Total number of comments: 192 (since 2009-08-11 17:12:53)
David Doppler
I am a retired professional living in Northern California. The name is a pseudonym because I value my privacy.
Showing comments 192 - 101
Page: 2 1
Showing comments 192 - 101
Page: 2 1
Good to see the appropriate label applied to the Israeli Report and the NYTimes report: propaganda. Let them explain the other 950 children killed. Let them feel the anger of ordinary, rational Americans of every ethnic background who find such efforts to explain away the murder of innocent children while supported with US tax dollars to be outrageous.
First Hawking, now the Boston Globe. Reasonableness seems to be breaking out all over. Thanks to Mondoweiss, Walt & Mearsheimer, and others who have led the way.
Great cartoon! And the MSM is reporting the story, although Dershowitz's diatribe was somehow news not fit to print in the NYT report.
Great reporting, Phil. Excellent discussion. Beinart gets all my applause. How did the crowd split?
Hawking's solidarity gives thousands of lesser academics breathing room to voice the view that Israel's policies under the current regime are incompatible with universal values as well as highly destructive to its own long term interests. Interesting that miriam6 would roll out several instances of Hawking conceding he was wrong on this or that prediction about future discoveries in physics, as if to say, those who speak ill of Israel, even if only its bad and inhumane policies, WILL be personally attacked. Netanyahu and his agents and apologists have so overplayed their heavy hand that there is no room left for liberal thinkers in many professions to continue to remain silent in the face of such inhumanity, such hubris, and such blatant efforts to control free discourse. The fact that there is disinformation widely disseminated concerning Hawking's decision, even as we watch the Israeli cabinet meet without mentioning their airstrikes the night before in Syria, even as we learn that Netanyahu put into effect a secret halt on new settlement construction when Obama visited, puts us at that moment when Toto pulls back the curtain on the "Wizard." What can be trusted that comes from Netanyahu's mouth? As he thunders, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." Will he surprise everyone by creating a true peace, alienating forever the Israeli right wing, who, with encouragement at least from Netanyahu, assassinated the last one to honestly try? Or will he ever more publicly wrestle himself over what he says and what he means, forever discrediting the Israeli government. I give him no more than six months before he is ousted. The sooner the better for everyone, including Israel and Palestine.
I think it is fair game to ask any Jewish American politician whether (s)he is a Zionist and what Zionism and political support for Israel means to them. I'm sure there will be a unique answer for each one of them. Justice Kagan, in carefully staged testimony, said that Israel and some Israeli judge role-model were very important to her. She wasn't going to get any flak for that from the Senate, but the point is, it is a relevant question to ask, and the existing habit of avoiding discussing it should be discarded. I think it would also be appropriate to ask every elected official to disclose publicly any position paper or similar statement they've prepared and submitted to AIPAC, as I've heard that is part of AIPAC's process, and I'm sure their AIPAC-savvy staff people are ever-present to help draft such documents for Congressional newbies. A sort of Mondoweiss meets Roll Call disclosure would make it possible for the constituents back home to know what their Congress person is committing too, and open the door to a fuller discussion of these topics. Netanyahu wants to flaunt his control over Congress, let the American people see how that process works. Same as to the Gun Lobby and other powerful single interest groups. Get it all out on the public record.
Yes, it was grotesque, and Netanyahu's fault for grossly overplaying his hand. He had the power to make it happen, obtained and maintained surreptitiously, the whole "nightflower" bit, but demonstrating it so publicly makes obvious the surreptitiousness. He shot himself in the foot. He rubbed the noses of the US Congress in joint assembly, before international video audiences, in the excrement of his power. Who is not offended by his hubris? His stupidity? The anonymity of this news piece's sources, which the American public and what's left of "journalism" has also been forced to suffer, further demonstrates that Israel seeks to manipulate American government and media surreptitiously. And has many tools at its disposal. Under Netanyahu's bone-headed leadership, Israel seems intent upon squandering all of its credibility by blatantly abusing its power, demonstrating the corruption it relies upon for its power. As if the nightflower can survive the light of day. The American public may be dumb, but it's not stupid.
Kate, your log of news from the West Bank fills a big gap in what is otherwise a "firehose" of online news and information. I find it hard to read through, not because it isn't thorough and straightforward journalism, but because it is so dissonant with MSM accounts of life in the Middle East, and what it means to be an American or an important American ally. One story after another details such oppression, the lack of consequences leads to a sense of powerlessness that starts to breed despair. Thank you for what must be hard work. Perhaps someday you might share your reflections on collecting and publishing this important but suppressed tale. Where does the "feed" of stories come from, and is the MSM unaware, or willfully ignoring it? Do they rationalize by discrediting it? What are your experiences interacting with MSM writers and editors and producers in connection with these stories?
Obama's chief weakness is his weakness. How can the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces, in whom "[all of] the executive power of the United States" has been fully vested by the constitution, be unable to close this extra-territorial Hell hole? Who has a ring in his nose to pull him back from closing it tomorrow? And it's only "complicated" for someone who's afraid to exercise his power on a matter that goes to the heart of who we are as Americans. Obama doesn't know what "executive" and "Commander" mean.
"Israel, he said, could not continue 'to rule over a million people without giving them democratic rights' without becoming internationally isolated." Simple truth, succinctly put (although he could have gone farther than the consequence of merely becoming internationally isolated). All arguments/responses/rationalizations against this view are just BS.
Great interview, Phil. Important work. Culture doesn't change over night. You should consider doing a similar follow-up interview with Ehrenreich's editor. Why did he choose this story? What were the repercussions, if any? Why does (s)he think there's been so little follow-up? Describe the opening up of the public discourse to other voices. Etc.
Conflation and nuance: two extremes that can be put to perpetual use to obfuscate. Anyone speaking on a subject who is viewed as an "undesirable" speaker can be "nuanced" to death, attacked as incompetent and unqualified for failure to appreciate nuances and refinements that can fill pages and volumes, the recitation of which not only works to destroy the credibility of the speaker, but postpones further discussion of the main issue.
Disconcertingly, in the middle of endless discussion and debate on nuance and refinements of nuances, a gross conflation can be stated as if it were an unarguable, obvious fact, to which the group of "nuancers" offers no objection, and the "undesirables," discredited and licking their wounds, are hesitant to say, "wait a minute." A very tiresome mendacity, which needs a word or phrase to describe it. Perhaps, "the old nuance/conflation whipsaw."
Attacking SB160 as "hateful" in calling for divestment from companies doing business with Israel, when it focuses on companies doing business in Israel's settlement program in occupied territory, is just such a conflation. Just like objecting to Israel's policies toward Palestinians (or hesitating to bomb Iran) is equated with denying Israel's right to exist.
Kerry is not the brightest of lightbulbs, nor well-suited for diplomacy. The two incidents are connected only in the sense of each country losing countrymen to what appears to the suffering country as senseless violence. When you're trying to repair relations between Turkey and Israel, the source of the Mavi Marmara violence, damaged by that violence, to equate the two is a direct insult to Israel. Wholly apart from whether Israel is deserving of chastisement for Mavi Marmara, this occasion was decidedly not the place for it. Kerry could well become the Anti-Diplomat, with bumbles like this. I'm reminded of that plaster of Paris foot with a hole shot in it given to Interior Secretary James Watt by Ronald Reagan for blocking a Beach Boys concert on the Mall because the fans attracted were "the wrong element." And Gerald Ford asserting that there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, not on my watch. I'm trying to avoid thinking about Sarah Palin and her view of the Russia from her porch (ignorance vs muddled thinking).
I took constitutional law from a typically (for academics) liberal law professor who stunned us one day by arguing that the Supreme Court's striking down of Virginia's anti-miscegenation laws was wrongly decided because it applied equally to members of all races, and therefore did not violate the equal protection clause. I argued as best I could the the opposing view, that, as applied to me, or any individual, the law classified various potential spouses into legal and illegal, based on race, (and what about mixed races?) until the end of class cut us short. When he asked me before the next class if I wanted to continue the discussion, I declined, having not given any thought to it since, whereupon his face lit up, he looked skyward, and he said, Rejoice! Rejoice! as if major enlightenment had occurred, as we walked into class. Only later did I realize he must've been indirectly defending anti inter-marriage prohibitions among the observant. I was too uninformed on that subject at the time to make the connection, and no one, including the professor, brought that up as a related fact pattern (which would've been typical of case law discussions - what happens when we change the facts, thusly?). While I'd seen Fiddler on the Roof by then, I must have associated Tevya's attitude on the subject with the Old World, rather than certain sectors of Judaism in America. In retrospect, I guess that was one of my first exposures to the taboos in our society, only I was so naive as to miss it entirely. Rejoice, indeed.
Thanks for the link Bumblebee. I always enjoy the language British judges and parliamentarians use, and this seems to be an important victory for common sense and free speech. And a proper response to chutzpah.
Somebody on Obama's staff might have been "absolutely livid," but that's a characterization I've never seen before attributed to President Ice Cube, in any circumstance.
I agree with you, Phil. Wicked smart, and a world-class listener, [although too timid to the point of being craven by half]. He's backed off from directly challenging AIPAC or the settlers, but he hasn't backed off from his dream for a just and lasting peace. His handling of Netanyahu is so nuanced as to still deny full comprehension, but I believe he's expediting the end of the Netanyahu administration, without having to cut his legs off personally. The shaky coalition will fall, and with it Netanyahu, who'll have no one to blame but himself. And what replaces it is unlikely to have Likud's existential-threat-hyperventilation as the foundation of its strength. Once that's gone, the settlers who demand all of the West Bank and ethnic cleansing will become less popular, less strong, the ultra-Orthodox have already been jettisoned from power (although don't ever count them out], and younger people with a vision for a good life no longer tainted by being international pariahs will be ascendant. Surely better prospects for an Israeli partner for peace.
And what happens to AIPAC/J Street when the Likudniks are on history's ashheap? What happens when America digests its increased education about how AIPAC and Congress have worked, and focus more of their outrage at Congress on those pulling on the nose-ring. I think there is likely to be movement in Israel aligned with the movement in the US Jewish community away from AIPAC/Likud/Neocon toward wanting a good life in Israel without being an international pariah.
I think that's the direction Obama has sought to move things. That he could walk through Israel as if on water while doing it is astounding.
I read his back-handed and very disappointing treatment of the Palestinians like I read Lincoln's paean to enforcing runaway slave laws in his first inaugural - distasteful political compromise necessary while treading water in a volatile situation, i.e., picking his battles, with an keen eye for the direction he wants to go.
I think the general tone of comment here is missing the big picture. Netanyahu apologizing to Erdogan is a huge step. The bully has to say he's sorry to a Muslim, to someone who last week called Zionism a crime against humanity. I bet Avigdor Lieberman is ready to run against him on that single issue, if he can survive his prosecution. Netanyahu's weakness is manifest, his days on top of this coalition are numbered. Plus he agreed to pay reparations in exchange for settling the claims against Israel, so Turkey got an apology and reparations, i.e., Turkey won. Erdogan's star in the Muslim world has got to be way up there, while Netanyahu's national stature will soon be a sour memory. Obama may be too craven to criticize Israel in the face of domestic pressure from the lobby, but he's made Netanyahu be craven, as well. Redline-bomb-at-the-UN Bibi just apologized to Turkey for being a poor neighbor, out of line on the open seas. Obama avoided a confrontation with Netanyahu, but made Bibi humble himself to a Muslim in someone else's confrontation. He's using American power to reassure Israel on security, but he's also making Israel atone for one its sins. NATO is strengthened, in the face of Syrian unrest. The Israeli public's reaction will be important. We'll see if a new tone of realism sets in. There's a lot more to celebrate in this stunner than the comment here acknowledges.
So he speaks to the youth of Israel, those who laugh at the blustering Netanyahu, who they see as an old clown, seeking to inspire them to change. Having given his personal assurance of Israeli security, he further undermines Likud's power-base: existential fear. He calls on their better angels. He invites them to view the world through Palestinian eyes. He labels the hand dealt the Palestinians by the Israelis "unfair." Then this, which speaks volumes about both Israel and its leaders and Obama and US politics:
"Speaking as a politician, I can promise you this: political leaders will not take risks if the people do not demand that they do. You must create the change that you want to see."
This is the statement of a very cautious, risk-averse person. Not all political leaders are as risk-averse as Obama. Tim Murphy, former mayor of Pittsburgh, once said (with a little fire in his eyes), There are a lot of people who will criticize you from every direction, but, if you're prepared to drive a stake in the ground, or lead a charge, very few have what it takes to actually stand in your way. [Not a direct quote.]
Cautious and risk averse to the point of cravenness, and yet . . . . Few are as eloquent as Obama, and campus youth are his natural milieu, fertile ground for pre-cynical idealism. Time will tell if this speech resonates around Israel as his Cairo speech appears to have around the Arab world. One thing is certain, the political base that Likud built is as brittle and out of touch as the pre-Arab Spring autocracies, waiting for a next-generational spirit to replace it.
And he apparently extracts an apology from Netanyahu to Turkey over the attack on the Gaza relief flotilla. (Didn't see this in any of the coverage except on Mondoweiss - what a pathetic MSM we have.) This is a very big deal, part of what he no doubt negotiated for, but cannot trumpet because, [why????? what exactly are the rules of the tabus????].
Thanks again Mondoweiss for the real news from the Middle East. The truth will set us all free.
Thanks, Dickerson. You point to analysis of why and how the media are corrupted that I was unaware of, but have often wished there was more coverage of. Must read more Chomsky.
And what do we make of the replacement of of anti-Communism by the War on Terror as a key "filter"? Especially since so many of the Neo-cons who've created the GWOT mentality started out as Troskyites. Were they trying to get on the other side of the filter?
Send young people into war, and this, and much worse, is what you get. They need to think of the enemy as an "other," not a human being with whom they empathize, to rationalize what they do to them. Then something humanizes the "other" for them, reveals their naivete/bias/stupidity, and they have the rest of their lives to regret their youthful excesses.
Interesting comment, American. But I believe it applies more aptly to Israel than the US. The decline in support for Netanyahu, despite the absence of peaceniks, is symptomatic of a political structure on the verge of collapse. Netanyahu, his Clean Break-niks, and his Neocon allies in the US, all have had their decade plus of influence/control, and their policies have all been proven over and over to be flat wrong. How long has Netanyahu been claiming Iran will have nukes within a year? for over twenty years. The avant garde culture around him has been laughing at him for a couple years now. He's become a clown. Yesh Atid won big by changing the subject to domestic issues. They didn't take the Settlers on, or Likud-niks on security issues, they just kind of said, "you're irrelevant." The Clean Break has become your status quo, and it is indeed up for collapse.
The US system, on the other hand, is designed to withstand amazing levels of corruption and incompetence, and re-invent itself eventually, when the curtain is at last pulled back. Which is happening as we speak. The NYTimes has altered its taboos, and the Clean Break-niks are no longer immune from reporting and criticism, nor are the Settlers, nor is Apartheid, nor is the split between secular and Orthodox Jews. Broken Cameras and the Gatekeepers are Academy Award nominees. The demise of the Neocon control over the Senate was marked by the Hagel confirmation. What may collapse with Netanyahu is the sway held over US policy and elections by the Neocon-era AIPAC and its co-travelers. America will be reinvented again.
Mondoweiss does well to include political analysis of the unlikely coalition within Israel. The more Americans understand the relative positions of these factions, the less possible it will be to give fawning obeisance to its (temporary) leader. American politicians who take cash from the AIPAC ATM should ask themselves, if I were Israeli, which party would I belong to? Since AIPAC wields undeniable influence in US policy and elections, and since the government of Israel wields undeniable influence over AIPAC, it behooves Congresspersons to understand Israeli politics. A nudge from Obama, or from Congress, could topple Netanyahu, but what would follow? An America willing to exercise influence, rather than obeisance, could have a real impact.
Mondoweiss should prepare a matrix with the various Israeli parties down the left, their leaders/power and other characteristics, and their positions on various important (to Israel and to America) issues across the top.
Love that British style parliamentary debate, with the extended rhetorical questions.
There hasn't been much coverage in either Mondoweiss or the MSM of the ongoing coalition building process in Israel, despite what I expect would be a growing interest among the American public with its outcome. Moreover, the processes being undertaking can be deeply educational for Americans too accustomed to a one-dimensional presentation - here is Israel's Prime Minister, standing ovations please.
For example, Netanyahu last weekend accused upstart leader Yair Lapid of the Yesh Adit party of being "Anti-Semitic" for refusing to be part of a coalition with the Orthodox religious parties that made up a small but important part of the prior coalition. Seems he and the other settler upstart, Naftali Bennett of Habayit Hayehudi, ran in part on platforms calling for repealing exemptions from military service, and against generous public doles supporting students in orthodox study programs. If that doesn't devalue the Anti-Semite smear as too often used to silence debate here in our own country, it ought to.
More fundamentally, the diverse factions defy the Left-Right dichotomy that prevails in our country. We tend to see Israel as Democrat-like Labor versus Republican-like Likud, but Labor has all but disappeared, while Likud, more closely resembles Neocons, and has allied/merged itself with Beiteinu, whose leader Avigdor Lieberman, former Russian bouncer, is under indictment for corruption, and whose campaign included an ad stating that he was the only candidate who "speaks Arabic," code not for linguistic agility, but for communicating with this "Other" through brutality, the only language they in their beast-like inferiority can understand. The Orthodox religious, the Settler groups, and Yair Lapid's group, which wants to focus on domestic issues like housing and middle class living issues, really don't have a counterpart in our political culture. Not since Monty Python's Life of Brian do we in America get to see so many Israeli parties with so many diverse (and to us, initially confusing) perspectives.
Netanyahu's heavy-handed tactics trying to force together his coalition, including daily predictions of imminent victory, slander of opponents, accusations of abetting the Iranian and terrorist enemies, have progressively shown him as both heavy-handed, and increasingly incompetent and impotent. Lapid asserts he will force new elections, if he doesn't get his way, and his steadfastness in his principles in the struggle with Netanyahu, on top of his surprisingly strong showing could push his popularity upward, as Netanyahu's tired heavy-handedness must surely be wearing ever thinner on his public. The momentum, certainly, is away from Netanyahu. If new elections were to be called, or if Peres invited someone else to form a government, it seems likely Netanyahu's disgrace would drag Israeli public sentiment ever further away from the Likud/Neocon mission, their so-called Clean Break, which has worked out exactly opposite from prediction, and deserves to be dumped on history's ashheap. Mondoweiss and its readers I believe should wholeheartedly support Netanyahu's failure.
Dump Likud-Beiteinu! Save Israel. Save the Middle East. Save America.
Yes, how does Obama articulate the who's in who's out. I expect he'll cave and invite them.
Perhaps Limbaugh should revisit Irving Kristol's 1984 Commentary piece extolling American Jews to support global American interventionism in order to ensure American military might will be there for Israel when it needs it. Money quote and link to full piece in marcb's comment on this blog: link to mondoweiss.net
The refusal of the media to ascribe to these interventionist policies their underlying intent ensures that they don't get well analyzed until they are many years past ripe for discard. Why do we need the GWOT? Israel, the military-industrial complex, the drunk-with-power, inside-the-Beltway sense of being the only serious people in the world, embued with a Platonic/Straussian right/obligation to deceive the public for its own good.
More telling even than the surprising impact of Rand Paul's filibuster is that even the Israelis are losing interest in Netanyahu's continuous scare tactics. When you're worn out from being afraid all the time, particularly when it's from artificial threats, other values - like housing prices in Israel, or the Bill of Rights in the US - reassert themselves. The public becomes open to throwing out the fear-mongering deceivers. On the brink of losing power, where will they stop in their efforts to hold on?
Here's a link to the Crimson's Editorial Board: link to thecrimson.com
These young people will have to live with the record of the their bias for the rest of their lives. Will it help them or hurt them in their careers? How will their actions today, and the consequences of those actions, affect their lives as they develop?
Does Harvard continue to deserve its place atop elite university rankings?
In a larger sense, this "philosophical" piece in the NYTimes opinionator blog is more evidence of how badly Netanyahu, by grossly overplaying his demands on the US, has damaged Israel's image.
Thank you Pabelmont,
Why must Levine couch his discussion in terms of whether Israel has a "right to exist?" as opposed to whether Israel, or any country, has a right to privilege one religious/ethnic group over its other peoples. "Right to exist," if denied, is so easily conflated and confused with extermination, fraught with memories of the Holocaust, as to immediately shut down conversation. See the comment that follows. "Right" to discriminate against other ethnic/religious groups is what is being debated. The rest is distracting noise.
I don't think AIPAC was "scared" into silence. Much of what they are most effective at is done out of the public eye. They chose to announce neutrality not due to fear, but as one of their primary tactics: indirection. For everyone with half a clue about the Lobby, the public statement of neutrality was simply a signal to watch how the nightflower blossoms. However, Obama did defeat them on Hagel, whether they were scared, or simply doing their utmost to use and preserve their power for their own purposes. The defeat is what counts. I don't see fear at AIPAC yet, just hubris. Obama is the Judo Master, rather than confront directly he uses his opponent's strength and momentum to throw him for a loop, all the while maintaining a placid, non-confrontational front.
I think Brooks writes with more care and a pointed ambiguity about his own feelings than most of the comment acknowledges. While the details he relates leaves out any negativity - it is clearly unbalanced in that respect, a paean to the taboos that the NYTimes enforces - he does not sign up as a convert. He speaks of the self-confidence of the collective, not his own. He wonders at their high birthrate, a cultural phenomenon usually attributed with alarm by conservatives to poor underclasses. He speaks of them as "constitutional lawyers," (an allusion to Justice Scalia's philo-semitic praise of Talmudic studies as preparation for law), endlessly debating over what blessing to say over Crispix (rice or corn?), reconciling all the details of life to the internal discipline that is Orthodox Judaism, and then uses as his generalizing example, an Orthodox spouse who chose Yeshiva over Harvard, then went to Yale Law School and is now an assistant US attorney. It does not take more than minor reflection to be forced to ask, with what cultural and legal discipline does an Orthodox AUSA reconcile the details of crimes she investigates? Brooks's indirect, taboo-passing way of asking about dual loyalty.
I think Brooks, the most brilliant of conservative pundits, is wrestling with that very question within his own breast, which discipline is more important to me, the American or the Jewish, and how can I forge a workable compromise in my own outlook? And what is my relationship with these Orthodox people for whom there is little such debate?
And by sharing that internal debate, albeit indirectly, he triggers that exact discussion among the mostly Jewish-American commentariat, for all the world to see, right on NYTimes.com. A sort of bright but timid man's Mondoweiss, with a large audience.
It's not Obama's style to lecture or be vindictive. But give someone else rope to hang himself, now that's a characteristic. Netanyahu has repeatedly done that, and he's not out of the coalition woods yet, either. Maybe he won't be able to get a coalition, and Obama will postpone, the humiliation driving Peres to invite someone else to form a coalition. But Obama seeks always to reassure the Israeli people and American Jews that the US has their back, as a way to reduce the sense of immediate existential threat that is the core of Netanyahu's strength (support me, do as I say, or we will all die very soon!). Only when the Israelis relax a bit will the opportunity for peace open up, leaving the extremists high and dry. A more relaxed people is also more apt to abandon its racism. That's Obama's style.
The online version changes "loyalty" to "commitment." Hmmm.
I see Netanyahu is now badgering the other parties to join him because of the Iran threat: link to news.antiwar.com Last weekend, they were Anti-Semitic for not joining. Now it's essential to join him or be overrun by the Iran threat. Does the word "desperation" occur to anyone else? Isn't it time to ask one of the newcomers to form a coalition? Doesn't Israel deserve a new direction after so much self-inflicted harm? Even Biden, who I guess learned to suck up to the lobby long long ago as a fact of political life, points out that the greatest threat to Israel isn't Iran, it's "delegitimization." The bully insists on blaming everyone else for this, but we all know at some level - even Biden, even AIPAC - that it's him, and the chutzpah, the mendacity, the hasbara, the stale effort to prolong the taking of their land while blaming them for not making peace, and while justifying every excess and every brutality by imaginary existential threats, and remembered victimhood from the time of our grandfathers. Hey, let's try a new direction, new leadership. It won't likely be any worse.
Enough already with trying to manage dissonance through hasbara! Make it right!
Thanks, talknic. But I feel I'm parsing phrases in areas of ambiguity, or "open texture" to use HLA Hart's phrase, and where the group of students waits for the leader, the rabbi, to elucidate the "true meaning." An example of where the supposed "study of language [or other higher rational process]" proceeds unaware of its subservience to the social-biological reality that every group needs a leader, and, within limits, follows that lead, much as baboons follow the alpha male to stay together on the savanna.
I have a question for those who are more knowledgeable in Talmudic studies. It's my impression that this ancient tradition includes a fully developed legal system, complete with separate laws for Jews and non-Jews, and with the rabbis in charge. I understand that Israel has never adopted its written constitution, and one can interpret the current situation as one it which the orthodox rabbis have established what they regard as an orthodox government, and have, non-publicly, ceded to the secular government control over those activities that the rabbis are comfortable ceding, but do not want to see a formal adoption, as if the constitution existed by virtue of the people ratifying it, as opposed to the rabbis sanctioning it. Bibi's tenacious loyalty to the right-wing orthodox parties would also be consistent with them as the true, if partially hidden power. This would also be consistent with Bibi treating Yair Lapid as Anti-Semitic, since the Rabbis would regard anyone who refuses to align with them to be an affront to their authority, and to Orthodox Judaism itself. You can regard Bibi the secularist as wholly without principle in throwing around such charges, or you can see him as communicating the views of those who hold true authority. Does this make sense? Pleases educate me.
If Hagel does nothing else, his nomination has provided the neocons the opportunity to lay out their philosophy and their tactics for everyone to see, and then he won anyway, in their faces! They appear to want to rally up and fight even harder, but who's rallying to their side?
Cristo, in Act of Valor, with a Muslim terrorist partner from some vague youthful connection, was a wealthy Ukrainian Jew engaged in international arms smuggling, including supplying terrorists, and who was looking to "retire south" (a reference to Israel) when the Seals nab him off his yacht, the main bad guy in the second most recent Seals movie.
Better not to generalize.
What percentage of Jews in power in Hollywood remain avid Zionists? versus those who've grown sick of the corruption that Israeli power and lies have wrought on their youthful idealism? That would be a more pertinent question. And my gut says the momentum is against Zionism. My California Senators who are both Jewish are both voting for Chuck Hagel. I don't think they identify with Likud.
Great link, seafoid. Segev's memoir in Ha'aretz shows a lot on multiple levels. Perhaps some US newspaper would reprint it?
Good analysis, Jonathan, but your conclusion is no more inevitable than "segregation now, segregation forever." Israel has become a right-wing mob, riling itself up to pillage and plunder, justifying itself on racist and religious beliefs in existential threats on every front.
That mob will melt away in the face of relentless criticism of human rights violations, underscored by dying hunger strikers, dying torture victims, former IDF soldiers breaking barriers, Oscar nominations, more and more and more American Jews turning away in disgust. That mob is already losing its mojo, as reflected by Lapid's stunning success, garnered by focusing on domestic issues, jobs and rent. The rise of domestic issues means the mob has lost interest in the existential threat mantra. Last summer, an Israeli yoghurt maker was selling its product via a mock-up of the existential threat mongers trying to get American generals to start a war with Iran, in which an Arab slang word endorsing their product was clownishly misinterpreted by the Israelis as a go-ahead for nuclear war.
Enter Obama, as the lonely but determined-to-stand-on-principle sheriff who must talk the mob out of a lynching, by calling out individual Israelis and reminding them of their domestic agendas, their wives and kids, standing for law and order, international law and order in this case, because, those who stand for continued criminal behavior can only sound crazed in that quieter, more dispassionate conversation. If not Obama, then an Israeli who has had enough.
Four more years of the same is not at all probable. Too many people must continue to make a quiet dispassionate decision to continue to be international criminals, unsupported by the thrill of an out-of-control mob.
Great reporting Nima!
Master chess player? Or Judo Master? who uses his opponent's strength and size against him. Whatever, I think there is a political genius in the WH who mapped out the Hagel strategy, to give the Lobby and its extended network of surrogates and media amplifiers enough rope to hang themselves with. Or to hackney still another metaphor, to allow the nightflower to expose itself too much before the full sunlight falls on it.
Phil, is Mondoweiss about the war of ideas in the Middle East, or about what it means to be a Jew in America today? Do you see those as separate subjects? Because I'm having trouble seeing how this post, interesting as it may be, addresses the former.
I saw Argo last night. Money line: "if you're going to sell a lie, get the press to do it for you." All very good and heroic when you're just deceiving Iranian Revolutionaries so that we can extract Americans from hiding at the Canadian embassy in Tehran. But when you're advancing political views, and protecting powerful elites, as when the CIA engineered a coup to install the Shah as a puppet, when Israeli Zionists use a fake peace process to deprive Palestinians of their land and human rights, when AIPAC seeks to exercise a Likud Loyalty Litmus test on US political appointments, or when Larry Abramson seeks to blame the victims in Bil'in for the targeting of oppression at those who resist via a documentary having their land stolen, then you're certainly not entitled to respect as a journalist, or public funding at NPR. Abramson is a political hack, whatever his ethnic or political persuasion. And, it is exceedingly tiresome and offensive for the issue to be perpetually sidetracked into ethnic and prejudicial slander.
"Come to Jesus?" That headline just baits people into ethnic and religious confrontation. Why not stick to the war of ideas?
From time immemorial, old men have sent young soldiers into situations calling for armed violence. When youths "make light" of the situation, laughing at the idea of grossly inappropriate violence, it should surprise no one. I recall a Humphey Bogart movie, in which he's a grunt in WWII taking aim from a foxhole, when someone says, "some of those Germans look like their fifteen." "Bam" goes Bogart's rifle, then, with a grin, he says, "well, he won't be turning sixteen." It's the policy makers who set the situation up who should be held to account, yet, like Don Rumsfeld, they typically get to express outrage at their youthful charges for crossing some line. ("I didn't know you could even take cameras into Abu Ghraib!") What do you think all the Post Traumatic Stress is about? Wow, what the Hell did I do?
On the other hand, how many American dentists routinely provide unnecessary x-rays? And how awkward is it anywhere to resist their efforts?
Okay, I'm pretty sure accusations of Anti-Semitism have gone too far, when the board of a LGBT nonprofit who bend to pressure from Zionists to prevent criticism of Israel from being presented on its premises are described as Anti-Semitic for assuming that such pressure means anything. The American Jewish community is divided on the way forward for Israel, and it would be the American way for everyone to air their differences in spirited debate focused on the issues. For non-Jews on both sides of these issues to be accused of Anti-Semitism for opening their mouths is unacceptable. How about we debate the issues, and everyone's entitled to their viewpoint?
I don't know. Giving people the platform to talk, to listen to them fully, maybe allow the rest of the world to listen, as well. Could just be another Judo move by the Obama Administration, another length of rope offered, by which the corrupt goals of Anti-Islam/Anti-Arab prejudice, land-grabbing, theocratic ethnic cleansing, dressed in their best Hasbara clothes, finally lose all credibility, even in the hearts of those who present them. The trial lawyer presents his theory of the case to the jury in the closing argument, and even he can feel that it doesn't connect, that he's going to lose. These Israelis in their election vied with each other to show how right-wing they are, or decided to talk instead about neighborhoods and jobs, practicing denial, but with the whole world listening, with the Judo master himself there listening oh so astutely, with attention to every nuance, the core reality so clearly expressed by Chas Freeman a few days ago, starts to leak out around the best psychological defenses, becomes unavoidable. "The acceptance of Israel as a legitimate presence in the Middle East cannot now be achieved without basic changes in Israeli attitudes and behavior that are not in the offing." I would offer up the optimistic amendment "not (yet) in the offing." The Judo master may be letting his opponent's strengths wear themselves out. Expect the next "fellate-a-donkey" moment to come from within Israel itself.
As the Hagel nomination devolves into standard partisan bickering in the Senate, the Lobby's methods remain on display for any with a keen eye to discern. Show obeisance or else you will regret it, whether we choose to attack you directly, or hide the strings we pull behind pious declamations of disinterest. With SNL's fellate-a-donkey skit in the bag, it is only a matter of time before those who've allowed their strings to be pulled too egregiously will pay a price, at re-election time.
By the way, the contrast here at Mondoweiss between the realism of the Chas Freeman speech, and the clown show atmosphere of the Hagel nomination, deserves a Pulitzer for effective journalism, in a time of Orwellian propaganda attempting to sustain itself before the ever-skeptical, ever-self-correcting American public.
What I'd like to know is who the genius is at the White House who crafted this series of judo moves to turn an opponent's great strengths against him.
I don't know how anyone can follow the news in Israel and Palestine without reading Mondoweiss. Why doesn't NPR consider the Neo-Zionist/Anti-Zionist fault line? Do they enforce a tabu on Anti-Zionist thought and speech? Are they redefining some prior tabu as Neo-Zionist now OK/Anti-Zionist still not OK? How do they reconcile tabu maintenance with their role as journalists? as Americans?
I think you are underestimating the import of the disappointing showing for the right wing. The drive toward another war, this time with Iran, to get the US to launch it and/or fight it, has lost all momentum. The worst of Israel's policies arise out of a sense of existential threat - it's them against us, and we need to do everything to win, even if we may regret some of it when more normal times return. Racism, land-grabbing, ethnic cleansing, brutal assaults and mass killing, this is what happens when tribes fight over territory. But the bomb cartoon showed Netanyahu to be a clown, people pulled back from the direction he was striving to lead, and now they want to rearrange the deck chairs. But when the march to war is stalled, all the policies that seemed justified when immediate death at the hands of the "other" was the perceived reality, can no longer withstand scrutiny as normal times return. If the US starts to apply some pressure to Israel, if the US and global press start presenting more of the naked racism and other boorish behavior that Mondoweiss has made available to its readers, it will not be long before real liberal, progressive values again assert themselves. Let's see what Lapid is saying in a year.
I watched CBS News and the Newshour, and neither mentioned the Codepink protest nor Kerry's interesting response. Neither mentioned the 80,000 having Obama's back, either, unless I missed it earlier in the week. Why are these incidents not news?
Jodi Rudoren was interviewed today on NPR's Talk of the Nation: link to npr.org
Her take is interesting in several respects, among them that the public still thinks a nuclear Iran is an existential threat, that the neighborhood remains very dangerous on the Egyptian and Syrian borders, and generally gives Netanyahu high marks for his leadership on these issues, yet decided to focus on more middle class domestic issues - make the Ultra-Orthodox work and serve in the IDF, e.g., apparently Lapid's top rallying cry. She finds Lapid's new-found ambition to be Foreign Minister remarkable given that he's never taken a position on any foreign policy questions. She talks about the Settlers remaining safe from any near-term effort to evacuate them, but maybe the Ultra-Orthodox privileges get eliminated, despite their parties' having been part of the old coalition government - Lapid is likely to require those changes in writing as part of any coalition deal. I came away with a sense of disarray - "Things fall apart, the center will not hold . . . the best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity." To me they are like an invading army, far from home, that has decided to fire its general, and hold regular meetings to talk about what might be best to do next, with lots of viewpoints being expressed, but no immediacy or urgency to their situation, while hostile forces gather. This is a perfect time for someone else to fill their leadership vacuum with another way forward. Will it be a reasoned, realistic approach? Or one of the many that will lead on to massive destruction?
Historic.
What if US diplomats and journalists asked each party leader why none of the leading Israeli parties will coalition build with the Arab parties? And reported their answers, and looked behind those answers and held them accountable for what they say?
To me, the so-called life & death Iran threat existential crisis of the Neocons is being replaced by a political/ideological existential crisis - what does it mean to be Israeli in the time of Obama? Bennett is a more articulate far-right winger, who gained some votes, Beiteinu disappeared into Likud, which lost seats, this is the first I ever heard of Yair Lapid, who is the surprise gainer, supposedly for the center-left. You may be right that it doesn't mean anything positive for ending Palestinian suffering, but I'm not so sure. The Obama-Hagel vision does lead toward peace, and they've just shown that the old AIPAC/Neocon magic no longer works to delude the US. What does it mean when your hidden policies are now baking in the Noon day sun? No one knows how to lead the whole country when Obama-Hagel are speaking realism and it no longer works to distract everyone by fear of Iran or false smears of Anti-Semitism. When the US and international press are starting to actually report on what your doing and why? When films showing your bad behavior are being nominated for awards? Maybe you have to face reality, atone for your sins, make peace, and move on with your life. Dump Likud Beiteinu. Save Israel. Save the Middle East. Save America.
"The Hagel nomination means that people are at last arguing about the power of the Israel lobby in the mainstream press." Great double entendre, there, Phil. There are now plenty of stories, back and forth, about Hagel and realism vs Kristol, et al, and neoconservatism. You have to come to Mondoweiss, however, for honest reporting on that power within the press itself, influencing the message. How do you get committed journalists to confront their long-held tabus, and . . . report about them.
Thanks, Annie. Great work exposing the mechanisms. One thing I've realized over the years on Mondoweiss is how banal everything looks when it is finally exposed to the light of day, in this case, Richard Goldberg.
Thanks for the reference, marc b. Very good background material. This passage reminds me of a news clip from Harvard back then, a distinguished-looking professor was engaging one of the defiant protesters on the steps of some building, who said something outrageous, to which the professor replied, "you worry me, boy," whereupon the student took great offense, "don't call me boy." The professor apologized profusely, solicitously pried his name out of him, maybe it was "William" then exactly repeated his phrasing and intonation, "you worry me, William."
In 1969 or 70, the lottery was created and most deferments were terminated. The draft was eliminated in 1971 or 72. By saying he was in the lottery for one year, Kristol probably meant that if the draft had reached his number he would've been called, but it didn't, and then the All Volunteer army went into effect. And he didn't volunteer. In 1967, when Hagel was drafted, it was different, selection was randomized, there were lots of deferments to consider, and a lot more people naively assumed the US was fighting a good war. By 1971, there weren't many of those left. Even Nixon had campaigned in 1968 and and won on his "secret plan" to end the war. So by 1971 the best you could think was I'm serving Nixon's secret plan to get peace with honor, which hasn't gone very far, and was long ago revealed as a cynical campaign promise. Not to defend Kristol, who should be run out of town on a rail for his role in lying us into Iraq, but 1967 and 1971 were different times.
I think a good response to the meme that he is "antagonistic toward the State of Israel" is that he is antagonistic toward the failed policies of the current government and their Neocon allies in the US which have wasted trillions of dollars and many American casualties on courses of action that have made both Israel and the US less safe. There's a minority in Israel - including many in the Israeli defense and intelligence community - with identical views. Why aren't you willing to embrace the sort of debate about Israeli policies in the US that is common in Israel itself? Why do you try to scare people away from expressing their views with the threat of being slandered as an Anti-Semite? And, [to whatever tortured value is elicited in response to those questions], shouldn't the US Secretary of Defense weigh the value of not stupidly putting US troops in harms way against such a strained and conflated risk as that?
Interesting to see nearly unanimous comments following this article attacking Rubin, supporting Hagel.
Shields and Brooks led off with a discussion of Hagel on PBS NewsHour this evening. link to pbs.org
A couple highlights:
DAVID BROOKS: “I spent -- first -- on three subjects, first, his integrity. I spent a lot of time with him during the Iraq war, and I didn't agree with where he was going, but he followed his conscience, he followed the evidence, and he did the hardest thing that is -- one of the very hard things, which is to be unpopular in your workplace.”
. . . .
[Explaining the opposition:] Well, part of [Hagel’s] realism is less of a moral and ideological commitment to Israel, and more of an effort to rebalance our position in the Middle East.
I think there is some genuine element to that. And so I do think he is a bit a part of that. He has been part of some organizations that have run articles, you know, about the Israel lobby that have talked about an apartheid Israel. So he has been associated with some people who have said some reasonably inflammatory things. [parse "reasonably inflammatory"!]
MARK SHIELDS: And I think there are some people who view any criticism of whatever the administration is in Likud as somehow disloyal to the state of Israel. If you say what the Labor Party in Israel says about Benjamin Netanyahu in this country, you would make yourself vulnerable to charges of anti-Semitism in some quarters.
Cooper's prior statement favoring Hagel suggests he may have resigned because he didn't want to be part of an organization whose very public opposition (or voice participating in a smear campaign) could be purchased by un-nameable funding sources. Or maybe he himself sold out for a price to be revealed. Or his board terminated him for doing so. Let's see where he lands.
One consequence of the extended Hagel trial balloon phase is that it provides more and more rope for the Netanyahu-Likud-led Israel Lobby to hang itself with. To an unprecedented extent, the machinations, mechanisms, and methods of this most effective night flower are stretched out in the morning sun. And Mondoweiss is there with its magnifying glass to examine them. We'll see if they survive the heat of the day and the intensifying scrutiny.
As for me, I say there should be no Likud-Loyalty-Litmus test for high government office.
What of the reports over the weekend that Obama was calling major Jewish groups to alert them to the impending appointment of Hagel? Were the reports false? Was the reported timing false? Is there something else going on under the surface?
I would say there are several diversions/rationalizations:
1. Two State Solution/Peace Process/No partner for peace
2. Islamophobia/ Dangerous neighborhood/ Clash of Civilizations
3. Immature, unproductive, primitive culture/
5. Gay rights, women's rights
6. Anti-Semitism/ Denial of Israel's right to exist/ Delegitimization campaign/ Link to Holocaust and Holocaust Deniers/ Comparison to Nazis and Chamberlain appeasement efforts
7. Accusations of Conspiracy paranoia/ Lack of Seriousness/ Lack of scholarship/ Hidden motives (see #6)/ Making such into Career Limiting statements
8. Constant provocation to induce a reaction that can be widely publicized/ Use of False Flag tactics
All have some basis, and can be trotted out to avoid discussing qui bono or who benefits from this prolonged state of affairs. With several arrows in the quiver, and a reliable and effective echo chamber/tabu enforcers among prestigious "news" organizations, the diversionary tactics have worked well for many years.
However, when this kind of delicate manipulation of perception and thus power is entrusted to the heavy hands of the likes of Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman, the clock starts to run out, the night flower gets exposed to too much sunlight. The public grows tired, the power is diminished as the perception becomes obviously false to too many people, who increasingly recognize that they are not alone.
A perfectly weighted punch in the nose.
I'm against releasing Pollard, but, as his sentence and life run down, it is a chip to use with the Israelis. Would I trade a Pollard release as part of a package for a peace treaty mutually acceptable to Israel and Palestine? Would Obama? Think of it as salve for whichever Israeli Prime Minister incurs the wrath of his right wing by reaching an end to the "peace process" short of ethnic cleansing, and it starts to become interesting.
"That’s what happens when you show you’re opponents that you’re weak." You are right that Obama has demonstrated a disappointing lack of the fight skills Biden boasts about (recalling his mother urging him to go back out and bloody the bully's nose, so you can walk down the street with your head up tomorrow.) His weakness is his weakness. His strength, however, is in caution, appreciation of nuance, empathy, listening, not offending unnecessarily. His skills have put him in a position to do one of the bully gangs in his life, Netanyahu, the settlers, Likudniks, and the Lobby, great harm. My guess is he wants to hit them just hard enough to get Hagel appointed, a new realist policy moving forward in the military and foreign policy arenas, especially the Middle East, and to expose the weakness (superficial power) of the Lobby, the corruption of the Neocons, while doing it in a way that, while painful to those hit, will not be regarded as excessive by most people. Such caution, combined with such intelligence, also poses the grave risk that, in striving for the perfectly weighted solution, he misses the boat of opportunity and gets left at the dock of history. Perfection is the enemy of the good enough.
I sense that an Obama defining moment in the Middle East is upon us. He will nominate Hagel, who will be confirmed, the question having been boiled down to"whether supine and reflexive support for all things Israeli remains a prerequisite for important policy positions here in the Land of the Free," and Obama will have reasserted American independence, within the Beltway, in most cautious and nuanced form, from the State of Israel. This is a big day for Mondoweiss, almost too much news for one blog to report. Let us know when the networks come calling.
Moreover, if done before the Israeli elections, Netanyahu will be left looking particularly bad, having damaged Israel's relationship with the US, and weakened his own lobby here.
I find Friedman's support of Hagel to be a sign of hope that Obama will push forward with the nomination. The trial balloon has resulted in the hard core lobby, led by Kristol, making its desires, intentions and tactics clear, and the less clearly delineated propaganda organs in the MSM that support the lobby, revealing itself. You can read all those reports that the White House is considering withdrawing it as part of that propaganda effort. Now Friedman gives permission to lots of pundits and reporters to engage in the war of ideas in the Middle East. Do you follow Kristol? or Friedman? or stake a claim somewhere else in the vicinity (e.g., Phil Weiss, who should have his agent suggest to various shows that now might be a good time to invite Mr. War of Ideas to address the nation)? Those who followed Kristol could get left standing high and dry, discredited by their own words and reporting. If Obama comes out with a strong endorsement, and the Senate rapidly confirms him, the element of fear and intimidation will have been undermined, and the credibility of the propaganda organs damaged. Maybe Phil would become a regular on Meet the Press.
"If you want a friend in Washington, buy a dog." Harry Truman,
Possible Obama message:
"Here's my only friend, (my Avatar?) thoroughly enjoying his stay in the White House and around its grounds, despite all the snow and cold winter in DC, literal and figurative."
Hagel presents the question for Obama: is there a Likud Loyalty Litmus Test for appointment to high office. This test is enforced by a very small number of neocon ideologues who have deeply offended vast swaths of America, including Obama himself. Yet Obama appears poised to serve them their biggest triumph - the ability to kill the appointment of a conservative, realist, Republican, long term Senator, decorated Vietnam War vet, because he has not been sufficiently loyal to the Likud government in Israel, which, to anyone watching with half a brain, is ready to play the nuclear option against imagined foes. President Obama, do you serve the Israel Lobby? or the American public?
Is there an Israel Lobby Loyalty litmus test for advance to high office in our government? That is what is at issue with Hagel's trial balloon. If Obama throws him under the bus, he basically endorses the element of fear and intimidation that the Lobby has used to force American politicians from places like Nebraska in America's Heartland to do their bidding. See? they will be able to crow. This is what will happen to you if you don't sign all our stupid letters, allow us to push through any resolution we want without debate, and if you don't stand up and applaud on every cue when the Israeli Prime Minister delivers his State of the Union address to our Congress. Obama has a clear choice. He's got some members of the MSM on his side, Mark Shields characterized the opposition as "those who think he's not sufficiently loyal to Israel" on the NewsHour Friday. Those pushing the effort to scuttle the nomination are all revealing themselves as propaganda organs of the Likud Party. People want to be freed from the bullying we're submitted to. It's so painfully obvious. He can stand up for independence and realism, or he can endorse the Lobby's fear and intimidation.
We watched the Christmas Story for the umpteenth time last night. Ralphie the protagonist in his quest for his holy grail BB gun perpetually harassed and laughed at by the bully Scott Farkas and his toady, finally loses his temper when pelted with a snowball, and pounds the tar out of Farkas, while cursing a blue streak. It's time for President Ralphie to pound the tar out of Farkas/Netanyahu and his toadies in American politics and media. It's time to punch the bully in the nose.
As to the cliff, he should have told the Republicans what he would offer in terms of rates to avoid going over the cliff, and made it clear that, failing to avoid the cliff and with restoration of pre-Bush rates, they'll never get close to as good a deal, and that the higher rates beyond the cliff, and the higher rates that will result from new legislation post-cliff, are all on them. He should have made that assurance to Congressional Republicans and to every anti-tax writer of campaign checks. Do the deal now or suffer later.
But he's a wimp.
It's a matter of a Likud Loyalty Litmus test. Unless you brown your nose when the Lobby comes calling, then you will pay a price, especially if you are ambitious. The notion that Neocons serving at Netanyahu's direction are able to put thumbs up or down on the US DOD Secretary appointment is appalling, especially where we are over-extended fiscally, militarily, and rapidly expending what credibility we have left internationally. My hopeful side imagines that Obama is letting the Lobby go into full swing, showing themselves to everyone, for the express purpose of pulling the rug out from under them all, giving them all the rope they need to hang themselves (to double up metaphors), thus rewarding someone for having refused the Lobby all along and do it all so that it looks really bad for Netanyahu going into his elections. My realist side prepares for yet another show of Obama's unwillingness or inability to fight for what he and his supporters believe in. Another Obama-backing-off-from-bullies episode.
Thanks, Alex.
Maybe another front to open in the Hagel nomination war is in terms of warmongers vs saner more realistic cooler heads. Wars are very unpopular in the US, including in the military, those who lied us into Iraq have yet to be held accountable, and, to the extent those opposing Hagel are demonstrably war-mongering, as your article details of Pipes, it is fair game to paint his opposition as a coalition of Middle East War Mongers, which leads into a discussion of the merits of putting mid-western conservative realists back at the controls. Anti-Semitism not a necessary part of the discussion. Easier ground for many to navigate than some Israel loyalty litmus test.
Thanks, Jonathan, I had totally missed that. The Ever Essential Mondoweiss.
With Murdoch you have the broad UK scandals as backdrop, so the kid gloves treatment is extra appalling. Plus, you have Petraeus as DC sex scandal of the month last month with no mention of or attention to this juicy detail tying one scandal to another, as ordinary sensational journalism would be prone to do, even without evidence. Applying lessons from Kremlinology, the disappearance of any interest in who the two dueling Mata Hari's might be connected to in their efforts to be close to Petraeus and Allen, and the lack of interest in Murdoch's trying to buy the presidency through Petraeus leaves one left to speculate on whether and how they might be connected.
Here's a link to Cliff Kincaid in Accuracy in Media on The Decline of the Washington Post, in which its dealings and news treatment with its subsidiary for-profit Kaplan Universities, and its selling of reprint space to Russian and Chinese propaganda agencies is detailed. link to aim.org It's a great read on a sad subject.
I hope Mondoweiss readership and revenue are growing as fast as MSM's are dropping. That would be well-deserved on the basis of quality of journalistic product.
Great piece, Phil. Up through the interview, I imagined you had an inside account of how it actually occurred. Was all that fiction? If so, outstanding! And, if not, great reporting!
But I would suggest an alternative ending, in which those oohing and awing at the height-of-fashion attire are surrounded by a larger, younger group laughing at the spectacle and the corruption-put-on-a-pedestal it represents. In the original fairytale, the crowd laughed at the innocent's declaration of the obvious but tabu topic. She wasn't whisked away and silenced. It was the beginning of the end for phony tailors, which is where we are today.
I agree, Alex. This is about Hagel's refusal to pledge allegiance to AIPAC on all their stupid letters. Let's review all their stupid letters which most Congress persons sign, and discuss whether it isn't time to insist on a Congress full of Hagels, each evaluating every foreign policy and Middle East issue from a realist perspective, in terms of what's best for the United States. Incidentally, becoming more like a realist US would greatly improve Israel's long term survival prospects, but that perspective just flows naturally from adopting and living by American values.
The smear of Anti-Semitism tied to criticism of Likud-Beiteinu policies is rapidly losing its steam. It may be that the American-Jewish community needs to redefine its relationship with Zionism, but the United States, writ large, needs to redefine its relationship with Likud-Beiteinu. Sheldon Adelson has promised to double down in his support for Neocon causes and candidates, whose corruption is deeply apparent to anyone who is paying attention. Out of all the Jews I know, I only know one who identifies with Adelson and the Neocons. The Lobby retains some inertial effectiveness in putting out sheer propaganda in support of its objectives, in getting Congress to sign whatever its napkin of the day has to say, and continuing to intimidate lonely but ambitious individuals who must face the promise of adverse consequences for not knuckling under to their pressure, but the crowd is turning, Obama actually won despite the Israeli prime minister's rude disagreements with him and active support for his opponent. Phil wants the American Jewish community to reexamine Zionism; I want Obama to let the Lobby condemn Hagel with all its might, then appoint him and get him approved anyway, preferably just before the Israeli elections, and then pursue the policies Hagel has voiced that so unwind the Lobby - like engaging with Iran, and pushing to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, replacing idiotic ideology with practical realism as the basis for our foreign policy. And maybe indict a few law-breakers, expose a few ideologues in journalists' clothing while they're at it.
The singular fascination with Israel among its critics in America is in large part because, among all the nations in the world doing bad things to their neighbors, Israel alone has such strong influence in US media, culture and politics, where, we have become aware since the Iraq War debacle, Neocons and Zionists use fear and intimidation, built on a campaign of mendacity, to disguise nakedly aggressive colonization as defense in a war on terror, and to avoid accountability for those who lie, spy and murder. Yitzhak Rabin was prepared to make peace in 1995, when Netanyahu called for his assassination, which promptly occurred under highly suspicious circumstances, and since then the idiotic ideologies in the Clean Break and Project for a New American Century have driven US and Israeli policy agendas in highly destructive directions, with little to no ability to hold those responsible accountable. This is not to say that there isn't Anti-Semitism in the world, and that it won't be manifested by some in piling on criticism of Israel. But the heart of the problem is fundamental corruption in the policies in Israel sold as if it were the highest good in America. Those Presbyterians may have voted down BDS by a narrow margin, but there is no longer any hiding of the fact that Israel's Emperor has no clothes. Why is Israel singled out, because it alone is parading itself around naked in front of the American public.
Great lists, Sean, and great perspective on flushing them out into the open. I sense the extremism of Likud-Beiteinu provides additional room for many to clarify that their support for Israel does not extend to authoritarian and racist abuse of an occupied people, nor to dancing to the paid piper of a foreign power on such a crucial position in US government. Avigdor Lieberman's legal problems add additional room - why dance to the paid piper of an indicted breacher of trust, and, by some reports, fraudster, and his partner apologist?.
What we need is an indictment over here of someone corruptly serving the Likud-Beiteinu bloc in US government or the halls of influence. By a prosecutor with the backbone to stand up to the heat.
You make a good point, Mooser. With the lock-step control AIPAC has over Congress, I'm surprised they haven't drafted the war resolution and voted it through without debate. Wait, maybe they did already and no one was paying attention.
Boasting about the efficacy of fear instilled in others through a campaign of mendacity shows a fundamental lack of character. Like a toady seeking to impress his boss the bully.
"I say all nations that throw their military weight around, occupying neighbouring lands and treating the residents with callous and humiliating disregard are already sliding towards the dark possibilities in human nature."
This is the nub of the matter. Leunig speaks for a lot of Israel's critics here.
And, yes, there are hateful Arabs and Muslims who would erase Israel from the map. Why do the Israelis keep empowering them? Why do they succumb to the racist notion that one Arab Muslim speaks for every Arab Muslim? Are they stupid? Or just racist?
Thanks for the link to the Saban Institute video. Pretty high production value. My impression is that it is a seduction offer - look at how great, powerful, inevitable we can make you look! Her response was also a seduction offer - look how comfortable and familiar I am schmoozing with all of you, no hint of confrontation or criticism. Aren't we all such wonderful old friends together! All part of the dance of power. Costs to follow. To both sides. Score a lot for Hilary. She's the one in 2016. No one else close. Saban & Co., no towels being thrown in here, just earnest determination to earn some credit for Hilary's victory.
Most striking is Netanyahu's oozing laud - contrast the tone and body English to what he shows Obama! It may look like a marriage to some, but I see it as an indicator of Hilary's power. Recognition, perhaps, that the Israelis will be at her whim and mercy, soon enough. Better to be as close as possible.
I don't know. Obama has more room now to criticize the Likud-Beiteinu alliance than he's ever had. Maybe he can make an historic speech. We have your back, but we ... will ... not ... tolerate these E1 settlements - unless assurances provided, consequences detailed. Make them back down.
Why would he go to Israel to brown his nose for Bibi just before Bibi's election, after his own election? If I were Bibi, I'd be worried, he's about to get popped in the nose, Obama style.
If Obama just goes to kiss his ass, and be lectured once again like a school-boy, then he's a sorry excuse for a leader.
Even the editorial board of the Sacramento Bee, the McClatchy flagship, has come out strongly in its lead December 5 editorial against the announced E1 settlements, what it calls a "strategic blunder."
"The United States should take a strong stand – not just voice muted criticism – against expanded Israeli settlements." And "the time for tsk-tsking is over."
link to sacbee.com