Obama on Stephanopoulos: It Will Be A Clean Break With Bush on Mideast
George Stephanopoulos tried hard to get Obama to spell out his views on Gaza. Obama dodged specifics but he said enough to give us a window into his thinking.
One, he was utterly evenhanded. Asked if he would repeat his remarks in Israel this summer about Israel having the right to defend itself, Obama said yes. That was it.
But, unlike other politicians, he offered no special love for Israel. He made clear that he is committed to helping Palestinians and Israelis. And he said he will pursue the peace process from day 1. Unlike Bush, McCain and Congressional hawks, he discussed Iran without mentioning Israel. He is worried about the nukes -- and that they would be used against Israel or anyone else -- but he intends to talk to Iran, not rattle his saber on Israel's behalf.
On Gaza specifics, he punts. "We have only one President at a time."
So how come he insists that there is "only one President" when it comes to Gaza but he spoke plenty about Mumbai? Simple.
On issues, like Mumbai, where he agrees with the current President, he will say so. That is entirely appropriate.
On issues, like Israel/Palestine, on which he has a very different view, he will not speak until he is President.
In other words, he is sticking to tradition. He will agree with the outgoing President on areas in which there is agreement. But he will not attack the incumbent where he has profound differences.
If George had asked about Bush's support for the Gaza cease-fire, he would have endorsed Bush's position. If he had asked about the refusal to consider talking to Hamas or Iran, he would invoke "one President at a time."
His message is pretty clear. He views the Middle East through an entirely American prism. Following a landslide victory, owning Congress and 80% of the Jewish vote, he is a free man.
Get ready for a clean break.
Actually, it may have started already. Here is AIPAC's statement blasting Bush for backing last week's Gaza ceasefire. Nervous much?
Exactly Right! I don't know why this was even an issue. Some have pointed out that if Obama can talk about the economy then he can talk about Israel. I think Bush and Obama talked and agreed that Obama should take the lead on the economy so that Wall Street won't go into panic mode. It was not lost on Bush that every time he opens his mouth, stocks fall.
January 11, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is informative, and Obama's welcome contrast to GW Bush is reaffirmed, and will be noticed for quite some time to come, but how much things will really change in the Mideast, in the near term, is questionable.
The advent of Obama may prove to be more "break" than break as far as Israel and the Palestinians are concerned. Obama, Livni&Barak, and Fatah all urgently need a fig leaf of truce+humanitarian relief to Gaza+"negotiations": Obama so that he can get on with addressing domestic crises, i.e. via the mother of all corporate welfare plus borrow-and-spend programs, the Israelis so that they can do well in the upcoming elections by being "tough" and effective (unlike in Lebanon three summers ago), and Abbas et. al. so that they can show relevance to helping deal with at least some basic human needs of the Palestinian people (an area where Hamas had been more visibly successful). Such a fig leaf would make people feel better, but not really resolve the fundamental unwillingness of the powerful DIEHARD MINORITIES of Israelis and Palestinians to coexist with ANY of the other side. Obama will have more than enough to grapple with without plunging into that hornets' nest.
January 11, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Commenting here, DanK has made a really good practical and moral case for Obama to speak up now. Maybe there is only one president at a time but the future president has a lot more credibility on the world stage than the outgoing president does.
But I guess you don't transition towards a "clean break." It just happens. There's no reason for Obama to get into a debate with Bush. In 9 days his opinions don't matter anymore.
I do think that Dan was right -- Obama should have spoken up by now because he might have saved some lives. Both sides need to know, for sure, that the US is going to be an honest and involved broker again. I think, if they're reading between the lines as MJ does, they know that now.
January 11, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
A statement from Obama would not have saved anyone. He gives good speech but let's not kid ourselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Israel been planning this war for months? If Obama's opinion mattered why not wait until he took office before starting the assault on Gaza?
January 11, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Planning this war for months, yes. Notice how the dates of the Gaza offensive so obviously coincide with distracting events in the USA.
IDF broke the cease fire on November 4, 2008 with an attack within Gaza killing 6. IDF launched the Gaza offensive, December 27, 2008 while the USA was between national holidays. I understand Olmert has a tactic planned for January 20, 2009. There was an anonymous leak that he is planning to begin the military occupation of Gaza on that day.
His over all strategy has been to attack Gaza during the waning administration of GWB and before the new administration. He is relying on the transition of the American president as cover.
I doubt Obama speaking out now would save any lives, Palestinian or Israeli. It would cause a furor in the US media, creating a further distraction to cover the IDF.
But I long for news of a cease fire, for a cessation of the use of white phosphorous in Gaza, for an end to the death and destruction on both sides.
January 12, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, one very practical problem Obama faces right now is that whatever happens during the final 10 days of the Bush administration will become part of the situation he will inherit. Obama already possesses a lot of real political power and capital. If he ends up with a draining and intractable Middle East shit storm on his hands, one that he might have been able to help avoid with more forceful rhetorical intervention, and by being less fastidious about the "one president at a time" principle, he'll end up kicking himself.
We don't know where this war is headed, and the US could get dragged into some extended regional conflict as a result of the ongoing violence. We have also seen that even while Obama is trying to pour all of our available resources into stimulating the US economy, and will be calling for massive deficits to finance that stimulus, he doesn't need some expensive and distracting new Middle East brouhaha getting in the way. And a sharp climb in oil prices won't help either.
Fixing the economy will require, among other things, restoring public confidence, and some ongoing bully pulpit coaching to help people understand what is being done, and keep them moving in the right direction. This domestic effort will be undermined if the public is glued to the television watching images of our forces engaged in some new military action in the Middle East, and demoralized by the perception that we are trapped there and can't get out.
My guess is that Obama's patience is wearing thin, and that as much as Olmert and the Israelis bellow pridefully about not allowing any outsiders tell them how to defend their country, Obama is communicating behind the scenes his fervent expectation that they wrap up what they are doing by inauguration day, and create a space for an Obama peace initiative.
January 11, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, my supposition did not come out of my own head. I didn't think of it until someone in the know told me. I mean, really in the know. But, since it's no Obama himself, who knows?
January 11, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always suspected you were well sourced!
January 11, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope very much that you are right. I will have to eat some crow if you are, but I hear crow can be very tasty.
January 11, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
My own worry is that Obama will push for some sort of peace plan, but will lean too much towards Israel's side in the terms. You still hear people claiming that Camp David in 2000 there was a generous offer, though Shlomo Ben-Ami (who is very critical of Arafat) said that the Camp David offer was inadequate. It should be something more like what was being discussed at Taba several months later (and I'll skip the usual arguments about who was responsible for the final failure).
January 11, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't someone supposed to be threatening you right now because you protected your source?
January 12, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ says:
--------------------------------------------
Asked if he (Obama) would repeat his remarks in Israel this summer about Israel having the right to defend itself, Obama said yes. Of course, no one disputes that.
---------------------------------------------
You certainly dispute it MJ. You "understand" HAMAS's rocket attacks....of course, you claim they shouldn't do it, but then you say Israel shouldn't defend itself against them either since HAMAS has "understandable" grievances.
This is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Post:
----------------------------------------------
Congress avows support of Israel
Jan. 11, 2009
HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JPost correspondent, WASHINGTon , THE JERUSALEM POST
For the second time in two days, Congress on Friday overwhelmingly backed a resolution supportive of Israel in its military campaign against Hamas.
By a tally of 390-5, the US House of Representatives voted in favor a companion resolution to that passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on Thursday.
The non-binding measure calls for Hamas to stop its rocket fire and for innocent civilians to be protected, while expressing "vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizes its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against Hamas's unceasing aggression, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter."
Though the House declaration came on the heels of a UN Security Council resolution which itself called for an immediate halt to the violence, Congress instead called on the Bush administration to "support a durable and sustainable cease-fire in Gaza," language the US has been using to mean that conditions such as ending smuggling between Gaza and Egypt are in place rather than simply an immediate end to the fighting.
