President Obama's speech to the General Assembly succeeded in making clear why the Palestinians had no choice but to take their statehood bid to the UN and why the United States can no longer pretend to be an "honest broker" in the conflict.
For the first time since the U.N. conferred statehood on Israel 63 years ago, a U.S President told the international community that the United States will back Israel, right or wrong -- and Israel is never wrong. Gov. Rick Perry gave a similar speech to a group of "pro-Israel" right-wingers earlier in the week but he is not president so his speech was different, except for the motivation which is the same.
Both speeches were standard "pro-Israel" campaign bloviating, but Perry gave his on the campaign trail and not in front of the entire world. (I hesitate to call any speech opposing the Palestinian statehood bid at the U.N. "pro-Israel" when the latest comprehensive poll on the subject says that 70 percent of Israelis support it).
The very best explanation of what Obama did at the United Nations came from Daniel Levy, a British citizen who moved to Israel right out of college 18 years ago. Levy's quote appeared on page 1 of the Washington Post.
"There is virtually no thread of reason running between the way he [Obama] related to the rest of the world and its developments, particularly in the Middle East, and the positions he espoused on Israel-Palestine -- a conflict apparently occurring on another planet," said Daniel Levy, co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation. "Palestinian freedoms, rights and self-determination are somehow supposed to be attained without the recourse to leverage, international law or meaningful international support, considered to be necessary and legitimate virtually everywhere else."
Of course, there is one "thread" although it is not of "reason." Every word in Obama's speech was designed not to advance a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but to keep single-issue (Israel) donors and, to a lesser extent, voters in his camp for the 2012 election. Not a week goes by that the White House, not the campaign but the White House, sends emails out to people it deems Israel voters to remind them of all the wonderful things this president has done for Israel. One recently was dedicated to citing quotes from Prime Minister Netanyahu praising Obama, the first time in memory that a president sought to validate himself by quoting the likes of Netanyahu or any foreign leader.
Unfortunately, Obama isn't lying about his "pro-Israel" record either. This administration has been the most one-sided supporter of everything Israel asks for in history. There is simply no competition.
Not even George W. Bush comes close. When the Israelis, following Obama's election, asked Bush to give Israel permission to bomb Iran, he said "no," despite his Vice President and neocon aides who pushed the Israeli position hard. Bush also did more than Obama to advance the peace process the Israeli right hates so much, convening an international summit at Aqaba and being the first president to say, in unambiguous terms, that the United States fully supports "two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security."
On Israel, Obama is to the right of Bush or Reagan and certainly Clinton. On Israel and Palestine, Barack Obama is Rick Perry.
Of course, none of Obama's outrageous pandering to Netanyahu and his acolytes here impresses the Israel Firsters. They disliked Obama from day one, for all kinds of obvious reasons, and they condemned his United Nations speech, as typically anti-Israel.
They are lying and they know it. But, they are adherents of the Mitch McConnell school: they have only one goal which is to defeat this president. And although privately they celebrate their amazing success at intimidating Obama into submission, publicly they denounce him and send scary emails to old people in Florida that Obama wants to destroy Israel.
So, at bottom, these Obama speeches and love-ins with Netanyahu accomplish nothing for Obama. The "Israel First" crowd (3 percent of the Jewish community) will take their money and votes elsewhere.
And Netanyahu will, working from Jerusalem, do everything he can to help the Republicans. It's almost funny how these people would exchange the person who is, looking at it from their "pro- occupation at all costs" vantage point the most "pro-Israel" president ever for an unknown quantity like Perry or Romney. After all, a Republican, not dependent on their campaign dollars as Obama is, could well turn out to approach Israel with more skepticism than Obama.
But it's a game. Netanyahu and the lobby want to defeat Obama to show that they can demonstrate yet again who calls the shots on U.S. Middle East policy.
But forget the campaign for a moment (which is what Obama should have done when addressing the United Nations). The president's speech was an embarrassing disaster. Since 2009, 1,600 Palestinians (overwhelmingly civilians and over 400 children) were killed at the hands of the Israeli army. The number of Israelis killed over the same period was 13. And yet Obama devoted 120 words of his speech to Israeli suffering (even citing the Holocaust) and not one word to Palestinian suffering.
Example: an Australian newspaper reports on a new film about the tragedy of Palestinian women in Gaza (under full Israeli blockade) who are dying of breast cancer because Israel does not permit them to leave Gaza for treatment.
Breast cancer in Gaza is often diagnosed at an advanced stage and the surgical remedies available inside Gaza are not sufficient to treat it. Women must then apply for permits to leave Gaza for treatment in surrounding countries. This is a lengthy process, and often their permits are arbitrarily revoked at the checkpoints. As a result, many women die waiting for treatment."Regardless of the reasons for the blockade of Gaza, women should not be left to die of breast cancer," said Misha Coleman, CEO of Anglicord, who recently led a delegation of Australian Parliamentarians to Palestine to learn about the impact of the blockade.
"Radiation treatment is not available in Gaza, because the importation of radioactive material is prohibited," Ms Coleman said. "Chemotherapy, the other mainstay of breast cancer treatment, is also not available, due to the unreliable provision of medications."
One could go on and on about the horrors of the occupation but it won't matter to the politicians who determine U.S. foreign policy. They know which side their bread is buttered on, as Obama demonstrated at the U.N. this week.
But, I'm surprised to say, Obama did Palestinians and the 70 percent of Israelis who support statehood a real favor. By demonstrating that the United States refuses to play the role of "honest broker," by telling the U.N. that we are Israel and Israel is us, the United States is yielding the role of Middle East peacemaker to others.
The Europeans, the Turks, the Indians, Brazilians, Chinese and Russians don't agree on much but they do agree on the urgency of the creation of a Palestinian state in the areas occupied in 1967. And they agree that the United States, no longer the superpower it once was, should move over and let countries not fully invested in one side to take over.
Those who wonder how these "other countries" could exert the leadership the U.S. has abdicated might consider the issue of economics, trade, etc. Israel does not live on an island with the United States. It is part of the world and not even the United States and the $3.5 billion it hands over to Israel each year (no strings attached) can save Israel if the rest of the world says "enough."
Obama has chosen to abdicate. The rest of the world is eager to step up.
And that is why I have no doubt that the state of Palestine was created this week at the United Nations. By opting out, Obama did a tremendous favor to Palestinians and Israelis both. Palestinians will have their fully sovereign, contiguous state. And the Jewish state of Israel will finally be secure. As Israelis like to say, "yhiyeh tov." Or as Arabs say, "insha'Allah khair." Everything will be fine.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
At some point, someone in American politics MUST say, "Ok, enough; our policy on Israel is not only against the wishes of the majority of Americans, but it's getting us killed in conflicts that have nothing to do with us". Speaking personally, as an Irishman, there was nothing more hideous and rage-inducing than to see Joe Biden (a good old Irish Catholic Democrat like myself) do an absolute about face on Israel; one minute he's outraged, next minute he's wearing a yarmulkah and slapping genocidal Israeli colonels on the back.
Until US senators and congressmen decide to stop being held to ransom by AIPAC there will never be peace of mind for Americans abroad nor at home. This issue is killing us all and Obama needs to start being a President.
Benjamin Netanyahu recently celebrated the 1946 King David Hotel terrorist attack by Jewish extremists (in which 92 British civilians were murdered), so how are we to take Israel to be anything other than a nation glorifying murder?
Israel must be stopped for the sake of us ALL.
http://todayfreedom.blogspot.com/
You said that Israel is a tiny, economically irrelevant nation. The point I make here is that Israel is a nation nonetheless, so how can Israel be irrelevant? In my eyes Palestine is a nation and should obtain statehood, but not through the UN! Senario: What if you and I were at odds over something major in your mind, but minor in to me, a deal was brokered by your friend or my friend that neither liked. We both came to the table many times and a solution that would end the conflict could not be found, should we continue to depend on a solution from the friend or find a way to devise a solution that we both agreed and accepted ourselves? I favor the latter portion!!
END OF STORY!
“The United States will continue to support those nations that transition to democracy – with greater trade and investment, so that freedom is followed by opportunity. We will pursue a deeper engagement with governments, but also civil society – students and entrepreneurs; political parties and the press. We have banned those who abuse human rights from travelling to our country, and sanctioned those who trample on human rights abroad. And we will always serve as a voice for those who have been silenced”….
--Precisely. Any citizen of another former massive empire could easily see that the US is going the way of the diplomatic dodo. Economy falling apart, massive military overspending and over-extension, out of touch diplomats eager to agree with the powers at home...all the key signs of an empire in decline.
Pretty soon the US will find that Iran is not the only nation that will say "We don't have to sell our oil to you, we can sell it to China".
And when that happens, the Great Depression of the 30s will look like a wedding feast by comparison.
"Obama has chosen to abdicate." True. But then: "The rest of the world is eager to step up."
Really? The only other trading partner with sufficient leverage over Israel would be Europe. But don't expect Europe to be unified on this topic. Don't expect them to WANT to be unified, either. European leaders know very well they'll be beaten over the head with the anti-semitism stick every time they don't give Israel's far-right fringe every single thing it wants.
No, America, it's yours, unfortunately. You empowered these people, you rein them in.
It is instructive that Obama panders to the right wing Israeli extremists, obstructionists and settlers, and ignores or marginalizes Israelis, Jews and massive world opinion in favor of Palestinian independence and statehood under UN/ICC auspices and a sovereign Palestinian state, now, a truly pathetic display from our own opportunistic rightist.
I wish the U.S. and Israeli government would consult with the awesome Rabbi Michael Lerner, as well as other intelligent peace seeking people. But, I'm sure he's on their list, but not the good list.
Jerusalem's "international status" was violated by the Arab Legion invasion in 1948 ....
The process is now back in the UN, where it started, when the UN gave Israel to the Jews in 1948 which is a process that just might yield some decent solution when it is abundantly clear the existing process is absurdl.
However, I think Obama's speech made very clear that the US elite FULLY intends for Israel to take "all of historic Judea" from its present owners/families/elite(s) and by any means necessary. That they prefer to do so gradually, so as not to appear to be the monsters they really are, is merely tactics.
But putting the issue back into the UN makes that little hidden agenda far more costly and difficult and possibly impossible while not taking any of the principal parties off the hook.
My recollection is that first it began unofficially. Second it was designed solely by those Arabs and Israelis who negotiated it and conducted it in the utmost secrecy - the Clinton administration was pretty much kept out of the loop and was as surprised as everyone else was that it achieved was was thought to be a success at the time.
It did not start at the UN.
The UN just fulfilled a previous agreement with the League of Nations which was the result of a series of Agreements and understandings between the British who had held the Mandate of Palestine after the Ottoman Turks and Jewish representatives. The UN merely took up these prior agreements.
Israel is entitled to Judea and all the lands it won in wars the Arabs foisted on them and lost, not to mention if there was ever a good case to be made that these lands should belong to the Jews anyway, its difficult to imagine what those would be. Hebron and Judea are obvious Hebrew and Jewish land and had the Arabs not opted for war, they would have no doubt remained Arab however, the Arabs risked it all but failed and so in the real world, actions and choices have consequences and losing this land entirely may be one of them.