No, I Can't!
AFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack
Obama
has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a
miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a
credible
candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.
And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran
to
the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke
all
records for obsequiousness and fawning.
That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was
shocked.
IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had
never
seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United
States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Wa****ngton
elite,
which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls
made
speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members
of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or
reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions
at
all, came to see and be seen.
The Wa****ngton of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine
emperors
in its heyday.
The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were
ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and
conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media re****ted on them extensively.
Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.
The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen
Walt
were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel ,
this
coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in
the US and the world at large.
WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe
that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?
The Jewish votes are im****tant, of course, especially in several swing
states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more
votes,
and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions
of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is
also not an insignificant factor.
Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate
more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful
Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most
decidedly the huge multinational cor****ations, have given considerable
sums
of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has
proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have
sent
him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.
True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the
election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do
so
with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were
indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular
politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election
campaign of a practically unknown rival.
But in a presidential race?
THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than
similar efforts by the other candidates.
Why? Because his 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
Wa****ngton 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. And how!
The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and
John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the
very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was
totally
opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pu****ng
George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.
And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out
of
his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.
OK he promises to safeguard Israel 's security at any cost. That is usual.
OK he threatens darkly against Iran , even though he promised to meet
their
leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back
our
three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by
Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge
of
our affairs.)
But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no
exaggeration
to call it scandalous.
NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the
Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount ), one of the three
holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian
nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of
the core issues of the conflict.
On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even
though
the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in
some
manner.
Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan
"Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp
David , all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra
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.
In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it
was
enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem . After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did
anything
about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it
would
harm basic American interests.
Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he
was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After
that, God is great.
But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible,
that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not
dare.
In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Wa****ngton routine. He is
prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US
has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will
allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab m***** from Iraq to
Morocco
.. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future
-
if and when he is elected president.
SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi
Germany
exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe . They were unable to
prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant
to
stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not
dare
to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)
What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish
establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder?
Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?
The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my
conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what
really
matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist
one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small
America , the USA is a huge Israel .
The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second
aliya
(immigration wave), fled from Europe , carrying in their hearts a
messianic
vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly
atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their
vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists
immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims.
Both
sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen
people.
Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as
"pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a
land
without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous
people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the
natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate
murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both
expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural
thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on
the plow and the Bible in the other.
True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed
against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted
for many generations in the US . But since the Americans have repressed
these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them
from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the
unconscious
mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that
express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness
and the wor****p of power.
HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies
so
completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It
shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a
person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative.
To
this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if
possible.
Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he
must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he
will return to himself."
I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a
surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.
Of one thing I am certain: 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.
If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as
peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"
|
