I'm sure I misinterpreted the power-politics aspect of Obama's speech yesterday. For players this speech boiled down to one word, Obama's reference to the 1967 lines, and the signal he has sent with that word that he will not back Israel through thick and thin in days to come. The New York Times has a shocking story this morning saying that the speech was delayed 35 minutes because Netanyahu angrily called Hillary Clinton to try and jawbone 1967 out of it. So a foreign leader had a copy of the president's speech. And Netanyahu failed. "No wonder Hillary looked pleased," says a friend.
The evidence of 1967's significance is the outright blitz from the right over this issue today. "The Auschwitz borders," the Simon Wiesenthal Center affirms today in a crazy post. John Podhoretz in the Post: "he is an Israel-basher."
And Obama is taking up the battle. Ben Smith reports that the Obama people are "furious" at Netanyahu.
What is this all about? What stand did Obama take yesterday? What is being signalled? Is it about the alleged two-state solution? No. I think it is the warning that when the Arab spring comes to Israel, as it has already, with Nakba Day, that Obama will not support Israel all the way. Obama saw the ugly Israeli response and knows that he is dealing with Mubarak redux. The Israel lobby wanted an outright affirmation of support. It wanted "the only democracy" language and even explicit condemnation of the demonstrators and support for Israel's facts on the ground. It didn't get that. The speech contained no praise for Netanyahu, it gave Israel no assurance on the continued occupation. Haaretz sees the writing on the wall: the American climate is changing, and thanks to Netanyahu we are on our way to becoming "a pariah state."
The game is on in the U.S., the Arab spring is thawing our frozen discourse. Says Ed Moloney: "His remarks measure the change in the debate about the Middle East that has come about in the last few months and years. although they may well be undermined by lobby money, or its threatened absence, in 2012, the words '1967 borders' cannot be unsaid. 'Auschwitz Borders' is desperate language for a desperate situation and surely a sign of how much things have changed. The iceberg is cracking.... What's important here is the size and symbolism of the gesture, the acknowledgement of where the settlement lies, the fact that he has said what no other US president has dared say and what every sensible person knows is the way forward. For evidence of the significance of this look at Bibi's reaction and that of his disciples - all going ballistic because they know they are losing the PR game and the balance is tipping away from them. Although i have little faith in Obama's willingness or courage to put rhetoric into practice and that the devil is truly in the detail, it is now out in the open in a new way. and if he set out to frustrate any effort at the UN to recognise a palestininan state, that goal was immediately undermined by the 1967 stuff. Who could object to the UN recognising what the US president now says should be?! What would be really wonderful now would be if he won 2012 in the face of AIPAC hysteria."
The Israeli reaction is so over the top it is laughable.
They have no plan B. It is Livni or whichever Zionist is in charge telling Abu Ala
“My problem is that of security. Some said to me that there would be violence among my people if I evacuated them, but the pressure will be less if I give the right to choose. I cannot bear the responsibility of their life in case they are exposed to danger and then the army will have to interfere. ”
or it is nothing.
They have nothing to offer the Arabs other than humiliation.
israel never has a Plan B … they have one direction, one approach, one way: steamroll, crush, destroy, dominate, overpower, coerce – and that’s it
it is laughable, and sad, that they cannot see the new reality all around them in their zionist bubble of unreality (funded with endless U.S. dollars)
the world has had enough of the zionist cruelty and crimes – they will act like human beings and treat other human beings like human beings and accept the reality that a “Jewish State” is a myth – they will end up a pluralistic society like nearly all others and must be good neighbors to have good neighbors … time for the coddled, spoiled monster of a child to grow up
Phil, I don’t buy this. Obama’s speech was mere damage control for audiences in the Middle East.
Besides, what’s the big deal about affirming 1967? Bush did so, then Obama came along and did the same, only to change his mind and then suddenly yesterday to re-affirm his initial position.
It’s a ruse. The agreement between Israel, the PA and the US has always been that a solution should be based on the 1967 border with some land swaps and territorial adjustments. And, Obama said so in his speech yesterday when he mentioned “land swaps”. That gives him, the US, Israel and the quartet an easy out.
‘It’s a ruse.’
I agree.
Obama wasnt treading anywhere new with the talk of 1967. He wants to be seen as Pro-Israel. With the election next year he will gain nothing domestically by seeming Pro-Arab…
I see this more as a gambit by Netenyahu. He knows that Obama said nothing new, but by making a scene and being hysterical he can maybe get Obama to back track and actually add to the rights the Palestenians are now being told they have to give up….(de-militirized state, land swaps, no refugees the bit about jewish state and palestenian state).
And if not that, at least with the full support of Republicans in America he can diminish Obama in the eyes of voters. He’s spoiling for a fight with the election next year. He has to make sure Obama doesnt get a second term. In a second term with less to lose Obama might challenge him again. So he creates a faux crisis about how Obama is now anti-Israel…this helps make sure that the big donors avoid him…the republicans are linning up for the money…happy to say whatever sorts of radical Pro-Israeli things that will put them in power.
This was a staged fight. Obama is just a patsy in it.
yeah, this is my take on it too. i will have to review the speech but it didn’t sound very brazen to me. lots of pandering to israel, that’s what i heard.
i’ll review the nyt article but i put nothing past them. the zioright strategy is to make israel appear the victim so no matter what obama said they would have had this response. i’m not buying it for a sec. their goal is to take out obama, he can’t win w/them no matter what he says.
“the republicans are linning up for the money…happy to say whatever sorts of radical Pro-Israeli things that will put them in power.”
And who are they going to put up? The Republicans are all over the place.
It’s a long way to 2012. Israel has so many diplomatic challenges to mess up too . If you look at Ha’aretz you can see Zionism is going to tear itself apart without any assistance from the US.
This is all continuing fallout from the collapse of the neoliberal economic model and it has a long way to run .
The CBC is spinning this as Netanyahu getting his comeuppance from the firm Obama. But CBC never gets it right.
I have to agree. I can’t blame Phil for seeking some light of optimism in what Obama said, but the tempest over “1967 borders” is a conscious attempt by Israel, the right and the Zionist Lobby to massage public perceptions and move the discourse in the direction of Greater Israel, with a Palestinian “Indian Reservation” in the West Bank.
The idea of “defensible borders” has no meaning in the light of modern military technology — and the idea that Arab tank armies might cross the Jordan and strike across Israel’s narrow “waist” is pure demagogic fantasy. Israeli military leaders, the decisive victors of 1967, know this better than anyone.
I don’t buy it either.
And I am sure the Palestines don’t.
Just another ‘speech.’
Every time a US president says the US is totally committed to Israel it’s the same as telling them to do whatever they please and there will be no repercussions.
I am with Avi. I was very surprised by this “1967 boundary” debate. My recollection is that many Israelis, American officials and commentators have referred to the 1967 borders as being the basis of the 2-state solution, even though many of those same people still endorsed annexation of large areas of the West Bank. I always thought the concept of basing a settlement on the 1967 borders had become pretty much of a meaningless phrase.
I think Netanyahu’s objection is much like his “recognize us as a Jewish state” demand. He is just increasing Israeli conditions before any talks. In this case, he wants acknowledgment of Bush’s letter stating that the settlement blocks will be part of Israel in any future agreement.
Phil you are on a roll. Congratulations on yesterday’s panel. Your blog is the best. I just think you should reconsider your optimism here.
I believe that if Obama wanted to do even a little bit for peace (I doubt that this would work for many reasons, but I try to be optimistic), he would have presented an American proposal as a starting point for negotiations, as George Mitchell suggested. Instead he listened to Dennis Ross who told him not to do that because both parties would reject his ideas. (As reported in Ha’aretz) Ross may be correct. Obama will never take on AIPAC by offering a legitimate proposal.
Avi begins:
Phil, I don’t buy this. Obama’s speech was mere damage control for audiences in the Middle East.
I agree, but then:
Besides, what’s the big deal about affirming 1967? Bush did so, then Obama came along and did the same, only to change his mind and then suddenly yesterday to re-affirm his initial position.
It is a ruse
But do not agree with this. Bibi is provoking an internal US political fight. I agree it is over a trivial issue. But Obama would not risk the potential damage to his political chances over something this small. Today we are seeing GOP presidential hopefuls attacking Obama on this point. They obviously believe that this is a path to some of those Zionist money bags. No way Obama would agree to such a tactic.
I have trouble understanding what is going on. My conjecture is that Bibi is doing this to undermine Obama. I suspect that it is coordinated more or less with AIPAC and the Republican Party. Somehow Bibi must think that if he has the power to diminish the power of the President of the US that this will strengthen Israelis standing in the world and make the Palestinians more subservient.
I know this does not seem that sensible. But why should Israel act sensibly. Right now they are in a panic. Arab spring was a rude shock. Palestinian refugees are demonstrating on their borders demanding right of return. Mass demonstration inside Israel and the West Bank can be successful today if they remain non-violent. Everywhere they look the whole world is turning on them. This act of Bibi’s is irrational.
As I mentioned elsewhere, if Bibi convinces AIPAC to flex its power to force Obama to change his wording on the 1967 borders, then I believe we really should rally behind him to stand firm. That would letters to your Congressmen, Senators and the President himself. It is only symbolic but it is a chance to defeat the lobby at least one time.
ToivoS,
You may be onto something there.
I wonder, however, if Obama didn’t anticipate that, something I find hard to believe.
But, then again, Obama didn’t anticipate Byahoo’s bringing pressure to bear on him through the Israel lobby following their initial meeting after Obama took office (when was it, 2009?).
I doubt that Toivos. I would be very surprised if Bibbi hadn’t been sent a copy of the speech well before Obama delivered it.
It’s a ruse. The agreement between Israel, the PA and the US has always been that a solution should be based on the 1967 border with some land swaps and territorial adjustments.
It’s actually an erosion of the earlier US position that any changes to the 1967 lines should be “insubstantial”. See the 2002 Congressional Research Service report, page 12 of 19.
It is really a measure of the overweening arrogance of Israel, their conviction that the US is there to do its bidding, that they act so hysterical over Obama’s speech – one in which they seem to overlook he gave them far more than they could reasonably expect. The 1967 borders have been the basis for the two state solution since, oh, 1967. They have been at the root of nearly every peace plan since – including all the ones Israel has contemptuously spurned, even though they have all been very generous to the cowboy state.
I hope Obama says to the chief Soprano that it is time to put up or shut up. Either accept the 67 lines, or tell us where you intend that Israel has its borders. The deliberate prevarication has gone on for years, the lies and dissembling, while Israel clearly already has its border along the Jordan. It is merely a convenient fiction that Jews live in Israel and Palestinians in no man’s land, even though they share the same land.
The squealing is only going to make israel look like the cheap gangster state it is, as it stamps its little foot and has yet another tantrum, like a toddler in a rage, demanding to keep all the sweets it stole from his brother.
“The New York Times has a shocking story this morning saying that the speech was delayed 35 minutes because Netanyahu angrily called Hillary Clinton to try and jawbone 1967 out of it.”
the nyt sure operates like a great propaganda tool for israel… is that all it is at this point?
