My initial joy over the Biden insult was not misplaced. The Israeli blunder has catalyzed a new moment in the US-Israel special relationship and maybe, just maybe the beginning of the end. The lead thinktank of the Israel lobby today proclaims that US-Israel relations are "perilous." AIPAC panicked last night. Michael Oren is alarmed.
The Obama administration seemed to relish the opportunity to distance itself from Israel almost as if it had been rehearsing for a break and was only waiting for the provocation. Everyone piled on. Hillary was sharply critical, Joe Biden was critical to Netanyahu’s face, on Saturday there is the General Petraeus leak, and on Sunday David Axelrod is critical on the Sunday talk shows.
Of course, the conditions that the Obama administration is criticizing have been there for years: four decades of Israeli expansion and American passivity. And of course, the criticism has been murmured even in Washington for four decades. The difference this time is that high level political people are willing to express it openly.
That hypocrisy is cracking because politicians sense that they can get away with being halfway honest. The Obama administration senses what we all sense, and that even Tom Friedman senses when he goes on Meet the Press and talks about how much money we give Israel: word is getting out about the special relationship, and Americans are beginning to ask questions.
When both Joe Biden and General David Petraeus are reported to say that the special relationship is endangering American soldiers, they are only saying what Walt and Mearsheimer said in their historic paper four years ago, and what Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, described as the blinding flash of the obvious. But remember, Walt and Mearsheimer could not publish their paper in the United States, and when their book came out, the joke was that a lot of people in D.C. were reading it in brown paper covers, lest they be called anti-Semites.
You could not say that Israel was hurting our interests because Abrams, Libby, Wurmser, Feith, Frum, and Wolfowitz were helping guide the ship of state through the seas of Islamophobia. And intellectuals were just as afraid of the policers of official understanding, of Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Goldberg, Larry Summers, Richard Haass, and David Remnick and Bob Silvers too–Silvers who has never run a review of The Israel Lobby.
Now that atmosphere is changing, even in power circles. Of course, the best reflection of the change is Andrew Sullivan’s remarkable shift. Sullivan was not deterred by Leon Wieseltier’s calling him an anti-Semite, because he knows, the issue is just too important to world peace not to keep talking.
I don’t think you can say enough about Gaza, Goldstone, and the grassroots. Gaza vindicated those of us on the left who said that Israel was treating Palestinians like animals; and instead of understanding the moment and engaging the critics honestly, Israel hunkered down and smeared the critics, thereby discrediting itself in Europe and among young American peace types. I can point to many important moments over the last year: we have the crazy video from Judaized East Jerusalem to thank, the young bloggers of the Gaza war, the suppressed Max Blumenthal video from Jerusalem, and the silent demonstration outside the Waldorf last week with its swarming pro-Israel loonies. BDS has played a role, too. It has upped the pressure and elicited more looniness: the Reut Institute’s bizarre allegation that BDS is working in tandem with Hizbullah.
Jeffrey Goldberg and Ethan Bronner have struggled to hide that looniness from Americans, still western awareness of Israeli looniness has grown. It has been fed by the Dubai hit captured on surveillance tapes and Netanyahu’s crude crackdown on dissent, and his ministers railing against intermarriage and assimilation. It has been fed by the hubris of Israel’s refusal to meet five congressmen sponsored by J Street; Politico runs Bob Filner’s piece on that diplomatic idiocy today, and Ahmed Tibi warned last week,"Through astonishing ineptness, rather than principled policy, Israel is risking the anger of its bankroller."
And today Netanyahu has exhibited more looniness, insisting on Israel’s right to East Jerusalem.
When the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs declares war on our president and then says his policy is "to make Israel cough up Palestine," any sensible person says I want nothing to do with these people. And when you remember that it was this very same thinktank that in Colin Powell’s view hatched the idea for the Iraq war, you say, Please get out of my life, now.
Suddenly the special relationship is embarrassing. Israel is like a bad party guest. We enabled its drunken behavior for years, now people are starting to talk.
It is only a matter of time before this new mood is reflected in the modern American ceremonies of scrutiny: investigative newspaper stories (catching up with Grant Smith), grandstanding op-eds that discover the existence of the Israel lobby, and more and more Congresspeople who dare to speak out. I’m optimistic. The high beams are on the special relationship, because it has done the unforgivable, it has damaged our pride.
Well it hasn’t damaged McCain’s or Lieberman’s pride. They just spent a half hour
on C-SPAN tossing each other cupcakes, repeating every hasbara kiss; their bottom line is that any dispute between the family (Israel and the USA) shouldn’t be aired in public
because it gives prupaganda ammo to Israel’s enemies and there’s no space between the US and Israel because that lack of space is what’s most needed for peace. They did not suggest any explanation of why Hillary, Beiden, and Axlerod went public.
Yes, but the beauty of it, Citizen? McCain and Lieberman sitting together and making nice-nice shows the to the American public on both sides what a horribly corrupting influence on American policy Zionism is.
Except for maybe Witty, we couldn’t ask for better poster boys in that regard.
What percentage of the US public watches CSPAN?
What this is going to do is put the Democrats in the position of choosing between Israel and their president, as the Republicans rush to choose Israel over the US. Up to now, Israel was the single bipartisan issue in American politics, but the latest developments are causing a split.
Eric Cantor has joined the chorus now.
