Alan Hart

  • About Alan
  • Meet Alan
  • Support Alan
  • Contact Alan
  • View Archives

Israel: A significant shift in U.S. public opinion…? And what if the answer is “Yes”?

  • March 8, 2014
  • Comments: 7

5 B Cameras

A recent public opinion poll asked Americans which of two options they would favour if a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict was no longer on the table. (It is in the rhetoric of leaders and diplomats but not in reality). The two options were:

“The continuation of Israel’s Jewish majority (presumably this assumes permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and continuing ethnic cleansing of it by stealth) even if it means that Palestinians will not have citizenship and full rights.”

“One democratic state for all in which Jews and Arabs would be equal.”

Only 24 percent supported the continuation of things as they are.

According to the poll, 65 percent of those asked for their opinion preferred the one state option.

What explains this?

Is it that an apparent majority of Americans are at last understanding and supporting the need and rights of the Palestinians for justice, or is it something else – an indication that while they are not much concerned about the rights of the Palestinians, an apparent majority of Americans are fed up with an Israel they rightly perceive to be the obstacle to peace?

While I was thinking about my own answer to this question I read a magnificent piece by Gideon Levy in Ha’aretz with the headline AIPAC the Kremlin of U.S. Jewry. In this article Gideon, who along with Amira Hass is the conscience of Israeli journalism, explained, very convincingly, why AIPAC is in reality “anti-Israel”.

Here, slightly shortened and with my emphasis added, is what he wrote.

QUOTE

It’s the biggest convention of Israel-haters, attended yearly by some 15,000 representatives, and the damage, historically speaking, that it has done to Israel is perhaps graver than any done by Iran. The convention is held once a year, and time seems to stop. It’s always the same wheeler-dealers, the same kitsch (trash), the same hollow applause, and the same standing ovation for every Israeli prime minister, no matter his policy. The world turns round and round, but this never changes. Even Israel changes, but not in their eyes. Here Israel is worthy only of applause, blind and automatic applause, now and forever.

Like at similar conventions held in Romania by Nicolae Ceausescu, all they do is praise the great leader. Welcome to Bucharest in Washington, to the Kremlin of American Jewry, behold the yearly AIPAC conference. Only here can Netanyahu use his old tricks and gimmicks and be met with a full auditorium on its feet.

Behind Netanyahu sat a young American woman who rose to cheer him when everyone else did. I said to myself, Why exactly did she get up and cheer? For the ongoing occupation? For the undermining of Israeli democracy? For the ever prevalent racism in Israel?

“I’m pro-Israel, I’m AIPAC,” says the organization’s slogan. Pro-Israel? The organization’s critics claim that it sometimes acts against U.S. interests; that it also acts against Israeli interests.

Bravo, AIPAC. Seek out the conservative right among American Jewry. But long ago, Israel should have said, “No, thanks.” Not every show of loud and pushy, even crazed support is a display of friendship. Sometimes caring and friendship mean criticism. But that is not in AIPAC’s playbook.

The word is that the organization’s power is waning, but it doesn’t look that way on the ground. We see what happens to Congress members who dare to criticize Israel. AIPAC is still in the field with its army of lobbyists, and it is the second most effective lobby in Washington, after the gun lobby – and this should cause Israel to worry. Just like the gun lobby, the Israel lobby is not a good partner. It has affected U.S. policy in the past, as one of the factors that led to continued American support for the occupation, as well as Israeli violence and expansion.

If AIPAC wanted to show true friendship for Israel, it would have stopped cheering long ago and started whispering. Whisper in the prime minister’s ear, that something bad is happening to the state that AIPAC loves so much. Whisper that something bad is happening in America, too, that people are becoming fed up with Israel’s refusals. A false friend would give a drug addict more and more money, and the addict would thank him for it. A true friend would send him to rehab, and the addict would be angry. The occupation addict is in need of a true friend, one that would send her to rehab. AIPAC, and the United States along with it, has opted to be the false friend – and that’s as anti-Israel as it gets.

UNQUOTE

Whatever the reason for it – empathy with the Palestinian claim for justice or not – a significant shift in American public opinion really does seem to be underway. Staying with Gideon Levy’s analogy, this might explain why President Obama felt free enough to suggest to occupation addict Netanyahu that he and Israel should consider rehab.

Obama did so in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg for Bloomberg View shortly before he received Netanyahu in the White House. Obama’s message to Netanyahu via Goldberg included the statement that “There is a limit to the power of the man who bears the title leader of the free world.”

And he explained what he meant with these words. “If Israel sees no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction”, and “if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.”

We do not know whether or not Obama had the balls to say this to Netanyahu face to face, but even if he didn’t, Netanyahu would still have got the message.

Akiva Eldar’s interpretation of Obama’s message to Netanyahu via Goldberg was that he, the president, “is sick and tired of fighting on Netanyahu’s behalf vis-a-vis the Europeans and automatically vetoing (in the UN Security Council) their proposals condemning the settlements.”

But there was more to Obama’s message than that. He was effectively saying that if Israel continues to be opposed to peace on terms the Palestinians can accept, no occupant of the White House will be able to protect Israel from the tightening noose of isolation and sanctions.

My guess is that Obama, unwilling to confront the Zionist lobby and its allies head on by taking to the bully pulpit and going over the heads of Congress, is entertaining the hope that when he has to admit that Secretary of State Kerry’s peace process was a mission impossible, and then as the BDS (Boycott Sanctions and Divestment) campaign gathers global momentum with the real potential to make Israel’s Jews feel the pain, a majority of them will say to Netanyahu: “Enough. We insist you that be serious about peace with the Palestinians on terms they can accept.”

That could happen. What Obama called the “international fallout” if Israel stays on its present course could cause a majority of Israeli Jews to want to save themselves from Zionism. But…

Something else could also happen. A rising global BDS tide could be counter-productive. It could reinforce what very many Israeli Jews have been conditioned to believe by Zionist propaganda and result in them saying something like: “This proves that the world hates Jews. World go to hell!” And that, no doubt, would set the stage for a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine followed, most likely, by the transformation of the rising global tide of anti-Israelism into anti-Semitism. (That might be what Zionism wants in order to go on justifying, if only to itself, its reason for being).

For the sake of discussion let’s suppose that, at a point, reason prevails and the clear and present danger of isolation and sanctions does cause a majority of Israeli Jews to demand peace on terms the Palestinians could accept.

The question that would then arise is this. Could Netanyahu or any other Israeli prime minister deliver?

If the statements of the leaders of the racist and neo-fascist tendency in Israel (secular and religious) can be taken at face value, the answer is “NO!” They are totally opposed to an Israeli withdrawal from more or less all the occupied West Bank to create the space for a viable Palestine state with East Jerusalem its capital and/or Jerusalem an undivided city and the capital of two states. And they will never, ever, agree to one state with equal rights for all because that would mean the end of Zionism.

My conclusion? It’s great news that a significant shift of American public opinion is underway, but it may very well be that it’s too late to stop a Zionist-driven countdown to catastrophe for us all.

As I said at the end of my last post, I would like to be proved wrong.

Footnote

In a most remarkable article for Ha’aretz on 7 March, Daniel Blatman, a history professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, called on American Jews to end their silence “and co-operate with the shrinking groups of Israelis who have not yet lost hope that it’s possible to stop this downslide towards the abyss.” The headline over this piece was If I was an American Jew I would worry about Israel’s racist cancer.”

That caused me to wonder what I would be thinking and feeling if I was a Palestinian. This question first entered my mind a few days ago as I was watching the images of Five Broken Cameras, the Oscar-nominated film documenting the struggle of the West Bank village of Bil’in against Israeli occupation and continuing settlement expansion. It was screened on BBC4. (Broadcast to a small audience and starting at 10.30pm, but it was transmitted. I imagine Zionism’s watch dogs here in the UK were furious)..

I entertained the thought that if I was a Palestinian I would hate Israeli Jews and not want peace with them. The fact that this is NOT the mindset or the position of the vast majority of the occupied and oppressed Palestinians, meaning that what they hate is not Israel’s Jews but Zionism, is a tribute to their humanity. Zionism, assisted by the persecution of Jews on and off down the centuries (mainly by Europeans not Arabs) has stripped most Israeli Jews of their humanity. They need to claim it back if there is ever to be peace based on an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians.


If you liked this post, then...

  • Share it with others using this button: Bookmark and Share
  • Comment on it using the form below.
  • Subscribe to my blog via email or RSS to get "new post" alerts.
  • Follow me on Twitter (@alanauthor).

7 Responses

    • Comment #1
    • March 09, 2014
    • 02:42
    Rehmat said...

    Dear Hart, I posted on this subject in June 2010.

    Personally, I believe in the ‘option’ of a democratic one-state Palestine, based on ‘one-vote- one person’ with equal rights for all its citizen, dismantling of racist Zionist political parties and Israel Occupation Force (IOF), right of return for the natives and suitable compensations for their loss of properties to the Jew settlers – and of course the dismantling of country’s nuclear arsenal. All those racist Jews, who don’t want to live in peace with the natives – they should be allowed to migrate back to their ancestral lands – Germany, Russia, Poland, France, the UK, the US, etc. – as many White settlers did in South Africa, Algeria and India. In fact, Professor Edward Said had predicted long time ago that the great majority of Israeli Jews would rather prefer to live under Muslim rule in Palestine than going back to their ancestral western homeland where they know antiSemitism would be waiting for them.

    http://rehmat1.com/2010/06/18/palestine-the-third-option/

    • Comment #2
    • March 09, 2014
    • 04:26
    ontogram said...

    The Zionist attempt to create an ethnic state from nothing has failed because it became too protracted. The Palestinian problem was not resolved quickly (perhaps genocide). In any case, it is not possible to create out of the air an ethnic state in our time. Historically, nationalism evolved from a cohesive identity located in situ, in a contiguous area. The identity grows out of the land and the reflects the neighbors. Today, that sort of nationalism is repugnant because it causes death and destruction. Today -- a Jew can be a Frenchman, but a Frenchman can't be a Jew. Why not? He cannot be a Jew in the Israel sense of the identity because he is not Jewish. So, Jewish is not like French, is it? Zionism tried to make a state but not in situ and that is a major failing.

    Secondly, ancient Israel was not much of a survivor state. It was finally done in by the big guys, the empires that GREW by incorporating peoples and tribes around them, e.g. Roman, Persians, etc. And Israel? The exclusive character of Judaism condemned Israel to limited human resources and limited growth. Rome rolled over this little state handily,

    It is the same today: The state of Israel cannot survive long term because of its exclusive definition. I think that the violence and treasure needed to sustain this exclusive state is a good measure of the unnatural, non-historical character of the project. Without such subvention and murder, it would not have survived at all. Even today, it still requires extra resources from exogenous sources to survive and that dependence dooms the state.

    I think it will get much worse before it gets better. I can imagine the fanatical elements in Israel creating war, even nuclear war, when they don't get their way. These supremacists will richly deserve the fate that will finally take them down. They will be hunted down and condemned like Nazis after the war.

    IMHO

    • Comment #3
    • March 09, 2014
    • 07:26
    Confoundmeonce said...

    Alan, The answer, clear and To the Mark...is..NO. Not only is This US of A. Citizens Fed up with this Rogue Facsimile of a ''State' Trying to Make it A 'Homeland Of Jews Only..They Will Never Succeed. Two very Good Reasons. One..It is an illegitimate venture on stolen land. Second, It is Existing at the Expense of The American taxes and They are Sick of Being Robbed of Their heritage by these Users. The Anger has Become Unbearable to us. We suffer In many Instances and Are Now Wondering Why Our 'president Lets It Continue. Time To Stop Robbing Peter to pay Paul. SO< Alan, You are Exactly Correct. This Can`t continue.

    • Comment #4
    • March 09, 2014
    • 08:12
    Tom Mysiewicz said...

    Jews and Moslems got along well for over a thousand years. They can do so again. Before testing out their concept in Palestine, the Zionists should have done so someplace like Madagascar to be sure it worked in the first place. This conflict and garrison-state thing ruined the whole experiment (as explained to me by Uri Avnery). The original dream was that Jews could maintain a productive society of their own without the need for predating on the "goyim". A worthwhile goal for those Jews who wish it. (It does say in the Bible that "The lion shall lie down with the lamb. Both shall cheweth the cud.") I'd be a Zionist supporter if it were not for displaced Palestinians who owned the land--I know what it is like to have a home stolen by legal trickery and be driven into homelessness.

    • Comment #5
    • March 09, 2014
    • 08:24
    pete said...

    Alan, aint nothing gonna change, the people of the u.s, might be getting sick of Israel,s bullshit but the the people in our government could not care less. Jerry Brown is a twink who backs up on old doorknobs. America what have you come to,a slave to a little pissant nazi like country,

    • Comment #6
    • March 11, 2014
    • 04:43
    Blake said...

    Decades of indoctrination America has always been the target of the zionists to keep their charade going.

    • Comment #7
    • July 07, 2015
    • 03:45
    James said...

    "I think the interesting quiosetn here is not which is "more representative" of Islam, but what the pressures and incentives are in each case.Dr. Abuelaish is a stateless resident of the Gaza Strip...(h)e has to be extremely careful in his criticisms of..."...Islam.

× Cancel reply

Have a comment about Israel: A significant shift in U.S. public opinion…? And what if the answer is “Yes”?? Make it here...

(your real name if possible)
(will be kept private)
(if you have one!)
(you can use these tags: <em> <strong> <strike> )
(All comments are moderated and will take time to show up)

Follow in Twitter Subscribe via RSS Subscribe via email
http://www.zionismbook.com

Hart of the Matter

  • Video one
  • Video two
  • Video three
  • Video four
  • Video five
  • Video six
  • Video seven
  • Video eight
  • Video nine
  • Video ten
  • Video eleven
  • Video twelve
  • Video thirteen

Switch to our mobile site