Obama's Inauguration

[RedinSweden]

Sad but very true. I know of a bunch of people at work, men and women, who are voting for McCain for no other reason than they won't vote for a black man. The messed up thing is that they don't really like McCain, and they hate Palin, but they just won't vote for Obama.

 

For what it's worth I voted for Obama earlier today. Can't wait to see him accept the position later on as President Elect.

 

Do they freely admit to this? that's mental.

[Neil G]

On the button there. It is too easy to be cynical about Obama being in the hands of big industry paymasters, even if it is a different set of paymasters. That's because it's true. The Jewish cause is if anything even more pervasive in Democratic politics, and while it may not be as overtly aggressive as the Zionist henchmen in the Republican party, sheer weight of numbers and influence will mean that the policy against Palestinians in the middle east is very unlikely to change noticeably. As you say, the US will still be involved in two wars by the end of Obama's term.

 

The fact that he's got where he has is no doubt a victory of sorts, but he hasn't done it by challenging the US political principles that have held sway for the past 60 years.

 

 

Wrong Pete, hugely and egregiously wrong. There is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to Israel-Palestine. Clinton pushed two major peace initiatives: the first gave the Palestinians more autonomy than they'd ever had before, and while the second one didn't result in a deal he kept working on it until the final hours of his presidency, and it's now widely recognised as the basis of any future peace agreeement. Compare that with what Bush has done.

 

Not for the first time, your dislike for Israel is colouring your view of Jewish attitudes towards the Palestinians. You're painting Jewish American voters as a monolithic bloc, and you're also ignoring the role that Israeli politics might have to play while Obama is in office. That's just plain lazy.

[Unrighteous]

Israel-Palestine will never have a peace treaty whilst Israel keeps building compounds inside Palestinian land, putting up road-blocks on Palestinian roads harrassing and searching palestinians, and Israel will never give up 'stolen' land inside of Palestine.

 

It's a no-win situation there.

[dennis tooth]

Wrong Pete, hugely and egregiously wrong. There is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to Israel-Palestine. Clinton pushed two major peace initiatives: the first gave the Palestinians more autonomy than they'd ever had before, and while the second one didn't result in a deal he kept working on it until the final hours of his presidency, and it's now widely recognised as the basis of any future peace agreeement. Compare that with what Bush has done.

 

Not for the first time, your dislike for Israel is colouring your view of Jewish attitudes towards the Palestinians. You're painting Jewish American voters as a monolithic bloc, and you're also ignoring the role that Israeli politics might have to play while Obama is in office. That's just plain lazy.

 

Can't agree with what you say about Clinton one bit. 'Peace initiative's' doesn't bear scrutiny. Bush merely continued the poilicies of Clinton but more overt. I do agree on the wider point though regarding Democrats and Isreal.

[aikido]

Do they freely admit to this? that's mental.

 

Yes. All I was hearing was " we're not ready for a black President...I don't trust him". Unbelievable shit from people you would never expect it from.

[Neil G]

Can't agree with what you say about Clinton one bit. 'Peace initiative's' doesn't bear scrutiny. Bush merely continued the poilicies of Clinton but more overt. I do agree on the wider point though regarding Democrats and Isreal.

 

 

There's no comparison between what Clinton and Bush did, none at all. Clinton took an active hands-on approach to try and get an agreement, while Bush did fuck all.

 

Why don't you class what Clinton did as a real peace initiative (either time)?

[stringvest]

Wrong Pete, hugely and egregiously wrong. There is a big difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to Israel-Palestine. Clinton pushed two major peace initiatives: the first gave the Palestinians more autonomy than they'd ever had before, and while the second one didn't result in a deal he kept working on it until the final hours of his presidency, and it's now widely recognised as the basis of any future peace agreeement. Compare that with what Bush has done.

 

Not for the first time, your dislike for Israel is colouring your view of Jewish attitudes towards the Palestinians. You're painting Jewish American voters as a monolithic bloc, and you're also ignoring the role that Israeli politics might have to play while Obama is in office. That's just plain lazy.

 

Two things Neil - I have ignored any role Israeli politics would play, as my comment was purely in response to an earlier post, which was discussing the influence / outcomes of US approach to the palestinian question.

To clarify my position on Israel I have to distinguish between my views of Zionists, Jews and the state of Israel.

Zionists I hold in similar contempt to any religious fundamentalists.

Israel is a concept I can agree with, and even at a push see the need for, though I take exception to the state of Israel as it exsits today- it's policies, including apartheid, it's appalling human rights atrocities, and its complete lack of respect for international law. I question its size and even its location.

Most, if not all of the Jews I personally know are liberal, enlightened, believe in human rights, and are deeply embarrassed and ashamed of the policies of the Israeli government. But they live here, and wouldn't live in Israel for all the tea in China. These people by and large are strongly anti-Zionism.

 

I don't see Jewish American voters as a monolithic bloc at all. There is, however, even amongst the non-fundamentalists, a more 'conservative' view held by US Jewry than there is here. Just like the Christians have a more conservative view. Put simply, people are generally more hawkish in their perception of what is acceptable and correct foreign policy. There is generally a more 'robust' view of the countries right to go and impose their will against others for the national good. This applies to US Christians, and it applies to US Jews. It's often quite a shock for newgoers to the US to listen to the foreign policy views of the natives over the dinner table.

 

This is why foreign policy will not change appreciably. You may feel that there is the glimmer of hope that the Israeli government may actually face up to its morally corrupt behaviour and ease the noose on Palestine at some point in the distant future... as the years go by, and the west becomes less dependent on oil, there will be even less reason for the US to kow-tow to any of the Arab states. In other words, there is a decreasing amount of incentive for the US to intervene on behalf of the palestinians. Unless, of course, there is another 9/11, and someone in the White House makes the association.

[Section_31]

Bill Clinton was a fantastic President posessed of a truly awesome intellect and wit, two things the upper echelons of that country haven't seen for eight years.

 

How anyone can think Bill doesn't rock the shit frankly baffles me.

 

[YOUTUBE]3RLAKArfOe0[/YOUTUBE]

[Section_31]

.

[Chris]

Is it just me or is Michelle Obama a bit of a MILF?

 

Plenty o' junk in the trunk.

[Red Phoenix]

Really happy for the American people, and the rest of us who just want those fucked up Republicans out of the Whitehouse. I did a rare thing last night and actually left the internerd for about 4-5 hours just to watch the BBC coverage instead, and even though it was boring for the most parts, it did have it's good moments. Highlights were definitely 3 things :

 

1) Bitter, bitter guy with white moustache whining on because he was Republican and didn't trust Obama. (the UN guy for those that watched it.)

 

2) Just before Obama came on this awesome guy called Gore Vidal talked for a bit and ripped the piss out of the BBC, but the BBC people had the sense of humour to have a good laugh about it, which was refreshing. At the end he said something like, "I'm surprised you got me on here because I know a lot about the subject. You usually get people on who don't know much instead." Then it cut to the BBC people cracking up.

 

3) Obama's speech. If he's as good as he talks, then what a fucking relief for America and the rest of the world.

 

 

I'm also cautious though, because like some have said, the expectation is just going to be so ridiculously high that the so called 'honeymoon period' might be over pretty fast. I'm waiting to see what his foreign policy is like, especially in places like Afghanistan, and how he copes with so many other problemetic issues like US-China and US-Russia relations, and all the stuff going on in the middle east. I really hope that for a start though he stops all the fucking drone bombing attacks on suspected Al-Qaeda people inside Pakistans borders, which just looks like a massive flashpoint to me.

 

There's also the fact that people over here really thought that things had genuinely changed when Tony Blair got into power with "New" (pfft) Labour and then just turned out to be all talk and utterly full of shite. Obama definitely has a lot to do, and I just hope it works out well.

 

One final thing that pisses me off is that he's not even in until Jan 20th? So we STILL have to endure these fucking Republicans until then.

 

Question though : can Bush and his people just carry on like usual right up until Jan 20th? Doesn't Obama and the Democrats have any type of say until then? Just seems a bit like madness if that's the case. Roll on Jan 20th anyway, when the Neocons are finally, finally fucking gone.

[Unrighteous]

Question though : can Bush and his people just carry on like usual right up until Jan 20th? Doesn't Obama and the Democrats have any type of say until then? Just seems a bit like madness if that's the case. Roll on Jan 20th anyway, when the Neocons are finally, finally fucking gone.

 

Yup... Bush will continue to wrecking ball his way around the globe until Obama is sworn in...

[Red Phoenix]

Yup... Bush will continue to wrecking ball his way around the globe until Obama is sworn in...

 

Guh...well at least the end is in sight.

[dennis tooth]

There's no comparison between what Clinton and Bush did, none at all. Clinton took an active hands-on approach to try and get an agreement, while Bush did fuck all.

 

Why don't you class what Clinton did as a real peace initiative (either time)?

 

I'm talking about his general policies which includes his policy towards the middle east.

Sec is also a Clinton over and we should all be able to look back misty eyed at the wonderment of his administration. Bill Clinton and his cohorts were repsonsible for 500,000 infant deaths, he bombed many hospitals and medical facility establishments, bombed Iraq on an almost daily basis and didn't even blink while Rwanda's genocide took on epic proportions just for a mere glance at his horrific record so forgive me if I don't share your BBC worldviews. There's much more too.

 

There is a clear, direct comparison to be had between Clinton and Bush as both spent their time trying to block the middle eastern peace process although I do agree Clinton blocked it in a more hands on way, that was simply because Bush had a slight obsession with Iraq and golfing holidays.

[Section_31]

But Tooth, it's quite clear that you dislike the United States anyway. In fact I'd be interested to know what mythical state from past or present you compare it to when you judge it's foreign policy actions.

 

You also fail to point out the defining role he played in the Northern Ireland peace process and his decision to bring the United States into the war for Kosovo - a deeply unpopular move with his own people, and only brought about after Blair had virtually begged him to interviene while the rest of the EU stood around debating.

[Neil G]

Two things Neil - I have ignored any role Israeli politics would play, as my comment was purely in response to an earlier post, which was discussing the influence / outcomes of US approach to the palestinian question.

 

 

But the position of Israel would have a big influence on the approach taken by the US. If there is an Israeli government actively seeking a genuine peace agreement (I know you don't consider this to be a possibility, but I do - see below) then it will become much less politically dangerous for Obama to take a more even-handed approach.

 

 

To clarify my position on Israel I have to distinguish between my views of Zionists, Jews and the state of Israel.

Zionists I hold in similar contempt to any religious fundamentalists.

Israel is a concept I can agree with, and even at a push see the need for, though I take exception to the state of Israel as it exsits today- it's policies, including apartheid, it's appalling human rights atrocities, and its complete lack of respect for international law. I question its size and even its location.

Most, if not all of the Jews I personally know are liberal, enlightened, believe in human rights, and are deeply embarrassed and ashamed of the policies of the Israeli government. But they live here, and wouldn't live in Israel for all the tea in China. These people by and large are strongly anti-Zionism.

 

 

As I said - you dislike it. I'm not questioning your reasons for disliking it, but your dislike seems to inform your view of the way Jews in Israel and America look at the Israel-Palestine conflict, as the rest of your post suggests.

 

 

I don't see Jewish American voters as a monolithic bloc at all. There is, however, even amongst the non-fundamentalists, a more 'conservative' view held by US Jewry than there is here. Just like the Christians have a more conservative view. Put simply, people are generally more hawkish in their perception of what is acceptable and correct foreign policy. There is generally a more 'robust' view of the countries right to go and impose their will against others for the national good. This applies to US Christians, and it applies to US Jews. It's often quite a shock for newgoers to the US to listen to the foreign policy views of the natives over the dinner table.

