Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Lower tuition… yay! Israel and Iran… meh… [State of the Students]

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

Everybody and their mother is trying to predict what’s going to happen in the 2012 race to the White House. At New Voices, we’re wondering what college students will vote for. Well, tonight may have given us a hint.

Most college students use their Tuesday night to catch up on homework or party before class-free Wednesday.

At American University in Washington, D.C., its student newspaper (which, by the way, I also work for) The Eagle proclaims, “It’s time for the most anticipated televised event of the year at AU. Nope, not the Super Bowl. It’s the State of the Union!”

AU College Democrats gathered the campus political junkies in The Tavern, AU’s bar-turned-hamburger-and-burrito-joint. As early as half and hour before showtime, students milled about, bought themselves a turkey cheese steak and settled in for President Barack Obama’s sixth statement to a joint session of Congress.

AU’s known to be a pretty liberal campus, so it was not surprising that Obama got a raucous round of applause when he began to give his State of the Union.

But what’s even more interesting is what students didn’t seem to care about. Obama’s celebration of global teamwork to stop Iranian nuclear weaponry, and the subsequent growth of Iranian sanctions, received barely any response from the gathered students. Obama’s mention of support for Israel received only a polite golf clap.

But students were apathetic about more than just the United States’s relationship with Israel. Approval for a clean energy economy and reaction to Obama’s gratitude to American soldiers was tepid at best.

But there were certainly highlights for students watching the president’s address happening only six miles away. Students naturally chuckled (by chuckled, I mean literally laughed out loud) at House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (Republican of Virginia and surprise Jew) visible conniption at Obama’s call for a payroll taxes and First Lady Michelle Obama’s embarrassed reaction to Barack’s joke gone sour.

But when it came to education costs, students came just short of jumping out of their seats in exultation. When Obama said the cost of college was too high, one student, with sarcasm dripping, loudly asked, “Really?”

Everybody else in the room laughed in agreement.

Obama continued to please AU Eagles when he called for more work-study financial aid, demanded lower student loan interest rates and, most importantly, scolded universities for raising tuition too much.

“Let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down,” Obama said.

Students responded in kind with surprised enthusiasm for the Commander in Chief’s hardline against rising tuition, an issue students at AU are all too familiar with.

But students’ passion shone through where they cared. Applause and cheers abounded for:

  • The end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,
  • Decreasing our debt and “nation building at home,”
  • Continuing American exceptionalism,
  • The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
  • Prevention of another BP oil spill,
  • More bipartisanship in Congress,
  • Equal pay for women,
  • The DREAM ACT and immigration reform
  • And most of all, the death of Osama Bin Laden.

I Don’t Think Netanyahu is Mad at Obama

Friday, May 20th, 2011

There is nothing new under the sun.

Nothing Barack Obama said is dramatic. But Benjamin Netanyahu is making it seem so. “He doesn’t get it,” said one Netanyahu aide:

Referring to the US president’s Mideast policy speech, a Netanyahu associate said: “He (Obama) didn’t deliver the goods…Obama apparently does not understand the reality in the Mideast.”

It is perplexing. Barack Obama confirmed for the first time in his presidency the following:
1) A Demilitarized Palestinian State
2) Pressure on the Palestinian Authority not to seek UN Recognition
3) Support for Israel’s anti-Hamas stance

Gideon Levy, an extremely leftist (to say the least) commentator for HaAretz, was even more “pessimistic.” He said Obama had thrown a Palestinian state to the wolves and that it would be an impossibility to achieve. To be honest though, he usually takes the role of spoiler happily. His editorials tend to be, well, pessimistic.

I think the entire battle between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu is theater. By endorsing a state “based on the 1967 borders” with adjustments, he just decided to use the Palestinian wording and not the Israeli one. Reading Arab headlines shows what might be the Palestinian understanding of those words. Netanyahu acting as angry as he is projects an illusion Obama was tough on the Israeli position. I do not think Obama totally undercut the Palestinian Authority’s plan to go to the UN, but he did validate long-standing Israeli policy. Read the op-ed Obama the Zionist from this morning to see what I mean.

The 1967 borders are already the basis of negotiations and the assumptions of the boundaries of a Palestinian state. Palestinians will inevitably be disappointed by how flexible Obama’s words are and that he did not actually mean they would get the Green Line as their border nor the entire Old City of Jerusalem.

