| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:02 am Post subject: |
| A statement by Rabbi Lerner and notes of Obama's remarks to Jewish leaders
Feb. 24 2008 in Cleveland.
Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun Magazine, issued the following statement today (February 26, 2007):
"Presidential candidate Barack Obama has been very successful today in reassuring the bulk of American Jews that the innuendoes and overt attacks on his alleged hostility to or indifference to the well-being of Israel are false or that he has other commitments that might be deemed dangerous to Jews. Obama has shown himself to be a "spiritual progressive" supporting a "progressive Middle Path" that is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. While some Jews, particularly those affiliated with the Republican party or the neo-con-influence wing of the Democratic Party, and those who support the policies of the Likud Party in Israel, are likely to continue to critique Obama and spread rumors and distortions, the vast majority of American Jews are far more likely to consider him a friend of Israel just as they consider Hillary Clinton and John McCain to be, and hence are unlikely to have the issue of Israel-support be the one that decides for them how to vote in either the primaries or the general election of 2008."
Rabbi Lerner can be reached at 510 644 1200 (ask for assistant editor Adina Allen) or RabbiLerner@tikkun.org.
Obama reaches out to Jewish leaders
By Ami Eden of the Jewish Telegraphic Association (JTA)
We've received a rough transcript that came from the Obama campaign of a
closed meeting that the candidate held Sunday in Cleveland with about 100
Jewish communal leaders. Whoever recorded the remarks was only able to get
Obama's answers, not the actual questions from the audience.
For the most part, Obama sought to reassure the audience — on Israel, Iran,
his church, his pastor, his foreign policy advisers, his religion. At the
same time, he picked a few spots to push back against some of his critics in
the Jewish community (see the stuff about the folly of equating pro-Likud
with pro-Israel and the ability of Israelis to conducts a robust debate over
security/diplomatic strategy).
Here are the key quotes (the summaries in all caps are mine, but not the
typos):
WE NEED 'TIKKUN OLAM' IN WASHINGTON: "We need to change how Washington works because politics shouldn't just be about scoring political points, it should also be about solving problems. We need to change our priorities to make healthcare more affordable. To have an energy policy that not only creates
jobs and secures our planet but also stops sending billions of dollars to
dictators and effectively leads us to fund both sides of the war on
terrorism. We need a change in our foreign policy to allows to end the war
in Iraq responsibly and lead the world against the common threats of the
21st century, terrorism and nuclear proliferation, genocide, poverty and
hopelessness in the world. These changes are founded in a view of the world
that I believe is deeply imbedded in the Jewish tradition. That all of us
have a responsibility to do our part to repair the world. That we can take
care of one another and build strong communities grounded in faith and
family. That repairing the world is a task that each of us is called upon to
take up every single day. That is the spirit that I expect to take with me
to the White House."
STAND BY YOUR ISRAEL: "I will also carry with me an unshakable commitment to
the security of Israel and the friendship between the United States and
Israel. The US Israel relationship is rooted in shared interests, shared
values, shared history and in deep friendship among our people. It is
supported by a strong bipartisan consensus that I am proud to be a part of
and I will work tirelessly as president to uphold and enhance the friendship
between the two countries. Two years ago I had a chance to travel to Israel
and it left a lasting impression on me. I have long understood Israel's
great dilemma, it's need for security in a difficult neighborhood and it's
quest for peace with its neighbors, but there is no substitute for meeting
the people of Israel. Seeing the terrain, experiencing the powerful contrast
between the beautiful holy land that faces the constant threat of deadly
violence. The people of Israel showed their courage and commitment to
democracy everyday that they board a bus or kiss their children goodbye or
argue about politics in a local café. And I know how much Israelis crave
peace. I know that Prime Minister Olmert was elected with a mandate to
pursue it. I pledge to make every effort to help Israel achieve that peace.
I will strengthen Israel's security and strengthen Palestinian partners who
support that vision and personally work for two states that can live side by
side in peace and security with Israel's status as a Jewish state ensured so
that Israelis and Palestinians can pursue their dreams. I also expect to
work on behalf of peace with the full knowledge that Israel still has bitter
enemies who are intent on its destruction. We see their intentions every
time a suicide bomber strikes, we saw their intentions with the katusha
rockets that Hezbollah rained down on Israel from Lebanon in 2006 and we see
it today in the Kasams that Hamas fires into Israel every single day from as
close as Gaza or as far as Tehran. The Defense cooperation between t he
United States to Israel has been a model of success and I believe it can be
deepened and strengthened."
