diametrically opposed reasons, there is no clash.

If I and Bill Gates want the same policies for Microsoft, there is no clash, even if we want them for different reasons. It would be wrong however to attribute equal weight to these two impulses. If we disagree, Bill Gates tends to get what he wants. (I'm not Steve Ballmer).

It's the same with career bureaucrats and US interest groups. The former aren't in a position to have a sufficient impact in any contest with the latter and so it would be wrong to grant them any sort of causal role.

In regards to Neal Murray's point, I think a lot of the change in US-Israel relations has to do with the shift from Sharon to Olmert. Sharon, due to his history and political standing in Israel, was much more able to function as a partner (sometimes a dominant partner) in the US-Israel relationship than Olmert. Olmert's political standing in Israel is so weak (indeed, he may be the most unpopular democratically elected leader in the history of polling) that he is unable to exert independence from the US. It's difficult to imagine Washington blocking Sharon from the negotiating table with Syria.

Re otto

It is rather tiresome to read Mr. ottos rants against Israel. One more time, the Arabs launched the 1967 war against Israel and lost. As a result of the Arabs losing that war, the West Bank was occupied. The situation is very simple. The Arabs must be made to pay a price for their aggression in 1967 and that price is the loss of part of the West Bank to settlements. Considering that the US occupied and annexed the territories now making up New Mexico, Arizona, and southern Nevada as a result of the 1845 Mexican War, we are in a poor position to comment on Israels' settlements and annexation of part of the West Bank.

And you, SLC, are in a poor position to comment on the tiresomeness of anyone's rants.

As a result of the Arabs losing that war, the West Bank was occupied. The situation is very simple.

Only Israel-bashing borderline anti-semites like SLC deny that the West Bank and Gaza were given to Israel by God!

I'm sure SLC's posts make his hero David Duke very happy.

I find both SLC and Otto tiresome. Do I win some prize for moderation?

Do I win some prize for moderation?

No, but I've always been fascinated by that "pox on both their houses" liberal dynamic. Your elected representatives compete to out-do the nuttiest elements of Israeli nationalism, it has an incredibly large part in why we are having a war with Muslims in the 21'st century, and the reaction is...uncomfortableness and boredom.

While I agree with MY that the situation in the Arab world is basically unaffected by Walt and Mearsheimer, I think that the paper has had one negative effect - namely, to feed the canard in Western political circles (including, sadly, many liberal ones) that Israel really is the only problem between the West and the Muslim world.

A lot of people think that, if we somehow took Israel off the map, things like al-Qaeda would just evaporate. But they won't. And thinking that they will just causes liberal leaders to waste their energy fighting AIPAC instead of concentrating on deeper and more important issues like, say, the survival of democracy in America or American dependence on Middle Eastern oil. At least that's how I see it.

A lot of people think that, if we somehow took Israel off the map, things like al-Qaeda would just evaporate.

I can't say I've ever met a single person who thinks that. Who do you hang out with?

I guess I can imagine there are some in the conservative "realist" school who are of this mindset, but I'm having a hard time envisioning the liberals who believe it. Certainly there are people who think a serious two-state settlement (not taking Israel "off the map") would have a significant effect in drying up al-Qaeda support. But believing it would cause al-Qaeda to disappear, if we're still invading mideast countries and propping up dictatorships? No.

You can't put an absurdity like "taking Israel off the map" in a sentence and then expect to spend the rest of the sentence making plausible real-world calculations of the consequences. A better, non-straw-man proposition to consider would be "Serious momentum towards a Palestinian state and an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would dramatically reduce the threat of radical Islamic terrorism against the US, but the Israel lobby in the US is sabotaging any effort to reach such an agreement."

The Walt and Mearsheimer paper has encouraged many on the left to feel (and to state openly) that the US's relationship with Israel is damaging our security. Some of that concern is expressed in overstated anti-Israeli ways. But the fact that it is being expressed openly is good for the US and even better for Israel, which has become locked into a destructively dependent relationship with the US.

I can't say I've ever met a single person who thinks that.