The resolution, sponsored by US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, also urges countries around the world to "lay blame both for the breaking of the 'calm' and for subsequent civilian casualties in Gaza precisely where blame belongs, that is, on Hamas."
---------------------------------------------
Get, that MJ? The representatives of the American people put the blame on HAMAS. I know you are always keeping score on who comes out against Israel (you even include dead people like Harvey Milk) so how do you explain this vote of support for Israel? (I know what you are going to say....and if you do I will have a good response).
January 11, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I always figured that Obama's, or any president's for that matter, chance of re-configuring the whole 'issue' of Palestine/Israel would meet greatest resistance from Congress. Getting past those fossilized specimens is step one.
January 11, 2009 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
YBD
It is to be expected that Congress would be entirely deferential to Israel given the power of the Lobby to unseat anyone who does not have a completely safe seat and who gets out of line on AIPAC diktat.
However, you forget that Obama comes from the Senate, and he knows what they think in private. So I would not put that much weight on congressional outward reluctance to make a "break" with the failed policies of the past given that The Lobby is still living in its own bubble of "reality".
I suspect that when push comes to shove it is the Chief executive that will prevail and give cover to congress while it issues endless undying declarations of total loyalty to anything The Lobby wants.
January 11, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I write, I get news that they are actually bombing Gaza City itself.
My hunch--and it is just a hunch--is that Israel decided to strike now before Obama gets into office because they know that it will be a different ball game when he does.
January 11, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my prediction on what Obama will mean by having a "clean break":
On Gaza, there will be a lot more active diplomacy towards trying to put in place a ceasefire. Whereas Bush was content to sit on his hands and/or see what happens at the UN, expect Hillary Clinton to spend a lot of time shuttling around the Middle East trying to get a ceasfire in place with some real teeth. This probably means an international presence in Gaza and cooperation from the Egyptians on destroying the tunnels.
On the broader peace process, expect Obama and Clinton to try to put in place a framework for starting discussions about reviving the 2002 Saudi "peace plan". I expect Obama is smart enough to realize that a real peace with the Palestinians is much more likely if the rest of the Arab world has recognized Israel than if they haven't. As soon as it is clear that the rest of the Arab world is moving towards accomodation, expect Hamas support to drop like a stone.
But Israel isn't just going to relinquish its control over territory at a snap of the fingers. It will require a carefully orchestrated set of triggers.
One things that is exceedingly unlikely to happen, which I sincerely hope the left is not naive enough to hope for, is economic or other kinds of pressure aimed at forcing Israel to make unilateral concessions. Those who are hoping that Israel can be "reined in" by a non-neocon administration are bound to be disappointed.
January 11, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The left approaches "reining in" Israel from the wrong perspective. It is not the business of the US government to meddle in Israeli affairs or to dictate to Israel how it defends itself.
However, Israel should conduct its affairs at its own risk, not at our risk. We've still got over a hundred thousand troops mired in Iraq because of our insane middle east policy. We should get out. We should not have the Wisconsin National Guard deploying at a level unknown since WWII.
Don't rein Israel in. Rein the US in. If the US reins itself in and refuses to underwrite or guarantee every action of Israel then Israel will have to rein itself in or suffer the consequences of acting rashly.
January 11, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said!
January 11, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing like having your big brother tell you to stop acting like a jerk or he's not going to back you up any longer to generate a bit of perspective, is there?
Without our backstopping, the Israelis might actually have to learn to get along with their neighbors. At the very least, they might look to force as a last, rather than first, resort.
January 11, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What gets me Grouch is that when I watch Israelis in power speak on cable, it is: WATCH OUT!!! WE HAVE MEANS.
They are bragging about great military power. But at the same time they seem to be telling their neighbors that they have a nuclear option. I may be way off base here.
We are the nuclear power in the world and we would not even think, i hope, of using a nuclear option on our neighbors. We would be destroying or greatly harming ourselves.
Not that nuclear bombs would not hurt the entire world anyway.
Maybe I am reading too much into the rants on cable.
