AP reports that Israeli expansion plans are a direct challenge to Obama & Mitchell

by on February 16, 2009 14
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

The AP's Karin Laub has picked up that expanded settlement news, first published in Haaretz, and done wonderful reporting on it. Laub says the land belongs to a Palestinian plumber. The plans–and here the AP echoes this site–are  a direct challenge to Obama and George Mitchell. It's time for people to step forward. Where is Congressman Gary Ackerman, who condemned the settlements last week? What does condemnation mean?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine, Settlers/Colonists, US Politics

{ 14 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. syvanen says:
    February 16, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    It is clear that Obama could force Israel to back down if he was willing to pay the political price. But it would be a steep price. First the GOP in the House and the Senate would stand in common cause with Aipac dems. The cost would be huge. Such a battle could cripple him from doing anything else while it was going on. Is Israel worth that much trouble? Not today it isn't. Obama will have to concede.

  2. BLG says:
    February 16, 2009 at 4:24 pm

    Who's gonna give in here?

  3. Chris Berel says:
    February 16, 2009 at 5:24 pm

    Obama. He has to. If he doesn't, it will be seen as a tremendous moral failing. it will be seen as caving in to Islamic Fascism. It will be seen as caving in to the ultra left wing that elected him.

    And it would be true.

    So Obama has no choice but to do the moral thing and tell the supporters of Weiss to piss off.

  4. t2t says:
    February 16, 2009 at 5:38 pm

    Now that's a new approach, syvanen – let Israel do whatever it wants with American weapons and American taxpayers money because "Is Israel worth that much trouble? Not today it isn't." Problem solved. Gee, thanks.

  5. Jaffr says:
    February 16, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    It's not easy to find so-called "Eitam Hill" on the map, but the place has been the focus of a campaign of expansion by extremist settlers for some time. They have been aggressively invading Palestinian-owned land in the area in recent years. "Eitam" is part of the "municipal planning zone" of Efrat, though it lies outside the projected line of the Apartheid Wall (to the northeast).

    Building there would be another step toward the complete isolation of Bethlehem, extending settler-controlled land toward the Tekoa colony and nearly closing off southern access to the city — which already surrounded by walls and settlements to the west, north and east.

  6. Citizen says:
    February 16, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    What is "Islamic Fascism" Chris Berel and other hasbara agents constantly refer us to it, but they never give us a definition of what it is, though they have been asked many times by participants on this blog. I will ask once again is it like Zionist Fascism? IF not, what's the difference?

    Will Obama do the moral thing? I doubt it. No other USA President has done so except Ike and Carter, with a little kudo to Shrub senior for
    risking his second election by trying to hold Israel to the moral fire, regarding nixing settlements. Otherwise, you have to go back to Kennedy–of course he was assassinated when he tried to curb the Federal Reserve monopoly and the monopoly control over the value of the dollar, as well as Israel's nukes building…

    Compare Johnson, who never cared about the boys on the USS Liberty, or Shrub, who never cared about any US interests at all.

  7. syvanen says:
    February 16, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    "Is Israel worth that much trouble? Not today it isn't." Problem solved. Gee, thanks.

    Posted by: t2t

    No not problem solved but shelved. It is up to us to make this problem a priority for Obama and to give him political support when he is willing to act. My point is that this will an all consuming issue and I suspect few Americans are willing to sacrifice movement on the economy for the sake of the IP conflict.

    It is not my choice, but the lobby is deeply entrenched in Washington and it will not go quietly.

  8. MM says:
    February 16, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    What movement on the economy, syvanen? What are the substantial differences between Republican and Democratic economic policies nowadays? How much tax breaks to give the corporations and the rich?

    Obama couldn't possibly "change" Washington without ruffling any feathers, without taking on powerful interests, without taking risks. Which is why most of us paying attention never thought he would, despite the rhetoric.

  9. American says:
    February 16, 2009 at 10:36 pm

    I am going to give you two article blips so you all can do a reality check.

    This one reports..

    US intel predicts Israel-Iran war in 2009
    Sat, 14 Feb 2009 09:26:39 GMT

    The US intelligence chief reportedly expects Israel and Iran to engage in a major military confrontation before the end of the year.

    Dennis Blair, the newly-appointed head of US intelligence, said Tel Aviv will eventually declare war on Tehran as a last-ditch effort to curb Iran's enrichment capabilities, Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported on Saturday.

    Detailed military plans to bomb Iran's nuclear infrastructure have long been on the table in Tel Aviv.

    Israel accuses Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of pursuing a military nuclear program.

    Iran, however, says it enriches uranium for civilian applications and that it has a right to the technology already in the hands of many others.

    In an annual threat assessment to Congress on Thursday, Blair reconfirmed the findings of a 2007 intelligence report, asserting once again that Iran is not currently working toward weaponization.

    The retired admiral said that while Iran has made progress in enrichment, there is proof that Tehran "does not currently have a nuclear weapon, and does not have enough fissile material for one".

    This one is about a book..note the last paragraph in the review.

    How the US got lost in the Mideast
    By Charles A. Radin
    February 17, 2009

    A WORLD OF TROUBLE: The White House and the Middle East from the Cold War to the War on Terror By Patrick Tyler

    Tyler starts out with a near-overdose of opinions like those with which Harvard professor Stephen M. Walt and University of Chicago professor John J. Mearsheimer created a flap two years ago: Namely, that US leaders damage our interest by catering to domestic political forces that favor Israel.

    But before this becomes fatal Tyler reverts from policy wonk to what he really is – a fine, deep newspaper reporter.

    Tyler documents not the interest of Israel but the cost in treasure and blood that the United States and the Middle East peoples have paid during decades without a coherent US policy in the region. He shows vividly the damage done by Israeli and Arab leaders alike in persistently bringing too little, too late, to the peace process.

    When Tyler is in reportorial mode, what emerges is how much the deficiencies in US policy have to do with political partisanship: Succeeding presidents reject what their predecessors embraced, Democrats and Republicans connive, secretaries of State and Defense maneuver for power. This creates a huge problem for the argument that what this country needs is a "pragmatic" policy toward Israel.

    Tyler is a veteran New York Times correspondent and it is unlikely that the appearance of "A World of Trouble" at the dawn of the Obama administration is an accident. The Times and its senior correspondents are would-be players."

    If you, like me have really,really followed, in depth, the ebb and flow of the Israeli movement you would have seen certain signs. Some people are constantly saying that unless the Jews protest Israel there will be no change. I don't want to belittle the Jewish efforts but that statement just isn't accurate or true.
    There is and has been for several years now a concerted and shadow effort among "some" grow up gentile players to walk back the Israeli fetish in this country. I am not talking about net writers and blogs like this one..this has been among a whole different set of people. It has been so far under the radar that no one would notice unless they knew where to look…and it was mostly aimed at and circulated among the like minded and those in a position to actually do something when and if the time became ripe.

    The time is becoming riper. I am 99% certain that Israel will continue to make it riper and riper…and then the US-Isr showdown will come.

  10. syvanen says:
    February 17, 2009 at 12:50 am

    American– have trouble grasping the point. But there is one thing that is quite clear. Israel is not going to attack Iran. The reason is simple; they are just too far away. Israel has not the ability to move her forces against Iran. Of course, they could fire missiles into her territory and perhaps send in a few planes. It would be insufficient to cause any significant damage (of course, short of launching a nuclear attack, but even Israel is not that insane).

    The most Israel could do is to manipulate the US to engage in such an attack and this is something that we will not do. Bush refused and there is even less reason to believe that Obama would do anything different.

  11. Duscany says:
    February 17, 2009 at 1:24 am

    "The most Israel could do is to manipulate the US to engage in such an attack and this is something that we will not do. Bush refused and there is even less reason to believe that Obama would do anything different."

    If Israel attacks Iran and Iran fires missiles back, the US will attack Iran on behalf of Israel (and in fact is pledged to do so if I'm not mistaken). Also if Iran makes the mistake of responding to an Israel attack by firing on American forces in Iraq, the US would strike Iran.

    Even if a war between Iran and Israel remained small and localized, neo-conservatives, mass media, presidents of Jewish organizations and Christian fundamentalists would pressure Obama massively and relentlessly. Rahm Emmanuel would threaten to quit his chief of staff job to enlist in the IDF (as he did in the first Gulf War). In the end Obama would cave.

  12. Citizen says:
    February 17, 2009 at 9:57 am

    I agree with Duscany. Obama's caving in part though will depend on how the US economy is doing at the time Israel will attack Iran (& we are pledged to fully support Israel's security–which is always the reason given for whatever Israel decides to do). At the moment Israel is asking the USA to give it more cash to replenish its resources exhausted by its massacre of Gaza via honoring various intact USA financial guarantees of Israel debt activity.

  13. American says:
    February 17, 2009 at 10:50 am

    syvanen

    To get the point consider these two messages..and their sources.

    #1 First, Dennis Blair, the newly-appointed head of US intelligence, says Tel Aviv will eventually declare war on Tehran as a last-ditch effort to curb Iran's enrichment capabilities.

    Then Blair reafirms to Congress the findings of a 2007 intelligence report, asserting once again that Iran "is not" currently working toward weaponization.

    #2 Tyler is a veteran New York Times correspondent and it is unlikely that the appearance of "A World of Trouble" at the dawn of the Obama administration is an accident. The Times and its senior correspondents are would-be players."

    What this means is Israel drawing the US into it's Iran snare will not go down as easily this time around,or at all with the public as the GWOT rampage in Iraq did in 2003.
    Now in the Obama time, he will have as much to lose politically, because of some well placed people opposed to Israel's goal as he would lose in defying AIPAC and the jewish zionist…in fact he would lose more. Neither repub or liberal voters want any part of a war on Iran or want their money put into Israel for that. The only group that is for this is the US zionist, and any US action on Iran is this time going to be laid publicaly and directly at Israel's and the Jews door with no pussyfooting around it.

    No matter what action is eventually taken, the "showdown' on Isr interest vr US interest will come 'ahead' of any action taken this time, not after the fact. That makes Iran and the jewish influence and pressure for attacking Iran a whole different ball game this time.

  14. American says:
    February 17, 2009 at 11:09 am

    Further..here's the way it will line up

    AIPAC,AEI, JINSA, congress and whatever portion of the jewish population and their orgs pushing Obama 'to' attack Iran or support an Israel attack on Iran.

    The public,elite main stream publications,local newspapers thruout the country and unnamed players in the private sector and named players in Obama adm pushing Obama 'not to' allow any attack on Iran.

    Also, all the silly wishful talk about Saudi supporting taking Iran out is just that, silly talk…there is only one thing Saudi wants and that is for their own status quo to be maintained. Given the chance to make nice with Iran, which they have already been doing, vr the upheaval an attack on Iran would create their choice is the only practical one for them.