Sent to you by Sean McBride via Google Reader: Walt: Barack & Rahm Have to Know that Being 'Pro-Israel' Means Bringing Big Pressure Against Occupation Now via Mondoweiss by Philip Weiss on 11/15/08 Steve Walt has good faith about Obama’s foreign policy. (Having lately seen evidence of his clairvoyance,) I asked him where he thinks we're headed, and he offered these comments by email: I'm trying to keep an open mind on where we are headed. My views have been somewhat similar to Juan Cole's [re Rahm Emanuel]: what matters is not what somebody did or said in the past, I just want to see what they do now. My concern is that I don't think we get to a two-state solution without a lot of US pressure on both sides--and I mean pressure more emphatic and direct than even Bush and Baker employed--and I don't see anyone on the horizon who will do that. Perhaps I'm wrong: maybe the Israelis are going to be receptive to change provided we push a little and give them cover, and maybe Obama and Co. will provide enough pressure to get there. But Obama will be sufficiently focused on the economy and Iraq and Afghanistan so as to not want to engage personally during the first year or two. That means he'll have to delegate, and it will be to one of the usual suspects, with perhaps a bit of diversity in the team (but nobody outside the consensus). So the danger is that once again we'll get lots of energetic activity but not a new deal . Or to put it differently: we'll maintain the special relationship--where the US gives lots of aid more-or-less unconditionally and U.S. officials never do anything tangible to end the occupation--instead of moving to the more normal relationship that would be better for us and better for Israel too.
[Weiss again. I said to Walt that he sounded optimistic.] I am by nature something of an optimist, although I like to think it has been tempered by experience by now. It comes down to a simple question: do Obama, Emanuel, and whoever else they appoint realize that being "pro-Israel" today means openly opposing the occupation and using American influence (and leverage) to reverse (not just halt) the settlement project and bring about a viable Palestinian state? Until recently, being"pro-Israel" or a "friend of Israel " was interpreted to mean giving unconditional support and never voicing the slightest criticism. Whatever the intention, however, this policy is in fact "anti-Israel"; it has enabled a set of policies that have done great harm to the Jewish state. As a Jewish friend of mine puts it, our policy has encouraged "reckless driving." One might call U.S. policy "anti-Israeli in effect, if not in intention." In the past few years, however, the definition of "pro-Israel" has begun to shift--think IPF, or J Street, or JVP, or Brit Tzedek v'Shalom--and in ways that might make a two-state solution possible. But time is short. If Obama and Co. understand this, and have some real "baytzim," [Rahm Emanuel has given us this word: it’s cojones in Hebrew] then they can work with the Israelis and thoughtful supporters here in the US to bring it about before it is too late. But given everything else that is on Barack's plate, and the reluctance of most people in the foreign policy mainstream to say what they really think on this issue, it is hard to be optimistic. We shall see. Things you can do from here: - Subscribe to Mondoweiss using Google Reader - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your favorite sites
