QUOTE OF THE MONTH – “If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
January 28, 2010
SENSE AND NONSENSE – TIME TO CELEBRATE COURAGEOUS WOMEN
From the editor: As a civil rights worker in southwest Georgia in 1967 and 1968, I had the privilege and honor of meeting courageous women working to end apartheid in South Africa. One member of the alternative press whose first name was Jill invited me to go back to South Africa and write about what was happening there. I decided not to do so because I reasoned that such a move would establish a permanent break with my family and friends back in Texas. I had already been the object of a “blowback” reaction because of my work in civil rights in this country. Nevertheless, the experience of meeting and talking to very strong professional and courageous journalists who happened to be women has always had a profound impact upon me.
And two recent events in domestic politics have revived those memories of respect and admiration of courageous women. First, the leadership and determination of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi created the atmosphere in which President Obama found the political courage to successfully make a final push for health insurance reform. Second, the strong stance taken by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton against the very provocative action by Israel to build 1,600 houses in East Jerusalem signals a significant change in our diplomatic strategy to bring about a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A week before Scott Brown defeated Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts senate seat that had been occupied by Sen. Ted Kennedy, the White House belatedly realized that Coakley was in trouble. The Brown campaign raised $14 million in the last week – more than it could spend on local television ads across the state – highlighting Brown’s success in the race. However, the loss of the Massachusetts senate seat January 19 was a mixed blessing for Democrats. Overnight, it eliminated a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in the Senate. On the other hand, it meant the Democrats needed a new strategy for health insurance reform. Even before the polls closed that fateful night in January, President Obama summoned Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to the White House. In rapid fire order, Rahm Emmanuel suggested a scaled down version of health insurance reform referred to as a “skinny bill.” Harry Reid wanted the House to simply adopt the Senate version without changes.
In response, Speaker Pelosi said, “No way. The Senate bill is a non-starter. I can’t sell that to my members.” She later labeled Emmanuel’s push for a “skinny bill” as “Kiddie Care” because it was limited to young adults and families with children. In this instance, she filled the role of the 800 pound gorilla in the room who was suggesting an all-out final push for meaningful health insurance reform. Ms. Pelosi’s view prevailed. Ten days after the Jan. 19 late night meeting, President Obama took on the Republicans face-to-face on their turf in Baltimore. He deflected every false claim with facts. He followed that up with a bipartisan summit Feb. 25 in the Blair House across the street from the White House. It was pure theater, but it effectively disarmed the Republicans for the second time in less than a month.
But Nancy Pelosi was not satisfied. The next move by the Speaker was to demand a letter from Harry Reid guaranteeing that a majority of senators would support a reconciliation bill to fix the worst features of the Senate bill. Majority Leader Reid complied and on Thursday, March 25, the Senate voted 56 to 43 to pass the reconciliation bill. (H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Act of 2010).
Nancy Pelosi did not have to “parachute in” to pass health insurance reform. She walked through the gate with her feet on terra firma.
With this drama on the domestic front, events were moving toward a foreign relations crisis that would require a similar example of political courage from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She did not disappoint.
Vice President Biden traveled to Israel in early March to promote “indirect” peace talks between Israel and Palestine. On Tuesday, March 9, Mr. Biden was in Jerusalem to vow unyielding and unwavering support for Israel’s security. The choice of words was intended to set the proper diplomatic tone that would allow Special Envoy George Mitchell to shuttle between the Israeli government in Jerusalem and the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah in the West Bank. Earlier that week on Monday, Mar. 8, Mitchell had announced that Israel and the Palestinians agreed to four months of indirect or “proximity” peace talks, which theoretically would lead to direct face-to-face negotiations.
Just a few hours after Vice President Biden spoke, the Israeli Interior Minister, Eli Yishai, leader of the right-wing Shas Party, announced 1,600 new housing units would be built in East Jerusalem. While U.N. Resolutions 242 and 245 specifically consider East Jerusalem illegally occupied territory gained by Israel in the 1967 war, Israel considers East Jerusalem part of its capital city.
The political courage of Secretary Clinton became obvious if one followed the sequence of events that unfolded after the remarkably arrogant ‘in your face’ announcement by Israel.
Late Friday night, March 12, Secretary Clinton did not mince words in a 43-minute telephone conversation with Netanyahu. She made it clear Israel’s announcement jeopardized not only the “indirect” talks agreement, but the very security of the United States and Israel.
Apparently the substance of the phone call was strong and blunt enough to ruffle the collective feathers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). This powerful and very conservative lobbying arm of the Israeli government felt it necessary to issue its version of a “reprimand” to the Obama Administration. AIPAC urged Clinton and Obama to “make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel.”
Clinton was not intimidated. On Monday, March 22, she delivered a clear and straightforward message to AIPAC at their annual policy conference. She said that Israeli settlement activity in “occupied Arab lands” – East Jerusalem and the West Bank – undermines trust between two allies.
She told AIPAC that Israel’s settlement activity complicates the effort to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. She said a nuclear-armed Iran would touch off an arms race that is unacceptable to the United States, Israel, the region, and the international community.
Clinton said, “Our credibility in this process (the peace process) depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don’t agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally.”
Secretary Clinton deserves respect for being unequivocal and for speaking truth to a militant right wing Israeli coalition government.
(Editor’s Final Comment: With the passage of comprehensive health insurance reform made possible by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the stiff back displayed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the most recent diplomatic crisis with Israel, progressives can continue to successfully challenge a conservative political strategy based upon the premise that fear trumps reason every time. Fortunately for our country, fear does not trump courage.)
Maynard Chapman, Editor
The Compass
ISRAELI POLLS ON SETTLEMENTS REFUTE NETANYAHU
From the Christian Science Monitor: The Christian Science Monitor reported on March 19, 2010, that two polls published in Israel show that 41 to 46 percent of Israeli citizens favor an international call for a settlement freeze in East Jerusalem – “contrary to Netanyahu’s claim of a consensus on the issue.” The polls were conducted and published by Israeli daily newspapers. The daily “Yediot Ahronot” said that 46 percent of respondents support a construction freeze in East Jerusalem, and the daily “Haaretz” reported that 41 percent of respondents favor such a freeze.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF SETTLEMENTS
From the Christian Science Monitor: Following are excerpts from a Sept. 15, 2009 article by Christian Science Monitor staff writer Ilene R. Prusher:
“A settlement is any residential area built over the Green Line, the 1949 cease-fire line established between the newly established Jewish state and its Arab neighbors….
“After the 1967 war, Israeli governments – left and right – promoted settlements as a strategy to strengthen Israel’s defense….Proponents encouraged Israelis to go to the fledging communities as ‘pioneers.’
“Most eager were national-religious activists known as ‘Gush Emunim’ or Bloc of the Faithful. These settlers believed that Israel’s success in the 1967 war was a sign of messianic redemption, and today they view the settler movement as an irreversible return of the Jewish people to their biblical homeland.”
“From 30 in the early 1970s, West Bank settlements now number 121 (as of Sept. 2009), and the settler population there this year surpassed 300,000. An additional 17,000 Israelis live in the Golan Heights and 193,000 in East Jerusalem. (Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1980 and thus does not consider citizens there settlers, but most international and human rights organizations do.)”
“Palestinians and many international organizations say that on the basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the settlements are a serious violation of international law. Article 49 says that the occupying power ‘shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.’ Israel holds that the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights are territories acquired in a defensive war, and that Geneva conventions are not applicable to the dispute.”
(Editor’s Note: The CS Monitor also reported on Mar. 12, 2010, “In addition to the 1,600 units announced this week for ultra-Orthodox families in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, the Israeli government has plans for a total of 50,000 more housing units in east Jerusalem in the coming years, Haaretz reported this week.”)
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 465
From Resolution 465, Adopted March 1, 1980: “Affirming once more that the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 is applicable to the Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem” (emphasis added).
Copyright © 2010, The Compass Society
Comments