MalarkyNews

Marty Peretz consults his ouija board, and urges on the Judaization of East Jerusalem:

"I believe that the great rabbi in the skies has not instructed Israel to force history to stand still. So let me be direct: The Palestinians have only themselves to blame on Jerusalem, as on other disputed matters."

and learns some secrets about Obama too:

"He is, as I have said a few times, a third worlder. We will see how America will do with our true friends sidelined. …it is increasingly clear that the president feels more connection to the Palestinians specifically and the Arabs generally than he does to the Israelis (and just possibly more connection to Muslims than to Jews, to Islam than to Judaism and Jewishness.)"

Related posts:

1. Marty Peretz Was Right
2. Fact-checking Marty Peretz
3. Jack Ross on Marty Peretz

Article from Mondoweiss read more here

The Netanyahu insult to Joe Biden is the greatest thing that ever happened. It has woken a lot of people up, maybe including Joe Biden, who is streetsmart, and will allow the mainstream press in the US to finally question the special relationship and what it is doing to the American interest. You say I’m smoking something. Here is Laura Rozen at Politico:

People who heard what Biden said [to Netanyahu behind closed doors] were stunned. “This is starting to get dangerous for us,” Biden castigated his interlocutors. “What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace.”

The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel’s actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism.

Fox News gets the story here: Biden trip is filled with snubs, cold shoulders and mishaps. Foxman likens Biden to Mearsheimer and Walt. Exactly. Mearsheimer and Walt were right. This is not in our interest to be supporting ethnic cleansing!

Related posts:

1. Lord almighty, MSM covers dissing of Biden
2. Netanyahu steals more land, so Biden is late for dinner
3. Did Biden open gate to Israeli attack on Iran?

Article from Mondoweiss read more here

I felt nauseated when I heard that the big gesture by Joe Biden, in response to Israel announcing more settlements on his arrival in Jerusalem, was being late to dinner. Paul Woodward nails it:

The administration either needs to threaten to apply real pressure on the Israeli government, or, if it wants to confine itself to diplomatic gestures then it should do so under the tutelage of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In response to Israel’s latest contemptuous behavior, Biden could — he really could — have turned around and said adiós. He does after all belong to an administration that less than a year ago was advising Netanyahu to complete his “homework” on freezing settlements before it would be worth arranging a meeting.

I don’t think it would take that much by the U.S. government to break the Netanyahu coalition. Why not try? And yes, the U.S. are finally talking about a break in the special relationship; but Chris Matthews and the Washington Post both called East Jerusalem "disputed East Jerusalem." It’s not disputed. It’s annexed, unilaterally, in defiance of international law, the so-called future Palestinian capital.

Oh and here’s Jackson Diehl in the Washington Post saying it’s Biden’s mistake, and Obama doesn’t know how to reassure the Israelis.

Related posts:

1. Lord almighty, MSM covers dissing of Biden
2. Did Biden open gate to Israeli attack on Iran?
3. Biden takes one on the chin

Article from Mondoweiss read more here

Notice how the mainstream press (Time Magazine) dissed the Israeli government and Bibi. This is new. Change that we can believe in (We hope):

Guardian:

It doesn’t seem to realise it, but Israel cannot afford to keep on behaving in this disobliging manner towards its friends. Whether it is blatant disregard for international rules concerning the protection of civilian life, as in Gaza; whether it is calculated insults aimed at neighbours, as with Turkey; or whether it is the theft of passports and identities from friendly countries and the lawless assassination of its enemies, as in Dubai, it goes too far.

Tony Karon in Time:

Biden made no secret of his pique. He reportedly kept Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu waiting for 90 minutes before arriving at a scheduled dinner (a harsh slap-down in the vocabulary of diplomatic protocol) and issued a stern statement condemning the planned construction and accusing Israel of "undermining the trust we need right now" to relaunch peace talks.

Time’s blog:

The press pool following Biden reports that the Vice President showed up 90 minutes late for dinner with Netanyahu, and that reporters were wondering if he would show up at all.

Even the New York Post is honest about the "slap." Oh but look at today’s Pravda, the New York Times: smiling Bibi and Biden (photo) and a caption that downplays the tension and rift between Israel and the US.

Related posts:

1. Netanyahu steals more land, so Biden is late for dinner
2. Biden takes one on the chin
3. Did Biden open gate to Israeli attack on Iran?

Article from Mondoweiss read more here

Alison Weir of If Americans Knew has published a piece on Tom Campbell’s back pages–the former California congressman who is now running for Senate. Note that Campbell obviously had realist bona fides back in the day, but has utterly abandoned his pro-Palestinian position. Campbell’s collapse is remarkably similar to Obama’s progress during the same period. Obama threw Khalidi and Abunimah under the bus; Campbell is throwing Weir under the bus. This is a story quite simply about corruption by the Israel lobby, of both parties.

Weir begins with a stage she shared with Campbell in 2001:

During his speech, Campbell described a telling incident during his Congressional career. The lobby had pushed Congress to give additional money to Israel on top of its uniquely immense annual allotment. Campbell proposed that this extra money be used instead to avert the de-funding of a program that worked to prevent blindness in Africa.
Campbell said that many of his fellow Representatives privately told him they thought this was a wonderful plan, complimented him on his courage in proposing it, and said they didn’t’ dare vote for it. In the end, just 12 others cast affirmative votes….

When it was my turn to speak, I described what I had seen in the Palestinian Territories, showed my photographs, and read a sort of letter I had written to the American people. To my surprise, I received a standing ovation from, it appeared to me, everyone in the room. One of the first on his feet was Tom Campbell. Afterwards, a friend asked him if he would write an endorsement of my presentation, which he graciously did. Later, when I founded If Americans Knew and we created a website, we placed his comment in the "About Us" section.

Now, nine years later, this endorsement is being used to attack Campbell.

Articles discussing it have appeared on numerous blogs and websites, including those of Commentary and National Interest; a Sacramento radio host and the Weekly Standard have interviewed me about my "relationship with Tom Campbell." Some fanatically pro-Israel bloggers seem exceedingly focused on it, and on me.

The reality is that I haven’t seen or spoken with Tom Campbell since the 2001 event.

In the years since, I’ve been saddened but not surprised, given the reality and power of the pro-Israel machine in our society and media, to see him backpedaling on what seemed to be genuine efforts toward practical and principled positions. While he has not denied his endorsement of my talk, he responds to queries, "I never stated agreement with any statement made by Alison Weir."

Like virtually anyone who wishes to attain major office, Campbell emphasizes his bonafides on Israel, stating:

· He has never voted against military aid to Israel;

· He would support an Israeli military attack on Iran (even though it is Israel that possesses nuclear weapons, refuses to sign the non-proliferation pact, is in violation of a multitude of UN resolutions, and regularly attacks its neighbors);

· He supports recognizing Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and moving the US embassy there; even though Jerusalem was to have been a shared city for the Muslims, Christians, and Jews who long inhabited it and for whom it is sacred, and even though a large portion of Jerusalem is, according to international law, Palestinian land illegally annexed by Israel. All previous US presidents have refused to do this.

· He is even more pro-Israel than Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, (which, if it is true, is a notable accomplishment.)

…[U]ntil more Americans across the political spectrum wake up and make their desires known, the Israel lobby and its dedicated bloggers may ease their collective mind. Indications are that both parties are, once again, sewn up.

 

.

Related posts:

1. ‘LA Times’ says Republican rivals to challenge Senator Boxer are out-Israeling one another
2. Alison Weir of ‘If Americans Knew’ Responds
3. Why My Republican Father-in-Law Is for Obama on Experience

Article from Mondoweiss read more here

J Street and the Israeli Foreign Ministry offer contrasting reactions to the just announced Israeli-Palestinian "proximity talks" – indirect talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians with the United States serving as the go-between. By summer we should know for certain which organization has a better read of Obama Administration policies.

Isaac Luria of J Street sent out an email with the group’s key reactions to the upcoming talks. First J Street makes clear that in its view, "The announcement of proximity talks is a positive step in the right direction." Continuing its cheerleading role for the Obama administration, J Street applauds "the determination shown by the United States, President Obama and, in particular, Middle East Peace Envoy George Mitchell to get the parties to agree to talk."

Well, almost talk. The Americans are going to shuttle between the two sides, relaying messages and responses. Okay, I know, it sounds a little anachronistic in this age of Instant Messaging – an Israeli invention by the way – where any two people anywhere in the globe can instantly communicate with one another. But hey, it is a start, even if it takes us back full circle to the prelude before the Madrid Conference of 1991.

In case anyone is thinking of using the talks to serve as a smokescreen for maintaining the status quo, J Street is quick to emphasize that "Process and talk, while commendable, are not the goal. Achieving a two-state solution is." Let’s hope Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman are on J Street’s e-mail list.

J Street avows that "The US role in this process is, to state the obvious, vital to any hopes of success," insisting that "nearly all experts know that the parties alone cannot reach an agreement." Yet, the Obama administration has so far resisted Palestinian requests that the United States announce what are its parameters for a settlement, as Clinton did in 2000.

