So much for Change – Moon of Alabama

June 5, 2008

So much for Change

What to expect?

An administration ignoring and breaking international law, working against the possibility of peace in Palestine and selling out U.S. interests to the Likud party of Israel.

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

So much for change …

Posted by b on June 5, 2008 at 09:20 UTC | Permalink

Comments

There was never any doubt in my mind that Obama is simply a different head on the same dog.
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama, as prepared for delivery, AIPAC Policy Forum, March 2 2007:

And when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself. Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel.

With a warped view of reality like that there is little hope that BO will bring on the change he is constantly waffling on about.
Maybe deep down he harbors some sympathy for the Palestinian plight, but as this piece in Mother Jones explains, Obama has seemingly little choice when it comes to taking sides.

Last week, when Barack Obama became the first major candidate to break the silence on the situation in Gaza, he didn’t criticize Israel, whose blockade of a civilian population has been roundly condemned by human rights organizations, nor did he call for restraint from the United States’ top ally in the Mideast. Instead, he fired off a letter to U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad with a resounding message—one that could have been mistaken for words straight from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) website. “The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks against Israel.… If it cannot…I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all,” Obama wrote, adding he understood why Israel was “forced” to shut down Gaza’s border crossings…
From the beginning, Obama has received more scrutiny on the issue of Israel than any other presidential candidate—something of a paradox given that he shares a uniformly pro-Israel record and policy platform with the major contenders from both parties. The suspicion of pro-Israel advocates for Obama was most recently captured in a January 23 Jerusalem Post op-ed in which Danny Ayalon, the former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., called the senator’s candidacy cause for “some degree of concern.” A memo by a top official at the American Jewish Committee, recently leaked to the Jewish Daily Forward, neatly outlined the roots of this concern: In the late 1990s Obama reportedly called for an even-handed approach to the conflict; his pastor had praised Louis Farrakhan; he has called for diplomacy with Iran; and, of course, he was once photographed breaking bread with the late Palestinian-American academic Edward Said.
There are plenty of other theories for why Obama has been so closely scrutinized on the issue Israel. “One, he is black, and in general it would be expected that black people are more sympathetic to the Palestinian people,” Ziad Asali, president of the American Task Force on Palestine, a group that advocates for the creation of a Palestinian state, told me in trying to explain the scrutiny on Obama. M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, a dovish advocacy group, echoes Asali: “The more right-wing segments of the Jewish community are the least likely to be comfortable with an African-American president.” Two, Asali said, Obama is young and perhaps open to new interpretations of the conflict, and, “thirdly, his middle name is Hussein, so he’s more suspect than a John Smith.”…
“[Pro-Israel advocates] have him in a position where he has to keep demonstrating his pro-Israel bona fides,” says Rosenberg. “This is done every four years, pretty much in every election. Whoever is deemed to be the most liberal candidate is put on the defensive on Israel.”
No one knows this better than the candidate deemed most liberal in 2004—Howard Dean. Like Obama, Dean was relatively new on the national scene and possessed liberal-leaning foreign policy views—parallels that help explain why in 2003 Dean faced an Israel problem all too similar to Obama’s today. But Dean went further on Israel, at least rhetorically, than any of the candidates have this cycle, saying the U.S. should be “even-handed,” that “it’s not our place to take sides,” and that “enormous” numbers of Israeli settlements would have to be dismantled. That talk prompted a barrage of negative press coverage and earned him a pair of scolding letters, one from Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and another from 34 congressional Democrats. And, yet, strangely, Dean’s actual position on Israel was expressly in line with President Bush and his Democratic rivals. His campaign was co-chaired by former AIPAC president Steve Grossman. Nevertheless, as Grossman later acknowledged, Dean lost support over those comments. Sound familiar?
Obama experienced a mini-version of the Dean treatment after his statement about Palestinian suffering in March. When David Adelman, a prominent Iowa Democrat and AIPAC member, shot off a letter to Obama calling the comment “deeply troubling,” a spokesman scrambled to run damage control, telling the AP that Obama believes “in the end, the Palestinian people are suffering from the Hamas-led government’s refusal to renounce terrorism.” Aides met personally with Adelman, who told the Des Moines Register he was “satisfied with their response.”…

As a world citizen I can’t say I look particularly forward to Obama running the States. His speeches and remarks on foreign policy sound similarly scary as what we’ve been getting from the WH in the last 8 years – World domination is the motto.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Jun 5 2008 10:36 utc | 1

Presently I’m linking my friends to this opinion article by Matt Gonzales, as the best summary I’ve found of the case against Obama.

Posted by: Cloud | Jun 5 2008 13:35 utc | 2

So here are your choices, voters:
McCain = More of the Same
Obama = Somewhat Less of the Same
%#%&§ Gregory Peck!

Posted by: ralphieboy | Jun 5 2008 14:34 utc | 3

Ouch!

Posted by: Rick | Jun 5 2008 14:50 utc | 4

Here’s a little thought experiment that clears up the smoke and mirrors of hope instantly.
Suppose for a moment that this entire national election was not for the White House, but for the top corporate slot at Citibank. Imagine instead that Barack and Hillary and John were slugging it out to become President of Citibank, to win the corner office and win the right to bring in their own platoons of VP’s, CEO’s, CFO’s, middle managers, and so forth to run Citibank starting next January 20th.
If that were the case, would you expect to see Citibank pulling out of the consumer loan business next February? Or pulling out of commercial mortgages, or private equity, or structured settlements, or even one — even one — of the standard banking lines of business?
Of course not. Why in hell would they do that? They’re a bank, for Pete’s sake. Anyone from the Chairman of the Board on down who suggested any such thing would be bounced out on their ear, pronto.
Then why do people think the US government next February will countenance pulling out of any of its military or economic conquests to date? Why in hell would they do that? They’re a military and economic powerhouse, fer Pete’s sake. Anyone from the President on down who actually suggests such a thing will be bounced out on their ear, pronto.
There is no inherent difference in structure or function between Citibank and the US government. In fact, the US government is now almost purely an amalgam of every large corporation in the country. Those thousands of huge corporations provide multiple layers of lobbyists for every Congresscritter, outnumbering them, outflanking them, and outbidding them at every turn. The lobbyists routinely write the bills Congress votes on without reading. The corporate mission in Washington is as clear as the mission is over at Citibank — “let us grow, let us increase ourselves.”
The people vying for the Oval Office — the top slot in the most powerful corporation on the planet — are not going to pull the corporation out of its core business, which is keeping America atop the world economy by whatever means and methods necessary.
They not only won’t try it, they will not be permitted to try it. The shareholders will bounce them out of the Oval Office right smartly.
Since 1946, America’s core business has been war by economic, political, diplomatic, and military means. America’s mission has been to stay on top of the world, consuming resources at six times the going rate, with no holds barred in the struggle to stay on top.
Whomever occupies the Oval Office next will be there to drive the core business of America, not change it. It’s a hired position, and it lasts as long as profits are acceptable. There is no license in the Oval Office to change the core business, which is war.
Citibank will still be banking next February, and for fifty Februaries to come. America will still be occupying Iraq in February, and for fifty Februaries to come. If business continues as usual, Iran, Syria, Libya, and Azerbaijan will be next, and for fifty Februaries thereafter.
It’s no surprise. It’s what we do. It’s who we are.
We could all pretend otherwise for quite a long time, but the devastating economics of constant warfare is bringing everything out in the open now. There’s less and less butter to go around, because it all went to bullets in one form or another.
It’s no longer possible to vote ourselves out of this program, or to protest ourselves out of it, or to refuse to go along. Even speaking out against it is — by recent acts of Congress — terrorism punishable by the harshest penalties.
Welcome to Sparta.

Posted by: Antifa | Jun 5 2008 15:26 utc | 5

While I’m not thrilled that our national candidates have to bow down to AIPAC on such a regular basis, and while it’s frustrating that such a tiny sliver of the Israeli populace is so overrepresented in their international face, let’s not give up hope here. I recognise that the President is not likely to make any big changes, but change is here whether these rubes like it or not. And so, when I look over the election landscape, I’m looking for a candidate that is showing signs of flexibility. One that is willing to at least tepidly challenge conventional wisdom. Someone who will know better than to try and stop the widespread, grass-roots changes that are coming. I look at McCain, and I see his advisors trying out some of those fancy executive orders to forestall change, which would be a murderous disaster. I look at the Clinton’s record, and I see a pair who are likely to slickly parlay the mood of the nation into more useless ‘third-way’ corporatism, and the resulting domestic economic enslavement that can be the only outcome of those economic policies.
But I look at Obama, and I see someone who might at least see the virtue of letting the change come, and letting the pieces fall where they may. It might seem odd to support a candidate because of what he won’t do, but the greatest peril we face is not so much in inaction (though inaction is a big reason why we are in this place) but rather in acting against an unstoppable force.
Try to stop a tsunami, and you only add to the body count. Try to stop a hurricane, and you’ll be blown away. Bow not to the winds of change, and shatter.

Posted by: Li | Jun 5 2008 16:14 utc | 6

Indeed, EXCELLENT thought experiment and good to see you Antifa, you too Li…
Can I get you kids a drink?

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 5 2008 16:20 utc | 7

Obama is playing politics here, money and scum and AIPAC are bed-fellows. He is a Blair (and look how that turned out?) to Dems for a change. Problem is Kos and all there acolytes ignore Isreal (esp. Atrios).

