"I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plough someplace where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was."

-- Moshe Dayan, Israel's former Minister of Defence, describing how to provoke a military incident on the Golan Heights. From a 1976 interview with Yediot Ahronot newspaper, given on condition that it not be published till after his death. Cited in Ari Shavit's The Iron Wall, p.236-237.

Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967. The UN Security Council would guarantee this arrangement, and thereby bring the Soviet Union - then a supplier of arms and political aid to the Arabs - into compliance. As Israeli troops were withdrawn from the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank they would be replaced by a UN peacekeeping force. Israel would agree to accept a certain number of Palestinians and the rest would be settled in a Palestinian state outside Israel.

The plan drew favorable editorial support in the United States. The proposal, however, was flatly rejected by Israel. “The whole affair disgusted Fulbright,” writes [his biographer Randall] Woods. “The Israelis were not even willing to act in their own self-interest." Allan Brownfield in "Issues of the American Council for Judaism," Fall 1997.

Yes, Ignorant, that'll do the trick--the UN guarding Israel's borders, because you know, they're doing such a brilliant job now making sure all those Africans are safe from savage militia. I'll tell you what, lets put some Irish military there.  Please, by all means, volunteer as many of them as you'd like.  The ones I've seen in Israel just love to get drunk and make fools of themselves.  Israelis aren't big drinkers, so you can imagine the looks of disgust on their faces.  

If your ideas weren't so dangerously out-of-touch, they'd be funny.  Hardy-fucking-har.  

Iggy: You know how to cherry-pick anecdotes. The right is great at this, too, in totally different contexts. No provocation ever from the Arabs. As to Mr. Peretz's citing of the etiology, those who cry crocodile tears about the Palestinians never but ever mention the ststus of the Palestinians under Jordanian rule. Or for that matter, the attempt by Palestinians to overthrow the late King Hussein. Attention to historical detail is wonderful, in fact it redresses historical amnesia but there needs to be an end to it as a polemical tool. If the Arab states would truly make peace with Israel and not just a cold peace that characterizes the Egyptian approach to Camp David, I would be on the vanguard of those screaming for a Palestinian state. Iggy, you do know, do yoiu not, that the homicide bombers destroyed Peace Now, do you not? If I started such a campaign in your actual back yard, you might be a little hesitant to give me a plot there.

Actually Molly 84 Irish Blue Helmets have died. An extraordinary amount per head of our small population. But then again, we know the UN is at best incompetent or even evil, isn't it?

You really should cop on to yourself.

By the way, Ignorant, I usually deplore the kind of slur I just slung at the Irish.  I've generally had nice experiences with your countrymen and their descendants. (Not so much the Boston Irish, but that's another story.  Some of them can be as anti-semitic as you seem to be.)  However, you just bring out the nasty in me.  

God, I can't stop today, but it's kind of pathetic that the Syrians would spaz out over a little farmer with his tractor.  Can't imagine how they'd respond if they had to put up with the shit that the Gazans pull on Northern Israel on a daily basis.  But then you, in your enlightened frame of mind, hold Arabs at a lower standard.  

I'll make you a deal Molly: you stop calling us idiot drunks and I won't call you a hook nosed banker, cause they're about the same. And please, please enough of the binary stuff. Leave that to Jack. He's due any moment.

A very interesting proposal John. I'm very much for it.

If they rejected it, shame on them.

It's good to see Syria and Israel appear to negotiate in good faith. It makes sense, obviously Israel can mess with Syria at least as much (and probably more) than Syria can mess with Israel, and I don't think, at the end of the day, Syria wants to be merely reduced to Iran's puppet.

It's in both of their interests to negotiate, peace is far more beneficial than hostilities (like with Egypt in the 70s) and I imagine some agreement not based on mutually blind trust can be forged.

Louis, comrade, fellow social democrat, it's good to read you again. We're voting on Lisboa at the moment. The No vote is gaining ground, I'm afraid to report. Do you have a referendum on it as well?

Molly, surely we can agree to disagree, you have a lovely nose.

Liberal - there's more to this than Marty's version of events, that's all I'm saying.

The Ignorant Populist said:  "I'll make you a deal Molly: you stop calling us idiot drunks and I won't call you a hook nosed banker, cause they're about the same. And please, please enough of the binary stuff. Leave that to Jack. He's due any moment"

Leave to the Irish sot to come with a nasty and asymmetrical proposal.

. Some of the biggest noses I ever saw were on the faces of Scottish and Irish people. Besides the hook nose is unknown in Southern Ireland.  In any case, noses:  hooked, curved or long or short snubbed Irish ones are a physical fact

Drunkards and bankers are not physical attributes. That this deranged bigot idiot associates Jews with banking shows the quality of his mind.

There are more Jewish scientists than bankers, but never mind.

This is what you get Molly for addressing this sot.

About the Dayan quote, it makes the rounds on all the anti-Israel websites be they Arab or neo Nazi. Everything, Ignoble asshole post on Israel comes from these sites.

luispc said: "A very interesting proposal John. I'm very much for it."

Figures, you like it's pragmatic quality do you?

btw: what happened to the rest of the entries here?

Iggy: There's also more this than your version of events, ig. Hey, to purloin Rodney King's famous 1992 meme, can't we all just get along? Moll, you too.

Oh so aptly self named Ignorant One.  You never cease to amaze me how insightfully you label yourself such that even when you cherry pick, you can't get it right.  The book "The Iron Wall" was NOT  written by Ari Shavit (one of Israel's more respected and intellectually honest journalists and commentators) but by Avi Shlaim, an ex-Israeli professor at Oxford (or is it Cambridge?) who is one of the grand-daddies of PostZionism (at best) and openly prides himself on post modernist far left wing ideological approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict (in other words, all narratives are equal but some narratives are less equal than others).

Shlaim's "histories" arguably are the apotheosis of cherry picking and distortion, as has been well documented by Efraim Karsh at King's College, London. Even assuming the Dayan quote is accurate and includes the full context (the latter of which I am skeptical), it was well known and well documented that during the '48-67 period Syria regularly shelled the communities around the Kinneret and sometimes further into the Galilee. So even if the Israelis on occasion "provoked" the Syrians by driving a tractor into the demilitarized zone, that did not in any way justify massive shelling into civilian areas.  Remember "Disroportionality"? Or does that not apply to the Arab world (silly me for thinking that is should apply to anyone but Israel).