An unidentified senior American official informed Ha’aretz:

"We told the parties that our goal is to achieve two states for two peoples through negotiations. If there are obstacles we will try to help to overcome them and to propose our own ideas, and if we think one of the parties is not meeting its obligations we will say so."

With the talks restricted to four months, it won’t take long to see if the Obama Administration is serious about taking on this "obvious" role.

Finally, J Street admonishes the parties that

"Now is the time to get serious. The stakes are enormous. There are those who believe that the United States will put no political capital behind the process and will do little to help bridge the gaps because of the upcoming Congressional elections. This view fails to recognize that the window of opportunity to achieve a viable two-state solution is nearly closed and the coming years are the last chance to secure Israel’s future as a democracy and a national home to the Jewish people." 

What J Street doesn’t mention in its email, except indirectly in a footnote, is that among those that "believe that the United States will put no political capital behind the process and will do little to help bridge the gaps because of the upcoming Congressional elections" is the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

A few days ago the Foreign Ministry leaked a classified document to its favorite conduit at Ha’aretz, Barak Ravid. The report, prepared by the Foreign Ministry’s Center for Political Research, was intended for distribution to the Foreign Minister and Israeli diplomatic missions abroad, but one has to ask the motivation for giving it to Ha’aretz.

The report concludes the following:

"The U.S. administration will not put a lot of effort into the upcoming indirect negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, opting instead to focus on the November Congressional elections."

Washington is aware of the domestic political problems faced separately by both Netanyahu and Abbas and has decided to concentrate on achieving the limited goal of restarting the negotiations. The peace talks will not be at the top of the Obama administration’s agenda,

"In our assessment the administration will focus in the coming year on domestic issues that are expected to determine the results of the Congressional elections. As such, and due to the difficulties to date in achieving significant gains in the peace process we can assume that the administration’s focus on this issue will be limited and will predominantly remain in the hands of Mitchell’s teams."

Washington can be expected to portray the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian talks as a domestic and international achievement, in the hope of creating an atmosphere that is conducive to direct negotiations between the parties on the core issues.

"The authors of the report also predict that the administration will avoid taking any position that suggests disagreement with Israel, because of the support that Israel enjoys among both parties in Congress."

Meanwhile, J Street ended its email with "We’ll be in touch soon with concrete ways you can support strong American leadership in this latest effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a two-state solution." Can’t wait.

Related posts:

1. Israeli foreign ministry seeks to pay shills in blogosphere to get out the good word
2. Jewish Leader Says American Jewish Community Is ‘Directed’ by Israeli Foreign Ministry
3. ‘Times’ Piece on Falk Expulsion Ignores Human Rights Abuses, Pipes Israeli Foreign Ministry Line

Article from Mondoweiss read more here

Greenwald on Rahm:

One related point about the spate of "Obama-should-have-followed-Rahm’s-centrist-advice" articles that have appeared of late: if you really think about it, it’s quite extraordinary to watch a Chief of Staff openly undermine the President by spawning numerous stories claiming that the President is failing because he’s been repeatedly rejecting his Chief of Staff’s advice. It seems to me there’s one of two possible explanations for this episode: (1) Rahm wants to protect his reputation at Obama’s expense by making clear he’s been opposed all along to Obama’s decisions, a treacherous act that ought to infuriate Obama to the point of firing him; or (2) these stories are being disseminated with Obama’s consent as a means of apologizing to official Washington for not having been centrist enough and vowing to be even more centrist in the future by listening more to Rahm (we know that what we did wrong was not listen enough to Rahm). One can only speculate about which it is, but if I had to bet, my money would be on (2) (because of things like this and because these "Rahm-Was-Right" stories went on for weeks and Rahm is still very much around).

The meaning of my headline is that Rahm and Cheney might be said to represent the same empowered Washington constituency, which Greenwald titles "official Washington." The question arises, How does official Washington remain so conservative following the disaster of the Iraq war? And the answer is of course that regimes last long after their foundations have begun to break down, that we are replacing that regime slowly. And yes, the transformation of Jewish life will play a role in that power-transformation, as conservative Jews who believed in the permanent-war idea of the route to peace in the Middle East remain a significant factor inside the US establishment, in both parties.

Related posts:

1. Richard Wolffe: How remarkable that VP Cheney tried to undermine President-elect Obama with a foreign power
2. Cheney: if you’re ‘pro-Palestinian’ you can’t cut it in the ‘major leagues’
3. Obama: Israel Would Be ‘Crazy’ Not to Take ‘67 Borders for Peace

Article from Mondoweiss read more here