Regarding the public, I recall how in the early 1990s, the Conservatives in the UK had been in power for 13 years, and had just won power for another 5. They had 10 times more funding than the opposition, 75% of the press in their pocket, and the entire financial sector prepared to practically blackmail the country into keeping them in power. But the public just got sick of them, and within a couple of years, everything they relied on deserted them in the scramble to change sides and not be left behind. Of course the net result if that was Tony Blair, but that’s another story.

You may be right about the American public, but it would be nice to think a similar thing could happen to the Lobby.

Very good on the “It takes a village” remark. If some credit for thinking of it is left over, let me lay claim to it: I actually thought of using it myself. In any case, there’s a well-populated village at the NY Times when it comes to Iran.

I guess for war and propaganda ‘It takes a village” too

Cheers

“Nice article by Peter Casey pulling apart NYT reporting by David Sanger (Aka replacing Judith Miller) on last IAEA report”.

Kooshy: Replacing Judith Miller requires a team, but the leader is Michael Slackman, not David Sanger.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28karsh.html?pagewanted=2

The author discusses two prominent Middle East conflicts, in each of which one party has clear military superiority over the other. In one conflict, the stronger party is happy with the status quo, if only the weaker party would stop bellyaching about it. In the second conflict, just the reverse: the weaker party is (more or less) happy with the status quo, if only the stronger party would stop bellyaching about it.

The author’s prescriptions for both conflicts are laid out in one tidy sentence:

“In these circumstances, one can only welcome the latest changes in the Obama administration’s Middle Eastern policy, which combine a tougher stance on Iran’s nuclear subterfuge [defined elsewhere in the article to mean "military strikes"] with a less imperious approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict [defined elsewhere to mean: ignore it "unless all sides are convinced that peace is in each of their best interests"].”

You are right, Obama has an opportunity to be a real “game changer.” but I do not think he has the balls to do it.

If he says anything against Israel or Israel’s interest, the Israel lobby will crucify him.

During Israel’s massacre of Palestinian people in Gaza, Obama kept his silence.

In January 2009, when Israel slaughtered more than 700 innocent and defenceless Palestinian women and children, Obama and the leaders of the European countries did not have the balls to condemn Israel once.

They are simply frightened to lose power if they condemn Israel.

Ahmadinejad was the only president who had the balls to condemn Israel publicly and

this is the main reason why he is demonised in western media on a daily basis.

We live in a dirty world where money is power and for The western leaders to hold on to their power, they are prepared to scarify their principles.

The west preachers democracy and justice but violates its fundamental principles.

I totally agree with your comments regarding Israel/ Palestine.

You wrote and I Quote:

“It is Israel who has never wanted peace”

“The US public hold the key”

The real power in USA is in the hands of Israel lobby organisations that control the media and the finance.

So far, Israel lobby with the help of their corrupt media has manage to brainwash the American public opinion.

Unless and until their power base is destroyed, there will be no peace with Palestinian or rapprochement with Iran.

It was James Baker the III who put the iron into the old man’s spine beating the Israeli Lobby and putting the screws to them by withholding a tiny portion of the loan subsidy for Russian immigration. The so-called bad ass Likudnik alliance with so-called tough guy Yitzhak Shamir as prime minister cracked up and totally caved to Bush/Baker demands.

Granted, this and Eisenhower were the only two presidencies who grabbed the Israelis by the throats like a chicken and shake some sense into their lizard noggins. But the examples demonstrate how easily presidents can bend Israelis to their will, if they have the intestinal fortitude to face down the domestic, political onslaught the Israeli Lobby and traitors will instigate against POTUS.

This president has even more going for him than those two past presidencies, because the Israeli lobby is a house divided, with most Jews in American considering themselves Americans first and any affection for Israel last. Among Jewish youth Zionists fear there is none. Lobbies among Arab, Muslim and Palestinian Americans are taking root and getting face time with the US government, when a decade ago there were none of note.

No question about it, this president has an opportunity to be a real “game changer.” The big question is does he have the balls to do it. As regards the American people, the masses or “population,” we will have to agree to disagree. I can’t think of anything more suicidal than relying upon the myth of the American people, which in the constitution only references the ‘people’ who had the franchise and ratified the constitution in the latter 1780’s and early 1790’s. The herd in a republic was designed to be “deaf, dumb and blind” by the founding fathers in the constitutional convention of 1787.