I hear they’re crowing about this in Israel. From AP:
A top aide to Abbas, Saeb Erekat, said in a phone interview with The Associated Press that Clinton had asked Abbas to allow Israel’s government to complete building 3,000 units in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and to allow the government to construct public buildings and continue construction in east Jerusalem — a territory Palestinians hope will be their future capital.
Clinton’s request would be a major change for the U.S. administration, which previously had demanded Israel halt all settlement building before negotiations could resume.
I’m not surprised.
Either the charades of last April and May were just propaganda or this is related to the Iran nuclear issue. Israel pressured the US and the US caved in …….again.
Israel shouts at Obama and his crew “Jump!” And they say, “How high?”
Change we can believe in, huh. This is part of the reason I wanted Edwards to win the primary, dammit. I don’t care who he was having sex with, at least he was the one candidate out of the three that wasn’t definitely in bed with Israel.
Sorry to say but all our presidential candidates of the mainstream type MUST be approved by Aipac first or else it’s the political noose.
Didn’t you know, Chaos, the zionist agenda is far more precious and important than our fifty states combined.
Natanyahoo is the president of the free world, not Obama – Aipac has made sure of this frightening equation.
Evidently they want war and SO BE IT.
And that’ll be just great for Israel for that war to trigger the Greater Depression in the United States. I’m sure they’ll do just fine without Big Daddy buying new toys for them on his credit card whenever they used up what they’ve got bombing neighboring civilian populations.
I’m a Kucinich supporter, but the MSM excluded him early on.
He was a pretty good choice too. I’ve given up on the Democratic Party. Anybody with a spine who affiliates with them gets treated like a pariah. And then the party wonders why they end up lurching around the political arena like an inebriated sumo wrestler on a Vespa.
After the way the Democrats treated Jimmy Carter, I gave up on them totally.
I guess this is what was meant when Michael Oren said “the settlement issue is behind us now.”
One of my co-workers thinks that the main problem lies somewhere in the Middle East. Sometimes he asks me “when are they going to solve all those problems they’ve got over there?”
When I answer “As soon as the US president has the courage to solve that problem”, he starts being defensive and claims the two are not related.
Kennedy was on the right track. He wanted a nuclear free Middle East and a balance of power.
And we know what happened to kennedy.
I’m usually pretty careful not to touch the Kennedy assassination but… yeah, I wonder sometimes, too.
Yeah; the JFK murder was discussed on this blog a few days ago; from the POV of motive, that is, who benefited, it was clear who did–especially if you’re aware of JFK’s stance on three key Israeli concerns at the time.
Did anyone here watch Paranormal Activity? It’s like the scene when the demon takes over Katie’s body and she tells poor little cute Micah that she doesn’t want to leave the house anymore and that everything will be OK. That’s what I thought about when I read the headline about Oren saying “the settlement issue is behind us now.” The AIPAC demon succeeded in finally taking over Obama completely. Disgusting. But Obama was always lame and always weak. We got duped by someone that didn’t even try that hard to dupe us. What suckers we are.
Seham, I don’t know whether Obama is weak or the powers that rock the office of presidency (+ congress) are simply too strong. I follow (and participate in) the health care reform and though it is nothing like the I/P conundrum (at least everyone sane agrees something needs to be done), it has a somewhat similar, almost eery feel to it, with Obama saying one thing and his administration – in the shadow – doing another. I do find it discouraging because if the health care reform debate is carried out in the full light of who and what the health care lobby promotes – and STILL cannot get enough traction in a progressive (ie, pbenefitting the PEOPLE) direction – what hope is there for anything to move peoplewards on the Palestinian question, where even the lobby cannot be named? much less can it be pointed out how much congresspeople got from its affiliates?
Worse yet, in healthcare, the main issue is that greed and need to be elected propel positions of congressional individuals, and the imperative of denying the republicans the benefit of healthcare industry money not-so-secretly works its way behind the white house (in the person of Rahm). So there is lots os greed and some fear. But for I/P the greed is almost overshadowed by fear (of being trounced for political incorrectness) and fear is even more powerful than greed in causing action/inaction (as in “paralysed with fear?).
So the ‘weakness” of Obama is almost beside the point in this debate. It’s the strength of the forces for evil that’s relevant. Evil, because the strength opf those forces causes death directly and deliberately.
And yes, I am well aware of the horse trading going on behind the scenes – as in – you (Obama WH) better fall in line over the settlements and Iran if you want to see any kind of healh care reform enacted anytime soon. Now if you want to see actually a good bill, well the price goes higher. Thus spake Schumer et al.
Danaa,
Please be more specific; I think you are on to something, but its not clear, at least to me. Yes, AIPAC delagates in the USA congress are tying together USA individual health concerns with their version of
perpetual Israel uber alles concern, but we need more information on the connection–have you information for us?
Also, we know that Israel has a better Health Care system than the USA does, even though Israel is dependent on US taxpayer dollars–can you speak to that?
Also, we know that Israel has a better Health Care system than the USA does, even though Israel is dependent on US taxpayer dollars–can you speak to that?
A horrible US policy.
We agree for once.
And in that spirit, there was some speculation that the reason the Obama Administration fought against the Goldstone Report is because they were secretly, behind the scenes, playing hardball politics with Netanyahu. Stop the settlement building and we’ll stop Goldstone, was the supposed idea. I’d hold my nose and support the dropping of war crimes trials if it really did lead to a fair solution to the I/P conflict. But in the world we actually live in, the Obama Administration simply isn’t willing to put any pressure on Israel–they caved in on Goldstone for the same reason they caved in on settlements. They simply have no stomach for confrontation with the more idiotic supporters of Israel.
Most worrisome – that all this caving doesn’t signal he’ll actually stand up to Netanyahu on Iran.
Donald raises an interesting question which has bugged me: *Why* has Obama retreated so much from where he was?
He comes out four-square categorical against any more settlement expansions and says he wants a new relationship with the arab world while essentially admitted our past lack of respect for them and their rights. There’s also a talk that some State Dept. person gave expressly naming Israel as being included in our concerns about nuke proliferation. Suddenly, without anything seeming to happen, he executes a huge retreat from his position on those settlements, *openly* works to strangle the Goldstone Report, and it’s revealed he goes back on his big non-proliferation cause via assuring Netanyahu that he will abide by the old U.S. sham of pretending they don’t exist.
What happened? His initial positions were just too big and too clear and too numerous to represent anything but clearly considered decisions on his part. And these reversals are just too big and clear and numerous to represent mere changes in emphasis.
Something happened I’d bet; it just doesn’t make sense otherwise.
Carrots and sticks, carrots and sticks, that’s all there are in politics: Which is he responding to?
Sin – the usual explanation seems to be that the Democrats threatened to hold the healthcare bills hostage until Obama caved on Israel. Of course, we aren’t getting the real healthcare bill anyway, so Obama’s the sucker.
Just think – if AIPAC had lobbied for single payer, Congress would have voted for it unanimously.
Potsherd:
Yeah I read that health-care theory here (if nowhere else) and it just didn’t strike me as being very plausible or strongly supported by facts. You don’t threaten someone with a one-off either, and in any event we’ll see once the health-care thing goes through if Obama then reverses himself yet again.
I dunno; damned curious in any event. One thing that makes me suspicious of at least a big part of its possible cause is Mrs. Clinton’s seeming presence in many if not most of the initial reversals. Her U.N. ambassador so immediately coming out against Goldstone, the endless coddling of Netanyahu talking about just how much the settlements can expand and etc. and so forth.
But what’s the Israeli carrot or stick for her? She still got hopes of being in the Big Chair in 7 years? Pictures of her not just kissing Suha Arafat but something more? Pictures of Bill doing anything possible with anyone?
But Obama himself is clearly involved too in backtracking on those settlements so whatever happened its tentacles clearly touched him at least.
I dunno, but seems to me to be the big question right now given that the Palestinians are hanging tough on saying no talks whatsoever right now.
That’s because “the more idiotic supporters of Israel” are the streamlined one-issue moneybags assuring
election and reelection. And both parties know it.
Sin Nombre – I also think healthcare reform had a little something to do with the obviously major reversal ore israel (Schumer – one of the aipac voices in congress is a major promoter of the public option and a strong bill. he just needs to threaten to not work so hard. Ditto for some of the other senators. and that’s before we even consider Lieberman the senate’s clown).
But that being said, and given the huge loss of face to Obama in the arab world because of the very public reversal, I also agree that something else – some additional ingredient must be going on behind the scenes. And it’s not afganistan, and not oil, and certainly not any silly issue like global warming (treated as silly at least).
Yes, there is the fact that jewish donors comprise 50% of all the money given to democratic candidates and party coffers. Is is an effective threat to throw all that money to the other side? is it really a disaster if that goes down by as much as a half? there are other sources and Obama knows it.
So something is still missing if only because the about-face is so very emarassing and may have such bad repercussions for the US in the muslim world.
Were I conspiracy minded (which, god forbid, of course could not possibly be) I find my thoughts veering in the direction of a high resolution photo of the grassy knoll shooter mysteriously finding itself to Obama’s desk at just the right time……
But hey, I’m open to almost any other theory….let’s speculate, shall we?
Just check out what JFK was annoyed about the most when he was shot.
Out of curiosity, what specifically do you disagree with, Witty? And why?
I desire that Israel pursue a two-state solution that results in a secure Israel and a viable Palestine.
This makes that far less likely, in effectively enabling settlement expansion. It is an application of the Bush policy, rather than a distinct change. It does not represent a compromise on the part of Netanyahu, maybe a compromise from what he wanted and had knesset permission, but not a compromise sufficient to realize a viable two-state, or a compromise from prior Israeli policy.
It does present the US as weak, a mark.
Substantively, it supports lawlessness relative to indivdiual title, and a dimunution of the democratic portion of the Israeli primary law (Jewish AND equal due process). And, also substantively, it makes the prospect of a contiguous West Bank Palestine remote, and therefore inviable except as entirely subordinated.
The only qualification, hope, is that there is some significant back-room deal that is not disclosed. It doesn’t seem likely in fact though.
I wish it were just a bargaining ploy on the part of Netanyahu, equivalent to Erekat’s statements that “if we don’t succeed at a two-state solution, we will be forced to advocate for a single-state”.
Netanyahu “if we don’t succeed at a secure two-state solution, we will then resume settlement expansion”.
I hope that they are just two bluffs.
I don’t think thats how it will play out in the short term now though.
“I desire that Israel pursue a two-state solution that results in a secure Israel and a viable Palestine.”
But not a secure Palestine, per se? It’s the Palestinians who need security more than Israelis. The statistical data shows that, overwhelmingly, Palestinians are the victims of violence in the conflict.
You support a two-state solution, and that’s nice and all, but you aren’t willing to do anything except say you support it. How do we bring it about? We talk sanctions and BDS, you shoot it down. We talk withholding American taxpayer largesse, you shoot it down. We support Palestinian democracy, and you shoot that down too.
Your solution, in fact, is even less practical than the one-state solution. Because you don’t endorse taking any sort of action at all.
Thanks Chaos, for stating what so many of us regulars see, which is Witty’s gross hypocrisy. Yes, it is the Palestinians who need security. And Witty has never answered the question, what do you mean, Witty, by a “viable” Palestinian state?
He evades giving details of his idea of a sovereign Palestinian state.
As you say, Chaos, Witty supports a two-state solution, and that’s nice and all, but Witty is not willing to do anything except say he support it. How do we bring it about? We talk sanctions and BDS, Witty shoots it down. We talk withholding American taxpayer largesse, Witty shoots it down. We support Palestinian democracy, and Witty shoots that down too. Witty calls his avowed friend Phil
on any tiny thing, even on Phil’s description of someone seemingly annoyed at the J St conference, but Witty offers nothing but generalities and feel good abstractions
to us and all the while he is ignoring the influence of AIPAC, and the fact nobody can
criticise Israel’s policies here in the USA without being hit with the “Anti-Semite!”sledge hammer
“You support a two-state solution, and that’s nice and all, but you aren’t willing to do anything except say you support it. How do we bring it about? We talk sanctions and BDS, you shoot it down. We talk withholding American taxpayer largesse, you shoot it down. We support Palestinian democracy, and you shoot that down too.”
Actions:
I write to Congress, I speak publicly to small presentations, I contribute to Brit Tzedek, I personally encourage courageous individuals that seek mutual humanization on all sides.
I emphasize respectfully presented education, and particularly for those individuals and groups with influence and responsibility. That includes Israelis, American governmental, business and civic leaders, and particularly Jewish community.
The main message is that Jews are human and deserve security, fairness, vitality, and that Palestinians are human beings and deserve security, fairness and vitality.
The next questions are always, how do we get there?
The one-state solution denies security, fairness and vitality to the majority of the Jewish community in Israel (one half of the world’s Jews), so I oppose it. It is clear to me that that is not a current prospect for any of the relevant humane goals for Jews.
Again, I argue that the two-state solution that results in a healthy Israel and a healthy Palestine accomplishes security, well-being, vibrant economy, peaceful reconciliation path of forthcoming conflicts (inevitable between neighbors).
That is DIFFERENT than publicly advocating for a rump Palestine. That you can’t distinguish that difference in my comments, is an intellectual poverty on your part.
I regard BDS as currently presented as imprecise, punitive, resentful, and led by individuals that desire Israel’s demise as Israel. There might be a concise form that I would support, and adopt. But, when BDS is stated as resistance, rather than as reform, the discipline required for BDS to be actually non-violent in action and not only non-violent only in form is usually lacking.
I also believe that there are some conditions in which the US should conditionally withhold some of its subsidies. I am leaning more in that direction as Obama fails to provide publicly any compelling guidance as to criteria of acceptable vs unacceptable Israeli policies.
I don’t have a clue what you mean by “support Palestinian democracy but you shoot it down”. From my memory, I have consistently urged reforms to the distorted application of the “equal due process” portion of the Israeli basic law.
Name-calling is really insufficient political assertion, whether you do it, Phil, Norman Finkelstein, Jeff Blankfort, Medea Benjamin, or others.
They are applications of force, schoolyard name-calling, rather than persuasive description and consideration.
So how come you don’t speak out against the Israeli siege? Both the total one aronnd Gaza and the creeping one in the West Bank? The systemic denial of trade and even their own natural resources to the Palestinians themselves?
You go out of your way to decry BDS as punitive but then you say nothing about Israel. Even when you criticize Israel you always frame it as, “Well, the Palestinians forced them into that position.”
JEWS DID NOT HAVE A SECURITY ISSUE IN THE MIDDLE EAST BEFORE ZIONISM. I think that bears repeating because that’s the biggest canard you forward — that Jews need to build themselves castles and ivory towers and gated communities to protect themselves from non-Jews. That’s the essence of what makes you a hypocrite, incidentally, and it’s what makes you a veritable traitor to American values of equality among men.
I speak in terms of how to remove the siege, rather than just your limited “the siege causes suffering. Israel is demon.”
Put your brains into solving the problem rather than just railing that there is one.
I have the same arguments dealing with the Israeli right, who consistently say “there is nothing we can do but complain and defend.”
I say:
“Aren’t you intelligent enough to find a means to a confident peace, rather than rationalize why it is impossible?”
The hell you do. Those ships are out there off the coast of Gaza right now. The humanitarian ships sent to Gaza have effectively stopped because the Israeli navy attacks them. Let alone normal economic activity.
You are doing nothing to get those ships moved, Witty. Not a damn thing. The fact is, as long as its not Jews suffering, you couldn’t give two shits about the rest of humanity (and I suspect it’s worse than that, and you’re happy as long as you and your “identity” are profiting, no matter what the cost)
Witty? If it takes military force — if it takes someone actually going there and blowing Israeli ships out of the water — to end the siege and stop Palestinians from dying, because Israel will not end it, do you support or oppose that?
I agree with many of the criticisms of Witty in this thread , have voiced some of them myself and expect I will probably do so again. But one should be nuanced even when denouncing his stands, because I think there’s something to be learned from paying attention to his views, though not necessarily what he wants us to think. I think that under certain conditions he wants peace and does desire that Palestinians not suffer, but that these desires take a back seat when his buttons are pushed–if, for instance, one speaks of Israeli society as a whole (not just convenient rightwing scapegoats) as responsible for crimes against the Palestinians or if one suggests Israel’s founding as a Jewish state was due to ethnic cleansing, then his empathy shuts down and he goes into “circle the wagon” mode. When he criticizes us for being vengeful or too harsh and warns us that it will only make Israelis more intransigent, he is actually telling us about his own reactions when our criticisms strike against his deeply held ideological beliefs (which he holds with near-fanatical intensity). And his reactions might be the reactions of “liberal” Israelis or at least some of them, so they are interesting for that reason.
That aside, I think one should give Witty credit when he says something reasonable, and IMO his reaction to this Clinton speech is reasonable. He is disgusted by it. He recognizes that there’s no chance of a peace settlement even on his terms with this stance. So I’d be interested in what sort of pressure he thinks should be applied to either Israel or the US government or both.
Witty, since you don’t want a rump Palestine solution, why don’t you tell us what
a Palestinian state should look like in your eyes? Please tell us the extent of such a state’s sovereignty in your wishful eyes. Thanks in advance.
Donald, you get a gold star for being so kind.
Yet another very interesting and potentially quite significant thing that’s happened is Turkey’s very decided turn away from its prior quite strong relationship with Israel which now includes a decided pro-Iranian tilt concerning the sanctions/Iranian nuke question.
All sorts of things this might mean in the future, esp. given that Turkey is a member of NATO.
And one wonders about it’s cause too: Is it just Erdogan, or is it him responding to Turkish popular opinion and the rise of ever-less secular parties and sources of islamic opinion in Turkey? In terms of not just private people coming out and whacking at Israel over Cast Lead but of actual governmental officials, I suspect that Erdogan was absolutely *the* foremost, most outspoken such official in the West and maybe anywhere against what Israel had done in Gaza. Was quite harsh, and hasn’t relented.
A real sea-change in Turkey’s fundamental posture if it holds. And not stupid either; could make it very much more important than it has been. Might signal a careful analysis on Turkey’s part that no longer is being pro-Israeli being on the winning side, including amongst the Europeans.
Very very interesting.
Netanyahu has a history of making things fall apart.
Ooh! How evil of Hamas to get Netanyahu elected! Or have you finally changed tack and stopped blaming the Palestinians for who the Israelis elected?
That’s a good observation Mr. Witty. He does always seem to have that bull-in-a-china-shop thing going on.
Yeah, thanks Sin N, I noticed that about Turkey too; it seems a number of NATO nations are having pretty big second thoughts about Uncle Sam’s Israel uber alles
policy… Check out what’s happening in Scandinavia, Ireland; even England…
The NATO alliance is pretty much falling apart. Afghanistan has been enough of a crippling blow to it, and our trying to drag everyone into the disaster we’ve made of Iraq was a lot of pressure too, but after watching us bend over backwards for Israel when Israel wants to strip the international community of any law Israel herself as broken? The rest of the world is going to give up on the United States right quick.
It’s almost as if Turkey felt it had some cover to act – and speak – the way it did. Almost like – being the one muslim entity within the west’s circle – they felt somehow ‘authorized”. After all, Turkey can always claim popular opinion as cover. and they lose little from back-tracking on alliance with Israel. Someone, somewhere is saying ‘go for it”, maybe even helping plan the steps (this far this time, a little further further next time…).
Of course, it’s possible that Turkey is simply no longer susceptible to the independent kurdistan threat. Or maybe they found out just how much israeli goings on are happening in Iraq’s kurdish areas.
Good day for conspiracy theories, I say….nothing like deep speculation to lighten up an already bright and beautiful Sunday (at least where I am) when an hour was actually gained…
With regard to Obama’s volte-face(s) I’m skeptical of any deep devious conspiracy theories, if for no other reason than that the usual explanation for things is the most banal and mundane. Thus I guess if I had to bet it would just be that after he seemed to be coming out of the gate on Israel differently that Bush the Israeli partisans in his party came to him and it was made plain that the party itself would simply suffer if he continued on down his path and that was that. Assuming something like that took place no doubt it was also mentioned that doing otherwise would distract from the health-care effort and would possibly fracture the party at this early and crucial time and etc., but I can’t hardly see any blunt or even subtle blackmail being used with that issue. The party is so committed to that issue that I hardly see how any member could come out against it and not incite the everlasting ire of his colleagues, if not also his constituents and I don’t think they’d do that.
As to Turkey regardless of whether it’s just Erdogan or Turkish public sentiment I think one can’t disregard that Erdogan felt he could somewhat break with Israel without hurting what Turkey’s big big hope is which is EU membership and that’s very interesting. Even as recently as a few years ago with how strongly the EU supported Israel—led by France and GB and the Germans—I don’t think he would have dared it. Now however, especially maybe with the Nordic countries being so clearly disgusted with Israel and public opinion in GB being so clearly disgusted too I think it’s reasonable to believe he feels much freer than before on the issue and that’s significant I think.
The Goldstone Report can’t have hurt him either coming out after what he did, nor have helped Israel with Euro public opinion generally. Being so in favor of internationalism and etc. here after all came an official U.N. mission with this report (led by a jewish guy) so disarming those who cry anti-semitism at every turn. And the U.S. trying to *strangle* it only gave it more prominence I think.
GB, France and Germany might just be seeing their dominance in determining the EU’s foreign posture and speaking for Europe slipping very significantly I think. Indeed if I’m not mistaken the EU’s present President—not from GB or France or Spain—has made some very critical remarks about Israel lately, clearly causing a helluva lot of concern there about what a sustained problem with the EU would mean for it.
In short even if J-Street doesn’t just merge officially or effectively into AIPAC I don’t know that it’s realistically capable of doing anything nearly as consequential as what’s been happening outside the U.S.