A Two-State Solution for the United States and Israel
George W. Bush thought it would be a good idea to help Israel celebrate its 60th birthday. So he showed up to celebrate, in spite of the gross contradiction his presence there offered against an appearance of impartiality in the negotiations between Israel and Palestine -- an accord whose success the president has said he intends to show as the diplomatic legacy of eight years in office.
In his speech to the Knesset, President Bush praised Israel in familiar and effusive terms. He also threatened Iran almost to the point of implying that Israel's birthday present from America would be a war against Iran initiated by the U.S. Finally, and strangely, he went out of his way -- in violation of a decorum observed by previous American presidents on foreign visits -- to attack a political rival in the United States.
Senator Biden, Barack Obama, and others were quick to respond to the charge that talking (not giving things away) to a hostile country must constitute "appeasement"; but the coat-trailing use of the word, meanwhile, caught the attention of the press; and Chris Matthews, interviewing a talk radio shouter, was led to some characteristic rumblings:
"You think it was fair to go overseas and take a shot at a fellow American?... Why is Israel now the center of the Republican Campaign?... Why the focus on Israel?.... Why are we turning Israel into Hyde Park Corner?"
The questions are pertinent and not easy to answer. Why has Israel become the place to test an American politician for loyalty and strength? Loyalty to what and strength about what? Something about the American view of Israel, and his own exaggerated version of it, made George W. Bush believe he could get away with the provocative words he used and the graceless choice of an occasion.
In the American mind today, Israel stands for a policy of benign chauvinism, justified preemptive war, and provisional domination of the Middle East: the very policy the Bush administration has sought to graft onto the United States, while borrowing Israeli army rules of engagement for use in Iraq. Doubtless the unpopular president felt a certain exhilaration and nervous release in cutting down a member of his family (nationally speaking) in front of another family. But there was a personal as well as well as a generic reason for it. Probably Israel today seems to George Bush a friendlier place than most of America does. It is, to him, a sort of fifty-first state, a good deal like Texas but cleared of the protesters.
One might end here, merely observing that, not for the first time, George W. Bush acted below the dignity of his office. Yet his defects were forgiven by his hosts; and that is not where the interest of the occasion lies.
When an American of such high visibility speaks without inhibition of American divisions to Israelis, one is made to reflect on the extraordinary censorship exercised by the American mainstream media against all allusion to the current political controversies in Israel. For example, the Israeli divisions over the oppressive treatment of the West Bank Palestinians. The word "appeasement" was misused by the president; but why should we not use it accurately? Why should Americans not follow the Israeli opposition, and speak of the appeasement by successive Israeli governments of the fanatical sects of settlers who seek to dispossess the Palestinians of their lands?
Condoleezza Rice broke the silence once. On a visit in October 2007, she said the sufferings of the West Bank Palestinians reminded her of the civil-rights struggles of American blacks in the South. Indeed, as Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar show in Lords of the Land, the more thuggish settlers in cities like Hebron have enjoyed many of the privileges that Americans associate with white gangs in the Jim Crow South -- a routine of harassment and ad-hoc violence against an inferior caste. The Israeli government acts as the federal government of the United States would have acted if it had said it could not move against the gangs because "these are our people."
Israel, Munich, and appeasement came up again when John McCain said, of Barack Obama's willingness to speak with diplomatic representatives of Iran, that one must never negotiate with anyone who calls Israel a "stinking corpse." But why should political thought be silenced and action obstructed by the trash talk of a small-time dictator? Demagogues say many things. It is in their nature not to be in a position to mean everything they say.
Nikita Khrushchev spoke for world communism in direr terms than these when he addressed to Americans the words: "We will bury you." Khrushchev went beyond calling his enemy a stinking corpse. He acknowledged that we were still alive, and said we were going to be turned into a corpse, and declared that he would be the one to do it. And Khrushchev actually held the levers of power in the Soviet Union -- something that cannot be said of Ahmadinejad in Iran. Yet President Eisenhower negotiated with Khrushchev, and President Kennedy negotiated with him, too. The idea that all contact with a hostile country that is not war, is therefore necessarily appeasement, is a poisonous offshoot of the Bush dogma which says "If you are not with us you are against us." Palestinians oppressed by Israeli settlers and looking anywhere they can for help are neither with the United States nor against us. If we treat them as enemies, they may well become enemies.
Another piece of the Bush doctrine -- a piece borrowed from Ariel Sharon, which John McCain seems poised to inherit -- is the idea that wars always improve the stature and increase the power of a warrior nation. Six years into the American occupation of Iraq, this ought to have become questionable. Yet John McCain's advisers on foreign policy are, to a man, neoconservatives -- supporters of the Lebanon as of the Iraq war, and disposed to flatter the militarism that is the most consistent trait of McCain's political temperament.
Israeli opinion covers a far wider range than American neoconservatism. In the Cooper Union debate on the "Israel Lobby" controversy, in September 2006, the former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami said that the United States had become a Colossus -- "an intrusive colossus that is hated throughout the Arab world," because of its support for the Arab autocrats. The solution, Ben-Ami implied, was not for the U.S. to intrude still further into the affairs of the Middle East but to change its course and resist the promptings of organizations like AIPAC. He wondered why so many American lawmakers were intimidated by the lobby, since the most it could do was to stop someone from getting elected, and, where a public good was concerned, not to be elected or re-elected might seem a small sacrifice for a politician whose duty is to tell the truth.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Typical Huffington article about nothing except to bash Israel and rev up the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bloggers on this site. Israel has been repeatedly attacked by several of its neighbors. The poor innocent Arabs engage in ruthless terrorism against civilians, shoot missiles into neighborhoods from land that Israel has evacuated, and have elected terrorists as their leaders. Guess what, you practice terrorism and attack a country repeatedly, then you lose any rights to the land. By the way, there is a Palestinian state and it's called Jordan, except that Jordan treats the Palestinians as second class citizens.
Typical "Israel can do no wrong" posting.
Go figure, between the Mossad's internet-propaganda division and Megaphone, the Israeli "point of view" (i.e., "you're all anti-semites and racists unless you agree with us!") gets plastered over all stories about Israel and their illegal occupation.
Right of Return for displaced Palestinians.
Just compensation for the theft of Palestinian land.
Equal rights for Israeli Arabs.
And a two-state partition that does not include non-contiguous arab ghettos.
Any less is not peace, it's just more of Israel dictating terms by bullying people at gunpoint.
? Biggest myth : Israel is a “civilised” and “democratic” nation, never initiates terrorist attacks or involved in daily acts of terrorism, discrimination, racism, and apartheid. Right? Pure BS. By contrast, the Palestinians are portrayed as ‘militants’ - regardless of age -‘seeking revenge’ and trying to ‘destroy’ a ‘peace-loving Israel’. Israel simply responds and retaliates. Israel responds to Palestinian throwing stones and retaliates against Palestinian rockets with firepower far beyond what the Palestinians have. Israeli soldiers are ‘forced’ to kill Palestinian children and pregnant women, and demolish Palestinian houses. Israeli soldiers, of course, are not responsible because they are facing a ‘stronger enemy’. These Israeli crimes are acts of terrorism against defenseless people. The fact that Israel is a racist apartheid state aimed at becoming a homogenous “Jewish state” at the expense of the indigenous Palestinian people is deliberately ignored.
Yes, Israel is civilized as opposed to the Palestinians who kill their own daughters/sisters through Honor Killings and encourage their children to be suicide killers and then hail them as martyrs.
Israel is democtratic as Israel Arabs are members of Parliament.
Israel does not deliberately target civilians, but women and children are used as shields by the terrorists.
Israel uses superior fire power??? What are they supposed to do put their soldiers at risk to take out a terrorist, of course they'll shoot a missile at the scum.
The "defenseless people" elected terrorists. Instead of shooting missiles from land that Israel left, these non-civilized people should have built universities, libraries, places of culture with the billions that the world has given them.
The Jews are indigenous, they've been living there continuoulsy for thousands of years and in fact have been the majority of the population of Jerusalem.
You indict Israel for responding with greater force than that with which it was attacked.
So am I to infer that if I am attacked by a man smaller than myself, I am to defend myself without using my size as an advantage? Or if a man comes at me with a knife it would be unfair to use a gun in my defense?
rudiy: No ones nation had to be stolen, people ethnically cleansed from their ancestral home and land being confiscated in order for Muslim nations to exist; your victimhood is really irritating. The expelled Jews were in retalliation for the 800 000 expelled Palestinians and the millions fleeing in fear from the Zionist hordes. Millions of Christians remain in Muslim nations, fully integrated and part of Arab factor, Arab Muslims and Christians are part of eachothers histories and lives. So were Arab Jews before Israel began creating unrest, spreading lies and fear mongering and bombing synogogues to frighten Arab Jews into coming to live in Israel so that a Jewish population could be created in Israel.
You need to look inward and ask yourself why do so much lying.
There you go again, Betz.
Have you picked up your copy of Mein Kampf as i suggested. Maybe after you finish reading "Protocols
KENNEDY, KHRUSHCHEV, OBAMA AND TEHRAN
Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna was a disaster for Kennedy. Perceiving Kennedy to be a weak gutless liberal Khrushchev built the Berlin Wall and later moved missiles into Cuba bringing the two nations close to nuclear war. While Kennedy was neither weak nor gutless Barack Obama is already perceived as such by the Moslem world. His plan to cut and run from Iraq and the region within 16 months of his administration, to quit the battle and withdraw in defeat, falls miserably short of the Moslem ideal of manliness and valor. Unless Obama can win the respect of the war loving Khomeine jihadists in Tehran, men who revere the sword and live by it, a meeting with them would be a greater disaster than Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev at Vienna.
"Unless Obama can win the respect of the war loving Khomeine jihadists in Tehran, men who revere the sword and live by it, a meeting with them would be a greater disaster than Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev"
Except that we as a culture--and I don't mean the "Die Hard" fantasy culture--don't revere the sword and consider violence our only means of achieving manliness and valor. Despite the fools who only see the U.S. as a military power or aggressor, we are also a power of ideals in a pretty sick world. The jihadis can't be won on the battle field. Like the Viet Cong, they have nearly unlimited resources in men who will die for their cause. We don't. And as in Vietnam, we're in their territory, giving them a reasonable justification. To think that the only way to win this "war on terror" is to fight fire with fire is just more of the deadly and immoral incompetence that began when Bush proposed invading Iraq and Congress gave the go-ahead.
We won World War II by fighting fire with greater firepower and blowing the enemy away. Unless Obama is prepared to do that with the mad murdering bloodthirsty mullahs he will fail to win their respect and they will eat him up alive.That he plans to withdraw our forces from Iraq and the region without concessions from the mullahs on the issues of nuclear weapons and the funding of Hezbollah, Hamas and Sadrists of Iraq shows how terribly shallow and foolish he is, and unprepared to lead this nation in time of peril and war..
What war has Iran started?
Radical Iran's war against the US begin in 1979 with the seizure of our embassy in Tehran. FYI this was an act of war a war which continues to this day with Iranian armed proxies killing our troops in Iraq.
TWO STATE SOLUTION A PIPE DREAM
A necessary pre-condition for a two state solution-which is acceptable to most Israelis-is for a majority of Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State. Until that day comes, until the Palis want a resolution to their conflict with Israel and not victory, the two state solution is a pipe dream.
Quit confusing rhetoric with reality. And quit building settlements on the West Bank.
And quit stealing our tax money to do it
These 'preconditions' are outdated, irrelevant, and biased towards Israel. Palestinians must agree to first recognize Israel, second to end all violence, third to accept past agreements?
Try to find a mention, ANYWHERE, of the fact that Israel rejects all three of those. They don't recognize a Palestinian state, they certainly don't withdraw the use of violence or the threat of it,in fact they insist on it,and they don't accept past agreements
When will Israeli leadership come to the table accept intl law and make the concessions necessary for peace? Because Israel rejectionism has been the greatest deterrent to peace over the last 60 years. The Palestinians are consistently pressured and portrayed as "not wanting peace" unless they accept these "terms"? Who in their right mind would?
Why is Israel allowed to lay waste to every international law and convention without criticism and their "enemies" are not entitled to raise a hand in their own defense? Demiliterized Palestine? Only if Israel does too! Palestinians have every right to defend themselves
What is outdated is the racism, cultural imperialism and religious intolerance which is the driving force behind the Arab/Pali jihad against the modern, thriving, civilized, peace loving tolerant democratic state of Israel. When the Palestinian people rise up to the moral level of their humane Israeli neigbhors then there will be peace.
bromwich is insightful as ever, but very careful in his criticisms of israel. i don't blame him for hiding behind condi rice et alia. that he does points up the fact that main stream media has proscribed any real discussion of israel/palestine. until yesterday, that is, when something extraordinary happened. the ny times, washington post, boston globe and others actually had op ed pieces that finally said what needs saying--israel is the problem, israel stands in the way of peace, that palestinians are in fact human beings, that israel continues to steal palestinian lands, etc etc. i think the seminal work of jimmy carter, walt and mearsheim and david bromwich are contributing to a change such that public discourse of the middle east can go on free of the aipac induced mccarthyism which has prevailed for so long.
good job david!
Thanks for this information. Good post.
Great comment johndordan.
The following, from Wikipedia, is directed at the research-resistance (yeah, even the simplistic kind of cut and paste from Wiki) found among the vast numbers of Huff Po Obama-Palestinian lickers:
"On 14 May 1948, one day before the end of the British Mandate of Palestine, Israel declared its independence and sovereignty on the portion partitioned by UNSCOP for the Jewish state. The next day, the Arab League reiterated officially their opposition to the "two-state solution" in a letter to the UN.That day, the armies of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq invaded the territory partitioned for the Arab state, thus starting the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The nascent Israeli Defense Force repulsed the Arab nations from part of the occupied territories, thus extending its borders beyond the original UNSCOP partition. By December of 1948, Israel controlled most of the portion of Mandate Palestine west of the Jordan River. The remainder of the Mandate consisted of Jordan, the area that came to be called the West Bank (controlled by Jordan), and the Gaza Strip (controlled by Egypt). Prior and during this conflict, 711,000 Palestinians Arabs fled their original lands to become Palestinian refugees"
Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq ATTACKED..
WRONG, my friend. Israel illegaly SEIZED Arab land. the Arabs only resorted to their right to defend their land.
There was no "Land without a people for a people without a land". This is pure propaganda. EVERY INCH ot Palestine was private property, bevore The Jew stole it from the Palestinians.
By the way: 80 percent of all Jews are Ashkenazim and have no personal ancestry in Judaea, whatsoever. No, and I am NOT Anti-Semitic: Because then, I would have to have a stance against Arabs, who are Semites, but the Ashkenazim are not. But thanks for asking.
That the UN retroactively legalized that illegal seizure of Arab land by Jews, does make it perhaps "legal" - but it will never make it JUST.
Go fabricate your fake legends elsewhere.
Perhaps you ought to try reading a history of the region before making such inaccurate comments. It is clear from your comments that you current understanding of the restoration of Israel is lacking in substance and facts.
bb1234: You mean prevented from docking in Palestine because Israel didnt exist until 1948 but, keep up the revisionism, lies and rewriting of history and what's you and your buddy Bubba there are paid to do.
KHAAANNN:"Jim Crow Jews. The problem is not with being Jewish, it is with being RACIST and hiding behind their religion to do it".
Great comment KHAAANNN.
>. EVERY INCH ot Palestine was private property, bevore The Jew stole it from the Palestinians.
This is nonsense. Jews lived in Palestine for centuries before the establishment of the state of Israel, alongside Arabs and everyone else. Not without conflict. But legally.
Wrong. All that land IS Palestine. No entity has a right to steal land from any other country.
By your logic, we non-native Americans should be seizing and settling Indian reservation land because of what happened at Wounded Knee.
If a developer did seize reservation land, kicked out Native Americans, and built a gated community, and the tribes, failing to get any resolution through US courts, began attacking these settlements, would you call that self-defense or terrorism?
Attacked why ? Occupied territories ? You mean illegally occupied territories, right ? Extending it's borders beyond the original UNSOP partition. You mean illegally extending it's borders, right? You better stop now, your only digging yourself in deeper....
There is no Palestine and there never has been a Palestine.
The UN partitioned the land and granted a Jewish state.
The Arabs attacked and lost, and attacked and lost, and launched terrorist attacks over rand over again. If they had accepted the UN resolution, then they would have their own state. When you launch a war and lose repeatedly, then you lost your land.
The US land is occupied from the Native Americans, now that's an atrocity. Please return you backyard to their rightful owner.
Betz- I have more good news for you. I just sent Jimmy Carter a copy of all your comments on Huff Post. He's so impressed with the clarity of your vision (and that of David Bromwich) that he's willing to autograph your copy of Mein Kampf.
Today must be your lucky day!
Zionist terrorists stole Palestine and illegally declared Israel in Arab lands and the Arabs fought back ... got it?
Got what? Your posting is without a basis in fact. Git it?
Great post. I am impressed that someone finally is not afraid to talk about Israel and AIPAC and the suffering of apartheid Palestinians, right here on huffpost. Amazing. Maybe tides are turning and MSM may come around start talking about the taboo (big elephant in the room) America has been carrying for the last several decades.
Thanks for your courage.
Bravo Sir, for your objective and correct perspective. Less than a year ago I was invited to a democrats for Israel gathering, all my and many other representatives were lined up in this e-mail as if to say this is our resolution. To me it was blanket approval by many Cal reps. proving the opposite of democratic principles. One nation for one state, this would be a great gesture if the record of that state on human rights abuse weren't so poor. Hopefully to achieve security and some semblence of sanity in mid-east we can first come to any amiable agreement between the US and Israel where both governments realize potential instead of devastation.
Incredible article Mr. Bromwich. I get censored everytime I mension Israel as our 51st state.
I propose a two state solution for us and Israel as well, and I propose a bi-national one state solution for the Israelies and Palestinians since this is the reality on the ground. What the international community did with South Africa needs to happen again to that part of the region.
"Senator Biden, Barack Obama, and others were quick to respond to the charge that talking (not giving things away) to a hostile country must constitute "appeasement";"
If what you say is true, then WHY won't Biden or Obama support Jimmy Carter's trip to meet with Hamas?
Obama was asked that specific question, and his brave response was "Can't I just eat my waffle?"
I don't understand why Dems act like the cat that ate the canary on this one. Their own hypocrisy is plain to see. Either embrace Carter's trip, or pipe down.
My guess is the same reason that Bush should not have put out domestic political airs at a foreign gathering. Also, the relative merits of Hamas as a "government" relative to Iran are significant.
bush is the one guilty of appeasement.
I would go even further on the appeasement issue. There is no such thing as a perfect peace. Imposing a peace one side thinks is perfect usually leads to another war (see WW2). The only way to a lasting peace is to talk and work out a compromise. To call this appeasement is to choose war over peace in every case. To refuse to talk is beyond naive and immature -- even children work out their differences and live with animosity.
