---in fact, you've made your reputation on the argument--- that americans know what's best for israelis.

maybe they do, maybe they dont, and maybe it's moot, seeing as how there's a great probability that a "best" for a racist state that seems to control the world's most powerful military doesnt exist.

Does it occur to anyone that one can be a (real) Jew and hate Israel?

Since the early 20th century, Zionists have waged a relentless campaign to equate their political movement with the Jewish religion. They have largely succeeded; in the eyes of many, Zionism and Judaism are one and the same, and opposition to Zionism becomes opposition to Judaism. But that doesn't change the fact that the two are antithetical.

I am a Jew, and I know from my religious education that if the Jewish people are to attain the Holy Land, it will be through the Messiah, and not with guns. Jews are taught to heal the world ("tikkun olam"), not to displace families, create refugee camps, and practice collective punishment such as that used against Jews in the past.

So long as this confounding of Zionism with Judaism continues, it will sow anti-Semitism. But, in the end, anti-Semitism serves the Zionist ideology.

Real Jews oppose the concept of a zionist Israel.

Zionism is a political movement that uses (in the worst sense of the word) Judaism.

While it is technically the right of Americans to advocate for another state's interest, even with a melting-pot society, it really isn't something you should be proud of, in my opinion. You're helping a country whose interests may or may not align with that of your current country. That's what tears me about AIPAC and those guys - the fact that they find it somehow a source of pride to advocate for a foreign state.

They have largely succeeded; in the eyes of many, Zionism and Judaism are one and the same, and opposition to Zionism becomes opposition to Judaism.

In America, that's true to some extent. Ironically, it is not true in Israel - the Haredim don't recognize the legitimacy of Israel (since they think only the Messiah can re-establish the kingdom), and they're a rather large population.

I am a Jew, and I know from my religious education that if the Jewish people are to attain the Holy Land, it will be through the Messiah, and not with guns.

I'm curious as to what background you're coming from. Unless you are being very, very circumspect, you don't come across as Haredi.

So long as this confounding of Zionism with Judaism continues, it will sow anti-Semitism. But, in the end, anti-Semitism serves the Zionist ideology.

A Zionist would probably argue that it is strength in the form of Israel's power (both real and imagined) that counters anti-semitism. They'd say that as long as Jews are just a minority at the mercy of another population, it makes it easy to demonize them until they are weak, then demonize them for their weakness.

I don't share that belief (America is living proof that that's not true, although I'm not foolish enough to say there's no anti-semitism in the US), but it's there.

that even strong critics like Mr Mearsheimer and Walt who are non Jew (i don't really know) are forced to make a point that whatever they advocate is like by obligation good for Israel--at the end. they never fail to point this out. but for what? why it has to be that? why what is good for America would never hurt Israel, should not be perceived as hurting Israel? well, any good policy of any country is good for the entire world, isn't it? but no one worries about pointing out whatever we do is good for the Russians.

at a minimum a law should be passed limiting lobbying for foreign interests only where US interests are clearly not an issue

Emanuel, Axelrod, and other key figures in the administration clearly feel a strong personal attachment to Israel -- and there's no reason why they shouldn't.

I believe that there are plenty of reasons why they should.

Let's think for a second if instead of Israel we were talking about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Russia, or even a Western European country. What does make Israel different than other countries?

"He (Kissinger)reminded her (Golda Meir)that he was firstly an American, secondly secretary of state, and thirdly, Jewish, and he made it clear that this particular ordering of identities would guide his conduct".
How many elected representatives have those priorities?
How can the US government use its authority to ensure that this philosophy is not just a choice but mandatory for all people of Jewish religion living in the US. The benefit would be almost instantaneous if Congress members and Senators were forced to take some form of oath that their decisions were only to benefit their country. AIPAC would immediately lose its base of sycophantic Jewish fellow-travellers and hangers-on who have hitched their waggon to Israel's policies for any number of insidious reasons, regardless of the long term disadvantage to their own country. Decisions could then be taken about ceasing aid to Israel in light of their total disregard for a termination of building in the West Bank, their continued apartheid policies, their creation of Palestinian ghettos, their stealing of land and the reduction in the power of the 'settlers', Netanyahu's power base.
Until the US forces all residents to be either US citizens or Israelis with just one passport for each person, the loyalty of those who have been compromised year after year by the clever and scheming AIPAC influence waving the 'holocaust banner' ad nauseum, will continue unchallenged.
The manifesto for all future citizens for entry into US government in any form, elected or public servant, should be clearly where their loyalties lie; are you an American supporter or an Israeli supporter?.
Common sense dictates that you cannot be both having now reached that stage due to the prolonged intransigence of the Israeli government and its warlike and hateful philosophies. The most disliked country since Nazi Germany.
That's quite an achievement.

In the London Review of Books not long ago there was an article by an Israeli leftie saying that Israeli Jews will slight American and other non-Israeli Jews by calling them "Exile Jews" (not self-hating). The label can be lifted if sufficient $$$ is ponied up for election campaign war chests and settlement projects.

It's kind of like threatening a 'backlash' from an ethnic voting bloc if someone doesn't vote to confirm a member of that ethnic group for SCOTUS.

Jews are hardly the only group to play racial politics amongst themselves or others.

Another journalistic gem by Professor Walt.

Let's start with the quote that is the premise of the post

A few days ago, the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth published an article by Simon Schiffer reporting that several of Obama's advisors were "demanding that Prime Minister Netanyahu dissociate himself from the venomous slurs that his aides have been disseminating against them."

Now if you google that quote there is no original source for it. Even Yedioth s english language website "Ynet" contains no such article or quote, which is why Professor Walt could not link to the article. He must have gotten the quote from a second hand source which is his modus operandi as most of his book "The Israel Lobby" also had no original research.

Then he "presumes" that this non existent quote refers to a story in which Netanyahu’s staff called Obama's staff "self-hating Jews." Now if you click on the link to that article, you can see that the "quote" in that article is not attributed to anyone and does not site any source not even anonymous sources. The author just states that he heard it somewhere.

To appreciate the depth of his paranoia, it is enough to hear how he refers to Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, Obama's senior aides: as "self-hating Jews.

Then he goes back to the Shiffer article again to cite another quote which when googled only comes up on Professor Walt's post and also does not appear on Ynet or any other primary source.

" Quoting unnamed "sources in the administration," Schiffer reports that the Obama aides responded to the Israelis by saying "We don’t need a certificate of approval from anyone on your side about our devotion to the State of Israel."

"

From this house of cards he then goes on to make his "Dual Loyalty" argument (with the hilarious "but not me" qualifier) that some conspiracy theorists might make it. Then he goes on to say we should then discuss the topic with the conspiracy theorists in a "rational way."

In other words: I don't believe American Jews are fully loyal to the United States. I can't come right out and say this so I am going to say some conspiracy theorists think this. But those conspiracy theorists may be right so let's talk about it rationally.

Imagine if someone wrote:

This discussion is naturally tied to the delicate subject of what is sometimes termed Professor Walt's "dual loyalty," to the United states and Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah organization; a topic that tends to provoke conspiracy theories from some and angry denunciations from others. But given that the United States is a "melting-pot" society that has drawn its citizens from all over the world, and given the undeniable fact that Americans of various backgrounds feel strong attachments to a variety of foreign countries (and for various reasons), it is also one of those subjects that we ought to be able to talk about in a calm and rational way.

Perhaps American Jews should be forced to take loyalty oaths Professor Avigdor Lieber...I mean Professor Walt

What do the Likudnik-types envision as the future of the region?

They must be intelligent enough to understand that continuing down a road of relentless promulgation of cycles of violence with the Palestinians, Arabs, and Iranians isn't in the long-term interests of their own constituency.

I know it's hard, if not impossible, to reach any lasting peace because there are genuinely people out there who want nothing but the erasure of Israel. So much so that politicians and significant political parties have come to be defined by this single issue. But Israel is better than just being a mirror of the same demagogery emerging from their neighborhood.

If we are not for ourselves, other Jews say to me, who will be for us? And I answer, but if we are for ourselves alone, what are we?

-kind of people. I for one had just kicked Axel-of-evil-rod and Rahm-bo right out of the oval office first thing in the morning.

But thats the way business works. Business is based on trust. And when you have given millions to the democratic campaign and been promised that Israel would not get compromised, the team around Obama has to live up to the promises. It should have been Hillary Clinton who was going to be President, but the people wanted Obama, so Axelrod and Obama sensed where the wind was blowin and shifted to endorsing Obama. And they have promised the financiers that no moves are being taken towards Israel and so it is going to be. The big question is WHEN it is going to be communicated to the Americans that everything is just going to continue the way it is, but who knows if the average American have any interest in the particulars of American Middle East Policy, so even if he gets told that no shift will occur, perhaps he wil say: "Thats fine, I didn't like great shifts anyway."

Obama's fault that he has a moral code, huh?

Obama needs to cut-off ALL funding for this mofo apartheid state which bombs civilians with US bombs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072903167.html

Tough on Israel
Why President Obama's battle against Jewish settlements could prove self-defeating

Thursday, July 30, 2009

ONE OF THE MORE striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel. The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank. To a less visible extent, the two governments also have differed over policy toward Iran.

This week a parade of senior U.S. officials has been visiting Jerusalem to tackle the issues: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Middle East envoy George J. Mitchell, national security adviser James L. Jones and senior aide Dennis Ross. But the tensions persist, and public opinion is following: The Pew Global Attitudes Project reported last week that Israel was the only country among 25 surveyed where the public's image of the United States was getting worse rather than better.

In part the trouble was unavoidable: Taking office with a commitment to pursuing Middle East peace, Mr. Obama faced a new, right-wing Israeli government whose prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has refused to accept the goal of Palestinian statehood. In part it was tactical: By making plain his disagreements with Mr. Netanyahu on statehood and Jewish settlements, Mr. Obama hoped to force an Israeli retreat while building credibility with Arab governments -- two advances that he arguably needs to set the stage for a serious peace process.

But the administration also is guilty of missteps. Rather than pocketing Mr. Netanyahu's initial concessions -- he gave a speech on Palestinian statehood and suggested parameters for curtailing settlements accepted by previous U.S. administrations -- Mr. Obama chose to insist on an absolutist demand for a settlement "freeze." Palestinian and Arab leaders who had accepted previous compromises immediately hardened their positions; they also balked at delivering the "confidence-building" concessions to Israel that the administration seeks. Israeli public opinion, which normally leans against the settler movement, has rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu. And Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, which were active during the Bush administration's final year, have yet to resume.

U.S. and Israeli officials are working on a compromise that would allow Israel to complete some housing now under construction while freezing new starts for a defined period. Arab states would be expected to take steps in return. Such a deal will expose Mr. Obama to criticism in the Arab world -- a public relations hit that he could have avoided had he not escalated the settlements dispute in the first place. At worst, the president may find himself diminished among both Israelis and Arabs before discussions even begin on the issues on which U.S. clout is most needed. If he is to be effective in brokering a peace deal, Mr. Obama will need to show both sides that they can trust him -- and he must be tough on more than one country.

"What do the Likudnik-types envision as the future of the region?"

Well, considering the common definition of Likudnik on this site is anyone who doesn't think Israel should withdraw completely to the green line and allow 800,000 Palestinians to move to Israel, I will count myself as such.

As for what I wish a peace to look like. Somethin along the lines of the Taba offer in 2000. A demilitarized Palestinian State (ala Japan) on 95% of the west bank +3% from land on the west side of the green line (not shown on map), all of Gaza, and a land bridge to Gaza. This is similar to what I would envision (although probably less land east of Jerusalem and Qalqilya). This would also include a palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, and compensation for Palestinian refugees.

http://www.mideastweb.org/Rossmap_Dec20000.gif

Freeze the importation of non-Sephardic Jews into Israel and implement the democratic 1-state solution.

Obama should uphold US Arms Export Control Act, should he not?

Not all U.S. politicians are blind -- these will be our heroes in 20 years: Wake up America!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg0Km2M3kvk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X35OAb2wGo&feature=related

Dr. Ron Paul on origin of Hamas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z6vMAoFwf4