[Big Mac]

Comment: Nicholas Sarkozy is officially the best friend the state of Israel has (100 times better than President Bush):

Sarkozy: PA can't demand both a state and "right of return" to Israel
By Israel Insider staff October 23, 2007

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert left his meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Monday satisfied that he and Sarkozy shared "identical" views on critical issues like imposing tougher sanctions on Iran.

Olmert told Israeli reporters after their meeting "on the Iranian issue, I could not have heard statements that better satisfied my expectations," Haaretz reported.

Sarkozy voiced his support for expanded sanctions, and the two leaders discussed how to gain the backing of Germany, Italy and Spain.

The two leaders did not discuss "an extreme solution like a military strike," the Jerusalem Post quoted Olmert as saying. Rather, he said, "we focused mainly on how to succeed in our diplomatic moves and not what to do if we fail. There is a large array of possibilities that are not necessarily extreme."

France's president stressed his admiration for Israel and his respect and partnership with the Jewish state.

"They say that I support Israel because my grandfather was Jewish, but this isn't a personal matter. Israel introduces diversity and democracy to the Middle East. It's a miracle that out of the remnants of the scattered Jewish people, such a state has arisen." He described Israel's foundation as "the most significant event of the 20th century."

"Israel's security is a clear red line, which is not up for negotiation," he added. "That is an inviolable condition, which we will never concede," he added, underscoring his concern for Israel's security as a top priority in the peace process with the PA, remarks that distinguish him from many other EU leaders.

Sarkozy described Israel as "the most significant event of the 20th century."

While lauding Olmert's goodwill gestures to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, Sarkozy said that he does not support the right of return for Palestinians to Israel.

"Each side should have its own nation-state," he said, according to Israeli officials who were present at the two leaders' meeting. "It is not reasonable for the Palestinians to demand both an independent state and also the refugees' return to the state of Israel, which even today has a minority of one million Arabs."

Sarkozy emphasized the need for Israel to make concessions to the PA, but only when the Palestinians can keep their commitment to combat terrorism.

"The minute Israel's security is assured, it will be possible to display creativity toward the Palestinians," France's president said.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Comment: Nicholas Sarkozy is officially the best friend the state of Israel has (100 times better than President Bush).

Good, now maybe they can start giving US$2 Billion a year to Israel for military support and we can pull back those funds. Maybe eventually we can get the French to take over permanently as Israel's BFF and we can be done with being caught up with Israel's problems.

If we can stop being involved with Israel then we can work on eliminating involvement with Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Maybe within a generation or two we can be done with the Middle East altogether. I'd like to see the US pull all their resources out of the Middle East and let those folks wallow in their own excesses for a few more centuries.

Eventually, the peoples of the Middle East, including Israel, should recognize how they are far behind the rest of the world and there would be up-risings fighting for democracy and secular (non-religious) forms of government and national identity. Until then, Let's isolate them and their tribalism from the rest of the world.

[Big Mac]

Fine. But you do know Israel is a democracy, right?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Fine. But you do know Israel is a democracy, right?

Israel is a democracy for all its Jewish citizens but not for all for its Arab/Muslim residents. Are the Arab/Muslin residents of Israel offered the same citizenship rights as the Jewish residents/citizens of Israel?

But my larger point regarding Israel is that I hope, in a few centuries times, they will decide to pursue a "secular form of government and national identity" and not a form of national identity based solely on one's religious identity. Because, right now, Israel is "the country for Jews", it is not a country that happens to have a large number of Jewish citizens. I would like to see an Israel that, in a few centuries time, can be seen as culturally and religiously diverse as the United States or India. (Both country's, while having many flaws, have a large number of religious practitioners from a large number of religious groups. Israel has a large number of religious practitioners from one religious group--Judaism.)

