O JERUSALEM!
Chapter XV
The Rise or Fall of American Empire?
By
Doug Krieger
Part 1
The
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
is considered by most American, or for that matter, International political
pundits, the most powerful lobbying organization on Capital Hill. Along with
the newly-created Christian Zionist ORG, Christians United for Israel (CUFI)
– the AIPAC-CUFI alliance may now surpass the audacious behemoth of lobbying
organizations,
AARP (The American Association of Retired Persons) in its ability to
garner support for the Jewish State by lobbying Congress and the Executive to
support those policies which strengthen the democratic State of Israel in the
midst of an Islamic caldron of animosity and outright hatred for what is
considered a Western incursion into the holy lands of Islam.
This year’s (June, 2008) annual AIPAC gathering witnessed a most memorial and confusing spectacle – the standing-ovation on behalf of the now anointed Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America in his “unequivocal” declaration:
“Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” (My Emphasis) – (Transcript of Obama’s Speech before AIPAC, June 4, 2008, NPR) .
Along with promising Israel $30 Billion in defense armaments over the next ten years, Barack Hussein Obama pointedly attacked the failed US policies in the Middle East, his opponent (John McCain) and, in general, told the AIPAC crowd that his policies would be best for Israel and America. Yes, Obama had the 7,000-membered AIPAC crowd on their feet . . . and presented an Obama wholly distinct from the anti-Israel rhetoric beclouding his real image . . .
“In a speech to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the country’s most prominent pro-Israeli lobby, he challenged emails ‘filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for president’ - referring to suggestions that he is a secret Muslim with a hidden agenda.
“Crucially, he insisted Jerusalem must always remain the capital of Israel and must never be divided, a pledge enthusiastically received by the 7,000-strong crowd.
“To loud applause, he declared his ‘strong commitment to make sure the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow, unbreakable forever.’
“‘Israel's security is sacrosanct, it is non-negotiable,’ he went on to say.
“In a wide-ranging analysis of regional problems, the senator pledged action on the challenges to Israel from Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran, characterizing the latter as ‘the greatest strategic threat in the Mid East to the United States and Israel in a generation.’” (Obama pledges to back Israel against terror threats from abroad, Hannah Strange, Times On-Line, June 4, 2008)
After McCain slammed Obama for toying with the notion that negotiations with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad without preconditions was absurd . . . “It’s hard to see what such a summit would gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks about starting another” (Ibid.) . . . Obama brushed off McCain’s accusations and took the opportunity to tie McCain to Bush’s “failed” Mid-East policies—including Bush’s unleashing the Iranian nuclear threat:
“But
just as we are clear-eyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure
of today’s policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew
Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to
Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored
it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned
that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is
precisely what happened in Iran — the hard-liners tightened their grip, and
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005. And the United States and
Israel are less secure.
“I respect Sen. McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Sen. McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy but offers only an alternate reality — one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.
“Sen. McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran — it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq's leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.” (Transcript of Obama Speech to AIPAC, 4 June 2008, NPR)
SO WHY DID AMERICAN JEWS AND ISRAELI JEWS – AND ARABS - GET UPSET WITH OBAMA?
Once the “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided” comment hit the news wires, the camel hair hit the oscillating rotor – let’s ride the camel at full throttle; beats a roller coaster by a mile!
“Arab leaders have reacted with anger and disbelief to an intensely pro-Israeli speech delivered by Barack Obama, the US Democratic presumptive presidential nominee.
“Obama told the influential annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC) ‘Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.’
“His comments appalled Palestinians who see occupied East Jerusalem as part of a future Palestinian state.” (Arabs Shocked by Obama Speech, ALJAZEERA.NET, 6 June 2008)
The Palestinians were the more enraged . . .
“His
comments appalled Palestinians who see occupied East Jerusalem as part of a
future Palestinian state.
“Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera on Thursday: ‘This
is the worst thing to happen to us since 1967 ... he has given
ammunition to extremists across the region’.
“‘What really disappoints me is that someone like Barack Obama, who runs a
campaign on the theme of change - when it comes to AIPAC and what’s needed to
be said differently about the Palestinian state, he fails.’
“‘I say to Obama ... please stop being more Israeli than the Israelis
themselves, leave the Israelis and Palestinians alone to make decisions
required for peace.’
“Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, rejected the statement, saying: ‘We
will not accept an independent Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as
the capital.’
“‘I believe that case is clear.’
“He said: ‘Jerusalem is part of the six points that are subjects on the
negotiations’ agenda.
“‘And the whole world knows that East Jerusalem, Arab Jerusalem and Holy
Jerusalem were occupied in 1967.’” (Ibid.)
American politicians have this innate ability to circumvent any Gordian knot known to man! Riding the Jerusalem Camel Express across America into Israel, and thence into Middle Eastern Arab capitals, could result in one sore posterior; however, the Messianic figure of one, Barack Obama, creates an almost halo affect . . . out march the Mahdi’s ambassador extraordinary to clarify the real Obama’s position and thereby spare the underside of the Democratic nominee:
“A campaign adviser clarified Thursday (June 5, 2008) that Obama believes ‘Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties’ as part of ‘an agreement that they both can live with.’
“‘Two principles should apply to any outcome,’ which the adviser gave as: ‘Jerusalem remains Israel’s capital and it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.’
“He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.
“‘Beyond those principles, all other aspects are for the two parties to agree at final status negotiations,’ the Obama adviser said.” (Obama clarifies united J’lem comment, Hilary Leila Krieger, Jerusalem Post Correspondent, Washington, International.jpost.com, June 6, 2008)
Back to square one – the camel (which has but one hump) does not make for an easy ride when trotting so fast – now Obama’s got the praise of the PEACE NOW crowd in America (probably Israel as well) and the wrath of the Orthodox Jews breathing down his back – first, the happy campers:
“‘There was reaction from some of our base who were taken aback by it (Obama’s original comments at AIPAC) and thought he was undermining the peace process,’ said Americans for Peace Now spokesman Ori Nir, who described his organization as ‘gratified’ by the clarified position which seems to follow APN's policy that sovereignty of Jerusalem could be shared in a final peace settlement.
But the Zionists found the clarification “troubling” at best . . .
“‘The
Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama’s
important statement about Jerusalem,’ said Nathan Diament, director of public
policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He had sent out a
release Wednesday applauding Obama’s Jerusalem remarks in front of AIPAC.
“‘In the current context, everyone understands that saying Jerusalem... must remain undivided means that the holy city must remain unified under Israeli rule, as it has been since 1967,’ Diament explained.
“‘If Senator Obama intended his remarks at AIPAC to be understood in this way, he said nothing that would reasonably lead to such a different interpretation.’
“Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America and another Jewish activist who had originally lauded Obama’s statement, now called the candidate’s words ‘troubling.’
“‘It means he used the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn’t really believe,’ Klein charged.” (Ibid.)
So, what’s the upshot in all this “he-said-she-said-camel-trottin’ discourse” all about? Probably, much to do about nothing. Playing politics with Jerusalem is no one’s forte. To think otherwise only reveals a candidate’s stupidity and naiveté when it comes, especially, to the matter of Jerusalem’s character.