NOVANEWS

Some Congressional scholars, historians, and longtime observers of Congress are expressing dismay over what seems to have dramatically diminished the claimed, “World’s greatest deliberative body”

With 41 applause interruptions and 29 standing ovations, even with some appearing half-hearted and somewhat forced, Congress sent a message that the Legislative branch, increasingly* *under the control of a foreign power, and not the Executive branch, will continue to determine American policy toward Israel and the Middle East.

by Franklin Lamb

Millions of American voters were offended this week by the vulgar display on Capitol Hill which witnessed the annual rite of nearly 2/3′s of Members on Congress stumbling over one another at the annual AIPAC Conference in order to ingratiate themselves with their hosts and to protect their sinecures.

Equally nauseating to many was what some on Capitol Hill are calling “Congressional Black Tuesday” when they assert Congress cheapened its status in American and foreign eyes and fouled itself by taking the role of undignified cheerleaders for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu during his appearance before a joint session of Congress, an invitation normally reserved for august occasions and accomplished personages.

FLOOR LEADERS!

With 41 applause interruptions and 29 standing ovations, even with some appearing half-hearted and somewhat forced, Congress sent a message that the Legislative branch, increasingly* *under the control of a foreign power, and not the Executive branch, will continue to determine American policy toward Israel and the Middle East.

Some Congressional scholars, historians, and longtime observers of Congress are expressing dismay over what seems to have dramatically diminished the claimed, “World’s greatest deliberative body”.

Among those objecting to what they see as the corruption of Congress are an increasing number of the more than 18,000 Congressional staffers, many of whom work as many as 70 hours per week in their sometimes highly competitive jobs. Most Congressional staffers understand and respect the institution of Congress, know their Members politics, are aware of American interests in the Middle East and are fairly well informed on the Question of Palestine.

However, many are not happy and are beginning to rise up against what they are witnessing in their offices which is the increasing smothering of their erstwhile legislative aid roles by agents of Israel such as AIPAC. The latter are seen as increasingly preempting their roles and taking over some of their work by flooding their offices with position papers and then lobbying incessantly to see their ‘recommendations” implemented.

It is not always easy being a Congressional staffer and many have been and continue to be abused in various ways, some of which become public in an institution that values discretion and averting attention from their Members foibles. Yet working in Congress can be interesting and often rewarding work for those wanting to serve their constituents and help solve myriad problems on the local and federal level.

There is no shortage of access these days to friends and acquaintance who work on the Hill and whose work assignments include US Middle East policy.* *This longtime observer of Congress and former staffer has been somewhat pleasantly surprised by the strong reaction of some Congressional aides to last week’s events on the Hill and the rapid changes happening across the Middle East.

Congressional staff reactions to the Obama and Netanyahu AIPAC speeches and particularly the Israeli PM’s speech to Congress is strong and leads to the tentative conclusion that the effects the Arab Spring are being felt in both Houses of Congress as well as numerous support agencies such as the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress.

Many House and Senate staffers identify with those of similar age who have taken to the streets across the Middle East*,* who are thought of as courageous, smart and reasonable. They also understand that the Arab Awakening of 2011 is an historic game changer and they are often deeply sympathetic and supportive. Perhaps because of their knowledge of the issues, they express abhorrence to the Zionist falsehoods and disinformation that comes from AIPAC offices at the bottom of Capitol Hill and some of which were repeated by Netanyahu in their workplace.

Virtually all Congressional staffers who objected to Netanyahu’s appearance before Congress expressed rejection of his following assertions as ludicrously false:

• “Of 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights.”

• “Throughout the millennial history of the Jewish capital, the only time that Jews, Christians and Muslims could worship freely, could have unfettered access to their holy sites, has been during Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem.”

• “In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers.”

• “In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli prime ministers to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six-Day War.”

• “We have helped the Palestinian economic growth by removing hundreds of barriers and roadblocks to the free flow of goods and people, and the results have been nothing short of remarkable.”

• “The Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.”

• “They (Palestinians) continue to educate their children to hate.”

• “A nuclear armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.”



*How Netanyahu received his “speech of a lifetime” ovations*

Two staffers who work with the House Foreign Affairs Committee and who know the issue of Palestine very well and also how AIPAC operates on the Hill explained to this observer how Netanyahu’s “speech of a lifetime” was organized by AIPAC.

Firstly, orders were issued that nothing was to be left to chance and they essentially succeeded, but for the protesting slogans shouted by Rae Abileah before AIPAC undercover security tackled her and she ended up in the hospital, groped, injured and under arrest.



“Here is how Bibi got his “spontaneous” applause”, one and then the other explained. “AIPAC, as usual with visiting Israeli officials, edited his speech for most favorable local consumption. Marks were made at the end of intended applause lines for Bibi to highlight them verbally. Key Members such as Eric Cantor (R-VA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Harry Reid (D-NV) were designated as floor leaders and were seated in strategic locations in the Chamber. Once Bibi began his speech the floor leaders would leap up at the indicated cue phrases and begin to applaud enthusiastically. Quite naturally, others would follow either not wanting to appear impolite or to stand out and be noticed as not showing proper support for Israel and its Prime Minister.

“In addition, AIPAC staffers who prowl congressional offices daily, let it be known that videos of the Members listening to Bibi would be kept on file and insinuated that how the Member’s performed during his speech to Congress would be taken into consideration when planning this summer’s Jewish fundraising events.



One aide, who supports his boss’s “moderately pro-Palestinian positions”, defended his applause for Netanyahu with these words: “Look, my guy could not just sit there and be conspicuous. Of course he resents being forced to fake support for Israel’s insane policies that he believes harms our country. Believe me*,* many Members feel like him and many Hill staffers are disgusted by what we see. But the guy needs to keep his job to work on other issues like protecting Medicare and stopping home foreclosures. Plus not many of our constituents probably even watched him grovel on TV so it was kind of a freebie for us. What would you have done?”

A surprising number of Congressional staffers explain that they feel they are stigmatized abroad and particularly in the Middle East as being part of the Israel lobby when they are not. One staffer explained: “This sounds arrogant but we who work in Congress know this subject much better than the general American public and when you understand the history of Palestine and its takeover by Europeans and the continuing ethnic cleansing of the rightful owners of the land, how do you think we feel? We feel the same as the Palestinians refugees spread all around the World feel. We* *are human beings too. Arab and foreign media often lump us with the Members of Congress, whereas in reality many of us are working for change.”

One lady, whose job it is to summarize and update Arab-Israeli conflict developments for her boss who is a Senator from the Midwest explained that “sometimes AIPAC sees what I write and will contact and challenge me on my work that should be between me and my boss. Everyone knows that Members of Congress are regularly pressured and targeted by AIPAC. You should know that dozens of staffers have been fired from their jobs on the Hill during the 15 years I have been here. I may be next.” And then she added, “But until that day comes I will continue to support the Palestinian cause and work to change our foreign policy and see that it’s made in the USA and not in Tel Aviv.”

NOVANEWS

COMMING SOON ON SHOAH PRESS RELEASE WEST MIDLAND PALESTINE SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN PSC ZIONIST LINK

Dear Friends,

‘Today in Palestine’ is always informative about events the West Bank and Gaza.  The first part of today’s compilation has several analyses of the significance of opening the Rafa crossing, and what it will not bring.  Do please read some of these, and then at least glance through the rest.

Following the link to ‘Today in Palestine’ are 3 perceptive and somewhat unusual critiques of Netanyahu’s speech to Congress.

That’s it for tonight.

All the best,

Dorothy

==============================================

1. http://www.theheadlines.org/11/27-05-11.shtml

=============================

2.  The Daily Beast

May23, 2011

Netanyahu’s Bizarre Response to Obama’s Palestinian Proposal

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-23/benjamin-netanyahus-bizarre-response-to-obamas-proposal-for-negotiations-with-palestinians/?cid=outbrain%3Aexternal&obref=obnetwork#

by Peter Beinart Info

President Obama’s parameters for a new round of Mideast peace talks were designed to head off U.N. recognition of a Palestinian state based strictly on 1967 borders—which would be catastrophic for Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu’s immediate rejection of the plan suggests he has no grasp of the real world. Plus, Andrew Sullivan on Bibi and Barack’s dangerous chess game.

A sailor throws a drowning man a life preserver. How dare you, screams the man. Because of you, people are going to think I can’t swim.

That about sums up the relationship between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu. In a few months, the U.N. General Assembly will vote, probably overwhelmingly, to recognize a Palestinian state along Israel’s 1967 borders. No one knows exactly what will happen after that, but from the Israeli government’s point of view, it won’t be good. According to international law, Israel will be occupying a sovereign nation. The result will likely be a bonanza of lawsuits, divestment campaigns and cancelled business deals. Israelis will feel more and more besieged. More and more of the country’s educated, tech-savvy young will realize you can get pretty good falafel in Menlo Park.

Last week, Obama threw Netanyahu a lifeline. He outlined the parameters that should guide Israeli-Palestinian negotiations: the 1967 border, plus land swaps. Obama’s strategy was clear: He promised to veto the Palestinians’ bid for statehood at the U.N. Security Council, but also hoped that by getting the Israeli government to endorse a contiguous Palestinian state in almost all of the West Bank, he could persuade the Palestinians to abandon their United Nations strategy in favor of a return to negotiations. And even if the Palestinians wouldn’t budge, Israel’s acceptance of Obama’s guidelines would make it easier to persuade European governments to oppose the Palestinians at the U.N.

Netanyahu’s response was, on its face, bizarre. The 1967 borders, he shot back, were “indefensible.” But Obama had not demanded a return to 1967 borders; he had very explicitly endorsed the 1967 borders with land swaps, which is essentially what Bill Clinton endorsed in late 2000 and Ehud Olmert endorsed in 2008. (In fact, Clinton and Olmert went further than Obama: Both endorsed a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and in different ways, signaled an openness to the return of small numbers of Palestinian refugees to Israel).

• Leslie H. Gelb: Obama’s Historic Mideast GambleBut that was only the beginning of the weirdness of Netanyahu’s response, because if Israel’s 1967 border is indefensible against conventional attack, land swaps of the sort that Clinton and Olmert envisaged actually make the problem worse. The settlement of Ariel, which Olmert hoped to swap for land inside Israel, juts like a bony finger 13 miles into the northern West Bank. According to the 2003 Geneva Initiative, keeping Maale Adumim, another large settlement for which Israel might swap land, requires a thin land bridge across a Palestinian state to Jerusalem.

Netanyahu talks a lot about Palestinian violence, but he seems utterly flummoxed by Palestinian nonviolence.

Charles Dharapak / AP Photo

How on earth would keeping these islands of Jewish settlement make Israel’s borders more defensible? To the contrary, if Israel ever did suffer a conventional attack from the West Bank, one of the first things it would do is evacuate places like Ariel and Maale Adumim, precisely because their location makes them, well, indefensible.

Over the course of his career, Benjamin Netanyahu has written a lot about what he considers “defensible borders” for Israel, and his definition has always included far more than just a few land swaps. Again and again, he has demanded an Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley, Israeli control of the hills overlooking key Palestinian cities and Israeli access to the major thoroughfares of the West Bank.

In other words, Netanyahu’s long career offers no indication that he would support a sovereign, contiguous Palestinian state along 1967 lines even with land swaps. What’s more, he has ruled out negotiating with any Palestinian government that includes Hamas, ruled out the return of even one Palestinian refugee, and demanded that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a “Jewish state,” something Ehud Barak never demanded in 2000. The result is that he has made it easy for the Palestinians to eschew negotiations and stick with their U.N. strategy. Obama threw him a lifeline and he has defiantly tossed it back.

It makes you wonder whether Netanyahu has any grasp of the world in which he is living.

Does he seriously believe that the Obama administration, having ignominiously failed to get Israel to accept negotiations based upon the 1967 lines, can strong-arm the Europeans into opposing a Palestinian state at the U.N.? Does he have any strategy for the “diplomatic tsunami”—in Ehud Barak’s words—that is about to hit? He talks a lot about Palestinian violence, but he seems utterly flummoxed by Palestinian nonviolence. Yes, the Palestinians still produce rockets and suicide bombers. But in the Netanyahu era, their focus has moved decisively toward peaceful marches, boycotts and appeals to international law. They are playing on the world’s sympathy and the world’s impatience, and in that effort, this Israeli prime minister is the best friend they could have.

Over the last few days, Netanyahu has defied the president of the United States and forced him, once again, to retreat. He has won Washington. If only he realized that Washington is no longer the world.

Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, is associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. His new book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, is now available from HarperCollins. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.

