Henry Siegman is cynical (at the National Interest) about Obama's concessions to Netanyahu. Note Siegman's blistering tone. Note the frank description of Palestinian rightlessness (emphasis mine). Siegman's piece highlights the amazing fact that East Jerusalem is free for Netanyahu's picking:
That said, it really should not come as a great surprise to President Obama that Netanyahu seems to believe it is Israel’s prime minister, not the White House occupant, who determines U.S.–Middle East peace policy. In the wake of President Obama’s recent proposal to lavish a stunning cornucopia of gifts on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—giving away Palestinian rights that were not his to give—reportedly in return for nothing more than Netanyahu’s agreement to talk to President Mahmoud Abbas for another two months (which Netanyahu, in turn, disdainfully rejected because he thought he could obtain even more), it is not an unreasonable conclusion.
How else to understand what Vice President Joe Biden told Netanyahu on November 8 in New Orleans before a gathering of Jewish Federation officials that differences between Israel and the United States on the subject of construction in Jerusalem and in the West Bank are nothing more than “tactical in nature.” Is the continuation of Israel’s military occupation and its denial of all rights to millions of Palestinians for nearly half a century nothing more than a minor tactical issue for the United States? Is that what President Obama told the Arab and Muslim world in his speech in Cairo?
President Obama will have to take his own words about the Middle East peace process and its deep moral and strategic implications for America more seriously than he has so far if he expects Bibi Netanyahu to do so as well.
Steve Walt is also pessimistic, and also talks about East Jerusalem. He says Obama must threaten to expose Israel's gameplaying if the talks fail, as a way of making Israel play fair. Note his reference to the original Partition plan as a fair one. I.e., half and half more or less. Strawson says that Partition had to be imposed. Where's the imposition, ever? Walt:
All told, Netanyahu got a pretty big reward for being recalcitrant. At first glance, there's not much to stop him for halting some (but not all) settlement building, digging in his heels for 90 days, and then going back to business-as-usual....
And remember: The goal here is a viable Palestinian state, not a bunch of disarmed and disconnected Bantustans. Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all made it clear a viable state for the Palestinians is the only alternative that the United States can get behind. It is what the original U.N. partition plan in 1947 called for, and all the other alternatives (binational democracy, ethnic cleansing, or permanent apartheid) are either impractical or directly at odds with U.S. values.
Some justice
Binyam Mohamed Wins Settlement for Being Tortured
link to emptywheel.firedoglake.com
Henry Siegman is a great man, a moral giant.
One way to force the Israeli PM to back down is for him to tell the PM Netanyahu & the Israel lobby that the interests of the U.S. & Israel are not one and the same, that anyone who says they are has a dual loyalty problem, and that it’s up to him (President Obama) to decide what’s good for America. He says this publicly, repeatedly and the public will be with him. As it was in 1992 in regards to guess what? That’s right, the damn settlements. Something Karl Marx said about history repeating itelf, first as tragedy, then as farce?
Yes, the public will be with him if he asserts (belatedly) US sovereignty (and declares independence from our Colonial masters in Tel Aviv, echoing 1775). But the Congress (the beset money can buy) will not. Not right away and likely not at all. And the newspapers and other media, owned by big-money Zionists. And the president’s hopes for re-election, not yet disclaimed — as he would have to do to become independent of you-know-who. And the democrats who might aspire to run for president in 2012 (Clinton? others?) would oppose him, because they would not be independent of the big-money-boys.
Jewish donors may be chilled by Israel policy
Information that was received by Israeli sources would seem to indicate that the principal reason for the change in approach to Israel is pressure from Democrat lawmakers who are running for election and are finding themselves hard put to enlist Jewish donors to their campaigns. There is a great deal of anger at Obama within the Jewish community and disappointment over his policy toward Israel. Officials in the Democratic Party are afraid that the Jews will take revenge in the midterm elections, which is the reason for the vigorous courting of Israel.
Duke beats Baylor, by somewhere between 5 and 15 points
Earlier today I said that the Washington Post once said that half the money in Democratic politics comes from Jews, and now the Hill says that 25-50 percent of the party’s “major contributors” are Jewish. What a range. Ali Gharib pointed out to me that the Post actually said 60 percent of the money in presidential elections:
very weird. i tried opening that coteret link numerous times (i recalled it from the past because i’ve linked to it several times and posted it here and elsewhere), as the url appears it diverts to some other site. then i found it on google by searching ‘yediot shift in US policy’, still as soon as the url appears it shifts and i cannot linki directly to it.. here it is cached.
Yes, of course, bob–that’s exactly why Netanyahu knew he could thumb his nose at Obama and Beiden–Nettie went to school in the USA; he knows all about American politicians and how they are funded, and by whom. Too bad the average American has no clue when it comes to foreign aid and policy.
If Obama wants to get the upper hand with Israel, what he needs to expose is the long history of crimes of Israel against the United States — nothing comparable to the crimes visited upon Palestinians, but crimes nonetheless. A few choice headlines about Israeli spying, about the USS Liberty, about members of Congress colluding with the Israeli government, and popular opinion would shift drastically in the US.
Yep. That’s why the MSM never picks at those choice subjects, nor do the cable TV news-entertainment shows; that’s why there are web sites such as this one, and Muzzlewatch, IfAmericansonlyknew, Counterpunch, Antiwar, etc. Samizdat all.
Rachel Maddow will repeat all sorts of unsubstantiated claims about Iran because her owners allow this. But silence on the Goldstone Report, the UN Report about the executions on the Mavi Marmara.
Olbermann and the rest of those so called progressive talking heads will not go near those stories.
But then again. Either will that “this is comedy” Jon Stewart who will ream Ahmadenejad but not even whisper Netanyahu’s name
If popular opinion will shift to the point that it will be political suicide to enlist help from jewish donors, Democratic party will be finished for several voting cycles, until it will rebuilt its funding base from scratch. From the example of Bush Administration and how they happily played dirty to win elections, you can end up with long, long GOP winter.
“until it will rebuilt its funding base from scratch.”
remember Obama’s grass-roots fundraising campaign. The rules of the game have changed and will continue to change. You point is valid, of course, but it’s mostly extrapolation from business as usual. However, it is rather unlikely that anything will remain business as usual in the US in the coming years.
Since MSM won’t cover anything that’s negative in regards to the settler-state, other ways must be used to reach the public – Internet & the rest of the alternative media, for example. In addition, creative actions such as last week’s “Bibi Five” event in New Orleans. We can do this!
Agreed.
Have been calling into National Radio programs about this issue for a solid decade. Can get in a comment a good question and it gets out to 34 million people who listen to NPR shows.
Also if you hound some of these outlets enough you can convince the producers to have certain guest on focused on certain issues. Politely hounding them does work