EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Pregnant Anti-War Soldier Sent to Prison
- The Sick Madness of Tom Friedman's Culture
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Is Losing a Battle He Doesn't Know He's In
Barack Obama's chances of making a fresh start in US relations with the Muslim world, and the Middle East in particular, appear to diminish with each new wave of Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets in Gaza. That seems hardly fair, given the president-elect does not take office until January 20. But foreign wars don't wait for Washington inaugurations.
Obama has remained wholly silent during the Gaza crisis. His aides say he is following established protocol that the US has only one president at a time. Hillary Clinton, his designated secretary of state, and Joe Biden, the vice-president-elect and foreign policy expert, have also been uncharacteristically taciturn on the subject.
But evidence is mounting that Obama is already losing ground among key Arab and Muslim audiences that cannot understand why, given his promise of change, he has not spoken out. Arab commentators and editorialists say there is growing disappointment at Obama's detachment - and that his failure to distance himself from George Bush's strongly pro-Israeli stance is encouraging the belief that he either shares Bush's bias or simply does not care.
The Al-Jazeera satellite television station recently broadcast footage of Obama on holiday in Hawaii, wearing shorts and playing golf, juxtaposed with scenes of bloodshed and mayhem in Gaza. Its report criticizing "the deafening silence from the Obama team" suggested Obama is losing a battle of perceptions among Muslims that he may not realize has even begun.
"People recall his campaign slogan of change and hoped that it would apply to the Palestinian situation," Jordanian analyst Labib Kamhawi told Liz Sly of the Chicago Tribune. "So they look at his silence as a negative sign. They think he is condoning what happened in Gaza because he's not expressing any opinion."
Regional critics claim Obama is happy to break his pre-inauguration "no comment" rule on international issues when it suits him. They note his swift condemnation of November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Obama has also made frequent policy statements on mitigating the impact of the global credit crunch.
Obama's absence from the fray is also allowing hostile voices to exploit the vacuum. "It would appear that the president-elect has no intention of getting involved in the Gaza crisis," Iran's Resalat newspaper commented sourly. "His stances and viewpoints suggest he will follow the path taken by previous American presidents... Obama, too, will pursue policies that support the Zionist aggressions."
Whether Obama, when he does eventually engage, can successfully elucidate an Israel-Palestine policy that is substantively different from that of Bush-Cheney is wholly uncertain at present.
To maintain the hardline US posture of placing the blame for all current troubles squarely on Hamas, to the extent of repeatedly blocking limited UN security council ceasefire moves, would be to end all realistic hopes of winning back Arab opinion - and could have negative, knock-on consequences for US interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf.
Yet if Obama were to take a tougher (some would say more balanced) line with Israel, for example by demanding a permanent end to its blockade of Gaza, or by opening a path to talks with Hamas, he risks provoking a rightwing backlash in Israel, giving encouragement to Israel's enemies, and losing support at home for little political advantage.
A recent Pew Research Center survey, for example, showed how different are US perspectives to those of Europe and the Middle East. Americans placed "finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict" at the bottom of a 12-issue list of foreign policy concerns, the poll found. And foreign policy is in any case of scant consequence to a large majority of US voters primarily worried about the economy, jobs and savings.
On the campaign trail, Obama (like Clinton) was broadly supportive of Israel and specifically condemnatory of Hamas. But at the same time, he held out the prospect of radical change in western relations with Muslims everywhere, promising to make a definitive policy speech in a "major Islamic forum" within 100 days of taking office.
"I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence," he said.
As the Gaza casualty headcount goes up and Obama keeps his head down, those sentiments are beginning to sound a little hollow. The danger is that when he finally peers over the parapet on January 21, the battle of perceptions may already be half-lost.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
200 Comments so far
Show AllWe need to unite and empower the Green Party in all 50 states including mine (TX) which wouldn't even allow the party on the ballot. Then we need to help Cynthia Mckinney win in 2012 plus replace the Republicans and Democrats in Congress in 2010 and 2012 with strong independents especially Greens. And the Green Party must NOT NOT NOT concede anything to the Democrats or they will be trapped yet again into irrelevancy. David Cobb gagged in 2004 when he got the Green Party to concede to the Democrats. Mckinney was a SUPERHERO even when she knew the odds that were stacked against her. Courage is when you get out there and fight despite the odds. Cowardice is when you choose to fight at best only when and where the wind blows in your direction.
Agree! Peeps, go to McKinney's site, and voice your support!
What the US did today, in the UN SC, will cost us a very heavy price, in the Middle East and beyond.
If we have a "sopecial relatinship" with Israel,it sure seems one-sided!
Why are we "shills"just for disagreeing with you?
Why Am I being antagonistic for defending Israel?
Have you noticed that there are people in this thread openly calling for the destruction of Israel? They are advocating genocide. Others are creating racist conspiracy theories or dreaming up ways to financial cripple the US (just what we need right now) Yet you have the hubris to call me antagonistic?
It's especially funny, because I'm sure even you would admit that people like yourself are an extreme minority in America. Look at how few votes McKinney or Nader got. In fact, Nader gets less votes every time he runs!!!
So with that in mind, do you view the whole USA as being full of "shills"?
Let's face it, I'm part of the majority and you are part of the minority.
I'm not a shill. I'm not Mossad. I'm a freethinker. I just happen to support Obama. Why is that so hard to accept?
"My point is that MY candidate, Cynthia McKinney put her life on the line for the outrage of Gaza. Obama has said nothing."
Holy hamburgers, it's all about ego for you isn't it? If you want a pat on the back for voting for YOUR candidate, McKinney, well, don't ask me for one.
Let's set egos aside, okay? Our country needs each and every one of us. It's time to come together and work for the common good. If anyone is being divisive, it's people like you. Here we are arguing over Israel, and I thought we were all Americans! Let's focus on America. Can you imagine having this kind of argument over Obama's Columbia policy. Of course not. This is only a big issue because Israel is a Jewish State and some people are secretly antisemitic, even if they won't admit it to themselves.
"Let's face it, I'm part of the majority and you are part of the minority."
Bzzzzzt a recent poll said 44% of Americans support Israel's invasion and 41% oppose with 15% undecided which is pretty amazing considering that ALL the MSM from NPR to FOX is overtly pro Israel and you have to go out of your and do research on the internet to find dissnet against the American esatblishment pro Israel postion.
"This Rasmussen Reports poll -- the first to survey American public opinion specifically regarding the Israeli attack on Gaza -- strongly bolsters the severe disconnect I documented the other day between (a) American public opinion on U.S. policy towards Israel and (b) the consensus views expressed by America's political leadership. Not only does Rasmussen find that Americans generally "are closely divided over whether the Jewish state should be taking military action against militants in the Gaza Strip" (44-41%, with 15% undecided), but Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive -- by a 24-point margin (31-55%). By stark constrast, Republicans, as one would expect (in light of their history of supporting virtually any proposed attack on Arabs and Muslims), overwhelmingly support the Israeli bombing campaign (62-27%)."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/02/israel/
It shows half of American are capable of resisting heavy duty propaganda which is one of the most hopeful things I have seen for a while.
And I think many Obama voters like myself are waking up with hangovers. :(
I don't think the thoughtful posters here are condemning Israel. What is being criticized are the policies of the Israeli government that reflect Zionist ideology.
The muddled thinking - or the Zionist propaganda - we are seeing here is an effort to equate criticism of Israeli policies and Zionism with anti-semitism and "hatred of Jews". That's nonsense.
It's as if opposition to the KKK would make one a "hater of Christians". Not all Christians are members or supporters of the KKK, just as not all people of the Jewish faith are supporters of the Zionist agenda.
Please differentiate and stop trying to confuse the issues.
curmudgeon99
If you are saying I'm a Zionist shill you sir are a liar of the first degree.
I think some of your sweeping characterizations about posters here are incorrect. But yes, Cynthia McKinney's actions on this issue have been outstanding.
