> Michael thinks that the Obama administration and Israeli opposition parties
> are essentially driven by moral considerations
Not exactly. I think their line of *chat* is driven by moral pretense, and tries to feed the moral self-regard of their middle-class liberal demographic. What they actually *do* when they're in power is driven by all the considerations Marv mentions -- I don't think we have much real disagreement about that.
> 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
But is it? How? The situation seems not just stable, but frozen. Sure, there are occasional dogfights in Lebanon and massacres in Gaza, but the parallelogram of forces doesn't seem to change -- or not for any reason emanating from occupied Palestine, anyway.
There's something that doesn't quite compute, for me, when we lefties think we know better what's in the Empire's pragmatic interests than the people actually running it. The Empire has apparently had no real problem with the creeping annexation of the West Bank in the forty years it's been ongoing -- or they would have done something about it, wouldn't they? Why should they be really driven to do something about it now?
No doubt Obie would like to get the Nobel Peace Prize, and if he could wave a magic wand and "settle" the problem he would; but beyond that, as they say in the Actors' Studio, "what's his motivation?" In particular, what motivation is strong enough for him to take on the Israel Lobby? What elite interests are weighty enough on the other side to counterbalance that 600-pound gorilla? I don't see any.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org