Seems like everyone is losing faith in Obama nowadays, and the Middle East is no different. While Israelis never seemed to like him much, the rest of the region is beginning to grow weary, starting with Palestinians.
The AP is reporting on a leaked memo from Fatah’s Office of Mobilization and Organization that says, "All hopes placed in the new U.S. administration and President Obama have evaporated," because the White House, "couldn’t withstand the pressure of the Zionist lobby." Although some think this might only be Abbas trying to rehab his nationalist bona fides, it would be hard to disagree with the gist of the memo. Jordan certainly doesn’t. Mark Lynch reports on how enthusiasm towards Obama is waning as the peace process stagnates:
When I was last in Jordan about six months ago, I found a great deal of optimism over the appointment of George Mitchell and the high profile Obama gave to the Israeli-Palestinian problem. But now those hopes seem to have largely evaporated. The launch of Israeli-Palestinian talks which they had expected by June continue to drift in limbo, while Obama’s failure to deliver on the settlement freeze has — just as so many predicted — eroded his credibility. How could the Americans have allowed Netanyahu to not only defy U.S. demands on settlements but to not even pay any significant price? Again and again, from all sectors of Jordanian political society, I heard the same refrain: Obama’s heart is in the right place and we want him to succeed, but he’s just not getting it done.
Wow, more evaporation. Ironically Obama could easily fix the situation by putting some bite behind his gentle bark. It seems he thought he could charm the Israelis into freezing settlements and restarting negotiations. Ain’t going to happen. The US holds incredible leverage over Israel which could push the process forward, but only if they decide to use it. The White House keeps saying that peace in Israel/Palestine is in US national interests. Are they ever going to show us they mean it?
Related Posts
- There Won’t Be Peace in the Middle East Till There’s a Naqba Museum in the U.S.
- Obama ‘drives peace process into ditch’
- Report: McCain to Do Nothing on Peace Process
- The Obama admin is selling the peace process, but the press is not buying it.
- Obama Letter Urging Action on Peace Process Says Not a Word About Settlements
{ 70 comments }
The Fatah statement is absolutely correct. It was very clear in August that the Lobby was pushing back against Obama. They shipped almost the entire Congress out to Israel during the recess to declare allegiance. He doesn’t have the strength to stand up against them. He can’t control his own party.
The net consequence of Obama’s feeble peacemaking attempt has been to strengthen the Lobby and Netanyahu.
And to accelerate the colonization process by turbocharging the construction of the settlements.
That’s not the only consequences. Look at Obama’s folding on corporate bailouts, health care and Guantanamo / Baghrim.
I worry that Obama was our last chance to steer away from the iceberg. He’s definitely the wrong president to have in a time of crisis — he’s no FDR by any stretch and that’s the sort of American leadership we need right now.
Obama gives up the quid, but we get no quo in return. Obama pressures the Abbas puppet to make concessions, knowing there will be no real concessions in return.
Obama’s the Ultimate Sucker.
“On Sunday, former Fatah strongman Mohammed Dahlan said the party “feels very disappointed and worried by the U.S. administration retreat.”
Things are pretty bad when even your most corrupt puppets (the one you counted on to overthrow Hamas in a civil war) start turning on you.
What is a “strongman” anyway, and why does the MSM use that term only for countries it deems to be hostile to the US?
It’s another newspeak term that has entered the English vocabulary. Unfortunately we the consumers of that news are sometimes unaware of the implications.
“Strongman”
“Regime”
“Enemy Combatant”
“Terrorist”
“Fatwa”
“Jihad”
“Islamist”
Even Rachel Maddow uses “Fatwa” in a derogatory sense.
“The teabaggers have issued a Fatwa against gays”.
Ask a Muslim and a non-Muslim what Jihad means and you’re going to get two different answers. One will tell you its all about a personal struggle to better oneself, the other will tell it’s all about “killin’ us Infidels”.
