Saturday, June 07, 2008
"It was just a few years after the liberation of the [Nazi concentration] camps that David Ben-Gurion declared the founding of the Jewish State of Israel. We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security."
Ben-Gurion simply "declared" the state of Israel, and it appeared!! No mention here – or anywhere in the entire speech –of the dispossession of the Palestinians. Nor any mention of the role of imperialism and colonialism in the creation of the state of Israel.
"Flying in an [Israeli Defense Forces] helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line [sic].
No mention of Palestinian casualties in number of deaths have been something like 100 times those on the Israeli side, not counting the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who have been jailed, tortured, had their villages, homes,, olive groves demolished, etc.
"I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bipartisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats. That is a commitment that both John McCain and I share, because support for Israel in this country goes beyond party."
Absolutely right; until Bush, the Democrats were considered the bigger supporters of Israel. But now they're about the same. This "support" is based neither on sympathy for Jewish people nor the supposed control of U.S. foreign policy by a pro-Israel lobby, but is instead due to the vital role Israel plays in the U.S. empire.
"Hamas now controls Gaza. Hezbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran — which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq — is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation."
Apparently Obama thinks the U.S. went to war against the wrong member of Bush's so-called "Axis of Evil.'
"Iraq is unstable, and al-Qaida has stepped up its recruitment. Israel's quest for peace (sic) with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people."
Again, only the Israelis have borne the "heavy burdens."
"And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel's safety. The question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed."
This section could have been called "Making the Empire Stronger."
"And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region."
Here Obama is being truly disingenuous. Knowing full well, as he does, that the dispossession of the Palestinians is a major "root" cause of the conflict in the region, he dodges by inserting the word "all." The vast petroleum reserves and the region's strategic location are of course other root causes.
"These voices blame the Middle East's only democracy for the region's extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be . . . "Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us."
This is true only if the word "us" it taken to mean U.S. imperialism. Israel is an extension of U.S. power and instrument of U.S. domination in the region.
"That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage."
No other state in the region comes close to Israel's military power, thanks to the hundreds of billions in military assistance and advanced weaponry given over the past four decades.
"I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened . . . "As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation."
Has Obama put dollar figures on any other programs he says he will implement, like job training, healthcare, affordable housing, etc., etc?
"First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world . . . .As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security."
Note: "to help Israel achieve the goal of two states"—an interesting way of framing a supposed "negotiating process."
"The long road to peace requires Palestinian partners committed to making the journey. We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot."
Very democratic outlook – no elections should be held if the "wrong" party might win.
"The Palestinian people must understand that progress will not come through the false prophets of extremism or the corrupt use of foreign aid."
Reflecting the sharp rise in extreme anti-Arab racism among the Israeli public, the leader of one of the more influential Israeli parties, Avigdor Lieberman –until recently a deputy prime minister – openly calls for the expulsion of the entire Palestinian population. But that apparently doesn't qualify as "extremism" for candidate Obama, who once upon a time expressed sympathy for the Palestinian cause.
"Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
This line caused an angry response from even most U.S.-dependent figures in the Palestinian Authority and throughout the Arab world.. Today, Obama has gone even further in this position in an interview with CNN.
"The threats to Israel start close to home, but they don't end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon. And Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat."
This is a reference to Israel's unprovoked and illegal bombing of a facility in Syria several months ago.
"There is no greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and stability of the region — than Iran. Now this audience is made up of both Republicans and Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand shoulder to shoulder in our commitment to Israel's security. So while I don't want to strike too partisan a note here today, I do want to address some willful mischaracterizations of my positions.
"The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.
"But just as we are cleareyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq . . . Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure."
The last three paragraphs emphasize the theme that Iraq was the wrong war in the Middle East.
"Sen. McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran — it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq's leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future."
A "responsible, phased redeployment," "we will get out as carefully as we careless getting in," – are clear statements that an Obama administration has no intention of really leaving Iraq. In hiss CNN interview today, June 6, with Candy Crowley, Obama affirms that he intends U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for a long time to come. Here, too, the colonialist language common to leading Democrats and Republicans about pressuring Iraqi "leaders to take "meaningful responsibility for their own future."
"We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
What the transcript leaves out here is that Obama repeated the last sentence twice, followed by a one word sentence, "Everything," after which he paused and looked around for emphasis and as if to say, "get it?" Obama also called for tightening economic sanctions, which had such deadly effects on Iraq from 1990-2003, on Iran. Final note: Obama's speech should not be seen as simply pandering to the pro-Israeli faction in the U.S. It was a major foreign policy speech, affirming that while he has serious tactical differences with Bush and the Neocons in regard to the Middle East (due primarily to their failures), he fully and unreservedly shares the strategic objective of long-term U.S. domination in the vitally important region.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]