RSS FeedsMJ Rosenberg Sums Up Key Reasons For Mideast Peace Failure: AIPAC & Israeli Firsters
MJ Rosenberg, a Senior Fellow of Media Matters Action Network (and incidentally a former AIPAC official), writes in the Huffington Post why he believes subsequent U.S. Administrations continue to fail at bringing peace to the Middle East: namely, The Israel Lobby and well-positioned Israel Firsters.
He points out the key reason the Bush Administration failed miserably:
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was the most popular political figure in the United States when he went to the region to kick-start negotiations during the George W. Bush administration.
He accomplished nothing largely because Israel-firsters back in Washington (Elliot Abrams played the leading role) let the Israelis know that they did not have to pay attention to Powell. He didn’t speak for the administration. Later Abrams said that he viewed his role in the administration as blocking any moves that the Israelis didn’t like.
Rosenberg goes on to say that the primary cause for lack of progress does not lie in the Middle East, but here in Washington:
The reason the United States continues to fail on the Israeli-Palestinian track is because of the power of the lobby in Washington. And by lobby I don’t only mean the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). I mean AIPAC plus its friends throughout Washington who, even without speaking directly to AIPAC or the Israelis, know instinctively what the Israelis want — preserving the status quo, i.e. the occupation.
I would add to Rosenberg’s list of AIPAC’s friends throughout Washington, many prominent voices in the main stream media — household names, like CNN’s Wolf Blitzer (before writing for The Jerusalem Post, Blizter worked for AIPAC where he wrote for their propaganda sheet, The Near East Report), William Kristol, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, Charles Krauthammer, just to name a few… The Lobby is a force that can inflict serious political damage not only by withholding political contributions, or by funding political opponents of those who won’t subjugate themselves to Israel’s interests, but also by determining the kinds of press coverage our politicians get in the main stream media. If you don’t believe me, ask Jimmy Carter, Charles Freeman, or any other public figure who has outwardly criticized Israeli policies.
Ironically, their actions have done nothing, but harm both Israeli and U.S. national security interests.
Ha’aretz Journalist, Gideon Levy: “Israel Is Addicted To The Occupation”
Israel’s most prominent journalist, Gideon Levy, follows up on his recent column — one where he blasted the U.S. for continuing to ’suck up to Israel’ — with an interview on The Real News Network. Here he describes Israel as a country “addicted to the occupation.”
He pleads with the U.S. to be a friend of Israel’s and save it from itself. He considers the relationship between U.S. and Israel as “twisted and unprecedented” in the world. “There is no country in the world that acts like Israel vis a vis the United States — vis a vis dependence on the United States.”
Israel is addicted to the occupation, because it benefits a lot from the occupation — economically, and politically, and above all, because it doesn’t pay any price for the occupation. Israelis are living wonderfully, especially in the last years. They are having a wonderful life, even quite secure life most of the times. There’s no reason to change the status quo from the point of view of Israel. It is very convenient. There’s a total separation between Israel and its occupation. Most of the Israelis have no idea what’s going on there, don’t also care about what’s going on there, have never been there — most of the Israelis. And so why should they bother? The occupation will continue…
Levy believes the U.S. Presidents “who were called friendly to Israel were the worst for Israel.” He singles out George W. Bush as the very worst, “because in his spirit, Israel really had the full liberty to do whatever it wants — settlements, two wars, assassinations …”
Levy comments on the emergence of J Street — the new, left-leaning pro-Israel lobbying group (hoped by many to offer an alternative to the hard-right, extremely powerful AIPAC):
I know there is a change in the Jewish community in the United States, but it is too little, and too late. Still the conservative Jewish establishment is so powerful, and I don’t see signs that it is losing its power. J Street is a wonderful initiative, very promising, but still the power of AIPAC, of the Anti-Defamation League, and other organizations is still very very strong. And I don’t think it’s a question of months or years that this will change dramatically.
Israel is so much not willing to make peace that someone has to push Israel, and the only actor who can push Israel is the United States. This can only happen with American pressure. It will never come from inside Israel — no way. Most Israelis are passive, couldn’t care less, …
The interview is over seven minutes long — definitely worth viewing:
UPDATE:
The second part of the interview with Gideon Levy was just released by The Real News Network.
Levy says:
There is no peace process. It’s a joke. There is no peace process, there is some games going on — masquerades — but not a real peace process, because no one has the intention of talking to implement major steps. Israel wants negotiations, because when negotiations are on the pressure on Israel is much smaller, and something is going on, and they are meeting once in two weeks, and then there is a big peace conference, without paying any price. Why not? You only gain. For Israel the negotiations are a win-win situation, because no one intends to implement anything, and we saw it now for 16 years — ever since Oslo. [...]
This is the time to put an end to all negotiations, because there is no room for negotiations, because the solution is very clear to everybody. This is the terrible mistake that the Obama Administration did — or they fell into this trap. [...]
The alternative to the two-state solution is the one-state solution — which is not a good solution for the Palestinians — mainly for the Palestinians — because there is a big gap between the two societies. And there will not be equality, and not be justice, and therefore at least in the first stage the Palestinians deserve their own state. But I agree to what the PA officials say, that maybe we missed the train, maybe it is too late with almost half a million settlers in E. Jerusalem and the West Bank. [...]
Here’s the full second part of the interview:
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s Diplomatic Skills Rival Those Of John Bolton’s
Nice work Hillary! The fallout from her most recent world tour continues to materialize.
First our nation’s chief diplomat completely offended the country of Pakistan. Here’s how the Pakistan Daily appraised her visit with their officials and press:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went on the offensive during her three-day visit to Pakistan that was concluded yesterday. Her comments were blunt and combative, and the Pakistani press labeled her approach as “aggressive diplomacy.”
The intended purpose of Clinton’s visit was to drum up support for the ongoing war against al Qaeda and to pressure the Pakistani government to do more in fighting insurgents. Apparently she checked whatever diplomatic skills she might have at the door and her remarks to her hosts were anything but diplomatic.
She at one point hinted that Pakistani officials are reluctant to pursue al Qaeda. “I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to,” Clinton told her Pakistani interlocutors during an interview with journalists in Lahore.
Clinton’s comments were on the wrong track as they were made at time when the Pakistan’s army was busy fighting tribal insurgents in Waziristan on the heels of its two-month offensive in the Swat valley in Northeast Pakistan. Pakistan has also single-handedly captured the largest number of al Qaeda operatives since 2002. The military involvement in the war on terrorism has started to take a heavy toll on the Pakistani population and threatens to destabilize the country if insurgents continue to bring the fight to Pakistan’s major cities. [...]
Next, on to Israel, where she decided to inflict some irreparable damage to the Middle East Peace Process. First she stands with one of the most right-winged Israeli leaders of our lifetime, Benjamin Netanyahu, and sings him praises for basically telling the United States to go ‘fuck itself’ on its demands that Israel cease its illegal settlement activity. She gloated about how his agreement to slow down the illegal settlements was ‘unprecedented’.
I blogged earlier on the outcry at the time in the Arab world — a dramatic display of utter shock and bereavement at this sudden shift in policy by the Obama Administration. So, the following day, in Marrakech, Hillary tried to tamper down the damage by clarifying her statement:
‘This offer falls far short of what our preference would be, but if it is acted upon it will be an unprecedented restriction on settlements and would have a significant and meaningful effect on restraining their growth.
Then in yet another about face (as reported by The Palestinian Chronicle):
… the next day [after Hillary's clarification] she deployed [yet] another character, mixing a take-it-or-leave-it approach to the Palestinians with praise for the White House. She told Al Jazeera, ‘I think it is important for your viewers to say to themselves, ‘well, we can continue with what we have now ‘which is a halt to nothing’ or we can halt all new settlement activity’.
The purpose of her mission had been to kick-start the Middle East peace talks, and by the time she left for Cairo, she’d single-handedly sabotaged them for good. Now The New York Times is reporting that Palestinian President Abbas announced he will not seek re-election:
[Abbas's] announcement, coming immediately after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s visit to kick start talks between Israel and the Palestinians, illustrated the rising tensions over the Obama administration’s failure to produce an Israeli settlement freeze or any concessions from Arab leaders.
Mrs. Clinton’s visit to the region, which she characterized as a success, sowed anger and confusion among Palestinians and other Arabs after she praised as “unprecedented” Israel’s compromise offer to slow down, but not stop, construction of settlements. [...]
A top aide to Mr. Abbas said a large part of the “despondency and frustration” felt by Mr. Abbas and the entire Palestinian leadership was due to President Obama’s unrealized promises to the region. He said he feared that without a stop to settlements, Islamist rivals in Hamas could triumph and violence could break out.
“There was high expectation when he arrived on the scene,” the aide, Nabil Shaath, who heads the Fatah party’s foreign affairs department, said of Mr. Obama, at a briefing. “He said he would work to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that it would play a major role in improving the American and Western relationship with the Muslim world. Now there is a total retreat, which has destroyed trust instead of building trust.”
Mr. Shaath added that if the United States vetoed sending a United Nations report critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza to the Security Council, “It really is like telling the Palestinians to go back to violence.”
President Abbas was probably the most peaceful, pro-western leader the Palestinians had ever had.
Talk about a “bull in a china shop,” could Obama have picked a more confrontational and destructive personality to serve as our nation’s ‘chief Diplomat’? And I had assumed the days of John Bolton were finally behind us. Apparently not …
UPDATE:
Juan Cole (sourcing the BBC) reveals that chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization Steering Committee, Saeb Erekat is calling it a moment of truth for President Abbas. Erekat goes on to say:
Palestine Authority president Mahmoud Abbas should be frank with the Palestinian people and admit to them that there is no possibility of a two-state solution given continued Israeli colonization of the West Bank.
It is morally and ethically unconscionable to leave millions of Palestinians in a condition of statelessness, in which they have no rights. Therefore, if there isn’t going to be a two-state solution, there will have to be a one-state solution, in which Israel gives citizenship to the Palestinians.
It’s a fascinating, and long overdue realization. You can read more about it at Salon …
Hillary Clinton’s Pandering To Israel Destroys U.S. Credibility On Middle East Peace
U.S. Middle East policy has effectively come full-circle again, as it has done repeatedly for the past forty-plus years. Every blue moon we get a U.S. President who dares to challenge Israel on its ethnic cleansing — as demonstrated by…
Most Recently Commented Posts