Clinton Says U.S. Should Not Dominate Iraq

[Classical_Liberal]

Personal Note, I a posting this article in this forum because the most interesting thing Clinton said was this.

"Israel ought to be prepared to give up the West Bank and East Jerusalem. International forces should be invited to enforce agreements and see through a transitional period."


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=4&u=/nm/20030921/pl_nm/iraq_clinton_dc


Clinton Says U.S. Should Not Dominate Iraq
Sun Sep 21, 8:19 AM ET

Add Politics - Reuters to My Yahoo!

DUBAI (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Bill Clinton (news - web sites) said Sunday that the United States should not try to dominate Iraq (news - web sites) and needed to give the United Nations (news - web sites) a greater role in restoring security to the war-torn country.


Reuters Photo




"We should play a role and spend a lot of money there, but we shouldn't dominate," Clinton said during a brief visit to the United Arab Emirates.

"What we need is for the U.N. to nominally supervise the security situation and NATO (news - web sites) to be used as an instrument," he said during a question-and-answer session at the American University of Dubai, where he launched a scholarship program.

"This will enable us to spread both the responsibility and the risks and make it look less like an occupation," he added.

The United States, whose troops in Iraq suffer almost daily casualties from guerrilla attacks, is trying to push through a new U.N. resolution creating a multinational force for Iraq.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[Resistance]

1. OH MY GOSH!!

Clinton shows his true colors - he is another "Leftist retard" who is obviously anti-Semitic and why is he so "concerned with Israel" and not Palestinians? Oh goodness!! These "Leftist nitwits" really need to see how anti-semitic they have become!!! They exist in an "anti-semitic culture" and don't even see it!!! And now Clinton is caving to terrorists!!! Oh no!!

[The Magistrate]

2. President Clinton, Sir

Is quite correct in his general assesment of the situation. Israel ought indeed to relinquish the lands over-run in '67. The provision of an international monitoring force would be useful during the disengagement. It would, however, present certain problems, not the least of which would be finding nations willing to put their soldiers in the middle of this long quarrel, for they would certainly become targets of violence, since a genuine compromise on these lines would be unpopular with many, and those enforcing it would be seen by these not as neutrals, but adherents to the enemy side.

On the other matter you raise in some japery, Sir, President Clinton is hardly engaged. He does not, for example, question the right of Israel to exist, or to defend itself by military means, or allege it to be a leading world example of racist crime, or that its foundation was atrocity unrefined. These are views which, pressed hard at least, strike many as irrational and other-wordly, and are frequently those of persons afflicted with bigotry.

[Resistance]

3. Oh I see

So calling for Israel to leave illegally occupied territory, plus international intervention is fine for you - however, it's the questioning of Israel's strategy of aggression and ethnic cleansing against the inhabitants of that occupied territory that moves into the realm of the "irrational" (and I am assuming) 'anti-semitic left'? Well that notion is really ridiculous. For one, although I don't engage in it myself, questioning the right of Israel to exist is not anti-semitic. Second, your characterization of Israel as merely defending itself "by military means" is a real distortion. Just as Bush has motives beyond "defending freedom" and "liberating Iraqis", Sharon has motives other than "national defense". We all know it, so why would you pretend that it isn't so?

Moving along, I don't know if Israel's racism is a "leading world example" or not. What is clear is that there are racist elements which need to be challenged. When you insinuate that those who make these challenges are anti-semitic, you are again wrong. Lastly, Israel was founded by means of aggression, massacres, and often outright terrorism. That is the known history of the State, and I don't find anything anti-semitic in pressing that fact to others who are blinded by the indocrination which says that Israel is merely this innocent island for Jews who have been only defending themselves from the vicious Arabs their entire existence.

I know you didn't make the direct insinuation that to express the points which I have expressed are anti-semitic - instead you defend the view of "those afflicted by bigotry" who would see my points as anti-semitic. But it's still a hollow defense.

[The Magistrate]

4. You Assume Agreement With Your Characterizations, Sir

It is lacking, in many cases.

Israeli military activity today is largely a legitimate military defense of the Israeli people. It might well be argued that certain political steps might greatly further the security of the people of Israel, perhaps even more so than the military techniques currently employed, or even that both together would provide a greater security than the apparent sum of the parts, but that does not alter that the state does have a right to defend its people with violence against violence.

You will look long and hard, Sir, for any human society which does not embody a considerable proportion of bigotry. To point these out in only one, while white-washing the phenomenon in others, as if often done here when, for instance, the subject of minorities and women in Arab nations is brought up, is at the very least a certain intellectual dishonesty in the matter. These are things which it is best to condemn across the board, or not at all. Those who do condemn them selectively may well have a particular axe to grind, and certainly cannot safely howl too loud when that is pointed out.

Your view of the rise of Israel is hardly "the known history of the state", but a highly selective charicature of that history. You are free to adopt that view if you choose, but to present it as unvarnished truth, and to denounce as indoctrinated those who view the thing more fully, is mere propagandist posturing. You will alienate as many with your vehemence as you attract.

One of the difficulties here is that persons on the left are much more used to accusing others of bigotry, and frequently even implying that it is implicit in other's actions, or unconciously part of the moulding of their views, than they are to having this same instrument turned on themselves in debate. They have no ready defense for it, and it afronts their self-image as persons who are beacons of enlightenment to the great un-washed in such things. And yet, being human, persons on the left must be prey at times to all normal human failings, of which bigotry is one.

[MariMayans]

5. as regards '48..

The more time goes by and the more that is revealed from the state archives the closer to the Palestinian reckoning of events as the more true version grows. Morris conjecture that there was a sort of evenhanded distribution between fright, military necessity and expulsion has been pounded on many times and when he responds to his critics he is inconsistent.

[Jackie97]

6. Can I bring up something here?

You sort of suggest that it's bigotry to single Israel out for certain faults when other countries do the same or worse, right? You suggested that people who do this might have an ax to grind. Fair enough.

Okay. Why is particularly the left being targeted as being anti-semitic for bring critical of Israeli policies? First all, there are plenty of people on the left who strongly defend Israel (particularly reform Jews and others). As hard as it may be to believe, there are a lot of people on the right who are "pro-Palestinian" (particularly conservative Muslims).

Why is the left being singled out for this criticism of anti-semitism on this subject? Couldn't it be argued that some "pro-Israelis" and people on the right have an axe to grind with the left?

I also have to bring up that most people on the left do criticize the stuff that you talk about.

[MariMayans]

7. I think it's assumed around here..

that the right-wing criticism of Israel is rooted in anti-semitism (and historically it always was, the Jewish-communist conspiracy is still alive and well in the John Birch section of the right wing). Buchanan is probably the best example of the "pro-palestinian" right but it's hard to take him seriously when he frets all the time that America is in sort of a death struggle to maintain it's white, Christian heritage.

[Darranar]

9. Buchanan?

Yah, him and David Duke and the CCC. "Pro-Palestinain" rightists whose hatred for Israel is somewhat founded in anti-semitism.

[Resistance]

8. Let's get to the real point here

I think we both could charge each other with creating "highly selective charicatures" of the history of the State, and feel secure in believing that the accusation towards the other is the correct one. So I will let the details with which we disagree rest at the moment, because the larger point for me is that you do seem to portray the harsher left-leaning critics of Israel as anti-semitic. This case you and others make, in my view, is mostly without foundation. I don't deny the existence of a tiny fraction of leftists who are anti-semitic. But what I strongly oppose is the constant attempts by 'pro-Israel' partisans to characterize all critics of Israel as anti-semitic; furthermore, I can't understand why you, as one of the more respected and influential members of this board, would want to help their cause.

A recent post here attracted some attention: a right-wing symposium with speakers constantly slamming the Left as anti-semitic, and pretending to delve into the deeper causes and roots of this 'problem' as if the assumption of leftist anti-semitism has any serious foundation to begin with. Well it has none, or extremely little. The Left criticizes Israel just as it criticizes other states which engage themselves in war crimes and human rights abuses. Yet, this preposterous symposium of arrogant fools - copied from a journal that everyone knows is conservative - was hailed by many here as being insightful and "worth reading".

Yet, take a look at the actual Left today - where are the anti-semites? Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Michael Lerner are constantly targeted with the anti-semitic charge. Uri Avnery, and Leftist peace groups are also targeted. But these charges are completely false, near 100% of the time. Further, just about every single time I have seen the charge or the insinuation made on this board, it turns out to be false every time. In fact, as I am now thinking about it, I can't recall one single instance where the insinuation or outright accusation has been shown to be true. Instead, the argument is made that "others only focus on Israel" or the more subtle attacks of "why does it bother you so much?" as if these prove that there really is a deeper, more sinister motive behind the person's criticism of Israel. But it doesn't prove a damn thing, and it never has. The reason why it never proves anything is because the accusation of anti-semitism was always false to begin with. Show me where someone has said something outright anti-Jewish or anti-semitic here on the board. You won't find anything except a few examples of someone over-generalizing when they make a claim of "the Jews" engaging in questionable activities, when they really meant to say that Israel was doing something questionable. And of those already very few examples you have to work with, you might find a single, rare instance where indeed, the person had anti-Jewish feelings to begin with.

The case is clear to me: there is hardly any anti-semitism to be found on the Left. All or most of the charges against the Left of anti-semitism are flawed and false, based on distortions and mischaracterizations, and have no foundation whatsoever to stand on. And to get back to my original point, I am very disappointed to find you siding with those who make the false charge of Leftist anti-semitism. The fact is that there are truly some despicable acts and intentional cruelties being perpetuated by the Israeli government, and it is really our responsibility on the Left to be raising concerns, condemning the aggressive behavior, and seeking ways to end the human rights abuses. It is therefore harmful to the greater cause of making progress in the area of human rights to charge the Left with anti-semitism as the supposed 'real' motive behind the criticisms of Israel, because we on the Left end up spending too much time fighting off these ridiculous charges. That is why I so strongly oppose the attacks on the Left which you and others here routinely engage in, and I ask you to seriously reconsider your view on the matter.

[Darranar]

10. I think The Magistrate has a legitimate point here...

and it is that the left is composed of humans. Humans have failings. Humans have biases and prejudices, whether they're far left or far right or somewhere in between.

Anti-semitism does exist in the Left. One reason for it (though not the only one) is an alliance of the Far Left with the Far Right (by Far Right I mean people like Buchanan in this context) against the Iraq war and Israeli policy. They have sharp differences on basically every other issue, but on those they are aligned.

Information from sites like AntiWar.com, a Far Right (again, used here to refer to people like Buchanan) isolationist and anti-war site, is routinely posted here on DU, a message board for leftists and progressives.

Similarly, sites like WhatReallyHappened.com have a hodge-podge of information, some of which from anti-semitic hate sites and some of it from Far Left sites like CounterPunch. Some of that anti-semitic information is reprinted for leftists, therefore injecting a degree of anti-semitism into the Left.

[Jackie97]

12. Once again, strange bedfellows.

And sometimes, people on the left don't know who their bedfellows are that they're getting information from.

For that reason, people on the left (and right for that matter) do need to be careful about where they get their information from. OTOH, we need to inform/educate leftists (and others) who are getting their "education" from certain hate sites of the truth instead of just condemning them as anti-semitic.

[Darranar]

13. Exactly.

n/t

[Resistance]

14. Ok

I get the point that humans have failings, regardless of their political and philosophical views. But that in no way shows me that the Left is anti-semitic, or even has anti-semitic tendencies.

Next, I see your point on an alliance between the far Left and far Right on certain issues, plus I am well aware of Rightist, hateful groups which make similar arguments against Israel that the Left makes. But, the parallels here again doesn't prove anti-semitism on the Left.

Finally, your last point on the websites which you claim inject anti-semitic material might have credibility if you could show me where this anti-semitic information is coming from. I know we've disagreed on some of the articles coming from CounterPunch, and admittedly there are over-generalizations and sometimes a slight degree of insensitivity from that particular site, but I have never seen the flat out anti-semitism you speak of. If it's there, I would like to see exactly what it is you speak of.

It seems to me you are making generalizations towards an unspecified group of websites, using CP and WRH as examples, that is unverified by facts. Again, if there is anti-semitism on any of the sites which are posted here, I would like to see where it is. You may be right - there may be examples that I have not noticed - but I want to see the verification. Prove to me that websites which are used here as material to be read from and discussed have reprinted information which is anti-semitic.

[Darranar]

15. Well...

there's WhatReallyHappened.com. I know for a fact that it's been posted here on DU (I'll link to the thread in which I saw it) and the mdoerators on this forum have informed us that it posts material from hate sites.

On edit: Links to WhatReallyHappened.com were posted here.

[Resistance]

17. Not to defend WRH.com too much ..

because I frankly don't know much about it, but I'd point out here that the moderator was also wrong recently in making allegations that JihadUnspun had Al-Qaeda affiliations.

Ok I see the links to WRH.com someone made. I don't see the hate material on WRH itself though - where is it, exactly? Also, do you really want to make a case, that because someone posted links to those 2 stories found on WRH, proves anti-semitism? Does it even "inject a degree" of anti-semitism? I'd be open to that philosophical point (when you show me where the anti-semitism is on WRH.com), but in no way can you even begin to build a case that anti-semitism is this rampant problem for the Left to deal with, as is all too often insinuated. I rarely see WRH used as a source for discussion however, so therefore even if you can show that there is indeed this anti-semitic material on the site, let's be real: the injection of anti-semitism is pretty far out on the periphery. It's not at all a part of the core of Leftist theory, or even a motivating factor.

[Darranar]

19. I don't think it is...

The mainstream left is very distant from anti-semitism. Even the radical fringe of the far left is rather distant from that concept. I'm saying it does exist, though certainly not to the extent that some insinuate.

I do think, as Jackie said above, that thinking over information found on radical left sites like WhatReallyHappened.com and other favorites of conspiracy theorists is neccesary. I am sure that some amount of anti-semitic junk gets sucked in to those websites, though it would be an exhaustively difficult matter to prove.

[Jackie97]

22. Theory.

Suppose that WRH does have anti-semitic material on it. More than likely, the anti-semitism will come in the form of a lie being told about Israel or Jews themselves. Then, suppose a leftist site borrows from that for their information. The anti-semitic lies from that site will be injected to the leftist site. The leftist site will then spread the hate propoganda. Does that make sense?

That doesn't make the left itself anti-semitic, but it does mean that they need to be careful and respsonsible about what they borrow from.

[Classical_Liberal]

23. Antiwar.com is libertarian

and I have never seen anything antisemitic on it.

[Darranar]

24. Libertarian?

Perhaps, but that's not the point.

I have not seen anything anti-semitic on it either. However, any site that posts regular articles by Pat Buchanan makes me suspicious...

[Lurking Dem]

11. Right Wing?

Joining us today are: Sol Stern, a contributing editor to City Journal and a Manhattan Institute senior fellow; Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D, is the author of twelve books, including the international bestseller WOMEN AND MADNESS. Her most recent book is The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It; Roger S. Gottlieb, Professor of Philosophy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, author or editor of 12 books whose topics include Marxism, Environmentalism, the Holocaust, and contemporary religion, most recently Joining Hands: Politics and Religion Together for Social Change and A Spirituality of Resistance: Finding a Peaceful Heart and Protecting the Earth. He is also 'Reading Spirit' columnist for Tikkun Magazine; and David Rosen, a professor of anthropology and law at Fairleigh Dickison University in Madison, N.J. He is now finishing a book titled Children at War for Rutgers University Press, which deals with child soldiers in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, the civil war in Sierra Leone, and Jewish partisan fighters during WWII.

Seemed strangely balanced to me.

In the case of anti-Semitism I disagree with what a great many leftists have said, or not said, about anti-Semitism. But my disagreement doesn't place me outside the Left, for the Left is not a monolithic mindless mass. It is a varied assorting of people with different views--with at least as much internal disagreement and conflict as the Catholic Church and the Republican Party.

I guess Tikkun can go in the book with Mother Jones as right wing crap.

[Resistance]

16. Mostly right-wing

Gottlieb definitely has a better grasp on reality than the rest of those kooks, but for him to even enter that discussion seems to me really a waste of time - plus he comes out of the box seeming to acknowledge the Rightists point by saying: "The Left has a hard time with anti-Semitism because The Left exists in an anti-Semitic culture (a culture which is also racist and sexist) and reproduces those tendencies."

At least he ends up mostly defending the Left (stating most of the points which I too make), but notice how he is attacked by Stern: "Gottlieb and his comrades were marching shoulder by shoulder in a parade with people cheering the Jew-killers of Hamas" and "Indeed, I regard Tikkun as more harmful to the cause of Israel than the out and out Jew haters on the Left. At least everyone now knows where these leftists are coming from."

Stern goes on to say: "in joining in the woldwide villification of Israel as racist and oppressive, Gottlieb and Tikkun manage to pour a little more oil on the bonfire of anti-Israel hatred that is fast becoming anti-semitism."

Good for Gottlieb for standing up to these right-wing morons, but you know what I notice is the same arguments Stern thinks he is making is pretty much the same as Magistrate and others make - what's more is on that thread we have DUers cheering the whole thing on, presumably siding with the Rightists. All I am saying is, you guys siding with these conservatives who are so ignorant about what the Left is all about, are plainly wrong.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

18. add Todd Gitlin to your list of "right-wing morons"...

http://www.motherjones.com/web_exclusives/commentary/opinion/gitlin_june.html

[The Magistrate]

20. My Point, Sir, Is Somewhat Milder Than You Take It For

First, a great deal of vehement radical criticism of Israel certainly leaves those who utter it wide open to the charge. Drawing equivalencies between Israel and the Reich, allegations that Israel controls the government of the United States, and similar garbage, that are not infrequent in the general run of radical rhetoric on the subject, can be easily dismissed as hate speech, and persons who indulge in such have no right to complain when that is done. At the very least, it is foolish to leave such an opening for an opponent.

Second, it is the case that a great deal of opposition to Israel is based on hatred for Jews. This is particularly true of much of the official opposition in the Arab world, and of the jihadist wing of the Arab Palestinian polity. In many expressions, the vehement radical criticism of Israel echoes the rhetoric of such groups, damned near word for word. Again, people who express themselves in such terms are laying themselves open to a counter-attack along this line, and like a boxer who has dropped his guard to throw a haymaker, cannot complain of the punch that strikes before the blow falls.

Finally, there seems to me a form of rough justice involved. Those of us who are more inclined to the support of Israel here, who feel the state, when all is said and done, is a legitimate one, are used to being accused of being rightists, bigots, Likudniks, and told we are neither left or progressives. This is, indeed, most frequently done by persons who affect great outrage that, when they pen diatribes that might easily be featured on an Aryan Nations site, or excerpted from the Hamas Charter, they are subject to insinuation they might have some bigotry against Jews in their make-up. Homilies ranging from pots and kettles to sauces for geese and ganders come to mind. My own suggestion would be for a general toning down of rhetoric: if a point cannot be carried without embellishment, it is probably not a very good point.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.