Diplomatic triumph as Obama authorises Iranian nuclear strike against Israel

News just in from The Guardian.  Obama is thrilled with his diplomatic triumph whereby Iran is happy to launch a nuclear strike against Israel and Netanyahu is happy because he really does have something to be unhappy about.  It looks like win-win for Obama.

More detail from Hurry up Ha'aretz's diplomatic correspondent, Sarah Hannahs Braun in Tel Aviv.  "I am happier than I have ever been in all my years as Israel's Prime Minister" said Binyamin Netanyahu (or "Bibi").  "I really have something to be unhappy about and so I cannot contain my joy."

"Well, if you're happy I'm happy" Hannahs Braun told Bibi "though I am sure I would be equally happy no matter what you were happy about even if it was a completely opposite thing."

Will Obama surrender Israeli spy? Maybe. Will Obama surrender to Israeli PM? Definitely

I'm really running out of words for the ludicrous nature of this so-called peace process supposedly between Israel and the Palestinians.  From the get-go Israel was allowed to hand pick it's negotiating partners and they opted to talk peace with people who they are not even at war with.  It's like Hitler talking peace with the Vichy regime.  Now they're negotiating as if they want peace with the USA and the USA is responding in kind.

You will have read that the release of this Israeli spy, or rather American spy for Israel, is now hovering above the table.  Apparently America might release this guy in return for Israel not making Obama look the complete ass it usually makes him look like in these situations.  Check out Daily Beast on it but I think the deal is if Obama releases Pollard Israel won't announce its new settlements so loudly.  Something like that.

But really, if the talks were between two opponents in a war then the concessions should be made by the parties to that war or the party that has anything to concede.  From Lavon through Liberty to Pollard, Israel often acts like it's at war with its biggest benefactor but what does America really get for this humiliating concession to Israel? if, of course, the concession is made...

US to Islamists: Elections are for chumps. Go get your AK-47.

Here's a not too bad article from Peter Beinart in the Daily Beast.  Titled Obama's Greatest Failure, it's a criticism of Obama for not calling the Egyptian coup a coup and thereby encouraging what the Egyptian military is now doing.  Obviously by contrasting any aspect of Obama's foreign policy with any other indicates support for Obama but it does have some interesting insights and useful turns of phrase.  An example is that in the heading above.  Here it is again:

To anyone in the Muslim world who needed convincing, it now looks unmistakably clear that the United States favors democracy in the Middle East when, and only when, our side wins. If you’re an Islamist who has now watched the United States wink at coups against democratically elected Islamist governments in Algeria and Egypt, and sought to foment one among the Palestinians after Hamas’ democratic election in 2006, the message is clear: Elections are for chumps. Go get your AK-47.

He then spoils the whole thing by making out that Obama is basically wellmeaning and that he has presidential antecedents for that wellmeaningness:

By historical standards, the Obama administration has presided over few genuine foreign-policy disasters. That’s no accident. Its self-consciously Hippocratic approach—modeled on world-weary pragmatists like Dwight Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush—is designed to avoid them.

Hippocratic?  Hmm, bit of a typo that.

I think Mr Beinart is missing the point here that there is nothing happening in Egypt that's hurting the USA in standard foreign policy terms.  Earlier in the piece we have this:

There’s a reasonable argument that nothing Obama did would have mattered. The Persian Gulf states, which adored the coup, quickly offered Egypt far more money than the U.S. could have withheld.

Ah, there's a possible error by Obama. The coup he wants could have happened and remained in place and the US could have even saved itself some money. Beinart obviously doesn't see it that way.
And there's more:  

it’s not as if the administration remained passive. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns worked hard to bring the Brotherhood and the military together. The White House even sent two of its domestic tormenters, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, to Cairo to try to hatch a deal.

So they could have saved money and still looked like they were making nice.

Obviously Obama is not quite my cup of tea.  He's had lots of people killed and he still keeps lots of people in Guantanamo and yet he claims his biggest moral failing was smoking a joint as a teenager or some such. I also don't like the way phony liberals make him out to be somehow to the left of George W. Bush.  Anyway, Peter Beinart here is noting, possibly inadvertently, that there are bigger moral failings than taking drugs as a youngster. Give the man a prize!

Obama's JFK Moment in Berlin

Ich bin ein Bullshitter!

From The Guardian also see @flynnface on Twitter.

Mix 'n' Match: Daily Beast on Obama's Child Kidnapping Problem

Well Daily Beast couldn't be expected to accuse Obama of child or any other kidnapping but look at these headlines from today's email:

The first:

Japan’s Child Kidnapping Problem

The second:

Obama to Give Speech on Gitmo

You just have to mix and match and you get to what Obama is going to say in his speech. Well, except he doesn't see the abduction of children as a problem and I'm guessing nor does the Beast when it's Obama doing the kidnapping.

Obama thank you for supporting our apartheid state

A wonderful tweet from @Dalal:

#Obama thank you for supporting our Apartheid state: #Israel#ObamaInIsraelyoutu.be/nfIcql9DJPI
— Dalal (@DalalAlrmuny) March 23, 2013

See? Great stuff.

Obama visits

Barack Obama, Chief Marketing Officer of US Arms Inc., the greatest arms and war conglomerate history has ever known, visited the offices of the company's important subsidiary, Israel. The US spends over 50% of its discretionary public budget, about 5% of its GDP, on war and armed repression. With 41% of global "defense" expenditures (actually, money spent primarily on repression), and five time more than its nearest competitor, the US dominates the market of death. In global arms transfers to developing countries the US ranked first with $56.3 billions in 2011, over thirteen times more than its nearest competitor, Russia. All actual military conflicts take place in "developing" countries, which therefore account for nearly 80% of all weapon transfer agreements, and the US holds nearly 80% of that lucrative market. The biggest client is in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia was the recipient of $33.4 billions in arms transfers in 2011, mostly for good coin. Historically, the Middle East accounts for about 50% of all weapon transfers to developing countries. In both relative and absolute terms it is the most important "defense" market. And we didn't even mention oil. Oil money (namely primarily the money consumers and businesses in the rest of the world pay for energy), over and above the profits of the oil industry itself, is the source of income that funds practically all arms that get bought in the Middle East, and concomitantly the use and threat of use of these weapons helps keep the price of oil high and the profits flowing.

The President of the US is the man in charge of coordinating maintaining the health of American economy, of which a key component is the safety of these profits. So he came to the Middle East, which is the pivot area of these profits, and talked about peace. What did you expect that he talks about? Do you expect the chief officers of Big Tobacco to talk about cancer when they make public addresses? Do the expect the CEO of Apple to extol the virtues of working employees to the point of suicide? Naturally, the President spoke about peace. Peace is lovely.

If one likens the US to a company, Israel is reporting to the marketing department. Some big business make money in Israel, but in the larger scheme of things it is peanuts. Israel is less a profit center than a freebie that drives up sales in other departments. Iran is a case in point. Few if any policy makers in their right minds want to invade Iran. Plus, the Iranian rulers have no substantial disagreements with the US and have repeatedly sent feelers with offers to join the US dominated world. Their conditions, essentially, staying in power and having some security guarantees, are not significantly different than what every pro-US junta in the world expects. But it is obvious from the consistent blocking of every possibility of dialogue that the US prefers Iran to remain in a belligerent relation. In the words of Michael Axworthy, 'the US and other western countries are not yet willing to take yes for an answer.' All those arms the Saudi state buys must have a reason. And reason number one is the Iranian threat. Iran, however, builds its influence in the region, in particular its ability to threaten the cohesion of pro-American regimes, by hyping up its enmity with Israel and  supporting Hizbulla. Peace in Palestine might be the start of a chain reaction that ends, God forbid, with Saudi Arabia no longer needing so many weapons, and, just as worse, not having the oil revenues to pay for them. But I hope you won't lose sleep over such a nightmare scenario. Let me just point out how good US foreign policy has been at keeping the pot of war simmering on low heat with the occasional boil-over and spill. Just trust Obama. He obviously knows how to handle this.

It feels different to those in the simmering pot.

Obama came to Israel to manage the conflict, that is, to keep it simmering, while preventing it from boiling over. Netanyahu represents a tendency in Israeli society that is insensitive to the American preference for slow cooking. His key constituencies make both money and symbolic capital directly from the process of colonization. That has led to some stormy relations. But the US arms industry needs Netanyahu, because it is ultimately the heat that his policies generate that keeps the pot simmering. The problem is having the right "thermostat," control mechanisms to hold Netanyahu and the settlers behind him in check. That is where Israel's famous "peace camp" comes in. Israel's "peace camp" has no deep interest in peace. It represents the segment of Israeli society, affluent, Ashkenazi, that isn't invested directly in the on-going colonization and is most aligned with and attuned to American interests. Its own fortunes depends on the US, and even more so, on access to the Western world. A sour face by a US President can send Israel's "peace camp" into weeks of morbid self-doubt.

The White House was undoubtedly pleased that Netanyahu had been weakened by the last elections. It could have been better, but it could also have been worse. Obama did not come to Israel to advance peace, but to give a boost, a 'hang in there,' to the Israeli "peace camp." Every word he said, especially the tepid, allegedly "pro-Palestinian," parts of his speech, was, no doubts intentionally,  music to the ears of Israel's "peace camp," to assure them of their importance and to maintain and bolster their ability to serve as as brakes when the US needs to lower the heat. The message was not directed at Palestinians, except those few Palestinians who are the junior business partners in the peace industry, those who would be tasked with repressing any third intifadah, and are therefore as keen as their Israeli partners on acting as a thermostat for the US weapons industry.

There was however a message also for Palestinians and their supporters in the US and the world. Richard Silverstein called it "Drop dead," evoking New-York City Ford era debt crisis. This is inaccurate. To those that expected him to help them, namely, the PA and such, his message was the very opposite, to keep going on the same path that leads nowhere. The US cannot afford them quitting. But to those who have given up on the US or who understand what the US is really about, the message was different. It was not "drop dead," since, unlike the former, they had no expectations of help. It was more like 'don't even think about it.' Obama practically read aloud from Israel's declaration of independence, mentioning every item on the checklist of Zionist talking points, from the Biblical land rights of Jews, through the holocaust, and to the "villa in the jungle", that democratic oasis of techno-prowess in the blooming desert that Israel fancies itself. That Obama felt it necessary to spell out at length so much that is supposed to be taken for granted was a backhanded compliment to a decade of Palestinian activism that has succeeded in calling these talking points increasingly in question. Obama's 100% Zionism performance was a step into the breach, expressing a complete rejection of that radical critique of Israeli settler-colonialism. It was calibrated to demoralize.

In that, Obama continues the role he played from his very election, both domestically and internationally, as the hegemonic fixer following Bush's decade of naked power, coming to offer a soothing yet firm no to any thought of escaping the American juggernaut  To those who had their eyes opened by Bush's blunt indifference Obama offers a blue pill, extending an invitation to recreate the fantasy of a kinder US, with its "values" and its "principles" and its "vision," but with lowered expectations and no meaningful change. To those who refuse, there will be nothing but cold steel.

Rabeea Eid, the Palestinian student who bravely heckled Obama and confronted him with the truth of his policy, challenged that demoralizing performance:

"Did you really come here for peace or to give Israel more weapons to kill and destroy the Palestinian people? Did you happen to see the apartheid wall on your way here? There are Palestinians sitting in this hall. This state should be for all of its citizens, not a Jewish state only. Who killed Rachel Corrie? Rachel Corrie was killed by your money and weapons!” (EI)

As Eid said later, "the most important part is for this visit not to go on in a normal manner." This empire is not in the mood for compromise. Why would it, when repression not only defends profits but is profitable in itself?

For those fawning over Obama's empathy and vision while complaining of "the lack of substance," seriously, expecting the Chief Marketing Officer of US Arms Inc. to bring peace to the Middle East is like expecting Silvio Berlusconi to usher in a new age of gender equality. Get real!

__________
Ah, and then there is that circus elephant in the room, the famous Jewish lobby, which plays an important role, just like Obama, the Saudi Royals, Iran.  Everybody plays a role. Money doesn't flow naturally. It takes work. And that work isn't done by magical elves. it is done through various institutions that support and reflect each other and by people who actually intervene through them at various points to avert whatever risks bringing the system to a halt. It just doesn't play the kind of role that those invested in the fantasy of a pure, innocent America, subverted by foreigners, imagine it plays.

Could Obama have Hagel killed in a drone strike on American soil?

I'm just wondering, that's all because it could calm a few Israel lobby nerves if Obama had Hagel killed.  And according to this Glenn Greenwald Guardian Comment is Free piece there appears to be no law preventing Obama from having anyone from anywhere killed anywhere:

The Justice Department "white paper" purporting to authorize Obama's power to extrajudicially execute US citizens was leaked three weeks ago. Since then, the administration - including the president himself and his nominee to lead the CIA, John Brennan - has been repeatedly asked whether this authority extends to US soil, i.e., whether the president has the right to execute US citizens on US soil without charges. In each instance, they have refused to answer.

Brennan has been asked the question several times as part of his confirmation process. Each time, he simply pretends that the question has not been asked, opting instead to address a completely different issue. Here's the latest example from the written exchange he had with Senators after his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee; after referencing the DOJ "white paper", the Committee raised the question with Brennan in the most straightforward way possible:

Obviously, that the US has not and does not intend to engage in such acts is entirely non-responsive to the question that was asked: whether they believe they have the authority to do so. To the extent any answer was provided, it came in Brennan's next answer. He was asked:

Could you describe the geographical limits on the Administration's conduct drone strikes?"

Brennan's answer was that, in essence, there are no geographic limits to this power: "we do not view our authority to use military force against al-Qa'ida and associated forces as being limited to 'hot' battlefields like Afghanistan." He then quoted Attorney General Eric Holder as saying: "neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan" (see Brennan's full answer here).

Revealingly, this same question was posed to Obama not by a journalist or a progressive but by a conservative activist, who asked if drone strikes could be used on US soil and "what will you do to create a legal framework to make American citizens within the United States believe know that drone strikes cannot be used against American citizens?" Obama replied that there "has never been a drone used on an American citizen on American soil" - which, obviously, doesn't remotely answer the question of whether he believes he has the legal power to do so. He added that "the rules outside of the United States are going to be different than the rules inside the United States", but these "rules" are simply political choices the administration has made which can be changed at any time, not legal constraints. The question - do you as president believe you have the legal authority to execute US citizens on US soil on the grounds of suspicions of Terrorism if you choose to do so? - was one that Obama, like Brennan, simply did not answer.

This is the kind of nonsense that has fans of Obama calling him a great communicator when he's transparently a complete tosser.  Woops, wrong word. Not transparently, obviously a complete tosser.

Murdoch plays Israel card for Romney

I just found this by accident in the Brisbane Times.  In among a few Murdoch (on twitter, Murdock/@rupertmurdoch) was:

Nightmare for Israel if Obama wins.Biden outright lied about personal relations with Bibi. Susan Rice for State real nightmare.
— Rupert Murdoch(@rupertmurdoch) October 13, 2012

I don't know if this helps or hurts Israel or Obama or what. I just thought I'd mention it.

US Medal of Freedom for neighbourhood bullies

See, it's right there in the USA Today headline:

Bob Dylan, John Glenn Among Medal of Freedom Winners

Hmm, that can't be right. I've never heard anything about John Glenn singing or being a neighbourhood bully.  But my headline says "bullies".  Now Bob Dylan wrote a nasty hasbara song called Neighbourhood Bully so he must be one of them.  


But what's this Medal of Freedom all about?

From civil rights to government service, from the author of Beloved to the composer of The Times They Are A-Changin', President Obama honored 13 individuals on Tuesday who have made singular contributions to national life.

And who else is on the list?

Some of recipients are well-known cultural icons. Nobel Prize-winning writer Toni Morrison, author of Beloved, Jazz, and Song of Solomon, has a new book on the best seller lists: Home, the story of a Korean War veteran who returns to his racially segregated town in Georgia.

So that's three so far and only one under the heading neighbourhood bully. So any more?

Other pioneers honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom included Madeleine Albright, the first female Secretary of State.....


Other recipients: John Paul Stevens, the third longest-serving justice on the Supreme Court, who wore his trademark bow tie of the ceremony; William Foege, a physician who led the charge to eradicate smallpox during the 1970s......


Attorney John Doar represented the government in some of the toughest civil rights cases of the 1960s, from murders in Mississippi to the Selma-to-Montgomery voting rights march in Alabama.....

Dolores Huerta helped organize migrant farm workers along with Cesar Chavez..... 

Three of this year's Medal of Freedom honorees are deceased.


Two of them defined heroism during World War II: Gordon Hirabayashi, who defied the U.S. internment of Japanese citizens, and took the government to court; and Jan Karski of Poland, who delivered one of the first eyewitness accounts of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews.


Obama also honored Juliette Gordon Low, who founded the Girl Scouts a century ago this year.

Ok, we're populating our list of 13. We even have some who could qualify as neighbourhood bully. How many have we now?  I make it eleven. So who else:

The sports world was also honored: Pat Summitt, the Tennessee women's basketball coach who retired this year after a diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease.

Well Madeleine Albright did a good bit of bullying in her time but not usually in her own neighbourhood and we still only have twelve recipients of this presidential award for "individuals .... who have made singular contributions to national life." So who is this neighbourhood bully, number 13 on the list? Who is this person who has made a "singular contribution to national life" worthy of a US Presidential Medal of Freedom?

Israeli President Shimon Peres, lauded for his efforts to find Middle East peace, is another recipient of the Medal of Freedom. Peres did not attend the ceremony because of obligations back home.

Or maybe the USA is flirting with universal jurisdiction. USA Today had more to say about the racist war criminal, Peres:

Israel President Shimon Peres -- An ardent advocate for Israel's security and for peace, Shimon Peres was elected the ninth President of Israel in 2007. First elected to the Knesset in 1959, he has served in a variety of positions throughout the Israeli government ... Peres served as Prime Minister from 1984-1986 and 1995-1996. Along with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and then-PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, Peres won the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize for his work as Foreign Minister during the Middle East peace talks that led to the Oslo Accords."

Ok, all very interesting but how does any of that count as a "singular contribution to national life" in the USA?

Obama gets ready to bow

Oh no, another sickening display of grovelling by Obama is in the pipeline.  Here's The Boston Globe:

The White House says President Barack Obama will address the annual conference of AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby, next month.

The White House says Obama will speak at the conference on March 4. He will hold meetings the following day with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who will also be in Washington to attend the conference.

The president’s election-year remarks to AIPAC come as Republican presidential candidates question his support for Israel and his handling of Iran’s nuclear threat. Obama says he is a staunch supporter of Israel.

So what's he going to say, "hi guys, I'm the chap who killed Bin Laden"?

Atlanta Jewish Times editor calls for lynching of Obama

Is that a fair description of what actually happened? See this from Ha'aretz:

The owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, has suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu consider ordering a Mossad hit team to assassinate U.S. President Barack Obama so that his successor will defend Israel against Iran.

Adler, who has since apologized for his article, listed three options for Israel to counter Iran’s nuclear weapons in an article published in his newspaper last Friday. The first is to launch a pre-emptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah, the second is to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and the third is to “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”

As soon as I read this my mind turned to this lynching in Atlanta back in 1915.

h/t Matthew Tenzer.