Another point.  As part of the 1949 cease fire agreements between Syria & Israel, the cease-fire line was agreed to coincide with the "international border" between French Mandatory Syria and British Mandatory Palestine as delineated in the Sykes-Picot agreement from the early 1920's.  For a variety of reasons (which escape me at this late hour of the night), the segment near the northeastern shores of the Kinneret was ambiguous and was to be demilitarized but Israel was allowed to farm there (that's why they were sending in tractors!!).  However the Syrians, never ones to honor an agreement unless a gun is placed to their head (just ask the Turks & Jordanians) engaged in creeping annexation, using firepower and moving up their emplacements  to take control of more and more of the demilitarized zone.  This was the state of affairs when the Egypt, Jordan, and Syria initiated hostilities against Israel in 1967.

There is an interesting linguistic remnant to the moving cease fire line story.  You will note that Syria always insists that Israel has to give up the Golan and return the the 6 June 1967 lines.  When Ehud Barak was negotiating with Syria in Shepardstown in 2000, he referred to the "International Border" i.e., the Sykes-Picot line.  The two are not the same and indeed that was one of the issues over which the negotiations broke down.

BTW, regarding the Fulbright plan, keep in mind that around 20 June 1967, Israeli quietly offered through "back channels" to give up all the lands taken in the 6 Day War (except for Jerusalem) in exchange for peace and recognition by the Arab states.  The response came in the fall of 1967 in the form of the infamous Khartoum declaration which explicitly stated, no negotiations with Israel, no recognition, and no peace.  There was NO reason to believe in 1970 that the situation had changed at all.

You will also recall (you can't be THAT ignorant) that one of the factors that lead to the 1967 war was UN Sec'y Gen'l U Thant's decision to acquiesce to Nasser's demand and pull out the UN "Peace Keeping forces" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) in Sinai that were stationed there in the aftermath of the 1956 war.  Israel's bitter lesson then and many times since then is that it cannot rely on the promises of others for its defense, let alone pie-in-the-sky "International Guaranties" (another oxymoron).  There is much more to say on Olmert's Golan gambit, but it is way past my bedtime.

Whoops! One more thing that takes precedence over shut-eye.  The "American Council for Judaism" (which you cite) is the last bastion in the US of the classical German Reform movement, with rabidly anti-Israel / anti-Zionist views that deny the slightest hint of Jewish "peoplehood".  Citing them for anything on Israel, especially for what is Israel's "self-interest" is like citing Gus Hall for the best way to run the NY Stock Exchange.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem.

Ginzy: Yours is an extremely eloquent and informative and moving post. I especially like your "some narratives are less equal than others" observation. Noam Chomsky is the ultimate cherry picker. He lines up putative Israeli barbarities and atrocities like iron filings on a magnet but there is no equivalent Arab magnet. The Fateful Triangle is an amazingly one-sided work. He pronounces anathema on all things officially Israeli and American, he examines (some of) the policies of these countries under a microscope but he does not do the same for Syria, Egypt, et al. Chomsky is famously (willfullly?) naive when it comes to accepting the word of US and Israeli adversaries. Just the day before yesterday, he was snookered by Hamas.

I think Dyan was quoted in the New York Times on that as well Hershel. It's a tried and tested technique in these parts to go for the anti-pro source instead of addressing the substance of the argument.

Regardless, it's a shame that we have to use obscure quotes to try and highlight the propaganda, from both sides. Look, I understand, we were taught that the Anglo-Saxon foe was the source of all of our troubles ad naeuseum, and that we should have a 32 county utopian Republic, but we're now in a very different reality, a post nationalist one if you will.

Not all of the history was black and white, not by a long shot.

Maybe Israel hasn't always being the victim, fighting off Arab hordes. Maybe, it's about expansion, instead of survival. An expansion that now threatens a viable Palestinian state and therefore, a viable resolution. Does anyone who's looked at a map think what remains of the West Bank could conceivably become a nation state?

Seriously now?

Here's a few more quotes, just for you Hershel (how's that occupied garden working out for you?)

"The thesis that the danger of genocide was hanging over us in June 1967 and that Israel was fighting for its physical existence is only bluff, which was born and developed after the war." Israeli General Matityahu Peled, Haaretz, 19 March 1972.

"Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left." Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department in 1940. From "A Solution to the Refugee Problem" Joseph Weitz, Davar, September 29, 1967, cited in Uri Davis and Norton Mevinsky, eds., Documents from Israel, 1967-1973, p.21.

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."  David Ben Gurion, future Prime Minister of Israel, 1937, Ben Gurion and the Palestine Arabs, Oxford University Press, 1985.

"We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters" Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960. From "The Arabs in Israel" by Sabri Jiryas.

"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I don't blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, .The Arab villages are not there either. Nahal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibat; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kfar Yehushu'a in the place of Tal al Shuman. There is not one single place that did not have a former Arab population." Moshe Dayan's address to the Technion, Haifa (as Quoted in Haaretz, April 4, 1969).

"We have to kill all the Palestinians unless they are resigned to live here as slaves."  Chairman Heilbrun of the Committee for the Re-election of General Shlomo Lahat, the mayor of Tel Aviv, October 1983.

And my personal favourite:

The Palestinians are "..beasts walking on two legs." Menahim Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, 'Begin and the "Beasts"', New Statesman, 25 June 1982.

Charming.

Each and every quote is taken out of context, Ignorant Bigot. It’s all left wing antisemitic bunk.

Ben Gurion never ordered the expulsion of the Arabs from mandate Palestine and even Benny Morris acknowledges this fact now.

"Does anyone who's looked at a map think what remains of the West Bank could conceivably become a nation state?"

Yes, lot of people do.

This wouldn’t be the smallest State in the world nor the most dense even if the denseness of Ignorant’s brain can’t comprehend it.  

In any case it’s up to the parties in the dispute to decide and not up to a Jew hating Nazi like left wing Irish Bigot who thinks all Jews are hooked nosed bankers.

How many natives did the Irish and other Europeans displace in the New World? What makes this particular Irish neo Nazi the moral arbiter of world geo politics?

