|
No
I Can't: Obama and the Israeli Lobby
By Uri Avnery
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.
"The transparent
fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more
than similar efforts by the other candidates."
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.
"The fear of AIPAC
is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises
change in all matters, does not dare."
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.
"Israel is a small
America, the USA is a huge Israel."
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!"
Wednesday, 11
June 2008
Uri Avnery is a frequent
contributor to Global Research. Global
Research Articles by Uri Avnery
Source:
BlackAgendaReport / originally
published in Global Research on June 7, 2008
* * *
* *
* * * * *
|
By Nidaa Khoury
Khoury's poetry is fired by belief in
the human and the spiritual at a time
when many of us feel unreal and often
spiritually hollow.—Yair
Huri, Ben-Gurion University
Written in water and ink, in between the
shed blood. Nidaa Khoury's poems take us
to the bosom of an ancient woman . . .
an archetype revived. The secret she
whispers is 'smaller than words.'—Karin
Karakasli, author, Turkey
Nidaa Khoury was born in Fassouta, Upper
Galilee, in 1959. Khoury is the author
of seven books published in Arabic and
several other languages, including The
Barefoot River, which appeared in Arabic
and Hebrew and The Bitter Crown,
censored in Jordan. The Palestinian poet
is studied in Israeli universities and
widely reviewed by the Arab press. The
founder of the Association of Survival,
an NGO for minorities in Israel, Khoury
has participated in over 30
international literary and human rights
conferences and festivals. Khoury is the
subject of the award-winning film, Nidaa
Through Silence. Currently a senior
lecturer at Ben-Gurion University,
Khoury's poem Portal to the Orient is
being produced by Sarab for Dance for
performance in Palestine. Book of Sins
introduces this important Middle Eastern
poet to the Caribbean and the Americas. |
 |
* *
* * *
 |
Sex at the Margins
Migration, Labour Markets and the Rescue Industry
By Laura María Agustín
This book explodes several myths: that selling sex is completely different from any other kind of work, that migrants who sell sex are passive victims and that the multitude of people out to save them are without self-interest. Laura Agustín makes a passionate case against these stereotypes, arguing that the label 'trafficked' does not accurately describe migrants' lives and that the 'rescue industry' serves to disempower them. Based on extensive research amongst both migrants who sell sex and social helpers, Sex at the Margins provides a radically different analysis. Frequently, says Agustin, migrants make rational choices to travel and work in the sex industry, and although they are treated like a marginalised group they form part of the dynamic global economy. Both powerful and controversial, this book is essential reading for all those who want to understand the increasingly important relationship between sex markets, migration and the desire for social justice. "Sex at the Margins rips apart distinctions between migrants, service work and sexual labour and reveals the utter complexity of the contemporary sex industry. This book is set to be a trailblazer in the study of sexuality."—Lisa Adkins, University of London |
* *
* * *
The White Masters of the
World
From
The World and Africa, 1965
By W. E. B. Du Bois
W. E. B. Du Bois’
Arraignment and Indictment of White Civilization
(Fletcher)
* *
* * *
Ancient African Nations
* * * * *
If you like this page consider making a donation
* * * * *
Negro Digest /
Black World
Browse all issues
1950
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
____ 2005
Enjoy!
* * * * *
The Death of Emmett Till by Bob Dylan
/
The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll
/
Only a Pawn in Their Game
Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson Thanks America for
Slavery /
George Jackson /
Hurricane Carter
* *
* * *
The Journal of Negro History issues at Project Gutenberg
The
Haitian Declaration of Independence 1804
/
January 1, 1804 -- The Founding of
Haiti
* * * * *
* *
* * *
posted 11 June
2008
|
