I had too hopeful a reading of Obama's speech yesterday. Dana Milbank (who wrote a horrifying piece a year or two back calling Walt and Mearsheimer Nazis for their views on the Israel lobby) gets it right here, exposing the depths of Obama's pander with comic verve. I wonder if Milbank is getting ready to do a Jeffrey Goldberg, and denounce the lobby. Welcome aboard.
Most disturbing is Obama's call for a Jerusalem unified under Israel. Egad. Saeb Erekat from speaking on Al-Jazeera: "This is the worst thing to happen to us since 1967 … he has given
ammunition to extremists across the region".
I continue to believe that Obama is on the progressive side of this issue deep down. And that his angry heart, so evident in Dreams From My Father, now becoming more and more distant under that cold perfect exterior, makes an identification with Palestinians. Again I point to his words yesterday, that Jews Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman were "willing to die" alongside James Chaney in Mississippi in '64. When do we hear that phrase "willing to die" now– we hear it about suicide bombers, or nonviolent resisters like Rachel Corrie. Unconsciously or not, those images people his meaning… (And no, myself I am not likening suicide bombers to Schwerner and Goodman. As for Rachel Corrie, she is exactly like Schwerner and Goodman and Chaney.)
Related posts:
{ 19 comments }
Bernard Avishai makes an important point about “Jerusalem undivided” having a different ‘code’ meaning to that of “Jerusalem united” — a meaning to do with not putting a wall through it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEeMCg2PAto
"And that his angry heart, so evident in Dreams From My Father, now becoming more and more distant under that cold perfect exterior…"
This happens to every politician that reaches the national level. They run with every intention of doing-the-right-thing, they get elected and enter Washington with passion, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, and then the piranhas (the corrupt Washington Establishment) goes to work on them, tells them to "compromise" and be a "team player" for the "good of the party" and the "good of the country." So they compromise here, cut a corner there, then everywhere, and they don't even really know it’s happened, but sooner rather than later, they themselves have become corrupt, and part of the problem.
Obama has only been in Washington for a few years, so he still has the veneer of authenticity, but mark my words, Obama's speech in front of the AIPAC piranhas yesterday was just the beginning…
“Undivided Jerusalem”…it didn’t take the "new messiah” very long to throw the Palestinians under the bus on behalf of the moneyed Jews, did it?
Voters overwhelmingly chose the Democrats in 2006 because they thought they were voting for peace. What voters actually received was bait and switch, courtesy of the Israeli Lobby which COMPLETELY controls both sides of the aisle, and continued war in Iraq. In fact, as if American adventurism in Iraq isn't sufficient sacrifice for Israel, we now hear nothing but saber rattling toward Iran from both of the so called mainstream parties.
It's time for those on the left to acknowledge that Ron Paul & Ralph Nader, having been eschewed by the so called mainstream press, are the only true peace candidates, and that all the options put forward by the Democrats and Republicans are in fact designed to impose WWIII upon an unwilling American public which has been kept ignorant courtesy of the Zionist occupied press. Obama and McCain will go back in forth with feigned debate, but the reality is they both serve Israel and not America with their outlandish assertions as to the threat from Iran and the uncompromising mandate that Jerusalem remain 100% Israeli controlled.
This the painful compromise that anyone who wants to participate in American politics at the national level must make. Remember Tom Hayden showed up in Israel during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon and cheered the Israelis forward. He has apologized for that action and in the course of the apology gave a very explicit description for how it happened. He was told that if he wanted to win the Santa Monica assembly seat then he would have to take a pro Israel position. Simple as that. And it is as true today as it was then.
All we can do is hope that an Obama presidency would do better than Clinton or Bush when dealing with the IP issue. But of course there is nothing he can say today to give us encouragement in that hope.
Phil:
Yes there have been some positive events over the past: Walt and Mearsheimer, Jimmy Carter, Aaron David Miller's book, an increasingly aware American population, the J-Street lobby, the awareness of AIPAC espionage. But your problem is you are too much of an optimist.
The fact is that AIPAC has never been more powerful than it is right now. One good thing about this is that it may never again be as powerful as it is now either– AIPAC may be at the peak of its power, and so we can expect at least some downward slide from here.
But I counsel you with the words of Edward Said, whom I met in Berkeley at a talk he was giving there. He said the trick is to be a pesoptimist about the Palestinian situation. He said that one must first comprehend and internalize the reality of the dire situation that the Palestinians face. This was the pessimistic part. Then one had a duty to shed that pessimism, and convince oneself that through action, individual action, collective action, things can change.
I actually think in the long run things will change– it may take another 10 years for Americans to widely understand how bad their leaders have f–ed up, but they will, and journos like you will help. But putting your hopes on Obama is simply misplaced. He is not contemplating Palestinian suffering right now– he is not contemplating, period. He is getting with a bunch of advisers in order to figure out strategically what he should say so he wins.
Again, I admire to some extent your optimism, because my feelings tend in the opposite direction. In this case, I am sure I am right– pinning your hopes on Obama for real change is bound to be a disappointment.
"I continue to believe that Obama is on the progressive side of this issue deep down."
Despite all the evidence that he is just a PR spokesperson for the same American foreign and domestic policies that Clinton, bush1 and bush2 supported…
Sorry for being so cynical here, Mr. Weiss :/
Note to Obama: prove me wrong!
That Dana Milbank article nails it. I will use it in my blog.
If the Milbank article and "Bill Kristol At AIPAC: Obama And McCain "Don't Actually Differ" On Iran" from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/bill-kristol-at-aipac-oba_n_104799.html
does not show you what kind of a smarmy, Bill Clinton like politician Obama is, nothing will.
"Most disturbing is Obama's call for a Jerusalem unified under Israel."
Well, the "liberal alternative" Israel lobby, J Street, also employs the "undivided Jerusalem" code on its website. So Obama may be under the impression that such a plank is what passes for a liberal, open-minded stance toward Israel these days.
But actually, zionism and liberalism are mutually incompatible. One can no more be a liberal zionist than one could have been a philanthropic Nazi, though doubtless some members of that party considered themselves highly refined examplars of humanitarianism, at least as it concerned their own tribe.
As long as AIPAC's unwritten "antizionism = antisemitism" dogma prevails, we will all have to go on parsing silly, elaborate, ambiguous code phrases — the sort of verbal thicket which emerges when the emperor has no clothes, but we all agree to go on discussing his fine fashion sense.
Zionism not only has no clothes; it's a rotting corpse that should have been consigned to the same untouchable ideological category as eugenics.
Obama moved today to cut off one arm of AIPAC's influence. It can't donate to the DNC.
"Most disturbing is Obama's call for a Jerusalem unified under Israel."
But if Obama's end goal is a one-state solution, then this would follow. If Obama's end goal is a true democratic Israel where all citizens can live in relative peace, then this would follow.
The two-state solution is not going to work.
If Avishai is correct in his explanation of this as 'code' for not having a wall in Jerusalem, i.e., for insisting that it be treated as something more like an 'open city', with mutually interpenetrating rights if I can put it that way, then, yes, it is a 'liberal' solution. That is what the city was, until the wall started going up. This is quite different from the legal question of where the border is supposed to run, either now or in the future. It has a lot more to do with truce agreements and the cessation of bombings and street violence. It may be unrealistic to imagine that these can ever stop, absent a wall, but this type of possibly unrealistic optimism is what one would expect of US 'liberals'.
here is a post about it, which I shall try to comment on:
http://southjerusalem.com/2008/06/04/owning-jerusalem-identity-and-borders-in-the-holy-city/
But Phil, you don't really know what Obama is thinking. You think you know, based on a book he wrote some time ago. But you don't really know.
We shall have to wait and see what he does, if he wins the Presidency. In the meantime, you have to go by his words and deeds, not by your hopes and dreams. I caution you again on the risks of projecting your wishes onto Barack Obama. I am excited about him, too, but I realize he's a politician and a human being. He is no saint and he is clearly willing to throw the whole Arab world under the bus to get elected. In this he is not much better than Hilary.
Many Arab-Americans voted for Bush II in 2000 on the hopes that in his heart he wanted justice for Arabs. After all, he is so close to the Saudis…. and we know how that has turned out for us.
And do you remember how hopeful we all felt about Bill Clinton in 1992? With Al Gore, the environmentalist vice president?
These guys are not saints or saviors.
My letter to Obama, for what it's worth. Probably nothing, but what the hell. Even though I am skeptical about such gestures, it is worth all of us writing him and telling him what we think.
Dear Senator Obama:
I am writing to you in regard to the speech you recently gave at the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee meeting.
I want you to know that I voted for you in the New Jersey primary, precisely because I thought you might be a real option to the status-quo approach to the Middle East. I thought you might be that rare politician, like Dennis Kucinich or Paul Wellstone, that would show some understanding of what 40 years of occupation have done to the Palestinian people. I thought perhaps finally that the American people might have a leader that would place US vital national interests ahead of Israeli interests, that finally we might get a president who would follow George Washington's advice that its leaders avoid entangling alliances.
You know in your heart of hearts, as I know, that Israel does not share American values. American values are that the government must treat all of its citizens equally, regardless of their ethnicity or religion. In contrast to this basic American value, based on the first and most important amendment to the constitution, Israel has established a theocracy in which one ethno-religious identity is privileged over others. Additionally, the Israeli goverment has occupied another people, in a brutal and inhumane fashion, for over 40 years.
I don't have a great deal of money to donate to your campaign, but what money I do have, I was planning to donate to your campaign for the general election. It seems that at this crucial time in our country's history, all that really matters to politicians is monetary donations. I can find no other explanation for why someone of African descent, who supposedly knows deeply what it has meant in this country's history to be a second-class citizen, could sell out the Palestinians, who face an even worse fate at the hands of their Israeli occupiers.
Your statement to AIPAC about Jerusalem was especially abhorent, since Jerusalem has been a multi-ethnic city for at least two thousand years. It is a city that is dear to Christians like me and also to Muslims as well. Were it to become the "undivided capital of Israel," presumably what is left of its native inhabitants would become non-citizens in their own home and might be expelled, like so many before them.
Shame on you for what you have said. You have sold out your principles to the highest bidder, and caved before people who represent the worst instincts of humankind.
I will make my humble donation to the campaign of another candidate that truly represents the American ideals of liberty, freedom from state religion, and equality before the law.
" actually think in the long run things will change– it may take another 10 years for Americans to widely understand how bad their leaders have f–ed up…"
I don't think that the United States has ten years to waste. Of course something will be here in ten tears, but another ten years of immigration and corruption will leave the nation unrecognizable.
It's obvious that the elites in this nation are hostile to traditional Americans, so what is there to talk about? What can be done politically?
As for Obama, the first time he really let his guard down (or the first time that it was widely reported) he slurred a large portion of the population in terms that would be unacceptable had the words come from a different person, and directed at a different group. How good is it that that is acceptable?
Readers of this blog should find the following of interest….
"I have to say I was wrong – dead wrong – about Obama. In my eagerness to find a bright spot in a rapidly darkening world, I grasped on to his alluring rhetoric and his at-times trenchant critique of the Bush foreign policy, like a sinking man holding on to a life-jacket. But looking for hope in all the wrong places doesn't create opportunities for peace – it only prolongs our illusions. We must face the prospect of a much more terrible conflict than we have ever known, and look it squarely in the face, without flinching or looking for false messiahs. I know many of you are disappointed, and some of you are now exclaiming "I told you so!" All that we can do now is hope, and pray, that our country – and the Iranian people – will somehow survive the coming catastrophe"
Jusin Raimondo
Behind The Headlines
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12944
I agree with the comment by Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat on Obama's remark's re Jerusalem: “This is the worst thing to happen to us since 1967…He has given ammunition to extremists across the region.”
I believe if Obama becomes president he will be worse for Palestine than McCain. Why? Because Obama has to lean over backwards to assure the Zionist part of the electorate that he is sufficiently pro-Israel. McCain has nothing to prove. Everybody knows he is.
In his AIPAC speech, Obama has already made a sharp right turn re Iran. Look for more of the same in the coming months. I share the fears of the Palestinians.
Why is everyone so shocked that Obama may not be our savior? He just seems like a typical politician with sleazy backers, and the willingness to say whatever to whomever.
I just don't see the great intelligence that many others claim of him. He gives a decent speech compared to the likes of Bush, Kerry or Gore, and he seems more at ease with his words because he knows that he will not be held accountable for what he says. And the one time that he was held accountable for something that he said, he looked quite shaken in his next round of sound bites.
At this point, he owes the Israel-first crowd, and the 98% of the black community that largely voted because of his skin color. I wonder how this will all work out? It looks like we'll get more war, and more race-based politics. I just find it unbelievable that people are shocked.
….extremely dissapointing.
Comments on this entry are closed.