Thursday, January 22, 2009

more critique of Obama's speech

More critique of Obama's speech from As'ad AbuKhalil:

"Well, it took two longs days before Obama dispelled any notions of a change in US Middle East policy. For some reasons, many Arabs and many American leftists I know (you know yourselves) have wanted to believe so bad that Obama will deviate from the Zionist path of US foreign policy. I knew that it would be a matter of weeks that he would prove me right, but I did not know that he would prove me right in a matter of hours. His speech on the Middle East today could have easily been written by Benjamin Netanyahu. Only this morning, my mother was quizzing me again about Obama, which has been doing regularly in every conversation. She--like many Arabs and Muslims--wants to believe that he would be different than Bush. The fact that he is--unlike Bush--intelligent, competent, and articulate is irrelevant. The set of Zionist--in fact, we should say Revisionist Zionism because American establishment Zionism has been Revisionist Zionism since the Reagan administration (there was a slight deviation from Revisionist Zionism during the Bush-Baker administration, but Clinton quickly "corrected" that) dogmas that guide US foreign policy will remain in place, even if a potato or Sarah Palin is president of the US. Richard Holbrooks is his special envoy to Pakistan-Afghanistan and the man did not waste time before establishing his foreign policy credentials when he said that Afghanistan and Pakistan are "distinct" countries (that reminds me of the wisdom of Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings who yesterday told CNN--you have to monitor the insights of this dude--that we learned from our experience in Iraq that we can't predict the future exactly in Iraq--I kid you not, he said that). But Obama's speech was quite something. It was like sprinkling sulfuric acid on the wounds of the children in Gaza--those who survived the Israeli terrorist festival of butchery and massacres. His remarks leave you with the impression that there are two sets of problems in the holy land: that there was terrorism against civilians in "southern Israel" and then there is some undefined civilian suffering in Gaza from some undefined natural disaster--an earthquake or hurricane. He specifically mentioned the violence against "southern Israel" left it unclear as to what happened in Gaza. He then did the typical dance: of saluting Mubarak for not only oppressing his own population but for oppressing the Palestinians and imposing the siege on them. He then followed the Zionist line that all aid should pass through the transparent gangs in Ramallah--but that is important because Fatah has a very long record of integrity, transparency, merit, and high ethical standards--along with collaboration with Israel. He also defined the requirements for implementing the "Arab peace plan": Arab governments have to normalize relations with Israel. All Arabs are now asked by Obama to hug the nearest Israeli: and no, shoes are not accepted as tools of affection--not in the Western culture. But you may tell me, optimistically, that he did not mention Dahlan. I say: oh, no: he did mention Dahlan, I kid you not. He made reference to the Jordanian oppressive state's training of "Palestinian security forces." Palestinian security forces is a mere fancy name for the Dahlan gangs (seen above). But I also noticed when he left the podium he went down to shake hands, and the first head I saw was none other than Martin Indyk. If Obama would now appoint Steven Emerson at his ambassador-at-large to the Muslims world, I would expect the Arab-Israeli conflict to end, as well as US problems with the Muslim world.
PS Now I am pissed. AlJazeera net is playing (and I mean distorting) Obama's remarks as if they were a message of love and compassion to the Palestinian people. For how long will some supporters of the Palestinians delude themselves about Obama? Answer me NOW."

About Martin Indyk, As'ad AbuKhalil also posted:

"“He’s neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Palestinian,” said Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel and an adviser to the Clinton administration. “He’s, in a sense, neutral.”" And who is better to judge neutrality on Arab-Israeli issues, than a founding element of the Israeli lobby in the US (and Australia). By the way, since James Zogby takes his marching orders from Indyk, watch: Zogby will come to the defense of Mitchell now. Hell, Zogby would come to the defense of Netanyahu if asked."

No comments: