Jeffrey Goldberg
As I predicted, in his role as representative of the Jewish people, Jeffrey Goldberg got a one-on-one interview with Barack Obama again, laying on hands to make sure that he wants to attack Iran.
In 45 minutes, Goldberg appears to have asked 23 questions, not one of them dealing with the 4-1/2 million Palestinians living without rights under occupation. Palestinians don't merit a reference except when Obama disparages the Goldstone report and the flotilla.
But I guess that's the point of the Great Game of the Iranian threat-- take Palestine off the table.
Also, typically, Goldberg asks two questions about Obama's relationship with Netanyahu. "Are you friends?" I.e., Goldberg's ultimate test, do you like Israel?
Below, Goldberg seeks reassurance that Obama will resort to military means if he has to and that Iran is a threat not just to Israel but the world. Thus Goldberg seeks to solidify the idea that it is in the American people's interest to attack Iran.
President Obama: It would still be a profound national-security interest of the United States to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
GOLDBERG: Why, then, is this issue so often seen as binary, always defined as Israel versus Iran?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think it has to do with a legitimate concern on the part of Israel that they are a small country in a tough neighborhood, and as a consequence, even though the U.S. and Israel very much share assessments of how quickly Iran could obtain breakout capacity, and even though there is constant consultation and intelligence coordination around that question, Israel feels more vulnerable. And I think the prime minister and the defense minister, [Ehud Barak,] feel a profound, historic obligation not to put Israel in a position where it cannot act decisively and unilaterally to protect the state of Israel. I understand those concerns, and as a consequence, I think it's not surprising that the way it gets framed, at least in this country, where the vast majority of people are profoundly sympathetic to Israel's plight and potential vulnerabilities -- that articles and stories get framed in terms of Israel's potential vulnerability.
But I want to make clear that when we travel around the world and make presentations about this issue, that's not how we frame it. We frame it as: this is something in the national-security interests of the United States and in the interests of the world community.
“………I think it’s not surprising that the way it gets framed, at least in this country, where the vast majority of people are profoundly sympathetic to Israel’s plight and potential vulnerabilities
————————————————
my small tweak:
I think it’s not surprising that the way it gets framed, at least in this country, where the vast majority of people – who donate to politicians and political parties- are profoundly sympathetic to Israel’s plight and potential vulnerabilities ………
You took the comment right out of my fingertips.
Do you actually have anything to say about the strategic situation discussed in the conversation?
“Do you actually have anything to say about the strategic situation discussed in the conversation?”
What would that accomplish besides dignifying the abhorrent and illegal warmongering by the USIsraelis?
smd341, your first mistake is to characterize that staged exchange as a ‘conversation’. second, the content of the ‘conversation’ is pretty superficial, even for goldenberg. since you seem to think that something of importance was revealed, why don’t you enlighten us? don’t strain yourself, though, a couple of bullet points will suffice.
I’m no fan of Goldberg, but what I was getting at are the consequences to the arms race that Obama spoke of in the interview.
An arms race in the region would be bad. If we want to do something about that, perhaps it is time to be honest and open about who has nuclear weapons in the region already and which country is threatening to attack which one. And then we could talk about how when Israel says an Iranian nuke is an existential threat, it suggests they might use any means necessary to stop it.
This isn’t snark. Israel is the one threatening to go to war and they probably can’t ensure that Iran can’t create a nuclear weapon if it wants to with the merely conventional weapons at their disposal. So either they get us to join in, which means a wider conventional war, or they use their nukes.
If, of course, they really mean all they say about the seriousness of the threat. Once they have bombed with conventional weapons and if that doesn’t work, which it probably won’t, what are they going to do next?
And even if they don’t decide to use their nukes, how can the Iranians be sure of that? So if there really is a desire for a nuclear free zone in the Mideast, it’s hard to avoid remembering who has the Bomb there.
And also, suppose Israel really did reach a mutually agreeable peace settlement with the Palestinians, whether 1 state or 2 (both seem unlikely at the moment). How exactly does Iran justify its anti-Israel position then? If the Palestinians themselves tell the Iranians to back off, the issue doesn’t work for them. So if Israel is worried about hatred from its neighbors, you’d think they’d be desperately trying to reach a genuinely fair settlement with the Palestinians.
Israel started the arms race long ago, and has tried to maintain it’s position as the only horse in the race.
Who do you want to blame for the 60 billion arms de to Saudi Arabia? Iran?
No linkage allowed, linkage verboten.
“In 45 minutes, Goldberg appears to have asked 23 questions, not one of them dealing with the 4-1/2 million Palestinians living without rights under occupation. Palestinians don’t merit a reference except when Obama disparages the Goldstone report and the flotilla.
But I guess that’s the point of the Great Game of the Iranian threat– take Palestine off the table.”
Glenn Greenwald on Goldberg’s interview with Obama:
“That’s the reward system in action. Goldberg twice assures everyone concerned that President Obama is “tougher” on Iran than even the Republicans were or are (Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter proudly re-tweeted Goldberg’s Toughness praise), and Goldberg then is granted “the most extensive interview [Obama] has given about the looming Iran crisis,” in which he again assures everyone that Obama Is Tough and Means Serious Business.”
See “The incomplete media debate on Iran” at
link to salon.com
Over the years, the entire discourse, in the American press, on Iran, somewhere turned a corner.
Goldberg may ask 23 times but it’s clear that the conversation is now far less about Iran than it is about Israel.
Americans may be slow (sadly, probably too slow on this) but we’re not stupid.
This article is worth reading in full for what it says about the ineptitude that led to the war in Iraq. Which is now being repeated. So much for the Democrats .
But there is also this insight which says so much about Israel
link to nybooks.com
“On a presidential visit to Israel in 2008, Bush travels to Bethlehem by car rather than helicopter against the wishes of the Israelis because Rice wants him to see “the ugliness of the occupation, including the checkpoints and the security wall…for himself and [because] it would have been an insult to the Palestinians if he didn’t.” The barriers were taken down, the convoy traveled at speed, but Bush got the point, according to Rice: “‘This is awful,’ he said quietly.””
And some day the American people are going to see the issue in the same way and it will be very bad for Israel.
“a small country in a tough neighborhood”? The metaphors that are used to cover for Israel. I prefer this one: A bully complains that (after he has repeatedly kicked kids off the playground) he is just one guy in a playground full of those who want to get him.
The self-righteousness is astounding. As is mentioned on MW frequently, the Palestinians don’t exist unless they can be held up as bad guys. The danger of Israel to the United States is that it is blind to reality and in the view it holds, it is the eternal righteous victim that can do no wrong. The Iran issue is proof that there is no bridge too far for Israel when the US is so easily leveraged. For the U.S. President to be on the leash of this thinking is terrifying, as is the fact that it is so blatantly obvious -yet most Americans sleep.
Friends of mine who are intelligent people respond to my pleas to them to do as little as write their Congresspeople with “why do you care about this so much?” as if it were of next to no significance to Americans. My favorite response from one of them who is pro-Israel: “What have the Palestinians ever done for you?”
“Friends of mine who are intelligent people respond to my pleas to them to do as little as write their Congresspeople with “why do you care about this so much?”
That’s interesting, but unsurprising. Some Americans care nothing about what we do to people overseas, and then act confused or morally outraged when some foreigner is anti-American.
But Israel had a right to spring (vi et armis, and unasked by the neighbors) into existence and, having had a right to spring into existence, has a right to exist, and having the right to exist, has a right to hit the other folks in the playground again and again (like Gaza, nasty neighbors) until they finally understand and acknowledge that Israel has a right to be , well, Israel. You know, nasty and brutish. And until all the neighbors stop complaining, Israel will just do it again and again, because it’s the scorpion in the woodpile and that’s what scorpions do. Israel will go on being Israel, will go on being hated and feared, will go on discerning “existential threats” under every rock, etc. In short, life (and of course death) will go on.
Unless, of course, Americans catch on and start saying they’ve caught on in an attention-getting manner. Coming soon to a theater near you? No. Not soon.
Baroness Jenny Tonge, noted for speaking out with some frequency on this issue, refused to apologise for her latest speech at Middlesex University (as demanded by various Jewish orgs and, I think, someone from the Emb) and was sacked from her Party. She suggested that at some point the US public would cotton on to the Lobby, and the game would be up for Israel:
link to guardian.co.uk
link to middleeastmonitor.org.uk
What a minute — she got sacked for making comments about US politics? When are they going to cotton on to the Lobby in the UK?!
We’re not as religiously policed by ‘our’ lobby, but they’ve been working harder since even Cameron was speaking out. ‘Bicom’ battering the Beeb, CSI claiming anti-semitism everywhere they look. etc.
Clif Brown, I also get that “why do you care so much about the Palestinians?” Email fundies always eventually assume I have a Palestinian girlfriend. It’s like something is seriously wrong with me for even wanting them to discuss the US-Israel situation. I get the same from family and extended family.
“Email fundies always eventually assume I have a Palestinian girlfriend.”
Do you eventually inform them of the actual matrominial facts in the case?
“a small country in a tough neighborhood”?
the whole ‘conversation’ is peppered with this drivel. t.friedman must be obama’s rhetoric coach.
I must say that it is pleasure to read “Weasel in Chief”. He sound very empathic, but it would equally mean “i agree with you but leave sales pitch to me” and “this is a very small country with a very narrow view point”.
At least some of the other Atlantic columnists have the decency to be embarassed by this sycophantic behavior of Obama’s. Steve Clemons:
link to theatlantic.com
What Obama also failed to say is that he has America’s back. Submitting to Israel’s demands and starting a war with Iran is clearly not in America’s interest.
Prioritising the desires of Israel above those of the US is nothing less than treason. I’m not even American and the prospect pisses me off.
As an American I was deeply disappointed in Obama’s responses. It’s clear that he’s worried the GOP might take Jewish votes and big Zionist cash and MSM spinning away from him, and that his operating assumption is that most Americans sympathize with Israel and the most influential political factions totally support Israel. Surely he knows most Americans are not fed an objective view of the I-P situation daily, yet Palestinians are not even in his consideration. He’s OK with that, as if that’s American values and we have a free press. He’s not thought out well his theories that it’s in US interest to push Iran to the brink, and that Iran must not have nuclear weapon capacity because that will lead to a nuclear arms race in the ME. Clearly, he does not put himself in Iran’s place to understand Iran–as Ron Paul has done. He’s already made up his mind he’s going with the prevailing domestic political forces regarding Israel. Obviously, its not Zbig or Dempsey, for example, that have his ear. It’s Dennis Ross in the closet. And Penny Pritzker. I bet he does not even realize his mother would have sided with Rachel Corrie. Or he does, and he does not care as he views his mother as a well-meaning idealist always sympathizing with the victims of the white man. He does not have mental integrity. He’s just another political opportunist. Palestinians are not blacks anyway.
Are you the blogger formerly know as Billmon?
“Are you the blogger formerly know as Billmon?”
Wow! Some people get all the compliments.
This guy was the best! I haven’t read him in ages. He showed up on Dailykos at some point. He was one of the best reads in 2002-2005. He had to move on for some reason.
As for BillM, it was more like wishful thinking. I did not read everything he wrote and wondered…
3 questions
how to educate the public to the fact that president obama’s an israel firster, to the harm that israel firsters bring to america and to the dangers that lie ahead should our government not sever its special relationship with israel?
Most of the public does not want to be educated to those questions, yourstruly. They have more important things to think about.
And there is no upside in getting info. People instinctively know they can only get hurt by forming an opinion on this.
Sad but true, Citizen. People will discover the truth when they go looking for the truth. Either that or they will know in the end. Whatever that means. Not even sure what the truth is to be quite honest. Although it is obviously not what Obama claims to support regarding I/P.
Even when you do feel like you’ve educated somebody about this sort of thing, that may not always be the case. I thought I convinced my dad pretty good but now he’s conflictingly arguing about Iran and saying “they threatened to wipe out Israel” like I guess he didn’t learn anything. And I’ve lost a friend over my position (and pissed off some others). Everybody else doesn’t care because they have more important things to do or think about. “Look, can’t you see I’m busy? I’m busy doing nothing important and that’s important. Don’t you understand how important it is?”
I wish those Israel opinion polls had a “I don’t really care” option. Probably 90%+ would checkmark it.
Have you no respect for the little corporal?
Finally stated clearly:
“But I guess that’s the point of the Great Game of the Iranian threat– take Palestine off the table”.
link to ofpeasantsandothermatters.wordpress.com
Sumud:
“Prioritising the desires of Israel above those of the US is nothing less than treason. I’m not even American and the prospect pisses me off.”
Yes, it’s an embarrassment to watch one POTUS after another soil the office with such servile prostration. It’s worse than embarrasing for American soldiers who have lived the tragic and lethal consequences of “prioritising the desires of Israel above those of the US.”
Unlike our other neocons, all, seemingly, of bloodthirsty bent, Jeffrey Goldberg did at least once wear a uniform, not an American one, to be sure, but fortunately for us this patriotic experience didn’t diminish his Israeli Firstness and ardor for such a wholesome activity as war; indeed, might even have helped advance them.