Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Grim Picture of Obama's Middle East
A CNN headline, reporting Obama's plans for his June 4 Cairo address,
reads 'Obama looks to reach the soul of the Muslim world.' Perhaps that
captures his intent, but more significant is the content hidden in the
rhetorical stance, or more accurately, omitted.
Keeping just to Israel-Palestine -- there was nothing substantive
about anything else -- Obama called on Arabs and Israelis not to 'point
fingers' at each other or to 'see this conflict only from one side or
the other.' There is, however, a third side, that of the United States,
which has played a decisive role in sustaining the current conflict.
Obama gave no indication that its role should change or even be
considered.
Those familiar with the history will rationally conclude, then,
that Obama will continue in the path of unilateral U.S. rejectionism.
Obama once again praised the Arab Peace Initiative, saying only
that Arabs should see it as 'an important beginning, but not the end of
their responsibilities.' How should the Obama administration see it?
Obama and his advisers are surely aware that the Initiative reiterates
the long-standing international consensus calling for a two-state
settlement on the international (pre-June '67) border, perhaps with
'minor and mutual modifications,' to borrow U.S. government usage
before it departed sharply from world opinion in the 1970s, vetoing a
Security Council resolution backed by the Arab 'confrontation states'
(Egypt, Iran, Syria), and tacitly by the PLO, with the same essential
content as the Arab Peace Initiative except that the latter goes beyond
by calling on Arab states to normalize relations with Israel in the
context of this political settlement. Obama has called on the Arab
states to proceed with normalization, studiously ignoring, however, the
crucial political settlement that is its precondition. The Initiative
cannot be a 'beginning' if the U.S. continues to refuse to accept its
core principles, even to acknowledge them.
In the background is the Obama administration's goal, enunciated
most clearly by Senator John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, to forge an alliance of Israel and the 'moderate'
Arab states against Iran. The term 'moderate' has nothing to do with
the character of the state, but rather signals its willingness to
conform to U.S. demands.
What is Israel to do in return for Arab steps to normalize
relations? The strongest position so far enunciated by the Obama
administration is that Israel should conform to Phase I of the 2003
Road Map, which states: 'Israel freezes all settlement activity
(including natural growth of settlements).' All sides claim to accept
the Road Map, overlooking the fact that Israel instantly added 14
reservations that render it inoperable.
Overlooked in the debate over settlements is that even if Israel
were to accept Phase I of the Road Map, that would leave in place the
entire settlement project that has already been developed, with
decisive U.S. support, to ensure that Israel will take over the
valuable land within the illegal 'separation wall' (including the
primary water supplies of the region) as well as the Jordan Valley,
thus imprisoning what is left, which is being broken up into cantons by
settlement/infrastructure salients extending far to the East.
Unmentioned as well is that Israel is taking over Greater Jerusalem,
the site of its major current development programs, displacing many
Arabs, so that what remains to Palestinians will be separated from the
center of their cultural, economic, and sociopolitical life. Also
unmentioned is that all of this is in violation of international law,
as conceded by the government of Israel after the 1967 conquest, and
reaffirmed by Security Council resolutions and the International Court
of Justice. Also unmentioned are Israel's successful operations since
1991 to separate the West Bank from Gaza, since turned into a prison
where survival is barely possible, further undermining the hopes for a
viable Palestinian state.
It is worth remembering that there has been one break in
U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. President Clinton recognized that the terms
he had offered at the failed 2000 Camp David meetings were not
acceptable to any Palestinians, and in December, proposed his
'parameters,' vague but more forthcoming. He then announced that both
sides had accepted the parameters, though both had reservations.
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Taba, Egypt to iron out the
differences, and made considerable progress. A full resolution could
have been reached in a few more days, they announced in their final
joint press conference. But Israel called off the negotiations
prematurely, and they have not been formally resumed. The single
exception indicates that if an American president is willing to
tolerate a meaningful diplomatic settlement, it can very likely be
reached.
It is also worth remembering that the Bush I administration went
a bit beyond words in objecting to illegal Israeli settlement projects,
namely, by withholding U.S. economic support for them. In contrast,
Obama administration officials stated that such measures are 'not under
discussion' and that any pressures on Israel to conform to the Road Map
will be 'largely symbolic,' so the New York Times reported (Helene
Cooper, June 1).
There is more to say, but it does not relieve the grim picture
that Obama has been painting, with a few extra touches in his
widely-heralded address to the Muslim World in Cairo on June 4.
84 Comments so far
Show AllTo the writer of this article...
now you blame the IRAQ war on this brand new president,
and his administration?
here is a wake up call for you..
government and military corruption smells
gunpowder residue..
here is a website full of your corrupting government, and you can call this war,
cheney/rush/bush war..
http://www.wanttoknow.info/corruptiongovernmentmilitary
who was in office when they started this war...all who was also involved in the enron scandal too..
remember that one?
regarding
the enron scandal..???
here you go:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/business/2002/enron/20.stm
If the past offers some inspiration to move forward or some lessons,take them with us for the present and the future.Obama might have gone through this. And he seems to be in the White House to remove some black spots from the minds of people at home and abroad. Optimism is the essence of his speech. But actions must gradually take over all the pleasing words he had delivered.Lincoln once told he had destroyed his enemies by making them friends.In politics, political opportunism is dangerous.Even if he is sincerely on the move towards peace and tranquility, the hardliners from every part of the world await for chances of his wrong steps.Religious interferences some times deviate the process of a good proposal or come as stumbling blocks.President Obama has to brave and take up all such challenges,if he really wants to translate his vision.So,let us, the peace loving citizens of the world,hope that all the long standing conflicts will come one by one in the funeral queue with an epitaph
As far as I'm concerned, "Israel" is an immoral and illegal invasion, and has pissed away any rights it may or may not have had.
Chomsky has been the left's moral arbiter for the last 30 years. So, it would be beneficial if he would point out the immorality of Israel's continued occupation of land that it stole in 1949 and has been adding to ever since. Instead, he accepts the existence of Israel as a Jewish state on Palestinian land as a given. The immorality of the left's core position is perfectly acceptable to Chomsky, who is a Zionist.
Is there ONE non-Zionist media writer in the US? That is, one who does not accept as a given that Israel has a right to exist as a 'Jewish state', and to command unlimited US resources as well?
The '67 border two-state solution has global support, including Hamas and Iran.
Do you want to stand in the way of peace?
"The '67 border two-state solution has global support, including Hamas and Iran."
That's the Zionist propaganda. It isn't close to being true.
Beyond that, suppose that the Afrikaners had proposed partitioning South Africa, 75% for the whites, and 25% for the blacks (the numbers aren't important). Would Chomsky have supported that? Would anyone in their right mind? And yet, if it's the Jews doing the partitioning, then it is perfectly reasonable, and worthy of global support. That plan will result in never ending war in the middle east.
The just solution, and the only one that will stabilize the region, is the one state solution.
You have nailed it, narcissus. Completely.
If majorities in Palestine and Israel can agree to the pre'67 borders there could be peace, and they've come so close. Israel won't accept 1 state because they want a Jewish majority. As an atheist I wouldn't have supported the creation of Israel but polls on both sides have indicated that 2 states are possible.
Obama had the guts to speak to the Muslim world respectfully. He is pushing for a two state solution and a stop to settlement expansion. If Netanyahu doesn"t deliver the mutual slaughter of Jews and Palestinians will go on for ever. I see some hope. If a solution doesn't arrive will we stop our aid to Israel????
Concise, logical and just, as usual. Why aren't you guys blasting him for being a "lesser of two evils" guy?
Obama did not say everything that needs to be said.
He will not do everything that needs to be done, while none of us ever did either.
But war is expensive and peace is priceless.
This reality is sinking in that in the end only the people are too big to fail.
Obama's visit to the Mideast and speech yesterday was a good step forward.
Progressives and Activists will keep the criticism and pressure on because it always helps to speak out and organize demonstrations and action.
Well See.
If Obama is such a great communicator, than say what needs to be said.
You can't half tell the truth and keep your sanity.
Same ole, same ole, only better prose with regards to the rhetoric. Israel is still strangling Palestine as they encroach on their land. Obama said that Iraq is better off without Saddam, thus he justifies the invasion. It's clear at this point who and what Obama serves. Hint: it's not we the people.
Would someone please explain to me why we are in Israel dictating what they do as if the holy lands are a colony of America? It seems to me that we have been at war with Palestine for decades, but instead of recognizing this fact, all of our accepted great thinkers merely complain about our war tactics.
Shouldn't our primary goal be to get ourselves out of this war as well as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Of course.
But it's the reverse - the US seems to be a colony of Israel.
But, but, Obama said the word "Palestine" and that is so much more than anyone else ever did, so give the guy a break! You people are simply being unreasonable. He is only been in office a month and if he actually says and does anything he will get himself shot!
;)
Excellent article. Yet, one thing I often find missing from any analysis of any conflict is the money trail. I don't think we can ignore the fact that any conflict in which the US plays a part is a way for defense contractors to continue their drain of the US treasury. The Arab/Israeli conflict has been a golden cow for them - the gift that keeps on giving - why would they ever want to see this conflict end when it is at such a sustainable level?
follow the money?
I think I got you covered....check out this website:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/corruptiongovernmentmilitary
check out this website,
and have a nice day.
I have to step back in writing off Obama's speech. Pat Buchanan liked Obama's speech. Buchanan is seldom polyannish. See Anti-War website.
Herman Schmidt
David Horowitz liked it too. A lot.
Obama follows the status quo (military industrial complex, national security state, corporate fascism). There's one exception to his general servility: he believes in the power of his speeches.
It's true, he does sounds good. However, no positive change ever gets proposed or enacted. In fact, usually a Bush-like policy gets pushed instead. So, you get bad policy, but those "inspiring" Obama words still hang in the air.
Words and actions are two different things. Chomsky has deftly cut through Obama's posturing on this issue. After all, who can forget President-Elect Obama's nonresponse while the Israeli Defense Force was bombing and invading Gaza.
Hopefully, people are starting to catch on by now.
-TIA
Listening to Obysmal Obomba's Cairo speech, I assessed it as exactly right if the WORDS were matched with DEEDS.
WORDS MUST MEAN SOMETHING said O-O to the Czechs in early April, 2009, and OUR MORAL VALUES are going to be restored said O-O to all of us in his Inaugural Speech, with upscaled unmanned drone bombings shortly killing a few hundred more innocents in Afghanistan, and in the U.S., old and young alike standing outside with their possessions on the sidewalk after losing their homes and Wall Street officers and managers popping champagne corks for the bonus and salary packages just delivered, courtesy of Tax-payer billions in bailouts.
It all sounds so charming and right-on when O-O delivers his speeches. Obviously, many, many of us were sucked in.
But until the DEEDS match the words, now I just say, OH-OH ... There you go again, O-O!
Invoking the ghost of Harry S. Truman: We're all from Missouri. SHOW US!
/cm
Chomsky remains as one-sided and blind to nuance as ever.
TheMiddleRoad June 5th, 2009 2:08 am
Silly, just plain silly. It's Chomsky who is full of nuance with his deep knowledge and understanding of US politics. Typical red-neck simpletons of your ilk are totally without nuance...and I doubt very much if you could begin to give a working definition of 'nuance'.
You mistake me for a redneck. Hah! I'm left of center. You all here are a bunch of leftist nutjobs so disconnected from reality that you never question your assumptions, let alone your conclusions. Pitiful, just pitiful. You won't be happy till there's no Israel. Then, when Jewish persecution happens once again, you'll just smile and think they got what they deserved. And when somebody accuses you of antisemitism, you'll just smile at their ignorance and laugh at how the Jewish media has mislead them.
