Week of May 17, 2009 - May 23, 2009
BAD for Jewish Americans
AIPAC is BAD for democracy - BAD for Jewish Americans - BAD for America and, ultimately, BAD for Israel.
Democracy is about the will of the majority - not the vested interest of a minority pulling strings in high places.
No matter how many threats emanate from AIPAC's high command and issued to media outlets worldwide - the plain truth is that Israel is a small state of just 6 million in a world of 6 billion, trying to punch way above its weight. But that was prior to a man becoming President who cannot be bought by a self-serving lobby of just a few thousand.
Jewish Americans will dump AIPAC because it's now crystal clear who's boss. And its certainly not little Netanyahu with stories from the Spanish Inquisition and a chip on his shoulder.
We're now in 2009 not 1478. Wake up, this is democratic America!
Advertisement
Thinking Jewish Americans Will Dump AIPAC
Thinking Jewish Americans Will (hopefully) Dump AIPAC
From The Nation, Robert
Dreyfuss
'Middle-of-the-road,
moderate, and especially liberal Jews are likely to back Obama. That's a
dynamic that can isolate AIPAC, the central player in the
Message to Israel: Negotiate genuinely for peace or find another sponsor!
Leonard Doyle writing for the Telegraph said it all:
'The era of the blank cheque is over - from now on Israel must earn its privileged relationship with the United States - Mr Obama will make it clear that he will not allow his foreign policy objectives to be dictated by Israel and that Israel must resume working for peace with the Palestinians.'
'The President has already fired warning shots across the bow of the Israeli government to signal that he will not be pushed around by Mr Netanyahu's new Right-wing coalition.'
So that's about the size of it. Either negotiate genuinely for peace and a two state solution - or find another sponsor elsewhere.
I agree on freezing settlements but am unsure you are consistent on the two-state solution. Isn't calling on Israel to accept the 2-state solution comparable to calling on the PA to recognize Israel as a Jewish state in so far as that is the basis for having two independent states? Shouldn't we either call on both sides to agree before starting negotiations that the deal will leave a Jewish state Israel and a Palestinian state Palestine or demand it of neither and just proceed to negotiations? The other question is what to do regarding Hamas's more explicit rejection of a permanent two-state solution - maxing out on a 10-year Hudna which Israel would never accept. Interestingly, though he's in the employ of the state department, George Mitchell has discussed minimizing preconditions as part of his success in mediating peace in Ireland.
May 22, 2009 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I'm betting Cheney is whispering in Bibi's ear, telling him to ignore the White House and egging him on to attack Iran.
May 22, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a fine, clear, and outspoken bit of overdue common sense. Thank you for it.
Two further observations:
1. There are two fundamental issues here that overlap yet are distinct: (a) the denial of the fundamental right of self-determination to Palestinians and (b) the lack of a stable peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis. A Palestinian state without peace is undesirable, but the world can tolerate it, as it has tolerated an Israeli state without peace for many decades. The Palestinians cannot be expected to accept peace without a state any more than Jewish terrorists in 1947 did.
2. There can be no legitimate equation between the cessation of Palestinian terrorism and of Israeli settlements as preconditions for peace negotiations until the Palestinians actually have a sovereign state with the full authority to act against terrorism (as the Israeli state has the full authority to stop -or in the case of Gaza, remove- settlements). Allowing such an equation amounts to a recipe by which terrorists can torpedo peace negotiations.
May 22, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
>MJR
Sound, common sense. I have a feeling that this President will be the catalyst for change. He cut his political teeth in Chicago. He knows the score. IMHO he's not subject to corruption or threat from the Israel lobby. During the first term of this presidency we will see a dramatic new political paradigm whereby Israel will cease to be on the front page every day and there will be substantive improvements in Middle East stability. He is as aware as the rest of us that the status quo is leading us into a third world war, this time with WMD that will decimate the world. He wants as we want a world where his children can grow and prosper and to achieve that aim he must alter the balance in Washington and root out those who are intent on damaging our democratic principles for personal gain. I believe Obama is the man to do just that.
May 23, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
All fine and well, but how on earth can Obama stop the settlements? What do you suggest he do? What makes Netanyahu (and the rest of the Israeli government) change course on settlements--something they haven't done for forty years?
MJ talks a lot about what should or shouldn't be done, but I see absolutely no plan for action. Wishful thinking and pleading won't change a thing. That's all I see from MJ.
How about lobbying for sanctions against Israel until settlements stop, MJ? Until you're ready to take some action with similar force, no one will--or should--take you or your Israel Policy Forum very seriously. There's no bite and very little bark--just a whole lot of pathetic whimpering.
(Meanwhile AIPAC--an organization that really knows how to snarl and tear flesh--will continue to rip to bits any American politician who tries to put any pressure at all on Israel to do anything to stop settlements or end occupation.)
May 23, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're not wrong, PS, but dont assume there cannot be a paradigm shift just because the status quo on settlements has lasted for 40 years. Nothing lasts for ever. Not Sharon, not Arafat and certainly not Likud.
This president is no patsy. He knows right-wing Jewish politicians intimately from his Chicago days - and is more than a match for them. Never forget he is the President and he has the ability to knock heads together and change mindsets - and he will, I have little doubt!
They may dismiss him as just another politician to be bought - but they make a grave error. This one is different. This one has balls. And this one believes in democracy for America not Zionist stratagems that enable House members to relax on the beach at Herzalia twice a year.
These are the years that the great American public from NY to LA and all states in between will finally use their voice and their voting power to elect representatives who will really look after their interests and eject those who do not. The time is past in America, as in the UK, where elected politicians are merely self-serving, puffed-up caricatures holding office merely to enrich themselves and to vote tax dollars to foreign states on the pretext of US security.
Have faith. Things DO change. Think apartheid South Africa just 20 years ago.
May 23, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe things will change, Colindale. I do think Obama is more thoughtful, more original--and possibly (though not yet certainly) more effective--than recent past Presidents. But he's also proving to be a staunch pragmatist--both in policy and politics. So I suspect our policies toward Israel and Palestine will change only if there's a pragmatic reason and way to do so. This means several things, I think:
I have concerns that none of these conditions can be met.
So . . . I guess I remain skeptical, but you are right about Obama's potential and maybe he will surprise me even on this most perplexing issue.
May 23, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
All of the points you raise have a validity. But you ignore the fact that I have already made: unless there is dramatic change, there is every possibility of a nuclear war that will start in the ME and then spread to Europe.
The event that can trigger that scenario is an unprovoked attack on the sovereign state of Iran. The consequences of which are at present unknown not only to me but also to President Obama - but they would be severe and globally extensive.
We are not dealing here with a few thousand unarmed civilians in Gaza or the Lebanon. Iran has a real army with real missiles and other armaments and she will not just lay down and die for an aggressor. Her defence could endanger not only the attacker, but many other states, in reprisal.
We are living in an exceedingly fraught and dangerous time and a war with WMD that would not only be nuclear but chemical and biological, would contaminate huge areas of our planet. To ignore this threat would be foolish. And this US administration knows that very well.
May 23, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has indeed stated that he thinks a solution to the Israel-Palestinian feud will help defuse the Iranian nuclear problem, and that the "linkage" goes in that direction, not the opposite direction as asserted by Netanyahu. I am not sure, however, how greatly the already unsettling risk of nuclear war will be increased by Iran going nuclear. China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, all have nukes now. And so has Israel, for years. The key issue is not the highly desirable goal of reversing nuclear proliferation, or of Obama's intelligent commitment to addressing it. The central question, hinted at by Purple State above, is whether Obama will hedge, fudge, waffle, and ultimate back way off from this goal in response to domestic political pressure. In order for that NOT to happen, it may take something like an anti-AIPAC with the tenacity and funding of an AIPAC itself. The organizations of Rosenberg and other columnists on TPM are very worthy and welcome steps towards that, but a long way from comparable in scale, focus, and effectiveness.
May 23, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. What is required is a public enquiry into the activities of AIPAC and other lobby groups and whether these organizations work to the benefit of the US or to its detriment. There is a contention that their activities are unAmerican and undemocratic that charge needs to be investigated and resolved.
The previous House Committee on Un-American Activities was concerned, or overly concerned, with a threat to the Federation that turned out to be imaginary. Today there is a threat which is very real indeed to our democratic institutions.
Democracy is concerned with the will of the people and the welfare of the people. Unelected minority groups with enormous power in the legislature are a threat not only to America but by extension, to the world.
Let us have a strong spotlight into the workings of these groups and an investigation into whose benefit they exist.
May 23, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink