I think Israel is obligated, and will be compelled to consult with Obama on any Gaza invasion

[bigtree]

I realize that they will be firm about their right to act independent of what Obama wants or expects from them, but I wouldn't expect them to mindlessly squander future years of cooperation they need and expect from the U.S. government by deepening their end-run around the incoming administration they've already committed with their devastating response to attacks by Hamas -- deepening that insult with some sort of invasion and occupation of Gaza.

If they do invade without consulting the incoming president in some serious fashion, I predict that there will not be the productive level of cooperation from the Obama administration Israel would desire or require.

I can see some deliberate defiance of the incoming administration in their actions so far. I wonder to what degree Israel is willing to push Obama and how he will re-assert whatever influence the U.S. has over their military posture and actions to get them to pull back from their assaults on Gaza (if that's his goal)?

(I realize he still has to consider representation of the rights and needs and actions of the Palestinians in his 'even-handed' policy intentions.)

[enid602]

1. Bush

Don´t you think they consulted with, and got an OK from GWB this go-around? When GWB said a few days ago that he will keep working earnestly until the end of his term, I think he was telling the truth.

[bigtree]

2. I'm sure they did

But, I don't see how they can just ignore who will be inheriting the hold on their purse string

[peacetalksforall]

3. My bitterness is not directed at you, bigfee, but your post makes me want

to say What 'Gaza'? There's not going to be a Strip. Isn't that the purpose?

Or are we talking about the next generation of defenders of a Palestinian right?

I know the gist of your post is about Obama and Israel reltaions, but we're really talking about the Military. They and their industrial partners and all the backers and profiteers of their cunning are our enemies.

How will they and Obama work together or not?

I've come to believe that the highest agenda on the planet is military-industrial dictatorship and the structure is well in place with the media, banking-investment systems all in place. There is no difference between the Israel and U.S. agenda. It doesn't matter if Cheney and Bush look like they are gone. Cheney will never be gone because he will continue to be a pivot point and operative just as he has been the past eight years, the ten before that and the twenty before that.

There is no difference between the Israel and U.S. agenda - meaning their military-industrial agenda for this world. There will be partners in other countries if they are successful in creating and keeping partners. China is one at the time. That's been obvious for a couple of decades. Think about the pattern of trade agreements and earth resource thefts. It's all there. Transparent.

[bigtree]

4. the military relationship will continue

. . . but there are significant and important nuances of those relationships between governments and their military industrial partners, in and out of office.

I remember in the invasion of Lebanon, there was a stepped-up approval of a weapon system which Israel immediately employed against their Lebanon targets. It's that level of enabling that I would be looking for the Obama administration to manage in an effort to exert the type of influence needed to check Israel's reflexive militarism.

I'm not going to pretend that I believe there will be some sort of defining stance from the Obama administration against Israel and their military posture, but I also don't believe we can afford to be so pessimistic or cynical that we don't actively lobby the administration to exert as much pressure and influence as we think they should. That effort is best done through our legislators.

Now, there is a decidedly less antagonistic posture among our European allies toward Russia and China than the prattle coming from the Bush administration over his term. Those countries have economic interests with both U.S. rivals which they expect to proceed at some point, unfettered by U.S. political and military meddling over Iran and muddled by the dual occupations. There is plenty of opportunity for Obama to pull back from those manufactured priorities and establish new relationships based on trade or mutual respect.

As the defensive postures fade, so does the primacy of the military industrial facilitators. They will, of course, work their agents in Congress and the Pentagon to maintain an atmosphere of fear to try and perpetuate their own importance in producing the bombs and weapon systems which have sustained the heightened militarism over Bush's term.

That cozy relationship can be disrupted by a promised shift to diplomacy; meshing with economic realities which will also limit and direct the military priorities and goals of the next administrations at the Pentagon and in the WH.

So, with an understanding of the daunting array of influences affecting the militarism, we can still look forward to a reasonable opportunity to influence our 'friendly' government away from 'the mindset' which brought us here.