Today, President Obama held a different kind of town hall meeting where people could send him questions through www.whitehouse.gov. The questions were then voted on and the President answered some of them during an online meeting.
I noted yesterday the different tone of the Israel/Palestine question in Tuesday night's press conference. Well, check out the top five Israel-related questions submitted to the president (click to enlarge):
I haven't seen a transcript of the town hall yet so I don't know if he addressed these questions. The White House website does say that it will continue to address the questions over the "next week or so." Hopefully they'll take these on. Obviously, inquiring minds want to know.
It would be really interesting to see if any of these questions make it through. Please follow up if you can.
Coming from Democrats, those questions are really not half bad. 5 out of the 5 focus on US aid to Israel, which is something we on the left sometimes forget to do, and 3 of the 5 do so with explicit reference to Israeli brutality against Palestinians. Especially in the light of that poll showing a majority of Democrats against the assault on Gaza, I think there's real potential for Palestine solidarity organizing inside the Democratic Party. This is great, because, middle name notwithstanding, I really would have thought there'd be more fervent Zionists among Obama's supporters.
Unfortunately the top question has a big error in it. At least coming out of an economics department I think it's a big error, though normal people might not care at all. But at purchasing power parity the CIA World Factbook puts Israeli 2008 GDP per capita at $28,900, with that of the United Kingdom at $37,400. That's probably what the questioner meant: why give so much aid to Israel, as opposed to Uganda or Lesotho, when it's already a developed country, in the same category as Britain? But instead of GDP per capita the questioner refers to Israeli GNP, the total size of the economy of its nationals, which must be some small fraction of Britain's because Israel has a much smaller population.
these questions need to be asked
Phil often refers to many of us who are interested in changing the AIPAC-dominated discourse as "secret sharers" (great turn of phrase). Maybe there really are millions of us out there.
By the way, I'm reading the highly recommendable James Bamford's "A Pretext for War," a brilliant book about how the neo-cons of the Bush administration had dual reporting lines to both Bush and Netanyahu. Given the way JINSA Israel-firsters Perle-Feith-Wurmser-Wolfowitz manipulated the "yellowcake" forgery to bang the war drums for the Iraq war is astounding . . . more to the point, the neo-con crowd has zero credibility when it comes to suggesting someone like Chas Freeman is too "biased" to have been involved in the President's intel. Perle-Feith-Wurmser-Wolfowitz were all part of the "Clean Break" position paper that should have disqualified them from any role in the US government, let alone Middle East affairs.
No wonder the rest of the world hates Americans, hates George Bush.
@Conscientious Objector:
There are indeed millions of us. They usually don't dare to speak out because of the "Look there's an antisemite"-phenomenon, but things are changing. That's why Zionist/AIPAC policy has to focus on the elite, as Phil described in another post not long ago.
If you'd hold a referendum on the question of US aid to Israel, I bet it wouldn't be as much dollars flowing to the terror state.
One question might make it thru but the answer will be spun with a typical black is white reply.
The president: Yes we will continue to fork over millions and millions more for Israel. And we will continue to shut up when they kill Americans (USS Liberty) and we will continue to shut up when they build religiously motivated settlements because goddamnit, we killed the Indians and look how cool we are now. Can't lose that money from Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson. You, questionasker, you're just cattle. You vote every 4 years for some jerk. But Israels supporters have the money, and you don't. Thank you and good night.
Here, the answers Obama could give you:
1) We pay Israel small change compared with what we bought with it – taking Egypt from the USSR orbit into our sphere of influence, in the height of cold war. Compared with what we made Israel pay for that – the Sinai peninsula – that's really nothing. We gained much more out of it. And – the geniuses that we are – almost all of that money comes right back to our military industrial complex. Ain't we just smart! But at least you've got the figure right, dollar-wise, unlike some losers with the other questions. Good for you!
2) Yes, sure, we will hold Israel accountable for any attempt it actually makes at fighting back and we will actually withhold the armaments from them – in fact we already started doing just that. But could you keep it a secret, please, so we can continue fooling those gullible Jews into voting for us again? Please?
3) Whell, uhm, this fool just makes it tough for me to look tough on Israel with his silly exagerrations… Someone please tell him it's only a tenth of what he claims… and goes only to purchase from OUR corporations… He'll spoil the racket for us, the fool… (smirks)
4) Uh, ah, why yes, of course, I'm glad to report to you, ma'am, that we already pledged over a billion dollars in total in support of both arms of the heroic terrorist people of made-up country of Palestine, the pretend-secularist moderate Muslim PLO, and the honorable HAMAS, no strings attached. Yes we did. Yes we did. Yes, I'm telling you. Rejoyce, ma'am, your bidding is done as we speak.
5) Couldn't agree more with you, sir. In fact I just gave an order to print out a trillion more new ones. I'm sure some hapiness will be coming your way as a result of this my wise act. It is my goal in life, after all. To give you happiness, I mean, not to print trillions more dollars whenever it pleases me. (giggles)
Keep us posted Phil. Be interesting if Obama folks will answer the questions, and how. Next up, maybe
they can answer the questions covering all the memorandums of understanding we have made with
Israel, for example, the one guaranteeing Israel oil at our expense, the one over-looking settlements,
the one entangling our missile defense systems with Israel's, etc; BTW, what is the Obama stand on the AIPAC spy case and the issue of overbroad document classifications?
My interpretation of how AT LEAST one of Phil's Phools will react to Phil's post:
"WWWWHHHHEEEEEEEEE! This JUST proves times are changing, it's a new dawn, Jews are outta here!
I've been waiting for this moment for 30 years. This time it's gonna happen. I can FEEL it. Yes I CAN.
Viva Iran, babeeeeee!"
Me, I'm sorry to be lazy, but am a bit behind – could you link to the data you're using for O.'s viewpoint?
It would be appreciated, because I've just got back to this side of the national borders, on-line.
Suzanne, is your intent to limit racist comments or elicit them? They are unpleasant; hope you'll stop trying, whatever reason you have for making such remarks.
Suzanne is drunk, or out of it on an overdose of prescription drugs–she has that ethnic cultural choice.
Don't we all!
Great questions.
Makes me proud to be an American.
Which, unfortunately, all too often is one step this side of arrogance.
Phil often refers to many of us who are interested in changing the AIPAC-dominated discourse as "secret sharers" (great turn of phrase)… Posted by: Conscientious Objector | March 26, 2009 at 04:47 PM
I don't think it's "a great turn of phrase," I think it's limp, coy, twee, and irrelevant, and if, you trace it back to its recent journalistic roots, as I did recently right here, it turns out to be positively misleading, in that it was used by a US journalist to refer to those who would "share secrets' in the sense of relaxing or breaking US security classifications and revealing classified data.
@Margaret:
Just some quick links:
Dollar Aid to Israel:
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
USS Liberty;
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0693/9306019.htm
Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson:
http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/the_donors/haim_saban/
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2008/06/25/sheldon-adelson-crazy-jewish-billionaire/
Sincerely,
Me
coy,twee
gotta agree w/Rowan
it's important that the original context in which the journalists used the phrase was not that of "secretly sharing" (as in Conrad's short story), but "sharing secrets" (i.e. betraying or at least exposing official secrets). This makes it something less than a compliment.