Likudniks, Israel, and Iraq
It’s very tempting for zealots to link inextricably a US conquest of Iraq with Israel’s territorial ambitions in the region, and more dangerously to continue to push forward aggressive military adventures to realise these ambitions. I’ve mentioned this before, but Time’s Joe Klein puts it much better than I ever could:
the Bush Administration hasn’t done very much to bring about peace in the Middle East; in fact, it has allowed a bad situation to grow worse … a stronger Israel is very much embedded in the rationale for war with Iraq. It is a part of the argument that dare not speak its name, a fantasy quietly cherished by the neo-conservative faction in the Bush Administration and by many leaders of the American Jewish community.
Of course, any non-positive analysis of Israel’s military hegemony in the region leaves one open to accusations by demagogues of anti-Semitism, the prevalence and vehemence of which seems to me to be the closest incarnation of heretic denunciation in our modern society. Again, I must leave it to others to defend me:
The lack of public discussion about the role of Israel in the thinking of “President Bush” is easier to understand, but weird nevertheless. It is the proverbial elephant in the room: Everybody sees it, no one mentions it. The reason is obvious and admirable: Neither supporters nor opponents of a war against Iraq wish to evoke the classic anti-Semitic image of the king’s Jewish advisers whispering poison into his ear and betraying the country to foreign interests.
And there’s more:
The Clinton administration was close to Israel’s moderate Labour Party; Bush’s camp is totally aligned with Israel’s aggressive far right and mirrors its views and policies to a remarkable, unprecedented degree … Many Americans simply don’t understand their leadership is about to plunge the nation into an open-ended, dangerous colonial war. All the propaganda about democracy, human rights and regional stability is the same kind of double-talk used by the 19th century British and French imperialists who claimed they were grabbing Africa and Asia to bring the benefits of Christian civilization to the heathens.
Israel gave up 91% of the land acquired in 1967. Israel almost offered to give up territories (or equivalent land), that would have brought things to 99% within the Auschwitz thin ’67 borders, 7 miles wide. Israel returned from the northern border with Lebanon as well.
“we all know that Ashcroft pales in comparison to fundamentalist islam.”
1) Militant Islam is much, much worse than Ashcroft.
Any time the Palestinians stop the violence, they’d have 1 million peacenik Israelis marching in Tel Aviv. The fact is there is no one to negotiate with. The fact that the arabs in the territories choose to stay there and choose a violent path is what is causing the problems. If they moved 30 miles to Jordan, a country with the same language, religion, culture, and with a majority of palestinians there already — they would have their own country. The choose not to. And they choose violent confrontation. If they tried non-violent resistence, they would have already had their state.
> If they moved 30 miles to Jordan, a country with the same language, religion, culture, and with a majority of palestinians there already
It’s not racism. I don’t believe in races. The very notion is inaccurate and unkind. I favor one culture over another, just as you favor one culture over another. I choose to have those who have shown themselves to have a violent undemocratic culture, no live with my culture. I think moving 30 miles to Jordan (I didn’t say Saudi Arabia. Living in Saudi Arab is cruel and unusual punishment for anyone, but the royal fascist perverts.)