Even Rachel Maddow uses “Fatwa” in a derogatory sense.
Actually it took me quite a while (… am here English to learn, tomorrow I start Kentucky Steak House …) to trace this sudden hype around the term: teabagging. I was puzzled and had the impression it was some kind of inside joke, I didn’t get. Till I found this:
Your guide to Teabagging
“Ironically Obama could easily fix the situation by putting some bite behind his gentle bark. It seems he thought he could charm the Israelis into freezing settlements and restarting negotiations. Ain’t going to happen. The US holds incredible leverage over Israel which could push the process forward, but only if they decide to use it.”
Good sentiment but there is still an unfortunate premise. The US using “leverage” is in principle a problem. It should not leverage Israel or anyone else. It should just cut off the welfare check. Unconditionally. Completely. Nada de dinero. No more baksheesh. Finished. It’s poison whether it’s to subsidize a state, manipulate a state, bribe a state, or to bring down a state. Yes, cut off the PA too. It’s bad enough we pay taxes to our own wretched sociopaths of the Washington regime without having to pay taxes to swindlers abroad. To the extent our diplomats wish to mediate a just solution to the problem let them do so without either bribing or hinting at maybe reducing the bribes.
….andmeanwhile vote Libertarian.
homingpigeon writes:
Good sentiment but there is still an unfortunate premise. The US using “leverage” is in principle a problem. It should not leverage Israel or anyone else. It should just cut off the welfare check. Unconditionally. Completely. Nada de dinero. No more baksheesh. Finished.
I do not believe USA should twist arms on the terms of a “peace”. we should not write the thing and demand that Israel and PA/PLO sign it.
BUT we should tell Israel (and tell the USA and all the world) that we’ve come to our4 senses, we now realize that the settlements are illegal, we are desperately sorry that we allowed Isral to build them in the first place, and we DEMAND that Israel COMPLY WITH LAW AND TREATIES and remove all 500,000 settlers immediately and switfly and also remove the WALL, which has been declared illegal by the International court of Justice in its 9 July 2004 advisory opinion.
The USA should use NO MUSCLES toward peace and ALL MUSCLES toward a LEGAL OCCUPATION (and removal of all settlers and the wall).
I suspect that this sort of action (backed up by withholding the $3B/annum and t5he use of the UNSC veto) would in fact impel Israel toward real negotiation.
As to whether Obama has the guts to do this — NO, I DON’T BELIEVE HE DOES. Congress is owned by AIPAC-and-friends and it would punish him severely if he even spoke of doing this. MAYBE Obama should try it, show the power of The Lobby, and then RESIGN?
Haven’t you heard, people: Corruption is thicker than hope.
And anyone who thinks anything short of a big war can ever bring ‘real change’ to the region, is sorely deluded.
It’s not that I personally want war – it’s just that people in the region know for sure they themselves would be deluded suckers if they waited around some more for aipac-occupied congress to liberate them.
Our politicians know very well they’re under political occupation – and it seems they quite like it. Lots of perks, votes, you know, that kind of usual sell-out etc.
So then, dear people, stop voting in those double-agent puppets and robots.
What’s wrong with you America?! Why can’t you just stop voting for greed and war?!
Till that happens: It’s gonna be ugly watching Aipac stab Obama with the metaphorical thousand-poisoned-knife at each turn of Capitol Hill corridor.
Well… and one thing to keep in mind, it could manifest as a civil war as well. What insights I have into Israeli society is that it is rapidly disintegrating under its own weight. Were it not for the massive foreign aid subsidies and favored trade/finance arrangements from the US, Israel probably wouldn’t even be here today.
I don’t like to think about it in terms of that either, but what else is there? There is no treaty Israel won’t break, no war crime to heinous that they won’t wear proudly on their sleeves. We’ve seen that. They haven’t just declared war on the Palestinian people — their civilians especially — but on the very United Nations itself, effectively. On the whole concept of 21st century modernity.
No crime so heinous that the US will speak out against it, also.
The rejection of the Goldstone Report is an assault on the entire conception of war crimes, on the Geneva Conventions. In the pursuit of “terrorism,” anything goes, anything is allowed, nothing can be punished.
And anyone who expects the nation who ran Abu Graib and built Gitmo to object to this is sucking empty wind.
“They haven’t just declared war on the Palestinian people — their civilians especially — but on the very United Nations itself, effectively. On the whole concept of 21st century modernity.”
Chaos, I think you have hit on it: Political Zionism is war against liberal democracy and a stable international order. That, no doubt, is why many of our Jewish friends on this blog oppose it on principle – beyond the gut-level revulsion aroused by Israel’s crimes against humanity.
There is no way to reconcile radical Zionism with democracy. The American public needs to absorb that truth and understand the implications for our own national interests.
“What’s wrong with you America?! Why can’t you just stop voting for greed and war?!”
Please explain how I can stop voting for greed and war. I thought I already had last November.
So did I, for what it’s worth.
If you seriously want my recommendation? Do not vote for either Democrats or Republicans in upcoming Senate or Presidential races, under any circumstances. Vote for House Democrats (well, or Republicans, I guess but I’m hard pressed to recommend any) only if they display a modicum of trustworthiness. And many do.
We’re not going to see change in this country while either Democrats or Republicans hold the keys to government. Until enough Americans take the plunge and look seriously at voting off the ticket of the Big Two… we’re screwed.
Chaos, when I was living in Ron Paul’s congressional district I always voted for him even though I am a liberal/progressive – simply on the basis of his strong stance against the Israel relationship, imperialism, and militarism.
But in our present political situation I see no choice but to vote straight Democratic with rare exceptions. The Republican Party is too dangerous to ever trust with the reins of power. At least with the Democrats there is a progressive wing that can serve as some check on abuses of power. Civil libertarians have no real influence in the Republican power structure, and Zionists (neocons) are out of control there.
They lie.
That’s what politicians do.
Rather than voting, the most productive thing to do is unplug the talmudvision. That’s the true weapon of mass destruction.
If Obama followed Bush Sr’s example and froze aid to Israel, all the hacks in Congress will be coming out of the woodwork, decrying his actions and calling for his resignation. The ADL will put out people in the streets of DC and NY to demonstrate day and night and Blitzer and Cooper will do their bidding on CNN.
Not until the shells fall off more American eyes and the electorate starts kicking ass with the Ziocongress and Ziosenate.
Obama lacks balls, simply put. Even on healthcare he’s threading softly, instead of just governing, never mind on a ‘contentious’ issue like Holy Land I.
And in this respect the Nobel Peace Prize ‘winner’ may yet become responsible for WW III, if the wheels ever really do come off the ME on I-P…
The problem is Netanyahu, not Obama.
Israel is sovereign, and short of very serious changes in relationship, violating long-standing agreements, Obama has only limited powers over Israel.
The only path forward is one of mutual humanization, as Phil articulated from press conferences in Gaza.
Comparable to Obama’s appearance of yielding to Netanyahu (which may be truth), Phil appears to have yielded to the far left.
Both likud and far left deter peace. Both positions are tragedies for the world.
The problem is Obama isn’t willing to cut Netanyahu off from the trough when he gets greedy. And actually, the larger problem with Obama is he doesn’t take a stand, and doesn’t defend it.
In other words, Obama is a wimp.
You know, for a self- declared progressive you spend a lot of time furthering the neoconservative liberal-bashing agenda.
I’m curious of what specific leverage people sincerely believe might be used.
I expect that Obama is sincerely losing patience, but he’s losing patience with both Israel and the Arab world.
I don’t know about you, Witty, but $3 billion in foreign aid seems like a lot of leverage to me. Not to mention the favorable tax and trade arrangements Israeli and dual-national corporations enjoy.
Who cares if Obama loses patience? As a President, he’s been useless thus far. He goes where the winds carrying campaign dollars blow him.
All the leverage implied in that fond term “special relationship.”
It’s not like the US has not ever changed or reversed the total package of favored treatment we at one time have granted various countries.
Various aspects of the US’s “special relationship” with Israel has been discussed
numerous times on this blog, annual foreign aid, military aid priority, tax breaks, jet fuel assurances,
oil assurances, the galaxy of memorandums of understanding we have only with Israel, the fact that Israel is the only foreign government that is allowed to directly
contract with private US corporations, etc.
Before any serious leverage might be used, the American people would have to
know just how unique it’s government’s special relationship with Israel is–who will inform them? Nobody in the White House, or the military, or the Congress, or
talk radio, or PBS, or on Cable news or broadcast news… nor will they read it in their newspaper.
$3 billion is quite an understatement.
All told, Israel gets at least $10 billion each year in aid from the US.
That includes, monetary incentives whose sum is publicly disclosed, military aid and credits toward the purchase of American military hardware and a special security package whose amount is undisclosed to the public.
Try starting with the UN Security Council, no more vetos for Israel.
(I like that for a slogan)
There are a lot of actions Obama could take that wouldn’t require Congressional approval. All he’d need is the will – which I doubt he possesses – and the resolve to stand up to congressional retaliation.
Nolan,
Check out this congress link to zio-money and weep, weep, weep.
In fact weep say 35 billion tears – for the 35 BILLION DOLLARS WE GIVE to Israel per year.
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
I’m sorry that you took that question as a rhetorical one, to be responded with harrangue.
I was looking for information.
The information is right there Richard, and the “harraunge” (oy, poor baby) was just an extra.
$3 billion dollars, there it is. withholding a significant part of that, or all of it, and tieing it’s reinstatement to certain conditions. Nothing rhetorical about it.
Now, please tell us how you would get Israel to change its actions? Ask nicely? It’s been tried.
And BTW, you are sure one dishonest schmuck Witty. How stupid do you think Gentiles are (I know you think for Jews it’s a mitzvah to be stupid about certain things) Richard? Do you think none of them have the ability to perceive the logical kasha you make out of every question. You might be surprised, Richard, I’ve found them to be very intelligent.
Is that the sum total of your recommendations?
Its simple, but once played, no more leverage. Certainly there must be other options.
We could maybe stop giving them F-16s, bunker busters, white phosphorous mortars and cluster bombs. Then they wouldn’t have anything to drop on Palestinian children nor anyway to drop it.
We can call it the “If you can’t play nice, I’m talking your toys away and putting you on a timeout” approach.
I think Obama is getting to that. He has some authority to implement executive orders, even pursuant to legislation passed. He can’t legally contradict the legislation itself though, not without a political and possibly constitutional crisis (unlikely).
“Both likud and far left deter peace. Both positions are tragedies for the world.”
Yes, what a tragedy for the world if Western countries were held to the same human rights standards they demand for toppled dictators (and often former allies). Who knows what could come of it? Perhaps Western statesmen would think twice before engaging in war crimes. I’m starting to weep just thinking about it. Stop the madness, or Israel and the US won’t be able to bomb, blockade, or torture as they see fit.
Donald,
It’s the same old colonial ideology of justifying and legitimizing the subjugation of militarily and economically weaker nations.
Israel is doing it for both ideological reasons and in order to control the water supply in the region and territorial expansion.
The US is going for the oil and empires of yesteryear did it for the diamond mines of Africa.
Even back when Europeans slaughtered Native Americans they justified it as some benevolent force of helping the “savages”.
Israel is merely dressing up its policies with that “self-defense”, “existential”, “a civilized democracy among a sea of barbarians” cloak.
It certainly is a tragedy when poor, defenseless empires are brutally subjugated by the human conscience. I weep with you, Donald, if this pillaging of land, water, and other resources has to one day come to an end. But humanity will be forced to reckon. How could it let the selfish demands of people for basic shelter prey upon innocent, nuclear-armed Jewish national self-fulfillment, again and again, over and over, while international bodies equivocated or simply blamed the victims?
“The problem is Netanyahu, not Obama.”
No the problem is Washington, where Obama is finding that there are things that cannot be changed.
Here’s proof that your theory of treating Israel with gloves is not only doomed, but it’s doomed because Washington is opposed to Fatah/Hams Unity.
http://uruknet.com/index.php?p=m58867&hd=&size=1&l=e
I trust this will be sufficient Ricahrd, to put an end to your endless bloviating about how it’s Hamas’ fault that a unity government hasn’t eventuated.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121362.html
The Syrian-based leadership of the militant Palestinian Hamas said Thursday it has rejected an Egyptian-mediated proposal to reconcile
with the rival Fatah group.
Hamas and seven other Damascus-based Palestinian factions issued a joint
statement saying the reconciliation plan must be revised to include a
reference to the Palestinian right to resist Israeli occupation
What’s good in this is that a thinking few on the left will learn that voting (D) is not the answer, just as a few on the right came to conclude about (R) under Bush. All efforts must focus on breaking the alien grip on our media. Palestinians won’t be free until Americans are.
Gosh, America fust-cless, who, tell us please, are these “aliens” which have a grip on our media? Will I know them by their horns?
You know, I have to admit… every time I start to take AF a bit seriously, he goes and posts something like that.
I think what America First means by “alien grip on our media” is the firm hold that the Israel Lobby (read: Zionists and Israel-Firsters) and its supporters have over the content offered by the MSM and most online political journals. Here, “alien” = “foreign”.
I’m guessing that AF, like me, is well aware that there is a vast body of public opinion in this country pertaining to American national interests that is not even allowed to be expressed or represented in our “mainstream” media because it is inconsistent with the Zionist agenda.
I’m surprised that you and Chaos would have a problem with this. Can you explain why?
Hmm, yeah. I’m getting AF’s post confused with another post I read earlier on this blog that contained something of a scree against illegal immigrants. And I don’t remember who was the author of that post. My mistake.
I will say I wouldn’t characterize the grip on the media as “alien” — unless you’re willing to consider the corporate American elite as somehow foreign to America itself. Which is novel in a poetic sense, but strictly speaking not correct in the legal sense. In as much, also, as the media is influenced by any wealthy corporate interest, Zionist or not.
“I will say I wouldn’t characterize the grip on the media as “alien” — unless you’re willing to consider the corporate American elite as somehow foreign to America itself.”
Chaos, I do agree that the corporate American elite exercise undue influence (not control) over the media, and I agree that this influence is not generally “alien” or foreign.
However, I do assert that the Israel Lobby and its friends have succeeded in exercising a rather tight control over what is said in the media concerning I/P in particular, and a looser control more generally over what is said concerning US policy in the Middle East. Because I consider the Israel Lobby to be an agent of a foreign government, I regard its control over US media to be foreign, or in AF’s term, “alien”.
I have come to this latter conclusion after spending years studying the question and sifting the evidence. Do you doubt that this is true? Do you deny it?
If so, may I suggest you begin by reading an excellent book entitled “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt?
C’mon, Witty. Once the US becomes serious about pressurising Israel, European governments will follow suit very quickly. Israel would find itself isolated internationally very quickly and very completely. Even the most rugged, independence minded Zionist would dread that scenario.
Of course. Why do you think Witty is trying to make it sound hopeless, after all? That’s what he dreads.
Obama is not the false prophet and if everyone in the mid-east is losing patience, then i think they should looking within and not at Obama.
