MJ Rosenberg

The U.S. vote against raising the status of Palestine at the United Nations was a deeply cynical move. It was cynical because there is not a chance that President Obama believes that he did the right thing. It is also cynical because, in the name of friendship for Israel, Obama led Israel closer to the cliff.

The last thing a true friend of Israel would have done would be to stand by as Israel demonstrated its almost complete international isolation. Just eight countries backed the Israeli position – the US, Panama, Palau, Canada, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Czech Republic and Micronesia – while 138 voted with the Palestinians. Was this display helpful to Israel?

But Obama was not trying to be helpful. The administration enabled this “disaster” (from Israel’s point of view) because Obama seems to truly not care about Israelis or Palestinians.

Take the two most recent examples. The first was his absolute refusal to express a word of sympathy for the Palestinians killed in the Gaza war. Under previous administrations, certainly under every Democratic administration, sympathy was expressed for the dead and injured on both sides along with a call for an end to the fighting. But Obama would not do that. Even when asked directly his spokesperson at the State Department would only speak of Israel’s pain. (To her credit, Secretary of State Clinton did say that she felt for both sides.)

But not Obama. He is determined not only to demonstrate that there is “no daylight” separating the two countries but that no amount of darkness separates us either.

The argument that he has to behave this way because of the power of the lobby doesn’t hold up. I would be the last person in the world to deny that the lobby is a powerful force in the making of U.S. Middle East policy. But, unless there is some mysterious element to the lobby’s power that I am missing, its ability to intimidate ends when a president is re-elected.

Believing that Obama is worried about Congressional Democrats being punished in 2014 is just as inaccurate. One: that is two years away. Two: Obama has rarely demonstrated (like almost all presidents before him) much concern for the Congressional wing of his party. And, three: the November 6^th election demonstrated yet again that Jewish voters do not cast their ballots (or make campaign contributions) based on Israel. Nor do Israel’s fundamentalist Christian backers. Jews are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats and Christian Zionists are conservative Republicans. Those facts seem never to change.

Besides, does Obama really believe that he would lose votes or campaign contributions from Jews and other pro-Israel Americans if he expressed sympathy for dead Palestinian children? Or called on both sides to stop the violence. I hold no brief for the lobby but Obama could have said what he no doubt felt without losing anyone’s support. Even the lobby does not demand that politicians withhold human sympathy.

As for the United Nations vote, Obama could have prevented the huge embarrassment inflicted on both Israel and the United States by telling Israel to “chill.” I am glad he didn’t because I think the vote will be seen by history as a significant step toward Palestinian statehood. But it also delegitimized Israel in the eyes of the world which is a terrible defeat for those of us who care about Israel ultimately achieving peace and security alongside the Palestinians.

And it could easily have been averted if Obama had told Israel that the United States would vote for the resolution and that Israel should, too. In that case, the vote for Palestine’s elevated status would have been unanimous which would have rendered the Palestinian victory meaningless. Unanimous backing for any measure almost always demonstrates the measure’s insignificance. Instead, Israel’s hysteria and America’s arm-twisting against the resolution gave the Palestinians a big victory, a victory that the United States and Israel both elevated to historic proportions.

So why did Obama behave the way he did? I am afraid it is because he does not think Israelis or Palestinians are worth the hassle. If he can avoid dealing with Netanyahu and his vocal backers here, he will. He has more important fish to fry – like the domestic economy and preserving the social safety net.

I understand that but nonetheless ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian issue – by simply parroting the Israeli line – has done terrible damage to America’s standing in the world. Look at the UN vote which was neatly summed up by the front-page New York Times headline: “UN Assembly, In Blow To U.S., Elevates Status of Palestine.” Perhaps it is of no concern of Obama’s that Israel appears utterly isolated, but so does the United States. To put it in crude terms: we look like Israel’s tool.