It is hard for Americans to say this, but it takes no moral courage for me to say it, since I'm not running for office. We need politicians who will step up and say proudly that talk is better than war, and that when you talk, there is usually give and take.
It has been absolutely bizarre, over the last 35 years or so, watching American politicians falling over each other trying to show who supports Israel the most.
It certainly has not done the Palestinians any good, it certainly has not done us any good in terms of the perception of us in the Arab world, but most importantly, IT HASN'T DONE ISRAEL ANY GOOD!
Instead of lending our power, prestige, and money to helping Israel define their borders by any acceptable international standard, or helping to reach a settlement that is fair and sustainable with the Palestinians, we aid and abet at every turn, further exacerbating the situation. And look what its done for Israel! There long occupation of the Palestinians was torn a hole in the soul of their nation, and they still fear attacks from near and far every day.
To the politicians that are the most "pro-Israel" in our government, perhaps it's time to rethink this strategy.
Even-handedness does not have to be a bad thing...
Actually, it has. It has given Egypt Sinai back, and Jordan genuine peace. Had the Palestinians not been kidding when they pretended to negotiate peace there would have been a two state solution and everyone, except a few extremists, would have been happy.
Remember, the US HAS been even handed. That's the problem.
When are you referring to? Just curious.
Even handed how? Israeli leaders have rejected every Palestinian proposal for ceasefire or peace,blindly pursuing the Zionazi policy of ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people from their homeland in collusion, and bias with the US for 60 years. The Camp David offer? It is no surprise this history was also rewritten to shed Palestinians in a negative light.
It should first be noted that Palestinians have conceded their claim to 78% of historical Palestine, and agreed to form a new state on the remaining 22%, which is comprised of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
- Israel proposed that 69 settlements, populated by 85% of West Bank settlers would be annexed by Israel. These settlements would reduce the Palestinian state by 10%, not to mention severely disrupt travel and daily life in the West Bank.
- Israel proposed "temporary control" of yet another 10% of land that housed the most extreme of settlers. Essentially this means that a foreign power would control the land of another sovereign nation.
- The remaining areas would be broken up by Israeli bypass roads and checkpoints, forcing Palestinians to live on bantustans or reservations (like South Africans or Native Americans), in a non-contiguous state.
- Palestinians were also expected to relinquish land considered most essential for trade and tourism.
- Israel would maintain very vital controls over Palestinian water, Palestinian borders, and Palestinian airspace.
Anyone in their right minds would not have accepted such a ridiculous proposal. Apartheid South Africa all over again.
Some people have never forgiven Carter for those peace treaties. At the moment, Carter's the neocon's favourite "anti-semite". Peace is somewhoe biased towards Israel.
With the exception of the Hagee Doomsday watchers, Israel has little importance to the vast majority of the country. How come England isn't an issue, but Israel is? Historically America has more in common with Britain than Israel.
USA out of the Middle East!
munimula: I agree, it's truly unbelievable. It's not even enough to support Israel, they must LOVE Israel, they must hold Israel in SPECIAL regard above all other nations and peoples.
History will be harsh when discussing the Israeli hysteria and phenomena in American politics.
messy: seems to me you believe if you post a lie it magically becomes the truth; sorry to disappoint you but, it doesnt. Your comment is dishonest and a lie.
Nancy Pelosie is making her bow to the Israelis. We are like lemmings, we have to pander to AIPAC and the extremists in Israel asking for approval of our presidential candidates. Policies are made in Israel and we just pay the bill in blood and treasure.
All three candidates will go to speak and take their bow to AIPAC. Nothing to be proud of.
Our politicians left and right don't have the moral integrity and courage to speak out against all the human rights abuses against the Palestinian people.
President Carter is one who speaks out and we can only be grateful to him.
I'm trying to remember if any Israeli terrorists ever blew up a Palestinian bus - or murdered a bunch of children in their school - or lobbed rockets randomly into their villages just for the hell of it - or... - or... - or... Human rights abuses - "I don't care who you are, that's funny, there!" ...Larry the Cable Guy.
You should be able to remember, considering that, since 2000, 4719 Palestinians have been killed and 1044 Israelis have been killed. Americans keep talking about having to protest Israel, but Israel has the sixth largest nuclear stockpile in the world, behind only the US, the UK, France, Russia and China. I think Israel can protect itself.
http://www
I appreciate this article because I always wondered why any criticism of Israel was attacked so visciously, as though questioning their policies was anti-Semitic. I question China for their treatment of Tibet, but that doesn't make me anti-Buddhist or racist against Chinese people. Then again - this is the country where any criticism of the Bush administration and their heinous actions is branded unpatriotic.
Does dropping bombs on apartment buildings count?
You must have a short memory. Or maybe extremist jewish settlers gunning down 29 mulsims at prayer doesn't count for you?
"In the most well-known of such attacks, 29 Palestinians praying in the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron were gunned down by Baruch Goldstein, a follower of Kahane, in 1994, with Israeli soldiers looking on and allowing the gunman to reload his automatic machine gun and continue killing innocent civilians. In response to that massacre, the Israeli authorities punished the Palestinian victims by taking over the Ibrahimi mosque and turning half of it into a synagogue, where Israeli settlers go to pray each week. And each year, on the anniversary of the massacre, Israeli settlers in Hebron dress up like Baruch Goldstein and parade through the streets of Hebron, firing guns in the air."
Great article, how about starting to talk about these issues on broadcast media? Olbermann, Mathews, Rose? All we got was the 60Min blatantly biased puff piece by a two bit hack a few weeks back. AIPAC, ADL, etc all practice McCarthyism everyday day by stifling 'free speech' that questions Israels oppressive, warmongering, apartheid policies a thousand different ways in Washington and in the media.
The oath of allegiance that I said everyday in school was not to Israel, or any country but America. I will be proud of the day when an American President can put the interest of America before the interest of Israel and not be crucified for it. US taxpayers are forced to give billions yearly to Israel when our own are homeless or soon to be,have no jobs,no healthcare?Yearly US aid to Israel gives the equivalent of over $1500.00 per capita and funds the illegal setttlements,while cutting programs in the US due to "funding".
It's time for the US government to break the grip AIPAC has on it. Since AIPAC controls the campaign finance committees through Schumer and Emanuel, they control which politicians get money for their campaigns. It's no secret AIPAC practices McCarthyism everyday day by stifling 'free speech' that questions Israels oppressive apartheid policies. What is shameful is that the people we elected to work for us perpetuate this crap.
The 'dialog' in this country about Israel is exactly NOT that - as you point out betz55. It's totally dominated by AIPAC and its supporters. Why SHOULD American politicians be elected on the basis of their absolute support of one single other, sovereign, nation? I wish US politicians would take care of Americans before talking about giving money to Israel and other countries - or pretty soon we not only will be out of money (there already) but unable to borrow more and unable to fix a broken economy. We need some of that 'aid' spent on families here before we play 'rescuer' of a modern fully-functioning nation with its own economy.
Also, do we typically consider advanced military technology often used against civilians 'aid'? Other than aiding and abetting, that is.
I wish the US would stop being joined at the hip with another country. Like you said: I pledged my allegiance to the US, not Israel. Let Israel stand or fall on the basis of its own policies like a mature country. And stop pretending it's perfect and untouchable, too.
Exactly.
The negative influence of Israel in US policy toward the Middle East has cost us dearly and it's high time we said enough is enough.
It is well past time to stop being the Big Bully in the world. Bush and McCains rehtoric and "win at any cost" does not fit into 21st century thinking. We must re-establish our place in this global world, and learn to speak of our differences with others, but do so in a civil manner, rather than running all over the middle east with a big club and proving nothing. No Republican President this time, Please!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
