I am very happy to hear the pipeline is at best delayed for a while Lefty.
But I ain't holding my breath that Obama is standing up to Israel.
The Jewish lobby is too strong. But we will see soon enough.

It's time someone made it clear that they are not the center of the universe, and we have other problems beside them whining all the time. We are and will always be strong allies, why do we have to keep proving it to the Israel's, not the rest of the world.

I have always wondered at the Israeli clout. What do they have on us that could possibly be relevant enough to keep our politicians dancing?

Three things right --- Tink has announced his run for the White House today!! ON A CANADIAN WEBSITE!! Even better, I know!! ;D

I'M SO TAKING MITT AND OBAMA DOWN!! WOOO! JERRY! JERRY!!

(I'd post the link but when I try, Open deletes the comment!! ~:D)

Phyllis, first American Jews contribute significantly more money per capita than just about any American interest group. If you want to study the "why" of disproportionate Israeli influence, I strongly recommend that you read Mearscheimer & Walt's book, THE ISRAEL LOBBY.

President Tink? Certainly much better than any Republican, and probably at least 100% better than a President Obama in thrall to the financial interests. You've got my vote!

Good news indeed and a well-delivered backgrounder.

Truthfully, even a nuclear armed Iran isn't the threat everyone thinks it is. (Unless you are Saudi Arabia-they might have cause for concern)

I still think that even with U.S. heel dragging, Israel might still go for an attack on Iran. I hope I'm wrong, but if they pull the trigger we are obligated to help them.

It's my understanding that the vast majority of generals in the Pentagon opposed either a US or Israeli invasion of Iran. Under the Bush administration, Donald Rumsfeld got away with running his own private military/security operation. Obama doesn't have that kind of support, either from Big Oil or the defense contractors. His main backers are Wall Street banks.

I hadn't caught the Israel story which is remarkably good news. Didn't Santorum and one other Repub (Perry?) let on they were itching to bomb Iran? Being a bit jaded in my dotage, I'm disinclined to optimism but it's great to see the occasional outbreak of sanity.

I had to read this -- good news??! And so it was. Two more reasons to keep the disappointing and hopelessly compromised Obama in office for another term.

♥╔═══╦╗╔╗╔╦═══╦═══╦════╗♥
♥║╔═╗║║║║║║╔══╣╔══╣╔╗╔╗║♥
♥║╚══╣║║║║║╚══╣╚══╬╝║║╚╝♥
♥╚══╗║╚╝╚╝║╔══╣╔══╝─║║
♥║╚═╝╠╗╔╗╔╣╚══╣╚══╗─║║
♥╚═══╝╚╝╚╝╚═══╩═══╝─╚For helping us understand a little bit more.

While Romney would be almost as good for The Professional Comics and Pundits Collaborative as Ford or BushII, don't waste money on paying your dues just yet. Corporate America knows it does better under Democrats than Republicans, despite the Right Wingnuts fascist way; Corporate America knows what it needs more than a compliant Joe Friday in DC is a lot of fat wallets in suburbia. They blew that with the Bushes, and I doubt they'll make that mistake again.

This may be good news for the world, but it isn't good news for Obama's re-election chances. You can bet John "Bomb-Bomb-Iran" McCain and other Neo-Con hawks will be traitorously using this information to try and swing the vote -- and campaign contributions -- of American Jews from Obama to Mittmormon.

"The last time that former JCOS commander Mike Mullen visited Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, he quietly told the Israelis that if they ever did a repeat of the unprovoked bombing of a USS Liberty (as they did in 1967), the US wouldn't blink an eye to launch bombers against the guilty Israeli military bases. "

I can't even begin to describe how heartwarming this news is. Israel has become more like a spoiled teenager than a solid dependable ally. They needed a bit of ass whipping.

I'm not really back to OS, I'm just essentially visiting. I have more stuff to do before I come back for real.

I think you're seriously misreading the current state of the pro-Israel lobby. The Netanyahu government's staunchest supporters aren't in the Jewish community, they're in the Christian Right. The majority of America's Jews are liberal, the Netanyahu government is anything but. The Christian Right likes the hard line stuff, partially because they think what's going on over there lines up with prophesy, partially because they think the Muslims are out to get us and they think of Israel as a civilized bulwark against the Muslim Terrorist Hordes.

In terms of insuring Israel's survival, the pro-Israel lobby is a combination of the American Jewish community and the Christian Right, a combination that is pretty much unbeatable because it covers the most insistent voices on both ends of the political spectrum. In terms of toeing the line on Netanyahu's policy priorities, the Jewish community here is far from unified. See almost anything by J Street. Or, for that matter, see the most visible Zionists on OS, two examples being Jonathan Wolfman and me, and neither of us likes Netanyahu's policies. I think you'd get similar answers from Sally Swift and possibly even Traveler.

Why would Mike Mullen bother to tell the Israelis not to repeat something they allegedly (probably) did nearly half a century ago?
(Just for the Hell of it, I'll mention that if the USS Liberty had seen Israeli jets over the Mediterranean and anyone in the American chain of command warned the Egyptians, Israel probably would not exist as we know it today. I have no idea what the risk of that would have been without President Johnson's approval but I think it could easily have happened. That surprise air strike on Egyptian airfields coming from the West rather than the expected East is what took the Egyptian Air Force out of the war and what enabled the highly outnumbered Israelis to survive in 1967 based on controlling the skies. I would further theorize, based on nothing in particular, that the reason the US never made a bigger issue out of the Liberty is that someone in the White House figured out that the Pentagon couldn't reliably be counted on not to leak the information to some friend or other in the Egyptian military. Israel was not considered to be the dominant military power in the region in 1967 - the speed of Israel's victory was an enormous international shock.)

I'm as happy as you are about Keystone. Contrary to what you might think, I'm also happy if you're right about Mullen. As I said, I don't like the current regime at all. Traditionally, the biggest obstacle to peace has been the Arabs, not the Israelis. Though that's still true in the sense that Hamas in Gaza is absolutely the biggest obstacle to peace, I'm not willing to guarantee that the Fatah leadership on the West Bank is a bigger obstacle than the Netanyahu government. Frankly, I haven't really seen that before.

kosher, as usual, you are one of the most thoughtful people on Open Salon. I think your analysis about AIPAC and American Jews is spot on. As to the USS Liberty, this incident more than anything highlights the double standard that the United States government has towards Israel and every other country. Contrast the Liberty incident, for example, with the USS Pueblo and the North Koreans.

To me, the fact that Mike Mullen told the Israelis what for about the Liberty is a small compensation. The continued and growing occupation of Palestinian lands by Israeli real estate developers continues unabated with virtually no pressure from the US, despite Israel's violation of Oslo, UN accords, and international laws.

The very fact that the Netanyahu government is so reprehensible means that the US position towards Israel IS gradually evolving. Certainly American Jews' positions towards Israel have moved in the last few years.

I, for one, would love to see the kind of relationship that the US had with Israel under the Eisenhower or even Bush II and Reagan administrations. Bush II and Obama have not been even-handed enough in dealing with Israel, and this is to our disadvantage. But as they say about the justice process, America's foreign policy changes towards Israel grind very slowly, but exceedingly fine.

I will agree that I don't like what Israel is doing on the West Bank at all, for one thing because I think it's massively counterproductive. The best way to undermine Hamas is to make Fatah preferable to the Palestinians, but it is Fatah that bears all the brunt of the West Bank crap.

Having said that, for reasons in my last comment I don't think the Liberty and Pueblo are comparable at all. North Korea's survival was never in question. In 1967, Nasser was talking about throwing the Jews out of Israel, was massing troops, and had recently closed off the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba, sealing off access from Eilat to the Indian Ocean, in an illegal and aggressive act. The last serious military clash with Israel had been in 1956, eleven years earlier. Nasser's government was keeping the population of what was then called the Gaza Strip in refugee camps, not wanting them to be really settled because he wanted them angry at Israel, and he'd kept them in those camps for nineteen years, as the Jordanians were doing with the population of the West Bank. The Soviets were still very much an international factor and they were anything but pro-Israel, in spite of the fact that the USSR had recognized Israel in 1948. The Arab states were fairly well armed and had a much larger population than Israel.

Against this backdrop, the Israelis figured out that the only way they had a shot at survival was to control the air. The Arab air force that constituted the greatest threat, particularly numerically, was the Egyptian air force. The Israelis came up with a plan: The Eqyptians would be looking for an air attack from the east, from the direction of Israel. Instead, the Israeli air force went out over the Mediterranean, flew west, then turned south near the Libyan border, crossed into Egypt and approached from the west in two passes. The first was to crater Egyptian military airfields so their jets couldn't take off. The second was to bomb the sitting aircraft themselves. This worked. It's how Israel survived, giving them time first to push the Syrians out of the Golan Heights (from which they could see all the way across Israel to the Mediterranean, then to turn their attention to Egypt and push the farther away but larger force back. Because of air support, the Israelis won the war in under a week. Please keep in mind that the consequences of losing any war over there are completely asymmetrical - if the Arab countries lose, they keep their governments, they keep most of their land, they keep their populations; if Israel loses, Israel ceases to exist as Israel.

So the Israeli jets fly over the Mediterranean and encounter, apparently, the Liberty, bristling with antennae and collecting intelligence. If information from the Liberty gets to the Pentagon in real time and one colonel places a phone call to a friend in the Egyptian military, Israel's existence is in question. In 1967, this was not an exaggeration. I don't think Israel had nukes yet.

I don't know what Mossad knew in 1967 and I don't know what relations looked like between anyone in the Pentagon and anyone in Egypt in 1967. This all assumes, of course, that Israel was sure that the Liberty was actually American and that no one else was flying American colors as a deceptive act leading up to war. I don't know, I'm not familiar with more recent research on the Liberty episode, and I imagine that a lot of that is probably classified on both sides because it's still sensitive. We have to assume something was up for one simple reason:

How many reasons could the Israelis have conceivably had for sinking an American ship?

Keep in mind that back then the Israelis were nowhere near as bullheaded and blatantly stupid as more recent Israeli administrations have proven to be.

Don't equate the Liberty and the Pueblo. Israel was NEVER North Korea, not in any respect.

I've always heard that the Liberty attack was either:

a. Mistaken identity

b. Black flag op

or

c. Intentional, to prevent intel from getting to the Egyptians. If its b or c, thats not cool. Option "a" is a gross accident and the most politically acceptable.

B or C, if proven, would seriously damage US-Israeli relations, if substantial info ever came out proving either b or c

Rw,
What would a Black Flag op be?

I suspect that both nations have known the truth for decades, but only in circles with access to classified information. It wouldn't hurt relations because of the amount of time elapsed.

My guess is that there were internal disagreements on both sides in 1967: Americans who favored the Arabs because of a combination of oil and antisemitism and Israelis who would have risked the Liberty passing intelligence to Egypt. I doubt the Israelis had much time to decide

Regardless, as an American, my principle loyalties are to the US and its servicemen, if and when they are attacked by a foreign nation, whatever that nation's justification is. I'm sure you understand.

Which is why, for me, if the truth ever came out, and it is shown that Israel did, in fact do it, they should pay reparations to the families of the deceased.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Wiki says Israel paid reparations to the families of the deceased.

That settles it.

The case is closed. We should commence with the diplomacy.

That said, the shouldn't do that again, regardless.

Allies don't sink ships and ask questions later, especially if its the ship of a friend.

Of course they shouldn't do it again.

Let me make something quite clear:
Though Israel consists primarily of what I might, for lack of a better term, refer to as my tribesmen, from a national standpoint I am an American, not an Israeli. Of course it shouldn't happen again. I can't imagine it would; the circumstances that led to that event are so weird they'd be almost impossible to replicate. For one thing, I think the decision had to be made extremely quickly, with no time to hash it out and a literal risk of not surviving as a nation if they guessed wrong. Under current circumstances, as American and Israeli priorities have often diverged, I side with my own nation, which is the United States. I do not approve of how the current Israeli leadership treats America's leadership. I find it insulting, counterproductive, and just wrong.

You'll notice, for example, that I don't spend time on OS defending Jonathan Pollard. I cannot imagine consenting to spy on my own nation for anyone.

I think if the UN sponsored 3 competing Abrahamic amusement parks in the middle east, one of each persuasion, and had them connected via a monorail, all the problems would be solved.

8)

The UN couldn't run it to save their lives. But Disney could.

Of course it shouldn't happen again but, assuming c., that it did is a different example of the classic lifeboat problem, 'do we sacrifice one (or a few) to preserve the many.'

During the Vietnam way, I was, for three months, the tent-mate of a former Special Forces captain who was the subject by name of a book chapter for having shot three captives.

His explanation to me was that he did it because his team of 50 was out in the woods, days from recovery, the captives couldn't/ wouldn't keep up and they had vital information about the size of his group, etc. Whatever his ethical and moral feelings about shooting them, his responsibility was to preserve his men.

and that's how dilemmas work

♥╔═══╦╗╔╗╔╦═══╦═══╦════╗♥
♥║╔═╗║║║║║║╔══╣╔══╣╔╗╔╗║♥
♥║╚══╣║║║║║╚══╣╚══╬╝║║╚╝♥
♥╚══╗║╚╝╚╝║╔══╣╔══╝─║║
♥║╚═╝╠╗╔╗╔╣╚══╣╚══╗─║║
♥╚═══╝╚╝╚╝╚═══╩═══╝─╚for piping up about this...

I share your concerns. I fear that a Republican president will once again unleash the dogs of war to prove his machismo and to curry favor with the Israel lobby.