1. What a talent
Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech in Congress should be entered into the Guinness Book of World Records. It’s obviously the longest time any human being has taken (45 minutes) to say only one word: “NO”.
And if they don’t accept him, then he should at least be nominated for a Tony, or even better – a guest appearance on Glee. I mean, let’s face it: the acting talent, the drama, the way he paused for effect, the comic timing – he’s got the whole package. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if he got an “A” in improv after the way he handled that heckler who cut him off. So smooth, so natural. It almost looked like he was prepared for it…
I won’t go into every aspect of the speech and where he was fundamentally wrong. It’s already been ripped apart by so many. And I also won’t go into all the 19,000 conditions he put down for a Palestinian state (apparently, condition #19,001 was “Palestinian state – when Venus and Mars collide” – but I saw he crossed that out at the last minute). Once again, he gave Obama nothing. Didn’t budge an inch.
But what do you expect from a guy who pretty much said the exact same things over 30 years ago? If you’ve never seen this clip of 28 year old Ben (Bibi) Nitay – you must now:
2. The scary part
But when it comes to Barack Obama’s part in this year’s “D.C. Debating Championship”, a grim picture emerges. If there was ever a moment that showed the need for campaign finance reform, it was the President’s speech at AIPAC. That speech was the magnum opus of big money calling the shots. Big, Jewish money.
How sad (and frightening) is it that an American President can fight for what he believes in when it comes to issues such as health insurance or the budget, to the death, forcefully against every Republican – but when it comes to Israel he is handicapped. He can not rule. He can not make the decision he wants to. He can not even got out to battle – I’m not talking about winning or losing yet.
The flip flop between his speech on the Arab world and the “appeasement speech” at AIPAC was embarrassing. It wasn’t that the two speeches were that much different content-wise. They weren’t. But they sure were different when it came to tone and delivery. Obama was just as smooth as Bibi, but the pandering reached new heights, particularly when he did the name dropping of Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod:
“I know very well that the easy thing to do, particularly for a president preparing for reelection, is to avoid any controversy. I don’t need Rahm [Emanuel] to tell me that. Don’t need [David] Axelrod to tell me that,” Obama said at AIPAC.
Wow. Deep in the lion’s den, to have the guts to say you’re going against your advisers? Your Jewish advisers? Impressive.
So, apparently Obama thinks that by saying that he went against that advice, that Jewish advice, he’s not afraid of controversy. He’s sticking to his guns. AIPAC doesn’t have him.
President Obama – allow me to define what “controversy” really means. “Controversy” does not mean mentioning some names, appeasing the Jewish leadership and then going back to the White House and doing nothing for another few years. “Controversy” is using your power and influence to make peace, to devise a plan, to force Israel to make tough decisions, to stop the procrastination. To stop apartheid. That’s “controversy”.
Now, as we have proof that Bibi and Barack are great at speeches but not much else, the waiting game begins. What else can be done when some people only talk the talk?
3. Death Blow to Wild Card Campaign
When I wrote my first “Wild Card” post back in October, many had their doubts. Just a reminder: The Wild Card campaign is an effort to bring about U.S. recognition of a Palestinian state this summer at the UN.
First, many believed the U.S. would veto such a move. But many more thought that UDI (unilateral declaration of independence) would never reach the UN to begin with. Well, nowadays, UDI is pretty much the only thing people are talking about these days. I also stand by my assessment that the UDI is the best option of being a game changer, particularly if the chances of violence are higher after a U.S. veto, as Yossi Gurvitz points out.
But Obama did indeed deal the Wild Card a death blow last week, when he promised to work against the Palestinians’ attempt to go through the UN. So, is the Wild Card campaign over?
I gave it some thought, and the answer is “No”. There’s only one reason to keep going with this campaign – and that’s to show how ridiculous the policies of this administration are.
Obama will once again make the mistake of torpedoing something he believes in. Last time the U.S. embarrassed itself when it vetoed a UNSC resolution against settlements – even though President after President has been against settlement activity. Come September, should Obama fail in his effort to make the Palestinians drop it, he will once again vote against something he supports – a Palestinian state. The exact same state that he mentioned in both his recent speeches.
Obama said that the parties must negotiate the borders themselves, that UDI is not the way. But that’s exactly what UDI is all about. It’s about returning to the negotiation table and discussing borders – as equals. It’s about giving the Palestinians the push they need.
One can only wonder how Obama reached the conclusion that if UDI was successful, that there could not be negotiations afterwards. When in fact, it makes negotiations more probable.
Obama said that first the land swaps must be negotiated: “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. That’s what mutually agreed-upon swaps means.” So, why can’t there be mutually agreed swaps after UDI? What’s the problem?
Well, it won’t be the first embarrassment of Obama’s Mideast policies – but it will definitely be the biggest. Especially if the debate in Israel warms up to the option and Netanyahu decides to agree with people like Meir Dagan, the former Mossad chief, who recently said that Israel should not oppose UDI.
If you still have hope the U.S. will avoid embarrassing itself, join the Wild Card campaign Facebook group – U.S. should recognize Palestinians Statehood in 2011.
4. A few last words for both leaders
President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu – this past week, you have both shut the door on ending the occupation, and it is us Israelis and Palestinians who will suffer the consequences of your ill judgement, probably sometime around September.
After a week of spectacular yet fruitless dissemination, I have three words for the both of you:
“Thanks for nothing”.
———————————
The Wild Card Campaign
.
Part I The Wild Card campaign starts with a bang through an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post
Part II Where French FM and President Abbas hint towards a future Palestinian state
Part III Egyptian FM joins the party
Part IV The NYTimes puts the Wild Card on the agenda
Part V The right wingers start to get nervous about unilateralism
Part VI The peace talks die, a call for Obama to think again about the Wild Card
Part VII EU sets the ground for recognition of Palestine
Part VIII AIPAC flexes its muscle – but who cares?
Part IX Obama’s Litmus test just around the corner
Part X Unilateralism is the only way left
Part XI Southern Sudan as a precedent for Palestine
——————————–
+972 magazine needs your support. check this post to see why, and how can you help to keep this project going
May 29, 2011
12:12 pm
Maybe it is time for big NY Times or Washington Post Advert with a few hundred signatures of the prominent and not so prominent, activists of all sorts… Asking Obama to stop kissing AIPAC ass… Telling him that a Congress that stands up for Bibi is not standing up for peace or Justice, nor for Israel and nor for Palestinians… Pandering is fatal we need to tell him…
May 29, 2011
1:27 pm
Obama is the first African American president of the United States. He is uncertain in his future. He sees the Tea Party ganging up on him. He feels the Republicans breathing down his neck. He hears AIPAC denounce him. He is scared. Of course, he believes whole-heartedly in UDI; why wouldn’t he? But he can’t actively support it. AIPAC, with its suitcases of dirty money, will crucify him. He might lose the 2012 election. He waits, bides his time; patience is a great virtue. I believe in my heart that in 2013 we will see a new Obama, one that will officially tell AIPAC to shove their ill-gotten money up their collective tuches. That Obama will finally whip Israel into shape, and get medieval on its prime minister’s ass (assuming it will still be Bibi’s). I am waiting for 2013.
May 29, 2011
1:31 pm
I assume that you’ve read the Strenger article in Haaretz.
http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/netanyahu-s-win-is-israel-s-loss-1.364022
May 29, 2011
2:21 pm
Thanks for the article. True, no American president, especially no Democrat, can go very far on the Palestinian issue if he is perceived as Anti-Israel. The Republicans would destroy him – especially Obama, who the Republicans paint as having deserted the biggest pro-U.S Arab state when he said Mubarak had to step down. Jimmy Carter was the most pro-Palestinian American president, and subsequent to his presidency, he has been called an “Anti-semite”.
That is probably why Obama uses diplomacy when he speaks to the Jewish Lobby. The writer of the article. Ami Kaufman, calls it “pandering”; others would call it “politics”.
Case in point: Today, I read that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt proclaims that they will not instate “Sharia Law” if they’re ever in power. Is that “pandering” to those who want a civil state? Perhaps. But it is necessary for them to say that if they want to go very far. I still believe that the MB want to bring in a Saudi-form of Sharia law if they can get away with it, but they won’t be able to in Egypt, so they have to concede a little to the opposition. Yes, it makes the politicians seem like they’re speaking from both sides of their mouths, but they have to appease as many parties as possible in order to make their policies/positions palatable. That’s what Obama was doing in front of the Jewish lobby.
Kaufman admits that the content of Obama’s speech in front of the Jewish lobby was NOT different from the content of his “Arab Spring” speech, so I still believe that Obama wants a Palestinian state (plus he’d get lots of credit historically, if he manages to see a Palestinian nation through), but when he talks to Jewish lobby he can’t afford to seem anti-Israel. It’s “politics”.
Besides, instead of giving Obama credit for not changing the content of his “Arab Spring” speech when he was speaking in front of the Jewish lobby, Kaufman blames Obama for changing his “tone” and for “name-dropping”. Let’s remember that Yasser Arafat said completely different things in Arabic than he did in English, and he was not ashamed of it at all.
I still believe that Obama is trying his best (although I, too, am pissed off at the latest American veto in the UN concerning the opposition of settlements), but Obama needs our help. Instead of sounding like we “hate” him and “hate” America, let us, Arabs, “play American politics”. I’m not saying that Kaufman sounds anything but reasonable in the article, but the kind of rhetoric I find coming out of the Arab community is often laden with hate speech against America and Israel. Allow me to explain:
Netanyahu, as Kaufman admits, was a great actor, orator, dramatist on that stage while he was speaking to the American congress. You know what? The audience loved the speech and clapped for him 35 times. They could identify with him. He spoke “American”, with an American accent, while mentioning American values. That speech alone undermined everything Obama was trying to do. Why don’t we send an Arab spokesperson to do the same?
I think our main problem is that we, Arabs, don’t do what works: We should have a powerful Pro-Palestine lobby made up of Arab American lawyers, politicians, etc. We should have speakers who know how to speak to the American congress, how to reach the American audience. We should learn from our “enemies” how to appeal to American sensibilities.
Unfortunately, the American congress has been swayed once again, at least partly because Netanyahu appeared so reasonable. On the other hand, our speakers sound angry, have a thick accent, look like they just came out of a movie set, and all they do is accuse the U.S. , spew off hate speech towards Israel, and put Americans on a long, hard guilt trip.
Of course I’m on the Arab’s side, but I can see very clearly why Americans don’t find the Pro-palestinian speakers very persuasive or appealing. We don’t have the leaders who know how to speak beautifully, humanely, powerfully about the issue – in the American vernacular.
When someone really wants to reach Arabs, he has to speak in a way that appeals to them. We know that: why do we persist in sending wooden, dogmatic presenters to talk to the U.S.?
May 29, 2011
2:38 pm
1. In between Roi’s assertion that Obama didn’t budge and your embarrassment of the change, I understand that all bets are still open as to what he meant, but Netanyahu was the bad guy no matter what.
.
2. Settlement: your writing clearly shows that you’re aware that no American president has ever defined them as illegal; in fact, one stated they’re NOT illegal.
So why wouldn’t the US veto a resolution that contradicts their legal view?
.
3. Occupation: it’s not the territories; it’s what will come after it that’s the core of the issue.
Again, I’m sure that you’re well aware of the fact that the territories are the Palestinians’ problem and the so called RoR is Israel’s problem. And yet, your baseless faith in a dream overrides your understanding of what most other people in Israel see as a step towards another war, under worse conditions for Israel
May 29, 2011
7:25 pm
i totally support the creation of a palestinian state and hope obama does not veto palestinian attempts (even though it is blatant blackmail to get more donor aid, typical palestinian trolling).
because when they finally have a state, any attacks originating from said state will be an act of war.
it will be their state to lose. palestine will be a big ball of fire before the PLO has the time to sue israel in court.
May 30, 2011
12:00 am
“because when they finally have a state, any attacks originating from said state will be an act of war.”
Yeah, that will totally change the Israeli response, because Israel doesn’t consider them an act of war now, right?
“palestine will be a big ball of fire before the PLO has the time to sue israel in court.”
Nothing adds more spice to a good helping of ignorance than a nice spoonful of genocidal fantasies.
May 30, 2011
12:49 am
@Koshiro
Keep dreaming. Any attack from this “Palestine” will be an act of war similar if Mexico were to launch rockets at major US cities.
No casualties needed. A pebble will do.
Palestinians can’t have it both ways.
May 30, 2011
3:35 am
Hiya Ami,
Good article, however I want to put in a bit of perspective a couple of points.
1. Bibi has changed……The song and the rat like eyes always moving side to side may be the same, but the hair…..
2. You have given President Obama _far_ too much credit. As the CEO of the Federal Government, he, his family and all his regional VPS (Congress/Senate) have lifetime healthcare which is truely the dreamscape of our socialist predicessours (Debs, Hill,..) and last remaining advocates (Nader, Sanders).
I’m just going to c/p a small snarky explanation I made regarding healthcare:
You pay taxes. You pay a significant portion of earnings for insurance coverage. Let’s assume with never so much as a “sick day”, you go for a check-up and find you must begin a radical plan of surgery and chemo _tomorrow_.
Overnight, your carrier “red flags” (drops) your coverage because ten years ago you acknowledged on a questionaire that you consume fatty foods. These foods have been _implicated_ in _some_ studies as increasing risk of cancer.
You wait. If you have anyone who gives a damn, they try to raise some money, but what the cost of proceedures have been inflated for automatic insurance pay-outs (which still leave the patient in debt for life), makes it impossible for the individual to purchase.
Worse for those receiving “US socialized healthcare” (from medicaid to medicare to the MassHealth), the plan designation is entirely random. Medicare/aid subscribers are encouraged to purchase outside (private ins.) _by_their_provider_! MassHealth’s different scaled plans literally meets different standards for different subscribers (seemingly aritrary as administrators, hospital financial officers, nor physicians have a clue…..only the magic box knows). If the (outstandingly, unprecidentedly, eye-popping) corrupt MA Government, under the auspices of Gov. “Blow on these” Patrick, cannot push gambling through in amendment form, he will make certain everyone rolls the dice on healthcare.
#SNAKE.EYES!
Your government won’t regulate this industry. Seemingly it is the choke hold of the AMA Guild. However the AMA has been aquired and franchised out by the top (five only) phama mega-multi-national corporations.
And the US, under Obama, like his brothers before him, sit in front of the TV and listen to a study underwritten by an insurance company in an almost impossible pose from the Kama Sutra with a Pharmagopolis which explains (on Oprah) the uberage taken by paying into a giant kitty, where those who “just don’t bother to take care of their health (read FAT), expect the folks who do (read smoking aneorexics) to subsidize the bill.
In a decade of watching this debate canted and recanted, I have never _once_ heard anyone mention that this is _exactly_ the scheme of the standard HMO, and before that “group plans” and further back, “private coverage”.
Caveat: when folks discuss economic and social progress and then healthcare is slipped in, be it for Canada, India or Palestine this is the advocated programme. It is _not_ freedom. It is disease causing stress. It is economic, familial and social catastrophe. It is the corporatizing of why we have governance, and soon there wil be none.
3. Here is a link to an article from May ’08 about then candidate Obama. It is rather indulgent regarding the very snowbally specialness of thee author’s generation, but one item is worth noting:
“And what of Obama? A clue can be found in his reform of the Illinois death-penalty system, when he was a state senator. He did not try to abolish capital punishment, nor did he side with the law-and-order hard-liners. Instead, he forged and passed legislation that vastly improved the fairness of the system, which allowed the state’s freeze on executions to be lifted. [The outgoing Govenor had created the freeze due to so many false convictions.]
“Obama began to tell this story at the Durham rally a year ago, but was cut off by huge cheers as soon as he said he had worked on death-penalty reform. He wisely stopped there, letting them believe he was on their side in that fight He was learning to keep his pragmatism hidden behind an idealistic veneer.”
[ http://m.thephoenix.com/Boston/article.aspx?id=57456#article.aspx?id=57456&page=1 ]
I see veneered pragmatism EVERYWHERE….