[Hoplite]

I think he was handicapped by having to flesh out the book with material he found in public to buttress ideas based upon non-public information.

At least that's the only explanation I could come up for as to why he'd be casting his net so wide and far for source material.

At any rate, while I don't agree with all of his positions, specifically his pessimism as to our chances in Afghanistan, I can't find fault with the majority of the book - and the issue being raised on this thread is whether blind American support for Israel is in America's interest: Scheuer's position is that it's not, and I agree with him.

We're not going to cut Israel loose - Israel's existence is in the American interest.

But looking on passively as Israel expanded settlements into the West Bank and Gaza strip was more harmful to American interests than helpful.

[papertyger]

But looking on passively as Israel expanded settlements into the West Bank and Gaza strip was more harmful to American interests than helpful.

What does that have to do with us?

[Torie]

It takes two to tango. Arafat rejected Barak's offer that would have removed almost all of those settlements. I don't think the settlements had much to do with the lack of a peace deal. I don't think at any time the Palestinians were ready to make a deal that was at all reasonable for Israel to accept. The upside of the settlements is that it tended to make clear that time was not on the Palestinians side.

And no, I don't know a thing about the book. I just think over the past 20 years, the equities have shifted decisively to Israel's side, and I was one whose skin would crawl ever time I listened to M. Begin. Diffferent facts lead to different conclusions.

Oh yes, the really "constructive" thing Israel did was to build the wall, which I advocated about 6 years ago. If anything leads to peace, it will be the wall.