After a promising beginning, the Obama administration’s policies on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have reverted to the US norm—essentially unconditional support for Israel’s follies. In particular, Obama’s UN speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was dreadful. But while outrage is fully justified, we should also recognize the fact that Obama—and therefore we on the left as well—are in an impossible dilemma.
Let us suppose that instead of saying all the wrong things, Obama were to say all the right ones. Let us further suppose that he didn’t merely say all the right things, he actually did the right things, at least insofar as he had the power to do so. Suppose he said that from this moment on, the Obama administration would end all its diplomatic, political and moral support of Israel until it agreed to the international consensus two-state settlement? What would be the consequences?
First, Congress would refuse to support him, and so the administration would be unable to end U.S. economic and military support of Israel, by far the most important components of potential U.S. leverage.
Second, as in the past the outcome of both the presidential and congressional elections could turn on just 2-3% (or indeed, much less) of the electoral vote. That means that there is a huge risk that the next presidency and both houses of Congress will come under the control of a Republican party that is dominated by know-nothings and the lunatic fringe. That is unbearable to contemplate—it could result in the worst crisis in American history since the Civil War.
Third—and this is really the clincher—I fear that Israel is so far gone that even if Obama said and did all the right things, even if he was reelected, and even if the Democrats controlled both houses of congress, it would not move Israel in the right direction.
In my view, the withdrawal of American support might well result in an Israel that would become even more irrational and violent than it already is. Do we really think that the settlers and the large numbers of Israelis that support them would give up? There is little chance that the increasingly hardline Israeli police and military would or could enforce an end to the occupation—on the contrary some Israeli analysts fear that a military coup against a government agreeing to end the occupation would be a real possibility.
Alternatively, rather than responding favorably to serious American and international pressures, it is at least as likely that Israelis would conclude that everyone is against them anyway, so the hell with them all.
If this assessment is right, then we are asking Obama to adopt policies which are likely to fail in Israel, but which could easily have disastrous consequences for our own country. In short, if I were in Obama’s shoes today, I fear I would grit my teeth and do pretty much the same as he is doing.
But what about after the elections—supposing Obama is reelected? Would that free him up to take on Israel and its supporters in the U.S? For one thing, many of the domestic constraints would remain. Moreover, suppose the problem is more deeply rooted than in what many believe to be Obama’s cynicism (though I have been making the case that it is probably more appropriate to view it as realism). That is, how do we know that Obama is not merely making hardnosed concessions to the American political realities, but is himself ignorant of the true history and realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Suppose he actually believes in—or, at least, half-believes in—his nonsensical and infuriating rhetoric? After all, not even domestic political realities mandated that he choose Dennis Ross as his primary adviser on Israel.
In any case, it is hard to envisage any realistic near or middle-term set of circumstances that would result in Israel agreeing to the international consensus two-state settlement. Many who share this assessment conclude that therefore the goal should be a one-state settlement. It is a puzzling argument: all the factors that have destroyed a two-state settlement make a one-state settlement even less likely to occur. That is, no one-state advocate has explained why and how the Israelis would agree to give up a Jewish state in which they are a large majority and hold all the important sources of political, economic, and military power in favor of a democratic binational state in which the Palestinians would be the majority.
What, then, to do? Despite my own bleak analysis, I find it unbearable to conclude that nothing at all can be done. Over the longer run, it is possible that an international BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) might succeed. As I have argued, it also might backfire, but that is just a risk that morally must be run, in the hope that the pariah status of Israel would result in the South African outcome rather than the Samson one.
In the shorter run, however, Israel is beyond saving, whether by itself or by the United States. Therefore, I don’t see any alternative to what Obama is doing: right now it is this country that needs to be saved from itself.
I think you have successfully argued that a tragic bloodbath is inevitable followed by the complete destruction of the state of Israel. The majority of the deaths will be arabs. A regional war of historic proportions will ensue, where many American lives will be lost, followed by a forced retreat back to our shores. There will most likely be nuclear exchanges as weel.
Most of the jews in Israel will emigrate (return) back to the US. The subsequent impact on our society will be devastating as the same players wield greater numbers in our politics – leading to our own destruction.
I don’t see a happy conclusion to this for anyone. Truman is undoubtedly spinning in his grave.
CloakAndDagger, the scenario you describe in all likelihood has a very high chance of becoming reality and everybody knows this. It is one of the reasons for the US support of Israel and one of the reasons why they stress negotiations. There are other routes to statehood, saying negotiations are the only way is nonsense. Negotiation is the only way to dodge that scenario though. At this point negotiations are unlikely to resume since they went nowhere in nearly 20 years. Violence and war is inevitable. I pray for the Palestinians because Israel is crazy enough to commit mass genocide one of these days.
The catalyst for the doomsday scenario will be a strike on Iran. The way Bibi was talking at the UN, such a strike is still on the table. Iran will respond and then the aftermath won’t be pretty as other nations are drawn in. Actually, the best thing Iran could do is not respond. Be the better man and condemn Israel. Then again, they got off the hook after doing the same in Iraq and Syria.
“The catalyst for the doomsday scenario will be a strike on Iran. The way Bibi was talking at the UN, such a strike is still on the table. Iran will respond and then the aftermath won’t be pretty as other nations are drawn in. Actually, the best thing Iran could do is not respond. Be the better man and condemn Israel.”
I’m pretty sure Iran wouldn’t respond. They’ve seen the US screw themselves by responding, even though the war zones were far away from the American homeland. The only sane reaction to 9/11 would have been to condemn AQ and deliver the Cairo speech right then and there. Of course, the American people would have been in uproar over such a lame response. Bush would have been denounced as a weak president in the grip of the Saudi lobby, and what not, and the Dems would have beaten the war drums
Cloak and dagger-
“Most of the jews in Israel will emigrate (return) back to the US. The subsequent impact on our society will be devastating as the same players wield greater numbers in our politics – leading to our own destruction.”
First of all most of the Jews in Israel did not come from the US, so it will not be a return.
Second of all, how will the five million Jewish Israelis be a devastating impact on American society leading to American destruction?
This is a bunch of nonsense. To call it Jew hating nonsense limits it in some way, it is just plain nonsense. Hateful nonsense.
Here are the latest statistics , especially for those predicting Israel’s demise:
link to haaretz.com
So Happy New Year, Shana Tova, to all!
L’shana tova jon s. I didn’t see that comment from cloak and dagger, that is one of the most sickening and untrue comments i’ve read here on Mondoweiss.
Israel’s population is actually not 7.8 million. It’s 11.3 million when all the Palestinians in Erez Israel are counted like the settlers are.
happy new year jon s. Shana Tova.
so there is no occupation seafoid?
sure there is. it’s apartheid. one government.
@DBG
Sickening and untrue? Really? Which part?
The prediction of a bloodbath?
The prediction of emigration to the US?
The absence of a happy conclusion?
Yeah, truly sickening.
DBG,
Why do you keep pulling out this weak argument?? The occupation is the means by which the apartheid is put in place. You may think that this is some great rhetorical coup on your part, but your reliance on it just makes you look silly.
“First of all most of the Jews in Israel did not come from the US, so it will not be a return.”
Indeed not. It will be no more a return than the migration of Jews to Israel was a return.
@wondering jew
Indeed, I should not have used “return” in my prediction and just left it at “most jews would emigrate to the US”. In the interest of accuracy many would also emigrate to Europe and other parts, but it is fair to say that Israelis would find the US to be the most hospitable of emigration targets, hence the influx.
As to how could 5 million more Israelis be destructive? Well given that the current number of non-christian zionists is a fraction of the jews in the US, and well below that 5 million number, I point to the destruction that they have already wreaked on our politics and economy and can extrapolate that the augmenting of that number by many times as many zionists would make the destruction of the US complete.
Hateful? My! We use that word with such facility when w disagree, don’t we?
Hateful? My!
You now modified your earlier statement. It gives the impression you are aware of what may feel hateful to some of us.
Your earlier statement used the standard antisemitic trope of “the Jews” as a foreign third column working from within to their own advantage to bring down the state. Never mind that in your case they are now Israelis. Would you add Shmuel and Danaa to that scenario?
Does it make any difference to you that they have a large support of non-Christians? And what do you think is the reason for that? Could you imagine that behind these forces there are solid non-Jewish (security, economic, empire) interests that possibly work in the same direction as the Israelis in your earlier scenario?
Do you think Cheney et al worked to the disadvantage of their own elites? They are just puppets on a string of a foreign power?
I think we should look forward to the day when people are judged not on their skin colour or the religion of their ancestors but on the content of their character and I think that good and bad moral characters are distributed evenly across all ‘races’, not that ‘race’ is a scientifically valid term. If a large number of Jewish Israelis should wish to migrate to the UK they should be welcomed.
On the other hand I wouldn’t rule out the idea that Cheney in his delusion was working against the objective interests of the United States or even of his own class.
C&D, i find your statement an influx of 5 million zionists would lead to the final destruction of america to be strange and hurtful. it’s not the people themselves for the most part it is the policies that surround the support for the criminal state. it’s the support of those policies threatening our country. this country has always absorbed people and been better for it. i’d much rather they were here then there.
If Israel were to cease to be a Jewish state, the problem of dual loyalty of American Jews would cease to exist, and American Jews in general would be as loyal to the United States as they were before World War Two. And I see no reason to believe that the emigrés from the former Israel would not be equally loyal.
@annie
I concede your point and retract my statement. I can see that I was overly broad with my brush stroke.
@LeaNder
Yes. I should be more careful with my choice of words. Words can hurt.
thank you very much cloak. i know what it’s like to have days where thoughts crystallize in ways that don’t represent who i really am.
I think what cloak&dagger is saying is that 5 million Jews from Israel into the US would double or increase the political pressure for Israel, provide even more support for their lobby.
It shouldn’t sound hateful to say Jews or their zionist wing are responsible for the Israel Lobby because after all it is a political fact in the US. If there were no Jews in the US there would be no lobby or the kind of political pandering to Israel we see now, except from the christian zios who might vote for pro Israel candidates but don’t provide the kind of political money the Jewish organizations do.
Of course the Jews work within for their own advantage, that’s not even debatable and totally ridiculous to try and say they don’t.
The Cuban exiles “worked within” and still do to try and influence US policy toward Cuba. For decades they tried to get the US to invade Cuba and restore them to power. And thru political money and pressure they did succeed for decades in keeping the US from establishing relations with Cuba even though it was detrimental to US agri trade.
All special interest “work within” for what will benefit them or their group.
The groups of neos like Cheney and etc. are also detrimental to the US because of their ideology and often work in tandem with right wing zionist but Israel is not their main focus, US doiminance is their focus . They aren’t tools for a foreign government but their ideas about what America should do–be an agressive power–are just as bad.
These are just political facts. You won’t get anywhere calling them hateful just because they happen to apply to Jews also.
What is ‘hateful’ is that the politicians we elect to safeguard US interest and ours are suppose to prevent these kinds of special interst undue influences on US policy–but as we see , they don’t.
On the other hand I wouldn’t rule out the idea that Cheney in his delusion was working against the objective interests of the United States or even of his own class.
Obviously not, otherwise they would have acted very, very different. But I firmly believe he still considers it was the absolutely right thing to do.
Admittedly I am assuming that Cheney has a partly Darwinian mindset, I don’t know how to put it better, meaning “the better culture” deserves to rule, and what was right in the US (native Americans) can’t be absolutely wrong in Israel (Palestinians).
Cloak, I am somehow convinced, based on my limited knowledge in foreign policy, only from reading post 911 events, that the pro-Israel hawks would have preferred to attack Iran and Syria before Iraq, and they only went along in the hope they would be taken on earlier. So, that slightly modifies my impressions about the power of the Lobby, it always has to find allies. After all Iran wasn’t attacked yet. And we all know that both Israel and AIPAC consider it absolutely necessary.
“C&D, i find your statement an influx of 5 million zionists would lead to the final destruction of america to be strange and hurtful. it’s not the people themselves for the most part it is the policies that surround the support for the criminal state. it’s the support of those policies threatening our country.”
annie, I confess that this does not make a whole lot of sense to me. The wretched policies that you are rightly denouncing exist solely because enough of these 5 million people want them to exist. I, for one, see no problem in excluding people who would support such inhumane policies from becoming my countrymen. We have enough domestic rightwingers; I see no need to import more.
+1 American. Excellent analysis.
While C&D should have made his original point with greater care and with more precise wording, this MW “incident” provides a perfect example of how using loaded terms like “hateful” play into the “antisemitic card” problem. Certainly there is “hateful” antisemitic speech out there, and it should be condemned when encountered. But, thoughtful people on this listserv, whom I have the greatest respect for, need to be very leery of prematuring labeling of comments as hateful and/or antisemitic.
I think the earlier discussion of C&D’s comment was generally fair but it ended up (until American’s brave and eloquent intervention) killing a discussion of the actual point C&D was trying to make. This was largely his fault and his apology reflected his awareness of that. Part of the problem is that these discussions often get very heated and continue into the wee hours when we tend to be more careless in our language. This is something we should be on our guard against as what we say on this listserv becomes a permanent part of our individual personal histories which can bite us and be used against us later.
The initial discussion of Jeffry Goldberg’s savaging of Mearsheimer over his endorsement of the new Atzmon book is another perfect example of the dangers posed by premature speculation on this listserv about Atzmon’s possible antisemitic motives or tendencies. link to mondoweiss.net
The initial discussion made me think Atzmon may well be an antisemite. Cooler heads jumped in and made me reconsider and respond about the dangers of that kind of premature labeling.
Today we have Mearsheimer’s detailed response to Goldberg’s scurilous claims in Foreign Policy: link to walt.foreignpolicy.com
What a difference a day makes. Atzmon comes across as a valuable contributor to the larger debate and Mearsheimer as a courageous defender of a controverial but eloquent voice. Certainly, as Shmuel pointed out, Measheimer took a big risk to his own reputation by endorseing the controversial Atzmon’s book, but ultimately we need to stand up to and call out bullies like Goldberg.
The long history of antisemism has created a raw and painful nerve in Jews, and rightfully so. But, the “antisemitic card” also has a long and painful history of creating harm and pain where there was no justification for the charge. I don’t have all the answers, but I think we need to guard against both and be careful of our language. Words matter. End of sermon.
The wretched policies that you are rightly denouncing exist solely because enough of these 5 million people want them to exist. I, for one, see no problem in excluding people who would support such inhumane policies from becoming my countrymen.
I’m guessing that the long list of Kach and its affiliated organizations on the terror lists means that the State Department, Justice Department, and Treasury Department agree with you too.
re: CloakAndDagger September 26, 2011 at 10:34 am
“Most of the jews in Israel will emigrate (return) back to the US. The subsequent impact on our society will be devastating as the same players wield greater numbers in our politics – leading to our own destruction.”
Aha – I see clearly now.
That is why we all have to be 200% “pro-Israel”!!
For USA survival sake….whether we want or not.
For a similar reason (promoting ex-migration) Balfour came up 1917 with his ill-famed declaration…
very, very good analysis, Jerry. Thanks.
Well, take a gander at the annual survey of Jewish American opinion regarding your subject matter. It appears they will vote mostly for either Obama or Romney; they are mostly Democrats or Independents. They hate Arabs, and would, I surmise mostly support Israel/US bombing of Iran. They think US is losing in Iraq & Afghanistan. They are a key swing vote in key states. They most significantly fund the Democratic Party, and are pretty big funders of the Republican Party too–most significantly, most of the really big moneybags are Israel Firsters. Read the poll results, and what do you get out of them? link to ajc.org
Perry doing the Hora without a torah? Both Obama & all Republican candidates except Ron Paul have been doing this with their lips at every
GOP debate to date.
JFK was good at using the POTUS pulpit. Obama could dust off his Cairo Speech & speak over the heads of the PTB directly to the American people, laying out the facts regarding where our Israel First agenda has been taking us. But we know JFK, and Obama is no JFK (or Roosevelt, or Reagan).
“Therefore, I don’t see any alternative to what Obama is doing: right now it is this country that needs to be saved from itself.”
This is the price of taking a cartoonishly demonic view of Israel and ignoring all complexity in favor of simplistic sloganeering that passes for thought in your movement.
In the last few months, there have been massive social protests. Labor is experiencing a resurgence. Israelis support the two-state solution, as do American Jews.
In fact, BDS has no significant victory to its name. That’s because the entire movement is based on faulty premises. The first is that Israel is like South Africa – a state with no right to exist ruled by a people with no right to be there. In fact, Israel is the internationally recognized Jewish homeland. It has a population that is in large part from the Middle East. It has ruled democratically. It is respected throughout the West, if not loved.
It has also dealt with genocidal terrorists for nearly all of its existence, on its own. At the core of the “Palestinian-led” but Western-controlled BDS movement is an overwhelming hatred that mimics the antisemitic hatred that prevails in the Arab world. BDS is paternalistic neo-colonialism, yet another manifestation of Western activists doing for the Palestinians what they cannot or will not do for themselves. The idea that BDS is “Palestinian-led”, as if it wouldn’t exist if the Palestinians hadn’t asked for it, is uber-silly. BDS is a one-state solution show, an attempt by Western activists to impose an unpopular utopian solution on a faraway land.
BDS will continue to fail, just as political Naderism, based on the same premise that putting the population through suffering vis-a-vis a Republican President would lead to revolution and socialism.
The domestic political constraints faced by Obama are the result of Palestinian irredentism. The US Congress would not work against a solution if the parties were talking. One side has repeatedly agreed to talks in the last two years. That side is the Israeli side. The Palestinian side has insisted on new concessions that were never part of Oslo, and have little to do with real final status issues.
One day, both sides will come to an agreement, but it will not be due to the misguided efforts of the people here.
Pretty touchy on that BDS thing, aren’t you Hophni? -N49.
Uh, no. Just because I have an opinion contrary to yours on BDS does not make me “touchy” on the issue. You guys talk about WAY more than I do.
Just out of curiosity, what is the going rate for shilling for Israel these days? I know a growing number of unemployed Americans who might be interested…
If criticism of Israel’s conduct and ideology is just simplistic sloganeering, hophmi, and the world favors what Israel has been doing, wouldn’t that be reflected in the line up of votes at the UN re the many UN resolutions directly concerning Israel? And ditto re the settlement issue accountability bid Obama alone vetoed? And take a vote count of how few nations stood with the US with its other 42 vetoes dismissing Israel accountability under international law. And have you looked at the few nations that support Israel/US stance on the current Palestinians bid for recognition? Oh, that’s right, the UN is anti-semitic and picks on Israel–as it did when it gave Israel legitimacy (on condition subsequent, which Israel has not honored to this day.
I see citizen. When it is pointed out to you that most Jews are Zionists then your conclusion is that Jews are deluded not that the minority is wrong. But then you turn around and use the majority argument in the case of the UN. Most UN countries just vote their interests, and they prefer being cozy with the Arabs.
How do you explain the inability of the UN to condemn what is happening in Syria unless the members of the UNSC care nothing about human rights but a lot about national interests?
As you and your ilk are fond of pointing out, eee, even Hitler won majorities in elections. And Zionist Jews were a minority in Palestine as well — are you going to argue categorically that minority opinions are wrong? You’re shooting yourself in the foot. Citizen is being nuanced and as such, his opinion more closely matches the topography of reality.
Also, the notion that the UN has not condemned what’s happening in Syria is a farce. I don’t see how you can strut around as a self-styled emperor, wearing not a stitch, and expect people who aren’t bowing down to the same golden calf (forgive the mixed metaphor if you would) and not expect people to laugh at you. You’re being absolutely comical. Tweedledee and Tweedledum have nothing on you right now.
Since Hitler did not come to power by winning a majority in elections, why would we point this out? It just shows you are a liar.
Citizen is nuanced? On one hand you say how awful Arab tyrants are (those that support the US of course only) and then you say that their vote in the UN means anything. Get your your story straight.
Your government supported Mubarak, eee, and you support your government unquestioningly. I have nothing to answer for — you do.
Chaos, do you know what a majority means?
eee:
“Since Hitler did not come to power by winning a majority in elections, why would we point this out? It just shows you are a liar.”
++++ Internet is just fantastic :
link to en.wikipedia.org
do you people not know what a majority means? read the article again mig, in no more than 5 places did it says he failed to get a majority of the votes (over 50%) a plurality, yes, but that is not what Chaos said.
why don’t you read mig’s comment again yourself mr hotshot. mig never claimed hitler won with a majority he merely provided a link. this is a common misconception anyway. i recall phil didn’t even know this not that long ago. contrary to eee’s bloviating it doesn’t concluded anyone is lying, it concludes they don’t know.
what’s with the hasbrats today? lots of chirping little endless nothing comments.
I’m not clear on why my reply was bounced. I can’t link an image that shows the Nazi party winning 33 out of 35 districts? So what, I have to pantomime it?
Hitler and the Nazis may only have won pluralities in the Reichstag elections of 1932 and even in the only semifree Reichstag election of March 1933, but the huge majorities they won in the heavily manipulated Reichstag elections of November 1933, 1936, and 1938 probably were honest at least to this extent: by that time, substantial majorities of the German people did support the rule of Hitler and the Nazis. Historians in general agree on that majority support.
In the last few months, there have been massive social protests. Labor is experiencing a resurgence.
The J14 protests were entirely about domestic economic & social issues in Israel. They had nothing whatsoever to do with the “peace process”, let alone ending the occupation. In fact, settlers from the Golan Heights and deep in the West Bank participated in J14.
Israelis support the two-state solution, as do American Jews.
Are they willing to remove all the illegal settlements in the West Bank & East Jerusalem? Are they willing to support a true Palestinian sovereign state, with full control over its own airspace, borders, diplomatic relations, and its own military? (It’s clear Netanyahu doesn’t). If not, what Israelis & American Jews support is not a true two-state solution but rather a neo-colonial relationship where one “state” (Palestine) functions as an subordinate of Israel.
At the core of the “Palestinian-led” but Western-controlled BDS movement is an overwhelming hatred that mimics the antisemitic hatred that prevails in the Arab world. BDS is paternalistic neo-colonialism, yet another manifestation of Western activists doing for the Palestinians what they cannot or will not do for themselves. The idea that BDS is “Palestinian-led”, as if it wouldn’t exist if the Palestinians hadn’t asked for it, is uber-silly. BDS is a one-state solution show, an attempt by Western activists to impose an unpopular utopian solution on a faraway land.
I don’t get it – are you saying that Omar Bharghouti is some kind of puppet of the European left? It’s true that Palestinian political leaders haven’t done anything to push BDS (probably because they’re too dependent on Israel & the USA for support), but all of Palestinian civil society supports BDS.
The domestic political constraints faced by Obama are the result of Palestinian irredentism. The US Congress would not work against a solution if the parties were talking.
Now you’re just talking out your ass. The US Congress has *always* supported the most hardline Israel positions, regardless of whether the parties or negotiating or not. Go back to the late 1990’s, when Congress was regularly siding with Netanyahu over Clinton, and that was when Arafat was talking to Netanyahu. One need not agree with all of Walt-Mearsheimer’s thesis to recognize the influence of AIPAC.
One side has repeatedly agreed to talks in the last two years. That side is the Israeli side. The Palestinian side has insisted on new concessions that were never part of Oslo, and have little to do with real final status issues.
Willingness to enter negotiations tells us nothing about whether a party is committed to peace or not, especially, (as in the case of Israel-Palestine), where one party holds all the power. It’s clear that, at the current time, negotiations would only legitimize Netanyahu’s expansionist agenda and do nothing to achieve Palestinian liberation.
“The first is that Israel is like South Africa – a state with no right to exist ruled by a people with no right to be there.”
This is wrong. White South Africans had been there for three hundred years, so of course they had the right to be there. What they didn’t have the right to do is set up an apartheid regime. The analogy with Israel is fairly close. No analogy is perfect.
