Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama Should Visit Gaza
US President Barack Obama will give a major policy talk at Cairo University on 4 June, intended to start mending the rift between the United States and the Arab world. During the Bush years, many Arabs turned against the United States because of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. But the issue that is really at the crux of the tensions with the United States is the intractable conflict between Israel and Palestine, and what many perceive as a one-sided US policy in support of Israel.
The Obama administration has taken a positive stand on the Israeli settlements, calling for a complete freeze. "[Obama] wants to see a stop to settlements -- not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently told reporters.
But the administration has said almost nothing about the devastating Israeli invasion of Gaza that left more than 1,400 dead, including some 400 children. To many in the Middle East, this is an unfortunate continuation of past policies that condemn the loss of innocent Israeli lives, but refuse to speak out against the disproportionately greater loss of Palestinian lives at the hands of the Israeli military.
The Israeli invasion of Gaza began on 27 December 2008, when Obama had just won the election but had not yet taken office. While he spoke out against the 26 November Mumbai terrorism attack, he refused to even call for a ceasefire in Gaza, saying coldly, "When it comes to foreign affairs it is particularly important to adhere to the principle of one president at a time."
Once inaugurated, Obama appointed former Senator George Mitchell as a special peace envoy and immediately sent him on a "listening tour" to key places in the Middle East -- except Gaza. Mitchell returned for a second trip to the region in late February, visiting Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Israel and the West Bank but once again bypassing Gaza. The same thing happened on his third trip in April.
Hillary Clinton has never visited war-torn Gaza. She promised $300 million for rebuilding, but the aid won't get to Gaza as long as the administration insists on dealing only with Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority in the West Bank while shunning Hamas, which controls Gaza and was democratically elected.
Obama won great support from the American people during the presidential campaign when he said that America must talk to its adversaries, without preconditions. But his administration now puts ridiculous conditions on talking to Hamas: It must recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept previous international agreements. Israel, on the other hand, does not have to recognize Palestine, renounce violence or abide by past agreements. Putting preconditions on just one side of the conflict makes it impossible to move a peace process forward.
While Obama prepares for his trip to the Middle East, more than 150 people -- mostly Americans -- are trying to enter war-torn Gaza through both the Egyptian and Israeli borders. Organized under the umbrella of the peace group CODEPINK, this is the largest group of Americans to travel to Gaza since the siege began.
The delegations, invited by the UN agency for Palestine refugees (UNRWA), are bringing medicines, toys, school supplies and playground building materials. An estimated 1,346 Gazan children were left without one or more of their parents as a result of the Israeli assault and the majority were left traumatized and depressed.
That's why the peace group CODEPINK has launched an international petition calling on Obama to visit Gaza and see for himself the devastation and deprivation that continues to plague the region's 1.5 million people almost six months after the invasion. Just this week, Obama tacked a new stop to his upcoming Middle Eastern visit: Saudi Arabia. If he can make room for a private dinner with the King, then surely he can find the time to go to Gaza. Isn't it more important for Obama to visit a region where 1,400 people have recently been killed and thousands of homes, schools and mosques destroyed? Isn't it more important for him to see how the Israelis are using the yearly $3 billion in military aid from US taxpayers?
Obama should take the opportunity, during this visit to Egypt next week, to visit Gaza. He should express his condolences for the loss of so many innocent lives, call for a lifting of the inhumane siege that continues to imprison an entire population, and support an investigation of how US military funds to Israel are being spent.
Those actions, more than any fine words he may speak during his talk at Cairo University, will do wonders to repairs our relations with the Arab world that were so tattered during the Bush years.
- Posted in
41 Comments so far
Show AllIf Obama DID visit Gaza, it would probably be to wag his finger at its inhabitants and scold them for daring to resist their Israeli masters and oppressors.
He and Hillary must continue the Good Cop/Bad Cop routine, you know.
· Yr Obd't Servant
The US government should immediately and indefinitely halt all financial aid to Israel. That is the most responsible approach we should demand our government take, rather than funding the devastation through military aid and then paying lip service to the toll it has taken on the Palestinian people.
Turn off the tap.
It is a language they would understand.
Shit, Obama doesn't even pay lip service. He is more likely to scold--or insist that the victim from the Palestinian to the Union worker make all the sacrifices.
Meanwhile he sups with King and panders to royality.
He is such a servant.
The thesis of Ms. Benjamin's article--that Obama should visit Gaza---is part of a post I made yesterday to Robert Fisk's article on how the "Muslim world" would probably pay little attention to his "Muslim World" speech. If, on the other hand he were to go to the Egypt/Gaza border, firmly closed by Egypt at the behest of Israel and the U.S., and say to his Egyptian host, "tear down this border crossing barrier, Mr. Mubarak," Muslims would certainly listen. If he went to a location near the West Bank separation wall (at Bethlehem for example), and said "tear down this wall, Mr. Netanyahu," he would certainly be listened to. Short of these totally unlikely Reaganesque utterances, I could even write him a "softer" version of what he might say: that we recognize the suffering of Gaza and West Bank residents and the insecurity of Israeli's fears of rockets and suicide bombers, but "look forward to the day" when such barriers to human movement will longer be necessary because people on both sides of them will no longer feel their necessity. That at least would be a start on the road that really does lead to peace in the Middle East. I half expect that he will make a speech with approximately this message; but a "visit" to Gazan and West Bank locales would add a touch of "propaganda of the deed" to his ceaseless propaganda of high-sounding words.
Sioux Rose
JERRY: "Tear down this wall!" Certainly has an historic ring to it; but it would require bold leadership and we've seen ample evidence that's not on Mr. Obama's resume. What would a centrist do?
Sioux Rose: "What would a centrist do?" Of course just like Obama will do: nothing, except make some pretty speeches about it. If by centrist you mean "pragmatic" and unprincipled, what he/she will do is wait until events overtake the country and do what "has to be" done for survival. A truly cataclysmic terrorist attack, climate-change related event, or a total collapse of the world economy---all of which events are very much in the works for our country and world--the centrist will have to turn to the people who know and have long known what would "work" even as these events were moving toward their culmination. For the sake of a word, let's call them "progressives" with names like Dennis Kucinich, Bill Moyers, Cynthia McKinney, Chris Hedges. With the bankruptcy of ideas and programs having fully engulfed their right-centrist "leaders," they will turn to a viable third party and move toward a re-birth of a nation. That's what I think, anyway, call it the conscience of a progressive.
Israel has no right to exist where it does. It's time we figured that out and moved it to Delaware or Montana (as Saddam suggested).
Think of the money we would save by keeping it internally.
"Isn't it more important for him to see how the Israelis are using the yearly $3 billion in military aid from US taxpayers?" than it is to schmooze with the Saudis?
---good question.
Who cares what Obama visits? It's not as if that GDMFer plans to do anything about it anyway and Benjamin's vote for Obama and her bashing of Ralph Nader and our late Peter Camejo is more than enough for me to tell Benjy to zip it. You voted for Obama so you suffer the consequences. You should have supported Nader or Mckinney when you had your chance like I did !!
When you are on the front lines fighting courageously like Benjamin does every day, I might consider what you have to say.
I'm going to expand your statement for you Vern (which is an expansion on "zip it" via Fred):
"But until then Fred Johnson, shut the hell up. You've been dismissed"
(Nice, eh?)
"And Furthermore, for any of you yellow-bellies out there, dissenting views critical of MB's strategy and duplicity in the election of Obama are not accepted unless you can prove your TIS!
Love it or leave it, Baby."
round and round we go....
Not only that, but she and far too many 'beacons' in progressive wings elected Obama with no secured concession from Obama., voted him into power --effectively carte blanche-- and now flustered and sidelined, ramp up their calls for "conferences" in DC demanding compensation! Rallying in protest mode for concessions from a presidency they parroted all through out 2008? Obama mocks progressives "I don't know what promises they're talking about I'm not keeping".
I thought there was supposed to be some form of symbiotic relationship between progressives and Obama....
Progressives gluing onto Obama and giving him a pass is more like a classic example of the 'breast in the night' scenario.... and now what, MB, back to square one and demand Obama travel to Gaza or we'll protest?
chuk-it-levi-strauss (and others): While I give ground to no one in terms of my contempt for the "Progressives of Obama" who inhabit Nation and many other "progressive" websites, I just think that "pragmatically" we do the progressive cause no good by saying let's set up a statute of limitations around Obama-criticism and say you can't be a critic if once you supported him. From where, pray tell, are we to advance the numbers enlisted in our cause except from the disillusioned of their miserable tribe? Rather, let's take Medea Benjamin's statements as she makes them and, if she agrees with us (as she does with me about the Gaza thing), let's ask what we together can do to promote our common cause. Time enough later for recriminations, let's not yet set in motion the circular firing squads for which we are so famous.
Medea may make a lot of great points and be technically correct but what's the point in believing her when in the end, she supports a candidate who actually goes against her beliefs? You supported Mckinney last year while I supported Nader but did Benjamin give either one of these candidates any iota of support? Hell no ! In fact, she spoke against Nader running last year and used Democrat apologist talking points to justify her support for Obama and Pelosi. That's enough to make Medea just as uncreditworthy as Pelosi and Hillary, wouldn't you agree?
Frederick Johnson, I think you kind of miss my point, that it's not Medea Benjamin's "credibility" that's at stake, but the creditability of the Middle Eastern policy of Obama and the U.S. government. Were her credibility at issue. she would gets some points for her protest actions and specifically those direct actions involving Gaza, and some negative points for her joining the nasty band of Progressives for Obama. But I persist in what I said; however much I might "believe" or not in Ms. Benjamin, I believe in her call for an Obama action in opposition to Israel's dealings with Gaza AND the rest of Palestine, and were she the devil herself, I'd say climb aboard our small boat and let's see where she can take us.
I didn't mean to sound too gruffy and disgruntled about MB so my apologies. It's just that her tone against Nader was very rude and anti-democratic. Well? She got her Obama and now she's like a child begging Obama to listen to her when Obama listens to no one but those GDMFing rightwingers.
As for Obama visiting Gaza, it makes no difference. His mind is already made up and his decisions are "fixed". That sneaky devil isn't gonna do anything anyway. Obama is already showing himself to be a miserable failure both on the economy and on foreign policy. In 2012, if Nader runs again or Gonzolas, Sheehan, or whoever takes his place and does run, let's see if Medea really means what she has been saying all along or if she'll gag again and endorse Obama. It's an off-year for now so to me, she's just saying what she wants to but wait until 2010 and 2012 and see what she says then when it's election season.
Oregoncharles
No. I disagree. My wife and I voted for Nader and McKinney and were disappointed that others did not. We are not lessor of two evils voters, never have been. But still, we were very pleased when Obama won because as I always pointed out: "When Obama wins, the Democrats will have to stand stark naked in the light." With the lights on, how do they look, folks? Pretty much the same as the last batch, eh?
Another thing, just to get it off my chest. It's time to stop referring to the Democratic Party as cowards. They are not cowards. They are sold out just like the Republicans. Noam Chomsky is absolutely correct, we don't have a two party system but just one party, corporate money designs and implements the agenda.
The reason things have remained the same was summed up in this quote by an official in the Bush administration - someone who probably works for Obama now ...............
"As an unnamed Bush official told reporter Ron Suskind, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." For those who didn't like it, another Bush adviser explained, "Let me clue you in. We don't care. You see, you're outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don't read the New York Times or Washington Post or the LA Times."
FWIW, I have commented more than once that the Suskind quote is just as representative of the Obama administration as the previous one.
They just tuck the attitude deep inside a jelly doughnut of Hope and Dialogue and Change and Empowerment.
But even that's gotten stale.
· Yr Obd't Servant
"...progressive cause no good by saying let's set up a statute of limitations around Obama-criticism and say you can't be a critic if once you supported him...."
Where the hell did that come from Rose? I am not saying members only.
--Concede Without an Accord:
What I am stating is my frustration over the policy and strategy from MB, et al who championed Obama to his current position WITHOUT securing any guarantees of concessions out of an Obama Administration.
They, without any insider deals to my knowledge, accepted Obama's rhetoric at face value and conducted their very own propaganda campaign to sequester funding and votes from progressive. They created a false dichotomy and projected onto Obama what Obama did not state himself. And so, when Obama flanked himself with Volcker, et al right after the election, it was a moment of panic for those who thought they could trust Obama. Frankly there was no way to 'secure' concession, so we should have withheld our support. This was NOT the case at all.
--Flanked and Dismantled:
Now we are stuck in the same situation we progressives have been for decades: flanked and dismantled by shoddy strategists who sold us and our contributions over to the DLC-lite candidate rather than take a stand.
I am attacking the strategy and a willingness to cling, to still cling, to the breast in the night evident in MB above article. That is hardly a circular firing squad, nor is this some decree stating separatism and alienation of others whom I disagree with in strategy.
--Firing Squad:
Circular firing squad? We are also know for something else: an overt willingness to bet the entire farm on the promise of a rose garden --time after time. That's what happened. and that's what continues to happen. The rose garden doesn't come because progressive leaders were willing to hand over the keys to the tractor without secured concessions from Obama.
--Regroup before Advancing:
this isn't an example of circular firing squad, this is a "call to arms" to rescind any open hands to Obama, to secure our resources, to regroup and rebuild on the local level, and then reassert are demands with new force of willpower that will not fall for the breast in the night and the promise of the ever-blooming rose garden.
.
Hold Fast:
And btw, I would tell you to drop your sense of contempt for others. And if you think my opinion is an example of contempt, you are sorely misguided. I am demanding we hold ourselves to the very morals we use to justify our positions. I have no contempt for MB or Hayden et al just a serious disappointment in their willingness to concede before they even have an accord. Contempt would imply there is no room for growth.
chuk-it-levi-strauss: Sorry, I didn't see your response to me before I posted mine to Frederick Johnson. You're right, I shouldn't speak of my "contempt" for Obama supporters like Benjamin, lest I help to lessen the "room to grow." This is the direct opposite to what I'm trying to do, and I have to watch my language.
I like your idea of promise of a rose garden as the bait in terms of which Benjamin and others were attracted to supporting Obama's candidacy. I promised my wife a rose garden and had to give it up after 4 years of frustrated effort in the Florida sun. (I'm talking the literal garden, not metaphorically about my marriage). I was and I'm sure you as well were entreating progressives demand commitments (beyond the vapid hope of change) from Obama in exchange for their support; but alas they gave their hearts too lightly. Both the anti-war movement and the masses of black Americans supported Obama even though he promised them nothing: which is exactly what they have gotten from his presidency.
That said, I still believe there's a discernible tendency for progressives to take pot shots at one another when they should be aiming their ammo at the military/corporate masters of both our major parties. We are easy targets of this charge when, for example, Nader and McKinney supporters were not even able to pool their forces for a single candidacy between them. A McKinney supporter, I attended a local Nader rally and stood face-to-face with Nader and told him we hoped to meet him "on the other side" of the election (and of course he agreed with this.) So far, neither campaign has really recovered whatever sea legs it developed in the campaign, let alone a post-election joining of forces. Cynthia's own quixotic actions in relation to Gaza (with what degree of involvement with Code Pink I don't know) may be a harbinger of an awakening of such an alliance of Palestinian-sympathetic elements in our political life. But that remains to be seen and there is plenty of room for "growth" in that area.
Thanks for the clarification Jerry. You're right. I really wish Nader and Mckinney could recover what little they could after last year. Obama knows the 3rd party weaknesses and is acting like a dictator IMO. If MB can stop being a party loyalist starting next year and after then I might forgive her.
Thanks for your response. I appreciate your insight and find much to think about.
There is room for growth and we are still recovering from the storm. But if we are not careful and clever and quickly capable of routing what is ineffective sea-stewardship, when we turn our ship around, we risk entering into a following sea that will swamp us from the stern.
