An utter ridiculous piece written by Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic …
[Most links added in articles are mine – Oui]
Getting Bill Out of the House | The Atlantic |
If Hillary Clinton takes office, her best adviser in mediating Israel and Palestine’s century-old conflict might be the man who came closest to doing it before.
Bill Clinton was a president singularly taken by the idea that making peace between Palestinians and Israelis was possible. He devoted a disproportionate amount of time and political capital to the search for a solution to the conflict. Even before the man he describes as his hero, Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli general turned prime minister, was assassinated in 1995, Clinton believed that he had been called to this cause. Uniting the children of Isaac and Ishmael, the warring sons of Abraham, was, for a Southern Baptist, too tempting a challenge to ignore. In 2000, he managed to bring the two sides close–infuriatingly close, in retrospect–to a final status agreement.
○ Clinton failed as SoS to create opening for peace talks relying on her selected advisors
People who know him say he remains preoccupied with the issue today. “This is unfinished business for him,” Clinton’s former Middle East negotiator, Dennis Ross [both Bill as Hillary later placed trust in a biased negotiator – Oui], told me. In particular, Clinton is said to be troubled that he could not achieve for the martyred Rabin what Rabin had tried to achieve himself.
Sometimes, however, life provides second chances.
Assigning Bill this task could also take care of another potential problem for Hillary: a pressing need to get him out of the house.
I am writing this article in the courtyard of East Jerusalem’s American Colony Hotel, one of the loveliest places on Earth, and an epicenter of intrigue during the glory days of the peace process, in the 1990s. Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, set himself up here during his lengthy, unsuccessful term as a Middle East peace negotiator starting in 2007. There’s no reason the U.S. government couldn’t rent much of the place out for Bill Clinton. I think he would enjoy it very much, and my guess is that Hillary, and in particular her top aides, might enjoy having him here as well.
…
One salient assumption is that the Bill Clinton of today remains the Bill Clinton of 16 years ago. Clinton has just turned 70, and he has seemed, from time to time on the campaign trail, wan and unfocused. Peace negotiations require, as a prerequisite, large reservoirs of stamina. So his capacities are worth questioning.Any new American effort to end this conflict must be conceived of as a regional strategy, and as a bottom-up, rather than top-down, process. Today, many Arab states find themselves in tacit alignment with Israel against Iran, and against Islamic State-style extremism. A revived push would have to take advantage of this new order, and use the Arabs to lever the Palestinians into negotiations.
Once again, nothing in his article is devoted to the Palestinian side of the issue! Just one great diatribe of nonsense from the US wielding its power to make the Missle East in its image. We’ve had enough!
○ Palestinian lives don’t matter to US media
○ Israel’s threats against BDS activists in Europe
○ Dutch MPs’ silent protest during Netanyahu’s visit to The Hague
Goldberg positioning himself for a job in the Clinton administration | Mondoweiss |
This is rich. Having perfectly positioned himself throughout the Obama administration as the official journalist of the organized Jewish community- and gaining access to the Oval Office on that basis on repeated occasions — Jeffrey Goldberg is lining his ducks up for a Clinton administration. In an Atlantic article, he nominates Bill Clinton as the savior of the two-state solution.
The status-mongerer even dangles a Nobel Prize, saying that Bill Clinton can get a Nobel finally if he only gets on the issue. “Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Barack Obama–all… are recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. Exclusion from this group cannot please such a competitive man.”
In another signal that Goldberg has access to the Israel lobby and all its money and influence, the only person Goldberg quotes is Dennis Ross, the battleaxe of the peace process, who tells Goldberg that it’s unfinished business for Clinton. Dennis Ross apparently wants to become a secretary of state. Though he slipped up by asserting in a NY synagogue that American Jews “need to be advocates” for Israel and not for Palestinians. No wonder they called Ross Israel’s lawyer.
- ○ Goldberg’s Piece is Not Agitprop by BooMan - March 2015
○ Re: Goldberg’s Piece is Agitprop by Oui - reply
Read also my recent diary …
○ Apple iPhone, Israel’s Unit 8200 and Spying on Human Rights Advocates
Jeebus! My cynic meter just broke.
Cynicism is not analysis. The US national security establishment cannot acknowledge (cognitive dissonance?) that Israel has lied about their intentions from the beginning of “negotiations” in 1948.
Yes, Bill Clinton built on Carter’s Camp David agreement and came closest to getting a deal–so close that Yizhak Rabin had to be assassinated to prevent a Menachem Begin-style capitulation to US pressure. But that just caused the US national security establishment to double down on support of Israel in spite of Ariel Sharon’s baiting of the Intifada and Netanyahu’s absolute contempt for Barack Obama and alliance with the Republicans in Congress (thank you, Mitt Romney).
Could Clinton get an agreement with Israel? Only if Hillary is willing to actually cut off military aid to Israel and Israel has an understanding that such a position is credible and not reversible by Congress.
The anger against the Clintons has created its own reverse halo effect on the left. This is preventing the left from developing a practical strategy for checking and balancing an inevitable Hillary Clinton Presidency and making effective use of pressure on Congress, the White House, and the unique position of the first First Gentleman.
For Congress, putting Democrats in charge and holding them accountable is important. But to hold them accountable Democrats must see in the downticket that it was lefty votes that put them there at the margin, votes that could possibly be withdrawn if there was not delivery on policy. There are a number of marginal Democratic races in which that might work. A number of those races might involve Democrats who out of inertia and a mistaken judgement of public opinion side with AIPAC when the majority of their district either doesn’t care of is sympathetic to the Palestinian position. It is not like these decisions are being made in a vacuum. It is either money power or people power that is at their root. Allowing money power to go unchallenged is how we got into this mess.
Where there are Republican incumbents, the action is clear. Defeat them. Period. There are no Republicans who are sympathetic to the Palestinian position.
Oh,I fully expect Congress (BOTH sides) to enact a Ban on the BDS movement. And you do too, probably. At least it will not surprise you.
I think only Outside is working right now. Inside is a loooong way off, given Citizens United.
Is the BDS movement that weak and passive that (1) that could happen and (2) it would not be challenged in court and on the streets?
People power can pool small donations to match the pittances that the big boys are tossing in for access under Citizens United. That’s the message of how close Sanders came in the primary with fundraising.
Inside also has to do with converting those on the inside who have pretended to be your friends. The so-called progressive caucuses should be fertile ground for pressure.
Citizens United is stripped away only from the inside. Someone needs to step up and bell that cat pretty soon. A new court and a legal challenge should be in the works already. Are they?
Oh, I think if/when it is passed there will be enough support to get on track for the SC, without a doubt.
Guess we get to see how hypocritical bidness Dems on the Supremes really are, no?
You continue to make strong arguments for not doing anything at all and just watch the bubbles as the ship slowly sinks.
I don’t think I can leave that result to my children and grandchildren to fix by themselves. At least not willingly as a strategy.
I think you have to expose the naked ones if you want change.
Maybe the Dem SC WILL stand up for the Bill of Rights. They will be given the opportunity, I suspect.
Right now at the state level SC progressives are in better shape than progressives in many other states. Four incumbents. The two non-incumbents that made it through the primary for the House may be long-shots in the general election, but at least they are candidates that progressives can put energy and some money into for the 2016 general, along with the four state rep incumbents.
There are also two non-incumbent NC Dem House nominees and two non-incumbent state rep nominees.
State/local primaries are coming up next week in NY. Teachout is the only Dem that made it through a Primary for the House, but consideration should be given to (I) and (GRN) candidates that will be on the November ballot.
CA is a bit misleading because of the top-two to the general election format. For example the 12th CD, Preston Picus (I) made it to the general with 7.7% of the vote. The GRN candidate took 6.6% and 7.6% went to the GOP candidate. Would be nice if his voice is heard, not that he has much of a chance this time around.
Just a hunch but the low percentage level of the top two candidates in heavily contested districts in California might lead to a paralysis by analysis that does not try to build the vote for one of those two candidates by building a working coalition of third parties or other major party candidates. The general election still will be won with 50%+1 vote. For those who seek access to the winning candidate, they should have a GOTV plan that shows Mr. 7.6% where those other 42.4% of the votes are coming from and and what interests they must attract to win them. And then deliver those votes in the GOTV plan.
The interesting part of that is the analysis of the vote that demonstrates that the coalition did in fact deliver the vote; that it was not some random fortune that the candidate won. That can be done through estimates of precinct votes after GOTV and post-election verification that those estimates were reached. The old urban machines used to do that less statistically; Frank Kent, The Great Game of Politics describes how it was done in the 1920s. Then it involved violating the principle of a secret ballot.
It is more complicated than electing moar Democrats, sitting on your hands, and waiting for magic.
That’s not analysis either because the Democratic Party is adept at defeating lefty downticket candidates and then either using fear to get lefties to vote for a DINO nominee and should the DINO lose, it’s a small price to pay to keep a lefty out of Congress.
Lots of big bucks supporting HRC are also backing Toomey in PA and McGinty isn’t even a lefty.
And knowing the Democratic establishment strategy, the left just does what? Capitulates to inevitability? Or organizes over against what the establishment strategy is?
Sanders at least went as far as he could with a primary challenge. There needs to be some planning for 2018.
Big bucks play both sides of the street. Just sitting and watching it happen perpetuates it. Organizing voters to get out can operate against big bucks, but that rarely is done within the context of the Democratic Party. The fact that big bucks are backing Toomey, the same big bucks backing Clinton, should be a signal to push McGinty into office because she’s the candidate of the moment and then prepare to primary her from the left in 2022. Prepare right now to primary her from the left. And make that primary challenge credible.
If the big bucks are backing Toomey and leftie can demonstrate how they were responsible for McGinty’s win, the McGinty tacks to the left of gets challenged. Does no one know how to do politics any more? Continuity and persistence matter.
There needs to be some planning for 2018.
On this we agree. However, repeating your standard lines of showing up to vote in more Democrats as the first step hasn’t been shown to be a first step at all.
If we’re completely honest, it’s been counterproductive and a huge effort to first elect and then attempt to re-elect such deeply flawed DLC/Clinton type Dem candidates.
Sanders’ campaign demonstrated that there is a lot of voter hunger/desire for a traditional Democrat and in many surprising places. States with closed primaries and Democratic Party institutional strength masked the extent of that desire.
There’s a lot of data to collect and analyze from this presidential and downticket primary races. Not doing that mind-numbing and detailed analysis to identify and then target existing real opportunities for this and the next two election cycle and instead retreating back to the 2002-2004 “elect ‘mo Democrats” refrain means that we’ll be right back to the same old place we’ve been for decades.
Indeed, the lesson the DNC took from the 2010 thrashing was MOAR Blue Dogs???? Well, just bite me.
and 2014.
If you are not going to be the margin for Democrats, then win with a third party (175,000 votes per Congressional District) or take over the husk of the Republican Party after it dies.
You either are an important demographic that swings its power or you have to win on your own. There is no easy way. And the math on Congress is pretty inflexible. For the Senate in large states like California it is even more difficult unless you turn a lot of Congressional Districts.
And you have to expand the base of support for progressive ideas, something that few of the third parties do on a consistent and effective basis. That means that you can’t be in-groupy; you must go where the prorgressives aren’t.
It’s not an either/or with the analysis and targeting, it is a continuous both/and.
And it is not elect moar Democrats, it is make the Democrats that you elect know that without you they would not have gotten elected. And that they better remember it when they get to DC or the state capital.
