Netanyahu Today: First Hell Freezes, Then The Settlements
In an interview in Sunday's Washington Post, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may go further than any of his predecessors in rejecting a settlement freeze -- this after President Obama went further than any of his predecessors in demanding one.
In the fifteen years since Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO leader, Yasir Arafat signed the Oslo agreement, Israel has never, in principle, ruled out a settlement freeze. On occasion, it has, in fact, implemented a freeze while on several others, Israeli prime ministers said "yes" but with conditions.
There has been one constant. Israeli prime ministers tended to go along with the US and Palestinian view that freezing settlements was not a final status issue (i.e, one that would only be resolved in the context of comprehensive negotiations) but a precondition for negotiations like the PLO's cessation of violence, which has been in effect for years.
Israeli prime ministers understood that Palestinians viewed the expansion of settlements as something unacceptable during negotiations. As one Palestinian put it, "you can't discuss how you will divide the pizza while one guy is gobbling it up."
This all changed today with an interview in Sunday's Washington Post.
WP: What do you think should happen with the Palestinians?
Netanyahu: We just wasted six months because of the Palestinian effort to place preconditions on the negotiations -- preconditions that weren't there for the last 16 years.
WP: Is that freezing the settlements?
Netanyahu: It's freezing the settlements, it's committing in advance to the negotiations.
WP: It's commiting to the outcome basically?
Netanyahu: Yes, it's the old technique. Let's agree what the results of the negotiations will be before the negotiations begin.
And then Netanyahu flatout misrepresents the Obama administration's position by saying it agrees with him.
Netanyahu: I think the Palestinians have to recognize that Washington says there should be no negotiations without preconditions.
Of course, President Obama said the opposite and so did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. (In Clinton's words, President Obama wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions.") They have both demanded a settlement freeze as a means of getting negotiations started i.e. as a precondition.
And as far as pretending that a settlement freeze is a "final status" issue and always was, Netanyahu is rejectiong the positions of every one of his predecessors since 1993. They all accepted the idea that a freeze was a preliminary step. Bibi has broken new ground (maybe to build a settlement on it).
To put it bluntly, President Obama is being royally dissed.
But all is not lost. The President should say: "Okay, Bibi, we agree. A settlement freeze is a final status issue. I want you and Abbas to come to Camp David now to begin and finish negotiations on the final status of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. We will, as you prefer, discuss the settlement freeze in the context of setting final borders for Israel and the Palestinian state."
One thing is certain. The President cannot accept this type of rebuff lying down. Congressman Joe Wilson only yelled out "liar." Netanyahu's response to Obama is worse. It reminds me of that old New York Daily News headline after President Ford rejected an aid package for a brankrupt New York City, "Ford to City: Drop Dead."
This is not how an ally -- especially one who receives more aid, by far, than any other country in the world -- should be permitted to address an American President.
Crossposted MEDIA MATTERS ACTION NETWORK
The words "principle" and Netanyahu do not belong on the same page. He is gambling that Obama will cave; if Obama doesn't, then Netanyahu will try some ruse instead. He will only act in a civilized manner and in the long term interest of the people of Israel when his feet are held to the fire.
Netanyahu's old stale camel dung about how Israel can't possibly stop its terrorist settlers except as part of a final deal differs only superficially from a Palestinian reserving the right to blow up cafes in Tel Aviv until there is a deal. The Israeli terrorist-settlers have the region's most powerful military and defacto the world's only superpower behind them, so they don't need to be as crude as the Palestinian terrorists. The two groups of terrorists (Israeli, Palestinian) reinforce each other, nonetheless, working towards the common goal of endless war and violence.
As a citizen of that superpower, I opt out of supporting such perpetual barbarism and idiocy.
George W. Bush did not speak for me, I do not agree that Israel was "defending itself" butchering children in Gaza, I think it ceased to be a real ally of OUR country when it essentially sided with Rabin's assassins, and in my book no American worthy of the name supports the longstanding carte blanche for the West Bank Israeli terrorist-settlers.
October 24, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well amen! I guess that makes us "anti-semites", but so be it.
October 24, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
M.J.,
It appears from my perspective here in the Sonoran Desert, that you have your knickers in a knot.
The PM's statement has be viewed from differeing three perspectives.
First, he is simply restating his prior policy. Nothing has changed.
Second, he is attempting to take the spotlight off of the J-Street Conference. And in doing so, he is placing J-Street in the proverbial "trick box". Thus, J-Street has to 'defend' the Israeli Right, or not. And if not, there is no 'middle ground to 'triangulate'. Consequently, he is challenging J-Street to demonstrate itself as a "progressive" Center-Right political entity since J-Street will not accept the discriptive for a Center-Left "progressive" entity. Moreover, J-Street is being iconized as another Democratic Leadership Council or less egalitarian for a self-neutering and equivalent to just another Neo-Liberal outfit. And this is my perspective from the existing "inside baseball" strategy.
And third, here in the Southwest, J-Street is being pushed out of the Center-Right and is being forced to congregate with the Center-Left Progessive Community. To wit, J-Street will be seen as a Neo-Liberal group, and albeit forced to accept such a label. And this is my perspective from the existing 'outside baseball'.
And now, the challenge being forced on J-Street, "is" what label will it permit itself being attached to it by the Israeli cognoscenti?
Consequently, the pending "pushback" that J-Street engages in, will have to be both substantive, since the Democratic Coalition that consists among the "racial and ethnics" as well as Democratic Women, and the "reach-out" to this Coalition, is for all intent and purpose, non-existent, as of today. Thus, the Democratic friends and allies will be waiting with bated breath. And this transparency personified by J-Street will have to be obvious to everyone. Thus, no shirking or slackards permitted.
To date, the defacto position "may" coalesce into the perspective envisioned by the annunciated comments from both PTroub and Hmmm and which J-Street will not be able to overcome.
Needless to say, the "sharp elbows of competition" is now front and center for all to see.
Jaango
October 24, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure I follow your meaning, Jaango, re the
"perspective envisioned" which "J-Street will not be able to overcome."
My perspective here is that I am completely fed up with my country acting idiotically in the Mideast.
