Thanks for this info, it's really crucial. A question is: can we expect Malley to go the distance with Obama? Is he a recent addition or has he been around awhile?

A question is: can we expect Malley to go the distance with Obama? Is he a recent addition or has he been around awhile?

I don't know. That list's from October last year.

This is the kind of situation where a free press would really come in handy. Oh, if only we had one.

I agree with you--Obama is certainly much better than HRC and yet at the same time anyone who can go to AIPAC and blather on about Hezbollah using human shields (knowing as he must have what Human Rights Watch had to say on that subject) is, IMO, not someone I can get real enthused over.

My opinion on what I can get enthused over is pretty authoritative, I might add. Or might not. I'll have to get back to me on that.

On a related matter (not related to me, but the topic), why exactly do politicians pander to AIPAC? Assuming that one accepts that they do? This is sort of a touchy subject, I've noticed, one that brings out the "Springtime for Hitler" crowd in the comments section at Mondoweiss, but on the other hand I don't think one should think that a person is working on an update of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for just mentioning it.

why exactly do politicians pander to AIPAC?

I don't think it's complicated -- AIPAC is just a very effective lobby. Politicians pander to all kinds of people.

Here's my brief view of the contentious issue that's spawned ten million blurgh comments: the Israel lobby only has a small effect on US foreign policy around the edges; ie, the US doesn't need a specific lobby to encourage it to crush third world movements. But Israel/Palestine is one of the few places where small effects around the edges are REALLY important.

A rational empire would force a two state settlement on Israel. We have no interest either way in whether there are Israelis in Hebron, or conversely, whether there's a teeny-tiny Palestinian state completely dependent on us and Israel. Who cares? But the Israel lobby has enough power to block a rational imperial policy. And the lack of a teeny-tiny Palestinian state causes giant problems elsewhere, thanks to the location of the world's oil and the symbolism of Israel vis a vis colonialism.

So the small effect the Israel lobby has around the edges turns out to have large systemic effects.

Didn't Bush 41 get screwed for temporarily withholding funds from Israel? I think the lobby got 71 senators to "express their concern" or something in one weekend, but can't find it now.

Here's at least something.

http://www.observer.com/node/33426

The short answer is that they are powerful.

The longer answer seems to be that for various reasons young American Jews are inculcated even more than most Americans with the idea that they should support Israel, and they seriously consider it or grow out of it. If you're a politician who crosses the lobby, and they can get the word out you're an anti-Semite—BAM!—there goes (at the very least) your Jewish vote right there.

I don't see why it would be surprising politicians would pander to the Israel lobby.

Shit. There's a better answer for you.

THE PROBLEM stems from an internal conflict among the Jewish People concerning the teachings of HILLEL et al (now mainstream Rabbinet) as opposed to the teachings of Acaba, Mier, and YES even Elizar the Apostate (i.e. THE ESSENES). These go back to BEFORE the destruction of the TEMPLE by the ZELOTS and are discussed at length in the TALMUD AT JERUSALEM and further expounded upon by Josephus (the LAST man known to possess the TEMPLE SCROLLS). Since these problems (as they even predate the persons mentioned above) have confounded EVERY empire throughout time, WE are destined to face the same question. Three great religions desire control of MT. MORIAH, the epicenter of the whole conflict. Solve THAT question and the problem itself is solved. THE QUESTION IS SIMPLE as is the answer (a yes or no, not multiple choice). It's just that asking it IS what gets YOU killed. Many have died over it as will many more, before it's over.

"why exactly do politicians pander to AIPAC?"

They read Mearsheimer and Walt?

Hah. Do a news.google search on 'robert malley obama'. If the wingnut press is any indication Malley is the all powerful Israel-bashing overlord of the campaign. Just a few hundred articles about it. For bonus points Ha'aretz has a weak editorial defending O as the attacks could weaken US support if he gets elected:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/949364.html

I, like you, am going on faith that Obama's eventual I-P policy if he becomes president HAS to be better than that execrable ltr. to Khalilzad. The actual language of the ltr. is so unlike Obama's that I half wonder whether someone fr. AIPAC wrote it for him, he held his hand over his eyes & signed it in order to be innoculated against any attacks fr. the Clinton folk in the Super Tuesday states w. large Jewish populations like NY, NY, CA, etc.

