No more. The Gaza war did it. This is what he writes today, "I suspect in due course that Gaza will be understood as immoral, and counter-productive. It repelled me in a way that nothing Israel has done repelled me. It was an act of anger and vengeance and cruelty. And it will come back to haunt the Jewish state," he writes.
Andrew Sullivan is no enemy of Israel. In the words of his colleague, Jeff Goldberg of the Atlantic, an ardent Israel firster, "I know Andrew loves Israel, and he's a Zionist."
That makes Sullivan's criticism all the more significant. Times are changing. As for that appalling vote on Goldstone, it's a blip. History only moves forward, sometimes in starts and lurches, but ultimately forward. The occupation of the '67 territories has become a stench in the nostril of mankind.
]]>Even Nixon and Goldwater would not recognize these whack jobs.
And here is a Media Matters video on the racism of Fox news.
]]>He was in the streets in Iran during the post-election uprising whose cause it was clear he supported.
His contempt, however, for the Iranian ruling class has not led him to contempt for the Iranian people. On the contrary, he has faith that they will, on their own, change or dismantle this regime.
He also understands that the one thing that would solidify support for the regime on the part of all Iranians would be an Israeli or an American attack on Iran's nuclear sites.
Even the strongest opponents of the regime believe Iran has the same right to nuclear development as any other country in the world. As for nuclear weapons, there is little evidence that Iran is pursuing them but, even if there was, the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to which Iran is a signatory spells out its rights and obligations. It is no big surprise that the Iranians believe it hypocritical that Israel, which has refused to sign the NPT, is cheerfully allowed to possess 200 nuclear bombs while any evidence that Iran is enriching uranium even at levels well under what is needed to create a weapon is treated like the end of the world.
]]> But Iranians need to understand the neocon mentality. They believe that Israelis love their children and would never use a bomb that would produce a counter strike that would destroy its cities. Iranians, on the other hand, like most Muslims and especially Shiites, hate their children and would happily sacrifice them to eliminate Tel Aviv. Yes, that is how the neocons think.Anyway, today in this column, Roger Cohen interviews Mohammed ElBaradei, in his last month as chief of the International Atomic Energy Commission. ElBaradei believes that the United States and Iran are close to an agreement on the whole nuclear issue and that both sides should move quickly to wrap it up (especially with the Israelis threatening an attack by Christmas that would both fail and embroil the world in war).
The neocons want an Israeli strike rather than the prospect of any deal with Iran that would both prevent war and provide for US recognition of the Islamic Republic. They prefer a war that would solidify support in Iran for the regime to a nuclear deal that could well cause it to unravel. But remember: the Feiths, Perles, Cheneys, Kristols, Boltons, Bennets, Pletkas, Krauthammers, Podhoretzes, Libbys and aptly named Wurmsers have a 100% record of being wrong at the cost of many American (and other) dead. That is who they are. That won't change. Their slogan: "Wars Are Us." But fought by other peoples' kids.
But they won't get this war or even the sanctions they are dying to impose on the Iranian people.
Nonetheless, vigilance is the price we must pay to prevent another neocon engineered catastrophe. These guys still have one war left in them (well, not in them exactly, in the people they dispatch to fight). When will this cursed philosophy disappear back into the pages of Commentary magazine, from which it first reared its simultaneously bloodthirsty and cowardly head?
NOTE: Commentary used to be the monthly of the American Jewish Committee. Nonetheless, the AJC recently produced this insipid (and pure neocon) video about Iran that needs to be seen.
]]>I think Obama will be able to get the key elements of his program enacted, not all of it, but enough of it to make him a successful President. Of course, nobody knows.
In any case, either in 2010 (God forbid) or 2012 (more likely), the Republicans will be back. And, when they return, they will be worse than ever -- especially now with the Christianist bigots running the party.
]]> That means that Obama should use the rest of this one term to which he is guaranteed to put in place programs that cannot be undone. That means using Executive Orders to do whatever is doable unilaterally. It means normalizing relations with Iran, addressing climate issues, labor rights, gays in the military, choice, raising taxes-- whatever issue that can be addressed either by executive order or a simple majority of Congress.The politics of consensus is garbage and we cannot afford it, not with an opposition that rejects most American values and traditions waiting in the wings. The alternative to the Democrats is the party of Neocons, Bachmann, Palin and Glenn Beck. That means that Democrats need to lock in policies that cannot be reversed.
You know the saying: life is uncertain, eat dessert first.
Remember LBJ. He got it all done in the first two years because he feared that was all he had. He was right. He lost 47 House seats in 1966 and the Great Society was done.
But the amazing domestic legacy of those two years -- Medicare, Medicaid, Voting Rights, Clean Air, Clean Water, college loans -- is locked in forever, untouchable. That should be the model even though LBJ governed before the Party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Nelson Rockefeller became the Party of Limbaugh, Kristol and Beck. That makes Obama's mission different -- a difference LBJ's would characterize as the difference between "chicken salad and chicken sh*t."
]]>I'm rushed because I am in Juneau, fishing and hunting with Levi Johnston and he is running me ragged what with the moose chasing and all.
Actually, I'm not with Levi. But I am in Juneau which is one of the coolest cities I have ever been in. Its dazzlingly beautiful, it is loaded with 60's types, and the people are cool and smart. (Sarah Palin hated Juneau). I came to Alaska to speak to the Juneau World Affairs Council on behalf of Media Matters.
Two hundred people showed up to the events, and there wasn't a Likudnik or neocon among them. It was a sophisticated crowd at the lovely University of Alaska (Southeast), They sat through two five hour sessions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict! Levi left early with Trig, Track, Trace, and Tater.
Anyway, here is my reaction to the sickening House vote condemning the Goldstone report. It includes links to the roll call so you can see how your favorite liberal voted. And a great piece by Keith Ellison, who is, what we call in Yiddish, a shtarker (a tough guy).
If it's any comfort as you read that your favorite heroic lib voted with AIPAC, you can console yourself with this. He or she didn't almost surely was holding his nose while voting for it. These guys aren't dumb; they are just looking over their shoulders at an 800 pound gorilla. Hopefully, J Street will help stiffen their spines. That's a prayer, not a prediction.
PS I stopped in charming Sitka. It turns out that the Michael Chabon book must be fiction. I didn't see any Yiddish speaking cops or Jewish eskimos. Well, maybe one.
And here's McCollum story.
]]>The only reason I ask the question is because Goldberg, the Atlantic blogger, has joined with the usual neocons suspects to assert with ugly vehemence that the Iranian-American scholar, Trita Parsi, is not a loyal American but an operative of the loathsome Iranian regime.
Read this by Daniel Luban. And this by Spencer Ackerman (there are now a dozen similar pieces on the web) describing precisely who Trita is, what he stands for and what the neocons (now hell bent on an attack on Iran by the end of the year) are saying about him. Why Trita? Because he is the most effective advocate for diplomacy with Iran rather than listening to the Israeli hawks and their boys here.
]]> Using Goldberg's standard, I could ask about his loyalties. How can an American who served in the Israeli army be a legitimate commentator on Arab-Israeli affairs? You know how many Americans join the Israeli army. Pretty much none. Even the most rightwing AIPAC kid in your high school or college never dreamed of fighting in the IDF because he or she is an American and we have our own army, navy and air force. A pretty good one too. (I never served in any army. Members of my immediately family served in various American war beginning with WW1 and ending with service in Vietnam. I would not serve in Vietnam because I opposed the war and because I did not want to be killed. One thing that never crossed my mind was choosing some other army to serve in.)I think it is appropriate to ask any American who chooses to enlist in the Israeli, Brazilian, French, or Indonesian military: why, if you felt the call to national service in the military, did you not choose our military? Yes, some Americans, impatient, and rightly so, to fight the Nazis joined the Canadian army to get into the war faster. But that was because they knew that FDR was hamstrung by Congress in his effort to help the allies. The fought alongside the Canadians and Brits as Americans, in a war they knew American would soon join.
That is not the case with an American joining the IDF. Those few Americans who join the Israeli army are utterly devoted to Israel and its interests. That is fine. But one has to question if they should recuse themselves (1) from questioning the loyalty of Americans of immigrant background who are "guilty" only of their foreignness by birth and (2) from reporting on Middle East affairs period. If Israel is the passion of your life, write about Japan or Africa. Don't even pretend (and Goldberg barely pretends) that you come to Middle East issues with any sort of obectivity whatsoever.
Note: Trita Parsi was in exile in Sweden. He did not join the Iranian Army.
]]>Meanwhile, the House is planning to vote Tuesday to support the Israeli position that the Gaza war was a praiseworthy exercise in Israeli restraint and sensitivity to civilians.
The good news is that J Street is opposed to it.
The bad news is that the 800 pound gorilla, AIPAC, and its satellite organizations are pushing it hard.
The House resolution which will pass on Tuesday basically endorses everything Israel did in the horrific Gaza war while bashing Judge Richard Goldstone for documenting war crimes committed in that war (320 dead Palestinian kids!).
After the vote I'll post the roll call and you will see that some of your favorite "courageous" liberals are none too courageous when it comes to this issue. Some of the very House members who denounce the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war and God knows how many other US military actions (often rightly) go mute when it comes to Israel. In fact, most of them do. In other words, they are courageous when there is no cost for it. (I'm curious about my current hero, Alan Grayson. Does he buckle on this issue?)
Passing this resolution will damage US security by stating to the world that when Bibi asks us to jump, we jump even higher. (Note to Congress: Did you ever consider just saying you don't agree with Goldstone's findings or did AIPAC reject that approach?)
Here is the Post story. Here is the resolution. Here is a Jewish Telegraphic Agency report by its fine reporter, Ron Kampeas, showing just how bad this resolution is.
Next week: the names of the Democrats who vote for it, just so you know why John F. Kennedy would not be writing "Profiles in Courage" about Congress in the 21st century.
I douby they will pass it by voice vote because then they can't get "credit" from AIPAC.
Next week the Democratic House is slated to vote on a resolution - introduced by Howard Berman (chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee), Gary Ackerman (chairman of the Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East) and two Republicans, Ranking Members Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Dan Burton.
The legislators pushing the resolution say the Goldstone report is unfair and biased against Israel. Although the report condemns both Israel and Hamas for "war crimes," the representatives take strong issue with Goldstone's finding that Israel took little care to protect civilians during its massive onslaught.
Of course, the numbers themselves support Goldstone. According to B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, "Israeli security forces killed 1,382 Palestinians during the 22-day military operation. Of those, 774 did not take part in the hostilities, including 320 minors and 109 women over the age of 18."
Number of Israelis killed: 9 (3 by friendly fire).
The resolution ignores those numbers, offering not even a word of sympathy to those who were killed. 320 kids!
]]> It is hard to imagine that Speaker Nancy Pelosi or George Miller, chair of the House Democratic Policy Committee, will permit this resolution to come to floor. Both have worked for decades to promote America's role as honest broker between Israelis and Palestinians and a more balanced policy toward the Muslim world.But passing this resolution will remove any illusion that the United States can serve as mediator. It also will send a message to Arabs and Muslims worldwide that our much proclaimed human rights ideals do not apply to them. That will hardly help us in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Muslim world. This resolution can be opposed on national security grounds alone.
Does any of this matter to the House members who are pushing this resolution or the majority likely to vote for it? It should. Many of them are liberals who have rightly criticized actions by our own country in Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever, some going all the way back to Vietnam. Why this exception? Is AIPAC really that intimidating?
On the same day that news came of the Congressional resolution, Ken Silverstein of Harper's interviewed Desmond Travers, one of the four members of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, which produced the Goldstone Report. Travers is a retired colonel in the Irish army who commanded troops with in various UN and EU peace support missions. Excerpts follow.
Silverstein to Travers: "Were you surprised by the criticism of the report?
Travers: "There was a lot of criticism even before the report came out, primarily against individuals, especially Justice Richard Goldstone. So we were not unduly surprised by the whinging when the report was released, except for the intensity and viciousness of the personal attacks. Justice Goldstone has publicly invited the critics, especially within the U.S. government, to come forward with substantive evidence of incorrect or inaccurate statements. But there has been no credible criticism of the report itself or of the information elucidated in it....
Silverstein: Critics have also said that Hamas deliberately inserted its fighters among civilians and that doing so increased the civilian toll. Did you find that to be the case?
Travers: We found no evidence that Hamas used civilians as hostages. I had expected to find such evidence but did not. We also found no evidence that mosques were used to store munitions. Those charges reflect Western perceptions in some quarters that Islam is a violent religion. Gaza is densely populated and has a labyrinth of makeshift shanties and a system of tunnels and bunkers. If I were a Hamas operative the last place I'd store munitions would be in a mosque. It's not secure, is very visible, and would probably be pre-targeted by Israeli surveillance. There are a many better places to store munitions. We investigated two destroyed mosques-one where worshippers were killed-and we found no evidence that either was used as anything but a place of worship.
There is a sinister and foolish notion among certain proponents of insurgency warfare that to fight an insurgency means that civilians will inevitably be killed. But if you give the state authority to be indiscriminate with the lives of civilians in pursuing insurgents, it plays into the hands of the insurgents. Dead bodies are grist to the insurgents' mill: if the dead are on your side they represent insurgent victories and if the dead are on their side then they have martyrs.
Silverstein: What other issues do you think need to be addressed
We were disturbed by the lethality and toxicity of weapons used in Gaza, some of which have been in Western arsenals since the Cold War, such as white phosphorous, which incinerated 14 people, including several children in one attack; flechettes, small darts that are designed to tumble upon entering human flesh in order to cause maximum damage, strictly in breach of the Geneva Convention; and highly carcinogenic tungsten shrapnel and dime munitions, which contain tungsten in powder form. There is also a whole cocktail of other problematic munitions suspected to have been used.
There are a number of other post-conflict issues in Gaza that need to be addressed. The land is dying. There are toxic deposits from all the munitions that have been dropped. There are serious issues with water-its depletion and its contamination. There is a high instance of nitrates in the soil that is especially dangerous to children. If these issues are not addressed, Gaza may not even be habitable by World Health Organization norms."
It is not a surprise that the Israeli government does not want its tactics criticized. But it is a travesty when Israel's friends in Congress join Israel in that resistance to criticism. 320 children were killed and the House will go on record criticizing not those deaths but those who say they should never have happened.
The House resolution needs to be stopped or re-written so that its purpose is not to shoot the messenger but to condemn violence directed at civilians by both sides.
Cross Posted at Media Matters Action Network where MJ Rosenberg is a Senior Fellow on foreign policy
Being thought of as not 100% down with the government of Israel was a career killer. And, if it wasn't, media and show business figures believed it was and that was the same thing.
That era ended with the rise of Jon Stewart, the most trusted television personality in America (and the only one the kids pay attention to). Unlike the Jewish organizational figures who are always screaming that the sky is falling on our Jewish heads, Stewart is anything but scared of his own, or anyone else's, shadow.
Because Jon Stewart is so utterly at home as an American and as a Jew, he can say what he thinks about the Middle East. And that seems to be be that diplomacy is better than killing people and that no lobby should inhibit debate on an issue that affects all Americans.
Jon Stewart, all by himself, has created a sea change in the mass media's approach to the Middle East. Once others in the business see that Stewart says what he thinks -- and not only survives but thrives -- others will do it too.
And who will be the beneficiaries: Americans, Palestinians and, most of all, Israelis. Israel will not survive if it stays on its current course. Stewart understands that and feels compelled to help save Israel from its suicidal policies. And Stewart matters.
My friends and I have been involved in the struggle to help secure Israel for decades. Jon Stewart is the most effective ally we've ever had. In the names of the American people, the Jewish people and the State of Israel, I thank you!!!
Check out yesterday's Daily Show interview. Stewart received a slew of threats when the word went out that he was going to air this segment. He went ahead anyway. J Street and J Stewart all in one week. Bad times for the lobby!
MJ Rosenberg is Senior Fellow on foreign policy at Media Matters Action Network
Max Blumenthal takes on the Israeli ambassador, Elie Wiesel, John Hagee, Jeff Goldberg and Michael Goldfarb in one beautiful piece of truth-telling.
]]>But it became ever more clear yesterday hat his "forgive and forget" policy toward Joe Lieberman was a big mistake. (See Reober Scheer here).
I understand why Obama did what he did. It is summed up in two adages. The first states that the difference between a caucus and a cactus is that, on a cactus, the pricks are on the outside. The other states that it is better to have the bad guy pissing out from inside the tent, than outside pissing in.
These are wise adages. But they don't apply to Lieberman. He has been pissing inside the tent for a decade, at least. His treachery was capped off by his opposition to Barack Obama in the 2008 general election. His whole raison d'etre is to harm the Democratic party (and push an aggressive policy toward Iran, much like his Iraq policy, only worse).
He is not a Democrat. He is a neocon. No, he's not a Republican because he does not believe in any kind of party loyalty. By stating that he won't even stand with the Democrats on a filibuster vote, he has demonstrated that our 60 vote majority is a chimera anyway. It's time for him to go, if for no other reason than to send a message to right-wing Democrats. And also retribution.
A comparable Republican would have been sent packing years ago. I don't like to emulate them but, sometimes, I do admire that they at least stand up for their odious principles. Why don't we stand up for our good ones?
]]>I was lucky enough to find myself talking to a young man from Gaza, in Washington for the conference. He is not on the program. He is here to learn. And he is a remarkable person in every way.
Yusuf Bashir is 20. He's tall and handsome and, if I had to guess based on his looks, I would have taken him for a well-off American Jewish college kid.
He most certainly is not.
Yusuf is from Gaza, specifically from Deir el-Balah. Until Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ended the military (and settler) occupation of Gaza in 2005, Yusuf, his parents, and four siblings, lived in a house next to the Israeli settlement of Kfar Darom, right next to a military base.
In 2000, the Israeli army decided to seize the house and use it as a sentry post. The army had already destroyed or taken other houses in the neighborhood.
But Yusuf's father refused to move his family.
]]> The Israeli army let them stay -- but moved in with the family. They installed a lookout and a machine gun nest on the roof. And soldiers took over the top floors of the house.Here is Yusuf's description of life over the next five years (this section is from an article he wrote for the Seeds of Peace newsletter.
"We were not allowed on the second and the third floors of our house because the army told us that they were Area C where the Israeli military government runs everything and the Palestinians have no authority. The living room, where all seven of us had to stay at night, was Area B. We called it the jail. The bathroom, kitchen and bedrooms were Area B --where Palestinians administer themselves but Israel has security control. (Luckily they were not Area C ) My sister labelled the doors of the house. We had to get permission to go into the kitchen and a soldier would come with us if we had to go to the bathroom."
This situation lasted for five years.
But for Yusuf, just four.
On February 18, 2004, a United Nations team received permission to visit the family. They spent a few hours at the house and then left. Yusuf, a teenager, was excited to see them and sad to see them leave. He followed them out of the house and, while saying goodbye, he was shot by an Israeli soldier who was patrolling across the street (the shooter was not one of the soldiers who lived with the family).
"The bullet stopped near my spine," he recalls. .
"I crumpled to the ground. I was very sure it was my end and that I was dying. I even said the Shahadat, the words a Muslim says when he dies. But I did not die. In the hospital, I hoped that I would die because I was not able to move my legs."
Yusuf was taken to Tel Hashomer hospital in Tel Aviv. The doctors and nurses saved his life but told him he would never walk again because of the bullet's location.
The army apologized to Yusuf for crippling him. But the Tel Hashomer personnel, in Yusuf's words, "cared for me with such love. They were so ashamed of what the army did. And after seven months, I could walk although I can't play sports or do anything that could cause the bullet to move and cripple me forever. I'm in pain, but I walk. I'm better off than lots of Palestinian kids my age."
So what was Yusuf doing at J Street. "After I recovered and went back to Gaza, my friends said, 'now you must fight the Israelis.' But my father told me that God didn't save me so I can fight. He said that Israelis shot me but other Israelis saved me."
Yusuf is now in Boston, in college. He intends to return to Gaza after he graduates to work to improve "my country." Tragically, his father died a month ago and, due to Israeli restrictions on travel to and from Gaza, he could not return home for the funeral. He speaks of his father with tears in his eyes.
I asked him: how do you not hate?. He said, "Hate accomplishes nothing. My father taught me that to hate is the worst sin. Then Seeds of Peace found me and I went to their camp in Maine and met other kids from conflict areas being taught not to hate. Now I'm here at J Street."
Yusuf's story blew me away. I cannot imagine reacting like this. He was shot for no reason by Jews and yet he is here in Washington to work with Jews. I told him that his story gave me hope.
But an Israeli woman standing nearby, who listened to his story, said. "Hope? Yusuf is a lucky one. Yes, he was shot but he got out too. Most Palestinian children like him never get out. Israel has locked them into Gaza and thrown away the key. There are young men and women just like him, just as good, who will never have a moment of possibility. They are in a zoo. And they do not love us. They hate us, as I would hate them if the Palestinians did to us what we do to them."
So, I asked, what's the answer?
"The answer is right here. End the occupation. Free these Palestinian kids, and free my sons, one is already in the IDF, too. Otherwise, there will be so many more Yusufs and Yosefs and they aren't going to be as lucky as this boy."
Lucky? All things considered, I guess he is.
READ ABOUT SEEDS OF PEACE HERE. Without Seeds, and J Street, I never would have met Yusuf. And here is the original news story about Yusuf's shooting.
Sure Jeremy Ben Ami worked for two years to get to this moment, and then assembled a terrific team. Obama helped. So did the disastrous Gaza war and its ugly aftermath. And then the haters piled on, only causing hundreds of people to sign up for the conference at the last minute. (I stood on line to get my credentials behind a mob that didn't sign up in advance at all).
One woman said, "We're from New York and don't do 'conferences.' But then we saw that e-mail from that settler who condemned J Street for accepting a contribution from an Arab-American girl and had to come."
There are many more people in attendance than J Street expected. All the last-minute folks have made it impossible to get into the sessions unless you push your way in early. I heard that Ben Ami expected a thousand but it's looking more like 1700-2000.
I gave my seat in one session to one very old man. He grabbed my hand. "These are the Jews I've been waiting for since 1967. Actually, I feel like I've been waiting for them since the Balfour Declaration. I feel like saying a sheheceyanu." That is the prayer thanking God for letting us live to see the day.
And, although I am not a praying man, I said, "let's say it." And we did Quietly.
"Baruch ata adonai elohenu melech ha olam, shehecheyanu, v'kiyimanu, v'higiyanu laz'man hazeh.
Blessed are You Adonai our God, Ruler of the Universe who has given us life, sustained us, and allowed us to live to see this day."
Amen.
]]>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: 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
]]>She compares Obama's situation to that of his predecessor. "At a certain point, a president must own a presidency. For George W. Bush that point came eight months in, when 9/11 happened. From that point on, the presidency--all his decisions, all the credit and blame for them--was his. The American people didn't hold him responsible for what led up to 9/11, but they held him responsible for everything after it," she writes.
What balderdash. First, the American people should have held him responsible (at least partly) for 9/11 because he and his team ignored repeated warnings that Al Qaeda was planning precisely the kind of attack it, in fact, launched.
Second, it is hardly to anyone's credit that no one was held responsible for the fact that both Manhattan and the Pentagon (the Pentagon!) were naked and open to attack by our enemies. (Imagine if Al Gore had been President!)
]]> But the 9/11 issue is speculative. We can't know who, or if, anyone in the Bush administration dropped the ball that produced 3,000 American dead.But there is no such doubt about the biggest problems Obama faces. His predecessor came into office after Bill Clinton produced the biggest surplus in our history and then chose to convert it into the biggest deficit in history by handing the Clinton surplus over to the wealthiest Americans in the form of tax cuts. Nor is there any question that Bush-Cheney chose to go to war in Iraq only because Bush and his team felt like it and planned on it from the earliest days of the Bush presidency. That decision not only produced the Iraq horrors which Obama has to fix but also allowed the war in Afghanistan to become the debacle it is today.
In the cases of the wars and the massive debt, Obama's plight is the result of choices Bush and the Republicans made. Choices.
Time, whether nine months or nine years, will not change the fact that the Republicans chose to do these things to America. Even Noonan admits that, writing that the the American people rightly held Bush responsible for everything after 9/11 through the end of Bush's term. So is there some statute of limitations on that? Is Bush no longer responsible for the damage he did because he is no longer in office? Is that how it works now? If so, it's something new.
Franklin Roosevelt had no reluctance to criticize twelve years of GOP rule in the 1920's because Herbert Hoover (and Calvin Coolidge) and the Republicans were partly responsible for the Great Depression. But only partly (though enough for FDR and his successors to blame them for it).
The difference is that the Republicans of the 1920's did not pursue ineffective and ultimately destructive laissez faire policies to benefit their friends but because laissez faire was the governing dogma of the day.
The Bush team took us to war in Iraq and deregulated and destroyed the economy essentially to advance their own interests (most notably those of Vice President and his cronies) and the ideological interests of the neocons without any regard for the national interest.
It is right that we not be too hard on those who make honest policy mistakes. But it is wrong not to hold accountable those who pursue bad policies to advance their own interests and to hell with the American people.
I wish Obama would talk more about what he inherited from George W. Bush. He doesn't like blaming but when blame is richly earned, blame is an effective tool. Otherwise, sure as shooting, the economic disaster of 2008 will be laid at our door, not theirs. The Republicans will take credit for the recovery!
]]>