US blames everyone but Israel--de facto war without end declared... without even knowing it

by: Paul Rosenberg

Mon May 31, 2010 at 21:15

When bin Laden conceived of making war with America it was absurd on multiple levels, not least of which was that so few Muslim's cared about his obsession with US bases in Saudi Arabia.  It took a really long time for him to catch onto the Israeli oppression of Palestinians as a cause he could exploit.  In spring of 2002, the Arab League offered a way out, but Bush was too obsessed with framing Iraq for an invasion to pay any attention.  When Obama finally took over in 2009, there was some hope that he might understand the nature of the conflict he had inherited--particularly when he put George Mitchell in charge of the most intractable part.

But that was the only hopeful sign, aside from the Cairo speech, and now after
sinking deeper and deeper into the morass of repeating past follies, this has to be the last straw.  Glenn Greenwald gets it right:

The formal statement submitted to the U.N. by the U.S. Ambassador today rather clearly seeks to blame everyone -- from Hamas to those attempting to deliver the aid -- for what happened:  everyone, that is, except for the party which actually did the illegal seizing of the ship and the killing (Israel):

    As I stated in the Chamber in December 2008, when we were confronted by a similar situation, mechanisms exist for the transfer of humanitarian assistance to Gaza by member states and groups that want to do so. These non-provocative and non-confrontational mechanisms should be the ones used for the benefit of all those in Gaza.  Direct delivery by sea is neither appropriate nor responsible, and certainly not effective, under the circumstances. . . . We will continue to engage the Israelis on a daily basis to expand the scope and type of goods allowed into Gaza to address the full range of the population's humanitarian and recovery needs. Hamas' interference with international assistance shipments and the work of nongovernmental organizations complicates efforts in Gaza. Its continued arms smuggling and commitment to terrorism undermines security and prosperity for Palestinians and Israelis alike.

Given that the Israelis refuse to allow anything other than the most minimal "necessities" to enter Gaza, I'd love to know what "non-provocative and non-confrontational mechanisms" exist to deliver humanitarian assistance?  And it's extraordinary that we refuse to condemn a blockade that, as classic "collective punishment," is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, and even refuse to condemn today's violent seizure of ships in international water.

It's hard to imagine how we--or Israel--could do anything more self-destructive than this.  But I'm sure we'll dozens of more ways of making this even worse in the next few days.  How can your average Muslim anywhere in the region not think that US is at war with Islam?  Of course it's not true.  But it might as well be with this latest mega-installment in the annals of fighting fire with gasoline.

Paul Rosenberg :: US blames everyone but Israel--de facto war without end declared... without even knowing it

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Oh well. (4.00 / 2)

 We'll always have Sonia Sotomayor.

 And John Paul Stevens won't be replaced by a flaming wingnut.

 So getting Obama in there was sort of worth it in the end.


"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Booman got it right: Obama has become Israel's poodle. (4.00 / 1)

Booman of Booman Tribune fame, that is.  

And great article by Greenwald. Check the updates as well. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
In other words... (4.00 / 1)

 ...he's just another US president.

 Change we can believe in, indeed.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Yes and no (4.00 / 2)
Bush Senior was relatively tough on Israel.  

[ Parent ]
David's Right (4.00 / 5)
He's worse than average.  In addition to Bush Sr., Clinton's "peace plan" process was badly conceived from the get-go, but he was not nearly as clueless as Obama has shown himself to be.

And Jimmy Carter?  Hell-o-oh!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Wow, can we label him "Anti-Democratic Party" and "Anti-Obama" now? (4.00 / 1)
The way he did to a certain woman blogger?

[ Parent ]
This is weak stuff, even for Obama (4.00 / 2)
and I have to think the AIPAC-sponsored bipartisan rebuke of Obama's policies have had their desired effect: intimidating Obama. That letter--which was circulated by Boxer and Isaccson--was signed by three-quarters of Senators, including Feingold, Levin, Wyden, Franken, Merkely, and Mikulski.

Seems like Obama's easily pushed around (4.00 / 1)

 When will progressives exploit this more effectively?

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
when we get big piles of money to dump at his doorstep (4.00 / 2)
or perhaps replace the head of the hospital lobby with a remote-controlled android

[ Parent ]
not until they realize (0.00 / 0)
that they are even more easily pushed around than he is, and decide to push him instead of eagerly wagging their tails as they lap up what crumbs he deigns to throw us from his balcony.

[ Parent ]
I think we serve a valuable role as a foil. (4.00 / 3)
We can be bitch-slapped and many come running back for more. Or Obama can posit what the crazy far left thinks to distinguish his policies from the loony left.  

[ Parent ]
It works so well, too. (0.00 / 0)

  Nobody EVER dares call him a liberal!  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
"Seems" like? (4.00 / 6)
More like simply IS at this point. And I think that some progressives have been pushing him, just not enough of them. Some are still in denial about who he really is (willfully in denial at this point I'd say), others are faux progressives protecting him with covering fire against actual progressives who dare to criticize His Greatness. And so long as we're fighting each other, he gets to do as he pleases. Or, more accurately, as the people who he answers to please.

Obama is less the problem than a symptom.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Rec'd for this line (0.00 / 0)
Obama is less the problem than a symptom.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
For progressives to exploit (0.00 / 0)
anything they need an answer to the simple question: where will the money come from?

Unfortunately, when it comes to politics, congressional bills, foreign policy or dealing with emergencies like the oil spill and economic collapse, the administration is a hostage to special interests that have the big bucks to use as a club.

This, in a nutshell, is the problem progressives face on every front. He who pays the piper sets the tune, and it's no different with Israel's lobby than it is with the financial or healthcare lobbies. All they need to do is threaten to move the big donations into the other party's coffers, and dread settles in to freeze out any progressive action.

Solve this problem and we solve everything else.

[ Parent ]
Pushed around (0.00 / 0)
There's hardly a single politician whom AIPAC won't easily push around... else, why would the USA go against its own interest and continue to be Israel's Gorgon? We've publicly protected Israel's human rights violations, when Israel's clear intent by its actions is to erase the Palestinian population and expand Israel over the entire region; there will be no Palestinian left if Israel is permitted to run unchecked, and the US continues to not only support Israel's crimes, but initiates and fights wars Israel wants the US to fight.

Now (through AIPAC) Israel is pushing us more preemptive strikes against Iran and Syria. Just read the Pro-Israeli press in the US and Israel, and the political speeches by AIPAC and their associates.

Israel thinks nothing about lying to the US to hide its intentions, as if Israel's actions of defiance to the US don't remind us of what Hitler kept telling to reassure Chamberlain. (The oppressed victim takes on the characteristics and personality of its oppressor, the "winning personality.") We follow suit to support their public statements just like the Ambassador's statement above (head article) shows. The Palestinians are systematically being wiped out day after day, and the US pretends it's not happening or accepts the the lies, or submits to the blackmail of withdraw of funding support by AIPAC for its next run for office.

Much of what's going on between Israel and the US is clearly and meticulously documented in read "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by John J. Mersheimer and Stephen M. Walt.

A National Progressive Alliance, is the only viable solution.

[ Parent ]
Intimidation? (4.00 / 4)
I don't think so.  As Paul noted earlier this weekend...

Yet the right-wing has intimidated Obama into dropping not just the word "empathy," but the idea.... -Lakoff

This is an appealing explanation, but it's simply not credible any more.  Obama wasn't just intimidated into dropping empathy--both the word and the idea--since he was inaugurated and the right began its vicious attacks.  He grew up in a political environment that was entirely hostile to empathy, and he adapted to that environment.

I don't think Obama is intimidated, as much as it might soothe my political psyche to think so.  I think this is just more of the dribbling Paul wrote about.

That's the fundamental reason why Obama hit dribblers in the press conference: because neo-liberalism is all about the dribblers. Don't  swing for the fences, it says.  Don't go for single-payer...  Don't go for a $1.3 trillion stimulus... Don't go for a dramatic shift to clean energy, energy efficiency and massive investments in green jobs...

Dribble... dribble... and dribble some more.  Why should Obama's response to Israel's ongoing atrocities with regard to the Palestinians and Gaza be any different?  That would require some degree of empathy.  And, if we ain't seen that in Obama in the past 18 months with regard to anything else, I don't think we're gonna see here, either.  

Are we back to triangulation, for cripes sake? (4.00 / 3)

When Obama got elected I really felt that we finally got rid of Clinton, the Bill variety.

[ Parent ]
Obama = Bill Clinton 2.0 (4.00 / 6)
A smoother, more biracial version of triangulating centrist, updated for the Internet age.

The electorate wanted Clinton without Clinton. What I mean by that is they wanted the uplifting feelings of "hope" and "change" that Clinton produced in 1992, but the Clintons had long outlived their usefulness in that regard.  They had ceased to be scrappy young rebels and had become part of the Establishment. Their brand was old and tired. It was no longer possible to make them the vessel of all our nascent hopes because they had a history, they had baggage. Hillary had voted for the AUMF, and that tainted her.

Obama was new and charming. He had little to no history of decisions on national issues, so he was an empty vessel which could be filled with whatever we wanted to fill him with. He made this point himself:

I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.

--Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

And so he became The New Hope.

Assuming all goes according to plan, in 2024 the Democrats will run yet another fresh-faced cipher on a platform of "hope" and "change," appealing to yet another major demographic (with Clinton it was working-class Reagan Democrats who identified with his Southern Bubba act, with Obama it was well-off, educated liberals who loved the idea of an articulate, biracial academic governing the country).

And we'll go for it all over again.

[ Parent ]
So triangulation it is, only now we are calling it "dribble." Got it. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Dribble Down (0.00 / 0)
Trickle Down

Its that Reagan/Obama deja vu all over again.

Everything old is news again.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
and the average (0.00 / 0)
citizen keeps thinking (why do they hate us so much, we love everyone) keep your heads in the sand america, the world is passing you by, as if america really cares, what time is american idol on, oh i don't have time to watch the news its always so negative, and america goes on its merry way.

Is it different elsewhere? (4.00 / 1)
Unless you are on the front lines, its easy to be distracted by glittering lights and fit celebrities demonstrating how to studiously avoid the realities of the world. I travel a bit and I see these same kind of TV shows in many places. This is not a uniquely American trait.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Along these lines (4.00 / 2)
I'll bet Al Giordano is blaming Paul Rosenberg for this atrocity.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa

[ Parent ]
You would think... (4.00 / 6)
...the first black president would recognize a freedom ride when he sees it.

I wouldn't. (4.00 / 2)

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Well, At Least One Might HOPE (4.00 / 2)
that he'd recognize a freedom ride when he sees it.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Well fuck. (4.00 / 2)
I don't know what else to say.

But I do have a question: Why, for god's sake, is the US Israel's lapdog? It doesn't make sense. The US is the most powerful country in the world; Israel is a strong regional  power but that's it. Rock beats scissors. So why is US foreign policy oriented around Israel's interests at the exspense of US interests? E.g., why would the US support Israel when doing so clearly undermines what is the US's strong interest in not coming off as the enemies of all Muslim people everywhere?

It makes no sense. From a straightforward theory of power relations perspective, it makes no sense.

So can someone please explain why the US incessantly acts this way?

The best answer I've gotten to this question is basically that Israel is a rogue/fortress state with nukes, that holds the world hostage to its madness. Much like North Korea. Therefore the US can't do too much to antagonize it. But I don't think I buy this. The US is still Isreal's lifeline. Without the US, Israel basically doesn't exist.

So why? Why does the Israeli tail continue to wag the US dog? Why why why?

the most successful lobbying effort in world history (4.00 / 1)
the Israel lobby has very systematically bought off Congress and intimidated everyone else.

Plus: "If you don't support Israel in everything it does, you're an anti-Semite who wants another Holocaust!" They've really got a lot of mileage out of playing that card, over and over again.

[ Parent ]
The fundies (4.00 / 1)

  Israel is central to the fundies' end-times narrative, so a lot of the Israel lobby money comes from the Dobson/Warren crowd.

  And Obama's a kowtower to THEM, too.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Israel is our cat's paw in the Middle East. (4.00 / 3)
I would say the paw is wagging the cat.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Conspiracy Theory or The Game of RISK: Geopolitics, Energy & Peak Oil (4.00 / 1)
In addition to reasons cited above, it's possible that there is some delusional thinking (as well as unimaginative zero-sum gamesmanship) among certain practioners of Realpolitik (like PNAC, members of the 2001 Energy Task Force, etc) that Israel serves as a useful potential beachhead for projecting future US power in service of securing and preserving US energy interests as supply dwindles and competition for scarce resopurces escalates.

This rejects a more workable (not to mention affordable and sustainable!) multi-lateral cooperative approach to meeting world-wide energy, economic, and security requirements.  

[ Parent ]
That truly is a delusion. (4.00 / 1)
I'm not sure if that delusion really exists, but it does seem possible. But it is very  much a delusion.

Israel is not now, nor ever has been a strategic asset to the US. Israel has never been useful in projecting US power in the region. Realists have been pointing this out for many years, from Walt and Mearsheimer recently, to Michael Walzer many years ago--even though Walzer is a Zionist, I hasten to add.

The US has many thousands of troops stationed in many arab countries in the ME. The US has precisely zero troops stationed in Israel, by Israeli law. This is probably the simplest way to give lie to that claim.

Israel has always been a net drag on the US strategic position in the ME and that's only going to get worse.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
So why, then (4.00 / 1)
do we continue giving them money?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
A rhetorical question if ever I heard one ;-) (N/T) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Maybe it didn't come across quite the right way, (4.00 / 2)
but I really want to know what Emocrat thinks.

I subscribe to the cat's paw theory as I said above. Because nothing else makes sense (not that it makes sense either, on a reality-based level). But Emocrat disagrees and she/he usually has pretty good insights into things, so I'm curious.

This whole situation breaks my fucking heart and I'm trying hard to understand it.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
It's mostly domestic politics. (0.00 / 0)
The Israel lobby is easily one of the most powerful in DC. They have congress under their thumb and the bulk of the media as well. Basically I see this as a historical process which simply hasn't kept up with changes over time. As corruption in official circles has become more and more prevalent, so has the entrenched power of the lobby increased as well. So perhaps it's really more about institutional politics at this point than domestic politics.

I was once very pro-Israel. That was back in the 70s when I was much younger and the Israeli polity genuinely aspired to become not only a LIberal Democracy, but a rather progressive one at that. Their constitution was most interesting in terms of progressivity.

But in 1982, they invaded Lebanon in a fine and barbaric fashion and that's when I started becoming critical. I raise this, because I think most people can point to a similar kind of timeline in terms of attitudinal adjustment. Most Americans now are rather critical of Israel, but you'd never know that looking at how congress behaves. That support is still there, but it is increasingly wary, especially as we now have a lot more troops in harm's way in that region.

No one in officialdom ever dares to be critical of Israel in any real sense. Ditto for the media. So what we have is a situation in which a lobby group, 90% of which should be registered as Foreign Agents under US law, basically controls the purse strings and the policy formation apparatus in DC. In this sense, this is just like every other aspect of power politics in DC, as the Imperial City becomes ever more divorced from the interests and needs of the nation as a whole.

I share in your heartbreak. The damage being done to genuine, rational US interests by this relationship is increasingly horrific in it's portent. Likewise, by acting as global enablers for these right-wing fanatics in Israel, we are helping to push them farther and farther into a completely untenable and unsustainable position of ethnic cleansing, genocide and ultimately fascism.

This will not end well for either us or Israel. But it would seem The Power of Stupid is simply too strong for our alleged leaders to grasp. Sadly, that seems to apply to every major policy issue of the day.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
Looks like Mossad's chief Dagan agrees with you (4.00 / 1)
per today's article in haaretz. According to Dagan, israel has to face the threat of turning from an asset into a net liability for the US.

So we can just all quote Mossad from now on - no need to appeal to our own home-grown 'realists".  

[ Parent ]
In For A Penny, In For A Pound[ing] (4.00 / 3)
I think that Israel as a strategic asset is overwhelmingly a matter of hegemonic narrative construction, rather than any well-considered geo-political reality.  But there was a time when this was not so clearly so.  In fact, when the Soviets were actively supporting whichever Arab allies they could find, it was not that fantastical at all. Yet, the Arabs were never really interested in being part of either side in that game--as we should have known even then.  Because we committed ourselves long ago when conditions were much different, we find ourselves now the victims of our delusions.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
That helps, (4.00 / 2)

I can see that, that this is just another irrational part of our Cold War legacy, like maintaining the embargo on Communist Cuba while buying every other thing in the world from Communist China.

Sooner or later this stuff has to be re-examined.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Yes, but even as a Cold War relic, it's still problematic in geo-political terms. (0.00 / 0)
The steady destruction of the hegemonic narrative, vis a vis Israel,  has been ongoing since 1982. With each of Israel's steps into bald-faced brutality, the narrative has suffered it's own set of blows. The demise of the Soviet Union and it's relations with the arab world have only thrown all this into stark relief.

And with it goes the narrative.

But when I speak of strategic assets, I'm mostly thinking in basic terms of power projection. In this sense, Israel has been a net negative for the better part of 20 years now. All they're really good for--and historically this has been the case--is laundering money and making illicit arms sales on "our" behalf to groups we support, but can't do publicly.

Groups like the Contras and so on. So for $8 - 14 Billion a year, that's not much of a payoff, is it?

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
So far, Israel has yet to participate in any of our beachheads... (0.00 / 0)
... And probably never will...

The thing AIPAC and Israel want to avoid is to have the American public realize that these middle east wars America has been involved in are about Israel, and their interests, NOT in the US's interest.


A National Progressive Alliance, is the only viable solution.

[ Parent ]
"How can your average Muslim anywhere in the region not think that US is at war with Islam? Of course it's not true." (4.00 / 1)
Maybe a bit provocative, but is it really not true?  There's outright hostility to Islam in the United States, there is aggressive immigration policy on specific occasions and in general including racial/ethnic profiling, and there are currently two-three countries which are predominantly Muslim that have been invaded, another in whcih the U.S. is engaged in a standoff (Iran) and others for whom the military or someone has approved sekrit strikes.

On top of decades of military or covert operations in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, etc.

So perhaps, the current U.S. tgovernment would not stoop to something as crass as a 'war on islam' but they continue an openended 'war on terror' which seems to focus inordinately on Muslim countries (+ North Korea), is biased towards any countries that actively oppress Muslims to various degrees (Israel, India), and is allied with the most Islamophobic region in the world (Europe).  while far right commentators have frequently said the most insane and racist/islamophobic things such as calls to bomb mecca, etc., shows like 24 and others routinely engage in stereotyping of Muslims, etc.

The only thing I can think of in terms of military action that was pro-Muslim population was Kosovo, so perhaps war on 'non-white muslims' or 'middle eastern, south asian, and african muslims' would be more accurate.  But to me there is probably institutional or structural mass discriminationa gainst Muslims going on which, if it continues at the present pace and perhaps even now, could potentially be described as a 'war on islam' - albeit a nuanced and heavily laden with caveats kind of one.

Because It's Mostly Unconscious (4.00 / 2)
Even Bush knew we needed Muslim allies. And Obama knows that even moreso.  It's just that they really don't even begin to grasp what that entails in terms of responsibilities for us.

And calling it a "war on Islam" oversimplifies it enormously, in just the same sort of way that they oversimplify everything they see.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Dr A has a valid point. It points to schizophrenia. (4.00 / 3)
Of course we're "at war with Islam!" But we're also using muslim countries in the region as bases. So in that sense, we're also "seeking allies" in them. Of course, that's at the base of this whole problem. We're not honest brokers and therefore are utterly incapable of achieving any real progress in the region.

We have zero troops in Israel, but many thousands in "allied" muslim countries. Going by that metric, we're not at war with Islam. Then again, these relationships vary greatly in depth and we can't trust anyone, so chances are the strategic literati in DC have undoubtedly decided we have to keep pressure up on all our alleged "allies" by behaving the way we do. It's a schoolyard bully kind of mindset, but sadly, that's seemingly the way these people "think." Indeed, there's almost certainly a level of racism at work here too. How many people possessing deep loyalties to Israel are at the core of US foreign policy formation? Lots. When Zionists are running the drone murder program--now being ramped up in time for June Wedding Season-- it's hard to conclude that we're not waging war on Islam more generally, eh?

My question is how they can possibly think this situation is in any way sustainable. I just don't see how this ends well for anyone.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

[ Parent ]
"And calling it a "war on Islam" oversimplifies it enormously, in just the same sort of way that they oversimplify everything they see." (4.00 / 1)
So does calling the last thirty years of U.S. domestic policy 'class warfare' but that's what it is.  Sometimes oversimplifications serve the greater end of lending some clarity - at least for purposes of examining whether or not something exists before dismissing it as absurd.

Additionally, what once was may not always be, and so one might say even if this isn't a 'war on islam' or 'war on muslims' it most certainly is and has been since the end of communism a war on 'political islam' that is gradually merging into a broader lumping of all islam as one thing.  With virtually no ability to distinguish or attempt to distinguish among the different varieties that exist even with specific strands like 'globalist salafi islam'  Compare the work of Mark Sageman to the way that Islam is ordinarily discussed, phrases like 'islamofascism' and the portrayals in movies like Sex and the City 2.

Self-fulfilling prophecies and all that ;)

Anyway, I hope you're not too late but I think that you are being too sanguine about the extent to which Islamophobia exists in U.S. policy, as cultural and institutional discrimination globally and other things.  

Now whether or not it serves some other, greater, purpose, is a worthy discussion (e.g. war on poor people, war on the global south, war on anything and everything that might pose a political challenge to neoliberal fundamentalism).  That's the direction I would go in.  Just cautioning against dismissing the idea too readily when the far right in the u.s. is definitely attempting to force the entire country to engage in a 'war on islam.' as it has with feminism, queer rights, etc.

[ Parent ]
There's a difference between class warfare and "war on Islam" (0.00 / 0)
Zionism, going back to the first manifestation of its intent, as expressed by David Ben-Gurion, and other 1948 Jewish leaders, did not concealed the intent and actions necessary that Jews have a manifest destiny to recover the "Promised Land," to its understood original geographical demarcation, which makes no room for other nations, such as Palestine.

The "war on Islam" is sold to the public as a religious and ethnic war. As such, it's irrational, and can't be contained nor negotiated by logic, because it involves factors which humans can't negotiate upon. Thus, Christianity (namely the US neo-conservatives and extreme right), trapped by its own belief of the scriptures, believes it can do nothing, or wants to do nothing about something which shall be in the hands of God.

Class warfare, on the other hand, is a human to human issue, and within logical grasp by human intellect, as there is no greater power which factors in, that can't be reckoned with.

So the issue of Israel's actions and intentions are biblical, and in their mind set, above human politics, thus, while the entire world censures Israel, it remains steadfast behind the word of God, and does not consider human censure worthy of attention.

There could be two points of departure to resolve the issue: a) bring into the political arena the biblical precedents that say Israel is entitled to the Holy Land as their own, b) Follow Jesus' premise, "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's, and onto God..." which is a clear statement of the separation between religion and the state, which would totally do away with the biblical reasoning entitling the Jews to the land.

In either case, Israel has no rational argument to stand upon, even if the biblical scripture were used as a source of resolution. "Israel" is the name given Jacob, thus all the tribes would be entitled to the land, not just the Jews (who carry that name after their patriarch, Judah, only one tribe. If one were to trace the path of the other tribes, one would find that large numbers of Israelites (other tribes) departed around the time of Moses leaving Egypt, and went to settle in places in Europe, Spain, England. Thus, the descendants of Israel are everywhere. This makes Spain, England, and the US the primary inheritors of the Holy Land also, which leave a more rational solution that Israel and the Holy Land shall be an international city run by a joint government of Israelites from anywhere in the world.

But this aspect is never investigated; it is taken for granted that Jews are the inheritors, and Israel today acts entirely on the basis that it will recover the Holy Land. It is gradually destroying the Palestinians, until it will de-facto have taken the land over by force using the US as their patsy and errand boy.

A National Progressive Alliance, is the only viable solution.

[ Parent ]
Forget 11D Chess: Obama has a 2D mind in a 3D world (4.00 / 6)
that only SEEMS 11D to those who NEED to believe such nonsense, for reasons having more to do with their own immaturity and other issues than with Obama and the great issues of our time. And once again, Obama is about to demonstrate just how not up to the demands of our times he really is. His might be an especially adept 2D mind, but it's still just a 2D mind, incapable of and/or unwilling to engage in the sort of reality-based complex thinking that our times demand, instead preferring to continue to plug away with his off the rack neoliberal palaver about bipartisanship and avoiding the extremes. Which, interestingly, invariably favors power and money elites, both as home and abroad.

Sternly-worded speech to follow. Bibi might have to wait as long as two months before he's welcome back in DC. Hmm, what are the Salahis doing tonight?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

Paul, I am glad you took on this issue (4.00 / 4)
that's been festering (languishing?) in the short hits and the occasional diary. In the long run, I don't think progressives can ignore the I/P conundrum, as much of a minefield that it is. It is always there, front, back and center, coming in and out of focus, mixing it up with everything else - domestic, economic and otherwise.

Personally, I believe that because the left, as a whole, has been reluctant (for well known reasons) to look this issue in the face and tackle it no different than it has other problems...the entire area of foreign policy has been either ignored or relegated to the margins.

But foreign policy cannot be cordoned off from domestic policy, as muh as some would like to do that. The relationship between the two is too symbiotic - a failure in one affects the other, be it because of timing, focus, energy or political assetry management.


Open Left Campaigns



Advanced Search

Powered by: SoapBlox