Pandering to Neocon Portion of The Israel Lobby

Even though he is less a sycophant than Clinton in this matter, I feel I would be a major hypocrite if I did not speak up against Obama's shameful pandering to the hawkish Israel Lobby. Read more...

Jewish Voice for Peace writes:

“The United States must remind Israel that its need for security will not be met by inflicting a siege and collective punishment upon 1.5 million civilian men, women and children in Gaza, denying all of them potable water, food, and medical supplies. These actions are inhumane and illegal under international law.”

Yesterday, some ten thousand Palestinians broke down a wall separating Gaza from Egypt and fled across the border to purchase basic survival goods which they had been denied access to because of the Israeli occupation and siege of Gaza. The treatment of Palestinians in the illegally occupied territories has been a terrible form of collective punishment and I’m disheartened—to say the least—to see Obama joining Clinton and Edwards in pandering to the hawkish Israel Lobby (which is as about pro-Israel as George Bush is pro-America, in other words, not pro-Israel at all) once again.

The first time happened during the devastating Israeli war with Lebanon during which the whole of the free world, except for the United States (and for a while Britain) called for a cease fire. Obama, as the campaign disgustingly brags about in this flyer, joined Clinton in resisting international calls for a ceasefire. This led to the deaths of close to 1,000 Lebanese civilians, in addition to the flattening of the whole of Southern Lebanon, and some 400,000 unexploded cluster bombs which children in Lebanon still encounter to this day. Oh, it also did not lead to the return of the 2 Israeli Soldiers that were kidnapped prior to the war; nor the return of the 11,000 Arabs Israel had previously captured. While Obama did eventually vote against the sale of cluster bombs after numerous reports came out detailing both their inaccuracy and the inefficient rate at which they actually explode (Clinton supported continued sales of these bombs), he did not dare break ranks with every single other U.S. Senator in pandering to the Israel Lobby’s support of war. Rather, he went to rally cheering on supporters of the barbaric bombing.

And now Obama has written this letter in regard to recent events in Palestine to Ambassador Khalilzad. In it he argues against any U.N. resolution which does not explain why Israel has been “forced” to act that way it has been:

“We all are worried about the consequences of the blockade on Palestinian families. Nonetheless, we must understand why Israel is forced to do this."

This is another incredible disappointment. As it’s unfathomable to me why Israel would be “forced” to implement a blockade of fuel, food, medicine and other vital supplies in the middle of winter to the illegally occupied Gaza Strip. What does inflicting this form of collective punishment have anything to do with stopping rocket attacks? It’s about as absurd a claim as arguing that a wall that circles around illegal settlements built deep within internationally recognized Palestinian land might actual bring security, versus anger and resentment.

Which leads me to my final point. The influence of the Israel Lobby is not only immense, but is really severely against the interests of both the United States and of Israel. And hawkish Jews are only one part of the Lobby (Walt and Mearsheimer point this out in their book), as evangelical Christians (who are awaiting prophetic rapture), and American neocons (that’s right folks, neocons!) are just as influential of components. Neocon, hawkish policies that pit the U.S. and Israel against the whole of the international community are neither good for America’s reputation nor its security.

So what to do? This terrible humanitarian crises rages and here we are with no reliable alternative in terms of candidates to vote for who might be willing to stand up for what’s right (Kucinich just dropped out of the race). I am left with only the following conclusion. 1) We must speak out against these types of gross injustices regardless of whether or not our candidate has the courage to do so or not. And 2) We must evaluate things in relative terms, as even though Obama has pandered to these neocon sponsored policies, he has done so less than Hillary (he voted against the Iraq war, she voted for it, he voted to restrict the sale of cluster bombs, she voted against it, and he spoke out against what I like to call the Iran War Resolution, she voted for it). All signals also point to him being the most willing to actively engage in the peace process, as James Zogby pointed out in his analysis here. Knowing this, and knowing of Hillary’s criticism of her husband as being too soft on the Palestinians, there is no reason to think that he wouldn’t be far, far better than his opponents on foreign policy.