On the surface it appears that President Obama has given up on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and, given the evidence, it is difficult imagining that there is something different beneath the surface. To wit:
Special Envoy George Mitchell resigned, clearly angry at the lack of support his peace efforts received from the White House. (His resignation letter was about as curt and cold as any in recent memory).
The announcement of his resignation followed reports that the president's Thursday speech on the Middle East will, amazingly, say virtually nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A day after Mitchell's resignation came news that the president has decided that he will speak at this month's AIPAC conference, the traditional setting for pandering to the Israeli government and, more significantly, to Israel-centered political donors. (This just in -- the typically one-sided AIPAC-drafted Hoyer-Cantor resolution that AIPAC will be pushing hard at its conference and afterwards. AIPAC expects 400 House members will co-sponsor it. AIPAC has also written a Senate companion bill).
The most significant sign that the president has abandoned any pretense of being an "honest broker," in favor of gung-ho support for the staus quo, came in February when Obama instructed UN ambassador Susan Rice to veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement expansion. The resolution incorporated Obama's own policy on settlements so the decision to veto it -- the U.S. cast the only veto -- sent a clear signal that, at least until after November 2012, the Obama administration intended to avoid deviation from the AIPAC/Netanyahu blueprint.
This seeming decision to go all-AIPAC-all-the-time would be jarring even if 2011 were not the year of the Arab Spring. Just weeks ago the administration was celebrating Arab democracy, even the fall of our long-time ally President Hosni Mubarak. Now it is blatantly adopting a policy that deeply grieves the very Arab democrats it supposedly champions.
The lobby's (and, supposedly, the administration's) response to that would be that the Arab Spring was not about Israel/Palestine, that not one demonstrator took to the streets to protest Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well as the de facto occupation (and blockade) of Gaza.
And that is true. All the Arab revolutions were local. But, as the administration surely knows, the one non-local issue that all Arab democrats care about is the continued occupation. And why not?
After all, the ultimate in non-democracy is not having one's life controlled by a domestic despot but by a foreign government.
The president knows that hatred for the occupation is common to all Muslims -- Iranian, Indonesian, Egyptian, Iraqi, whatever and with good reason. (Add to that list Israeli moderates, who hate what the occupation is doing not only to Palestinians but to their country.)
Beyond all that, any American president has to consider what the U.S. military thinks about the occupation. It's not just General Petraeus who believes that the occupation is a threat to U.S. national security, that it endangers our personnel throughout the Muslim world and our energy supplies, that is a common view among the brass and the civilians too.
In short, there is nothing good about perpetuating the occupation and President Obama knows it. On the contrary, the occupation (and the illegal settlements that are its symbol) is a dangerous blight on Arabs, Israelis and the United States.
So what accounts for President Obama's seeming policy of indifference?
That is a question that doesn't need any answer beyond the fact that at the very moment the White House is abandoning peace-making, the president is rushing to AIPAC to deliver the news in person. America's Middle East policy is all about appeasing a few dozen AIPAC-connected donors. (No, it is not about the so-called "Jewish vote," which is consistently Democratic -- average 75% -- based on domestic issues, not the Middle East.)
The president seems to be going out of his way to make sure everyone understands why he is doing what he's doing. It is as if he were saying: "what choice do I have between AIPAC donors and Democrats in Congress who get their marching orders from AIPAC. I'm boxed in."
But why would he want to send the message that he can't implement the policies he wants to because he is trapped by a special interest? Just maybe, it is because he he wants our help.
In 2007, the day after Obama declared his candidacy for president, I met with him in his office (I was then working for Israel Policy Forum).
Obama listened carefully while I explained why it was critical that he be an "honest broker" on Israel-Palestinian issues. Nothing I said, including my opinions of AIPAC's influence, would surprise anyone who reads my columns. My bottom line was that the occupation was terrible for the United States, for Israel and, most of all, for the Palestinians and that he should understand that the status quo lobbyists who defend everything Israel does are not representative of the Jewish community or anyone else.
Obama listened, cupped his ear, and said, "I can't hear you."
I didn't understand; I was sitting right next to him.
He then said:
No, not literally. I mean that I don't hear from people like you. But I hear from AIPAC (he then named the local AIPAC leader in Chicago) every week. I'm going to be president and, when I am, it is your job -- you and all the people who feel the way you do -- to make sure I hear that message. You cannot simply rely on the belief that you are right. You need to raise your voice so that I hear you and not just them.
So maybe, just maybe, the president wants us to shout and holler about, what appears to be, a sellout to AIPAC. After all, he is making no attempt to cover up what he's doing or why he's doing it. He only hears one voice.
Maybe Obama's latest actions are a cry for help.
Yes, it's just a theory. But it is infinitely better than believing that President Obama actually believes that AIPAC's status quo is in America's interest. It just is not possible that this president could believe that.
It's time to raise our voices so Obama can hear us, whether he still wants us to or not.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
this is good news, don't you think MJ?
gosh, I'm even thinking of voting for him next time around, instead of Nader
:>)
If you care about a safe and secure Israel, there is no better way you can help the Jewish state than by lending your voice in support of the vital U.S.-Israel relationship.
This important friendship ensures Israel has the necessary security assistance to stop enemies who are trying to wipe Israel off the map. It also provides crucial diplomatic support at a time when many nations are quick to criticize or condemn the tiny democracy.
But U.S. support for Israel is NOT GUARANTEED. We must speak out to ensure the strength of this important alliance.
Please add your voice to those of other pro-Israel Americans and help us urge our leaders in Congress to support a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.
http://action.aipac.org/welcome/6/
The Arab Spring demonstrations are ongoing, for the obvious reason that there is still no democracy in countries like Egypt and Tunisia. And, just this weekend there were demonstrations directed at Israel's occupation of Palestine:
"The fierce fighting was an extension of Sunday's protests throughout the Arab world commemorating what Palestinians call their "nakba," or catastrophe, when thousands fled or were forced from their homes after Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948."
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/16/2219775/violence-in-cairo-underscores.html
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2010/03/22/1011273/hillary-clintons-aipac-speech
(keep a bag handy you man want to barf)
"fear of the existential threat to Israel posed by "all muslims" noted above is common to many Jews -- Iranian, Indonesian, Egyptian, Iraqi, and others indigenous to the Mideast, as well as European and American Jews, whatever and with good reason." To you completely unacceptable!!!
Being an honest broker requires understanding both sides, not vilifying one and giving a free pass to the other.
Why should America support parties whose charters call for theextermination of our best ally in the ME? They won't.
It might be because we spy on them:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4B94T220081210
"[...] the policy of the United States since 2002 has been to support a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict;
[...] a true and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties and acceptance of each other's right to exist
[...] the House of Representatives supports a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resulting in two states, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel and a viable, democratic Palestinian state, living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition..."
THAT is "one-sided"?? So what would be "two-sided"? Perhaps something like "the House of Representatives agrees with the Hamas position expressed in its Covenant and elsewhere, that 'Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it'; and that 'the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up'"? Yeah, that would be "two-sided", all right.
The trick is easy to spot: NTT insists on pointing only to the declarative statements i.e. the Motherhood and Apple Pie statements that are devoid of any practical significance.
It is when the Congress goes BEYOND the Motherhood statements and starts telling Obama what to do that you see how very one-sided this is:
1) The President must oppose any moves by the PLO to seek int'l support.
2) The President must veto any resolution in the UNSC.
3) The Administration must threaten to withhold funds from the Palestinians should it pursue any unilateral steps or continue with any deal that involves Hamas.
In short: Congress is exceptionally quick to tell the President that he must stomp on those cussed Pallies whenever and wherever they refuse to follow the American (in reality, the Israel) policy line.
Yet it is undeniably true that Israel is **also** refusing to follow USA policy lines e.g. it refuses to freeze a settlement policy that the USA has declared - repeatedly - to be both illegitimate and against the USA's national interest.
Abbas can defy USA policy, and Congress passes a bill insisting that he be punished.
Bibi can defy USA policy, and Congress invites him over for a photo-op.
Looks pretty one-sided to me....
The resolution reaffirms the principles of a fair solution in a very, VERY balanced way. It could, in fact, be argued that it's unfair to Israel, by referring to it -- a state which was attacked with genocidal intentions and emerged victorious -- on equal terms with an entity suing for statehood, after attempting genocidal violence and losing.
The President is NOT told to "oppose any moves by the PLO to seek int'l support", but to oppose PLO's attempts to break its contractual obligations.
The PLO, as "the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people", undertook a series of commitments, the most important of which being to seek a negotiated solution, acceptable to both parties. In return for those commitments, it was granted a series of concessions & benefits -- including recognition, control over large territories in Gaza & WB, military & economic assistance, etc. After pocketing these concessions, PLO now decided NOT to fulfil its obligations resulting from agreements it signed, but instead to try & IMPOSE a "solution". In addition, it has recently jumped into bed with a terrorist organization which officially & publicly REJECTS those agreements & undertakings signed in the name of Palestinians. USA (which brokered & guaranteed the agreement PLO is breaking) must express its displeasure.
Israel, much more than the PLO, is able to unilaterally IMPOSE a "solution", for instance by annexing large areas of WB, transferring the WB population to Jordan, etc. Were Israel to do that, USA would certainly express
Maybe just maybe after they become President they sort through the facts and come to the same conclusion as their predecessors.
"We the People do not support giving any country any money we don't have!!"
Actually we do. Check the polls.
The Palestinians should get heir own state and israel should join the real world.Otherwise the economic and cultural boycotts will grow.
f&f
That's interesting. Absurd, but interesting. I guess if you are searching for a way to make a democratic country seem worse than a dictatorship that has lasted decades, that's about as good as you will find.
They also never...absolutely never...discuss the fact that the vast majority of Americans support Israel over the despots, theocracies, and terror supporting governments that surround Israel.
To admit that would be to admit that the true 'lobby', is the American people and our representatives merely represent that support in true democratic fashion.
US does support despots and the like through their tax dollars. Doh! It is not as obvious as the AIPAC lobby which is only out for Israel.
No, it's correct. In a democracy it is a case of "we, the people" having control over their own destiny.
In a despotic dictatorship that does not exist: the despotic controls the destiny of his subjects.
In a foreign occupation that also does not exist: the army of occupation controls the destiny of the occupied.
"I guess if you are searching for a way to make a democratic country seem worse than a dictatorship"....
Let me stop you right there, because you have just made a fundamental error.
Israel is a democracy INSIDE ISRAEL, but MJ is talking about the situation INSIDE THE WEST BANK.
Q: Does Israel practice democracy INSIDE THE WEST BANK?
A: No, clearly it does not, because the rule of law inside the West Bank is, by definition, "military law", and the ultimate source of all authority is not "free and fair elections" but the military orders issued by the IDF commander in the West Bank.
Or, in short: the "ruler" is a foreign army of occupation, and that looks pretty undemocratic to me.
It does to you, does it?
answer is Murderers.
Don't ecxpect Israel to be killed and treat the killers nice.
These Palestinains would murder, their parents and grand parents many genirations back were murderers.