Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2010 at 6:18 am
Wow, what a post. Not sure what the point is, but one can be sure that if Obama had kept McCrystal, then Sharon would have been singing the "Obama should have gotten rid of him" tune. There is no satisfying some people
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2010 at 10:08 am
Todays Economist has as its lead article--Web Link
Barack Obama has sacked his commander in Afghanistan.
But the real worry is that the war is being lost
Western leaders have done a poor job at explaining the war in Afghanistan to their voters, a defeat there would be a disaster.
The narrow aim of denying al-Qaeda a haven, already frustrated by the terrorists’ scope to lodge in unruly parts of northern Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, would become impossible to achieve.
A Western withdrawal would leave Afghanistan vulnerable to a civil war that might suck in the local powers, including Iran, Pakistan, India and Russia. Sooner or later, the poison would end up harming America too: it always does.
Defeat in Afghanistan would mark a humiliation for the West, and for NATO, that would give succour to its foes in the world".
Afghanistan has been known for 1000s of years as the graveyard on empires.
The real problem is that our campaign in Afghanistan is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
Our NATO allies are leaving the field, and Americans are beginning to realize that the costs of continuing this fight exceed either the benefits of victory or the risks of withdrawal.
Posted by Perspective., a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Here's my theory: McChrystal wanted out..He didn't want to get courtmartialed for disobeying orders he disagreed with..and he didn't want to go out in shame for personally "badmouthing" the Commander-in-Chief, and at the same time he wanted to make sure the American people knew what was going on with this Idiot Party and Ruler in Chief..
So he allows Rolling Stone in ( Rolling Stone!!!) a known red magazine which is going to do anything possible to do a "gotcha'..and did.
Then he doesn't deny anything said by his staffers ( please note..not by HIM, by his staffers..please note, followed all orders..)and resigns.
That is the only way allowed for military guy to resign, is when asked for it.
Nice out McChrystal. He didn't rise to where he is from being stupid, that is for sure.
What really, really cracks me up is that now Obama is "brilliant" for assigning the old left-wing's nemesis, Bush appointee Petraeus.
what an upside down madhouse orwellian nation I live in now.
Posted by Disgusted, a resident of Stanford, on Jun 25, 2010 at 5:29 pm
Do not forget that McChrystal was behind the shameful cover up and lies regarding the death of Pat Tillman. The White House (Bush?Rove) rewarded him while they, without any morals or ethics, exploited the death of a soldier.
McChrystal should have been canned and demoted in rank a long time ago. A disgrace to the uniform.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2010 at 8:26 pm
1/ Gen McChrystal was Obamas hand chosen man to run the AFPAK war.
He voted for Obama and banned Fox News from his headquarters, he was Obamas man.
2/ McChrystal may have fallen on his sword, because he realized the 2011 pull out is a disaster and his troops lives are in danger because of incompetent US political and White House leadership of the war, if so he chose an odd way to do it--- but-- he is a black ops expert.
3/ The Bush men, Gates and Petreaus, are now in control, in fact the Pentagon is in control-- with a $700B budget next year.
4/ We need to talk with Russia, Iran, China, India, Pakistan and Turkey about an exit strategy-- there are only about 100 AQ left in the country the rest have moved to Africa and the Gulf.
A key issue for the bordering states is the heroin that comes to their countries from Afghanistan, 80% of the world illegal heroin is produced in Afghanistan and it causes around 100,000 death per year, per WHO, and fuels a vast underground narco terrorist economy.
At this point we are not fighting Islamic terrorists we are fighting tribes and narco terrorist gangs.
There are elements of the Taliban that oppose the narco- terrorist gangs and Petreaus will do a deal with them-- we are never going to turn Afghanistan into New Jersey-- but we can do a deal with the tribes to keep AQ out. Which was the original mission under Bush before he got carried away with Wilsonian pipe dreams
5/ The Tillman conspiracy theories are utter nonsense, like the birthers and the 911 truthers -- ignore them
"McChrystal was the head of Special Operations command in Afghanistan during Army Ranger (and former football star) Pat Tillman's death. McChrystal was the one who approved paperwork awarding Tillman a Silver Star despite knowing (or at least suspecting) that he had died in fratricide and not, as originally determined, enemy fire."
