Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘hillary-clinton’

Striking Down Shibboleths as UN Statehood Vote Nears

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

There are a number of shibboleths U.S. and Israeli officials repeat endlessly as if doing so might make them come true.  This one is from Hillary Clinton:

 “The only way of getting a lasting solution is through direct negotiations between the parties, and the route to that lies in Jerusalem and Ramallah, not in New York.”

But is there any truth in this claim?  What has direct negotiation achieved for the Palestinians in the past decade or more?  Nothing.  Why does Clinton have any confidence that a Palestinian return to negotiations would achieve anything for them?  She offers no evidence to support this claim.  Why?  Because of Bibi Netanyahu (and before him Ehud Olmert).  Israel simply isn’t prepared to negotiate in good faith.  Sure Israel will negotiate on its terms and possibly agree to a sham (for the Palestinians) settlement that gave it virtually all it sought and the Palestinians virtually nothing.  That’s what was proposed during the Olmert years as shown by the Palestine Papers published by Al Jazeera.

Another shibboleth, this one articulated by former IDF chief of staff and Kadima MK, Shaul Mofaz:

…The EU should not back a Palestinian unilateral declaration of state as this would only engender “another round of violence.”

The argument–and an incredibly condescending one it is, as it presumes Israel and the west can divine Palestinian motivations–is that Palestinian hope will expand at the prospect of statehood granted by the UN.  But when such hopes are dashed and Palestinians see how little it has actually achieved for them, they will turn to a third Intifada out of frustration.  This in turn will bring waves of strikes and violence which Israel will be forced to crush with force, thus setting the peace process back even farther than it was before the statehood bid began.

The fallacy of this claim is that no one knows, and certainly not U.S. and Israeli policymakers who’ve proven they are the most tone-deaf in understanding Palestinian interests, what the outcome of the statehood bid will be, and how it will impact public opinion in Palestine.  Most Palestinians are exceedingly pragmatic and patient.  They understand that their leadership cannot deliver full statehood on a silver platter all at once.  I seriously doubt there will be such mass uprisings when so-called despair sets in.

On the other hand, there is a party which would gain immensely if there was such violence: Israel, and specifically its far right government.  They want no settlement with the Palestinians and violence plays into their hands.  If there is no such violence it would not at all be above Israel to provoke it.  Targeted assassinations in the West Bank or Gaza, bombing of Gaza tunnels and killing workers inside them, all of these would ratchet up tensions to the boiling point and set off the sort of mass violence the U.S. and Israel feign they fear.  The fact that the IDF has stockpiled weapons and sanctioned vigilante patrols for “self-defense” is also deeply alarming.  The Israeli media is also replete with IDF announcements that it is readying military units for service should there be an uprising.  This is also adding tinder to the situation, for where soldiers sit idle, there will be generals seeking a reason to fight.

Israel has done this before.  This was how the first and second Intifadas began: one with Ariel Sharon traipsing through the sacred grounds of the Temple Mount; and the IDF southern commander Tzvika Fogel attesting that the army played its part in provoking the second Intifada.  And of course, Operation Cast Lead was preceded by Israel breaking the Gaza ceasefire by bombing the Egypt tunnels and killing a number of Hamas activists in the process.  Of course, it takes two to tango and the Palestinians play along with retaliatory missiles, etc.  But as Israel is far stronger militarily, the onus lies on it when it comes to provocation.

In truth, I worry that the violence will arise from the Israeli side.  Either it will react to a Bilin-type peaceful protest with massive force as it did along the Lebanon and Syrian borders.  Or it will provoke such violence with the type of provocation I outlined above.  Either way, this is what could light the tinderbox.  We could see scores, if not hundreds dead.  Israel would look upon the Palestinian dead in mock horror and say: “Look what they made us do to them.”  Then the world might blame the statehood bid for the violence.  This is for Bibi a notion devoutly to be wished for.

The problem with this scenario is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is no longer easily managed by Israel with its U.S. handlers.  Now, all the countries liberated by the Arab Spring will be watching.  And especially Turkey will be watching.  Its leader has signaled it will no longer be business as usual and that his nation sees a vested interest in settling this conflict.  So if Israel wants to go about killing Palestinians, it will no longer face a few hundred Qassam missiles in reply.  Instead, it will face a nation whose population, military and economy is many times larger than Israel.

