It is safe now? Are we finally allowed to stop making excuses for Barack Obama now? Add this to the soon-to-be growing collection of disappointments.
I believe he said, Jerusalem must “remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided” [CNN]. This is a speech given symbolically the day after clinching the democratic presidential nomiation. This is a speech with content straying only marginally from last year’s AIPAC speech (see: The Secret to Obama’s Lack of Passion at AIPAC?). The buzz this time, however, is that it seemed like he probably meant every word — or at least, looked like he meant every word. A salivating JTA is reporting, he wore an Israel-America flag pin on his lapel.
Barack Obama sold the Palestinians out (see: Dissident Voice’s Why I won’t vote for Barack Obama), and every person of color living under white supremacy out the day he thought he had a real shot of becoming president of the United States of America [see: well, anything on Black Agenda Report, for starters].
Throughout the campaign Obama has been talking as if race has not only ceased to exist in this country but that the white community shares the same concerns, all of which transcend racism. Now he talks as if not only is there nothing wrong with Zionism — he’s talking as if Zionism must be defended. That man is gonna be president.
Obama in 08.
Related posts:
- The Secret to Obama’s Lack of Passion at AIPAC?
- Obama’s Groveling to AIPAC Insufficient
- Haifa University Hinders Free Speech
- FBI Investigates AIPAC For Congressional Power Meddling
- Standing up to AIPAC
Obama has been talking as if race has ceased to exist in this country? What a laughable, baseless, and erroneous accusation from a privileged, ill-informed blogger.
Our favorite psuedo-intellectual has returned. She chastises others for lacking in original thought, yet links to other articles to make points on her behalf.
Qui Qui in 08.
Posted by amer | June 4, 2008, 1:13 pmYou know, I’ve done some reflecting on the comments I’ve been making on this web site. I’ve decided that I need to apologize for always sounding so bitter and ignorant. I have no excuses other than that I’ve been in love Barack Obama and have believed, as many of us have, that he can solve all of our problems. I promise to work on myself — first, by admitting that engaging in politics doesn’t mean voting once every four years. Politics is something we have to take part in every day.
Posted by Amer | June 4, 2008, 1:26 pmYes, and I’m going to sit back and think more about what I’ve done and said in the past. It makes me really happy that I’ve been a pseudo-anonymous commenter on here so no one can ever prove that I’ve made any of those admittedly ignorant comments.
Posted by Amer | June 4, 2008, 1:27 pmWhat? I don’t understand….
Posted by Amer | June 4, 2008, 1:30 pmOkay, whoever that was on comment #2 and #3, that wasn’t me. Stop pretending to be me!!!
Posted by Amer | June 4, 2008, 1:30 pmShut up *sshole. I didn’t write any of that stuff.
Posted by Amer | June 4, 2008, 1:31 pm“Amer”, I’m flattered that you enjoy pretending to comment under my name so that you can avoid having to make any intelligent arguments.
Perhaps you can run on Qui Qui’s ticket.
Posted by The Real Amer | June 4, 2008, 1:32 pmYOU’RE the one pretending to be me.
Posted by The really real Amer | June 4, 2008, 1:34 pm“Amer” what’s your real name?
Posted by Anonymous | June 4, 2008, 1:34 pmWhat are you talking about? Stop pretending to be me.
Posted by the real real Amer | June 4, 2008, 1:34 pmNo, you ALL are pretending to be me. I’m the realest.
Posted by the realest of all the amers | June 4, 2008, 1:35 pmYou posers need to step.
Posted by the most real of the realest of amers | June 4, 2008, 1:36 pmThat’s right, step.
Posted by the one and only Amer | June 4, 2008, 1:37 pmI’m secretly in love with Qui Qui. That’s why I have to call her out for being a privileged ‘radical’ with subpar intelligence. If she returns my love, I will gladly stop pointing out how hollow her arguments are.
Posted by Will the real Amer please stand up | June 4, 2008, 1:39 pmI think that Amer is Programmer Buydatti. He makes the same stupid kinds of remarks from Kabobfest Watch. Railing on someone for linking to sources? Are you for real, Amer?! lmao
Posted by Anonymous | June 4, 2008, 1:40 pmPerhaps all you folks are just young, maybe you are all “Waiting on the World to Change” like John Mayer, OR you’re all a bunch of idiots with nothing better to do than play around while REAL people, the Palestinians continue to suffer an existence that if in Palestine, means no freedom of movement, constant threat, or if you are an uprooted Palestinian, living a more normal life wherever you are, longing for home and LONGING for the recognition that you are EVERY BIT as entitled to your dignity and return home as ANYONE on this planet, if not MORE so due to the fact that it has been denied for so long.
This subject is NOT funny. Israel would cease to exist as it is now if our president and Congress 1) stood up to AIPAC or 2) admitted they are utter racists if they back Zionism so at least the truth would be out in the open.
Zionism is a crime against humanity posing as a gift to humanity. It is the worst of hypocrites, it is an abomination.
