Sandy Tolan in the CSM says Gaza is the crossroads for Obama, and he's right.
If Obama says the wrong thing, if he fails to condemn Israel's disproportionate horrifying violence– as Miliband has condemned, in England– then he loses the ability to lead. The only way to lead now is to express horror at Israel's actions. J Street has the ability to lead, AIPAC has sacrificed it, it's that simple. The Times has lost its ability to lead, Steve Clemons and Ezra Klein have the ability. There's daylight on the left at last, for all our hard work.
Obama's guru Lincoln would say the same thing. Lincoln who made countless approximations, who said that blacks were inferior to whites, who condemned John Brown (the Rachel Corrie of his day, though no, Corrie didn't take up arms), Lincoln who said I respect slavery in the southern states–still Lincoln knew the line, and it was that all men were created equal and slavery was wrong and must not be extended. Obama has made one approximation after another with the war/terror/Zionism party for months, still he knows the occupation is wicked. He ate at Rashid and Mona Khalidi's table and was friends with Ali Abunimah. He knows. And he knows this is the moment. And he's not going to blow it.
Related posts:
{ 6 comments }
'Obama's guru Lincoln would say the same thing … Lincoln knew the line, and it was that all men were created equal and slavery was wrong and must not be extended.' — Phil W.
Careful, bruthuh Phil — this is anything but a clear-cut analogy.
Arguably Lincoln's actions asserted that it is justified to vaporize half a million human lives enforcing an abstract principle. Which principle? To 'preserve the Union' at all costs, meaning not to yield an inch of national territory. Which is an Israeli obsession as well, underlying most of its expansionist actions from 1967 on.
In this sense, Obama may have much more in common with Lincoln than we would wish. His boilerplate line that 'Israel has the right to defend itself' [at whatever human cost] constitutes an appropriately sanguinary, Lincolnian worldview.
It is possible, though unlikely, that P-E Obama could be deliberately abstaining from weighing in on the Gaza bombings in order to maximize his power to pry concessions from the Israelis later when the smoke clears. If he is seen by Israelis, who are now clearly desperate and increasingly aware of their isolation, as openly siding with the Palestinians, whether true or not, it will be much more difficult to twist their arms later when it might actually do some good. Is this not similar to what the Democrats did during much of the Bush administration? They knew they couldn't do a damn thing to stop him, so as one might see in a game of tug-of-war, they stopped tugging on the rope and let go, and let him fall on his ass. I'm not saying I agree with this strategy, I'm just suggesting that it may be what is happening. More likely is the obvious explanation that he is afraid that if he crosses the Lobby, they will in vengeance hamstring his ability to govern.
Hard to believe Obama will do anything other than give a good speech. Carefully considered, it will be rousing, "fair to both sides" and, effectively, give a green light the Israeli position.
Consider that any opprobrium he may earn for tactical silence now will be quickly forgotten if he is victorious in hammering out a stable final-status agreement, with the re-structuring of American foreign and domestic policy that would allow. People remember who wins the game, not who makes a flashy play in the second quarter and then fails to bring the team to victory.
I think Obama has already chosen sides. He equated Israel with his
own home, where his daughters slept, all tucked in their beds. Surely, he saw that a Pal parent might feel the same. And he knows about the Nakba et seq. Are we to attribute his very personal statement of empathy to nothing but a candidate's tactic? After
he won, and after he hired those he has? All signs lead one way, so far–we will know without a doubt soon after the Israeli elections.
Meanwhile, loyal Jewish Americans in congress are urging a 3-month time clock as fig leave for bombing Iran.
Phil, I wouldn't trust either of the Miliband brothers, any more than I would trust Brown or Mandelson. Do try not to asslick.
Comments on this entry are closed.