[DEBATE] : Uri Avnery on Obama at AIPAC

[Sean Jacobs]

Uri Avnery on Obama at AIPAC
7.6.08

                 No, I Can't!

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 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!"
------------------------------------------------------
Sean Jacobs
http://theleoafricanus.com/

“Only intellectuals love poverty. Poor people love luxury” (from a  
Brazilian samba).