Joe
I found this article - it seems to fit here
Pax Israeliana: peace Israeli style
by
CHRISTOPHER VASILLOPULOS*
The Romans create a desert and call it peace. -- Tacitus
Palestine is a land without a people. -- David Ben-Gurion
As the Israeli atrocities multiply, as its air strikes (cowardly to the last degree) on civilians, women and children intensify, as its list of war crimes lengthens and as the US continues to collaborate in every way, the world despairs. Cry, beloved Palestine, cry. Worse still, the great powers -- great not in perspicacity, honor or regard for human suffering -- do nothing. Cry, beloved peacemakers, cry.
The West -- I can't say the Christian West -- allows, if it does not condone, their renegade colonial outpost's attempt to eliminate the Palestinians. "Eliminate" was the Nazi euphemism for extermination. I have not heard of an Israeli proposal to transport, another euphemism, Palestinians to Madagascar. Perhaps they want them to exile themselves, a voluntary and final Palestinian diaspora, one which already numbers in the millions, or perhaps, failing that, simply die: slowly, spiritually, in unspeakable concentration camps, more rapidly from malnutrition or disease, or quickly by indiscriminate bombs and rockets.
The Israeli rationale is "terrorism." This rationale always ignores that Hamas, like Hezbullah, is a creature of Israel, not a bastard son like the South Lebanon Army, but offspring nonetheless. All resistance movements are terrorists from the perspective of the oppressors or occupiers. This does not mean that all terrorist movements are equal. It does not mean that all acts of resistance can be taken at face value. Often they are a mask for violence, having no political purpose at all. Often they have little rational basis, even when criminal gain is not their objective. Like every other complex phenomenon, resistance or terrorist movements have to be analyzed and understood in their own terms and in their own contexts.
With regard to the Palestinians, only racist Zionists (and their American collaborators) see their resistance to Israeli oppression as terrorism, defined as violent, unprovoked attacks against peace-loving Israel. The world knows this representation is false. Half of Israel knows it is false. At least since 1967, Israeli policy has been plain: the elimination of Palestinians. Only Israeli tactics have been ambivalent or intentionally obscured: verbal concessions, token actions -- almost always immediately reversed -- while the main project of replacing Palestinians with Israelis proceeds apace.
What is equally clear is that Palestinians have suffered in the millions for decades, have been maimed in the tens of thousands, and killed in the thousands, mostly civilians, women and children. These casualties, the Israelis claim, are accidents of war or collateral damage. This claim is a lie. The blatant purpose of massive air strikes against civilian targets is to maim, kill and terrorize civilians. Collateral damage occurs when a brave Israeli pilot hurts his hand while releasing a bomb. Only the subordinate objective is to deter Palestinians from harboring terrorists. The main objective, demonstrated over and over again, is to convince Palestinians that they have no future in their homeland or as a people.
Peace can be achieved in the Middle East, in the Israeli view, only under a "Pax Israeliana." Moderate Zionists believe that such a peace means Israeli domination over all of Palestine and the intimidation of all its neighbors with nuclear weapons. Radical Zionists believe that Pax Israeliana means the re-establishment of the Kingdom of David, which by some estimates extends to Lake Van. That the world can scarcely credit such ambitions works to Israel's advantage, for it makes their more modest claims seem creditable. But to radical Zionists, which must include all conservative Israeli governments since 1967, only oil prevents the West from allowing Israel to pursue its rightful claims to hegemony in the Middle East, to rule the land of David.
This position has been echoed by neoconservatives in and out of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, the only difference between these fanatics and more moderate members of the foreign policy establishment has been words. To me, this group of spineless bureaucrats is worse than the neoconservatives, who at least stand for something, however horrible, and express their convictions honestly. The establishment believes only in their careers.
Thus, the world despairs, Palestinians bleed and die, while Israelis gloat behind their crocodile tears. And now, Obama. How long will it take Obama to acknowledge the obvious? How long will it take him to realize that Israel only responds to pressure, economic, diplomatic and military? How long will it take for him to realize, as the current Turkish government has finally realized, that Israeli words mean nothing?
