US Administration Apparently Conceding to AIPAC
Ali Rizk
"Cooperation between the US and "Israeli" militaries is stronger than ever" and "the US commitment to "Israel's" security is rock-solid and enduring".
These are common terms heard from US officials; these were also the exact words stated by US war secretary Leon Panetta upon receiving visiting "Israeli" president Shimon Peres at the Pentagon this week.
However despite this usual, traditional pro-"Israeli" rhetoric, Panetta himself had generated controversy in the past with respect to US-"Israeli" relations. Panetta has said that "Israel" must work for the interests both, of itself and of Washington, and even implied that "Israel" was isolating itself diplomatically.
At one point last December, he even appeared to lose his temper saying that "Israel" "should get back to the damn peace table" to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians.
The pro-"Israeli" rhetoric from Panetta hence underlines the following: US President Barack Obama is in dire need of votes and the pro-Likud right wing hawkish "Israeli" lobby (AIPAC) is still a formidable force in US politics despite the emergence of other groups like J-Street (which is also pro-"Israeli" but differs in its approach).
Obama has lost significant ground to his Republican rival Mitt Romney with the worsening economic situation in the US, and now the two appear almost neck and neck -with Obama leading now by just a few percentage points according to opinion polls. Hence, the US leader wants to catch all the votes he can, and this does not only include the more liberal leaning J-street Jewish voices who clearly stand with the incumbent US president, but also the right wing hawkish Jews.
From here, it is worthy to note that Panetta's talk of "commitment and cooperation" with "Israel" comes on the heels of meetings held by Obama with representatives of the conservative and Ultra-orthodox Jews in the US. In one of these meetings Obama reportedly said that his administration has been "decidedly more attentive to "Israel" than it has to the Palestinians".
These developments also reveal that Obama and his administration officials are engaged in a vigorous battle with the Republicans to gain the blessing of AIPAC.
Republicans have been striving to portray Obama as being somehow anti-"Israeli", and to put it frankly, Obama's statements together with those made by Panetta show that Republicans have to some extent succeeded in placing the Obama administration on the defensive in trying to prove its pro-"Israeli", also pro-Likud and pro-Netanyahu credentials. This of course all comes as many of the more hawkish Jews appear to be drifting away to the Republican party, after the Democrats were considered the darlings of America's Jewish community (Jewish community meaning both right wing and liberal leaning Jews who are supportive of "Israel").
Ironically, if the Republicans hadn't challenged Obama's pro-"Israeli" and pro-Likud credentials, we may have been tricked into believing that AIPAC no longer carries significant weight in the US (as some have tried to imply by pointing to groups like JStreet and the more liberal Jews). Republican's playing the "I'm more pro-"Israeli" card" have hence actually led to unprecedented competition in US politics over who is more pro-"Israeli" and more pro-Likud.
A vital conclusion to be made here is that the pro-Likud lobby in the US still has the upper hand over other Jewish groups and the more tight the race to the white house is, the more Obama will need to reach out for the help and blessing of Netanyahu's associates in Washington.
What also highlights the strength of this lobby is that Obama is vigorously trying to get its support at a time where US and "Israeli" interests appear to diverge like never before. Examples here are how strong sanctions on Iran do harm to the deteriorated US economy, which would otherwise require the US to change its hostile policy towards Tehran. Syria is another example where the US appears to have given in to "Israeli's" (and pro-"Israeli's" in congress) who have called for arming the Syrian opposition. This was highlighted by Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov who said during his visit to Tehran that Washington was providing the armed groups in Syria with weapons and advanced equipment despite previous statements from officials like Panetta and Hilary Clinton, which have clearly implied that arming the Syrian opposition including groups like al-Qaeda would not be in the US interests.
The bottom line is, why would you do something not good for you?("you" here meaning the US administration).
The only logical answer, is that it is because you are forced to do it, and the side forcing you must indeed be stronger than "you". So Obama, who is in a difficult situation at home, is hence weaker and more prone to be forced by the pro-Likud movement in Washington and tells a lot about the continuous strength of this movement.
This can be looked at in another way as well. Giving in more and more to "Israeli" demands may very well make Obama and the US weaker, whether it be economically, by forcing Obama's hand on Iran or by bringing about more popular hostility towards the US due to the clarity of its pro-"Israeli" approach.(CIA chief David Petraeus has hinted at the latter). For now, Obama appears to be playing a balancing game between US interests and "Israeli" wishes but lately has shown himself to be tilting more in favor of "Israeli" wishes as highlighted above.
If Obama continues to tilt more in favor of "Israel" then we cannot expect much from the talks between Iran and the P5+1 scheduled in Moscow on June 18 and 19 which are expected to focus not just on Iran's nuclear program but also on other important regional issues like Syria.
"Cooperation between the US and "Israeli" militaries is stronger than ever" and "the US commitment to "Israel's" security is rock-solid and enduring".
These are common terms heard from US officials; these were also the exact words stated by US war secretary Leon Panetta upon receiving visiting "Israeli" president Shimon Peres at the Pentagon this week.
However despite this usual, traditional pro-"Israeli" rhetoric, Panetta himself had generated controversy in the past with respect to US-"Israeli" relations. Panetta has said that "Israel" must work for the interests both, of itself and of Washington, and even implied that "Israel" was isolating itself diplomatically.
At one point last December, he even appeared to lose his temper saying that "Israel" "should get back to the damn peace table" to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians.
The pro-"Israeli" rhetoric from Panetta hence underlines the following: US President Barack Obama is in dire need of votes and the pro-Likud right wing hawkish "Israeli" lobby (AIPAC) is still a formidable force in US politics despite the emergence of other groups like J-Street (which is also pro-"Israeli" but differs in its approach).
Obama has lost significant ground to his Republican rival Mitt Romney with the worsening economic situation in the US, and now the two appear almost neck and neck -with Obama leading now by just a few percentage points according to opinion polls. Hence, the US leader wants to catch all the votes he can, and this does not only include the more liberal leaning J-street Jewish voices who clearly stand with the incumbent US president, but also the right wing hawkish Jews.
From here, it is worthy to note that Panetta's talk of "commitment and cooperation" with "Israel" comes on the heels of meetings held by Obama with representatives of the conservative and Ultra-orthodox Jews in the US. In one of these meetings Obama reportedly said that his administration has been "decidedly more attentive to "Israel" than it has to the Palestinians".
These developments also reveal that Obama and his administration officials are engaged in a vigorous battle with the Republicans to gain the blessing of AIPAC.
Republicans have been striving to portray Obama as being somehow anti-"Israeli", and to put it frankly, Obama's statements together with those made by Panetta show that Republicans have to some extent succeeded in placing the Obama administration on the defensive in trying to prove its pro-"Israeli", also pro-Likud and pro-Netanyahu credentials. This of course all comes as many of the more hawkish Jews appear to be drifting away to the Republican party, after the Democrats were considered the darlings of America's Jewish community (Jewish community meaning both right wing and liberal leaning Jews who are supportive of "Israel").
Ironically, if the Republicans hadn't challenged Obama's pro-"Israeli" and pro-Likud credentials, we may have been tricked into believing that AIPAC no longer carries significant weight in the US (as some have tried to imply by pointing to groups like JStreet and the more liberal Jews). Republican's playing the "I'm more pro-"Israeli" card" have hence actually led to unprecedented competition in US politics over who is more pro-"Israeli" and more pro-Likud.
A vital conclusion to be made here is that the pro-Likud lobby in the US still has the upper hand over other Jewish groups and the more tight the race to the white house is, the more Obama will need to reach out for the help and blessing of Netanyahu's associates in Washington.
What also highlights the strength of this lobby is that Obama is vigorously trying to get its support at a time where US and "Israeli" interests appear to diverge like never before. Examples here are how strong sanctions on Iran do harm to the deteriorated US economy, which would otherwise require the US to change its hostile policy towards Tehran. Syria is another example where the US appears to have given in to "Israeli's" (and pro-"Israeli's" in congress) who have called for arming the Syrian opposition. This was highlighted by Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov who said during his visit to Tehran that Washington was providing the armed groups in Syria with weapons and advanced equipment despite previous statements from officials like Panetta and Hilary Clinton, which have clearly implied that arming the Syrian opposition including groups like al-Qaeda would not be in the US interests.
The bottom line is, why would you do something not good for you?("you" here meaning the US administration).
The only logical answer, is that it is because you are forced to do it, and the side forcing you must indeed be stronger than "you". So Obama, who is in a difficult situation at home, is hence weaker and more prone to be forced by the pro-Likud movement in Washington and tells a lot about the continuous strength of this movement.
This can be looked at in another way as well. Giving in more and more to "Israeli" demands may very well make Obama and the US weaker, whether it be economically, by forcing Obama's hand on Iran or by bringing about more popular hostility towards the US due to the clarity of its pro-"Israeli" approach.(CIA chief David Petraeus has hinted at the latter). For now, Obama appears to be playing a balancing game between US interests and "Israeli" wishes but lately has shown himself to be tilting more in favor of "Israeli" wishes as highlighted above.
If Obama continues to tilt more in favor of "Israel" then we cannot expect much from the talks between Iran and the P5+1 scheduled in Moscow on June 18 and 19 which are expected to focus not just on Iran's nuclear program but also on other important regional issues like Syria.
