Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Giuliani's proposal for endless Middle East wars on behalf of Israel

Giuliani's proposal for endless Middle East wars on behalf of Israel 
In London this week, Rudy Giuliani proposed what is probably the single
most extremist policy of any major presidential candidate, certainly this
year and perhaps in many years:
Rudy Giuliani talked tough on Iran yesterday, proposing to expand NATO to
include Israel and warning that if Iran's leaders go ahead with their goal
to be a nuclear power "we will prevent it, or we will set them back five
or 10 years." . . . . 
While Giuliani did not explicitly address the implications for Iran of
adding Israel to NATO in his speech, his aides later highlighted a 2006
Heritage Foundation paper by Nile Gardiner, a former Thatcher aide who was
announced as a new Giuliani adviser yesterday. 
That step would "leave the mullahs with no illusions about the West's
determination to respond to Iran's strategic threat to the region,"
Gardiner wrote. "Any nuclear or conventional attack on Israel, be it
direct or through proxies such as Hezbollah or other terrorist groups,
would be met by a cataclysmic response from the West." 
Adding Israel to NATO has been opposed by France and some other European
nations in the past, largely because it would entangle the alliance in the
Middle East.
Like most countries, Israel deems all of its wars to be defensive wars in
response to threats. So Rudy Giuliani, as President, would in essence deem
any war in which Israel is involved to be, by definition, a war on the
U.S., and would use American resources and lives to become involved in any
such war and fight on behalf of Israel. Shouldn't the fact that the
leading GOP candidate for President believes such a thing be the source of
a bit more discussion? Other than John Edwards' views regarding haircuts,
is there any major presidential candidate who has espoused a view anywhere
near this radical or controversial? 
Israel has been involved, and will continue to be involved, in an endless
series of wars with its neighbors over matters having nothing to do with
U.S. interests. As Matt Yglesias noted, Guiliani's policy would, among
many other things, "commit[] the United States to the armed defense of the
borders of a country that lacks internationally recognized borders." A
Giuliani presidency would mean that we would be almost immediately deemed
to be at war with Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran. It is hard to imagine
a more certain and rapid guarantee of endless American wars in the Middle
East than this. 
In a rational world, Giuliani's proposal would be a major controversy, and
the other presidential candidates -- Republican and Democrat alike --
would be loudly pointing to this extremist view to harm the Giuliani
campaign. After all, if Americans are asked: "Do you think the U.S. should
fight in any wars that Israel fights?" or "do you believe the U.S. should
consider any attack on Israel to be an attack on the U.S.?", is there
really any doubt what the views of most Americans would be? Giuliani's
desire to commit the U.S. military to fighting in any Israeli wars is
obviously a fringe position -- the type that normally harms presidential
candidates greatly. 
During the Israel-Hezbollah war last summer -- even with virtually no
significant political figures criticizing the Bush administration for
involving itself so blatantly in supporting Israel's war effort -- the
vast majority of Americans wanted the U.S. to stay out of that war. A
Washington Post poll found that a plurality (46%) blamed "both sides
equally" (Israel and Hezbollah) for the war; a plurality (48%) believed
that Israel's claimed "bombing [of] rocket launchers and other Hezbollah
targets located in civilian areas" was "not justified"; and a solid
majority (54-38%) said Israel "should do more to try to avoid civilian
casualties in Lebanon." 
More importantly, while large majorities favored the deployment of U.N.
peacekeeping forces to Lebanon, a large majority (59-38%) opposed having
U.S. troops involved in that force. More significantly still was this
finding from an August, 2006 CBS News/New York Times poll:
"Do you think the U.S. has a responsibility to try to resolve the conflict
between Israel and other countries in the Middle East, or is that not the
U.S.' business?" 
Has responsibility - 39% 
Not the U.S.' business - 56% 
Not sure - 5%
That large majority is opposed merely to America's efforts to broker a
resolution, let alone to an American commitment, as Giuliani proposes, to
fight in every war that Israel fights with its neighbors. A USA
Today/Gallup Poll taken at the same time found:
In the current conflict, do you think the United States should take
Israel's side, take the side of Hezbollah, or not take either side? 
Israel's - 31% 
Hezbollah's - 0% 
Neither - 65%
As always, it is worth underscoring how lopsided American public opinion
is on these questions even though there is virtually no significant
American politician who was or is willing to criticize Israel's actions in
Lebanon, and equally few who were willing to argue that U.S. support for
Israel is excessive. With Americans now even more overwhelmingly against
ongoing U.S. occupation in Iraq than they were back then, these numbers
are almost certainly even more imbalanced against increased U.S.
involvement in the Middle East. 
Plainly, the last thing most Americans want is for the U.S. to expand its
involvement in Middle East wars, particularly when doing so is on behalf
of the interests not of the U.S., but of another country. Yet here is
Giuliani advocating that we do exactly that -- embrace an obviously
radical strategy opposed by the overwhelming majority of Americans, likely
vehemently opposed -- and the silence is deafening. 
Of course, none of Giuliani's extremism on this issue should be
surprising, given that his senior foreign policy advisor is Norman
Podhoretz, whose life has been devoted to trying to induce the U.S. to
wage war against any country hostile to Israel. Podhoretz was one of the
signatories on the 2002 PNAC letter to President Bush which declared that
"No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common
enemy" and -- listing Iraq, Iran and Syria, among others -- argued that
"Israel is fighting the same war." Podhoretz currently "prays" that the
U.S. bomb Iran. 
This idea of Israel joining NATO is even a fringe idea in Israel, where it
has been pushed primarily by Israeli super-hawk, Minister of Strategic
Affairs Avigdor Lieberman, consistent with his own self-described mission:
"Our first task is to convince Western countries to adopt a tough approach
to the Iranian problem." And by "tough approach," he does not mean
diplomacy: "The dialogue with Iran will be a 100-percent failure, just
like it was with North Korea." 
In some sense, one can welcome Giuliani's explicit advocacy that we view
all of Israel's enemies as, by definition, enemies of the U.S. Virtually
all of the swirling war dances towards Iran are rooted in this belief, but
advocates of war with Iran are too dishonest to acknowledge it openly. In
his Washington Post column this morning, for instance, Charles Krauthammer
-- long an advocate of war with Iran -- listed the four specific crimes
that allegedly demonstrate that Iran is our Enemy ("our" meaning the
United States):
(1) Hamas launching rockets into Israeli towns and villages across the
border from the Gaza Strip. Its intention is to invite an Israeli
reaction, preferably a bloody and telegenic ground assault. 
(2) Hezbollah heavily rearmed with Iranian rockets transshipped through
Syria and preparing for the next round of fighting with Israel. The third
Lebanon war, now inevitable, awaits only Tehran's order. 
(3) Syria, Iran's only Arab client state, building up forces across the
Golan Heights frontier with Israel. And on Wednesday, yet another
anti-Syrian member of Lebanon's parliament was killed in a massive car
bombing. 
(4) The al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard training and
equipping Shiite extremist militias in the use of the deadliest IEDs and
rocketry against American and Iraqi troops. Iran is similarly helping the
Taliban attack NATO forces in Afghanistan.
Of the four crimes in the Bill of Particulars against Iran, only one has
anything even ostensibly to do with the U.S., and that is composed of
highly dubious claims (arming the Taliban) and ones which hardly
demonstrate its Evil (they are interfering in a neighboring country of
theirs which we invaded and are occupying with 160,000 soldiers). As
Krauthammer's column illuminates, for those salivating for an American war
with Iran, the case is grounded overwhelmingly in the Giuliani View --
that the U.S. should use its resources and lives to wage war against any
country hostile to Israel. 
Why do Giuliani and Krauthammer and friends feel so free to advocate a
plainly fringe position of Endless War on behalf of Israel? Usually,
political advocates, and particularly presidential candidates, avoid such
positions like the plague. Here, it is because no political figure can
possibly oppose this view, at least not explicitly. Is it even possible to
imagine a presidential candidate objecting to the view that the U.S.
should consider Israel's enemies to be enemies of the U.S., even though
vast majorities of Americans share that objection? 
As is true for Iraq, it is so striking how little public opinion matters
when it comes to formulating American policy. What accounts for the
complete unwillingess of any presidential candidate to seize on Giuliani's
extremist and fringe position? The neoconservative New York Sun -- not
Mearsheimer and Walt in their important, richly documented and now
NYT-Best-Selling new book, but The New York Sun -- provided an answer
recently:
It [an AIPAC dinner] is also an important illustration of just how much
stock all of the presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike,
will put in the pro-Israel community, particularly for campaign dollars. .
 . . 
A Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton's
re-election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the Aipac dinner always
draws a parade of politicians. 
"New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come
from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for president and
you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested
in the issue that matters most to them."
And, of course, mentioning any of this subjects one to a cascade of
predictable and transparently exploitive though still nasty accusations of
anti-semitism, and what presidential candidate would possibly want that?
And thus Rudy Giuliani can propose a policy that is incomparably dangerous
and intensely unpopular, yet know that his doing so will result in no
political price being paid. 
Now that we are occupying two Middle Eastern countries, with a broken
military, and are threatening imminent war with at least another one,
isn't it long past time to have the discussion about the extent to which
the U.S. is willing to wage war on behalf of Israel's interests? Do
Americans really think that Iranian hostility towards Israel or its
support for "terrorists groups" that are hostile to Israel are grounds for
declaring Iran to be our Enemy or waging war against them? If so, then let
proponents of war with Iran make that case expressly. And for the rest of
the presidential campaign, shouldn't Giuliani's desire to involve the U.S.
military in every war Israel fights be a rather central feature in
discussions of his potential presidency?
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 Giuliani's proposal for endless Middle East wars on behalf of Israel
E chissà perché il somaro si vergogna di farci sapere qual è la fonte,
diciamo così peculiare, di questa bella colata di liquame rossobruno.
Tb