"In March 2006, the Defense Department inspector general ordered a criminal inquiry into Tillman’s shooting, and called the previous investigations inadequate. Among those who covered up Tillman's killing by friendly fire: Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who in 2008 became commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan."
Posted by I disagree, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Knowing that there is ALWAYS "friendly fire" deaths in a war zone, which would you think is better for the family of a dead soldier...a honorable Silver Star for death during a war, or nothing..
I think this stank then, and I think it still stinks. Dead in a war zone is dead..any death deserving the most honor for the family we can bestow, regardless of whether it was death by IED or by confusion in a war.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 26, 2010 at 7:32 pm
A hack from RS managed to accomplish what AQ had tried to do for years--take down General McChrystal who had killed all AQ leadership in Iraq.
Barack Obama's firing of Stanley McChrystal showed weakness and will backfire
He may have been hailed for his decisiveness, but Barack Obama sacked the wrong man and has yet to sort out his Afghanistan policyWeb Link
"The general, a legendary combat leader who engaged in fire fights in Iraq alongside SAS troopers while in his 50s, deserved to be reprimanded.
Inartful and ill-advised as the words were, however, they also spoke to a justifiable deep frustration within the US military in Afghanistan and contained a degree of truth about Obama's civilian officials that made the famously thin-skinned President decidedly uncomfortable. "
"A president who actively encourages the relaxed “no drama Obama” image of his administration, and who heads for the nearest golf course whenever the opportunity presents itself, is prone to the most spectacular hissy-fits the moment he finds himself under pressure. And his over-the-top “kick ass” response to BP’s involvement in the Gulf oil spill has displayed to a wider audience the more truculent side of this president’s nature. "
Posted by Paul, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, on Jun 27, 2010 at 10:07 pm
The simple fact is that Bush flat blew his Afghan operation and Obama has to clean up the mess as best he can. McChrystal's frustration is understandable but misdirected and, for a career military man, totally out of line. One of the perks of being a general is to be summarily fired for screwing up.
"Perhaps Obama is still counting on U.S. soldiers to reverse the Taliban’s momentum and win the war, even though administration officials have repeatedly rejected the notion that Afghanistan can be won militarily.
David Petraeus or no, the reality is that the war will end with a political settlement involving President Karzai’s government, various Afghan warlords and power brokers, the remnants of the old Northern Alliance, the Taliban, and the Taliban’s sponsors in Pakistan.
Making all that work and winning the support of Afghanistan’s neighbors — including India, Iran, and Russia — will be exceedingly hard.
If Obama’s diplomats managed to pull it off, the Afghanistan that America left behind might be modestly stable. On the other hand, it won’t be pretty to look at it.
It will be a decentralized mess, an uneasy balance between enlightened Afghans and benighted, Islamic fundamentalist ones, and no doubt many future political disagreements will be settled not in conference rooms but in gun battles.
Three things it won’t be: It won’t be Switzerland. It won’t be a base for Al Qaeda. And it won’t be host to tens of thousands of U.S. and NATO troops."
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jun 29, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Petraeus gave glowing praise to McChrystal today in Congress, he also said Biden was wrong about withdrawal-- there may be increasing daylight between some parts of the administration and our troops, the administration needs to get into alignment.
What does the arrest today of these Russians mean? they were not charged with spying-- it looks like they were doing what AIPAC and other foreign agencies do, reporting on political trends, etc,etc, etc ?-- the timing is rather strange after the hamburger meeting with Obama and the Russian PM.
If we are going to go after these Russian guys, for not spying, then we should go after all the other alien nations who do the same-- that looks like the plan and could be very embarrassing for some states in the Mid East-- was the timing by design or random ?
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jun 30, 2010 at 6:27 pm
Palin quit for the good of her State..her time was so eaten up by fighting harrassment lawsuits, she was paralyzed and couldn't do the State's business. Took ..um...some spine..to quit for the good of her State.
I wish our POTUS would have the same ...spine....and quit for the good of our nation. Clearly something is failing, and the buck stops with him ( and with really good luck, he would take his ..162? now?? ..Czars with him and maybe our country would stabilize).
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jul 3, 2010 at 6:03 am
Nice opinion piece on this...the thought had entered my mind that someone who reaches General rank is not politically stupid, and therefore set up Rolling Stone for exactly the results he got. Better to do what he has done than to flat out disobey an order from the C in C, or speak out himself, directly, "on the record". This way the American people KNOW what is going on, and he gets to resign, instead of being fired.
Nice work, McChrystal. Esp since now we have a 'brilliant' decision to put what WAS the left's despised Petraeus in charge...( never forget..Obama refused to vote for the censure of the moveon ad calling Petraues "Betrayus" and Hilary "suspended disbelief" in listening to his report from Iraq...how our military can work for these guys who not only despise them, but undercuts them at every chance they can, takes the kind of fortitude, courage and dedication to principles that I could never muster)
Here is the link to a nicely written piece about what folks like me think was the REAL story behind this set-up.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 3, 2010 at 11:24 am
I believe that Petraeus remains at heart (or, perhaps more accurately, in his head) a realist and definitely not either a Wilsonian or a Likudnik. Web Link
" While it is anathema to broach the subject of engaging militant groups like Hizballah and Hamas in official Washington circles (to say nothing of Israel), that is exactly what a team of senior intelligence officers at U.S. Central Command--CENTCOM--has been doing.
In a "Red Team" report issued on May 7 and entitled "Managing Hizballah and Hamas," senior CENTCOM intelligence officers question the current U.S. policy of isolating and marginalizing the two movements.
Instead, the Red Team recommends a mix of strategies that would integrate the two organizations into their respective political mainstreams.
While a Red Team exercise is deliberately designed to provide senior commanders with briefings and assumptions that challenge accepted strategies, the report is at once provocative, controversial--and at odds with current U.S. policy. "
Petraeus used this strategy successfully in Iraq and will do so in AfPak.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 3, 2010 at 1:03 pm
U.S. Central Command--CENTCOM has already reached out to Hizballah and Hamas, just as they have reached out to elements of the Taliban and the opposition in Iraq, the only group they will never talk to is AQ-- because they are dead enders who want to pull down civilization.
The immanent threat to Israel is, in fact, internal Civil War
It may be that over a quarter of a million heavily armed and subsidized Jewish settlers would leave Arab Palestine voluntarily; but no one I know believes it will happen.
Many of those settlers will die—and kill—rather than move.
The last Israeli politician to shoot Jews in pursuit of state policy was David Ben-Gurion, who forcibly disarmed Begin’s illegal Irgun militia in 1948 and integrated it into the new Israel Defense Forces.
CENTCOM cannot help in the coming Civil War in Israel, but they will keep Hizballah and Hamas from taking advantage of the immanent Chaos.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 3, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Today, if you count the settlers in East Jerusalem-- part of Palestine--there are over 500,000 settlers in Arab Palestine-- they will not all leave peacefully-- a Civil War is inevitable-- and after that a one state solution is inevitable, like S Africa.
S Africa could provide the model and facilitators to achieve a just one state Democracy in Israel/ Palestine and this will serve US policy and protect the lives of American troops in Muslim states throughout the region and beyond-- it will end the war on terrorists and be good for those now called Israelis.
What will be the name of the new peaceful one state in the Holy Land ?
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jul 4, 2010 at 6:22 am
I was wondering how long before Sharon fell into his/her usual diatribes against Israel, or I guess we could say more accurately against the existence of Israel and for Hezbellah/Hamas and her latest, South Africa, style organizations and techniques and all the wonderful results they bring.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 4, 2010 at 10:01 am
Perspective--it did not take long. Plus SHaron always sings the same tune vis a vis Israel--comparisons to SOuth Africa, Israel is all wrong etc.
She provides "proof" for her statements by posting links to an online foreign policy website, in which articles are written by a former adviser to Hamas and Hezbollah. This website and Sharon have been well known for putting words into people's mouths and making claims that Petraeus and others have made statements that they have never made.
Sharon also needs to bone up on the history of East Jerusalem.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jul 4, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Um..Sharon..exactly how is an article in the WSJ about some Palestinians shifting AWAY from violence exhibiting a profound shift in US policy and attitudes? Sounds like a shift toward civilization for some who are abandoning..well..violence...good news!
It is time for a chill-pill I think. Go out, enjoy the day, celebrate the foundation of the first country in the world, and just about the only one still, to fully defend your right to speak out any political or religious opinion you wish to speak without fear of government reprisal, participate in any religion that lives within our laws that you wish to participate in... It is July 4th, and go thank God you are here ( if you are).
Best wishes to all and Happy 4th! Good time to re-read the Declaration of Independence..it forces the comparison to where we are today.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 4, 2010 at 4:29 pm
"Fridays WSJ reflects the profound changes in US policy towards the current Israeli regime. Web Link"
Hmm, headline of the article reads: Israel's Foes Embrace New Resistance Tactics.
"It is a matter of putting US interests first, as Petraeus, Gates and Biden have stated repeatedly"
This is a factoid repeated over and over by Sharon, based on writings in an online magazine called Foreign Policy. Articles are written by Mark Perry a former adviser to the Hamas and HEzbollah terrorist organizations.
Petraeus has gone on record as stating that the quotes attributed to him by Perry are false.
"This underlies a tectonic shift in public support and sympathy for the cause of Palestinian statehood and disenchantment with the Occupation and Israeli policy."
There is no tectonic shift. Not sure if Sharon thinks there will be one if she keeps on saying that there is.
"Even only a few months ago you simply would not have seen such a report in WSJ. You still won’t likely see it in the NY Times."
Well, you did not see it in the WSJ, since it did not exist, so you certainly will not see it in the Times.
"Certainly, no one can accuse the WSJ of going weak in the knees over the Palestinian cause. Which makes such reporting all the more remarkable."
Yes, pretty remarkable how they are reporting one thing (about Hamas and Hezbollah) and Sharon is saying they are talking about profound changes in US policy.
"Ultimately there will be a S Africa type solution in the Holy Land,as the setters will never move out."
Really, Sharon??? Why do the settlers have to move out? If Israel gives up the West Bank the settlers can remain as Palestinian citizens. Oh, wait, Jews are not allowed to live in arab nations--they have all been ethnically cleansed over the years.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 4, 2010 at 6:09 pm
@Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood
At our Independence Day party on campus the issue of American interests first in our foreign policy was a key topic of conversation.
We have no permanent friends or enemies, we have permanent interests.
The overwhelming view is that our policy re the Holy Land has changed and that a S African solution is the best option in terms of US interests-- Mandela has expressed an interest in helping out in the Mid East---we feel the decision has already been made--it is now all about execution.
Palisraelia, given the natural gas reserves and intellectual talent the bi national state has a good chance of success-- it really is up to them to sort it out.
The US has more important thing to worry about at this point.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 4, 2010 at 7:12 pm
addendum and evidence
"Last month, Israel’s ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, said the Jewish state had suffered a “tectonic rift” with America.
“There is no crisis in Israel-US relations because in a crisis there are ups and downs,” he told Israeli diplomats in Jerusalem. “Relations are in the state of a tectonic rift in which continents are drifting apart.”
Oren said that assessments of Israeli policy at the White House have moved away from the historic and ideological underpinnings of earlier administrations in favour of a cold calculation."
In other words what is in Americas and our troops best interests?
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 5, 2010 at 12:18 pm
"At our Independence Day party on campus the issue of American interests first in our foreign policy was a key topic of conversation."
Where on campus was your party? I did not see it? Who else was there-like minded people like yourself? You claims on AMerica's foreign policy are laughable
"We have no permanent friends or enemies, we have permanent interests."
I guess if you continue to repeat this it may come true. On th eother hand....
"The overwhelming view is that our policy re the Holy Land has changed and that a S African solution is the best option in terms of US interests-- Mandela has expressed an interest in helping out in the Mid East---we feel the decision has already been made--it is now all about execution."
Overwhelming view of who? I guess you also believe if you keep on repeating the "south african solution" scenario it may come true also. However the two issues are not comparable--saying that the blacks under the afrikaaners are like Hamas and Israel is ridiculous and shows your ignorance and bias about the facts.
Who is we? who has made the decision? When did Mandela say he wanted to be involved?
"Palisraelia, given the natural gas reserves and intellectual talent the bi national state has a good chance of success-- it really is up to them to sort it out."
I see Sharon has come up with a new word--"Palisraelia". Sounds cute, but there will be no one-state solution. The palestinians do not want it and neither do the israelis. It is all a fantasy.
"The US has more important thing to worry about at this point."
I will agree with that--the US has more important things to do then deal with your fantasies.
""Last month, Israel’s ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, said the Jewish state had suffered a “tectonic rift” with America."
That is one person's opinion> however that does not address your claims of a "tectonic shift" in the public's view of the matter ("This underlies a tectonic shift in public support and sympathy for the cause of Palestinian statehood and disenchantment with the Occupation and Israeli policy")
"In other words what is in Americas and our troops best interests?"
Clearly a strong democratic Israel in the region is in our best interests or do you suggest that the US embrace the anti-christian, anti-semetic, anti-women's rights, anti-gay, anti-free press, anti-democracy regimes in the area? Really, Sharon?
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jul 5, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Well, great opinion piece by Victor Davis Hanson. What I really like about this historian is that he often, if not always, backs his opinions with factual patterns from history that back him up. In this case, he draws a long list of "a few words" from Chamberlain to Carter to Clinton to Bush 1 or their Admin that supports his thesis that our seemingly kindly and occasionally random words pave the way for yet more war, as enemies of liberty see these words as symptoms of weakness ready to roll over and take whatever is dished out.
Recommend reading it.. We must always put ourselves in the shoes of those who simply want to destroy us and control us...
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jul 5, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Actually, not just us..also destroy/control others with whom we interact and on whom we depend...This is the human condition at its worst, its desire to control/destroy other humans, and we are, or used to be, the line of defense between destructive control and constructive freedom.
Consensus forming in Washington that Israeli government is abusing support with policies seen to be risking US lives"
A former director of intelligence assessment for the US defence secretary, last month caused waves with a paper called Israel as a Strategic Liability? In it, Anthony Cordesman, who has written extensively on the Middle East, noted a shift in thinking at the White House, the US state department and, perhaps crucially, the Pentagon over the impact of Washington's long-unquestioning support for Israeli policies even those that have undermined the prospects for peace with the Palestinians.Web Link
"Last month Israel’s ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, said the Jewish state had suffered a “tectonic rift” with America."
we have addressed this issue previously--not sure why Sharon continues to constantly beat a dead horse.
Regarding her story in the Guardian--clearly the author is not familiar with what he is talking about--
"But his insistence on building Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem..."
East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem--Israel is not building "settlements" within the city!!!!
Anyway, what is missing from Sharon's non-stop diatribes against Israel is the placement of any of the blame or responsibility for the issues between Israel and the Palestinians at the feet of Hamas and their associates. Sharon blithely ignores the main problem--Hamas' continued call for Israel's destruction and their unwillingness to recognize the Jewish State. Sharon's constant blaming of Israel demonstrates her one-sided bias on this matter.
While it is clear that Israel has made mistakes, it is unfortunate that Hamas,when Israel withdrew, chose to engage in a non-stop campaign of sending rockets into Israel. Thatis why there was military action and a blockade.
However despite the insistence of Sharon and other apologists for Palestinian terrorism, there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza:
("Visiting Gaza persuaded me, to my surprise, that Israel is correct when it denies that there is any full-fledged humanitarian crisis in Gaza. "
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 5, 2010 at 7:29 pm
The issue for American is what foreign policies and actions are in the USAs best interests?
General McChrystal fought for American interests--- his bosses General Petraeus, Gates and Biden have stated clearly that associating the USA with current Israeli policy harms US interests in the region and the world and endangers the lives of US troops.
The solutions are quite simple
1/ Israel changes its policies
2/ USA abandons Israel and aligns itself with allies who, in fact, further our interests
Israel is a sovereign country, it can do what it wants--- but not on our dime.
Israeli activists can say that is "attacking Israel"
Americans say it is a matter of our troops lives and our best interests in the world.
