Avigdor Lieberman is thrilled by a speech that called Israel the "historic homeland" of "the Jewish people." AIPAC is over the moon: "President Obama demonstrated his understanding of Israel’s legitimate requirements." J Street is happy, too.
Netanyahu called the speech a "badge of honor." Of course. Because Obama's description of "the Jewish people's burden of centuries of exile, persecution"-- and the Palestinians' burden to amend for that-- is straight from Netanyahu himself.
Not a word about settlements or occupation. Not a word about Palestinian conditions, or Palestinian nonviolent resistance, while he sang praises of the Arab spring. No sense of the strategic let alone moral urgency of ending the longest military occupation in modern history.
Zbig Brzezinski said (on PBS's News Hour) that Sarkozy's speech had urgency while Obama's was a speech for a domestic audience, for the 2012 election. Brzezinski found it tragic: it abandoned any pretense that Americans would be fair in the conflict, and the loss of an American role is bad for Palestinians and Israelis. "Senior Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath said Wednesday that the Palestinians' statehood bid at the United Nations is the only alternative to violence." --Haaretz.
All our politicians belong to the Tea Party when it comes to Israel. The Times reports that the Republican Party has forged a bond with Netanyahu (surely not just for voters, but for money), and the Democratic Party doesn't want to be left behind. They are cultivating the same government. The Washington Post says says there must be no daylight between Obama and Netanyahu, and Congressional Democrats gave Netanyahu 29 standing ovations last May.
What do people who care about Palestinian rights gain by being Democrats? Where is the left in this conversation? Where are the 20 percent of Americans who think we are too supportive of Israel? Do we have a voice in Congress or the media?
Back in the 60s, the Democrats gave up part of their coalition to choose equal rights. "We have lost the south for a generation," said Lyndon Johnson. Will anyone in our politics be willing to take a principled step in support of Palestinian rights and risk losing those Jewish voters and donors who will back Israeli discrimination forever?
Based on today's performance in New York, I doubt it.
‘Obama’s description of “the Jewish people’s burden of centuries of exile, persecution” ‘
Can he name a single Jew who has been exiled and/or persecuted for centuries?
The Holocaust Religion is not monolithic; in fact it has dumped G-d because G-d failed; it’s premise is that every Jew is the persecuted god or the god to be persecuted in the future by the goys. This fear-based faith includes both Phil and Dick Witty.
The Holocaust Religion … it’s premise is that every Jew is the persecuted god or the god to be persecuted in the future by the goys
In his recent interview to Polityka, Zygmunt Bauman said:
link to mondoweiss.net
But also:
The ability to “bring salvation” would seem to depend precisely on the refusal to deify either the persecuted or persecution itself – while such deification (“every Jew is the persecuted god or the god to be persecuted in the future)” ultimately proves its own falsehood.
As a Haaretz columnist wrote today in a somewhat different context, “God is turning over in his grave”.
I can just see it on Morning Joe tomorrow with Mika asking: Zbig–who’s he?
I’m watching the Obama speech now. On my screen is a picture of Abbas skowling.
Obama is speaking of the existential equality of all individuals, of the virtues of self-determination.
He hasn’t mentioned Israel/Palestine yet, though I did see briefly a joint news conference with Netanyahu.
He could have applied those invocations of liberation to the people of Palestine. I fear for the disappointment to come, at his recoil from that invocation.
Israel is SERVED by the presence of Palestine, more than it is threatened. And by served, I don’t mean as a dominator-dominated relationship, but as genuine good neighbors.
What a giant mistake. All of the points that Obama made have been addressed by the PA.
Rather than move forward and get out of the car in the rain, to get to the house, the US is staying in the car, a superpower.
You couldn’t even be bothered to wait for the whole goddamn speech before passing judgment?! And TOTALLY unsurprisingly you lead off by slamming down on the Palestinian. Quell surprise, I’m sure.
You still failed to make the first comment. I guess you’re slipping, huh?
Also? Scowling. If you’re too much of a skinflint to buy a dictionary, I can point to some web sites where you can check your spelling for free.
Actually, this is one of those rare occasions where he wrote a good post. He’s criticizing Obama and siding with the PA and fears, (rightly, as it turned out) that Obama was in the process of blowing it on the I/P issue. Richard sees the PA’s statehood initiative as a pathway to the two state solution he wants to see and he sees the idiot Netanyahu ruining the opportunity to achieve it, and Obama is siding with the idiot.
RW isn’t exactly fairminded on this issue, as I’ve said hundreds of times, but this post wasn’t bad at all. And Obama didn’t have to finish the speech–we all knew it was going to stink.
It’s hard for me to ignore the fact that Witty’s motivation for writing the post is he wants a “Jewish” state and doesn’t care how much ethnic cleansing and racial discrimination it takes to keep it.
I agree, Donald. But had he waited to the end, he would have heard Obama utter the very same power-serving platitudes that he (RW) has repeated here, thousands of times: “the question isn’t the goal that we seek — the question is how do we reach that goal … there is no short cut … Peace is hard work. Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the United Nations … it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must live side by side … peace depends upon compromise among people who must live together …. friends of the Palestinians do them no favors by ignoring this truth … each side has legitimate aspirations … the deadlock will only be broken when each side learns to stand in the other’s shoes; each side can see the world through the other’s eyes … to sit down, to listen to each other, and to understand each other’s hopes and each other’s fears … There are no shortcuts …”
Maybe James North could translate Obama for us ;-)
>> RW isn’t exactly fairminded on this issue, as I’ve said hundreds of times, but this post wasn’t bad at all. And Obama didn’t have to finish the speech–we all knew it was going to stink.
I agree.
The proof for Obama is in the pudding. If he gets off his ass and accomplishes something, then the irritations and some hypocrisies of the sequence are inconsequential.
If he just panders to Netanyahu’s obfuscations, then they become consequential.
Changing hearts and minds is the name of the game. But, Obama is in a political role, NOT a social role. For him to say “change hearts and minds, make connections”, is different than both Netanyahu (also in a political role) and me (in a social role, person, citizen).
Obama’s should use the bully pulpit to encourage social interaction, but he should use it in concert with proceeding political mediation, not instead.
Chaos we all know what ultimately prompted Witty’s comment: He want “Israel as Israel.” But his comment is astute in anticipation, for a change. Nobody but the average American will miss this horribly misguided (except in terms of running for political leadership in USA) high mark for the “leader of the free world” who deems the powerless Palestinians’ assigned task as fodder for Israel’s continued power and existence not worthy of mention.
Shmuel, yes, I also thought I was listening to Dick Witty’s rational, humanistic abstractions when hearing Obama’s words you mention; Obama of course ignores the role of his own government as continued dishonest, biased broker standing above (and immediately behind Israel)at the table where the giant and the midget sit, face to face. Dennis Ross comes in periodically with a train of congressional waiters–they bring breakfast, lunch, snacks, dinner, and late snacks to the big guy at the table, day after day;they leave a single plate for the little guy at the table, and gradually they take the food off the little guy’s single meal, and with each piece taken away, they hope the little guy will just sign the big guy’s offer so he can have something to eat too.
Well, yes, Obama did sound much like Richard W in his comments, but the irony is that Obama has now moved to Richard’s right. Previously I would have said they were more or less in the same position, but the 2012 election is bearing down on us and Obama apparently feels he has to win over the outright Likudist types.
“skowling”
Did you mean scowling?
Richard, as Chaos, I am amazed by your extraordinary capabilities of multitasking, but I can also assure you it’s not the time yet to move in the direction of Danaa’s hypothesis. No need to shilly-shally. Here comes a soothing commentary, that might help to keep your eyes on your goal:
Nevermind Richard–momentarily, at least, I think Richard’s comments are reasonable because Richard sees that Obama isn’t doing the two state solution any favors by siding so abjectly with Bibi.
Butif Goldberg is right about Obama’s attitude then it just shows how extraordinarily arrogant he is. No surprise there, if true–American Presidents commonly expect Palestinians and other people to grovel and take whatever we and Israel choose to dish out. But there are at least some folks who thought that Obama secretly resents the Israel lobby and Netanyahu. If Goldberg is correct he really just resents those uppity Palestinians.
Of course it’s also possible that Goldberg is engaged in spin, or that people inside the Obama Administration are engaged in spin in order to win back the wavering Jewish vote.
Unquestionably the greatest blog post title of all time (great all the way through, to be sure). Hilarious and tragic; got a little hot under the collar, huh? Sometimes rage is the only rational response.
Thanks Dan, i went into the wife and said, Is this funny?
Usually she says, that’s stupid, that’s borscht belt, that’s childish. but she smiled and i went with it
It’s a great one. I loved ‘Tail Beats the Dog’ from last Sept.
But I agree. Even with all the sexual predators it’s probably safer to go with Craigslist too.
They still won’t vote for him. All the pandering in the world won’t change their minds.
And I’ll be damned if I vote for him.
and if no one in our politics steps forward in support of justice for palestine?
it’ll be up to us
in the spirit of those eighteen magical days in tahrir square
american style
re: yourstruly September 21, 2011 at 10:50 pm
“and if no one in our politics steps forward in support of justice for palestine?
it’ll be up to us…”
…. and B D S + B D S + B D S …..+ !!!
RE: “Avigdor Lieberman is thrilled by a speech that called Israel the ‘historic homeland’ of ‘the Jewish people.’ ” ~ Weiss
MY COMMENT: 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. – link to spectator.co.uk
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.
Too bad Shlomo Sand didn’t get to pipe up when Obama repeated the myth of Jewish continuity up through the ages from Israel back to the Kingdom of Judea, etc.
Obama sat out Cast Lead. He waited until the killing was over to say something.
He is not the hope changey guy. He’s the smiley Tweedledum. Perry is the moron Tweedledee.
Obama sells himself more cheaply than a 10 dollar street hooker. He’s as good as saying give me the campaign money to get re-elected and I will say whatever AIPAC wants me to say. To see the president of the USA supposedly the most powerful person in the world grovel is truly pathetic. He doesn’t deserve a second term and is nothing but a useless lame duck.
He was worse on the debt ceiling fiasco.
Seafoid, the debt ceiling fiasco and this fiasco are not unrelated; in any case they both reveal Obama’s just an empty suit. Obama is just another POTUS not willing to tackle the root causes of the problem we face; in the end the top US politician differs little from the bottom ones–their priority is always gaining power, then, trying to keep it. Truman set the stage when he caved in to the Zionist who had pounded on his desk–yes, Truman had a Jewish pal from his business days who convinced him to allow the arrogant zionist Rabbi back in the Oval Office after Truman had barred the door, but Truman was swung over to the Zionist cause, recognition of the self-proclaimed state of Israel–because he didn’t want the Jewish press and zionist moneybags to flip to Dewey. Obama is channeling Truman in this regard, the same Truman who crossed out the adjective “Jewish” describing the new state he was recognizing.
Give a Zionist an inch, he will take a mile, a 100 miles. Obama made a great historical mistake, just as Z Brezezinski feared he would. Hell even Thomas Friedman now has recognized the power of The Israel Lobby as depicted by Mearsheimer & Walt–this tension is not over by a long shot, especially as Israel is quickly becoming the POTUS campaign litmus test, and this must result in more Americans doing some investigation of the “special relationship.”
It’s very sad to see the leader of a very great nation, crawling and simpering to appease someone as loathsome as Netanyahu.
I have no doubt that Obama is sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. But I also have no doubt that his advisers have shown him the importance of big lobby money in the forthcoming election campaign. It’s going to be a near-run thing, and Obama has been told in no uncertain terms that a few million Palestinians aren’t worth losing a second term over.
Despite that, I remain optimistic if Obama gets elected for a second term. Obama would be free from the financial pressures that the lobby is able to apply now, and also mad as hell from the repeated humiliations and threats from Netanyahu.
Given that freedom and anger Obama may be able to surprise us during his second term. I spoke to one of his staffers a couple of years ago, and she told me behind the cool rational façade there’s a ruthless bastard with a vindictive streak and who gets things done when he puts his mind to it.
Lets hope so. If he doesn’t, then frankly I despair for the Palestinian people, and suspect that Israel may feel emboldened enough to actually ethnically cleanse the West Bank at some point under a future Republican Administration under tea party influence.
Your delusional! On the debt ceiling fiasco he let the Republicans walk all over him and is yet another example of his ineptitude. Politics can be a very dirty business, I don’t think Obama understands how to pull the levers of power in order to get anything done, certainly 2 years experience as a community organizer was not much good. He just won’t stand up and fight for what he believes in. He tries to please everybody but ends up pleasing nobody.
I agree with you, Steve. The Obama is only channeling the lobby here. Pure and simple. -N49.
All our politicians belong to the Tea Party when it comes to Israel.
Call it what it is: racism.
People who love Palestine (or Israel come to that) or compliance with international law must “eat bitter” today. I hope some major EU leader will take time out from economic and banking troubles to “call” Obama on his dereliction of duty and abandonment of the American dream set forth in out own Declaration of Independence
Obama is winning a Pyrrihc victory over the Palestinians right now. He is attempting (and in my view will likely succeed) to block or defeat a PA request at the Security Council WITHOUT having to use the US veto. The US’s fear, of course, is for the obvious destructive effect such a veto will have on US standing all across the Middle East. As I said, he’ll probably succeed (I never really believed Abbas would formally go to the UNSC). However, after that speech, this is largely a Pyrrhic victory. Obama’s speech, combined with Netanyahu’s and Lieberman’s gloating (hell, even Israelis called him Barak Netanyahu), will succeed in doing almost as much damage as a US veto would have.
i don’t think it really matters at this point if the US vetoes or lobbies others to do it so we won’t have to. the dye has been cast and we’ll be held responsible as would be fair. it’s about time we started paying a price for propping up the criminal state/apartheid.
After 9/11 the question was “why do they hate us ? ”
Clue : it’s not because of your fucking “freedom”
exactly. let’s see how much americans love israel when they grasp what our alliance is costing us. i’m so over being part of a superpower nation. we should be made to grovel in front those we have oppressed for so long.
I loved Obama the candidate. Obama the office holder is someone I don’t even like as a friend. I wonder, will the Swedes ask Barack ‘merchant of death’ Obama to return his Peace Prize trophy?
The background to Obama’s speech at the UN was set by the NYT story which saw “a ripple in the jewish vote”.
Obama’s then goes to the UN and, outdoing R. Perry and Co., parrots, chapter and verse (Holocaust, right to exist, jewish state etc.), the zionist narrative. Avigdor is thrilled and Bibi radiates vindication, but others smell a rat.
“The Zionist turns of phrase that were uttered yesterday have a price tag affixed to them, and payment will be due — if not tomorrow, then on the day after,” says Yediot Aharonot’s columnist Eitan Haber.
Ironically, the price tag that troubles the Yediot Aharonot crowd is that some progress will actually be made towards a resolution of the decades of humiliation, subjugation and group punishment of the Palestinians. They quite rightly fear that Obama is only saying what he says for domestic political purposes and that sooner or later, as the price for US support, the Israelis will be obliged to fall in line with the long established US policy re 1967 borders. And agreeing with anyone about borders is definitely not part of the zionist repertoire. :-)
This specter of reconciliation that looms out of the fog of lies is sending a chill down the spine of all right thinking zionists. Haber again, “The United States has not changed the principles of its policy since 1967, and there was one thing that could have been understood from the president’s speech even though it wasn’t said — just you wait, your day of reckoning will come.”
So what should Pres. Obama have done?
Should he have acknowledged the brutal mistreatment of the Palestinians; the cynical intransigence of Israeli peace negotiators; the refusal of Israel to abide by UNSC resolutions and international law and the absolute “rightness” of the establishment of a Palestinian state?
Had he done so, there isn’t a single contributor to this website who would not know that he kissed his chance of re-election good-bye – AIPAC and its minions in the MSM would have mounted an almost unimaginably vicious attack resulting in a huge loss in campaign contributions and relentless criticism and denunciation in the MSM.
Folks – he did what he was compelled to do – live with it or consider what life would be like with another Texas idiot as president.
I, for one, believe that if he is re-elected and is free of the AIPAC shackles, he will make Netanyahoo pay for the humiliation he has taken.
>> Had he done so, there isn’t a single contributor to this website who would not know that he kissed his chance of re-election good-bye … I, for one, believe that if he is re-elected and is free of the AIPAC shackles, he will make Netanyahoo pay for the humiliation he has taken.
Had he done so, he would have found himself “free of the AIPAC shackles” considerably sooner.
I don’t believe he’s saving his honour and integrity for another day. I don’t believe he has any to save.
he could have done all that you mention in your opening paragraph + much more ( ie. unfold the entire progressive agenda – troops out now, single payer, tax the superrich, etc. etc)
in other words taken up the class struggle on behalf of 80-90 percent of americans, as per FDR not so long ago
and he (we) would have won
even if he didn’t win, the class struggle would be on & out in the open
not obscured as it is now by the one about america being classless
& then what sort of world?
won’t it be up to us?
@ eljay, yourstruly -
I concede all your points, but I ask again – are you willing to put up with a Republican president, which would certainly result if Pres. Obama did the “right thing”?
>> … are you willing to put up with a Republican president, which would certainly result if Pres. Obama did the “right thing”?
If doing the right thing now will result in a kook of a Republican becoming president next term, postponing doing the right thing will merely postpone by one term the result of a kook of a Republican becoming president.
So, in my opinion, the choice is between:
- honour and integrity now, followed by a Republican prez; or
- dishonour and damaged integrity now, with all the repercussions it will generate; honour and integrity next term MAYBE, and possibly too late; followed by a Republican prez.
I would choose the former.