I sent this response just to Carolyn meaning to post it to the list

[Michael Eisenstadt]

Thanks, Carolyn, for weighing in on this interesting
subject and responding to my blogging.

Here's my response.

Sharon and Israel??? Sharon is not Israel and Israel is
not Sharon. Sharon got elected prime minister (for the
first time in his life, I should underline) in early 2001 with
a strong majority over Ehud Barak because of the utter
failure of Barak's Camp David negotiations with Arafat
at the very end of Clinton's presidency in early January
2001. Arafat there rejected a very generous offer from
the Israeli side which included separating East Jerusalem
from the Israeli side of the border and giving it to Arafat
to be his capital plus giving the Palestinians control of
the Temple Mount plus giving the Palestians possession
of 94% of the West Bank plus giving the right of Palestinians
refugees in other countries to return freely  to the new
Palestine state (but not to Israel which right is and will be
forever non-negotiable).  Arafat said no. Specifically in
response to the offer(s) he demanded the right of
Palestinian refugees to return to their original
homes in Israel. So much for the negotiations.

So Sharon winning the Israeli election became a
foregone conclusion. And the Israeli left realized that
they would never get an agreement with Arafat.

You say "I don't see how any democratic country can
support all of Israel's policies towards the Arab world."

What policies are you refering to? I must say that if
you cannot right off the bat specify the policies you
are objecting to, I would have to conclude that you
do not have any precise objections. You just don't
support which of their policies? Please name them.

As far as I know, and I have been following the
Israeli business all my life very closely, Israel has
no policies towards the Arab world that one could
conceivably take objection to. If they do, you must
name them. All their tsuris is with the Palestinians.
You are aware I hope that they have signed peace
agreements with Egypt and Jordan. And under
Barak with Clinton facilitating, they were close to
an agreement with Syria with Prez Assad (he died
and his son now rules). Here's a policy. In 1981
they bombed and destroyed Saddam Hussein's
nuclear facility. They were roundly condemned
for it by the whole world. One French technician
died who was working there that weekend. Did/do
you object to that? Over the years they have
tracked down and assassinated many terrorists
(terrorists defined as killers of innocent parties).
Do you object to this policy? If you do, please
suggest what they should otherwise do.

Mike (writing in haste)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <globe@zipcon.net>
To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>; "Michael Eisenstadt"
<michaele@HotPOP.com>

> There is an investigation going on by the FBI which is about Israel
> influence  on our foreign policy towards Iran and it comes out of 
> Wolfowitz's office in the Pentagon.  It is no secret that Wolfowitz 
> had a strong Israel bent in his policy making.  I think Bush has a 
> strong pro bias towards Sharon and Israel. There are occasions 
> when USA's aims and Israel's are the same but not all the time.  
> I don't see how any democratic country can support all of Israel's
> policies towards the Arab world