Hagel, Obama and the Israeli Elections

Caroline Glick is the Director of the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Israel Security Project and the Senior Contributing Editor of The Jerusalem Post. For more information on Ms. Glick's work, visit carolineglick.com


The National Journal recently reported that Obama is reconsidering his decision to appoint Chuck Hagel Secretary of Defense. As I wrote in my previous post, there is no chance that Obama will appoint a supporter of a strong Israel to any senior foreign policy post because he wouldn’t appoint someone who doesn’t share his basic animosity towards Israel. But in Hagel, he chose someone even more outspoken in his animus towards the Jewish state than Obama.

Hagel’s looming appointment provoked angry responses from many leading Jewish voices in the US. Whether this opposition made a difference in driving Obama to reconsider his choice is unclear. Plenty of other influential groups – including senators, members of the military and lobbyists for homosexual rights – expressed their discomfort and opposition to the prospect of having Hagel serve as Defense Secretary. Still it is notable that Hagel’s possible appointment sparked an outcry among prominent American Jews and that this outcry had some unknown impact on Obama’s possible decision to cancel Hagel’s appointment.

If Obama indeed scuttles Hagel’s elevation to Defense Secretary, it shows that it is possible to fight Obama on foreign policy even in his second term, and win, at least sometimes. This is important information for Republicans, American Jews, and the Israeli government.

Obama will have multiple, massive domestic challenges to contend with in his second term. If he wishes to focus on advancing his domestic agenda, he may well punt on foreign affairs.

The US President’s inbox is always overflowing. One of the hardest things for a president to do is take control over his own agenda.

Just consider the issue of gun control. Certainly, as a liberal Democrat, Obama is for it. But Obama has never made the issue of restricting gun ownership  a priority during his presidency. Now in the aftermath of the Newtown massacre, he is suddenly spending a lot of time on the issue and going into a head to head battle with the National Rifle Association.

Maybe Obama will win this battle. Maybe he’ll lose it. But he will be focusing on it a lot in the coming weeks. Again, this is not an issue that was ever central to his agenda. But due to an unforeseen event, it has become an issue that he is now forced to spend time on.

There are of course, many more foreseeable issues Obama will have to devote his presidential time, energy and capital to. The biggest among them is Obamacare. Budgetary and tax woes are not far behind. With only 24 hours in the day, Obama will not be able to focus on Israel or foreign policy on a daily basis. And in order to make time for other things, which are more important to him, or more immediately pressing, Obama may be willing to back down.

As I was working on my book this morning, I came across an article I wrote before the 2006 elections in Israel. In it, I argued that the reason the Sharon government had such good relations with the US was because it bowed to every US demand, no matter how antithetical it was to Israel’s national interests. At that time, I mentioned Sharon’s decision to set aside his concerns and bow to US pressure to permit Hamas to participate in the Palestinian Authority’s legislative elections in January 2006.

For bending to Washington’s will, Israel got plaudits from Rice and Bush. But we also got Hamas in charge, an even more radicalized Fatah racing to prove its own terror bona fides to measure up to Hamas, and increased international isolation for Israel as nation after nation began softening to the idea of Hamas being a legitimate organization.

In retrospect, it would certainly have been better for Israel – and for America – if Sharon had stood up to Rice and simply refused to permit Hamas to participate in the elections. It would have been better to have had a public fight with Washington and kept Hamas out of power than maintain warm relations with the Bush administration while empowering a terror group that openly seeks the annihilation of Israel and the Jewish people.

This brings us to Obama, his apparent decision to stand down on Hagel,  US relations with Israel in Obama’s second term in office, and finally to how the Israeli election campaign plays into all of these things.

Here in Israel, the Left’s basic diplomatic attack on Netanyahu involves accusing him of having wrecked  Israel’s relations with the US by standing up to Obama. But whereas by not standing up to Bush and Rice, Israel got Hamas in power and missiles on Jerusalem, by standing up to Obama, Israel is still in control of Judea and Samaria and the two-state delusion has been increasingly discredited in Israel, and to a lesser degree in the US.

Moreover on Iran, Israel has coaxed a reluctant US administration into passing serious sanctions against Iran, and while the economic pressure hasn’t made any dent in Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Israeli pressure has made it harder for Obama to simply accept Iranian nuclear weapons. Vocally expressing Israeli concerns has certainly helped Republicans maintain pressure on Obama to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and publicly support a potential Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations.

It is understandable that Netanyahu is keeping mum on his diplomatic achievements. He can’t risk even worse relations with Obama by mentioning his success in keeping the US President at bay in his quest to diminish Israel’s strategic options.

What makes less sense is his decision to adopt the Left’s talking points against the Right in his assault on the Jewish Home Party and its leader Naftali Bennett.

Last Thursday Bennett was conned by television personality Nissim Mishal into discussing what his  personal response as a soldier would be to the completely hypothetical issue of IDF expulsions of Jews in Judea and Samaria. The issue is artificial is because no one is proposing a mass expulsions of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria today. The Palestinians are uninterested in negotiating with Israel. Netanyahu is uninterested in surrendering land. And the Left, which would like to cut and run, has no chance of winning next month’s elections.

So Mishal manipulated Bennett into an irrelevant policy discussion in order to embarrass him.  Bennett said that he would personally object to fulfilling an order to expel Jews from their homes, and if necessary, bear the personal consequences.

Netanyahu himself is quite familiar with Nissim Mishal’s manipulations of political theater to embarrass candidates on the Right. In 1999, during a televised candidates’ debate when Netanyahu ran for reelection as Prime Minister, Mishal repeatedly interjected himself into the debate to support rival candidate Yitzhak Mordechai’s character attacks on Netanyahu.

Mordechai, who would be convicted of serial sexual harassment two years later, accused Netanyahu of lacking honesty, integrity and decency, saying “you know your best friends don’t believe you.”

Mishal then chimed in, asking Netanyahu if he had any friends.

Bennett and the Jewish Home party are potentially Likud’s largest coalition partner. Rather than leave Bennett alone, Likud has opened an all-out war against him, castigating him as an extremist.

I certainly understand the impulse to attack. Bennett is cannibalizing Likud voters. And recently, he opened an ill-advised, counterproductive attack on Likud and Netanyahu. But by attacking one another, Bennett and Netanyahu are discrediting their own positions.

Does Netanyahu really want to argue that it is extremist to oppose the forcible expulsion of Jews from land Netanyahu himself argues Israel needs to defend itself from external invasion?

Does Bennett really want to argue that the prime ministerial candidate he favors, and in whose government he hopes to sit is too weak to be trusted to lead Israel?

Israel faces massive challenges in the coming years. The apparent scuttling of Hagel’s appointment is a hopeful sign that if we keep our heads about us, we can prevent Obama from taking steps that are truly antithetical to Israel’s survival.

But we must understand, the reason Hagel’s appointment was apparently abandoned is because the opposition to his appointment was strong, coherent, and unified. Israel needs a strong, coherent government to meet the challenges it will face in the next four years, including working with a hostile Obama administration. We won’t get one if the leaders of the nationalist camp are using the Left to weaken and discredit one another.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    It makes (perverted) sense for Netanyahu to tar Bennett, simply because Netanyahu is not a statesman. Our PM blows with the political wind, and this is why he jumps from one camp to the other. If he had grounded Zionist moorings, would he have appointed Barak as DM? Of course not. In many ways he is a mirror image of Sharon, he talks the tough Zionist talk but fails to deliver.

    Now, in relation to Bennett's pronouncement, it is fair to say that he told the truth about the necessity to refuse immoral, illegal orders. And it in no way compares to the leftist branja set, most of whom avoid service, but those who do often refuse to operate against the enemy.

    Besides, IF the IDF is a Jewish Defense Force, then it is unthinkable to expel Jews from anywhere in Israel, most especially in its heartland. Perhaps, K'far Sh'maryahu…And there is no moral equivalence between the nationalist's refusal and the refusal to fight Israel's enemies. Apples and oranges.

    That being said, Bennett is also pointing out what non-refusal cost Israel on a massive, strategic scale, let alone a moral one. And herein lies the bitter fruits of 'disengagement' – http://honenu.org/articles/the-bitter-fruits-of-d

    Most importantly, expelling Jews is something which no other so called democracy would dare do, yet in Israel it is championed by the left all over. What's going on here?

    Exactly.

    Adina kutnicki, Israel – http://www.adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • Mr. Polly

    It's not news that bullying by Jews intimidates American politicians.

    • Mary Sue

      Bird, stop parroting stormfront.

    • dionissismitropoulos

      Mr. Poly

      It's not news that bullying by Jews intimidates American politicians.

      It's no news that the moral bullying of anti-Semites takes the form of complaining about the imaginary malicious machinations of a Jewish cabal that controls the world through the USA.

      Aren't you fed up with this cliché?

      • dionissismitropoulos

        EarlyBird

        Wait a second Mary Sue and Dion…!

        I'll wait as long as you want, i am very patient.

        Are you suggesting that it is anti-Semitic to acknowledge the mere fact that there is a very powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington, and like many lobbies uses some pretty tough tactics with politicians?

        No, i am not suggesting that it is anti-Semitic to acknowledge that there are lobbies such as the Israel lobby, the Arab lobby, the pharmaceutical industry lobby, and so on almost ad infinitum) vying for political influence.

        I am suggesting that it is anti-Semitic to:

        1) Be preoccupied with just one of those lobbies, the Israeli one.

        2) To refer to it not with the term "Israel lobby", but with the term "Jews", as Mr Polly did – thus demonizing Jews collectively.

        3) To refuse to acknowledge the simple truth that whatever influence the Israel lobby might have is due to the overwhelming support of the American public for Israel, but, instead, to insinuate that its influence derives from behind-the-scenes inappropriate activities.

        That politicians are made to respect public opinion is a fact of democratic life, not a sign of undue Israeli interference.

        4) To talk about the Israel lobby's power without explicitly disavowing the connotations that such talk has, namely that the Jews are secretly trying to dominate the world.

        If you give a banana to any person, intending your gesture to deliver insult to her intelligence, your action is going to be perceived as just that.
        But if you give a banana to a black person for the same reason, your gesture will be (rightly) interpreted as racist. The reason is that there is a history of unfairly labeling blacks as intellectually wanting.

        Given that there is a (very bloody) history of accusing Jews for conspiracies, the least one can do if she has to refer to the Israel lobby is to make sure that she renounces such Judeophobic slurs – something that neither you, nor Mr. Polly did.

        What next, to point out that there is a lot of crime in black neighborhoods makes me anti-black?

        Your analogy is inaccurate, because the Israel lobby does not commit crimes.

        This entire FrontPage website is an extension of the Israel First lobby inside America.

        Thank you for bringing up number five in my list of anti-Semitic Israel criticism:

        It is anti-Semitic to blame the American Jews for disloyalty to America just because they might happen to have a soft spot for their cousins in Israel, cousins with which they share a history of persecution, a persecution that all-too-often was the result of the very trope you just used, i.e. that Diaspora Jews are not really loyal to their countries.

        Serving America is not incompatible with wishing well for Israel.

        But it is certainly incompatible to talk about "Israel- firsters" like you did, while expecting to be believed that you do not harbor some sort of Jew-hatred in you.

        PS. I am a native Greek, live in Greece and i am an atheist, therefore i am not Jewish neither ethnically nor religiously.

        Since you have concluded that i am an Israel-firster, i hope it is obvious to you now how your sweeping anti-Semitic generalization blinds you to reality.

        • EarlyBird

          Like many pressure groups, the Israel First lobby uses demagoguery to shut down honest critics, tarring any politican who disagrees with Israel as "anti-Semitic." It's a label as toxic as "racist" and is used as a weapon.

          The "Israel First" lobby is un-patriotic in as much as it directly represents Israeli interests first, not American ones. It's like Tel Aviv having a seat in Congress. Our ME policy has been virtually co-opted by Israel via this lobby. There is nothing nefarious, conspiratorial or particularly "Jewish" here; it's just very effective.

          Of course, you're engaging in the very demagoguery I'm referring to.

          I love Israel. And I think her right wingers are making a terrible mistake by pursuing Greater Israel via the relentless settlements, and demanding a US war against Iran. And their best ally in the world can't tell them they are making a mistake for fear of the Israel First lobby.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            I love Israel

            I like her, too.

            Like many pressure groups, the Israel First lobby uses demagoguery to shut down honest critics, tarring any politican who disagrees with Israel as "anti-Semitic." It's a label as toxic as "racist" and is used as a weapon.

            Some examples?

            The "Israel First" lobby is un-patriotic in as much as it directly represents Israeli interests first, not American ones. It's like Tel Aviv having a seat in Congress. Our ME policy has been virtually co-opted by Israel via this lobby.

            Some examples?

            There is nothing nefarious, conspiratorial or particularly "Jewish" here; it's just very effective.

            So is the Arab lobby, as evidenced by the fact that we are supposed to forgo our right to free speech so as not to insult Islam.

            But i hear no talk about the Arab lobby.

            Of course, you're engaging in the very demagoguery I'm referring to.

            Actually, i am not.

            I enumerated the reasons that Mr. Polly's statement can be rightly construed as anti-Semitic.

            Merely dismissing my reasons, without argument, does not exculpate Mr. Polly, nor does it turn me into a demagogue.

            I love Israel. And I think her right wingers are making a terrible mistake by pursuing Greater Israel via the relentless settlements, and demanding a US war against Iran. And their best ally in the world can't tell them they are making a mistake for fear of the Israel First lobby.

            If Iran is not stopped from acquiring nukes, both Israel and the US will be hurt.

            Israel is threatened with Holocaust #2. Would you be willing to bet on Ahmadinejad's (or Khamenei's) rationality?

            The threat to the US stems from the fact that, if Iran is not stopped, other ME countries will rush to acquire nukes. How long will it be before they pass them to terrorists? The big Satan will be target #2, after the little Satan.

            But there is also a huge financial cost involved for the US if Iran gets the bomb:
            http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysi

            (Dennis Ross, that coauthored the above, is not a right-winger).

            "Energy markets respond both to actual supply disruptions and to expected changes in supply and demand. A nuclear Iran would raise the likelihood of instability, nuclear proliferation, terrorism and war — and could thus drive oil prices up without disrupting the flow of oil."

            As far as the settlements are concerned, we are discussing a moot point: it is impossible to expect the Israelis to surrender them, given what happened to them with the 2005 Gaza disengagement. Unilaterally surrendering land to the Palestinians, only to be met with terrorist rocket fire instead of, at least, a Palestinian grudging acknowledgement of Israel's generosity, that's what killed the two-state solution.

            A few terrorists situated on West Bank hilltops can wreak havoc in Tel Aviv – Israeli economy will be destroyed.

            If there is any chance that Israelis and Palestinians will live peacefully side by side, this can only be implemented if the international community takes serious steps to force the Palestinians to stop incitement once and for all. Even the "moderate" Palestinian Authority poisons kids' minds every day, effectively breeding the terrorists of tomorrow.

            How can there ever be peace, if one side is brought up not to want it?

            So long as the international pressure is applied on Israel, and not on the Palestinian and Arab leaders that are exploiting their people as pawns in an all-out war to save Arabic/Islamic pride, no peace is forthcoming.

            And that is the international community's fault, not the Israeli right-wingers'.

            And their best ally in the world can't tell them they are making a mistake for fear of the Israel First lobby.

            Obama is telling Israel that she makes a mistake – if you ask me, it is Obama that is mistaken.

            I get the feeling (and i cannot really back it up) that it is the Israeli right-wingers' attitude in general that you do not like, not just their policy on Iran or settlements – perhaps you detest some conservatism emanating from them on social issues?

            Be that as it may, would you give it a minute's thought to consider that their policy on Iran and the settlements might actually be the only pragmatic policy that can help Israel survive?

          • EarlyBird

            I don't have time to provide remedial US politics lessons for you. Find your own examples (hint: the sliming of Chuck Hagel)

            And criticizing the Israel First lobby makes me pro-Arab now? YIkes.

            Like a standard neo-con, you seem incapable of understanding the cost of war. The US literally cannot afford to fight another war, let alone on behalf of Israel, which is fully capable of taking care of herself. Another war and we end up financially like…Greece. Not every threat to Israel is an existential one. Israel is a massive regional military superpower.

            I genuinely wish them the best in fighting off their enemies and hope they can derail an Iranian bomb. But why does it require US blood and treasure? Why must there be absolutely "no daylight" between the US and Israel? When did it become our 51st state?

          • Mary Sue

            If Israel is not defended, the radical extremist Muslims only become stronger and more emboldened. They are the real problem, NOT Israel nor "israel firsters". What part of this are you having trouble understanding?

          • Mary Sue

            since when are American interests divergent from Israeli ones?

            One can be critical of Israeli Government without being anti-semitic however, when one throws one's lot in with those who want to completely anihillate Israel and ALL Jews, THAT is antisemitic whether you realize it or not.

            The settlements are not a mistake, and they are a red herring anyway, as is the "war on Iran" thing. You are being duped.

      • EarlyBird

        "Schmuck." Very thoughtful. For the record, I am aware of the growing Muslim lobby. What's your simple point, that if one is to criticize the Israeli lobby one must also criticize the Muslim lobby. And vice versa certainly, right?

    • Ghostwriter

      Dirty birds of a feather like Mr. Polly and EarlyBird flock together.

      • EarlyBird

        Oh yeah? Well my daddy can beat up your daddy. Nyah nyah nyah!

        Thanks for the stimulating debate.

        • dionissismitropoulos

          EarlyBird

          EarlyBird, I am leaving my reply to you here, because the system has not been restored yet, and our exchange is not visible

          I don't have time to provide remedial US politics lessons for you. Find your own examples

          But I was not asking you for examples so that I will get educated.

          I was asking for them because I couldn’t think of a single instance where an American politician was bullied to accept a wrong policy just to satisfy Israel, as you claimed.

          And this means that your claim is unsubstantiated.

          And criticizing the Israel First lobby makes me pro-Arab now?

          Touchy, aren’t we, EarlyBird.

          I did not say that you are pro-Arab, I said that I cannot hear any talk about the Arab lobby, obviously referring to the world in general, not to you specifically.

          Like a standard neo-con, you seem incapable of understanding the cost of war

          That’s why I alluded to Dennis Ross’ (who is not a neocon) analysis of the cost of a nuclear Iran to the US.

          By the way, “neocon” is, to some people, code for “that Jewish cabal that messes up with our policy”, if I loved Israel I would substitute it with a Judenrein term – “warmonger” for example, since you seem so intent to take the moral high ground in your discussion with me.

          The US literally cannot afford to fight another war, let alone on behalf of Israel, which is fully capable of taking care of herself.

          Bombing Iran’s facilities will be for the US’s own good, as I explained.

          The cost of bombing is minimal, the US does not have to commit boots on the ground as it (stupidly) did in Iraq for years.

          Another war and we end up financially like…Greece.

          I am not a nationalist, so I don’t get offended when you refer to Greece’s bankruptcy – just letting you know, in case that was your intention.

          Greece went broke because of a culture of extensive corruption among the Greek population, we had it coming.

          Not every threat to Israel is an existential one.

          A nuclear Iran is.

          Israel is a massive regional military superpower.

          But the only way to disarm an Iran with nukes will be by nuking Tehran.

          Isn’t it better for the job to be done as soon as possible with conventional weapons, so as not to have Israel resorting to such a solution? It is better even for the Iranian people.

          I genuinely wish them the best in fighting off their enemies and hope they can derail an Iranian bomb.

          Me too.

          But why does it require US blood and treasure?

          It doesn’t.

          Aerial bombing comes cheap – both in terms of casualties and money.

          Why must there be absolutely "no daylight" between the US and Israel? When did it become our 51st state?

          I didn’t say there shouldn’t be any daylight at all between the US and Israel.

          I just think that your interests in the ME are way too intertwined to allow room for such discrepancies in vital issues, such as a nuclear Iran.

          And what do you mean that she is not your 51st sate? Just listening to Walt and Mearsheimer, I thought she were.

    • irateiconoclast

      Your rants are the flatus of the powerless know-nothings. Hope your "issue" are few in number and short of lifespan! Go F yourself, punk!

  • SHmuelHaLevi

    Mr. Netanyahu congratulated Mr. Kerry… a good friend of Israel.
    Now really. Who is he kidding?
    I commented in another article that Mr. Netanyahu is not longer marketable by Mr. Levi's store. He is PAG TOKEF merchandize. Only those prepared to join another massive disengagement and no construction, dividing Jerusalem and letting go of Har Habiat and neither dealing with Iran, may vote for Mr. Netanyahu.
    Th e above forecast is not even a forecast but an obvious representation of facts.

  • martin

    A unified Israel must stand up to the US or it will have a hostile Palestinian state staring down from the Judean hills

    • EarlyBird

      And how does a "unified Israel" "stand up" to the US, upon which Israel entirely depends for its survival? By manipulating American politicians and foreign policy to do Israel's bidding even when it hurts America, and ultimately helps Israel commit suicide in the long term.

      This "special relationship" has become an abusive one, where the Israeli tail is wagging the American dog. The Israel First lobby is using cowardly US politicians to tie America to Israel as it plunges off a cliff.

      Oh, I'll save you the trouble of replying, Martin: "EarlyBird, that makes you an anti-Semite!"

      • Mary Sue

        Early Bird, who the heck have you been listening to? Whoever you're getting this garbage from, stop believing them. They are wrong.

  • teq

    Caroline Glick, you are right on the money, as usual. Obama can be moved, but only if you stand firm against him. If he senses Israel is unsure of itself, he will act the Big Bully, just like he's doing now with gun owners. But if he sees you're standing your ground and ready to fight over it, he'll cave in like he always does because he's essentially a coward.

    To all supporters of Israel (and pro-Second Amendment Rights) I say, Don't Give an Inch! If we stand our ground and even act a bit crazy, Obama and his wimps will surrender and grovel.

  • NAHALKIDES

    I think it unlikely that Obama will fight hard for Chuck Hagel. Obama's priority is and always has been the "fundamental transformation" of America, with national defense assigned a very low priority. Hence Obama's first two SecDef's were Robert Gates, a Bush-era holdover, followed by Leon Panetta, a definite Lefty but someone with broad support on both aisles in Congress. To Obama, personal loyalty on his part means little, and however friendly he might be with Hagel he isn't going to get into a scrap with Republicans he can easily avoid by nominating either a Congressional Democrat or even an Establishment-type Republican.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    Any appointment Obama makes will be against America and Israel, a failed leader will look to
    his own ilk for support and affirmation. The American government at this time is a disaster and
    should not be looked to for any real support, Israel must strengthen itself and act in it's own
    self interest, that is the all and all of it………………….William

  • 11bravo

    Good Luck with the book!!
    Isreal can't even trust the Bush regime, that shouldtell you something about america.
    We need to drill for our own oil !! Take the musloids out of the equation.

    • EarlyBird

      The main success of the pro-Israel lobby has been to convince Americans that Israeli and American interests are identical. This lead to our unnecessary involvement in Beirut in the '80s, and dictated our entire relationship with Arab nations since the '70s – particularly Egypt – as a couple examples.

      "Aerial bombing comes cheap – both in terms of casualties and money." –

      What a foolish, callous statement. Real, costly wars start with "limited" and cheap bombing campaigns. The US has no need to bomb Iran, thereby unleashing another vast wave of psychopathic Islamists against America. THAT would be the cost to the US, at a minimum. And Israel can handle the job of bombing (thought it won't work, even according to IDF generals).

      And why does a good atheist Greek girl care so much about Israeli-US relations and so hell bent on pushing America into another war in the ME? Hmm.

      Oh, and yes, "neo-con" absolutely implies "a Jewish cabal that messes up our policy," if you want to put it crudely. There is a direct link between the foolish neocons and the Israel First lobby.

      • dionissismitropoulos

        EarlyBird

        And why does a good atheist Greek girl care so much about Israeli-US relations and so hell bent on pushing America into another war in the ME? Hmm.

        I respond separately to this, because you are implying the paranoid thought that i am either not a Greek atheist, or i am one but somehow i am involved with the bogyman you name the "Israel lobby".

        I can very easily prove to you that i am Greek (and atheist), and will do so if you ask me, but do you really harbor so much paranoia in you?

        Greek girl

        Actually, i am male.

        • EarlyBird

          I just think you have a lot more skin in the game than you are letting be known. I can't imagine the average Greek woman being such a hawk on behalf of Israel, or any country, and so very interested in America flexing its military might again in the world. I'm not paranoid. I just think you're lying.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            I just think you have a lot more skin in the game than you are letting be known. I can't imagine the average Greek woman being such a hawk on behalf of Israel, or any country, and so very interested in America flexing its military might again in the world. I'm not paranoid. I just think you're lying.

            My interest in Israel is about two years old. I got enervated by the continuing Israel-bashing and slanted coverage for her by my country's media, plus i got fed up with the general anti-Semitism that characterizes Greek society (the neo-Nazi party has already made it to the Parliament, and recent polls give it around 15%).

            I started researching Israel in order to have strong counterarguments against my compatriots' obviously biased perceptions of her, and in the process i got hooked-up: it became a hobby for me.

            I can prove that i am not lying about being Greek and atheist.

            I am a journalist at a small Greek newspaper, you can find some of my articles at the newspaper's site, where i sign by my email (which is the same with my screen name and is, actually, my real name).

            Here is my email:

            dionissismitropoulos38@gmail.com

            And here is the link to the newspaper site:
            http://www.iapopsi.gr/index.php?option=com_k2&amp

            the average Greek woman

            Which part of my previous statement "i am male" you did not understand?

          • EarlyBird

            I've been a registered Republican since I could vote, and cried at Reagan's funeral, to give you some background on me. I am a conservative, and so in recent years – mostly during the W. Bush era – have become appalled at how radical, reactionary, mean, thoughtless, self-descructive and tribal "conservatives" have become. We are seeing the sick, perverted rump end of the Reagan era.

            This all links into the American right's unthinking support for all things Israel, and how now even the US Sec of Def must pass a litmus test in regard to Israel or be slimed as an "anti-Semite. The Israeli right is manipulating American politics and policy via the Israel First lobby and American fools exemplified by so many on boards like this. I am very angry at Israeli for the disrespect they have shown our (any) US president. Israel literally owes its existence to us.

            I am only spending time with you because you are thoughtful. Others on this page are jaw-dropping vapid.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            I've been a registered Republican since I could vote, and cried at Reagan's funeral, to give you some background on me. I am a conservative, and so in recent years – mostly during the W. Bush era – have become appalled at how radical, reactionary, mean, thoughtless, self-descructive and tribal "conservatives" have become. We are seeing the sick, perverted rump end of the Reagan era.

            Me, i am a hardcore Republican when it comes to the economy, but liberal on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage.

            I cannot comment on your perceptions of Republicans, i don't follow American politics deeply.

            This all links into the American right's unthinking support for all things Israel

            Hey, that's a leap of faith!

            It doesn't follow that someone who is mean, reactionary, radical, thoughtless, self-destructive will necessarily side with Israel.

            I am none of these things and i support her.

            Maybe the Republicans are more clear-minded on Israel and can see the benefits that the alliance confers to the US.

            The liberals (probably affected by academic elites, who have already succeeded in making support for Israel non-posh to youngsters) are evincing an increasingly anti-Israel attitude, discounting the benefits of the alliance.

            and how now even the US Sec of Def must pass a litmus test in regard to Israel or be slimed as an "anti-Semite. The Israeli right is manipulating American politics and policy via the Israel First lobby and American fools exemplified by so many on boards like this. I am very angry at Israeli for the disrespect they have shown our (any) US president.

            Hagel is anti-Israel. If we agree that Israel is a worthwhile ally for America, the only ally in the ME, what purpose would be served by appointing someone as hostile to Israel as Hagel?

            Even if there were no Israel lobby, there would have been voices of reason pointing to this fact.

            Israel literally owes its existence to us.

            I disagree. America is a great ally for Israel, her only ally, and i sincerely hope that things will always be that way, but Israel fought the 1948 and 1967 wars on her own.

            I am only spending time with you because you are thoughtful. Others on this page are jaw-dropping vapid.

            Thanks for the compliment.

            I have noticed many others in Frontpage that are really worth talking to, but i am always drawn to people that i disagree with, and haven't had the chance to talk to them because i happen to agree with their views.

          • EarlyBird

            You "… don't follow American politics deeply." …but you refer to yourself as a "hard core Republican" who is liberal on abortion and same sex marriage? Hm. And you're just an ordinary Greek chick living in Greece?

            Our support of Israel has been the right thing to do, morally. It still is. But it's never been the easy thing to do. There have been enormous geo-political and security costs to the US as I've demonstrated. Put another way, Israel could evaporate and all we'd lose geo-politically is a headache and a good weapons client.

            Oil stablity? The entire reason for any ME oil volatility at all has to do with the existence of Israel and fanatical Arab hatred of her. That volatility wouldn't exist if Israel, due to on-going US support, didn't exist.

            Rather than continue to merely assert, try illustrating some of the wonderful "benefits conferred (upon) the US" by our alliance with Israel that have been worth the heartache.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            You "… don't follow American politics deeply." …but you refer to yourself as a "hard core Republican" who is liberal on abortion and same sex marriage? Hm. And you're just an ordinary Greek chick living in Greece?

            I referred to my political leanings in American political jargon so as to give you a clear idea.

            I am a libertarian as far as the economy is concerned (no state interference) but "Republican" conveys this meaning better than the term "libertarian" (which might be mixed-up with "liberal".

            Now i am sure: you are paranoid.

            And you're just an ordinary Greek chick living in Greece?

            And not only paranoid, delusional too (in that i have told you thrice that i am XY, DNA-wise).

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            There have been enormous geo-political and security costs to the US as I've demonstrated. Put another way, Israel could evaporate and all we'd lose geo-politically is a headache and a good weapons client.

            Demonstrated?

            You wouldn't know what demonstration is even if it hit you.

            All you did was to say that there is a threat of Iranian-induced terrorist retaliation, a threat that will be even bigger if Iran gets the bomb.

            As for geopolitical costs, you have not even named them, let alone demonstrate their costliness.

            But you have succeeded (through you tone) in demonstrating that you want Israel to "evaporate" so as to rid yourself of the "headache" you deludedly think she represents.

            Oil stablity? The entire reason for any ME oil volatility at all has to do with the existence of Israel and fanatical Arab hatred of her. That volatility wouldn't exist if Israel, due to on-going US support, didn't exist.

            So, you mean that how markets perceive future oil supply is an irrelevant factor in the price determination? Because, it so happens, that these perceptions get influenced by prospects of war, and a nuclear Iran makes the prospect of Middle East conflict a real possibility, even in the absence of the existence of Israel – does the possibility of war between Iran and Gulf states ring any bells? If not, reread the links that i posted, Arabs seem very concerned with a nuclear Iran because they fear conflict.

            I am sad to inform you that markets evaluate risks (and adjust oil prices accordingly) very differently than you do, because, unlike you, they are in the quest of earning a profit, they are not interested in expressing their anti-Israel bitterness.

            But i got your point, you don't want Israel to exist.

            Rather than continue to merely assert, try illustrating some of the wonderful "benefits conferred (upon) the US" by our alliance with Israel that have been worth the heartache.

            Illustrate what? The billion dollar US arms sales to Saudi Arabia, thanks to the wish of the Arabs to stay close to Israel's cutting edge military force? I thought you knew that.

            Illustrate the fact that there has been an unprecedented stability in the Levant since 1973, a stability that has helped the US enjoy cheaper oil prices that it would have if there were constant wars among Israel and the Arabs? The whole point is that there have not been such wars that would hurt the American economy through increased oil prices. I cannot demonstrate the absence of turmoil, it is you who has to name instances to the contrary – that is, if you could find any.

            merely assert

            Have a look at how many points of mine you have conveniently left unanswered throughout our exchange, and you will get a clear idea about who is the one providing arguments and who is the one merely asserting.

          • EarlyBird

            "But you have succeeded (through you tone) in demonstrating that you want Israel to "evaporate"…"

            Lady, you're back to your cheap tactics of suggesting I hate Jews or Israel. Stop.

            "So, you mean that how markets perceive future oil supply is an irrelevant factor in the price determination?"

            No. I mean that the existence of Israel and the rage it engenders has been the cause of oil supply instability since there has been an Israel.

            You write as if Israel came about just to help out the US and it's oil prices. Absurd. The relative stability we've enjoyed in the region since the mid-70s has to do with the arms and other American support to make Israel the predominant military power, and our massive subsidization of rotten so-called "pro-American" Arab regimes who promise not to mess with Israel.

            Iran (or SA, Syria, Iraq, etc.) and the dysfunctional ME as we know it today wouldn't exist without Israel.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            Earlybird

            Lady, you're back to your cheap tactics of suggesting I hate Jews or Israel. Stop.

            Israel, i only suggest that you hate Israel.

            The way you talked about her, "all we would lose if Israel evaporated is a geopolitical headache", is not exactly the sort of thing that someone who claims to love Israel would say.

            Unless, of course, you are bipolar, on top of your already proved paranoia.

            That would explain your huge mood swings towards Israel.

            As for whether you hate Jews, i stay non-committal, for all i know you might even be Jewish. But the moderators have already deleted one of your comments, so i guess they think your comment was anti-Semitic.

            Lady

            If you want to hurt me, you have to do far better than that.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            No. I mean that the existence of Israel and the rage it engenders has been the cause of oil supply instability since there has been an Israel.

            And that is why i explained to you that your argument is mistaken because it takes for granted that there would be no other conflicts in the Middle East if Israel did not exist.

            There will be other conflicts, and they will be initiated by a nuclear Iran, a prospect that the Arabs dread.

            And markets, are quick to incorporate such prospects into (rising) oil prices.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            You write as if Israel came about just to help out the US and it's oil prices. Absurd.

            No, i don't write that way.

            I said that Israel's military edge has resulted in more stable oil prices than it would have been the case if the US did not help Israel get that edge.

            Both the US and Israel have been motivated by their self-interest, and it is a fortunate contingency that those interests coincide.

            The relative stability we've enjoyed in the region since the mid-70s has to do with the arms and other American support to make Israel the predominant military power

            That's exactly what i have been saying.

            and our massive subsidization of rotten so-called "pro-American" Arab regimes who promise not to mess with Israel.

            Because if they mess with Israel, oil prices will skyrocket. The US wisely has been acting according to its interests, and those interests dictated to strengthen the only democracy in the region that could be trusted as an ally – much of this has to do with the respect that Israel commanded in US circles after successfully engaging in the 1967 war.

            Iran (or SA, Syria, Iraq, etc.) and the dysfunctional ME as we know it today wouldn't exist without Israel.

            Of course the ME would be dysfunctional, even in the absence of Israel's existence. They hate America because they have identified America as the leader of globalization, and the ME Muslim world cannot adapt to the demands of modernity that globalization brings right in their homes.

          • Mary Sue

            Have you been reading a bunch of garbage from the John Birch society?

      • dionissismitropoulos

        EarlyBird

        The main success of the pro-Israel lobby has been to convince Americans that Israeli and American interests are identical. This lead to our unnecessary involvement in Beirut in the '80s, and dictated our entire relationship with Arab nations since the '70s – particularly Egypt – as a couple examples.

        But you do not name what harm, if any, has been done to the US by supporting Irsael. If no harm has been done, then what;s your problem?

        • EarlyBird

          Are you kidding? How about the massive financial and security cost, alone, in our propping up Mubarak, Saddam, Shah of Iran, King Hussein of Jordan and other hardliners for 40+ years, to keep a lid on the Israel haters and terrorists who would otherwise have destroyed Israel? We directly had hundreds of Marines die in Beirut, solely for Israel. The cost in billions of dollars of military support to Israel. And on and on.

          Our entire relationship with the Middle East has been formed by our "special relationship" with Israel, at enormous cost for the US in terms of hatred it has aroused by Arabs and Islamic terror groups, not to mention left wing Euros.

          Like I said before: get educated.

          Much of our support for Israel has been the right thing to do. Continuing support is right. So that is why I enormously resent the Israel First lobby, made up of Americans, to to circumvent American policy interests on behalf of right-wing Israeli politicians.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            Like I said before: get educated.

            It's the first time you say it, and it is really gratuitous, coming from someone who does not sound educated himself – and who does not take the pains to refute my points, but merely asserts his own.

            Are you kidding? How about the massive financial and security cost, alone, in our propping up Mubarak, Saddam, Shah of Iran, King Hussein of Jordan and other hardliners for 40+ years, to keep a lid on the Israel haters and terrorists who would otherwise have destroyed Israel?We directly had hundreds of Marines die in Beirut, solely for Israel. The cost in billions of dollars of military support to Israel. And on and on.

            In case it evades you, the mere existence of Israel has spurred the Arabs to buy weapons from the US, so the US has made up for the aid to Israel in the form of increased arms sales to Arabs.

            But there have been additional financial benefits for America's support of Israel: since 1973, when the US became dedicated to Israel's support, there has been an unprecedented stability in the Levant, and this meant much lower oil prices than the ones the US would be paying if the region were in a turmoil.

            Our entire relationship with the Middle East has been formed by our "special relationship" with Israel, at enormous cost for the US in terms of hatred it has aroused by Arabs and Islamic terror groups, not to mention left wing Euros.

            The Islamists and the radical left-wing Euros would hate you anyway.

            I hope you are not suggesting that the fact that the left-wing Euros disapprove of the US policy on Israel should count as a reason to go against the US's interests by not helping Israel.

            If you become that deferent to unjustified animosity, you are inviting bullies of all sorts – not just Islamic or radical-Left European ones.

            Much of our support for Israel has been the right thing to do. Continuing support is right.

            We agree.

            So that is why I enormously resent the Israel First lobby, made up of Americans, to to circumvent American policy interests on behalf of right-wing Israeli politicians.

            The whole of Israel wants America to bomb Iran's nukes, not just right-wingers.

            And such a bombing will be beneficial for the US too, as i have been arguing.

      • dionissismitropoulos

        EarlyBird

        What a foolish, callous statement. Real, costly wars start with "limited" and cheap bombing campaigns.

        I have already argued that what needs to be done is the destruction of the Iranian nuclear facilities. This requires aerial bombing only. So, there is no real financial cost involved for the US.

        The US has no need to bomb Iran

        You assert it, but offer no counterargument to the reasons i provided for the US to engage in the bombing (financial costs due to high oil prices that will be the result of a nuclear Iran, plus the threat that terrorists will acquire a nuke).

        thereby unleashing another vast wave of psychopathic Islamists against America. THAT would be the cost to the US, at a minimum.

        Glad you finally decided to engage in cost/benefit analysis – i had started to despair with you lack of arguments.

        The threat of Islamic terrorism will always be present for the US. In case you have not realized it, some Muslims hate Americans for what they are, not for what they do.

        That threat will be even bigger in case Iran becomes nuclear. As i have already said, the Arab countries are afraid of Iran's imperialistic expansionism, and demand US action – why are the Arabs trying to push you into another war? Hmmm:
        http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-emhttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/6/uahttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/25/us-gulfhttp://editorials.voa.gov/content/a-41-2007-07-23

        If Iran is left unchecked to get the bomb, the Arabs will follow suit. As i have already said, it will be a matter of time when one ME regime passes one of their nukes to terrorism.

        In that case, the psychopathic terrorists will strike you with nukes, not just ordinary bombs.

        Therefore, the terrorist threat for the US will be bigger, if you do not strike Iran's program.

        And Israel can handle the job of bombing (thought it won't work, even according to IDF generals).

        It is debatable whether Israel can now do it by herself. That would have been the case if she had attacked earlier (but she was dissuaded by Obama). Some military experts say that only the US can now do the aerial bombing properly.

        What a foolish, callous statement.

        Do you always get that rude when you are talking, or only when you feel that you are devoid of arguments?

        • EarlyBird

          "I have already argued that what needs to be done is the destruction of the Iranian nuclear facilities. This requires aerial bombing only. So, there is no real financial cost involved for the US."

          You are not arguing. You are dismissing my concerns about a wider war and/or terror campaign against the US. You have dismissed the fact that IDF generals themselves have stated all along that aerial bombing would by no means knock out the nuclear program. That's always been the case, because of there being so many facilities buried so deep.

          My concern is that the US commits suicide by debt (what Al Queda is hoping to achieve) by getting into another unnecessary quagmire. "Limited" military actions typically have very long term, unintended costs. That War Rule #1.

          Case closed on the aerial bombing campaign.

          And of course Arabs want to push us into another war, this time against their enemy Iran. It hurts Iran and hurts the US. They get two benefits from that. And typically, Euros want the US to do the world's dirty work for them.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            You are not arguing. You are dismissing my concerns about a wider war and/or terror campaign against the US.

            I did not dismiss your concerns about terrorism, i argued that the the terrorist threat to the US will be even bigger if terrorists acquire nukes.

            And i am not dismissing your concerns about a wider conflict, i just can't see a plausible scenario that might lead to that undesirable outcome.

            You have dismissed the fact that IDF generals themselves have stated all along that aerial bombing would by no means knock out the nuclear program. That's always been the case, because of there being so many facilities buried so deep.

            I have not dismissed the fact that IDF generals have stated that the US cannot knock out the nukes by aerial bombing alone, because it is the first time that you bring this up.

            I am not aware of any IDF statement of that sort, do you have a link?

            My concern is that the US commits suicide by debt (what Al Queda is hoping to achieve) by getting into another unnecessary quagmire. "Limited" military actions typically have very long term, unintended costs. That War Rule #1.

            I am a fan of America, and i, too, am concerned with what you aptly called "suicide by debt" (nice one!).

            But there is no denial that all the US has to do is an aerial bombing, and this won't add to the debt. And the real cost for the US of a nuclear Iran is by far bigger than any unintended consequence we may contemplate.

            It's a good attitude to want to stay on the safe side (personally, i am what economists label as "risk-averse"), unless that side is not safe at all.

            Case closed on the aerial bombing campaign.

            I hope i have reopened it.

            And of course Arabs want to push us into another war, this time against their enemy Iran. It hurts Iran and hurts the US. They get two benefits from that.

            I referred to it for the additional reason to show you that there are non-Americans that have an interest in a bombing, and that, therefore, i don't have to be someone who has ulterior illegitimate benefits (as you conjectured) in order to propose such a bombing.

            And typically, Euros want the US to do the world's dirty work for them.

            With contemporary Europeans it's more like they don't even want the US to do the dirty job that will benefit them, too.

            I am not sure i have properly detected a slight annoyance on your part towards Euros' attitude , but, if i have, i fully share it.

          • EarlyBird

            As for a wider war, here's an IDF general:
            http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/

            As for airstrikes not physically being able to wipe out Iran's nuclear program, here's an IDF general:
            http://www.timesofisrael.com/only-the-nuclear-opt

            There are no "safe" or "limited" wars. That's the first thing commanders learn in school, and countries (like the US) learn the hard way. You start an "easy" air campaign and you unleash the dogs of war, especially when dealing with absolute fanatics. It's not necessary or useful, and actually counter to America's (and Israel's) interests.

            Let us give credit to Obama for putting together a brutal sanctions regime against Tehran, based on a soft-spoken diplomacy that shows respect for other nations, rather than the swaggering brand of "leadership" so many American right wingers prefer. Iran's economy is being savaged right now and stirring unrest.

            Oh, for the Euros, I generally consider them useless.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            As for a wider war, here's an IDF general

            The link you posted contains only one sentence by the IDF General, that "an attack on Iran would ignite a regional war". And he obviously means the retaliation by Hamas and Hizbollah against Israel. That's something that would affect Israel alone, not the US.

            Is that all that you' ve got?

            Try this link for the prospects of wider war, a link from a paper that is definitely anti-Israel,
            verging on anti-Semitic, the Guardian:
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/

            As for airstrikes not physically being able to wipe out Iran's nuclear program, here's an IDF general

            Excuse me, but have you noticed that your links refers to Israel's hypothetical aerial bombing, and not to the US'?

            Your link provides evidence that Israel cannot do it properly (a possibility that i have already acknowledged), not evidence that the US cannot do it.

            You seem to have forgotten that your claim was that the IDF Generals have said that the US does not have the capability to knock out the program through airstrikes alone.

            So, do you have a link for your claim?

            Don't underestimate the military strength of your country that much.

          • EarlyBird

            The US doesn't have magic bombs that can sniff out and then destroy nuclear facilities that we don't know how to even locate.

            You might be aware that the US is facing financial meltdown. We literally can't afford to do Israel's dirty work for it, even if it was the right thing in America's interests to do.

            Rather than ME hunting down more "links" for you, do your own homework. It is very common knowledge that an airstrike on Iran is controversial among IDF commanders in regard to its ability to succeed (Israel alone or Israel-US) and the unmanageable repercussions.

            And just use common sense and a bit of history to know how little fun easy wars become big, ugly unmanageable ones. And then put yourself in an American's shoes and ask, "And why do we, again, have to foot the bill in blood and money?"

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            There are no "safe" or "limited" wars. That's the first thing commanders learn in school, and countries (like the US) learn the hard way.

            The recent Libya bombing seemed pretty safe to me.

            You start an "easy" air campaign and you unleash the dogs of war, especially when dealing with absolute fanatics.

            Picturesque, i have to admit, but your assertion does not contain much (read:nothing) evidence or rational argument.

            It's not necessary or useful, and actually counter to America's (and Israel's) interests.

            As i have been arguing ad nauseam, ending Iran's nuclear program is definitely in the interests of both Israel and the US.

            Do you have some counterarguments to the reasons i have already provided for my claim? Repeating again and again your conviction that the aerial bombing will harm Israel and the US does not count as having demonstrated anything.

          • EarlyBird

            This is playing like a broken record.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            This is playing like a broken record.

            Actually not.

            I mentioned for the first time the Libya bombing as a risk-free enterprise, as a counterargument to your claim that there are no safe wars.

            But there is something that plays as a broken record, i.e. some of my other arguments, but only because you refuse to address them.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            Let us give credit to Obama for putting together a brutal sanctions regime against Tehran

            Unlike you, i am not paranoid and i take you at your word that you are a Republican.

            So the only way to explain your congratulating Obama is that you are an anti-Israel firster.<strong/>

            based on a soft-spoken diplomacy that shows respect for other nations, rather than the swaggering brand of "leadership" so many American right wingers prefer.

            When you mentioned the US respect for Iran, i almost cried at your display of sensitivity.

            But, may i suggest that respecting someone who does not respect you is counterproductive?

            Iran's economy is being savaged right now and stirring unrest.

            The sanctions hurt the Iranian people, not the regime's stability. They mullahs will proceed with their nuclear program undeterred, for they have nothing to lose.

            Oh, for the Euros, I generally consider them useless.

            Me too, but what does this have to do with Iran or with your anti-Israel bitterness?

          • EarlyBird

            Your entire response here shows that you have no interest in an honest dialogue, or you literally have a reading disability.

            Good luck. I'm done with all of you warmongering Israel First nutjobs.

          • dionissismitropoulos

            EarlyBird

            Your entire response here shows that you have no interest in an honest dialogue, or you literally have a reading disability.

            Let the other commentators decide if i have a reading disability – if i had to guess, i would think that it is you who has reading problems, seeing that you posted a link that did not refer to what you said it referred.

            As for who had an interest in honest dialogue:

            1) Check how many points of mine you evaded.

            2) Verify that i have addressed every single of your points.

            3) Have a look at your tone since the beginning of our exchange, a petulance coupled with irrelevant ad hominem accusations – even after i disclosed my email and the newspaper i work for.

            You will safely conclude that it was you who was not interested in honest dialogue, not me.

            I'm done with all of you warmongering Israel First nutjobs

            You are a good man, EarlyBird, but the whole world hates you unjustifiably. How misunderstood you are!

            Good luck.

            I just hope you are more sincere in wishing me good luck than you were when you claimed that you love Israel.

            Israel firsters

            Seems to me that you hate Israel more than you love America.

            Yes, there are anti-Israel firsters.

      • dionissismitropoulos

        EarlyBird

        Oh, and yes, "neo-con" absolutely implies "a Jewish cabal that messes up our policy," if you want to put it crudely. There is a direct link between the foolish neocons and the Israel First lobby.

        Whatever you say.

        Just thought of letting you know that the term has potential to harm the Jews collectively.

        • EarlyBird

          Not all American Jews are conservatives, let alone neo-cons. In fact, most American Jews count themselves as liberals.

          Among neo-cons who have influenced American policy, many of them are Jews, but all of them are Israel Firsters. If disingenous Jews wish to use this obvious statement as a chance to charge or imply "anti-Semitism" that is just cheap demagoguery.

  • dionissismitropoulos

    EarlyBird

    I have written a reply since last night, but i cannot post it as a reply to your reply, the system for some strange reason does not show our entire exchange, i read your reply through the notification email.

    I'll wait until it is restored.

  • batya dagan

    During the time Sharon was sort of telling Israel that it is time to leave Gaza I was a writer in a Hebrew paper in LA called SHALOM LA. I was the only writer in LA who wrote agains it and got some of my readers to turn against me. My claim was against giving something and getting nothing in return..No peace

    agreement or even a declaration of stopping terror completely.
    It did not take very long to be the one who was right.Being right is not always wonderful and in this case
    it is horrible.

    I am very proud of BB for standing up to Obama.BB cares about Israel , Obama cares about his legac y

    which he actually may not be so happy about.