Shorter Kagan and Miller:

Everything we've advised over the past few decades has gotten us into the mess we're in today. Therefore, since Barack Obama wants to do things differently, he's a moron.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Question-planting!!!1!

ROFL!

Even shorter Kagan and Miller:

It so totally sucks to be an outsider after you've been a shaker and mover insider. C'mon, call on me! [Silence] Grumble, grumble, bitch, moan.

That's not fair, at least toward Miller. He says explicitly in this diavlog that most of what he tried to do while in government failed. If you read his book, which I would recommend, he is very candid in stating what worked and what didn't in the peace process, and doesn't let himself off the hook in the least.

Yeah, I liked Miller. When Kagan started getting a little carried away with talk about Obama being the messiah and the One etc. Miller talked him down.

Quoting Jyminee: That's not fair, at least toward Miller. He says explicitly in this diavlog that most of what he tried to do while in government failed.

Quite so. Which only made the Shorter more accurate, don't you think? But more seriously, of course I oversimplified, for comedic purposes. That said, I really found the constant refrain by Miller to Obama's campaign slogan, said in a mocking tone, to be kind of tiresome. Ditto his simplistic assertion that Obama is primarily driven by a desire to do everything opposite to how Bush did it. And I found him self-contradictory when he complained both that Obama is too driven by an ideology and lacks a comprehensive strategy. Of course Obama is not going to make a few more magnificent speeches and then, boom, all problems solved. Of course he and his foreign policy team will make bad judgments, let petty internal politics hinder them, and in many cases, have to acknowledge where their hands are tied and/or where they're forced to choose the least bad option from a thoroughly distasteful menu. And of course Miller has valuable experience and should be a watchdog and a critic. However, when we're not

I hope we're not in the middle of another Kaus "strike"...

robert, is there anything you don't know?? watching you is like seeing wikipedia in human form or.....looking at this:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=890_1246374233 i feel blessed to be able to see a true intellectual on bheads.

It seems I'm the only one here who likes Kagan and most of the neocons...
...fail.

What does make a great President?? Flexibility? ...fraud.

Quoting Toryentalist: It seems I'm the only one here who likes Kagan and most of the neocons...

I agree. Between Lake, Frum and Kagan, the BhTV neocon "stable" really represents the best that the movement has to offer, IMO. All three are extremely articulate, very knowledgeable and intellectually honest (in the sense that they will "go there" in good faith with the other 'head). I think they all realize their team has earned a bad reputation over the past few years, and they're here as ambassadors to represent what they have to offer. Doesn't mean I agree with them hardly ever, but I always learn something. And anyway, it's way better than having Kristol or Krauthammer or Pipes or some other Weekly Standard/Commentary thug on the site.

This didn't make any sense at all. First Kagan and Miller go on for about ten minutes about creating the biggest straw man I've ever seen, suggesting that Obama thinks that he can fix the whole world's problems just by being Barack Obama, making fun of his campaign slogan, etc. And then Kagan says that Obama is less interested in transformation and more interested in transactional diplomacy, which would suggest that Obama in fact does NOT think that he's going to fix everything in four years. So what's the point? Seriously, while I was listening to this, I was walking down the street muttering to myself like a crazy person, "These are two intelligent men, why are they talking such foolishness?" Could they at least have talked about what it means that Obama is going to push Israel on the settlements and whether this is a good or bad idea? Could they have said what they think Obama should be doing, or at least why he shouldn't do specific things that he is doing? Could they have talked about Michael Jackson at the very least? Come on.

Could they at least have talked about what it means that Obama is going to push Israel on the settlements and whether this is a good or bad idea?

Obama is not "pushing" Israel. He is begging to get some minor concessions on expansion of the already monstrous settlements from a right-wing Israeli coalition government. Netanyahu can play this game for 8 years if he needs to. Obama will sound like he is pressuring Israel and Netanyahu will sound like he is compromising today, standing firm tomorrow. They are quibbling over nothing. Whether Israel has 5,000 more or fewer colonialists in the West Bank in a couple of years means nothing in the long run. If Obama were serious about pressuring Israel, he would tie settlement withdrawal to US money and arms.

I happen to agree with you on the settlements, but "Obama pushing Israel" is the way Kagan and Miller characterized it, and I would have rather had them talk about what the effects of that might be and what it might mean for Israel, instead of just insinuating that Obama was doing this for no reason except to make the Arabs like him.

Agreed. But it's more important what Obama and the US won't talk about. The silence can be deafening. For example, Amnesty International just published its report on Gaza: “Hundreds of [Gazan] civilians were killed in attacks carried out using high-precision, air-delivered bombs and missiles and tank shells. Others, including women and children, were shot at short range when posing no threat to Israeli soldiers.” CNN:

About 300 children and hundreds of other unarmed civilians who were not part of the conflict were among the 1,400 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces, the report said.

Amnesty also said Israeli soldiers used civilians as human shields and said it found no evidence that Hamas had done so.

The human rights group’s report follows another released in May by a U.N. committee, which said the Israeli government was responsible for civilian deaths and more than $10 million in damage to U.N. buildings during the offensive.

