Interesting. I can honestly say I’ve never seen anything quite like it before.

Early this afternoon in west central Missouri:

On an overpass on U.S. Highway 50 in Warrensburg, Missouri – November 14, 2015.

I spoke with one of the participants as the group was taking down their flags and banner (“Arrest Obama”) at the end of their two hour long demonstration. When asked he stated that they had received a mixed response – there were supportive passersby and a few people flipped them off. We spoke of public demonstrations, the First Amendment, the student protests at the University of Missouri, last night’s terrorism in Paris, and Hillary. Apparently they believe we’re next and that Americans will wake up when the inevitable attack occurs. They definitely don’t like Hillary Clinton. I didn’t ask if that was more or less than Obama. They definitely believe in open carry.

Previously:

The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, right? (October 10, 2015)

The Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, plans to speak to the joint Houses of the United States Congress on March 3. He was invited by House Speaker John Boehner who cooked the event up with the help of the Israeli ambassador, John Dermer, an American by birth, and a former Republican Party operative who by all accounts remains “deeply connected in Republican politics in America.” The topic of the speech will be the ongoing nuclear negotiations between the U.S and Iran. Netanyahyu wants to derail the talks; some Republicans want to derail the negotiations, still more Republicans want to derail the President.

Vice-President Biden won’t be attending. Pointedly. According to the latest count I could find, a “whip” list published by The Hill, three Democratic senators and nineteen Democratic members of the House have committed to not attending. Pointedly. Others are still “on the fence,” and not committing either way. Still others are planning to attend while voicing strong criticism of the event.

I can’t find the names of any of Missouri’s Democratic congressional delegation under any of the headings used by The Hill’s list: “Skipping,” “Attending,” or “On the fence.” Are they hoping it will all just go away? Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) have denounced the speech and reportedly many CBC members are not going although they are also not taking an official position – perhaps Reps. Clay and Cleaver, both members of the CBC, are among those yet to announce? As for Claire McCaskill, perhaps she’s playing coy yet again, hoping to get by without declaring herself?

But, you say, Netanyahu is only giving a little talk and we all know talk is cheap. So why is it important whether or not our federal representatives plan to attend? Short version: The invitation to give the speech bypassed the White House, a serious breech of protocol clearly indicating that the entire event is intended to be a poke in the President’s eye; it politicizes the relationship between Israel and the United States as never before; and it endangers the diplomatic efforts to curtail Iran’s nuclear program without resorting to a war that would be a total disaster for the region and for the United States. Oh, and Netanyau wants to play the big, tough man in the U.S. prior to an upcoming Israeli election.

In the words of James Fallows in The Atlantic:

(a) the idea of a foreign leader being invited to criticize existing U.S. foreign policy before a joint meeting of Congress, something that has never happened before; or

(b) the specific critique Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is likely to advance in this setting, which, based on his statements over the past decade, is likely to involve such impossible conditions and strictures for an “acceptable” deal with Iran as to torpedo the negotiations. Not to mention …

(c) the idea that a military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations merits serious consideration for either the U.S. or Israel.

This last point refers to the fact that Netanyahu wants the U.S. to seriously tighten the screws on Iran and there are those who argue that what he’d really, really  like is for the U.S. to mount a military offensive against Iran.

Nor is this Israel-related issue likely to bite, which is to say that opposition to the speech will be difficult to spin as anti-Israeli bias – although such efforts are already underway, what Politico calls the “backlash to the backlash.”  All but one of the twenty-seven Jewish members of the  House of Representatives are Democrats; to date only fourteen have indicated that they will attend the speech. Of those 14 attending, most have also issued comments critical of the event, along with other, non-Jewish Democrats who have decided to attend. Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and Commentary Magazine have voiced discomfort with the event. J Street, the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobbying group, has launched a petition that has garnered 20,000 signatures affirming that Netanyahu “cannot claim any mandate to speak for Jews in the United States.” Nor is Netanyahu’s move playing well in Israel.

But all this frenzied back and forth leaves me with just one question: Why aren’t our Missouri Democrats willing to come out of the Bibi closet? I for one would like to see them out in the light of day. Democrat – and Jewish – Rep. John Yarmouth (KY), gets to the heart of the problem in a statement explaining why he will not be attending the talk:

Congress has a broader responsibility than the security interests of Israel. While it certainly is important that we understand the Israeli perspective, the American people will hear only Netanyahu’s perspective, creating a public perception that could undermine a broadly supported resolution to the Iranian nuclear situation.

The Prime Minister’s appearance will be construed by many to infer congressional support for his position as opposed to US policy.

I do not want my respectful attendance to in any way imply support for his position.

So which Missouri Democrats are willing to support Bibi Netanyahu over the President of their own country? Even if they choose to attend, I’d like to hear them take a stand on the substance of the controversy. And just let me add that it is a very sad day in which we don’t even need to ask that question about the other dominant political party.

UPDATE:  Rep. Cleaver’s name has been added to the whip list under the heading “On the fence,” with the following statement:

“The speech is still several weeks out. We do not set the Congressman’s schedule that far in advance,” said press secretary Mary Petrovic

.

Well, it’s something, and something’s better than nothing, right?

*Edited slightly on 2/15, 1:40 am; last two paragraphs added after inadvertent omission.



 

Today, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Shocking Pres. Obama refuses to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu when he comes to the U.S. During this critical time we must stand with Israel. 10:36 AM – 12 Sep 12

Because foreign leaders should always dictate American foreign policy?:

Israeli Sharpens Call for United States to Set Iran Trigger

By DAVID E. SANGER and ISABEL KERSHNER

Published: September 11, 2012

WASHINGTON – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel inserted himself into the most contentious foreign policy issue of the American presidential campaign on Tuesday, criticizing the Obama administration for refusing to set clear “red lines” on Iran’s nuclear progress that would prompt the United States to undertake a military strike….

Oh, it’s really just neoconservative spin:

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

September 11, 2012

Readout of the President’s Call with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu

President Obama spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu for an hour tonight as a part of their ongoing consultations. The two leaders discussed the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, and our close cooperation on Iran and other security issues. President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu reaffirmed that they are united in their determination to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and agreed to continue their close consultations going forward. Contrary to reports in the press, there was never a request for Prime Minister Netanyahu to meet with President Obama in Washington, nor was a request for a meeting ever denied.

[emphasis added]

I know, it’s shocking that a right wingnut republican backbencher regurgitates neoconservative blather.

Joe Biden steps up pressure on Israel over E Jerusalem

“Yesterday, the decision by the Israeli government to advance planning for new housing units in East Jerusalem undermines that very trust – the trust that we need right now in order to begin as well as produce profitable negotiations.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/mid…

Washington D.C. — Answering the need for a more balanced and future-focused approach concerning US, Israeli and Arab relations, J Street has just completed its inaugural conference in Washington with more than 1500 in attendance (Oct. 25-28).

Speaking on behalf of President Obama, National Security Advisor General James Jones addressed the conference and congratulated its success, promising,

“…you can be sure that this Administration will be represented at all other future J Street conferences.”

The event marks a turning point in American-Israeli advocacy – J Street has arrived and is here to stay.

Unbridled enthusiasm was evidenced throughout the three day conference by the larger than expected turnout with standing-room only workshops, torrential networking and a sold-out gala featuring a video endorsement from Jordan’s King Abdullah and an impressive hosting committee of 148 members of Congress.

J Street emerges as an amalgamation of Jewish American progressive groups and voices – by far the largest in US history – into one effective political lobbying force with singular purpose; compelling American leadership into a more active and penetrating diplomatic role helping to peacefully resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On Wednesday, 700 J Street activists championed the “pro-Israel and pro-peace” message on Capitol Hill with meetings held in 210 out of the total 535 Congressional offices.

Many may wonder: why the need for another American-Israeli political action committee?

The basic story I gleaned from the conference is that J Street fills an important vacuum in representing views of a majority of American Jews that are not being heard in Washington today.  A recent J Street poll found 84% of American Jews supported the US playing an “active role” in the peace process, with downward steps at 81%, if including pressuring Israelis and Palestinians, and down to 66%, if incorporating public criticism in the process.

These views have not been capably represented by AIPAC (the original Israel American lobby formed in 1953), which favors a more hawkish position on Israeli security issues and sidelines American involvement when it comes to any peace negotiations with Palestinians.

But here’s the problem. Many experts – both American and Israeli – see the perpetuation of the conflict as being an existential threat to the survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. Their warning? If real movement doesn’t happen soon on the two-state front, it may be too late.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reform Judaism, stated in no uncertain terms,

“Pro-Israel organizations know that the creation and support of a Jewish and democratic state is the central value of Zionism, indeed, it is the very reason Zionism came into being – and absent a two-state solution, there will be no such thing.”

This existential threat was hammered time and again throughout the conference by a lengthy roster of individuals sporting unassailable pro-Israel credentials. For years now, AIPAC leadership has ignored these valid security concerns justifying J Street’s emergence as a new and necessary pro-Israel voice on Capitol Hill.

Haim Ramon, 26-year Knesset Member and former Israeli Vice-Prime Minister, echoed the need for immediate action,

“If we will not reach a solution based on a two-state solution, then – and “then” will be very soon – it will be a one-state solution and that means the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”

The key concept to unpack J Street, is in re-defining just what it means to be “pro-Israel”. In other words, if Israel is on a self-destructive path, well, friends don’t let friends drive drunk, do they? In this, J Street sees the role of pressing US intervention as very pro-Israel and pro-American.

Among the bullet points:

1. There is a limited “window of opportunity” to achieve a two-state solution in which a viable, sovereign and democratic Palestine lives side-by-side with Israel.

2. Clock is ticking out due to domestic demographic realities and international political pressure. The increasing growth of inflexible nationalist attitudes and unyielding religious fundamentalism on all sides of the conflict – combined with a global crescendo calling for an end to human rights abuses – has put the status quo on an untenable tract.

3. Either a two-state solution will be achieved, or a de facto one-state solution will be imposed as the only remaining option.

4. The one-state solution sees Israel losing her Jewish majority and risking the loss of political control of the “Jewish homeland”.

Reassessing what it means to be “pro-Israel” – especially from an American Zionist point of view – rests in the fact that it is no longer 1948 or 1967, it is 2009. The realities on the ground have changed; the old ways and old thinking do not work anymore.

Having experience with Israeli politics and various efforts towards conflict resolution in the Middle East, I understand these new realities and have seen firsthand the tragic consequences of paralyzed leadership and know that time is running out.

On Wednesday, I took part in sharing this message on Capitol Hill to the offices of Senators McCaskill (D-MO), Boxer (D-CA) and Feinstein (D-CA) and spoke personally with Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO2) who had met with another J Street team earlier that day.

There is a moral obligation and a strategic necessity to press into a more active role in achieving an acceptable two-state settlement – standing on the sidelines is no longer in the National Security interests of the United States. Coupled with the unequivocal guarantee of Israel’s safety and security, we must prioritize moving past the stumbling blocks that have derailed previous efforts. This means all sides must make hard sacrifices and give up their romantic and excessive nationalist notions.

A resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the strategic interests of the US:

1. Nuanced strategy can be just as effective as hardline policy. For example, pulling back the defense missile plan in Eastern Europe in favor of ship-based systems has positively impacted US-Russian relations and helped to garner support in dealing with Iranian nuclear ambitions, a deepening national security concern of Israel and the US. The wide-ranging effects of a peace settlement will contribute to building an international consensus in regard to Iran, and pave the way for an eventual nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

2. Human rights abuses and violence on both sides of conflict are a destabilizing factor, which has negative repercussions on continuing US operations in the Middle East and Near East. The two-state solution would be a stabilizing influence and begin to neutralize criticism of the US and Israel consequently weakening the message of our detractors.

3. Continued occupation of Palestin
ian territories with US support is a hot-button topic among Muslims; a peaceful resolution to the conflict would help rehabilitate our image in the Islamic world and normalization of Israeli relations with her Arab neighbors would further economic interdependency between Israel and her neighbors, and between the region and the world.

Economist and past editor of the Harvard Business Review Bernard Avishai framed the two poles in American Israeli advocacy very clearly as being a case of old versus the new.

He prefaced by explaining how around fifteen years ago NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman began talking about Israelis and Palestinians planning for “divorce“… ironically, in refuting Friedman, Mr. Avishai struck a very Friedman-esque note,

“Palestine and Israel together will be nodes in a global network, and they will be nodes in a regional network, and what we need to start talking about is integration. If you start ticking off all the jurisdictions that states have for the purpose of creating an economy — telecommunications bandwidth, water resources, currency, labor migration, airspace, health care and disease control, roads and bridges, also defense — there’s no jurisdiction that the State of Israel is going to be able to exercise in the future without a very deep cooperation with the Palestinian State and Jordan…

…obviously, both sides are trying to preserve the poignancy of the national (and) cultural life, and are trying to preserve the distinction through political apparatus; obviously that’s the reason for a two-state solution when all other reasons fall away.

But a two-state solution is really a three-state solution (common-market with Jordan) — it’s really a twenty-state solution, because it means developing a relationship with the countries of the Mediterranean through a Sarkozy-like European Union — we have to begin to understand that Israel is not a nation that dwells alone.”

Finally, from a moral and spiritual perspective, it is incumbent upon the United States to help stop the human suffering on all sides due to an impasse for which we are at least partially responsible. Israelis and Palestinians are both traumatized in different ways and feel like their backs are up against the wall. President Obama has a unique capacity to offer a hopeful vision that transcends the wreckage of the past, like his speech in Philadelphia on race relations or in Cairo. The hope of a new day in the lives of Israelis and Palestinians is now needed more than ever.

Ami Ayalon, past Knesset member, retired Israeli Admiral and former head of Shin Bet (Israeli FBI), gave hope to stakeholders frustrated by the continuing conflict. He said civic and advocacy groups have more impact on Israeli national security and foreign policy than the Foreign Affairs committee of the Israeli Knesset, which he had served on. The message being, J Street is in a place of real influence.

Having experts like Ayalon speak to Americans on the necessity for a negotiated breakthrough for the sake of Israel’s survival will do much for building the political momentum required to move this mountain. President Obama needs to address the Israelis personally, leading with his heart and the sound motives of security, safety and human rights for all. If the ground is prepared thoroughly by Special Envoy George Mitchell and the successful influence of groups like J Street, the path may indeed be freed of past obstacles to peace, leading to the dawn of a new day, a new state of Palestine and a new sense of Zionism, securing Eretz Israel for generations to come.

 

Mr. “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, from Ohio, is in Israel.

A statement by Andy Warhol, who actually wrote, “In the future everyone will be world-famous for fifteen minutes.”

AP video via YouTube:

Also via Washington Monthly, Think Progress, and VetVoice.

I’m not sure Warhol said anything about being a maroon or ignoranimus during those fifteen minutes.

A little after the opening of the video:

…So I mean, uh, now do you have? Shoot, [sigh] I have a lot of questions, just trying to find the right one. Um. As far as, why are you guys collecting all this…?

That’s why we do what we do here.

It continues:

Think Progress: transcript

…I’ll be honest with you. I don’t think journalists should be anywhere allowed war. I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what’s happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I think it’s asinine. You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you’d go to the theater and you’d see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for ’em. Now everyone’s got an opinion and wants to downer, ah, down soldiers. You know, American soldiers or Israeli soldiers.

I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you’re gonna sit there and say, “Well look at this atrocity,” well you don’t know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it.

The transcript misses ..Our American soldiers, Israeli soldiers…”

Uh, “Joe”, in World War I and in World War II the media and the world didn’t have the information infrastructure we have now.

And what are you doing there now “Joe”? Ah, stenography. It makes sense, in a twisted right wingnut “Daddy always does right” sort of way.

I have no problem with right wingnuts covering the news, it’s just that they’re irony impaired and there’s no way anyone can point that out to them.

And yes, I get the irony of posting this.  

After seven years of diplomatic neglect, George Bush has set aside a day – yes, one day – today – to try to work out the intractable six-decades-long Israel/Palestine problem.

What, pray tell, do they think they can accomplish in one day?  Ask the people in the Middle East and you discover that Arabs and Jews can indeed agree on at least one thing:  When asked that question, they all answer “Not much.”

Oy vey.  Even the choice of location is damning:  The United States Naval Academy is the setting, and the motto of the Navy is “Don’t give up the Ship” – invoking tenacity and determination, not diplomatic acumen and compromise.   In Arabic, “Ana” means “I” and people the world over know the word “police.”  A Saudi humorist joked that the choice of location was an arrogant  message from Bush to the Middle East “I am the police.”

The question of borders has plagued both Israel and the neighbors for over 40 years,  since June 4, 1967; and the implementation of the Six Day War armistice.   Since then, conservative, some would say fundamentalist whack-job, settlers have made the occupied territories their home.  Kicking them out of the West Bank will not be as easily achieved as the same feat was two years ago, when the settlers were evicted from Gaza.  The Gaza Strip is not biblically significant.  Jews do not have deep emotional or historical attachments to Gaza.  Not so the West Bank, which is historically, theologically and emotionally significant to most Jews worldwide – let alone the “fundamentalist whack jobs” I just referenced.  I can’t see removing them without violence.  The issue of borders certainly isn’t going to be achieved in a day.

And you can’t talk about the borders without acknowledging the 800-pound-gorilla playing the zither in the  sitting room:  Jerusalem.

On paper, the equation balances.  The Arab neighborhoods would fall under Palestinian control, and the Jewish neighborhoods would be controlled by Israel.  Except it gets dicey real quick – the neighborhoods are intertwined.

Ask any chemist – when you are working with volatile compounds, the slightest variation from the recipe and it will blow up in your face.  And what cocktail could be more volatile than the 35 acres of the walled city of Old Jerusalem?  All three of the major monotheistic religions consider Old Jerusalem and the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount to be sacred ground.

The problems are exacerbated by Christianist  Zionists (who should make with the butting out already) who stick their noses where they don’t belong and urge their constituencies to pressure the Israeli government to take Jerusalem off the negotiating table.   Fortunately, we are making headway, and even the occasional Zionist Rabbi Is waking up and smelling the coffee.   But before any Jew throws in with that lot, remember they are mentally ill.  They want to precipitate Armageddon and damn us all to their hell.  Those Jews who wake up pissed every morning that the Messiah didn’t come last night find natural allies in them.   The rest of us find ulcers, migraines and anxiety.  Again we have a problem that’s going to take more than a day to sort out.

And then you have nearly four and a half million Palestinians living in limbo, many still in refugee camps.  And everyone, Jew and Arab alike, needs to be scolded by my grandmother for being obstinate jackasses and using the Palestinian people as pawns, especially the Arab world.  They really screwed the Palestinians in 1948, the bastards.    All of the Arab neighboring states should be held accountable.  They are every bit as culpable as Israel in contributing to the suffering of the Palestinian people  and need to be called out on that publicly.  There is plenty of sin and blame to go around.  Everyone has behaved abominably and nobody gets a pass.   This can’t even be mentioned at Annapolis.  Hell, it  would take a good 6 months of Arabs storming the door every time that little bit of reality comes up and is said aloud.  I shake my head in disbelief.  They offer a day?  Oh, the humanity…

And how the hell do they even bring up security in the time allowed?

This is why I don’t often write about Israel and Palestine. It’s damned infuriating. No one is asking me, but if anyone did, I would say Frost was employing irony;  good fences do NOT make good neighbors.  The first order of business should be to tear down that damned fence and fill in the trenches, and restore the 10% of the territory that it’s construction seized.

Then I would say let Gaza go to Egypt. Give the West Bank to Jordan.   Give the Golan Heights to Syria, and let a disinterested third party settle the border with Lebanon, and nobody would get to whine about it. And suck it up.  Learn to live with a divided Jerusalem.Until everyone concerned learns how to act, I would make Old Jerusalem a U.N. protectorate.  Don’t like it?  Learn how to act.