This video demonstrates how the United States is intimidated into silence on appalling human rights violations by AIPAC. Get ready to be embarrassed for your country.
At last the United States is responding toPrime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's refusal to freeze settlements and re-startnegotiations with the Palestinians.
Congressman Howard Berman(D-CA), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is today rushingto the House floor with an AIPAC-drafted resolution condemning the Palestinians for publicly suggesting that, in thewake of Netanyahu's refusalto freeze settlements and negotiate, they will consider a unilateraldeclaration of statehood. (As is usual with Berman, his resolution exclusively blamesPalestinians for the collapse of peace talks; not a word of criticism of Israelappears.)
The Berman bill, drafted onlyyesterday, will be voted on today because when it comes to pleasing AIPAC thereare simply no limits. (This remains true even though AIPAC is embroiled in an espionage sexscandal that has it scrambling to find $20 million to pay off a former top employeewho is threatening to produce documents exposing the lobby.)
The Berman bill will passoverwhelmingly because that is how things work in a city where policy is drivenby campaign contributions — and not just on this issue.
The only difference betweenhow AIPAC lobbyists dictate U.S. Middle East policy and pretty much every othermajor lobby is that AIPAC works to advance the interests of a foreign country.In other words, comparisons to the National Rifle Association would only beapplicable if the gun owners that the NRA claims to represent lived in, say, Greece.Oh, and NRA-backed bills usually take longer than a day to get to the Housefloor.
And here you have the root ofthe problem. And it's not just an American problem. It is just as much an Israeli problem, aPalestinian problem, and an international problem.
There is only one reason thatIsraeli-Palestinian negotiations collapsed. It is the power of the "pro-Israellobby" (led by AIPAC) which prevents the United States from saying publiclywhat it says privately: that resolution of a conflict which is so damaging to U.S.interests is consistently being blocked by the intransigence of the Netanyahu governmentand its determination to maintain the occupation.
This is not a situation whereresponsibility attaches equally to both sides. The Israelis hold all of the disputed territories. Yes,the Palestinians have administrative control of some parts of the West Bank but its authority — and it is very small — derivesfrom the Israelis.
Gaza is controlled by Hamas but it is a reservation orghetto, not a free entity. Its borders are entirely blocked by the Israelis(and the Egyptians who do whatever Israeldemands on its border with Gaza).It remains under Israeli blockade, lightened only a bit since Prime MinisterNetanyahu admittedthat the blockade was not necessary for Israel's security. And then thereis Arab East Jerusalem, where the Netanyahu government has expanded efforts to pushPalestinians out of their homes and replace them with settlers.
The Palestinians have nopower at all although they have done everything that Israeland the United Statesdemanded. The PLO fully recognized Israel and pledged itself tofighting terrorism and resorting exclusively to negotiations to achieve a state.They agreed that their state wouldbe limited to the 22% of historic Palestine that is the West Bank, Gaza andEast Jerusalem — recognizing that Israel would have the other 78%. EvenHamas, which still insists that Israelhas no right to be there, says that if the Palestinian Authority negotiates adeal with Israel that isaccepted by the Palestinian people, it too will join in and end its war with Israel.
And what has Israeloffered in exchange for these historic concessions? Absolutely nothing.
Yes, it has played atnegotiations.
Its advocates argue that, at Camp David in 2000, it offered the Palestinians 94% of the 22% or 98% or whatever. (Netanyahu's current offeris 60% of the 22%.) But the supposed offer came with the standard conditionsand caveats when there should be only one condition. In exchange for aPalestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza andEast Jerusalem, the Palestinians must agree to absolute security for Israelwith ironclad guarantees backed up with surveillance systems to ensure that thereare no violations.
In fact, the Palestiniansagreed to those terms as far back as the Yasser Arafat era, when, in the latenineties, Israelis and Palestinians adopted a security plan brokered by the CIAto combat terrorism. President Arafat's efforts were so thorough,fighting a virtual civil war with Hamas, that Prime Minister Netanyahu personally told Arafat both in person and bytelephone how much he appreciated Arafat's help.
But neither Arafat nor hissuccessor, Mahmoud Abbas, got anything in return.
That nothing is easilydefined. During the entire 17-year period since the historic Rabin-Arafatagreement — and the famed handshake on the White House lawn — the Israelisnever ceased confiscating land and building settlements in the areas that aresupposed to constitute the Palestinian state. That was and is the clearestmeasure of Israel'sintentions. The Israeli government does not intend to give up territory itwants; it gave up Gazabecause it decided that it better served Israeli interests to just blockade it.
Why would Palestiniansbelieve that Israelis negotiating seriously when it keeps building inside the future Palestinianstate?
All this is obvious to anyonepaying attention — especially since Prime Minister Netanyahu absolutely refusedto freeze settlements for even 90 days in exchange for the United States doubling the aidpackage. Really, if he won't freeze for 90 days for $3.5 billion, only a foolwould believe that he would ever actually give up any land permanently.
And yet the United States government keeps playingthis game. No matter what Israeldoes, it's fine with us.
It doesn't have to be thatway. If the administration and Congress put U.S. interests (and Israel's too) over thecraving for campaign contributions, the United States could tell the Israeligovernment that, from now on, our aid package comes with strings. Like an IMFloan (although aid to Israel is a gift, not a loan), we could say that in exchangefor our billions, our UN vetoes of resolutions criticizing Israel, and oursilence in the face of war crimes like Gaza, we want Israel to end the occupationwithin, say, 24 months. And Israelwould have to comply because our military assistance is, as AIPAC likes to callit, "Israel'slifeline."
If we did that, many Israeliswould be very angry (just as many would appreciate America forcing an end to theoccupation). But the lobby would be furious because, above all else, it needsto feel that itcontrols U.S. policy in the Middle East. Not for America's sake. Not for Israel's.But for its own. As with most Washingtonlobbies, it is not in business to make the world a better place. It is notpro-Israel; it is pro-AIPAC.
When will all this change? Whoknows?
The AIPAC scandals are weakening thegroup (although not enough to prevent Congress from passing its latest billcondemning Palestinians). And younger American Jews, especially progressives(which is most of them), simply don't buy the AIPAC line. American Jews are,after all, Americans.
But, for now, the bottom lineis money. The U.S.government dances to Israel'stune because it is afraid to risk campaign contributions from a few dozen fatcats. That is the whole story.
Meanwhile, asGeneral Petraeus told us, U.S.interests — including the lives of our men and women in uniform — arethreatened by the belief in the Middle East that United States is Israel'spuppet. Petraeus' view is common throughout the military which, unaffected bypolitics, manages to actually see the obvious. When will the rest of ourgovernment allow itself to do the same?