Wow, just wow. After watching this diavlog, I felt compelled to register and comment, here's my two cents worth: As far as Mr Miller is concerned, I can honestly say that I learned nothing tangible, nothing of value. Furthermore, I have a low threshold of impatience towards tried-and-wrong old-school "experts" in ivory towers, armchair-quarterbacking even as they constantly state that "I don't want to sound like (insert generic tag here), but yadda yadda yadda". Questioning Obama for his hands-on approach towards foreign policy, zeroing in on obscure technicalities such as bureaucratic hierarchy and line of command? Sorry, but in this context, the only subject I'm questioning is you, Mr Miller. However, it was during the dialogue segment when both gentlemen discussed Reagan's chaotic foreign policy, then proceeded to pat themselves on the back for the collapse of the Soviet Union, that I had to switch the video off. No mention of infrastructure neglect which manifested itself in the Chernobyl disaster, no mention of the Afghanistan misadventure which broke the back of the Soviet budget. It was, of course, all about them (Beltway foreign policy bureaucrats) and their non-achievement achievement. Even giving the benefit of a doubt, e.g. Cold War armament escalation, historically rationalized with vague generalities by policy

Blah, blah, blah. Extremely boring and disappointing. I cannot for the life of me understand how they got through this tortured discussion of US policy towards Israel-Palestine, and this constant refrain about a putative lack of “strategic” thinking on the part of the Obama Administration, while failing to say one word about what the contours of the two-state solution would be. There seem to be two schools here, at least. One school, I’ll put Jimmy Carter and Thomas Friedman in this school, says that the contours of the solution are obvious and well-known by now. The other school, and these two seem to belong here, don’t deny this, but instead concentrate on all the obstacles to achieving the solution. And the main obstacles (not by any means the only ones) are always Palestinian intransigence and a lack of Palestinian unity. One does not have a negotiating partner who can deliver the goods, there is not adequate political legitimacy on the Palestinian side, and in particular the Palestinians cannot provide sufficient security guarantees for the hypothetical two-state solution. All this talk about strategy versus tactics is just garbage. Either we have a good idea of an

Excellent blog! Aaron is super-articulate. However, something about his voice reminds me of the very funny comic - David Steinberg. I kept expecting a joke followed by an infectious laugh.

Quoting ledocs: Blah, blah, blah. Extremely boring and disappointing.

......

This was just bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, inside baseball verbiage

Greetings Ledocs My opinion entirely. How two such well-informed and intelligent experts can end up saying so little, or so little that isn't already "archiconnu," never ceases to amaze me. Could it be ideology? Being out of power? Or is it just the eternal refrain of the American school of "realist" foreign policy? Realist only in the sense that it is American "idealism" in disguise: Le meilleur est TOUJOURS l'ennemi du bien.

Quoting Stapler Malone: ... thug ...

Heh. But really, this is an insult to real thugs, to be compared to what I'd call a chickenhawk fratboy. (See also.)

I apologize in advance because this comment has nothing to do with this divalog but I must vent. All the morning news shows on both cable and network television are covering MJ when the US military is making a huge new push in Afghanistan. I know this is totally normal but sometimes I just can't take it anymore.

Quoting ohcomeon: I apologize in advance because this comment has nothing to do with this divalog but I must vent. All the morning news shows on both cable and network television are covering MJ when the US military is making a huge new push in Afghanistan. I know this is totally normal but sometimes I just can't take it anymore.

Wow. Still leading with MJ? I'm happy to say that nytimes.com has, at this moment, only a one-line reference to MJ on the home page (above the fold, anyway), and has the Afghanistan news as its lead story. Blow up your TV. Meantime, a legitimate vent.

Quoting ohcomeon: I apologize in advance because this comment has nothing to do with this divalog but I must vent. All the morning news shows on both cable and network television are covering MJ when the US military is making a huge new push in Afghanistan. I know this is totally normal but sometimes I just can't take it anymore.

I know what you mean. Obama is running $trillion deficits, salaries in the NYC public schools are sky high, public employees in the federal government and large states get great benefits while 10% of the civilian workforce is unemployed. And now my dear Wal-Mart has embraced Fascism ( as defined by Jonah Goldberg ) and is siding with Obama to increase the cost of doing business for its competitors.

Quoting Francoamerican: Greetings Ledocs

My opinion entirely. How two such well-informed and intelligent experts can end up saying so little, or so little that isn't already "archiconnu," never ceases to amaze me.

Could it be ideology? Being out of power? Or is it just the eternal refrain of the American school of "realist" foreign policy? Realist only in the sense that it is American "idealism" in disguise: Le meilleur est TOUJOURS l'ennemi du bien.

I am sure it is ideology. Both diavlogers want Israel to control all of the WB. My guess is they also want the Muslims out of the country. How else will Israel be secure long term? The Israeli Arab and Palestinian population continues to increase. Israel is a Jewish state. It cant accept such a large population of non Jews.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: ... Fascism ( as defined by Jonah Goldberg ) ...

I'm reminded of the old Far Side cartoon, showing among other things a porcupine, a rattlesnake, a hissing cat, and a man with a rubber duck and a bazooka, having the caption "How Nature says 'Keep Away'."

Quoting DenvilleSteve: ... Fascism ( as defined by Jonah Goldberg ) ...

And on a related note, see Thers (via RB). Who knew the entire English language was out to get poor Doughy?

I guess it's a fool's errand to engage Denville Steve's natterings, but... "my dear Wal-Mart has embraced Fascism ( as defined by Jonah Goldberg ) and is siding with Obama to increase the cost of doing business for its competitors" Steve - have you ever stopped to consider the socio-political systems that allow for WalMart's imports to be sold at those price points ? I don't like casual labels that are best used in a precise historical context, so I'd come up with some term other than "fascist" to describe Chinese authoritarianism and violations of human rights but that's academic in the context of your utter shamelessness here re WalMart. You're reserving your umbrage at WalMart's casual relationship to any ethical qualms in the social sphere - to the point of invoking "fascism" (the issue of the Goldberg "definition" aside) - because WalMart is shifting toward support for healthcare reform (opportunistically, no doubt) in the US ? That would bizarre and would be dispiriting if I took you seriously, morally or politically. (This is another example of why that would be impossible for sane people.)

Quoting bjkeefe: And on a related note, see Thers (via RB).

Who knew the entire English language was out to get poor Doughy?

Also, better still and more generally, TBogg.

You mean like the minor concessions the Israelis made when they turned over all of the Gaza to the Palestinians. That worked out real well didn't it? The Palestinians declared victor through force and proceeded to use there newly conquered territory as a launching ground for rocket attacks and infiltration attempts. Why should the Israelis give any further concessions until the rockets stop? All the President has done is provide political cover for the Palestinians to huff and puff about their plight and refuse to negotiate in good faith until you know the Israelis once again are harangued into unilateral concessions; that bring no solution only more attacks. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me! Being the bloodthirsty warmonger that I am; I say let them fight to the finish. It is apparent, that after more that 2 generations of war and conflict, that only utter defeat of one side will result in peace for both.

The only fun in watching neocons in action is to see if they slip up and display their Greater Israel fantasies in public. You know, "the West Bank area of Israel," "Judea and Samaria," "to the Jordan River," etc.

Don't give up on diplomacy just yet man. It's going to be more of the same snails paced politics, but it can be done. The Palestinian people can change and mature I think making a lasting peace possible.

Quoting piscivorous: Being the bloodthirsty warmonger that I am; I say let them fight to the finish. It is apparent, that after more that 2 generations of war and conflict, that only utter defeat of one side will result in peace for both.

Are you calling for genocide? Israel would clearly be the victor in an all-out "war." Since Gaza and the West Bank aren't even a state a conflict between Israel and the Palestinians would have to be called something else...police action, rebellion, civil war? What about the civilians? Are you advocating their extermination?

Palestinian Civil War heats up. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull "Fatah reports that Hamas was planning attacks against its leaders" "It is Fatah that is carrying out a massacre of Hamas people in the West Bank." Tell me again who Israel is supposed to make peace with? Palestinians can't even stop killing each other.

Quoting Francoamerican: Are you advocating their extermination?

Yes, he is.

Quoting Francoamerican: Are you calling for genocide? Israel would clearly be the victor in an all-out "war." Since Gaza and the West Bank aren't even a state a conflict between Israel and the Palestinians would have to be called something else...police action, rebellion, civil war? What about the civilians? Are you advocating their extermination?

I don't know call it a struggle for survival. I also have a hard time seeing Palestinians as civilians as the are indoctrinated from preschool on that their function in life is to bring death and destruction to the "Jews." It generally doesn't take extermination to change a peoples perspective about continuing a conflict; but if that is the case, in this instance, so be it. Generally the objective of pacification can be obtained with a 10-20% casualty (fatalities) rate, for societies that have a resemblance of sanity; with the Palestinians your guess is a good as mine.

I also have a hard time seeing Palestinians as civilians ..

Looks like you have a hard time seeing them as human. If you have a soul, I suggest you search it.

Yeah I only got through about ten minutes then had to go somewhere. I probably won't bother finishing it. I would love to see Heather Hurlburt on the other side to challenge Kagan, but otherwise I can only take so much of his bluster.

I have no problem sleeping at night nor would I have if the the Palestinians or for that matter the Israelis were utterly defeated. While I would lament the loss of life and the wasted cost I see it as the only viable solution. It would bring finality to what will remain an intractable problem for at least the next two generations. In a world that grows technologically more dangerous, by the year, it is only a matter of time before this low level conflict of tit for tat will see the deployment of the technology of real genocide and extermination and I don't believe that it will be the Israelis that introduce it.

I am really, really tired of hearing discussions like this that do not address what the final settlement is going to be and how “circumstances on the ground” relate to each of the four major points of dispute: Jerusalem, borders, security, right of return. Complaining about a strategic vacuum, while simultaneously talking in a completely vacuous vacuum, gets to be really boring and unnerving for the listener. This was just bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, inside baseball verbiage. Another oddity: Kagan does not make it clear whether he thinks that pressuring Israel on the settlements issue is necessary, justified, or what.

I will repeat: What pressuring? Every American government since the Israeli Apartheid colonies began has been against Settlements, Occupation and Settlement growth? What is new? The extreme right wing Likud party has taken over Israel, and their Foreign Minister has a racist ideology somewhere between Denville Steve and Psivorous. If Obama isn't at least a little critical of them, he A) looks like a door mat and b) stands to the right of mainstream Jewish Israelis (as Netanyahu does). As for the "four major points of dispute: Jerusalem, borders, security, right of return," they could be worked out in a two-hour good-faith meeting. They've been discussed inside-out

Quoting brucds: I guess it's a fool's errand to engage Denville Steve's natterings, but...

"my dear Wal-Mart has embraced Fascism ( as defined by Jonah Goldberg ) and is siding with Obama to increase the cost of doing business for its competitors"

Steve - have you ever stopped to consider the socio-political systems that allow for WalMart's imports to be sold at those price points ?

Hey, Obama and the democrat congressional leadership are against interfering with imports from China. Based on repeated displays of nationalism and the absence of social unrest, the people of China are more than OK with the workings of their economic and social system. As much as I am for minimal regulations on the exchange of goods and services, I am 100% in support of raising tariffs on Chinese imports. Cant do that though because of huge budget deficit the feds are running.

Well, Miller is so far right with regards to Obama's move to dialogue with the current leadership in Iran. Obama had spoken softly to them and reached out to them, yet nevertheless they've been beating Iranians up in the streets of Iran for the last couple of weeks. How will Obama frame future realist policy discussions with Tehran now? How can he say polite, nice things about them now? Man, if Obama was hoping he could make a speech in Tehran one day... that ain't happening (unless Ahmadi and Khamaeni fall). So as long as Ahmadi and Khamaeni rule, no trip to the Great Wall like Nixon had with China.

Quoting Lyle: Well, Miller is so far right with regards to Obama's move to dialogue with the current leadership in Iran. Obama had spoken softly to them and reached out to them, yet nevertheless they've been beating Iranians up in the streets of Iran for the last couple of weeks.

I think you are making a mistake to expect results as quickly as you are. International relations are not fixed in a few months, especially when, as in this particular case, they are so badly damaged (because of, and from the perspective of, both sides).

How will Obama frame future realist policy discussions with Tehran now? How can he say polite, nice things about them now? Man, if Obama was hoping he could make a speech in Tehran one day... that ain't happening (unless Ahmadi and Khamaeni fall). So as long as Ahmadi and Khamaeni rule, no trip to the Great Wall like Nixon had with China.

Remains to be seen. Again, I'd caution against snap judgments and urge you to learn patience.

I may have missed the headline. So much Michael Jackson and all....

GENEVA, July 2 (Reuters) - A U.N. human rights investigator on Thursday called Israel's seizure of a ship carrying relief aid for the Gaza Strip "unlawful" and said its blockade of the territory constituted a "continuing crime against humanity".

Israeli authorities on Tuesday intercepted the vessel, which was also carrying 21 pro-Palestinian activists, and said it would not be permitted to enter Gaza coastal waters because of security risks in the area and its existing naval blockade.

Richard Falk, the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, said the move was part of Israel's "cruel blockade of the entire Palestinian population of Gaza" in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibiting any form of collective punishment against "an occupied people".

Falk, an American expert on international law, said Israel's two-year blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza restricted vital supplies such as food, medicine and fuel to "bare subsistence levels".

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said in a report this week that Israel was also halting entry to Gaza of building materials and spare parts needed to repair

I wasn't surprised that the unilateral pullout from Gaza didn't work. I mean, come on. It seems like you expect the Palestinians to be so grateful to get their own land back that they're somehow magically propelled to build, out of nowhere, a fully mature state and nation with all the institutions that would require. That's, uh, not going to happen. They haven't had the circumstances to build these institutions for over sixty years -- and by no means do I blame that entirely on the Israelis, by the way, I think the surrounding Arab states have done a great job of screwing the Palestinians and bad Palestinian politicians have done their share as well. The circumstances in the area turn all the actors into complete clowns, and as long as the status quo continues, the clownishness will only proliferate. Israel has spent a lot of time in the past decade doing stuff that I think is crazy and bad for them; Israel is an actual state and it has the biggest guns. If an actor in that position is acting so nuts, how crazy do you expect the guys with no state and

ROFLMAO.
Isn't this more a triumph of progressive self-branding than an example of dictionary bias? If the conservatives wanted to, they could call themselves the Super Awesomes and their ideology Super Awesomeism. Maybe that would work better.

I haven't actually made a "snap judgment". The events are what they are. Obama decided to take a different position on Iran. He took a different position. The Iranian government is beating up people in the streets, even killing some protesters. This isn't a failure, it's just that he can't be nice-nice with Ahmadi in public anymore. The U.S. and Iran can still dialogue behind closed doors, but there won't be an Obama in Tehran moment as long as Ahmadi and Khamaeni are in power. I don't disagree with Obama's position either (he needs to be seen to be different from Bush and we can't control what is going on in Iran with our words). I'm not sure Miller does either. What he's is saying is that nothing will change the direction the Iranian government is heading. They will build a bomb in due course. So it doesn't matter if we give them ice cream or make funny faces at them... they will build nukes. That's all Miller is saying. His critique of Obama's administration, if even a critique, is, "oh my god, I hope they didn't seriously think they could change the Mullahs in

Quoting Lyle: I haven't actually made a "snap judgment".

Yeah, you're right. That's not really the term I wanted. What I meant to say is not that you made an instant decision in your own mind, but that you're making a call based on an unreasonably short time line.

Wonderment, I don't know if there is something new here or not, vis-a-vis "pressure". There seemed to be something new from a PR point of view. The way it was presented here, by Miller and Kagan, Obama wants no "natural growth" of the settlements, but might compromise on that point. But even as an opening gambit, my understanding is that this *is* new. Bush II publicly said that he opposed expansion of settlements but then did absolutely nothing to stop or oppose expansion of settlements. So we'll have to see if Obama behaves in the same way as Bush II or not. If he does not behave in the same way, that would be new. Similarly, with Clinton. He did nothing to stop or oppose expansion of the settlements. He talked the talk but did not walk the walk. Yes, I'm sure the final status points have all been discussed ad nauseam, officially and unofficially, but I'd still rather get an update about where things stand with respect to each of them than to listen to the meaningless blather that was this diavlog. And if you're so knowledgeable, perhaps you can inform us about the precise contours of a

And if you're so knowledgeable, perhaps you can inform us about the precise contours of a deal that might work, if not now, in three or four years, or after some hypothetical consolidation of Fateh and Hamas.

