Where's Healthy Debate On U.S. Policy Toward Israel?

[Purveyor]

Candidates in lockstep when there's much to argue

By GEORGE BISHARAT

NOW that the presidential primaries are over, it is fair to ask: Why do the presumptive candidates of our two major parties vigorously debate the economy, health care, Iraq, and every other issue, but mouth down-the-line support for hawkish Israeli positions?

That tendency was on national display last week when Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama each spoke to the annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC.

Each candidate recited a nearly identical litany of pro-Israeli positions on everything from Israel's demand to keep Jerusalem as Israel's capital to refusing to negotiate with the Palestinian group Hamas.

Yet long before the birth of Hamas in 1987, Israel had expelled Palestinians, confiscated their property and demolished their homes. It had tortured, assassinated, banished or imprisoned Palestinians without trial. Israel's violations of Palestinians' human rights have been extensively documented by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B'Tselem (an Israeli human rights organization) and other respected institutions.

Today, Israel is swallowing up the land base for a Palestinian state in violation of President Bush's Roadmap for Peace. More than 480,000 Israeli settlers live in segregated communities built on confiscated Palestinian lands in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, driving well-lit and paved roads from which Palestinians are barred. Prominent observers have likened this to apartheid.

Do none of these policies merit criticism?

Our government has been Israel's main arms supplier since 1973. Our repeated vetoes in the U.N. Security Council have wrapped Israel in a cocoon of impunity. We acted, per American negotiator Aaron David Miller, as "Israel's lawyer" in the Camp David negotiations in 2000. The Bush administration stalled a ceasefire to extend Israel's pummeling of Lebanon in 2006. Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike regularly join in resolutions lauding Israeli policies, no matter how self-destructive those policies may be.

Houston Chronicle: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5834238.html

[notfullofit]

1. I think Mr. Bisharat has an axe to grind. nt

[Vegasaurus]

2. Long before the birth of Hamas

Arabs have been trying to persecute or kill Jews.

It goes back to 100 years before 1987, at least.

In fact, whole armies of invading Arabs, from a multitude of countries, have been trying to "throw the Jews into the sea" for a century.

[Viva_Daddy]

6. What about the Middle Ages

Isn't it interesting that during the entire Middle Ages the only place Jews could find refuge from Christian persecution was in the Muslim states who not only welcomed and protected them but allowed many of them to rise to positions of power under Muslim regimes.

[aranthus]

3. There are many reasons why there isn't debate.

The biggest one is that the anti-Israel side doesn't actually debate most of the time, and when they do, they usually don't hold up their end. Mostly they prefer to propagandize and sometimes rant. Bisharat is a case in point, and so is Sarree Makdisi, Barghouti, etc. For example:

1. You can't expect to have a debate when one side has an extreme core goal such as the Right of Return (supported by Bisharat and Makdisi), which is totally unrealistic and hostile to the other side. Whenever it's raised, rational people take it as a signal that the speaker is not serious about peace and has no credibility.

2. You can't expect to have debate when one side's core positions are based on clinging to a Nakhba narrative which is demonstrably false (even if it does have a kernel of truth to it).

What's sad is that there are legitimate arguments to be made on the Palestinian side. Unfortunately, they are so overwhelmed with being anti-Israel, that they usually don't make them, and when they do, their obvious hatred for Israel's existence destroys their credibility.

[Vegasaurus]

4. Furthermore,

most people simply do not want to ally with terrorists, but with a democratic nation like Israel.

If people think that Americans want to "understand" terrorists, they are dead wrong.

Any person here who thinks Obama is wrong in his position is simply hoping he will lose.

Obama realizes that most of America is very much on Israel's side, and this is NOT JUST JEWS.

Any candidate who wants to win the election for president understands that the majority of Americans are never going to want to be on the side of terrorists.

[LeftishBrit]

20. To be fair...

debate about Israeli policy does not need to equate with support for terrorist actions against it.

[Vegasaurus]

26. Very true

but tell that to some of the people in America's heartland or south.

They really do see terrorism as the enemy.

[Viva_Daddy]

7. Define 'debate'

I was in debating clubs in HS and in college. I've rarely seen anything resembling what I would define as 'debate' in American political discourse in the last 25 years. Just calling a 'discussion' a debate does not make it a debate.