What I would like to envision is a movement of similarly fed up Americans, for example a core of mostly Jewish Americans within J Street and a larger coalition of mostly non-Jewish Americans around it, kicking the US Congress in its collective behind until sanity is obtained on this issue.
October 24, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is Mort Sahl, now that we need him?
October 25, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the Israeli game of arrogant superiority.
A small, non self-sustaining nation, reliant on American aid to exist, that has the chutzpah to dictate to the US government.
A tiny state that has no natural resources and whose non-essential exports consist of citrus fruit, cut diamonds, guns and computer software.
A country of no geo-political importance but which grabs the headlines by virtue of its brutality to its neighbors and its constant cry of 'we are the only democracy in the Middle East'.
This extraordinary claim notwithstanding its terrible killing of nine hundred civilians in Gaza.
The time is now well overdue to call a halt to this madness.
Israel must comply with international law and human rights conventions, with further delay.
Otherwise all bilateral trade should cease.
October 24, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it relies either on US aid or trade.
Congress bowing and cringing before AIPAC is key, however.
October 24, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Safe to assume that you and MJ and Joke-Street also agree that, the US should suspend all aid to the other thugs in the Middle East; that Saudi Arabia and the other slave-using misoginystic cult-states of the region should be shunned, and that America's imperial colonization of the third world should end and that you are as furious about that as you are about anything disgusting Israel does...
But, curiously, you never here Joke-street say that...after all, there is no context to American hypocricy and while Netenyahu is a thug, he's our thug and the only thug in the region and support for say, the utterly sclerotic, and morally bankrupt Mubarak junta has zero to do with achieving "peace"...in fact, it's obvious that American aid to the Gulf Thugs never finds its way into the West Bank...no, no one in the gulf states buys people from the West Bank, nor do they purchase drugs, or bank role the local mafia...no, America does not launder money...we don't prop up dictators...
If only Israel were dealt with seriously, then there would be peace...
and people wonder why assholes in Likud wave the bloody yellow star to such effect...
because if it sounds like an Jew hater and a hypocrite, it probably is a Jew hater and a hypocrite...and even if it isn't, gangsters like Netanyahu will make you sound like one until Joke-Street openly states it demands an end to American support for dictatorships in the Arab world as a corallary and essential condition for the establishment of an independent and democratic Palestine...
which Joke-Street will never do because like all American Liberal Jews they are terrified of being labeled Leftists...by the American neo-con right who would triangulate Joke-Street against Centrist-Obama...and the Centrists will run from Joke-Street as fast as they can...
Thus, Netayahu wins, the Palestinians lose, again...and the damn cycle just repeats...
Faulkner on the Jordan...
So it goes
October 26, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: Isn't Netanyahu's arrogance more proof that Obama has surrendered?
And how will Obama respond to this "diss"? He'll do nothing.
Are you taking wagers that I'm wrong?
October 24, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope
October 24, 2009 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
obama wants to be re-elected in 2012. he has a conflict between his heart and his political ego. his heart knows that that to resolve the i-p conflict is the right thing to do. however, his ego has made the political calculation that to do so would hurt his re-election chances in 2012. he would get a lot of push back. rham spelled it all out for him.
to give the appearance of movement, obama is now getting ready for act II. this week netanyahu has said that there has been an understanding with obama on the settlement issue. around the same time, abbas got a call from obama who whispered some of his magic words. after the call, abbas announced elections to be held in january. how will act II end? the same as act I.
netanyahu's poll numbers in israel are rising. peace is for suckers and the israeli are seeing that netanyahu is no sucker.
October 24, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Israeli government, the environment, Afghanistan, Iraq, a government option, micromanaging the justice department: tepidness and calculation all across the board.
Remember that day he gathered up some of his staff and took off for his fave hamburger stand in D.C.? And as the cameras rolled, he put in his order for lunch in the Oval Office.
I wish I could include a shortcut to the video that I watched, so you could all see. Perhaps see what I saw - an operator there at the counter giving his order - with all the charm and charisma of a used car salesman. One savagely dispassionate cynic. Albeit, he's always good with words.
They finally realized that Clinton was the Heartbreak Kid. If you saw that movie, you know what I mean. This guy is something of a hugely different order. Gives me chills.
October 24, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
is this the one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1TxMKaYHYA
October 24, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
But all is not lost. The President should say ...
This is so typical of the impotent J Street mindset, with their childish faith in the occult powers of words, and the magic of ineffable Presidential mojo. Liberal Zionists are perfectly willing to advocate that Israel should undergo changes of various kinds; but they are perfectly unwilling to advocate doing anything that has a serious possibility of causing these changes to come about.
Suppose Obama does express the diplomatic desires that MJ recommends? What happens when Netanyahu tells Obama, in so many words and as he has done so far, "Screw you"? Another noble presidential speech? More threats to give Israel a stern talking-to behind closed doors? Another terrifying volley of editorials and blog posts? More rearrangements of the deck chairs on the American Jewish Community Cruise?
J Street is a fraud. It exists solely for the purpose of allowing liberal Jews to sooth their consciences by adopting a superficially critical rhetorical stance toward certain Israeli policies without accepting any real responsibility for taking the painful steps necessary to change those policies. It also exists to dupe the rest of us into the seductively comforting, but absolutely unfounded, thought that American Jews are capable of taking care of business where Israel is concerned.
What will happen as a result of these latest Israeli expressions of global defiance? I predict Obama will do nothing. I predict J Street will do nothing other than to advocate the employment of more empty words.
Netanyahu is positively reveling in his exposure of the weakness of Obama, J Street and the rest of their ineffectual crew of impotent US talkers, crybabies and hand-wringers. He has made it clear that Israel intends to go on expanding its territorial holdings until someone compels them to stop, and is fully secure in the knowledge that no one is going to make him stop - ever.
Israel is a belligerent rogue state, dominated by a fanatical sectarian ideology of religio-ethnic domination and exclusion, packing hundreds of nuclear weapons and lead by criminal leaders supported by a willing electorate of ethnocentric colonialists and land-grabbers. Maybe its time for American Jews to stop "loving" Israel, and start treating it like the dangerous outlaw and enemy of global peace that it is. The sane future of world Jewish community lies mainly in Europe and the US. Israel itself is an aberrant, gangster cult-state, and it is time for sane and responsible people to cut them loose.
