Trending Topics:

AP asks State: Why shouldn’t folks boycott Israel when your own settlements policy is ineffective?

Israel/Palestine
on 38 Comments

It’s remarkable how many reporters are now impatient with the U.S. obeisance to Israel.  From yesterday’s State Department briefing (In the video, go to minute 41), questions about Obama’s State of the Union nod to Israel as a Jewish state to annoyance at the fact that the State Department regards boycotting SodaStream, which is made in the occupied territories, as illegitimate. Note the references to South African boycott and the necessity of boycott when governments have failed to act.

QUESTION: In the President’s State of the Union, he devoted a couple sentences to the Middle East peace process. And in one of them he referred to Israel as a Jewish state. Was that an endorsement of the prime minister’s condition in the peace talks?

MS. [Marie] HARF: The President has spoken frequently about Israel remaining a Jewish and democratic state. He said it a number of times. So I wouldn’t try and read too much into that, except he’s making very clear what our position is. I wouldn’t read anything into it in terms of any specific policies or discussions as part of the ongoing peace negotiations. He was just making clear what our position is.

QUESTION: Okay. Because the actual text of the speech was him saying Palestine will be recognized as a state and it’ll achieve dignity, and Israel will receive security —

MS. HARF: He has said that multiple times, including during his visit to Israel, including at his AIPAC speech a couple of years ago. He – it’s language he’s used a lot and is very clear about what our position is. I wouldn’t try and relate it specifically to specifics that are being discussed during the peace process right now.

Matt Lee (Associated Press): So related to this and following on the settlement issue that was – we talked with Jen about yesterday, I’m wondering if today, after that discussion yesterday, you are able to offer any more – a bit more of a clear explanation as to why you believe that boycotts of products produced in settlements are de-legitimizing of Israel when you yourself believe that settlements are – Israeli settlements are illegitimate.

MS. HARF: Well, as we’ve said, boycotts directed at Israel are unhelpful, and we oppose them. Again, just because we’ve made clear what our policy is on settlements, that doesn’t necessarily follow that there’s one course of action from a policy perspective that we think fits what we’re concerned about. This is exactly why we think that these issues need to be discussed at the negotiating table, and that we need to get a final status agreement. There’s just not a one size fits all that if we believe A, B should necessarily follow.

Lee: Well, okay, fair enough. But I guess what I don’t understand is why you believe that a boycott of something – of products made in settlements would be de-legitimizing of Israel when, in fact, they’re being made in settlements which are contested areas that you believe the occupation of which is illegitimate.

MS. HARF: Okay, right. I’m sorry… I don’t want to get tied up in the words here.

Lee: I’m having a problem with the –with the logic.

MS. HARF: Well, that we think the boycotts are unhelpful of Israel, and we oppose them because we believe that in order to resolve these issues, we need to discuss them directly between the two parties at the negotiating table, and that that kind of action isn’t helpful; it’s a part of that process. That’s part of the reason that we oppose them.

Lee: Well, I guess – it’s not directed at Israel; it’s directed at a private company, operating a settlement. And if you say you oppose boycotts of Israel because you don’t think they’re helpful, then that raises a huge question about

MS. HARF: But it’s directed at a company because of Israeli policies — or Israeli Government policies.

Lee: But people are free to buy or not buy whatever product they want to, right? I mean when you say if – when you say that boycotts of Israel are not helpful, it just raises a giant flag when you look at Jo’s question, when the entire world, with the exception of two – one other country thinks that your boycott/embargo of Cuba is wrong and unhelpful, why it is that you have this position that that’s okay, but then something to display – another country trying to display its displeasure with Israelis – Israeli policy, that that’s not helpful. I don’t – if you – what I don’t understand is, if you believe that the settlements are – that settlement activity is illegitimate yourself – and by you, I mean the United States —

MS. HARF: Yeah.

Lee: how is it that you can – how is it that you oppose other people who share that view taking some kind of action to demonstrate their unhappiness or to protest that that —

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. Well, each situation is different, obviously, when we’re talking about how to respond policy-wise when we disagree with policies in one country. I think part of the nature is the across-the-board boycott of Israel on some of these issues, certainly. Again, I’m happy to check with our folks, Matt. I think a trade embargo in Cuba is obviously very, very, very different than boycotts of Israel that we do not believe are the way to resolve these issues. We don’t think it’s helpful to the process. We believe that these issues need to be discussed between the two parties, and that’s how we’re going to get some resolution on them; not through boycotts of Israel. I’m happy to see if there’s more analysis. I’m sorry. I just —

Lee : Okay. So –but – no, no, no, I understand. But I just –

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

Lee: Hold on. Hold on, Lesley. One more thing. How do you suggest that other countries or people, other groups, should demonstrate their unhappiness with another country’s – in this case, Israel’s – policy? If not through a peaceful action like a boycott, what should they do? I mean, this is not just something —

MS. HARF: I think we speak out very clearly when we don’t agree with Israel’s policies, and what – that we don’t think the settlements are legitimate. We say that very clearly and make that very clear, and work with the parties to get resolution on these issues through final status negotiations. That’s how we think we should help resolve these issues that are really underneath the boycott issue.

Lee: Okay. But by your own admission, your speaking out against this particular policy hasn’t had any effect.

MS. HARF: I don’t think I’ve ever said that.

Lee: Well, let’s put it this way.

MS. HARF: I think that’s your analysis.

Lee: You speak out about them, and the Israelis keep doing it. Is that not correct?

MS. HARF: Well, I think you’re making a broad generalization. You have no idea what the impact always is of our private diplomatic discussions and what would’ve been done differently if we hadn’t had those discussions.

And I am actually am on a time schedule, so we need to —

Lee: So you’re saying that you think that the Israelis would be doing more of this if you hadn’t been doing those —

MS. HARF: I’m saying I wouldn’t make any assumptions, Matt, about the kind of leverage we have.

Yeah.

QUESTION [I believe this is Rosalind Jordan, Al Jazeera]: Well, let’s go back 25, 30 years.

MS. HARF: I have about three more minutes.

QUESTION: Sure – 25, 30 years, there was, as part of the anti-apartheid movement, a concerted effort on people who opposed the regime in South Africa to not spend money with companies that did business with that government, notably multinational oil companies. How is this situation with SodaStream any different?

MS. HARF: Every situation is different, guys, every single situation in every country. We have different policy, diplomatic, and economic tools that we think are important in getting us to the policy goal we want in every country. I’m just not going to compare them.

QUESTION: And the U.S. doesn’t consider Israel an apartheid state. I just want to clarify that.

MS. HARF: Yes, correct.

QUESTION: So, just going off this, is it the policy – do you think it’s fair to conflate the settlement issue writ large with the – this issue that has caused a lot of riff-raff, which is the private company of SodaStream employing 250 people in a settlement and selling its products?

MS. HARF: I’m sorry, I don’t understand the gist of your question.

QUESTION: I’m sorry.

MS. HARF: No, it’s okay. We’re all getting tangled up in words here.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: I mean, what we said is we don’t support boycotts, we oppose them, period, of Israel. So I think that’s pretty clear.

Lee: Not under any circumstance?

MS. HARF: Period.

Lee: Under any circumstance?

MS. HARF: Matt, yes, we oppose them. I’m sure you will find some circumstance in 20 years where we would not, but right now we do.

QUESTION: No, I – okay.

MS. HARF: This is going to be my last question.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

38 Responses

  1. amigo
    amigo
    February 1, 2014, 1:40 pm

    ” I think a trade embargo in Cuba is obviously very, very, very different than boycotts of Israel that we do not believe are the way to resolve these issues. We don’t think it’s helpful to the process. We believe that these issues need to be discussed between the two parties, and that’s how we’re going to get some resolution on them; not through boycotts of Israel. I’m happy to see if there’s more analysis. I’m sorry. I just –”Harf

    Have you ever read such patronizing hypocrisy.

