Obama and the Israel Lobby

[TomClash]

This week's hysterical, reality-deprived reaction to President Obama's pronouncements on the Israel/Palestine conflict genuinely provoked laughter on several occasions. That happened when I thought of the intense controversy triggered by publication of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby, which examined the "loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to steer U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction," a coalition driven by "a core consisting of organizations whose declared purpose is to encourage the U.S. government and the American public to provide material aid to Israel and to support its government's policies, as well as influential individuals for whom these goals are also a top priority." This week's events underscore how remarkable it is that that book's argument was demonized as some sort of radical, hateful conspiracy tract rather than treated as what it was: a statement of the bleeding obvious (albeit a brave one, given that discussions of that reality had previously been taboo).

Obama's call for a peace deal ultimately "based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps" is not even arguably a change from past American policy. Though he's the first President to publicly call for such an outcome, that's been the working premise of American policy for decades. It's controversial in one sense -- it unduly rewards Israel for its illegal seizures of land by suggesting they should be able to permanently keep West Bank settlements (the "land swap" aspect of the formula) -- but it does not remotely constitute a step in an anti-Israel direction. When even Israel-devoted stalwarts such as former IDF Corporal Jeffrey Goldberg and the ADL's Abe Foxman are dismissive of the condemnation of Obama's statements, it's crystal clear that they pose no challenge to the dominant pro-Israel orthodoxy that has shaped American policy (and political discourse) for decades.

<snip>

The backlash after Obama's keynote speech on the Middle East has Democratic Party operatives scrambling to mollify the Jewish community as the president prepares to seek a second term in the White House. . . ."I have spoken to a lot of people in the last couple of days -- former supporters -- who are very upset and feel alienated," billionaire real estate developer and publisher Mortimer Zuckerman said.

<snip>

But remember: it's so very heinous and hateful to suggest -- as Walt and Mearsheimer shamefully did -- that some Americans are driven by devotion to Israel as their primary political preoccupation and that, banded together, they exert substantial influence. Perish the thought.


http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

[Boojatta]

1. There's a difference between a claim and an argument. The book's argument provoked a question ...

Why try to preserve civil rights in America?

Quoting from the OP:

publication of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's The Israel Lobby,

(...)

This week's events underscore how remarkable it is that that book's argument was demonized as some sort of radical, hateful conspiracy tract rather than treated as what it was: a statement of the bleeding obvious (albeit a brave one, given that discussions of that reality had previously been taboo).

[TomClash]

8. I don't get the point

Could you clarify?

[Boojatta]

12. I could clarify. What part is unclear?

[treestar]

2. I don't get the fanaticism

And the unwillingness to even discuss the subject if you're not 100% in support of Israeli policies.

[Boojatta]

4. Are you familiar with religious fanaticism?

Both the New Testament and the Koran express some strongly anti-Jewish attitudes.

Because of the structure of Israel's political system, small parties have a lot of power in Israel. As a result, the most radical denomination of Judaism (orthodox Judaism) has a lot of influence on Israel's policies.

Under the circumstances, is fanaticism a surprise?

[Poll_Blind]

5. And I would just add that because of the "the Torah is my vocation" clause for...

...the IDF and because those who study the Torah full-time receive welfare-like stipends, the Israeli state has little in the way of an immune system to prevent radicalized Judaism (so, IMO, religious Zionism for one) from becoming a political and societal cancer.

And this doesn't just stop at Jew/Gentile relations but relations within the Jewish community between the Ultra-Orthodox and all other forms of Judaism- re: The conversion bill.

PB

[treestar]

6. Not there in Israel

But in the U.S. it doesn't make sense. In spite of all of its problems, people are safer in the U.S. than they would be in Israel.

I was on another message board where a bunch of people just quit coming, merely because others of us asked questions and suggested maybe the Palestinians had gotten a raw deal, too. It was like they could not stand even discussing it!

Here on DU people go nuclear on the subject to the point where they get booted to the I/P forum.

I realize I'm not Jewish. But I'm not Palestinian either and it seems that they have some grievances too.

[butterfly77]

16. Agreed...

You can't even ask a question about the situation and if you question Israel aka Netanyahu then you are a traitor against Israel.

Seems like every time I look around Netanyahu is in power decades as a matter of fact. This is the same problem we have in this country the same people with the same old bullshit and that is why we get no where..

[Poll_Blind]

3. Damn that was a tight read- Highly recommended, especially the second half.

This is a great piece and I'm already a fan of Greenwald's. He has a penchant for supportive links like Chomsky does for footnotes- and it pays off in spades. Really, if people are going to read this article, take the time and work through it. Reading all the links is not necessary but this piece is unusually succinct, even for Greenwald.

Thanks for posting this!

:thumbsup:

PB

[TomClash]

7. He's an excellent writer

He stands up for the rights of the oppressed.

[JohnyCanuck]

9. K&R, & a link to President Obama's AIPAC speech posted to Youtube

President Obama speech to AIPAC 5-22-2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=O2UfSGigWio#at=107

[stranger81]

10. Great article -- K&R [n/t]

[xchrom]

11. Recommend

[eridani]

13. Why not say "pro-Likudnk" instead of "pro-Israel"?

Being pro-Israel to me means being in favor of Israel's right to exist--within the 1967 borders with possible adjustments.

[RandomThoughts]

14. The question is does the government of Isreal

Support Isreal.

[JohnyCanuck]

15. Mike Gravel: My Political Rupture With AIPAC

My political rupture with AIPAC occurred over a vote for military aid to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel. This legislative package of aid was put together by the White House primarily to shore up support for Sadat in the Middle East. AIPAC opposed the package and hoped to muster enough congressional opposition to pressure the White House to stop the military aid package to Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

But on this occasion, Sadat's overture to Israel was too significant a factor. This was a rare instance in which AIPAC didn't "win" on an issue. Interestingly, my vote was the same as those of Sens. Jacob Javits (New York) and Abraham Ribicoff (Connecticut), two Jewish leaders at that time in Congress and the nation. They also recognized the importance of supporting Sadat and were not intimidated by pressure from AIPAC.

snip

The tragedy is that much of the nation's progressive Jewish community defers to Likud-like organizations, and too many Jewish donors -- as with Christian Zionists -- buy into fear-mongering and rationalizations for anti-Palestinian discrimination transmitted from abroad. A Jewish community once at the forefront of pushing for civil rights and equality in our own country too often today supports organizations and candidates upholding Israeli discrimination in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and, increasingly, within Israel itself.

When I left office in 1981, Israeli leaders were increasingly succumbing to a bunker mentality, sustained by fear and a history of oppression that has long since changed. The Israel I admired is difficult to recognize, save in the actions of young Jewish demonstrators helping Palestinians to protest Israel's expansionist West Bank barrier. Israel has been captured by the religious right with its sense of entitlement to Palestinian land.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article28162.htm

[JohnyCanuck]

17. The Onion's take on US policy with regards to Israel

Government Official Who Makes Perfectly Valid, Well-Reasoned Point Against Israel Forced To Resign

WASHINGTON—State Department diplomat Nelson Milstrand, who appeared on CNN last week and offered an informed, thoughtful analysis implying that Israel could perhaps exercise more restraint toward Palestinian moderates in disputed territories, was asked to resign Tuesday. “The United States deeply regrets any harm Mr. Milstrand’s careful, even-tempered, and factually accurate remarks may have caused our democratic partner in the Middle East,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an unequivocal condemnation of the veteran foreign-service officer’s perfectly reasonable statements. “U.S. policy toward Israel continues to be one of unconditional support and fawning sycophancy.” Milstrand, 63, will reportedly appear at an AIPAC conference to offer a full apology as soon as his trial concludes and his divorce is finalized.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/government-official-who-makes-perfectly-valid-well,20499/

Just a head's up for the unaware, it's from theOnion.com. In other words, its satire.

[Distant Observer]

18. Netanyahu is very aware of RW Obama hate and uses it relentlessly to push his agenda re Israel's

negotiating position visa-vis the Palestinians.

It is brutally humiliating. Intentionally so. Unlike Bush 41, Obama dares not even suggest that he is seeking to push Israel in these negotiations. Mitchel resignation shows that there is not hope of a lasting solution at this point.