Figuring out what presidential candidates will actually do about situations as explosive as I-P is like reading tea leaves, as my friend Rob Levy put it. But it's all we have to go on so we keep trying to read those leaves in the bottom of the cup.

I dunno, maybe it's merely an experiment, trial balloon - how far exactly can you push the envelope, manipulate the public opinion?

When little things like three murdered nuns or a photo of naked girl running from napalm can turn the public opinion and force policy change - that's just not acceptable.

Lessons have been learned, and turns out it is possible to shoot children for sport, create and maintain an equivalent of the Warsaw ghetto and still be the good guy. And so torturing prisoners and fighting terrorists with 500-pound bombs is not much of a problem anymore.

Jon -- how many times have I told you not to post while dreaming?

You're right, SteveB: Malley will write the book after getting pushed out (assuming he's ever in), only the libs will attack him for undermining President Saint. The guy's bitter and jealous! Worse, he thinks that the Palestinians are at least 2/3rds human. Wingnut!

I asked the question about the lobby because I linked to Ali Abunimah's post about Obama in the comments section at another blog and got a visceral reaction from someone who is basically fairminded about the I/P conflict (though I think he leans more to the I side than me). His reaction was that talk of rich Zionist donors having influence on politicians sounded like traditional antisemitism. Well, sorta, but it also sounds like the way the politics of interest groups works or might work. Though I wonder if the main influence here comes from votes or from a handful of rich contributors.

SteveB:

Oh, how that takes me back. I remember, about 16 years ago, thinking, "There will be a real difference in real people's real lives if there's an administration with Robert Reich in the room..."

Dennis:

how many times have I told you not to post while dreaming?

And in fact, there was a real difference in real people's real economic lives between the Clinton administration and the Bush administration.

And having an administration with Malley there then (who wasn't forced out) made a real difference is real people's lives in, say, Jenin.

In both cases, it was sometimes just the difference between "pretty awful" and "unbelievably horribly awful." In both cases, I wouldn't sneer at those differences. And before you do, I think you might want to talk to some of the people at the point of the spear and find out how they feel about it.

It may be the difference between "pretty awful" and "unbelievably horribly awful," but I'm not prepared to sneer at that.

I love this quote. Because it's the essence of American democracy in a nutshell.

The trick is to not get so depressed about it that you forget that there's a real, tangible difference between "pretty awful" and "unbelievably horribly awful". Because when you lose sight of that you end up getting to see just how bad "unbelievable horribly awful" can be.

"In both cases, it was sometimes just the difference between 'pretty awful' and 'unbelievably horribly awful.' In both cases, I wouldn't sneer at those differences. And before you do, I think you might want to talk to some of the people at the point of the spear and find out how they feel about it."

Oh dear -- not the "Ask the natives" card. Always a favorite when squeezed between two horrible options. I dunno, Jon -- how would the Palestinians view a President Saint? In my experience, and mind you, this comes from years of talking to the very people you suggest I hit up again, most Palestinians despise and fear the Dems, much more than they do the Repubs, I think for fairly obvious reasons. Not that the Repubs have been great for them, but they're seen as not as bad as the Dems. So your mini-split is in play here, it's just that you have backwards.

Also, single individuals don't make state policy, especially "good" ones.

As for the Clinton years, why not ask the poor how they did under Bill and Al. There's a state prison near you, yes?

So your mini-split is in play here, it's just that you have *it* backwards.

Dennis:

Palestinians despise and fear the Dems, much more than they do the Repubs, I think for fairly obvious reasons. Not that the Repubs have been great for them, but they're seen as not as bad as the Dems. So your mini-split is in play here, it's just that you have it backwards.

That might have been true twenty years ago, but it's certainly not the case now. Be serious.

As for the Clinton years, why not ask the poor how they did under Bill and Al.

Again, be serious. OF COURSE it was better to be in the lower third of the US during the Clinton administration. It was still awful, but not the unbelievable horrible awfulness of now.

Donald: From the Shmuel Rosner article I cited:

It is no secret that Jewish money plays a big role in the Democratic Party. "They don't have the number [of voters], but have the means to get the voters," a prominent Democratic operative told me last week. That's why I told the told the NY Sun that "I don't think [Obama's] real motive is to win votes. It's, of course, Jewish money."

Be serious? Comedian, slay thyself!

Are you honestly gonna tell me that the AIPAC Dems, the ones who do not hesitate to give the Israeli state whatever it wants, or doesn't even request, are now suddenly *less* awful because of the Bush years? Bush was unusual among Repubs when it came to the Middle East, I'll grant you. But do spare me this false hope nonsense with the Saint. Good god, the man recently backed Israel's strangulation of Gaza. I suppose he could've been *more* supportive, though, so that little space between supportive and more supportive will allow a few Gazan children to live for another few days. What a guy!

As for your Clinton revisionism, it's clear you didn't visit many poor and working class areas during his presidency.

John Caruso:

I've talked to real people in Jenin while standing on the wreckage that used to be the center of Jenin, days after the Israelis bombed and bulldozed it to rubble. And also to Palestinians more generally throughout the West Bank and Gaza. And I can tell you that not one of them told me, oh, how we long for the days when Clinton was president of the US! Our lives were marginally better then!

Okay, that I'll take seriously. Maybe I hang around with too many Fatah types. On the other hand, you're overstating what I mean. I wouldn't expect anyone to say that. Anyway, I'm planning to go to West Bank later this year and will test my hypothesis.

Dennis:

Are you honestly gonna tell me that the AIPAC Dems, the ones who do not hesitate to give the Israeli state whatever it wants, or doesn't even request, are now suddenly *less* awful because of the Bush years?

Saying that if someone has pneumonia it's worse for them to then develop cancer does not mean that them getting cancer somehow made the pneumonia retrospectively less awful.

As for your Clinton revisionism, it's clear you didn't visit many poor and working class areas during his presidency.

There you've got me. I spent his entire presidency at my villa in the south of France, although at the time it looked much like 109th & Columbus and seemed to include several people being shot in the head on my doorstep.

Dennis, this is getting ridiculous. Things were better, on average, for people at the bottom during the Clinton administration. Not great, not good, not even mediocre, but BETTER. That's the reason he was so much more popular than Bush. You can reasonably claim he didn't have much to do with that, but you can't reasonably claim it wasn't true.

"Saying that if someone has pneumonia it's worse for them to then develop cancer does not mean that them getting cancer somehow made the pneumonia retrospectively less awful."

Huh? That's your argument? Well, when it comes to hypothetical sickness comparisons, I'll grant you the floor.

"Dennis, this is getting ridiculous. Things were better, on average, for people at the bottom during the Clinton administration. Not great, not good, not even mediocre, but BETTER. That's the reason he was so much more popular than Bush. You can reasonably claim he didn't have much to do with that, but you can't reasonably claim it wasn't true."

Clinton was also popular with those most hurt by his welfare "reform" net-cutting, and his expansion of the police state, three strikes, etc. Go figure. By the same token, Reagan was enormously popular with those most hurt by his policies. So let's celebrate the Gipper while we're at it.

Maybe you have all that worked out in your head, but I won't pretend to know why this is so. All I know is, I spent a fair amount of time in poor and working class neighborhoods during the '90s -- mostly in the Midwest, but along the east coast as well -- and I didn't see much of an improvement. Quite the opposite. That Bush has been disastrous might make Clinton look better to you and those predisposed to share your view, but it doesn't make it so. Clinton assaulted the bottom rung for years, and pretty much got away with it. That he's more popular than Bush doesn't take away from this reality, but it does beautify it a bit. That you're touting this incremental measurement as a form of political commentary I'll chalk up to your evident need to believe in something -- anything -- positive in this rancid environment. I only hope it doesn't get worse as November approaches.

Look, I am a Palestinian by descent (and not even the "some of them are even Christians" kind either-- straight up Muslim for me, sorry). In fact, I was born in Israel and lived there until my family was expelled. So I am as invested in this issue as much as anyone could be.
But I don't listen to any candidate's specific polices on the issue of Palestine. To get in elected in this country you have to talk the talk of a rabid Arab-hating Zionist. I actually think you have to look at everything else and hope a glimmer of decency will slip in around the edges when they turn to Palestine while governing.

Just sort of gave up, I guess, on anything else.

Maybe it's just that Clinton&Co. give the impression of rational human beings, normal, ordinary politicians. They are of course corrupt, egocentric, all that, but not the kind of people who would, like, stick a knife in your gut just to watch you die. And after seeing current bunch one is bound to feel nostalgic for the normal wickedness, no?