Barack Obama's Advisor Calls For the Invasion of Israel

[gprime]

I've long posited that he was the most anti-Israel democrat to be running, and it seems that I've been proven right:

Power made her most problematic statement in 2002, in an interview she gave at Berkeley. The interviewer asked her this question:

Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?

Power gave an astonishing answer:

What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing—or investing, I think, more than sacrificing—billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.

Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called “Sharafat” [Sharon-Arafat]. I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.

It isn't too difficult to see all the red flags in this answer. Having placed Israel's leader on par with Yasser Arafat, she called for massive military intervention on behalf of the Palestinians, to impose a solution in defiance of Israel and its American supporters. Billions of dollars would be shifted from Israel's security to the upkeep of a "mammoth protection force" and a Palestinian state—all in the name of our "principles."

Now, there are a range of positions regarding Israel I could see candidates rationally arguing, from increasing military aid to ending all aid and unwelcome intervention. But to invade Israel? Like it or not, they are a reliable ally, which in that region, is particularly significant. Israel has provided the US with too much intel, and done the world's dirty work too many times (anybody remember Osirak?) for this to make sense, much less prove morally sound. I do hope some of the batshit insane Jews (read: most in politics) realize what is going on and start distancing themselves from him. Hillary too. Anybody familiar with the Clinton-JTF dispute should know she isn't our friend. That isn't to say McCain is a great choice, but he appears far more rational, and far less antagonistic towards a key ally. This won't happen of course, but I can dream.

[CPL CHUD]

I can't see justifying the United States sitting idlely on its collective hands while open genocide is being commited in Palestine by Israel, which is what this thought experiment addresses. It would be our moral imperative to increase military presence to significant levels in the region, regardless of what foreign ally we may alienate, if people are being systematicaly destroyed due to race.

[gprime]

You cannot be serious. Israel was, and remains, under assault by Muslim terrorists known as the Palestinians. Try talking to somebody in Sderot, where it is raining rockets on a daily basis, preventing Israelis from going about their business. What Israel is doing is engaging in a legitimate security response. And to allege that genocide is going on suggests you have no fucking understanding of the Middle East. Israel goes out of its way, dangerously so I might add, to minimize civilian casualties. If it wanted, Israel could crush Palestine in minutes. Yet we gave them Gaza, and have made many generous peace offers for years now, all of which have been rejected.

[Athena]

I hate to speak for anyone else, but I don't think that anyone is alleging genocide. This is a hypothetical. IF genocide was being committed, we would have a responsibility to intervene on behalf of the victims, even in the event that the aggressor is an ally.

[CPL CHUD]

I hate to speak for anyone else, but I don't think that anyone is alleging genocide. This is a hypothetical. IF genocide was being committed, we would have a responsibility to intervene on behalf of the victims, even in the event that the aggressor is an ally.

Exactly. That's the way I read it.

[gprime]

Exactly. That's the way I read it.

Well then, I apologize for jumping to the wrong assumption. I would still have to disagree with the idea though, as I would hope Athena would, because it is not our job to prevent genocide in cases where our own security is not at risk.

[Athena]

Well then, I apologize for jumping to the wrong assumption. I would still have to disagree with the idea though, as I would hope Athena would, because it is not our job to prevent genocide in cases where our own security is not at risk.

I struggle with this. While I realise that it is not out "job", per se...But when entire populations are being slaughtered, I think someone ought to step in. I don't think it needs to be a slippery slope, either; I would be okay with our foreign policy establishing provisions for intervention in cases of clear genocide alone.

[gprime]

I struggle with this. While I realise that it is not out "job", per se...But when entire populations are being slaughtered, I think someone ought to step in. I don't think it needs to be a slippery slope, either; I would be okay with our foreign policy establishing provisions for intervention in cases of clear genocide alone.

Let us assume we do that. How do we define genocide? This has been a significant topic of debate in international affairs for several years now. We need to establish criteria. But we also need to figure out to do if something meets most of the criteria, clearly is genocide, but fails to qualify for some trivial reason.

[Athena]

Let us assume we do that. How do we define genocide? This has been a significant topic of debate in international affairs for several years now. We need to establish criteria. But we also need to figure out to do if something meets most of the criteria, clearly is genocide, but fails to qualify for some trivial reason.

I am no policy maker, dahlink. I do recognise these issues, certainly; although there is no easy answer, I am confident that a reasonable line could be determined.

[swivel]

I hate to speak for anyone else, but I don't think that anyone is alleging genocide. This is a hypothetical. IF genocide was being committed, we would have a responsibility to intervene on behalf of the victims, even in the event that the aggressor is an ally.

I read it the same way. I think his point is that we are on the side of justice, not historical alliances. The reason we support Israel isn't because we are wed to them, but because we think that, more often than not, they are the victims rather than the aggressors.

As soon as that balance changes, we should be open to protecting Palestine from over-zealous Israeli abuse.

The path to peace is always derailed by Muslim extremists, which is why we side with Israel. Israel wants their piece of the "Holy Land", and be left alone. Whether it was right to create an Israeli state or not isn't the current issue. There IS a state, and Israel has extended an olive branch over and over, just to be taken advantage of.

This will never excuse future atrocities, though. And we need to be vocal about this for two reasons: First, to keep Israel in check, and keep them from lashing out with our support sheltering them. Second, to remind Palestine that we are going to be there for them as soon as they straighten their shit out. That we are against them due to their actions, and not in general.