Friday, December 02, 2011

Obama Fulfilling Neocon Agenda & GOP Supports Israel First Policy

Edited update: Dec. 2, 2011

 For #OWS  & #Warisacrime:

Surprisingly from a Hollywood movie we get the consequences of American Foreign Policy summarized in less than 3 minutes. The foreign policy of the US is more often than not a policy to protect the interests of Big Business and to allow the Military Industrial Complex to flex its muscles and to show off its newest gadgetry while expanding U.S. hegemony as part of the American Empire. .

This clip from Good Will Hunting sounds almost prophetic given who became president a stoner who drank too much and was too cowardly and lazy to join the armed forces. Former President Bush was hooked on Whiskey and Cocaine and then hooked on the Lord from drug addict to Jesus Freak. According to the GOP and the Neocons cowards, spoiled rich kids, drug addicts and Alcoholics make good presidents because such individuals are easy to control.

Good Will Hunting and What's Wrong With The NSA
Will Hunting had it right 14 years ago

Wesley Clark ( US 4 Star General ) US will attack 7 countries in 5 years.

Glenn Greenwald argues that President Obama is continuing whether by design or not with the same Neocon foreign policies as that of the former Bush Regime. That is destabilizing the Middle East so America has more control over the region and to defend Israel and its long term goals to occupy more territory and continue its Apartheid Regime.

Obama Fulfilling the Neocon Dream? Mass Regime Change in Muslim World? by Glenn Greenwald at Democracy Now ! Via Information Clearing House November 28, 2011

“... if you go down that list of seven countries that he said the neocons had planned to basically change the governments of, you pretty much see that that vision, despite the perception that we have a Democratic president and therefore the neo-conservative movement is powerless, is pretty much being fulfilled,” Greenwald says.
The Israel First Policy is a major campaign policy of  the majority of the Republican presidentential candidates.
 According to these GOP presidential candidates US foreign policy in the Middle East must rest upon the basic principle that Israel's needs and its security come before any other foreign relations concerns of the US government. The US government they insist must support Israel unconditionally.

One of the reasons the Republican presidential candidates are making Israel First as their major foreign policy concerns is that they want to ingratiate themselves and gain support from the Christian evangelical religious right who are now such an influential group in the GOP. The religious Right insist that the US support israel unconditionally based upon their own theological and escatalogical beliefs that is that Israel must be permitted to expand its borders to include territory promised to the Israelites by God in the old testament that is the Promised Land or Greater Israel known as Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah.

From Wikipedia:

Greater Israel is a controversial expression with several different Biblical and political meanings over time.
Currently, the most common definition of the land encompassed by the term is the territory of the State of Israel together with the Palestinian territories. Other earlier definitions, favored by Revisionist Zionism, included the territory of the former British Mandate of Palestine (with or without Transjordan, which developed independently after 1923). Other religious uses refer to one of the Biblical definitions of the Land of Israel found in Genesis 15:18-21, Numbers 34:1-15 or Ezekiel 47:13-20.
Promised LandMain article: Land of IsraelSee also: Promised LandGreater Israel occasionally refers to the Promised Land (defined in Genesis 15:18-21) or to the Land of Israel, and is also called Complete Land of Israel or "Entire Land of Israel" (Hebrewארץ ישראל השלמה‎, Eretz Yisrael Hashlemah). This is a more accurate translation than "Greater" Israel, which is used in English but has no real counterpart in Hebrew.
The Bible contains three geographical definitions of the Land of Israel. The first, found in Genesis 15:18-21, is vague. It describes a large territory, "from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates", comprising all of modern-day Israel, the Palestinian Territories, and Lebanon, as well as large parts of SyriaJordan, and Egypt. The proportion of current IraqSaudi Arabia, and Turkey included in this territory is debatable.
The other two definitions are found in Numbers 34:1-15 and Ezekiel 47:13-20 and describe a smaller territory 
also see : Eretz Israel  Forever.

As the above map shows Greater Israel  would include parts of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt, Kuwait, most of Syria and all of Jordan & Lebanon. This is quite an ambitious and would have disastrous consequences for the Middle East and the world. So who's more dangerous an increasingly militarized triumphant arrogant Israel with its some 300 Atomic weapons or Iran which has zero Atomic weapons.

This Greater Israel is referred toas eretz Israel which the ultra-orthodox Jews argue is their right to occupy and that all non-Jews be expelled from.The Evangelical pro-Zionist Christians ie Pastor John Hagee 's organization CUFI Christians For a United Israel believe that the Book of Revelation in the New Testament prophezizes that before the Second Coming of Christ can occur Israel must first retake Greater Israel and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem and perform animal sacrifices at the Temple ie the pure Red Heffer. To the Zionist Evangelical Christians the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was a sign that the end-times scenario of the Book of revealtion had begun.

The Religious Right therefore is pushing for war with Iran and anyother state which is seen as a possible enemy of Israel. So any regime change or move towards democracy or whatever is only to be accepted if the new Regime does all it can to foster good relations with Israel and allows Israel to expand its borders in order to occupy Greater Israel.

Republicans and Israel: Too Much Love Can Kill You By Chemi Shalev Haaretz via Information Clearing House November 28, 2011

Republicans are saying they'll attack Iran for Israel's sake - this might not only prove to be 'bad for the Jews' in the long run, but could also come back to haunt the Republicans themselves.

Herman Cain said the U.S. would “join Israel” in attacking Iran, as long as the Israelis came up with a credible plan;

Newt Gingrich said the U.S. would bomb Tehran only as a “last recourse” but would be happy to team up with Israel in a “conventional” attack;

Michele Bachmann has already indicated that the Pentagon should present “war plans” in order to rescue “millions of Israelis who are on the precipice of losing their lives”;

Rick Perry said “if we're going to be serious about saving Israel, we better get serious about Syria and Iran”;

Rick Santorum made up for lost time in the debate by declaring later, “I’d be working with Israel and be very clear with Iran that we are preparing a military strike";

Mitt Romney thinks that the answer to Iran is to go to Israel “to show the world we care about that country and that region”;

and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, usually the most cautious Republican debater on matters of foreign policy, said “our interest is to ensure that Israel - that Iran does not go nuclear. Our interest in the Middle East is Israel.”

Not Saudi Arabia. Not the Gulf emirates. Not the Maghreb. Not the Horn of Africa. Not a stable Iraq. Not a moderate Egypt. Not the free flow of oil. Not containment of China and Russia. Not Islamic moderation, not even the fight against jihadist terrorism. Just Israel.

...Of course, the main reason for the current Republican lovefest with Israel isn’t so much the Jewish lobby, the Jewish vote or even Jewish campaign contributions, but rather the intense courtship of the Israel-adoring Christian Evangelical vote, which is likely to play a pivotal role in the upcoming Republican primaries. These voters view oaths of loyalty to Israel as a qualifying benchmark for all aspiring candidates and they are hardly likely to be deterred by the possibility of conflagration in the Middle East which is, after all, but a necessary dispensationalist end-of-days landmark “on the Road to Armageddon” as Timothy Weber’s 2004 book explains.

But for many, less “Israelocentric” Americans, as well as for the hundreds of millions of people throughout the world who are closely monitoring the Republican race, the unabashed and unqualified Republican embrace of Israel at the expense of other, no-less-critical issues for America’s well-being might very well be seen as confirming the delusional conspiratorial descriptions of rabid Jew-baiters. This might not only prove to be “bad for the Jews” in the long run, but could also come back to haunt the Republicans themselves should the issue of Iran still be on the table if and when one of them is sworn into office on January 20, 2013 (or January 21, as the 20th is a Sunday).

and so it goes,

No comments: