It's not such a surprise--once the Obama Administration decided to stay true to the traditions of our State Department from the Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush days, it gives priority to the wishes of the Christian Zionists and AIPAC--at the expense of the continued suffering of the Palestinian people. M.J. Rosenberg analyzes it, and then the news story of the US actually vetoing the resolution confirms it. What seems obvious (and sadly disappointing) is that the initial promise of the Obama Administration for a more balanced position in the Israel/Palestine conflict (a balance that actually would be more in Israel's long-term interest than capitulating to the self-destructive policies of the Netanyahu government) has been abandoned. It makes no more sense in this situation for anyone concerned about peace to focus on gently nudging the Obama Administration to live up to its promise on Middle East matters. Instead, it must be publicly and unequivocally challenged. Now We Are Bullying The Palestinians by M.J.Rosenberg
It appears that U.S. dealings with the Palestinians have entered a new phase: bullying.
On Thursday, President Obama telephoned Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to urge him to block a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning settlements. Obama pressed very hard during the 50-minute call, so hard that Abbas felt compelled to agree to take Obama's request to the PLO executive committee (which, not surprisingly, agreed that Abbas should not accede to Obama's request).
But what a request it is!
For Palestinians, Israeli settlements are the very crux of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After all, it is the gobbling up of the land by settlements that is likely to prevent a Palestinian state from ever coming into being.
Asking the Palestinian leader to oppose a resolution condemning them is like asking the Israeli prime minister to drop Israel's claim to the Israeli parts of Jerusalem.
In fact, the U.S. request for a mere 90-day settlement freeze (a request sweetened with an offer of $3.5 billion in extra aid) outraged the Netanyahu government. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu couldn't even bring himself to respond (probably figuring that he'll get the extra money whenever he wants it anyway). The administration then acted as if it never made the request at all, so eager is it to not offend Netanyahu in any way.
But it's a different story with Palestinians, for obvious reasons (they have no political clout in Washington). Even when they ask the U.N. to support them on settlements, the administration applies heavy pressure.
But why so much pressure? After all, it's a big deal when the president calls a foreign leader and, to be honest, the head of the Palestinian Authority is not exactly the president of France or prime minister of Canada.
The reason Obama made that call is that he was almost desperate to avoid vetoing the United Nations Security Council Resolution condemning illegal Israeli settlements. And it's not hard to see why.
Given the turbulence in the Middle East, and the universal and strong opposition in the Arab and Muslim world to U.S. vacillating on settlements, the last thing the administration wants to do is veto a resolution condemning them. That is especially true with this resolution, sponsored by 122 nations, which embodies long-stated U.S. policies. All U.S. interests dictate either support for the resolution or at least abstention.
But the administration rejected that approach, knowing that if it supported the resolution, AIPAC would go ballistic, along with its House and Senate (mostly House) cutouts. (Here are some of them issuing warnings already.)
Then the calls would start coming in from AIPAC-connected donors who would warn that they will not support the president's re-election if he does not veto. And Prime Minister Netanyahu would do to President Obama what he did to former President Clinton — work with the Republicans (his favorite is former Speaker Newt Gingrich) to bring Obama down.
What was an administration to do? It did not want to veto but was afraid not to.
Earlier in the week, it floated a plan which would have the Security Council mildly criticize settlements in a statement (not a resolution). According to Foreign Policy, the statement:
"...expresses its strong opposition to any unilateral actions by any party, which cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international community, and reaffirms, that it does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is a serious obstacle to the peace process." The statement also condemns "all forms of violence, including rocket fire from Gaza, and stresses the need for calm and security for both peoples."
Did you notice where settlements are mentioned? Read slowly. It's there.
Reading the language, it is not hard to guess where the statement was drafted. Rather than simply address settlements, it throws in such AIPAC-pleasing irrelevancies (in this context) as "rocket fire from Gaza," which has absolutely nothing to do with West Bank settlements. In other words, it reads like an AIPAC-drafted House resolution, although it does leave out the "hooray for Israel" boilerplate, which is standard in Congress but the Security Council is unlikely to go for.
All this to avoid vetoing a resolution which expresses U.S. policy. Needless to say, the U.S. plan went nowhere. Hypocrisy only carries the day when it isn't transparent.