A Quick Read of Arab Reactions to Obama’s Speech: in English and Arabic

Thursday, May 19th, 2011

Scanning the headlines from Barack Obama’s speech about the Middle East, it is compelling the way different newspapers and online sources decided to interpret his words. You don’t need to read the Arabic to see Arab papers are putting words in Barack Obama’s mouth.

Thus far, there is no wide division in the analysis. Barack Obama’s words were crisp, no matter how flexible the policy he expressed with them was; that is, they are hard to misinterpret. At the same time, he left the United States’ options open. He did not demand much, much less promise anything. But he said Palestine should be demilitarized.

He also said this, “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Israeli governments usually avoid mentioning the 1967 borders, even more the idea of a “swap.” No Prime Minister wants to 1) commit himself to equally trading land with the Palestinians that’d be politically difficult to provide, and 2) promising that 1967 would serve as a reference point for anything, and 3) create an expectation that Jerusalem would be divided in a certain way (or the Golan Heights for that matter).

Nonetheless, Arab headlines are cherry-picking. The headlines and the images they are posting speak to what Arab writers either want to hear or are trying to impose into Barack Obama’s words. Check out the following English and Arabic samplings. The Arabic headlines are translated next to the originals:

The Arab headlines tend to project Obama’s words as direct and above interpretation. The articles, in English and Arabic, do more justice to the content of the speech. But the theme is relatively consistent: Arabs like the terminology “1967 Borders.” That implies “Jerusalem” for Arab politicos. It is only when you get into the articles that the fact cannot be hidden Barack Obama was much more ambiguous: “based on the 1967 Borders.”

Al-Jazeera (ENGLISH)Obama seeks Palestine state on 1967 borders

Al-Jazeera (ARABIC) ِأُوبَامَا يَشْرَحُ الْرُّؤِيَّةً الْأَمِيرَكِيَّةَ لِلْتَغْيِيرِ بِالْمِنْطَقَة (‘Obama Explains the American Outlook toward the Change in the Region’)
As of 1:56AM Israel time, the Arabic version of the site seems to be digesting all the topics with equal weight.

The Daily Star (Lebanon – ENGLISH): Obama tells Israel: Go back to 1967 borders
“Obama’s urging that a Palestinian state be based on 1967 borders, those that existed before the Six-Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, marked a significant shift in U.S. policy and seemed certain to anger Israel.”

But in addition to these things, the Daily Star emphasized the pressure on the Palestinian Authority from the Obama speech to 1) “provide a credible answer” to the question of how they plan to pursue peace with Israel while Hamas refuses to recognize its rights and 2) rejected the PA’s attempt for recognition at the United Nations.

Arab News (Saudi Arabia – ENGLISH): Palestine should have ’67 border: Obama

لاقدس – (Al-Quds [Palestinian]): “ِاُوبَامَا يَدْعُو لِقِيَامِ دَوْلَةٍ فَلَسْطِينِيَّةٍ ضَمِنَ حُدُودِ 1967 وَ”مَنْزُوعَةِ الْسَّلَاح” (‘Obama Calls for Establishment of Palestinian State ~in relation to/in the context of~ the 1967 Borders and “Demilitarized”‘)
The order of wording in the headline is awkward translated directly into English. It would be better said “Obama Calls for Establishment of Demilitarized Palestinian State in relation to the 1967 Borders.” But the paper chose to emphasize the fact he said “demilitarized.” The paper is mincing words and looking for a quarrel. The Arabic headline does not seem to feel any need to embellish on the meaning of Obama’s words. They are more accurate to use the preposition “,” which can be interpreted variously as “in relation to,” “in the context of,” “within,” and of course “on the basis of.”

الْمَصْرِي الْيَوْم – (The Daily Egyptian): نَتَنْيَاهُو يَرُدُّ عَلَى أُوبَامَا: إِقَامَةٌ دَوْلَةٍ فلسطينيةٍ لَا يُمْكِنُ أَنْ تَأْتِي عَلَى حِسَابِ إِسْرَائِيل (‘Netanyahu Responds to Obama: Establishment of Palestinian State won’t come at the Expense of Israel’)
The Egyptian Paper actually had this had a lower rung of the current-events latter. Egypt has its own issues to cover. But the image they chose to publish is much more telling:

Egypt is notorious for its anti-Semitic newspaper articles and political cartoons. Ultra-Orthodox Jews are frequently drawn to represent Israelis. The unflattering grimaces on the front faces in the pic, plus the interpretively-smug expression on Netanyahu’s demonstrate how the paper is trying to frame his persona. Now compare that to the pictures of Obama.

