Here is Ira Glunts, a former IDF soldier, challenging Obama adviser and "soft neocon" Dennis Ross at Colgate University last week or so about Israel attacking Iran. "At 53:10 Ross says something like Israel is
going to do what Israel is going to do regardless of what the US says," Glunts reports.
I listened to the exchange. Glunts asks a question, from the lower left part of the screen. He is disturbed that Obama said in a statement in Iowa that his job is to repair the situation involving Iran "before Israel feels that its back is against the wall." Isn't Obama taking his cue from the Israelis? Doesn't the U.S. have the power to stop the Israelis? Glunts quizzes Ross.
Ross, who works at the Israel lobby group the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, responds in his mellifluous fashion that if we were in Israel, we too would feel an existential threat from Iran going nuclear. And they're going to act before the bombs fall on their heads. And the U.S. has a "profound" interest in preventing Iran from going nuclear. Both because this would threaten Israel, and because it would "transform" the Middle East, make it all nuclear.
"In those circumstances, Israel is going to do what it feels it has to do regardless of what we or anybody else has to say," Ross says. And Obama is just recognizing that reality, and the reality that diplomacy has failed because it lacks urgency.
I don't know. Feels tail-dog-waggy to me. The U.S. is still a super-power. And its chief interest is to make sure no one uses a nuclear bomb on neighbors. Wasn't it on that basis that we just destroyed Iraqi society? And they dint even have one. It sure feels like Ross is being Israel's lawyer here. Why is their version of reality always the one we must subscribe to here–Israel, a state that routinely elects generals as prime ministers and has invaded its neighbors like we go to the candy store, and occupied Palestine for 40 years. Can't the U.S. start jawboning on this one now? What about nonproliferation? What about leading Israel away from the path of worship of the golden Merkava tank, toward respect for its neighbors? What about deterrence, which Bill Maher, John Mearsheimer, and Fareed Zakaria all believe in?
"Why is their version of reality always the one we must subscribe to here–Israel, a state that routinely elects generals as prime ministers and has invaded its neighbors like we go to the candy store, and occupied Palestine for 40 years."
A great question, rhetorical in nature, that speaks volumes. Thank you Phil.
I would really be interested in finding examples of other states whose policies create big externalities for the US in relation to which US officials says something like X is going to do what X is going to do regardless of what the US says.
The Obama campaign has sent dozens of Jewish surrogates — including Jewish members of Congress and well known figures in the community such as Ed Koch and Dennis Ross — to key states to talk about Obama’s background and his views on Israel and the Middle East. “As people got to know him better, they felt a lot more comfortable” with him, Mellman said. – link to jta.org
Why is this not just classic "good cop, bad cop"? The neocon faction that has wanted to go after Iran since the "Clean Break" report of 1996 (first Iraq, then Iran) is now out of favor. The "permanent government" of "realists," which will ascend with Obama, is more interested in killing Afghans and Pakistanis than Iranians. Israel is not going to do what it feels like regarding Iran, if in fact all this hubbub is more than posturing. It will "back down" for a quid pro quo (continued occupation of Palestine, their unwavering support for U.S. interventionism elsewhere). A settlement won't happen during an Obama administraton. Ross is a chameleon and a survivor. He'll end up taking some of the credit for reigning in Israel. It's a charade on both sides. One hand washes the other.
"Why is their version of reality always the one we must subscribe to here–Israel, a state that routinely elects generals" ….—….The generals never retired, they still lead. And all the soldiers beneath never retired, they still take orders…..—….And anyone (Jew or otherwise) that opposes will feel pain in the pocket or in the family…..—….JEWS AT THE STEERING WHEELJews at the helm of ostensibly non-Jewish organizations(New listing at JTR, ever-growing. This list could go on for miles. It is only a sampling.)….—….http://www.jewishtribalreview.org ….—….(from rockthetruth.blogspot.com)
Naming things is so universally important to human endeavor and so fundamental a prerequisite that it's just taken for granted, but each name we use had its own moment of becoming – before that things were murkier, inexact, inaccurate, unnamed.
No one on the outside has a tighter description for what's being done and who's doing it than "It's the Jews" "It's the Zionists" etc. Which for a lot of us means somehow reconciling neighbors and friends and loved ones and heroes with many of the most despicable acts of the contemporary moment.
Since that reconciling is impossible not to mention heart-breakingly difficult to even consider, it doesn't happen.
So we're all urgently trying to talk about real villains who never get named, except as individuals when they can be seen, or lumped in with other people who have no connection with them at all except the loosest of ethnic and cultural affinities.
It looks like it's the job of people like Richard Witty – who has the credentials and the lack of a radicalized profile – to do that naming, but it hasn't happened yet, and the hour's late.
This is about a lot more than Zionism.
the lipstick is always on the pig
If Witty names a person with a one-sided agenda, you can be sure
it's not good for the USA.