(Part five of a five-part series)
"The majority of today's American Jews don't see themselves as outsiders or victims anymore," says Binyamin Jolkovsky, the publisher and editor of the widely read Internet magazine JewishWorldReview.com "That's positive. But that feeling of equality has also produced a communal negative. The fear that came with being an outsider also gave most Jews, even non-religious ones, a cohesive sense of responsibility regarding their Jewish identity in general and Israel in particular.
"That's changed," Jolkovsky continues. "I'm no senior citizen, but today's generation didn't witness the Holocaust, they don't understand what was entailed in the birth of Israel, they don't even remember the real threats of the 1967 Six Day War, they probably never even read the novel Exodus. The majority of young American Jews think that somehow Israel will always be there. They don't understand that when your enemies say they want to destroy you, they mean it."
Most of all, what Obama didn't count on was that, for all the changes taking place among younger "progressive" Jews, Jerusalem remains a third rail in American politics. The person who seemed to understand that better than any one else was Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor, who took out full-page ads on April 16 in major American newspapers to express his views on the city of Jerusalem.
"For me, the Jew that I am, Jerusalem is above politics," Weisel wrote. "It is mentioned more than six hundred times in Scripture -- and not a single time in the Koran. Its presence in Jewish history is overwhelming. There is no more moving prayer in Jewish history than the one expressing our yearning to return to Jerusalem. To many theologians, it IS Jewish history, to many poets, a source of inspiration. It belongs to the Jewish people and is much more than a city; it is what binds one Jew to another in a way that remains hard to explain. When a Jew visits Jerusalem for the first time, it is not the first time; it is a homecoming."
Klein interviewed Weisel following a private lunch that he had in early May with President Obama at the White House. "The invitation came before my public statements on Jerusalem," Weisel said. "It was a very good lunch. No small talk. Everything was substance. I understood his position. We didn't agree on everything. The president wanted to know why Bibi [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] didn't fire the minister who made that Jerusalem announcement. I said he would have had to go to his party and say, 'Give me anyone else.' But he didn't and then there was a chain reaction.
"Most of the problems [between America and Israel] remain, but the intensity on both sides and the recriminations are gone," Weisel added. "During our lunch, it was clear that the President does at least know that Jerusalem is the center of Jewish history, and he knows you can't ignore 3,000 to 4,000 years of history. I believe the only way to attain peace is to put Jerusalem at the end of the negotiations, not at the beginning."
By this summer, with the fall midterm elections looming ever larger in the calculations of the White House, the Obama administration seemed to soften some of its more controversial Mideast policy initiatives. For instance, on Jerusalem, the White House conceded that the question of the city's status should now come at the end of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, as Elie Weisel desired, rather than at the beginning, as the president originally wanted.
Along with this apparent U-turn in substance, the White House launched a charm offensive to win back the allegiance of the Jewish community. The president set the tone. He sent a personal letter to Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, in which he reasserted his support for Israel's security. And he followed that up with a warm message of greeting on the occasion of Israel's 62nd independence day.
Meanwhile, pro-Obama rabbis from local communities all over America were invited to the White House for schmooze fests with Rahm Emanuel, Daniel Shapiro, the deputy national security adviser who deals with the Middle East, and Dennis Ross, the White House's top Iran policy official.
"The three men told the Democratic rabbis that the administration has three priorities in the Middle East," Caroline Glick reported in The Jerusalem Post. "First Obama seeks to isolate Iran. Second, he seeks to significantly reduce the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq. And third, he seeks to resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israel."
As part of its PR campaign, the White House had David Axelrod do a limited mea culpa hangout. "With some of the leadership of the Jewish community there's been some bumps in the road over the past 15 months," Axelrod admitted in a phone conversation. "Some of those bumps resulted purely from a lack of communication on our part. I don't think we've done as good a job as we could have in our communications with the Jewish community during the first year or so of the administration. We've had a sustained and vigorous round of communications in the last few months, and I think that's been helpful."
The crowning moment in Washington's charm offensive came in July, when Prime Minister Netanyahu returned to Washington and this time was given the red-carpet treatment. He was honored with a working lunch in the Cabinet Room and a joint press conference with Obama. And there were plenty of opportunities for photos. Following that, in September Obama sponsored direct talks between Israelis and Palestinians -- talks that could conceivably meet with some success or simply come to a harsh halt.
But neither the White House's charm offensive nor the minor adjustments that it has made in its policies could obscure an irrefutable fact: those changes have been tactical and tonal, not substantive. Indeed, the essential ingredients of the Obama administration's Mideast policy have not changed. The goal is still the same -- to conclude successful peace talks by applying pressure on Israel.
"In my view, the Obama administration has not pulled back from its desire to ingratiate itself with the Arab world," says Kenneth J. Bialkin, chairman of the American-Israel Friendship League. "Yes, they've pulled back from saying that Israel's conduct endangers the lives of American soldiers in the Middle East. But most of its charm offensive was aimed at damage control in order to salvage the Jewish vote this fall."
Domestic politics surely played a role in the president's calculations vis-Ã -vis the American Jewish community. But in the long run, realpolitik -- a system of international relations based on practical rather than moral considerations -- will determine Obama's approach to Israel. The major foreign policy question confronting Obama is how to extricate America from the morass of two wars in the Middle East. And the unpleasant truth is that, in pursuit of that goal, Obama has a diminishing need for Israel.
The major foreign policy question confronting Obama is how to extricate America from its military morass in the Middle East. And in pursuit of that goal, Obama expects Israel to strike a peace accord with the Palestinians and their Arab allies -- no matter how real or unreal that expectation may be.
"Obama and his people believe the Palestinian leadership is genuinely ready for historic compromise," says David Horovitz, the London-born editor of The Jerusalem Post. "The unfortunate consensus in Israel -- and not just the hawks -- is that while we wish [the Arabs] were [ready], they aren't.... [T]o our great sorrow -- and to our great cost -- we are not convinced that even the relative moderates like Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad have internalized the idea that Jews have historic rights here too."
Indeed, in the days just before the new peace talks began, Palestinian leaders went out of their way to declare that while they might be prepared to negotiate with Israel, they would never recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Middle East -- namely, Israel's very raison d'etre. In other words, nothing fundamental has changed in the Arab approach to Israel's right to exist since the creation of the State of Israel 62 years ago.
Thus, whether the Israelis, the American Jews and the other supporters of the Jewish state like it or not, the harsh truth is that during the second half of Barack Obama's first term in office, the president's refusal to face reality in the Middle East is likely to shape American policy.
You can view part one of the series here.
N: Mr. President, Israel reserves the right assert its sovereignty and continue expanding the settlements; it's clear that the Palestinians are only feigning interest in the peace process, as they refuse to recognize the Jewish character of the state of Israel.
S: Mr. Prime Minister, with all due respect, if your government refuses to stop all settlement activity and goes back to the negotiating table without these obviously unacceptable pre-conditions, then the United States reserves the right to assert its sovereignty and take these steps:
Ending financial aid to your nation. The American people have economic troubles of their own, and it is getting more and more difficult to justify, especially in the light of your intransigence and that of your government. Now, Mr. Prime Minister, it wouldn't stop there. Such an action would also entail ending our monetary aid to the governments of your so called "peace partners" Egypt and Jordan, and would be an important first step in overhauling our foreign policy in the entire region. Many of my advisors, both military and diplomatic, have made clear to me that this relationship between my country and yours is harming our strategic interests- not only in the greater Middle East, but across the globe. The Cold War has been over for two decades. From the American perspective, the returns from this relationship are increasingly diminishing, and no longer worth the cost in dollars and lost strategic opportunities.
What does the administration say about this? What does anyone here say about this? How can Israel be expected to make concessions in the face of that?
Obama is an anti semite and has filled his cabinet with people that want to see Israel fail. The last 2 presidents that had anti Israel policies lasted one term - Carter and Bush 1
How can anyone expect peace when major players don't recognize Israel's right to exist?
Israel is no different. Fortunately, the world does not operate based upon the number of times a subject appears in the scripture. Rather, we have laws and treaties, and Israel is in violation of those laws, and MUST leave East Jerusalem.
Once they have removed all settlers and the IDF, and waged an acceptable and respectful peace, I am sure that Jewish people, among many others, will be able to visit all of those holy sites,
East Jerusalem does not belong to Israel. their presence their is a violation of the Geneva conventions prohibition against settling occupied territory, and expanding borders through conquest.
Yeah, right. I've heard that one before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Wall
During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War the Old City together with the Wall was captured by Jordan. Article VIII of the 1949 Armistice Agreement provided for Israeli Jewish access to the Western Wall. However for the following nineteen years, despite numerous requests by Israeli officials and Jewish groups to the United Nations and other international bodies to attempt to enforce the armistice agreement, Jordan refused to abide by this clause as part of a policy of Islamization. Some sources claim Jews could only visit the wall if they traveled through Jordan (which was not an option for Israelis) and did not have an Israeli visa stamped in their passports. Others say Jordan even barred non-Israeli Jews, demanding that tourists present a certificate of baptism before a visa would be granted.
Another quote from the article:
In December 1973, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia stated that “Only Muslims and Christians have holy places and rights in Jerusalemâ€. The Jews, he maintained, had no rights there at all. As for the Western Wall, he said, “Another wall can be built for them. They can pray against that".
No they went out of their way to say that they had ALREADY accepted "Israel's right to exist in peace". WHat they wont do, and many Israelis agree - is define Israel as a "Jewish state" something Many Israelis are labelling as "fascist" with the recent adoption of the controverisal "loyalty oath"
But it has still been criticized as inflammatory and racist by the country's Arab minority, and one Labor minister said ahead of the vote that it took the country to "the edge of a chasm." "There is a whiff of fascism on the margins of Israeli society," Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog told army radio.
Theres more than a whiff of fascism, minister.
What pressure is that exactly?
this is the israeli problem . . . they do not want peace . .they do not respect Americans . . they do not respect our Prez . . . . it is definitely time to cut israel off . . . . and for America to work with the UN and to impose crippling sanctions against israel until they comply with international law and the Geneva Convention . . . .
Zionist extremism and violence changed that.
So you say "Imams extol the virtues of fighting to the death against the Zionist entity"
Wow - must be a lot of them!
So who are they?
Can you name any?
Or did you make that up?
and this constitutes what???????? there is no reason for Jerusalem to appear in the Koran. the bigger questions are why there is no historical corroboration with the OT . . . . and how a religious book .. . which is mainly historical fiction . . which was first written as a document for propaganda purposes in about 650 or so BC can be construded as a binding legal document . . . .
this is not a reason for America nor any other country to allow israel to break international law, commit human rights offences and flout the Geneva Convention which the modern state of israel signed . . . an Iron Age religious text has to be seen within the historical background in which it was written . . and viewed that way . . . there was no reason for the creation of the state of israel . . . get a good history of the Ancient Middle East, read the Myths of Zionism, read the Bible Unearthed . . . . stop trying to blackmail the US and stop trying to dictate our foreign policy, israel was nothing in the ancient world . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gedaliah_son_of_Pashhur
And that's just one example in the space I can provide.
I cannot believe that anyone with reason would suggest that the United States of America could ever support a nation that is based on one religion alone. Reference: The First Amendment
England doesn't allow people to have guns (2nd amendment). Should we be allied with them?
"Why is less than 2% of the American population driving 90%-95* of America's political agenda in the ME?
I ask as a curious foreigner.
By the way, not to be over critical, but this and the previous 4 are really poor drivel, but hey!, if you uncritically (and I cannot remember the rest but think it probably said) accept it, that's up to you....â€
The actual numbers are 26 and 11 respectively.
Americans don't vote on policy at any level. They vote for a representative who serve on some committee that will vote for policy. From congress to local school boards to the Supreme Court, someone in that body will vote (supposedly) on behalf of "the people". To control policy it is only necessary to control the persons sitting on those boards or committees.
Jonathan Kessler was the subject of a blog by MJ Rosenberg about "How the Lobby operates".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/video-shocker-aipac-offic_b_538547.
Mr Kessler explains that to control any entity, government or business, you just get "your people on the governing body".