http://mwcnews.net/content/view/31027&Itemid=1


By Noam Chomsky

Chomsky, whose recent books include "Interventions" and "The Essential Chomsky," sent the following to the Institute for Public Accuracy this morning: "A CNN headline, reporting Obama's plans for his June 4 Cairo address, reads 'Obama looks to reach the soul of the Muslim world.' Perhaps that captures his intent, but more significant is the content hidden in the rhetorical stance, or more accurately, omitted.

"Keeping just to Israel-Palestine -- there was nothing substantive about anything else -- Obama called on Arabs and Israelis not to 'point fingers' at each other or to 'see this conflict only from one side or the other.' There is, however, a third side, that of the United States, which has played a decisive role in sustaining the current conflict. Obama gave no indication that its role should change or even be considered.

"Those familiar with the history will rationally conclude, then, that Obama will continue in the path of unilateral U.S. rejectionism.

"Obama once again praised the Arab Peace Initiative, saying only that Arabs should see it as 'an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities.' How should the Obama administration see it? Obama and his advisers are surely aware that the Initiative reiterates the long-standing international consensus calling for a two-state settlement on the international (pre-June '67) border, perhaps with 'minor and mutual modifications,' to borrow U.S. government usage before it departed sharply from world opinion in the 1970s, vetoing a Security Council resolution backed by the Arab 'confrontation states' (Egypt, Iran, Syria), and tacitly by the PLO, with the same essential content as the Arab Peace Initiative except that the latter goes beyond by calling on Arab states to normalize relations with Israel in the context of this political settlement. Obama has called on the Arab states to proceed with normalization, studiously ignoring, however, the crucial political settlement that is its precondition. The Initiative cannot be a 'beginning' if the U.S. continues to refuse to accept its core principles, even to acknowledge them.

"In the background is the Obama administration's goal, enunciated most clearly by Senator John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to forge an alliance of Israel and the 'moderate' Arab states against Iran. The term 'moderate' has nothing to do with the character of the state, but rather signals its willingness to conform to U.S. demands.

"What is Israel to do in return for Arab steps to normalize relations? The strongest position so far enunciated by the Obama administration is that Israel should conform to Phase I of the 2003 Road Map, which states: 'Israel freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).' All sides claim to accept the Road Map, overlooking the fact that Israel instantly added 14 reservations that render it inoperable.

"Overlooked in the debate over settlements is that even if Israel were to accept Phase I of the Road Map, that would leave in place the entire settlement project that has already been developed, with decisive U.S. support, to ensure that Israel will take over the valuable land within the illegal 'separation wall' (including the primary water supplies of the region) as well as the Jordan Valley, thus imprisoning what is left, which is being broken up into cantons by settlement/infrastructure salients extending far to the East. Unmentioned as well is that Israel is taking over Greater Jerusalem, the site of its major current development programs, displacing many Arabs, so that what remains to Palestinians will be separated from the center of their cultural, economic, and sociopolitical life. Also unmentioned is that all of this is in violation of international law, as conceded by the government of Israel after the 1967 conquest, and reaffirmed by Security Council resolutions and the International Court of Justice. Also unmentioned are Israel's successful operations since 1991 to separate the West Bank from Gaza, since turned into a prison where survival is barely possible, further undermining the hopes for a viable Palestinian state.

"It is worth remembering that there has been one break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. President Clinton recognized that the terms he had offered at the failed 2000 Camp David meetings were not acceptable to any Palestinians, and in December, proposed his 'parameters,' vague but more forthcoming. He then announced that both sides had accepted the parameters, though both had reservations. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Taba, Egypt to iron out the differences, and made considerable progress. A full resolution could have been reached in a few more days, they announced in their final joint press conference. But Israel called off the negotiations prematurely, and they have not been formally resumed. The single exception indicates that if an American president is willing to tolerate a meaningful diplomatic settlement, it can very likely be reached.

"It is also worth remembering that the Bush I administration went a bit beyond words in objecting to illegal Israeli settlement projects, namely, by withholding U.S. economic support for them. In contrast, Obama administration officials stated that such measures are 'not under discussion' and that any pressures on Israel to conform to the Road Map will be 'largely symbolic,' so the New York Times reported (Helene Cooper, June 1).

"There is more to say, but it does not relieve the grim picture that Obama has been painting, with a few extra touches in his widely-heralded address to the Muslim World in Cairo on June 4."

Chomsky wrote that on the eve of Obama's talk. Constrast that with the brilliant analysis from Jerusalem on that same evening, June 3.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxt9HwfPwPo

White Power? Nigger?

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FEFEFF]We Wanted a World Leader. We Saw Only a US President
by Ahdaf Soueif

This is hard. It's hard because we so need to believe that Obama is about change, that he's wise, that he's good, that he has the interests of the world – rather than just the interests of the United States – at heart.

The 3,500 invited guests were told they'd have to be in their places by 10.30. But Obama would speak at one. An odd time for everyone, it would seem: for us in Cairo, where the cool of the evening is the preferred time for any event, and for people in America, who wouldn't yet have woken up. I dress with my eye on the television screen: the loop of Obama touching cheeks with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, his hand resting for a companionable minute on the old monarch's arm. Just before I leave the house I glimpse the prancing horses that make up part of Obama's procession into Cairo.

The Egyptian state is doing pomp, and relieved (because of the security lockdown) of traffic and noise Cairo is playing along: the morning light is clear and free of dust, the flame trees are magnificent with their crowns of red massed flowers.

In the great Festival Hall under the dome of Cairo University we are a good-humoured crowd, amusing ourselves during our three-hour wait by applauding the mic checks and housekeeping announcements of the Egyptian staff. Then something interesting happens: an American strides on to the stage, brusque and marine-like in his efficiency, he marches through a prolonged mic check: "One, two, three, mic check, from Cairo, Egypt, one, two …" When he's finished the tiny patter of hesitant applause dies out very quickly. In a *couple of minutes he's back. "Mic check," he announces – then grins: "Last time, I promise." The crowd roars its approval, applauds him.

They even applaud Hilary Clinton as she beams in through a side door. There are a lot of empty seats: the *security arrangements and the *promise of the long wait have kept people away. But then Obama comes in, and we're on our feet: waving, *cheering, *clapping. And that, really, is the *highlight of the occasion.

Obama did what many of us hoped he would not do: he accorded faith a central position in the relationship between our different parts of the world: rather than human beings with different histories and different political interests and ambitions – and despite a quick acknowledgment of colonialism – we were essentially people of different faiths who would now make nice with each other. And such is our beleaguered state of mind here in this part of the world that every time he quoted the Qur'an, he was applauded. But then again, it seemed that it was the same 200 or so people who were putting their hands together – to less effect each time.

"Extremism" was top of the agenda, even though al-Qaida, once so modern and cutting edge, is now tired and irrelevant. But it was prodded out of its stall again as justification for American operations in Afghanistan. We were reminded of the 3,000 people killed in New York – people who had done no harm to anyone. And every person listening east of Rome and many west of it would have been thinking "and what about the million Iraqis, what about the Afghanis, what about …" And *nothing about non-Muslim extremism, about the 40 million American Christian Zionists anticipating the Rapture with glee, or the Israeli settlers who in Hebron take your photo and upload it to God to fast-lane you to hell.

Obama's speech was a lawyerly speech, a clever speech. It certainly departed from the Bush discourse, but how far away from the policies of the last eight years are the sources it springs from? We still can only wait and see.

The biggest applause he got was when he said that all US troops would be out of Iraq by 2012, and when he repeated his position on the Israeli settlements. He's been brave on the settlements, and of course we're all grateful for every step in the direction of halting the dispossession of the Palestinians. But it also needs to be remembered that stopping the settlements has been part of the official position of every American administration; what's required is the implementation of that position by cutting off the funding for the settlements and closing the tax loophole that allows private American organisations to fund them.

Around the pedestal carrying the Eternal Flame of Knowledge outside the university, the American activist group Code Pink carried banners that said "Obama: Stop funding Israeli war crimes". They came out of Gaza on Wednesday carrying a letter from Hamas to the American president, and they were at pains to point out that Hamas chose an American feminist group to carry their letter. I don't know if they managed to deliver it.

There is a difference between believing that ultimately the interests of the inhabitants of the planet are genuinely interconnected and believing that the interests of the world can be made to seem compatible with America's. Obama has said that America should have not only the power but the moral standing to lead the world. Today we waited for him to demonstrate that moral standing and assume the leadership of the world. He did not; he remained the President of the United States.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/barack-obama-cairo [/quote]

"kids will be kids". Sickening

If so, I'm not surprised but it's still perturbing.

As perturbing as statements from some Israeli leaders. I just found this one. I'd like to ask the bad Rabbi exactly what kind of 'tragedy' he's foreseeing here.

"Obama's words are not the solution to peace and security," said Rabbi Dov Volpo, leader of the extremist Land of Israel party, who warned a "tragedy" could befall the United States if it threatens the land of Israel, a term used here to refer to a region that also includes the Palestinian territories.

http://www.thestar.com/world/columnist/article/646044

I just googled and realized this isn't the first time we've heard from this deranged extremist.

A group of rabbis from Israel have sent a letter to US President George W. Bush warning him that if the planned Annapolis Middle East parley is not cancelled, a disaster will befall US citizens, just as Hurricane Katrina decimated New Orleans after Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip in August 2005.

Among the rabbis who signed the letter were Kiryat Arba-Hebron Chief Rabbi Dov Lior, Chabad Rabbi Meir Druckman of Kiryat Motzkin, and Rabbi Dov Volpo

http://www.crownheights.info/index.php?itemid=8858&catid=3

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13858

By Ramzy Baroud

Global Research, June 5, 2009

Among many major misconceptions pertaining to Arabs and Muslims is the common belief that they are a weak-willed, irrelevant collective, easily influenced and effortlessly manipulated. This mistaken assumption underscores the very ailment that has afflicted United States foreign policy in the Middle East for generations.



