Bill Arnold wrote: > > >> Oh the anarchy of these threads. "run the show" came from an >> earlier thread. I now see what you said was "seized US >> foreign policy". >> > > > AIPAC, as powerful as it is, could not have launched that invasion by > itself, thus the involvement with the neocons, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. > It took this combination to actually seize control and pull that off. > There are overlapping interests involved, but the driving force, the > passion that makes war actually happen, came from "soldiers of Israel", > with players like Wolfowitz, Perl, Feith, Libby et al, who wanted Saddam > taken out and the ME brought under control. The plan was to conquer Iraq > and then other enemies, e.g. Iran and Syria, who didn't bow down before > this authority. > > In effect, AIPAC seized control of our foreign policy, but with the help > of the neocon gang. >
You left out the influence the Religious Righters played both in bringing support to the Bush Administration to protect Israel, and in going to the poles on election day to keep the supporters of the war in office. The neocons may have been the primary force behind driving the country to war, but there success in large measure was a direct result of their ability to complete control the Religious Righter via manipulation. The Religious Righters turned the war into a struggle between right and wrong, Christian and Zionist versus Muslim; a present day Religious Crusade; a Religious war. Regards, LelandJ > > >> Interestingly prior to 1948 influential >> Zionists (like Martin Buber) felt that there only needed to >> be one state and that Jews could live respectfully as a >> minority in the state of Palestine. A Jewish state wasn't >> necessary. Actually a more literal translation is "the Jews' >> state" not "the Jewish state". After 1948 this position >> could no longer be held. Terrible things went on in 1948. >> Many Palestinians were forced out of their homes. Many have >> remained in refugee camps (like the one in the news recently >> in Lebanon). Yes they have been used as pawns in a bigger >> game. And yes 60 years is far too long, though even >> Palestinian mayors admit they lack the infrastructure to take >> back in the descendants of all the refugees. I would argue >> that it is not Israel that does not want to see a resolution >> to this problem. And while Israel has undoubtedly blown many >> opportunities for peace the Palestinians have not helped >> themselves either. Yasser Arafat and his cronies set back >> the Palestinian cause as does Hammas (who only won 30 % of >> the vote against a divided split-list Fatah in the most >> recent elections). Now the Palestinian clans of the strong >> men fight it out in Gaza. Terrifying and disappointing the >> Palestinians once again. >> > > > I think the players on both sides of that equation are nuts and will > very likely fight it out to the bitter end. 60 years has accomplishing > nothing, and that situation today is worse then ever before. The > destruction in Lebanon, the building of that wall, the agony of the > Palestinians, the permanent bases to occupy Iraq, the brandishing of > nuclear weapons, the response in the form of terrorism, the religious > fanaticism underneath it all, the arrogant, belligerent attitude of > Israel's rulers, the fact that terrible weapons abound, ... taken > together paints a picture of a giant red arrow pointing to a place that > we don't want to go to. > > But here we are today, at war in 2 countries, neither of which we can > 'win' in any sense of the word, but "staying the course" as laid down > for us by the neocon gang following the influence of Israel's supporters > in this country. > > At this point, we can bury ourselves with details of 60 or 2,000 years > of history, or we can look at the big picture as it is, realize we've > been taken for a ride down the wrong road, and do what we have to do to > back out. Because of what's happened so far, this will be extremely > difficult to do, but staying the course is the worst choice of all. > > > >> And yes Israel is a secular multi party democracy with a >> free press, an independent judiciary, trade unions, religious >> freedom etc. In fact Israel is the only such democracy in >> the middle east. >> > > > Sounds like you're unaware of the requirement for a Jewish majority in > Israel. Search "jewish majority" for more information. A real democracy, > as I see it, is neutral to religion, and one that starts with the > requirement for a religious majority is a fake. > > > Bill > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
