Haim Saban

If you're interested in the foreign policy views of major Hillary Clinton financial backer Haim Saban, there's no need to follow the Atrios path of attempting guilt by association with Kenneth Pollack. He discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a reasonably recent interview with Haaretz:

When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It's truly an existential danger."

You have a deep knowledge of the United States - will the U.S. take action to stop Iran?

"President Bush has no capital. He doesn't have the political capital to take a drastic step. We know what the Chinese and the Russians think, and a move by the United States alone - I doubt it. And now, with the Democrats in control of both Houses? I don't believe it will happen."

Saban was the largest overall contributor to the Democratic National Committee during the 2001-2002 cycle, when the party leadership was backing the Iraq War and Terry McAuliffe was DNC chair, and if Clinton becomes president, they'll be back in the positions of influence they enjoyed back then. I doubt this all means that Hillary Clinton's secretly itching for war with Iran, but it's yet another illustration of the fact that her views on national security policy are too neoconnish for my tastes.

Comments

A question for you would be do you believe that if Iran gets nukular weapons, they will not use them against Israel as they have said they would?

Does it matter?

I would really like to know because in many of these issues, it seems 'progressives' either can't or don't want to discuss the next probable step. An example is the Iraq war, they want out. What happens if we pull out? No answer. Seems so myopic.

So, if Iran gets nukes.....what happens? does it matter?

Posted by Fred Jones | June 10, 2007 9:11 AM

I think you mean too Israeli-lobby-ish for your taste.

Posted by otto | June 10, 2007 9:16 AM

do you believe that if Iran gets nukular weapons, they will not use them against Israel as they have said they would?

Matt does not believe Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel. How do I know? He's said so on multiple occasions; also, he has an intact frontal cortex.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | June 10, 2007 9:19 AM

The unprovoked use of nuclear weapons by any nation against any nation should be dealt with by the whole of the international community. None of us can afford to live in a world where the use of these weapons is seen as tolerable. The world may survive such a state of affairs, but our species can't.

That having been said, no. I do not believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons if they got them because Iran is a rational regime. Iran wants immunity from foreign influence and aggression. At the moment, it's hard to blame them. But once they used a weapon like that the other nations have no choice but retaliate no matter what the cost. Like I said, we can't afford to allow the use of nuclear weapons to pass without destroying the user. Once people start using them in the normal course of war, they won't stop and that would be the end of us.

Posted by soullite | June 10, 2007 9:31 AM

What these guys never mention is that the Iranian president has limited power. He doesn't even command the military.

Iran is facing huge problems demographically and thus politically. I don't think you have to be a neocon or a Muslim baiter to understand that their economic and cultural problems are closely linked to fundamentalism.

Add into the mix the historic loss of Persian dominance a few thousand years ago which still strikes some sort of cord in Iranians and the historic lower status of Shiite Muslims and the resulting grievances and then try to make the case that everything will just work out swell with a bit more time and prudent diplomacy. The case can be made of course but it's a best case scenario.

Ahmadinejad was swept into office by the rural poor, whose way of life is disappearing. There are others in his base as well but it was this group who were crucial to his victory. In certain ways he is the Iranian Bush surrogate, Reflexively fundamentalist in outlook and temperament, harboring historic grudges and dreams of glory The Administrations total rejection of dialog with the reform minded former president, who needed some progress so as to push back politically against the more fundamentalist and hard line forces was possibly causal in Ahmadinejad's victory. If this wasn't the plan then then the neocons were just lucky again, like on 011.

Posted by rapier | June 10, 2007 9:34 AM

Godwin's law doesn't apply to neocons, only to liberals.

The differences between the threat of jihad and the threat of Hitler are so blatant and so many that you feel like an idiot enumerating them. But here goes.

Hitler controlled the world's most powerful single military, and no Muslim controls a first-rate military. Hitler controlled one of the worlds most productive economies, and no Muslim controls anything but oil. Hitler controlled one of the world's greatest scientific- technical- industrial complexes, possibly the greatest, and no Muslim nation is ranked in the top twenty, probably not in the top thirty. In 1938 controlled the biggest nation in Europe, at the heart of Europe, and by 1942 he'd effectively brought all of continental Europe west of the USSR under his control. Islam is divided into twenty or more nations, two major sects, many sub-sects, and about a dozen languages, and there are always three or more leaders contesting leadership.

The Islamic world would have no more importance than Africa or South America except for two things: oil and Israel.

The neocon program depends on enormously exaggerating both the military potential and the murderous intent of Islam as a whole. This is clear projection. Homocidal crazies often accuse their victims of being homocidal crazies. Hitler was furious about at the military provocations of the Czechs and the Poles.

The tide has turned against them. On the other hand, they still control the media, and they still might pull off an election turnaround in 2000. And they seem to have switched to Hillary anyway, who's been pretty stubborn about maintaining her hawkish cred at very high political cost. And frankly, you have to wonder whether people who admire Libby, Cheney and Bush will be willing to accept defeat if it comes their way. They seem to be hoping for a state of exception.

Posted by John Emerson | June 10, 2007 10:10 AM

Otto --

for many people (and I'm not saying Yglesias is in this camp) "neoconnish" = "Israeli-lobby-ish" ...

Posted by Paul | June 10, 2007 10:14 AM

Jesus, look at that guys wiki bio. A Starsky and Hutch music billionaire.

Posted by John Emerson | June 10, 2007 10:17 AM

I generally agree with MY in his analysis of the current situation, but I think he may be missing a few subtleties with regard to Saban and his history.

Saban had previously been a huge backer of Bill Clinton, whose Mid East policies were extremely "pro-Israel" but "rational pro-Israel" rather than "crazy pro-Israel" like those of the opposing neocons now running the Bush Administration. Remember that Clinton was a central architect of the Oslo Peace Accords and was enormously popular among ordinary Palestinians.

In various media interviews, Saban had explained that the many millions he gave to the Clintons/Democrats were being given for "Peace." This is a standard code-word for being "rational pro-Israel." If he had been "crazy pro-Israel," he would have used the code-phrase "for Security" instead.

I suspect that with the replacement of Clinton by Bush at the top levels of US government and also with the complete breakdown of the Oslo process, Saban fell under the sway of different advisors who tend more towards the "crazy pro-Israel" camp.

Remember that Saban made his billions mostly through reselling children's cartoons such as Power Rangers and other such trivial entertainment fare. I don't doubt that he's rather smart, but I'm pretty sure he never attended college or possibly even graduated high school. Very wealthy/powerful but rather ignorant individuals are frequently easy marks for fast-talking, college-educated advisors who win their support for crazy and dangerous things.

The history of royal courts are filled with such calamitous histories, and our own Bush Administration is an outstanding current example.

Posted by RKU | June 10, 2007 10:25 AM

I think of Saban as being very, very, smart, unlike the average PhD, but also pretty ruthless. The media world is not for wimps and pacifists.

Posted by John Emerson | June 10, 2007 10:29 AM

it seems 'progressives' either can't or don't want to discuss the next probable step.

So awesome coming from a Bush-backer and war supporter. Appreciate the genius, people!

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 10, 2007 10:33 AM

Paul, that's bullshit people like you say. You claim people are racist to try and ward them off from criticizing neocons. So stuff it, will you. Stop trying to stifle debate with your absurd accusations.

Posted by soullite | June 10, 2007 10:43 AM

If Iran had nuclear weapons, Israel probably would not be able to use conventional weapons against Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Also, with nuclear Iran, Israel might seriously have to think about ending the occupation and compensating the refugees. And that's unacceptable, that's exactly what Hitler wanted; I believe there is a chapter on it in Mein Kampf.

Posted by abb1 | June 10, 2007 11:03 AM

Actually, Paul is a bit confused on proper terminology.

Remember that Bill Clinton actually put the leaders of DC's "Israel Lobby" (Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk) in complete charge of American Mid East policy. For this, he and his Administration were constantly vilified and attacked as being "anti-Israel" by the neocons.

The "Israel Lobby" and the neocons have generally been rather distinct things, or perhaps one might describe the neocons as being the "crazy" wing of the Israel Lobby.

Posted by RKU | June 10, 2007 11:06 AM

Another intersting sidelight on this is that Mr. Saban has recently taken control of Univision, the dominant Spanish-Language broadcast network in this country. During the last cycle Univision was owned by Jerry Perenchio, who aside from being a personal friend of Mr. Saban is his mirror image (heavy, heavy, Republican donator) in terms of political activity. Univision's coverage of the last elections was so biased towards Bush the it made FOX seem "fair and balanced". It is a shame that this was missed becasue the watchdog groups didn't appear to have anyone paying attention to Spanish-language media. If anyone had bothered to look in, it would have been no surprise when a study by the folks at Pew recorded a massive shift towards Republicans among Spanish-speaking Hispanics at the last election. Since then, Univison has put its muscle behind a massive drive to get those among it's viewers who are already eligable for citizenship to take the final step.

Due to the relative paucity of other information sources, Univsion's influence among its core viewers is unaparalleled by any other media outlet in the country today. This formidable if little understood political machine is now in the hands of Haim Saban. Whatever juice you think he has, his ownership of Univision gives him more of it.

Posted by ciudadano | June 10, 2007 11:10 AM

RKU makes a good point about the history of Saban's views, but I think it's simpler than which advisers he's been listening to. Like many liberal Israelis, Saban moved right after Camp David 2000 and the intifada, as he says in the interview. So he's more of a "soft" neo-con who reacted emotionally to certain events that seemed to discredit his instincts, as opposed to a hard neo-con who's been trying to bomb everyone ever since the Carter administration. Just look at a few other things he says in that interview, none of which I can imagine your typical neo-con saying:

[Talking to Hamas] is something I would do. Absolutely. You have to talk to anyone who is willing to talk. But based on a realistic approach.

Look, President Bush is very one-sidedly pro-Israel. But look at the results of his policy. They were not beneficial for Israel. We are in a major mess. Look at the facts on the ground. Bush is a massive failure. Hillary will be more balanced than Bush. She will try to create credibility among the Arabs in order to mediate between them and us.

As I told you about Hamas, we have to talk with everyone, including Ahmadinejad. Hillary Clinton intends to engage with Iran in order to try to find a political solution that will ensure a non-nuclear Iran."

The end result is sort of incoherent, but like I said, this is a non-expert who moved right on certain things largely because of emotional reactions to events. He seems just as likely, if not more so, to move back left in response to successes under a more moderate approach (since those are where his instincts lie). Not that it would be helpful to have influential people preaching apocalypse in a Dem administration, but he's pretty clearly not as incorrigible as the Perle/Abrams/Martin Peretz types out there.

Posted by Haggai | June 10, 2007 11:26 AM

"The unprovoked use of nuclear weapons by any nation against any nation should be dealt with by the whole of the international community."

Yeah, and an unprovoked naval blockade by any nation should be dealt with by the whole of the international community, especially when that nation demands the removal of UN peace keepers separating it from the country it is blockading and publicly announces that it will annihilate the population of said country (sound familiar? Think back 40 years). Problem is that often what should be dealt with by the international community isn't.

And in Israel's case, this is pretty thin gruel: if it were already attacked with nukes, it would be essentially finished as a nation; it is more interested in not getting nuked in the first place.

Posted by Harry | June 10, 2007 11:34 AM

A more relevant question would be: if Israel had supreme military power over its neighbors, would it use that power to destroy the entire infrastructure of a neighboring state and kill several thousand civilians, for no clear reason other than to pander to a citizenry that is trying desperately to deny its implication in the progressive annexation of occupied territory?

As is well known, the answer to that question is yes, as Lebanon learned for, for the second time, last summer.

Posted by Gabe Alkon | June 10, 2007 11:40 AM

"So awesome coming from a Bush-backer and war supporter. Appreciate the genius, people!"

Such wit, like a modern Noel Coward. If this is the extent of lefty foreign policy thinking, we are in trouble.

Consider this: If Iran gets nukes, so will Saudi Arabia and Egypt. If you don't think the world will be an order of magnitude less safe with those three countries having nukes, you're on crack.

If that happens, lefties can stop worrying about global warming and go back to worrying about the cooling effects of nuclear winter, because the odds of a nuclear war will have gone up tremendously.

But then again, the invasion of Iraq has cost 3500 American lives and has been a mess, so therefore it's better to regional nuclear war than try to stop Iran from getting nukes in the first place.

Posted by Juan | June 10, 2007 11:41 AM

Yeah, and an unprovoked naval blockade by any nation should be dealt with by the whole of the international community

Actually, it was indeed being dealt by the whole of the international community. Unfortunately the whole of the international community didn't get much chance, because Israeli leaders decided to attack.

Posted by abb1 | June 10, 2007 12:10 PM

Today I woke up, read and Al Franken article on Huffington Post, and then this article on Saban.

So there's this guy Saban who made billions doing something or other of limited value who is controlling us in part through the influence of his money and all we do is whine.
Isn't it time to do something about the Sabans and other special interest, big money people, making the American people do their bidding just because they can buy off the politician.

There's one way to stop it. We need a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting private money and private support of candidates in federal campaigns. If you agree, check out http://getbackamericanow.blogspot.com which I just started.

There's no other way to do it. My big fear is that if we do not begin to act soon, the real independent voice, the internet, will be undermined in some way by special interests.

Posted by Llyonnoc | June 10, 2007 12:27 PM

The interview with Saban in Haaretz indicates that he differs from George Soros only in degree. Both of them are laboring under the delusion that somehow if the Government of Israel stops being beastly to the Palestinians, the latter will be so grateful that they will stop sending homicide bombers and stop firing kassems and agree to a two state solution. This is a fatal error. Such an approach will not be seen as an invitation to a peaceful settlement but as a sign of weakness that can be exploited, much as Israeli indecisiveness in Lebanon last summer is now causing dictator Assad of Syria to imagine that he can win a war with Israel this summer. Further, Saban appears to be somewhat confused as he likens Amadinejad to Hitler and then suggests that he be negotiated with. You don't negotiate with Hitler, as Neville Chamberlain found out the hard way.

Posted by SLC | June 10, 2007 1:12 PM

...the delusion that somehow if the Government of Israel stops being beastly to the Palestinians, the latter will be so grateful that they will stop sending homicide bombers and stop firing kassems and agree to a two state solution. This is a fatal error. Such an approach will not be seen as an invitation to a peaceful settlement but as a sign of weakness that can be exploited...

Are you suggesting that the Palestinians, a nation of 6 million people, is unreasonable, untrustworthy, only understands force; outright evil, perhaps? Where did I hear this before? Ah, right, did someone mention Hitler?

Posted by abb1 | June 10, 2007 1:31 PM

Yeah, SLC, as opposed to the sane, rational theory that if the Palestinians stop being beastly to the Israelis Israel will be so overwhelmed by gratitude as to let them establish an independent state on the steadily shrinking fraction of Palestine Palestinians still control.

Posted by Bill | June 10, 2007 1:49 PM

"We need a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting private money and private support of candidates in federal campaigns."

This sort of comment brings to mind Churchill's line that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. But let's play along for a moment.

How are we defining "private money" -- just rich people or also special interests with money (unions, corporations, lobbying groups)? If you're going to ban everything, I guess you want the government to pay for federal election campaigns. OK, but: which campaigns should the government finance? Take a moment to connect the dots... If the government decides which campaigns get money, the government effectively decides which candidates run. Coincidentally, this happens to be the way the system works in Iran.

Posted by Fred | June 10, 2007 1:58 PM

I suspect that Mr. Yglesias, Mr. Bill, Mr. abbl, Mr. Reality Man, Mr. otto, Mr. Don Williams, and Mr. Ed Marshall are now in mourning. Their hero, Norman Finkelstein has been denied tenure at DePaul Un. He joins Guillermo Gonzalez of ISU in the dust bin of history. Maybe he can get a job at an Iranian university, sponsored by his hero, Amadinejad.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3410985,00.html

Posted by SLC | June 10, 2007 2:03 PM

Norman Finkelstein has been denied tenure

Ah, jihad really does work, I see.

Posted by abb1 | June 10, 2007 2:13 PM

Oh, Ms. SLC, I don't think being turned down for tenure at De Paul is exactly the equivalent of the dustbin of history. I'm rather sure that we will be hearing more from Finkelstein, and it will make more sense than your illustrious blog comments.

Posted by Bill | June 10, 2007 2:16 PM

Yes, I'd concur with Haggai's analysis of Saban.

Not having bothered to click through to the actual Haaretz article itself, I wasn't aware of Saban's additional statements, which place him squarely in the "rational pro-Israel wing," though still being tainted with a dangerous degree of incoherence and ignorance.

As for the indicators of the "crazy pro-Israel wing," simply read the various silly ravings of our friend SLC just above.

Posted by RKU | June 10, 2007 2:20 PM

Lebanon learned last summer that cross-border attacks from your soil carry consequences.

Israel learned last summer that withdrawing to internationally-recognized borders is pointless, since it only emboldens its enemies.

Posted by David | June 10, 2007 2:53 PM

It appears that this Haim Saban is not only a fanatic, but the also the worst kind of fanatic, an ignorant one. Saying that Ahmadinejad is interested in establishing a new Caliphate is nonsensical. He is a Shi'ite. The Shi'ites exist largely because they rejected the authority of the Caliphs in favor of that of Imams descended from Ali and Muhammad through his daughter who married Ali. He might as well have said that Ahmadinejad was seeking to establish a new Papacy. I think Mr. Saban should stick to his strengths, such as producing really bad television.

Posted by Andrew | June 10, 2007 3:12 PM

In the 2001-2002 election cycle, his Saban Capital group donated over $10 million to the Democratic National Committee

Aren't there laws against such huge corporate donations ?

Posted by Ron | June 10, 2007 3:46 PM

Re Bill

I doubt that Dr. Finkelstein will find another university position anywhere in the US to use as a platform for his lies and anti-semitic ravings. Unlike Noam Chomsky, who at least has a respectable scholarly record in the field of linguistics, Dr. Finkelstein is a loser with no known record of scholarly achievement in any field. Furthermore, it's Dr. SLC (PhD in physics).

Re RKU

Anybody who supports the concept that the State of Israel is a legitimate nation would be considered to be a raver by Mr. RKU.

Re abbl

The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The current Israeli policy of slaps on the wrist will not force them to see the error of their ways. What they need is a dose of Hama rules, which was very effective in persuading the terrorists in the City of Hama to cease their activities in 1982.

Posted by SLC | June 10, 2007 4:07 PM

The point is not that there is no difference between 'rational pro-Israel' types and 'crazy pro-Israel' types, but that there is not enough of a difference, in that both act to suppress any accomodation with the Palestinians which the Palestinians are likely to accept and oppose any real pressure on Israel to change its chauvinist policies, and an instinct to adopt more militarist/chauvinist views in the face of arab resistance to Israeli faits accomplis (cf Haggai's description of Saban's move to a soft-Neocon position).

Saban said: "Look, President Bush is very one-sidedly pro-Israel. But look at the results of his policy. They were not beneficial for Israel. We are in a major mess." But of course exactly the same could be said of Clinton - becuase he was unwilling to oppose Israeli colonisation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the 1990s, not least because his advisors were 'rational pro-Israel' types, the Oslo process colapsed with all the subsequent violence that followed.

Posted by otto | June 10, 2007 5:41 PM

SLC,

It is possible to be successful even outside academia. And Finkelstein has published well-received books with major university presses. And since we're laying our cards on the table, it is Dr. Bill.

Posted by Bill | June 10, 2007 5:50 PM

Oh, Dr. SLC, thank you for openly admitting your admiration for the Syrian Baathist regime and your belief that Israel should see it as a role model. Clarifies a lot.

Posted by Bill | June 10, 2007 5:53 PM

I think Saban got Ahmadinejad mixed up with Lord Zed or Goldar or something.

Posted by Eric | June 10, 2007 6:22 PM

Re otto

Mr. ottos' attempt to blame Israel for the collapse of the Oslo process is a god damn lie and is proof that his ultimate goal is in accord with that of Hamas, that is to remove the State of Israel from the map.

Re Bill

1. Dr. Bill claims that Dr. Finkelstein has had well received books published by reputable publishing houses. I can't speak to the latter claim but the only acclaim that his books have received have been from folks like David Duke and various neo-Nazi web sites like Stormfront, in addition to the usual left wing antisemites like Alexander Cockburn, the global warming denier, and Arab web sites. I'm sure that Dr. Finkelstein will be able to find the left wing equivalents of Regnery Publishing to publish his lies.

2. Gee, Dr. Bill apparently doesn't think that the Assad regime is something to be admired. On that, we can agree. However, the devil must be given his due and it cannot be argued that Hafaz Assads' actions in Hama were ineffective.

Posted by SLC | June 10, 2007 7:18 PM

Finkelstein's demolition of Daniel Goldhagen was justly well-received, and his charges of plagiarism against Dershowitz have never been refuted, despite Dershowitz's bluster. And yes, I would consider the University of California Press a reputable publishing house.

Posted by Bill | June 10, 2007 7:25 PM

Poor SLC. It's a Sunday, all the pharmacies are closed, and he's run out of his meds...

Remember, SLC, always keep a good supply of meds on hand before the weekend approaches.

Poor, poor SLC...

Posted by RKU | June 10, 2007 7:33 PM

I really don't want to wade into the larger debate here, but as to this:

Bill writes: Finkelstein's demolition of Daniel Goldhagen was justly well-received, and his charges of plagiarism against Dershowitz have never been refuted, despite Dershowitz's bluster.

No matter what one thinks of Dershowitz or his writings, I believe that statement is untrue.

According to the Harvard Crimson:

Dershowitz sought a Harvard investigation and was cleared of any wrongdoing.

The committeee determined that Dershowitz did nothing wrong...

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 10, 2007 7:41 PM

What they need is a dose of Hama rules, which was very effective in persuading the terrorists in the City of Hama to cease their activities in 1982.

Really? Are you going to dish it out? Because you talk a good genocide, SLC. Get yerself over there, and start shooting.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 10, 2007 8:15 PM

Re RKU

The trouble with Mr. RKU is he breaths in but he doesn't breath out.

Re Bill

1. Unfortunately, even distinguished university presses such as the Un. of California occasionally err. For instance, Cambridge University Press in Britain has published a work of pseudoscience by Paul Cameron, a notorious gay basher. This work has been shown to be completely fraudulent. And yet Cambridge University Press is at least as prestigious as the Un. of California Press.

2. Dr. Bill, David Duke, the folks at Stormfront and their counterparts on the far left may think that Finkelstein demolished Goldhagen but nobody else does.

3. The charge of plagiarism against Dershowitz was made by Finkelstein and Cockburn and was shown to be a bald faced lie. As Mr. SoCalJustice has stated, a faculty committee at Harvard investigated the charge and found it to be without foundation. Just another smear campaign against an Israel supporter, much like the smear campaign currently being mounted against John Edwards by the fascist news channel and columnist Robert Novak. That's not to say that I am a great admirer of Dershowitz whose support of a two state solution in Palestine is totally wrong.

4. Just to show what a nincompoop Finkelsteins' pal Cockburn is, I attached a link to a takedown of him on the denialist blog.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/06/formation_of_a_crank_a_case_st.php

Posted by SLC | June 10, 2007 8:31 PM

Re pseudonymous

Were I in charge in Israel, my hand would not tremble in giving the order to apply Hama rules.

Posted by SLC | June 10, 2007 8:34 PM

So what's stopping you?

If you are going to sit around and barf out the same noxious brand of revisionist zionism every day from a different continent sending a couple trees now and then really doesn't cut it. You don't have to run things but really if you are that wound up about Israel's tender mercy toward the subhuman Arabs it's at least worth getting a knitted skullcap and an Uzi and moving to a trailor out in Hebron. If it's not maybe you are just a windbag playing "let's you and him fight".

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 10, 2007 8:50 PM

Re Ed Marshall

Mr. Marshall raises a good point. During the 1967 war when I was a graduate student, several of us telephoned the Israeli embassy offering our services. Of course, the last thing they needed were volunteers with no military experience (we were all draft dodgers, like Mohammed Ali not having anything against the Viet Cong); however, they did have need of temporary replacements for reservists who were called up. Perhaps, fortunately, the war was over before we could obtain passports (it only lasted 6 days).

As for the current situation, I don't quite see what the issue in Hebron has to do with the attacks from the Gaza strip and the ongoing civil war between Hamas and Fatah therein.

Posted by SLC | June 10, 2007 9:06 PM

Israel has nukes. Israel has jets. Why is there an assumption that the US is going to have to do the dirty work for Israel?

Because we're pussy whipped. "America, do this! America, do that!". "Yes, Israel! One moment, I'll be right there!"

Posted by Jon H | June 10, 2007 9:06 PM

Harry wrote:"And in Israel's case, this is pretty thin gruel: if it were already attacked with nukes, it would be essentially finished as a nation"

Unlikely. Iran probably won't be producing thermonuclear H-bombs any time soon. They might be able to produce kiloton-class bombs, but not megaton bombs.

We and England should just allow Israel to base a long-range nuclear capability at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Anything launches out of Iran (or Pakistan) and they get hit back by better technology.

End of problem. Deterrence works.

The advantage of deterrence is that you don't have to get the intelligence just right. You need perfect intel if you're going to have a war, especially if you're making accusations and/or trying to knock out a country's nuclear capability.

Likewise, if you're relying on deterrence, then it limits the damage lying provocateurs can do - whatever intel they provide isn't going to spur you into war.

Posted by Jon H | June 10, 2007 9:18 PM

Pretty funny...

Our friend SLC has now unmasked himself as an agent-provocateur sent over by David Duke to stir up anti-Semitism on this website.

He claims that in the late 1960s he deliberately dodged the American draft because he felt no loyalty to the American government nor to his fellow American citizens while tens of thousands of them were fighting and dying at war. However, his simultaneous loyalty to the state of Israel was so overwhelming that he instantly volunteered for military service there, despite not being a citizen nor living there. Strangely enough, they supposedly didn't want him.

Poor David Duke. He should recruit agents who are a little smarter and therefore less implausibly extreme in their alleged disloyalty to America...

Posted by RKU | June 10, 2007 9:19 PM

I always preferred VR Troopers to Power Rangers.

Posted by phosphorious | June 10, 2007 10:17 PM

Re RKU

Yessir, I avoided the draft in the sixties, just like George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, etc. entirely legally by student deferment followed by a draft number of over 300 when they went to the lottery system. Unlike Cheney and Bush, I also opposed the war from the get go. As for the hilarious claim that I am an agent provocateur of David Duke, I had a good laugh over that one. I would also point out that the USA was hardly in danger of annihilation by the Viet Cong while the State of Isreal was in mortal danger of such by the combined force of its three unfriendly neighbors. Furthermore, the Vietnam war was totally unnecessary and incompetently fought by the US military, due to the micromanaging of the Johnson administration. Apparently, the current administration, in its conduct of the adventure in Iraq, has learned nothing from the mistakes of its sixties predecessor.

Posted by SLC | June 10, 2007 10:45 PM

So Yglesias found in Haim Saban another Jew to vilify!

Posted by Apter | June 10, 2007 10:47 PM

Just to be fair here, a link to a blog by Prof Dershowitz on Dr. Finkelstein is attached below.

http://blogcentral.jpost.com/view.php?blog_post_id=904

Posted by SLC | June 10, 2007 10:58 PM

RKU: this is very annoying, anytime something happens on weakend, it is a major problem.

I had 10 dollar co-payment for emergency room visits, then 25, now it is 50.

As it is, results are not pretty. I understand that one can be a "Likudnik", but where this comes from: "Just another smear campaign against an Israel supporter, much like the smear campaign currently being mounted against John Edwards by the fascist news channel and columnist Robert Novak."

So Novak is "the fascist news channel and columnist"?

Posted by piotr | June 10, 2007 11:57 PM

1) My disagreement with Haim Saban lies not in his being a strong advocate for Israel.

It lies in him accepting US citizenship while retaining Israeli citizenship , in his dumping roughly $13.7 Million into the Democratic Party in the 2000-2002 cycle (if you include his wife Cheryl's donations as well ), and in his extremely strong loyalty to Israel -- with no recognition that I can see that he owes loyalty to the USA if he accepts US citizenship.

When he says that he thinks all Jews should serve in the Israeli military (see Haaretz article cited by Matthew) , then that presumably includes all American Jews.

2) Unlike Matthew, I do not hold Saban innocent for funding a "Center for Middle East Policy" at Brookings whose "Director of Research" Kenneth Pollack told us in 2002 that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.
From page xxvii(Introduction) of Pollack's 2002 Book "The Threatening Storm":

"Today, we have information from key defectors and
a consensus among knowledgable experts that the Iraqis are hard at work on such a [nuclear weapon development] program and that they have all the know-how and the technology to do it. The only question is how long it is going to take them.
...Because Iraq has natural uranium deposits, all the Iraqis need to do is build a process to enrich that uranium to weapons grade and then enrich enough to make one or more Hiroshima-sized weapons"

3) Or look at the Los Angeles Times OP-ED put out by the Saban Center's Director Marty Indyk and Kenneth Pollack. See
http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20021219.htm

An excerpt:
"Saddam Hussein has failed to come clean. His denial of possessing any weapons of mass destruction makes that clear, even though the experts have not completed their review of Iraq's weapons declaration.

As former U.S. government officials who had access to the most sensitive U.S. intelligence on Iraq, we are well aware of Iraq's continued efforts to retain and enhance its weapons capabilities...
...Given that Hussein has chosen not to use his last chance to disarm, how should the United States respond?
...There is real risk in allowing the inspections to run on indefinitely. The longer the inspections go on and find nothing, the harder it will be for the U.S. to build a coalition when we finally decide to take action.

War must always be the last resort, and certainly there is more preparatory work to be done to minimize its risks and costs. But Hussein has just made it clear again that the only way to effectively disarm his regime is to overthrow it.

That leaves the president with a choice between war sooner and war later.

Indefinite inspections will only make the inevitable more difficult."

Posted by Don Williams | June 11, 2007 12:12 AM

Should a guy who made his fortune adapting Power Rangers for American televison have any influence over American Middle-East policy?

Posted by Blue Power Ranger | June 11, 2007 2:48 AM

Mr. Marshall raises a good point. During the 1967 war when I was a graduate student, several of us telephoned the Israeli embassy offering our services.

Yeah, windbag, shit and a pussy.

I'm not old enough to have been there, but I'm the right age to remember going to the VA and having an orange bracelet strapped to my wrist and noticing a nice portion of the rest of the kids had down's syndrome. My father lost his job when he came back from two tours of Vietnam as a crew chief on a huey because he was a tool and die guy when he left and when he came back the solvents melted the skin off his hands. Miracles of Agent Orange.

I do remember reading various sectarion left journals from 67 and SLC would have fit right in as the turd in that punch bowl. He could have spread his outdated crap in Commentary or Dissent or the like and fit right in. Of course it's almost half a decade after the fact and no one really gives a damn about his outdated, silly, anti-anti-semtitism and it's ossified underpinnings.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 11, 2007 3:20 AM

Regarding Dershowitz, I don't believe that "Harvard Committee clears big-shot and famously litigious Harvard professor of plagiarism" is a refutation of much of anything.

Posted by Bill | June 11, 2007 7:47 AM

Re Ed Marshall

1. Mr. Marshall makes a good point concerning the periodical Commentary, which was opposed to the Vietnam war during most of its duration. Considering that its editor, Norman Podhoretz has since done a 180 and attacked war opponents, with no apology for his previous opposition, and has been an enthusiastic supporter of the current Iraq adventure, I would agree with Mr. Marshall that Commentary is a piece of crap publication (in addition to which his son, John Podhoretz, the editor of the N.Y. Post was also a draft evader, which pere and fis fail to mention).

2. I have never read Dissent so I have to plead innocent relative to its editorial policies. I do plead guilty to reading the New Republic, Nation, and Progressive publications at the time.

3. Mr. Marshall apparently seems to feel that anti-antisemitism is bad. I am afraid we are going to have to disagree on that point.

Re Bill

Obviously, Dr. Bills' antipathy for the State of Israel is such that he feel right at home with Norman Finkelstein and his cohorts Alexander Cockburn, David Duke, Ernst Zundel, David Irving, Ingrid Rimland, et al. Given the choice as to who to believe, Alan Dershowitz or Finkelstein/Cockburn, I'll take Alan any day of the week and twice on Sunday. By the way, when Dr. Bill says that Prof. Dershowitz is litigious. I am not aware that the good professor has sued anybody. He has acted as an appellant attorney in several high profile cases, including Mike Tyson and Klaus von Bulow, in addition to numerous minority defendants whose cases he has argued pro bono before appellant courts. This is in addition to the case of Natan Sharansky, the Soviet dissident. In fact, it is my information that he even argued the case of a Palestinian before the Israeli Supreme Court. Do I think that Prof. Dershowitz is an extremely arrogant fellow. The answer is yes. As a former colleague of mine once said about the physicist Julian Schwinger, he is quite arrogant but he has much to be arrogant about.

Re Don Williams

Apparently, Mr. Williams doesn't like dual citizenship. I would guess then he would find my friend Ammar Kanaan, who has dual Syrian/US citizenship to also be objectionable.

Posted by SLC | June 11, 2007 8:41 AM

Re piotr

1. Apparently, Mr. piotr is unaware that the Fox News Channel is better known as the fascist news channel.

2. The reference relative to the fascist news channel and Robert Novak was that last week, the former spent 1/2 hour on the Schmuckity and Colmes show attacking Edwards for campaigning with actor Danny Glover who had been pictured with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and the latter devoted a column to alleged antipathy of high ranking muckdamucks in the Democratic party toward Edwards.

Posted by SLC | June 11, 2007 9:12 AM

Now that we have Monday and our respective prescriptions are replenished we can discuss matters of style in a dispassionate way.

"the fascist news channel and columnist Robert Novak", I took it to mean "Robert Novak who combines the activities of "the fascist news channel" and that of a columnist. As in "The pre-eminent Middle East expert and renown racanteour Bernard Lewis".

Was Dershowitz guilty of plagiarism? The charge was very specific and technical: that he copied quotes and sources from a book that was not scholarly, in spite of appearances of the scholarly apparatus, and when there were mistakes in the copied quotes, Dershowitz copied the mistakes. It is an arcane point if this was plagiarism or sloppiness. My impression is that Dershowitz is not a plagiarist, but a very persistent liar.

Putting Counterpunch in the same league as Nazi party, or Cockburn in the same league as Duke, is excessive and obnoxious.

Negotiating with Iran: probably unnecessary and futile, unless you postpone the resolution of conflicts with Palestinians and Syria until they form an aliance with Iraq and Iran. Then we need to check the name Salah-ed-Din in the history books.

Posted by piotr | June 11, 2007 6:21 PM

Re piotr

1. For Mr. piotrs' information, Zundel et al are neo-nazis.

2. When it comes to anti-semitism, there is no difference between left wingers like Cockburn and neo-nazis like Zundel.

3. Prof. Dershowitz stated in his defense to the charge of plagiarism that he relied on the original sources used by Judith Miller and only used Ms. Millers' book as a source to uncover them. There is nothing at all untoward or unethical about this. Researchers in all fields do the same thing all the time. As for the alleged errors in Ms. Millers' book that also appeared in Prof. Dershowitzs' book, these alleged errors also occurred in the original sources referred to by Ms. Miller so this apparently interesting coincidence proves nothing.

4. Relative to Cockburn, I posted a link elsewhere on this thread to an evisceration of Cockburn on his rantings on the subject of global warming. His whackjob global warming conspiracy theories conclusively demonstrate that he is not a writer to be relied on.

5. Relative to Robert Novak, I was referring to a column of his in the Washington Post, not a commentary on the fascist news channel.

Posted by SLC | June 11, 2007 7:12 PM

Do you think that personal chef Petur Bogi will ever be able to enter the U.S,for expressing himself on paper towards Haim Saban we find it a little to extreme the severe punishment,jail time,nearly killing Pete then ruining his life by sending him to Iceland for measily written ink on paper,never once did Mr.Haim Saban offer assistance of this inspiring man,where as he holds a script that could possibly create jobs for several people and help feed hungry children around the Globe.It was so much easier to call the police and lock him up,embaress his family and try to diminish him!!!I say he handles thing´s very poorly,it´s a shame because he really only was temporarily pissed 4 being underpaid,

Posted by Jocque Strap | June 21, 2007 8:17 PM