An excellent point from the great Henry Siegman at Huffington Post. It is about the power of the Israel lobby in American politics, on the Democratic side too. And so the question is: Why is Obama nullifying his own ideas in favor of a Republican neoconservative's ideas? Didn't Obama whup the neocons in '08? No: the neocons have a beachhead inside the Democratic Party because the neocons are the hawkish part of the Jewish family and we are simply too important in Democratic politics to be cast aside. Siegman excerpt-- here he urges Obama to hold Israel to the '67 lines to create a Palestinian state and concludes with that Abrams wisdom:
Yes, when Arab countries sought to prevent Israel's existence and the U.N. passed the "Zionism Is Racism" resolution, they were the obstacle to peace. Since that resolution was withdrawn and Arab countries abandoned their opposition to Israel and offered not only peace but formal recognition and normal relations in return for an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories in their Arab Peace Initiative of 2002, it is Israel that has been the main obstacle to peace, because it not only ignored that initiative but perversely increased its settlements and deepened its hold on the West Bank.
The only aspect of Obama's approach to Middle East peacemaking that Abrams welcomes is his opposition to the Palestinian's intention to bring the case for their statehood to the United Nations, a prospect that has thrown Israel's right-wing government and its supporters in the U.S. into a frenzy of accusations that Israel has become the victim of a global campaign of delegitimization.
In fact, the only delegitimization taking place is Israel's delegitimization of the Palestinians and their right to statehood within the 1967 borders. And it is doing this not with empty rhetoric or resolutions at the U.N. but with brutal "facts on the ground," dispossessing Palestinians of their homes and lands in the Occupied Territories with its bulldozers backed by the IDF's firepower, and transferring its own population into those areas in blatant violation of international law. It is a delegitimization that has gone on now for over 40 years. Yet when a resolution condemning this out-and-out rogue behavior was finally brought before the Security Council, the U.S. vetoed it, and now promises to once again veto a Security Council resolution that would affirm the Palestinian right to self-determination.
President Obama's inspirational speeches in Cairo and at the Department of State notwithstanding, for all practical purposes, it is Abrams' prescriptions rather than his own that he is allowing to prevail.
well, in regards to “Cairo” and many other speeches – I think at this point, we can safely say that within American political discourse, nothing should be taken less seriously than the words that come out of Barack Obama’ s mouth.
I told people last year that Barack Obama was gonna be the guy who cut Social Security and Medicare, after he commissioned the cat food patrol – I knew he wasnt gonna close Guantanamo, or stop torture and rendition; I knew single payer or a public plan was never gonna happen; none of the “disappointing” things really surprised me, but I never in a million years would have thought we would be at this point- with all that has gone on just since he took office- talking about a US veto of UN recognition for the Palestinians- shameful.
Well, you were right. We’re going to be lucky if we still have Social Security and Medicare after August 2nd. We probably won’t have an economic recovery — it doesn’t matter how far Obama bends backwards for the Republicans to steer away from the brick wall, it’s probably already too late.
You know, nothing the Republicans could have done could have rendered the American Progressive movement as thoroughly and completely powerless as we are now. It really took that knife in the back to kill it. Thanks, Obama.
obama is worthless wrt i/p. all his words and efforts have amounted to nothing but more escalation.
Do we know what Obama’s ‘own ideas’ are? Overtly, a Palestinian state within 67 borders seems always to have been his preference. He did begin by attempting to get everyone to move in this direction, perhaps having been assured that Israel would respond reasonably. It then became clear, I suppose, that the coalition that had brought him to power was quite crumbly and that crazy propaganda against him, even that of birthers, death-panellists and suchlike, would be believed.
I have friends who tell me, a British person prone to political worries, that Obama is a genius, soon about to break free and bound forth at the head of a progressive force that will carry all before it. The timing will be just right. He who laughs last laughs longest, they remind me.
I wish I believed that Brit. I had hoped Obama would be rogue.
My friends in question are American, originally sceptical about Obama, now won over. They’re not indifferent to the ME question but I think they found his health care policy courageous in all the circumstances.
“My friends in question are American, originally sceptical about Obama, now won over. They’re not indifferent to the ME question but I think they found his health care policy courageous in all the circumstances.”
Your friends, are, um, different. Most of the Obamabots who take that line have been worshipping him all along, and justify his every move as part of some deep devious 11-dimensional chess game. (I’ve never quite understood where the belief in Obama’s genius comes from. He is intelligent but not extraordinary in any way that I can see.) There are Obama supporters who have become deeply disillusioned, but I can’t imagine how a lefty could start out being skeptical and end up where your friends end up, particularly not based on the health plan, where Obama never even considered single payer and then tossed the public option overboard right at the beginning. The liberal position was to be for “single-payer”–the political pragmatists among liberals said that wasn’t possible, but the public option maybe was. Obama chose to support a plan identical to that of Republican Mitt Romney. Except on social issues (like DADT) where the public is moving steadily to the left, Obama has been center-right from the beginning of his Presidency.
link to nybooks.com
Barack Obama from the start of his presidency has exhibited an almost exclusive taste for the dignified part of government. During the BP oil spill, his remoteness from the plod and toil of problem-solving showed day after day. That was a “teachable moment,” if ever there was one: a public catastrophe that implicated the environment and energy resources close to home for all Americans. The moment escaped this president, as the nuclear disaster in Japan has also escaped him. He never broke a sweat as he could have—literally and figuratively—by descending into the muck on the spoiled Louisiana beaches. Few presidents have ever seemed farther than Obama from being “in the thick of things.” The impression came back as he left Washington with Netanyahu triumphant, and took a plane for Ireland to speak of hope and peace.
The position of a moderate who aspires to shake the world into a new shape presents a continuous contradiction. For the moderate feels constrained not to say anything startling, and not to do anything very fast. But just as there is trouble with doing things on the old lines, there is trouble, too, with letting people understand things on the old lines. At least, there is if you have your sights set on changing the nature of the game. Obama is caught in this contradiction, and keeps getting deeper in it, like a man who sinks in quicksand both the more he struggles and the more he stays still. This is one lesson of his passage from inaction in Egypt to action in Libya, and from his summons of reform in Cairo in June 2009 to the guarded speech from the sidelines in May 2011.
And that last line is very generous. Obama has done the same thing in healthcare and foreign policy. Stood above the fray, fritter away his advantage and lose the initiative to extremists. There was no Tea party in 2008. They only got going when he made a hash of healthcare reform. He ceded to the Likud on foreign policy. Obama is a waste of a presidency.
Two more reasons to not vote for Obama: the U.S. veto of condemnation of Israeli violations of Palestinians and Palestinian territory; threatened veto of resolution on Palestinian statehood. The U.S. continues to ride shotgun for Israel; just as it did for apartheid South Africa; and an endless list of Latin American dictators and African dictators and Southeast Asian dictators and the Shah and on and on and on. The two-faced audacity of it is [un]hopefilled. Nothing will be lost by not voting for Obama as there is no difference between his actions [rhetoric sure] and Palin, Bachmann, Romney, Gingrich et twit.
I am a bit perplexed as to why Hillary Clinton seems to get a free pass on her pro-Israel machinations and rhetoric. Taylor Marsh, Steve Clemons, and a number of other mouthpieces that profess dissatisfaction with the Isr/Pal issue have all left Clinton out of their criticisms. Even here, (I admit I am a new commentor), I have not seen Clinton get her deserved share of criticism she has earned as Secretary Of State.
And Obama???? Look at the archives of the Washington Note. I was AMAZED, prior to him being placed on the throne, that such masses of so called “progressives” were swallowing his con-job. Fact is, I was sounding the klaxon that this guy was a media construct, a superbly marketed puppet, designed to sell to the angry and disillusioned left. Even a grade school idiot could have figured out that “change” was a winning jingle, and Obama’s strategists designed a blueprint for winning the election, NOT an expose’ of the true make-up of the man. After all, you can’t exactly market a political coward and a smooth talking con-man by presenting an accurate picture.
This guy is as fake as a six dollar bill. He has actually been WORSE for this country than that insipid ignorant monkey George Bush was, because he has greased the skids for someone like Bachman or Perry to get in. God help us if one of those drooling religious zealots gets their hands on our toy chest full of GI-Joes and Buck Rogers weaponry.
I’m not sure how the next few years will play out.
But I’m thinking if Obama were to lose to a repub because of the failure of the grass roots left to support him, that might be a good thing if the dem establishment learned something from it.
Sure, a Perry or Bachman will continue the screwups as bad as Obama.
I think the country will be a disaster regardless of who gets elected next year. Perhaps Obama’s defeat at the hands of the left will open up 2016 to a bona fide progressive dem.
I don’t waste my time criticizing Hillary because Obama is the boss. But it does look like she is the one who sold Obama on going to war against Libya. Remember, the “humanitarian intervention” that enamored so many dupes here on the left.
Steve Clemon’s silence is very understandable. He is someone who is potentially in line for an important appointment in the State Department. If he used his band width attacking Obama, he would not be a viable candidate. Steve is a good person, and I can’t criticize him for being careful.
“Steve Clemon’s silence is very understandable. He is someone who is potentially in line for an important appointment in the State Department. If he used his band width attacking Obama, he would not be a viable candidate. Steve is a good person, and I can’t criticize him for being careful.”
ROFLMAO!!!!
Clemons is a sell-out. He hasn’t touched ANYTHING about Isr/Pal, in a substantive manner, since Op Cast Lead. And he hasn’t uttered ONE WORD of criticism towards Clinton’s performance as SOS.
But, thats exactly what you’re saying, isn’t it? Allow me to paraphrase your paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this post….
” Steve Clemon’s silence is very understandable. Its very important to his career to discard honest and forthright political analysis. If he offered honest and astute analysis, he’d never get ahead. I like Steve, and fully understand why he has utterly and completely wimped out.”
“I don’t waste my time criticizing Hillary because Obama is the boss”
Well, that covers Clinton and Clemons. Pray tell, who else are you willing to award the “I was only following orders” excuse to?
Dear “Rolling on the floor laughing your ass off”. Your comment does seem to represent your secondary handle. I find it crude and not really worthy of comment. But I will try to engage you perhaps not at the crude level you wish to engage.
Steve Clemons has avoided the IP issues for obvious career motives. I do not really approve but I do understand. There is a chance (probably small) that he will gain a position to really influence US policy in the ME. If that happened, our policy would be better off. Perhaps you want people like Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross to administer our policy. I don’t.
“Steve Clemons has avoided the IP issues for obvious career motives. I do not really approve but I do understand. There is a chance (probably small) that he will gain a position to really influence US policy in the ME”
What, your argument is that when he is in a REAL position of power, he will “man up”??? What, he just compromises himself to get where he wants to go, THEN he will put away His Go Along To Get Along credentials?
Bullshit. Where he’s going, political cowardice is of more importance to his career than it is on the climb to get there. PARTICULARLY as it applies to Isr/Pal. Besides, whats he want to go to State for, when he’s found a well paying position with a corporate friendly tabloid?
“Perhaps you want people like Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross to administer our policy”
Don’t be stupid. We can have this debate without you offering strawmen. And I can do without your “I’m above the crudity” BS too.
Dear pissed off.
You are really too much pissed off. Too many caps in your comments for the most part. Overcome your anger. Step back and take a deep breath.
Get rid of that anger and in the long run you will be much more effective.
Believe me, it works.
You mean so I can wiffle up some soggy oatmeal like the excuses you offer for Clemon’s behaviour?
Naaaaahhhh. No thanks. I like me just the way I am.
“After all, you can’t exactly market a political coward and a smooth talking con-man by presenting an accurate picture.”
I’ll remember that, and stay out of politics.
Siegman’s article should be reprinted by all the US MSM, but I’m not holding my breath…
Obama can’t control two key players:
1. likud
2. Hamas
Could anybody?
You forgot number 3 and 4.
3. Democrats
4. Republicans
Could anybody?
Only AIPAC!
Sure, he could effect a change in Likud by withholding all diplomatic and strategic support for Israel.
He could effect a change in Hamas by including it in negotiations.
Will he? Of course not.
Why? The post above gives the answer.
Richard,
This is your own version of the old hasbarist favourite, “everyone sucks”.
If the USA was able to formulate an independent foreign policy that served American interests it could entirely change the strategic environment that Israel operates in. Under those circumstances, unless Israel has become completely irrational, then it would seriously pursue a peace agreement, probably along the lines of the Saudi proposal. That would make Hamas irrelevant as a force of violent opposition.
As an American, don’t you find it rather pathetic, if not down-right humiliating, that your country, nominally the most powerful in the world, can’t do this.
“As an American, don’t you find it rather pathetic, if not down-right humiliating, that your country, nominally the most powerful in the world, can’t do this.”
This is outrageous! When did Richard Witty ever claim that Israel is “the most powerful in the world”?
“This is your own version of the old hasbarist favourite, “everyone sucks”.”
Well, no, it’s his version of “You suck”. He’s singling out his favorite scapegoats, the Israeli right and the Palestinian “right” (or wherever one would place Hamas). He absolves liberal Zionists and doesn’t say a word against AIPAC.
Well, I mean it’s not like Obama gives THREE BILLION DOLLARS to the Israelis every year, out of pocket, not including other giveaways. So it’s not like that’s a spigot that could be shut off until Israel stops killing children.
RE: “President Obama’s inspirational speeches in Cairo and at the Department of State notwithstanding, for all practical purposes, it is Abrams’ prescriptions rather than his own that he is allowing to prevail.” ~ Siegman
FROM ELLIOTT ABRAMS, 04/08/09:
SOURCE – link to washingtonpost.com
P.S. Ergo, the ‘Abrams Principle’ stands for the proposition that more Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank will result in a larger area for the Palestinian state. That’s why I say, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” with the settlement actvity; so as to result in the largest Palestinian state possible (from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River)! “Let Right Be Done.”