Inquiries show Olmert version of UN Gaza vote spat closer to truth than Rice's

[shaayecanaan]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1055966.html

snip

European diplomats, UN officials and a senior PA official all said Thursday that as of last Friday night it was clear to almost everyone that the U.S., like the other 14 Security Council members, would vote for the softened resolution. They said Rice had promised as much to her European colleagues.

In Jerusalem, however, officials went to sleep thinking the Americans had only agreed to support a 48-hour humanitarian cease-fire. At 1 A.M., final confirmation came from New York: The U.S. had promised that no cease-fire resolution would be brought to a vote any time soon. An hour and a half later, however, it became clear that not only was the Security Council due to vote on a cease-fire resolution at any minute, but Rice had ordered America's UN ambassador to support it. Olmert promptly telephoned U.S. President George Bush to complain about Rice's behavior and demand that he restrain her. What Bush said to Rice remains unknown. What is known, however, is that the U.S. suddenly changed its vote from "yes" to "abstain."

***************************
My comments follow:-

Gotta love American foreign policy. Just oozes credibility from every pore.

I have to say, my respect for Condaleeza Rice has taken a bit of a hit. What a bullshit artist.

[Idealism]

1. My comment: You had respect for Condi before this?

What more could you have possibly lost?

[shaayecanaan]

4. Yeah...

She was the architect of the clear, hold, build policy which helped improve American fortunes in the Iraq war. There are a number of reasons to regard her favourably, certainly more so than most other figures in Bush's cabinet.

[Idealism]

11. I thought Gates was behind that...

[DogPoundPup]

2. October of 2001, Ariel Sharon boasted that Israel controlled the White House

And let us never forget, Congressman Bob Ney, an Abramoff crony, arranged for an Israeli company called Foxcom to handle all wireless communications for Congress. Anyone with any brains can figure out the rest of the story: Mossad got a chance to overhear everything said by Republican senators, House members and their staff. That intelligence slush pile may well have uncovered blackmail material on all sorts of people, including the President.

Or, if you seek a simpler explanation, perhaps we may simply whisper the name "Abramoff" and leave it at that. Never forget that Jack Abramoff's first loyalty has always been to Israel.

[shaayecanaan]

3. the Ariel Sharon anecdote is fake...

and even if it weren't, the premise Israel controls the white house is laughable. In toto, the Israel lobby is barely a fly on an elephant's arse. However, given that its focus is limited to foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel, that fly's weight is generally decisive.

On those rare occasions when the Israel lobby has done battle with powerful domestic constituencies it has usually lost. The first was when Israel wanted to use American aid to develop its own fighter jet, which would compete with American fighter jets. The second was when Israel wanted to sell avionics to China. On both occasions the defence lobby won and the US ordered Israel to cease and desist.

[DogPoundPup]

6. About the Israel and China thing

The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.

Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel, but financed mostly with American aid. Plagued by cost overruns, it was canceled in 1987, but not before the U.S. spent $1.5 billion on the project.

Last April, when the Navy EP-3E surveillance plane was forced to land in China after a Chinese F-8 fighter flew into its propeller, photos show Israeli built Python 3 missiles under the fighter's wings.

If Israeli weapons sales to China induce misgivings, including the most recent U.S. blocked sale of Israel's Phalcon airborne radar, the beneficiaries of Chinese arms transfers of Israeli-American technology are even more disturbing. In 1996, as disclosed in the UN Register of Conventional Arms, China sold over 100 missiles and launchers to Iran, along with a handful of combat aircraft and warships. Even worse, in 1997 the New York Daily News reported that Iraq had deployed Israeli-developed, Chinese PL-8 missiles in the no-fly zones, endangering American pilots.

Americans deserve to know where their money is being spent, and how money allocated for friends and technology shared with friends can all too easily end up in the wrong hands, threatening all parties involved. At a minimum, discussions on a new security framework for the Middle East should include plans to monitor and restrict Israeli transfers of U.S.-origin military equipment to potential adversaries. Otherwise, this deadly technology could come back to haunt U.S. and Israeli forces in future conflicts.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0509-07.htm


And you say the the Sharon comment is fake...and why would that be, because you just say it is?

In the MEANtime: Israel May Have Violated Arms Pact, U.S. Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/world/middleeast/28cluster.html?_r=1&emc=eta1 ..... and still the United States sends more weapons to Israel?

Israel signs off on U.S. arms sale to Saudis
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20003692 .....Israel is calling the shots?

Yea, sure you know what you're talking about...cough

[shaayecanaan]

10. re: fake

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=7&x_issue=21&x_article=373

not what I would call a credible source generally but I have read the same thing elsewhere. The quote of Sharon's was fabricated.

[LeftishBrit]

7. Agreed - great post!

[Idealism]

12. That doesn't seem to say

Israel isn't holding power over the US government, rather that Israel and the Defense sector companies in the US hold the power over our government... but then again I already knew that...

[shaayecanaan]

13. A lobby exists to make a government do what it otherwise would not do...

otherwise, what is the point of the lobby?

It follows that the Israel lobby exists to make the US Government do unto Israel what it otherwise would not do.

Much of US foreign policy is made to order at the whim of ethic lobbies. The make-or-break issue for the Cuban lobby is the wet foot, dry foot policy. Basically that means that if any Cuban can get past the US coastguard to Florida then they qualify for permanent residency.

Of course, when you have an open migration policy, you tend to find that the people who come are those with the most incentive to leave. That tends to be people who are in trouble with the law, or people with low skills and low prospects. Not exactly the kinds of migrants you'd otherwise be looking for.

Nevertheless, thats unlikely to change because if Cubans vote against you, Florida votes against you, and you may well end up losing the election. That rule is unlikely to change.

Case in point is Azerbaijian. In 1994, Armenia was fighting the Azeris for control of the Karabakh province. Because the Armenians have a strong US lobby, they successfully requested that the Azeris be excluded from the list of countries that could receive foreign aid.

The Azeris went on to lose that war. Several years later, they approached Israel and asked if Israel could put a good word in with the Americans. Not a problem, said Israel. The Jewish lobby went to Washington and asked for the exclusion to be lifted. And so it was.

Two foreign policy outcomes, each the exact opposite of the other. And in neither case were the national interests of the United States considered. It was simply the result of the Jewish lobby being stronger on the Hill than the Armenian lobby. Neither of whom are as strong as say, the AARP. But then again, the AARP's concerns are a mile away from foreign policy, so that doesnt matter.

If you were brave enough to confront the American people on the wet-foot dry-foot policy, then they would probably support you. But most people in Congress are not of that disposition:-

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/AIPACClinton.html

[Idealism]

14. The problem with lobbying is when it turns into dominance

The Defense sector dominates the US government, as it dominates in Israel. Both countries are ran by the military-industrial complex, it has gotten past the simple point of lobbying.

[shaayecanaan]

18. There is such a thing as too much democracy...

In the UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc, there is one election every three years. Campaigns last for six weeks and at the end the party with a simple majority wins and gets to govern for the next three years. Campaigns are run nationally - donations are not generally sought by individual candidates.

In the US, there are congressional and presidential elections.

There are mid-term elections.

There are recall elections.

There are even elections for administrative posts such as sheriffs and judges.

There are citizen-initiated referenda (Propositions).

And then there are primary elections that you have before you have actual elections, which in the case of presidential primaries stretch out for a year or more.

Essentially, you have a country which spends its whole time in some sort of electoral cycle. In the case of America you also have a media that is predominantly local - most people buy local newspapers, and watch locally syndicated radio and TV. Because of this candidates have to each run local campaigns, which means lots of money and donations are needed.

Instead of primaries, parliamentary democracies have pre-selections, where the very few citizens who are party members (and who can actually be arsed to show up to meetings) vote on who will represent their party at the next election. Its just as corrupt, but a lot cheaper.

"Ethnic branch stacking" is widely practised in Australia. Basically, you coddle up to your minority of choice and then get them to register every one of their relatives as a party member. It sounds bad but it allows otherwise marginalised minorities, such as Lebanese, to have some sort of political power.

On the other hand, the influential minorities in the US tend to be Armenians, Jews, Indians and Chinese - those that have money, basically. 30% of the US population is Black and Latino, but you won't see much of either in the United States Senate.

[kayecy]

5. So why do successive US governments support Israel even after being kicked in the teeth?

So why do successive US governments support Israel even after being kicked in the teeth?

Every country looks after its own interests but by supporting Israel, right or wrong, the US only increases the support for extremists and the threat to its own security.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Because they benefit in some way

The aid they give Israel comes with strings. The Israelis are expected to buy, and therefore are a big market, for American weapons. All right, it's the 'military-industrial complex' - but governments like that!

Also, America gets a strategic ally against its enemies. In the case of very right-wing American governments, this can be harshly translated into 'uses the Israelis as pawns in a proxy war', just as Iran uses the Palestinians - and just as Bush has used the Brits in Iraq. This does not mean that America totally controls its allies: leaders can choose whether to be used as pawns. Blair and Olmert could have refused to collaborate with Bush, just as Chirac did over Iraq. But the influence is mainly in that direction, not the allies controlling America. One reason why people all over the world are so relieved at the election of Obama, who is likely to use American influence for good, rather than, like Bush, for evil.

America gives Israel a lot of aid, not the other way around - and the aid doesn't come free.

Also, even more simply, polls show that most American voters support Israel. Politicians like to be re-elected.

[kayecy]

15. Good try Leftish, but there has to be another reason ........

The aid they give Israel comes with strings. The Israelis are expected to buy, and therefore are a big market, for American weapons. All right, it's the 'military-industrial complex' - but governments like that!

Hi Leftish - Good try, but there has to be another reason

Bush could just spend his aid cash on weapons and then throw them in the sea. At least that way there wouldn't be such a loss of innocent lives (or such a stimulation to terrorism!)

[shaayecanaan]

19. Wall Street contributed half the cost of the inauguration today...

still, not a bad price to pay for $700 billion. Israel is pretty cheap compared to that.

[shaayecanaan]

9. A few reasons...

I posted this earlier...

2) All politicians strive for something they like to call "moral clarity". The only two things that are universally hated are Hitler and child molestors, which is why politicians relish any opportunity to set themselves up in opposition against either of them. I suspect many Christian leaders support Israel because they view it as some sort of immunity talisman against accusations of facism. At one time, the US was the most anti-Semitic country outside continental Europe. It needs all the immunity it can get.

3) For the same reason that Cubans are entitled to permanent residency status as soon as they can reach the beaches of Miami - US Jews are a significant constituency in a swing electorate and can make themselves heard on the narrow cross section of issues that collectively matter to them, but which don't really matter to anyone else.

4) Most foreign lobbies are balanced by countervailing forces on the other side. There is a significant Chinese lobby in the US, but also reasonably strong Japanese and Taiwanese lobbies. There are strong Greek and Armenian lobbies in America but also a Turkish lobby, and to some extent the Jewish lobby has also gone in to bat for the Turks in recent years. But there is not really any significant Arab lobby to balance the Jewish lobby in the US. There is the ADC, but they wield little clout. Only 0.5% of the US population is Arab Muslim. The Saudis have some influence but only a finite amount and they choose to spend most of it trying to persuade lawmakers to allow them to purchase weapons.

[kayecy]

16. The WW2 US GI's bought enough 'immunity' for everyone.........

At one time, the US was the most anti-Semitic country outside continental Europe. It needs all the immunity it can get.

Maybe, but how come so many US voters have had a 'damascene conversion'? The WW2 US GI's bought enough 'immunity' for everyone.

US Jews are a significant constituency in a swing electorate and can make themselves heard on the narrow cross section of issues that collectively matter to them, but which don't really matter to anyone else.

Since some 80% of US Jews voted for Obama, it's difficult to see why Bush/McCain should think they had anything to gain by being so pro-Israel. From the polls that I have seen, Americans, particularly the evangelicals, support Israel more than do US Jews.

Nope, even if Bush/McCain were simply trying to harvest the gentile pro-Israeli vote, it still leaves the question as to why so many US voters are pro-Israel and apparently against their own interests.

[shaayecanaan]

17. Good questions

Maybe, but how come so many US voters have had a 'damascene conversion'? The WW2 US GI's bought enough 'immunity' for everyone.

I suspect you would have to live in America for some time to understand the answer to that question. I can attempt to guess:-

(a) American people in general tend to think in good/evil dichotomies. For example, the Contras were fighting the Sandanistas in Nicaragua. The Sandanistas cannot be good because they are Communist. Therefore the Contras must be good. In the same way, the Palestinians cannot be good because they are Muslim/Arab. Therefore Israel must be good.

(b) Guilt. Think of terms like "kike" or "heeb". These terms have currency only in the United States. No other Anglophone country has gone to the trouble of constructing perjoratives for Jews. Most of Israel's Christian backers like Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham were demonstrated anti-semites 20 years ago. The only reason we know this in the case of Billy Graham is the secret Nixon tapes. If other Christian leaders had their conversations privately recorded it would probably be the case for a lot of them as well. In the 1980s the bloom of holocaust awareness and political correctness meant that overt racism and anti-semitism became very unfashionable very quickly. Perhaps Christian leaders felt the need to overcompensate.

(c) anti-Arab sentiment. When Arab nations launched the oil embargo in 1973 they thought that faced with having to queue for fuel at gas stations, American public support for Israel would buckle. Instead, anti-Arab sentiment ballooned one hundred-fold. Americans thought that their nation was invulnerable and they despised the Arabs for having some sort of power over them. Overnight, Arabs became the bogeymen of Hollywood screens and newsreels. Its been the same ever since.

Since some 80% of US Jews voted for Obama, it's difficult to see why Bush/McCain should think they had anything to gain by being so pro-Israel.

Why do Democrats bow to the Cuban lobby even though 70% of them vote Republican? Because 30% is still worth the trouble in a swing state. How many votes do you think the Republicans would get if they portrayed themselves as pro-Arab?

[kayecy]

20. Now you are getting somewhere!...

In the same way, the Palestinians cannot be good because they are Muslim/Arab. Therefore Israel must be good.

Now you are getting somewhere! And there was me thinking that Americans had managed to rise above all those racist prejudices which cause Europeans so much angst.

How many votes do you think the Republicans would get if they portrayed themselves as pro-Arab?

No one is suggesting Republicans be pro-Arab - just not rabid supporters of Israel. Having a conscience for supinely supporting Balfour in 1917 would help.