Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Silence
Back when Barack Obama was a longshot candidate in the Iowa primary, he was morally candid, saying on March 11, 2007, that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." It was one month after the announcement of Obama's campaign, and the last time he would make such a statement. Three days later, at the AIPAC conference in Washington DC, he was hammered as inexperienced by the New York Times reporter, Patrick Healy, on March 14.
"Less experienced than Mrs. Clinton in the thickets of Jewish and Middle Eastern politics, [Obama] became a bit tangled in the eyes of some voters" at the AIPAC event, Healy commented. After calling himself pro-Israel and endorsing a two-state solution, Obama "pointedly" mentioned the Palestinians. He and Senator Clinton sounded the same themes, Healy wrote, "yet Mr. Obama proved more expansive by bringing up the Palestinians and ruminating on the Holocaust and slavery and on cynicism in politics", which caused "murmurs" from the audience.
One AIPAC activist, the son of a rabbi and a Hillary fan, was busily "spreading the word at the conference about Mr. Obama's remarks. 'It's just clumsy of him to say that on the eve of the AIPAC conferences."
While the Obama staff was trying to put up a small speaker's platform, Mrs Clinton "wanted a big moment...to counteract the curiosity factor and showmanship of Mr. Obama...There was Israeli music on the sound system, there was a sign with Mrs. Clinton's name in Hebrew, and there were campaign banners and balloons, and a video showing her at work."
It's possible to defend Obama's retreat to a safe pro-Israel position in 2007, especially if he sat down first with long-time Palestinian friends and supporters in Chicago and explained himself. After all, Bush-Cheney and the neo-conservatives were virtually welded to the Israeli hawks, and Hillary Clinton, who once gave Arafat's wife a kiss on the cheek, was threatening to obliterate Israel's enemies. Obama would be a fresh start.
But Obama must know that his continuing silence today is more than expedient. It is immoral. And if being moral is not the business of statecraft, he must know that his November 4 election helped cause the Israelis to thunder into Gaza and change "the facts on the ground" before his inauguration. They are afraid of his coming.
He must know that this Israeli offensive is the ultimate effort of the neo-conservatives, with consenting Democratic silence, to wrest a victory in the Middle East. It's bad enough that William Kristol has gained a coveted columnist's role at the New York Times; worse is Kristol's propaganda offensive for the Israelis, claiming that Israel will do Obama a favor by knocking off Hamas. Shamelessly, Kristol adds that this victory will come on top of America's "success" in Iraq.
Yes, it is difficult to understand much less endorse the apparent Hamas strategy. Knowing what was ahead, they might have taken a disciplined position from October to November of not giving Israel any excuse, any provocation, that could bring the crisis to boil in the interlude between November and the inauguration. They could have started a diplomatic offensive of their own. Those were their decisions. But it is foolish to ignore and deny, as many do, the deliberate policies of the Israelis and the US to overturn the outcome of the democratic elections that brought Hamas to power. It is immoral to squeeze the whole Gaza population into collective suffering by the blockade. It is impossible to "destroy" Hamas without guaranteeing the rise of another Palestinian resistance movement, just as Hezbollah was born in the ashes of Lebanon in 1982. And it is simply not true that negotiations between implacable adversaries must be considered forever off the table. As a Hamas spokesman wrote this week, discussions with former President Jimmy Carter have been "a refreshing exchange", despite Carter's vocal differences with Hamas. As Obama pointed out in his campaign, it is simple to talk with allies, the point of diplomacy is to talk with enemies or strangers.
Obama is in a process of being cornered, not unlike the efforts to push John Kennedy into the Cuban quagmire in 1961, or the tactics of Richard Nixon to keep Saigon from agreeing to negotiations in 1968.
He is being cornered by his party, too. It is hardly constructive that Sen. Harry Reid said this week that "I think this terrorist organization, Hamas, has got to be put away." Where are the voices of the Progressive Caucus or Out of Iraq Caucus? Is it possible for Obama to take a stronger position than his own party leaders? Not likely, even though a Rasmussen poll shows a large percentage of Democratic voters supporting diplomatic rather than military approaches.
