American Politics and Israel

As elated as I am about Barack Obama's nomination, the appearances he and Hillary Clinton made before the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC Convention) remind me how tied our politicians are to Israel. There is a felt need, largely because of groups like AIPAC for politicians to pledge their undying allegiance to Israel. While I believe we should stand with Israel, it should have at least a few conditions, but neither Clinton nor Obama seem willing to address this. But to be fair, I think that this is a cross the board issue.
I listened to parts of both the Clinton and the Obama messages. Both pledged undying support for Israel. They made clear they won't talk to Hamas (which I think could be a mistake), which seems to be the current tipping point. Both talked tough on Iran -- but in doing so Obama did clarify his understandings of diplomacy (which is likely a good thing). But, Obama made a mistake by pledging support to an undivided Jerusalem as capital of Israel. That got plenty of applause -- but his statement about ending settlements brought deafening silence. Back to Jerusalem, a final peace needs to find another way of sharing this city that has both political and religious dimensions. At the same time Hillary Clinton painted a very rosy picture about the benefits of the "security fence," not giving voice to the problem of its course. The word that I hear from most American politicians is that the onus is on the Palestinians. They will receive no support or benefit unless they knuckle under. I don't know that this works.
I didn't listen to the entirety of either speech, but the most important thing to come out of the Obama speech was his pledge to make this issue central to his foreign policy -- that he won't wait until the waning hours of his second term to address it. Remember that the Bill Clinton initiative took place in the closing months of his administration -- even if he had brokered a solution he wouldn't have been there to complete it. George Bush couldn't be bothered with this for the first years of his presidency, which contributed to many of the current problems, and only now is jumping in with both feet. Again, too little, too late. What we need is to get involved now, and sustain the conversation. We also need to be honest brokers if we're going to entice Arab governments to get on board.
Again, my hope and prayer is for a just and lasting peace between Palestinians and Israeli's, a just peace that will allow Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, and non-religious alike to dwell together in peace. Bombs, walls, settlements, military won't bring that.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I heard Obama say in a snippet of his speech today that he would defend Israel and stop Iran from getting a bomb. The whole "pro Israel" thing gives me the heeby jeebies. I've gone right off Obama (his Iraq policy was bad enough, not fully withdrawing and a view to redeployment) and I will continue to fear America for what she might do to provoke hatred and war even if Obama is president. What does stopping Iran mean? Telling them to confess and when they don't (because they haven't got a bomb), blow them up? I wish America didn't have so much invested interest in Israel. If only Al Gore had been president as he should have been. The world would be a different place.
Anonymous said…
If I had a vote I'd still support Obama (I hope he doesn't team up with the Clintons) - I wouldn't not vote, but I don't understand why he won't properly withdraw from that illegal war, or why he's repeating the "pro-Israel" rhetoric of the current Bush tyrant.
Robert Cornwall said…
Steph,

The US has taken a fairly hardline pro-Israel line pretty much since 1948. Obama isn't saying anything different from his predecessors. I think the key here is to read between the lines. Yes, he's pledging his support to Israel, but he will focus his attention on the carrot rather than the stick. My sense is that he will first try to peal Syria away from Iran, weakinging Iran's influence on both Lebanon and the Palestinians (at least that's my hope). As for redeployment, he has been consistent in statements about keeping some forces in Kuwait, which is less disruptive, and returning attention to Afghanistan.

Things may have been different with a Gore presidency, but as they saw you've got to make do with what you have. Obama will have to be very careful about pulling out, but I think he has people working on a plan.

As for the Clintons, well . . .
Anonymous said…
Thank you but I still don't understand for all the rhetoric of change, why he wants to preserve the traditional role (since the second world war maybe) of the Whitehouse and dictating world politics. I suppose there is alot of Israeli money in the Whitehouse, not to mention alot of oil in the Middle East. I had had this idealistic dream that America would stop meddling or something and maybe do something positive like sign the Kyoto agreement and get rid of nuclear weapons in her own country. I still think Obama is honest and means well but I'm scared. I know he has been consistent on Iraq but I haven't liked what he said. I'd be happy if he flip flopped on that one and opted for complete withdrawal. What is he going to do with Afganastan and why, and just how is he going to peel Syria away from Iran. His calling Iran "an immanent threat" was fear mongering and echoed the Republican camp (and the Clinton camp). I still support him because he voted against the war and seems more genuinely desirous of peace than anyone else and compassionate to Americans and their welfare. And he's the only politian I've ever trusted apart from several of our own. I just get very muddled over the Middle East and wish the Whitehouse would stop playing God. Our Beehive doesn't. It's full of busy little bees looking after their own milk and honey:-)

Popular Posts