In the latest round of confrontations with the hard-right Israeli government and their Washington-based AIPAC sycophants, Obama has pursued a deceptively forceful manner in dealing with Middle East policy.
As the Freeman appointment proved, you cannot take on the Israel lobby in broad daylight. They are too powerful, too controlling, too knee-jerk in their hysteria to be confronted in a manner that says unequivocally “you are no longer in the drivers seat”.
Instead, as Obama has done, the Israel Lobby must be confronted with smiles, with assurances of fairness and dignity for all life, and refrains for peace and prosperity for both Israel and Palestine. But the refrains are now a twist on old platitudes — peace no longer means Israel inflicting an apartheid state on Palestine, prosperity no longer means increasing settlements for Jewish fanatics in the West Bank, peace no longer means an eager belligerence to wage war on civilians. Most Americans agree on a 2 state solution and humane co-existence until that point, so what serious person could publicly disagree if Obama sincerely pursues it. Obama’s words on ‘peace and prosperity’ are refreshing because they no longer serve merely as an empty vessel through which Israel cashes its blank check from American power.
I know a lot of people are getting hell-bent over the current discussion on torture (I certainly have). But certain elements of this discussion have concerned me, mostly the idea that America has lost its ‘moral compass’ during the Bush years and through the torture and extraordinary rendition scandal.
To this, I simply respond What moral compass? America, in it’s 220 years of existence has succeeded precisely because it’s geo-political and economic strategies have no moral element to them. The short-sightedness of this debate is that the Bush years were some sort of anomaly in the trajectory of American goodness, while the truth is the narrative of America has been one of human rights abuse, economic exploitation, and disregard for the lives of non-Americans.
A small smattering of America’s ‘moral compass’ just from the past 50 years:
- • Covertly overthrew President Salvador Allende in Chile and replacing him with Augusto Pinochet who would kill and torture over 100,000 people
“Believe me, America accepts all our decisions. The Obama Admin will put forth new peace initiatives only if Israel wants it to.”
– Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman [quoted in Haaretz]
See Also: Lieberman: U.S. to accept any Israeli policy decision, Lieberman: U.S. to accept any Israeli policy decision, Lieberman: Arab initiative ‘a recipe for Israel’s destruction’, Lieberman Israeli foreign minister first major interview, How Do You Like Being Their Bitch?, and Lieberman: U.S., Israel’s Toady.
Technorati Tags: israeli foreigner minsiter, israel fm, avigdor lieberman, avigdor liebermann, haaretz, quote on america, peace process, obama administration, us involvement in peace process, two state solution, Annapolis agreements, barack obama
I was a step ahead (though I had actually written the post about 2 weeks ago) in writing that the United States, NATO, and Afghani government should pursue diplomatic talks with the Taliban. And lo and behold, in today’s New York Times, Afghanistan Tests Waters for Overture to Taliban:
The Afghan government and its allies in the region have begun approaching the Taliban and other insurgent groups with new intensity to test the possibilities for eventual peace talks, Western diplomats and Afghan officials here say.
The diplomatic approaches have been stepped up over the last several months by the Afghan government, as well as by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the officials said. They are part of a broad political effort to stem the downward spiral of violence in Afghanistan and the steep decline of public support for the government during a year that has proved to be the bloodiest of the past seven.
Two weeks ago in Mecca, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia hosted talks between the Afghani government and the Taliban to begin dialogue on reconciliation between the two parties and reintroducing a large segment of the population into national institutions. Against the grain of American/NATO policy, the Sauds have once again been forced to go behind Western backs to seek stability in the region.
The situation seems oddly familiar — one side heralded by the West as part of long-term Middle East democratization, the other derided as a destabilizing, rogue organization that must be excluded at all costs. In February of 2007, the Sauds brought together Fatah and Hamas in spite of fervent American activity to remove Hamas from power, including direct coup attacks in Gaza. Though the Palestinian Unity government would hastily collapse, it showed that ‘radicalized’ elements could be brought into governing coalitions in the Middle East.