Jerome, I agree that it’s a bleak situation. Because of the power of the lobby in this country some kind of international action is required, but that’s not really very likely. It’s going to be a race–can Israel be stopped before Jewish money shifts from Wall St. to the Chinese banking sector.
(I notice that you’re not counting on Phil’s dream–that American Jews will re-define Jewishness in a more communal spirit.)
RE: “… can Israel be stopped before Jewish money shifts from Wall St. to the Chinese banking sector?”
Exactly the right historic question. I’m sure both Israel and the Chinese regime are counting beads on their math machines. All those Israel Firsters embedded in our government’ s security and military apparatus are busy cramming as many US defense secrets into their backpacks as possible to use as bargaining chips with China. (I think Russia learned that lesson; anyway its not the USSR anymore & immigration to Israel is not what it used to be in early ’90.)
“All those Israel Firsters embedded in our government’ s security and military apparatus are busy cramming as many US defense secrets into their backpacks as possible to use as bargaining chips with China. ”
What an irresponsible and telling attack. You are accusing many Jews and all supporters of Israel in the administration of treason. Nice.
As you have pointed out, many Jews are Zionist. By definition, they put Israel’s interest ahead of the United States and many of them plainly state as much. You can’t have it both ways, eee — you can’t claim that most Jews worldwide are loyal to Israel, and then deny that loyalty to a foreign state leads to a conflict of interest when participating in the topmost levels of one’s home government.
Chaos,
You are as usual doubling down on a stupid claim citizen made. Americans who are Zionists believe that a Jewish state in what was mandatory Palestine is a good idea. Zionism says nothing about being loyal to Israel over another state. And if you want to accuse Jews in the Obama administration of treason, just go ahead.
eee:
“Zionism says nothing about being loyal to Israel over another state.”
++++ Quite right. Its zionists who says that. Loyal to Israel über alles.
Hi, eee. In this thread, you said:
>> I can certainly imagine situations where evicting Jews is justified.
And I posted the following:
>> I happen to think that “evicting” (i.e., ethnically cleansing) Jews and Palestinians – anyone, actually – is wrong, but since you are able to “certainly imagine situations where evicting Jews is justified”, please list three such situations.
I remain very curious to know what situations you would classify as justifiable for the ethnic cleansing of Jews. Three examples will suffice.
Thanks! :-)
Why didn’t American Jews spend their money in the United States? Where we need it? Why doesn’t the US government, when it’s under the helm of so many Jewish Zionist politicians?
Eljay,
Your imagination is quite limited.
1) A person plants a thermo nuclear bomb in NYC and threatens to blow it up unless Jews are ethnically cleansed from an Israeli city. Naturally, avoiding 10 million deaths justifies evicting Jews.
2) If a war cannot be brought to a stop because two populations are too intertwined, then evicting either one of the populations is justified in order to stop the war. So if one of the populations is Jewish, it is justified to evict them.
3) If it is imperative to build a dam for the benefit of a very large population, then it is justified to evict Jews to build this dam.
Eljay, I think your problem is that you are not really clear about the difference between something being evil and something being justified. Some actions can be both because sometimes lesser evil is required to stop larger evil.
>> Your imagination is quite limited.
My imagination is pretty good: Anti-Semitic aliens arrive on Earth and demand that all Jews be cleansed from the planet or they will zap the Earth with their “planet killer” death-ray. Jews must therefore be cleansed from the Earth. Ta-dah!!
I’m just not as hateful and immoral as you are.
1. Evacuate NYC until the city has been declared safe. No ethnic cleansing of Jews required.
2. Invoke international intervention. Secure and defend affected “populations” in order to uphold and protect their human rights. Undertake mediation, and develop a framework for respectful integration and collaboration. And if all that should utterly fail – and here’s where you rub your hands with glee and purposely misunderstand or distort what I’m about to say – work towards a concensual and equitable division (w/ FMV compensation) of “populations” into two autonomous states (A and B), with full and equal rights for all individuals of nation A who wish to remain as citizens in nation B, and vice-versa. No ethnic cleansing of Jews required.
(NOTE: This is not what happened in Mandate Palestine. Not even close. But you’ll distort my comments anyway.)
3. Re-locate (w/ FMV compensation) affected civilians to somewhere outside of the dam’s “flood zone”. No ethnic cleansing of Jews required.
Your pathetic attempts to justify Zionist evils never ceases to amaze me. You truly are nothing more than a hateful and immoral person.
Eljay,
Are you serious? Do I really need to spell things out for you in such detail?
1) The person who planted the bomb also threatens to blow up the city if evacuation begins.
2) Secure and defend the populations? How? What if no country wants to send a strong enough force?
3) What is the difference between relocating and cleansing? It is just moving populations against their will. What if the people in the flood zone want to stay, but don’t want compensation?
In short, there are many cases in which ethnic cleansing is justified and there is nothing immoral or hateful about saying that.
>> 1) The person who planted the bomb also threatens to blow up the city if evacuation begins.
Terrorist threats against civilians in City A does not justify the ethnic cleansing of Jews from City B. What if the terrorist told you that you had to rape your sister, or kill your father and eat him, or torture your neighbour’s children? Would you do it? I mean, it would be justified, right? You are one disturbed individual.
>> 2) Secure and defend the populations? How? What if no country wants to send a strong enough force?
What if they do? What if the force is strong enough and peace is achieved? No Jews will have to be cleansed, despite your desire to do so. So there.
3) What is the difference between relocating and cleansing? It is just moving populations against their will. What if the people in the flood zone want to stay, but don’t want compensation?
Are you that dense that you don’t understand moving civilians out of a flood plain vs. ethnic cleansing? But, yes, if they want to stay, have them sign a waiver and let them stay. As adults, its their choice. (The children, however, should not be permitted to remain with the suicidal parents.)
>> In short, there are many cases in which ethnic cleansing is justified and there is nothing immoral or hateful about saying that.
No, there are no cases in which ethnic cleansing is justified. None at all. Ever. It is hateful and immoral to suggest that there are. It’s even more hateful and immoral to use that defense to justify purely supremacist land-grabs.
You are a hateful and immoral person. You sincerely disgust me. And, so, this is the last time I will respond to any of your posts directly.
Keep up the good work.
I think sanctions are inevitable. Israel has a very strong military unquestionably but a very vulnerable economy.
In retrospect the Zionists were stupid not to design a strong constitution. The soldiers took over just like they did in Prussia.
Israel is like an out of control teenage drug user headed for brain damage.
Oh boy. We’re now going to get flooded by spam about Intel processors and cherry tomatoes, aren’t we?
A compelling analysis.
None the less, I feel a bit more optimistic about a second term Obama. The Israeli electorate are historically intolerant of any leader who manages to threaten the US/Israel relationship, and the shocking flaws in Israel’s proportional representation system ensure that no Israeli leader or government stays in power for long.
To end on a pessimistic note, I do believe the Palestinians may have face a determined effort to ethnically cleanse them from certain areas of the West Bank if the current situation remains and someone like Bush again occupies the White House. It’s not too difficult to imagine a hard right US administration secretly telling Israel that it would be OK to (for example) ethnically cleanse East Jerusalem and to be prepared for harsh US words and the temporary recall of the US Ambassador to Israel but no further action. We already saw something like this under the Bush administration which concluded a number of secret agreements and understandings with Israel which, to it’s credit, the Obama administration disowned.
“None the less, I feel a bit more optimistic about a second term Obama”
link to nybooks.com
“Barack Obama from the start of his presidency has exhibited an almost exclusive taste for the dignified part of government. During the BP oil spill, his remoteness from the plod and toil of problem-solving showed day after day. That was a “teachable moment,” if ever there was one: a public catastrophe that implicated the environment and energy resources close to home for all Americans. The moment escaped this president, as the nuclear disaster in Japan has also escaped him. He never broke a sweat as he could have—literally and figuratively—by descending into the muck on the spoiled Louisiana beaches. Few presidents have ever seemed farther than Obama from being “in the thick of things.” The impression came back as he left Washington with Netanyahu triumphant, and took a plane for Ireland to speak of hope and peace.
Obama’s real trouble has come, however, in his attempts to inhabit the present. He is slower to react than most people, far slower than most politicians. He gave away six months of the health care debate without pressing his initial advantage while the resistance sprang up all around, the Tea Party was created, and congressional enemies gained on him. He let the controversy over his birth certificate blow up to absurd proportions over two and a half years before dispelling all doubts at a stroke in a press briefing that was hastily called and testily managed. At present, he is waiting for Afghanistan to calm down and let him withdraw troops on a deliberate schedule. But things can flare up while you are waiting, or flare up elsewhere and set back every cautious preparation.
The position of a moderate who aspires to shake the world into a new shape presents a continuous contradiction. For the moderate feels constrained not to say anything startling, and not to do anything very fast. But just as there is trouble with doing things on the old lines, there is trouble, too, with letting people understand things on the old lines. At least, there is if you have your sights set on changing the nature of the game. Obama is caught in this contradiction, and keeps getting deeper in it, like a man who sinks in quicksand both the more he struggles and the more he stays still.”
nothing at all can be done.
well, thank goodness there are people around who don’t share your view.
I think it’s much less depressing than this analysis. Israel is run by 16 families. Hit their economic interests and the occupation is over.
Nobody needs Israeli bonds. If the market loses confidence in the competence of the Zionist leadership the currency and the bonds will be attacked and what is Israel going to do ? It has no backup. They could try and build a financial firewall but the markets would test it to destruction.
So how many families basically run the USA, 400? I’m sure all those labor union and municipal pension funds in the USA will be happy to learn nobody needs Israeli bonds, especially in view of USA’s current debt crisis; looks like more foreigners are deciding about those recently devalued US federal bonds too. USA doesn’t have a firewall either; Obama has not reinstated the “chinese” wall between traditional commercial banking and casino investment banking either. It doesn’t help to know the neocon most responsible for taking us to war on Iraq, the Israel Firster Paul Wolfowitz, was rewarded with the Presidency of the World Bank–when he had absolutely no credentials for that job.
Seems to be a real pattern in this new AIPAC America that we find more and more people in top government slots that have no credentials to be there in the first place.
For example, Phil yesterday ate at an ORGANIC restaurant. That is a game changer.
On this site everything is a game changer which make me wonder what game you are playing.
eee, i didn’t use the term game changer. not sure what you’re referencing. also could you address this ORGANIC restaurant comment? i noticed jon s said something about it yesterday. saying you can’t eat traditional and organic at the same time or something. what does that mean? how is it any different than eating an organic traditional thanksgiving dinner?
I think they may be mocking the fact that on a daily basis you guys compare the situation in the WB to that of Nazi Germany, but Phil gets to sit down and eat an a cozy organic restaurant when he visits ‘largest humanitarian crisis’ on earth.
Why is an organic restaurant so shocking in a place that is under economic blockade? OF COURSE the Palestinians don’t grow things without chemicals they’re not allowed to import!
Chaos, we both know that is not true.
It is not shocking at all for anybody that knows what he is talking about. The West Bank is doing quite well. It is not under economic blockade. But of course for the Chicken Littles on this site, the West Bank is like the Warsaw Ghetto. It is just immensely amusing that you keep repeating your BS while Phil dines at an upscale restaurant in Ramallah.
Israel is letting bomb making ingredients go through ? Interesting….
Reminds me Anders Breivik…..hmmm…..someone should tell this to palestinian bomb makers.
First of all he was in Bir Zeit, not Ramallah. Second, Ramallah (and nearby Bir Zeit, home of the most prestigious university in the West Bank) are islands of relative wealth in a sea of crushing despair. I invite you to come see it for yourself before spouting off again, you binary-minded weasel.
I was just in Tulkarem, a city in the north, where I met dozens of people volunteering in psychological social work because they have universities degrees and can’t find jobs, but they still want to help those even less fortunate than themselves — and believe me, there are plenty. My friend Rania’s family was almost destroyed — and may yet be destroyed — by her husband being arrested by Israel for a year on patently bogus charges.
I could go on for days with stories of this occupation’s devastation on the economy and social fabric of the West Bank, but you’re like, “Oh look, there are some nice restaurants in the West Bank, everything must be great!” There are nice restaurants in Ethiopia, too, serving foreigners and elites. So I guess no one has ever starved there, huh.
[Invective redacted]
dbg, he wasn’t mocking about nazi germany (is it my imagination or do you guys bring up nazis everyday?) he said ‘traditional’ ‘organic’, ‘ i doubt it’. or something like that.
organic just means sans chemicals. when they stopbeating up children and whisking them away in the middle of the night..whatever. quit sugar coating no rights. just stop. you can’t put lipstick on this pig.
“But of course for the Chicken Littles on this site, the West Bank is like the Warsaw Ghetto.”
And for the Chicken Littles in Israel, qassam rockets are like cruise missiles and WMDs.
DBG, what we both know is that you’d say ANYTHING to undermine Palestinian rights. So where do Palestinians get the gallons upon gallons of toxic and/or potentially explosive materials to cultivate non-organic crops?
Annie do you read the comments on here?
Chaos4700 Search Nazi = 243 results link to mondoweiss.net
Chaos4700 Search Hitler = 55 results link to mondoweiss.net
Chaos 4700 Search Holocaust = 355 link to mondoweiss.net
i’m over following your lame ass links that ‘prove’ no point. you gotta link from turkey circa last year with the list, from turkey? let me know. in fact blockquote it cuz i’m done following your lame ass links.
LOL! 355 out of 14446? Gosh, that’s almost 2.5%!
Annie, he’s desperate to link anything BUT any actual proof for the bullshit he spouted. Because, of course, he has none.
wow 14446 comments in a little over two years, you put Witty to shame.
Pamela,
Please, where did I say that things were great? There is a huge divide between things not being great and the Warsaw Ghetto. In Israel, if you ask people, they will say things are not great also and complain about the cost of cottage cheese. But of course, the situation is much better than the West Bank. Comparing the Palestinian suffering to the Warsaw Ghetto is ridiculous. Things are not good in the West Bank but there is no humanitarian crisis there.
That’s probably when people make comparisons to the Warsaw Ghetto, they talk about Gaza. Stop making straw men, eee, you’re looking almost as silly as DBG now.
Annie, presumably quoting Slater: “nothing at all can be done…thank goodness there are people around who don’t share your view.”
Slater: “Despite my own bleak analysis, I find it unbearable to conclude that nothing at all can be done. Over the longer run, it is possible that an international BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) might succeed. As I have argued, it also might backfire, but that is just a risk that morally must be run…”
slater, after writing a long paragraph in response i reviewed what you wrote and realized i perhaps read it wrong. i thought you meant even tho it was unbearable for you that you had concluded nothing at all can be done. so thank you for correcting my misconception and i will go back and review the rest of the text again. sorry.
There is something called ‘integrity’ that historians tend to fixate on. Obama bore the responsibility of being a ‘historic’ president in the true sense of the word – not just any old Bill, Dick or Harry of a president. In this context, it was incumbent on him, as demanded by his title and by history itself, that he do the right and just thing. And the right thing for him to do, that he failed to do, was to lead us people through ‘educational’ speeches, speeches that give us the benefits of knowledge and life-saving insights, and not the blinders of hubris that we’d already suffered under Bush for eight whole frigging years. Speeches based on simple indisputable facts and not the contortions of politics or propaganda. We all know that oration is Obama’s natural gift yet just look how he abused it to save the Bankers on Wall street, his double-speak hypocrisy regarding the environment, the Arab Spring etc.
Whoever voted for him, voted for him convinced that he would not be the craven ‘old mold’ politician in an internet-savy-info-hungry and rapidly changing world. People actually soulfully believed in him. That’s why his hypocrisy stings the very chambers of the heart.
Aipac, being the cynical engine in American politics, was only too happy to take extreme punitive measures against Obama’s message of “change”. These people are pathological and so power-drunk they look forward to slaying presidents, especially of the ‘historic’ kind, just so they can walk around the corridors of power showing off their macho hairy political brawn and bragging about their zionist ‘conquests’ of masses of people, occupation of land AND control of international higher institutions of governance.
And aside the euphoria of the Palestinian achievements this week at the UN, tis clear to more and more people by now, that short of a regional war, the colonialist Apartheid state of israel will NEVER volunteer/be coerced into pulling back to the ’67 border. Note Natanyahu’s rising popularity in israeli polls post HIS speech at the UN. It’s a sick and covetous society, in israel.
That’s why, unfortunately, it’s appearing more and more to be the case that the only way to defeat the hideous zionist expansionist ideology is to militarily crush it. Then we’ll see what’s left in the ruins: a cohesive one israeli ‘people’ who are capable of rebuilding despite wars and splintered factions , like the Lebanese are, or will we find in the ruins of zionism a global motely crew who’ve become devastated, incoherent and incapacitated as a nation by the destruction of their myths and hasbara?
“That’s why, unfortunately, it’s appearing more and more to be the case that the only way to defeat the hideous zionist expansionist ideology is to militarily crush it.”
It can’t be crushed militarily. Israel is like achilles. Same as the YESHA project. It’ll have to be financial death.
I wonder how much more political support Israel is going to get from europe once it becomes clear there won’t be a Palestinian state.
People were very afraid of radical whites in SA too. Israel could just fizzle out .
Seafoid,
How long do you think israeli society AND the idf can hold out defending ALL their ‘assets’ ALL at the same time? What’s the consequence on the ground when the idf’s communication headquarters in tel aviv is targeted and turned to rubble in the first few days? You don’t think the new military reality now is that EVERY SINGLE TARGET in israel is reachable? Israel having bigger guns and even nukes WILL NOT stop the reach of tens of thousands of missiles right across the four corners of israel and right to the heart of tel aviv. The israelis might succeed in killing more Arabs with their bigger guns, but they will lose the land in the occupied territories, maybe even their nation.
I don’t believe the ‘financial weapon’ is gonna be enough. These people would sell their grandmother and every family kidney to pay for israel’s existence.
Taxi,
“These people would sell their grandmother and every family kidney to pay for israel’s existence”
You are a war mongering antisemite plus you talk nonsense.
Unlike its neighbors Israel plans and holds drills for missile attacks. Most Israelis have access to shelters. There will be little loss of life on the Israeli side while any Arab society that would attempt such a war against Israel will suffer immensely. I estimate Cast Lead type casualty ratios.
So who would be willing to fight Israel? The Lebanese? Of course not. The Syrians? Of course not. The Egyptians? Of course not. The Jordanians? Nobody is willing to commit suicide for the Palestinians, plus this act is not going to help them at all, so is in fact useless.
I don’t believe the ‘financial weapon’ is gonna be enough. These people would sell their grandmother and every family kidney to pay for israel’s existence.
Who said MW was an antisemitic site?
Also unlike your neighbors, Israel has expanded its borders through wars of territorial aggression since the end of World War II.
they given back much more than they’ve gained Chaos.
I think the antisemitism trope is finished, DBG.
Antisemitism is Amos Oz’s uncle dovid murdered in Vilna in 1943 by fascists.
It’s not a rational analysis of the failure of Zionsim to adapt to a changed world.
I think the day the Kirya falls will be a great day for research.
DBG :
“they given back much more than they’ve gained Chaos.”
++++ Oh, what ?
Taxi September 26, 2011 at 12:38 pm
“How long do you think israeli society AND the idf can hold out defending ALL their ‘assets’ ALL at the same time? ”
If the markets turn on them, not long. Israel is not part of any union so its balance sheet is very isolated. The Jewish state is in essence just a space that 16 oligarchs use to grow their fortunes. The rest is detail.
Taxi, eee is right. There is no way the Israelis would sell the kidneys of their own family members. Why would they when there are so many Palestinian kidneys walking around? The better plan is to kill some Palestinians, who aren’t making good use of their kidneys anyway, and sell THEIR kidneys to pay for Israel’s existence. Duh!
mig, how big is the Sinai?
I don’t know, Taxi, but Armaggadon is coming–it’s just not gonna be the scenario the Christian fundies imagine.
“That’s why, unfortunately, it’s appearing more and more to be the case that the only way to defeat the hideous zionist expansionist ideology is to militarily crush it. Then we’ll see what’s left in the ruins”
Yes, yes, Israel is Nazi Germany and should be treated in the same way, right?
You are the biggest idiot on MW. God help us from opinion like yours spreading in the US and elsewhere.
Re: Taxi September 26, 2011 at 11:26 am
“Whoever voted for him [Obama], voted for him convinced that he would not be the craven ‘old mold’ politician ….. People actually soulfully believed in him. That’s why his hypocrisy stings the very chambers of the heart.”
Not only of those who voted for him, but also all the fools around the world, all the many fools like me who loved to believe that he meant what he said. Had he only seriously tried ONCE to stand up against the Republican Neocons’ and AIPAC’ bullwark of absolute ignorance, fascism and war mongerisms!!
It all started with the Chas Freemann smear campaign of the Israel Lobby which Obama so easily – willfully succumbed to.
Now, so dismally betrayed, we – or better i for that matter – have to see more clearly : i have been a perfect fool – and what is worse- became more a cynic that i had been before and internally radicalized. That happens when HOPE is so grossly disappointed and betrayed.
As a Minimum: Obama has some very serious explanation to do – publicly naming horses and riders, why he could not do (for domestic issues and international issues) as he would have wished to do…..if he wishes to regain some of all the lost credibility.
I very much like the way Slater is trying to think things through here. Analytical instead of just emoting.
But, notice something: Let’s say you accept his analysis that before his reelection Obama not only should but indeed *must* continue down the same path that he’s been on because … as Slater says … to do otherwise would let in the Republicans.
I don’t know if I like such logic but let’s say you accept it. I.e., sometimes, when an immediate situation is certain enough, you gotta bend to short-term exigencies.
What then is the reason that *after* his reelection he can’t stand up and say we should pull the plug on supporting Israel? What remains of Slater’s argument?
Well, okay, he says that Congress isn’t likely to go along and that argument is probably still good. But so what, you do what you can, right? And get on the right side of things. You don’t just … go along the road to hell because gee, everyone else likes that road. Or at least you don’t stay on that road *forever* because of ‘em.
So that then leaves what? Ah, Slater’s argument that gee, even if we *did* pull our support for Israel it would … just make Israel more insane.
And *this* then—which seems to me *the* crucial “last hope” thing, is also precisely where Slater’s argument just loses it totally.
It is after all an argument that we remain complicit with almost whatever Israel ever does because … Israel could always go crazier and worse.
Let ‘em, is the simple response. Let ‘em, let ‘em, let ‘em. Not at least not with my freaking dollars and not with my country’s flag standing besides ‘em.
The opposite argument, after all, is then that, gee, we can *never* stop subsidizing Israel, because it could *always* go crazier.
And as to the related issue which I have no doubt would come into play by Israeli partisans, not one cent for what would amount to blackmail by them either promising that they *would* go crazier. Not a penny.
In short Slater’s made a fair-to-good argument why someone should cut Obama some slack on the IP issue right now and up until the next election. Not an ironclad one for sure, nor one that it’s unreasonable to still reject, but it’s still fair-to-good.
But he’s given not a jot or tittle of a reasonable argument for cutting Obama any slack afterwards, and nobody should. Not one particle. Not one neutrino.
Sin Nombre, remember when Kissinger convinced the Jew-hating Nixon that he’d better pull Israel’s tukas out of the fire in ’73 because Israel was threatening to use its nukes (and Israel had put nuke set-up machinery on display)?
Nixon gave Israel double the military hardware & supplies it was asking for–even depriving US frontline units of it to do so. In return, US got the Arab Oil Embargo–& long lines at the gas pumps across the nation.
Methinks next time the US will get a much worse deal.
Hi Citizen:
Yes I’ve heard (and read) some of that, and all I can say is that at least Nixon could claim to have been motivated by U.S. interests. E.g., not just our “friend” Israel using nukes against arabs but also a possible Soviet nuke retaliation against Israel and thus the obliteration of Israel as an ally against Soviet power in the ME and etc. Plus, what of the effect on the Euros if it saw us willing to stand by and twiddle our thumbs over the nuking of one of our other friends, so meaning that we’d have to do at least *something* vis a vis the Russkies.
Anyway, still, the precedent is important, not least I suspect in the minds of the Israelis in terms of the … blackmailability of the U.S. via them threatening to use nukes. And not only important but possibly timely: What, say, if Bibi went to Obama and said “if you don’t strike Iran conventionally tomorrow we shall do so nuke-wise the day after”?
Yeesh.
Even more reason to disengage with the whole ME mess.
Notice too though, in addition to Nixon’s help “working” in terms avoiding any Superpower showdown that the Oil Embargo we got somehow was never much connected with the ’73 war and our helping Israel, was it? In the public mind … as with everything it seems … our helping Israel is just eternally cost-free. Only and always only good for us…
“It is after all an argument that we remain complicit with almost whatever Israel ever does because … Israel could always go crazier and worse.
Let ‘em, is the simple response. Let ‘em, let ‘em, let ‘em. Not at least not with my freaking dollars and not with my country’s flag standing besides ‘em. ”
I agree Sin Nombre.
Jerome made this arguement before and this time appears to be saying also that in some years to come ‘BDS might or might not succeed’ and that’s all that can be done.
But he does admit the core of the problem—-that the US congress and American policy is owned by US Jewish Zionist and their Israel Lobby.
Are Americans O.K. with being owned by the Zionist and Israel forever?
I don’t think so.
“…the core of the problem—-that the US congress and American policy is owned by US Jewish Zionist and their Israel Lobby.”
More realistically, the core of the problem includes the pro-Israeli dominance of the print and television media – how this dominance evolved and how it is maintained is a matter of speculation, but that it exists is beyond dispute.
If, for example, US television showed on a daily basis, the humiliation of the checkpoints, the uprooting of olive trees with the IDF standing by, the imprisonment of children and countless other Israeli depradations, how long do you think that Israel would get unconditional support in the face of guaranteed outrage?
“Jewish money” and “Jewish media dominance” are touchy subjects here, but both have to be addressed if there is to be any change in the US.
Good observation, sin nombre. It’s a very passive argument, void of any vigor.
The promise for change is electoral, and primarily in Israel.
It may be too late, if Abbas retires and the PA administration either dissolves or shifts materially to resistance.
But, within Israel, there is considerable displeasure with the growing isolation that Israel experiences and is threatened with.
There is the prospect, if there is another stimulating confusing event like the deaths of Egyptian police in Sinai last month, that relations with Egypt will further devolve to consistent animosity, similarly with Turkey and Jordan.
Rather than more than half of Israel’s borders with neighbors governed by peace treaties, it is possible that 100% of Israel’s borders could be with hostile regimes, in a short period.
That, combined with the class and social issues articulated by the J14 movement, and the remaining actual prospect of reconciliation with Palestinians if pursued in earnest, and the risks to the Israeli economy from global turmoil and economic isolation, all make likud very vulnerable.
They are only vulnerable if there isn’t major terror directed at Israel, and if there is no provocative “non-violent” resistance like storming of borders, and most importantly, if the center-left parties do not propose compelling alternative platforms.
Electoral!!!
Oh keep telling yourself that. I’ll believe it when I see an Israeli administration that removes settlements and stops demolishing mosques.
Ariel Sharon disengaged from Gaza in 2005 eliminating all settlements, creating a Jew free Gaza. It didn’t help, unlike Palestinian leaders and their supporters, Israel learns from their mistakes. That is why next time there will be a negotiated settlement.
DBG, we’ve all heard the tired “Gaza disengagement = rockets” rhetoric. Did pulling out of Gaza end the occupation? No it didn’t. What it did accomplish was become an excuse to point to for prolonging the status quo.
What do you believe is going to happen to Israel? How can you be blind to the reality of the situation that Israel is in? Do you seem to think that things will continue on for 10-20 years the same as they have? This is not the same situation as Tibet or Kurdistan and you cannot continue to make excuses, Israel is losing the information war. The majority of the world condemns their behavior not because they are antisemites or Arab lovers, but because Israel’s behavior is immoral.
The Palestinians don’t want to negotiate because there is nothing to negotiate. Israel does not want to give them any land swaps for the territory they built settlements on. Not land of 100% equal value. The generous offer of 2000 was hardly generous. Israel insists on Palestine calling them the “Jewish State” which sounds foolish. “Say it! Say Jewish State! Say it or no deal!”
Bibi made it clear in his UN speech and earlier speech to Congress that he wants a permanent military presence in the Jordan valley and to keep much of “Judea and Samaria” leaving Palestinians with mini-state Bantustans corresponding to Area A and B of the Oslo Accords. In other words he wants to the Palestinians to admit defeat and legalize the occupation. Not going to happen.
What this means is Israel is going to face more resistance which will be violent since Israel’s preferred method of solving any conflict is violence and people tend to be violent when you’re violent to them. They will be even more isolated and at some point the West would have to intervene with their military. It will end badly. Ending the occupation will save Israel. Prolonging it will destroy Israel.
>> Ariel Sharon disengaged from Gaza in 2005 eliminating all settlements … unlike Palestinian leaders and their supporters, Israel learns from their mistakes.
Hmmm. Israel “learns from [its] mistakes” by expanding illegal settlements in the West Bank, by maintaining an ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder, and by refusing to enter into sincere negotiations for a just and mutually-beneficial peace.
No wonder things are going so poorly.
going poorly for who Eljay? Israel’s economy and population continues to increase. All Abbas has to do is come to the negotiating table and start talking. The Palestinians have never been in a better position to end the occupation. What is Abbas afraid of?
Maybe it is Hamas:
link to reuters.com
>> Ariel Sharon disengaged from Gaza in 2005 eliminating all settlements, creating a Jew free Gaza.
Eliminating Israeli settlements would have created an Israeli-free Gaza (unless, of course, individual Israelis remained to live in Gaza).
“Do you seem to think that things will continue on for 10-20 years the same as they have?”
Absolutely. For people whose knowledge of history stretches more than 48 hours, Israel’s been targeted like this for a long time, complete with predictions of its imminent demise.
“This is not the same situation as Tibet or Kurdistan”
No, you’re right. That’s because no one wants to take on China and Turkey. Israel is smaller, and there are way less Jews.
“The majority of the world condemns their behavior not because they are antisemites or Arab lovers, but because Israel’s behavior is immoral.”
And the behavior of a good number of countries that do the condemning is immoral. So it’s not Israel’s behavior. It’s third world politics.
“Bibi made it clear in his UN speech and earlier speech to Congress that he wants a permanent military presence in the Jordan valley and to keep much of “Judea and Samaria””
Well, Israel has security interests. Would you recommend Israel’s leader not promoting Israel’s security interests? Is it Israel’s fault the Arab world is filled with people who hate the idea of Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East?
“Ending the occupation will save Israel.”
I agree, but unfortunately the answer is a little more complicated than that.
“The greater lie is that Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza was intended as a prelude to further withdrawals and a peace agreement. This is how Sharon’s senior adviser Dov Weisglass, who was also his chief negotiator with the Americans, described the withdrawal from Gaza, in an interview with Ha’aretz in August 2004:
What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements [i.e. the major settlement blocks on the West Bank] would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns … The significance [of the agreement with the US] is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with [President Bush’s] authority and permission … and the ratification of both houses of Congress.”
link to lrb.co.uk
link to news.bbc.co.uk
So far this plan has worked remarkably well.
>> going poorly for who[m] [e]ljay?
For both parties. The Palestinians do not have a state, Israel does not have peace.
>> … The Palestinians have never been in a better position to end the occupation.
Israel is the occupier, but it’s up to the Palestinians to end the occupation. Funny stuff.
Well, Israel has security interests. Would you recommend Israel’s leader not promoting Israel’s security interests? Is it Israel’s fault the Arab world is filled with people who hate the idea of Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East?
It’s ridiculous for supporters of Israel like Hophmi to claim, on the one hand, that the majority of Israelis want a 2-state solution, and on the other hand, defend the democratically elected leader of Israel when he calls for a Palestinian “state” without control over its own airspace, borders, diplomatic relations, or its own military. Sorry, but as I said, above, that’s not a 2-state solution. Rather, as I said above, it’s a neo-colonial relationship where one “state” (Palestine) functions as an subordinate of Israel.
It wasn’t a mistake, it was intended to end in failure so that Israel would not be forced to withdraw from the Wesr Bank. Israel fired 7,700 shells into Gaza as it withdrew, and then turns to the rest of the world and says, “see what happens if we withdraw?”
As Akiva Eldar and Edit Zitel documented in “Lords of the Land”, Israel never realeased it’s vice like grip of Gaza for a single day.
And useful idiots like you are all to willing to recycle your BS propaganda.
Sharon’s cynical strategy:
Jerome,
Continued settlement expansion in the West Bank poses a threat unlike any other to negotiations and the chances of ever arriving at any semblance of a viable solution. Would a return to previous US policy regarding the settlements (possibly with a threat of some sort of sanctions – mild, delayed, whatever) really pose such a threat in the domestic arena? Would a return at least to that aspect of the Cairo speech really undermine the political position of Obama and his party? Even in terms of party and campaign funding, the damage cause by such a move would probably be sustainable, considering the fact that the settlements are not popular even in many (most?) pro-Dem Zionist circles. I’m not talking about a temporary freeze, like the last one that left everyone unsatisfied, but about a clear and consistent US foreign policy in an area where Israel really hasn’t got a leg to stand on. Obama would have to do some serious work within the party and among the reps (29 standing ovations!), but wouldn’t such a move offer benefits as well (not looking like a spineless jellyfish, for one)?
Shmuel: I fear that, such is the state of American politics today, that even these mild measures that you suggest would lead to many Jews, the Israeli lobby, and the Republican right to scream that Obama is selling out Israel. In fact, they already do, despite the fact that Obama has caved on every relevant issue.
Jerome, are you suggesting that we should gear our objections to what “many Jews, the Israeli lobby, and the Republican right,” have to say about anything? This is, in fact, what the “solidarity” movement has, in essence, been doing for years and its refusal to confront the Zionist establishment directly and expose its nefarious influence on the US body politic can explain its failure to this point.
By any conceivable standard that measures his actions against international and American law, Obama has already proved to be one of the worst presidents in American history and fit for trial at the Hague and the idea of him being around to do more damage in a second term I find appalling.
re jnslater September 26, 2011 at 5:32 pm
I fear that, such is the state of American politics today, that even these mild measures that you suggest would lead to many Jews, the Israeli lobby, and the Republican right to scream that Obama is selling out Israel. In fact, they already do, despite the fact that Obama has caved on every relevant issue.
in which case the marginal fall-out would be virtually nil or materially neglegible!
Citizen is spot on, but JFK is not the best example of a president using the bully pulpit. What’s missing in Jerry’s analysis is the presidential leadership card, the guts to stand up publicly and defend your convictions.
We actually have a perfect analog for what Obama should do or should have done: President Eisenhower in 1956 was faced with an Israeli refusal to withdraw from Sinai after conquering it during its colonial war on the side of the Brits and the French. The Brits and the French had withdraw from the Suez Canal, but Israel and its growing, powerful US lobby had Congress and most of the media on its side and was refusing to depart the Sinai. Eisenhower went on national TV and explained the situation in detail to the American people about why we couldn’t make an Israeli exception for its unlawful conduct. Eisenhower got immediate, overwhelming public support, Congress backed away from the issue, and the Israelis gave back the Sinai.
The problem with Obama is that he doesn’t have the guts to act decisively on his own convictions. He came into office knowing that the IP issue was hurting US vital, national security interests and said so; he had Hillary and everyone else making speeches to that effect and yet never gave a speech to the American people explaining the problem and why we need to act. He had ideal, perfect opportunities to do so and in the process defang Israel’s US lobby. He could have done so when Israel was refusing to stop settlements, or when Patreaus went before Congress on the memo issue (he gave neither Patreus nor Mullen any cover or support for them to defend their memo and the dire consequences it discussed). He could have done so when Israel refused to discuss any substantive issue in the brief “negotiations”. He could have done so when his vice president was humiliated in Israel. He certainly could have done so in the UN veto context.
Obama (whom I supported and voted for even as a life-long Republican) has proved to be all words in an empty suit. His actions (or lack of) in so many areas show a commitment only to reelection. He has turned out to be the most craven politician in my memory and perhaps in our history.
Sorry Jerry, Obama deserves no slack or pass on this one. His is a monumental failure in leadership that may end up harming this country more than even Bush’s Iraq war.
Don’t agree with Jerome’s analysis. Obama could take a lesson from President Eisenhower, who went over the heads of the Congress and went on TV to explain how he had to boot the Israeli’s out of Gaza, which they had occupied during the Suez crisis in 1956. Ben Gurion and Golda Meir had initially told him Ike that a return to the status quo ante was impossible.
If the US President wanted to force israel to do something, he could easily do so. Congress would protest but would simply have to accomodate itself; Majority Leader and closet zionist Lyndon Johnson was livid about Ike’s decision, but couldn’t do anything about it.
Similar situation with Apartheid South Africa as there is with Apartheid Israel now. US withdrew its support for the Apartheid government and apartheid collapsed. The US could completely alter Israel’s fate, but unfortunately the tail wags the dog.
i agree. the american people need to have a conversation about this and congress people should be held accountable for there kowtowing to israel.
But, annie, Obama is not Ike, so how will congress be made accountable where the sitting POTUS doesn’t speak over the top of congress to the American public?
The choice for Pres. Obama has always been clear – do the “right thing” and stand by the principles of the Cairo speech or give in to the reality of AIPAC power and try to save his chances for re-election.
Imagine the firestorm of media criticism and the political strife he would have faced if he had supported the Palestinians.
Better he loses this battle (and some of his principles) than to ensure his defeat in Nov. 2012 – imagine the nightmare of another four years with a Texas idiot as president.
Irish Moses, and others:
The problem with the Eisenhower analogy is that he was in a far stronger position, both politically and in terms of how he was viewed as a leader, than Obama. Eisenhower could afford to take that position, because there was no chance it would endanger his reelection, and in any case if it had, the alternative would have been Adlai Stevenson, not whoever will end up being the Republican nominee.
That said, I agree with Irish Moses that Obama has been gutless, or merely immensely foolish, in not taking on the Republicans on all the domestic issues—in those cases, unlike the Israeli issue, he had everything to gain. Maybe he’s now beginning to do so–but he simply can’t afford to take on Israel and its supporters.
That is, now. After the elections, different story.
A second difference is that the Israel lobby was much less powerful in 1956. Indeed, it wouldn’t–I should say, didn’t–dare to take on Eisenhower on his issue.
Eisenhower had the reputation of being an American hero who played a major role in the war against Germany. Tough to play the Holocaust card against him.
Jerome,
Good points about Eisenhower but I still believe that once some president is willing to stand up to the Israel/lobby issue and explain both why solving IP is a vital national security interest, and why Israel’s conduct toward the Palestinians is unacceptable, the American public will support him/her. He/she will look like a gutsy underdog that is willing to stand up for what is right and just, and damn the ratings and reelection. That is a powerful position and image which, coupled with Obama’s oratory skills, would make him unbeatable, while providing a great and much needed benefit to this country. I think the lobby is more of a paper tiger and neighborhood bully that just needs someone with the guts to face it down.
Ironically, as it stands right now, there is an excellent chance Obama will still lose even though he has caved on virtually all critical issues in order to preserve his reelectability. He desperately needs issues that he can use to demonstrate his cojones which remain hidden and doubtful in the opinion of more and more of his once loyal supporters. He received no benefit from his repeatedly caving to Netanyahu, including from his ghastly UN speech.
He just looks weaker and weaker, and more and more people are just flipping him off as a sweet talking fraud: the Turks, the Saudis, and now even Abbas (not to mention the Israelis who had his number from the get go). I think even his strong supporters now sense the weakness and lack of character of the man. I certainly won’t vote again for him. I just pray its clear enough that he is a sure loser by the time of the convention so he can be replaced on the ticket with someone stronger
Let us further suppose that he didn’t merely say all the right things, he actually did the right things, at least insofar as he had the power to do so.
I’d think there is a good chance that a lame duck Obama administration might recognize the State of Palestine. During the period between the elections in November and inauguration day, the loser or two-term incumbent remains President with exclusive authority to recognize or not to recognize a foreign state or government and to recognize foreign sovereignty over territory. The President has the constitutional authority to conclude international agreements related to recognition without authorization from Congress or consent of the Senate. See United States v Belmont, 301, US 324, 57 S Ct. 758, 81 L.Ed. 1134 (1937); or §204 “Recognition and Maintaining Diplomatic Relations: Law of the United States”, Volume 1, page 89; and §303 Reporters Note 11 “Sole Executive Agreements”, Volume 1, page 167, in “The Restatement of the Law (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States”, American Law Institute, 1986, ISBN 0314301380.
link to supreme.justia.com
Unlike diplomatic recognition or recognition of a government, recognition of statehood is customarily considered irrevocable. That practice is reflected in Article 6 of the Montevideo Convention, a treaty that the US State Department still lists in its publication on Treaties in Force. So there would be little the Congress or AIPAC could do under the circumstances.
The Supreme Court recently cast doubt upon the government’s claim that the status of the territory can only be determined through bilateral negotiations. The Court agreed to hear arguments in the case of Menachem Zivotofsky, a U.S. citizen born in 2002 in Jerusalem. His mother asked that his passport and other documents list his place of birth as Jerusalem, Israel. The lower Courts have always ruled this subject is a political question and that it raised a foreign policy issue falling outside the judiciary’s power.
The US used to list Palestine as the place of birth until the state of Israel complained. For example, in 1995 the State Department published a Memorandum of Conversation between William Crawford Jr. and Mr. Shaul Bar-Haim from the Israeli Embassy (February 7, 1963) regarding Jerusalem. Bar-Haim said “The use of the term “Palestine” is historical fiction; it encourages the Palestine entity concept; its “revived usage enrages” individual Israelis”. Crawford said “It is difficult to see how it “enrages” Israeli opinion. The practice is consistent with the fact that, ”in a de jure sense”, Jerusalem was part of Palestine and has not since become part of any other sovereignty. See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Vol. Xviii, Near East, United States. Dept. of State, G.P.O., 1995, ISBN 0160451590, page 341.
If the Supreme Court unilaterally agrees that Jerusalem is part of Israel, the notion that the Palestinians have to negotiate over the status of East Jerusalem will be seen as a legal fiction. In that case the US would probably need to recognize East Jerusalem as an integral part of the State of Palestine to help defuse the situation. Another alternative would be a Security Council resolution, like 1860:
Its status is really not subject to bilateral negotiation.
“I’d think there is a good chance that a lame duck Obama administration might recognize the State of Palestine.”
Hostage,
You have convinced me O is legally able to do it, but not that he would do it.
I like the sound of “good chance.” Lay some odds. I am betting against!!
I like the sound of “good chance.” Lay some odds. I am betting against!!
I really do think that there are better than even odds that Obama would do it to repay Bibi and AIPAC in the event he looses the election. Putting the motive of schadenfreude aside, he might also do it as a quick way of improving his historical legacy on the way out of office.
The other scenario that I mentioned is less likley (60 percent odds against). Congress has expressed its desire to recognize Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem in the Embassy Act, other key legislation, and Sense of the Congress resolutions.
In Oetjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297 (1918), the Supreme Court described the political questions regarding recognition of states which are not subject to judicial review. Those questions involve recognition by both the executive and legislative branches:
I can’t imagine why the Court would have decided to hear another Jerusalem documents case if the lower Court’s invocation of the political question doctrine is a slam dunk. It could’ve simply denied the Writ of Certiorari in that case. There is no legal difference between de facto or de jure recognition under current US foreign relations law. So the Court might be willing to step-in and decide a dispute over a material fact that effects the outcome of its case under existing law.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Justices are aware of the existence of the field of legal practice dedicated to resolving territorial disputes through arbitration or adjudication. So, they may not accept the platitudinous notion that the status of Jerusalem can only be determined through negotiations. Even if they do, nothing would prevent them from siding with the Congress as an intermediate step pending a final settlement.
If the Court orders the Executive branch to enter “Israel” on some documents, there is a very good chance that the President would go ahead and implement the Court’s order via an Executive Order recognizing both sides to avert a political firestorm, e.g. “Jerusalem, Israel” and “East Jerusalem, Palestine”. I think the smart money is on your side, but you should never underestimate the ability of Supreme Court to upset the best laid plans.
Hostage,
I do not believe that Obama understands the Israeli/Palestinian issue in terms of right or wrong, as we here at MW do. I think that those who become President, mostly see foreign affairs in terms of power politics, both domestic and global. That is why they can self-justify their support for torture and wars like Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do not argue that O probably thinks “big Jews” are a pain in the ass, but I am not sure he differentiates them from the other interest groups which he is so adept at catering to. Thus, IMHO, the chances of O making the grand gesture i.e. becoming the Obama some hopefully and audaciously imagine Obama can be, is remote. I would lay 20 to 1 against the proposition that O recognizes the State of Palestinian as a lame duck President.
Assuming I am wrong and O has a heart that truly empathizes in the injustice of occupation then when O becomes a lame duck, whether in 2012 or 2016 he will have left such a pro-Israel record behind that any gesture toward the Palestinians, would starkly highlight an hypocrisy and admission of helplessness in the face of the Israel lobby. I am sure he will not want attention called to this on his way out of office. In my opinion if O did recognize Palestine on the way out, the act would be interpreted mostly as an act of petulance rather than an act of moral courage. My strong feeling is lame or not Obama will dance out of the hall with the ones who bought him, and forgive any rough treatment at their hands as part of political life.
As to your fascinating analysis of the possibility that O may “recognize” Israel via an executive order implementing a Supreme Court decision. We agree that this would be less likely than O recognizing a State of Palestine.
Please keep posting your legal analysis. I second others here in praising your contributions to this site. I just do not think Obama will step up to the plate on the issue of Israel/Palestinian.
+1 for Ira’s comment; ditto on Hostage.
I do not believe that Obama understands the Israeli/Palestinian issue in terms of right or wrong, as we here at MW do.
I accept that politicians are an amoral bunch, but Obama and his White House team were deliberately humiliated by Netanyahu and forced to retreat from a position on Palestine that he had staked out in a major foreign policy address delivered at Cairo University
link to whitehouse.gov
I do not argue that O probably thinks “big Jews” are a pain in the ass
I was thinking more along the lines of personal animosity for Netanyahu.
the possibility that O may “recognize” Israel via an executive order implementing a Supreme Court decision.
The Court could throw everybody a curve during the current session. There are several Justices who are obviously interested in reviewing the actions of the lower court. That might be because of some procedural error, but it could just as easily be because they feel there is a genuine dispute over a material fact that can be addressed under the principles of existing law.
I just do not think Obama will step up to the plate on the issue of Israel/Palestinian.
I was just addressing Jerry Slater’s point about the things a President can possibly do, and pointing out that Obama has exclusive authority to recognize Palestine.
P.S. that should have read: I was just addressing Jerry Slater’s point about the things a President can do, and pointing out that Obama has exclusive authority to recognize Palestine and may have a motive (or motives) and the opportunity even if he manages to loose his bid for re-election.
“I was just addressing Jerry Slater’s point about the things a President can do, and pointing out that Obama has exclusive authority to recognize Palestine and may have a motive (or motives) and the opportunity even if he manages to loose his bid for re-election.”
Point taken.
Please inform site if and when the Supreme Court takes up the Jerusalem, Israel passport case.
Best.
Ira Glunts
Please inform site if and when the Supreme Court takes up the Jerusalem, Israel passport case.
The oral arguments are scheduled for Nov 7, 2011. The petition for a writ of certiorari contained the question
Regardless of the political question doctrine, I think the lower Court had the duty to review the constitutionality of the congressional enactment. In 2002, Congress passed the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. No. 107-228, 116 Stat. 1350 (2002). Section 214 of the Act, entitled “United States Policy with Respect to Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel,” includes the following provision which is at issue in this case:
Secretary Clinton advised the petitioners that pursuant to Executive Orders and regulations, passports issued to United States citizens born in Jerusalem could not record “Israel” as the place of birth.
The Supreme Court granted the petition and added the following:
link to supremecourt.gov
There is a good analysis and summary of the oral arguments in the M.B.Z. v. Clinton case on Opinio Juris: link to opiniojuris.org
“unfortunately the tail wags the dog”
tail: US
dog: much of the rest of the world
tail: Israel
dog: US
Reminds me of what some ancient Greek told his people, pointing at his son: “This is the ruler of Greece. Because he rules over his mother, his mother rules over me, and I rule over Greece”
“Over the longer run, it is possible that an international BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) might succeed. As I have argued, it also might backfire, but that is just a risk that morally must be run, in the hope that the pariah status of Israel would result in the South African outcome rather than the Samson one.”
I have advocated BDS for a while and similarly, USA action of a BDS sort since 2008, all aiming at removal of settlers and settlements and wall.
I sadly and reluctantly agree with Slater that presidential action without Congress kills Obama and changes little. For example, if Obama were to fail to veto Palestinian membership resolution, his entire program (and not just I/P) would likely be trashed. If not re-elected, we could have one of the Republican lovelies in office for 4 or 8 years and THEIR S/C justices, etc., etc.
If the president (or anyone else) could EDUCATE the American public and its congress, there might be a change in feeling. One would wish (following slater’s argument) that such education happen sufficiently slowly for Israelis to adjust to it as something which can be met in midstream rather than as a tidal wave to be resisted with all possible force and violence and madness and suicide and nuclear weapons, etc., etc. (Just ask yourself what would happen — in case of such a tsunami — if Israel’s NUKES are now in the hands of settler fanatics, who have infiltrated the IDF much as Zionist propagandists have infiltrated USA’s media and government.)
Slow and steady seems a better method, although starting ASAP. BDS by the nations is what we should look for.
If there are 16 families who run Israel’s economy, as seafoid says, then, indeed, focus the BDS on them.
The list of these 16 families who run Israel’s economy, according to a commenter at link to skyscrapercity.com, is as follows:
“16 families only, are worth together 118 Billion Nis,
they own 20 percent of Israel’s top 500 largest companies.
they directly employ 650,000 workers in Israel and indirectly
another 100,000 workers
and their companies total 570 Billion NIS!! (4.5 NIS = 1$)
The 16 families (controlling groups) are:
Ofer Brothers
Borovitch Brothers
Sheri Arison
Nochi Dankner
Hamburger family
Mozi Vertheim
Zisapel family
Lev Leviev
Miki Federman
Haim Saban
Fischman family
Shachar-Kez family
Strauss family
Shmeltzer Family
Yitzhak Tshuva”
Obama lacks wiggle room. I agree. But as some here have suggested, he could skip consulting congress or a goup of rabbis in a closed door meeting and appeal to the American people directly. Blow the cap off of a debate that has been bottled up and carefully managed by Israel Firsters for decades. As President he could open up this much needed debate with an authority like no one else’s. Would he take heat for this? Yes. Would it put his second term in greater jeopardy? Yes. Leadership entails big risks. So far he hasn’t stuck his neck out on any big issue, I/P included. Has he been rewarded for his damage control, play not to lose approach? Nope.
” But as some here have suggested, he could skip consulting congress or a goup of rabbis in a closed door meeting and appeal to the American people directly. Blow the cap off of a debate that has been bottled up and carefully managed by Israel Firsters for decades”.
Sooner or later some President will do that, they will have to, because the zionist and Israel will eventually forced it to the point of the US literally having to choose Israel or the survival of the US.
But most likely that won’t come until after Israel has caused such damage to the US that it has no power left to continue serving Israel.
Israel and u.s. Insistence on direct negotiations is a transparent act of extreme hyprocisy. When the “peace process”has dragged on for any years with the same basic issues on the table while at the same time more land is expropriated, no reason the Palestinians are skeptical of the good faith intentions of the Zionist. The insistence on sham peace talks are only a cover for the p.r. Push by Israel.
I am beginning to realize that the implistic 2state solution mantra is faulty as the result would still a bigoted and racist state like Israel would continue it’s self defeating policies of apartheid, ethic cleansing, genocide and other practices not consistent with teachings from the Torah.
Frankly, I found Slater’s comments. albeit well-intended, nauseating. First of all, one cannot separate Obama’s craven performance at the UN and his playing the role of bootlicker to Israel and its US support network from his total policies overall, foreign and domestic, which have seen him go much further than Bush in pushing the US into further unending wars and expanding police state intrusions into American political life, the details of which are too well known to be repeated here.
All the arguments that Slater uses against Obama going before the public to condemn Israel’s behavior existed on Sept. 12, 1991, when George HW Bush, faced with the prospect of both the Senate and House overriding his promised veto of Israel’s demand for $10 billion in loan guarantees, went before the American public to make a televised statement describing his efforts to resolve the Israel-Arab conflict, by revealing the amount of money each and every Israeli was receiving in aid from the US, how Washington had protected Israel during the Iraq war, and how he was one “lonely little guy” up against “a thousand lobbyists” on Capitol Hill, but that he had to do what he thought was right.
The response? Polls showed that 85% of the American public agreed with the president and a frightened AIPAC and their running dogs in Congress were taken aback to the point that they refused to challenge Bush publicly and were still reluctant to do so when four months later, he turned the loan guarantees down again.
More than a month after his first speech, polls showed that while over 70% of Americans approved aid to the new Russia and Poland, less than 50%, somewhere in the md-40s, supported aid to Israel.
There is no question in my mind that if Obama or any other president went before the American people and explained the situation as it is today and how it threatens world peace and the the US future, that the overwhelming majority of Americans would support him. If one examines the questions put to the American people to determine their support for Israel, it is clear that it is very thin. Sure, they favor Israel over the Palestinians, but when it comes to comparing the opinions of Americans with their feelings towards other US allies it is way down there.
So Slater’s argument doesn’t hold up. Besides, anyone who has watched Obama’s career closely will come to realize he has been Israel’s man from the beginning and his gift of the bunker busters was just the icing on the cake, as if that was needed.
Thanks to Obama and the Zionist establishment Israel will start more wars in the Middle East and, in the end, the last one will, I expect, leave Israel destroyed. The question is whether, as promised, it will take the rest of the world with it..
Yep, Obama is Israel’s man, or rather the US zios boy toy.
Col. Lang
Zelikow is back at the PFIAB
Zelikow’s re-appointment to the “President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board” (PFIAB) is testimony to the enduring power of AIPAC in Washington. On this board Zelikow will have access to ALL the deepest secrets of the US intelligence community. pl
About Zelikow….
In Rise of the Vulcans James Mann reports that when Richard Haass, a senior aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell and the director of policy planning at the State Department, drafted for the administration an overview of America’s national security strategy following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Dr. Rice, the national security advisor, “ordered that the document be completely rewritten. She thought the Bush administration needed something bolder, something that would represent a more dramatic break with the ideas of the past. Rice turned the writing over to her old colleague, University of Virginia Professor Philip Zelikow.”
This document, issued on September 17, 2002, is recognized as a significant document in the Bush administration doctrine of preemptive war.[5][
Shenon, Philip (2008). The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation. New York, New York: Hachette Book Group USA. p. 128. "It was a remarkable document, a reversal of generations of American military doctrine, which had previously held that the United States would launch a military strike against an enemy only after it had been struck or if American lives were in immediate jeopardy."
The statement Zelikow made that he later tried to deny he made:
"The unstated threat. And here I criticise the [Bush] administration a little, because the argument that they make over and over again is that this is about a threat to the United States. And then everybody says: ‘Show me an imminent threat from Iraq to America. Show me, why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us?’ So I’ll tell you what I think the real threat is, and actually has been since 1990. It’s the threat against Israel.
And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it’s not a popular sell.”
The detritus of all this is coming to come rolling home one day.
Jerry,
I think you’ve it it on the head. It’s a bleak situation. The only other way out of this is anti-semitism from Americans, and that’s not going to happen here. But what you are saying is that Israel and its supporters are pushing forward with no regard to the long-term consequences. I say—not you—that it’s because they know anti-semitism won’t rear it’s head. They’re home-free to be as pugnacious and vulgar as they like. Your tag line says it all.
You wrote a compelling, thoughtful piece, Jerry. Obama has no choice. Even if it were McCain as Prez (or Clinton), the concessions would have been no different. The reception might have been recast. Obama is waiting for the people to rise up against their congressmen on the issue; god knows he’s said it enough times.
Unfortunately, I do think antisemitism from Americans will happen here. Israel can’t hide forever. The MSM this past week has moved closer to the center reporting the UN thing. Eventually the truth will be out in the open. There are a lot of bigots in the US. Who will they blame? They will blame the Jews. The fundies will turn on the Jews too.
I must say that I’d hope they’d blame political attitudes centred too much on race and would consign both anti-Semitism and Zionism to the realm of the past.
But will that expressed anger at Israel and American Jews for supporting Israel and for funding AIPAC, et al, really be antisemitism? Maybe it will be justifiable anger for specific concrete behavior that undermined our democracy and devastated our foreign policy? Maybe it will be anger directed at behavior that shows far more loyalty to Israel than to their own country.
Why is that necessarily antisemitism? If I criticize Communist China, its repressive government, its aggressive foreign policy and rapacious trade policy, and include US Chinese that support and condone all of that, am I an anti-Chinese bigot?
There certainly could be a lot of anger toward Israel, its US lobby, and even against US Jews, but antisemitism?, I don’t think so. Unfortunately, lots of righteous Jews are likely to be tarred with the same brush, and true antisemites will feast on this anger and attach it to their screed. But, the fault will lie not with Americans for their justifiable anger but with Israel, its US lobby and with American Jews that allowed that behavior to contine without objecting. I think use of the antisemitism card in those circumstances will ring pretty hollow.
Let me jump in with my definition of ‘anti-Semitism (on my part)’, which is ‘an attitude of suspicion towards those considered (by me) to be Jewish, sufficient to prevent fairness in (my) thoughts about them’. I surely wouldn’t consider resentment against people, Jewish and non-Jewish, who had in fact seriously misled public opinion, unfair, so I wouldn’t call it anti-Semitic. I would only hope that this would not lead to persistent suspicion of Jewish people or of anyone on grounds of race, just a recognition that we all need to live together. A bit sentimental, I suppose, but it is what I’d hope for after all this time when ideas about race, an unscientific concept, have done so much terrible damage.
I think Israel is different though. Rational people can separate Zionism and Israel from Judaism, but a hefty portion of the population is far from rational. I’m just pulling numbers out of thin air, but I would say at least 30%.
I think it would be different from your China example, people would have a hard time separating Israel from Jewish people. I hope I’m wrong.
Antisemitism is probably not the right word and it has a different definition for different people. I take it to mean “hatred toward Jews” and I think we would see that more than we would see people condemning the lobby or our government’s policy. The Murdoch scandal exposed the UK politicians as being connected to his pocketbook. Despite some initial chatter, very few are even talking about this these days. I think that’s how people would view the lobby (who would just cease to exist, change their name) and our leaders, taking their anger out on Jews. But that’s just my opinion and again I hope I’m wrong.
link to npr.org
Gallup: 81 % of Americans disgusted with the government. Only 19% satisfied.
I don’t think it matters which party gets in the WH next where it concerns Israel.
The Republicans would no doubt promote an attack on Iran by the US and /or Israel.
The Dems would ‘let it happen’ even if they didn’t actively promote it.
So what actual difference does it make?
