Bill Kristol and Israel Want to Draft Your Kids

[newyorican]

Are you ready to suit up or suit up your kids (and the kids of your kids) in body armor and die for Israel? Before you dismiss me as an anti-Semitic crank, consider the following:

“Ephraim Halevy, the former chief of Israel’s Mossad intelligence service and the current national security adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, says plans have been made for a substantial U.S. military presence in the Middle East lasting decades,” al-Jazeera reports. “High-ranking U.S. policymakers have ‘raised the idea of establishing an American trusteeship regime in the areas of the Palestinian Authority, if it should turn out that the Palestinians are not ripe for self-rule. That arrangement would require an American operational military presence along Israel’s border with the Palestinian territories.’”

Of course, if Israel has its way, the Palestinians will never be “ripe for self-rule” (many Israelis even refuse to consider the word “Palestinian” and believe most Arabs are recent immigrants to Palestine, or instead of Palestine Judea and Samaria, the Hebrew biblical names for the land stolen from the non-Palestinians) and since the Arab demographic trend is against the Israelis (Arabs have more kids than Israelis) and there is no way the Israelis will ever have enough soldiers to muster an “operational military presence” on the so-called border, it will be up to your kids and your kids’ kids (since Halevy says this will last decades) to keep the Arabs in check (and suffering from malnutrition and disease).

But wait. It’s worse.

“U.S. entanglement in the Middle East in the name of ‘democracy’ has further destabilized the region and made more likely violent revolutions to occur, especially in countries such as Saudi Arabia,” notes al-Jazeera. “In visit to the United States,” remarked Halevy, “I was told by several well-informed observers that should one of the more severe scenarios come to pass, the United States will have no choice but to deepen its presence in the Middle East. To that end, it will have to renew the draft, to ensure that there are enough forces to deal with developing situations in countries like Saudi Arabia” (emphasis added).

“Speaking in a semi-closed forum during a visit to Israel a few months ago,” continued Halevy, “Bill Kristol, one of the most influential ‘neocons’ in the United States, noted in this connection that the American presence in Europe after World War II lasted for nearly 60 years. Israelis who are trying to promote a role for NATO in the region, in one form or another, are actually promoting a generation-long American presence” (emphasis added).

read more here...


Let's now play, "I don't like your source", while ignoring the topic...it's FUN!!

---------------------
Additional links:
About Dissident Voice and its Editor

Mossad Chief: U.S. to Be Mired in Middle East in Perpetuity (Alternate source for those that do not believe any Arab source they don't agree with)

[BayouBengal07]

1. Lets do it.

"That arrangement would require an American operational military presence along Israel’s border with the Palestinian territories.’”"

Lets go jump into the lion's den, the very heart of the problem, the very reason we've been suffering from terrorism.

Right. US troops suporting the Israeli occupation. THAT will win hearts and minds.

[stranger81]

3. you know, it's stunning to me

how many conservatives I hear lately, even in a blue state like California, talking about how it doesn't matter a whit whether we win or lose hearts and minds in the middle east -- what we should do instead is nuke the whole place.

~~shudder~~

[jedr]

2. A week of walking "point" ;

would wipe that smirk off of Kristol's face!!!! He'd crap his pants like Wolfy did when the rocket hit the room under his in Baghdad.

[KoKo]

4. Well...I can believe this...Democracy is all important to the Middle East

while we here give up pensions, social security, health care, and are taxed to death by our states who can't get supplementary funding from the Govt. because of Norquist's aim of "drowining it all in the 'Dependancy State' in a bathtub...and in the end the most important thing for all Americans to realize that all the money we give to Israel will keep us safe from another 9/11 attack and will spreak Democracy throughout the ME.

So, whatever we sacrifice will be worth it in the end to keep us safe from the Muslims. A Strong Israel is a Strong America...we should be glad we have Israel as our ally in the ME. :shrug:

[pelsar]

5. the johnBirchsociety?

now theres a reliable source (the second link has an ad and link to the johnbirchsociety on the top)


that and al-Jazeera

for those who are "less informed"....as far as sources go......these go in the fiction section (but dont forget to wear your tin hat)

[Violet_Crumble]

6. I'll call bullshit on that one, pelsar...

Al-Jazeera is not some nutty, fiction-filled, unreliable source. Al-Jazeera, however, is biased, and as long as people are aware of the bias when reading editorials and op/eds, then I can't see a problem. At least its bias isn't blatantly right-wing like Jerusalem Post is..

In defense of al-Jazeera

<snip>

The first time most Americans heard the name al-Jazeera was Sunday, Oct. 7, the day U.S. and British forces began hitting the Taliban and its “guests” in Afghanistan. The timing was almost surely accidental — Western journalists had spent three weeks expecting an attack at any moment. But the impact on the White House was undeniable, and suddenly Washington reverted to the kind of bullying that had not been evident in the buildup to the attack.

Secretary of State Colin Powell denounced al-Jazeera for airing “vitriolic, irresponsible kinds of statements” when it broadcast a videotaped statement by suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden praising the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

The CIA leaked its concern that bin Laden might be sending secret messages through these taped statements. Condoleeza Rice, the national security adviser, called and visited with top American network and newspaper representatives, urging them to consider the dangers of airing bin Laden’s views. On the shallower media outlets around the U.S., al-Jazeera suddenly found itself being equated with the former Communist mouthpiece Pravda or Hitler’s National Zeitung.

REALITY CHECK

The truth could hardly be more different.

Today, al-Jazeera is staffed by many of the same journalists I saw weeping in London that day, including Azar. It is the lone Arabic broadcast outlet to put truth and objectivity above even its survival. For its pains during the five years of its existence, it has been attacked by virtually every government in the Middle East.

The network’s bureaus around the region are periodically closed because of al-Jazeera’s insistence in airing stories about the corruption of government officials in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and elsewhere. Israeli officials and journalists, all but banned from other Middle Eastern networks, are staples on al-Jazeera, whose motto is “We get both sides of the story.”


http://www.msnbc.com/news/643471.asp?cp1=1



Violet...

[pelsar]

8. Al jazeera

i wont discount that it has a place in the arab world for stirring things up...its called yellow journalism..and i wont say that it hasnt "matured" in the last 5 years or so...and it has even interviewed israelis which i was extremely excited about.

i noticed that it still wont attack arab rulers as it does "others"....when it can call for the ouster of mubarrek etc. then and only then can it be considered a free press. until then, its tainted. (unless of course i have missed something...in which case I will revised my opinon.....)

btw i am hardly against having a free press in the arab world....quite the opposite i would love a real one, that can critize their own govts as much as they do mine....then we'll start seeing some really changes out here. Al Jazeera may be a start, but its only a start....and they get no 'free rides" just because they are "starting" or there are "repucussions" or cultural differences that in the west we "dont understand"....I actually do understand...and dont accept it.

are they covering the interal fighting amongst the palsetenains these days?....its being carried out quite violently with lots of "internal competition"...now theres a fascinating subject as it involves psychology/society/internal groupthink/external pressures/sociology...it would be quite sad if only us in israel are aware of it, studying it, worrying about it and reporting about it....

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Of course it criticises Arab regimes...

'Egypt, Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco, and Algeria have all at one time or another recalled their ambassadors from Qatar as protest against Al-Jazeera’s critical coverage of their regimes. But despite the criticism and complaints the Emir and Al-Jazeera have refused to budge. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak paid a visit to Al-Jazeera studios during a trip to Qatar in January 2000. Surveying the facility he reportedly turned to his minister of information, Safwat Al-Sharif, and exclaimed: “All this trouble from a matchbox like this!”'

http://www.islaminterfaith.org/june2002/bookreview.html

And, yes. I took a look at it and it does cover internal fighting amongst the Palestinians. Here's an article that's linked to from today's main page:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/19F6F98E-CAA9-4E2B-912A-86D019B36219.htm

Al Jazeera isn't state controlled, and by pissing off everyone, from Islamists to the PA to the US, and for those reasons alone, it's a source that we should be grateful to have, not to demonise...

Violet...

[pelsar]

11. pissing people off is good...

points taken and noted....and I will probably read them a bit more often.....

(do i have to now go read about the JohnBirchSociety and learn than they are now "left")

[Coastie for Truth]

12. According to some Progressives

Because the John Birch Society is so far out of the mainstream, it's a source that we should be grateful to have, and we should not demonize the John Birch Society. Just because they said that even Eisenhower was a Commie dupe.