*Christopher Vasillopulos, Ph.D., is a professor of international relations at Eastern Connecticut State University.
You don't get far in Presidential politics without 100% support for Israel.
JFK pushed for sending U.S. inspectors to Israel’s Dimona reactor, tried to improve relations with Israel’s nemesis, Nasser in Cairo. Of course, he also lifted the arms embargo on arm sales to Israel. Ben-Gurion resigned as prime Minister over the nuclear issue and said that because of JFK’s policies, Israel’s "existence was in danger." JFK was killed 11-22, 1963
JFK also publicly favoured Algerian independence and supported de Gaulles decision to allow independence in 1961 (independence achieved 1962), decisions Israel strongly opposed. On August 22, 1961 de Gaulle was the target of an assassination attempt (22 is one of those magic numbers, a multiple of 11 BTW).
RFK was killed by a Palestinian, his death registered on 6-6-68, which was curious, no?
Obama is no fool. Those who back Israels policies, and they are not necessarily Israeli, do not mess around.
As my mother noted shortly after RFK was killed, this was the first time the word Palestinian had ever been used in the US press.
Some Organized religions are behind all this violence. Organized religion like these equals "Tyred Auld Shite."
As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
The most violent element in society is (RIGHTEOUS*)ignorance. - Emma Goldman
* My word interjected there.
Wow, you are only one step away from Mel Gibson's drunken statement that the Jews are behind all the wars in the world. Instead of "Jews" you have substituted religion. Are you proud to be behaving like a drunken Mel Gibson?
I don't think Timbucktuba said anything about all wars, he quite specifically stated "this violence" and to say religion has nothing to do with this current conflict is a silly remark, in this part of the world your religion often defines who you are, who you are affiliated with, what you can do, where you can go and what rights you have.
First you make a vulgar distortion of Timbuktuba's statement. Then you insult him because YOUR distortion is stupid. Nice debating worthy of Bill O'Reilly.
Joe
Obama sized up in a word:
Disappointment.
There was the possibility that he would pivot, but since the moment he became president elect he capitulated. Already Obama is irrelevant.
"Already Obama is irrelevant."
Good line sadly I agree after haven drunken the koolaid and voted for him. Sorry Cynthia. :(
Obama will take care of Obama. It is up to us to move the public away from supporting Israel's policies and supplying military goods. We should be concentrating on educating the public, correcting the media, contacting legislators, organizing actions.
About Hamas: I would like to add that for years Yasir Arafat provided a secular leadership, reasonable and only slightly corrupt. He was smart and open to comprimise and deals. The US and Israel leadership constantly demonized Arafat and gave him no respect nor concessions for the Palestinian people. They would make deals and then go back on the terms, discrediting him as a leader.
Arafat was eventually viewed as ineffectual by Palestinians, who turned to more religious and hard-line leaders. They elected Hamas to represent them. There have to be talks with the current elected leaders, Hamas.
We must do whatever is necessary to end the siege and bombing of Gaza.
Joe
Israeli leaders attempt to be very calculated in their thinking - in this case simply exploiting the transition period prior to Obama assuming his Presidential powers. Obama can simply claim that he was not president during the Gaza operation and attempt to start Mideast diplomacy with the policy of "Let's start a new page!". Of course, one cannot escape the second factor that we have Livni and Ehud Barak competing to show who is tougher prior to Israeli elections scheduled in February.
Of course, things are not turning out the way Israel wants. For starters, never has the Arab World, and to a secondary level, the Muslim Worlds, been so united at the street level. Over 1 million people took to the streets in Morrocco yesterday. Another million took to the streets in Istanbul. And almost every village and town in Egypt has had large protests despite a heavy-handed attempt by police and security to clamp down. Jordan has seen non-stop demonstrations. In Iraq, both Shiites and Sunnis are racing to declare their support for the Palestinians. And the situation between Lebanese Shiites and Lebanese Sunnis is another story - two adversary groups coming together united in support of Palestinians. Even the President of Afghanistan has condemned the Israeli invasion.
And despite fundamental philosophical and political disagreements with Hamas, secular and democratic forces in the entire region have interpreted Israel's action as one not aimed against Hamas but an attempt by the Israeli leaders to once and for all destroy and bring down Palestinian aspirations for genuine statehood and independence. The ethnic cleansing of an indigenous population cannot simply be swept under the carpet.
Israel has succeeded in undermining every pro-American ruler in the region starting with Egypt's Mubarek and Jordan's King Abdullah, the only signatories to a peace agreement with Israel( sadly there are no democratically elected leaders in this part of the world and ironically Hamas was democratically elected).
And to top it all, the Palestinian Authority President, Abu Mazen, has been trivialized in front of his people. His clampdown on Hamas in the West Bank has not produced any lessening of the occupation and colonization of the West Bank. Road blocks and Berlin Walls continue to pop up everywhere. Settlers continue to attack peaceful settlers attempting to harvest their olive trees. And the Palestinian President can do nothing.
Israeli leaders need to re-think their strategic policies. Adopting a fairy tale explanation that they are helping the Palestinian people get free from the "yoke of Hamas" will get them nowhere. Who are they kidding? The massive destruction of habitat, infrastructure, and families is there in pictures for the world to see. Israel needs to come to terms with reality. They need to address the fundamental problem they caused in 1948. To continue to portray the victims of their ethnic cleansing as victimizers will not work forever.
The US has strived very hard to build relations with the Islamic and Arab Worlds. Israel now has almost completely destroyed any and all such bridges. US strategic and national security interests cannot allow Israel to continue to do this. And probably the biggest tragedy of all is that Israel has succeeded in trivializing the universal the lessons that should have been learned from the Holocaust.
In historical context, the Palestine-Israel conflict is a tragedy of two people. The tragedy of the Jewish people cannot be solved by exporting the guilt of the West in the Holocaust and other pogroms against Jews committed during the 19th and 20th centuries on to the Palestinians. The West has been to a large degree paralyzed by this guilt and blinding it from seeing the humanity of the other side. This is simply not fair.
The US must exercise its global power to be an honest broker. As Spider Man stated so elequently, "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility".
There is no honeymoon with Obama as liberals and progressives are quickly and correctly concluding that it was only infatuation and projection that got him elected. Obama is more of the same. But, we knew that all along now. Didn't we?
Many of us voted for Obama, hoping that there would be a move in the right direction, and that it was more important to move the right direction that to claim a moral victory of voting for a fringe candidate My experience of voting for Nader felt good for a while, but the 8 years of shrub didn't feel so good. We are hoping now for some relief from those dangerous policies, but recognize that there is a long tradition of abuse of power, and in this specific, a long standing uncritical support of Israel.
I am very disappointed in Obama's choice of chief of Staff, and troubled by the strong uncritical policies toward Israel which will result. That being said, I will stand behind my vote for change, remain uncritical (as far as personal attacks) and work to help steer this unwieldly ship of state toward a better future.
Good luck, in all sincerity. That said, I surmise you will not see the change you voted for. The vetting process that got Obama to where he is, is the means test by which he got there. And as result, you expect change? I hope you are correct and I am wrong. I, however, see it as being more of the same.
What on earth is Simon talking about and what planet has he been on throughout Obama's campaign?
What did Obama immediately do as soon as he secured the nomination over Clinton?
He licked the boots of AIPAC and completely descrated any hope of change.
Obama is a cruel hoax and the USA will pay a heavy price from not impeaching Bush and his criminal junta.
It is already too late to change any of that so why expect Obama to do anything good?
Nanoo
I'm glad to see the public outcry, demonstrations and protests all over the world. I'm angry that my own country, our tax dollars go to fund Israel. I think Obama already knows he's a loser.
Curmudgeon99 is right. Zionist shills are driving the debate of this thread and many others at CD. And I'm beginning to think that Joe Hope (Joe Despair in the real world) is one of the Giyusa brigades, since he seems to have way too much time on his hands to simply parrot the talking points of the Israeli establishment ("driving the Jews into the sea" "Hamas broke the truce", blah blah blah). Never mind his nods to the new administration. The rats have deserted the sinking Republican ship and hopped aboard the new ship of state bound for glory (not). We should ignore his like. It's no more than static polluting the air.
What an idiot column. Obama doesn't give a damn about the Palestinians. As for his reluctance to speak up because "there's only one president at a time", it certainly didn't stop him in the past when he was speaking up on behalf of bailing out his big business banking supporters a few weeks ago. He's a god damn phony and if these people ever stand in the dock for war crimes, I hope he stands there right along side them.
The mid-east was divided up into countries after the war. Only 1% became Israel, the rest became Muslim countries. There was no Palestine before Israel was created, no Palestinians before there were Israelis. No country would help the Jews during the holcaust. The US refused to help or defend Jews and sent Jewish refugees back. Israel was created, by the US and Britain, possibly for the purpose of a country to defend the Jews in the middle of hostile Arab/Muslim countries. Muslims and Jews, and Christians, lived throughout the mid-east. When Israel was created, all its neighbors, Muslim countries, attacked Israel. Israel won that war. Israel was attacked again and won again. If they had not attacked Israel, it would be smaller than it is today. BTW, Christian Arabs are being forced out of West Bank and Iraq. Read Doonesbury. Hamas and Hezbollah have called for the elimination of Israel and the Jews. Is not that a call for genocide? Please look at this video.
http://fun.mivzakon.co.il/flash/video/2664/26
That's a total lie. Typical rightwing propaganda. Not even the Jews, save the rightwing ones, would buy this lie of yours.
Sus:
Nonsense.
The Middle-East had been part of the Ottoman Empire since the defeat of the Crusaders in the Middle Ages. The Ottomans administered the countries as provinces of their empire; at the end of WW I the Turks were dispossessed of those provinces, which then became independent countries, mostly under the provisional League of Nations mandates of France and the UK. The countries then were supposed to progress toward independence. Not only was Palestine a country then, it was a province within the Roman Empire (Palaestina-Syria) since about 160 AD. The Latinized name refers to the land and inhabitants of what is now Western Israel, alongside the Mediterranean Sea: Land of the Philistines.
The State of Israel was proclaimed, in defiance of the UN and world opinion, as well as the opinion of the majority of residents there: Arab Palestinian Christians, Arab Palestinian Muslims, and Arab Palestinian Jews, in 1948. It was declared by European Jews who had been immigrating since the advent of the Zionist movement of the late 19th Century, encouraged at first by the European powers as another colony of theirs to keep the locals in their place and protect their trade routes from those pesky natives.
The US had nothing to do with the creation of Israel but everything to do with it's recognition as a nation in 1948. Harry Truman, in one of his worst moves ever, leapt in to recognize it. The Brits, who had regretted their earlier support for colonial Zionism, had woken up to the mess they had created in the 1930s. But America was by now the most powerful nation. Ironically, the USSR also recognized Israel, thinking it was going to be a socialist state.
Christianity is, indeed, dying in the Middle East, but this also is a result of the upheaval created by the planting there of the Zionist state. Actually Muslim Arabs are leaving also, but Christians tend to emigrate more easily because they think that, being Christians, they will find it easier to assimilate in the Western countries than Muslims do. (I don't think this is true, but they believe it to be so.) But the cause of this draining away of Christians can be traced back to the trouble emanating from the Zionist plantation in the heart of the Arab world: the Christians are, first and foremost, Arabs--and they are now unwelcome; the land is no longer theirs and they are a small and shrinking minority where they once were a majority.
The real newcomers to Palestine were European Zionists, those who have ruled Israel ever since 1948. And this has not just been a tragedy for the Arabs, Christian and Muslim. It has been a tragedy for all those Jews whose families had lived in the Arab world since the 2nd century A.D. Because when the Israelis drove out the Palestinians in 1948, the Arab countries retaliated by driving out the Jews in their midst. From living happy and productive lives as respected members of society, they became poor relations of the European-dominated Israel, speaking neither the language nor having the customs, reduced to poverty, servile employment and political apartheid.
Rainborowe
Actually, you are being a little disengenious here. The 1920 British Mandate for Palestine was specifically to allow the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.
San Remo Convention - League of Nations - 1923
"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"
Obviously, the Israelis have not been that interested in the "rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..." However, the creation of Palestine by the four powers WAS specifically to create a Jewish homeland.
Another rightwing liar. Who sent these zionist trolls here?
Who sent the trolls here? Most likely giyus.org .
sierra7
Factually you are correct...but, you confuse (conflate?) "home" for "state." It was deeply regretted that the words were interchanged later (mostly by the British). In the present, Israel is the only "state" (Jewish home?) without borders.
Weep not for those who have made the treaties for the present mess; they were made with the oncoming use of oil militarily precipitating finding a political solution for the major oil discoverers to be able to "control" any further discoveries.
Britain learned during WW1 that oil would supplant coal for its fleet which at the time was the most powerful in the world. That gave the British the idea to give the persecuted Jews of Europe a "home" but not a "state."
In fact, I'd say, especially in the English of that time, that "national home" meant a "nation-state." The real wiggle room is that the succeeding phrase was "in Palestine." It didn't say that the Jewish "national home" would encompass the whole of Palestine.
Rainborowe
Actually I wasn't being intentionally disingenuous. I well know the terms of the mandate and the Balfour Declaration which led to that. I was trying to address the other person's comments and also keep it short. It was an imperialistic enterprise (British-sanctioned Zionism, that is) as I believe I said. (I've replied to one or two similar posts on CD and don't always remember what I've put where.) But it's also true that the Brits started getting cold feet during the '30s and '40s after the depradations of Irgun on both the native Arabs and the British soldiers trying to keep the peace between them. They basically threw up their hands in 1948. (Poor British squaddies dangling from lamp-posts didn't gain sit well the Labor government of the time.) It had turned into one of those glorious British cock-ups. In most cases they presaged the abandonment of imperial possessions to the native populations; in this case it was a handover to another imperialist power-by-proxy (witness the Suez adventure of 1956).
Rainborowe
read an article on declining American hegemony and Obama's great challenge to restore the moral standing of the U.S. in the world, see...
http://globalinvestmentwatch.com/2009/01/05/the-end-of-the-american-empire/
The democratic party needs zionist money for the mid-term elections in 2010 and the Obama re-election campaign in 2012. It is that simple. If Palestinians gave 500 million dollars per year to the democratic party we would see a new foreign policy.
"If Palestinians gave 500 million dollars per year to the democratic party we would see a new foreign policy."
If Palestinians stopped rocketing Israel and started building their own industry with the same zealous intensity, meybe they'd make $500 million to spend on lobbying. ;-)
Have a nice day Gaza!
If Israel would quit electing NAZIs to power, Palestinians wouldn't be forced to fight for justice.
You should try living in Gaza for a few months.
I am ashamed that there are so many people here that if someone disagrees with them or points out facts that counter their ideology or prejudices they resort to name calling and distortions of historical fact.
Its time to move on from the past ideologies and look at reality. Time to look for new ways to accomplish our goals.
I hope in the future the insincere will fade away.
Maybe if the zionists on this forum would quit their nazism, things wouldn't be so shitty.
These people have been fighting for ages. Their hatred of each other cannot be resolved politically, religiously or militarily. Jews, Muslims and Christians in that part of the world have lived under kings and tyrants for millenia and that's all they will ever understand. Their insane religious zeal and the memories of perceived and actual trangressions against each other will never allow the fighting to stop. We should wash our hands of them forever.
As have people worldwide, so I guess you oppose peace everywhere or believe pursuing it to be a waste of time.
But thanks for repeating the Big Lie.
Oregoncharles
For those who excuse Obama's silence on the slaughter of Gazans -
You're missing something.
1) Obama is still a human being, correct? As a human being, he's allowed to express outrage against this brutality.
2) He has spoken out on many things in the past month or so. He spoke out against the Mumbai attacks and said he will go after the "terrorists" who are responsible. He spoke out about the bailout, supporting it fully and twisting arms to get it passed after it failed the first time.
If Obama would speak out now, he could have some influence over what is happening in Gaza. He could perhaps save the lives of some little kids. Israel might not feel so free to slaughter innocent people if they thought the US would stop the flow to them of 7 million dollars a day. But they do not fear that from Obama ......
Those of you who supported Obama, were his cheerleaders actually, are now getting a glimpse of what his presidency will entail. In the year of campaigning, I got not a single person to tell me why Obama's record or positions indicated to them that he would bring significant change. Not one - and I'm active and in contact with a lot of Obama supporters. They had blinders on. He was their rock star. Deep thinking not allowed. Some still wear their blinders but many have removed them to see what there is to see. Obama: hired to be one of the greatest con men in American history. Did you think the American empire would allow a free thinker to become president? Now it's up to us.
Please, if you have blinders on, kindly remove them so we can get on with some real change from the grass roots upwards. Start with Congress. Did your member of Congress vote for every spending bill for the illegal occupation of Iraq? If so, work to UNSEAT THAT PERSON. HE/SHE is weak and complicit.
Obama based his foreign policy credentials largely on his speech in 2002 when he said invading Iraq would be a mistake. Being a politician, he obviously sought to draw as much mileage as he could - by contrasting himself every time, with Hillary's vote in support of the war. It obviously helped that he was not a US Senator back then, and so, was not called to cast his vote.
On September 15, 2001, the US Congress authorized President Bush to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against anyone associated with the terrorist attacks of September 11. The Senate voted 98-0 and the House voted 420-1 in favor. One person voted against: Democrat Barbara Lee from California, herself, a colonel's daughter. She said during her speech, ""There must be some of us who say, 'Let's step back for a moment and think through the implications of our actions today - let us more fully understand the consequences.'" Can Obama supporters honestly say that he would have voted against this war authorization, if he were a Senator at that time? Of course, during the October 2002 vote on Iraq war, many more Democrats voted against the invasion - so I guess, seeing that there was plenty of company, he too might have voted against it. (Before anyone tries to make the distinction between the two votes - one leading to the bombing in Afghanistan and the next on invading Iraq, I am talking here about the courage to stand up for one's conviction - unfortunately I haven't seen it in Obama so far.)
While Barak 'There-is-one-President' Obama sticks to protocol by remaining silent, civilians in Gaza who were already on the squeeze are now in a desperate situation, according to aid agencies. So far, there has been NO indication of any major change in direction in terms of American policy on the Middle East. Obama apparently did not want Jimmy Carter to speak at the Democratic Party convention during the campaign, for fear of offending some folks. His major cabinet appointments do not exactly signal any change in direction. May be remaining silent for now is the best option, under the circumstances, in his view. We can only hope that he has some major ace up his sleeve, and is only waiting to take office to work his Middle East peace magic! But I am afraid, what is more likely to happen is that the Gaza crisis would somehow be replaced from the front pages by all the hype (which has already started) surrounding Obama's inauguration - and the MSM would move on to other stories.
Highintel: Can we do better?
I always thought that there was no evidence that Obama would bring change. However, to expect Obama to take the right position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seems absurd. In the U.S., it is simply taboo to take the Palestinian side, and to suggest that the Palestinians are the victims, and the Israeli Jews are the victimizers. I don't think Obama is going to implement progressive policies on any issue, but he certainly isn't going to go against the Israel lobby here.
Also, Tisdall is wrong that it is a battle of perception. If Obama is perceived as doing the right thing, but he is not, then people are fooled, and that is a bad thing. Rather than a question of perception, it is a question of morality.
I'm surprised that Obama hasn't come out on Israel's side yet. Unfortunately, if Israel is still attacking Gaza when he becomes president, I can only see Obama siding with Israel.
Citing protocol as an excuse for remaining silent on this prolonged horrific slaughter Israel is inflicting on the defenseless and entrapped civilian population of Gaza only confirms what most of us already suspected. Namely that U.S. Middle East policy under an Obama administration will still be controlled by the same behind-the-scenes Zio-zeolots that have always controlled it, and that means genocide as usual.