Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
So Far, Obama's Missed The Point on Gaza...
It would have helped if Obama had the courage to talk about what everyone in the Middle East was talking about. No, it wasn't the US withdrawal from Iraq. They knew about that. They expected the beginning of the end of Guantanamo and the probable appointment of George Mitchell as a Middle East envoy was the least that was expected. Of course, Obama did refer to "slaughtered innocents", but these were not quite the "slaughtered innocents" the Arabs had in mind.
There was the phone call yesterday to Mahmoud Abbas. Maybe Obama thinks he's the leader of the Palestinians, but as every Arab knows, except perhaps Mr Abbas, he is the leader of a ghost government, a near-corpse only kept alive with the blood transfusion of international support and the "full partnership" Obama has apparently offered him, whatever "full" means. And it was no surprise to anyone that Obama also made the obligatory call to the Israelis.
But for the people of the Middle East, the absence of the word "Gaza" - indeed, the word "Israel" as well - was the dark shadow over Obama's inaugural address. Didn't he care? Was he frightened? Did Obama's young speech-writer not realise that talking about black rights - why a black man's father might not have been served in a restaurant 60 years ago - would concentrate Arab minds on the fate of a people who gained the vote only three years ago but were then punished because they voted for the wrong people? It wasn't a question of the elephant in the china shop. It was the sheer amount of corpses heaped up on the floor of the china shop.
Sure, it's easy to be cynical. Arab rhetoric has something in common with Obama's clichés: "hard work and honesty, courage and fair play ... loyalty and patriotism". But however much distance the new President put between himself and the vicious regime he was replacing, 9/11 still hung like a cloud over New York. We had to remember "the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke". Indeed, for Arabs, the "our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred" was pure Bush; the one reference to "terror", the old Bush and Israeli fear word, was a worrying sign that the new White House still hasn't got the message. Hence we had Obama, apparently talking about Islamist groups such as the Taliban who were "slaughtering innocents" but who "cannot outlast us". As for those in the speech who are corrupt and who "silence dissent", presumably intended to be the Iranian government, most Arabs would associate this habit with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt (who also, of course, received a phone call from Obama yesterday), King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and a host of other autocrats and head-choppers who are supposed to be America's friends in the Middle East.
Hanan Ashrawi got it right. The changes in the Middle East - justice for the Palestinians, security for the Palestinians as well as for the Israelis, an end to the illegal building of settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land, an end to all violence, not just the Arab variety - had to be "immediate" she said, at once. But if the gentle George Mitchell's appointment was meant to answer this demand, the inaugural speech, a real "B-minus" in the Middle East, did not.
The friendly message to Muslims, "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect", simply did not address the pictures of the Gaza bloodbath at which the world has been staring in outrage. Yes, the Arabs and many other Muslim nations, and, of course, most of the world, can rejoice that the awful Bush has gone. So, too, Guantanamo. But will Bush's torturers and Rumsfeld's torturers be punished? Or quietly promoted to a job where they don't have to use water and cloths, and listen to men screaming?
Sure, give the man a chance. Maybe George Mitchell will talk to Hamas - he's just the man to try - but what will the old failures such as Denis Ross have to say, and Rahm Emanuel and, indeed, Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton? More a sermon than an Obama inaugural, even the Palestinians in Damascus spotted the absence of those two words: Palestine and Israel. So hot to touch they were, and on a freezing Washington day, Obama wasn't even wearing gloves.
- 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...
227 Comments so far
Show AllAnd so, I will not sound any more extreme than you, JJ Doyle, when I offer my observation that Jews are overwhelmingly pro-mass murder, and pro terrorism on a massive scale. A poll can be taken in any synagogue to verify this.
Thy a poll at your local "Islamic center" as see if you get the same result.
Let me reminds you that George Washington, Jefferson, and the extremist pro-martyrdom Patrick Henry were pro-terrorism too.
---USAn---
Thank you for saving me the bother of saying what we all know, but so few are willing to state. If the Jews are worried about stopping attacks, this is the worst possible way to accomplish that. I have no genes or Gods in this battle, but from where I stand, I see anti-semitism becoming a badge of courage.
Your towel is tied too tightly.
I have no idea, to what you refer. Syria, Iran, the Holy Land Foundation, and Sami al Arian have all funded Palestinian terrorist groups, out of pocket change. Hadassah collects money from Jewish congregations and builds hospitals. Differing cultural orientations.
