I'm going to be away from Internet access until Saturday, so if you write a comment that goes into moderation, it won't appear for a while. Posted by: Michael J. Totten at June 10, 2010 10:54 am

Have a great weekend Micheal. I will limit my links and be careful with the url stuff.... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 11:23 am

Also spell check keeps changing your name on me.

MICHAEL, have a nice weekend....that's better.. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 11:24 am

[...] via Michael J. Totten. [...] Posted by: No One Cares About Gaza at June 10, 2010 11:36 am

There has been some writing on the subject but not in the MSM which is no surprise.
It is nothing less than an inversion of reality!
Just reading Jeffrey Herf's "Nazi propaganda for the Arab World".
Now the Nazis were masters of this technique and it seems the heirs of Haj Amin Husseini have learned it well. Posted by: jb at June 10, 2010 11:44 am

Of course, the Left doesn't care about the downtrodden even thought it claims that it is doing their bidding. It just uses them as pawns to gain power, the ultimate currency that the Left craves, here and abroad. Posted by: Joe at June 10, 2010 12:24 pm

even THOUGH, in previous post Posted by: Joe at June 10, 2010 12:24 pm

Joe the nexus of Leftists and radical Islam that only the issues that binds them get discussed.

1. Global warming (Prince Charles did tell Oxford Islam knows best how to care for the environment)

2. World Domination by Jew-inspired Capitalists/US

3. Israel as Hitler

4. Free Speech for "peace activists"

The field is rather limited and it only includes human rights when referring to "Palestine and not including Israelis.....

You would think this an easy narrative to puncture. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 12:31 pm

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/142857.htm

And Hizb'Allah ain't no peacemaker either... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 2:41 pm

NYT's brilliant defense of Israel

A perfect example of how Michael's observation infects..... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 3:19 pm

Have a nice break, MJT :)

Turkey agrees to plans for Arab 'free trade zone'

The shift in Turkey's gaze eastwards fits another pattern - its diplomatic disengagement from Europe and the US, demonstrated this week when it voted against the US-backed sanctions on Iran.

Really? So it wasn't quite 100% obvious when the Turkish state sponsored an act of aggression on Israel a couple weeks back and then the Turkish population exploded in an Islamic temper tantrum? Posted by: Craig at June 10, 2010 3:43 pm

Maxtrue,
I think Judt is living on another planet. Mix a little truth with lies and people will believe the entire concoction even though most of it is false.
His paragraph on Turkey should be offensive to anyone with even half a brain. It is so totally in denial of the facts that one could be excused if they felt it was satire.
This is the guy who believes Israel shouldn't exist!
He's a good illustration of the ivy tower intellectual (NYU, I think) who churns the facts to support his thesis rather than letting the facts prove or disprove it. Its about a close as he'll ever come to saying anything positive about Israel.
His distasteful and disgraceful writing made me wonder whether this sort of "intellectual" leftist, friends of Hamas etc. hail primarily from the liberal arts faculties rather than the sciences. Posted by: yesjb at June 10, 2010 3:47 pm

Yep, and this erodes critical thinking handicapping pro-Israeli views from the start. It is quite amazing and as long as this pretends to be centrist, the Left can pretend they are just a "bit eccentric".

Craig, yeah and Arab free zone...importing and exporting violence and illiberality....

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=129880&sectionid=351020401 Iran now claims that report on Omar was true.....

Shakespeare would love times like these. It reaffirms his narrative of chaos inverting the moral concepts of civilization..... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 4:06 pm

Turkey breaks sanctions against Syria and Hizb'Allah, then the EU should penalize trade with Turkey..... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 4:08 pm

Iran might be right about Mullah Omar being clandestinely harbored in Pakistan, but I still think they threw out this bait to distract peoples' attention from the reports that they themselves are clandestinely harboring Bin Laden and Zawahiri. Posted by: Salamantis at June 10, 2010 4:17 pm

Maxtrue: NYT's brilliant defense of Israel

A perfect example of how Michael's observation infects.....

You are a fan of that piece? I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not.

How is that at all influenced by Michael, I'm curious.

Tony Judt is a well known "post-Zionist" as he appears to prefer being called, and while the piece does present some arguments against one fringe of IDS, it also smears Israel (and promotes some fallacies) in others. Posted by: jooliz at June 10, 2010 4:30 pm

Maxtrue, nevermind, I see from yesjb and your response that you were pointing out the idiocy of his arguments.

Thanks, I was worried there for a minute.

It truly is frustrating, and I hate it when I make arguments based on fact/logic and years of following the region, and the response I get is "but that's such a right wing point of view". You spend twice as long showing that your bias isn't some hidden bigotry or ignorance, but borne of being informed as you do making the original point. Posted by: jooliz at June 10, 2010 4:35 pm

Interesting op-ed suggesting that Iran is scared. Falls in line a big with what I've been saying, that Iran is a paper tiger.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3903539,00.html Posted by: semite5000 at June 10, 2010 5:06 pm

semite5000: That article is quite different from a lot of what I have been reading elsewhere - in particular in regards to the effectiveness of sanctions. My understanding is that sanctions have been watered down greatly to bring china on-board and are now largely symbolic. On top of this the greatest benefactor of any effective sanctions would be the revolutionary guards who run the smuggling operations and the black market trade.

What are peoples thoughts on this? Posted by: Cassius Corodes at June 10, 2010 5:21 pm

Right, Michael, nobody really cares ... and that's the real big failure of post '67 Israeli (Jewish?) occupation.

The Israelis didn't care enough to create and enforce a human rights respecting occupied territory; they didn't choose the best Palestinians to be local leaders with budgeting power; they didn't actively protect moderate Palestinian newsfolk and reporters, by hunting down the anti-freedom Palestinians who, without such punishment, gradually took over.

Just like America did a lousy job of nation-building in S. Vietnam from 1956 (no election because commie Ho would have won) to the '74-'75 commie offensive that won in violation of the Paris Peace Treaty. The anti-war (My Lai proves how terrible the US is) folk don't care about the victims, they just want to be against the US capitalists.

What to do now? See your friend Noah

Also, Michael Oren writes about 7 existential threats to Israel.

I'm afraid that if Israel is unwilling to fight before Iran gets a nuke, they would be "better off" evacuating than waiting for Iran or proxy to use it. I support a fight more, and especially smarter, now -- or else plan on losing sooner.

How many Palestinians would Israelis have to kill before there was a Peace Agreement? How many Israels will die to get there?
How many is so many that evacuation, in hindsight (5 years from now?), seems a better option? Posted by: Tom Grey at June 10, 2010 5:26 pm

Yes, Cassius, I agree; however I think the article also highlights some other trends/issues that should be considered. Recall, on the year anniversary of the corrupt Iranian elections, the Mullahs must have it in their minds that they are not popular. Time is not on their side. Iran, for all of its oppression, isn't a Syria or Iraq under Saddam. The sanctions, although weak, still send a signal to the Mullahs. Posted by: semite5000 at June 10, 2010 5:28 pm

Semite5000: I hope you are right in regards to time not being on their side, but I am rather pessimistic about the chances of a successful uprising.

I think the mullahs in charge have not been under any illusion of their popularity since at least the 1990's so I dont think this has changed too much. Remember they reorganised the basijs along current lines long before this latest uprising precisely because they expected something like this sooner or later. Posted by: Cassius Corodes at June 10, 2010 5:40 pm

What are peoples thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that sanctions are pointless. I also think war is coming and that we(America) best get on with it instead of continuing to give our soon-to-be adversaries more time to prepare. Posted by: Craig at June 10, 2010 5:44 pm

Jonathan Tobin at Commentary Magazine takes on that Judt piece in the NYT

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/tobin/311636 Posted by: jooliz at June 10, 2010 6:22 pm

The more I read that op-ed at the NYT, the more disturbing it becomes. It seems highly intentional. I don't know where to begin. Excuse the ramble and the typos.....

Where does one start...well, for instance: I'M TOLD that to see antisemitism hiding in the pernicious backlash against Israel and attempted delegitimization of the Israeli effort to enforce an international blockade, RISKS FUTURE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of antisemtic behavior. To cry wolf here (and I don't see the evidence for that at all), means no one will listen the NEXT TIME? A threat? Is everyone clear of the threat here? The writer isn't saying who will do the threatening, but I will address that at the end.

Of course, this is collective punishment at its worst besides being morally repugnant given the parsimony it implies. That Israel should be MORE threatened than it is in order to appease a false sentiment that advancing peace is what peace activists are doing. To attribute antisemtic attitudes to those who attacked the commandos risks no one caring if people this writer incites AFTER they read this beats him up because he might "look" Jewish.

The writer should be ashamed. And what is the crap this writer is really pushing? Her goes:

"But criticism..."

(newspeak acknowledges several uses of this word often contradictory, defined by the "implicit" context which we will shortly see)

"...of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews...."

(their demographics and numbers would be interesting),

"....is not predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism."

(Predominantly? Predominantly means some are. Does the writer explain this interesting admission or discuss the various degrees this bizarre phenomena effects the import we give this group as a whole, or would that be collective guilt? >When Israelis die, the history written, I will be glad I was not one of those who paved the way.< The polls show more Jewish Americans are objecting to the direction of US relations with Israel. The degree this writer is allowed unsupported and intentional misleading commentary is damning.)

"The same is true of contemporary anti-Zionism:"

(what? the same logic above that Jews can be antisemetic? That would mean a Zionist could be anti_zionist. Is that what this writer will argue? Let me guess.....)

"Zionism itself has moved a long way from the ideology of its “founding fathers” — today it presses territorial claims,..."

(what territorial claims are these as stated as Israeli public policies? The claim for a State? Why isn't this writer specific? Does he even know that today Abbas just told all leading US Jewish groups he acknowledges "realities on the ground"?
Why is Gaza importing missiles? They have all of Gaza back? Could it because of Arab territorial aims? This is of course unadulterated Bullshit via the NYT.)

..."religious exclusivity and political extremism.

(Wait, do I see the poor magicians trick of pulling a turd out of ones ass? Mow watch this one:)

"One can acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist" (or “post-Zionist”)."

(Say what? This is the new physics of the Left. This is Newspeak. Did Truman begin a sixty year understanding that Zionism, Israel, was planning on NOT being a Jewish State? What total revisionist crap is that? The true Zionist is one that believes Judaism will provide the ultimate direction in preserving and advancing the Israeli Jews and refugees no matter how much nicer they treat Arabs of Israeli citizenship than neighbors. Nowhere does this writer bring up the antisemitism or history that drove Jews from Arab lands where they were largely treated as less persons, the consequence of Muslim States. Indeed this writer is in the department of Newspeak and this is a primer for the revisionist crap that's coming. )

"Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a “normal state” for themselves, today’s insistence on Israel’s right to act in “abnormal” ways because it is a Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed."

(This brilliant mind thus concludes Israel "uses" the false claims of antisemitism to mask her desire to preserve Zionism which has actually failed because it didn't succeed in destroying itself and thus saving antisemites and anti-Zionists the hard part of doing it themselves. If it continues to defend itself calling those wishing to destroy the "Jewish" State of Israel antisemitic, Americans or whoever this writer thinks he speaks for will might not listen when "real" antisemitism victimizes Jews. Thank you NYT for making their job easier. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 7:51 pm

So do I


The more I read that op-ed at the NYT, the more disturbing it becomes. It seems highly intentional. I don't know where to begin. Excuse the ramble and the typos.....

Where does one start...well, for instance: I'M TOLD that to see antisemitism hiding in the pernicious backlash against Israel and attempted delegitimization of the Israeli effort to enforce an international blockade, RISKS FUTURE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of antisemtic behavior. To cry wolf here (and I don't see the evidence for that at all), means no one will listen the NEXT TIME? A threat? Is everyone clear of the threat here? The writer isn't saying who will do the threatening, but I will address that at the end.

Of course, this is collective punishment at its worst besides being morally repugnant given the parsimony it implies. That Israel should be MORE threatened than it is in order to appease a false sentiment that advancing peace is what peace activists are doing. To attribute antisemtic attitudes to those who attacked the commandos risks no one caring if people this writer incites AFTER they read this beats him up because he might "look" Jewish.

The writer should be ashamed. And what is the crap this writer is really pushing? Her goes:

"But criticism..."

(newspeak acknowledges several uses of this word often contradictory, defined by the "implicit" context which we will shortly see)

"...of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews...."

(their demographics and numbers would be interesting),

"....is not predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism."

(Predominantly? Predominantly means some are. Does the writer explain this interesting admission or discuss the various degrees this bizarre phenomena effects the import we give this group as a whole, or would that be collective guilt? >When Israelis die, the history written, I will be glad I was not one of those who paved the way.< The polls show more Jewish Americans are objecting to the direction of US relations with Israel. The degree this writer is allowed unsupported and intentional misleading commentary is damning.)

"The same is true of contemporary anti-Zionism:"

(what? the same logic above that Jews can be antisemetic? That would mean a Zionist could be anti_zionist. Is that what this writer will argue? Let me guess.....)

"Zionism itself has moved a long way from the ideology of its “founding fathers” — today it presses territorial claims,..."

(what territorial claims are these as stated as Israeli public policies? The claim for a State? Why isn't this writer specific? Does he even know that today Abbas just told all leading US Jewish groups he acknowledges "realities on the ground"?
Why is Gaza importing missiles? They have all of Gaza back? Could it because of Arab territorial aims? This is of course unadulterated Bullshit via the NYT.)

..."religious exclusivity and political extremism.

(Wait, do I see the poor magicians trick of pulling a turd out of ones ass? Mow watch this one:)

"One can acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist" (or “post-Zionist”)."

(Say what? This is the new physics of the Left. This is Newspeak. Did Truman begin a sixty year understanding that Zionism, Israel, was planning on NOT being a Jewish State? What total revisionist crap is that? The true Zionist is one that believes Judaism will provide the ultimate direction in preserving and advancing the Israeli Jews and refugees no matter how much nicer they treat Arabs of Israeli citizenship than neighbors. Nowhere does this writer bring up the antisemitism or history that drove Jews from Arab lands where they were largely treated as less persons, the consequence of Muslim States. Indeed this writer is in the department of Newspeak and this is a primer for the revisionist crap that's coming. )

"Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a “normal state” for themselves, today’s insistence on Israel’s right to act in “abnormal” ways because it is a Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed."

(This brilliant mind thus concludes Israel "uses" the false claims of antisemitism to mask her desire to preserve Zionism which has actually failed because it didn't succeed in destroying itself and thus saving antisemites and anti-Zionists the hard part of doing it themselves. If it continues to defend itself calling those wishing to destroy the "Jewish" State of Israel antisemitic, Americans or whoever this writer thinks he speaks for will might not listen when "real" antisemitism victimizes Jews. Thank you NYT for making their job easier. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 7:52 pm

Part One

The more I read that op-ed at the NYT, the more disturbing it becomes. It seems highly intentional. I don't know where to begin. Excuse the ramble and the typos.....

Where does one start...well, for instance: I'M TOLD that to see antisemitism hiding in the pernicious backlash against Israel and attempted delegitimization of the Israeli effort to enforce an international blockade, RISKS FUTURE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of antisemtic behavior. To cry wolf here (and I don't see the evidence for that at all), means no one will listen the NEXT TIME? A threat? Is everyone clear of the threat here? The writer isn't saying who will do the threatening, but I will address that at the end.

Of course, this is collective punishment at its worst besides being morally repugnant given the parsimony it implies. That Israel should be MORE threatened than it is in order to appease a false sentiment that advancing peace is what peace activists are doing. To attribute antisemtic attitudes to those who attacked the commandos risks no one caring if people this writer incites AFTER they read this beats him up because he might "look" Jewish.

The writer should be ashamed. And what is the crap this writer is really pushing? Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 7:54 pm

Part two

"But criticism..."

(newspeak acknowledges several uses of this word often contradictory, defined by the "implicit" context which we will shortly see)

"...of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews...."

(their demographics and numbers would be interesting),

"....is not predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism."

(Predominantly? Predominantly means some are. Does the writer explain this interesting admission or discuss the various degrees this bizarre phenomena effects the import we give this group as a whole, or would that be collective guilt? >When Israelis die, the history written, I will be glad I was not one of those who paved the way.< The polls show more Jewish Americans are objecting to the direction of US relations with Israel. The degree this writer is allowed unsupported and intentional misleading commentary is damning.)

"The same is true of contemporary anti-Zionism:"

(what? the same logic above that Jews can be antisemetic? That would mean a Zionist could be anti_zionist. Is that what this writer will argue? Let me guess.....)

"Zionism itself has moved a long way from the ideology of its “founding fathers” — today it presses territorial claims,..."

(what territorial claims are these as stated as Israeli public policies? The claim for a State? Why isn't this writer specific? Does he even know that today Abbas just told all leading US Jewish groups he acknowledges "realities on the ground"?
Why is Gaza importing missiles? They have all of Gaza back? Could it because of Arab territorial aims? This is of course unadulterated Bullshit via the NYT.)

..."religious exclusivity and political extremism.

(Wait, do I see the poor magicians trick of pulling a turd out of ones ass? Mow watch this one:)

"One can acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist" (or “post-Zionist”)."

(Say what? This is the new physics of the Left. This is Newspeak. Did Truman begin a sixty year understanding that Zionism, Israel, was planning on NOT being a Jewish State? What total revisionist crap is that? The true Zionist is one that believes Judaism will provide the ultimate direction in preserving and advancing the Israeli Jews and refugees no matter how much nicer they treat Arabs of Israeli citizenship than neighbors. Nowhere does this writer bring up the antisemitism or history that drove Jews from Arab lands where they were largely treated as less persons, the consequence of Muslim States. Indeed this writer is in the department of Newspeak and this is a primer for the revisionist crap that's coming. )

"Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a “normal state” for themselves, today’s insistence on Israel’s right to act in “abnormal” ways because it is a Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed."

(This brilliant mind thus concludes Israel "uses" the false claims of antisemitism to mask her desire to preserve Zionism which has actually failed because it didn't succeed in destroying itself and thus saving antisemites and anti-Zionists the hard part of doing it themselves. If it continues to defend itself calling those wishing to destroy the "Jewish" State of Israel antisemitic, Americans or whoever this writer thinks he speaks for will might not listen when "real" antisemitism victimizes Jews. Thank you NYT for making their job easier. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 7:54 pm

Part two

"But criticism..."

(newspeak acknowledges several uses of this word often contradictory, defined by the "implicit" context which we will shortly see)

"...of Israel, increasingly from non-Israeli Jews...."

(their demographics and numbers would be interesting),

"....is not predominantly motivated by anti-Semitism."

(Predominantly? Predominantly means some are. Does the writer explain this interesting admission or discuss the various degrees this bizarre phenomena effects the import we give this group as a whole, or would that be collective guilt? >When Israelis die, the history written, I will be glad I was not one of those who paved the way.< The polls show more Jewish Americans are objecting to the direction of US relations with Israel. The degree this writer is allowed unsupported and intentional misleading commentary is damning.)

"The same is true of contemporary anti-Zionism:"

(what? the same logic above that Jews can be antisemetic? That would mean a Zionist could be anti_zionist. Is that what this writer will argue? Let me guess.....)

"Zionism itself has moved a long way from the ideology of its “founding fathers” — today it presses territorial claims,..."

(what territorial claims are these as stated as Israeli public policies? The claim for a State? Why isn't this writer specific? Does he even know that today Abbas just told all leading US Jewish groups he acknowledges "realities on the ground"?
Why is Gaza importing missiles? They have all of Gaza back? Could it because of Arab territorial aims? This is of course unadulterated Bullshit via the NYT.)

..."religious exclusivity and political extremism. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 7:55 pm

Part two

(Wait, do I see the poor magicians trick of pulling a turd out of ones ass? Mow watch this one:)

"One can acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist" (or “post-Zionist”)."

(Say what? This is the new physics of the Left. This is Newspeak. Did Truman begin a sixty year understanding that Zionism, Israel, was planning on NOT being a Jewish State? What total revisionist crap is that? The true Zionist is one that believes Judaism will provide the ultimate direction in preserving and advancing the Israeli Jews and refugees no matter how much nicer they treat Arabs of Israeli citizenship than neighbors. Nowhere does this writer bring up the antisemitism or history that drove Jews from Arab lands where they were largely treated as less persons, the consequence of Muslim States. Indeed this writer is in the department of Newspeak and this is a primer for the revisionist crap that's coming. )

"Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a “normal state” for themselves, today’s insistence on Israel’s right to act in “abnormal” ways because it is a Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed."

(This brilliant mind thus concludes Israel "uses" the false claims of antisemitism to mask her desire to preserve Zionism which has actually failed because it didn't succeed in destroying itself and thus saving antisemites and anti-Zionists the hard part of doing it themselves. If it continues to defend itself calling those wishing to destroy the "Jewish" State of Israel antisemitic, Americans or whoever this writer thinks he speaks for will might not listen when "real" antisemitism victimizes Jews. Thank you NYT for making their job easier. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 7:56 pm

Jooliz are you fucking kidding me? Has my advocacy here been that confusing and unclear? Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 8:02 pm

(Wait, do I see the poor magicians trick of pulling a turd out of ones ass? Mow watch this one:)

"One can acknowledge Israel’s right to exist and still be an anti-Zionist" (or “post-Zionist”)."

(Say what? This is the new physics of the Left. This is Newspeak. Did Truman begin a sixty year understanding that Zionism, Israel, was planning on NOT being a Jewish State? What total revisionist crap is that? The true Zionist is one that believes Judaism will provide the ultimate direction in preserving and advancing the Israeli Jews and refugees no matter how much nicer they treat Arabs of Israeli citizenship than neighbors. Nowhere does this writer bring up the antisemitism or history that drove Jews from Arab lands where they were largely treated as less persons, the consequence of Muslim States. Indeed this writer is in the department of Newspeak and this is a primer for the revisionist crap that's coming. )

"Indeed, given the emphasis in Zionism on the need for the Jews to establish a “normal state” for themselves, today’s insistence on Israel’s right to act in “abnormal” ways because it is a Jewish state suggests that Zionism has failed."

(This brilliant mind thus concludes Israel "uses" the false claims of antisemitism to mask her desire to preserve Zionism which has actually failed because it didn't succeed in destroying itself and thus saving antisemites and anti-Zionists the hard part of doing it themselves. If it continues to defend itself calling those wishing to destroy the "Jewish" State of Israel antisemitic, Americans or whoever this writer thinks he speaks for will might not listen when "real" antisemitism victimizes Jews. Thank you NYT for making their job easier. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 8:05 pm

excuse the double post. I hadn't cleared my "copy".

Interesting the writer admitted that those Jews that criticized Israel were predominately not antisemetic. He then admits some are. To what degree does this infect the group of those who criticisms involve suggestions that would be lethal to Israel's Jewish survival? And by what criteria does this writer even suggest one call themselves Jewish? Because their parents were? Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 8:11 pm

Jooliz, this "brilliant" article supplies some of the foundation to the narrative that excuses Hamas and Iran but targets Israel -what Michael brought up above. Do you NOT see the connection?. Now is that clear? Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 8:23 pm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704025304575283832128809598.html?mod=WSJ_article_related

The war on Israel.... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 10, 2010 8:49 pm

Maxtrue,

Take a deep breath: Jooliz is not your enemy.

Also, separately, I suggest it would be better not to post so many tactical/operational/intelligence military speculations and references on a public board such as this. Even if all that you post is public information, by bringing it together you are assisting the likes of anand, who is clearly not the dope he sometimes acts, nor of course the caring patriot he feigns as well. Nor would it be wise to provide any help to the invisible lurker-readers.

Loose lips sink ships, eh? Posted by: del at June 10, 2010 10:05 pm

A must-read essay about Iran:

Iran and the 'Freedom Recession'

Facebook had no answer to the pro-regime vigilantes who ruled the streets. And the U.S. president, who might have helped, stood aside.

by Fouad Ajami

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704575304575296502638266526.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion Posted by: Salamantis at June 10, 2010 10:18 pm

And another good essay on Iran:

How the West Can Help Iran's Green Movement

Please do not barter away our democracy for nuclear weapons negotiations with the current unworthy leaders in Tehran.

By Mohsen Makhmalbaf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704312104575298363129163620.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion Posted by: Salamantis at June 10, 2010 10:21 pm

In regards to the first article -
The shah making a "principled retreat"? "He would not fire on his people. He was a king, he said, and not a dictator." If he had any principles he would have actually given in to early demands for greater freedoms and avoided this whole mess. But instead he came down hard on the opposition and had to flee the country when he could not stop the protests (and the army killed plenty of people). He might have been better than the current lot, but lets not pretend that he was anything to aspire to.

I also disagree with the analysis of Obama's actions. I don't think there was anything that realistically could have been done differently that would have changed the result. He did speak out against what was happening and in support of the movement, but for the better part stayed out of the way. Given that the US has no serious leverage against Iran, the only thing he could do is not drawn attention away from the protesters. Posted by: Cassius Corodes at June 10, 2010 11:09 pm

del you are OK Posted by: Rani at June 11, 2010 12:47 am

Del, I am aware what Jooliz feelings are and my comment was a frustrated response to his momentary inability to follow the thread and discern what clearly others had no problem understanding. Imagine my actually thinking that piece of trash article was brilliant?

As far as your second bit of advice, what I have posted here so far is clearly available on the Web. I have refrained from getting into details or even mentioning many things that are not easily available on the web. We should not ever assume the enemy is stupid and they certainly don't depend on Anan or perto to relay information to them that is available in the public domain. I can only hope they think Israel has kinetic weapons.....

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4660989&c=SEA&s=TOP French and US practice interoperability.

http://www.naval-technology.com/features/feature86646/ the dangers the US sees on the seas

Let Anan and Perto read that. I think clear signals that we are not idiots sends a needed message. All the operational/tactical and intelligence "speculation" is readily available. If what I add is dangerous to Israel because of readership here, I would like render, Craig or Michael to explain that. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 11, 2010 5:43 am

Until then I will cease and desist.... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 11, 2010 5:53 am

Sorry Maxtrue,

I have noticed your opinions in the past, which is why I was so confused.

Just when I first saw what you labelled the link, I was expecting to be surprised by an actual defense of Israel in the NYT, and I think I was thrown off by that.

Momentary idiocy on my part, sorry. Posted by: jooliz at June 11, 2010 6:52 am

Zookeepers get the big cats to take their medicine by hiding it in balls of meat. The cats swallow the balls of meat whole, along with the medicine.
Children love Cracker Jacks, not because of the taste, with its overtones of cardboard, but because of the prize inside every box.
Well, why not reward Hamas by hiding an AK-47 round inside every bag of wheat or rice? Maybe they would be more accepting of the donated food and medicine with the prospect being able to reload their AK-47's.
It's a trick that's worked throughout history. In Genesis 44, Joseph had his silver cup hidden inside Benjamin's grain sack, in order to test his brother's hearts. Israel could use this similar tactic to test Hamas' humanity as to whether they will allow the food and medicine to be given to the starving and sick, or simply harvest the munition and destroy the rest. I'm betting the latter. Posted by: dadmin at June 11, 2010 7:16 am

Oh forget it Jooliz. I was so angered by that article last night I was a bit over-reacting. Of course I know where you stand. This embarrassment reveals the nexus of the demented Left and J Street. Let his attack on New Republic continue and Jews listen to the rubbish which turns black into white and white into black. I was amazed that how many missed the explicit threat of tolerance to antisemitism by support of Zionism. Nor the admission that some Jews are antisemitic which is a whole topic in itself........

As far as Del's comment about loose lips sinks ships, it doesn't make sense to me. Americans are under the delusion that Israel is some Mythical Superman. In discussing the widely available information we see both Israel and the US are not invincible. It is preferable that common sense analysis which anyone can engage in with available information is more likely to prevent sober reflection AFTER the fact, rather than heads up before the storm. For instance a number of news reports mention Egypt has the authority to give "permission" to Iran should their flotilla include sub escort. There would be significant alarm were Turkey to allow Iran to use their facilities to service Iranian subs. If we don't keep an eye on what is likely happening, our "brilliant" leadership might think we're stupid and float a drift. I would say discussing known knowns is a far cry from shedding light on OUR known unknowns. In theory known knowns should be robust enough to anticipate unknown unkowns...

That is encouraged by informed public understanding of the knowns lest it come as a complete surprise when strategy fails....

we can't afford that this time.... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 11, 2010 7:20 am

Oh, and I can't help but notice Bob Dylan's words lifted as a title for this: http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/35105/no-direction-home/

Assimilation has its down side.....but to a significant degree, so does parenting....

later Posted by: Maxtrue at June 11, 2010 7:31 am

Jooliz, this ones for you

And I'm not a mean person...... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 11, 2010 8:06 am

Maxtrue,

I'm not sure what your motivation is for providing dozens of links and articles about tactical and operational and intelligence considerations. I have a feeling your "ego" is involved. You need to think about this.

The professionals in Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt etc. may need your assistance not quite so much. But then again, ideas and analysis are often improved by talking, reading and listening to others' discussions.

The committed amateurs, even if they are laughed at, such as Richard shoebomber Reid, or (likely) anand, are, I think, helped when they can eavesdrop on shared information, such as the link you (I think it was you) provided of a picture of Haifa.

Look. An enemy's knowledge of your weapons capability is not going to change his/her mind about goals nor even general strategy. The only exception to that I can think of might be nuclear weapons capability. Even then, the enemy's goal is not changed, merely taken off the front burner. An enemy's newly acquired knowledge would, however, allow them to develop countermeasures of all sorts. For example, the more you prattle about kinetic weapons, the more likely (ok, I realize that you are an anonymous individual on a single blog, so the likelihood may not increase so much) that the military use of outer space becomes a big issue in the UN, or that extra hardening of bunkers is included in those next built, or that your launching sites and airbases become higher priority targets.

Why does this need to be pointed out to you? If you want to discuss these issues, do it privately with Render. If you need to do it publicly, I have a feeling that, again, your ego is involved. Posted by: del at June 11, 2010 8:40 am

Del, no ego. I thought the story of David and Goliath was well known even to non-Jews.

The X-37 was already big news before it launched. Bunkers are already being hardened. Is it more important that the public to understand the "likely" realities, than to listened to the present narrative and wait for the inevitable framing of these "unspoken issues" when they are placed in the context past "issues" have been framed?

As for the photo of the subs, I am not clear how this public photo would reveal anything secret. It is absurd to think the rather sophisticated front we are seeing today needs Anand to call in. As I said, I thought I had been careful, but then perhaps not being an expert, I should reconsider....

I clearly intended to advocate for "stronger" military preparedness in the face of present climate by linking public domain information. To show the seriousness of the situation is a step. To suggest some concerns given the past record of leadership, seemed prudent as an "American" advocay. I am hardly original or important.

So until this is further clarified (and its really not about ego), I will "freeze" those links you characterized as somehow aiding the enemy, rather than what I had thought was highlighting Israeli deterrence (to lower chances of miscalculation), the military escalation (vaguely reported) and the difficulties with mainstream perception of the balance of power (that could cause Israel significant harm). These things I had assumed would help change a bad narrative rather than encouraging it. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 11, 2010 9:40 am

Max: I operate entirely under the "open source" rule of thumb. I haven't been "classified" at any level by Uncle Sam in almost two decades and I have zero wish or need to know things that are currently classified. By the US or our Israeli allies. I haven't seen you post anything that wasn't already in the open source catagory. I'm pretty sure you and I had reached common ground on that subject one thread back (regarding the Dolphins locations and capabilities).

So I'm not really sure how I got involved in this thread...Although I fully understand what Del is saying. Just because several somethings are in the open source catagory doesn't mean we have to make it easier for our enemies by putting those somethings together in one package. Our own people are already doing enough of that as it is (looking at Small Wars Journal here).

===

(sorry Mike, I'm not trying to self blog pimp)

Either way (although moderated) my tiny little bloglet is open to almost everybody that's posted in this thread (Sal - don't bother). If you post a comment there I'll have your e-mail address and we can continue any discussions in as much privacy as e-mail will allow.

Anan's mistake was in asking somebody in a combat zone to give him very detailed information regarding friendly unit response times and doing so at the exact time that the enemy is also seeking the answers to those questions. He crossed a very bright red line - and got caught.

Lastly - I have zero interest in derailing any of Michael's comment threads so if I can direct things back to MJT's Gaza article?

POINTER,
R Posted by: Render at June 11, 2010 9:48 am

Maxtrue,

Although you may view Israel as "David" and the Arab and Islamic bloc as "Goliath", the current general western misapprehension is that Israel is "Goliath" and that the "Palestinians" (more correctly the Palestinian Arabs) are "David". That has been the genius of 4 decades of Arab propaganda. Since westerners are generally unable to understand Lee Smith's "strong horse" concept, as westerners generally root for the weak horse i.e. the underdog, an emphasis to a western audience on Israeli deterrence automatically tends to discredit Israel.

Even the subject of this thread, Palestinian suffering, reinforces the idea that the poor palestinian arabs must be helped, by all nice and good and righteous people everywhere, more and more and more and more and more...As if it is the duty of everyone on the planet to save the Gazans from themselves. They chose Hamas. Hamas won its election; it wasn't a minority coup on their part which put them in control. Let them face the consequences. Posted by: del at June 11, 2010 1:49 pm

"Palestinian suffering, reinforces the idea that the poor palestinian arabs must be helped, by all nice and good and righteous people everywhere, more and more and more and more and more...As if it is the duty of everyone on the planet to save the Gazans from themselves." True. Not only Palestinians but the Kurds, Shiites [in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon], Darfur muslims, Congolese, people of Zimbabwe, Haitians, poor Africans. All of them need to be helped.

"They chose Hamas. Hamas won its election; it wasn't a minority coup on their part which put them in control. Let them face the consequences." How cruel. Palestinians chose Hamas over Fatah 44% to 41% because Hamas promised to improve the private sector, to improve governance and to reduce corruption. Hamas didn't promise them war without end with Israel. Posted by: anan at June 11, 2010 3:11 pm

anand,

The world will be a better and more "functional" place when individuals and groups are forced to deal with the consequences of their actions and dysfunctions. Outside intervention teaches the dysfunctional that dysfunction is rewarded. Some of the groups you mention face misfortune for reasons outside their actions and dysfunctions. Those groups deserve far more assistance than the Gazans and palestinian arabs. If you really want to be generous to them, I suggest that you sell everything you own, become a mendicant so to speak, and donate it all to the UNRWA. Make sure you sell your computers and cell phones.

The Hamas Charter has never been a secret. As I am sure you already know, it certainly does promise war without end with Israel -- unless of course "victory" is achieved, in which case the "peace" of Islam will prevail, presumably.

Here are some quotes from your Hamas' charter:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm Posted by: del at June 11, 2010 3:27 pm

What much of the world thinks Del, is that Israel is unjust and what Hamas does doesn't count. Michael points to this above. I am quite familiar with the Charter. Quoting from it will appears to many Westerners to be vilifying Hamas and thus discrediting Israel's position.


"an emphasis to a western audience on Israeli deterrence automatically tends to discredit Israel."

Are you suggesting we should be careful what we say here because it will reinforce the stereotype onlookers might have of Israel? I might cause the discrediting of Israel? The people I'm addressing are quite surprised to find the balance of things is not what they thought. That the Goliath emerging is not Palestinians pretending to be David.



"Let them face the consequences."

What ARE the consequences? What consequences will Israel face? But we should be careful how we answer this, because discussing deterrence and force, the reality of the situation may discredit Israel. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 11, 2010 5:44 pm

Anand you really are a total idiot!
The Palistinians have received more aid per capita from foreign sources than anyone and that doesn't even include UNRWA. But instead of standing on their own two feet and taking responsibility for their actions they continue to take aid, claiming victimhood and wallowing in self pity; while at the same time using that aid to fund Israel's annihilation.
Compared to them the Haitians have received a pittance and they need it a hell of a lot more.
As for Zimbabwe etc., tell your leftist running dogs to protest against Mugabe instead of pussyfooting around and screaming how Israel blah blah blah!.
That you would compare the Palistinians to the suffering in Haiti Zimbabwe, Darfur where real suffering exists, shows your utter moral turpitude and lack of credibility.
Why don't you compare what the Gazan children look like with their well-fed bellies, wearing Nike and Adidas clothing and running shoes with those in Darfur, you immoral prick!
The problem in Darfur is that its your Muslim friends doing the oppressing and killing and not the Jews so no one gives a flying fuck and certainly not those self-hating Jewish friends of yours like Roger Cohen and Tony Judt.
And it is attitudes like yours which will keep the Palistinians from ever developing a viable society. Posted by: yesjb at June 11, 2010 6:15 pm

del: The Hamas Charter has never been a secret. As I am sure you already know, it certainly does promise war without end with Israel -

Again the lying scumbag pops in to test the waters. It's time MJT pressed the 'Delete' button on anan once and for all. Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at June 11, 2010 6:26 pm

Maxtrue: But we should be careful how we answer this, because discussing deterrence and force, the reality of the situation may discredit Israel.

Does it matter anymore? She's been discredited already. Israel will be vilified again for defending herself in the future. Everyone knows this going in. Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at June 11, 2010 6:30 pm

Well Maxtrue, that is a whole lot of sarcasm for someone who is not ego involved.

I said my piece.

Do what you want.

Who exactly is your intended audience? Posted by: del at June 11, 2010 6:46 pm

Mamzer, I has been warned that we must be careful in discussing certain things (in addition to using the appropriate civility and good taste) and to censor our remarks so that we don't add to the discrediting of Israel. Israel is seen by many as the Bully and Hamas the under dog. It is not smart on a public forum like this to discuss the real balance of power, the open source threat matrix and responses to present tension or get too heated about the motivations of Israel's enemies or the righteousness of Israel's goals and principles, should we add to the growing trend among Westerners. The latter I threw in just to be safe.

Now, I am not exactly sure how to proceed..... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 11, 2010 6:49 pm

Maxtrue,

My very polite suggestion made earlier was about various tactical/operational/intelligence details (for example resupply, and labelled photographs), not about goals and principles nor balance of power. Go back and reread. Posted by: del at June 11, 2010 7:01 pm

"Hamas didn't promise them war without end with Israel."

No, anand. Hamas simply promises to murder all Jews, which is why you support them so unhesitatingly and enthusiastically. Posted by: Gary Rosen at June 11, 2010 7:13 pm

"Anand you really are a total idiot!"

Yes, he is that as well as being a malevolent, genocidal antisemite. Posted by: Gary Rosen at June 11, 2010 7:14 pm

The many people who are undecided Del. The Jews and non Jews who have sympathies with Israel, who have some issues with those who are opposed to Israel, who are confused by the reporting and want some deeper level of information.

Sarcasm implies ego? Or maybe its a polite way to suggest I think you're wrong. I wasn't kidding. One could as easily make the case against your reading the charter as my discussing the dangers of questionable deterrence. I don't get the impression Michael was trying out cures for ISD. Under your criteria I wonder if Craig could post.

I certainly don't care to convince Jewish Post-Zionists. I don't care much for antisemitic Jews. I don't expect to convince most Muslims but more than you might think privately admit much of the deep hypocrisy on their side. I have read such articles. I have posted them here.

Nope, my primary target is center Left and Indies, those with appreciable quantities of brain cells left. They are the factor that will influence Congress and who have already lent their weight to some WH reconsideration. The majority of Americans support Israel and unless one uses that fact now to vet the real facts and potential consequences, even this majority may shrink.

What other group has such power to make the WH blink? How could anything less than the truth form the basis of a response to the false narrative?

Goliath plays the angry David, while David plays the silent fool? Don't be afraid of the Left Del.

This is still America.....and much of this conflict has little to do with Israel. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 11, 2010 7:15 pm

Del, I saw in your polite comments more than refraining from military details. The whole subject was implied and the reasoning a bit strange which I quoted above. For my target audience one must go to hard numbers crunched every day all over the web. Undecided need facts, They don't understand the logistic difficulties, the delicate balance, the disguised threats. They are frankly shocked by Memri.

Obama says he's such a friend to Israel and I respond with evidence military supplies were on hold. Obama brings up the nuclear leg and I discuss how policy may increase the likeliness of that leg. Many Americans are not dumb. They have little clue however of the strategic context. They have little clue of the game being played. I sought to reveal some of it, so they can understand the seriousness of the situation and why Israel acts in an ""abnormal way". It has much to do with the abnormality of their neighbors and the delicate structure of their deterrence, -not anything to do with myth or reputation. If you don't make that case, then a bully she is and no matter how abhorrent Hamas, the under dog.... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 11, 2010 7:27 pm

Maxtrue,

Many of your comments (the one's I am unhappy about) are short and clearly intended to be oblique, often complete with "..." at the end, as if you are part of an in-group, speaking to fellow in-groupies. They do not communicate clearly what your last paragraph, from your 7:27 pm post, does. Posted by: del at June 11, 2010 7:49 pm

If Gaza weren’t at war with a half-Western Jewish country, Palestinians who suffer as a result would get no more attention than victims of the civil conflict in Yemen.

I thought this article was a bit too clean, simple, and easy, simplifying things a bit too much. People care about Gaza more than, say, Yemen, because it's near the Holy Land, right? Then I remembered, even closer is Jordan. Jordan, another recipient of American aid, another state full of Palestinians, a place with no shortage of brutal crackdowns and other human rights abuses. But, funny thing: I've never seen a protest against the Kingdom of Jordan. Not to mention against the country bordering Gaza, which gets even more U.S. money and sports an even worse human rights record.

So, nope - Sad to say; it's just that simple. Posted by: calbear at June 11, 2010 10:23 pm

Calbear: They tried that once, it ended with the frightened and broken survivors of the PLO swimming the Jordan river to the "relative" safety of the Israeli side. They called it Black September. That's how the PLO ended up in Lebanon in the 80's. (you knew that didn't you?)

When was the last time anybody mentioned the Syrian siege of Hama (1982)? The Syrians killed more Muslims (of the Brotherhood persuasion) in just three weeks then Israel has killed in the last decade. (you knew that too, didn't you?)

(appreciate the opportunity to riff off of your lead Cal - thank you)

===

No amount of "land for peace" will ever work. Because it isn't about land and it never was. It's about killing Jews because they're Jewish and that is all it has always been about.

Giving up land only moves the model rocket clubs and bulky vest gangs closer to their goal.

EVER
THUS,
R Posted by: Render at June 12, 2010 1:20 am

Render, I'm sorry to say that I agree with your assessment. I wish it weren't so, but I think anyone who is trying to come up with a narrative substantially different than that is declining to face reality. Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2010 4:57 am

Render: Just to be clear, I meant a protest in the Western world of these countries, not in the countries themselves. I don't begrudge people (such as Israelis protesting their government) focusing on the situation in their own country, nor do I begrudge those under brutal regimes (such as Syria) being smart enough to stay quiet about it. Posted by: calbear at June 12, 2010 7:11 am

Del,

"I sought to reveal some of it, so they can understand the seriousness of the situation and why Israel acts in an ""abnormal way". It has much to do with the abnormality of their neighbors."

I don't know how oblique you think I'm being. I thought I was very clear. The quotations are around the terms used in Judt's op-ed. His explanation is that the "abnormality" is intrinsic to Zionism.

People I'm hoping to reach, besides talking with the minds here in threads following MJT's great posts, are those uncomfortable with the false cause and effects of the idiot's narrative.


Others here regularly add to the counter-narrative with their data streams and moral outrage and I guess they would be the in-group, Del. Those travelers floating by, confused by the the global Newspeak should understand more than just Israelis are threatened. This isn't simply an Israeli/Palestinian problem. Iranians, Lebanese, Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis, Saudis, Egyptians and secular Turks are all threatened by a much larger bulldozer st work.

It is the counter-narrative that makes make the oblique clear....

There is some new video of the Flotilla boarding. Activists fire "slingshots". Posted by: Maxtrue at June 12, 2010 7:34 am

If the counter-narrative was pointless, I rather doubt Michael would waste his time, do you?

Now who asks this morning for Russian "peacekeepers"? New narratives are possible. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 12, 2010 7:40 am

Maxtrue,

Read more carefully. My comment from 7:49 pm June 11 says that your statement, "I sought to reveal some of it, so they can understand the seriousness of the situation and why Israel acts in an ""abnormal way". It has much to do with the abnormality of their neighbors." is clear, whereas many of your short links have been oblique.

I think your purpose is better served by writing a compact essay with facts and links marshaled, rather than dribbled out without connection. Posted by: del at June 12, 2010 7:45 am

Those who understand the counter-narrative I have spent a lot of bandwidth promoting understand the obliqueness. Given the volume of my links last week, I thought that Michael would go ballistic if I expanded my thoughts beyond the Oblique. I think most here got what I was driving at, but yes, brevity can sometimes be confusing.

I am hoping the "group" I appeal to understands the greater scope of my posts. And I had thought that included you, Del.

Render, are you really walking away from the Two-State solution? Won't this destroy any chance of a counter-narrative and play right into Judt? Posted by: Maxtrue at June 12, 2010 8:06 am

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1476

Why sanctions might help. There are some points here worth considering. What arrangements we made with China and Russia are another matter....

getting back to Hamas..... http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282412942302170.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

This is an outrage and shows that the narrative that gives Hamas cover, is alive and well here in America. Is this not a good example of the inversion of truth? Posted by: Maxtrue at June 12, 2010 8:57 am

Maxtrue,

...are you really walking away from the Two-State solution? Won't this destroy any chance of a counter-narrative and play right into Judt?

None of the involved parties has ever believed in the "two state" solution. It's an idea that well-intentioned (or not so much) outsiders seek to impose, against the will of those actually participating in the Arab(+friends)/Israeli conflict. If pointing that out harms the peace-process, then how come it doesn't harm the peace process whenever Arabs(+friends) say that they have no interest in a two state solution? Even Abass uses his begrudging "acceptance" of a two-state solution as means to obtain leverage with western powers.

This is an outrage and shows that the narrative that gives Hamas cover, is alive and well here in America. Is this not a good example of the inversion of truth?

I think it's a good example of just how dysfunctional our immigration and naturalization system is. I know of two Arabs who should never have been allowed visa into the US just based on things they said on their own blogs. Yet, they were. And one of them is probably even a US citizen, by now. Department of Homeland Security is a waste of money and should be disbanded, and everything returned to the way it was pre-9/11. And then the US government should put the CIA and INS on the chopping block for cost cutting measures, and implement a ruthless culling policy for anyone who can be proven to have been doing their job incompetently the last 10 years. I'd add to that any state department officials in charge of issuing US visas overseas. There needs to be a purge of career diplomats and mid/lower level functionaries at the state department, too.

It may not be too late to make a good faith attempt to actually provide the homeland with some nominal amount of security, but every day that goes by where it's business as usual is a day wasted.

All of the above is my own personal opinion, of course :) Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2010 12:48 pm

Craig, I agree. Although I think the protest over this has already set the administration aback, it does show people can count.

As for some of the military links I put here, this one is a good example of doing so in the context of building a counter-narrative. And I'm not talking about an exclusive "Israeli" one. Craig and others have certainly kicked this strategic consideration around before and now this:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/ (article on F-35)

So here we are again and perhaps some of us arm chairs have been right. Remember the DOD projects the F-35 to replace the Warthog. Will some one please explain how this "edit" makes that an impossibility? And besides the F-35/22 debate having implications for US security in the face of growing threats, it also casts a light on how we "press" Israel and others (who need the F-35 for ground support roles too) to buy American. Well, the Danes just said no to F-35s for about four years.

So please understand that some military links posted are simply items that go towards determining US narrative and strategy as well as discerning the ground situation when speculating on anticipated gloom from the ME.

This was an interruption of the Hamas thread..... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 12, 2010 1:03 pm

Craig, there is abundant evidence that your claim Israel itself nor Arabs have backed a Two-State solution. As Rabin understood, it is the only solution that preserves the Jewish State. That is what is behind the recent shift by Palestinians (the few moderates) for a One-State bluff... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 12, 2010 1:09 pm

Shoot-to-kill in Kyrgyz south amid deadly ethnic unrest

Thousands of ethnic Uzbeks have been fleeing the southern city of Osh where ethnic Kyrgyz gangs are said to be marauding through the streets.

Note how classic ethnic-cleansing is "ethnic unrest" in this case? Puzzling, isn't it?

And I wonder how long and how hard the "international community" will fight for the right-of-return for those Uzbeks who are driven out of Kyrgyzstan? Will they even care, at all?

There's nothing to be gained, politically, from taking this up. So it will happen right in front of the world's eyes, while the world remains silent and uncaring. There are more important things to be doing, like beating up Israel over things that happened 60 years ago. Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2010 1:10 pm

Maxtrue,

So here we are again and perhaps some of us arm chairs have been right. Remember the DOD projects the F-35 to replace the Warthog. Will some one please explain how this "edit" makes that an impossibility? And besides the F-35/22 debate having implications for US security in the face of growing threats, it also casts a light on how we "press" Israel and others (who need the F-35 for ground support roles too) to buy American. Well, the Danes just said no to F-35s for about four years.

Well, my "arm chair" interpretation of the situation of the US military is that our planes and pilots are already more than sufficient to ensure air supremacy, and since we've already got the designs and the production facilities to make a next gen fighter should we need one in the future we can afford to set them aside for now. What we need in the short term is more (planes and pilots) of what we already have, not less(planes and pilots) of a more expensive overkill solution. You've pointed out yourself that in the case of an unexpected global conflict our existing naval and air assets are likely to be overwhelmed by sheer volume of cheap tech.

I'd also argue that we need more cruise missiles, and more mobile platforms for them. The US relies on such to diminish the enemy's volume of that overwhelming "low tech". More drones might be a plus as well, but it's yet to be seen how well drones perform against a competent military.

Also, I think Gates' plans for reducing the US Navy are idiotic (but don't tell him i said that) as Naval/Expeditionary capacity is the one area of superiority that the US is guaranteed to have. So we best be planning on taking advantage of that!

Of course, Gates does not believe there will ever be another global conflict. Which is why the most important upgrade the US military needs is a new Secretary of Defense.

Onwards...

Craig, there is abundant evidence that your claim Israel itself nor Arabs have backed a Two-State solution. As Rabin understood, it is the only solution that preserves the Jewish State. That is what is behind the recent shift by Palestinians (the few moderates) for a One-State bluff...

Sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying here. I don't think Arabs have (or have ever had) any intention of accepting a two-state solution. That leaves only two realistic possibilities: one Israeli Jewish state, or one Arab Muslim state. Of course, the "one Israeli Jewish state" would be completely unacceptable to the "international community", which is why Israelis aren't allowed to talk about that idea. The "one Arab Muslim state" is just fine with the "international community", which is why there's no penalty for Arabs and Muslims to advocate it. Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2010 1:29 pm

You are aware of the Stated policy if the Israeli government endorsed by Rabin and everyone else since then. You understand Abbas has publicly accepted that. What they say behind the corner is irrelevant if their public stand can be pushed into a final agreement. The public stand is what the Quartet and everyone is pushing. Palestinians already have Gaza and the West Bank can be arranged provided security. It is ALL about security.

We are not likely to go for another fighter soon. F-22 can best complete emerging missions. The F-22b a lethal addition. The F-35 wouldn't survive a quarter of ground fire than what a Warthog can. And I suppose the government doesn't stand to loose billions when people go elsewhere...... Your other remarks seem spot on. And by the way, 2000lbs of high density metal does what when slamming into the ground at mach ten? We need a lot of things as do the Israelis....the point of this advocacy...... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 12, 2010 2:29 pm

"of" the Israeli....sorry. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 12, 2010 2:30 pm

Note the request for Russian peacekeepers and the nyet..... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 12, 2010 2:32 pm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece

Saudis open sky? Posted by: Maxtrue at June 12, 2010 2:35 pm

Maxtrue,

You are aware of the Stated policy if the Israeli government endorsed by Rabin and everyone else since then.

And what have the results been?

You understand Abbas has publicly accepted that.

And you realize that Abbas was booted out of Gaza and is under pressure even in the West Bank? If the IDF pulled out of the West Bank now, how long do you think Abbas would last?

What they say behind the corner is irrelevant if their public stand can be pushed into a final agreement.

It can't be. Abbas does not have the power to negotiate for Gaza, and it's doubtful he could even deliver the West Bank.

The public stand is what the Quartet and everyone is pushing. Palestinians already have Gaza and the West Bank can be arranged provided security. It is ALL about security.

In my view, it's all about lies :)

However, I will continue to support the two-state solution for the sole reason that such is what the UN intended back in 1947 and 1948, and that is the only solution that is at least somewhat fair to both parties. But I will also continue to believe it is never going to happen.

---------

And by the way, 2000lbs of high density metal does what when slamming into the ground at mach ten?

I think it violates the moratorium on the weaponization of space :) Posted by: Craig at June 12, 2010 2:47 pm

No, not really. Since I would rather keep such discussions off this blog and this isn't relevant to Hamas, just drop me a note maxtrue1@yahoo.com (and I do not mean you Anand for reasons you already know).

Actually, I do get your point Craig. Either the pretense can be made to work (I support that) or a more pragmatic reality given the forces at work will go forward. Frankly, I don't understand why Israel doesn't play the Abbas bluff. Hamas is so worried, look at the Turkish/Iranian plan to disrupt the peace talks. As Palestinians break the peace of the agreement, it will then be clear which side can't be trusted....

You would think that would be obvious by now. I think more Israel blood will spill to get that point across. Palestinian blood is spilled of their free will. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 12, 2010 5:59 pm

Now who is in control of IHH? Ploy or anger?

Promoting the cause in their spare time Posted by: Maxtrue at June 12, 2010 6:40 pm

"Frankly, I don't understand why Israel doesn't play the Abbas bluff."

I think they have been doing that for some time now, but every time they do, Abbas moves the goal posts. Every time the Israeli ask for everyone to sit down and talk, the PLA finds an excuse not too. And now with Obama promising them the moon, they don't have too. They feel the US will squeeze everything out of Israel without the PLA having to do anything.

Your link to the Muslim "good ol' boys" shows their true nature, not that leftist American Jews would ever say anything. They only complain when a Jew holds up a sign that says "Hamas out of Gaza"
They are like the German Jews in the 30's who felt themselves fully integrated and looked down their noses at Jews from elsewhere; then suddenly found themselves marching into a gas chamber wondering what had just happened. Posted by: yesjb at June 12, 2010 7:22 pm

Yesjb, did you see Abu Mazen on Charlie Rose? Abu Mazen seemed to make a fair offer to the Israelis, including guarantees of security. Abu Mazen suggested the deployment to Palestine of a NATO/international peacekeeping force including Americans of the Jewish faith to guarantee Israeli security.

Charlie Rose also recently had an interview with Meshal [a Hamas leader] where Meshal accepted the 1967 borders for a two state solution. [skeptical that Hamas as a whole is really on board for this. Abu Mazen on Charlie Rose implied that Hamas wasn't fully there yet, partly because of Iranian opposition.]

It seems to me that the chances of a fair two state solution are closer than ever now.

The largest obstacle might be the PA/Hamas war. Abu Mazen implied that a reason Hamas is reluctant to join a national unity government [which I support] might be because of Iranian opposition.

Abu Mazen also opposes lifting the blockade/sanctions on Gaza:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/abbas-to-obama-i-m-against-lifting-of-gaza-blockade-1.295771

MJT wrote "No One Cares About Gaza." He has a point. Most people who pretend they care really don't, but rather use Gazans as a means to strengthen Hamas, weaken Fatah/PA/Mustafa Barghouti, or bash Israel. But just because others don't care about Gazans doesn't mean we shouldn't. All of us "SHOULD" care about Gazans, especially Israelis and the friends of Israel.

If Israel cared for Gazans, wouldn't this shame others into caring for Gazans too? Israel and Gaza were one country until 1948. Their ties are deep. [23% of Israeli citizens are nonjewish Palestinians, and many more are Jewish Arabs.] Israel is a fellow Arab country [nonJewish Palestinians and Arab Jews represent maybe 3.5 million or more Israeli citizens] and the Gazans are family . . . estranged family sure . . . but still family.

Israel assumed a moral obligation to the Gazan people when Israel occupied Gaza in 1967 [something I think the Israelis have probably regretted not returning immediately to Egypt ever since.] Israel further increased its moral obligation by blockading/sanctioning Gaza in 2006. Israel has to do right by the Palestinians because Israeli values and Abrahamic values [Jewish, Christian and Muslim] demand it. Israelis are at heart a good people, and I think deep down they want to do right by the Gazans. The friends of Israel have to facilitate Israelis doing what deep down they already want to do. Posted by: anan at June 12, 2010 9:18 pm

On the subject of who cares about Gaza, you can now include Abbas among the "who cares'ers"
http://www.haaretz.com/

Hardly a surprise, really, in spite of his participation in all the name-calling. I'm sure he will instantly deny having said it. It must be a source of genuine concern, for him to drop the whole solidarity thing. Kind of like Saudi Arabia allegedly going public about allowing Israeli jets to cross its airspace to attack Iran. Posted by: MarkC at June 12, 2010 9:45 pm

"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean? You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly."
-Mahmoud Abbas aka Abu Mazen (April 27, 2009)

FOAD,
R Posted by: Render at June 12, 2010 9:45 pm

Has anyone ever met an Israeli Jew who describes themselves as a Jewish Arab? Posted by: del at June 12, 2010 9:56 pm

Render: "A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean? You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly."
-Mahmoud Abbas aka Abu Mazen (April 27, 2009)

Despite what a certain disingenuous troll would have us think, the only thing that comes out of the mouth of Abbas that counts (and even then....) is when his audience is Arab, and the language is Arabic. It seems a week doesn't go by when Abbas rails against the "Judaization of Jerusalem".

Whatever Abbas said on Charlie Rose isn't worth the greenbottle fly on his mountainous pile of shit. Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at June 13, 2010 7:20 am

anan: Israel is a fellow Arab country [nonJewish Palestinians and Arab Jews represent maybe 3.5 million or more Israeli citizens] and the Gazans are family . . . estranged family sure . . . but still family.

Steaming, pungent bullshit. Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at June 13, 2010 7:47 am

Anand,
You're just a f'n propagandist with no concept of reality. Your BS is no different from that of the Nazis trying to curry favour with the Arabs during WWII...a distortion of reality and truth and an obfuscation of the real intentions.
You're an apologist for the worst genocidal maniacs (your Hamas friends) since the Nazis and the Turks before them. And I'm sure you're smiling as you blighthly type away your mendacious, putrid lies.
I recognize you for what you truly are! Posted by: yesjb at June 13, 2010 7:56 am

Israel sets up inquiry into deadly Gaza flotilla raid

Israel says its troops acted in self-defence when activists attacked commandoes trying to board one of the flotilla's six aid ships.

Which is what all the documentary evidence (including that provided by the "activists") shows to be true.

The campaigners say the soldiers opened fire without any provocation.

Which is in direct contradiction to all the available evidence(including that provided by the "activists") - which means it is a lie.

And that - the fact that the international community is treating the actual evidence as being of no greater value than the obvious lies being told by terrorists - is the reason why the international community cannot be trusted to conduct an investigation on this matter.

To this date there isn't ONE news organization that is willing to go on record as stating that the story as they originally told it was a falsehood. Even though by now they must all be aware of that. Posted by: Craig at June 13, 2010 3:23 pm

Has anyone ever met an Israeli Jew who describes themselves as a Jewish Arab?

The phenomenon exists, but not in large numbers. Posted by: Barry Meislin at June 14, 2010 2:16 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_iran_gaza_ship

Any yahoo mail over the weekend will be looked a today.....sorry. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 14, 2010 7:22 am

Craig, that is why an investigation IS what is needed. Straight up question for the WH: does Intel confirm Israel is telling the truth? Posted by: Maxtrue at June 14, 2010 9:49 am

Great article, Max :)

The actions are in response to Israel's boarding of a flotilla of Turkish aid ships heading to Gaza on May 31 in which troops killed nine pro-Palestinian activists after they were set upon by some passengers with metal rods and knives.

Most honest presentation of what actually happened that I've seen in a news article yet.

An official of the Iranian Red Crescent Society's youth organization said some 100,000 Iranians had volunteered as potential crew for aid ships, daily newspaper Iran reported.

In the past, similar numbers have registered as potential fighters for any conflict with Israel.

An obvious invitation to read between the lines :D

It's too bad western journalists are only capable of honesty when discussing Iran. Maybe they dislike the IRI as much as they dislike Israel, which leads them to reluctant objectivity? Posted by: Craig at June 14, 2010 10:19 am

Maxtrue,

Craig, that is why an investigation IS what is needed.

You mean like the Goldstone report, which accused both sides of trivialities while ignoring the long history of Hamas committing egregious war crimes such as deliberately targeting innocent civilians for suicide bombings?

Straight up question for the WH: does Intel confirm Israel is telling the truth?

Would you expect the Obama Administration to admit it? I wouldn't. It's pretty obvious to me that people affiliated with the White House greenlighted Turkey to do this. I suspect they were taken aback by the violent attacks on the IDF boarders, but they can hardly say Turkey was in the wrong for the act of provocation when they wanted Turkey to engage in the provocation. I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is "community activism" writ large. Which is the only thing Obama and his fellow travelers have any actual experience in.


My latest conspiracy theory is that Obama plans to use Turkey to offset Iran, in order to curb the IRI's influence and ability to project power in the Arab world. In order to do that, he needed to arrange for Turkey to have some street cred of its own in the Arab world. And how better? If that was his goal I think he miscalculated drastically. And if it wasn't his goal then what the hell is he up to? Posted by: Craig at June 14, 2010 10:32 am

"My latest conspiracy theory is that Obama plans to use Turkey to offset Iran, in order to curb the IRI's influence and ability to project power in the Arab world. In order to do that, he needed to arrange for Turkey to have some street cred of its own in the Arab world. And how better? If that was his goal I think he miscalculated drastically."

Have thought this from the beginning. However, Turkey exceeded the guidance they got from President Obama with the freedom flotilla.

The Turkish outreach to Iran was encouraged by the administration. However, Pres Obama, China, India, Russia, were caught off guard and angered by the Turkish/Brazilian/Iranian agreement. At a time when Russia and India were distancing themselves from Iran at significant cost to themselves to pressure the regime [and getting little from America and Europe in return from their point of view], and at a time when China was following suit; Turkey and Brazil messed it all up.

Since Turkey initiated these actions in response to suggestions from our own government, I think the bash Turkey nonsense is disingenuous and dangerous.

Iran outreach needs to be modified to support the Green Movement. The Gaza sanctions need to be eased and modified [to apply narrowly to weapons imports that can be used against the PA] and the freedom flotillas need to stop. Posted by: anan at June 14, 2010 12:24 pm

No I don't mean like the Goldstone Report. That won't happen this time. I suggested the kind of inquiry that should happen.

Form what AQ-linked Mujaheddin say in Afghanistan, Turkey and Iran planned to wrestle control of this group for their own purposes. I buy into the idea Obama just saw Turkey's role as asserting itself over the Palestinian issue which in his mind might even be a good thing. It would be however, a big miscalculation. Any leverage Turkey may win is lost in the strategic damage.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/abbas-to-obama-i-m-against-lifting-the-gaza-naval-blockade-1.295771

I guess Obama doesn't even listen to Abbas..... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 14, 2010 12:35 pm

From what..... Posted by: Maxtrue at June 14, 2010 12:36 pm

anand,

Are you feeling well?

You did not include "Turkey Rocks!" in your latest comment.

What's up with that?

"...to apply narrowly to weapons imports that can be used against the PA" -- thanks for the humor, eh? Posted by: del at June 14, 2010 1:29 pm

Barry Meislin,
"The phenomenon exists, but not in large numbers."

Is that a yes? Have you ever actually met one? Posted by: del at June 14, 2010 1:31 pm

Since Turkey initiated these actions in response to suggestions from our own government, I think the bash Turkey nonsense is disingenuous and dangerous.

Never fear, anand. I'm bashing the Obama administration for this brainfart too, as well as any think-tank analysts and other advisers who may have contributed to the fiasco. However, I believe Turkey is due an extra helping of bashing until such time as the EU and the US get the memo that their maneuvering has maneuvered Turkey clear off of out team and over onto the other side, and take the appropriate action to protect us from our new adversary. Posted by: Craig at June 14, 2010 2:54 pm

Interesting observation Craig. Maybe they see Iran balancing out their ISD without having to say I'm sorry. Posted by: Maxtrue at June 14, 2010 7:38 pm

anan: The Gaza sanctions need to be eased and modified [to apply narrowly to weapons imports that can be used against the PA]

Where is Gary Rosen when we need him?

Why does MJT tolerate such thinly-veiled expressions of genocide? Posted by: Li'l Mamzer at June 15, 2010 4:04 am

No, never met one, but there is the occasional newspaper or magazine article about it and about those who identify themselves as such.

As I understand it, it is typically a cultural and/or political issue. E.g., Identification with Arab culture (be it Moroccan, Tunisian, Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi, etc.---music, food, aesthetics, movies, pace of life, priorities, and/or feelings about Europeans (perfectly natural, if you come from that culture), together, perhaps, with feelings of dissatisfaction (or more than that) with Israeli society and politics (perhaps with special emphasis regarding the Ashkenazi-Spheradi issue/divide and the Israeli/Arab divide).

At least, as I understand the phenomenon.

Keeping in mind that the Arab culture is an all- subsuming culture, with a deep commitment to hospitality, and is often "laid back"---all things being relative (Israel being a very high-powered, high-pressure, aggressive place, generally). These, are generalizations, to be sure, and there are pressures in Arab society, of course,

In addition, there is quite often the sense of identification, among Jews (but not only) with those they perceive as the down-trodden, and which may be an issue.

(As a general example, what other country would provide food and medicine to the people of a neighboring area whose totalitarian regime is pledged to destroy it and whose actions and propaganda are constantly directed towards achieving that goal.) Posted by: Barry Meislin at June 15, 2010 4:06 am

Barry Meislin,

If you see such an article or have a reference, please post it. Posted by: del at June 15, 2010 8:34 am

http://www.covenant.idc.ac.il/en/vol2/issue2/the-making-of-an-arab-jew.html

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/conference-asks-iraqi-israeli-arab-jew-or-mizrahi-jew-1.246035

http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/4753

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-shasha/moses-maimonides-arab-jew_b_491543.html Posted by: Barry Meislin at June 15, 2010 10:02 am

Barry Meislin,

Thank you for the links. However, they seem to refer to Mizrahi Jews (of which there certainly are many) or use the terminology "Arab Jew". That is not what I am looking for. I am looking for "Jewish Arab". Posted by: del at June 15, 2010 2:06 pm

Oh, well there are several (or more) of those, if what you mean is a Muslim Arab who converts to Judaism.

Problem is, they generally don't like to advertise it, at least not too loudly.

(You might understand why....)

That is, if that's what you're referring to. Posted by: Barry Meislin at June 15, 2010 2:14 pm

Well I googled these.... Don't know if they fit the bill, though.

http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/jewish-chronicle-publicises-weird-press-release/

http://the-end-times-observer.blogspot.com/2007/01/arab-convert-arrested-for-aiding-jihad.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10227535@N08/3275643154/

http://www.aish.com/j/jt/48962176.html Posted by: Barry Meislin at June 15, 2010 2:22 pm