As I look over Obama’s Nobel speech, which includes a lot of stentorian talk about a new commitment to peace-making and to international human rights standards, I notice no reference to Israel-Palestine directly, just this:
And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities — their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we’re moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
It strikes me as resigned. He has to know that the human-rights standards is laughable hypocrisy in light of Gaza/Goldstone, so he better avoid that whole subject. And as for all the speeches earlier this year in which Obama trumpeted our efforts in Israel and Palestine, gone by the boards, thanks to Netanyahu and the lobby and the neverending "peace process" that serves occupation. Maybe Obama’s being passive-aggressive about that– when he criticizes the hardening of Jewish identity.
Sixty years of this shit has become exhausting, the lies, the maudlin victimhood, the hard-done-by story, and the Spartan response to manufactured threats, all while sucking on our teat. We need to take the money away, and leave the Israelis to their own devices. $15 million/day out of taxpayer pockets to fund this ugly ongoing drama is obscene. Just think what $15 million/day could do for American taxpayers living in tents in CA and Iowa, especially as the harsh winter sets in, or to fund free health clinics like the ones Olbermann is promoting. The fact that we pay for Israel’s free health care while our own people go wanting is no longer acceptable.
Problem is most Americans don’t get the connection–thanks to our traitorous Fourth Estate. Even whore congress would see the light if the Fourth Estate would simply shine a light on the problem. But they won’t. Our free press is no longer free. Worse, most Americans hardly realize it; most especially as to what are foreign policy is actually doing at our present and long-term expense. What does it mean that rogue Beck and Palin are totally supportive of Israel right or wrong? That they both tow the hasbara line? This is most informative about who rules our nation.
Well of course! Obama got his gold star, and now he thinks his job is done.
I’m most put off by the de-politicization of the conflict implicit in Obama’s speech- “race, tribe, religion”. While there are of course elements of these things animating the Israel/Palestine conflict, the constant invocation of these hoary tropes-”a tragic and timeless tribal conflict between two peoples whose claim to the land they both desire, blah, blah, blah…” only obscures the essentially political nature of the problem.
Water, land, dispossession….how homely and ordinary when compared to fantasies of prehistoric and unending tribal hatred, surely as indelibly inscribed within the DNA of the opponents as having two lungs or an inclination to care for infants.
How could such irrational and irresistible forces ever yield to a political solution?
I have lots of disagreements with Norman Finkelstein, but he provides an invaluable service by constantly reminding us that there is nothing exotic or mysterious about understanding the Middle East; an examination of history and international law will do.
It is one of the great achievements of the Zionist narrative to have convinced most that the Israel/Palestine conflict is beyond the scope of normal human understanding or intervention.
ACORN was totally supported by Obama until recently when those videotapes came
out (the courageous videotapers now being punished); fact is Obama supports “spreading the wealth” here, as a heart-felt obsession, while as to supporting hasbara
aims, he is only supporting it because he knows the power of the Israel Lobby, not the least of which is both parties support Israel right or wrong–he fears the zionists, just as all congress does; he know close to half of Democratic dollars come from moneybags zionists–above all, he wants to have 8 years. No doubt he thinks that is the way he can make a real difference–he’s bought the same package the congressional Black members of congress have. Everybody must bow to zionist
moneybags and our MSM, also zionist in POV. We will all pay the price.
You know, 80% of the time I agree with you Citizen, but honestly? A) Why do you have to drag ACORN into this discussion, seriously? And B) You’re wrong about ACORN, but I’m not in any mood to argue about that. Keep shooting yourself in the foot, if you like.
Most notably, you’re wrong about Obama’s support about ACORN. They’ve been under assault for quite a while now and Obama hasn’t lifted a finger. Apparently, his administration is too busy defending John Yoo.
Well, Obama know when he’s been discovered:
link to article.nationalreview.com
You need to see how Obama is all for radical ideological socialist change but he always knows when
he is suddenly called to account; he backs off, at least for public consumption:
link to article.nationalreview.com
“the courageous videotapers now being punished”
You’re being sarcastic, right? Those clowns looked like they were going to a bad costume party. Their phoniness is abundantly clear to anyone who has had the misfortune of seeing the real thing in their own neighborhood. It’s clear to me that some of the “rotten” employees (themselves a small part of the organization) were humoring or clowning the filmers.
And of course it takes such great courage to attack a low-income social services organization and thereby become the toast of the right-wing media empire.
The policy to give everybody a home was best intentions exploited by Wall Street.
The same thing will happen with health “reform.”
I might agree with you, Ismail, about the “race, tribe, religion” portion if not for these lines at the end where he started by quoting King: “[...] I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”
Let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls.
I wasn’t watching him when he said these words, I was listening. Something immediately jumped out at me. It was a code that amplified his “race, tribe, religion” part. And the audience responded as well. He can’t take on the I/P issue AT ALL until health care is resolved and he’s done something about jobs. Look what the rabid Yisrael Beitenu crowd led by Danny Ayalon did to him during the campaign with those Muslim emails — that shit continued after his election — and the Obsession DVD, and the whack-job birther Orly Taitz (she was an AIPAC delegate) who even made accusations from Tel Aviv.
I heard layer upon layer under his speech, but I didn’t hear it until I stopped looking at him and just used my ears. I heard my hands are tied right now but I am fully aware of the problem.
And Palestine was conspicuous by its absence….And his part from But there has been no Third World War. to refugees amassed, children scarred. was clearly referencing the Middle East to me.
Sorry to follow the tangent above, but I very much agree with your point here, Ismail. It’s my impression that the majority of Americans who don’t have some strong emotional engagement with this issue view it as an “unsolvable” or “senseless” conflict. (And that is indeed an achievement of Zionist power in mythmaking.) Given the real conditions, it is amazing and tragic that so many people can’t see the issue with the same moral clarity with which they saw apartheid, at least in its last decade or so. (And hence the value in promoting the apartheid framework/analogy with respect to Palestine.)
I felt it was a ridiculous speech full of flowery words just to justify war and Afghanistan.
What made it ridiculous is not what he talked about – but that he talked about so much without bringing up anything substantial related to the Palestinians.
“In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.”
“A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.”
“I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause.”
“To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force.”
“First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.”
“It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.”
“And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development.”
“I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence.”
I have no idea how he could have said all of that, and how everyone could not be thinking of Palestine as one of the many places passing through their heads. Of course, I have my own biases which affect how I read it.
Either he is (most obviously) trying to refer to the Israeli Government and IDF oppression, but can’t (because he doesn’t have the political power to do so), or he is just playing blind and thinking that the Palestinians don’t matter. A few months ago I might have felt it was the former, and now, I am feeling that it is the latter
I share your premise that Obama is not blind to what our de facto foreign policy is regarding Israeli’s activities. Is he being generic to avoid speaking about that most obvious problem on his subject? Or is he just “playing blind?” I don’t think there is any difference. Does he think the Palestinians don’t matter? Nothing in his background suggests that he thinks Palestinians don’t matter. I conclude he is a subscriber to the Progressive creed that you have to take it one step at a time. Very practical. You get to be idealistic and pragmatic in your own view of yourself. OTH,
I think Chamberlain thought he was being so. The Zionists castigate Chamberlain
as an appeaser, and look where it led. I think the anti-Zionists now have that baton.
History does not repeat itself exactly the same way. But so it does; the USA is now
Chamberlain, appeasing Israel at the expense of our future, and the future of the world.
While Obama throws the towel in, Erdogan is marking his ground.
Erdogan warns Israel of “earthquake” in case of action against Iran
link to politicaltheatrics.net
I’m going to be moderately amused if Obama’s incompetence spells the end of NATO.
What is the concept of NATO these days? The Cold War is gone. Why would any rational person deem Israel a good candidate for joining NATO? What exactly is current NATO a defense against?
Not to be facetious or anything, but isn’t it obvious that NATO is a jobs program? much as our national laboratories are. NATO is an important safety valve for continuous employment – especially for the US and the UK, whose economies are teetering on the brink, and will collapse without military spending. Other countries in western europe do as little as they can or as much as they must to keep the gorillas humming along and not rock any boats. Notice how they all contribute the minimum they can get away with and not a penny, or a soldier more.
Even more obvious – the escalation in Afganistan and the continuous Iran war drum beating is merely a stimulus program in disguise. One that doesn’t have to clear the usual congressional hurdles.
Proof: the one segment of the economy that hasn’t done badly this recession, and has hardly lost jobs on the whole – in fact has even been adding some, is the aerospace, or more broadly the military-industrial complex. Money is being spent in that segment churning out toys–for-war-that-are-to-come like it was a giant running faucet. Good toys, bad toys, smart toys, idiotic toys but toys there must be. Then the training that goes with them. and the companies that feed on servicing them, then obsoleting them, writing mil spec manuals then floaunting them.
This segment – which includes the military itself – and all its bases and support personnel – even prefers that there be a bit of a recession going – or better still – one of those drawn out jobless recoveries. Then more will join the military for lack of other opportunities. Ultimately, with the 100′s of thousands military contractors, the wars can be privatized completely. A military bout will be presented as a career opportunity to bigger and better paying jobs as “security contractors”.
Israel has already discovered that conflict is a way of keeping money flowing and the population permanently cheering on the sidelines, drunk on false patriotism, spiritually mauled by fear , its elite intellectually compromised. The US is still learning how to turn it all into a football season that never ends. Soon they’ll learn how to do a play-off series now and then to placate the progressives – who forever hope that the end is in sight. Of course, once the winner is crowned, it’ll be time for a new series, or a new war maneuver somewhere.
That’s my latest idea – and i’m sticking to it – the BCS as a teaching tool for the modern warring state. Complete with games, plots, strategies and commentators dissecting every move. I know it’s a depressing thought – after all, not everyone even likes football. But the parallels are there….the more I think about it, the more analogies I find…oops, now I’m really worried – it’s almost too close for comfort.
Thought for the day (actually it’s good for any day): what does it all mean?
I think the establishment of the state of Israel, and those who have supported it for their agenda, is nothing but a repeat of world history when it comes to the Jews. This always leads to alternate victimization. The cycle continues unabated.
I think its a mistake to associate Israel with any sort of genuine strain of Judaism, actually.
But, Chaos, they claim it. And AIPAC says it’s so. American foreign policy is based on it. Our congress implementing USA foreign policy at the expense or our taxpayers and soldiers and their families, are the collateral.
Touche, unfortunately, Citizen.
I’m very interested in this idea that Zionism is not authentically Jewish – it would, if validated, free me from my sense that my lack of agreement with Zionism is driving me into a form of anti-Semitism. Zionism presumably reflects some pre-existent morality: what morality would that be? I ask that as a genuine not as a rhetorical question.
I don’t know what you mean by being concerned with being “not authentically Jewish”
as distinguished from being not authentically humanist; what is your pre-existent morality that you discriminate in the first place?
Then read this, MHughes976:
“Explaining the Long — and Largely Untold — History of Jewish Opposition to Zionism”
link to acjna.org
And another, MHughes:
link to mepc.org
I think the confusion is between Zionism as in the militaristic Ben Gurion brand of Zionism that ultimately triumphed in establishing a state and the humanistic Martin Buber brand of Zionism that due to historical circumstances (and the inevitability that he who has the guns usually controls which brand of the ideology will triumph, see Lenin, Trosky and Stalin and communism) that lost the battle for the direction of Zionism.
So the confusion is between the Zionism that exists purely on paper, versus Zionism as it exists in the real world? Huh, sounds an awful lot like Marx’s communism.
That’s a reasonable sort of distinction. One can also distinguish between differing brands of American patriotism–there’s the militaristic flagwaving variety who frequently opposes the very sorts of people who actually fight for human rights in this country.
Something Witty probably can’t grasp because I criticize him so much–I actually admire people like Judah Magnes and Martin Buber and the gentler sort of Zionism and think their version of Zionism deserved support. (And having read Tom Segev, I wouldn’t put all the blame on the Zionists, though I do put the bulk of the blame on them. It’s too bad that there wasn’t an alliance between the Arabs and people like Judah Magnes.)
The Martin Buber brand of Zionism is more in line with the Obama speech. Buber and Einstein both although they originally sought a cultural Zionism (which the Arab world fought tooth and nail, in the racialist prohibitions against Jewish immigration in the 30′s in particular), once the status got to racialist to the death war in Israel/Palestine, shifted reluctantly to defense and acceptance of relevance of the state.
They, like me, sought for a humane Zionism. A big, now THE big, tipping/turning point was the early 50′s knesset decisions to prohibit return even to contest land title in court. The prohibition was rational if only very temporary, but became permanent.
But, there is a DIFFERENCE between anti-Zionism that seeks in the short and long term to remove Israel from the map, and the “anti-Zionism” that opposes policies and practices.
To not pay attention to that distinction, to make common cause without distinction is a moral failing, a suppression, a racism.
What morality could Zionism possibly reflect? A moral system is by definition universal, applying to all moral entities or rational beings equally. Any system of values in which one group is more equal than others is by definition immoral.
Apparently you confuse universal morality/ethics with less than universal ones; isn n’t
this the whole problem?
Why would you suppose I am confused? The essence of a moral system is univeralizability.
Yes, you are right; sorry; interesting to review the key assumptions of various ideologies and religions under the litmus test of universality.
Obama is realistic about the prospects of substantive peace while Netanyahu is in power.
The PA is doing the right thing in institution building which creates an undeniable Palestinian entity, when a more liberal Israeli government is elected.
The ONLY hope for a Palestinian state, and for any substantive peace, is to motivate the Israeli electorate to regard Palestinians humanely and the Palestinian collectivity humanely and respectfully.
That will not happen in the slightest by the formula “Zionism is racism”. That is a dead end, a denial. That is the single way to keep likud in power.
It is very reasonable to criticize policies, behaviors, law, and how that contrasts with democratic ideals.
This publicity plan by Witty is exactly opposite of what caused change in the USA.
Kind of hard to criticize how Israelis have actually fallen short of democratic ideals without getting close to that ugly old word “racism”. You can argue that Zionism doesn’t have to be racist and that’s fine–there were people like Judah Magnes. But the way it actually worked out it’s been pretty racist. That doesn’t mean everything about Israeli history is a disgrace–it means that its history is tainted by racism just as American history is tainted by racism.
I had the impression in the 90′s (only reading about this in America) that a larger fraction of Israeli society was starting to grow up and face facts about its history, but that was probably an illusion. Many Israeli “liberals” are probably like many American “liberals”–liberal right up to the point where it might be personally inconvenient. And in some cases, it doesn’t even have to be a real inconvenience. In some cases , just truthful acknowledgement of the facts is an inconvenience.
In the 90′s, the majority of Israelis applauded the Oslo accords, and the subsequent aid and incremental transfer of power to the PA.
The breaker was terror, and over an extended period, and very intentionally targeted directly at children, civilians. NO PRETENSE of collateral damage, but the target, the only target.
The distrust is now deep.
The settlement movement uses that distrust for cover. It is very similar logic to the relationship between those that desire there to be no Israel, and the democratic solidarity movement.
And yet Israel openly violated the accords and continued to colonize the West Bank. Actions speak louder than words, Witty. The settlment activity never stopped.
That was one-sided Richard and you know it. Chaos is right–there was an increase in settlements all through the 90′s and that was a betrayal of the peace process just as much as the targeting of civilians by Palestinian terror groups. And the Palestinians weren’t the only ones to practice violence against civilians, as you well know. (Though it was in Lebanon, the bombing of Qana in the mid-90′s was a good example of Israeli humanitarianism at work).
I think, though, your reaction is illustrative of what is wrong with much of the so-called Israeli left and its supporters here. There’s this tendency to tell a story that exonerates the supposedly well-intentioned Israeli public, who somehow couldn’t do anything about the settlement activity and who lost faith in the Palestinians when they kill civilians, something the Israelis have done throughout their history.
There were motivations for resistance, but the choice of the manner of resistance and the degree of popular support for that manner IMPRINTED in Israeli consciousness that Arabs/Palestinians are untrustable.
They are largely willing to respond positively to changes in action and behavior if they note that change as based on humanism (human concern for the other). Such is the depth of hope of Israeli and American Jewish consciousness.
They are not willing to respond positively to insincerity in the form of shifting tactic merely.
That degree of dismissal of the other is what gives the settlement movement cover. You can call it “Israel’s actions”, but it was caused by the terror, willing, intentional, and definitely not easily forgotten.
The two dance together in that they both desire to deter peace in favor of political agendas. They seek to deter moderate peace-making constructed of concern for the others’ needs.
The ever-expanding facts on the ground always have taken the lead. The dance floor gets smaller and smaller.
Let me make this simple for you.
Zionism is racism.
Mainstream Zionism, ie Zionism in the contemporary meaning of the word (pro- Jewish State), is racism.
People will object to that based on some kind of non-generalizability of the word “Zionism”, maybe bring up Magnes/Buber Zionism as an example. But the word has to have a meaning, or else no one could ever use it affirmatively. (From what I understand, Magnes/Buber Zionism is admirable. But it is a relic, or at best an incompatible offshoot of Zionism. As a concept you have to refer to it specifically and separately.) These objections are disingenuous (ie the people objecting probably embrace “Zionism” on the basis of their racist support for a Jewish State), and take the critical focus away from those who are truly blame-worthy in the Israel-Palestine saga.
That said, I’m not sure Zionism=racism is a slogan that serves our cause well at this point, at least in the states. The discourse here is set up to make that assessment sound extreme or hateful. It plays into the hands of these disingenuous deniers. People here tend not to understand what Zionism is in itself, let alone what its practical application has meant. It would be kind of like making a slogan with the word socialism – the actual meaning of the word is so divorced from what people associate it with (despotism, purges, etc).
I prefer that those that regard “Zionism is racism” as true state it, so the liberal majority can KNOW who bears malevolent political intent from benevolent.
Those blue underlined words in my post? Those were links. Click on them, maybe, and then tell me who’s really malevolent.
Thanks for comments!
If I may put this in a slightly fussy way – the price of saying
1. All authentically Zionist ideas (aZi) are authentically Jewish ideas
2. All aZi are opposed to humanism – ie are inhumane
is
3. Some authentically Jewish ideas are opposed to humanism – ie are inhumane
- where 3. seems, particularly if we add (as we have reason to add) that the ideas in question are fiercely prevalent among those who call themselves Jewish, to amount to a form of anti-Semitism. I don’t want to describe myself as an anti-Semite, but I’d be much happier if I could deny proposition 1.
Zionism is a morality in the sense of a set of ideas about what should be done and all moralities grow in some way of out previous ones. Judaism may or may not a parent of Z but was certainly not a single parent – romantic nationalism being another one.
There is an anti-Z strand within the Jewish world, I fully agree – I haven’t yet read the text you cite, MRW, but I have read Jacqueline Rose’s ‘Question of Zion’ which explains the existence and thought of that strand. (JR is of course accused of being ‘self-hating’.) But do we have sufficient reason to say that this is the authentic strand or form of Jewish thought and that the Z strand is an inauthentic parody or perversion?
I think we normally do, potsherd, recognise something as ‘a morality’ (ideas about what should be done), when we condemn it as ‘immoral’ (not what really should be done). I share your view that Z is completely without justification, though it’s only recently that I have come to face that fact. The implications alarm me. They seem to push me outside the stream of normal political discourse, causing my moderate self-image to crack and crumble.
I think the problem lies in the concept “authentically Jewish ideas.” What does that mean? What makes an idea “authentically Jewish?”
This is an idea which is both authentically Jewish, as supposedly a command of the Lord, and clearly immoral – in fact, an order to commit genocide. A lot of the more fanatical Zionists refer to the Palestinians as “Amalek”, which in their minds justifies acts of genocide against them.
Is this moral?
This is a very old question in philosophy. Socrates asked: Do the gods love the holy because it is holy, or is it holy because the gods love it?
Is an act of genocide holy because it is supposed to have been a command of the Lord? Or is it an immoral act? According to Kant, we are supposed to use the principles of morality to judge a religion, to judge a god as worthy or unworthy.
To me, it is clear. The god who orders genocide is unworthy. And if the commands of that god are to be regarded as “authentically Jewish,” then some authentically Jewish ideas are immoral.
MRW-
“I heard layer upon layer under his speech, but I didn’t hear it until I stopped looking at him and just used my ears. I heard my hands are tied right now but I am fully aware of the problem.”
How nice for you that you have such a direct connection to the recesses of Obama’s heart. I guess your ears function like George Bush’s eyes-you know, the ones that could look into Putin’s eyes and see his soul.
I may be just a plodding sort of guy, but I prefer to go by the man’s actions, so far almost universally foul. And I have heard the mantra of “well, his heart’s in the right place and he really, really wants to do the right thing, but he has to get elected first/ has to pass his domestic program first/has to establish credibility” etc etc ad nauseam. The turnaround never happens. It was the self-delusion of the battered spouse when “progressives” absorbed every insult and ignominy of the Clinton administration without a murmur, and it’s the same thing with the current Empty Suit who occupies the White House.
Funny, conservatives never fall for this shit from their guys. Why is that?
Ismail,
Taibbi: link to rollingstone.com
Ismail,
No, actually I have a direct connection only into my own heart, and under no circumstances was I second-guessing him. I heard a diplomatically coded speech. It was laden with diplo-speak on so many levels. We dont hear about refugees in Iraq or Afghanistan, only Gaza, ditto children. When was the last time you heard anyone care about the scarred children of Iraq or Afghanistan? “Wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations.” There is no war within Afghanistan if the words of Matthew Hoh are to be believed; the rural tribes want all foreigners out of their valleys, period. The only real war within a nation is I/P. Iraq doesn’t count: we lit that firecracker over Wolfowitz and Feith’s stupid idea of who the ‘enemies’ were; in other words, we created them because Wolfowitz said the dumb American people would buy it.
Who cares about the “peace” process?
More US complicity in starving the people of Gaza:
link to huffingtonpost.com
Damn, how is Obama any different than bush2 when it comes to the I-P situation? The only thing I see is Obama’s Cairo Speech, but no teeth have grown from it.
I hope he’s not investing too much in re-election.
One hopes the European media picks up this story. I’m surprised it even made it on Huffington Post at all.
Done in secret.
I think this is going to be the next focus of resistance. It can’t be allowed to go on in the dark.