J Street says Obama is serious (but Israeli Foreign Ministry shrugs)

J Street and the Israeli Foreign Ministry offer contrasting reactions to the just announced Israeli-Palestinian "proximity talks" – indirect talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians with the United States serving as the go-between. By summer we should know for certain which organization has a better read of Obama Administration policies.

Isaac Luria of J Street sent out an email with the group’s key reactions to the upcoming talks. First J Street makes clear that in its view, "The announcement of proximity talks is a positive step in the right direction." Continuing its cheerleading role for the Obama administration, J Street applauds "the determination shown by the United States, President Obama and, in particular, Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell to get the parties to agree to talk."

Well, almost talk. The Americans are going to shuttle between the two sides, relaying messages and responses. Okay, I know, it sounds a little anachronistic in this age of Instant Messaging – an Israeli invention by the way – where any two people anywhere in the globe can instantly communicate with one another. But hey, it is a start, even if it takes us back full circle to the prelude before the Madrid Conference of 1991.

In case anyone is thinking of using the talks to serve as a smokescreen for maintaining the status quo, J Street is quick to emphasize that "Process and talk, while commendable, are not the goal. Achieving a two-state solution is." Let’s hope Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman are on J Street’s e-mail list.

J Street avows that "The US role in this process is, to state the obvious, vital to any hopes of success," insisting that "nearly all experts know that the parties alone cannot reach an agreement." Yet, the Obama administration has so far resisted Palestinian requests that the United States announce what are its parameters for a settlement, as Clinton did in 2000.

An unidentified senior American official informed Ha’aretz:

"We told the parties that our goal is to achieve two states for two peoples through negotiations. If there are obstacles we will try to help to overcome them and to propose our own ideas, and if we think one of the parties is not meeting its obligations we will say so."

With the talks restricted to four months, it won’t take long to see if the Obama Administration is serious about taking on this "obvious" role.

Finally, J Street admonishes the parties that

"Now is the time to get serious. The stakes are enormous. There are those who believe that the United States will put no political capital behind the process and will do little to help bridge the gaps because of the upcoming Congressional elections. This view fails to recognize that the window of opportunity to achieve a viable two-state solution is nearly closed and the coming years are the last chance to secure Israel’s future as a democracy and a national home to the Jewish people." 

What J Street doesn’t mention in its email, except indirectly in a footnote, is that among those that "believe that the United States will put no political capital behind the process and will do little to help bridge the gaps because of the upcoming Congressional elections" is the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

A few days ago the Foreign Ministry leaked a classified document to its favorite conduit at Ha’aretz, Barak Ravid. The report, prepared by the Foreign Ministry’s Center for Political Research, was intended for distribution to the Foreign Minister and Israeli diplomatic missions abroad, but one has to ask the motivation for giving it to Ha’aretz.

The report concludes the following:

"The U.S. administration will not put a lot of effort into the upcoming indirect negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, opting instead to focus on the November Congressional elections."

Washington is aware of the domestic political problems faced separately by both Netanyahu and Abbas and has decided to concentrate on achieving the limited goal of restarting the negotiations. The peace talks will not be at the top of the Obama administration’s agenda,

"In our assessment the administration will focus in the coming year on domestic issues that are expected to determine the results of the Congressional elections. As such, and due to the difficulties to date in achieving significant gains in the peace process we can assume that the administration’s focus on this issue will be limited and will predominantly remain in the hands of Mitchell’s teams."

Washington can be expected to portray the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian talks as a domestic and international achievement, in the hope of creating an atmosphere that is conducive to direct negotiations between the parties on the core issues.

"The authors of the report also predict that the administration will avoid taking any position that suggests disagreement with Israel, because of the support that Israel enjoys among both parties in Congress."

Meanwhile, J Street ended its email with "We’ll be in touch soon with concrete ways you can support strong American leadership in this latest effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution." Can’t wait.

About Bruce Wolman

Bruce Wolman is a citizen journalist who has lived in Norway and the Washington area.
Posted in Israel/Palestine, US Policy in the Middle East, US Politics

{ 42 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Its a good thing that there is communication.

    The steps to ratification of a two-state solution occur on the ground, in the development of civil goodwill relations to the extent that is possible. (Its one of the reasons that I oppose BDS, that it makes those efforts to develop relationships across cultures, impossible.)

    The reason for the steps are that both communities are governed by the will of their electorate. Netanyahu/Lieberman will NEVER adopt an acceptable two-state approach.

    The only path that I see is an electoral one, in which the majority of Israelis are persuaded that peace is both possible and preferable and takes a version of the three BDS demands. (Ending the occupation of the West Bank, full application of civil rights for minorities within Israel, and limited right of return and right to day in court.)

    Those make sense to me and preserve Israel as Israel. If they make sense to Palestinians, then peace is possible.

    To achieve the electoral, an actual goal, requires commitment to persuasion rather than agitation as the mode of political action.

    And, it is admittedly far away, and led by tired people with few or no new heroes appearing easily.

    • Bruce says:

      Hei Richard,

      How about switching to “proximity talks” with us? You put your comments on another site, and we will respond on that site.

      I notice you state that “Netanyahu/Lieberman will NEVER adopt an acceptable two-state approach,” which leads you to conclude that the Palestinians have to wait until the Israeli electorate changes its mind. No, more precisely the Palestinians have to behave sufficiently to induce a change in the Israeli electorate.

      So instead of all this civil goodwill relations mumbo jumbo, which is a proven loser since Oslo, what is your objection to the only realistic solution – compulsory international arbitration based on the rights of all peoples in the territory[ies]? The international community fixes the mess it created in 1948. And there is no violence in the process.

    • Citizen says:

      The talks are indirect to avoid the issue of the settlements. De Klerk said nobody is serious about peace unless they allow their avowed mortal enemy to sit at the negotiating table. That would be HAMAS. The USA and Israel won’t do that. Neither is serious about peace as to the I-P situation, the number one trouble spot affecting
      both nations, and the world.

      • Donald says:

        Talks mean nothing without Hamas at the table, but divide and conquer is part of the plan. It’s the reason for the blockade of Gaza. Then talk and build more settlements. I think all this is designed to drive the Palestinians crazy in various ways–Gazans in one way, West Bankers in another. Then violence will break out, Obama will call for restraint, and after some more killing, there will be a ceasefire, a period of cooling off and then people can talk. Then the cycle repeats.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          Ha! Obama won’t last that long. If the Republicans take Congress in 2010 (and the Democrats are veritably crippled, mostly by their own ineptitude), then I bet we’ll see impeachment proceedings in a year or so after that. I’d even put money on it, if I didn’t consider gambling to be immoral and irresponsible.

    • aparisian says:

      you are a fucking liar like all your likes, while Pals are trying to make moves forward to reach peace your friends are building settlements link to news.bbc.co.uk
      Next time you will use the word reconciliation i will spit on your face!

    • Citizen says:

      Witty: “…BDS, that it makes those efforts to develop relationships across cultures, impossible.”

      Did BDS make the same thing impossible in apartheid S Africa? If not why not? If so, are you nevertheless happy that regime was coherced by the world community to abandon
      the character of its regime?

      How many more scores of years will it take to achieve the goal of ending the occupation of the West Bank, full application of civil rights for minorities within Israel, and limited right of return and right to day in court? We are now going on a half century with zippo to show for it. Is it so unreasonable, given that lack of results that some people have concluded BDS is in order? At the very least to bring much-needed attention to the problem, which is especially not covered objectively in the USA MSM or by US Congress? Your objection to BDS seems to me to be
      more theory than based in reality. Do you favor more economic boycot of Iran?
      If so, is it because otherwise, there is only a military solution? How is that line of thinking not also applicable to stubborn Israel thumbing its nose at US policy against the settlements, for example?

  2. braciole says:

    Okay, I know, it sounds a little anachronistic in this age of Instant Messaging – an Israeli invention by the way – where any two people anywhere in the globe can instantly communicate with one another.

    Don’t you mean an “Israeli invention”? ICQ was an early implementation of an instant messaging system with Windows clients over the Internet. Earlier operating systems and networks supported the same functionality back in the sixties and I was using one back in the eighties on IBM kit.

    BTW, the US Patent office awarding a patent these days is no indication of originality – they allowed a patent to some US corporation for basmati rice.

    • Bruce says:

      “Israeli invention” works just as well for me.

      Frankly, I couldn’t resist adding this tidbit based on Israeli hasbara claims alone.

      As you mention, ICQ did get two patents from the U.S. patent office for instant messaging. But then don’t get me started on the patenting of software.

      • braciole says:

        I am waiting for the US patent office to issue a patent on GOTO, IF… THEN… ELSE and DO WHILE…/UNTIL…. It will happen one day!

  3. potsherd says:

    The Obaministration’s position is clearly shown when it sends Joe Biden over there to take the helicopter tour and declare that the US is joined at the hip to Israel.

    I saw one report that Mitchell had tendered his resignation last year because the WH wouldn’t put any pressure on Israelis. I wish he had done it.

  4. Pingback: J Street says Obama is serious (but Israeli Foreign Ministry shrugs) | Israel Today

  5. pabelmont says:

    “nearly all experts know that the parties alone cannot reach an agreement.”

    But who else can reach agreement? The issue is not who does the agreeing — it’s clearly Israel and the Palestinians, with initial proposals from Israeli government and PLO to be ratified, or so I suppose, by significant elements of their respective peoples or legislatures.

    What’s needed, and what the US can provide, is a powerful reason for Israel (or for the PLO for that matter) to move toward the other. Two types of persuasion are possible.

    First is the persuasion of unlawful, unethical force.

    The US could say to the PLO (or to Israel) “Sign on the dotted line, which we have conveniently provided to you, and here is a pen, or else bombs start falling at 10 AM local time tomorrow.” In my opinion, this is not likely to happen. Happily.

    Second is the persuasion of lawful, ethical force.

    The US could say to Israel (as I seem never to tire of saying), “The wall and the settlements are unlawful. We give you 6 months to remove the wall and the settlers from all territories occupied by Israel in 1967, and until next Monday to publish a schedule with substantially equal weekly removal milestones showing how you will do so by that time. Unless you publish such a schedule and then hold to it, the US will refrain from exercising its UNSC veto, and I will ask the IRS to look closely at all tax-exemptions for hitherto US-tax-exempt organizations which donate money for use within Israel and/or within the occupied territories. Let’s see, its Tuesday today, so you have 6 days. Deadline is 5 PM Tel Aviv time. If you have any questions, ask them soon.” In my opinion, this is not likely to happen. Unhappily.

    The president is not a free agent. He acts within the trammels set by the US power elite, the oligarchy, which — taken as a whole — has long favored militarism, the non-resolution of Israel/Palestine conflict (to keep up arms sales in the region and to provide reason for US interventions), and, broadly, whatever the government of Israel has requested. If these trammels are changing, I’ve seen no sign of it.

    But, hey, good luck to Senator Mitchell who has not yet resigned (for no reason anyone can guess).

    • Citizen says:

      I sometimes wonder what the f*** Mitchell thinks he’s doing, and not doing. It’s obvious to a layman that he’s gonna get nowhere. I mean it’s not like the US jewish establishment agencies are going to relent; Mitchel really didn’t have to worry about
      organized Irish American power when he pursued a peace in Ireland between the Irish nationalists and the Irish protestant area and England side. This distinction does show
      the difference between Irish and Jewish assimilation in the USA melting pot.

  6. Sin Nombre says:

    An unidentified senior American official informed Ha’aretz:

    “We told the parties that … if we think one of the parties is not meeting its obligations we will say so.”

    Yup, and Obama told the parties Israel had to stop all settlement expansion before he’d say that the Palestinians had to return to the negotiating table.

    The U.S. is to the Palestinians as Lucy the placeholder was to Charlie Brown the field-goal kicker.

    • potsherd says:

      Israel: We’re confiscating more Palestinian land to build Jews-only settlements.

      Obama: That isn’t helpful.

      Israel: So? What you gonna do about it, black boy?

      Obama: I’ll … say so.

  7. Citizen says:

    RE: ” Okay, I know, it sounds a little anachronistic in this age of Instant Messaging – an Israeli invention by the way”

    An early and partial form of messaging systems was implemented on private computer networks such as the PLATO system in the early 1970s. It was also available in the 1970s on the DEC PDP-11 as the “talk” program. Later the UNIX/LINUX “talk” messaging systems were widely used by engineers and academics in the 1980s and 1990s to communicate across the internet. MIT’s Project Athena created the first instant messaging tool in 1987 with the graphical Zephyr client. PLATO was the first instant messenger combining presence or list of contacts with the ability to send messages. AOL had 6M subscribers using instant messaging when an Israeli company named Mirabilis introduced ICQ in November 1996 and was first to introduce this concept freely on the Internet. When the number of users of ICQ became a threat to AOL instant messaging service, AOL acquired Mirabilis/ICQ. A few years later AOL/ICQ was awarded two patents from the U.S. patent office. After its introduction, a number of variations of instant messaging have arisen in parallel in many places such as (Yahoo, MSN, Excite, Ubique), each with its own protocol. More secure corporate and commercial oriented solutions for instant messaging were introduced by IBM/(Lotus Sametime) and by others. This has led to users running many instant messaging applications simultaneously to be available on several networks. Multiprotocol clients such as Gaim, Trillian and Miranda reduce the need for independent clients for each protocol.

    On single line bulletin board systems (BBS), the system operator (sysop) and the single caller online could typically chat with one another. One’s typing appeared in real time for the other person as an instant message equivalent.

  8. Question: How does the Israeli foreign ministry know with such certainty that the Obama admin

    “will not put a lot of effort into the upcoming indirect negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, opting instead to focus on the November Congressional elections.

    and that

    the administration will focus in the coming year on domestic issues that are expected to determine the results of the Congressional elections.

    Answer: Because that is exactly the agenda the Israel lobby and Obama’s Israelist handlers have proscribed.

    Question How does the Israeli foreign ministry know with such certainty that

    the administration will avoid taking any position that suggests disagreement with Israel,

    and the nature of

    the support that Israel enjoys among both parties in Congress.”

    Answer: Because Israel’s foreign ministry has the receipts showing which congresspersons they’ve bought and the puny amount of shekels paid. The receipts are filed in the “Oy, did we get this one cheap or what?” folder.

  9. Citizen says:

    Yes, PG, that’s it in a nutshell. The aipackers view the whole USA as nothing but a
    dumb donkey for supporting Israel’s soldiers, themselves indoctrinated and conscripted.

  10. Why doesn’t Biden bow while he shakes Netanyahu’s hand? Why not fully act out the part? After all, this visit is nothing more than a sham formality, a show, a charade and let’s makes an effort at make-believe peace for political interest. May as well depict the truth in gestures as well as words. Netanyahu is shaking hands with one hand while he signs onto 1600 more illegal homes on the West Bank with the hand behind his back.

    The U.S. is enabling a crime against humanity and war crimes. Evicting people and transferring people out of occupied land and building and transferring foreign settlers onto that land is a war crime and an act prohibited in the Geneva Convention. Meanwhile, the collective punishment of people in Gaza is a crime against humanity.

    Building a wall on occupied land is illegal and the military oppression of people under occupation is also illegal.

    Why is Biden shaking the hand of someone who is approving illegal activity with the other hand?

    This is an unethical, unholy, immoral alliance and it can’t be described any other way.

  11. Rehmat says:

    It’s another charade to buy more time for more illegal Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. Both PA and Washington don’t represent the will of the majority of the Palestinian people. Both are baised toward Palestinian people. How can someone with an idota of logic expect that without the participation of the duly elected government of Hamas – any so-called “peace” between Israel and Fatah with Washington playing the part of “a blackmailer” would bring peace to the Middle East?

    South African “Muslim Mandela” gave the best advice to the Palestinian resistance groups: “Don’t make maximum sacrifies for minimum gains – if you’re going to make maximum sacrifices demand maximum gains”.

    link to rehmat1.wordpress.com

  12. Chu says:

    link to haaretz.com
    When Israelis degrade Israel by humiliating Joe Biden

    • potsherd says:

      This is getting actual press.

      • MHughes976 says:

        I think I saw it reported that Biden responds to this brutal treatment by declaring his love for Israel. Politicians forced into all this inappropriate, undignified gushing must in the hearts feel something entirely different from love.

      • Chu says:

        Joe Biden gets what he deserves. It’s amusing how they spit in his face. Mister ‘I stand up for Israel whenever she is threatened’, must feel like a low-clown before the first act. 100 bucks says Biden lacks the intelligence (or character) to get angry and retaliate.
        Israel was hoping to embarrass Barack, but he sent his stooge VP instead. I can see we’re headed for a conflict with these ungrateful people. They’re proud to humiliate our leaders, but will take a welfare handout without thinking twice.
        The tea partiers, should be more concerned about cutting the tentacles away from the monster below the ship, instead of throwing the tea overboard.

  13. Citizen says:

    Glen Beck show is on now as U type here; Beck is interviewing Eric Massa.
    Beck asks what can be done about the whore congress? The answer comes: change campaign finance–nothing will change without effective campaign finance reform. Otherwise, special interests will
    always have their way against the average American’s interest.
    Beck responds the building is burning now, so how will that help?
    Most of the talk revolves around health care reform. Beck doesn’t bother to take it in a larger context; he doesn’t even ask for a suggestion from Massa as to how to change
    campaign finance in the USA. Massa is now out of congress, has cancer; he had 14 months as a member of congress, to see how it actually works. Beck says he puts his career and his family at risk every day by speaking out; he urges Masse to do so now.
    Masse says he was forced out because he made inappropriate sexual remarks to people.
    “Rahm made it very clear I better vote with the president” or the truth will come out about you (in the shower). “Rahm won’t tie his kids to the steaming locomotive, but he will tie yours. Rahm is good at making enemies; he is not good at making friends. It’s his way, or the highway. This is the President’s first piece of legislation.”
    The Obamcare bill. Imagine if Beck had brought up the Israel Lobby–but he did not.

    • Citizen says:

      And during commerial time, there was an ad to donate to Israeli charity causes; this happens every day on Fox News lately. Either an ad to donate to Israelis, showing old holocaust peeps weeping, or an ad extolling Israel as the best tourist spot to go visit and spend your luxury money.

    • Chu says:

      Beck isn’t worth much, He’ll cry about his country going down the tubes, but he’ll make no actual attempt to uncover whose pulling the levers. I am confident that Beck is manipulated by his studio masters. They’re aware of his drunken past and probably use it as a means for control the poor slob. He is completely inconsistent in his rambling ideas and speech, which makes you wonder what voice is being channeled through Beck.

      • Citizen says:

        Seems pretty obvious, the voice of big corporate America–while Beck does discuss
        some narrow issues with courage and with details not heard elsewhere in the MSM TV news, his default for the culprit is always the abstract old bug-a-boos of communism, or socialism; and sometimes, fascism–he has castigated the bankers, the Fed Reserve, but never in depth–just standard “Wall St v Main St” froth. And he did hone in on ACORN–in much more detail. He doesn not go into corporte welfare in detail–as, e.g., Ralph Nader does. And has anyone ever heard him really go into
        the motivation for 9/11 or Shrub’s attack on Iran? Does he ever discuss in even slight detail the pros and cons of bombing Iran or allowing Israel to do so? No.
        His basic message is government wants to run your life. He skims the surface only;
        he never gets into the fact that the USA is well along in the original meaning of facism, that is, the partnership of Big Government AND Big Corporations, the classic Mussolini blended form of government. He’s not once informed his avid listeners of the history of the Middle East. Never mentioned PNAC or Clean Break, etc. Never has given the view from Tehran, to inform his watchers. While he’s not Hannity (on the Right), or MSNBC (PEP), he’s just another lackey for the status quo, all the while pretending he’s a populist.

  14. Mooser says:

    Reuters says Biden has condemned the Israeli settlement plan. Whoopee!

  15. MRW says:

    From that Haaretz article:

    “While we welcome Vice President Biden, a longtime friend and supporter of Israel, we see it as nothing short of an insult that President Obama himself is not coming.”

    and this:

    On the whole, the farther right one goes in Israel, the more pronounced the sentiment. Avowedly pro-Kahane extremists, now strong enough to have placed their own representative in the Knesset, have gained shock cred by lining highway underpasses with posters of the “Jew-hater Obama” photoshopped into wearing a Palestinian kaffieh.

    This will backfire once Americans see their president mocked this way. Even the Tea-Partiers, as much as they bitch about the Prez, are not going to put up with a foreign country that gets billions from us annually dissing our prez like that. If Israel can manage to keep this from Americans that’s a different story. But Israeli activists would do well to distribute photos of these underpass posters.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      Yeah. This will backfire if Americans see their president mocked this way. How much outrage was there over the murder of an American citizen by the IDF?

    • potsherd says:

      Those posters are old. Nobody wants to stir up trouble by publicizing them.

    • Citizen says:

      The tea-partiers seem oblivious to the detrimental effects and affects of our Israel First de facto policy, and de jure to, e.g., when it comes to the settlement expansions,
      I’ve never seen a tea-party protest sign saying “End the dole to Israel.” Nor even one mentioning Israel at all.

  16. sherbrsi says:

    I don’t know why J Street gets so much press. It’s an insignificant group, with vague objectives of peace and reconciliation. Whenever critical pressure on Israel has mounted, they are quick to align their statements with the rest of the Israel lobby. The whole Goldstone “fiasco” and their position on it has destroyed any credibility they had.

  17. syvanen says:

    I posted this in the Biden thread below but it might be more appropriate here. One of J Streets statements was :

    There is no need to start over from scratch. After years of negotiations, the outlines of a viable two-state solution are well known and widely agreed upon – borders based on the 1967 lines with agreed reciprocal land swaps.

    I attended a debate that featured Omar Barghouti last evening and one thing that really jumped out was that these younger Palestinian leaders are not accepting any of the compromises Arafat made between 1992 – 2000. They are most definitely insisting on some very basic demands and whenever they enter into negotiations it will be whole new game. Nor did Omar make a single acknowledgment that negotiations were even happening now (in spite of prodding my his opponent, Zeev Moaz). It was a very impressive display.

    We should understand what this means. The new Palestinians leaders do no accept what Arafat conceded. That means Abbas cannot accept Taba or whatever compromises they made with in Geneva.

    It should be perfectly clear. Abbas cannot accept what the Israelis are willing to offer today. He must take into account the new leadership that is leading the non-violent demonstrations in the West Bank and people like Abudimayah (sp?) and Omar Boughghati. The Israelis had their chance in 2000, but no they rejected it. Today they must deal with the new leadership (Abbas knows this perfectly well, there is no way that he will sell out Palestinians aspirations today).

    It is somewhat ironic. In the debate that I refer to above, Zeev Moaz implied that because the Palestinians rejected offers for a settlement before, they must be willing to accept less today. (After all, they lost the wars). I think it is the other way around; Israel should have accepted Arafat’s offer because today they will have to accept much less because they refused the Palestinians offers in 1992.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      Israel’s broken too many promises. They can’t even respect a rudimentary cease fire.

      The only governments that are even taking the Israelis seriously at all are the US, Canada and Great Britain. And of those three, only the first is putting any money or political capital on it.

    • pabelmont says:

      As to what is generally agreed upon, my comment is that the UNGA membership may agree to UNSC 242 but it is not important. what matters (sadly, to be sure) is what the USA and Israel want.

      So far, Israel’s very interesting strategy of behaving (by resuming settlement building the day VP Biden arrives) still more rudely to the USA than it recently did to Turkey (Ambassadorial photo with high and low chairs) shows that it doesn’t believe what USA leaders sometimes say out loud but either believes that the USA is lying when it speaks out loud (quite possible, in this fool-your-own-people country of ours) or that The Lobby (whoever that may consist of — AIPAC, fundi Protestants, war industrialists, BIG BANKS, who knows?) will prevent any USA actions from backing up whatever the USA may say out loud about settlements or peace.

      Until the USA power elite (larger than, but including, of course, The Lobby) undergoes a sea-change whereby peace becomes more important than continued tension, Israel will be allowed to continue on its now normal path: anti-human rights, war-crimes, lawlessness, land-grabbing, and (incidentally) behaving rudely toward (mere) USA presidential envoys (and other envoys, as noted).

      But the US is a militaristic nation now, and has been for a long wile (read Chalmers Johnson’s “The Sorrows of Empire” and his earlier “Blowback”). It likes war and manufactures (or creates imaginary) excuses for USA warmaking and “extensions of power”. This may not be good for the US people, and was never explicitly adopted by the US people, but it is a long established and very, very profitable hobby of the Elite. The so-called Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex is a big part of this system for using US money (from all USers) to channel profits into corporations whilst laying waste much of the world and its peoples. It is not just the “neocons”. On the whole, Israel helps keep the pot boiling. Iran is a recent example of keeping the pot boiling.

      All this being so, why would the US Power Elite decide (through whatever mechanisms of power they use inter se to “decide” things) to rein Israel in? How does it benefit them? These fine folks have lived just fine, thank you very much, for 62 years with Israel and its anti-human rights and other behaviors. Why should they change now?

      I hope someone has an answer, but I don’t know what that answer might be.

      And, that said, why does the generally accepted view of a proper I/P peace matter in the real world?

      • Citizen says:

        The peace thing is a sentimental delusion; the American masses can always be manipulated simply by couching your spiel in terms of striving for peace. Who doesn’t like the notion of peace? Every war monger likes it too–it’s a great way
        to exploit the gullible masses. The other weapon besides Peace, is Fear–if you
        offer Peace and Defense, you cannot be faulted effectively, especially when the US MSM does not offer the gullible public any real details.