As I wrote earlier this week, this is what happens when donors and not diplomats are driving U.S. policy. It's too bad that they don't care that they are making the United States look like Netanyahu's puppet in front of the entire world.
Foreign Policy Matters is now updated daily..
From Ha'aretz:
MJ Rosenberg shows how crazy US policy toward Israel and Palestine continues to be under Barack Obama. Anyone who believes that Obama has moved away from the policies of the past is simply not following the actual policies of the US, which were unveiled clearly when it refused to back UN consideration of Justice Goldstone's Gaza report. This is the next crazy step--and also shows how wild are the conservatives in the Jewish world who portray Obama as not being adequately supportive of their version of what it means to be pro-Israel, when in fact he is all too willing to be their lap dog.Settlements
Anyone who thought that the United States has learned anything from the various revolutions upturning the Arab world has another think coming. We didn't.
On Thursday, as the Egyptian revolution was culminating with the collapse of the Mubarak regime, the Obama administration announced that it intends to veto a United Nations Security Council resolution, sponsored by 122 nations, condemning Israeli settlement expansion.
This is from AFP's report on what Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
"We have made very clear that we do not think the Security Council is the right place to engage on these issues," Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee.
"We have had some success, at least for the moment, in not having that arise there. And we will continue to employ the tools that we have to make sure that continues to not happen," said Steinberg.
There is so much wrong with Steinberg's statement that it is hard to know where to start.
First is the obvious. Opposition to Israeli settlements is perhaps the only issue on which the entire Arab and Muslim world is united. Iraqis and Afghanis, Syrians and Egyptians, Indonesians and Pakistanis don't agree on much, but they do agree on that. They also agree that the U.S. policy on settlements demonstrates flagrant disregard for human rights in the Muslim world (at least when Israel is the human rights violator).
Accordingly, a U.S. decision to support the condemnation of settlements would send a clear message to the Arab and Muslim world that we understand what is happening in the Middle East and that we share at least some of its peoples' concerns.
The settlement issue should be an easy one for the United States. Our official policy is the same as that of the Arab world. We oppose settlements. We consider them illegal. We have repeatedly demanded that the Israelis stop expanding them (although the Israeli government repeatedly ignores us). The administration feels so strongly about settlements that it recently offered Israel an extra $3.5 billion in U.S. aid to freeze settlements for 90 days.
It is impossible, then, for the United States to pretend that we do not agree with the resolution (especially when its language was carefully drafted to comport with the administration's official position).
So why will we veto a resolution that expresses our own views?
Steinberg says that "we do not think the Security Council is the right place to engage on these issues."
Why not? It is the Security Council that passed all the major international resolutions (with U.S. support) governing Israel's role in the occupied territories since the first one, UN Resolution 242 in 1967.
He then adds, with clear pride, that "We have had some success, at least for the moment, in not having that [the settlements issue] arise there."
Very impressive. The United States has had no success whatsoever in getting the Netanyahu government to stop expanding settlements — to stop evicting Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem to make way for ultra-Orthodox settlers — and no success in getting Israel to crack down on settler violence, but we have had "some success" in keeping the issue out of the United Nations.
The only way to resolve the settlements issue, according to Steinberg, "is through engagement through the parties, and that is our clear and consistent position." Clear and consistent it may be. But it hasn't worked. The bulldozers never stop.
Of course, it is not hard to explain the Obama administration's decision to veto a resolution embodying positions that we support. It is the power of AIPAC, which is lobbying furiously against a U.S. veto (actually not so furiously; AIPAC doesn't waste energy when it knows that its congressional acolytes — and Dennis Ross in the White House itself — will do its work for them).
The power of the lobby is the only reason we will veto the resolution. Try to come up with another one. After all, voting for the resolution (or, at least, abstaining on it) serves U.S. interests in the Middle East at a critical moment and is consistent with U.S. policy.
But it would enrage the lobby and its friends who will threaten retribution in the 2012 election.
Simply put, our Middle East policy is all about domestic politics. And not even the incredible events of the past month will change that.
That is why U.S. standing in the Middle East will continue to deteriorate. We simply cannot deliver. After all, there is always another election on the horizon and that means that it is donors, not diplomats, who determine U.S. policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment