Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMore Oddities in The US "Debate" Over Israel/Gaza
This Rasmussen Reports poll -- the first to survey American public opinion specifically regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza -- strongly bolsters the severe disconnect I documented the other day between (a) American public opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel and (b) the consensus views expressed by America's political leadership. Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip" (44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive -- by a 24-point margin (31-55%). By stark constrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62-27%).
It's not at all surprising, then, that Republican leaders -- from Dick Cheney and John Bolton to virtually all appendages of the right-wing noise machine, from talk radio and Fox News to right-wing blogs and neoconservative journals -- are unquestioning supporters of the Israeli attack. After all, they're expressing the core ideology of the overwhelming majority of their voters and audience.
Much more notable is the fact that Democratic Party leaders -- including Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi -- are just as lockstep in their blind, uncritical support for the Israeli attack, in their absolute refusal to utter a word of criticism of, or even reservations about, Israeli actions. While some Democratic politicians who are marginalized by the party's leadership are willing to express the views which Democratic voters overwhelmingly embrace, the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy which typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel -- thou shalt not speak ill of Israel, thou shalt support all actions it takes -- is in full force with this latest conflict.
Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice? More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Does that happen with any other issue?
Equally noteworthy is that the factional breakdown regarding Israel-Gaza mirrors quite closely the factional alliances that arose with regard to the Iraq War. Just as was true with Iraq, one finds vigorous pro-war sentiment among the Dick Cheney/National Review/neoconservative/hard-core-GOP crowd, joined (as was true for Iraq) by some American liberals who typically oppose that faction yet eagerly join with them when it comes to Israel. Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world -- Europe, South America, Asia, the Middle East, the U.N. leadership -- opposes and condemns the attack, all to no avail. The parties with the superior military might (the U.S. and Israel) dismiss world opinion as essentially irrelevant. Even the pro-war rhetorical tactics are the same (just as those who opposed the Iraq War were demonized as being "pro-Saddam," those who oppose the Israeli attack on Gaza are now "pro-Hamas").
Substantively, there are certainly meaningful differences between the U.S. attack on Iraq and the Israeli attack on Gaza (most notably the fact that Hamas really does shoot rockets into Israel and has killed Israeli civilians and Israel really is blockading and occupying Palestinian land, whereas Iraq did not attack and could not attack the U.S. as the U.S. was sanctioning them and controlling their airspace). But the underlying logic of both wars are far more similar than different: military attacks, invasions and occupations will end rather than exacerbate terrorism; the Muslim world only understands brute force; the root causes of the disputes are irrelevant; diplomacy and the U.N. are largely worthless. It's therefore entirely unsurprising that the sides split along the same general lines. What's actually somewhat remarkable is that there is even more lockstep consensus among America's political leadership supporting the Israeli attack on Gaza than there was supporting the U.S.'s own attack on Iraq (at least a few Democratic Congressional leaders opposed the war on Iraq, unlike for Israel's bombing of Gaza, where they virtually all unequivocally support it).
* * * * *
Ultimately, what is most notable about the "debate" in the U.S. over Israel-Gaza is that virtually all of it occurs from the perspective of Israeli interests but almost none of it is conducted from the perspective of American interests. There is endless debate over whether Israel's security is enhanced or undermined by the attack on Gaza and whether the 40-year-old Israeli occupation, expanding West Bank settlements and recent devastating blockade or Hamas militancy and attacks on Israeli civilians bear more of the blame. American opinion-making elites march forward to opine on the historical rights and wrongs of the endless Israeli-Palestinian territorial conflict with such fervor and fixation that it's often easy to forget that the U.S. is not actually a direct party to this dispute.
Though the ins-and-outs of Israeli grievances and strategic considerations are endlessly examined, there is virtually no debate over whether the U.S. should continue to play such an active, one-sided role in this dispute. It's the American taxpayer, with their incredibly consequential yet never-debated multi-billion-dollar aid packages to Israel, who are vital in funding this costly Israeli assault on Gaza. Just as was true for Israel's bombing of Lebanon, it's American bombs that -- with the whole world watching -- are blowing up children and mosques, along with Hamas militants, in Gaza. And it's the American veto power that, time and again, blocks any U.N. action to stop these wars.
For those reasons, the pervasive opposition and anger around the world from the Israeli assault on Gaza is not only directed to Israel but -- quite rationally and understandably -- to America as well. Virtually the entire world, other than large segments of the American public, see Israeli actions as American actions. The attack on Gaza thus harms not only Israel's reputation and credibility, but America's reputation and credibility as well.
And for what? Even for those Americans who, for whatever their reasons, want endlessly to fixate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, who care deeply and passionately about whether the Israelis or the Palestinians control this or that West Bank hill or village and want to spend the rest of their days arguing about who did what to whom in 1948 and 1967, what possible interests do Americans generally have in any of that, sufficient to involve ourselves so directly and vigorously on one side, and thereby subject ourselves to the significant costs -- financial, reputational, diplomatic and security -- from doing so?
It's one thing to argue that Israel is being both wise and just by bombing the densely populated Gaza Strip. It's another thing entirely to argue that the U.S. should use all of its resources to support Israel as it does so. Those are two entirely separate questions. Arguments insisting that the Gaza attack is good and right for Israel don't mean that they are good and right for the U.S. Yet unstinting, unquestioning American support for whatever Israel does is just tacitly assumed in most of these discussions. The core assumption is that if it can be established that this is the right thing for Israel to do, then it must be the right thing for the U.S. to support it. The notion that the two countries may have separate interests -- that this may be good for Israel to do but not for the U.S. to support -- is the one issue that, above all else, may never be examined.
The "change" that many anticipate (or, more accurately, hope) that Obama will bring about is often invoked as a substance-free mantra, a feel-good political slogan. But to the extent it means anything specific, at the very least it has to entail that there will be a substantial shift in how America is perceived in the world, the role that we in fact play, the civil-liberties-erosions and militarized culture that inevitably arise from endlessly involving ourselves in numerous, hate-fueled military conflicts around the world. Our blind support for Israel, our eagerness to make all of its disputes our own disputes, our refusal to acknowledge any divergence of interests between us and that other country, our active impeding rather than facilitating of diplomatic resolutions between it and its neighbors are major impediments to any meaningful progress in those areas.
UPDATE: One related point: I have little appreciation for those who believe, one way or the other, that they can reliably predict what Obama is going to do -- either on this issue or others. That requires a clairvoyance which I believe people lack.
Some argue that Obama has filled key positions with politicians who have a history of virtually absolute support for Israeli actions -- Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel -- because Obama intends to continue, more or less, the Bush policy of blind support for Israel. Others argue the opposite: that those appointments are necessary to vest the Obama administration with the credibility to take a more active role in pushing the Israelis to a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, and that in particular, Clinton would not have left her Senate seat unless she believed she could finish Bill Clinton's work and obtain for herself the legacy-building accomplishment of forging an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians (this morning's NYT hints at that scenario).
I personally find the latter theory marginally more persuasive, but there is simply no way to know until Obama is inaugurated. Whatever else is true, the more domestic political pressure is exerted demanding that the U.S. play a more even-handed and constructive role in facilitating a diplomatic resolution, the more likely it is that this will happen.
79 Comments so far
Show AllPan
News free press google Gaza 38,000 articles larger than ??? not any close and SOME news sources 2nd page none today ,Presidents viewpoint and a few brave souls trying to retore reason barely heard b a r e l y so shut up they like it.
The Glue That Holds Chaos Together
It has been my experience that most Americans seem to dislike bullies, racists, rapists, and murderers, even if they are Jews.
Europeans too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7809656.stm
Bring America Back !!!! THERE IS NO DEBATE !!!!! Since the USA is doing and has done exactly the same thing to Iraq==invading a defenseless sovereign Nation, there can be NO Criticism of Israel's Genocide in Gaza !!
***So far, 4 Israaeli dead ! 500 Gazans dead, 25oo injured & maimed !
Last time I checked only 20% of Americans approved of King George's War on Iraq.
Yet, there they are AGAIN--just like Lebanon==King George, Condi Rice going against World Opinion with the eternal blame on the duly elected Hamas in Gaza !
***Notice, as we all in here predicted over a year ago, how cleverly Bushco
and AIPAC puppets try to tie Iran into the Gaza equation !!! It is another
shock & awe program trying to tie the hands of Saviour Obama even before he
dances at 50 integrated inaugural balls !! So, if Obama dances on the graves
of Palestinians, worships at the monetary altars of AIPAC==very first speech
he gave after becoming the DEM presumptive Nominee==the First !!!! WHY ?
***Even now, we Progs (rhymes with Frogs) know Obama will offer no change,
no hope, no promise==He compares his daughters to the Israelis at the mercy
of those nasty Hamas !!!! Is OBAMA not the master of his Household, the Parent in the House would not permit his own daughters to exist in this situation !
****Did Obama's daughters steal the Palestinian lands; starve them, barridade them, destroy their hard earned homes, Mosques, deprive them of medical aid,
and bomb and missile the daylights out of them??? NO !
**Then, Obama's analogy hardly applies ! Even now (Manilow's lyrics) Obama is NOT listening !!!!
***So then, we Progs, Amnesty International, Codepink must appeal to the 75% of Americans who hate what King Bush has done: REMEMBER THE ALAMO !!!!
REMEMBER THE ALAMO !!!! WAKE UP AMERICA!!! REMEMBER THE GAZANS.
It would be so easy for this to evolve into another world war.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
In the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them -- the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites -- as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God. (Deut 20.16ff)
Nowadays, when someone hears a disembodied voice that tells them to commit genocide, we generally lock them up forever, unless they are ISRAELI.
Listen...If a voice tells you to kill everyone, it is probably NOT GOD.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Bush finally acted!!!
"Hamas rockets are Terrorist Acts!'
He must have read Nir Rosen's article last week:
But I could be wrong !
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel
Gaza: the logic of colonial power
As so often, the term 'terrorism' has proved a rhetorical smokescreen
under cover of which the strong crush the weak
o Nir Rosen
o guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 December 2008 0800
I have spent most of the Bush administration's tenure reporting from
Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia and other conflicts. I have been
published by most major publications. I have been interviewed by most
major networks and I have even testified before the senate foreign
relations committee. The Bush administration began its tenure with
Palestinians being massacred and it ends with Israel committing one of
its largest massacres yet in a 60-year history of occupying
Palestinian land. Bush's final visit to the country he chose to occupy
ended with an educated secular Shiite Iraqi throwing his shoes at him,
expressing the feelings of the entire Arab world save its dictators
who have imprudently attached themselves to a hated American regime.
Once again, the Israelis bomb the starving and imprisoned population
of Gaza. The world watches the plight of 1.5 million Gazans live on TV
and online; the western media largely justify the Israeli action. Even
some Arab outlets try to equate the Palestinian resistance with the
might of the Israeli military machine. And none of this is a surprise.
The Israelis just concluded a round-the-world public relations
campaign to gather support for their assault, even gaining the
collaboration of Arab states like Egypt.
The international community is directly guilty for this latest
massacre. Will it remain immune from the wrath of a desperate people?
So far, there have been large demonstrations in Lebanon, Yemen,
Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. The people of the Arab world will not
forget. The Palestinians will not forget. "All that you have done to
our people is registered in our notebooks," as the poet Mahmoud
Darwish said.
I have often been asked by policy analysts, policy-makers and those
stuck with implementing those policies for my advice on what I think
America should do to promote peace or win hearts and minds in the
Muslim world. It too often feels futile, because such a revolution in
American policy would be required that only a true revolution in the
American government could bring about the needed changes. An American
journal once asked me to contribute an essay to a discussion on
whether terrorism or attacks against civilians could ever be
justified. My answer was that an American journal should not be asking
whether attacks on civilians can ever be justified. This is a question
for the weak, for the Native Americans in the past, for the Jews in
Nazi Germany, for the Palestinians today, to ask themselves.
Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty
word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what
the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel,
America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims'
struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic
cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining
Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with
the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never
earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and
terrorising them was the purpose.
.............
GO TO LINK and keep reading!But I could be wrong !
As Glenn pointed out in an earlier article, about 70% of Americans think that we should not take sides in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but we have TWO parties that are blindly pro-Israel.
In 2007, when 58% of Americans favored pulling ALL troops out of Iraq within a year, we had TWO pro-war parties. The Republicans supported the surge, and the Democrats supported "war lite" (keeping tens of thousands of troops after withdrawing "combat" troops).
A majority of Americans opposed surveillance without a warrant and immunity for the telecoms, but we have TWO anti-civil liberties parties.
An overwhelming majority of Americans opposed the $700 billion blank check to Wall Street, but we have TWO parties of, by, and for the bankers.
About 75% to 80% of Americans favor legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, but we have TWO Reefer Madness parties!
There is no such thing as "an Israeli". There are descendants of some Europeans who immigrated to and have taken up residence in the area west of the Jordan River, South of Lebanon and north of Egypt. Their ancestors formed terrorist gangs like Haganah, Irgun and the Stern Gang. These terrorist gangs threatened and murdered many indigenous residents. They forced them from their homes and villages and have finally concentrated them into two areas commonly referred to as "the west bank" and "gaza". Over the last few decades they have been destroying the orchards and farms and homes of the descendants of the indigenous. They have blockaded food and medicine from them. They have cut off their electricity. They have bombed mosques and hospitals. When the indigenous fight back with whatever feeble means they can cobble together they call them terrorists and use weapons supplied by the United States to further harrass, murder and obliterate the indigenous population. There is no such thing as "Israel". And there are no such persons as "Israelis". There are some ugly murdering racist European immigrants, but no "Israelis".
-- EKATON --
"There is no such thing as "an Israeli". Here in a nutshell is why this war doesn't ever end. The Nazis stuffed the ovens full of people they decided weren't people. This crowd thinks it can do the same. One problem we fight back now.
People of European caucasian heritage have a long "proud" history of genocide. They did it to the North American Native. They did it in Europe to themselves -- some Europeans called "Christians" genocided some other Europeans called "Jews". Now, some Europeans are doing the same thing to the Palestinians. The problem seems to be caucasians of European extraction. They seem to be some of the most vicious people on the face of the earth. "White" people just seem to have an affinity for murdering "colored" ( "red", "brown", "yellow" ) people. It must be a defect in our genetic makeup.
-- ekaton aks d.k.shaw
How's your heroes Bush, McCain and Palin doing blutodog?
Let me call a spade a spade! Israeli Jews, in the main, are insane!
After all, if some man began killing and injuring people, taking over their houses, keeping them hostage, starving them, burning some of their houses down, etc, and all the time saying God told him to do it, that he was especially chosen by God to carry out a mission to set up a special race, he'd be treated as crazy and rightly so! He would be arrested and put in jail. Then he would be committed to an insane asylum.
The Israeli-Jews are doing this to a whole race while the world watches and looks the other way.
Most Israelis Are Insane! Check it on my blog.
www.dangerouscreation.com
Howard Zinn made a good point in a speech broadcast this morning on Democracy Now: the government DOES NOT have the same interests as the people (citizen-subjects). Rousseau makes the same point in the Social Contract, sort of. The government is supposed to enact the will of the citizens, but when it doesn't, the state will fail. My students were very surprised to see this very clear distinction made between the government and the citizens in terms of their respective, divergent interests.
In the case of Israel's attacks on Gaza, we have to ask, along with the author of this piece: why are the interests of the US government so different on this issue than so many of the American people? What is the bi-partisan US government interest in seeing Gaza destroyed, and a 2-state solution pushed ever closer to the impossible? We know that the excuse of the shooting of rockets is a joke compared to the disastrous nature of the Israeli bombardment, so what is the US government interest here? Why doesn't the US insist on a 2 state solution? Wouldn't brokering a peace here help with the so-called "war on terror" since the Israeli-Palestine conflict is apparently one of al qaeda's main gripes against the US?
Also saw a great documentary called "Unforeseen" directed by Terence Malick about the people of Austin successfully defeating a developer...their slogan: "If the people lead, the government will follow."
pleasethink:You quoted my favorite historian. I took notes on the speech, but will read it online, transcript. www.democracynow.org There was a "diary"(article) on DailyKos at the end of last week, about the death of former US Senator from RI, Claiborne Pell. His father had been the US rep (appointed by FDR)to a commission to study the allegations of human rights violations of the Germans. Pell said his father was certain that there was a "gentlemen's agreement to do nothing about the Germans' treatment of Jews. Pell came from the "gentlemen" class, upper class and was very upset.
Forget the 'TWO STATE SOLUTION'. There can be no such thing. Where would the borders be? The native people of the place often referred to as 'The Holy Land' have been driven into smaller and smaller portions of what was their homeland in 1946 and for generations before that. Each year since then, Jewish people have been flooding into this land and displacing by force the native people. We are at the final stage of the total control of all the land by this immigrant population.
This whole thing started after the Second World War because of world opinion supporting the idea that the Jewish people should have a homeland. Parts of Palestine were turned over to the Jews. This land did not belong to the United Nations. The U.N. had no right to take land from the Palestinians and give it to the Jews.
The Jews express a strong need to have a land where they are the master race and others are deprived of equal rights and forced to leave the land of their ancestors.
The United Nations and the United States should not support such an apartheid nation. The 'two state solution' does just that. People of one religious faith have different rights and responsibilities in such a state, and one of the proposed new states is expanding by military action (supported by funds from the United States). The size of one of the proposed states is diminishing while the other is expanding exponentially.
We should support a ONE STATE SOLUTION where all citizens share the same rights and responsibilities under a secular democratic government. People of the 'chosen race' in Europe, Africa, the Americas or any where else on earth DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS IN THIS SECULAR NATION. The people that live on the land are the citizens of the new nation.
The "Right of Return" should only apply to people who have themselves lived on the land. My ancestors left Ireland generations ago. I am an American. I have no claim to land or citizenship in Ireland. I must follow the regulations for immigrants set up by the Irish government if I wish to live in that nation. Jewish people who wish to live in what is now Israel/Palestine must adhere to the rules for immigration set by the new secular state.
LOL!! You fools really enjoy your Jew hating rants. The Irish supported the Germans in WW2. they hated Jews also. The Jews in Israel can and will defeat your brothers the Jew murdering Arabs. I know this pisses people like u off. So what. The more pissed u are the better I like it. FU!
Which branch are you? Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, etc.....?
Help reduce the National Debt - TAX CHURCHES!