The silence, Obama must know, is extremely costly. As the bombs fall on Gaza children and civilians, his credibility comes under greater question. The bright promise of moral leadership is sullied and squandered, along with the potential of America's ability to be an even-handed diplomatic mediator. As January 20 approaches, he will have to make a lonely decision, the first of many, to remember his 2007 words about Palestinian suffering and his campaign pledge to talk unconditionally with adversaries.
- Posted in
28 Comments so far
Show AllWhen the truth is replaced by silence," the Soviet dissident Yevgeny Yevtushenko said, "the silence is a lie."
Great quote. Thank you. It is very similar to the quote from playwrite Arthur Miller: "Sometimes to remain silent is to lie."
Sometimes, I wonder if the Mossad has briefcase-type nuclear devices stashed in one or two major US cities. I wonder if they have quietly alerted the US govt at the highest levels that these devices will be detonated if the US fails to adhere rigidly to whatever Israel demands.
Is there another issue on which the entire US ruling apparatus and all of its "spokespersons" march in such tight unanimity? To what extent has Mossad penetrated the US intelligence system? What is the nature and extent of "dual loyalty" among power players and more everyday Israeli-Americans?
Why is there no accountability for Israel?
"Sometimes, I wonder if the Mossad has briefcase-type nuclear devices stashed in one or two major US cities."
That is a distinct possibility. So is blackmail on a lesser than nuclear scale.
-- ekaton aka d.k.shaw
Obama's silence on a whole raft of issues (war, taxes, economy to mention a few) indicates that he sold out the progressives who got him the Democratic nomination. After that was sewed up, he made a drastic turn to the right, echoing the views of the reactionary factions that gave him huge campaign dontations.
Term limits and publicly financed elections NOW.
It all started when, immediately after the election, the Obama camp brought all of Clinton's corporate handlers aboard with many of Bush's watchdogs. If it wasn't clear who was controlling the Obama group, this was a wakeup call for those with blinders on.
In the meantime, Cynthia McKinney put her life on the line to try to provide humanitarian relief.
But I could be wrong !
Kudos to Cynthia, but is she in office anymore?
Although it would be nice for our politicians to forcefully oppose Israel like
Cynthia, as we know if they do, they're not politicians for long.
It seems our only hope at this junction is to keep up the pressure and hope they actually hold a different position than they present or force them to heed our voices.
As I recall, Obama had a lot to say on these issues. As for selling out Progressives, the only thing I can think of is FISA. On the whole, I find Obama to be far more forthright than other politicians of his caliber.
Despite what many Progressives seem to believe, he never claimed to be a Progressive. His positions have always been a bit to the left of center and he has built his political clout by working closely with members of his party, not by being the lone maverick howling outside the pack. He does at times take forceful principled stands. He is an adept politician.
I see too many Progressives blasting Obama as a hypocrite for not being a Progressive when he never was a Progressive and never claimed he was!
Also, many Progs don't give him credit where credit is due - such as his positions on the environment and global warming, Gitmo, diplomacy, etc. I can't wait til he puts the smack down on the Cons on these!
Quit being such glum cynics, Progs!
Tom Hayden says Obama's "election helped cause the Israeli's to thunder into Gaza???" wait Tom, like as opposed to if McCain had been elected? It looks more to me like the Israeli's took advantage of the last days of NeoCON Rule to attack/invade Gaza. However, primarily it was a function of upcoming Israeli elections and Ehud Barak's popularity which was slipping, but is now SOARING with the slaughter. Blaming Obama is fun though.
On the other hand I have never heard of an American politician oppose Israel for long. Did Cynthia McKinney dare to criticize that country? I support Obama, but he is caught in a tangled web, no doubt compromised to get where he is. Be glad we don't salute John & Sarah every morning though. And don't forget Barack ain't in office yet, it's a little early to begin impeachment proceedings.
Israel is taking advantage of the last days of the Bush/Cheney regime in much the same way that Georgia hoped to take advantage of that closing window of opportunity to engage in military adventurism in Ossetia. Georgia gambled and lost when Putin seized upon the provocation to invade and expose the hollowness of Bush's bluster. Israel is making a similar gamble, invading Gaza before Obama gets sworn in, safe in the knowledge that Bush will give the Zionist military cause the United States' unqualified backing, and Obama is more problematic.