That's what I'm talking about. Rid ourselves of what doesn't work, pump the bilge, and change course for the better with the understanding we might have to ride the trough at 45 degrees until we can secure fair weather. Too often voyagers on the USS Progressive don't want to rock the boat, but fail to understand that's exactly what happens when you are navigating in stormy weather and trying to discern which gray shape in the night is the horizon and which one is a rogue wave.
Some wise navigational advice for third parties of the future---which will have to be dominant parties if we are to survive the "slings and arrows of outrageous (political) misfortune" brought on by the Republicratic Party seasoned in a hubris-infected country.
Chuck, that's exactly what I'm pissed at Medea about. Check out her Democrat Party apologist response to the late Peter Camejo and his response back. You'll be even angrier.
http://votenader.org/blog/2008/04/25/which-side-are-you-on/
Damn, the comments are off but Medea spoke against Nader last year and for that I will never forgive her. Someone also posted some time ago that Benjamin also asked others in Code Pink to support Nancy Pelosi against Cindy Sheehan. If Code Pink wants to disrespect honorable people such as Nader and Sheehan and instead be another 15 minutes of fame special interest group, then Code Pink might as well be considered as "useful" as the DLC.
Obama won't do anything that isn't safe, cozy, and boring.
Historically (if I can frame the young career of Obama this way).,
historically, Obama has stood in Israel looking out across the border regions and sworn allegiance to Israel's "right to defend itself". Simultaneously he extends his arm with a closed hand and with his thumb pointing outward, he lowers his sight-line down the length of his arm and begins a slow and determined lecture to the "surrounding regions" peoples:
"You, the surrounding regions, must build a new governmental style that is responsible and ends corrupt patronage, and American will help you become the light of hope on the horizon with fair distribution that leads to jobs and peace. Not empty slogans like Bush, but real leadership. Because we are the one's we've been waiting for, people. But you must let us first start by reshaping Lebanon by building its Army and supplying it with American Democratic Dollars and enforcing technocratic bureaucracy. From here, people, we, you, us, and I mean us, because, don't forget, my father was Muslim, and, uh.. with American assistance in restructuring Lebanon, then Lebanon will become the guiding light of peace and stability for the Palestinians. And Turkey will become our liaison... and we will leave Iraq....that's why I'm speaking from Egypt. Egypt is a surrounding country too...okay?"
"...and thus, miracles abound, by giving money and guns and GMO crop to surrounding countries, but also indirectly install institutional democracy through the pledge of "America Houses" and a "Voice Corps" filled with a brigade of volunteers, America will deliver the tools needed to be come civilized, uh, I mean democratic, or at the very least educated about our benevolent institutionalism. Therefore, I pledge 10 billion dollar increase in American involvement by way of State Dept."
(note: this is my interpretation of what Obama intends his message to be, not what he's actually said, at least, verbatim.)
Good article and good points.
Medea Benjamin and Code Pink have done terrific work on Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine. The trips they are guiding to Gaza are very important. Hyper critics can harp away but are mostly a negative distraction. I am very glad Benjamin and Code Pink exist and work so hard and effectively. Its clear that Obama won't go to Gaza ..... but that does not mean we should not suggest it. Viva Palestina is organizing a major American effort to take supplies to Gaza in a month. Support them too!
I'm with you on that rwsterling: George Galloway is another individual who won't back down in the face of imperialist bullies and jack-booted thugs. One of my favorites from across the Pond; remember when he gave Senators Coleman and Levin a verbal thrashing a few years back? I saw it live on BBC when I lived in the UK, it was the best moments, I was on my feet the whole time, cheering.
He often tells a funny joke: The British Empire was so vast, on it the Sun never set. His Irish grandfather explained "because God would never trust the British in the dark". Now we have a modern more sophisticated version of English speaking American Empire and the joke is just as timely.
Other allied groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and Middle East Children's alliance also contribute to the cause. These injustices shall not prevail.
"intended to start mending the rift between the United States and the Arab world"
O'Bamba will surely succeed at mending rifts with Mideast royalty. These elites will join together to celebrate their theatrics while US media prompts its audience to applaud.
But the people of the Mideast, under the royal thumb, will NOT applaud. THEY understand O'Bamba's role is only to throttle the imperial steamroller temporarily to avoid catastrophic destruction of the machine itself, not to save anyone in its path.
"But his administration now puts ridiculous conditions on talking to Hamas: It must recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept previous international agreements. Israel, on the other hand, does not have to recognize Palestine, renounce violence or abide by past agreements. Putting preconditions on just one side of the conflict makes it impossible to move a peace process forward."
Medea Benjamin states the crucial contrast between the USA's conditions on Israel and Hamas with clarity. But then she undercuts herself using the imperial talking point "move a peace process forward". This prevents resolution of the crisis. The "peace process" is only a charade, to distract while experiments of subterfuge are perpetuated behind the scenes.
Maybe it's time for peace-loving Jews to start using their group privileges in creative ways to reign in their extremist peers. If the USA is going to cultivate a monstrous influence, we the far left are going to hold the elites' noses to the grindstone to focus that influence into support for universal solidarity.
I think Obama ought to go to Gaza too. If we are lucky, maybe the Israeli's will take him out with a cluster bomb.
"Hope for that", we voted for him! Maybe Obama will "change" US policy on Israel. I am sure Obama and the DNC will tell us what we want to hear again in 2010 and 2012. And then what will we do?
"Where's my change?" - Nader
Obama could see first hand the effects that the latest American weapons
have had on unprotected women and children. Our taxes at work!
Bring home a few dolls for Sasha and Malia Ann, oh wait,
those aren't dolls, those are babies, burnt black babies.
Never mind. White phosphorus turns all babies black.
Asking Obama to visit Gaza would be like asking him to visit Sri Lanka where the Tamilians were persecuted just like the Palestinians. Western leaders don't care about the poor and innocent anyway.
as we all anxiously and excitedly await reporting on the barackstar's latest and greatest speech, spoken in true doublespeak form, and with a national press joining hands with the international press who are all giddy and pissing all over themselves to see who all can so eloquently report on such greatness at such an historical moment, the discussion on torture and drone bombs and rising fuel prices and ongoing unemployment and record foreclosures and now, the desire to give one hundred billion united states dollars to the international monetary fund to help bail out eastern european banks draws blank stares of "huh?" and is relegated to page a17, below the fold.
Bring America Back !!!!.....Obama would not dare visit Gaza and walk over the 1500 fresh graves===including 300 to 400 Children===those victims now gone while Team Barak danced at their Inaugural Balls, never minding, never protesting, never whimpering about the Israeli Genocides !!!!
****I doubt He has the guts to face up to the slaughter his remarks, and lack of protest, enabled at Gaza.
****He, and his Sec of State would rather throw US $$$$$ at the problem from afar--as they always do.+
****Gaza was Obama's first foreign policy failure, and we all need to Remember Gaza !!!
Yes, pretty speeches he can do. I just watched the Cairo university speech. It was good.
What to think... I go back and forth. I want to be positive. But let's see what comes of this speech. I want to believe that Obama is our midwife to deliver us from the...war torn, poverty stricken, unjust world we have created.
I do think it is true that there are personalities in this world who may not be able to be reahabilitated... to think in terms of world cooperation. This is what Obama is proposing, a true cooperative effort by all nations, people, religions, economic status, etc...I love the idea. When I was young I would envision a world in which peoples truly worked together... the whole flower child, pepsi generation thing... But as I've gotten older and read more history and such... I have realized what a massive, monumental, test this is for human beings. Maybe it will take time... time for those hardline, non rehabable types to die off... and the young to take it to the next level... if we last that long...
I didn't like the line about using nuclear power to generate electricity =that's got to go!!!!!!
Sorry this is late! Medea, you know I'm a huge supporter of yours and the founder of CODEPINK Maui. However, I feel I must offer you a tip, as a professional editor. When "should" is used, as in the title here, resistance is evoked in the reader because "should" implies moral superiority and no one likes to be told what to do. Try using "must" instead and see the difference in tone. Many congratulations to our delegation-- wish I were there!
In memoriam: Rachel Corrie.