Phil – you are no doubt more knowledgeable of the political atmosphere in Washington…but when I see characters like Oren and Friedman, as well as the Israel Lobby, making a huge fuss over what is going on, I can’t help but feel that the reaction is that of extreme exaggeration. If the American-Israeli shackles (and from an American POV, I indeed see it as shackles) are stressed to ANY degree, these people and groups start crying wolf – they act as if the sea levels are about to rise 500 meters. [i]Anything[/i] short of a completely bound America, with no stress on the ‘special relationship’, is an excuse to scream that the sky is falling. For all we know, those shackles could be using high strength steel that won’t yield anytime soon.
Why do you feel now is any different? What makes it different than any other time?
And more importantly…do you think the average American electorate (a) even knows and (b) even cares? And even if they were aware, the reality is always distorted due to the extreme bias in our media.
I won’t purport to speak for Phil, but from my point of view, now is different than other times in the past particularly because of two things:
1. Criticism of Israel isn’t as taboo as it used to be thanks to the showdown between Netanyahu and Obama.
2. The US is reaching a breaking point in that region given the Russia-Iran-China triangle and the loss of Turkey as a key ally thanks to Israel. The US needs the Arab states and constituents in those states on its side to — generally speaking — “push” against that triangle. As of now, Israel stands in the way of the US achieving those goals.
Well put Avi,
The Patreaus leak mentioned a crucial point. While the Iaraeli lobby is powerful, it is not as powerful as the defense lobby and it seems that the DOD is publicly alnowledging that Israel has become a strategic liability.
AM, just to expand on Avi’s second point: add the THE MILITARY.
The military is saying that Israel is a threat. And Avi identifies some of the countries involved in the issue. It’s fuel. The US cannot lose the oil-producing Arabic states’ resource to these other countries.
An older friend of mine who was so friendly with former Sec of Def James Schlesinger that he called him Schlessy, which was his nickname, told me that Schlesinger told him the number one issue, the most strategic element for the US military is fuel, before anything. Before food, before boots, before bases, before guns or weaponry.
If the military does have fuel is cannot do a damn thing, can’t run trucks, can’t deliver weapons, can’t move troops. Schlessy apparently said that oil was not a consumer item. The Government considers it a national security item, and it’s number one, and we go to war to get it, and we go to war to prevent others from getting it.
China is looming as a huge oil gobbler. Iran can’t refine oil, it can only sell, so it’s needs oil for its domestic needs until it builds its nuclear power plants. If the Arabic states get fed up with US/I shenanigans, and the US inability to act separate from a right-wing Israeli govt run amok, it will go where the money is, and the agita is less.
My men can eat their belts, but my tanks need gas!
Patton
You guys are definitely more hopeful than me that a real shift is happening. We’ll see.
For all we know, Netanyahoo could back down on this issue, and then everything will quiet down and that will resolve the ‘issue’, and business will continue as usual – constant evictions of Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem, the fencing off of more and more Palestinian Land, the second class status of Arabs, etc. etc.
AM wrote:
“Why do you feel now is any different? What makes it different than any other time?”
Well any *real* difference in such things usually starts with some different intellectual paradigm coming to the fore. And insofar as this situation is concerned I think one can see that change whereby finally, officially, a U.S. President is saying that what happens in the I/P situation is of enormous consequence to the interests of the U.S. And in this case it was done as bluntly as was merited via Biden’s saying to Bibi that Israeli goofing around with the Pal’s was “dangerous” to the U.S.
While of course everyone recognized this before—including the neo-cons, which is why they so strove to deny it—it’s different now I think. Unless they want to call Obama and Biden and Petraeus and the U.S. military anti-semitic, to every argument that the U.S. ought to support Israel doing X, Y or Z the question can be openly put, with all the authority of Obama and Biden and etc., “So what, what about *our* interests?” (Without being called an anti-semite.)
Can be very powerful. Might turn out to be. Maybe not be a full paradigm shift, certainly not to be realized immediately, but instead of just being a marginal kind of thing has a revolutionary potential and is a step towards same.
I propose a moratorium
on the word paradigm.
Yeah I know, I flinched when typing it, but it’s apt, and what’s the synonym? “Construct”? More than awkward.
Biden was specific in a very key way, a very politically volatile way–he specifically said that Israel’s defiance on the settlements issue threatened US troops all over the Middle East. Nothing is more politically powerful than couching an argument made in public
than an appeal to protecting US troops, our boys and girls over there. This is the greatest fear of those always pushing the status quo regarding Israel-US relationship.
We should and wait and see the end result. Never in the history of the US has any government (administration) jilted its elites. It will be a new day if anything substantive happens. I am not holding my breath.
I think Israel and its allies in the US will play it like this:
They will say–and most of elite Washington, including the media, will circle the wagons and agree–that the problem is Netanyahu, not Israel’s institutional policies towards Palestinians. Thus Netanyahu must go.
He will be replaced by a more civil and softer face, perhaps Livni–who knows?– who will be more politically adept and more PR savvy.
Israel’s policies won’t change of course, but the messenger will appear more reasonable and diplomatic.
There was an odd item in my newspaper about rumors that the ’1600′ announcement was a right wing ploy against Netanyahu, claiming that Netanyahu would be prepared to do concessions.
Meanwhile Kadima also signalled that they would be willing to replace the far right – while keeping Netanyahu .
This suggests a slightly more conservative change than your scenario.
You mean they will push forth an Israeli Obama to soothe our Obama?
Yes, where is the Israeli Obama?
Don’t worry, they’ll find him/her.
Not Netanyahu. The blame will be put on Lieberman and Yishai, on YP and Shas. BYahoo should have preemptively fired both of them.
The greatest change possible would be a shift in the ruling coalitition from right/center to center. Kadima has said it would come in if BYahoo dropped either YB or Shas.
I have always been puzzled by the notion that there exists a “special relationship” between the US and Israel, as if that explains and justifies anything and everything. I never voted on this alleged special relationship. And what does it mean anyway? That our relationship with Israel is closer, more important and deeply vital, say, than our relationship with Canada, England, Australia, Germany, Ireland, France or Italy?
I read once that the first use of the phrase “special relationship” was first used by John Kennedy in a welcoming talk during a visit to this country by Golda Meir. It’s a little depressing to think that all a president has to do is lay on the blarney during a feel-good welcome-to-America speech and forever that’s official American policy.
What I find laughable and disgraceful is US politicians saying “special relationship with Israel” in one breath, and “neutral mediator for Israel/Palestine negotiations” in the next.
Here, let me explain to you what the”special relationship ship, I did it on another post (recent Naomi post) –
This is because Israel is the colonial baby of an elite here in the states, and what baby wants baby gets. Just like others elite colonial projects from other nations were supported – why don’t you ask the lords of the English about Africa, or India (in the time). That is what Israel means every time they speak about that “special relationship” with that smirk on their faces, they are in the colonial cradle. Thios in government here are only “doing their job” which is to fawn over elite desires, whatever they may be. Oh, were you under the impression that these government representatives (for the most part) served the people? banish the thought from your minds.
Poignant observations in my opinion, VR. Thanks for sharing.
VR, your point resonates with mine, that Judaism and Jewishness have nothing at all to do with Israel, except insofar as the Zionists can use Jewish problems to their advantage. And those problems don’t even exist anymore.
Look, I know Phil is, and must be, an optimist (and is correct in that stance) but mark my words, if Obama actually does anything to change the special relationship, Petreaus will be screaming that Obama went to far, or something.
There’s an entire cohort of people (which that idiot Obama left in government and the military. He is not a smart man, I do not care what anyone says) whose careers and possibly ability to remain out of jail depend on Obama having no more sucess than Bush. That’s all Petreaus is doing, and if Obama does take his advice, he’ll get stabbed in the back again.
So Bush’s six-week punishment wars end up lasting six years, and Petreaus was just waiting for Obama to come along?
The only president since 1948 that got away with putting the US interests first over Israel’s was Ike, the same president who first warned about the military-industrial complex. No other president has had that much credibility, which Ike earned of course (not that I agree with everything he did in office, nor even especially in the waning days of WW2). Johnson really sewed up the special relationship at the
expense of our brave sailors on the USS Liberty–and McCain’s father aided him
immensely. Ford, Bush Sr were tripped up; the balance of the presidents have been pushovers–now, it’s Obama’s turn?
Truman was a Zionist who needed money for his whistlestop campaign; the Kennedy brothers were killed while the tripping up was still going on.
Natanyahu and Aipac in their over-reach offended American pride.
To rectify this, Natanyahu and Aipac are going to join forces with the zonked out on ‘Obama is a Moslem’ GOP to destroy Obama and render him a one-term president.
Natanyahu thinks he can in the meantime buy time – without changing policy as the White House is now demanding of him.
Aipac needs to really watch it if it intends to pit one democrat American against a republican over Israel support. Aipac will lose much of democrat support if theydo so.
Or so AIPAC hopes.
Here’s what I’ve noticed: the Democrats are silent. They don’t know which way to jump. It’s obvious to them by now that the Republicans and AIPAC are forming an alliance to defeat them in the next election, but so far they haven’t been able to stick out their necks and take a stand – with Obama or against him.
The military lobby is about the only lobby more powerful than Aipac. If General Patrius is now himself telling us that Israeli brutality against Palestinians and their continuing unchecked land-theft is putting the lives of our soldiers at stake, then that piece of news indeed by now already spread around the armed forces and their families.
For Obama to back down from his current demands of Natanyahu ie freezing the settlements in Jerusalem, releasing a list of Palestinian prisoners, removing certain blockades from the West Bank and seating his arse around the peace table – if Obama backed down from all that in any measure, boy would THAT in itself further endanger the lives of our troops. For all those democrats in congress hesitating, we shall see in the next few days who of them are the real fucking traitors putting Israel before the lives of our troops.
If Aipac wants to play the divisive game instead of the bi-partisan one, the backlash against them will be enormous – the African American community for one would become immediately hostile and highly mobalized against them. This will likely stir racial tensions within our shores and destabalize our civilian lives.
It would be interesting to see how Aipac plays it’s cards between now and the start of their annual confrence in 9 days time.
One thing’s for sure, this story is here to stay till Natanyahu backs down. Or Obama blows it.
If Petraeus has ambitions for the Republican nomination any time soon, or the Republicans have ambitions for Petraeus, this stance will be at odds with their current program of using Israel as a club to beat Obama with.
Too right potsherd,
In fact, I suspect we’ll see Bill Kristol, McCain and Lierberman doing everythign they can to avoid mentioning Petraeus’ name in regards to this debate.
“If General Patrius is now himself”…has he been having identity problems?
Sorry, sometimes I can’t help it.
I doubt if anything Aipac does will be done openly enough to cause public anger. In fact, what Aipac will do is what it has always done–direct money to “supporters” of Israel and direct money from “opponents” of Israel.
And though the influence of money and lobbyists on congressional vote-buying should be shouted from the headlines daily, it never is and I doubt if it would be in the scenario of Aipac funding republicans. They already do that.
Petreuas is just throwing curve balls loaded with crap at Obama.
