I know "Hagel/'s dialectic" has already been done - 945 times if google search is anything to go by. I even saw an example from 2007 but I like all this chatter about Hagel. It gives me the chance to consider which word out of disinterested or uninterested is appropriate to the position of anti-zionists with regard to whether or not Obama should appoint Chuck Hagel to be his Defence Secretary. I think both could work, both might not work or a bit of both or nothing of either might work.
Disinterested means we have no interest i.e., stake, in the outcome. But some will take comfort from the one in the eye for the Lobby that appointing Hagel would represent. And of course if the Lobby gets ignored it could have an impact on how various careerists in US politics and the media approach the question of Israel and the Palestinians in future.
Uninterested means we are simply not interested, i.e., bored, with the whole thing. But some people find the collective state of apoplexy the Lobby goes into whenever it doesn't get its way on something interesting, even exciting.
I think to be realistic we have to understand that if Hagel was that bad for Israel he probably wouldn't be where he is now let alone being considered for a higher position.
But of course it's not just Israel that's an issue here. He's considered soft on Iran. Now suppose he gets hard on Iran after he's in office? Won't the war party say, look how convincing the case for war on Iran is, Even Hagel's convinced?
Those of us who don't want war on Iran might not have an interest in his appointment. We do then have an interest in the outcome but, at the mo', other things being equal, I think disinterested and uninterested both apply.
Writing about Gulf regimes in Western media
7 hours ago