“Who Speaks for Israel?”
March 30, 2012, 11:07 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
That is the headline of an editorial in the Jewish Daily Forward. It points out that while AIPAC and J Street, the major U.S. Israeli lobbying groups, are busy promoting the views of PM Netanyahu and DM Barak vis a vis Iran, the Israeli public along with Israeli military and intelligence officials are less enthused. Curious that the people most knowledgeable about warfare (including U.S. military) and the people must likely to suffer the repercussions (the Israeli public) have deep misgivings about starting a war with Iran.
Exactly. As usual the neocons remain in comfort while trying to dominate the rest of the world. They want to make it absolute sure no one can bother them. The same regard does not extend to those they will place in harms way.
I’ve just finished reading “Inferno,” Max Hastings’ bloodcurdling (and pretty accurate,as far as I can tell), account of WW II. One comes out of it absolutely convinced that war should be absolutely a last resort.
I wish our journalists, pundits, etc., would engage the question of what happens if, against all our advice, Netanyahu launches an attack, finds himself in deeper waters than he’d expected, and looks to us to pull him to safety Such things do happen. Though neither Israel nor the US (nor I, for that matter) would like the comparison, those of us with long memories can’t help thinking of the vainglorious Benito Mussolini attempting the conquest of Greece in 1940 all by his little self, only to have to be ignominiously rescued by Hitler’s armies, after a string of Greek victories over the unenthusiastic Italian armies.
It appears that Rachel Maddow’s new book, Drift, will be a good read in light of the internal as well as external pressure for the US to play “me too” when it comes to “dealing” with Iran.
Interesting – and useful. Thanks.
It occurs to me that Obama should consider, too, which Catholics to listen to. Apparently, recently, he chose the left – or a piece of it that has his ear – and was badly burned. Hopefully now he realizes that he can’t just trust the nearest Catholic on his staff.
David: A bit elusive….Can you name names? for informational purposes? I wasn’t sure there were any Catholics there in the WH except for Biden.
To tell the truth I believed that the investigation of weapons of mass destruction was deliberately flawed and tampered with. I am surprised that CIA investigators really thought there were weapons. The article in today’s Times states that this is making the investigators into Iran’s nuclear policy wary of jumping to conclusions. The neocons of course are saying the CIA is too cautious because of past errors. I should hope so! http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/world/middleeast/assessing-iran-but-thinking-about-iraq.html?_r=1&hp
Curious isn’t it that they searched for weapons (by some accounts, accompanied by Judith Miller of the NYTimes, a vocal proponent of the WMD theory). Perhaps they were hoping to find them since the evidence had been structured in that direction.
Of course, the CIA is anxious now because they don’t know what Iran is doing. Most Iranians probably don’t know what Iran is doing! A world of shadows.
I don’t know, Margaret (03/31/2012 – 10:11 pm), except for the HHS secretary – who I guess isn’t on Obama’s “staff”, but is certainly in his direct employ. And through her and Biden he’s probably been referred to others. How else could he have gotten such totally tone-deaf advice on the insurance mandate? He must have believed the intelligence he’d been given. High-level executives can have only a very few close advisors.
Totally tone-deaf advice, as you say; it may have come from people who aren’t Catholic. Protestants? Seculars? Stories I read said Biden and William Daley warned him not to do it. I don’t think his faith-based operation is up to snuff. Perhaps bad advice came from there. It’s always possible Obama gave himself bad advice, but I don’t seem him writing regulations. And I don’t see HHS Secretary Sebelius writing regs either, but she must have agreed to them…. He should have listened to Biden and Daly. He didn’t need this fight, and it is totally unnecessary. As I say on these occasions, where is Msgr. George Higgins when we need him?
No doubt, Bob Woodward will tell us who made the error in his next volume of the Obama Presidency.
What happened to “Who Speaks for Israel?” We seem to have drifted!
I guess every head of party in the coalition speaks for Israel. Presumably Netanyahu and Barak would not launch the military option in the face of a coalition whose other members were united against it.
But Israeli politics seems awfully complicated:
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=264413
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kadima
Good for them!