Is Obama finally going to stand against apartheid in Israel?

Art Vandelay

Importer/exporter
Registered


"An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end... Israel cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely. That's the truth."


Barack Obama’s top aide says Israeli ‘occupation’ must end
Dennis McDonough says the White House isn’t impressed with Israeli prime minister’s effort to backtrack on campaign comments.
By EDWARD-ISAAC DOVERE
Politico
3/23/15


White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough made clear in a speech to a left-leaning Israel advocacy group that President Barack Obama isn’t letting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu off the hook for his dismissal of a two-state solution.

That stance, as well as Netanyahu’s suggestion also made in the closing days before last week’s Israeli elections that he’d approved settlements in contested territory in Jerusalem for the strategic purpose of changing the borders are “so very troubling,” McDonough told J Street’s annual conference in Washington. He called the pro-Israel group, which opposes some of Netanyahu’s policies, “our partner.”

McDonough added that the White House isn’t impressed by Netanyahu’s efforts since last Tuesday to backtrack on what he meant when he said there wouldn’t be a Palestinian state established so long as he’s prime minister.

“We cannot simply pretend that these comments were never made,” McDonough said.

McDonough said the Obama administration is well aware of the regional security problems Netanyahu referenced in explaining why he didn’t see a two-state solution as an imminent possibility. But he said Obama does not believe that is or could be reason to back off talks — and this is not simply matter of personal “pique” about Netanyahu, the chief of staff said.

“The United States will never stop working for a two-state solution and a lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians so richly deserve,” he said.

McDonough then described the alternate to a two-state agreement: a one-state solution based on unilateral annexation and abandonment of democratic rights for Palestinians that, he warned, “would only contribute to Israel’s further isolation.” In other words, he said, more divestment, boycotts and efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international community.

“An occupation that has lasted more than 50 years must end,” McDonough said, one of several times he brought the crowd to its feet.

He reiterated that Obama remains committed to Israel’s security through investments in the Iron Dome missile protection system, which he said will never waver, and described negotiations with Iran over curbing its nuclear ambitions part of that commitment.

Though he didn’t specifically mention the prime minister, who denounced the negotiations in a controversial address to Congress last month, McDonough dismissed “an absolutist position [that] makes for good rhetoric.”

He went through the broad strokes of what a deal would entail, saying that if one is reached, Obama will work to bring the public and Congress on board and remain vigilant in monitoring the behavior of the Iranian regime.

“Even if a nuclear deal is reached, our concerns about Iran’s behavior and around the world will endure,” McDonough said.




Obama Says U.S. Won’t Rule Out Withholding UN Support for Israel
Bloomberg News
Mar 24, 2015


President Barack Obama refused to rule out the possibility of allowing a Palestinian push for statehood through the United Nations as part of a U.S. reassessment of its approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“We’re going to do that evaluation,” Obama said at a news conference in response to a question on whether he would consider supporting Palestinian statehood at the UN. “We’re going to partly wait for an actual Israeli government to form.”

Such a move would represent a major shift in U.S. policy and trigger new tensions with Israel and between the Obama administration and Congress.

While other administration officials have said the U.S. would reevaluate its stance after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he won’t support the creation of a Palestinian state anytime soon, Tuesday’s White House news conference marked the strongest indication from the president of his intentions.

Obama’s comments also indicated that the administration plans to keep up pressure on Netanyahu, who has backed away from his original statements, made last week just before Israeli voters went to the polls.

Obama said that even though Netanyahu has sought to clarify his pre-election statements, the Israeli leader still set conditions for talks with the Palestinians that “would be impossible to meet anytime soon.”

That has cut off prospects for any negotiations which could trigger “a downward spiral of relations that will be dangerous for everybody,” Obama said.

“We’ll continue to engage the Israeli government as well as the Palestinians, and ask them where they are interested in going and how do they see this issue being resolved,” he said. “But what we can’t do is pretend that there’s a possibility of something that’s not there.”

While Obama did not detail how the U.S. might support Palestinian statehood at the UN, one option is to back a UN Security Council resolution saying a two-state solution would be based on Israel’s pre-1967 borders with Gaza and the West Bank as well as mutually agreed swaps of land.

The U.S. has thwarted that bid at the UN, which is opposed by Israel.


Obama also refused to comment when asked about a Wall Street Journal report on Tuesday that U.S. officials were upset Israel had spied on negotiators involved in talks over Iran’s nuclear program, and used that information to argue against the emerging deal.

Israeli officials have denied the charge.

“Someone has an interest in creating conflict and blowing an even fouler wind” into U.S.-Israel relations, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said, according to audio clip supplied by his office. “Israel would never spy on the Americans.”
 