IRAN — ALL MILITARY OPTIONS ON THE TABLE, BUT LET'S TRY SOME AGGRESSIVE
DIPLOMACY FIRST: "Now the gravest threat as [U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler
(D-Fla.)] mentioned to Israel today I believe is from Iran. There a radical
regime continues to pursue its capacity to build a nuclear weapon and
continues to support terrorism across the region. President Ahmadinejad
continues his offensive denials of the Holocaust and disturbing
denunciations of Israel. recently referred to Israel as a deadly microbe and
a savage animal. Threats of Israel's destruction can not be dismissed as
rhetoric. The threat from Iran is real and my goal as president would be to
eliminate that threat. Ending the war in Iraq I believe will be an important
first step in achieving that goal because it will increase our flexibility
and credibility when we deal with Iran. Make no mistake I believe that Iran
has been the biggest strategic beneficiary of this war and I intend to
change that. My approach to Iran will be aggressive diplomacy. I will not
take any military options off the table. But I also believe that under this
administration we have seen the threat grow worse and I intend to change
that course. The time I believe has come to talk to directly to the Iranians
and to lay out our clear terms. Their end of pursuit of nuclear weapons, an
end of their support of terrorism and an end of their threat to Israel and
other countries in the reason. To prepare this goal I believe that we need
to present incentives, carrots, like the prospect of better relations and
integration into the national community, as well as disincentives like the
prospect of increased sanctions. I would seek these sanctions through the
United Nations and encourage our friends in Europe and the Gulf to use their
economic leverage against Iran outside of the UN and I believe we will be in
a stronger position to achieve these tough international sanctions if the
United States has shown itself to be willing to come to the table. I will
also continue the work I started in the United States Senate by enacting my
legislation to make it easier for states to divest their pension funds from
Iran. As president I will leave all options on the table for dealing with a
threat from Iran including the military options. But I believe that we have
not pursued the kind of aggressive and direct diplomacy that could yield
results to both Israel and the United States. The current policy of not
talking is not working. It is time to change that. I am running for
president because I believe that America can do better both at home and
abroad. I believe that we can do better in our relationship with Israel
through a more effective foreign policy that reduces the threat of terrorism
and increase the possibility for peace."
I DON'T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING MY PASTOR SAYS — BESIDES, HE'S RETIRING (HEY,
DON'T ANY OF YOU HAVE AN UNCLE WHO SAYS SHVARTZA?): "I am member of the
Unity Church of Christ, Trinity United Church of Christ been there for 20
years. And although this is an improvement because you don't think I am
Muslim, which is the other… [laughter] You know so, slowly we are
progressing here. It is a very conventional African American Church. If you
go to, if you were there at the church you would be hearing gospel music and
people preaching about Jesus. It is a very conventional in that sense. It is
true that my Pastor, Jeremiah Wright, who will be retiring this month, is
somebody who on occasion can say controversial things. Most of them by the
way are controversial directed at the African American Community and calling
on them start reading books and turn off the tv set and engage in self help.
And he is very active in prison ministries and so forth. Its is also true
that he comes out of the 60s he is an older man. That is where he cut his
teeth. That he has historically been interested in the African roots of the
African American experience. He was very active in the South Africa
divestment movement and you will recall that there was a tension that arose
between the African American and the Jewish communities During that period
when we were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and
South Africa had a relationship at that time. And that cause - that was a
source of tension. So there have been a couple of occasions where he made
comments with relation, rooted in that. Not necessary ones that I share. But
that is the context within which he has made those comments. He does not
have a close relationship with Louis Farrakhan. Louis Farrakhan is a
resident of Chicago and as a consequence he has been active in a range of
community activities, particularly around ex-offenders and dealing with
them. I have been a consistent, before I go any further, a consistent
denunciator of Louis Farrakhan, nobody challenges that. And what is true is
that, recently this is probably, I guess last year. An award was given to
Farrakhan for his work on behave of ex-offenders completely unrelated to his
controversial statements. And I believe that was a mistake and showed a lack
of sensitivity to Jewish community and I said so. But I have never heard an
anti-Semitic made inside of our church. I have never heard anything that
would suggest anti-Semitism on part of the Pastor. He is like an old uncle
who sometimes will say things that I don't agree with. And I suspect there
are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things
that they don't agree with. Including, on occasion directed at African
Americans that maybe a possibility that's just - I am not suggesting that's
definitive. So the point I make is this that I understand the concerns and
the sensitivities and one of my goals constantly in my public career has
been to try to bridge what was a historically powerful bond between the
African American and Jewish communities that has been frayed in recent
years. For a whole variety of reasons. I think that I have served as an
effective bridge and that's the reason I have overwhelming support among the
Jewish community that knows me best, which is the Jewish community in
Chicago. And I think that anybody who has friends among the Jewish community
in Chicago should check out those credentials. But I do appreciate the
opportunity to clarify those concerns. And as I said that last point I would
make is that you know my Pastor is going to be retiring over the next month.
So my general view, and the reason that I raise this, this is always a
sensitive point, what you don't want to do is distance yourself or kick
somebody away, because you are now running for President and you are worried
about perceptions, particularly when someone is basically winding down their
life and their career. Okay, yes."
I AM NOT, NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN, A MUSLIM (ESPECIALLY AN ANTI-AMERICAN ONE):
"Well, let's just be very specific about what these emails have been. And
they have just been virulent and started very early. And I have to say are
not. I mean they are clearly political in the sense that they go in waves.
And seem to track the next…the next primary or caucus. Suddenly they
magically appear in great volume in whatever state it is we are campaigning.
And the emails suggest that A. that I am Muslim, B. that I went to a
madrassa C. that I used a Koran to swear myself into the Senate D. That I
don't pledge allegiance to the flag. There are all sorts of variations, but
you get the general gist. And our general view has been, that the internet
is very difficult, because it is very low cost, it can just be churned out
and you can't trace it back to where it's coming from. What we have tried to
do is just make sure that we are flooding the internet with the accurate
information and pushing back as much as possible. I don't think that we are
in an era anymore where you can just ignore these things and not dignify
them. There was a time when they would be amplified as consequence of you
calling attention to it. I don't think that's the case any more because of
our media age. You know we saw what happened with the swift boat situation
back in 2004. All you have to do is run the ad once and then it gets
repeated. And so what we've done is try to lift it up and actively debunk it
and encourage stories about it. If anyone is still puzzled about the facts,
in fact I have never been a Muslim. We had to send CNN to look at the school
that I attended in Indonesia where kids were wearing short pants and
listening to ipods to indicate that this was not a madrassa but was a
secular school in Indonesia. Where I attended for two year prior to coming
back to Hawaii. If you look at Nicholas Kristof's article today it gives you
an indication of where I got my name. My grandfather who was Kenyan
converted to Christianity then converted to Islam, my father never practiced
he was basically agnostic and so other than my name and the fact that I
lived in a populous Muslim country for 4 years when I was a child I have
very little connection to the Islamic religion. But these are the kind of
things that you deal with in politics. What is interesting is that is hasn't
worked because I haven't been voted off the island yet. Next, yes sir."
I BARELY KNOW BRZEZINSKI: "There is a spectrum of views in terms of how the
US and Israel should be interacting. It has evolved over time. It means that
somebody like Brzezinski who, when he was national security advisor would be
considered not outside of the mainstream in terms of his perspective on
these issues, is now considered by many in the Jewish Community anathema. I
know Brzezinski he's not one of my key advisors. I've had lunch with him
once, I've exchanged emails with him maybe 3 times. He came to Iowa to
introduce for a speech on Iraq. He and I agree that Iraq was an enormous
strategic blunder and that input from him has been useful in assessing Iraq,
as well as Pakistan, where actually, traditionally, if you will recall he
was considered a hawk. The liberal wing of the Democratic Party was very
suspicious of Brzezinski precisely because he was so tough on many of these
issues. I do not share his views with respect to Israel. I have said so
clearly and unequivocally."
YOU CAN BE PRO-ISRAEL WITHOUT BEING PRO-LIKUD: "The others that you refer to
are former members of the Clinton administration. Somebody like a Tony Lake,
the former National Security Adviser, or Susan Rice -these are not
anti-Israel individuals. These are people who strongly believe in Israel's
right to exist. Strongly believe in a two-state solution. Strongly believe
that the Palestinians have been irresponsible and have been strongly
critical of them. Share my view that Israel has to remain a Jewish state,
that the US has a special relationship with the Jewish state. There's no
inkling that there has been anything in anything that they've written that
would suggest they're not stalwart friends of Israel. This is where I get to
be honest and I hope I'm not out of school here. I think there is a strain
within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering
pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the
measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have a honest dialogue
about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress.
And frankly some of the commentary that I've seen which suggests guilt by
association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any
difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is
non military or non belligerent or doesn't talk about just crushing the
opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we're
going to have problems moving forward. And that I think is something we have
to have an honest dialogue about. None of these emails talk about the fact
that on the other side, members of my national finance committee, like
Lester Crown, are considered about has hawkish and tough when it comes to
Israel as anybody in the country. So, there's got to be some balance here.
I've got a range of perspectives and a range of advisors who approach this
issue. They would all be considered well within the mainstream of that
bipartisan consensus that I raised or that we talked about in terms of being
pro-Israel. There's never been any of my advisors who questioned the need
for us to provide Israel with security, with military aid, with economic
aid. That there has to be a two state solution, that Israel has to remain a
Jewish state. None of my advisors would suggest that, so I think its
important to keep some of these things in perspective. I understand people's
concern with Brzezinski given how much offense the Israeli lobby raised, but
he's not one of my central advisers."
IN SEARCH OF AN UNROMANTIC PEACE PLAN: "Well here's my starting orientation
is A - Israel's security is sacrosanct, is non negotiable. That's point
number one. Point number two is that the status quo I believe is
unsustainable over time. So we're going to have to make a shift from the
current deadlock that we're in. Number three that Israel has to remain a
Jewish state and what I believe that means is that any negotiated peace
between the Israelis and the Palestinians is going to have to involve the
Palestinians relinquishing the right of return as it has been understood in
the past. And that doesn't mean that there may not be conversations about
compensation issues. It also means the Israelis will have to figure out how
do we work with a legitimate Palestinian government to create a Palestinian
state that is sustainable. It's going to have to be contiguous, its going to
have to work its going to have to function in some way. That's in Israel's
interest by the way. If you have a balkanized unsustainable state, it will
break down and we will be back in the same boat. So those are the starting
points of my orientation. My goal then would be to solicit as many practical
opinions as possible in terms of how we're going to move forward on a
improvement of relations and a sustainable peace. The question that I will
be asking any advisor is how does it achieve the goal of Israel's security
and how does it achieve the goal of sustainability over the long term and I
want practical, hardheaded, unromantic advice about how we're going to
achieve that.
THE PALESTINIANS NEED TO KEEP THEIR COMMITMENTS: I have consistently said
this, and I have said this to Palestinians, I said this when I was in
Ramallah, that you cannot fault Israel for being concerned about any peace
agreement if the Palestinian state or Palestinian Authority or Palestinian
leadership does not seem to be able to follow through on its commitments.
And I think the approach we have to take with respect to negations is that
you sit down and talk, but you have to suspend trust until you can see that
the Palestinian side can follow through and that's a position that I have
consistently taken and the one I will take with me to the White House."
IF ISRAELIS CAN DEBATE THESE ISSUES HONESTLY, SO CAN WE: One last point I'll
make on this, in terms of advisors and the kind of debate I think is
fruitful, one of the things that struck me when I went to Israel was how
much more open the debate was around these issues in Israel than they are
sometimes here in the United States. It's very ironic. I sat down with the
head of Israeli security forces and his view of the Palestinians was
incredibly nuanced because he's dealing with these people every day. There's
good and there's bad, and he was willing to say sometimes we make mistakes
and we made this miscalculation and if we are just pressing down on these
folks constantly without giving them some prospects for hope, that's not
good for our security situation. There was a very honest, thoughtful debate
taking place inside Israel. All of you, I'm sure, have experienced this when
you travel there. Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is
under, I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more
protective or concerned about opening up that conversation. But all I'm
saying though is that actually ultimately should be our goal, to have that
same clear eyed view about how we approach these issues.
SURE, SOME JEWS THINK THE GOP IS BETTER ON ISRAEL — BUT THEY'RE WRONG: "Well
look, the Jewish community is a) diverse, b) has interests beyond Israel.
There is a … the tradition of the Jewish community in America as a
progressive force that is concerned with the poor, is concerned with the
vulnerable, is concerned with children, is concerned with civil rights, is
concerned with civil liberties. Those are values that I believe are much
more evident in our Democratic Party and that can't be forgotten. I think
that what I've seen, and you would know better than I would, is that to the
extent that there's been bleeding over into the Republican Party, it all has
to do with this issue of Israel. And what I would simply suggest is look at
the consequences George Bush's policies. The proof is in the point. I do not
understand how anybody who is concerned about Israel's security and the
threat of Iran could be supportive of George Bush's foreign policy. It has
completely backfired. It is indisputable that Iran is the biggest strategic
beneficiary of the war in Iraq. We have spent what will soon be close to a
trillion dollars strengthening Iran, expanding their influence. How is that
helpful to Israel? How is that helpful to Israel? You can't make that
argument. And so the problem that we've seen in U.S. foreign policy
generally has been this notion that being full of bluster and rattling
sabers and being quick on the draw somehow makes you more secure. And keep
in mind that I don't know anybody in the Democratic Party, and I will say
this for Hillary Clinton and I will say this for myself, who has indicated
in any way that we would tolerate and allow to fester terrorist threats,
that we wouldn't hunt down, capture, or kill terrorists that haven't been
supportive of Israel capturing or killing terrorists. So it's not like we're
a bunch of folks asking to hold hands and sing Kumbiya. When Israel launched
its counterattack against Hezbollah in Lebanon during the summer of 2006, I
was in South Africa at the time, a place that was not particularly friendly
to Israel at the time and I was asked by the press, what did you think? And
I said, if somebody invades my country or is firing rockets into my country
or kidnapping my soldiers, I will not tolerate that. And there's no nation
in the world that would. So I don't see this softness within the Democratic
Party on these issues. The question is, can we use our military power
wisely? Can we be strategic in terms of how we move forward? And I think
that is profoundly in the interests of Israel and in the interests of U.S.
security."
WHAT HAMAS NEEDS TO DO: "Now again, going back to my experiences in Israel
and the discussions I've had with security officials there, I think that
there are communications between the Israeli government and Hamas that may
be two or three degrees removed, but people know what Hamas is thinking and
what's going on and the point is that with respect to Hamas, you can't have
a conversation with somebody who doesn't think you should be on the other
side of the table. At the point where they recognize Israel and its right to
exist, at the point where they recognize that they are not going to be able
to shove their world view down the throats of others but are going to have
to sit down and negotiate without resort to violence, then I think that will
be a different circumstance. That's not the circumstance that we're in right
now. I've only called on men I think, I've got to get at least one female
question… well, it's just because I didn't see any … in fairness to me, you
guys didn't raise your hands, ladies. This is how I end up getting into
trouble here. Go ahead."
LEARNING FROM INDONESIA: "Now keep in mind, Indonesia is not the Arab world.
So its brand of Islam was always very different. Women were riding on Vespas
and going to work, and people weren't wearing headscarves until very
recently - that was actually an import from the Middle East. But here's
what's interesting about Indonesia, it's a good case study. It had had a
very tolerant, mild brand of Islam all the time that I was living there and
basically up and thru 97. And what happened was that you'll recall the Asian
financial crisis hit them extraordinarily hard. Their gross domestic product
contracted by 30% - they had the equivalent of a Great Depression, but this
was a country that was already extraordinarily poor. So, there was a direct
correlation between the collapse of that economy and the rise of
fundamentalist Islam inside of Indonesia. Partly it was exported by Saudi
Wahhabist schools that were sent in and financing schools there, and
suddenly you started seeing head scarves on the streets and Islamic
organizations that were parroting some of the fundamentalist and more
fanatical brands of Islam that we associate with the Middle East. And the
reason I raise that point is that although people will often say, well
terrorists are drawn from the middle class and just being poor doesn't mean
that you're automatically ascribe to violent jihadist tendencies. What is
absolutely true is that in the Arab world and in the Muslim world, I do
think there is a correlation between the degree to which those communities
function properly, give people hope, give people a sense of direction, give
children education, and how vulnerable they are to these violent
ideologies."
I AM NOT NAIVE: "So what lessons do we learn from that then? I am not naïve.
There is a hard core of jihadist fundamentalists who we can't negotiate
with. We have to hunt them down and knock them out. Incapacitate them.
That's the military aspects of dealing with this phenomenon. Now somebody
like a Richard Clarke would estimate that the hard core jihadists would
gladly blow up this room maybe it's 30,000 people, maybe it's 40,000 people,
maybe it's 50,000 people. But it is a finite number. And that is where
military action and intelligence has to be directed. So all the things I've
talked about in the past - improving our intelligence capacity, improving
our alliances, rolling up financial support, improving our homeland
security, making sure that we have strike forces that are effective - that's
all the military, intelligence, police work that's required.
"The question then is what do we do with the 1.3 billion Muslims, who are
along a spectrum of belief. Some extraordinarily moderate, some very pious
but not violent. How do we reach out to them? And it is my strong belief
that that is the battlefield that we have to worry about, and that is where
we have been losing badly over the last 7 years. That is where Iraq has been
a disaster. That is where the lack of effective public diplomacy has been a
disaster. That is where our failure to challenge seriously human rights
violations by countries like Saudi Arabia that are our allies has been a
disaster. And so what we have to do is to speak to that broader Muslim world
in a way that says we will consistently support human rights, women's
rights. We will consistently invest in the kinds of educational
opportunities for children in these communities, so that madrasas are not
their only source of learning. We will consistently operate in ways that
lead by example, so that we have no tolerance for a Guantanamo or renditions
or torture. Those all contribute to people at least being open to our values
and our ideas and a recognition that we are not the enemy and that the Clash
of Civilizations is not inevitable.
"Now, as I said, we enter into those conversations with the Muslim world
being mindful that we also have to defend ourselves against those who will
not accept the West, no matter how appropriately we engage. And that is the
realism that has to leaven our hopefulness. But, we abandon the possibility
of conversation with that broader Muslim world at our own peril. I think all
we do then, is further isolate it and feed the kinds of jihadist fanaticism
that I think can be so… "
To read on-going analyses of the reality of Israel/Palestine and also about the Presidential campaign in 2008, check the Current Thinking section of www.tikkun.org, where the sections on these issues gets updated at least 3 times a week. | |  | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:36 am Post subject: |
| http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2008/02/aipac-vs-foreign-agents-registration.html
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
AIPAC vs the Foreign Agents Registration Act
Feb 24, 2008
Topics addressed:
Criticism of AIPAC; its effects on the American political scene and the distortions it causes in foreign policy
Lobbying the US Congress, political influence, AIPAC
By Grant F. Smith
AUDIO-mp3 | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:39 am Post subject: |
| Smooooooooch 
http://www.politicallore.com/election-2008/obama-hopes-to-win-over-jewish-voters/169
Obama Hopes to Win Over Jewish Voters
February 26th, 2008 Shaun Booth Posted in Shaun Booth, Barack Obama, Presidential Candidates, Election 2008 |
Developments yesterday in the Democratic primary race centered on an increasing variety of attacks by Senator Clinton’s camp towards Senator Obama. One of the attacks that has surfaced yet again is the accusation by some that Obama is not friendly enough towards Israel. A look at Obama’s record shows that he has more than pulled his weight in the Senate when it has come to maintaining and strengthening America’s “special relationship” with Israel.
Examples that show Obama’s unwavering support for Israel in recent years are great in number; I will mention only a few.
In January of this year, after Palestinians flooded over the boarder into Eygpt, Obama made a point to contact Ambassador Khalilzad in the letter he said,
“I understand that today the UN Security Council met regarding the situation in Gaza, and that a resolution or statement could be forthcoming from the Council in short order. I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condemn the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel.”
In a speech given Sunday Obama stated to a group of Jewish-Americans in Cleveland:
“I will also carry with me an unshakable commitment to the security of Israel and the friendship between the United States and Israel.”
He has made speeches to the Jewish-American community on several occasions stating his commitment to the security of Israel, most notably AIPAC, to whom he assured that every option against Iran is on the table.
AIPAC president Howard Friedman stated in a letter to Newsweek that “Senators Clinton, Obama, McCain and Governor Huckabee have demonstrated their support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.” The only candidate still remaining that he did not mention was Republican Congressman Ron Paul.
With a record like Obama’s the question becomes: Where is the debate in the United States on Israel/Palestine that Obama is left open to such criticism.
Some point to fears being justified by the journalist Ali Abunimah who has written for the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times and has quoted Obama as saying during his Senate Democratic Primary campaign in 2004,
“I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.”
This quote is ambiguous and only states that Obama was not willing to bring Palestine into the discussion whatsoever, not that he favored Palestine. Abunimah also points to having encountered Obama at an Edward Said event and at several Arab friendly events in Chicago.
Articles litter the Jewish press and recently Newsweek and several major American papers seriously entertaining the idea of Barack Obama being anti-Israel.
Ralph Nader disagreed with those that have labeled Obama anti-Israel on Meet the Press this past Sunday. Nader said of Obama,
“He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate.”
Nader went on to say, “He (Obama) doesn’t have any sympathy for a civilian death ratio of about 300-to-1; 300 Palestinians to one Israeli.”
If Obama did at one time hold a position that was more sympathetic to the Palestinian situation, why did he feel the need to change upon his entrance into national politics?
Obama has the chance to open up the debate on Israel/Palestine in this country. But instead the debate has become Obama attempting to prove that he is indeed Pro-Israel enough to earn himself the Jewish-American vote in the United States, rather than shedding light on the reality of the Israeli occupation. In his speeches to the Jewish community, Obama has never taken the time to directly criticize Israel. Not a word about continuing settlement construction or the maze of Israeli settlements and checkpoints Palestinians must navigate in their daily lives, subjects that are widely questioned, even within Israel.
The fact that the charge of Obama being anti-Israel can be taken seriously in the U.S. is a yet another signal that the issue clearly is not seriously discussed in the Mainstream Press and therefore the public to a large extent remains uninformed on this key foreign policy issue. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:43 am Post subject: |
| http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/113.html
Israel's Influence on
US Foreign Policy
VIDEO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O125hGt9qt4
In whose interest?
Former U.S. Marine Corps officer and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter talks about the unique influence that the Israel war lobby has on the U.S. news media and U.S. foreign policy.
Can anything be done to turn this around?
Ritter has written an important new book "Waging Peace" which answers this question realistically and comprehensively.
It's the peace manual for our times.
By they way, please note that the is a HUGE difference between the Israeli War Lobby (an alliance of the Israeli war party and corrupt politicians in the US) and Israelis, Jews, and even Zionists.
Many Israelis oppose the behavior of their government as do many Jews in the United States and elsewhere. Also, many "Zionists" are naive people whose idealism has been co-opted by corrupt elements.
To talk of "Israel", "Jews" and even "Zionists" as the problem is ignorant and counterproductive. It is the Israeli war party and their supporters in the US that is the problem.
At public meetings, I insist that this distinction is made and I am surprised by how many professional critics of the war party dismiss its importance. It's a VERY important distinction. | | | | dangerousdna | | Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: |
| OMG - I posted this in the wrong thread again  | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: Nutjob Pastor John Hagee endorses McCain, McCain returns com |
| Nutjob Pastor John Hagee endorses McCain, McCain returns compliment
Ryan wrote:
http://politicati.blogspot.com/2008/02/will-mccain-start-world-war-iii-to.html
Folks, here's what we're up against. These people don't care about America. They care about their own agendas. This Hagee clown openly advocates letting a berserk madman like McCain loose, because Hagee's truly stunning agenda is to directly bring about the end times by starting a U.S.-Israel war with Iran. And McCain not only fails to repudiate this, but basks in it!
This is the fruit of AIPAC's grip on us. Their entire agenda is to use our military as a proxy to fulfill their various religious prophecies involving the Middle East, so that they can keep their own hands clean and play the victim. Meanwhile, we cut ourselves down from our moral high ground by waging aggressive war, and in the process bankrupt ourselves and mortgage several generations down the road to pay for this madness!
I wonder if Hagee has considered -- what happens if they fail to bring about the prophesized end times, and instead bring about the poverty, tyranny, and mass murder that will result from the collapse of our Republic?
Isn't it about time we said enough is enough to this insane foreign policy that is being driven by the propaganda of a minority interest?
Thank you this about Hagee Ryan... No surprise either as one can see Hagee in the youtube documentary about AIPAC linked in the box at the right of the following youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6-BGY7X1ro
Here is a direct link to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N294FMDok98&feature=related
Take a listen to what Scott Ritter mentioned about AIPAC's push for war with Iran in the youtube videos linked in the comments section of the following URL (be sure to also click on USA Today's Barbara Slavin there to hear the C-SPAN 'Washington Journal' call about why we more than likely will be going to war with Iran as well even if Israel starts it via Lebanon in accordance with the rest of the 'A Clean Break' agenda as discussed by James Bamford in his 'A Pretext for War' book - see the 'A Clean Break' link at the top of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM):
AIPAC IS PUSHING US TO WAR WITH IRAN FOR ISRAEL:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html
Phil linked the youtube above in the following recent blog entry of his:
Yes, There Is a Guerrilla War Against Zionism in the U.S. What Should Jewish Institutions Do?
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/02/portrait-of-a-h.html
If you do a search for 'Mearsheimer' in the search field at CBSNEWS.COM, the following article that Phil Weiss wrote for 'The Nation' about Mearsheimer/Walt appears as the only reference:
Ferment Over The 'Israel Lobby'
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/opinion/main1560594.shtml?source=search_story
Additional about Congressman Howard Berman on Israel and the pro-Israel lobby:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/02/22/congressman-howard-berman-on-israel-and-the-pro-israel-lobby.php | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: Blood-thirsty ISRAEL seeks "clean break" to ensnar |
| 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda discussed via the youtube videos linked at the following URL:
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5890
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This kind of thing has been a concern of mine for quite some time as you already know.. War with Iran and Syria could get started via Lebanon.. Especially if Israel goes back in there after Hezbollah.. That assassination in Syria was a deliberate attempt to provoke retaliation from Hezbollah in order to give the Israelis an 'excuse' to go back in.. How convenient for ships to be off the coast at such a time.. Not saying that this will take place for sure, but it doesn't look good... It would be right in accordance with the rest of the 'A Clean Break' agenda (see the 'A Clean Break' post near the top of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM) as you already know (with a co-writer of it being JINSA/PNAC associated Richard Perle who routinely whispers in Cheney's ear from his perch up at AEI where Cheney's wife is a fellow as well!).
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 12:53 PM
Subject: Lebanon: What U.S. Warships off the Coast Do -- and Do Not --
Mean
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
---------------------------
LEBANON: WHAT U.S. WARSHIPS OFF THE COAST DO -- AND DO NOT -- MEAN
Summary
At least part of the USS Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group will pause in
the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Lebanon and Syria during a
routine deployment, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm.
Michael Mullen said Feb. 28. While the ships' presence is sure to grab
Syria's attention, it is not a precursor to a military strike. Rather,
the United States is signaling to Syria, Iran and Hezbollah that any
bold moves to impose their will on the Lebanese government or retaliate
for the death of Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyah could have serious
repercussions.
Analysis
At least a portion of the USS Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG)
will pause off the coast of Lebanon and Syria during a routine
deployment, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael
Mullen announced Feb. 28. The Nassau is set to join the USS Cole
(DDG-67), and the ships will probably remain over the horizon and
largely unseen from the coast (although the Nassau has a much more
imposing silhouette than the Cole).
The total number of U.S. warships in the eastern Mediterranean will thus
likely rise above three -- something that is sure to get Syrian
President Bashar al Assad to sit upright in his seat. U.S. naval
presence off the Syrian coast could grow even more in only two weeks or
so if other ships in the ESG arrive.
Syria is already facing mounting pressure from multiple sides to back
down on its aggressive campaign in Lebanon. While Washington and the
Gulf Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, are pressuring Syria to strike a
deal over the Lebanese presidency to pull that country out of political
stagnation, Israel is strongly hinting that it is preparing for a
rematch with Hezbollah. The prospect of a coordinated U.S.-Israeli
military operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon is a signal to the
Syria-Hezbollah-Iran axis that any bold moves to force its political
demands in Lebanon or retaliate for the Feb. 12 assassination of
Hezbollah top commander Imad Mughniyah will likely be met with a heavy
blow to Hezbollah.
The Nassau ESG had been expected to deploy with the North Carolina-based
24th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), but those Marines were recently
retasked for a last-minute deployment to Afghanistan. Thus, despite
rumors circulating in the press, there are few if any Marines deployed
with this particular ESG. In addition, various components of the ESG
have left in a staggered manner, meaning that portions of the group have
not yet joined up with the Nassau.
When fully assembled, the Nassau ESG will include some 2,800 sailors and
will comprise:
The Nassau (LHA-4), a Tarawa-class amphibious assault ship that is
larger than a World War II aircraft carrier and normally carries more
than 1,500 Marines and some 50 helicopters and fighter aircraft;
The Ashland (LSD-48), a dock landing ship that can carry as many as four
air-cushion landing craft;
The Nashville (LPD-13), an amphibious transport dockship whose sister
ship, the Trenton (LPD-14), was involved in the evacuation of some 3,500
U.S. nationals from Beirut in 2006 before it was transferred to the
Indian Navy in 2007;
The Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser Philippine Sea (CG-58);
The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers Ross (DDG-71) and
Bulkeley (DDG-84), which have the same capabilities as the Cole, with
the exception that the Bulkeley is a later Flight IIA variant that
likely carries two helicopters; and
The attack submarine Albany (SSN-753), an Improved Los Angeles class
variant with 12 vertical launch tubes for Tomahawk cruise missiles (it
might carry more internally).
Even without the MEU aboard, this would represent an impressive naval
force unlike anything the United States has parked off the Levant in
some time. In addition to the Albany's capabilities, the surface
combatants soon to arrive off the Syrian coast are equipped with Aegis,
Harpoon anti-ship and Tomahawk cruise missiles, as well as 5-inch guns.
That represents the most naval hitting power currently positioned in the
Eastern Mediterranean.
Copyright 2008 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
After reading the following take a look at the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda as discussed by respected American intelligence author/writer James Bamford via the link near the top of http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM :
U.S. sends warship off Lebanon coast (Reuters)
By Sue Pleming and Andrew Gray
Thu Feb 28, 6:52 PM ET
Signaling impatience with Syria, the United States has sent its USS Cole warship off the coast of Lebanon in a show of support amid Beirut's political crisis, U.S. officials said on Thursday.
Officials said the Bush administration was concerned about political deadlock in Lebanon, which Washington blames on Syrian meddling, and the move underlined that worry.
"The presence is important. It isn't meant to send any stronger signals than that but in fact it does signal that we're engaged, we're going to be in the vicinity," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Mullen said the decision was not aimed only at Syria but at the region as whole.
"That's a very, very important part of the world and stability there as well as in the broader Middle East is an important outcome for us," he told reporters at the Pentagon.
A U.S. defense official said the Cole, a destroyer, left Malta on Tuesday heading toward Lebanon, adding it would not be within visible range of Lebanon but "well over the horizon."
A couple of U.S. Navy refueling ships were also in the area, the official said.
Lebanon's Western-backed governing coalition and its Syrian and Iranian backed opposition have failed to reach a deal to end the country's political conflict.
"The United States believes a show of support is important for regional stability," said a senior Bush administration official, who spoke on condition he was not identified.
"We are very concerned about the situation in Lebanon. It has dragged on very long."
The Cole was attacked off the coast of Yemen in October 2000 by al Qaeda militants. Seventeen U.S. sailors were killed.
Mullen said a group of ships will operate in the eastern Mediterranean "for a while."
The Lebanese government had no immediate comment.
But Hezbollah ally and Christian opposition leader Michel Aoun said the United States sent the Cole to display its deterrence capability and he was not worried about the action.
OTHER SHIP EN ROUTE
Two U.S. defense officials said the Cole could be replaced by the USS Nassau, an amphibious assault ship on a course for the Mediterranean. Such ships can transport U.S. Marines but there are no Marines on the Nassau, one official said.
A third defense official noted the Nassau was accompanied by other vessels as part of an expeditionary strike group and suggested some of them may be more likely to relieve the Cole.
The presidential election in Lebanon was postponed again this week to March 11 from February 26, the 15th such delay, after rival leaders failed to reach a deal.
The deadlock has threatened to degenerate into sectarian violence and continues to poison inter-Arab relations in the run-up to an Arab League summit in Syria next month.
"The Arab League is engaged but it has not been successful. In those set of circumstances we think a show of support for regional stability and regional solutions is important," said the senior Bush administration official.
Saudi Arabia, a close U.S. ally which supports the pro-Western coalition, has also voiced concern over events in Lebanon and discussed the issue with President George W. Bush last month during his visit to Saudi Arabia.
Bush ordered the move earlier this week as a sign of concern over Lebanon and consulted U.S. allies such as France and Britain about it as well as those in the Middle East.
Bush administration officials declined to say whether the decision was taken partly because of Saudi pressure.
"The president is concerned about the situation in Lebanon and discusses the issue regularly with his national security team," said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe.
The United States has increased pressure on Syria in recent weeks, targeting more individuals with sanctions.
The U.S. Treasury froze assets of four Syrians on Thursday, saying they facilitated the flow of money, weapons and terrorists through Syria to al Qaeda in Iraq.
(Editing by Cynthia Osterman)
Additional at the following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/02/14/war-with-iran-real-risk-according-to-former-cia-operative-page-61.php
Generals to quit if US strikes Iran
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=44700§ionid=351020101
Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:49:33
Some senior US military commanders are prepared to resign if President Bush orders a military strike against Iran, a new report says.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” The Sunday Times quoted Monday a source with close ties to British intelligence .
“There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible,” the source added.
If proven true a revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented because 'American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired,” said a Pentagon source.
Robert Gates, the defense secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.
Iran has announced that in face of any aggression it will respond like a 'tsunami'.
MT/DT
Count of views : 538
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional at following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/02/24/war-with-iran-real-risk-according-to-former-cia-operative-page-63.php
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
Iraq's Deeply Tragic Future (US to bomb Iran next for Israel as well)
By Scott Ritter
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/76318/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, There Is a Guerrilla War Against Zionism in the U.S. What Should Jewish Institutions Do?:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/02/portrait-of-a-h.html
Finkelstein, a Victim of the Israel Lobby, Denies That It Has Power
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/02/last-fall-norma.html
If you do a search for 'Mearsheimer' in the search field at CBSNEWS.COM, the following article that Phil Weiss wrote for 'The Nation' about Mearsheimer/Walt appears as the only reference::
Ferment Over The 'Israel Lobby':
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/opinion/main1560594.shtml?source=search_story
Additional about Congressman Howard Berman on Israel and the pro-Israel lobby:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/02/22/congressman-howard-berman-on-israel-and-the-pro-israel-lobby.php
Read the first part of the following article for how Obama pandered to the pro-Israel lobby as well just as Hillary Clinton has done:
The Lobby Strikes Back:
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_12_03/cover.html
Can hear the latest C-SPAN viewer call which mentioned the 'A Clean Break'/War for Israel agenda which is linked near the top of the following URL:
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
Jewish Advocates of Pre-Emptive War with Iran Come Under Increasing Criticism:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/middle-east-and-asia/2008/02/24/how-israel-corrupts-and-controls-the-us-congress-and-media-page-429.php | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
