The pro-Israeli lobby drowns out any pro-Palestinian calls for change in American foreign policy [GALLO/GETTY]
On the surface it appears that president Obama has given up on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and, frankly, given the evidence, it is difficult imagining that there is something different beneath the surface. To wit:
Special Envoy George Mitchell resigned, clearly angry at the lack of support his peace efforts received from the White House – and his resignation letter was about as curt and cold as any in recent memory. The announcement of his resignation followed reports that the president’s Thursday speech on the Middle East will, amazingly, say virtually nothing about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A day after Mitchell’s resignation came news that the president had decided that he will speak at this month’s AIPAC conference, the traditional setting for pandering to the Israeli government and, more significantly, to Israel-centred political donors.
The most significant sign that the president has abandoned any pretence of being an “honest broker” in favour of gung-ho support for the status quo came in February, when Obama instructed UN ambassador Susan Rice to veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlement expansion.
The resolution incorporated Obama’s own policy on settlements, so the decision to veto it – the US cast the only no vote – sent a clear signal that, at least until after November 2012, the Obama administration intends to avoid deviation from the AIPAC/Netanyahu blueprint.
This seeming decision to go “all AIPAC, all the time” would be jarring even if 2011 were not the year of the Arab Spring. Just weeks ago, the administration was celebrating Arab democracy and even the fall of our long time ally, Hosni Mubarak. Now it is blatantly adopting a policy that deeply grieves the very Arab democrats it supposedly champions.
The lobby’s (and, apparently, the administration’s) response to that would be that the Arab Spring was not about Israel/Palestine, that not one demonstrator took to the streets to protest Israel’s continued occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well as the de facto occupation (and blockade) of Gaza.
Palestine: The ultimate non-democracy
And that is true. All the Arab revolutions were local. But, as the administration surely knows, the one non-local issue that all Arab democrats care about is the continued occupation. And why not?
After all, the ultimate in non-democracy is having one’s life controlled, not by a domestic despot, but by a foreign government.
The president knows that hatred for the occupation is common to all Muslims – Iranian, Indonesian, Egyptian, Iraqi, whatever, and with good reason (add to that list Israeli moderates, who hate what the occupation is doing, not only to Palestinians, but to their country).
Beyond all that, any US president has to consider what the US military thinks about the occupation. It’s not just general Petraeus who believes that the occupation is a threat to US national security or that it endangers our personnel throughout the Muslim world and our energy supplies. That is a common view among the brass and the civilians alike.
In short, there is nothing good about perpetuating the occupation, and president Obama knows it. On the contrary, the occupation (and the illegal settlements that are its symbol) is a dangerous blight on Arabs, Israelis, and the United States.
So what accounts for president Obama’s seeming policy of indifference?
That is a question that doesn’t need any answer beyond the fact that at the very moment, the White House is abandoning peacemaking – the president is rushing to AIPAC to deliver the news in person. America’s Middle East policy is all about appeasing a few dozen AIPAC-connected donors (no, it is not about the “Jewish vote”, which is consistently Democratic – average 75 per cent – based around domestic issues, not the Middle East).
The president seems to be going out of his way to make sure everyone understands that. It is as if he were saying, “With AIPAC donors – and Democrats in Congress who get their marching orders from AIPAC – what choice do I have? I’m boxed in.”
But why would he do that?
“I can’t hear you”
Why would he want to send the message that he can’t implement the policies he wants to because he is trapped by special interests? Just maybe, he wants our help.
In 2007, the day after Obama declared his candidacy for president, I met with him in his office (I was then working for Israel Policy Forum). Obama listened carefully while I explained why it was critical that he be an “honest broker” on Israel-Palestinian issues. Nothing I said, including my opinions of AIPAC’s influence, would surprise anyone who reads my columns.
The bottom line was that the occupation was terrible for the United States, for Israel, and most of all for the Palestinians, and that he should understand that the status quo lobbyists who defend everything Israel does are not representative of the Jewish community or anyone else.
Obama listened, cupped his ear, and said, “I can’t hear you.”
I didn’t understand; I was sitting right next to him.
He then said: “No, not literally. I mean that I don’t hear from people like you. But I hear from AIPAC [he then named the local AIPAC leader in Chicago] every week. I’m going to be president and, when I am, it is your job – you and all the people who feel the way you do – to make sure I hear that message. You cannot simply rely on the belief that you are right. You need to raise your voice so that I hear you and not just them.”
So maybe, just maybe, the president wants us to shout and holler about what appears to be a sell-out to AIPAC. After all, he is making no attempt to cover up what he’s doing or why he’s doing it. He only hears one voice.
Maybe Obama’s latest actions are a cry for help.
Yes, it’s just a theory. But it is infinitely better than thinking Obama actually believes that AIPAC’s status quo is in America’s interest. It just is not possible that this president could believe that.
It’s time to raise our voices so Obama can hear us, whether he still wants us to or not.
MJ Rosenberg is a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.
Reactions to Obama’s speech outlining his vision for the Middle East and North Africa.
President Obama touched upon a whole range of issues, from Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Syria and Iran [Reuters]
Reactions to Barack Obama’s speech on the Middle East and North Africa:
Robert Fisk – Renowned Journalist
It was the same old story… Israel cannot be deligitimised… No peace can be imposed on either party… It sounded like his pro-israeli speach to AIPAC.
It was a boring speech – very boring with lots of rhetoric about Arab revolutions which of course he did nothing to help.
Some of it was positively delusional! When he said we’ve broken the Taliban’s momentum – it’s delusional, it’s just not true.
Office of the Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu
Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of US commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress.
Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centres in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will make clear that the defence of Israel requires an Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.
Prime Minister Netanyahu will also express his disappointment over the Palestinian Authority’s decision to embrace Hamas, a terror organisation committed to Israel’s destruction, as well as over Mahmoud Abbas’s recently expressed views which grossly distort history and make clear that Abbas seeks a Palestinian state in order to continue the conflict with Israel rather than end it.
Saeb Erekat – Top Aide to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas
President Abbas expresses his appreciation to the efforts being exerted, the continuous efforts by president Obama with the objective of resuming the permanent status talks and the hope of reaching a final-status agreement in all core issues including Jerusalem and refugees.
Sami Abu Zuhri – Hamas spokesperson
We were expecting a lot more from Obama’s speech today regarding the Palestinians who suffer from the hardships of the occupation, and what the Israeli occupation does against the Palestinians. But Obama did not bring anything new.
What Obama needs to do is not to add slogans but to take concrete steps to protect the rights of the Palestinian people and the Arab nation.
The peoples of the region are not in need of Obama’s lectures. Obama reaffirmed his absolute support for the policies of the (Israeli) occupation and his rejection of any criticism of the Occupation.
We affirm that Palestinian reconciliation is a Palestinian affair and that the (peace) negotiations have proven to be pointless.
Hamas will never recognise the Israeli occupation under any circumstances.
Ezzedin Choukri-Fishere – Political Science Professor at the American University in Cairo
I think this goes substantially beyond what Obama said in his Cairo speech in 2009, where he merely set the tone for the new administration and talked about general principles of a new American policy towards the Arab world. I think this time he is coming up with a concrete indication of policy on the major issues the Arab world is facing. That is new and, in fact, it is about regaining leadership.
Essam al-Erian – Senior Member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
A disappointing speech. Nothing new. American strategy remains as is. American cover for dictatorial presidents, in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain remains as is. Perhaps the sharpest tone was towards Libya. American promises are just promises. There is no decisive decision to immediately withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan. Threatening Iran remains the same.
Shadi Hamid – Director of Research at the Brookings Center in Doha, Qatar (on Twitter)
My prediction on Obama’s (Middle East) speech: Arab leaders won’t like it much. Arab reformers won’t like it much.
This is the Obama style: Try to appeal to everyone & end up disappointing everyone.
Obama says US core interests align with Arab hopes. Well, why didn’t they align for five decades?
Obama says it will be US policy ‘to support reform across the region.’ Reform, of course, is not same thing as democracy.
Gigi Ibrahim – Egyptian Activist (on Twitter)
‘Commitment to friends and allies’ — commitment to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Abdulrahman Mostafa – Medical Student in Cairo, Egypt
Hopefully, we think that change in Egypt and the Arab world will change American policy by the power of people. And I think that people in the USA are starting to understand….
I think it should be emphasised that having aid for Egypt is something good, but also Egypt has it’s own foreign policy and I think the US should deal with Egypt not as a follower as the past, but as a partner. So if we have a common interest we can co-operate together to have our common interest and to exchange benefits.
Al Jazera and all the other Arab supporting countries and people will never understand what it is like to ALWAYS be under the gun. Hopefully, they will learn the hard way.
One thought on “Obama gives up, AIPAC wins”
Al Jazera and all the other Arab supporting countries and people will never understand what it is like to ALWAYS be under the gun. Hopefully, they will learn the hard way.