This is the tipping point. And it all happened in the last 24 hours. Why? Because AIPAC overplayed its hand. Mr Conventional Wisdom, Tom Friedman in the New York Times, warns of the dangers to Jews if the Israel lobby is perceived to drag the country into war:
It is also an issue fraught with danger for Israel and American Jews, neither of whom want to be accused of dragging America into a war, especially one that could weaken an already frail world economy..
The last thing Israel or American friends of Israel — Jewish and Christian — want is to give their enemies a chance to claim that Israel is using its political clout to embroil America in a war that is not in its interest.
That could easily happen because backing for Israel today has never been more politicized. In recent years, Republicans have tried to make support for Israel a wedge issue that would enable them to garner a higher percentage of Jewish votes and campaign contributions, which traditionally have swung overwhelmingly Democratic. This has led to an arms race with the Democrats over who is more pro-Israel — and over-the-top declarations, like Newt Gingrich’s that the Palestinians “are an invented people.”
And it could easily happen because money in politics has never been more important for running campaigns, and the Israel lobby — both its Jewish and evangelical Christian wings — has never been more influential, because of its ability to direct campaign contributions to supportive candidates.
Note Tom Friedman in 2003, to Haaretz, on the neocons' responsibility for the Iraq war, which Friedman had also supported, citing suicide bombers in Tel Aviv.
Is the Iraq war the great neoconservative war? It's the war the neoconservatives wanted, Friedman says. It's the war the neoconservatives marketed. Those people had an idea to sell when September 11 came, and they sold it. Oh boy, did they sell it. So this is not a war that the masses demanded. This is a war of an elite. Friedman laughs: I could give you the names of 25 people (all of whom are at this moment within a five-block radius of this office) who, if you had exiled them to a desert island a year and a half ago, the Iraq war would not have happened.
link to youtube.com
Robert byrd on the insanity of war in Iraq
War with Iran for Israel is no less insane.
No, war with Iran is more insane.
Number one, it’s a much more difficult military proposition, and the down side is much worse.
Number two, we’ve already had the Iraq war, and war with Iran would show we learned nothing from it.
Nonsense, utter nonsense. irresponsible.
he was THANKING OBAMA for shifting the lens away from Israel and american jews by making “the iranian threat” a US/Worldwide problem to be dealt with. And cheers him on as he prepares americans to do the heavy lifting……
phil man, your reading only what you want to read.
“As such, no one should want domestic electoral politics mixed up with the Iran decision, which is why it was so important that the president redefined the Iran problem as a global proliferation threat and grounded his decision-making in American realism, not politics”
“…….If it comes to war, let it be because the ayatollahs were ready to sacrifice their whole economy to get a nuke and, therefore, America — the only country that can truly take down Iran’s nuclear program — had to act to protect the global system, not just Israel. I respect that this is a deadly serious issue for Israel — which has the right to act on its own — but President Obama has built a solid strategic and political case for letting America take the lead. “
Talk about who is reading “only what you want to read.”
keep drinkin that kool-aid………
>> … he was THANKING OBAMA for shifting the lens away from Israel and american jews by making “the iranian threat” a US/Worldwide problem to be dealt with. And cheers him on as he prepares americans to do the heavy lifting……
That’s how I read it, too:
>> Friedman: Every Israeli and friend of Israel should be thankful to the president for framing the Iran issue [as very dangerous for the world]. … it makes clear that dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat was not Israel’s problem alone.
Hillary Mann Leverett pointed out quite forcefully that not once was Palestine mentioned in the AIPAC conference, which was the goal of Netanyahu as he targeted Iran. Larry Greenfield of JINSA said, “But Palestine is solved; in West Bank, Palestinians are in charge of their own lives, they have their own government.” Furthermore, said Lying Larry, “Iran IS the threat . . .”
“he was THANKING OBAMA for shifting the lens away from Israel and american jews by making “the iranian threat” a US/Worldwide problem to be dealt with. And cheers him on as he prepares americans to do the heavy lifting……”
“That’s how I read it, too:”
True, but you shouldn’t expect to see any genuinely principled statement from Tom Friedman on this subject. He’s always been a big believer in the US bombing pesky foreigners. He’s also not one you could accuse of favoring Israel over the US–when push comes to shove he sides with Obama over Netanyahu. He’s an imperialist, but an American one.
What was interesting was his admission that a war on Iran could be blamed on the Israel lobby. Of course he then goes on to praise Obama for his slippery way of being a more subtle kind of warmonger.
Yep
“Every Israeli and friend of Israel should be thankful to the president for framing the Iran issue this way. It is important strategically for Israel, because it makes clear that dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat was not Israel’s problem alone”
Obama can frame it any way he likes. Put those same 25 people Friedman mentioned and exile them to a desert and there will never be a war with Iran either.
I think it’s both and a raised question. Friedman rightly points out the dangers for Israel (big grain of salt there) and American Jews (sadly), in this push for US involvement in a war by and for Israel. PW is right that this shows a discussion of the previously undiscussable. A widening crack in the Narrative.
You’re right in that Friedman was thanking Obama for shifting the focus, but my read was that thanks was (however obliquely, it’s Friedman after all) because of the dangers he points out.
It is entirely possible that, as you say, Friedman is thankful because Obama is embracing Israel’s concerns and ambitions. I’m not sure that’s clear, though.
So the political/policy question, to me, is whether Obama is diffusing the issue by broadening the context into global non-proliferation, thereby aligning/diffusing Israel’s singular and immediate interest/manipulation with more mundane and glacial global security diplomacy (buying time while still nominally addressing Israel’s stridency; smoke screen), or is Obama doing it because he is starting to embrace Israel’s “red-line” and adding the flowery words so no one objects until it’s too late?
This phrasing is typical Obama-speak to get the campaign money, yet commit (or not commit) to anything. There’s also ample precedent for the latter part of that question, but given that nearly the entire US defense and intelligence establishment does not seem to want war, some reality has to enter in to the decision making and the time-buying/diffusion tactic seems more likely.
Bottom line, for me, is that this subtext of “Is what Israel wants good for Jews?” or “Thank you Obama for protecting us from Israeli overzealousness.” would not have been brought up in NYT even last year. The rest of the policy discussion in Friedman’s article is pretty much unknowable blather.
Obama’s “broadening the context into global non-profliferation” is very cheap since he only talked of the ME in this context, and never mentioned Israel’s 300 nukes (& constant threats of war at no-nuke weaponized Iran) and rejection of the NNPT. Obama just kicked the ball down the campaign road, mindful some of his gentile base are actually anti-war, anti saber-rattling, as means to peace anywhere. I don’t really think Obama ever thinks of his sleeping kids as lie Israeli kids or Palestinian kids;he just looks to which side his bread is most buttered on, and he’s still angling for that during this GOP campaign against him–Bibi knows it, and will force the fish Obama catches as he will deem his personal salvation for personal material and lucrative networking gain.
@Citizen Agree with most everything you said. It is mostly cheap, Obama-style rhetoric, so he can play both sides for purely political reasons. Where I disagree, at this point, is whether he’s 100% insincere. I think these words give him an avenue and some small leverage to deflect Israeli demands for a bit.
Obama may not have the cajones to stand up to BN politically, but he does have the DoD inclining against war. So there’s that.
Who knows.
Freidman deliberately writes so that you can’t pin down what he said on certain subjects.
TBH I don’t think the sociopaths who run Israel care too much about regular American Jews. The top echelons of the IDF don’t. Bibi doesn’t.
It is always the way with the extreme right. The Republican party cares very little about regular Americans as well – and for all their posturing about soldiers, they care nothing about US soldiers as well.
Actually, I wonder if all this slow-motion attempt to push us into war isn’t more damaging to Israel and the Lobby.
In the first place the present situation seems to just be gradually pulling in the marginally interested. Once the shooting starts however, the impulse to just root for the flag tends not to be the greatest for encouraging examination and reflection.
