[lbo-talk] another DH loves BHO in Cairo

[Marv Gandall]

Michael thinks that the Obama administration and Israeli opposition parties
are essentially driven by moral considerations - they are "hypocrites" who
want "clean moral skirts". I understand ruling classes, states, and
politicians as in general being more sophisticated and pragmatic than that,
and mainly proceeding by defining their interests with reference to an
ever-changing balance of forces.

Why is it so difficult to conceive that the Obama administration and it's
supporters in Israel would conclude that the occupation is profoundly
DESTABILIZING, globally as well as in the Middle East, and that a WEAK
Palestinian state wholly dependent on Israel is much preferable?

This doesn't mean it will succeed where the Clinton administration narrowly
failed nine years ago. The new DP administration will also have to take into
account its domestic political interests and how far it can push it's agenda
against opposition from conservative Republicans and the pro-Israel lobby.
But I think it's (amoral) intent is clear and, in terms of the strategic
interests of the US Empire, quite rational at this juncture in the Middle
East.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Smith" <mjs at smithbowen.net>
To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] another DH loves BHO in Cairo


> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:33:52 -0400
> Marv Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> The US Democrats and the Israeli centre-left want an end to the
>> destabilizing occupation of the West Bank and favour the establishment of
>> a
>> weak, shrunken, and demilitarized Palestinian state which is economically
>> and in all other ways dependent on Israel.
>
> Or so they say. But as best I recall, the settlements have grown
> steadily ever since '67, no matter who was in power in Israel or
> Washington.Neither the Democrats nor the Israeli "center-left" -- 
> if such a thing still exists -- have ever made any real attempt
> to put on the brakes.
>
> It looks to me like the difference between the mad-dogs and the
> liberals is simply that the liberals are more hypocritical. They
> *talk* about a two-state solution but don't have any real interest
> in making it happen. In practice they leave the mad-dogs a loose
> rein and probably hope -- without quite admitting it, even to
> themselves -- that the mad-dogs make the problem go away.
>
> That's a win-win. The liberals can tell themselves that their
> moral skirts are clean, since the Fascists will have done
> the actual dirty work. But the dirty work will nonetheless
> have been done.
>
> -- 
>
> Michael Smith
> mjs at smithbowen.net
> http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk