Money Talks and You Know What Walks

January 5, 2009

by Larry Sakin

I find the naivete of some progressive endearing. The economic crisis that has bound up the United States the last few years has left us with a weakened impression around the world, and it’s always during these times that foreign military actions are taken. The most recent is the recalcitrant invasion of the Palestinian Gaza Strip by old nemesis Israel, which stubbornly refuses to live in peace with her neighbors.

Of course, the Israeli’s are saying they are fighting the good terrorism fight by going after Hamas, an Arab organization dedicated to Palestinian autonomy and keeping Israel from usurping any more of the country than it already has. American progressives are fuming over the Israeli aggression (with good cause), and are asking heir apparent to the American throne Barack Obama to end the Israeli siege.

But it is all for naught. Obama, like every other mainstream politician before him, is a supporter of Israel, and has purred flirtatiously in the lap of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a longstanding lobbyist for Israeli causes.

In a major policy speech Obama gave to AIPAC on June 3, 2008, Obama emphasized his opposition to talking to those governing the Gaza Strip, even though Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian parliament in what was universally acknowledged as a free election. Furthermore, Obama insisted that Hamas should have never been even allowed to participate in the Palestinian elections in the first place because of their extremist views, which fail to recognize Israel and acts of terrorism by its armed wing.

Yet Obama has never objected to the Israelis allowing parties such as National Union — which defends attacks on Arab civilians and seeks to destroy any Palestinian national entity, and expel its Arab population — to participate in elections or hold high positions in government.

While it remains unknown if AIPAC contributed to Obama’s presidential campaign, AIPAC has been a long time financial supporter of Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel. Of course, the Emmanuel family has ties to Israeli statehood, Emmanuel’s father participating in terrorist campaigns against Palestine and other Arab nations in the 1930’s and 1940’s. So it’s not too far a leap to suggest that AIPAC is “juiced” within the Obama court, and that Obama will readily do their bidding.

Despite all the indications to the contrary, some want to believe that Obama will respond to their call for peace in the Middle East, telling Israel that if they don’t give up their illegal settlements in Gaza, America will cease selling them weapons and end aid to the country. It would be great if it actually happened, but considering the longstanding relationship the United States has with Israel and the billions AIPAC has donated to congressional campaigns through the years, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Obama to take such action.

In the meantime, it will be interesting to see what results can be garnered from the last throes of the Bush Administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will go through her usual ritual of trying to look like she supports Palestine when she actually sides with Israel. Unless presidential history is proven wrong, Rice will likely try to keep the military occupation of Gaza going long enough for her boss and her to pack up their offices, and leave the mess for Obama and Secretary of State designee Hillary Clinton, another supporter of AIPAC and Israel.

So progressives don’t get your hopes up. Unless Hamas comes up with suitcases full of cash to start their own American lobbying group we can pretty much kiss an independently controlled Gaza Strip goodbye once again. Israel will not stop their aggression against the Palestinians, and their Washington patrons have paid good money to make sure that situation never changes. You can shout all you want but in the end, your pleas will fall upon ears that can only hear the clear, practiced voice of money.

Bookmark and Share:

Written by Larry Sakin · Filed Under A Moment of Clarity

Comments

RSS feed | Trackback URI

Comments »

No comments yet.

Letter to the Editor: Good Cars need Good Teams - by R. A. Letcher, PhD

Good cars need good teams -- designers, engineers, line workers… and learning-oriented managers by Robert A. Letcher, PhD [Author’s note: I submitted the following as a letter to the editor of The New York Times, after that paper carried an article under the headline, "To Fix Detroit, Obama Is Said to Drop Plan for ‘Car Czar’", 02/15/2009.] It is widely accepted that you can't win a horse race without a good horse. Of course, it helps to have a lot of money and a good plan for spending it. But, you still need a good horse. The authors reminded me of this when they wrote: “The companies’ plans are required to show progress in cutting long-term costs as a condition for keeping their loans.” I doubt GM and Chrysler can win this most important "automobile race" merely by having better accountants and more muscular negotiators: they still need a good "horse". That means the companies will have to show that their teams can still design and build cars that people are drawn to buy and willing to pay for: winners. I doubt they can. The problem isn't that they didn't know how to; it's that they don't know how to break out of the group-think that ensnarled them, their managers, their whole organizations, decades ago. I would be more optimistic, had the government also required the companies to include plans for transforming themselves into learning organizations. Aye, there’s the rub: learning entails risk-taking, not “yes people”.
Bob's Bail Out Plan by bobl-tlm
Fiscal Therapy - Getting the economy back on its feet, giving taxpayers a break, saving your retirement fund and your kid's college tuition? Done. And it won't cost you a penny.

For years now, whenever I've been invited to lecture students on how our tax system works, I have asked a simple question: What is the purpose of the United States of America? The most common answer, be it at prestigious universities, elite prep schools, rural community colleges, or crowded urban high schools, is this: To make people rich. This should come as no great surprise. For anyone born after, say, 1970, the world has been shaped by Ronald Reagan's remaking of government's relationship with private interests—a vision of lower taxes, less regulation, and maximum economic leeway for those at the top. In this view, the pursuit of wealth is the warp and weft of America; everything else will follow. By contrast, the preamble to the Constitution tells us the nation's reason for being in 52 words that can be reduced to six principles: society, justice, peace, security, commonwealth, and freedom. Individual riches don't make the list. They are a product of American society, not its guiding purpose. Progress, then, must begin with a return to the best of the values that created this Second American Republic—one born, it's worth remembering, from the failure of the Articles of Confederation, whose principles (weak government, unfettered capitalism) found their resurrection in the economic policies of the past three decades.
read more at Mother Jones
How Do You Like Deregulation Now? graphic politics by Dicky Neely
Advertisement
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- bob letcher on So long and thanks for all the fish.
- Jerry Lobdill on So long and thanks for all the fish.
- George Thomas on Holy Minerva! Scientists at War over Human Dignity
- PB on Holy Minerva! Scientists at War over Human Dignity
- Craig Hawley on Christmas at the Edge of Depression