Oh oh. Here we go again. :-)

Listen, I love Molly Ivins and I love your blog. And I honestly don't put myself in the knee-jerk "everyone's an anti-semite" camp, I honestly don't. As long as some balance is given to the story and as long as the discussion doesnt devolve into "Jews don't have a right to be there" which is where people like the lovely "Kes" and others seem to always lead.

It's true Israel gets the most foreign aid. It's true Israel has done bad things to the Palestinians. Put it all in a historical context, and I'm happy to discuss it.

As I mentioned earlier for example, we can look at affirmative action in the US and claim it's racist. On the surface, it most definately is. But when you understand the context, that it's a response to hundreds of years of bigotry and violence against black people, it's suddenly harder to brand it racism. Know what i mean?

I guess one thing that irks me about the whole Israel lobby discussion is something Ivins said:

"it seems an easy case can be made that the United States has subjugated its own interests to those of Israel in the past."

I'm sorry but an easy case can be made for that and every other successful lobby. That's what lobby groups do! They lobby the government to do stuff it might not otherwise do -- to "subjugate its own interest" in favour of an interest group's interests, be it Jews, Evangelical Christians, Saudis, Smokers, Oil Men, environmentalists, labour unions, old people or people with disabilities. And the idea is that subjugating its interests on any particular issue for any particular lobby will pay dividends for the government and the American people at some later date.

no, i don't. how does invading a country, making it's people move, putting check-points between their refugee camps and millitarizing the whole zone so you can get settlers there, pitting your machine guns tanks and bulldozers against their rocks slingshots and explosives, then destroying orchards and livlihood, then bulldozing homes in order to free up more space for settlers, etc, etc, etc, and then suppressing any open discusssion about it by the means of putting it all under the term "anti-semitic" have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with making sure that there are women and minorities included in hiring and admissions processes?

Zak, We did discuss your analogy of affirmative action and the law of return's inherent discrimination on the basis of religion. The difference still exists the former is to right a wrong and not intended to exist for eternity the later is intended to maintain religious/ethnic purity and is intended to be permanent. It's a poor analogy. Do you want to try again to defend religious discrimination by Israel without admitting that it is an inherent part of what Israel is, a country that has institutionalized religious discrimination.

Jordan, the Israeli Army's questionable military actions has about as much to do with Israel's right to exist as black gang violence has to do with affirmative action.

Norm, Israel has "institutionalized religious discrimination" as much as the YWCA has institutionalized discrimination against men or the Vatican has institutionalized discrimination against non-Christians.

Zak,

does the YWCA demolish men's homes and gardens and institute curfews? does it prevent men from getting to work? or prevent their perishable exports from leaving the country for weeks? or stop them from leaving? does the YWCA build walls around their neighborhoods or does it move men of off of their land and move in armed YWCA members? Is the YWCA in violation of human rights as determined by the ICC and the World Court?

Zak,

I don't even know what point your trying to make. Is it that like the Vatican, Israel favors one religion over all the others. Duh. So do you believe that Israel is at it's roots religious not secular?

Lordy, I miss Frank Zappa. We lost him far too soon.

Zad's statement is misleading: "the Israeli Army's questionable military actions has about as much to do with Israel's right to exist as black gang violence has to do with affirmative action."

Can we agree to that when the recent Israeli leaders are mililtary men who are guilty of committing wartime atrocities against palestinian civilans?

Here's an article from the Los Angeles Time in 2002:

An Unholy Alliance in Support of Israel
by Jo-Ann Mort

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0519-05.htm

"The newest member of Sharon's Cabinet is the head of the National Religious Party, Effi Eitam, a former Israeli army brigadier general who was refused higher promotion within the army because of his harsh treatment of Palestinians. Eitam, a "born-again" Jew, is a former secular kibbutz member transformed into a messianic Jew, much along the lines of other Religious Party settlers who saw the post-1967 era in Israel more as the fulfillment of biblical dictate than as a move to meet Israel's security needs."

Here's something else from what I have read about how the Israeli's army's decisions has much to do with regards to Israel's right to exist at the expense of neighbouring countries:

Did the Egyptians actually start the 1967 war, as Israel originally claimed?

"The former Commander of the Air Force, General Ezer Weitzman, regarded as a hawk, stated that there was 'no threat of destruction' but that the attack on Egypt, Jordan and Syria was nevertheless justified so that Israel could 'exist according the scale, spirit, and quality she now embodies.'...Menahem Begin had the following remarks to make: 'In June 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.' "Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."

Was the 1967 war defenisve? - continued

"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Yitzhak Rabin, Israel's Chief of Staff in 1967, in Le Monde, 2/28/68

Prima facie here's the problem with your obsession with attacking Israel: the disagreeable tactics it uses which are arguable very legitmate, pale in comparison to what happens in Saudi Arabia (which has far more of an influence on US policy than Israel) or how China treats people within their borders. Yet where is your outrage about that? It doesn't exist and unless you can provide a logical explanation for this gross discrepancy you are just as much a duped person as those you attack for being sheep on a host of subjects. Think about it.

HJones, It's not often one encounters an argument that fails on so many levels. Prima facie it certainly is not. First fewer than a dozen posts from some 3000 is certainly not an obsession. The basic flaw in your argument and one shared by many of those obsessed with defending Israel is that it is not necessary to articulate outrage at other countries to prove that you feel outrage. You write that my outrage for China and Saudi Arabia doesn't exist. Do you realize what a stupid fucking statement that is. How the hell would you know? I haven't mentioned Darfur in a month or so, using your distorted way of viewing the world that would be evidence that it doesn't exist that I don't feel outrage at the atrocities taking place there. We all feel outrage at the injustices in the world. I could express outrage at Saudi Arabia and I have, and you could simply name some other country that I failed to mention. It is a dishonest argument. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for making it. Furthermore the fact that there are others you consider worse doesn't mean that Israel should not be criticized. We all have limited time. The discussion is currently about Israel. The reason there has been a lot of recent discussion in the press. The level of foreign aid that goes to Israel and the argument by many that supporting Israel in the way we do is not in our national interest are also factors. They are important subjects, but there are those like you who don't want to discuss the issues and instead attack the messenger. I don't recall ever having a discussion about Israel where I wasn't personally attacked. Oh yes, and one ton bombs on innocent children and bulldozing homes aren't legitimate in my opinion.

HJones, you are making a lot of assumptions here with no basis.

The title of this thread is about Israel. Why bring other countries into this if it is not directly relevant to the discussion?

You should first apply your own reasoning to Israel's actions.

I support UN's sanctions against any rogue state for only 1 infringement below:

• The clandestine development of WMDs, illegal invasion without any committment to international checks.

• Armed occupation of foreign land

• Genocidal cleansing i.e. destruction and dispossestion of Arab villagers

• State-sponsored terrorism when rockets and guns are directed against a Palestinian people with no standing arm

Bt I don't see sanctions imposed on such behaviour on Israel which are guilty of all of the above.

Second, why do you say Saudi Arabia has far more of an influence on US policy than Israel? Any proof? Btw, Israel is pro-war against Iraq and Iran, not Saudi Arabia.

And I don't see the relevance of bringing up China in the contect of this discussion on Israel.

So far no one here has posted anything on China. That does not mean we are for or against China's actions.

kes- you write that israel's actions in the 1967 war were not defensive (or you strongly imply it), i think you should remember though, that (according to wikipedia) egypt had "closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israel-bound ships, thus blockading the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba", which wikipedia explains is considered an act of war (this was before war had started). you are, however, correct that israel certainly escalated it, and you can argue that they didnt need to.

You can criticize Israel but when the criticism is grossly disproportionate that is not honest. Context matters and going singularly and repeatedly after one country while ignoring others is an ominous omission. Saudi Arabia practices gender apartheid, murders homosexuals for being homosexual, and is responsible for promulgating Wahhabist Islam which was the underpinning cause of 9/11. Moreover it continues to fund and promote Wahhabist Islam, an extremely intolerant form of Islam. China mercilessly persecutes, murders, imprisons, and tortures dissidents, literally on the order of millions.

The best country for an Arab to live in in the middle east in terms of human rights is Israel. Israel exists to right an historical wrong. Israel has regrettably killed civilians when attempting to take out terrorist planners, something you can't seem to understand as one facet of a muc larger conflict. Yet nowhere, in what I've read, do you condemn Palestinian homicide/suicide attacks deliberately targeted at killing civilians. If you think that is justified then we just disagree. If you don't then there should be some level of opprobrium directed at such Palestinian tactics and the infrastructure and culture of hate and contempt for human life that feeds it.

fbdiofbio;ioh, you did not read my post clearly. The source that I provided included the Egyptian actions at Sinai, which includes the Straits of Tiran. Kindly note that this westernmost strait is between Egypt and the island of Tiran, overlooked by the Egyptian city Sharm el-Sheikh. Thus Egypt is still operating within its terrirotial boundaries.

Contrary to your claim, the case for war or casus belli is disputed in the source you quoted [Check the column on the right]:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

The claim that a naval blockage as an act of war is qualified here. And it certainly does not stand to scrutiny if we compare it to Japan and America’s actions in World War 2.

Mlitary movements on borders are NOT recogised as automatic acts of war. If that were the case, Taiwan and China, as well as India and Pakistan would have gone to war immediately. The list continues.

Such actions are not recognised as legiimate reasons for going to war by the United Nations. If economic blockades like sanctions are war, UN would have declared war on Iraq when it imposed the sanctions then.

Kindly note that wikipedia states that Israel claimed that it carried out a premptive war on Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967. That means Israel was the one who started the war. And UN recognises this as such.

fbdiofbio;ioh, your source supports my position that Israel’s actions in the 1967 war were not defensive. It was pre-emptive and aggressive and should be recognised as such.

When Japan carried out the sneak attack on US, Japan was regarded as the one who first waged war on US. Only after did US declare war on Japan.

For 8 months before this attack Pearl Harbour, United States and its allies have engaged in an economic embargo on Japan. This was not considered an act of war and no declaration of war was declared during this 8 month of economic blockade on Japan.

Israel is the out and out aggressor in In the 1967 war. If not the Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html

Here something from the horse mouth of Israel’s ex-Defense Minister: "Moshe Dayan, the celebrated commander who, as Defense Minister in 1967, gave the order to conquer the Golan...[said] many of the firefights with the Syrians were deliberately provoked by Israel, and the kibbutz residents who pressed the Government to take the Golan Heights did so less for security than for the farmland...[Dayan stated] 'They didn't even try to hide their greed for the land...We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot.

And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was...The Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us.'" The New York Times, May 11, 1997

No offense intended. I'm just pointing out what I have read about this war and from my studies in war history.

Hi Hjones, you are the one with the bias. You seem to have no problems with Israel’s destruction of the home and lives of entire Arab villages and settles since 1948.

Your problem seems only to be when the Arab Palestinians fight back against the Israeli Army and illegal occupation of their lands when the Arab Palestinians have no standing army to fight against Israeli oppression and they have to resort to terrorist tactics pioneerd by Israel to respond in kind.

The fact remains that Israelis pioneered the use of terrorist tactics like public bombings in 1940s to destabilise the region for political means to establish a Zionist state on Arab ancestral lands.

Palestinian attack on civilians is Jewish or OLD TESTAMENT tit-for-tat as the Israel state have used state-sponsored terrorism since 1949 in terms of their Armed forces and bulldozers to attack Arab villages since the 1940, destroying the lives and homes of the Arab inhabitants to dispossess them of their lands, leading to thousands dead along with the creation of the worse refugee crists in human history as millions of Arab Palestinians were driven from their lands by force and under threat of death.

The United Nations have documented such cases of the massacre and destruction of entire Arab villages like Sabra, Chatilla, and most recently Jenin, where Israel prevented UN observers from coming in to assess the civilian slaughter in 2002.

You should place it clearly that Israel exists today as a result of a historical wrong perpetuated by Zionist aggression, which is itself condemned by other Jewish people.

This wrong that started in the 1940s, when the Jews living in the Arab region demanded a right to form a state in the Arab region of Palestine, even though the Jews formed 14% of the total population in that region then, owned just 6 % of the lands in Israel and 80% of the Jews in Palestine were European immigrants whose ancestors never lived in Palestine and who largely came by way of illegal immigration.

Their claim to a state in Arab Palestinian land have no precedence over the claims of the Arab Palestinians, who formed 86% of the total population in the region of Palestine, owned more than 50% of the land and their ancestors have lived on the lands of Palestine.

kes, i agree with most of what you said, i still think it is important to note that egypt had committed an act of war against israel before israel attacked it (which you left out of your account). there is a difference between embargos, sanctions, and blockades. i have no clue why egypt did that, it seems like it was supremely stupid, pointlessly provocative, but that doesnt excuse overreaching aggression on israel's part.

Hi fbdiofbio;ioh, I beg to differ in that Egypt conducted military operations at Egypt’s borders at Sinai.

Kindly refer to the map. This is Egypt’s territorial waters.

Israel is simply using this as an excuse to declare war to launch pre-emptive strike against not just Egypt, but 3 other Arab countries as well.

By its action, it is clearly the warmonger and the aggressor or UN would not have issued the Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict.

This is clearly Zionist opportunism and an excuse for its territorial ambitions.

If a naval and economic blockade is considered an act of war, the US and its Allies would have declared when they did the same to Japan before Pearl Harbour, instead of declaring war after.

Kindly note that when the US 7 Fleet was doing an impromptu exercise without warning at the straits between China and Taiwan, this was in response to an increasing belligerence from China.

But was this considered an act of war? No. It was hard-nosed diplomacy at work here.

So I cannot agree with you that Egypt committed an act of war. If it did plan as such, it would not just send 2 divisions to Sinai.

No offence intended but I am drawing my conclusions based on what I see in history and modern times.

i really think you dont understand me. once again, theres a difference between a blockade and an embargo.

Hi fbdiofbio;ioh, my point is that the blockage of Sinai and Straits of Tiran was at Egypt's territorial boundaries, not Israel's.

This is Egypt's right, as can be seen in similar actions by India verses Pakistan, China verses Taiwan, North verses South Korea which did not lead to war.

Second, US and its allies during WW2 instituted a economic blockage, which included a blockade of Japanese ships to obtain the raw materials they need in the war against China.

If Egypt truly committed an act of war against Israel, then I would have nothing to say if Israel attacked just Egypt.

However, it was clearly an excuse for Israel to wage war as Israel attacked Egypt and 3 other countries at the same time via pre-emptive air strikes to illegally occupy lands from these countries.