[aranthus]

13. Fair question. Here's my answer.

When I think of debate in the political sense, I don't mean the formalized debating which I did in high school and college, nor argument in court (which is what I do for a living). I am talking about a less formalized but still rational discourse. At a minimum, that means:

1. We are arguing about something that reasonable people can differ on. We can have a national debate over tax policy. We aren't about to have a debate about whether blacks are genetically inferior to other races. A rational decent person thinks a KKK member is a vile racist. Sometimes one side is so wrong that there isn't any point in arguing.

2. Each side at least tries to respond to the other side's points (which requires that each side concede a certain amount of legitimacy to the other).

3. There is a common understanding of factual reality. Try debating the effect of Columbus' voyages with someone who truly believes that the Italian explorer sailed off the edge of the flat earth, never to be heard from again.

4. Minimum standards of evidence are observed.

5. Ditto logic.

6. There is a set of common values. An argument between a Catholic, a Buddhist, and Henry, where the Catholic only cites to sermons of Jesus, the Buddhist only cites to sayings of the Buddha, and Henry only cites to the aphorisms of his cousin Ralph, is not a debate.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. When I read sentiments like yours, I'm clear why there is not peace.

Deny. Deny. Deny. Insult. Deny. Insult.

[aranthus]

16. You've proven my point..

What did I post that was insulting? There isn't anything. Likewise, where is the denial? I don't know what you mean by denial, but in its pejorative sense, it means the rejection of a truth without evidence. It means the rejection of evidence without reason. If I rejected the claim that any Palestinians were forcibly evicted, that would be denial, because there's plenty of evidence that it happened. There's plenty of evidence also that most of the Palestinian refugees were not forcibly evicted. So how is saying that denial?

Resorting to false criticism, and taking offense where none is warranted is what destroys debate.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Your starting point is so far removed from reality, that it's tough to know where to begin. nt

[aranthus]

24. That's fine, I'll try and help you.

Let's start with one point from my original post and deal with that one point alone. The simplest one is probably what I said about the Right of Return:

"You can't expect to have a debate when one side has an extreme core goal such as the Right of Return (supported by Bisharat and Makdisi), which is totally unrealistic and hostile to the other side. Whenever it's raised, rational people take it as a signal that the speaker is not serious about peace and has no credibility."

So let's break it down. First off, is there anything insulting about this part of the post? Second, what is there in this part of the post that evidences denial (the rejection of facts and evidence without reason)? Don't you think that Bisharat calls for the Right of Return? And Makdisi? So how is claiming that they do denial?

Now let's talk about the Right of Return itself. As called for by Bisharat, Makdisi, PACBLI and others (including I believe yourself), isn't it true that it calls for recognition (and implementation) of the right of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to Israel? If that happened, wouldn't there then be more Arabs than Jews in Israel? If that's then wouldn't Israel stop being a Jewish state, and instead become an Arab state with a Jewish minority? If so, then doesn't implementation of the Right of Return destroy Jewish sovereignty in Israel? What rational government would abandon the sovereignty of its people to someone else? More to the point, isn't demanding an action that means the end of the other side's national existence hostile to that other side? So isn't the demand unrealistic?

How is stating any of this insulting or denial?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

25. Let's start there. I flat out REJECT your characterization of the right of return as "an extreme

core" goal.

Your use of that language is a complete barrier to discussion.

You deny the character of events in 1948. You insult people who insist on a public reckoning based on the truth.

Hence my refrain "deny... insult..."

[Vegasaurus]

27. You may reject that characterization

But it is a core goal, in all the literature and demands put forth, including ones you have posted on this forum.

It is extreme, because it will never, never, ever be accepted by the Israelis.

So, you may not consider it extreme, but the very people who would have to accept this goal for negotiation purposes, do.

Since there will not be right of return for 4.5 million Palestinians, it is an extreme goal.

If the Palestinians want any right of return at all, they would have to greatly change that goal to become more moderate.

[aranthus]

33. Okay, you don't like my characterization.

But is what I said factually about the claimed Right of Return true? You support it don't you? So do Bisharat and Makdisi, right? And it would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish State right?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

35. NO!!!!

What I support is the notion that the Right of Return has to be addressed; it has to be part of the negotiations.

Do you actually think ANYONE believes that all descendents of refugees are going to flood back en masse?

My husband is a card-carrying (literally, they have UN I.D. cards) refugee. Believe me, we have no interested in living in Tel Aviv.

But the issue has to be acknowledged. It has to be on the negotiating table and addressed in a way that is meaningful.

You are dead wrong to believe that acknowledging the crime = destruction of Israel. If that's the case, the foundations on which Israel is built are pretty damn weak.

[Vegasaurus]

36. Addressing right of return has always been on the table

allowing or demanding right of return for all the refugees (whether or not 1 million, 2, 3, 4 or more will actually come back), which is exactly what is printed in every one of the Palestininan "demands" is not a negotiating point.

Addressing or acknowledging right or return is very different than demanding it.

Demanding right of return for over four million people, even if only half take the offer, is simply a non-starter.

[Behind the Aegis]

40. "My husband is a card-carrying (literally, they have UN I.D. cards) refugee."

Is he an American citizen? Is he over 60yo?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

49. Yes and no.

And he literally does possess a "refugee" card from the UN, as do his parents (over 60) and siblings.

I say this because I am sure that among those counted as refugees, my husband and his family are surely among them. They have proof of their status.

They lived in a refugee camp in Gaza. They still live in Gaza (tho have moved to a 'hood next to and officially "out of" of the camp). Not one of them is interested in "returning" to Isdud (Ashdod).

What's your point?

[Behind the Aegis]

52. No point. Just curiosity.

Do you also consider your children refugees? Will they be granted refugee status?

This is one of the more confusing parts of the entire situation; how can people be declared refugees from a place from which they were never expelled? To my knowledge, the only group where this applied is the Palestinians.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

54. My kids would not consider themselves refugees.

I do believe second generation people who still live in camps should consider themselves refugees.

[aranthus]

41. I appreciate what you're saying, but please consider:

1. Your notion of "addressing" the Right of Return is rarely, if ever stated that way in public. PACBLI doesn't say it this way, nor do people like Bisharat, Makdisi, or Barghouti, nor did Edward Said when he was alive. They all had, or have, very specific ideas on how the Right of Return should be addressed, and they all called or call for implementation. Obviously, Hamas doesn't agree with you. The issue is what the public debate is, and the publicly stated position of major representatives of the Palestinians has been for full implementation.

2. I don't know a moral reason to deny implementation of a right once it is recognized. A right is an inalienable moral claim. The Palestinian conception of that which I have seen is that it applies independently to each generation. That's why the descendants of refugees claim the right in addition to the refugees themselves. That's why it is claimed that the Right can not be negotiated away. So, if Israel were to recognize the Right of Return, on condition that it not be implemented, there's no way that would be binding on subsequent generations of Palestinians. Twenty years from now, they could decide that they want to go back to their homes. That's not a contingency that any government could allow for.

3. You may not want to live in Israel, but that doesn't tell me about the millions of Palestinians living in refugee camps or as undesirables in Arab countries. Also, if there was an opening for the Palestinians to return to Israel and essentially turn it into a Arab state, who's to say that they wouldn't? followers of Hamas would. Especially given that there is no way that the Right could be closed off, there's no guarantee that it wouldn't happen.

4. The Palestinians are asking the Israelis to admit to a "crime" that the Israelis honestly believe did not happen. I am well aware that there were hundreds of thousands of refugees as a result of the war. I am also aware that at least some Arabs were forcibly relocated. That does not mean that all 750,000 of the refugees were intentionally forcibly evicted. There have been thousands of wars throughout recorded history, and virtually all of them have caused refugees. There is not one that I know of, including the bosnian war, in which all, or even most, of the refugees were caused by intentional eviction. It is not something that happens, and there is no credible evidence that that is what happened in Palestine. There is too much evidence of people leaving on their own, or leaving because of battles, to blame Israel for all of the 750,000 Arabs who are claimed to have become refugees.

Given all of this, it's a bit disingenuous for Bisharat to claim that there isn't public debate.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

50. They bring a complete POV to the table, just as you do. One could point to your POV and

say, "see, she/he is not interested in peace."

