INSULT !
INSULT !
Dreyfus, The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/541196/print
USA Today, AP writer Matthew Lee
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=pressconnects&sParam=33037203.story
Managed News by Israeli Jews
-- how they are able to pull it off.
1. Omit all account of the provocative insult to Biden who had declared “no space” between the U.S.-Isreal – predicated partly on the context of assumptions agreed to by Netanyahu and Obama including restraint on settlements. But the details were not openly discussed, and what made the announcement most insulting was its cancellation of this assumption.
<=This ignoring of anything pertaining to Israel’s deliberate intent to insult the US follows the encased-in-cement rule never to allow Israel to be framed in a culpable position. It cannot do anything unjustified as a nation, because it is an autonomous entity and its official acts are justified because Israel officially does them. It doesn’t commit ‘murder’ –Dubai was State targeted assassination. At least, that’s what it would be “If Israel did it”, in the words of Alan Dershowitz. It’s official line neither affirms nor denies. Strategic ambiguity. That’s them.
Nor was the formal dinner in Jerusalem an “insult”, even if the Bidens are thinking and drinking to one set of understandings while their grinning, cunning hosts are thinking and drinking to precisely their destruction.
The New York Times wouldn’t call it an insult. Their editorial also focused on Biden’s condemnation of the announced settlements rather then the impact of its timing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/opinion/11thu1.html?scp=1&sq=Biden%20Israel%20editorial%20&st=cse They do say, however, ” it is hard to see the timing as anything but a slap in the face to Washington.” A “Bump in the Road” headed their Letters abouit it, none very righteously indignant.
A startled (if feigned) Mikah Brzezinsky on MSNBC’s Mornin’ Joe went “wha.. why do they ALWAYS do that… ?” – quickly segued.
2. The main psychodynamic feature becomes the FIERCE DENUNCIATION of “the Obama administration”. “Harsh talk”, “unusually blunt response”. Dreyfus cites Axelrod, Crowly as those who “chime in”. Lord knows the lines must have been smokin’ for 43 minutes while Hillary was on the horn to Bibi. I expect she got his attention. The blast was spurred by the insult, but its substantive content was condemnation of settlement expansion. The latter was what mattered to the expanders, and remained as a fiat accompli after the flap almost as if that played a diversionary part in it. It can always be apologized for if pressed, as Netanyahu has done.
3. “…IGNITED A FIRESTORM in Congress and among powerful pro-Israel interest groups who say the critcism of Americas top Mideast ally was misplaced.” (USA Today) “A bipartisan parade of lawmakers and interest groups (AIPAC is mentioned)…outpouring of anger” at condemnation of Israel.
“overwrought rhetoric”, Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.
“Now we’ve had our spat,” said John McCain, “its time to get our eye back on the goal—the peace talks” ( now preemptively skewed in Israel’s favor, with removal of trust)
“Let’s cut the family fighting, the family feud,” Joe Lieberman said.
(twHS: the phrase ‘family feud’ begs fundamental questionS)
Summary: By: 1. instigating a vehement ‘venting’ response; 2. splitting off the cause of the heatedness as damaging to Israel; 3. ‘igniting’ counter attack that scorns the excess emotionality (‘hysterical Dems’); 4. a “new status quo” favorable to the insulters is arrived at at the expense of the insulted. They are left to froth, gurgle, squinch
Dreyfus, The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/541196/print
USA Today, AP writer Matthew Lee
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=pressconnects&sParam=33037203.story
Managed News by Israeli Jews
-- how they are able to pull it off.
1. Omit all account of the provocative insult to Biden who had declared “no space” between the U.S.-Isreal – predicated partly on the context of assumptions agreed to by Netanyahu and Obama including restraint on settlements. But the details were not openly discussed, and what made the announcement most insulting was its cancellation of this assumption.
<=This ignoring of anything pertaining to Israel’s deliberate intent to insult the US follows the encased-in-cement rule never to allow Israel to be framed in a culpable position. It cannot do anything unjustified as a nation, because it is an autonomous entity and its official acts are justified because Israel officially does them. It doesn’t commit ‘murder’ –Dubai was State targeted assassination. At least, that’s what it would be “If Israel did it”, in the words of Alan Dershowitz. It’s official line neither affirms nor denies. Strategic ambiguity. That’s them.
Nor was the formal dinner in Jerusalem an “insult”, even if the Bidens are thinking and drinking to one set of understandings while their grinning, cunning hosts are thinking and drinking to precisely their destruction.
The New York Times wouldn’t call it an insult. Their editorial also focused on Biden’s condemnation of the announced settlements rather then the impact of its timing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/opinion/11thu1.html?scp=1&sq=Biden%20Israel%20editorial%20&st=cse They do say, however, ” it is hard to see the timing as anything but a slap in the face to Washington.” A “Bump in the Road” headed their Letters abouit it, none very righteously indignant.
A startled (if feigned) Mikah Brzezinsky on MSNBC’s Mornin’ Joe went “wha.. why do they ALWAYS do that… ?” – quickly segued.
2. The main psychodynamic feature becomes the FIERCE DENUNCIATION of “the Obama administration”. “Harsh talk”, “unusually blunt response”. Dreyfus cites Axelrod, Crowly as those who “chime in”. Lord knows the lines must have been smokin’ for 43 minutes while Hillary was on the horn to Bibi. I expect she got his attention. The blast was spurred by the insult, but its substantive content was condemnation of settlement expansion. The latter was what mattered to the expanders, and remained as a fiat accompli after the flap almost as if that played a diversionary part in it. It can always be apologized for if pressed, as Netanyahu has done.
3. “…IGNITED A FIRESTORM in Congress and among powerful pro-Israel interest groups who say the critcism of Americas top Mideast ally was misplaced.” (USA Today) “A bipartisan parade of lawmakers and interest groups (AIPAC is mentioned)…outpouring of anger” at condemnation of Israel.
“overwrought rhetoric”, Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.
“Now we’ve had our spat,” said John McCain, “its time to get our eye back on the goal—the peace talks” ( now preemptively skewed in Israel’s favor, with removal of trust)
“Let’s cut the family fighting, the family feud,” Joe Lieberman said.
(twHS: the phrase ‘family feud’ begs fundamental questionS)
Summary: By: 1. instigating a vehement ‘venting’ response; 2. splitting off the cause of the heatedness as damaging to Israel; 3. ‘igniting’ counter attack that scorns the excess emotionality (‘hysterical Dems’); 4. a “new status quo” favorable to the insulters is arrived at at the expense of the insulted. They are left to froth, gurgle, squinch
posted by Sid Thomas | 1:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home