So keep it up all you game players over here. If someone took the time to ever walk in a Palestinian’s shoes or even for a moment suffered what they have gone through, you would every one of you except for those who actually get serious be UTTERLY ashamed of yourselves.
Oh, and as for Obama, you can guess my feelings on that one.
Posted by Robin | June 4, 2008, 3:00 pm“Israel would cease to exist as it is now if our president and Congress 1) stood up to AIPAC or 2) admitted they are utter racists if they back Zionism so at least the truth would be out in the open.”
wrong on both counts, madaam.
Posted by Anonymous | June 4, 2008, 4:05 pmThen I suggest anonymous that AIPAC and minions stop all lobbying activity, Israel eschew all aid, both military and outright gifts, stop all smearing of candidates who dare to speak out against Israel, stop all the telling of lies which have permeated the American psyche, then see just how long that weasel country lasts.
Posted by Robin | June 4, 2008, 5:15 pmAIPAC should stop lobbying? Why, because you disagree with them? Should the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee also cease it’s lobbying efforts?
Pro-Israel groups naturally speak out against candidates who aren’t supportive of Israel. Likewise, pro-Arab lobby groups do the same.
What are you mad at? That Israel receives aid at all, from anyone?
Why should Israel refuse military aid when there are some nations that wouldn’t hesitate to destroy it given the chance? Or, perhaps, that is what you wouldn’t mind seeing.
You seem like a bitter old woman so I’d recommend relaxing a bit. Israel has been around for 60 years and will continue to be around for another 60. I suggest you come to grips with that.
Posted by Anonymous | June 4, 2008, 5:32 pmLastly, should the US stop military aid to Egypt as well? I can’t tell what stand at the root of your rage. That the United States gives military aid to countries at all, or the fact that you disagree with the beneficiary’s.
Posted by Anonymous | June 4, 2008, 5:35 pmDo I want US military aid going to a country which oppresses a people and steals their land? HELL NO! Furthermore, Israel and the United States do NOT share the same values whatsoever, to say they do is a complete lie. Discrimination based on religion is against the law here anonymous. Egypt? There again the US is holding up a regime which oppresses its’ people, in fact just about every country the US gives foreign aid to is in the same category. But that isn’t the subject matter at hand. How the heck is Obama going to ever get close to getting a two-state solution (which by the way, I am not in favor of-I favor the one-state solution with full rights for all citizens with the right of return which is granted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) by calling for an undivided Jerusalem. Bush himself just signed again the waiver on the Jerusalem Embassy Act because he KNOWS this is a non-starter. Israel sought to divide by it’s very existence, it forced itself on a land which was inhabited for hundreds and hundreds of years by a people to uproot them to give a home to people who claim a land from 2000 years ago. Give me a freaking break, if it wasn’t such a serious matter it would be laughable to even fathom such a criminal thought.
Posted by Robin | June 4, 2008, 6:14 pmQui Qui makes an important point about the vaporous foundations of the nominal Left’s infatuation with the entirely ordinary Obama, more specifically the isomorphism of his Middle East policies with those of crackers like McCain or Bush.
In response, we have a dozen or so fratboy prank posts whose authors think their vapid sophomorism must be as hilarious to K-Fest’s readers as it is to the limp wankers who wrote it.
This tendency towards infantile self-referential in- jokes of dubious quality is what’s always bothered me about this site, whose mission statement promises dealing with “…serious topics in intelligent and funny ways.” I’m still waiting, for the funny part, anyway.
To return to Qui Qui’s point, in today’s AIPAC speech, Obama pledged support for maintaining unconditional aid to Israel, an “undivided” Jerusalem as its capital (by the way, today the Knesset passed a bill which declares Jerusalem the capital not just of Israel, but of diaspora Jews as well, presumably giving tailors in Bensonhurst more say in its future than a farmer outside Ramallah would have), Israel maintaining its exclusivist Jewish character in perpetuity (i.e., no right of return, no true secular democracy), continued exclusion of Hamas from negotiations (an opinion far to the right of that held by a large percentage of the Israeli public), etc. etc.
Add to this the laundry list of corporate-friendly positions Obama has endorsed and wonder anew about the jejune political intuitions of the American Left, suckered by Clinton in 92 and 96, by Gore in 2000, by Kerry in 2004 and now preparing to present its collective posterior to Obama for yet another reaming.
Posted by Ismail | June 4, 2008, 6:22 pmNot much debate at this year’s AIPAC conference. When I tried it got me tossed!
Clayton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPJsx5dG0tc
Posted by Clayton | June 5, 2008, 3:26 amClayton,
You really think lobbying conferences are supposed to be “an arena for debate”?
And you think these are the first guys who don’t comment on pending legal cases?
I know you don’t. You are smarter than that. You might want to try not to become the very type of propagandist you claim the other side is littered with.
Not a very impressive package.
Even al Jazeera deserves better than that.
Posted by Anonymous | June 5, 2008, 6:56 amI love that B.O. is black because I love that our country, by supporting his candidacy, is also attempting to move beyond the racial schism that divides so much of our nation. Yes, his race undoubtedly has played a helpful role in getting him to where he is, but that’s a good thing. Because in Barack, I think we see a symbol: a half-black, half-white, African-American (literally), who overcame a difficult home life to become the standard bearer for his political party and the face of his nation. In that, he represents what American on her good days is known for throughout the world – opportunity. From a symbolic point of view, isn’t that the kind of face we want representing America to ourselves and to the rest of the world?
Posted by Anonymous | June 5, 2008, 4:21 pmPlease explain how a corporatist enabler of Palestinian disenfranchisement should be more acceptable because he is less prone to sunburn than the other corporatist enablers of Palestinian disenfranchisement.
Posted by Ismail | June 5, 2008, 6:14 pmI love that B.O. is black because I love that our country, by supporting his candidacy, is also attempting to move beyond the racial schism that divides so much of our nation. Yes, his race undoubtedly has played a helpful role in getting him to where he is, but that’s a good thing. Because in Barack, I think we see a symbol: a half-black, half-white, African-American (literally), who overcame a difficult home life to become the standard bearer for his political party and the face of his nation. In that, he represents what American on her good days is known for throughout the world – opportunity. From a symbolic point of view, isn’t that the kind of face we want representing America to ourselves and to the rest of the world?
Posted by Anonymous | June 5, 2008, 10:01 pm“”Please explain how a corporatist enabler of Palestinian disenfranchisement should be more acceptable because he is less prone to sunburn than the other corporatist enablers of Palestinian disenfranchisement.”"
For starters, please explain why Palestine should be a major issue for anyone in selecting a presidential candidate.
Oh, and please explain why “corporatist” is, in your mind, automatically a pejorative.
Posted by Joe | June 6, 2008, 3:57 amJoe-
Hmmm…one softball, and one question far too complex to address in a blog comment. OK, here goes:
The softball: why Palestine should be a major issue? Easy. Our underwriting Israel’s aggression to the tune of untold billions and infinite political support is an ethical, political and financial nightmare. It contributes to the disdain with which we are rightly perceived by much of the world. It makes us less secure. It is a howling, balls-out infamy of the very first order.
Yeah, I don’t like corporatist politicians. To educate yourself, have a look at Pollin’s Contours of Descent, Hartmann’s Unequal Protection, Bakan’s The Corporation, Nace’s Gangs of America and any of Ralph Nader’s position papers. Just don’t expect me to drag you kicking and screaming into the light in the space of a paragraph or two on a blog.
Posted by Ismail | June 6, 2008, 5:44 amIt’s funny how people will vehemently disagree on everything here, to the point of offensive and personal insults, yet people still live under the fantasy that a 1 state solution is the answer.
Posted by Anonymous | June 6, 2008, 7:09 amIsmail and Robin need to listen to that Eagle’s song “Get over it!” Seriously, whine much?
“From a symbolic point of view, isn’t that the kind of face we want representing America to ourselves and to the rest of the world?”
No, I want a president who cares about my interests more than what the world thinks of us. Fuck Obama in 08!
Posted by Son of Flying Pig | June 6, 2008, 2:22 pm“”
The softball: why Palestine should be a major issue? Easy. Our underwriting Israel’s aggression to the tune of untold billions and infinite political support is an ethical, political and financial nightmare. It contributes to the disdain with which we are rightly perceived by much of the world. It makes us less secure. It is a howling, balls-out infamy of the very first order.”"
This is, essentially, horseshit.
First, it’s not ‘untold billions’. We have a good sense of the overall number, and the amount of aid we provide to Israel is a tiny portion of our budget.
Ethically speaking, the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians is far more ethically defensible than how many of the other governments we ally with treat people – from Uzbekistan to Saudi Arabia to Turkey to Pakistan.
It’s not a political nightmare, since its political effect is negligible.
Makes us less secure? It’s not one of the main drivers of global terrorism.
Plain and simple, it’s a third-rate issue.
Posted by Joe | June 6, 2008, 9:42 pm“”
Yeah, I don’t like corporatist politicians. To educate yourself, have a look at Pollin’s Contours of Descent, Hartmann’s Unequal Protection, Bakan’s The Corporation, Nace’s Gangs of America and any of Ralph Nader’s position papers. Just don’t expect me to drag you kicking and screaming into the light in the space of a paragraph or two on a blog.”"
I like how not automatically agreeing with you means you assume I’m ‘unenlightened’. I’ve spent plenty of time studying the issue — the real question is what your definition of ‘corporatist’ is. I’m guessing you’re using the term about like the modern definition of fascism, where it amounts to “any behavior you don’t particularly like”. For example, in addition to the question of how you’d define corporatism, which specific policies of Barack Obama would you consider to be overly corporatist?
Posted by Joe | June 7, 2008, 5:25 pm