Why do I insist on talking about Jewish money when I talk about the Israel lobby? Because it's a real factor (and I am struggling to study reality). Here is Martin Indyk, of the Saban Center at Brookings (funded by Haim Saban, a giant giver to Democrats, whose central concern is Israel), talking to Natasha of Haaretz, (Mozgovaya that is)

We've seen some attempts to put Israel on the electoral agenda in the United States ahead of the midterm elections. Will it have any effect?

American Jews traditionally are pretty supportive of the Democratic Party. They voted overwhelmingly for Barak Obama, they tend to vote for Democratic candidates and they provide a good deal of funding for political campaigns. So the Jewish factor is always a critical factor for Democratic candidates. I don't think it's telling any secrets that there are a lot of people who have been upset with President Obama. And I think that the White House came to the understanding that they have a real problem there and they are going out of their way trying to show they are friendly to Israel and committed to peace. Republicans will try to exploit the anger, and Democrats will do their best to convince there is no reason for anger. But after all, these are local elections.

Article from Mondoweiss read more here

As the progressive netroots gather, of course, the big story this week was a falsified video broken by a right-wing blog, and Seder explained why an equivalent story would never happen on the left. The problem isn't the medium, blogs and bloggers, Seder notes, it's a lack of accountability for right-wing "journalists."

"There is no $20 billion in any fund anywhere in the world," says Mike Papantonio of the supposed BP fund to compensate victims of the oil disaster in the Gulf. He notes that while BP says everything is OK, it is also meeting with bankruptcy lawyers--and in bankruptcy court, they won't owe anyone anything at all.

Papantonio is representing Gulf residents in their lawsuit against the oil giant, and he joins us via Skype from the Gulf Coast to fill us in on the latest developments--and the appointment of Kenneth Feinberg to administer the relief money to Gulf residents. Will they get their fair share from the destruction of their homes and livelihoods?

Finally, Shirley Sherrod may have an apology and a new job offer, but we're still waiting and hoping for that national conversation on race to happen. Laura has some thoughts.

Article from GRITtv read more here

In an interview on Good Morning America Sherrod said Thursday that she wasn't ready to accept Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s job offer. She said she wanted to hear more from the Secretary and his boss. She wants to know that the President is "fully behind" her."  “I would hope that he is…" she said. "I would love to talk to him.”

And that's where we're at.  Yesterday in our studio, Harry Belafonte noted that we don't have a national conversation about race, we have a confrontation. People from different races still don't know one another. As he put it, in an interview with ColorLines:  "The person from whom you're thinking of taking life, or land, have you heard their story, have you sung their song?"

While the race- like the red-baiting by the Right- is the most obvious crime in the Sherrod story,  the question of who believes whom and why, comes next. It may even be a bigger problem -- after all, it's only because of misplaced trust -- that the baiting works.

Tom Vilsack, in his apology to Sherrod Wednesday, said he didn't think before calling for resignation. But that's not quite true. He did think. And he chose to believe the baiters first. That's the first problem. Why did they, not she, win his first gut-level confidence?

Melissa Harris-Lacewell pointed out on MSNBC Wednesday night, had Vilsack known Sherrod's history better -- he'd have known that her father was shot in the back by a white farmer when she was 17; that she had history with the civil rights movement. That her husband worked with the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee and he'd have known of her involvement with a lawsuit, recently settled, representing black farmers, long dispossessed as part of the post-Reconstruction backlash against emancipated blacks. If he'd understood those things, if they'd resonated -- he'd have known they made her a perfect target. If he'd known that -- and felt it -- there's a chance that even at the gut-level, he'd have heard an echo of past, similar fabrications -- not a fact.

Indeed, if the entire USDA heard and felt that history, they'd not have dragged their mostly-white feet so long in getting black farmers justice.

Eric Holder was right. We're still a nation of cowards on the issue of race. But here's another opportunity to grapple with it. We don't need a debate over whether we're post-racial -- clearly that's settled. As is the matter of whether the Fox News Channel is a journalistic project.

