It’s no real surprise to anyone with even the smallest insight into the biased U.S.-Israel relationship to witness the Obama administration with all its hype, its drama and its flowery rhetoric (or Haki Fadi, Arabic for ‘Empty Talk,’ depending on who you ask), cave in to the pressure and drop its demands for Israel to halt its illegal settlement activity. For a second there, I thought that this administration would actually get tough with the wanna-be “Jewish State,” considering the phrase “Change We Can Believe In” was the President’s main campaign slogan during the election. It seems that those of us who voted for Obama the Revolutionary ended up getting Obama the Wimp!
When I voted for Mr. Obama, I really believed he was going to bring a much desired breath of fresh air to American Foreign Policy in the Middle East. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Palestine were all on the agenda and when I went to the polls, I knew that I needed to choose the biggest lemon I could squeeze in terms of political change. So I went with Mr. Obama. I knew that “change” would come to all but one of the aforementioned areas of interest; Palestine would be the one area to which the “Messiah of Change” would be unable to bring any real change. If you know the situation on the ground, you know that nothing ever changes in Palestine; everything stays the same and if there are changes, they aren’t for the better.
In May however, Mr. Obama did something totally unexpected: he told the Israelis that he wanted a full and complete halt to all settlement activity in the Occupied Territories. It was a decade too late, but it was nice to hear the man have the courage to use a different tone with regards to the whole conflict. Those demands were followed by a trip to Cairo where he used the words “Palestinian,” “suffering,” “humiliation” and “occupation” in the same speech. It was the first time a U.S. president had actually put the Palestinians and the Israelis on equal footing as far as independence and sovereignty were concerned and I honestly believed something good would come of it, but needed to see the “change” take place on the ground.
September soon brought me the “change” I was hoping for as the tri-lateral meeting between the Americans, the Israelis and the Palestinians took place in New York City. Herein lied the “change” I was seeking: a radiant Obama and an energetic Netanyahu, sitting side by side, rubbing elbows and smiling bright for the entire world to see, with an excluded and frustrated Abbas left in the dark, far from the beaming individuals sitting next to him. I knew then that it was only a matter of time before the then-rocky U.S.-Israeli relationship would return to normal and enjoy its six-star comfort level of unwavering political support, unlimited U.S. tax-payer funds and complete immunity from even the slightest word of criticism.
Let’s talk about change, shall we? Mr. Obama calls for a settlement freeze; Mr. Netanyahu says ‘No!’ So Mr. Obama tell Mr. Abbas: ‘Well, there’s nothing I can do!’ They all meet, they have a good time, they talk and nothing happens except Mrs. Clinton coming out one month later and saying that the U.S. will drop its demands on Israel to halt its settlements. She also has the audacity to say that “what the prime minister has offered is unprecedented in the context of prior negotiations.” Let’s be honest for a moment. Mr. Obama, the world’s most powerful man and he can’t do anything to stop Israel from halting its settlement endeavors?
Give me a break!
And Mr. Netanyahu making “unprecedented” offers? The man hasn’t done a thing and we’re rewarding him? What have we come to when we’re the financial backers of a country and our clients refuse to do what we tell them to do? Two options exists: 1) The patrons aren’t really serious about what they want from their clients or 2) the clients have become rogue to the wishes of their patrons. Sounds to me like the U.S. has a disobedient, spoiled brat who doesn’t give a rat’s ass about what you ask him to do. And Mr. Obama expects the two sides to cooperate? The man can’t even get the Israelis to stop their illegal operations. How the hell is the man going to get them to ever really come to the table without him yielding to any (and probably all) Israeli demands and preconditions on his administration and on the Palestinian leadership?
Let’s face it: no matter what Mr. Obama does, no matter what the 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate wants to do, the world’s most powerful man is rendered utterly weak and paralyzed thanks to a more powerful political body in Washington, whose political kryptonite has been 100% successful in defending Israel from any potential threats, even if such “threats” are come from the American President himself.
It was Rush Limbaugh, who on the second day of new administration, was quoted as saying: “I want [President Obama] to fail!” Well, Mr. Limbaugh, I guess you’re wish has come true: Mr. Obama has received a double jab with a one-two combination, has been knocked out in the 1st round and has failed to stop the gears of the Zionist machine from deciding his country’s course of action in Palestine, which from the looks of it, is effectively no course of action, or at least, no effective change to any previous course of action. Now that Palestine is out of the way, let’s hope the President can be a better success with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Guantanamo.
Is it any surprise? No, not really. I hoped for something better with the Obama administration. In the end however, I was handed the same shit, different administration: America remains a slave to her Zionist masters and bends solely to their interests.
So I ask: When will we see change?
Maybe when there’s a President who actually leads and decides for himself what’s best for his country; now that’s “Change I Can Believe In!”
Related posts:
- A Glimmer of Hope or Something Temporary?
- Zionism Must be Defended (or, Barack Obama’s AIPAC speech)
- Abunimah: Obama and the Prospects for Peace
- David Gregory Is a Shameless Zionist
- Gaza: The Hole in Obama’s Outreach
"Maybe when there’s a President who actually leads and decides for himself what’s best for his country; now that’s “Change I Can Believe In!”"
Except therein lies the problem, because no one sleazy enough to get elected president would ever possibly see supporting human rights, equality, and thus Palestine (over Israel) a good idea.
Posted by JillianKF | November 2, 2009, 7:09 pmDo Arabs have a better human rights record than Israelis, Jillian? If support for human rights was to be the deciding factor on who the US should side with, who do you think comes out on top in that equation?
I really don't think that's a winner for you, and I'm surprised you stick with it. What kind of audience would be receptive to such obvious nonsense and not call bullshit on you?
There is a moral argument to be made against Israel, but it's not on human rights issues. It's over land and the right to self-determination.
Posted by programmer craig | November 2, 2009, 8:21 pmAfter everything that has been presented to you here, if you still don't recognize that Israel is guilty of serious human rights abuses then you are either a liar or completely ineducable…or both.
Posted by Sean2009 | November 3, 2009, 2:24 amSean, it seems you didn't understand the moral choice that Jillian was saying the US should make. I really think you should go and get your reading comprehension checked. You've got some issues, and I think you do more harm than good as an activist under these circumstances.
Anyway, to put it as simply as possible… Jillian was claiming that between Arabs and Israelis, Arabs are the lesser of two evils. Where "evil" = human rights and equality. Somebody would have to be either insane or retarded to believe that to be true.
So the net effect of Jillian's comment is to justify US support for Israel, despite that being the complete opposite of what she intended.
Posted by programmer craig | November 3, 2009, 2:41 amThat isn't what she said, moron. She said that the US consistently chooses Israel's interests over supporting human rights and equality for the Palestinians. Do you ever tire of parading your stupidity? You're so full of yourself you actually imagine that any of the bullshit you write here is so threatening to Kabobfest they would bother deleting your posts. You and Eagle are such exquisitely delusional examples of the chuckleheaded inanity, willful ignorance and moral bankruptcy of Israel and its supporters, they probably keep you around just for the comic relief, if not the educational value.
Posted by Sean2009 | November 3, 2009, 3:05 amJillian: Except therein lies the problem, because no one sleazy enough to get elected president would ever possibly see supporting human rights, equality, and thus Palestine (over Israel) a good idea.
If you can't understand that sentence, Sean, and what she is saying there… you've got issues. And I can't help you. But do you really think it's good for somebody as simple-minded as you to be engaging in activism?
Posted by programmer craig | November 3, 2009, 5:51 amCraig has a point here; even though he flew passed the gist of Jillian's post as is his signature style.
Middle East is full of despot regimes. Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi,etc… Bulk of which are Arab nations. Interestingly, Israel controls America and America controls Egypt, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi, etc.. who all have atrocious human rights records (of course, if it is of any consolation, Israel is the heavy weight champion of human right abuses). And it is all to the interest of Israel to have weak, corrupt Arab governments, with little real support from its population. But that is no excuse for the Arab population not to revolt against their puppet governments. It has already been way over-due.
There should be Security Council Resolutions against all American puppet Govts. along with Israel. Let them all go to hell.
Posted by OooKhalid | November 3, 2009, 12:22 pmWhy was my reply to Jillian deleted, Los? It was an entirely serious reply, not at all offensive. I wasn't even making fun of anyone, for once.
Posted by programmer craig | November 3, 2009, 12:54 amPC: I had no hand in erasing your comments.
If it was erased (since you're saying it was) it was probably super offensive and derogatory in some way and pulled by the administration.
Let's stick to the topic at hand and come to debate.
Posted by Los | November 3, 2009, 7:00 pmOh well. Guess not only does the truth hurt, it hurts to an unbearable degree for some people. I'll go back to my normal modus operandi here and just ridicule idiocy.
Jillian, when you say that if the US supported human rights and equality they would choose Arabs over Israelis, that's idiotic. There's no place on the planet that has less respect for either human rights or equality than the Arab world. And that's a fact.
Posted by programmer craig | November 3, 2009, 12:58 amOh wait! Maybe North Korea has Arabs beat on the complete lack of human rights and the inequality. It's hard to tell! Maybe we should flip a coin?
Posted by programmer craig | November 3, 2009, 1:02 amIn the quote you pointed out, she actually specified Palestinians over Israelis. She didn't say that all twenty-some Arab countries together don't beat out Israel in human rights abuses–she said that Palestinians have a better case for being victims of human rights abuses than Israelis do. Which is hard to contest.
Posted by pineapple87 | November 4, 2009, 9:36 pmThis cartoon says it all:
http://www.gocomics.com/tedrall/2009/11/02/
Posted by Sean2009 | November 3, 2009, 12:32 amIt should be noted that every US president since Carter has gone through a pro forma, ritual denunciation of the settlements. The Bush administration even went so far as to (temporarily, of course) withhold a loan to Israel. None of this is ever seriously considered, and never backed with the kind of power a US president could bring to bear if he was even remotely sincere. All this serves to maintain the illusion that the US governement is something other than a rubberstamp for Israel. It also serves to get the Ziocrazies all worked into a lather over the "betrayal" of Israel by the US, and allows the Israeli Terrorist-in-Chief du jour to act all tough when he "forces" the Americans to back down. It's free political capital for Israeli PMs while most Americans will scarcely notice their leaders have screwed them again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
Posted by Sean2009 | November 3, 2009, 12:50 amIt should be noted that every US president since Carter has gone through a pro forma, ritual denunciation of the settlements. The Bush administration even went so far as to (temporarily, of course) withhold a loan to Israel. None of this is ever seriously considered, and never backed with the kind of power a US president could bring to bear if he was even remotely sincere. All this serves to maintain the illusion that the US governement is something other than a rubberstamp for Israel. It also serves to get the Ziocrazies all worked into a lather over the "betrayal" of Israel by the US, and allows the Israeli Terrorist-in-Chief du jour to act all tough when he "forces" the Americans to back down. It's free political capital for Israeli PMs while most Americans will scarcely notice their leaders have screwed them again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
Posted by Sean2009 | November 3, 2009, 12:50 amI think this article is too simplistic in its analysis. Los argues that Obama lacks the conviction to pursue the right course of action on the question of Palestine, which is broadly agreed upon to include an end to any more settlement building. Unfortunately, this gives the false impression that the US President could snap his fingers and stop Israel in its tracks, when the reality is that the President has limited power to change policy.
The President has certain powers, such as setting the agenda, and while these are important, the President is ultimately inheriting an established set of relations between the US and Israel. He has to deal with a wildly pro-Israeli Congress, domestic interest groups (such as AIPAC, etc.) and the media.
In the bigger picture, AIPAC really is not very important. If they have influence it is because they target politicians at the Congressional level and influence media coverage. Those of us in favor of justice for the Palestinians should go after each and every member of Congress. Simply, we need to make it very costly for members of Congress to adopt pro-Israel positions. This would do more to change US policy than attacking Obama, who has adopted about as good a position as we're likely to get from a US president.
On an unrelated note, I don't understand why supporters of Israel keep talking about human rights in the Arab world. It's a non sequitur. Whether or not the Arab record on human rights is better or worse than the Israeli one is irrelevant to whether Israel commits war crimes or violates human rights. For the record, Israel claims to be a democracy with equal rights for everyone. It champions itself on its ethics, calls its army 'the most moral in the world,' and constantly claims victimhood. If you make these claims and they are false, do not be surprised when you are attacked.
Posted by M. Alh | November 3, 2009, 6:24 amOn an unrelated note, I don't understand why supporters of Israel keep talking about human rights in the Arab world. It's a non sequitur.
Not when somebody says that the moral basis for choosing to support Arabs over Israelis is human rights, it isn't. Would you likewise claim that known Palestinian war crimes such as suicide bombings of the elderly and the young are irrelevant to an argument that claimed the US should side with Arabs over Israel on the basis of war crimes?
The implication is that there is a choice to be made there. How can a choice between two different options be made when only one of those options is held up to scrutiny?
That's a loser. Palestinians can't win on human rights, or on equal treatment of minorities. Or on war crimes. Because Palestinians don't hold the moral high ground on those issues.
The winning issues are land and the right of a people to self-determination. That's where Palestinians have the moral high ground.
Posted by programmer craig | November 3, 2009, 7:09 amyour comment is utterly paradoxical, where land and self-determination are not seperate or isolated from human rights. When you consent that Palestinians have the high ground because they're being occupied and oppressed then that alone is enough to give Palestinians moral high ground. Duh!
Posted by BCell | November 3, 2009, 11:14 amAnd your comment is utterly non-sensical. Jillian and others are making arguments based on the assumptions that Palestinians (and Arabs in general) have the moral high ground on human rights and other social issues, when in fact they don't. What purpose does that serve, other than unfairly demonizing Israelis? Is that a basis for a negotiated settlement?
Posted by programmer craig | November 3, 2009, 5:59 pmThe idea that Israel has the moral high ground over the Palestinians is absurd. You don't get to steal someone else's land, ethnically cleanse hundreds of thousands of people, deny them their legal Right of Return, shoot kids and peaceful protesters in the streets on a regular basis, imprison without charge and torture thousands of people, including children, bomb hundreds of schools, hospitals and other vital civilian infrastructure in two wars of aggression in less than two years after willfully violating ceasefires, institute a brutal siege preventing even the bare necessities of life from entering Gaza (Itself a war crime and an act of war under international law), spread racist hate propaganda against your victims for decades through your media outlets in the US and Europe, and then claim the moral high ground because your victim was forced to fight back with a pathetic collection of oversized firecrackers.
Thieves don't get to claim the moral high ground over the people they've robbed.
Posted by Sean2009 | November 4, 2009, 4:01 pmvery well said sean.
Posted by ami | November 10, 2009, 7:48 am<<Unfortunately, this gives the false impression that the US President could snap his fingers and stop Israel in its tracks, when the reality is that the President has limited power to change policy.>>
I agree with you on this point: the President can't just snap his finger and instantly change the course of things o rmagically make them better. But to say that the President has limited power to change policy? Every president has had a set Foreign Policy agenda or has mapped one as time went on. When they pushed long and hard enough, they saw the fulfilment of their drafted foriegn policy plan of attack and have reached their ultimate goals.
At the same time, I think Mr. Obama is a in tight squeeze, with just 10 months as President and a economy in shambles. He can't just piss off those with the money and he can't shoot himself in the foot politically.
Obama is a smart individual, but when it comes to playing the deadly game of high-stake politics, he's a rookie with no real clue as to how he's going to proceed. Netanyahu on the other hand, knows exactly what he's doing and how he's going to play his cards.
Posted by Los | November 3, 2009, 7:27 pmLoved the title of this article……
Posted by OooKhalid | November 3, 2009, 12:37 pmby the recognition of the State of Israel, peace is possible. That is the change requisite. The vow to eliminate Israel will bring down everyone. Or is that the martyrdom desired?
Posted by cynic8 | November 3, 2009, 9:41 pmhaha! … thats wat u theenk.
Posted by BozoCracker | November 5, 2009, 11:02 am