If you’re not doing that you are not building political power between elections and you will still be doing the same old things from the same old place years into the future. Progressies and lefties have not broken out of that place for 44 years because of “conservative dominance”. Well, now the conservative movement has run aground on its own failure; it’s time to make that case instead of being defensive about the liberal/progressive vision of the 1960s and 1970s. It is the conservatives who should be now on the defensive and badly.
Ben a loooooooong time since we have seen voter discontent like this either.
But the discontented are just racists and misogynists, don’t you know? Not REAL Democrats.
No, it’s real, but it’s also inchoate and bound up with racism and misogyny for many. They cling to those beliefs as if that’s what makes their lives worth living without any recognition that it’s their racism and misogyny that has been exploited by TPTB to rip off everyone. What’s the saying — first they came for X and I said nothing because I wasn’t X — except what should have been add is “they came for X and only took a little bit from me and I said nothing because I wasn’t X and I could live with a little bit less.”
I should have attached a /sarcasm tag.
Not needed. I got it, but it’s a serious problem/issue on both sides of the aisle and one that neither wants to talk about in a serious and objective manner, much less seek common ground, comity, and solutions. As is, works well for both political parties and extremely well for those at the top of the economic food chain. There’s a bit of a chicken or egg to this issue, and therefore, how Trump and team HRC speak about it (HRC herself doesn’t actually say that much) is counterproductive for any resolutions, but that’s probably want they intend.
Definitely what they intend.
This is where you and I disagree:
My claim is that progressives are almost everywhere, but to reach them, some must first succeed and none can succeed where the untapped numbers don’t exist or don’t yet exist in sufficient numbers where a single voice running for a single office will resonate outside a limited and disparate or insular group. Assets (foot soldiers and money) along with the current political configuration of the political jurisdiction, recent primary and general election results, and the quality of the progressive candidate in the race must all be carefully weighed. For both short-, near-, and long-term prospects.
Generic threats to winners that they must stick with the left or risk losing next time don’t work unless power has been demonstrated. Incumbents know that the party can swoop in with adequate cash to get them through a tough many tough races. And if that should fail, they know how to beat up those that denied, or they can claim denied, them the win to get them back in line for the next election. How many Nader 2000 voters vowed never again to go GRN? That’s a good generation of potential progressives that hasn’t wavered from the Democratic Party since then.
The opportunities for a stealth primary knockout of a DINO when a progressive can be elected are rare, but democratic-socialists need to do much better at watching for such opportunities and being prepared to take advantage of them when they do occur. (Like the teabaggers did with Cantor.)
First rate non-incumbent and/or newbie politicians are also rare. In the latter category, Republicans have had more success with newbies for high office than Democrats have. But they also put a lot of money into those races.
Consider Tom Cotton. An AR 2012 newbie ran for an open House seat and spent over $2 million to win. Two years later he challenged an unpopular D incumbent Senator and won while being outspent 2:1. This was a case of the electorate preferring a real Republican to a fake Republican.
My prior example of Picus running in CD 12 wasn’t a comment on this candidate, he’s solid, or even the district, which prides itself on being very liberal; only that he’s not going to win this year and he and his supporters need a rational, going-forward plan for the day after the election. If he’s like many previous progressive candidates and he’s out if he doesn’t win this one, then the energy and money that goes into it is a waste.
Now, compare that to CD 46 — an open seat. The progressive, Bao Nguyen, only got 14.6% of the primary vote. Enough to get in the general election. The total GOP votes were only 25.9%, but that’s deceptive because the district isn’t yet progressive. Dunn, the third place primary candidate was in some ways a better choice for progressives but his supporters will likely feel comfortable with Bao. It’s going to be an uphill struggle for Bao to beat Correa, but it’s one worth waging because he’s young (36), has a base of public support, and the population of the district is changing; whereas, his opponent isn’t so young (58) and barely a Democrat.