As media pundits and commentators began their drum-rolling in anticipation of US President Barack Obama's speech in Egypt on Thursday, very few paid attention to the fact that Arabs and Muslims are not so naive as to be wooed by mere rhetoric, but that they are significant players in their own affairs, capable of resistance and change.



To begin with, it's underhanded and foolish to speak of one Arab and Muslim polity, as if geography, class, language and politics, among many other factors, are irrelevant attributes which are easily overlooked. Why is there an insistence on addressing Arabs and Muslims as one unified body - that is, the so-called "Muslim world" - that behaves according to specific rationale; predisposed to respond to the same stimuli? True, various groups within the Arab and Muslim collective share common history, language and religion, but even the same groups differ in historic interpretations, dialects and religious sects and frames of reference.



Why the reductionism? Is it true that a struggling North African immigrant in a French slum carries the same values, expectations and outlook on life as an wealthy, SUV-driving Arab in the Gulf? Does a poor Egyptian, grappling for recognition within a political body that has room for only the chosen few, relate to the world the same way as does a Malaysian Muslim with a wide range of opportunities, civic, economic and political?



Even within the same country, among the same people, adhering to the same religion, does the world mean the same, and will Obama's words in Egypt represent the unifying lexicon that will meet every Arab or a Muslim man or woman's aspirations? Can one lump together those who collaborated with those who resisted; those who exploited others and those who were exploited; those who had plenty and those who had none?



As the countdown to Obama's visit nears the highly anticipated day, pundits and polls are pouring in. A recent survey conducted by Shilbey Telhami and Zogby International was carried out in six Arab countries, each representing unique collective experiences that cannot be compared. The poll declared that Obama is popular among Arabs, yet Arabs are still skeptical of the US . It was learned that Iraq matters the most, followed by the Arab-Israeli conflict.



There is no denial that Arabs in various countries have major perceptions and expectations in common. But who is to say that there are not more commonalities between the poor of Egypt and Mexico , than the elites of Egypt and Pakistan ? However, such assertion would be irrelevant for one main reason: Arabs and Muslims have been demonized collectively, targeted collectively and at times, victimized collectively. In other words, it's US foreign policy towards various Arab and Muslim collectives that largely explains the constant lumping of all Arabs and all Muslims into one single category.



Arabs and Muslims seem only relevant as a collective whenever the US is interested in carrying out a rhetorical policy shift, a war, a self-serving "democracy" campaign, and so forth. They are available as a collective to be duly demonized as "terrorist" or readily shunned for subscribing to the "wrong" religion.



<snip>

It's ironic that resistance, which is a universal right for any oppressed individual or collective, is being dealt with as a "grave concern". This explains, in part, the lingering illusion that continues to mar US foreign policy, and also highlight the common strength that Arab and Muslim masses continue to wield, their ability to resist. Amid the democracy programs that have appeared and disappeared in recent years - George W Bush's Middle East democracy project being one - none was an outcome of genuine and collective movements in Arab and Muslim nations. Such genuine movements, although in existence, are unpopular in Washington , for they seem inconsistent with US interests.



This leaves one last aspect of collective self-expression, again, resistance, in all of its manifestations. It's the root causes of Arab and Muslim resistance that are most deserving of analysis and understanding, as opposed to mere dismissal on the grounds that it's a "grave concern".



If Obama continues to approach Arabs and Muslims as one single collective, ready to be manipulated and wooed with bogus promises, fancy rhetoric and impressive body language, then he will surely be disappointed. Highly politicized, skeptical and, frankly, fed-up societies refuse to be reduced to a mere percentage in some opinion poll that can be swayed this way or that, whenever the US administration determines the time and place.



It's that incessant lack of depth that has caused the US so much grief in the Middle East , and will cost it even more if such imprudence persists.

For all the claptrap about this Cairo speech, I found it mostly posturing for the American public. We're the good guys again. Forget about the Nuremberg crimes, torture, and the daily bombings in central Asia. Hell they didn't even have a cease fire. Do the tens of thousands of orphans, limbless souls, widows, and grieving parents forgive and forget? Perhaps those innocents driven from their homes by our military campaigns in their countries will think highly of us now.


A speech given in a toady military dictatorship is about as credible as a confession elicited by torture.

Obama's Education Secretary closed 5,000 public schools in Chicago and is encouraging creation of private schools.
"Obama Ordering States to Close 5,000 'Failing' Schools!... Chicago Lies Go National"
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obama-ordering-states-close-5000-failing-schools-chicago-lies-go-national

and

appoints as a high official in DHS a former torturer:
"DHS Nominee Philip Mudd Linked to Torture"
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/43295

While everyone waltzes to paens of praise.
Yes I guess words are more important than actions. Esp. if one wants to live in a world of illusion.

but I am sure his replacement will be just as bad if not worse. Obama is not even trying to make the pretense of "change".