It has been a week since the United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution opposing Israeli settlements. You can't help but wonder if the Obama administration is now having second thoughts.
Forget the policy ramifications of the veto: that it badly damaged America's chances of facilitating negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians and that it further alienated the United States from the Arab and Muslim world at a critical moment in history. Lay aside that the veto cut the Israeli peace camp off at the knees while vindicating Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's policy of never giving an inch to the Palestinians (or to the Americans). And, obviously, don't even think about the hypocrisy of the United States voting against its own long-standing policy on settlements.
No. Focus instead on the domestic politics because, after all, the U.S. opposed the resolution in order to guard President Obama from attacks by the right wing of the pro-Israel community, that small minority of the community whose mantra is "Bibi, right or wrong."
For some reason the administration believed that vetoing the resolution would appease that crowd. That belief is responsible for over two years of vacillation on the issue of Israeli settlements (the key issue thwarting negotiations).
But here is what the Obama administration does not understand about the politics.
The "Bibi, right or wrongers" are not Obama supporters and will not be voting for him in the next election. They certainly will not be sending him campaign contributions.
Why would they? They did not support Obama in 2008, largely because they did not believe that anyone named Barack Obama could ever share their skewed view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And, as the 2009 Cairo speech demonstrated, he doesn't. He supports Israel but believes -- and he has said this often -- that supporting Israel requires ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state in the occupied territories.
Nothing Obama does will convince the "right or wrongers" that he is on their side because he isn't. He is, however, on Israel's side -- and the Palestinians' side as well.
Unfortunately, the lobby and a few of his advisers seem to have convinced him that being true to his beliefs will cost him in the 2012 election. Hence the veto.
Obama has the politics wrong. According to the 2010 American Jewish Committee poll (the largest and most respected poll of the Jewish community's political attitudes) 64 percent of Jewish voters favor the dismantling of all or some of Israeli settlements. Obviously, that 64 percent will not be lost to Obama for condemning settlement expansion.
Another AJC poll, this one in 2008, showed that only 3 percent of American Jews considered Israel their primary issue in the 2008 elections. (By way of contrast, 65 percent chose either the economy or health care as their top concern.)
So who might be impressed by the veto? People who will be supporting Romney, Huckabee, Palin or whoever the GOP nominates in 2012.
Here is one (there are many) example of how unimpressed the "Bibi, right or wrongers" were by the president's veto.
This appeared in Commentary -- the bible of the neoconservatives -- and was written by its editor, Jonathan S. Tobin. Tobin, although not well known, is a leading voice in the "Israel can do no wrong" chorus.
In theory, he should be praising Obama for vetoing the resolution. He isn't.
And that is because although Obama vetoed the resolution, he only did so after first attempting to head it off with a statement that still would have criticized settlements. Tobin believes that the president should have simply endorsed Israel's position as if Obama were, say, the editor of Commentary and not President of the United States.
Things could be worse. Had the U.S. not vetoed the resolution it would have been the final signal that this administration really was determined to cut loose the Israelis. But by showing that the veto was cast reluctantly and with ill will, the effect is not much different. So while relations could still deteriorate further, there is no doubt that Obama's negative feelings toward Israel are becoming a serious factor in Middle East diplomacy...
So, to please Tobin and his crowd, the president must not only do whatever the right-wing leader of the Israeli government wants him to do, he must so with enthusiasm.
Israel, for its part, need not do anything the United States wants. For instance, Tobin does not even mention that the United States (which provides Israel with $3.5 billion in aid every year and exempts it from the budget cuts applied to virtually all other programs) asked Israel for a mere 90-day settlement freeze to facilitate negotiations. Netanyahu couldn't even be bothered to respond, even when Obama offered him an extra $3.5 billion to sweeten the pot.
But Tobin doesn't care about that. For him, the U.S.-Israel relationship is a one-way street. The U.S. gives and Israel gets.
And this is who the administration tries to placate.
The White House needs to learn that there is simply no point in trying to win over this bunch. They cannot be appeased except by the complete subordination of U.S. interests to those of Netanyahu.
Tobin himself admits it. At one point in the Commentary piece, he writes that he does not credit Obama's veto as proof that he is a "friend of Israel." After all, he contends, Obama was only pushed to veto by the Palestinians' "intransigence" rather than by "Obama's loyalty to his Israeli ally."
Loyalty? Is it part of a president's job description to be loyal to a foreign country? Obama isn't "loyal" even to Canada or the United Kingdom. His loyalty is to the United States, which he, like every president, attempts to fulfill through policies he believes advance those interests (including pursuing Israeli-Palestinian peace).
But loyalty to Israel? No, I don't think President Obama's loyalty quite runs in that direction. (Nor would any American president's.)
That is what the "Netanyahu right-or-wrong" crowd will never accept. That is why appeasing them is as pointless as it is destructive to U.S. interests.
And there is another more cynical reason why they can be safely ignored. They represent pretty much no one, which is why President Obama received close to 80 percent of the Jewish vote in the last election and will do just as well next time.
There is no chance that the president will lose that support just because he promotes policies that advance U.S. interests by promoting peace. To think otherwise is to suggest that American Jews are something less than Americans. And that is a damnable lie.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters
very nice writing, MJ. it brings into the equation the plight of American Jews.
but I honestly don't think that loss of domestic political support is what is driving Obama to continue on with this miserable game at the UN. I think it is the spectre of AIPAC in the office. kind of like Campus Watch at the uber level. sic the angry buzzing hornets on the office of the president? no problem. they are adept and practiced with this technique, and it always works. with everyone. this is what is to be avoided at all costs. it can drive you mad. it is worse than an IRS audit.
This is a knowingly illogical statement trying to draw an inference between domestic and foreign aid programs. The fact is that NONE of the foreign aid programs were affected.
He's begging the question
Don't you think articles by Dershowitz, Danny Ayalon and David Suissa and others reflect the other side?
Some people may not like it but the point here is to make peace, not just to create yet another arab state. For that, the side that wants land needs to offer peace and so far I've not seen any indication of that so it seems we're still quite a long way off.
The cost of repatriating or relocating compensation stands to be about 500,000U$ per family.
Bit too large a bill to quietly foist onto the US taxpayer.
Peace schmeace. Money talks.
Not everything in this world is a Jewish conspiracy, you know....
That's exactly what we don't want, and that is the reason we should not veto against the settlements, the settlements and the settlers perputate violence.
"A cardinal task of any government is to enforce the law and protect the life, property, and rights of persons under its authority. For Israel, this duty applies not only to Israeli citizens residing within the state or territories under Israeli control, but also to Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories.
When Palestinians attack Israelis, the authorities invoke all means at their disposal – including some that are incompatible with international law and constitute gross violations of human rights – to arrest the suspects and bring them to trial. Defendants convicted by military courts can expect harsh sentences.
In contrast, when Israeli civilians attack Palestinians, the Israeli authorities employ an undeclared policy of leniency and compromise toward the perpetrators. This policy is reflected in the actions of officials in charge of law enforcement – the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and the Israel Police Force (IPF) – which do not do enough to prevent harm to the life and property of Palestinians, and to stop the violent attacks by settlers while they are taking place. All law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities demonstrate little interest in uncovering the substantial violence that Israeli civilians commit against Palestinians in the Occupied Territories."
http://www.btselem.org/english/settler_violence/index.asp
-George Washington's Farewell Address
Become a fan Unfan
So you don't think it's "right" to support Israel? At all? Just leave them to the wolves eh?
___________________________
That's what I am talking about: Playing the eternal victim while getting most help.
So if it is not for ethical reason, not for economical reason and not for political reasons... why?
According to this article, the jewish vote cannot be the reason of this veto
Even the title is wrong. Israel has received about 5 times that amount.
The Jewish community voted for Obama because they have more loyalty to their political party than to their heritage.
Can you Imagine the Irish voting for a president who was anti Ireland or the Italians voting for a president who was anti Italy? Would never happen. Only the Jews seem to turn their backs on their people.
What exactly are we getting for our $3.5B in aid? Its certainly not peace or stability in the Middle East. ANd we are definitely not getting anything here.
Given that the Motion was sponsored by 130 countries including all of the EU and all of the UN security council it was effectively a thumbed nose to the entire world - thus further alienating the US from the rest of humanity. Its time to get something through the thick skulls of the legislative branch of the US - Americans needs come before the needs of Israelis.
Actually, 62 countries did not support the resolution.
Among them, aside from the US were, Australia, Canada, Japan, Austria, Italy and others.
did any of them vote against it?