The most recent flare-up in the Middle East reveals America's shifting political fault lines.
By David Palumbo-Liu / Salon October 27, 2015
The current violence in Israel-Palestine—immediately following the debate about the Iran arms deal, which revealed growing fissures in American support of Israel–has brought the conflict into the foreground of U.S. political discourse. The absence of any serious mention of Israel-Palestine during the first Democratic presidential debate thus speaks volumes. It tells us that even as polls show more and more of the Democratic base shifting its support away from Israel, the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination are reluctant to talk about Israel. It will be interesting to see if they shift their stances at all in the next few months, given the stakes that are emerging. Recent polls have shown that Latinos, a critical constituency, are lending their sympathy to the Palestinians. They join the young, progressives, Blacks, and Asian Americans. This is not only the perception of supporters of Palestinian rights, this point of view is shared by advocates of Israel as well.
Everything seems in play, and that calls for our attention. Here’s what is unfolding on the American political scene:
To begin with, let’s look at the reactions of the U.S. State Department regarding the escalation of violence in Israel-Palestine. On October 13, Secretary of State John Kerry declared “What’s happening is that, unless we get going, a two-state solution could conceivably be stolen from everybody… And there’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years, and now you have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing.”
Upon being accused of laying the blame for the violence on the building of settlements, the State Department rushed to back off from the October 13 statement:
“State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters that Kerry had not been ‘trying to affix… blame for the recent violence’ during a Tuesday evening address at Harvard University, when the secretary told his audience that ‘there’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years and there’s an increase in the violence because there’s this frustration that’s growing.’ The two ideas, Kirby suggested, were not meant to be interpreted causally.”
Right. It’s hard to believe anyone bought that spin. What this flip-flop indicates is precisely the fluid state of our political discourse on Israel-Palestine.
It is much more likely that Kerry knows exactly who is to blame for the violence, and his reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s bizarre and macabre statement that the blame for the Holocaust lay not with Adolf Hitler but with the Mufti of Jerusalem showed his growing impatience with the behavior of the Israeli government. Although he said after his October 22 meeting in Berlin with Netanyahu that he was “cautiously optimistic,” that feeble pronouncement, behooving a compassionate physician at the bedside of a terminal patient, was overshadowed by his statement in reaction to Netanyahu’s Holocaust thesis:
We have to stop incitement, we have to stop the violence. And I think it’s critical… It is absolutely critical to end all incitement and all violence, and to find a road forward to build the possibility that is not there today for a larger process.
And this time the State Department, instead of retreating, doubled down. John Kirby characterized Netanyahu’s comments as “inflammatory” and “factually incorrect” and contradicted by “scholarly evidence.”
As we leave the State Department having to come up with a way to actually deal with the situation in real time, what about the presidential candidates?
Predictably, the Republican candidates are either silent or unabashedly pro-Israel. Senator Ted Cruz said the U.S. should “stop lecturing the Israelis,” and suggested again that Kerry should resign, demonstrating once again that he cannot process the basic idea that if you annually give a country billions of dollars in aid, high-grade arms, and nearly unlimited diplomatic cover, you might allow yourself a word or two about the way they spend all those resources. Ben Carson similarly added his unequivocal support for Israel, seeming to want to make up in part for having used the Holocaust as an opening for arguing for easy access to guns. (“What would have been the impact on Hitler’s war machine if his victims had had more access to guns? It is something that we will never know for sure.”)
In terms of the Democrats, not much as been said. During the first debate, Jim Webb spoke briefly about the Iran deal. Then, nothing. As the Israeli news source Ha’aretz put it:
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Senator Bernie Saunders picked up on the point. They had both supported the Iran appeasement, oblivious to the pleas of the Jewish state. Sanders was the first Democrat to declare that he would boycott Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to the Senate. Clinton has stood silent during the feud between Obama and the government in Jerusalem. There were no expressions of concern over the build up of rockets by Hezbollah, of the Iranians above the Golan.
Zilch.
But there is a discernible difference between the ways Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton talk about Israel-Palestine. Despite the fact that Sanders lost several family members in the Holocaust, his position is the more balanced one. Though the Forward asserts he is a “lefty except Israel,” he seems a lefty compared to Clinton. Here is Bernie Sanders on Israel in a2013 interview in Playboy; nothing he has said since indicates any change in position:
If you had the power, how would you negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where fundamentalism is so strong?
The hatred, violence and loss of life that define this conflict make living an ordinary life a constant struggle for both peoples. We must work with those Israeli and Palestinian leaders who are committed to peace, security and statehood rather than to empty rhetoric and violence. A two-state solution must include compromises from both sides to achieve a fair and lasting peace in the region. The Palestinians must fulfill their responsibilities to end terrorism against Israel and recognize Israel’s right to exist. In return, the Israelis must end their policy of targeted killings, prevent further Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and prevent the destruction of Palestinian homes, businesses and infrastructure.
Just this year he repeated the same sentiments:
“The United States has got to work with other countries around the world to fight for Israel’s security and existence at the same time as we fight for a Palestinian state where the people in that country can enjoy a decent standard of living, which is certainly not the case right now.”
In his statement on the current violence, Obama also acknowledged both sides:
“At this sensitive moment in Jerusalem, it is all the more important for Israeli and Palestinian leaders and ordinary citizens to work cooperatively together to lower tensions, reject violence, and seek a path forward towards peace… Too many Israelis have died. Too many Palestinians have died.”
But in her comments on the same topic, Clinton leaned more toward Cruz than she did toward Obama, mentioning not a single Palestinian death:
“I am alarmed by the recent wave of attacks against Israelis, including more than a dozen separate attacks since last Saturday. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. Men and women living in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and elsewhere cannot carry groceries or travel to prayer without looking over their shoulder. It is wrong, and it must stop. There’s no place for violence–only dialogue can produce a lasting peace.”
Read more
http://www.alternet.org/world/america-changing-its-mind-israel-how-netanyahu-alienating-his-most-essential-ally
No comments:
Post a Comment