January 11, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the first place, the US does not underwrite or guarantee every action. The idea that Israel submits every move it makes for approval in Washington before it does anything is nuts. Consultation? Sure. But Israel will do what it thinks needs to be done to defend itself and look out for its interests. Period.
Secondly, calling Israeli policy "rash" is ridiculous. They are anything but rash. The Israeli military plans operations meticulously and there are many many operations that are not executed due to risk calculations and political considerations.
I seriously doubt that
January 11, 2009 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a hopeful sign. Thank you for the insight and the observation.
Bob Spencer
January 11, 2009 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope none of this means changing Bush's magnificent Roadmap for Peace, or Condie's genius "Annapolis process!"
I mean we don't want to tamper with success, do we? ;) The Roadmap or example is to end the conflict as early as 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_map_for_peace (By then, Democracy will have broken out all over the region in a contagion from the remarkable success and stability of Iraq's Democracy, as you will recall.) And Annapolis gives us durable Arab-Israeli peace by end 2008. Stay the course, eh?
January 11, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, many people dispute many things. For example, I -- among hundreds of millions of persons worldwide -- reject utterly the fatuous phrase "no one disputes [the Apartheid Zionist Entity]'s "right" [substitute "might"] to "exist" and "defend itself." I dispute especially the unbalanced question-begging terminology in which this desultory dialectic has mired America for the past sixty years. As John Locke wrote centuries ago in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding:
"The question being about a matter of fact, 'tis begging it, to bring, as proof for it, an hypothesis which is the very thing in question: by which one may prove anything."
Therefore, anyone who begins a sentence with "Israel has the right to ..." has already given away the pseudo-argument by importing the questionable premise of a racist/religious "Israel" having the "right" to do anything whatsoever.
Uncritical and lavish (un-)American support for the Apartheid Zionist Entity (or, A.Z.E.) can, of course, substitute "might" for "right" -- at least in the short run. But an imploding and bankrupt America cannot go on this way for all that much longer. Sooner or later the pariah parasite A.Z.E. will drain its host U.S.A. of the economic and democratic-Constitutional vitality necessary for supporting even itself.
As a secular American citizen, I do not acknowledge the concept of a "master race" or "chosen people" (especially when chosen by themselves), nor do I subscribe to any form of Single Spook Animism (which leaves me utterly indifferent to the three major Middle Eastern Desert religions). The Constitution of my own country forbids the government from denying rights to -- or bestowing rights upon -- individual citizens on the basis of either race or religion, let alone both. Therefore, the Apartheid Zionist Entity -- or "Israel," as some wish to designate this transient, belligerent tribal/theocratic land-grab -- has no defensible foundation.
I disagree, therefore, that incoming President Obama represents any conceivable form of "evenhandedness" if he can utter the questionable terms "Israel," "right," and "defend" in the same sentence without choking on all the un-examined, thoroughly biased (in the A.Z.E.'s favor), question-begging terminology.
Contrary to what incoming president Obama may implicitly assume, the Apartheid Zionist Entity, or "Jewish" state constitutes little more than a disputatious crusading pseudo-question and not any sort of legitimate "answer" -- at least as concerns America and its own vital (meaning a matter of life and death) interests. The U.S.A. does not need the A.Z.E. for America to exist. If only the A.Z.E. could and would say the same about America.
January 11, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Murry, I second your comment regarding Single Spook animism. Without mono-theism we sure wouldn't be having this conversation. Have you heard of Professor Schlomo Sand's argument that Jewish history as we understand it was actually invented by the early Zionists a little over 100 years ago specifically to justify their appropriation of Palestine? His research suggests that the European Ashkenazi Jews are descended from the Khazars who mass converted to Judaism sometime around the eighth century. He points out that even the early Zionist leaders such as Ben Gurion believed as much.
Anyway, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to my naturalistic worldview than the other argument, the Single Spook one. I also read it postulated somewhere that the Jewish embrace of monotheism actually came about through early Persian influence. How ironic is that? Makes sense though, in Genesis we have god creating Adam and Eve in "our" image.
January 11, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
there'll be a clean break alright: the Jews will break from the Democratic Party and find their place as Republicans.
when that 80% of American Jews who deluded themselves into voting for Obama realize what that really means, they'll re-think their baffling loyalty to the Democrats.
and not a moment too soon!
January 11, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly likely, Gretz. Jews have been accused of many things (generally unfairly) but mass stupidity is not among them (even by the most unfair accusers). If you want to start "Jews for Sarah Palin," try recruiting in a mental hospital.
January 11, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Poor Gretz. 80% of the Jews voted for a candidate with Hussein as his middle name.
They will always vote Democratic but, if all Jews followed you into the GOP, the election results would be exactly the same.
Not one electoral vote would have shifted this year.
YOU know why, because they are Americans and vote on what is best for America.
January 11, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bad news for you, M.J. I've attended a pro-Israel rally in one a most pro-Obama liberal area, where Jews overwhelmingly vote for Obama. It was big rally, I saw reform, conservative an orthodox Jews, families with young children and college students. They all our united in their support for Israel. It will be very hard for Obama to break his campaign promises to support Israel, AIPAC style and screw up Israel.
January 11, 2009 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
yet mass stupidity is exactly what we saw from Jews who voted for Obama--if indeed MJ is right about this, and he's so rarely right it might not make any difference.
but let me ask you a question, PTroub: if in the Hamas Charter that organization says its aim is not peace, and the peace process is never going to work, then how do you suggest that the two warring sides achieve peace?
peace talks are predicated on both sides wanting this goal. when one side has avowed that it does not, I don't see any good ending to this.
January 11, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
btw PTroub, that wasn't a sarcastic question. I genuinely want to know how you would recommend negotiating a peace settlement with people who don't want it.
January 11, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You begin. And you forgo insisting on your desired end-state as a precondition for the very first discussions.
January 11, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"you begin" old grouch? omg, I can hear the violins swelling in the background as a little Palestinian child and a little Israeli child hold hands against the sunset.
here's a quote from article 13 of the Hamas Charter:
"[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement."
January 11, 2009 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think changing that is desirable, yes, you begin. Unless you are one of those who, like people such as Olmert and Livni, currently in power there, enjoy killing Palestinian children.
Admit it, to us and yourself. You relish meting out death, misery, and destruction. Something in your dark, twisted heart is excited by the suffering of others. There is no other imaginable explanation for pursuing a strategy that has not worked, is not working, and will not work in the future, other than that you enjoy the pain and chaos you sow.
A little honesty is good for the soul. C'mon, fess up...
January 11, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the so-called peaceful solutions"
Tell me gretz, why do you think they worded it that way?
Because Hamas realizes that Israel is not interested in a peaceful solution if that solution means two states and it goes without saying that Israel has no intention of ever being a true democracy, hence the insistence on absolute acceptance of Israel's "right to exist".
Which is just another way of saying their right to exist as a "Jewish" state excluding all others.
I find that House non-binding resolution too cute by half especially this part:
"...survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state..."
By definition it cannot be both.
January 11, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
oldgrouch: I've made a two-word change in your sentence, as follows:
"Something in the Palestinians' dark, twisted heart is excited by the suffering of others. There is no other imaginable explanation for pursuing a strategy that has not worked, is not working, and will not work...."
btw, for any friends of Israel on here like YBD and sholomA, I want you to know that there are thousands of people all over the country marching in support of you. you won't hear anything about this on the news, but it is happening and we are with you!
January 11, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting and revealing points. Knowledgeable Americans who care most about THEIR country, have long realized that indeed what has made the Mideast mess so difficult solve is that extremists wielding disproportionate influence on BOTH sides have been unshakeably hell-bent on feuding with each other. What these pro-American Americans are also realizing more acutely since the fall of the neo-con chickenhawks in our own country is that too much of the conversation in the US has been dominated by mouthpieces for ONE of the two lunatic fringes of that TWO-sided lunacy in the Mideast.
January 11, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can continue to believe in the demonstrably false if you choose.
I make no case for Hamas, and you know it. You deliberately misrepresent what I say in order to justify your racism and advocacy of premeditated murder, and saying that someone else does it makes for no justification whatsoever.