I'll be happy when people like you realize the the bible is just a stupid fairy-tale, until then 2 states on the pre-'67 boarders seems like a fair deal with broad support.
It's absolutely amazing how brainless people are on these posts!!! What on earth makes you think I'm a Bible thumper? Please point out anything in my post which grounds your groundless accusation! Actually, I'm an undying agnostic, like Hume, or as in the Merleau-Ponty phenomenologist tradition but I'm sure you have no idea who they are or what that is. And further, I am an absolute supporter of a two-state solution...so my question to you Poppy is why are you talking shit? Is it a sort of ha-bitchual thing or what? Or were you just born mentally-challenged? That's a rhetorical question.
I wasn't even talking to you, most on this thread support 2 states so I don't know why you're over-reacting. You read like a pathological-lunatic with your relentless tirades and accusations of antisemitism.
Oops! Sorry. It sure looked like you were addressing me. Still, I don't see how 2 posts equal "relentless tirades." Don't you think you're reaching a little? & I wasn't "over-reacting" if your comments were addressed to me, but they weren't and so I aplogized to you and so it's over. In my posts, there were tens and tens of sentences related to other topics. I don't see how the mere two which talk about anti-semites qualifies me as "pathological lunatic" raving about "anti-semitism." And one more thing, instead of having an attitude about it, you should be compassionate in the commondreams spirit and try to look at the world from the point of view of the "other" as Levinas has coined, from a people who have suffered thousands of years of oppression. Further, it is really sad and shocking that on such a wonderful and PROGRESSIVE site like CD, there are so many anti-Israel, anti-Jewish comments. Is CD a KKK club or something? Finally, the iron-like, intellectually dishonest, kool aid of these posts is exceedingly suffocating. mikep's post was a breath of fresh air amongst all the other dead wood here. ok?
Right on Mid-Road! Finally a voice of sanity! And here's a word to all you delusional communists and socialists out there. Admittedly, it is sad....but the fact of the matter is capitalism by far fits more with human nature than communism. (Personally, I think fair, common-sensically regulated capitalism is the best form of economy, but anyway) Want evidence boneheads? What has history been EXCEPT the history of empire after empire after empire? The only real kind of communism that had and perhaps still has a chance of working is the pre-civilization small tribe kind.....come to think of it, kind of like a kibbutz, for all you freaking anti-semites!
And now a word about our friend Mr. Chomsky. For all you sheeple who are too stupid to realize, Chomsky is a kind of left-gatekeeper and in fact is very highly likely a CIA-shill. Ridiculous you say? How about Mrs. Steinem's (that's right! Mrs. not Ms.!! - after all her years of anti-marriage rants! What a hypocrite!)recent admission that she accepted money from the CIA. You people are so stupid. One idiot mentioned Bill Moyers!!! For God's sake, do you even know Moyers' history? He is completely an establishment shill just like amy goodman, the NYT, Mr. O, all of them - do the freeking research. About the only person I respect is Howard Zinn since he was one of the few greats on the left to sign the Spitzer petition (when Spitzer was NY AG) to re-investigate 9/11....which brings me back to our Mr. imposter Chomsky. For all of the conspiracies he talks about in the plethora of books he has written, he has yet to mention even one (positive) word about the 9/11 truth movement. There are many honorable, brilliant, and sincere people therein which you can find in websites like www.st911.com (Scholars for 9/11 truth) or 911truth.org, both extremely professional. Anyway. How funny that so few on the left talk about this!!! What an irony. Sure the majority of "truthers" may be psychos, but, like in life, you gotta learn to ferret out the bullshit from the truth, the idiots from the truth-tellers, like Siebel Edmunds, God bless her.
Just one last comment for u dimwits: ideology can never ever be a substitute for truth!!! Can you understand that you hopelessly-unquestioning-ideologued shmucks? Every ideology has to leave the door somewhat open so that it ITSELF can forever be critiqued or in other more eloquent words: "the hermit shall doubt whether behind one cave, there is not another one, deeper, richer, more comprehenisive in its truth than the one before it which acts as the grounds for the first cave, and then yet another cave behind that one which shakes the ground of even the idea of grounds itself!" So beautiful! Does anybody even appreciate how fundamental this is? If you do, you would stop with all your anti-semitic bullshit! There are bad Jews, bad Christians, bad Muslims....etc....just as there are good ones! Jeez, who could have guessed such supposedly smart people are so stupid! Now don't take my words for anything. Go and learn to think for yourslves!! Peace to all.
He only appears one-sided if you're on the wrong side.
Does the troll care to give an example of the nuance that Chomsky has overlooked?
Does the troll know what the word "nuance" means?
q
C'mon "Big O," on to Sri Lanka!
Whoops, Hindus and Buddhists.... never mind.
Great analysis, every word of it.
But I remember the end of Clinton's attempts differently: They had nearly reached a deal but the issue of Palestinian refugees' right of return was the stumbling block.
Arafat couldn't make any concessions on that one and the Israelis wanted the Palestinians to abandon their right of return to Israel.
I worry Obama wins praise without offering anything except a sensation of cooperation. I thought that was what the UN did by hauling out celebrity ambassadors.
American people are so desperate to reinforce a deep desire to appear "liberal and reasonable", Obama receives applause. Right now Obama is trying to persuade surrounding countries to do the heavy lifting., but Turkey, one of the biggest modern players, has grown strong and doesn't need to hold itself to the US. That's one of the outcomes of the Bush Era. Those countries the US thought would cooperate and engage more fully, have found more independence and a capability of disregarding US calls to pave the street.
the US under Obama is desperate to make regional groups follow US directives... if countries act on their own regional interest, this can severally diminish the role of the US, isolating it and Israel even more.
That's partially why the US is ramping up its focus on controlling Lebanon...but here again, where Turkey is brought in to assist as liaison, it is challenged because of Turkish military links to Israel and also its part in keeping the US from acknowledging the Armenian Genocide....
Not to "point fingers at each other", huh?
Seems that the middle finger in the vertical position is not necessarily "pointing".
Obomba is a pathetic jerk.
Typical Chomsky—he brilliantly cuts through the fog of propaganda and reveals the hypocrisy of US policies towards people in the Mideast. Bravo!!!
Chomsky on Gaza:
http://web.mit.edu/cis/eventposter_011309_chomsky.html
thank you CD for posting chomsky's response.
i agree - good analysis.
but why a 2 state solution ? presumably b/c it's the easiest most feasible solution. but, is a 2 state solution feasible (b/c of israeli settlements - cantonization of palestine)?
why is a a one state solution w/out jewish or muslim identity beyond discussion ?
chomsky's example of bush 1 w/holding aid and his acknowledgment that obama can change course is encouraging. the tools to apply pressure on israel are in the toolbag - there are no excuses for intransigence on obama's part.
"In the background is the Obama administration's goal, enunciated most clearly by Senator John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to forge an alliance of Israel and the 'moderate' Arab states against Iran."
right. good luck on that one obama - the arabs are looking for actions not words, any israeli military action against iran risks a global response. there are other actors on the world stage besides the arabs and jews.
israel will do as it pleases - i don't expect the current israeli government will deconstruct the settlements on the west bank or turn down the iranian rhetoric in the near future. i see no indication that the israelis want peace w/ anyone.
and it would be ludicrous for the iranians to suspend their nuclear ambitions in light of israel's recent behavior in gaza and it's habitual violence imposed upon many nations in the middle east. the president's speech changes nothing.
a recipe for disaster.
-----
ps - a good interview w/ bob mcchesney last sunday at mediamatters... Sunday, May 31, 2009 - Noam Chomsky,
http://will.illinois.edu/mediamatters/
------
...peace...
Why no 1 state solution? Because the moment Israel hits 50%+1 muslim/arab, it's dhimmi-time. The persecution starts all over again. Soon it's sharia and all the crap that follows. Understand the reason for a Jewish state before you poo-poo it.
What persecution?
Please document the persecution of Jews in the Levant before 1948?
And after that, any violence toward Jews wasn't persecution, it was retaliation and self-defense.
The racism behind Zionism is so profound. White people get persecuted by other white people in far-off land. So, the pick a land popluated by simple, peaceful unarmed brown people to invade and occupy - rather than offend the actual fellow white people who opressed them.
And it isn't important if this is a highly "interpreted" view of history - becaise it the view that nearly all Arabs have of the situation. Deal with it.
Wow! You really don't know that there was persecution of the Jews in the Levant and elsewhere? That's frickin' biblical ignorance right there. Honey, you're so wrapped up in your world view, I could inject evidence directly into your eyeballs and you wouldn't believe it.
You Zionists have really ridden off the rails.
Yes, wouldn't want to taint that pure blood.
You had the chance for a Jewish state.
You blew it.
Israel is the vortex for most of the political and military problems in the world. That, and given that it is an immoral and illegal invasion, means that it will have to take its lumps.
You had the chance.
It's not the world's fault you choose genocide and oppression.
Errr... the Jewish state still exists and will continue to. That's why you antisemites get so pissed and throw words around like "genocide" and "oppression" with new meanings from 1984.
Am I pissed off by "genocide" and "oppression"?
You bet I am.
If that bothers you delicate sensibilities, why don't you stop doing it?
50% + 1 = Sharia law
What FUD factor cr*p
Judaism is a religion - religions don't need a state.
Now if you're talking Zionism and the chosen people/master race concept, you'll recognise how Zionists agree in principle with Adolf Hitler - the only point of dissent is which people?
The term 'moderate' has nothing to do with the character of the state, but rather signals its willingness to conform to U.S. demands.
This seems to me to be the key sentence. Obysmal breathes as much hot air as a dragon but who in the Middle East, Arab, Jew or otherwise, really believes it as long as the USA continues to attempt to pound the Iraqis and Afghans into submission? After the stupefying eight year extravaganza of the George Wanker Bush regime, almost anyone who can roll out of bed in the morning is a step up. Obysmal has only been around four months. The rest of the world will catch on to his "brand" later rather than sooner, but they'll catch on.
thanks for exposing the naked reality of obama's empty rhetoric .
We are doing so poorly that the mere fact that someone speaks the truth about this issue moves people to tears...It is a sad day when simply speaking the truth makes you a hero
I tend to agree with you...except that the 'truth' often hurts the interest of those who wield the real power ($$$) and so speaking the truth becomes dangerous for them.
But you're right that we've reached an extreme situation where the most obvious truths have to be spoken by people like Chomsky, who at this point, has nothing to lose, and all to gain for telling it like it is. Any major player in the corporate media couldn't say those things... Sad day indeed. And tragic in consequences.
I am a graduate trying to find an honest job and I am finding it extremely hard. There are so many constraints on a person leading an upright life today. Nothing serious or life-threatening, only inconveniencing.. These factors lead us down a path where soldiers fight, lawyers debate and doctors conduct 'health care' in a manner compatible with the capitalist world's diktat. Therefore, when an intellectual, held in high regard throughout the world, speaks the truth, it a heroic act - just as those firefighters at the WTC in 2001, the journalists in Iraq and the paramedics in Gaza.
Very true, even so called PBS outlets ignore folks like Chomsky and Zinn for decades, let alone people like Ali Abunimah or Norm Finkelstein. Freedom of speech?
professor chomsky - live long and prosper
often criticized by all sides the professor has educated more people in this world about power and power structures than anyone else i can think of
he is also a pretty good speaker and communicator
for all the heat he takes he is also one of the most loved persons in the world
as he should be
god bless
This Chomsky is a smart cookie, and he has a good heart. Some day he will be as appreciated in America as he is around the world.
"Some day he will be as appreciated in America as he is around the world."
NOT A CHANCE!
Besides, he's already very well appreciated in the US by some people with a bit of sense and objectivity. But that will NEVER be general in the population...NEVER.
And you will never see Chomsky on the MSM. He would turn the talking heads into talking piles of shit.
That would be implying that they aren't already
"appreciated in America..." Media control won't tolerate it.
What an excellent, enlightening essay! Many, many thanks, Professor Choamsky.
Why is everything that is truely viable off the Federal Governments table?
Because our elected representatives, like the whores they are, coo at us, their clients, throw us a perfunctory hump (an election that makes us feel good but does nothing else), take our money and hand it over to their corporate pimps. It has been so since 1789, and is pretty much enshrined in the Constitution.
People I love that I have never met:
Noam Chomsky
Howard Zinn
Amy Goodman
Bill Moyers
Who did I miss?
Norman Finkelstein
Mild reservation--all the people for whom "fool" declared his/her love supported the prowar Kerry in 2004 and the procorporate Obama in 2008. Among leading political/intellectual figures who did NOT fall into that trap:
Ralph Nader
Cynthia McKinney (sort of--she ran against Obama but always spoke glowingly of him . . hmmm)
Chris Hedges
Alex Cockburn
Jeff St. Clair
ISO (collectively)
Matt Gonzalez
Mike Whitney
I welcome any additions to this list of those luminaries who warned us about Obama's treacheries BEFORE the election--not afterward, when it was too late. . . .
Gideon Levy and Amira Hass of Haaretz
Naomi Klein
Exactly!! Great choice.
I've met Zinn and Goodman - who were recipients of our annual Thomas Merton Center award in past years. It is looking likely that Chomsky will be this year's recipient, so I look forward to seeing him.
So, we hopefully will seem him in Pittsburgh this November.
They speak very highly of you.
Castro? Che? Stalin? Chavez? Pol Pot? Ho Chi Minh?
You're confused or have a very strange sense of...'irony'(??) or whatever.
Hitler.
idiot
I'm with you on that one.
I think the Israelis provide a scapegoat, and Washington considers having a lightning rod to ward off both Arabic and particularly American rage worth funding the Israeli military.
I'm not certain how many people in the Middle East really believe that Israel is their primary enemy and not Washington. But reading some of the conversations here at CD has been darkly interesting. Almost any time anyone criticizes Israeli atrocities in even the most obvious way, some accuse the critic of antisemitism and others leap in with genuinely antisemitic paranoid delusions.
People go on and on about how Obama or the US wants peace or doesn't understand. Sure, no one understands everything, but its unlikely that people working on this full time with a big staff of advisers imagine that the US gets peace by purchasing war.
The US would love peace under certain conditions: Everyone agrees that the US owns what it wants. That failing, why not hire the Israelis to take the flak? They can go in, hold territory, and be belligerent and high-visibility because they have to live in the region. The US can play moderator.
The rationalist approach to political realities would yield the conclusion that Jews are in fact in control of the US and European political bodies, or the mini-state of Israel would have no significance whatsoever. The reality, disclosed by the Marxist approach, is that the whole "Israel's right to exist" is simply a cloak for the imperialist aims of the US during WWII & its ascension to global arbiter following the end of the Cold War. The disproportionate money given, the disproportionate time spent trying to placate this minority of megalomaniacs who believe themselves to be the most important victim-class in human history has one of two meanings which must be chosen, because the absurdity of the other option, that the US is just a strong friend of democracy & of a persecuted people facing big bad nasty people, is cretinous.
Apart from the value of having an ally in the oil-rich region, you gotta remember these fools actually think the bible is real and Jesus is coming back.
I recognize that there are nuances. I try to keep the message short. But yeah, these are very complicated issues.
Hit the nail on the head.
You know, this has been an issue that's bugged the hell out of me for a long time - why does the US government give unfaltering support to the Israeli government through all their atrocities.
But honestly, I found your comment, bardamu, to be incredibly insightful and profound. Thank you.
Because the federal government works for a foreign entity.