Arab reactions in English are positive: they are making Obama’s words look sharp toward Israel. In Arabic, things are less accommodating. That type of mix is not going to be enough to advance the peace process.

Syria police massacre pro-democracy protesters

Friday, April 22nd, 2011

I have no idea why, but the Obama administration has been very warm toward the Syrian regime, calling the dictator/son of a dictator Bashar al-Assad a “reformer”. This leads to the obvious question, what does that make Pol Pot? While Syrian police have been killing protesters en masse, the US has been silent. In fact, the US has pledged not to intervene. Funny how quick they were to cut Mubarak loose. You know, an actual ally.

As the last few days have made clear, Assad is no reformer. Like Qadaffi, he is completely willing to murder his own people. Anything less than full support from the US for protesters is morally disgraceful, not to mention strategically incoherent. If the US is going to call for the removal of Mubarak but not Assad, it might as well send an official letter to its allies letting them know that it will not support them. Hyperbole, yes, but I’m very frustrated with a president who opposes Jewish presence in Jerusalem but does nothing to stop Palestinian violence, who cuts loose America’s strongest ally in the Arab world under the guise of human rights but does nothing while Assad kills his own people, who  frames it as a victory when he cuts medicare. I say this as an East Coast liberal.

Speaking as a Zionist, I have no great love for Syria. Antisemitism runs rampant there, they funnel weapons to Hezbollah, they troll the comments at Haaretz. But when I see footage like this, I have to sympathize with the Syrian people in their struggle for democracy, without western support, against a ruthless police state. Death counts for today alone are as high as 88

Imagine a middle east which wasn’t Jews versus Arabs, Kurds versus Turks, Greek Cypriots versus Turks, Armenians versus Turks, where ethnic conflicts and colonial wounds didn’t define geopolitics. That, my friend, would be good for the Jews.

The J Street You Don’t Hear About

Wednesday, April 6th, 2011

A multiple-choice question for our readers:

Last week, a  Jewish advocacy group sent an email to its supporters titled “Tell Obama: Go to Jerusalem.” Which group was it?

a. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
b. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)
c. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
d. J Street

As is obvious from the title of this post,  the answer is d. In the email, J Street declares:

It is time for a Presidential visit to Israel. We urge the President to go to Jerusalem in the coming months with a new diplomatic initiative that leads to a two-state solution and averts a September UN vote that will cause even deeper international isolation for Israel without solving the conflict. [...]

During the visit, the President should assure the Israeli people of his personal – and the American people’s – commitment to their security and connect with their hopes and fears, even as he also speaks to the hopes and dreams of the Palestinian people for a state of their own.

To be clear: J Street is publicly asking Obama to reach out to Israel by visiting it for the first time. J Street would like Obama to do this in order to avert Israeli diplomatic isolation, help achieve regional peace for Israel and affirm America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Oh, and J Street has also once again come out in favor of a two-state solution–which a majority of Israelis support and which is the stated policy of the Netanyahu administration in Jerusalem.

So in case the Jewish community needs another reminder of what is obvious, here it is: J Street is a pro-Israel organization. Moreover, J Street is–in fact–a centrist organization. It is centrist, in the Jewish community, to support two states. It is centrist to defend Israel’s security while working toward peace. It is centrist to oppose settlements. A couple of columnists–including JJ Goldberg and Jesse Singal–have made this point, and it bears repeating as long as other mainstream Jewish groups treat J Street like the fringe organization it is not.

During the past couple of years, several people have told me that they doubt J Street’s pro-Israel credentials because all they hear coming out of the group are statements critical of Israel. I often respond that they should go to J Street’s website and read the group’s policy statements, which are indeed pro-Israel. I offer the press release I have quoted here as further evidence of that point. Now you know. Now you’ve heard: J Street  stands with Israel.

It’s true that I have been quite critical of J Street in the past. And as long as I see things that are worth criticizing, that will continue. But I want to note that my most virulent criticisms have been about J Street’s image rather than its substance. I have always believed that the organization is pro-Israel. Now you should, too.

How I Lost Faith in Barack Obama

Tuesday, December 21st, 2010

I never thought Obama was the messiah.

Sure, the posters moved me. So did his words, his slogans, that music video and all the rest of the propaganda that came with his movement. But despite my enthusiasm, I did not expect Barack to fix all of our problems. I, like many, knew that there would be pitfalls and compromises with those who opposed his policies. And I agreed with most of those policies, but that’s not why I supported him in the first place. After all, Clinton ran on a similar platform.

I supported Obama — believed in him — because I thought that we had finally found an unapologetic and ambitious advocate for our vision. For years I had seen the Republicans coalesce around what I saw as misguided stances while the Democrats lacked the spine to oppose those stances or push through an agenda of their own. Obama seemed different. For once, here was someone who looked like he could stand up for his ideals, who could face his opposition and stay true to his vision for the country. And during his first eighteen months in office, for the most part, Obama was that person — passing healthcare reform, financial reform and the stimulus in the face of the Tea Party and looming electoral defeat in the midterms.

But now it seems as if he has abandoned those ideals. Paul Krugman, in a brilliant column, laments how–by extending Bush’s tax cuts–Obama has compromised with the Republicans not just on policy but on his vision for the country. He could have stopped the tax cuts with his huge Democratic congressional majority, ending a financial policy that is not only ineffective but also unjust. He could have  fought to the finish, opposing the Republicans even as the tax cuts were extended.

And that’s why I’ve lost faith in President Obama. I’m by no means an expert on economic policy and I favor bipartisanship and compromise, but I want a president who has faith in his ideals and who’s not afraid to say what’s right and what’s wrong. I want a president who will declare, even as he faces defeat, that we will hurt the United States if we benefit the rich during an economic recovery. I want a president who will inspire his followers and his nation by presenting, defending and advocating a vision that is best for the country, though it may not be politically expedient. But Obama, it seems, has chosen expedience over what is right — a bad sign as we approach an era of Republican majority.

Those of us who support progressive policy will not get anywhere unless we demonstrate the conviction that our vision is right for the country. Obama should have demonstrated that conviction, but he has not, and now we’re stuck with an unprincipled president, a contrarian Congress and a failed tax policy.

The Naïveté of ‘Generation O’

Monday, November 1st, 2010

“Young voters say they feel abandoned” is the title of Sunday’s New York Times article about the disillusionment that followed the Obama campaign.  We couldn’t get enough of Obama back in 2008.  He was new.  He was grassroots.  He was hip and cool, and  he won 66 percent of the 18- to 29-year-old-vote because he promised to enact universal health care and  end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know people who took off that fall semester to work on the Obama campaign. We were all  emotionally invested in this newcomer who seemed to represent what we wanted for America.  His rallies had the allure and atmosphere of rock concerts. On election night at Vassar, people stormed the quad with cigars and cheap champagne, shouting “Yes we can!” and  singing the patriotic American hymns they had abandoned during the Bush years.

The reality, however, is that this infatuation only breeds angry disappointment. I never gave in to the Cult of Obama, so once I started to realize that Obama couldn’t keep his promises, I was disappointed but not infuriated.  My age group, according to the NYT article, feels differently.

The president, for example, appeared on “The Daily Show” last week for the first time since taking office, and his visit did not inspire the rabid fandom of fall 2008. The show could have been a platform for reinvigorating young voters, but instead Obama used it to make excuses for why he couldn’t achieve his agenda thus far. He could only do so much because of the recession, health care reform was groundbreaking, you can’t change Washington in 18 months, etc. At the end of the show he put in a plug for people to  vote in the elections, but he didn’t have fire.  The audience cheered, but it also booed.  When Stewart gave the president ample opportunity to hoist himself onto his soapbox, it didn’t happen.

Now that we’ve seen what Obama can’t do and the promises he hasn’t lived up to, Democrats and liberals have once again become their skeptical selves.  Political apathy has crept over the Democrats, and I’m no different. I’m disheartened and disenchanted with the American political process.

In less than 48 hours the House will become Republican, and we’ll see what happens with the Senate.  Obama’s two-year window is officially over, and us college students aren’t hawking the Obama tee-shirts, bumper stickers, and pins like we used to.  We were young, we were naïve.

But we also shouldn’t be surprised that Obama didn’t fulfill our wildest hopes and dreams.  Our choice should not be between the infatuation of 2008 and the apathy of 2010. While President Obama’s first eighteen months may have been a big let-down for some of us, the next two years don’t have to be.  We can choose to be realists, or we can choose to believe that our government can work at the speed of light and with the efficiency of a supercomputer.  The decision is yours.

No Surprise

Monday, October 4th, 2010

This is a guest post by Moriel Rothman, a senior at Middlebury College and the president of J Street U.

The Israeli government did not renew the ten-month settlement freeze that ended on Sunday, so settlement construction restarted. No surprise. Netanyahu would have displayed courage and conviction by renewing the freeze, given his hawkish history and (mostly) ultra-nationalist coalition. Indeed, his coalition could have crumbled, which would not necessarily have been a bad thing. It’s hard to foresee a peace deal coming from a government that includes Yisrael Beiteinu’s Avigdor Lieberman, who believes that peace talks should be based on a “population swap” and not on land-for-peace. Another significant coalition member is Shas, whose spiritual leader Ovadia Yosef recently asked God to “send a plague to” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (and the Palestinian people). Netanyahu has hardly stood up to these members of the Knesset, and instead has acquiesced to their demands by allowing settlement construction to resume. No surprise.

Abbas had threatened to quit the current US-guided peace talks if Netanyahu let the freeze expire. And then Netanyahu let the freeze expire, and Abbas didn’t quit the peace talks. No surprise. Abbas’ freeze-or-I’m-out threat was understandable given Palestinian public skepticism concerning the talks. Nonetheless, Abbas knows that these peace talks are the Palestinians’ best chance at establishing a viable, independent state in the near future. Israel has failed thus far to present Abbas with any meaningful confidence-building gestures, but the US wants these talks to succeed, and that also matters.

Hamas, in an effort to derail the talks, has been stepping up its horrible acts of violence against Israelis, and the “price tag” settlers have also increased their terrorism. No surprise. Obama’s cabinet has been struggling to keep talks alive, both behind the scenes and onstage. As the November elections loom closer: no surprise. And smug pundits from across the board have continued to assert that a just peace is impossible: No surprise.

Would an increase of Palestinian violence against Israelis be surprising? Not really. Would continued violation of Palestinian rights by the Israeli army be surprising? Definitely not. Would continued suffering, hatred and mistrust be surprising in this region of broken dreams and shattered hearts? Tragically, no. But as Martin Buber wrote, there is nothing worse than resigning ourselves to the perception that there’s no chance for resolution. As Buber writes, “in every situation it is possible to do something, some correct undertaking, something which determines the face of the next hour.”

And indeed there is something we can do. As Americans who wish to see this conflict reach a peaceful resolution, we can lend our support through letters and op-eds, phone calls and donations, activism and engagement. We need to help the forces within Israel, Palestine and our own country that are working to bring about what would actually be surprising: Peace. It may sound delusional and naive, but I refuse to give up. I choose to believe in the power of the unexpected, I choose to believe in humanity and I choose to believe in hope.

The Reading List: Sunday Brunch–Israel and Palestine, talking again?

Sunday, August 22nd, 2010

And they’re off.

For the first time since the 2007 Annapolis Conference, the US is restarting direct talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. This comes after numerous strains in the US-Israel relationship (Settlement Freeze, East Jerusalem, Flotilla, etc.), months of “proximity talks” wherein the US met separately with the Izzies and Pallies to convince them to sit down together, Netanyahu and Abbas talking past each other, and 18 years during which the two sides have begun talking, stopped talking, begun talking again and again, stopped talking again and again, fought a lot, blew a lot of people up, built a lot of settlements, armed and activated a lot of terrorists, and generally have not been nice to each other at all.

In that little run-on sentence I didn’t even mention Hamas, Iran, Syria, Hizbollah, the Disengagement, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Kadima, Sheikh Jarrah, various wars that have taken place during the past decade and much, much more. As a leftist idealist, I want to hope. Nevertheless, I’m pessimistic. The current Israeli coalition–I think–is paying mere lip service to peace while being unwilling and unable to make any real compromises or concessions, due to its less pragmatic elements. Even if it could do those things, the settler movement in the West Bank is radicalized and will create hell for any soldiers brave enough to dismantle settlements. Beyond that, the Palestinians aren’t unified at all, Abbas has been historically ineffective and Hamas’s raison d’etre is the destruction of Israel–not a good foundation for a peace treaty.

Oh, yeah, and Israel may bomb Iran within the year, and Hizbollah is stocking up on weapons in Lebanon, and the US is entangled in two wars elsewhere in the Middle East. On top of that, it doesn’t seem like these talks have specific goals or parameters from the outset, which is troubling.

