30 January 2009

Change we can what? pt. 2

Obama's first television interview as president was hosted by Al-Jazeera's Saudi rival, Al-Aribiya. From The Arabist:

...Arabiya is problematic - this is the channel dubbed Hibriya (The Hebrew One) because of its coverage of the Gaza crisis and that generally defends the views of Riyadh, Cairo and other problematic US allies. This confirms that Obama will not, like Bush since 2006, go against Egypt and Saudi on domestic issues and there won’t be a rethink of the US relationship with these. But if you thought that would happen, you’re stupid.

Marc Lynch provides a good context (and the aftermath), and the Angry Arab is, well, angry:
First, if the Bushama really wants to be different from Bush he would have selected AlJazeera and not al-Arabiyya. I mean, CNN does not know that Bush spoke to Arabic TV stations regularly, and Rice was a fixture on Al-Arabiyya TV. And they selected Al-Arabiyya because it is "friendly" to US interests and because on Al-Arabiyya TV US officials get softball questions. If Obama wanted to be different he would have chosen Al-Jazeera because it is the Arabs' favorite channel. Al-Arabiyya is the US government's favorite channel, and the US under Obama does not seem to want to respect the choices and preference of the Arab population.

And Mouin Rabbani and Chris Toensing in MERIP on "The Continuity of Obama's Change" hit it in half a sentence: "US diplomacy is hamstrung by being more pro-Israel than Israel itself."


Edit 31.01.09 -- Wajahat Ali in the Guardian writes:

In his historic interview with the Al-Arabiya TV channel, President Obama's inclusive and respectful rhetoric towards Muslims attempted an elegant coup de grace to the divisive, insecure and arrogant bravado of the Bush administration. For many Muslims worldwide, however, the sincerity of such honey-coated words will only be legitimized by a responsible and balanced foreign policy that is no longer rooted in selfishness and historical amnesia.


Read more...

22 January 2009

Change we can what?

From the Foreign Policy section of the "Agenda" header on the official White House website:

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama and Biden will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority from day one. They will make a sustained push -- working with Israelis and Palestinians -- to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.

...

Ensure a Strong U.S.-Israel Partnership: Barack Obama and Joe Biden strongly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, and believe that our first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel, America's strongest ally in the region. They support this closeness, and have stated that the United States will never distance itself from Israel.

Support Israel's Right to Self Defense: During the July 2006 Lebanon war, Barack Obama stood up strongly for Israel's right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks, cosponsoring a Senate resolution against Iran and Syria's involvement in the war, and insisting that Israel should not be pressured into a ceasefire that did not deal with the threat of Hezbollah missiles. He and Joe Biden believe strongly in Israel's right to protect its citizens.

Support Foreign Assistance to Israel: Barack Obama and Joe Biden have consistently supported foreign assistance to Israel. They defend and support the annual foreign aid package that involves both military and economic assistance to Israel and have advocated increased foreign aid budgets to ensure that these funding priorities are met. They have called for continuing U.S. cooperation with Israel in the development of missile defense systems.

No mention of Palestinians? No mention of the basic human rights that Gazans under Israeli occupation live without day after day? The near total impunity with which Israelis maim and kill Palestinian children? The economic war waged on Gaza's citizens that denies them even the ability to provide their families with daily bread? And then to read this hypocritical bullshit on the Iraq page:

President Obama and Vice President Biden believe that America has both a moral obligation and a responsibility for security that demands we confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis -- more than five million Iraqis are refugees or are displaced inside their own country. Obama and Biden will form an international working group to address this crisis. They will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find sanctuary. Obama and Biden will also work with Iraqi authorities and the international community to hold accountable the perpetrators of potential war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. They will reserve the right to intervene militarily, with our international partners, to suppress potential genocidal violence within Iraq.

Does America have a moral obligation and responsibility for Gaza's humanitarian crisis? After all, we politically green-light any attack against the Palestinians in the name of Israeli 'self defense.' But maybe our blank-check economic aid that helps fund the occupation of the Palestinian territories and the blockade of Gaza (including, until a couple of days ago, humanitarian relief) is to blame? Or is it because our military assistance and privelleged defense contracts provide the Apache helicopters, bunker-buster missiles, and white phosphorous bombs (made in Arkansas) that have devastated Gaza's infrastructure and killed 1300 people? God knows that Palestinian internal refugees won't find sactuary inside their own country (or how should I phrase that?) and that Israeli perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide won't be held to shit. Would Obama or Biden ever even consider thinking about the possibility of entertaining the notion of intervening militarily to suppress potential genocidal violence against the Palestinians?

Read more...

12 January 2009

Some of you may read Juan Cole's recent post on the uselessness of protests, cardboard signs, and marches in front of embassies and state capitals to affect political decisions. And then you'll think to yourself, 'golly, didn't the Greenhorn just march in OKC? What was he hoping to accomplish with that?' Well, not much really. Every angst-filled leftist college kid should take to the streets at some point in their academic career, right? I just wanted to see it in action, experience the discontent, nay, anger of the Muslim, Arab-American, anti-Zionist, peace camp, etc., communities in Oklahoma. Plus, solidarity never hurt anyone, and if a silly march of 200 causes some Israel-fanatic Okie to reconsider what is happening in Gaza as perhaps constituting an international war crime or a serious human injustice, then I'd say it was worthwhile.

Read more...

10 January 2009

Must read: Avi Shlaim, "How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe"

This brief review of Israel's record over the past four decades makes it difficult to resist the conclusion that it has become a rogue state with "an utterly unscrupulous set of leaders". A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria; the cap fits and it must wear it. Israel's real aim is not peaceful coexistence with its Palestinian neighbours but military domination. It keeps compounding the mistakes of the past with new and more disastrous ones. Politicians, like everyone else, are of course free to repeat the lies and mistakes of the past. But it is not mandatory to do so.

Read more...

The Greenhorn mans the ramparts

rally_protest_peace vigil for Gaza
sponsored by CAIR
Oklahoma state capital, OKC
5 January 2009



















































































































video: here

Read more...

03 January 2009

A new site on the Gaza invasion has just been launched: Gaza Siege. Breaking news, research reports, backgrounders, the whole thing. Go there now.

Read more...

Gaza, pt. 3 -- The Jordanian position

As Israel's ground offensive into Gaza begins, Electronic Intifada has published a collection of images from protests around the world. The photo to the right is of a demonstration in Amman on December 31st. My one regret about this past summer is that I never got to experience a protest/demonstration (the pinnacle, of course, being tear-gassed in the West Bank), though the closest I got was the last ten minutes of a Palestinian hip-hop concert on July 4.

Speaking of Jordan, Juan Cole posted several summaries of editorials from Arabic Jordanian newspapers. Here's one that especially caught my attention:

Fahd al-Khitan also writes an article in Al-Arab al-Yawm..."in light of what is happening in Gaza, Arab moderates should stop marketing illusions about peace." He says that Jordan has done its utmost on the political and human level to declare solidarity with Gaza and condemn the Israeli actions. He adds:"We should conduct a profound review of the political discourse by rehabilitating a previous position, which the state had adopted; namely, supporting the right of the Palestinian people to resisting the occupation and not being satisfied by saying that negotiations are the only way for achieving peace because this path has failed to achieve anything since the peace process was launched 17 years ago. This position should be translated into direct and public relations with the Palestinian resistance movements, alongside continuing official relations with the Palestinian Authority" . . .

An editorial over at 7iber by Jordanian Observer makes a case against annulling the treaty.
We are a country of 5 million, we have very few resources, and to put it simply and clearly, there’s no way in hell we can win a war against Israel. The reason Jordan has remained quite a safe country (considering the fact that we live in a war zone), is not exactly a miracle. It’s because we’ve accepted the presence of the Jewish nation as a fact and let’s face it, it’s not going to go away anytime soon, and if you think otherwise, you are either impacted by your emotions, or grossly overestimate the abilities of the very country you’re criticizing.

And this is why I can’t support the riots that have been breaking out all over the place. I couldn’t be more angry about what’s happening, but I frankly think you’re a hypocrite if you tell me you’re willing to sacrifice your freedom and safety to go into a battle, to go into a war, that you KNOW there’s no way you can win. I like the fact that I live in a safe, secure country, where I can go about my daily life without fear of having my house brought down over my head.


What's equally interesting and revealing are some of the comments on that particular post.
Jordan was always meant to be a recpeticale for expelled Palestinians. It’s sort of like Gaza. israel never wanted Jordan or Gaza. To them, it’s one big blob of human misery, a vast refugee camps of expelled Palestinians in the 1948 and 67 wars. Jordan to them is the same. No reason to invade. No oil, no water, no natural resources of significance, millions of refugees….let me repeat…millions of refugees. Why in the world would Israel want to occupy a land that’s full of expelled Palestinians.
.....


"– It’s because we’ve accepted the presence of the Jewish nation as a fact and let’s face it"

No we did not. again, stop putting words in our mouths. You accepted. The regime accepted it. A rigged Parliament with a rigged election accepted it. Do a referendum today on the peace treaty on on the presence of a racially driven state next to us and you will find the overwhelming majority of Jordanians are against it inasmuch as every decent self-respecting human being was against Apartheid South Africa and White Rhodesia. There is a difference between accepting and being forced to deal with a racist colonialist Israel.

And how in the world do you accept to live next to a state that pisses allover Arabs. Have you no dignity? What sort of peace treaty creates a national security threat for one country, Jordan, while reliving another, Israel, from its ethical and legal responsibility? I am talking about the Palestinian refugees. Fact is, any peace treaty that does not abide by international laws is null and void. Do you think the world would have honored a peace treaty between Whites and neighboring Black African countries whereby they are obliged to take in expelled South African Blacks or suffer an invasion form White South Africa?


And one more, from ArabianMonkeyTales:

Flag burning, calling for cutting off relations - ie communication, and sporadic protesting without true activism is useless to everyone. Jordanian officials and any Arab official who care about the Palestinians and peace in general need to truly get their act together and step up, stand for something and sincerely and diligently take action towards it.... every waking moment of their life until resolution is achieved.

The burning of the Israeli flag in our parliament achieves nothing other than an outburst of emotion. What a farce this kind of action is. Calling to cancel the Jordanian-Israeli peace agreement is an even bigger joke. Wanting to expel the Israeli ambassador solves nothing. That is not diplomacy, and it's certainly not a conversation for peace. Then what? Does anyone calling for such ridicule ever ask that? Do they stop to imagine what's next after they kick up a seasonal tantrum?

Read more...

02 January 2009

Don't understand what the fuss in the Holy Land is all about? Lawrence of Cyberia offers a simple but eloquent analogy of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Read more...
The views expressed on this blog are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or positions of any organizations or institutions with which he is otherwise affiliated

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP