Vice President Biden to Democratic Base: 'Stop Whining'.

A theme is developing in the Obama administration towards what it sees as "whiners" amongst their supporters.

At a fundraiser in Manchester, NH, today, Vice President Biden urged Democrats to "remind our base constituency to stop whining and get out there and look at the alternatives. This President has done an incredible job. He’s kept his promises."

The remarks, made to roughly 200 top Democratic activists and donors, recall comments President Obama made last week to “griping and groaning Democrats…Folks: wake up. This is not some academic exercise. As Joe Biden put it, Don’t compare us to the Almighty, compare us to the alternative.”

It should go without saying that even the most disgruntled Democrat supporter can listen to the insanity coming from the right and appreciate that an Obama administration is better than the alternative, but is that seriously what they are proposing should be the limit of public participation in the democratic process? Turn up every four years and vote and then remember that it could always be worse, as the Republicans could be in power?

Are Obama and Biden seriously arguing that we should now support the very behaviour which we condemned whilst the Bush administration was in office?

Would they make hypocrites of us all?

The campaign slogan wasn't "Shut up, it could be worse" if I remember correctly. It was something altogether more positive and involved the plural personal pronoun, "We".

It seems rather harsh to now be told that we should all assume spectator status unless what we have to say is sufficiently positive.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Obama, Biden, Yes we can

Joe Barton retracts apology to BP.

This is Joe Biden's reaction to Joe Barton's ridiculous comments regarding what he called Obama's "shakedown" of BP.

Indeed, I note this morning that even Barton is trying to back pedal away from what he said.

Here is what he said:



And here is his retraction.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is apologizing for his apology.

After infuriating Democrats and Republicans alike with his public apology to BP and suggesting that a $20 billion escrow fund was a “shakedown” by the White House, Barton is now “retracting” his statement, made at a hearing with BP CEO Tony Hayward.

“I apologize for using the term ‘shakedown’ with regard to yesterday’s actions at the White House in my opening statement this morning, and I retract my apology to BP,” Barton said. “As I told my colleagues yesterday and said again this morning, BP should bear the full financial responsibility for the accident on their lease in the Gulf of Mexico. BP should fully compensate those families and businesses that have been hurt by this accident.”

It appears as if even the GOP realise that defending BP is not working out too well for them. Pass that along to Fox.

Tags: Joe Barton, Joe Biden, Gulf Oil Spill, BP, Obama

Does Anyone Care About Furkan Dogan?

There is a dead 19-year-old American with 4 bullet holes in his head; those bullet holes were put there as he tried to deliver humanitarian aid to a country which is being punished by an illegal siege.

Are there any other circumstances under which the US would not be outraged?

Where one would not expect the American President and Vice President to be united in condemning the death of one of their citizen's in such circumstances?

Glenn Greenwald, as always, does a fine job of crystallising the arguments.

How could anyone with the slightest intellectual honesty claim that Israel and its Navy were the victims of a boat which Jon Stewart said last night looked like "P Diddy's St. Bart's vacation yacht"; or that armed Israeli commandos were the victims of unarmed civilian passengers; or, more generally, that a nuclear-armed Israel with the most powerful military by far in the Middle East and the world's greatest superpower acting as Protector is the persecuted victim of a wretched, deprived, imprisoned, stateless population devastated by 40 years of brutal Israeli occupation and, just a year ago, an unbelievably destructive invasion and bombing campaign? The casting of "victim" and "aggressor" is blatantly reversed with such claims -- which is exactly the central premise that has been driving, and continues to drive, U.S. foreign policy as well. In Imperial Ambitions, Noam Chomsky -- talking about America's post-9/11 policies -- described the central mental deception that is at the heart of all nations which dominate others with force (and if you're one of those people who hear "Noam Chomsky" and shut your mind, pretend that this comes from "John Smith"):

In one of his many speeches, to U.S. troops in Vietnam, [Lyndon] Johnson said plaintively, "There are three billion people in the world and we have only two hundred million of them. We are outnumbered fifteen to one. If might did make right they would sweep over the United States and take what we have. We have what they want." That is a constant refrain of imperialism. You have your jackboot on someone's neck and they're about to destroy you.

The same is true with any form of oppression. And it's psychologically understandable. If you're crushing and destroying someone, you have to have a reason for it, and it can't be, "I'm a murderous monster." It has to be self-defense. "I'm protecting myself against them. Look what they're doing to me." Oppression gets psychologically inverted; the oppressor is the victim who is defending himself.

Thus, nuclear-armed Israel is bullied and victimized by starving Gazans with stones.

Imagine if Furkan Dogan had been killed by the Iranians. Do you really think we wouldn't know his name as well as we know the name of Gilad Shalit?

But, according to the current US narrative, he is now on the side of the aggressors. And nuclear armed Israel is the victim of peace activists who were really nothing of the kind.

The narrative which claims that Israel must always be viewed as the victim seems almost central to US foreign policy. And, now it appears to apply, even when Israel kills one of it's own citizens. In circumstances which have outraged the rest of the world, but, not it appears, the Obama administration.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Furkan Dogan, Israel, Palestine, Obama, Biden

Israel Backs Down, But Biden Continues To Defend What She Did.

There are reports that Israel only released prisoners, captured during their recent lethal operation to halt the Turkish flotilla, because the Turks threatened to review their entire relationship with Israel unless the Israelis did so.

"We have clearly stated that we would review our ties with Israel if all Turks are not released by the end of the day," Turkey's Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, said yesterday. "No one has the right to try people who were kidnapped in international waters."

Glenn Greenwald was reporting that Israel was planning to try some of the people it had captured but I honestly thought that this was fanciful. Now, we find that they actually were seriously considering doing so until this Turkish intervention.

It really leaves me wondering just how insane the current Israeli administration are that they could even consider such a thing.

Israeli officials had previously suggested that criminal charges would be pursued against a minority of the activists. Yehuda Weinstein, Israel's attorney general, admitted that the decision to release the passengers was taken by Israel's political leadership despite the fact that some were "suspected of having carried out criminal acts". The move was based on "clear diplomatic interests touching on the state of Israel's foreign relations and national security," she said.

And one gets some indication of why the Israelis appear to be so out of touch with the rest of the world when one listens to Joe Biden on this subject.

US Vice President Joe Biden has offered the Obama administration's strongest defence of Israel's Gaza flotilla raid to date, in a interview on US television this evening, saying: "Israel has an absolute right to deal with its security interest."

Appearing on PBS's Charlie Rose Show, Biden defended Israel's action in boarding the Gaza flotilla as "legitimate". After suggesting the flotilla's cargo of aid could have been unloaded elsewhere, Biden appears to brush off the international criticism, asking: "So what's the big deal here? What's the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza?"

As long as the US offers this kind of automatic defence for every outrage the Israelis commit, then one shouldn't be surprised that the Israelis continue to commit them.

For Biden to suggest that there's no big deal about delivering aid directly to the Palestinians, suggests that he is either unaware or uninterested in the actual amounts of aid that the Israelis allow through. The truth is that one of the things the Israelis do not allow in are building materials, and that is one of the main things protesters want delivered. The Palestinians must be given an opportunity to rebuild after the Israeli devastation of their territory.

The fact that this seems unimportant to Biden will only heighten the international assumption that the US is in Israel's pocket.

In reaction to this outrage, we are once again seeing Israel and the US united against the rest of the world, with the US offering knee-jerk support for an act which outraged almost every other nation on the planet. I expected better from Obama's administration.

Biden is now defending an attack on a ship delivering much needed humanitarian aid to a group of people who are being collectively punished, which is, in itself, a breach of the Geneva Conventions. There are many in the world who want this illegal blockade to end.

Israel acts with such breathtaking arrogance because they know that the most powerful nation on Earth will always defend them. Biden does Israel no favours in the long run when he tells her that she is right and that the rest of us are wrong.

And Obama's plans to rebuild his country's relationship with the Arab world is dealt a serious blow when his administration backs such an obvious act of Israeli stubbornness and stupidity.

UPDATE:

Pro-Israeli Democrats, including people like Anthony Weiner who I usually admire, line up to support Israel's behaviour.

UPDATE II:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

How do you even begin to dismantle this amount of spin?

Frank: By the way, I don’t remember quite so much worldwide outrage when the North Koreans sank a South Korean submarine and 46 people were killed. There are people much more upset about Israel in a much more ambiguous situation…

Let’s take a moment to unpack that, shall we? First, it was an “ambiguous situation.” No. It really wasn’t. The flotilla was no secret, as we were publicly told it was nothing more than a PR stunt, they knew who was on it, they followed it for days, and then they decided to go cowboy and assault a Turkish flagged ship in the middle of international waters. A combination of a flawed mission and bungled execution of said mission then led directly to the deaths of nine civilians. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about what happened. Ask the heads of every nation except the United States. Ask every member of the Security Council except the United States. There may be some ambiguity in the details regarding who shot first (my guess- the ones with the guns, and since the IDF is not flashing pictures of guns seized, that sort of narrows things down, doesn’t it…), but there is quite simply no ambiguity as to what happened in this overall situation. It is crystal clear.

Then Mathews has the nerve to say, "You know, I think when you let the Europeans judge Israel, you are not letting them be judged by a panel of it's peers; it's does seem a totally prejudicial situation."

Notice how Mathews ignores the fact that outrage has been expressed worldwide, he implies it's simply those pesky Europeans displaying their dreadful anti-Semitism again.

And, if the Israelis are on such strong ground, why is she resisting an investigation?

Click here for full article.

Tags: Turkey, Israel, United States, Obama, Biden, Mavi Marmara

Biden and Obama Pay Tribute to Fallen Miners.

Biden really impressed me here. He captured the mood perfectly.

The men we remember today went into the darkness so that we might have light.

Obama is, of course, as polished as one would expect. But it is Biden who hits the raw nerve. He clearly shares the values of the people he is talking about.

Tags: Biden, Obama, miners, disaster

Put America Second.

I've spoken before about how Lieberman and McCain have decided that, in any conflict of interests between the US and Israel, they will come down firmly on the side of Israel.

The Washington Post appear to have come up with why Lieberman and McCain are correct to do so.

A larger question concerns Mr. Obama's quickness to bludgeon the Israeli government. He is not the first president to do so; in fact, he is not even the first to be hard on Mr. Netanyahu. But tough tactics don't always work: Last year Israelis rallied behind Mr. Netanyahu, while Mr. Obama's poll ratings in Israel plunged to the single digits.

Apparently the US president must always keep an eye on the opinion polls of Israel so that he can better judge how he is doing his job.

I thought Obama's problem, according to McCain and Lieberman during the last election campaign, was that he didn't put America first.

“In my opinion, the choice could not be more clear: between one candidate, John McCain, who’s had experience, been tested in war and tried in peace, another candidate who has not,’’ Mr. Lieberman said. “Between one candidate, John McCain, who has always put the country first, worked across party lines to get things done, and one candidate who has not.

Apparently, the rules have changed again, and it is no longer one's patriotic duty to put your own country first. Now Lieberman and McCain have decided that it's patriotic to put America second.

How do these buggers manage to fight elections running on a bandwagon of patriotism?

UPDATE:

The Jewish Institute of Foreign Affairs has this to say in a scathing attack on Obama.

Friends of Israel bewailed the timing - though not the substance - of the announcement.

That's like saying, "Sorry I punched you on Monday. I promise never to punch you on a Monday again!"

UPDATE II:

McCain and Lieberman actually went to Israel earlier this year to publicly state that they will do whatever they can to reverse Obama's foreign policy.

The man who lost the last election reacts by directly undercutting the victor's foreign policy goals, and does so abroad in the very country Obama is trying to push toward change.

Lieberman, for his part, is effectively telling the Israelis that Obama does not control US foreign policy with respect to Israel, and that he will be prevented by Congress from exerting any pressure. He says this with a certainty, as if the autonomy of the president is simply moot. And remember that Lieberman and McCain often invoke the necessity for sanctions against foreign countries the US is trying to nudge or persuade in one way or another. Here's Lieberman's quote (and the video of his backing Netanyahu against Obama is here):

Any attempt to pressure Israel, to force Israel to the negotiating table, by denying Israel support will not pass the Congress of the United States. In fact, Congress will act to stop any attempt to do that.

Message to a foreign government: if the US president tries to pressure you in any way, we will stop him and back you.

Unbelievable.

Hat tip to Sullivan.

Tags: Lieberman, McCain, Israel, Palestine, Obama, Netanyahu

Foxman Scolds Biden For Stating The Obvious.

We can expect more rants like this:

While much of this is understandable, there needs to be some stepping back so that there are no long-term deleterious results from this contretemps. The vice president’s comments in his Tel Aviv University address softening the U.S. response was helpful. Less helpful were his comments that Israel’s announcement on building in East Jerusalem was endangering American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the kind of rhetoric that does exactly what Mr. Biden has studiously avoided doing, linking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to America’s larger Middle East challenges, and it unnecessarily calls into question Israel’s role as an ally and the impact on American interests. The Mearsheimer and Walts of this world will delight in this kind of criticism of Israel.

Now, no-one is arguing that the Israel-Palestine situation is the only, or even the main, reason for anger on the Arab street. But it is undeniably a factor.

What is enraging Foxman is that Biden has let the cat out of the bag by daring to even acknowledge that there might be a link of any kind.

And I expect a very strong push back against General Petraeus' remarks that Israel's actions might have consequences for American troops, and may even lead to the deaths of American soldiers.

Petraeus has put this in a context for which the pro-Israeli right wingers have simply no answer. For he is daring them to make a choice between Israel and the lives of American forces.

They're not going to want to be pushed into that corner, so soon we can expect to hear that Petraeus has got this all wrong.

Click here for Foxman's article.

Tags: Petraeus, Foxman, Biden, Israel, Palestine

US-Israel relations: White House 'will not shy away' from pushing for talks.

There are further noises today to suggest that Obama is realising that the Teutonic plates are shifting regarding his ability to get Israel to come to the table and talk peace with the Palestinians.

An Obama administration source told the Guardian that the White House and US state department are intent on pushing Israel into substantive peace talks with the Palestinians and will not shy away this time as they did when the last effort ended in embarrassing failure in September.

"No one gets anywhere by accusing each other. We are hoping to lay the foundations for negotiations," the source said. In order to get negotiations under way, the US is demanding that Netanyahu cancel or freeze plans to build 1,600 planned Jewish homes in Palestinian East Jerusalem. But Netanyahu, speaking at a meeting of his own Likud party, showed no signs of backing down. "The building in Jerusalem, and in all other places, will continue in the same way as has been customary over the last 42 years," he said.

The Israeli ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, in a weekend telephone call to other Israeli diplomats, expressed alarm about the extent of the confrontation.

The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth quoted the normally cool Oren, an academic-turned diplomat, as saying: "Israel's ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975 … a crisis of historic proportions."

Netanyahu appears to think that he can simply brazen this one out, that the usual forces will come to his aid and rescue him, that people like Bill Kristol and Joe Lieberman will make enough noise to force Obama to back off.

I think Netanyahu is widely missing the point.

Petraeus has moved the goalposts in a dramatic fashion.

David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers.

It is in that context that the Israeli intransigence should now be viewed. It is, according to two of America's most respected military officials, "jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region".

The White House has steadily built up the heat on Israel over the last few days, with the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, berating Netanyahu in a 45-minute call on Friday and David Axelrod, the chief White House adviser, describing Israeli behaviour as an insult yesterday.

The US wants Israel not only to backtrack on the East Jerusalem building plans but to enter into talks with the Palestinians on substantive issues and not just talks about talks, as Israel wants. Washington also wants Israel to make gestures towards the Palestinians, such as releasing Palestinian prisoners and withdrawing more Israeli forces from Palestinian territory. The US special envoy to Israel and the Palestinian territories, the former senator George Mitchell, is to visit Israel this week in the hope of hearing that Israel will bow to at least some of the US demands.

Aipac have issued an almost boilerplate condemnation of Obama and an insistence that he backs down, but J Street - the new guys on the block - have urged Obama to use this as a way to push for peace talks.

I really don't think that this will play out the way these things usually play out. Petraeus, by making this about the lives of American soldiers, has changed the game.

Obama's decision to back down on his insistence that all illegal Israeli settlement building must stop was the greatest disappointment I have had in his presidency. Petraeus has just handed him a lifeline to stiffen his resolve.

It will, of course, be a fight to the death. And I suspect that the government of Netnanyahu might collapse rather than give Obama what he wants. But Obama, this time, needs to see this through and not back down.

UPDATE:

Some of the comments in the Israeli press are sharply critical of Netanyahu.

If Bibi genuinely did not know, as he foolishly claims, that 1,600 more homes were being planned for East Jerusalem, he does not deserve to be prime minister. If he did know, and permitted Interior Minister Eli Yishai to announce the plan exactly during the visit of Joe Biden, who is both U.S. vice president and a friend to Israel, then there are two possibilities, each worse than the other: either stupidity or fear of the extremists in his cabinet. Either way, he is playing with fire.

And, in the American press, we can see Thomas Freedman - a man who I normally find myself on the opposite side of in every argument - coming out very strongly on the side of Obama and Biden.

So it pains me to say that on his recent trip to Israel, when Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s government rubbed his nose in some new housing plans for contested East Jerusalem, the vice president missed a chance to send a powerful public signal: He should have snapped his notebook shut, gotten right back on Air Force Two, flown home and left the following scribbled note behind: “Message from America to the Israeli government: Friends don’t let friends drive drunk. And right now, you’re driving drunk. You think you can embarrass your only true ally in the world, to satisfy some domestic political need, with no consequences? You have lost total contact with reality. Call us when you’re serious. We need to focus on building our country.”

As I say, this is not going to play out in the usual way.

UPDATE II:

As if to ramp up the pressure on Netanyahu even further, now George Mitchell has cancelled his trip to Israel, implying that the Obama White House wants an answer to it's demands before it allows Mitchell to board a plane.

A visit to Israel by U.S. special peace envoy George Mitchell was on hold on Tuesday pending an Israeli response to a series of American demands.

[...]

Mitchell is thought to have delayed his travel plans until late Tuesday but may now cancel his visit to Israel altogether, instead flying straight to Moscow for talks with the 'Quartet' of Middle East peace mediators - the European Union, the United Nations, the United States and Russia.

"We want to make sure that we have the commitment from both sides that when he travels we can make progress," State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said.

I had thought that Mitchell was travelling to find out whether or not Netanyahu accepted what had been asked of him, but it appears as if Obama is demanding the answer before Mitchell can even meet with Netanyahu.

UPDATE III:

Where do you begin with this nonsense? Joel C. Rosenberg at the Corner races to Israel's defence spouting rubbish:

First things first: The Israeli government has every right to build homes for its own citizens in its own capital. Period.

Jerusalem is NOT Israel's capital, Tel Aviv is. There are several UN resolutions on this matter stating that Israel must negotiate with the Palestinians and that no measures are be taken to change the status of Jerusalem until a final settlement is reached.

On July 30, 1980, the Israeli parliament passed a law declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel in contravention of several UN security council resolutions. But no other nation recognises this. Indeed, not a single nation has its embassy in Jerusalem. Even George Bush, Israel's greatest defender, never got around to moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

So Rosenberg is talking nonsense. And lets face it, if you are going to get things that wrong on your very first point, why should anyone bother reading anything else you have to say on the subject?

Click here for full article.

Tags: Obama, Biden, Israel, Palestine, Netanyahu

Lieberman and Kristol Blame Obama.

Normally, the likes of Joe Lieberman and Bill Kristol pride themselves on being the US troops greatest defenders.

So one would have thought that when both Adm. Mike Mullen and Gen. David Petraeus say that a country's actions were putting the lives of American troops in danger, that Lieberman and Kristol would be the first to condemn that country.

Well, that's not actually how this is playing out. Why? Because the country Mullen and Petraeus named was Israel.

A briefing given to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen has said that that "Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region" and that "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding." The briefing was said to have "stunned Mullen."

This briefing - and Petraeus's subsequent request to have the West Bank and Gaza put under his command - is said to have "hit the White House like a bombshell."

Indeed, the danger to American troops was further emphasised by no less a figure than the American Vice President:

"This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace." Yedioth Ahronoth went on to report: "The vice president told his Israeli hosts that since many people in the Muslim world perceived a connection between Israel's actions and US policy, any decision about construction that undermines Palestinian rights in East Jerusalem could have an impact on the personal safety of American troops fighting against Islamic terrorism." The message couldn't be plainer: Israel's intransigence could cost American lives.

What was Lieberman's reaction?

Making reference to Clinton’s remarks, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who enjoys public grandstanding on other issues, urged the White House to be quiet on this one:

“It was a dust-up, a misunderstanding. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu has apologized, and the timing was unfortunate. But the second round of criticism is unproductive. I make one appeal — sometimes silence really is golden.”

And then there's this from Bill Kristol:

On Fox News Sunday yesterday, the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol stated bluntly that the dust-up was all Obama’s fault. “This is a fight that the White House has picked,” he said. “I do not know, honestly, why the president chose to pick a big public fight just when it was all dying down with Israel.”

Petraeus couldn't have made his message clearer:

David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers.

There's certainly nothing in the statement of either Lieberman or Kristol to indicate that they take this anywhere near as seriously as Petraeus does. And, considering that Petraeus is talking about the lives of American soldiers, that's highly unusual for both of them.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Lieberman, Kristol, Israel, Palestine, Obama, Biden

Axelrod calls Israeli settlement announcement an 'insult' to the US.

I know that so far this is simply a change in tone, and that the Obama administration haven't actually brought about any significant change in the way the US relates to Israel, but the difference between what we are currently hearing from the Obama team and what we were used to hearing from the Bush presidency is remarkable.

Obama set out this difference early on in his presidency when he stated that peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians was in "America's interest."

This was the first time that anyone, to my knowledge, had stopped pretending that the US was merely "an honest broker" and had implied that US and Israeli interests in this matter were not necessarily one and the same.

The never ending war between the Israelis and the Palestinians had consequences, and some of these consequences were for the United States, although Obama was careful never to specify what those consequences were.

Nevertheless, he was making it perfectly clear that the US would no longer approach this problem simply from the point of view of what was in Israel's interests; he was making it perfectly clear that his obligation was to the people of the United States and that the interests of the Israelis and the Americans might not always go hand in hand.

Surely that is what is behind the change of tone which greeted the Israeli announcement that 1600 new homes would be built in Jerusalem, an announcement made whilst Joe Biden was visiting Israel.

David Axelrod continued with this new tone yesterday, stating that what had occurred was "an affront" and that the behaviour of the Israelis was "very destructive".

Axelrod's comments came after Netanyahu had tried to play down the bust up with Washington.

"We opened the newspapers this morning and read all kinds of commentary and assumptions regarding the crisis with the US. I recommend not to get carried away and to calm down," Netanyahu told his cabinet today, Associated Press reported. "There was a regrettable incident that was done in all innocence and was hurtful, and which certainly should not have occurred."

In his remarks to the cabinet, Netanyahu said: "Israel and the US have mutual interests but we will act according to the vital interests of the state of Israel."

Netanyahu, with his promise of acting, "according to the vital interests of the state of Israel" is showing no sign of backing down and appears to want to play the whole thing down.

Axelrod, speaking after Netanyahu made those remarks, appears to be saying that this is not business as usual.

"This was an affront, it was an insult but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region," he said on NBC's Meet the Press. "For this announcement to come at that time was very destructive."

Axelrod, one of the architects of Obama's election, is not the first US official to have criticised the decision but he is one of the president's closest advisers.

Asked about Netanyahu's remarks, Axelrod said he believed the strong rebuke from Washington had sunk in. "I think the message was received," he said.

And, for the first time I can recall, Axelrod intimated that Israel might have done this deliberately to undermine peace efforts.

"We've just gotten... so-called proximity talks going between the Palestinians and the Israelis and this seemed calculated to undermine that," he told the ABC This Week talk show.

During the Bush presidency we would now be hearing speeches about how the US is Israel's greatest ally and that there had been a simple misunderstanding between great friends.

Bush always seemed to fall over himself to make excuses so that the Israeli leader didn't have to.

What's remarkable about the interventions of Biden, Clinton - and now Axelrod - is that none of that is happening.

UPDATE:

The Guardian discuss the danger of Natanyahu's current posturing:

Like many in Israel, and on the political right in the US, Mr Netanyahu may be banking on Mr Obama turning out to be a one-term president; a leader to be endured until a more ardently pro-Israeli Republican takes back the White House. That offers one explanation for Israel's almost deliberate-looking humiliation of the President. But if this is the strategy – to appeal over Mr Obama's head to a right-wing audience in America – it is fraught with risk.

The strength of Israel's alliance with the US has depended on its bipartisan character, which meant Israel not taking sides between Democrats and Republicans. The danger of Mr Netanyahu's approach is that Democrats may start to see Israel not as the great friend of America but as the great friend of the Republicans, which will change the entire dynamics of the alliance. It may be that in a few years' time the US will have another Republican president, in which case Israel can presumably restart settlement activity without any apology. But it should not bank on such an outcome at this stage.

UPDATE II:

In an article in which Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, describes US/Israeli relations as being the worst they have been for thirty five years, Ha'aretz say they have come across four of the demands which Clinton set out during her conversation with Netanyahu.

1. Investigate the process that led to the announcement of the Ramat Shlomo construction plans in the middle of Biden's visit. The Americans seek an official response from Israel on whether this was a bureaucratic mistake or a deliberate act carried out for political reasons. Already on Saturday night, Netanyahu announced the convening of a committee to look into the issue.

2. Reverse the decision by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee to approve construction of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat Shlomo.

3. Make a substantial gesture toward the Palestinians enabling the renewal of peace talks. The Americans suggested that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners be released, that the Israel Defense Forces withdraw from additional areas of the West Bank and transfer them to Palestinian control, that the siege of the Gaza Strip be eased and further roadblocks in the West Bank be removed.

4. Issue an official declaration that the talks with the Palestinians, even indirect talks, will deal with all the conflict's core issues - borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements, water and settlements.

Netanyahu will meet with George Mitchell on Tuesday when he is expected to say whether or not he intends to take the proposed steps.

Click here for full article.

Tags: David Axelrod, Obama, Netanyahu, Israel, Palestine, Biden, Clinton

Netanyahu must choose between ideology and U.S. support .

Since Netanyahu was elected we have been preparing for the inevitable fallout between him and the administration of Barack Obama. Now, with the humiliation of Joe Biden on a visit to Israel, it appears to have arrived.

U.S. President Barack Obama did not hold back in condemning the humiliation caused to Joe Biden with the Israeli announcement of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem during what was supposed to be the vice president's friendly visit to Israel. Instead of accepting Netanyahu's partial apology and letting bygones be bygones, Obama issued a stern warning to the Israeli prime minister and is now demanding that he take "specific actions" to show he is "committed" to the U.S.-Israel relationship and to the peace process itself.

Washington did not reveal the contents of the ultimatum or the list of demands reportedly presented to Netanyahu. Those conditions, however, could undermine the prime minister's coalition ties to hard-line right-wing parties like Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas, as well as provoke strong criticism from within his own Likud faction. In case Netanyahu still fails to understand the situation, a U.S. official told Reuters yesterday that the Israeli leader's rightist coalition leaves him in a "perilous" situation.

I am delighted that Obama is, finally, appearing to get serious about addressing this situation and is, at last, standing up to Netanyahu's intransigence.

For, as a new Channel 4 documentary reveals, time is not on our side.

Omsyatte adjusts her green school uniform and climbs gingerly on to a desk at the front of the classroom. The shy 12-year-old holds up a brightly coloured picture and begins to explain to her classmates what she has drawn. It is a scene played out in schools all over the world, but for one striking difference: Omsyatte's picture does not illustrate a recent family holiday, or jolly school outing, but the day an Israeli military offensive killed her nine-year-old brother and destroyed her home.

"Here is where they shot my brother Ibrahim, God bless his soul. And here is the F16 plane that threw rockets into the house and trees, and here is the tank that started to shoot," she says, to a round of applause from the other children. The exercise is designed to help the pupils at the school come to terms with the warfare that has dominated their short lives; particularly the horrors of the 2008 Israeli military offensive Operation Cast Lead, which killed 1,400 Palestinians, and destroyed one in eight homes.

It's so easy, sitting so many miles away, to concern ourselves with the politics of this conflict; and to forget that for the children, this is the only life they know, and that this experience will shape and influence the adults they become.

Small boys build toy rockets out of drinks bottles, and talk about the fake guns they are going to buy with their pocket money. While boys the world over are preoccupied with fighting and weapons, this takes on a more sinister significance when the game isn't Cowboys vs Indians, but Jews vs Arabs, and the children's make-believe warfare is chillingly realistic.

These games may reflect the children's desire for revenge against their neighbours, of which many speak openly. "I think we are seeing a growing desire for violence, and it saddens me," said Jezza Neumann, the Bafta-winning director of the programme. "If they could get revenge legally, or saw someone saying sorry, then perhaps they could come to terms with it, but there has been no recourse. What you're seeing now may only be the tip of the iceberg."

It's like a ticking time bomb. A society held under siege, dreaming of revenge.

Obama, who has until now backed off from confrontation with Netanyahu, appears to sense that this is his moment.

You can't treat a visiting American Vice President the way Biden was treated on his recent visit to Israel. It's simply not done.

His [Netanyahu's] adversaries in the Obama administration spotted a perfect opportunity to strike, to teach him a lesson in national honor - taking a leaf out of the diplomatic playbook of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his deputy, Danny Ayalon. Biden was humiliated in Jerusalem, and America is now returning the favor.

Washington delivered its rebuke to Netanyahu through a number of channels. There was the extended censure by telephone from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a phone call from Biden, the summoning of Israel's ambassador to Washington to the office of Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, the condemnation from the Quartet and, perhaps most important, a media briefing Clinton delivered during a CNN interview which escalated private rebukes into a full-blown public reprimand.

The reproofs were reminiscent of the "low chair diplomacy" the Turkish ambassador to Jerusalem was subjected to by the Israeli Foreign Ministry at the beginning of the year. The media was informed that the conversation between Clinton and Netanyahu lasted 43 minutes, "rather than 10 minutes as usual," and that the prime minister barely uttered a word.

Obama himself reportedly worded the message to be delivered to Netanyahu during his weekly Thursday meeting with Clinton, lest the argument be made that it was merely the secretary of state scolding the Israeli leader, and not the U.S. president himself.

A State Department spokesman described the conversation using phrases which bring to mind a teacher castigating a student, not a working discussion with the leader of a friendly country and ally.

The substance was no less damning than the form - Clinton spoke of an "insult" to the United States and of "harming bilateral ties." She could not understand, she said, how such a thing could have been done in light of America's strong obligation to Israel's security. U.S. media interpreted these remarks as suggesting that Washington's military support for Israel is hardly unconditional.

Clinton dismissed Netanyahu's explanation that the decision to approve the housing plan was made without his knowledge, reminding him that as prime minister he is responsible for his government's actions.

Obama has Netanyahu on the ropes for the first time since he became president. Now, Netanyahu has a problem.

He is due to fly this week to the US to address the AIPAC Conference. Should he make the trip it is highly unlikely that any senior US figures will agree to meet with him, unless he agrees to some of Obama's conditions. Should he cancel, he will be admitting that there is a serious rift between his government and the government of Barack Obama.

Until now, I have always felt that Netanyahu has had the better of Obama, that the wily old fox always seemed to know how to put the young pretender into a box.

Now, with the humiliation of Biden, the game has changed. And Obama knows it.

For the first time Obama has room to maneuver. And he appears willing to push Netanyahu as firmly as he can to force him to compromise.

Now, for the first time, Netanyahu has to show whether he is serious about peace, or not. It will be fascinating to see what way Netanyahu decides to go.

Click here for full article.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Obama, Biden, Netanyahu

The Audacity of Hops.

Even the president of the United States is not allowed to say that a policeman behaved badly without the press dragging him back into line and forcing him to, "look forward and not backwards". Not that this president is averse to looking, "forward and not backwards." He's ignoring the war crimes committed by his predecessor, so turning his back on the bad behaviour of James Crowley of the Cambridge police is really small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.

After the event Crowley described the discussion as "cordial and positive". He made it clear there were on-going disagreements and no hint of an apology from either side, but that they had "agreed it's important to look forward rather than backward".

He recognised that Gates had the credentials to enlighten him, and "he has a willingness to listen to me about the difficult job that police officers do".

The police do have a difficult job to do, but the events at Gates's house could hardly be amongst the most difficult moments of Crowley's career, even if they end up being the most notorious.

He arrested an elderly black man because he didn't like his tone. He didn't like the way this elderly man was speaking to him.

The fact that Gates committed no crime has been made clear by the fact that all charges against him have been dropped. He simply should never have been arrested in the first place.

But we are all forced to witness this charade because the one thing we are never allowed to say, under any circumstances, is that the police behaved badly. Obama crossed this line and said that Crowley behaved "stupidly", so now we have to "look forward and not backward" and witness this photo opportunity.

Obama said :"I have always believed that what brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart. I am confident that has happened here tonight, and I am hopeful that all of us are able to draw this positive lesson from this episode."

We have not to look at what actually happened:

Crowley was called to Gates's home in Cambridge last week following a report of an attempted break-in. Gates was charged with disorderly conduct after he protested that his treatment of the hands of the police was racially motivated. The charges were later dropped.

We have to look at some way of moving on without acknowledging that Crowley shouldn't have done what he did. He abused his power. But no-one is allowed to say that because he is a member of the police force and they "have a difficult job to do"; therefore they are above criticism.

So Gates and Obama and Biden and Crowley will all have a beer and no-one will apologise and no-one will admit that they were wrong.

Because the police are never wrong. And Obama, whilst not taking back his statement that Crowley behaved stupidly, is not repeating it.

So, we are all, "looking forward and not backwards". It sounds great and so - so - positive. But, exactly as it applies to the war crimes of George W Bush, "looking forward and not backwards" seems to me to be a great way to avoid anyone ever taking any responsibility for anything which they should not have done.

If the lessons of Obama's presidency are that we should ignore the past, learn nothing, and simply move on, then I fear I am going to be greatly disappointed.

UPDATE:

And now I stumble across the real reason why Obama has to go through this charade:

Barack Obama significantly damaged his standing with voters – especially white voters – when he intervened in the controversy surrounding the brief arrest of a black Harvard history professor earlier this month by calling the police action in the case "stupid", according to new polling figures released yesterday.

A survey released by the Pew Research Centre found that 41 per cent of all voters disapproved of Mr Obama's handling of the affair, compared with just 29 per cent who approved.

White Americans want to believe that the election of Obama means that the US has become "post racial". Obama's crime was to tell them that they are not.

UPDATE II:


I include this simply because it made me laugh.

UPDATE III:



Here, Crowley describes his "ordeal". I would have thought that the "ordeal" happened to the person who was arrested. Since when did the person committing the arrest become the victim of the piece? This is becoming more surreal with every second that passes...

Click title for full article.

Tags: Obama, Biden, Gates, Crowley, beer summit

Conservatives Claim Obama Eats a Burger the Wrong Way.

The Republicans are becoming simply ridiculous. It reminds me of their nonsense regarding arugula during the election. The Republicans appear to loathe the fact that elitist arugula eating Democrats are pretending to be just like the rest of us. When we all know it's the Republicans job to pretend that their multi-millionaire candidates are just like the rest of us.

How dare Obama muscle in on their territory?

Tags: Barack Obama, Hamburger, mustard, Joe Biden, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Cenk Uygur, Young Turks, scandal, sean hannity, mark steyn, conservative talk show hosts, john kerry, cheesesteak, mayo, ray's hell burger, press, media

Countdown: When Turdblossoms Attack.

Imagine being called a liar by Karl Rove? Could a more ridiculous situation exist? It's like being called shallow by Paris Hilton.

Tags: Rove, Biden, liar

G.O.P. = "Know-Nothing Party"

Maher points out the difference between "the two tribes" and the failings of the Republican one. The moment when they show the Fox announcement of Obama's victory is simply hysterical.

As Begala says, the Republicans have become the party of Sarah Palin.

Tags: Bill Maher, US election 2008, Palin

Growing Doubts on Palin Take a Toll, Poll Finds.

As McCain tours a town, aptly named Defiance, and Rick Davis spends all his time telling anyone who will listen that the comeback is happening:

"We're still fighting; we're still behind; we still think we've got plenty of time to close the gap enough to make this election competitive and win it."

Another poll recently released says that one of the main reasons for McCain's woes was his disastrous choice for VP.

A growing number of voters have concluded that Senator John McCain’s running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, is not qualified to be vice president, weighing down the Republican ticket in the last days of the campaign, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

All told, 59 percent of voters surveyed said Ms. Palin was not prepared for the job, up nine percentage points since the beginning of the month. Nearly a third of voters polled said the vice-presidential selection would be a major factor influencing their vote for president, and those voters broadly favor Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee.

I think McCain and the Republicans will look back and shudder at the choice which McCain made, although to be fair to him, it is reported that he actually wanted Joe Lieberman, which would have enabled him to claim that he was crossing the aisle and that his ticket was less partisan than Obama's.

The problem for McCain, and the Republicans in general, is the extent to which their party has become hostage to the religious right, who utterly rejected any talk of Lieberman - who favours abortion - and instead have rallied around a candidate who shares their views on a narrow range of issues whilst appearing almost utterly ignorant on a huge range of other issues which many people might feel are actually highly significant.

Faced with a loss that can be directly attributed to Palin's presence on the ticket, the Republicans really will need to reconsider their reliance on the Christian right.

The choice of Palin was made entirely with them in mind; although, in fairness, had McCain been younger his VP choice might not have assumed the importance that Palin's has done with the public.

But, when the obituaries of this election are written, Palin's name will be pretty near the top of any list which discusses the reasons for a Republican loss. But she will not be the only reason. A negative campaign which told lies to a shocking degree and a lack of any substantive theme for the campaign should also be among the reasons discussed.

It's some indication of how rudderless McCain's campaign has been that he has spent the past few weeks clinging to Joe the Plumber, a man who isn't called Joe and who isn't a plumber.

Joe has become indicative of just how desperate the McCain camp are and just how lacking the entire campaign has been in a overarching storyline which Americans could relate to.

Joe was seized upon with the same desperation which caused the campaign to grab at Palin and, like Palin, Joe was elevated to his position of Everyman without any proper vetting of his claims ever having been made.

That's why McCain now finds himself holding Joe aloft as an example of all that is good in the working class whilst the rest of us simply see a guy who made false claims about wanting to buy a plumbing business (that he couldn't afford) in order to make a cheap point in front of Obama.

But neither Joe nor Palin are actually to blame for being plucked from obscurity and suddenly thrust into the national spotlight, despite how they have both appeared to enjoy it.

The blame for this, in both cases, is the erratic way John McCain operates. From his 2002 book:

“I make them (decisions) as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can,” ...furthermore... “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”

In both of these cases McCain's haste has been a mistake. I dread to think what kind of president he would have made. Reckless, rolling the dice just to see what would happen, gambling all on a gut feeling. It really doesn't bear thinking about.

Click title for full article.

Tags: McCain, Palin, Joe the plumber, Obama, Biden, US election 2008

Obama Ad Uses Winking Palin.

Obama uses Palin's winking to devastating effect in this ad highlighting McCain's lack of understanding of the economy.

The ad isn't about Palin, it's about McCain's lack of knowledge of economics and his statement:

"I might have to rely on a vice president that I select" for expertise on economic issues.

Cue the winking Sarah.

Tags: McCain, Palin, economics, Obama, Biden, US election 2008

Barbara West's Audition Reel For Faux News Channel.

I showed Barbara West's bizarre interview with Biden the other day and was astonished at the insane right wing talking points which she tried to pass off as legitimate questions.

Here, someone has made a contrast and compare video of the kind of questions she asked Biden compared to the ridiculous softballs she threw at McCain. There can be no doubt that the woman is simply a partisan little hack.

Tags: Barbara West, Biden, Marxist, McCain, US election 2008

Biden is asked to explain Obama's "Marxism."

This has got to be the most ridiculous interview of any politician in this election cycle with this anchor woman asking Biden a list of questions which are simply extreme right wing talking points.

She begins by asking if Biden is "embarrassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by Acorn; an organisation that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?"

But that's just her opener. Another jaw dropping moment is when she states, "You might recognise this quote. 'From each according to his abilities. To each according to his needs'. That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

A startled Biden asks, "Are you joking, is this a joke?"

"No," she replies, "That's a question!" You can see she's quite pleased with herself at this point, she thinks the whole thing is going rather well.

She kept the best till last. "What do you say to the people who are concerned that Barack Obama will want to turn America into a Socialist country much like Sweden?"

Biden responds, "I don't know anyone who thinks that apart from the far right wing of the Republican party." The very people who I imagine wrote her questions for her.

I notice on some right wing blogs that people are claiming that Palin is asked such tough questions routinely. I await the relevant clip where Palin is asked to explain her flirtations with fascism.

Unsurprisingly, the Obama camp are cancelling any further interviews with this station:

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election."

As the Obama camp have made clear, "There's nothing wrong with tough questions, but reporters have the very important job of sharing the truth with the public -- not misleading the American people with false information."

Biden did well not to walk out during what was the most preposterous set of questions I have ever heard any candidate asked.

Tags: Biden, Marxism, Orlando interview