When US Administrations translate sanctity into reality, they find only Israel, especially in times of presidential or parliamentary elections, when sanctity turns into financial and media support for this or that candidate, and when the hundreds of millions of dollars become the main voter. Barack Obama has not departed from this golden rule since he reached the White House. When he was a candidate for the presidency, he visited Israel. He wore the Jewish skullcap (kippah) during his visit to the holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem. The visit was not mere protocol, nor merely the expression of remorse adopted by those who visit the Hebrew State, as he was in fact presenting his credentials, and inaugurating relations between the candidate who became president and the leaders of the Hebrew State.
Everyone remembers that Obama tried after that, in two famous speeches in Cairo and in Istanbul, to draw closer to the Arab World by praising the ethics of Islam, and promising a “fair” settlement of the Palestinian issue. Yet he failed throughout his time in office to take a single step forward in this direction. His submission to Jewish pressures became plain on several occasions, among them his abandonment of his own Special Envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, in 2009. There was also his stance on the Gaza war and the Goldstone Report, the stance taken by his administration rejecting Palestine’s membership in the UNESCO, etc…
“God bless Israel” wrote former President George Bush in the Yad Vashem guest book. This was translated in weapons, as well as in financial and political support. Such support appeared in the war on Iraq, and in dismantling the Arab state most capable of confronting Israel’s plans. It also appeared in the war on Lebanon and in attempts to destroy the Syrian-Iranian axis. Such attempts are ongoing under Obama through different means. Among such means is exploiting the Arab Spring to preserve existing relations between some regimes and Israel, to broaden such relations wherever possible, and to feed sectarian civil wars. This is what Obama meant when he spoke of the sanctity of the Hebrew State and of geostrategic changes during his fundraising tour, and before meeting with Netanyahu.
Obama said: “One of our long-term goals in that region is to make sure that the sacrosanct commitment that we make to Israel’s security is not only a matter of providing them the military capabilities they need, not only providing the sort of qualitative military edge that they need in a very tough neighborhood, (…) [but also] to try to bring about a peace in the region that can be lasting (…) and that is a challenge”.
There are numerous methods for analyzing the sacred and its effects on societies and on individuals, as well as on their political orientation – historical methods, anthropological methods, philosophical methods, etc… The one exception is the sacred for US Administrations, as there is no method for analyzing it, except for that of examining the extent to which it corresponds to Israel’s interests.
Obama will meet with Netanyahu, armed with his statement about the sanctity of Israel, and with many of his stances supporting its superiority over all the Arabs combined. The only point of disagreement between the two men is the extent to which an attack against Iran at this particular time would serve the interests of the Hebrew State. As for the rest, from settlement-building to the promise of establishing a state of Palestine, up to the necessity of preventing the Arab Spring from “straying” from its course, it is all agreed upon between he who believes in sanctity and he who represents it.
Front Page Features