Sharon's iron wall

[Englander]

Avi Shlaim
Monday 31st October 2005

He pays lip-service to peace and speaks of his country's need for
security, but in reality Israel's prime minister is waging a savage
colonial war, writes Avi Shlaim

A quarter-century before the establishment of Israel, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism, published an article entitled "On the Iron Wall". In it, he argued that voluntary agreement between Arabs and Jews was unattainable, and that the only way to realise the Zionist project was behind an iron wall of Jewish military strength. Zionism had to be implemented by force and the wall would compel Arabs to abandon any hope of destroying the Jewish state. Once this was achieved a second stage could begin: negotiations with the Arabs about their status and national rights in Palestine.

The iron wall remains Israel's strategy - and until now has been vindicated by history. The 1993 Oslo Accord between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation marked the transition from the first to the second stage of iron-wall strategy: by signing it, Israel and the PLO agreed to recognise each other and settle their differences by peaceful means. The Palestinians believed that by giving up their claim to 78 per cent of pre-1948 Palestine they would eventually gain an independent state stretching over the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with a capital in East Jerusalem. Twelve years on, they are bitterly disappointed.

The Oslo process broke down: Israel reneged on its side of the bargain and the Palestinians reverted to violence. The most blatant transgression against the spirit, if not the letter, of the accord was the expansion of the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the construction of roads to connect them with Israel. These settlements are a symbol of occupation and a threat to the territorial contiguity of a future Palestinian state. To the Palestinians, settlement expansion suggested that Israel had not been negotiating in good faith and that its real intention was to repackage rather than to end the occupation.

>snip

To the world, Sharon presented the Gaza disengagement as a contribution to the road map. But to his right-wing supporters he said: "My plan is difficult for the Palestinians, a fatal blow. There's no Palestinian state in a unilateral move." The withdrawal from Gaza is part of an attempt to deny the Palestinians an independent political existence on their land. At some point Sharon may come up with another unilateral move: the offer to withdraw from most of the West Bank to a line of Israel's own drawing. This would create a Greater Israel incorporating Jerusalem and the main settlement blocks, while confronting the Palestinians with another paltry take-it-or-leave-it offer that would deepen their disarray.

Sharon is the last in a long line of Israeli leaders to invoke spurious arguments of security to defend the indefensible. The Palestinians do not pose a threat to Israel's basic security; it is the other way round. Israel is not fighting for its security or survival, but to retain territories it conquered in 1967. The war that Israel is waging against the Palestinian people on their land is a colonial war. Like all other colonial wars it is savage, senseless, directed mainly against civilians, and doomed to failure. As Karl Marx observed, a nation that oppresses another cannot itself remain free.

Avi Shlaim is a British Academy research professor at St Antony's
College, Oxford

More at;
New Statesman

[tatertop]

1. That covers a lot of ground. Good piece for the novice

Most people don't know any of this.

[Englander]

3. Thanks, tatertop.

I think Shlaim's book of the same name is also a must-read,
though probably not for the novice. The prologue is available to
read, here;

'THE IRON WALL

ISRAEL AND THE ARAB WORLD
Professor Avi Shlaim - Author

Prologue:
The Zionist Foundations

http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,0_0140288708,00.html?sym=EXC

[tatertop]

5. Thank you for the link, Englander - that looks like one great read

[Violet_Crumble]

21. It is a great read....

I'd probably list it as a good starting point when reading about the conflict...

[Wordie]

22. "The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man."

The quote in my subject line is what was cabled back by the representatives of the Vienna rabbis, regarding the results of their fact finding mission to Palestine, immediately after the first (Basel) Zionist Congress of 1897. And the inability of later Zionists to recognize the marriage is what has led to the current problem, imho. (It is also the opinion of the author of this piece.)

BTW Thanks for this link. Just the material from the book review itself is excellent, right there to read, without even purchasing the book (although I do think I will try to get a copy).

<snip>
Herzl himself exemplified the Zionist tendency to indulge in wishful thinking. He was certainly aware that Palestine was already populated with a substantial number of Arabs, although he was not particularly well informed about the social and economic conditions of the country. He viewed the natives as primitive and backward, and his attitude toward them was rather patronizing. He thought that as individuals they should enjoy full civil rights in a Jewish state but he did not consider them a society with collective political rights over the land in which they formed the overwhelming majority. Like many other early Zionists, Herzl hoped that economic benefits would reconcile the Arab population to the Zionist enterprise in Palestine. As the bearers of all the benefits of Western civilization, the Jews, he thought, might be welcomed by the residents of the backward East. This optimistic forecast of Arab-Jewish relations in Palestine found its clearest expression in a novel published by Herzl in 1902 under the title Altneuland (Old-Newland). Rashid Bey, a spokesman for the native population, describes Jewish settlement as an unqualified blessing: "The Jews have made us prosperous, why should we be angry with them? They live with us as brothers, why should we not love them?"5 This picture, however, was nothing but a pipe dream, a utopian fantasy. Its author completely overlooked the possibility that an Arab national movement would grow in Palestine in response to the Zionist drive to transform the country into a Jewish national home with a Jewish majority.

In defense of Herzl it should be pointed out that at the end of the nineteenth century Palestine was a province of the Ottoman Empire, and an Arab national movement was only beginning to develop there. Still, his preference for playing the game of high politics was unmistakable. His most persistent efforts were directed at persuading the Ottoman sultan to grant a charter for Jewish settlement and a Jewish homeland in Palestine. But he also approached many other world leaders and influential magnates for help in promoting his pet project. Among those who granted him an audience were the pope, the king of Italy, the German kaiser, and Joseph Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary. In each case Herzl presented his project in a manner best calculated to appeal to the listener: to the sultan he promised Jewish capital, to the kaiser he intimated that the Jewish territory would be an outpost of Berlin, to Chamberlain he held out the prospect that the Jewish territory would become a colony of the British Empire. Whatever the arguments used, Herzl's basic aim remained unchanged: obtaining the support of the great powers for turning Palestine into a political center for the Jewish people.

In its formative phase, under the direction of Herzl, the Zionist movement thus displayed two features that were to be of fundamental and enduring importance in its subsequent history: the nonrecognition of a Palestinian national entity, and the quest for an alliance with a great power external to the Middle East. Bypassing the Palestinians was the trend in Zionist policy from the First Zionist Congress onward. The unstated assumption of Herzl and his successors was that the Zionist movement would achieve its goal not through an understanding with the local Palestinians but through an alliance with the dominant great power of the day. The weakness of the Yishuv, the pre-Independence Jewish community in Palestine, and the growing hostility of the Palestinians combined to make the reliance on a great power a central element in Zionist strategy. The dominant great power in the Middle East changed several time in the course of the twentieth century; first it was the Ottoman Empire, after World War I it was Great Britain, and after World War II it was the United States. But the Zionist fixation on enlisting the support of the great powers in the struggle for statehood and in the consolidation of statehood remained constant.

[leveymg]

2. Like all Empires, Likud's Empire has overreached.

When the neocons tried to colonize the U.S. Department of Defense, and to bully the CIA, they fatally underestimated the capabilities and intelligence of the locals.

All the while that the Likudites were congratulating themselves on their conquest by proxy of Iraq, the very people they thought they had so easily deceived with false intelligence were wiretapping their spies in Washington. Then, suddenly last summer, the unimaginable happened. The FBI busted AIPAC and the Mossad chief of station had to flee. The special prosecutor was turned lose to root out the treasonous cancer in the Bush White House.

The price that Likud and its allies will have to pay for their imperial overreach is not limited to a few prosecutions of leakers.
They're going to lose their empire, just as surely as did the British and the French after the U.S. stopped backing European colonial policies after World War Two.

The most intelligent response by the Israelis at this point would be to throw Sharon and the Right-wing out of power, and negotiate a good faith disengagement from the Occupied Territories. If they don't do it, the United States will. It's better for everyone if the Israelis do it, themselves.

[pelsar]

4. why is it.....

so many here expect that if and when the palestenains get their state peace will break out...why is that the "default" position?

what is the information that leads one to believe that such a thing is inevitable?

it seems never to be written some other options that might appear:..

[tatertop]

6. The Palestinians will never get their state back

There is a reason The Butcher Sharon leads Israel at this time.
Sharon and likud have waged unilateral war against the
Palestinian people. There is no plan for a State of Palestine and
there never will be.

Take some time to read the attached article.
This situation is not at all as it appears in the US press.

[leveymg]

7. What options? Like, peace will result from a permanent state of war and

occupation? That's the alternative - and, frankly, it doesn't seem to be a more plausible alternative scenario.

Do you have any alternative futures to share with us, Pelsar?

[pelsar]

8. just not niave....

one option is that the palestenains will "all of a sudden" stop educating their kids to celebrate death...the PA will strenghten, the Hamas will weaken, there will be jobs and trade both intellectual and material will go between israel and palestine....

another scenario is the PA and its corruption sickens the palestenains and they vote in or there is a coup and the hamas takes over....and there is a religious fanatical regime in palestine that has no problem in lobbing rockets into 'west jersualem, Tel Aviv, etc.

that too is an viable scenario...the probem is how to prevent no two from happening...because if it does happen the blood shed will be far more than any mere intifada...

...just leaving the occupied territories hardly promises anything....

case in point is iran...getting rid of the shah was a good thing...having kommeni and his ilk of facist religious fanatics take over doesnt appear to have been much of an improvement.

[leveymg]

10. In your opinion, why did the Oslo Accords fall apart? What were the

key events, on both sides, that led to the resumption of the Intifada? I think if we carefully and honestly examine those questions, we may find there may be an alternative to eternal war.

[pelsar]

14. of course there are alternatives....

and with the return of the territories peace may break out...or it may not....

there is no such thing as an 'honest look" at what happened after the oslo accords..way too much interpretation within that "honest look.

case in point...israels rescue of its hostages in entebbe...from an israeli point of view, its black and white, we rescused our own at great risk...and as usual in certain corners we were condemmed for it...same holds true for 67.....hence your not going to get an "honest view"

that alone shows me how little you really understand of the players involved, the various agendas, etc.

if you do want an "honest look" then the first step is to understand that tomorrows leaders are now in diapers...and we have no idea what they are going to be taught or do.....hence the first step to insure any peace starts with their education....because if they arent taught that all human life is valuable, then no return of any territories will provide peace...start with that.

[leveymg]

19. No doubt, truth is in the eye of the beholder, as is honesty.

But, don't assume it's futile or naive to try. It's futile and naive and unethical not to.

Glad to hear you have some hope for the peace in the future, even if you have no faith in diplomacy today. What hells on earth we create for ourselves.

[pelsar]

20. i actually do have hope...

for a better future...and do believe we can work things out....but i also believe there are some real evil POS in this world.....who tend to mess things up

[Coastie for Truth]

9. If you really dug beyond the radical leftie blogs------

You posted:

All the while that the Likudites were congratulating themselves on their conquest by proxy of Iraq, the very people they thought they had so easily deceived with false intelligence were wiretapping their spies in Washington. Then, suddenly last summer, the unimaginable happened. The FBI busted AIPAC and the Mossad chief of station had to flee. The special prosecutor was turned lose to root out the treasonous cancer in the Bush White House.

It isn't AIPAC that controls Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield. Do some serious reading -- instead of radical leftie blogs--- try here:

and its powerful Washington lobby-- - get it right.

--- drill, drill, drill, tax breaks, tax breaks, tax breaks, stick with Cheney and Gale Norton.

backs Gale Norton and Richard Pombo and Dick Cheney.

-- go to my blog

--- and they still don't get it.





which APIPAC criticizes "...for its inefficiency, excessive costs, inequities, and for promoting unnecessary, wasteful litigation. Right of the Cheney-Libby office and the Gayle Norton office.

- APIPAC thinks that they are paying too much for our oil, from our public lands.




Oil and natural gas take us down the street and around the world. They warm and cool our homes and businesses. They provide the ingredients for medicines, fertilizers, fabrics, plastics and other products that make life safer, easier and better.

Oil and gas, along with other fossil fuels, may also be affecting our climate. How much is uncertain since changes are hard to measure and natural forces are also at work. (Intro to the ExxonMobil, Cheney-Libby-Norton "junk science" and "frivolous law suit crapolla)

Scientists are trying to learn more. Policymakers are debating what should be done. While U.S. oil and natural gas companies believe that uncertainties about climate change make it hard to justify mandatory, severe, near-term emission reductions, they are voluntarily reducing emissions in low-cost, common-sense ways, developing new technologies to ensure future progress, and investing millions of dollars in climate research.

---and their usual "Blame the Liberal Scientists --our Energy Industry PhD's are smarter and better" crapolla. Their favorite PhD is David E. Wojick --- and I have only known Dave for 44 years - like to have a beer with him.

But APIPAC quotes Dave Wojick as
" offers An Assessment of the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program in his December 2003 report on Key Uncertainties, Milestones and Issues: " . . . the Strategic Plan of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program is a significant piece of work. The Strategic Plan successfully targets many of the key uncertainties in climate science, but with significant gaps in the Plan that still need to be filled. Consideration of certain mechanisms of natural variability needs to be expanded, and the network of critical dependencies needs to be defined.""

"conquest by proxy of Iraq," is a product of William Kristol's mental masturbations and wet dreams. Have you actually read all 120+ of the PNAC psuedo-studies? I have. When you get past Kristol's craziness ----- it comes to a question of

"Compare and Contrast? the responses of with James Howard Kunstler's "The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of the Oil Age, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-first Century" to the world oil situation ("Peak Oil", see Ken Deffeyes, "Beyond Oil : The View from Hubbert's Peak" and "Hubbert's Peak : The Impending World Oil Shortage" as well as Matthew Simmons' "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy").

or, how is this not a US step on the historical trend line of petro-politics begun by the UK and France after WWI

Read

-William Engdahl's "A Century Of War : Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" and

[leveymg]

11. Oh, did I say that Big Oil wasn't looming over the Middle East and the

Bush White House? That must have been someone else you were reading.

I wasn't the one who said Halliburton is an Israeli company. The corporate offices of Exxon-Mobil and Texaco-Chevron, BP and Shell certainly are not in Tel Aviv.

Indeed, if this is your point, nothing of much consequence happens in the region without the input and consent of the U.S. and London-based energy multinationals. It was after all, American and British soldiers who invaded Iraq, who still occupy the Oil Ministry building in the Green Zone, and guard the Iraqi oil fields and pipelines. It is the corporate energy giants, and their partners, who are reaping the profits of growing tensions in the region. Nothing is as good for their current quarter bottom line as the threat of a wider war and supply shortages to come.

But,that having been said, there is no question that it is also perceived by the Likud party leadership that U.S. toppling of Saddam and more strenuous American efforts at regime change in Syria and Iran are a good thing to be encouraged. There is also no question that the people in Washington responsible for formulating Iraq and Middle East policy during the First Bush Adminstration were overwhelmingly neoconservatives, and that the Sharon government had enormous influence over them.

Finally, let us not underestimate the skill of some within Israeli intelligence in using the black arts of influence peddling, forgery, and espionage to advance national policy, and that in their book the national interest of Israel is paramount over that of the United States where they might conflict.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. Everybody is related to somebody -- you prove too much

Let me apply your reasoning --

You posited:

But,that having been said, there is no question that it is also perceived by the Likud party leadership that U.S. toppling of Saddam and more strenuous American efforts at regime change in Syria and Iran are a good thing to be encouraged. There is also no question that the people in Washington responsible for formulating Iraq and Middle East policy during the First Bush Administration were overwhelmingly neoconservatives, and that the Sharon government had enormous influence over them.

Finally, let us not underestimate the skill of some within Israeli intelligence in using the black arts of influence peddling, forgery, and espionage to advance national policy, and that in their book the national interest of Israel is paramount over that of the United States where they might conflict.

Let's change the players ever so slightly -- remember the old rule about "nothing is more then six clicks away on Google" and "if you go back a few generations we all have mutual relations" ---

But, that having been said, there is no question that it is also perceived by the North American Automobile Manufacturers Association and the I-75 Corridor Congressional Delegations party leadership (e.g., C. Levin, Stabenow, Conyers, Dingell, Stupak, Kildee, KIlpatrick, Knollenberg, S. Levin) that U.S. toppling of Saddam and more strenuous American efforts at regime change in Syria and Iran are a good thing to be encouraged. There is also no question that the people in Washington responsible for formulating Iraq and Middle East policy during the First Bush Administration were overwhelmingly neoconservatives, and that the North American Automobile Manufacturers Association and the I-75 Corridor Congressional Delegations had enormous influence over them.

Finally, let us not underestimate the skill of some within the North American Automobile Manufacturers Association and the I-75 Corridor Congressional Delegations in using the black arts of influence peddling, advance national policy, and that in their book , as a former Chairman of the Board/Chief Executive Officer of the General Motors Corporation, and Cabinet member, Charles E. Wilson once said "I have always believed that what is good for the General Motors Corporation is good for the United States of America, and vice versa" clearly meaning that the business interests of North American Automobile Manufacturers Association trump the national interest (or are identically equal to the national interest?) where they might conflict.

You might want to go to the Security and Exchange Commission's Edgar Data base at http://www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml> and compare the interlocking directorates of "Big Oil" and the members of the "North American Automobile Manufacturers Association".

BTW - if you were a Michigander you would know that Spencer Abraham's dad was a GM executive, John Dingell's wife is a GM VP, John Conyers is one of the largest auto mega-dealers, the Levin brother's law firm is one of the Ford Motor Co. stable of lawyers .....

AND WHEN GAS PRICES GO TOO HIGH AND STAY TOO HIGH TOO LONG --- WHAT HAPPENS IN DETROIT.

[leveymg]

13. That's an interesting rhetorical device you used there. But, no. I

wouldn't say that every influence group is equally weighted in terms of their influence over Middle-East policy. Israeli concerns obviously have to compete with those of the Saudis, and sometimes the latter pervail. Not surprising, considering that the Saudi have a major interest in the largest US banks and are in partnership with the oil companies.

If you're trying to make the point that what often appears to the American public to be foreign policy is really the impact of powerful domestic corporations manipulating affairs in their own commercial interest, I would agree. But, the interlocked directorates of today aren't any more omnipotent than at the time that the Standard Oil and DuPonts combined to create General Motors.

National defense is still a powerful shaper of policy, just as it was at the time that Lord Admiral Winston Churchill switched the Royal Navy over from coal to oil-fired vessels. That gave Britain and the U.S. a couple decades later, a strategic interest in the region, one which continues to this day.

Sometimes national interests and the oil industry come into direct conflict, as in 1942, when Standard Oil had to be forced by the Roosevelt Administration to cease shipping petroleum to the Axis, and both GM and Ford were required to temporarily divest their European holdings.

So it goes for the US-Israel relationship. Likud and the neocons have way overstepped certain boundaries in pressing policies that have demonstrably failed, damaging American interests. The bullying, deception and poor judgment have angered many in the American intelligence community. The relationship has been seriously damaged, which is not in the national interest of either country. There will be hell to pay for BushCo and Likud, as a result. Why is this fact so difficult for some to accept?

It seems to me that housecleaning is in order in both capitols, and then we'll see what happens.

[Coastie for Truth]

15. Some nuanced responses here

1. I did NOT say that every influence group is equally weighted in terms of their influence over Middle-East policy.

2. You are conflating Saudi Arabia with the "auto-oil" segment. As a player in the alternative, renewable, and green energy industry, I would make the argument that at times the interests of the Saudis are adverse to the interest of the auto and oil segments.

3. I think we agree that what often appears to the American public to be foreign policy is really the impact of powerful domestic corporations manipulating affairs in their own commercial interest.

4. As to your point that "the interlocked directorates of today aren't any more omnipotent than at the time that the Standard Oil and DuPonts combined to create General Motors." I think we have a real "shades of gray" issue.

I would observe that the interlocked directorates of today are at least as powerful as they were before "The Great Depression", the various Securities and Exchange Commission Acts, the Norris-La guardia Act, and the Glass-Steagle Act.

And I would also say that they are NOT wholly innocent and blame free for many of our political and social ills (certainly more to blame then Israel, the Zionists, the Likudniks, or Sharon). They are certainly not free of blame for our over-dependence on imported oil, or green house gases and global warming, or many of our city planning/land use paradigms --through the post WW2 era GM actively lobbied to tear up urban rail lines (trolleys and LRV's).

5. Your statement that "National defense is still a powerful shaper of policy, just as it was at the time that Lord Admiral Winston Churchill switched the Royal Navy over from coal to oil-fired vessels. That gave Britain and the U.S. a couple decades later, a strategic interest in the region, one which continues to this day." would seem to be evidence that you have read Engdahl, and are familiar with the post WW1 Sykes-Picot Agreement. ;)

Engdahl is a very defining study.

6. Your statement that "Sometimes national interests and the oil industry come into direct conflict, as in 1942, when Standard Oil had to be forced by the Roosevelt Administration to cease shipping petroleum to the Axis, and both GM and Ford were required to temporarily divest their European holdings." is simply a statement of short term profit maximization.

7. I really don't follow the nuances and shades of gray in your statement "So it goes for the US-Israel relationship. Likud and the neocons have way overstepped certain boundaries in pressing policies that have demonstrably failed, damaging American interests. The bullying, deception and poor judgment have angered many in the American intelligence community. The relationship has been seriously damaged, which is not in the national interest of either country. There will be hell to pay for BushCo and Likud, as a result. Why is this fact so difficult for some to accept?"

a) "Likud and the neocons have way overstepped certain boundaries in pressing policies that have demonstrably failed, damaging American interests."
Likud is not the neocons - and the neocons are not Likud. There may be some congruences of interests - but first, last, and always, the neocons are about "controlling the oil spigot."


b) The "policies that have demonstrably failed, damaging American interests." can be summed up as the classical PNAC policy of projecting military power to assert hegemony over oil.

This has been a dismal failure -- on top of the successive failures to pursue alternative energy policies and conservation policies since Reagan.

c) "The bullying, deception and poor judgment have angered many in the American intelligence community." has come from the Cheney inner circle and whoever can be conned into league with the Cheney inner circle. Don't conflate that with Israel, the Likud, etc.

[Wordie]

16. I doubt many DUers would deny the importance of oil to our actions, BUT

It does seem that to say that oil is and has always been our *major* concern in the middle east doesn't quite cut it. If oil were the primary concern, we would have abandoned Israel quite a long time ago, as it is clear that our support of Israel has not made us any other friends in the ME, and has led to complications in our obtaining of oil.

No, while oil surely is on the minds of those in the administration and their PNAC associates, it is only one concern of many in the ME. It surely does not eclipse the highly pro-Israel sentiment of many within those groups. Oil has an important place, but it's not at first place.

[Coastie for Truth]

17. Blogsphere versus real world

You posted:--->

"I doubt many DUers would deny the importance of oil to our actions, BUT

"It does seem that to say that oil is and has always been our *major* concern in the middle east doesn't quite cut it. If oil were the primary concern, we would have abandoned Israel quite a long time ago, as it is clear that our support of Israel has not made us any other friends in the ME, and has led to complications in our obtaining of oil."

"No, while oil surely is on the minds of those in the administration and their PNAC associates, it is only one concern of many in the ME. It surely does not eclipse the highly pro-Israel sentiment of many within those groups. Oil has an important place, but it's not at first place."

Now, let me pick your append apart--->

"It does seem that to say that oil is and has always been our *major* concern in the middle east doesn't quite cut it."

-- I have cited Engdahl and Unger, you may also want to look at Yergin or Simmons. If you choose not to read these - and to rely on the blogsphere -- tough. Your statement is very wrong.

"If oil were the primary concern, we would have abandoned Israel quite a long time ago, as it is clear that our support of Israel has not made us any other friends in the ME, and has led to complications in our obtaining of oil."

--Cogent observation. This is the result of our failure to lobby hard enough during the Holocaust. Most of my maternal grandmother's family and most of my paternal grandfather's family were "lost" in the Holocaust. Most of my wife's family were "lost" in the Holocaust - her parents were both refugees who got out of Poland - through Israel - in the 1930's.

--BTW- I don't know if you are aware of the fact that as a condition of buying Saudi Oil, the oil companies have hostorically (at least when I got out of college, and grad school, and the service) to agree not to hire Jewish employees - even if they have never been to Israel, not even for domestic activities solely in the US.

"No, while oil surely is on the minds of those in the administration and their PNAC associates, it is only one concern of many in the ME. It surely does not eclipse the highly pro-Israel sentiment of many within those groups. Oil has an important place, but it's not at first place."

--Wrong, wrong, wrong!! The only reason Israel is even on the minds of elected public officials is because we contribute money, we have a higher voter turn out, and we can be a pain in the ass.

"It surely does not eclipse the highly pro-Israel sentiment of many within those groups. Oil has an important place, but it's not at first place."

--I worked for a vendor for a major Detroit player on their EV1 electric car project. Oil sure as hell is number 1 on the agenda of our national leadership. Let me be very blunt -- while Israel may be the Jewish "Pro-Live versus Choice" or "Intelligent Design versus Evolution" issue or whatever -- to the Auto Industry and the Oil Industry --- we are just a pain in the butt. And I say that having been in Auto Company and Oil Company tech centers and offices and labs and cafeterias -- and AIChE national conferences and tech conference hospitality suites.

[Wordie]

18. Well, let me try just one of those points...

I said:
<snip>
"If oil were the primary concern, we would have abandoned Israel quite a long time ago, as it is clear that our support of Israel has not made us any other friends in the ME, and has led to complications in our obtaining of oil."

And then you said:
<snip>
--Cogent observation. This is the result of our failure to lobby hard enough during the Holocaust. Most of my maternal grandmother's family and most of my paternal grandfather's family were "lost" in the Holocaust. Most of my wife's family were "lost" in the Holocaust - her parents were both refugees who got out of Poland - through Israel - in the 1930's.

And I now say, WHERE did THAT come from??? I can only believe that you read an awful lot of something into my statement, which was just that, a simple, direct, statement. I didn't say, "we SHOULD have abandoned Israel." I did not offer ANY comment on whether I thought that to abandon Israel would be a good idea, AT ALL. Because, THE issue of what we SHOULD do is not the point of my communication. I am talking about what IS.

My statement, if you consider it more carefully, refutes your premise quite well. If oil held a position of prominence TO THE DEGREE YOU CLAIM IT DOES, in the thinking of the administration, and past administrations, THEN, we would clearly have had quite different policies with regard to Israel and the ME over the years. That we have not, indicates the position of prominence that Israel DOES hold in our thinking about the ME. (Once again, please understand that I'm not talking "shoulds" here, just trying to establish what is.)

(And, there are many academic papers and books on many different subjects. I am quite sure I could find other authors who disagree with the sources you cite. This would be a pointless exercise, as clearly logic gives us an answer in this case.)

And, I further would like to add that I am not insensitive to your families' experience. I do not discount it in any way. But that isn't what I meant and to presume that I was saying something different is such a large part of the problem we have in communicating about all this.

And, finally, I was interested in this issue LONG before there were blogs, or even the internet, so please do not talk down to me.