[Big Mac]

Israel's Arab citizens are accorded full rights, including representation. What you envision wouldn't be Israel by definition, however. And it wouldn't make any sense. Without a Jewish majority the country would be voted out of existence anyway. I really don't think you understand the conflict much at all.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Israel's Arab citizens are accorded full rights, including representation. What you envision wouldn't be Israel by definition, however. And it wouldn't make any sense. Without a Jewish majority the country would be voted out of existence anyway. I really don't think you understand the conflict much at all.

I do believe Dcmacdaddy said "Arab/Muslim residents" .... not citizens. The bottom line is that Jews (especially of the European variety) are a little more equal than other "citizens" and especially other "residents" in the Israel.

OAW

[Big Mac]

No, the bottom line is Arabs citizens have far more rights and a far higher standard of living than their brethren in their own countries. However, it is true that Christians and Muslims will never be fully integrated in a Jewish state. If they don't like that fact, they can emigrate to greener pastures. That's the reality.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Israel's Arab citizens are accorded full rights, including representation. What you envision wouldn't be Israel by definition, however. And it wouldn't make any sense. Without a Jewish majority the country would be voted out of existence anyway. I really don't think you understand the conflict much at all.

I understand the conflict just fine, thanks. And your points support my argument: Namely that we need to leave the MIddle East alone for two or three centuries until such a time as the people who live in the countries there no longer feel the need to have a Jewish country (Israel) or a Muslim country (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, etc.). Although, if I were completely honest, I think it will take five centuries or more before all the countries in the Middle East can put aside their tribal, religious- and culture-based animosities. But hey, I just want the United States out of the Middle East as soon as we can. And if France can replace the US as Israel's best foreign supporter, that is a step in the right direction. Now all we need to do is work on slowly weaning our nation off the addiction of Middle Eastern oil and then we can start to dis-engage ourselves from whatever happens in that part of the world. The sooner the better as far as I am concerned.

[OreoCookie]

Words are cheap. And easy. Especially those that are just nice talk and don't imply a commitment.

[vmarks]

That's the lesson Arafat and Abbas have taught us, yes. That's what we learned from Oslo, from the Roadmap, and from Abbas' commitment to peace and negotiation, at the same time as his Fatah men plotted the assassination of Olmert this month.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Words are cheap. And easy. Especially those that are just nice talk and don't imply a commitment.

Oh I agree completely. In the United States we have had several decades of national leaders expressing interest in a democratic Middle East but who have failed to follow through with any sort of commitment to make it happen. Their words promoting democracy were cheap and hollow, when fighting the Russians and/or seeking to maintain access to cheap oil trumped any real commitment to supporting fledgling democracies around the Middle East. That's why I think it is a complete quagmire we should work to remove ourselves from.

This move by French President Sarkozy seems like a perfect opportunity to pull back support for Israel. Just think what we could do with renewable energy research if we took away the US$2.5 Billion in military aid we give to Israel every year. More money spent researching renewable/alternative energies would then mean a quicker time-frame in which to reduce our need for Middle East oil, which would allow us to move quicker in pulling back our interest/need for Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon. Think about it; Maybe instead of taking 40-50 years to get ourselves extricated from the tribal mess that is the Middle East we could do it in 25-35 years.

That is a single generation. Imagine the thought of leaving our adult children or grand-children a world in which the United States has only the most minimal involvement in the Middle East, where the fighting and attacks and suicide bombings wouldn't really be a significant issue in our political environment. I think *that* is definitely something worth trying to do. Now all we need are leaders willing to make those choices and to stick with them. The United States doesn't have to be involved heavily in the Middle East mess, we do so by choice. I want to see a leader who will make the choice to no longer be involved so heavily in the Middle East.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Oh I agree completely. In the United States we have had several decades of national leaders expressing interest in a democratic Middle East but who have failed to follow through with any sort of commitment to make it happen. Their words promoting democracy were cheap and hollow, when fighting the Russians and/or seeking to maintain access to cheap oil trumped any real commitment to supporting fledgling democracies around the Middle East. That's why I think it is a complete quagmire we should work to remove ourselves from.

This move by French President Sarkozy seems like a perfect opportunity to pull back support for Israel. Just think what we could do with renewable energy research if we took away the US$2.5 Billion in military aid we give to Israel every year. More money spent researching renewable/alternative energies would then mean a quicker time-frame in which to reduce our need for Middle East oil, which would allow us to move quicker in pulling back our interest/need for Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon. Think about it; Maybe instead of taking 40-50 years to get ourselves extricated from the tribal mess that is the Middle East we could do it in 25-35 years.

Okay, so far you've questioned the value you've gotten for the money spent, and the value of the support for democracies so far. Fair enough, it's always reasonable to examine investments and the return on them.

That is a single generation. Imagine the thought of leaving our adult children or grand-children a world in which the United States has only the most minimal involvement in the Middle East, where the fighting and attacks and suicide bombings wouldn't really be a significant issue in our political environment.

Logical disconnect.

What leads you to believe that divestment would remove fighting, attacks, and suicide bombings from being significant issues in our political environment?

This can only be true if isolationism works and there are no people who are actively working against the United States from within her borders.

Isolationism doesn't work. CAIR, HLF, Sami al-Arian, Mahdi Bray, and others like him, should come to mind as front groups and supporters for Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the parent group of Hamas, both of which have declared their intent to do harm to the US. Those groups and people themselves have declared their intention to undermine and replace the Constitution.

CAIR has come to the defense of Ahmed Abdellatif Sherif Mohamed and Youssef Samir Megahed. CAIR's Ahmed Bedier has said that the detcord, gasoline, pvc, gunpowder and boxes of .22 caliber ammo was just 'fireworks' and that they weren't doing anything questionable near that NAVY weapons station in South Carolina. Mmmhmm.

You do not fight terrorism by turning tail and isolating yourself. You defeat those who want to destroy you by removing their hope of success. This isolationism you seek will encourage them and bring more attacks, more fighting, suicide attacks, and death.

If you're bowing to isolationism because that's one of the demands made by people committing these attacks, and you meet that demand, what prevents the demands from neverending? You give up that, you've given the people making demands incredible power. So where does it stop?

I think *that* is definitely something worth trying to do. Now all we need are leaders willing to make those choices and to stick with them. The United States doesn't have to be involved heavily in the Middle East mess, we do so by choice. I want to see a leader who will make the choice to no longer be involved so heavily in the Middle East.

You have one candidate to choose from in the Presidential primaries. Go register Republican, find out about being a delegate at the RNC national convention, and vote to make Ron Paul the party's Presidential candidate.

I disagree strongly with that policy choice. It's going to bring none of the things you desire, and all of the things you hope to prevent. Knowing that such a policy will bring death with no positive gain makes that policy immoral. But if you want to see a leader who supports such things, he's your man.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Logical disconnect.

SNIP

What leads you to believe that divestment would remove fighting, attacks, and suicide bombings from being significant issues in our political environment?

You are making a logical assumption that is logically just as questionable as the one you accuse me of making.

If the US removes itself from the "fighting, attacks, and suicide bombings" taking place in the Middle East then what happens there becomes of little concern to US foreign policy. (There are regional conflicts and fighting happening all over the world right now and the US is not involved in every one of them; The US is indifferent to much of them.) So, why should it be any different if US foreign policy becomes just as indifferent to regional fighting in the Middle East as it is to regional fighting in Africa, Southeast Asia, Central or South America, or former Soviet satellite countries?

Right now, the Middle East is important to US foreign policy because of our need for oil and because of a small but vocal segment of the fundamentalist Christian movement that equates support for Israel with fulfilling Christian religious prophecy (Olmert's so-called "useful idiots"). We can't change peoples religious beliefs--nor should we try--but if we work to diminish our need for oil then we can simultaneously work to diminish that need for our involvement in the Middle East. Then, if the people in the Middle East want to keep killing one another in their religio-cultural conflict, by all means let them.

As for your suggestion that withdrawing our interests from the Middle East over a period of two generations is somehow going to somehow lead to "fighting, attacks, and suicide bombings" taking place on American soil, I concede that suicide bombings are certainly possible to take place on American soil. (Of course, non-Arabs/Muslims are just as capable of committing suicide bombings in this, or any, country.) But it is ludicrous to think that Middle East nations could somehow sneak enough troops, weapons, and military materiel into this country to wage attacks and fight US citizens on US soil. And if a small group does conduct an attack os US soil then those who conduct the attack should be caught, tried, and killed for attempting to wage war on the US.

But overall, with these suppositions you are buying into the logic that "if we don't fight them over there we will fight them over here" and I find that logic very, very suspect and not supported by any strong logical evidence.

[vmarks]

Actually, you misread me.

I wasn't talking exclusively about the fighting, violence and suicide attacks in the ME.

I was also addressing the continued efforts to make those same acts take place on US soil. I highlighted one such effort in my last post, the attempt to cause an explosion at the NAVY weapons station in SC by those two youths from FL.

Re-read me with that in mind, and take under consideration all the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood affiliated orgs in the US and their support for Hamas, and Hamas' declaration of intent to make attacks take place in the US. You think that goes away in the face of isolationism, but I know that it does not.

It's been going on since the early 50s when America had no such alliance with Israel. Consider Sayyid Qutb (Egyptian, Muslim Brotherhood) and his perspective after spending 1949 in Greeley, Colorado. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1253796 He could not be satisfied with even the most conservative uptight America he encountered, unless it was a Muslim society. Al-Qaeda learned at his feet. New phase of an old war.

Again, you want a leader who supports your isolationist views. You have to go and become a delegate to the RNC national convention in Minnesota. It's the only way you'll get such a candidate on the ballot in this coming election.

[Big Mac]

It would actually be preferable for Israel to decide it can stand on its own economically so that the country would be less beholden to American political pressure.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Actually, you misread me.

I wasn't talking exclusively about the fighting, violence and suicide attacks in the ME.

I was also addressing the continued efforts to make those same acts take place on US soil. I highlighted one such effort in my last post, the attempt to cause an explosion at the NAVY weapons station in SC by those two youths from FL.

Re-read me with that in mind, and take under consideration all the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood affiliated orgs in the US and their support for Hamas, and Hamas' declaration of intent to make attacks take place in the US. You think that goes away in the face of isolationism, but I know that it does not.

It's been going on since the early 50s when America had no such alliance with Israel. Consider Sayyid Qutb (Egyptian, Muslim Brotherhood) and his perspective after spending 1949 in Greeley, Colorado. NPR : Sayyid Qutb's America He could not be satisfied with even the most conservative uptight America he encountered, unless it was a Muslim society. Al-Qaeda learned at his feet. New phase of an old war.

Again, you want a leader who supports your isolationist views. You have to go and become a delegate to the RNC national convention in Minnesota. It's the only way you'll get such a candidate on the ballot in this coming election.

Umm, I wasn't mis-reading you. I addressed your point about concerns that Muslims could perpetrate "fighting, attacks, and suicide bombings" on US soil. But, apart from the possibility of suicide attackers--which can't be prevented completely anywhere in the world--your suggestion that the US faces a significant threat from Muslims terrorists in this country, or coming to this country, seems wickedly over-rated. Methinks there is more than a fair bit of generalized anti-Muslim sentiment underlying your arguments.

As far as isolationism, I have not advocated a complete removal from the world stage for the United States. There are still plenty of regions--and countries within those regions--around the world that have relatively safe, secular, democratic systems of government. But yes, my overall opinion on US domestic and foreign policy is to make sure "our own house is in order" before we expend our time, money, and human resources in helping others do the same. Those parts of the world that want to wallow in tribal-based religio-cultural conflict should be allowed to do so until the time passes--probably a few centuries, as commented on in my original post--when they decide that a belief in secular, open, democratic society trumps their beliefs in tribalism.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It would actually be preferable for Israel to decide it can stand on its own economically so that the country would be less beholden to American political pressure.