During the 1960's there were two kinds of Progressives. There were the old fuddie-duddie "Mom and Pop" Progressives of the FDR and Harry Truman and John Kennedy and LBJ (Domestic policies and civil rights) and Jimmie Carter and Bill Clinton type - the Old Progressives. Then there were the "Question ALL Authority," and "Don't Trust Anyone Over 35" and "Filthy Speech Movement" Progressives - The New Progressives.

I guess by the standards of the second group, the John Birch Society is a credible source - and should be valued, and accepted by use old fuddie-duddies, and given at least as much credibility as the Washington Post or the New York Times.

[pelsar]

13. damn..this is getting ridiculous.....

ok....how about the KKK...can i have some blind prejudicial hate against them?....or have they too "reformed"

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Couldn't agree more on the ridiculous call...

It's been a long time since I've seen a thread with so many posts avoiding discussing the article, which if any of the posters bothered reading, is full of more than enough stuff to poke holes in it..

Violet...

[Behind the Aegis]

20. Yes, I agree too.

As you say, the article "is full of more than enough stuff to poke holes in it," but sometimes, it is important to show that the original source/author is unworthy. So, why waste the energy pointing out all the inaccuracies, when showing that the sources are highly suspect? It is true, that even a broken clock is correct twice a day, but if one relies on that clock, s/he will usually be late.

The reason I say this is because a recent article, written by an anti-Semite, was presented as "an interesting article." It was easier to show that the author was known for anti-Semitic writings (and not just one or two, but several), than to rip apart the article piece by piece.

Sometimes, it is better to treat the disease and not the symptoms. If you don't know what the disease is, then you only treat the symptoms and do the best you can.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. But the problem is...

I'm not seeing how the original source/author is unworthy in this case. Unless there's something about dissident.org I don't know? The article seems to have appeared in several places on the net - it doesn't appear to be that the author wrote it for any particular unworthy site. Show me where the author of this article is bigoted in his views and I'll agree that in the case of bigotry there should be no need to refute the article, because it shouldn't be there in the first place. I wouldn't expect anyone to have to take anything written on the I/P issue or about Jews by an anti-Semite to be taken seriously, the same way I don't expect to see demands from some posters to comment on clearly bigoted articles about Arabs and/or Palestinians (and yes, that has happened in the past). I'm a bit wary of this guilt by association thing as when I first started posting in the I/P forum I googled looking for an essay by Noam Chomsky and discovered that apart from being on all the sites people would expect a Chomsky essay to sit, some hate site had seen fit to put it on their site. Doing that doesn't make the essay unworthy, but what I figure is if I can't find the same thing on a site that's more credible, then it probably is unworthy. And in this case, unless dissident.org is stinky, I'm not seeing that happening...

I've got some spare time on my hands tonight, so because I don't know anything about this John Birch bunch, I'll go do some googling and see for myself...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Look at what I found on my first google!

Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .

So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society,
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road.
Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now!
Look out you Commies!

Now we all agree with Hitlers' views,
Although he killed six million Jews.
It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist,
At least you can't say he was a Communist!
That's to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria.

Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Reds.
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed,
Looked in the sink, behind the door,
Looked in the glove compartment of my car.
Couldn't find 'em . . .

I wus lookin' high an' low for them Reds everywhere,
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair.
I looked way up my chimney hole,
I even looked deep inside my toilet bowl.
They got away . . .

Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat,
Figured they wus in my T.V. set.
Peeked behind the picture frame,
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain.
Them Reds caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones.

Well, I quit my job so I could work alone,
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes.
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
That ol' Betty Ross . . .

Well, I investigated all the books in the library,
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away.
I investigated all the people that I knowed,
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go.
The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me.

Now Eisenhower, he's a Russian spy,
Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy.
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell.
I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus.

Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate.
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else,
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!

http://bobdylan.com/songs/birch.html

[Violet_Crumble]

23. That didn't take long...

Just took a look at the John Birch Society website and all I can say is ewwwwww. Sorry, but that still doesn't for me tar that article with that same brush, not unless dissidentvoice.org is also an ultra-conservative site, and not unless the second link Newyorican gave was to the John Birch site. Though now on finding out what the John Birch bunch is about, I can see why it would appear in a conservative site like the one it was on - people make the mistake of thinking that conservatives love neo-conservatives, when to me it seems to be that the more conservative they are, the less likely they are to agree with the neoconservative agenda. They disagree with it for entirely different reasons than liberals do..

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Did you bother reading the article?

The first link does NOT lead to the John Birch Society, whoever the fuck they are. Even if the article does appear at that John Birch place, that doesn't mean the author wrote it for them...

No offense, but if you put half the effort into disputing questionable sources on the pro-Israeli side of things as you have here, I'd find it all a bit more convincing than I do right now...

Violet...

[pelsar]

18. actually no.....

i didnt read the whole article....at least not much of it....just had an immediate reaction to

"many Israelis even refuse to consider the word “Palestinian” and believe most Arabs are recent immigrants" I tend to see "red" when i read crap like that......

loses its credability with me....

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I was actually talking to Coastie there...

He's been doing more cartwheels than a circus clown over this whole John Birch thing, so I thought I'd aim the question at him. I hadn't read the article or the snips from it until after posting about al jazeera, but when I did, that was one that jumped out at me, as well as seeming to heavily rely on the scare tactic of the draft for US citizens to protect another country, which seems to strike a chord in some segments of the American population who have always been a bit isolationist. The one you pointed out put the article in the same league for me as all those ones I see posted here that go on about Palestinians as though they're one mass who all think the same way...

Violet...

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Especially if it's across the board...

As for the John Birch Society, that wasn't the first link I went to, and it does appear to me that one or two in this thread are trying to do nothing more than discredit the article and the author without even bothering to discuss the actual article. Which is weird, cause I found a bit to criticise from both perspectives when I read it...

Violet...

[Colorado Blue]

7. Is it even worth bothering?

I can't find any (respectable) English or Israeli source for this quote, let alone one with a screamer like that headline. Halevy resigned in 2003. Maybe he's had a VISION in his spare time, and is linking telepathically to the JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY - true progressives!

And al-Jazeera of course - just the place where a former Mossad officer would confide his innermost thoughts:)

[Coastie for Truth]

9. Yes folks - The John Birch Society

Robert Welch's John Birch Society - and their on line newsletter - Mossad Chief: U.S. to Be Mired in Middle East in Perpetuity] but the whole Birch line . The New American describes itself as

About THE NEW AMERICAN

THE NEW AMERICAN was formed in 1985 with the merging of American Opinion and The Review of The News. THE NEW AMERICAN's premier issue (Volume I, Number I) was dated September 30, 1985. Initially published as a weekly magazine, THE NEW AMERICAN changed to bi-weekly to provide more in-depth reporting.

THE NEW AMERICAN magazine is a valuable tool in confronting the liberal, mainstream media. Stories in the news are often used to appeal to our emotions and convince us to gradually surrender our freedoms. For example, another shooting occurs in the nation. Are more gun control measures the best solution to this all-too-common occurrence? You would think so if your only source of information was the nightly news. But what about our Constitution? What exactly was the Founding Fathers' intent when they recognized our right to bear arms?

Presenting truthful, well-researched answers to issues like these is the heartbeat of THE NEW AMERICAN. With founding principles as guides, issues are covered from a conservative, non-partisan perspective.-

"The New American" = "American Opinion"

I doubt that the Birchite "The New American" - with its links for Welch Memorabilia even approaches the standards of

Note on sources:

Please use discretion when referencing obviously biased or factually questionable material. Vanity websites are generally not as credible as the New York Times, the Washington Post or the UK Guardian and are likely to be locked. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself is the author readily identifiable and likely to be cited by the mainline world press or encountered in an alternate format (mass-published book, academic journal, newspaper article, radio or TV show).

[Colorado Blue]

16. The original article reads VERY DIFFERENTLY from the

lead post.

This is actually a sober and thoughtful assessment of the state of affairs in the Middle East. It isn't an Israeli screech for American bodies to make matzohs with, it has far more to do with the possibilities of big trouble in SAUDI ARABIA and other Arab states.

And, it was the AMBASSADOR TO ISRAEL who actually suggested the possibility of a US presence, in the event of the Palestinian's being unable to govern themselves - not Kristol.

So, the lead post is quite misleading.

The actual quotes:

If Syria is a positive example of the wisdom of U.S. policy, once it reaches the stage of implementation, it is liable to be far more problematic in a different part of the Arab world. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy ruled by the ramified royal family of the House of Saud. There are not many countries that are named for the ruling family. The women in the kingdom are effectively denied civil rights, and with the exception of assemblies of the royal family, no governmental institutions possess genuine status and real powers. Clashes are occurring between groups of extreme religious fighters and the security forces in various areas of the desert state, in which both sides often suffer heavy casualties.

Unemployment is rife in Saudi Arabia, and some of the jobless are in any case unqualified for work of any kind. Jobs for university graduates are far from meeting the great demand. True, the steep rise in the price of oil has increased the country's revenues dramatically, but little of that income is earmarked to improve the standard of living of the population as a whole. In recent years, the government of the 5,000 princes that fostered a generation of Islamic fundamentalism has been struggling with its violent streams, and so far has not succeeded in overcoming either the resulting internal threat or its international ramifications. The Saudi administration has become the target of the extremist movements that sprang up inside the country, but apart from the security measures taken to protect the kingdom and preserve the regime, there is neither domestic nor foreign policy aimed at coping with the roots of the distress that engendered the internal and external threats and that continue to nourish them.

Whereas the United States has been able to articulate a clear policy toward some of the countries in the region, including Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, it has found it difficult to formulate a holistic policy toward Saudi Arabia. This is due mainly to the Americans' economic dependence on the vast oil reserves of the Arabian Peninsula. Not long ago a senior official in one of the world's largest oil companies told me that he wakes up every morning fearful that he will turn on his bedside television set and see reports of a coup in Saudi Arabia. One of the great concerns in Washington two years ago, on the eve of the war in Iraq, was that a U.S. invasion of Iraq and the fall of Baghdad would spark the fire of revolution in Riyadh and throughout the kingdom. That was the consideration that prompted the first President Bush to order a cease-fire in the first Gulf War and refrain from having coalition forces occupy an Arab capital.

At present the United States is torn between the immediate need to ensure a safe flow of oil, while maintaining close ties with the existing government in Riyadh, and the fear that every day that passes without genuine reform in Saudi Arabia is not only bringing the fall of the House of Saud closer but is also heightening the danger that the new rulers will take an extremist approach to the "infidel" states of the West. Thousands of citizens from Western countries live in Saudi Arabia, in well-fortified compounds that protect their families. These extreme measures of protection reflect the constantly widening gulf between the local population and the foreign guests.

Few observers of the Middle East scene are actually taking a good hard look at the situation in Saudi Arabia and examining coolly the terrifying scenarios, one of which might ensue. Some believe that there is a real danger that extremist religious figures will seize power in Saudi Arabia and establish an "Al-Qaida state" in Riyadh. Others note that the national identification of large numbers of the country's population with the Saudi entity is feeble and that their main attachment is tribal or local-regional. Thus, a revolutionary situation might cause the disintegration of the state and the creation of parallel regimes in various regions of the kingdom.

In a visit to the United States two weeks ago, I was told by several well-informed observers that should one of the more severe scenarios come to pass, the United States will have no choice but to deepen its presence in the Middle East. To that end, it will have to renew the draft, to ensure that there are enough forces to deal with developing situations in countries like Saudi Arabia.

snip

From being a superpower that exerts a potent influence in the Middle East, the United States has become a player that is present in the region. Its pattern of activity in Iraq illustrates not only the determination of President Bush to act consistently to realize his policy in Baghdad. There is a good possibility that Iraq will not be the last country in the region that will require a lengthy American military presence. The U.S. campaign in Iraq was perceived as a signal of long-term American commitment to do whatever is required and to stay in the "neighborhood" for as long as needed. It was none other than Martin Indyk, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel, who not long ago raised the idea of establishing an American trusteeship regime in the areas of the Palestinian Authority, if it should turn out that the Palestinians are not ripe for self-rule. That arrangement would require an American operational military presence along Israel's border with the Palestinian territories.

snip

The rest of the article is a must-read. I'm attaching the link. It has to do with the switch pulled on Israel by President Bush, the influence of Saudi oil power, the challenges presented by this unstable region and the War in Iraq. They also have to do with the "road map", and other issues of interest to the readers of this forum.

The coming Pax Americana

By Efraim Halevy

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=568076

[Lithos]

24. Locking

Article is extremely inflammatory, misleading and bears more of the hallmark of the product of a vanity blog than the output of a professional journalist/commentator.