The Doomsday Weapon

[ProgressiveMuslim]

by Uri Avnery

(snip)

...Like Achilles’ heel, the immense might of the pro-Israel lobby has a vulnerable point that, when touched, can neutralize its power.

It was illustrated by the Jonathan Pollard affair. This American-Jewish employee of a sensitive intelligence agency spied for Israel. Israelis consider him a national hero, a Jew who did his duty to his people. But for the US intelligence community, he is a traitor who endangered the lives of many American agents. Not satisfied with a routine penalty, it induced the court to impose a life sentence. Since then, all American presidents have refused the requests of successive Israeli governments to commute the sentence. No president dared to confront his intelligence chiefs in this matter.

But the most significant side of this affair is reminiscent of the famous words of Sherlock Holmes about the dogs that did not bark. AIPAC did not bark. The entire American Jewish community fell silent. Almost nobody raised their voice for poor Pollard.

Why? Because most American Jews are ready to do anything – just anything – for the government of Israel. With one exception: they will not do anything that appears to hurt the security of the United States. When the flag of security is hoisted, the Jews, like all Americans, snap to attention and salute. The Damocles sword of suspicion of disloyalty hangs above their heads. For them, this is the ultimate nightmare: to be accused of putting the security of Israel ahead of the security of the US. Therefore it is important for them to repeat endlessly the mantra that the interests of Israel and the US are identical.

And now comes the most important general of the US Army and says that this is not so. The policy of the present Israeli government is endangering the lives of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

FOR NOW, this is being said only as a side remark, in a military document that has not been widely aired. But the sword has been drawn from its scabbard – and American Jews have started to tremble at the distant rumble of an approaching earthquake.

This week, Netanyahu’s brother-in-law has used our own doomsday weapon. He declared that Obama is an “anti-Semite”. The official newspaper of the Shas party has asserted that Obama is really a Muslim. They represent the radical right and its allies, who argue in speech and in writing that “Hussein” Obama is a Jew-hating black who must be beaten in the coming congressional elections and in the next presidential ones.

(Yet an important poll in Israel published yesterday shows that the Israeli public is far from convinced by these insinuations: the vast majority believes that Obama’s treatment of Israel is fair. Indeed, Obama got higher marks than Netanyahu.)

If Obama decides to fight back and activate his doomsday weapon – the accusation that Israel puts the lives of American servicemen at risk – this would have catastrophic consequences for Israel.

For the time being, this is only a shot across the bow – a warning shot fired by a warship in order to induce another vessel to follow its instructions. The warning is clear. Even if the present crisis is somehow damped down, it will inevitably flare up again and again as long as the present coalition in Israel stays in power.

read it all:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1269137362/

[Jefferson23]

1. As much as the report gives Obama political cover, it could provide the same for

for any Israeli leader who is even slightly pragmatic in their thinking. It would be a hard sell, but someone there needs to appreciate the opportunity.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

2. I thought this was an interesting analysis!

[Jefferson23]

3. Yes, and he is not alone in pointing it out. I am encouraged by the

prospects that could arise from the report and the conversation that has begun as a result. Israel's occupation, blockades, and continuing expansion of settlements should have been enough to force their hand to pressure for an end to the conflict, but imo, no politician in power cared enough. When Israel waged OCL and the vote count by U.S. lawmakers in opposition was only 5 members, and none in the Senate, it was proof to me that Palestinians lives meant next to nothing in Washington.

There are no excuses left for the United States, thanks to Petreaus's report, none.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

4. Another view... from the electronic intifadah...

The US' choreographed "outrage" at Israel
Stephen Maher, The Electronic Intifada, 23 March 2010

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the AIPAC conference in Washington, DC, 22 March 2010. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP)

The speeches at AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby group, on Monday by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Netanyahu's subsequent meeting with US President Barack Obama are widely seen as drawing to a close what Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren called the "most severe crisis in US-Israel relations" in decades. This rapprochement comes on the heels of a series of seemingly angry statements top members of the Obama Administration released, after Israel announced construction of 1,600 new illegal housing units in occupied East Jerusalem while US Vice President Joe Biden was in the country.

In fact, the basis for the Obama Administration's criticisms of the settlement announcement -- as well as the significance of the crisis itself -- has been widely misconstrued by both supporters and critics of Israel. AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) were "shocked and stunned" that Biden and Clinton called the Israeli announcement "insulting." AIPAC urged the administration to "take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish state" and "move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel." Meanwhile, the ADL mused, "One can only wonder how far the US is prepared go in distancing itself from Israel."

Voices more critical of Israel, such as Richard Dreyfuss of The Nation, suggested that "this is not just the reaction to an insulting announcement during the visit of Vice President Biden," but rather "the Obama Administration is beginning to realize that Israeli intransigence ... is a major obstacle to US policy in the region." Dreyfuss predicted that this "might turn into the most significant confrontation between the United States and Israel" since the 1956 Suez War.

Contrary to both of these positions, the Obama Administration merely reacted to a diplomatic affront it was dealt by the Israeli government. Israel's announcement came on the same day that Biden had arrived in the country to proudly confirm the US' "absolute, total and unvarnished" commitment to its ally, and commence indirect talks with the Palestinians. Following the announcement, protests and violent clashes broke out in Jerusalem and elsewhere throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Responding to this pressure, the Arab League threatened to cancel its endorsement of the indirect negotiations, with Secretary Amr Moussa even announcing that the Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had decided not to participate in the talks. As the endorsement was the only political cover Abbas had to re-enter negotiations, the US administration took careful notice of these events as pressure on Abbas to abandon talks from within the territories mounted. With the Arab world outraged and Biden humiliated due to the degree of US complicity that the timing of the announcement revealed, the Obama Administration was forced to react...

read on...
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11154.shtml

[Jefferson23]

5. The author seems to have drawn his conclusions based on the

"embarrassment" Israel caused Biden. He makes no mention of the Petreaus report which I find odd and if that report did not exist, I would tend to agree with him.

Perhaps one could go even further and suggest that there would not likely been much of a fuss made by the U.S., if not for the report.

Of course he is correct, Secretary Clinton does not speak of the violence at the conference, but she does not apologize either, nor backs down from their position. She wasn't going to go in there and declare, hey, assholes, listen up, the party is over!



I am not excusing her for not being more forthright, but I don't think it was an indication the status quo will be tolerated.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Ultimately, time will tell! I am cautiously optimistic, but then again...

for what? More stupid peace talks that go nowhere?

[Jefferson23]

7. It is only natural to have cautious optimism, after all, on what evidence

would anyone feel otherwise? The only significant difference, is the report, that is the key. As it places a great deal of pressure
on Obama, he can't afford to ignore it, just consider the ramifications if he were to do so. Once and for all, his inaction would
confirm for the rest of the world that the United States has no credibility on this issue. The United States is willing to ignore
sound advice from an active, not retired, top military commander, why? If he were to allow the status quo to continue, he will do so at his own peril.

The peace talks would need to have substance, as the consequences of stalling and dragging it out will not change the threat level defined by Petreaus. That is another added plus for Obama to push Israel, how far he is willing to take it, is up to him.