The good news is that Obama's mild demurral re Israel and the panic over the Arab spring means that prominent American Republicans and Democrats are finally going to talk about Israel openly. And Americans may get to differ?
First, the Republican Party: Ron Kampeas reports in the JTA:
the single foreign policy reference in Pawlenty's statement [endorsing Romney]. My bold:
Abroad, the standing of the United States appears uncertain and adrift under the failed leadership of a president who prefers chastising allies to condemning foes.
...to the degree foreign policy will play a role, it looks like Republicans -- the entire party -- will hinge their attack on President Obama's differences with Israel.
Second, the Democratic Party: Liberal Richard Cohen of the Washington Post:
But the United States has the moral obligation to stick by the sometimes obstreperous democracy it felt morally obligated to embrace. The Obama administration has to show no daylight between it and Israel — never mind that Benjamin Netanyahu is no Ben-Gurion.
The no-daylight line is from AIPAC. Note that Cohen's whole column is based on the idea that the Arab spring is a great step backward. But the peoples overwhelmingly approve the Arab spring. This shows how ethnocentric the Israel lobby is: It will rationalize any people's oppression so long as Israel is maintained as a Jewish state. Is it worth it? When American Jews live so freely in a plural democracy? Isn't that the way, Richard?
How isnt Netanyahu like Ben Gurion? Has Cohen read what Ben Gurion wrote and said?
Also, “liberal,” and “richard cohen” do not belong in the same sentence.
As for any upcoming debate on I/P from our political leaders – dont hold your breath. And I think the main reason is that the Lobby doesnt want it discussed. You will hear abstract arguments about “threatened democracies” and “our allies” but I doubt seriously that it gets to ” Obama Hates Israel” – because they know the reply is “No, I Love Israel, and More Than You.” This goes especially for nationally televised debates etc.
Its one thing to pay fealty in front of AIPAC on C-SPAN , but on the major networks? I dont see it. The reason why, at least from where I sit is that the American public would finally be confronted by the fact that BOTH sides of the isle are IN LOVE with this foreign country. How would that make sense, these people who disagree on EVERYTHING – all falling over each other to “stand with Israel?” I think Americans would find this very confusing, and I think alot of people would say ” something isnt right here, if they both agree with each other – this has to be a conspiracy.” The Lobby definitely doesnt want that. Abstract, abstract, abstract
‘I don’t see it.’
I agree. If we could avoid discussing Israel after 9/11 and Iraq, it can and probably will happen again.
One wildcard was Ron Paul, but he seems to be avoiding it, even if I recall, jumping on ‘Obama is anti-israel bandwagon’.
No, without prompting Israel will be left out of the debate again. The prompting though could come from a major event that forces the discussion of US ME foreign policy…with the UN vote/Turkey/Egypt/Saudi Arabia, there is some chance this will happen.
Erdogan is turning out to be the kind of leader we thought Obama would be.
link to haaretz.com
>> Erdogan is turning out to be the kind of leader we thought Obama would be.
——————
He insisted that Turkey will not return to normal relations with Israel until it apologizes for the 2010 Gaza flotilla raid, compensates the families of the victims, and lifts the blockade of the Gaza Strip. Without directly mentioning Israel, Erdogan added that “every country must pay for the terror acts it carries out.”
Erdogan also stressed that Turkey believes no country is above international law.
——————
He is right. And I hope that if he is ever questioned directly about the Armenian genocide, he will stand by his comments.
Yes, but you forget that he represents all of Turkey. Would you throw the baby out with the bathwater, the baby being his unprecedented moves to isolate and sanction Israel, by insisting he offend the majority of Turks and lose whatever power and influence he has to make change happen today?
Hopefully his positive influence will eventually allow for further reconciliation with Armenians. But let’s be realistic, the man wasn’t personally responsible for that tragedy and that shouldn’t be used as a bludgeon to hobble him in his efforts to help free Palestinians from oppression.
>> But let’s be realistic, the man wasn’t personally responsible for that tragedy and that shouldn’t be used as a bludgeon to hobble him in his efforts to help free Palestinians from oppression.
That’s not quite what I was getting at. I agree that Erdogan is doing an admirable thing by supporing the Palestinians. But I would like to see him be the kind of moral leader that Obama is not (and I’d like to see Turkey be the kind of moral nation that the U.S. and Israel are not).
If he’s a one-trick pony when it comes to justice, accountability and morality, then he’s ultimately no better than anyone else, his assistance to the Palestinians notwithstanding.
I don’t think Erdogan’s a one-trick pony. Since he’s been in power he’s brought about positive changes in Turkey that relate to the Kurds as well.
I believe what he’s been doing will lead to what you expect of him because he’s setting the stage for Turkish society asking themselves the question: How can we defend the rights of Palestinians and be an example to the rest of the world without admitting that we failed to live up to that moral standard in the past? The important thing is progression as opposed to stagnation and regression. As long as Turkey raises the moral bar progressively then full reconciliation with Armenians including recognition of the part Turkey played in their tragic history will become inevitable at some point, as they were recently in the process of reconciling until the Armenians backed off because Erdogan wanted to include the return by Armenians of occupied territory to Azerbaijan that it captured in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
>> kalithea September 14, 2011 at 2:58 am
Thanks for your reply. And I hope you’re right about him. :-)
>> kalithea September 14, 2011 at 2:58 am
Right-wing fear-mongerer David Warren has a clearly different opinion of Erdogan:
The man who could trigger a world war
—————
The greatest threat to the world’s peace, at this moment, comes from a man named Recip Tayyip Erdogan.
. . .
Erdogan’s credentials as an anti-Semite, but also as an anti-Communist, were established from his school days.
. . .
Turkey’s powerful, western-equipped military is now entirely Erdogan’s baby, and the country’s secularist constitution is a dead letter. Erdogan, the Islamist, now has absolute power.
It was he who sent the “peace flotilla” to challenge Israel’s right to blockade Gaza (recognized under international law and explicitly by the U.N.). He made the inevitable violent result of that adventure into an anti-Israeli cause célèbre. He has now announced that the next peace flotilla will be accompanied by the Turkish navy.
This will put Israel in the position of either surrendering its right to defend itself, or firing on Turkish naval vessels. There is no way to overstate the gravity of this: Erdogan is manoeuvring to create a casus belli.
He has made himself the effective diplomatic sponsor for the Palestinian declaration of statehood next week – from which much violence will follow. Every Palestinian who dies, trying to kill a Jew, will be hailed as a “martyr,” with compensation and apologies demanded.
. . .
The West is just watching, while Erdogan creates pretexts for another Middle Eastern war: one in which Israel may be pitted not only against the neighbouring states of the old Arab League, but also Turkey, and Iran, and Hamas, and Hezbollah.
This is what is called an “existential threat” to Israel, unfolding in live time. It could leave the West with a choice between defending Israel, and permitting another Holocaust. In other words, we are staring at the trigger for a genuine world war. With Recip Erdogan’s twitching finger on it.
—————
Well stated
no daylight?
nonsense, may there be a miles wide divide
every day yet wider
If I’m not mistaken (I’ve been known to hallucinate entire web-pages) the Israel issue is a big factor in this NY representative race.
The contention is mostly about who loves Israel more, as usual. And who is in the same political party as a certified Israel-hater!
To think that Bush Sr. was the last president to stand up to The Lobby — and even he eventually gave in and surrendered — is both depressing and instructive.
With each passing day, I find Victor Ostrovsky’s account of Israel’s plan to assassinate Bush Sr. during the 1991 Madrid summit (While pinning it on three Palestinians) to be more and more plausible.
Ostrovsky writes:
Avi, was this in one of his fiction novels?
For a person who left the Mossad in 1986, I find it hard to believe he’d be privy to Mossad ‘plans’ to assassinate Bush Sr. in 1991.
A case officer no less.
Ostrovsky maintained close ties with some of his former colleagues at the Mossad. He wrote of a split within the Mossad, a split between those who disagreed with the agenda of the newly appointed chief and those who agreed. At the time, this created two camps within the Mossad and Ostrovsky was one of those who had left in disagreement over the direction in which the agency was taking Israel. In short, he hoped to effect change from without with the help of a few insiders.
In 1991, when Ostrovsky learned of the plot, he recruited the help of former congressman Pete McCloskey in order to get the information out.
Moreover, when the information leaked to the press, Jack Anderson, an investigative reporter, and Jane Hunter, the editor and publisher of Israeli Foreign Affairs wrote about the case in her newsletter in 1991, thus bolstering Ostrovsky’s credibility.
i read his first book, didn’t he leave because he screwed up? I need to re-read it. I am not sure how true it was, but it was still a fascinating read.
as for him being able to learn about a plot to assassinate the most powerful person in the Mossad, while no longer serving, is silly. He was a case officer to begin with, considering how compartmentalized any intelligence organization is, the fact that knowledge like this would make it outside of the organization isn’t possible.
fun story though, he should include it with one of his fiction books.
yes, avi, what kind of conspiracy fantasist are you? israel assassinating western politicians? why it’s simply unthinkable. although george sr.’s tummy bug, i.e. violent, televised vomitting attack, in 1992 might be considered curious by fantasists. seems george was less than publicly supportive of settlement expansion around that time.
But the United States has the moral obligation to stick by the sometimes obstreperous democracy it felt morally obligated to embrace.
this frothing, arm-flailing desperation is getting sillier by the day. we are morally obliged to live up to our moral obligation? my ten-year old wouldn’t be so lazy as to expect to get away with writing that sentence. and yearning for the days of the Shah and SAVAK? does cohen get all weepy reminiscing about the halcyon days of Pinochet, DINA and colonia dignidad? who could objectively conclude that cohen gives a dried fig about ‘democracy’ in the middle east or any other ostensibly liberal aspirations?
obstreperous..i had to look up the definition.
i am reminded of the Leibowitz/silverstein debacle where some of the eased dropped material was israel embassy pushing columnists to write positive op-eds. could any of these people be responsible reporting the news or coming up with original material rather than creative descriptors?
“Along with Iran and Ethiopia, Turkey helped make up what was called “the strategy of the periphery,” [of] … Israel’s founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion,..”
marc b., actually I remember the passages about this grand strategy as slightly amusing through Avi Shlaim’s lense, especially specific offers to the US. He may forgive me, if I read him wrong.
It’s a perfect image that combines and unites past and present into the eternal now.
that whole paragraph that you quote from, lea, is atrocious from start to finish.
The Israeli-Egyptian peace is in jeopardy, and so is the cordial rapport Israel once had with Turkey. Along with Iran and Ethiopia, Turkey helped make up what was called “the strategy of the periphery,” the relationship that Israel’s founding prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, established with non-Arab nations. But Iran now is Israel’s mortal enemy, Ethiopia hardly matters and Turkey is bristling with hostility. Ankara wants Israel to apologize — not merely express regret — for its perfectly legal attempt to turn back a so-called humanitarian flotilla heading for Gaza last year. Nine people died. Israeli forces overreacted and now Turkey is doing the same.
cohen casually skips over 60 years of context which might explain an iranian change of policy towards isreal, and then he slips into an equivalence between israel’s ‘overreaction’, i.e. shooting civilians on a humanitarian mission in the back of the head, with the turkish response, i.e. demanding an apology from the state that assassinated its citizens. he really should just excuse himself from political analysis involving israel. he isn’t competent.
cohen casually skips over 60 years of context
two points,
Cohen’s basic frame is, America’s huge triumph over tyranny, the defeat of the Nazis. In other words the one thoroughly good war the US fought and won for the whole humanity. But this good war is deeply connected to the systematic discrimination and destruction of the Jews. Thus beyond the recognition of the Jewish state there is a deep connection between this good war and the Jews. This results in responsibility on the side of the America, as it suggests the US has to stand firm on Israel’s side against the latest tyrants, or evil.
“the strategy of the periphery”, alludes to the cooperative defensive shield Israel worked at against the “Arab sea” it is surrounded by, this defensive shield has broken down.
I am with Cohen that WWII was America’s biggest triumph, I actually profited from it, at the expense of many, many US soldiers lives. When I started to read more on the topic Israel-US, I wondered when this imagery would surface in an argument. It probably is a standard.
There is an underlying theme that you have to realize, whenever the Jews (the ultimate scapegoat) are in trouble, it is a sign of something much worse to come. It is based on the Nazi regime.
And Americans may get to differ?
lol, that is as far as i got..i cracked up. ok, i will go back and read the rest.
I have never seen Richard Cohen (not to be confused with Roger Cohen over at the NYT) ever cited except when he is saying something extraordinarily stupid or offensive. Seriously. Maybe it’s his niche.
Very true.
yeah last night Rep Paul actually stated the Al Qeada’s stated reasons for the 9/11 attack “Us support for dictators, US support for Israel no matter what they do, and US military bases on Muslim holy land” He was booed and his taking a beating in the blog world and elsewhere for speaking the truth on Us national foreign policy. Santorum repeated the lie that most Americans want to hear “they hate us for our freedoms”
Unable to find the complete transcript for the debate last night. Rep Paul told the truth that people do not want to hear about the I/P conflict and why so many people in that part of the world are pissed off with U.S.
Thats good news. I thought he was going to play it safe. Good for him.
Trying to find the transcript to get his exact words but can not find. He really went for it. Describing the stated reasons for the hatred towards the US. Even mentioned the Palestinians by name. He is taking a beating today for his statements.
Although many of the comments in support of what he said
link to dailymail.co.uk
link to bigpeace.com
link to mediaite.com
Ok Raw story has his exact words up
link to rawstory.com
Ron Paul was booed at the CNN/Tea Party Republican debate on Monday night after saying that al Qaeda did not attack the United States because “we’re free,” but because of U.S. military operations in the Middle East and the nation’s “unfair” treatment of Palestinians.
“This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and their attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true,” he said, eliciting some cheers from the crowd.
But as he continued, the cheers were drowned out with boos.
“Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit, and they wrote and said that we attacked because you had bases on our holy lands in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment,” Paul said before being interrupted by more boos. “I didn’t say that, I’m just trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombings.”
Thanks Kathleen,
A pop culture blog I follow didn’t mention it at all.
Telling.
They usually only mention Paul to call him ‘crazy’ or wikileaks to mention how sleazy Assange is…such fealty to power. I don’t think the writers even realize it, they just want to be successful at work so they accept the establishment POV on everything. Thank goodness for Mondoweiss.
DIane Rehm show not touching these issues.
Today NPR’s Talk of the Nation is going to cover the issue.
Hope folks call (1-800- 989 talk) , email in talk@npr.com and comment at the Talk of the Nation website at 2 today
link to npr.org
link to npr.org
Israel Under Siege
Israeli diplomats fled Egypt last week after an attack on their embassy in Cairo. In Turkey, Israeli officials were forced to leave in a diplomatic row. And later this month, Palestinians hope to overcome U.S. pressure and win a bid for recognition of statehood at the United Nations General Assembly. As Israel appears to lose its Muslim allies it faces a growing sense of isolation in the world and many worry about the possible repercussions for the peace process, Israel’s security and the U.S. role in the region. Neal Conan talks with Washington Post correspondent Joel Greenberg and Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the UN, about Israel’s new sense of isolation and how it changes the dynamics of the Middle East.
“many worry about the possible repercussions for the peace process”
Sure . It’s like saying my 87 year old Grandmother is in danger of experiencing an unplanned pregnancy.
Horse dead flog
Obama. What great choices this man has, when the Krauthammer’s and the Cohen’s of the media a pounding out the same message. They are like little messengers sitting on each shoulder of the president- one Bolshevik, one Menshevik. It must make him a happy guy.
Obama . No change, just hopeless
the illusion of hope can only take us so far.
Leaders need to start doing just that instead of following! Obama has shown minimal leadership on this issue – Netanyahu’s puppy dog!
Oh my Dore Gold on Talk of the Nations program today about “Israel under Seige” sounds like it will be 40 Israel promo minutes.
Folks should call in. I have gotten through many times over the years and questioned, pushed, challenged Neil Conan and his guest about these issues. Millions of folks listen to these programs. Be polite, keep calling. You might even have to kiss the screeners ass and say things you do not believe because Talk of the Nations screeners are especially biased towards Israel (you know the filtering system) try to be neutral and then get on air and tell the truth. Send folks to Mondoweiss. Make a statement and then ask a sincere, polite question based on facts
also let them know if you are a first time caller. They love this. Tell them how much you love the show. Of course they love this
Go for it today
link to npr.org
Wait wait wait. I could not find Richard Cohen in the Washington Post’s left-leaning nor their right-leaning section. Is there a secret PEP-leaning section?
And, for my non-existing lord’s sake, what does that squeezed in word “liberal” mean?
The debate took place in Tampa, Florida. Had it been in Iowa, I don’t know that there would have been as much, if any, booing against Ron Paul.
Israel moved to his new neighborhood (or her? I thought that Israel was a son, hence he, but some write she). Sadly, the neighborhood was not too good — hostile. Contumely locals kept muttering:
“He came in here and he trashed the place,” [says Washington Post columnist David Broder,] “and it’s not his place.”
RE: “But the United States has the moral obligation to stick by the sometimes obstreperous democracy it felt morally obligated to embrace. The Obama administration has to show no daylight between it and Israel — never mind that Benjamin Netanyahu is no Ben-Gurion.” ~ the “liberal” Richard Cohen
MY COMMENT: So the U.S. has “the moral obligation to stick by” the immoral Netanyahu/Lieberman governing coalition no matter what they do? Incredible!
Richard Cohen is obviously a faux liberal.