How not to act like a superpower

Readers may be interested in viewing this recent Dispatches special from Channel 4, on Britain's Israel Lobby:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POtk6G7q4Bw

Nothing to add, except to cringe at what the other world leaders President Obama has been meeting think of a "great" power's subservience to a client state.

Pitiful helpless giant?

Let me say up front that I have no great sympathy for the Palestinians, or at least for their political leadership, and even less for their patrons in other Arab states. Iran, making trouble in the area for no good reason at all, is beyond the pale altogether. I am also well aware that a great deal of the objection to Israeli policy, and more generally to Israel, in this country is basically the same objection to Jews that has been around for centuries. This fact has undermined the arguments of those who object to the American government being so reflexively supportive of anything the Israeli government chooses to do.

Having said all that, the appearance presented in this briefing is one of weakness that borders on pathetic. Fundamentally, the issue is the Obama administration's having allowed itself to be completely intimidated by the domestic political implications of challenging those aspects of Israeli policy that serve no American interest and complicate our relations with many foreign countries. The administration appears to accept the logic that any disagreement with Israel will be interpreted in the United States as the administration's fault, and will put its foreign and domestic priorities at risk.

It is hard to imagine a more persuasive explanation for following the President's speech in Cairo with a performance like the one quoted here. On top of that, the political calculation is wrong. American supporters of Israel who feel strongly enough about expanding Jewish settlements on the West Bank and in disputed areas of Jerusalem mostly view President Obama with the same contemptuous disregard the Netanyahu government does now, and most of those who don't are unlikely to object so strongly to a firmer policy that they will withhold support for other administration policies.

At worst, some Obama supporters who support Israel might be uncomfortable and even disappointed if the administration showed a less obsequious public face to the Netanyau government. That is no great danger. In fact, this administration will be forced to run much larger domestic political risks on other issues before Obama's first term is out. If it is willing to accept this level of indignity on this issue, how will it stand up to the much more difficult challenges in its near future?

Bibi must just love Barack; after all, he couldn't ask for a better political ally. Bibi came into office after his party placed second in Israel's recent elections. His coalition was bickering and shaky and pundits were taking bets on how long it would last. Now, after just a few short months of "change we can believe in," Bibi is more popular than ever in Israel, Barack Obama is so unpopular that he can't bring his approval numbers out of the single digits and Obama's "Cairo Speech" looks like the pandering that it actually was. The pies de resistance is that Obama's approval numbers in the Arab world are beginning to decline and are surely about to fall off a cliff.

The most interesting part of the interview is where the questioner says. "...the previous administration actually had them sitting down talking to each other. You guys can't even get that far." The best Kelly can say is "all right...give us a chance."

Maybe its time for President Obama to get Dubya on the phone, apologize for all of those nasty things he said about the Bush foreign policy and beg Bush for some advice. Maybe Clinton and Mitchell can get Condi Rice and Elliot Abrams on the phone and ask them for some pointers too. After all, even Steve Walt has commented recently that the Obama policy on the Middle East just might look even worse than the Bush policy.

Of course, Steve Walt is just as deluded as the Obama Administration is. In this post he ridicules the Obama Administration for not standing up to the Israelis. What Walt neglects to tell us is exactly how he expects the Administration to do that.

After all, Israel is fervently supported by millions of American Jews and Christian Zionists. American polls consistently show that approval rates for Israel inevitably hover in the 50-60 percent range regardless of what Israel does or doesn't do. Congress is overwhelmingly supportive of Israel as the recent House vote on the Goldstone Report shows. If AIPAC pushed for a vote on the Goldstone Report in the Senate (which supposedly it isn't doing at the request of Senators Kerry and Lugar) the vote to condemn Goldstone would have been even more overwhelming. While the vast majority of Americans don’t care about the Israel-Palestine dispute one way or the other, those that do, vote. And those votes are crucial in swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio and in big states like New York and California.

Contrast this to the way Americans react to the Palestinians. The American view of Palestinians is overwhelmingly negative. To the extent that Americans think about Palestinian aspirations at all (and the vast majority never think about it) they view Palestinians through the lens of airplanes crashing into the Twin Towers and Nidal Malik Hasan's terrorist act at Fort Hood.

What Walt can’t seem to fathom is that Obama can’t do anything but complain about Israeli behavior he doesn’t like not because he doesn’t want to, but because he doesn’t have the political support to act. In case Walt and his fellow travelers don’t realize it; the United States is a democracy; there is a large, energized base of Israel supporters who vote, contribute to political campaigns and otherwise avail themselves of their First Amendment rights. Whether you denigrate them as being a member of some nefarious “lobby” as Walt does or whether you think that they are operating in the finest traditions of American Democracy doesn’t matter.

Conversely, supporters of the Palestinians, to the extent they exist at all, couldn’t organize themselves out of a paper bag.

In light of the political realities, Walt would be far more productive if instead of ridiculing Obama for doing what he isn’t able to do, he made practical and realistic recommendations for how progress could actually be made in the real world; not the fantasy world that pundits and Harvard professors typically inhabit.

Actually since one can remember; and that is since many moons ago, the US had always rolled over and played dead when it comes to Israel. There was a breif period during Bush Snr's administration when Washington made a stand against Israel, but that administration lasted for one term anyway.

very few people in the Arab world as well as in Israel, expected President Obama to succeed in his efforts in pressurising Israel in favour of the Palestinians, though the overwhelming majority of Arabs wished that he succeeds, and I imagine the majority of Israelis did not.

khairi janbek.paris/france

Interesting article today from Israel National News:

White House Officials: Clinton Embarassing Us

White House officials told the New Republic magazine this week that the Obama administration has been embarrassed at least twice by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for revealing in public information and policies that the State Department was supposed to keep private between Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and the U.S. According to the sources, Clinton was not supposed to reveal publicly the U.S. demand that Israel institute a total building freeze in Judea and Samaria, fearing that it would lead to a confrontation with Israel – which it did, after U.S. President Barack Obama publicly backed Clinton. The second instance was the famous statement by Clinton in a joint press conference with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on October 31, when Clinton said that Netanyahu had undertaken "unprecedented concessions," a comment that angered the PA leadership. According to the sources, Clinton has been getting bad advice from her advisers.

It's not clear how you can try to blame this on neocons, as they are not even close to being in power at this current time. The left is in full control of the President and Congress, and so this is the fault of those whom you have boosted, not the bogeymen you've been trying to whip up against for the past decade.

One would hope that after being sucker-punched twice and taking a blow to his reputation that cannot be repaired, Ambassador Mitchell would resign in protest.

I did note that shortly after seeing the dispatch that Mitchell had been ordered back by the President to the area, presumably to specifically address the planned Gilo extension, Mrs. Clinton immediately humiliated him.

It is a shame that the President cannot fire Mrs. Clinton but when your government is actually directory of Democrat Senators with big egos and conflicting agendas, such is life.

I know I am repeating myself, but right from the start, President Obama told the Arabs what they wanted to hear, so that they can feel reassured enough, to push Mr. Abbas to the table of negotiations; becoming thus a "bete noire" for the Israelis, while Sec. Clinton told the Israelis what they wanted to hear in turn, so that Bibi can feel reassured enough to return to the table of negotiations; becoming thus a "bete noire" for the Arabs. In a sense [good cop-bad cop scenario].

The only one whom felt totally cheated and without assurances is Mr. Abbas, so he refused to play ball. Mind you, he might surprise everyone yet, and return to the negotiations.

khairi janbek.paris/france

It is easy for me to sit here, type on this blog and say that this exchange was a pathetic excuse for a State Department press conference. But that is exactly what it was. Not one mention of HOW the Israelis are finding room to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem (destroying Palestinian homes). Not one mention of how angry the U.S. Government is over Israeli defiance and their predisposition for intolerant behavior. Not one mention of Palestinian grievances...and, of course, not one mention of what is actually going on between the Israelis and Palestinians. It is hard for me to say- and it will be harder for Obama lovers to accept this fact- but Mr. Kelly deliberately lied to the Press Corps throughout that entire news conference.

"We've gotten both sides to commit to this goal." I beg to differ. Can you honestly say that the Israeli Government is serious about a "comprehensive peace?" This is a laughable statement, and some reporters in the press corps actually did laugh. The Israelis have been extraordinarily difficult to deal with, and there is no evidence that they are willing to change their behavior for the good of a comprehensive peace plan. The Palestinians have shown the Israelis good faith consistently over the past two years, namely by significantly cracking-down on militant activity within the West Bank. The Israelis have not returned the favor in any substantial way. Settlement construction continues, and hundreds upon hundreds of roadblocks are still prevalent throughout the Palestinian Territories; a perfect microcosm of the humiliation surrounding the occupation.

Plus, it seems that Mr. Kelly has failed to recognize the motives behind the newly-approved settlement plan. It should be rather obvious that this action is direct retaliation for the Palestinian attempt of unilateral statehood. Mr. Netanyahu said so much himself, saying that the Israeli Government would respond with equal force in the event of a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state. Or perhaps this is Israel's way of preventing the Palestinians from appealing to the U.N. Security Council in the first place. Either way, the United States has not publicly understood the full extent of the Israeli decision.

http://depetris.wordpress.com

How much of this might have to do with domestic policy? IE, appeasing Joe Lieberman to secure his filibuster-breaking health care vote?

Hats off to the press questioners in that Kelly interview - they really held his balls to the fire. This type of thing just makes the Obama Administration look like feckless cowards, promising big things but being too cowardly to actually act on them.

In light of the political realities, Walt would be far more productive if instead of ridiculing Obama for doing what he isn’t able to do, he made practical and realistic recommendations for how progress could actually be made in the real world;

Walt actually has made recommendations. If I remember right, he actually supports the Palestinian attempt at unilateral state declaration in the UN (which pisses off the Israelis, because then they can't use the possibility of negotiations as a means to buy time to conduct more land invasions in the West Bank).

Congress is overwhelmingly supportive of Israel as the recent House vote on the Goldstone Report shows.

We'll see. The vote on Goldstone was a non-binding resolution. But suppose Obama were to threaten to block any aid without requirements that it not be used for settlement construction, and until the Israelis halt settlement construction period? Congress could try to pass it over his head, but it would be an ugly fight, and it would be easy for people to attack Congress openly for supporting Israeli land invasions.

Whether you denigrate them as being a member of some nefarious “lobby” as Walt does or whether you think that they are operating in the finest traditions of American Democracy doesn’t matter.

Personally, I think people who lobby for another state's interest in the United States should be looked down upon more, and that's not just with regards to Israel. But that's just me - I despise having the US drawn into a bunch of long-standing ethnic bullshit because some group has their panties in a knot over something happening on the other side of world.

but Mr. Kelly deliberately lied to the Press Corps throughout that entire news conference.

I'm sympathetic to Kelly (although not his positions), since he's stuck arguing whatever his boss propounds, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it sounds. Personally, I'd much prefer that Obama had been forced to answer those questions.

This, by the way, is why the US really needs a Question Time equivalent like what the Brits have.

Again you are trying to make this an issue of Netanyahu and the current government.

This a 9 year old plan that was put forward by the Jerusalem Municipality. Even if Netanyahu was so inclined, and he surely isn't, he has limited abilities in this situation.

Prime Ministers don't ordinarily get involved with municipal planning anymore than a US President is involved in construction in Baltimore....

What I would like to hear from Mr. Walt and other critics is why Jewish landowners whose titles date back hundreds of years can't build?

The Jerusalem municipality also approved over the last week some 500 housing units in Arab neighborhoods this week, some only dating back to the 1950s. A disproportionate amount considering the Arab population is much smaller than Jewish. And for those not aware it has been like that for hundreds of years. If there is to be a moratorium on building then should it not be applied equally? If not why not?

An important point to consider is that the US appears to be actually supporting the status quo of settlement EXPANSION, while quelling any possible avenue that the Palestinians might engage in to put an end to it. We are "dismayed" (wink wink). They are being "unhelpful". (wink wink). The Israelis are taking "unprecedented"actions toward peace (almost unbridled , barely stifled laughter)

We have are soon going to be a world laughing stock and in even GREATER danger of middle eastern terrorist blow back after the Cairo speech. It's flowery rhetoric can now be described as a series of out and out lies, which were either premeditated, or became lies due to a complete collapse of will in the face of what appears to be no pressure at all. It really doesn't matter which.

I have to say that my support and respect for the Obama administration and the entire democratic party is eroding by the day.

We will continue to be screwed by the insurance companies with no viable, strong public option and legislation that forces the entire nation to buy insurance from these crooks or face legal consequences. They are going to sell out to the insurance lobby completely and call it progress.

Meanwhile, our middle eastern policy has just become, officially, all Israel, all the time, regardless of what they do, and regardless of whether it leads directly to terrorist actions on US soil or not. Whether it costs up trillions in war expenses and tens of thousands of lives or not. They have sold out to the Israel lobby completely. They obviously could care LESS about the health or safety of their constituents as long as the cash and support keeps coming in.

You are correct. In the press interview Mr. Kelly came across as a powerless, pathetic figure. He could put his feet only between to narrow lines. He had no freedom to walk. In response to the statement from the White House: "We are dismayed that Israelis are expanding the settlements", I wrote this on my website: http://asanevoiceforpeaceinthemiddleeast.blogspot.com

Obama's third mantra:

Those who habitually read newspapers or listen to broadcast news know that President Obama had until now two mantras in his mind. His first mantra: “Our support of Israel to live in security is unshakable”, has been heard around the world, loudly and clearly, dozens of times.

His second mantra: “The bond between Israel and USA is unbreakable”, also has been heard around the world on many occasions. He chanted it even at the Cairo University in Egypt. “America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable.” These two mantras and some minor variants of the mantras have been chanted just like mantras, repeatedly, by Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State Clinton, and Obama’s Middle East envoy George Mitchell every time they found an opportunity to chant them.

To those who are dismayed and bored with President Obama’s two mantras, I have some good news. Rejoice! President Obama has found a new mantra, his third, and has added it to his list. The new mantra is: “We are dismayed that Israelis are expanding the settlements”.

The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said that the Palestinian Authority “strongly condemns” the decision to build 900 housing units in Gilo, in East Jerusalem. In contrast, the Obama administration issued a statement that the administration was “dismayed” and asked both parties to avoid unilateral actions that could “pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations.” I think his administration is sleeping; doesn’t it know that the peace process is dead and gone?

I am dismayed that The New York Times wrote that: “The news that the building plans had moved closer to approval drew a sharp response from the White House, which has declared reviving the talks to be a major policy goal.” And what was White House’s sharp response? The statement – Obama’s third mantra – that “We are dismayed that Israelis are expanding the settlements”. Here is a country that defies international laws, a country that it supports unconditionally with financial and military aid, and a country that it protects from international condemnations at the UN Security Council, and all that the Obama administration can do is express its “dismay” at Israel’s disregard for international laws?

These settlements are not only illegal per international laws, and against UN resolutions, they are opposed by almost the entire world except the USA. Yes, Obama’s administration has in the past stated that “We do not recognize the legitimacy of Israel’s settlements in the occupied territories”; but these are hollow words, not backed up with actions, actions such as ending economic and military aid to an aggressor and oppressor, and an international bully. President Obama has continued to send blank checks to Israel, and on time. It’s high time that the Nobel Peace committee stopped deluding itself that President Obama is a man of peace. I am aware that it can not withdraw the Nobel Peace Prize already given; but it is never too late to issue a statement expressing its regrets.

Yesh Prabhu, Plainsboro, NJ

Israel is a small country in the Middle East, established over sixty years ago as a Zionist homeland. It was, in those far-off days, a symbol of hope, sanctuary and a source of pride to virtually every Jewish person in the Diaspora.

Tragically, over those decades, it has transmogrified into a corrupt and brutal occupier, that also supplies regimes around the world with Uzi machine guns, cluster bombs and cut diamonds. Outside of the United States, that funds and arms it, the Israeli state is disliked to such an extent that there is now every possibility of a European-wide campaign against individuals and organisations supporting what is now seen as a pariah, political entity.

In the cafes on Dizengoff, Tel Aviv, (as in the former cafes of Berlin in the dying days of the Weimar Republic), there are hundreds of patrons drinking coffee, laughing and smoking – apparently unaware of the looming danger that the arrogance of their state has wrought. It is now too late, both for those in the cafes and, I'm afraid, for us. Like short-sighted ex-premier, Ariel Sharon, European Jewry is comatose and, again, in danger. For quiescent anti-Semitism, never far from the surface, has been awakened and prodded by the corruption of power-hungry, greedy men, blind to the threat that they bring upon themselves, their families and their faith.

# The Fayyad plan contains elements regarding Jerusalem, borders, and economic aspects that are part and parcel of the established final-status negotiation process and, if dealt with unilaterally, would undermine the process and violate the solemn commitments entered into by the Palestinians.

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=3185&TTL=A_Paradox_of_Peacemaking:_How_Fayyad%E2%80%99s_Unilateral_Statehood_Plan_Undermines_the_Legal_Foundati