The Obama adm. does appear to be thinking in quite some detail on the Af-Pak issue. Its willingess to bring in people like Ahmed Rashid, etc shows that they are willing to 'listen.' But that is no guarantee that their policies will be too different compared to the past. Structural forces exert a powerful influence in matters related to the region, especially Pakistan. Also, the presence of Zardari in Washington last week certainly did not help the US cause. Why couldn't he have met them at a more neutral venue...Europe perhaps? (yes, perception does matter in IR)At least that would have kept America baiters within Pak at bay and given Zardari a freer hand (whatever little amount of freedome he enjoys!)
On the issue of Iran, experts who have dealt with the country, in matters related to nuclear tech, etc have noted explicitly that it is a very strategic actor. It knows what it wants out of the US and acts accordingly. Ahmedinejad is nowhere near being like a mad dictator, his public utterances notwithstanding. It has used its influence in the region to great effect.

"let non-military and neutral international organizations, free of geopolitical taint, take over the binding of Afghan wounds and the building of state structures."

That is a good advice but the problem is the US is there for geopolitical interest and doesn't want to lose its advantage. Even after building of political structures by neutral institutions the US would jump back on the scene.
But G.Fuller is right, rather than backing the Shah the loser's regime, let the revolutionaries form their own structure and deal with Islamic Republic of Iran. In that way at least you know whom you are dealing with;->>

Yet, again there is no solution with State structure, G.Fuller doesn't want to know this;->

BTW, Pope in ME preaching two-state solution to Israel.
If Professor posts a message in relation to Pope's ME visit, I have heaps to post here anout the Pope and secularism.

Grand Sen~or.

the CIA chief is right.

It is time to "lose" Af. and start concentrating on winning Pak.

How? Leave the entire region and hand it over to the UN with US funding. (Akin to what the CIA chief said)

We have lost in Afghanistan.

If we do not get out we will lose Pakistan also.

BECAUSE of our policies we have soon have radicals from India to Israel.

GET OUT -- Time to re-consider isolationism. It is healthy until one can be bothered to formulate a real foreign policy.

Our system of govt. (i.e. checks and balances by state reps) is ill suited to colonizing the world. It is suited only to domestic politics.

We have to make constitutional changes before we can start colonialism.

Graham Fuller? You mean the agent who oversaw the birth of al-Qaeda and wrote the 'Fuller memos' that codified the rationale for the Iran-Contra scandals? That Graham Fuller? When people get too many of the big questions wrong, I think maybe they should just retire and not be heard from. Kind of like Bush is doing now. Fuller is one of those people.

Besides getting out of Af., we should also:

- Put pressure on our repressive Arab "allies" Saudi and Egyot to institute reforms.

- Stop funding Israeli apartheid.

It is because of the above that we were attacked on 9/11 [Source: 9/11 Commission Report and Defense Science Board report 2004]

Senior White House officials told their Israeli counterparts that Obama will demand Netanyahu completely suspend construction in the settlements, the officials said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1083998.html

According to Walt, Ahmadinejad ^= Hitler but WSJ = Pravda? The latter is the bigger reach.

Avnery makes two mistakes.

One, he is talking about the Hitler of the 1940's while those making the comparison are talking about Hitler of the early 1930's. Point being, should people maybe have taken Hitler's talk more seriously before he was able to make good?

Two, the assertion that the Iranian regime isn't aggressive is risible. They are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and are actively trying to export their Islamic revolution. Their aggressive adventurism is played out by the proxies they fund, equip and direct.

I am not surprised Walt loves Uri Avnery. He is a left wing nutcase who writes for Alexander Cockburn's vile counterpunch.com website. His latest January piece "The Blood-Stained Monster Enters Gaza" is just one example of his work which is often reprinted on neo-nazi websites. Avnery also called Arafat, the inventor of modern terrorism, one of history's greatest men.

In his youth he was a right wing nutcase. Averny was only part of the Igrum as a child from age 15-19. Then he formed his own group who idolized Hitler and in 1941, Avnery wrote a pro-Nazi article in the Paris journal "Shem." Avnery was an open admirer of Nazi propagandist Alfred Rosenberg, adopted the latter's rhetoric, and repeatedly declared that he saw himself as the Hebrew Alfred Rosenberg. Avnery ran a tiny "journal" called The Struggle, an obvious imitation of the name "Mein Kampf". He ran his own one-man party, whose official salute was a Nazi raised hand.

Walt still doesn't get it. Even if Israel unilaterally did everthing the Arab initiative asks of it, there would still be no peace. The Palestinians can't even form a government, let alone even get Hamas to accept Israel's right to exist.

To add to what "Daivd in DC" wrote, iran hardly has freedom of speech for example"

The most widespread and sustained protests since Iran's revolution two decades ago spread throughout the country today, while security police and their vigilante supporters moved to crush pro-democracy student demonstrators outside Teheran University.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/13/world/iran-protests-spread-to-18-cities-police-crack-down-at-university.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/N/News%20and%20News%20Media

Iran crushes teachers' pay protest
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/17/iran.schoolsworldwide

Gosh, David, if only DC would apply some of your advice, stop sponsoring terror groups and quit the military adventure business, perhaps America's reputation wouldn't be in tatters, along with it's economy.
There is no comparison between Ahmedinajad and Hitler, but I have to ask - why Hitler anyway? If you want a bogeyman, why not Stalin? Doesn't Stalin have quite the same ring to it and if not, why not, he killed more people.

I was quite astounded when the Iranians took those British sailors from their vessel in "disputed waters" - before handing them back did anyone notice what those "nazi sons of bitch Iranians" did to the lady sailor ?? they asked her to put on a head scarf! The outrage! When we took prisoners, of both sexes, we made those prisoners take all their clothes off, then we sexually humiliated them, sexually assaulting some of them, as well as torturing them.

If I was going to bring Hitler and nazis into the equation, it wouldn't be Adhmedinajad or Iran that would automatically spring to mind.

There's been a lot of speculation that the Obama wont move against Iran if Israel doesn't cut a 2 state deal. But the two issues are not connected - either Iran is poses a real and present danger or she doesn't. Attacking a sovereign state, killing her civilian population as a reward for Mr Netanyahu if he plays ball over the I/P is not my idea of presidential. In fact, that's the sort of behaviour we came to expect from the Bush administration.
I am disgusted that people like Holbrooke have been kept on by Obama, wearied that Dennis Ross was still going to be around, is this a sign of change to come?

There is no support in the US or Europe for an attack on Iran, all the political bellicose and media hyperbole in the world simply isn't dinting that fact.

Hitler has been evoked these recent years by some truly wicked people for their own ends. During and after Cast Lead, no Jew in Iran was abused or harmed, no shul was attacked. That cannot be said about either the US or Europe.
After 9/11 there were no Persian children being handed sweets in celebration. Persians took to their streets in solidarity and in mourning for us.
Persian Jews return to Iran all the time, including from Israel. These are the facts people who shill for Iran to be santioned, starved, bullied and eventually, attacked, can't stand. So instead, they talk about Hitler, sometimes I wonder if even they believe their own shpiel.

Israel Still Looks Good, Warts and All - Greg Sheridan (The Australian)