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Jun 5 2008 16:55 utc | 8

Antifa, do you mind if I quote you on my blog

Posted by: Cloud | Jun 5 2008 16:58 utc | 9

This is written in a public forum. Please feel free to make any use of these scribblings you may wish to.

Posted by: Antifa | Jun 5 2008 17:15 utc | 10

Thanks, Antifa: brilliant. And Li as well.
Blair really did represent change at the very beginning of his tenure, and the fall of ThatcherMajor was a very real thing and a great boon to the UK. But I believe it is partly the inertia of the electorate that was to blame for what happened quite soon afterwards, as they were to blame for the ThatcherMajor inertia: we let Tony get too comfortable, we made him a saviour instead of a tool of our collective will, and surprise, surprise, he liked the look of the throne we made for him and settled in for the long haul. Politicians get comfortable when we let them get comfortable. Trouble is, there’s virtually no way to make them uncomfortable any more, particularly here in the US. Obama’s farting through silk already and calling it policy, and he hasn’t even been elected yet. And that is no sort of surprise at all.

Posted by: Tantalus | Jun 5 2008 17:37 utc | 11

Obama Backs Away From Comment on Divided Jerusalem
Not really:

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged yesterday that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that the city “must remain undivided.”
Obama’s statement, made during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
“This statement is totally rejected,” Abbas told reporters in the West Bank city of Ramallah. “The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.”
…
Obama quickly backtracked yesterday in an interview with CNN.
“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.
Obama said “as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute” a division of the city. “And I think that it is smart for us to — to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city.”

Why does Israel have a “legitimate claim”??? International law sees this different.

Posted by: b | Jun 6 2008 5:20 utc | 12

Well it earned him a Hamas dis-endorsement, which is useful.
Where two competing (or were competing) presidential nominees at such a key moment have to go address AIPAC speaks more about weakness of American ability to shape the future in Israel/Palestine than its supposed influence.
At least the hijacking of Latin America and Cuba policy by the very vocal but insane right seems to be on the wain.

Posted by: YY | Jun 6 2008 5:30 utc | 13

“Why does Israel have a legitimate claim???”
because they write bigger checks to OPanderer’s campaign. Duh!!
next question?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jun 6 2008 5:42 utc | 14

that was moi, apparently

Posted by: ran | Jun 6 2008 5:43 utc | 15

it’s an impressive tight rope act for Obomb to negotiate for sure: continue conducting the necessary pandering while ensuring the bleary eyed devotees remain resolute and uncritical of their savior.
Cloud@2: great link! more needles to pop those obnoxiously optimistic hope balloons! stupid hope balloons!!
though i doubt much will come of it, Montana senator Jon Tester has nominated our governor, Brian Schweitzer, for VP. Schweitzer, and hist trusty dog, Jag, just love promoting our state on the national stage. whether it’s stumping for coal and the crack head’s pipe dream of sequestering those nasty emissions in the ground, or courting hollywood with tax break incentives for onsite filming, Schweitzer has chiseled a little notch of recognition for himself.
for now Schweitzer has the adoration of most Montanans, but after our previous governor, Judy “lapdog of industry” Martz, Brian’s cavalier style has been a welcome, though superfluous, “change.” i guess as long as they talk pretty, the nuances of where they actually stand on the issues don’t have to be scrutinized.
maybe Obama will take notice that Brian’s running mate, John Bolinger, is a republican, and decide to scramble expectations by picking someone like Chuck Hagel, a repub senator critical of shrub from Nebraska. i said scramble expectations, but Chuck as VP was floated a few weeks ago on MEET THE PRESS, so all i’m doing is parroting MSM pundit speculation. gee, i hope it’s not contagious…

Posted by: Lizard | Jun 6 2008 6:29 utc | 16

Likely Obama VP candidate?
Jim Webb

Webb’s roots lie in exactly the area in which Obama has shown his greatest weakness so far—in the Appalachian region. Though both are freshman senators, Webb combines substantial government service with close knowledge of the military and the world.

Only one drawback – he isn’t female.

Posted by: b | Jun 6 2008 13:40 utc | 17

Thanks for the link, b.

Posted by: beq | Jun 7 2008 3:41 utc | 18

I would presume Webb is the VP candidate of choice for Obama. For the above mentioned reasons in addition to being also the best foil against McCain’s Bush brand of militarism. Along with the fact that he was formally a republican and still appeals to many republicans on military issues.

Posted by: anna missed | Jun 7 2008 4:24 utc | 19

fwiw, Obama appeared here at one of Webb’s campaign rallies in 2006. I like the idea but we need a good replacement for him in the senate too.

Posted by: beq | Jun 7 2008 16:18 utc | 20

Back to Main