In this instance, I think silence by president-elect Obama is the best of three lousy options.
Speaking out and giving knee jerk support to the Israeli bombing campaign and invasion in Gaza would instantly alienate the Muslim world and sour prospects for the United States ever becoming a positive force in resolving the Palestinian issue.
Speaking out in sympathy of the people of Gaza and condemning the Israeli aggression would indeed inject a second powerful, discordant voice into the official US foreign policy formulation process. We do have only one president at a time. Obama would be squarely blamed for intermeddling, particularly if (like the Israeli attack into Lebanon) the eventual end result is a strengthening of Hamas's popular standing among the Palestinian people.
Speak out, and Barack Obama eats the blowback. Stay silent, and at least his options are still uncompromised come the end of January, when the dust in Gaza hopefully begins to settle.
Azjoe's post briefly touches on another aspect of all this that gets only superficial mention in conventional news commentary.
For years, it has been an acceptable theory in political science circles that the spread of democracy would likely make wars between nation states less likely, and certainly not more likely. Yet in the partisan cultures of both Israel and the United States, we witness the phenomenon of politicians like Olhmert and George W. Bush (and others before them) calling for war, or timing the actual outbreak of wars, in order to manipulate the domestic electoral cycle.
Why did Israel attack Gaza - right at this particular moment in time?
Because it rallies the passions of Zionists in the upcoming Israeli elections, who it is believed will then tend to vote in a manner so as not to change the commander-in-chief during the middle of a national security crisis. Also, because Israel hopes to get the major bloodshed out of the way before a new American president takes over, one who has on some prior occasions expressed a degree of sympathy towards the Palestinian cause.
It's another variation on Wag the Dog.
How tragic.
This is what happens in electoral democracies once sabre rattling and waging wars of aggression is considered acceptable in ordinary political discourse, as if such bloodthirstiness were a positive partisan credential rather than a trait that citizens should deplore.
Bill from Saginaw
Azjoe & Bill of Saginaw,
Great, well reasoned posts. I'm with ya.
RE: Did Cynthia McKinney dare to criticize that country?
In fact, you may recall that Cynthia McKinney lost her congressional seat after criticizing Israel and defending Palestinian rights. The pro-Israel lobby poured money into her rival's coffers and did the usual slander campaign against her.
From "The invasion of Gaza: what does it mean? – Part One" By Alan Woods http://www.marxist.com/invasion-gaza-what-it-means-1.htm
"Now, in the dying days of his administration, Bush is once more giving unconditional support to Israel in its attack on Gaza. This was entirely predictable. At least George Bush speaks clearly. There is no doubt on whose side he is on in this war. But what about the incoming President, the new miracle-worker, the peacemaker Barack Obama? What is his position on the war and what has he got to say about it? So far he has said hardly anything, under the pretext that he is 'not yet President' and 'America must speak with one voice.'
"Despite his diplomatic silence we know very well what Obama thinks. On a visit to one Israeli town in July of last year he said: 'If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.' Mr. Obama forgets to mention the small detail that Palestinian territory is being occupied by Israelis, as the territory of the United States was occupied by Britain in the 18th century, when the American people, though they lacked rockets, used other, equally violent means, to expel the invaders.
"Are there no differences, then, between Bush and Obama? The interests of US imperialism in the Middle East are what determine the actions of both men. In that sense there is no real difference. But there are important differences on how they interpret these interests, just as changing circumstances can modify the tactics of politicians who share the same interest. The motto of the US Marine Corps is 'Speak softly and carry a big stick'. But like his predecessor Ronald Reagan, George W. represents the most aggressive, provincial and obtuse wing of the US ruling class. His natural inclination was to speak loudly and hit everybody in sight with a baseball bat. This tactic can sometimes be crudely effective, but in the long run can create a lot of bad headaches.
"Obama is a more subtle and intelligent representative of imperialism than Bush. He has inherited a difficult situation, both in the USA and internationally. There is an economic crisis, growing unemployment and falling living standards at home and a trail of foreign policy disasters abroad. There is growing pessimism and discontent in the US, which was reflected in the election of Obama and which he must do something to pacify. One of the pledges that Obama made during his election campaign was to begin the pullout of US troops from Iraq. The US public, completely alienated from the war, will demand that this pledge be carried out. But certain things flow from this.
"It will be impossible to carry out a withdrawal from Iraq unless Washington is prepared to negotiate a deal with both Syria and Iran, both of which have influence within Iraq and other parts of the region. But Damascus and Tehran will drive a hard bargain, and part of that bargain must include the Palestinian question. Since both Syria and Iran have long posed as the defenders of the Palestinian cause, it is unthinkable that this issue should not be on the agenda.
"All this is well known to Israel and must have been a major element in their decision to invade Gaza. As the Economist expressed it: 'With Iran's nuclear threat on the horizon, and Iranian influence growing in both Lebanon and Gaza, Israel is keen to remind its enemies that the Jewish state can still fight and still win.' In effect, the Israeli imperialists are saying to Obama (and anyone else who cares to listen): Do not forget that we are still here and we are a power to reckon with! We can make or break any deal you arrive at. Ignore us at your peril!"
HELP GAZA - Charities
KinderUSA
http://www.kinderusa.org
American Near East Refugee Aid (ANERA)
http://www.anera.org
Friends of UNRWA
http://www.friendsunrwa.org
Christian Aid
http://www.christianaid.org.uk
Islamic Relief
http://www.islamic-relief.com
Obama was always a supporter of Israel over the Palestinians ever since he was Senator. Check his voting records and his public speeches. He rarely supported the Palestinians. Just another Chicago goon like the rest !
Obama is not a jittery, hopped-up religious fanatic like George Wanker Bush. Bush and his Rapturous ilk have absolutely no use whatsoever for Jews and I wouldn't be surprised if Bush hates them all to the core. His support for Israel is based mostly on the looney notion that the world is coming to an end quite soon and to a lesser extent because he loathes and despises Arabs and Muslims. Obama has neither of these handicaps. If he is unwilling or unable to have the United States act as a true honest broker for all sides in the current disaster, he should withdraw all aid from all nations there receiving our aid and say the United States is done with it. Let some other nation or group of nations take over. Such an action might finally shake up everyone in the region to do something other than blow smoke up all our backsides.
Mordechai Shiblikov:I agree with so much of your well written comment, that the little bit with which I am not in total agreement is worth the space (I think it's the last 5 words that mess it for me.)
Notice how AIPAC's role is highlighted here also..............
AIPAC praises Senate support of Israel
Jan. 8, 2009
Elana Kirsh , THE JERUSALEM POST
AIPAC on Thursday praised a bipartisan US Senate resolution which expressed support for Israel in its fight against terrorism.
The resolution, which was sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, "conveys America's unequivocal and steadfast support for Israel's right to self-defense," according to a statement from the pro-Israel lobby group.
Reid was quoted in the statement as telling the Senate floor that the legislative body would "strengthen our historic bond with the State of Israel by reaffirming Israel's inalienable right to defend against attacks from Gaza, as well as our support for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process."
The resolution itself promoted a "durable and sustainable" cease-fire in Gaza, which "would not allow a reestablishment of the status quo ante where Hamas can continue to launch rockets out of Gaza."
It also noted that Hamas "was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel," and deplored the 2006 capturing of IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, who is still held in Gaza.
The Republican leader was quoted voicing strong support of Israel, saying that the country was "responding exactly the same way [the US] would if rockets were being launched into the United States from Canada or Mexico." He too reaffirmed Israel's right to self defense.
The AIPAC statement went on to "applaud" US President George W. Bush's recent statements in support of Israel.
Last week Bush branded Hamas rocket attacks on Israel an "act of terror" and said that no peace deal would be acceptable without monitoring to halt the flow of smuggled weapons to terrorist groups.
"Another one-way cease-fire that leads to rocket attacks on Israel is not acceptable," he had said.
AP contributed to this report.
Arabs have at least as much money as Jews do. Why is the Arab Lobby of so little influence compared to the Israeli Lobby?
Obama's in charge.
No one is "cornering" him into supporting policies (certainly not people he appointed himself).
Obama consistently supports Israel's right to defend herself.
There is zero evidence to the contrary.
Tom Hayden is redrawing Obama into someone he wishes he was - but isn't.
In fact, he's rewriting Obama into supporting the exact opposite side of the views he has expressed about Israel.
Does this type of fantasy pass for journalism?
Would anyone take Sean Hannity seriously if he alleged (lacking evidence) that Obama was secretly a Marxist revolutionary who was being molded against his will into a centrist by his handlers?
How can Obama be "cornered by his Party" into accepting views he already accepts?
This article should be called "Hayden's Obama: Fantasy Makeover Edition" .
Yes Obama is in charge, but he is not a dictator. He is beholden to the political climate he exists in as is any politician.
As for zero evidence, I disagree. As the author of this article states, he has expressed sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, a rare statement in the politics of this country that nearly got him blacklisted by the powerful Zionist lobby in this country.
Obama is an adept politician and for any politician to make it in this country, they must show obeisance to Israel.
So in reality, Obama's true position will not be known until we see his actions. And for now he seems to be handling this one with extreme caution. I don't blame him.
marco:"He is beholden to the political climate he exists in as is any politician."
Oh I get it, he's beholden to the "climate". Darn that stupid "climate"! Stop controlling Obama "climate"! Give him back his free will!
marco:"As for zero evidence, I disagree. As the author of this article states, he has expressed sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, a rare statement in the politics of this country that nearly got him blacklisted by the powerful Zionist lobby in this country."
George Bush has expressed sympathy for the Palestinians. He even set up a fund to help them. Yet Bush is no Obama. You have zero evidence to support the claim that Obama supports Israel any less than Bush or Clinton.
http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/bush-calls-for-fund-to-compensate-palestinians
marco: "So in reality, Obama's true position will not be known until we see his actions."
Right, so Obama has decieved the country and lied to all of us. And you know this based on...
Sean Hannity says the same thing (also without evidence) except he implies that Obama is a Muslim terrorist, you say he hates Israel. You two are two sides of the same coin.
Oh right, politicians are completely transparent and wear their beliefs on their sleeves. Are you that naive? The vary nature of being a politician requires that you hold some of your cards. Call it lying, in a strict sense it is. But no politician in the real world would last long if he was completely forthright with all his positions. Think Lincoln and his ever shifting positions on slavery.
As for evidence of his support for the Palestinian cause, believe whatever the hell you want to believe and I will believe whatever the hell I want to believe. I never said he said anything "proof positive," I just put forth a mere "shred" of evidence, circumstantial at best. We will see through his actions.
Oh and learn to read. I never said Obama "hates" Israel.
Here's another shred of evidence.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/08/barack-obama-gaza-hamas
The US is the only country consistently supporting this rogue state. Notice it did the same with South Africa and Iraq. Remember when they used to cuddle up to Saddam Hussein? Here's hoping they get tired of the cozy relationship with Tel Aviv (or is it Jerusalem yet)and stab them in the back like they do to most of their "good friends". No hard feelings but bidness is bidness.
The Guardian reports that Obama is going to dialogue with Hamas!
Darn, let us hope so.
When Obama was in the Illinois legislature, he was sympathetic to the Palestinians. He met with Edward Said and with Ali Abunimah, founder of the Electronic Intifada. But when Obama sought national office, he courted the Israel lobby. The whole sad story is told by Abunimah at
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml
After Obama received the Democratic nomination, with a mantra of "change", he rushed straight to the AIPAC convention. In the words of Uri Avnery, veteran Israeli peace activist, Obama "set a new low for groveling and obsequiousness".
Since the November election it has gotten even worse. Obama's first important cabinet appointment was Rahm Israel Emmanuel, who is practically an Israeli himself. And now the rumor has it that Dennis Ross will be appointed as "czar" for the Middle East. Ross now directs the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a satellite organ of AIPAC.
What has to be put away is the unconditional support in this country for Israel. The Zionist takeover (buyout) of American foreign policy is unacceptable, destructive and terrifying. They control the government, the media, labor. They are highly organized and motivated for their cause, which, from a purely pragmatic perspective, was doomed from the beginning.
Peace? Israel does not want peace.
Obama is an AIPAC lapdog and a moral coward. Sure doesn't surprise me. I am sure Hayden was caught off guard.
Yo, Tom Hayden. We told you so. Now, reap what you have sown.