Further makes me wonder if Phil’s “tipping point” hasn’t subtly been reached sometime before now, being some subtle thing to begin with. E.g., just the expansion of the conversation to talk about separate interests, together with amazement that anyone would be talking about another war after Iraq and Afghanistan? Coupled with the Lobby’s need to be more full-throated in boosting one against Iran?
I know some may say it was W&M’s book, but I doubt it, not in terms of the general public. And yet it does seem that where we see movement is in the general public—with someone I read recently mentioning that even amongst the Tea Party crowd there’s a goodly amount of skepticism about our ties with Israel. And of course it is the general public’s feelings with which Tom Friedman’s piece here is concerned.
I note also a certain populism in Obama’s remarks now, clearly feeling there’s an audience for them: Talking separately about our interests and then Israel’s, and talking about how those popping off don’t pay the price of war and etc.
(Not to mention how interesting those remarks were in the form of firing shots across the Lobby’s bow: “You want more of this?” they can easily be interpreted as saying.)
A tipping point has been navigated, but its not the product of one event or person, but a series of nonlinear developments and hosts of unknown personages, many within the evolving US national security state that’s become increasingly oppositional to the Zionist regime in Israel.
Israelis are going to find out what Americans have always known about putting their trust in Congressmen. There has never been a cause, constituency or issue that has not been abandoned or betrayed by those thieves and bloodsuckers on capitol hill.
The days coming when even the money can’t buy the loyalty of duplicitous vermin in the ‘Hall of Mirrors’ on the Potomac.
This attack on Congress is so unjustified. When did they cross the association of used car dealers? Or timber barons? Or dairy farmers?
It is just the fact that supporting Israel is so much harder then, say, dairy farmer. You vote for something once a year, and mention the farmers kindly in a speech or two. You do not have to applaud 29 times any time you see a cow. And few people are accused of a hidden hatred of bovines.
Your kidding or your not knowledgeable regarding the political history of the US. In 1782 George Washington had to humiliate the officers of the Continental Army from leading a mutinous army that was ready to march on a hated Congress. Americans would have cheered.
The American masses from day one have always held a low opinion of Congress, no matter what they thought of their Representative or Senator. And today’s polls indicate that disdain is lower than ever. Congress is about lucre, and few who serve can resist Mammon and end their political careers filthy rich. Of course there are exceptions and some surprises along the way, but all to often few and far between.
“There has never been a cause, constituency or issue that has not been abandoned or betrayed by those thieves and bloodsuckers on capitol hill.”
Thank God Obama is so completely different from those people! Why, Obama wouldn’t serve in Congress if you paid him.
Must be lonely, being the only honest man in Washington. Oh well, at least he has the indomitable Michelle with him through thick and thin. That counts for a lot.
Amen, ahhiyawa .
Israel doesn’t get the meaning of the financial crisis and what its impact on regular Americans is. As long as credit was plentiful and jobs were stable and house prices were rising, middle class and poor Americans could indulge themselves with a little war in the middle East.
But things are very different in 2012.
link to blogs.the-american-interest.com
“Today the 20th century model of the American dream faces the same kind of crisis the 19th century version experienced 100 years ago. International competition and technological advances mean that the American factory worker’s earnings and opportunities are depressed in the way farmers were going to the wall 100 years ago”
Israel never did anything for US take home wages. It’s the economy, stupid
“a chance to claim that Israel is using its political clout to embroil America in a war that is not in its interest.” This is once again revealing that there is (or might be seen to be) more than zip between American and Israeli interests. Yep, boys, two countries, each with its own interests, two and not one.
HOWEVER, his second paragraph slyly suggests that a pre-emptive Israeli attack WILL drag America into war, and this is a slight-of-hand that Obama would do well to negate.
Israel is not threatening to launch a “preemptive war”, but a preventative war. The first is justifiable under international law in the face of clear and imminent threat, the last is criminal no matter how much Zionists and their barking dogs try to confuse the differences.
Possession of a nuclear capability, or even nuclear arms is not a clear and imminent threat, no matter how loudly Bibi chokes to death claiming it. If that were so North Korea would have been attacked years ago.
ahhiyawa: You are exactly right. Thanks for the clarification. Israel is threatening illegal aggressive war, calling it preventative, and the threats are themselves violations of UN charter (no war, no threats of war).
The cult rises to warn of political apocalypse.
Most Americans support US military action if Iran gets a nuke. Get over it.
“Most Americans support US military action if Iran gets a nuke. Get over it.”
Ad hoc, veni vidi vici. Post hoc, caveat emptor. A priori versus a posteriori.
Id est, post modum ceteris paribus impossibilis!
“The cult rises to warn of political apocalypse.”
Calamitas, ipso facto!
“Most Americans support US military action if Iran gets a nuke”
No doubt you, Hophmi, have already received your commission, and will be one of the first to lead troops into Tehran.
Man, if there’s anything I can’t stand it’s a chicken-soup hawk. Hophmi, are you gonna go fight the Iranians? Either man up, and join up, or shut up.
And it’s one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn,
Next stop is Teheran;
And it’s five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain’t no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we’re all gonna die.
(Just one word changed, Country Joe.)
A short time ago the conventional wisdom was that Americans would “support US military action if Iran” enriched uranium.
That goal post has come, gone and been superseded by 20% enrichment, demonstrably making Iran a nuclear capable state, which will move further down the field should the Iranians build nuclear armaments.
And Americans don’t and won’t give a damn no matter how loudly the usual suspects whine and squeal.
Yeow, I’m starting to get frightened of Iran. If only there was another country, near Iran, which could go to war with Iran, a war which would enfeeble them both. I know! Iraq fits the bill! All we have to do is give Iraq a little military support, and good-bye Iran threat!
Mooser: Great idea! Another Iraq-v-Iran war. Last one only lasted, what, 10 years? Poison gas. Iran-Contra (just for fun). USA supporting Saddam and Saddam losing anyway. And now, today, Iraq and Iran are nearly allies. War? sure thing!
Sometime in the near future there will be bumper stickers “Anti-Zionist since 2012″
And “Out of the closet” Anti-Zionist since 2012.
How about partisan bumper stickers?
“Anti-Zionist for donkey’s years” – with pair of donkeys ears – for the Dems.
“Anti-Zionist as long as I can remember” – with elephant with knotted trunk – for the Repugs.
Since candidates for both parties seem to have to prove their zionist credentials before election to higher office!
In a perfect world maybe. Instead we’re stuck with Jennifer Rubin’s “Jerusalem is not a Settlement” bumper stickers. And (LOL!) Obama 2012.
“… and the Israel lobby — both its Jewish and evangelical Christian wings — has never been more influential, because of its ability to direct campaign contributions to supportive candidates.” (emphasis added)
In this regard – that is, the ability or inclination of the Christian evangelicals, as such, to direct campaign contributions to candidates specifically for support of Israel – is quite insignificant in comparison to that of Jewish organizations making up the beating heart and body of the Lobby. Think AIPAC and CPMJAO and affiliates.
those same 25 neocons who brought on the iraq war, how many of their loved ones fought in iraq, how many will fight in the iran war that they’re now promoting? oh, i forgot, america’s wars are fought by the sons and daughters of the mostly poor and powerless.
The tipping point ? – or not.
The essence of Friedman’s article is that he wants to take the heat off Netanyahu, AIPAC and the Israel Firsters – warmongerers by shifting – spinning the focus away from the main drivers, and declare the danger as a collective one, endangering the region and world at large.
While this is also correct, the rest of the world, however, wants to engage in a rational political dialogue with Iran and diplomacy, while putting simultaneously quite some economic pressure on the Iranian Regime – Israel and Israel Firsters have obviously other priorities.
Friedman has rightly sensed that the bellicose speeches at the AIPAC Conference and the loudest cheers from the audience for the most inciting speakers could fall back in a rather “undesirable” way for the warmongerers.
I read his article that he is rather interested to limit the likely negative repercussions on the public opinion in the USA and elsewhere. As an “insurance” so to speak……, in case ….