Obama's Growing Pro-Israel Cabinet Should Not Worry Allies of Just Peace

Like all Arab Americans, I was disturbed when Barack Obama selected U.S. Senator Joseph Biden as his running mate.

Biden's appointment was clearly intended as a signal to put Jewish American and pro-Israel voters at ease. It was designed to counter the concerns raised by the hatemongering campaign against Obama by fanatics like Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Daniel Pipes and others who asserted that the Democratic candidate was "a Muslim" and a "friend of Palestinians."

The fact is that Obama does have an experience with Islam and the Islamic world that no other presidential candidate can claim. His middle name is "Hussein," a popular Arab name, and he did make friends with many Palestinian and Arab activists in the Chicago area.

The bottom line is this: You can change a person's politics but you cannot change what is inside their heart. Obama's heart is one of fairness, justice and understanding. That he must surround himself with high-profile and controversial pro-Israel champions is not a real concern.

Obama comes from a life experience that gives him special insight into the Arab and Islamic World that few other American politicians enjoy. Possibly, Obama might be even more objective and balanced than even those few of Arab heritage or the two Muslims (Keither Ellison and Andre Caron)who now hold national elective office.

He is not going to become a war-mongering extremist as is his predecessor George W. Bush. And, none of his appointments, not even Biden who declares himself a "Zionist," can ever come close to the fanaticism and anti-Arab hate embraced by Bush's cabinet of Israel-philes.

Biden is no Richard Perle, the chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board that helped to disguised the Bush administration's strategy to invade Iraq as a false campaign to defeat terrorism. The invasion was little more than a strategy to bolster Halliburton and undermine the Arab World's stand against Israel's brutal occupation.

David Axelrod, Obama's chief political strategist, is not Ari Fleischer, the former White House spokesman who was so pro-Israel many believed he held Israeli citizenship. Fleischer helped craft the messages that demonized the Arab World and made the invasion of Iraq more palatable to Middle East history naïve Americans.

And Rahm Emanuel, who is now Obama's chief of staff and served as a "volunteer" for the Israeli military when he was younger, is no Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary and foreign policy adviser to Donald Rumsfeld with close ties to the Israeli military. Wolfowitz helped design a pro-American dictatorship in Iraq that was harsher than Saddam Hussein's.

The real difference is the Obama team is far more moderate and supportive of a negotiated peace accord, while Bush's pro-Israel contingent were right-wing fanatics who viewed peace talks as a tactic that effectively delayed peace and gave Israel the excuse to exploit the status quo.

Obama might be insulating himself from those who will accuse him of sabotaging Israel when the time comes to press Israel to move towards true compromise -- surrendering occupied West Bank land and sharing Jerusalem in exchange for genuine peace.

Obama and his team of pro-Israel advisers -- every American president must support Israel in order to win election in this country -- recognize Middle East peace is not only a moral imperative, it is fundamental to helping the United States recover from its economic depression.

This country cannot continue to finance Israel's extremist policies, bribe key Arab countries with foreign aid, or bankroll the failed war in Iraq.

One wild card in all this is the Israeli elections. Will Israelis chose the moderate Tzipi Livni or the extremist Benjamin Netanyahu as their new prime minister soon? That more than anything will determine the outcome of Middle East peace. If it is Livni, Obama's new team can work towards peace. If it is Netanyahu, then peace will be shelved for long-term conflict and much headaches for Obama, Americans and the Middle East.

There is another important distinction between Obama and his team of pro-Israel advisers and Bush and his team of pro-Israel ideologues. Most of the rest of the world, including the entire Islamic and Arab Worlds, admire and respect Obama as a man of principle and genuine compassion. They are willing to work with him because they believe in him. No one believed in President Bush and that made it easier for the extremists to take control.

If Barack Obama wants to nudge Israel back to serious negotiations with the Palestinians, he would not surround himself with pro-Palestinian advisers. That would make it impossible for him to pursue a genuine and just peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

Instead, he would be surrounded by true champions of Israel who are also far more moderate than their Bush predecessors. In doing so, Obama can go further than any other prior American administration in forcing both sides -- not just the Palestinians -- to make the tough choices and take the real risks for peace.

A genuine, fair and just peace that benefits the Palestinians is not just good for the Palestinians, it is good for the Israelis, too.

Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. He can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com and by email at [e-mail].

Comments

[john456]

If Obama doesn't change the US policy to diplomatic rather than military we are sunk. The US can not afford to continue to spend the billions supporting a militaristic Israel. (Read "right-wing" Robert Novak's 12/2002 editorial, prior to the Iraq invasion, "Sharon's War"). You are right, the American Jewish community has to be realizing that as the economy sinks and the US continues spending billions into Iraq and protecting Israel in the the Middle East, they will be blamed.
Republicans are already examining how they strayed from their orthodoxy. On a simpler note, Sarah Palin has already asked the same question; how long before she gives simplistic answer. The Rahm Emmanuels of the US have to realize they must change. Unfortunately for them, I believe it is too late to just create a separate Palestinian State. It will take decades to mitigate the actions of the last 60 years. I think the only solution is to develop a viable middle class among the Palestinians and the Arab population of Israel. However, many of the moderate Israelis that would support such a project have left. (See Eric Altermann's editorial on the Arabs living inside Israel proper.)

[Ray Hanania - Huffpost Blogger]

I am not sure I would lump Obama's responses to Iran int he same basket with Obama's potential clarity in dealing with the Palestine-Israel conflict. The Palestinians are far easier for Obama to deal with as they do not directly challenge the US as aggressively as does Iran and Ahmedinejad.

I also think that Obama MUST play the Israel-Jewish voter game in the US that every president is required to play. There is no way around the onslaught if he says what he believes is right without properly framing it in preparation and explanation and set-up.

Let's face it:

Here is the order of clout int his country -- not because of conspiracy or control but because of higher levels of participation in our society:

American Jews
Non-Arab Muslims
Arab Muslims
Arabs
Iranians

Ray Hanania
www.RadioChicagoland.com

[AnneOnymous]

I can't thank you enough for your post, Mr. Hanania. As someone who is both an Obama supporter and a long-time supporter of a just peace in the Middle East, the appointment of Emanuel made me very uncomfortable. I just couldn't reconcile it with all those things that made me so supportive of Obama. But your points all make a great deal of sense and, as you point out in your article, Obama is not GWB. Obama is a man of deep intellect who we can trust to form his own opinions and not be manupulated and swayed by others, as Bush was manipulated by the hawkish neocons in his administration. And I'm also reassured by your comments about Axelrod downthread.

[ojim]

Where in the heirarchy would you insert Non-muslim Arabs?

[samerbayer]

I respect the author views on this subject and admit that he advanced d a plausable though unlikely scenario. The people hand picked by Obama to advise him on foreign policy are neocons like. They already have a plan for him to deal with Iran (They are in record saying that talks with iran will not work). They will advise obama to pretend to talk to iran to justify bombing iran in the public eyes. Watch out for the pending attack against iran.

[MalleusMaleficarum]

Thank you, Ray Hanania, for informing us about the subtlety of Obama's nascent administration. Of course, the appointment of Rahm Emanuel has set off shockwaves, but that re-enforces your case for a larger plan to pressure both sides for peace. Biden made some remarkable statements about AIPAC during the campaign as well, and it is clear that Obama intends to overhaul the US-Israel relationship. When Obama last spoke before AIPAC, Uri Avnery criticized him for obsequiousness and making the statement about the undivided Jerusalem (which Obama promptly clarified) but he also advocated

peace negotiations,

the return of land on the West Bank,

stimulating the Palestinian economy and

reducing the obstacles to travel for Palestinians.

Those offering knee-jerk reactions against Rahm Emanuel as a diehard supporter of Israeli aggression are correctly reminding us that he has a poor record for introducing the sort of change that Obama promised at AIPAC. But, Emanuel was in attendance at AIPAC, and he must now be on board with the plan to pacify Israel-Palestine. In fact, it is conceivable that AIPAC and others on the Israeli right may begin to see Obama as their best chance to get a workable solution to end the conflict with the Palestinians. A consensus could be forming in Israel and Palestina as you suggest. Please, keep us posted and updated frequently.

[Ling1]

You are incredibly naïve. Read today"s statement against Iran's nuclear program, or extension of the war timetable. Having "hardline pro-Israel" people that could influence peace is incredibly stupid. That"s like having the "white man" sit down and negotiate a peace treaty with the "native Americans" on behalf of both sides¦.oops, already happened¦nice results.

If you want peace, DO NOT surround yourself with those that have hate in every fiber of their DNA. Of the people you mention, I don"t see anyone representing Arab interest. Have both sides on your team or neither. This isn"t rocket science.

The world is growing very tired. We are the last to support Israel and as the Christian population dwindles in the U.S. so will the support. Israel is just another strip of sand like Iraq. We elected Obama, to end the war so he must bring together a pacifist team. Rahm is a good 1st step - I"m kidding.

When you leave the U.S. negative sentiment towards Israel is palpable and I"m talking about Europe and Asia. We are now tied to it. We must partner with the Arab world as well as the Israelis. The American public will not accept a one sided neo-con ideology anymore. People want peace. Our un-wavering support for Israel has gotten us absolutely nothing. Here"s a thought¦.have we considered switching sides and partnering with Iran? They could give free oil to all the brain-washed evangelicals.... :)

[josephiatron]

My heart sank when I heard of Rahm Emanuel's appointment to the arguably most important post in the Obama administration. There will never be peace in the Middle East until there is justice for the Palestinians. Emanuel is the most pro-Israel figure I can think of in the Democratic party.
Sorry but if President Obama surrounds himself with only those who think anybody who criticizes Israel is anti-semitic he will not be able to do what is right for Palestinians.
By the way people always seem to forget, or are just ignorant about, the fact that Palestinians and all Arabs are Semites too.

[UrbanInterloper]

A sober defense of pro-Israel advisers coming from a Palestinian-American Chicagoan whose familiarity with Obama presumably stretches back far longer than most of ours? That's something I think should be considered seriously. Thank you for your insight, Mr. Hanania.

If there's one lesson that this history-making presidential campaign taught us, it's that change only comes from us, not a single elected official, and that it comes only when we want it so badly that we work hard for it and create the possibility against very tough odds. Only at that point--and no sooner--does it become possible and yes, even inevitable.

Obama can only accomplish for Middle East peace what the American people empower him to accomplish. If you and I fail, then he will fail. And we would have only ourselves to blame for the continuation of tragedy and human misery.

We shall see what happens.

[Ray Hanania - Huffpost Blogger]

I think that there was one real criticism of Obama from the right that was accurate, but intended in a distorted manner. Obama did have a close relationship with the Palestinian American community. Prior and during the election, that made for amunition fgor Republican hatemongering. But now, after the election and in the light of a more reasoned discourse, it actually reinforces my view that Obama has a fundamental understanding of the Palestine-Israel conflict and that he will use that to balance, for example, Rahm Emanual's natural tendency to go to the extreme on this issue. Rahm is very disliked, but he is far from his father, a member of the pre-state Etzel terrorist movement. Axelrod is by far the most reasoned, balanced and genuine of the bunch and as long as he is in the mix, I am confident the overall result is going to be far better than what we have seen even during the Clinton administration.

Ray Hanania
www.RadioChicagoland.com

[stell]

How can you be moderate about justice? One is either for it or against it.

[Mildmannered]

I suggest that Obama put Bill Clinton in charge of middle east negotiations and tell him to not come back until he has a deal.

[faith]

Well, I find it somewhat troubling...but then, the two choices, Emanuel and Axelrod are extraordinary in their ability to analyze information and in their long Illinois history with Obama. So I say, ok. But, let's not make the cabinet a mini AIPAC. After all we did not choose Ms. Clinton for that very reason,.

[PeteyS]

I would very much like to believe that all of this is true. But the comparison between Emanuel and the Bush administration made here doesn't include, for example, the letter he and 33 other Democrats signed in June 2003 criticizing Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel, stating "We were deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror". Those in the progressive movement who support justice for Palestinians will have to face up to the fact that in the US, it is not uncommon for politicians, activists and the public to be well to the left of the mainstream on a raft of issues (foreign as well as domestic and social, i.e. even opposed to the Iraq war), but fiercely loyal to the idea that Israel can do no wrong.

The Obama-Biden administration-in-waiting states in their own press releases that the security of Israel and maintaining the strategic US-Israel relationship is priority one in the Middle East. It may well be true that they could not say otherwise, and it may also even be true that the approach the Obama administration will take to Israel and Palestine is the least bad approach that could be realistically hoped for - but trusting that Obama has an agenda at heart that differs from his public statements and the long-time agenda of his key staff seems based on faith rather than evidence.