Zalmay Khalilzad Joins Forum on “Cutting The Fuse of Terrorism”

-

khalizad.jpgDuring the George W. Bush administration, Zalmay Khalilzad headed the National Security Council portfolio on the Islamic world and served as US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations.
Khalilzad will share his views on America’s strategic challenges with regard to terrorism, Iraq, and Afghanistan at the conference, Cutting the Fuse: Beyond the War on Terrorism, that I am helping to produce along with the University of Chicago’s Robert Pape.
The conference is taking place in the United States Capitol in the new Congressional Auditorium of the Congressional Visitors Center.
Here is the full schedule and a link to RSVP — including talks by Robert Pape, Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughead, former 9/11 Commission Chair and New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean, Congressman Brian Baird, Nobel Laureate Thomas Schelling, former CIA Acting National Intelligence Officer for terrorism Glenn Carle, among others.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

95 comments on “Zalmay Khalilzad Joins Forum on “Cutting The Fuse of Terrorism”

  1. Dan Kervick says:

    “It is impossible to make barbarous tribes “obey the law” unless you are willing to conquer and occupy them yourself.”
    There are other tools, particularly sanctions. In the case of the Israelis, who get a massive package of free goodies from the United States every year, we can start by yanking the aid and then move on to more aggressive economic sanctions if the aid cancellation doesn’t work.
    But we also have the option of targeted arrests of key leaders of each group. There are also diplomatic pressures we can bring to bear, for example by changing the US position on Israel’s nuclear program. We have communications tools at our disposal that can be used to shift the public narrative on what is happening in Palestine. The US could find many allies for an assertive stance of this kind. With the Palestinians, the situation is easier. They aren’t occupying any land, so all we have to do is get them to desist from firing rockets, forbear from terrorism, give back their one hostage and stay where they are. In the case of the Israelis, who are the more powerful and aggressive party, we need to get them out of the West Bank and change their expansionist agenda.
    “Well if you don’t care about human rights after all, what are you getting so huffy about? Leave the tribesmen to settle their own affairs.”
    I care about the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the chief source of destabilization and anti-American sentiment in the Middle East for decades, and poses a persistent threat to Americans and their children. I know you don’t care that much about the lives of Americans, only Israelis. But I can’t think that way.
    If we could get a contract from American Jews and American Christian Zionists to stop sending money to Israel, stop agitating on behalf of Israel, stop working night and day to align the US with Israeli interests, then maybe the US could simply change its regional stance and benefit from the public hand-washing. But since this is all very unlikely to happen, we need to get the conflict to end. In any case, no matter how the US is aligned, we can’t afford to stand by and watch the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continue to roil and blow up the Middle East. Ultimately that conflict is going to drag us into a war there, which will both kill many Americans and deliver another powerful economic hit to our already weakened country.
    Step one for the US government should be a clear, non-mealy-mouthed statement about what the conflict consists in, what international requirements are being violated and what the internationally acceptable solution has to look like.
    My personal sympathies always lie on the side of those who are having their land taken rather than those who are taking it. But these sympathies are not as important as my concern for the well-being of the United States and Americans.

    Reply

  2. nadine says:

    “I think the whole bloody region, starting in Israel and extending eastward is a land of barbarous tribalism. We can’t fix that. In Israel/Palestine, all we can do is get tough with all parties and try to compel them to obey the law. ” (Dan Kervick)
    It is impossible to make barbarous tribes “obey the law” unless you are willing to conquer and occupy them yourself, so there is a massive contradiction between your statement and your aims. If you really believed that, you would want the US to stay away, just as you want the US out of Afghanistan.
    I see in you not the slightest eagerness to compel anybody to do anything in the myriad of places which are barbarously tribal, or are committing genocide, or even in the Arab parts of the I/P conflict. You only speak of compelling Israel.
    “Once their are settled borders, the two states can go about establishing whatever invidious arrangements they want. Avigdor Lieberman can even pass more laws demanding Arab Israelis say “Heil, Jews!” whenever a Jew walks into the room.”
    Well if you don’t care about human rights after all, what are you getting so huffy about? Leave the tribesmen to settle their own affairs.
    “It belongs to the people who live on it, and have lived on it for a dozen centuries”
    Actually, many different people have lived on it for centuries, not just Arabs, and most of the Arabs’ ancestors have been in Palestine no longer than most of the Jews’ ancestors. Nearly everybody in the place today is descended from immigrants who came during the 20th century. The Arabs just didn’t have as far to travel.
    Anyway, what do you care, if they’re all barbarians? Let them fight it out. Yet somehow, you are passionate with disapproval about the behavior of one side, and ready with a host of excuses for the other. You’re not being honest, Dan, either with me, or with yourself.

    Reply

  3. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Israeli police launch drive to fill ranks with settlers
    Jonathan Cook
    Last Updated: Oct 16, 2010
    NAZARETH // As US-sponsored peace talks have stalled over the issue of settlements, Israel’s national police force has revealed that it is turning to the very same illegal communities in its first-ever drive to recruit officers from among the settlers.
    The special officer training course, which is chiefly aimed at discharged combat soldiers, includes seven months of religious studies in an extremist West Bank settlement.
    The programme has provoked widespread concern among Israel’s 1.3 million Palestinian citizens, a fifth of the population.
    “The police have already repeatedly demonstrated their hostility to Palestinian citizens, but this move proves that the authorities want to extend and deepen our oppression,” said Jafar Farah, the director of Mossawa, an advocacy centre for the Palestinian minority.
    “Is it really credible that these religious extremists who have been educated to hate Palestinians in the West Bank are going to behave differently when they police our communities inside Israel?”
    The first 35 cadets in the officer-training programme – known as “Believe in the police” – are to start their studies next month. More than 300 settlers are reported to have expressed an interest in the course so far.
    The police command is said to have taken up the idea, originally proposed by right-wing groups, in the hope of reversing years of declining recruitment levels that have led to a national shortage of officers.
    continues…..
    http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/israeli-police-launch-drive-to-fill-ranks-with-settlers
    I guess the last round of IDF whistleblowers was too much for this murderous army of stormtroopers and jackboots. They will now put proper racists and religious fanatics in the ranks of the officer corps, who will not be so prone to be morally outraged at murdering Palestinian women and children.

    Reply

  4. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Israeli Settler Sewage Floods Beit Ommar Land
    Palestine Solidarity Project
    October 17, 2010
    Thousands of liters of raw sewage from the illegal Gush Etzion settlement flooded over 50 dunams of Palestinian farmland in the village of Beit Ommar last night. The sewage was pumped from a storage unit inside the settlement onto the land of the Sabarna family, flooding trees and submerging a bulldozer. As of 10 AM the water is still flooding.
    Today marks the fourth time this year that the settlement has dumped waste water onto the Sabarna

    Reply

  5. Mags says:

    Israeli ministers unfazed by global condemnation
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3970215,00.html

    Reply

  6. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Taking”????
    Uhhhm, gee Dan, you don’t think her arguments and talking points have been “absurd” up ’til now? She just crossed that line?
    Oh well, your epiphanies might be slow in arriving, but at least you get there eventually.

    Reply

  7. Dan Kervick says:

    “Why do you side with the open racists and pretend they are acting in a civilized manner?”
    I didn’t. Didn’t you read my my post?
    I think the whole bloody region, starting in Israel and extending eastward is a land of barbarous tribalism. We can’t fix that. In Israel/Palestine, all we can do is get tough with all parties and try to compel them to obey the law. Once their are settled borders, the two states can go about establishing whatever invidious arrangements they want. Avigdor Lieberman can even pass more laws demanding Arab Israelis say “Heil, Jews!” whenever a Jew walks into the room.
    “What country does it belong to, Dan?”
    No country. It belongs to the people who live on it, and have lived on it for a dozen centuries. Those people are more important than the various states and empires who have ebbed and flowed across the map. Even Israel doesn’t claim it is theirs, which is indicative of a guilty national conscience. They know they are stealing it.
    “Every other country in the world has to negotiate its borders with the fellow on the other side.”
    What the hell are you talking about? This is taking the “the poor Jews are so singled out” argument to the point of absurdity.

    Reply

  8. nadine says:

    “Once Palestine has a state, it will be up to them to determine who can and cannot live in that state, just as it is up to Israelis to determine who can and cannot live in Israel.”
    Dan, why do you refuse to acknowledge the stated intentions and deeds of the Palestinians? They have made their intention perfectly clear during 16 years of negotiations: Not one single Jew in Palestine. Today, now, it is a capital crime in the PA to for a Palestinian to sell land to a Jews, but quite legal in Israel for a Jew to sell land to an Arab. Why do you side with the open racists and pretend they are acting in a civilized manner?
    The PA is also driving Christians out through mistreatment. Bethlehem used to be 80% Christian. Now it is 20% and dropping, so this isn’t even just about Jews vs Arabs. You don’t notice this either. You regard Christian Arabs as deportable people, just like the Jews. Only the self-proclaimed Palestinians count in your book. And if they share the ideology of Al Qaeda, like Hamas and PIJ do, it doesn’t seem to matter one bit to you. They still have an absolute right to declare their Taliban state, and you will keep pretending that it will lead to peace.
    “The West Bank is not Israeli territory. It’s just not. That is a generally accepted point around the world. Jews can’t take it because it’s not theirs. ”
    What country does it belong to, Dan? Jordan, whom it was taken from? The non-existent country of Palestine that the Arabs have refused to create over and over? Periodically they make noises about declaring a state (they are doing that now) but watch and see: nothing will come of it. Because they will never, ever cede their claim to all of Palestine by declaring any borders. Hamas would go ballistic for starters.
    Every other country in the world has to negotiate its borders with the fellow on the other side; yet the world fervently makes an exception for this one case, with utmost passion. Why is the world so absolutely gung-ho about border placement in this one conflict alone? You don’t see anyone caring like this about Kashmir.
    Heck, the Green Line isn’t even a border; it was never agreed to in the first place. It is simply the truce line of 1949, disregarded by the Arabs until they lost the West Bank. Then it became sacred in an instant. As I’ve said before, I get why Arabs buy this, but why do soi-disant progressives throw in with these violent reactionaries? What’s the real reason? There has to be one, because your stated reasons involve more pretense than a French face and make no sense.

    Reply

  9. Ajaz Haque says:

    Zalmay Khalilzad represents Bush era failed policies. His term as Ambassador to Afghnasitan not only proved to be a failure, but he misguided the Bush Administration on backing the Northern Alliance at the exclusion of majority Pashtuns. This result of which is that Afghan war that should have ended 9 years ago, still goes on.
    When the US ivaded Afghanistan, Taliban and Al-Qaeda were beat very early on, but by handing power to Northern Alliance, Taliban were revived due to Pashtun symapthies resulting from their exclusion.
    Mr. Kalilzad is one of those people responsible in the Bush Administration for extending this war this long.

    Reply

  10. Dan Kervick says:

    “but NO JEWS can live in Palestine – because Arabs are the real people, right, Dan?”
    I have no idea what you are talking about Nadine. The West Bank is not Israeli territory. It’s just not. That is a generally accepted point around the world. Jews can’t take it because it’s not theirs. That’s all. It has nothing to do with which people are a “real people”, whatever that’s supposed to mean. Jews are as real as any other people – but the world needs to get them to obey the law and stop making a mockery of international order.
    Once Palestine has a state, it will be up to them to determine who can and cannot live in that state, just as it is up to Israelis to determine who can and cannot live in Israel.
    Following Palestinian independence, I think it would be best for the Palestinians to offer citizenship to any Israelis inhabiting their country. But if they don’t then Israelis in Palestine will have to go back to their own country.
    Nadine, when you get caught in one prevarication, you just go on to let fly with new ones. And your unshakable sense of persecution, victimization, self-pity and pre-legal tribalism seems to make it impossible for you to grasp, much less accept, hard-won global standards and principles or order. There’s a lot of that on the Palestinian side too, which is all the more reason for the world to get out of this business of thinking that the establishment of order in Israel and Palestine can be based on ever more “negotiations” between unequal and violent parties whose aims and historical self-images are incommensurable.
    There was a time, many years ago, when I was filled with all sorts of compassion and understanding for the various parties to this conflict, and viewed the situation as “tragic”. Now, with the exception of the innocent children of both sides, I just view both peoples as gangs of outlaws, and their combined region as insufferable.
    Personally, I would love to see some international gendarmerie lay their hands on both Mashal and Netanyahu, along with a few dozen other Israeli and Palestinian hooligans, throw them all in the hoosegow, and charge them both with assaulting the global peace, and with the persistant and deliberate violation of standards. Maybe a few decades on ice for the would-be leaders of these Near Eastern desperados would throw enough of a scare into their flunkies to get some acquiescence to international demands.
    The recent generations of US leaders, and other global leaders of the same cowardly and anarchic stamp, need to answer for their continuing destruction and vandalism of the system of global law that their more enlightened predecessors attempted to build, and for their debilitating coddling of global criminals. We now have a situation in which nobody respects international law, and where even liberals openly mock it, deride it and ignore it when it conflicts with their short-term political wants.

    Reply

  11. Neo Controll says:

    One could resonate somewhat to all of Nadine’s neocon garbage about the poor Israelis this and that except, by her own admission, they are living a wonderful life and holding all the immediate cards. Her massive outpouring of rhetoric and ‘information’, if you can dignify propaganda by that term is just window dressing to attempt to perpetuate the notion of poor oppressed Jews; just to remind us of the Holocaust once again, of course. Like pouring from the empty into the void.
    One has to assume that such prodigious, if meaningless, effort must be intended for audiences other than the vast majority here who are not neocons and are not nearly so one sided. Perhaps her supporters in the White House need continued reinforcement. Maybe Eliot Abrams is listening. John Bolton perhaps. Pamela Geller for sure.

    Reply

  12. nadine says:

    “Wrong. Even the Bible says the Jews were preceded by the Canaanites. And who knows who preceded them.”
    Okay, so now tenancy of 70 years is sacred, but of three thousand years doesn’t count? And the Caananites aren’t around to make claims.
    “And Israel has never agreed to “withdraw”, but has only agreed to give back parts of the land that they haven’t yet colonized, while maintaining a security presence along the Jordan.”
    Israel has offered over 95% of the West Bank three times, according to the negotiators who were there. 95% involves tearing up 80% of the settlements with 20% of the settlers – because OF COURSE a million Arabs can live in Israel but NO JEWS can live in Palestine – because Arabs are the real people, right, Dan?
    I mean, I get why Muslims think like this: they are religious bigots. I have never understood why presumably irreligious Socialists agree with them. I can only conclude it’s an alliance of shared hatred.
    “Israel has built a security barrier, has established a quite tolerable level of domestic security, and has made it quite plain that the Palestinians actually pose little threat to Israel proper.”
    Oh, you mean like Gaza was no threat to Sderot and Ashkelon, after 10,000 rockets were launched from there? The flag of Iran flies today at the borders of Lebanon. You want to see it flying in Jenin and Qalqilya, only 10 miles from the Mediterranean, where you are quite sure the Israelis can handle the rockets raining down on Tel Aviv. I’m sure if the Israelis are forced to respond to the rockets by invading the West Bank, you’ll support their self-defense efforts just as much as you supported their efforts to stop the rockets from Gaza. Which is to say, you will blast Israel as the aggressor if they do anything except sit and take rockets falling on their cities.
    Because Arabs are the real people, and Jews have no right to live where Arabs say they can’t. And if the Arabs in charge say the Israelis can’t live anywhere in Israel, why the Israelis must have done something bad to deserve it. Because it’s always the colonialists’ fault.
    For a policy that is viciously racist against Jews, and viciously patronizing against Arabs, one could hardly do better.

    Reply

  13. Dan Kervick says:

    “to the point of refusing offers Israel made to withdraw …”
    And Israel has never agreed to “withdraw”, but has only agreed to give back parts of the land that they haven’t yet colonized, while maintaining a security presence along the Jordan. Also, these “offers” always have all kinds of strings attached, the chief of which is that Palestine not be permitted to establish a genuine, sovereign state in the same way in which Israel is a state. Israel demands that Palestine can only be some kind of subordinate junior state, with no full control over their own domestic and security affairs.

    Reply

  14. Dan Kervick says:

    “Not only were they there first from ancient times …”
    Wrong. Even the Bible says the Jews were preceded by the Canaanites. And who knows who preceded them.
    “There were very few people in country in the 19th century.”
    During the whole Ottoman period, the population of Palestine ranged from about 150,000 to 500,000 – not that few at all for such a small place. During that period, up until the beginning of the Zionist movement, the Jews were clearly the minority, outnumbered more than 2 to 1 by Christians, and between 10 and 50 to 1 by Muslims. Jews were also a minority in even Jerusalem until the latter half of the 19th century.
    “Have you noticed that Hamas and Fatah don’t recognize Israel as a legitimate or permanent state, to the point of refusing offers Israel made to withdraw in 2000, 2001, and 2008 because they would not give up “right of return” and end the conflict?”
    Israel has built a security barrier, has established a quite tolerable level of domestic security, and has made it quite plain that the Palestinians actually pose little threat to Israel proper. If the Israelis withdrew from the West Bank, they could defend themselves quite easily, and leave rejectionist Palestinians to stew in their unfortunate resentments and losses. Most would move on with life. All of this business about “recognizing” and “renouncing” and all the other tokens and genuflections Israel demands as its phony price for a withdrawal they are never going to undertake has little to do with Israeli security, and everything to do with the pathetic psychodramas of Israel and its people, their obsessive craving to receive validation, vindication and submission from others, and their endless scams for taking more land.
    “… so that everybody can see (maybe even you eventually) that the end goal of Palestinian negotiations is not peace but the destruction of Israel.”
    What Palestinians pine for in their hearts is irrelevant to ending the conflict. Yes, many Palestinians probably want to undo the Nakhba and get their old homes in Israel back. But there is no way they can achieve that end, and it has nothing to do with Israel’s refusal to withdraw from the West Bank unilaterally. Israel is not in the West Bank just to occupy it militarily and pacify it. It is in the West Bank to colonize it. Netanyahu’s game is to keep rubbing Palestinian noses in their defeat, and keep demanding unlikely humiliating acts of submission and prostration from them, so that he can continue to justify Israeli land-grabbing. The whole thing is just a heist, gussied up to look like some great spiritual drama and holy cause.

    Reply

  15. nadine says:

    “If Israel would simply get out of the West Bank, and give it back to the Arabs who lived there before Jews arrived and forcibly took it from them, after taking the rest of Palestine from them, we could end this conflict fairly rapidly.”
    First, learn some history. The Jews have been in Israel as long or longer than the Arabs. Not only were they there first from ancient times, but in terms of modern immigration as well. The 20th century Arab immigration into Palestine matched the Jewish immigration. There were very few people in country in the 19th century. The largest town, Jerusalem, had 20,000 people in the mid 19th century, and most of them were Jews and Christians. Just because the Palestinians claim all the Jews showed up in 48 doesn’t make it true.
    Second, I guess you didn’t notice the results of the withdrawal from Gaza. Have you noticed that Hamas and Fatah don’t recognize Israel as a legitimate or permanent state, to the point of refusing offers Israel made to withdraw in 2000, 2001, and 2008 because they would not give up “right of return” and end the conflict?
    Your nonsensical statement about the conflict ending soon is exactly why Bibi is shrewdly demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state — so that everybody can see (maybe even you eventually) that the end goal of Palestinian negotiations is not peace but the destruction of Israel.
    Bibi is demanding a condition which Jewish Israelis insist on left to right across the political spectrum as a basic sign of good faith, and which is acceptable to the US and the Quartet. But it is utterly unacceptable to the Palestinians, because they are not negotiating in good faith. They are implementing Arafat’s Plan of Stages that he set forth in 1974. They want the conflict more than they want Palestine. Much more.

    Reply

  16. Dan Kervick says:

    “One can only conclude that you have adopted the Arab attitude: Arabs have the right to live anywhere, but Jews can only live at the suffrance of Arabs. Arabs are the real people. Jews are second-class people.”
    What pathetic and mewling self-pity. Israeli Jews have the right to live anywhere they want in the countries in which they are citizens – in Israel, not other places. Similarly, Arabs have the right to live anywhere they want on their own territory. If Israel would simply get out of the West Bank, and give it back to the Arabs who lived there before Jews arrived and forcibly took it from them, after taking the rest of Palestine from them, we could end this conflict fairly rapidly.
    I should also point out that there are Jews living all over the world, including in the United States, and that American Jews are legally entitled to live anywhere they want in this country – at no one’s “suffrance”.
    But go ahead with your inane blubbering about the poor persecuted Jews of 2010, who are being brutally criticized for adding structures to the neighborhoods they built on the land they stole, and who are not allowed to live anywhere. All locked up in those horrible ghettos of Manhattan, Chicago, Florida, Los Angeles, Paris, London! My goodness, no wonder they need the West Bank to escape to!

    Reply

  17. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Natural growth”, eh Nadine? Not a bad deal for the bloodsuckers. Steal some land, have a baby, steal some more land, have two babies, steal twice as much land. By the time they get to the grandkids, they’ll own a city block of stolen land. Sweet, theft through genetics.
    Its kinda ironic, really. The Palestinians get screwed OUTTA their homes. But if you’re Jewish, you get screwed INTO a home.

    Reply

  18. nadine says:

    “Those damn multiplying Arabs. They breed like rats, don’t they?” (Dan Kervick)
    This is precisely your sentiment about the Jewish settlers, who cannot build a new house for their kids without your accusing them of destroying world peace.
    One can only conclude that you have adopted the Arab attitude: Arabs have the right to live anywhere, but Jews can only live at the suffrance of Arabs. Arabs are the real people. Jews are second-class people.

    Reply

  19. nadine says:

    DonS, the IDF has not occupied Ramallah since 1994, nor any of the West Bank urban areas. Ramallah is a prosperous city which looks more like West Beirut or Tel Aviv than a refugee camp. You have been fed a display of staged misery from the UNWRA maintained camps, like Batala, one square mile of crowding and misery. That’s where the fixers lead the photographers to shoot, not the nice areas of Ramallah. It’s a kind of reverse Potemkin village. Stop playing the dupe.

    Reply

  20. Dan Kervick says:

    Meanwhile, Israeli housing prices are shooting through the roof due to a supply shortage caused by the massive importation of “ingathered” Russian Jews.

    Reply

  21. Dan Kervick says:

    Those damn multiplying Arabs. They breed like rats, don’t they?

    Reply

  22. DonS says:

    but, but, Paul, 1/4 of the Palestinians are supported by the PA. It’s a wonderful life. Really luxurious. Cone on down to Ramallah and enjoy the good life under the watchful eye of the Israeli army, the Mossad, any number of freelance settler thugs and wilding youth gangs. You couldn’t ask for a nicer place to visit or, for that matter, to live. Get with the statistics. They never lie.

    Reply

  23. Paul Norheim says:

    I’m not comparing to Rwanda, Nadine – just demonstrating that
    your “number” argument is absurd: numbers don’t explain or
    refute any argument, seen isolated.

    Reply

  24. nadine says:

    “The territory that Israel held after the war in 1948 was not the territory set aside by the partition plan. And the territory Israel is absorbing today is neither the partition territory nor the post 1948 territory.” (Dan Kervick)
    Gee, how did that happen? The Arabs generously donated more? Twice, in 1948 and 1967?
    Real international law (supposing there is such a thing) does not airbrush wars out of the picture. Five Arab armies invaded Israel in 1948; you pretend they never existed. Jordan invaded Israel in 1967; you pretend Israel took the West Bank unprovoked.

    Reply

  25. nadine says:

    “The Yaacov Lozowick review piece on wandering the hills is on the odd side at some level. He seems to accuse the author of a fake kind of nostalgia for a non-existent status quo ante that was violated not by Israeli expansion, but by the Palestinian birthrate. ” (questions)
    I think the point was the nostalgia was real, but instead of ascribing it to the kind of change that is happening everywhere, the author laid the fault at the Israelis’ door. Nothing, you see, can ever be the Palestinians’ fault, not even their own building expansion.
    I think you missed a point about the signage: in pointing out Aramaic names as proof of the antiquity of the land of Palestine, the author was appropriating Jewish history to the cause of Palestine. Those Aramaic speakers were Jews, not Arabs, like the companions of Jesus who were also mentioned.

    Reply

  26. nadine says:

    “Nadine’s cynicism and arrogance in spewing lies is beyond bad taste. The fact of more peolple on less land, and cutting that land into unmanageable infrastructure dotted by Israeli outposts and hemmed in by Israel roads is the real situation”
    Israel has offered to give over 95% of the West Bank back three separate times now. Each time the offer was refused without a counter-offer.
    If the “occupation” is making them so miserable, they can end it.
    But they won’t pay the price of saying “We recognize the Jewish State and have ended the conflict.”
    Actually, the Pal leadership and their whole apparat (about 1/4 of the population lives off PA salaries) is living in luxury, well protected and allowed to be completely irresponsible by their western supporters. So, no hurry. They’re just fine, thank you. They just go to conferences and whine periodically. And you buy it!
    If you’re so anxious to end the occupation, why don’t you tell the Pals to recognize Israel and admit that 5 million refugees will return to Palestine, not Israel?

    Reply

  27. nadine says:

    Paul, the comparison to Rwanda is as offensive as it is inappropriate. There has been no slaughter of Palestinians, no mass deportations. They are still there, telling whoppers about a non-existent “genocide”, which would be laughed at if the accused weren’t Israelis.

    Reply

  28. Paul Norheim says:

    For those of us who have trouble with numbers, here are some
    World Bank population estimates from Rwanda:
    1967: 3.4 million
    1980: 5,2 million
    1990: 7,1 million
    2005: 8,9 milion
    Apparently they’re still there, with their kids and grandkids.

    Reply

  29. DonS says:

    “Since you have trouble with numbers, I’ll just say it: the numbers of Palestinians on the West Bank has tripled since 1967, which must certainly make the Israeli “removal” uniquely inept in the history of ethnic clearing. How can they have been “removed from their land” when they are all still there, with their kids and grandkids?”
    Nadine’s cynicism and arrogance in spewing lies is beyond bad taste. The fact of more peolple on less land, and cutting that land into unmanageable infrastructure dotted by Israeli outposts and hemmed in by Israel roads is the real situation. Not the heaven on earth for Palestinians that the hasbarist attempts to paint here. I wouldn’t want the karma involved in such cruel deceptive words.

    Reply

  30. questions says:

    Dan,
    What I think I see as of right now is a kind of process in which equilibrium is dynamic rather than static. The oligarchs in the US have the upper hand for now, but push back will have an effect over time. I think this is really Aristotle’s hope (as opposed to what some people read as Plato’s hope for actual stable achievement — but I usually find Plato on the dynamic, let’s hope, act as if, at least you yourself should do right, make every decision count side of things, and so not at all totalizing by the end of the text. So maybe Plato is on my side, too!)
    At any rate, we’re not going to “achieve” a stable status in which the workers triumph. We’ll have temporary gains that come and go over the generations as we lose the sense that what we have is valuable. (Think about how unions have given us so much in terms of workplace conditions, and how anti-union the country is for now. We’ll miss the unions when they’re gone, and we’ll re-establish them.)
    The fight against political depression, or even against bi-polar mood disorder, is really central to there being anything good at all. One should neither assume one has it all right already or that it’s impossible ever to get anything right. But I think the best emphasis is on process rather than on outcomes.
    Wait, that’s the Meno. And the end of the Republic. And Aristotle (I think). If you move away from social contractarian thinking where the contract is a fixed entity that is done, that sets a foundation, that never needs to be revisited, then you get depressed or complacent. But in fact, the contract does have to be revisited, revised, fought about routinely. Rather than give in to depression regarding the impossibility of achieving the contract, the stable state, the truth, we should “groove” on attempts, half-assed hopes, debate, discussion, dismemberment and death as we fight over meanings, unsteadiness, discordance….
    The Palestinians and the Israelis are process, not product. In fact, so is the US.
    When you see process rather than product, you find there is always work to do, nothing is ever completed, pleasant, beautiful, utopian. There’s just work to do. And I honestly think it’s better to have work to do than to be complete. Completion is its own kind of death.
    *********
    By the way, my copy of Cutting the Fuse arrived yesterday and I’m slowly working through it. Pape has numerous refinements with newer data, and he addresses an issue I raised when I was reading Dying to Win publicly here — transnational suicide terrorism. That is, for example, how much the I/P conflict gets outsiders involved in local disputes. Or how frequently anyone travels outside his or her “home” to attack on behalf of others. The answer seems to be that it’s pretty rare, but I’m early on in the book. Could be that he thinks that transnational s.t. could become more of a problem. He notes that generally “outsiders” to the conflict, who get involved nonetheless, have multiple identity points and something raises one of the identities over others. Seems that the place to look carefully is pan-Arabism or pan-Islamism or any other broadening movement as there needs to be some kind of identifactory structure for people to be willing to blow themselves up for a cause.
    I think there might be something to puzzle through regarding the resetting of the background against which potential suicides or their instigators judge the worth of their project — if the US pulls back to offshore and alliance positions, does that simply mover the boundaries of “occupation” or does it really END the sense of occupation? I’m not sure there’s an answer for this, but it’s a huge issue for Pape to consider. If the boundaries of occupation merely shift, then he’s got a lot more work to do, but if the boundaries are closer to fixed, he’s really got an important insight.
    “Occupation” is a broad term, a slippery term, a term whose meanings might be subject to dynamic rather than static boundaries. And if it gets super super broad, it might stop functioning. It’s a risk of this explanatory mechanism that the existence of the other becomes a sign of political “occupation” and therefore an excuse for self-explosion. I think there isn’t at all enough history to figure out how slippery this term can become.
    I will post on the book as I get to it, and would certainly welcome reading anyone else’s musings on the text.
    It’s a crucial issue to get right, and it deserves open debate.
    *******
    The Yaacov Lozowick review piece on wandering the hills is on the odd side at some level. He seems to accuse the author of a fake kind of nostalgia for a non-existent status quo ante that was violated not by Israeli expansion, but by the Palestinian birthrate. I don’t think that’s really the best way to get to where he might want to go. The book in question (which of course I neither have read nor plan to read) might be a whole lot less about the loss of the pretty hills to human crowding than about the lack of “home” feeling that the now-crowded with outsiders hills evoke.
    One could do a city walk and bemoan the CHANGES to the city that come from, say, signs in English (Montreal) or signs in Korean, Spanish, Arabic (any city in the US). It’s not the signs per se, or the crowding (it’s already deeply urban) that are offputting. Rather, it’s the inability to identify the characters on the signs, the very “foreignness” of the other alphabet, or the other spelling, that causes the discomfort.
    The hills being walked on could be peopled with the familiar and be fine. It’s the unfamiliarity, the interloper-ness, that the author might well be reacting against.
    It’s a thought anyway.

    Reply

  31. nadine says:

    “Since 1967 the Jewish state of Israel has been engaged in a continuous and aggressive plot to remove Palestinian Arabs from their lands and homes, and to steal that land from them.”
    Since you have trouble with numbers, I’ll just say it: the numbers of Palestinians on the West Bank has tripled since 1967, which must certainly make the Israeli “removal” uniquely inept in the history of ethnic clearing. How can they have been “removed from their land” when they are all still there, with their kids and grandkids? You seem totally ignorant that even as you scream about some Jewish town, aka settlement, building a new kindergarten, the Arab town half a mile away has doubled or tripled in size.
    What is happening in the West Bank is far more complicated than the false and simplistic picture you have clearly swallowed hook, line and sinker. I wish you would read Yaacov Lozowick. He is an Israeli with a background on the Left who always opposed the settlement project BUT he is a historian who tries his best to learn and deal in the real facts, many of which he is old enough to recall himself. This would be a good post to start with, where he reviews a Palestinian book on the West Bank: http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2010/10/reflections-on-palestinian-walks.html

    Reply

  32. Dan Kervick says:

    “Dan wasn’t it international law which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state in 1947?”
    The territory that Israel held after the war in 1948 was not the territory set aside by the partition plan. And the territory Israel is absorbing today is neither the partition territory nor the post 1948 territory.
    I won’t squawk about 1967, but I’ll just say it. Since 1967 the Jewish state of Israel has been engaged in a continuous and aggressive plot to remove Palestinian Arabs from their lands and homes, and to steal that land from them.
    I have said many times that although I think the decisions by the British and other governments in the early 20th century leading to the colonization of Palestine by Western Jews were poor and foolish decisions, I accept that the state that was subsequently formed has been recognized by most countries in the world, and that its existence has been ratified and legitimized by numerous international decisions. But the conquests that have taken place since 1967 have not. In fact, in almost all countries outside the US, the colonies in the West Bank are routinely and frankly denounced as illegal.

    Reply

  33. nadine says:

    “For me, the Israeli conquest and subjugation of Palestine, with US acquiescence in the conquest, represents the triumph of sheer thievery, aggression, zealous bigotry and racism over the rule of international law”
    Dan wasn’t it international law which partitioned Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state in 1947? So how can Israel be against international law? And please don’t start squawking about 1967. You said “Palestine” and every Arab knows what territory is meant by “Palestine”: it’s the whole territory of the Mandate.
    I find your position so ironic. I have no doubt that had you lived in 1948, socialist as you are, you would have utterly supported newborn socialist Israel against its fascist Arab enemies who tried to wipe it out and massacre the Zionists.

    Reply

  34. DonS says:

    “questions, we don’t really disagree about where this is all headed. You just don’t seem to find it as appalling as I do.” (Dan k)
    And Obama will be right there congratulating Israel on the ‘unprecedented” step for peace. Why? Because the alternative is puling the curtain back on the entire charade; that Netayahu and AIPAC have more to do with the strategic direction of US policy than Obama does.
    Working in the think tank environment must be a tough juggling act when you pretty much know that you are, on some level, providing window dressing for the inevitable capitulation of US policy to a foregone conclusion. When the President and the whole establishment will be praising Netanyahu for his statesmanship regardless of his actions . . . just to save face . . . it’s pretty hard to pretend the exercise is anything but a fraud.

    Reply

  35. Dan Kervick says:

    questions, we don’t really disagree about where this is all headed. You just don’t seem to find it as appalling as I do.
    For me, the Israeli conquest and subjugation of Palestine, with US acquiescence in the conquest, represents the triumph of sheer thievery, aggression, zealous bigotry and racism over the rule of international law. It represents the complete final unraveling of a century of liberal aspirations for the ascendancy international principles and order. They might as well just tear up the UN charter now. And the “last best hope for man” has been proven to be a cynical and ugly fraud.
    Coupled with the complete corporatocratic takeover of American society, with the last few governing institutions that were capable of resiting having given up the ghost to the rule of unaccountable wealth, the prospects for progressive democratic self-government, and for a non-toxic, decent and wholesome future, seem very remote to me.

    Reply

  36. questions says:

    And if the Palestinians don’t take the bait for a change and the negotiations continue, then maybe the negotiations will get somewhere.
    Many posters here might not actually like the results of the negotiations.
    They might not like the borders, the terms, the conditions, the loyalty oath, or anything else.
    But the real issue is whether or not the Palestinians can start to cobble together a life that is better than the one they have now.
    I think it’s quite possible. I think it’s worth the effort to hash out a map compromise, a status compromise, and whatever else it takes.
    But, as with all such things, we will just have to wait and see. I still think that some version of a WB agreement isn’t unlikely and that Gaza will join in when it’s not run by Hamas or when Hamas matches whatever the WB ends up with as a governing party.
    Rather than feel somehow depressed on behalf of the Palestinians if they win some kind of semi-autonomous status or fully autonomous city-state-ness or whatever, it seems to me that one should hope for a better version of political development than the US and Israel are going through, and some kind of regional sycretism that lets everyone start to cope with one another.
    Status change for the Palestinians is a first step.
    I hope it happens.
    And no, I don’t think there’s a “secret peace plan” so much as I assume that everyone has a stash of maps drawn long ago and ready to be pulled out and redrawn as needed. It’s not like there’s some shockingly new idea about borders. It’s more that using the magic speech act words “I now pronounce Israel Jewish, Democratic, and Israel, presto magico” will suddenly unleash the magical maps that have been under a spell.
    Speech acts are truly amazing. Or people are really weird.

    Reply

  37. Dan Kervick says:

    “That is sure to make the problem go away!”
    As far as Israel is concerned, the problem has already gone away. With the Gazans effectively under lock and key and the Wets Bank security barrier having proved capable of keeping terrorists out of their country, Israel has already proven to themselves that they can defend their borders with whatever Palestinian entities they decide to permit on the other sides of the walls. So the question now is just how much more territory they want. Nobody in Washington, Moscow or Brussels is going to do anything about it. They can take as much as they want.

    Reply

  38. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Netanyahu has no motive to stop now”
    Nor any incentives.
    Nor any negatives.
    Nor any fear of being held accountable before the global community. Our veto power in the UN will see to that detail.
    Obviously, no matter what he does, the check is in the mail, and the arms are on their way.

    Reply

  39. JohnH says:

    Ah! Apartheid, only worse than South Africa’s, since Palestinians won’t be allowed to work in Israel. Instead they’ll have their own “autonomous” open air prisons, fed by the international community after taxes and transit fees have been extorted by the Israeli government. Hmmm-just like now!
    Like the old Sicilian expression, “they have to change everything to keep everything the same!”
    That is sure to make the problem go away!

    Reply

  40. PissedOffAmerican says:

    I see Israel is once again making a habit of blasting Gaza with mock air-raids and sonic booms 24/7. This is a tactic they have used for years, the most notable result being the traumatization of Palestinian children. Funny how Israel embarks on these kinds of campaigns whenever the charade of “peace talks” is resurrected, isn’t it? Must be an effort to “settle the violence”, eh?

    Reply

  41. Dan Kervick says:

    “But does Bibi know what he’s going to do with an ever increasing Palestinian majority after he “wins” the war?”
    There is not going to be a Palestinian majority. Israel will keep the large chunks of the West Bank it actually wants, including a zone along the Jordan river, where there are lots of Jews and from which Palestinians are excluded, and give the Palestinians the small and surrounded core consisting of the main Palestinian population centers. They will call that semi-autonomous province or principality, “The State of Palestine”. Obama, or his successor will laud the Israelis for their generous and courageous compromise, and it will be all over.
    Gaza will eventually be a separate autonomous province. But the Israelis can keep Gaza under quarantine indefinitely, for decades, until the Gazans are completely and accept their provincial submission. Nobody is going to stop them.
    Netanyahu has no motive to stop now. Israel can keep expanding its hold on the coveted parts Palestine.

    Reply

  42. JohnH says:

    But does Bibi know what he’s going to do with an ever increasing Palestinian majority after he “wins” the war?
    That’s the crux of the issue. Apartheid, expulsion, worse?

    Reply

  43. Dan Kervick says:

    So now Bibi has a secret plan to end the war? Why would Likud want to end a war it is winning, when victory is just about complete?
    In any war, there is always a “peace plan” that consists in one side winning the war, and achieving pacification through victory. The only plan Israel’s government has is to win its war against the Palestinians. The only plan Washington has is to help them. The rest is window dressing.

    Reply

  44. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The map drawing is quite possibly going on simultaneously with the possibility of the oath’s being accepted”
    ROFLMAO!!!!
    Heres “questions”, making up shit, with no evidence to support such a fantasy, out of thin air.

    Reply

  45. questions says:

    The map drawing is quite possibly going on simultaneously with the possibility of the oath’s being accepted.
    Netanyahu has a right wing party in his coalition and to keep them there, he has to, umm, keep them there. They need to be fed and watered several times a day….
    Let them eat oath.
    Draw the maps in quiet, present them in public when it’s all done.
    And maybe just maybe it’ll work.
    Here’s hoping.

    Reply

  46. nadine says:

    “As everyone here knows: no one (except the White House)
    sees the point in these peace talks. And the whole world
    notices that the Israeli leadership is bilingual: Bibi is the
    English, Avigdor the Hebrew version. What makes this
    spectacle so weird, is the fact that Avigdor was appointed
    Foreign Minister, but continues to express himself in plain
    Hebrew, face to face with foreign dignitaries. Always pay
    attention to the Hebrew version. ” (Paul Norheim)
    That’s good advice, Paul, though as I mentioned before, to understand what’s going on you also have to understand Israeli politics. Now could I request that you also apply your good advice to the Palestinian side, and pay some attention to the Arabic version of what they are saying, not just the English version, and notice who controls the decision-making process in Ramallah?

    Reply

  47. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “If the Palestinians really agree to the oath thing simultaneous with a map drawing with all the necessary land exchanges, recognitions, guarantees, security arrangements, legal authority…”
    But thats not at all what was offered, is it questions? So your argument is basically, well, HOGWASH.
    Instead, what the fascists offered was a temporary “freeze” on building in the settlements. Your contention being that somehow this ridiculous proposed swap might actually portend a “settling of the violence”. Never mind the “freeze”, if history is to be consulted, is BULLSHIT, and TEMPORARY.
    Basically Israel is saying “We will lie about a freeze for a while longer if you will agree to a permanent law that is prejudicial and demeaning”.
    Such a deal. Must be a solid avenue through which to “settle the violence”, eh?

    Reply

  48. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “….at this point I suspect that what both sides want is enough closure that they can have a breather…..”.
    Bullshit. Israel’s actions belie your “suspicion”. Their economy is booming, they are swallowing more and more Palestinian land, and they are immune from accountability due to the United States’ veto power at the UN. They have everything to gain in maintaining this charade of repeated “peace negotiations” indefinitely, constantly blaming the Palestinians for a lack of progress.
    Questions, your argument has entered into the realm of the absurd. I must admit though, its far more entertaining than your previous technique of saying nothing in five hundred words or more.

    Reply

  49. nadine says:

    “War machines, like any other machines, burn out after a while. And regardless of the monetary interests in fighting, eventually we all burn out. Burn out may be man’s best friend when you get down to it.”
    Good point, questions. The irony is that Obama clings to this utter delusion that I/P is the center of everything at the very moment the Arabs are tired of it. The Arabs notice the rising “Axis of Resistance” – Turkey, Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. The Arabs see that Mohammed Badi of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood just openly declared war on the US, imitating al Qaeda’s words and positions. The Arabs understand that an I/P solution is hopeless while these radicals are in ascendance and frankly, with the radicals in ascendance they have far bigger worries than Israel. You could say the Sunni Arab regimes have been hoist on their own petard, because they had a share in growing the radicals, who have now turned against them like a Frankenstein’s monster.

    Reply

  50. questions says:

    I think I just disagree on all of this.
    As for terrorism, it was thought to be managed on Sept 10, 2001. Indeed the Bush admin didn’t much think much of anything.
    And that is the brutal effectiveness of the unknown small and unpredictable attack.
    And because these potential or even fantastical or fictional or dream-like (nightmarish) phantasms of attacks could still happen, and because they stem from a profoundly unstable region with profoundly important resources, we’re far more stuck than I would ever want to be.
    The lefty in me is unhappy beyond belief. The pragmatic side comes out and says, wow, this is a pickle.
    As for I/P and the settlers, the maps will be drawn in and around the settlements, some will be dismantled, and the key will be setting up a few incentive structures: one akin to the Base Closing and Realignment Act where a vaguely neutral third party was delegated the authority to close dearly beloved US military bases, a second structure will have to be carrots for relocation (reparations to make up for the loss of property that was deeded from the gov’t in the first place (some things are deeply ironic)), the third structure will be a stick — people will be dragged… the fourth structure will be some kind of peace dividend that either the US will fork over or Israel will generate that will “compensate” people for altered visions of their lives.
    On the other side, money will change hands, land exchanges will be made, buildings will go up in the WB, and there will be more money changing hands.
    And regarding Gaza, my sense has been that it’ll be a separate peace, but with the Palestinians all talking to each other, I have less of a sense of what might be. It still makes a lot of sense to me that the two will stay divided for a time and then reconcile more on WB’s terms than not, but I do not know.
    But for all of this, mostly we have to wait and see. It looked like the Palestinians were pulling out not that long ago, but maybe now they are happy to push Israel into settling. If they keep focused and don’t let incidental incidents fuck things up, I really do think there’s a chance of a significant status change, even if it doesn’t meet anyone’s fantasy of ponies and rainbows.
    War machines, like any other machines, burn out after a while. And regardless of the monetary interests in fighting, eventually we all burn out. Burn out may be man’s best friend when you get down to it.

    Reply

  51. nadine says:

    Our new citizens and our public servants already do swear loyalty to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the United States.
    Of course the Congresscritters don’t pay attention to their oaths, especially the Dems. They’ve taken to reacting with derisive laughter when somebody asks them if the laws they are passing are Constitutional. This has not gone unnoticed.

    Reply

  52. nadine says:

    “I don’t think settling borders is the “last thing Israel wants” — in fact, at this point I suspect that what both sides want is enough closure that they can have a breather” (questions)
    Actually, questions, what both sides want is enough non-closure for a breather. The West Bank economy grew at 11% in the 2nd quarter. Everybody is having a normal life, as Abu Mazen admitted a few months ago. The biggest threat to peace is the peace process. The violent radicals have more incentive and a much more free hand when peace processing is going on.
    JohnH, have you noticed that every other country on earth – even basket cases like Zimbabwe – get recognition on their own terms for free? Only Israel is supposed to pay a huge price for it.
    Israel is tired of the game that says: give me all my tangible demands up front, then when I’ve taken possession and you can’t get them back, I’ll give you some words (which I’ll say only in English, not in Arabic, and I’ll soon take back). They were fools enough to play it with Arafat. It’s gotten old.

    Reply

  53. JohnH says:

    No, questions. The last thing Israel wants is to set the borders, because it would incur the wrath of the settler community or of the international community. Any settlement agreeable to anyone besides Israel would require borders that preclude most if not all of Judea and Samaria. Borders that do not include these territories are anathema to large segments of the settler community.
    So the Israeli government policy continues to be what it has been for decades–ambiguity. This allows settlers to steal more Palestinian land and maintain their dream of a Palestinian free greater Israel.
    Moreover, far from being a threat, terr-rrorr-rrism has by now become a very manageable problem. It even provides huge benefits, since it fostered a thriving homeland security industry.
    The only problem is that such a policy assures a brutal apartheid system with the Jewish population become an ever diminishing minority. And to solve that, the Israeli government engages in perpetual magical thinking, praying that Palestinians will magically someday all disappear, if not expelled or holocausted.

