A few months shy of 20 years ago, on Sept. 12, 1991, Pres. George HW Bush held a nationally televised press conference to announce that he was asking Israel to delay its request for $10 billion in loan guarantees for 120 days in order to not to jeopardize the Madrid Peace Conference, and that if Congress approve Israel's request, he would veto the legislation. He was then asked a question from the floor that was identical in substance from that raised by Israel and the US media when Obama called for a freeze on Israeli settlements prior to negotiations:
Q. Mr. President, you said that a contentious debate now could actually keep some parties away from the peace table. Yet, the Israelis claim that those Arabs who have indicated a willingness to participate in the peace process have not made the settlement issue a precondition. They say that's your precondition. As one columnist said this week, "It's your obsession." Is that fair?
One important difference between Bush Sr. and Obama is that Bush had members of his cabinet, such as Secretary of State James Baker, who were totally on his side and not in any way beholden to Israel or AIPAC. When Obama looks around the room, many associates might as well be wearing an Israeli flag pin on their lapels.
So whose fault is it that Obama is surrounded by Israeli flags? Who appointed a hive of Zionists to the cabinet? To his personal staff? To the DNC?
Mr Hollow Man can’t just blink and say, Wow, where’d all these Zionists come from?
Originally, they came from G-D’s mouth to Obama finance chair Penny Pritzker’s ear. And he needs a repeat, so Dennis Ross still rules. And Mitchell didn’t even mention that to Charlie Rose. Why he no longer has his former job. I seem to recall that when Mitchell first got the job from Obama he was talking about, inter alia, Israeli loan guarantees in the mix of carrots and sticks. He only said that once if memory serves, and now he’s out. Dennis is still there. If Obama loses next time around, Dennis will still be there.
So whose fault is it that Obama is surrounded by Israeli flags? Who appointed a hive of Zionists to the cabinet? To his personal staff? To the DNC?
Exactly. He can’t claim to be undermined by the same people he chose to surround himself with. He knew, or certainly should have known (, one of the kinder things that can be said about him is he’s not an idiot), exactly where they stood BEFORE he chose them.
Obama knew his appointees were Israeli sympathizers. He just didn’t realize that when push came to shove they’d put Israeli interests ahead of our own.
president obama’s a captive of the israel lobby?
then for us to change the world?
in the spirit of those magical eighteen days in tahrir square
justice for palestine
by popular demand
what it’ll take
Last week when all this was going on, I was day dreaming that Bush 1 might do something out of character and speak up about the settlements. But in this case, dreams are just…dreams
When Bush Sr. made his stand in 1991, it lasted only a few months to get to the Madrid Conference. Within a few months and Israel’s promise that the settlements would stop and the loan guarantees were given by the US, Israel went back to building settlements as if nothing had happened. The first US stand had been taken by Eisenhower in the early 50s to get Israel to stop stealing water. But as soon as Israel promised to stop, the US restriction on aid to it was lifted and Israel went back to its thieving ways. Stands taken by American presidents to put a leash on Israel is show business. Obama tried it but instead of imposing restrictions to get Israel to hold off for a few months, Obama offered billions in incentives and still failed.
It seems that the only president that was really serious about putting some control on Israel, especially on its nuclear stuff was Kennedy. Makes you wonder.
Yep, Walid. Both Kennedys. (Ted doesn’t count. Those wet fish on his dashboard finished him off early, plus he was never half the man JFK & Bobby were.)
Sorry Walid, and while I agree with you, in general, Israel did not get those loan guarantees in a few months. After 120 days had passed, Bush was still not satisfied with Israel’s behavior and again withheld approval of the loan guarantees and although the Congressional Record is there to record their fuming and fretting, with brave Robert Byrd the lone exception, they didn’t have the guts to challenge Bush that time either when the polls still showed that his position was popular with the American people. Rather than attack him on that issue, Israel’s US media stable, led by the NYT’s William Safire began targeting him on his handling of the economy which no doubt contributed to his election defeat. Bush’s position on the loan guarantees didn’t help him with the Jewish vote which dropped from an estimated 38% in 1988 to less than 10% in 1992.
It was not until the Shamir government had fallen and he was replaced by Rabin, and with the 1992 presidential campaign looming on the horizon that Bush agreed to issue the loan guarantees later that summer with the proviso that any money spent in the occupied territories would be deducted from the guarantees.
The man who replaced him in the White House, the Arkansas lickspittle, Bill Clinton, restored those deductions. Such deeds do not go unrewarded or forgotten. Haim Saban has already contributed $10 million to the Clinton library with more to come.
Also, remembering the taped conversation with President David Steiner of the AIPAC (at the time) bragging about the power he had over Clinton.
link to wrmea.com
Thanks for the clarifications, Jeffrey, I’m always grateful for corrections; the time frame was fuzzy in my head. Interestingly, looking for the actual time it took to clear the guarantees hurdle, I stumbled on a related aspect of the freeze from Wiki. It was happening at about the time of the Madrid Conference that Israel agreed to attend only on condition that the UN would first repeal its 1975 resolution that Zionism was racism, which the US helped achieve; another indication of Israel’s habitual blackmailing to get its way :
“As early as on May 22, 1989, Secretary of State Baker had told an AIPAC audience, that Israel should abandon its expansionist policies; this remark took many as a signal that the pro-Israel Reagan years were over…
… Throughout the run-up to the Madrid conference, Israel’s loan guarantee request remained a sore point. By early September 1991, the Administration asked Congress for a 120-day delay on the loan guarantees. This postponement was seen as a way to get to Madrid, to buy time, and to soften the domestic debate. If a settlement freeze could not be obtained from Israel, Bush and Baker wanted the issue off the agenda. “[The United States] must do everything we can to give peace a chance,” Bush said in requesting the delay from Congress. Israeli leaders opposed linking the loans to the political process; Shamir and the pro-Israel lobby in Washington decided to push forward with their request despite Bush’s opposition. Israel and its supporters in Washington began a campaign to support the loan request, but Bush, with a 70 percent job approval rating, would not back down. By mid-September, U.S.-Israel relations were tense; pro-Israel groups challenged the president and lobbied against the delay. Shamir had originally believed he could outflank Bush and Baker and turn to U.S. public opinion and the pro-Israel lobby. However, the U.S. Jewish community—though visibly mobilized on this issue—was not united in taking on the Administration, and Shamir soon backed away from a direct confrontation. With Bush’s approval ratings high, and his unambiguous show of determination and will, he gained congressional support for the delay; following that, the diplomatic pieces soon fell into place and the parties convened in Madrid at the end of October.
Israel eventually agreed to participate, but on condition that the United Nations first revoke United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with a form of racism. Under strong U.S. pressure, Resolution 3379 was revoked.”
link to en.wikipedia.org
Obama owes his political career to many of Chicago’s Jewish elites. In turn, he surrounded himself with AIPAC agents in order to repay the favor.
Besides, James Baker, it seems, was the last of his breed. He was the classic American diplomat, concerned with American interests. By contrast, both Albright and Clinton are AIPAC hacks. And Rice was concerned with advancing her own political career while having to constantly battle Cheney’s roughshod diplomacy and his Halliburton/KBR interests, not to mention Bush Jr.’s Blackwater interests.
“…Obama owes his political career to many of Chicago’s Jewish elites. In turn, he surrounded himself with AIPAC agents in order to repay the favor…”
Yes, also of note: Lee “Rosy” Rosenberg now ‘President’ of AIPAC served on Obama’s national finance committee .
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-21/business/ct-biz-0321-confidential-rosy–20100321_1_pro-israel-aipac-steve-rosen
I’m always puzzled when commentators talk as if Republicans are more pro-Jewish-apartheid than Democrats. Somebody commented that the Democrats “don’t want to talk about the occupation” like they’re dodging the issue rather than enthusiastically supporting racial supremacy. There are exceptions, like Cynthia McKinnon, but there are at least as many exceptions among Republicans.
There is not much to pick and choose between both parties on this issue. There is no one in Congress, at the moment, who will go beyond voting “no” or “present” and actually speak out in defense of justice for Palestine or express criticism of Israeli policies and actions except for Ron Paul who is too popular with his constituents for AIPAC to touch, but some of his other positions, including opposition and lack of sympathy for Mexican immigrants makes him a hard one to ally with which has been the same problem with Pat Buchanan.