 

This is why foreign policy will not change appreciably.

 

 

You've expanded the discussion onto foreign policy in general, whereas I was concentrating specifically on Israel-Palestine. I'm well aware that a majority of Jews in Israel and America hold hawkish views on issues such as Iran, Iraq and Hizbollah, but when it comes to Palestine there is majority support in both countries for a two-state solution.

 

You said that there is no significant difference in the policies of Democratic and Republican administrations on Palestine, so I put forward the contrast between Clinton and Bush as evidence that this simply isn't true. Your rationale for believing there is no difference in policy was the level of Jewish support for the Democrats, but as there is a difference in policy then this disproves your equation that more Jewish support = less inclination to help the Palestinians.

 

 

You may feel that there is the glimmer of hope that the Israeli government may actually face up to its morally corrupt behaviour and ease the noose on Palestine at some point in the distant future...

 

 

You're doing the same thing with Israeli governments as you're doing with American ones: ignoring any difference between parties and assuming that there will be continuity of policy whoever is in power. We had this conversation two years ago, and you're wrong. If you genuinely take notice of Israeli politics then I don't see how you can draw an unbroken line between the policies of Rabin and Netanyahu, or of Barak and Sharon.

 

I take it you're aware that Israel is holding a general election in February. If Netanyahu wins then yes things will be grim, but if Livni wins then there is a genuine chance that she'll advance the peace process, especially if Obama is engaged as well. The opinion polls are currently very close. As I said to you two years ago, if you make assumptions about Israeli politics you can end up looking foolish.

 

 

as the years go by, and the west becomes less dependent on oil, there will be even less reason for the US to kow-tow to any of the Arab states. In other words, there is a decreasing amount of incentive for the US to intervene on behalf of the palestinians. Unless, of course, there is another 9/11, and someone in the White House makes the association.

 

 

America's engagement in the Israel-Palestine peace process isn't kow-towing to the Arab states. Most Arab governments don't give a shit about the Palestinians, they just display anger over the issue in order to curry favour with their populations. An enlightened US administration like Obama's will recognise that solving the Israel-Palestine conflict is a vital national security interest for America.

 

If anything, a reduction in Western dependence on Middle Eastern oil will increase the chances of American engagement in the peace process, not decrease it. As the oil revenues of Arab states fall, they'll have to liberalise politically and improve education in order to compete economically, which will in turn reduce extremism and terrorism (read Tom Friedman in the New York Times about this). This process will make the Middle East a less politically sensitive area for the US to tread.

[Neil G]

I'm talking about his general policies which includes his policy towards the middle east.

Sec is also a Clinton over and we should all be able to look back misty eyed at the wonderment of his administration. Bill Clinton and his cohorts were repsonsible for 500,000 infant deaths, he bombed many hospitals and medical facility establishments, bombed Iraq on an almost daily basis and didn't even blink while Rwanda's genocide took on epic proportions just for a mere glance at his horrific record so forgive me if I don't share your BBC worldviews. There's much more too.

 

There is a clear, direct comparison to be had between Clinton and Bush as both spent their time trying to block the middle eastern peace process although I do agree Clinton blocked it in a more hands on way, that was simply because Bush had a slight obsession with Iraq and golfing holidays.

 

 

I am talking specifically about the Israel-Palestine peace process, not the whole of Middle Eastern policy, as I explained to Stringvest. If you want to explain to me how Clinton tried to block the process rather than advance it then go for it.

 

And I'm not a Clinton lover, far from it. Think before you post, or even better read what I've already written about him.

[Neil G]

But Tooth, it's quite clear that you dislike the United States anyway. In fact I'd be interested to know what mythical state from past or present you compare it to when you judge it's foreign policy actions.

 

You also fail to point out the defining role he played in the Northern Ireland peace process and his decision to bring the United States into the war for Kosovo - a deeply unpopular move with his own people, and only brought about after Blair had virtually begged him to interviene while the rest of the EU stood around debating.

