Joe Biden and Kamala Harris might as well be Israelis, though they’re both running for the Presidency of America.
The PAC (officially a “lobbying organization”) called AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee, instead of “American Israel Political Action Committee”) represents some American Jews and Christian evangelicals — it represents the ones who place Israel’s Government above America’s Government, and who therefore lobby in the U.S. Congress for continuation of the $3.8 billion per year that America’s taxpayers, of all faiths and beliefs, must continue to pay to fund Israel’s annual purchases of weaponry from Lockheed Martin and other U.S. weapons-makers, a welfare program for America’s armaments-firms and for the billionaires who own them. And it’s welfare also for the taxpayers of Israel, who don’t have to pay that $3.8 billion per year to fund those purchases, of American weapons, to use against Palestinians, and against Syrians, and against Iranians — against Israel’s enemies, perhaps, but certainly not against America’s enemies. It’s instead for this particular enemy of America, an enemy not only because Israel is an apartheid state (which is supposed to be unAmerican), and not only because this apartheid state sucks $3.8 billion each year out of America’s taxpayers, but also because Israel is militarily an enemy of Americans — see this, for example; and also because the hostility that America’s subservience to Israel produces, throughout the Islamic world, is an even bigger loss for the American people, though America’s billionaires don’t lose anything, at all, from it — and the ones who invest in firms such as Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil gain considerably from it. But are those corporations America?
America’s public suffers from AIPAC, but Israel’s Jews in that supremacist-Jewish apartheid land gain greatly from it, at Palestinians’ expense. America has many Jewish and other pro-Israeli billionaires (they buy ‘our’ political winners), but no billionaires that are Palestinian or even pro-Palestinian. However, the American Christian billionaire Tom Gores, who was born in Israel and whose family moved to the U.S. “when he was still a toddler”, is sometimes listed as being an “Arab” from “Palestine”, because he’s not a Jew and because some wealthy Arabs want to call him an “Arab” from “Palestine,” and not an American Catholic who had been born in Israel. Mr. Gores is non-political, but some of his extended family are pro-Palestinian and some are pro-Israel. Seven years after Tom bought his Republican uncle’s newspaper, the San Diego Union-Tribune, it endorsed Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump.
Obviously, America’s super-rich are virtually 100% against Palestinians, and the very idea of America brokering a ‘deal’ for ‘peace’ in the Middle East is absurd, really stupid, but ‘our’ billionaires’ politicians constantly promise it. And Joe Biden and Kamala Harris especially do, just as does ‘our’ current billionaire President, Donald Trump.
All of those speakers are neoconservatives, and they were highly supportive of America’s 2003 invasion of Iraq, and want the same now for Iran. After all: America does Israel’s bidding. Anyone who wants more of the same is in agreement with them.
And here is what Joe Biden told them at the 2016 AIPAC conference (along with his windbag platitudes):
No matter what legitimate disagreements the Palestinian people may have with Israel, there is no excuse for killing innocents or remaining silent in the face of terrorism [he meant only killings by Palestinians and never by Israelis]. … The only way, in my view, to guarantee Israelis’ future and security [and what about Palestinians’ security?], its identity as a Jewish [but the Palestinians aren’t Jews] and Democratic [How is apartheid democratic?] state is with a two-state solution.
But given the way that Israel has been treating Palestinians recently, no Palestinian leader would survive who would meet with an Israeli leader under such one-sided conditions — it would be perceived as surrender to tyrants. And Biden offered no reason why Palestinians should want to continue their grinding oppression by Israel’s Jewish Government — Biden doesn’t care, at all, about those people. He’s not looking for their votes. He just wants to sucker whatever Democrats he can get to vote him to become ‘their’ nominee.
And here is what Kamala Harris told AIPAC at the 2017 conference:
I believe that the only viable resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two states for two people living side by side in peace and security. I believe that a resolution to this conflict cannot be imposed. It must be agreed upon by the parties themselves. Peace can only come through a reconciliation of differences, and that can only happen at the negotiating table. …
But negotiations are impossible if only one side has all the power. For the other side, that’s surrender, no negotiation. Kamala Harris lies in order to get Israeli money — the donations like Trump has, from billionaire agents for Israel.
