David Bromwich writes that the New York Times story on wiretaps of the Israeli embassy in Washington is significant for an additional reason, having to do with the Times's revelation that "the Israeli Embassy provided 'regular written briefings' on Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza to President Obama in the weeks between his election and inauguration." Bromwich:
It adds to the probability that the IDF invasion and bombing of Gaza were brought to a close by pre-arrangement just in time to yield a stainless Inauguration Day. Something Obama could have learned from Reagan: the Iranian hostages released on Inauguration Day 1981.
Obama's silence about the Gaza onslaught was noted by many at the time. Not a word, even, about the hundred-to-one disproportion of deaths. His only comment on the subject came by anticipation, during a July 2008 visit to Sderot, when he said that if his daughters were sleeping while rockets were coming in from Gaza, he would do everything he could to stop them. Nothing further about the particular "everything" the Israelis chose to inflict.
There was likely a double quid pro quo. In exchange for receiving reports in December, the president-elect agreed to say nothing about the Israeli action; just as Olmert, Barak, and Livni for their part agreed not to spoil his opening day. They would have learned something else, too, from the transaction and the silence of Obama afterward. It showed that he would never be a serious obstacle to any plan they made or any action they undertook. The test was administered before his presidency began. He passed.
And this is the President that is “tough on Israel”?
Listen to Huckabee lately? According to ‘ol Huck, Obama would be roasting Israelis on a stick if he could get away with it. Its truly amazing how the “message” sent to the masses by our modern day media and the Israeli propagandists is so far removed from the truth.
What is so damned alarming is that so many of these lying scheming mouthpieces, like Huckabee, Perry, Bachman, etc claim to be devout Christians. Will the scourge of religious fanatacism, and the unchristianlike behaviour it illicits ever be left behind us? Mankind suffers from these fanatics horribly, and we never seem to learn history’s lessons. We all should be TERRIFIED that these religious wack jobs are being bandied forth as “leaders”. If they killed millions with swords and spears, what can a modern day crusader or two do with nuclear, bio, and chemical weapons?
And its Muslim fanatics that threaten mankind?
Since all of the above have most recently been to israel, escorted in some
cases by danny danon – what have they promised regarding the West
Bank and Gaza. Do they all follow Huckabee’s dictum, “The Palestinians
need to go somewhere else?” Is this why Netanyahu can feel so confident
in humiliating Obama? Do these politicos represent a more potent
shadow foreign policy than that practiced by our elected officials. Is this
whence comes the confidence that gaza must be retaken and the west
bank annexed?
Wish Obama would try a little harder to imagine his daughters sleeping in Gaza. Considering they are from a Muslim and Christian background, that is a lot more likely. Does he think his children would be able to live in Israel the way Jewish people do? They wouldn’t. Guess he can’t face the truth–in Israel, his kids would be Palestinian.
I have a post on one of my blogs called Was Obama Merely An Apparition?
An old rusty door-hinge could have run on the ticket for Democrats and beat any Republican after the debacle that was the George W. Bush presidency …
Obama came up with a catchy graphic and slogan, a book a la Kennedy, the shock of the “new” (he’s black!), actual intelligence and a firm grasp of policy issues, and promise of “hope.”
Now it is clear that he was nothing more than a marketing hook in big marketing campaign – he’s failed on nearly every test for achievement that he set himself. The promise of the Cairo speech was an empty promise. Behind the scenes he his administration helped out movements to topple their dictators in small ways but he’s been the vassal of israel throughout and without the United States actively leashing and muzzling the wild dog that is zionist israel today, israel will continue to be the greatest threat to the safety and stability of the United States.
If Obama does not come up with dramatic and bold speech with tangibles he will fight to the finish for in his Thursday night “jobs” speech, I and almost every liberal and progressive I know will dump him. If no other Democrat steps forward to challenge him we’ll vote for the worst Republican to finish the job of destruction George W. Bush started … then after our nation is broken we can rebuild it.
As a foreigner my observation and that of many others is that the USA can now no longer be regarded a liberal democracy. It is a plutocracy increasingly a theocracy. There is a cosy relationship between the corporate class who pay the campaign fees and the ruling political class. The fact that changing the president from Bush to a so called “liberal” Obama has not changed the policies of the US proves this. Why bother voting if it makes no difference?
When it comes to supporting Obama for a second term, remember Ann Landers’ admonition, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
The timing of Israel’s Gaza attacks, killings was amazing to witness. And Obama’s willingness to ignore disgusting.
I went for an adoring and fundraiser…to a jilted lover cast into hell…overnight.
My recollection from newspaper reports is that Obama asked that the fighting stop in time for his inauguration and Israel did him that favor. It’s hard to see why Obama would have wanted Israel’s reports badly enough to arrange some kind of quid pro quo.
“In exchange for receiving reports in December, the president-elect agreed to say nothing about the Israeli action…”
I have a hard time believing that comment.
Would any of us make a dumb deal like that?
My recollection from newspaper reports is that Obama asked that the fighting stop in time for his inauguration and Israel did him that favor, probably wanting to get off on a good foot with the new president. It’s hard to see why Obama would have wanted Israel’s reports badly enough to arrange some kind of quid pro quo. A president-elect gets regular and thorough briefings on foreign affairs as a matter of course. Israel would have had an incentive to brief him for no other reason than to be able to select whatever facts would support its actions. Obama said he did not think he should intervene while another person was still president. If his failure to speak arose from a lack of courage–well, what have we come to expect? In my opinion, there was likely no quid pro quo.
Yeah we all know by now. Please, Mondoweiss, if you want to make a dent in future US-Israel connections (to state the most simple point), then please stop wining about No-Change-At-All 2008. Just teach us how to change. By November 2012.
So: who payed how much, what what is the deal.
Now start getting a good journalist. OK?