I went to AIPAC two weeks back. The line was: Don't worry about the two-state solution; it's all about Iran. And duly the New York Times imbibed this line; it reported that the Obama-Netanyahu meeting on Monday was all about Iran. But it wasn't about Iran. My president set the agenda; and it was about the last chance for the two-state solution–as Gideon Levy in Haaretz and David Ignatius in the Washington Post both correctly report. While here on Mondo, and over at Huffpo, David Bromwich states that the Times "falsified" the Obama-Netanyahu meeting.
The Times did so by basically reflecting the Israel lobby's talking points.
Well today there is a strange/only slightly-helpful effort at correction in the Times titled, "Keeping Score on Obama vs. Netanyahu," notioning that Obama got "suckered" (Israel-lobbyist-who-has-awakened-lately Martin Indyk's word), but demonstrating that the paper continues to flub the story:
Mr. Netanyahu got his timetable. “We’re not going to have talks
forever,” Mr. Obama said of Iran, assuring Mr. Netanyahu that he
expected to know by the end of the year whether Iran was making “a
good-faith effort to resolve differences.”
Wait a second: there was no timetable. Obama wants to see progress by the end of the year. It wasn't any firm promise; and as I observed, and others have agreed, Obama was abrupt with Netanyahu. Then this:
But Mr. Obama did
not get his settlement freeze. In fact, Mr. Netanyahu told him it would
be politically difficult for him to halt the construction of
settlements. That is a hurdle to the administration’s broader peace
objectives because Israel’s Arab neighbors have characterized a freeze
as a precondition for them to establish normal relations.
This is true but absurd. Obama didn't get his settlement freeze? A superpower that gives $3 billion to a tiny country can't get what it wants on a colonial project that is destroying our image in the Middle East? Holy smoke. What other country pushes us around on a vital interest? If the Times had any intellectual honesty it would call John Mearsheimer to explain what's going on here. Because yes, it's about the Israel lobby in our public life. The Israel lobby that allows Netanyahu to get all that money even as he defies the president. And the Israel lobby that shapes the American discourse.
Obama picks his objectives. In this meeting, he was clear and consistent. My paraphraising. "We support Israel's defense, but not Israel's offense. We support Palestinians affirmation, but not dissent articulated in the form of terror. We support Iran's participation in the civil community of nations, but reject Iran's dominance and aggression."
The hyper-wealthy political economic oligarchs of Judonia view the Israeli prime minister of Israel as a fairly low-level employee. Because of their role in financing of US political campaigns the Zionist plutocrats tend to see the POTUS in the same way. German American Jews accuses the NY Times of serving as a Judonian organ of propaganda as the Judonian journal of record.
Hmmm. That's interesting Phil, because I don't believe that you were there, and apart from seeing the joint press conference, I'm not certain that you would know what went on between Obama and Netatnyahu. Well, at least that puts you on an even footing with Gideon Levy, who is considered here to be one step above a "human interest" columnist. Being familiar with Netanyahu (I dare say, more than you are), I think that he is highly subject to having his arm twisted. I just have my doubts that your president – Obama – is really up to the twisting.
From update on Bromich Huffpo article on NYT propaganda: "So now begins Mr. Obama's diplomatic sprint." (The Times holds a stopwatch. And the title of the article reinforces the pressure: "After Israeli Visit, a Diplomatic Sprint on Iran"). — The Times, the Jewish lobby, and the Israelis are trying to put Obama under the gun to force him onto the Iran war track, with the clock ticking. It's essentially an attempted stampede to yet another war for Israel. [con't]
[con't] Even if the US were to invade Iran, it will never be enough for the Israelis and the Jewish lobby, because they have set themselves against the entirety of Islam, they stick their thumb in the eye of the entirety of Islam at every opportunity, and they are maneuvering America to do the same — the effect being to unify Islam, from radical to moderate, against the aggressors. Yet left to its own devices, if Islam were destined to take over the world, it would have done so by now. So what the Jewish Apparatus is in effect doing is agitating for a world conflict that otherwise wouldn't take place. The primary problem is Israel, the Jewish lobby, and its radical Zionist fifth columnists unapologetically and perpetually agitating for war, yet wanting others to do the fighting and dying on their behalf with no regard whatsoever for lives not Jewish. This is typical of radical-narcissistic Judaism, which has now been embraced by post-Christian "Judeo-Christianity" and nihilistic elements of liberalism. It's a sick witches brew that needs to be flushed.
But you wouldn't follow Phil in highlighting the NYT perception management? But I notice you basically support him, and don't criticize article or headline. Don't you worry about the perception management?
New York Times Falsifies Obama-Netanyahu Meeting [UPDATED] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/inew...
How exactly would Netanyahu " twist Obama's arm" in your opinion? How do you explain a nitwit like me, that a small country like Israel can twist the arm of the leader of a huge power his way? So now the tale of Netanahu's power is propagated, a tiny country's representative bents the arm of a superpower, and you, or the NYT (taking it at face value for the argument's sake) it is something to celebrate. But at the same time every non-Gentile that would even hint at it, would be viciously attacked as an antisemite. What do you think about this paradox? And what should a nitwit non-Jew think about this?
"Palestinian affirmation"? Does the phrase "two state solution" still stick in your craw that much?
Why does a tiny shrimp country get to dictate to the USA? What other country does this even a little bit without Uncle Sam telling them what' s what? Why do we give this tiny shrimp country the rope to hang us? Pay for the rope, even? We support Palestinian affirmation and Jewish affirmation–1 cent to each 50,000 dollars… We don't support Pal dissent in the form of terror by crappy home-made rockets, yet we support Israeli assent by billions of dollars and every underwriting security deal you can imagine, including making the latest weapon for them to their specifications, which are better than our own military get; We support Iran's security POV by banging war drums against it, toting clutch bags emblazoned with NOW=1938, as if Israel was not the hegemonic power in the MIddle East, and in the top few Arms dealers; we reject Iran's dominance itself and around its borders, and we reject the aggression it has not shown in hundreds of years, while simultaneously supporting Israel's aggression for years whenever they say "self-defense." Yes, Obama must pick his objectives. Obama must renew his early observation that "the Palestinians have suffered the most," while recognizing from the bully pulpit (over the heads of our whore congress) to John Q Public that this is not in the USA's best interest, nor is it according to our American values. As Phil asks, what planet is this?
The phrase "judeo-christian" is used as a prong, the other prong "islamo-fascism" is used with it, the idea being this two-pronged fork will impale any meat that does not go along with Israel uber alles.
Spot on.
Again, spot on.
'… Tiny shrimp of a country… (dictating to the U.S)…' 'whore congress' You got it EXACTLY right, Citizen.
Time for AIPAC to stop trying to shape our foriegn policy. Time for Israel to do what it will have to do in the end, relinquish the stolen land, give up half of Jerusalem and give up on the paranoia that everyone is out to get THEM! Isn't sixty years of war enough for them. They call themselves a democracy? Please. Enough craziness, we're all stocked up here.