* The Israel I know, which I have visited for weeks at a time, which I experience through its literature and media and the Israeli citizens I have met, bears no relation to the Israel I see in most of the Western media. That Israel of the Western mind (and indeed of the Arab mind) is a hateful place: right-wing, militaristic, authoritarian, racist, ultra-religious, neo-colonial, narrow-minded, undemocratic, indifferent to world opinion, indifferent especially to Palestinian suffering.
* Yet the Israel I know is mostly secular, raucously, almost wildly democratic, has a vibrant left wing, having founded in the kibbutz movement one of the only successful experiments in socialism in human history. It is multi-ethnic, there is a great stress on human solidarity, there is due process. And I've never heard an Israeli speak casually about the value of Palestinian life.
* The Israel I know is a Western democracy, often under siege. I see a society striving for the good, certainly not beyond criticism, but overall behaving as well as any comparably sized Western society would or could in all the circumstances.
* Nobody declares Saudi Arabia an illegitimate state because it has no democracy or human rights, and its doctrinaire Wahhabi Sunni establishment rules over a marginalized Shia minority. Nobody declares Turkey an illegitimate state because it has a disgruntled Kurdish minority, some of whom certainly aspire to statehood. Even North Korea, the most extreme Stalinist gulag on earth, is constantly reassured that the West accepts not only the legitimacy of its state, but does not even seek regime change. Only the legitimacy of Israel is routinely questioned: a special standard for the Jewish state.
* Since 1977 Israel has given up territory equivalent to three times its size in exchange for peace with various neighbors. This was land acquired in defensive wars that made a contribution to Israeli security. Israel may be guilty of many things but a refusal to compromise is not one of them.

While your Foreign Policy blog may not be the right place to address the issue, it seems to me that the process by which the WSJ filters the message to deliver a one-dimensional and discredited point of view on the way forward in the Middle East is a story that demands to be written. Who makes those decisions? What is their philosophy? What do they have to say for themselves? What do those who work for them or who got fired by them, or had their work rejected by them have to say? Why have we and why do we continue to give them anonymity?

It is not only the major newspapers that print only one side of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. There is a local paper - The Times - in Munster, Indiana, that celebrated the slaughter of the children of Gaza with a hugh spread featuring a local christian(!)church whose minister not only proclaimed it the work of God but had several people of the Jewish faith in the photo op to emphasize their blessing of the event as well. I wrote a short letter containing essentially the words from a PBS airing on the subject and not only would they not publish the Letter to the Editor they wouldn't tell me why.
It is well to remember that many Germans possibly did not know of the Holocaust because of the Nazi press; ours are at times just as bad.

As usual, I'm pretty much with Uri Avnery up to right there: up to the suggestion that Israel can end the century-long war, 'cause all it's gotta do is sign on the dotted line. You'll notice that no one - not Uri Avnery, not Stephen Walt, nobody - ever explains how Israel gets from point A to point B, from a signed peace treaty (with whom?), to peace. Presumably even they admit that it won't happen easily, that after the treaty signing there will be attacks aimed at "killing the peace," that the treaty will put us "on the road" to peace rather than at peace, etc. But no indication - no road map, if you will - of how to bring about peace after the peace treaty is signed.

Re Avnery on the shoah and Iran, agreed pretty much, except that the shoah wasn't all that unique. The Germans used trains - big deal. It was a genocide, and genocides happen all the time. The only thing special is that this one happened to us. But Avnery maybe owes Le Pen an apology for misquoting him.

Also, saying that Iran is "not an aggressive country [state?]" is pretty funny. True, they haven't declared war on Israel or Lebanon. But it's hard for me to see how supporting Hizbollah and Hamas is nonaggressive.

Re Walt on Avnery's unpublishability in the US, well of course you're not going to see that kind of thing in the WSJ, which caters to establishment Jewish business and financial types. But you see views even farther left than his in the New York Review of Books. Remember Tony Judt's call for the elimination of the state of Israel? I basically agree with the Israel Lobby thesis, but it shouldn't be overstated.

From the father of Israel (and terrorist) David Ben-Gurion:

I don't understand your optimism. Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out.

* As quoted in The Jewish Paradox : A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann (translated by Steve Cox), p. 99.

Is it a surprise that where there is no justice there will be no peace?

This article in Forward[sic] illustrates why there will never be any peace in the middle east -- The zionists do not have to have any morals since their G*d told them it's OK to do whatever immoral things they feel they need to do to the Arab and Iranian vermin:

http://www.forward.com/articles/13388/

TITLE: When Survival of the Jewish People Is at Stake, There’s No Place for Morals

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-takeyh19nov19,0,6896548,print.story

From the Los Angeles Times
CONFRONTING IRAN
Ahmadinejad is no Hitler

The world's most rash leaders can be contained, and the nuclear-ambitious Iranian president is no exception.

By Ray Takeyh
RAY TAKEYH is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of "Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic."

November 19, 2006

IF YOU THINK IRANIAN PRESIDENT Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes outlandish comments, consider what Mao Tse-tung said to a visiting head of state in 1954: "If someone else can drop an atomic bomb, then I can too. The death of 10 or 20 million people is nothing to be afraid of."

Nonetheless, 15 years later, a nuclear-armed China was not only contained by the world, it opted for normalization of relations with its archenemy, the United States. Today, it is fashionable to equate Ahmadinejad with Hitler, yet the lesson of the 20th century is that rash leaders can, in fact, be deterred. And Iran's president will prove no exception.

Remember that Ahmadinejad's comments are not even unique in the context of Iranian discourse. In 2001, the former Iranian president and putative moderate, Hashemi Rafsanjani, declared that although Israel would be destroyed by an atomic bomb, the Islamic world would only be damaged by one and therefore "such a scenario is not inconceivable." Nevertheless, four years later, when Rafsanjani was running for president, Washington and its European allies were eagerly hoping that he would win.

Ahmadinejad is considered nutty in the United States because of his denial of the Holocaust — but that's nothing new in the Islamic Republic either. The foremost ruler of the country, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has declared: "There are documents showing close collaboration of Zionists with Nazi Germany, and exaggerated numbers relating to the Jewish Holocaust were fabricated to lay the groundwork for the occupation of Palestine and to justify the atrocities of the Zionists." Yet today, it is quietly hoped in Washington that Khamenei will be the one to restrain the intemperate Ahmadinejad.

All this suggests that in dealing with Iran, American officials have historically discounted its bluster and paid attention to its actual conduct. And they were right to do so. Khamenei and Rafsanjani, despite their irresponsible assertions and pernicious support for a variety of terrorist organizations, have pursued a relatively pragmatic foreign policy that has sought to eschew direct confrontation with the U.S. and Israel.

Ahmadinejad's behavior suggests continuity with his predecessors: incendiary rhetoric and restrained conduct.

The fact is that today, unlike the 1980s, Iran is not challenging the legitimacy of the region's political order or calling for the overthrow of regimes in places such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Tehran's support for groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas is not an Ahmadinejad innovation but a long-standing Iranian policy.

To be sure, Iran is intervening in Iraq and arming various Shiite militias — but such conduct is designed not to export Iran's model of governance but to prevent the rise of a state dominated by Sunni elites whose pan-Arab aspirations have in the past led to tense relations, and even war, with Iran. Tehran has no delusions that the Shiites of Iraq will subordinate their communal interest to Iran's national ambitions, but it does hope that a Shiite-dominated regime will provide it with a suitable interlocutor.

Even the nuclear issue has to be viewed in the context of continuity rather than change. The decision to resume the nuclear program after a long period of suspension was taken not by Ahmadinejad but by the reformist government of Mohammad Khatami before leaving office in 2005. What's more, Iran's pursuit of the bomb has less to do with the destruction of Israel than with deterring a United States that has invaded two states that border Iran in the last five years. This is a moment of heightened tension between the U.S. and Iran, with the Bush administration routinely calling for a change of regime in Tehran, so perhaps it's not so surprising that the Islamic Republic feels it requires a deterrent capability to ensure both regime survival and territorial integrity.

So then, why has Ahmadinejad persisted in his contemptible denials of the Holocaust and his repeated calls for the eradication of Israel if, in fact, they are more bluster than anything else? As a cagey politician, Ahmadinejad appreciates that his incendiary denunciations actually enhance his popularity in the Middle East. The carnage in Iraq, the failure to broker a peace between Israel and the Palestinians and the Arab rulers' inability to stand up to Washington have generated a popular clamor for a politician willing to defy the U.S. and Israel.

Ahmadinejad has taken on that role, successfully capturing the imagination of a region prone to rely on conspiracies to explain its predicament. In this context, his persistent religious exhortations are designed not to prepare the path for the return of the Hidden Imam — the Messiah-like figure of Shiite Islam who some believe will reappear in a period of global war, chaos and bloodshed — but to advance himself and the cause of Iranian influence.

It is a peculiar American fascination to continually look for the next Hitler. Josef Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and even Saddam Hussein were all touted at one time or another as Hitler incarnate. Ahmadinejad is simply the latest figure to be contemplated for that role. Evidently, many in Washington simply cannot grasp the fact that Hitler was a uniquely evil politician and that he is in fact dead. The United States — the country that won the Cold War and contained its adversaries — should be able to deter a second-rate power with an intemperate leader.

* As quoted in The Jewish Paradox : A personal memoir (1978) by Nahum Goldmann (translated by Steve Cox), p. 99.

Walt cited this in his book, but he never checked to see if it was actually there. It isn't. I have the book. Buy it and check. No one knows from which source Walt actually got the quote as it is most likely a fabrication.

The only terrorist act Ben Gurion can possibly be accused of is the bombing of the King David Hotel which was a British Military base. They even called the British to warn them of the bomb so they could evacuate as it was simply meant to embarrass the British. He also changed his mind about the attack before it happened eventhough others disagreed and it went through. It should also be mentioned that his group the Haganah were soldiers who wore uniforms and were organised into an army. They did not wear civilian clothes hide behind human shields as Palestinian terrorists do.

I looked in the book and it is there (my mistake), but the one you posted and in Walt's book is doctored (Walt never bothered to check the actual source). It actually says:

"they think we have taken their country."

This is Ben Gurion saying what Arabs think and just repeating what Arab leaders have been saying for decades. So him saying this should be no surprise to anyone. Without those words it makes it sound like it is what he thinks and is therefore quoted as a "gotcha" admission. With those words, the quote is completely innocuous.

It is typical of Palestinian propagandists to edit quotes so they mean something else. The most famous doctored Ben Gurion quote they like to cite is from Benni Morris' "Book The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem". The book says his diary says

"We must expel Arabs and take their places"

The diary actually says

"We do not wish and do not need to expel Arabs and take their places."

I don't believe you.

That is because your worldview is all based on what you wish were true and not fact.

“We must expel Arabs and take their places” is the quote most often cited by Palestinian idealogues. They do not even finish the rest of Morris’ paragraph which says “and if we have to use force, not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle”

[By the way, I double-checked the quote's source and it is from an October 5, 1937 letter to his son (not his diary). My mistake about that.]

Morris' problem is twofold fold.

First, Morris never saw the letter before he wrote his book. We know this because he used an unchecked secondary source for the "quote" (which is the same amateur mistake Walt made regarding the quote cited in his book).

Then Morris removed part of the paragraph that did not fit his argument by using ellipses.

We must expel Arabs and take their places...and if we have to use force not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places - then we have force at our disposal.

Morris, The Birth of the Palestinians Refugee Problem p.25

Here is the paragraph with the words from the book Morris used as his source put back in.

We must expel Arabs and take their places. He did not wish to do so for all our aspiration is built on the assumption - proven throughout all our activity - that there is enough room for ourselves and the Arabs in Palestine. But if the Arabs did not accept that assumption and if we have to use force not to dispossess the Arabs of the Negev and Transjordan, but to guarantee our own right to settle in those places - then we have force at our disposal.

Shabtai Teveth, Ben Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, p.189

Second, Teveth got the quote wrong which only makes sense because the second part of the quote says the exact opposite of what Teveth says is the first” “not to dispossess the Arabs”.

The transliterated Hebrew (I tried posting the actual Hebrew but it just substitutes the letters for question marks
) of the first line of the quote is:
ein anu rotsim ve-ein anu trishim lagaresh ravim ve-lakhat mekomam

meaning:
We do not wish and do not need to expel arabs and take their place.

(ein), means nothing or null.

Now the final nail in the coffin is that Morris retracted the quote when he finally looked at the original documents.

Benny Morris, A new look at Zionist Documents, Alpayim 12, 1996, pp76-77.