"I am counting on one of my journalist/blogger friends who will make the Nixon Center's cut to send me the "audio file" of this meeting as soon as it is finished."

I can't believe you won't be invited Steve.

Dan, surely Steve would be invited. But in his post he said,

"The meeting takes place on July 20th, a date I will be in Beijing..."

Thanks for catching that, WigWag.

Anyway, this kind of debate comes about 18 months too late. The Obama administration's brief window of opportunity has already closed. The Freeman and Satloff square-off can provide nothing but entertainment value.

Steve,

I hope you (or your sub) will post this interview when it is available.

I went to Prep School with Chas 50 years ago and have hoped that some how he could become Secretary of State. The last go-around with IAPAC unfortunately made even this diehard realize that would never happen.

I continue to marvel that the US and especially Israel still think that they can command the ME foreever.

Reports: US Threatens to End Jordan Aid Over Nuclear Program

US Demands Jordan Coordinate All Moves With Israel

by Jason Ditz, July 12, 2010

Last month, Jordan’s King Abdullah accused Israel of trying to prevent the creation of the civilian energy program, and while this was sort of shrugged off as conspiracy mongering at the time, it seems to have more than a grain of truth to it.

After months of railing at every other nation in the Middle East not named Israel for trying to create energy from uranium, reports now have the US threatening to pull all foreign aid from Jordan as the first step to punish them for their efforts to build a civilian nuclear program.

The issue seems not to be the program itself, but Jordan’s unwillingness to accept Israeli demands that the Jordanians “coordinate” all efforts with them and get permission from both the US and Israel before they move forward.

Jordan has sought to reduce its reliance on foreign energy imports, and perhaps even to create enough electricity to export it to some neighbors. But it would also increase their economic independence from the US, which would make them more difficult to order around in the realm of foreign relations.

Israel has maintained it would be willing to accept a limited Jordanian nuclear energy program, but only with a number of conditions attached. The US too has demanded that Jordan eschew enrichment and buy its uranium on the open market

Should make for quite thoughtful insights on ME issues. Any idea if it will be recorded by C-SPAN or Fora.tv or others, Steve...?

Find another Eisenhower.

Why I’m voting for Eisenhower over Obama
by Philip Weiss on July 13, 2010 ·
Retweet.

Below is a riveting story about Eisenhower and Ben Gurion. But first a comment.

If you read the history of the special relationship, the same patterns of political pressure exerted by the Israel lobby to nullify national policy re Israeli expansionism that we see today with Obama's capitulation on Jerusalem and the West Bank occurred 50 and 60 years ago over other borders-- Partition's and Egypt's-- and the return of the refugees, too. And the resistance to this simple political understanding on the left is one of our greatest obstacles to doing anything about it in the U.S. discourse, indeed why the same story has repeated itself over and over for decades of Palestinian dispossession.

The story about President Eisenhower's insistence that Israel withdraw from Egypt, which it had invaded in 1956, comes from The Passionate Attachment (1992) by the late George W. Ball, a former Under Secretary of State, and Douglas Ball. Eisenhower was of course a Republican; which brings up one more point about the discourse on the left: I grew up in a Democratic household, being told that John Foster Dulles was a bastard and maybe an anti-Semite, too. In fact, his position below is a stirring one; but I have had to overcome a lot of cultural/political programming to say as much.

Jewish American organizations tried hard to generate congressional resistance to Eisenhower's position. On February 1, [1957] Senator William Knowland, the Republican minority leader, protested to [Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles against the administration's stand. Knowland agreed that the policy might be right in theory, but pointed out to Dulles the domestic political implications and threatened to revolt. Dulles answered Knowland by noting, "We cannot have all our policies made in Jerusalem," and he justified the American position on the following grounds:

"First, sanctions would be necessary to compel Israel's withdrawal and a withdrawal was needed to maintain the American position among the Arabs...

"[Second] I am aware how almost impossible it is in this country to carry out a foreign policy not approved by the Jews. [Former sec'y of state under Truman George] Marshall and [first Defense Secretary James V.] Forrestal learned that. I am going to try to have one.

"That does not mean I am anti-Jewish, but I believe in what George Washington said in his Farewell Address that an emotional attachment to another country should not interfere."

On February 20, Eisenhower called a meeting of the congressional leadership. When the lawmakers, ever sensitive to the pro-Israeli lobby, refused to help, Eisenhower resorted to television that same night.

Eisenhower did more than talk. He issued an ultimatum to Ben Gurion to pull Israel's forces back to the Israeli border. He also laid plans with Dulles that, if the Israelis did not comply, the United States would cut off the flow of all aid to Israel, including not only development assistance but technical assistance and shipments of agricultural products under Public Law 480. He would also delay the disbursement of an already arranged Export-Import Bank loan and terminate all forms of military assistance, including those in the pipeline. He canceled export licenses for the shipment of munitions or other military goods. Finally, he ordered Secretary of the Treasury George Humphrey to draft a change in U.S. tax regulations so that the Jewish American organization benefactors would no longer be entitled to a federal income tax deduction for contributions that benefited Israel.