Is this okay? BOTH Parties being neocon — is that okay? Anyone who votes for Biden or Harris thinks it’s okay, or else doesn’t care.
These candidates are pitching, of course, to a lobbying organization. But it’s also PACs. Wikipedia’s article on AIPAC says: “The Washington Post described the perceived differences between AIPAC and J Street: ‘While both groups call themselves bipartisan, AIPAC has won support from an overwhelming majority of Republican Jews, while J Street is presenting itself as an alternative for Democrats who have grown uncomfortable with both Netanyahu’s policies and the conservatives’ flocking to AIPAC.’” So: Biden and Harris are pitching to Republican billionaires there. Is this what Democratic Party voters find attractive? Do they know that this is the situation? Do they even care that it is?
J Street says that “a new direction in American policy will advance U.S. interests in the Middle East and promote real peace and security for Israel and the region.” Biden at the 2016 J Street Gala, on 19 April 2016, said “We are Israel’s maybe not-only friend, but only absolutely certain friend.” But it’s the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who have been abandoned. They really need friends in American politics. Could Biden credibly assert the same to them that he asserts to Israel’s lobbyists? Obviously not, but he doesn’t even care about Palestinians, because none of his donors are Palestinians, and none will be voting for him.
Anybody who cares about basic decency in a candidate should just cross both Biden and Harris off their list for consideration. The only differences they have from Trump regarding Israel are the atmospherics of their rhetoric. Clearly, if “a new direction in American policy will advance U.S. interests in the Middle East and promote real peace and security for Israel and the region,” it won’t come from any of these politicians.
Author’s note: first posted at The Saker
Poll Shows Trump’s Israel Policy Is Opposed Even by Republicans
On Monday, November 18th, Reuters headlined “U.S. backs Israel on settlements, angering Palestinians and clouding peace process” and reported that, “The United States on Monday effectively backed Israel’s right to build Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank by abandoning its four-decade-old position that they were ‘inconsistent with international law,’ a stance that may make Israeli-Palestinian peace even more elusive.” This article made clear that, of all entities Reuters could contact about the matter, only U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo thought that these illegal settlements are legal, and even Pompeo was offering no other reason than that “‘The establishment of Israeli civilian settlements is not, per se, inconsistent with international law,’ Pompeo told reporters at the State Department, reversing a formal legal position taken by the United States under Carter in 1978.” It was merely his dictat, as authority for this major U.S. policy-change.
One poll was recently taken of Americans on the matter. It was done by Scarborough Research, a joint venture by The Nielsen Company and Arbitron, and its sample size was unusually large for such a poll and employed rigorous sampling techniques. Thus, its findings should be considered to be close to the reality. Here is a summary of that poll’s methodology and findings. [I add my explanations in brackets].
The survey was carried out September 12 – October 9, 2018 online from a nationally representative sample of Nielsen Scarborough’s probability-based panel, originally recruited by mail and telephone using a random sample of adults provided by Survey Sampling International. The national sample was 2,352.
Q57. As you may know, the United States has been acting as a mediator between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, with the aim of reaching an agreement in the IsraeliPalestinian conflict. Whether or not these efforts succeed, there is a question about what kind of future for Israel and the Palestinians the U.S. should be supporting over the long term, and many analysts feel that time is running out for some options. Here are four possible approaches that are frequently discussed. Please select the one you think the U.S. should support.
Rep Dem Ind Total
1. A two-state solution: Israel and a Palestinian state side by side. The Palestinian state would be established on the territories that Israel has occupied since 1967. 24% 48% 31% 36% [That’s 24% “Rep”; 48% “Dem”; 31% “Ind”; 36% “Total.”]
2. A one-state solution: A single democratic state in which both Jews and Arabs are full and equal citizens, covering all of what is now Israel and the Palestinian Territories. 33% 36% 38% 35%
3. Annexation without equal citizenship: Israel would annex the Palestinian territories, but keep a majority-Jewish state in the expanded territories by restricting citizenship rights of Palestinians. 14% 3% 4% 8%
4. Maintain the occupation of both the territories Israel has captured in 1967 and the Palestinians inhabiting them indefinitely. 18% 5% 13% 11%
Refused 11% 8% 14% 10%
[71% support either a two-state or a one-state solution (a sort of democratic solution). 19% support either “Annexation without equal citizenship” or Israel’s permanent militarily imposed “occupation of both the territories (West Bank and Gaza).” On this question, only 19% support Trump’s Israel policy, but 25% of Republicans do. However, 67% of Republicans don’t.]
One of the issues of tension between the United States and Israel has been its construction of Israeli settlements in the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 war. These settlements are considered illegal by most of the international community and have been opposed by every U.S. administration, both Republican and Democratic. The Israeli government has continued to build settlements. … How do you believe the U.S. should react to new settlements?
1. Do nothing: 38% 17% 33% 28%
2. Verbally criticize: 30% 22% 27% 26%
3. Economic sanctions: 17% 41% 22% 17%
4. More serious action: 9% 15% 11% 12%
[Trump’s “Do nothing” is supported by 28% of American voters. That even includes only 38% of Republicans. 56% of Republicans want some type of at least criticism against Israel.]
Consequently: Trump has now gone far out onto a far-right limb here in his policies toward the state of Israel and its dictatorship over Palestinians (the people who are the descendants of what were the vast majority of Israel’s population until the ethnic cleansing that slaughtered and displaced them).
The Intellectual Doomsday Clock: 30 Seconds to Midnight?
As someone who has dedicated his entire professional career to higher education, to engaging young minds and striving to advance new thinking across a whole host of critically important global issues, it is with great sadness that I write this article. Not only do all of the scientific surveys point to a coming calamity, my own career provides extensive anecdotal confirmation of the sad reality that we are, as a human society, pushing ourselves down into an intellectual abyss from which we might not be able to emerge. Perhaps most disturbing of all, this pushing momentum is not done by accident. Rather, most of society today seems hell-bent on orgiastically rejoicing in our diminishing skills and our dismissal of ‘smartness.’ Refined thinking, nuanced analysis, and subtle reasoning are now the supposed domain of out-of-touch elite, of people who do not know about reality and are therefore happily removed from the debate/discussion stage. This is not the same kind of anti-elitism we have seen in decades past. This is not simply a fight between the benefits of ‘book learning’ versus ‘experiential wisdom.’ This is more about total war being waged against the intellectual process itself with adjacent side-battles against research, open-mindedness, and scientific thinking. It is not about the quality of the journey of intellectual engagement. It is about the attempt to annihilate discussion in total, surrounding ourselves with our own anti-intellectual camps of sycophantic chatter amounting to nothing. It is not about inquiry leading to epiphany. It is about the biased construction of self-affirmation. We are a society of self-delusional dullards. May this be a not-so-subtle early warning to stop our own dumb and dumber destruction.
The above chart is fairly self-explanatory. The chief aspect to focus on is how most Democrats will actually use this as supposed ‘proof’ of their open-mindedness and ability to think more independently, far more so than the other two representative groups covering most of society in America. While I can grant it is horrifically appalling to see percentages amongst Republicans to go all the way to 92% and even “independents” proving they are not so independent at all by going up to 4/5 of their numbers, the surveys still show one out of every 2 democrats, slightly more than that actually, are in the exact same boat as the other members of society. Why does this matter? It matters because on one very crucial aspect this chart explains the secret ingredient that currently powers the base rationalization and self-justification most people use to fuel their purposeful refusal to seek out alternative arguments, embrace people with differing viewpoints, and understand the crucial humility needed in the world of politics and social order, that being there are very few, if any, questions that have one single undebatable answer that should rationally end all further debate. When you can reject all of these things, it allows you to be content with rejecting even the search for multiple sources, the comparative analysis crucial to any real truth-finding, and the rational thinking that creates true deep thought and nuanced intellectualism. The rejection of the impartiality of news sources as an entity de facto turns into behavior that rejects the need to be discerning about sources overall. If the sources are all tainted, then why do we need them at all? All we need is our own thinking, backed of course by the resident echo chambers we create by surrounding ourselves only with like-minded people. As long as the people I spend most of my time with (and that is increasingly becoming a measure based on ‘virtual exposure’ rather than ‘face-to-face living engagement’) agree with me, why do I need to care about other fools with different opinions?
The above chart clusters Republican (red) and Democrat (blue) representatives on a spectrum of ideology (defined by how often they vote with the rest of their party) then links opposite party members according to their votes together. The links grow larger and darker the more often representatives vote across party lines. In this case, that symbolizes the positive representation of independent thinking and the ability to make decisions NOT according to knee-jerk party lines or blind ideological allegiance. The graphs’ evolution over time is simply remarkable in that not only does the prevalence of cross-party line votes diminish radically over the decades, the behavior by 2011 de facto evaporates while adhering staunchly to party ideology. Exclusionary thinking becomes intensely concentrated and exclusive. It is also disappointing to note that this fascinating study ended in 2011: one year before the second term of President Barack Obama and fully five years before the controversial first term of President Donald Trump. It is not scientifically radical to say the ideological tendencies in American partisanship have only worsened since that 2011 end-of-study date. In fact, heading into 2020, most political discussions in America no longer even include the possibility of any cross-party thinking, let alone behavior. The idea itself is dismissed as being symbolic NOT of independent thinking but of social betrayal that should be shunned and punished.
This final chart is the cherry on top of the stupid sundae. It shows the clear and inevitable path that global IQ is taking from 1950 all the way to 2110. Some may say that a decline from an average of 92 to a new average of 84 is not much given it is covering 160 years. Some might even be motivated to invoke the old “Malthusian Dilemma” to criticize the data, pointing out that such long-term extrapolations are only based on current trends remaining immutable and cannot, therefore, take into account what future counter-measures might be taken by society to right the wrong indicators. I would like to be a member of the Malthusian camp, quite honestly. In its own way, this article is an effort to kick-start those supposed Malthusian strategies, bringing future resolutions to our ‘stupid problem’ sooner to the forefront rather than later. But all of this is wishful thinking. It is not hard science. My hopes, in fact, are based on the opposite of what the data shows, what society currently rejoices in, and what so many individual people profess as being an advancement in ‘popular intelligence.’ As long as our global society, led most decidedly by the most powerful and influential country on earth, continues to revel in anti-intellectualism as proof of its own grassroots intelligence, as long as people rationalize away critical reasoning and analytical thinking as just so much elite ivory tower snobbery, then the only path we craft for ourselves as a society is one of blissful ignorance, confrontational delusion, and self-righteous obliviousness. The only society to emerge from this path is a dead society. A society of stagnation and regression. The intellectual doomsday clock is at 30 seconds to midnight. The ability to shift the ticking second hand backwards, back to enlightenment and dynamic knowledge engagement, may already be gone. May the Malthusian Army appear soon.
U.S.-Turkey relations: From close friendship to conflict of interests
Relations between the U.S. Turkey have strained since the failed July 2016 coup in Turkey. Now, the most important reasons for the tension is Washington’s strong opposition to Turkey’s plan to buy S-400 missile system from Russia and Turkish military invasion into northern Syria.
Although Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to the U.S. on November 13 was intended to resolve the two countries’ disputes and open a new horizon in economic and trade relations, differences still remain.
Though after the meeting at the White House, Trump made some pledges, including increasing trade ties to $100 billion, it takes a long time to fulfill these promises.
Contrary to such pledges, the Pentagon announced that it had replaced all F-35 fighter parts made by Turkey.
While the Turkish and U.S. leaders were meeting, F-35 production program executive Lt. Gen. Eric Fick said at a congressional hearing that Turkey would be completely phased out until March.
At the moment the U.S. has narrowed the number of parts down from 1,000 to 12.
Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Ellen Lord affirmed to Rep. Donald Norcross, D-N.J., that as of Wednesday, Turkey’s exit from the program was not expected to cause any F-35 production delays.
The U.S. government believes Ankara’s move to buy S-400 missile system from Russia is not in line with NATO policies. Washington also sees Turkey’s decision as a threat to U.S. F-35 fighters. However, Ankara has announced that it will go ahead with its decision to buy the missile system.
Erdogan said it is not a right policy to ask Ankara to deprive itself of the Russian S-400 missile defense system.
Erdogan’s remarks came in response to some reports that Trump had requested Turkey to cancel the purchase of S-400 system, a defense system that has been deployed in some parts of Turkey since July 2019.
But after Trump and Erdogan’s meeting, the Turkish president claimed that the U.S. president had a positive view on buying the missile system.
Though Trump may seek to strike a deal with Erdogan on the S-400 missile system and F-35 fighter aircraft, based on his own businessmen approach, Ankara’s military intervention in northern Syria and its insistence on buying the S-400 system are at odds with Washington. For this reason, the House of Representatives has passed two resolutions against Turkey.
On October 30, the House approved a resolution against Turkey recognizing the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915. 305 representatives voted in favor of the resolution, with only three opposing it. It also passed another resolution calling on Trump to impose sanctions on Turkey over military operations in northern Syria. The resolution was also adopted by 403 votes in favor and 16 against, a move that rose Turkey’s anger.
After Erdogan’s meeting with Trump, attended by some Congress representatives, senior Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee vetoed the resolution recognizing the massacre of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire.
Earlier, Senate Majority Leader Robert Menendez had called for the resolution to be approved. Lindsey Graham noted that he had listened to Erdogan’s speech at the White House and criticized a House resolution that recognized the Armenian genocide.
Menendez argued that “U.S. policy must be unanimous and honest in the face of human rights violations, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and genocide” and sent it to the Senate for approval.
There is a difference between the White House and Congress in how to deal with Turkey. Also, there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats despite Trump’s promises to Erdogan.
From our partner Tehran Times
Lithuanians fight for silence
The Ministry of Defence of Denmark has made an important decision supporting human rights of Danish citizens. Thus, Denmark’s new...
What Jokowi’s anti-radicalism cabinet can do for Indonesian security
Jokowi second terms have been preoccupied with the issue of radicalism following the shocking attack to former coordinator minister of...
Sri Lanka’s election results and their implications
Authors: Tridivesh Singh Maini & Mahitha Lingala* The Sri Lankan election result, was closely observed, not just for its likely...
Emerging and Developing Economies Less Prepared Now for a Deeper Downturn
Emerging and developing economies are less well positioned today to withstand a deeper global downturn, should it occur, than they...
The secret behind Trump’s moves in eastern Deir ez-Zur
Trump’s desire for Syrian oil has led observers to consider it as the beginning of occupying oil wells in other...
Middle Eastern protests: A tug of war over who has the longer breath
Mass anti-government protests in several Arab countries are turning into competitions to determine who has the longer breath, the protesters...
Rwanda: EU provides €10.3 million for life-saving refugee support measures
During his visit to Rwanda, Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven Mimica has announced a €10.3 million support package...
Defense2 days ago
As Kashmir simmers the IOR too stands as a potential Nuclear Flashpoint
Americas2 days ago
The Intellectual Doomsday Clock: 30 Seconds to Midnight?
Energy News3 days ago
ADB, Gulf PD Sign Deal to Build 2,500 MW Power Plant in Thailand
Americas3 days ago
U.S.-Turkey relations: From close friendship to conflict of interests
Travel & Leisure3 days ago
Five Reasons to Discover Kyoto’s Magic in Winter
Russia2 days ago
Russia, Africa and the Debts
Southeast Asia2 days ago
Belt and Road Initiative: Challenging South and Southeast Asia
Africa1 day ago
The Geopolitics of natural resources of Western Sahara