News

Saban makes the Likudnik argument for Obama — forget about two states

The Times has a big pro-Obama op-ed from Haim Saban today in which Saban makes the undeniable case that Obama has been in essence a Likudnik on Israel. The piece endorses the settlements and dispenses with the mantra of “two states living side by side.” There is no talk about a Palestinian state, except to congratulate Obama for blocking the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral declaration of one.

The real estate the Times granted to Saban– funder of the Democratic Party and the Brookings Institution, and “an Israeli-American who cares deeply about the survival of Israel and the future of the Jewish people”– is a frank acknowledgment of the Israel lobby’s importance in the political process. The piece’s point of view is shockingly lobbycentric. Will folks wake up to the hold that these rightwing forces have in our politics?

The piece is called The Truth About Obama and Israel. It uses the word Palestinian once, and includes these pro-settlement statements: 

When the first President Bush had disagreements with Israel over its settlement policy, he threatened to withhold loan guarantees from Israel. Mr. Obama has had his own disagreements with Mr. Netanyahu over the settlers but has never taken such a step. To the contrary, he has increased aid to Israel and given it access to the most advanced military equipment, including the latest fighter aircraft.,,

Mr. Obama has been steadfast against efforts to delegitimize Israel in international forums. He has blocked Palestinian attempts to bypass negotiations and achieve United Nations recognition as a member state, a move that would have opened the way to efforts by Israel’s foes to sanction and criminalize its policies. As a sign of its support, the Obama administration even vetoed a Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements, a resolution that mirrored the president’s position and that of every American administration since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

That was the power of the lobby right there: Obama went against US policy on settlements. I know that many idealistic Americans think that Obama will push for a two-state solution in a second term. I doubt it–he surely sees that as a wasted effort.

19 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

You wouldn’t believe what some of these “idealistic” Americans think is in store for us if Barry and the O’s get re-elected. Peace in the Middle East, withdrawal from afghanistan, big tax increases on the rich, card-check for workers, single payer health insurance – i swear i was told all of this is going to happen, this past weekend at a family BBQ. He’s just biding his time and so on. Oy, someone pass the dutchey.

So in essence he’s saying that no matter who’s president, the lobby has their balls in a vice.

and it didn’t even cost saban $100 million

RE: “The Times has a big pro-Obama op-ed from Haim Saban today… The piece endorses the settlements and dispenses with the mantra of ‘two states living side by side’. There is no talk about a Palestinian state, except to congratulate Obama for blocking the Palestinian Authority’s unilateral declaration of one.” ~ Weiss

MY COMMENT: Elliott Abrams convinced me several years that the two-state solution was completely dead! Saban’s op-ed just confirms this.

FROM ELLIOTT ABRAMS, The Washington (Neocon) Post, 04/08/09:

. . . Is current and recent settlement construction creating insurmountable barriers to peace? A simple test shows that it is not. Ten years ago, in the Camp David talks, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat approximately 94 percent of the West Bank, with a land swap to make up half of the 6 percent Israel would keep. According to news reports, just three months ago, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered 93 percent, with a one-to-one land swap. In the end, under the January 2009 offer, Palestinians would have received an area equal to 98 to 98.5 percent of the West Bank (depending on which press report you read), while 10 years ago they were offered 97 percent. Ten years of settlement activity would have resulted in a larger area for the Palestinian state. . .

SOURCE – http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040703379.html

P.S. Elliott Abrams has totally convinced me by the sheer power of his “logic” (and his excellent math skills)!
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.”

RE: “The real estate the Times granted to Saban– funder of the Democratic Party and the Brookings Institution, and “an Israeli-American who cares deeply about the survival of Israel and the future of the Jewish people”– is a frank acknowledgment of the Israel lobby’s importance in the political process. The piece’s point of view is shockingly lobbycentric. Will folks wake up to the hold that these rightwing forces have in our politics?” ~ Weiss

MY COMMENT: Since the corporate/mainstream media is complicit with these “rightwing forces”, it will probably take a few more wars before Americans wake up.

SEE: “Haim Saban”, by Matthew Yglesias, The Atlantic, June 10, 2007

(excerpt) If you’re interested in the foreign policy views of major Hillary Clinton financial backer Haim Saban [who is also a “funder of the Democratic Party” – J.L.D.], there’s no need to follow the Atrios path of attempting guilt by association with Kenneth Pollack. He discussed his views on the Middle East and Persian Gulf region in great detail in a reasonably recent interview with ‘Haaretz’:

When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious
person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews.
We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It’s truly an existential danger…”…

SOURCE – http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2007/06/haim-saban/40714/