David Nather has a smart/dumb piece about the Israel lobby at CQ politics. Nather picked up Harry Reid's letter to Obama distancing himself from Obama's policy of pressuring Israel. Reid says it's the Palestinians' responsibility to move the peace process forward. Nothing about occupation, of course.
And oh, the road to peace in Jerusalem lies through Tehran; doing something about nukes will allow us to do something about the two-state solution. The linkage that the lobby insists upon, and that Richard Engel parroted last night on Chris Matthews. Let's talk about Iran, not Israel/Palestine.
The smart part of Nather's analysis is that he believes that Reid is merely doing lip service to powerful constituents in the letter. Nather says: If Reid has anything to say to Obama, he can pick up the phone and call him. So the letter is a charade, Nather implies.
The dumb part is the refusal (a conventional one; almost all MSM reporters do it) to take the Israel lobby seriously as a significant and destructive force in our politics. Here it is pressuring the lead Democrat in the Senate to change American policy re the peace process. And Reid parrots the lobby's line about the Palestinians being no partners to peace. Excuse me, America, we have just been through 6 years of bloodshed in Iraq leading to the installation of a government including former terrorists, on the ground that terrorism there arose not from ideological craziness but from a real political dispute over territory/power. This lesson is portable to Israel/Palestine, where Palestinians living under oppressive occupation, with little freedom of movement and no right to self-determination, have in some cases resorted to violent resistance.
Who are the powerful constituents to whom Reid is beholden? Is Sheldon Adelson, the neoconservativish casino boss, a thorn in Reid's side? I thought he was a Republican. Oh, but the Democratic Party is infected by this thinking.
Excerpt from CQ:
In this case, Reid’s letter is designed to put the
spotlight back on the Palestinians’ responsibilities in pursuing Middle
East peace, and on the importance of stopping Iran from obtaining
nuclear weapons. Obama made some Jewish groups nervous in
his Cairo speech with his comments about Israel’s need to stop building
settlements and Iran’s right to pursue peaceful nuclear power.
“I believe negotiations will be successful only with a renewed
commitment from the Palestinians to be a true partner in peace,” Reid
said, in a phrase highlighted in the press release announcing the
letter. “Arab states in the region must also act to support the peace
process. All parties must recognize Israel’s right to exist, end
terrorism, and respect previous agreements made with Israel.”
Unlike Obama’s speech, Reid’s statement didn’t mention any responsibilities on Israel’s part.
As for Iran, Reid warned Obama not to become distracted from “your
commitment to deal with the ongoing threat” of nuclear weapons in a
country that has called for the destruction of Israel. “I believe that
resolving the problem of Iran’s nuclear program will help facilitate
the Arab-Israeli peace process you and I both seek to promote,” Reid
said, making a connection that goes well beyond anything Obama has said
about the issue.
It’s all couched in diplomatic language, but the message to Reid’s
constituents seems clear: If you have a problem with Obama’s speech,
don’t take it out on me.
