Israel's Titanic Moment: Does Obama Want Bibi's Head?

[Purveyor]

Hamas has designated this day, in this place, its Day of Rage. Why, then, the smiles on the faces of Mahmoud Zahar and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Perhaps it's because after more than 22 years of costly trial and error, Hamas has finally come upon the secret of how to bring down the Jewish state:

Let the ship sink itself.

This month, down here in the engine room of the Titanic, a single coherent order continues to sound from the officers shrouded in fog on the bridge: "More power!"

To the delight of Mahmoud Zahar and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Israel's homemade weapons of mass destruction - pro-settlement bureaucrats with conflicts of financial and ideological interest - have done in one meeting what Israel's foes have sought for generations: driving a stake through the heart of Israel's relationship with the White House.
We should have known. But in the swamp of anomaly and impossibility that is Jerusalem, you can easily lose sight of, and belief in, the basics:

One of the curses of endless war, is the tendency to become one's own worst enemy - in every sense.

Forget, for the moment, the parallels with Iran. Forget, also, that Ahmadinejad would like nothing more in life than to focus Muslim anger and Western displeasure on Israel's policies in Jerusalem.

MORE...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156827.html

[Joanne98]

1. Bibi was hanging around with John Hagee on March 8th. This was planned out.

He made sure he had support from Obama's political enemies before he did this.

[damntexdem]

2. Hear, hear! Settlement activity is how Israel is committing suicide.

If the U.S. really cares about Israel, it should send a strong shock -- e.g., cut off aid and stop vetoing UN resolutions against illegal Israeli actions.

Alternately, the U.S. could stop caring about Israel.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

3. The Israeli right certainly wants Obama's.

I think we have to work on the assumption that in 2010 and 2012 both the Israeli government and American groups like AIPAC will be doing all they can to get Republicans elected.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

7. For shame.

That's an accusation that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to support it - not one single shred of evidence. It's just something you've pulled entirely out of thin air. It's fairly clearly not just an honest mistake on your part - there's nothing I've said that could possibly have given rise to the belief that I want to do so. It's a deliberate and knowingly false attempt to smear.

I'm not trying to turn Democrats against the Jews - I'm Jewish myself. I'm trying to turn liberals, both Jewish and non-Jewish, against the Israeli right and its supporters.

[oberliner]

8. You are completely clueless about AIPAC

..if you believe they "will be doing all they can to get Republicans elected".

Here, for your edification, are the American political figures who are confirmed plenary speakers at the upcoming AIPAC policy conference:

Senators: Charles Schumer (D), Lindsey Graham (R), and Evan Bayh (D)

Keynote Speaker: Hillary Clinton (D)

[Violet_Crumble]

9. No, it's you who are completely clueless about AIPAC

Given AIPAC's extremely hardline attitude on the conflict and the way you've repeatedly shown support for them at DU, it's not surprising to see another post on the subject that is misleading. Given the way AIPAC attacked the Obama administration, Donald's opinion isn't something that's ridiculous at all. Just because you can show three people with D's next to their names at some conference doesn't mean jack shit when it comes to that.

[oberliner]

10. You also have essentially no understanding of what AIPAC is or how it works

Perhaps it is because you are not an American, but your understanding of AIPAC, which presumably comes from reading various websites, is exceedingly limited and confused.

Even those who are extremely critical of AIPAC acknowledge, and in some cases take pains to point out, the fact that there are numerous Democrats who receive substantial support and backing from pro-Israel lobby groups aligned with AIPAC (which itself does not donate any money to any candidates).

One would have to be extremely misinformed to think that AIPAC would somehow be working against Democrats to elect Republicans.

Please identify any organization that is actively working to elect Republicans and to defeat Democrats that would feature Hilary Clinton as its keynote speaker at its major policy conference of the year.

But perhaps more to the point, here are some statistics that may be helpful to you:

Pro-Israel long-term contribution trends

2008 Election Cycle: Donations to Democrats: 63 percent / to Republicans: 37 percent

2010 Election Cycle: Donations to Democrats: 69 percent/ to Republicans: 31 percent

Across the House and Senate, four of the five (and 10 of the 15) top recipients of money from pro-Israel PACs in 2010 were Democrats.

In the Senate alone, the top seven recipients of money from pro-Israel PACs in 2010 were all Democrats (7 out of the top 7, 8 of the top 10, and 12 of the top 15 - all Democrats).

[Violet_Crumble]

11. I have a good understanding so knock it off

Anyone who consistantly supports or defends AIPAC as being some peaceseeking politically neutral bunch is either completely ignorant of ther hardline stance or deliberately trying to mislead people. Accusing people of being ignorant who don't share yr support of AIPAC is quite silly.

As already pointed out seeing as how AIPAC attacked the Obama administration yr reaction to Donald voicing an opinion of what may happen was over the top. Especially as AIPAC is a warmongering and hardline group.

What I don't understand is why a few duers who claim to be moderates on the conflict support a hardline group like aipac and oppose moderates lik j street. Maybe you can assist me in understanding that? I'd like to go back to the halycon days of a few months ago where you said you admired my knowledge of the conflict. It's such a turnaround to see me now being told differently.

[oberliner]

12. The statistics I've posted speak for themselves

It is an indisputable fact that pro-Israel lobby groups aligned with AIPAC have contributed more money to Democrats than Republicans. This trend has continued through the 2008 and 2010 cycles.

The upcoming AIPAC conference features leading Democrats in the most prominent speaking positions, with Hilary Clinton as its keynote speaker at the plenary session.

You may not like what you think AIPAC stands for, but the facts are the facts.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Now yr trying to make out the argument is about something different...

Donald didn't say anything about historic donations. He gave his opinion about the future. Also, you appear to have ignored the question I asked you, and nothing you have posted has proven at all that AIPAC is a moderate group. They attacked the Obama administration only a day or so ago for daring to criticise Israel...

AIPAC are definately not a group that anyone claiming to be a moderate on the conflict could support, given their extreme partisanship and lack of interest in a lasting and genuine solution where Israelis and Palestinians are seen as equals. I really would be interested in finding out why you, as someone who claims to be a moderate, could support such an organisation, but seeing as how you appear to have missed seeing my question asking that, I doubt I'll get any answer...

[Vegasaurus]

18. No, you have no understanding at all

of internal American affairs, including those relating to Jews and AIPAC.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Actually, I do have a pretty good understanding...

Just because you and Obie don't like someone else's opinion on a topic doesn't mean you should run round telling them they're ignorant on the topic. As far as debate tactics go, it's only slightly less effective and clumsy than popping up and 'correcting' other posters typos :)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. In the past they have backed both parties. I think it unlikely this will continue.

My best guess, for what it's worth, is that that they will continue to take a semi-bipartisan approach to the Senate and Congress - donating to candidates from both parties, but possibly leaning increasingly Republican (possibly not - I suspect an appearance of bipartisanship does them more good than a few more Republicans in Congress) but that in 2012 they will be firmly backing the Republican presidential candidate, with words and possibly also with money.

That said, 2012 is a long time away - a lot could change before then, and my record on political predictions is not good (in spring 2008 I was predicting that Giuliani would beat Clinton in the presidential election...)

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. 40+ years of Israeli occupation, all featuring violence, murder, land theft, mass arrests, broken

bones.

Tell me about 40 years of missiles.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. You want to see the Palestinians destroyed??

In Israel's favor, the Palestinians are also Semites and well on their way to being completely divided against each other. In fact, it has always been my belief that the way to destroy them is to grant them statehood. I am entirely in favor of Palestinian statehood.

At least you've come straight out and admitted it...

[LeftishBrit]

17. Burston's earlier article has proved all too accurate a description

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=bradley+burston+we+negotiate+like+we+drive&d=788668417551&mkt=en-GB&setlang=en-GB&w=af0a07be,dffc9742