Owen Parsons

I've seen no reason to disbelieve Russo and many reasons to believe him. I'll leave it at that.

And I've seen no reason to disbelieve Marina Oswald Porter, who testified categorically that her husband was home every night when they lived in New Orleans, except for the single night that he was imprisoned for the horrendous crime of believing that America is a country where freedom of speech is tolerated. If Marina told the truth, then the "conspiratorial" meeting described by Russo could not have happened.

I can only infer that you believe that Marina was lying to protect the conspirators. If so, I must then infer that you believe she should now be arrested and charged with murder. Do you really have the stomach for that kind of nonsense?

Leaving aside whether "Leon Oswald" is really Lee Harvey Oswald, Marina's credibility is not so good on many issues (who doesn't know the Nixon incident?). I think much of her testimony amounts to lying to protect herself more than to protect the conspirators. In any case, as Richard Billings writes in his diary, "Russo his star witness, but also has friends -- Kenny Carter, Niles Peterson, Ted & Jerry Kirchenstein -- who corroborate identification of Oswald as the bearded roommate . . ." (source).

Compare the evidence against OJ as set out in Bugliosi's book with the evidence against Clay Shaw. You mention the judge's refusal to allow officer Habighorst to testify that Clay Shaw told him that he used the alias Clay Bertrand. In her book Joan Mellen asserts that the judge "stammered" that he did not believe Officer Habighorst, as though the judge was confused or something.

The word Mellen uses is "sputtered," in reference to "I do not believe Officer Habighorst. I don't believe Officer Habighorst!," which certainly sounds like sputtering, due to its excited and repititious nature. Your quick reading was perhaps too quick.

In any case, this is a very minor point.

Suppose for a moment that Clay Shaw actually WAS involved in the assassination, and suppose that he really DID use the alias Clay Bertrand in his clandestine activities, how likely is it that he would reveal this incriminating fact to the booking officer?

Probably because Shaw had never read the Warren Commission or the testimony of Dean Andrews regarding the "Clay Bertrand" call, besides the fact that the Bertrand alias was primarily used for activities unrelated to the assassination. He probably didn't give it any thought at the time. But who can know the mind of Clay Shaw?

Shaw obviously lied when he said he had been given a blank card to sign and that he had not been asked any questions during the finger printing (even Butzman contradicted this).

Judge Haggerty was born during the day, but he wasn't born yesterday. The ostensible basis of his ruling was the Miranda warning, if I recall correctly, but he made it fairly clear that it was really based on his lifetime of experience among his fellow man. The trial record itself, and reports of actual observers in the courtroom, do not bear out that Judge Haggerty "stammered." What observers heard was a voice full of conviction. Judge Haggerty said "I do not believe officer Habighorst," and when Alcock? objected that he was improperly judging the credibility of a witness in front of reporters from around the world, Haggerty replied that it was outside the presence of the jury. He repeated: "I do not believe officer Habighorst." In case there was any doubt in the world, the judge leaned forward on the bench and delared emphatically: "I don't care. The whole world can hear that I do not believe officer Habighorst!"

So what you are saying here is that Haggerty's reasons had very little to do with legality (he apparently had issues with both Habighorst's brother and two of his uncles, if I recall correctly). Miranda wasn't really valid, as Shaw had already been read his Miranda rights in the presence of his lawyers. It was rather a strained reading of Escobedo upon which Haggerty based his ruling.

As it was at the preliminary hearing, Garrison's whole case against Clay Shaw boiled down to the uncorroborated testimony of Perry Russo. Garrison supporters will say that Garrison was thwarted by the refusal of Iowa? to extradite Sandra Moffett, who supposedly would have corroborated Russo. As I mentioned in a private email today to our mutual friend Dawn Meredith, I would not accuse my worst enemy of jaywalking on the say-so of Perry Russo, even if his girlfriend backed up his story.

I've seen no reason to disbelieve Russo and many reasons to believe him. I'll leave it at that.

I suppose I was a bit tough with Owen, but I did not call him names; I challenged him to face facts. Nor was I losing the argument. Is it not a historical fact that Garrison's case was laughed out of court? How long

will it take for that very simple fact to sink in?

Facts? What facts? You have cited almost zero. You simply assert that there is nothing to Garrison's case without bothering to prove it. If you want to discuss actual details of the case against Shaw, rather than making broad and sweeping pronouncements, feel free to do so.

Garrison's case was not "laughed" out of court. In fact, most jurors thought that conspiracy was proved, just not involving Clay Shaw. I would note that the Judge's rather nonsensical ruling concerning the booking card seriously hurt Garrison's case against Shaw, as well as the unwise use of Speisel. I think these two issues are what lost the case. And anyway, no one denies that Garrison lost his case in court, as you seem to hyperbolically assert.

If we were to go by nothing more than the outcomes of various "courts of justice," then Bruno Hauptmann, Alger Hiss, Sirhan Sirhan, and James Earl Ray would all be guilty of the charges leveled against them (but then, you may think this is the case). Its not an infallible institution.

Maybe so, and I have no doubt you are right that Owen is the makings of a fine lawyer, should he so desire. But he will have to learn to face facts squarely, and not seek to manipulate them as Garrison did.

There are indeed some impressive names on the dust-jacket of Mellen's book, and it makes me woder whether they read all of the stuff inside. There are parts of Mellen's book that contain some of the most gratuitously disgusting material I have ever read anywhere in my entire life, and that certainly does not belong in any discussion of the JFK assassination.

Joan Mellen's book, assuming it belongs in a bookstore, belongs in the pornography department, IMHO.

I have already explained that the details of Shaw's sex life serve purposes other than demonization. Mellen may have gone overboard in one or two places (its been months since I've read her book, so I can't say for sure), but it usually serves a real purpose and in no way invalidates the book as a whole.

ps Good to see you back posting Owen. I have missed you. And SHOULD you ever decide to go to law school I think you'd make an excellent lawyer. I have read all your debates here on the forum and you argue like a pro!!

Thanks Dawn. School's out, so I have much more time to post (and sleep). I don't know where I'll be going from here, but I have considered law in the past (as well as journalism and history writing). It could happen.

I have read the trial record (not in full, but a great deal of it) and I can't find much fault with her presentation.

Mr. Parsons, thank you for the courteous way you have conducted this discussion. I hate to pull rank on a valued forum member, but I feel I have no choice. I have read the entire record of the Clay Shaw trial, and I have read the entire record of the Preliminary Hearing where Clay Shaw was (wrongfully) indicted.

I earned my first law degree in 1971, while Joan Mellen has yet to take her first course in the subject, judging by her book.

I stand over the assertions I made in previous posts on this thread.

If you have any particular issues you'd like to adress, please raise them. Your expert opinion is all fine and good, but I note a dearth of evidentiary backing for said opinion. Simply asserting a thing will not make it so.

I also stand over my previous posts.

[i speak of her book and William Davy's (published in 1999). I don't know what is scandalous about it.

I admit that I have not yet read William Davy's book. I promise to do so After I get the chance to read the new books by Gerald McNight, Vince Palamara and Ian Griggs.

My problem with Joan Mellen's book has nothing to do with the footnotes. It has to do with her logically fallacious personal attack on Clay Shaw's sex life, with her abysmal inability to discriminate between credible and incredible witnesses, and most importantly with her failure to read the trial record with the care and attention it deserves.

I have read the trial record (not in full, but a great deal of it) and I can't find much fault with her presentation. Re: Her treatment of Shaw's sex life, as I have noted before, typically relates to his use of the Bertrand alias (such as the Clement Bertrand society) or to corroborate other witnesses (e.g. Shaw's missing nipple). In one place it is used to debunk a part of Shaw's assassination alibi. As for credible and incredible witnesses, she puts all the information on the table (as with Beckham), so that is up to readers to decide and debate.

As for her book being a disgrace to the research community, I refer you to the many endorsements from prominent JFK assassination researchers on the back cover. They would seem to disagree with you.

This sounds like an Argument from Authority, and I don't see where you have established the rightful authority of those who endorse Mellen's book, beyond the fact that they they are all Garrison supporters.

Its not an argument from authority. I am just pointing out that these individuals (Fonzi, Russell, Aguilar) are research community heavy weights (as I'm sure the majority of the people here, pro-Garrison or not, would agree), and they clearly don't think that the book has brought disgrace on the "research community."

aying that Shaw was probably uninvolved has more to do with embarassment at Shaw's acquittal than the evidence against him (including all of the new material that has come to light).

I have just finished a quick read of Joan Mellen's new book on Garrison. I am taking the liberty of assuming that the new material you speak of is referenced in Mellen's book. I am sad to say that Mellen's book is scandalous and a disgrace to the research community, IMHO.

I speak of her book and William Davy's (published in 1999). I don't know what is scandalous about it. There is the red herring about the footnotes going out of whack half-way through the book, but this problem is a minor one that will be fixed in the next printing. If you are referring to something else, you'll have to specify what that something else is. As for the book being a disgrace to the research community, I refer you to the many endorsements from prominent JFK assassination researchers on the back cover. They would seem to disagree with you.

Garrison realized that the JFK assassination was just part of a much larger conspiracy. The creation of a warfare state.

Of course I beg to differ about Garrison. IMHO, anything of value that Garrison had to say was stuff he cribbed, usually without attribution, from real researchers and writers. The warfare state idea was cribbed from Fred Cook, among others. Garrison simply made up all the rest and then scrounged up witnesses to testify that his imaginings were actually true. Of course the witnesses he did scrounge up were laughed out of court. But I thought eveyone knew all this by now.

You guys should do some research instead of watching movies.

Garrison's understanding of the conspiracy developed as his investigation progressed. He didn't bring in witnesses after the fact. This charge of yours is unsubstantiated and baseless.

I started my research on Garrison long before I ever watched JFK. Please read my postings in the thread I linked to above. Your charges are little different than Lynne Foster's, save that they have better grammar and spelling.

I also think that saying that Shaw was probably uninvolved has more to do with embarassment at Shaw's acquittal than the evidence against him (including all of the new material that has come to light).

I don't know very much about Mr. Israel except that he defends many controversial positions many of which I agree with (denouncing the invasion of Iraq) and others that I disagree with (he and other writers for his Website are associated with a group called the "International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic")

Actually, Jared Israel (bio here) left the ICDSM after it was taken over by Ramsey Clark (who should be familiar to students of the JFK assassination for his cover-up role) and Jacques Verges. His articles on this can be seen here and here. His main site has always been tenc.net.

Anyway, I fully support Jared Israel's position on Milosevic and the Serbs. Any serious and detailed look at the charges against them, their origins, and NATO's actions, will, I think, lead to the same conclusion. There's more than enough material about this out there, including the extensive collection of material on Mr. Israel's site. Michael Parenti and Diana Johnstone have also written some pretty good articles and books on the subject of the Yugoslav wars. Actually, you can just read the transcripts of the ICTY; Milosevic (who defended himself) pretty much ripped the prosecution's case to threads, which probably explains why the "new Nuremberg," after the initial hoopla, recieved practically no publicity. Read these articles (here and here) from The Guardian (a relatively mainstream paper and usually very anti-Serb/Milosevic, so it is significant) for a rare window (albeit a small one) into the reality of the proceedings. Maybe I should start a thread for debate of these issues

I think the worst thing about all the media propaganda is how much it suceeded in linking the Serbs with the Nazis in the public mind (which is ironic, as the Serbs actively fought the Nazis and protected Jews; not to mention the fact that they were exteriminated in masse in the Croatian Ustashe Jasenovac concentration camp). So much so that challenging the charges against the Serbs, which are, in fact, bogus and distortions of reality, seems like Holocaust denial to many and can be lumped in that bin without any real thought. Consequently, neo-fascists (among them actual Holocaust deniers, such as the "Father of Modern Croatia" Franjo Tudjman) and Islamic extremists (e.g.: the Izetbegovic government in Bosnia and the Al Qaeda-linked KLA) have become the "victims."

Oh yes, and Piper... Since he was mentioned here, I would like to reiterate that he is a contemptible scumbag. It needs saying.

I haven't really gotten around to studying 9-11 yet, but his (Israel's) articles on that subject are up to his usual standard (which is to say, solid, sourced, and well reasoned). I give them my tentative agreement/endorsement (for whatever that's worth). At the very least, I don't think dismissing them because he defends Milosevic against phony war crimes charges is appropriate.

Also, this thread has become a mess and almost impossible to follow.

As I'm sure you are all aware, Montenegro's independence referendum "passed" by 55.5%, which just barely puts it over the required minimum (by 2,090 votes). However, this is already being challenged by groups supportive of continued union with Serbia ("Bloc for Joint State"). They charge that 5,000 indepence supporters who live outside of Montenegro were allowed to vote (link). Montenegro's ruling pro-Indepence party has already rejected an investigation (here). Even before the referendum was held, there had been allegations of bribery against the pro-indepence people (here from this Soros-funded propaganda site, so its against interest).

Milo Djukanovic, the current Prime Minister, has been pushing for indepence since 2002. He wants to separate Montenegro from Serbia so that it can join the EU and NATO (here). NATO and the EU have welcomed this referendum with open arms (here). Djukanovic, I should add, was elected under irregular circumstances in 2000 and apparently has connections to the Italian mafia and tobacco smuggling (here).

The end result will be that Montenegro, which Albanian extremists would like to carve up into "Greater Albania" (here), will be that much less capable of defending itself.

Here's Diana Johnstone on the referendum:

"There are several reasons," Johnston says. "One is that Mrs. Del Ponte has lost her accused Milosevic and right away wants to start another big trial, I suppose. Of course, after what happened to Milosevic, as well as a number of other Serbs prisoners in The Hague, makes it much harder for anybody to want to turn anybody over to that Tribunal. Because it seems to be a very dangerous place. The timing came at a very crucial moment, when talks are underway about Kosovo and when there is going to be a referendum on independence in Montenegro. Of course this is not affecting Serbia only but also Montenegro. They are saying, 'Look Serbia is terrible, Serbia is a pariah.

If you are attached to Serbia you are not going anywhere.' So this is a way of pushing people in Montenegro to vote for independence of Montenegro, which will, in my view, put people of Montenegro in great danger. Many of the votes in favor of Montenegrin independence will come from ethnic minorities, particularly Albanians who have a project to attach Montenegro, which is very small, to Albania or to Kosovo and to turn Montenegrins into a minority in an Albanian controlled entity. So, the voices are saying, "Albania is good – Serbia is bad!" Leading to the conclusion that "Montenegrins are better of with Albanians then with the Serbs', which is very strange," added Johnstone. (here).

Any thoughts?

Edit: No one reads this thread, but these two links (here) (here) contain very relevant information, so why not? Apparently independence for Montenegro means freedom from prosecution for Djukanovic.

Old myths die hard, apparently. Garrison was not a Roselli (or Marcello) pawn. I demonstrated this (with references) back in the old Lynn Foster thread. This garbage was spread by certain "journalists" who are demonstrably tied to either the FBI or the CIA (sometimes both).

Dunn: You should really read Joan Mellen's book. She pretty much shows Lambert to be a fabricator, not only on Garrison's personal life but also on the Clinton witnesses and everything else.

I also think the evidence against Shaw is rock solid. It was the not-very-intelligent inclusion of Speisel's testimony and the Judge's banning of the booking card evidence that sunk the case in court. In addition, there is a great deal of new material on Shaw available now that was not available then. Again, I have gone over this in detail back in the Foster thread. See it here.

1. I do not believe James Files fired from the grassy knoll

Stephen,

great points in both posts. Obviously, for operatives it helps if they're psychopathic but above all they should feel that they themselves are above the law and even above alleged devotion to Allah and basic religious observances. So it's a great and important point to note the amorality and psychopathic nature against so-called "Muslim fanaticism," "Islamists, Islamic extremists, etc. The latter being IMO a "political poise" to influence "the masses."

Thanks and what are you reading on this detail?

Dan

He's probably getting his information from Daniel Hopsicker's research (which can be found in his book "Welcome to Terrorland"). If not, its from a source that's ultimately derived from Hopsicker. I've found most of what I've read from him to be fascinating.

I'm going to supplement my earlier posts about the supposed Likudniks in the Bush administration with some new material.

First, I forgot to include this analysis from Dr. Dore Gold:

"Like the charge that the Iraq War was promoted by Israel, the Likud connection has been shown to be groundless. For example, in November 2003, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz met with the authors of the Ayalon-Nusseibeh plan that envisions Israel withdrawing to the 1967 lines - a stand which is anathema to the Likud party. Writing with David Frum, Richard Perle proposed that the U.S. use its influence to help broker the creation of a Palestinian mini-state 'with its capital in part of Jerusalem.' The redivision of Jerusalem is overwhelmingly opposed by most Israelis and certainly by the members of the Likud party" (link).

This article shows Perle and the "Neocons" making efforts to win Israel over to the Iraq scheme, not the other way around:

"A resident fellow at the AEI, Richard Perle, is calling upon both Israel and the American Jewish community to support the INC. 'Israel has not devoted the political or rhetorical time or energy to Saddam that they have to the Iranians. The case for the Iraqi opposition in Congress would be a lot more favorable with Israeli support,' said Mr. Perle, who was assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

With regard to the American Jewish community, Mr. Perle said: 'There's no question that the Jewish community's been at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein'" (here).

More on Perle. In addition to supporting Bosnian Islamist terrorism, he also gives aid and comfort to Chechen Islamist terrorism. He may be found on the membership list of the ACPC (American Committee for Peace in Chechnya/Caucasus), along with many other members of the U.S. foreign policy elite (here). Check out the rest of their website, btw. It has some fascinating apologetic material (on, for instance, the Beslan hostage crisis/massacre; remember that?). Hawks as Doves propagating analysis of "root causes."

Also, here's my President charging Israel with "humiliat[ing] the Palestinians" (with thanks to tenc.net for this link):

"And I found such a leader, I thought, in Abu Mazen. And I stood with him in Aqaba, Jordan, and as you might recall -- and Israel has got responsibilities, and the Arab states have got responsibilities. And I delineated Israel's responsibilities -- end the settlements, and not prejudice final negotiations on states with walls, to end the daily humiliation of the Palestinians. This was all clearly enunciated today, by the way, in the public arena" (link).

Now let's step back in time a little. Here is Bush I's Secretary of State James Baker (mentioned earlier; the man famously quoted as saying "F-ck the Jews!" and responsible for getting the PLO back into the Occupied Territories) on his strategy for Israel: "Back in February 1989, in his first interview as Secretary of State, James Baker explained to Time magazine that diplomacy was like a turkey hunt. Paraphrasing: 'You have got to fatten up the turkeys. I have this assistant who puts out the feed, he fattens up the turkeys, you get them good and fat, and then you shoot them.' When asked what country he had in mind, he answered 'Israel!'" (link).

More: "In a key speech delivered in May 1989 to AIPAC, US Secretary of State James Baker III placed the blame on Israel for the Arab-Israel conflict, and seemed to echo Arab propaganda, urging Israeli leaders to abandon the 'unrealistic vision of a Greater Israel' that includes the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He then laid out the American position on what is now called the Arab-Israeli peace process. He urged self-government for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza in a manner acceptable to Palestinians, Israel, and Jordan, a formula designed to provide ample scope for Palestinians to achieve their full political rights while also providing ample protection for Israel's security. This utopian vision has failed to materialize" (link).

[EDIT: I should note the Baker's ranting about "Greater Israel" is significant as it is so reminiscent of the propaganda used against the Serbs, who were supposedly seeking an ethnically pure "Greater Serbia." Not a bit of this was true, just like all of NATO's other charges. But that's for another time.]

Why is all this significant for the current Bush? James Baker has recently been brought back into the fold: "Coincidently, too, Baker's reemergence comes on the heels of the administration's decision to deduct $300 million in loan guarantees to the Sharon government on account of Israeli settlement activity — a linkage that Baker originated during his days as secretary of state during the first Bush presidency" (here). He has since been involving himself in the Israel-Palestine issue. See these articles: "James Baker turns the Mideast heat up on Bush" and "Bush Envoy Calls on Israel to Release Jailed Palestinian Leader"

They are civil, polite and are open to each others' views - not so John Hunt, a crass and immature man who is beneath contempt. He thinks he can challenge ballistics experts like Larry Sturdivan (The JFK Myths). What a fool!

What temerity! Challenging Larry Sturdivan, a ballistics expert! Surely, his credentials make up for any faults in his work.

Owen,

We'll have to agree to disagree on the significance of US aid to Israel, although I do acknowledge that there was probably an element of countering Soviet influence within the Arab states, which may have driven the US into further support for Israel. However, military support is still military support.

I don't really see it as the start of "further support," but rather "real support" and only in the economic realm. You'll notice (if you look here) that U.S. aid to Israel gets about a $500 million increase in the 1970s before shooting up to the billion range in 1974.

The issue of Iran's nuclear intentions is the most dangerous issue in the region at the moment. I actually sympathise with Iran's position here. America has meddled in Iran's affairs for many years now, dating back to the 1953 CIA backed overthrow of Dr. Mossadegh. In 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airbus--which was flying in Iranian airspace--killing 290 people. Now the US tells Iran it must not possess nuclear weapons, although Israel has possessed such weapons for decades.

First off, Mossadegh was of a much different color than the current regime. U.S. relations with Iran are actually more complicated than this (to say the least). Of course, we know of Iran-Contra and the October Surprise, but there's more than that. For instance, the Clinton administration had its own Iran-Contra during the Balkans conflict, wherein the U.S. worked with Iran to arm the Bosnian Islamist terrorists (here), which I would add, was the opposite of the side Israel was supporting at the time. Iran was also heavily involved in the decision (along with the U.S. and other "first world" countries) to implement Sharia law in Afghanistan (here). In Iraq, we have the odd spectacle of Iran sending in troops and supporting the U.S.'s effort (here) (here) (here). In return the U.S. bombed the Iraqi bases of Iranian rebels against the Iranian clerical regime (here). As I said, we'll see how it plays out.

In the early sixties, JFK told Ben-Gurion that he was opposed to Israel acquiring nuclear weapons but Israel considered this an unacceptable intrusion into their sovereignty and went ahead and developed the weapons anyway. Why shouldn't Iran feel the same way?

The only reason I kinda/sorta support Israel's nuclear program is because I believe it is responsible enough to have one and because it makes hostile Arab states think twice about attacking Israel. Iran is an irresponsible nation.

Personally, I doubt if America will use force in Iran. They have so many other problems to deal with at the moment and the last thing they need is further volatility in oil prices. The big question is, will Israel pre-emptively strike Iranian targets, if they can find them? From what I've read, there is still a three to five year window but Iran's intentions are plain. Morover, despite the Security Council's current stalemate over the issue, Iran doesn't seem to fear the imposition of sanctions. Don't you think Iran's acquisition of a nuclear deterrent will bring balance to the region? I ask you to consider this in the context of overall regional stability, and not just from an Israeli security standpoint.

I'm not sure how Iran getting atomic weapons will balance the region. Israel is only a threat to stability and "peace" in the Islamist mind. Iran has made it quite clear that they want Israel wiped off map. Israel has made no such statement about Iran. If anything, gaining such powerful weapons will only embolden Iran and drive them to more extreme actions.

Don't understand the reference to "Tim Gratz," though[...]

Here you go.

Who is Brendan Slattery anyway? His biography is highly suggestive, but sparse. In any case, I thank him for his link to John McAdams' blog, from which I have derived much amusement. "Marquette Warrior" indeed.

Very interesting. Owen, I don't think you've really addressed the points made by Daniel, especially the issue of America's massive military and financial support of Israel. You seem to dismiss this as incidental to the debate despite the fact that it is central to the debate.

Haven't I? My point is that there were factors in the big increase in aid to Israel that began in the 1970s that had little to do with a romantic biblical notion of Israel and more to do with the Soviet Union. But even while the "Cold War" (a term that needs to be phased out due to overuse) was still raging, Reagan attempted to cut aid to Israel to better relations with Arab states; AIPAC foiled this (I read of this in the book Friends in Deed). I have also pointed out how the financial aid has been used as a weapon against Israeli interests. But moving on...

Never mind. How about broadening the debate a little. The issue of Iran's nuclear capabilities will reveal much about America's relationship with Israel, IMO. What do you think about this article? Will America's support of Israel ultimately harm America?

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0430-22.htm

Sure, broaden away. The Iranian issue may indeed reveal much about the United States' relationship with Israel. We'll see how it plays out.

I find this notion that America's "support" of Israel (what there is of it) will "harm America" (and American interests, as the "realists" are quick to add) to be neither necessarily true or compelling. This is the kind of argument that the newly dovish conservative policy makers (Mearsheimer, Walt, and now Fukuyama) like to hammer on. I think Israel should be supported because it is the morally correct thing to do. Israel is a democratic state with equal rights and protection under its laws, totally unlike the dictatorships the CIA likes to prop up. These hacks are actually pushing for improving relations with Iran (supposedly because the sins of Israel and authoritarian Islamist Arab states even out, and the Islamist states benefit us more). See this quote:

"We don’t need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where their help is badly needed." (Source)

Really?

An interesting thing about the Weiss article is how he mentions the influence the Israeli New Historians supposedly had on Mearsheimer, supposedly causing him to change his views. This is interesting, because it was precisely the issue of the New Historians that cause me to change my position. A little book called Fabricating Israeli History by Efraim Karsh exposes the numerous fabrications of these fellows and was the catalyst for my turn-around (the supposed plot to divide up the West Bank between Israel and Jordan, "discovered" by Avi Shlaim, that Weiss mentions in the article is shown to be completely bogus, as an example).

I know you want to end this, but I feel like I have to keep defending my position, so here goes.

Owen,

My apologies then, since I did indeed assume you were Jewish, as you seemed to be arguing from the point of view of someone for whom the whole situation of Israel being in great danger is indisputable. Thus the term "unwashed Gentile," which believe it or not is more likely to be intended as a gentle tension reliever than a criticism of Jewish people "having a disrespect for or disregard of Gentile opinion"; you might be surprised to know how much Jewish-American culture has influenced American culture generally, particularly in comedy, humor, etc. Please do not allege something negative in my statements where there is none.

Sorry, but it can be difficult to tell what is and isn't a "gentle tension reliever" when discussing Israel. Also, I allege nothing. To allege something is to assert it to be factual, which I did not do. I merely raised my concerns, which you answered. And anyway, I don't think Israel is in "great danger" at the moment, but I think it has a good reason to focus on its defensive capabilities.

I have some severe doubts that you have read much of "both sides of the issue." Hopefully you're not referring to the previous comments about writers such as Chomsky, et al. I would recommend more general studies by more disinterested observers than "a Left perspective on things" authors.

I have indeed looked at all sides, including the middle one, if that is what you mean.

It would be a waste of my precious time to refute the obvious; but why not check out something like Lawrence Ziring's The Middle East Political Dictionary, which would also be useful in terms of a "more disinterested observer" account (and generally educational to boot.)

This book appears to be somewhat obscure and the author specializes in Pakistan, not Israel. It is not looking "obvious" so far. My local University library has it, though, so I may check it out. However, here is another relevant account from an author who is, like Ziring, a professor of political science.

"The 1948 War and the Capture of the Jewish Quarter Jewish Jerusalem was a primary target of the attack following the departure of the British forces and the Israeli Declaration of Independence on May 15 1948. Between the fighting that began following the UN Partition Resolution on November 27 1947, Arab forces had blocked the access road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and numerous Israeli efforts to end this blockade failed, with significant casualties. As a result, there were few reinforcemenets, and on May 28, the Arab Legion completed the capture of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, which was the site of numerous ancient synagogues and the Western Wall of the Temple, destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 AD. (These were and remain the holiest sites in the Jewish religion.) The Legion's commander, Abdallah el-Tal, recalled that "The operations of calculated destruction were set in motion… Only four days after our entry into Jerusalem the Jewish Quarter had become a graveyard." (Abdallah el-Tal, Disaster of Palestine, Cairo 1959) The Jews that survived surrendered and were forced to leave their homes." (link)

And I'd like to say, if there is confusion about this, that I am not saying that Jews were a majority in East Jerusalem, just that there were much, much more of them prior to Jordan's expulsion.

You may talk about law and democracy, but norms and mores of social behavior are far more determinative in praxis for realities of any social situation; if Israeli soldiers think little of shooting at international journalists who appear to be "of Arab extraction" or if an Israeli bulldozer crushes an American girl garbed in traditional Arab garments and head gear, then there's a problem with how people behave and proceed with respect to these things---regardless of what laws are on the books.

An Israeli bulldozer did crush an American girl (Rachel Corrie) who was wearing a bright orange flourescent jacket, not traditional Arab garb. This does not support your point about Israeli xenophobia. For further reading on this incident see here:

"'Dooby,' the army reservist who ran Corrie down, is a Russian immigrant with long experience as a bulldozer operator. On Israeli TV he insisted that his field of vision was limited inside the D9 cabin and that he had no idea Corrie was in front of the machine. "You can't hear, you can't see well. You can go over something and you'll never know," he said. "I scooped up some earth, I couldn't see anything. I pushed the earth, and I didn't see her at all. Maybe she was hiding in there." The idf compiled a video about the Corrie incident that includes footage taken from inside the cockpit of a D9. It makes a credible case that the operators, peering out through narrow, double-glazed, bulletproof windows, their view obscured behind pistons and the giant scooper, might not have seen Corrie kneeling in front of them."

As for the journalist, I don't know what or who you are referring to specifically. In any case, an isolated incident can only say so much about Israeli society and should not be used as the basis for broad sweeping statements.

Such arguments to me are begging the questions, just as is the dismissing of American governmental subsidization of Israel through the tremendous amount of foreign aid. It is in fact very cut and dried, as I have stated now for the third time, in being the single greatest indicator of the true position of the United States toward Israel---a position of favoritism, support, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I think if the only gauge we used to measure American foreign policy is financial aid, we would be in a very poor position. It needs to be placed in a wider context, such as the cold war context in which Israel first started recieving its massive financial aid (to counter the Soviet funded Arab states), which does not so much indicate favoritism as necessity. In addition, as I have pointed out, the U.S. has threatened to withdraw aid from Israel (and when it needed it most, during the absorption of the Russian Jews) if it did not attend the Madrid Peace talks. Of course, this was masterminded by James "f-ck the Jews" Baker. I keep hammering on this one.

I reiterate, it is only one factor among many and not a cut and dried one.

I've got other things to do than continue a debate on this subject. We do not agree. But take care anyway,

Dan

And again, "all the best." The only reason I have replied here is because you have raised some new issues which I feel I need to address; I'm not trying to pull you back in to a debate you no longer want to participate in.

Hey Owen,

We clearly disagree on most of our outlook on the situation, which is unfortunate as far as I'm concerned. Whatever Syria's geographical size may be, it's military significance is less than a piddle compared with that of Israel's; this is something which seems indisputable to me. Anyone who argues that "Israel needs all the defensive territory it can get" is assuming that there can only be war and Israel is surrounded by hostile forces eager to wipe it off the face of the earth.

I think the history of Arab wars of aggression against Israel would tend to support the idea that Israel is "surrounded by hostile forces eager to wipe it off the face of the earth." Perhaps the situation has changed in some cases, but this is the very recent past we are talking about it. And anyway, I said I was mostly neutral on Golan.

How can an unwashed Gentile like myself hope to persuade anyone having such a view otherwise? And how can I reasonably argue with someone about the Arab population of East Jerusalem when they cite a source and start off with the assumption that apparently East Jerusalem must've been just full of Jewish people until Jordan expelled most of them? I can't, and I won't.

Let's be clear: I am just as much of an "unwashed Gentile" as yourself. My position is based on my reading of both sides of the issue, not on a Jewishness that I don't have (if you are indeed implying that I am Jewish). I am also disturbed by your use of the "unwashed Gentile" phrase, as it seems to be implying that Jewish people have a disrespect for or disregard of Gentile opinion.

On East Jerusalem, why is it an "assumption?" I think its a historical fact that East Jerusalem had a sizable Jewish population before Jordan expelled them. The way to debate this is easy: refute it.

The same goes for the lingering issue of the past; no one would reasonably dispute that the wars were started by the Arabs. The obvious counter-point is that it was Arab land before Jewish people started showing up in large numbers over 70 years ago; but what counter-point can I make if someone holds that the land itself, like the city of Jerusalem, belongs to the Jewish people since they were expelled from it nearly 2000 years ago? (And then what, the Philistines and the Canaanites before that?) Again, I can’t and I won’t.

I'm pretty sure that the Canaanites and the Philistines stopped existing as distinct ethnicities some time ago. Anyway, I do indeed think that the Jews have the greatest historical and cultural claim to Jerusalem (much as the Serbs have the greatest historical and cultural claim to Kosovo; the two situations have many parallels). I also think Israel is in the best position to safeguard the city, as their laws are democratic and undiscriminatory (unlike the Arab states).

I do notice that you responded about AIPAC although I never mentioned it, and that you had nothing to say about my point on US financial, economic and military aid. I am less concerned than others about "the Jewish lobby" here in the States; I only wish they would use their power and influence and wealth more responsibly and more intelligently, which is how I feel about most persons and "lobbys" who have a great deal of power and influence and wealth. For the most part, there is a tremendous lack of responsible leadership on the part of all such persons and "lobbys." My point was not about "the Jewish lobby," but about the generally agreed-upon arrangement of subsidizing Israel by the US government; we also similarly subsidize Egypt, a price we have been willing to pay for the peace between Israel and Egypt. As I suggested, this tremendous amount of aid is a far more substantive gauge of our true position vis a vis Israel than any amount of countervailing arguments you can make. But I'm not interested in scoring points or pressing you on the matter.

I brought up AIPAC because I think they may indeed have a great deal to do with the aid Israel gets from the U.S., as Mearsheimer and Walt charge. I also think the aid has served as a nice lever when the U.S. wants to get something from Israel that it wouldn't normally give (such as getting the PLO back where the U.S. wants them). In any case, U.S. aid to Israel is not, IMO, as cut and dried as you present it. It is only one factor among many, and it can not do away with the many instances in which the U.S. has worked against Israel.

Instead, I want to leave you with something to mull over, as this issue is very important to me. It has less to do with the Palestinians than with Israelis themselves. The unique circumstances of Israel's existence since its inception has necessitated a general "war footing" as an apparently permanent condition and a total mobilization for war being possible in record time, with universal conscription and 24-hour "reserve readiness" call-ups. Under these circumstances, it seems to me, the people in such a society develop a "bunker mentality" in which all they are capable of seeing are their enemies everywhere. They also, again out of necessity and routine, become extremely militarized in their entire outlook and attitudes—meaning mainly that every member of society becomes conditioned to thinking of themselves as a part of "the war effort" and of the nation-state understood as an organic unity. Finally, a generation of militarily ruling over a conquered people breeds a sense not only of "us against them" but also a sense of superiority versus the perceived inferiority of the subjects over which they are ruling, a sense that the Arab people in this case are a lesser people, their individual lives being worth less than the life of any non-Arab Israeli. Again, these are things which seem indisputable to me although I expect you will surely reject my "take" on this.

I do reject your take on this, in fact. Israel might be a highly militarized society (if they weren't, I'm not so sure Israel would exist as a state now), but Israeli society is not racist (as any casual study of Israeli law and society would show). I'd recommend the book The Israelis by Donna Rosenthal as a good presentation of what Israeli society is actually like that does not rely on psychology from a distance.

The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have indeed been under an oppressive rule, but it has been Palestinian and not Israeli for a while now, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

But if I am right about it, then my question is What has Israel become? Has it not become a nation whose majority population and government are characterized by an extraordinarily high degree of ultra-nationalistic (chauvinistic) and xenophobic (paranoid) ways of thinking coupled with an extremely high degree of regimentation (towards the goal of survival)? And what goes along with this is the self-perception on the part of most members of that majority population that they are unique, special, set apart from other peoples particularly in contrast to those perceived as their ethnic or religious enemies. This is far from being the result one would have hoped for or even expected of a nation whose founders established it as a direct result of their people's escaping a massive persecution and wholesale genocidal policy and program undertaken by Fascist states of Europe over a half century ago. And it is also not what one would expect from a people whose religious faith was based on a foundation of having been delivered by God from a condition of servitude to a foreign people.

See above. The majority of Israelis, from what I have gathered through reading and study, are not ultra-nationalistic, nor xenophobic (but they may have become more paranoid since Intifada II). However, I believe the labels of ultra-nationalism and xenophobia could indeed be applied to a large portion of the Palestinian people. When there is a Palestinian state (and its pretty much inevitable at this point) there will be no Jews living there, nor will Jews be allowed to live there (versus Israel, where Arabs can and do live).

There is indeed a small far right segment of Israeli society (i.e. Meir Kahane's Kach party), but they are, again, small and have little influence on the public sphere (like most other far-right parties in most other countries).

Also, I am not sure I see the point in bringing up the Israeli exodus from Egypt, unless you are implying that the position of the Palestinian people is akin to slavery to Jews. If so, this would be the second time you have used the slavery analogy re: the Palestinians. The analogy is pure rubbish and does not apply to the situation of the Palestinians under the occupation at any point.

Reject my opinion here as you like, but try to recognize that any Jewish person must account for the points I've made if they are to be honest and consistent about the situation and even about what it means to be Jewish. I concede that it is "cheeky" or impertinent of me to argue such points, but you can at least tell that this is something I know a bit about and have thought seriously about and care about. I will drop out of this debate and wish you well in any event. Maybe if we are all lucky enough there will be a peaceful solution to the problem, if not in my lifetime then hopefully in the lifetime of you and your generation.

Take care,

Dan

Well, I don't think anyone would have an objection to a peaceful solution, least of all me. All the best.

Hey again and thanks for your reply, Daniel. My reply follows:

True, Jordan was responsible for annexing the West Bank territories just as Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip; the splitting of the city was the result of the fighting, however, since the Israelis drove to create a corridor through the West Bank to gain a foothold in Jerusalem---as a result of the cease-fire the demarcation lines were then drawn dividing the city. My point would be that Jordan and Egypt were wrong in the first place by annexing the territories and presuming an incorporation of the remainder of Palestine as their own property; but two wrongs don't make a right, and the issue of official annexation is the presumption of the thing. There are very good reasons why the Golan would be essential to Israel from a military standpoint, but the same would be true for Syria; the problem as I see it is that anyone arguing against your point of view has to deal with an apparent assumption that Israel has a greater right to these territories than does Syria. That's a problem. It's inherent in the argument that anything which favors Israel is justified, including the continued occupation of originally Syrian territory (whether it has been officially annexed or not). Logically, the same presumption in Israel's favor would apply to any moves or decisions Israel would make. Very, very much including the annexation of East Jerusalem as being beyond negotiation even though its population was overwhelmingly Arab.

I believe the main reason for the "overwhelmingly" Arab status of East Jerusalem would be the expulsion of the Jews from it by Jordan (here). In addition, East Jerusalem contains Judaism's most holy sites, such as the Western Wall and the Temple Mount (which the Israelis have allowed the Arabs to run; hows that for discrimination). Nor are the Arabs discriminated against or repressed (and certainly much less than did Jordan). The real issue here seems to be that it is Jews who are running the show and not other Arabs; nothing more.

As for Golan, if you look at a map, you will notice that Syria is quite a bit bigger than Israel (which is tiny). Israel needs all the defensive territory it can get. Nevertheless, I am mostly neutral on Golan (but I am not on East Jerusalem).

You would not appear to be a disinterested observer of the situation, since your assumption seems that all fault still lies on the Arab side. There's no doubt that prior to the Six Day War or the October '73 war at the latest, the Arab nations were continually in a position of attacking and threatening Israel; but Jordan stayed out of the October '73 war, and we are now talking about a much more current situation than that which existed 30 and 40 years ago. Things change, and we are again confronted with an apparent assumption that Israel itself can do no wrong.

Last I checked, every single one of these wars up to the Yom Kippur War were started by the Arabs. If you want to discuss details, I can do that. The question need not be, "Can Israel do no wrong?," but "Who has done more wrong?"

Official investigations and accounts by interested parties tending to exonerate those "charged" would not seem to be the most reliable sources of information about "the truth of what happened." Anyone familiar with the investigations of President Kennedy's assassination or that of Senator Robert Kennedy's assassination would be a little wary of such things.

True, but unlike those fraudulent commissions, I have not seen any real challenge to it. There are no magic bullets here. You are a priori dismissing it merely because it was issued by the Israeli government. Also, I don't think Hatem is in the employ of the Israeli government (but he does dislike Syria).

These are tough ones, for the same reasons mentioned above. I don't know if you are aware of much American history, but it was once a widespread argument that black people here were better off under slavery than if they were free. Such paternalistic arguments seem quite reasonable to those making them.

Yeah, but unlike the bogus slavery argument, which is backed up by nothing but fantasy, the good (and improved over Egypt and Jordan) living conditions of the Palestinians under Israel is backed up by statistics and facts; nor were the Palestinians ever forced into labor.

The simple fact of the matter is that the US is under no obligation to act in the interests of anyone but itself, and very often acts against its own best interests simply out of shortsightedness and/or stupidity; the same goes very much for Israel or any other nation in how it acts. One thing you are overlooking in your overall argument (US supports PLO, not Israel) is how much Israel has been underwritten financially, economically and militarily by we the American taxpayers for quite some time now. This arrangement is far more important and far more substantive as an indication of American support than anything else could be.

I'm not stating that the U.S. is under an obligation to act in anyone's interest, I am saying that they are not acting in Israel's interest. Whether this is right or wrong is another question. I think it is wrong (and there is a very venerable tradition of criticizing U.S. foreign policy) but that isn't really what's under discussion.

As for all the economic aid, I think AIPAC probably does play a large part here and that this is the reason that the U.S. foreign policy elite are now mounting an attack against them (witness the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, written by Council on Foreign Relations members and backed by this organization). I also think there is a pattern of U.S. foreign policy towards Israel that is not indicative of "shortsightedness and/or stupidity."

As for your other point, I would say that it is noticeable that there is a presumption on the part of the Israeli government and its supporters that they somehow have a right to determine who should or should not lead the Palestinians, that they are in favor of Palestinian independence but only on their terms. Again, this is at best a paternalistic argument which is dubious. At worst, it is a rationalization for keeping another people subjugated and is not at all dissimilar to the ideas expressed by high FBI officials in the early 1960s who sought to "neutralize" Martin Luther King, Jr. as a black leader and had their own hand-picked "black leader" which they somehow dreamed they could set up in his place. It doesn't work that way, and if people feel that they are continually being pushed further and further down then they will opt for the more radical---to them the more "representative of their real interests"---alternative; they will even make a point of showing up in large numbers to democratically elect representatives of Hamas.

I think a nation (Israel) that has been continually assaulted by the organization that is slated to be the government of a soon-to-be next door neighbor should have some stake in it. If the Palestinians really believe that an anti-Semitic terrorist organization pledged to not just the independence of the West Bank and Gaza but also the destruction of Israel as a state is best for them then we have a problem (of course, the same was/is true of Fatah, but they were better at public relations). If you will notice, I said I would "prefer" that the future Palestinian state would not be run by people with these goals, but I didn't go any further.

Your opinion of the PLO is noted, and I guess I dealt with that already to some extent. There is always a larger issue and a tougher one in talking about such things, as it comes down to whether anyone is ever justified in forms of violent rebellion when they or the people they represent are in a situation of oppression, military occupation, etc. You would not accept that the PLO has any claim to legitimacy as the representative of the Palestinians, since it is a terrorist organization in your estimation. But are you aware that from its inception the PLO has been a large umbrella organization for numerous separate factions, of various ideological stripes and different "sponsors"? My recollection is that the more radical factions at that time (circa 1960s and '70s) were sponsored by the more radical states like Iraq and Syria and were very much into high-profile international terrorist acts like hi-jackings and the like. But the largest component, Arafat's al-Fatah, was initially interested in carrying out an actual guerrilla campaign of insurgency within the Occupied Territories itself and could well be considered by more neutral observers as leading a struggle for independence for the Palestinian people as a whole. A long and difficult issue to discuss, obviously, so I won't pursue it here. But the questions remain: we can't easily condone the violence of the IRA, but can we easily say that their cause was not just? Were the representatives of the American colonists merely a terrorist organization? And if the PLO should not be "allowed" to represent the interests of the Palestinian people, then who should do so—the Israelis?

Respectfully,

Dan

But, as I think I've said before, mere liberation was never the goal of the PLO (as it is with the IRA). As I've noted before, the PLO's original charter explicitly disavows any interest in the West Bank or Gaza, as those were, at the time, occupied by Arabs, not Jews. The goal, as stated in the PLO's charter then and still, is the "liquidation" of the "Zionist presence" (read: Jews) in "Palestine" (read: all of Israel) (here). How's that for a Nazi parallel? I also find any comparison between the PLO and the American colonists particularly ludicrous, as I am pretty sure that murder of civillians and suicide bombing were never apart of their agenda.

Also, here we read of the early days of Fatah:

"Backed by Syria, Fatah began carrying out terrorist raids against Israeli targets in 1965, launched from Jordan, Lebanon and Egyptian-occupied Gaza (so as not to draw reprisals against Syria). Dozens of raids were carried out each year, exclusively against civilian targets." (here).

So here we have Fatah, backed by Syria, carrying out terrorist attacks against civillians from its earliest days. I would also note that Fatah grew out of Hajj Amin Al-Husseini's (you know, the guy that collaborated with the Nazis?) Arab Higher Committee. See also here.

I am aware that the PLO has members other than Fatah. But Fatah is and was the dominant entity and the charter applies to all.

Hey Daniel. I'm going to deliver some quick answers to what is a fairly lengthy post as I'm a little strapped for time right now (which I'm sure you can understand). If it seems necessary, I may go more in depth at a later period. Thanks for your reply.

In looking through this thread I notice that you have repeatedly cited as an example for your view the US "rescue" of the PLO from Lebanon, and I also notice that no one (as far as I can tell) has specifically addressed that issue or argument. Let's look at the background of this event. Alexander Haig was US Secretary of State at the time, and gave either express or implied official US consent to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (June 1982); this was the precipitating reason for Haig's being relieved of duty as Secretary of State, as it was one more in a series of things by the former General which indicated to Reagan loyalists that Haig was presuming too much and claiming powers beyond his station. This was an administrative decision, but also a policy decision because it was considered to be bad policy to condone much less being seen to encourage overt military action on the part of the Israelis. It's important to recognize that the Begin Likud government had recently and unilaterally annexed both the occupied Golan Heights as well as East Jerusalem, placing both those territories beyond discussion (as far as Israel was concerned) in any further negotiations.

As I noted before, Jordan was responsible for splitting the city and then annexing it in the first place. Jerusalem, being the Jews' holy city, is a special case and cannot (I think) be chalked up to a land grab. Whether Golan has actually been annexed or not is a matter of controversy (source), but this last part is a minor point.

That was not helpful in terms of "furthering the peace process," and seemed to indicate the Israeli government was intent on doing whatever it wanted to do without consideration of anything beyond its own view of its prerogatives. Another important background issue in this respect was the widespread view in the Arab world that the Camp David Peace Treaty was a "sell-out" on the part of Egypt; the view of some observers was that Israel had essentially gotten what it wanted by neutralizing Egypt as a military opponent and the Israeli government therefore not only felt confident in a retrenchment of all other aspects of negotiating but had become extremely hubristic in its policy and attitude toward lesser opponents.

IMO, the "lesser opponents" should stop starting wars with Israel in the first place. I don't give much credit to the opinion of the "Arab world" on the Peace Treaty, as Israel only poses a threat to them in so far as they continue to attack and threaten it. My government apparently does see some validity in this, however.

As a result of constant shelling of Israeli territory by the PLO based in southern Lebanon, the Israelis finally struck back and invaded in the first week of June 1982. I am assuming from your photo that you would be too young to have been aware of the circumstances at the time. There was a general international outcry against Israel's bombing of Beirut in particular, as it was indiscriminate and heavy and caused massive casualties of civilians. Then there was the circumstances of the massacres in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila; without going into detail (and I am operating solely from memory in all this writing), this resulted after the assassination of Lebanese President and Christian Phalange leader Bashir Gemayel. What occurred was that immediately after this event, the Israeli Army allowed its Phalangist allies to go into the two camps (ostensibly to root out "Palestinian terrorists") and the result was an indiscriminate slaughter of women, children and elderly.

On Sabra and Shatila, I could refer to the Kahan comission here (as I have before), but I also find the account of Robert Maroun Hatem, Ellie Hobeika's (commander of the Phalangist forces) bodyguard, very relevant (link).

There was a tremendous outcry over this, and the massacre is cited as the reason why Begin himself soon dropped out of politics altogether. Given such a background, what the US did under the circumstances was a diplomatic necessity from its point of view since it needed the continued good will of the Arab oil regimes. It was also a necessity in terms of trying to appear to have an "even-handed policy." Finally, it can be said to have been a result of a growing recognition in the West (even here in the Colonies) that the Palestinian people did indeed have some claim to be able to live without having military overlords and that they did indeed deserve their own homeland and national self-determination. The PLO "exodus" from Beirut was the result of a diplomatic process in ending the conflict, and was frankly itself a necessity since there were large numbers of PLO-affiliated fighters and further conflict would only serve to add to the slaughter of more civilians and the general destruction of Lebanon itself.

I can't find much to feud with in your analysis save the idea that genuine sympathy for the Palestinians was a factor. The U.S. wants to have good relations with the the Arab states and their oil (as I stated on the last page), so they first chose not to condone Israeli military action (giving Haig the boot) and then rescue the terrorist organization (and I think rescue is indeed the appropriate word here) and then (a little later) succeed in seating them comfortably back in the Territories, none of which were in Israel's interest. To this I would add the tidbit about the security the PLO provided for U.S. diplomats in Lebanon. This pattern of acting against Israel's interests for economic (and other) reasons is fairly consistent and would seem to me to rebut the notion that the United States is a.) running Israel as some kind of U.S. colony in the middle-east; b.) being run by Israel as some kind of special colony in North America; c.) a "special friend" of Israel; and/or d.) a "great ally" of Israel.

Also, I support a Palestinian state, but I would certainly prefer it if it were not slated to be run by terrorist organizations whose ultimate goal is, to all appearances, the destruction of Israel. I also find it very fishy, as I think I've said before, that no one seemed to care about the Arab occupation of Gaza and the West Bank when things were actually much worse.

To conclude, I want to say that I am very troubled by the language of your opening statements in this thread. Quote: "If the U.S. was truly pro-Israel, they would have let the PLO (which was still seen then for the terrorist organization that it actually is) be exterminated, thus ending their supposed 'resistance' to Israeli occupation...." As someone for whom William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was a formative intellectual experience in my youth, specifically my horror at the account of the Nazi New Order and the details of the Final Solution, I find it extremely objectionable that anyone supporting a position in favor of Israel should talk of exterminating anything.

Perhaps I wasn't clear (I most probably wasn't, in fact), but when I say "exterminate" I am using the rhetoric of the far-left viewpoint on U.S.-Israel policy (to which I used to subscribe as regards this conflict). I'm not actually in favor of exterminating anyone and didn't mean to sound genocidal, if thats how it looks to you. Sorry if that came out wrong. The sentence should be read thus: "If the U.S. was truly pro-Israel (in the Chomsky/Finkelstein/Cockburn/Said sense), they would have let the PLO (which was still seen then for the terrorist organization that it actually is) be exterminated, thus ending their supposed 'resistance' to Israeli occupation...."

However, the PLO is a terrorist organization (which needless to say, I don't regard as interchangeable with the Palestinian people), and as such, I can not say I have a problem with the the elimination of it as a functioning operation, which was close to happening before U.S. intervention.

My interest was piqued... then I saw it was a Tom Flocco link... so no.

I believe that prior to '64, US policy towards Israel was ambiguous. LBJ cemented the "special friendship" which has continued to the present. I know it's a bit hard for you to agree, and I don't expect you to, but I think some others reading this thread may also believe there is a special relationship there.

Will I cite a truckload of sources to support my belief? No.

That's fine. We can't all be expected to agree on everything, can we? I'm not going to try to convert you to my point of view by force.

I also hope this won't be the cause of any bad blood because, despite our disagreements, I do appreciate and value your presence here and I think we agree on many things that don't relate to Israel.

However, if you or anyone else wants to continue the debate, I'm game.

Avery interesting debate,thanks to all concerned.

Owen, I wonder if you would care to elaborate on the following.....Why would America favour the Palistinians in this situation, given that US foriegn policy, for strategic, and economic reasons always bolsters those administrations best suited to further American interests. Thanks, Steve.

Thanks for reading, Stephen.

This assumes that Israel is best suited to further American interests. The Mearsheimer and Walt paper complains about how Israel is a burden to our relations with Arab states (and their oil) that should be done away with. I think it can be safely said that Mearsheimer and Walt, both foreign policy "realists," represent at least a good portion of elite opinion, as they are both Council on Foreign Relations stooges (see here, and here) and their paper comes highly recommended by said Council (see here), calling it a "must read." More in my reply to Ron below.

Excellent question. To put it another way, what in the world do the Palestinians have to offer the U.S., as opposed to Israel with all of its biblical meaning and especially all of its nuclear weapons? Or does the U.S. favor the Palestinians simply out of the goodness of its heart? Yeah, we know how that works. (Like when Clinton and friends helped the people of Belgrade by bombing them, to get Monica Lewinsky off the front pages.)

This assumes that the power elite actually care about Israel's "biblical meaning." Israel's nuclear weapons are about the only asset I can think of that they might like. They do not actually care about the Palestinian people. Many of our Arab allies do, however, and these Arab nations have very important *resources*. Let's read a choice portion of Mearsheimer and Walt:

"Israel's strategic value during this period [note: the Yom Kippur War, one of the few times America *really* helped Israel] should not be overstated, however. Backing Israel was not cheap, and it complicated America's relationship with the Arab world. For example, the U.S. decision to give Israel $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an OPEC oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. Moreover, Israel's military could not protect U.S. interests in the region." (page 5).

And on and on. One wonders how the Left ever fell for this stuff.

[EDIT: Also, I don't think I'll ever be able to forgive Clinton (and the other NATO governments) for what they did to the Serbs (and the Bosnians, Albanians, etc. who were either inconvenient or in the wrong place at the wrong time), but I really, really doubt that this had anything to do with Lewinsky. The destruction of Yugoslavia had been in the works for some time; the bombing was just the big climax.]

In the 1964 section, when analysing the writing of another Jewish historian he adds:

That up to 1964 the US had been waging a diplomatic attack on Israel, attempting to strip it of territory that Israel had legitimately won, and which was indispenible to its defence against terrorist states pledged to the extermination of the Jewish People.

Whether true or not (and I strongly doubt it), this paragraph seems to ignore the reality that nations are entitled to formulate their own foreign policies as they see fit, even if at times they run counter to what Israel would prefer. Gil-White virtually considers the US an enemy state up to this point. Very hardline, IMO. Moreover, he doesn't stop at claiming US policy favors the Palestinians, he goes further by claiming US policy favors the PLO. Maybe he believes all Palestinians are terrorists.

All of which would tend to indicate that the U.S. isn't run by the "Israel/Jewish Lobby," wouldn't it? As for the information, I don't know what there is to doubt. His source (Anita Shapira) is a pretty well respected historian. As for the U.S. and the PLO, I have gone over this evidence, which is, IMO, pretty damning, a few times already in this thread. You have yet to address it.

I don't know where you get the idea that he thinks all Palestinians are terrorists.

EDIT: SEE BELOW