What we need now is what Sherrod's asking for from the president -- time to talk. We need true conversation, that starts with learning one another's histories. Not the whitewashed sort that Texas and Arizona textbooks want to teach, but our real histories - and why they matter. It's not just a question for the President. It's for all of us. Do we as a nation have Sherrod's back?

Article from GRITtv read more here

Digital technology was touted as a huge saver on costs and solution for ills during the health care reform debate. That bill has pssed, but is digital technology actually helping? In the Mississippi delta, there's a long history of low-income people suffering medical mistreatment. The Huffington Post Investigative Fund looked into it to see if the new tech was helping or hurting.

Finally, Laura has some words about the Obama adminsitration's once again rolling over on its own in fear of Glenn Beck--this time, over Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod.

Article from GRITtv read more here

That's the question once again, this time as Shirley Sherrod, a Department of Agriculture official, is forced out of her job
following the airing of a selectively-edited video of her speech at an NAACP banquet in March. The video, cut to make it appear as if the African-American Sherrod was a “reverse racist,” has since been released in full, clearing Sherrod.

But instead of even asking Sherrod to explain, the Agriculture Department pressed her to quit. She says that she received several phone calls from undersecretary Cheryl Cook, asking her to resign immediately because the video was "going to be on Glenn Beck tonight."

Of course, now Tom Vilsack, agriculture secretary, is “reconsidering.” The NAACP has reversed its earlier condemnation. But what does it mean for our country when the administration is so terrified of a controversy on a show that courts it, on a network that is a mouthpiece for the opposition, that they shove out people of color at the first goading punch?

It wasn't just progressive indie media that stood up for Sherrod. CNN and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution did the basic reporting required to clear Sherrod's name. You'd think the White House would by now be used to this misleading video stuff.

Imagine, as David Corn noted, any Bush official badgered to quit becasuse of something threatening to be on Rachel Maddow's
show. Or on GRITtv, perhaps. As Corn said, “You don't allow ideological enemies -- who want you to fail -- to define the terms.”

But that's been Obama's M.O.  The lesson needs learning and needs learning fast. The party of No and its loud-mouthed cable and blog counterparts are not going to work with you. They are going to try to destroy you.

As Yosi Sargent, another victim of Glenn Beck's red-and-race-baiting, tweeted this morning: “Grow a pair. Stand up for Shirley Sherrod.” We'd add -- a pair of eyes and ears. Fast.

Article from GRITtv read more here

Black joins us via Skype from Kansas City, where he's professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, to break down the problems with the financial reform bill and make the case for Warren as the only way for real consumer protection.

Article from GRITtv read more here

Black joins us via Skype from Kansas City, where he's professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, to break down the problems with the financial reform bill and make the case for Warren as the only way for real consumer protection.

We constantly hear about the size of the military budget, what percentage it is of our spending, what it did to the deficit. But numbers that large can simply become numbing. It's hard to fathom billions. So when Paris studio Moustache created this short film attempting to visualize the amount spent on war, we knew we had to share it with you.

Peace process, proximity talks, one state, two state...though these terms are often tossed around the mass media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they have been rendered virtually meaningless. Instead, we see footage of Benjamin Netanyahu and Barack Obama shaking hands, waxing eloquently on the need for mutual peace as the US simultaneously slips Israeli more tax dollars to further cement their occupation of Palestine. A just peace indeed.

Where is this famous peace process? Does it exist? Is peace even a process to begin with? We asked blogger and author Antony Loewenstein and author and co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abuminah about how the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is reported, what is the role of new media, and how can this start its own viral uprising, independent of mass media banter.

Finally, Laura has some thoughts about Top Secret America: the unlimited budget for contractors and the constant cuts for kids.

Article from GRITtv read more here

In a new piece at The Nation, and in her new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, Ravitch lays out the case against the policies she once supported.  She joins Laura in studio to discuss the problems with education--and how Obama and Arne Duncan might be making things worse, not better.

Article from GRITtv read more here

The Nation's Media FIX Blogger Greg Mitchell joined us in the studio to discuss this phenomenon, along with the recent PBS documentary "Turmoil and Triumph"--an uncomfortably flattering three-part documentary on George Shultz's three years as Secretary of State. Normally, PBS would not air an apparently biased piece, but, as Mitchell implies, both the media and the government work together to keep their people sorely in the dark.

"We're lying to our kids," says professor and former charter school advocate and supporter of No Child Left Behind Diane Ravitch. High-stakes testing and punishing teachers for low-scoring kids is failing, according to her research; moreover, charter schools are only successful, when they are, because they can select the best students from the failing districts in which they are located.

In a new piece at The Nation, and in her new book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education, Ravitch lays out the case against the policies she once supported.  She joins Laura in studio to discuss the problems with education--and how Obama and Arne Duncan might be making things worse, not better.

Finally, Jaclyn Friedman, Executive Director of Women, Action & the Media and editor of Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape, has some thoughts on the recent sexual assault allegations against Al Gore--and why we should accept that "nice guys" can do bad things.

Article from GRITtv read more here

On October 15, 2008, just three weeks before the US presidential election, George Bush signed into law the Naval Vessel Transfer Act which had been sponsored by one of Israel’s most loyal supporters in the US Congress, Rep. Howard Berman.

The new law, which from its title might have been assumed to relate primarily to the sale of ships from the US Navy to foreign governments, actually had a much more important purpose: to place every American president under a legal obligation to ensure that Israel maintains its military dominance over the Middle East.

What had previously been a matter of foreign policy, suddenly became law — law written to meet the interests of a foreign government.

Israel’s regional hegemony is legally enshrined in the concept of Israel’s “Qualitative Military Edge” (QME). The US Government must now guarantee that “the sale or export of the defense articles or defense services will not adversely affect Israel’s qualitative military edge over military threats to Israel.”

The law states:

[T]he term ‘qualitative military edge’ means the ability to counter and defeat any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors, while sustaining minimal damages and casualties, through the use of superior military means, possessed in sufficient quantity, including weapons, command, control, communication, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that in their technical characteristics are superior in capability to those of such other individual or possible coalition of states or non-state actors. [Emphasis mine.]

Andrew J Shapiro is the Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs. One of his primary responsibilities is to ensure that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge. Does he serve the US government or the Israeli government? It’s far from clear.

This is how he presented the United States’ obligation to serve Israel’s interests in a speech he delivered at the Brookings Institute in Washington on Friday:

For decades, the cornerstone of our security commitment to Israel has been an assurance that the United States would help Israel uphold its qualitative military edge — a commitment that was written into law in 2008. Israel’s QME is its ability to counter and defeat credible military threats from any individual state, coalition of states, or non-state actor, while sustaining minimal damages or casualties. The Obama Administration has demonstrated its commitment to Israel’s QME by not only sustaining and building upon practices established by prior administrations, but also undertaking new initiatives to make our security relationship more intimate than ever before.

Each and every security assistance request from the Israeli Government is evaluated in light of our policy to uphold Israel’s Qualitative Military Edge. At the same time, QME considerations extend to our decisions on defense cooperation with all other governments in the region. This means that as a matter of policy, we will not proceed with any release of military equipment or services that may pose a risk to allies or contribute to regional insecurity in the Middle East.

The primary tool that the United States uses to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge is security assistance. For some three decades, Israel has been the leading beneficiary of U.S. security assistance through the Foreign Military Financing program, or FMF. Currently, Israel receives almost $3 billion per year in U.S. funding for training and equipment under FMF. The total FMF account is $5 billion annually and is distributed among some 70 countries. So it is a testament to our special security relationship that each year Israel accounts for just over 50 percent of U.S. security assistance funding distributed through FMF.

The Obama Administration is proud to carry on the legacy of robust U.S. security assistance for Israel. Indeed, we are carrying this legacy to new heights at a time when Israel needs our support to address the multifaceted threats it faces.

For Fiscal Year 2010, the Administration requested $2.775 billion in security assistance funding specifically for Israel, the largest such request in U.S. history. Congress fully funded our request for FY 2010, and we have requested even more — $3.0 billion — for FY 2011. These requests fulfill the Administration’s commitment to implementing the 2007 memorandum of understanding with Israel to provide $30 billion in security assistance over 10 years.

This commitment directly supports Israel’s security, as it allows Israel to purchase the sophisticated defense equipment it needs to protect itself, deter aggressors, and maintain its qualitative military edge. Today, I can assure you that — even in challenging budgetary times — this Administration will continue to honor this 10-year, $30 billion commitment in future fiscal years. [Emphasis mine.]

Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin challenged Shapiro during Q&A:

[I]t pains me to hear you sound more like an agent of the Israeli government than a U.S. representative because as you travel around the world you see that this “special relationship” really endangers us, makes us more hated around the world. So I wonder if you would be willing to step in other shoes and go to Gaza, see the results of the Israeli invasion there, see the destruction, talk to people in Gaza, talk to the elected government, which is Hamas. You don’t have to like them to talk to them. I also wonder if you’ve spent any time with people in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to see what it feels like for Palestinians, the daily humiliations they suffer.

And I also wonder, given the financial crisis here at home and the great needs of impoverished nations around the world, couldn’t you think of a better use of $3 billion than giving it to a wealthy country like Israel that is abusing the human rights of Palestinians on a daily basis?

Benjamin drew a round of applause — Shapiro declined to respond directly to her challenge.

As Shapiro noted, the concept of Israel’s QME has been in use for decades, but it was only when the Bush administration let Israel draft American law, that QME turned into a license to use force with impunity.

In January 2008, William Wunderle, a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, and Andre Briere, a U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel, wrote in a paper for The Washington Institute for Near East Policy:

The US commitment to maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) is a long-standing tradition that every president since Lyndon Johnson has maintained and reiterated. The basic principle behind this commitment is simple: Israel is a bastion of liberal representative government in the Middle East, and, as such, its continued survival is a vital national interest of the United States. To ensure this longtime ally’s continued existence in a sea of nations that reflexively call for its destruction, Israel must be able to defend itself militarily and deter potential aggression. In this effort, Israel will always be militarily outnumbered with regard to the artillery, tanks, and combat aircraft that can be deployed by a coalition of Arab states. Israel’s continued survival can be ensured only if it is able to maintain qualitative military superiority, relying on superior weaponry, tactics, training, leadership, and other factors of military effectiveness to deter or defeat its numerically superior adversaries in the Middle East.

In other words, the US policy advocated that Israel should be able to counter a quantitative disadvantage with a qualitative advantage. It said nothing about supporting Israel’s use of that advantage at minimal cost. The expression after all was qualitative military edge — not supremacy.

These analysts noted however that:

Israel defines QME as “the ability to sustain credible military advantage that provides deterrence and, if need be, the ability to rapidly achieve superiority on the battlefield against any foreseeable combination of forces with minimal damage and casualties.”

The Israeli phrasing went straight into US law which says that Israel must maintain the ability to use military force “while sustaining minimal damages and casualties.”

Let’s put that in context. The law was signed just two years after Israel had visibly lost its qualitative military edge in Lebanon in 2006 when it faced Hezbollah, and less than three months before it used the assault on Gaza to once again demonstrate its ability to wreak massive destruction while sustaining minimal damages and casualties.

The war on Gaza, which President-elect Obama watched in silence, showed not merely the brutality that Israel is willing to use under America’s political protection, but the extent to which Israel’s military agenda is empowered through its ability to control the United States Government.

The war on Gaza was QME in action.

This is cross-posted at Woodward's site, War in Context.

Article from Mondoweiss read more here