And that’s just on the governmental level. I can’t speak for Palestinians, but I know that Israelis my age are also pessimistic and very wary of Palestinian intentions following the hellish events of the past decade. I’m sure I could say the same for Palestinian youth.

All of that being said, I’m happy to see that there are direct talks and I will be praying for them to succeed. I want peace, however far away it may seem. Anyway, here’s what some other people have to say about this:

This is the official breaking news from Reuters, focusing on how Egypt and Jordan will also join the talks, as well as another general overview article from the New York Times. [Reuters] [NYT]

An optimistic statement from Netanyahu. [JPost]

In the wake of the direct talks announcement, Hamas cancels reconciliation talks with Fatah, which may be the only way to actually reach a true peace. [Ha'aretz]

The director of Americans for Peace Now says the only real solution is two states. [The Forward]

Al Jazeera expresses some (surprisingly balanced) skepticism. [Al Jazeera]

Here are the “Clinton Parameters,” which many expect to be the outline of the final settlement. [Jewish Peace Lobby]

And Syria is more pessimistic than me. [YNet]

Let’s hope these talks work! If you have any other interesting links to share, post them here! Happy Sunday.

J Street U: A plea from a mabat chitzoni

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

This post is by Moriel Rothman and originally appeared on J Street U‘s site.

There exists in Israel a powerful fear. It’s a legitimate fear, the traumatic societal residue of exploded buses and falling rockets, hitting Israel against the backdrop of the Iranian threat. But this fear has grown and spread, manipulated by leaders whose pursuit of security has made Israel far more insecure. Israel’s most powerful threat is not a boat full of angry activists or a community of hateful bloggers. Israel’s most powerful threat is not Syria or Hamas or Hizbullah or even Iran. Israel’s most powerful threat–and Defense Minister Ehud Barak agrees–comes from the lack of progress toward a two-state solution and peace.

An Israeli friend told me recently that my mabat chitzoni, or outside perspective as an American, prevented me from understanding the conflict. Perhaps he was right: maybe I don’t understand why Israel blocks certain foods and toys from going into Gaza because of my mabat chitzoni. Maybe that’s why I don’t get how Israel’s policy of forbidding exports from Gaza helps prevent imports into Gaza. Maybe it’s my mabat chitzoni that sees the blockade failing to accomplish any of its possible strategic goals: facilitating the release of Gilad Shalit, encouraging the people of Gaza to rise up and overthrow Hamas or stopping rockets from coming into Gaza. So maybe I wouldn’t have been disturbed by the events on the Mavi Marmara–carried out in order to defend a strategically backwards and morally bankrupt blockade–had it not been for my mabat chitzoni.

Where are the statements of remorse for the lives lost?  Where are the statements of concern for the children of Gaza? Not for the leaders of Hamas, and perhaps not for those who voted for Hamas, but for the children. Have we so hardened ourselves that we’re unable to feel pain for any but our own? How much will the other side have to suffer for the blockade to end?

So perhaps it’s my mabat chitzoni that fails to see any way for Israel to remain a Jewish, democratic homeland unless there is a two-state solution and a negotiated peace agreement with the Palestinians. Perhaps my mabat chitzoni can’t imagine the international community continuing to support Israel’s occupation and blockade. Perhaps my mabat chitzoni enables me to see the Palestinians as human beings who deserve food, water, safety, freedom of movement and independence. Just like us.

Israel is mired in a spiral of violence, fear, hubris and confusion. Some argue that it is not appropriate for those approaching the issue from a mabat chitzoni to criticize, challenge and meddle. And if Israel were only hurting itself, this argument might be compelling. But Israel is not only hurting itself, Israel is hurting the Palestinians -who also continue to hurt themselves and the Israelis in a myriad of ways. Moreover, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hurts the potential for international stability and peace. It is not only appropriate, but obligatory, for those of us with a mabat chitzoni to criticize some of Israel’s actions. The American mabat chitzoni, coupled with the US’s international power and its strong alliance with Israel, is crucial to securing Israel’s future. Obama must live up to the promises he made one year ago in Cairo, and bring peace to the Middle East. As much as it pains me to criticize my brothers, it would pain me more to leave them alone.

Moriel Rothman was born in Jerusalem, Israel. He is the new President of the National Student Board of J Street U, and is a rising senior at Middlebury College, in Vermont.