Do you honestly believe that this issue has no place at the negotiating table? Do you honestly believe that, for example, Edward Said would say this has no place at the table? Do you honestly believe PACBI would deny that a reasonable compromise reached by both sides?

[Vegasaurus]

51. A "reasonable compromise"

is not an open ticket to 4.5 million refugees, and all their millions of descendants in years to come.

Just because your relatives won't return doesn't mean all the ones in the squalid refugee camps all over Lebanon and Jordan (and Gaza), or the Palestinians exiled from Iraq for example, won't want to come back.

In fact, I think they all would.

They would all choose the standard of living in Israel, just as the Israeli Arabs already living there who don't want to leave, to exile or refugee status in Arab countries where they aren't even allowed to work.

Millions would return, and that would be the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

It isn't happening, and so open-ended right of return will NEVER be on the table.

[aranthus]

59. I'm not going to assume moderation and reasonableness.

Of course people like Bisharat and Makdisi have a point of view. Everyone does. So what? Not every point of view belongs at the table. Not every opinion is equally worthy. More to the point, I'm looking at their public statements, since I don't know what they say in private. Bisharat was complaining about why there isn't public debate about Israel. I simply pointed out that his public statements are part of the problem. Would he or PACBLI reject a reasonable compromise? Based on their public statements, I would say yes they would. I'm not going to assume that they are more moderate in private than they are in public. It's usually the opposite that's true.

[azurnoir]

5. The politics of oil and terrorism

are why there is no healthy debate, to not "support" Israel is seen or promoted as supporting terrorism, because the mind set of "you's fer us or agin us" is in play here no matter how it is well dressed it is. There is also the "AntiSemitism" card that could be pulled out on any Presidential candidate or other politician that doesn't "support" Israeli policy, hardly an attractive possibility for anyone running for office.
There is also the fact that Israelis are seen as being more "us" that would be those of European ancestry, has it not ever struck anyone that despite all of the claims on this board of how diverse Israel is, and Israel is quite diverse, the face of Israel that is most often presented in the Western media is that of the Ashkenazim? While Arabs are seen as the other, a "dark" foreign culture that has no relationship to the more "sophisticated" west, this too is very strongly promoted in the Western media. This also plays into he politics of oil, in 1973 when the US gave Israel the necessary arms to save it self the fact that we did this in no small part because Golda Meir threatened to nuke the rest of ME if we did not was hardly trumpeted, no what the media presented was oh we must help this poor little women from Wisconsin who first fled Soviet tyranny and then bravely emigrated to Israel and made good, now none of this was untrue, but it was hardly the whole story. The sad fact is that America to this day pays the price quite literally of these policies, however if Meir had made good on her threat we would be anyway.

[Vegasaurus]

8. American Jewry, not the US govt, supplied money for those arms

Without appropriate protection and firepower, any of the repeated attempts to annihilate Israel would have succeeded.

That isn't what you are supporting, are you?

[azurnoir]

14. No it is not

but are you now claiming that American Jews gave Israel arms without the governments permission or consent, just how were those arms acquired? So this was a private operation, is that your claim?

Reality it was called operation nickel grass and it was USAF operation

Unless of course your claim is that American Jews "bought" the services of the USAF, a pretty fantastic claim to say the least.

Operation Nickel Grass was a strategic airlift operation conducted by the United States to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The Military Airlift Command of the U.S. Air Force shipped 22,325 tons of tanks, artillery, ammunition, and supplies in C-141 Starlifter and C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft between October 12 and November 14, 1973. This rapid supply mission was critical to Israel's ability to fully recapture the Sinai from Egypt, which it had occupied since the Six Day war in 1967 and advance beyond the Purple Line into Syria.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Nickel_Grass

[Shaktimaan]

17. Can you reference this quote of yours?

in no small part because Golda Meir threatened to nuke the rest of ME if we did not

I've never heard that at all. Can you back that up?

has it not ever struck anyone that despite all of the claims on this board of how diverse Israel is, and Israel is quite diverse, the face of Israel that is most often presented in the Western media is that of the Ashkenazim?

No, it hasn't. I'm not sure what it even means. Israel has plenty of Sephardic politicians and public figures. The fact is that Israelis of all ethnicities, as they are all culturally Israeli as opposed to Arab, can appear "Western" to another Westerner viewing them on TV. It is not skin tone that makes Arabs seem so different to the average American. It is the very visible Arab/Middle Eastern cultural distinctions, differences that western-seeming Israelis lack.

[azurnoir]

18. Never heard that before eh?

well you learn something new everyday, are you denying that there were no threats?

On October 8, 1973 just after the start of the Yom Kippur War, Golda Meir and her closest aides decided to put eight nuclear armed F-4s at Tel Nof Airbase on 24 hour alert and as many nuclear missile launchers at Sedot Mikha Airbase operational as possible. Seymour Hersh adds that the initial target list that night "included the Egyptian and Syrian military headquarters near Cairo and Damascus."<79> This nuclear alert was meant not only as a means of precaution, but to push the Soviets to restrain the Arab offensive and to convince the Americans to begin sending supplies. One later report said that a Soviet intelligence officer did warn the Egyptian chief of staff, and colleagues of US National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger said that the threat of a nuclear exchange caused him to urge for a massive Israeli resupply.<80> Hersh points out that before Israel obtained its own satellite capability, it engaged in espionage against the United States to obtain nuclear targeting information on Soviet targets.<81>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Oh that's right I said the rest of the ME not just Syria and Egypt so that makes the whole comment a lie, right? OK she did not threaten every square inch of the ME just 2 other countries.


clever parsing, well not really.

I'm not sure what it even means. Israel has plenty of Sephardic politicians and public figures. The fact is that Israelis of all ethnicities, as they are all culturally Israeli as opposed to Arab, can appear "Western" to another Westerner viewing them on TV. It is not skin tone that makes Arabs seem so different to the average American. It is the very visible Arab/Middle Eastern cultural distinctions, differences that western-seeming Israelis lack.

LOL so there are no Arab Jews? Care to prove that?

However you made my point wonderfully

[pelsar]

31. why is accuracy a problem?

Oh that's right I said the rest of the ME not just Syria and Egypt so that makes the whole comment a lie, right? OK she did not threaten every square inch of the ME just 2 other countries.


and perhaps its a cultural problem, but in the local middle east arab jews are referred to as Sephardim and not arab jews.

[azurnoir]

32. And perhaps it is desperation to

prove something anything wrong. Maybe that's something errr "cultural"

However seeing as how one of those countries had Soviet backing at the time what might have resulted would have involved more than 3 countries, besides isn't nuking Syria rather ah suicidal for Israel? If memory serves Damascus and Tel Aviv are less than 100 miles apart, actually about 60 as the "crow flies".

I corrected my own statement.
Besides whats only 2 countries when there are how many other Arab counties :sarcasm:

Now I for your Sephardim vs Arab Jews statement, sure you wish to go there?

Perhaps you should do a DU search

[pelsar]

47. yea i 'm curious...

our Sephardim vs Arab Jews statement, sure you wish to go there?

since i've never heard of it before......(except here recently).....please explain....
____

i 'm just saying in general...we all make mistakes here, you just seem to have a lot more..always somehow condemning israel.....

[azurnoir]

55. Never heard of the Arab Jews?

I find that odd to say the least , but seeing as how you are insisting on accuracy Sephardi properly used applies to Jews of Spanish or Portuguese origins while Jews of Arab origins generally prefer Mizrahi.

In general what I have notice is that certain parties will cling desperately to minutia in order to appear right, however if rather than honest debate where opinion is allowed you would prefer a on going game of "holding feet to fire" what can I say.

[pelsar]

58. thats nots how its used...

where as that is the origin.....Sephardi being from spain....in israel, Sephardi is used as a general definition meaning jews from arab countries. I've never heard nor read the expression "arab jews" before. (only here on the DU)

pertty much like the word "anti-Semitism...whereas arabs are also semites, in fact the expression has a very specific meaning toward jews alone.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. Great question. I don't see what the US has gotten from the relationship

besides a blown up USS Liberty, spies and egg on our face.

[Vegasaurus]

11. This is a disgusting, bigoted comment

sickening.

[Malikshah]

12. Bigoted? Let's p;ay a game: "The dictionary is our friend"

Which fits the post and which fits the response....

bigoted: utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

hyperbole: obvious and intentional exaggeration.

Games are good way to gain experience and skills in social discourse.

:)

[delad]

15. a response

to "where's the debate"? Yes, very typical indeed.

[LeftishBrit]

19. Really, this is way below your usual standard of argument

I generally expect thought-provoking pro-Palestinian posts from you; not this sort of neo-isolationist sound-byte.

America gets an ally against its perceived enemies (first the Soviets; more recently Iran and other opponents in the Middle East); and reliable customer for some of its industries, notably of course the arms industry. So Israel serves many American interests - whether they are 'good' interests is a matter of debate, of course. But if they didn't serve American interests, or disagreed with the USA on an important issue, I am sure that the American government would cut the military aid and start eating Freedom Artichokes.

Just as with any other allies. America and Britain are allies, because each government feels that the other serves their interests.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

29. Is it "illegal" here to say that I don't think that the US has gotten anything substantive

out of it's relationship to israel?

Quite clearly Israel has benefitted. But what has the US gained?

I can't understand why we can't discuss how the US has benfitted -- or not -- from it's ongoing support of Israel.

I'd love to know why in heaven's name that post was deleted!!

I'd also love to read a list of benefits to the US.

[notfullofit]

30. US Reaps Mutual Benefit of Aid to Israel

Much of the money spent on Israel directly benefits the US, with 74% of Israel's military aid being used to buy US goods.

Joint programs with Israel's high tech military industry have led to advanced weapons systems, including the Arrow ballistic missile defense system. This system is the only one in operation that has consistently succeeded in shooting down missiles at high altitudes and speeds. The development cost has been shared equally by the US.and Israel. The manufacture is a joint venture of American and Israeli aerospace industries.

US troops use several Israeli technologies, including unmanned aerial vehicles, decoys to confuse enemy radar, and reactive armor on Bradley tanks to repel enemy fire. The US and Israel coordinate strategies for combating terrorism and weapons proliferation. They share highly sensitive, often real-time, intelligence.

Israel is arguably the world's leading expert in collecting intelligence on terrorist groups and in counter-terrorism. It provides intelligence and know-how to the US American satellites provide timely intelligence on missile launches to Israel.

Partly helped by US economic aid, Israel's economy has been growing and is now essentially self-sufficient. Israel initiated a reduction of US economic assistance in 1998 from $1.2 billion to a complete phase-out in 2008.

Over the same 10 years, military aid has gradually increased from $1.8 billion to $2.4 billion, following a 12-year period when there were no increases. This outlay represents one-tenth of 1% of the US budget.

Israel has many pressing needs beyond its budget for which it does not seek US aid.
Building of transportation infrastructure, as well as absorption of immigrants, for example, is made possible by private contributions and investment grade bonds.
Following the devastation from 4,000 Hizbullah rockets targeting Jewish and Arab civilians this summer, Jewish philanthropies raised $350 million in emergency funding for reconstruction.

Economic cooperation between the US and Israel has increased over the years and now brings important mutual benefits. In 2005 there was $26 billion in trade between the two countries, including $33 million of exports from Delaware.

The US and many states have cooperative agreements with Israel to promote joint research, industrial partnerships and free trade. Microsoft, Cisco, Intel and Motorola have located major facilities in Israel.

The US also uses economic agreements to promote peace. Qualified Industrial Zones (QIZ) have been established by trilateral agreements between the US, Israel, Egypt and Jordan.

In these zones, products containing both Israeli and Arab content are manufactured and exported tariff-free to the US Another program promotes cooperation between Israeli, Arab and American scientists.

Imagine the benefits to the entire region if the Palestinians and other Arab governments followed the lead of Egypt and Jordan in making peace with Israel. In addition to the many bilateral benefits, US-Israel cooperation provides incentives for regional peace.

Wilmington News Journal

[ProgressiveMuslim]

37. I'm not saying they don't mutually export products...

Can you provide a link to taht article? I'd like to know who the author was.

[notfullofit]

38. Here is where I saw it...

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61527

[Vegasaurus]

39. So the US does get something besides spies and egg on their face, eh? nt

[shaayecanaan]

43. I am glad that the United States supports Israel...

for the same reason I am glad that China supports North Korea - that it serves the purpose of regional and world security.

An Israel without US support would be paranoid, utterly incapable of engagement with its neighbours and a hugely destabilising force in the region. A Serbia with nuclear weapons, in effect.

However, there are not too many other advantages to the US of the relationship and I think some of the other reasons, eg nice orange juice, intelligence, somewhere for the troops to have R and R, are a bit pathetic and grasping really.

[LeftishBrit]

21. Lots of these policies merit criticism - and they *get* it!

At least until very recently, the UN has been very selectively critical of Israeli policies and actions, and the US government often seems uncritical of the Israelis government (or perhaps has actually egged it on). Possibly both may be changing: Ban seems to be encouraging a bit more balance in the UN, and Condi has actually been pressurizing Israel in the direction of more peaceful rather than warlike policies.

But the idea that Israel is wrapped in a 'cocoon of impunity' and that there is no debate about its policies seems fairly bizarre.

[delad]

28. the UN

has been percieved by some to be selectively critical of Israeli policies and actions. This is your opinion and i would disagree with it. In fact I would say that the UN has been reined in repeatedly by Israels supporter in the S.C. So although the UN has been critical (and justly so), there has been no 'bite' to go with the UN's 'bark'. There is little debate beyond mere platitudinous reiteration and wild accusation in the US re Israel and US support. Compare this to European media (or Israeli media) and you will see the difference. Ban is a bureaucrat more interested in "diplomacy" and saving 'face' than solving issues, his reaction (or lack of) to the Burmese/Myanmar crisis is indicative of his style of 'leadership'.

[LeftishBrit]

34. When I say 'selectively critical', I don't mean that the criticisms are unjust...

but that they don't criticize other countries to the same extent. Burma/Myanmar is a case in point. For that matter, why don't they criticize the USA and UK for the illegal war in Iraq, which was against UN recommendations in the first place?

This can and sometimes does lead to an assumption that Israel must be WORSE than any other country because 'it has had more UN resolutions against it'. Moreover, it means that the other countries often don't get criticized when they deserve it.

I think the UN is fairly ineffective mostly; but still it's better to have it than not have it. Its mere existence has probably helped to prevent world war.

[delad]

42. Ineffective?

For the most part yes. And you are certainly right to say that it is better to have than not. I can't disagree with your last two statements. However, the opprobrium that Israel is singled out for is, i believe, deserved due to its claim to embody typically 'western' ideals (ie democracy, freedom of speech and association, etc) and its complete failure to live up it them. What Israel can't say is the truth, ie 'we embody such western/global ideals such as strength of arms, the right of might and justice for the strong'. To say that Israel is worse than, say, Burma/Myanmar or Zimbabwe is a mighty stretch of the imagination but it is precisely because it espouses so called western ideals that such international pressure is exherted upon it (at least in the 'west').

As for criticising the UK and the US, yes, I would love to see that but as long as they're on the SC and hold sway over so many minor states I can't really see that happening. This is more of a failure on behalf of the UN and a western media generally in collusion with a governing elite than the purity of their ideals.

[Shaktimaan]

44. Well, would you consider Israel's policies

to be substantially worse than America's? Or Britain or France's? I think the answer lies in comparing how the states react under similar circumstances. It isn't relevant to compare a state like Israel which is under near-constant threat from various internal and external sources to France in peacetime. But what about compared to France when it was fighting in Algeria? Or Britain during the Falklands War? Or America in the current Iraq campaign? Has Israel honestly acted with less regard for human lives, even during the intifadas, compared to US actions in Iraq?

People often point to the difference in casualty rates between the Palestinians and the Israelis as an example of Israeli brutality. I think it indicates the exact opposite though. When else has a country with an army like Israel's suffered such a relatively high ratio of casualties when fighting a nation with such a lack of military capabilities like Palestine?

Lastly, I question this statement... However, the opprobrium that Israel is singled out for is, i believe, deserved due to its claim to embody typically 'western' ideals (ie democracy, freedom of speech and association, etc)

What you suggest here is that it is preferable to hold states who profess "western" standards of ethics to a higher standard. Essentially this is saying that the UN should expect less from the nations with the most despotic rulers. That the more one abandons international human rights standards the less the UN should hold you accountable to them. I would say that it sends a very dangerous message to the very nations who we should be pressuring the most to clean up their act when we reward those states that attempt to be as progressive as possible with harsher condemnations.