With Obama’s purported concern for leaks, why isn’t anyone in our lap dog media asking who give the speech to Netanyahu and so very far in advance?
why isn’t anyone in our lap dog media asking who give the speech to Netanyahu and so very far in advance?
because people already know, it was probably ross or indyk.
[The Haaretz headline tells us they thing about Obama's speech in Israel.]
Haaretz
Published 21:25 19.05.11
Latest update 21:25 19.05.11
Obama granted Netanayhu a major diplomatic victory
After Obama accepted Netanyahu’s demands, the PM now cannot be apathetic to the U.S. president’s proposal for 1967 borders.
By Aluf Benn
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can feel satisfied while flying to Washington Thursday night. U.S. President Barack Obama has granted Netanyahu a major diplomatic victory.
. . .
link to haaretz.com
The way this story broke is curious. There were something like 7K headlines about Obama throwing Israel under the bus…in the course of one day….
It reminded me a lot of those ‘drudge’ related stories that have popped up in the past few years. The ones where people resign based on an avalanche of controversy that once the dust settles turns out not to be true.
Obama didn’t throw Israel under bus in that speech, yet that is the POV that was put out there…and then thousands of outlets run that story and then there are stories about that story with quotes by all the ADL, Wiesenthal, Republican candidates, etc
And within hours, the facts of what he originally said are lost and forgotten.
IMO this didn’t happen by chance. There is a design to it. The quickness with which the republicans piled on Obama, IMO shows a close coordination between them and Netanyahu.
has taken over that country – and as many know – and dread – that insanity has reached out and grabbed significant sectors of American Jewry.
Only if we acknowledge whatmessianism really means – on an emotional/psychological level – can we understand the hysterical reactions cutting across much of the right and deep into the Israeli commentariat and people. The over-the-top reactions we have witnessed – with much amazement – can only be explained in a messianic-cult context – because ’1967′. which was a mere word for us – a potentially meaningless one in reality – was somehow perceived as code to them.
The short of it is that to Israelis (yes, most of them) it’s all about what they really want – with the rest being just a question of how to get there from here. Whereas for the rest of us out there it’s about what they should want, assuming they are sane.
It’s that assumption that should be questioned, IMO. Before it’s too late, I hope.
There is no Moshiach and there is no such thing as Jewish exceptionalism and the decisions a country makes have consequences. Jews collectively can also make bad decisions. That is what Jewish Israelis have to learn.
I would like to respectfully disagree with those who have lambasted this speech as being nothing. I think one should read the speech from an Israeli perspective and see what it did NOT say. We have to read between the lines. The message is implicit, not explicit, because US politics won’t allow for an explicit statement. But the message was nonetheless loud and clear. Below is an abridged transcript in which I have bolded the phrases that particularly jumped out at me and made some observations in italics.
Sometimes diplomacy can be more in what you DON’T say than in what you do; in how you frame things to leave an implication hanging in the air without denying it.
Granted he referred to a “Jewish state” in the latter half of the speech, which is in direct contradiction to all this — but isn’t the contradiction even perhaps part of the message he was trying in a veiled way to get across? Sure, he can pay lip service to this concept – but if he really is serious about holding America to all these core values, the concept is unsustainable.
You’re giving him way too much credit. This sounds a lot like the 11 dimensional chess theory that Obamaphiles were preaching for the first couple of years, before they retreated to “He’s doing the best he can with the Republican opposition he’s got.”
American Presidents always praise demonstrators for freedom in enemy countries and in friendly countries after the fact, if they are successful in overthrowing one of our clients. It doesn’t mean that they are going to be morally consistent. Obama used idealistic rhetoric when talking about demonstrators against Arab dictatorships–he returned to the usual rhetoric about Israelis fearing their children would be killed, while Palestinians feel “humiliated” (gosh, which is worse, humiliation or having your child blown up?).
I think there is real tension between Netanyahu and Obama, but that’s nothing new–there was real tension between Clinton and Netanyahu. Netanyahu doesn’t play the game very skillfully–he’s supposed to sound like he wants peace and he barely bothers. He humiliates Obama. The fact that Obama doesn’t like him doesn’t mean he is truly on the side of the Palestinians.
I could be wrong about all this, of course, but nothing so far looks any different from what we saw during the Clinton era. The Palestinians are a nuisance to the US, and sometimes Israel is too, but Israel is our ally, or so we always hear, and if push comes to shove, we side with Israel.
bijou, I appreciate your highlights of Obama’s speech, but think that his exclusion of the Palestinians from these lofty pronouncements speaks louder than the pronouncements themselves. I didn’t see anything threatening to Israel, but only hypocrisy as usual. Of course, there was underlying hypocrisy in how Obama has reacted so differently to the events in the different countries, depending on how faithful their dictators have been to US interests. This is nothing different.
>> “The Auschwitz borders,” the Simon Wiesenthal Center affirms today in a crazy post.
They sure know how to “Remember the Holocaust!” It’s good for business.
>> bijou: The message is implicit …
I believe you are far too generous to Mr. Obama.
Obama’s speech is irrelevant in any event; the very most that even the most liberal Israeli government can possibly offer is far less than even the most moderate Palestinian leader will ever accept if he values his life. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply delusional.
Abbas’ intransigence toward even coming to the negotiating table, let alone making a final peace, are going to be more pronounced now than ever, and are unlikely to improve with Hamas riding at his side. His stewardship of the Palestinian Authority has been a sad, sorry failure.