    Anyone but Israelis can be boycotted.Would someone rid us of these clowns before they cause another war.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      February 1, 2014, 2:03 pm

      LOL. The boycott of Cuba is different because…… well, it’s different. Don’t ask me why. It just is.

      And though we think the ‘settlements’ are ‘illegitimate’ (weasel word because you haven’t got the cajones to admit they’re illegal) we also think boycotting products made in those illegitimate ‘settlements’ is also ‘illegitimate’ because…. oh don’t ask me please!!!

      And for the love of god do NOT ask me about how we have sujbjected Iran to the most severe sanctions ever placed on a nation during peacetime, even though they have committed no breach of international law at all.

      This interview is great. It exposes the utter hypocrisy of the US govt and, by extension, the entire anti-BDS movement. Let’s hope there’s more like this to come.

      • amigo
        amigo
        February 2, 2014, 7:28 am

        “Let’s hope there’s more like this to come.” MDM

        But of course there is more to come.The Hasbara project is the joke that never stops giving.

        But we are not the ones who will choke on in.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 2, 2014, 9:42 am

        What can you expect of a WH spokes person to the Washington DC press corps? Next time questions on Iran come up, I wish one of them would ask about our government’s continued stance it does not know whether or not Israel has a nuke, or 400 nukes, and megaton bombs sufficient to reach US, explode over head, and rain down death and grid break from sea to shining sea? Ask what’s with this policy of opaqueness?

        Then follow up with why isn’t Israel encouraged to join the NPT? And to ratify the treaty against proliferating chemical and biological weapons? A la Syria?

        And ask the WH spokes person why did the US government change its stance from officially declaring the settlements illegal to now saying they are illegitimate–and just what is the difference? And why doesn’t the US use its huge chunk of foreign aid to Israel as leverage to make them less of an “obstacle” to peace process and more helpful, rather than “less helpful?”

      • lobewyper
        lobewyper
        February 2, 2014, 9:38 pm

        “This interview is great. It exposes the utter hypocrisy of the US govt and, by extension, the entire anti-BDS movement.”

        It also shows once again that campaign contributions can cause government representatives to knowingly lie to their constituents, an offense which should be prosecutable under the law.

  2. Shmuel
    Shmuel
    February 1, 2014, 1:44 pm

    MS. HARF: I think we speak out very clearly when we don’t agree with Israel’s policies, and what – that we don’t think the settlements are legitimate.

    Delegitimiser.

  3. amigo
    amigo
    February 1, 2014, 1:47 pm

    “MS. HARF: Well, I think you’re making a broad generalization. You have no idea what the impact always is of our private diplomatic discussions and what would’ve been done differently if we hadn’t had those discussions.”

    Are you saying miss harf that there would be multiple more illegal settlements if you had not spoken out against them.

    Are you saying that Israel has attempted to blackmail the US by threathening to build more illegal squats if their demands are not met.

    Thanks for making the case for a boycott even more necessary.

  4. Herb Glatter
    Herb Glatter
    February 1, 2014, 1:52 pm

    Listen to this Canadian minister in regard to SodaStream:

    • Justpassingby
      Justpassingby
      February 1, 2014, 5:03 pm

      Says the Herb..
      Were did you get the clip anyway subscribing to pro-israel youtube channels?

      As for the clip, an angry racist israel firster, whats new?

    • Sumud
      Sumud
      February 1, 2014, 8:12 pm

      It’s obvious that Minister has received coaching in delivering hasbara.

      • lobewyper
        lobewyper
        February 2, 2014, 9:41 pm

        If you were prime minister and your supply of Israeli kosher pickles had been threatened, what would YOU have done??? (Who knows, the Israelis may also have warned that the supply of Israeli camels might dry up as well.)

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      February 1, 2014, 8:49 pm

      Is that a Murdoch channel? Sounds like it.
      It looks like a Tom Tomorrow cartoon as well.
      So the big deal is “an Israeli company employing Palestinians”.

    • annie
      annie
      February 2, 2014, 6:49 am

      i like reading the bold “BOYCOTT ISRAEL MOVEMENT” on the bottom of the screen.

  5. Sycamores
    Sycamores
    February 1, 2014, 2:11 pm

    the same old claptrap from Ms. Harf

    sounds similar to the diatribe from George Shultz 30 year ago about South Africa apartheid.
    http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1985/Shultz-Defends-South-Africa-Policy/id-9152c17b03529b95fbec88f32ffb162a

    Shultz defends U.S. South Africa policy

    WASHINGTON (AP) _ Secretary of State George Shultz, responding to critics who say U.S. policy toward South Africa perpetuates apartheid, said Tuesday the United States ”must not throw American matches on the emotional tinder of the region.”

    Shultz, speaking at a National Press Club luncheon, expressed sharp opposition to a proposal before Congress that would ban new U.S. investment and reduce U.S.-South African trade ties.

    He said the proposal ignores the harm that would be inflicted ”precisely on the black majority whom the advocates of boycotts, embargoes and sanctions purportedly want to help.

    ”An economy that even now needs to create 250,000 new jobs for young blacks each year and that will have twice as many of them entering the job market by the turn of the century needs more job opportunities, not fwer,” he said. He added that a U.S. policy of exacerbating hardship in South Africa could promote ”race war” there.

    ‘Shultz defends U.S. South Africa policy’ was brought to my attention by one of Ben White Tweets today

    Ben White‏@benabyad
    Ever thought that the defence of #SodaStream sounded familiar? #BDS #NoScarJo #apartheid pic.twitter.com/wj8ZXXcfGV

  6. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby
    February 1, 2014, 2:18 pm

    There should be a fundraising for Matthew Lee.

  7. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    February 1, 2014, 2:29 pm

    Matt Lee has led the way going where others were afraid to go on this issue (well except for Helen Thomas). Others are starting to follow. Movement..movement but not on the ground just more expansion of illegal settlements and destruction in the Jordan Valley.

    Latest over at Going to Tehran. Great read
    http://goingtotehran.com/the-year-of-iran-tehrans-challenge-to-american-hegemony-in-2014-leveretts-in-the-world-financial-review#comment-34831

  8. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    February 1, 2014, 4:08 pm

    The transcript is hard reading, especially since it goes round and round and * * * round.

    But here’s a question: Does any MSM report any of these Q/A sessions? If Matt Lee asks a question in the State Department Press Room, and no-one hears it, did the question really fall — err, get asked?

    • Rob Buchanan
      Rob Buchanan
      February 1, 2014, 5:56 pm

      Is there a Pulitzer for persistent questioning?

    • ToivoS
      ToivoS
      February 2, 2014, 3:01 am

      Well pabelmont, some one hears Matt Lee’s questions, and the painfully awkward State Dept spokesmen’s response, and that us who follow mondoweiss. These contradictions are penetrating well beyond this tiny corner of the internet. Maybe not the MSM today but there are many out there that are listening, thinking and trying to figure out how to bring these questions to a wider audience.

      This Matt Lee guy is incredible. I think it is a major victory for us that he has not been fired from his job. It means that there is someone in AP that is defending him and thereby allowing him to continue asking these questions.

  9. Mondowise
    Mondowise
    February 1, 2014, 9:09 pm

    “MS. HARF: Well, as we’ve said, boycotts directed at Israel are unhelpful, …”

    uh noooo, what rock is she residing under? boycotts directed at iZrael are indeed very helpful for the Palestinians.

    “MS. HARF: I’m saying I wouldn’t make any assumptions, Matt, about the kind of leverage we have.”

    oh please, don’t make me gag! WHAT EFFECTIVE LEVERAGE do you really have mizz harf??? if that’s even remotely true, try using it to enforce international law!!!

  10. Citizen
    Citizen
    February 1, 2014, 9:19 pm

    Why would anyone expect more from a government press agent? I’m amazed at how inarticulate and imprecise the press is in asking questions. They make it easy for the WH parrot to wiggle out with weasel words and illogic.

    Meanwhile, Obama’s future library is now being set up; note the names involved. I think we can assume he’s not going to do anything to annoy Penny Pritzker and friends while he’s winding up his second term: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/01/obama-presidential-library_n_4709019.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

  11. JustJessetr
    JustJessetr
    February 1, 2014, 10:29 pm

    For all the people who say SStream should be boycotted, it’s the Palestinians who work at the factory in the West Bank speaking against it who convince me.

    http://gawker.com/what-sodastreams-palestinian-employees-think-about-sca-1513475552

    Now I’m sure that they don’t speak for everyone, but then again, the Palestinians SStream workers who have criticized the plant don’t speak for everyone either.

    And this has been my problem with BDS all along. The movement has no problem heaping suffering upon already massive amounts of suffering just to score political points. Does BDS actually feed people, put money in their pockets, put pencils in kids hands? Sure, things would be different if Israel wasn’t de facto running the West Bank, but in the meantime, BDS just encourages more hardship for some unrealized date in the future.

    • annie
      annie
      February 2, 2014, 7:05 am

      they? palestinians? there was only one 22 yr old palestinian quoted in that article promoting the ss factory job.

      • JustJessetr
        JustJessetr
        February 4, 2014, 11:31 am

        Here’s another “only one”. Are you such an authority that you, Annie, would decide to have Saida and Fares suffer for the collective? And if it’s not your authority, whose authority are you standing up for?

        http://www.timesofisrael.com/at-sodastream-palestinians-hope-their-bubble-wont-burst/

        Now, I’m sure that you see my position (that despite the how occupation has molded and stymied a Palestinian economy from the ground up, a job with good working conditions in the settlement is still a good job because one has to put food on the table) as black and white as I see yours (no job from an Israeli is a good job because they’re all Zionist bloodsuckers).

        But I suspect you have more depth than that. It’s an incredibly complex situation, and for the life of me, I don’t see how BDS helps a single Palestinian anywhere. Not with food, not with schooling, not with anything.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      February 2, 2014, 7:08 am

      The movement has no problem heaping suffering upon already massive amounts of suffering just to score political points.

      Hasbara fail!

      BDS started out as a inititative by those very Palestinians that are suffering fool.

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      February 2, 2014, 7:27 am

      And this has been my problem with BDS all along.

      No it hasn’t. Your problem has been the target and goals of BDS. Your general antipathy toward the movement and/or criticism of its methods is entirely incidental.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        Maximus Decimus Meridius
        February 2, 2014, 2:31 pm

        Absolutely. Do these people honestly think anyone is going to take them seriously when they concern troll about Palestinians? When have they ever prioritised Palestinians’ feelings about …… anything?

        What bothers them is that the BDS movement takes the narrative right out of the hands of the easily influenced political and media class, and into the hands of the general public, who are not fooled anymore. Not by Israel, and not by his attempts to feign concern about Palestinians.

    • talknic
      talknic
      February 2, 2014, 9:50 am

      @JustJessetr “this has been my problem with BDS all along. The movement has no problem heaping suffering upon already massive amounts of suffering just to score political points”

      BDS is a political party … WOW !! I wonder if they know

  12. Accentitude
    Accentitude
    February 2, 2014, 3:46 am

    Not once has she said the word “illegal” in regards to Israeli settlements. Not once.

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      February 2, 2014, 8:47 am

      Yes, these settlements to the US are just not “helpful” not “legit”, but not a violation of international law and a war crime which would call for sanctions or intervention. It’s US’ appeasement policy language to protect Israel from anything that could effectively stop it’s Lebensraum policy and Raubwirtschaft in occupied territories.

    • Kathleen
      Kathleen
      February 2, 2014, 10:44 am

      Some have argued that “illegal” does not need to be put in front of settlements. That there is an assumption they are “illegal” I totally disagree. Think we need to keep reminding folks everywhere we share on the internet, talk about the issue continue to use illegal illegal illegal under international law and in violation of UN resolutions. I guess if you want to go with what Kerry, Obama and other U.S. officials use to describe you could say “illegitimate settlements.”

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        February 2, 2014, 10:50 am

        @ Kathleen
        Totally agree. The adjective “illegal” or even “illegitimate” carries a lot of weight, enough to make some readers even wonder why, and maybe do some googling as a way to pass the time while waiting for the Superbowl game or for their friend to drop over to go shopping at the mall.

  13. Citizen
    Citizen
    February 2, 2014, 4:54 am

    illegitimate
    adjective
    not authorized by the law; not in accordance with accepted standards or rules: an illegitimate exercise of power by the military.
    • (of a child) born of parents not lawfully married to each other.
    ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from late Latin illegitimus (from in- ‘not’ + legitimus ‘lawful’), suggested by legitimate.

    illegal |i(l)ˈlēgəl|
    adjective
    contrary to or forbidden by law, esp. criminal law: illegal drugs.
    ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from French illégal or medieval Latin illegals, from Latin in- ‘not’ + legalis ‘according to the law.’

    Lee: You speak out about them, and the Israelis keep doing it. Is that not correct?

    MS. HARF: Well, I think you’re making a broad generalization.

    QUESTION: And the U.S. doesn’t consider Israel an apartheid state. I just want to clarify that.

    MS. HARF: Yes, correct.

    MS. HARF: I mean, what we said is we don’t support boycotts, we oppose them, period, of Israel. So I think that’s pretty clear.

    Lee: Not under any circumstance?

    MS. HARF: Period.

    Lee: Under any circumstance?

    MS. HARF: Matt, yes, we oppose them. I’m sure you will find some circumstance in 20 years where we would not, but right now we do.

    Feels like Alice in Wonderland to me.

  14. Shingo
    Shingo
    February 2, 2014, 4:59 am

    Notice how she starts the press briefing with the statement that it’s relaxed and by the time the topic heats up, she’s suddenly on a tight deadline?

  15. Citizen
    Citizen
    February 2, 2014, 5:07 am

    Alice: This is impossible.
    The Mad Hatter: Only if you believe it is.

    Adage: Just tell the truth, you won’t have to remember so many lies.
    MS Harf earns her salary. Her job is to make it appear that the government she works for actually has laudable principles applicable to everyone. The only one I see consistently reflected is this one:

    Adage: It all depends on who’s ox is being gored.

    As MS Harf puts it:

    “Again, just because we’ve made clear what our policy is on settlements, that doesn’t necessarily follow that there’s one course of action from a policy perspective that we think fits what we’re concerned about… There’s just not a one size fits all that if we believe A, B should necessarily follow.”

  16. Talkback
    Talkback
    February 2, 2014, 9:29 am

    Just a reminder. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949:

    ARTICLE 146

    The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article.
    Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed, such grave breaches, and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a ‘ prima facie ‘ case.
    Each High Contracting Party shall take measures necessary for the suppression of all acts contrary to the provisions of the present Convention other than the grave breaches defined in the following Article.
    In all circumstances, the accused persons shall benefit by safeguards of proper trial and defence, which shall not be less favourable than those provided by Article 105 and those following of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of August 12, 1949.

    ARTICLE 147

    Grave breaches to which the preceding Article relates shall be those involving any of the following acts, if committed against persons or property protected by the present Convention: wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed in the present Convention, taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.

    ARTICLE 148

    No High Contracting Party shall be allowed to absolve itself or any other High Contracting Party of any liability incurred by itself or by another High Contracting Party in respect of breaches referred to in the preceding Article.

    http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=AE2D398352C5B028C12563CD002D6B5C

  17. lobewyper
    lobewyper
    February 2, 2014, 9:54 pm

    The Lobby is weakening noticeably, and writers are calling it out openly left and right. Any half-way intelligent American has now at least heard of AIPAC and its disproportionate and destructive influence. I still can’t believe that the Israelis left themselves open to being portrayed as trying to compel the US into another war. The US economy and its society generally are on very shaky ground right now and have been for several years. For AIPAC and its allies to attempt to coerce the American people into a another war that in all probability would benefit no one and solidify the hostility of Muslims toward the US and Israel for the next fifty years is seriously crazy.

Leave a Reply