"Institutional antisemitism was again evident when attempts to settle Jewish refugees in neutral Ireland before, during and after World War II met with consistent government opposition. When Ireland held its first Holocaust Memorial Day on 26 January 2003 in Dublin City Hall, Justice Minister Michael McDowell apologized for a policy that was inspired by “a culture of muted antisemitism in Ireland,” which discouraged immigration by Europe’s shattered Jews. He said that “at an official level the Irish state was at best coldly polite and behind closed doors antipathetic, hostile and unfeeling toward the Jews.” According to some estimates, only 30 Jews were given asylum before the war, none during it, and only a handful afterwards. It has also never been fully explained why Eamon De Valera, president during World War II when Ireland remained neutral but implicitly backed the Allies, signed the condolence book at the German embassy after Hitler committed suicide.

Some Irish Jews acknowledge that the rise of Irish republicanism in the late 1960s, sparking 30 years of ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland where the IRA (Irish Republican Army) fought to end British rule, had the side-effect of fuelling anti-Jewish feeling, since those who identified with the IRA saw the Palestinians’ struggle for liberty as similar to their own. Today, in certain areas of Northern Ireland, the Protestant and Catholic communities display Israeli and Palestinian flags, respectively, to show with which cause they identify.

In the Republican movement at the turn of the 20th century, Arthur Griffith, the founder of Sinn Féin (the political wing of the IRA), published antisemitic articles in the nationalist United Irishman. In 1943 Oliver J. Flanagan (Fine Gael), a Dáil (lower chamber) member, proposed to the house to “rout the Jews out of this country.”

Ireland’s Jews are also known in Irish society for their portrayal in James Joyce's book Ulysses, in which the chief character is Leopold Bloom, the Jewish Irishman. The question of Bloom’s loyalty, as an Irishman or as a Jew, is raised in the book.

Francis Stuart (1902–99), an Irish writer and member of Aosdana (an affiliation of creative artists in Ireland), who wrote in one of his books: “The Jew is the worm that got into the rose and sickened it,” received a Saoi (Gaelic for ‘wise one’) award in 1996 (the highest honor the state can give an artist). He was also known for his antisemitic radio broadcasts made during World War II There was some outcry at the award and calls for Stuart's removal from Aosdana.

Gerald Goldberg, who was lord mayor of Cork in 1977, received death threats which he blamed on unbalanced media reporting on the Israeli army's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the death of two Irish peacekeeping soldiers there. As a result he considered leaving Ireland. A synagogue in Cork was fire-bombed at the time. Israel’s relations with Ireland were strained for many years because of the issue of Irish peacekeepers being injured or killed while serving in Lebanon. Protests, appeals and antisemitic comments/abusive phone calls were often received during those years by Jewish community offices.

Since the outbreak of the second intifada and the war in Iraq, listeners have frequently called into radio talk shows with overtly antisemitic or borderline antisemitic remarks. For example, they have commented that the war in Iraq was the result of Jewish influence in the US administration – an opinion that has appeared in certain daily newspapers and in discussion with individuals in the Jewish community. "

Finally Peretz is making sense! I

The Golan should be given back to Syria the week after US gives back Texas to Mexico. Or the week after France gives back Alsace to France.

Ignorant Populist, how do you say in gaelic "Go fuck yourself crazy anti-Semite from Ireland, the country which collaborated with Nazi Germany in World War II"?

Jacksondyer; Your last post is very informative. I have known about the putative parallels between Northern Ireland and the Palestinian cause but you present some interesting details. Whatever the historical situation, if the Palestinians and surrounding Arab nation-states genuinely would accept the existence of Israel, a modus vivendi could almost surely be cobbled together.

It's no surprise Ignorant Populist is so anti-Semitic. He is an Irish patriot of the IRA type. Yes, that IRA which proudly trained Palestinian murderers of every stripe.

Now, just to be clear, I don't think IP is a terrorist himself, he doesn't seem so cuckoo (as far as I recall, the only one on TNR who has true potential for murder is ndmackenzie). IP is more the regular nonsensical revolutionary bloke.

Liberal, the Arab League offered such recognition 6 years ago!

I'll take that Sleepy, that constitutes a compliment in these parts. Me and you are best mates now.

"the Arab League offered such recognition 6 years ago!"

Sure they did, that's why they support support Hamas.

Amazing how much time antisemitic bigots invest in issues dealing with Jews and which have nothing to do with them.

I happen to think that Israel is in legitimate possession of the Golan Heights, in perpetuity if it so desires. Syria's aggression in 1967 suffices for that purpose.  One need not rehearse the whole history of the Zionist undertaking to answer every question.

I also don't think a peace treaty with Syria, at least with any regime that resembles its current one, is worth much.  And keeping the Golan does not require denying political rights to, or subjugating, another population.  Hence, if it were up to me, I'd keep it.  I lived in the Huleh Valley for a while a long time ago, after the Six-Day War, and it would have been very uncomfortable had the Golan not then been in Israel's hands.  Nice flowers.  Some decent wine.  

But, Israel and Israelis have both the right to decide that giving it back enhances their security and well-being and, having both much more a stake and a much more intimate knowledge of the local conditions, a better basis than I one which to make that decision.

These discussions about Israel's affairs on The Spine tend to run along very predictable and endlessly repetitive lines.  I don't mind the yelling particularly, but since all of this has been said before, it would be interesting for once to see what the discussion would be like without the yelling.  It might be more interesting.

Ignorant:   I have a long and lovely nose.   As for Jews being bankers, I'll grant you that we're disproportionately represented in finance.  You see, it's in our genetic code:  The only business in which we were allowed to partake was that of middle-man or shopkeeper.  You need to be numerate in these professions, and evolution has a way of working very quickly.  The math gene skipped me but is alive and well in my daughter, as well as many of my family members.  In fact, my father won a physics prize at Cambridge while doing his residency there in the fifties.  Sadly, or not, as the case may be, he missed out on a fellowship that was given to a less qualified non-Jew.  As my grandfather joked at my brother's bris, when the baby did the usual crying, it's hard to be a Jew in England.   What you consider an insult fills me with pride--big nose and all.

As usual, you manage to bring up "post-nationalist" Europe.  What a joke.  Xenophobia is alive and well on your continent.  Ask the Gypsies, who just last week got to enjoy a 19th-century style pogrom in Italy--one sparked by a baby-snatching libel.  It doesn't get better than that, does it?  Interestingly, there's lots of anti-immigrant sentiment in the States, but you'd never see that sort of violence.  Even though we're very much still national.  

I've no idea whether the quotes you cite were taken out of context or embellished or completely fabricated.  I do know that, as Jackson has proven in his truncated history of Jews and Ireland, many people are capable of saying and doing ugly things.  

Finally, the Arab League.  They never recognized Israel:  They said they would on many conditions, one of which was complete right of return.  A cyanide pill for Israel.  You didn't expect them to commit suicide, did you?

I do apologize for the slur.  That's not my style.  

Oh, please, Roid, coming from you that's rather rich.  

Don't get me wrong, I usually enjoy your posts and almost always agree with you.  But let's be real, here.  

Roid:  I especially agree with your thoughts on the Golan.  Pragmatic and moral.  

Iggy: I know about the Arab League's proposal. There is a huge difference between a proposal that is tendered from the heart and one that is pitched cynically at world opinion. Surely you know this, Igster?

Say molly, I mean it when I say I don't mind the yelling.  Where I come from, people yell. It isn't a matter of principle or a holier-than-thou sort of thing.  As you say, who am I to complain?  

I'm literally just looking for a change of pace to see if it is any different other than not being as loud.

Ginzy - Thanks for taking the time to set the record right.

The whole Syria quest for Golan is built on a shakey foundation.  Syria was barely a country when the war broke out in 1967.  Probably historical accident that they had it in the first place.

It's still a thorn in the Assad side, but we can take care of that, and improve the Iraqi situation with a little more regime change.

I think the current negoitiations are just Assad & Ohlmert creating a distraction.

I would not be surprised to see one side or the other attack right now.  Syria is on edge in Lebanon and Israel is obsessed with Iranian Nukes.  If someone's not careful we could have a blow up here.

“As usual, you manage to bring up "post-nationalist" Europe.  What a joke.  Xenophobia is alive and well on your continent.  Ask the Gypsies, who just last week got to enjoy a 19th-century style pogrom in Italy--one sparked by a baby-snatching libel.  It doesn't get better than that, does it?  Interestingly, there's lots of anti-immigrant sentiment in the States, but you'd never see that sort of violence.  Even though we're very much still national.”  Molly

Very true, yet there is a further problem with Europe today which has to with its lack of a specific identity. Nation States are anchored is a sense of identity based on language, shared history and customs.

The European Union does not have such a shared identity hence its internal incoherence and its inability to confront exterior threats. It’s easier for them to pretend that there are no external threats than to come together and do something about it. Their inability to confront Iran speaks volumes about the kind of state they are in.

Of all the Europeans countries Great Britain us the one that is worst off. When it stopped being England it became a disorganized agglomerations of mini States. It’s a miniature Europe all in itself. This is why some of the worst and most belligerent anti America as well as anti Israel statements are coming from that quarter.

The loss of national identity doesn’t lead to peace and prosperity but to a loss of purpose and confusion. Anarchists mistake such an outcome as a dream come true but the sad reality is that such confusion can easily lead to internal strife as well as to a rise in attacks on minorities such as Gypsies. The increase in antisemitism in England is another outcome.

Often the loss of national identity can be compensated by a rise in religious and or revolutionary fervor. You can see this in Iran today just as one saw this in Russia after the rise of Communism in 1917.

The post nationalist era dreamt of by silly Trotskyites will not usher in an era of peace but one of world tension centered on religious and revolutionary fervor. Russia and China may challenge its neighbors but they are not the threat to world peace the Soviet Union and Maoist China (neither of which were normal national States) with its dreams of world domination were.

Iran because it’s not a normal nation State but a revolutionary regime animated by religious fervor and a desire to impose its way of life on the rest of the world is.

One might aptly describe the United States as a nation animated by religious fervor and a desire to impose its way of life on the rest of the world.  Certainly the US has done far more damage to other nations in the name of its national interests than has Iran.  The US has also provided arms and funding to terrorists in various countries seeking the overthrow of existing governments.  

That is not to say that the United States and Iran are the same, but then, how are they to be distinguished?  Respect for international law? Human rights? Democratic electoral processes? The absence of oligarchy?

“That is not to say that the United States and Iran are the same, but then, how are they to be distinguished?  Respect for international law? Human rights? Democratic electoral processes? The absence of oligarchy?”

Is this a serious question? I am afraid it is.

Here is a quick answer: Iran no independent judiciary, no basic freedoms, (speech assembly, etc.), no ability for individuals, especially women, to shape themselves as individuals (dress codes are the least of that burden), no freedom of religion, especially the ability to forswear the religion of Islam.

Any socio political group, from laborers to intellectual ones, is not allowed to exist without the consent of the government. People are hanged for sexual offenses of one kind or another.

In terms of geo politics, It is true that the US has involved itself in affairs of other countries but this has most often been either for economic or strategic reason. Often a President, as under Wilson or Bush, will appeal to broader principles, spreading democracy or stopping human rights abuses but if the underlying strategic or economic reasons were not there would be no call for a crusade.

Even so, all our involvements, be it the Balkans, Somalia, or Iraq have drawn a large amount of criticism. This is another difference with Iran: in the US government policy often draws opposition and sometimes as with the Viet Nam war it is overturned.

We are a great national power with a great many global interests which is why we get entangled in so many places in the globe. This doesn’t mean that our aim is, like that of Iran, is the imposition of a religion on the rest of humanity.  Bush may have used religious language to justify his war in Iraq but that was because he was too ignorant to reach for a more sophisticated doctrine.

Bush Sr. didn’t use such language and neither did Clinton. Reagan did, but Truman who originated the containment policy of the Soviet Union did not. One needs to make allowances for the individual temperament and style of the President in times of crises.

In Iran, though, from Khomeini to Ahmadinejad, a single religious doctrine is being followed by the Islamic Republic.

Most European countries gave away their "legitimate right" to organize their security alone more than 60 years ago. It's called UN and Nato. It has been a very good arrangement even if it came with a lot of concessions.

It would be very good both for Israel and it's neighbors if there were a credible international solution impartially offering security and fair solutions to all parties. It doesn't have to be a UN solution, although it should be backed by the UN. It could be an American-European solution.

And I really haven't seen any good argument offered against it. Except the formalist argument based on dubious pre-WW II international law solutions offered by Roi. If this sort of argument on the Golan was used by European countries we'd all be at war now...

Comrade Johnny. I'm expecting you to yell a strong YES heard in Lisboa at the day of the referendum. And now don't stop campaigning!

As for us we are not going to have a referendum. It's not constitutionaly mandatory and it would be politically unwise to have it. Not because of internal reasons (the yes would win by a large margin), but because of the example it would set in nations in which the yes is much more shaky.

I always thought Ignorant Populist is fucked in his head. He shows it once more saying that the Arab League offered recognition to Israel six years ago. we should be so grateful, on our knees!

What the Ignorant Fuckhead "forgets" to mention is that that the proposal was conditional upon granting the right of return to four million Palestinian refugees - in Israel proper!, not in the future Palestinian state they were asking for.

So the Arabs wanted a 100% Palestinian state - free of Jews of course, Judenrein - and another state in which half the population would be Jewish and half Palestinian, courtesy of 4 million refugees with Hamas banners.

Courtesy of IF, that's the Arab and far-left concept of fairness means: "What's mine is mine, what's yours is half-mine too." That's the Arab justice that Ignorant likes: 1.5 states for the Palestinians and 0.5 states for the Jews.

Listen Ignorant if you think the Jews here are as stupid as your Party cell comrades, you're wrong. You may come and peddle you IRA nonsense and agitate your keffieh until you're blue in the face, you're not gonna dupe anyone here. Maybe you'll win over your pal ndmackenzie, but you're not gonna get further than forcing that open outhouse door.

Actually, luis, I think you have it backwards.  Europe is not at war because the territorial changes that followed from the last aggressive war have been accepted and there is no effort to overturn them.  If they followed the principle that your post implies -- revanchist war is justified -- then Europe too would be endlessly at war.

Jackson, it was a serious question and I appreciate your answer.  Do the differences in Iranian and American society that you identify give the US license to meddle in the affairs of other states, to subvert their governments, or to attack them outright in a manner forbidden to Iran?  Or is it simply that we are large and therefore have many interests?  Or, indeed, is the conduct of the US in international affairs, including supplying arms to rebels, not in fact legitimate?  That was more the thrust of my question,

Tiocfaidh Ar La Sleepy, best bud.

Post nationalist in an Irish sense, exclusively. I can't vouch for the continentals.

Yea, Louis, I'm voting Yes, hopefully we'll get over the line.

“Most European countries gave away their "legitimate right" to organize their security alone more than 60 years ago. It's called UN and Nato. It has been a very good arrangement even if it came with a lot of concessions.”

This is another Luis howler.

No people or country can ever “give away” their legitimate right to self defense for the simple reason that no one else is required to die protecting them.

The European peace after WW2 was based on two factors none of which had to do with the UN. First they had the US to protect them NATO was mostly an American led enterprise.  The US extended its protection to Europe because it viewed it as an extension of its own protection.

Second Europe was at peace because it was exhausted from the last time they fought each other. Europeans were always fighting each other and unlike some I don’t believe that the current arrangement will last for ever.

It always amazed me how contemporary scholars can write like ignorant medieval schoolmen who came up with theories based on wishful thinking rather than see the world as it really was.

“Do the differences in Iranian and American society that you identify give the US license to meddle in the affairs of other states, to subvert their governments, or to attack them outright in a manner forbidden to Iran?  Or is it simply that we are large and therefore have many interests?  Or, indeed, is the conduct of the US in international affairs, including supplying arms to rebels, not in fact legitimate?  That was more the thrust of my question,” roidubouloi

This is a rhetorical question since you obviously already decided on the answer.

It’s not the US that has meddled in Iranian affairs (yes we did in the past) but the Iranians who have been meddling in the affairs of their neighbors and even threatening not just the Gulf States and Israel but also to the former Soviet Republics and to Europe.

The Islamic Republic set up under Khomeini sees itself duty bound to spread the Islamic message and in this sense its behavior is not that different from that of the former Soviet Union.  

In this case the US does perceive Iran as a threat to its allies and friends and to its interests. This is legitimate. Moreover a nuclear Iran would make it that much harder to contain it and given the propensity of its leaders to speak war in terms of suicide martyrdom (Iran sent tens of thousands of children to their death during their war with Iraq in martyrdom operations and Ahmadinejad was one of the people involved in these operations) it would pose a real threat to the rest of the world.

Europeans understand this better than we do even though they haven’t been able to translate their concerns into coherent policy.

In any case, the Iran threat is frighteningly real.

The Ignorant Populist writes: "I'll make you a deal Molly: you stop calling us idiot drunks and I won't call you a hook nosed banker, cause they're about the same."

A recent (June 2006) report by the UK Institute of Alcohol Studies says that a higher proportion of income in Ireland is spent on alcohol than in any other European Union country. In addition, Irish people are the biggest binge drinkers in the EU. The survey shows that the Irish spend three times more than any other country on alcohol. The Irish spend on average €1,675/household on alcohol - followed by Denmark which spends €531.

I'm just guessing but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more Irish bankers in the US than Jewish bankers.

Israel has 200 odd nukes, stockpiles of other WMD and the most advanced military in the region, by a distance. Iran is boxed in on both sides. The US is now funding insurgent operations in Iran, who are carrying out terrorist bombings and are issuing almost daily threats of air strikes, in violation of the UN charter BTW, not that anyone cares.

Iranians are also keenly aware of the US involvement in their affairs, which includes at least one coup.

Who's a threat to whom?

JP - yea, probably accurate those figures but my understanding is that we are second to the Czech's, who are the biggest drinkers in the world, per head.

Then again, I could be wrong. I'm drunk now!

Come here and give us a hug Sleepy. Come on, come on, come on.

The Ignorant Populist writes: "Senator [J.William Fulbright] proposed in 1970 that America should guarantee Israel's security in a formal treaty, protecting her with armed forces if necessary. In return, Israel would retire to the borders of 1967."

Of course, Britain, France, and the US had made pledges to Israel in 1957 concerning free passage of its ships through the Straits of Tiran; but all of this counted for very little in 1967.  In fact, Senator Fulbright was one of the loudest voices advocating that the US stay clear of involvement in confrontation.

Ignorant Bigot is on the job again, I see.

I hope that Israel has 200 plus nukes, but no one knows for sure. Israel isn’t telling anyone and it hasn’t threatened to use nuclear weapons on anyone not even in extreme moments of crises when it was being attacked by scuds missiles from Iraq during the first Gulf war.

However, given that it has been threatened with extinction by the Arabs since 48 and by Iran since the Islamic revolution their ability to nuke their enemies might be a good way to stem their belligerence.

As for meddling in the internal affairs of other countries Iran has done a pretty good job in Lebanon and other places.  Israel hasn't sent suicide bombers into Iran as Iran has been trying to do. Iran has been identified as the country behind the bombings in Argentina of the Israeli embassy and a community center which killed over a hundred persons. But of course are mere Jews so in the eyes of an antisemite like Ignorant Bigot they don’t count.

Also, the US might have interfered in Iran's internal affairs along with England and others, but it hasn't threatened to annihilate it as Iran has threatened to annihilate its enemies.

I can’t believe that I am answering an antisemitic drunken sot who isn’t swayed by evidence; a nazi like Irish left winger.

Not to mention JP Katz that Senator Fulbright was always so concerned for the welfare of the Arabs while being one of the staunchest and most committed segregationists in the US Senate.

Like most white antisemitic racists he loved non whites when they were the enemies of the Jews but hated them otherwise. Fulbright was just a better educated David Duke who also has been making up to the Arabs and for similar reason.

The main thrust of Peretz's argument makes no sense: "First of all, in 1967 the Syrians used the Golan Heights in an unprovoked aggression against Israel trying to overwhelm and occupy the Galillee. If the Syrians had not moved from the Heights (just as if Jordan had not attacked from the West Bank) all of the territories now in Israeli hands would have been under Arab control. On this there is absolutely no question." Marty must be confusing '67 with 73'. There was no "movement" of Syrian tanks or troops in the Golan before the Six Day War, no attempt by the Syrians "to overwhelm and occupy" the Galilee. Rather, there had been several skirmishes by each country's AIR FORCE in the months and weeks before the war...on April 7, 1967, the IAF shot down six Syrian MiGs (which was a response to the Syrian army shooting at Israeli farmers trying to cultivate the DMZ). Moshe Dayan was initially opposed to invading the Golan for a variety of reasons, the main one being, in the words of Rami Tal (an Israeli reporter who spoke with Dayan), "...the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us." It's true that the Syrian presence in the Golan made life very difficult for farmers in the Hula Valley, but that is not the same as threatening to invade, moving tanks and troops into position to sweep through the Galilee, etc. I have no idea where he's getting this stuff...have a look at Michael Oren's book (SIX DAYS OF WAR) or Benny Morris' RIGHTEOUS VICTIMS and see if you can find any evidence for Peretz's claims. I tried...no such evidence exists!

Re arubin: I belive that a small Syrian force did try to capture the water plant at Tel Dan on June 5th. In any event, Syrian forces began a massive shelling of Israeli towns in the Hula Valley. To what purpose if not as a preliminary to an invasion of the Galilee, etc.?

I gather that the main reason Moshe Dayan opposed an assault on the Golan was that he believed such an operation would yield losses of 30,000. Evidently, he was wrong about this.

"...who came up with theories based on wishful thinking rather than see the world as it really was. "

Hey Jackson. The EU is not real? Is it wishful thinking? I may be "medieval" but there is some real error going on in your perspective! Seeing everything through Israel nationalist eye perhaps? To the point of denying postnational realities that actually exist?

"Very true, yet there is a further problem with Europe today which has to with its lack of a specific identity. Nation States are anchored is a sense of identity based on language, shared history and customs. "

EU is not a new "nation state". But it's still a political reality. One that you simply cannot understand since, from your perspective, either something falls within the standards of the Westfallian order or it doesn't exist at all! Get real Jackson! The Westfallian order in Europe is no more. Of course, you can choose to stay blind and forget the new realities by applying old categorie, instead of reviewing your categories... Which I suspect will be path you'll take...

"It’s easier for them to pretend that there are no external threats than to come together and do something about it. "

Hey! Jackson has been reading Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political. For it seems that, for Jackson, there is only a polity when based on the friend-enemy distinction (when it is organized around a self-identification principle against external and internal threats)... Mind the influences ... Mind the influences...

"It’s not the US that has meddled in Iranian affairs (yes we did in the past) but the Iranians who have been meddling in the affairs of their neighbors and even threatening not just the Gulf States and Israel but also to the former Soviet Republics and to Europe.

The Islamic Republic set up under Khomeini sees itself duty bound to spread the Islamic message and in this sense its behavior is not that different from that of the former Soviet Union.  

In this case the US does perceive Iran as a threat to its allies and friends and to its interests. This is legitimate." jacksondyer

It seems to me that the US under Bush see itself as duty bound to spread western-style democracy, by force when it chooses.  How is this different from Iran or from the former Soviet Union?  Is it because democracy is good and Islam isn't?  Is force -- regime change for example -- legitimate when ones allies, friends or interests are perceived to be threatened?  If so, might not Iran legitimately see us as threatening it, its allies, and its interests?

Unfortunately, jackson, while this may be a way to distinguish one's friends from one's enemies, it does not seem to me to be a useful conceptual structure for organizing international affairs -- We are good, hence when we or our friends or our interests are threatened, as we define threat, we can use force, subversion, invasion, etc. as necessary to blunt the threats.  They are bad, hence no matter how we threaten them, their friends, or their interests, they must refrain from using force.

I suppose if we were powerful enough to enforce world order on that basis, we could just do it and not worry about principles.  Friend or foe, end of story.  But we are not powerful enough for that.  The invasion of Iraq, the principal purpose of which was to demonstrate our power, has succeeded brilliantly in doing just the opposite, displaying the very tangible limits to our power.  In such a world, our success is going to depend on organizing alliances, indeed it always has but we were relatively more powerful immediately post WW II than we are now, hence more, not less, dependent on alliances.  I don't think the various Bush doctrines are going to win many friends or enable us to keep things organized.

Therefore, we have to start thinking about whether there exists any set of principles other than me good, you bad that can be deployed successfully to organize broad coalitions to sanction bad actors, and what constitutes a bad actor.  It is going to be difficult to persuade other nations that someone is a bad actor if they are only doing the same things we are doing.

Ignorant Populist, Israel has the most advanced army because your Arab friend have genocidal aims which they declare openly. About every ten years one of them (or many of them) attacks with the declared aim of destroying the state and murdering all Jews. Often these lovely pronouncemenets are made by the Arab League itself, that dictators club you love so much. Israel cannot lose veen one war while Arabs can lose as many as they please. This is what you will always leave out, there's no doubt about it.

Similarly, you leave out that Iran's president vowed repeatedly to wipe Israel out of the face of Israel. That's Iran, the country where Holocaust-denial conferences get supported by the government and where the inspring figure is Khomeini, the devil himself.

Perhaps your IRA handlers taught you that when you volunteered to teach Palestinian PLO felllows. Or maybe you even came up with this shit. One never knows the inticacies of a garbage can.

Zbigniew Brzezinski comes to the Ignorant Populist's aid with a skewering of Martin Peretz and his acolytes (and, yes, sleepyavl that includes you) who have reduced anti-Semitism to nothing more than a playground taunt (via Andrew Sullivan):

-- It's not unique to the Jewish community - but there is a McCarthy-ite tendency among some people in the Jewish community. They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonizing. They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel,

Sheesh, that's harsh.

Anyone reading posts by jacksondyer, sleepyavl and a whole host of other worthless acolytes will immediately recognize what Brzezinski means by"slandering, vilifying, demonizing" - the only rhetorical technique they ever use.

www.nydailynews.com/.../2008-05-29_major_barack_obama_supporter_slams_jewis.html

roidubouloi, you are just arguing the obverse of whatever I bring up. Not a good way to get to understand anything.

"Therefore, we have to start thinking about whether there exists any set of principles other than me good, you bad that can be deployed successfully to organize broad coalitions to sanction bad actors, and what constitutes a bad actor.  It is going to be difficult to persuade other nations that someone is a bad actor if they are only doing the same things we are doing."

You final point comment misses the point of what I said.

Iran is on a collision course not just with the US but many of its neighbors.

Whatever we do or don't do that isn't going to change.

This is what you need to come to terms with. If at the end of the day yuo decide that it's more important for you to let Iran have its and hope for the best fine, but don't kid yourself that Ahmadinejad's regime cares about anything other than to dominate first the whole MIddle East and to set itself up as a power that can challenge European power.

Nazi ndmackenzie  has landed from outer space to help Ignorant Bigot and Luis.

Unfortunately for them his posts are as useless as ever.

And yes, all us Jews are paranoid slanderers. For mackenzie, though, Igno Bigotry is on display in everyone of his posts dealing with Jews and mackenzie can’t post something about Jews without accusing them of being “zio-nazis.” Calling us McCarthyites is mild for him. But then he was quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski who is merely trying to preempt attacks on his own antisemitism.

" To the point of denying postnational realities that actually exist?"

Exist where, Luis?

Not in the world I live in which is the world of Brazil, China, Russia, India, the  US and many other sovereign States.

Europe too sees itself as a sovereign entity even if it hasn't yet been able to set up its parameters.

"EU is not a new "nation state". But it's still a political reality."

A very weak one as yet. Let's wait till they encounter the first real crisis to see if they can stay together or if it'll fold like a cheap tent.

"Hey! Jackson has been reading Carl Schmitt's Concept of the Political."

No Luis I live Nazi jurists like Schmitt and Nazi philosophers like Heidegger to you.

What i have been reading are statements by the Iranian government which want to destroy Israel and threaten Europe, to cow it into subservience.

Enjoy your status as a dhimmi, Luis.

Ndmackenzie: So others besides Jews are McCarthyites, too? How generous of you.

"A very weak one as yet."

Much stronger than America was until the Civil War under the Lisbon Treaty...

Anyway don't pay attention. This is all a product of my imagination, from the money I use to where I can work and live, from the institutions that regulate my everyday life to the courts I can appeal to, from the elections I participate in to...

"No Luis I live Nazi jurists like Schmitt and Nazi philosophers like Heidegger to you."

Well, my friend I'm proud of not ever supporting explicitly or implicitly the heart of the thesis that makes Schmitt a nazi... The same cannot be said about you, taking notice of the above said...

"Enjoy your status as a dhimmi, Luis."

Is this meant to terrify me? Oh I forgot. You Americans under the last 8 years learned to only speak politically by terrifying each other...

Jackson. Is it that now you write under 2 names? Jackson Dyer and Liberal Reformer? Or you just found a mediocre resonance voice to make your posts sound less pathetic?

Now I suggest that we change the subject and talk about Euro 2008. Who will win and why. I'll take bets.

luispc:  "Jackson. Is it that now you write under 2 names? Jackson Dyer and Liberal Reformer? "

I'll take that as a compliment.

I'd rather be writing like LR than like mackenzie which is what you seem to be doing.

“Well, my friend I'm proud of not ever supporting explicitly or implicitly the heart of the thesis that makes Schmitt a nazi... The same cannot be said about you, taking notice of the above said...”

All that’s missing from your post is a reference to zionazi and the identification will be complete.

Besides I doubt that Schmitt gave much thought to events such as the Islamic revolution in Iran which occurred after he died. You of course know for sure that he would have agreed with me. I have a hunch that he would have supported as you seem to do the antisemitic Islamic regime just as he supported the Hitlerian one in his lifetime.

Luispc: You are the true mediocrity, drunk on ideology. Anyone who would come up with the locution "mediocre resonance voice" so defines himself. Jacksondyer and I are two entirely different people, as he can readily attest. I think that even someone with  an IQ one standard deviation below the norm would be able to tell that our styles are completely different. And I am somewhat, though probably not much, to the left of him on the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio.

liberal reformer said: "Ndmackenzie: So others besides Jews are McCarthyites, too? How generous of you."

Notice hos nd never offered a link to the Zbigniew Brzezinski quote which supposedly came via Sullivan. The link offered was to the NY Daily News. Here is the quote in toto:

“Major Barack Obama supporter slams Jewish groups   By Michael Saul

Daily News Staff Writer

Thursday, May 29th 2008, 4:00 AM

“A high-profile supporter of Barack Obama accused American Jewish groups of engaging in "McCarthyism," a statement that could further complicate the Illinois senator's appeal to Jewish voters.

"It's not unique to the Jewish community - but there is a McCarthy-ite tendency among some people in the Jewish community," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter. "They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonizing.

"They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism," he said. "There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel."

Reached for comment, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Brzezinski "is not an adviser to our campaign, and does not speak for the campaign. Sen. Obama profoundly disagrees with the sentiments he expressed."

Obama has stepped up efforts to court the Jewish vote, most recently speaking at a synagogue in Boca Raton, Fla.”

So even the Obama campaign disowned Zbigniew Brzezinski as well as the quote.  Nazi mackenzie of course would like us to believe that Sullivan endorsed it. However, without the proper link there is no way of telling and I wouldn’t take mackenzie’s word on anything.

Brzezinski’s quote shows him to be as paranoid now about Jews as he was when he advised Jimmy Carter.

C'mon Liberal Reformer. If you're to survive at TNR pages you have to get yourself a sense of humour. Let's be pals from now on, shall we?

As for me being "drunk on ideology", perhaps one other day we can have a very nice discussion on the concept of ideology. Not today though.

"I'd rather be writing like LR than like mackenzie which is what you seem to be doing."

That IS a compliment and it seems I'm achieving an entire new level from your perspective (a few months back you dismissed me as unable to write in English). That's me. I grow on people.

"I doubt that Schmitt gave much thought to events such as the Islamic revolution in Iran which occurred after he died."

I admire the abstraction skills shown in this passage... If one's a schmittian the "concept of the political" applies to all political unities... no matter who the enemies are...

My Euro's on mmmmm....don't really know. I suppose you can't look past Italy Louis.

None of the "home nations" (an imperial hangover from English TV) have made it through this time round Louis, which makes it fascinating, culturally.

There was a poll conducted in England, which asked who you would support.

A clear majority said Italy, with Portugal coming in second I think. Needless to say the English would rather hang themselves than support Germany or the French. Interesting poll.

Me, I've always been a secret Francophile, so I'd like to see the French win it. With Portugal as my second choice (lovely country, nice people, far friendly than the loud Spanish).

But my government mandated Euro is on Italy to win 1-0 in every game.

Well, I hope Portugal looses at the first stage. This is way too alienating. Crowds wild about who's going to score in the next game and no attention being paid to minor subjects such as economic inequality... Opium for the masses... The three Fs why the portuguese people is fucked: Football, Fado and Fatima...

jackson,

We're talking past each other.  Im not arguing that Iran is benign or that we should be sanguine about it acquiring nuclear weapons.  Not at all.  My point is that we alone don't have the power to force Iran to give up its nuclear program.  We need the EU and the cooperation of Russia and China to succeed at this.  Your characterizations of Iran and its aggressive tendencies could in many cases as easily be applied to the US which creates a dilemma:  We are not going to enlist the support of the other important powers, on this or on other critical matters, if we are perceived, correctly, as merely exploiting international rules of behavior in an ad hoc manner for our own advantage -- as in, unilateral meddling in the affairs of other nations is bad when Iran does it but just ducky when we do it.  If we had the power to "go it alone" on Iran and other crises not yet on the horizon, we made be able to engage in such ad hoc behavior.  But we don't and we can't.  Bush has trashed the regime of law represented by the UN Security Council on the apparent assumption that he and we didn't need it.  Now it is largely unusable, as in the Cold War, but we have nothing to put in its place.

We had better start re-thinking our whole diplomatic stance and soon or Iran WILL end up with nuclear weapons and a whole lot of other bad things are likely to happen too.  It profits nothing to demonize the Iranians.  They are engaged in power behavior not readily distinguishable from our own.  It would be more useful to think about what alignments of interests might be achieved that can move Iran onto another course.  The whole demonization thing, as in Iraq, as in Palestine, is a waste of time, resources, and intellect, Peretzian you might say.

You're an atheist, cowering in the haunted corridor Louis. Football is life.

Good for Brzezinski, someone has to stand up to the bullies.

ND:  Jackson pretty much summed up the Zbig matter.  Though I'll add that calling Jews McCarthyites for criticizing Carter is absurd.  The man embraced not one but two agents of Hamas (sort of like agents of disease).  Furthermore, he does nothing to help the Arabs when he acts the clown.  Why on earth would any Israeli--or Jew who cares about Israel--want to trust or respect a man who cavorts with bloody terrorists.    In other words, deary, he is hurting his pet cause. But that's not why he makes out with these people.  It's really his ego, his need to show the world his supposed piety.  If he really cared about the Palestinians, he wouldn't be doing something as inflammatory as meeting with dictators and thugs.  Of course, refraining from his clownish endeavors would mean he'd have to make a phone call with reality.  And sadly, his account was cut off decades ago.  

Luis:  I don't care to get into a pissing match with you, but I will say this:  Post-national, shmost national.  That is, unless you only count Western Europe. I've no idea whether the center will hold if there should be a serious economic crisis.  I'm sure the money's on your side.

That said, the folks on your side of the continent don't seem to cotton much to their Eastern brethren.   Or even to the immigrants who living legally within their borders.  And not just the beaten-up Roma I mentioned above.  The natural tendency in your post-national world is major xenophobia.  And it gets routinely paraded out in the open.  And, there's definitely a link to the economy.  Else how would that oaf Berlusconi come back to power?  You know, the foreign-bashing new prime minister?  When pocketbooks are strained, people--even enlightened Europeans--cannot be trusted to maintain their reason.  

I'm jealous of your strong Euro, and it'll probably remain strong for the next few years, but other than that, I'm not sure what you have.  An alliance of countries (yes, they're still countries) who are enjoying cheap vacations in the States.  Are they blending their armies?  I mean, what besides more open borders and common currency distinguishes this post-national mass of land?

Ignorant Pop, sure you like Brzezinski. You never met an anti-Semite you didn't like.

ndmackenzie, you're back? I'm actually surprised you don't like Marty Peretz. Lately he seems to often go to your far-Left pigsty. But in your little fu