[R-G] [BillTottenWeblog] No, I Can't!

[Bill Totten]

Obama, Israel and AIPAC

by Uri Avnery

www.counterpunch.com (June 09 2008)


After months of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack
Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has
wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has
become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful
country in the world.

And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran
to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that
broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.

That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was
shocked.

IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had
never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the
United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire
Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three
presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in
flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways.
Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed
everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.

The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine
emperors in its heyday.

The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media
were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed
closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them
extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.

The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen
Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to
Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of
political life in the US and the world at large.

WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe
that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?

The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing
states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more
votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene
millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in
the US is also not an insignificant factor.

Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich.  Perhaps they
donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about
all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other
lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have
given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents).
And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of
ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to
tens of millions.

True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block
the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance -
and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases
(which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated
popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the
election campaign of a practically unknown rival.

But in a presidential race?


THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more
than similar efforts by the other candidates.

Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to
his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten
practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young,
brave person who does not compromise his principles.

And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the
nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!

The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton
and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from
the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was
totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly
pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile
regime.

And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go
out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.

OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is
usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to
meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to
bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all
three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how
sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)

But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no
exaggeration to call it scandalous.

NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the
Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the
three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of
Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty.
That is one of the core issues of the conflict.

On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even
though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide
Jerusalem in some manner.

Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan
"Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since
Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra
constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has
disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official
slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and
for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that
would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.

In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it
was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv
to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did
anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department
that it would harm basic American interests.

Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and
he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected.
After that, God is great.

But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so
terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters,
does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington
routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests.
After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an
Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts
of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in
the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected
president.

SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi
Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were
unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything
significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many
Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of
dogs being set on them.)

What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish
establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder?
Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?

The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my
conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what
really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the
Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a
small America, the USA is a huge Israel.

The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second
aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a
messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists
were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence
on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the
Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel,
pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be
God's chosen people.

Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as
"pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a
land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the
indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers.
Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of
their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst
atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land
as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every
tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.

True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed
against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that
persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have
repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to
prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in
the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed
guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past
misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.


HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father,
identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of
American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in
the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the
imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge
to belong to the victors, if possible.

Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well,
he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House,
he will return to himself."

I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have
a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.

Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference
are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for
Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.

If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as
peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"
_____

Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He
is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The Politics of Anti-Semitism
(2003).

http://www.counterpunch.com/avnery06092008.html


TO POST A COMMENT, OR TO READ COMMENTS POSTED BY OTHERS, please click
on the word "comment" highlighted at the end of the version of this
essay posted at http://billtotten.blogspot.com/