I like that.

The best intervention story we ever had is McArthur's occupation and administration in Japan. We have not made the same success in the same way or different so far.

While there are many problems in the middle east, only one is our essential bane. Only one has drawn us into unending conflict with Islam. And that is our essential mistake.

For the following reasons it seems to me that the Zionist enterprise has reached its dead end. A few more decades will tell the tale. Israel is in a strategic trap of its own creation. Peace and justice were rejected in favor of ruthless domination. A "master race" based upon false biblical authority. But that cannot last. New wars against Iran, Turkey, Egypt, or repeatedly devastating Lebanon, can only make a bad situation much worse. Everyone know this.

Here is the problem:

No two state solution: it is now foreclosed by forty years of illegal annexations and forced colonization of the West Bank. Look at a map of the "settlements". They seem to be located in such a manner as to make a Palestinian state not viable. Some 500K super ardent Haredi occupy these "settlements" and it is a fantasy that they ever would leave to make the Palestinian state feasible, nor stay in peaceful accomodation with one. Everyone know this too.

No one state solution: Unacceptable. A state unitary, democratic, and non-sectarian with one person one vote confronts the frankly racist thesis of a state dominated by a particular religious or ethnic group.

No sustainable Apartheid solution: The servile condition of the Palestinians in the West Bank, surrounded by vast concrete walls, and forbidden even to drive on the roads upon pain of immediate and non-recourse confiscation of their vehicle, and the worse reality of the unfortunates in the Gaza ghetto, imprisioned for life, cannot endure in the modern world.

See Shulamit Aloni's summation: "Yes, there is Apartheid in Israel" at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/08/yes-there-i...

No "population transfer" solution: Expulsion of millions of Palestinians to Jordan at the point of a bayonet is not feasible.

No military solution: The vast military power of Israel and all its nuclear weapons are useless to resolve this impasse. The cancer is internal, political, economic, demographic and is growing.

Ergo, there is no solution. Dead end. Yes, Israel remains in full control of US policy, but unending war can only in time come to one conclusion. Has it ever in world history been otherwise? The American imprimatur cannot last forever.

For my part, I just want America off this bus before it goes over the cliff and takes us with it. And it is NOT "antisemitic" to say so.

Arab hatred of Israel is the reason for unrest in the Middle East. To say otherwise is Taqiyya. Thanks for spreading the manure.

eom

foreign leader or diplomat.

and paying attention when something doesn't vibe with his world-view. It's called being close-minded and ignorant.

Now watch him spaz at this comment.

America's mistakes are because of America's way of thinking and acting, and he pretty well explained that.

haha....as if oil or any other lobby and interest didn't have a big say in hmmm the gulf war, the Iraq war, and our middle east alliances. keep dreaming in your jew-hating land.

It is true that we don't analyze Middle East objectively, but I don't think AIPAC runs our Middle East policy. It may be more influential than others. To a large extent we willingly romanticize the idea of Israel in our own image, look at the Middle East through the lenses of our own making, and blindly and proudly claim that everything we see must be truth. When reality contradicts us, we either point an accusing finger at the Middle East itself or at AIPAC. Rarely was there a moment to examine ourselves or our inadequacy.

The idea that it's racist to point out that AIPAC in many cases writes US policy, is a powerful lobby with interests that may oppose those of US national or strategic interests, does not represent "Jews" but a particular group of wealthy, politically motivated, one issue, Jewish donors to campaigns, was denigrated by Prime Minister Rabin, is right-wing, etc, is anachronistic.

Not only is it not racist, it's passe to not recognize the role of US domestic politics and not just AIPAC's but negative impact on peace making by the "pro-Israel" lobby, including efforts to shut down expression they disagree with on university campuses. It's unhealthy, fascistic, and more worthy of authoritarian bullies than any typical "special interest" group such as the oil lobby, which by the way, does not advocate for US wars in the region, as does AIPAC. The oil lobby prefers stability to the kind of turmoil continually unleased by AIPAC's demands.

What makes AIPAC different than other lobbies is that it does not just seek to advocate or get something it wants but it also portrays anyone who notices what it does as "anti-Semitic."

And this is nonsense. Pure and simple.

Freespeechlovers's last comment appears to be about his own posting

or else he would see the "mic checks" and other disturbances that occur whenever a pro-Israel speaker arrives on campus. Need we forget UC-Irvine's disruption of Ambassador Michael Oren's speech. I have yet to see any pro-Israel group shout down a representative of the Palestinian Authority on a university campus.

If freespeechlover really loved free speech, shouldn't he be rallying against the actions of most Islamists? Such as the riots, violence, and threats over Mohamaed cartoons? How about the Palestinian Authority and Hamas's abysmal free speech record?

Threats of death were made against Minister Nabil Shaath for planning to participate in a conference in Italy attended by Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom by the Jenin Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of the Popular Resistance Committees. They declared, "He will be sentenced to death if he enters. The decision cannot be rescinded, we call upon his bodyguards to abandon his convoy in order to save their lives."[6]

Nabil Amar, former Minister of Information and a cabinet member and a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, was shot by masked gunmen after criticizing Arafat and calling for reforms in the PA in a television interview.[7]

A Hamas-run council in the West Bank came under international criticism in 2005 for barring an open-air music and dance festival, on the basis of being "against Islam".

Sixteen Palestinian journalists have been killed or wounded by PA security forces or armed groups.

n September 2001, Yasser Arafat's Tanzim kidnapped a Palestinian cameraman who shot film showing Palestinian citizens and police in Ramallah celebrating on 9/11/2001 following the attacks on US targets, and threatened to kill the cameraman if the item the film was shown on air.

since you fail to consider other competing lobbies, and instead focus extensively and nearly exclusively on the pro-Israel lobby. You ascribe to it powers it does not have or at the very least exaggerate its powers.

The American Oil and Energy lobby has had just as big a part in changing US policy - particularly in the mid-east. They donate millions as a year too. The difference is, they have almost no popular ground support, unlike AIPAC. However, you don't seem to mind them or their pro-Arab stance. This is why people finger you for a bigot, your lack of objectivity, reason, or willingness to view the entire picture. You rather prefer to focus your scorn on one group of people, who are primarily Jews.

Hating war mongering racist Jews does not mean hating all Jews. It means hating some Jews, a small number of very influential Jews.

A moral person's first task is to stop committing sins and crimes himself.

So Freespeechlover is correct to attack his own country for what it does and what it supports in the way of war mongering and racism.

After we get our own house in order, once we ourselves cease our own rampant racism and the foreign racism we fund, only then can we complain about other people, like foreign Muslim governments, or young US students experimenting with freedom of speech.

It is an arugment and question why we were always asked to solve their problem, but it is not that simple. In many instances we interposed ourselves willingly and eagerly. We virtually financed Israel economically and militarily for a very long time. Today Israel is still the largest recipient of US foreign aid. We overthrew the democratically elected Mosaddegh government to install a brutal Pahlavi regime. We are the most largest arm supplier in ME. We lent our full support to any dictator who aligned with us. We said as dimly as possible when Saudi troop went out to put down Bahraini uprising in Bahrain. Not everything we did was asked of us to do. We are an aggressive and active participant. The most spectacular deed is George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq. Perhaps it is not totally unfair to ask ourselves why we had to do those things. It is a historic question. We may learn something from the answer. Yes you are right on historic lessons may not always apply to the future, but we seems to made the same mistake in ME repeatedly.

We virtually financed Israel economically and militarily for a very long time.

NOT TRUE. Only around the Kennedy years, but mostly after 1967 did they US start to support Israel. Before that, Israel's main ally was France. Israel couldn't even get tanks directly from the US, and had to get their tanks from the UK (Centurions), France, and Germany (used US M-48 tanks). So, your assertion that the "US financed Israel" is not true.

Moreover, the Palestinians are the world's largest per-capita welfare recipients in the World and US aid to Egypt nears that of Israel.

Bing520, it is really that simple. Yes, we willingly supported these govts for many years, just as many other countries in the world supported them and still do. I'm not sure I understand your point about all of this, because of course the US supported these govts, because it was in the US interest to do so. The US is the largest seller of military hardware in the ME, because the ME countries have made a calculation that US equipment and US support is in their self interest against the old war: sunni-shia. No one told ME countries they had to buy US hardware, they chose to do so on their own accord and calculation. This has really nothing to do with the perspective of Arab-Israel peace in terms of their resolution of their differences over blaming the US for failed peace. The hypocrisy isn't the support of these regimes, but lies with the ME countries who are more than willing to demonize the US for failed Arab-Israeli peace while wanting to use the US to leverage against shia revival a la Iran.

But your argument does not explain why we are in ME. We chose to be there. Nobody forces us to sell weapons to ME countries. No ME countries are forced to buy from us. There have been two willing parties to make a deal. I was responding to the statement complaining about ME countries asked us to solve their problem. My answer is we are partially responsible. We make ME our key interest. In Yom Kippur War, we airlifted large amount of military materials to Israel. Some of them were the most sophisticated missile. I am debating the right or worng. I am saying we wanted to be there so we must accept the responsibilities. For example, if China ships sophisticate weapon to North Korea, we hold them responsible for possible grave consequence.

Starting from 1970s, Israel became the No 1 recipient of foreign aid. It is still so. From 1948 to 2011, Israel retained the No 1 title for 41 years. It is not right for you to say we did not finance Israel.

(Our aids to Iraq and Afghanistan must be larger after our invasion. Somehow that was not listed in traditional foreign aid budget.)

Americans try to take too much credit for the re-building of Europe after the war.

The USA helped, in a small way. But it was a European success, not a US success.

In the middle east we finance dictators and oligarchies, and topple democracies.

It is much easier to handle relations with a dictatorship. You have the one guy, one guy to bribe, you have his word, policy and agreements last decades.

With a foreign democracy, its policies are subject to the whims of its voters (not US voters, foreign voters in the actual foreign country). There are bound to be years when they act against US military or economic interests. Frankly, I do not think the US has the patience to deal with any real democracy that spouts up in the middle east.

The main problem the Arab Spring has created for the State Department is who will it recruit so many new puppets all at once, and how will it be able to train them in restoring their countries to easy to manage dictatorships.

It is a matter of perspective. To an American, "since the Kennedy years" is a very long time.

I agree, by historical standards it is a short period of time.

Googooyou: "No one told ME countries they had to buy US hardware"

Actually I think you'll find that in many cases they were told to buy US hardware, and were told what their foreign policies would be.

Those who could not be persuaded through debate or with bribes were toppled.

@Green Knight, you have a wrong view of how this stuff works. The US did not force ME countries to buy US hardware. ME countries chose to do so, because of: petro dollars = USD, but more importantly, because US hardware proved pretty darn capable. ME countries still do and have bought Soviet/Russian stuff as well as other country hardware. As far as policies, ME countries did not do anything that wasn't in their interest to do so. When it was no longer in Saudi interest to have US forces there, they kicked them out. That doesn't sound like the US telling the Saudis what their policy ought to be. When the Saudis wanted the US in, the King decreed US women in uniform were not women. That wasn't the US telling the Saudis what their policy ought to be. Last time I checked, there are plenty of ME countries with Russian hardware, and even after nearly a decade of war, the US isn't telling Iraq what its policy ought to be.

I disagree, and so do many non-US folks out there. The biggest failure in US foreign policy is to think we are not exceptional, because there are plenty of non-American folks out there who believe in American exceptionalism and fight every day to aspire to those freedoms. Despite America's failings in living up to the vision of those ideals non-US people hold, American exceptionalism remains a beacon for many. If this weren't the case, millions would not be risking life, limb, leaving families behind, in order to reach America. People are not clambering to make it to China or Russia are they? People are not holding protest signs in Chinese, Russian, French, or German are they? The US is not engaged in these things, because of US unilateralism, but because of multilateralism.

War is perhaps the third real thing in the human condition aside from taxes and death (cliche, I know). After all, taxes have always been levied to wage war.

Yes the administration presents the US as acting as do-gooders. But closer analysis usually reveals it is acting in its own self-interest, or the interest of lobbyists.

Good point.

The guy with the biggest gun collection in the trailer park is seldom the best choice for sheriff.