And you are beneath contempt. You like the idea of extermination of the Palestinians, don't you? Come on, admit it. Children burned by white phosphorous excite you, the news makes your day, doesn't it?
January 11, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
the fact that you admit Hamas is a lunatic fringe is progress, I think!
please don't get me wrong: Israel is far from perfect. Israel has done things I completely disagree with; they're not blameless at all. but they do have one basic difference when compared with Hamas: they don't want all Palestinians to die, whereas Hamas DOES want all Jews to die--well, let's be fair and say "all Israelis."
and let's also remember that the US is not a referee, ok? the US is a sovereign nation with allies who are also sovereign nations, and Israel is one of them, and the US is allowed to show preference to an ally over an avowed enemy (like Hamas).
some of you seem to have this idea that America must officiate and be completely objective. that is not the case.
January 11, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Count me out, Gretz, on
(1) your genocide-as-goal theory. Of course, when it comes to facts rather than theories, Israelis are killing Palestinians including children at something like a 20-1 rate (much higher before the Hurry-up-before-Obama's-inauguration ground invasion). But even theoretically, I see little evidence that either group of terrorists (Hamas or the West Bank settlers) wants ALL the others to die. They basically just want the same land and TO THE LAST SQUARE inch, or square centimeter, or rock, or whatever is used for measurement in that miserable desert.
(2) The "America must officiate" position. Something of the sort did not work out badly for Carter, and even Bill Rodham Clinton and Daddy Bush managed a decent attempt, but 8 years of Junior Westbank Lapdog Bush has blown whatever "honest broker" role the US MIGHT have played, and done so more thoroughly than a US bunkerbuster (which might have helped Israel start a new war with Iran (even lapdogs do not commit suicide) might detonated a nuke-facility or day care center. America does not need to "officiate", it needs to wake up, and it is doing so, and that is why there have to be more children in Gaza slaughtered THIS week before the US lap dog leaves office, in order that Livni and Barak can win votes from Netanyahu.
January 11, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, thanks for a very interesting perspective on Obama's silence. It sounds reasonable but we will soon find out. Wishing for the best.
January 11, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding reining in and dictating defense policy, damn straight we should have a say, as long as we're supplying the weapons and the money.
Otherwise I agree with the "at its own risk" folks.
January 11, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But, unlike other politicians, he offered no special love for Israel. "
Great, People. like M.J. often offer special love for Israel, just before betraying it.
January 11, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Betray? The only country I could betray is my own, the USA, and, rest assured, I won't.
January 11, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like what Barney Frank said about Obama saying there's only one president (paraphrasing): That overstates the number of presidents we in fact have right now.
January 11, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
PTroub, of course Israel is killing more Palestinians than the other way around. they're having a war! people die in wars, and that unfortunately includes children.
but again there's a difference between the warring parties: one side gives civilians warnings and time to get out of the way before commencing bombing, and the other side sends suicide bombers and rockets with no warning at all. this second side also positions its civilians in places where they know (and hope) that they'll be killed by enemy fire.
don't cry to me about the dead Palestinians. what did they think was going to happen if they attacked a nation with superior firepower? my god! you remind me of those people who believe in "no-cut" sports teams because you don't want anybody's feelings to get hurt.
you attack someone with a superior fighting force, and you suffer the consequences. did you all just arrive on this planet yesterday? is there something about simple facts that eludes you?
January 11, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your "facts" elude me Gretz, because, for example, is not a fact that Palestinian children "attacked" Israel (with or without inferior firepower). In your warped view, we are supposed to feel sympathy for Israelis because all Palestinians want to kill all of them (an absurdly unfactual claim) but laugh off the ACTUAL factual killing of Palestinian children, deliberate blowing up of UN schools, etc. Count me out as well from such tiresome decades-old pre-programmed hypocrisy.
January 12, 2009 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anthony Cordesman has a very good article and perspective on the Israel-Gaza War up now at CSIS. Here is the link:
http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_pubs&task=view&id=5188
January 11, 2009 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J wroter
"Also, unlike Bush, Mc Cain and Congressional hawks, he discussed Iran without mentioning Israel"
"He is worried about the nukes but he intends to talk"
You just can't trust a single word of M.J. He didn't say "he intends to talk". While he din't
mention Israel, who is worried about "Iran exporting terrorism through Hamas, through Hezbollah"? China? Canada?
"OBAMA: Well, I think that Iran is going to be one of our biggest challenges. And as I said during the campaign, you know, we have a situation in which not only is Iran exporting terrorism through Hamas, through Hezbollah, but they are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East."
January 11, 2009 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a little 'reality check' for ShlomoA and the rest of our breathless hasbaristas: It turns out that the UN school bombed by the IDF was, in fact, never used by Hamas, and the Israeli government finally had to admit that its both original story and second explanation were fabrications:
January 11, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
reality checks are good. here's a story from the Jerusalem Post:
----
"Iran is exerting heavy pressure on Hamas not to accept the Egyptian proposal for a cease-fire with Israel, an Egyptian government official said on Sunday.
[the govt official said] "The Iranians threatened to stop weapons supplies and funding to the Palestinian factions if they agreed to a cease-fire with Israel. The Iranians want to fight Israel and the US indirectly. They are doing this through Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon."
so basically kids, this means that we all of us are just being played by the larger powers in the world. the Palestinians are a proxy. if you really care about them, speak out against Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas, not Israel. prove that this is not about Jew-hatred, but rather concern for peace and justice.
January 11, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is what the government official wants you to think. Why do you buy into it uncritically?
January 12, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
If Obama tries to force the Israelis to do anything they don't want to do AIPAC will go ballistic, the honeymoon will be over and from one moment to the next he will go from being "The One" to being (fill in adjectives: "troubled", "stumbling", "inexperienced", "inept"). His media support will dry up instantly and all the stuff we never heard about during the campaign will surface.
Obama knows that if ever there was an "it's the economy stupid" moment it is now, so I don't imagine he is going to pull the temple down on his head.
January 12, 2009 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is Roger Cohen writing in the New York Times:
Now what could make anybody believe that anything significant was going to change when practically the whole team is Jewish?January 12, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It depends on what kind of Jews. There are some Israel hating Jews, such as M.J. Rosenberg.
January 12, 2009 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Some", indeed very many, American Jews (who are larger in number than Israeli Jews) hate not Israel but the Israeli-settler propagandists and dupes who falsely label them "Israel-hating", out of a deficit of logical or moral arguments to support their greed for land on the West Bank, and simply because those American Jews instead support the interests of THEIR country, the United States, which lie in a two state approach.
January 12, 2009 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, everybody knows that most American Jewish people are very liberal; that is where most of the rest of learned how, but if we look at where the big machers in the American Jewish community line up, we see Likud-Likud-Likud.
If Bernard L. Madoff hasn't already cleaned them out, those are the people whose campaign contributions, think tanks and media clout are going to keep Obama... and the rest of the Democrats, from crossing Israel.
January 12, 2009 5:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Based on commentaries here on TPM and elsewhere, it would seem, D. Seaton, that those big "machers" are (finally) being exposed for blatantly and arrogantly contradicting the interests of those they claim to represent, and that some of the misrepresented are leading the exposés. As I have remarked already, how much real "change," re actual policies we can thereafter "believe in" coming from Obama, is rather doubtful. But things ARE changing even if they don't amount to full "clean break." Why do suppose the Israelis chose THESE particular weeks to launch one of the most sweeping and brutal attacks ever on the Palestinians?
Nothing is for sure in this insane matter, but I would bet any Madoff sucker a 10% guaranteed annual return that there will be at least a superficial and hyped upon "break" in the Gaza action by inauguration day.
