|
by Peter A. Belmont / 2010-02-05
© 2010 Peter Belmont
| |
In an earlier essay, I suggested that President Obama publicly demand that Israel remove all its settlers and its separation wall from all occupied territories, suggesting that that demand was required by (or consistent with the requirements of) international law and would further the American national interest.
This essay considers the likely outcome of such a public demand, considering the American system of governance.
|
|
From the perspective of international law, a public demand that Israel remove its settlers and the separation wall from all occupied territories (and keep them out for so long as the occupation continues) cannot be faulted.
From the perspective of that mythic entity, the “American National interest”, it is a little harder to evaluate the demand, since this mythic entity has substance only as a reflection of political processes and has little reality otherwise. Many US Jews (but, happily, not so many as formerly) would reflexively oppose the demand, saying or believing that the settlements are necessary for their own safety or happiness or for Israel’s security—and unable to separate these considerations from the American national interest. Many fundamentalist Christians in the US would oppose the demand, believing that it is God’s will that Jews should occupy all of the Holy Land as a necessary precursor to the end-times (when, after a dreadful war at Armaggedon, all non-Christians, including inter alia all Jews who have not converted to christianity, will perish horribly and Christians will ascend to heaven in glory).
More practically, the AIPAC folks and the rest of The Lobby will quietly mention to the president’s men that they have a lot of their own money and control a lot of corporate money which they are disposed to use to defeat not only the president’s demand (regarding Israeli settlers, etc.) but every other program the president may be pleased to pursue until he withdraws his demand (and grovels, etc.), and they have, as we all know now, the Supreme Court’s blessing to help determine the American national interest in this manner.
The Israeli ambassador, hearing President Obama’s demand, would have struggled to keep a straight face and limited his response to something like “I will convey what you have said to my government, but I imagine you know that settlements and settlers and the protection wall which protects them are central elements of my government’s policy.” What he would have thought is, “Yeah? You gonna make us do that? You and who else?” and would recall Stalin’s question regarding the Vatican’s opposition to some policy of his, “How many divisions has the Pope?”.[1]
In Israel, the demand would be made fun of, and the American president would be shown to have even less power over Israeli policy than the Palestinians.
The American president, sometimes called the most powerful leader in the world, has no “divisions” which he could use to enforce his demand that Israel comply with international law. He would be opposed by most of the Congress, perhaps one quarter of the voters (Jews and Fundamentalist Christians), AIPAC and the Lobby.
And all of this explains why President Obama backed down precipitately from his early rhetorical essay in Israeli/Palestinian peace-making.
Indeed, all of this calls into question how he could ever have made those early rhetorical essays in the first place. Perhaps his trouble with health-care reform arises, at least in part, from opaque responses by The Lobby to his early remarks on peacemaking.
-----------
[1] ”How many divisions,” Stalin is supposed to have inquired contemptuously, “has the pope?” This stupid remark is invariably quoted against him. He failed to see that the pope can indeed mobilize legions. slate.com. AIPAC has all of Congress. The president has almost no loyal following at all now. It might have been different if he had been an able teacher, had explained to the public why he wanted Israeli/Palestinian peace, had explained the workings of The Lobby, and had asked the American people to pressure their legislators. But he did not do this. He did not even attempt it.
Presidents are not so powerful as they are supposed to be. Bush could start wars—in the right circumstances—but Obama cannot make peace.
|