In spite of further efforts by Israel's supporters to deflect White House pressure from the Jewish state, Eisenhower did not cave in; so, as the Israeli government began to run out of money, Ben Gurion, on March 5, 1957, grudgingly capitulated. On March 16, Israel withdrew from almost all the territory it had occupied in the Suez offensive.

.

I find it truly amazing that there are smart people in this country, who don't recognize that Israel is going to drag down the US with its doomed insanity. Do people believe that eventually the entire Middle East countries won't have sufficient nuclear devices and military strength that they can overpower Israel? Are people blind to the extreme pain and suffering Israel is piling on the Palestinians more and more every day?

Do you stop and think what unbelievable hutzpah, egotism, totally unfounded delusion must exist in Israel to give itself permission to tell Jordan, you have to tell us all you are doing in nuclear power, or you can't have an in country program?

Do you people believe that the US government can continued to have an insane (support everything Israel wants) program and retain government workers that are rational and have common sense in all they do. Do you actually believe that all the people who work in jobs that involve dealing with Israel, can make irrational (anti American benefit) decisions related to Israel, and then revert to rational decision making when it comes to all the other areas in which they function?

It is irrational to claim it is reasonable to have a country that favors a particular ethnic or religious group. And all such countries are headed for demise.

Finally, I suggest that the Palestinian situation will not be resolved until the Palestinians see themselves as a people who deserve a state and began to act in a manner that demonstrates that attitude; and sufficient Israelis realize they are killing their moral souls continuing to act in this draconian kill everyone who opposes, continued march to control all the areas in which the 12 tribes lived in Old Testament times, type of people.

As long as the intelligent American electorate continues to intellectually support our government's insane policy toward Israel it will remain. And until our government gives up this nonsense it will remain. And as long as it remains we will have fewer and fewer friends in the world, a progressively increasing national debt, and increasing moral corruption in our society.

I weep for this country.

Interesting to mention the Nixon opening to China, Steve.

Remember the phrase, "Only Nixon can go to China?". What would the parallel "Only ??? can go to Tehran?" be, or who for "Only ??? can say 'no' to Jerusalem"?

Unfortunately, I'm afraid the political reality is that Obama doesn't fit that catchphrase, anymore than Eugene McCarthy or George McGovern could have pulled off what Nixon did even had they followed the exact same policy playbook -- it would have fallen apart domestically.

If it's true that it took someone with Nixon's red-baiting history -- "remember Matsu!" -- to have the political capital to open with China, then the parallel is this: "Only Cheney can go to Tehran". Or "Only Palin can say 'no' to Israel". I'm with you on the bestpolicy choice, but without senior GOP leaders with solid security credentials backing it, I don't think there is an opening for Obama. Probably it takes a GOP administration.

Carroll,
That is very interesting, thanks. I knew Eisenhower gave the Israelis an ultimatum. I just wish the re-write of the tax code had gone ahead. I'm convinced that tax deductible donations from the US fuel this conflict. Without them, the Israelis would have to make accomadations with their neighbors and quit stealing land.

Maybe it's because I've been out of the loop, so to speak, TWN-wise, for a week or so, but Warren Metzler's comments @2:12 bring back the recognition of how the US Israeli-centric delusion infects so many areas of policy and behavior.

The pseudo reasonable, as well as the downright jingoistic protestations of the Zionists hereabouts reflects a startling hubris that somehow the latent store of American good will towards Israel is a bottomless well. Maybe that confidence is well placed. Politicians may continue to grovel at the AIPAC altar. But their sorry epitaths that history will write are little comfort to the interests of the country, the US, they sell out on a daily basis.

I just want to comment on this "only Nixon" could go to China. Obvious this is commonly held, but I suggest it is a delusion. When Nixon went to China, he sprung it on us. Just went and did his thing. Any president can do anything, as long as he's presents that he's convinced it is a valid action to take. Of course if later that action appears to lead to disaster, that president would receive a lot of political heat.

But I believe that the American people are good hearted by and large. And if Obama was able to do a magnanimous act, I think the American people would respond positively. I, which saddens me, have become convinced Obama lacks the necessary character to do a magnanimous act, only willing to do what fits his image of facilitating getting re-elected in 2012.

Posted by Warren Metzler, Jul 13 2010, 8:38PM - Link
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I believe you are right.

I posted an early link of this way down below at the tail end of another thread, but in case it was missed I think this short interview series with Shir Hever (*) by the Real News is informative, balanced and worth the few minutes it takes (there are about six short segments now)

THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF ISRAEL'S OCCUPATION

http://www.therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=574

(*)
"Shir Hever is an economic researcher in the Alternative Information Center, a Palestinian-Israeli organization active in Jerusalem and Beit-Sahour. Researching the economic aspect of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, some of his research topics include international aid to the Palestinians and Israel, the effects of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories on the Israeli economy, and the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns against Israel. He is a frequent speaker on the topic of the economy of the Israeli occupation." (Ibid.)