Archive for the 'U.S. Politics' Category

Hillary Clinton and the Jewish Right

Published by
Andrew Schamess
December 28, 2005 in U.S. Politics and The Jewish Right. 2 Comments

I posted a few weeks ago on Hillary Clinton’s trip to Israel. She was too busy to meet with any Palestinians, but she did broadcast her committment to Israel’s security and her support for the separation barrier. On her return to New York, she was toasted by the most right-wing of the Jewish pro-Israel activists - many of whom are big political donors and made it clear that the trip had won their support for her re-election campaign (”I was quite critical when she ran last time,” disengagement opponent Mandy Ganchrow declared. “Since that time … she has become a leader who understands the nuances.”).

Today, the New York Times ran an article on how Senator Clinton has angered the left with her support for the Iraq war. It’s a reminder of the political realities that shape candidates’ positions in the Democratic party. |inline

Condoleeza Rice and Hillary Clinton: Mazel and Shlimazel

Published by
Andrew Schamess
November 18, 2005 in Conditions of the Occupation, U.S. Politics, Peace Process and Jewish Politics. 0 Comments

The media moment of the Disengagement was the evacuation of the settlers from Gaza. It seemed every camera in the world was pointed at them as they loaded up their trucks and left their farms. "Mission accomplished," said the networks once the last settlement was empty. But the success of the Disengagement depended entirely on subsequent steps. The critical factor in making Gaza an economically viable independent territory was border permeability. If Gazan goods and labor couldn’t make their way into Israel, Egypt and overseas; if there was no link between Gaza and the West Bank; then Gaza was doomed to become a restive, improverished dependency - fertile ground for terrorist recruitment. That’s exactly where things were headed, due to an impasse in Israeli-Palestinian border negotiations, until Condoleeza Rice arrived last week…

|inline

Palestinian Support for Violence Waning. New York Times Sits on Data.

Published by
October 26, 2005 in Palestinian Politics and U.S. Politics. 3 Comments

Did any of you see the interview with Khalil Shikaki in yesterday’s New York Times?  It’s well worth a read.  He’s the Director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, a respected polling firm and a reliable source of information on Palestinian public opinion.  It provides a good antidote to the inflammatory statements of militant leaders, which are sometimes assumed to reflect the sentiments of the Palestinian people in general…

 A widely publicized finding from the poll, which was taken in late September, was that eighty-four percent of Palestinians believe the Gaza withdrawal was a victory for the Palestinian resistance; and they give the lion’s share of credit to Hamas.  That, however, is not the end of the story.  Dr. Shikaki observes:

 …instead of leading to further increases in the level of support for violence against Israelis, the perception that violence pays or that violence paid in the Israeli disengagement decision has in fact led to a reduction in the level of support for violence, rather than an increase in the level of support for violence…

(W)e see people saying, with regard to Gaza — two-thirds are telling us — there should be absolutely no more violence in Gaza altogether. Even more important than this, for the first time we have a majority among Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza that favors collection of arms from militias and the armed groups in Gaza — not in the West Bank, but in Gaza.

And very significantly, we have more than three-fourths, 77 percent of the public, telling us that it supports the continuation of the ceasefire. So, in terms of the issues related to violence, it is very clear that we made significant progress in the people’s willingness to move away from violence even as they believed that violence was responsible for the achievement of the disengagement.

 Furthermore, although we hear constantly from Israeli sources that Abbas’ government it teetering on the brink, he and his party are actually gaining in popularity.  In June - before the disengagement - Palestinians favored Fatah over Hamas by 44 to 33 percent margin.  In September, Fatah polled at 47 percent and Hamas at 30 percent.  Dr. Shikaki feels that, with even a tiny strip of land to govern, Palestinians are turing their attention away from resistance and toward issues of domestic policy.

 We’ve been asking this over the last decade or so: What are the top priorities? Normally, the top priority is ending the Israeli occupation. This has always been No.1. This has usually been followed by improving economic conditions and at the end of the priorities would come things like fighting corruption or improving government, things like that. But after the passing of [former Palestinian Authority President] Yasir Arafat late last year, we began to see a narrowing in the order of priorities. The gap between improving economic conditions and ending occupation narrowed considerably after the passing of Arafat. Now, for the first time, after the Gaza disengagement, we have economics coming on top. For the first time, improving economic conditions is priority No. 1…

This is a dynamic that has been triggered by disengagement. In my view, this is the most important development that we have seen here in the last sixth months and this is entirely due to the disengagement. 

 The interviewer asks him about the recent drive-by shooting in the West Bank.  Israelis took it as a sign that the disengagement had failed to defuse Palestinian violence or improve Israel’s security.

I think the Israelis are looking at the Palestinian situation and they can only see the trees and they are unable to see the forest. The forest is what I’ve just described. This is really what is going on. This is the reality that the Israelis, instead of looking at this larger picture, are instead looking at this event, or that event, in which groups are sensing the transformation in the society and the demand for Abu Mazen to begin to crack down and collect arms and stop the violence. These groups that are sensing all of these things I believe are responsible for the violence… 

The latest incident which took place three days ago, I believe, was a message to Abu Mazen who was at that moment on his way to Washington. The message was, "Be careful to what you commit yourself to in Washington because we’re here. We’re the boss and we will be able to dictate to you and to the Americans and to the Israelis your agenda in Washington." This is a tree, however. This is where the Israelis, because of their own domestic constraints and weaknesses in the post-disengagement environment, are unable to understand that they need to look at the big picture and understand that these small incidents are desperate attempts by groups that feel the heat and are trying desperately to prevent the continuation of the peaceful transformation.

 Dr. Shikiki’s view is optimistic.  The disengagment was, indeed, a breakthrough.  It accomplished much of what Israelis hoped.  Support for militant violence has weakened.  The attention of the Palestinian public has shifted away from armed resistance, and toward issues of civil society.  Further moves toward peace would be widely supported.

But he also warns that Israel’s post-disengagement behavior will continue to influence Palestinian sentiment.

The collective punishment the Israeli army is imposing at the moment, is sending a negative message to those people who told us yesterday that they oppose violence, they want to collect arms, they will vote for Fatah. The Israeli government makes no difference between you and those who make violence. And you will all be dealt the kind of punishment the Israeli government is inflicting at the moment. This affects the civilian population, the motorists who cannot use the roads anymore to travel, people who are unable to reach their own businesses, their factories, their shops — they’re destroying the economy. I think it’s a big mistake by the Israelis to try in their response to the violence to crack down on the population rather than on those who commit the violence.

 I thought it was a good article.

My only gripe with the New York Times is that they waited until after Abbas’ visit here to publish it, even though the interview clearly took place before the visit.  They couldn’t find a few extra columns betwen the underwear ads for this valuable public opinion data?

I can’t help but wonder if some editor decided it would be better for congressmen to meet the Palestinian president with fresh images of a drive-by shooting in their minds, rather than data suggesting that he has popular support, and his people are ready to move forward with the peace process.

Schlepping for Peace: The Blogger and his Family Attend the Anti-War Rally in Washington, D.C.

Published by
September 27, 2005 in U.S. Politics and Activism. 2 Comments

This is how we ended up going to the protest. Thursday night, Rebecca got all riled up reading Daily Kos. Friday, she called me to say she was packing the kids in the car - along with our Romanian nanny and her boyfriend, who is visiting for the month - and driving down to Washington for the anti-war protest. Equipped with security blankets, tippie-cups, diapers, a laptop and a bunch of Elmo DVDs they set off on the ten-hour drive to a hotel in Alexandria, where she had booked a single room for everyone to share. I left after work, drove down on my own, and stumbled in at 4:30 Saturday morning. The baby, as usual, woke up at 6:30. Four hours later, having sheparded the kids through the continental breakfast and onto the Metro, we were at the Ellipse…

I have no idea how to estimate crowd size, but even before the actual march started, it looked huge. We could see people filling Fourteenth Street as far as the eye could see, definitely past Pennsylvania Avenue; and Constitution Avenue was also packed in both directions. Everyone but us had clever banners and tee-shirts. "Make levees, not war" was popular. My favorite was "I voted for Al Gore and all I got was this stupid Orwellian nightmare". On our shirts, we had maple syrup and strawberry stains from breakfast.

The Blogger and His Family
 

 

We threaded our way through the crowd to where a proto-march seemed to be forming. Our four-year-old enjoyed herself reasonably well until the giant Bread-and-Puppet-Theater-type Death Puppets came marching down the street. They were supposed to represent casualties of the Iraq war and they scared her half to death.

Death Puppets
 

I hate Bush as much as anybody. I really do. But must we on the left really be so apocalyptic? When things go badly, we just dive headlong  into negativism. You really notice these things when you have kids.

Anyhow we beat a retreat and went looking for a bathroom and some food (which we had cleverly forgotten to bring: "I’m sure there will be lots of vendors…"). Nothing was happening except speeches and milling, so we went into one of the Smithsonian museums and had an early lunch. By the time we were done, of course, the kids were flagging and we thought maybe we had done our part and could head back to the hotel and go swimming.

Then, as we rounded the corner onto Constitution, we saw that the march proper had finally started. And it was, well, wonderful. Everyone had coalesced, and many more had come to the mall as the day went on. There were waves of marchers - not just die-hard activists but regular people, families like ours, obviously from all over the country - walking quietly past us. They weren’t noisy or demonstrative. Only a few had signs. They were just there, to say "this is also America. We do not want to occupy Iraq. We care about the victims of Hurricane Katrina. We want change."

The New York Times reported a "vast" number of protesters. A Washington Post/Associated Press story said:

The rally stretched through the day and into the night, a marathon of music, speechmaking and dissent on the National Mall. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, noting that organizers had hoped to draw 100,000 people, said, "I think they probably hit that."

 

AP Photo/Noah Berger 

So, we marched. I think Jane understood what we were marching for, in a four-year-old sort of way. She understands that we believe in peace, and in not hurting people. She understands the President is a bad man. "Where is he?" she wanted to know. Good question.

The baby understood that she was getting a very long ride in the baby-backpack.

There were counter-demonstrators. I felt sorry for them. It must have been hard to watch a hundred thousand people walk by protesting the war. Judging from their banners, a fair number of them have children serving in Iraq. It’s easy for us to say "we’re against the war, not the soldiers". But the kids who joined up after 9/11 did it because they believed in something, they wanted to defend their country against a brutal terrorist threat. And their families really need to believe that they are fighting for a worthy cause. I imagine the anxiety would be impossible to bear otherwise.

I really admire Cindy Sheehan for the stand she has taken. I think it is a very difficult one for military families.

I wish that were the end of my story - but after the march we had the bonus experience of being trapped for ninety minutes in a crowded subway car in a dark tunnel with two now-exhausted, hungry kids trying to get back to our hotel. The Metro system was overwhelmed - another measure of the size of this demonstration.

Were we right to spend hundreds of dollars and drive for twenty hours just to add six to the number of people who attended? Rebecca and I have no regrets. It was something we needed to do. All over the country, people obviously weighed the same pros and cons and decided to come. That’s how these things happen.

The media never give much coverage to grassroots phenomena like demonstrations. The communal web - blogs, bulletin boards, etc. - is more sensitive to mass movements in their early phases. I hope that this is the beginning of a change - that there will be more demonstrations, even larger ones, and an upswing in other forms of activism.

America does not belong to George Bush - or to any political party. I think we - Americans - can retake it.

Abbas: Good Trip, Tough Coming Home

Published by
May 27, 2005 in Palestinian Politics, Conditions of the Occupation, U.S. Politics and Peace Process. 1 Comment

Mahmoud Abbas’ visit here went considerably better than Sharon’s, by most accounts. Tikun Olam has a nice summary of the press conference. The Bush quote, which I’m taking straight from Richard, was:

A viable two-state solution must ensure contiguity of the West Bank, and a state of scattered territories will not work. There must also be meaningful linkages between the West Bank and Gaza. This is the position of the United States today, it will be the position of the United States at the time of final status negotiations.

Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion…

He also said that "any final status agreement must be reached between the two parties, and changes to the 1949 armistice lines must be mutually agreed to."

Yedioth’s Washington correspondent points out that Abbas was hoping for a letter of committment from the U.S., similar to the notorious Bush letter to Sharon last year that (in Israel’s interpretation anyhow) sanctioned the West Bank settlements in return for the Gaza withdrawal.

…a diplomatic source in Washington expects Bush will not accede to the request.

"(Abbas) will receive a lot of hugs in front of the cameras, but inside, the talks will be difficult," the source said. "The president may congratulate him on his courage, his public statements against terror and about the need to help him financially."

Nor did Bush agree to proceed directly to final status talks. The President did, however:

  1. Pointedly call Abbas "Mr. President" (Israel continues referring to him as "Chairman").
  2. Demand a halt to Israel’s settlement construction outside the Green Line, particularly around Jerusalem - an obvious reference to Ma’ale Adumim and an implicit endorsement of East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.
  3. Criticize the separation wall ("The barrier being erected by Israel as a part of its security effort must be a security, rather than political, barrier. And its route should take into account, consistent with security needs, its impact on Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.")
  4. Commit Condoleeza to another Mideast trip, in August.
  5. Grant the PA $50 million for housing and infrastructure.

Not a bad day’s work. It will certainly give Abbas a boost at home (as Ha’aretz drove home with a photo of two keffiyeh-clad Arabs watching the press conference on a TV in Hebron).

He’ll need one. According to a new report from the U.N.’s International Labor Office, joblessness in the territories grew from 203,000 a year ago to 224,000 at present.

"The mission observed a prevailing feeling that the economic situation of Palestinians must rapidly improve in order for them to continue to support the policy of dialogue and negotiation with Israel", the report says…

The report drew particular attention to the youth unemployment rate of 40 per cent among 15 to 24-year-olds, which is one-and-a-half times the aggregate rate.

One in three young persons aged 15-24 years and over half of those aged 25-29 years are in forced idleness, that is neither studying nor in employment, says the report, adding "idleness among young people faced with military occupation makes a fertile breeding ground for extremism and violence. This situation requires urgent attention in the form of significant assistance in vocational training, business development and employment orientation specifically directed at young women and men".

In 2004, 57 per cent of all wage workers in the occupied territories received monthly wages that failed to lift a family of two adults and four children above the official poverty line. Approximately half of the population, 1.8 million persons, live below the national poverty threshold.

These statistics are a reminder: Abbas may be a darling of the international diplomatic set, but his standing at home is tenuous. The militant movements are waiting in the wings. It’s my sense that he will need to bring about material improvements in the quality of life in the territories, and real steps toward statehood, before his people are willing to lay down their arms for good.

Sharon Arrives Amidst Blizzard of Spin

Published by
Andrew Schamess
April 10, 2005 in Israeli Politics, U.S. Politics, Peace Process and The Jewish Right. 2 Comments

The week leading up to Ariel Sharon’s U.S. visit has not been a good one for the Prime Minister. First, the President and the Secretary of State made it clear that they were not going to turn the usual blind eye to the Ma’ale Adumim tender. Then, yesterday, Israeli troops shot three Palestinian teenagers in Rafah, making Israel the party to break the ceasefire. The initial (probably accurate) reports were that the kids accidentally strayed into a military zone while playing soccer. The IDF is claiming that they were smugglers but the IDF does not exactly have a reputation for honest factual investigation of military misconduct. Fortunately - but, from a hasbara standpoint, unfortunately - the rockets that Palestinian militants fired at Gush Katif in retaliation for the shooting didn’t hurt anyone. The end result is that Sharon heads for Texas with Israel looking like the aggressor, which, in fact, it has been…

|inline

About

You are currently browsing the semitism.net weblog archives for the U.S. Politics category.

Longer entries are truncated. Click the headline of an entry to read it in its entirety.

Latest

RSS

Archives

Categories