Earlier this year a friend told me that we have a megaphone here and we should use it to build support in the leftleaning community for Obama to put pressure on the Israeli government over the key issue of settlements as he forges the two-state-solution. Other friends of mine were more contemptuous of Obama’s efforts, but I thought my friend was right because a certain amount of falling-into-line is important in politics, which after all is the art of the possible. Today’s news from Jerusalem fills me with sadness and rage, and a sharp edge, too, that I don’t want to be made a fool.
Another point before the news. At a panel at J Street last week on what it means to be "pro-Israel," Jonathan Chait and Matthew Yglesias, who both declare themselves to be pro-Israel, mentioned me as a bridge too far. Chait said It’s fine if this group wants to criticize Israel some, but don’t get outside "the mainstream," don’t go near the Phil Weiss position. I’m told that Yglesias somewhat echoed the point, mentioning me; and I am sure that moderator JJ Goldberg shares the view, too. I have news for that panel: In my political community I am actually a moderate/softie, because I have some compassion for the Israelis as creatures of imperialist history, just like the rest of us. But almost everyone I talk to about these issues is to my left. Many of those teachers are younger than me–Adam Horowitz, Antony Loewenstein, Anna Baltzer, and Seham–and I would argue that they are driving the conversation, and the conversation is moving leftward because the right and center are bankrupt, they have produced nothing but dispossession and permanent war. Why, this morning on NPR, host Jacki Lyden in an interview with J Street’s leader said that AIPAC has "long had a huge role in determining America’s relationship with Israel." I remind you that just two years ago realists Walt and Mearsheimer were railroaded as alleged anti-Semites for saying as much, and today their assertion is mainstream-–because of the reality, the news from Jerusalem in my headline. So to you writers and critics who prophesy with your pen: don’t speak too soon, for the wheel’s still in spin, and there’s no telling who that it’s naming.
From the New York Times:
[Clinton] also markedly softened her tone on whether Israel should cease all settlement construction, something she and Mr. Obama have demanded since early in the administration. While Mrs. Clinton said the administration’s desire to see a complete freeze had not changed, she characterized Mr. Netanyahu’s offer of “restraint” on settlements as “unprecedented.”
And she conspicuously avoided criticizing the demolition of Palestinians’ houses in East Jerusalem, though she said her opposition to it had not changed. In March, on her first visit to the Middle East as secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton strongly condemned the demolitions, which Palestinians say are aimed at squeezing them out and would hamper the creation of a Palestinian state.
In recent days, the municipal authorities in Jerusalem have ordered the demolition of more houses.
