Theatre of the absurd

There is a maxim in Hebrew that goes like this: “Tafasta meruba, lo tafasta. It means “If you get too greedy, you end up with nothing.” Nothing could have more aptly explained the Israeli and American conduct at the UN General Assembly last month when Palestinian Administration moved the resolution for the 'Unilateral Declaration of Independence'. Israeli leadership under Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to delegitimise Palestinians but they ended up being further isolated themselves. But more than that it is interesting to analyse what effect will this diplomatic move by Palestinians and a possible Veto by the United States have on the overall influence of the latter in the region.

In fact, experts insist that more than Israel, it is the US itself that will go home severely dented when the dust settles at the General Assembly Hall in a month's time. US President Barack Obama's much criticised speech and his vow to Veto the resolution in the Security Council has rattled experts and political pundits all over the world. The reaction was aptly described in an in-your-face lead article in New York magazine, written by John Heilemann and quoting a major Obama fundraiser. The essay was titled “The first Jewish President”.

In fact, sitting through Obama's UN speech, many would nod in agreement. What has rattled everyone, including hundreds in Israel, is the fact that by doing what he did, Obama actually left his predecessor George W Bush behind, the most extremist champion of Israel among all US Presidents. And as one Israeli analyst put it, “Never have we heard a US President read straight from the papers of the Israeli government.” In his run-up to the elections, Barack Obama does not want to infuriate the powerful Israeli lobbies including AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and ADL (Anti-Defamation League) that has a substantial sway on the section of American Jewish community that brings in huge money in the election funding. In fact, if it had not been for Jewish fundraisers from Chicago, Obama would not have won his Senate seat, leave alone presidency.

Marwan Bishara, a noted commentator on Palestinian-Israeli issue, says, “Indeed, the guy who brought the most money to the Democratic party over the last several decades became Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Today, he's the Mayor of Chicago. But it's not only about money. It's also about crucial support in Congress over urgent domestic issues that could make or break the Obama presidency. AIPAC can make the President's life miserable over the course of the next year.”

The question is, consequences. As the story goes for print, the US is playing hardball to pressurise Gabon, Nigeria and Bosnia & Herzegovina not to vote in favour of the resolution in the Security Council leaving Palestinian Authority with less than nine required votes and thus, ostensibly, sparing US the embarrassment to use the Veto. But the US is missing a point here. Its diplomatic endeavour to do so and its willingness to go out of the way to accommodate Israel has already left its image and influence in tatters. Veto is but merely a ritual now.

It is evident that the US administration and Congress are more concerned about Israeli interests than the interest of the US itself. Such was the horror that even a pro-Israeli Jewish lobby, J Street, made a comment that “There's no limit, it seems, to how far American politicians will go these days in pandering on Israel for political gain.” And mind you, that is not all.

Such has been the embarrassment that even Israel-firsters such as David Remnick and Thomas Friedman have expressed horror on the way Israel and the US have conducted themselves. But the question is, why are these Israel-firsters horrified?

Of course not out of love for the Palestinians. It is because they don't want the US to become helpless and pushed to corner. And this is precisely what is happening. The Palestinians have now refused to view President Obama as an honest broker. On the other hand, it has also been curtly mentioned by the Palestinians that they won't trust Tony Blair either. As an official mediator on behalf of the quartet, he not only overstepped his mandate shamelessly by lobbying for Israel, he outlived his welcome too. On the other hand, Palestinians have intriguingly watched Obama back down after every attempt to bring Netanyahu to the peace table. It has watered down his reputation and sway on them. If that was not enough, Israel used all their wherewithal to pressurise him to give a speech that Avigdor Lieberman said he would “sign with both hands”.

Israeli-American political analyst Mairav Zonszein says, “In the eyes of Palestinians, Muslims of the Middle East and probably everybody else in the world, the US President has now assumed the identity of the ultimate Israel lobbyist, of Mr Hasbara. The US stood up for the occupation and against Palestinian independence, and the result of this disgrace is that outside of Israel and America, the occupation is more unpopular and Palestinian independence more popular than ever.”

With the image of an honest broker in tatters, the US is finding it difficult  to even moderately influence Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey; its one time strongest allies in the region. An article by Turki bin Faisal, ex-head of Saudi Intelligence and ambassador to the US and UK, in the New York Times, gives an idea how miserable the sole superpower has become in the region. "The US must support the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN this month or risk losing the little credibility it has in the Arab world,” is how the open-ed essay starts. A couple of years ago this kind of language would have been impossible to use. Not any more.

Like any street bully, Netanyahu is only impressed by those who bully him right back and hard. By blinking to him, Obama probably did more damage to the
US reputation and credibility than any previous president.