January 12, 2009 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have one caveat to all I have said before and in it there is a window where Obama may have the opportunity, by simply washing his hands, to rid the USA of this horrible problem... by just giving the Israelis enough rope, they may end up hanging themselves. Read this by Gideon Levy in today's Haaretz:
A very slender hope, indeed. I think Barack Obama or any other president of the USA that I can think of would do anything in their power, up to and including invading Holland in order to prevent Levy's scenario from taking place. However, if Obama does allow a Hague trial to occur (and it should include Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld) I will be forced to conclude that Obama's admirers are not blowing smoke out of their hinder parts, but that in fact he is a great man indeed.January 12, 2009 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd give you 20% Madoff odds, David, against W, Cheney, Rummy, or any top Israeli leader ever standing trial in The Hague (however justifiable and just that would be).
But, Obama is a master at rhetoric (more so even than W was a dunce at it) so it won't take many altered words in the US RHETORIC to mark a symbolically important "break". The Israelis, the Egyptians, Fatah, etc. all need this kind of rhetorical cover as well. A kind of grand rhetorical bargain looms as a serious possibility. Absent some major and out fo the blue relevlations, the utterly spineless Democrats in the US Congress that haven't even managed to repeal the Iraq authorization blank check (5+ years after Saddam was captured and WMD hype exposed as BS) are not going put the neo-con traitors in America, let alone any Israelis.
January 12, 2009 6:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction:
..are not going put the neo-con traitors in America, let alone any Israelis... ON TRIAL.
January 12, 2009 6:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally actions will speak louder than words. After so much fraud, people will only judge acts not words.
Here is a "thought for the day": Has it ever occurred to you that the best thing about George W. Bush is how badly he speaks. Can you imagine if, with his evil agenda, Bush had had the rhetorical skills of an Obama? Where would we be now?
This is why we have to watch Obama's actions and not listen to his words... in today's broken world talk is cheap.
January 12, 2009 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, David. Nowadays coherent inspiration talk from political leaders has becoming unprecedentedly rare, and thus MORE highly valued than before, and not "cheap." Nevertheless, Obama is surely intelligent enough to realize that, while his predecessor failed badly at both talking the talk AND walking the walk, it is the latter failure that is the more in need of urgent redressing over the longer haul. I think the Israeli leaders realize this too. They need a sop to the public now, in order to help them face tough decisions ahead, e.g. compromise on a two-state deal or become a latter-day apartheid South Africa. The US Congress is one of the last major international roadblock to international designation, but even its capacity for stupidity has limits.
January 12, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Action, action, action.
If Obama just mumbled, "Er, you know, like I'm stop the shooting Israel or I'll like, you know, cut off your allowance"... it would mean more than a thousand pretty speeches read rhythmically off a teleprompter.
January 12, 2009 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm beginning to suspect Obama may be the biggest disappointment in US History.
I keep telling myself; "wait and see", but then Obama makes a public appearance, as he did yesterday with Stephanopolis, and I listen, and I start getting feelings of trepidation.
January 12, 2009 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
FDR held all his fire until March 3 and the inaugural.
I know many of the key players. You are not going to be disappointed.
January 12, 2009 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel is not going to be disappointed, but I'm not sure about you.
January 12, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
you may be right
January 12, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
All we have left is hope.
January 12, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sell it.
January 12, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
if Obama doesn't pursue an investigation into the Bush gang he will never live it down, it will be the equivalent of the Ford/Nixon pardon.
January 12, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Murry and Outleft-
Now that you have neatly disposed of Judaism, Zionism and the Jewish people, now all you have to do is to convince 1 billion Muslims that their religion is false as well, and then we will all be set.
January 12, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha--ha.
January 12, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
trafik ceza sorgulama
This is highly informatics, crisp and clear. I think that Everything has been described in systematic manner so that reader could get maximum information and learn many things. This is one of the best blogs I have read.
araç sorgulama
March 14, 2011 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
bağkur borç sorgulama
With all the sites out there with information on them with a ton of junk it's nice to find a blog whose admin takes the time to create good material. TY for the good post.
sgk
March 19, 2011 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
emekli sandığı
I used to be very pleased to discover this site.I needed to we appreciate you this great read!! I definitely enjoying every amount of it and that i have you ever bookmarked to look at new belongings you post.
araç sorgulama
March 23, 2011 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink