If you're a conservative reading this, I know what you're thinking - typical liberal. Part of the blame America first crowd. How could this war between the Israelis and Palestinians be America's fault?

First, I love America. I chose to be an American. I think this is the greatest country on earth. And part of what makes it great is that it is self-correcting. It can take criticism and use it to make itself better. It is a country confident enough to not shout down dissenters.

So, let me offer you something you hardly ever hear in the American media. The American government had a great deal to do with the outbreak of violence in the Gaza Strip right now. The Bush administration demanded - against the advice of nearly every expert in the field and the Israeli government - that the Palestinians hold elections. They did. Hamas won.

When Hamas won, we could have pulled them in toward the direction of political action and reconciliation. Instead, we chose to isolate them, start a coup against them (read this terrific article in Vanity Fair about our attempt to overthrow Hamas) and further radicalize them. We made a mockery of the idea of democracy. We proved to them that we never meant a word of the so-called Freedom Doctrine. We only wanted elections in which our guys won.

This kind of hypocrisy has consequences. It sends a message that democracy and voting doesn't work. And our botched coup against Hamas had the effect of sending the message that violence is the answer. If you don't get your way, the proper course of action is to try to change the results through use of force.

We should have never insisted on the elections that everyone - but the inane Bush team - realized Hamas was going to win. It's not that elections are a bad idea, but it was too early in this instance. We should have laid the groundwork for Palestinians to vote in a direction that would have led to more constructive solutions. Instead, as usual, Bush was lazy and insisted on getting his way right away.

And if we were going to have elections, we absolutely, positively should have recognized the legitimate results of those elections and dealt with the consequences. In fact, this might have pulled Hamas into a governing role that demanded more pragmatism and a less radical outlook. It's easier to be a radical when you don't have to get anything done.

And on the Israeli side, we never urge caution. We always encourage over-reaction. Before Israel started this assault on Gaza, there was one Israeli casualty since the end of the cease-fire. Within the first couple of days of the Israeli assault, there are already 64 Palestinian civilians killed. And five more Israelis killed from more - not less - rocket fire from Gaza.

So, the attack has not accomplished its objective of stopping the rocket fire from Hamas - in fact, it's made it worse - and it has also killed a disproportionate number of civilians in Gaza. I do not find the argument that these civilian deaths are just "collateral damage" persuasive. It's easy to call them collateral damage when they are not your kids.

Which American would stand by and let another country bomb our cities, kill our children and then accept the excuse that the enemy was targeting military complexes but they just killed our kids as simple collateral damage? Would that sound persuasive to you if you lost your family members? Your wife? Your grandfather? Your daughter?

The US government's immediate reaction was to say all of this was Hamas's fault and that Israel was 100% justified in retaliating in any way they saw fit. And it wasn't just the Bush administration; Democratic leaders put out nearly identical talking points.

So, what does this lead to? More bombings from Israel and a further escalation of the circle of violence. We are not doing Israel any favors by encouraging their most hawkish instincts. Violence begets violence. They will never have peace of mind as long as these seemingly endless cycles of violence continue.

Of course, Hamas and Israel are also responsible for their own actions. It would be absurd to claim otherwise. But we can give them the right incentives and disincentives or the wrong ones. We can either push them toward reconciliation and settlement or we can push them toward more violence, war and mayhem. We have done the latter, for which we must take responsibility.

No doubt the next time a Muslim fanatic attacks American interests, we will say, "Why do they hate us?" The answer is very clear. We have pushed them toward it. They are ultimately responsible for their actions. But we must also be responsible for our own.

Young Turks on You Tube

Take a Poll on This Issue (Who is Most Responsible for the Violence) on AOL Right Now

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/19481

It seems as though we are trying to control the world, at least through out the middle east...even your suggestions indicatied a more passive approach to manipulation, simply so other countries can do as we think they should.

People who do not want help or interference will retaliate, people who are frightened and have been for some time will resort to violence in a misconceived perception of proactive self defense...especially if someone else says its the right thing to do

We talk of freedom and democracy but we insist on trying to manipulate others to "chose" in the directions we want no matter how you go about it...

As for over reaction

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Ben Franklin


We pay a price for our liberty, we take many things for granted. we even condemn, through ignorance, those who would chose to fight for this lifestyle we have, we insult them and we insult ourselves

a passive approach is called diplomacy by the way. Ben Franklins comments were directed at those who would give up their freedom to a government that would offer them safty this is often taken out of context and used to promote some type of war agenda. : anyone who is willing to give up some liberty for safety does not deserve liberty nor safety. In other words, those that will lie down and allow the Govt to steal away their freedoms at the cost of "safety" are wussies that do not deserve to live in this land

I agree with this and I was not promoting war for any reason...I was mostly referring to those "security precautions" enacted, by our own government shortly after this war began that removed rights from those living in this country, and most just sat back and accepted it.

Call it diplomacy if you will it is still manipulation of others, a way to bend them to the will of another...however just or unjust it may be

That BS is never going to break the cycle of violence. Many attempts have been tried to negotiate settlements and they have all failed miserably. Your hatred of Bush has limited your objectivity in many ways. Your threads always blame Bush or our government for everything on Earth. Talk is never any good unless someone backs up agreements settled.

I do not believe the blame can be laid solely on the United States.

We are however complicit in this and should admit it along with letting Israel know we will no longer tolerate it's aggression.

currently our Veto in the UN is all that is stopping a cease fire order.

We have to butt into everyone elses business, the American way.

Guess were the weapons used in these wars are made and who funded them.

I agree!
Most of the blame lies with England as it does in almost all of the worst trouble spots in the world today. But, because we were/are complicit we have to shoulder blame as well..

We could right some of the wrongs with appropriate and fair actions by our Gov.
England is powerless and too weak to do anything today.

DeepC makes a great point

We have to butt into everyone elses business, the American way.

Guess were the weapons used in these wars are made and who funded them.

While we are at it let's remember we have helped arm virtually ever player in the mid-east conflicts.

If this were a board game...well it isn't but the tactics aren't much different in the end. Sad but true

Lets ask ourselves if Isreal was Iraq who would we blame for hostilities? What would the media do? How would the propaganda look? Would Bush march into the UN and demand a coalition of peace keepers? just something to ponder this new years day morning

sorry Bryon the CIA staged a coup and placed the Shaw in power to begin with.( we over threw an elected government) they reacted to the Shaws brutal police state and americas support of it.

ENGLAND IN PERSIA.


May 19, 1892, Wednesday

Page 4, 822 words

The refusal of Persia to accept a Russian loan for the purpose of discharging her obligations to an English company has been sufficiently explained by the cable dispatches. Even the Shah has to take account of public opinion. His own object in life seems to be the amassing of an immodest competence, and while the public finance of the country is in a very bad way the Shah individually continues to be extremely solvent. [ END OF FIRST PARAGRAPH ]

Note: This article will open in PDF format. Get Adobe Acrobat Reader or Learn More »

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9906E0DC173BEE33A2575AC1A9639C94639ED7CF

TEMPS ATTACKS PERSIAN TREATY; Says Agreement with England Deprives Persia of Her Sovereignty. LONDON PRESS DEFENDS IT Except the Daily News, Which Says "Few Agreements Have Worn an Uglier Look." Answering French Criticism. Senate to Discuss Persian Treaty.

By CHARLES A. SELDEN. Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES.

August 18, 1919, Monday

Page 3, 754 words

PARIS, Aug. 16.--Le Temps tonight practically accuses England of violating the covenant of the League of Nations by its Persian treaty. It says that the British promise to respect the integrity and independence of Persia is only an oratorical precaution and declares that Persian independence is attacked by the treaty itself. [ END OF FIRST PARAGRAPH ]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A0CEFD9133DE533A2575BC1A96E9C946896D6CF

it may have been a brutal police state. but it was our brutal police state

Prior to World War I, the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907 split Persia apart and delineated spheres of influence for each in which the British and the Russians dominated them economically. During World War I, Great Britain occupied northern Persia. The current government of Iran describes the period thusly: “During World War I the country was occupied by British and Russian forces but was essentially neutral. In 1919, Britain attempted to establish a protectorate in Iran, aided by the Soviet Union's withdrawal in 1921. In that year a military coup established Reza Khan, a Persian officer of the Persian Cossack Brigade, as dictator and then hereditary Shah of the new Pahlavi dynasty (1925). Reza Shah Pahlavi ruled for almost 16 years, at the beginning mostly secretly aided by the British, installed the new Pahlavi dynasty, thwarted the British attempt at control, and pushed to have the country developed.”
http://www.mytown.ca/ev.php?URL_ID=124985&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201

You see the problem originated with England.
At the end of WWI the English were weakened and then the US sort of inherited the problems caused by the English's artificial redrawing of borders!

I think you're too quick with the name tags.

Remember 1969? US defaults on gold stored in New York for foreign nations? That doesn't count right? A little tiny thing such a complete loss of a national treasury wouldn't piss anyone off? We would certainly just waive flags if someone who was keeping our fort knox defaulted and said we will never get it back?

The longer you listen to either right or left to more they will try to make a fool of you.

You see, you weren't told anything about 1969. This is to make the other guy appear as if his aggression is without reason.

it's got to be somehow George Bush's fault