Conference taveng::bagels

>    But Bush WON'T support a loan "GUARANTEE" (meaning, no U.S. money is
>    transferred - we simply would vouch for Israel) for $10B

For the sake of accuracy, it should be pointed out that there is a technical
cost to this financial action (i.e., signing on the guarantees) which amounts
to some tens of millions of dollars -- I forget how many.

> 50% of which would likely be spent by Israel with U.S. firms!

I don't remember if the figure is 50%, but the word isn't "likely".
The funds *must* be spent in America, and they are very strict about it.

>    I can't see how these two events (and a string of other recent ones)
>    can be seen as anything but anti-semitic.
 
Was this said before in this conference?  Bush isn't anti-Semitic, he just
likes some Semites better than others Semites.  But at least they're honest.
Baker said "F the Jews" and that's what they're doing.

Sid

    Well, dealing with this highly emotional issue, let us try to use some
    cold calculation. First of all : Jewish vote is not critical for
    Republicans. Democrats do not have a candidate - Clinton is too
    vulnerable, and Brown seems to be a hypocrit-et-extreme.
    Anyway, they are not dangerous opponents for Mr.Bush.
    Secondly : USSR does not exist anymore, so, USA military action against
    somebody like Saddam Hussein is possible. Israel is not a strategic
    asset anymore. As Gulf War clearly demonstrated, Israel's potential
    participation in war efforts was a strategic liability. At least,
    Saddam honestly thought so. Iraq did its best trying to involve Israel
    in war.
    USA now wants to find (or enforce, if necessary) some kind of compromise in Middle East,
    USA has almost no leverage on Arab side (too many countries, they are
    too rich, they are good customers of weapons, important suppliers of
    oil, etc). And Israel is a small  nation, heavily dependent on USA. Quite naturally,
    USA pressure goes on the line of less resistance, which means -
    - on Israel. I'd even say - against Israel.
    Settlements problem is just a first shot. Borders issue, including
    Jerusalem, is next, I'm almost sure. The real problem for Israel is to
    decide, what should be done ? Is it possible to limit the damage ?
    Is it possible to live without American help ? 

    Great-power politics is not about who you like, but who can hurt
    you.  It's absolutely _not_ about rewarding the good and punishing
    the bad.
    
    The money going to the ex-Soviets is to prevent a take-over by
    militant nationalists who would become a military threat.  Given
    that five billion dollars is less than the fifty to a hundred
    billion extra we'd wind up spending on defense if there were 
    suddenly an antagonistic USSR-II, it's a cheap gamble.  It's not
    certain to work, but it's worth trying.
    
    Israel is no longer as valuable to the US geo-politically as
    it used to be, and so gets paid less.  Baker and company ask
    themselves "Who else can they get help from?"  Since the answer
    is "nobody", that means the US can pay less and ask for more.
    What the US wants is to defuse the Middle East.  You can argue
    that giving up Israeli territory won't do that, but I suspect
    the US Foreign policy establishment thinks it will.
    
    I'd also point out that the current governments of the CIS 
    state are not the same people as the old government of the USSR,
    so the argument that anti-Semitism is being rewarded is a bit weak.
    
    Baker's reputed "F- the Jews" is profane but rational local
    politics.  Most American Jews vote Democratic, and there's
    little hope they'd switch no matter how friendly the Bush
    administration was with Israel--and they're only a few percent
    of the population anyhow.  Given these facts, the Bush people
    have no reason to care about how the American Jewish community
    reacts to administration actions--Bush won't be hurt if what 
    he does is unpopular, and he won't be helped if what he does is
    popular.  What matters to Bush's campaign is the group called
    "Regan Democrats"--blue-collar and the lower-paid ranks of 
    white-collar people who used to vote Democrat but who recently
    voted Republican.  They _can_ be swayed, and they are about 20%
    of the electorate, so they are worth bribing.  Politicians
    normally conceal such calculations but they make them nonetheless.
    
    Finally, loan guarantees are not free, even leaving out the
    "technical" issues: the cost is calculated as the current value
    of the product of the likelyhood the loan will be defaulted
    at some time in the future times the value of the loan at that
    time.  If you believe the guarantee is costless, then you also
    believe that co-signing on someone else's loan is riskless--it's
    the same operation.  Are you willing to co-sign loans for free
    for people who live in a bad slum?  If not, why should the US
    sign for a country in a war zone?
    
    			-John Bishop

I think the "good for the Jews/Israel" vs "bad for the Jews/Israel" epithet
that's been applied to various U.S. politicians shows a lack of insight.
Politicians are self-interest personified.  In some cases, it's personal
self-interest, in others, perceived national self-interest.

Given the enormous geo-political changes of the past few years, and given
George Bush's background in the oil industry, I'm not at all surprised at
Bush's anti-Israel stand.

       As Gerald suggests in .4, I think it's important to make the
       distinction between someone who is anti-Semitic and someone who is
       anti-Israeli government policy.  An anti-Semite is almost always
       anti-Israeli policy; it's may well be wrong (and lead to
       distracting tangents) to assume that any criticism of the Israeli
       government is rooted in anti-Semitism.
       
       --Mr Topaz

re: Note 1199.1  SGWS::SID "Sid Gordon @ISO"

>For the sake of accuracy, it should be pointed out that there is a technical
>cost to this financial action (i.e., signing on the guarantees) which amounts
>to some tens of millions of dollars -- I forget how many.

Thanks, Sid, I was unaware of that.  Even at that cost, tens of millions can 
hardly be compared to $5B, especially where we could expect at least $5B to 
come back to the U.S. should we sign the guarnatee.

>I don't remember if the figure is 50%, but the word isn't "likely".
>The funds *must* be spent in America, and they are very strict about it.

All the more reason the 10's of millions shouldn't be a concern.

>>    I can't see how these two events (and a string of other recent ones)
>>    can be seen as anything but anti-semitic.
> 
>Was this said before in this conference?  Bush isn't anti-Semitic, he just
>likes some Semites better than others Semites.  

Techincally, you're right...

>But at least they're honest. Baker said "F the Jews" and that's what 
>they're doing.

Agreed.

Steve

re: Note 1199.2  DSSDEV::TENENBAUM

>    Settlements problem is just a first shot. Borders issue, including
>    Jerusalem, is next, I'm almost sure. The real problem for Israel is to
>    decide, what should be done ? Is it possible to limit the damage ?
>    Is it possible to live without American help ? 

With help like this...

re: Note 1199.3  MINAR::BISHOP

>                -< It's not anti-Semitism--it's self-interest >-

John, I'm not sure about this, but are you implying it's not anti-Semitic 
for a government to choose to turn its back on Israel in the name of 
furthering its own political interests?

>    The money going to the ex-Soviets is to prevent a take-over by
>    militant nationalists who would become a military threat.  Given
>    that five billion dollars is less than the fifty to a hundred
>    billion extra we'd wind up spending on defense if there were 
>    suddenly an antagonistic USSR-II, it's a cheap gamble.  It's not
>    certain to work, but it's worth trying.

Is it not equally worth trying to help Israel?  I thought the U.S. was 
supposed to support the notion that there is a Jewish state?
    
>    What the US wants is to defuse the Middle East.  You can argue
>    that giving up Israeli territory won't do that, but I suspect
>    the US Foreign policy establishment thinks it will.

This is my point.  The establishment has made a false assumption, and from 
that flows the kind of actions that seem to me (call me ignorant if you 
like) to be anti-Semitic.
    
>    I'd also point out that the current governments of the CIS 
>    state are not the same people as the old government of the USSR,
>    so the argument that anti-Semitism is being rewarded is a bit weak.

Have Jews stopped being persecuted in that part of the world?  If so, I'll 
retract the argument.
    
>    Baker's reputed "F- the Jews" is profane but rational local
>    politics.  

Is not Baker's statement anti-Semitic?  And again I would ask, are you 
saying that it's ok for him (or anyone) to be hateful toward Jews in the 
name of "rational politics"?

Isn't that a frightening line of thinking?

>    Most American Jews vote Democratic, and there's
>    little hope they'd switch no matter how friendly the Bush
>    administration was with Israel--and they're only a few percent
>    of the population anyhow.  Given these facts, the Bush people
>    have no reason to care about how the American Jewish community
>    reacts to administration actions--

Again, I think this is a pretty scary line of thinking (not attributing 
this to your personal thoughts, just saying if this is where Bush's head is 
at).  If it's that easy for him to care so little about Jewish people, 
what comes next in this country?

>    If you believe the guarantee is costless, then you also
>    believe that co-signing on someone else's loan is riskless--it's
>    the same operation.  Are you willing to co-sign loans for free
>    for people who live in a bad slum?  If not, why should the US
>    sign for a country in a war zone?

Good analogy and to be honest, I hadn't thought about it like this before.  
But I wonder if the analogy is apples and oranges?

I have heard (don't know if this is factual) that Israel has never 
defaulted on a loan - and let's face it, they've been in a warzone (not of 
their own choosing) since 1948.  I'd say it's one of the better risks we 
could get ourselves involed in.

Steve

re: Note 1199.5  CALLME::MR_TOPAZ

>it's may well be wrong (and lead to
>       distracting tangents) to assume that any criticism of the Israeli
>       government is rooted in anti-Semitism.

I agree, and for the record, that's not my point, nor is it what I said in 
.0.

The Israeli Gov't (like all other Gov'ts on the face of the planet) isn't 
perfect and I don't believe it's anti-Semitic to disagree with the gov't of 
Israel on given matters.

But it seems to me that the U.S. did at one point recognize that the nation 
of Israel was to be considered home to any Jewish person who wished to live 
there, and to be sure, those suffering persecution from the 4 corners of 
the world may well desire to live there.  In fact, within recent years, 
isn't it true that the U.S. was witholding aid from the Soviet Union in 
recognition of its human rights violations (esp. anti-Semitism and making 
it difficult/impossible for Jews to leave)?

So, I'm not suggesting that differences of opinion with the Israeli Gov't 
are anti-Semitic.  In fact, if it were only a debate about certain issues, 
I'd say it was healthy.  But it's beyond simple debate.  

It's:
	- demanding that a sovereign nation refuse to retaliate when
	  repeatedly attacked in a war it was not even participating in

	- undermining Israel's position in the peace talks by relating loan 
	  guarantees to settlements

	- witholding those guarantees

	- infusing cash (not guarantees) into a former nation known for 
	  its inhumane treatment of Jews 

	- "leaking" lies to the media about the sale of military secrets

	- Baker's comments that shed light on where his heart is really at
 
and its a whole host of other issues...


Steve

    re .8
    
    An anti-Semite has hurting Jews in particular as a goal.  Merely
    hurting other people who happen to be Jews does not make an
    anti-Semite, if the hurter doesn't care whether they are Jews
    or not.
    
    Bush and his administration (or any previous dministration, 
    Democratic or Republican, for that matter) will just as cheerfully
    sell non-Jews down the river when they think it makes strategic
    sense.  Think of the Kurds, Iraqi Shiites, Cambodians, Somalis,
    Ethiopians, Vietnamese, Russian POWs in Germany at the end of
    WWII, and on and on.
    
    To get an idea of the value of the loan guarantee, compare the 
    interest rate for $10 billion of loans to Israel with the guarantee
    vs. without the guarantee.  That's the market's best guess at the
    level of risk involved.  Thus if the "with" rate was 8% and the
    "without" rate was 12%, you can calculate the assumed probability
    of a loan default.   Banks do this all the time--that's why rates
    vary depending on the security you can offer, etc., and why junk
    bonds pay more than Treasury bills.
    
    As for scary lines of thinking: politics reacts to pressure.  The
    amount of pressure a set of people can exert is related both to
    their number and to their level of passion on the issue as compared 
    to their passion on other issues.  If American Jews were indifferent
    between Democrats and Republicans on other issues and could be
    swayed to one side or the other by a politician's stance on the
    territories, then American Jews could exert pressure.  Since they
    have in large part decided to shackle themselves to the liberal
    wing of the Democratic party, the Democrats take them for granted
    and the Republicans ignore them.  Afro-Americans are in a similar bind.
    This leads to an interesting conclusion: if American Jews want to
    influence national policy, they have to give up their views on
    domestic policy and be willing to vote for Reagan-esque Republicans.
    
    Loan guarantee aside, I believe the US is still bribing (Ooops, 
    "assisting") Egypt and Israel to the tune of several billions apiece,
    and continues to give Israel substantial assistance in other ways.
    
    		-John Bishop

re .10:

Reagan got something like 40% of the Jewish vote.  According to an article in
last Sunday's Boston Globe (yeah, I know), Republicans had been courting the
Jewish vote with increasing success.  Bush's stance is turning this around.

    I seriously considered the idea to vote for Clinton.
    I do not like him, honest to God. However, I'm disgusted with
    Bush/Baker so called "real_politik". I have friends in Israel,
    recents emigrants from Russia. Mostly they are high professional
    people, with a lot of education and determination to succeed.
    And they have no jobs - because Israel is so small, because their
    numbers are so many, and because Mr.Baker found, that twisting 
    arms of their host country is politically profitable for him.
    I would do anything I could to prove him wrong.
    -Boris

    re .11
    
    Wow!  Do you have a time series available for percent of Jewish
    votes going to Dem/Rep/other?  If the percent can go from 5 to 40
    and back again, then the "they can't be swayed" model won't work.
    
    (The "5" is just a for-example figure--I don't have any idea what
    the normal Jewish-vote-for-a-Republican is).
    
    		-John Bishop

.8>                                ... are you implying it's not anti-Semitic 
.8> for a government to choose to turn its back on Israel in the name of 
.8> furthering its own political interests?

I'll do more than imply.  I would expect the government of the United States to
"turn its back" on Israel, or anyone else for that matter, to further American
interests.  And I accept that Bush and Baker really believe that it is in
America's interest to do to Israel what Baker supposedly suggested doing to the
Jews.

The problem with the US government is not its intentions, but its ignorance.
B&B are so ill-informed that they are incapable of furthering anybody's
interests.  Remember, these are the people who believed that the Iraqi
government was "moderate", and that it would never invade Kuwait.

re: Note 1199.14  ERICG::ERICG 

Hi, Eric,

>.8>                                ... are you implying it's not anti-Semitic 
>.8> for a government to choose to turn its back on Israel in the name of 
>.8> furthering its own political interests?
>
>I'll do more than imply.  I would expect the government of the United States to
>"turn its back" on Israel, or anyone else for that matter, to further American
>interests.  

Well, there are two issues here now.  The first is, "what is in America's 
best interest?".

On that question, from a purely political viewpoint, is it not in America's 
best interest to support the ONLY true democracy in the Middle East?

The second issue (regardless of how the first is addressed) is still, in my 
mind, whether or not current U.S. policy is anti-Semitic.

You are saying that it isn't because B&B believe their actions to be in 
America's best interests.  I'm trying to separate that out now, and ask 
regardless of whether or not the actions are in America's best interests, are 
they anti-Semitic?

My own answer to the question is that they are and I fear it doesn't bode
well for the future.  We're soon remembering the 500th anniversary of the
Spanish expulsion of Jews and we have of course a more modern example (to
its ugliest and most horrifying degree) in Hitler's Germany.  My point is,
doesn't history pretty much show us (through these and many other examples)
that no matter where Jewish people are, they are always the ones blamed for
trouble in the land they're in?  Aren't Jewish people always made the
scapegoats?  And if so, wouldn't you agree that THAT is anti-Semitic? 

I remember seeing footage from the C.I.S. after Yeltsen's reforms raised 
prices by hundreds of percentage points on most items and the banners with 
Israeli flags weren't there for support!  Translators read these slogans 
for the media in English and the sentiments were clear...it was the Jews' 
fault that the Soviet economy was falling apart.

Perhaps I'm taking the argument to an illogical conclusion, but it seems to
me (if history is any indication) that the groundwork continues to be laid 
even now in the U.S. for the persecution of Jewish people.

Case in point...

Jem has been posting the "Israel Line" and today's posting included 
statements of how no evidence was found to indicate that Israel did 
anything wrong (with regard to the Patriot missle "leak").

Yet, on Friday morning's "TODAY" show on NBC, I heard the report that said 
(roughly...)

	Although no evidence was found to indicate Israel did anything 
	wrong, that doesn't mean they didn't do anything wrong, it
	just means no evidence was found.

What kind if images/emotions was that meant to leave in the minds/hearts of 
those who saw that report?

The point is...there's a great deal of anti-Jewish sentiment in the 
government and in the media here in the U.S. and I think the stage is being 
set to once again claim that it's the Jews who are responsible for all our 
problems in the U.S. (and abroad!).  Who else gets more negative press and 
who do you think will be blamed as the economy begins to decline even 
further?

Again, perhaps I'm taking things too far and perhaps this will sound 
melo-dramatic, but to sacrifice Israel and the Jews for the sake of 
political expediency is to me blatant anti-Semitism.  It's a common 
historical thread unfortunately.

>And I accept that Bush and Baker really believe that it is in
>America's interest to do to Israel what Baker supposedly suggested doing to the
>Jews.

I accept that B&B believe this as well.  But as I said above, it's 
anti-Semitic.  Surely, Ferdinand & Isabella believed it was in their best 
interest...

>The problem with the US government is not its intentions, but its ignorance.

That's an interesting point.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.  Are you 
saying that in spite of their actions, if it's based on their ignorance, 
you wouldn't count it to them as anti-Semitism?

Even if you do (and that's generous of you), the effects are still the same 
(in my view).

What do you think?


Steve

    The B&B administration has problems.  The election this year just
    amplifies these sore points:

	1. Bush is getting nowhere on domestic issues.  Big negative
	   in the mind of the electorate.  The administration is trying
	   to purge the Congress of the Democractic majority:
		a.  Bush is in favour of term limitations
		b.  Rubber-gate instigated by Republicans

	2. Bush has capital on foreign policy issues, though in the
	   last half year or so, this credit has turned into a deficit
	   because the perception is that Bush is paying little attention
	   to the domestic situation.  "America first" resonates strongly
	   in all quarters.

    Bush & Baker need desperately to show positive progress in foreign
    policy and progress on the economic crisis at home. Additionally, he
    needs to negate the influence of the Democratic Congress.  With one
    stroke he believes he can accomplish all. Pressure Israel on
    concessions, show solidarity with the "America first" mentality and
    undermine the Democratic Congress. His speech of September 12th did
    exactly that.  There he pitted himself against the (Jewish) special
    interest groups and their champions in the Congress.  This was the
    same speech where he claimed that Americans had risked their lives
    to help Israel.

    To 'progress' in the Middle East, I believe there has been a deal
    made between the prominent Arab heads of state and with Bush and
    Baker with regard to freezing Jewish settlements in the disputed
    territories (Judea and Samaria).

    My belief is founded in the fact that in 3 separate attempts, the
    U.S. posited a quid pro quo to achieve this concession:

	1. a stop of the intifida for a settlement freeze.
	2. an end of the (illegal!) Arab economic boycott of Israel
           in exchange for the settlement freeze.
	    
    and finally, when those are rejected by the Arabs first (no
    concensus among the various heads of state), the next logical
    step is unilateral:
	
	3. a linkage of refugee resettlement loans for settlements
	   freeze...a linkage Bush promised would not happen last
	   summer.

    Hopefully, the American electorate will see this ploy.
    The American economy can make progress by electing executive and
    legistlative branches which can work together.

    However, with this issue being misunderstood for so long now, I have
    doubts about the real issues being debated.  Maybe it's better for Israel
    to gracefully back out of the request for the loan guarantees so as not
    to get entangled in this battle between B&B and Congress.

    
 
re: 1199.10 (MINAR::BISHOP)
   {   Loan guarantee aside, I believe the US is still bribing (Ooops, 
       "assisting") Egypt and Israel to the tune of several billions apiece,
       and continues to give Israel substantial assistance in other ways.
   }

	For what is the US bribing Israel?  Influence?

Re: .15 Ferdinand and Isabella
begin digression;
Ferdinand did not really want to give up his Jewish finance minister -
Isabella was the virulent anti-Semite. She and the Church pressured
Ferdinand into the expulsion.
end digression.

Dave

    re .16, Carter and the Egypt-Israel settlement.
    
    I seem to remember that the peace settlement of Camp David
    was eased along by an agreement by the U.S. to pay Egypt five
    billion dollars and Israel three billion dollars a year.
    I don't remember whether there was any term put to the payments,
    which were offically to make "transition" easier.
    
    What does the US get?  Well, influence, as you pointed out.
    No doubt it also gets some miliary intelligence, and there's
    the feedback on US military goods, which is worth something.
    Then there's the long-term desire of the US (which I don't
    discount) to have lots of relatively well-off democratic 
    states with market economies in the world.
    
    Historically there's almost always been a division of the world
    into a small number of Great Powers and a larger number of minor
    states which are variously subsidized and exploited, depending on
    the exact circumstances.  The French used to subsidize Scotland
    to keep England off balance, for example, while England subsidized
    various German princes in return.  Both exploited areas they could
    control more directly, such as Wales and Savoy.
    
    		-John Bishop

    	Just once, I'd like to see the U.S. position with respect to the
    Middle East be based on "Do the right thing" rather than on the
    expedient reaction to the latest events.  After all, the disputes there
    are thousands of years old, with religion and world economy stirred in. 
    
    	"Do the right thing" would probably focus on defusing the major
    causes of problems, e.g., by investing intensively in alternatives to
    oil-based energy to drastically reduce world-wide dependence on oil. 

    	The focus could then turn to really identifying and solving the
    grievances of all the involved parties, who actually have much more to
    gain by such a course.

    	As has been pointed out, the Bush administration is unable to climb
    out of the old rut of power plays and the friend-of-the-month club. 
    Statesmanship is sadly lacking.  The last 12 years of bumbling
    certainly make Jimmy Carter's efforts look much better.

    	I think a U.S. President with the guts to take a consistent and
    ethical stand would make things better for all concerned (well, maybe
    not for the oil sheiks) in the long run.

    -----

    	It's interesting that Spain in the 15th century and Germany in this
    one are the first examples that come up when discussing persecution of
    the Jews.  In both cases, Jews had seemingly achieved great things in
    those countries and had a comfortable and honored acceptance.  It
    didn't stay that way.  It can't happen here??

    		David

.15>On that question, from a purely political viewpoint, is it not in America's
.15>best interest to support the ONLY true democracy in the Middle East?

Well, *I* think so, but B&B might not.  US foreign policy has not necessarily
been friendlier to democracies.  During the '70's and '80's, for example, the
US was friendlier to Pakistan than to India, despite the fact that the latter
was much more democratic.  And since those 2 countries have been at odds for
decades, this certainly could be interpreted (and probably was, by the Indians)
as favoring a dictatorship over a democracy.


.15>The second issue (regardless of how the first is addressed) is still, in my
.15>mind, whether or not current U.S. policy is anti-Semitic.
.15>
.15>You are saying that it isn't because B&B believe their actions to be in 
.15>America's best interests.

No!  I said that a specific approach (the US government "turning its back" on
Israel, with the goal of furthering American interests) would not constitute
anti-Semitism.  I did not say whether or not I thought that current US policy,
taken as a whole, was anti-Semitic.


.15>That's an interesting point.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.  Are you 
.15>saying that in spite of their actions, if it's based on their ignorance, 
.15>you wouldn't count it to them as anti-Semitism?

No.  I'm saying that the problem with US government is that it is ignorant.
I'm not saying that its policy is (or isn't) anti-Semitic.

    I have been reading the previous 20 replies to note 1199 with great
    interest.  It seems that from the comfort of a great many armchairs
    that positions can be conjured up which as often as not defend the
    U.S.'s anti-semetic, and anti-Israel position.
    
    The fact is that Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza strip collectively 
    represent slightly less than 2% (two percent) of the total land mass
    of the Mideast.
    
    The Arabs want the U.S. to force Israel to give up the land for
    nothing in return.  There have been no assurances of peace.
    
    Israel is accepting thousands of Soviet Jews who are fleeing for their
    lives from a society which supported Hitlers Final Solution, until
    they found out it included them too.
    
    Whether or not the U.S. gives Israel $10B in loans or not, does anyone 
    really think that if Israel gives up the strategic West Bank, Golan,
    or cedes the Gaza back to Egypt, that everyone will live in peace?
     [ If you believe this, you must believe in Santa Claus too! ]
    
    Israel needs the $10B for settling the Soviet immigrants.
    
    If you study the history of the mideast, it has been in almost constant
    strife without any Jews to kill for the past thousand plus years. Aside
    of pockets of Jews living in Damascus, Beirut, Jerusalem, and a few
    other cities for over the last few hundred years, all the battles have
    been between Arab vs. Arab.
    
    I dont have a solution, but I know an anti-semite when I hear and see
    one.  Bush and Baker are two.
    
    Ron
    
    
    

re .21:

>               It seems that from the comfort of a great many armchairs
>    that positions can be conjured up which as often as not defend the
>    U.S.'s anti-semetic, and anti-Israel position.

I've yet to see a reply that defends the administration's position.
Several people have tried to explain B&B's motivation, but nobody has
said that they're right.  Some replies that you seem to accuse of being
"from the comfort of ... armchairs" are from Israelis.

>                      -< land for peace is a red herring >-
>
>    
>    The Arabs want the U.S. to force Israel to give up the land for
>    nothing in return.  There have been no assurances of peace.

	Yup.

	Golda Meir was once asked, in an interview by a US newmagazine,
	what she would give for peace with the Arabs.

	She hesitated for a second (I'm sure it was theatrical), and
	answered, "Well, I'll give peace."

	When asked, "What about territory?", she answered: "Why is my
	peace any cheaper than anyone else's?  They give peace; I'll
	give peace".
    
	So, I still wonder: why do we get to maybe "exchange peace", but
	we've got to give a little more, because ours isn't so valuable..

Eric,

Thanks so much for hanging in there with me!  8-)

I realize I can be a tad dense, but I really want to understand what it is 
you're saying (as you know, this isn't the best method for communicating).

re: .20

>.15>On that question, from a purely political viewpoint, is it not in America's
>.15>best interest to support the ONLY true democracy in the Middle East?
>
>Well, *I* think so, but B&B might not.  US foreign policy has not necessarily
>been friendlier to democracies.  

Understood.  I think the scenario of "our enemy's enemy is our friend" has
been discussed here before WRT the US' support of Iraq during the Iran/Iraq
war.  That scenario will always cause trouble somewhere down the road. 

Therefore, I'm not going to try to figure out how B&B (or any presidential
team) decide who is/isn't worth supporting.  It just seems that even if B&B
hated everything Israel did as a gov't, Israel would STILL be worthy of
support from a purely political standpoint...but what do I know? 

>.15>The second issue (regardless of how the first is addressed) is still, in my
>.15>mind, whether or not current U.S. policy is anti-Semitic.
>.15>
>.15>You are saying that it isn't because B&B believe their actions to be in 
>.15>America's best interests.
>
>No!  

Argh!!!  8-)

I debated with myself on whether I should have *asked* (e.g., 'Are you saying 
that...) vs. put words in your mouth.  Wrong choice :-(

>I said that a specific approach (the US government "turning its back" on
>Israel, with the goal of furthering American interests) would not constitute
>anti-Semitism.  I did not say whether or not I thought that current US policy,
>taken as a whole, was anti-Semitic.

Gotcha.  Thanks for the clarification.

>.15>That's an interesting point.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.  Are you 
>.15>saying that in spite of their actions, if it's based on their ignorance, 
>.15>you wouldn't count it to them as anti-Semitism?
>
>No.  

Strike two (in question form no less!  ;-)

>I'm saying that the problem with US government is that it is ignorant.
>I'm not saying that its policy is (or isn't) anti-Semitic.

It looks like (and I hope this isn't strike three!) the difference in our
opinions is that I'm viewing the sum of the actions (outlined in .9) as
anti-Jewish/Israel/Semitic where you're viewing the actions as political
moves which are themselves "neutral" (even if somewhat ignorant) and
designed to further American interests (regardless of whether or not you
*personally* feel the actions are indeed anti-Semitic). 

Anyway, thanks again for hanging in there with me.  If I failed to get your 
meaning again - perhaps you'll be merciful to me and contact me off-line to 
spare me the embarrassment of having to display my denseness in public 
again ;-)

Steve

re: Note 1199.21  VSSCAD::COHEN

Hi, Ron...

>                      -< land for peace is a red herring >-

Agreed.  Don's posting this morning on that subject is good reading.

>    I have been reading the previous 20 replies to note 1199 with great
>    interest.  It seems that from the comfort of a great many armchairs
>    that positions can be conjured up which as often as not defend the
>    U.S.'s anti-semetic, and anti-Israel position.

You may be getting that impression from *my* misunderstanding some of what's 
been said here.  I don't think anyone is defending US policy towards Israel 
on a *personal* level, though there may be some latitude given to B&B 
based on what *THEY* (B&B) may consider to be "America's 'best' interests".

Please don't blame anyone for words I put in their mouth ;-)

Steve

I'm very curious as to how many times I've seen people express amazement (or
whatever term is better) as to the U.S. government's apparent duplicity in
regards to the Middle East.  It is in the interest of ANY government to
safeguard what they regard as their own interests.  Today the U.S. sees no
advantage in siding with Israel, paritcularly in light of the end of the
cold war.  Tomorrow they could return to Israel's side (especially if Likud
falls).  The "goodness" resides in the court of the Arabs for the time
being.

Is Bush or Baker anti-semitic?  This may be stretching the "Tov l'Yehudim,
Rah l'Yehudim" argument a bit much.  I suspect Baker is a "country-club
racist, i.e.,ruling-class bigot.  

How many of you are old enough to remember the '50's and John
Foster Dulles?  Now THERE was a bona fide anti-semite!  You should recall
that U.S.-Israel relations went only to the extent of cordiality, many in
the U.S. state dept. regarded Israel as yet another Soviet satellite.  The
relationship change and the aid did not begin until after 1967. 

The interests of governments do not always mesh with the interests of
peoples.  Do a DIR/TITLE=Romania in this notesfile, and see how it was in
Israel's interest to maintain good (in fact, excellent) relations with the 
late tyrant Ceaucescu.  Who cared about democracy there?

So I'd be very careful about accusing this government of being
anti-semitic.  Consider the big picture before you hit the keyboard.

--David 

        > 50% of which would likely be spent by Israel with U.S. firms!
    
        I don't remember if the figure is 50%, but the word isn't
        "likely". The funds *must* be spent in America, and they are very
        strict about it.
    
    Actually, Israel is the only recipient of U.S. foreign aid that is
    completely free from restrictions about how it spends the aid.  It
    doesn't even have to say after the fact.  (I write here of "foreign
    aid" as opposed to various (additional funds) weapons agreements,
    etc.)
    
        Baker said "F the Jews" and that's what they're doing.
    
    On a recent McNeil-Lehrer interview Baker called reports that he had
    made such a remark completely untrue.
    
        I have heard (don't know if this is factual) that Israel has
        never defaulted on a loan
    
    To quote Secretary Baker, the reason Israel has never defaulted is
    that the U.S. appropriates the money to pay itself back.  After being
    a practice for a number of years, this was formalized in the foreign
    aid bill of 1985, which requires that U.S aid to Israel in any year
    shall never be less than the amount Israel owes the U.S. in that
    year.  The Import-Export bank rates Israel as a D risk.
    
        - demanding that a sovereign nation refuse to retaliate when
        repeatedly attacked in a war it was not even participating in
    
    Israel used its declared state of war with Iraq to justify its
    bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facility afetr many years of no armed
    conflict between them. Sauce for the goose, etc.
    
        - "leaking" lies to the media about the sale of military secrets
    
    Seymour Hirsch(sp?) in his recent book reports Shamir's passing to
    the USSR some of the information Pollard obtained, apparently in the
    hope of gaining favor with the USSR and playing it against the US.
    (So much for Pollard doing the U.S. no harm.)  He also  attempted to
    form an alliance with it at the height of the cold war.  The latest
    issue of the Washington Report on Mid(dle?) East Affairs claims that
    an official (I forget his name) sympathetic to Israel in the U.S.
    State department has concealed a history of U.S. military information
    being passed to other countries by Israel as part of its numerous
    weapons deals.  As far as I know the only claim that was bogus in the
    recent flurry was that an actual Patriot missile had been transferred
    to the Chinese.
    
        2. an end of the (illegal!) Arab economic boycott of Israel
    
    It's illegal for U.S. companies.  Hardly illegal in the eyes/law of
    the vast majority of the other countries in the world, and certainly
    has a good precedent in the boycott of South Africa.
    
        The Arabs want the U.S. to force Israel to give up the land for
        nothing in return.  There have been no assurances of peace.
    
    The PNC position is for two states, living side by side in peace.
    Since the Palestinians are suffering the most at the hands of the
    Israelis, it's clearly their voice that counts.
    
        When asked, "What about territory?", she answered: "Why is my
        peace any cheaper than anyone else's?  They give peace; I'll give
        peace".
    
    I guess if the old USSR had confiscated most of the land and property
    belonging to the majority of the Jewish individuals under its
    control, and kept them without any civil and human rights whatsoever
    (my fav Israel law is the one that allows the authorities to deny to
    anyone, including the person's family, that they are holding a person
    prisoner, leaving them with no idea if the person is dead in a ditch
    somewhere or what) that would be okay with you, because it would be
    "peace." (By the way, the land confiscation figures for the West Bank
    and Gaza stood at 70% as of a year ago, according to B'Tselem, and
    the confiscation rate has been increasing since then.)
    

I think it is about time to check if talk.politics.mideast still exists - it 
used to be a forum for Israel haters.  Only when it becomes quiet there, Ms. 
K.Kolling visits the Jewish notesfile with her anti-Israeli drivel.

    Can you hold off on words like "drivel", please?
    
    She may have very different initial assumptions, you may
    think her logic faulty, but everyone here should be treated
    with courtesy--if they respond courteously, everyone is
    happy, while if they don't, you look so much the better.
    
    When you respond to an argument (however specious) with insult,
    it just makes you look incapable of a rational response.
    
    Further, though I disagree with her root assumptions about
    almost everything, I don't read Ms Kolling's notes in Bagels
    as evidence of hating Israel.  They reach the level of "dislike"
    and "distrust" and even "hatred of some policies", but I read
    her notes as being more pro-Palestinian than anti-Israel as
    a whole.
    
    Those of you who believe "all who are not for you are against
    you" may find the above distinction too finely-drawn.
    
    (Please note: various noters in here have claimed that I, too,
    "spout drivel".  I'm not neutral on the drivel issue.)
    
    		-John Bishop

.27>    Actually, Israel is the only recipient of U.S. foreign aid that is
.27>    completely free from restrictions about how it spends the aid.

Wrong.  There are a number of restrictions.  One example is that aid may not be
spent on development in the territories.  (So Israel spends its own money on
that development, and US aid entirely within the Green Line.)  Another is that
most of the military aid must be spent in the United States.

What is unusual is that Israel is allowed to spend *some* (about a quarter, if
I remember correctly) of the military aid outside the United States.  This
amount is spent on purchases from Israeli companies.


.27>    On a recent McNeil-Lehrer interview Baker called reports that he had
.27>    made such a remark completely untrue.

And since no government official has ever been known to lie in the history of
the United States, I guess that settles the issue!


.27>    Seymour Hirsch(sp?) in his recent book reports Shamir's passing to
.27>    the USSR some of the information Pollard obtained, apparently in the
.27>    hope of gaining favor with the USSR and playing it against the US.

From the reviews I've seen of Hersh's book, it contains a number of strange
accusations.  And considering how hostile Shamir was toward the Soviet Union,
this one was particularly hard to swallow.


.27>    As far as I know the only claim that was bogus in the
.27>    recent flurry was that an actual Patriot missile had been transferred
.27>    to the Chinese.

Well, that was the only charge that the United States investigated.  If the
others had been checked out, it is quite possible that they would have been
shot down, as well.


.29>    ... I don't read Ms Kolling's notes in Bagels
.29>    as evidence of hating Israel.  They reach the level of "dislike"
.29>    and "distrust" and even "hatred of some policies", but I read
.29>    her notes as being more pro-Palestinian than anti-Israel as
.29>    a whole.

Ms. Kolling's notes show a dislike of just about anything related to Israel.
There is sympathy for the Palestinians only to the extent that they are
affected by Israel.  I've never seen her comment when Palestinians have
suffered at anyone else's hands.

My personal opinion, based on reading Ms. Kolling's notes, is that
"anti-Israel" is the most accurate description of her that is permitted by the
moderators of this conference.

       I think it's worthwhile to consider the source of any comments,
       and to consider any potential biases in such sources (whether or
       not the source acknowledges such biases).
       
       The author of .27 made this statement a while ago in this
       conference:
           
           "I believe that Jews have been so traumatized by recent
           history that they are unable to see the destruction they are
           causing to other human beings in their single-minded focus on
           their own safety, and they are unable to distinguish between
           real and imagined threats to that safety."
       
       Now, I wouldn't deny Ms Kolling the opportunity to make statements
       that characterize an ethnic group as a whole.  I consider any such
       statements to be founded in racism, but I would prefer that they
       be aired in public rather than be whispered in private.  
       
       From time to time, certain authors of notes in this company expose
       their agendas by making outrageous statements against Jews as a
       people.  Now, the government of Israel is hardly beyond reproach
       or off-limits for criticism.  However,  when an individual who has
       made statements that characterize the Jewish people subsequently
       makes statements about the policies of the government of Israel,
       then I choose to believe that the anti-Israel statements are, at
       heart, rooted in racism rather than in any political thought.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    re .31
    
    That paticular quote doesn't strike me as racist.  Has not recent
    history (the Holocaust) been traumatic?   Particularly so to the
    Jews, who are a identifiable (because self-identifying) group of 
    people?  Is Israel not highly focused on its own safety?  (I'll
    grant that Ms Kolling makes the equation "Jews = Israel", but she's
    hardly unique in that, nor is the equation restricted to non-Jews 
    or anti-Jews: writers here have urged American Jews to move to
    Israel based on a like belief.)  Is destruction being done?  Are
    _all_ threats that Israel sees real, or is there the slightest
    possibility that one or more are imaginary?
    
    Now, you may believe the destruction to be necessary; you may
    believe Israeli intelligence so perfect as to be able to determine
    all real threats and rule out those which are merely possible but
    do not currently threaten; you may think that any grouping of 
    individuals in discourse is suspect because it can leave out 
    significant differences--but I think it's reaching a bit to
    assume racism from that quote.  Got any others?
    
    As a less-contentious example, I think some policies of the government
    of the U.S. are wrong.  I also think one can make meaningful statements
    about "Americans" as a group, and I think that Americans, in general,
    have some bad characteristics (e.g. they watch too much TV and eat too
    much fat: clearly there are Americans who do neither, but statistically
    the group does).  My opinions about the government's policies are not
    necessarily related to my opinions about Americans, despite the close
    connection between the two entities.   I believe this set of opinions
    is not racist, and that the two different kinds of opinions are 
    separate, neither being rooted in the other.
    
    		-John Bishop

    My characterization of Ms. K.Kolling and her dri... err... writing is 
    the most polite I could master, keeping in mind the restrictions used 
    by the moderators.  For years I have read so many of her postings on 
    this notesfiles and, more appropriate, on talk.politics.mideast and (to 
    a much smaller extent) soc.culture.jewish, that I stand by my position.  
    I still have archives somewhere on the system to support this position.
    
    A related question:
    For those who read talk.politics.mideast (I don't any more), do you 
    know if Ms. K.Kolling was able to produce a book "The Futherest Mosque" 
    or it proved to be a (..shall we say?..) product of her imagination?

Ms. Kollings contributions are, in a sense, very predictable. They all
contain quotes from dubious sources. They all contain debatable interpretations
of facts. They usually contain rumors, strange statistics, or misinformation
quoted as news. Invariably, one or more of our well-informed contributors
refutes all (or almost all) of Ms. Kollings assertions. Invariably,
Karen fails to apologize for (or even acknowlege) the errors.

If the rest of the world gets all its news from the same sources Karen reads,
Israel is in for big trouble. In a real sense, Karen is doing us a favor by
letting us in on the misinformation spewing from the "other" side.

Dave

  New York Times columnist Wiliam Safire confirmed in his March 19 column that
  Baker did, in fact, say F the Jews -- on two different occasions, and that
  President Bush and his top staff knew he did, and that they agreed to deny
  that it was ever said.

  Thus, Baker's denial in lieu of apology adds further insult to all
  Americans of Jewish heritage.

  He obviously learned the Art of the Self-Serving Lie from the master
  ("Read my lips" etc).

  -- Bill B.

Actually, Baker supposedly said, "F*** the Jews -- they don't vote for us
anyway."  Up until now, the Republican share of the Jewish vote has been
growing.  Baker's "analysis" was more like a self-fulfilling prediction.

    Gerald, do you know what the context was for "the Jews"?  I can't 
    tell from what I've read whether the alleged comment was about
    American Jews not voting for Bush or Israeli Jews not voting at
    all in American elections, or both.
    
    (And your note implies you have some trend data on Republican voting
    by American Jews--do you?  What is it?)
    
    		-John Bishop

If anecdotal evidence is worth anything (it usually isn't), this Jewish
Republican intends to switch to "unaffiliated" in the near future on
account of that statement and its surrounding circumstances.

Dave

John --

Everything I've read about Baker's alleged remark implies (or assumes) that
he was talking about American Jews.  After all, if he'd meant the Israelis,
why wouldn't he have said so?  Since Baker denies that he ever made the
remark, I doubt if he'll issue a clarification.

There was an article in the Boston Globe within the past three weeks that
talked about the trend of Jews to vote Republican.

    Re: .31
    
           The author of .27 made this statement a while ago in this
           conference:
    
               "I believe that Jews have been so traumatized by recent
               history that they are unable to see the destruction they
               are causing to other human beings in their single-minded
               focus on their own safety, and they are unable to
               distinguish between real and imagined threats to that
               safety."
    
    I don't recollect making that exact quote, but it's quite possible.  I
    would change "Jews" to "many Jews."  It's clearly almost always an error
    to label every single member of a group but it's quite possible that I
    slipped up in some message.
    
    Re: New York Times columnist Wiliam Safire confirmed in his March 19
        column that Baker did, in fact, say F the Jews -- on two
        different occasions, and that President Bush and his top staff
        knew he did, and that they agreed to deny that it was ever said.
     
    Was Safire there on those occasions?  If not, what is his source?