The soap opera-worthy spectacle of the American presidential campaign has assumed a trite and wearisome character unworthy of the once-dominant superpower.
Not only has Barack Obama, the incumbent president in full campaign mode, been under an “obligation” to sign new military aid agreements with the state of Israel, but his challenger, Mitt Romney, was also nearly “forced” to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to promise his unconditional support to Israel and to threaten Palestinians.
Speaking of “obligations” and being “forced,” are we really supposed to believe that the two candidates running for the White House have no other choice and can do nothing else but raise a white flag to Israel?
We know that the Palestinian territories, and along with them the peace and stability of the Middle East, have been taken hostage by Tel Aviv. But when the politics of the United States are taken equally hostage by Israel, it is completely legitimate to find all of this both tiresome and scandalous!
On one hand, we can acknowledge the electoral blackmail in light of the clout of the Jewish lobby in the United States. Still, when the security of the Israeli state and the impunity of the war criminals who govern in Tel Aviv are more important than the economic crisis or the American lifestyle, we can only say to ourselves that even American citizens have been taken hostage by the geopolitics that determine the relationship between the White House and Israel.
Romney à Jérusalem…
Le spectacle du feuilleton de la présidentielle américaine est devenu d’une platitude et d’une lassitude indignes d’une ex-première puissance.
Non seulement le président sortant Barack Obama a été, en pleine campagne, dans «l’obligation» de signer de nouvelles conventions d’aide militaire à l’Etat hébreu, mais son challenger Mitt Romney était presque «contraint» de faire pèlerinage à Jérusalem afin de promettre un soutien inconditionnel à Israël et faire des menaces aux Palestiniens.
On parle ici de «contrainte» ou «d’obligation», dans le sens où les deux candidats à la course à la Maison Blanche n’avaient pas vraiment le choix et ne pouvaient pas faire autrement que montrer patte blanche à Israël ?
On savait que les territoires palestiniens, et accessoirement la paix et la stabilité au Moyen-Orient, étaient pris en otage par Tel-Aviv, mais lorsque la politique des Etats-Unis est également prise en otage par Israël, il est légitime de trouver cela lassant et scandaleux !
On peut, à la limite, admettre le chantage électoraliste vu le poids du lobby juif aux Etats-Unis, mais lorsque la sécurité de l’Etat hébreu et l’impunité de criminels de guerre qui gouvernent à Tél-Aviv, est plus importante que la crise économique ou le train de vie des Américains, on se dit que même les citoyens américains sont pris en otage par la géopolitique qui détermine les rapports entre la Maison Blanche et Israël.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
The economic liberalism that the world took for granted has given way to the White House’s attempt to gain sectarian control over institutions, as well as government intervention into private companies,
It wouldn’t have cost Trump anything to show a clear intent to deter in a strategically crucial moment; it wouldn’t even have undermined his efforts in Ukraine.
The madness lies in asserting something ... contrary to all evidence and intelligence. The method is doing it again and again, relentlessly, at full volume ... This is how Trump became president twice.
It wouldn’t have cost Trump anything to show a clear intent to deter in a strategically crucial moment; it wouldn’t even have undermined his efforts in Ukraine.