 

 

Don't bother talking to him about Kosovo, he'll just quote Chomsky and say it was an American imperialist plot to take over the Balkans.

[mattyq]

I agree with Stringy.

I spent some time in a Kibbutz in the early 90s and the maddest most extreme Jews were always the ones from the US. They embarrased the Israelis with their frankly insane views on Palestinians and stealing land etc.

The Israelis were't exactly Mother fucking Theresa either but at least yo had a cross section of attitudes with them. Quite a lot were all in favour of peace

[Neil G]

I agree with Stringy.

I spent some time in a Kibbutz in the early 90s and the maddest most extreme Jews were always the ones from the US. They embarrased the Israelis with their frankly insane views on Palestinians and stealing land etc.

The Israelis were't exactly Mother fucking Theresa either but at least yo had a cross section of attitudes with them. Quite a lot were all in favour of peace

 

 

Fine, but how representative of Jewish American views do you think those kibbutzniks were? Don't you think the idea of going to live on a kibbutz might be more likely to appeal to a certain type of American Jew with a certain outlook about Israel and the Palestinians?

 

I can use anecdotal evidence to make the complete opposite case, as I know some Jewish Americans from university who are disgusted by Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. You can't make generalisations based on your own personal experience.

[Section_31]

Obamma appoints White House chief of staff.

 

A Clinton old boy.

[stringvest]

But the position of Israel would have a big influence on the approach taken by the US. If there is an Israeli government actively seeking a genuine peace agreement (I know you don't consider this to be a possibility, but I do - see below) then it will become much less politically dangerous for Obama to take a more even-handed approach.

 

I have no problem with the logic of that statement.

 

 

As I said - you dislike it. I'm not questioning your reasons for disliking it, but your dislike seems to inform your view of the way Jews in Israel and America look at the Israel-Palestine conflict, as the rest of your post suggests.

 

Neil, I went to great pains to differentiate between my views on Israel, and Zionist and non-Zionist Jews. My dislike of the state of Israel does not inform the way Jews in the US look at the palestinan conflict at all. They're completely separate. Read my post again.

 

You've expanded the discussion onto foreign policy in general, whereas I was concentrating specifically on Israel-Palestine. I'm well aware that a majority of Jews in Israel and America hold hawkish views on issues such as Iran, Iraq and Hizbollah, but when it comes to Palestine there is majority support in both countries for a two-state solution.

I was using the wider discussion as context - demonstrating the general adherence to more hawkish attitudes on foreign policy. I agree there is general support for a two-state solution; after all even the most rabid fundamentalist doesn't believe they can purge the rest of palestine of palestinians without a murmur from the rest of the world. It's all about what that two-state solution would look like. There is no single view on where the borders would be, the rights of non-Jews to Jerusalem, or even the level of autonomy and relationships with other Arab countries.

You said that there is no significant difference in the policies of Democratic and Republican administrations on Palestine, so I put forward the contrast between Clinton and Bush as evidence that this simply isn't true. Your rationale for believing there is no difference in policy was the level of Jewish support for the Democrats, but as there is a difference in policy then this disproves your equation that more Jewish support = less inclination to help the Palestinians.

 

 

You're doing the same thing with Israeli governments as you're doing with American ones: ignoring any difference between parties and assuming that there will be continuity of policy whoever is in power. We had this conversation two years ago, and you're wrong. If you genuinely take notice of Israeli politics then I don't see how you can draw an unbroken line between the policies of Rabin and Netanyahu, or of Barak and Sharon.

 

I take it you're aware that Israel is holding a general election in February. If Netanyahu wins then yes things will be grim, but if Livni wins then there is a genuine chance that she'll advance the peace process, especially if Obama is engaged as well. The opinion polls are currently very close. As I said to you two years ago, if you make assumptions about Israeli politics you can end up looking foolish.

 

There are differences, in the US, the UK and Israel, between rival political parties on the palestinian question. But only by degrees. All major parties talk about a two state solution - even in Israel. It hasn't happened yet, despite parties of all flavours wielding power at one time or another. It's no nearer than it was 20 years ago. You could argue that it's further away. There's a wall, and more invasive settlements. They are the realities on the ground. If Livni gets in, and proposed real movement on palestinian autonomy, there'll be hell to pay. As for looking foolish making assumptions about Israeli politics - my views have not substantially changed over the last 10 years, and neither fundamentally has Israel's treatment of the palestinians. Funny that, isn't it? I don't feel I'll be made to look foolish over the next 10 years either. (well at least not over this). I was right two years ago, and I'm still right.

 

America's engagement in the Israel-Palestine peace process isn't kow-towing to the Arab states. Most Arab governments don't give a shit about the Palestinians, they just display anger over the issue in order to curry favour with their populations. An enlightened US administration like Obama's will recognise that solving the Israel-Palestine conflict is a vital national security interest for America.

 

If anything, a reduction in Western dependence on Middle Eastern oil will increase the chances of American engagement in the peace process, not decrease it. As the oil revenues of Arab states fall, they'll have to liberalise politically and improve education in order to compete economically, which will in turn reduce extremism and terrorism (read Tom Friedman in the New York Times about this). This process will make the Middle East a less politically sensitive area for the US to tread.

 

In the context of what we're discussing, governments are their populations - even in the 'non-democratic' middle east. You're making a massive assumption that an Obama administration will be 'enlightened' - there's no evidence to suggest that it will be, at least in the form that you're implying. Your prognosis of the likely path of Arab states is flawed, as it takes no account of the internal politics of those countries, and is a superficial western take on how these countries might remain 'viable' using western value judgements.

 

You can hypothesise all you like Neil, but for all the platitudes from 'concerned' parties on all sides there is no real difference on the ground, and there won't be any time soon. Which is after all what it's all about.

[Neil G]

Bill Clinton was a fantastic President posessed of a truly awesome intellect and wit, two things the upper echelons of that country haven't seen for eight years.

 

How anyone can think Bill doesn't rock the shit frankly baffles me.

 

[YOUTUBE]3RLAKArfOe0[/YOUTUBE]

 

 

Richard Clarke's book is a must read for anyone who's interested in the war on terror and how Clinton conducted it compared to Bush. It's very unbiased and objective. The Republicans were fucking idiots for getting rid of him.

 

Amazon.co.uk: Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror: Richard Clarke: Books

[dennis tooth]

But Tooth, it's quite clear that you dislike the United States anyway. In fact I'd be interested to know what mythical state from past or present you compare it to when you judge it's foreign policy actions.

 

You also fail to point out the defining role he played in the Northern Ireland peace process and his decision to bring the United States into the war for Kosovo - a deeply unpopular move with his own people, and only brought about after Blair had virtually begged him to interviene while the rest of the EU stood around debating.

 

Clinton blocked the peace process on many occasions including the one you are talking about. I can prove it but I'm scarred I might cut my feet on all the shattered illusions. That's for Neil G cos he don't want to ramp with me!

I have the extended cut on his politic and he won't enjoy it, it's going to be a long drawn out process but I will dismember his ideas before his rotting eyes.

 

Your saying I don't like the Untidied states, very sweeping, what's that supposed to mean?

 

Why should I compere?

When you see a drug dealing operation going on in your neighbourhood, do you compare the criminals engaged in that to other drug dealers conduct as if you apply your own logic that would mean we could agree that if they are not that bad in compared to other drug dealers we should applaud them and allow them to continue. Is that what you want?

 

You want me to say Clintons administration didn't fund terrorism in IRELAND against the UK when I knwo they did.

No amount of Kosovo's equal a RWANDA.

[dennis tooth]

I am talking specifically about the Israel-Palestine peace process, not the whole of Middle Eastern policy, as I explained to Stringvest. If you want to explain to me how Clinton tried to block the process rather than advance it then go for it.

 

And I'm not a Clinton lover, far from it. Think before you post, or even better read what I've already written about him.

 

Check the UN for a start.