 E chissà perché
la cloaca massima rosapugnettare del likud aka toni-goebbelsuccio,
colando merda dalla bocca, richiede la fonte dell'articolo ? Ok .
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/21/giuliani_israel/index.html
Giuliani's proposal for endless Middle East wars on behalf of Israel











Has responsibility - 39%

Not sure - 5%

Israel's - 31%
Hezbollah's - 0%
Neither - 65%













for campaign dollars. . . . .
A Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton's re-
election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the Aipac dinner always
draws a parade of politicians.
"New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money
come from the Jewish community," he said. "If you're running for
president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that
you're interested in the issue that matters most to them."
And, of course, mentioning any of this subjects one to a cascade of
predictable and transparently exploitive though still nasty
accusations of anti-semitism, and what presidential candidate would
possibly want that? And thus Rudy Giuliani can propose a policy that
is incomparably dangerous and intensely unpopular, yet know that his
doing so will result in no political price being paid.
Now that we are occupying two Middle Eastern countries, with a broken
military, and are threatening imminent war with at least another one,
isn't it long past time to have the discussion about the extent to
which the U.S. is willing to wage war on behalf of Israel's interests?
Do Americans really think that Iranian hostility towards Israel or its
support for "terrorists groups" that are hostile to Israel are grounds
for declaring Iran to be our Enemy or waging war against them? If so,
then let proponents of war with Iran make that case expressly. And for
the rest of the presidential campaign, shouldn't Giuliani's desire to
involve the U.S. military in every war Israel fights be a rather
central feature in discussions of his potential presidency?
-- Glenn Greenwald

 
http://www.salon.com/
ROTFL
/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/21/giuliani_israel/index.html
Orpo. "On behalf of Israel".
Bel liquame sei andato a suggere  anche stavolta.
Complimenti, somarello colante.
Tb
-- 
E' una grande mitzvah essere sempre felici (R. Nachman di Breslavia)

 ROTFL
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/20/america/20rudy.php

 
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/20/america/20rudy.php
Grazie  vecchio camerata. Interessante differenza  di taglio tra questo 
articolo e il liquame che succhia il somaro colante, eh?
Qui, sull'Herald Tribune non vedo parlare di "wars on behalf of Israel" 
ad esempio. Forse è la mancanza di accenti antisemiti che lo ha fatto 
mancare alla considerazione del ragliante rossobruno.


 Qui, sull'Herald Tribune non vedo parlare di "wars on behalf of Israel"
#_Ma quanti anni hai maremma zucchina! ...ti devono sempre accompagnare per 
mano?
Ma iNZomma baruccodonosor  , tu che stai a contatto 'culo-preservativo' con 
fucilino di Shaul Mofaz, dimmi...l'armamento nucleare IL, costruito ~50 anni 
fa nel deserto del Neghev, si sta arrugginendo?
Costano care le occupazioni di terre non proprie eh?
Pretendiamo di chiamare le truppe Nato a svolgere lo sporco lavoro?
G.

 Pretendiamo di chiamare le truppe Nato a svolgere lo sporco lavoro?
...ti hanno informato che Giuliani non e' un candidato israeliano?
C'e' d'Alema, invece, che mi pare proponga l'occupazione di Gaza da 
parte di forze europee.
Informandoti che nemmeno d'Alema ha passaporto israeliano, ti chiedo: 
che ne pensate dell'idea voi vecchi camerati spiaggiati?
Tb 

 ...ti hanno informato che Giuliani non e' un candidato israeliano?
#_Certo! Ma m'hanno bisbigliato propio ieri, che quel poraccio bburino, 
seNZa dubbio, sta solo leccando la Innominabbile Lobby made in USA per avere 
un briciolo di chances!!!
G. 

 Pretendiamo di chiamare le truppe Nato a svolgere lo sporco lavoro?
quoto.

 quoto.
Quindi concordi che la politica estera USA e' fatta in Israele?
Molto interessante.
Tb

 Quindi concordi che la politica estera USA e' fatta in Israele?
huè nazicloaca del likud,
io dico che c'e' una "bella" collaborazione tra i due. E' da
antisemita ?

 io dico che c'e' una "bella" collaborazione tra i due.
Non essere timido sergetto, che intendi per "bella" collaborazione?
 Stavi quotando un ex camerata che sostiene esattamente che le truppe 
Nato sono a disposizione dei (presunti) desideri israeliani. Hai 
quotato a cazzo o ti vergogni di quel che sostieni, somarello 
inghiorpone?
Tb 

 inghiorpone?
Inquietente interrogativo.
Tb 

 Non essere timido sergetto, che intendi per "bella" collaborazione?
nazicloaca del likud, ma sei già ubriacato? cosa significa
collaborazione secondo te?

 Inquietente interrogativo.
CVD, il buffone può ridere soltanto quotandosi...

 cosa significa collaborazione secondo te?
La domanda e' tua.
Davvero, come si evince dal tuo quote e dalla merda che posti, pensi 
che Israele faccia la politica estera USA? Perche' e' un'idea molto 
interessante e, direi, peculiare.
In alternativa, quoti e posti a cazzo (che poi e' la ragione per cui 
ognun sa che un somaro e' sempre un somaro, ma non puo' essere 
antisemita).
Allora, quale delle due?
Tb

giovanni2 ha scritto:



vedrai che arriveranno le sue scimmiette ridens adesso per non farlo
sentire solo. tra santini, amalric, antola e magister chi taglierà il
traguardo per primo?


 collaborazione secondo te?
sergio, come può capire il significato di una parola come
"collaborazione"? Per collaborare bisogna pensare di fare qualcosa per
gli altri, concetto assolutamente alieno al DNA dei craxinai...

 Davvero, come si evince dal tuo quote e dalla merda che posti,
se reagisci cosi' vuol dire che non č merda. ottimo.


 "collaborazione"? 
beh in un modo sicuramente lo capisce quando si pensa ai repubblichini con
i nazisti, o i fascisti ungheresi con i nazisti...



/cut/
Somarello, hai dimenticato di rispondere alla domanda.
Te la ripropongo.
"Davvero credi che la politica estera USA si faccia in Israele, come 
si evince dai tuoi QUOTO e dalla merda che posti (vedi il titolo di 
questo thread)"?
Sono ansioso di capire sei sempre il solito somaro o se hai maturato 
una interessante (e direi peculiare) coscienza politica.
Tb 

 non sai rispondere?
"Collaborazione" e' molto diverso dalle cose dove hai scritto "quoto" 
e dalla merda antisemita che posti.
Da qui l'inquietante interrogativo.
Allora, sergetto, davvero credi che la politica estera USA sia fatta 
in Israele?
Si o no, please.
Tb 

 e dalla merda antisemita che posti.
disse la merdaccia del likud.
Rosica eh.

 disse la merdaccia del likud.
Devo riproperti la domanda.
Allora, davvero credi che la politica USA si faccia a Gerusalemme 
(come si evince dai tuoi quote e dalla merda antisemita che posti).
Oppure sei solo il solito somaro?
Tb 

  e dalla merda antisemita che posti
il gobbelsuccio delira di nuovo

 il gobbelsuccio delira di nuovo
Vedi ad esempio il subject.
Ma non lo fai con intenzione, vero?
Tb

 Vedi 
vedo il tuo delirio, appunto.


 L'occupazione dei territori palestinesi viene decisa a Washington?
ma vi fanno tutti idioti con lo stampino? Collaborare = lavorare
insieme. Ah, già, tu sei di quelli convinti che la politica estera sia
essere agli ordini di Bush..è chiaro che il concetto di collaborazione
ti è ignoto...


lui, come oswald mosley a suo tempo, collabora eccome porgendo il culo
sempre ai padroni svasticati (compresi quelli che sono oggi filolikud)

 ma non sono alleati vero?
Sono alleati, ma la domanda e' se tu pensi che la politica degli USA 
si faccia in Israele.
Oppure se sei il solito somaro che posta e quota merda antisemita a 
cazzo, senza volere. (vedi il titolo del thread).
Tb 

>> Chissà se è lo  stesso in america o Israele.

nazicloaca del likud, ma sei già ubriacato? 
Nazicloaca non è male!
