I actually agree that support for Israeli aggression is not in the US national interest even as the imperialist conceive it. The State Dept Arabists have been saying this for generations, and have been demoted, fired,or ignored. The world is littered with the remains of empires that, caught in short-sighted obsessions, failed to recognize their own interests. ("I am Ozymandias, King of Kings! Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. . . . " -- the point was made by our comrade Shelley in poetry two hundred years ago.)
>> >
> >Because, among other things, I bother to read what
> >they say..
>
> You've simply taken Cold War talking points and
> cut-and-pasted "Islamic"
> where the word "Communist" used to be. I have to
> assume you're saving your
> creative thinking for the paying customers.
You're full of shit. I was a "revisionist Sovietologist" who spent decades fighting against the Cold War and its mythologies, One of the points I made was that the Soviets never said the sort of things that were attributed to them nor acted aggressively except to defend their borders and outpost allies or third world clients (sometimes) -- basically they were a conservative Great Power whose behavior was almost completely explained by "realist" theories of international relations -- maximizing national interests, not promoting world revolution.
The Islamists, by contrast are not a power or a nation; they do say the things I attribute to them; they have done so consistently for 70 years and they have never said anything else, and they have acted aggressive not to defend their borders, which,a part from a brief period in Afghanistan. they have not got, but to promote the fundi Islamic ideals they advocate through the Muslim world. They are a minority. Most Arab and Muslim leaders are moderate and conservative realists in world politics. This goes for the Iranians too, which indicates that not all fundi Islamists are the same. (The Iranians would probably be happy if we just went home and the Israelis gave the Palestinians a real state.) But the Muslim-Brotherhood/al Qaida types are different story, and these are the people with bombs.
> >
> I would argue that you are being irrational and
> self-destructive by failing
> to see that this problem has to be addressed at the
> causal, not the
> symptomatic level.
Where did I fail to see that. How many times do I have to say that I agree with many of your long term goals, US out, Palestinian nationhood,a peace between Israel and its neighbors and withdrawal behind the Green Line, ending US support for Israel. How many times do I have to say that we're not going to move towards solving the problem of terrorism unless we take steps to address the causes. Are you so blinded by your preconceptions about what I must be saying that you cannot read what I am saying?
> Security checks are a mug's game. They're a
> source of endless expense and
> inconvenience, and long-term they are destined to
> fail because vigilance
> relaxes and lapses occur.
Who was talking about security checks? I was talking about police investigation of terrorist conspiracies and arrest and prosecution of reasonably suspected conspirators before they do things. But security checks (now that you mention them) are not a bad idea either. They're expensive and inconvenient, although I am impressed at how good the TSA has gotten at minimizing the inconvenience, and they miss a lot. There may be failures, jsut as the cops may not catch all the conspirators. Is that a reason to do nothing about the immediate threat?
>
> In short, we can't deal effectively with Islamic
> hatred in a direct way. We
> have to make Moslems not hate us. And if that makes
> things tough for
> Israel, tough.
Have I given you the impression that it would bother me if that would make things tough for Israel? Do you assume that just because I am Jewish =h that I am some sort of Zionist?
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com