In 2005 he received the priceless concession of a full withdrawal from Gaza, only to watch Hamas spread all over the strip like a slime. In 2006, he lost an election to the terrorist group, and was thrown out of Gaza by them altogether in 2007. In 2008 he received an offer of statehood slightly more generous than the one Arafat thumbed his nose at in 2000/2001, and rejected it without making a single counter-offer, just like his predecessor. In 2009 he told the Washington Post that he was through making concessions and would sit back and watch Obama squeeze Israel for them instead. In 2010 he had effectively jettisoned negotiation for UN support for a state. In 2011 he has now reconciled with the violent terrorist group who evicted him from Gaza, and brought them into his government. His term of office expired more than two years ago.
He has never negotiated in good faith and has sought one alibi after another to refuse numerous peace offers. His recent NYT op-ed made perfectly clear that even statehood within the ’67 borders will only serve as a platform for carrying on the conflict through other venues. He is still refusing direct negotiations, still rejecting a two-state solution, still demanding an endless “right of return” to Israel, still refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and still insisting that the Jewish people have no legitimate attachment to Jerusalem and, for that matter, to any of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. These facts, sadly, can no longer be denied.
This will not end well.
Thanks for chiming in, ‘Robert Whatever the Arab’, former Chomsky fan, now Efraim Karsh enthusiast!
the very most that even the most liberal Israeli government can possibly offer is far less than even the most moderate Palestinian leader will ever accept if he values his life. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply delusional.
are you sure you don’t mean ‘the very most that even the most liberal Israeli leader can possibly offer is far less than even the most moderate Palestinian government will ever accept if he values his life. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply delusional.’
after all, it’s israeli who kill their own for offering peace, isn’t it?
>> … still refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state …
And rightly so. A “Jewish state” is a religion-supremacist state. Israel is an Israeli state – a state of and for all Israelis.
And you wonder why people question your credentials Robert Werdine, puh-lease!
Describing Israel’s removal of permanent IDF forces and settlers from occupied Palestinian territory – where they should have never been in the first place – as a “priceless concession” is hilarious. Israel retains control of most of Gaza’s borders and all of Gaza’s sea and airspace, as well as about half of Gaza’s agricultural land with it’s unilaterally expanded buffer zone, which the IDF regularly violates. On what planet could that be considered a “full withdrawal”?
I’m not even going into the rest of your post. It’s too funny. You’re a walking talking hasbara machine.
Holocaust®
thanks for your highlights bijou. i missed a lot of this earlier. it doesn’t change the overall disappointment i feel but it helps.
“In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn – no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.”
Sounds like America, to me.
That too will come Pixel. Egyptians are cleansing their country of the dirt and the criminals and so too must Americans.
PS – I think the line “democracy depends not only upon elections, but but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect for the rights of minorities” is a virtually explicit dig at Israel. I hear this loud and clear as him saying, “It’s not enough to proclaim yourself as a democracy if all you do is let the minority vote and then undercut them at every other turn.” I’m actually sure of it – it’s like a code phrase. What other country in the region would this apply to so aptly?
“I think the line “democracy depends not only upon elections, but but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect for the rights of minorities” is a virtually explicit dig at Israel.”
If it is then no one in the US or Israeli mainstream picked up on it, which makes it meaningless. Sure, Mondoweissers would read that and think “Israel”, but others (including some Mondoweissers) would also read that and think “Coptic Christians in Egypt” or any Arab country moving towards democracy which has minority groups that might not have its rights respected. Jews used to live in Arab countries in large numbers and their rights were not respected in a great many cases. So no, I don’t think the line just applies to Israel and while it does apply to Israel, I see no evidence that Obama intended it to be understood that way.
I think that the positive aspect is that USA is withdrawing gradually from VERY active support of Israel.
The weakness of Israel, a self-inflicted and reversible sequence, is reliance on escalating oppression of Palestinians and cooperation from abroad to do it: cooperation of Egypt in the siege of Gaza and dividing Palestinian political leadership, cooperation of Europe, or more acquiescence. Trade chill with Europe may send Israeli morale, if not economy, into a tailspin.
After all, Israel is not an imperial-sized semi-autarchic country like Iran that can survive sanctions. Israeli love-hate with Europe is quite intense. And the support within Europe for Israel is wearing very thin: Israeli lobby is weak, American lobby is strong, but with America semi-oblivious, the steady stream from ugliness from the Holy Land may translate into tangible results. So yes, there is some reasons for Zionists to get vapors after Obama speach,
It’s remotely possible that the Obama people have realized they can piggyback a change in the Israel-Palestine position on the Arab Spring. The broad-spectrum, racist Israel Lobby weapon — that Arabs are genetically programmed against democracy — is suffering.
But I wouldn’t give Obama much credit. He is a master hypocrite and opportunist. Hillary Clinton is another matter. She surely remembers the pummeling she took in 1999 over her greeting of Suha Arafat.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority “inside the beltway” and any reasonably well-informed circle know exactly how the Israelis operate. The dividing lines fall along (1) Israel-idolaters vs. others, and (2) those who will stand up to the Israel Lobby vs. those who won’t.
My take on the 1967 line is that the key language is “starting point”. That’s like saying the “public option” was the starting point and look where that got us. If Obama had said the starting point was the Palestinian Right of Return and reparations for Israeli war crimes, then things would be hitting the fan. As it is, Obama has offered recognizable bait to the Palestinians — the desired border. But, as on so many other issues, Obama has blown his wad. Nobody believes him. Hysterical moderates and right-wingers in Israel and the United States will scream and rave about anything less than full-throated endorsement of Netanyahu’s final solution for the Palestinian problem, but that’s just their psychosis talking. The reality is that Obama is trying to salvage a ship that’s already hit the bottom.
