The Middle East is quite the focal point of international politics. The main points of contention are rooted in religion and economics. Based on size and the fact that there are essentially two sides to the argument, Israel and any strong alliances they have are positioned on one side of the argument. Anyone with even a casual interest in the history of events in the region would be willing to agree that Israel is a small country surrounded by nations with opposing viewpoints in religion and economics as well as ideology and prejudices in general.
Israel is, of course, a Jewish nation surrounded by Muslim or largely Muslim nations. The differences between Israel and the surrounding nations can be characterized as being on opposite ends of a spectrum. And most people would probably agree that Israel’s neighbors have in common a strong desire for Israel to go away. Many alliances in the region have been altered with the passing of time and the distinction between allies and enemies has been blurred from time to time. The only exception appears to be Israel and the United States.
Some examples of altered relationships may be useful to consider. Prior to the undoing of the Shah of Iran in the seventies, the United States had a workable relationship with Iran. After the hostage crisis of 1979 and since, that relationship has ceased. Likewise when the former Soviet Union was in a war with Afghanistan during the cold war, Osama bin Laden and the Afghan ‘rebels’ were supported the the U.S. The United States was at one time friendly with the government of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Obviously, things changed for Saddam. The cold war found the former Soviet Union and the United States typically on opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to relationships in the Middle East.
These trends continued right up until and after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the announcement of the new war on terror. Some of the relationships based primarily on economic relationships were emphasized during the run up to the war in Iraq. Germany, France and Russia were at odds with the US at the UN not just on philosophical grounds or opposition to an impending war. Commencing a war in Iraq would disturb many ‘economic’ arrangements as well as obvious detriments and concerns.
Which brings us up to this year and the Wild West antics and politics of crazy times and trying to determine what’s next in the Middle East. The recent entrance of members of the United States Congress into matters of diplomacy has caused quite a stir and muddied the waters significantly. As if there wasn’t already enough confusion or actions offering contradictory evidence of positions, here are some more.
Just about the time we were reasonably convinced that the one constant in the Middle East was consensus among members of the Jewish community with the possible exception of Israeli politics, these headlines and stories appear.
Contact: Executive Director Matthew Brooks
Thursday, April 5, 2007, Washington, DC… The Republican Jewish Coalition issued this statement regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statements following her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday:
“The Speaker’s statements were reckless and irresponsible,” said RJC Executive Director Matthew Brooks. “Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and an ally of Iran. Speaker Pelosi’s statement, ‘We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,’ represents a softness and a weakness in foreign policy that hurts the United States and Israel.”
Actually, the article above from the RJC is what we would have expected as a response over Speaker Pelosi’s trip to the Middle East. And since this blog claims to be non-partisan and independent with a tendency to lean to the right or conservative viewpoint, this being also a ‘Republican’ Jewish Coalition was no surprise. However, the following statement was what started our head scratching.
April 10, 2007 - 9pmWASHINGTON – Today, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) condemned the Republican Jewish Coalition’s (RJC) misguided television advertising campaign, which smears Speaker Pelosi’s recent Middle East trip. The RJC makes the ridiculous claim that Speaker Pelosi’s trip “weakened America’s security.”
“The notion that the Speaker’s trip to the Middle East had negative ramifications for American national security is laughable,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman. “If RJC wants to do something productive for our national security, they should stand with the majority of Jewish Republicans, Independents and Democrats in opposing the administration’s failed Iraq policy.”
We may be guilty of a lax approach to staying informed about the Middle East. In our defense, the conflicts in the Middle East have appeared to us to be so simple and obvious as to their nature, the need for strict, formal and immense critical research seemed unnecessary. Our consensus was no one was really interested in solving the problems so they will not be solved without opposing ideologies making mutual concessions.
After tripping over the articles already presented here, we found the following:
RAFAEL MEDOFF, THE JERUSALEM POST
When Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, stepped to the podium at a Knesset dinner during her visit earlier this month, she made history in more ways than one.
Not only was she the first woman Speaker of the House to address Israel’s lawmakers, Pelosi was also addressing the parliament of a country whose creation her own father championed, at the risk of his career - and perhaps her career, as well.
Speaker Pelosi’s father, the late US congressman Thomas D’Alesandro, Jr., of Maryland, was known as a Roosevelt Democrat. What is not widely known is that D’Alesandro broke ranks with president Franklin D. Roosevelt on the issues of rescuing Jews from Hitler and creating a Jewish State.
Is someone trying to say that Speaker Pelosi’s disregard for established protocol is a genetic flaw? We could accept that but it still does not provide an excuse for her behavior regardless of motive. Here are some more enlightening excerpts from other reports.
Pelosi stand on the war in Iraq bothers Israel lobby
But House speaker insists U.S. commitment to security of Jewish state is unshakable
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
(03-14) 04:00 PDT Washington — Speaker Nancy Pelosi is widely recognized as a strong, second-generation supporter of Israel, but the scattered boos she heard during an appearance before the Israel lobby’s most committed activists highlighted their conflicting emotions over the war in Iraq.
With the first two articles presented, this one just muddies that water a little more. But the following excerpt gives some understandable insight of Nancy Pelosi simply being a political animal afflicted with typical ambitions for power and influence of a arrogant, wealthy, misguided, selfish politician and nothing more.
To adapt, she will have to understand that today’s opponent could be tomorrow’s ally. Few in Congress have such a memory for slights and betrayals. She still bristles at the fact that when she first went to Washington, many in the Democratic establishment didn’t take her seriously and opposed her march up the leadership. As she told Time earlier this year, “They couldn’t control me, so they tried to take me down.” When her former House colleague Martin Frost was running to head the Democratic National Committee after the 2004 elections, she lobbied against him with a determination that all sides attributed to Frost’s challenging her for Democratic leader two years before. Asked about those conflicts, Pelosi refused to discuss them specifically but said, “Anybody who’s ever dealt with me knows not to mess with me.”
That first whip race intensified her rivalry with Hoyer and also cemented her bond with Murtha, who managed her campaign. Not only did he get her the votes to win that job but his support also made it possible for other old bulls in the House to begin to imagine a woman rising to the top
But Pelosi has also found a way to make her gender a weapon in political combat
All that raised a lot of new questions about Pelosi herself—about her judgment, her political instincts and her real ideology. Was her endorsement of longtime ally John Murtha over Hoyer a testament to her loyalty or proof that she is incapable of letting go of old grudges? Was putting her muscle behind the hero of the party’s antiwar wing a sign that she would steer her fractious and fragile coalition over the guardrails on the left? Did her support for a man who is notorious for slipping special-interest earmarks into spending bills prove that she didn’t really mean all that talk about cleaning up Congress? In other words, was Nancy Pelosi really up to the job?
If it is to be attributed to her father’s influence then maybe not all about him is flowery and innocent. The next reference is the bio presented at house.gov and is also used by Infoplease offering the dry facts. That is followed by a report of an insight into Nancy Pelosi’s father and his less displayed political philosophy.
D’ALESANDRO, Thomas, Jr., (father of Nancy Pelosi), a Representative from Maryland; born in Baltimore, Md., August 1, 1903; attended the parochial schools and Calvert Business College, Baltimore, Md.; engaged in the brokerage and insurance business in Baltimore, Md.; member of the State house of delegates in 1926-1933; general deputy collector of internal revenue in 1933 and 1934; member of the Baltimore City Council 1935-1938; delegate to each Democratic National Convention from 1944 to 1968; elected as a Democrat to the Seventy-sixth and to the four succeeding Congresses and served from January 3, 1939, until his resignation on May 16, 1947; mayor of Baltimore, Md., from May 1947 to May 1959; defeated for renomination in the March primary election; unsuccessful candidate for election to the United States Senate in 1958; appointed by President Kennedy to the Federal Renegotiation Board, 1961-1969; insurance and real estate broker; was a resident of Baltimore, Md. until his death there August 23, 1987.
Tommyrot in Baltimore
Monday, Nov. 18, 1957
Baltimore’s newspapers went on a rampage last week against a startling proposal by Mayor Thomas D’Alesandro Jr.: special taxes on advertising revenue, their main source of income. No other U.S. city, however hard up, has tried to raise cash by threatening the economic wellsprings of the press.
This ends our sad belief that dirty politics claimed as anything else are still dirty politics and the likelihood of a solution for the conflict in the Middle East in our lifetimes is remote. If you would like to present arguments or alternative opinions, fact, anecdotes or whatever in the comments, knock yourself out. Thanks for reading.
Stanford Matthews
with assistance from C. Harris
and the staff at MoreWhat.com
Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
First of all, the 
The dribble presented by the sources above draw the conclusion that Reid and Pelosi can get credit for fixing everything the way the left wants it, renaming it patriotic and in support of the troops and convincing the public and the other side of the aisle that this is the right thing to do. That these two people contend they actually believe their own words is one of the most incredible collections of madness on display lately. If this is the standard fare that one can expect from those who support the Democratic party, it should be easy to eliminate their newly found majority in the next election.
Today Sen. Chuck Schumer will send a letter to President Bush urging him to immediately appoint a distinguished delegation of retired military leaders to go to Iraq, examine the failures in troop training and deployment, and make a public report to the Congress and American people quickly. Schumer suggested that former military leaders like General Tommy Franks, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and Secretary Colin Powell should go to Iraq to make a first hand assessment about why the President’s troop training plan is not going well. From all reports there is only one single battalion out of 97 that are ready to fight on its own in Iraq - that is only 750 troops.
Her first accomplice, Diane Feinstein should be investigated by the Democratic oversight champion Henry Waxman. What’s the story on Feinstein and her husband and MILCON and any possible connection to the Walter Reed problems?
Senator flip-flop Kerry has the audacity to be politically correct and call a policy change a policy reversal. God knows he doesn’t have the brass ones to refer to it as flip-flopping. Wouldn’t want to start that conversation again.
If the previous post does not show you that Senator Harry Reid is a contradction then understand he said they would not cut and run in Iraq or raise taxes. Right at the moment the tax thing is secondary. He said they would not cut and run. Senator Reid would you kindly explain the report below if you are not planning on cut and run?
