I've yet to reflect on the recent election and my experience of extreme excitement and inevitable and forthcoming disappointment... that will come in another post.
That being said, below is a good article written by an Israeli author in Israel's Ha'aretz newspaper. In light of Obama's recent appointment of an ardent pro-Israeli Chief of Staff, I am very skeptical of where Obama may be taking his previously balanced Middle East foreign policy. Emanuel's father, a terrorist in Israel's Irgun group prior to Israel's declaration of a state, recently agreed that people should not be accusing Obama of being an Arab... because he is capable of more than just washing the White House's floors. That being said, I hope this father has not had much of an influence on his son's views of Arabs.
Let's hope Obama won't be a 'friend of Israel'
Well, maybe Obama will not be a "friend of Israel." May the great change he is promising not omit his country's Mideast policy. May Obama herald not only a new America, but also a new Middle East.
When we say that someone is a "friend of Israel" we mean a friend of the occupation, a believer in Israel's self-armament, a fan of its language of strength and a supporter of all its regional delusions. When we say someone is a "friend of Israel" we mean someone who will give Israel a carte blanche for any violent adventure it desires, for rejecting peace and for building in the territories.
Israel's greatest friend in the White House, outgoing U.S. President George W. Bush, was someone like that. There is no other country where this man, who brought a string of disasters down upon his own nation and the world, would receive any degree of prestige and respect. Only in Israel.
Only in Israel does the prime minister place George Bush's portrait in his den, in his private home. Only in Israel does the prime minister travel to visit him in the White House.
That's because Bush was a friend of Israel. Israel's greatest friend. Bush let it embark on an unnecessary war in Lebanon. He did not prevent the construction of a single outpost. He may have encouraged Israel, in secret, to bomb Iran. He did not pressure Israel to move ahead with peace talks, he even held up negotiations with Syria, and he did not reproach Israel for its policy of targeted killings.
Bush also supported the siege on Gaza and participated in the boycott of Hamas, which was elected in a democratic election initiated by his own administration.
That's just how we like U.S. presidents. They give us a green light to do as we please. They fund, equip and arm us, and sit tight. Such is the classic friend of Israel, a friend who is an enemy, and enemy of peace and an enemy to Israel.
Let us now hope that Obama will not be like them. That he will reveal himself to be a true friend of Israel. That he will put his whole weight behind a deep American involvement in the Middle East, that he will try to solve the Iranian issue through negotiation - the only effective means. That he will help end the siege on Gaza and the boycott of Hamas, that he will push Israel and Syria to make peace, that he will spur Israel and the Palestinians to reach a settlement.
We should hope Obama will help Israel help itself, because that is how friendship is measured. That he will criticize its policy when he must, because that, too, is a test of true friendship.
The march of parochialism started right away. The tears of excitement invoked by U.S. president-elect Barack Obama's wonderful speech had not yet dried, and back here people were already delving into the only real question they could think to ask: Is this good or bad for Israel? One after another, the analysts and politicians got up - all of them representing one single school of thought, of course and began prophesizing.
They spoke with the caution that the situation required, gritting their teeth as though their mouths were full of pebbles, trying to soothe all the fears and concerns. They searched and found signs in Obama: The promising appointment of the Israeli ex-patriots' son, whose father belonged to the Irgun, and maybe also Dennis Ross and Dan Kurtzer and Martin Indyk, who may, God willing, be included in the new administration.
But in the background, a dark cloud hovered above. Careful, danger. The black man, who had associated with Palestinian expats, who speaks of human rights, who favors diplomacy over war, who even wants to engage Iran in dialogue, who will allocate more funding for America's social needs than to weapons exports. He may not be the sort of "friend of Israel" that we have come to love in Washington, the kind of friend we have grown accustomed to.What's the panic all about? The truth needs to be said: At the base of all of these fears is the angst that this president will push Israel to end the occupation and move toward peace.
Let him use his clout to end the occupation and dismantle the settlement project. Let him remember that human and civil rights also apply to the Palestinians, not only to black Americans. And apropos world peace, he needs to start with peace in the Middle East, home to the most dangerous of conflicts, which has been threatening the world for a century now, and is feeding international terrorism.
A true friend of Israel needs to remember that Israel may be "the only democracy in the Middle East," but not in its own backyard. That next to Sderot, which he visited, is Gaza. That "common values" must not include a cruel occupation. That friendship does not mean blind and automatic support.
Let him speak with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, as often as he can and with whomever is willing to talk. And let him do it before the next war, not after it. Let him remember that he has the power to do all that.
Changing the Middle East was in the power of each and every U.S. president, who could have pressured Israel and put an end to the occupation. Most of them kept their hands off as if it were a hot potato, all in the name of a wonderful friendship.
So bring us an American president who is not another dreadful "friend of Israel," an Obama who won't blindly follow the positions of the Jewish lobby and the Israeli government. You did promise change, did you not?
2 comments:
"That he will put his whole weight behind a deep American involvement in the Middle East, that he will try to solve the Iranian issue through negotiation - the only effective means." In my mind, as feeble as it is, if we were any more invovled in the Middle East Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan would be States 51, 52, 53 and Egypt would be a Trust Territory. I do not forget that "We The People" have been negotiating with the neighbors of Israel "deeply" since 1948-49. Those negotiations led us up to 2001 and 9/11. Honest historians know that had the Israelis not attacked first in 1967 they would not exist today. Honest historians know that Israel was close to total destruction in 1974, much closer than was realized. Honest historians know that the "phobia" of Israel that they face extermination is no phobia, but a reality. Though the Bush Administration carried a heavier than normal stick it still talked deeply. That others did not talk back or respond...well, opinions as to who to blame abound. I am not a person who "Blames America First." Perhaps Mr. Obama will as president find himself in a position where Israel's neighbors will be more willing to talk and act justly in negotiations. Perhaps they will be more willing to renounce their all too real threats of genocide against anything and anyone Jewish. If they are indeed willing to talk and respond it will be in no small part because a big stick was used. I have read and understood "The Great War For Civilization" and I have great empathy for ALL parties. Injustices have occured and do occur against Palastinians. Hopelessness is a horrible thing. Yet, some hopelessness is self inflicted and some of it is impossed by neighbors to "keep the fires of hatred buring." Every dollar on this planet has flowed through the Islamic nations multiple times in the past decades. That there is a poor Arabic or Islamic person on this planet falls a the feet of their leaders. In some sense Mr. bin Laden has a point. I feel that Mr. Bush has done a job of pointing this out to them. How or if the Arabic and Islamic nations can clean their own houses is up to them. But, failure for them to embrace modernity is not an option. We should not be made to nor will we go backwards.
This violent history is not one sided. Yet I have always sided with the underdog. The last I looked the population of Israel was around 6.5 million souls. Even with their evil settlements (and I do think they are that) they have little land. Its Israel hating neighbors number the hundreds and hundreds of millions. I guess I still must ask the question, "Who in this situation, considering the evils perpetrated upon the Jews from ALL nations except the U.S., should have the broader shoulders?" Other than the U.S. and Canada, and perhaps England and Australia, I am not sure that there is anywhere on earth that a Jewish person can be accepted into full citizenship and live without fear of persecution and death at the hands of anti-semitism.
We shall see. Hopefully progress will occur. Hopefully Mr. Obama will have great, great success. It is much easier to be a critic, to be a person who makes suggestions. Unfortunately for the position of President, the person who has that post does not have the luxury of simply suggestion, most often they "have to decide." Well, may the decissions that Mr. Obama faces now be good ones and bear much good fruit.
The idea that Israel should have not attacked in a proactive way because "Nasser didn't really mean to...." puts a little too much responsibility at Israel's leaders feet for guessing correctly his intentions. It is like asking someone to not adjust ones path while playing "chicken" in a car with a suicidal teenager driving the opposing vehicle. It is like loading a six shot revolver with four bullets and expecting Israel to pull the trigger because there is a "chance" of an empty chamber. I think that if President Nasser played his game and lost...it is his fault. I think it unfair of the international community to rationalize away, 40 years later, the threat that Jewish people faced in 1967,
Post a Comment