-
-
- And we live on… 0
- US official — we went to Israel first 2
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status … 22
- Israel takes 30 dunams of land near Salfit ‘for security … 4
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look … 38
- Rafah march for deteriorating hunger strikers as family appeals for … 0
- Rafah’s nicest tunnel: Siege meets surf in Gaza 7
- Iranian talks fail after neocon ‘blitz’ — as Obama dispatches … 28
-
- BDS victory: South Africa strips Ahava’s ‘made in Israel’ label 713
- Video: Israeli mob demands all African refugees be deported from … 475
- Day after pogroms, Likud MK calls for internment camp for … 427
- Neverending Nakba: Israel breaks lull, attacks Gazan farmers 413
- ‘This is not fair play’: Mahmoud Sarsak’s family demands his … 389
- March of the Flags 345
- Neocons in Washington Post: Military strike on Iran would ‘calm … 323
- Nabi Saleh’s Bassem Tamimi convicted by Israeli courts based on … 293
-
- The Messiah’s Donkey: Settlers fire on Palestinian villagers as the … 235
- Aharon Appelfeld’s rage at the German language (and Arendt’s need … 156
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their … 129
- March of the Flags 127
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism 110
- Feeling the hate in Long Island 97
- Israeli judge to issue verdict in Rachel Corrie case 94
- WaPo’s Walter Pincus says US is ‘going above and beyond … 87
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- US official — we went to Israel first (2)
- Annie Robbins: a U.S. official…asked to remain anonymous owing to the sensitive nature of the issue. sensitive?...
- Carllarc: proof of ‘Israel firsters’, for sure
- Israel lobby’s favorite senator tries to erase Palestinian refugee status for millions (22)
- traintosiberia: Spain has been allowing ( under pressure) any descendants of the victims of inquisition to settle in...
- Blake: Boy, history won’t be kind on you reprobates. I doubt anybody can be as despicable to you though as you...
- Talkback: Fredblogs: “Frankly if an odd sentence in a cherry picked report, and some obfuscating change of...
- Affirming a Judaism and Jewish identity without Zionism (110)
- US to differentiate between ‘personally displaced’ Palestinian refugees and their descendants (129)
- talknic: Fredblogs May 25, 2012 at 7:24 pm “For thousands of years, and even since then for anyone who isn’t...
- Aaron David Miller: After a short ‘peace process,’ look for war with Iran in 2013 (38)
- NickJOCW: Yes, it’s almost as if this is a delaying tactic, bounce the ball around while waiting for something else...
- Rafah’s nicest tunnel: Siege meets surf in Gaza (7)
- Blake: Good comment Avi but I should have entered his whole quote in my comment to put it into perspective:...
- US official — we went to Israel first (2)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Annie Robbins
- Today in Palestine
- Adam Horowitz
- Matthew Taylor
- Kate
- Alex Kane
- Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz
Blogroll
The War of Ideas in the Middle East
"thank goodness the Iranians have the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz"
Closure of the Strait would be a disaster for Iran - the US would either treat it as an act of war and bomb Iran or, alternatively, there would be a naval confrontation in the Persian Gulf from which the Iranians would not be able to back down, and the loss of life from the sinking of a USN ship (or ships!!) would result in Iran being massively bombed.
The Iranians know that closing the Strait is not an option no matter what they threaten.
And who make the decisions to control and withhold this information from the American public?
It's too bad that the Olmert CNN interview didn't get more traction - that he would say that an elite of US Jewish billionaires (not a "cabal" as that is an unacceptable trope!!) had a direct influence on derailing a negotiation that was/is so much in the American interest should have been a major story.
Imagine the shit-disturbance if the MSM began digging and reporting truthfully about the harmful extent that the malign influence has caused.
It was the extremely violent reaction of the South African army and police to the repeated massive public demonstrations that focused world attention on the malignity of apartheid and allowed BDS to take hold (as the same violence focused attention on the fight for civil fights in the South).
Given that large (peaceful) public demonstrations are required, how are the Palestinians ever going to mobilize the 50,ooo or 100,00-size crowds that would catch world attention in light of the Israeli system of checkpoints that would prevent such a mobilization?
Am I correct in yr post you are saying that the Israelis monitor the Gaza side of the border at Rafah?
A non-rhetorical question - why haven't the Egyptians completely opened the crossing at Rafah and broken the land aspect of the Israeli blockade?
"As best i remember CJCS Gen. Dempsey was the first major American official who was sent out to make an official statement.
any ideas?"
At the risk of beating a dead horse with my various posts regarding the deadliness of Iranian anti-ship missiles, there is little doubt that if Iran were to be attacked, all American ships trapped in the Persian Gulf would find themselves as targets for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of missiles for which many of those ships have no defense. There would be significant loss of life.
link to rense.com
It is my contention that all of Netanyahoo's belligerence regarding attacking Iran has been pure BS in that if Israel attacked without explicit US support, it would carry all the blame for the consequences - the obvious economic upheaval, but more importantly, the loss of the lives of many US servicemen. The question would be asked - what benefit was served for this loss of life? When the answer would be shown to be that it was because of Israel's compulsion to maintain its hegemony notwithstanding the absence of a nuclear weapon program, there would be massive outrage on the part of the US public.
In that such outrage would certainly affect the "special relationship" to Israel's detriment, there is no possibility that Israel would ever attack Iran without the clearest explicit US support for it.
I don't understand.
Surely the beginning of the colloquy would have centered on Israel's founding - in that the discussion took place at an academic locale and that all the participants were scholars, how was it possible for anyone to refute scholarly research such as that of Benny Morris, that immediately after the UN vote hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were driven from their lands and villages? Was the claim that the land was bought and the Palestinians left voluntarily not debated vigorously with demands for scholarly support for their seemingly nonsensical claims?
With respect to the legitimacy of the occupation, was there not a demand to account for the ignoring of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, the countless UNSC resolutions, the ruling if the International Court Of Justice?
If these matters were raised and glossed over, you should have stubbornly stuck to your guns and demanded reasoned answers rather than accepting hasbarist pap.
"Export of Israeli culture" vs. noisy, media-attracting demos emphasizing why the Israeli production is receiving such vehement opposition.
Even though the Brits already get regular pro-Palestinian coverage as well as criticism of Israeli actions and policies via The Guardian and The Independent and to some extent, the BBC, the shit-disturbances that are bound to occur will get a great deal of coverage and certainly spur welcome general debate.
Do you really believe that the status quo can be maintained for another 5, 10 or 20 years?
Once the MSM pendulum swings and the world is fully aware of the Israeli depredations, it will be South Africa redux.
Genuinely unaware or wilfully blind?
"American Grass" equivalents: Chomsky, Jimmy Carter, Walt-Mearsheimer, perhaps Finkelstein - all powerful voices that have been marginalized and virtually ignored by the MSM.
It would be an honour to have done something to get on that P.N.G. list
No one outside the US is surprised by its hypocrisy and double-dealing - the response to Mr. Hersh's reporting: a shrug and acceptance of "business as usual".
With the knowledge that they can't compete with US and Israeli air power, the Iranians have invested heavily in anti-ship missiles against which only the ships with the most sophisticated defences will survive attacks in the Persian Gulf. It would appear that the 200 deaths referred to in the article would be as a result of an attack on a single US ship - if the commitment to attack a US ship is made, why is the assumption made that only a single ship would be involved - the Iranians have thousands of these super-sonic missiles.
link to rense.com
After Pres. Obama's clear statements of non-support for an Israeli attack and now the MSM correctly reporting that the reason for attacking is solely to deter the possibility of preparation for a nuclear weapon program, the Israelis know that if it starts a war, it will bear sole responsibility for the consequences - the blame for the devastating economic results, but more importantly, the outrage over the loss of American soldiers' lives in a war fought only for Israeli interests, will cause serious damage to the "special relationship" and may well increase world-wide anti-semitism.
Not completely alone - Juan Cole, Robert Fisk, (off the top...)
Let me make the strongest of recommendations to view Peter Beinart's interview by Rabbi David Golub regarding the key points he makes in his book - intelligent, articulate and relentless in advocating the cessation of settlement building as an absolutely essential requirement and in his criticisms of the injustices that the Palestinians are compelled to endure from the Israelis.
link to videos.shalomtv.com
Somewhat off-topic, but instructive as to the mindset of of those teaching the youth of Israel - from an op-ed in Haaretz by Dr. Amiel Ungar, a professor of political science:
"The success of Iron Dome was indeed heartening, and the system will definitely reduce casualties and ensure the survivability of forces and infrastructures in a general war. Missile intercepts, and a resilient rear front cannot provide victory, however; only the infliction of unbearable damage to the enemy can accomplish this. Israel unfortunately did not achieve or even aspire to victory."
THE INFLICTION OF UNBEARABLE DAMAGE!!
What hope for reasonable, non-racist conduct from the next generation of Israelis?
link to haaretz.com
With respect to reporting about the suffering of the Palestinians, is the MSM spineless and/or "controlled" - it's a simple matter to see how Congress is "controlled", but how exactly are the print and television media compelled to avoid any coverage whatever of the Palestinians' brutal treatment?
"The children killed by any army which is engaged in war while taking reasonable precautions not to kill them are tragic victims of violence, but they weren’t murdered."
What kind of Israel-can-do-no-wrong fantasy world do you live in? Out of 1400 Gazan deaths, there were 350 defenceless women and children killed!
To engage in some legal nit-picking - a homicide occurring during the commission of a felony, in this case the ultimate crime - a war of aggression, is deemed to be a murder.
I'd like to hear more about the censoring at MSNBC - are there meetings, explicit memos, indirect hints?
How is it done?
In the press conference, Pres. Obama appeared to shift the onus in respect of the I/P peace process by asking the vile Netanyahoo for a "plan" to further the process and seemingly put him on the spot by doing so - many admired Pres. Obama's adroitness for that maneuver, given the required obeisance to Israel in that venue.
This wanton and provocative murderous brutality is the loathsome Netanyahoo's reply to Pres. Obama's proposal.
Pres. Obama asked the odious master liar Netanyahoo for a proposal to further the I/P peace process.
This is the bloodthirsty murderer's response.
"Jewish self preservation" = murderous racism.
kapok - you're absolutely correct.
We are witnessing one of the most masterful con jobs of all time - while the world frets about the nightmarish consequences of of an attack, relaentlessly ginned up by Netanyahu and his cronies, the Israelis continue to gobble up Palestinian land and water resources at a breakneck speed.
A lot of negativity in the posts - perhaps justified, but consider the positives:
1. In the press conference Pres. Obama said nothing more radical than what he was compelled to say in the AIPAC speech and in no way suggested a green light to Netanyahoo - it's not palatable but his re-election is on the line.
2. Pres. Obama not only raised the Palestinian issue, but shifted the onus to Netasnyahoo to provide some kind of a plan for moving the process forward - did anyone expect this skillful bit of business?
3. As it appears that the Israeli electorate's overwhelming concern is that they have the complete support of the US in all matters, the reaction of the Israeli media would seem to suggest that the absence of pledges of unconditional support will cause Netanyahoo problems with any unilateral action.
The speech:
"And so from my first months in office, we put forward a very clear choice to the Iranian regime: a path that would allow them to rejoin the community of nations if they meet their international obligations, or a path that leads to an escalating series of consequences if they don’t. "
Again, what specifically is demanded?
In the speech there were references made to Iran having "choices", but in no way were those choices spelled out or defined.
What specifically is demanded of them?
Unfortunately, the automatic screaming is effective - all media outlets, all those who publish opinions know that if a pro-Palestinian or an anti-Zionist position is taken, the "anti-Semitism", "self-hating Jew", "Jew-hatred" shrieks will automatically appear and are intimidated into silence by them.
Witness CAP.
Prior to the Iraqi aggression, a million Brits went to the streets in a massive protest.
Why isn't there even a hint of that kind of a protest now?
For my part, the horror of one of the Republican nominees becoming the president far outweighs the disgust of having to watch Pres. Obama having to grovel.
Pres. Obama has been painted into a corner since his speech advocating the 1967 lines as a basis for I/P negotiations - the immediate furor brought about by AIPAC, the pro-Zionist media, Netanyahoo and the Republicans made it clear to him that his chances of re-election would be disastrously wounded unless he fell in line.
All that has followed vis-a-vis Iran is a logical progression orchestrated by those same unseemly bedfellows - at every step, Pres. Obama had the choice: do the "right thing" or lose the election. Unsurprisingly, he chose the re-election option.
What else could he have done?
THIS AD IS GREAT!!
Does anyone believe that the NYT would ever permit one of its writers to use the "Israel-firsters" in any article or post?
Now it's out there.
I'm certain that a substantial number of NYT readers will have never seen the term before and ask themselves: what does term connote - is there not some significant evidence that a large number of writers and spokesmen seem to advance Israel's interests ahead of those of the US?
The more people debating the issue the better.
"AIPAC is very responsible in it’s lobbying efforts and I seriously doubt our President, Secretary of Defense and a whole host of Congressional leaders would be speaking at the upcoming conference if that were not the case."
What a crock of complete and unadulterated bullshit!!
As Thomas Friedman pointed out, the support of US politicians for Israel, its politicians and the vile AIPAC is "bought and paid for".
So does yr post mean that they should be bombed?
As this film is nor likely to be shown anywhere but in the major US cities and as it is an absolute must-see, let me recommend P2P downloading (depending on yr scruples).
A tip - if the subtitles are not shown on yr media player, download the CCCP codec pack (it's not Russian, it's just a joke) - if there is concern about CCCP, check it out on wiki.
This film should be required viewing for every politician and pundit to bring home the "human-ness" and "ordinary-ness" of Iranians who would be the victims of Israeli and/or American bombs.
I expect we'll soon be hearing from Clinton blasting the Bahrainis for persecuting the Shia majority for demonstrating for their democratic rights as she blasted Assad for similar behavior in Syria.
OOPS!! - forgot about the US naval base in Bahrain.
I know that I may be tiresomely repetitious in resubmitting variations of this post, but I cannot understand why the issue of huge potential US military loses is never considered:
It seems remarkable that given the extensive discussion regarding a possible attack on Iran that no one in the MSM ever discusses the potential US military losses if such an attack should occur.
On various sites, several posters with military-technology knowledge have indicated that Iran possesses anti-ship missiles for which the US Navy HAS NO DEFENCE and if that is correct, then the US getting a carrier group out of harm's way in the Persian Gulf (a "pond" in terms of anti-ship weapons) would be essential as a prelude to an attack that would involve Iranian retaliation. Even with the carrier groups removed, all US ships trapped in the Gulf, naval or civilian, would face destruction and the massive loss of lives, perhaps into the thousands.
For anyone doubting the deadliness of anti-ship missiles, please be reminded of the necessity of the British navy having to withdraw from the coast of Argentina when they were struck by missiles for which they had no defence - the Argentinians had a few Exocets and sank two ships - the Iranians have thousands of them.
As this appears to be the definitive article re the deadly Iranian anti-ship missile capability, I recommend it for its careful analysis:
link to rense.com
The Iranians can't compete with the US or Israeli military in the air, so they have focused their resources where they can do the most damage, i.e. anti-ship missiles, and that damage to US shipping in the Gulf could exceed the casualties of Iraq and Afghanistan combined if a carrier group was trapped in the Gulf - there are 7000 seamen on a carrier.
The Pentagon always mentions its "reservations" about an Israeli attack, but the details of the loss of life and vessel destruction are never spelled out definitively
test
With the premise that Israel unilaterally attacks Iran, it would seem to follow that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz and it would, together with its proxies, unleash missiles on Israel itself - given this scenario, the US military would seem to be obliged to support Israel in the air and at sea.
All US vessels in the Persian Gulf ( a "pond" in terms of anti-ship weapons) would come under attack by weapons FOR WHICH THE USN HAS NO DEFENCE.
link to rense.com
If a carrier group was trapped in the Persian Gulf and came under fire from hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these weapons, the death toll could be greater than that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Who would the howls of American outrage be directed against? It seems self-evident: The Israelis and their American instigators, i.e., "Israel-firsters".
If this scenario ever played out ... (heaven forbid!)... previously-expressed concerns about increasing anti-Semitism would seem as nothing.
What's more likely to be reported in the Pennsylvania media - the ADL smear or Ms. Cobban's rebuttal?
The scarf in question can be purchased from the Hoping Foundation:
link to hopingfoundation.org
A ten page Google search of "Andrew Adler Atlanta" showed that only CNN and The Guardian covered the story - again the obvious: what if a Muslim had written the article?
The over-riding concern is not that the story was suppressed, but HOW it was able to be suppressed.
Opaleye -
Believe it or not, the entry of of a carrier group into the Persian Gulf can be seen as a positive de-escalation move - the USN knows that it is vulnerable to Iranian anti-ship attack in the Gulf and instead of avoiding the threat it says: "We won't be starting anything here" - a weird kind of a hostage.
There is much more to fear if, in the course of threat and counter-threat, the carrier group leaves the Gulf.
Additionally:
"During the Second Lebanon War, a Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile struck Israel’s INS Hanit off the Lebanon coast. Four Israeli sailors were killed in the incident..."
"There could have been a more direct hit on the vessel. ...The Chinese C-802 anti-ship missile is a sea-skimmer, an advanced conventional weapon - not a ballistic missile - and carried a 400-pound time-delayed semi-armor-piercing high-explosive warhead that blew up near the fan tail of the ship. As it was, the explosion caused substantial damage, engulfing the aft section in flames and caving in the ship’s helicopter pad. But the Hanit didn’t sink. If the Chinese missile had struck amidships where most of the ship’s company was eating, or had impacted at the water line, many more crewmembers would have been killed or permanently injured, and it’s unlikely the ship would have survived."
link to washingtontimes.com
On various sites, several posters with military-technology knowledge have indicated that Iran possesses anti-ship missiles for which the US Navy has no defence and if that is correct, then even carriers in the Persian Gulf (with their 7000 crew-members) would be seriously threatened.
For anyone denigrating the deadliness of anti-ship missiles, please be reminded of the necessity of the British navy having to withdraw from the coast of Argentina when they were struck by missiles for which they had no defence - the Argentinians had five Exocets and sank two ships.
As this appears to be the definitive article re the Iranian anti-ship missile capability, I recommend it for its careful analysis:
link to rense.com
link to cbsnews.com
"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No"
Again and again, Panetta's Face The Nation statement has to be repeated.
The last comment (paraphrasing) -
"A non-authentic Jewish critic using his "Jewishness"..."
What is an authentic Jewish critic?
"ISRAELI spy agency Mossad's station chief in Australia has been expelled after a comprehensive investigation confirmed that Israel equipped a team of assassins with forged passports of Australians and other foreigners."
link to theaustralian.com.au
What are the chances of the US Gov't taking a similar course of action?
It should be mandatory for every news article or TV discussion regarding Iran to repeat what Panetta said last Sunday:
"Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No."
Being the dyed-in-the-wool, pro-union, anti-corporate excess old lefty that I am, please let me recommend Thom Hartmann's daily show on RT for those similarly inclined.
All the topics that are verboten on the MSM (including the Israeli depradations vis-a-vis the Palestinians) are examined by him and his informed guests who you will never see on any other TV shows.
Don't you think that, if re-elected, Pres. Obama will have free rein for the first six to nine months or perhaps a year without concern for the mid-terms?
With the fervent hope for Pres. Obama's re-election and the absence of the necessity of pandering to AIPAC, he MUST make the a**hole Netanyahoo pay big-time - no more "carrots", but the "stick" repeatedly and harshly dispensed.
Thank you Ms. Rosengarten for your thoughtful and passionate article.
I have noted that you refer, not to the West Bank, but rather to "Occupied Palestine" which I feel more accurately describes the situation - if this nomenclature was adopted by all who write or discuss I/P matters, I believe that it would have more impact.
It's all in the wording of the questions.
Why can't the Brazil-Turkey-Iran agreement be revived?
link to news.bbc.co.uk
I have some Palestinian friends and, believe me, they find the term offensive.
Because of the Comcast- NBC relationship, do not expect the supposedly "progressive" MSNBC hosts to make any mention of I/P matters in the future.
link to mondoweiss.net
As a matter of interest, I wonder if the diktat to avoid I/P had anything to do with Olberman's departure.
Lobewyper - as to more information, let me recommend the Iranian film "A Separation" that is nominated for a Golden Globes award.
link to imdb.com
It provides insights into the day-to-day lives of a middle-class Iranian family as well as some very interesting insights as to the Iranian legal system.
At the end of the day, one is left with the impression of how much this family of a demonized state are so much like "us" and how the barrage of pro-war propaganda seems to ignore that the country is made up of families just like the one depicted in the film.
Wow! What an interesting article - thx Brewer.
A propos the media, but not bearing on this post directly - at 8:45 AM PST, Leon Panetta said the following on Face The Nation:
"WASHINGTON (AP) – Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb and called for continued diplomatic and economic pressure to persuade Tehran not to take that step."
"...but is not yet building a bomb " - major news re the US sabre-rattling, but not a word about it on the NYT website at 4:30 PM PST.
How come?
There is absolutely no dispute that the ascendancy is "a glorious and beautiful story" but the issue as to how the correlative power that has been achieved is wielded is something that has to be considered in terms of the best interests of the US, both domestically and in terms of foreign policy.
Can anyone argue that the influence of AIPAC has been anything but malign in both areas or that Jewish influence has had an adverse effect in preventing television, newspaper and magazine coverage from presenting an accurate picture to the US public of Israeli outrages in respect of the Palestinians?
My original post wasn't clear - the question is WHO owns WHAT and therefore able to exert influence.
An example of the ability to exert influence is this recent M/W post re Comcast-
NBC:link to mondoweiss.net
David Cohen - exec v-p of Comcast - ardent Israel-Firster.
David Roberts - chairman of Comcast - deep connections to Israel.
Is it any wonder that the "progressive" hosts on MSNBC never utter a word of criticism re Israeli actions and policies and never have pro-Palestinian spokesmen?
The seemingly-obvious question is HOW is the MSM influenced in such a way.
On this website in the recent past, there have been articles and discussions about the impact of "Jewish money" on US politics -is there to be one relating to the media as well?
"he’s looking ahead and realizing this generation of kids don’t like apartheid and they are the ones who will be steering the ship in another decade or 2 or 3"
So what happens while this 20, 40 or 60 years go by?
Israel, with the huge support of AIPAC, has very successfully maintained the "status quo" - hoodwinking the world that they are involved in a "peace process" while gobbling up Palestinian land and water resources and completely stifling Palestinian opposition. If this "status quo" continues for even another ten years, will there be anything left to discuss or fight over?
The Israelis are so accustomed to breaching international law and disregarding UNSC resolutions ( b/c Uncle has allowed it to be so), that any hope of them submitting to them in the future is negligible.
(Compare this to the US braying about Iran failing to accept UNSC resolutions)
The conflation of "Jew" with "Zionist" and with "anti-Zionist" (anti-Israeli actions and policies) and "anti-Semitic" is obviously at the heart of this controversy.
If a Jew supports the existence of a Jewish homeland, but deplores the actions and policies of the Israelis vis-a-vis the Palestinians, is that Jew an anti-Zionist and thereby an anti-Semite?
The logic (or illogic) of it makes my head swim.
The pre-trial examinations for discovery ("depositions" in the US) will be fascinating to say the least.
Is a trial date set?
"It was not in any sense a proportional response to desultory and largely ineffective rocket attacks by militia groups..."
From 2000 to this date 17 Israelis have been killed by the glorified fireworks known as Qassams.
Some confusion here.
From the J-Post article:
"Hamas, meanwhile, called on the PA to boycott the Amman meeting, arguing the talks would only benefit Israel and help it improve its image in the international arena."
From Gideon Levy in Haaretz:
"The writing is clearly on the wall. The head of the Hamas political bureau, Khaled Meshal, has ordered his group's military wing to stop terrorist attacks against Israel, saying his organization will make do with popular protest. Hamas is declaring that it supports a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, and the Palestinian Authority has expressed a willingness, in exchange for 100 prisoners, to give up its demand for a freeze on Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank as a condition for the resumption of peace talks. What more will we ask for?
On our side, too, the writing is clearly on the wall. Israel is ignoring the changes in the Palestinian positions. Most of the media is systematically obscuring the situation. Security sources are saying in response that they know nothing about the shift, or that it is only tactical. Israel is also rejecting the Palestinian Authority's negligible conditions with repeated "nos" in the finest of Israeli rejectionism."
link to haaretz.com
Rather than rejecting the Amman talks, it appears that Hamas has made a major concession to strengthen the PA negotiating position.
Notwithstanding that Pres. Obama signed extremely anti-progressive legislation, what is the benefit of attacking him in this re-election year and increasing the chances of a Republican being elected? Bear in mind that this anti-progressive legislation originated in the most ideologically-driven Congress imaginable.
How would the Republicans and their MSM megaphone have reacted if Pres. Obama refused to sign the legislation? Should he have done "the right thing" and died on his sword with respect to his re-election prospects?
The only hope for progressive legislation in the future is if the Dems re-take the House and keep the Senate.
thx for the link - very informative.
Isn't it a shame that the brilliant and articulate Max Blumenthal doesn't get more TV exposure?
If he couldn't muster enough public outrage when Netanyahoo refused the 90 day settlement freeze even after being offered massive bribes, do you really believe an "appeal to the public for support in bringing the settler entity down to actual size" would have had an iota of success when AIPAC, the Republicans and the right-wing MSM were done with him and his re-election prospects?
Kathleen -
You've made my point - going soft on I/P b/c of the I lobby; Iran, ditto. As to AfPak, any move to disengage would be viciously attacked as "weakness".
All poison for his re-election campaign.
On drones I have no answer other than concern about Pakistani sovereignty and the general American unwillingness to risk US soldiers if a machine can do the job. As to Ross, I can only speculate that the shitstorm over the Chas Freeman appointment led him down that path.
"Implicit in some of the disappointment of Obama is an implied wish for someone who could just do it...
In the present US political climate, it is impossible for that "someone" to exist.
For my part, I believe that Pres. Obama fully intended to carry out his campaign promises and found himself trapped in the most incendiary and hostile political climate in the history of the US - by virtue of constant Republican pressure (and its vociferous support in the MSM) and the power of the Israel Lobby, he has been compelled to back off almost all positive policies and to capitulate if he wanted any chance of re-election.
Examples:
1. The Cairo Speech - he set out a commitment for peace to all the ME countries and in particular to commit the US in bringing about a peace agreement. Today, after the smoke has cleared from the incessant attacks from AIPAC and its MSM and Congressional minions, the 2ss is dead and he is fighting for his political life for votes in the Jewish community.
2. Pres.Obama asked the Gov'ts of Brazil and Turkey to attempt to broker a deal with Iran as to moving its supply of nuclear fuel to another country and when they succeeded, again a shitstorm of Republican and AIPAC bile that made it politically impossible to follow up on the agreement.
Other examples abound, but it is always the same story - the combination of intense Republican opposition and the power of AIPAC over Congress and his re-election chances have compelled him to back down or be politically destroyed. It appears that many posters would prefer to see him do the "right thing" and die on his sword, but I would prefer him to have a chance to fight another day when the forces affecting his re-election would be much less powerful.
Would any of you prefer a Republican president - if so, who?
The "monolithic monster" tag nails it - the Swiss art show, a lawsuit against a small Washington state co-op over boycotting WB products, organized hasbara campaigns on the most obscure blogs, etc., etc., ad nauseum - no issue is too insignificant, no stone is ever left unturned.
Pro-Palestinian? Against Israeli actions and policies? You're going to get "the treatment".