U.S. supports PLO, not Israel

[Owen Parsons]

I'm glad you've acknowledged that the title of this thread is too sweeping. Ridiculous, I would say and definitely not proven by Gil-White's offerings.While occasionally protesting the excesses of the Israeli forces, America has been firmly in Israel's corner since LBJ's tenure. Prior to that, America's policy towards Israel was more ambiguous.

As of this writing you still have not engaged with his writings in any meaningful manner. I think that American aid and comfort to the PLO has been demonstrated in many cases, as with the U.S.'s rescue of the PLO from Lebanon (not to mention the fact that the PLO was providing security for U.S. diplomats there, according to anti-Israel CIA man Mr. "Contra program" Vincent Cannistraro), and browbeating the Israelis into accepting the PLO back into the Occupied Territories, which the Clinton administration inherited. Quite above and beyond some weak protests. In other cases, he shows, at the very least, that the U.S. is not such a special friend of Israel. I have already shown that LBJ was not such a special friend of Israel.

On the issue of Israel's occupation, we can't agree. It's a harsh military regime and while the Palestinian Authority technically controls Palestinians in the occupied territories, Israel controls all the borders and regularly uses troops to enforce its overall authority in the region. That's military rule. Civilians are often killed alongside alleged terrorists in anticipation of terrorist attacks or incursions on the borders. I'm unaware exactly how many Palestinian civilians have died since the occupation began but it would probably be many thousands and to blame the Palestinian leadership for this is a plainly dishonest argument, IMO. I wouldn't expect you to agree as you're too firmly dug in, unfortunately.

I'm not firmly dug in at all. I have just not seen you effectively counter what I am saying. Israel does control the borders, yeah, and it regularly uses troops to take out terror cells in retaliation to terrorist attacks on Israeli civillians, not to enforce military rule. The PA, meanwhile, has a very prolific record of killing so-called "collaborators" and likes to broadcast anti-Semitic propaganda on its state-run television stations. The PA also squanders money that should be used to better living conditions.

As for Palestinian casualties, see here:

"According to the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, 2,329 Palestinians have died in the conflict between Sept. 2000 and June 15, 2003, and 785 have died on the Israeli side. On the Palestinian side, 867 were "non-combatants killed by the opposite side." In contrast, on the Israeli side, 604 killed were non-combatants killed by the opposite side." Thus, while it is true that at 76.9 percent, most Israelis killed were civilians, it is not true that most Palestinian fatalities were civilians. Only 37.2 percent of Palestinian fatalities were civilians."

The phone warning prior to the King David Hotel bombing is a slightly mitigating factor but it was still a cowardly terrorist attack committed by Jewish extremists and condemned by world leaders. You can try to justify present day killing of Palestinians as an effort to eradicate terrorism but Israel has had Prime Ministers who were former terrorists themselves.

I have already said I am not a fan of Irgun or Menachem Begin. What I am pointing out is that what Irgun did is different than what the various Palestinian terror groups do. I also think Begin had moderated considerably by the time he was Prime Minister. Begin pulled out of the Sinai (in accord with resolution 242) and demolished the Israeli settlements there, which caused him quite a bit of trouble.

Finally, on the Mearsheimer/Walt paper, you point out errors of history which may or may not be contained within but the point is this--should there be an appraisal of America's current relationship with Israel vis-a-vis the benefit to America of this relationship, or should there not? On this I would appreciate an answer (not a link to "factual errors" contained within the paper). Let's agree to conclude the debate with your response.

Sure, I have no problem with a debate about the benefits or lack thereof of America's supposedly cozy relationship with Israel. I just think the Mearsheimer/Walt paper is very shoddy.

Edited April 21, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Owen Parsons]

I will de-satirize the following post and then succinctly answer it.

Remarkably disproportionate representation of Jews among the USA's billionaires (more than 50% according to a Jewish sociologist and expert on Jewish power within the USA)

May or may not be true, but irrelevant unless some relationship can be shown between Jewish billionaires and U.S. foreign policy towards Israel.

Extraordinarily high number of Jews in positions of influence, authority and control within the US mass media, the publishing industry, banking and the military-industrial complex

Let's see some documentation, this is an opaque and very general charge and thus hard to rebut. The Jews don't run the media.