I can’t imagine somehow everyone thinks Obama will fix years of problems in the mid east in just a few months. The problems he has to deal with is a well entrenched lobby group and a political system that is tottally dependent on money and influence for survival. Noboday in the US political system is willing to commit political suicide over the mid east, this is not the only problem facing the US and as we all know, the politician’s first role is to survive to stay in the game, and unfortunately this applies to Obama too.
Things will start to move once everyone is on the same page, this includes leaders in the arab world not just the US. So far all we heard from Egypt, Jordan and other arab countries who have relations with Israel is a whimper and words of support to the peace process, but none have yet to come out and, as everyone here seems to think Obama should do, and put pressure on Israel with economic boycot, closing diplomatic missions, etc. These countries are looking after their own interests and will not risk the limelight in fear of being marginalized.
The surprising thing is what Turkey is doing. With loud accusations against Israel’s actions in Gaza, improving and strengthening realtions with Syria and openly criticizing Israel on dragging its feet on the peace process, Turkey has done more than any other Arab country who have relations with Isarel have dared to do. And this is surprising and putting more pressure on Israel than anything Obama can do.
So, before we write off Obama and how long its taking to show progress, Egypt’s Mobarak and Jordan’s king are dragging their feet even worse and signing more economic deals with Israel. Again, as I stated before, if the Arabs really want to fix this problem, then theu need to start at home and show a united front, even the Palestininans can’t agree and openly fight each other. The solution for the mid east starts in the mid east not washington.
All valid points.
But you forgot one major point; the United States created Israel. It created and nurtured and protected a Frankenstein.
Now that the Golem has turned on its creator, we’re saying look elsewhere.
One of my main arguments to Israeli officials to cease expansion of the settlements is the concept that an Israel with treaties with its neighbors is far less vulnerable to terror or other aggressions.
And, that Israel has the prospect of treaties comprising 100% of its frontier if it adopts the Arab League proposal (with consented modifications as to Jerusalem).
Currently, in contrast to Brad’s assertion that Jordan and Egypt are increasing their economic and other intimacy with Israel, I perceive that the oppossite is occurring, that both Egypt and Jordan are incrementally distancing from Israel.
And, that that constitutes a great failure for Netanyahu, if rather than decrease the current 350 miles of exposed frontier to 0, he will “succeed” in increasing the frontier currently in a state of war from 300 miles to 650 miles.
“One of my main arguments to Israeli officials to cease expansion of the settlements”
Richard it is a mitzvah you do, to provide these pressured and busy officials with some much needed diversion and amusement. You’re a regular humanitarian, I swear.
I’d be interested to see a copy of whatever sternly worded letter you sent off to the Israeli government, Witty. Oh — I forgot, you’re one of those “true progressives” who mocks the whole concept of letter-writing campaigns. My mistake.
I haven’t sent anything to the Israeli government. I only speak to individuals, occassional officials that do come to my region.
So for a self descibed liberal/progressive, you’re actually rather passive-aggressive. Cute.
You don’t think the argument is an effective one?
That could appeal to Israelis to change their policies?
No, and the answer is simple. Israelis are profiting immensely. They are enjoying complete impunity from war crimes prosecution thus far. And Operation Cast Lead is only unique in its deployment of high technology.
If this sort of behavior can go on for sixty years, essentially unchecked, I think we can rule out the notion of an appeal on moral and ethical grounds to Israel. We might as well be Neville Chamberlain reincarnate if we think Israel can be appeased, also.
Such a “surprise,” everyone should have seen this coming, all the signs have been there from the beginning. Remember when it came to this issue in Cast Lead Obama said – “there can only be one president at a time” (although he spoke about everything else conceivable outside of this arena). Than the message came – “just have the troops out of Gaza before the inauguration.” Look at the administrations team additions, and there should be no surprise whatsoever. Those who are surprised, quite frankly, need their head examined or they are totally disingenuous.
Obama made a blunder when he decided to push the freeze and his health care at the same time. He did not have the political capital to do both. The lobby realized his error and went to work on congress. Obama had to back down on one of these issues or loose both. It makes him look weak, it makes Netanyahu look strong but these can change. But first he needs to complete the health care bill or he will have no credibility at all.
I remember 6 months back when he announced the freeze that Rahm and Axelrod must know something that I didn’t to try pushing both of these issues at once. It was an invitation for the (pharma, insurance and Israel) to work together. But they didn’t know what they were doing. I just hope they are wiser today.
OR: Rahm was always going to trade the settlements for the lobby’s support for/lack of interference in health care reform. Possible?
The horse trading aspect of this doesn’t bother me –that’s politics. What I find offensive is that a foreign country that’s totally reliant on the US is allowed to determine our foreign and domestic affairs.
Obama would have had the political capital to do both, if he’d had the balls to out the Zionist lobby that was extorting him.
But instead, he made the Rahmbo his Chief of Staff. Talk about sound and fury amounting to nothing. Does anyone else remember all that talk about how Rahm was going to be such an asset when it came to moving legislation through Congress? What a joke.
“Does anyone else remember all that talk about how Rahm was going to be such an asset when it came to moving legislation through Congress? What a joke”
It certainly looks like Rahmette is moving the legislation –no single payer health care, Mid-East peace stalled, escalation in Afghanistan, threatening Iran– just not in the direction Obama’s supporters wanted/expected.
I do agree that after Obama crowned Rahmette CoS, everything that has followed should not have comes as a surprise.
It’s like the Democratic Party has declared a War on Optimism.
Syvanen, your comment is precisely on the money. To see how the nexus between I/P and domestic issues works in the Congress, all one has to do is watch Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s shenanigans concerning health care reform. Most of it, though, happens out of sight, behind the curtain.
Obama had his hands tied from the get-go in dealing with Netanyahu, and it is really curious that Rahm Emanuel would not have foreseen that. Someone’s political smarts were lacking, to put it kindly.
Yep that is one of the data points that led me to think that backing off of the freeze demands and health care were linked. And you are also right that the linkages between these issues are completely behing the curtain. But that is how the politcal game is played in Washington.
Here’s a short article essentially summing up all the comments so far on this thread (except Witty’s) why Obama is no honest broker in the Middle East:
http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2009/10/14/the-dishonest-broker-in-the-white-house/
The article concludes with the recommendation that Obama use yet another leverage
tool in the US tool kit, our UN Security Council veto, a first ever refraining from exercising our veto in behalf Israel to allow the UN to fully vet the Goldstone Report.
PS: Note in constrast how quickly Obama put the kabosh on the eastern european missile shield even while he ignored Israel’s jeering, expanding settlements.
Does the USA enjoy Quasi-Oligarchic-Totalitarianism ?
Some posts above are arguing over whether the “control” [or "effect"] of The Lobby in the USA (over media, over universities, and especially over government) is “alien” [or merely "local"] “control” [or "effect"].
Perhaps these are the wrong questions. Perhaps we should ask how TOTAL are the control-like effects? What are the mechanisms of the control-like effects? Are the control-like effects consistent with (aka “local”) or antithetic to (aka “alien”) local political theoretical norms (e.g., “democracy”, “citizen-control of governance”)?
A homegrown [MILD form of] oligarchic totalitarianism (or is “national socialism” a better term?) is not foreign to (or at least not unknown within) the USA. Stalin and Hitler and militant Zionism were all models of the NON-MILD form! They modeled the proposition that “you’ve got to break some eggs to make an omelet”, that is, to hurt someone (usually not yourselves) to bring about a revolution which you favor. Sometimes they operated as “aliens” and sometimes they operated “at home”. Does the issue of alien/local really matter? Must “control” be total to qualify as “control”?
Was the “control” (or “effect”) of Hitler’s brown-shirts on the rest of German society any better because it was non-alien (assuming it was non-alien), or might it be said that ANY REVOLUTION is ALIEN because it seeks to overthrow the established order AND BREAK LOCAL EGGS? Was it any less “control” when (initially) it was not “total”?
In the USA, the model of [MILD] oligarchic totalitarian control is alive and well, substantially controlling us all. The large “lobbies” (to use a convenient term) all exercise “control” (or have a very large “effect”) on governance, on media, and sometimes on universities.
The BANKERS-LOBBY is a good recent example (consider how they contrived, on the whole, to be rewarded for the melt-down they caused, and contrived to receive rewards which did NOT have the effect of undoing most of the damage they caused. People still cannot get loans!). The MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-CONGRESSIONAL COMPLEX is another example, presently bleeding the USA for wars which are totally pointless. BIG PHARMA and BIG HEALTH INSURANCE are examples now in the news. THE RIGHT-WING PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY (”The Lobby”) is an example familiar to us all.
Our media (including such apparently “lefty” media as NPR’s “On the Media”) appear unable to point to and analyze the social controls (TABOOS, CENSORSHIPS, etc.) which make various topics (very much including the topic of such “social controls”) effectively undiscussable in MSM. But those social controls are real and very damaging. And often they are results of what I’ve been calling oligarchic totalitarianism.
Who among us, whether Zionist or anti-Zionist, doubts that The Lobby exercises a profound oligarchic totalitarian control in the USA? Who among us thinks that that is a good thing for American democracy? Why are Jimmy Carter and Walt & Mearsheimer and Tony Judt so lonely out there? Why have the tenured professors (whose rice-bowls seem safe) not organized conferences on “The Lobby”, “Quasi-Totalitarian Social Controls”, “Israeli Settlements and the Law”?
Some years ago I attended a law-school conference celebrating 50 years of progress on human rights law. The Fourth Geneva Convention was not even mentioned, nor were Israel’s occupations. A mere oversight? Or the effects of quasi-oligarchic-totalitarianism?
Nice rhetorical question. Why is it that Chuck Schumer, after all these many months
debate over health insurance reform, the first prominent politician in congress
to bring to the attention of the American public that the insurance industry’s (directly legislated oligarchic) exemption to anti-trust law is a major problem? And has been since 1948 with the ever-increasing tentacles of the insurance business beyond mere like insurance into health insurance. As a NY
senator, he’s suddenly ruffeling insurance industry feathers in a state that is a hotbed
of insurance industry power. What trade-off does he want from the insurance industry if he pulls back from his suddenly populist speech? How much play
will Schumer’s suddenly voiced displeasure with this glaring definace of
free market principle get in the press? More competition interstate, now there’s a way to cut health care insurance costs. Anybody know anything about their
state appointed insurance commissioners? Ever play Monopoly?
Are you sure about that, Citizen? I mean we just allowed interstate banking, and the banking system hasn’t exactly been stable recently.
Maybe damn if we do (anti-trust legislation) and damned if we don’t (allow
little competition, employ price-fixing etc among the few with nearly the whole market)?
Remember break up of Ma Bell, the air lines, and, as you suggest, elimination of the
chinese wall between commercial and investment banks? In one case, control of
the market is in the hands of a few companies, and in the other case, (total?) deregulation has the end result of little companies being bought up by the few, so we end up back where we started? I don’t think there’s any central quasi-governmental agency or
central function in the insurance industry as there is in the banking industry, to wit the Fed Reserve & Treasury… Is there?
Interesting that you mention the telcos, Citizen. All regulation entails about cross-subsidies, and changing a regulatory regime means there will be winners and losers among consumers, as there were in that case. Unfortunately heath care is a much larger sector than telecom so it’s hard to know in advance which will be which. I did see one “scoring,” though, that predicted many middle class people will pay higher premiums under the Senate plan, whereas reform was supposed to save money for the middle class. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants?
Comments on this entry are closed.