Mary Dejevsky: It worked in Moscow, but the Obama effect can be negative
In Israel, what was seen as a key omission raised huge suspicions
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Barack Obama has taken to the road, or rather the skies, again: Moscow, the G8 summit in Italy, a final leg in Ghana. And once again, the transformative power of this President is much in evidence. From something akin to a pariah state when George Bush left office, the US now luxuriates in global approval. What a difference one election and one individual can make.
But there are exceptions to the general euphoria – though the dissenters have kept a low profile. For the truth is that Obama's early initiatives have left some countries profoundly unsettled. Iran is one obvious example: how far did the return of a kinder gentler America cause Iranians to question years of orthodoxy about the Great Satan and vote accordingly? President Ahmadinejad once seemed loth to reject Obama's overtures, but now finds himself on the wrong side of events.
Then there is what the former US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, called "new Europe". Poles ejected their hard-line conservative government in time to realign themselves with the new realism of the Obama White House. Other governments, though, either side of the European Union's eastern border, are not adjusting well to a less ideological and less interventionist Washington.
Many are (discreetly) unhappy with Obama's determination to press the "reset button" with Russia. Moscow's gain, they fear, will be their loss. However loudly US and other EU diplomats deny this, and insist that a warmer US-Russia relationship will cast its benevolent glow on the region generally, they remain sceptical.
A return to nuclear arms talks and cuts in warheads – as agreed with much fanfare yesterday in Moscow – reminds them of the years when they were mere pawns in a bigger game, and the so-called superpowers negotiated over their heads. Obama was canny in selecting familiar arms control territory to tempt a prickly Russia to re-engage. But the signals such a rapprochement sends to East and Central Europe, while equally familiar, are less welcome.
The chilliest winds of all, though, are being felt in one of the last places anyone might expect: in Israel, long one of the staunchest of US allies, almost regardless of who occupies the White House. In his speech last month in Cairo, tailored primarily to a Muslim audience, Obama clearly took pains not to alienate Israel. He described bilateral relations as "an unbreakable bond", and traced the justification for Israel's existence to the experience of the Holocaust.
Care and continuity in his speech there may have been, but this is not how his words were heard. In many conversations in Israel last week, I found a new concern, not just about Obama's intentions, but more fundamentally about his loyalties. The misgivings spanned the political spectrum, and one point was raised time and again.
Why had Obama justified Israel's existence by the Holocaust, rather than the ancestral right of Jews to this land? That might seem a detail – it seemed so to me – but what was seen as a key omission had raised huge suspicions. Surely, people said, with a Jewish chief of staff and a Jewish speech-writer, Obama must have made the omission intentionally. In so doing, they said, he had played into the hands of those disputing Israel's right to exist.
From this emerged the sense of a more distant, less sympathetic US administration. They saw it as one that did not fully understand Israel's predicament and might, in pushing harder for concessions on settlements built in occupied territory, forfeit a peace agreement just when it seemed possible.
There are other ways of looking at this. Without persuading Arab countries that he understands the plight of the Palestinians, Obama risks making no progress at all. "Unbreakable" is a pretty strong word to use of the US commitment to Israel, while pushing Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, hard on the settlements might – perversely – help him to bring round his even more conservative coalition partners.
It can also be argued that the greatest obstacles to agreement at present lie beyond either US or Israeli control: the weakness and divisions on the Palestinian side, and the uncertainty about Iran, which has sent everyone back to review their assumptions. But distrust is something Obama will have to address, in Israel, as in Eastern Europe. Rebuilding relations with inherited foes may be hard, but doing so without alienating old allies will be harder still.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Israeli settlements are on empty areas and take up almost no room in the west bank.
Jews are allowed to live. Contrary to the way the west bank people feel.
It's comical that 10 or 20 Jews building a few homes on an empty hilltop somewhere is used as a battle cry by the lunatic anti-Israel nuts.
It can also be argued that the greatest obstacles to agreement at present lie beyond either US or Israeli control: But distrust is something Obama will have to address... Rebuilding relations with inherited foes may be hard, but doing so without alienating old allies will be harder still. Obama must have made the omission has he has he not is p or not to p intentionally. Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary I like you honest I do especially when you read without the spectacles and write with some ones? testacies. Have you been drinking green tea and oil of almonds? They say it is good for the toes. Your write so well, I am turning left, my tail right, I move from table to bed, from bathroom to toast bread. Read the above. You will see all diffusion nothing but confusion . Stations everywhere police, fire, train, bus, tram, tickets.
Ed please increase pay of Mary or I send the cheque of 700 ukp the minister wants to save this for me I LOVE YOU ALL
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
As Shlomo Sands, the Israeli historian writes in his book "When and how was the Jewish people invented?", not only was there no Jewish Exodus from Egypt, not only was there never an ancient kingdom of Israel or temple of Solomon, not only did the Jews stay in the Holy Land rather than being expelled, not only are Jews not a race (something invented in the last 100 years) but the Palestinians are the true descendants of the Jews of Palestine - some remaining Jewish, and others converting to Islam and Christianity.
http://palestinethinktank.com/2008/10/1
On the matter of Obama, the White House "welcomed" Netanyahoo's rejection of a Palestinian state in his speech at Bar-Illan University. Obama is bought and paid for by the Israel lobby and has increased the "aid" that the U.S. sends to Israel to buy U.S. weaponry to use against the Gentiles of the Middle east, primarily Palestinian civilians.
Finally, why does Israel insist on its right to exist? Because it knows that it has none!
The Palestinians are the rightful heirs to the Holy Land, be they Muslims, Jews or Christians and this can be verified legally, historically, culturally, and even genetically. And as such, the only true legitimacy Israel will ever have must come from the Palestinians abdicating their inheritance, their history, and their culture to Israel. That's why Israel insists that the Palestinians declare it had a right to take everything the Palestinians ever had - from home and property, cemeteries, churches and mosques, to culture, history and hope.
Acknowledgement to Susan Abulhawa.
You and your side need to accept reality. Sorry, but you Muslims weren't able to conquer 100 percent of the middle east. You only managed to conquer 99.7%. Israeli Jews got 0.3%.
I realize this upsets you, but perhaps if you seek some sort of mental help you, and other crazy people like you, can move on and deal with reality.
It's like saying the sun shouldn't exist.
If Israel has no 'right' to exist, no Arab or Muslim country does, either.
But, those countries all do exist.
But as long as the insane anti-semites don't want peace with Israel and want to make it 'not exist' obviously there's nothing Israel can do to change that. Israel recognizes this and acts accordingly.
Problem is, it isn't.
If Israel was islamic, the lunatics that surround Israel would have left it alone long ago.
But Israel is Jewish. So the lunatics that surround Israel want to spend the next billion years trying to attack it.
When the nutcases outside of Israel stop trying to destroy Israel, peace is possible. Until then, it's not.
That is all.
It's both sides. Those who are able to take land by force will do so - as the Zionist did to build a new country called Israel. In history this is accepted fact of life. The Zionists are both clever and dumb at the same time.
The Zionists control Palestine. They had the brains to leverage support from various sources to enable this. But now that they have the land, they dont treat their occupied cousins with fairness. This is bad for both the Palestinians and the Zionists - neither side see's any peace. Obviously the Palestinians come off worst.
With a bit of fair play, the building of hospitals, allowing the Palestinians to keep the money from their offshored gas fields in Gaza, have a fair shae of water, etc, etc, the Zionist could have got themselves a happier home. But something stops them from doing this, may be a superiority complex?
If land can be taken by force, the neighbours will take it, sooner or later. Its the way of the world.
Judea and Samaria were occupied by Arab land usurpers till 1967 when Arab Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. attacke (again...) Israel and Jordan lost control of the land they have once stolen. Had they not attacked, Judea and Samaria would still be under arab rule, jut like your Gibraltar.
Israel has long ago stopped building new settlements. Obama's administration seems to be putting much pressure now on Israel to stop building even in existing settlements as well. Nobody is even talking about expanding settlements.
That's why this relentless focus on the settlement issue seems over the top, while the U.S has yet to request any kind of concession or gesture of goodwill from the Palestinian side. No stopping of anti-Semitism in mainstream media, no new security measures. Nothing.
Nobody is even thinking about recognizing Israel yet, the Arab countries who press for the Arab initiative refuse to make any normalization steps towards Israel. PM Abbas refuses to even meet Netanyahu.
The whole thing looks very one sided so far.
I won?t even mention Iran, who it seems will be left free to peruse its looming nuclear weapons, while the whole region is begging for Obama to make some harsh step. To do something.
Israelis have every reason to be worried. They already saw what one-sided concessions brought them in Gaza.
Yep, it all looks so one-sided, almost like Israel has been responsible for a great deal of illegal activitiy over the last sixty years. You know why? I can give you some hints if you like. Certainly the war crimes carried out during Cast Lead haven't done Israel any favours at all.
Funny that you mention Iran, particularly as the nation with the most illegal weapons of mass destruction of the nuclear kind in the middle East is, yes, Israel!
www.jewsagainstzionism.com
As for Eastern Europe, their leaders seem to be willing to prostitute themselves to whomever they perceive is winning, once it is not Russia. Like happened with Bush, all Obama has to do is throw a few dollars their way for them to fall in line and betray the movement for greater unification with their western counterparts. Fortunately Obama does not appear to believe that there are any real and longterm benefits to be derived from the divisive tactics practiced by Bush.The fact that there will be fewer nuclear missles aimed at them, for some reason, does not seem relevant.
I have a better idea for a deal. Israel starts treating Palestinians like human beings. Then the various people that despise israel for its criminal actions might regard it a little better...
As for Isaraeli's questioning his 'loyalty' - umm, Obama is President of the USA and by default leader in the free world. That is where his loyalty should lie, not to Israel.
We know that Israel has the legitimate right to exist but not to start a nuclear war with devastating effects for the whole Middle-East including the American and allied forces heavily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. May we remind you that Admiral M.Mullen, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff has declared that: " I have been for some time concerned about any strike on Iran, I worry about it being destabilizing not just in and of itself but unintended consequences of a strike like that " ( from Haaretz on 7th July 09 i.e. today).
So I do not think that American policy substantially changed, whatsoever. To the contrary, verbal virtuosity can be a kind of elegant folding screen, jut for some time but is no substitute for a long-term balanced policy.
God bless us all.
Maximilian
People come together to form a state to protect their individual rights. This is allowed so long as it doesn't negatively impact the individual rights of others. Insofar as any state meets these goals, nobody can take exception to it. The problem is that Israel (like many others) doesn't.
About "racialist": You can't tell most Jews from Arabs in Israel. It is not about race, but religion.
About Israel's "expansionism": Are you American? Have a look at the world map now and compare the size of Israel to that of your country. America is propably thousands of times bigger - all built on stolen land - from Native Americans, Mexicans, Spanish, French... Now with the world map still at your hands compare the size of Israel with the islamic (56 countries) or arab world (22 countries) and you will see how ridiculous your comment is. Like saying Rhode Island wants to conquer America or Liechtenstein wants to rule Europe.
Mary Dejevsky's article talks about Russia, Eastern Europe, Iran etc - no mention of these on the posts so far.
Israel meanwhile continues to carry out illegal operations like the illegal blockade of Gaza. See these links about the arrest and imprisonment of Cynthia McKinney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkPvzSZR
http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2
Looking at what Obama is offering Russia it seems that the U.S wants concessions but is not prepared to offer any compromise on the issues that worry Russia (the expansion of NATO, the "missile shield" which would make a first strike by the U.S a viable act, the support of rogue regimes like Shakashvilli's in Georgia etc)
Russia allowing the U.S to use Russian territory to mount operations
in Afghanistan is a slight surprise but understandable as the Taliban and militant Islam attack Russian targets too.
Using Iran's non-existant Nuclear weapons as reason for the missile shield which also does not exist is a little strange. The only country that may be able to rein in North Korea is China who do not seem too interested.
When is the U.S ever going to comment about Israel's Nuclear weapons?
When you acquire a brain of sufficient intelligence to comment.
because Obama doesn't want to give the USA back to it's indigenous population, if the Jews can return to Israel and take it off the inhabitants then why can't the American Indians take back their old lands?
Israel is intent on preventing Obama from initiating any real changes so they will use any and every method to undermine him.
Ignore such diversions and get on with the job of getting Israel and Palestine to come to terms with each other.
You didn't notice? And you think that it should happen again?!?
As if we didn't already know that there was something seriously wrong with you.
Try trolling somewhere else. Your presence is not required.
firozali a mulla
Sand claims that the "Jewish people" is an invention and that modern Jews are all descendants of converts to Judaism. The North African Jews (and possibly most of the Sephardi Jews)are descendants of Berbers who converted, the Ashkenazi are descendants of the Khazars who converted and the Yemenite Jews are descendants of a Yemenite tribe that converted.
But, now comes the recent scientific research which shows that despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not different from one another at the genetic level, but they were different from their non-Jewish neighbors.
There was no resemblance between the North African Jews and the Berbers, or between the Yemenite Jews and non-Jewish Yemenites, or between the Ashkenazi Jews and present day Turkish speakers.
There was close resemblance between the different Jewish populations and Palestinians and Syrians. If the Jews were descendants of converts there would not have been such resemblance. That indicates that the Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population.
In plain English, the Ashkenazi Jews are NOT descendants of the Khazrs. As Dr. Neil Risch, a researcher at the Department of Genetics at Stanford University, said:"If you made a [genetic] map of Europe and the Middle East and you put Ashkenazi Jews on it, they would not end up in Turkey or in the middle of Europe, but in the Mediterranean."
Sand is not the first, and most probably not the last person to deny the existence of the Jewish people. But now, not only history supports its existence, so does pure science.
Zionism succeeded, beyond all expectations, precisely because the Jews considered themselves part and parcel of a "people" and because they were able to preserve their historical connection to the land of their origin. And as the Zionist founders were all secular, they were motivated not by religion but by nationhood. That is why the Jewish state was founded in Mandatory Palestine, the land of origin of the Jewish people, and not in Uganda, Argentina or Birobijan.
Contrary to giuseppesaponi's assertion Prof. Sand, a known anti-Zionist, did not prove that there is no Jewish people. That was his opinion. But the similarity between the different Jewish communities and between them and the Palestinian and Syrian communities, demonstrates that the Jewish communities are not descendants of local converts, and indeed originated in the Middle East. And it is undeniable that the Jews became a people in the area that later became known as Palestine. Regardless if the Bible stories are true or not, they were written by members of the Jewish people. And, if the Jews were expelled or left voluntarily, they managed to keep their historical memory over the many centuries in spite of the loss of their territorial base. Without that, the Zionist movement would not have succeeded because the Jewish people would not have existed. Which means the Jews, are a people like any other and not just a group with the same religion. That shows that Sand is wrong in his opinion.
And, the first Jewish community to support Herzl's idea of the Jewish state, was the Bulgarian Jewish community - a Sephardi not Ashkenasi community. Israel was founded by the Jewish people, Sephardi, Ashkenazi and Oriental.
Israel would have been established, with and without the Holocaust. And, those who dent the right of the Jewish people to political self-determination and statehood, without opposing the existence of any other nation-state, exhibit a typical racist attitude.