Art Vandelay

Importer/exporter
Registered
GOP senator: Obama puts whole world on fire by speaking against Israel’s occupation
PressTV.ir (Iran)
Tue Mar 24, 2015


A pro-Israeli Republican senator has accused US President Barack Obama of putting the entire world on fire for allowing White House officials to speak against Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian lands.

Lindsey Graham, potential Republican presidential candidate, made the remarks on the Senate floor on Monday, after White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough called on Israel to end its “50-year occupation” of the West Bank and East al-Quds (Jerusalem).

Graham condemned the speech by McDonough on Israel, saying the White House chief of staff used the language of Hamas.

"The language used by the chief of staff of the president of the United States is exactly what Hamas uses," Graham said. "Today the chief of staff of the president of the United States used language that has been reserved for terrorist organizations [sic]."

The South Carolina senator suggested that Israel is not occupying the West Bank but rather just maintaining law and order there.

Is Israel “occupying the West Bank” or is it “there to make sure the West Bank doesn't turn into Gaza?" Graham asked.


"The chief of the staff of the president of the United States is looking at a world completely different than the one I am viewing,” said the senator, who along with John McCain, are considered by analysts as the “biggest lackeys for the Israel lobby in the entire United States Senate.”

Graham warned the Obama administration that if it does not veto anti-Israel resolutions at the UN Security Council, "Congress will recalculate how we relate to the United Nations."

"Wake up and change your policies before you set the whole world on fire,” he warned the US president. “Please watch your language. ...You're making everything worse, and now you've added fuel to the fire.”...

In a war in 1967, Israel captured the West Bank and East al-Quds. Since then, Tel Aviv has continued to expand its illegal settlements there. The issue has become a major obstacle for the efforts to establish peace in the Middle East.

The UN and most countries regard the Israeli settlements as illegal. The settlements are subject to the Geneva Conventions, which forbids construction on occupied lands.

McDonough said Netanyahu’s rejection of a Palestine state as well as his approval of illegal settlements in the occupied territories for the strategic purpose of changing the borders are “so very troubling”.

He censured Israel for its settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories, warning that it “would only contribute to Israel’s further isolation.”

More than half a million Israelis live in over 120 illegal settlements built since the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East al-Quds in 1967.
 

Art Vandelay

Importer/exporter
Registered



If not, should we care ??? - Why?

If yes, should we care ??? - Why?



I think my subject header was poorly phrased...

It's not even about "stand against." It's "stop supporting." America is Israel's #1 enabler. Obama hasn't been a bystander-- he's been an accomplice.

So we should care, secondarily, because of the evil our government is enabling in our names.

We should care primarily because apartheid is wrong anywhere. And I understand there are a lot of bad things going on all over the world and usually when America claims it is going to help somebody, it is motivated by self-interest. But Israel's occupation of Palestine has been facilitated by America for decades in a direct and obvious way that distinguishes Israel/Palestine from other situations.

Ever see that movie The Good Son? The government is Maculay Culkin and we, as citizens, are his mother. Except more culpable. You should care about atrocities carried out with your money and in your name.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
I think my subject header was poorly phrased...

It's not even about "stand against." It's "stop supporting." America is Israel's #1 enabler. Obama hasn't been a bystander-- he's been an accomplice.

So we should care, secondarily, because of the evil our government is enabling in our names.

We should care primarily because apartheid is wrong anywhere. And I understand there are a lot of bad things going on all over the world and usually when America claims it is going to help somebody, it is motivated by self-interest. But Israel's occupation of Palestine has been facilitated by America for decades in a direct and obvious way that distinguishes Israel/Palestine from other situations.

Ever see that movie The Good Son? The government is Maculay Culkin and we, as citizens, are his mother. Except more culpable. You should care about atrocities carried out with your money and in your name.

A.V.,

The questions I posed above were not related to the phraseology of your subject header or the original post. I was just thinking, whatever the responses, I wanted to provoke a little aforethought as to "why" should WE care, one way or the other. Because the "WHY" raises so many other questions .. .. ..

 

Art Vandelay

Importer/exporter
Registered
A.V.,

The questions I posed above were not related to the phraseology of your subject header or the original post. I was just thinking, whatever the responses, I wanted to provoke a little aforethought as to "why" should WE care, one way or the other. Because the "WHY" raises so many other questions .. .. ..

I didn't take it as a critique... And I agree that they were good questions. I think the altered phrasing and the elaboration answer those questions from my perspective.

I think it's perfectly valid when people question why suffering in some places is prioritized over suffering in other places, but I think it's a moral failing when people suggest suffering anywhere that is not "home" is meaningless.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
I think it's perfectly valid when people question why suffering in some places is prioritized over suffering in other places, but I think it's a moral failing when people suggest suffering anywhere that is not "home" is meaningless.

I couldn’t agree with you more! Well put.

,
 
Top