I will not conclude by expressing the hope that Obama will now do the right thing for Israel, Palestine and, most importantly, the United States by convening negotiations and acting as an “honest broker.” I doubt he can do that anymore both because he has entirely lost the trust of the Arab world and because events have demonstrated, in large part due to this administration, that history can move on without us. But primarily because I do not think President Obama cares enough to invest any time or energy in Middle East peacemaking. He seems not to care that resolving conflict in a vital region of the world is not just some favor we do for people 6000 miles away; it is something we do to defend America’s interests. It’s sad. But above all, it is just cynical.

Postscript: Prime Minister Netanyahu reciprocated President Obama’s misplaced kindness today when he announced that he will build 3000 new settler housing units in the E-1 corridor of the West Bank. This housing, designed to permanently separate the southern West Bank from the northern part and to separate both from Jerusalem would destroy any chance of achieving the two-state solution. It also breaks a specific promise Netanyahu made to Obama.

Additionally, AIPAC is rushing to get Congress to “punish” Palestinians for going to the UN by blocking aid. Netanyahu and his lobby now believe (probably correctly) that Obama will permit them to do whatever they want. This is what the United States gets for its “no daylight” policy and what we taxpayers get for $3.5 billion a year in aid.

Jeffrey Goldberg, the Netanyahu apologist, thinks that the Palestinian Authority should abandon its plan to seek non-member observer status in the United Nations and should instead petition for the right of all occupied Palestinians to vote in Israel. Of course, his goal is to stop tomorrow’s vote which he can’t do. Tomorrow the Palestinian Authority will finally do something right: defy Israel and the United States and begin the process of achieving statehood. Bravo.

Here is Goldberg’s explanation of why seeking the vote inside Israel would be more effective.

Reaction would be seismic and instantaneous. The demand for voting rights would resonate with people around the world, in particular with American Jews, who pride themselves on support for both Israel and for civil rights at home. Such a demand would also force Israel into an untenable position; if it accedes to such a demand, it would very quickly cease to be the world’s only Jewish-majority state, and instead become the world’s 23rd Arab-majority state. If it were to refuse this demand, Israel would very quickly be painted by former friends as an apartheid state.

In other words, Israel would have to accede to the demand for Palestinian rights or be “painted by former friends as an apartheid state.”

Except that would never happen. Israel will never voluntarily give Palestinians democratic rights and it does not have to because U.S. policy, dictated by AIPAC, will never hold Israel to the rules it applies every where else. If Israel absorbs all the territories and denies the people who live there voting rights, 90% of Congress will support that position. So would President Obama. So would Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Elizabeth Warren. Of course the Republicans would too. In fact, I have written the statement liberal Democrats would use in defending Israel’s position of not permitting Palestinians to exercise their rights.

We firmly reject the United Nations call on Israel to extend the vote to Israel’s five million Palestinian citizens. We would remind the United Nations that for Israel to grant voting rights to this group would end Israel’s standing as the world’s only Jewish democracy. Democracy is an elastic concept. What applies to Brazil or Germany or even the United States does not necessarily apply to Israel, located as it is in a very dangerous neighborhood. If nothing else, the Holocaust taught us that. We also reject calls to link aid to Israel to its compliance with the United Nations resolution calling on Israel to grant voting rights. We oppose that idea just as we applaud our government’s use of the veto to block its passage. No, we will stand with the people of democratic Israel as it continues its struggle for peace and democracy for all.

Bottom line: so long as the White House and Congress depend on AIPAC and its associated donors for campaign funding, Israel will neither grant Palestinians voting rights nor be ostracized by the United States. Palestinians need to do what they need to do. Counting on the United States to help is ridiculous.

A few quick thoughts on the welcome retirement of Ehud Barak.

He, more than anyone else, destroyed the peace process. He was elected in 1999 on a Labor Party  peace platform, arguing that the incumbent prime minister,  Binyamin Netanyahu, had destroyed chances for peace. He promised to reach a deal with the Palestinians who welcomed his election along with an ecstatic Israeli peace camp.

But  following the election he immediately set out to humiliate the Palestinians, ignoring Yasir Arafat’s pleas to start talking and instead pretended to focus on reaching a deal with Syria so he could end run the Palestinians. He ke them waiting for six months, a strategy designed to strengthen his hand against them.

He repeatedly ignored requirements in the Oslo agreement for territorial withdrawal. To this day he proudly says he never agreed to yield territory (unlike his predecessor).

In 2000, he decided to push for an all-or-nothing agreement. Arafat said no, that it was too soon, especially given the good will that Barak had frittered away. Clinton agreed with Arafat that first Barak needed to lived up to the agreements Israel had already signed. (Clinton has publicly regretted being duped by Barak)

But Barak insisted on a summit.  Israelis, Palestinians and Americans commenced negotiations at Camp David in July where Barak refused even to talk to Arafat directly.  He famously treated Arafat as some indigenous local chief while he was a head of state.

Barak put some ideas on the table, all in the spirit of take-it-or-leave-it.  Barak and the Dennis Ross-led American “peace team” coordinated every step of negotiations which were essentially a gang-up. Arafat, who had said from the get-go that he could not reach a deal until Israel lived up to its previous agreements, refused to accept Barak’s offers which, in any case, never came close to meeting Arafat’s demand for a state in 22% of historic Palestine.

Following negotiations, Barak announced that he had “torn the mask” off the face of the Palestinians. Although negotiations continued, Barak was now in the business of demonizing them. By the time he made the Palestinians a decent offer, it was too late.  Trust had been destroyed.

In the fall, he gave Ariel Sharon, leader of the opposition, permission to take a stroll with a few thousand followers on the Temple Mount or the Haran al Sharif. Arafat had begged him in a desperate visit to Barak’s home not to permit that, knowing the explosion that would follow. It did. And then Intifada II broke out following Barak’s decision to shoot dead 13 unarmed Israeli Arab demonstrators in the country itself.

The West Bank and Gaza exploded.  Peace was dead and Barak was replaced by Ariel Sharon.

While Barak’s policies were  no worse than Sharon or Netanyahu, he is the only one who was elected to achieve peace on the Labor ticket. In my view, he is then worse than either of them.

Now he leaves, bodies strewn everywhere.

Palestinians will celebrate Barak’s downfall but their contrempt for him will never match that of the Israeli people he betrayed. They voted for peace. He gave them war. They voted for hope. He destroyed hope.

(Best book on the subject:  THE TRUTH ABOUT CAMP DAVID by Clayton Swisher)

Here is link:   http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/patrick-pexton-photo-of-dead-baby-in-gaza-holds-part-of-the-truth/2012/11/23/0cd54eb0-342a-11e2-bb9b-288a310849ee_story.html

But many Post readers saw it differently. Jewish groups and American Jews in large numbers wrote to the ombudsman and to Post editors, protesting the photo as biased.

MaryAnne Golon, The Post’s director of photography, explained to me that the purpose of any front-page photo, regardless of subject, is to move the reader, whether through its beauty, sentiment or drama.

“When we looked at the selection that night of Middle East photos from the wire services, this photo got everyone in the gut,” Golon said. “It went straight to the heart, this sobbing man who just lost his baby son.”

Post staff then authenticated and verified the facts behind the Associated Press photo. The dead baby was real. The bombing was real.

Many readers asked why The Post didn’t balance the photo of the grieving father with one of Israelis who had lost a loved one from the Gaza rocket fire. That’s a valid question.

The answer is that The Post cannot publish photographs that don’t exist. No Israeli civilian had been killed by Gaza rocket fire since Oct. 29, 2011, more than a year earlier. The first Israeli civilian deaths from Gaza rocket fire in 2012 did not take place until Nov. 15, when Hamas, the group that controls Gaza, began firing more accurate and deadly missiles in response to the Israeli offensive that had begun the day before. There were no recent photos of Israeli casualties to be had on the night of Nov. 14.

I got into an email exchange with a Jewish friend who happens to be progressive on every issue except Israel.

He did not defend the killing of the babies in Gaza but came awfully close. He wrote that “while I share your horror about those Palestinian children, they were not intentionally targeted by the IDF. The goal was the kill militants not kids. That makes a difference, no?”

No.

I rewrote his sentence this way,  ”while I share your horror about those Israeli children, they were not intentionally targeted by the Palestinians. The goal was to kill soldiers not kids. That makes  a difference, no?”

Still NO.

I added: “To those kids who are gone forever and, even more, to their parents who will never get over the deaths of their kids, the the intention of the person who sent the missile or bomb is  irrelevant. If a child is killed by a drunk driver, does it matter that the driver was drunk and would never have intended to kill a child?”

I got no response.

I apply this logic to the killing of kids in Gaza, in Israel, on settlements and anywhere. Yes, there are accidents but is lobbing a missile into a populated area or carrying an explosive into a shopping mall ever an accident?

Yesterday, I posted a piece by a professor on the concept of just war. One key point jumped out at me.  An attack is justified ONLY if every other means has been exhausted.

The Israeli government not only refuses to deal with Hamas, it even prevents the United States, the EU and whoever else it can from dealing with Hamas.

Suppose Netanyahu, instead of a military assault, asked a foreign government to find out exactly what Hamas wanted to end the shelling on southern Israel. The answer would have been precisely what Israel agreed to (although who knows if it intends to abide with the agreement?) in the cease-fire: lift the blockade, stop the assassinations, and get out of the border area called “no man’s land.”

Result: no dead kids or civilians of any kind.

The war was unjustifiable by any standard.

As Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat both said:  the people you have to talk to in order to prevent war are your enemies not your friends. Is that so hard to grasp? Unless preventing war is not the goal at all.

Source: AFP World News / English Date: November 21, 2012

CAIRO, Nov 21, 2012 (AFP) -

Israel and Hamas agreed Wednesday to an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire accord to end a week of violence in and around the Gaza Strip following days of marathon talks.

Here is the text of the ceasefire agreement which is set to take effect at 1900 GMT:

“Israel shall stop all hostilities in the Gaza Strip land sea and air, including incursions and targeting of individuals.

“All Palestinian factions shall stop all hostilities from the Gaza Strip against Israel, including rocket attacks and all attacks along the border.

“Opening the crossings and facilitating the movement of people and transfer of goods and refraining from restricting residents’ free movements and targeting residents in border areas. Procedures of implementation shall be dealt with after 24 hours from the start of the ceasefire.

“Other matters as may be requested shall be addressed.”

And Secretary Clinton’s remarks on what comes next

Now we have to focus on reaching a durable outcome that promotes regional stability and advances the security, dignity, and legitimate aspirations of Palestinians and Israelis alike. President Morsi and I discussed how the United States and Egypt can work together to support the next steps in that process. In the days ahead, the United States will work with partners across the region to consolidate this progress, improve conditions for the people of Gaza, and provide security for the people of Israel. Ultimately, every step must move us toward a comprehensive peace for all the people of the region.

WHAT IT MEANS: 

1. Hamas and Israel are negotiating (see first line of agreement)

2. Hamas has made progress toward what it has wanted all along. As far back as 2008, it offered Israel an end to rocket attacks in exchange for Israel lifting the blockade. In fact, Hamas implemented a ceasefire, as promised, while Israel never lifted the blockade.

3. Israel has agreed to ending target assassinations. This, combined with the lifting of the blockade, has been Hamas’ demand since Israel placed Gaza under siege. Now Israel has agreed to end the assassinations and incursions into Gaza of any kind.

4. At this point we do not know how extensive the lifting of the blockage will be. But, as guarantor of the agreement, President Morsi will likely insist on serious action.

5. All attacks on Israel from Gaza will end. Hamas has repeatedly offered this to Israel in exchange for, as above, the lifting of the blockade and the end of the assassinations. Both conditions were met.

6.The United States has conceded the full legitimacy of the Morsi government and, by extension, of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas also is legitimated by the agreement to which it was an equal party.

7. Netanyahu got absolutely nothing. Happily, the people of southern Israel have but his goal was to break Hamas not defend Sderot. He utterly failed.

8. Additionally, Secretary Clinton has committed the United States to helping to achieve “security, dignity, and legitimate aspirations of Palestinians and Israelis alike.” (She named Palestinians first, not an accident). This could mean resumption of the peace process, the idea of which gives Netanyahu cold shivers.

Bottom line: Hamas, President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood came out ahead. So did the people (not the government) of Israel. The big losers were Netanyahu, Barak and their war cabinet and, above all, the innocent civilians of Gaza who were killed in Netanyahu’s war. Nothing makes up for the loss of the innocents, especially the children, but it would be even worse if the aggressor had achieved his goal. Nonetheless, he is a war criminal, just a failed one.

We can only pray that the ceasefire holds and that, as it now appears, President Obama does indeed remember who and what Netanyahu is.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tells President Abbas:

“This is bullshit. I’m going to Gaza. If you want to come, come. If not, stay here and say goodbye to your job.  I can do what I want and Obama, who I always said had no spine, can sit around taking orders from that shit, Netanyahu.

“Don’t be afraid. If you come, you will be a leader of the Palestinians. Me? I’ll get the Nobel Peace Prize and become president if I want to be. But we will stop this killing. I am a woman. I’m a mother. I am a human being.

“DRIVER, we are going to Gaza. Put down the phone. Let Obama hear about it on CNN.”

NOTE: All you Democrats who can’t stand that I criticize Obama are no different than Bush Republicans.  Obama is not God. But God is. And he is with the children on both sides. Silence = Death.

Written before the ceasefire but every word remains true (for me).

I understand that the pain Jews like myself feel over Israel’s war on Gaza is nothing compared to what Palestinians and other Muslims are going through. But, nonetheless, it is real.

In losing the Israel I grew up on, I feel like a  friend has died. Yes, I know many will tell me that Israel was misconceived from the beginning. I know all about the Nakba and will not deny it or argue about it. Facts are facts.

At the same time, until recently I had hope. I have loved Israel since my first (of around 35) trips there.  I never much liked the politics or the militarism. And I hated the occupation. But I loved the place. (I stayed with my aunt in Tel Aviv, an Auschwitz survivor whose three kids were murdered by the Nazis).  How could I not love a place that gave her shelter, and more than shelter? A home.

I’ll admit: I did not think much about the Palestinians until Yasir Arafat made the whole world acknowledge them. (For all his faults, before Arafat few outside of the Middle East even knew Palestinians were not just “the Arabs.”)

That is when I began to realize the awful injustice inherent in creating Israel. But the whole world was one injustice after another. It could be rectified.

Then came the Oslo accords and they offered hope. Yitzhak Rabin was far from perfect (neither was Yasir Arafat) but they were, as Rabin said, “partners.” They tried. But then Rabin, the last Israeli prime minister to treat a Palestinian leader with respect, was murdered by an Israeli determined to derail peace.

He succeeded with the help of first Prime Minister Netanyahu and, even worse, Ehud Barak who set out to demonize all Palestinians in the eyes of Israelis.  He, more than anyone else, killed the peace process.

And here we are today. I look back at the wonderful times I have had in Israel and I’m sad. I adore Tel Aviv: the beach, Neve Tzedek, the port. I love the remaining kibbutzim. But, most of all, I love the Israeli left. I don’t think I have ever met more wonderful people than those left-wing Israelis who fight the occupation. Think about it: it’s a lot more courageous being an Israeli fighting the power from within it than to be me, here, or a Palestinian in Los Angeles.

Give them credit. No Palestinian or anyone else knows what they would do if the shoe was on the other foot. The Israeli human rights activists  fight for the Palestinians. Would the Palestinians fight for them? I hope so, I think so. But I don’t know. And I don’t know what I would do if I was in Israel. It doesn’t take much courage to fight the occupation from here.

I realize as I write this how sad I am. Maybe this war, and the fact that Israel must see that it can never win this way, will lead to a different Israel. I don’t know if the answer is one state, two states, a federation, or whatever. But the 7 million Israelis aren’t going away. The Palestinians, who never left, are certainly not going away either.

They have to find a way to live together. Israel needs to acknowledge and deal with Hamas and all Palestinians. The Palestinians must abandon the idea that those Hebrew speaking Israelis, with their unique and genuine national culture, are just Poles or Russians and realize they must live with them. And Israelis must stop insisting that Palestinians are just Arabs and have 20 other states when, in fact, they have not even one. Settlers can either stay under Palestinian authority or leave. Jerusalem must be shared. And the walls must come down.

Don’t ask me about the modalities. They did it during the last years of Oslo with the help of the Americans. They can do it again. The difference: this time full equality between Israelis and Palestinians. No gifts to Palestine but rather granting them what is theirs.

Neither people will get everything it wants. But each can get what it needs.

I realize I still have hope, somehow, despite the grief at watching what  Israel is doing to Gaza. But what alternative is there? To become reconciled to this? To look forward to the day all the Palestinians or Israelis are dead are transferred somewhere else.

No, I’ll stick with my dream. What else do I have? What else does anybody have?

NOTE: This resolution has no word of compassion for

Gaza and does not call for an end to the killing. It passed both Houses

unanimously. It was written by AIPAC. Americans For Peace Now’s

Lara Friedman explains how this resolution represents a new low here.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/15/the-senate-on-gaza-then-and-now.html

RSOLUTION

Expressing vigorous support and unwavering commitment

to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of
Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure
borders, and recognizing and strongly supporting its
right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against
acts of terrorism.

Whereas Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel;

Whereas Hamas has been designated by the Secretary of
State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization;

Whereas Hamas refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist,
renounce violence, and accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians; 2

Whereas Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and missiles since Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew
from Gaza in 2005;

Whereas terrorists in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip have
fired approximately 900 rockets and missile shells into
Israel this year, an increase from roughly 675 attacks in
2011 and 350 in 2010;

Whereas Hamas has increased the range of its rockets, reportedly with support from Iran and others, putting additional large numbers of Israelis in danger of rocket attacks from Gaza;

Whereas, on November 14, 2012, President Barack Obama
condemned the rocket fire from Gaza into Israel and reiterated Israel’s right to self-defense; and

Whereas Israel, as a fellow democracy, has an inherent right
to self defense in the face of terrorist attacks: Now,
therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—
2 (1) expresses unwavering commitment to the
3 security of the State of Israel as a Jewish and demo-
4 cratic state with secure borders, and recognizes and
5 strongly supports its inherent right to act in self-de-
6 fense to protect its citizens against acts of terrorism;
7 (2) reiterates that Hamas must end Gaza-
8 linked terrorist rocket and missile attacks against
9 Israel, recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce vio-
10 lence, and agree to accept previous agreements be-
11 tween Israel and the Palestinians; 3

1 (3) urges the United Nations Security Council
2 to condemn the recent spike in Gaza-linked terrorist
3 missile attacks against Israel, which risk causing ci-
4 vilian casualties in both Israel and Gaza; and
5 (4) encourages the President to continue to
6 work diplomatically with the international commu-
7 nity to prevent Hamas and other Gaza-based ter-
8 rorist organizations from retaining or rebuilding the
9 capability to launch rockets and missiles against Israel