    Reply

  54. questions says:

    I don’t think settling borders is the “last thing Israel wants” — in fact, at this point I suspect that what both sides want is enough closure that they can have a breather. And they want to save just enough face that they can win re-election or go down in history for something good. It’s been a long war, it’s had horrific effects on people’s psyches, and likely only the real nutwings don’t see this point.
    If the Palestinians really agree to the oath thing simultaneous with a map drawing with all the necessary land exchanges, recognitions, guarantees, security arrangements, legal authority… I would guess a document will be signed by the time the US elections come up.
    (Maybe it’s time to pull out JL Austin and figure out speech act theory — the words really do take on mystical qualities of reality….)
    I have had hopes of this, and I continue to think that maybe there’s some energy this direction.
    If the Palestinians are smart, they’ll see the rhetorical and political moves Netanyahu has to — HAS TO — make to get anything through his crazy government.
    It’s time to generate write on/wipe off maps with dry erase markers (or erasable crayons!) and start scribbling away.
    Let the mark up begin, and let the warring end.
    And in a few generations, no one will even begin to understand what the fuck their grand parents were thinking.
    A poster can hope, at any rate.

    Reply

  55. JohnH says:

    Palestinians are getting better at framing the debate. The last thing Israel wants is to specify borders or stop settlements in the Occupied Territories. Palestinian requests are very reasonable.
    Of course, the US continues to parrot Israeli demands for something for nothing, in this case recognition of Israel as a Jews-only state, laying the basis for expulsion of all Palestinians from whatever land Israel decides to claim unilaterally, such as East Jerusalem.

    Reply

  56. Paul Norheim says:

    PLO: “Any formulation the Americans present

    Reply

  57. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Its comical seeing questions, who argues consistently on the merits of impotent inaction founded in the fear of unexpected results, now arguing that actions, intent, and motive do not merit consideration in the negotiations towards peace.

    Reply

  58. JohnH says:

    Bibi’s latest offer is just the latest attempt at appearing reasonable but behaving with intransigence. This has been Likud’s strategy for decades.
    Bibi hopes to extract concessions from the Palestinians even though he offers nothing–“temporary settlement freezes” are a joke and represent only a stalling tactic. But securing recognition of Israel as a Jews-only state provides all the cover Bibi needs to expel the remaining Palestinians.
    BTW, Nadine, you still have not stated your opposition to ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Israel or even from the West Bank. And would you oppose an Israeli perpetrated Holocaust of Palestinians? So far, it appears that you would approve.

    Reply

  59. DonS says:

    ‘”In that case, there are precedents for codifying rights of specific minorities (Jews) into the constitution. Legally and morally, that option is much more palatable than the near-fascism of the loyalty oath.”‘ (mark)
    “…if you don’t care what actually happens to the minorities.” (nadine)
    Much better to stigmatize minorities with ‘oaths’ eh? A loyalty oath is nothing but a negative reinforcement based on an assumption of disloyalty. Might be a reasonable assumption but don’t try to depict it as preferable to a positive assertion of minority rights.
    “Check out this piece by Peter Hitchens, where he mentions the condition of West Bank Christians, who just to remind you, ”
    What is this reasoning, by the arch zionist, an admission that Israelis are and would be no better than Arabs at protecting the rights of minorities? As if your actually care about Arab rights. Or just distraction and reverse logic to keep us dazed and confused?

    Reply

  60. nadine says:

    “In that case, there are precedents for codifying rights of specific minorities (Jews) into the constitution. Legally and morally, that option is much more palatable than the near-fascism of the loyalty oath.”
    …if you don’t care what actually happens to the minorities.
    Check out this piece by Peter Hitchens, where he mentions the condition of West Bank Christians, who just to remind you, are also Arabs:
    “And once again I saw the outline of a society, slowly forming amid the wreckage, in which a decent person might live, work, raise children and attempt to live a good life. But I also saw and heard distressing things.
    One

    Reply

  61. nadine says:

    “If their ideological DNA
    were not identical, the former would have sacked the latter
    long ago, made a coalition with Kadima instead of Yisrael
    Beiteinu, and appointed Tzipi Livni his Foreign Minister.” (Paul Norheim)
    Paul, if you followed the Israeli elections, you would know that Bibi offered exactly that deal, but Livni refused it. She demanded to be Prime Minister. Bibi negotiated for several weeks before giving up and bringing Labor into the Coalition instead.
    Bibi isn’t sacking Lieberman because Lieberman has fifteen members who would walk out with him, and bring down the coalition.

    Reply

  62. MarkL says:

    Suppose Israel and Palestine merge to form one country —yes, I know it’s not going to happen any time soon, but stick with me.
    In that case, there are precedents for codifying rights of specific minorities (Jews) into the constitution. Legally and morally, that option is much more palatable than the near-fascism of the loyalty oath.

    Reply

  63. Paul Norheim says:

    “If Israel does indeed impose this loyalty oath, and it lets the
    rightwing nutcases stay in the governing coalition, and it gives
    the talks breathing room so that the parties to the talks can
    settle borders, build states and apartment complexes, then
    yes, so be it.”
    Sorry Questions, but you’re insulting our intelligence. There are
    way too many contradicting “if”s in that sentence. Implied here
    is also Netanyahy’s last “offer” to the Palestinians: If they
    recognize Israel “as a Jewish state” (i.e. settles the argument
    regarding refugees before even negotiating, and also agrees
    with the ideology behind the suggested loyalty oath); then he
    will “freeze” settlements for another couple of months.
    You know that this is a trap, OR a suggestion for Abbas to
    commit political suicide – an invitation Netanyahu knows that
    Abbas HAS TO REFUSE. (Yeah, we know that Abbas has nine
    lives – but ten is one too much…)
    This is not even “performance”: this is Avigdor’s voice speaking
    through Bibi, and you should know that.

    Reply

  64. questions says:

    “Earnest attempt” is meaningless.
    The internal intentions of signatories and proposers of ideas are meaningless.
    All that matters here, at this point, is performance.
    If Israel does indeed impose this loyalty oath, and it lets the rightwing nutcases stay in the governing coalition, and it gives the talks breathing room so that the parties to the talks can settle borders, build states and apartment complexes, then yes, so be it.
    It’s not my preference to have loyalty oaths anywhere. But then, I’m all for something far closer to open borders with Mexico instead of having quotas and swearings of fealty to the US Constitution and the seeming Judeo-Christian state we’ve set up here.
    (Note that Sharron Angle fictionalized an entire Islamic/Muslim/Sharia-following town in Texas to show how totally Christian the US is supposed to be. She might win her election.)
    I would hope that Israel, and all other nations, could get to the point where performance trumps swearing allegiance, where multiple identities are assumed, allowed, encouraged. But Israel isn’t there, and let’s face it, even this little blog corner of the universe has had all sorts of issues with, ummm, dual loyalty, registration as forringers, outsiders coming in and killing all of us dead….
    Israel and the US are strikingly twinned, and not even so separated by time. It’s funny, especially since the US isn’t in anywhere near as hostile a neighborhood.
    You know, if we could ever get the species past the fantasy of return, originality, authenticity, oneness with whatever parent/Father/land thing seems to move us, we might actually end up being healthier and more alive.
    Maybe someone should start a political blog called “Ask your analyst” and it should focus only on psycho-politico-issues!

    Reply

  65. Paul Norheim says:

    This is just a political masquerade. Bibi is nothing but
    Avigdor’s mask of responsibility. If their ideological DNA
    were not identical, the former would have sacked the latter
    long ago, made a coalition with Kadima instead of Yisrael
    Beiteinu, and appointed Tzipi Livni his Foreign Minister.
    As everyone here knows: no one (except the White House)
    sees the point in these peace talks. And the whole world
    notices that the Israeli leadership is bilingual: Bibi is the
    English, Avigdor the Hebrew version. What makes this
    spectacle so weird, is the fact that Avigdor was appointed
    Foreign Minister, but continues to express himself in plain
    Hebrew, face to face with foreign dignitaries. Always pay
    attention to the Hebrew version.
    Behind Bibi: the “subversive” Avigdor. Behind Avigdor: the
    real Bibi. And finally, behind Bibi: his father Benzion
    Netanyahu.

    Reply

  66. nadine says:

    questions, Yaacov Lozowick (whose blog I highly recommend to you) explains what insistence on recognition of the Jewish state is shorthand for:
    “Nowadays everyone likes to pretend that the demand for Palestinian recognition of a Jewish State is an evil machination of Netanyahu; most pundits are ignorant, natuarally, but Israeli critics of the demand aren’t. They’re hypocrites. The originators of the idea were a bunch of hard-left Israeli peaceniks.
    The essence however is more important than the etymology. Is it really so essential that the Palestinians accept Zionism? If they make peace with Israel, isn’t that enough?
    It depends what you mean by “making peace”.
    If, in response to a set of Israeli terms and concessions, the Palestinians renounce their claim to a right of return of the descendants of the refugees to Israel, and they sign to a permanent, final and irrevocable end of the conflict, including renouncing any claim to somehow represent the Arab citizens of Israel, and if they prove this by desisting from brainwashing and inciting their children and general populace against Israel, then I suppose the Israeli demand can be dropped. In such conditions, in which Palestine has no more interest in the internal matters of Israel than Ecuador does, or Burundi, then indeed it will be irrelevant if they recognize us as this sort of state or that.
    Until that hypothetical moment, the Israeli demand is shorthand for it. It’s also longhand for the idea that the goal of the peace process is not a situation that will enable future whittling away of Zionism. ”
    http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2010/10/recognizing-jewish-state.html

    Reply

  67. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Yadayadayada…….
    What you said is….
    “Second, if it is part of a deal for settling the violence, so be it”
    Your latest prattle does nothing to buttress the premise that such a deal is an earnest attempt to “settle the violence”. In fact, the move is profocative in its timing, and transparently incendiary. How someone can construe such moves as constructive towards “settling the violence” is beyond me.

    Reply

  68. questions says:

    Daft? No.
    Do I know how both sides can settle, save face, feel really good about themselves in the morning, make no trade offs at all, get everything all ponies and rainbows and land and home and country and ethnically as pure as they all want, AND get rich and famous and feel really really good about the universe?
    No, I don’t.
    The loyalty oath — WHICH HAS NOT BECOME LAW — asks those who would become citizens (basically, it’s my understanding, those non-Israeli Arabs who would marry Israelis and want to become citizens) to swear to uphold the “Jewish and democratic” nation-ethno-religico-state of Israel, and that gesture would make the nut cases on the right feel what ever sick ethno-triumphalism they need. Yes, so be it.
    My understanding is that inserting the word “democratic” in there is a compromise move. There may or may not be issues with land claims. I don’t know Israeli law at all, so if the loyalty oath has implications for land issues, then that has to be worked out….
    Fact is, “loyalty oaths” are odd language games that people play in all sorts of ways — marriage vows, citizenship oaths, court oaths and the like. I’m never sure how much “doing things with words” should matter, but it’s certainly a structure we make use of with promising and the like.
    The US doesn’t want outsiders in if they haven’t performed their own acts of language, fee paying, swearing and the like. And, as I noted above, we’ve been through the whole loyalty/anti-communism thing, and we’re still running through paroxysms of swearing to be ungay, or uncommunist or unirreligious.
    Israel is going through its very own sad and difficult political development. We’re the unhappy witnesses to what turns out to be a fairly hideous process. We are not so much witnesses to our own political development as much of it happened long ago and far away.
    To the extent that we do see a little of our own shifts in values, we should actually realize that we’re just as ugly, ungainly, stupid, retrograde, wicked, selfish, conservative, panicked, nutwing, overly religious, zealous, and basically dumbfuck in the US as is anyone in Israel.
    Sadly, there aren’t really political systems without political development.
    So, yeah, do the moronic and nasty loyalty oath nonsense, alienate one fifth of your citizenry, stop others from entering and marrying in, limit the growth and diversity of your population to those willing to put up with domestic bullshit, and then reject it in a generation or two when it turns out to be as dumbfuck looking backward as it looks from where I sit.
    In fact, let Israel become largely an orthodox nutwing state with no one eligible to serve in the military….
    These dynamics have to work themselves out, people have to choose the lives they live, they have to be comfortable with their governments. You really can’t force it because the blowback is immense. Happily, moderation does seem to be a byproduct of virulence.
    (And by the way, we’re the land of DADT, and all sorts of other nasty and unwelcoming practices that plenty of our very own citizens think are loverly.)

    Reply

  69. JohnH says:

    Would the supporters of Israeli loyalty oaths be willing to sign one themselves, personally attesting to their loyalty to America above any foreign government?

    Reply

  70. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “Second, if it is part of a deal for settling the violence, so be it”
    What are you daft? Making the Arabs take a loyalty oath to the Jewish State is a way to “settle the violence”??? How do you dream this shit up? Do you even think before you post it? What Palestinian would accept an “agreement” that included that outrageous precondition? Even the worm Abbas recognizes how his people would react.

    Reply

  71. Don Bacon says:

    Zalmay Khalilzad wrote in May:
    “The United States is enormously invested in Afghanistan. In recent months it has sometimes seemed as though Karzai and the Obama administration, instead of seeking a joint way forward, were positioning themselves to blame the other for an inevitable failure in Afghanistan. The good news is that both seem to have recognized that things have gone too far and that both sides have to step back from the brink. The blame game is likely to resume, however, if they cannot develop and agree on a plan that improves the situation on the ground.”
    The US is enormously invested in Iraq, also, which is why it still has 50,000 troops there. “Investment” is why the US can never leave anywhere. Khalilzad is invested in Iraq.
    Zalmay Khalilzad in June was named to the board of directors of DNO, the Norwegian wildcat firm that produces oil in Iraq’s Kurdistan region. Khalilzad is a former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. He is also a RAK Petroleum (UAE) board member; RAK owns 30 percent of DNO. “Inspired by the vision of His Highness Sheikh Saud bin Saqr Al Qasimi, Crown Prince and Deputy Ruler of Ras Al Khaimah, RAK Petroleum has a solid foundation, resolute political patronage, access to tremendous financial resources and is strategically situated in the heart of the world

    Reply

  72. JohnH says:

    Contracts, what contracts? As Stephen Walt notes, “defense spending (and an activist foreign policy) are proudly defended by most prominent DC think tanks, many of whom depend on military contractors for a substantial part of their funding. This has been true of AEI and Heritage for a long time, but take a look at the funding sources for supposedly more “progressive” think tanks like the Center for New American Security. Inside the Beltway, defenders of a large defense budget are bound to be more numerous and better-funded than critics, thereby ensuring a chorus of “expert” opinion defending the budgetary status quo (or at the most, disagreeing at the margins).
    http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/10/06/why_defense_spending_wont_go_down_much

    Reply

  73. Don Bacon says:

    It may depend somewhat on what entities Khal’s consulting firm has contracts with, dontcha think?

    Reply

  74. WTR says:

    The consensus of strategic thinkers and voices in the Middle East region is clear, the resolution of an independent and sovreign Palestinian state is the number one path to reducing terrorism. What does Khalilzad have to say about that?? Nada, I suspect.

    Reply

  75. Don Bacon says:

    Also North Korea and Iran don’t meet Chomsky’s first requirement. NKor has nukes and Iran has various significant self-defense capabilities, including people in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

    Reply

  76. JohnH says:

    North Korea and Iran are far more valuable as “perceived threats” and future candidates for attack. As such, they help justify perpetual, budget busting military expenditures even after people have gotten wise to the insanity of the current, pointless quagmires.
    Anyone joining the military today has to realize that the troops are simply expendable military ordinance, to be used and discarded. It’s why a quarter of the homeless are vets. And, to make matters worse for them, most Americans don’t see any value in what they are doing and would just as soon not be reminded of all the waste, fraud, and deceit their “superiors” got them mixed up in.

    Reply

  77. PissedOffAmerican says:

    This thing about military suicides and how we take care of our veterans dovetails into the other conversation we were having about widespread ignorance.
    What parent, reasonably informed, would allow or condone their child joining the services? It is widely known that recruiters make promises about military pathways and career directions that are rarely, if ever, honored. It is widely known that the military lies routinely in trying to absolve itself of responsibility for combat or stress related injuries and conditions. Our treatment of vets after they leave the service is FAMOUS for its callousness and lack of compassion or accountablity.
    You HAVE to be ignorant to subject your offspring to this. There is no other explanation. I can see “patriotism” being offered up as an excuse, but ONLY if the Pentagon and the VA exhibited the same kind of “patriotism” in its treatment of veterans. But I find it quite hard to consider it “patriotic” to throw your kid into the inhumane and uncaring meatgrinder the military has become. Even if today’s wars were reasonable or sane, protecting America’s security, (which they are not), that still wouldn’t make the treatment our vets can expect a price worth paying for their service.
    Of course, the media’s refusal to report on DU, and its effect on our service people is just another replay of the “Agent Orange” coverup. I suspect these suicide numbers will pale in comparison to the deaths, illnesses, and misery that DU exposure is going to wreak on our veterans and their families. And, it will probably be decades before these pieces of shit in DC actually admit it.

    Reply

  78. Don Bacon says:

    Catch Michael Cohen’s Afghanistan trip report “Only the U.S. Military Is Hopeful About Afghanistan”
    ultimate paragraphs:
    Two days after the election I sat down with an Afghan TV journalist who said that while it was moving to see Afghans risking their lives to vote, the sight ought not to conceal the worsening insecurity and despair that defines his country nearly nine years after the Americans first arrived.
    In an apt description of Afghanistan’s predicament and the shrinking set of options facing U.S. policymakers, he said to me, “Afghanistan is a very dark house with only a single flickering candle lighting the inside.”
    http://tinyurl.com/2bodfv9

    Reply

  79. Don Bacon says:

    from Noam Chomsky:
    The target of preventive war must have several characteristics:
    1. It must be virtually defenseless.
    2. It must be important enough to be worth the trouble.
    3. There must be a way to portray it as the ultimate evil and an immediate threat to our survival.
    Apparently Iraq and Afghanistan have qualified on all three counts. North Korea and Iran, other purported US enemies, haven’t yet qualified.

    Reply

  80. JohnH says:

    “The United States has been convinced that its national security is primarily bound up with the affairs of people representing about 8/10ths of one percent of the world’s population.” Of course! A militaristic elite doesn’t want to fight real wars, where significant numbers of Americans might get killed. Instead, they have figured out how to make pointless wars against the world’s poorest people serve their motives perfectly well. As proof, just look at how “defense” budgets have exploded with no serious threat in sight.
    Washington creates “enemies” just like Hollywood creates action movies.
    I’m not sure what Steve’s point is in hosting Zalmay Khalilzad, who has been a part of the fear mongering industry. If he actually had something to say, Steve could have provided a synopsis. Instead, it looks like Steve is trumpeting someone offering the same, predictable gruel, warmed over yet again.

    Reply

  81. Don Bacon says:

    Repeated combat tours are a factor, but according to the military 79 percent of the soldiers who committed suicide had had only one deployment, or had not deployed at all.
    The official rate is artificially low because it doesn’t include “suspected suicides.”
    The suicide rate of veterans is higher than the national average. Some vets have been on ten combat tours. I saw a CBS story recently of a combat outpost near the Pakistan border which had been attacked from Pakistan, and it mentioned in passing that one of the young troopers had eight purple hearts.
    We have to keep the war operation funded to support the troops? What kind of stupid reasoning is that. But it’s worked for years, w/o question.
    Tell every young person you know to stay the hell out of the military, and give some advice to their parents too. Ask them if they’d like to see their son or daughter leave them as a passenger and come back to them in a box as freight — just because some “national security expert” thinks it’s a swell idea.

    Reply

  82. questions says:

    Dan, do a resource list instead of a population list.
    Think about how many people it takes to knock out a series of targets across the US and freak out the bulk of our 300,000,000 people. Remember a crazy US has nukes….
    The number of “core” a-Q members isn’t the same as the number of guys it takes to blow up some stuff, and since we non-cleared non-insider types have no way of evaluating what’s up, it’s worth at least considering the possibility that 19 guys can topple a chunk of the US economy pretty handily.
    My personal guess is that there’s more concern than “300 core members” but I don’t know if there’s enough concern to warrant what the US does in response. What a mess.
    Regarding the loyalty oath — first, California used to have one for state workers, I believe (something about anti-communism?)
    Second, if it is part of a deal for settling the violence, so be it.
    Third, it’s fucked up for sure, but it’s for the Israelis to look back one day and blanch much as some US citizens do at the memory of McCarthyism.
    Fourth, it hasn’t passed yet.
    Fifth, we have our own right wing nuts who have to win shit sometimes (dadt? the AZ immigration shit? tax breaks for people who have so much money they don’t really know what to do with it all?)
    In a popular vote system, dumb stuff happens. But at least the dumb stuff that happens is beloved by a decent-sized if not decent segment of the population.

    Reply

  83. Carroll says:

    Ask them about this.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Sic Semper Tyrannis
    10 Oct. 2010
    Military Suicides
    “Through August, at least 125 active members of the Army had ended their own lives, exceeding the morbid pace of last year, when there were a record 162 suicides.” NY Times
    ——————————————————-
    This continues unabated. I understand that there is a similar problem in the US Marine Corps particularly at Camp Lejeune where the command has thus far managed to keep the media from the bad news.
    So far, I have not seen examples of this phenomenon spreading to commissioned officers (Lieutenant and up). If there are such instances, please let me know.
    Clearly these soldiers feel they have “had enough.” Killing yourself is the ultimate form of protest against something that you don’t want to do.
    Alternatively, this can be seen as evidence of traumatic psychological scarring. I have a difficult time with that view. I have never known anyone so scarred by combat that they would have killed themselves over it, but I am willing to accept the possibility.
    I am reminded of what I heard from two active duty officers (colonels) last year. They said that they had been required to talk to therapists as part of their return from combat processing.
    The “shrinks” asked if there was anything that they had seen in the wars that bothered them. So, they told them and the listeners were so obviously frightened and disturbed that they didn’t do it again. pl
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    All told more than 1600 US military who served in Iraq and Afaghan have comitted suicide.

    Reply

  84. Don Bacon says:

    And geography: I have a large National Geographic globe next to my blogging chair. When I put one finger on New Mexico and another on Afghanistan my fingers are on opposite sides of that globe, at about the same latitude (35 deg. N.). There are a lot of other countries in between, plus over and under.
    Afghanistan at 653 km2 is about 4/10 of one percent of the world’s land surface — 148.6m km2.
    Afghanistan is a threat to the USA? Khal has said that it is and not only was he born there but he has a PhD.

    Reply

  85. Dan Kervick says:

    “Khalilzad will share his views on America’s strategic challenges with regard to terrorism, Iraq, and Afghanistan.”
    Here’s some food for thought then, as long as we’re all sharing:
    1. Population of Iraq: 31,000,000
    2. Population of Afghanistan 29,000,000
    3. Core Al Qaeda members still alive: 300
    4. Other seriously dangerous jihadists in the fellow-traveling Al Qaeda “franchise”: maybe 25,000
    **5. Sub-total: 60,025,300.
    6. Total world population: 6,872,195,424
    which includes:
    – 7. Population of China: 1,300,000,000
    – 8. Population of India: 1,200,000,000
    – 9. Population of Latin America: 535,000,000
    – 10. Population of Africa: 1,000,000,000
    So for about ten years now, the United States has been convinced that its national security is primarily bound up with the affairs of people representing about 8/10ths of one percent of the world’s population, and our debt-ridden and underinvesting country has sunk an emperor’s fortune into a strangely unending project in that sparsely populated corner of the world.
    Maybe that’s a problem?

    Reply

  86. Don Bacon says:

    Well, we couldn’t get Dick Cheney so he’ll just have to do.

    Reply

  87. Cee says:

    I wish I could be there tomorrow.
    Can someone ask about this?
    Khalilzad was one of the original members of the Project for the New American Century (the only Muslim and non-native born American original member), and signed the January 26, 1998 letter to President Clinton, calling for a “comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam [Hussein] and his regime” in Iraq.[12][10]
    An anonymous former associate described Khalilzad as someone who “tends to look at military solutions as the first, not the last policy option.”[10]
    In defending the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Zhalilzad said in a February 2002 PBS interview:[13]
    We have to think about where Afghanistan has been and where it might have been. Compared to the many years of war involving the Taliban and the Northern Alliance and some and prior to that the civil war among various factions that fought against the Soviet Union and the war against the Soviet Union, which lasted some ten years, this is — what they have now is a much better situation. The civil war has ended, Afghanistan has been liberated. There are challenges, clearly, there are security challenges, there are political challenges, there are economic challenges, but these problems that they face now are much smaller, better problems, if you like, to have compared to the problems they had just a few years ago.
    Private Career
    Zalmay Khalilzad served as an advisor to the giant oil company Unocal during the Taliban rule in Afghanistan. While working for the Cambridge Energy Research Associates in the mid 1990s, Khalilzad conducted risk analyses for Unocal for a proposed 890-mile, $2-billion, 1.9-billion-cubic-feet-per-day natural gas pipeline project which would have extended from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan. In 1997, Khalilzad “joined Unocal officials at a reception for an invited Taliban delegation to Texas.”[9]
    “Just as oil industry conflicts of interest have not been a concern for the Bush administration in its appointments, Khalilzad’s historic support for the Taliban seems not to be either,” wrote the environmental, anti-mining group Project Underground of Khalilzad’s ambassadorship. “Even as the Clinton administration was beginning to recognize the repressive nature of the Taliban regime and its links to [Osama] bin Laden, Khalilzad called for U.S. engagement with the Taliban.
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Zalmay_Khalilzad

    Reply

  88. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Its really quite telling that spending trillions to export “democracy” has netted us a puppet in Afghanistan, who is in power only because of electoral fraud, and a fragmented and writhing mass of sects in Iraq that are tripping over themselves to see who can best indimidate and assassinate their own rise to power.
    And calling Pakistan an “ally” is a fuckin’ joke.
    And not a word from the White House or State about Israel’s new “loyalty oath”. Thats a great instrument of “peace” between the Palestinians and the Israelis, isn’t it?
    You can’t make this shit up.

    Reply

  89. Don Bacon says:

    I hope that the national security experts, some honorable and some not, remember the domestic connection While engaged in cutting the fuse of terrorism during the worst economic times since the depression.
    President Obama, Dec 1, 2009
    “As President, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don’t have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I’m mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”
    “Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We’ve failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.”
    People who are struggling to stay in their homes, maintain their health and find employment hardly have time to worry about any minuscule threat from terrorism.

    Reply

  90. Julia says:

    I’d like to add my vote for a webcast, locked in here in Des Moines.

    Reply

  91. Anthony Zizzo says:

    I am with Ayse Veli. I am a student at Arizona
    State and I would be very interested in the content,
    but certainly cannot get to DC tomorrow to listen
    and participate. Is there any chance we might get a
    webcast?
    In the alternative, can we confirm that there will
    be videos and transcripts posted after the event?
    Thanks and keep up the good work.
    -a

    Reply

  92. Kathleen says:

    Illegal Israeli settler who hit the Palestinian kid and drove away is allegedly David Be

    Reply

  93. James says:

    Steve, the following is includes an interesting response by Zalmay Khalilzad on C-SPAN ‘Washington Journal’:
    How US Could be Helpful with regard to the Israel-Palestinian Conflict
    http://bit.ly/HowUScould

    Reply

  94. James says:

    Steve, the following is includes an interesting response by Zalmay Khalilzad on C-SPAN ‘Washington Journal’:
    How US Could be Helpful with regard to the Israel-Palestinian Conflict
    http://bit.ly/HowUScouldSee More

    Reply

  95. Ayse Veli says:

    I really hope that videos & transcripts are posted from the
    CTF conference as I’m sure this will be a reality check for
    existing Presidents and Prime Ministers who could learn alot-
    the most obvious being that today’s conflicts are not good v
    evil and that we the public across the world are not as gullible
    as we are perceived to be, but are smarter and more in sync
    with the real deep issues threatening us.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *