Goldstone Report Finds Israeli Military Guilty of War Crimes in Gaza

Juan Cole has a rather optimistic point of view regarding the documentation of war crimes by Israel and Hamas. He thinks the prospects of economic sanctions may reign in the Israelis who continue to steal land in the West Bank. Ultimately, what Obama decides will make the final case. EU's response to this report could be muted at best if Obama continues Bush's policy towards Israel. So far, he has done nothing different except signal that all is not well in American Israeli relations because of West Bank settlements. The call for a freeze has been a political stalling tactic for American presidents for decades. We'll see what that means soon.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The Independent reports that a United Nations fact-finding inquiry has found that Israel committed war crimes during its attack on Gaza last winter, as did the Palestinian Hamas. The lion's share of blame in the report, however, falls on Israeli forces, which stand accused of planning out a disproportionate use of force, the punishing of a civilian population, and reckless disregard for civilian lives-- all of which are war crimes in international law. The report suggests that some Israeli actions may have gone beyond being mere war crimes to being crimes against humanity. The report will go to the UN Human Rights Commission, which will likely accept it. The findings could in theory drag Israeli officials before the World Court in the Hague, though in practice this outcome is highly unlikely.

Both the Israeli government and Hamas rejected the report as biased, which is a pretty good indication that it is even-handed.

Aljazeera English has video.

Both rightwing Israeli news sources and Aljazeera English are convinced that the report is so many words on paper and that it will have no effect.

I disagree. Amnesty International has endorsed and defended the conclusions of the report, and Human Rights Watch has also been a supporter of Justice Goldstone. Even the British House of Lords debate on this issue last May displayed a determination that there be no double standard and that Israel be held accountable for any crimes it committed-- likewise Hamas.

Israel's continued inhumane blockade of the people of Gaza and its drive to further colonize the Palestinian West Bank, as well as its tendency to launch wars at the drop of a hat, are increasingly making it an international pariah and impelling a boycott movement, especially in Europe but also Canada. The recent World Council of Churches resolution in favor of some boycotts is also a bellwether. (Nor can such boycotts be avoided by Jewish nationalists' attacks on the academic freedom of boycott proponents such as Neve Gordon; or by Stern Gang character assassination tactics deployed against US academics who protest the policies of the Israeli rightwing.)

Israel is deeply dependent on trade and technological sharing with Europe, and the Goldstone report will give a fillip to the boycott movement. It will also cast a long shadow on future Israeli wars on its neighbors and how they are perceived, as Aluf Benn argues in Haaretz.

The report will color how Israeli politicians' demands for a military attack on Iran are viewed internationally, and it weakens the position of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who is defying President Barack Obama by committing to build more Israeli housing on Palestinian land in the West Bank at a time when the US has called for a settlement freeze in preparation for restarting peace talks.'

More at Informed Comment.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Israel 'appalled' by Goldstone report (thejc.com)


• UN probe cites Israel, Palestinians for war crimes (nationalpost.com)


• Israelis and Palestinians present peace manual (telegraph.co.uk)


• Israel Fends Off Gaza War Crime Claims (news.sky.com)


• Jane Fonda: Expanding the Narrative (huffingtonpost.com)


• Gaza Rebuild Stalls Months After Conflict (news.sky.com)


• Will Mitchell Wring Concessions on Settlements? (abcnews.go.com)


• Israel's New Visa Rule for Foreigners: If You Want To Visit Palestine, Stay There (time.com)


• U.S. envoy in talks with Mideast leaders (cbc.ca)


• US's 'arc of instability' just gets bigger (citizengkar.wordpress.com)

Where does the hatred come from?

It would appear that Homeland Security is promoting Islamo-phobia in it's recommended training for US Law Enforcement! Where is Obama? Is he just pretending to be Bush lite?

Image via Wikipedia

This fall, U.S. law enforcement personnel will have their final chance to take advantage of a rare opportunity. Participants will travel to Israel to receive “homeland security training,” but the counterterrorism briefings and martial arts practice sessions are only one part of the package. The program also includes visits to Christian religious sites in the Holy Land — an aspect likely to be especially attractive to Christian Zionists — along with other sites such as the Knesset and the Israeli “security fence”.

The Israel program is run by Security Solutions International (SSI), a group that has attracted controversy due to its ties to Islamophobic propaganda groups — as well as its apparent view that indoctrinating first responders with alarmist information about Islam is an essential part of counterterrorism training.

Most striking of all, the SSI Israel trip is funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. DHS’s funding of this venture is a concrete illustration of the ways that Islamophobic fringe groups have exploited the “global war on terror” for their own purposes.[..]So what does this training involve? In addition to martial arts demonstrations including “how to take down an armed suicide bomber”, meetings with Israeli security personnel, and a three-hour presentation on “suicide terror,” the itinerary also includes more tourist-oriented activities. Tourist excursions are both political visits to the Knesset, the West Bank “security barrier,” and southern Israeli towns that have been the target of rocket attacks from Gaza, and religious trips to Jerusalem’s Old City and to “some of Christianity’s holiest sites”.While this DHS-funded trip might already seem a bit odd — especially the emphasis on Christian religious sites during what is ostensibly a counterterrorism training program — things take a turn towards the bizarre in the section of the website advertising SSI’s two day presentations on “The Islamic Jihadist Threat”.

via LobeLog.com

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hamas asserts power in Gaza after al Qaeda clash (nationalpost.com)


• At Least 6 Die at Gaza Mosque in a Clash With Hamas (nytimes.com)


• Group Says Israel Plan to Cement Hold on Jerusalem (abcnews.go.com)

7 Ways We Can Fight Back Against the Rising Fascist Threat

AlterNet

First: The teabaggers must not win this one....

Second: Think nationally, fight locally....

Third: Brush up on our nonviolent resistance -- but leave the heavy lifting and rough enforcement to the cops....

Fourth: We need to make absolutely sure that the media get the story right....

Fifth: Support legislators who don't show fear....

Sixth: Shut down the hate talkers....

Finally: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty....

More here.

Former PR Exec at Cigna: Health Care Industry vs. Health Reform

Center for Media and Democracy

I'm the former insurance industry insider now speaking out about how big for-profit insurers have hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street investors, and how the industry is using its massive wealth and influence to determine what is (and is not) included in the health care reform legislation members of Congress are now writing.
Although by most measures I had a great career in the insurance industry (four years at Humana and nearly 15 at CIGNA), in recent years I had grown increasingly uncomfortable serving as one of the industry's top PR executives. In addition to my responsibilities at CIGNA, which included serving as the company's chief spokesman to the media on all corporate and financial matters, I also served on a lot of trade association committees and industry-financed coalitions, many of which were essentially front groups for insurers. So I was in a unique position to see not only how Wall Street analysts and investors influence decisions insurance company executives make but also how the industry has carried out behind-the-scenes PR and lobbying campaigns to kill or weaken any health care reform efforts that threatened insurers' profitability.
I also have seen how the industry's practices -- especially those of the for-profit insurers that are under constant pressure from Wall Street to meet their profit expectations -- have contributed to the tragedy of nearly 50 million people being uninsured as well as to the growing number of Americans who, because insurers now require them to pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before their coverage kicks in -- are underinsured. An estimated 25 million of us now fall into that category.
What I saw happening over the past few years was a steady movement away from the concept of insurance and toward "individual responsibility," a term used a lot by insurers and their ideological allies. This is playing out as a continuous shifting of the financial burden of health care costs away from insurers and employers and onto the backs of individuals. As a result, more and more sick people are not going to the doctor or picking up their prescriptions because of costs. If they are unfortunate enough to become seriously ill or injured, many people enrolled in these plans find themselves on the hook for such high medical bills that they are losing their homes to foreclosure or being forced into bankruptcy.
As an industry spokesman, I was expected to put a positive spin on this trend that the industry created and euphemistically refers to as "consumerism" and to promote so-called "consumer-driven" health plans. I ultimately reached the point of feeling like a huckster.
I thought I could live with being a well-paid huckster and hang in there a few more years until I could retire. I probably would have if I hadn't made a completely spur-of-the-moment decision a couple of years ago that changed the direction of my life. While visiting my folks in northeast Tennessee where I grew up, I read in the local paper about a health "expedition" being held that weekend a few miles up U.S. 23 in Wise, Va. Doctors, nurses and other medical professionals were volunteering their time to provide free medical care to people who lived in the area. What intrigued me most was that Remote Area Medical, a non-profit group whose original mission was to provide free care to people in remote villages in South America, was organizing the expedition. I decided to check it out.
That 50-mile stretch of U.S. 23, which twists through the mountains where thousands of men have made their living working in the coalmines, turned out to be my "road to Damascus."
Nothing could have prepared me for what I saw when I reached the Wise County Fairgrounds, where the expedition was being held. Hundreds of people had camped out all night in the parking lot to be assured of seeing a doctor or dentist when the gates opened. By the time I got there, long lines of people stretched from every animal stall and tent where the volunteers were treating patients.
That scene was so visually and emotionally stunning it was all I could do to hold back tears. How could it be that citizens of the richest nation in the world were being treated this way?
A couple of weeks later I was boarding a corporate jet to fly from Philadelphia to a meeting in Connecticut. When the flight attendant served my lunch on gold-rimmed china and gave me a gold-plated knife and fork to eat it with, I realized for the first time that someone's insurance premiums were paying for me to travel in such luxury. I also realized that one of the reasons those people in Wise County had to wait in long lines to be treated in animal stalls was because our Wall Street-driven health care system has created one of the most inequitable health care systems on the planet.
Although I quit my job last year, I did not make a final decision to speak out as a former insider until recently when it became clear to me that the insurance industry and its allies (often including drug and medical device makers, business groups and even the American Medical Association) were succeeding in shaping the current debate on health care reform. While the thought of speaking out had crossed my mind during the months leading up to the day I gave notice, I initially decided instead to hang out my shingle as a consultant to small businesses and nonprofit organizations.
I decided to take the shingle down, though, at least for a while, when I heard members of Congress reciting talking points like the ones I used to write to scare people away from real reform. I'll have more to say about that over the coming weeks and months, but, for now, remember this: whenever you hear a politician or pundit use the term "government-run health care" and warn that the creation of a public health insurance option that would compete with private insurers (or heaven forbid, a single-payer system like the one Canada has) will "lead us down the path to socialism," know that the original source of the sound bite most likely was some flack like I used to be.
Bottom line: I ultimately decided the stakes are too high for me to just sit on the sidelines and let the special interests win again. So I have joined forces with thousands of other Americans who are trying to persuade our lawmakers to listen to us for a change, not just to the insurance and drug company executives who are spending millions to shape reform to benefit them and the Wall Street hedge fund managers they are beholden to.
Take it from me, a former insider, who knows what really motivates those folks. You need to know where the hard-earned money you pay in health insurance premiums -- if you lucky enough to have coverage at all -- really goes.
I decided to speak out knowing that some people will not like what I have to say and will do all they can to discredit me. In anticipation of that, here are some facts:
* I am not doing this because my former employer was pushing me out the door or because I had become a disgruntled employee. I had not been passed over for a promotion or anything like that. As I noted earlier, I had a financially rewarding career in the industry, and I'm very grateful for that. I had numerous promotions, raises, bonuses, stock options and stock grants over the years. When I left my last job, I was as close on the corporate ladder to the CEO as any PR person has ever climbed at the company. I reported to the general counsel, the company's top lawyer, whose boss is the chairman and CEO, a man I like and worked closely with over many years.
* The decision to leave was entirely my own, and I left on good terms with everybody at the company. In fact, I agreed to postpone my last day at work by more than two months at the company's request. My coworkers gave me a terrific going-away party, and I received dozens of kind notes from people all across the country including friends at other companies and at America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade association.
I still consider all of them my friends. In fact, the thing I have missed most since I left is working as part of a team, even though I eventually came to the conclusion that I was playing for the wrong side. Being a consultant has its advantages, but I have missed the camaraderie. After a few months, I thought that maybe I should consider working for another company again. At one point, a former boss told me that another insurer had posted a PR job and encouraged me to contact a former CIGNA executive who worked there about it. Against my better judgment, I did, but I immediately decided not to pursue it. The last thing I wanted to do was to go from one big insurer to another one. What the hell was I thinking?
I'm writing this because, knowing how things work, I'm fully expecting insurers' PR firms to quietly feed friends of the industry (which include a roster of editorial writers and pundits, lawmakers and many others who fall under the broad category of "third-party advocates,") with anything they can think of to discredit me and what I say. This will go on behind the scenes because the insurers will want to preserve the image they are working so hard to cultivate -- as a group of kind and caring folks who think only of you and your health and are working hard as real partners to Congress and the White House to find "a uniquely American solution" to what ails our system.
I expect this because I have worked closely with the industry's PR firms over many years whenever the insurers were being threatened with bad publicity, litigation or legislation that might hinder profits.
One of the reasons I chose to become affiliated with the Center for Media and Democracy is because of the important work the organization does to expose often devious, dishonest and unethical PR practices that further the self interests of big corporations and special interest groups at the expense of the American people and the democratic principles this country was founded on.
After a long career in PR, I am looking forward to providing an insider's perspective as a senior fellow at CMD, and I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak out for the rights and dignity of ordinary people. The people of Wise County and every county deserve much better than to be left behind to suffer or die ahead of their time due to Wall Street's efforts to keep our government from ensuring that all Americans have real access to first-class health care.
Wendell Potter is the Senior Fellow on Health Care for the Center for Media and Democracy in Madison, Wisconsin.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Deceptive Practices: How Insurance Companies Hurt Employees (abcnews.go.com)
• Former Health Insurance Insider to Testify Before Senate Commerce Committee (ducknetweb.blogspot.com)
• Health care is a right, not a privilege (middletownmike.blogspot.com)
• Support for a Public Plan: Depends on How You Ask (swampland.blogs.time.com)

Obama messes up on health care, big time

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Really bad news on the health care front. After making the case for a public option, and doing it very well, Obama said this:
"We have not drawn lines in the sand other than that reform has to control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have health insurance or are underinsured," Mr. Obama said. "Those are the broad parameters that we've discussed."
There he goes again, gratuitously making a big gift to the other side.
My big fear about Obama has always been not that he doesn't understand the issues, but that his urge to compromise -- his vision of himself as a politician who transcends the old partisan divisions -- will lead him to negotiate with himself, and give away far too much. He did that on the stimulus bill, where he offered an inadequate plan in order to win bipartisan support, then got nothing in return -- and was forced to reduce the plan further so that Susan Collins could claim her pound of flesh.
And now he's done it on a key component of health care reform. What was the point of signaling, right at this crucial moment, that he's willing to give away the public plan? Let alone doing it at the very moment that he was making such a good case for it?
Maybe there's a way to recover from this. But it's up to the health reform activists to stiffen the administration's spine. Obama may be satisfied with "broad parameters" -- but the rest of us aren't, and have to make that known.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Poll Shows Most Americans Want Public Health Care (themoderatevoice.com)
• Health Care Reform Is Coming. Don't Panic. (alankatz.wordpress.com)
• The dangers of a fake public health insurance option (updated) (mydd.com)
• That Pesky Little Thing Called An "Election" (dailykos.com)
• Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option (cbsnews.com)
• Comparative effective research - what it means for us (junkfoodscience.blogspot.com)
• New Video Compares GOP Healthcare Reform Critics to Hollywood Horror Movies (usnews.com)

Ten Things To Know About Judge Sonia Sotomayor

Moveon.org

1. Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the bench than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. Over her three-decade career, she has served in a wide variety of legal roles, including as a prosecutor, litigator, and judge.
2. Judge Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She was the first Latina to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was the youngest member of the court when appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. If confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. While on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has consistently protected the rights of working Americans, ruling in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases.
4. Judge Sotomayor has shown strong support for First Amendment rights, including in cases of religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech.
5. Judge Sotomayor has a strong record on civil rights cases, ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, sex and race.
6. Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School.
7. In 1995, Judge Sotomayor "saved baseball" when she stopped the owners from illegally changing their bargaining agreement with the players, thereby ending the longest professional sports walk-out in history.
8. Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the environment in a case of protecting aquatic life in the vicinity of power plants in 2007, a decision that was overturned by the Roberts Supreme Court.
9. In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.
10. Judge Sotomayor is a widely respected legal figure, having been described as "...an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind," "highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets," and "a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity."
Judge Sotomayor is an historic, uniquely qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. Let's get the word out and make sure we get a prompt, fair confirmation on her nomination.
Thanks for all you do,
-Nita, Kat, Daniel, Ilyse and the rest of the team
Sources for each of the 10 things:
1. White House Statement, May 26, 2009.
2. White House Statement, May 26, 2009a
3. Cases: Archie v. Grand Cent. Partnership, 997 F. Supp. 504 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) and Marcella v. Capital Dist. Physicians' Health Plan, Inc., 293 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2002).
4. Cases: Flamer v. White Plains, 841 F. Supp. 1365 (S.D.N.Y. 1993), Ford v. McGinnis, 352 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2003), and Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F. Supp. 194 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
5a. "Sotomayor's Notable Court Opinions and Articles," The New York Times, May 26, 2009.
5b. Cases: Bartlett v. N.Y. State Board, 970 F. Supp. 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), Greenbaum v. Svenska Hendelsbanken, 67 F.Supp.2d 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), Raniola v. Bratton, 243 F.3d 610 (2d Cir. 2001), and Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education, 195 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 1999).
6. "Sonia Sotomayor: 10 Things You Should Know," The Huffington Post, May 26, 2009.
7. "How Sotomayor 'Saved' Baseball," Time, May 26, 2009.
8. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009.

9. "Sotomayor's resume, record on notable cases," CNN, May 26, 2009.
10a. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit.
10b. "Sotomayor is Highly Qualified," The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2009.
10c. Honorary Degree Citation, Pace University School of Law, 2003 Commencement.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Selling Sotomayor To The Center-Right (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Obama picks first Hispanic supreme court justice (guardian.co.uk)

FBI Director Pushes to Renew PATRIOT Act Surveillance Powers

Image via Wikipedia

AlterNet

Earlier this month, the ACLU released a report taking stock of the USA PATRIOT Act, almost eight years after its passage. The study, titled "Reclaiming Patriotism," identifies key sections of the law that codified the most radical abuses of power under the Bush administration, interweaving stories of people who were unlawfully spied on, coerced, and intimidated through the PATRIOT Act's sweeping powers.
"More than seven years after its implementation, there is little evidence to demonstrate that the Patriot Act has made America more secure from terrorists," the report's authors write. "But there are many unfortunate examples that the government abused these authorities in ways that both violated the rights of innocent people and squandered precious security resources."
The ACLU report highlights three specific provisions of the PATRIOT Act that have led to unprecedented surveillance against Americans:
Section 215 -- which drastically broadens the kinds of information the government can demand under FISA to "any tangible thing" (while lowering the burden of proof to obtain an order). As the Washington Post explains, this measure "allows investigators probing terrorism to seek a suspect's records from third parties such as financial services and travel and telephone companies without notifying the suspect. The American Civil Liberties Union has criticized the provision, saying it violates the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens."
Section 206 -- which grants the authority to use secret "roving wiretaps." "In the past, authorities had to seek court approval for each electronic device carried by a suspect, from a cellphone and a BlackBerry to a home computer," writes the Post, "But under the provision, one warrant can cover all of those machines." "Unlike roving wiretaps authorized for criminal investigations," the ACLU explains, "section 206 does not require the order to identify either the communications device to be tapped nor the individual against whom the surveillance is directed, which is what gives section 206 the Kafkaesque moniker, the "John Doe roving wiretap provision."
Section 6001 -- or the "lone wolf" provision, which allows for secret FISA surveillance orders against people who have no connections to a terror group or foreign nation. "The government justified this provision by imagining a hypothetical "lone wolf," an international terrorist operating independently of any terrorist organization," explains the ACLU, "but there is little evidence to suggest this imaginary construct had any basis in reality."
All three provisions are set to expire on December 31st.
Yesterday, however, during an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller made it clear that he considers these PATRIOT Act provisions valuable tools in intelligence gathering and will pressure Congress to keep them past their expiration date.
Questioned by Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) about the "three major provisions that will sunset in 2009" and which have proven to be "somewhat controversial" in the past, Mueller said, "My hope, quite obviously, is that they will be less controversial as they come up this time, because we have seen their use and have some track record with it."
He described provision 215 as "exceptionally helpful," saying that the FBI had used it 223 times between 2004 and 2007. He said that the roving wiretaps provision had been used 147 times, "and that also has eliminated a substantial amount of paperwork and, I would say, confusion in terms of the ability for us to maintain electronic surveillance on an individual."
As for the "lone wolf" provision, Mueller did not have figures to share. "While we have not -- there has not been a 'lone wolf,' so to speak, indicted," he said, but "that provision is tremendously helpful where we have difficulty showing a tie between a particular individual about whom we have information that he might be supporting terrorism -- or be a terrorist -- but we have difficulty in identifying the foreign power for which he is an agent."
Based on this theoretical, Mueller said the provision was "beneficial" and "should be reenacted."
Mueller said he had not yet had a chance to discuss the sunset provisions in the PATRIOT Act with the Obama Department of Justice -- "My hope is that the [DOJ] will support the re-enactment of all three" -- but given Obama's embrace of -- and the Democrats' utter capitulation to -- warrantless wiretapping last year, it may be an uphill fight to convince Congress to block the reauthorization of these PATRIOT Act provisions based on First Amendment concerns. But it's never too early to start trying. "Our lawmakers have, over time, built a massive surveillance mechanism bit by bit," Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office said upon releasing the ACLU report. "Now is the time take it apart, examine each piece and develop wiser policies."
At the hearing, Sen. Cardin urged Mueller to re-examine the provisions while there is still time. "There may need to be modifications -- not necessarily restrictions -- there may need to be a fine tuning of these provisions to make sure they're more effective and used as intended by Congress," he said.
"This issue is going to come up quicker than we think."

Related articles by Zemanta

• OLC Memos: The FISA Dance in the Wake of 9/11 (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)
• Obama Continues Bush Policy On State Secrets (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)

Freeman Calls Out Israel Lobby; WaPo Editorial Board Bursts a Blood Vessel

AlterNet

So, Chas Freeman states the obvious: the 'Israel lobby' torpedoed his nomination because he didn't embrace the ubiquitous pro-Israel bias required of those operating in U.S. foreign policy circles.
I'm sure anonymous fount of conventional wisdom who sat down to pen today's Washington Post editorial responding to the charge intended to dispel the notion that the discourse around the Israel-Palestine conflict is as narrowly limited as Freeman claims. Unfortunately for him or her -- and the rest of us -- the product that emerged was such a McCarthyite screed, so far over the top, that it can ultimately only serve as fodder for the exact kind of 'Jews control the debate' conspiracism it seeks to condemn. Let's tune into this bit of apoplexy in progress ...

It wasn't until Mr. Freeman withdrew from consideration for the job, however, that it became clear just how bad a selection Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair had made. Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister "Lobby" whose "tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency" and which is "intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government." Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel -- and his statement was a grotesque libel.

No, Mr. Freeman was not referring to "Americans who support Israel" -- as long as we're indulging in wild hyperbole, I'd say that's a "grotesque libel" unto itself.
He was referring to a loose, informal network of political operatives and organizations that support Israel's hawkish government and its policies towards the Palestinians (and its stance towards the rest of the Middle East). Two different animals -- there are plenty of "Americans who support Israel" who don't share those groups' views (including plenty of American Jews).
But fear not -- it's not like the WaPo didn't look into the whole thing carefully before weighing in ...

For the record, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman's appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. If there was a campaign, its leaders didn't bother to contact the Post editorial board.

See? They never got a memo saying ...
Dear Washington Post,
Just wanted to let you know we'll be shooting down this guy's nomination because of his views on Israel.
Love,
The Israel Lobby
Case closed. At least on the editorial page -- the New York Times' news pages tell a different story:

The lobbying campaign against Mr. Freeman included telephone calls to the White House from prominent lawmakers, including Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat. It appears to have been kicked off three weeks ago in a blog post by Steven J. Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.
On the Middle East, Mr. Rosen wrote, Mr. Freeman's views are "what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry," rather than from someone who would become essentially the government's top intelligence analyst. Because President Obama himself has been viewed with suspicion among many pro-Israel groups, the attacks on Mr. Freeman had the potential to touch a nerve.

There, that seals it -- nothing to see here. Move along.
The irony is that while the WaPo's editorial board denies that an Israel lobby even exists -- they put it in quotes, as in: "[Freeman] described himself as the victim of a of a shadowy and sinister 'Lobby'" -- those who carry the lobby's water do not.
Ray McGovern:

... As Glen Greenwald has noted, "Lynch mob leader Jonathan Chait [of The New Republic and author of an influential op-ed for the Washington Post] who spent the last week denying that Israel was the driving force behind the attacks on Freeman," now concedes the obvious.
Greenwald quotes Chait: "Of course I recognize that the Israel Lobby is powerful, and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman."
Neoconservative Daniel Pipes offered an anatomy of the crime, blog-bragging about how it was conducted:
"What you may not know is that Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East forum was the person who first brought attention [on Feb. 19] to the problematic nature of Freeman's appointment. ... Within hours, the word was out and three weeks later Freeman has conceded defeat. Only someone with Steve's stature and credibility could have made this happen."
The same Steve Rosen who is currently on trial for violations of the Espionage Act involving the transmission of classified information intended for Israel? One and the same! This has to be the purest brand of gall that ever came down the Pipes.

We should be able to have an open discussion not only about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, but also the way the discourse over that policy is constrained here at home. But when influential voices like the Washington Post's editors say, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" it only gives ammunition to those who do see a dark and sinister conspiracy afoot. Shame.
I'll have more on this soon -- been meaning to write on the topic anyway.
PS: see Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby, arguing that the Israel lobby's victory in this fight is a pyrrhic one. After such a visible and high-profile excercise of the lobby's power, I don't suppose you can blame Walt for indulging in a bit of 'I told you so.'
Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/131295/

Related articles by Zemanta

• US diplomat quits over Israel remarks (guardian.co.uk)
• The Israel Lobby Continues to Dominate (themoderatevoice.com)
• The Israeli Lobby's Veto (mydd.com)
• In Search of an Honest Middle East Broker (themoderatevoice.com)

Freeman Calls Out Israel Lobby; WaPo Editorial Board Bursts a Blood Vessel

AlterNet

So, Chas Freeman states the obvious: the 'Israel lobby' torpedoed his nomination because he didn't embrace the ubiquitous pro-Israel bias required of those operating in U.S. foreign policy circles.
I'm sure anonymous fount of conventional wisdom who sat down to pen today's Washington Post editorial responding to the charge intended to dispel the notion that the discourse around the Israel-Palestine conflict is as narrowly limited as Freeman claims. Unfortunately for him or her -- and the rest of us -- the product that emerged was such a McCarthyite screed, so far over the top, that it can ultimately only serve as fodder for the exact kind of 'Jews control the debate' conspiracism it seeks to condemn. Let's tune into this bit of apoplexy in progress ...

It wasn't until Mr. Freeman withdrew from consideration for the job, however, that it became clear just how bad a selection Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair had made. Mr. Freeman issued a two-page screed on Tuesday in which he described himself as the victim of a shadowy and sinister "Lobby" whose "tactics plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency" and which is "intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government." Yes, Mr. Freeman was referring to Americans who support Israel -- and his statement was a grotesque libel.

No, Mr. Freeman was not referring to "Americans who support Israel" -- as long as we're indulging in wild hyperbole, I'd say that's a "grotesque libel" unto itself.
He was referring to a loose, informal network of political operatives and organizations that support Israel's hawkish government and its policies towards the Palestinians (and its stance towards the rest of the Middle East). Two different animals -- there are plenty of "Americans who support Israel" who don't share those groups' views (including plenty of American Jews).
But fear not -- it's not like the WaPo didn't look into the whole thing carefully before weighing in ...

For the record, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee says that it took no formal position on Mr. Freeman's appointment and undertook no lobbying against him. If there was a campaign, its leaders didn't bother to contact the Post editorial board.

See? They never got a memo saying ...
Dear Washington Post,
Just wanted to let you know we'll be shooting down this guy's nomination because of his views on Israel.
Love,
The Israel Lobby
Case closed. At least on the editorial page -- the New York Times' news pages tell a different story:

The lobbying campaign against Mr. Freeman included telephone calls to the White House from prominent lawmakers, including Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat. It appears to have been kicked off three weeks ago in a blog post by Steven J. Rosen, a former top official of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group.
On the Middle East, Mr. Rosen wrote, Mr. Freeman's views are "what you would expect in the Saudi Foreign Ministry," rather than from someone who would become essentially the government's top intelligence analyst. Because President Obama himself has been viewed with suspicion among many pro-Israel groups, the attacks on Mr. Freeman had the potential to touch a nerve.

There, that seals it -- nothing to see here. Move along.
The irony is that while the WaPo's editorial board denies that an Israel lobby even exists -- they put it in quotes, as in: "[Freeman] described himself as the victim of a of a shadowy and sinister 'Lobby'" -- those who carry the lobby's water do not.
Ray McGovern:

... As Glen Greenwald has noted, "Lynch mob leader Jonathan Chait [of The New Republic and author of an influential op-ed for the Washington Post] who spent the last week denying that Israel was the driving force behind the attacks on Freeman," now concedes the obvious.
Greenwald quotes Chait: "Of course I recognize that the Israel Lobby is powerful, and was a key element in the pushback against Freeman."
Neoconservative Daniel Pipes offered an anatomy of the crime, blog-bragging about how it was conducted:
"What you may not know is that Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East forum was the person who first brought attention [on Feb. 19] to the problematic nature of Freeman's appointment. ... Within hours, the word was out and three weeks later Freeman has conceded defeat. Only someone with Steve's stature and credibility could have made this happen."
The same Steve Rosen who is currently on trial for violations of the Espionage Act involving the transmission of classified information intended for Israel? One and the same! This has to be the purest brand of gall that ever came down the Pipes.

We should be able to have an open discussion not only about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, but also the way the discourse over that policy is constrained here at home. But when influential voices like the Washington Post's editors say, "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" it only gives ammunition to those who do see a dark and sinister conspiracy afoot. Shame.
I'll have more on this soon -- been meaning to write on the topic anyway.
PS: see Stephen Walt, co-author of The Israel Lobby, arguing that the Israel lobby's victory in this fight is a pyrrhic one. After such a visible and high-profile excercise of the lobby's power, I don't suppose you can blame Walt for indulging in a bit of 'I told you so.'
Joshua Holland is an editor and senior writer at AlterNet.
© 2009 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/131295/

Related articles by Zemanta

• US diplomat quits over Israel remarks (guardian.co.uk)
• The Israel Lobby Continues to Dominate (themoderatevoice.com)
• The Israeli Lobby's Veto (mydd.com)
• In Search of an Honest Middle East Broker (themoderatevoice.com)

More on Protectionism

Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

First of all: my piece was NOT an endorsement of protectionism -- it was an explanation that there is an economic case for it, but also that there is a strong political economy case (which I consider dominant) against acting on that economic case. It was, in short, an attempt to be intellectually honest.
Second, Nick Rowe argues that under flexible exchange rates the economic case goes away. His argument is based on the proposition that since interest rates are fixed under a liquidity trap, capital flows are fixed, and the exchange rate will adjust to offset any change in the trade balance.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Barack Obama says US wants to avoid a trade war (telegraph.co.uk)
• Dissecting the stimulus debate (meganmcardle.theatlantic.com)
• Secondary Sources: Deflation, U.S. Strategy, Consumer, Bank Demands (blogs.wsj.com)

More on Protectionism

Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

First of all: my piece was NOT an endorsement of protectionism -- it was an explanation that there is an economic case for it, but also that there is a strong political economy case (which I consider dominant) against acting on that economic case. It was, in short, an attempt to be intellectually honest.
Second, Nick Rowe argues that under flexible exchange rates the economic case goes away. His argument is based on the proposition that since interest rates are fixed under a liquidity trap, capital flows are fixed, and the exchange rate will adjust to offset any change in the trade balance.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Barack Obama says US wants to avoid a trade war (telegraph.co.uk)
• Dissecting the stimulus debate (meganmcardle.theatlantic.com)
• Secondary Sources: Deflation, U.S. Strategy, Consumer, Bank Demands (blogs.wsj.com)

Obama: Amaze us!

Image by BL1961 via Flickr

Global Research
By Michael Carmichael
planetarymovement.com

As Barack Obama approaches the helm of the American ship of state, he is facing many challenges.
Just as she was being born at the dawn of her journey into history, the American nation is poised on the brink of a new beginning. In those revolutionary times, America faced a roiling sea of danger, uncertainty and trepidation. Today, after more than two centuries of venture, America moves forward beyond and away from the final and most tragic acts of the second Bush presidency.
The American journey has been filled with triumph and tragedy. Triumph over the bonds of colonialism transformed into the tragedy of slavery, Manifest Destiny and the genocide of Native Americans followed by Civil War. Abolition began to right the wrongs of slavery, but America careened forward into the excesses of the Gilded Age and the arrogance of her Imperialist Presidency that extended her empire to the islands of the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea.
The Roosevelts expanded the American vision to encompass economic justice, environmental preservation and the duty to deliver peace beyond our borders. At the same time, American philosophers advocated the virtue of selfishness, the goodness of greed and the siren song of supply side trickle down economic miracles, while Martin Luther King, Jr. marched to the beat of a different drummer to demand the fulfillment of civil rights for our black brothers and sisters.
In an ancient scenario, the culture of greed infiltrated the American defense establishment and commandeered the ship of state to instigate conflicts and to impose its will by force. American power came into conflict with competing ideologies promising a better and more just society through cooperation rather than competition. For more than three-quarters of a century, America has moved forward toward its promise of freedom for all her people: freedom of speech; freedom of religion; freedom from want and freedom from fear.
FDRAs Barack Obama approaches the dais to take his oath of office, he is focused on delivering the four freedoms to all Americans. Each of FDR's four freedoms is in danger in America today. Freedom of speech was curtailed in pursuit of solidarity against the Axis of Evil in the War on Terror. Freedom of religion is under threat as Muslims are treated like criminals and terrorists. Freedom from want is on its deathbed, for millions of Americans have been expelled from their homes, banished from their workplaces and shunned by their employers. Freedom from fear has vanished, as Americans are convulsed in a paroxysm of panic apprehensive about their financial security and in fear for their very lives.
Barack Obama faces an insurmountable Himalaya of fear. In its face, Obama brings a message of hope for change. Obama erases fear with the promise of hope. Now he must turn to the people of America and deliver the four freedoms they have been promised.
Obama faces anxiety over the economy. While there are differences of opinion about what must be done and what must not be done, Obama has few choices. Obama's errant predecessor capitulated to the demands of his capitalist coterie for massive federal bailouts of financial institutions. With the bloated banking system now in bankruptcy, the calls for government regulation from Wall Street and the Federal Reserve will herald the beginning of state capitalism, a propagandistic oxymoron for a socialized banking system. While the incomes of financiers, bankers and others will shrivel, the confidence of the American people will be restored. The new American banking system will resemble a vast public utility, where salaries are strictly limited and profits are regulated.
But, the American people fear for their very lives today. Faced with the rapacious appetite for corporate profit that no population of any other industrialized nation faces, Americans spend more than twice what citizens of other democracies spend for their healthcare. In order to restore the freedom from fear, Obama must deliver a better system for healthcare that will be nothing less than revolutionary for it must delete the profitability of illness, injury and disease from the national vocabulary. The people of America are suffering through a stupefying crescendo of ghoulish greed that is pervasive thoughout the healthcare industry. Obama believes that healthcare is a human right that government must deliver to a free people to ensure that they do not experience fears for their own lives.
statue of liberty dark and direBut, Americans fear for more than their financial futures and their health, they fear for their very existence under threat from those who would destroy the fabric of our society - the terrorists. Bush launched his War on Terror to galvanize political support for a Gotterdammerung of Islamist terrorists. In the process, Bush triggered a massive avalanche of fear within America that has led to two immoral and counterproductive wars in Asia. America's standing in the world has been toppled from the top of a tall column. For the world at large, the Statue of Liberty has lost all meaning. America's prestige has morphed into a global loathing of the stars and stripes. In 2008, America has become the most feared and hated nation on earth.
Like no other president before him, Obama faces a global challenge to America's faltering leadership. To address the global challenge, Obama must replace opprobrium with trust and restore equilibrium with peace. American Muslims must be freed from the burdens of ostracism, stereotyping and the prison of Guantanamo. But, the closure of Guantanamo will be only the first step. The American prison population has inflated beyond all sense of reason. Alone among all other nations, America imprisons one out of every one hundred of its citizens. For shame, more American prisoners are from the black and tan minorities rather than from the white majority. The American prison-industrial complex has transformed the land of the free into a police state where minorities are incarcerated for misdemeanors while whites go free for felonies. Obama must right this terrible wrong that tarnishes America's luster in the eyes of the world.
Even more importantly, Obama must forge a new foreign policy that does not genuflect to the Pentagon and resort to military interventions and wars to enforce American power by the simplsitic application of force -- for force has failed America in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. In the Information Age, hard power is indeed outmoded, outdated, obsolete and counterproductive. Soft power is now the only instrument available for forging ahead on the global seas of commerce, ecology and culture.
camp david accords bwObama's global challenges are manifold, but none more difficult than in the Middle East. In recent days, hard power inflicted pain and destruction in the Arab-Israeli conflict. America's involvement in the Middle East has not delivered peace or security of the freedom from fear to the peoples of the Middle East. Since the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Agreement, the Middle East has devolved into conflict and crisis. Under George W. Bush, American policy made the insufferable situation worse by launching the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and unwise favoritism in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nowhere does Obama face a more difficult challenge than in the Middle East, but in challenge therein resides opportunity - a unique opportunity to redefine America's vision in the eyes of the world.
On Wednesday, the 21st of January 2009, Barack Obama will enter the Oval Office where he will wield the power of the American nation. On that date, the world will judge him for the priorities he engages from the very outset of his presidency.
While he has promised America that he will order the cessation of torture, the withdrawal from Iraq, the final phase of the war in Afghanistan and the restructuring of American involvement with the Arab-Israeli conflict, Obama's global reputation will be cast in the flames of the forge.
In that moment and in the others rapidly to come, we shall learn the extent and the tenor of the change Obama will bring - not only to America but to the tiny planet where he will be the most powerful leader in world history, a leader for all peoples - for better or worse -- and it is indeed quite difficult to imagine how he might be worse than George W. Bush.
obama bwPresident Obama, the time is now ripe. Bring on all the changes you have promised from sea to shining sea and from nation unto nation - you must now bring peace unto all the nations of the earth. We, Americans who summoned and supported you are waiting; the nations are gazing intently upon you. Amaze us.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michael Carmichael, planetarymovement.com, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=11908
© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama touches every base for the masses
• Begala: Obama summons ghosts of history
• Obama Inaugural Speech Signaling Unity Era: Good Not Great
• In Final Legal Act, Bush Appeals Spy Ruling

Obama: Amaze us!

Image by BL1961 via Flickr

Global Research
By Michael Carmichael
planetarymovement.com

As Barack Obama approaches the helm of the American ship of state, he is facing many challenges.
Just as she was being born at the dawn of her journey into history, the American nation is poised on the brink of a new beginning. In those revolutionary times, America faced a roiling sea of danger, uncertainty and trepidation. Today, after more than two centuries of venture, America moves forward beyond and away from the final and most tragic acts of the second Bush presidency.
The American journey has been filled with triumph and tragedy. Triumph over the bonds of colonialism transformed into the tragedy of slavery, Manifest Destiny and the genocide of Native Americans followed by Civil War. Abolition began to right the wrongs of slavery, but America careened forward into the excesses of the Gilded Age and the arrogance of her Imperialist Presidency that extended her empire to the islands of the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea.
The Roosevelts expanded the American vision to encompass economic justice, environmental preservation and the duty to deliver peace beyond our borders. At the same time, American philosophers advocated the virtue of selfishness, the goodness of greed and the siren song of supply side trickle down economic miracles, while Martin Luther King, Jr. marched to the beat of a different drummer to demand the fulfillment of civil rights for our black brothers and sisters.
In an ancient scenario, the culture of greed infiltrated the American defense establishment and commandeered the ship of state to instigate conflicts and to impose its will by force. American power came into conflict with competing ideologies promising a better and more just society through cooperation rather than competition. For more than three-quarters of a century, America has moved forward toward its promise of freedom for all her people: freedom of speech; freedom of religion; freedom from want and freedom from fear.
FDRAs Barack Obama approaches the dais to take his oath of office, he is focused on delivering the four freedoms to all Americans. Each of FDR's four freedoms is in danger in America today. Freedom of speech was curtailed in pursuit of solidarity against the Axis of Evil in the War on Terror. Freedom of religion is under threat as Muslims are treated like criminals and terrorists. Freedom from want is on its deathbed, for millions of Americans have been expelled from their homes, banished from their workplaces and shunned by their employers. Freedom from fear has vanished, as Americans are convulsed in a paroxysm of panic apprehensive about their financial security and in fear for their very lives.
Barack Obama faces an insurmountable Himalaya of fear. In its face, Obama brings a message of hope for change. Obama erases fear with the promise of hope. Now he must turn to the people of America and deliver the four freedoms they have been promised.
Obama faces anxiety over the economy. While there are differences of opinion about what must be done and what must not be done, Obama has few choices. Obama's errant predecessor capitulated to the demands of his capitalist coterie for massive federal bailouts of financial institutions. With the bloated banking system now in bankruptcy, the calls for government regulation from Wall Street and the Federal Reserve will herald the beginning of state capitalism, a propagandistic oxymoron for a socialized banking system. While the incomes of financiers, bankers and others will shrivel, the confidence of the American people will be restored. The new American banking system will resemble a vast public utility, where salaries are strictly limited and profits are regulated.
But, the American people fear for their very lives today. Faced with the rapacious appetite for corporate profit that no population of any other industrialized nation faces, Americans spend more than twice what citizens of other democracies spend for their healthcare. In order to restore the freedom from fear, Obama must deliver a better system for healthcare that will be nothing less than revolutionary for it must delete the profitability of illness, injury and disease from the national vocabulary. The people of America are suffering through a stupefying crescendo of ghoulish greed that is pervasive thoughout the healthcare industry. Obama believes that healthcare is a human right that government must deliver to a free people to ensure that they do not experience fears for their own lives.
statue of liberty dark and direBut, Americans fear for more than their financial futures and their health, they fear for their very existence under threat from those who would destroy the fabric of our society - the terrorists. Bush launched his War on Terror to galvanize political support for a Gotterdammerung of Islamist terrorists. In the process, Bush triggered a massive avalanche of fear within America that has led to two immoral and counterproductive wars in Asia. America's standing in the world has been toppled from the top of a tall column. For the world at large, the Statue of Liberty has lost all meaning. America's prestige has morphed into a global loathing of the stars and stripes. In 2008, America has become the most feared and hated nation on earth.
Like no other president before him, Obama faces a global challenge to America's faltering leadership. To address the global challenge, Obama must replace opprobrium with trust and restore equilibrium with peace. American Muslims must be freed from the burdens of ostracism, stereotyping and the prison of Guantanamo. But, the closure of Guantanamo will be only the first step. The American prison population has inflated beyond all sense of reason. Alone among all other nations, America imprisons one out of every one hundred of its citizens. For shame, more American prisoners are from the black and tan minorities rather than from the white majority. The American prison-industrial complex has transformed the land of the free into a police state where minorities are incarcerated for misdemeanors while whites go free for felonies. Obama must right this terrible wrong that tarnishes America's luster in the eyes of the world.
Even more importantly, Obama must forge a new foreign policy that does not genuflect to the Pentagon and resort to military interventions and wars to enforce American power by the simplsitic application of force -- for force has failed America in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. In the Information Age, hard power is indeed outmoded, outdated, obsolete and counterproductive. Soft power is now the only instrument available for forging ahead on the global seas of commerce, ecology and culture.
camp david accords bwObama's global challenges are manifold, but none more difficult than in the Middle East. In recent days, hard power inflicted pain and destruction in the Arab-Israeli conflict. America's involvement in the Middle East has not delivered peace or security of the freedom from fear to the peoples of the Middle East. Since the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Agreement, the Middle East has devolved into conflict and crisis. Under George W. Bush, American policy made the insufferable situation worse by launching the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and unwise favoritism in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nowhere does Obama face a more difficult challenge than in the Middle East, but in challenge therein resides opportunity - a unique opportunity to redefine America's vision in the eyes of the world.
On Wednesday, the 21st of January 2009, Barack Obama will enter the Oval Office where he will wield the power of the American nation. On that date, the world will judge him for the priorities he engages from the very outset of his presidency.
While he has promised America that he will order the cessation of torture, the withdrawal from Iraq, the final phase of the war in Afghanistan and the restructuring of American involvement with the Arab-Israeli conflict, Obama's global reputation will be cast in the flames of the forge.
In that moment and in the others rapidly to come, we shall learn the extent and the tenor of the change Obama will bring - not only to America but to the tiny planet where he will be the most powerful leader in world history, a leader for all peoples - for better or worse -- and it is indeed quite difficult to imagine how he might be worse than George W. Bush.
obama bwPresident Obama, the time is now ripe. Bring on all the changes you have promised from sea to shining sea and from nation unto nation - you must now bring peace unto all the nations of the earth. We, Americans who summoned and supported you are waiting; the nations are gazing intently upon you. Amaze us.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Michael Carmichael, planetarymovement.com, 2009
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=11908
© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama touches every base for the masses
• Begala: Obama summons ghosts of history
• Obama Inaugural Speech Signaling Unity Era: Good Not Great
• In Final Legal Act, Bush Appeals Spy Ruling