us politics
5 Dec 2008
Obama: New Neo-Con?
Will Obama resist Zionist pressure and reveal his progressive side on Israel? Writing from the US, Antony Loewenstein isn't optimistic
I'm currently in the US on a book tour and I've been struck by the ubiquitous belief that Obama will soon reveal his progressive side. He's yet to assume office but that he'll be a conservative Democrat on foreign policy is denied by realists and dreamers alike.A few nights ago at the New York Public Library I attended a fascinating discussion between former Speaker of the Israeli Knesset Avraham Burg and historian Omer Bartov. Burg says that Israel must get past its Holocaust mentality in order to achieve a lasting peace in the region. He fears that this is unlikely to be achieved on current trends. A longer report on the evening by my friend, blogger and writer Phil Weiss, is here.
Burg's new book, The Holocaust is Over, We Must Rise From its Ashes, expands these arguments thoroughly. The debate was both necessary and illuminating, not least because it revealed the paucity of thinking in the Zionist establishment.
Burg, a religious Jew who has spent most of his adult life immersed in the Zionist movement, now wants an honest appraisal of the damage this ideology has wreaked on his country and the Palestinians. "We're so traumatised by the memories [of the Holocaust]", he said, "and maybe we'll never get over it. Maybe a nation can't get past it."
"We monopolise suffering," he continued. "Holocausts only happen to us. We must be more generous to others. The Holocaust must be removed from nearly daily use and manipulation in Israeli society."
Burg and Bartov talked excessively about "utopian" ideas for Israel and barely mentioned the Palestinians. It was a glaring omission - although when asked, Burg said he believed the window for a two-state solution had virtually shut, leaving a need to seriously discuss alternatives - and reflected the trauma the conflict has inflicted on all players. Burg painted an Israeli society afraid to debate ideas, fearful of taking risks, with the Arabs and the Messianic Jews in the West Bank and Israel proper threatening the very existence (and establishment) of a truly secular nation. "As soon as the Arabs declare peace with us," lamented Burg, "Israel will have a profound clash internally between the theocrats and democrats."
Afterwards at dinner, with The Israel Lobby co-author John Mearsheimer, historian Norman Finkelstein, blogger Phil Weiss and others, the argument was put forward that because younger American Jews are increasingly embarrassed by Israel's occupation policies — studies bear this out, and indicate less ethnic identification (because of intermarriage and other factors) with the concept of a Jewish nation — support for Israel is declining, forcing more moderates to the fore. I'm far from convinced. Older hardliners still hold the balance of power — and were just promoted into Obama's cabinet. Although the stranglehold of the Zionist old guard is clearly crumbling — witness the growing global public recognition of Palestinian suffering — the situation on the ground remains dire.
The Zionist lobby is still immensely powerful in Washington. Many younger Jews simply refuse to get involved in any organisations, frustrated with the myopic mindset. The West Bank occupation deepens every day. The UN even reported this week that Israel has refused to allow spices, kitchenware, glassware, yarn and paper into the Gaza Strip. None of these facts seem to disturb the Jewish leadership in America; they merely encourage Israel to tighten its noose around the territories.
Obama has major challenges to even address any of these issues yet seems determined, at this early stage, to ignore the more uncomfortable facts in front of him. With the appointment by of a hawkish national security team, including hardline Zionist Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it's become clear that no strong anti-war voices will have the ear of the new leader. Neo-conservatism is not dead as a movement; it has merely changed its political stripes. A military strike against Iran, as just one example, remains firmly on the table. Wishful thinking will not change this brutal reality.
The Nation's Jeremy Scahill doused optimistic expectations in The Guardian:
"Obama's starry-eyed defenders have tried to downplay the importance of his cabinet selections, saying Obama will call the shots, but the ruling elite in this country see it for what it is. Karl Rove, ‘Bush's Brain', called Obama's cabinet selections, ‘reassuring', which itself is disconcerting, but neoconservative leader and former McCain campaign staffer Max Boot summed it up best. ‘I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain,' Boot wrote."
Israelis are reportedly pleased that Obama's choices are unlikely to press the Jewish state for any major concessions while the Palestinians are understandably concerned.
"I was frankly surprised by this choice," Manar Shorbagy, an expert on American foreign policy who teaches at the American University in Cairo, said. "Obama's talking about bringing diplomacy back to a US foreign policy that has been militarised under President Bush. Senator Clinton has different ideas. She voted for the Iraq war and has supported many things Bush has done in his two terms."
Maintenance of the status-quo — Israel's settlement project expands, apartheid in the West Bank worsens and Gazans are continually strangled under collective punishment — remains the likely future. Without a serious international push towards resolution, Israel will forever increase its colonial project, making a two-state solution an utter impossibility. Ironically, the mainstream Jewish Diaspora leadership remains mute about this possibility. Inherently, they support a one-state answer, where, in a few years time, Arabs will outnumber Jews. What will they say then?
While it's encouraging that a growing number of leading pundits are speaking publicly against Israel's race to enforce its territorial gains, Israel suffers no real tangible price for flouting UN resolutions and breaking international law. The Holocaust is the eternal moral shroud with which the Jewish state protects itself.
What is desperately needed, as articulated by conservative International Herald Tribune columnist Roger Cohen this week, is the following:
"Imagine Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Israeli prime minister, saying this to Barack Obama:
'The United States has been wrong to write Israel a blank check every year; wrong to turn a blind eye to the settlements in the West Bank; wrong not to be more explicit about the need to divide Jerusalem; wrong to equip us with weaponry so sophisticated we now believe military might is the answer to all our problems; and wrong in not helping us reach out to Syria. Your prospective secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said during the campaign that ‘The United States stands with Israel, now and forever.' Well, that's not good enough. You need to stand against us sometimes so we can avoid the curse of eternal militarism."
If only more politicians across the Western world could see that their "pro-Israel" stance is killing the state they love.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Kwoff
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
Good stuff Antony. Too little has been said about the appointments.
The photo for this article is phenomenal.
Yes, excellent read as usual. I read the article by Jeremy Scahill as well, and am in the midst of forwarding the quote from Max Boot to some of those starry-eyed Obama supporters. Frankly, I’m surprised people are still taken in by campaign rhetoric. People need to be informed and need to vote with their consciences - even if it takes decades to get a worthy leader, what’s the alternative?
Israel is in trouble, sure enough - even many of those who think the two-state solution isn’t already dead think it will be if Sharon wins the leadership. What indeed will the Jewish leadership, both inside and outside Israel, say then? Still, the one-state solution will prove more stable in the long term.
philannetta.blogspot.com
With the removal of Jewish settlers from Hebron yesterday, it would appear that there has already been a subtle change in direction by the Israelis.
Whether this is due to Obama’s election or the realisation that the settlers are being used as an excuse for increasing the apartheid in the West Bank, time will tell.
Because in not allowing a Jewish presence in the ancient city of Hebron, a spiritual homeland they share with the Arabs and where continuous attachment has been (other than the forced removal of all Jews by the Jordanian government from the area) a fact for Jews for over two millenium.
There can be two states with neither being completely insular nor apartheid. Israel already has some Arab citizens and likewise Palestine should be prepared to have some Jewish citizens living amongst them.
Otherwise the Palestinians run the risk of appearing even more apartheid than the Israelis.
Yisrael, Yisrael betach יהוה, ezram umeginam hu.
Antony, I came across one of your diatribes where you mention "the legitimate targeting of Israelis in the occupied territories and Americans and Australians in Iraq and Afghanistan." Is this quote correct? While it’s not unusual for you to be calling for "the legitimate targeting of Israelis in the occupied territories" - by the way do you include children in that - you also mention “legitimate” attacks on Australians and Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both the US and Australian presence are covered by a UN mandate, as is the presence of NATO forces including British, Dutch and Danish forces. Are they also ‘legitimate targets’? It would be overstating things to say that your writing, the "thin gruel" that it is, contributes to what BRET STEPHENS writing in the WSJ calls a media narrative that feeds terrorist fantasies. Perhaps your fantasy appeal is more to the David Hicks, Willie Brigitte anti-Semitism lite brigade.
IBerlin,
"Both the US and Australian presence are covered by a UN mandate, as is the presence of NATO forces including British, Dutch and Danish forces. Are they also ‘legitimate targets’?"
I would say that the right to resist occupation overrules any mandate (especially one given after the fact). That’s covered also in international law, making the occupiers legitimate targets locally.
Turn it around, if you’re not sure. If Australia were invaded and occupied, would you feel the right to resist belonged to you as an Australian? How would a UN mandate affect that?
