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
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 . . .