UNRWA builds the hospitals in "Palestine." No self-respecting Muslim would spend money on such a thing, when there are honor and humiliation to be avenged.
Qaddafi's piece was right on but certainly not original. Most who called themselves Progressive, never believed that supporting a racist, singular, isolationist regime as Likkud's was anti-American. Apartheid is euphemistic in describing the totalitarian Israeli regime and you needn't qualify as a scholar to grasp that point. Israel represents all the things that even Democrats say are important. Yet their reach is such they were able to remove Caroline Kennedy from consideration for the senate seat they own.
A progressive is a liberal who is afraid to be called a liberal. A liberal is a person that goes to the left only as far as the Right allows them.
You have obviously strained your cerebral limits to come up with that, yet I can't find it's purpose?
Actually, Phil Ochs was closer to the truth when he said "A liberal is 10 degrees to the left of center in good times, 10 degrees to the right when it affects him (her) personally."
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
Caroline Kennedy is a Muslim, Israel is a monoracial dictatorship, Syria is a multi-racial democracy, and Progressives mean to impose a probably-fatal solution on Israelis, against their will.
At least the last bit is grounded in reality.
If anyone might think that Caroline Kennedy's backing out of Hillary's seat is anything but her "Jew" problem, get real. The Jew lobby owns the northeast and they get to elect the seat they bought and paid for and putting anyone in the NY senate seat who would surely be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause is a no-no. Papa Joe made it so, don't you know. Soon AIPAC will be handling all checkpoints leading to NYC.
I can't make out, if you believe that Caroline Kennedy is a Jew or a Muslim. Which is it?
"Soon AIPAC will be handling all checkpoints leading to NYC."
LOL !!! Aint that the truth !! American zionists will stop at nothing to achieve their aim of genocide against the Palestinians and if any American dare stop them they will live to regret it.
So Mr. Fisk are you saying you are suddenly surprised to learn the MO of the New World Order, or as it is commonly referred to as the international community? And so the strings will be pulled on America’s new Dear Leader of (what?) change.
Is it not just business as usual around the world? If they do what they are told they can pretend to have power. If they don’t they cannot exist. Their only alternative must be violence, why… because it will be made to be so, they will be classed as terrorists and then be kill.
When Hamas became a political party it was ignored, isolated and targeted despite popular support and its leaders assassinated. Batasuna in Basque Spain was outlawed because of their “links” to ETA. The government was prohibited from “negotiations”. Today another 6 Basques were arrested for holding an “illegal political meeting”. In Afghanistan despite the common knowledge that a military solution is impossible, as the Taliban gain more local support with each further killing of civilians by US and NATO troops, yet talking to them is “out of the question” although it clearly only a political agreement will end a foreign occupation of their country. How many more Americans and British will be sent there to die for another lie?
If someone has become, what you conveniently call, a terrorist it may be informative to ask why? Why are nations facing “far reaching networks of violence and hatred”? Is it perhaps that the so called terrorists have been left no alternative path self determination? There goal is unacceptable.
If Political organizations can only speak under terms dictated by authorities supported by superior arms, and being heard has to be considered a privilege, then which side can “outlast” the “slaughtering of innocents” does become the decisive factor. But who is the “Terrorist”?
Removing political options from people with arbitrary rule, forces ETA, Hamas, Taleban, Tamil, etc. to take up arms, closing the political doors, remove the possibility of peaceful resolution, and we’ll all have the right mix of conflict, violence, and global politics to maintain our MIC and the corrupt elitist status quo it enriches and protects.
If you anyone thinks that the terms for talking are clear and not arbitrary, just ask: When did Israel abandon violence? Who can recognise a country that does not accept defined limits or borders? How can anyone agree to previous accords that are outright ignored by the principles?
“Maybe George Mitchell will talk to Hamas” Don’t hold your breath. Maybe he’ll just pretend to, but you can bet that someone today is getting CIA money, equipment and support for his “self determination” for guns and explosives or not in Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Iran, but of course those governments should expect violent reactions to their tyranny, right?
>>Lucitanian wrote: And so the strings will be pulled on America’s new Dear Leader of (what?) change.
"America’s new Dear Leader" - that's hilarious (but true?). Either I'm tired of all the hype earlier this week or I'm mad at myself for joining the 'hopeful brigade', though momentarily, only to return to my sane, cynical self, I find this really funny and witty! Excellent post, overall.
Highintel: Can we do better?
Lucitanian: An excellent - most excellent - comment! And, along with Alcyon (reply below mine), I am smiling (grimly) at your "Dear Leader" quip. Indeed, the cult of personality surrounding this president is frightening, and few seem to be opining on it. (Exception: John Oliver of The Daily Show, on the mall during the inauguration, interviewing a German: "Oh! German! Then you have some experience with charismatic leaders?")
Anyway, I wanted to thank you for your acute bank shot.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
I've skimmed 200 plus comments, few of which seem to evidence that they even read Fisk's polemic before "enlightening" us. Fisk knows a thing or three about The Middle East, however to attempt to expiate Obama's decison: The difficulty Obama faces, and why I imagine he chose to talk to a "ghost President" before he talked to Hamas, is that a) Hamas, democratically elected or not, are overtly racist in much of what they say and do... as a recent piece in Der Speigel illustrates...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,553724,00.html
b) they are a proscribed terrorist organisation - and any talks he has with them would have to be completely off the record - possibly something Mahmoud Abbas would be a position to advise about
c) Hamas can't bring themselves to accept Israel's right to exist ... which kinda scuppers any peace process before it starts.
That said the situation in Northern Ireland never looked more intractable and impossible before a compromise was found... and for sure both parties need to elect leaders less interested in polarised populism, and real engagement before that process can begin... but things are only impossible until they're not. I'm personally thankful Fisk is in a position from the Lebanon to demystify much of the obfuscation that arises in the Western media about the Middle East and I hope, with due deference, his pessimism proves misplaced.
It is interesting that you start your comment by attacking most of all the other commentators here for something that is wholly an assumption on your part. Fisk has a good perspective on the ME, I agree, but has only one person's opinion, as open to comment as is anyone's. His opinions at times show strong bias, as do yours.
Der Spiegel article is interesting but if anything is remarkable by what it leaves unsaid.
A) Regrettably, and by no means as a justification, overt racism is no more a speciality of Hamas or old Koranic writings than it is as written into the Talmud and is pervasive in daily Jewish culture. Anti Jewish, given the confusing misnomer of Anti-Semitism is equally an essential tool to further the Zionist crimes which your comment and the article quoted seem to deliberately overlook.
The hate that is cultivated, politicised and directed comes from a root, a reaction to an injustice orchestrated by a few. The underlying causes, those injustices, are conveniently ignored or at best glossed over by those who point to the resultant hate that they have spawned. Zionists then point to the hate as a principle justification of the “special” status of "their people", the Jews, and so it goes on, a kind of reverse racism is engineered, propagandized and manipulated to justify further crimes like what we have witnessed in Gaza.
America has now a black president and as such the media have made him a messianic hero, perhaps to set him up for the very possible disappointing failures to follow. But, it should be an example of hope that in terms of race and ignorance in that young country, all of this was inconceivable only one or two generations ago. Possibly the axes of Muslim and Jewish disdain, where it exists, will also be buried quickly once the underlying injustice and continued crimes are reversed and compensated.
Racism is used by those that need it for social and economic manipulation. The Zionist experiment, its expansion and the dream of many of their followers and supporters for a racially/ethnically (Jewish) based Greater Israel is very much alive and in fact supported directly by the continued corruption of political powers far beyond Israel’s borders in Germany, Great Britain and the USA. The fact that such is predicted in the alleged Jewish master plan, fraudulently produced by Russian Bolchevic propagandists, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." and referred to in your linked article is just a coincidence, of course. But, it is undeniable that Anti-Semitic racism is essential as a foundation to the Zionist myth and avoiding this fact in articles will not make it go away.
B) Proscribing Hamas as a terrorist organization is deliberately missing the point and is exactly the type of tool used in order to avoid talking directly. That which is proscribed can be ignored or un-proscribed arbitrarily and at will. The state of Israel has just proved with renewed vigour its terrorist qualification, and its preference for repeated criminal acts against humanity. Not surprisingly it was founded and lead by proud self confessed terrorists, but all one can say there is “today’s terrorist can be tomorrow’s prime minister” get over it. At least Hamas is fighting for the self determination of Semites that all belong in Palestine (rather than Germany Poland and Russia)and were removed by Terrorism, Zionist terrorism. It should be made clear if a true negotiation and settlement is ever attainable that it is only in Israel’s self interest to settle as directly as possible with the broadest base of Palestinians, including those who represent the majority of Palestinians, all who have legitimate claims. No lasting or meaningful peace can be derived from psudo-agreements with quisling puppets set up to treat and pander to continued American and Israeli Zionist crimes, such as Abbas and his authoritarian government of the PA, another puppet dictator in the ME doing US/Zionist bidding like Egypt.
C) This “right to exist” is a canard waved by every Zionist apologist and supporter. There is no such thing. Countries are recognised. Israel is a creation which cannot define itself in terms of borders or the rights of its inhabitants and their right to exist. Like the right to self defence, does not imply "by violent agression" when they can defend themselves by abiding by a seacefire. Human rights come first and are codified whereas Israel has patently ignored them throughout its short history. Hamas leadership, in fact has fullfilled short and suggested long term treaties of peace and other arrangements which in all ways recognise the Zionist entity as it exists so this is really a mute point at best, but again it makes for good propaganda and another excuse to avoid the crimes done and do more. Before you say it let me add the other canards ; "previous treaties", have been effectively torn up by Israel in their breaches, and settlements so it would be hard to ask Hamas to recognise them and so too; "rejecting violence" as a means.... well if Israel agreed to that we’d not have to watch their crimes in Gaza, would we?.
You end by blaming the people, again; for polarizing to extremes, calling Hamas populist rather than representative, alluding to comparisons of intractability in N. Ireland, another injustice forced on a group of people cruelly tyrannised for centuries by state terrorism, again and again you avoid totally consideration of causes and condescendingly judge the effects, an approach abounding in your whole comment. Your superficially conservative and sober support of the status quo in fact belies the stand of Zionist apologists hiding causes. It leads me saddly to concur with Fisk’s pessimism. If you really want to know what gives strength to Muslim extremism and abhorrent racism, defying peace between Arab and Jew, it is cause above all by the reaction to people who ignorantly or otherwise condone and even applaud US/Zionist criminality.
Pan
read it All, a Polemic it is and as I see it true true true,It `has and always will be toooo HOT! and if you comment here to a degree you can speak in some circles on both sides ??? could mean your life ,job or family.
Obama NEVER could have become President without AIPAC , or Jewish support (20% of congress is Jewish albeit 1.5 to 2 % of the population ) some say prior to this election 20% of Republican money and 40% of Democratic monies came from Jewish peoples.
They are propbably the best financde and most politically orientated people in the United States.AND THEY VOTE!
Their activism may have come from their years of PERSECUTION ,BUT they of ALL peoples should understand the suffering of the dispossesed and apparently they do not as they seem not be satisfied until all the land and water and every village are theirs ; and the indigenous peoples are gone and even then will it be enough or is a GREATER Israel on their minds and the peoples around them under their Hegemony .
So I do not believe it is simply they bad we good and the part that I agonize on is I am an unwilling participant with my Country and my Money a hostage of another Nation and her people if you will watching the Military and Devastation and one sidedness while homes and people live for 60 years and are always the BIG victims and the others through the Media the only victims.
AND THEY VOTE.
Yes, very disappointing, as have been many of Obama's appointments. I want to hear Obama say he recognizes the Palestinians right to exist. The Palestinians have lived for 60 years without civil or human rights.
You cannot have conflict resolution without inviting everyone to the table, not just the people who already respect one another but also the people who don't get along. Hamas and Israel both have to be at the table. Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Palestinians. So what if Israel doesn't "like" them. It's not their right to decide who governs land that does not belong to them.
Let's drop language like terrorist. It isn't useful in this situation. Unless of course, we also want to use words like "rogue state" and "war criminals."
"I want to hear Obama say he recognizes the Palestinians right to exist."
He will never say it even if he means it. Its political suicide. Obama alone cannot destroy AIPAC which increasingly represents a State Within A State. Its a cancer that needs to be treated, neutralized and emitted.
It doesnt matter what the world thinks about Israel. Clearly a majority of people in the world realize Israel is committing what can only be described as genocide in Palestine. What really matters is what the 'white' world thinks i.e. Europe and USA. They are the ones responsible for the holocaust and they are the ones who will allow Israel to play out this massacre because it assuages their guilt. The rest of the world can only watch and shake their heads in disgust.