"It is an almost universally accepted principle that a people occupied by a foreign power has the right to use armed force to resist - though whether force will be the best tactic is another matter."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/jun/19/iraq.politicalcolumnists
See also:
the right to self-determination under the UN Charter,
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/b0d5f4c1f4b8102041256739003e6366/6c86520d7ef…
One more thing: NATO has no legal right (according to its own rules) to be anywhere near either Iraq or Afghanistan, both of which are supposedly sovereign countries outside of NATO jurisdiction.
cheers,
Derek
fairnessfella
It could well be an inability of Obama t in any way change the US bias towards Israel, become the main thing which destroys all chance of change from him.
If this the case , those who believe he’s a decent fair minded man, and I’m one of those, will conclude that it’s not what he wanted, but that he’s under Zionist pressure he just can’t resist. His appointments suggest that to be already true.
Those putting on that pressure, either directly, or by not saying anything to expose and oppose it, should think of the blow back there will be if the hope that hundreds of millions have invested in this great man, coming from around the world, is snuffed out.
Who has made Obama’s change agenda impossible, who has taken away our hope, will be the question on all sides, and why have they done so?
Short sighted Zionists may effectively tie his hands for the moment, but at the end of the day there is no alternative to fairness. Fairness for the Palestinians in the West Bank, and for the people under Siege in Gaza, could be change which energizes, kicks off, a great deal else.
It’s change that would also strengthen Obama’s hand for even harder tasks, like downsizing the the US Military, like restoring integrity at home.
dereklane,
Well said. Just as the UN had no right to partition Palestine in the first place, it has no right to mandate occupation of Iraq and occupaty by proxy of a puppet government in Afghanistan.
Denise: the ‘theatre’ in Hebron has happened before. Every now and again Israel ‘pretends’ it is taking a stance against the radical settlers while increasing its settlement building and doing nothing about the violence those settlers inflict upon Palestinians on a daily basis.
Usually, this sort of ‘performance’ is followed by a military attack against the Palestinians. It’s Israel’s way of saying: look how fair we are trying to be, while, behind their back they keep on doing the same thing: maintaining one of the most murderous occupations in modern history and continuing to dispossess and colonise the Palestinians.
As to Obama. We have to wait and see. The ‘signs’ do not augur well for any sort of honest broker approach to the Middle East but perhaps it does not matter. The US is going down the plughole and its days as the world’s greatest power are numbered; Israeli society, culture and religion have become so debased the country is rotting from within, and, as Anthony points out, losing support from Jews around the world. Israel’s days as a Jewish state are numbered. It may endure for a time as a secular state but the Palestinians are outbreeding the Israelis and in time, whatever secular state emerges, will be something new and neither Israeli nor completely Palestinian. Such is the way of the world, of history and of life.
dereklane You say " that the right to resist occupation overrules any mandate". Really. When Nazi Germany was invaded and occupied, would you feel the right to resist belonged to the Nazis? When fascist Japan was invaded and occupied, did you feel the right to resist belonged to the Japanese? I guess the convenient answer will always be yes for people like yourself, until you are able to understand the real meaning of the difference between Democracy and Fascism.
IBerlin,
As a matter of principle yes, the Germans and the Japanese did have a right to free themselves from occupation. The difference being that the occupying powers instituted a responsible plan for rebuilding those countries and a structure for ending the occupation.
In addition, both Germany and Japan were invaders and occupiers themselves which is why the war started.
The Palestinians are not invader or occupiers, neither are the Afghans or the Iraqis. They attacked no-one and their occupations are illegal and immoral. There is also no plan to ensure their ultimate autonomy as there was in both Germany and Japan.
Israel has no intention of ending its occupation and colonisation of Palestine; America has no intention of ending its military occupation of Iraq …. massive permanent military bases have been built across the country and they, like the greenzone in Baghdad, an American city in essence, are the only projects on schedule in Iraq. And in Afghanistan the foreign armies are fighting to prop up a puppet government.
As to the difference between democracy and fascism, at this point, America is more fascist than democratic. Does that mean the international community should invade and occupy in order to bring about regime change? Many might think so. But, as in the case of Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, it would be wrong.
It also pays to remember that in Iraq, the dictator Saddam Hussein remained in power because of US aid and support; the Taliban only got to power in Afghanistan because of US aid and support. The poor old Palestinians are merely an ignored oppressed and colonised people and it is the US and the international community which aids and abets the fascist and racist Israeli government in that oppression and colonisation.
Anyone who lives under occupation has a right to fight for their freedom. The circumstances of Japan and Germany were such that peoples of both nations chose not to. One can be sure however, that if they had been treated as the Afghans, Iraqis and Palestinians are, they most certainly would have done so and would have had every right to do so.
Look you guys,
Should Jews/Israelis get over the holocaust? Yes of course they should.
Should the world realise that Israel has survived all the mighty world empires and is not going away? Yes it should
Loewenstein’s generalizations are narrow minded,and bigoted not evenhanded and genuine views.
He portrays Zionists as fanatics, and young Jews as turning away from their communities.
This is purely a projection of his own psyche, except in Antony’s case he has actually been shown the door by the Australian Jewish community.
Furthermore his arguments are similar to the ones the Nazis used, who said they had nothing against the Jews, just the Talmudic Jews. In other words, the practising religious Jews.
However Loewenstein goes one step further, he is against "Zionists" which all religious Jews are, by definition, but many non religious Jews , probably the majority of Israelis, except the authors of left wing books would be happy to admit to.
Zionism is no more than the belief that Jews are entitled to their historical and native and traditional homeland.
If Barak Obama has a problem with that, then he’s not the astute and capable politician the world needs at the moment.
I for one hope that he is the right person for the job he is about to undertake this January.
The most important thing I omitted to mention was to put it all into a simplistic perspective, please go and see "You don’t mess with the Zohan".
starring Adam Sandler and John Tauturro, amongst others. It’s got something for everyone, even if Sandler’s mock Hebrew accent sounds like someone witha donner kebab stuck in their gullet. :-)
Tzvika
revilo,
"Zionism is no more than the belief that Jews are entitled to their historical and native and traditional Homeland", why are Jews entitled to someone else’s land? The argument that since Jews lived in the area 2000 years ago their "descendents" have a right to invade and dispossess the Palestinians in the 20th century is morally indefensible, Zionism is chauvinistic nonsense. The Palestinians should not pay for Western anti semitism.
IBerlin,
Of course the Palestinans have the right to resist the invader, to deny this robs them of their humanity.
dereklane I must conclude that your masturbatory ramblings, contorted justification and tacit support for fascism is part of a larger psychological problem. This is usually the case with fascist fellow-travellers. Feelings towards Jews and Americans of envy, greed, fear, impotence etc. usually manifest themselves in predictably limp comments such as "America is more fascist than democratic" and "Israel is fascist and racist". Sadly, this puts you firmly (an unusual position I’m sure) into the frustrated crackpot realm. I’m sorry that I can no longer be of any help to you. But keep at least your chin up, I sure that the new US president, or should I say, Fuhrer, Barack Obama and his Reichsleiter, Joe Biden, can give you some temporary relief.
Excellent article, Antony. And very well said, rosross!
Dazza.
Newsflash IBerlin, there is no fascism greater than the Israeli terrorist regime.
Revilo, modern Zionism is an expression of Jewish refusal to assimilate currently expressed in such a way as to justify current genocidal attempts to steal an entire country from that indigenous nation which already lives there.
If jews have suffered it is because we have chosen to regard ourselves "the aristocrats of humanity" holding all others in contempt.
But the Goy do have soul Revilo, just like the Palestinians do belong to Palestine and Palestine does belong to the Palestinians.
Many Jews, even the majority of us, already knows how to distinguish fact from religion.
The old lie of "all Jews" this and "all Jews" that is thin and worn at the edges Revilo. For example, Loewenstein enjoys the support of enough Australian Jews to claim he shares the view of the majority so it is not "all Jews" who "reject" him as you claim Oliver.
It seems the blow hards and the fanatics in Australia are no different to those in other countries, namely that they are in the minority and that they have lost touch with the views of the majority whom they claim to represent. Factually they no longer represent enough of us to make those claims which they do make on our behalf. It is the blowhards who do not enjoy the view of the majority, but they have the benefit of the media and organisational structures to spread their message.
Another thing Revilo, most Sephardics laugh at your jingoistic pro Zionist comments, and I laugh right alongside all of them. Sephardics and Falashas are considered "second class" in Israel despite the fact they are Jewish.
Any study of anti-judaic anti-semitism and prejudice and the accusations made against us, from the time of Egypt and the Exodus to more modern times commencing with Rome’s General Titus through to the Russian, Polish and ultimately German accusations against us are all based on the same complaints of our perceived refusal to assimilate with others and our contempt for other human beings. The behaviour of a few, as usual, is the burden of us all.
Refusal to assimilate and contempt for other human beings is what anti-Palestinian Zionism is and it is not Jewish as you claim Revilo. These are the sort of facts which might be of great value when we examine "Zionism" and it’s attempt to mould "anti-semitism" and "anti-zionism" into one singular concept.
Too many Jews and gentiles alike no longer buy into the lie anymore Revilo, and no amount of lying and misrepresentation will change that.
Well said, Rockjaw!
Dazza.
There is another side to the ‘settler’ argument and that is there is actually a continuous attachment to the land of Israel by (some) of the Jews. Whether they were not allowed to live in the region they consider their homeland due to political anti-Semitic forces armed and aimed against them settling there of their own free will must also be considered.
This religious and cultural heritage reclaimed by the Jews is now naturally being expressed by the building of Jewish settlements on holy Jewish sites and that is being welcomed by many working-class Palestinians as it employs them.
The trouble is not everybody here (at NM) believes in the sanctity of the Old Testament, like religious Jews and Christians.
However, the Judaeo-Christian faithful is a substantially large group of people worldwide. And possibly the single largest Zionist group outside of Israel is not the Jews themselves, but the Christians who also believe in the Old Testament and the reclaiming of the land of Israel for the believers.
So anti-Zionists, pro-Palestinians have to first disenfranchise the Old Testament from the Christians, as well as from the Jews, to then violently claim (against UN charters backed by the US and many other well armed nations) with what is supposed to be essentially a submissive religious identity built on anti-Christian and anti-Jewish sentiment.
So Palestinians in their militias uncoordinated terrorist attacks are playing purely spoiling tactics as they know there is no chance of removing the Israelis.
So until this fact is recognised the Palestinians are their own worst enemies and they will only send their chances of autonomy further backward.
They can’t try to disregard the past and look only at whatever little piece of history they decide is important.
However, in the long run it will all point to the same conclusion, reason and outcome motivating the Israelis and all believers in The Holy Bible; the claiming back of the land of Israel. This recaimation was sanctified by the UN and whether it was right or wrong, ‘all’ must abide by the judges decision.
So because the Palestinians have still not formerly accepted the formation of the Israeli nation and made peace, they have, rather than attempting to share the land with the original owners, the Jews, decided to remain hostile, in a perpetual state of war between the Zionists and themselves. More fool them as they may cause pain and suffering for the Israelis but it won’t compare to what they put their own people through by being unrealistic and anti-Zionist.
Apologies to the followers of Judaism who have contributed above, but you’ve lost me on very many points, and I know that I’m showing my ignorance but if anyone would care to explain what you’re all on about with regard to the finer points of Judaism, kindly do so. I would be genuinely intersted to learn something.
To derek lane, I ask this: Wasn’t Australia invaded and occupied 200 years ago? Did the native Australians then have the option of appeal? Have the readers and contributors to NM forgotten that the modern state of Australian was built on occupation and oppression? Don’t preach to the Israelis unless you know what it is like to live in an occupied state.
Israel is an independent and sovereign state, just like Taiwan, for instance (the difference being that the Taiwanese have the Chinese as neighbours, and have virtually no international backing when it comes to proclaiming independence). I see no problem with this. I do have a problem with the goons in control seeking to still hold on to the territories they occupied after 1967, and with those who wish to terrorise the locals and take over all of their land. I also see a problem with those on "the other side" who wish to drive the Israelis into the sea.
Israel should get out of the Palestinian areas and recognise the state of Palestine; the Palestinians should leave Israel alone and recognise their right to statehood, whether they like it or not.
To Mr. Lowenstein himself, I have to say that I didn’t know that Hillary Clinton was Jewish; I though she came from Presbyterian stock (or something like that)..
In response Patman (and it still surprises me how little Christians and those of other faiths know about Judaism) the finer points of Judaism were the establishment of a national religious doctrine or set of laws based on the teachings of the Old Testament (information which contains Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian and Greek influences and wisdom) formed in Israel over two, or nearer three millenium ago.
So the ancient nation of Israel (with Jerusalem as its capitol) was initially created to protect the faithful (in the Old Testament) from the lawless (mainly nomadic) tribes surrounding them. Sounds familiar doesn’t it!
Patman:- "To Mr. Lowenstein himself, I have to say that I didn’t know that Hillary Clinton was Jewish; I though she came from Presbyterian stock (or something like that)." - Loewenstein does not claim she is Jewish. The article speaks of "Zionist" - perhaps if we could all understand the distinction a little better?