US Support For Israel On Shaky Ground?
The last time Israel named the slaughtering of Palestinians with a fancy name, it was Operation Cast Lead.
That ugly atrocity began two days after Christmas, on December 27th, 2008, and ended just two days before Obama’s first inauguration, on January 18th, 2009. Between 1,100 and 1,500 hundred Palestinians were killed in the siege.
I’m sure it has nothing to do with elections in Israel, but it does appear the time has come for another named military operation with cool American jets (for the killing), and that name is apparently Operation Pillar of Defense. No, really.
Here is some of what Susan Rice said from the link:
“The United States is clearly of the view that the Human Rights Council clearly has its flaws … including its excessive focus on Israel, but it is also a body that is increasingly proving its value and we’ve been proud to contribute to some of what we think are some of the finer moments of the Human Rights Council it’s approach to Syria, it’s approach to Sudan, it’s approach to the situation in Libya with the commission of inquiry.”
(my emphasis added)
Susan Rice is getting heat right now for being floated for Secretary of State. That heat is coming from angry men from the right, saying stuff like she’s “not too bright”.
I would be concerned, just from Rice’s quote, how dedicated (or indebted) to AIPAC she may be.
Not everyone may agree, but I think that’s a legitimate question.
Which brings me to the most ridiculous thing I’ve read all week: Jane Harman considered for CIA Director.
CNN, Politico, and others have all listed former Congresswoman Jane Harman as a potential new CIA head. Oddly, however, none have mentioned reports in 2006 and again in 2009 that an NSA wiretap in 2005 had picked up Harman promising a suspected Israeli agent that she would aid people indicted for espionage on behalf of Israel.
According to reports, Harman allegedly told the Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department to reduce espionage-related charges against two top officials for the powerful Israel lobby organization, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
In return, the suspected Israeli agent (who may have been a dual-citizen American) reportedly pledged to help lobby for Harman to become chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Harman was already the ranking Democrat on the committee.
At the end of the conversation, Harman reportedly said: “This conversation doesn’t exist.”
I don’t think Jane Harman has a chance for the appointment, but I find it kind of disturbing that she’s even being considered.
But she is being considered because, behind the scenes, there is always the constant need to appease Israel.
I don’t know how eager Obama is to be the appeaser for Israel; he’s certainly not as eager as Romney would have been, and that’s a good thing.
Taking it back to Petraeus again, I ran across this tidbit from a piece at consortium news. I think it highlights another possible motivating factor behind Obama’s quick acceptance of Petraeus’ resignation:
One person familiar with the Obama administration’s thinking said President Obama was never close to Petraeus, who was viewed as a favorite of the neoconservatives and someone who had undercut a possible solution to Iran’s nuclear program in 2011 by pushing a bizarre claim that Iranian intelligence was behind an assassination plot aimed at the Saudi ambassador to Washington.
As that case initially evolved, the White House and Justice Department were skeptical that the plot traced back to the Iranian government, but Petraeus pushed the alleged connection which was then made public in a high-profile indictment. The charges further strained relations with Iran, making a possible military confrontation more likely.
Regardless why Petraeus resigned, I think it’s a good thing he is no longer heading up the CIA. Who knows how compromised Petraeus had become to interests that didn’t necessarily align with American interests.