Most US news media and opinion-shaping elites are protective of Israel, so US public opinion is unaffected by such actions. Almost all US elected officials (at least in public) are fervent supporters of Israel, regardless of its actions. The Trump administration will protect Israel from UN Security Council action, even if some country tried to initiate action there. So Israel is not likely to face real consequences from its actions. Israel continues to commit crimes, and the US continues to be complicit.
A search on Google News does now turn up a few references to Balfour in the US media, and also this informative piece from Israel,
"Britain's True Motivation Behind the Balfour Declaration:
Why the British thought a vaguely worded statement would galvanize American Jewish support for World War I - and how it became the engine that led to the State of Israel
I've heard some mention on BBC World Service of the 100th anniversary (though not specifically about the clash reported above). So far, I haven't seen or heard anything on US MSM. Lots about the terrorist in NYC, but not about what would prompt such terrorism (except, of course, that "they hate us because we are free.")
I learned only recently that the UK sought and received President Wilson's approval before issuing the Declaration.
Methinks he is lying, or not doing his job, or the victim of a shocking coverup by the Executive Branch. According to this, he is on the Armed Services Committee, which ". . . has jurisdiction over all areas of national defense including the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force." https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/committee-assignments
What do the terrorists hope to accomplish? I have seen some reports on this horrific event, but no explanation of the rationale. I could (to some extent perhaps) understand the terrorists' rationale behind attacks on U.S. bases and ships in the region, as well as on NYC and DC on 9/11, but attacks like this seem very strange indeed.
In this context, it is worth mentioning that Trump has also decided that the US should withdraw from UNESCO, due to its "anti-Israel" bias. These policies harm the US, and the world.
Regarding: "Maybe they tried to get Barack Obama to say something and the president was too much of a gentleman."
I admire a lot of things about Mr. Obama. Other things, such as his deference to Wall Street and AIPAC and big Pharma I don't admire, but can understand. But this seems inexplicable. I've no idea what happened, but saying "too much of a gentleman" does not seem like an explanation.
Thanks for this analysis. It's sad and disturbing, but good to know. At least Trump knows how to "run the Government like a business." A family business.
Let's hope the hardliners there, and in Israel and DC, don't abort positive developments.
On another matter, admittedly off topic, I just noticed a report on NBC about Pakistan — "Twenty people were tortured and then murdered with clubs and knives at a Pakistani Sufi shrine, police said Sunday, in what officials are calling a cult ritual."
Every religion has its cults (e.g., Jim Jones) so I don't find this beyond belief. On the other hand, I have thought of Sufis as generally a pacific, mystical group, sometimes subject to persecution in Pakistan. So I wonder if this report should be taken at face value.
Thanks for the link to PC mag. Even with it, researching this subject, picking a product, and using it properly looks complicated. Another gift from the Republicans. It must be nice to have an employer who takes care of such things.
I'm not a technical expert, but my understanding is that a VPN can help, but one needs to be sure not to use the ISP's DNS, and to plug any DNS leaks. Also, unless you can set up your own VPN, you end up trusting whatever VPN you use, and you may compromise speed. I'm told that TOR is good for activists and journalists and others with serious need for privacy, but even it isn't perfect, and does slow things a lot. Perhaps user-friendly solutions will come to market. CBS news reported on a router that is marketed by a European firm that purports to help with this.
I share the concern about ISP's invading privacy. This isn't the only area for concern. Congress has been using the Congressional Review Act to undo other last-minute regulations published by the Obama Administration. Why did Obama wait so long? If these regs had been put in place sooner, they would be harder to change. Of course, the Republicans are in charge now, and can make changes if they want to. Still, If these regs are good (and I think they are) why didn't Obama put them in place sooner? Why did Obama defer to the same powerful groups for most of his term, then leave with a few futile parting shots?
As most readers here will know by now, Nikki Haley called it “anti-Israel propaganda" and said it should be taken down, and it was. "Move along, nothing to see here." I wonder what Obama would have done? He and his Sec. of State, like other liberal Zionists, continually warned that if Israel didn't change, someday what it was doing would be labeled "apartheid." But that day never came during Obama's term. He did refrain from using the veto at the end of his term. So maybe he would have let the report stand. But I doubt it.
Thanks for the history lesson. As for your question: "If you keep rejecting peace, guess what you get?" -- what you get is more of the West Bank, plus more financial, military and diplomatic support from the US.
Thanks for this review. This history is widely ignored by politicians and major media in the U.S. Your concise statement of the facts is very valuable.
It's not surprising that Google would accommodate Israel, given the ties between the two entities. I suppose it is part of Israel's "war on terrorism" in the form of "incitement" on Facebook, Twitter, and--of course--Google.
Just because the US uses them in that way does not mean they must be used in that way. Surely the objective of BDS with respect to Israel, as it was with South Africa, should have been to end objectionable practices, not to stop talking. But it seems a moot point now.
Great report. More sad and disturbing news from our politicians in a year of sad and disturbing political news. It's enough to make one wonder if our form of mass-media-money democracy can work. The founders of the Republic certainly were dubious about unfettered democracy. Of course, the days of smoke- filled rooms weren't so great either. Benevolent philosopher-kings don't have a great track record either.
By the way, I've never understood what private-sector BDS limited to the settlements could have achieved, as a practical matter, given U.S. support for Israel. That seemed like a prescription to salve the conscience of liberal Zionists who want to avoid any actual inconvenience to Israel. BDS backed up by the UN and its member states, including the U.S., might have been another matter, even if limited to the West Bank and Gaza. But that seems a moot, counterfactual, historical speculation.
He announces this while in Germany. Much as he announced the attack on Libya practically while waving on this way to the helicopter that would take him to Brazil. No need for Congress to be involved. No need to justify to the American people. In some things he is constrained by Congress, in some things not at all.
Very depressing. I guess it is "game over" for Palestinians, and those who sympathize with them. Maybe the U.S. will accept them as refugees now, having done so much to evict them from their homes and deny them the rights of citizenship.
Since the war in Vietnam, I have sometimes thought that Congress should enact a special tax surcharge to pay for reparations to the countries we have devastated. At first I thought in terms of Vietnam and Cambodia. As history has moved on, and I have learned more, the list has grown longer. Iraq belongs on the list, of course, but so too do the Palestinians, and others. It's a fantasy, of course.
Good news on a subject where good news is rare. Sad, perhaps, to the extent that doing the right thing is motivated by fear rather than the desire to do the right thing, but better than inaction. The U.S., after all, merely doubled down on wrong policies after 9/11 by gratuitously invading and occupying Iraq.
Thanks for this review. I don't have cable, so need to depend on others to report it. Frankly, from what you say, it seems that I'm better off without cable.
Thanks for this review of the facts, so often ignored in the U.S. When it comes to this subject it seems that we live in an Orwellian world. Certainly our State Department does so. And the mass media. I wish that someone in Hollywood would make a fact-based film about this as a corrective to the fantasy-based "Exodus." It seems a natural thing to do. Perhaps that has been done, but I didn't hear about it.
Is there some law that says he must wait? To do nothing when he can is criminal, as we learned from the Freddie Gray case, and more recently from Flint. "Depraved indifference."
Thanks for the link. Somehow I missed seeing any reports about this in the news sources I regularly see, including several of the major U.S. networks and newspapers.
Indeed, the Palestinians have a greater claim, yet they are kept in inhuman conditions, with the support of America: support in the form of weapons, money, and vetoes at the UNSC. Yesterday the NY Times accused political leaders in Michigan of "depraved indifference" to the people of Flint. Our leaders in DC are equally guilty of "depraved indifference" to the people of Palestine.
Israel's policies, actions and arguments seem illogical and immoral, yet they have worked well for them, for as long as I can remember. The U.S. continues to support, defend and enable them.
Regarding the treaty's implications for national authority, I had originally taken as exaggeration the warning that the treaty could supersede legislation, but recently I heard an explanation of the history of Supreme Court rulings related to the issue. Evidently it is a serious concern. I don't purport to know the answer, but like you I think it is an important topic.
Thanks Margot, that does help explain. I can imagine something similar happening in the "red" state where I live, where the state's "Environmental Quality" Commission seems to be a tool of industry. Today's NY Times has an editorial about Flint which quite aptly uses a term popularized by the Freddie Gray's case in Baltimore: "depraved indifference." As we learned from that episode, "depraved indifference" can be a criminal offense, at least in some states. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/opinion/depraved-indifference-toward-flint.html?_r=0
Professor Cole, thank you for this report from Michigan. Usually I look to you for clarification about some confusing situation in the Middle East, but recently I have been puzzled by the reports from your part of the Mid West. The story seemed to reveal something beyond incompetence; an unbelievable malice. It has been hard to understand how Americans could deliberately do this to other Americans. Your article helps me understand, yet in the end much remains mysterious to me. What kind of person thinks like this? What kind of person behaves this way? Trying to understand that makes me think of great genocides in the past in other countries. It is disturbing to imagine that such people are in charge here.
The NY Times today has informative news and opinion items about this. They offer insight into why the Saudi's did this, and into the attitude of the Obama administration. Sadly, morality and concern with human rights don't seem to matter to Obama and his team, except when it is convenient to talk about them for other reasons.
The Saudi's reported that some of those executed were shot, others were beheaded. I thought the similarity with ISIL's beheadings, which attracted so much attention, would elicit some note, but (at least as far as I'm aware) the U.S. media have mostly just used the word "executed." In a few cases there were vague references to beheadings. I infer we don't want to say things that might seem to reflect badly on our "friends."
Thanks for this inspiring history lesson. How fortunate we were to have such founders who, despite their own human limitations of time and place, were so far above some of those who would be leaders today.
I would only add that Mr. Obama did not mention U.S. policies and actions that incite resentment in predominantly Muslim nations, much less propose any change to such actions. Our unqualified support for the dispossession and oppression of Palestinians by Israel is one example of such U.S. policies.
Why not repeat the successes of the past? Golden oldies are the best. I see that Mr. Obama is warning Russia not to meddle in Syria (that's reserved to us and to the former colonial powers, as well as regional powers we approve, such as Saudi Arabia). This reminds me of Rumsfeld and others warning Iran not to meddle in Iraq. The arrogance, moral blindness, and hypocrisy displayed by our American leaders (both Democrat and Republican) is beyond words.
I wish that the U.S. had a similar requirement, and that Israel would also suspend the U.S. from involvement in the so-called peace process, which is actually just continued oppression of Palestinians. We don't make things better, we just defend and enable more theft and oppression.
Thanks for bringing more clarity to this murky area. You mention Russia and Turkey being in a proxy war, but it seems that their own forces are involved now too . . . as are those of the United States. I wish that I had confidence that our leaders are acting wisely, morally, justly.
One sad quibble re "One thing you take away from these remarks by George H. W. Bush is that he is nowadays basically a Democrat." -- When it comes to foreign policy, is Mrs. Clinton much better than the neocons?
re: "Netanyahu thinks he can fight a forever war, and that he can grab up the Palestinian West Bank while successfully excluding the Palestinians from the rights of citizenship in a state."
The U.S. had done a lot to make that possible, and appears set to continue that policy, based on what our politicians say.
America's responsibility for this may be less direct than in the case of the MSF hospital we destroyed recently, but we certainly played a part. Obama seems content with that, as far as I can tell.
It's more than "advise." TV news shows Carter telling Congress we will. Of course, they aren't soldiers, they are "special ops." And it isn't combat, it's "direct action." It seems to me that Obama should be the one announcing this to Congress, and Congress should be debating and authorizing it. It's another way in which our democratic republican governance has devolved into something else. Of course, the politicians all want to run away from accountability. If no one can make them be accountable, this generation of pols won't volunteer for that.
Disturbing in several ways, as is so much of the news from that region. I sure hope our leaders know what they are doing, and know the future consequences of their actions. Even the immediate consequences are disturbing. The Intercept reports that almost 90% of our drone victims are not the target. And sometimes, as when we bomb a hospital, even being the "intended target" doesn't mean people deserve to die.
Thanks for the information. Even with such guidance, it is getting too hard for the average guy like me to keep up with the players. I'll just have to rely on my leaders to do the right thing.
Thanks for this explanation and analysis. Our own government's comments can't be taken at face value, unfortunately, yet our media and politicians often do so, and often compound the confusion.
Thanks for this report. It is sad that it happens here. Sad that it isn't more widely reported and known and deplored. Sad that it happens in Obama's America, where there is no longer room for hope and change.
Recently I saw that Syria's president blames the problems in his country on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which led to sectarian war in the region. Obviously he isn't blameless, nor an admirable leader, yet there is an element of truth in his claim. We have contributed to the problem, and we should do more to help the victims. The same is true for Palestinians. The U.S. has for years enabled Israel to pursue its policy of dispossession and oppression of the native inhabitants of Palestine. We can and should do more to help those victims.
Year after year the U.S. has enabled Israel to take the homes and homeland of Palestinians. In fairness, I think that we should allow those Palestinians who want to come here to do so.
You have previously, and rightly, observed that being stateless leaves people "without the right to have rights," (or words to that effect). Your statement made me realize the importance of something that I take for granted. It sensitized me to this idea, such that I was struck by a passage in a book that I found recently, "Creating Capabilities," by Martha C. Nussbaum.
"The nation is not just a convenient starting place: it has moral importance. Nations--reasonably democratic ones, at any rate--are systems of principles and laws that have their ultimate source in the people. They are thus important expressions of people's autonomy; that is, their entitlement to live under laws of their own choosing." [page 113]
Prof. Nussbaum does not mention Palestinians, at least not in the portion of the book that I have read thus far, but I couldn't avoid thinking of them. It was tragic that European Jews decided to seek this entitlement for themselves at the expense of Palestinians. It continues to be a tragedy in part because the United States abets and enables its continuation.
Thanks for the reminder of something too often ignored in our news media.
I heard a brief interview with Kasich of Ohio recently; unfortunately--while he may not be as ignorant or hawkish as some of the others--he too wants to send more troops.
Israel has seemed invincible in Congress and other political and business arenas in the United States; evidently its power isn't universal in the courts.
It seems fine for Americans to offer advice to other countries from a distance. I'm less enthusiastic about our habit of insisting that other nations follow our advice, and backing our advice up with guns, bombs, etc.
That's a good list. It could be longer--I'm surprised you stopped at five--but it's depressing enough as is. In fairness, he has a tough job, has done well in many respects, and he has been better than the alternatives we had to vote for. And, in fairness, he has faced many constraints, including irrational critics. Still, for many of his supporters, he has been disappointing in many ways. And, to add insult to injury, his spokesmen and surrogates have often defending him by ridiculing those who believed what he said to get elected, and who expected him to act consistent with that rhetoric. Now THAT is something that will "turn American youth cynical."
Good points. Although, in truth, Israel's clout is not a mystery. Here's another question I've wondered about for some time. What difference does it make (apart from domestic politics) if Congress approves the deal or not? I know, the U.S. confiscated some substantial bank deposits here that belong to Iran. Likewise, there are some U.S. companies that Iran would like to do business with. (Surely, Iran needs some repair parts for its aging airliners, which are unsafe due to the refusal to sell them parts.) But if the other nations involved in the deal think it is good, and if they resume trade with Iran, the impact of unilateral sanctions by the U.S. won't amount to much.
To me, it seems that the euphemisms for "kill" so commonly used today: "take out," "rub out," etc. are generally attempts to deny the reality of what has been done, to minimize the humanity of those killed, and the responsibility of those who do the killing. Thus, pundits and reports in the U.S. MSM often tell us that an American drone or an Israeli airstrike has "taken out" some suspected "terrorists," or "militants," or "gunmen." I doubt that the term was used with that intent in this case, but it seems strange diction to me.
Thanks for this information. This is the first time I've read about the distinction between Wahhabis and Sunnis. That reflects my lack of knowledge, but that in turn may reflect the superficial news coverage we get from most sources in the U.S. I wonder if what is going on in Yemen is another complicating factor.
Thanks. This morning I heard the BBC discuss candidly the history of U.S. relations with Cuba, but as you say, the U.S. media portray a different picture.
Most US news media and opinion-shaping elites are protective of Israel, so US public opinion is unaffected by such actions. Almost all US elected officials (at least in public) are fervent supporters of Israel, regardless of its actions. The Trump administration will protect Israel from UN Security Council action, even if some country tried to initiate action there. So Israel is not likely to face real consequences from its actions. Israel continues to commit crimes, and the US continues to be complicit.
Nukes for Saudi? What could go wrong? It's not as if any terrorists ever came from there.
Not surprising; most educated Americans are horrified too.
A search on Google News does now turn up a few references to Balfour in the US media, and also this informative piece from Israel,
"Britain's True Motivation Behind the Balfour Declaration:
Why the British thought a vaguely worded statement would galvanize American Jewish support for World War I - and how it became the engine that led to the State of Israel
Shlomo Avineri Nov 02, 2017 2:33 PM
read more: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.820669
I've heard some mention on BBC World Service of the 100th anniversary (though not specifically about the clash reported above). So far, I haven't seen or heard anything on US MSM. Lots about the terrorist in NYC, but not about what would prompt such terrorism (except, of course, that "they hate us because we are free.")
I learned only recently that the UK sought and received President Wilson's approval before issuing the Declaration.
"British officials asked President Wilson for his consent on the matter on two occasions – first on 3 September, when he replied the time was not ripe, and later on 6 October, when he agreed with the release of the declaration.[132]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration#September_and_October:_American_consent_and_War_Cabinet_approval
Disturbing news, but good to know.
Our version of the golden rule: Do unto others as you would not have them do unto you (except for Israel, in which case it's okay for them to meddle).
Methinks he is lying, or not doing his job, or the victim of a shocking coverup by the Executive Branch. According to this, he is on the Armed Services Committee, which ". . . has jurisdiction over all areas of national defense including the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force."
https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/committee-assignments
Are you kidding? You expect a Senator to read all that? It's more than a page long.
Thank you for the vital explanation, background and analysis: far more than I learned from NPR and BBC.
What do the terrorists hope to accomplish? I have seen some reports on this horrific event, but no explanation of the rationale. I could (to some extent perhaps) understand the terrorists' rationale behind attacks on U.S. bases and ships in the region, as well as on NYC and DC on 9/11, but attacks like this seem very strange indeed.
Chauncey Gardner would be a welcome improvement over what we have.
In this context, it is worth mentioning that Trump has also decided that the US should withdraw from UNESCO, due to its "anti-Israel" bias. These policies harm the US, and the world.
Regarding: "Maybe they tried to get Barack Obama to say something and the president was too much of a gentleman."
I admire a lot of things about Mr. Obama. Other things, such as his deference to Wall Street and AIPAC and big Pharma I don't admire, but can understand. But this seems inexplicable. I've no idea what happened, but saying "too much of a gentleman" does not seem like an explanation.
Thanks for this informed analysis and comment, so missing from the MSM reports I've heard about this.
re ". . . the United States is . . . is led by a buffoon."
It's hard to argue with that, but it is important to note that Congress also is run by buffoons.
Nothing lasts forever, but a dignified old age for the Republic would have been nice. Not in the cards, evidently.
Thanks for this analysis. It's sad and disturbing, but good to know. At least Trump knows how to "run the Government like a business." A family business.
Let's hope the hardliners there, and in Israel and DC, don't abort positive developments.
On another matter, admittedly off topic, I just noticed a report on NBC about Pakistan — "Twenty people were tortured and then murdered with clubs and knives at a Pakistani Sufi shrine, police said Sunday, in what officials are calling a cult ritual."
Every religion has its cults (e.g., Jim Jones) so I don't find this beyond belief. On the other hand, I have thought of Sufis as generally a pacific, mystical group, sometimes subject to persecution in Pakistan. So I wonder if this report should be taken at face value.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/20-tortured-murdered-pakistan-muslim-sufi-shrine-n741711
Thanks for the link to PC mag. Even with it, researching this subject, picking a product, and using it properly looks complicated. Another gift from the Republicans. It must be nice to have an employer who takes care of such things.
I'm not a technical expert, but my understanding is that a VPN can help, but one needs to be sure not to use the ISP's DNS, and to plug any DNS leaks. Also, unless you can set up your own VPN, you end up trusting whatever VPN you use, and you may compromise speed. I'm told that TOR is good for activists and journalists and others with serious need for privacy, but even it isn't perfect, and does slow things a lot. Perhaps user-friendly solutions will come to market. CBS news reported on a router that is marketed by a European firm that purports to help with this.
I share the concern about ISP's invading privacy. This isn't the only area for concern. Congress has been using the Congressional Review Act to undo other last-minute regulations published by the Obama Administration. Why did Obama wait so long? If these regs had been put in place sooner, they would be harder to change. Of course, the Republicans are in charge now, and can make changes if they want to. Still, If these regs are good (and I think they are) why didn't Obama put them in place sooner? Why did Obama defer to the same powerful groups for most of his term, then leave with a few futile parting shots?
As most readers here will know by now, Nikki Haley called it “anti-Israel propaganda" and said it should be taken down, and it was. "Move along, nothing to see here." I wonder what Obama would have done? He and his Sec. of State, like other liberal Zionists, continually warned that if Israel didn't change, someday what it was doing would be labeled "apartheid." But that day never came during Obama's term. He did refrain from using the veto at the end of his term. So maybe he would have let the report stand. But I doubt it.
Thanks for the history lesson. As for your question: "If you keep rejecting peace, guess what you get?" -- what you get is more of the West Bank, plus more financial, military and diplomatic support from the US.
His foundation may have made a contribution, but in "fairness" one should note that it probably didn't come from Trump. As WaPo pointed out during the campaign, Trump donates other people's money, not his own.
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-retooled-his-charity-to-spend-other-peoples-money/2016/09/10/da8cce64-75df-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html
Thanks for this review. This history is widely ignored by politicians and major media in the U.S. Your concise statement of the facts is very valuable.
Sounds like a war crime to me.
It's not surprising that Google would accommodate Israel, given the ties between the two entities. I suppose it is part of Israel's "war on terrorism" in the form of "incitement" on Facebook, Twitter, and--of course--Google.
Just because the US uses them in that way does not mean they must be used in that way. Surely the objective of BDS with respect to Israel, as it was with South Africa, should have been to end objectionable practices, not to stop talking. But it seems a moot point now.
Great report. More sad and disturbing news from our politicians in a year of sad and disturbing political news. It's enough to make one wonder if our form of mass-media-money democracy can work. The founders of the Republic certainly were dubious about unfettered democracy. Of course, the days of smoke- filled rooms weren't so great either. Benevolent philosopher-kings don't have a great track record either.
By the way, I've never understood what private-sector BDS limited to the settlements could have achieved, as a practical matter, given U.S. support for Israel. That seemed like a prescription to salve the conscience of liberal Zionists who want to avoid any actual inconvenience to Israel. BDS backed up by the UN and its member states, including the U.S., might have been another matter, even if limited to the West Bank and Gaza. But that seems a moot, counterfactual, historical speculation.
He announces this while in Germany. Much as he announced the attack on Libya practically while waving on this way to the helicopter that would take him to Brazil. No need for Congress to be involved. No need to justify to the American people. In some things he is constrained by Congress, in some things not at all.
Hard to believe this comes from someone who is respected and influential in the U.S. Thanks for reporting it.
Very depressing. I guess it is "game over" for Palestinians, and those who sympathize with them. Maybe the U.S. will accept them as refugees now, having done so much to evict them from their homes and deny them the rights of citizenship.
Since the war in Vietnam, I have sometimes thought that Congress should enact a special tax surcharge to pay for reparations to the countries we have devastated. At first I thought in terms of Vietnam and Cambodia. As history has moved on, and I have learned more, the list has grown longer. Iraq belongs on the list, of course, but so too do the Palestinians, and others. It's a fantasy, of course.
Appalling to think that the U.S. supports and enables and permits this kind of behavior, in Gaza and in Flint.
Good news on a subject where good news is rare. Sad, perhaps, to the extent that doing the right thing is motivated by fear rather than the desire to do the right thing, but better than inaction. The U.S., after all, merely doubled down on wrong policies after 9/11 by gratuitously invading and occupying Iraq.
Thanks for this review. I don't have cable, so need to depend on others to report it. Frankly, from what you say, it seems that I'm better off without cable.
Thanks for this review of the facts, so often ignored in the U.S. When it comes to this subject it seems that we live in an Orwellian world. Certainly our State Department does so. And the mass media. I wish that someone in Hollywood would make a fact-based film about this as a corrective to the fantasy-based "Exodus." It seems a natural thing to do. Perhaps that has been done, but I didn't hear about it.
Is there some law that says he must wait? To do nothing when he can is criminal, as we learned from the Freddie Gray case, and more recently from Flint. "Depraved indifference."
Thanks for the link. Somehow I missed seeing any reports about this in the news sources I regularly see, including several of the major U.S. networks and newspapers.
Indeed, the Palestinians have a greater claim, yet they are kept in inhuman conditions, with the support of America: support in the form of weapons, money, and vetoes at the UNSC. Yesterday the NY Times accused political leaders in Michigan of "depraved indifference" to the people of Flint. Our leaders in DC are equally guilty of "depraved indifference" to the people of Palestine.
Israel's policies, actions and arguments seem illogical and immoral, yet they have worked well for them, for as long as I can remember. The U.S. continues to support, defend and enable them.
Regarding the treaty's implications for national authority, I had originally taken as exaggeration the warning that the treaty could supersede legislation, but recently I heard an explanation of the history of Supreme Court rulings related to the issue. Evidently it is a serious concern. I don't purport to know the answer, but like you I think it is an important topic.
Thanks Margot, that does help explain. I can imagine something similar happening in the "red" state where I live, where the state's "Environmental Quality" Commission seems to be a tool of industry. Today's NY Times has an editorial about Flint which quite aptly uses a term popularized by the Freddie Gray's case in Baltimore: "depraved indifference." As we learned from that episode, "depraved indifference" can be a criminal offense, at least in some states.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/opinion/depraved-indifference-toward-flint.html?_r=0
Professor Cole, thank you for this report from Michigan. Usually I look to you for clarification about some confusing situation in the Middle East, but recently I have been puzzled by the reports from your part of the Mid West. The story seemed to reveal something beyond incompetence; an unbelievable malice. It has been hard to understand how Americans could deliberately do this to other Americans. Your article helps me understand, yet in the end much remains mysterious to me. What kind of person thinks like this? What kind of person behaves this way? Trying to understand that makes me think of great genocides in the past in other countries. It is disturbing to imagine that such people are in charge here.
The NY Times today has informative news and opinion items about this. They offer insight into why the Saudi's did this, and into the attitude of the Obama administration. Sadly, morality and concern with human rights don't seem to matter to Obama and his team, except when it is convenient to talk about them for other reasons.
The Saudi's reported that some of those executed were shot, others were beheaded. I thought the similarity with ISIL's beheadings, which attracted so much attention, would elicit some note, but (at least as far as I'm aware) the U.S. media have mostly just used the word "executed." In a few cases there were vague references to beheadings. I infer we don't want to say things that might seem to reflect badly on our "friends."
This is a disturbing development. Besides being morally wrong, it is self-defeating.
Thanks for this, as for so much.
Good to know. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to write to ABC, if it makes one feel better. That's the reason I sometimes write to elected officials.
Thanks for this inspiring history lesson. How fortunate we were to have such founders who, despite their own human limitations of time and place, were so far above some of those who would be leaders today.
I would only add that Mr. Obama did not mention U.S. policies and actions that incite resentment in predominantly Muslim nations, much less propose any change to such actions. Our unqualified support for the dispossession and oppression of Palestinians by Israel is one example of such U.S. policies.
Why not repeat the successes of the past? Golden oldies are the best. I see that Mr. Obama is warning Russia not to meddle in Syria (that's reserved to us and to the former colonial powers, as well as regional powers we approve, such as Saudi Arabia). This reminds me of Rumsfeld and others warning Iran not to meddle in Iraq. The arrogance, moral blindness, and hypocrisy displayed by our American leaders (both Democrat and Republican) is beyond words.
Obama's warning: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/obama-paris-press-conference/
I wish that the U.S. had a similar requirement, and that Israel would also suspend the U.S. from involvement in the so-called peace process, which is actually just continued oppression of Palestinians. We don't make things better, we just defend and enable more theft and oppression.
Amazing. I'm surprised that I have not learned about this aspect of our "ally" from the MSM.
Thanks for bringing more clarity to this murky area. You mention Russia and Turkey being in a proxy war, but it seems that their own forces are involved now too . . . as are those of the United States. I wish that I had confidence that our leaders are acting wisely, morally, justly.
Thanks for a good review and reminder.
One sad quibble re "One thing you take away from these remarks by George H. W. Bush is that he is nowadays basically a Democrat." -- When it comes to foreign policy, is Mrs. Clinton much better than the neocons?
Here's an example of how Israel's policy works, a policy that the U.S. supports and enables:
http://972mag.com/netanyahus-transfer-plan-turning-dispossession-into-tradition/113474/
re: "Netanyahu thinks he can fight a forever war, and that he can grab up the Palestinian West Bank while successfully excluding the Palestinians from the rights of citizenship in a state."
The U.S. had done a lot to make that possible, and appears set to continue that policy, based on what our politicians say.
thanks for this clarification, though the situations in Syria and in DC remain murky at best.
re "both a moral and political responsibility of the sovereign states and independent forces who can’t deny the impact of their actions."
It seems that we simply ignore these issues. Thanks for the disturbing report.
America's responsibility for this may be less direct than in the case of the MSF hospital we destroyed recently, but we certainly played a part. Obama seems content with that, as far as I can tell.
It's more than "advise." TV news shows Carter telling Congress we will. Of course, they aren't soldiers, they are "special ops." And it isn't combat, it's "direct action." It seems to me that Obama should be the one announcing this to Congress, and Congress should be debating and authorizing it. It's another way in which our democratic republican governance has devolved into something else. Of course, the politicians all want to run away from accountability. If no one can make them be accountable, this generation of pols won't volunteer for that.
I have wondered why Obama appointed Hagel, then fired him and appointed Carter.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120400/chuck-hagel-was-defense-secretary-white-house-wanted-then-fired-him
Disturbing in several ways, as is so much of the news from that region. I sure hope our leaders know what they are doing, and know the future consequences of their actions. Even the immediate consequences are disturbing. The Intercept reports that almost 90% of our drone victims are not the target. And sometimes, as when we bomb a hospital, even being the "intended target" doesn't mean people deserve to die.
"In American politics, we await the officeholder or candidate willing to state the obvious and confront its implications."
Well written, with facts and logic to support the conclusion, yet it may be a long wait before such a candidate is elected President, alas.
Thanks for the information. Even with such guidance, it is getting too hard for the average guy like me to keep up with the players. I'll just have to rely on my leaders to do the right thing.
From an article in WaPo, it seems that our strategy is to keep giving weapons to rebels. I have some reservations about the Post's headline for the article. With Russia and the U.S. both using their own air forces, the danger is that we may not just be talking about a proxy war. Also, the success of this strategy in Afghanistan, and the matter of who got mired in a quagmire, somewhat depends on which decade one considers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/did-us-weapons-supplied-to-syrian-rebels-draw-russia-into-the-conflict/2015/10/11/268ce566-6dfc-11e5-91eb-27ad15c2b723_story.html
Thanks for this explanation and analysis. Our own government's comments can't be taken at face value, unfortunately, yet our media and politicians often do so, and often compound the confusion.
Thanks for this report, so much more informative than the U.S. news media I depend on.
Thank you for this review of history. Every American should be familiar with these facts. Instead, our media and politicians generally ignore them.
Thanks for the insights regarding the Pope, and regarding American politics.
Thanks for this report. It is sad that it happens here. Sad that it isn't more widely reported and known and deplored. Sad that it happens in Obama's America, where there is no longer room for hope and change.
Recently I saw that Syria's president blames the problems in his country on the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which led to sectarian war in the region. Obviously he isn't blameless, nor an admirable leader, yet there is an element of truth in his claim. We have contributed to the problem, and we should do more to help the victims. The same is true for Palestinians. The U.S. has for years enabled Israel to pursue its policy of dispossession and oppression of the native inhabitants of Palestine. We can and should do more to help those victims.
Thanks for this information. Unfortunately, the United States has consistently supported and enabled Israel's policy.
Year after year the U.S. has enabled Israel to take the homes and homeland of Palestinians. In fairness, I think that we should allow those Palestinians who want to come here to do so.
I doubt that these leaders will discuss the baleful effects of Saudi and U.S. military efforts in the region, which include the use of cluster bombs, as reported by Glenn Greenwald.
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/03/nyt-claims-u-s-abides-cluster-bomb-ban-exact-opposite-reality/
Prof. Cole,
You have previously, and rightly, observed that being stateless leaves people "without the right to have rights," (or words to that effect). Your statement made me realize the importance of something that I take for granted. It sensitized me to this idea, such that I was struck by a passage in a book that I found recently, "Creating Capabilities," by Martha C. Nussbaum.
"The nation is not just a convenient starting place: it has moral importance. Nations--reasonably democratic ones, at any rate--are systems of principles and laws that have their ultimate source in the people. They are thus important expressions of people's autonomy; that is, their entitlement to live under laws of their own choosing." [page 113]
Prof. Nussbaum does not mention Palestinians, at least not in the portion of the book that I have read thus far, but I couldn't avoid thinking of them. It was tragic that European Jews decided to seek this entitlement for themselves at the expense of Palestinians. It continues to be a tragedy in part because the United States abets and enables its continuation.
Thanks for the reminder of something too often ignored in our news media.
I heard a brief interview with Kasich of Ohio recently; unfortunately--while he may not be as ignorant or hawkish as some of the others--he too wants to send more troops.
Israel has seemed invincible in Congress and other political and business arenas in the United States; evidently its power isn't universal in the courts.
It seems fine for Americans to offer advice to other countries from a distance. I'm less enthusiastic about our habit of insisting that other nations follow our advice, and backing our advice up with guns, bombs, etc.
That's a good list. It could be longer--I'm surprised you stopped at five--but it's depressing enough as is. In fairness, he has a tough job, has done well in many respects, and he has been better than the alternatives we had to vote for. And, in fairness, he has faced many constraints, including irrational critics. Still, for many of his supporters, he has been disappointing in many ways. And, to add insult to injury, his spokesmen and surrogates have often defending him by ridiculing those who believed what he said to get elected, and who expected him to act consistent with that rhetoric. Now THAT is something that will "turn American youth cynical."
So the so-called "royal family" that rules the Wahhabi Muslim Kingdom sees the Muslim Brotherhood as authoritarian and radical. Seems a bit ironic.
Thanks for this information. I share your hope.
Good points. Although, in truth, Israel's clout is not a mystery. Here's another question I've wondered about for some time. What difference does it make (apart from domestic politics) if Congress approves the deal or not? I know, the U.S. confiscated some substantial bank deposits here that belong to Iran. Likewise, there are some U.S. companies that Iran would like to do business with. (Surely, Iran needs some repair parts for its aging airliners, which are unsafe due to the refusal to sell them parts.) But if the other nations involved in the deal think it is good, and if they resume trade with Iran, the impact of unilateral sanctions by the U.S. won't amount to much.
". . . his foreign policy advisory team, including Neoconservatives such as Paul Wolfowitz . . ."
Wolfowitz?!? Wow. So many candidates, each one worse than the next.
To me, it seems that the euphemisms for "kill" so commonly used today: "take out," "rub out," etc. are generally attempts to deny the reality of what has been done, to minimize the humanity of those killed, and the responsibility of those who do the killing. Thus, pundits and reports in the U.S. MSM often tell us that an American drone or an Israeli airstrike has "taken out" some suspected "terrorists," or "militants," or "gunmen." I doubt that the term was used with that intent in this case, but it seems strange diction to me.
Sad news, but thanks for reporting it. I haven't seen any discussion of this from the major U.S. news sources.
Thanks for this information. This is the first time I've read about the distinction between Wahhabis and Sunnis. That reflects my lack of knowledge, but that in turn may reflect the superficial news coverage we get from most sources in the U.S. I wonder if what is going on in Yemen is another complicating factor.
Thanks for this informed reminder of reality . . . so needed by those of us who watch network news and read typical U.S. newspapers.
Thanks for this history lesson. I wish our press and politicians would speak truthfully about it.
Thanks for this important information, which I had not learned from the MSM networks and papers I see.
Thanks. This morning I heard the BBC discuss candidly the history of U.S. relations with Cuba, but as you say, the U.S. media portray a different picture.