By yoking this nation to the support for a warlike outlaw state, and for its undeterrable project for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, American Zionists - whether of the Jewish or Christian variety - have put our own country at risk, made it the target of attacks and prolonged a dangerous source of global instability and threat. The continuing support for this project by its organized backers and their tools in the US Congress is due to a combination of foolishness, cowardice and traitorous malevolence. I now regard Israel and Zionism as an "existential threat" to me and my family.
October 24, 2009 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
J Street is a fraud.
j-street is to aipac what kadima is to likud.
with kadima: more land, less arabs
with likud: less arabs, more land
there’s no Zionist solution to the Zionist problem, just like there’s no racist solution to the problem of racism - Adam Horowitz
October 24, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
October 24, 2009 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you were a member of the TPM commentariat .. along with Anna, Brad and many other pro-Israel commentators.
October 24, 2009 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The value of this discussion is directly proportional to the absence of screaming children such as "AnnaA." Praise be to higher powers for small blessings.
October 25, 2009 5:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
No problems here with the decision of management to show AnnaA the door; she was obnoxious. My problem, of course, is with the xenophobic prelude that accompanied the latest "March of the Obnoxious Right or Wronger", of which the poster to whom I reply played a leading role, along wiht the protagaonist and honorary Minuteman (the mondern hating kind down yonder and not the exalted descendants of OUR American Revolution) MJ Rosenberg.
Let the record reflect that the poster to whom I reply, MJ Rosenberg and many others expressed their rightful displeasure to Anna, but they did so with references to her use of English as a second language, her inability to speak English, her apparent Slavic roots, and of course let us not forget that she was nicknamed Boris. To all of you I give you the award first tendered by my dear friend and sorely missed Zionista/Bar Kafka, and that is the Millard Fillmore Know Nothing Bust. You all follow a fine tradition. And here he is, such a dashing fellow back in the dark days preceding OUR Civil War:
http://guilhermefonseca.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/12_millard_fillmore_3x4.jpg
Mazal Tov (oops), I mean, well done gang; your banishment of Anna was proper, but tainted, and part of long line of exclusionists in this country.
As to the value of this forum sans (oops I mean without) Anna, we shall see. Right now, I find the colloquy amusing. My good friend DanK has accused MJ of being one of us. Hey MJ, guess you can take the boy out of Hebrew School but you can't take the Hebrew School out of the boy. Don't worry, we're tribal. :) We still have a place at the table for ya and we never forget! Hee.
Happy Sunday all; I'll be learning about the J Street Conference in some forums--with high hopes for its success even though I detest Walt & Mearsheimer (ain't nuance a bitch?)--and I'll be sure to be visit other forums for comic relief. My choice; G-d bless America (can't help the dash MJ; Hebrew School ya know ).
Cheers.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
October 25, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would like people like AnnaA, Sage and the others to be permitted to remain around, instead of being airbrushed routinely out of the family photos by MJ, so that the readers at TPM Cafe can be exposed to the full raging force of Zionism in all its militant glory.
October 25, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan:
You and I might disagree on quite a number of things, and vehemently so, including whether Anna should have been banned, but I do appreciate and respect your implicit trust in the value of free speech. On the other hand, I would balance free speech by banishing the Annas of the world as well right along the purported anti-racists who attacked her incessantly with racist prose. I'd kick 'em all out! :) Even immigrants from the other side of the old so-called Iron Curtain should be protected against xenophobic garbage, and especially on sites like this. In my America, and I think yours too, we stopped applying literacy tests, at least de jure, back in the 1960s when you and I were kids. And we stopped racist name-calling too. It's the kind of stuff I would wash my kids' mouths out with soap if they ever dared say such stuff--and thankfully to my knowledge it would never even cross their minds to conduct themselves like garden-variety and really cheesy bigots. That kind of stuff does not hide itself, even when proffered by "lefties" or "progressives" or "liberals" with fancy pens.
Bruce
October 25, 2009 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you for keeping on the ethnic slur thing Rosenberg does regarding Russian Israelis. For me, it's not about Anna A, it's about lurkers. (And it's counterproductive to his own aims, imagine how a young Russian Israeli tending sympathetic to liberal views would take it, they might think: oh, I see, my parents are right, it's us against the world.) It always struck me as disgustingly hypocritical for someone who says he hates racism to use such a tactic to deal with someone that bothers him with what they say.
October 25, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I think anyone who didn't find Rosenberg doing that offensive has friends in Pat Buchanan and the Daughters of the American Revolution. When I'd see him try to get back at the arguments of AnnaA (and previous incarnations) that way, I visualized someone ridiculing my rest-his-soul Polish Catholic immigrant grandfather because of his accent and poor English, as well as many of my current neighbors in the Bronx (some of those are even Russian Jews, as well as Dominicans and Hindis and Chinese and...) And having such behavior come from a Jew, well that also reminds me of poor southern whites grabbing onto Jim Crow to make themselves feel superior to someone.
October 25, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for undestanding me AA, and for making me realize once again that I'm not completely insane. As you can see from the two replies to me below, for whatever reason, there are some presumably intelligent people who either don't get it or detest me to the point where they refuse to get it. And, as you write, it goes beyond Russian Israelis who might be influenced by such hypocritical racist trash aimed at them. It might impact on all immigrants who would choose to read this blog and have something to offer. In your neighborhood and mine, we see lots of folks from all over the world, and some don't speak English very well at all. But we welcome them and we learn from each other and we certainly don't judge them by their accents. And we also don't question their love of country, another despicable and ugly response to commenters that we are seeing with increased frequency on here.
It is absolutely shocking that more people aren't repulsed out by the practice--led by MJ Rosenberg and at least one of the posters who reply to me below among others--of mocking someone in this website with reference to his or her ability to express opinions in English, or with reference to his or her national origin. Your granparents and mine, rest in peace, sacrificed quite a bit to bring us to a country where that stuff should have expired long ago with the mandate of the Bull Connors of the world. Such simple truths should not have to be explained and, contrary to one of the kneejerk reactions below, what I'm saying here has nothing to do with my propensity for self-righteousness. It has to do with calling out filth in the form of racism, pure and plain and simple and ugly racist garbage.
October 25, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such fine words, yet, your noblesse is spent defending a troll, which makes it look more like a convenient axe to grind. Your self-proclaimed hatred and opposition of racism has a huge blind spot, considering that racism against Palestinians is endemic within, and encouraged by, the regime and policies you support:
October 26, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You reek of ignorance or filth or both. First, I have never, ever denied the existence of discrimination against Palestinians by Israelis. That's something someone like you, who equates the war in Gaza with the Warsaw Ghetto, would apparently presume, i.e. all Jews who defend Israel care not about Palestinians. Second, the fact that there is discrimination against Palestinians, and the fact that Anna may or may not be a troll, gives license to nobody to respond to him or her with racism. Bowman, it's not just your ignorance of what the Nazis did that makes you a complete and total asshole. And man would I be proud to be banned for calling you out as such; you really do make me sick.
October 26, 2009 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
My grandfather escaped Poland during the Nazi occupation, so get off your high horse. Your rhetorical devices are transparent, and thus your blaring charges of 'racism' in this skewed context, while averring in turn that the Palestinians are merely 'discriminated against.' That's mighty white of you, as they used to say.
I think you're in denial about the situation in Gaza and the Occupied Territories, and ward off your cognitive dissonance by transference, substituting ginned-up outrage, and sliming those whom you can't argue with. Same thing with the Goldstone Report, the International Red Cross, and the UN, so I'd say i'm in good company.
Funny, though, how you're so proud to call me an asshole--that's just Little Man's Syndrome in action, tough guy.
October 26, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever Bowman. I hope, if your grandfather is no longer with us, that he rests in peace. I'm sure his story would humble me. Still, I've written what I meant to write, and it has had an effect. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is attacking Anna with references to his/her English-writing skills or national origin so far as I can tell, and if they are I submit they should be banned. And so I feel that I have accomplished something tangible. As for you, continue to challenge me as a racist son of a bitch and feel whatever it is you feel. I see no need to convince you, or anyone on here who takes you seriously, of anything. And you may have the last word.
October 26, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thank you for your consideration. I am actually in agreement with your point, however, it's wasted on defending 'Anna.' My intent was not to call you a racist. I believe that you live by these ideals, and you seem like an otherwise straight-up individual. You're a homer, and that's fine, except this isn't sports. It's just that I think you have been made oblivious to some ugly facets of what you think you are supporting. I've had enough first-hand experience to know better. That's all.
October 28, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
How funny is it that the guy who is trying to give out a 'know nothing' award doesn't know that Anna wasn't really a 'she', and that 'Anna's previous sock puppet was nymed 'Boris' and also 'davai' among other nyms over the years.
I'd say though, it's better for you to find that out here, than on the way home from the bar with your new friend 'Anna.' LOLZ Mr. self-righteous!
October 25, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had no idea until just now that "Anna" had been booted out. I merely noted how much easier it is for adults to have a serious conversation when disturbed children are not constantly interrupting and sabotaging practically every attempt at an exchange of intelligent ideas. Any insinuation that my sense of relief on this page, or sense of considerable frustration on prior pages, had anything to do with any poster's ability with English as a second language, or with Millard Fillmore, or with any of of the other items on this long laundry list of false attributions, is total nonsense.
October 25, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm the type that never challenges banning of anyone, since I like a moderated forum for grownups, and since I don't want to volunteer for moderation duties. There will always be disagreements about whether an individual banning is unfair or was the wrong choice as for maintaining a balanced forum, but unless one is volunteering to do the work, and one still wants a moderated forum, best not to defend the banned.
That has nothing to do with my disgust at Rosenberg using ethic slurs to deal with this person before they were banned. I hope he keeps his ethic prejudices to himself in the future, not to mention that it would be helpful to lead by example, that if he choses to respond to commenters he finds troublesome, he does it based on what they are saying, and not who he thinks they are.
October 25, 2009 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Typo correction: ethnic, not ethic. (I'm sure everyone knows what I meant, but I figure I need to correct it to prevent Rosenberg jumping in and claiming I'm stupid because I can't spell or something like that.)
October 25, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I suppose it could have been handled better by the chief blogger here, but most of the slurs and personal insults were in the other direction, and such name-calling is not within the bounds of the website's guidelines even though there is a defacto considerable zone of tolerance for harsh language. The key problem in my view was the dragging down of page after page as dozens of thoughtful comments were bombed with long semi-relevant cut-and-pastes or childish inversions or minor substitutions in other people's texts. This happens all too often here anyway, but that particular poster was drowning the page with massive numbers of posts, and there was no prospect for reform in sight despite numerous attempts.
October 25, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah...that is a slightly extreme position. I would formulate it, almost certainly paraphrasing some luminary: zionism is an existential threat to Israel.
October 25, 2009 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Israel is a belligerent rogue state, dominated by a fanatical sectarian ideology of religio-ethnic domination and exclusion, packing hundreds of nuclear weapons and lead by criminal leaders supported by a willing electorate of ethnocentric colonialists and land-grabbers. Maybe its time for American Jews to stop "loving" Israel, and start treating it like the dangerous outlaw and enemy of global peace that it is. The sane future of world Jewish community lies mainly in Europe and the US. Israel itself is an aberrant, gangster cult-state, and it is time for sane and responsible people to cut them loose'.
'By yoking this nation to the support for a warlike outlaw state, and for its undeterrable project for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, American Zionists - whether of the Jewish or Christian variety - have put our own country at risk, made it the target of attacks and prolonged a dangerous source of global instability and threat. The continuing support for this project by its organized backers and their tools in the US Congress is due to a combination of foolishness, cowardice and traitorous malevolence. I now regard Israel and Zionism as an "existential threat" to me and my family'.
The foregoing should be sent to every senator, congressman and voter, in every state of the Union. It should be posted on every board in every room in every university, college and school in America.
The criminal insanity of AIPAC style influence over the American government and three hundred million people by this powerful cabal, must end.
October 24, 2009 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rhetoric that you and DanK are employing on this page is overblown and counterproductive to the cause of a more sensible US policy on the Mideast. There is no benefit to aping paranoid Likudnik idiocies about "existential threats." The existence of no country is threatened here. J Street cannot possibly be a "fraud"; it has barely begun. It is a concept, an experiment. It will get nowhere unless it can get a huge swath of American Jews behind it, and needs to focus much more heavily on that imperative, and scale back the feel-good we-love-Israel-more public relationism, but your wholesale condemnation of everything and anything about Israel contribute little or nothing to the critical effort to put some iron in the common sense leg of American Judaism and therewith kick the US Congress's craven hindquarters hard and repeatedly.
Bear in mind also, that there is malevolence aplenty on the Arab side too. Compared to AIPAC it is practically without influence on Congress, and that is why it is a very low priority for Americans seeking to regain a foreign policy that is in their interests. But there is no reason to emulate Arab nonsense either. Israel per se is not the problem. Every major Arab entity has basically accepted it already within the pre-1967 internationally recognized border, many of them quite a while ago.
Israel in thrall to the settler-nuts, Israel refusing to get the hell out of the West Bank which is the land of the Palestinian state, Israel incessantly torpedoing attempts to negotiate the peaceful establishment of such a state, Israel cowardly slaughtering Palestinian children whenever it suits the political machinations of the ruling coalition, and the US Congress rubber-stamping this barbaric lunacy and acting as the settlers' water boy: THAT is the issue here, not "Zionism" or the state of Israel itself.
October 25, 2009 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although, PT, I invariably agree with your sentiments, and in this case you are probably correct that the post above is somewhat overblown - nevertheless there IS an existential threat to America, and to others.
That is the very real threat of Israel's incitement to try to escalate a conflict with Iran that will almost certainly escalate into a nuclear war.
The Israel lobby and the Israeli government, and Mr Bolton, are all desperate to persuade the US and Europe that Israel's war is their war! They are spending millions of dollars in propaganda to that aim - and their agenda is very dangerous. Make no mistake! Is it an existential danger? Absolutely! A nuclear conflict can never be self-contained. We will all be affected to a greater of lesser degree and for an indeterminate timescale.
And all this possible global upheaval and loss of life, is for what? So as Israel can carry on with an illegal expansionist policy that endangers us all - ably assisted by the AIPAC organization in every state. IT IS an existential threat to us all.
October 25, 2009 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Iran problem is a very serious one, but it has been ridiculously overhyped by the neo-cons and settlerniks AND also by the pacifistas. 2-3 years ago already the web was full dire warnings that Cheney&Co were on verge of bombing Iran. Complete horse manure, no matter how many times it is recycled.
I appreciate your concerns, but reality needs to kept firmly in mind. Let's thus try to get a few simple things straight here, for once:
1) Iran is years away from getting a bomb. Yes they are certainly taking steps in that direction, and lying and cheating about it, and no one in the "West" has managed to do much of anything about it, but they have quite a ways to go yet.
2. Even when they get a bomb, that brings them nowhere close to being able to wage a nuclear war against America, even if (a titanic IF) their leaders were maniac and suicidal enough to try to do so.
3. Credible military and geo-political analysts are in an unusual state of consensus here: that for Israel or the US to try to bomb Iran's nuclear sites would be seriously counterproductive. It would set Iran's technical capabilities back only temporarily but would destroy for a long time the kind of sensible combination of carrot and stick diplomacy that could get that country off the nuclear track or onto less dangerous version (ala India, Israel). Last I checked, the stupidities of the American and Israeli governments, manifest though they are is, were far from the level of madness that could cause them to disregard such overwhelming counsel.
4. Other than the fact that many of the same chickenhawk hypocrite neo-con egomaniacs are behind it, the push for attacking Iran has almost NOTHING in common with the drive to invade Iraq seven years ago. And all the lame conspiracy fantasizing about how Cheney planned 9-11 and the Abu Ghraib scandal and Sarah Palin being VP, and God only knows what else, from the start, can stay flushed down where they belong.
5. America faces a greater and more immediate "existential threat" from some new unknown super disease, or a breakdown of its social and physical infrastructure by about 2030, or catastrophic climate change by about 2090, than from an attack on or by Iran in our lifetimes.
The 9-11 attack (which only happened by a perfect storm of incredible US government incompetence, and very bad luck) killed 0.00001% of the US population. We could suffer one of those every year and not be existentially threatened. The chances of one happening even as often than once every ten years are small.
Another neo-con adventure, such as attacking Iran, is a much greater risk than America being attacked, and such a neo-con escapade would do tremendous damage to the country, but the damage would not existentially threaten the USA. Moreover, the historical track record indicates that such escapades happen only about once a generation. Israelis have been frenzying into one about every 2-3 years, but America is NOT Israel, not yet anyway and not by a long long shot.
October 25, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You very seriously underestimate Israel's intentions.
Its past agenda was for the US to attack Iraq and in this it succeeded with manipulated intelligence that was accepted around the world.
Its agenda now is to attack Iran. That there is a weight of opinion against such a strike, is of no consequence. Israel is determined that Iran should be attacked, regardless of the potential disastrous primary and secondary retaliation around the world - to the Gulf states, to Europe and to the US. Its secondary concern is to keep Israeli cities protected from the radioactive fallout, and its agenda makes due provision for that event.
But do not be fooled by propaganda. Israeli nuclear-armed, air and submarine crews are ready and waiting for the order to go. That could be at any time, but the informed consensus is before the end of December.
US warships are already in position, in the Gulf, for the expected blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and plans are ready for the battle to keep oil supplies open to the world.
Do not underestimate either the agenda, or the vast problems worldwide that will result from the anticipated military action that is expected to be of gain for only one country, and devastating to most others.
October 25, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless there is some incredible conspiracy to fake an attack on the US, or some unbelievable coup d'etat against the US government that has secretly taken place already, any major attack BY the US has to be aired in Congress, and thus in the press, and thus requires pre-propagandizing BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, not disgraced out-of-power neo-con liars. The former brand of agitation (governmental) is noticeable now by its practically complete absence, and any attempt along such lines would certainly be met with objections by politicians and pundits who remember the long list of deceptions and disinformation during the GOVERNMENT agitation of 2001-03. Round about 2019 I would start to worry about another Project for a New American Century, especially if the President, VP, Defense Secretary, and a good half of the Congress are all on board, or fellow-traveling. What I would like to know is where were all the wolf-criers warning now of a secret planned attack on Iran WHEN we needed them in October 2002, when the sleepwalking Congress gave George Wet-behind-the-ears Bush the most idiotic blank check since the Kaiser's go-ahead to Franz Josef in 1914? Marching with no-war-for-oil signs, waving Palestinian flags, distributing "free Mumia Abu-Jamal" flyers, failing to learn where Iraq is on the map?
October 25, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, PTroub, we're never going to get anywhere if we think the problem with Israel is just a few "settler nuts". The nuts are fully in charge. They are the elected leaders and representatives of Israel. They have the support of the Israeli public. That public loves Netanyahu's defiance of the US President, and is applauding every move.
If Avigdor Lieberman were just a right-wing shock jock spewing radio hate from a studio in the hinterlands, we might be able to agree that Israel was just like other western states, all of which have active nativist and xenophobic movements preaching hate, expulsion, persecution and aggression, and that was a state which could be dissuaded from the worst by ordinary diplomacy and politics. But he's not a mere radio personality or pundit: he's the Foreign Minister of Israel.
And the only chance of removing the far right Likud-Yisrael Beiteinu coalition is to replace it with Kadima, which is itself a center-right party founded by Israel Sharon, one of the most aggressive and nasty hawks in Israeli history. And the only chance of removing both of those parties is to somehow resuscitate the aged and dying Labor coalition, a coalition that also supported years of colonial expansion in the West Bank following the 1967 war. What does it take to convince people that the "expand or die" outlook is thoroughly and deeply embedded in Israeli political culture, and is excluded only within the narrow confines of the peace camp fringe?
Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons that our own government has stupidly concluded it is impermissible to talk about. The Israeli Foreign Minister, along with an an increasingly active political wing in Israel, are former Russians who don't seem to like the United States very much in the first place. But the country of Israel has also been engaged in a decades-long pattern of regional aggression and destabilization, putting its US sponsor on a permanent collision course with most of the people in the region. When international jurists concluded recently that Israel's latest military foray to defend itself against the resistors to its permanent campaign of expansion was spotted with a wide assortment of humanitarian crimes, the US helped Israel tell the rest of the world to shut the fuck up, and assisted the rogue Jewish state in another one of its ugly and routine smear campaigns.
Meanwhile, with all of this dangerous, defiant and threatening activity going on in rogue Israel, we are engaged in a high-intensity diplomatic front against Iran, dealing with the "urgent crisis" that consists in the fact that Iran is several years away from producing its very first nuclear weapon.
As an American I am constantly humiliated and embarrassed by our official national stance of double-think and double talk, and by the consequence that our leaders are compelled to affect a clueless, thumb-up-the-ass posture of feigned ignorance in public, and act like utter buffoons on the world stage.
And now the government attitude toward the Jewish-American community and Israel support troops seems to be, "Please choose a lobby so that you can go back to telling us clearly what to think and say. We're confused." Yet the J Street formula for Israel isn't much different from Aipac's in the end: they think that peace will come about from some magical arm-twisting and firm discussions between the US and Israeli government behind closed doors. That's like expecting the US government to end the American health consumer's enslavement to the Big Med complex by having a few private meetings with the top execs of the insurance, pharma and health industries. Such an expectation would be utterly stupid; and it would be equally stupid to expect a progressive health care agenda to be promoted by some alternative lobby made up of other major figures in the same industry.
I'm afraid that where Israel is concerned, most American Jews aren't intellectually or emotionally prepared to protect long-term US security interests, or other interests in the Middle East. They are too wrapped up in their internal wrangling, their guilt-tripping, their tribal loyalty tests and their cult-like love and devotion to Israel and the Zionist project to view the behavior of the rogue state that is the object of their devotion in a clear-eyed fashion, or to contemplate treating it with the firm threats of sanctions which are the only language it understands. I wouldn't have put so much emphasis on the importance these twisted cult-like games of psychological blackmail in the past. But I have now see them played out so vividly here at TPM Cafe to realize how real they are. And MJ can't make them go away by exiling another one of the Bad People out to the cornfield.
Perhaps the rest of us should form "G Street". You now, like K Street - but for the goyim. We could say that officially Jews can be members, but that ... well, just look at the name (wink, wink) ... unofficially, Jews aren't welcome. Of course it would be so mean, bad and illiberal to presume to influence US foreign policy via a special club from which Jews are, even informally, excluded.
October 25, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm afraid that where Israel is concerned, most American Jews aren't intellectually or emotionally prepared to protect long-term US security interests, or other interests in the Middle East. They are too wrapped up in their internal wrangling, their guilt-tripping, their tribal loyalty tests and their cult-like love and devotion to Israel and the Zionist project to view the behavior of the rogue state that is the object of their devotion in a clear-eyed fashion, or to contemplate treating it with the firm threats of sanctions which are the only language it understands."
I don't disagree with this to any significant extent, but would point out that similar shortcomings can be found amongst most other sub-groups of the US electorate (on some issue or other).
J Street is actually a non-existent street in Washington DC, as I understand it, the name being taken for the new organization to symbolize creating a a new avenue for a previously un-noticed viewpoint. A parallel organization, mainly for non-Jewish Americans, might adopt the name Z street or some other non-existent street, because the effort needed is one that supports efforts of Jews to clean their own stable.
Suppose, by analogous example, that an organization of gun-owners formed an "Anti-NRA" to provide a voice for hunters and others with an above 50 IQ. The appropriate assistance of non-gun owners would be to support the non-moron gun-owners, NOT to condemn all gun owners. The NRA IS the main inhibition against rational gun regulation, even if most Americans kowtow to it.
October 25, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Red Planet,
My apology for my non-timely response.
It's all in the Irony.
Take, for example, CNN is doing a 4-hour series on Latinos, and yet, CNN has given Lou Dobbs over 250 hours of airtime to trash Latinos. And this is the genius of CNN management. Spare me this generosity. Consequently, I equate the Fourth Estate in the USA as the criminally stupid, and network management is concerned with losing eyeballs while the Spanish-language network is growing by leaps and bounds.
So, when I see J-Street "defending" itself on Spanish-language television, J-Street will be defending itself with some of that famous Common Sense.
Jaango
October 25, 2009 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to PTroub,
Your follow-on posts defines your Argumentation. I don't necessarily agree but everyone is entitled to an opinion.
My view is a little less germane. To wit, "supporters" would open their eyes, study the facts, ignore the hype and compare the paltry results when measure against the amount of taxpayer money wasted, and thusly, change their minds.
But arrogance is hard to discard.
Therefore, I am of the Native American "view" and which in the form of a Question: "Do You Honor Yourself". Another surmise comes in the form of of the old adage of "Character is doing it correctly when no one is looking!"
Jaango
October 25, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I enjoy your intricate riddles, Jaango, but if I have properly deciphered this latest batch, I would respectively disagree. I have been waiting in utter vain for that kind of character to develop with respect to US policy on Israel and Palestine, which is a worldwide shame (even if most people outside America are too polite to say say so to someone's face). The way J Street is going about it is certainly not ideal, but in politics one has to engage in unpretty sausage-making from time to time. There is certainly something to be said for going down to a noble defeat, as Native Americans often did two centuries and more ago. But would Sitting Bull or Chief Joseph have surrendered just because his tribal council was under the questionable impression that 5% of the tribe wanted to trade prime hunting grounds for a load of poisoned booze? It is hard to see the "character" in effectively doing nothing while trickery and hypocrisy run the show, as has been the case with US policy on Mideast for most of the past 15 years (Obama's new approach being different, of course, but thus far largely theoretical, and Clinton's go-for-broke attempt in 2000 being a pretend-the-problem-doesn't-exist attempt at an run, that failed).
October 25, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
PTroub,
Permit me to dispense with any riddle?
In Southern California, a case is being assembled and soon to be deployed before our Courts. To wit, military recruiters went into the Republic of Mexico in search of cannon fodder, with the promise of citizenship. This was the trade-off for Mexico nationals enlisting in the Army.
And if the jury decides in favor of the plaintiffs, or for my Brethern of Shared Experiences--America's Mexican Nationals' Component-- and done on the basis of a "promise made is a promise kept", the decison will become a game=changer, especially among my fellow Spanish-speaking citizens. Consequently, our All Volunteer Army will be amply recognized as a righteous mercenary army that many will continue to deny. And there will be political hell to be paid for Bush's War of Choice.
As such, "being on the wall" 24/7 for less than minimum wage, will create a morass for Democrats and where the political testostorone cannot be located. Moreover, the Admirals and Generals turned their back on their responsiblity and duty to the Privates, Corporals, and the Sergeants in favor of their respective careers.
And how does this relate to Israel?
Certitude and "street cred" is only component that will impact the Spanish-speaking community, and it will take J-Street a couple of years of experience in order to measure this component against the successes or failures. In the meantime, should success occur with this legal case, even a lessening of support for Israel, will visible for all to see in our community.
Jaango
October 25, 2009 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen, to Dan K! As a non-Jewish occasional lurker at MJ’s discussion site here I have been deeply distressed at the apparent inability of many Jewish members here to see the gathering storm ahead, not just for Israel but for the USA. Dan, you and several others here give me some hope that maybe it is not too late to change some minds.
When the Islamic world sees no hope of reconciliation with Israel and watches the final total enslavement of the Palestinian people I fear exactly what Dan K has predicted, the existential threat to all of us! When a people has been so plundered and degraded into total servitude and occupation what alternative do they see to suicidal violence? And don’t believe all this stuff about how the Arab states would welcome an Israeli attack on Iran. When it comes to external threats all internal divisions are forgotten and the Islamic world, whether Sunni or Shiite, will rise up in unison, and their puppet dictators won’t be able to prevent it.
Of course this all goes waaaaay back. I am not a scholar of history and cannot answer the question of why ghettoes and deep seated Jewish hatred thrived, particularly in the eastern Europe of earlier centuries, and how it all could culminate in the Holocaust. But it happened. And the British, partly out of (poorly conceived) humanitarian impulses, but also for more selfish motives that Britain would gain an important ally against the Central Powers in WWI, came up with the hair-brained idea to give the Jewish victims somebody else’s land. And the rest is history.
What is the end game here? I don’t foresee Israel and their American backers changing course. At some point a critical mass of Islamic anger combined with military know how will conceive a way of wreaking terror that could consume us all. It will happen when they reach the point they have nothing else to lose.
All this “inside baseball” discussion among you many highly intelligent Jewish (and non-Jewish) posters here about trying to moderate and endlessly dissect non-central political issues totally miss the big picture. Israel must change, and we Americans must make it happen. And hooray! to J street for making the first (ever) reasonable yet halting attempt to turn this convoy around. I hope no one here feels compelled to stoop to the non-sensical and irrelevant charge that I am being anti-Semitic with these comments.
October 25, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What is the end game here? I don’t foresee Israel and their American backers changing course. At some point a critical mass of Islamic anger combined with military know how will conceive a way of wreaking terror that could consume us all. It will happen when they reach the point they have nothing else to lose."
Absolutely. And that point is imminent!
"All this “inside baseball” discussion among you many highly intelligent Jewish (and non-Jewish) posters here about trying to moderate and endlessly dissect non-central political issues totally miss the big picture. Israel must change, and we Americans must make it happen"
How do we do that, RWH, when the majority of the legislature, not to mention students on campus, are bought by, and paid by, a lobby group that openly operates in every state?
October 25, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do we do that? I wish I had a good answer. I don't think the average American has a clue about what is going on. There are many enlightened and open minded Jews but they have been pretty silent, and it is only they that can make things change IMO. We need J Street, but we need much more. Some really courageous and powerful Jews in our government have to step forward, and the rest of us have to enable them in any way we can.
I recently heard a presentation by Phyllis Bennis, a gutsy and sharp minded Jewish author who isn't afraid to speak out about all this. I think we have been conditioned to fear the "lobby" but I suspect their power has eroded in recent years and our lawmakers should get some balls and not be afraid to challenge them.
October 25, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't think the average American has a clue about what is going on"
That maybe true, but I fail to comprehend, on any level, why three hundred and five million voters do not elect congressmen/women who are not 'bought' by lobby money and free trips to Israel.
Is it because the majority, being church-goers, have been suckered (can't think of a more appropriate word) by the Zionist Movement to believe that it is their God given duty to subvert American democracy in order to facilitate the expansion of Israel into Palestinian land?
I find that really difficult to accept - but there seems to be no other explanation. And if that is true, then it seems like a death-wish for the democracy, the Bill of Rights and the system of government of which we were so proud and for which so many thousands died in the world wars of the 20th century.
October 25, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most often they aren't bought by money. They are blackmailed by threats to their reputation. Look what has happened to decent men like Jimmy Carter and Richard Goldstone. If prominent and distinguished public servants like these can be successfully targeted by smear campaigns and have their reputations publicly raped, what chance does some schmuck member of Congress from the 17th District of Nowhere have?
October 25, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reputation and careers destroyed by a system so subversive that to call it 'democratic' is to be deaf, blind and intelligently incontinent.
So, why does the electorate accept the status quo?
October 25, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't all "accept" it. They just can't do anything about it.
October 25, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is simpler and much more plausible explanation, BlueC. This issue, like gun control, like tobacco farm subsidies, like quite a few matters actually, is highly asymmetric. The overwhelming majority of Congress takes the cynical but pragmatic approach of soliciting the fierce loyalty of a very interested minority because the apathetic majority doesn't care much about being screwed re a far away place. The rare politician exception-to-the-rule who cares more about working for the general public than furthering his own career is punished by the minority for doing what is best for the whole, and gets very little benefit from the complacent majority he serves.
The Christin Zionist business is mostly a croc. Not that idiot Jesus freaks don't exist in abundance (and are as least as much of a disgrace to Christianity as AIPAC is to Judaism), but most of them are not single-issue voters on the Mideast. If a politician pushes the right buttons for them (school prayer, "intelligent (sic) design", gay-bashing, abortion bans, whatever) they are not going dump him just because he has the basic decency to say, for instance, that slaughtering 300 children in Gaza is unacceptable behavior for a country that wants full relations with the US.
Though J Street should have started 12-13 years ago when the moral collapse in Israel's politics became apparent (with Netanyahu Round 1) and I have doubts about its ability to withstand the next big Arab terrorist attack (which the settlers are getting desperate hoping for), there is no doubt whatever in my mind that J Street is exactly kind of remedy needed: a counter-minority forming a counter-lobby.
I don't think there is much hope of getting the majority focused on this issue for the long haul. A minority within the majority might be recruited, but the key is to turn around the minority. MJ sometimes takes that view that they don't need turning as much as energizing. That is probably true for some American Jews, and if J Street can get them on-board with it, much momentum will go its way. Jews are not known for being stupid, and the policy of settlement expansion über alles has to be one of the dumbest ever, FOR ISRAEL ITSELF. Fearmongering and trickery from hardcore AIPACers ably assisted by Palestinian hardliners and terrorists, are the obstacles. Common sense and basic morality are on the side of J Street, however. We can only hope that it pushes hard and stays focused and determined to liberate the US Congress from AIPAC.
October 25, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
.
.
.
the match is about to be lit:
1. Rabbis Convene, Call for Ascent to Temple Mount
2. Israel Police battle Arab rioters on Temple Mount
3. Jordan rebukes Israel over Temple Mount strife
October 25, 2009 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What-A-Yahoo is not known for his originality. This smells of the old Temple Mount trick of Sharon, and the Palestinians look as eager as ever to shoot themselves in foot again while diving head first into this trap. The timing matching J Street's first big conference may be a coincidence, but if it's not then The Yahoo, who never had Sharon's cunning, may have stumbled. Whether or not J Street's young turks were prepared for this, they will be meeting together and wanting to do something together, and the message they need to make their core mission-statement, that sanity (settlement freeze, negotiations for two state solution) does not cease being sane just because someone else (e.g. Intifadistas) is insane, will be reinforced.
October 25, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then the American democratic process has been hijacked by a political and/or religious minority that has imposed its will upon more than three million people!
It is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Instead we appear to have been conned into successive governments who work not for the security, interest and welfare of the people but for a foreign state.
Although that is the tragic reality, I find it virtually impossible to believe and incomprehensible that this is accepted across the entire United States of America.
Doctors, steelworkers, lawyers, auto workers, dentists, retailers, stockbrokers, hospital workers, state officials, fishermen, nurses, longshoremen, aviation workers, midwives, airline pilots, rail workers and ordinary housewives - all ignorant of who really runs America?
It's impossible to comprehend.
October 25, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read my comment at 6:31 above. 300 million, not 3 million, are being misrepresented by a government that works PART TIME for an extreme element within a foreign state, not full time for a foreign state as a whole. AIPAC rules Congress on this one issue, just as the NRA does on gun control, but most of the government's attention is on a myriad of entirely different other issues. Moreover, AIPAC hardly represents the people of Israel. If it did it would help them fight off the lunatic settler fringe, instead of helping that tail wag the Israeli dog by intimidating the not very brave but much bigger Lap Dog on the Potomac back it up.
October 26, 2009 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Most people like their government to be arrogant, you can call it assertive if you want to be nice, unless it also happens to be stupid, i.e. the country cannot get away with it.
Israel does not have short-term downside with expanding settlements. In the long term it is not sustainable, but for that there is a plethora of rationalizations.
I think that J-Street strategy is both simple and subtle. To a degree the policy of American government is against settlements. However, it is also a policy of doing absolutely nothing about it, apart from periodic statements. Why? Because doing something incurs short term political problems and no short term gains. What J-Street is doing is to eliminate the "political problem".
If the problem is character assasination, like with Carter and Goldstone, J-Street makes appropriate noise to counter that. Perhaps it will be increasingly more effective. The problem of political donations (giving and withholding, or donating to opponents) can be neutralized with grass root fund raising.
In the same time, J-Street is damn cautious, e.g. it praises Obama for words, without complaining about the lack of action. Instead, they basically imply that they would provide political cover would such actions come to pass.
Actually, if we agree that Israeli government arrogantly ignores legitimate requests of US president that are GOOD for Israel, then US president looks weak without doing something about that. Stating the premise is a somewhat subtle way to lobby for the conclusion.
So why is J-Street not advocating sanctions on Israel explicitly? Politically, it is much better.
October 26, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barry to Bibi: Get a new sugar Daddy!!
October 27, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink