Congressional Democrats and President Obama ran on the platform of significantly changing the direction of this country, from domestic policy to national security. But lately, Democrats have been taking a number of actions on national security that are alarming at best and hypocritical at worst. This post is part of Sam Sedaei's new blog series "Democrites," coming from the perspective of a member of loyal opposition, to call Democrats out on their questionable actions when they occur.
Last December, Israel engaged in one of the most horrific military acts in recent history against Gaza. It did so in the name of national security, claiming that this action was a response to HAMAS rockets, refusing to acknowledge that the rockets were a response to Israel's two-year-long water-land-air blockade on Gaza that, BBC once reported, was "sucking the life" out of its citizens. Israel caused an outcry by the entire world (with the exception of the United States) for its indiscriminate and disproportionate use of violence against the people of Gaza, strike on a U.N. school that killed forty people, and for its use of white phosphorus--a weapon that militaries use widely to obscure the battlefield but that is also limited under an international convention that bans targeting civilians with it -- against Gazans.
During a five hour interview on May 5, HAMAS leader Khaled Meshaal (knowing full well the U.S.'s unequivocal recognition of Israel as a state) told The New York Times, "I promise the American administration and the international community that we will be part of the solution, period," and according to The Times, "he urged outsiders to ignore the Hamas charter, which calls for the obliteration of Israel through jihad," saying it was 20 years old and adding, "We are shaped by our experiences."
If Israel's claims of self defense are accurate, then one would expect Israel to have a kinder attitude toward the peaceful Palestinians in the West Bank, which aren't sending any rockets into Israel. So what has Israel done for the West Bank lately? After the implicit willingness by Hamas to recognize Israel, should we not at the very least expect Israel to abide by its own previous commitment to a two-state solution? Apparently, not.
When Prime Minister Netanyahu came to the U.S. late last month, each side had a goal: Israel wanted the U.S. to have a timetable for dealing with Iran, and in return, President Obama expected Israel to work with the Palestinians on a peace plan and freeze the building of settlements in the West Bank (which are completely illegal anyway according to international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention). President Obama did his part, saying, "we are not going to have talks [with Iran] forever." But Prime Minster Netanyahu refused to promise a freeze on illegal settlements in the West Bank, and shockingly, he even refused to restate Israel's previous commitment to abide by the two-state roadmap, which the vast majority of the countries involved in the process and regional experts believe is the only way to have peace in the Middle East.
So there is a new dynamic in the Middle East where Hamas is stopping the launching of rockets and opening the door to recognizing Israel, and Jewish hospitals in Iran get boost in their funding under Ahmadinejad while Israel uses white phosphorous on Gaza, expands illegal settlements deeper into the West Bank and refuses to accept a two-state solution.
President Obama, Secretary Clinton and others in the administration have wisely changed the U.S.'s tone, taking an appropriately tougher stance on Israel. During a recent interview on Al Jazeera, Hillary Clinton unequivocally expressed the position of the administration against any expansion of settlements in the West Bank, whether within or outside of the borders of current settlements.
However, while President Obama understands the importance of taking a tougher stance on Israel to fit the new circumstances, some Democrats in Congress do not. When it comes to the split between the Obama administration and the Israeli government, these Democrats are siding with Israel against President Obama. In response to the administration's position, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) said, "My concern is that we are applying the pressure to the wrong party ... I think it would serve America's interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements." This may come as a surprise to Rep. Berkley, but Israel is not the only democracy in the Middle East. The other one is Turkey, which is coincidentally predominantly Muslim. And according to Rep. Berkley, when threats come from places like Iran, we must preemptively stop them, but if they are from Israel in the form of illegal settlements on occupied land, it's "natural growth."
Meanwhile, Rep Anthony Weiner (D-NY) also attacked President Obama's position, saying, "There's a line between articulating U.S. policy and seeming to be pressuring a democracy on what are their domestic policies, and the president is tiptoeing right up to that line." Memo to Rep. Weiner: Settlements are not a legal part of Israel, and therefore, Israel's settlement policy is not Israel's "domestic" policy. And Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) made a similar comment, saying "I don't think anybody wants to dictate to an ally what they have to do in their own national security interests." So if one of our allies pursues a policy that is completely contradictory to what we stand for as a country, we have to accept its behavior over our own principles and interests? If we are to accept any behavior by our ally, then why are we being so selective in picking allies to begin with? Why not just call Iran our ally too and overlook everything they do because they will be our ally? What is the point of having allies if having them will require us sacrificing our nation's own self-interest?
There are occasional debates within political circles on what is the real third rail in American politics. Is it social security? Military spending? If there is such a list, policy toward Israel certainly belongs to it. But despite that context, here we have a courageous administration and president who is willing to put America's interest first and pursue a Middle East policy that seems more fair-minded than that of any other administration in recent history. This policy is America's best shot at forging peace in the Middle East; Congressional Democrats need to get on board.
Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamSedaei
Alon Ben-Meir: The Palestinians at a Pivotal Crossroads
President Obama's push for a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict has given the Palestinians an historic opportunity to end their disastrous state of affairs.
Thankfully, we can look to Vice President Biden, as the President's preeminent foreign policy advisor, to persuade those congressional democrats to get on board by understanding that siding with PM Netanyahu on these issues is the surest way toward the demise of the state of Israel as we know it and doesn't do any favors for the national security interests of the United States, either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAZmO80dLfE
Vice President Biden is perfectly and uniquely positioned to "save the day" in terms of persuading the current Israeli government to make the extremely difficult compromises - especially with respect to the West Bank settlement issues - it must make to ensure its very survival.
There is no one in the Obama administration, including the President, himself, who has more credibility or better credentials than VP Biden to move forward on this file and on other regional challenges.
I hope you were fortunate enough to have seen the full video of Biden's remarks at the recent AIPAC conference.
Have you heard any details about the Vice President's meeting with the UN Secretary General? I'm hoping Iraq was the main subject of conversation!
Two wrongs do not make a right.
I'm sorry, but telling Israel "no, you shouldn't do that, it's wrong" is not the same thing as being anti-semitic. Yes, the holocaust was a terrible thing purpotrated by soulless criminals with no conscience. But that doesn't make it some kind of license to kill, steal, and pillage anyone they please, whenever they please. And it seems like every time Israel is taken to task, all they have to do is shout "NEVER AGAIN!" and that's it...end of discussion.
Actually, Obama is being a far better friend to Israel by being stern with them when he needs to be. If anything, every other President since 1948 has done Israel a disservice by patting them on the back and giving them free reign.
But like the Cuban policy Cuban-Americans in Florida have demanded of their representatives and the nation at large, the narrow interests of this constituency have far-reaching, and possibly disasterous results. The sight of so many of my local representatives (and my eternal mayor) rushing up to the microphones to congratulate the Israelis for their slaughter in Gaza, and before that, their invasion and destruction of Lebanon, was for me at least, stomach-turning and frightening. Why would these locals appear so eager to align themselves with such violence? How could their triumphalist stance be anything but provocative to the most extreme elements among the Islamicists? If, G-d forbid, there is ever another attack on my city, to some degree I will consider it as something my representatives invited on us all by their blind and arrogant allegiance to Israel and its local and extremely vocal supporters hereabouts.
So, who's got family ties/business ties/DLC ties/tie ties?
So, who's all DLC?
Yep - passive-aggressive DOES work with a big dose of "who? ME?" thrown in.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M
It looks like they've already sunk their teeth in, the Democratic party may well end up in shambles just like the GOP if we don't work to stop it. If anyone doesn't think that neocon types don't play both sides, you're sorely mistaken. After all, the neoconservative philosophy came from former "leftys" who were unsatisfied because there isn't enough war.
I know it sounds bizarre to those who aren't familiar with the history, but I assure you that it is quite true. Be alert.
The me me me me me me me attitude.