Fact that more than half of the members of Congress show up, when invited, at American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meetings

Sure, AIPAC is a political lobby. This is what political lobbies do (i.e. work Congress). AIPAC just happens to be very good at what it does. It is not part of the U.S. government. I would also note that AIPAC has been strangely compliant with the U.S.'s Oslo strategy.

Impressively high proportion of both major US political parties funds received from Jewish donors

See above.

Billions of dollars of aid, including high-tech military assistance, that the USA regularly donates to Israel

Israel recieves a lot of financial aid, true, but unlike Jordan and Egypt, many of its debts have not been forgiven (here). I have also pointed out the the U.S. threatened to withdraw this aid if Israel did not participate in the Madrid peace talks (y'know, to get the PLO back into the territories). As for arms, Saudi Arabia gets more of these.

Longstanding sweetheart deals between key elements of US 'and Jewish 'intelligence' agencies

I'd like to see some documentation of this first.

Constant hyping of the case for Palestine in the US mass media (and in general, the western mass media)

I have indeed seen much hyping of the "case for Palestine" in the U.S. mass media, if by that you mean the case for a Palestinian state, so I'll leave this unchanged.

Incessant vilification of Arabs as a hapless people responsible for their own desperate plight who have a natural propensity to 'terrorism'

Again, I could bring out just as much contrary documentation of media bias against Israel. I don't know where I've seen it suggested that Arabs have a natural propensity for terrorism in the media. If the media reports on Arab terrorism, it is because there is indeed a great deal of Arab terrorism.

Wholly disproportionate coverage given to Israeli deaths and injuries in the continuing struggle – and contrasting tendency to downplay Arab deaths and injuries and portray the Israeli victims as 'militants'

Last I checked, "militants" is the media's weasel word for "terrorists" and it only uses this word when the dead are, indeed, terrorists.

Way the US mass media repeatedly overlooks the blatant injustice to Arabs, for more than 50 years, in view of their uncompensated eviction from their land of origin and / or confinement as second class citizens within an Jewish-supremacist State and / or highly restricted freedom under armed occupation by high-handed and heavily armed Jewish troops

This stuff about Israel being a supremacist state is so much BS. 20% of Israel's population are Arabs. Said Arabs have all the rights of their fellow Jewish citizens, including the right to vote and hold office (both of which they do). Israeli Arabs also own almost as much land (3%) as the 80% Jewish population (3.5%), despite being considerably less in number. The armed occupation is a myth; I have gone over this many times.

Freezing of all US aid to the Israeli Administration, even when its people face economic ruin up to and including starvation, because of the PA's refusal to recognize the State of Israel and refusal to condemn ALL attacks against Israelis - even though Palestinians themselves are repeatedly subjected to attack by Israeli troops and far more Palestinians are killed in the conflict each year than Israelis.

The Hamas government has only had their financial aid stripped. They still get humanitarian aid (y'know, food and stuff). They aren't at risk of starving. And yes, more Arabs are killed than Israelis, but this is misleading, as I have shown in my response to Mark above.

... and many other powerful and easily documented arguments that might further assist his case.

One must also consider the large number of Jews in positions of power within the US Administration - not only under Bush II, but Clinton as well and others before him - and the tendency within America to speak of the Jewish 'Lobby' in hushed tones because it's known to be remorseless when crossed.

Yawn... more about "Jews" in positions of power, which is a very general charge which doesn't actually add up to support of Israel.

All in all, Gil-White is a most courageous and patriotic American.

I do hope his exceptional courage in speaking on this important but highly sensitive topic out doesn't completely wreck his career.

Funny you should mention that, because Gil-White's writings on Israel (and Yugoslavia) have wrecked his career. See this lengthy and detailed chronology of Gil-White's trouble with the University of Pennsylvania here.

Also, who is Scott, John?

Edited April 21, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Sid Walker]

I will de-satirize the following post and then succinctly answer it.

Owen, we shall have to agree to differ, for now at any rate.

I find Edward Said rather more credible on this topic.

In one of his last articles entitled Who's In Charge?, written before his untimely death, he concluded:

Democracy traduced and betrayed, democracy celebrated but in fact humiliated and trampled on by a tiny group of men who have simply taken charge of this republic as if it were nothing more than, what, an Arab country? It is right to ask who is in charge since clearly the people of the United States are not properly represented by the war this administration is about to loose on a world already beleaguered by too much misery and poverty to endure more. And Americans have been badly served by a media controlled essentially by a tiny group of men who edit out anything that might cause the government the slightest concern or worry. As for the demagogues and servile intellectuals who talk about war from the privacy of their fantasy worlds, who gave them the right to connive in the immiseration of millions of people whose major crime seems to be that they are Muslims and Arabs? What American, except for this small unrepresentative group, is seriously interested in increasing the world's already ample stores of anti-Americanism? Hardly any I would suppose.

Jonathan Swift, thou shouldst be living at this hour.

[Owen Parsons]

I will de-satirize the following post and then succinctly answer it.

Owen, we shall have to agree to differ, for now at any rate.

I find Edward Said rather more credible on this topic.

Mr. Said seems to finger Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle as supposedly working to produce pro-Israel policy. Let's take a close look at these three:

1.) Wolfowitz. I'll quote Christopher Hitchens here on this one:

"On the excruciating question of Israel/Palestine, Wolfowitz is not at all the "Likud" fan that his defamers portray. He almost went out of his way to be jeered and hooted at a pro-Israel rally in Washington in the early days of the Bush administration, by telling the gung-ho crowd not to forget the suffering of the Palestinians. He has spoken quite clearly of linkage between the demolition of Arab rejectionism [Note: by Arab rejectionism, I suppose it is meant Arab rejection of the two state solution] and the demolition of Jewish settlements." (Here).

Hardly "openly advocat[ing] Israeli annexation of the West Bank and Gaza," as Said says.

2.) On Feith, he did at one time advocate Israel dropping out of the Oslo process (which I certainly think is significant, but not for the immediately "obvious" ones), but now supports the two state solution.

"Many Palestinians say that their aim is to live dignified lives, in freedom, in peace and prosperity in their own state. That goal could be achieved. The U.S. government supports it. Israeli leaders have for years acknowledged that a Palestinian state will be the ultimate outcome of any negotiated peace. As President Bush noted on April 4th, 'Israel has recognized the goal of a Palestinian state. The outlines of a just settlement are clear: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, in peace and security.'

But that goal grows increasingly remote as terrorism belies and precludes diplomacy -- and darkens the Palestinian people's future. President Bush has called on Israelis to show 'a respect for and concern about the dignity of the Palestinian people who are and will be their neighbors. It is crucial to distinguish between the terrorists and ordinary Palestinians seeking to provide for their own families." (Here).

There is another very interesting thing about Feith (and Perle). Namely this, "Fourteen nations, including the US, support a $400 million "Bosnian Defense Fund," which reportedly collects cash and equipment contributions for a "train and equip" program that is operated by the US. According to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen, a former Naval Officer who has worked with the NSA: "Via something called the Bosnia Defense Fund, these countries [saudi Arabia, Iran, Malaysia, Brunei, Jordan, and Egypt] deposited millions of dollars into US coffers to buy weapons for the Bosnians .... According to Washington K Street sources, the law firm that established the Bosnia Defense Fund was none other than Feith and Zell, the firm of current Pentagon official and leading neo-con Douglas Feith. Feith's operation at Feith and Zell was assisted by his one-time boss and current member of Rumsfeld's Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle." (Here).

And here: "Richard Perle and Douglas Feith act as advisors to the government of Bosnia during the Dayton peace talks. They do not register with the Department of Justice, as required by US law. Richard Holbrooke is the chief NATO civilian negotiator and Wesley Clark the chief NATO military negotiator."

More about Perle: "After the Dayton peace talks, Richard Perle serves as a military adviser to the Bosnian government." (Here).

This is the same Bosnian government of NATO's favorite Islamic extremist Alija Izetbegovic, who illegally and undemocratically seized power and then illegally succeeded from Yugoslavia. This is the same Bosnian government that was at war with the Serbs. Serbia, for a time, at least, received support from Israel (here) (here). Ariel Sharon also reportedly voiced support for the Serbs (here), but this is also denied (here), so make of that what you will.

3.) Perle. I have already gone over his and Feith's intense support of Bosnia, but there is more.

"Israel's new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform." (Here). This would seem to be advocating less (much, much less, in fact) U.S. aid and help to Israel, wouldn't it?

So much for Jews subverting America in favor of Israel.

Also, please note that these aren't "fighting words," but I think the casual reader of the thread might find all this interesting.

Edited April 23, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Sid Walker]

In view of your latest lucid arguments, Owen, I have revised my opinions.

Edward Said was just an old worry-pants!

Paul Wolfowitz - thank heavens we have a new Head of the World Bank whose equal concern for the well-being of all humanity is so evident in his past record.

Douglas Feith - in view of his evidently even-handed approach to foreign policy over time, a most suitable person to hold the office of US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

Richard Perle - perhaps a little too pro-Palestinian to be a safe choice for current Government appointment, but nice to see he still has some influence in Washington.

Chris Hitchens is also a jolly good chap and a highly credible source on Middle Eastern affairs and The Labby.

Now if you'll excuse me, I shaln't be adding to this thread.

[Owen Parsons]

In view of your latest lucid arguments, Owen, I have revised my opinions.

Edward Said was just an old worry-pants!

Paul Wolfowitz - thank heavens we have a new Head of the World Bank whose equal concern for the well-being of all humanity is so evident in his past record.

Hey, I don't like the guy or the World Bank (the World Bank under Wolfowitz, by the way, recently gave the Palestinian Authority a $42 million dollar grant; see here and here). I think you are missing the whole thrust of my posts, or you are willfully misreading them. Hitchens may see him as a great humanitarian (I don't), but what he says is independently confirmable.

Douglas Feith - in view of his evidently even-handed approach to foreign policy over time, a most suitable person to hold the office of US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

See above. An Israel run policy would probably have resulted in bombs falling on Bosnia and Croatia, not Serbia (what actually happened). Feith also signed off on the paper (addressed to Netanyahu) advocating doing away with American financial aid to Israel.

Richard Perle - perhaps a little too pro-Palestinian to be a safe choice for current Government appointment, but nice to see he still has some influence in Washington.

See above. Someone who advocates doing away with American financial aid to Israel can't reasonably be accused of using America as a tool of Israel, I would think.

Chris Hitchens is also a jolly good chap and a highly credible source on Middle Eastern affairs and The Labby.

What Hitchens says about Wolfowitz is independently confirmable.

Now if you'll excuse me, I shaln't be adding to this thread.

See ya.

Edited April 23, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Guest Stephen Turner]

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.

[Ron Ecker]

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.

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.)

[Mark Stapleton]

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.

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.)

Two excellent questions (wish I had asked them)

It's hard to fathom how Gil-White could be considered credible. I confess I haven't read it all yet--its repetitive one-eyed narrative makes it a chore--but it doesn't read like a genuine historical account because Gil-White's hardline views garnish almost every paragraph. It sounds more like the writings of some kind of super patriot.

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.

BTW, were there any significant historical events around the 1964 period?

[Owen Parsons]

EDIT: SEE BELOW

Edited April 24, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Owen Parsons]

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.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Mark Stapleton]

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.

This assumes that Israel is best suited to 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.

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 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.

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.

[Owen Parsons]

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.

Edited April 25, 2006 by Owen Parsons

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Owen I would be interested in your thoughts on this and this I am certainly not partizan in this matter, and believe that US policy towards the Middle East is probably fairly fluid, in other words responding to particular concerns as regards US interests in the region, rather than a "fixed in concrete" stance. regards, Steve.

[Mark Stapleton]

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.

No bad blood Owen and thank you for the generous comments. I might return periodically to this thread and I hope others will contribute as well. Despite the thread title, it might become the debate America's leaders need to have (one of them anyway).

You are obviously very knowledgeable on Middle Eastern affairs and history, particularly Israel, and I applaud you on this. Of course, at this point we must disagree on both the Gil-White argument and the wider question of Israel's behavior but it's good to have an expert

nearby to filter out claims which are false. Most reading this would probably know that there's a large amount of hardline anti-Jewish/Israel sites, which IMO are too fanatical to be useful for research. Against that, alternative media must be accessed because for some strange reason the US media doesn't seem to disclose all the facts. I'm quite disturbed about this because I always thought they were fearless defenders of truth and liberty.