The Experience to Pander

Dan Kurtzer and Ann Lews go to a UJC meeting to act as surrogates for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, respectively:

Next question to Kurtzer: Obama's assertion that he needn't have a "Likud view" -- that of Israel's right-wing party -- to be pro-Israel. Kurtzer explained that Obama wanted to see a "plurality of views." Silence in the room.

To that, Lewis retorted: "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties." The audience members applauded.

That's really pretty absurd. For one thing, it's totally off the subject of what Obama said. And does it really need to be pointed out that the role of the President of the United States isn't "to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel" but to adopt the right policies for the United States?

Comments

Bring me my dreidel you lackey American pig!

Posted by steve duncan | March 19, 2008 8:58 AM

If I needed another reason not to vote for Hillary, this is it. Perhaps she can run for the Knesset after she exhausts all avenues in an attempt to steal the Democratic nomination.

Posted by MP | March 19, 2008 9:02 AM

"The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties."

So, if the people of Israel were to vote for a Milosevic-style ethnic cleansing program to deal with the Palestinian problem, or decided to invade a neighboring country, or launch an unprovoked nuclear first strike against Tehran, our role would be to support them?

What horsesh-t.

Posted by Xeynon | March 19, 2008 9:07 AM

Who is Ann Lewis anyway? It's not up to us to pick which political parties we support? So if they elect some Jim Jones type party we have to support them anyway? Does Lewis understand what she is saying? And people accuse McCain of pandering. This is the worst sort of pandering. Is the UJC some right wing Likud loving outfit?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 19, 2008 9:12 AM

You see what's going on here, though? Your follow-up paragraph implies she was answering the question that was actually asked; she wasn't. Kurtzer's point was that a hard-right view of how to deal with the Palestinians wasn't important to be considered pro-Israel. It just so happens that this view is espoused by the Likud Party, so that's the label he draws.

Lewis's response wasn't to say we necessarily need to support the decisions of Israel vis-a-vis their security; it was to say that if they elected Likud, we should support Likud in government. That's a true statement. But the way she answered presented her response so as to say different things to different people. To one: the U.S. will always support Israel's wishes on security issues. To the other: Obama would not necessarily support the democratically elected governing party of Israel.

Shrewd and misleading dog whistle politics at its finest. I don't really buy what she's selling here, but it's pretty smart and not technically lying.

Posted by jhupp | March 19, 2008 9:16 AM

The sum total of our colective worth as a nation is to "support the decisions made by Israel"...no questions asked! If we don't, we are anti-semites!

Posted by adl | March 19, 2008 9:17 AM

Who is Ann Lewis anyway?
Ann Lewis is the Senior Advisor for Hillary Clinton for President.

Posted by bjd | March 19, 2008 9:20 AM

I just looked up Ann Lewis on Wikipedia. Pretty interesting. She used to hold high positions at the DNC. She is also Barney Frank's sister.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 19, 2008 9:25 AM

Obama shouldn't have said "Likud" as a shorthand for "right wing Israeli hawks". Mainly because it sounds like a partisan intervention into Israeli politics -- which is okay for Republicans to do, as long as you're accusing some party you don't like of surrendering to the terrorists or trying to help destroy Israel.

Nevertheless, if what Obama means is "right wing hawkish Israeli policies", that's what he should say.

Posted by El Cid | March 19, 2008 9:27 AM

According to Shmuel Rosner of Ha'aretz, at this very same meeting, Eagleburger made a bit of a boo-boo regarding internal GOP politics:

In a response to a question about the religious right, an important component of the Republican coalition, he said that it was, indeed "a serious problem," and reminded his listeners that he now lives in Charlottesville, surrounded by such people that he needs to fight.

But I guess some people are too busy with Clinton-Obama disputes to talk about such things.

Posted by Haggai | March 19, 2008 9:35 AM

bjd:
Scary thought isn't it? The again isn't Mark Penn a senior advisor? Or is he just the senior pollster?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | March 19, 2008 9:37 AM

Forgot to include a link in that last post; here it is.

Posted by Haggai | March 19, 2008 9:38 AM

"Lewis's response wasn't to say we necessarily need to support the decisions of Israel vis-a-vis their security; it was to say that if they elected Likud, we should support Likud in government. That's a true statement."
Posted by jhupp | March 19, 2008 9:16 AM

I'm not sure I understand how this is a true statement. The US should support Likud policies that are counterproductive to peace in the region? Why?

Posted by Kurzbein | March 19, 2008 9:41 AM

The Israeli lobby has as much power over U.S. policy in the region as cuban exiles do over our Cuba policy. That's not going to change, and at some point during the campaign, Obama is going to have to genuflect in the direction of Tel Aviv with the cameras rolling. He may as well get it over with now.

Posted by Helter | March 19, 2008 9:48 AM

How much does the Jewish voting public share the views of the Jewish lobbyists? My personal experience says not so much.

Posted by David in NY | March 19, 2008 9:55 AM

Question, Ann Lewis:

Wouldn't having a "Likud view" in fact be "to pick and choose from among the political parties"?

Posted by McKingford | March 19, 2008 9:56 AM

At least she didn't call him a monster. That would be much worse than suggesting the U.S. president should do whatever Israel wants.

Obviously she's overstating things in order to pander, but this is also a terrible message to send to the Arab world. They're basically affirming the view that the U.S. is beholden to Israel. I doubt a (thankfully hypothetical) Clinton administration would actually base its actions on what Israel wanted, but statements like these are fodder for radicals to whip up anti-American sentiment. Pandering can have its consequences.

Posted by ibid | March 19, 2008 10:02 AM

Waiting for SLC to use his "terrorist-lover/anti-Semite" rhetorical nuclear bomb on all of you reasonable members of the American electorate who recognize that American elections are about the best interests of the United States and nothing/no one else....

Detonating in 5...4...3...2....

Posted by Nate | March 19, 2008 10:06 AM

"The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel."

Is this a joke?

Posted by TH | March 19, 2008 10:15 AM

Kurzbein, I simply meant that the democratically elected ruling party of Israel is the one with whom all negotiations and recognitions should take place. The second quoted sentence of Lewis' statement, "It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties," seems to imply (wrongly) that Obama's position is otherwise. No, I do not think we should support specific counterproductive policies, but nor should we undermine the legitimacy of an active party in a democracy, whether in government or in opposition.

Posted by jhupp | March 19, 2008 10:16 AM

Jhupp -

Thanks for the clarification. Now I see what you meant about Lewis's shrewd phrasing. I'm really looking forward to 4 years of this type of stuff. It's such a dramatic departure from Bushco.

Posted by Kurzbein | March 19, 2008 10:20 AM

My understanding is Likud isn't in the governing coaliton of the Knesset. The Israeli parliament is ruled by a coalition of the Kadima, Labor & Shas parties.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/965772.html

Knesset membership
Kadima 29
Labour-Meimad 19
Likud 12
Shas 12
Yisrael Beiteinu 11
National Union*-National Religious Party 9
Gil (Pensioners) 7
United Torah Judaism** 6
Meretz-Yachad 5
United Arab List-Ta'al 4
Hadash 3
Balad 3
Total 120

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset#Current_Knesset

So Obama's representive said, in effect, the US can still be good friends with Israel without taking the line of the 3rd most popular party IN ISRAEL. Ann Lewis then says "It's not our job to pick and choose" but by implication chooses the third most popular party in Israel.

I dare Ann Lewis to apply this same logic to the UK. It would mean taking the Liberal Democrat line over PM Gordon Brown and Conservative leader David Cameron.

The US press is just horrid when it comes to reporting on Israeli affairs. You'd think the word 'Likud' was an anti-semetic slur based on the protestations of the ideologues in America. 'Likud' isn't a slur. In 2008 'Likud' means 'small third party that doesn't enjoy popular support in Israeli elections'. That's a fact, not a slur.

Posted by joejoejoe | March 19, 2008 10:54 AM

What's really disgusting is that we all saw how supporters of Israel's right wing strongly --and deceitfully -- promoted the Iraq War in 2002 in order to take out an enemy of Israel.

Their treason has cost this country 4000 dead soldiers, thousands more crippled for life and an estimated $3 Trillion. Yet this disloyal scum -- which is despised even by many Israelis suffering from warmongering -- is still treated with respect by the US News Media. Their deceit and evil covered up by the New York Times.

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 11:09 AM

I'd really like to see my fellow Hillary backers Tim K and Petey defend this crap. Entertainment value aside, this is the worst presidential election ever: we're either going to get a senile warmonger, an Israel first lady, or (very unlikely) a highly skilled rhetorician who probably hates this country.

Posted by otherScott | March 19, 2008 11:18 AM

Why are you the only one to have pointed out the absurdity of the Lewis statement? Is this a version of "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and you are the only one left awake?

Posted by dc res | March 19, 2008 11:53 AM

dc res--I pointed it out here in the comments section yesterday, and Phil Weiss posted on it on his blog http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/ yesterday afternoon.

Posted by otherScott | March 19, 2008 12:00 PM

Re Don Williams

As has been tirelessly pointed out, Mr. Williams is a fucking liar. As Lawrence Wilkerson pointed out, the Government of Israel was less then enthusiastic about the Iraq adventure and regime change in Iraq in particular. Now of course, lying cocksucker Mr. Williams will once again post a link to a speech by Bibi to the Congress supporting the adventure. And just to anticipate him, I will again state that Bibi was the finance minister and had no role in foreign policy.

Posted by SLC | March 19, 2008 12:19 PM

Can't "The Atlantic" do something about SLC's obscenity? Why was Bibi invited before Congress anyway-- and treated as some sort of mighty wise man? Some smartass said long ago, Capitol Hill is "Israeli occupied territory, " and he was pretty much correct.

