Obama and the Israel Lobby

[shaayecanaan]

The Right Wing Noise Machine all but accused Obama of trying to destroy Israel, with the GOP's leading presidential candidates condemning the President for the crime of "disrespecting" and "throwing Israel under the bus," Glenn Beck denouncing him for "betraying Israel," and Matt Drudge exploiting ignorance to screech in headlines that "Obama Sides With Palestinians." Meanwhile, a former AIPAC spokesman demanded that Obama take a renewed public pledge of devotion to Israel, and circulated to the media statements of condemnation from numerous "pro-Israel" Democrats in Congress. The neoconservative Israel-devotees at The Washington Post editorialized against Obama and predictably blamed him for the resulting tension with Netanyahu, siding (as usual) with this foreign government over their own. And a Reuters article this morning claims that "some prominent Jewish Americans are rethinking their support for President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election bid" due to that speech:

The backlash after Obama's keynote speech on the Middle East has Democratic Party operatives scrambling to mollify the Jewish community as the president prepares to seek a second term in the White House....

"I have spoken to a lot of people in the last couple of days -- former supporters -- who are very upset and feel alienated," billionaire real estate developer and publisher Mortimer Zuckerman said.

"He'll get less political support, fewer activists for his campaign, and I am sure that will extend to financial support as well."

*************

Worth a read, if only for the link to the rather extraordinary editorial that was published in the Washington Post:-

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html

[shaayecanaan]

1. The Onion story linked to is also worth a chuckle...

sort of a dry, rueful chuckle, but a chuckle nevertheless...

Government Official Who Makes Perfectly Valid, Well-Reasoned Point Against Israel Forced To Resign

WASHINGTON—State Department diplomat Nelson Milstrand, who appeared on CNN last week and offered an informed, thoughtful analysis implying that Israel could perhaps exercise more restraint toward Palestinian moderates in disputed territories, was asked to resign Tuesday. “The United States deeply regrets any harm Mr. Milstrand’s careful, even-tempered, and factually accurate remarks may have caused our democratic partner in the Middle East,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an unequivocal condemnation of the veteran foreign-service officer’s perfectly reasonable statements. “U.S. policy toward Israel continues to be one of unconditional support and fawning sycophancy.” Milstrand, 63, will reportedly appear at an AIPAC conference to offer a full apology as soon as his trial concludes and his divorce is finalized.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/government-official-who-makes-perfectly-valid-well,20499/

[Renew Deal]

2. Former Supporters like Mort Zuckerman?

Yes, I'm sure that's the case.

[Jefferson23]

3. shaay, Greenwald has a permalink so when you post it you'll end up

on the same OP, but in this case you have an addition from Glenn on the same subject:

Great American Patriots
Tuesday, May 24, 2011 15:25 ET


This morning, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint session of the U.S. Congress, just as the U.S. President does each year. Here is how the American Congress -- especially the super-patriots of the American Right -- reacted to their own President the last two times he addressed them (with frosty coolness and even passive-aggressive hostility):

And here is how the super-patriots of the American Right -- largely joined by their Democratic colleagues -- reacted to the speech given today by this foreign leader: with multiple standing ovations, including for ludicrous and absurd proclamations such as equating Hamas with Al Qaeda and claiming that Israel is "not a foreign occupier" in the West Bank:

Indeed, according to ABC News, Netanyahu received more standing ovations from the U.S. Congress (29) than the U.S. President did the last time he spoke (25); all of the ones Netanyahu received were from the super-patriots of the GOP caucus (and most from the Democratic caucus as well), whereas those right-wing patriots joined in only a small fraction of the ones received by their own country's President.

What makes this more remarkable still is that this foreign leader whom they were cheering so boisterously and continuously just completed a public, ugly conflict with the American leader and has a long record of demonstrated indifference to American interests; yet the super-patriots of the American Right sided so brazenly and publicly with this foreign leader over their own country's President. Meanwhile, both political parties in Congress are in a frantic competition to see which one can lavish Netanyahu with more obsequious praise; this statement sent out in the name of Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey is typical of the entries. For his part, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ran to AIPAC to undercut (and rebuke) his own President and the leader of his own party on Israel, something that -- as Andrew Sullivan correctly observed -- would be inconceivable on any foreign policy issue other than Israel.

In sum, the same faction that spent the last decade demanding fealty to the Commander-in-Chief in a Time of War upon pain of being accused of a lack of patriotism (or worse) now openly sides with a foreign leader over their own President. The U.S. Congress humiliates itself by expressing greater admiration for and loyalty to this foreign leader than their own country's. And because this is all about Israel, few will find this spectacle strange, or at least will be willing to say so.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/05/24/israel/index.html

[shaayecanaan]

4. Can't say I see this changing any time soon...

and from the point of view of the Palestinians, I dare say that the horse is going to get tired before the jockey - particularly if the US keeps piling up debt at the rate that it is.

What is amazing is the incapability of all the relevant actors to realise their own self-interest. A person who opposed the existence of the state of Israel would like nothing more than to see this issue fester for another fifty years. Despite this, this seems to be the strategy of Israel as well as most of their cheerleaders in the US congress.

There was a salient article by Rothkopf on foreignpolicy.com that looks at this. He remarks that time and demographics favour the Palestinians (the proportion of Israeli citizens that are Arab will swell from about 20% to 30% over the next thirty years):-

http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/23/three_questions_about_israel_and_a_palestinian_state

[shira]

5. You really think Israel wants to see the conflict continue?

Israel made 2 credible offers in 2000 and 2008 that were utterly rejected by PA leadership.

What makes you think the PA wants a peaceful 2 state solution that leaves Israel secure? Can you point to ANY evidence the PA wants this?

[Jefferson23]

6. Rothkopf questions are on point and

after yesterday's display can't we be almost certain of the answer?

How far will Israel go to stop them from claiming their rights as a state? The U.S. has already warned Abaass against this attempt.

How far will Israel go in assuming the role its own enemies played in the first decades of its life? Again, I do believe
with Netanyahu on the floor of the Congress preserving Israel's position, the Congress cheering him on, they are not likely to stop him. Israel
wants what it wants, the West Bank for their state..no matter what.

I do not see a shift in the highly toxic relationship between the US and Israel.

Rothkopf: "It is a sad commentary on the Israeli Prime Minister because as many in his own government have told him, he could reset the debate simply by being just a modest amount more forward-leaning when it came to negotiating"

He is correct of course, but why should Bibi change when the United States has his back? I do agree Israel makes a huge mistake in the long run, the special relationship relies on a false presumption that the U.S. is a country with a foreign policy strategy that is legitimate
in other parts of the ME....BIG mistake imo. We are considered a threat to the people of these nations for valid reasons.

We have weakened ourselves on so many levels, the two countries imo are on a fast track to irrelevancy..think Egypt, think Egypt...this is
what they need to adjust to instead of trying to defy.



You may have read this already, I think it is apt to the discussion nonetheless.


Netanyahu's Israel is on course to become a pariah state


http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-...

[shaayecanaan]

11. It will be fascinating to see where things will be in 10 years time...

I don't think there will be a Palestinian state, and I don't think the status quo is sustainable either. I am afraid Israel may well attempt a muscular solution to the Palestinian problem in time, and that may end up rather poorly.

[Jefferson23]

14. Perhaps Israel will be cautious and not use a military position

knowing Egypt is making moves to help end the conflict..I don't know. Israel as you know is very uneasy with Mubarak gone, and I worry about
any efforts they may make toward a counter revolution; the Egyptians should be extra cautious of U.S. intentions as well. Egypt is the hope for the Palestinians imho, Turkey along with them, South America, Europe. I use to think it would come from the United States, especially after
the CENTCOM briefing w/Petraeus. It seemed so clear an opportunity to pressure Israel to stop the settlements, get their officials to take Obama
seriously. It did not happen. I'm convinced now, no U.S. president is going to give up all his political capital for this conflict to end fairly
and that's what it would take to do it.

Foreign Minister Nabil el-Araby told the Palestinians that “he doesn’t want to talk about the ‘peace process’ any more, he ants to talk about the peace,” Ambassador Bakhoum said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/world/middleeast/29egypt.htm

[shaayecanaan]

15. Pointless aside, but Hassan Nasrallah made a lot of hay out of Netanyahu's address

in his speech on Liberation Day yesterday:-

"When we see the stances that Obama and Netanyahu have taken, we become more certain of our beliefs. The developments in the last three decades proved that the correct choice and the realistic one is that of armed resistance.

The unrealistic, maddening, depressing and humiliating choice is that of negotiations. If we had agreed to negotiations, our territory would have been occupied by now. Israel would have built settlements that will have reach as far as the Litani river.

But the Resistance, through its sacrifices, has managed to excluded these possibilities and has restored our land to us. The Zionists try to impress upon the Arabs that their only option is to run away. In 2000, the Israelis were the ones that ran away. In 2000, the equation changed.

Israel, in the eyes of the world, is no longer unbeatable. Yesterday, I saw the fear in Netanyahu’s eyes when he was speaking to the US Congress about Hezbollah and Gaza’s rockets."

I doubt that America's congressmen realise just how much ammunition that they give to this guy.

[Jefferson23]

16. The Congress? They think only in short term goals..this

one being, keep Netanyahu happy..give him what he wants. Not many of them consider the consequences, not only
to the Palestinians and Israeli's, but to their own constituents who they're supposedly representing.

[shaayecanaan]

17. Its a no brainer...

even the members of congress with hardly any Jewish voters in their districts would have even fewer Arab Muslim voters. And anything Arab or Muslim is still politically toxic in America after 9-11 as far as the general public are concerned.

Pretty much the only district with a significant Arab Muslim vote is Detroit, which is why John Conyers is typically one of the most pro-Palestinian representatives in Congress.

[Jefferson23]

18. Completely true, and they do not discuss the situation, not really.

That is another disturbing aspect of it as well. Any discussion has a very limited scope.

[bemildred]

7. Interesting piece, thanks. nt

[azurnoir]

8. but that's not all it gets even 'better'

Shockingly, a bipartisan Senate resolution is now in the works, according to the Hill:

Senate Democrats are expected to support a resolution intended as a rebuff to President Obama’s call for basing Middle East peace talks on the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders.

It would be a rare rebuke of the president by the upper chamber and a sign that Democrats are worried about the impact of last week’s speech on the U.S.-Israel relationship and pro-Israel constituents.

It is not clear all Democrats are going to so publicly rebuke the president but some appear ready to:

Several Democratic senators, including Carl Levin (Mich.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), said they would not take a position until they reviewed the resolution.

Others voiced quick support.

“I would agree with that,” Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said of the draft language, cautioning that he had to read the resolution before making a final decision.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said there’s “total agreement” in Congress that “the ’67 lines will not work.”

In sum, the problem is not Wasserman Schultz or Democrats in Congress. The problem isn’t the prime minister. The problem is a president who by intention or ignorance perpetuates flap after flap with Israel. He seems to be under the belief that he will gain traction with the Palestinians and the Europeans by putting his thumb on the scale in favor of the Palestinian issues (e.g., settlements, border) while remaining mute on the central one: the refusal of the PA to give up the right of return.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/democrats-and-republican-unite-on-israel-against-the-president/2011/03/29/AGv80MBH_blog.html

perhaps it should be remembered when it comes to keeping their jobs that for some of these career politician in the Senate and Congress, it matters precious little which party the POTUS comes from

[Jefferson23]

9. How they sleep at night after making statements like this, I honestly do not know.

snip* The issue has been and remains the White House’s ham-handedness and perpetual favoritism toward the Palestinians.


Oh yea, Obama has provided a great deal of validation on Palestinian suffering......sheesh, he needs to stop that now, it's
been so over the top!


This one is a beauty:

snip* Today in Britain, the president said this of the Hamas-Fatah unity government, “It is very difficult for Israelis to sit across the table and negotiate with a party that is denying your right to exist, and has not renounced the right to send missiles and rockets into your territory.” Contrast that with the language his ambassador to the U.N. used in excoriating Israel at the U.N. Security Council: “Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. For more than four decades Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 has undermined Israel’s security and corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region. Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace.” Hamas is in essence an inconvenience; Israel’s settlements are a threat to peace. No wonder Democrats and Republicans have sought to distance themselves from the Obama formulations on Israel.



Yea, no wonder Obama, you are sooo against Israel.


Spineless is what they are, Nelson and the rest of them, completely spineless.

[shaayecanaan]

10. "the White House’s ham-handedness and perpetual favoritism toward the Palestinians"

Jesus Christ.

[Jefferson23]

12. I know, it's like the Twilight Zone.

Haaretz poll: Netanyahu's popularity soaring following Washington trip

Despite tensions in Washington during PM's visit, Israelis generally don't believe Obama is hostile to Israel or that U.S.=Israel relations have been harmed, indicating that the public seems to be turning a deaf ear to analysts who criticized Netanyahu's address to Congress.

By Yossi Verter

It's doubtful that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his wildest, most optimistic dreams, would have dared to imagine when he set off for the United States last week that Israelis would respond to his six-day trip so enthusiastically: According to a new Haaretz poll, they are giving the visit high marks, considering it an overwhelming success.

The poll, conducted by the Dialog organization, under the supervision of Prof. Camil Fuchs of the Tel Aviv University Statistics Department, showed that 47 percent of the Israeli public believes the U.S. trip was a success, while only 10 percent viewed it as a failure.


Nearly half of the public felt "pride" at seeing Netanyahu address the joint session of Congress on Tuesday, while only 5 percent deemed it a "missed opportunity." The rest expressed no opinion, while 20 percent of those questioned said they hadn't watched the speech.

Israelis also don't believe that U.S.-Israel relations have been harmed by the visit despite its attendant problems, tensions and disputes.

Some 27 percent of those polled said they believe relations between the two countries will actually improve as a result of the visit, while only 13 percent thought relations would deteriorate. Nearly half of those questioned don't think there will be any change.

From the poll, it emerged that Netanyahu's trip not only put a brake on the drop in his popularity ratings, but actually reversed the trend.

While in a Haaretz poll five weeks ago Netanyahu seemed to be in hot water with the public, with 38 percent expressing satisfaction with his performance and 53 percent disappointed with it, in yesterday's poll the results were essentially reversed: 51 percent were satisfied, while 36 percent were not.

It's doubtful that U.S. President Barack Obama enjoyed such a spike in his popularity after the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

The public thus seems to be turning a deaf ear to the many political and diplomatic analysts who criticized the prime minister's address to Congress and who said it proved that Netanyahu was not capable of pulling the negotiations with the Palestinians out of the dangerous mire they are in.

The public also seems to have dismissed the learned warnings that Netanyahu had generated an unnecessary confrontation with Obama, for which Israel is liable to pay a high price down the line. Apparently average Israelis - from the right, the center, and even from some parts of the left - are welcoming Netanyahu back to Israel with open arms.

Despite all the tension in Washington this past week, Israelis generally don't believe that Obama is hostile to Israel.

Asked their opinion of Obama, who tussled with Netanyahu late last week and also stung him a bit during his speech to the AIPAC annual conference on Sunday, 43 percent of those polled described him as "businesslike," while a quarter described him as friendly and only 20 percent saw him as hostile.

Most of the respondents, however, distinguished between Obama's relations with Israel and his personal relationship with Netanyahu, recognizing that there is a lack of chemistry between the two, though they did not seem too concerned by this.

It would be worthwhile for Netanyahu to savor this week and enjoy his weekend. These numbers are exceptional, and it's unlikely they will hold up over time.

The Middle East, to which he returned yesterday, doesn't give its leaders too many reasons to celebrate.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-poll-netanyahu-s-popularity-soaring-following-washington-trip-1.364068

[shaayecanaan]

13. Ironically, Israeli leaders always receive a boost in popularity after snubbing an American leader

whereas an American president often takes a hit in the polls, at least in some quarters, whenever the converse happens. It certainly is interesting.