Hillary's Middle East saga
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's excursion to the Middle East has the look about it of a leader responding to the latest political pressure point. She goes to Jerusalem and says that Israeli settlements should not stand in the way of negotiations, and even compliments the Netanyahu government for the steps it has taken. She then proceeds to Morocco and says that America has always opposed Israeli settlements and Israel is very far from meeting American expectations on the subject. Despite the appearance of pandering to local concerns, the Secretary of State's trip has been important in setting straight American priorities in an effort to get the peace process back on track. Let's be clear. The tension that has arisen between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government since last spring is not about Israeli settlements per se, but about how Israeli settlements fit in to the larger challenge of peacemaking. American presidents one after another have opposed Israeli settlements since the 1970s when the settler movement truly emerged. Some did so with greater vigor than others, in particular Jimmy Carter, who not only criticized settlements but also said that they were an obstacle to peace, and George Bush the elder, who held up loan guarantees as long as Israel continued settlement expansion. So, as Secretary Clinton said in Morocco, the Obama administration was hardly breaking new ground in its demand that Israel freeze settlement building. Where it was moving in a new direction was in taking previous comments about settlements being an obstacle to peace and making that the centerpiece of American policy. In fact, Israeli settlements, whether one supported them or opposed them, had never prevented negotiations from taking place when the will to negotiate otherwise existed. But now, by the US insisting that Israel freeze settlements as a precondition to restarting negotiations, we were indeed creating a reality which did not exist heretofore: Settlements were blocking peace talks. Palestinians now said they wouldn't negotiate as long as Israel continued to expand settlements. From a whisper to a roar: The return of the blood libel
If there is one thing we have learned from history, it is that predicable patterns of behavior provide the underpinnings of virulent anti-Semitism. Like a lethal virus or a pestilence, the disease of Jew-hatred cannot flourish by itself. It needs the right conditions, the right combination of circumstances and a proper environment to grow and spread. We know, for example, that the Holocaust didn't begin with the bricks and mortar of the gas chambers. It started with words - hateful words, ugly words - words that could inspire enough hatred to create the conditions for a rapid-fire combustion that led to the annihilation of six million Jews and millions of others. And we know that the 9/11 terror attacks in the US didn't start with airplanes and boxcutters. Those attacks began with hateful ideas and words that inspired the terrorists to maim and kill more than 3,000 innocent people. For centuries, one of the most powerful tools in the arsenal of anti-Semites has been the ability to fuel hatred by creating a mythical idea of Jews being a pathologically loathsome people. These notions are founded in stereotypical attributes and hateful canards - that Jews are greedy, that they keep to themselves, that they are all-powerful, that they are "blood-suckers," or that they control the government or the media in order to advance sinister agendas. Perhaps the worst manifestation of this hatred is the ancient blood libel. This odious myth, handed down through the centuries from medieval times to the present day, suggests that Jews prepare their Passover matzot with the sacrificial blood of Christian children. This despicable slander led to pogroms, expulsions and bloodshed against Jews throughout history. The blood libel is recognized as one of the taproots of anti-Semitism. And it is as alive and well today as it was more than a century ago. Most recently it resurfaced with accusations now swirling through the blogosphere that American Jews and Israeli soldiers are involved in a broad conspiracy to harvest organs for profit. It started as a whisper. The whispers suggested that Israeli soldiers tasked with patrolling the Palestinian West Bank weren't just policing and keeping the peace, but were rather involved in something much more nefarious - capturing innocent civilians so their organs could be harvested and illegally sold on the black market. The Fatah factor
Let's start with what I believe is the obvious: Fatah and Hamas are two very different organizations. Not only are they at each other's throats whenever they have the opportunity, but they speak very different languages. Hamas talks of an Islamic state, Fatah of a Palestinian national state. Hamas calls for Israel,s destruction, Fatah talks of two states living side-by-side. Hamas proudly takes credit for terrorist attacks against civilians, Fatah in public statements decries such attacks. In other words, it is not helpful and not accurate to suggest, as some do, that there is no difference between the organizations. Hamas cannot be a partner for peace. Fatah could be. The words "could be" point to the continued ambivalence toward Fatah. The potential for a peace partner is there but it has not been realized. We've seen this ambivalence in the behavior of Israeli governments over the last 15 years: engagement during the Oslo process and at Camp David, followed by non-engagement during the second intifada, followed by re-engagement during the tenure of former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. It was in this context that Fatah held its first conference in 20 years. It provides an opportunity, based on examining the declaration of the gathering and seeing the document through the prism of recent events, to assess whether Fatah is more than a potential partner for peace. After meeting with Obama, what's next?
I had the opportunity to meet with President Barack Obama at the White House on July 13, along with fifteen other representatives of Jewish organizations. Afterwards, everyone wanted to know whether I now felt reassured about the state of US-Israel relations. Standing with Iranians against tyranny
As history is being made on the streets of Teheran, the Western world is relatively quiet. Yes, President Barack Obama has at last referred to the injustice of the regime's actions and criticized its violence, but he and other leaders have calibrated their responses. Two Israel writers, Ben Caspit and Ben-Dror Yemini, have taken note and chastised the West for this reticence, contrasting how quickly condemnation of Israel rises to the surface in moments of crisis. They suggest that in certain circles it is far easier to criticize a Jew for killing a Muslim, even when provoked, than when a Muslim regime murders innocent protesters. They simply dismiss the argument made by many American officials and commentators that the restrained approach is the correct one to prevent the regime from using American "meddling" to undermine the legitimacy of the demonstrators. They reason that this is just an excuse for inaction since the Iranian leaders are already blaming America and Israel. Seeing the glass half full - for now
Perspective is everything. The glass can be half full or half empty. These unoriginal thoughts came to mind after two significant events in the life of the state of Israel and the Jewish people - the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Israel and the meeting between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The tendency in the Israeli press was to focus on the negative. The Pope was widely criticized for the things he failed to say or said in an infelicitous way. And the Washington summit meeting was picked apart for the alleged lack of warmth between the leaders and for the pressure points and disagreements. Here we go again: "The Israel Lobby made them do it!"
I have said it before and I must say it again - anti-Semitic conspiracy theories claiming American Jews control US foreign policy and are disloyal US citizens continue to be expounded through the Internet and permeate mainstream Web sites, blogs and commentaries. The most recent case is the Charles Freeman affair - the designated Chairman of the National Intelligence Council who decided to withdraw his name from consideration after concerns were raised about the central role he might play in intelligence affairs, given his anti-Israel statements and connections to the Saudi government, as well as to the Chinese. The Freeman appointment was disturbing on its own terms without generalizing about where US-Israel relations were heading. On US-Israel relations his views fall far away from mainstream opinion in America and enter into that area of demonizing Israel and its supporters in the US. Nothing better illustrates where Freeman is coming from than in his statement explaining his withdrawal. He articulates, in the guise of a victim, the essential conspiracy view of the Israel-supporting community which made his appointment so troubling in the first place. He sees the exposure of his troubling attitudes toward Israel as proof "that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired." What Clinton's trip augurs for Israel
So what are the earliest vibes about the Obama administration's Middle East approach based on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's visit to the region? Overall, I'd say positive, with reason for some optimism, but also with a note of caution. Up front, candidate Obama made clear that the big break from his predecessor would be in the area of engagement. An Obama administration would see the issues between Israel and the Arabs as a priority that required US involvement early on. And so we are seeing it, with the appointment and visits of George Mitchell as special envoy and with this early trip of the secretary of state. Dubai's unfortunate decision
The decision by the United Arab Emirates not to grant a visa to Israeli tennis star Shahar Peer is a shocking development which raises broader questions about the progress that has been assumed to have been made in Arab-Israel relations. Gaza goes global
Israel's operation to defend its people from Hamas rockets is having repercussions far beyond Gaza and the besieged cities of Sderot and Ashkelon. It is taking on a global reach and having a global impact, particularly for Jews in much of Western Europe and Latin America. Assaults against Jews are on the rise. In Europe, Jews have been threatened and beaten on the street and synagogues firebombed. "Jews to the gas chambers" has been chanted at anti-Israel demonstrations in Europe and similar calls for death to Jews have been heard across the Arab and Muslim world. While much of the violence and anti-Semitic graffiti has spilled over from anti-Israel rallies, where Israel and Jews are routinely likened to Nazis, it is part and parcel of the incitement against Jews and "World Zionism" endorsed by the terrorist leaders of Hamas. |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (16)