Well, Jostein Gaarder, author of Sophie's World, expressed that idea about one year ago. I've heard the idea bandied about among liberal 20-somethings as well.

Certainly there are people who think a serious two-state settlement (not taking Israel "off the map") would have a significant effect in drying up al-Qaeda support.

That, I would certainly agree with.

But believing it would cause al-Qaeda to disappear, if we're still invading mideast countries and propping up dictatorships? No.

But I think that the idea behind the Walt/Mearsheimer argument is that the U.S. is only invading countries and propping up dictatorships at the behest of the Israel Lobby. I've read bloggers who say that we went to war in Iraq, not for oil or domestic politics or chest-thumping, but at the behest of Israel. If this were the case, then severing U.S. ties with Israel and getting out of Iraq would be actions that necessarily go together, which I don't think they are.

I totally agree that resolving the Palestinian conflict should be high on our list of diplomatic priorities. But that's not what you see liberal kids on campuses protesting for...they want complete financial divestment from Israel, the end of U.S. aid to Israel, etc. And I just walk past them and wonder if they don't have anything better to protest about.

You can't put an absurdity like "taking Israel off the map" in a sentence

You need to know who you are talking to figure out exactly what "taking Israel off the map" means. Mr. Noah is *probably* a two stater, so "taking Israel off the map" almost certainly means entertaining any sort of claims made by millions of refugees in garbage dumps with deeds to houses and orchards and such who just won't be reasonable and piss off to clean toilets in Saudi Arabia or whatever.

But that's not what you see liberal kids on campuses protesting for...they want complete financial divestment from Israel, the end of U.S. aid to Israel, etc.

Oops, guessed wrong. For Mr. Noah "wiping Israel off the map" is to want the U.S. to quit shoveling the majority of our foreign aid to a country with a per capita income similar to the U.K.

claims made by millions of refugees in garbage dumps with deeds to houses and orchards and such

So we're answering the rhetorical excesses of one side with rhetorical excesses on the other? Not particularly productive.

There seemed to be a general recognition that the Arab world had fallen behind, and that it needed economic, political and religious modernization. . . .

Really, Dave? Perhaps in your circles. But we know what your circles are. They're the ones which create a large chasm between 'Israel' the US foreign policy plank and Israel the state. Vide SLC's 'The Arabs must be made to pay a price for their aggression in 1967', which is the kind of thing that raises comparisons in Godwin territory. The IDF accepts olim recruits, matey.

And SLC appears to be continuing his pastime of proving Matt's point re: kneejerk accusations of anti-Semitism, even through Passover.

Mr. Noah:

Well, Jostein Gaarder, author of Sophie's World, expressed that idea about one year ago.

You mean in this article? I see some somewhat gross stuff there, but not "if we somehow took Israel off the map, things like al-Qaeda would just evaporate."

But even if he had said exactly that, one Norwegian author plus some liberal 20-somethings you've met doesn't strike me as "a lot of people."

I totally agree that resolving the Palestinian conflict should be high on our list of diplomatic priorities. But that's not what you see liberal kids on campuses protesting for...they want complete financial divestment from Israel, the end of U.S. aid to Israel, etc.

And you haven't gotten the impression that liberal kids see divestment and an end to U.S. aid as a means to pressure Israel to resolve the conflict? Because if not, you really seem to be meeting an entirely different genre of liberal kids than I do.

Re ArgieBargie

Hey, my old friend ArgeiBargei is back with his nonsense. He does provide a certain levity to this blog. However, to respond to his more serious comments, he seems to feel that the answer is to apply pressure on Israel to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem. However, he is somewhat deficient as to what it is specifically that he wants the Israeli Government to do. It would be nice is he elucidated his views on this matter.

Re pseudonymous

Mr. pseudonymous takes issue with my comment that the Arabs must pay for their aggression in 1967 by losing territory on the West Bank. Of course, he then is adamant that it was unjust for Germany to be forced to recognize the Oder/Neisse line as its eastern border as the price it had to pay for its aggression in 1939 against Poland.

This is why the founding of Israel was such a bad idea--the Jews need to pay a price for their defeat by the Romans.

Brooks notes that it is problematic that Arab elites seem to have reverted to a "Israel is the root of all evil in the ME" framework. He noted that the M/W paper was being used as rhetorical cover for that delusional framework - as evidence that Americans would some day come around the Arab view of the world. It would have been interesting to hear Yglesias address Brooks' observation and perhaps discuss the problems of how to engage the Arab world when it retreats from the reality into its own cocooning narratives (a phenomenon that Matt is insightful at pointing out when it occurs within the Bush administration.)

Unfortunately, Matt's not interested in writing anything of actual substance or originality when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead its take a potshot at the silly Bobo neocon and defend Walt & Mearshimer without actually tackling the substance of their claims.

"This is why the founding of Israel was such a bad idea--the Jews need to pay a price for their defeat by the Romans."

The Jews paid that price eighteen centuries ago. After their second, unsuccessful revolt against the Romans, the Romans made them a minority in their own country, razed and re-named Jerusalem, built a temple to Jupiter where the Second Temple had stood, and renamed the land Palestine.

Anyhow, it's not as if the Arabs didn't do their best to prevent the founding of Israel; they did, and they lost. Time to build a bridge and get over it. Who else gets to ask for a mulligan after losing a war?

discuss the problems of how to engage the Arab world when it retreats from the reality into its own cocooning narratives

Well, yeah, that is an interesting and compelling issue to tackle. Brooks's observations on the conference largely rang true for me -- I know what those kinds of experiences are like, and while I would hardly pick Brooks as an ideal candidate for overcoming such polarization, and while I'm also sure Brooks brings his own ridiculous "cocooning" prejudices to the mix, I think he's probably right that it has once again become almost impossible to have reasonable conversations with many Arab intellectuals. And that the Walt/Mearsheimer paper is being used to legitimate anti-Semitic and conspiratorial views of the world, though the paper itself was not guilty of such views.

The thing is, that's the kind of subject one really ought to bring up with an actual Arab, or a Muslim at least, as part of the conversation. Also, it's probably a thirty-year kind of project that is likely to bear very modest results in any normal timeframe.

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

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
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

porno
sex
hikaye
sex
sex
mirc
hikaye
porno
sex
sex shop
seks shop
güzel sözler
mirc
mirc
porno
güzel sözler
hikaye
mirc
hikayeler
mirc
kelebek
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
elektronik sigara
sex
porno
hikaye
sex
porno
mirc
mirc
seks shop
hikaye
hikaye

thanks all

thx

thanks my frıends

thanks my frıends

chat
msn nickleri
muhabbet
muhabet
kavak yelleri
turkçe mırç
sohbet
komik video
aşk şiirleri
Tr Video
avrupa sohbet
89com
komik video
sohbet
muhabbet
chat
çet
bedava oyun
islami sohbet
Bol Sohbet
Sohbet
Bol Chat
Avrupa Sohbet
Kerizim Sohbet
chat
chatsohbet
çet
cet
komik video
kurtlar vadisi pusu
dizi izle
film izle
aşk şiirleri
bol sohbet
sohbet
chat
muhabbet
cinsel sohbet
sohbet
sohbet yerleri
oyunlar99
Bol Sohbet
chat
chat
sohbet
sohbet
seviyeli sohbet
göçmen sohbet
mynet sohbet
islam sohbet
yazılı sohbet
yazgülü sohbet
hollanda sohbet
bg sohbet
avrupa sohbet
alem sohbet
cinsel sohbet
liseli kizlar
kerizim
kameralı sohbet
sesli sohbet
canlı sohbet
bgsohbet
göçmen sohbet
cinsel sohbet
mynet sohbet
msn nickler
saç ekimi
sağlık bilgisi
mirc inndir
film inndir
bağ-kur sorgulama
bağ-kur ssk
bağkur
webcam oyunları
macera oyunları
3 boyutlu oyunlar
aksiyon oyunları
kız oyunları
spor oyunları
yarış oyunları
varmısın yokmusun
ssk sorgulama
ssk bagkur
ssk emeklilik

chgdz.com

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