Posted by otherScott | March 19, 2008 12:32 PM

Don,

You are factually incorrect when you say: "What's really disgusting is that we all saw how supporters of Israel's right wing strongly --and deceitfully -- promoted the Iraq War in 2002 in order to take out an enemy of Israel."

The entirety of Israel's political spectrum, aside from the extreme left (anarchists and Gush Shalom), strongly promoted the Iraq War in 2002. It was the neo-cons which were almost exclusively Likud aligned, but they were not alone in promoting the war, Labor's lackies also participated though they had no presence in the administration. Although even this characterization is not sufficiently descriptive, because behind the 'right-wing' Zionist scumbags (Likud/Labor) are the liberal Zionist (Meretz-niks/Brit Tzedek-niks) who are far more insidious, and whose job it was to shut down any discussion regarding the neo-cons and Israel on the left.

Posted by Salviati | March 19, 2008 1:30 PM

Don Williams,

You are factually incorrect when you say: "What's really disgusting is that we all saw how supporters of Israel's right wing strongly --and deceitfully -- promoted the Iraq War in 2002 in order to take out an enemy of Israel."

The entirety of Israel's political spectrum, aside from the extreme left (anarchists and Gush Shalom), strongly promoted the Iraq War in 2002. It was the neo-cons which were almost exclusively Likud aligned, but they were not alone in promoting the war, Labor's lackies also participated though they had no presence in the administration. Although even this characterization is not sufficiently descriptive, because behind the 'right-wing' Zionist scumbags (Likud/Labor) are the liberal Zionist (Meretz-niks/Brit Tzedek-niks) who are far more insidious, and whose job it was to shut down any discussion regarding the neo-cons and Israel on the left.

Posted by Salviati | March 19, 2008 1:31 PM

I'm not so sure that Israel's leadership was anything but pro-war. Apprehensive, maybe, but fear and fear-mongering are at the core of Israel's ideology. Remember this year is 1938, last year was 1938, and next year most definitely will be 1938.

As picked up by FreeRepublic, this from the Daily News:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/734712/posts

Attack Iraq soon, Sharon aide says
New York Daily News ^ | 8/17/02 | RICHARD SISK

Posted on 08/17/2002 3:08:58 AM PDT by kattracks

WASHINGTON - The United States should attack Iraq soon to stop dictator Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons, Israeli officials said yesterday.
"Postponing the action to a later date would only enable Saddam to accelerate his weapons program, and then he would pose a more formidable threat," said Ranaan Gissin, a top adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

Gissin said Sharon sent the U.S. Israeli intelligence estimates this week that Saddam had boosted production of chemical and biological weapons in anticipation of war with the U.S.

Gissin also charged Saddam ordered Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission last week to speed up work on developing nuclear weapons.

"Saddam's going to be able to reach a point where these weapons will be operational," he said.

The Israeli view contrasted with growing Republican opposition to President Bush's pursuit of a so-called regime change in Iraq.

At his Crawford, Tex., ranch, Bush took note of the "healthy debate." Top Republicans, including former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, have warned that an attack on Iraq would derail the war on terrorism.

"I listen carefully," Bush said.

But, he said of Saddam, "There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that this man is thumbing his nose at the world" and "that he desires weapons of mass destruction."

Israel fears Scud attacks

In deciding on whether to go to war, Bush said, "I'll be making up my mind based upon the latest intelligence and how best to protect our own country, plus our friends and allies."

Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said Saddam almost certainly would aim Scuds again at Israeli cities if the U.S. attacked, as happened during the Gulf War in 1991.

"We will be one of the main targets," Ben-Eliezer told the Yediot Ahronot newspaper. Israel did not retaliate in 1991, but Ben-Eliezer said the military would respond to new attacks.

"What I told the Americans, and I repeat it: 'Don't expect us to continue to live with the process of restraint. If they hit us, we reserve the right of response,'" Ben-Eliezer said.

In recent months, Iraq has sent mixed signals about whether it will allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors who left in 1998.

Iraqi UN Ambassador Mohammad Al-Douri said yesterday that his country had renewed an invitation for the inspectors "to discuss practical arrangements for their work ahead in the future."

Posted by The Other Alan | March 19, 2008 1:42 PM

The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel.

I generally believe Israel should be given the benefit of the doubt in regards to its actions toward its primitive, barbaric neighbors, but this statement is astonishing.

The US is a global hegemony, economically and militarily--the world's only in history. It is the first and only state that could conceivably achieve a military victory were every other state to simultaneously declare war on it.

Israel is a regional, non-hegemonic, military power in a pathetic, miedeval region. Its military power exists only as a US whim.

The suggestion that the US-Israel relations is, not only not a patriarchal relationship (with the US as senior), but that the US president exists as a vassal to the Israeli parliament makes me want to re-examine that benefit of the doubt.

Wow. Just wow.

Posted by Shinyk | March 19, 2008 2:43 PM

Re SLC's comment "And just to anticipate him, I will again state that Bibi was the finance minister and had no role in foreign policy."
------------
1) Re Wilkinson's remarks, Ariel Sharon's government initially wanted us to send thousands of US soldiers to die in IRAN instead of Iraq --because they saw Iran as the greater threat to Israel. They got on board with the Invasion of Iraq after some haggling with the Neocons.

