I saw Jack Ross the other day in New York city and heard his rabbi refer to him as a "silent genius." Nice words. One reason I'm drawn to Jack is that he utterly lacks a problem I have: I miss the forest for the trees. Here he continues to be optimistic about how Obama will steer his course:
the "Obama movement"
is not the same thing as the netroots, and Obama bringing about serious
change in America is not the same thing as being a saint of the
netroots. As for the Clinton presence, the worst offenders like
Holbrooke, Ross, and Steinberg are almost certainly out, and even on
domestic policy the likes of Summers are at best at arms' length. And
on both foreign and domestic policy, Rahm is not there to make policy,
he'd probably go insane if he ever had to.
And: note the complete shift in the zeitgeist, re talking to Iran. Arlen Specter and Trita Parsi, and the neocons in a panic...
So you introduced us to a silent genius who occasionally turns into a oracle.
By the way at one point a Ross tag is missing. Inconvenient if one want to re-read a debate. It's the one with both Jack and Jeff comments.
Put on your blinders, turn your head to the side, put your nose in the air and repeat after me: "Obama is not a hustler surrounded by Neolibs. Obama is not a hustler surrounded by Neolibs…"
Forests are more important than trees.
One CRITICAL element of the American "forest", is the absence of clean, sustainable sources of energy to fuel our very addicted society.
It IS the forest of the US/Iraq, and US/Venezuela, and US/Nigeria, and US/Indonesia, and US/Saudi, and US/Kuwaiti, and US/Iran relationships.
ALL necessarily strained relationships for our alternate predatory, alternate exchange approach.
In Wikipedia, I read about Mearsheimer's long-term thesis of regional state powers, which in a phrase is that they are required to, and do, seek to expand.
There are NO good guys, noone exercising self-restraint.
If Israel can evolve to a point where it is satisfied with secure "enough", it will be a new phenomena in the world.
An underlying theme about Jews relevant to Zionism that you accept functionally and repeat Phil, is that Jews should be accepted if they know their place.
It IS the line of Jim Crow.
When they (any of them) get uppity (a range from self-determining to oppressing), they've got to be slapped down.
Is that a dynamic balance?
If Israel can evolve to a point where it is satisfied with secure "enough", it will be a new phenomena in the world.
– and your point is?
Forests are more important than trees.
More important than what percentage of the trees that comprise
any forest?
One CRITICAL element of the American "forest", is the absence of clean, sustainable sources of energy to fuel our very addicted society.
How does this particular forest element differ from any other?
It IS the forest of the US/Iraq, and US/Venezuela, and US/Nigeria, and US/Indonesia, and US/Saudi, and US/Kuwaiti, and US/Iran relationships.
What about that other forest, the "special" forest, US/Israel? Isn't that an addiction by your own terms?
ALL necessarily strained relationships for our alternate predatory, alternate exchange approach.
And the US/Israel "special" relationship, or enmeshment?
In Wikipedia, I read about Mearsheimer's long-term thesis of regional state powers, which in a phrase is that they are required to, and do, seek to expand.
Lebensraum anyone? How about the Shoah-paying Palestinians, seeking merely
to have a spot of their own in the first place?
There are NO good guys, noone exercising self-restraint.
You don't think Obama has exercised some of that?
If Israel can evolve to a point where it is satisfied with secure "enough", it will be a new phenomena in the world.
Isn't this what General Jones's analysis reveals? He found the
Israeli view of Israel's security a significant factor in undermining
the ground for a lasting peace. His report of course was not published, merely given in dribs and drabs via email to Condi Rice; allowing the super-loose leash (to drag us into WW3).
An underlying theme about Jews relevant to Zionism that you accept functionally and repeat Phil, is that Jews should be accepted if they know their place.
How's that? Explain your deductive logic, Witty. Don't forget the
Israel (USA funded) foot long placed firmly on the Palestinian head. Is that the proper placement?
It IS the line of Jim Crow.
Jim Crow? How about the Israel state as currently defined and implemented? If that's not something less than the separate but equal water fountains, what is?
When they (any of them) get uppity (a range from self-determining to oppressing), they've got to be slapped down.
You think there is no connection currently between organized Jewish self-determination as a self-defined collective state and oppression? Is it uppity for Palestinians to demand restitution, and less uppity for transplanted American Jews to rule over ancient inhabitants with their hilltop youth and diverted fresh water?
Is that a dynamic balance?
Dynamic, yes. Balance, no.
According to Mearsheimer's thesis, dynamic balance is what constitutes stability.
When Iraq was taken out, the "stable" balance of expanding powers was disrupted.
Ironically, to remove Israel from the list of contending powers in the region, could FURTHER destabalize it, if one applies Mearsheimer's earlier descriptions. (Which I've only read summarized, not the originals).
listen up, Kissinger cum Metternich, the Israel aircraft carrier in the sea of Arabs is doomed as was the giant Japanese one. Look to the USS Liberty, not the Israel state.