PDA

View Full Version : Elections "Israel's intransigence could cost American lives."


Direckshun
03-17-2010, 01:21 PM
Greenwald at his finest.

Agree or disagree with the man, he is pretty much the sharpest blogger online.

Click through to check out his boundless linkage in essentially every sentence.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/15/israel/index.html

U.S.-Israel rift undermining some long-standing taboos
By Glenn Greenwald
Monday, Mar 15, 2010 06:16 EDT

The rather extraordinary dust-up between the U.S. and Israel has, among other benefits, shined a light on two of the most taboo yet self-evidently true propositions: (1) our joined-at-the-hip relationship with Israel is a significant cause of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, fuels attacks on Americans, and entails a very high price for the U.S. on multiple levels; and (2) many American neoconservatives have their political beliefs shaped by allegiance to Israel.

As for the first: not only did Joe Biden tell Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel's actions are endangering U.S. troops in the region, but -- more important -- as Foreign Policy's Mark Perry reports, both Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus within the last couple of months stressed the same causal connection to Obama officials: "Israel's intransigence could cost American lives." It's rather difficult to maintain the fiction that only fringe Israel-haters see the connection between our support for Israel and Muslim hatred toward the U.S. when two of America's most respected military officials (responsible for U.S. troops in the region) are making that case explicitly. Moreover, the Mullen/Petraeus alarm is almost certainly what accounts for the Obama administration's sudden (and commendable) willingness to so publicly oppose Israel. As Perry says: "There are important and powerful lobbies in America: the NRA, the American Medical Association, the lawyers -- and the Israeli lobby. But no lobby is as important, or as powerful, as the U.S. military."

As for the second point: I've previously noted the glaring contradiction among neoconservatives, whereby they simultaneously (a) tell American Jewish voters to vote Republican because (they claim) the GOP is better for Israel and (b) insist that it's anti-Semitic to point out that some are guided by their allegiance to Israel when forming their political beliefs about U.S. policy. Obviously, anyone who does (a) is, by logical necessity, endorsing the very premise in (b) which they want (when it suits them) to label anti-Semitic. Neoconservatives constantly make political appeals to Jewish voters expressly grounded in the premise that American Jews are guided by allegiance to Israel (vote Republican because it's better for Israel), yet then scream "anti-Semite" at anyone who points this out. When faced with this glaring contradiction, their typical response -- as illustratively voiced by Commentary's Jennifer Rubin, after she argued in a 2008 Jerusalem Post column that American Jews should vote against Obama because he'd be bad for Israel -- is to deny that "that the interests of the U.S. and Israel are antithetical" and insist that "support for Israel in no way requires sacrificing one’s concerns for America’s interests." In other words: to advocate for Israel is to advocate for the U.S. because their interests are wholly indistinguishable, even synonymous.

Yet here we have a major split between the U.S. and Israel, with key American military and political leaders explaining that the opposite is true: that Israeli actions are directly harming U.S. interests and jeopardizing American lives. And what is the reflexive, unambiguous response of virtually every American Israel-centric neocon? To side with Israel over the U.S. AIPAC, the ADL, Elliott Abrams, AIPAC-loyal Democrats in the House, Marty Peretz, Commentary, etc. etc. all quickly castigated the U.S. Government and defended Israel, notwithstanding the dangers to Americans posed by Israeli conduct and the massive price paid by the U.S. in so many ways for this relationship (by contrast, J Street called the administration's anger towards Israel both "understandable and appropriate"). There's nothing wrong with taking Israel's side per se -- one is and should be free to criticize one's own government in its foreign policy -- but incidents like this make it increasingly futile to try to suppress what is glaringly visible: that (as is true for numerous groups in the U.S.) a significant segment of the neoconservative Right (which includes some evangelical Christians and some American Jews) are guided in their political advocacy by their emotional, religious, and cultural attachment to another country, and want U.S. policy shaped to advance that devotion.

On a related note: there has been a long-standing effort to equate those who make this observation with anti-Israel hatred or even anti-Semitism. Two widely-cited reports did exactly that with regard to me recently: this pseudo-scholarly report from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and this post on the blog of the American Jewish Committee, both of which hurl all sorts of ugly though trite accusations at me for daring to suggest that some American Jews are guided in their political advocacy by allegiance to Israel. I'll just note that the author of both "reports" is someone named Adam Levick, who -- with extreme, unintended irony -- lists this as his biography on his Twitter account:

I'm an American who just made Aliyah (moved to Israel), and love America and my new country.

If you're going to try to render unspeakable the observation that some American neocons are devoted to Israel, it's probably best to have the crusade led by someone with a different biography (The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, who went to serve in the IDF as a prison guard incarcerating Palestinians, is probably also not a good candidate to lead that crusade). As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong per se with harboring cultural affections for other countries -- many individuals in the culturally diverse U.S. do -- but stridently denying what is so obviously true, and smearing those who point it out, does more than anything else to make something innocuous seem nefarious.

Finally, the reason Israel engages in this intransigent, arrogant conduct is because it believes (with good reason) that U.S. officials will never be willing to (and, in any event, cannot) take any real action against it. At this point, the Obama administration -- as reflected by the excellent questions posed yesterday to David Axelrod by ABC News' Jake Tapper -- still seems far from ready to do so. Still, there's no denying that the very public condemnation of Israel by the Obama administration is unprecedented at least over the last two decades, will produce benefits on its own (including sentiments like this and this being increasingly expressed even among those Obama supporters who don't typically speak out about this issue), and will subject Obama officials to serious political pressure and attacks, from which they ought to be defended. It's true that none of this will ultimately matter unless the administration is willing to back this up with meaningful action -- i.e., credible threats to change policy -- but this last week was an important and substantial first step toward that vital goal.

Many of the issues I write most about here -- from civil liberties erosions and radical, lawless National Security State policies to the wars that justify them -- have their roots in our involvement in the Middle East, and our self-destructive, blind support for Israeli actions is a major (though not the only or even primary) factor in all of that. It's impossible to care about the former without wanting to do something substantial about the latter.

KC native
03-17-2010, 03:00 PM
great article. Looks like the peanut gallery doesn't know what to make of it.

Direckshun
03-17-2010, 03:12 PM
great article. Looks like the peanut gallery doesn't know what to make of it.