2) When Bibi Nathanyahu told the US CONGRESS in mid-2002 that Saddam Hussein needed to be taken out before he used NUKES, Bibi was speaking as the Sharon Government's OFFICIAL ENVOY. As attested by this document on the Government of Israel's OWN WEBSITE.
http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/Archive/Press+Releases/2002/04/Spokesman5444.htm

See also http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654345

I've pointed this out to SLC many times before -- so his persistance in denying Bibi's status seems to me like deliberate deceit. See http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/getting_bolder.php#comment-1426409

3) Ariel Sharon also had his spokeman, Ra'anan Gissin, and
Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres pound home the same message to the American people:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654354

4) Maybe SLC can tell us when Mossad is going to find Saddam's nukes.

After all, I assume Sharon was working off intelligence -- and didn't just make up a pack of lies to lead the USA into a disasterous war.

Likud's our "close ally" after all. William Kristol told me so.

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 2:50 PM

that the US president exists as a vassal to the Israeli parliament makes me want to re-examine that benefit of the doubt.

Nevermind, I thought Lewis was an Israeli/AIPAC official, not a Clinton official. I already know what I think of Clinton.

Posted by Shinyk | March 19, 2008 2:53 PM

Wow,Shinyk. "Primitive", "barbaric", "pathetic", "medieval". Sounds to me you've got the Likud line down pat. At least give the president the same leaway.

Posted by The Other Alan | March 19, 2008 3:13 PM

The sentiments expressed by Shinyk are common among Zionists and their sympathizers. They wouldnt even consider airing in public these same sentiments against African states for instance, for it would rightly be called racist. But they have enabled an environment in the US whereby overt racism towards Arabs is acceptable. What is perhaps most shocking is that despite the colonial arrogance of these Zionists they still have the audacity to claim victim status.

Posted by Salviati | March 19, 2008 3:27 PM

Re: barbarism

Embassies burned over cartoons. Women sentenced to prison (or lashings) for sitting in a car with a man. Downs' syndrome sufferers used as human bombs, unbeknownst to them. Acid dumpings on children as a message to the parents. Beheadings. The forcible segregation of fruit by perceived sexual orientation of said fruit.

The notion that, legally, a woman cannot leave her home without a male relative or husband. The notion that, legally, a woman cannot resist sex within marriage. The notion that, legally, a woman cannot choose not to wear a ghost costume. The notion that, legally, a woman should be subject to humane beatings within marriage.

One doesn't need to be a Neocon or a member of Likud to see that this is barbarism.

If you say this is not barbarism, what do you call it?

Re: miedevalism, primitivism

"Salafism," the prevailing strain in Middle Eastern Sunni Islam, seeks, as its purpose and necessitating principle, "a return to the perfect time of the salafis," i.e. the 9th century, which is a "miedeval" period.

I consider "miedeval" societies "primitive" when considered against modern ones, as I suspect, would everyone who is not a Salafi.

Re: Pathetic

I also consider all societies that prefer miedevalism to modernity and barbarism to liberalism to be pathetic, as I suspect, does everyone who is not a member or an apologist of a miedeval, barbaric group. I guess they'd all be honorary members of Likud, too.

I wasn't merely thinking of Palestine when I described Israel's region.

Posted by Shinyk | March 19, 2008 4:20 PM

But they have enabled an environment in the US whereby overt racism towards Arabs is acceptable.

Yes, the intoonfadah never happened, nor did a Middle Eastern head of state issue a death sentence on a British author for saying something he didn't like. I guess I'm just letting my Zionist, racist imagination go overboard again.

Posted by Shinyk | March 19, 2008 4:48 PM

Well Shinyk,

Lets look in the mirror and talk about barbarism for a minute. I suspect you live in the US, which has according to the peer reviewed mortality survey conducted by John Hopkins University and published in the highly respected medical journal the Lancet estimates that in the past 5 years that the US invasion and subsequent occupation has resulted in 1 million Iraqi deaths. On top of that, created torture dungeons whereby prisons were raped and murdered by US military personnel. Last but certainly not least, created the largest refugee population in the world, whom have luckily been given refuge not in the US, but rather in the states that you proclaim to be supreme symbols of barbarism. This is merely the horror called Iraq. Once we extend our glaze to other parts of the world, like Somalia, where the US backed an invasion by a hated neighboring state and now Somalia is the worst humanitarian catastrophe in Africa, Afghanistan where we reinstalled the most hated war criminals and drug traffikers in the horrific modern history of Afghanistan, Columbia where the prosecution of the farce called the War on Drugs has made Columbia the worst human rights abuser in Latin America for the last decade. The list goes on and on, and all of this happened in the last decade, and I assure you that the further you trace back in American history the more egregious the crimes get. Where precisely do these facts fit in with your world view of modernity and liberalism. It doesn't because you would rather pay meticulous attention to the crimes of other states, abstract the crimes so as to portray them as coming from the will of the population and hence accomplish your first goal of dehumanizing the respective populations of these states. Once the population of these states/regions are sufficiently dehumanized you have created the path towards the appropriation of their resources, primarily through use of violence.

You are not the first to do this, the Nazi's were very good at it, but ultimately were not as successful as the Americans, who by and large accomplished their goal of wiping out their indigenous population, and claiming the entirety of their territory and resources. I wish you the worst of luck.

Posted by Salviati | March 19, 2008 5:48 PM

Matt's original point is so basic, it is astonishing. Lewis's policy is technically treasonous. The point is that it is a recipe for incredibly confused policies, and that will probably hurt Israel much more then the US, being the much smaller and more vulnerable party. Completely bonkers!

Posted by Chris Dornan | March 19, 2008 6:04 PM

Salviati: you forgot to mentioned that the state that we encouraged to intervene in Somalia is a pretty bloody Communist dictatorship. Supporting Communists against Islamists?

About mediaeval attitudes, there was a report about Haredim in Israel. In a Heredi town there are special buses for them, with separate sections for women and men. When a non-Haredi woman decided that a better seat is available in the male section, she was assaulted and a soldier who defended her was beaten up.

And of course the throw stuff at American female tourists when they dare to pray at the Wailing War, assault archaeologists etc. So please tell me: what century do those people represent? I say, their treatment of women is not exactly Salafist, it is more like Shia.

Posted by piotr | March 19, 2008 6:15 PM

Wow, Shinyk, I thought you were a reasonable person in the McCainNomics thread, but your comments about "barbarism" has me floored. It's beyond racist. Maybe you should be commenting on Little Green Footballs instead of this blog.

Posted by Peter H | March 19, 2008 6:21 PM

Re Shinyk's comment "nor did a Middle Eastern head of state issue a death sentence on a British author for saying something he didn't like "
------------
As compared to major Christian Right leader Pat Robertson advocating the assassination of a head of state -- Chavez of Venzuela -- who poses no significant threat to the USA?

What's the Christian Right term for "Fatwa"?

Glass Houses. Stones.

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 6:29 PM

I could write a thousand page refutation of what you've just said (though not on the War on Drugs issue, which doesn't fall under the category of barbarism, but is, nonetheless, the single biggest injustice that can be laid at the foot of Capitol Hill) but since you've lowered yourself to invoke Godwyn's Law, I'll keep this brief, but lower myself, for the first time in my life, since this is the first time in my life I've seen a genuine, clear-cut example of it, to call "Blame America First." I'll refrain, out of politeness, to point out the much greater barbarisms that can be laid on Karl Marx's Tombstone (if my suspicions are correct).

I'll address only your comments on Iraq, out of the need for brevity.

1. Most of those million deaths have been directly perpetrated by US-opposing militias, a fact you don't mention, thereby absolving the actual murderers of blame. Why? Because you've already begun with the idea that the US bears responsibility regardless of who pulls the trigger. Why else bypass the actual killers?

2. The U.S. did not create "the largest refugee population in the world." US-opposing militias, again, directly created Iraq's refugee problem. US actions did allow for ground fertile for the creation of violent anti-US-anti-Shia or anti-US-anti-Sunni militias, which you again absolve of blame to target the ancillary cause. Again, why skip the primary actor to blame the ancillary one if not to fit a pre-defined conclusion?

3.It might interest you to know that the Roma, not the displaced Iraqis, are "the largest refugee population in the world," but, since that circumstance cannot be blamed (even laughably) on the US, they (we, actually) don't exist in your world.

4. The 5 years before the US invasion of Iraq also resulted in 1 million unnatural Iraqi deaths, which you, based on what you've written, likely also blame on the US, which, no doubt, contributed, via UN-approved Sanctions, which were then used by Baath to starve out its own citizens to create leverage toward sanction-removal. However, I'm sure, when discussing this, you skip the part about the primary actor (Baath), the secondary actor (the UN), and lay the blame squarely on the tertiary Actor (the US), as you are wont to do. How sad, Godwyn, how sad.

Posted by Shinyk | March 19, 2008 7:10 PM

I thought you were a reasonable person in the McCainNomics thread, but your comments about "barbarism" has me floored. It's beyond racist

Cultural relativism isn't something I consider reasonable. I'm not saying Arabs are racially backwards or that Palestinians are inherently crazy (I actually haven't mentioned Palestinians in a negative way at all, since they, at least, have more direct, legitimite grievances). Or even that the US is perfect (I actually agree with Mr Salviati on the War on Drugs issues).

I do think Middle Eastern societies are barbaric and don't think there's anything racial about the existence of that barbarity in the Middle East.

What I am saying is that Middle Eastern societies, which now mostly pine for "Salafism," with its own explicit pining for the miedeval period (the only point of Salafism), is barbaric. Compared to modern societies, nations or states, none of which are without fault, most all miedeval counterparts were barbaric. Globally. The Middle East is unique in that no other region thinks miedeval society is an improvement over the status quo. If Pat Robertson, who's been mentioned, called for a return of the Spanish inquisition to the US, I'd call him a barbarian as well. If the Vatican made itself co-equal with the Italian government and began executing any proponents of Heliocentric theory in 2009, then they, too, would be barbarians. You can disagree with all of that, but it doesn't make me even a mild racist, let alone "beyond."

But here's a question: if Middle Eastern legal treatment of women isn't barbaric, does barbarism even have any meaning anymore?

As compared to major Christian Right leader Pat Robertson advocating the assassination of a head of state -- Chavez of Venzuela -- who poses no significant threat to the USA?

Inexcusable, but Robertson isn't/wasn't a Head of State, so those words are less serious.

Posted by Shinyk | March 19, 2008 7:41 PM

Re Shinyk's comment " However, I'm sure, when discussing this, you skip the part about the primary actor (Baath), the secondary actor (the UN), and lay the blame squarely on the tertiary Actor (the US), as you are wont to do"
-------------
Anyone remember Madeleine Albright's 1996 Interview on 60 Minutes?

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
Ref: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

Doesn't sound like a "tertiary actor" to me. Sounds like someone trying to prod the Iraqi people into a revolt against Hussein. Maybe Shinyk thinks it was IRAQI planes which bombed Iraq's water treatment plants into rubble in 1991?

Bin Ladin later cited the deaths of those children as one of the three justifications for war on the US. (A fact carefully ignored by the 911 Commission )

Posted by Don Williams | March 19, 2008 7:52 PM

As despicable as those who deny the Nazi Holocaust, Americans who deny US culpability in the destruction of Iraq are far worse. At least the Holocaust was a crime of the past and one done by others. To deny the crimes of the regime which represents and governs you is beyond contempt. I am not going to participate in the numbers game with you Shinyk, the numbers game is the trademark of the Holocaust deniers, and I dont engage in either their games or the games of people more disgusting than them.

We dont know the actual numbers because the US military doesnt keep count and for good reason. One thing I do know is that the first Lancet study was carried out 18 months after the invasion and prior to the civil war, you can read the evidence, its damning, Falluja in particular.

As for the sanctions, you're damn right I blame the US, first and the UN a far second for capitulating to US power. Its beyond a joke that you blame the UN before the US, as if the UNSC which is the teeth behind the sanctions can pass anything without US approval. But this is a worthless aside. Ask yourself a simple question, what was the basis used for sanctions? It was that Iraq had to prove that it didnt have WMD's. Iraq maintained that they no longer possessed WMD's, and the UN inspection team agreed that Iraq didnt have WMD's. The US proceeded to invade the country on that very pretext, and lo and behold there were no WMD's. Ironically the invasion itself proved beyond a reasonable doubt the fundamental criminality of the sanctions regime.

As for me this debate is over. I have nothing further to say to you beyond go to hell and stay there.

Posted by Salviati | March 19, 2008 8:16 PM

What I am saying is that Middle Eastern societies, which now mostly pine for "Salafism," with its own explicit pining for the miedeval period (the only point of Salafism), is barbaric....What I am saying is that Middle Eastern societies, which now mostly pine for "Salafism," with its own explicit pining for the miedeval period (the only point of Salafism), is barbaric....The Middle East is unique in that no other region thinks miedeval society is an improvement over the status quo.

The Middle East has more than its far share of problems, and I certainly won't deny that it needs to deeply reform on the religious, political, & social levels. That being said, your depiction is a ridiculous exaggeration. It's one thing that too many Muslims cling to a static interpretation of Islam (something which I fully agree with); it's another thing to say that most Arabs are Salafaists who want to return to 7th-century Arabia.

Anyway, I don't see what the treatment of women in the Middle East has to do with support of Israel. How does fundamentalists throwing acid at women in Algeria or beheadings in Saudi Arabia justify Israel ethnically cleansing Jews droping a million cluster bombs over South Lebanon or withholding food, water, & fuel from Gaza.

Posted by Peter H | March 19, 2008 9:40 PM

Sorry, that last paragraph should have read:

Anyway, I don't see what the treatment of women in the Middle East has to do with support of Israel. How does fundamentalists throwing acid at women in Algeria or beheadings in Saudi Arabia justify Israel ethnically cleasing over a half-million Palestinians in 1948-49, droping a million cluster bombs over South Lebanon, or withholding food, water, & fuel from Gaza?

Posted by Peter H | March 19, 2008 9:46 PM

SLC "As has been tirelessly pointed out, Mr. Williams is a fucking liar. As Lawrence Wilkerson pointed out, the Government of Israel was less then enthusiastic about the Iraq adventure and regime change in Iraq in particular. Now of course, lying cocksucker Mr. Williams will once again post a link to a speech by Bibi to the Congress supporting the adventure. And just to anticipate him, I will again state that Bibi was the finance minister and had no role in foreign policy."

And as has been tirelessly pointed out, Mr. SLC is a fucking liar. Lawrence Wilkerson was talking to Israel officials in early 2002. At that time, as we know from Hillary Mann, Israel was urging the US to ATTACK IRAN FIRST. It was only when Cheney assured Israel that Iran was next that Israel jumped on the Iraq bandwagon later in 2002 and in 2003, as is demonstrated by Netanyahu's statements.

Anybody who thinks Netanyahu's public statements in the United States doesn't reflect Israel's actual policy later in 2002 and 2003 is just a lying sack of shit - or a Zionist freak, which is the same thing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 19, 2008 10:07 PM

Godwyn,
As for me this debate is over. I have nothing further to say to you beyond go to hell and stay there.

I would hope this debate is over, since your argument has collapsed into:

1.) that I deny any US culpubility in the condition of Iraq's disintegration (which I don't)
2.) that primary actors bear no responsibility for their actions if the US is involved in a secondary capacity or, as a variation, you've sometimes argued that there exist no primary actors other than the US. Anywhere.
3.) That the UN is a useless sieve unless it's doing something the US doesn't want it to do. In that case, it's a noble institution of paramount importance and the US is criminal for acting without it's blessing.
4.) that "refugee populations" are invisible and irrelevent if the US cannot be blamed for their displacement in some way. As for those numbers you don't want, there are roughly 15 displaced Roma for every 1 displaced Iraqi. But, then again, the Roma aren't real because the US didn't displace them.
4a.) only Nazis count things. Except Lancet. Lancet can count without being Nazi. Likewise Lancet can be quoted without the quoter being Nazi. All persons or organizations quoting non-Lancet counts of any sort, or counting themselves, are Nazis.
5.) that I'm a Nazi (for unspecified reasons in addition to my ability and willingness to count), despite being a member of a partially Nazi-annhilated ethnic group whose existence you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge. And, despite this non-acknowledgement (some might call it a denial of a Holocausted group) of yours, I'm the Holocaust denier.
5a.) that I'm not only a Nazi, but also a Zionist. On second thought, I can stomach more of you if you'll at least explain how I can simultaneously be both. Perhaps you can tell me about building 7, after that. You've already confirmed my other guesses.

Peter,
Anyway, I don't see what the treatment of women in the Middle East has to do with support of Israel. How does fundamentalists throwing acid at women in Algeria or beheadings in Saudi Arabia justify Israel ethnically cleansing Jews droping a million cluster bombs over South Lebanon or withholding food, water, & fuel from Gaza.

It doesn't justify it. Israel's response to Hezbollah in South Lebanon was surely an overreaction--notably in bombing the road to Beirut (though what reaction would Russia, China or the US have if rockets were consistently shot at Moscow, Beijing or Washington from across a foreign border? I suspect all three would have made a more extreme, less discriminate counterattack). Israel has also consistently overreacted to threats in the West Bank. A good example is Israel's rounding up of doctors and ambulances during the 2000(?) intifada.

However, Israel is a modern state surrounded by "premodern" (is that less-loaded than "miedeval"?) neighbors whose cultures reject, by greater degrees than the neighbors of any other modern nation, modernity (as evidenced by things like Israel's neighbors' extreme legal treatment of women). I find it understandable if Israel fears that its pre-modern neighbors will operate on pre-modern models and motivations and attack, should Israel show weakness.

I'm not saying Israel's situation merits a blank check--far from it. Just that Israel's situation is just a little precarious, which might make Israel understandably edgy. Is it so strange to think it prudent to give Israel a little bit more moral latitude in its actions than I would were that situation not so?

Don,
Sounds like someone trying to prod the Iraqi people into a revolt against Hussein.

Is it not possible that the Clinton administration was trying to use sanctions to prod people into revolt, while the Baathists were simultaneously trying to starve its populace out to use as PR to escape sanctions?

Either way, the final distributor of funds was the Baath party, which distributed whatever funds remained to itself, instead of common Iraqis; to me, making it, not the US, not the UN, the primary actor in the starvation of 1 million or more Iraqis, though the other two bodies also bear responsibility.

Posted by Shinyk | March 20, 2008 4:17 AM

Not totally germane, "The US is a global hegemony, economically and militarily--the world's only in history. It is the first and only state that could conceivably achieve a military victory were every other state to simultaneously declare war on it."

It depends what "victory" means. If it means smashing the military bases and government headquarters to smeethereens without trying to control the territory, yes, but with an exception. It would be still ill-advised to attack Russia.

So, how are we superior to the early phase of Mongol Empire? As far as military technology is concerned, Europe needed at least a century to catch up, if not two. Luckily, Mongols were no more interested in direct control of Europe beyong Russia that USA is interested in direct control of Africa. And please do not tell me that are hegemony is more durable -- 100 years from now China and India may well be more powerful, and at the very least, I do not expect them to be majorized militarily.

As the example shows, military hegemony is a fleeting cause for glory, easily forgotten.

Posted by piotr | March 20, 2008 7:50 AM

It depends what "victory" means. If it means smashing the military bases and government headquarters to smeethereens without trying to control the territory, yes, but with an exception. It would be still ill-advised to attack Russia.

That was what I meant. Clearly the US doesn't do a fantastic job occupying and reconstructing individual nations (let alone the entire globe) that do not wish to be reconstructed or occupied. Nor is it prudent to attack, not only Russia, but the entire world, or any part of it that isn't absolutely necessary (Sudan and 2003 Iraq would both, to me, fall under the classification "not absolutely necessary"). Still, were that situation to occur, the world, even with Russia, probably could not hope to win the war, hoping for a catastrophic stalemate at best.

Yes, the US is comparably militarily superior to the Mongol Empire. Europe or not, the Mongols couldn't likely have brought their conquest to the Western Hemisphere due to logistical concerns that do not apply to the US. Nor could it have survived if every people in Europe, Africa and Asia simultaneously massed an attack.

And yes, Hegemony is a fleeting and not necessarily preferable situation to find one's self in. But that's tangential. My point, in the quote you refer to, was that our current status as military and economic hegemon is fact and should logically prevent equal partnerships (though not friendly and civil partnerships) from forming with much smaller nations whom we subsidize.

Posted by Shinyk | March 20, 2008 11:26 AM

Shinyk,
1) You deny that the US has primary culpability for the destruction of Iraq.

2)I never stated that the US is the primary actors everywhere, that is simply your . Israel is a primary actor in its oppression of the Palestinians, China is the sole actor in the colonization of Tibet, Russia is the sole actor in the occupation of Chechnya. What is interesting about all of these examples is that these are all 'modern' states acting in a barbarous manner to populations that they deem 'inferior' or worthy of 'modernization'.

3)You deny that the US plays the primary role in the functioning of the UNSC, which is just a shocking display of idiocy or ignorance, most likely both. The UN is an institution that is controlled primarily by Western states for the preservation of power of these states and even more specifically it was formed to try to prevent these Western states from destroying each other. The institution is in need of serious reform, specifically the abolition of the UNSC.

4) There are approximately 4.4 million Iraqi refugees. The total Roma population across the globe is between 15 and 20 million. So your numbers are far off by many orders of magnitude. More importantly, these are very different refugee populations, one is a refugee population that has existed prior to the formation of nation states. The other is a refugee population from a single geographic region, with uniform cultural characteristics, that was created in the last 5 years.

4a) I did not call you a Nazi, Nazism is a political movement that died with WW2. However, your world view of 'enlightened modern' states being surrounded by 'savage' backward 'barbarians', has its historical precedents. Furthermore, medical practitioners assessing the impact of a military invasion, which by the way according to the Geneva Conventions is the responsibility of the invading army, is far different than an individual who resides in the country of the invading army denying the magnitude of their crimes.

5) I dont give a shit, what your background is. When you go around spouting the same ideology as those who exterminated your own people, you are a disgrace, especially to your kin.

5a) Zionism is an ideology that shares many of the same traits as European fascism. Ideas of blood and soil, the recreation of the Jewish male, the pre-state Likud party, the Irgun was openly fascist and was recognized as such in a famous letter to the NYT by Einstein, Arendt, etc. Furthermore there was significant cooperation by the pre-state Zionists and the Mussolini's Italy, much of it was unearthed by Lenni Brenner. Interesting, during Eichmann's trial (read Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt), Adolf Eichmann disclosed in his defense that the reason he was given promotion to his position within the Nazi party was because of his 'knowledge of Zionism' and he declared himself to be a Zionist. So depending on how insane you are, you could be both. But all of this is besides the point, I dont think you are either a Zionist or a Nazi, you like most Americans are misinformed and confused.

Posted by Salviati | March 20, 2008 3:44 PM

Re Shinyk's comment "Either way, the final distributor of funds was the Baath party, which distributed whatever funds remained to itself, instead of common Iraqis; to me, making it, not the US, not the UN, the primary actor in the starvation of 1 million or more Iraqis, though the other two bodies also bear responsibility."
------------
This is bullshit -- the result of right wing propaganda about UN corruption.

Which it irrelevant and a RED HERRING.

Iraqis died from a pandemic of waterborne diseases because the US GOVERNMENT would NOT allow Iraq to import Water purification chemicals under the sanctions regime.

Posted by Don Williams | March 20, 2008 5:24 PM

Don't vote for any candidate owned by the CFR. That rules out McCain, Clinton and Obama.

Posted by Joe B | March 20, 2008 5:40 PM

Sorry, Godwyn. I can't make anything out but your name.

See, yesterday I got together with some more Roma Nazis to attend our bi-annual "Zionists For the Denial of the Holocaust" conference. Mundane stuff, mostly involving numbers and other Nazi favorites.

Long story short, well, damned if I didn't misplace my spectacles at the conference! I'd go back to look, but, sadly, I also left my map.

The event was held in the imagination of some moron I met on the internet and I can't quite remember how to get back there. I guess I'll just have to stay here in Hell until I get a new pair.

Posted by Shinyk | March 21, 2008 2:22 AM