No I Can't: Obama and the Israeli Lobby
by Uri Avnery
This was originally published in Global Research on June 7, 2008
"The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday."
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 Washington 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 Washington 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 reported 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 important,
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.
"The transparent fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates."
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 corporations, 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 Washington 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
pushing 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.
"The fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate,
who promises change in all matters, does not dare."
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.
"Israel is a small America, the
USA is a huge Israel."
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 Washington 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 masses 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 worship 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!"
Uri Avnery is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Uri Avnery