The UN is supposed to abide by international law. Supporting a system whereby the law is not the same for all states, but is applied unevenly, enforcing some laws and ignoring others depending on who is breaking them runs counter to the very concept of "rule of law". There is a fundamental problem if we advance a system that seeks to punish the most free, most democratic state in the middle east while ignoring the region's truly despotic countries. If justice fluctuates according to who stands accused then it is not justice at all that is being practiced. We would consider it a travesty to hand down harsher punishments to the poor as opposed to the rich, for any reason. Does it make sense to inflict harsher punishments on the rich instead, by way of the explanation, "we should expect more from the rich"?

Or should justice be blind?

[Vegasaurus]

45. I find the UN's blind eye towards massive and rampant human rights abuses

worldwide, to be abominable.

There are two sets of standards, but even by the western set of standards, Israel is punished more than any other western nation.

Why it is held to different standards than all the countries rules by autocrats or despots, who murder their people, or dispossess them of their lands, starve them, mutilate them, or otherwise oppress them, I will never understand.

However, I do absolutely believe, 100%, that it is because Israel is comprised of Jews.

Were it comprised of Christians, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Hindu, there would never be the scrutiny and hatred directed at a state that treats all its people better than 99% of the world.

[delad]

46. Should Justice be Blind?

Sorry, fail to see the relevance of the first part of your post. Violations of international law, international human rights law and the Geneva Conventions (in spirit as well as body) are violations regardless of who commits them or when. Not being insulting, i think some of what you wrote deserving of a measured response but i just don't get this bit.

As for the discrepancies in casualties as an example of a softly softly approach, again you lost me here. But it isn't just the discrepancies that are indicative of Israel's brutality, many of the state's policies are by their nature, when taken together, brutal; eg theft of resources, lack of accountability in the armed forces for violent acts committed against an occupied people in occupied territory, abuse by settlers of the indigenous population, etc etc. Combine these policies with observed levels of lethality that the IDF uses and you get to see the bigger picture.

'What you suggest here is that it is preferable to hold states who profess "western" standards of ethics to a higher standard.'
Absolutely. I don't think we should accept less from non-democratic states, I never said that. But we should expect more from democratic states. Most especially when we hold ourselves as paragons of justice and the ideal society when clearly we're not. It behooves us to expect more from ourselves, to demand more from ourselves.

'If justice fluctuates according to who stands accused then it is not justice at all...'
Agree 100%. Justice should not fluctuate but when one country manages to avoid responsibility for its actions going back 60 years then that's hardly a case of justice 'fluctuating'. Israel has avoided being held accountable for its actions for decades and in the process has denied another people their right to statehood. The opprobrium is the result of increased frustration with the refusal of Israel to deal with the mess it created.
The UN hardly gave out a carte blanche to despots left, right and centre when it concerned itself with apartheid South Africa. It is precisely these regimes that will respond to pressure from the international community. Should the Asean communities act with the West in conjunction with the UN and the type of resolutions being passed against Iran we might possibly see movement there also, as with Zimbabwe (African Union instead of Asean). But the fact of the matter is that it is Israel that the West can most effect.

[pelsar]

48. i shall be brief..

i understand from your statements and this one in paticular:
The opprobrium is the result of increased frustration with the refusal of Israel to deal with the mess it created

that you hold israel 100% accountable for the situation......-lets start with that.

[delad]

53. my bad

should have said ... with the mess it was mainly responsible for creating.

[pelsar]

56. why....

why is israel mainly responsible?....

who was it that attacked defenseless jewish immigrants in the 1900's? (before commenting read up on the history and the time line-the immigrating arabs were not attacked)
who attacked israel on the very day of its independence with the goal of wiping it out?
who repeated such a goal in 67?
who absolutely refused to talk to israel after 67?

again...lets start with the basics...after 73 it gets a bit more complicated and messy, but the basic building blocks are essential.

[Shaktimaan]

57. Before I respond...

I just want to get the subject of our disagreement straight. Basically, I believe that the UN is selectively subjugating Israel to disproportionate criticism through reports, investigations, committees, resolutions, etc, designed to subvert Israel's influence at the UN and work against its interests in general. You do not feel that the UN has shown prejudice towards Israel in any of its proceedings. This about right?

[delad]

60. yes. nt.