I am not so knowledgeable, but I have been following the conflict since my childhood (I'm a year older than the state of Israel). I am very pessimistic about a "deal that might work." So are most Palestinians and Israelis. Everyone wants peace, and everyone knows more or less what peace looks like, but no one knows how to get there. Think of a kindergarten where all the kids know they're supposed to share the cookies, but the minute the teacher leaves the room, screaming, crying, stealing and fighting break out. Even the kids knows a food fight is self-destructive of their interests, dysfunctional and unsustainable, but they can't help themselves. Here's the "solution": WB, Gaza and a contiguous strip between them becomes Palestine. Jerusalem is split. The colonialists withdraw from the occupied West Bank, just like the previous withdrawals from Gaza and the Sinai. Refugees are compensated with a package that includes Return for 20,000 or so annually who prefer to live

Quoting ledocs: . This was just bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, inside baseball verbiage.

The Doc is in. 100% correct. Grade A evidence of why I'll never live in Washington. (Those Washington 'parlor games' that Kagan referred to sound less interesting than, say, even . . . soccer . . . shudder . . .) Aaron Miller, his own transparently false modesty aside, may be the most pompous blowhard ever to appear on bhtv. And his forthcoming book sounds like an utter snoozer; yet another boring, platidinous volume on the completely esoteric and subjective subject of "presidential greatness." And Miller's stunning conclusion? Wait for it: Washington, Lincoln, & FDR were great presidents! What a stunner! This DV was all the more dissapointing, because I usually like hearing from Bob Kagan. Even though I typically disagree with him, he is formidably intelligent and knowledgable, and I've really liked the previous Wright v. Kagan diavlogs. But NEVER, NEVER pair him with another foreign policy "insider" please.

I've seen it posited that if the UN votes to recognise Palestine as a state according to the 1967 borders, the US can always threaten to withdraw it's veto. In such a case, with one UN member occupying another, the game completly changes. I can't see any US president doing it, but with continued Israeli intransigence, who knows.

Quoting kezboard: I wasn't surprised that the unilateral pullout from Gaza didn't work. I mean, come on. It seems like you expect the Palestinians to be so grateful to get their own land back that they're somehow magically propelled to build, out of nowhere, a fully mature state and nation with all the institutions that would require. That's, uh, not going to happen. They haven't had the circumstances to build these institutions for over sixty years -- and by no means do I blame that entirely on the Israelis, by the way, I think the surrounding Arab states have done a great job of screwing the Palestinians and bad Palestinian politicians have done their share as well.

I was not looking for miracles when the pullout happened, I was in favor of it, even though I didn't think it would help. As expected the Palestinians used it to reinforce their militancy instead of using it to try and move towards reconciliation. The part of it that tells me just how hopeless negotiations are is the fate of the millions of dollars in greenhouses, that could have been used as a bases to start an export economy. Instead of

The part of it that tells me just how hopeless negotiations are is the fate of the millions of dollars in greenhouses, that could have been used as a bases to start an export economy. Instead of preserving them, exploiting them to put their people to work and making real money, they were looted and destroyed, by the Palestinians.

People looting glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I wonder if you blame the Iraqis for looting the palaces of Saddam that happened during the security vaccuum of post invasion Iraq. It's hardly suprising that a poor and besieged people would seize on the assets of their opperssors. The Gazans can't even get concrete imported so I think I can forgive them taking plastic hoses and sheeting. I wish you showed as much concern for the bombed out factories in Gaza and the crippling border closures which would make any economic development pretty tough.

Yea I thought that a few well placed rounds properly promoted would have ended the looting rather quickly. When you are getting shot for doing something you know you shouldn't be doing it tends to deter all but the most dedicated. Yes I expected some ill behavior in both the liberation of Iraq and the Israeli pullout from Gaza. The breakdown of authority doesn't excuse the behavior of criminals though, or make the crossing over to the criminal side by the generally law abiding any more forgivable.

Quoting piscivorous: Yea I thought that a few well placed rounds properly promoted would have ended the looting rather quickly. When you are getting shot for doing something you know you shouldn't be doing it tends to deter all but the most dedicated. Yes I expected some ill behavior in both the liberation of Iraq and the Israeli pullout from Gaza. The breakdown of authority doesn't excuse the behavior of criminals though, or make the crossing over to the criminal side by the generally law abiding any more forgivable.

Well there are places in the West Bank where the criminality of the settler movement seems to be tolerated and in many instances encouraged by the state. I think this, rather than the looting of plastic sheeting, hoses and water pumps is a far more serious impedement to progress in the region.

Quoting opposable_crumbs: Well there are places in the West Bank where the criminality of the settler movement seems to be tolerated and in many instances encouraged by the state. I think this, rather than the looting of plastic sheeting, hoses and water pumps is a far more serious impedement to progress in the region.

I didn't call the looting and destruction of the greenhouses a "serious impedement" nor even a minor impediment to peace. I merely used it as an example of the attitude of self destructive hate that exists on the Palestinian side as an example of the height of the obstructionist attitude that will have to be conquered. Compare it with the forced evacuation of the settlers from Gaza, by the Israeli government. There was protest and obstructionism but when the last holdouts were dragged out and escorted past the new border the evacuated places were left in basic working order for their ("hated" nemesis) new inhabitants to destroy and make uninhabitable. As far as the settlements go Gaza proved that in the end the Israelis will do what it takes to control their fanatics

I didn't call the looting and destruction of the greenhouses a "serious impedement" nor even a minor impediment to peace. I merely used it as an example of the attitude of self destructive hate that exists on the Palestinian side as an example of the height of the obstructionist attitude that will have to be conquered.

The greenhouses weren't destroyed, fruit crops were harvested only to be left rotting at the Gaza borders.

Compare it with the forced evacuation of the settlers from Gaza, by the Israeli government. There was protest and obstructionism but when the last holdouts were dragged out and escorted past the new border the evacuated places were left in basic working order for their ("hated" nemesis) new inhabitants to destroy and make uninhabitable.

The settlements in Gaza were razed by the Israeli's in agreement with the Palestinans.

As far as the settlements go Gaza proved that in the end the Israelis will do what it takes to control their fanatics and enforce an eventual agreement. I see no such sign of the ability, for that matter little if any willingness to try, on

A Conversation with Robert D. KaplanMr Totten is a decent interviewer as he has been there and done that a lot; and from my experience both are good independent sources with a different presentation style.

And having given them their state through coercing Israel into positions, that are generally unacceptable, and the rockets still come will you then strongly condemn the Palestinians? If it would be unacceptable in that future is not unacceptable in the here and now?

If both sides get a fair shake (i.e., neither side ends up with some ridiculously slice of land that's completely impractical as a coherent economic unit, they're both able to control their borders, etc) yes, of course. I'd deal with them exactly as I'd deal with any other state that's being used as a place of refuge for extremists launching attacks on another. The international community would have a whole lot of leverage over the Palestinian state in that case. The problem right now is that we don't have any leverage on Hamas or similar terrorist groups, so nobody can deal with them politically, the only thing they can do is attack militarily, and that doesn't get us very far.

The part of it that tells me just how hopeless negotiations are is the fate of the millions of dollars in greenhouses, that could

So, Wonderment, how much leverage do you think the US has over Israel? Suppose that, by some miracle, American Jewry stopped giving to Israel until and unless there were first a halt to settlement growth and then a pullback from the West Bank. Suppose the US stopped giving military aid to Israel. I realize that neither of these things is going to happen, but they are at least theoretically conceivable. I have heard on National Public Radio a younger American Palestinian say that, if the US really wanted a Palestinian state, she could make it happen in a day. I forget the guy's name. He's big on the NPR talk show circuit. He's like Khalidi, but much younger. But anyway, is this totally incorrect, the assumption that the US can actually control the outcome, at least in theory? What would happen if Israel's greatest ally changed its tune and Israel found itself really isolated in the world diplomatically?

Quoting kezboard: ROFLMAO.
Isn't this more a triumph of progressive self-branding than an example of dictionary bias? If the conservatives wanted to, they could call themselves the Super Awesomes and their ideology Super Awesomeism. Maybe that would work better.

To a degree, Roy Edroso touches on this in his own examination of the Great Thesaurus Conspiracy.

Quoting bjkeefe: To a degree, Roy Edroso touches on this in his own examination of the Great Thesaurus Conspiracy.

More Republicans hating on Democratic use of the language covered by your Wonkette.

Suppose that, by some miracle, American Jewry stopped giving to Israel until and unless there were first a halt to settlement growth and then a pullback from the West Bank. Suppose the US stopped giving military aid to Israel. I realize that neither of these things is going to happen, but they are at least theoretically conceivable.

Sort of like wondering in 1980 what would happen if the Soviet Union nonviolently renounced communism and ended its control over Eastern Europe. An idea would have provoked scorn and laughter. Hmm, maybe our president is Barack Hussein Gorbachev. Somehow I doubt it, but then I would have scoffed in 1980 too.

You did not answer the question, viz., how much leverage do you think the US has over Israel?

You did not answer the question, viz., how much leverage do you think the US has over Israel?

The question doesn't make much sense to me. How would you quantify the leverage? How would you imagine circumstances under which it would be exercised? Theoretically, yes, Israel is a kind of US protectorate. Take away the protection, and Israel is in big trouble. Practically, however, it's almost unthinkable. It makes more sense to me to ask, how much could Israel get away with before it would incur the wrath of the USA? Obviously, it could get away with bombing Iran on the flimsiest of pretexts? Obviously, it can get away with horrific war crimes perpetrated on the citizens of Gaza and the West Bank. Been there, done that. Could it get away with a real ethnic cleansing (the option known as "transfer" among Israeli right-wing extremists)? I think that is where the US would have to draw the line. Transfer would be viewed as a form of genocide.

I don't entirely agree with what you say about Iran. In the very diavlog we are purportedly commenting on, the hypothesis was that an Israeli bombing attack on Iran in the near term is being restrained by Israeli fear of US reaction to such an attack. Presumably, Israel would look for a "signal" from the US that such an attack would be tolerated. The attack would not, in fact, be entirely unilateral, although it might have the appearance of having been unilateral. It seems to me that it is your answer to my question that does not make much sense, rather than the question itself. The most important question for any analyst of US-Israeli relations to answer is that of the limits of US leverage, coupled with the domestic political constraints in both countries. One way of looking at US-Israel relations is that the US has a huge amount of leverage with Israel that it chooses not to exercise. But this might be wrong. Perhaps Israel is more of an independent actor than this line would have it. My thought on this is that the Mearsheimer-Walt approach was the correct one, even if

Quoting ledocs: [...] But it is rather obvious that, absenting some crucial military or intelligence contributions by Israel to US interests, Israel's continued existence is not of strategic importance to the US, and the general idea that the US guarantee of Israel's continued existence as a Jewish state has to do with some moral value just strikes me as laughable. Yes, some moral value is at play, as I have just conceded, but that must also be a sort of cover story for something else that is going on, something called oil, because, although the US Jewish community is powerful, and although there is this messianic Christian community in the US that is also powerful and is very attached to Israel in the short term, none of this adds up, in the end, to sufficient power to explain the very one-sided diplomacy that has characterized US policy towards Israel since 1948.

