Skip to main content

McCain offers more insecurity in the Middle East

Now that the 2 candidates, McCain and Obama, for US president are clear, it is time to consider their respective policies.

The Israel lobby group AIPAC is presently holding its annual conference in Washington. All the movers and shakers are dutifully trooping to the podium to deliver speeches the delegates want to hear.

Both McCain and Obama have made speeches, Obama only a few hours ago. McCain spoke the other day and Daniel Levy, writing on The Huffington Post, analyses the McCain speech:

"Senator McCain gave the keynote address at yesterday's opening of the annual AIPAC Conference and promised that the same vision of perpetual warfare served up by Bush, and offered as an option to Americans in November, would also be available to his Israeli friends were he to become the next occupant of the White House. If I may speak for a moment from my Israeli perspective--I found the enthusiastic response to the unappetizing fare proffered by McCain, while not surprising, thoroughly distasteful. The speech of the Republican presidential hopeful was so utterly devoid of anything positive for the future, that he even managed to find precious little to say about Israel's achievements of the past 60 years (yes I am all too aware of Israel's shortcomings, but given the occasion, one would have at least expected an uplifting take on the positive side of the Israel story--but then McCain does not do uplifting). What was most remarkable though was how shallow and devoid of context McCain's understanding of the region proved to be. He is indeed positioning himself as the true inheritor of the neoconservative mantle.

McCain's speech ran to just under 3000 words. Exactly half of that was devoted to Iran and Iraq. If one removes the tops and tails--his flowery references to visiting Israel, the obligatory name check to his buddy Senator Lieberman, and reference to Henry "Scoop" Jackson (a none-too-subtle bow to the neocons), then just 725 words of that speech remained for such trivialities as Israel's relations with its neighbors, al-Qaeda, the Gulf, etc.; not surprising then that these barely got a mention.

In McCain's world the Middle East is reduced to Iran, Iraq and some terrorists running around in Gaza and Lebanon. Egypt and Jordan, the two neighbors with which Israel has formal peace treaties, and the anchors for Israel's acceptance and peaceful existence in the region, did not merit a single mention. Likewise Saudi Arabia, or any of the Gulf States with whom Israel is keen to formalize links, who were even present at the Annapolis conference and who have mobilized a platform for regional acceptance of Israel in the Saudi Initiative. McCain ain't interested. On the Saudis and the Gulf--nada.

Israel has just launched Turkish mediated proximity talks with Syria. But in a display of McSameness, McCain refused to welcome or refer to these negotiations. He quite simply snubbed the government of Israel and the leadership of its defense establishment, who are strongly behind these peace talks (by the way the Turks, who are brokering these talks, who now have a key regional role, also don't exist in McCain's Middle East)."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...