– How Barack Obama learned to love Israel by Ali Abunimah, Obama’s groveling AIPAC speech is here.
– Arabs reiterate 2002 initiative, Israel says no to return of Palestinian refugees.
– Egypt in diplomatic row over alleged execution of Egyptian war prisoners by Israeli forces in 1967.
– Lebanese journalist Serena Assir has a blog, Freespace Beirut.
– Marc Lynch has a Guardian piece on the Brotherhood of the blog.
– Lawrence Pintak follows up on the US/Egypt tiff over the Iraqi insurgent channel Zawraa.
– Maria Golia on The subsistence math of Egypt’s neglected workers.
– Last but certainly not least, Baheyya on the perils of the succession, hammering the point that I’ve been telling anyone who’ll listen about the fundamental uncertainty and risk of the Gamal scenario. As is increasingly argued, there is an analogy to be made with the crisis of 1951-52 — most notably the Cairo fire — and a growing risk of political violence (both spontaneous and calculated) in the next few years. Some even hope for it, thinking it will be the last straw that forces army intervention. I find this line of reasoning among some radical activists, but the other night at a dinner I heard a wealthy, well-connected, pro-regime, prominent society woman say “This country is on the brink of a crisis. The army has to intervene. We won’t democracy, but we’ll have order.” Like Baheyya, I don’t think we’re about to see the Mubarak regime collapse but the degree of uncertainty has grown tremendously. I am also concerned about the long-term impact of the exclusion of the Brothers from political participation and the ongoing rape of the constitution. But more about that later.
Thanks for this, Issandr. Very useful.
On succession: Yes, smart money seems to be on a military man, preferrably one who has often been seen on TV in a suit.
On Obama at AIPAC: sickening, yes, but that’s Amweeki politics. Read again, though. Most of the speech is devoted to Iraq and Iran. And that Iraq and Iran are dangerous are uncontroversial propositions. He only says that the people at this AIPAC function are friends with each other and that they care about Israeli-US friendship. Hard to argue. Also hard to argue with the proposition that Hizballah attacked Israel. This is the genius of Obama: He makes everyone feel like he agrees with them. The germ of his policy is here:
Our job is to renew the United States’ effort to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors, while remaining vigilant against those who do not share that vision. Our job – Our job is to do more than lay out another roadmap. Our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region.
Nothing very new, controversial, or very Zionist here.
And let’s be honest: We won’t see a pro-Palestinian candidate get the Democratic nomination in the next 20 years, so Obama can be forgiven for giving AIPAC’s ass a little kiss. And let’s also remember that the Democrat’s alternative, Hillary, long ago moved from little kisses to inserting her entire head up AIPAC’s ass.
I don’t like Obama anyway. John Edwards is my guy for now. I realize no Dem or Rep candidate is going to not be pro-Israel, and Edwards is fairly pro-Israel but I like his other positions, notably universal healthcare. I am against voting based solely on Middle East policy, and at least Edwards is very, very reasonable on Iran. That being said, if a Republican candidate presented a more refreshing perspective on the Middle East combined with not too conservative a platform, I’d consider him. My ideal candidate these days is an isolationist, but maybe it’s because I think the imperialist current in US foreign policy has gone too far. Not quite ready to vote for Pat Buchanan, though.
“And let’s also remember that the Democrat’s alternative, Hillary, long ago moved from little kisses to inserting her entire head up AIPAC’s ass.”
ROTFL! Very true. The sun most certainly don’t shine up where she is these days. RIchard Silverstein had a detailed breakdown of Obama’s speech with reading between the lines, if you’re interested.
Not so sure that it’s down to Hillary and Obama though. Them that start early often run out of steam.
EDWARDS!? That uber-sleazy, used-car salesman, featherweight, homophobe cheeseball? He made me LIKE DICK CHENEY in the VP debates. Only the women watching liked Edwards.
YAG
there is an interesting development how Egyptain government opponents have distorted it and fabricated what the film was about to attack the regime. The Eg government has had to play into this as well. but think of it from a broader perspective- a film maker exposes some difficult and unsettling issues in its country’s history. its neighbor then distorts the film and uses it to attack relations. the domestic opposition goes crazy and the government has to jump on the bandwagon. I happen to really like Egyptian cinema but i’ve seen countless disgusting Egyptian films about Israel and a number about Jews. It’s stupidity.
But he’s got Southern charm and a winning smile… And he’s not homophobe, in fact Ann Coulter recently called him a “faggot” for being pro-gays in the military.
So who do you want me to go for then if I don’t like Obama and Clinton? I’d like Al Gore to run but he won’t.
Bill Richardson is tipped to be the one to look out for. And Gore may yet be dragged back into the race now that he’s dumped his stodgy image with the Oscar.
The Crocodile may be (mis)underestimating Edwards, though, he had a pretty populist-vaguely lefty economic policy in the last election, which is making a comeback in the US these days.
Obama and Richardson hold the key to victory. Edwards is the same old shit. A black and a hispanic as #1 and #2??? YES PLEASE.
quite right tim:
YA so G issandr…
gros bisous
xxx
(je ne suis pas tante)
“Obama and Richardson hold the key to victory. Edwards is the same old shit. A black and a hispanic as #1 and #2??? YES PLEASE.”
So I take it that you believe being black or hispanic automatically transfer into progressive politics?
Atle–yes, more or less, unless it translates into Bible-thumping conservatism
Issandr–Did Coulter call Edwards a “faggot” because he supports gays in the military? I thought it was in a completely unrelated context. In any case, he can hardly be too offended after he pulled out that cheap “Cheney’s got a gay daughter” shot as he was losing a debate to Dick Cheney, the least charismatic man on Earth. And Coulter, thank God, isn’t running for president of the United States.
Edwards, Obama, Clinton: Doesn’t matter for the Palestinians. But Edwards and Clinton thought a reckless war in Iraq was in the United States’ best interest. Perhaps they deluded themselves into thinking it was also in Iraqs. In any case, they’ve proved their judgment can’t be trusted and they can’t be trusted with such an important office.
Tim, I would like a candidate to be as a aggressive as possible, absolutely #$%#$% ruthless in fact. Cheney’s daughter was fair game considering the Bush-Cheney administration’s stance on gay issues. More specifically, I am looking for a candidate who is willing to be as partisan as possible and isolate the new breed of Republicans and their ideological allies in ThinkTankLand as much as possible. I would like a culture warrior, not a “healer.”
And by the way I think Obama also voted for the Iraq war. So many people did that if you rule them out you’re barely left with any politicians…
I agree that Richardson looks appealing. I hope his campaign gets off the ground.
Some American pollster needs to come up with a snappy phrase for newly angry-isolationist throw-the-bastards-out lefty voters, rather like Nascar Dads and Reagan Democrats.