Is Obama thinking to himself “I wish I could push you under a bus”?
We now know that President Obama believes there is little or no prospect for peace in the Middle East unless enough Israeli Jews, in particular the young to whom he appealed directly, understand that the only way for Israel to survive as a Jewish and democratic state is “through the realization of a viable and independent Palestine” and then insist that their government commits itself in negotiations to ending the occupation of the West Bank (now well into in its 45th year).
By implication Obama has acknowledged that he does not have the will to confront the Zionist lobby in Washington D.C. and an Israeli government committed to ever expanding settlement, even when doing so is necessary to best protect America’s own interests.
The above, based on everything Obama said in public to Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs while he was among them, is my summary conclusion about Obama’s position.
The double standard and hypocrisy at the heart of American foreign policy was evident in what he said within minutes of his arrival in Israel. “Iran’s leaders have to realise they must meet their international obligations.”
That’s on the one hand. On the other is that Israel’s leaders are NOT required to meet their international obligations.
While Iran is sanctioned and threatened with war largely on account of Netanyahu’s assertion that it is working on the production of a nuclear bomb (an assertion which may prove to be as false as the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction), nuclear-armed Israel is rewarded for its defiance of international law and a stack of UN Security Council resolutions.
When I studied the full text of Obama’s opening statement in Israel, I found myself wondering if he is shockingly ignorant of some of the most important elements of the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of the conflict in and over Palestine that became Israel, or whether he is aware of the whole truth but believes that his own interests are best served by peddling Zionist propaganda and other Jewish mythology.
He said, for example, “I know that in stepping foot on this land, I walk with you on the historic homeland of the Jewish people.”
The implication of those words is that all the Jews of the world have a common ethnic origin and national heritage, and therefore a valid claim on the land that today constitutes Israel and the Israeli-occupied West Bank. As I and others (including Israeli historian Shlomo Sand, author of The Invention of the Jewish People) have documented, that is simply not true. Almost all if not all the Jews who went to Palestine in answer to Zionism’s call had no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews. They were the descendants of peoples from many homelands (mainly in Eastern and Western Europe) who converted to Judaism centuries after the brief rule of the ancient Hebrews ended and thereafter had only their religion and its rituals in common. And the same can be said of most of the Jews of the world today. (It’s possible that there are today more Palestinian Arabs than Jews who are descended from the ancient Hebrews).
Obama began his arrival speech with answers to a question which he said was sometimes asked about America’s relationship with Israel – “Why does the United States stand so strongly, so firmly with the State of Israel?“
I think some of Obama’s answers to that question need to be examined and challenged.
He said:
We stand together because we share a common story – patriots determined “to be a free people in our land,” pioneers who forged a nation, heroes who sacrificed to preserve our freedom, and immigrants from every corner of the world who renew constantly our diverse societies.
Missing from that answer is that the “common story” includes the fact that both nations were founded on ethnic cleansing. America was ethnically cleansed of most of its native Indians, and Palestine was ethnically cleansed of most of its indigenous Arabs.
Could it be that a shared history of ethnic cleansing is the reason why very many Americans are pre-disposed to buy Zionism’s propaganda?
He said:
We stand together because we are democracies. For as noisy and messy as it may be, we know that democracy is the greatest form of government ever devised by man.
The reality is that America is a democracy in name only, not substance. What passes for democracy there is for sale to the highest lobby bidders. As some concerned Americans have noted, the U.S, has “the best democracy money can buy.” (President Kennedy tried and failed several times to introduce legislation to end the corruption of American politics. If he had been allowed to live and serve a second term, he might have succeeded).
Also true is that for democracy to exist the citizens of nations, the voters, need to be informed enough about critical issues to call and hold their leaders to account, and not only at election time. The fact is that the vast majority of Americans are not informed enough to do that.
It can also be said that if freedom to criticize Israel’s policies and actions is one test of democracy in action, Israel is far more democratic than America.
He said:
We stand together because we share a commitment to helping our fellow human beings around the world. When the earth shakes and the floods come, our doctors and rescuers reach out to help. When people are suffering, from Africa to Asia, we partner to fight disease and overcome hunger.
The flaw in that answer is that many Israeli Jews do not regard Palestinian Arabs (including those who are citizens of Israel) as “fellow human beings.” They are regarded and sometimes labeled as inferior creatures who must submit to Zionism’s will or be expelled or even exterminated like vermin if they don’t.
He said:
We stand together because peace must come to the Holy Land… Even as we are clear-eyed about the difficulty, we will never lose sight of the vision of an Israel at peace with its neighbors.
The flaw in that answer is that Israel’s leaders have never had of vision of peace on terms that would satisfy the demand and need of the Palestinians for an acceptable minimum amount of justice.
And finally, he said:
The United States of America stands with the State of Israel because it is in our fundamental national security interest to stand with Israel.
Obama knows that is not true, so why did he say it? The only answer that makes sense to me is that he cannot admit that America’s unconditional support for the Zionist state right or wrong is a prime cause of the rising tide of anti-Americanism throughout the Muslim world and beyond in general, and fuel for the spreading fire of violent Islamic fundamentalism in particular.
If he was to admit that, even some of the most mis-informed and uninformed Americans would ask him a question: “Why then, Mr. President, are you not putting American’s own best interests first by using the leverage you have to oblige Israel to be serious about peace on terms the Palestinians could accept?“
The honest answer to that question is in two parts.
One is that on policy for Israel-Palestine, Obama is president in name only. The policy shots are called (more or less) by Israel’s leaders and their lobby in all of its manifestations in America.
The other is that even if Obama (or any American president) did use the leverage he has to try to cause Israel to be serious about peace on terms the Palestinians could just about accept, there is no guarantee that Israel’s leaders would finally say, “Okay, Mr. President, we’ll do what you want.” There is a real possibility that they would tell him to go to hell.
As I note in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, and have mentioned in previous articles, it is not only fear of offending the Zionist lobby too much that prevents any president from putting America’s own best interests first. There is also a presidential fear, quite widely shared in the U.S. defense and intelligence establishments, that an American attempt to push Israel further than its leaders were prepared to go could result in them expressing their displeasure by creating havoc in the region.
Israel possesses nuclear weapons not because Ben-Gurion, Moshe Dayan and others believed they were needed to enable Israel to maintain its military superiority. (In passing it’s worth noting that Ariel Sharon was one of Israel’s military hawks who opposed the idea of going nuclear for weapons. He believed that Israel would always be able to defeat the Arabs with conventional weapons and superior manpower; and he feared that if Israel did develop nuclear weapons, the Arabs would one day follow, and that if they did possess nuclear weapons of their own, Israel’s ability to impose its will on the region would be neutralized).
According to what Dayan (Israel’s one-eyed warlord) inferred to me in a private conversation in 1969 and to which I refer in my book, Israel’s decision to go nuclear for weapons was driven by the need to have a blackmail card in addition to that of the Nazi holocaust.
Dayan said, explicitly, that Ben-Gurion and others including himself were not stupid. He meant and said that from the moment of Israel’s birth they took it for granted that a day would come when even its best friends (he meant America in particular) would say to Israel’s leaders: “Enough is enough, You have become a liability for us. Now you must do what we ask.” I then said to Dayan, “We both know you don’t need nuclear weapons for defense against the Arabs… You need them to be able to say to an American president, if necessary, something like, ‘If you push us further than we are prepared to go, we’ll use these things‘” Dayan’s initial response to my speculation was a thin smile. He didn’t deny it or in any way challenge it. As I recalled the conversation years later, he eventually said something to this effect: “Those were your words, not mine, but you are understanding our situation.”
There are some who believe (and perhaps they are right) that Obama deserves praise for daring to say some things that Netanyahu would not have wanted Israeli and other Jews to hear, not from the lips of the President of America on the ground in Jerusalem.
For example: “It’s not fair that a Palestinian child lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements of her parents every single day. Put yourselves in their shoes – look at the world through their eyes.… Given the frustration of the international community, Israel must reverse an undertow of isolation.”
But most significant of all was Obama’s warning that the only way Israel can survive as a Jewish and democratic state is by ending its occupation in order to create the space for a viable Palestinian state.
The audience of young Israelis to whom he made that statement applauded him, but many of those in power with Netanyahu do not see withdrawal to the 1967 lines (perhaps with minor and mutually agreed land swaps) as the “only” way of defusing the demographic time of occupation. They favour “transfer”, which is a euphemism for a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
And there are still some who cling to the idea of the “Jordan option” – de-stabilizing that kingdom, getting rid of the Hashemite monarchy and saying to the Palestinians of the West Bank: “There’s your state. Go. Take it.” (That was, in fact, the end-game Sharon had in mind when he masterminded Israel’s invasion of Lebanon all the way to Beirut in the summer of 1982 for the initial purpose of exterminating the entire PLO leadership and destroying the organization’s infrastructure).
Obama’s overview of the prospects for peace, given in Ramallah in answer to a question, was this:
Peace is possible. It’s not guaranteed. I can’t even say that it’s more likely than not. But it is possible.
So, too, is a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine.
That being so I have to bring this article to a conclusion by saying that I think Obama’s decision not to use the leverage he has to cause or try to cause Israel to end its occupation, and effectively pass the make-it-happen buck to a new generation of Israeli Jews, is both disingenuous and reprehensible, to say the very, very least.
As things are and look like going, it is also possible that Obama will be seen in history as the president who, by default, gave Zionism the freedom to extinguish the light of hope for peace and complete its ethnic cleansing of Palestine, an outcome that could set the region and perhaps even the world on fire. (That is the outcome desired by American Christian fundamentalists who support the Zionist state right or wrong and bankroll its on-going colonization of the West Bank).
A judgment of history as indicated above might contain a mitigating reference from Miko Peled. “The Israeli-Palestinian issue is, politically, a toxic wasteland that no U.S. President in his right mind would want to clean up. It has become a vicious cycle of deceit and double standards, and it will contaminate any U.S. politician who tries to clean it up.”
He added: “One after another, American presidents have run away from the challenge.” (Eisenhower was the first and the last president not to do so, and it is possible, in my view probable, that President Kennedy would have taken on the challenge of confronting the Zionist monster if he had been allowed to live and serve a second term).
My only disagreement with Miko is that Obama is not “running” away. He is gliding gracefully away at his rhetorical best.
After she resigned from his government because of her opposition to the war on Iraq, Claire Short described Prime Minister Tony Blair to me as an “actor manager”. That seems to be an appropriate description of a second-term Obama at least so far as his handling of the Israel-Palestine conflict is concerned.
At the time of writing the main question waiting for an answer from the Palestinian side is this.
Will “President” Abbas be submissive enough to do what Obama indicated he wants and drop the Palestinian demand for a complete freeze on Israeli settlement expansion as a pre-condition for resuming talks (let’s not call them negotiations) with Netanyahu’s government?
If you liked this post, then...
- Share it with others using this button:
- 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).
another, rather dire, interpretation of Obama's sycophancy is simply that the US is actually threatened militarily by the zionist colony.......he is a puppet......
Alan < When do you think you might consider Changing your Heading-Format A Tinge ? It Makes you look like you are All For The Zionist views ( Tho I Have read enough of your POSTS...that I Get an entirely different Slant. Is there a reason why you do this ? I Agree with Almost all of your Views..And Do comment < occasionally. I Admire your clear minded Approach so much..it is Basically present in Everything YOU Write. Thank YOU.
I voted for O,Bama because I honestly believed since he can,t be relected for a third term that he would grow a set of balls and tell Israel to stuff it. Since he cannot be elected for a third term what is he so afraid of. Please enlighten me what can Israel do about except assassinate him which I am sure has been discussed. Alan do you honestly believe it will ever change? I for one doubt it. We both know it is only a short matter of time until we attack Iran. We are Israels bitch and I think America is starting to wake up to this fact.
You will no trouble understanding Alan if you read the three volume masterwork.
As for Obama -- he is just not going to expend political capital on the hopeless Palestinians. If he uses it at home for domestic issues, fine. I will begrudgingly go along with him. But it is a shame that something was possible here and now for Palestine and he failed to deliver. That will be his epitaph in history.
One way or the other, the US has always endorsed and supported despotic governments. Obama is a great orator and here it ends.
The US has no interest in ending the occupation. It has an interest in keeping Israel as its strategic ally. The occupation is at the center of middle east instability, said instability justifying the US having a big military presence there.
If the US wanted peace, it could have simply shoved the Israelis back behind the green line way back in 1967.
Naively, I was hoping that now he has his second term, Obama might show some mettle in dealing with Israel, but I think you sum up the situation very clearly, Alan. The news reports of his visit I have found very disappointing, and I really fear for the future of the region if this disgraceful colonialisation by 'settlements' continues, as it clearly will.
The article also points out another depressing fact: it's not just the Zionist lobby that exerts so much influence in the US. The Christian fundamentalists are also instinctive cheerleaders for Israel. If you want an example of these loonies, go onto Facebook and look at 'Jerusalem Prayer Team' or one of the many groups supporting Israel. There are at least as many posts from Christians as well as Jews who subscribe to this strange belief in a racist deity who donated a tract of land many years ago in the Middle East to one group of favoured people.
(Great article as usual Alan. The only little problem I have is that you seem to gloss over the behavior of your G.B. and its horrid history of, let us say, "mistreating the natives" at various places around the world.)
One thing you mentioned was that the Israelis would likely tell any US president to go to hell if he ever decided to get firm with them. I believe such a president may well find himself in real danger of being assassinated by our great friends, the Israelis, with Muslims likely being the fall guys. And JFK, if only he had lived....
Even talking about peace in the Middle East is going to frighten a lot of people.
This includes not only those who are making a very good living, enriching and empowering themselves out of the "war" and strife which Israel has brought to the Middle east now for seventy years, but for all of those wonderful people who have been working and struggling, making Peace in the Middle East their life's careers, upon and by which they have become nearly as wealthy and powerful as the war-mongers who promote all the unrest, blood and valuable carnage!
For "Peace has been turned into marketable commodity also. an Industry as large and as profitable as the holocaust" industry and the Zionist Movement, neither of which could exist without the other two, and we do not need one more farmer of peace coming along and attempting to destroy a good thing offering free olive branches to just anyone for the asking.
With Peace in the Middle East, where would each of the big and important players be tomorrow, and what would they be doing? Netanyahoo? Abbas? Whassisname over at Hamas? The Hezbollites? Barack Obama? Any of them?
Think on it a bit.
We are talking about the future of small town speedcops who suddenly discover that they have stopped everyone from speeding down Main Street; the Anti-Drug Czar who suddenly discovers that he has, unfortunately for him and his well funded bureau, miraculously rid the world of the drug problem! Where would they all go, and what would they do?
An old WWI song asked the question, "how ya gonna keep them down on the farm... after they've seen Paree?"
They couldn't! Colonel Douglas McArthur had to use an entire Battalion of mounted Cavalry, firehoses, the flats of sabers, and machine guns to drive them out of Washington DC. Damned few of them ever went back to the farm! They went into the big Cities and turned their military skills to good use in private enterprise.
After we've acquired Peace in the World, what on earth are they going to do with all of these Armies, and their high riding Colonels? Put them to work for the National Parks Agency planting fir trees?
Lets get real, and see who butters whose bread, and which side gets the most.
"Natural black face"? Is it at all relevant to make a racial remark about Obama?
Owing perhaps to the ongoing cold weather, I feel like responding to two items in Alan's article.
1)"Israeli government committed to ever expanding settlement..." This phraseology, used by the world's media everywhere, (Zionist controlled or not), gives the impression of an Israel growing inexorably in area. It is false. Since Oslo, although more Israelis have moved into certain disputed areas, the footprint of those areas has not enlarged. The Israeli departure from Gaza means that Israel has in fact shrunk this century.
2) The reference to Israel as the “historic homeland of the Jewish people:” Well it is. The ethnic make-up of Jews is quite irrelevant. It’s somewhat analogous to Muslims making the Hajj to Mecca in their lifetimes; they do not have to be Arabs to do this. Antisemitism has never limited itself to only Semitic Jews. With Israel established as a bulwark against antisemitism, it would be odd to restrict it to only some Jews, not to mention the determination of the ethnic origins of people being creepy ala South Africa.
One tip: Shlomo Sand is hardly a paragon of academia. He has an obvious axe to grind that affects his work. He has also made some revealing slips that should make him a laughing stock.
Brad -- there you go again. The subtle complex points of hasbara, the complications that keep decent folk from understanding easily the issue and lining up properly. Say what you will, we all know that Israel's policies are intended to exhaust or otherwise disappear Arabs. As Israel makes such an ethnic distinction, it is only fair to use the distinction in calibrating "Jewishness" and its claim to Palestine. So, you lose on that one.
As the NY subway posters demonstrate so darn effectively, Israel is an aggressive, aggrandizing state, one which stirs up troubles whenever it wishes to go occupy someone else'w property. In Israeli parlance, this is called "defense." Lost on this one as well.
As for Shlomo, when will we have the opportunity of laughing over your compelling research?
ontogram: --- hasbara ---
I have seen this term used frequently on this forum and others. From the context, I take it to mean: "An argument that people who bash Israel, right or wrong, cannot refute."
@Brad -- Now look up "evasion."
@pete -- I had a similar fantasy. Obama has thrown Palestine under the train in order to build political capital domestically, for his domestic programs. Clearly, he has chosen to be remembered for these programs -- healthcare, jobs -- rather than settling the ME nightmare. He might have elected otherwise: He might have elected to be the great foreign policy president, Nixon visiting commie China or Kennedy "Ich bin (ein) Berliner", but he coolly elected otherwise. Instead, he insists that PA come to the table even while further settlements are being constructed. If the PA does so, it will be complete surrender to Israel forever, Palestinian life will corrode and disappear and future generations will have trouble understanding what all the fuss was about. By requiring the unthinkable of any Palestinian organization, Obama solidifies his political clout in the US, Zionist, Jewish and Evangelicals will line up with him and his healthcare program will succeed. Palestine will then have died so that the US could join the developed world of universal healthcare. I think it's that simple.He had to give something and Palestine looked so hopeless anyway.
@Debbie -- I think you are putting the cart before the horse. The political realities of the ME determine what is what. The reality of a "Jewish" military state sets this stage. If people are drawn to the fray as mischief makers and hawkers, well it is only human to try to capitalize on things. So, a nothing, a nebbich like Netanyahu exploits fear and gets into a top dog position. Seedy organizations encourage violence by demanding "peace", e.g. ADL, SWU, Simon Weisenthal, etc. And etc. But this is all after the fact. There is nothing new in the proposition, the one you vividly articulate, that humans crap up almost everything. And, sure, some of these guys stir the pot only for the money in armaments or for power. But these are consequences, not causes.
@Griffiths You've hit the nail on the head: "...this strange belief in a racist deity who donated a tract of land many years ago in the Middle East to one group of favoured people."
The heart of Zionism is the "specialness" of Judaism and Jews and its corollary - hatred for gentiles. When you turn the desperate struggle of Jews throughout history inside out, one can begin to understand what's what. The racism is not in the anti-semites, it is in the Jews themselves (and I am one.) The segregation of Jewish life from gentile life was driven by Jews themselves. They created their ghettos, they proscribed themselves from general society, they insisted on their racial uniqueness. This is why all those Jewish organizations trumpeting against "hate" and "anti-semitism" shy away from the question of why such "hate" and "anti-semitism" exists. They say it is just irrational and hastily move the conversation forward. In fact, this opposition to Jewry has a foundation in racism of Jewishness. Everybody shies away from this discussion.
Israel is the proof in the pudding: It has erected a wall sealing inside a "Jewish" state (20% are not Jewish!). This is why it is never clear just what constitutes "Jewishness". Are we a people, a race, an ethnicity, a religion, a party, a book club....what? To be a Jew is to share the conceit of special DNA and a special relationship with the Ruler of the Universe. Jewish history is not a history of persecution but of persecuting. The real racism is anti-gentilism.
While Judaism should have disappeared into one of the universal faiths long ago, it persisted BECAUSE of its racism and now Israel has given that racism full vent. This is why "Jewish" organizations promoting the Palestinian cause are still supremacist (or they are just wrong-headed.) Jewish Voice for Peace and Tru'ah are nonsense organizations. There is no "Jewish" tradition of universal ethics or universal dignity of man etc. There is, I will note, a long tradition of opposing Jewish racist values among Jews, opposition to Jewishness, including guys like Finkelstein, Chomsky, Kove, and, if I may, myself, but this is not a Jewish tradition.
ontogram, talk about hitting the nail on the head... your posts here should be widely published (yours too Griffiths). Very well said my friends. It's a pity only a tiny few will read them here.
@jay Thanks. It has taken me a lifetime to crack the code, but I've got it now. Alan's books were a big part of my re-education, the history part. Michael Oren's book "Six Day War" raised so many questions with me that I started down the anti-Zionist path. I have written Ambassador Oren thanking him for his oversights in telling the tale and how it re-created my own thinking! Wished him many new royalties. Ambassador to the US, born in NYC and raised in NJ.
One of the hard truths of our time is that the Zionist program was always radical, extremist and racist, even in its earlier liberal days: Israel has given political form and clout to Jewish racism, shaming humanity everywhere.
"We stand together because we share a commitment to helping our fellow human beings around the world."
This could hardly be further from the truth. The USA IS like
Israel in its takeovers, cruelty and self-aggrandisement.
Brad Brzinski you are showing such ignorance and bias.
"It’s somewhat analogous to Muslims making the Hajj to Mecca in their lifetimes; they do not have to be Arabs to do this"
Most Muslims eg the huge number in Indonesia, ARE NOT ARABS. It is NOT anamagous to "Jews", however defined.
As for the "leaving" of Gazabeing equivalent to giving land back to Palestinians-look at how the poor crowded Gazans live, with "security zones" stopping farming or other acts, fishermen being restricted,constant attacks and destruction, no freedom of movement, no exports allowed. You call this the same as Israelis living on stolen land using stolen water and expelling their sewage onto Palestine,
I'm least surprised by Obama's failure to convince Israeli Jews and zionist leaders that Zionist entity's existence depends on the establishment of a viable, democratic and totally independent Palestinian state side-by-side it. In fact, Obama, like the other US presidents before him, is a poodle of the powerful Jewish/Zionist lobby groups. He could force the Netanyahu government to come to its senses by understanding that Obama administration is tired of playing a Zionist poodle and wants to act like a patriotic government by putting American interests over Israel's security.
Obama can achieve that objective by canceling all aid to the Zionist entity for only 2-3 years.
Only naive people believe United States to be a democracy in the real sense.
In the US, no political leader can dream of working for the interests of his own country. They all compete with each other to prove to the Israel lobby groups (AIPAC, ADL, AJC, etc.) that he/she can look after the interests of a foreign country (Israel) better than his/her opponents. Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has pulled the mask from the US democratic charade: “There are many Members of Congress who wants to be free. I am one of them. I wanted to be free to vote according to my conscience, but I had been told that if I did not sign a pledge supporting the military superiority of Israel, no support would come my way. And sure enough, I did not sign the pledge and no support came my way. I suffered silently year in and year out, because I refused to sign the pledge. An then like a slave that found a way to buy his freedom – I went to work – I wanted to be free – Free to cast the vote in US Congress as I saw fit and not as I was dictated to…..” – Cynthia McKinney.
http://rehmat1.com/2010/01/16/it-is-not-a-democracy-stupid/