The undeniable fact is everything the US gives to Israel and the US zionist, or capitulates on to Israel and the “Lobby” just makes Israel more psycho, more master of the universe hubristic, more aggressive, more dangerous to the US and the ME and the world. Israel and the zionist are what they are, and will create chaos for the US and everyone else no matter how the next election goes.
Instead of asking what the consequences to Israel would be if we cut them off, let’s ask what the consequences to the US, the ME, Palestine and the entire world would be if we cut Israel off?
Nothing but good ones.
The Jews for Israel would be unhappy, that’s all.
How do we cut off the zionist and Israel? We wait I guess, until they inflict the last great crisis on Americans and everyone points to them and the politicians and says ‘look what they did to us’.
Then we might get political candidates who campign on that.
SinNombre:
“Slater’s argument that gee, even if we *did* pull our support for Israel it would … just make Israel more insane…. precisely where Slater’s argument just loses it totally. It is after all an argument that we remain complicit with almost whatever Israel ever does because … Israel could always go crazier and worse.”
What I wrote: “What, then, to do? Despite my own bleak analysis, I find it unbearable to conclude that nothing at all can be done. Over the longer run, it is possible that an international BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) might succeed. As I have argued, it also might backfire, but that is just a risk that morally must be run”
Ach, didn’t mean to represent your thoughts as that buffonish, Mr. Slater. Sorry. Was just rephrasing what I took you to say and putting it in what I at least see it means. I just assumed people had read your actual words and knew what I was doing.
Anyway, and in accord with what I wrote further, don’t you think that indeed at least after Obama is reelected he will have no real defense anymore to not calling Israel out? Given that … one can’t go along forever with the idea that Israel can always get crazier? Or do you in fact think that he does in fact have to quail in the face of that?
If the latter though, doesn’t that also apply to BDS’ers as well? I.e., that they too shouldn’t be potentially forcing Israel into acting crazier?
slater, i know it seems complicated but it isn’t. when everything seems like it’s in chaos and you can’t see the way out that just means you’re so emotionally involved you can’t see the forest for the trees. that goes for big things as well and small things.
so, what’s the first thing you learn in life in terms of solving your problems? tell the truth. who’s telling the american people the truth? we can’t fix this until the cards are on the table, and they are not on the table. obama didn’t tell the truth. the faster tha american public learn the truth the better. the faster they learn why all the congress people go to israel and speak israel’s praises the better.
In my view, the withdrawal of American support might well result in an Israel that would become even more irrational and violent than it already is. Do we really think that the settlers and the large numbers of Israelis that support them would give up? There is little chance that the increasingly hardline Israeli police and military would or could enforce an end to the occupation
it is not relevant to our actions right now whether they would give up or not. it should not be a determining factor in doing what’s right. you either support the settlements and the occupation or you do not. so which is it? if you don’t then don’t advocate funding it. it’s that simple. take each decision as it comes and do what’s right. don’t act in fear about what israel might do. always do what is the best moral decision.
as far as domestic politics are concerned i don’t see how it really effects me that much. there really isn’t anything obama is doing most republicans wouldn’t do in his place. the image might be different but basically it is the same policy.
i was reading the nyt comment column the other day in response to obama’s UN speech. over 300 comments (by recommend)and all negative. (i only got 3/4 thru..there were about 5 pro israel comments). the only comment repeated several times was people saying they pounded the pavement for obama but will not vote for him again. obama shouldn’t be worrying about the jewish vote. he should be worried about loosing the left, we’re bigger.
“so, what’s the first thing you learn in life in terms of solving your problems? tell the truth. it’s that simple. take each decision as it comes and do what’s right. don’t act in fear about what israel might do. always do what is the best moral decision.”
Right on, annie, kudos!
Agree.
“it is not relevant to our actions right now whether they would give up or not. it should not be a determining factor in doing what’s right. you either support the settlements and the occupation or you do not. so which is it? if you don’t then don’t advocate funding it. it’s that simple. take each decision as it comes and do what’s right. don’t act in fear about what israel might do. always do what is the best moral decision.”
YES, annie!……BRAVO!
Sobering assessment Jerome,
But what still amazes me, that in spite of the fact you aknowledge that Israel is a threat to work peace, irrational and dangerous, you remain adamanent abotu your supoprt for it.
Sounds like congnitive dissonance to me.
As I see it, Obama, Netanyahu, Abbas and Erdogan all deserve an applause for explaining to the world audience with such unsurpassable clarity the real mechanisms behind the I/P dynamics within the international context.
The most harmful and consequential quality Obama has is his desire to succeed. And like all politicians in America he knows that in order to succeed he must obey his zionists masters. This is the reality the Lobby has created over the last 60 yrs, to make it impossible for any decent politician to oppose them.
Many people here believe Obama is spineless, traitor, lyer, zionists’ bitch ect. But the reality of his situation is clearly analyzed in this article almost flawlessly. Obama is not the man he showcased at the UN nor does he believe a single word of his speech. But really, what choice does he have?
Of course he has a choice. He just has to be willing to risk failure and even perhaps death.
For the time being: BOYCOTT. DIVESTMENT. SANCTIONS. These are our best tools for dismantling the ironclad status quo. I agree with Mr. Slater on this point.
Problems that cannot be solved politically either go away, or are solved militarily.
As far as possible opponents of Israel are concerned, Middle East historically oscillated between fragmentation and unity. Crusaders were booted out during a relatively short period of unity (Salah-ed-Din). Is coalition of Egypt, Turkey, Iran and lesser powers possible?
As far as technology is concerned, Israel has an enduring edge in expensive high tech weapons, primarily airforce. However, middle tech weapons are catching up with high tech, undermining Israeli doctrine of necessary total impunity and massive retaliation. Massive retaliation makes no sense if you receive a big fraction of the same. Medium range missiles can deliver “counter-retaliations”. Nuclear capability sounds impressive, but Israel has some never-tested crap in the basement, and while nukes would surely enrage opponents and turn the war into total war of annihilitation, they cannot eliminate opponents with nukes alone. So nuclear option is a suicide.
Suppose an alliance has 100,000 missiles in 10,000 bunkers, with decent payload and guidance system, and makes a pro-Palestinian ultimatum in the aftermath of some atrocity. Probably they would target ports and airports, ports and shipping being particularly easy to disable. In other words, Israel would become under siege. In terms of time scale, think about Iraq-Iran war.
“As far as technology is concerned, Israel has an enduring edge in expensive high tech weapons, primarily airforce.”
Superior military technology is always helpful in fighting a war, but it is not in itself sufficient.
By the end of WW2, German tanks were superior to any allied tanks. In Vietnam, the US had, overall, superior technology. And the same is true in Afghanistan.
Not just tanks. They had the best firearm (the MP44/Sturmgewehr 44, the prototype for the AK-47 Kalashnikov) and the best artillery piece (the 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41 antiaircraft and antitank gun). Although they were not produced in large enough quantities to affect the war much, they also produced the best fighter aircraft (the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter) and the best submarines (U-boats with snorkels).
And they had long range missiles, as well. (V1 and V2) I concentrated on the tanks because they were an obvious force on the battlefield. As you point out, there weren’t enough Me 262s to make a difference.
I happen to know someone who piloted a B-17 during the Second World War. He’s told me how scary he found the Me 262′s.
Besides there being few of them, there’s also the matter of a severe shortage of aviation fuel for the Germans during the last months of the war.
Yeah, the Germans were superior, also cultured, well educated, hard working, very smart. All that and their vastly superior World War II weapons was a real tribute to German Exceptionalism. On the other hand, they might have had a moral flaw or two considering how they treated their minorities. I guess Exceptionalism has its limits.
If Turkey enters a military alliance, which results in war with Israel, they’d be kissing their NATO membership goodbye. NATO is irrelevant following the fall of the Soviet Union, the EU, United States, and probably the majority of the GCC countries would side with Israel.
I do agree though in a situation where an all out regional conflict is ongoing, Israel would not escape unscathed. Hezbollah, with their WWII era rockets crippled the North, Israels missile defenses could only do so much against a massive onslaught of medium ranged missiles.
You speak for the whole NATO alliance, dbg?
Most of ‘em were rather P’d off about Israel’s antics last year, Craig Murray had a post about the gripes he heard from personnel he knows. Tho’ I suppose the personnel aren’t the bought and paid for leadership’s of the various countries.
link to craigmurray.org.uk
“If Turkey enters a military alliance, which results in war with Israel, they’d be kissing their NATO membership goodbye. ”
Under which provision of the Washington Treaty do you believe this expulsion can occur??
NATO operates by consensus. I think, in order to expel Turkey or any other alliance member, at least all the other members — and maybe also the member to be expelled — would have to agree to the expulsion.
That’s my point exactly. The Washington Treaty contains provisions for a state unilaterally leave, but none to kick a state out.
Why? Israel is not a NATO member, so there would be no grounds for it. And seriously, between the economic crisis facing Europe and the carnage that NATO is inflciting in Lybia, it’s doubtful that NATO will see out the end of the decade.
Support for Israel in Europe mainly exists among the ruling elite, and even then, it;s bvecsue they are held to ranson like the US Congress. Maybe France, Germany and Italy would side with Israel (Greece doesn’t matter becasue they are a basket case), but the rest of Europe wont. Israel is regarded as a rogue state in Europe and seen as greater threat to interenational peace than even Iran.
Here’s a suggestion for Jerome. Instead of urging that nothing can change re Israel he should help with effort to ‘change the dems position” by working with young Jews and sending them to the dems.
I just got this mail from Jewish voice for Peace about bringing young Jews into the BDS and the moral position on Israel.
So quit whinning there is nothing that can be done Jerome and get to work.
Dear C—,
I’m listening. That’s it. It’s that simple.
As nearly any Jewish person today knows, young people aren’t participating in Jewish life the way their parents and grandparents once did. And I’ll be honest-as a rabbi, this worries me.
The Jewish establishment tries to solve the problem by funding expensive projects to entice young people with things like free trips to Israel. At community events, organizers wring their hands when only a few young people show up.
The truth is that the young Jews are there, ready to participate in Jewish life. They’ve always been there. And they’re telling us what they want and need to be a part of this community.
** [ http://youngjewishproud.org ]
We just haven’t been listening.
But I’m trying to change that. Starting with me, starting with you, starting now.
The young Jews of Jewish Voice for Peace have made a stunning declaration of purpose that cannot be ignored. *Watch it now-and spread the word.* [ http://youngjewishproud.org ]
*
And then read about its significance in a longer think-piece that I’ve written. [ http://youngjewishproud.org ]**
*
They are telling us loud and clear: they want a Jewish community that unconditionally values all life equally. And an identity that doesn’t demand that they justify taking another people’s land.
What they want is the values of justice that we taught them, but could never really embrace when it came to Israel and Palestine.
Read what they have to say:
”
We exist. We are everywhere. We speak and love and dream in every language…
We remember how to build our homes, and our holiness, out of time and thin air, and so do not need other people’s land to do so …
We refuse to have our histories distorted or erased, or appropriated by a corporate war machine. We will not call this liberation…
We commit ourselves to peace. We will stand up with honest bodies, to offer honest bread…We are young Jews, and we get to decide what that means.”
*
Better yet, watch them. And share this link with everyone you know. [ http://youngjewishproud.org ]*
If you’re young, Jewish, and proud, join them.
If you’re just proud, support them: Invite them to your synagogue (or church or school or mosque) to speak. Take them to lunch and listen, really listen. Or make a gift in honor of their efforts.
Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, starts tomorrow night.
This New Year, I ask you-whether you are Jewish or not-when you hear a young adult knocking at your door, please open it. And listen.
Shana Tovah,
[ http://youngjewishproud.org ]
Rabbi Brant Rosen, Co-Chair of Rabbinical Council
Jewish Voice for Peace
P.S. These young people are initiating an exciting campaign, the Go & Learn Campaign, that will aim to bring 1,000 people to youth-led educational events about the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement nationwide-stay tuned for when they will be in your area. Better still, *send them a message of support* [ http://youngjewishproud.org ] so you can be sure to learn first about their plans.