Washington Stakeout got Russ Feingold to admit that Israel has nukes, though the senator tried to avoid the question. How helpful is this kind of hypocrisy? Andrew Sullivan is worried about Israeli nuclear policy [emphasis mine]:
One reason I have been focusing on Israel lately is because I can see this conflict coming and do not believe it can be contained or managed without a more open and honest public dialogue than the cramped and emotional one that occurs in Washington. The truth is: Israel and the US have very different interests with respect to Iran, and if Israel launches a war on Iran, against US wishes, then the alliance will never be the same.
Sullivan is afraid that Israel feels free to attack Iran, and that all hell will break loose; and meantime Washington has been cramped and emotional. At J Street two months back, California Congressman Bob Filner expressed the same apprehension: he said congressmen sell their votes on Middle East policy to the Israel lobby because their constituents don’t care one way or the other– but nuclear war is at stake.
The same powerlessness can be seen in a Washington Post report on an Iran-diplomacy "game" at Harvard, in which stand-ins for all the different countries role-played for several hours. Playing Iran was Gary Sick, an American. But "playing" Israel in the game was Dore Gold, who often serves as a proxy for Israel anyway, and who refused to say that Israel would not attack Iran without U.S. permission. Some game. Reporter David Ignatius echoes the general fear:
"The most difficult problem we have is how to restrain Israel," said [former State Department official Nicholas] Burns. "My own view is that we need to play for a long-term solution, avoid a third war in the Greater Middle East and wear down the Iranians over time."
Gold said the game clarified for him a worrying difference of opinion between U.S. and Israeli leaders: "The U.S. is moving away from preventing a nuclear Iran to containing a nuclear Iran — with deterrence based on the Cold War experience. That became clear in the simulation. Israel, in contrast, still believes a nuclear Iran must be prevented."
The game showed that diplomacy will become much harder next year. As Burns explains: "The U.S. probably will get no help from Russia and China, Iran will be divided and immobile, Europe will be weak, and the U.S. may have to restrain Israel."
Yeah, Feingold’s really made a farce of himself as a Senator. He took some noble positions… against obvious threats to American civil liberties, but then again he was the only Senator to bother… over the past few years but time and time again he proves that he’s got little to no influence and is almost as scant when it comes to moral integrity. His answers to those questions really cork me.
No self-respecting progressive politician should ever have a Wizard of Oz “Ignore the man behind the curtain!” moment. That reply was almost Wittyesque in its strawmanship.
Who is privy to all the details about anything or anybody? And who believes anything merely because somebody said it? He could have said, “Israel has not stated it has
military nukes, but there’s a reasonable amount of evidence it’s a nuclear power.”
Or he could have just said, “Israel has nuclear weapons.” It’s not really a secret any more. It certainly isn’t an American state secret so he’s under no obligation to sacrifice the progressive agenda he supposedly touts (let alone the national security interests of the United States!) in order to bow to Israel.
What can I say? Ask Witty? The USA government has recently voted against pressuring Israel to join the NP treaty, so as to make it subject to monitoring of its nukes.
And, remember, Obama himself declared he was all for international activity
to hinder, lessen, monitor stop military nuclear capability. He doesn’t know what his own government is doing? Must be nice to be a philosopher king.
Feingold is the Ultimate PEP.
But Filner’s comment is the telling one. He thinks that the US voter doesn’t care one way or another if Congress sells out to AIPAC. This would explain the disproportionate power of AIPAC, because it rests on a vocal but small minority that does care, very much – the Jewish voter.
Except I think that Filner is wrong. The US voter does care about Congressional corruption, and it would care very much about the implications of an Iran war – if not for the general coverup and lies. This is something I keep saying, but if the US voters heard the phrase “$10/gal gasoline” they would make it very clear that they don’t give a shit about Israel’s warmongering.
I’m sure AIPAC thinks they can handle the blowback. They can’t, of course. If we do get catapult into WW3, watching them fail will only be an infinitesimal consolation to me.
You’re right, potsherd, OTH, I remember the gas lines caused by OPEC’s reaction
to our government’s heavy support of Israel back in the 1970′s (we even played dare you nuclear war with the former USSR to save Israel; fortunately Russia backed off). Back then, I never
met anyone sitting in line at the pump who connected those dots. If memory serves, the American masses just blamed greedy Big Oil and Arab clans.
Americans don’t care about our foreign policy unless a military draft is on the horizon; even most UG college grads are equally blithely ignorant of Wall ST style finance, economics, and the on-going partnership of government and corporations on
the Italian fascist model.
But the unwashed masses are very aware of the taboo of racism and anti-semitism.
All those set pieces remain totally in play, with a tremendous boost from the Fourth Estate–except (so far) for the internet.
In other words, except for the power of the internet, the hope of eye-opening blowback lacks foundation.
The dots need to be connected for them. They need to be led, dot by dot, to see the connection.
And I do recall that there was a lot of anti-Arab sentiment going around every time the gas prices rose. The trick will be to counter the voices who insist it’s all Iran’s fault.
The language that you used to describe Feingold’s comments were below the belt, Phil.
I don’t know is the accurate response.
That list of things you’re compelled to openly declare that you don’t know is getting pretty unwieldy at this point.
Why is it, Dick Witty, that you don’t know anything–except that BDS is bad & the 2-state solution is the way to go?
And also, that this blog is seriously unbalanced?
That’s really more of a “belief” rather than something he knows, to be fair. His fanaticism belongs in a separate compartment from his ignorance. The two are related, perhaps, but each are voluminous to deserve separate topics of discussion.