Groundswell
on Syria: The People Versus AIPAC
By Philip Weiss
September 06, 2013 "Information Clearing House - We’re at a defining moment in the history of the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. Israel wants a war and the American people don’t– still, American leadership is pressing ahead. This groundswell of American opposition has fostered a willingness on the part of the American media to broach the issue of blind American support for Israel.
By Philip Weiss
September 06, 2013 "Information Clearing House - We’re at a defining moment in the history of the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. Israel wants a war and the American people don’t– still, American leadership is pressing ahead. This groundswell of American opposition has fostered a willingness on the part of the American media to broach the issue of blind American support for Israel.
Last
night, NBC Nightly News led not with the
Senate Foreign Relations committee’s vote to approve
military action against Syria, but with the American
people– with the “loud and lopsided” opposition across
the country to taking a military strike on Syria. In
“packed town hall meetings from Connecticut to
Oklahoma,”
Kelly O’Donnell reported, Americans are voicing
opposition to interfering in the Syrian civil war .
And she featured
Justin Amash, the Michigan freshman Republican, who
has Syrian ancestors and opposes a strike, as does
nearly everyone at his town halls.
Senator
Bernie Sanders said on MSNBC that the phones are
popping off in his office, and “almost unanimously
people are opposed to what the president is talking
about.” 98 percent of my district says No, Ted Yoho,
an emerging Florida Republican congressman, said on
the same network.
“Our
foreign policy of the last 30 years has led us into
this,” Yoho went on. “It’s Groundhog Day and we need
to take foreign policy in a new direction. We need
diplomacy at this point of time.”
These
are all signs of a groundswell in the wings of both
parties, challenging the leadership. This is a “very
dangerous place for the president to be,” Howard
Fineman put it on MSNBC yesterday. Democrats are
wondering “how the Democratic Party suddenly became
the war party.” [suddenly?]
Good question.
For
the seven years this site has been around, we have
challenged Americans to look at one root of the
conflict in the Middle East, and one root of the
Democratic war party– in Israel’s occupation and Jim
Crow policies that Americans would find objectionable
in their own land. If politicians like Yoho are
determined to reexamine foreign policy, then blind
support for Israel is bound to come under the
microscope.
He should find support from liberals.
Chris Matthews last night repeatedly called out the
neocons and “AIPAC” as supporters of the military
action– alas without explaining to the general viewer
what AIPAC stands for, American Israel Public Affairs
Committee. Mentioning the Israel angle is still too
radioactive for Matthews.
The
coming political question is a cultural one: whether
the rightwing national interest types, caricatured as
isolationists, can build a coalition with the leftwing
antiwar types. Both sides are corrupted, the Dems by
neoliberalism and doctrinal attachment to liberal
Zionism, the right by the Tea Party and a legacy of
racism. On Hardball, Chris Matthews warmed up to Yoho,
even as he subjected him to questions about Obama’s
birth certificate.
I
believe these differences can be overcome by the
urgency of opposing a Syrian strike and, worse, an
attack on Iran that the lobby has in its sights. But
this coalition will only be effective if we challenge
the orthodoxies of the special relationship–the need
to support Israel through one conflict after another,
neverending– and look for nonviolent ways out of this
morass.
The
presence of non-Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews will be
critical to this movement. We demonstrate that
opposing the policies of a religious state is not the
same as anti-Semitism. No it is a hallmark of American
liberalism. And as the agenda of the Israel lobbyists
becomes clearer to the American public — one war after
another, into the future, because Israel as it is
constituted is not accepted by half its population or
its neighbors — our own agenda will have to be
discussed at last.
Sanctions, BDS, nonviolent pressure
to transform what Bassam Haddad called a “settler
colonial” state on MSNBC the other day. Then
mainstream American figures will finally ask, Where is
the Israeli de Klerk?
Philip
Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of
Mondoweiss.net
No comments:
Post a Comment