IS UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL GOOD FOR AMERICA?
As I watch the Israeli onslaught in Gaza, I must ask who really controls American Middle East policy. Our strategic interests in the region are clear:

1st: We have much to gain through peaceful relations with the oil producing nations of the Middle East. Israel produces no oil or gas.
2nd : The Arab petroleum producers buy our shaky treasury bills and keep much of their cash in our bank vaults. By contrast, we give Israel $3 billion per year in economic aid to keep their economy afloat and another $3 billion to keep their military machine well oiled.
3th : We supply the F-16 jets, the anti personnel mines, and the missile systems Israel employs to keep their neighbors at bay.
4th : Without America's weapons and money, Israel would have had to come to a lasting peace with its neighbors after the 1967 War, in accord with UN Resolutions.

So, do the majority of Americans feel we have some sort of obligation to support Israel in their battles with the Hamas, their continual suppression of the Palestinians in the West Bank, and with the Hezbullah in Lebanon? Is there any logic in our encouraging Israel to operate outside of the Nuclear Proliferation Agreement?

The answer is no. The American Jewish Lobby, representing no more than 2.2% of Americans, has managed to take control over what we can read in the press, what we can hear on our main stream broadcast media, and what our elected politicians in Washington can safely say on the subject of Israel. No politician, no television news show host, and no newspaper editorialist will dare to question the pro-Israel position government. The power of the American Jewish lobby, working through the American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and similar groups, has effectively stifled all dissent. You will find far more dissent with Israeli policy in the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz than ever makes its way into print in the U.S.

WHEN SENDING NO MESSAGE IS THE MESSAGE
Israel's intensive 5-day bombing of the world's most densely populated refuge camp, the Gaza Strip, and the subsequent ground attacks have put the incoming Obama Administration in an untenable position: While Obama himself has supported the Israeli military's right to retaliate against rocket's fired into Jewish settlements, he has so far avoided even seconding Condi Rice's call for Israel to avoid civilian targets in Gaza.

When does his studied neutrality become an implicit approval of genocide? Most international observers do not believe that prevention of the relatively inconsequential attacks by home-made short-range rockets justifies bombing raids by US-supplied F-16s that have so far killed 700 Palestinians. By comparison, a total of 20 Israelis have been killed by Hamas rockets in the past 7 years. The efforts of Israel to terrorize the civilian population were indicated in a January 1 report by the New York Times, which wrote: "Tens of thousands of Gazans have received recorded phone calls from the Israeli Army warning them that their houses have been marked as targets because they harbored either militants or weapons facilities like rocket workshops. Noncombatants were urged to clear out. Hundreds of thousands of leaflets gave the same message." In an area 25 miles long and only 3 to 7 miles wide, the 1.4 million Palestinians have no where to go to avoid becoming targets for the F-16s.

As the Israeli ground invasion proceeds against a very restrained but well-dug-in Hamas. a few sane words of caution from Washington by both Obama and Rice could lead to a truce. By maintaining silence, they are both complicit in the Israeli invasion and this horrible blood-letting.

STOP ENTITLING THOSE OLD RETIRED PEOPLE!
President-elect Obama gave us the first taste of his economic program this week: He promised to “overhaul Social Security” . . . to deal with the threat that these entitlement programs might “grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run”.

Bush tried to privatize Social Security as a wonderful gift to his Wall Street backers in 2004. Had that happened, a lot of retirees would have lost their pensions in the recent stock market crash. Responsible analysts all agree that minor adjustments to the Social Security program will keep it self-sustaining for many decades. The political analyst Chris Floyd suggests instead that we curb military expenditures, that now absorb over 50% of government spending to fight useless wars, throw our weight around, and maintain 750 bases in foreign countries. Counterpunch 1/08/09

TOO MUCH INTEL EXPERIENCE & TOO LITTLE
Admiral Dennis Blair is Obama's pick for National Security Director, a nice-sounding position with a rather hollow job description. Like many who have been engaged on the Dark Side, he comes with a bit of dirt under his nails. Correspondent Allan Nairn trailed him during a visit to Indonesia's General Wiranto in 1999. The General was then directing the very bloody suppression of the East Timorese independence movement by Indonesian-supported militias. “According to a classified cable on the meeting, Blair, who had been directed by Congress to tell Wiranto to shut the militias down, instead offered him a promise of further U.S. assistance. When word of this reached Washington, Blair was directed to call Wiranto and correct the error. In this telephone conversation, ten day later, Blair again failed to insist that the militia be shutdown.

The story was published in The Nation in September 1999 and never denied by Admiral Blair. When President Clinton, was later confronted by Correspondent Nairn, he pleaded ignorance and kindly referred him back to Blair. It is difficult to believe that the Admiral merely had a problem delivering bad news. Was he actually obeying orders from a “higher authority”?

In contrast to Blair's considerable Intel experience, Congressman Leon Panetta, Obama's choice for Director of the CIA, is being criticized by Senator Diane Feinstein, the new Chair of the Intel Committee, for having too little. After all, how can we keep a lid on things at the CIA if they keep bringing in unseasoned outsiders? Ray McGovern, a career CIA man, “thinks Panetta's being an outsider is a virtue, rather than a drawback. He has no association with the abuses of the last decade. He can come in and look at things without having to cover up”. Jim Lehrer New Hour 1/06/09

BUYING THE SENATE
Millionaires and their friends have traditionally bought US Senate seats by dumping their money and that of their sponsors into campaigns. US Presidents have sold key ambassadorships for generations. Politics on the Washington level involves barter, trading of favors, and negotiation. So, when the Governor of Illinois Ron Blagojevich announces that he is open to bids for Obama's now vacant seat, should we be apalled at his wanton commercialization of the political process? If someone offered, quite legally to donate to Blago's campaign fund in return for 2 years in the Senate, would an eyebrow be raised? In the current imbroglio, the only real issue should be whether Blagojevich was going to pocket some cash in his personal account. Yet our soon-to-be President protested extensively that he and his staff never had discussions of this sort. Now we find that his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has had at least six conversations about this very thing with the Governor and his aide. Wouldn't it have been far easier for Obama to have admitted at the start his interest in the nomination and disavow having offered to enhance the Governor's personal accounts? Another question is now raised: Inasmuch as no deal was made for the seat, how can Attorney Fitzpatrick prosecute the Governor? Why this pre-emptive justice?

MISSION CREEP IRAQI STYLE
Obama promised to have all combat forces off the streets by June 2009 and all forces out of Iraq in 16 months - May 2010. Now, as he confronts Generals Odierno and Petraeus, he seems to be creeping away from the campaign rhetoric crucial to his election. The Generals have negotiated a December 2011 date for full withdrawal with the Iraqi government under a Status of Forces Agreement. This is 18 months beyond the Obama Plan. Our good generals have begun protesting that "three years is a very long time" and that the date is subject to further negotiation. The SOFA also calls for a June 2009 withdrawal of combat forces but the generals suggest that some combat troops may have to stay longer as "transition teams and enablers" helping the Iraqis to cope. Robert Parry writes: "The top US commanders for Iraq have taken the measure of the President-elect and decided that they can openly flout his campaign promise". Consortium News 12/22/08. We will need to watch most carefully how Obama handles this quite open challenge from the military - it could provide an signal as who will really call the shots about foreign policy under the new Administration.

GOVERNING FROM THE CENTER
Before the election, Obama had explained to his advisors that he intended to “govern from the center”. He said he wanted various views represented within his administration. He also “promised greater transparency than ever before and a fresh approach”. Nancy Pelosi's statement two days after the election seems to reflect Obama's views: “The country must be governed from the middle: You have to bring people together to reach consensus on solutions that are sustainable and acceptable to the American people”. Elizabeth Drew in the NY Review of Books 12/18/08. Some Obama people argued that while the President-Elect needed to be careful and centrist in his selection of cabinet members dealing with national security, he would show his true progressive agenda of change when he selects Secretaries for Agriculture, Education, Interior, Environment and Energy.

So, we will have Gates at Defense, Clinton at State, and General Jones as National Security Advisor. But why pick a big agri-business spokesman as Secretary of Agriculture? Why give an advocate of private mining on public land control over the Interior Department? Why Arne Duncan, a promoter of the “No Child Left Behind” disaster as Education Secretary? And why a nuclear power advocate to head the Energy Department?

OBAMA'S DOMESTIC CABINET PICKS

Tom Vilsack's nomination as Secretary of Agriculture “sends the message that dangerous, untested, unlabeled genetically-engineered crops will be the norm in the Obama Administration” says the executive Director of the Organic Consumer's Association, Ronnie Cummins. Vilsack has also been a strong promoter of unsustainable ethanol manufacture from corn and soy beans. Op-Ed News 12/17/08

Senator (D-Co) Ken Salazar, Obama's choice for Secretary of Interior, “ .. stands on the right wing of the Senate Democratic Caucus”. “He is widely seen in the west as a loyal servant of the big ranching, and mining interests” “Indeed, Salazar's appointment was celebrated on the stock market Wednesday. Shares of Consul energy and Massey Energy both climbed over 10% on expectations that his taking charge of Interior would assure continued opening up of federal lands for minerals exploitation”. WSW.org 12/18/08.

Arne Duncan (currently CEO for the Chicago Public School System) will become Education Secretary. He is seen as a strong supporter of the “No Child Left Behind” initiative of the Bush administration, in particular the imposition of standardized testing and the rote learning that goes with it”. His nomination has been praised by both of Bush's Secretaries of Education, and by David Brooks, the NY Times advocate of Bush's No Child policies. WSW.org 12/18/08

Dr. Steven Chu has headed the Lawrence Berkeley Labs these past 4 years and is a scientist, not a businessman. His clear scientific reasoning will be a welcome relief after Dick Cheney formulated our Bush era energy policy in secret backroom meetings with oil and coal company executives. Steven Chu's support for the nuclear power industry is why he'll be DOE Secretary, according to Stephen Lendman writing in the Baltimore Chronicle 12/18/08. When asked in 2005 if fission-based nuclear power plants should be a larger part of the energy-producing portfolio, Chu responded: "Absolutely" and was cavalier is his dismissal of problems associated with the accumulation of even more nuclear waste. Chu is "trapped (in a) nuclear mindset," according to Greenpeace USA's Jim Riccio.

Lisa Jackson will be the new EPA administrator. Jackson has served as head of New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). According to the Washington-based Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), her record there "should disqualify her from serving as the next head of the US Environmental Protection Agency. In many instances, Jackson embraced policies at DEP echoing the very practices at the Bush EPA which Senator Barack Obama condemned during the presidential campaign." DEP employees called her "politicized" and accused her of suppressing scientific information, issuing gag orders and threats against professional staff members who objected, and acting against the environment, not for it. Baltimore Chronicle 12/18/08