Mouin Rabbani at the Hill begins by stating what is now obvious to all, US policy is in Topsy Turvy land:
Washington’s embrace of the Netanyahu government and its agenda has become so comprehensive that it would be fair to conclude that guaranteeing Israeli impunity in any-and all- of its dealings with the Palestinian people has become a guiding principle of American Middle East policy. Indeed, an outside observer of US policy cannot help but conclude that it is a case of the inmates taking over the asylum: Obama gives a speech that warms the heart of any die-hard Likudnik and delights even Avigdor Lieberman, and gets roundly condemned by American – not Israeli – politicians for throwing the Jewish state to the wolves….
Rather, Palestinians must now undertake a comprehensive, systematic campaign to internationalize their conflict. Every time Hillary Clinton presumes to speak on behalf of the international community, a new UN resolution should be submitted to demonstrate that she represents only the United States, Israel and the good people of Micronesia and Palau. If the Obama administration is prepared to regularly show its hand on Israel-Palestine during this time of regional turmoil and upheaval, it should be obliged by the Palestinians.
Mouin Rabbani has got it…
“Palestinians must now undertake a comprehensive, systematic campaign to internationalize their conflict.”
that is what the bds movement and the movement for statehood at the un are doing too…
RE: “Obama gives a speech that warms the heart of any die-hard Likudnik and delights even Avigdor Lieberman” ~ Rabbani
MY COMMENT: Avigdor Lieberman & Co. were very upset by Obama’s having referred to the Holocaust, etc. as justifying Israel’s existence in his June 2009 Cairo speech. For instance, see this rant by Melanie Phillips on 6/04/09. – http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3670626/obama-in-cairo.thtml
I have spent a lot of time wondering why they were so upset by Obama’s referring to the Holocaust, etc. Apparently it is because the Holocaust, etc. might well justify the existence of Israel, but they fear it does not necessarily justify Israel’s absorption of “Judea and Samaria” [a/k/a the “disputed” West Bank (f/k/a the occupied West Bank)]. Consequently, they want the “Biblical narrative” used to justify Israel’s existence because they see it as being more specific to “Judea and Samaria”.
By referring to Israel as the ‘historic homeland’ of ‘the Jewish people’, Obama has – for the settlers in the West Bank and their supporters – acknowledged that “Judea and Samaria” are a legitimate part of Israel.
come next year’s election israel-firster obama’s a sure loser
a challenger who is progressive on every issue including palestine would garner considerable support
win or lose said challenge could signify the birth of a movement to change*
the world
*in the knick of time too, what with perpetual war + global warming + econimic collapse = doomsday, and time running out