The Economist's latest cover was Please Not Again and showed a contemplative Obama (that might be redundant). Other headlines, including "US, Israel and the Arabs," warned of yet another war in the Middle East. The package included this piece called, "Great sacrifices, small rewards Has America's obsession with this region been worth it?" which speaks bluntly of the political power of the Israel lobby:
America¹s pro-Israel lobby shows no sign of losing strength. Jonathan Broder, foreign-affairs editor of the Congressional Quarterly, discerns an effort by Republicans to woo Jewish voters, long more supportive of Democrats, by outbidding the administration over Israel. Eric Cantor, the incoming House majority leader, has proposed moving the $3 billion annual military grant to Israel from the foreign-aid budget to the Pentagon, in effect shielding it from spending cuts. "Not only would this remove a lever for American pressure," warns Mr Broder, "it would make us silent accomplices in the settlement process."
That's amusing. As if we've been opposing it!
However, other Washington observers lament that the lessons of failure in the Middle East have yet to be learned. "Obama said that we had not only to change the war in Iraq, but to change the mindset that led to the war, and this has not happened," says Brian Katulis of the Centre for American Progress........
... The Obama team may have underestimated Mr Netanyahu¹s ability to resist. The White House was outfoxed in Washington, where the Israeli leader used the mid-term elections for Congress and pro-Israel Republicans to cow the administration. The effort to coax Israel with American gifts, say Mr Obama's defenders, was a recognition that action was urgent. "They saw a risk", says Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group, "that if things don;t happen in the next few months, they may lose two years in the run-up to the next US election, and have to kiss the whole Obama peace agenda goodbye." This hiatus could affect a range of Middle Eastern issues, from Iran to Lebanon.
By this logic, the administration¹s willingness to pay to keep peace hopes alive can be seen as admirable commitment rather than feebleness. Israel may have outbluffed America, using the power of its supporters in Congress, but it stands increasingly isolated in the world. The next time America asks Mr Netanya....... ............
Mister Obama does not fully realize that he is dealing with Zionism and what that means today. link to counterpunch.org
Annie posted a link to a right-wing Jewish site condemning this article and the Economist in general as anti-Israel.
Perhaps 2012 will be the year that the American masses start scratching their heads as the donkeys and elephants battle more in the light as to which one holds Israel and all it does most sacred? Be fun to watch Obama and Palin wearing dual flag pins in head to head public debate.
‘By this logic, the administration’s willingness to pay to keep peace hopes alive can be seen as admirable commitment rather than feebleness.’
More upside-down, inside-out (not to mention stale) indoctrination from The Economist, which last week inverted reality to call Gaza ‘a base for war against Israel.’
If you read the NYT with your left eye and The Economist with your right eye, it produces a startling ’3D hasbara’ effect!
The Economist supported the Iraq war and these people saw right through Judith Miller at the time. They perfectly knew they were supporting a war based on lies to the populations which revealed to me their deeply undemocratic leanings (in my view, even if you were leaning pro-war, if you were supportive of democratic principles, you had to oppose it because of the fascistic way it was sold to the public). They have lost all credibility to me at this time. Not that they are not the best informed weekly overall.
Plus seeing their last cover “The battle ahead, confronting the public-sector unions” is disgusting: after everything that’s been robbed by the bankers, they highlight the threat of public-sector unions and the need to starve them. Quite pathetic really.
Why aren’t they that tough on the bankers? ;-)
Nobody is allowed under any conditions to be anti-Israel, no matter what the rogue state does.
” a contemplative Obama (that might be redundant). ”
Or oxymoronic?
Incidentally, I think The Economist is actually British, and not just English.
lack of differentiation of the other, here