Ed, sorry, but I’m an American. Have family in Israel, but my immediate family and grandparents on both sides are here. If I were a dual citizen I could vote in both countries but I’m not. FYI anyone in their right mind who cares about Israel and its longterm survival, along with a second Palestinian state, knows that the settlements have got to go. (And also that it would be insane, a disaster, to attack Iran.) Sure, it’s hard to let go of the idea that Judea is where the very designation “Jew” comes from—but it’s also hard for Palestinians to be separated from old Jaffa. If you weren’t such a freakin’ bigot you would understand and maybe do what little you could make it easier for the Israelis and Palestinians to separate. Amos Oz writes that it is immoral to not emphasize with the Other. It is rather frightening to see have limited your empathy, if it actually exists, is.

Fadel, you’re right, plagiarism is a huge (and too frequent) problem in academia and popular writing as well. It’s not a crime for Presidents because like CEOs and other busy influential people they frequently avail themselves of ghostwriters or coauthors in book-length works, and staffers who serve the same purposes for shorter statements, speeches, position papers etc. I’ve been both a ghostwriter, speechwriter and, on the other side, editor of a historical magazine in which, over a period of 15 years, we had two instances of plagiarism, one of which I caught and one I missed that was published but someone else noticed it, which was embarrassing.

One thing makes it difficult to prosecute plagiarism successfully: the law is that you can patent or protect specific wording, but not the idea. In fact, if a plagiarist merely changes a few words he or she is home free. (Intellectual and scientific patent law are different.) I was the victim of plagiarism once. A well-known magazine writer interested in the concept of privacy rights came to the Freedom of Information Center, where I’d just spent over a year doing research on aspects of personal privacy and published a 50-page whitepaper for distribution to our journalist/scholar clients. He read it and asked me if he could use some of the information. I said sure, if he gave the Center a donation and credit for the report, as we needed the money to continue our work. So one day someone came running in with an issue of a popular magazine of ideas and said “Look! It’s your paper!” It was, indeed, but it had a different title, the famous writer’s name as author, a different two-paragraph introduction then the whole thing, word for word. At the bottom was a footnote saying that among other sources he was indebted to research data at the FoI Center. There was nothing I could do about it, and while momentarily upset I finally decided that the message itself was important and this guy had gotten it a lot more publicity than it would have otherwise received. 

In the case of smart presidents like FDR, JFK and (I am hoping) Obama, they surrounded themselves with welll-informed intellectuals and speech writers who also were allowed to offer ideas along with the rest of the staff. The chief would listen to all of it, put down his own ideas, then hand the result to his best speechwriter (who also had to understand his style of speaking). When the finished product was handed back to the President, or whoever, he would sit down with it and maybe stay up all night making his own changes. No one really knew what he was going to say until he said it. I’ll bet Obama did something like that. The words were right; we’ll see what he actually does.

Re: By Sepharad, June 4 at 7:19 pm:

Sepharad writes: “This speech of Obama’s has made me feel better about having voted for him….”

Oh, really, Sepharad?

Um, does it bother anybody else here that people like Sepharad get to vote in US elections? Does this bother anybody else but me, given that Sepharad is obviously Israeli and primarily loyal to Israel, a country which has a stranglehold on US foreign policy, a country whose lobby is so powerful in the US that it doesn’t even have to register as a foreign lobby or abide by the restrictions placed on all other foreign lobbies in the US?

Sepharad, dear: given the massive financial largesse, military aid, diplomatic cover, and other special privileges that the US lavishes on Israel, given all the wars we fight and threaten to fight for your grandiose notion of Israel’s “security”, I think all Americans should be able to vote in Israeli elections. Until we can, you really should have the good grace to keep your royal chosen nose out of our elections.

Inherit the Wind, Despite the portrayals by The Contingent, like you I do not want a Greater Judea but a safe and secure Israel and a safe and secure Palestine. Also agree that the Palestinians have to realize they will then be under Palestinian law, not Israeli. The only kind thing I can think of to say about the settlers is that some of them are having very large families to offset the Palestinian womb weapon Arafat bragged about. But even that is crazy—poor old earth can barely manage the population it has now, and does not need hostile tribes competing in who-can-outbreed-who marathons.

Unlike yourself, I still don’t like much that Patrick Henry writes, or maybe it’s just the way he writes. But this time he did offer a couple of accurate observations. Gotta give the devil his due.

Folktruther, while I agree that the settlements are obstacles to any lasting peace (assuming anyone besides the Israelis are really interested in peace, and I am optimistic enough to think that there are indeed some Arabs and Persians who do want to coexist), I’m also realistic enough—and thought you were too—to see that the magnitude of the President’s wanting to open an honest dialogue with the entire Moslem world also involves accomplishing what he wants to in Afghanistan and Pakistan and leaving Iraq in a reasonably stable condition. We’re stretched very thin now, our economy is falling apart, our nationwide healthcare options lie panting on the floor, our military spending is appalling and we have deficits in the trillions. All this affects what it is possible for us to do. Relative to all the rest, moving the Israelis and Palestinians toward two states is not that expensive but it will require sustained focus over an extended period, and Obama has a lot on his plate. This speech was a good start, but he and his staff have to make sure they delegate the right people to push it in the direction Obama wants it to go. For anyone who cares about Israel, particularly given the present government there, Obama’s policies on settlements and re Iran are precisely what is needed. As far as I’m concerned, this speech is the first time he’s come through on the big promises he made during his campaign.

War is not “progressive” in the righteous liberal definition of that word but historically it’s often brought advances in cultures and technology. I’m no great admirer of the Romans, but their influence improved some of the barbaric cultures they in overwhelmed, as in Gaul(though they also partly destroyed superior cultures such as the Greeks and the Jews). The North Africans and Arabs who invaded Visagothic southern Spain usually created an environment in which intellectual and cultural pursuits blossomed. You’re very adept at twisting words and ideas, but you might learn something from Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel”.

Strangely (I promise with no intent), I awoke at 2:57 am PDT (pretty damn tired). Flipped on the tube to hear CNN personnel working into a lather over upcoming “address” to the universe. What the f!? Cairo? Mubarak? THAT Egypt?

(Meanwhile, and one cannot let these things pass, Mr. Independent has lately taken to citing Pravda regarding America’s turn to… “Marxism.” So Lou has been claiming of old Pravda. Finally, Lou and Pravda back together again. Evidently, neither ever having encountered Marx in any way, shape or form. While over at cable Peacock, kids have been busy using “Boss” Limbaugh as a backstop. One would think that were it not for Rush, we’d all be politically sane. Keith has officially retired “Orally” for the sake of humanity, or whatever. While Maddow seems to have determined that the FBI was in league with killer of Tiller. Or maybe not? Who really knows? But I thought there were conspiracy nuts here!)

The President started off well, but then like MacArthur faded away. Though—as always—eloquent in doing so. (I almost fell back asleep, but alas…not so easy, self). Candy,  who’s actually long been trying to “break on through,” was on hand along with Christiaaaane of Amanpour celeb. Crowley was more to the point as Amanpour tried to keep up. Jet lag? Christiane has done excellent work in the past and will again. Not so much this morning.

Apparently, or rather reportedly, the entire Middle East fell all over itself, unless one happened actually to observe occasion. The President did get applause and then the most lackadaisical standing ovation since Streisand last performed for the last time.

How can one take this stuff seriously? Though I do recall one occasion when Obama sorta mentioned that income disparity is a reality. Otherwise, usual suspect: discrimination by ways of race, gender, religion, nationality, etc., etc., etc. He never mentioned sexual orientation. I suppose not too surprisingly under circumstances of locale. The Middle East not exactly home to tolerance that way!

But okay. Many fine references to history concerning contributions to advances in civilization thanks to Arabian culture during European Dark Ages and Islam more broadly. All historically accurate.

(Could one possibly do worse than did Bush?)

We got “just war” talk too, piled in with talk of how violence never works. (Except, I guess and at least, on occasion colonialists took up arms in order to rid themselves of the British. There was mention of American Revolution, just not of violence that was part and parcel. Which does not mean I don’t personally agree with Zinn that such violence was maybe not necessary at the time.)

Naturally, Palestinians were instructed—ho-hum—yet again that they must renounce violence. Recent warring on both Lebanon and Gaza by Israel was not mentioned. Maddow was just marveling over the fact the President alluded to U.S. commiseration in disposing of Mossadegh. Okay, but SIXTY years back! WOW! Is that indication that circa 2070, President and mainstream will finally get to mentioning that Israelis did slightly more than stumble into Palestine?

There was talk of how people are created equal and so forth. No mention of how even were that true—which it’s not—it matters more where is the starting line. Usual bunk to do with equal opportunity, though curious feint acknowledging that not all get there. Haha, REALLY, Mr. President? Who knew!? And why not? Well, ya know…

Anyhoo, don’t look for Bibi to take a day off during which settlers skedaddle. Motivated to do so by recent speech of peace ‘n love. Especially not when the U.S. remains in Iraq and on the extremely violent attack, which continues to result in deaths of “innocents” across Afghanistan and into Pakistan.

But you know…that’s that while this is this. See? There’s power that is product of merit and wealth, and then there’s everyone and everything else.

rhetoric is rhetoric - good speech, great speech.
why egypt - they torture, have an authoritarian government, no free speech or right of assembly, guess you can count on a “good audience”.
Going to saudi arabia, another bastion of freedom, equality, (oops - forgot they have the oil sorry) guess we still need them.
Back to the speech - I am certain it was vetted through aipac,
hell you get israel’s defense minister in dc selling settlements in the west bank - a balanced approach to obama selling western corporatism to the muslims
defense minister barak here with the christians
president barack there with the muslims…. you can’t make this stuff up.

why not go to pakistan and give a speech to the villagers whose homes, families are destroyed for a generation, because 9/11.  and we argue if it was a good speech. fine it was the best speech the world ever heard.
dead in darfur
dead in pakistan
dead in iraq
dead in china
dead in columbia
dead in guatemala
dead in congo
dead in…........
great speech

PatrickHenry, June 4 at 8:08 pm #

Good thing Obama doesn’t need the congress to cut of funding (sanction) to Israel as most of our senators and representatives are owned.  I wonder how long it will be till they are told to sqwalk by AIPAC
*********************************************

PatrickHenry: I usually can’t stand anything you write, but other than the last sentence I’m pretty much in full agreement with you.  I fully agree that the settlements ARE a major road-block, and, not only must be stopped but must be removed.  Unless, of course, they understand that when Palestine becomes a proper state, Israel’s neighbor, they will be in Palestine, under Palestine law, not Israeli law.

Despite how I’m depicted here, I am NOT an advocate of Israel controlling Greater Judea.  I only want a state that’s safe and secure that can build strong and healthy economic ties with all its bordering neighbors.

I see the West Bank settlements as a barrier to that peace.  Therefore, logically, they must go. That means either they are abandoned by their occupants or turned over to Palestine.

From a rhetorical point of view, this speech is indeed a masterpiece. I am sure many speech writers have been working on writing and editing several drafts of this speech for a long time!

One thing about presidential speeches I abhor most is the fact that they are the work of one or more speech writers for which the president alone takes full credit and assumes full authorship, without even acknowledging the contributions of the speech writers. I believe that, as a basic rule of honesty, all the authors of presidential speeches should be listed, and that the speeches should be preserved in national archives with all the names of the contributors.

In academic circles, if one claims someone’s else effort as his own, or even quotes directly from a source without acknowledging it it’s called “plagiarism” and it’s a cause for big scandal and disgrace, and normally leads to to one’s losing his job and integrity. My question is, “Why aren’t these rules applied to presidents?”

Putting this issue aside, I am sadly reminded how often in the history of mankind there were noble, beautiful and powerful words that have met the disgraced fate of not being elevated to the levels of actions and deeds to match these words. I am afraid that Obama’s words are such examples!

From Robert’s Counterpunch link;

“Israel uses the Holocaust to conjure the specter of a timeless existential peril, in turn used to justify its warfare state and unbending diplomacy.”

Ånd the U.S., again confirmed by Obama today, uses 9/11 to look backward (when it suits him) and use the *attack* to justify the escalation of diablolical wars and senseless killing and maiming in the ME and S Asia.

Åt what point does terrorism become an “existential peril” to be used for generations to come, no matter who’s in office? 

We may have already reached that point.

June 4, 2009

The Future of Israel and the Decline of the American Empire

The Wages of Hubris and Vengeance

By ARNO J. MAYER

“Israel is in the grip of a kind of collective schizophrenia. Not only its governors but the majority of its Jewish population have delusions of both grandeur and persecution, making for a distortion of reality and inconsistent behavior. Israeli Jews see and represent themselves as a chosen people and part of a superior Western civilization. They consider themselves more cerebral, reasonable, moral, and dynamic than Arabs and Muslims generally, and Palestinians in particular. At the same time they feel themselves to be the ultimate incarnation of the Jewish people’s unique suffering through the ages, still subject to constant insecurity and defenselessness in the face of ever-threatening extreme and unmerited punishment.

Such a psyche leads to hubris and vengefulness, the latter a response to the perpetual Jewish torment said to have culminated, as if by a directive purpose, in the Holocaust. Remembering the Shoah is Israel’s Eleventh Commandment and central to the nation’s civil religion and Weltanschauung. Family, school, synagogue, and official culture propagate its prescriptive narrative, decontextualized and surfeited with ethnocentrism. The re-memorizing of victimization is ritualized on Yom Ha Shoah and institutionalized by Yad Vashem.

Israel uses the Holocaust to conjure the specter of a timeless existential peril, in turn used to justify its warfare state and unbending diplomacy. Forever posing as the impossibly vulnerable Biblical David braving the Islamic Goliath, Israel insists all its cross-border wars and punitive operations are strictly defensive, preventive, or preemptive. Yet its leaders, many of them retired senior officers of the armed forces and intelligence services, attribute the exploits of the military to the advanced weapons, exemplary strategists, and uniquely principled citizen soldiers of the country’s formidable “Defense Forces,” one of the world’s mightiest fighting machines.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/mayer06042009.html

PatrickHenry- you deeply disappont me.  If you can be deceived so easily, the American people have a long way to go.  Stating that the US doesn’t accept the legitmacy of CONTINUED settlements implies in diplomatic language that the US does accept the letimancy of past ones.  Obama did not mention the aprtheid wall, the Gaza starvation blockade, and appantently now has five bases in Israel.  Obama is essentially continuing the Bushite policy of the rebranded Roadmap to Peace while continuing war and ethnic cleansing.

Sepharad is not so naive.  She considers war progressive and is against the US pressuring Israel until ‘we have solved our domestic problems’, i.e. never.  Like Obama, she is in favor of ethnic cleansing while making all the right rhetorical noises.  The anti-zionists have to develop an equally realistic understanding.  Apparently we have a long way to go.

Flowed for me.  What made the speech great is that a U.S. President recognized and condemned the 1000lb gorilla in the room, Israel. 

“The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.  This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace.  It is time for these settlements to stop.”

The Israeli terrorist settlers who cause havoc on occupied lands were called out.  They demonstrate that Israel as a country does not negotiate in good faith and does not keep its word in its agreements again and again.

Good thing Obama doesn’t need the congress to cut of funding (sanction) to Israel as most of our senators and representatives are owned.  I wonder how long it will be till they are told to sqwalk by AIPAC

I have yet to be persuaded that Afghanistan isn’t an illegal war, and that Iran doesn’t have as much right to nuclear weapons as the U.S. (which, of course, is the only nation to use them).

This speech of Obama’s has made me feel better about having voted for him. Mostly excellent and mostly truthful. But I don’t see how the U.S. can participate in bringing this all about until our own country is more solvent and our own people have jobs and everyone has the health care they need ... or at least until we are well on our way to achieving these things at home, which we are not.

PatrickHenry, June 4 at 6:03 pm #

It will take years to unfuck this country from the past administration.
*****************************************

If by great you mean brave, then yes, it was a great speech.  There are sections that don’t make a lot of sense and just don’t flow

But on differing Moslem terrorists from the vast population of peaceful Moslems, of emphasizing similarities over differences, of recognizing there needs to be a state of Palestine, settlement building must stop, and mostly recognizing publicly how badly Botch phugged up in the name of the USA, it was a great speech.

In this speech obama claimed, america’s war in afghanistan is not a war of choice.  However, jimmy carter in 1979 was very determined to make of afghanistan russia’s vietnam, funding and building-up the taliban and others, supplying them with weapons, et cetera; ronald reagan was no better.  I’d say that was very much a matter of choice, and not a requirement.

It was a great speech, long overdue from the leader of the free world.

It will take years to unfuck this country from the past administration.

Robert, the report is amazing, thanks for it.

“That false and misleading charge from an intelligence official of a foreign country, who was not identified but was clearly Israeli”

I just read the speech.  It’s the same speech of hope and change that he gave here -you, know, the one that got him elected?  Look how well that’s worked out here.  This same speech was directed at the Muslim world and I doubt many will fall for it for long.

Rah rah Israel and he won’t even visit Hamas.

The man needs more sides of his mouth to speak out of, especially when he said this:

*****************

“There’s one rule that lies at the heart of every religion—that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

The Holy Koran tells us:  “O mankind!  We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us:  “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us:  “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”  (Applause.)
********************

We are now killing people in 4 wars.  So much for peacemaking.  And Af-Pak and Balochistan are his wars, not bush’s.  Maybe he’s hoping we’ll think Åf-Pak is only one war in one country. Ånd Israel does everything but promote peace.

“When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience.” (no mention of Gaza)

He loves to talk about moving forward while mentioning 9/11 and he really loves talking about justice, while bushco runs free.

“And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.”  Blech!  His first sworn duty is the protect and defend the Constitution.  I wish s/o would remind him of that.

Other than that, it was an OK speech, if you like soaring rhetoric and long-winded promises.

It’s what he didn’t say that shouts so loudly. Does he think we’re all stupid?

Blah blah blah.  Und so weiter.

Report Ties Dubious Iran Nuclear Docs to Israel

Analysis by Gareth Porter

June 04, 2009—WASHINGTON, Jun 3 (IPS) -“A report on Iran’s nuclear programme issued by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month generated news stories publicising an incendiary charge that U.S. intelligence is underestimating Iran’s progress in designing a “nuclear warhead” before the halt in nuclear weapons-related research in 2003.

That false and misleading charge from an intelligence official of a foreign country, who was not identified but was clearly Israeli, reinforces two of Israel’s key propaganda themes on Iran – that the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran is wrong, and that Tehran is poised to build nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

But it also provides new evidence that Israeli intelligence was the source of the collection of intelligence documents which have been used to accuse Iran of hiding nuclear weapons research.

The Committee report, dated May 4, cited unnamed “foreign analysts” as claiming intelligence that Iran ended its nuclear weapons-related work in 2003 because it had mastered the design and tested components of a nuclear weapon and thus didn’t need to work on it further until it had produced enough sufficient material.

That conclusion, which implies that Iran has already decided to build nuclear weapons, contradicts both the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, and current intelligence analysis. The NIE concluded that Iran had ended nuclear weapons-related work in 2003 because of increased international scrutiny, and that it was “less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005”.

The report included what appears to be a spectacular revelation from “a senior allied intelligence official” that a collection of intelligence documents supposedly obtained by U.S. intelligence in 2004 from an Iranian laptop computer includes “blueprints for a nuclear warhead”.

It quotes the unnamed official as saying that the blueprints “precisely matched” similar blueprints the official’s own agency “had obtained from other sources inside Iran”.

No U.S. or IAEA official has ever claimed that the so-called laptop documents included designs for a “nuclear warhead”. The detailed list in a May 26, 2008 IAEA report of the contents of what have been called the “alleged studies” – intelligence documents on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons work — made no mention of any such blueprints.

In using the phrase “blueprints for a nuclear warhead”, the unnamed official was evidently seeking to conflate blueprints for the reentry vehicle of the Iranian Shehab missile, which were among the alleged Iranian documents, with blueprints for nuclear weapons.

When New York Times reporters William J. Broad and David E. Sanger used the term “nuclear warhead” to refer to a reentry vehicle in a Nov. 13, 2005 story on the intelligence documents on the Iranian nuclear programme, it brought sharp criticism from David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security.

“This distinction is not minor,” Albright observed, “and Broad should understand the differences between the two objects, particularly when the information does not contain any words such as nuclear or nuclear warhead.”

The Senate report does not identify the country for which the analyst in question works, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff refused to respond to questions about the report from IPS, including the reason why the report concealed the identity of the country for which the unidentified “senior allied intelligence official” works.”

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22765.htm

Obama said: “...And any nation—including Iran—should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I’m hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.”

He implied, but failed quite to say, that Iran has the right to enrich uranium. He needs to say that, clearly. He needs to slap Israel’s face, hard, on this.

The subjext of this speech is very depressing.  It continues the Bushtie War on Terrorims with a greater effort at US propaganda in Muslim countries. With no change in Israeli-Palestinian relations, and an expansion of the Afpak war.  It certainly is not going to fool the Muslim street for long, but may have an effect on the Lebanon election on June 7.

And may help delude the politically unsophisticated American people.

From accounts I’ve read, it appears that Obama endorsed Iran’s right to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but apparently he did not explicitly say that this includes the right to enrich uranium (as opposed to being dependent on importing enriched uranium).

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty explicitly says that signatory countries have the right to conduct enrichment of uranium, but Israel demands that Iran must not be allowed to do this, even under a regime of constant IAEA inspections. Israel wants the US to force Iran to stop all enrichment actinities.

Obama needed to say clearly that using force to stop Iran from continuing to enrich uranium is absolutely off the table and out of the question, and that Iran has a perfect right to enrich uranium, end of discussion.

Until Obama is willing to slap Israel squarely in the face on this, the US “alliance” with Israel will continue to be a grave threat to the peace of the whole world.

I guess we’ll have to wait and see whether it’s just a speech, or whether Obama is really going to do something to help the Muslim world, beyond retaining our indefinite detention system (Trust us, we only keep the bad Muslims in Bagram/Guantanamo/etc), our broken financial system, and the extreme executive secrecy structure set up by Bush.

If Obama’s commitment to the Muslim world is as binding as his commitment to the rule of law, they’ll need to hire some good lobbyists.