Talk:Neoconservatism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

archive 3 through 2004-5

AEI

I don't know how you could say AEI isn't neoconservative? It is like the capital of neoconservatism. Just look at your own link. http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html?story

Origin of term

Michael Lind, a self-described ex-neocon, writes in the Feb 23, 2004 issue of The Nation (p.24, in the article "A Tragedy of Errors", nominally a review of a recent book by David Frum and Richard Perle), that the term "Neoconservative" was Michael Harrington's. Does anyone know if this is true, and if so, where Harrington coined it? That's an interesting person for it to have come from, and would merit mention in the article if true. -- Jmabel 01:17, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The credit (or blame) for the term was confirmed in the National Review. I've added it to the article on the theory that anything those two magazines agree on is pretty much NPOV by definition. :) JamesMLane 02:10, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Trying to avoid an edit war

I seem to be in danger of an edit war with User:66.227.210.253. I would appreciate if someone else would weigh in.

• 19:02, 28 Mar 2004: User:66.227.210.253 removes "pro-war" from lead paragraph.
• 19:32, 28 Mar 2004: I restore it, with the comment, "Reverting to last edit by 194.125.8.172: restoring pro-war. Willing to see this change debated in talk page, but not to see it made unliaterally and anonymously."
• 15:59, 29 Mar 2004: User:66.227.210.253 makes different, more extensive edit elsewhere in the article, which (in my view) replaces a description biased in one direction with a description biased in the other direction (I will discuss below).
• 15:59, 29 Mar 2004: User:66.227.210.253 again removes "pro-war" from lead paragraph, still with no justification given.

-- Jmabel 02:43, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seeking a middle ground

15:59, 29 Mar 2004: User:66.227.210.253 replaced:

"After talks with April Glaspie, the United States ambassador to Iraq, assured him that the US considered the Iraq-Kuwait dispute an internal Arab matter, Saddam sent his troops into Kuwait. Thus, the actual historical record would seem to cast doubts on the view among neoconservatives that Saddam's wars have been tantamount to Hitler's."

With

"After talks with April Glaspie, the United States ambassador to Iraq, assured him that the dispute over small islands on the Iraq-Kuwait border was an internal Arab matter, Saddam sent his troops into Kuwait, taking the entire nation (instead of just the disputed islands)."

I agree with the removal of the Hitler remark, and neither of these versions is an epitome of NPOV, but the new version is factually more dubious than the old. While some historians believe that April Glaspie meant to signal only that a dispute over small islands on the Iraq-Kuwait border was an internal Arab matter, that is certainly not what she said in readily available transcripts. This new wording implies that she was clear and specific. In fact, she was lamentably vague, and Saddam Hussein could well have seen what she said as a green light for a full scale takeover of Kuwait. See for example [1] (one of several places where transcripts of the key meeting can be found on the web). Glaspie simply said,

"... I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.

"I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late 60's. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly. With regard to all of this, can I ask you to see how the issue appears to us?"

This is, at best, ambiguous.

Since I seem to be in danger of an edit war with User:66.227.210.253, I am not going to edit the article myself, but I would appreciate if someone else will step in and deal with this. -- Jmabel 03:00, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Request for comment

Since it seems likely that User:66.227.210.253 will simply ignore the talk page, I have placed the previous two issues on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment, hoping to get someone else involved and avoid an edit war. -- Jmabel 03:12, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The last paragraph

It talks about the famous accusation that the US somehow lured Saddam in Kuwait in order to provoke the war or something. First, the way it is put in the entry, while NPOVed, still could be improved. For example: No country would lend it money except the United States and borrowing money from the US made Iraq its client state. Iraq had also borrowed a tremendous amount of money from other Arab states, including Kuwait, which somehow did not make it Kuwait's client state, and also contradicts the first part of the phrase. And second, how is it relevant to the article about neoconservatism?

The whole thing has an aftertaste of an honest, but partisan, attempt to express someone's curent political agenda on a tangentially relevant topic in the guise of an encyclopedia article.

Cema 00:58, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Totally disputed

Cema makes good points, as do others. This "article" is in many parts just a propaganda piece designed to slur neocons. Looking at some of the editors, it's easy to see why. Here are some highlights:

1. The intro claims neocon'ism is rooted in the Old Left; but this is denied by many neocons, who (rightly or not) regard themselves as true heirs of a continuous conservative movement.
2. Kirkpatrick is painted as a monster. After all, she opposes the "poor, dispossessed, or underclasses". Of course, this is nonsense. Communism is devastating to the poor, etc., and it's that ideology in "social movements" which is opposed.
3. Naturally, the article mentions of Allende that he was "democratically elected", and of Pinochet that he had a "rightwing dictatorship", but fails to note other, just possibly relevant aspects of the situation, such that Allende was driving the economy into the ground. To do so might (gasp!) introduce some moral grey. Might there really be two sides to this story?
4. The Glaspie incident is somewhere between downright wrong and deceptively worded. Besides the Iraq-issued transcript which does not say what most people claim, there is no proof Glaspie "assured" Saddam of anything. Furthermore, the way it's written, it is implied this is the direct cause of the invasion of Kuwait, when in fact it was the breakdown of negotiations with Kuwait after the conversation with Glaspie that resulted in war. What does this have to do with neocon'ism, anyway? Maybe it just makes them look bad. It should be removed.

I have added a dispute notice. -- VV 10:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re Kirkpatrick, I've added her famous "moderately repressive regimes" quote. Beyond that, though, we need to include that Allende was indeed democratically elected. People who practice or support the violent overthrow of elected governments always have their side to the story -- the elected leader was ruining the economy or oppressing the peasants or tolerating corruption or whatever. Your rewrite eliminates all distinction between Allende and, say, Castro. I don't see how you can claim it to be NPOV to delete the fact about how Allende got into office in the first place.

I don't know whether Kirkpatrick ever cited alleged economic mismanagement as justifying Allende's overthrow. Her overall rationale was that a right-wing dictatorship was more likely to lead (eventually) to a democracy than was a left-wing dictatorship. I don't know whether she applied that theory specifically to Chile. How about if we restore the fact that Allende was overthrown by the military after being democratically elected, and you can add in whatever details you want about how Kirkpatrick justified the coup? JamesMLane 07:22, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

"Alleged"

"Famous alleged neoconvervatives"??? This is just silly. We discuss elsewhere in the article the fact that the term is in dispute. We do not make a similar qualification in similar articles on liberals, conservatives, socialists, etc., even though all of these lists contain some disputable entries. I'm not going to roll this change back singlehandedly, but if I can get a second and unless there is a clear consensus against us, I intend to do so. -- Jmabel 03:15, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

This is a tricky question. The whole article talks about prominent neoconservatives and the influence of neoconservatism and so on, yet many do not self-identify with the term. I think an unanswered question is how to handle this divide but still write coherently about this subject. Certainly if we started calling Bush and his allies fascists, that would be a serious problem, and this might not be that different. (Having an article on Bleeding hearts would also be problematic, and we have now Chickenhawk.) -- VV 04:26, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel. When I first saw the "alleged" headline, it struck me as ridiculous. I thought about changing it to "Famous people often considered to be neoconservatives," but that was just too klunky. By the way, some of these people aren't all that famous, although they may be among those considered to be "core" neocons.

Although we've made clear elsewhere that many people "do not self-identify with the term," I've tried to accommodate anyone who might still protest. My revised headline dispenses with "alleged," but the concept is embodied (clearly and objectively, I hope) in the new introductory sentence. I'm left with questions about the composition of the list. For example, Dick Cheney is a fairly traditional conservative. Mere association with PNAC doth not a neocon make. JamesMLane 06:52, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Most people who could be described as Neoconservative are alleged because most refuse the term for themselves. I believe Irving Berlin used the term to describe himself. Sigh, define or be defined, and the definition used by opponents is never flattering. Harvestdancer 23:29, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) User Harvestdancer

Is it possible that you mean Isaiah Berlin? -- Jmabel | Talk

Ack. I meant Irving Kristol. Kristol worte a book "Reflections of a Neoconservative " and considers himself the "godfather" of neoconservatism. Sorry Mr. Berlin. -- Harvestdancer

Seemed an odd claim about Isaiah Berlin (who was no sort of conservative), but that was all I could imagine you meant. Yes, I think Irving Kristol is one of the few to actively embrace the term. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:41, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'm human, therefore I err. Back to topic. Most people who could be described as Neoconservative are alleged because most refuse the term for themselves. Irving Kristol used the term to describe himself, but is in the minority in that respect. Sigh, define or be defined, and the definition used by opponents is never flattering. Harvestdancer 27 Dec 2004 User Harvestdancer

Neoconservatism in US

Woah, woah, woah, nobody ever says "in US". Makes it sound like weird bureaucratspeak. I don't see what was wrong with the old location, but it should at least be "Neoconservatism in the United States" or "Neoconservatism in the U.S." - Nat Krause 06:49, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. This move was a bad idea, and at any rate should have been discussed in Talk first. I'm undoing. Let's keep it there until/unless consensus emerges that the old title is inadequate. - VV 07:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Just to add to above, the old title is more appropriate, because this proposed one implies that neocon'ism is a worldwide movement, and this article is just about the US branch of it. But in fact we're talking about wholly different ideologies, and so a disambiguator is more appropriate. - VV 07:04, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Some minor NPOV issues

Saying that neocons "have been influential in formulating U.S. foreign policy" was proper because the point isn't seriously disputed. If VeryVerily insists on "credited with influencing," however, thus implying that their influence was a good thing, then we need to acknowledge that some people disagree. Hence "credited with (or blamed for)," although I think that the simple statement that they did influence it is better.

As for their attitude toward other governments (especially Third World), it's objective to say that they opposed regimes "deemed hostile to the interests of the United States." If we want to add "values," then we need to note the opposing POV that the neocons didn't really give a damn about traditional American values. (What would Thomas Jefferson have said about Ferdinand Marcos?) I think it would be simpler to go back to the simple "interests of the United States," undoing both my edit and VV's.

I don't want to just revert VV's edits, so if he or anyone else agrees with me, please change to the shorter versions suggested above. JamesMLane 02:00, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

(1) Well, the issue here is mostly that imputations of neoconservative are controversial enough that I want it to be stated that this influence is imputed rather than be stated outright. I don't mean credited with to imply it is a good thing but rather a successful thing. (2) Saying it's just for US interests is highly prejudicial and negative, and it's not accurate either, in that as I see it neocons have something of a "global" vision, with America as a tool for pursuing it. Neocons do talk about and argue for American values, so it's fair to say that they support actions on their behalf, even if their vision is non-Jeffersonian; recurring talk of democracy is one example - VV 02:46, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Michael Lind article

Self-described former neoconservative Michael Lind wrote a rather interesting article on neoconservatism in the February, 23, 2004 issue of The Nation (p. 23-32). The article, entitled "A Tragedy of Errors", has garnered praise even from such unlikely sources as Scott McConnell of The American Conservative". Definitely recommended reading. -- Jmabel 16:33, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

An interesting reading, but too obviously partisan. Which is sad. Cema 04:21, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's in an overtly partisan publication, and I would be very cautious in using as anything other than a pointer to potentially relevant sources (or to draw on for articulate critique of neoconservatism), but it's obviously by somone who really knows the topic. He mentions a lot of relevant people and groups and publications and how they are related to one another. -- Jmabel 17:09, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

IMO a link to this article might be called for, since the articles linked from the bottom are generally either (1) defenses of neoconservatism or (2) criticisms of ncism from the right. I think a plurality of reasoned opinions is the best way to preserve NPOV. Bds yahoo 03:33, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Sam [Spade] 04:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some slightly weird recent edits

A few recent edits strike me as weird:

1. "This is not to say that even NeoCon non-Jews such as Frank Gaffney generate much of their income from Israeli related sources." Any reason not to just delete this?

2. The possibly slightly POV, slightly pro-neocon "They support Israel's role as the strongest ally of the United States in the Middle East and as the sole Western-style democracy in the region," was turned into the rabidly POV anti-neocon "They try to sell the idea that Israel is the strongest ally of the United States in the Middle East and is the sole Western-style democracy in the region."

3. There's an utterly POV passage beginning "They fail to deal with the problem that once a nation abandons the rule of law..."

I could just revert these, but I think it's worth noting explicitly what weirdness is happening to this article. And anyone else is welcome to follow up...

Jmabel 05:32, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

I have taken care of this, in particular putting middling language re point one. Yes, those edits were downright bizarre. VV[[]] 05:44, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Another? An anon recently added the Heritage Foundation and Policy Review in the second paragraph. The two are affiliated with one another. Are they at all specifically neoconservative? I know there are neocons associated with them, but I thought they were a bit broader than that. For whatever it's worth, our article on the Heritage Foundation does not even mention neoconservatism. -- Jmabel 00:09, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Israel the sole Western-style democracy in the Middle East: doesn't Turkey count? (This is geographical/polsci pedantry rather than any real POV issue, though, I think...) Alai 04:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alai, is your issue with the current wording in the article or with this discussion from last August? If the former, what do you propose? If the latter, it's moot, no? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:19, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

The former: 'Neoconservatives and Israel': "They promote the view that Israel be the US's strongest ally in the Middle East as the sole Western-style democracy in the region." I shall add parenthical cover for this, unless anyone has a better idea. Alai 02:51, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan

A recent addition said, "the left has not adopted a similarly sympathetic attitude toward Taiwan" (comparing it to Tibet). I'd question that. Many on the left question the goal of Taiwan independence (which, as I understand it is a rather fraught issue even in Taiwan), but the type of leftist that wants autonomy or independence for Tibet pretty consistently wants autonomy for Taiwan, now that the latter has developed democratic institutions. When support for Taiwan meant support for Chiang Kai-Shek, this was, of course, an entirely different matter. Given that the statement was unsourced, not particularly on the topic of the article, and I don't think it was true, I'm deleting it. -- Jmabel 17:14, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The "source" of the comment seemed to be someone's impressions of bumper stickers seen near college dorms. There are no "Free Taiwan" stickers because the PRC doesn't control Taiwan. Letting people vent their spleen at leftists is generally off-topic for this article, anyway. JamesMLane 07:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contradiction?

Neoconservatism is a term referring to the political goals and ideology of the "new conservatives" in the United States, characterized by hawkish views on foreign policy and a lesser emphasis on social issues...

/*Beliefs*/ ... more social welfare spending than was acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives

How do they have less emphasis on social issues but support more social welfare funding? If their main priority is foreign policy - and hawkish views regarding it - and they have a lesser emphasis on social issues, why would they support more funding for welfare? Did I just get mixed up in the syntax somehow? (User:LockeShocke - sig added Jmabel 07:09, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC))

1. "Less emphasis" doesn't mean "no emphasis".
2. The neoconservatives started out (in the Nixon era, and with rather Nixonian politics) focused about equally on foreign and domestic matters, but it's mostly in foreign policy areas that they've found favor with the Republicans in recent years.
3. I haven't particularly worked on this article (and don't particularly want to) but I would suggest that the authors were probably more focused on the present than the history, with little bits of the history coming through. -- Jmabel 07:09, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Clash of Civs

" being more inclined than other conservatives toward an interventionist foreign policy (often along the lines of Samuel P. Huntington's Clash of Civilizations thesis)" I don't understand this. I've read the book and Huntington rarely advocates foreign intervention. In fact, I think Fukuyama might be more relevant as (although Fukuyama does not come across as terribly christian or imperialist), the 'end of history' implies the neocons are going to 'help history along' with an agressive foreign policy. If anything, Huntington is probably closer to an isolationist on a civilization level (the USA ignores other cives buisnesses, keeps interest in West Europe etc..). So this comment seems out of line. I mean Fukuyama is a member of the Project for the New American Century, Huntington is not. So i'm taking off the comment. - CJWilly

Lapham article worth mining

In an article -- "Tentacles of Rage" -- in the September 2004 issue of Harper's, p. 31- 41, Lewis H. Lapham gives an interesting rundown of the shift from a liberal to a conservative consensus in the U.S., before launching into a diatribe of his own against the latter. The article contains much useful material worth mining for this article (and moresos for Conservatism, where I've also dropped a note, and for a possible factored-out article on conservatism in the U.S.). I'll probably mine it for a few quotes pertaining to the mid-century liberal consensus, which will go at Liberalism in the United States. -- Jmabel 23:13, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Trotskyism and neoconservatism

"Intellectually, neoconservatives have been strongly influenced by a diverse range of thinkers from Max Shachtman 's strongly anti-Soviet version of Trotskyism (in the area of international policy) [....]" "The current neoconservative desire to spread democratic capitalism abroad often by force, it is sometimes said, parallels the Trotskyist dream of world socialist revolution. The influence of the Trotskyites perhaps left them with strong anti-Soviet tendencies, especially considering the Great Purges targeting alleged Trotskyites in Soviet Russia."

So the article states that Trotskyism and neoconservatism have strong similarities, then mentions spreading "democratic capitalism" and anti-Communism. However the desire to spread one's own ideology is found in all true believers, and anti-Communism is shared by all those who are not Communists. I think that there no similarities between Trotskyism and neoconservatism at the ideological ("intellectual") level, except maybe for a certain aversion to parliamentary democracy, and that the article is very misleading in this regard. If nobody can point out some real similarities I'll make some changes to the article. - pir 10:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The passages you quote are fine. The article doesn't make a blanket assertion that the neocon-ism is similar to Trotskyism. It says that they were influenced by Schachtman. It says that their foreign poliocy, "it is sometimes said", parallels an aspect of Trotskyism. It says that the influence of Trotskyists may be responsible for their radical anti-Sovietism. All of these assertions are, as far as I know, true. I'm not sure what you think is misleading here. - Nat Krause 10:35, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is often suggested (in debate in the corporate press and the liberal/center-left circles) that the [ideological] roots of neo-conservatism come from Trotskyism. The way the article is written is consistent with this view. I think there is truth in this view at the level of the people involved in neo-conservatism, but I can't detect any similarities at the ideological level. In this sense I find the Wikipedia article misleading. I think one could make a stronger argument that the ideological roots of neoconservatism lie in fascism (i.e. state-corporatism with a strong state enforcing big business interests) and the link at the personal level is there as well, for example with Michael Ledeen, a great admirer of Italian fascism. Shachtman had broken with Trotskyism by the time his contributions to neoconservatism became relevant. The similarity of neocons with Trotskyists in their opposition to Communism (or more accurately, Stalinism, since Trotskyist are communists) is purely superficial, because the neocons most definately don't talk about the "bureaucratically degenerated workers' state" or "socialism in one country", they don't argue for a "permanent revolution" to put the means of production into the hands of the proletariat etc - but these are the reasons why Trotskyists opposed Stalinism. At the ideological level they have strictly nothing in common (as far as I can see), and I think it is important to state this quite clearly. I think the purpose of comparing the neocons to Trotskyists is to make them look like an alien "un-American" element, which one can point the finger at once Iraq descends into a complete disaster and the US has to withdraw in humiliation. The other way of portraying the neocons as an "alien" element is of course the anti-Semitic ZOG approach, which is compatible with the "neocons=Trotskyist" argument. Oh... I'm not sure if I can really explain what I'm talking about. - pir 11:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Most of the problems with this would go away if people would cite appropriate authors saying this instead of putting it in the narrative voice of the article. "It is sometimes said" are weasel words. -- Jmabel|Talk 19:23, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Pir, I'm still not sure that it's a problem for the article to simply be consistent with an arguable opinion. I don't really know enough about Trotskyism to judge whether or not it is similar to neoconry, but here is a summary of my understanding of the proposed similarities: 1) neoconservatism seeks a permanent international revolution, albeit for a different goal than Trotksy proposed; to wit for the goal of bourgeois market democracy (leaving aside the question of whether "market democracy" is a meaningful concept); 2) neoconservatism was resolutely opposed to interests of the Soviet Union, although in this case they are far, far more enthusiastic about the role of the US than the average Trotskyite is (I suppose that's where the Schachtman influence comes in.

By the way, I'm not sure that linking the neocons to Fascism (also plausible on the face of it) is any less likely to tar them as a bizarre foreign element. And also, Jmabel's point about attribution is of course correct. - Nat Krause 07:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jamestown Institute - Jamestown Foundation

Are these the same institutions? I found some hints but im not quite sure. Could be important because there is not much to find about an "Jamestown Institute"

This is incorrect. Jamestown is not a neoconservative organization, and is run by well-established critics of the Bush administration's policies, especially vis-a-vis Putin and Chechnya. —thames 19:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I noticed a heavy anti-russian stance and support of ideas which are more in line with the opinion of hardcore neoconservatives than the realpolitik approach of the bush-administration.--80.137.115.232 21:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your position, and I think you've got things backwards. The Bush administration is most certainly not realist (prominent realists on the right and left, such as Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, routinely criticize Bush administration policy). The Bush administration is neoconservative. Jamestown is a big critic of Bush/neoconservative policy as well, and is more in line with realist/liberal international relations POV. The neoconservatives have accommodated Russia as a great power which can aide in the War on Terror--Jamestown, realists and liberals criticize this position. —thames 21:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christianity and Neoconservatism

I would like to see some references to the new relationship between Christianity and Neoconservatism. I can't believe there isn't anything about it here already. The primary focus of this article seems to be their external politics whereas this last election showed that they have an internal agenda as well.

--Bill Kress 20:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? Both the Christian Right and the Neoconservatives are clearly part of Bush's coalition, but they seem mostly to have an uneasy relationship with one another. Even where their views may favor the same day-to-day stance, they seem to be coming from entirely different rationales. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jm, it is a strange serrundipty, that has these two different groups together on foreign policy, it is probably the issues of opposition to militant Islam and favoring Israel that bring them together. The Israel part is the most interesting, because most of the illinformed would probaby suspect "virulent" Christians to be anti-semetic, but it is just the opposite. These fundamentalists has a strong conviction that their apologia must also reconcile the old testament with the new as the one word of God. They educate themselves on the original languages and hebrew culture, practice traditional sader meals, and believe Israel must succeed and rebuild the temple (or something, I'd have to research to get the details right), before the 2nd coming can happen. Some even go so far as to consider Christianity a sect of judaism, albeit the "correct" sect. The anti-commie, pro-Israeli ex-dems that make up some of the neo-cons, may feel uncomfortable hanging around these fundamentalists, but they could not have more reliable allies on these issues. The chief impact is probably on the pro-Israel democratic voters, who are figuring out that these constituencies make the Republicans far more reliable allies than the pro-palestinian, anti-zionist democratic core.--Silverback 00:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)