Follow on TwitterHillary Clinton’s Pandering To Israel Destroys U.S. Credibility On Middle East Peace
U.S. Middle East policy has effectively come full-circle again, as it has done repeatedly for the past forty-plus years. Every blue moon we get a U.S. President who dares to challenge Israel on its ethnic cleansing — as demonstrated by continued Palestinian home demolitions and Jewish-ONLY settlement expansion within the occupied territories (all interconnected by Jewish-ONLY roads). And as usual, the world holds its breath wondering if this U.S. President will have the balls to apply pressure behind his rhetoric and actually force Israel to cease its illegal activities and engage in peace negotiations.
But then a familiar pattern unfolds: The Israel Lobby applies its pressure, Congress obediently issues ridiculously dishonest resolutions, and before long the U.S. Administration sheepishly backs down, changes course, and proceeds to embarrass itself by actually praising Israel for its indefensible conduct.
Rewind to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March, 2009:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday blasted Israel’s plans to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem as a violation of its international obligations and “unhelpful” to Middle East peace efforts.
“Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the ‘road map’,” Clinton said, referring to the long-stalled peace plan.
“It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem,”
Now let’s revisit Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s strong language in May, 2009:
Rebuffing Israel on a key Mideast negotiating issue, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that the Obama administration wants a complete halt in the growth of Jewish settlements on Palestinian territory, with no exceptions.
President Obama “wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions,” Clinton said.
Next, let’s move on to President Obama’s Cairo Speech in June, 2009:
Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
Fast forward five months later — to this week — as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, backpedals on U.S. Middle East policy, while speaking in Israel:
Having failed to force Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, to meet US demands for a total settlement freeze, Mrs Clinton switched tack during a one-day visit to Jerusalem when she called on both sides to resume peace talks.
“What the Prime Minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements . . . is unprecedented,” Mrs Clinton said…
The comments by Mrs Clinton were in contrast to the previous stance of the Obama Administration, which has pressured Israel to halt all settlement construction. In May, after President Obama’s first meeting with Mr Netanyahu, Mrs Clinton said that the US “wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions”.
And the angry response in the Arab world is as one might expect:
Nabil Abu Rudeinah, a spokesman for Mr Abbas, said: “The negotiations are in a state of paralysis, and the result of Israel’s intransigence and America’s back-pedalling is that there is no hope of negotiations on the horizon.”
Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian Authority spokesman, said:
“I believe that the U.S. condones continued settlement expansion. Calling for a resumption of negotiations despite continued settlement construction doesn’t help because we have tried this way many times,” Khatib added. “Negotiations are about ending the occupation and settlement expansion is about entrenching the occupation.”
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said:
“If America cannot get Israel to implement a settlement freeze, what chance do Palestinians have of reaching agreement with Israel on permanent status issues?”
So it appears Obama has concluded — as did all his predecessors — that going head to head with the Israel Lobby is not worth the political price. So Hillary Clinton does a 180 — yanking the rug out from under President Abbas — thereby ensuring his popularity will plummet further just before the Palestinian elections. She’s also given the right-winged Likud government a strategic ‘out’ from any peace negotiations. Netanyahu is now free to accuse the Palestinians of blocking peace, as Fatah demands that Israel cease its settlement expansion as a precondition for peace negotiations.
Is there any wonder why terrorists in that part of the world are motivated to target American interests, considering that we are essentially Israel’s enabler?
Gideon Levy, an Israeli journalist for Harretz, blasts the U.S. Administration in his recent column for always “sucking up to Israel” :
No other country on the planet does the United States kneel and plead like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw from occupied territory in Kuwait?
But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, receives different treatment. Another massage to the national ego in one video, more embarrassing praise in another.
Now is the time to say to the United States: Enough flattery. If you don’t change the tone, nothing will change. As long as Israel feels the United States is in its pocket, and that America’s automatic veto will save it from condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without the world’s policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways.
Illegal acts like the occupation and settlement expansion, and offensives that may have involved war crimes, as in Gaza, deserve a different approach. If America and the world had issued condemnations after Operation Summer Rains in 2006 – which left 400 Palestinians dead and severe infrastructure damage in the first major operation in Gaza since the disengagement – then Operation Cast Lead never would have been launched. […]
Israel of 2009 is a spoiled country, arrogant and condescending, convinced that it deserves everything and that it has the power to make a fool of America and the world. The United States has engendered this situation, which endangers the entire Mideast and Israel itself. That is why there needs to be a turning point in the coming year – Washington needs to finally say no to Israel and the occupation. An unambiguous, presidential no.