==========================

3.  Haaretz,

May 27, 2011

One more victory like that and Israel is done for

A failure of the peace process is not an option. The status quo cannot be maintained. True friends tell each other the truth.

By Yoel Marcus

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could have read the phone book at the Congress podium and received the same standing ovation. His speech used the advice Moshe Sneh gave to himself. The late MK wrote on the draft of one of his speeches “weak argument, raise voice.”

There’s no question Bibi knew exactly which points in his speech would make the Congressmen rise to their feet in tumultuous applause. After all, that was his objective in the first place: to begin his bizarre visit to America by embarrassing President Barack Obama and end it by outflanking him with Congress’ applause. It was no coincidence that he was complimented by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely.

So according to the Government Press Office, Netanyahu knows the 1,200 words of the U.S. Declaration of Independence by heart, but he hasn’t changed his opinions since he published the second edition of his book “A Place Under the Sun” in 2001. Journalist Shalom Yerushalmi, who compared the forewords of the two editions, didn’t discover any change in Netanyahu’s view that a Palestinian state is a strategic disaster, that Jordan is actually Palestine and that any withdrawal exacerbates the situation.

As far as he’s concerned, the speech in Congress was a declaration of intentions. But the issues raised are clearly unacceptable to the Palestinians; for example, that Jerusalem will never be divided and Israel must maintain a military presence along the Jordan River. As someone who presumably appears a man of peace, he didn’t discuss the thorniest problems.

This speech deepened the rift between us and the Palestinians by conditioning the negotiations’ chances of success on issues where Congress is unable to help. When it comes to conducting policy, there’s a total separation between the executive branch and Congress. Look how many times Congress decided to transfer the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

Well, have you seen them packing their things at the embassy on Hayarkon Street in Tel Aviv?

What did Bibi actually want when he organized an appearance in Congress for himself, near the date of the Jewish lobby’s conference in Washington? Some observers say he wanted to put pressure on Obama, who is entering an election period, so that he would adopt Israel’s positions. The public hazing of Obama in front of the media at the end of their meeting was embarrassing.

Douglas Bloomfield, AIPAC’s long-time legislative director, writes in his blog that if Bibi is betting on Obama being a one-term president, he’s not as smart as he thinks. At the same time, Gary Rosenblatt, editor of The Jewish Week, describes the White House incident as a “hasbara disaster” – a public relations disaster. The strategic relationship between the United States and Israel is stronger than ever, Bloomfield writes, but the political alliance suffered an unnecessary blow last week, when in front of journalists Bibi distorted what Obama had told him in private.

At the AIPAC conference the president was tough on the Palestinians. He promised to act in Europe to stop the declaration of a Palestinian state at the United Nations; he said including Hamas in the Palestinian government was a serious obstacle, and he didn’t accompany that with a demand to freeze construction in the settlements. His adviser Stephen Hadley said Obama is pressuring the Palestinians to show that they are willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, in order to negotiate with it.

Obama used all the friendly expressions presidents use – the close relations between the two countries and the profound commitment to maintain Israeli security and prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. As someone who wasn’t especially connected to the Jews during his political career, Obama was moderate despite everything said against him in Israel under the inspiration of the right wing. He’s not a vengeful president, even if he isn’t in love with us.

He’s a rational president who knows what’s good for world peace, and above all, he’s devoted to doing justice. Aspiring to a Middle East that will not be ruled by dictators who murder their own people, he counts us among the good guys and wishes us well. A failure of the peace process is not an option. The status quo cannot be maintained. True friends tell each other the truth.

So as the clouds of September approach, we have a problem with Bibi’s savoir faire. A victory with the tricks and shticks of someone who finds it hard to drop the dream of a Greater Israel is leading us to destruction

=============================================

4.  Al Jazeera,

May 27, 2011

Kindly remain seated

Not much in Netanyahu’s speech to Congress came as a surprise, but many were shocked by the thunderous applause.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/2011525131134462262.html

Lamis Andoni

Israeli prime minister Netanyahu was given more standing ovations in his address to Congress than Obama received for his 2011 State of the Union address [EPA]

Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu must have felt more at home speaking to the US Congress than when he addressed the Israeli parliament: Had he made the same speech at the Knesset, he would have been repeatedly cut off by members – Arabs and Jews alike – objecting to the extremist positions and claims that could only appeal to the Israeli far right.

But in the warm arms of the US Congress, he got away with alleging that Jewish settlers – living in illegal settlements – in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are not occupiers, that the West Bank (using the biblical Judea and Samaria) is not occupied territory, that a united Jerusalem is the eternal capital of Israel and that Israel should be recognised as “a Jewish state”.

In Israel, at least, a few of the Knesset members would have interrupted Netanyahu’s rhetorical hubris, reminding him that the West Bank and Gaza are under Israeli occupation, that settlers should leave the illegal settlements and that his talk about recognising Israel as a Jewish state was downright racist. Sure enough, there was more criticism of Netanyahu’s speech in the Israeli media than in any US newspaper.

But in Washington, Netanyahu was the unchallenged king of Capitol Hill. Members of the US Congress reacted to every utterance Netanyahu made with warm applause, if not standing ovation. The representatives of the people of the US are either ignorant to the facts or immune to notions of equality and justice that would have otherwise guided them to react with outrage at Netanyahu’s brazen declarations.

It was shocking, almost surreal, watching the smiling faces of Congressmen and Senators enthralled at Netanyahu’s glorification of the subjugation of another people under the yoke of military oppression. It was the equivalent of celebrating the war of extermination of Native Americans, slavery and racial segregation all at once.

US president Barack Obama just loves to repeatedly stress “the shared values” between the US and Israel that create “an ironclad” American commitment to Israel. Of course, by making such assertions, Obama is extolling the values of freedom, equality and justice that he believes are part of the American heritage.

But these are not the values that describe either US policy towards the Israeli-Arab conflict or the Israeli dispossession of the Palestinian people – let alone the joint US-Israeli military partnership to ensure the continuity of a deadly occupation. The “values” of this alliance are not rooted in the American war of independence or the civil rights movement but rather invoke the darker side of US history and present world policies.

Yes, there are shared Israeli-American “values” that Netanyahu understood so well when he was confidently making a speech that showed utter disdain to the humanity of the Palestinians. Netanyahu was invoking the imperial notions that led to the US wars in Korea and Vietnam, the war in Afghanistan and the invasion and occupation of Iraq – to list some American military misadventures.

He was also appealing to the naked political ambition of members who want to ensure their re-election and to safeguard their seats on Capitol Hill. But the total disregard of the US Congress to the humanity of the Palestinians is not solely an indication of the influence the pro-Israeli lobby has in Washington.

That was more than evident at the annual conference of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) – where all key leaders of the Senate and the Congress unabashedly competed to prove their support for Israel. There is also no doubt that the last congressional elections produced some of the most pro-Israeli and at times blatantly right-wing members and leaders of the US Congress and Senate.

Take, for example, Congressional majority leader Eric Cantor, who in his speech to AIPAC summarised the whole history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by blaming Arab culture:

Sadly it [Arab culture] is a culture infused with resentment and hatred. But it is this culture that underlies the Palestinians’ and the broader Arab world’s refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. And this, this [repeated for emphasis], is the root of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, it is not about the ’67 line.

Needless to say, Cantor would not get away with such a blatantly racist statement about any other culture. Cantor does not only dismiss the Palestinian people’s struggle for freedom, but he is effectively asking the Palestinians to renounce their own rights and history. The Israeli stipulation to accept its right to exist – as a Jewish state, no less – is not based in international law, and is basically a demand that Palestinians negate themselves and submit to their Israeli-determined fate.

Support for such a demand to recognise Israel is only understandable if it is backed by overtly racist members of the US and the Congress. For such a pronouncement to be endorsed by at least the majority of the two houses is equivalent to declaring that the US should be recognised as a “white state”.

But the fact that a sitting African American president has enthusiastically adopted such a racist demand has made legitimate for all to accept – unquestioning its meaning or implications.

It seems, however, that Arabs are treated in a totally different category, where values of equality need not apply.

Only in one of the illegal settlements in the West Bank or East Jerusalem could have Netanyahu enjoyed such a love fest as the one that unfolded on Capitol Hill.

Indeed, maybe the US Congress would feel more at home in one of those settlements, where they both share common American-Israeli values, such as a narrow and distorted world view that encourages intolerance.

Lamis Andoni is an analyst and commentator on Middle Eastern and Palestinian affairs.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.