The writer has it backwards: the U.S. has endangered Israel by bungling Iraq and opposing the Israel/Palestinean peace process. But everyone should take a step back at this point and remember that the primary responsibility for the current escalation of tensions is Iran. They want to play a larger role, and aspire to be the first Islamist superpower. Nasrallah and Sadr are part of this plan. I don't think that fact is really debatable. The only question is how to handle it. Israel's way was to root out the missiles in Lebanon before Iran's plan could come into play. You call it "adventure", I call it unfortunately necessary self-defense. The idea that Israel somehow wants to be in Lebanon is absurd. Hizbullah, and Iran, forced their hand.

re Adam Holland:
Quite a contorted view. Wasn't it Israel, who has sabotaged all attempts to have a mutually agreed peace accord in Palestine? Israel just wants a dictated peace according to their sole unilateral conditions. Practically an usurpation of all of Palestine. Today the self proclaimed successors of the Holocaust are raging in another country in as much the same way as the Nazis have done in Eastern Europe. It's no longer 'An Eye for an Eye' and 'A Tooth for A Tooth'. It became 'the dentures of a people for a tooth' and 'the eyesight of a people for an eye'.
What a shame! Shame on the perpetrators and the war criminals.

As I remember it, the Palestinians were the ones who turned down the peace proposals made during the Barak / Clinton years.

With respect to the argument against disproportinality: this war seeks to defend the state of Israel, not punish the Lebanese.

I don't think I care to address your comments about "self-proclaimed successors of the Holocaust". Thanks for making your true motivations clear to anyone who might have doubted. Sad that you choose to dishonor yourself and your allies with that kind of trash.

NOTE: for "disproportinality" read "disproportionality"

Re: Adam Holland:
what you call an attempt to 'Defend the state of Israel' is nothing but a mad ravaging in a neighbouring country with the long term goal to expand the borders of Israel still further.
Israel, and of course it's suckling - the U.S. Government - couldn't have done a better job to foster global anti- semitism, than starting this Lebanon war. A war, in which from hundred killed civilians, there may be just 5 Hezbollah. What a relation. Anyway, the Talmud says it - Muslim and Gentiles are worth nothing. Killing them is not immoral, or?

The talmud says nothing of the kind. You are an ignoramus and your bigotry is not worthy of debate, only condemnation.

If the webmaster sees this, I would like to request that the bigoted views of user280 be deleted.

Re. Adam Holland:
Sanhedrin, folio 57a:

....'For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty'...

I believe that bigotry is beyond the question.

What we have here is an artificial nation which was formed in someone else's land by the US (controlling the UN), which is once more forcing its hand over defenseless civilian populations. No matter what the percieved threat is, civilian populations should be respected and no excuse is a good enough justification.

It is obvious to me that Israel is a self-righteous culture (as is the US) in which everybody sees him or herself as a victim, while forgetting that in this case they may have brought it upon them by the destruction and desolation they brought to the Middle East the day Israel was created.

Regardless what the Talmud says, it is well known that all religious people despise the rest of humanity, the jews are no different. I wouldn't take it so personally.

What really gets to me in this case is that Israel is so similar to the US, conducting a war campaign that will turn quickly into a quagmire. It is as if nobody ever learned anything from past mistakes!

i'd like to see more of a follow-up here.... is the Talmud quote accurate? assuming it is, looks like this conversation is another version of the "if you say anything remotely critical of Israel, you are a bigot and anti-Semitic.... a close cousin to the "if you say anything remotely critical of the US administration, you are a traitor".... funny how that is.

A recent French Newspaper(I don't recall the name) corroberrates the story written in the left-wing blogs that the captured(not kidnapped) Israeli soldiers were indeed on the Lebanese side of the border. Another report aired this week on Link TV said this:Israel has a filter for news going to the US. It limits what is shown. You see more Israeli victims than Lebanese. Also the Israeli's choose to put a start time to news stories such as the Gaza and Lebanese invasions to give a favorable and misleading slant to the story. Not mentioned is that the Israelis shelled a Gaza beach killing seven or so Palestinians before the "kidnapping." This is typical of how the Mossad operates. It's called a false flag operation, setting up a reponse from your enemy to justify a much harsher response. If you want to know more I suggest reading "By Way of Deception" by Victor Ostrovsky ,an ex Mossad agent. Furthermore, it was also reported that the invasion of Lebanon was planned well in advance awaiting an excuse to proceed. To be fair one must ask whether the Israeli soldiers were ordered over the border as pawns to implement the Israeli plan. If it's true that they crossed the border into Lebanon maybe somebody can find more eye witnesses. If they can be found and verify the report it would change everything wouldn't it? Israel has totally overreacted. The death and destruction is illegal collective punishment under the UN charter and the world should hold Israel responsible for it. The US should stop all foreign aid and all miltary shipments to Israel. It is theft to use US tax money to support this kind of criminal action and I and many others highly resent it.

Thank you to the contributors who understand that hating the murderous policies of Israel doesn't mean one is an anti-semite. I have rarely been this angry. I see the sorrow of the Lebanese people, really of the whole Middle East, and I wonder who the hell the governments of the US and Israel think they are. They can't do this crap in my name. The 'war on terror' is really a war for control of the resources of the Middle East.

I grew up with a beloved copy of the Diary of Anne Frank, I watched the movie a hundred times, the old movie about the Nuremberg trials helped form my concept of fairness and justice. The laws and treaties that came out of that horrible experience are now being ignored by the US and by Israel. Didn't we learn a lot of lessons about how to treat people at that time? Now the Israeli's are perpetrators of the same type of policies that were used against them. I felt great sorrow for the sufferings of the Jewish people but those feelings have changed as I've gotten older and have realized that the Israelis have brought their current problems on themselves.

The Israeli's disregard UN resolution after resolution (242/338), they go into other sovereign nations and kill innocent citizens with impunity. They violated Lebanon's borders thousands of times (documented with the UN)and then they indiscriminately kill innocents. The next time I see an Israeli government representative on TV saying how much they 'regret' the deaths of innocents (over 700 now) I think I'll throw up because everyone knows they don't mean it. They could care less how many people are killed to further their sick vision of 'peace.' I actually saw an Israel commentator say they were doing the Lebanese a favor. Sick, sick, sick.

The Lebanese Prime Minister asked why Israeli lives are more valuable than Lebanese which is a sad commentary on how we've treated the Arab people.

Israel keeps the Palesinian people penned up and they kill them like fish in a barrel whenever they get a wild hair. They shot a pre-teen girl 20 times even after they knew she was just a little girl (there were transcripts made of the military radio traffic).

The Israli's have caused all this loss of life and infrastructure in Lebanon, have displaced close to a million people then they have the temerity to act like victims. Disgusting.

The Israeli's can't push the propoganda as well as they used to now that we have so many news outlets and the internet. We also have been made aware recently that Wolf Blitzer worked (and probably is still does) for the Jerusalem Post. How biased is that?

The truth is there for people to find and more people are finding it every day.

The Israeli's conducting and supporting this current campaign are disgusting. I almost said disgusting human beings but they certainly are acting without humanity right now.

TIME FOR A NEW "ABOLITIONIST MOVEMENT"

It's the 1830s and a new movement is taking hold: the barbarity of the torture of black people has inspired a movement to abolish slavery. It would take 35 years and 600,000 American lives to run its course, but the deed ultimately was done (not that it didn’t take Black people another 100 years to gain a semblance of REAL freedom)

Today we are in the throws of a new 1830s: what Bradford Plumer is suggesting is surfacing all over the place: The abolition of the "peculiar institution" we know as the relationship between Israel and the United states. We need to come together – as Americans, despite what white people – Christian and Jew, Protestant and Catholic, Republican OR Democrat say or do – AND abolish our support for this racist, colonial enterprise we have been aiding and abetting for 50 years. Palestine has been nearly “wiped off the map” – soon Palestinians will be selling cartons of cigarettes and running Bingo parlors within their own little “reservations.” Nothing freaks out a Zionist more than “criticism” or the questioning of Israel’s right to kill, maim, usurp, torture, imprison, and humiliate people who resist – in the same way (“terrorism”) that Jews should have resisted the Nazis: BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. White southern slave owners reacted the same way as those who will not countenance any criticism of Israel: with total opprobrium and if need be, savagery.

We got away with killing off Indians – what is clear is that Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims are going to take it out of our hide for what we do in the name of our beloved Israel. Democrats can not be both “liberal Black sympathizers” - and Zionist supporters. We must untangle ourselves from this “peculiar institution” before it destroys us.

Indeed, just as John Brown needed an organizing construct to morally justify killing slave owners – Christianity (he was indeed a “terrorist”) - we need to cut Israel off to stop Islam from becoming little more than means of waging a counter-war against the west and particularly, OUR BELOVED UNTED STATES.

ABOLITION NOW!!!!

don't forget when criticizing israelis that many of them, including most of my family members, are opposed to the occupation of palestinian territories and are in favor of a creating a palestinian state. unfortunately, their country is in the thrall of right-wing, expansionist, religious nut-jobs.

as is our country, the united states. most americans believe that the palestinians are the bad guys and that the israelis are the good guys, because that's the way the way the media tell the story, knowing that anything critical of israel will trigger massive retaliation by aipac. and isn't it depressing to watch our elected representatives in washington try to out-do each other in their support for israel? they know, of course, that they won't be re-elected if the israel lobby wants them out of office.

by the way, adam holland, you can't call me an anti-semite, because i'm jewish, but i'll admit to a certain amount of prejudice... everybody seems comfortable with stereotypes about non-jews; i.e., we all joke about the good and bad qualities of norwegians, italians, the french, the irish. but it's a shocking crime to say that israelis tend to be tough, brave, industrious, and indomitable, but also self-righteous, ruthless, and without compassion or compunction.

This is such a bullshit situation.

Here's how I see it:

First of all, just to backtrack for a moment, a better idea in the middle of the last century would have been to simply make Jerusalem an international city, a center of peace where people of all faiths could visit and worship. Matter of fact, the United Nations should have moved their headquarters there. The areas outside of Jerusalem could have stayed the same and Jews in Europe and elsewhere could have emigrated there and mixed in with the local population if they desired instead of claiming the land and removing and pushing out the people who already inhabited the area.

Secondly, moving on, I don't know about anyone else but the god I know and believe in is NOT a god of real estate and didn't promise shit to anyone. Period. How insane to think of this as something godlike -- to be exclusive to a race or group of people! Just like when people say GOD BLESS AMERICA or God allowed us to win a game or other horseshit like that. God is not a respecter of persons. There is no chosen people or race. The only way the Jews were chosen is that Jesus needed to be born into an area of people that had the closest concept of a single godhead so that the message of Jesus might be more easily understood and accepted. The message of Jesus was and is that only thing necessary for mortal salvation is to love God and love your fellow human being. That's it! So this "God promised the land" and "chosen people" and other crap is pure bullshit and lies.

Years ago I remember watching Benjamin Netanyahu on CNN's Crossfire and witnessed how he didn't give a crap about killing Palestinians because all that was important was establishing settlements and pushing out the non-Jews. I could see that he was one of the most evil men in the world and how his policy and attitude would cause great problems for both Israel and the rest of the world. I was much a much younger man then, but I could see plain as day what an asshole he truly was (is). Well, Netanyahu is doing it again. He's like Dick Cheney -- evil to the core and running things behind the scenes. He's the main person pushing the neocon and Zionist agenda -- he doesn't care who lives or dies as long as the Jewish nation continues to expand and push out all the Palestinians.

Bottom line -- the good Israelis need to overthrow the Likud and Orthodox cancers in their government and create a single state and convert Jerusalem to an International city.

Oh, and by the way, I am going to start writing to my elected representatives and let them know that I do not support the stance voted for by Congress in favor of letting Israel kill hundreds of civilians and launch quixotic and bloody wars around the Middle East to fight whatever perceived threats may arise, regardless of what those wars mean for the United States. No way. I will not vote for any candidate who backs Israel unconditionally and I am not the least bit afraid to let these representatives and even my fellow citizens know my position.

While one can appreciate the thoughtfulness involved in most postings there's one very basic premise involved with everything going on in the whole of the situation over there and it applies to every area of conflict. If you(as an agressor)enters into my country/neighborhood/home in pursuit of what you deem villanous persons and in the process you injure/maim/kill innocent friends/family of mine ,then you have just made me your worst enemy and I will be even more militant than those you pursued,less forgiving and this applies even more ardently when it is an invading army/police force. Now on that premise alone look around the middle east and apply this one simple principle and you will see that all the actions that have taken place in the last 5 years have done nothing more than add to the ranks those whom were initially pursued and now the pursuers are the pursued. All this fighting and invading going on amounts to one thing,recruiting posters for innocent injured parties to join resistances/militants.

Here in South America we used to have a good view of Israel, especially because of the Holocaust, but that is over. Some people in that country seemed to have learned only the bad things out of that terrible experience. The way Olmert and his gang have reacted, for example, is appaling. Why such savagery? To show that the life of an Israeli is worth ten Lebanese and Palestinian lives? If this is the case, then Hitler's hateful methods have good promoters. What an irony! Now if Israel wants to destroy its opponents' will to fight for a fairer relationship, they won't be successful. In any case, the citizens of the world don't fall for the western propaganda which twistes reality trying to convince us that they are the good guys, regardless of what they do.Anyway, it is good to hear people like Matt, who show that many citizens in Israel are opposed to its fascist policies.

By the way, the American public should DEMAND their represenatives -both Democrats and Republicans- to make up their minds. Are they going to defend American interests or Israel's. If it were another country, of course, they could even tried as traitors.

Israel behaves like an overly dependent child and the U.S. responds like a typical overly permissive parent believing the child can do no wrong and springing to its defense if there is even a suggestion that it is time for the child to grow up and act like an adult. Though Israel has the wealth and resources to be independent, their overwhelming sense of entitlement, perhaps it is in their dna, compels them to seek, if not demand, continuous support by the U.S. at the level to which they have become accustomed.

In fact, the time has come for parent and child to cut the umbilical cord and for each to maintain separate households. The relationship is counter productive for each of the parties. Both are control freaks. Within the personalities of each there is too much want and not enough give.

To add to everything already said, in a way the ultimate responsibles are not the political leaders for whom people voted for. Sense of collective responsibity makes mature nation.

No matter who anyone agrees or disagrees with, my ?? is simple. Is it really worth the thousands of innocent lives that are sure to be lost ??.

.

Israel behaves like an overly dependent child and the U.S. responds like a typical overly permissive parent believing the child can do no wrong and springing to its defense if there is even a suggestion that it is time for the child to grow up and act like an adult. Though Israel has the wealth and resources to be independent, their overwhelming sense of entitlement, perhaps it is in their dna, compels them to seek, if not demand, continuous support by the U.S. at the level to which they have become accustomed.
In fact, the time has come for parent and child to cut the umbilical cord and for each to maintain separate households. The relationship is counter productive for each of the parties. Both are control freaks. Within the selfhood of each, there is too much want and not enough give.

"Sanhedrin, folio 57a:

....'For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty'..."

In response to user280's posing, this is a popular trick among the neo-fascists -- take a quote out of context so to libel Jews and Judaism.

The Cutheans were a Samaritan tribe that converted to Judiasm under false pretenses. They intended to destroy Judaism and Torah from within. As they were intending to destroy Torah, the rabbinic authorities of the time ruled that they were not entitled to the Torah's protection. It was not legal to steal or harm a Cuthean, and such was certainly not encourage. But if wronged, a Cuthean was not afforded protection provided by Torah law.

This was a one-time emergency measure as the Cutheans were a real threat. It is a ruling that applies to no other situation. It does not apply to today's Christians or Muslims. Yet I have seen this quote taken out of context and misapplied in numerous neo-Nazi websites.

I am with Paul Revere on this. If the insiders of the Democratic Party think that the politically correct thing is to continue the unconditional support of Israel and its Fascist/terror reign on their neighbors, (in order to win the Jewish vote); they should start packing their bags soon. They will, along with the evildoing Republicans, gradually lose our support and will be voted out of office.
One thing their "dangerous stance" has done for me and many of my colleagues is to let us know what the Democrats a really made off.
Some of them now coming to the defense of Joe Lieberman, like Senators Christopher Dodd, Clinton and other insiders, may pay the price for supporting Israel and decades old Policies that have failed.
Just as Paul Revere, I have shed the politically correct attitude of "not insulting Israel"__From now on, I will not be intimidated with the race card or anti-Semitic story. I will oppose the candidacy and nomination of any person who supports Israel and its unending arrogant abusive game in the Middle East.
I further think that Israelites should pick up the tab for the relocation of thousands of their Eastern European Immigrants and pay their welfare bills themselves instead of using US taxpayer dollars to support their economy, their military, and Palestinian land occupation.
The Democratic stance is not only dangerous and wrong but also immoral...
My litmus test won't be abortion, the American flag burning issue or same sex marriage, nor the more pressing issues of health care, education or the environment.
It will suffice to know a candidate supports Israel for me to vote against that person.

Excellent point to consider. A wise saying from a wise person. I do agree.

Excellent point to consider. A wise saying from a wise person. I do agree.

I always wonder why is that an Arab and an Israelis can work together in US but not in the Middle East? Does anyone might know?

Whew! Seems like everbody is doing it and I guess I'll just have to jump on the bandwagon and spout off my mouth too. It is indeed a difficult problem politically speaking as well as culturally. When Reaganism conquered the American mindset, Jews were basically a socialist oriented group. By American standards Israel itself could have easily been construed as communistic, especially by the McCarthy standards one could find in the Reagan administration. Of course Israel was never presented as such to the American public. Still one need only consider the concept of a Kibbutz and it becomes obvious that this is certainly not capitalism. Jews in the US have traditionally represented the left. Merely look at that group, which suffered the central attack of McCarthyism in the 50’s and I believe you’ll find that Jews are overly represented in terms of their percent of the American population. Financially, politically and intellectually, Jews have been a strong force in the Democratic Party. The conditions that surround Israel and the reasons why Israel became a state at the end of WWII are related in a cultural-historical sense to why Democrats are having a difficult time adopting a more critical position in terms of the present Israeli war on Lebanon if not the last 30 years of continuous human rights violations committed by the Israeli state against the Palestinian people. As a consequence the Democrats have become reduced to a band of ideologists caught in the fray of loyalty built upon party associations to the cause of Zionism, which one must add is clearly not the cause of the United States and in particular this loyalty finds itself not based upon the content of one’s actions or the general principles that the democratic party is founded upon. So from where does this loyalty come? In my tiny opinion, one ought to judge the actions taken by a state according to the grounds for the given action and then weighing in its moral content and deciding—is this acceptable, can I as a free individual accept that kind of action. Above all else one must not allow loyalty to be bound to a foreign nation for the sake of it being some nation in particular (alliances can often lead to this kind of behavior) or because the nation called into question is ruled over by a particular race or has a particular religious background—one must weigh up what it is that the nation in question is doing and why it is doing it.

Today in the US the ‘anti-Semitic’ weapon is used rather quickly to fend off all criticisms of Israel and therefore it is used unsoundly and unjustly. I mean the bombing of hospitals, power stations and fuel depots, so as to cripple hospitals in the long run and to weaken the effect of aid organizations when they finally arrive. Thus the purpose of these attacks are to increase the death toll under the belief that this will drive a wedge between Hezbollah and the Lebanese people. It will of course unite them and that is what we see. What sits stamped in my brain is the meaningless death of those 37 children, reduced to tiny lifeless dangling limps, or the apparent deliberate targeting of UN observers as well as the targeting of Lebanese civilian population in general—This cannot be accepted! It cannot be condoned and since the conflict escalated, the Israeli government seems to pop up on the TV screen several times a day saying oops, sorry, just an accident. When 25% of a population in a nation is made homeless and the entire infrastructure of a nation is ruined, world condemnation will hold Israel responsible, and therefore Americans will have to answer for Israel’s actions (which they can’t do in a convincing way) since the Bush administration openly condoned what is morally unacceptable, and in particular when the US is that nation who could stop Israel cold in its tracks. In fact the entire credibility of the Israeli government and their military have been called into question and the validity behind their words is similar to the “word” of the Bush administration, that which defines American policy and Israeli policy—that is they are now both inseparable liars in cahoots with one another.

Still in the US to criticize Israel at all, is tantamount to being stamped “anti-Semitic” and this is not only a dangerous development but also in the long run quite stupid. The US strikes me as a rather superstitious society that perceives itself as representing the “good” in the world. Since the 50’s it has for propaganda purposes associated to “communism” the concept of demonic “evil”. The difficulty here if one wants to think about this tactic in terms of “National Security” is that the US by its fanatical demonizing of communism has produced an educated mass, extending over 50 years in time that cannot discuss one of the 19th century’s most influential thinkers on the 20th century, Karl Marx, because of superstition (I say superstition because McCarthyism is not an analysis of communism merely an oppressive machine that criminalizes the ideology – thou shall not read Marx) The problem is that almost everyone else in the world during the 20th century did read him. Again the rest of the world does not cling to Israel’s ‘manifest’ goodness in the same way that Americans do. But in defense, we Americans are caught by that Jewish immigrant culture that blossomed here to the benefit of us all, because of great writers like say Bellow or Singer or a horde of filmmakers, Spielberg comes immediately to mind or even through pop-rock-country music like say the legendary Bob Dylan and a multitude of others not to mention the business genius and intellectual genius, who have literally woven the American assimilations of Jews into our culture in a way that a person’s Jewishness is not a good thing or a bad thing but is part and parcel to an American thing, it is a cultural personality trait and persona that we accept and has become a part of us all and we are attached to it in a way in which most parts of the world cannot comprehend really. Still while Jews have become successfully assimilated into American society, the Israeli question is one that could ultimately lead to a serious divide in the US. The reason I say this is because while Jews in a Semitic sense of the word do in fact have a direct relationship to the Middle East, Jews in general do not. The majority of Jews are not “ethnically” Semitic (I mean Middle Eastern) as a group and this is somewhat problematic. What is a Jew or Jewish is in fact a difficulty. I mean as a religion it is easy but as a “race” thing it is not. If we consider a city like that of Jerusalem, it is not directly a Jewish phenomenon, either, well at least since Christ, and with the advent of Mohammed it certainly is a city that is part of the Islamic heritage as well. Still the ethnic cleansing that has become a policy of the Israeli government has resulted in half of the people that live in Israel are oppressed, degraded and dehumanized—an entire people born into captivity. While forms of camouflage of this fact might aid in the short run of controlling American public opinion it is not held from the eyes of the world in general, which means that eventually it will find its way into the mainstream of the American public. At present Jews in America are stupidly attempting to paint a picture of “European Anti-Semitism” while not presenting the reality behind where this anti-Israeli sentiment is coming from, as compared to a very small minority who are truly anti-Semitic bigots but who do not represent the European mentality as a whole. I say stupid because Israel’s survival builds on European trade and to then paint Europeans as something they are not will not help the Israeli position—it weakens it. And so the United States, whose true power is built upon a principle of global economic interdependence, the security and future of the American state, in terms of its principles of human rights, equality, liberty and justice for all becomes rather quickly a symbol of hypocrisy in the eyes of the world. Democrats will have to take a stand on this or remain a pack of hypocritical slaves. To disagree with Israel is not to be anti-Semitic!

Like most Americans, I have been a long-time supporter of Israel and defended it's right to exist. Having said that, I'm ashamed and disgusted at the Jewish state's outrageous overreaction to the kidnapping of two of it's soldiers by Hezbollah. Israel's obscenely over-the-top response has resulted in almost a thousand innocent Lebanese citizens (most of whom were women, elderly, and children)and the almost complete destruction of the fledging democracy's infrastructure. The Israeli government's knee-jerk response has, unfortunately, resulted in nearly a hundred Israeli deaths and many more injured. Sadly, after nearly a month of bloody conflict, the two soldiers remain captured,in Hezbolla imprisonment. So much for the effectiveness of Israel's "recovery" tactics. Sadly, the Jewish state's abominable behavior hasn't elicited any criticism from any U.S. politicians, Democrat or Republican. I find that quite appalling, even chilling. But not surprising. Even a cursory study of U.S./Israel relations and the role that AIPAC has played in formulating U.S. policy visavis Israel clearly shows why our politicians (supported by the equally influenced U.S. media) are all participating in an updated version of the "Silence of the Lambs".I'm a life-long Democrat. I'm no anti-semite. I spent most of my working life in the garment industry; with and for, mostly, wonderful Jewish individuals. I love the Jewish people and their wonderful culture but, having said that, I'm infuriated with the Israeli governments brutal behavior and my own government's double standards.

One of the reasons that Americans are given to justify the $3+ billion that the U.S. gives annually to the state of Israel is because Israel provides us with "security in the region". Personally, I've heard this rationale from both Democrat and Republican leaders and office holders for decades. The facts, however, couldn't be further from the truth. For example, the decision to give $2.2 billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an Opec oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For all that, Israel's armed forces were not in a position to protect US interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead.

The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel had become a strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel was eager for the US to attack Iraq, President Bush could not ask it to help without triggering Arab opposition. So Israel had to stay on the sidelines once again.

Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by 'rogue states' that back these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, but that the US should go after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally in the war on terror, because its enemies are America's enemies. In fact, Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.

Terrorism' is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that threaten Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is not random violence directed against Israel or 'the West'; it is largely a response to Israel's prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits.

As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons-which is obviously undesirable - neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with these states. Israel's world-class nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change merely increases that desire.

A final reason to question Israel's strategic value is that it does not behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and to refrain from 'targeted assassinations' of Palestinian leaders)...

Israel has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China, in what the State Department inspector-general called ''a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorised transfers''. According to the General Accounting Office, Israel also ''conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any ally''. In addition to the case of Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in 2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official named Larry Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.

Israel's strategic value isn't the only issue. Its backers also argue that it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel's conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection, none of these arguments is persuasive. There is a strong moral case for supporting Israel's existence, but that is not in jeopardy. Viewed objectively, its past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians.

Israel is often portrayed as David confronted by Goliath, but the converse is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 War of Independence, and the Israel Defence Forces won quick and easy victories against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967- all of this before large-scale US aid began flowing. Today, Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are far superior to those of its neighbours and it is the only state in the region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so. Syria has lost its Soviet patron, Iraq has been devastated by three disastrous wars and Iran is hundreds of miles away. The Palestinians barely have an effective police force, let alone an army that could pose a threat to Israel. According to a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies, 'the strategic balance decidedly favours Israel, which has continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability and deterrence powers and those of its neighbours.' If backing the underdog were a compelling motive, the United States would be supporting Israel's opponents.

That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when this was thought to advance its interests - it has good relations with a number of dictatorships today.

Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a 'neglectful and discriminatory' manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full political rights.

A third justification is the history of Jewish suffering in the Christian West, especially during the Holocaust. Because Jews were persecuted for centuries and could feel safe only in a Jewish homeland, many people now believe that Israel deserves special treatment from the United States. The country's creation was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long record of crimes against Jews, but it also brought about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.

This was well understood by Israel's early leaders. David Ben-Gurion told Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress:

"If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-semitism, 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?"

Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the Palestinians' national ambitions. When she was prime minister, Golda Meir famously remarked that ''there is no such thing as a Palestinian.'' Pressure from extremist violence and Palestinian population growth has forced subsequent Israeli leaders to disengage from the Gaza Strip and consider other territorial compromises, but not even Yitzhak Rabin was willing to offer the Palestinians a viable state. Ehud Barak's purportedly generous offer at Camp David would have given them only a disarmed set of Bantustans under de facto Israeli control. The tragic history of the Jewish people does not obligate the US to help Israel today no matter what it does.

Israel's backers also portray it as a country that has sought peace at every turn and shown great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs, by contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. Yet on the ground, Israel's record is not distinguishable from that of its opponents. Ben-Gurion acknowledged that the early Zionists were far from benevolent towards the Palestinian Arabs, who resisted their encroachments - which is hardly surprising, given that the Zionists were trying to create their own state on Arab land. In the same way, the creation of Israel in 1947-48 involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and rapes by Jews, and Israel's subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority. Between 1949 and 1956, for example, Israeli security forces killed between 2700 and 5000 Arab infiltrators, the overwhelming majority of them unarmed. The IDF murdered hundreds of Egyptian prisoners of war in both the 1956 and 1967 wars, while in 1967, it expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from the newly conquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan Heights.

During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that '23,600 to 29,900 children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the first two years of the intifada.' Nearly a third of them were aged ten or under. The response to the second intifada has been even more violent, leading Ha'aretz to declare that 'the IDF . . . is turning into a killing machine whose efficiency is awe-inspiring, yet shocking.' The IDF fired one million bullets in the first days of the uprising. Since then, for every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians, the majority of whom have been innocent bystanders; the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli children killed is even higher (5.7:1). It is also worth bearing in mind that the Zionists relied on terrorist bombs to drive the British from Palestine, and that Yitzhak Shamir, once a terrorist and later prime minister, declared that ''neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.''

The Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn't surprising. The Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions. As Ehud Barak once admitted, had he been born a Palestinian, he ''would have joined a terrorist organisation''.

So if neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel, how are we to explain it? The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby.

We use 'the Lobby' as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. This is not meant to suggest that 'the Lobby' is a unified movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004 survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were either 'not very' or 'not at all' emotionally attached to Israel.

Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud Party's expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups-such as Jewish Voice for Peace-strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences, moderates and hardliners both favour giving steadfast support to Israel.

Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli officials, to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals. As one activist from a major Jewish organisation wrote, 'it is routine for us to say: "This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the Israelis think." We as a community do it all the time.' There is a strong prejudice against criticising Israeli policy, and putting pressure on Israel is considered out of order. Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the World Jewish Congress, was accused of 'perfidy' when he wrote a letter to President Bush in mid-2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb construction of its controversial 'security fence'. His critics said that 'it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies being promoted by the government of Israel.'

Similarly, when the president of the Israel Policy Forum, Seymour Reich, advised Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to reopen a critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip, his action was denounced as 'irresponsible': 'There is,' his critics said, 'absolutely no room in the Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security-related policies . . . of Israel.' Recoiling from these attacks, Reich announced that 'the word "pressure" is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.'

Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place (tied with AARP) in the Washington 'muscle rankings'.

The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of whom believe Israel's rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be contrary to God's will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton; Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett, the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast supporters.

The US form of government offers activists many ways of influencing the policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and members of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They enjoy a disproportionate amount of influence when they are committed to an issue to which the bulk of the population is indifferent. Policymakers will tend to accommodate those who care about the issue, even if their numbers are small, confident that the rest of the population will not penalise them for doing so.

In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm lobby, steel or textile workers' unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting to sway US policy: the Lobby's activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are weak, which makes the Israel Lobby's task even easier.

The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its significant influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker's own views may be, the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the 'smart' choice. Second, it strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a positive light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting its point of view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical comments from getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is essential to guaranteeing US support, because a candid discussion of US-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favour a different policy.

A key pillar of the Lobby's effectiveness is its influence in Congress, where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues. Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey, who said in September 2002: ''My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to protect Israel.'' One might think that the No. 1 priority for any congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports Israel's interests.

Another source of the Lobby's power is its use of pro-Israel congressional staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, 'there are a lot of guys at the working level up here'-on Capitol Hill-'who happen to be Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain issues in terms of their Jewishness . . . These are all guys who are in a position to make the decision in these areas for those senators . . . You can get an awful lot done just at the staff level.'

AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby's influence in Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the lobbyist Jack Abramoff's shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates.

There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had 'displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns'. Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: 'All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians-those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire-got the message.'

AIPAC's influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to Douglas Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, 'it is common for members of Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.' More important, he notes that AIPAC is 'often called on to draft speeches, work on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors and marshal votes'.

The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world.

In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ''you can't have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.'' Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ''when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: "Help AIPAC."'

Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population, they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates 'depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money'. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonise them.

Sources for the above include John Mearsheimer who is the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, and the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. And Stephen Walt who is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. His most recent book is Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy.

Lawrence J. McDonald
Fairview Park, OH 44126

Israel didn't send the US to fight in Iraq and Israel not influences her to stay or to quit.

The systematic attempts to link Israel to the US's Iraqi problem it's just a bad attempt to hit Israel from the back and to make her more vulnerable and a target for Anti Semite in the US and Islamo Fascists in the ME.

Without question, Iran must immedietly shut down it's clandestine uranium enrichment program. The Persian state is in clear violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that it voluntarily ratified along with 187 other nation-states around the world. Nations who are not completely transparent with their nuclear programs can only be viewed as potential threats to world peace.

Having said that, Israel, the Persian state's arch-enemy, should also open up it's own secret nuclear facilities to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT) inspectors. The problem is, since Israel never ratified the NNPT, it has no obligation to the United Nations (or anyone else) to disclose even the existence of their nuclear programs. Were it not for unauthorized photographs of Israel's underground nuclear bomb factory, taken by former Israeli nuclear technician, Mordechai Vanunu, and published in 1986 in the London Sunday Times, nobody (including the United States) would know today that Israel has a world-class nuclear arsenal. So Israel's not-so-secret nuclear program, although not technically in violation of the letter of international law, provokes anger and resentment with it's middle east neighbors, especially Iran.

No question, Iran must immediately permit International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to visit all of it's nuclear sites. Continued secrecy can only increase the anger and suspician already being felt by the international community. But unless and until it's enemy, Israel, also comes clean regarding it's own nuclear activities, any visions of peace and stability in the region are pure fantasy.