The Irish were officially neutral during WWII. They even helped the British allied airforce (the Brits being the colonizers of Ireland all). Irish people have no problem with Jewish people and like them. There was a Jewish mayor of Dublin in the 20th century and an Irish Jewish population. There was a recent documentry about the Jews of Ireland. Bluto you need help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality
[edit] Prominent Irish Jews
Maurice Freeman (1875-1951), Mayor of Johannesburg 1934/35.
William Annyas (Ãnes), Mayor of Youghal (1555) a Marrano merchant.
Francis Annyas (Ãnes), Mayor of Youghal in 1569, 1576 and 1581, Youghal garrison commander and a spy for Francis Drake.[24]
Justice Henry Barron, Irish Supreme Court judge 1997-2003.[25]
Leopold Bloom, fictional protagonist of Ulysses.
Louis Bookman (1890-1943), Irish international soccer and cricket player.
Robert Briscoe, member of the Irish Republican Army during the Anglo-Irish War and twice Lord Mayor of Dublin (1956 and 1961).
Ben Briscoe (son of Robert Briscoe), former Fianna Fáil T.D. and Lord Mayor of Dublin (1988).
Michelle Citron, feminist film, video and multimedia producer, scholar and author.
Max Eager (son of George Eager), first Chief Rabbi of Ireland.
Daniel Day-Lewis (dual Irish and British citizen), actor.
Gerald Goldberg, Lord Mayor of Cork in 1977.
Herman Good, judge.
Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog, Chief Rabbi of Ireland from 1919 to 1937, later of Palestine and Israel.
Chaim Herzog, sixth President of Israel.
Sir Otto Jaffe, Lord Mayor of Belfast (1899 and 1904).
Immanuel Jakobovits, Chief Rabbi of Ireland between 1949 and 1958, later British Chief Rabbi.
Louis Lentin, director (documentary films, television, theatre).
June Levine, feminist, journalist and writer.
Maurice Levitas (1917-2001) (born Dublin) was an anti-fascist who took part in the Battle of Cable Street and fought in the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War. He is the father of Ruth Levitas.
David Marcus, author, editor, broadcaster and lifelong supporter of Irish-language fiction.
Max Nurock, Israeli Consul-General to Australia, subsequently Israel's first Ambassador to Australia. [26]
Leonard Abrahamson, Gaelic scholar, who switched to medicine and became a professor, was born in Russia, grew up in Newry where he attended the local CBS school and lodged with the Nurock family in Dublin while studying at Trinity College, Dublin.[27]
Yaakov Pearlman, Ireland's Chief Rabbi.
Alan Shatter, Fine Gael TD and former party spokesperson for justice.
Bethal Solomons (1885-1965), medical Doctor, Master of the Rotunda, Irish Rugby International.
Estella Solomons (1882-1968), landscape and portrait artist and member of Cumann na mBan.
Stella Steyn (1907-1987), Dublin-born artist.
Mervyn Taylor, former Labour Party T.D. and Irish Minister for Equality & Law Reform.
Gustav Wilhelm Wolff, founder of Harland and Wolff shipbuilders, MP for East Belfast for 18 years.
District Judge Hubert Wine, family court judge and prominent member of Dublin's Jewish community
[edit] People of Irish-Jewish extraction
Matthew Broderick, American actor, born to a Jewish-American mother and Irish-American father.
Chris Cornell, American singer, born to an Irish-American father and Jewish-American mother.
Harrison Ford, American actor, born to an Irish-American father and Jewish-American mother.
Kevin Kline, American actor, born to a Jewish-American father and an Irish-American mother.
Matt Stone, Co-Creator of South Park, born to an Irish-American father and Jewish-American mother.
Alyson Hannigan, American Actress, born to a Jewish-American mother and Irish-American father.
Jennifer Connelly, American Actress, born to a Jewish-American mother and Irish American father.
Bill Maher, American Comedian, born to an Irish-American father and Jewish-American mother.
John McCarthy, American computer scientist, Turing award laureate and inventor of the Lisp programming language, born to an Irish-American father and Jewish-American mother.
Mandy Moore, American Singer and Actress, born to a Jewish-American mother and Irish-American Father.
Ben Stiller, American actor, born to a Jewish-American father and Irish-American mother (converted to Judaism).
The Irish were officially neutral during WWII. They even helped the British allied airforce (the Brits being the colonizers of Ireland all). Irish people have no problem with Jewish people and like them. There was a Jewish mayor of Dublin in the 20th century and an Irish Jewish population. There was a recent documentry about the Jews of Ireland. Bluto you need help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality
Poles have proven time and again that the American public is far more balanced and even-handed then current policies when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The problem is AIPAC's donations to congress and political might in Washington. Walt and Mersheimer and others have argued that the policies would probably be different if it weren't for the AIPAC factor skewing these policies. I recommend people join J-Street and also the Council on the National Interest (CNI) and If Americans Knew. Let's take our country back!
Another good article....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11580
Israel's War Crimes and "Change we can believe in"
Some writers can hit it head on. This article is one of the best I've read
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11583
The Politics of An Israeli Extermination Campaign: Backers, Apologists and Arms Suppliers
Jews amount to something like 4% of the US population. Just about every American Jew I know is opposed to the kind of right-wing policy Israel has been engaging in for decades. So the actual American Jewish support for that blind-folded support for every human rights violation Israel has been guilty of surely must boil the figure down to 2 or 3% of the US population, let's just assume that. There are enough Jews in America who are not in favor of these flagrant violations of human rights. AND in Israel, mind you.
So: I am sorry, I don't get it. Why would so many US Democrats goose-step in line with the Israeli right wing???? Or are the ones who are among the 2-3% of the US Jewish population who do condone everything Israeli governments do just VERY important money donors for the Democratic Party??
Since I am a mere European, I need some help to understand this crazy situation!!
Because: Without this 100% American support for whatever they do, the Israeli government would have been forced to engage in a constructive dialogue with its neighbors decades ago.
Since they had that fairly unconditional US support for all their actions, they never really did.
Araguin: in fact Jews comprise 1.7% of the US population - the portion of the US Jewish population that blindly support Israel is in turn tinier than that.
The reason for the unqualified support: AIPAC and its vile political power and $$$$$$$, millions and millions of them.
I repeat a non-rhetorical question: name one benefit that the US has received for its tens of billions in aid and its unconditional support.
This is no oddity. This reflects a salient pattern in US politics: Elite opinion does not reflect public opinion.
This author is merely pointing out a good example of a pattern in US politics: That is that elite opinion rarely reflects popular opinion, on a wide range of issues. That is why Noam Chomsky and others regularly point out that the US electorate is way to the left of elite opinion on virtually every issue. The issue of Israel-Palestine is no different. Just off the top of my head, the issue of health care is a great example. The electorate has supported by a 75-80% majority for several decades (as I understand it) a public health system, and until this year nothing even resembling this (and it's still a far cry from public) has been 'politically possible.' This in a country that calls itself a 'democracy.'
Gaza Will Be The Undoing Of Zionism
"Based on?"
"Gaza looking more and more like the Warsaw Ghetto."
"And Zionists?"
"Traitors."
"To what?"
"The Jewish faith."
"Which is?"
"Always siding with the slave, never with the slaveowner, even (better, especially) when said slaveowner claims to be a co-religionist."
"Claims?"
"DNA held in common plus lox, bagles and such."
"And the rituals?"
"Nothing to do with keeping the faith."
"Which in regards to the Mideast conflict calls upon Jews to?"
"Be on the side of the Palestinians"
"Based on?"
"Always siding with the slave."
"What makes Palestinians the slaves?"
"The fact that conquest enslaves those who are conquered."
"And what about these conquerors who claim to be Jews?"
"Impossible."
"Based on?"
"Keeping the faith means never siding with the slaveowner, let alone being one."
"And the undoing of Zionism?"
"A work in progress."
Dream on !! I'm personally enjoying watch Hamas get what it deserves. Even the PLO hates them and is largely silent. Only u tools of these thugs are whining about what's happening to them.
Excellent article, but this is off the mark: "I have little appreciation for those who believe, one way or the other, that they can reliably predict what Obama is going to do -- either on this issue or others."
Obama's *silence* on the current attacks speaks volumes. That silence *is* very much something that Obama is "doing" right now. As Cynthia McKinney says quoting Martin Luther King, "In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends."
Silence is complicity.
http://lefti.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html#6983779613420913774
Eli Stephens
Left I on the News
http://lefti.blogspot.com
I have repeatedly called Mr. Obama "a coward". The source of his cowardly behavior is "pragmatism". "Pragmatism"inevitably leads to a complete loss of principles attended by cowardly behavior. The most egregious example was Obama's refusal to let former President Carter speak at the Democratic Convention. Carter would have spared no words to castigate the Democrats, hence him for their/his kowtowing to AIPAC and Israel and their/his silence in the face of "apartheid" in Israel and on the West Bank. Face up to the truth America, we will be saddled for at least four years with a pragmatic and therefore intrinsically cowardly President.
I agree with Glenn that we should at least get Obama inaugurated before we start writing him off as a Zionist or a militarist or a center/right triangulator. And it may just be that Obama's choices of Joe Biden, Rahm Emmanuel, and Hillary Clinton as key top advisors may indeed be a way of eventually producing a more balanced US policy position in the Middle East. Who better to carry a credible message from Washington to the Likudniks? Who better to protect Obama's flank from an AIPAC attack than lifelong friends of AIPAC?
Also, I have recently become intrigued with the agenda possibly behind the agenda in keeping on Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. Gates is a career spy, a crony of Bob Casey's black ops days as head of the CIA who was also involved in Iran Contra dealings and funneling arms through the Pakistani ISI to Afghan freedom fighters (ie., Islamist radicals) to fight the Russians. Before that, Mr. Gates was supposedly also involved in the deep-deniability, back channel contacts with Iran by the Ronald Reagan presidential campaign regarding the timing of the release of the US embassy hostages.
Granted, this history makes Gates as a policy-framer right/right center and scary as hell. But if you have already decided that you are going to open up a dialogue with Iran after all these many years, who better to carry Uncle Sam's water than the very man the mullahs in Tehran learned they could trust way back in the 1980's when skullduggery was a high art form?
The key of course is the actual substance of the policy. If Obama is going to model after FDR and govern as a part time progressive from the center left, then it sure could help to have a phalanx of right-center hawks carrying out the downfield blocking assignments and running interference.
We will all know soon enough - probably by about June.
Bill from Saginaw
Why would Biden, Emmanuel, and Clinton, lifelong AIPAC friends as you put it, agree to carry out a new administration's policies that run counter to AIPAC ideology? Because of their overriding allegiance to Obama, or so they get high-prestige jobs even if Obama is calling the shots? Didn't news reports say or speculate that Clinton took the job because of the wide latitude she would be given? Give me a break.
Wouldn't Iran rather deal with plain-dealing diplomats who have historically held points of view that are inclusive of communication with Iran and of normalizing relations with it/bringing it into the world community? Are you saying that Iran's leaders are addicted to spy-novel conventions?
I agree with the sentiment that the simplest explanation is the best.
I can accept that idea that Israel is a branch of the U.S. empire and that the decision to attack Gaza was actually made in Washington, D.C., but what is the motive? Is there an untapped reserve of oil or natural gas there?
www.aipac.org is your motive snoopies622
Israeli election season is just around the corner... And the hardliners need to show that they are still relevant...
Off the Gaza strip is a massive field of natural Gas.
This photo of bombs exploding on crowded Gaza, with an untouched, privileged Israeli kibbutz in the serene foreground, says it all:
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Israel-launches-airstrikes-Gaza-Gaza/ss/events/wl/122708gazastrike/im:/0...
Surgical, indeed.
deleted by author -- comment was off topic.
Greenwald falters in his final paragraphs when he says you can't predict what Obama will do on this issue. We predict all of the time. Predicting is different than knowing, of course.
While no one can know the future, we sure can postulate how it will play out based on past Obama behavior. Obama supporters don't seem to consider that behavior. They readily forget it. Instead, Obama supporters anticipate his actions based on the FDR story, which is an Obama campaign construction that mythically conflates Obama's intentions with those of FDR.
Alas, the FDR meme has failed - especially in the case of this latest Middle East crisis. FDR made rousing speeches at crucial junctures. However, we've seen President-Elect Obama go silent when Israel has attacked. This Gaza attack is not the first instance when he suddenly lost his voice after Israel rolled in the tanks and F-16s.
You don't have to be a genius to understand what that silence means.
Greenwald offers another story to help you believe that Obama's silence doesn't mean what we all think it means. He offers a scenario cooked up by the New York Times. Obama's hawkish cabinet picks paradoxically will lead to peace, according to this hard-boiled scenario. You have to hire Israel apologists to get Israel to change it's policies. This idea is just ludicrous and counterintuitive. The Occam's Razor argument is a better explanation. It's simply a bad omen when war hawks get chosen for Obama's cabinet and it suggests that the same old policies will prevail.
This was a very poor and rambling article by the usually good Greenwald.
-TIA
I'm inclined to agree. Mr. Greenwald says it requires a "clairvoyance" to anticipate Obama's likely Middle East policy. I would say in light of Obama's voting track record of unfailingly deferring to power and preserving the status quo rather than challenging it, as well as his Clinton, Emanuel, and Biden selections, not to mention how he saw fit to kneel and pay homage at the altar of AIPAC in the immediate wake of the presidential election, that it requires no clairvoyance, but only an ordinary measure of common sense to surmise that we are not likely to see any meaningful change in U.S. Middle East policy.
That said, I sincerely hope I'm the one who is mistaken here, not Mr. Greenwald.
Thoughts_Into_Action-- FWIW I didn't think the overall article was as weak as you did, but I fully agree with your well-expressed points.
I stick by Glenn because he consistently brings Quality to his reporting and analysis. But, exactly as you note, the argument against trying to predict Obama's actions is noticeably disingenuous.
Glenn is miles above the cheap, knee-jerk worship of "pragmatism" that has emerged as a ripple effect of Obama's election-- but he is grounded in a rational and legalistic mindset predicated, in part, on the postulate that our legal and political processes are essentially sound and reliable.
He's a reformer, not a revolutionary. So, IMO, he does engage in wishful thinking on occasion in order to stave off paralyzing cynicism and pessimism.
I certainly don't share his optimistic hope that Obama has indeed crafted a unique elegant dialectic method of governing, with an inner circle composed of neoliberal, militaristic, Establishment reactionaries serving as a perpetual devil's advocate and a catalyst for thoughtful, humane, and progressive domestic and foreign policy.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Thanks, I was about to write just about the same thing!
And yes, the same old policies will not only prevail, but it will be worse since apologists won't be available to say a loud "NO" to it all.
Another "oddity". I was watching my (used to be)favorite Rachel Maddow a few nights ago, and in her synopsis of the Israeli Palestinian conflict she started with some apparently unmotivated attacks on Israel the day after it declared independence and focused entirely on their beseiged status since. In her entire story, such issues as settlements weren't uttered. I felt more betrayed than I could possibly feel by Obama. It's amazing as many Americans have come to understand the Israeli situation as well as they do, given not only an absence of debate in the political class, but even more so in the media, where the network news presents heartwarming stories of Israelis "coping" with the threat of rockets, and then pictures of Palestinian children with rocks........ I guess that's how you "cope" with bombs. They keep replaying the image of Obama assuring the Israelis that if someone threatened his children with rockets, he would do "anything" to stop them. Well, using that criteria,............ I get to where I can't complete my sentences, can't watch it anymore, can't read it anymore.
I find Maddow to be a female Olberman. A cult of narcissism which is actually obnoxious. I find her mainstream democrat and just as high schoolish and gossipy as anyone on fox news. I find her an embarrassment.
why do you think maddow got the gig in the first place?
progressives aren't allowed on tv
The American people are cosseted with pro-Israeli and especially anti-Arab propaganda from our media. It is no wonder most folks feel antipathy towards the Palestinians. Every piece I see in the news headlines Hamas ( 'Hamas' is now shorthand for a dehumanized rogue military terrorist organization) so the observer cannot imagine that these bombings are taking place in a crowded ghetto raining bombs over one million people . Propagandists have portrayed Hamas as this fell monster, now that Arafat is no longer around to fill that position. This latest invasion is but part of the continuium of Zionism to achieve a greater Israel. Jennifer Loewenstein has an instructive piece that adds some prospective.
http://www.counterpunch.com/loewenstein01012009.html
Does anyone doubt that the Israelis did not run this invasion by Obama beforehand. If the Israelis thought that this invasion would be repulsive to Obama and would effect a future significant change in US/Israeli relations, wouldn't we see a different course of action. I have no expectations that Obama will change our policy regarding Israel, yet I imagine I will still be disappointed.
Someone once said that the only stupid question is the one that doesn't get asked. They obviously have never read Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald asks what has to be the dopiest rhetorical question of the modern era. ....."Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?"
If the first oddity is that Greenwald has the unspeakable dullness to ask, the second is that he then builds his embarrassing case on the assumption that the base answer from his readers is "no." How about universal health care, Glenn? how about the goddamned corporate bailout, Mr. Greenwald? How about the illegal war in Iraq, you Democrat? Military spending? the death penalty? FISA? Oh, fuck this. The list is endless. How about YOU name one significant issue in America today that Democrat leadership doesn't consistently betray their constituents? You won't come up with one where public opinion has had time to cut through the stinking miasma of Democrat sponsored corporate propaganda.
Jesus Hussein Christ leaves the kind of comment that people with no obligation to cite facts are allowed to leave -- filled with angry, unequivocal assertions that . . . are totally wrong.
There WERE members of the Democratic leadership on the side of Democratic voters in EVERY ONE OF these examples.
As but one example: Nancy Pelosi voted against the Iraq War, repeatedly voted against the death penalty, and favors reductions in military spending.
Harry Reid voted against the FISA law, as did the whole Democratic leadership: Durbin, Schumer, etc.
Numerous key Democrats spoke out against the bailout.
Therefore, NONE of those examples has the kind of lockstep support among the Democratic leadership that the pro-Israel position has now on Gaza.
Re-read Greenwald's question:
"Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?"
It's certainly true that Democratic leaders frequently oppose the views of their voters, but NOT with the lockstep unanimity that characterizes their support for Israel, where NONE of them dissent.
There may be examples that disprove Greenwald's point, but you sure as hell didn't provide any.
Facts pulease.
If you will indulge me my one nitpick, Kucinich is opposed to the Israel position on Gaza. Thus we might use your argument to say that the Democrats really aren't in lockstep on that. As for the rest I guess you have a different definition than most people do of who Democratic leaders are. But for the sake of polite discussion and consistency, lets just call them those corporate whores holding federally elected office in D.C. who have a D after their name.
Since you are responding like a good Democrat (maybe just those Devils' advocate) and boldly misrepresenting the facts that you didn't cherry pick, lets shake the big ones from the apple tree, and see if there are any in dispute.
The corporate bailout passed in the Senate 74-25 with yeah votes from a majority of the big D's including Obama, Reid, Biden, Durbin, Feintein, Boxer, Burd, Kerry, Durbin, Schumer and a long list of lesser "leaders." Some chronic nitpicker other than we may find a few "key" Democrats who spoke out against it, but the Republican wing of the corporate party made far more noise on that.
FISA passed 69-28 in the Senate with yippee yeah votes from a couple dozen senators with a big D after their name including Obama, Bayh, Feinstein, and Webb. Any of whom you would classify as leaders?
As for Pelosi being against the war, and favoring reduced military spending, who's been pulling your chain? She's the Speaker of the House. She sets the agenda. She controls the bills that come up for a vote. Instead of making a a few inconsequential murmurs, she could turn off the spigot. Lock the war chest. But she has voted consistently herself (and collared her fellow Demwits to vote) to keep the money flowing to fight it. She also could have put impeachment on the table instead of using her imposition to keep it off.
On the death penalty, it's kind of hard to find leadership position D's who don't support it, but a few who strongly do include Reid, Schumer, Biden and Obama. If you want to knock down the "lockstep" strawman that you set up, there are probably some "key" Democrats in the New Jersey State Senate or elsewhere who are actively opposed.
.
Mr. JHC perhaps you should read Greenwald a little more carefully. He actually links to Kucinich in his article above when he cited the marginal Democrats opposing the Israeli attack in Gaza. Since you toss this out as a damning criticism in your response to "FactsPlease's" reasonable response, I get the sense that you are more interested in having your say than in giving Greenwald a fair hearing.
One of Greenwald's consistent memes is the betrayal of Democratic voters by Democratic party "leadership".
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/23/feinstein/
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/03/democrats/
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/29/blue_dogs_die/?source=newsletter#
Perhaps it is unfair to expect you to have read more of Greenwald's writings before you post a response, but your self-righteous tone coupled to your complete unfamiliarity with Greenwald's actual positions on the points in question is rather grating.
If anyone qualifies as a "Democratic Leader," it's Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. In fact, they're the top Democrats in the House and Senate, respectively.
Between them, they opposed EVERY ONE of the examples you cited -- FISA, the death penalty, increased military spending, etc.
Numerous Senate and House Committee Chairmen opposed the bailout.
Therefore, on those issues, there is EXACTLY the dissent and diversity of opinion among the Congressional Democratic leadership which is lacking when it comes to Israel.
The point isn't that the Democratic leadership never betrays its base. It does that constantly. The point is that Israel produces a UNANIMITY among Democratic leaders -- all of them fall lockstep into line -- that doesn't exist on other issues.
"The point is that Israel produces a UNANIMITY among Democratic leaders -- all of them fall lockstep into line -- that doesn't exist on other issues."
Thanks to blackmail courtesy of AIPAC/Mossad, IMNSHO.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
"Others argue the opposite: that those appointments are necessary to vest the Obama administration with the credibility to take a more active role in pushing the Israelis to a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, and that in particular, Clinton would not have left her Senate seat unless she believed she could finish Bill Clinton's work and obtain for herself the legacy-building accomplishment of forging an agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians "
This is far more likely.
It's clear that Obama is an intelligent man with deep empathy for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. He has stated over and over again that he is committed not just to the security of Israel (which is paramount) but also to the security of Palestine. If he put Nader or McKinney in his cabinet, all we would hear is "Grrrr, Israel evil, evil, evil, Nazi Jews! Palestine good, Hamas good". And that would get us nowhere. Obama has placed people in his cabinet who can work with Israel. This is going to do more for the peace process than sending in pro-Hamas zealots who would seek to gridlock or sabotage the negotiations.
Do you remember how close Clinton came to creating a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine? And then Bush destroyed all that good will...
Well, Obama is not Bush.
There will be peace. Give it time.
"If he put Nader or McKinney in his cabinet, all we would hear is "Grrrr, Israel evil, evil, evil, Nazi Jews! Palestine good, Hamas good".
If you want to play the party hack, you could at least listen for a minute to those you censor. It might avoid you being totally ridiculous.
"Obama has placed people in his cabinet who can work with Israel"
When you are President of Israel's Sugardaddy you don't need people to talk, all you do is threaten to stop the money that funds the colony (and look like you mean it).
"Do you remember how close Clinton came to creating a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine?" Yeah, he got exactly nowhere (inform yourself before speaking) because he wasn't calling the shots and didn't intend to. The tail, E. Barak and Co, was wagging him as usual.
On the money. I totally agree.
Jesus Hussein Christ asks; Oh, fuck this. The list is endless. How about YOU name one significant issue in America today that Democrat leadership doesn't consistently betray their constituents?”
If you consider the big money political donors as constituents of the Democratic Party the list is quite long.
I concur with "JHC's" and Scott Knight's comments. I changed my party registration from Democratic to no party affiliation asap after I heard Obama say, prior to the Bush administration execution of same, that he would be in favor of US attacks inside of Pakistan. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. No more republicans. No more democrats. I wasted my vote on Ralph Nader. I wish I had wasted it on Cynthia McKinney instead. I will work locally to try to install Green Party candidates at the local and state level. Not that it will ultimately make much difference. The hate gene is just too strong in homo sapiens.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
I'm a Libertarian myself and disgusted with the REPUBLICRATS!
Well stated, I too am sick and tired of the democratic party, trying to out whore the republican party. Meet the new boss same as the old boss. $600 million + raised now there is some change you can believe in.
I became sick of the democratic party in the late 1960s - have a visceral hatred of the other party, even though half my friends are of that party.
So does anyone know what is happening with the construction of that third party that could become big enough to sweep the 2012 or 2016 election the way Obama did the current one? I know there are enough of us to make it a huge one, if we could just get organized.
Wilmoor,
Quoting Jim Hightower: "This country doesn't need a third party. What this country really needs is a second party."
And honoring Terrance in Redfield's bold sign-off style, this is
Ray Kondrasuk
Eau Claire, Wisconsin
If you want an alternative to the duopoly, help build the Green Party. We have about 200 officeholders in local governments around the country, and we just elected a state legislator in Arkansas. We will be running plenty of candidates in 2010 so that we can have a better chance of going into the 2012 election with plenty of ballot lines.
www.gp.org
I submit that had these type of polls been taken 10 years ago, the support for Israel would have been stronger. Over that time more and more Americans have begun to realize that it is Israel that is the agrressor rather then the victim and that it is Israels policies in the Middle East that perpetuate this conflict thus leading to resentment towards America.
Even on a CNN Broadcast made several days ago a reporter doing a FACT check on who broke the ceasefire indicated that it was in fact Israel, when they killed 6 members of Hamas in a raid back in November. Up to that point Hamas had honored the ceasefire. This very much like Saddam allowing in the weapons inspectors when teh countries pushing for the invasion of Iraq felt he would never do it.
Israel just could not handle PEACE. They needed Hamas to start launching rockets and so decided they would provoke them.
Can you imagine the ugly double standard reactions coming from the US and the EU if India were to attack Pakistan for their terrorist attacks in Mumbai? Contrast that to Israel committing genocide on the Palestinians. Currently, the corrupt leaders in Pakistan and India are once again engaging in foreign briberies and concessions to terrorists dubbed as "peace talks" all the while no terrorists are being held accountable. In sharp contrast, Israel with the help of the US, EU, and the corrupt dictators in the neighboring Arab countries continue to pulvarize the innocent Palestinians who had nothing to do with terrorists all the while leaving Hammas intact to be used as yet a scapegoat again to execute more Palestinians. The civilians in India and the Palestinians are the biggest losers all the while the zionists and elitists with the help of the Far Right and the Far Left are having plenty of field days ! Very sad !
P.S.: In case some shitface wants to accuse me of supporting the idea of India bombing Pakistan, I don't. However, I do believe that terrorists need to be held accountable and so far the US, EU, Israel, and India have failed miserably. You can't have too much war but neither can you have prolongue bullshit talks dubbed "peace" talks when years of failure are staring and laughing and even shitting on you.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
"is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party's voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party's leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position... Does that happen with any other issue?"
Actually, Mr. Greenwald, quite a few issues. A majority of registered Democrats support national single-payer healthcare; they support slashing the defense budget and dismantling all these foreign bases. They support a real living wage. Are the democrats supporting any of these positions?
---USAn---
Glenn Greenwald raises a simple question.
Where are the Ron Paul supporters?
Did the Repugs really know the meaning of 'Country First'?
Highintel: Can we do better?
Sadly, it appears that Obama has shown his true colors and, as his post 1948 predecessors (with the exception of President Eisenhower), he is owned lock, stock and barrel by the Israeli lobby.
When asked about Israel's assault on Gaza which has left at least 400 Palestinians dead and countless more maimed, the future president said only that there is just one president at a time. Had the 400 dead been Israelis there is no doubt in my mind that this slaughter would have been condemned by Obama. But when Israel is the murdering party, not a word comes from his mouth.
Obama had no problem with condemning the terrorism in Mumbai. He did not say there was only one president.
Anyone who has any illusions that Obama will make any change in U.S. policies regarding Palestine/Israel will soon be disillusioned.
Osame has been showing his true colors since he arrived in Washington in 2006, Paul Street a book about his true colors which came out a month or two before the election. Its just idiots like you refused to face the facts, and now you are just getting what you bought. I mean for pete's sake Colin Bowel and Warren Buffet endorsed the idiot, need I say more.
may I suggest to readers who agree with Glenn (and I am one) that you visit www.change.gov and enter questions under the foreign policy category that voice that position? Or even better, vote the ones that are already there to the top. Only the top 5 questions get considered by Obama team for reaction/response.
I just went to the site, and the only thing pertaining to Israel is "offering full support" to Israel and everything it does. I put in a separate ":alestine" topic, but doubt that it will get any attention. So much for "Government by the people."
rosie2731
Been there, done that.
The top-voting questions in the last round were for single payer healthcare, but no positions were changed. The materials for the "healthcare house parties" that change.gov gives out are specifically deisgned to exclude any talk about single-payer - anyone bringing it up will be "off-topic" and if they become insistent, will be asked to leave.
Change.gov is a phoney PR scam built on the successful Potemkin-populism model of moveon.org. It creates a perception of public citizen participation while they ram their corporation, zionism, and war-machine friendly agenda down our throats.
---formerly the banned USAn---
Everything Brand Obama (Osame) does is PR stunt. The sheeple don't mind though, they wanted to be lied to, the truth is to hard for thier simple little minds to grasp.
greenwald, b/c he's wedded to the democratic party, is being blinded to (or intentionally obtuse about) that party. on what issue does the dem. party not go against its constituents?
as for obama, he's made his position clear: cowardice. during the russian/georgian conflict of sept, all parties condemned russia immediately. but now that it's israel, 'there's only one president.'
and how blinded to reality do you have to be to not realize that appointments determine policy positions? you can't surround yourself w/pro-israel ueberhawks and not thereby fully and plainly demonstrate your policies.
greenwald (and many c.d. posters) need to put down that democratic crack. their contortions of logic become ever more ridiculous in defense of the indefensible.
The support Israel gets is farcical.
Never in the history of the world has their been a country that is as perfect as Israel seems to be.
It kills 400 vs 4 killed and the UN harps about the latter.
The UN also said rape victims should stop resisting attackers, because violence against the rapists must stop!
Well, i think the "what's good for israel is good for the u.s." has a couple of reasons, in my humble opinion.
It is the Christian and Jewish "holy land" mentality. Americans, being very 'religious' as opposed to the rest of the world, are still fighting the crusades against the Islamic world there.
My second thought is that it is a military base for the u.s. in that area of the world. I think these are the basis of why u.s. percieves it as being a projection of our own interests.
Oh yes, Obama will definitely join the parade. He has said as much in his campaign and his appointees speak volumes. Silly of author to think these appointments are just to balance out his own ultra independet thinking. In fact, it is downright dumb.