The Palestine Question now appears to have fallen off Pres. Obama’s agenda. In his early days in office he took some impressive steps toward principles-based and constructive engagement in the diplomacy on this issue, which is one of stronger impact worldwide now than it possibly ever has been in the past.
On Obama’s second day in office he (and Secretary of State Clinton) announced the appointment of Sen. George Mitchell as special representative on Palestinian-Israeli peacemaking. In the speech in which he described Mitchell’s mandate, in the interview he gave Al-Arabiya television, and in other events during his first week in office Obama made some forceful statements about the need for strong US engagement in the search for a durable two-state solution between the Palestinians and Israel.
That was two months ago. Since then, nothing.
This matters, because the Palestine Question is one of burning– and increasing– relevance to publics throughout the Middle East, and in the Muslim world far beyond that region. It acts as one much-watched litmus-test of how much moral (and thereby also political) authority this new US president will be able to retain for his, and my, country over the years ahead.
Strong outside engagement in the diplomacy on the Palestine Question is needed now because the long-pursued tactic of “having the two parties sort it out between themselves” clearly hasn’t worked. Instead, over the 18 years of “bilateral direct negotiations” since Madrid, the pro-negotiation camp in each of the two societies has shrunk to near-zero; much harder-line and intransigent political forces now predominate.
As of now, if we say “outside engagement”, the key role in providing that would have to come from Washington, in good part because the actions of successive US presidents over the past 35 years have emasculated the capabilities of the UN, which should more naturally and appropriately have retained the lead peace-brokering role that it previously had. (If Washington truly cannot perform on the peacemaking, the lead role may yet devolve back to the UN; other permanent members of the Security Council might insist on this if Washington’s policy throws the Middle East and the world into too much further chaos.)
Washington’s engagement needs to be at the presidential level precisely because Israel’s well-organized networks of support inside the US have succeeded in turning the Palestine issue into a dangerous hot potato for all lesser oficials. All the power of the presidential “bully pulpit”– that is, the president’s power to lead through the clear articulation of a principled position married to the taking of clear and compelling steps to secure that vision in timely fashion– needs to be harnessed to the issue.
Instead of which– ?
If you go to the main “Foreign Policy” page on the White House website you have to scroll down quite a way in the priority-ranked listing of topics there before you come to any relevant item. This is the item headed “Israeli-Palestinian Conflict”, which comes in third under the subhead “Renewing American Diplomacy.”
What it says there is really disappointing, and a clear sign of presidential inattention to the issue. It is just an outdated and clearly quite inappropriate cut-and-paste from some pre-inaugural document:
- Obama and Biden will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority from day one. They will make a sustained push — working with Israelis and Palestinians — to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.
No mention of Israels assault on Gaza and subsequent escalation of its campaign to punish the Strip’s people through harmful blockade. No mention of Mitchell’s mission or any other post-inaugural developments at all.
Then, right after the other items in “Renewing American Diplomacy” comes an entire sub-section headed “Israel”, which contains this in full:
- Israel
* Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, and believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America’s strongest ally in the region. They support this closeness, and have stated that the United States will never distance itself from Israel.
* Support Israel’s Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria’s involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He and Joe Biden believe strongly in Israel’s right to protect its citizens.
* Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.
Once again, meaningless electoral boiler-plate. Okay, probably not meaningless, because these are clear policies that are evidently being pursued by the administration with no even cosmetic attempt to provide “balance.”
Look, I guess I can understand why the Palestine Question has fallen off Obama’s agenda. He has a lot of other things to deal with right now– primarily, the economy.
But Palestine can’t wait. He came out of the starting gate well on the issue, back in his first week in office. Since then, nothing. No actions– or even words, from him– to force the full implementation of humanitarian law for Gaza’s long-punished people.
(And only a couple of half-hearted bleats on this issue from Mitchell and Clinton. They said a few words about some of the more outrageous aspects of Isarel’s collective-punishment siege of Gaza, and then did nothing, frittering away thereby any moral or political authority they might have had on the principles involved.)
No actions– or even words– from anyone in the administration on Israel’s continued detention of more than three dozen duly elected Palestinian legislators.
No actions from Obama– and just a few words from Clinton– about Israel’s stepped-up demolitions of Palestinians homes in occupied Jerusalem. (And once again, the fact that she said something and then no consequences followed makes here and her boss both look impotent.)
No word from Obama to save the appointment of Chas Freeman.
As Edmund Burke once said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” That is what seems to be happening on the Palestine Question these days.
….”and the beat goes on”. I think it was the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. that said something to the effect that the rhetoric may be different, but Bush, McCain and Obama have about the same views and their policies will be about the same. So, we do not worry about much change.
Bob Spencer
I to had high hopes that Obama could break Our addiction to Israel but again it looks like Hope is dashed on the Shores of Purchased votes. Israel is not Our Ally but Our Master and until We begin to be Our Own Master again, the Inhumanity of Our actions viv a vis the Palistianian People will continue. Pretty sorry for a Nation that spends a great deal of time railing at other Nations on Human rights, but only against Our percieved Enemies, Our Friends all get a pass.
It didnt fall…it was pushed! Pushed by the zionist Lobby and Obama, the ‘candidate for change’ let it happen.
I was just thinking the same thing myself with this AIG stuff raging and actually, Helena, I don’t think that Obama is all that interested in foreign policy.
For sure, he’s not an interventionist, even on the economy. For eg he didn’t write the stimulus bill. He didn’t ensure that the executive bonus problem was solved BEFORE the moolah was handed over. His response to this weeks Washington political crisis was to take himself to California and do town hall meetings off teleprompters.
Obama likes to be lofty; he’s not the type who cares to risk his political capital by intervening – especially if he can’t see any value in it.
And at the moment, from his point of view, if Hamas does not unite around the recognition of Israel and the upholding of previous PA agreements, there is little he can do to move the issue along. He may as well let the present status quo continue, with the PA governing the West Bank with western aid and assistance.
Going by the few comments he’s made on the middle east, he sees Iran as his biggest problem, by far.
Further to the above: AP is reporting that unity talks broke down on Thursday and that the Hamas spokesman reitereated that Hamas would not commit to the PA/Israel accords.
“After the break-up Thursday, Hamas official Fawzi Barhoum reiterated that his group will not agree to “commit” to the accords or recognize Israel.”
Netanyahu and Likud never wanted the Oslo accords but when he came to power in 1996 Netanyahu accepted the Rabin/Peres governments agreements with the PA, most notably regarding the IDF withdrawal from Hebron. That’s what grown up democratic governments do.
Obama, the man of detachment, will expect Hamas to act like adults because their rejectionism will make the two state solution impossible, and just plays into the hands of the Israeli right.
And also, don’t expect Gaza to be reconstructed too soon.
“No mention of Israels assault on Gaza and subsequent escalation of its campaign to punish the Strip’s people through harmful blockade. ”
Obama never talks about Israeli crimes against Arabs, though he has a lot to say about Arab crimes against Israelis. When it comes to Arab suffering, he always manages to blame the Arab leaders for it exclusively, though like most American politicians he’ll occasionally complain that some Israeli policy isn’t “helpful”. He uses stronger words when it comes to Hamas rocket fire. So far his Presidency has been what one might have expected if you read his AIPAC speeches in 2007 and 2008.
I disagree with bb’s stance on the I/P conflict, but I think he’s probably right about Obama’s personality.
I just can’t understand why anyone expected that Obama would do anything positive re. the Middle East. He fully supported Israel’s vicious attempted ethnic cleansing of Southern Lebanon. He promised Jerusalem to Israel during the campaign. He stiffed the Palestinians when he visited the region. He has ramped up Bush’s anti- Iran rhetoric. He has done absolutely NOTHING right, appart from appointing Mitchell, whom Obama immediately undercut but ruling out any talks with Hamas.
As for what Hamas does or does not agree to, that is just the usual propaganda. Hamas has declared that it is willing to accept prior agreements as part of an ongoing peace process, and that it is willing to recognize the de facto existence of Israel. It has declared these things repeatedly. But, obviously, as long as the US and Israel refuse to even talk to Hamas, they are in no position to complain about what Hamas does or doesn’t agree to. There have to be talks in order for there to be agreements.
Maybe he’s waiting to hear from Indyk and co. (or Hillary Clinton?) I wonder where Mitchell fits in all of this and whether such discussions are being carried out with his consent. Intriguing stuff.
This matters, because the Palestine Question is one of burning– and increasing– relevance to publics throughout the Middle East, and in the Muslim world far beyond that region. It acts as one much-watched litmus-test of how much moral (and thereby also political) authority this new US president will be able to retain for his, and my, country over the years ahead.
Continued support for Israel’s expropriation of Palestine is at the root of what’s wrong with US foreign policy. Until the US can root out the folks who are dedicating our resources to Israel’s agenda we have no hope. There is no “moral authority” to retain and outside observers despise us as the willing dupes of Israel. Obama is the Willing Dupe in Chief.
If Washington truly cannot perform on the peacemaking, the lead role may yet devolve back to the UN; other permanent members of the Security Council might insist on this if Washington’s policy throws the Middle East and the world into too much further chaos.
I guess you’re appealing to Washington’s sense of centrality and threatening them with its loss? I don’t think it makes any difference. I think the world has gathered in the Coliseum to watch the professional gladiator slay his victims and are all ready to send the Palestinians to the gods above.
Washington’s engagement needs to be at the presidential level precisely because Israel’s well-organized networks of support inside the US have succeeded in turning the Palestine issue into a dangerous hot potato for all lesser officials. All the power of the presidential “bully pulpit”– that is, the president’s power to lead through the clear articulation of a principled position married to the taking of clear and compelling steps to secure that vision in timely fashion– needs to be harnessed to the issue.
Obama and Clinton are at the center of Israel’s well-organized network inside the US. The evil twins are wholly without principle. Their allegiance is to those who put them in power. Refer to Obama‘s and Clinton‘s truly shameful pledges of fealty to the Israel lobby and weep.
Look, I guess I can understand why the Palestine Question has fallen off Obama’s agenda. He has a lot of other things to deal with right now– primarily, the economy.
Benign neglect. The Neocon MO as articulated by Pat Moynihan. All Obama has to do is nothing for “evil to triumph” in Edmund Burke’s phrase. So that’s what he’s doing.
DJ – bb is a She fwiw.
Have vivid memories of 9 Presidents now, starting with JFK, and none of them ever, ever showed anything like the detachment of Obama. Obama comes across as an observer of us all, not as a participant. Unique and quite disconcerting at times.
As for O and Palestine: in my view it’s never ever been on the cards that Obama, let alone any democrat president, would overthrow 15 years of US policy since Oslo and abandon the PLO/PA for Hamas rejectionism. The so-called jewish lobby has far more influence in the Dem Party than the Republican party, by virtue of the fact that the jews have always been strong supporters of DP and always at the forefront of the Left – civil rights movement etc. And the majority of zionists who settled Israel were from the Left, the communist party and so on.
I understand where Helena’s loyal rejectionist commenters are coming from, but not even Helena would abandon the jewish state at the cruch – she has too many jewish friends, I bet.
Israel
The Obama Administration and the Middle East
Obama Mideast Watch:
J Street director Jeremy Ben-Ami
I understand where Helena’s loyal rejectionist commenters are coming from, but not even Helena would abandon the jewish state at the cruch – she has too many jewish friends, I bet.
You’re either for Israel’s far-right wing expansionist government or against your Jewish friends. Yeah. That’s right.
ISRAEL AT CROSSROAD: ZIONISM OR ZIONAZI LIEBERMAN
Lieberman is a stereotype of the kind of low level hustlers that characterized the”associates” of “activists” in the old USSR. Netanyahu seems to have a sense of the Sabras that do not desert Israel for a good job abroad. Stay on Israelis see Israel as one of the Mideast nations. But if Netanyahu proves to be a disappointment and, as some Israelis now claim, Lieberman is simply using a ministerial post of high visibility as part of his premiership campaign (typically the pattern in Israeli politics), then we Americans should rethink our entire commitment to the Zionist project. So much historical, genetic and other evidence has appeared to strengthen the case that the Zionist notion of “returning home” of 12 “lost” tribes is all mythology, that the United States would have to consider that Likudniks just might get what they have come to demand: A ONE STATE SOLUTION. But for that solution to be a “Jewish” solution, the Great Aliyah would indeed have to be great, making Jews a majority in a bi-national state. Otherwise, demographics would show that the Diaspora Jews have rejected the Zionist concept with their feet, refusing to leave their “frightening good lives of plenty in the West for that in the Jewish sandbox. At that point where it becomes one citizen-one vote, Israel becomes part of Palestine, one sectarian group working the cleavages in the majority group (Arabs) as the Sunnis are expected to do in majority Shia Iraq. I remind that this is exactly what Bush calls the “democracy” he brought to Iraq. Of course, Lieberman could– and I doubt he has the fortitude to do so– call for elimination of Palestinian Arabs. Another Zionazi lebensraum assault like the Lebanon and Gaza assaults– which were not to get “the terrorists” but to prune the prolific Palestinian civilian population– then the United States, as nation, should COMPLETELY disassociate itself from the Zionazi, not Zionist, project. Such an Israel would not be an ally to the US but a cancer. And, as far as the Diaspora Jews for whom Israel is an ego trinket (if it were more they would move there), they are free to do whatever they want with their assets. I can only assume that much too much of America is sick of the Zionazi kill, kill, kill innocent civilians as you would kill crabgrass on your lawn. Jabotinsky’s fascist minions, the neocons living safe and wealthy in the West, have pushed the US into far too much death and waste of wealth for them to demand that we shed more blood in an anti-Islamic Crusade they call “World War IV” any more. We are in the post-Holocaust Industry period now; while we want and will work for a peace good for both the sabra Israelis and Palestinians, we are not guilt ridden into a Zionazi repeat of what the Germans did to the Jews while we passively sit on the sidelines; we will not associate the United States with a war crimes army as we had through the 2006 and 2008. We will work tirelessly for a peace that is bountifully shared by the peoples of both ethnicities. But we cannot chose one over the other or allow Diaspora Jews to impose on us the principle: “IF IT’S GOOD FOR ISRAEL, IPSO FACTO, IT IS GOOD FOR AMERICA. Should Netanyahu pursue the policies he indicated he might, we can support him wholeheartedly, knowing that he is working to integrate Israel into the Middle East economy and national security environment. But should he opportunistically morph to suit that Zionazi criminal, Lieberman– so far criminal only in words and not yet in deeds– then it’s time for the US to cease its meddling in the area with both its diplomats and its cash/arms. We are now at a crossroad and we cannot stay on the middle path for it no longer exists, we must choose one arm or the other: accommodation or massacre. By bringing HAMAS to Gaza as a toxin with which to “selectively assassinate” the PLO, Israel has seeded a movement whose clean civil order puts Israel’s and Fatah’s to shame. That is what Gaza people voted for, not the Islamic Fundamentalism and Jihadism it represents. HAMAS was Israel’s invention and now it, not us, must deal with it without using it as a Zionazi excuse for mass murder. On the other hand, Israel should be allowed to choose its own way, made fully aware of the consequences of a drift by Netanyahu from Netanyahu to Lieberman.
The Palestinians already have three nations – Jordan, PA, and Gaza. That they have made of sewer of the latter two (PA, GAZA) is their own fault. That they have not made a sewer of the first (Jordan) is to the credit not of the Palestinians, but of the Hashemites.
Islam is a totalitarian ideology, not a religion. We know all we need to know about Islam: it is a vicious, narrow-minded, murderous, intolerant and an undemocratic cult – opposite of anything the west stands for.
Obama has appointed envoys and sent Clinton to Israel to politely but firmly express the administration’s position. There may be more going on then Helena thinks.
But whatever is going on, I do doubt that Obama will make the Palestinian cause the “front and center” of his rhetoric. Whenever a President has tried to push the I/P conflict forward with a focus on Palestinian statehood, they’ve gotten burned by the Palestinians. Whether it’s Clinton’s quite unfairly demeaned efforts to bring about a final status agreement, or Bush’s calls for an open election with all parties, the result has ultimately set the U.S. standing backward. If the Palestinians want the U.S. to help them, then maybe they shouldn’t spit in the U.S. President’s face every time he tries to do so.
On another note, Helena, I noticed that de tEODORU’s comment well exceeds your 300 word guideline and does not exactly contain the most courteous language (“Zionazi?”). What do you intend to do about it?
to de tEODORU,
Your comments reminds me of Nazi propaganda.
I was wondering if you guys were still around. I was beginning to think you were extinct. Guess not. What a shame.
Only the left can support folks who send suicide bombers to blow up malls and schools buses.
Islam is a totalitarian ideology, not a religion. We know all we need to know about Islam: it is a vicious, narrow-minded, murderous, intolerant and an undemocratic cult – opposite of anything the west stands for.
So childish and nut you are.
tell us how may western touring Islamic world?
where these millions of US and other western troops stationing in ME on Islamic land?
Your are so blind and hatred person….
The murders and killers those who cam from far end and killing millions innocent in Iraq and Afghanistan these are real vicious, narrow-minded, murderous.
Really, James! And who can support folks who send planes, and helicopters, and tanks to blow up schools, and houses, and hospitals, and police academy graduations, and water plants, and electrical plants, and sewage plants, and entire neighborhoods, and villages?
Actually James, the likes of Pat Buchanan and David Duke also support the Palestinians. They are very clearly not “the left.”