An interesting essay, ledocs. At the end, though, where you say "none of this adds up," my immediate reaction was: "But wait, you just showed how it all adds up." I buy your view, to a degree, that the US is motivated to remain allied with Israel by some interests that are less frequently discussed

I don't believe the democracy argument, BJ. I did not believe that it was a serious part of the neocon doctrine for invading Iraq, and I don't believe that it is a serious reason for US support of Israel. That's part of the cover story. No one really cares what form of government a foreign power has, if its policy outputs are relatively appealing. Parenthetically, Robert Kagan recently said on bhtv that he, at least, never took democracy promotion in Iraq seriously. Your other two arguments are really one argument, inertia. There's probably something to that. I did not mean to say, by the way, that US policy towards Israel was driven solely by military-strategic considerations. But I think they may be the primary considerations in the whole witches' brew that you outline, and they are the ones that are least often talked about or investigated. What I don't believe is that a Homeland for the Jews is really that important to America as a whole, it's not worth dying for for most American citizens, for example. Of course, if a war were couched in terms of protecting America's trusted ally, Israel, that's already a different matter. But in order to couch a war in

Quoting ledocs: Why does the US lean so much in favor of Israel, when doing so clearly exacerbates the problem of international terrorism?

I disagree with this statement. US favoritism towards Israel does not exacerbate international terrorism. Al Qaeda and 9/11 had nothing to do with Israel or Palestine; it had to do with American troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia after the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. Arab Muslims do not even fully respect Palestinians. They're treated as second class citizens in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere. So for terrorists originating outside of Palestine the motus operandi is usually something other than the Palestinian issue. They may throw in the Palestine/Israel rhetoric for effect, but that is usually not their reason for being.

Quoting ledocs: I don't believe the democracy argument, BJ. I did not believe that it was a serious part of the neocon doctrine for invading Iraq, and I don't believe that it is a serious reason for US support of Israel. That's part of the cover story. No one really cares what form of government a foreign power has, if its policy outputs are relatively appealing. Parenthetically, Robert Kagan recently said on bhtv that he, at least, never took democracy promotion in Iraq seriously.

Fair enough. I would only say in response that this argument -- that Israel is the region's only democracy and is hence worth supporting for that among other reasons -- is one that does, in fact, have some resonance with me, and I suspect I'm not alone in this. I quite agree that the "democracy promotion" card is cynically deployed by some, and in the case of Iraq, I think many of those proclaiming this the loudest were scrambling to justify the invasion once it became clear there were no WMDs to be found.

Your other two arguments are really one argument, inertia. There's probably something to that. I did not mean to say, by the way, that US policy towards Israel was driven solely

Quoting Lyle: I disagree with this statement. US favoritism towards Israel does not exacerbate international terrorism. Al Qaeda and 9/11 had nothing to do with Israel or Palestine; it had to do with American troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia after the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein.

Arab Muslims do not even fully respect Palestinians. They're treated as second class citizens in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt and elsewhere. So for terrorist originating outside of Palestine the motus operandi is usually something other than the Palestinian issue. They may throw in the Palestine/Israel rhetoric for effect, but that is usually not their reason for being.

i don't fully agree with your view that "US favoritism towards Israel does not exacerbate international terrorism," but I do think there is a lot of truth in your view that the plight of the Palestinians often serves as an excuse, and not a reason, for many who oppose the US and Israel.

Yeah, it is an arguable point.

So, to conclude, my hypothesis is that there must be something in the US-Israel relationship that is seen by several generations of US elites as being profoundly in US interests. That something cannot be maintaining a Jewish Homeland because we have a historical obligation to do that, it cannot be the fact that Israel is the sole democracy in the Middle East, and it cannot be both of those things in combination. These are the motivations, in combination with the political groups which lobby around them, which I say "don't add up." If you add some military-strategic contribution by Israel to US interests, then things do start to add up.

Things don't have to add up. It's not as if the "US elites" are particularly rational. It only has to add up if you're paranoid and think governments have some kind of hidden agenda and ulterior motives. The tradition of US support for Israel is strong and most of it is due to a buy-in to the Zionist narrative (mythology). Israel has strongly cultivated a positive relationship with the US for decades, invested in American public opinion heavily and on several fronts. Israelis all learn

Quoting Wonderment: Things don't have to add up. It's not as if the "US elites" are particularly rational. It only has to add up if you're paranoid and think governments have some kind of hidden agenda and ulterior motives. .

US elites are quite rational, and I think Ledocs was suggesting as much. Providing Israel with military hardware in the guise of "foreign aid" benefits the military-industrial complex. Paranoid fantasy if you like, but the US HAS to sell its toys to someone. And the US has profited enormously over the years from its alliance with Israel in its struggles with Iran and Iraq---sharing of intelligence etc. Indeed you could say, and many have said it, that the invasion and occupation of Iraq might never have occurred without the pro-Israel and anti-Arab stance of the neocons.

Quoting Francoamerican: US elites are quite rational, and I think Ledocs was suggesting as much. Providing Israel with military hardware in the guise of "foreign aid" benefits the military-industrial complex. Paranoid fantasy if you like, but the US HAS to sell its toys to someone. And the US has profited enormously over the years from its alliance with Israel in its struggles with Iran and Iraq---sharing of intelligence etc. Indeed you could say, and many have said it, that the invasion and occupation of Iraq might never have occurred without the pro-Israel and anti-Arab stance of the neocons.

Since nobody has been denounced as an anti-Semite yet, let me be the first: You're all a bunch of anti-Semites! And I guess I am too. I'm with FA (and everybody else) on this one. And how weird is it that there's a story about Israel on the news every goddam day? As if it's the 51st state. I got sick of that about 15 years ago and I'm still sick of it.

Providing Israel with military hardware in the guise of "foreign aid" benefits the military-industrial complex. Paranoid fantasy if you like, but the US HAS to sell its toys to someone.

Well, of course that's a given. You can't even utter the words United States of America without envisioning the monstrous military-industrial-Congressional complex, as Eisenhower (who ought to know) called it. But turning a profit, while perpetuating militarism and US hegemony is not a rational policy. Nor is anyone rational in charge of it. It's not like Obama woke up one morning and said, "Hey, this is great. Let's keep doing it." Nor did anyone from Boeing or Caterpillar hold a gun to his head. As an American citizen, I do not believe that our arms trade with and giveaways to Israel are in my interests. I vote no. So rational for whom? Sustainable? Surely not. More like a dysfunctional relationship with an addictive component (forgive the psychobabble, but the metaphor is helpful).

Quoting Wonderment: But turning a profit, while perpetuating militarism and US hegemony is not a rational policy. Nor is anyone rational in charge of it.

As an American citizen, I do not believe that our arms trade with and giveaways to Israel are in my interests. I vote no. So rational for whom? Sustainable? Surely not. More like a dysfunctional relationship with an addictive component (forgive the psychobabble, but the metaphor is helpful).

I was being tongue-in-cheek. "Rational" is one of the favorite words of a certain school of international relations. It usually means: I who am rational approve of it. The US-Israel alliance certainly has all the hallmarks of a dysfunctional relationship in which both sides delude themselves into thinking that they are rational because, well, they both say so!

Quoting Francoamerican: I was being tongue-in-cheek. "Rational" is one of the favorite words of a certain school of international relations. It usually means: I who am rational approve of it. The US-Israel alliance certainly has all the hallmarks of a dysfunctional relationship in which both sides delude themselves into thinking that they are rational because, well, they both say so!

And much of the rest of the world colludes by A) playing along with the fairy tale that Jerusalem is the center of the spiritual universe; B) humoring regional demagogues who will stoop to anything (including idiotic Holocaust denial) to take the heat off themselves and their oligarchical corruption; C) the inconvenience of speaking truth to power. Here's my prediction on the near-term American involvement: Barack Obama will pull a Jimmy Carter. He will keep getting played by Israeli politicians until he tires of it and them. He will turn his attention to other priorities. He will refrain from blasting Israeli intransigence until he is out of power. (The last prediction is actually the good case scenario; the bad case scenario is that events force him to take a direct role; the worse case than that

Quoting Wonderment: And much of the rest of the world colludes by A) playing along with the fairy tale that Jerusalem is the center of the spiritual universe; B) humoring regional demagogues who will stoop to anything (including idiotic Holocaust denial) to take the heat off themselves and their oligarchical corruption; C) the inconvenience of speaking truth to power.

I give Obama credit for being a bit more of a stateman than Carter, so I hope your prediction is wrong. As for the above, how could anyone unencumbered by religious blinders disagree? But the fact remains, and I think you have made this clear in your other remarks, that without US diplomatic action Israel will continue along its path to.....self-destruction? I would like to believe that moral outrage could move states to act rationally and in their own self-interest, but history provides little evidence that appeals to morality and justice, unsupported by force, are effective. And by force I mean, among other things, diplomatic arm-twisting. But, as you say, there are so many irrational forces at work in this conflict that it is difficult to see things clearly, either inside or outside Israel.

Quoting Wonderment: And much of the rest of the world colludes by A) playing along with the fairy tale that Jerusalem is the center of the spiritual universe; B) humoring regional demagogues who will stoop to anything (including idiotic Holocaust denial) to take the heat off themselves and their oligarchical corruption; C) the inconvenience of speaking truth to power.

Here's my prediction on the near-term American involvement: Barack Obama will pull a Jimmy Carter. He will keep getting played by Israeli politicians until he tires of it and them. He will turn his attention to other priorities. He will refrain from blasting Israeli intransigence until he is out of power. (The last prediction is actually the good case scenario; the bad case scenario is that events force him to take a direct role; the worse case than that scenario is an escalation in Palestinian misery; the worst case scenario is that the crazies start a serious regional or world war).

As a student of the civil rights movement, as young anti-apartheid activist, and as a friend of Rashid Khalidi, I gotta assume Obama is pretty clear-eyed about the situation.

I would like to believe that moral outrage could move states to act rationally and in their own self-interest, but history provides little evidence that appeals to morality and justice, unsupported by force, are effective.

I do believe moral outrage can move mountains (as well as intransigent and corrupt politicians), but it comes from the bottom up. The force is nonviolence; the power is the people's refusal to cooperate with the regime. But that's another topic that would take us far afield.

As a student of the civil rights movement, as young anti-apartheid activist, and as a friend of Rashid Khalidi, I gotta assume Obama is pretty clear-eyed about the situation.

As a student of the civil rights movement, he should be picketing himself outside the White House (or encouraging others to do so). As a friend of Rashid Khalidi he could never have given the AIPAC speech during his campaign. As for clear-eyed, power blurs vision, and absolute power blurs it absolutely. Having said that, I agree that Obama has unique opportunities in many areas, and he is a very gifted statesman. We'll see.

Now that he's (thankfully) been shut out of the white house, it appears that Aaron Miller has a new gig...