Stephen Walt succinctly describes the mess the United States is helping to create for the state of Israel and for those whom Israel continues to occupy:
The two-state solution was on life-support when Obama took office, and at first it appeared he might make a serious effort to nurse it back to health and make it a reality. At least, that’s what he said he was going to do. Instead, he and his Secretary of State are in the process of pulling out the plug. But what will they do when “two states for two peoples” isn’t an option and everybody finally admits it, and the Palestinians begin to demand equal rights in “greater Israel?” Will the United States support their claims for equality, democracy, and individual rights, or will it continue to defend and subsidize what will then be an apartheid state? Well, if it’s up to our courageous reps in Congress, you know what the answer will be.
How An Instant-Runoff Voting System Would Restore Democracy To America
One year ago — as Americans counted down the final months of the Bush Presidency — a progressive firestorm ushered the Democrats into power with a resolute mandate for CHANGE. The electorate had turned its back on nearly a decade of neo-con lies, the biggest warmongering con job in our nation’s history, war crimes, mismanaged disaster-relief efforts (Katrina), a gutting of the Constitution and the rule of law, a staggering debt, and the collapse of our entire financial system. The country (and the entire world for that matter) took a deep sigh of relief that the Republicans were gone and that CHANGE was on its way.
And here we are approaching Obama’s one year mark, wondering “where the hell did our CHANGE candidate go to?” The Democrats — though nowhere near as destructive as the Republicans before them — have proven to be every bit as corrupted by our two party system. I just recently blogged about this — pointing out that progressives would eventually have to punish Democrats at the voting booths for turning their backs on real change and instead pretending the status-quo was essential for bipartisanship.
The U.S. political system has become a government for and by the political elites and special interest groups — largely immunized from voter outrage by our ridiculous two-party system. The whole notion that this is a ‘democracy for and by the people’ has become something of a farce, not unlike Fox News calling itself ‘Fair and Balanced’.
Take for example, health care reform: an overwhelming majority of the American people want a robust public option as part of a health care reform package, as does an overwhelming majority of American Physicians. Well, TOO BAD for us, because that works against the interests of the political elites who are shoveling millions of dollars into their political coffers by the health insurance industry and lobbyists, as well as lining their spouses up with cushy high-paying jobs (i.e. ask Senator Joe Lieberman’s wife, Hadassah about that). And if you even think about voting against these corrupted Politicians — for say, a 3rd Party Candidate — then you’ll soon watch your 3rd Party candidate defeated, and know your vote unwittingly helped elect some Republican freak-show candidate a la ‘Michele Bachmann‘.
What is needed is an underlying overhaul of our system’s electoral processes. Something that would strengthen our democracy, by better aligning our politicians’ interests with those of the electorate. Two possibilities come to mind:
1) Publicly funded elections (i.e. ending all campaign contributions). This is the most obvious solution.
2) The Preferential Voting System (also called Instant-runoff voting)
Instant-runoff voting — adapted by the Australian and Irish Democracies, as well as by others — is one where each voter ranks a list of candidates in order of preference. The 1st choice candidates selected on the ballots are tallied, and if none of the 1st choice candidates gets a majority of the votes, then the candidate with the least amount of #1 preference rankings is eliminated and his/her votes get redistributed to the remaining candidates (the ones indicated by the #2 ranking preferences). This process repeats itself again and again until one of the remaining candidates has reached a majority of total votes.
EXAMPLE: Here’s a sample ballot for this kind of voting system along with fictitious candidates to show how it works:
Let’s assume you like John Citizen the best — he’s a Left leaning 3rd Party Candidate whose platform is in line with your own principles — so you make him your #1 Preference.
Mary Hill, the incumbent, is the Democratic Party candidate. She speaks a good game, but has proven to be beholden to special interest groups, and continues to legislate in a way that puts their interests above your own. You make her your #2 preferred candidate.
Jane Doe is the Libertarian Candidate. You find yourself on the same side as Libertarians on some issues, but at the polar opposite on others. You decide to make Jane Doe, the Libertarian, your #3 preferred candidate.
Then there’s the Neo-Con, Joe Smith (the Republican candidate), and Fred Rubble (another Far-Right freak show). These misfits won’t ever get your vote — so you leave them blank.
So the voting precincts close later that night, and all the votes are tallied. Your #1 preference, John Citizen only got 5,000 #1 preference rankings and the Libertarian Jane Doe (your #3) only got one thousand, and Fred Rubble (Freak Show) got a hundred. All three of these tallies are a mere pittance when compared to the top two-party candidates, Mary Hill (Democrat), and Joe Smith (Republican), though neither got a majority of all votes cast. Therefore, the candidate with the least #1 preference rankings (Freak show Fred Rubble) gets eliminated, his votes get redistributed to the #2 preferences, and the ballots get recounted, and this process is repeated again and again until a majority is reached by one candidate. Your vote for John Citizen ultimately gets converted to your #2 preferred ranking, Mary Hill.
When the dust clears, and a majority has finally been reached, it appears the Democratic Candidate Mary Hill BARELY wins, beating the Republican candidate by only two thousand votes.
Do you see what just happened here, and the resulting impact it would have on the U.S. political system? Your vote for the Left-leaning 3rd Party Candidate, John Citizen, didn’t automatically ensure the victory of the dreaded ‘Dick Cheney equivalent’ Joe Smith — who would have clearly won within our current U.S. electoral system.
In an Instant-runoff voting system two important things are achieved:
- There’s no longer an incentive to vote strictly along party lines. Citizens can vote their conscience without worrying about “throwing their votes away” or “ensuring that the greater of two evils gets elected.” As a result, many people would begin to vote for third party candidates, thus ensuring a gradual end to the current two-party stranglehold.
- The overall will of the majority always gets realized in the outcome of each election. In this example a majority of the electorate clearly wanted someone from the Left to win (either the Democratic Candidate, Mary Hill, or the Left-leaning Third Party Candidate, John Citizen), and they ultimately were awarded that — a winner from the Left. Under our current system, the candidate from the Right — the Dick Cheney equivalent, Joe Smith — would have won this election, despite the fact the majority of those who voted clearly preferred candidates who leaned Left.
Had we used this Preferential System in the 2000 Presidential Elections what would have likely resulted? Ralph Nader would have gotten a hell of a lot more votes, and Al Gore would have ultimately won a decisive victory over George W. Bush.
Just something to think about …
Forcing Democratic Politicians To Legislate Progressively
One thing has become crystal clear over these last nine months — the Democrats do not give a rat’s ass about the core concerns of the Progressive movement. On the campaign trail ‘candidate’ Obama said all the right things and with eloquence; with passion. He articulated a whole host of issues important to us, and outlined how best to fix them, and we were in agreement. His vision for change resonated with and inspired tens of millions who had for so long been cynical, apathetic — hopeless — about the U.S. political establishment. He restored their hopes, only to spend his first nine months eradicating them for good. Americans entrusted Obama and the Democrats with the Presidency and a majority in both houses, as well as with a clear mandate to implement the changes they promised. Since then, they’ve done everything possible to undercut us on nearly every critical issue.
The problem is much bigger than Obama ‘the candidate’ VS Obama ‘the president’. The problem is endemic to this two-party system — a system which ensures that voting against the ‘token’ Democrat — and instead for a third-party candidate — often yields something far worse: a neo-con. This setup provides an insidious Democratic party monopoly on the entire left-of center-spectrum and the Republicans the same monopoly for anyone to the right of center. It insulates each party’s candidates from the wrath of their respective electorates, thereby allowing the politicians to undermine the citizenry at every turn. This fortress around the two parties creates a haven for moneyed special-interest groups to thrive within: to legally bribe our candidates, and to ensure that all legislation is written to serve their best interests, even when their interests conflict with those of the American people.
These days, most Progressives have a ‘line of thinking’ that goes something like this:
“Well, my candidate has broken every campaign promise he ever made, so we’re grappling with the realization that we’re not going to get real change. But, having said that, Obama and the Democrats are still far better than Bush, McCain-Palin, and the other Republicans. And for that matter, Obama will surely be better than any serious contender (meaning one of the two-party contenders) he’ll face three years from now.”
All true, yet consider this: Obama and the Democrats are well-aware of this ‘line of thinking’. It’s why we aren’t getting a robust public option. It’s why Guantanamo Bay is still open, and our troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s why Obama has done everything in his power to stamp out any investigations of — and even block the release of any information on — the crimes committed by the Bush Administration. This ‘line of thinking’ has given Obama the ‘Audacity’ to cut back-door deals with the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries — effectively undermining a robust public option, and stripping the government the right to negotiate drug prices downwards — all before actual health reform negotiations had even begun. He promised transparency in the health reform process, then proceeded to hide it all from public scrutiny. Because Obama knows that — as a Democratic party candidate — he will always remain the ‘lesser of two evils’ in his constituency’s eyes. He knows we’re never going to risk putting another George W. Bush in power. We are essentially ‘in the bag’, as far as he and his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s political estimations are concerned.
There is an old saying: ‘Sometimes it has to get worse, before it can get better’. At some point, Progressives will have to vote against the Democratic Party to force the party’s interests to become aligned with our own. Yes, this strategy will probably yield some horrible Republican politicians in the short term — as the Democratic Party’s ‘wake-up-call’ costs them their comfortable majority — but it will send a very clear message to them: they are no longer insulated from the wrath of their progressive base. They will learn that there is a bite behind the bark.
Progressives need to stop following blindly — like sheep — behind Democratic candidates. We should ONLY vote for Democrats who have advocated for our interests. If the Democratic Candidate has legislated against our interests, and there exists no third party candidate who shares our ideals, then we should just stay at home. We do this, and I guarantee that by the following election cycle, the Democratic party will reawaken as a new progressive entity. And only then will we achieve real change.
Goldstone To U.S. Congress: Your Resolution Condemning Gaza Investigation Is Rife With Factual Errors
Steven Rosen, former director of foreign-policy issues at AIPAC — the right-winged Israel Lobby powerhouse — once told Jeffrey Goldberg: “You see this napkin?” he said. “In twenty-four hours, we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.” Well apparently, a ‘dirty napkin’ — of sorts — was passed around this week in […]
Bill Moyers & Glenn Greenwald Discuss Gov’t Secrecy, The Beltway Elite, Afghanistan
My favorite news man, Bill Moyer at PBS, interviews my favorite blogger, Glenn Greenwald at Salon, in a web-exclusive video. It’s a fascinating discussion that covers a number of different topics. Part I: Moyers and Greenwald discuss how the Obama Administration has actually embraced Bush-era justifications for secrecy and indefinite detention: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRy41ktx1ro[/youtube] Part II: Moyers […]
Watch: Groove Armada Perform ‘Superstylin’ LIVE At Brixton Academy 2002
Grammy-nominated single ‘Superstylin’ is one of my favorite dance club ‘Big Beat’ tracks — definitely my favorite Groove Armada track. Behind the heavy bass, and awesome melody is some powerful Jamaican-style toasting. It’s something between dance-hall reggae and a heavy rave/club tune. Truly hypnotic — the kind of song that will fuel your gym workouts, […]
Harper’s Magazine Interviews Desmond Travers On Goldstone Report
Here’s an interesting read: Ken Silverstein interviews Den Travers, one of the four members of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. “Travers is a retired Colonel of the Army of the Irish Defence Forces. His last appointment was as Commandant of its Military College. He also served in command of troops […]
Why Obama’s Policies Put Wall Street’s Interests Ahead Of Main Street’s
Dan Froomkin at Huffington Post connects the dots: Many of [Obama’s] chief financial advisers have pocketed extraordinary amount of money from banks and Wall Street, and presumably intend to do so again. They are part of the banker class, and their loyalties have been bought and paid for. Examples? Obama’s top economic adviser, Larry Summers: […]
Court Listens To Serbian Leader Phone Tap: Talks Of Exterminating Muslims
Radovan Karadzic, the Serbian leader believed to be the mastermind of the Serbian-Bosnian conflict — which resulted in the death of over 100,000 people — has refused to leave his prison cell at The Hague, effectively boycotting his own trial. Karadizic is charged with two acts of genocide and nine other war crimes, and […]
Bill Moyers Interviews Justice Richard Goldstone About Gaza Investigations
Here’s a must see for those interested in learning more about the UN Human Rights Council’s investigation into Israel’s military incursion into Gaza, and its controversial findings: namely that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes. Bill Moyers speaks at length with Justice Richard Goldstone — whom I wrote about last week. Here’s a few […]
Follow AlterPolitics on Twitter
