Almost all the excitement I felt over Obama's historic victory in the primaries has vanished in the wake of what happened the next day when he spoke to AIPAC, the largest and most well-funded Israeli lobby in Washington.
I listened to his speech and was saddened. I felt betrayed; I had allowed myself to begin lending creedence to his rhetoric about change and hope. But what hope is there for the Palestinians when Obama's speech makes clear he doesn't intend to change US policy on Israel? I know I can't vote solely on the issue of Palestine, but if de Tocqueville is still valid, the office of president in our Union is for dealing with external affairs. Obama's lack of foreign policy experience did not seem to me a barrier to his future success as president until I heard his well-defined position on Israel. I had naively assumed that since Obama had lived all over the world and had been raised bi-culturally, was well-educated and intellectual, that he would have been exposed to those experiences which lead to good judgment and cosmopolitanism in foreign policy.
But I see now that he is a politician, and that is all. You can tell he is insincere and self-serving because his lips are moving...
Here are some excerpts from the media's reaction to Obama's speech to AIPAC:
From David Horowitz in the Jerusalem Post:
In his meticulously crafted speech, Obama was also the candidate who would isolate Hamas unless it accepted Israel and abandoned terrorism, and who would push for a two-state solution under which Jerusalem would remain Israel's "undivided" capital and Israel's identity as a Jewish state would be paramount - in other words, with no place for a Palestinian refugee "right of return."
Most importantly of all, he was the candidate who would seek to "eliminate" the "grave" and "real" threat posed to Israel by Iran. "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," he vowed, repeating that word "everything" as the applause swelled.
Larry Rohter from the New York Times:
That statement [ref: Jerusalem undivided and fully part of Israel] generated a storm of controversy in the Middle East, with one Kuwaiti daily calling it “a slap in the face” to Arabs. And over the last 24 hours, as Mr. Obama and his campaign have sought to explain his initial remarks, and suggested that an undivided Jerusalem would be hard to achieve, they have been accused of backtracking, which has generated a new round of criticism, this one here at home among Jewish groups.
...To strong applause, Mr. Obama said “Israel’s security is sacrosanct,” and he promised to “ensure that Israel could defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran."
...An article on Friday in The Jerusalem Post sought to clarify Mr. Obama’s stance further. In it, an unnamed foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama was quoted as saying that the candidate’s position is that “Jerusalem remains Israel’s capital and it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.”
...Dennis Ross, a diplomat who was involved in Middle East peace talks for the administrations of the first President Bush and President Bill Clinton, expressed similar views. Mr. Ross said he saw “no calibration” in Mr. Obama’s stance, which he said “does not contradict in any way, shape or form what our policy has historically been.”
But leaders of some Jewish groups remain unconvinced.
“With Barack Obama and his campaign watering down his statement for an undivided Jerusalem,” said Morton A. Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America, “one must question whether his initial remark was simply meant to mislead Jewish voters and Israel supporters by not stating his true beliefs on this issue.”
from Uri Avnery published on antiwar.com:
Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity." Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared – quietly, almost secretly – from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.
In prior U.S. presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the U.S. embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.
Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.
But even so, the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the U.S. has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future – if and when he is elected president.
Posts
1 comment:
It is shameful. Perhaps it is also proof that de Tocqueville was right about the essential inconsequentiality of the American president. No matter who enters into the arena, his ideas are twisted into the same basic parameters. Any deviation from the "norm" is just chrome.
Post a Comment