God bless Barack Obama, at today's hearing he called for regional talks to try and stabilize Iraq and get us and our children out of there. Talk to Iran! Drudge is running it as his main headline (to this Breitbart link). Here is Iranian coverage of the "black hopeful"'s news. It seems to me this is what I've been waiting for: an emphatic shift in policy called for by the guy I want to be president. Let us end the mindset that gave rise to this war, he said; well now he is taking on the mindset, now when it matters to American soldiers...
Two years ago the Iraq Study Group said Talk to Iran and Syria, it is the only way to save the situation. Those were American realists, from Hamilton to Baker, with Amb. Daniel Kurtzer in there too. Nothing doing. Kurtzer has said virtually the same thing more recently. Walt and Mearsheimer have called for such talks, too. This seems to me a plain collision of the American interest with the deluded neocon ideology that has ruined this country's reputation, and killed how many hundreds of thousands of people, and that has privileged rightwing Israeli concerns.
This is the test. What will the American people say? What will conservative Jewish groups say? Will Obama stick by his guns? Will he get backup? Will the new dovish Israel lobby rally support? Game on.
the mere fact he said it, in the face of the cowardly Democratic reception of Petraeus et al today, confirms he's the man for the job.
Talks in themselves mean little.
How often do we hear from the zionist left that we need to talk to Iran cause when we have to go to war with them, it will be easier to get Europe,Arab nations etc, to come aboard the coalition?
And what will Obama ask of the Iranians?
That they stop trying to wipe Israel off the map? That's a red herring. They said they want the regime gone, not the Jewish people.
It was the deceitful zionists that pushed this propaganda. Will he ask them to stop supporting Hezbollah? Why? Because Hezbollah defends the Lebanese from Israel?
Talks may be the form of relating to Iran.
But the content under Obamw may not neccessarily be so different..
He should insist that Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas recognize Israel, and although he won't go to war over what they think, he will plausibly have to go to war over what they do.
It is not the presidency of a school board that he is running for.
If he doesn't want to be president of the state with largest military in the world, with alliances, and roles, then he shouldn't run.
Israeli minister threatens "destruction of the Iranian nation"
link to wsws.org
Cahn anyone blame iran for wanting nukes when Israel has hundreds and threatens first use.
Police in Israel have shut down a Jerusalem radio station whose stated mission was to bring Israelis and Palestinians together. During a raid on Monday, police confiscated the station’s equipment and detained eight workers. Israeli officials accused RAM FM of broadcasting without a permit. The station broadcasts in Jerusalem and Ramallah. It was started a year ago by a South African Jewish businessman who modeled it after a South African station which was set up in apartheid South Africa in the 1980s.
.
"Two years ago the Iraq Study Group said Talk to Iran and Syria, it is the only way to save the situation."
It looks like Jimmy Carter may step up to the plate. This is big … really big. From Fox "News" (sorry):
————
NEW YORK CITY — Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly preparing an unprecedented meeting with the leader of Hamas, an organization that the U.S. government considers one of the leading terrorist threats in the world.
The Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Tuesday that Carter was planning a trip to Syria for mid-April, during which he would meet with Khaled Meshal, the exiled head of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, on April 18.
Deanna Congileo, Carter’s press secretary, confirmed in an e-mail to FOXNews.com that Carter will be in the Mideast in April. Pressed for comment, Congileo did not deny that the former president is considering visiting Meshal.
“President Carter is planning a trip to the Mideast next week; however, we are still confirming details of the trip and will issue a press release by the end of this week,” wrote Congileo. “I cannot confirm any specific meetings at this point in time.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348413,00.html
————
Will the foreign Israel Lobby try to have Jimmy Carter, American, arrested as he re-enters the U.S. … and stripped of his pension? Let 'em try.
GAME ON.
.
"[Obama] should insist that Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas recognize Israel, and although he won't go to war over what they think, he will plausibly have to go to war over what they do." – Richard Witty
Let me parse this shameless piece of zionoid propaganda:
1. Obama should insist that Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas recognize Israel's RIGHT TO EXIST AS A JEWISH STATE — which means giving up any right of Palestinian refugees to return, and condemning Israeli Arabs to live as second-class citizens — before negotiations even start.
2. If they refuse to accede to this absurd, overbearing demand, then we will have to bomb them into submission.
I trust that Witty's son at college will be enlisting in the Air Force upon graduation, to carry out this enlightened humanitarian mission of civilizing the Mooslim savages.
The PR red herring "right to exist" was explored in some depth on this blog on 6-26-'07 (although it eventually degenerated into infantile trash talking thanks to one posting as Bill Pearlman–check it out. Phil even explains why he didn't ban Pearlman at the time).
Parsing is more scientific than guessing (or putting words into others' mouths).
I agree. Obama has already stated that Israel IS a Jewish state.
As I said, he should insist that the world acknowledge that as well, including Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas. If they don't he shouldn't go to war over what they think.
He might have to go to war over what they do. If Iran attacks Israel, will he commit the US to defend Israel?
I hope so. If not then he will lose my vote, and my voice, currently in strong support.
I thought that you were a Ron Paul supporter Charles.
Are you now switching parties and supporting Obama?
Richard do you think it likely that Iran will attack Israel? Would you admit that there is somehting of a feverish climate around this issue, and that these two states have been saber-rattling for many years in the sort of regional power-struggle that is typical of international relations?
A red herring?
That depends in what context it is injected.
If we are examining Israel's Right To Exist"
in the context of how such a propaganda mantra is used to silence discussion on Palestinian Right Of Return then it is most relevant. In fact see how such a "right" actually means tacit opposition to any challenge to a Jewish controlled state in "Israel". Its kind of like a "White is Right" mantra used in the 1950's in the Jim Crow south of the USA, to keep the darkies down.
Lets deconstruct this Right To Exist" into a call for national liberation of the Jews in Palestine and an establishment of a state run by Jews, for the perpetuation of Jewish privilege. Now lets examine the cost and benefit of such a project in terms of human rights…
.
"Obama has already stated that Israel IS a Jewish state. As I said, he should insist that the world acknowledge that as well."
WHY? What does that have to do with us?
UK law specifies that a Catholic cannot be the monarch. (Jews aren't mentioned, presumably having been considered 'beyond the pale.') I happen to think that's narrow and bigoted. But should the US campaign worldwide for Britain to be recognized as a "non-sectarian state," and even threaten to fight countries who don't agree?
That would be insane. And so with Israel. Why should we "crusade for zionism"? To hell with crusades, for any religion.
Michael Scheuer's take, about 14 months ago:
Three standby myths amounting to a comprehensive attack on the common sense of the average American, as well as on U.S. national interests:
1.) The survival of Israel and/or a Palestinian state is a central national-security interest for the United States.
2.) All states have a "right" to exist.
3.) No state is "legitimate" if it refuses to accept the existence of a second state or argues that the second state should be destroyed.
The first myth is insupportable in terms of the correct definition of national interests: that is, issues that are matters of life-and-death for a nation. If our elites' favorite analytic frameworks of saintly-or-evil Israelis, or saintly-or-evil Palestinians, is avoided, and an effort is made to write down a list of the genuine U.S. national interests – not emotional, religious, or ethnic interests – that are at stake in the Arab-Israeli conflict, the result would be a completely blank sheet of paper. This little exercise simply shows that if both the Palestinians and the Israelis erased each other from the face of the earth tomorrow, it would have no notable impact on America. Indeed, that result would save a lot of U.S. money and get a lot of Americans out of harm's way.
The second myth is goofier than the first. No state – Palestine, Israel, America, or Belgium – has any sort of a God- or man-given right to "exist." States exist because they can defend themselves against predators, produce a viable economy, and prevent terminal, internal societal rot. If every state had a "right" to exist, the West would have kept the Soviet Union alive and would be working feverishly to resuscitate such long-gone states as Siam, the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, Sparta, and the Italian city states of Venice, Pisa, and Genoa.
The third myth is an absurdity of more recent vintage: A government is only legitimate, and can only be dealt with, if it renounces violence and recognizes the right of all states to exist. In practice, this means that Palestine's (then newly elected) Hamas government must unilaterally disarm in the face of a demonstrably brutal enemy – backed by the unqualified support of the world's only superpower – and willingly turn its back on a duty (jihad) that it believes derives from God's word. In commonsense terms, this sort of voluntary national suicide and mass apostasy seems a bit much to ask and, even more, to realistically expect to achieve.
For the United States, moreover, these demands are nothing short of nonsense in terms of our nation's historical experience. What American, for example, has not seen the film of a premier of the Soviet Union pounding his desk with a shoe and stridently vowing that the USSR would ultimately "bury" the United States? As if this denial of America's right to exist was not clear enough, all Americans knew that that particular Soviet leader – as well as his predecessors and successors – believed in the "science" of Marxism-Leninism, which long-ago determined that America and all capitalist states would be annihilated. Faced with such a foe, as I recall, America did not demand that the Soviets unilaterally disarm, renounce their Marxist-Leninist faith, and avow America's right to exist and flourish. Instead, we accepted the reality of the USSR's existence as a mortal foe, armed to the teeth, and dealt with Moscow in a way that protected U.S. national interests and led eventually to the demise of the Soviet Union.
As U.S. history shows, we are seeking to impose on Israel's foe unachievable conditions that we have never sought to impose on our own enemies. Insistence on these unattainable conditions – along with demands based on the other two myths – will only serve to prolong the conflict and involve America ever more deeply in what is, for the United States, the distinctly peripheral Israeli-Palestinian issue. It also will eventually elevate Hamas to what it has not been and is not now – a threat to the United States.
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=8605
The USA did not fall. USSR did. Bankupt. Bin Laden learned the lesson well, as Senator Feingold noted on C-SPAN today. Now it's our turn, and we're well on our way. Too bad the pivotal Iraq war issue before congress now isn't beeing taken as seriously by our three presidential contenders as Feingold is taking it. They are all using Petraeus and Crocker as stage props. Feingold actually has been trying to parse the smoke and fog in the interest of our nation.
.
Good one, Charles!
"Israel's right to exist" belongs right up there with "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as a long-discredited but widely-believed canard.
So what?
Acknowledgement of other state's right to exist and on the terms that they define is real and important.
If Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Palestine determined that they recognize Israel's existence (without defining it as a Jewish state), and desired to exchange ambassadors, I would expect that Israel would accept their invitation.
Would Iran do that? Hezbollah? Hamas?
There are relatively clear internationally defined descriptions of what actions constitute defense as distinct from offense or aggressive or intrusive actions.
Any comments on the idea that Hamas INTENDS to subvert peace negotiations by the PA?
Or, that Hamas undertakes a strategy of irritation (that it calls a flavor of "non-violence", say by the phrase "bottle-rockets".)?
Its hard to defend a state that continues a policy of expansion and suppression. I defend the nation and criticize the policies.
There is NO confidently safe single-state proposal.
You got one Charles?
.
"There are relatively clear internationally defined descriptions of what actions constitute defense as distinct from offense or aggressive or intrusive actions."
Precisely. And demolishing houses, and building settlements in occupied territory, is defined as aggression under the Geneva Convention and UN resolutions.
Any comments on the idea that Israel INTENDS to subvert peace negotiations?
"So what?"
OK, Dick Cheney.
"Acknowledgement of other state's right to exist and on the terms that they define is real and important."
You mean like NAZI Germany, Fascist Italy, or USSR? As I said,
he banged his shoe on the table. We still talked to him.
"If Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Palestine determined that they recognize Israel's existence (without defining it as a Jewish state), and desired to exchange ambassadors, I would expect that Israel would accept their invitation."
Don't we have an ambassador to Mexico? Tons of exchange, formal and informal? Even the truck route right through the USA is in contemplation. Yet, I don't recall Mexico every recognizing our right to exist as the governing force in those USA states known by some as La Razaland.
"Would Iran do that? Hezbollah? Hamas?"
We won't know untill we sit down with them and hold direct negotiations. We don't even do it under the table (backdoor).
Even the Brits eventally learned that with the troubles in Ireland.
"There are relatively clear internationally defined descriptions of what actions constitute defense as distinct from offense or aggressive or intrusive actions."
Yes, witness how many UN resolutions against Israel? And, since Chaney et al copied Israel, witness the USA pariah state.
"Any comments on the idea that Hamas INTENDS to subvert peace negotiations by the PA?"
That idea made up in your own mind? Why should I comment on a figment of your imagination projected off Bill Clinton's paradigm for negotiations, where the USA acted like a lackey for Israel. No one disputes Clinton gave Israel the inside power, left
Arafat alone. That's exactly what we don't need, what's not included in the concept of an even-handed dealer.
"Or, that Hamas undertakes a strategy of irritation (that it calls a flavor of "non-violence", say by the phrase "bottle-rockets".)?
True, Hamas cannot afford or get accurate, and hi-powered war tek at this juncture. Israel is the polar opposite. (Thank you, American taxpayers (fuck Katrina, etc… let our bridges fall from negligence, all across the USA, let our walls remain chimeras, after all, we can afford to support the whole world while the haves v havenots separate like the Red Sea in a B flick made by
Hobbes ).
"Its hard to defend a state that continues a policy of expansion and suppression. I defend the nation and criticize the policies."
Me too. Most of all, I value our troops dying, our wealth squandered for the few at the expense of the many. Get out of Iraq. Cut off aid to Israel until they get out of Gaza. We have no moral high ground in either place, and the whole world knows it
except the American people, not so much because they are stupid, but because they are given propaganda, not real details.
"There is NO confidently safe single-state proposal. You got one Charles?"
The USA polices the world as any particular regime of it sees fit, picking and choosing, e.g., which flegling or fake democracy it sees fit, protecting any tyrannical government or not, in the same way. The back door of our foreign policy is not the same as the front door. War and postWW2 police actions are extension of this; due to the plutocratic nature of our representative system of democracy, we all can see what this is, to the extent of information given to us by our own government, and to the extent of our focus and wealth (giving free time to actually focus).
Given that, the single versus two-state solution in the spot on the globe that is the Middle East is all about
population growth, which undergirds any fig leave of acknowledged democratic action. Obviously, if the American Indians had a large population (or lots of wealth), the USA foreign and domestic would be different today.
Since Truman, nobody astute divorces domestic from foreign policy. The days of WW1 baby-eating Huns is gone. There's more info availabe today; simutaneously, average peeps spend more time just paying the rent. Both parents are usually involved. (That's a whole other problem, since nobody is embedding value in the kids so it will stick).
Single state solution that would make Witty feel safe? I mean, make Witty feel safe that he has Israel to run to, in case Hitler
arises with creds in the USA?
Witty's best safety belt is—Phil Weiss. Or peeps like Feingold.
That's because Gentiles are not all subhuman, after all. The Enlightenment was mostly a goy enterprise. The NAZI's stuck it to the Jews, the Jews stuck it to the Palestinians. Yes, Auschwitz
is freaky. But at some point, the vicious circle of abuse must be cut. I think Phil knows this. Witty is scared, and he'd like some assurance. In that sense, Phil is taking a chance, while Witty is more reluctant to do so. Assimilation has something to do with this. I think in the end, the exconomic class issue is most determinative. This is also true with USA blacks, and with the "Third World."
Now that's a whole story yet. Not that you are what you eat, but how do you parse root cause, religion or racism from poverty versus wealth (power)?
Review Mel Gibson's movie about old Scotland. Who are the Jews? Who are the Palestinians? Who is the USA?
NOt a particularly thoughtful response.
Rhetoric doesn't address the issues Charles.
Peace is my goal. A peace that is fair and accomplishes the primary needs of the parties, NOT the rhetoric, NOT the fantasies.
And, not the demonization.
I agree that Israel authorizing new construction in East Jerusalem, and allowing outposts to remain, communicates the oppossite of what I think they should be doing.
So, good, we agree the settlers don't help peace at all. Reagan, Bush Senior, Hillary, all agree long ago, and when they tried to do something about it, learned they were not in charge. And so, we got Bush Jr., and Hillary Revised, Obama Revised (with breath held), and McCain, the senile flyboy lackey ordained by the Liebermans on both sides of the ocean.
We just don't agree on what to do about this. To end the fantasy, I submit the USA start by looking at the pros and cons of the old road map sans a loaded deck a la Bill Clinton's.
Even in Vegas, they tilt it less towards the House.
What choice is offered by political reality? Any way I look at it, the USA taxpayer is on the hook, as are his/her children in blood and/or treasure. It's all subprime masked as prime. Leverage starts with Ron Paul for those always on the hook. That says a lot, given RP's status in the current race.