Netanyahu is leaning toward naming author Michael Oren to be the next Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Foreign Policy says it's all but a done deal. While Richard Silverstein says an Oren appointment represents a victory for Sheldon Adelson's Shalem Center in Jerusalem, where the author works, Laura Rozen quotes "a plugged-in Washington Middle East hand" as saying he's, "not sure Netanyahu understands the changes in D.C.." What might he be referring to?
–Sheldon Adelson is the Republican Party's answer to Haim Saban, the big Democratic money guy. Are these two wings of the American Jewish community dividing? Possibly Saban is more pragmatic vis-a-vis Iran, which is why Martin Indyk has said reasonable things about Iran. Adelson had Bush's ear, Saban has Obama's.
–Foreign Policy also picks up the report in Yedioth Ahronoth that Oren publicly supported McCain in 2008:
During the campaign, Oren
published an article in which he tried to answer the question who would
be better for Israel as a US president: Obama or John McCain. Obama's
aides said that in the guise of an academic study, Oren conveyed his
personal opinions and published things that portrayed Obama as
non-supportive of Israel. Oren wrote that the Obama administration
would present a completely new initiative based on zero tolerance for
construction in settlements and roadblocks, an initiative that would be
founded on the assessment that the road to Baghdad and Tehran passes
through Bethlehem and Nablus.
Oren wrote further that McCain
would not disrupt the United States' relations with Israel, whereas
Obama could be expected to deviate from the alliance ….
Zero tolerance for the settlements. Where does the American Jewish community stand? The Yedioth Ahronoth article also gives an indication of the Obama Administration's initial view of the potential appointment: "A senior source close to the administration said last night: 'In light
of the harsh criticism that Oren directed at Obama in the election
campaign, appointing him as ambassador is an odd choice.'"
–Oren is a feverish thinker who has long lectured Americans on our national interest. His book Power, Faith and Fantasy
argues that the United States has supported Zionism from the start,
it's a deep strain within our religious life–thereby completely ignoring the bloc he represents, the Israel lobby. Endorsed by Judith
Miller, the book would recruit us in the permanent war. "Rather than
a self-contained war, Iraq represents a first and painful battle in a
far more protracted struggle, more akin to Bull Run and Bataan than to
Gettysburg and Midway. The rest of the region, meanwhile is [like to
gravitate toward]… further terror, internecine violence, and war."
Where do I sign up?
Snce Oren's predictions re Obama have proven largely correct, he would be a better choice than someone less perspicacious. It's important for the Israeli officials not to err in assessing America's intentions – for both countries.
Netanyahu's taking the POV that Iran must be first on the agenda, trailed later by the Palestinian situation. Obama thinks the reverse, or at most, that both must be handled simultaneously.
Nice atmospheric description of Oren's Shalem Center for those who haven't been following Jim Lobe's coverage–
Storm in a Neo-Con Teapot
A comment on Michael Oren's scholarship.
Dr. Norman Finkelstein as well as the survivng crew members of the USS Liberty have a very low opinion of Michael Oren, and with good reason.
MJ Rosenberg advances the same theme of Netanyahu cluelessness:
link to israelpolicyforum.ngphost.com
David Barstow on the fact that the networks failed to report his Pulitzer Prize in investigative journalism for pointing out the conflicts of interest of the stable of retired military officers routinely presented on network and cable news programs to give supposedly "independent analysis" of military aspects of the news, without disclosing that the Pentagon showered them with access, briefings, trips overseas, and official talking points that they needed to regurgitate in one form or another on television if their special treatment was to continue, and without disclosing more traditional conflicts of interest such as consulting arrangements with defense contractors, just as they failed to report it when was on the front page of the New York Times:
'He says with so many other news outlets looking at the issues he brought up, the networks avoidance is almost meaningless: "The pieces touched off a really vigorous debate in the online community and in newspapers about it, that nature of our journalism. In a way, it really didn't matter that TV decided not to touch it. It further suggests a shifting in the balance of power in the media landscape."'
"Almost meaningless" seems disingenuous to me. The meaning is that the televised news media, disguised as journalists, trading on the reputation for journalism established by their predecessors, are consciously serving as propaganda organs for those who favor the current and future wars, and refuse to report the starkest evidence revealing their bias. And that's pretty significant. Playing it down now seems almost like an effort by Barstow to regain the good graces of those in his own publishing hierarchy sympathetic to the propaganda machine, who make the NYTimes at times seem like its own propaganda organ for similar interests. The fact that whole swaths of the country get their news primarily from such televised broadcasts, and are left in the dark concerning this lack of independence, are in fact deceived by it, is highly significant and meaningful.
Note how little televised coverage there has been of Harman's dilemma. Andrea Mitchell gave her an opportunity to voice a well-rehearsed denial "I never contacted the DOJ or anyone in the administration in an EFFORT TO SECURE REDUCED SENTENCES for these people." That's not a denial that she called up Karl Rove or David Addington or other intermediaries and said, hey, I need you to make this investigation of AIPAC go away entirely. Wolf Blitzer did a little better job, giving the appearance, at least, that he might challenge her careful wording, to prove that he can cover this story, despite his own avowed Zionism. Michael Isikoff inserted reference to it in an interview on Rachel Maddow, but she declined to follow up on it all.
When it's propaganda, not news, that is news. When is Mondoweiss going to launch its own video news summary of the day. Hint: get some really believable Australian or Brit-accented person to read news – BBC like – but written by Phil and Adam, or lifted from the blog, and just take on this nonsense.
What's funny to me, if Jim Byers previous comment that the only US teevee news the Israelis get is FOX NEWS is true, is that the arrogance of Israel right now is going to send them off the rails. This train wreck is going to be great to watch.
@ MRW. I looked deeper and found that CNN is available but not carried by many services. I got the previous info from Ha'aretz. It is indeed sad that anyone accepts FOX as reliable news, CNN sucks too.
When it's all said and done it will be found that Zionism's mendacity towrds Jews was at least as great as its willingness to lie to others.
Fox News, that's just the stuff to give the troops in Israel.
Well Mooser, you're not alone, and neither is Phil. When some politician from my own background is
a you -know- what because I perceive that what they are backing is not good for the USA as a whole, or the world as a whole, I attack them. It doesn't make me feel good; it's just something that has to be done if I want to
keep my own moral and ethical integrity. I've never been good at finding excuses for doing otherwise. Means and ends are never divorced IMO. All one person can do is not contribute to
the problem. Either the same principles of conduct apply to everyone, or they don't–I choose the former POV.
MRW, Mooser,
In addition to Fox, we get BBC World News, France 5, Sky plus Al-Jezeera (Arabic) and most of the news stations in the region. In addion, each of our three TV channels and state radio have full staffs of Arabic/Farsi experts who generally provide summaries on a daily basis. In other words, we are probably much better informed than the average European and certainly than the average American when it comes to Middle Eastern coverage.
As far as "…the arrogance of Israel right now is going to send them off the rails…," I think that the train wreck is not as near or as certain as you would like to think MRW. You might want to take a look at the following to see exactly how Americans think, even after Operation Cast Lead:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116308/Americans-Support-Israel-Unchanged-Gaza-Conflict.aspx
You'll notice that American opinion really hasn't changed that much, and that support for Israel is still strong. So, perhaps the decision makers in the US are setting policy because that's what their constituents want and not because of the influence of "The Lobby".
Just as I have stated here. The American people demand the government support Israel.
The Palestinian suicidal death cult sickens most Americans.
This is to be expected. The American people area constantly told via MSM and our politicians that
essentially Israel="They're just like us." And Palestinians= "fanatical,crazy suicide bombers. "
If you took a poll of all those Germans back in the day who got their news from the Volk radio
given to them by Goebbels, they'd overwhelmingly poll in favor of Hitler's regime.
So what's new?
Only the slow dribble of facts via internet to those Americans who view the internet as something
besides MySpac and a place to chat with their friends about family matters, sex, and a way to get more info on sports events, gossip, gory accidents etc.
You know, the average Roman just wanted bread & circuses. We have Chelsea Lately & American
Idol, and all those reality TV shows and sit-coms.
My point is if the average American was informed about the I-P situation, and our Foreign policy and Foreign Aid, the results would easily reverse.
Chris Berel speaking for average Americans knows they are good for nothing but to keep
paying taxes for Israel & sending off their children to die for Israel.