David Bromwich writes:
One inference is plain from the contrary emphases of Netanyahu and Obama at
their news conference. The coming six months will see a continued aggressive
insistence by Israel's most uncritical American supporters, tuned to a single
theme: the "existential" threat that Iran poses to Israel, and by extension to
the entire free world. They have begun talking about Iran, Iran, and Iran. This
talk will grow louder and much more insistent. Occasional bits of evidence may
be cited, but the evidence is of secondary importance, provided the talk goes
on. Its purpose is not so much to persuade as to drown out other talk.
Other talk of what? Chiefly Palestine and the two-state solution--the fate of non-Jewish persons in the occupied West Bank and IDF-enclosed Gaza. American supporters of Netanyahu, who heard what he said on Monday and got the message under what he was saying, will do everything they can to play down, size down, challenge, deride, censor, understate, and, as far as possible, eliminate all public discussion of Palestine in the United States, and all discussion of the conditions under which Palestinians live. That is the plan between now and the moment of aggressive sanctions to be followed by military action against Iran.
Supporters of President Obama, who heard what he said on Monday and got the message under what he was saying, will do everything to keep Palestine and the fate of its people a subject of live discussion. When Iran is mentioned, they will respond as Obama did by speaking about Palestine. When the necessity of war (and happy stories of past wars) are cried up by supporters of Netanyahu, those who support Obama's design will answer by speaking of the necessity of peace--not only between Israel and two or three neighbors, but peace for the entire region. They will point out that wars cannot go on forever, and that a quest for peace cannot exclude Iran; and the form of engagement preparatory to peace cannot consist of nothing but preparations for war.
Those who oppose the war even now being prepared by some in Israel and America,
just as the Iraq war was prepared for in public view seven years ago, will speak
the word Palestine every time they hear of "Iran." They will say that Israeli
injustice against the Palestinians has increased, is increasing, and ought to
be diminished. They will notice the hazard as well as the insult in the move by
Netanyahu to launch the building of a new settlement the day before his arrival
in Washington.
Supporters, and advisers, of President Obama may also quote Michael Walzer on the needlessness of discussion groups, committees-of-exploration, elaborate laying-the-groundwork consultations about procedures, when what must now be done is very well known:
"everyone knows what each side would have to do to realize this solution. The Palestinians have to end their civil war, and form a provisional government that recognizes Israel and represses all terrorist activity. The Israelis have to form a government that recognizes the Palestinians' right to a state of their own, defeats the settler movement, and begins the evacuation of the settlements."
Walzer added that such actions were properly to be initiated by each side, independently; and that each side is already in a position to start without incurring a charge of weakness:
"Settling their civil war and repressing terrorism are things that the Palestinians can do--indeed, have to do--by themselves. And Israelis can defeat the settler movement and move the settlers out of the West Bank without a 'partner' on the other side and without handing over territory. Move the settlers out and the army in. That would be a sufficient indication of a readiness to withdraw, just as the repression of terrorist activity by the Palestinians would be a sufficient indication of a readiness to coexist. The readiness is all."
Those are words that President Obama, too, might take to heart, the next time he hears the word "Iran!" and says (in whatever form he is inclined to say it), "Yes, and Palestine."
At some point in all this one does have to come around to condemning what is either the stupid, inept or bought-off Palestinian leadership however. Obama has now embraced a giant, comical step or two backwards in not even insisting that the sham talks the Israelis were engaged in before with the Palestinians about a two-state solution go on. Instead, trying to deny his fecklessness, he's now been reduced to merely asking Israel to please talk with *us* about talking. And the next step will be him in Egypt next week or so where, presumably, he will talk about talking about talking. So when is all this enough for the Palestinian leadership? If Obama, at the strongest point his Presidency is probably ever gonna see, has truckled under to this, what's the chances that he'll ever man-up and do something serious? Pfui. All he's done is allowed Netanyahu to strip the U.S. of the fig leaf it's employed over all these years that it's not really subsidizing Israel's expansionism because, gee, Israel has always been willing to give those occupied territories back if only they had the right partner for peace and if only the moon were aligned right with the right stars. And now Obama's astonishing silence in the face of Netanyahu's repudiation of what Israel previously agreed to at Wye establishes that, regardless of any agreement that *is* ever reached with Israel, the U.S. will never even hold it to that. If they had an once of brains, or maybe an once of integrity, the PA oughta be out there declaring this the end of their gullibility and start demanding a one state solution, period. Voting rights for every inhabitant of Israeli occupied territory. Full civil rights and liberties. Call for peaceful marches and let the TV camera's roll with the ensuing scenes resembling South Africa during apartheid. Either that or declare the establishment of the State of Palestine and (unlike Israel) declare its borders and declare its capital as Jerusalem and get UN admission and start putting every other country up against the wall as to where they stand in terms of granting recognition or not and as a state bring charges against Israel in the Hague and otherwise pursue all the other means it has to force the issue. Instead these folks like Abbas sit there like deer in the headlights, very possibly getting very nice deposits from shadowy sources into their Swiss bank accounts every month, and then come out and tell the rest of the world the plight of the very people they are betraying and ripping off. And their people seem to let them. There's only so much sympathy you can have for a people who won't help themselves.
RE: "They have begun talking about Iran, Iran, and Iran. " SEE “Focus Grouping War with Iran” by Laura Rozen, 11/19/07 EXCERPT: …Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, the founder and president of the Israel Project, contacted Mother Jones and said that her group had commissioned the focus group and that it was designed by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm. The Israel Project is a nonprofit group that supports Israel and conducts extensive polling on American public attitudes toward Israel and the Middle East. Its board of advisers includes 15 Democratic and Republican members of the House and the Senate, plus actor Ron Silver. Mizrahi says that her group and Freedom’s Watch share a common interest in “thwarting the threat of Islamic extremism” and in “dealing with the threat of Iran.” But Freedom’s Watch “in no way is directing our work, and it’s not funding our work.” She pointed out that the Israel Project is not “involved with Iraq,” a major concern of Freedom’s Watch. But the two outfits, she said, “shared information” produced by this focus group. …[snip] … ”Of all the focus groups I’ve ever been to,” Sonnenmark wrote in a subsequent email to a group of fellow volunteers for the 2006 Senate campaign of Jim Webb, “I’ve never seen a moderator who was so persistent in manipulating and leading the participants.” (Webb is lead author of a Senate letter warning President Bush not to attack Iran without congressional approval…) The gist of the event was “anti-Iranian,” says Sonnenmark… ….Sonnenmark left the session wondering if foreign policy hawks would soon be pushing publicly for military action against Iran using language that had been tested on her. But, she says, “It is not going to be so easy this time around.” ENTIRE ROSEN ARTICLE – http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/11/focus...
Phil This is slightly off-topic but some JINSA types are arguing that US opponents of Israel inspired wars must be silenced or even killed. Pro-Israel Mouthpiece Says Freedom of Speech Dangerous By: Michael Collins Piper on: 20.05.2009 [15:47 ] (71 reads) AFP Issue # 21, May 25, 2009 ‘JINSA’ article says outlets who oppose future wars should be silenced—killed if necessary—by military strike (7072 bytes) [c] ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL voices of the pro-Israel lobby has published a shocking essay suggesting that, in the future, there should be “military attacks” on journalists and media outlets that oppose American military ventures on behalf of Israel. In the spring 2008 issue of its Journal of International Security Affairs, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a particularly vocal force of the Jewish lobby, published a series of articles devoted to the subject: “The U.S. Military Faces the Future.” One article, entitled “Wishful Thinking and Indecisive Wars,” written by Ralph Peters (described as “a retired U.S. Army officer”) states flatly that “Although it seems unthinkable now, future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and, ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media.” The JINSA essay says “Freedom of the press stops when its abuse kills our soldiers and strengthens our enemies. Such a view arouses disdain today, but a media establishment that has forgotten any sense of sober patriotism may find that it has become tomorrow’s conventional wisdom.” JINSA’s suggestion that the media in America opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq—a key demand by Israel and JINSA—flies in contrast to the truth. In fact, the major media banged the drum for war. AMERICAN FREE PRESS and a few independent newspapers strongly opposed this needless war. So what JINSA is saying is that those independent media voices—such as AMERICAN FREE PRESS—that opposed the drive for war should ultimately face military violence if they oppose the Jewish lobby’s future military aims. http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/05/pro-israel-...
Someone should put Obama in touch with the USS Liberty survivors' organization. Bring it up at a news conference. Get it on the public's radar. A real inquest into what happened in 1967 would hugely embarrass Israel and sidetrack the Bomb Iran Now crowd. See link to ussliberty.org
.link to oxdown.firedoglake.com On Monday as Obama meets with Netanyahu Israel Begins to build first new settlement in West Bank in 26 years By: Leen Tuesday May 19, 2009 7:44 pm
Obama is smarter than the left. He keeps his eye on the prize. The left adopts the view that Iran is somehow innocent, and gets angry at any realistic criticism of Iran. Today, Iran announced that they fired a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead size payload to the range of Israel, actually as far as Italy. Iran IS aggressing. Those that rationalize that Iran is benign, or that Hezbollah is benign, have their heads in the sand (or other hidden region). It is not necessary. Israel is rationally afraid, and the response to Iran IS similar to appeasement, even as Iran is NOT parallel to Nazi Germany. They've already been attacked by missile from 600 miles away, as well as civilians shelled by Iran's proxies. The shelling by Iraq during the first Gulf War is not forgotten. The shelling of Haifa during the 2006 war by Hezbollah, as client of Iran, is remembered. The shelling of Sderot, in which the majority of parts on missiles bear Farsi language, is remembered. They are aggressing. No head in the sand.