I won't feel secure til Schumer and Gillibrand have declared. But otherwise this is a very nice rant from MJ Rosenberg.
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:51 AM, c b <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/201311075440294575.html > > > Obama defeats the Israel Lobby > As long as Israel's security is not put at risk - "and no president > would put it at risk" - the president will prevail. > > "The Department of Defence personifies US national security and once > President Obama made clear that he would nominate Hagel, the game was > over," writes author [Reuters] > > In 1983 or thereabouts, during my four year stint at AIPAC, the > powerful organisation that is the main component of the pro-Israel > lobby, I asked Tom Dine, its executive director, if a president of the > United States could ever successfully challenge Israel's behaviour > even in cases when US national security interests were clearly at > stake. > > My question related specifically to the occupation of the West Bank > and Gaza that began in 1967 and which seemingly made an > Israeli-Palestinian agreement impossible. It also was, as it is now, > the primary source of Arab and Muslim anger against the United States. > > The reason for my question was my fear that the power of the lobby was > such that a president could not prevail against it. > > Even matters that did not directly affect Israel like US arms sales to > allies like Jordan and Saudi Arabia, would meet massive resistance > from Israel, the lobby and its huge chorus of supporters in Congress. > > How, I asked Dine, could the United States ever get Israel to actually > yield occupied territory if it became clear that the Arabs were ready > for peace, as in fact became the case after the 1993 Oslo agreement > between Israel and the PLO? > > Dine responded that although he hoped the day would come when Israeli > leaders (and hence the lobby) would be ready for "compromise", he did > not think a president could make Israel do anything it didn't want to > do given the power of the organisation he led and "our friends in > Congress". > > But then he added a caveat: "Of course, if a president pushed hard > enough, and told the American people that the Israeli-Palestinian > conflict was damaging US interests and that he had a plan to end it, > he would prevail." > > He elaborated: "By that I mean AIPAC would have no choice but to > support him. We can never defeat a president who reaches over the > heads of AIPAC and Congress and invokes his prerogatives as president > of the United States or, even more, the national interest. > > The logic behind Dine's thinking was simply that American Jews would > never allow themselves to be perceived as putting Israel's interests > over America's because (1) that would be bad for Jews and (2) American > Jews are Americans before they are anything else. > > It is fine to strongly support the Israeli government even when it is > at odds with the US government - but only up to a point. The point is > when that support clearly contradicts US interests, as defined by the > president. > > Inside Story US 2012 - What role does the > pro-Israel lobby play? > > That is why the lobby was so outraged when Reagan administration > officials suggested the lobby's opposition to an arms sale to Saudi > Arabia represented the wrong answer to the question of "Reagan or > Begin?" That little phrase - "Reagan or Begin" - won the battle for > the administration. > > That is why any criticism of the lobby that even hints at the lobby's > putting Israel's interests above America's produces such fury, hence > the recent hysteria over the use of the term "Israel Firster". > > American Jews will not tolerate the suggestion that they are anything > but good Americans. Fighting a president over a national security > issue is simply not sustainable. > > Although a president's choice for Secretary of Defence is not in > really a national security issue, it does get to the question of an > American president and his security prerogatives. After all, the > Department of Defence personifies US national security. Once President > Obama made clear that he would nominate Hagel, the game was over. > > Of course, the lobby claims that it actually did not fight to prevent > the naming of Hagel. That is just silly. As someone who worked at > AIPAC, in Congress and the State Department for 20 years, I know more > than most that, when it comes to the Israel issue, nothing happens > without the lobby's involvement. > > AIPAC is, like most professional lobbies, highly protective of its > role. Its associates and friends, widely quoted in the media as > demanding that Hagel not be appointed, would never have been so > aggressive without AIPAC's go-ahead. That is how it works. It always > has. > > Frankly, I am surprised that the president went ahead over the lobby's > opposition. I am well-known for my belief that it could not be beaten, > although I have always offered the caveat that it would be if a > president fought back hard. > > Obama did, and Chuck Hagel will almost surely be the next Secretary of > Defence. > > That is good news but far less significant than the implications for > peace. As Dine told me all those years ago, if a president pushes for > a peace agreement that advances US interests while not harming > Israel's, he will prevail. > > That means that he can insist on an end to the occupation and the > creation of a viable Palestinian state in the lands Israel has > occupied since 1967. As long as Israel's security is not put at risk > (and no president would put it at risk), the president will prevail. > This is especially the case because an end to the occupation (with > security guarantees for Israel and the new state) would advance > Israel's security not damage it. > > The lobby will not be able to block a president determined to end the > Israeli-Palestinian conflict on terms fair to both sides. It is like > the father of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, said: "If you will it, it > is no dream." > > It is, as Obama demonstrated with Hagel, just a matter of will. > > MJ Rosenberg served as a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow with Media > Matters Action Network and prior to that worked on Capitol Hill for > various Democratic members of the House and Senate for 15 years. He > was also a Clinton political appointee at USAID. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected]
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