Last month Israel’s ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, said the Jewish state had suffered a “tectonic rift” with America.
He was referring, in part, to a secret study commissioned by the Israeli regime which has now been leaked
"The Israel Project (TIP), an American Hasbara outfit, commissioned Republican political consultant Frank Luntz to examine the effectiveness of Israel’s public diplomacy in the US on the Flotilla debacle. TIP gave the memo to the Prime Minister’s Office, where someone promptly leaked it to Chico Menashe, Channel Ten TV News diplomatic affairs correspondent.
Luntz’s findings are grim. Here’s a summary:
1. 56% of Americans agree with the claim that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza;
2. 43% of Americans agree with the claim that people in Gaza are starving;
3. [Only] 34% of Americans support the Israeli operation against the Flotilla;
4. [Only] 20% of Americans “felt support” for Israel following announcement of easing of Gaza closure.
The figures are troubling and worrisome. If that is the situation with our great friend the US, it is easy to imagine the situation in other, somewhat less sympathetic countries."
The issue for us is not the tribal/religious colonial disputes in the Holy Land--
The issue for us, as it is for General McChrystal, General Petraeus, Gates and Biden and all Americans is American best interests.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 6, 2010 at 6:15 am
"General McChrystal fought for American interests--- his bosses General Petraeus, Gates and Biden have stated clearly that associating the USA with current Israeli policy harms US interests in the region and the world and endangers the lives of US troops."
The above comments about Petraeus, Gates and Biden and their statements are lies that Sharon has been propagating on this forum for months (you will note that Sharon never provides links to these supposed statements that were made--they do not exist)
Petraeus, Gates and Biden have made no such statements and have denied published reports written by a former adviser to Hamas and HEzbollah that they have made those statements.
"2/ USA abandons Israel and aligns itself with allies who, in fact, further our interests"
I thought our interests were democracies in the middle east. Israel fits the bill. Or do you suggest that the US embrace the anti-christian, anti-semetic, anti-women's rights, anti-gay, anti-free press, anti-democracy regimes in the area?
" 1. 56% of Americans agree with the claim that there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza;
2. 43% of Americans agree with the claim that people in Gaza are starving;"
Shows you how people can be fooled. There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the people are not starving.
Also if you go to Sharon's link about the poll and click on the "The ISrael Project" at the top of the story--you will get to this site:
"The poll shows that almost two-thirds of U.S. voters believe relations with Israel are important to the U.S. national interest"
"By a more than 2-1 ratio, Americans said Israel has the right to impose a blockade on Gaza. More than two-thirds agree that Israel has a right to inspect cargo coming into Gaza. Additionally, 58 percent of Americans believe that the so-called activists aboard a Turkish flotilla are to blame when Israel intercepted a ship carrying supplies to Gaza and encountered armed and violent participants, resulting in nine deaths."
"A strong majority – 58 percent of Americans – said they believe the United States “should” take Israel’s side in the conflict. That compares to only nine percent who believe the United States should take the Palestinians’ side. "
This seems to go against the claims that Sharon has made (also remember that these are from a link that Sharon herself provided).
This seems to show that the US supports Israel and their is no "tectonic" shift in US opinion regarding Israel as Sharon has claims many times before.
Sharon continues her one-sided and biased campaign against Israel. Why is no blame attached to Hamas and the Palestinians? No mention of their calls for ISrael's destruction. No mention of what led to the blockade of Gaza. Obviously, Sharon cannot be taken seriously until she takes a more even-handed approach to the issue.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 6, 2010 at 7:44 am
Whoops, missed this one Sharon
"1/ Israel changes its policies"
Wouldn't it be simpler for Hamas to change their policy? Recognize Israel, stop calling for it's destruction. Then you will have peace. Look what has happened in the west Bank--Palestinian police are cooperating with the Israeli military, checkpoints are down--not perfect yet, but getting there.
Too bad, Sharon, you fail to point the finger at Hamas and it's continued acts of war and terrorism against Israel
Posted by J3, a resident of another community, on Jul 6, 2010 at 6:41 pm
I was on McCrystal's staff in 2007. It was an elite and violent organization, and it steadily moved to isolate itself from policy makers and the bigger Army. The entire staff was elitist, cocky and willing to take chances; you had to be to survive. The article caught me off guard, but I was not completely surprised. The war in AFG is not winnable as it is currently being fought or directed by Washington. The winnable solution is probably not an option anyway. McCrystal's demise should be a warning to us all.
"Outspoken recognition by President Barack Obama of Israel's "unique security requirements" is a clear signal Washington backs Israel's secretive nuclear strategy while working toward ridding the Middle East of atomic arms, a top Israeli official said."
"U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly emphasized the strength and durability of ties between their two countries Tuesday "
U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly emphasized the strength and durability of ties between their two countries Tuesday "
These stories and others that can be found dispell SHaron's claims of a "tectonic" shift in the US view of Israel and prove conclusively that her claims about a "new foreign policy" are flase (not that SHaron has ever provided any links to back up her statements)
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Professor Jerome Slater has some thoughts on the wasted meeting between Obama and Netanyahu , he supports the view that a large part of IDF will support the settlers in any show down Web Link the civil war scenario—
“Worst of all, it is highly doubtful that anything the United States can do would result in meaningful changes in Israeli policies. Consider the strongest action the U.S. could take: making its diplomatic, economic, and military aid to Israel conditional upon a two-state settlement. Not only is it the case that such a dramatic change in U.S. policies is all but unthinkable, new policies would probably not work: even if Netanyahu was inclined to bow to US pressures (in any case, unlikely), he would almost certainly face fierce and violent domestic resistance, and it is by no means certain that the Israeli army, in which the settlers and the religious fundamentalists are increasingly powerful, would side with the government.
To put in bluntly, Israel is probably a lost cause and can no longer be saved from itself: it is hard to see what could arrest the country’s headlong flight into paranoia, moral collapse, increasing domestic repression of even Jewish dissidents, and general national stupidity.”
Years ago Israel was a vibrant multiparty state– now it is really a one party state Hamas was stupid to launch its suicide bombing campaign– it was morally wrong and enabled the right wing in Israel to stage a coup– Hamas gave up its killing of civilians but the right wing coup is getting stronger– Where has this happened before and what was the outcome?
Posted by laughing, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 10, 2010 at 7:19 am
Never let it be said that the facts get in the way of a Sharon post. But I do have to hand it to her for searching the Internet to find crack pots that express her skewed views of Israel. Still amazing how some people willigly support enemies of democracy
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 10, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Jerome Slater is a professor (emeritus) of political science, currently holding the position of University Research Scholar, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Since 1963 he has taught and written about U.S. foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both for professional journals (such as International Security, Security Studies, and Political Science Quarterly) and for the general reading public, such as Dissent, Tikkun, and The New Republic.
Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 10, 2010 at 6:00 pm
My motivation is to further the global interest of American policy and commerce.
If you go to professor Slater's web site he is very clear about his interests-- quote
"A word on my perspective: I regard myself as a disillusioned, even despairing, Zionist with close ties to Israel, including my offer (following my 1957-60 service as a destroyer officer in the U.S. Navy) to serve in the same capacity in the Israeli Navy, should I be needed (I wasn’t). In addition, I was a Fulbright professor at Haifa University in 1989.
For the most part, the spirit that will guide this blog will be Tough Love: Israel is on course for a moral and strategic disaster and must be “saved from itself,” principally by the United States and the American Jewish community. Though there is no choice but to keep trying, the prospects that tough love will work are admittedly dim. If it fails, those of us Jews who believe that Israel is betraying our heritage as well as its promise to become a “Light Unto the Nations” still have a moral imperative to speak out.
Another spirit that will guide this blog, then, is this: Not In My Name."
Posted by Laughing, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jul 10, 2010 at 7:35 pm
As I said previously one can search for and find crack pots to support any argument. Sharon is good at that. The fact that you support an issue does not make it right. Sharon seems to obsessed with Israel. I guess a democracy in the middle east makes Sharon feel uncomfortable . The fact that it is a Jewish democracy with a free Arab minority may make her more uncomfortable. The fact that the greatest criticism of Israel comes from within it's borders is lost on Sharon. Perhaps if Sharon is really interested in america's interest she should travel to the middle east and engage in dialogue with the Arab nations. Never mind she is a woman so her view is not welcome
Posted by She's done it again, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Jul 10, 2010 at 7:59 pm
You know, Sharon, bloggers on the internet are a dime a dozen these days. The fact that Mr Slater is a professor emeritus does not mean that his opinion is correct of that he has anything to say of value.
Those that are looking to bash Israel on a daily basis, as Sharon does, will worship the ground he walks on since he is parroting her misguided beliefs. I am also sure that Sharon can (and probably has) found many others that write the crap that Mr Slater. Sharon is free to say whatever she wants as it is mr Slater's right to write whatever he pleases. of course that does not mean that Sharon or Mr Slater will ever be taken seriously.
Posted by She's done it again, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Jul 10, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Oh wait a second, I actually found Mr Slater's blog.
Anyone who can write the following (which Sharon already has posted) cannot be taken seriously on the issue of Israel and the Palestinians
"To put in bluntly, Israel is probably a lost cause and can no longer be saved from itself: it is hard to see what could arrest the country’s headlong flight into paranoia, moral collapse, increasing domestic repression of even Jewish dissidents, and general national stupidity.”"
Now I understand why Sharon is swallowing his possible senile rantings, hook line and sinker
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Meadow Park neighborhood, on Jul 11, 2010 at 5:22 am
Thanks Hook, Line and Sinker. I don't even bother going to the links any more because they are all like what you found, but I appreciate your confirmation.
Yup, bottom line...In Israel all people are free and equal citizens, with the freedom to worship as one wishes, to criticize the government, regardless of religion, gender, race, sexual orientation..the freedoms must keep on rolling.
It drives those who want to CONTROL everyone, both wanna-be tyrants within and those outside Israel's borders, absolutely insane that their bretheren are FREE in that country, and even defended in their freedoms by JEWS. It drives the same wanna-be tyrants insane that we won't tolerate oppression in the USA either, turning a "blind eye" like they do in Europe..so Israel and USA are despised by those who hate our freedoms.
Oh well, I take comfort in a couple of my latest favorite quotes
"I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused". by Elvis Costello.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."
C. S. Lewis
CS Lewis reminds me that fascism/communism is not new, and in fact has been defeated repeatedly in the realm of ideas AND in the realm of war in the last 100 years. Freedom in the world is growing, as is "good", and so now I rest better at night.
By the way, I noticed that "Sharon" showed up about the time a formerly prolific online male "poster" stopped posting here, but continued to regularly get into the Letters to the Editor pages of all the local papers. I don't think this is any coincidence.
Posted by The Real Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 11, 2010 at 12:48 pm
Let us analyze Mr Slater's claim:
""To put in bluntly, Israel is probably a lost cause and can no longer be saved from itself: it is hard to see what could arrest the country’s headlong flight into paranoia, moral collapse, increasing domestic repression of even Jewish dissidents, and general national stupidity.”""
Paranoia--Is Mr SLater claiming that Israel is making it all up when they say that Hamas continues to call for their destruction
Moral Collapse--hmmm-what moral collapse is Mr Slater speaking about exactly. Considering his background, I would not lecture others on morals
increasing domestic repression of even Jewish dissidents--this claim is so laughable, that anyone with any knowledge of Israel and freedom would know that it must have come from an addled mind. Israel has always been very open about self-criticism--check out the newspapers, checkout the organizations that advocate for the Palestinians, check out the protests against policy in Israel by it's citizens.
general national stupidity--I guess Mr Slater would know about stupidity. But what is he talking about here exactly? Is Isreal stupid for not closing up shop and leaving the mideast or is ISrael stupid for defending itself against terrorist aggression?
Posted by victor davis, a resident of the Adobe-Meadows neighborhood, on Jan 27, 2013 at 12:44 pm
omigawd: "What I really like about this historian is that he often, if not always, backs his opinions with factual patterns from history that back him up." That's not a historian, dude, if he only sometimes bases his opinion on facts! Davis is an op-ed columnist.