So to the War on Iraq, Petreaus had no objections, certainly none worth resigning over. When did he learn to be truthful.
Watch, whatever Obama does do, Petreaus will say it was wrong.
Anmd if American troops do get involved in any way, they will be used by the Israelis to do more harn to the Palestinians.
Making the right noises about the issues doesn’t change a person. Or even a General.
So maybe Obama and Petraeus are on the same wave length? Each from their special perch? And the same along the rhetorical way there, as they kept stepping up in power?
Holy shit. Read the JINSA screed that Phil highlighted.
link to jinsa.org
They ramble like retards in their writing
I thought the “r” word was taboo now?
JINSA gets bonus points for the racist comments about Palestinians from the very first paragraph.
These guys really do hate America, don’t they? I don’t mean that facetiously. I mean they hate everything that egalitarian, democratic ideals and universal human rights stand for?
Those kind of attacks on the Prez are likely to get the attention of PEP liberals, and sites like Huff Po and Daily Kos lib, no? I’m not sure of the outcome, but to have the lobby firing at least somewhat popular President is much more dangerous (for the lobby) than going after Jim Moran or something. They like their attacks to be out of the sunlight, and this one is there for all to see.
And recall, absent Perot, George HW Bush might well have withstood the lobby’s effort to punish him for objecting openly to settlements.
Starting to. This diary link to dailykos.com made the rec list at the Kos site today, with little of the usual Zionist opposition.
But they fail so far to address the political problem posed by the Republicans embracing Netanyahu and claiming the problem is all Obama’s fault.
a caller to C Span Wash Journ, a Black man, just revealed the wild card to whether the Democratic party will lose its Black base: it’s health care, and the Israel Lobby knew this almost before Obama was elected. Several days ago a leaked memo from the Israeli foreign ministry calculated that Obama was not focusing on I/P but was absorbed with health care reform and the Fall elections. (MRW pointed out that Israel installed the phone system in the White House, which tips the balance against Israel being shut out of all-important information loop, that currency worth even more than gold in a troubled economy).
If the Obama admin passes the health care bill, ANY hcr, Blacks will more likely stay with the party. If not, Black people, who, in my observation, have been among the vanguard to call on US to reassess the ‘special relationship’ in spite of the gratitude many Blacks express for Jewish support in civil rights, will stress the system and threaten to bolt the Democratic party. After all, there are a lot of Black men and women in the military.
Now we know who writes the talkbacks on the Israeli news sites.
I stopped reading after the second paragraph when the article blamed Turkey for increasingly supporting terrorism and radical ideology.
AIPAC is publicly criticizing American foreign policy on behalf of a foreign state. Why exactly are they not required to register as a foreign lobby? Why do they still have tax exempt status when they are brazenly violating yet another American law?
Foreign Agents Registration Act
********
Why do we still give stacks of cash to an ungrateful and rude Israel government? Congress is borrowing the money from China, Japan, and Europe, and we American citizens will eventually be taxed to pay back the loans. What exactly are we getting out of this arrangement?
A Conservative Estimate of Total Direct U.S. Aid to Israel: Almost $114 Billion
********
from The Strategic Functions of U.S Aid to Israel
********
Note that this direct aid is a fraction of the total outlay of American support. See Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy for a more thorough accounting. It is available in many county libraries, and can be easily found on Amazon with a title search.
In fact, Israeli population is about 0.1% or 1%%. A mistake of two orders of magnitude only.
Good catch. I didn’t notice that the author forgot to move the decimal place over by two spaces after appending ‘percent’. Israelis are 0.1% of the world’s population.
0.001 = 0.1%
0.001 ÷ 1 = 0.1 ÷ 100
one would think that the one-two punch of, “Israeli actions threaten US military” and “US economy is harmed by support for Israel” would be enough to convince even Republicans that unconditional support for Israel is not a good business decision.
The sanctions that US Congress has been imposing on Iran since 1995, at the behest of Israel/AIPAC, have worked to HARM American interests while favoring Israel, and leaving Iran relatively unscathed. For example, when US corporation Conoco was forced to forego a contract with Iran in 1995, several other nations stepped in to do the work, and collect the revenue. Heck of a job, Brownie.
At a time when US workers are starving for employment and clamoring for consumers, what magic pixie dust induces the pro-business GOP to believe that shutting out a market of 70 million educated and sophisticated Iranians with 30 years’ worth of pent up demand, is a pro-business strategy?
Well, PG, one would have thought the one-two punch of “Bush and the Pentagon lied about WMDs,” and “Thousands of American soldiers and over a million Iraqis are dead because of it,” would have been enough to warrant impeachment.
But there you go.
The Lobby is being quite heavy-handed in asking for help as can be seen from this post at National Review Online by a former Netanyahu aide. link to corner.nationalreview.com
In particular, he begs:
Write letters to the White House and the State Department to criticize the administration’s heavy-handedness and call for the administration to show true solidarity with Israel.
Contact members of Congress and urge them to take actions that counter the administration’s growing hostility to Israel.
I would hope that some of the more prominent bloggers on this issue would advise their readers to counter this campaign.
Good link there. Yes it has a worried tone, and it maybe worth noting that none of the usual NR editors felt moved to stand up for Israel right away themselves. I wish Joe Sobran was writing there now, and even Bill Buckley wouldn’t be totally craven.
Why is there never any pressure on Israel to stand with the United States?
Ask the Dick Wittys of the world; apparently there is only one solidarity movement
that is blessed, the others are all forms of demonization, of ill-advised bi-polar
politics no rational humanist should support.
Phil: It is only a matter of time before this new mood is reflected in the modern American ceremonies of scrutiny: investigative newspaper stories (catching up with Grant Smith), …
The last link in Grant Smith’s article, which you should read if you haven’t already, points to his new book Spy Trade: How Israel’s Lobby Undermines America’s Economy.
AND HERE’S A PODCAST INTERVIEW (28:17):
Scott Horton Interviews Grant F. Smith – February 18, 2010
Grant F. Smith, director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, D.C., discusses the US Treasury’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) that is closely allied with the Israel lobby and enforces sanctions on Iran, how sanctions and embargoes punish the law abiding and make billionaires out of black market operators, Israel’s importation of Iran-sourced pistachios that violates its own “Trading With the Enemy Act” and how the debate over Iran’s nuclear program diverts attention away from the intractable Palestinian problem.
MP3 here (28:17) link to antiwar.com
Grant F. Smith is the author of
Spy Trade: How Israel’s Lobby Undermines America’s Economy,
America’s Defense Line: The Justice Department’s Battle to Register the Israel Lobby as Agents of a Foreign Government
and Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal.
He is a frequent contributor to Radio France Internationale and Voice of America’s Foro Interamericano. Smith has also appeared on BBC News, CNN, and C-SPAN. He is currently director of the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy in Washington, D.C.
The-(NY) Times They Are A Changing. The much reviled Ethan Bronner has a piece in today’s NY Times which ends as follows:
“There is not now any threat to American support for Israeli security. But the Obama administration feels that it is investing heavily in this relationship partly because some 200,000 American soldiers are at war in two Muslim countries — Iraq and Afghanistan — and concluding their missions successfully depends partly on a solution being found to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
This is interesting. The New York Times is now acknowledging (for the first time?) that there is linkage between what Israel does in the Mideast and a desirable outcome for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The thing is, what the heck is a “Jewish” state? It’s not like France or Guatemala. Are Diasporan Jews now stateless if they don’t reside in the “Jewish” state? If a Jewish state, why not a Celtic state or Mohican state? And how does one tell precisely who is a Jew? I understand masquerading as Jews has been a boon for Russian mobsters feeling the heat back home.
A Jewish state is a state run by and for the benefit of Jews.
“I understand masquerading as Jews has been a boon for Russian mobsters feeling the heat back home.”
Why do you think they are masquerading? Does anyone have any solid evidence about this? Is the “Russian Mafia” really a “Russian Jewish Mafia” or even just a “Jewish Mafia”? I have seen allegations to that effect, but it all comes from extremely dubious-looking sources.
Some Jews. I live in rural British Columbia; Israel is doing me no favors.
Obviously, they’re masquerading to gain Israeli citizenship.
From the BBC(semi-dubious):
“Amid the innocent exodus were Russian gangsters, many of whom are believed to have produced bogus proof of Jewish ancestry to enter the country. “
“Russian gangsters, many of whom are believed to have produced bogus proof of Jewish ancestry to enter the country”
Believed by whom? Is this just an attempt to deny the (putative) fact that there are Jewish gangsters?
It seems quite probable that some crooks would fake a Jewish background, but just what proportion needed to fake it?
If it’s still there, Wikipedia has an article on the “Russian Mafia”–and there is a list there naming many of the notorious ones, often with links to separate articles about
those individuals.
As is obvious by now, the “Jewish” in the “Jewish State” is there for distraction, to tie the troubles and persecution of the Jews to the colonial efforts of the Zionists. To provide the raw material of Zionism from the gullible, dispossesed and fanatic among them.
Either that, or I belong to a religion whic demands colonial agression from its members, cause it makes God happy?
The funniest thing about it is this: where on earth did anyone ever get the idea that a Jewish State was a good thing for Jews? First, can they define what it is (apart from ethnic supremacy) that makes Israel “Jewish”? Do the ministers and administrators consult the Talmud and Haftorah for their political solu tions?
And funniest of all, apart from a legendary Jewish empire in the Old Testament, can anybody point me to an example of Jews sucessfully ruling Jews in a state? Hell, Jewish leaders couldn’t even get Jews integrated into a state until some Deists, Christians and Protestants gave us a democratic framework, which allowed us, as individuals, to by-pass and ignore Jewish leaders!
Really, there’s nothing which should scare a Jew like the words Jewish State.
Imagine being ruled by Richard Witty, and him being possibly the best there is on offer?
I do, of course declare and swear that I will reverse all my conclusions if God were to appear and make a pronouncement on the subject. His last paper on the subject, in answer to the question “Hey, why can’t we have a King and Nation like the other guys?” Was pretty much to the point, and it amounts to “You fuck up to much in that department, fellas. Build your Golden Calf on somebody else’s watch!”
Remind McCain of “The Liberty”. link to en.wikipedia.org
John McCain knows all about the Liberty. His father, Admiral McCain, shamefully covered up Israel’s murderous intentions in the attack. Apparently our “special relationship” with Israel allows that country to make exceptions if it needs to sink one of our ships.
Senator McCain is on record as describing the USS Liberty as just a little accident, a mistake, nothing to worry about–the same way he’s now describing the Beiden
in Israel incident, which he characterized (with Joe Lieberman nodding) yesterday
(on CSPAN) as a matter of a local municipality piping up about seven housing permits
being issued in an area (inferring everybody knows) which will be part of Israel after the peace negotiations–because, hey, Arafat almost signed the peace agreement way back when and that was part of the almost-agreed-to I-P settlement.
“Senator McCain is on record as describing the USS Liberty as just a little accident…”
And by comparison to McCain’s record of flying disaters and bombing his own shipmates, it was. Were there more people killed on the Liberty or the Forrestal?
Your flip comparison concusion regarding the USS Liberty incident and McCain’s flying record is insulting, especially to those Americans who have studied the USS Liberty incident and how it was and still is, covered-up, the first and only time the US Navy did this.
How many Americans died in the respective incidents is not the most material distinction by a long shot.
I assume everyone here knows about the USS Liberty; for those who might
want to know more about McCain’s cavalier flying negiligence:
link to factcheck.org
My initial joy over the Biden insult was not misplaced.
Your joy is misplaced. You are publicly licking the boot of every US official/pundit who says something slightly tough sounding about Israel, even though the administration HAS NOT made any NEW demand on Israel. Instead of holding US power accountable for not DOING anything, you do their propaganda work for them by highlighting every FART they make. What you are doing is AMPLIFYING their propaganda and participating, and encouraging others to participate (as spectators), in a SPECTACLE of pseudo politics that happens totally within the TALK of the elite, the newspapers, the leaks, the talking heads, not only WITHOUT any correlation to what is going on in Palestine, but whose whole purpose is to REPLACE the REAL conflict in Palestine with the APPEARANCE of conflict within an all American morality play.
Not so, evil. The US has made explicit demands, insisting that Netanyahu make all his non-negotiable positions negotiable, including the territory of Jerusalem.
The US has made explicit demands,
potsherd, by now it should not be left to the cynic to point out that, these so-called explicit demands, are insignificant if the US is not going to do anything in its power to enforce their position, or to react to their defiance in any meaningful manner.
America is remarkably clear in its foriegn policy. What it wants, it gets. Especially when they are the major bankroller for the client state. For decades it has made a similar demand, worded more of less overtly, making the same demands on settlements. The result of that is infront of us. That is the “special relationship.”
To expect change now is foolish. This event is of far more utility to the Israel lobby than any political actors hoping to make leverage on the I/P conflict, for AIPAC and others have claimed that Israel was “assaulted” by the US in this PR spat, while everyone (the lobby and the US administration) is going to forget about this post the annual AIPAC meeting, which is invariably going to have the US administration touting Israel First.
For the record, Obama already made a public, and far more explicit statement, guaranteeing to Israel that “Jerusalem must remain undivided.” If the US were to divert from this stance, not only would the US be charging against the policies of Israel which have remained unchallenged (if not unopposed) for decades, but also going back on its own word. To do that would be nothing short of political suicide, when the Israel lobby in the media already has Obama’s neck in their hands, ready to destroy his credibility.
Pingback: Pundit Class Won’t Shut Up about U.S.-Israel Row « LobeLog.com
Ben Smith and Laura Rozen just wrote a piece where they said this:
But Gulf and Arab allies tell Washington that Israel’s settlement moves and the derailed peace process make it hard to work with the Jewish state and imperil U.S. efforts on that [the Iranian] front.
link to politico.com
So not only is Netanyahu imperiling American troops and security interests, he is imperiling his own highly-prized Iran initiative. Good to know.
The Wall Street Journal is also saying that Netanyahu is jeopardizing the cooperation of the Arab block on Iran. link to online.wsj.com
And, of course, Abe Foxman now says we’re not allowed to say that Israel’s actions are endangering U.S. troops because it would be blaming the Jews.
link to online.wsj.com
Need it be said that the WSJ is Zionist-occupied territory.
It’s the Wall Street Journal reporting that the Arab bloc want the I/P problem solved in order to cooperate on Iran. Let’s not forget that the Saudis own a significant chunk of Murdoch’s enterprise.
I’m sorry about the bad cite to Foxman’s comments. They were in the Jerusalem Post. link to jpost.com
Anyway, the information about the Arab block wanting the I/P problem solved blows some of Israel’s “Iran is an existential threat to us all, bar none, and the Arabs are on board” schtick out of the water. It puts public that that solving the I/P problem is key to solving Israel’s so-called Iran problem. Since Netanyahu and the Israel Lobby have been bellowing that the Iran problem must be solved now, they will have to explain why they are not willing to solve the I/P problem even on pain of losing the coalition against Iran. That’s a lot of reworking of arguments they’re going to have to do before the AIPAC Iran fest.
Not to mention explaining why they are willing to endanger US troops and interests by not solving the I/P problem.
Then there is the small problem of why the world should not be concerned about whether Netanyahu is a responsible leader fit to have a nuclear arsenal at his fingertips. That Wall Street Journal article also discussed explicitly that Olmert had asked permission to bomb Iran and was denied by the Bush Administration and that no one is sure that Netanyahu would actually ask permission.
I’m with you on the Murdoch-Saudi connection.
Especially too that the infamous Dubai Hit angered and offended the pride of all the Shieks and tribes of the region. Man there is so much money invested in Dubai that affecting it’s security is crossing a red line for sooo many affluent people and foreign governments with hi investments there.
Apparently there is a global economic muscle that’s prepared to punch Israel, or anyone else, right in the fucking nose, if it infringes on it’s security. To the Saudis and Emiratees, the current popular idea of the mossad in fake wigs crawling around the streets and airports of the region, is a hell of a lot more scarier that a belligerent Iran, an aggressive neighbor croaking on and on from behind it’s own borders.
The Oil Sheiks are very very angry with Israel about the Dubai hit. And they are making Israel pay wherever they can.
I also “liked” the embarrassment, as I believe that the embarrassment may result in a no confidence vote in the current government, possibly a new election, a hopefully a more moderate Israeli government will emerge, that will negotiate in earnest with the PA, and construct an actual mutually consenting treaty.
But, there is no chance for an agreement to be ratified by the Israeli knesset unless there is a change in attitude about Palestinians in Israel.
While Phil lauds the work on the ground of BDS, Walt/Mearsheimer, the tragedy of Gazan civilians (also quoted ironically as a political opportunity), those have still accomplished nothing.
The only real political accomplishment occurs with a change of heart.
So, I agree with those that conclude that nothing has changed, but obviously differ with the proposed remedy.
Phil is in a position in which he could appeal to American and Israeli Jews, if he were willing to do the work to respectfully understand their reasoning, and make a better argument. As could Norman Finkelstein and Naomi Klein and many others.
BDS does not change hearts.
Netanyahu’s, Leiberman’s, Shas’s political incompetence is characteristic of ideologs when in power.
If these incidents change the real form of US support for Israel from unaccountable to accountable, that would be a good outcome. But, that would construct the Chomsky version of US/Israel relations (US as grand puppeteer) rather than the implied fascistic analysis (Israel as grand puppeteer). (I don’t believe that Walt/Mearsheimer speak in those puppeteering terms, only influence.)
I don’t imagine, as the fable goes, that when the Jew, Jesus kicked the money-changers out of the temple, it changed many Jewish hearts there and then. Bull Connors was heavily supported for a long time, and the US government hung in there with apartheid S Africa almost as long as Israel did, yes? Did either the original ML or the later MLK change many hearts overnight? There’s been much documentation on this blog detailing a slow change of hearts, and BDS’s roll in it. By making the
mandate statement that “BDS does not change hearts” only reveals a singular stone heart speaks.
Neither Rome, nor the Great Wall Of China was built in a day. Did Gandhi change hearts overnight?
How does the US convince Israel to be accountable? By sending Israel ever more
blank checks with no strings attached? By consistently using US veto power in the US Sec Counsel to immunize Israel from accountability?
“The only real political accomplishment occurs with a change of heart.”
Yeah, give me a call when the Israelis have one. It’s not my problem.
Netanyahu: “The building of those Jewish neighborhoods in no way hurt the Arabs of East Jerusalem and did not come at their expense,”
BDS does not change hearts.
The recent poll of Israel youth, in addition to the vast amount of anecdotal evidence like Max Blumenthal’s videos, indicates quite clearly that around half of Israelis are rabid racists. It is highly unlikely that their hearts are going to be changed (I don’t understand why the lack of spiritual growth of Israelis should be an American responsibility in the first place – grow up on your own time and dime) quickly enough to make the changes in Israeli government policies necessary to end the threat to US citizens.
However, their minds might be changed if there are consequences for their support of ethnic cleansing and colonization significant enough to put a crimp in their lifestyles. BDS is a good start. An end to the special relationship would be better.
Doesn’t it amaze you Colin how in spite of reality, Witty continues to maintain that the Israeli public are all so desperate to jump on board and do the right thing? All they need is a little encouragement and lots of carrots to get them over the line.
What also amazes me is that Witty, who considers himself the gate keeper as to what’s acceptable from an Israeli standpoint, insists it is up to us to convince him of the benefits of BDS and maintains this conviction that he’s all important in this debate?
Witty is a sophisticated and experimental Artificial Intelligence computer program. His success in passing the Touring Test bodes well for the strategic plans of his manufacturer, the Tyrell Corporation. Expect the first production models, ‘Rich’ and ‘Sal,’ to be available for sale in spring 2011, for an MSRP of $9,990. A fembot code-named ‘Sandra’ is in advanced design and will be introduced in 2012.
The Tyrell Corporation thanks the community of internet users for their invaluable participation and comments; you helped our engineers refine the algorithm immeasurably.
The majority of the Israeli public is like you and I, conditionally accepting.
Not your misrepresentation of my comments.
Sure, I’m unimportant individually, but my “type” describes the prevailing logic of the current administration and its supporting populace.
So, if you can’t convince me of the relevance of BDS, who already advocates for the green line as border, how are you going to convince ANY rational student movement, or liberal cadre, let alone achieve the consent of the Israeli populace.
The majority of the Israeli public also think the Arabs among them should be stripped of their Israeli citizenship.
That might be a condition you accept, Witty, but stop trying to staple that to Shingo and the rest of us. We’re not Jewish racists.
Your delusion knows no limits Witty,
Are you seriously suggesting that we should be trying to convince the Israelis that BDS is a good idea? The majority of Israelis voted for the most radical and extremist government Israel has ever had. The majority of Israelis supported the massacre in Gaza. The majority of Israelis are in favor of driving out the Israeli Arab population. Why woudl they agree to accountability?
Did the white supremacists in South Africa agree to the boycott?
So you can ramble on about your support for the green line all you like, you are irrelevant anyway, but the fact that Obama’s approval ratings sunk to 4% after he called for an end to the ilegal settlements, proves that the so called ” rational student movement, or liberal cadre” are in the minority in Israel anyway. They have a choice to end BDS before it begins, and that is by adhereing to international law. There’s no use pretending that Israelis have no choice int this.
You know Witty,
It just occurred to me that the reason you are so opposed to BDS is becasue you know that Israel is not open to change or a peace agreement. After all the endless rants and diatribes about building mutual trust, mutual humanism and self governance, you know deep down that Israel has moved so far to the right that it is unreachable. If Israel was a reasonable state with a majority of moderate liberals (as you insist) then they would be open to changing their policies to avoid BDS, but your fear is that you know israel won”t change. Your opposition to BDS is based on your assumption that Israel is powerless to stop it or prevent it from happening, when it is abundantly clear what is requierd of Israel to avoid it.
Your argument is a defacto aknowlegdlement that Israel are not capable of making peace or becomming moderate or mutual acceptance. All you’re tryign to do is prevent your beloved jewel comming to terms with their day of reackoning.
“It just occurred to me that the reason you are so opposed to BDS is becasue you know that Israel is not open to change or a peace agreement.”
Bingo! And next Witty will move to his next set of trenches, which is: “Don’t dump on me, I’m not as bad as the Israelis, I’m a nice guy, not like Israeli racists.”
Always grey and carrying a trunk, that’s Witty.
“Always grey and carrying a trunk, that’s Witty.”
Now there’s a poet! The metaphor dazzles with its multiple images, and sense of zoology and history, and politics.
Well, it’s at least a lyric entry worthy of Dylan, if not a TS Eliotn fragment.
… how are you going to convince … let alone achieve the consent of the Israeli populace.
Israeli consent may be necessary to end their campaign of ethnic cleansing and colonization, but America does not need Israeli permission to end the special relationship.
We need only succeed at the Herculean task of defeating the Israel Lobby. However difficult that may be, it is child’s play compared to changing the social and political culture of a foreign nation dominated by the worst kind of racial supremacists.
I’m a little bemused by the enthusiasm in this thread. It’s good that the Obama people are criticizing Netanyahu, but Clinton got tough with him too and for the same reasons–the guy is basically a moron and doesn’t know when to stop pushing. Most of us here are pretty critical of RW, but RW’s views are probably pretty close to the ones of the Obama Administration. Much as I criticize Witty for his double standards (I get tired of typing it, but he doesn’t get tired of having them), he also is a critic of Netanyahu.
The Obama people are likely to push for an agreement along the lines discussed at Taba in 2001 or the Geneva Accords, or that would be my guess. It’s what Witty would want. It would be an improvement over the current situation, but far short of a one state solution (unless people work towards that gradually, over a generation or so). And if the Palestinians push for more than 22 percent, you can safely expect to see them back in their usual role as “not being partners for peace”. If there’s any outbreak of violence, based on what happened with Clinton the Palestinians again will be scapegoats (or alternatively, the “good” Palestinians will be expected to imprison or kill the “bad” ones and we won’t look too closely at what happens in the prisons.)
So if the Obama people stay serious about pressuring Israel, but only for the sake of a two state solution, are people here in favor of that? I’d get behind it if it is what the majority of Palestinians want (though it’s probably more accurate to talk about what they’d settle for). What would the aims of BDS be if Obama is supposedly working for peace? To cheerlead for him or criticize him? Life gets a bit more complicated if he stops being the pathetic wimp that caved in on the “no more settlements” demand. Then he becomes the Leader of the Free World and pundits like Tom Friedman genuflect in awe and you can be sure he (both Friedman and Obama) will be reading the riot act to any Palestinian who gets uppity and asks for more than he thinks fair.
The problem, David, is that the problem isn’t just Netanyahu.
Let me put it differently: what has actually changed on the ground, substantively, since Netanyahu took over that was or wasn’t going on under Livni, or Sharon before her?
I would say, nothing has changed of real substance, but the pace has accelerated.
I agree.
Israeli ethnic cleansing and colonization of the Occupied Palestinian Territories has been going on for many decades under every Israeli government. The main difference between the Netanyahoo government and its predecessors is that the current gang either don’t know or don’t care to learn the steps to the traditional dance of implausible denial and willful ignorance with Europe and the United States that has allowed Western political leadership to pretend that Israel is doing nothing unethical (or illegal with respect to Western law) with the diplomatic, financial, political, and military aid with which it is showered.
VP Biden can’t pretend there is nothing going wrong in Israel (funded with American tax dollars) when they humiliate him before the world by presenting him with the choice of making an enormous and unauthorized diplomatic stink (by simply walking away) or groveling like a poltroon. He tried to split the middle and didn’t pull it off.
Sen Levin’s commitee is questioning Gen Petraeus now (CSPAN) on CENTCOM’s information operations (mission: to simply tell the truth), such as increased networking in Afghanistan as is done in Iraq, and between the two war regions, and the new CENTCOM Cyber-operation seeking to stop terrorist propaganda on the internet “without endangering free speech”).
Levin begin the Q & A by telling Petraeus we need to keep all options on the table with Iran, and sequester Iran’s oil exports and cut off Iran’s refined oil imports. (Thus making Iran dependent on civilian use of its nuclear material, which we will not allow, even if we have to go to war on Iran).
McCain’s now telling Petraeus, “Isn’t it true Israel left Gaza and got rocket attacks in return, so what can we do to help our closet ally, to defuse the tension?”
Petraeus says that’s not in CENTOM jurisdiction, but he keeps an eye on that area, and
asked Mitcherl to keep us briefed. And Gen Dayton is training the Pal security forces.
Petraues . The General has never sent a formal request to include I-P area as part of CENTCOM, but what is done (by Israel) in the area has “a tremendous affect” on
CENTCOM operations–at this point, CSPAN cut away from the on-going Q & A–JUST WHEN IT WAS GETTING INTERESTING.
Another good thread!
Pingback: WEISS: Suddenly the ’special relationship’ is . . . embarrassing