This is a new ballgame for Israel.  It’s always succeeded, with a few exceptions, in dividing and conquering its Arab enemies.  And there has never been any Arab-Muslim power that was decidedly stronger than Israel.  Those days are rapidly coming to an end.  The only question is whether Israel will recognize this, trim its sails, and avoid a confrontation; or whether it will have to be taught a lesson before it recognizes the new limitations.

Of course, I’m outlining what I think the new realities are.  It remains to be seen how this will play out.  Some or most of what I foresee could happen.  Or it could happen differently.  But I doubt it will happen much differently.

What is truly annoying about the role the U.S. is playing in all this is that serves as the stereo speakers and amplifier of Israel’s far-right government.  In not a single way is Obama’s “policy” out of sync with the Netanyahu government.  We know Obama hates this guy’s guts.  We know Obama supports a two state solution.  We know Obama opposes settlements.  But alas, we also know that Obama doesn’t have the guts for a fight.  So instead he runs along in the shadow of big brother, Bibi.  It’s shameful when you think of it.  A major failure of will.  And all to get re-elected.  In order to serve a second term, in which he will squander his possibilities as he squandered them in his first term.

Obama, Clinton Intervene to Protect Israeli Diplomatic Interests During Egyptian Riots

Friday, September 9th, 2011
storming israeli embassy

Egyptians storming Israeli embassy in Cairo (Amr Nabil/AP)

I don’t know about you, but I find remarkable this passage from Al Jazeera’s report on today’s Cairo riots which swirled around the Israeli embassy and spilled over into attacks on neighboring Egyptian security facilities:

US President Barack Obama was first to react, calling on Egypt to protect the embassy and “to honour its international obligations to safeguard the security of the Israeli Embassy.”

A White House statement said that “the President expressed his great concern about the situation at the embassy, and the security of the Israelis serving there”.

The statement said that Obama spoke by telephone to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, and the two agreed “to stay in close touch until the situation is resolved”.

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, also called Mohamed Kamel Amr, Egypt’s foreign minister, to urge Egypt to meet its Vienna Convention obligations to protect diplomatic property, a senior state department official said.

And this from the NY Times report:

United States officials said Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Israel had called Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who in turn asked the Egyptian military to try to restore order at the embassy.

Last I checked, Israel was not a U.S. protectorate, but rather an independent nation. Why Israel should not feel confident appealing directly to Egypt in this case, and instead turned to its evident protectors, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, is beyond me. It seems a grave error on the part of Obama to publicly announce his intervention, as it will further tarnish Israel’s and America’s reputations in the Arab world. We look like the Bobsey Twins or, if you will, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

I can’t recall our government taking any particular public interest in the violation of the embassies of other countries in other cases, nor do I recall the Israelis warning the Iranians to release our hostages in 1979 (a lot of difference it would’ve made if they had!), though others may correct me.

This is yet another example of the abject failure of Obama’s Mideast policy. Like Aipac, he doesn’t recognize where the interests of the U.S. and Israel differ.  I’d say he doesn’t deserve to win the next election if there were any candidate remotely appealing. But alas, there isn’t.

Israel must’ve been petrified that the assault and dumping of documents from embassy windows would expose secret intelligence files to public scrutiny. That’s the only reason I can think that Israel would go to the extraordinary length of calling on big brother to intercede on its behalf.  Further, this indicates how much lower Israel’s stature has sunk in the region.  Now it has picked huge fights with Turkey (killed nine of its citizens on the Mavi Marmara) and Egypt (killed five of its soldiers after Eilat attack and invaded Egypt in doing so).  It of course, threatens Iran with annihilation semi-regularly.  The only neighboring state with which it has no major bone to pick (or vice versa) is Jordan.

At this rate, Israel may need for the U.S. to intervene to save it from its worst impulses toward self-destruction.  Though I have no confidence that Obama can do this in a way that won’t bring Israel and his own administration into even greater disrepute.

Gaza Flotilla Ships Depart Tuesday, U.S. Threatens American Flotilla Passengers With Prosecution

Friday, June 24th, 2011

The Turkish daily, Hurriyet reports that ten Gaza flotilla ships will embark from European ports in Greece and Italy on Tuesday.  Previous reports said they might sail Saturday.  The story notes that at least one ship will leave from Athens port, which would likely be the Audacity of Hope, whose passengers are now in Athens training for their journey and the possibility of IDF attack.

Hurriyet quotes yet another outrageous statement by Hillary Clinton to top the one which essentially warned the U.S. passengers that Israel might likely kill them and their government would take no responsibility if it did.  Here’s her latest outrage:

“We do not believe the flotilla is a necessary or useful effort to try to assist the people of Gaza,” Clinton was quoted as saying by Agence France-Presse. “We think it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves.”

Did you get that?  Gaza is Israel’s territorial waters.  Since when?  She’s got lawyers working for her who are experts in maritime and international law.  Does she even bother to vet such nonsense with them before saying it?  Or is it the lawyers who’ve come up with this?  Not to mention that Israel intercepts them on the high seas, making it an act of piracy since Israel isn’t protecting its own territorial waters when it hijacks a boat in the international zone.

Can anyone tell me why Israel should have a ‘right to defend itself’ against unarmed civilians fulfilling their rights to protest against Israel’s illegal siege against Gaza?  How is that “defense?”  What threat do these peace activists pose to Israel or Israelis?  By what right would any force be used against them?

UPDATE: And in case you thought it wasn’t possible, I’ve just read an even dumber, lamer State Department pronouncement which threatens Flotilla passengers who are U.S. citizens with prosecution for providing support to a terrorist entity.  Here’s Haaretz’s headline as reported by its Washington stenographer, er correspondent, Natasha Mozgovaya:

U.S. State Department says Gaza is run by U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization Hamas and Americans providing support to it are subject to fines and jail.

And here’s the actual quote by the State Department flack:

“We underscore that delivering or attempting or conspiring to deliver material support or other resources to or for the benefit of a designated foreign terrorist organization, such as Hamas, could violate U.S. civil and criminal statutes and could lead to fines and incarceration,” Nuland said.

This doesn’t inhibit participation or intimidate those in the Flotilla.  Just the opposite.  If I were a passenger I’d quote my former president: “Bring it on.”  When your government plays stupid, it infuriates you so much you are moved to act to oppose its lunacy.  There will be many more Americans who will want to go next time.  And of course there will be a next time, and a time after, till this insane siege is ended.

I wrote this in an earlier post tonight and I’m sorry to repeat myself, but this makes me goddamn ashamed to be an American.  Goddamn ashamed.

The Shame of It: State Department Warns U.S. Flotilla Members Israel May Kill Them

Friday, June 24th, 2011
audacity of hope ship

Audacity of Hope flotilla ship

Not for a few years have I felt quite this ashamed of my own government.  As you know, 50 U.S. citizens have chartered a boat called The Audacity of Hope, to be part of the Gaza flotilla.  The name of the boat was an attempt to tie the effort to the most optimistic, progressive aspects of Barack Obama’s political career.  The ship is attempting to depart from a Greek port with the Greek government exerting extraordinarily intrusive measures to hinder its sailing, no doubt under pressure from the Obama administration and Israel.

Here is how Joseph Dana, who’s planning to join the U.S. boat described his understanding of the situation:

According to flotilla organizers…Israel has been meeting with Greek officials in a bid to persuade them to block Gaza-bound ships leaving from their ports. Israel, organizers say, could use economic incentives at a delicate time of EU-imposed austerity to put pressure on Athens. In recent years Greece and Israel have expanded trade ties, have carried out joint air force exercises and have begun discussions on a joint pipeline project that would exploit vast new Israeli natural gas fields in the eastern Mediterranean.

“Israel has pulled out the stops in trying to get the flotilla to stop before it begins by threatening the Greek economy,“ said Ann Wright, a retired State Department official and former Army colonel who is the main organizer of the US boat to Gaza. Sitting in the lobby of the noisy Athens hotel, she added, “Greece is caught in the middle. There is tremendous public support for the flotilla, but the government is getting pounded by the Israelis.” Not naming her sources, Wright, visibly exhausted from a year of organizing for the flotilla, contended that “Israel is going to try to sink the Greek economy if they allow the flotilla to sail from Greek ports.”

This general strategy has already worked successfully in persuading Ukraine to collaborate in the kidnapping of Dirar Abu Sissi on its soil, along with transferring him to Israel where he languishes in jail.  As I noted, an Israeli source confirms that Israel offered trade bait to Ukraine to seal the deal for Abusisi’s extraordinary rendition.  I’m wondering whether a similar sort of bargaining went into getting Turkey to renounce its support for the IHH participation in the flotilla.

Hillary Clinton’s State Department has issued a shameful warning for U.S. citizens not to participate in the Gaza flotilla.  Here is what it announced:

U.S. citizens are advised against traveling to Gaza by any means, including via sea, noting that previous attempts to enter Gaza by sea “have been stopped by Israeli naval vessels and resulted in the injury, death, arrest, and deportation of U.S. citizens.”

There was only one death of a dual nationality Turkish-U.S. citizen aboard the Mavi Marmara.  After his death, the U.S. embassy in Turkey did absolutely nothing on behalf of his family.  So for the State Department to warn other Americans they might suffer the same fate is beyond chutzpah (to quote Alan Dershowitz).  What did our government do to protect Furkan before he died or to console his family or seek compensation from Israel?  Nothing.

What are they doing to protect the lives of those Americans planning to sail now?  Are they warning the Israelis to behave themselves, not to harm U.S. citizens?  Of course not.  Can you imagine a situation anywhere else in the world in which an ally of a nation is preparing to arrest and possibly engage in violence against citizens of that nation, and the latter tells those individuals that if they are harmed it will be their own fault??

Israel reminds me of the monster from those science fiction B-flicks of the 1950s, about whom one characters says: “He’s killed once, he’ll kill again.”  Which usually is about the time all the potential victims organize to root out the killer in their midst.  Instead of doing the same and calling Israel to heel for its previous acts of murder and violence, the world tells the potential victims, “if he kills you it’ll be your own fault.”  For shame.

I’m also disgusted with the implied position of the Obama administration that the Gaza siege is an acceptable or even legal enterprise.  Under what rubric is our government making such an argument?  Even the UN secretary general warned peace activists to stay off the flotilla because aid should only be delivered via Israeli authorized means.  Since when?  Since when is this siege worthy of respecting?  Since when does the world’s leading institution representing human rights acceding to Israel’s punishing siege against 1.5 million civilians?  Since when don’t citizens of the world have the right to challenge patently immoral acts like this one?

Perhaps we can suggest to Ban Ki Moon that he move his headquarters to a Gaza refugee camp for one month just to see what that would be like.  I wonder then whether he’d be singing the same tune?  Would he then say to anti-siege activists that they should be good little boys and girls and leave it all to those nice fellows in the IDF to take care of the situation?

I’m disgusted with the Obama administration and their international shills.  They’re beneath contempt.

Just Foreign Policy, whose director, Robert Naiman will also be aboard the Hope, has secured the signatures of six (count ‘em) Congressmembers to a letter asking the U.S. government to work with Israel to ensure the safety of its own citizens.  Only six members of the U.S. Congress believe the safety of 50 Americans is worth making a public stink about.

Clinton Threatened to Withhold U.S. Aid to PA, Israeli Officials Fear Increasing European Isolation

Sunday, February 20th, 2011

Ynet reports that among the bullying tactics the U.S. used in a vain attempt to force the PA to withdraw the UN Security Council resolution  opposing Israeli settlements, Hillary Clinton threatened to halt U.S. aid.  Now how stupid can you get?  The U.S. already looks lame through the role it’s played as outlined by the Palestine Papers in the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.  We dissed the Palestinians every chance we got.  We spoke ill of them behind their backs.  We stiffed them on issues that were crucial to their interests.  We all but threw in our lot with Israel.

And now Hillary thinks she’s going to withdraw the only leverage the U.S. has with the Palestinians?  Who does she think she’s kidding?  This actually sounds like something cooked up in Dennis Ross’ kitchen.  I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your Palestinian homeland down.

What’s ridiculous about this is that the Palestinians call our bluff and refuse to withdraw the resolution.  Are we going to follow through on our threat?  No.  Will any Palestinian leader believe anything she says to them in future?  Will she have any credibility with them?  Hillary, you might as well resign now and go to work as an Aipac lobbyist.  You’re not advancing the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace.  We know it, Palestinians know it.

We’re doing Israel no favors either.  Ynetnews notes the worries of Israeli officials that the solid European support for the Security Council resolution, even in the face of the U.S. veto, indicates a further distancing of Europe from Israel.  They’re even using the B (boycott) word:

State officials warn of political isolation following European nations’ support of Palestinian bid to condemn settlement construction in Security Council. ‘Every tender for settlement construction distances us from Europe.   Some countries boycott Israeli goods and things can deteriorate,’ one official says.

State officials said Saturday that the US veto which prevented a UN condemnation of settlement construction is not a reason for celebrations. “Israel is becoming increasingly isolated from West European countries which consider settlements a red rag [?],” one element said. The senior officials said they do not rule out financial consequences as a result of Israel’s isolation.

These sentiments sound far too reasonable to emanate from Likud or Kadima officials, so I’m guessing these are the sentiments of Ehud Barak.  Which still makes them worth considering.  Even Barak or whoever said this recognizes the handwriting on the wall.  The veto hasn’t helped Israel.  It has only increased its international isolation and advanced the cause of BDS worldwide.

Haaretz brings word that the PA plans its own “Day of Rage” protesting the U.S. veto of the settlement resolution.  Though I find it dubious that a non-elected rump government like the PA would attempt to organize a popular protest aping the raging Middle East revolutions, the U.S. has it coming.  We abandoned our own principles and policies in vetoing this resolution.  We did it for Israel.  And we did it at the most inopportune moment when dictatorial regimes are falling like dominoes around the Middle East.  Once again we sided with the strong man (Israel) and against justice.  Once again U.S. policy was shown to be tone-deaf.

What does this veto gain us?  Scoring a few points with Israel?  Consoling them after they lost their Egyptian stuffy toy leader?  Is that what U.S. policy has come to?  What about staking out vigorous, bold positions that advance our interests and those of the region, even if they run contrary to Israel’s political elite?

The U.S. and the Obama administration is now just phoning in its Mideast policy.  There’s no “there there.”  No long-term vision.  No strategy.  Nuthin’.  God help me, I’m even getting a little nostalgic for Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon.  At least they knew how to lay out a strategy and achieve it.

Live Blogging Mubarak’s Speech

Thursday, February 10th, 2011
mubarak refuses to resign

Al Jazeera screen grab of aftermath of Mubarak's defiant refusal to leave

What?  What is this guy thinking?

Over the past few hours the international media has trumpeted the likelihood that Hosni Mubarak will resign.  I’m watching his speech and unless he’s got a rabbit in his hat that he’ll pull out later before he completes it, he seems utterly clueless.  I hear nothing that responds in any substantive way to the cries from the Square and the street.  The rhetoric of this speech is of a man who has completely lost touch (if he ever was in touch) with his people.  Strikes are sweeping through the country.  Crowds surround all the major institutions of the regime.  How can he speak as if none of this is happening?  Yet he does.

Thanks to the double screen Al Jazeera TV provides on its website you can see the crowds responding to the empty rhetoric of his speech.  Shoes are waving, the ultimate insult in Arab society.

Now he seems to be getting to the part of his speech in which he might step down.  But he keeps droning on with meaningless slogans bragging about his past glory on behalf of the homeland.  Meanwhile the crowd chants stridently for his exit.

He has said he will pass power to Omar Suleiman with no date for transfer of power.  An AJ correspondent explained that Mubarak passed only a portion of his executive powers to him.  This will in no way satisfy the crowds which don’t want a continuation of the regime by other means and faces.

We now enter a very dangerous phase.  The army, seen as a decisive force internally, has not stepped in to take control.  Until now, people looked to the army as a force in solidarity with the people.  But everyone must be wondering if anyone’s home there in the military barracks.  It appears that unless the military steps in in a more authoritative way, the crowds, the strikes, the unrest, will only grow.

I don’t know where this is going to lead.  How can a thin elite stand in the way of millions–and by tomorrow tens of millions?  It’s starting to remind me of the Filipino People’s Power movement which overthrew Ferdinand Marcos from power.  They did so by sheer mass of people standing up in unison to eject a hated leader.  But in that situation the army basically turned on the leader and threw in its lot with the people.  It remains to be seen what Egypt’s military will do.

Clearly, many national leaders expected Mubarak to step down.  They said so publicly.  So it’s mystifying that such figures understood Mubarak would resign and yet the man did a U-turn.  Did he agree to resign and then change his mind?

Now, we must also wonder what the U.S. administration will do.  Gone must be the hesitation and dithering exemplified by Hillary Clinton’s statement that the transition must be slow and deliberate, a statement made under severe pressure from the region’s autocratic figures.  As I’ve written here before, the train is leaving the station and we must not be left behind.  Do we want to be a friend of the Egyptian people or a bystander as they travel on their way to destiny?  The nation turns its lonely eyes to you, Mr. President.  What will you have to say?

Middle Eastern Despots Tell Obama, ‘Go Slow’ on Egypt

Wednesday, February 9th, 2011

abdullah and obama

Abdullah and Obama: throwing in our lot with the despots (AFP/Getty)

The NY Times notes that some of the most despotic of the U.S.’ Middle Eastern allies have engaged in a full court press on the Obama administration to persuade it that siding with the Egyptian  Revolution would be a bad move for the U.S. and for them.  Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan and the Gulf States have united (and coordinated?) their assault on the former U.S. position that Mubarak had to “go yesterday, to paraphrase administration spokesperson Robert Gibbs of a few days ago:

Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates have each repeatedly pressed the United States not to cut loose Egypt’s president,Hosni Mubarak, too hastily, or to throw its weight behind the democracy movement in a way that could further destabilize the region, diplomats say. One Middle Eastern envoy said that on a single day, he spent 12 hours on the phone with American officials.

There is evidence that the pressure has paid off. On Saturday, just days after suggesting that it wanted immediate change, the administration said it would support an “orderly transition” managed by Vice President Omar Suleiman. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that Mr. Mubarak’s immediate resignation might complicate, rather than clear, Egypt’s path to democracy, given the requirements of Egypt’s Constitution.

“Everyone is taking a little breath,” said a diplomat from the region, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing private conversations. “There’s a sense that we’re getting our message through.”

While each country has its own concerns, all worry that a sudden, chaotic change in Egypt would destabilize the region or, in the Arab nations, even jeopardize their own leaders, many of whom are also autocrats facing restive populations.

The money quote in this passage is in the last sentence.  This anti-progressive “Quartet” is prepared to sell the Egyptian protest movement down the river on behalf of “regional stability,” which means their own personal power and hides.  What I don’t understand is how this lies in the U.S. interest to retain Mubarak and his pack of cronies and abandon the Revolution.  Saudi Arabian oil?  OK, that’s a consideration.  The Israel lobby?  That too is a consideration Obama has to take into account.

But when you balance that out against the prevailing winds in the Middle East as expressed by the Tunisian and Egyptian movements for political change and the winds that are blowing through other Arab nations like Yemen, Algeria, Libya, etc. it seems that acquiescing in the conniving of the despots puts us clearly on the wrong side of history.  If you look at the broad path of political development in regions like Latin America, central and Eastern Europe, and elsewhere the trends are moving toward political reform, the development of civil societies, and empowering the previously disenfranchised.  While I wouldn’t make this an across the board generalization since there are individual examples that contradict my claim, it seems clear to me that the Middle East (specifically north Africa, Yemen, Turkey and possibly Lebanon) is generally moving in this direction.

If we betray this developing movement for the sake of a the mess of porridge represented by Saudi oil or Israel lobby muscle, it will be not just an opportunity missed, it would mark another nail in the coffin of the U.S. as a major world player whose views are solicited and influential.  The young people in Tahrir Square, for better or worse, expect something from America.  They expect us to live up to our professed values.  If we sacrifice them on the altar of real politick, they will ignore us going forward as having anything relevant to say to them.  If they eventually take power, we will mean little or nothing to them.

Yet another indication of how tone-deaf we have become in this quotation from Hillary Clinton:

“I understand the concerns of everybody in the region,” Mrs. Clinton said Sunday. She said that she had spoken to King Abdullah II of Jordan and that President Obama had made calls to other leaders. State Department officials, she said, were constantly speaking with their counterparts in the region.

Well, no she doesn’t understand the concerns of “everybody” in the region.  She only understands the interests and concerns of the ruling elites, who are increasingly isolated and out of touch.  So if she wants to throw in the U.S.’ lot with them and ignore the actual people who live in those countries and feel betrayed by these same thugs, then be my guest.  But don’t fool yourself into thinking that you actually understand or care about the potential future leaders of these nations once they are on the path of political reform.

This is the type of scaremongering nonsense she’s listening to from the region’s autocrats:

One Arab diplomat likened the democracy movement to a train fueled by university students and human rights advocates.

“Eventually, those students will have to get off that train and go back to school, and the human rights people will have to go back to work, and you know who will be on the train when it finally rolls into the station?” the diplomat asked. “The Muslim Brotherhood.”

The Times article takes pains to note that Joe Biden gave Suleiman a tongue-lashing for dissing the calls for democracy of the Cairo demonstrators.  But the problem with this is the same one we had when we threw in our lots with South Vietnamese dictators during the Vietnam War.  They may be sons of bitches, but they’re our sons of bitches.  And once they’re your son of a bitch, they’re an albatross around your neck as well.  You have little leverage over a Suleiman when you tell him he must renounce the very structures which enable him to cling to power.  He doesn’t see his role as you do.  You may see him as a transitional figure.  But there’s nothing in his political vocabulary to account for that and he won’t stand for it.  As witness this clueless statement in which Suleiman threatens a military coup unless protestors go home:

Mr. Suleiman warned the protesters, most of whom are opposed to any negotiations while Mr. Mubarak is in power, that the only alternative to talks is a “a coup.”

“And we want to avoid that — meaning uncalculated and hasty steps that produce more irrationality,” he said, according to the official news agency.

“There will be no ending of the regime, nor a coup, because that means chaos,” Mr. Suleiman said. And he warned the protesters not to attempt more civil disobedience, calling it “extremely dangerous.” He added, “We absolutely do not tolerate it.”

Is this really the wagon to which we want to hitch our star?  Do we want to be on the side of such a bloody disaster when it happens?  Do we really think we have enough leverage with these tin pot dictators that we can stop them from perpetrating mass carnage if they perceive themselves under threat or in jeopardy?  I wouldn’t put my money on it if I were Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Here is what the real Egypt wants and expects from us:

Many at the protests buttonholed Americans to express deep disappointment with President Obama, shaking their heads at his ambiguous messages about an orderly transition. They warned that the country risked incurring a resentment from the Egyptian people that could last long after Mr. Mubarak is gone.

Do we have the guts to recognize this and act accordingly?

If not, we’re sentencing ourselves and Egypt to a future cataclysm which will rid, or at least attempt to rid, the nation of the same thugs it is now trying to eject.  The only difference will be that you will have the example of this failed revolution before your eyes and people will want to ensure they do everything possible not to lose next time.  That may mean rivers of blood in Tahrir Square, not just charging camels and horses, but tanks plowing down thousands of protestors.  It may mean a truly revolutionary cabal organizing against the regime and using violence to take power.  It opens the political space to all sorts of potentially bad actors exploiting the deep-rooted frustrations of the nation’s masses.  Yes, perhaps even Al Qaeda-like forces.  But they key is to recognize we’re not there yet.  We’re in a potentially good space and should make the most of it while we can.

There are neocon voices speaking of Obama “losing” Egypt to the Islamists.  But the truth is that Egypt is his to lose if he does nothing now to embrace democracy and the opening toward reform.  The problem is Obama isn’t a politician who sees into the future.  He’s focussed on short-term interests.  And that is a tremendous weakness of his presidency and his politics.  Whatever you want to say about Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, they were smart enough to map out a sophisticated global strategy in their foreign policy which resulted in the tremendous achievements of the opening to China, among others (OK, let’s leave aside Chile which wasn’t so good).  Obama displays none of that forward-thinking needed in this situation.  And our country and Egypt will suffer for that.

Israel too plays an interesting role in this Quartet.  Though it is not ruled by the same types of despots as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States (or Jordan for that matter), it has the same retrograde interests in maintaining a status quo that oppresses the broad masses of the populaces of these nations.  Israel, at least as its current elite sees its interests, needs to keep a lid on the aspirations of the common man and woman because Israel senses that democratization will hurt them.  It will establish new allies for the Palestinian cause and further isolate Israel in the region.

Of course, a more proactive Israeli policy seeking rapprochement with the frontline states and resolution of the Israeli Palestinian conflict would put Israel in a commanding position as a potential regional economic leader.  And Israel’s democracy, if it were ever fully realized, could also serve as an example.  Instead, I’m sorry to say, Israel is frittering away these prospective advantages with rear-guard actions like the ones outlined above, which only increase the chances that it will be further marginalized should the winds of political change continue as I expect.

Obama, Suleiman: Selling Out the Revolution

Sunday, February 6th, 2011
suleimann meets with protesters

Suleiman meets with select group of opposition aiming at "consensus" favoring his elite retaining power (Soliman Oteifi/AP)

The accompanying photo reveals precisely what was wrong with Day 13 of the Egyptian Revolution.  There you see Suleiman sitting around an opulent Louis XIV-channeling table “negotiating” with his ostensible opponents, while outside the protests continue unabated and the demonstrators demand remain unmet.  Worst of all, Pres. Obama and his foreign policy brain trust say meetings like this are fine and dandy.  The U.S. has caved on the primary demand that Mubarak leave.  It’s willing to see the Egyptian élite stall, trying to let the air out of the tires of the street protests until they can resume power and get back to business as usual.

Suleiman, like Mubarak, is a survivor, a wily fellow fully capable of taking maximum advantage of an opening when it’s offered to him.  So he left the meeting pictured at left and trumpeted to Egypt and the world media that the group had arrived at a “consensus.”  Of course, the consensus was the minimum he thought he could get away with offering without causing all hell to break loose in the streets once again, which included:

…The promise to form a committee to recommend constitutional changes by early March. The other elements echoed pledges Mr. Mubarak had already made, including a limit on how many terms a president can serve.

In other words, Mubarak stays, the old order stays until the old order agrees to go (“never, how does never sound to you?”).

Frankly, I’m surprised the Muslim Brotherhood broke from its earlier refusal to negotiate till Mubarak left by participating in this meeting.  It would’ve prevented them having to quickly renounce the meeting and Suleiman’s deft skewering of the goals of the movement with his “consensus” announcement:

…Leaders of the protest movement, including both its youthful members and Brotherhood officials, immediately denounced Mr. Suleiman’s portrayal of the meeting as a political ploy designed to suggest that some of their ranks were collaborating.

As an American, the development that most distresses me is Obama’s cave to the status quo and Egypt’s elite:

The United States and leading European nations on Saturday threw their weight behind Egypt’s vice president, Omar Suleiman, backing his attempt to defuse a popular uprising without immediately removing President Hosni Mubarak from power.

American officials said Mr. Suleiman had promised them an “orderly transition” that would include constitutional reform and outreach to opposition groups.

This is stuff n’ nonsense.  Playing for time because you don’t have any better options.  You don’t trust someone like Suleiman to arrive at anything like what the demonstrators are demanding if you’re serious.  If you’re willing to be played, then you do what Obama’s doing.

Hillary Clinton echoed this nauseating retreat from Obama’s earlier steadfastness in demanding that Mubarak go:

“That takes some time,” Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton said, speaking at a Munich security conference. “There are certain things that have to be done in order to prepare.”

In a separate interview, she sounded positively Polyannish:

Clinton said that she and Mr. Biden had held many conversations with Mr. Suleiman about steps toward democracy. “We hear that they are committed to this,” she said, “and when we press on concrete steps and timelines, we are given assurance that that will happen.”

And here she does a masterful job of ascribing the need for moderation and dithering (er, delay) to the Egyptians themselves, or at least some mythical Egyptian who believes the things she claims:

To explain the apparent American shift from urgent demands for change to endorsing plans for Mr. Mubarak to remain in place during a transition, Mrs. Clinton alluded to “a debate within Egypt itself, and not just in the government, but among the people of Egypt” over how to manage the timing of the transition, since the existing Egyptian Constitution would set an unrealistic deadline of two months for an election if Mr. Mubarak stepped down. That “doesn’t give anybody enough time,” she said. She has not addressed the Egyptian opposition’s suggestion for how to solve that problem: suspension of the Constitution for up to a year until a transitional unity government can organize a free election.

If the U.S. wants to sell out the demands for democracy of millions of Egyptians fine, then let ‘em do it.  But not in this fashion.  Not by dumping our own vacillation on Egyptians and blaming them for it.  The millions who’ve flooded Tahrir Square are ready for the future.  And they can handle it.  All that they ask is that America not sell them out and not deliver their birthright to their domestic enemies.

Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton: what in anything below indicates that this man sees things as you do or will do any of the things that you’ve promised he would?

In an appearance on ABC News, Mr. Suleiman said little to suggest that he was ready to move Egypt toward democracy or that he even took its youth-led democracy movement seriously.

Insisting that a transition had already begun with his meeting with members of the opposition, he reiterated that Mr. Mubarak would stay in power. If he left, Mr. Suleiman argued, “other people who have their own agenda will make instability in our country.”

Brushing aside the secular character of the youth revolt shaking Egypt and the Arab world, Mr. Suleiman suggested conspiratorially that unspecified “other people” and “an Islamic current” were in fact pushing the young people forward. “It’s not their idea,” he said. “It comes from abroad.”

And when asked about progress toward democracy, he asserted that Egypt was not ready, and would not be until “the people here will have the culture of democracy.”

If Suleiman wins this round and puts the genie back in the bottle, several things will happen: Israel and Bibi will have won another round and put off any genuine Israeli-Arab peace for another few years or more; and the Egyptian Revolution will erupt again in a month or a year or a decade, but next time with much more severe results.  Justice denied wreaks a savage revenge when it finally takes hold of a society.  Either we will see the police and army engage in a bloodbath or we will see a frustrated people take its own revenge on its oppressors.

Barack Obama has thus far shown no ability to stay the course in any Middle Eastern foreign policy issue.  Why would he do so this time?  Why would he, or even could he compel the goals of the Revolution to be realized against the will of the wily survivors like Suleiman and his tycoon cronies?  He’s not willing to put himself or his office on the line for freedom in Egypt.  Especially not since doing so would fly in the face of the ostensible needs of Israel, at least as articulated by its current far-right government.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE