Log in
His June 3 speech in Washington in many ways constituted a slap in
the face of the grass roots peace and human rights activists who have
brought him to the cusp of the Democratic presidential nomination.
In other respects, however, he pandered less to this influential
lobbying group than many other serious aspirants for national office
have historically. And at least part of his speech focused on
convincing the largely right-wing audience members to support his
positions rather than simply underscoring his agreement with them.
Much of the media attention placed upon his speech centered on the
ongoing debate between him and incipient Republican presidential
nominee John McCain on Iran. While embracing many of the same double- standards regarding nuclear nonproliferation issues and UN
resolutions as does the Bush administration and congressional leaders
of both parties, Obama did insert some rationality into the debate
regarding the need for negotiations with that regional power rather
than maintaining the current U.S. policy of diplomatic isolation and
threats of war.
When it came to Israel and Palestine, however, Obama appeared to
largely embrace a right-wing perspective which appeared to place all
the blame for the ongoing violence and the impasse in the peace
process on the Palestinians under occupation rather than the Israelis
who are still occupying and colonizing the parts of their country
seized by the Israeli army more than 40 years ago.
Progressive Israeli Reactions
While there were some faint glimmers of hope in Obama’s speech for
those of us who support Israeli-Palestinian peace, progressive voices
in Israel were particularly disappointed.
Israeli analyst Uri Avneri, in an essay entitled “No, I Can’t!”,
expressed the bitterness of many Israeli peace activists for “a
speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.” Avneri
goes on to observe the irony of how Obama’s “dizzying success in the
primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to
put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the
old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his
principles. And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after
securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles.”
Avneri addressed the view of many Israelis that “Obama’s declarations
at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad
for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the
Palestinian people.”
Support for Further Militarization
In his speech, Obama rejected the view that the Middle East already
has too many armaments and dismissed pleas by human rights activists
that U.S. aid to Israel – like all countries – should be made
conditional on adherence to international humanitarian law. Indeed,
he further pledged an additional $30 billion of taxpayer-funded
military aid to the Israeli government and its occupation forces over
the next decade with no strings attached. Rather than accept that
strategic parity between potential antagonists is the best way, short
of a full peace agreement, to prevent war and to maintain regional
security, Obama instead insisted that the United States should enable
Israel to maintain its “qualitative military edge.”
Over the past three years, the ratio of Palestinian civilians in the
Gaza Strip killed by Israeli forces relative to the number of Israeli
civilians in Israel killed by Palestinians is approximately 50 to one
and has been even higher more recently. However, Obama chose only to mention the Israeli deaths and condemn Hamas, whose armed wing has been responsible for most of the Israeli casualties, and not a word
about the moral culpability of the Israeli government, which Amnesty
International and other human rights groups have roundly criticized
for launching air strikes into Gaza’s densely crowded refugee camps
and related tactics.
Since first running for the U.S. Senate, Obama has routinely
condemned Arab attacks against Israeli civilians but has never
condemned attacks against Arab civilians by Israelis. This apparent
insistence that the lives of Palestinian and Lebanese civilian are
somehow less worthy of attention than the lives of Israeli civilians
have led to charges of racism on the part of Obama.
Despite his openness to talk with those governing Iran and North
Korea, Obama emphasized his opposition to talking to those governing
the Gaza Strip, even though Hamas won a majority in the Palestinian
parliament in what was universally acknowledged as a free election.
Though a public opinion poll published in the leading Israeli
newspaper Haaretz showed that 64% of the Israeli population support
direct negotiations between Israel and Hamas (while only 28%
expressed opposition), Obama has chosen to side with the right-wing
minority in opposing any such talks. Furthermore, Obama insists that
Hamas should have never been even allowed to participate in the
Palestinian elections in the first place because of their extremist
views, which fail to recognize Israel and acts of terrorism by its
armed wing. Yet he has never objected to the Israelis allowing
parties such as National Union – which defends attacks on Arab
civilians and seeks to destroy any Palestinian national entity, and
expel its Arab population – to participate in elections or hold high
positions in government.
He insisted that Hamas uphold previous agreements by the Fatah-led
Palestine Authority with Israel, but did not insist that Israel
uphold its previous agreements with the Palestine Authority, such as
withdrawing from lands re-occupied in 2001 in violation of U.S.-
guaranteed disengagement agreements.
In reference to Obama’s speech, the anchor to Israel’s Channel 2 News
exclaimed that it was “reminiscent of the days of Menachem Begin’s
Likud,” referring to the far right-wing Israeli party and its
founder, a notorious terrorist from the 1940s who later became prime
minister. By contrast, back in February, while still seeking liberal
Democratic votes in the primaries, Obama had explicitly rejected the
view which, in his words, identifies being pro-Israel with “adopting
an unwaveringly pro-Likud view of Israel.” Now that he has secured
the nomination, however, he has appeared to have changed his tune.
Endorsing Israel’s Annexation of Jerusalem
Most disturbing was Obama’s apparent support for Israel’s illegal
annexation of greater East Jerusalem, the Palestinian-populated
sector of the city and surrounding villages that Israel seized along
with the rest of the West Bank in June 1967.
The UN Security Council passed a series of resolutions (252, 267,
271, 298, 476 and 478) calling on Israel to rescind its annexation of
greater East Jerusalem and to refrain from any unilateral action
regarding its final status. Furthermore, due to the city’s unresolved
legal status dating from the 1948-49 Israeli war on independence, the
international community refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s
capital, with the United States and other governments maintaining
their respective embassies in Tel Aviv.
Despite these longstanding internationally-recognized legal
principles, Obama insisted in his speech before AIPAC that “Jerusalem
will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
Given the city’s significance to both populations, any sustainable
peace agreement would need to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city
for both Israel and Palestine. In addition to its religious
significance for both Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims,
Jerusalem has long been the most important cultural, commercial,
political, and educational center for Palestinians and has the
largest Palestinian population of any city in the world. Furthermore,
Israel’s annexation of greater East Jerusalem and its planned
annexation of surrounding settlement blocs would make a contiguous
and economically viable Palestinian state impossible. Such a
position, therefore, would necessarily preclude any peace agreement.
This raises serious questions as to whether Obama really does support
Israeli-Palestinian peace after all.
According to Uri Avneri, Obama’s “declaration about Jerusalem breaks
all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.”
Furthermore, says this prominent observer of Israeli politics, every
Israeli government in recent years has recognized that calls for an
undivided Jerusalem “constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any
peace process. It has disappeared – quietly, almost secretly – from
the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-
Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at
birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling
of the settlements.”
Obama argued in his speech that the United States should not “force
concessions” on Israel, such as rescinding its annexation of
Jerusalem, despite the series of UN Security Council resolutions
explicitly calling on Israel do to so. While Obama insists that Iran,
Syria, and other countries that reject U.S. hegemonic designs in the
region should be forced to comply with UN Security Council
resolutions, he apparently believes allied governments such as Israel
are exempt.
Also disturbing about his statement was a willingness to “force
concessions” on the Palestinians by pre-determining the outcome of
one of the most sensitive issues in the negotiations. If, as widely
interpreted, Obama was recognizing Israel’s illegal annexation of
greater East Jerusalem, it appears that the incipient Democratic
nominee – like the Bush administration – has shown contempt for the
most basic premises of international law, which forbids any country
from expanding its borders by force.
However, the Jerusalem Post reported that the Obama campaign, in an
attempt to clarify his controversial statement, implied that the
presumed Democratic presidential nominee was not actually ruling out
Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem and that “undivided”
simply meant that “it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and
checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.” The campaign also replied to the
outcry from his speech by declaring that “Jerusalem is a final status
issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties”
as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.” This implies
that Obama’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel does
not necessarily preclude its Arab-populated eastern half becoming the
capital of a future Palestinian state.
Israel, however, has shown little willingness to withdraw its
administration and occupation forces from greater East Jerusalem
voluntarily. Obama’s apparent reluctance to pressure Israel to do so
makes it hard to imagine that he is really interested in securing a
lasting peace agreement.
It Could Have Been Worse
Perhaps, as his campaign claims, Obama was not rejecting the idea of
a shared co-capital of Jerusalem. And perhaps his emphasis on Israeli
suffering relative to Palestinian suffering was simply a reflection
of the sympathies of the audience he was addressing and was not
indicative of anti-Arab racism. If so, the speech could have been a
lot worse.
Indeed, Obama’s emphasis on peace, dialogue, and diplomacy is not
what the decidedly militaristic audience at AIPAC normally hears from
politicians who address them.
Obama did mention, albeit rather hurriedly, a single line about
Israeli obligations, stating that Israel could “advance the cause of
peace” by taking steps to “ease the freedom of Palestinians, improve
economic conditions” and “refrain from building settlements.” This is
more than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain was willing to say in
their talks before the AIPAC convention. And, unlike the Bush
administration, which last year successfully pressured Israel not to
resume peace negotiations with Syria, Obama declared that his
administration would never “block negotiations when Israel’s leaders
decide that they may serve Israeli interests.”
Furthermore, earlier in his career, Obama took a more balanced
perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, aligning himself
with positions embraced by the Israeli peace camp and its American
supporters. For example, during his unsuccessful campaign for the
U.S. House of Representatives in 2000, Obama criticized the Clinton
administration for its unconditional support for the occupation and
other Israeli policies and called for an even-handed approach to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He referred to the “cycle of violence”
between Israelis and Palestinians, whereas most Democrats were
insisting that it was a case of “Palestinian violence and the Israeli
response.” He also made statements supporting a peace settlement
along the lines of the 2003 Geneva Initiative and similar efforts by
Israeli and Palestinian moderates.
Unlike any other major contenders for president this year or the past
four election cycles, Obama at least has demonstrated in the recent
past a more moderate and balanced perspective on the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict. As president, he may well be better than his
AIPAC speech would indicate. Though the power of the “Israel Lobby”
is often greatly exaggerated, it may be quite reasonable to suspect
that pressure from well-funded right-wing American Zionist
constituencies has influenced what Obama believes he can and cannot
say. As an African-American whose father came from a Muslim family,
he is under even more pressure than most candidates to avoid being
labeled as “anti-Israel.”
Ironically, a strong case can be made that the right-wing
militaristic policies he may feel forced to defend actually harm
Israel’s legitimate long-term security interests.
A Political Necessity?
If indeed Obama took these hard-line positions during his AIPAC
speech in order to seem more electable, it may be a serious mistake.
Most liberal Democrats who gave blind support to the Israeli
government in the 1960s and 1970s now have a far more even-handed
view of the conflict, recognizing both Israeli and Palestinian rights
and responsibilities. In addition, voters under 40 tend to take a far
more critical view of unconditional U.S. support for Israeli policies
than those of older generations. There is a clear generational shift
among American Jews as well, with younger Jewish voters – although
firmly supporting Israel’s right to exist in peace and security –
largely opposing unconditional U.S. support for the occupation and
colonization of Arab lands. The only major voting group that supports
positions espoused by AIPAC are right-wing Christian fundamentalists,
who tend to vote Republican anyway.
Furthermore, Obama has been far more dependent on large numbers of
small donors from his grassroots base and less on the handful of
wealthy donors affiliated with such special interest groups as AIPAC.
This speech may have cost him large numbers of these smaller,
progressive donors without gaining him much from the small numbers of
larger, more conservative donors.
Indeed, there may not be a single policy issue where Obama’s liberal
base differs from the candidate more than on Israel/Palestine. Not
surprisingly, the Green Party and its likely nominee, former Georgia
Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, along with independent candidate
Ralph Nader, are both using this issue to gain support at the expense
of Obama.
Only hours after his AIPAC speech, the Nader campaign sent out a
strongly worded letter noting how, unlike Obama and McCain, Nader
supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements and would change U.S. Middle East policy. The widely-circulated response to the speech makes the case that, in contrast to Obama, “Nader/Gonzalez stands on these issues with the majority of Israelis, Palestinians, Jewish-Americans and Arab Americans.”
Betraying the Jewish Community
Through a combination of deep-seated fear from centuries of anti-
Semitic repression, manipulation by the United States and other
Western powers, and self-serving actions by some of their own
leaders, a right-wing minority of American Jews support influential
organizations such as AIPAC to advocate militaristic policies that,
while particularly tragic for the Palestinians and Lebanese, are
ultimately bad for the United States and Israel as well. Obama’s June
3 speech would have been the perfect time for Obama, while upholding
his commitment to Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, to
challenge AIPAC’s militarism and national chauvinism more directly.
Unfortunately, while showing some independence of thought on Iran, he apparently felt the Palestinians were not as important.
Taking a pro-Israel but anti-occupation position would have
demonstrated that Obama was not just another pandering politician and that he recognized that a country’s legitimate security needs were
not enhanced by invasion, occupation, colonization and repression.
That truly would have been “change you can believe in.”
Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus senior analyst, serves as a
professor of politics and chair of Middle East Studies at the
University of San Francisco.