Meanwhile, Eric Cantor supports Netanyahu in his opposition to Obama: Ha’aretz: Obama to aides: Netanyahu will never do what it takes to achieve Mideast peace:
“Meanwhile, Eric Cantor supports Netanyahu in his opposition to Obama…”
OMG! I would never have suspected THAT might come to pass.
What next? Reports that the sun rises in the east, sets in the west, and does so on consistent basis?
Let’s not be too surprised at Rep Eddie Cantor’s confused and divided loyalties. It’s probably the only thing that got him into elective office, and the only thing which will keep him in one.
It’a a pity that “Obama” doesn’t rhyme with anything useful, the way that “Reagan Or Begin?” was used back in 1981 during the AWACs struggle – incidentally, the last time The Israel Lobby lost an important political battle [imagine, by comparison, if the evil empire of baseball, the NY Yankees, had managed a 30-year unbroken reign as MLB's world champions?]
Maybe “Barack Or The Hack?” but it doesn’t clearly enough identify Bibi as the hack. I’m throwing the floor open to suggestions.
Smoke and mirrors. Why should the Israelis be so upset about “1967 borders with agreed land swaps” when they still get the “unshakable ally and BFF talk? When they get BO’s backing for a religious supremacist state (“the national homeland of the Jewish people”); the death of ROR (“two states side by side, Israel for Jews and Palestine for Palestinians”); complete, utter and craven support for a continued Israeli hold over all of Jerusalem; the assurance that international forces will never be allowed to intervene or police the conflict as is done elsewhere in the world (Israel should provide security for itself by itself — Palestinians can now also say goodbye to the Jordan Valley); a pointed message that the US will do whatever it can to sabotage the effort for recognition at the UN, and failing that, will work to make ensure that “recognition” has as little practical impact as possible.
Who knew that Netanyahu was such a good ventriloquist?
While Obama’s rousing sentiments may have no positive impact in re: the US/Israel, perhaps they will serve to fire up Arab solidarity with and action on behalf of the Palestinians.
Ah, the “1967 borders”–words heavy with promise, and sure to lead to lasting peace, as the examples of India, Ireland and Cyprus (earlier attempts to divide a land based on descent) have shown…
Like 63 years of Zionist landgrabbing have led to peace. Ask the Lebanese.
The entire exercise was a ruse, intended to bring some measure of artificial credibility to the US in the peace process after Mitchell’s disastrous tenure and fresh resignation. Do you believe Dennis Ross would permit Obama to go out there and blow himself up in the run up to fundraising for his second term? NFW. It’s a fake fight, like pro wrestling, with Netanyahu pitching and Obama catching.
I don’t buy the notion that the Zionists know what they are doing. The biggest lesson for me from the financial crash is that arrogance breeds incompetence and loyalty to models that suddenly no longer fit reality.
Are you suggesting that putting money in Madoff investment company or Yesha real estate is not an astute way of building my retirement nest? Let me read you my last Madoff statement — o gosh, did he stop sending the statements? I was less then alert watching my finances…
The problem is that Zionists know what they are doing but not why. There is no why. Israeli policy is driven by a lobby. A lobby has to create a market for its services. Thus you must have a crisis that requires immediate attention and unflagging donations. And a list of action points, talking points, target list, donations, frenetic activity, drama, more donations etc. Does it do any good to the subject itself? What kind of question is it? Not a lobbyist question. Do you want to suggest that unlike yesterday, today’s threats are NOT EXISTENTIAL and Israel, the apple of our eye, could survive with fewer donations to the lobby? Why do you hate yourself so much?
Iran is a very good example. There has to be a crisis, and several years ago the situation was quite dire. Israel basically got rid of terrorism, there were no significant threats in sight, economy was doing nicely, Palestinians divided, Arab regimes servile or impotent. So Iran got the name of the Largest Threat. Not since Attilla the Hun did the civilization faced an equally severe danger (and Attilla was not so bad for Jews in any event). And now we have a lot of action: are we sufficiently serious about the Iranian threat? Are we responding adequately? Do we appreciate it sufficiently? And, of course, WE MUST BOMB IRAN. Or let Israel do it. Or prevent Israel doing it by doing it.
The only thing that was missing was a wee explanation how bombing Iran would help anyone. Or, slightly more hypothetically, how happy we would give day after Iran abolishes all nuclear programs (and shifts resources to more promising technologies, like improving range and guidance systems for conventional missiles).
It is very revealing how the lobby and the Israeli goonsquad reacts at the slightest attempt at reigning in their free pass. They go berserk when anyone tries to get them to face a modicum of reality, I suppose that is what decades of denial do to you. However the more they absurdly overact, the more people see them not as the victims they present themselves as, but as arrogant, overindulged, selfish, overbearing whiners with their hands out. The hyper inflated reactions such as references to Auschwitz are appalling, and only underline how they will disrespect genuine victims in a pathetic attempt to associate themselves with tragedy as a way to immunise themselves from criticism. Shameless hubris which will rebound on them. They are so crazed with their sense of entitlement, their manifest destiny ideology that they have no idea of how repellent it is and how it comes across.
Netanyhoo’s fake near-hysterical response to the “1967 borders” is no more than a gambit in the negotiations that will come in Pres. Obama’s second term – N’yahoo: “if you think that the 1967 borders will be a stating point, think again”.
“Netanyahu stressed that 1967 borders would make Israel an easy target, and while 45 years ago it was possible to defend these borders, today it is not. ”
From link to haaretz.com
Does anyone know what Netanyahu is referring to? In the prior paragraph, he mentioned demographic changes. Is there anything else that he might be talking about?
I’ve heard others articulate that the 67 borders are indefensible, but I’ve never been satisfied with why, and I don’t understand the statement of resulting from some change since 67.
“Does anyone know what Netanyahu is referring to?”
No, we all draw the obvious conclusion that ‘indefensible’ is a ruse and what Netanyahu actually wants is something different – namely, land and resources.
this is a propaganda video by the jerusalem center for public policy. it is about ‘defensible borders’. it is made w/topographica computer graphics, complete w/scary militaristic soundtrack. beware!
link to youtube.com
Beware indeed! Fact-check Free Zone Ahead!
Somehow they neglected to mention that 1967 was a war of choice, which Israel chose to launch. As JCPA tell it, poor little Israel was attacked by her nasty ol’ neighbours, again, boo hoo! Except just like every other war Israel has been involved in (except 1973), in 1967 it was Israel that attacked Egypt, not vice versa.
I couldn’t even watch the rest annie. So sick of zionist LIES. Fight your way through all the made-up crap the reality of Israel is pretty stark.
The comment thread above is well worth a close reading (excluding Mr. Witty’s) for the wide range of thoughtful perspectives presented. But there is a general lack of recognition of the Elephant in the Room: the Israel Lobby and the totally dominant role it plays.
An epic struggle is occurring now between two competing heads of state who detest one another. Netanyahu has invaded Obama’s political turf in a big way, interfering directly in the foreign policy decisions of the President of the United States in a way unprecedented even for arrogant Israeli PM’s. He has escalated his campaign to politically crush Obama, so that it has become a quite visible, quite public spectacle which the American MSM cannot ignore. He and his Lobby have allied themselves with Obama’s Republican opposition to bring the wrath of the American Imperial Establishment down on Obama’s head. The Lobby will consider, then decide whether Obama is permitted a second term or not. The Lobby will decide whether Republicans take control of the Senate in 2012.
Obama, I believe, sees the extreme threat that Netanyahu poses to the prestige and independence of the office of the POTUS. He knows that he is surrounded at all doors by the omnipotent Lobby with eyes and ears in the very walls. (Who leaked the speech to Netanyahu? Well, of course – Bibi’s mole in the White House, Dennis Ross.)
Obama, never a strong fighter against his adversaries, must use whatever devices he has available to weaken the domination of the foreign invader. A direct confrontation with the Lobby and the Zionist Power Structure that supports it would be futile and politically disastrous for him and his party. It was unrealistic to expect that in his speech into the aether.
I agree with those who say that Obama would like to use the Arab Spring as a wedge with which to undermine the strength of Yahu’s rightwing base in Israel and the power of his Lobby in the U.S. But finding a way to do this, with all the political constraints upon him, will be exceedingly difficult to accomplish. It would require the skills of a master statesman and politician. And it would demand a kind of courage under stress, and willingness to take risks for the good of his nation, that Obama has yet to reveal.
For now, Obama must allow himself to be carried along by forces stronger than he. He must protect himself and the nation as best he can with tactical measures – rear guard actions that will not encounter overwhelming resistance. And he must fight the battle against Yahu the bloviating aggressor with the pitiful weapons he has at hand.
Agree with Rutherford’s comments above, doesn’t this bring to the fore
the issue of foreign influence in domestic politics?
Correct me if I’m mistaken. Our (US) government is totally beholden to special interests; military/corporate/intelligence/foreign/congressional/whatever; any lobbying group that will contribute to reelection coffers. Insidiously these groups enable a feed back mechanism which perpetuates the system at the
expense of uninformed taxpayers
The Is/Pal issues has been subsumed into this distructive gyre.
This is not now, and very likely will never be judged on the
issues of human rights, international law, or simple justice.
The die has been irrevocably cast in the narrow interests of
greed, power, and ( G-D gave us this land, from the Nile to the Dan) fantasy.
I love this web site, and so many of the insightful and inspiring
commentaries.
BN is in real danger of overplaying this, perhaps to the point of changing the US political rules on this issue. If BN and US supporters of Israel get too loud about this, all in the hunt for Jewish campaign funding, then people in NOLA, Butte, Columbus, or Valdosta are going to start to take notice and wonder why this much political energy isn’t being expended on US issues. A hundred million little personal light bulbs would light up around the country around that singular question.
That’s Obama’s hole pair to play, should he have the guts to play it. Domestic needs vs. Israel. Hell simplify it down to just “Aid to Israel?… Yea or Nay?” Have a very loud and public discussion about it. BN is forcing him into that corner/choice with his most recent arrogance.
And if he does play it, the irony would be that he probably wouldn’t lose much of the funding because he would reestablish some “not to be fucked with” leadership cred. Money follows strength.
Perhaps this is Obama’s larger strategy — to force this issue out of the shadows directly into the light?
Great piece, great comments. Many disparate analyses, all of which make sense to me.
Since I can’t formulate a solid opinion about the speech, I’ll toss out a thought that jumped out at me.
Over the decades, many everyday Americans tried and failed to understand the “Conflict in the Middle East,” a phrase, which for most of those years, was synonymous with Israel/Palestine.
Before the net, there really wasn’t any way to get any facts. You knew it was a mess, you knew it was awful, you knew something didn’t add up but you could never figure out exactly what was going on, what the problems were, or what the ongoing conflict was really even about.
That’s changing and changing fast. While “the people” have little-to-no impact on anything meaningful in America, Congress being purely political theatre), on some level it matters what what they think they know. Far too many still believe the pabulum they’re continuously fed by the mainstream media but, what’s interesting in this case, is that the bad news is the good news.
Regardless of whatever is or is not going on with or behind the speech, compliments of the mainstream media, it’s in the fore. To that audience, understanding the details isn’t as important as the general impression they come away with. In this case, it’s that Israel has done and/or is doing something wrong. If not, why would the President be talking about Israel going back to 1967 borders? I also think that, oddly, many “get it” – the comparison to the “Arab Spring.”
If countless millions of Americans now have questions in their mind (gee, we thought Israel was the good guy?), that’s countless millions more than before the speech.
If, for no other reason than that, I think the speech had real value.
You have a point there. I noticed some of my friends who know nothing about this conflict raising questions such as “so tell me, what is such a big deal about the 1967 borders anyway?”
For neophytes to the I/P discourse I always ask them to google “USS Liberty” and “Plan Dalet” for starters.
his proposal that 1967 be the starting point for negotiations?
towards?
palestine, just and free
based on?
one equals one
…to “go back” is to lose.
The “green line of 1967″ is called by some “Auschwitz borders”. It is true that some countries have to survive with borders that are hard to defend.
USA has enormously long borders, but because our military budget dwarfs the neighbors, somehow both Mexico and Canada are kept at bay. Fortifications at our southern borders are seriously considered.
Pakistan also tries to survive with long borders and bloated military budget, but it cannot dwarf Indian military budget. So the country is plucky and paranoid in the same time.
Paraguay is a hard case. The country survived a holocaust after being invaded by Brazil and Argentina. (This is not a joke or misuse of the word.) Pakistan may have a military that is at least somewhat comparable to India, but for Paraguay this does not seem to be an option (they tried and failed in a most spectacular fashion, hence the holocaust). The country survives by the following wily stratagem: it does not alienate neighbors anymore!
Paraguay may offer a salutary example to USA and Israel. Both countries could survive and prosper with only a fraction of current defense spending.
piotr, these are interesting insights you offer. Didn’t know about Paraguay. Many European countries provide additional support for your revolutionary thesis: how about defending one’s borders by not antagonizing the neighbours? such a crazy notion!
Here’ another parallel for you from days gone by: Athens and Sparta. One survived much longer than the other at a time when survival was truly for the fittest (and luckiest). Now which one would that be?
I knew about what happened to Paraguay in that war link, but never thought about it as providing lessons, except of course to stay out of wars that could end up in your own annihilation. But it is interesting how some of the most devastating wars and genocides and manmade catastrophes get so little attention because they don’t fit into the morality plays we tell. Leopold II’s atrocities went almost unmentioned (except here and there) in the US until Adam Hosschild (sp>) wrote his book on the subject. The British famines in India are rarely cited as events comparable to what happened under 20th century communism until Mike Davis wrote “Late Victorian Holocausts”. And there are other genocides committed by Western imperialists that go virtually unmentioned (like the Libyan genocide committed by the Italians between the two world wars).
Not sure where this Paraguay war would fit in, but it’s another case of a gigantic atrocity that doesn’t fit into the standard narrative of how the US opposed Evil (Nazism and Communism), so it is not worth remembering.
In the mid-19th Century stronger states frequently controlled the foreign and domestic policies of their weaker neighbors, although the latter were ostensibly considered “sovereign” states. There was also a hierarchy of lesser states which were colonies or “protected states”. . Even then, those situations were recognized as an abuse of power. See for example § 9 on pages 187-188 of Henry Wager Halleck, International Law, D. Van Nostrand, 1861.
In the days just before the Versailles Peace Conference, President Wilson commissioned a number of confidential studies that came to be known as “The Inquiry” series. They included a report by W. W. Willoughby of Johns Hopkins University, and C.G. Fenwick of Bryn Mawr College on “Types of Restricted Sovereignty and of Colonial Autonomy”, January 10, 1919. It revealed that the overwhelming majority of the states in those days were governed by regimes with severe restrictions on the exercise of sovereignty, or jurisdiction.
Belgium was a neutralized state under the terms of the Treaty of London (1839). The so-called Rape of Belgium in the opening days of WWI was a factor that led to the eventual adoption of the Wilsonian principles regarding the universal right of self-defense and the sovereign equality of states.
Ironically, many Zionists today claim that Palestine is not an existing state because it does not exercise effective control over its territory. At the same time, Israel’s leaders claim they are ready to recognize a sovereign state of Palestine, so long as it is demilitarized; barred from joining foreign military alliances; does not control its borders, airspace, water, radio frequency spectrum, and etc. 112 other countries have already done that.
So, noone even knows what Netanyahu’s argument is? How can you argue against it if you don’t know what it is?
I don’t. I was hoping for some help on this.
After sleeping on the meaning one more night, I think Obama staked out the correct stance in his speech.
There were two critical points.
1. That Israel has nothing to fear, that the US and the world will stand by Israel’s right to exist (consider Turkey’s declaration to Hamas yesterday link to haaretz.com), including confronting all lusts for its demise.
I don’t believe that Fatah desires that Israel not exist, at least not seriously, but the September move is being used as cover by those that do have a lust for Israel’s demise for their argument.
2. That Palestine has the “confidence” of the US desire to realize a state in the near future (six months if Netanyahu shifts, a couple years otherwise). Palestine does have something to fear (not included in Obama’s speech, but the absence of even a similar degree of commitment to Palestine’s emergence is not parallel.) I would NOT expect the same commitment, as the commitment to an existing ally, a democracy, is of a different nature than the gamble that is Palestine (with Hamas participating fully, or even leading).
That is the extent of the danger.
The two-state rationale, and hence its ultimate realization, remains so long as the communities are separated. BOTH the wall and BDS keep them separated.
The few that get to meet at demonstrations, and in intentional peace-constructing meeting spaces are exceptions, rare ones. The many (but not uninhibited) meeting of Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs/Palestinians is a more compelling exception, of possibility.
Not interested.
By what it is not.
Question: is it even vaguely respectful of international law?
Answer: not a snowflakes chance in hell.
Not interested.
Richard Witty said:
‘This is what I mean:
“The two-state rationale, and hence its ultimate realization, remains so long as the communities are separated. BOTH the wall and BDS keep them separated.”
So you’d support the one state solution if BDS went away? Cool.
Now on this whole bringing people together thing–I’m all for it. Seriously, no snark. Get them together and let them hash out what they resent about the other side. Get it all out. You could go if you lived there. You’d talk about suicide bombings. You’d hear Palestinians talking about daily humiliations, violence, atrocities. Your mind would shut down. You’d go home feeling good that you managed to get some Palestinians to humanize you. You’d condescendingly grant that they probably do feel sad about their losses, and you’d blame Hamas and Likud for that. You don’t change at all.
The process would be a complete failure in your case, but maybe it would work on many others. How long this would take to change minds I have no idea, but if in the meantime Israel just keeps building settlements and inflicting violence on Palestinians, it is going to be an uphill battle.
As for me, we’d be talking about ecology, community economic development, spirituality.
And, I’d openly state “We have different understandings as to history. I respect yours, but I cannot adopt any conclusions of it that require dispossession of current residents from homes.”
“Lets work on what we can. If you cannot stand to work with me because of my different thinking on the history, so be it.”
“If you cannot stand to work with me because of my different thinking on the history, so be it.”
And that would be easy for you to say, Richard, since your side has profited from its crimes. It’s the privilege of the powerful that dominates your thinking, coupled with a sense of victimhood because of what has been done to Jews in other places that gives you a sense of self-righteousness.
You’re not interested in reconciliation, then–reconciliation includes acknowledging the wrongs you’ve done to others and you won’t do that. You’re willing for Israel to lift its boot partway off the Palestinian’s necks, but not to do anything that might result in painful self-examination. Your pride forbids it. It’s a mystery to me how anyone could spout new agey spiritual-sounding sermons and be totally oblivious to this, though then again, maybe it’s not that much of a mystery. Self-proclaimed spiritual people are sometimes more than a little self-deceived.
If stealing AND violence stops, what difference does it make?
I am an American, a dissenter for most of my life (including the present). I don’t think that I am responsible for much harm in the world.
Again, I am an advocate of “live and let live”. I will NOT suggest suicide in any form, on the part of the Jewish people (of I which I am a part – objectively and subjectively).
And, I will (and do) support and even work for the upliftment of the Palestinian.
Simple. Get off your judgmental ass. Its a vanity and a gamble. Better that you help.
Richard Witty said:
‘I live comfortably in western Massachusetts. No Cossacks are marauding around in the Berkshires. But when I use melodramatic expressions like “suicide of the Jewish people,” I distract from the mass killing the Israeli army carried out in Gaza.’
“So, noone even knows what Netanyahu’s argument is?”
Sure: ‘We have the power to take whatever we want and the Palestinians have to be content with what’s left.’
That’s his argument.
A very sad commentary Koshiro and others.
The FIRST lesson of debating is to learn what your opponent is saying, and accurately summarize, so that you can credibly address it.
To just call names illustrates the unreliability of your positions.
Or, as North does, to intentionally misrepresent is just wierd.
Richard Witty said:
‘I write so unclearly that noone (sic) can understand me. Then I accuse them of deliberately misunderstanding me.’
‘I am lucky that James North has started to translate my meaning into plain English.’
It’s beyond sad Richard, it’s a tragedy. But Koshiro’s description of Netanyahu’s position is accurate, and it also happens to be the position of previous Israeli PMs.
Maybe you missed the Palestine Papers and the Wikileaks US-Tel Aviv Embassy cables. Maybe you’ve deliberately avoided them. Anyway – that’s your problem. They document Israeli “peace process” negotiators greedily demanding more and more of Palestinians. Each time Erekat & Co. would concede to Israel demands, new demands appeared. In other words, Israel taking what it wants because it has the power (weapons, money, diplomatic cover at the UN, hasbara), and Palestinians getting whatever crumbs are left over.
BDS is correcting that imbalance of power, without resorting to the lies and dirty tricks Israel uses.
“The FIRST lesson of debating is to learn what your opponent is saying, and accurately summarize, so that you can credibly address it.”
That’s what I just did.
Of course, it kinda helps to have an ability to think rationally.
- Any claims of “9 miles”, “strategic depth” etc. are nonsense. They are militarily irrelevant in today’s environment, but even if they were not: To appreciably increase its strategic depth, Israel would need to annex the entire West Bank and then some. So either what Netanyahu says is “No Palestinian state, ever (and Jordan should better watch out, too)” or that is not his argument.
- Obama has specifically included land swaps (in the mildest, most nebulous form which still would allow even for Clinton-style unequal “swaps”) in his formula for borders. So, either Netanyahu is a true idiot too stupid to comprehend that or he actually rejected land swaps. Ergo: Netanyahu wants to annex territory beyond the 1967 borders, without giving the Palestinians anything in return.
And now, I don’t wanna hear one goddamn peep about how this comment is evil and mean, I wanna hear a rational response. But who am I kidding? You will never respond to this anyway.
if, indeed, the moment is upon us
now or never
do or die
how would we know?
only time will tell
l