Obviously, I meant "maximum" rather than "minimum" in my comments below...
Begin forwarded message: > From: Marv Gandall <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Glenn Greenwald: Chuck Hagel and liberals: what are the > priorities? > Date: 8 January, 2013 4:51:41 PM EST > To: Progressive Economics <[email protected]> > Bcc: Walker <[email protected]> > > > On 2013-01-08, at 3:22 PM, c b wrote: > >> From: Marv Gandall >> >> What does hate or love have to do with it? >> >> ^^^^ >> CB: It's slang. I suppose I can't expect you to get the sense of it. >> "Haters" is rap slang for enviers. That's not completely precise >> either, but you have been on this list and LBO-talk long enough to >> know what I mean when I criticize the ultra-left anti-Obama position >> which over time seems pretty clearly to be in part personal dislike of >> Obama. > > Only Shane and Michael S. took the bait to declare how much they "despised" > Obama. For the most part, criticisms of Obama on these lists have been > political rather than personal, and they should be responded in kind, no? > It's not really relevant what views the critics may or may not hold in > private about Obama or any other politician. Personally, I think he and > Michelle would make much more interesting dinner guests than George and > Laura, but, if you judge Obama and Bush by their actions in office rather > than by their evident level of political sophistication and sympathies, the > differences, especially in foreign policy, are nowhere near as marked as you > like to point out. > >> ^^^^^ >> Like the scorpion in Aesop's fable, Obama is doing what you would >> expect: discharging his responsibilities as President of an imperial >> power. Liberals are embittered because their expectations were >> different. If Hagel is named Defence Secretary, he'll similarly be >> compelled to adhere to the prevailing set of "destructive bipartisan >> orthodoxies" until America's strategic interests, rather than any >> maverick views which he may hold, dictate otherwise. >> >> ^^^^^ >> CB: So, you go off on a dodging tangent, too. In the given balance of >> forces in the Reaganite era, and pro-Israel super hegemony in >> especially the Senate, this is a vary liberal move to by Obama, and >> you can't avoid it or hide with. Amazing how you can't admit that >> this is clearly a leftward signal , as much of a move away from >> "destructive bipartisan orthodoxies" as one could expect to get now. >> Obama will be running foreign policy , not Hagel. Duhh. This is a way >> for Obama to signal a move away from absolute pro-Israeli foreign >> policy >> >> ^^^^ > > No one is disputing that there may be a renewed effort to force a peace > settlement on the Israelis and Palestinians for the reasons I mentioned > (which you reproduce below). But this is not a position uniquely held by > Obama or Hagel, nor a departure from the long-standing one of the US and > Quartet. > > I'll be impressed if the administration improbably outlines a proposal for a > viable Palestinian state which is effectively more than a Bantustan - the > minimum the Israelis would accept. This would bring the US into serious > conflict with the Netanyahu government and represent a genuine departure from > the US's "absolute pro-Israeli foreign policy." > > Instead, I expect any such pressure as is exerted on the Likud government > will be for it to get serious and to agree, in fact, to negotiate the > Bantustan favoured by the Israeli centre-left parties, which the Israeli > right has hitherto been content to let sit on the table. You can expect most > of the pressure from the US and its European and Arab proxies to be directed > against Hamas, the key player on the Palestinian side, in order to bring it's > position into line with the minimum which would be reluctantly acceptable to > Israel. So, while I don't want to dampen your hopeful spirits, I'd hold off > before reading too much into the "signals" you and others are receiving from > the Hagel appointment. > >> The continuity of US foreign policy under Obama, particularly with >> respect to the Israel-Palestine conflict, is a pretty clear >> illustration of the subordination of the individual to systemic >> imperatives, even at the very highest level. Obama assumed office with >> some sympathy for the Palestinians and the intention to impose a peace >> settlement on the Israelis before he was was forced to beat a >> humiliating retreat. >> >> ^^^^ >> CB: This appointment is a very clear _break_ with that continuity. >> You're talking like Obama didn't just appoint someone who background >> is not in sinc with the bi-partisn thingy on Israel. Hagel is exactly >> a signal of discontinuity. He's one of the few people he could appoint >> to give such a signal. >> >> ^^^^ >> >> Perhaps his second term will be different, but that will depend less >> on the good intentions and understanding of Obama or Hegel than on a >> revised consensus within the US foreign policy and military >> establishment, shared by a congressional majority, about the US's >> strategic Mideast needs in light of such factors as the Arab Spring, >> US economic constraints, shale gas exploitation, and Iran's nuclear >> weapons program. >> >> ^^^^^ >> CB: To the extent that Obama can move left in this area this is a >> clearcut left move. And the President has more power than the Congress >> on foreign policy and defense than the Congress. This is a case where >> Obama's good intentions are not just that of another individual , but >> the most powerful official in the area. Also, the Senate will have to >> confirm, so, if Hagel gets in, it will be more than Obama moving this >> way. >> _______________________________________________ >> pen-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