Cognitive dissonance is alive and well.

KC native
03-17-2010, 03:14 PM
Cognitive dissonance is alive and well.

Yup. I bet this thread will be jumping as soon as the RW talking points guys get on the job tomorrow.

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 03:16 PM
Israel is the biggest terror network on the planet.

mlyonsd
03-17-2010, 05:02 PM
great article. Looks like the peanut gallery doesn't know what to make of it.

I'm just a little peanut but I don't see a problem with complaining to Israel that they are possibly endangering our troops with their announcement. Probably because it's a true statement.

Taco John
03-17-2010, 05:21 PM
This is the case that Ron Paul has been making for decades.

morphius
03-17-2010, 05:37 PM
This is the case that Ron Paul has been making for decades.
Well, when you philosophy is to ignore the rest of the world exists, then of course he has an issue with talking with any one of them.

Donger
03-17-2010, 05:40 PM
I actually like having Israel as an ally. Particularly because it annoys the rest of the Middle East.

Donger
03-17-2010, 05:44 PM
Oh, and what exactly is Israel being intransigent about?

Taco John
03-17-2010, 05:47 PM
Well, when you philosophy is to ignore the rest of the world exists, then of course he has an issue with talking with any one of them.


I can understand the ignorance that people have on Ron Paul's position, so I don't fault you. The bottom line on Ron Paul's position is that American lives shouldn't be at risk every time there's a dispute between neighbors in the world. We shouldn't have to referee every dispute in the world.

morphius
03-17-2010, 05:55 PM
I can understand the ignorance that people have on Ron Paul's position, so I don't fault you. The bottom line on Ron Paul's position is that American lives shouldn't be at risk every time there's a dispute between neighbors in the world. We shouldn't have to referee every dispute in the world.
To be fair, though, we really do stay out of a lot of stuff as well. Though I'm still pissed off that fucking useless Europe couldn't even deal with the breakup of yugoslavia without begging for out help.

Direckshun
03-17-2010, 06:50 PM
Oh, and what exactly is Israel being intransigent about?

Classic Donger.

patteeu
03-17-2010, 07:13 PM
I actually like having Israel as an ally. Particularly because it annoys the rest of the Middle East.

The way we can tell that Israel is an ally is that the Obama administration is busy sticking it's finger in her eye. If Israel were a Muslim nation we'd be standing by silent as the government stole elections and made regular, peaceful citizen-dissidents disappear or as roving gangs of soldiers hacked Christians to death with machetes.

patteeu
03-17-2010, 07:18 PM
This is the case that Ron Paul has been making for decades.

True. This is yet another difference between Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul. Maybe BucEyedPea will grace us with a synopsis of Reagan's views on Israel as described in his autobiography... in due time, of course.

Chocolate Hog
03-17-2010, 07:20 PM
Patreaus said the other day Israel is putting our troops in a bad spot. It's funny to see you neo-cons choose Israel over our troops.

HonestChieffan
03-18-2010, 11:16 AM
The anti-Israel groups continue to be thrilled with the Obama approach.

Iowanian
03-18-2010, 11:17 AM
You'll have to pardon me for not giving much credit regarding opinions on Israel from an asshat wearing an Iranian flag.

patteeu
03-18-2010, 11:49 AM
Patreaus said the other day Israel is putting our troops in a bad spot. It's funny to see you neo-cons choose Israel over our troops.

Link to the Petraeus quote?

I suspect that what this is really about is American weakness under the new regime (and to some extent going back into the last couple of years of the Bush regime) and the sense among Arabs that the US can be pushed around and is a lapdog in it's relationship with Israel rather than an independent leader being followed by Israel.

It is a neocon article of faith (and really a pretty obvious one) that the palestinian/Israeli conflict fuels the militant islamism and anti-Americanism in the region. This was one of the reasons for targeting Saddam's regime for removal as he was seen as a major obstacle to finding a solution to that conflict.

Edit: BTW, the Israeli moves to continue their policies despite disapproval in Washington is a testament to the American weakness that I'm talking about. Netanyahu sees Obama apologizing and groveling before every tinhorn dictator and two-bit sultan in the world and he (correctly IMO) figures that Obama can be rolled.

SLAG
03-18-2010, 03:48 PM
being of Palestinian decent I am not too fond of Israel

patteeu
03-18-2010, 03:50 PM
being of Palestinian decent I am not too fond of Israel

Are you fond of suicide bombers? (I'm sure the answer is no). Why would your ethnicity have anything to do with your assessment of the Israeli/palestinian situation?

Taco John
03-18-2010, 03:54 PM
Link to the Petraeus quote?

I suspect that what this is really about is American weakness under the new regime (and to some extent going back into the last couple of years of the Bush regime) and the sense among Arabs that the US can be pushed around and is a lapdog in it's relationship with Israel rather than an independent leader being followed by Israel.

It is a neocon article of faith (and really a pretty obvious one) that the palestinian/Israeli conflict fuels the militant islamism and anti-Americanism in the region. This was one of the reasons for targeting Saddam's regime for removal as he was seen as a major obstacle to finding a solution to that conflict.

Edit: BTW, the Israeli moves to continue their policies despite disapproval in Washington is a testament to the American weakness that I'm talking about. Netanyahu sees Obama apologizing and groveling before every tinhorn dictator and two-bit sultan in the world and he (correctly IMO) figures that Obama can be rolled.



Patreaus basically makes the same case that Ron Paul makes:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/Petraeus%2003-16-10.pdf

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests… Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas….”

SLAG
03-18-2010, 03:58 PM
Are you fond of suicide bombers? (I'm sure the answer is no). Why would your ethnicity have anything to do with your assessment of the Israeli/palestinian situation?
you mean freedom fighters?

Taco John
03-18-2010, 03:59 PM
you mean freedom fighters?

Oh snap! I'm outta here...

patteeu
03-18-2010, 04:03 PM
Patreaus basically makes the same case that Ron Paul makes:
http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2010/03%20March/Petraeus%2003-16-10.pdf

“The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests… Israeli-Palestinian tensions often flare into violence and large-scale armed confrontations. The conflict foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel. Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support. The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hizballah and Hamas….”

What's new about this though? The GWBush administration wouldn't have disagreed with this. That doesn't mean that "Israel's intransigence could cost American lives" as if Israel is the problem here.

patteeu
03-18-2010, 04:04 PM
you mean freedom fighters?

Sure. Whatever you want to call people who blow themselves up in civilian gathering places is irrelevant to the main question I was asking though.

KC native
03-18-2010, 04:34 PM
Link to the Petraeus quote?

Edit: BTW, the Israeli moves to continue their policies despite disapproval in Washington is a testament to the American weakness that I'm talking about. Netanyahu sees Obama apologizing and groveling before every tinhorn dictator and two-bit sultan in the world and he (correctly IMO) figures that Obama can be rolled.

JFC really patty? Bush had no success in making Israel curb their settlement activity and you're trying to blame a continuation of their harmful (to themselves and us) policies on the "weakness of Obama"? Wow, just wow.

mikey23545
03-18-2010, 04:37 PM
Oh, and what exactly is Israel being intransigent about?

The bastards still won't let those stone age fuckers called Muslims slit their throats, no matter how nicely they ask.

RedNeckRaider
03-18-2010, 04:47 PM
Sure. Whatever you want to call people who blow themselves up in civilian gathering places is irrelevant to the main question I was asking though.
LMAO freedom fighters or worthless shitbags that kill innocent people in a war to kill everyone that does not believe in their crock of shit religion. Not a stab at you just pointing out the obvious.

patteeu
03-18-2010, 06:49 PM
JFC really patty? Bush had no success in making Israel curb their settlement activity and you're trying to blame a continuation of their harmful (to themselves and us) policies on the "weakness of Obama"? Wow, just wow.

I don't think Bush had any serious trouble getting Israel to work with us. And just to be clear, I'm not calling Israel's policies harmful (to themselves or us).

Here are a couple of examples.

June 6, 2001 (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/freeze.html)

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon worked out a settlement freeze formula with U.S. officials to comply with the recommendation of the Mitchell Report. According to the terms of the understanding:

* No new settlement will be constructed in accordance with the basic guidelines of the government.
* No additional land will be expropriated for the purpose of construction.
* Settlement construction beyond existing built-up areas will be frozen.

These provisions are contingent upon implementation of all other terms of the Mitchell Report, which means the end of all Palestinian violence. Sharon also reiterated that the overall issue of settlements must be resolved in final status negotiations as per existing agreements.

and

May 23, 2003 (http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/23/world/fg-mideast23)

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has reluctantly agreed to take a U.S.-backed peace plan to a Cabinet vote this weekend in exchange for an American promise to consider his government's numerous reservations about the plan, an Israeli official in Washington and a newspaper here reported Thursday.

The surprise decision, reported in Jerusalem's Haaretz newspaper and confirmed by the Israel official, breaks a tough diplomatic stalemate and raises the slight hope that peace talks could calm the 32-month-old Palestinian uprising.

orange
03-18-2010, 07:14 PM
Attention Neo-Cons. You've got your marching orders in re. Petraeus:


Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement in response to the General's March 16 testimony before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee:

The assumptions Gen. Petraeus presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee wrongly attribute "insufficient progress" in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and "a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel" as significantly impeding the U.S. military mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in dealing with the Iranian influences in the region. It is that much more of a concern to hear this coming from such a great American patriot and hero.

The General's assertions lead to the illusory conclusion that if only there was a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. could successfully complete its mission in the region.

Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel. This linkage is dangerous and counterproductive.

Whenever the Israeli-Arab conflict is made a focal point, Israel comes to be seen as the problem. If only Israel would stop settlements, if only Israel would talk with Hamas, if only Israel would make concessions on refugees, if only it would share Jerusalem, everything in the region would then fall into line.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/5721_62.htm

Iowanian
03-18-2010, 09:06 PM
you mean freedom fighters?

You're a nutjob.

Chocolate Hog
03-19-2010, 01:51 AM
Pat is picking Israel over our troops.

Taco John
03-19-2010, 02:21 AM
I don't think Bush had any serious trouble getting Israel to work with us. And just to be clear, I'm not calling Israel's policies harmful (to themselves or us).



I think our policies are harmful to them and us.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 06:08 AM
Pat is picking Israel over our troops.

How's that?

patteeu
03-19-2010, 06:09 AM
I think our policies are harmful to them and us.

I know you do.

King_Chief_Fan
03-19-2010, 06:54 AM
God promised Israel she would not suffer military defeat, "When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt... For the LORD your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you."

Think of that promise!! God will fight for Israel, giving her the victory, especially in situations where the Israelites were badly outnumbered! In fact, God gives some interesting insight into the totality of the victory He would give them when He promised, "The LORD shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways." (Deuteronomy 28:7)
Again, In Deuteronomy 7:23, God promised to cause great panic to set in amongst the enemies of Israel as they were taking the Promised Land. [Note: The Bible Commentary, p. 222, states that the meaning of panic is in the original language).

NewChief
03-19-2010, 07:09 AM
Glen posted more in the same vein today:

http://www.salon.com/news/neoconservatism/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/03/19/treason
Rampant patriotism breaches on America's Right
GLENN GREENWALD
BY GLENN GREENWALD
During the Bush years, the Bush-following Right's Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, frequently accused opponents of the Iraq War of being "unpatriotic," endangering the Troops, and committing treason: "They're not so much 'antiwar' as just on the other side," he wrote often. Today, the same Glenn Reynolds wrote (emphasis added):

If I were the Israelis, not only would I bomb Iran, but I'd do so in such a way as to create as much trouble for China, Russia, Europe and the United States as possible.

Calling on a foreign country to act in a way that creates "as much trouble as possible" for your own country seems to be the very definition of being "on the other side," does it not? (and his cover sentence -- "Are the Israelis less obnoxious than me? I guess we’ll find out soon enough . . . ." -- changes nothing). That's especially true since the action Reynolds is endorsing -- Israel's bombing of Iran -- likely would, according to America's top military official, directly result in the deaths of American soldiers:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, warned last Thursday that an Israeli attack on Iran might lead to escalation, undermine the region's stability and endanger the lives of Americans in the Persian Gulf "who are under the threat envelope right now."

Casually endorsing such outcomes would seem, definitively, to be the actions not of a Great Patriot, but of the opposite: someone "on the other side." But over the last week, as the U.S./Israel dispute has blossomed, the American Right generally has engaged in much conduct that they always denounced as disloyal and treasonous. Almost unanimously, they have adopted what Jeanne Kirkpatrick famously condemned as a "Blame America First" attitude, with super-patriots such as National Review and Charles Krauthammer, among many others, heaping all blame on America and siding with the foreign government. According to these Arbiters of Patriotism, this is The Fault of America; indeed, when it comes to American conflicts with Israel generally, as Kirkpatrick put it in her famous refrain: "somehow, they always Blame America First."

Meanwhile, the Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman yesterday formally condemned Gen. David Petraeus for warning that Israel's conflict with the Palestinians increases anti-American hatred and endangers American troops due to a "perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel." Foxman attacked Petraeus' remarks as "dangerous and counterproductive" -- and, indeed, they are: "dangerous and counterproductive," that is, for those (like Foxman and the neocon Right) who want the U.S. to blindly support Israeli actions even when doing so directly harms American interests. As Andrew Bacevich explained in Salon yesterday, the fact that Petraeus has now linked U.S. support for Israel to harm to U.S. interests will make it impossible for Israel-centric neocons to stigmatize that linkage ever again, and is "likely to discomfit those Americans committed to the proposition that the United States and Israel face the same threats and are bound together by identical interests." Isn't it Barack Obama's overriding duty as Commander-in-Chief to listen to his military commanders and take aggressive action against anything which undermines America's war effort and Endangers the Troops -- including Israel's settlement expansions?

Beyond that, wasn't it only recently that attacking Gen. David Petraeus the way the ADL has done was deemed so unpatriotic that it merited formal, bipartisan Congressional condemnation? As Joan Walsh proposed yesterday, shouldn't Congress now be preparing to condemn the ADL and Foxman for their attack on Petraeus, launched at him as he commands brave American men and women in harm's way, fighting for our country? After all, Petraeus is responsible for the safety of those troops and is trying to alert government leaders about policies which endanger those troops and undermine the American war effort. What kind of person would attack Gen. Petreaus for doing that, all in the name of serving the interests of a foreign government?

And then we have what I thought was the patriotic standard that one should not attack the President in his conduct of foreign policy during a time of war. What happened to Joe Lieberman's solemn 2005 warning that "in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril"? This is the same Joe Lieberman who, along with his conjoined twin, John McCain, this week went to the Senate floor to rail against President Obama for the crime of Excess Criticism of Israel. Isn't Al Qaeda going to be emboldened if they see the Commander-in-Chief being weakened and attacked by these U.S. Senators as inept and our country riddled with internal divisions of this sort? That was the argument made by these same right-wing super-patriots for years (and, indeed, is now being echoed -- not ironically but earnestly -- by their mirror images on the dissent-hating, Beltway version of the "Left," such as Newsweek's Jonathan Alter). But that uber-patriotic standard seems to have been suspended as of January 20, 2009, and (like so many standards) is revoked altogether when it comes to Israel.

Whatever else is true, the American Right is now openly siding with a foreign government against their own, and relentlessly Blaming America for these problems. They're defending this foreign government's actions even though our top Generals say those actions undermine our war effort and directly endanger American troops. They're advocating policies -- such as the Israeli bombing of Iran -- which America's Joint Chiefs Chairman has gravely warned will seriously impede our wars and lead to the deaths of our soldiers. They're demeaning the top American General with command responsibility for two theaters of war. And they're attacking the President of the United States in a Time of War -- and relentlessly depicting him as weak and inept -- all because he's prioritizing American interests over those of a foreign country's. All of that seems to severely breach the standards of Patriotism they have long advocated and which have long prevailed, to put that rather mildly.

* * * * *

Perhaps most notably, all of this is taking place as a new poll of Israelis finds that "a sweeping majority of Israelis think [Obama's] treatment of [their] country is friendly and fair"; "most Israelis don't believe politicians who call Obama anti-Semitic or hostile to Israel"; and that "more people said Netanyahu's behavior [in this conflict] was irresponsible than said he acted responsibly." Put another way, the American Right is demanding a level of American loyalty to Israel far higher than Israelis themselves expect, and the American Right is far more blindly supportive of the Israeli Government than Israeli themselves are.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 07:14 AM
Put another way, the American Right is demanding a level of American loyalty to Israel far higher than Israelis themselves expect, and the American Right is far more blindly supportive of the Israeli Government than Israeli themselves are.

That's it in a nutshell. Israelis also disagree with each other all the time about their own govt—just like us. But no one in the US can disagree with Israel without being smeared as an anti-semite. ( which means hating all Jews) Even RR chastised the more aggressive Likud members in Israel even when they bombed Iraq's reactor because as he said our weapons to Israel are for defensive purposes only. People would be surprised to learn that RR sought peace between the factions in the ME, wanted to build on Carter's peace between Egypt and Israel and felt that the Likudniks endangered that. RR angered the NeoCons for that. Yup, this is TRUE!

King_Chief_Fan
03-19-2010, 07:28 AM
And then we have what I thought was the patriotic standard that one should not attack the President in his conduct of foreign policy during a time of war. What happened to Joe Lieberman's solemn 2005 warning that "in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril"? This is the same Joe Lieberman who, along with his conjoined twin, John McCain, this week went to the Senate floor to rail against President Obama for the crime of Excess Criticism of Israel. Isn't Al Qaeda going to be emboldened if they see the Commander-in-Chief being weakened and attacked by these U.S. Senators as inept and our country riddled with internal divisions of this sort?

Seems to me we have the wrong commander-in-Chief (who he himself has done more to divide than to collaborate.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2010, 07:45 AM
His weakness with enemies and his lack of backbone to support allies is creating huge dangers for us all. With Russia providing a nuke plant against Obamas request to Iran, his support for the pallestinians vs Israel, and his weakness seen by the Brits, France, Germany, we may have never been is such a bad position since WW2

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 07:55 AM
His weakness with enemies and his lack of backbone to support allies is creating huge dangers for us all. With Russia providing a nuke plant against Obamas request to Iran, his support for the pallestinians vs Israel, and his weakness seen by the Brits, France, Germany, we may have never been is such a bad position since WW2

I really don't understand what weakness Obama has shown. It's really nothing but posturing. He hasn't removed troops from Iraq, he had a surge in Afghanistan, and more military operations are shoring up on Iran. Just what is the problem with the right on Obama in this area. I don't see it at all.
In any event, it's not the stand of most Americans either. It's the hard-core coalition of NCs and the Protestant Dispensationalist right.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 08:53 AM
Glen posted more in the same vein today:

http://www.salon.com/news/neoconservatism/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/03/19/treason
Rampant patriotism breaches on America's Right
GLENN GREENWALD
BY GLENN GREENWALD
During the Bush years, the Bush-following Right's Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee, frequently accused opponents of the Iraq War of being "unpatriotic," endangering the Troops, and committing treason: "They're not so much 'antiwar' as just on the other side," he wrote often. Today, the same Glenn Reynolds wrote (emphasis added):

If I were the Israelis, not only would I bomb Iran, but I'd do so in such a way as to create as much trouble for China, Russia, Europe and the United States as possible.

Calling on a foreign country to act in a way that creates "as much trouble as possible" for your own country seems to be the very definition of being "on the other side," does it not? (and his cover sentence -- "Are the Israelis less obnoxious than me? I guess we’ll find out soon enough . . . ." -- changes nothing). That's especially true since the action Reynolds is endorsing -- Israel's bombing of Iran -- likely would, according to America's top military official, directly result in the deaths of American soldiers:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen, warned last Thursday that an Israeli attack on Iran might lead to escalation, undermine the region's stability and endanger the lives of Americans in the Persian Gulf "who are under the threat envelope right now."

Casually endorsing such outcomes would seem, definitively, to be the actions not of a Great Patriot, but of the opposite: someone "on the other side." But over the last week, as the U.S./Israel dispute has blossomed, the American Right generally has engaged in much conduct that they always denounced as disloyal and treasonous. Almost unanimously, they have adopted what Jeanne Kirkpatrick famously condemned as a "Blame America First" attitude, with super-patriots such as National Review and Charles Krauthammer, among many others, heaping all blame on America and siding with the foreign government. According to these Arbiters of Patriotism, this is The Fault of America; indeed, when it comes to American conflicts with Israel generally, as Kirkpatrick put it in her famous refrain: "somehow, they always Blame America First."

Meanwhile, the Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman yesterday formally condemned Gen. David Petraeus for warning that Israel's conflict with the Palestinians increases anti-American hatred and endangers American troops due to a "perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel." Foxman attacked Petraeus' remarks as "dangerous and counterproductive" -- and, indeed, they are: "dangerous and counterproductive," that is, for those (like Foxman and the neocon Right) who want the U.S. to blindly support Israeli actions even when doing so directly harms American interests. As Andrew Bacevich explained in Salon yesterday, the fact that Petraeus has now linked U.S. support for Israel to harm to U.S. interests will make it impossible for Israel-centric neocons to stigmatize that linkage ever again, and is "likely to discomfit those Americans committed to the proposition that the United States and Israel face the same threats and are bound together by identical interests." Isn't it Barack Obama's overriding duty as Commander-in-Chief to listen to his military commanders and take aggressive action against anything which undermines America's war effort and Endangers the Troops -- including Israel's settlement expansions?

Beyond that, wasn't it only recently that attacking Gen. David Petraeus the way the ADL has done was deemed so unpatriotic that it merited formal, bipartisan Congressional condemnation? As Joan Walsh proposed yesterday, shouldn't Congress now be preparing to condemn the ADL and Foxman for their attack on Petraeus, launched at him as he commands brave American men and women in harm's way, fighting for our country? After all, Petraeus is responsible for the safety of those troops and is trying to alert government leaders about policies which endanger those troops and undermine the American war effort. What kind of person would attack Gen. Petreaus for doing that, all in the name of serving the interests of a foreign government?

And then we have what I thought was the patriotic standard that one should not attack the President in his conduct of foreign policy during a time of war. What happened to Joe Lieberman's solemn 2005 warning that "in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril"? This is the same Joe Lieberman who, along with his conjoined twin, John McCain, this week went to the Senate floor to rail against President Obama for the crime of Excess Criticism of Israel. Isn't Al Qaeda going to be emboldened if they see the Commander-in-Chief being weakened and attacked by these U.S. Senators as inept and our country riddled with internal divisions of this sort? That was the argument made by these same right-wing super-patriots for years (and, indeed, is now being echoed -- not ironically but earnestly -- by their mirror images on the dissent-hating, Beltway version of the "Left," such as Newsweek's Jonathan Alter). But that uber-patriotic standard seems to have been suspended as of January 20, 2009, and (like so many standards) is revoked altogether when it comes to Israel.

Whatever else is true, the American Right is now openly siding with a foreign government against their own, and relentlessly Blaming America for these problems. They're defending this foreign government's actions even though our top Generals say those actions undermine our war effort and directly endanger American troops. They're advocating policies -- such as the Israeli bombing of Iran -- which America's Joint Chiefs Chairman has gravely warned will seriously impede our wars and lead to the deaths of our soldiers. They're demeaning the top American General with command responsibility for two theaters of war. And they're attacking the President of the United States in a Time of War -- and relentlessly depicting him as weak and inept -- all because he's prioritizing American interests over those of a foreign country's. All of that seems to severely breach the standards of Patriotism they have long advocated and which have long prevailed, to put that rather mildly.

* * * * *

Perhaps most notably, all of this is taking place as a new poll of Israelis finds that "a sweeping majority of Israelis think [Obama's] treatment of [their] country is friendly and fair"; "most Israelis don't believe politicians who call Obama anti-Semitic or hostile to Israel"; and that "more people said Netanyahu's behavior [in this conflict] was irresponsible than said he acted responsibly." Put another way, the American Right is demanding a level of American loyalty to Israel far higher than Israelis themselves expect, and the American Right is far more blindly supportive of the Israeli Government than Israeli themselves are.

1. Without seeing Reynolds' entire statement it's hard to tell, but based on this quote it sounds more like detached and objective analysis than an endorsement.

2. "Condemned" and "attacked"? Foxman's "attack" consisted of calling Petraeus "a great American patriot and hero" and saying that he "simply erred". Orange posted Foxman's statement earlier in the thread. Greenwald's take makes it sound like he read something completely different.

Just because any particular Israeli action might endanger American troops (e.g. attacking Iran) doesn't mean it's bad for America. The test of what's good or bad for the US has never been simply whether it puts American troops in harms way. If it was, Obama's surge in Afghanistan would be indisputably anti-American and so would the Normandy invasion.

HonestChieffan
03-19-2010, 09:05 AM
I really don't understand what weakness Obama has shown. It's really nothing but posturing. He hasn't removed troops from Iraq, he had a surge in Afghanistan, and more military operations are shoring up on Iran. Just what is the problem with the right on Obama in this area. I don't see it at all.
In any event, it's not the stand of most Americans either. It's the hard-core coalition of NCs and the Protestant Dispensationalist right.

Well you see things through your own notions. This country is falling further and further down as seen by leaders all over the world through Obamas approaches through the State department.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 09:15 AM
Well you see things through your own notions. This country is falling further and further down as seen by leaders all over the world through Obamas approaches through the State department.

I think that can be the same for your side. Oh and I forget, Obama bombed AQ camps in Yemen too. Sooooo weak!

Bill Parcells
03-19-2010, 09:30 AM
I think that can be the same for your side. Oh and I forget, Obama bombed AQ camps in Yemen too. Sooooo weak!

Do you have pateeu on ignore? pppffftt..hes been owning you, sugar britches ;)

ROFL

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 09:31 AM
Did you say something?

Bill Parcells
03-19-2010, 09:36 AM
Did you say something?

I guess I'm not on ignore

ROFL

Let me bump that thread again..lol

NewChief
03-19-2010, 09:39 AM
Did you say something?

I know you think you're making some kind of principled stand on this, and I suppose you are in some way. That being said, I think there's a disconnect between how you see yourself on this issue and how the majority of DC posters see you.

So while your principles may be intact, your credibility in this forum has taken some significant damage.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 09:46 AM
As these events were unfolding, we continued to receive what appeared to be credible reports from Israel, that Begin, who believed in the Biblical maxim of "an eye for an eye, " and his defense minister Ariel Sharon, a bellicose man who seemed to be chomping at the bit to start a war, were preparing for a full-scale invasion of Lebanon against the PLO, waiting only for the slightest provocation to launch it. While I urged Begin to practice restraint, Habib continued trying to work out a framework for a settlement. We told Israeli leaders we believed they had lost considerable support in the non-Arab world during the previous year because of the attack on the Iraqi nuclear plant, air strikes in Lebanon that had killed noncombatant Palestinians, the annexation of the Golan Heights, and other actions directed against the Arabs. Each time I communicated with them, however, I emphasized my personal commitment and that of the United States to the support of Israel. I supported its right to defend [emphasis is Reagan's—not mine] itself against attack, but appealed for Israel not to go on the offensive unless it was the victim of a provocation of such magnitude, the the world would easily understand its right to retaliate.

Israel's responses was, in effect: Mind your own business. ...

That's just one of more where RR criticized Israel. There's another on the reactor where he chastises the Israelis directly but privately for that.

RR= Foreign Policy Realist Camp

patteeu
03-19-2010, 09:53 AM
It's weird that BEP chose this issue on which to die the death of a thousand cuts. It would have been so easy (and reasonable) to just blame Ron Paul or even to blame the lackey who posts Ron Paul's articles on Lew Rockwell. Afterall, she was just relying on a published version of the false quote so she could have simply said that she'd been misled. Instead, she refuses to address it and even hints that she's got a secret argument that will vindicate the use of the original quote, which is laughable. It's a shame.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 10:05 AM
I can understand his fear [Menachem Begin] but feel he took the wrong option," I wrote in the diary June 9, 1981.

[Reagan repeats his support for Israel and what could have been done instead here then wrote in his diary because we could have done something to remove the threat; felt Israel should have told the U.S. at least.]

Under the law I have no choice but to ask Congress to investigate and see if there has been a violation of the law regarding the use of American-produced planes for offensive purposes.



[Okay so he says he still give them a waiver...but he still didn't like it either. He goes on in the book with...]

Technically, Israel had violated an agreement with us not to use U.S.—made weapons for offensive purposes, and some cabinet members wanted me to lean hard on Israel because it had broken this pledge. We sent a note to the Israeli government criticizing the raid, and delayed shipment of several additional military aircraft as a show of our displeasure; but sympathized with Begin's motivations privately believed he should be given the benefit of the doubt. p 413

[Later Begin stabs RR in the back despite RR to ensure Israel's safety: page 415]

...I learned that almost immediately after he [Begin] left the WH, Begin went to Capitol Hill and began lobbying very hard against me, the administration, and the AWACS sale—after he told me he wouldn't do that.



RR believe in working with the moderate Arab elements to eventually squeeze out the more extreme elements as the only way to bring this conflict to a resolution. So he approved of AWACS planes to moderate Arab govts to get them to trust us. He worked for peace in the ME and states in the book that he wanted to take up where Carter left off. He was not in the Neo Con FP camp— he was in the Realist FP camp. That's what his actions show at least regarding the ME. ( too much to write for now. And my earlier quotes were NOT fabrications as alleged either....more later)

patteeu
03-19-2010, 10:12 AM
RR believe in working with the moderate Arab elements to eventually squeeze out the more extreme elements as the only way to bring this conflict to a resolution. So he approved of AWACS planes to moderate Arab govts to get them to trust us. He worked for peace in the ME and states in the book that he wanted to take up where Carter left off. He was not in the Neo Con FP camp— he was in the Realist FP camp. That's what his actions show at least regarding the ME. ( too much to write for now. And my earlier quotes were NOT fabrications as alleged either....more later)

:LOL: I don't have a problem with most of what you're saying about Reagan in this thread, but the bolded part is just sad.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 10:12 AM
I know you think you're making some kind of principled stand on this, and I suppose you are in some way. That being said, I think there's a disconnect between how you see yourself on this issue and how the majority of DC posters see you.

So while your principles may be intact, your credibility in this forum has taken some significant damage.

Bwhaaaaaa!

NewChief
03-19-2010, 10:19 AM
Alright. Now the other fighter has shown up for weigh in. Let's get it on.

BucEyedPea
03-19-2010, 10:24 AM
Alright. Now the other fighter has shown up for weigh in. Let's get it on.

Nope. It will be parsed a la Bill Clinton or a la Bag of Dicks Cheney endlessly for a hundred pages with neither side ever coming to agreement. I mean how many times has this been done between pat and I? Too many. It's a total waste of time. I know all the parsing that poster will use in advance of him using it too. Complete with vile accusations of "fabrication" etc. Now who needs that in their life? Only a neurotic would engage with that. But RR's words speak volumes on what he desired to do in the ME. So there is no weighing in what needs to be done. There need not be an argument for every stand. Each will take from it on their own. ( I will have more quotes though. He got along terrifically with Gorbachev—amongst the best chapters in the book. ) RR enraged the NCs, hence witnessing pat foaming at the mouth on cue already. It's this type of encounter I choose to ignore. A complete waste of time to debate it.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 11:02 AM
Yes, Reagan sure enraged the neocons. That's why they flocked to his administration. Here are just a few examples among many. I'm not sure there are any examples of neocons resigning or rejecting Reagan. By contrast Ron Paul, initially a Reagan supporter, became disillusioned by Reagan's policies and left the Republican party to run for POTUS as a Libertarian in 1988.

Richard Perle - Assistant Secretary of Defense

Jeane Kirkpatrick - Ambassador to the UN

Elliot Abrams - Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs, Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs

Kenneth Adelman - Deputy US Ambassador to the UN, Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

Paul Wolfowitz -State Department Director of Policy, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Ambassador to Indonesia

William Bennett - Secretary of Education

patteeu
03-19-2010, 11:03 AM
Oh, and it's not really called "parsing" when you point out that someone made up a quote out of thin air.

KC native
03-19-2010, 07:19 PM
I don't think Bush had any serious trouble getting Israel to work with us. And just to be clear, I'm not calling Israel's policies harmful (to themselves or us).

Here are a couple of examples.



and

Oh, you mean that he got the same lip service (because the settlements never really stopped) that you're trashing Obama for now?

Consider a recent article about it...

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=168735
29 settlements defy freeze order’
BY TOVAH LAZAROFF
15/02/2010 06:10

Vilna’i makes statement in response to question posed by Meretz chairman.

Twenty-nine West Bank Jewish communities are in violation of the 10-month moratorium on new construction in the settlements, according to Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna’i.

He made the statement in writing, in a mandated response to a direct question posed to him by Meretz chairman Haim Oron, through a question and answer system in the Knesset.

He added that enforcement action had been initiated, including the issuance of demolition orders. Further action is being weighed, he said.

Although he gave his response on January 26, Hagit Ofran of Peace Now said that Oron received it only a few days ago.

Peace Now circulated it to the media on Sunday night. It added that it believes there have been violations of the housing-start moratorium in 33 settlements.

The NGO has posted two videos on YouTube to show that settlers are building illegally. Peace Now has alleged that in Talmon and Neria, workers have been working during Shabbat.

It further alleged that the Ministry of Construction and Housing had allowed contractors in the Betar Illit settlement to market homes frozen by the moratorium and as such, not yet built.

Settlements that Vilna’i said had violated the freeze include: Adam (Geva Binyamin), Oranit, Eilon Moreh, Alfei Menashe, Elkana, Beit Aryeh, Betar Illit, Barkan, Givat Ze’ev, Har Gilo, Talmon, Yakir, Kfar Eldad (Nokdim), Kfar Etzion, Ma’aleh Adumim, Ma’aleh Shomron, Matityahu, Nokdim, Imanuel, Etz Efrayim, Psagot, Zufim, Kedumim, Rosh Zurim, Revava, Shadmot Mechola, Sha’arei Tikva and Tekoa.

Although he spoke of 29 violations, he listed Givat Ze’ev twice.

Peace Now added that it believed the settlements of Elazar, Kochav Hashahar, Nili, Kiryat Arba and Kfar Tapuach were also ignoring the moratorium.

The moratorium allows work to continue on 3,000 Jewish homes in the West Bank that had foundations in place at the end of November.

The moratorium requires that work be halted on all homes that lacked a foundation.

The Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip denounced the Peace Now report.

It charged that Peace Now, like other organizations funded from abroad, was part of an organized campaign of lies and half truths designed to harm both the state of Israel and the settlement movement.

“We’re talking about people who have never planted a tree, or built a home, but who are placing a stick in the wheels of the Zionist enterprise,” the council said in a statement it released to the media.

It noted with satisfaction the fact that the Jewish population of Judea and Samaria reached 320,000 in 2009, a 5.5 percent increase over the previous year.

KC native
03-19-2010, 07:21 PM
I don't think Bush had any serious trouble getting Israel to work with us. And just to be clear, I'm not calling Israel's policies harmful (to themselves or us).

Here are a couple of examples.



and

or this one from 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7082629.stm

West Bank settlements 'expanding'
Jewish settlers
Settlement building continues despite a pledge to freeze it
Construction is continuing in dozens of Jewish settlements in the West Bank despite Israel's pledge to freeze their expansion, an campaign group has said.

Peace Now says Jewish population growth is three times higher in the area occupied in 1967 than in Israel itself.

It says settlers are bypassing a ban on using caravans to expand settlements by erecting pre-fabricated homes on site.

Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are deemed illegal under international law.

Israel had pledged to stop their construction as part of internationally-backed peace efforts.

Peace Now says there is continuing construction in 88 out of about 150 of the settlements authorised by the Israeli government, in addition to the building of permanent structures in 34 unauthorised settlement outposts.

Settler leaders expressed pleasure about Peace Now's report, thanking it for "documenting their endeavour".

Violation

Peace Now's Director-General Yariv Oppenheimer said the Israeli military had stopped monitoring construction at the illegal outposts.

"There is no connection between what is happening in political negotiations and what is happening on the ground," he told Israeli Army Radio.


We thank Peace Now for documenting this important Zionist project
Settler representative

Obstacles: Israeli settlements

He accused Israel's political leaders of violating their commitments ahead of an international peace conference aimed at restarting negotiations with the Palestinians and hoping to set up a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Analysts say the chances of success at the US-sponsored Annapolis conference are limited by Israeli settlement activity, as well as major concerns over security and institution-building on the Palestinian side.

Peace Now's report says most of the construction is in large settlement blocs located on the west side of the barrier Israel is building in the West Bank.

It said natural increase and the relocation of ultra-Orthodox families to settlements had led to the three-times higher population growth compared with in Israel.

A source in the Yesha council which represents the Jewish settlement movement said Peace Now's findings proved it had achieved an unstoppable momentum.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 08:07 PM
Oh, you mean that he got the same lip service (because the settlements never really stopped) that you're trashing Obama for now?

Consider a recent article about it...

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=168735

or this one from 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7082629.stm

You can't be serious about the idea that Israeli relations with the US under Bush were as bad or as contentious as they are under Obama. Think about what you're trying to prove before you post again.

KC native
03-19-2010, 08:19 PM
You can't be serious about the idea that Israeli relations with the US under Bush were as bad or as contentious as they are under Obama. Think about what you're trying to prove before you post again.

I wouldn't characterize our relations as bad at all. IMO Obama should be taking a harder line with them. I was taking issue with your statement that Israel was doing what it wanted because they see "weakness" in Obama. I was simply proving that the Israelis have said one thing to us and did what they wanted for quite awhile now.

Easy 6
03-19-2010, 08:20 PM
The way we can tell that Israel is an ally is that the Obama administration is busy sticking it's finger in her eye. If Israel were a Muslim nation we'd be standing by silent as the government stole elections and made regular, peaceful citizen-dissidents disappear or as roving gangs of soldiers hacked Christians to death with machetes.

I have always & will always defend Israels right to not only exist in peace, but to thrive & defend itself mercilessly when necessary... but IMO, they deserve a finger of sorts to the eye right now.

They're getting brazen & reckless, pushing perceived advantages too far, embarrassing this admin in a, IMO, calculated move (though it surely pleases American right wingers, it was BS), beautifully daring but stupidly reckless assassinations that endanger unsuspecting world citizens etc.

As for Obama standing idly by while innocents suffer... werent Sudan & Malaysia bloody, boiling hell on earths during a recent Republican administration? What actions were taken then? how did we act to save macheted innocents then?

Whether its Bush, Obama or Eisenhower... theres only so much even an American President can do to save everyone.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 08:40 PM
I wouldn't characterize our relations as bad at all. IMO Obama should be taking a harder line with them. I was taking issue with your statement that Israel was doing what it wanted because they see "weakness" in Obama. I was simply proving that the Israelis have said one thing to us and did what they wanted for quite awhile now.

Israel will always do what Israeli leaders believe is in their best interests, despite what the US or anyone else wants them to do. When GWBush was in office, it just so happens that they thought working with the US was in their interest to a greater degree than they do now.

You're loopy if you don't recognize that our relationship with Israel has deteriorated since Obama took office. But since you admit that you'd be inclined to make them worse, I guess it's to be expected.

From the UK Guardian:

US-Israel relations hit low after Jewish state rejects White House demand (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/28/us-israel-settlements-obama-abbas)

Increasingly fractious relations between the US and Israel hit a low unseen in nearly two decades today after the Jewish state rejected President Obama's demand for an end to settlement construction in the West Bank and Washington threatened to "press the point".

The dispute, which blew in to the open hours before Obama was to meet the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, reflects the depth of the shift in American policy away from accommodating Israel to pressuring it to end years of stalling serious negotiations over the creation of a Palestinian state while continuing to grab land in the occupied territories.

...

From the CS Monitor:

US Israel settlements fight marks lowest point since 1970s: ambassador (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0315/US-Israel-settlements-fight-marks-lowest-point-since-1970s-ambassador)

Despite an attempt by Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu to downplay the angry messages from US officials over plans for new homes in East Jerusalem, Israel's envoy in Washington believes it’s the worst crisis between the allies in more than a generation.

Ambassador Michael Oren told Israeli consuls in the US during a conference that a nearly week-old public fight that broke out during Vice President Joe Biden's visit marks a low point in diplomatic relations since the mid-1970s when the Ford administration reassessed ties with Israel over a disengagement agreement with Egypt and froze arms shipments. President Barack Obama has been pushing for a full Israel settlement freeze to get peace talks with the Palestinians restarted.

...

From TPM:

US-Israel Relations In Deep Freeze after Obama-Bibi Meeting (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/10/us-israel_relations_in_deep_freeze_after_obama-bib/)

President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu met for two hours last night. Here is the post meeting statement from the White House.
"The President and Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed a number of issues in the U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship. The President reaffirmed our strong commitment to Israel's security, and discussed security cooperation on a range of issues. The President and Prime Minister also discussed Iran and how to move forward on Middle East peace."

Cold. No photo. No reporters in the room. The President did not escort the Prime Minister to his car (or to the Metro) and the White House issued a statement that said nothing. It was written before the meeting as it made no reference to anything that occurred during the meeting.

Clearly, Mahmoud Abbas outsmarted everybody by threatening to resign. He forced the United States to look into the abyss -- and then push Bibi right to its edge. This was the least friendly meeting between an American president and an Israeli prime minister in memory. The message: don't play with us, Bibi.

...

And the hits go on and on.

patteeu
03-19-2010, 08:42 PM
I have always & will always defend Israels right to not only exist in peace, but to thrive & defend itself mercilessly when necessary... but IMO, they deserve a finger of sorts to the eye right now.

They're getting brazen & reckless, pushing perceived advantages too far, embarrassing this admin in a, IMO, calculated move (though it surely pleases American right wingers, it was BS), beautifully daring but stupidly reckless assassinations that endanger unsuspecting world citizens etc.

As for Obama standing idly by while innocents suffer... werent Sudan & Malaysia bloody, boiling hell on earths during a recent Republican administration? What actions were taken then? how did we act to save macheted innocents then?

Whether its Bush, Obama or Eisenhower... theres only so much even an American President can do to save everyone.

You're entitled to your opinion. Mine is that this administration doesn't need any help when it comes to embarrassing itself.

orange
03-19-2010, 08:43 PM
"From the CS Monitor:


... low point in diplomatic relations since the mid-1970s when the Ford administration reassessed ties with Israel over a disengagement agreement with Egypt and froze arms shipments."


Gerald Ford, a very underrated president.