Exile and the Prophetic: Crossing the – Israel – and Palestine – Rubicon

This post is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

With President Obama’s appointment of Susan Rice as his National Security Advisor and Samantha Powers as Ambassador to the United Nations we are back to square one on the question political liberals discuss endlessly. It’s the same question that Obama himself embodies as the enigma of enigmas.

Does engagement in American politics really matter? Are we always forced to support the lesser of two evils, even when the lesser evils know better?

The easy answer isn’t always the best one. All of us live in a context and those in official political circles do as well. But clearly with Obama, Rice and Powers we have come to a political and ethical Rubicon. Shall we cross over into outright rebellion?

All three of our political players are intelligent, well-educated and liberal. All three know the global map and identify with nations and groups that are struggling. Though all three are Americanists, they are globally inclined.

Obama, Rice and Powers are about as good as we are going to get. Is that too little, too late?

To be Americanists with a progressive global vision, you have to be politically savvy. Obama and Rice are politically savvy. In the political arena, Powers has been on a steep learning curve. It’s about to get steeper.

As usual, the fault line that exposes their aspirations and limitations – including their political “maturation” – has to do with Israel/Palestine. Obama’s recent visit to Israel shows he’ learned his lessons well. Rice has been a good student, too. She’s been more Israeli than the Israelis at the United Nations.

The most exposed is Powers. Her statements and interviews on the subject are now being re-played by pundits on both sides of the issue. In earlier times, Powers is critical of indiscriminate US aid to Israel and seeks its redirection in a massive effort to counter human rights abuses. She seems to argue for the commitment of American and perhaps international military troops to seal a deal and enforce an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

I doubt Powers is alone in these sentiments. I doubt we will hear her reprise them in her Senate confirmation hearings. Power’s handlers are instructing her on how to twist her previous views into politically acceptable policy language.

So here we are. Everyone in the political arena knows that Obama, Rice and Powers want more from American foreign policy than they are willing to speak. We also have the liberal political constituency problematic, with Jews leading the way.

If there is anything progressive about American foreign policy, liberal Jews have been important in its articulation. Often liberal Jews have protected politicians in their quest for an American foreign policy that protects human and political rights. But they won’t have Obama’s back – and Rice and Power’s back – if they don’t have Israel’s back.

If American foreign policy has Israel’s back, then whose other back can we really have?

But if we put political posturing aside or at least recognize that there might be a limit to political posturing if politics is going to matter at all, then what are we to do with the minority representation of our liberal trio?

Obama, Rice and Powers are Black and female. They align themselves with the Civil Rights and feminist movements. Their political rise is only possible within the context of these movements. Does their ethical failure in their political success mean a Rubicon moment has arrived for these movements as well?

Being disingenuous on Israel – and Palestine – our political trio can’t move far afield.

The question gets personal. If Obama, Rice and Powers can’t cross the Israel – and Palestine – Rubicon, what does their political vocation amount to? Does dissembling on Israel – and Palestine – mean dismantling everything they thought they stood for?