[Peace-discuss] Avnery on Obama

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist in his mid-80s, a left-wing peace activist 
and former Knesset member. He was formerly a right-wing Zionist who fought in 
the 1948 war.  ("You can’t talk to me about terrorism," he's said. "I was a 
terrorist.") He founded the Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc) movement in 1993 and writes 
frequently (and well) about the Middle East. This article seems to me debatable 
on several grounds, but it gives an interesting reaction to Obama's views.  --CGE]

	No, I Can't!
	Uri Avnery
	June 7, 2008

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.

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.


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.

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 theUS. 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!"

	###