You can find his analysis on why Americans should care about what has been happening in Gaza these last 48 hours here. One hopes Obama might have a look at it, too.
Also well worth reading are the latest by Akiva Eldar in Haaretz. J Street has taken a very courageous position under the circumstances and is circulating a petition for the U.S. to lead diplomatic efforts to reinstate the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas (over Elliott Abram’s dead body, presumably). Americans for Peace Now (APN) has also issued a statement consistent with its Israeli sister organization, Peace Now.
It’s good that the Obama people have at least invited these groups into the room, as reported last week by Politico’s Ben Smith, although Israel Policy Forum’s excellent M.J. Rosenberg took strong and appropriate exception in his weekly column Friday to the presence at the meeting in question of the pro-settler Zionist Organization of America.
I read Levey over at TWN.
All I have to say about his call for the US to ‘do something’, to ‘restart’ peace talks is this….
The irony is deliciously tragic.
The parastic Israelis and their zio henchmen have burrowed into and so corrupted and twisted American politics, policy, principle and government on Israel that the US is morally bankrupt on this issue and not capable of brokering a ‘just’ deal for Palestines.
And without a ‘just’ deal there will be no peace and Israel will not survive.
Israel will continue to get their assisted suicide support from the US congress.
A true Shakespearian ending to the Israeli state and the US-Israel marriage made in hell.
your comment, Caroll, would benefit if you could leave out terms like “zio henchman” and especially “parasitic” Israelis. Shakespeare was far beyond this in his look on us humans.
O.K….what would you like to call them? American patriots? Interest group? Constitutionally protected lobbist? concerned Israel loyalist? What?
Pick a name.
Parastic fits, I ‘am leaving that one in.
As I said the irony would be funny if it wern’t so tragic.
At the risk of sounding ignorant right from the start, I will admit that the complex history of U.S. and Israeli policies have been a mystery to me. Since Israel’s inception there has been a tangled web of controversy and boat loads of money provided to ensure the survival of that state. I’m sure most of us ignore it and try not to think about that fact, because we just don’t care or we’re perplexed.
I’m concerned now more than ever that the U.S. and the world are over-spending on Israel. The question need not be whether Israel has a right to exist in the Middle East, instead whether it has a duty to do so under its own volition. Whether the existence of a state is more or less about rights of the state to exist or rather more about their duties in how they manage their interrelations and affairs.
Israel’s behavior has often been the target of great controversy. Granted, this is a complicated region and we may have expected difficulties from Israel’s inception. We knew then as we have been reminded over the ensuing 65 years to date, that Israel could be troublesome to the region.
The fact that Israel is our strongest ally in the middle-east region is a compelling reason to support them. For the pleasure of this relationship the U.S. sends Israel some great sums of money every year. With U.S. help Israel has developed one of the world’s most advanced military. They have strong intelligence and are quite capable of protecting their territory. With additional assurances by way of standing backup support from the U.S. in case of an invasion, Israel faces no overwhelming threat nearby. But if Israel were to take a more aggressive posture in the region, say settling in areas outside their territory, taking new territory or simply controlling the territory of others, we might ask ourselves what it is that we are helping to protect. At a minimum, the U.S. should not support a military regime bent on controlling the region. If the U.S. provides support and assurances to support such a regime under all circumstances, then we may well be the cause of their overzealous ambitions. In fact, those ambitions might be far less agressive in nature had they to think more and act more on their own volition.
Without condescending intentions, I submit an analogy here. The small stature school child who has been the focus of abuse from other children typically maintains a low profile, but becomes an agressive tyrant when befriended by the biggest kid on the block. Now the little fellow is emboldened beyond recognition.
Comments are closed.