[Peace] Must We _Really_ “Suck it Up” for Chris “Inevitable” Coons to “Appease the Donors”?

[Robert Naiman]

Must We _*Really*_ “Suck it Up” for Chris “Inevitable” Coons to “Appease
the Donors”?

Yesterday I thought it would be a useful analogy to compare how AIPAC is
trying to cram Chris “Inevitable” Coons down our throats as Secretary of
State in a Biden Administration to how AIPAC crammed Hillary “Inevitable”
Clinton as Secretary of State down our throats in January 2009 - even after
we defeated her in the primary, precisely to keep her away from U.S. policy
in the Middle East. Elections matter. Except when they don’t.

But it backfired. It was A Bridge Too Far.

Even my “friend” Comrade Brunsky - he was the “best man” at my wedding, so
I guess I can call him my “friend” - turned against me. _*Et tu, Brune?*_

Even my “friend” Comrade Brunsky, whose own mother left Germany on a _
*Kindertransport*_, whose own mother liked to refer to AIPAC apologists as
“the Jewish Mafia” when they used “Reign of Terror” intimidation tactics to
try to silence critics of Israel - may her memory be a blessing - turned
against me.

Even my “friend” Comrade Brunsky, who grew up thinking that everybody has
two grandparents, because that’s how many he had - turned against me.

Up until that point, my “friend” Comrade Brunsky had been broadly
sympathetic to my campaign to block AIPAC from cramming Chris “Inevitable”
Coons down our throats as Biden’s Secretary of State.

But when I compared it to AIPAC cramming Hillary down our throats as
Secretary of State in January 2009, that was A Bridge Too Far.

“Oh, c’mon,” Comrade Brunsky reproached me. “You can’t blame Obama for
that. He had to Appease The Donors.”

The question, dear Watson, is not WHETHER we have to Appease The Donors.
Nobody disputes that we have to Appease The Donors. Everybody accepts that
we have to Appease The Donors. Who among us expects to have as much say in
the foreign policy of the United States as Haim Saban, Todd Richman, and
Mark Mellman? Do we have delusions of grandeur? Nobody among us expects to
have as much say in the foreign policy of the United States as they do.

The question is HOW MUCH we have to Appease The Donors.

Exactly how far does their “turf” extend? What exactly are their
“internationally-recognized borders”? Do their borders extend from the
Meuse to the Naiman river, from the Adige to the Belt? Will they be content
with the Sudetenland, or do they need all of Czechoslovakia? Does only one
side of the Jordan belong to them, or also the other? Will they be content
with the south bank of the Litani, or do they need to go all the way to
Beirut? Will they be content with the Golan Heights, or do they also need
all of the West Bank to make them feel warm and cozy?

How will we know when the donors have been sufficiently appeased? Is there
some point at which they will stop asking for things and leave us alone? If
they ask for something, does that prove that they need it? Is it possible
that they sometimes ask for things that they don’t need? How would we know
that, if we never push back? Is there any harm in trying to push back
occasionally, just to check to make sure that it’s something that they
really need?

Did they really need Hillary as Secretary of State in January 2009? It
didn’t stop the Iran deal. It only delayed it until Hillary was replaced by
John Kerry, who negotiated the deal.

Would it be so terrible now to try to have someone more like John Kerry
right away, so we can end the Yemen war and restore the Iran deal and stop
the Israeli annexation of the West Bank and stop treating U.S. weapons
exports like potatoes, instead of having a Hillary first?

Suppose that we only have finite time left here in Middle Earth, before we
sail off to Elvenhome to lick our wounds. Suppose that we only have four
things left on our Bucket List, four things left that we want to accomplish
in Middle Earth before we sail off to Elvenhome: end the Yemen war, restore
the Iran deal, stop the Israeli annexation of the West Bank, stop treating
U.S. weapons exports like potatoes. Would it be so terrible to try to have
more of a John Kerry-like figure, someone who has some track record as a
war skeptic and vigorous diplomacy advocate, to supervise these four tasks,
rather than someone imposed by AIPAC like Chris “Inevitable” Coons, who
voted for the Yemen war and helped AIPAC undermine the Iran deal?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace/attachments/20201030/c6dbd413/attachment.htm>