Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
May 25, 2011

Netanyahoo In Washington

The prime minister of a West-Asian colony of East-Europeans receives more standing ovations in Congress than the U.S. president.

Judging only from the comments on various news sites the mood expressed by Congress seems not to be widely shared by the U.S. people. Is this impression correct? How do people in the U.S. really think about this? And does their opinion matter?

Posted by b on May 25, 2011 at 03:43 AM | Permalink

Comments

I witnessed yesterday the majority of Congress jumping and hooting with joy for a foreign leader who sucks down massive amounts of their tax money while at the same time, these very same traitors suddenly get cold feet when it comes to spending money to save victims of tornadoes (see ThinkProgress » Cantor Says Congress Won’t Pay For Missouri Disaster Relief Unless Spending Is Cut Elsewhere)

Pathetic!

Posted by: hans | May 25, 2011 4:40:56 AM | 1

The USA is in cahoots with a nation that is stealing land from the rightful owners, running a theocracy, and committing a slow motion genocide. This must be why the Americans love them.

Posted by: Joseph | May 25, 2011 6:55:19 AM | 2

Probably the best opening line sentence I've ever read since Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Bravo.

Posted by: Charles Frith | May 25, 2011 7:03:13 AM | 3

This video pretty much explains that Congressional display. Every one of those politicians should be arrested, tried and thrown in jail for life as seditious traitors and complicit war criminals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6KLFrye9Xk&feature=related

I wonder what the young boy is up to these days? Next Prime Minister in 10 to 15 years?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | May 25, 2011 7:07:23 AM | 4

I like what this guy has to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFOmzgn2NBI

Posted by: Morocco Bama | May 25, 2011 7:18:10 AM | 5

Who stopped applauding first?

Stalin's Duma had a bell.

Posted by: rjj | May 25, 2011 7:19:38 AM | 6

Congress might as well be downsized to part time - one month a year in DC with modest stipend and expenses paid, other than that no perqs, no benefits. They would enjoy the same incentives as the National Guard - honor of service and all that.

Posted by: rjj | May 25, 2011 7:36:45 AM | 7

Does the opinion of non-Uberwealthy, non-Big Business people in the US matter to the DC pols?

Ha!

Let's see: Prior to Obama making absolutely clear he had taken single payer "off the table," 78% of the public told a CBS poll (12/09) they wanted a single payer plan something "like Medicare." Just before the final vote on Obama's Big Health Industry Players Profit Protection Plan, two polls showed support for a single payer plan like Medicare to be in the low to mid-60%. Independents and Democratic voters were highly in favor of single payer, but even Republican voters were over 50% in favor (iirc). (There was little polling on single payer or Medicare for All once Obama made clear it was "off the table.")

People want the Obama adminitration and Congress to do something tangible about unemployment; they tell pollsters they want jobs, jobs, jobs. And Obama? He does next to nothing -- but will soon start talking a good game to try to fool the rubes into voting for him.

A House distict in western NY state, long held by Republicans, yesterday voted in a Democrat who campaigned against cuts or changes to Medicare, especially the Paul Ryan Republican plan to issue vouchers to be applied toward payment of private for-profit insurance plans for retirees 10 years after such a plan passed. This would mean a continual reduction in how much insurance retirees could afford unless they were well off to begin with. Obama congratulated the Democratic winner and said she would work with him on reducing the deficit -- he did not emphasize the clear message of her victory. Since before he declared his run for the Dem primary, he's said he wants to do "something" about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

I don't know this new representative's actual stance on what Obama might do, altho' a local station reported she said Medicare had to be "on the table" (uh oh); however, she won because the voters in her district do not want Medicare messed with, either for current recipients or for future retirees. It should be a clear, clarion call from the Dems that they will protect Medicare as it is. Doing so would probably mean they might retake the House and keep the Senate.

But Obama is the leader of the party and he is unable to take a clear stand. Of course, he took a "clear stand" against extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, but he muddied that message as well and then he pre-negotiated with the Repubs, giving away most of his bargaining chips. Finally, he gave the Repubs more than they ever thought they would get, including keeping hedge fund earnings as capitial gains (15% tax rate) while actually increasing what the poorest earners had to pay.

Polls showed the public overwhelmingly wanted to let the Bush tax cuts on the rich lapse, and a majority wanted to let all the Bush tax cuts lapse rather than extend them for the rich. A few House Dems tried to get a bill passed, but not enough Senate Dems were supportive.


Obama is doing what he wants to get done. He is a conservative running for office under the Dems' banner.

And, with Obama in office, the Dems don't seem able to stand for what used to be clear Democratic Party principles. Wall Streeters managed to accomplish a leveraged buy out of the Dem Party when they provided the big, early money for Obama. With the assets of their principles stripped out, the party may well fail.

So, in short, no, our national politicians do not listen to what the people want. They do not work for the people, and the know where the reall money comes from which permits them to be elected. And they who pay the piper call the tunes.

Posted by: jawbone | May 25, 2011 8:40:30 AM | 8

If this story is true (and if false we will know soon), I hope it is at the tip of a prosperous powerful iceberg!

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m78029&hd=&size=1&l=e

Posted by: lambent1 | May 25, 2011 9:24:27 AM | 9

" How do people in the U.S. really think about this? And does their opinion matter?"

The U.S. citizens are not allowed debate on the issue, they're told what to think in our corporate media.

As to the second part of your question, jawbone @ 8, covered that quite well.

MB @ 5: Great video! Another opinion we'd never see in the mainstream corporate media. And we know the mindset in the U.S. today... If it's not on the TV, it never happened.

Posted by: ben | May 25, 2011 10:19:01 AM | 10

I view right-wing Israel as the teeth of the dog, rather than the tail wagging the dog.

AIPAC certainly has a pervasive and shameful influence on our policy, but it’s pervasive only because it serves the greedy ends of the US establishment. The US establishment is not allied with Israel because of Jewish influence or love for Jews. The Eretz-Israel folks (like the Gulf monarchs) are counted on to provide 'unsinkable aircraft carriers' for petro-security special interests.

If the US and its major allies are to consume the lion’s share of the world’s resources while half the world lives in squalor, they require gendarmes. It is regrettable but understandable that the Jewish state, representing a historically persecuted people, would assume this role.

Posted by: Watson | May 25, 2011 11:42:06 AM | 11

Western-style democracy is past its sell-date.

Nowhere is this more obvious than in the US.

The tradition of individualism, of personal relations (transactions between individuals rather than constituted groups of citizens), of ‘free markets’ (i.e. unleashing power relations, making bribery and co-optation official, and allowing certain dominant groups such as corporations the same rights as individuals), of a culture of reward + punishment, a penchant for story-telling, and, last but not least, the adulation for wealth, ownership, power over other's lives, gained thru individual endeavor, have all contributed to making a mockery of democracy.

Democracy has become a sleazy, sub-par, lower than B-serials, TV show.

The full flowering of the mentioned values (one might add others) is incompatible with a political arrangement where the majority opinion has some say, in a country of 300 million people with a staggering % on the bread lines, so to speak. The values might have been natural, productive, understandable, several hundred years ago, with much territory to conquer and exploit, as well as a population to kill off and the subsequent affordability of imported, indentured labor - black slaves.

Unfortunately, the powerful all over the world have latched on to similar values, memes, organizational / Gvmt. principles, etc. Or found re-affirmation, justification, etc. - another topic.

In some sense, what we are witnessing is a wish for return to a glorious past, a freer time, but now institutionally engineered in a complex bureaucratic structure, and a clumsy, ersatz political scheme that will *perish.* Traditionalist, sentimental, backward-looking, even hopeful in a way, for a small section of society, who believe that control will fix our world predicament.

Israel and Saudi both embody values and function according to exclusionary, hateful, repressive, controlling, exploiting, procedures. Despots, scammers, colonizers (Isr.), admired and sustained 100% by the superpower. All salute! Clap! Endorse!

Sadly, killing Palestinians or impoverishing poor whites in the US even more won't contibute to any positive outcome.

In my mind, all is linked to de-growth, the fact that ‘economic’ growth can no longer really continue, has not been ongoing, except in certain favored spots, constructed to demonstrate its continuing possibility.

We are all in an end-game scenario, so almighty intestinal aggro surfaces - the need to attack Lybia (nato), a backlash against illegal workers who actually contribute cheap labor that pays for (say) food stamps, a burgeoning hate of Muslims who control oil reserves, etc, etc.


Posted by: Noirette | May 25, 2011 12:30:48 PM | 12

Great post @ 12 Noirette.

Posted by: ben | May 25, 2011 1:56:15 PM | 13

noirette, the very great film maker, béla tarr, in his last extraordinary film, 'cheval du turin - the turin horse' arrives at the same conclusion. it is finished. the world, that is

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 25, 2011 3:51:46 PM | 14

Netanyahu yesterday was the beneficiary of all that American Jews would pay to get Israel out of their hair. Guilt is assuaged with gelt...but no more!

Unfortunately for Israel, Americans will stand with Obama because they realize that Republicans are paid sluts trying to entice them into the den of the corporate spiders out to drink their blood. By playing the fool for the Republicans Bibbi may have done himself some electoral good in Israel-- where everyone is scared of a crimp in the American welfare umbilical cord-- but he will be remembered as the shyster who sided with those who would cut Americans' Social Security and Medicare in order to give more tax cuts for the rich.

Israel is a dying lie, with 75% of World Jewry considering it a nice place to visit not to live. Zionists originally planned the Nile, Euphrates, Mediterranean and Jordan as Israel's borders. But lack of olims (2/# of Russian Jews went to America during the Soviet Jews Inc campaign hoping to populate Israel)is forcing them to settle on the West Bank and Gaza, for now. Too late, Palestinians are viewed as a people ready to let the Zionists who sacrilegiously abuse to Holocaust as raison d'etre by most of mankind. That is seen as generosity and to want the remaining 20% by a nuclear power claiming to be the "nation of the Jews" is a bit disgusting.

This time around the next generation of Palestinians, unlike their parents during the Nakba, are staying put and reproducing massively. The young Sabras are abandoning Israel for life in the West as soon as they graduate from Israel's wonderful universities. Son, Jews will be a majority and Arabs a majority-- a circumcised version of apartheid South Africa. Long in bed with the racist Afrikaners, Israel should know where this leads despite having nuclear weapons.

Netayahu stayed clear of issue: why should America give Israel some $10billions/yr? He knows that it is the other side of the Republican coin of: why give old people Social Security and Medicare. His speech is shortsighted chutzpah and how nervous he was testifies that he is not a stupid man.

He can still go the the UN this Fall and offer peace and full sci/tech advice and assistance to Israel's Arab cousins struggling to keep their Spring going. He could address a two peoples-one economy notion to the Palestinians, by now Israel's closest ties to the Middle East.

No, Bibbi needed to show dumb chutzpah to reassure his constituency that we're still "dumb goyim" that will gulp down his hasbara. That may be the beginning of the end for Israel, hence his sweaty underarms.

Posted by: DE Teodoru | May 25, 2011 4:27:45 PM | 15

DE Teoduro. Great comment

Posted by: Cloned Poster | May 25, 2011 4:39:57 PM | 16

It's always complicated - what the U.S. people are thinking. Or not. On the one hand I think there has been a significant erosion of (liberal elite) sympathy for the machinations of current Israel. Especially since post Lebanon invasion when most of the liberal types went silent when it came to criticizing Israel, and now even this group (like Josh Marshall) can no longer take the hypocrisy and are speaking out. On the other hand, throughout all U.S. political history, major political/social crises' are punctuated, if not defined with an outbreak of infectious nativism that sweeps the electorate. The No-Nothings pre-civil war, the KKK in the 20's, and recently, the tea bag phenomena - all of which indicate a surface symptom of something deeper gone awry.

Taken together, the neo-liberal fallout coupled with ongoing nativist (and erratic, unpredictable, and anti-other) reactionary forces on the right, could in the end leave Israel without a political pot to piss in. And while the reasoning behind these very different if not contradictory agenda's have nothing to do with each other, the net result for continued support of the Jewish state is the same. Less and less, as predictably as the congressional display of affections ratchets itself into a comic opera of the profane.

Posted by: anna missed | May 25, 2011 5:13:23 PM | 17

Very sad how the US Senate/House loves prefers all things Israeli, no matter how obnoxious. Zionism, mental disorder or criminal cult?

Posted by: nimitz | May 26, 2011 12:53:39 AM | 18

every each day the yanks keep outdoing themselves in turning the other cheek to their greatest debtor
http://www.countercurrents.org/hart110310.htm
then when they've collected their sense, the clowns took it out with their greatest creditor
http://tinyurl.com/672c6v6
must be something in their water....

Posted by: denk | May 26, 2011 3:22:59 AM | 19

i think we are being brainwashed. there's a great article by noura erakat Constructing the Prototypical Terrorist in America: Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian

mainstream media portrayals have worked to create a group that others and excludes Arabs and Muslims as menacing threats, intransigently foreign and disloyal—this process has not accounted for Israel’s centrality in the construction of an insider American identity. The US’s long-standing relationship to Israel may have begun as a strategic choice at the height of the Cold War and the ascent of Pan-Arab nationalism, but it has come to constitute a pillar of US identity. The US political establishment- its legislature, executive branch, and judiciary- works in concert to construct the national boundaries that include Israel and exclude those critical of the State and its policies. In light of this, the prototypical terrorist is not only Arab and Muslim, as would be the case in an examination of US-domestic policy only, but also Palestinian. Palestinian in this context meaning all actors posing a threat to Israel regardless of ethnic and national distinctions.

....

The lawmakers’ choice of language and tone both reflects Israel’s insider status and works to construct its critics as threats to US national security. While the description of Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East, works to distinguish Israel from its authoritarian counterparts, it also acts as a marker that others Israel’s Arab and Muslim neighbors. Their written and oral statements condemn the US President in defense of a foreign state; describe their relationship to Israel as moral; describe the US as Israel’s guardian; and affirm the immutability of the US’s relationship to Israel irrespective of circumstances. This behavior is more reflective of a family dispute than a diplomatic affair and works to reify the boundaries circumscribing American national identity wherein Israel enjoys the privileges of inclusion.

i rec the whole thing

Posted by: annie | May 26, 2011 4:13:24 PM | 20

Agree 100% Annie, good link.

Funny thing is about the "Arab Spring Bullshit", US of Fucking A would have "Westernised all of the Arab World" after 9/11, but, with the money wasted on Afghanistan, Iraq, that is not now possible, but they are printing money for a "double down" in Libya.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | May 26, 2011 4:20:26 PM | 21

thanks cp

hey, i'm in the middle of reading a dkos diary from yesterday which is very instructive wrt a majority reaction of dems to the disgraceful kowtowing to bib yesterday. especially check out the updated section

there's a well greased zionist element at the site calling themselves 'team shalom'. they really make an effort reeling in the criticism of israel but there are just a few of them and they are not managing the groundswell of anger too well.

the diary made the rec list and has over 500 comments. seems the overriding theme does not reflect well on israel and there is nothing 'fringe' about this site, it is very moderate as i am sure most of you know. check it out.

Posted by: annie | May 26, 2011 4:58:36 PM | 22

Jews became respectable ‘semites’ in the US at some point during the Cold War when the split between USSR supported Arab states that had nationalist and communist/socialist slants and the US supporting others became very acute. That is from the political end.

Plucky Israel was of course supported to the HILT by first the Brits and then the taker over US. Israel for Americans until recently represented a narrative of dire oppression (Holocaust, so named well afterwards) followed by conquering territory by wiping out natives, a distillation of US history in miniature, with the enemy being a long established one, Arabs (no longer Jews but now Jihadists, Islamists, etc.) who hold resources, lands, and have a culture that is well - different.

--short version--

Posted by: Noirette | May 27, 2011 11:10:18 AM | 23

The comments to this entry are closed.