Crossing The Lobby

As reported in yesterday’s Al Jazeera, President Barack Obama’s selection for the Head of the US National Intelligence Council, Charles “Chas” Freeman, has resigned from his appointment accusing the Israel Lobby in the United States of plumbing “the depths of dishonour and indecency” in its all-out character assassination campaign launched over the past several weeks.

Following a number of libelous e-mails sent in a rare ‘mass coordinated’ campaign to supporters sympathetic to the Israel Lobby, Freeman said on Tuesday:

“The tactics of the Israel lobby plumb the depths of dishonour and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the wilful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth.

“The aim of this lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favours.”

The resignation is not only a setback for Barack Obama (as yet another chosen appointee has backed out of a high profile position), but again highlights that lobby organizations such as AIPAC (American-Israel Public Affairs Committee) retain considerable power and influence even within Obama’s radically updated administration.

As we have witnessed in elite American politics, crossing the interests of lobby groups like AIPAC can spell political disaster - with most pundits speculating the recent attacks were engineered to not only remind the adminstration of the group’s influence, but to serve as a ‘warning’ to undecided US Senators facing difficult re-election campaigns.

Freeman has been a target of the Israel Lobby since his 2007 ‘pro-Palestinian’ statements, including his remarks that “the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by Israeli occupation shows no sign of ending.”

It is worth noting that the above relatively ‘mild’ statements - which we in Europe would view as almost commonplace amongst journalists and politicans - can create such political turmoil in the United States. Moving forward, Barack Obama’s ‘New America’ will ultimately be defined by its ability to face harsh internal friction from lobby groups such as AIPAC - if not, the ‘new’ adminstration will look awfully similar to the old.

Netanyahu, Obama, and Peace in 2009

One step forward, two steps back. Unfortunately that is the sentiment today when reading through some of the latest reports from inside Israel and across the political spectrum.

To begin with, I encourage you to read an enlightening summary editorial in yesterday’s UK Guardian discussing the real prospects for peace in light of both the Obama Presidential victory and the ongoing uncertainty of the Israeli political system.

Let’s look at the facts:

1) A 5-month ceasefire with Hamas in Gaza has all but disintegrated; with now almost daily reports coming in of Israeli retaliation for the symbolic Qassam rocket attacks originating from the Gaza borders.

2) Fatah and Hamas have renewed their friction, with PA President Mahmoud Abbas threatening to call an early election designed to oust Hamas once and for all.

3) Frightening though it sounds, there is now the very real (if not probable) chance of Likud winning the next election on February 10th. This means a return of Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu (a man who will immediately abolosh any talks around the West Bank and Jerusalem - and will almost certainly accelerate additional settlements and extension of the now infamous separation barrier).

Never one to voice support for an Israeli politician (much less a member of Ariel Sharon’s hobbled Kadima party), but unless rival Tzipi Livni closes the gap in Israeli opinion from the hardline right, we must face the very real prospect of a return to Likud-style oppresion of the West Bank and Gaza (perhaps on a scale even worse than the years experienced under Sharon).

Lest we forget, it was Netanyahu who opposed the withdrawl from Gaza. And to help contrast his politics with that of Sharon, check out this chilling quote made at the time of Sharon’s plan to return control of Gaza to the Palestinian leadership:

Sharon gave and gave and gave, the Palestinians got and got and got, and my question is, what did we get? Nothing and nothing and nothing.

Point of order: this is Sharon we are talking about here!

There can be no illusion, Israel is heading back to the politics of 2000; back to the sparks that ignited the Second Intifada and that now threaten to extend that conflict well into 2010. What electricty we all shared at an Obama victory should (yet again) be tempered and restrained. With Netanyahu in power, there is little the new President will affect or ‘change’ in this part of the world. And now more than ever, we should fear the escalating of tensions between Israel and Iran (a country Netanyahu has repeatedly threatened with a preemptive strike - a claim that may well prove true once he takes power in February).

Those are the facts. And so is this: frightening times are ahead, rather than behind.

I’ll close this post with a quote from an exceptional piece by Gideon Livy in today’s Ha’aretz aptly titled ‘Israel Elects Its Bush‘:

Netanyahu will once again deceive, Obama will keep his distance due to other urgent problems, opportunities will be missed and the fire will flare up again. This is what we want, and this is what we will get. Nonetheless, the inauspicious polls do contribute one thing: They rip off the disguise. An Israel that votes Likud does not want peace - no ifs, ands or buts.

Obama’s First Act as President-Elect

It pains me to write a negative post about Barack Obama following such an historic and moving victory this week - one that actually had me feeling proud of America (for perhaps the first time in my life).

Unfortunately, as predicted in earlier posts, the real change is yet to come, and I’m less than pleased to see President-Elect Barack Obama’s first major act this week has been the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as his White House Chief-of-Staff.

Many pundits regard this position as not only a key first appointment, but as perhaps one of the most powerful positions in the administration.

(sigh)

Here are the facts. Emanuel is the son of hardline Israel sympathizers who spent a great deal of the 1940’s helping to smuggle weapons to the Irgun Zionist militia (including weapons used in the bombing of the King David hotel in 1946). He volunteered to help support the Israeli army during the first Gulf War in 1991, and maintains close and deep ties to AIPAC - ties that include accompanying (and coaching?) Obama during his infamous speech to the political action committtee in June.

Emanuel’s own father was quoted this week in the Israel paper, Ma’ariv as saying:

Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.

During his time in Congress, Emanuel has often been described as more pro-Israel than even Bush himself - most notably in June 2003, he signed a letter criticizing Bush for being ‘insufficiently supportive of Israel’. The further content of this letter was to validate Israel’s use of assassination tactics against Palestinian leadership targets.

Could there be a clearer sign of the new administration’s stance toward Israel and the Palestinians? Needless to say, this is extremely disappointing regardless of the election euphoria that still remains.

We’ll be watching subsequent appointments very carefully…

Israel: 1

Palestine: 0

Obama & Illegal Israeli Settlements

Short of Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain uncovering a torrid love affair between Senator Barack Obama and a gay terrorist, by this time next week we will be discussing the impending Obama Administration and the plans for improving America’s International standing both in the Middle East and throughout the globe.

Desperate to shore up the Jewish vote in the United States, Obama supporters have purchased significant airtime in Israel to convince their American expats that Obama is ‘good’ for Israel. The following ‘infomercial’ is therefore worth watching (if only to see the radical methods being employed to reassure Israelis - and their supporters in the U.S. - that an Obama Presidency is not a threat to Israel’s status quo):

The bigger issue facing the next American President, however, is the plan for establishing peace throughout the region and reviving the now almost totally defunct ‘2-State Solution’ - a plan that realistically seems preposterous given the non-contiguous situation in the West Bank where settlements, bypass roads, and checkpoints continue to expand.

Look - we all have high hopes for an Obama-led ‘global change management’ initiative, but its worth remembering what it has taken to get Obama into this position in the first place (and who he will have to appease accordingly). We all know the unfortunate speech he was ‘forced’ to make to AIPAC on the day following his securing of the Democratic Nomination (and from the video above, the price that will need to be paid to the Israel Lobbyists).

More importantly, looking back through history, how successful have U.S. Presidents ever been in attempting to halt the settlement situation in the West Bank (and thus enable any form of lasting peace or a viable Palestinian State)? For an excellent overview of what Obama faces, and what his predecessors have faced, take a look at this brief video from Al Jazeera:

Writing this with the greatest desire to see Obama lead America from next January, it is important to remain realistic - and all the more crucial to realize that the true fight for ‘change’ is only just beginning.

Can Palin Possibly Be For Real?

Taking a side glance into the US Presidential Race, it is very difficult not to say a few words about the new Republican Vice Presidential Nominee, Sarah Palin. After forcing myself to struggle through the 11 or so minutes of complete blithering nonsense in her recent interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson (see below), I was struck by just how well she has proven her credentials. Please, have a look:

I was going to supply both clips - but honestly, I don’t have the stomach for it. So back to those credentials. Lack of foreign policy exposure? She lives in Alaska, stupid! Ahem, in case you didn’t know, that’s real close to Russia.

Hasn’t travelled widely and met ‘them there’ foreigners out in the big ol’ world? She’s been to Mexico AND Canada! I mean, like, leave her alone. She’s a maverick after all.

And perhaps her most striking credential - drum roll, please - she pronounces ‘nuclear’ the proper way! That’s right, ‘nuk-u-ler’. What a tiger! I’m no Republican, so I had better stop this blog post before these credentials creep out and further boost her poll standings.

Back on Planet Earth, I will close with an outstanding summation from Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian

For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, “historical decline”.

But hey, she IS TOTALLY experienced! Who is writing this stuff…

Gaza Activists in Trouble

This will fly under the radar of most news reporting this weekend (as Obama’s selection of Joe Biden as his Vice-Presidential running mate will doubtless scoop up all media attention), but this is a very important story to note for those concerned about Gaza, and more importantly free protest and demonstration.

According to Al Jazeera, Israel’s Foreign Minister Aviv Shiron has issued threats to two vessels from the ‘Free Gaza’ Protest Group, who are attempting to land in Gaza to deliver balloons and hearing aids. Let me repeat that threatening cargo - balloons (for children) and hearing aids (for the hard of hearing).

There are rumours the Israeli Navy may even fire upon the ships as they enter the Gaza coast in the next few hours. Lauren Booth (Tony Blair’s Sister-in-Law) is actually aboard one of the vessels steaming toward Gaza under Greek flags, and has been quoted as saying:

I’ve been nervous, but today I’m excited. It’s not about our fear, it’s about the people waiting in Gaza, you can’t think about anything else.

Forget about this VP-selection news vortex you are about to enter, and keep your eyes on the Gaza coast - it’s important.

Obama in Sderot

We have a saying in the UK when someone blatantly takes advantage of a situation, performs an outlandishly hypocritical act, or acts without thought as to the broader impact of his/her actions. And that saying is ‘cheek’. I am less than pleased to report that the presumptive Democratic Nominee for President, Barack Obama has shown exceptional ‘cheek’ this week by traveling (by military helicopter mind you) alongside Tzipi Livni to the Gaza border town of Sderot to inspect the damage wrought by the Qassam rocket attacks.

So much about this bothers me, I’m really not sure where to begin. Let us first listen to his words:

I think that no country would accept missiles landing on the heads of its citizens.

I came to Sderot with a commitment to Israel’s security. Israel has the right to defend itself, and peace should not undermine its security.

…if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that.

I know he is looking for some votes - but the nerve to visit Sderot (with just a flying visit to Ramallah - where no such statements were made) and again speak out against the daily misery of border settlers who have chosen (!) to live in this location and who are not caged or bound - or worse - imprisoned by the military, shows a level of ‘cheek’ here-to-fore unimaginable.

Let us not forget that Obama was the one Presidential hopeful strong enough to speak out against the violence and misery perpetrated on the Palestinian people. Where is that leader now? Are we to assume he will return once elected?

A very dangerous game continues to unfold…can votes possibly be worth this?

AIPAC Steals The Show

Today marks the first day Barack Obama can be formally be addressed as the Democratic Nominee for President of the United States. Unfortunately it also marks the day of his first speech to AIPAC as the potential new leader of America.

I’m torn (and slightly hesitant) in this post between stating the obvious disappointment in the necessity of such an idealistic campaign (founded on change and a clear break from the politics of the past) to feel the need to reach out to an archaic and hostile group like AIPAC on what is surely one of the most historical days in American politics - and ranting about the almost surreal dance all American politics and future Chief Executives feel they must perform in the face of the Israel Lobby.

On the one hand, it is about being elected. In America it is next to impossible to gain executive office without profound support from groups such as AIPAC and the Jewish National Fund. On the other, it is about truth - and in that truth, lies the definition of idealism.

After visiting Palestine - spending time in the West Bank, and seeing the racially motivated policies of Israel first-hand on the ground both within the Green Line and in the Occupied Territories- it is difficult to agree with the statement that Israel is “an example for all when it seeks a more perfect future.”

Alas, we must all the play the game - and Barack Obama is forced to play the greatest and most costly of them all. We can only hope he comes out with his innocence, and with that dream; that vision of change (we all hope is true) still intact.

AIPAC - Let the Wooing Commence

The presumptive Presidential Nominees John McCain and Barack Obama will be making addresses to the American Israel Public Action Committee (AIPAC), the pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington this week - McCain today (Monday), and Obama tomorrow. Just how crucial AIPAC’s support to presidential elections has become could not be more apparent as both candidates have sparred indirectly on their affinities for Israel and Jewish culture expansively in the last few weeks, with the latest evidence surfacing about their Jewish reading habits - Obama listing one of his favourite authors as Philip Roth and McCain opting for the safer bet in Elie Wiesel.

Why this level of scrutiny and analysis on favourite Jewish authors? Why are the candidates Arab reading lists not published or discussed? And why has there been no meaningful debate about the Israel Lobby, AIPAC or the Palestinian question during these elections?

Just what is AIPAC and how powerful is this lobby in Washington? For an excellent overview on the group’s power and influence, please take the time to view the following Dutch documentary program “Tegenlicht” about the Israel lobby in the USA, created as a result of the controversy fueled by Mearsheimer and Walt’s “The Israel Lobby” article:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878

It is important American voters understand the sources and interests of this aggressive Political Action Committee - and what that means to America, the electoral system, and the future of U.S. policy in the Middle East.

For a more succinct review of the impact of AIPAC on this U.S. Presidential Election (and total lack of debate on the Israel/Palestine Issue during the primaries), see Ralph Nader’s recent comments below:

Obama: “Israel a Vibrant Democracy”

It has been difficult to avoid addressing some unfortunate comments made this week by the presumptive Democratic Nominee for U.S. President, Barack Obama.

Forced to bow to the influential and vindictive eye of America’s Israel Lobby (groups such as AIPAC and The Jewish National Fund), and to try and fend off any damage to suggestions his campaign is championed by Hamas, Obama sat down with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic - with a few disappointing comments including:

I think the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land.

It’s striking that these comments paralleling life for African Americans over recent years - exodus, feelings of being uprooted, treated as a second-class citizens, afforded unequal rights, outright prejudice, and overcoming great odds - are linked with Israelis and not Palestinians. It is a stunning metaphor that completely avoids the obvious. Obama goes on to mention:

When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.”

That is in fact, one of only two instances of the word ‘Palestinian’ being used in the entire interview. Finally, perhaps the most disturbing quote:

Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East.

Vibrant? Let’s talk for a moment about Arab citizens living within the State of Israel. We’ll leave aside Palestinians in the occupied territories of West Bank and Gaza for the moment. A ‘democracy’ as defined by it’s Greek origin means “equal rights and power to all a state’s citizens”. Let’s hold onto that definition as we look at a few facts about Arab citizens of Israel living within the State. Simply by virtue of not being born Jewish, Israeli ‘citizens’ of Arab descent living in cities like Nazareth or Umm al-Fahm enjoy the following rights:

• 20% less State funded child allowance for Arab families vs. Jewish families - enacted to discourage the Arab birthrate in favour of the threatened Jewish birthrate.
• Since 1948, the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians expelled from their homes have been refused the right of return to Israel; whereas Israeli citizenship is automatically available to any Jew anywhere in the world.
• An Israeli Arab marrying a Palestinian from the West Bank or Gaza must endure a lengthy and improbable path to citizenship - and in most cases can never live together. Thousands of families have been similarly split by a 2003 ban on Palestinians in the West Bank from reuniting with their families inside Israel.
• Frightening disparities in education- Israel operates two distinct school systems: one for Jewish Israelis, one for Arab Israelis. In almost all cases, Arab children are forced to travel long distances (if school is even available), endure overcrowded class sizes, frequently lack basic learning facilities like libraries, computers, science labs, and recreation space - and conduct class in shoddy, unsafe buildings. This is discrimination at its most basic. Read this article from Human Rights Watch for more info.
• Less than 8 percent of the country’s civil service workforce is made up of Israeli Palestinians.
• A new law approved in 2007, included banning Arabs from buying land controlled by the Jewish National Fund, a quasi-governmental group that was founded before the state of Israel to buy and develop land in Palestine.
• Another bill makes eligibility for national insurance benefits dependent on completing military service. Arabs for the most part do not serve in Israel’s military (as it is only compulsory for Jewish citizens).
  
• Two rights groups documented the killing of 41 Arabs by Israeli police or in “racist attacks” by Jews and security guards since 2000. Of those, only one suspected killer has been indicted.

This is not the occupied territories - this is within the ‘green line’ of Israel itself!

Israel is not a democracy of ‘all its citizens’ but rather, a democracy of a group of citizens. Sounds a lot like America before civil rights, or South Africa during Apartheid. And Obama should know better. He is clearly America’s best chance come November by a wide margin, and he is much too intelligent to be cornered by the media and the Israeli Lobby into making such statements.

A “vibrant democracy”? Very disappointing indeed.