Israel would collapse if it weren't for foreign aid (direct and hidden aid).
So all dreams of an `independent Israel' are nothing more than wishful thinking. Even if you are economically less dependent, you're never completely independent.

Also, while it's a good idea to foster democracies, it was never the sole (read: decisive) reason that America and Europe based their foreign policy on. (Not that I agree with that philosophy.) So all claims that `the US supports us, because we are a shining example of a democratic state' are a bit misguided. Sure, that's one reason, but just one among many.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Israel would collapse if it weren't for foreign aid (direct and hidden aid).
So all dreams of an `independent Israel' are nothing more than wishful thinking. Even if you are economically less dependent, you're never completely independent.

Also, while it's a good idea to foster democracies, it was never the sole (read: decisive) reason that America and Europe based their foreign policy on. (Not that I agree with that philosophy.) So all claims that `the US supports us, because we are a shining example of a democratic state' are a bit misguided. Sure, that's one reason, but just one among many.

Netanyahu stood before US Congress as Prime Minister. He laid out a plan where within a decade Israel would be financially self-sufficient. It wasn't smoke, he studied economics in the US. He began to implement some of these plans, but found political resistence back at home, and then lost election to Ehud Barak, who was elected with the aid of Clinton's campaign manager, James Carville. Clinton sent Carville to get Barak elected so that Clinton could be sure Barak was in his pocket when Clinton attempted to secure a legacy based on establishing peace following the failure of Oslo.

A self-sufficient Israel is not an impossibility when fiscally responsible people are able to exercise the political willpower necessary.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Umm, I wasn't mis-reading you. I addressed your point about concerns that Muslims could perpetrate "fighting, attacks, and suicide bombings" on US soil. But, apart from the possibility of suicide attackers--which can't be prevented completely anywhere in the world--your suggestion that the US faces a significant threat from Muslims terrorists in this country, or coming to this country, seems wickedly over-rated. Methinks there is more than a fair bit of generalized anti-Muslim sentiment underlying your arguments.

No, just opposition to those who would replace the Constitution with a religious authority, only those who have no shame in declaring their intention to oppress or kill the rest of us. That you ignore what is a real threat which I have referred to shows your ignorance or willful naivete. NPR, liberal of all liberal sites was not even able to whitewash Qutb.

I have no anti-Muslim bias. See my signature. it's been that way for years.

As far as isolationism, I have not advocated a complete removal from the world stage for the United States.

So then you're inconsistent and biased. When you decide to treat only Israel differently, it's shameful.

There are still plenty of regions--and countries within those regions--around the world that have relatively safe, secular, democratic systems of government. But yes, my overall opinion on US domestic and foreign policy is to make sure "our own house is in order" before we expend our time, money, and human resources in helping others do the same. Those parts of the world that want to wallow in tribal-based religio-cultural conflict should be allowed to do so until the time passes--probably a few centuries, as commented on in my original post--when they decide that a belief in secular, open, democratic society trumps their beliefs in tribalism.

Israel has no interest in wallowing in religio-tribal-based conflict. How many times has it come to the table offering peace? How many times has it been rejected? What do you do when one country is trying to get out of that conflict with neighbors whose interest is in maintaining such a conflict? You've told me: You abandon Israel and wash your hands of the whole thing.

As for getting your own house in order, the US will never be 'in order' - this is the nature of a representative Republic, where some bills get passed, others get defeated, and representatives work against each other in order to win favor in their own districts. Instead, you have domestic policy, and try and get Congress to support it, at the same time as you have a foreign policy that addresses the globe and the USA's place in it.

You do not suspend one in favor of the other.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

So then you're inconsistent and biased. When you decide to treat only Israel differently, it's shameful.

Take off your blinders, Victor. I have talked about minimizing/removing United States involvement from ALL of the MIddle East not just Israel.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

A self-sufficient Israel is not an impossibility when fiscally responsible people are able to exercise the political willpower necessary.

Israel can only decrease its financial dependence from Europe and the US if there is unrestricted trade with its immediate neighbors. For self-sufficiency, it needs to reduce the size of its military budget to that of a regular country of its size (which is obviously only possible if it's at peace with its neighbors).

Until then the comfortable level of financial, economic and military aid allow Israel to exist in this state of indecision. I think that's what inflicts the most damage to Israel in recent years -- it doesn't have to face the tough path to establish a peaceful coexistence with its neighbors. I am not referring to imposed, Versaille-style peace treaties or stop-gap solutions, but the answer to the question: how much is permanent piece worth to Israelis. (Obviously it's neighbors also have to find an answer to the same questions.)

Originally Posted by vmarks 

So then you're inconsistent and biased. When you decide to treat only Israel differently, it's shameful.

Israel is afforded different treatment, not by dcmacdaddy, but by all countries involved (US, European countries, Iran, you name it). Israel is granted a substantial amount of aid by some and is particularly hated by others. It's not dcmacdaddy who is biased.

[vmarks]

All Israel has ever asked is to be treated equally among the nations of the world.

Yet the head of the UN human rights council was compelled to admit that "we have criticized Israel unfairly" UN: We have criticized Israel unfairly | Jerusalem Post

Go ahead and cut money to Israel. Make sure that you cut all aid to other nations as well, at the same time.

like the 490 million USD to Egypt.
448 million USD to Jordan
230 million USD to Lebanon
240 million to Palestinian Authority
600 million to Israel

and don't stop at ME nations.

When you do this, maybe you'll want to also consider not taking aid from other countries. Countries offering U.S. aid for Katrina

Or, perhaps the rational position is instead that it is ok, perhaps even honorable to be biased in favor of some countries, based on which are free societies? You advocate a complete withdrawal, and to let free societies fall victim to the tyrannies around them.

Respectfully, I think your position is in error.

[OreoCookie]

You don't need to be defensive.

Regarding the aid, that's the tip of the iceberg, Israel is receiving a lot more than that. I don't advocate to cut aid to zero, either. I'm saying that the level of aid Israel receives now is hurting itself since it doesn't have to seriously work towards improving the relations to its neighbors and solve some fundamental questions.

However, the fact that Israel would collapse if (hypothetically) other countries would cut their aid back to zero (so that Israel had to rely on money generated by its own economy), this is indeed something very worrying. The longer Israel remains dependent on foreign aid, the more difficult it will be for Israel to work towards independence. As Big Mac's and your own comments suggest, (financial) independence is something desirable for Israel, a burden but also an opportunity. That's when Israel will join the community as an independent state with its own voice rather than a state that has to live with a Big Brother (the US mostly, but feel free to include Europe here as well) with which it has a love/hate relationship.

In my opinion `cutting' some of the aid can be an incentive for Israel to solve the question of its (continued) existence. (For instance by not funding certain weapons programs.) It is the responsibility of a Big Brother to further Israel's self-reliance. Sometimes this will hurt or cause tension between your brother and yourself. The smaller brother may even interpret that as a lack of care or lack of compassion, but it's not.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Go ahead and cut money to Israel. Make sure that you cut all aid to other nations as well, at the same time.

That's my plan. Use the surging interest in Israel by France to reduce our payout to Israel and use that reduction in payout to Israel to fund research into alternative energy sources so we can begin the process of minimizing our involvement in the oil producing countries of the Middle East. As for those countries in the Middle East that receive funding from the US, but are not in the oil business, then they should get all funding cut off immediately.

So, we start by minimizing funding to Israel and the oil-producing countries of the Middle East--with an eyes towards eliminating it altogether. Those countries that have nothing to do with the oil trade we cut off altogether. Over a period of 10-15 years the funding for Israel could be eliminated and over a period of 25-40 years the funding for oil-producing nations could be eliminated as well. Then the US just washes its hands of the whole region.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Comment: Nicholas Sarkozy is officially the best friend the state of Israel has (100 times better than President Bush):

By the way, his first name is spelled NICOLAS.