Choose Your Region

UK-Region IRELAND-region
MPACUK LEEDS

Adverts/Promotions

Powered by: MuslimPages
 
Halal Hamper CHL Properties When Slaves Become the Masters Journalism Diversity Fund Stop War On Iran

Disclaimer: MPACUK does not select these automated ads.


Subscribe to our newsletter:


The Unpromised Land Print E-mail
Thursday, 05 June 2008

the_wall.jpgImagine the shock-horror: Barack Obama attends the conference of an organisation whose former officials face trial for spying on the United States! It would be all over the blogs, except that John McCain and Hillary Clinton were attending the AIPAC conference this week in Washington DC as well, pandering to the lobby that will get you accused of anti-Semitism if you quote its own website about its power.

This non-lobby has always harassed politicians into compliance – who now remembers the way they hounded Hillary Clinton for years as a crypto-Palestinian supporter? It works. Whatever the lobby asks for, she now gives them 50% cent more. And Obama gave them 100% extra.

So there we were, thinking that the country had come of age at last, finally putting truth in the rumours about liberty and equality first spread by a group of slave-owners some ten-score and thirty years ago. Obama's securing of the nomination alone underscores how much the country has changed in the 20 years I have been here.

However, I am glad that I kept some reservations about the idea of Obama taking us to the New Jerusalem. Not least since he was busy giving away the old one to those who stole it.

After viral emails and vicious attacks against him as an anti-Israeli or even Islamic sleeper, the worm turned – in the direction they pointed. Obama promised to support an "undivided Jerusalem," as Israel's capital in his speech to the lobby.

Not a single country recognises the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem. Indeed, the last few banana-ish republics that maintained embassies in West Jerusalem have removed them, since no country, including the US, is prepared to over-ride the UN partition resolution which designated the city as international territory.

There are proposals that would have the city as the joint capital of both Palestine and Israel, and it is possible that Obama was thinking of those. However that possibility was somewhat diminished by the complete absence of any mention of Israeli settlement building, the road blocks, the separation wall, all in defiance of international law, and indeed of Israel's own commitments to the Quartet and the peace roadmap. Indeed, far from pressuring Israel to live up to its obligations, he promised yet another $30bn in stringless aid!

Those of us who were, on Tuesday night, cheering the seeming end of the long years of neocon domination of foreign policy should pause and recall that Paul Wolfowitz addressed an AIPAC crowd and reminded them: "Israelis are not the only victims of the violence in the Middle East. Innocent Palestinians are suffering and dying in great numbers as well. It is critical that we recognize and acknowledge that fact." The crowd booed. However, he knew they would and was prepared to take the risk.

At any AIPAC rally since the defeat of Saddam, it is always good for a quick buzz to attack Iran, and of course, all the candidates obliged. So, the choice we are left with is choice between Obama, who is prepared to talk to the Iranians, but still waving a big stick, ("I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything.") and McCain, who wants to dispense with the talking.

Of course, some AIPACniks mightn't like talking to the Iranians, but Obama could always send Ollie North, who has considerable experience bridgebuilding between Israel and Iran and seems to be still beloved of the lobby and its friends.

But he would be better of building up ties to J-street, the new Peace-Nowish lobby whose views seem to represent far more American Jews than AIPAC, which more and more looks like a Likudnik-Neocon lobby, prepared to fight to the last Israeli – and indeed the last GI - for their eschatological visions.

Let us hop Obama's speech was just a passing pander and that the peace drive he promised takes international law on occupied territories into account.

Source: Comment Is Free




Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Live!Facebook!Technorati!Spurl!Furl!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Readers have left 5 comments.
Shamsur: Quote

I would love to see Israel try and attcak Iran, than let their American slaves take over when they are attacked by Iran in retalliation...so they think.

What would happen is China and Russia coming into the war which would destroy Israel and the beggining of the end of American forighn policy towards its master Isreal.

Obama is playing the vote card game where he is sliencing his Dual Israeli/American citizens such as Richard Pearle and Wolfowitz both who are self proclaimed Zio-nazi's.

I do however think that he will take a diferent route towards foreign policy, but his aim is good, silence the zio-nazi's, become President, than kick the lot of them out the country.....

(1) 2008-06-06 12:39:13
Sultan (in Oxford): Quote

Assalaam alaikum and Greetings

When Presidential Candidates speak up at AIPAC, and tell the highly influential Pro-Israelis sitting there how they will uniquely protect Israel, how they will deal with terrorism, how they will protect the Jewish land, it really brings it home how the Presidential Candidates have to sing/dance to the tunes of the Pro_Israelis to in order to become a President.

I mean, if AIPAC and other infleuntial pro_israelis did not have the influence to bring down a candidate then no candidate would have bothered attending AIPAC and appeasing the audience.

The presidential Candidates know all too well (as do many, many Muslims, and some Americans who have 'woken up') that unless their Potential President pleases the Israeli supporters then they have no-chance in their political career advancing.

Clear proof, if needed, that the Pro_Israelis are highly influential and that the President of the USA is nothing more than a front since the foreign policies are dictated by the likes of AIPAC and others who have Israeli interests at heart.

I do not see these Presidential Candidates singing/dancing or appeasing the Muslim audience, do I ? Such as speaking at CAIR or American MPAC, etc.

How about the Presidential Cnadidates speaking up about alleviating the suffering of the Palestinians, creating a Palestinian State, making Israel accountable for various UN violations. I suppose that would be 'anti-semetic'.

I hope the American Muslims vote for the candidate who does the least harm to Muslims. I say least harm because all the Presidential Candidates are pro-Israel in some form or another.

With respect to Iran, if they (USA and Israel) do attack it,
it will bring the Middle East one step closer to the eventual 'Holy War'. This is what the Christain and Jewish Zionsits want, and what we Muslims are expecting.

Wasalaams


(2) 2008-06-06 16:03:06
truth seeker: Quote

Shamsur

Hope your grasp of US foreign policy is better then your spelling
(3) 2008-06-06 17:05:28
Taz: Quote

Exposes the Zionist lie "Israel Lobby? What Israel Lobby?"
(4) 2008-06-06 21:00:09
RSD: Quote

Inadvertently some of the contributors highlight a real factor here - the fear of escalation from sabre rattling to region war influences behaviour. Pres. Ahmednejad recognises and exploits this extensively. He knows full well that Iran cannot take on Israel, and he knows that the US will apply enormous pressure upon Israel to prevent it from taking any preemptive action against Iran. This also applies to a lesser extent to Turkey. Consequently Ahmednejad knows that so long as he does not deploy Iranian forces directly against any of Iran's "enemies" that Iran will not face the consequences of its actions. It is through this that the proxy forces in Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza have been developed. Ahmendnejad can garner praise for having provided support to them, but Iran is unlikely to face direct military action. However this is a devilishly difficult game to play and one that could easily fall the other way. Were the Israelis, and possibly, the Turks decide that it is more effeicient to strike at the heart of the Iranian militray machine then there is little or nothing that Iran could do. Currently this is unlikely because the US & UK would not wish their troops to get caught up in the conflict. But were the US & UK to evacuate Iraq, then the bets would be off.
The real problem would be predicting the scale of an attack. If some of Ahmednejad's statements are taken at face value, then he believes that a couple of millions Palestinian casualites are a price worth paying to "liberate" Palestine. While we can all see this as mere grandiose and silly speech, it is dangerous in a region where there is a real potential for a major war.
The idea that Russia or China would join in a MiddleEast war is unrealistic. Neither of these countries have the will to fight on behalf of Islamic states and it is very questionable whether they would have the capacity, especially China. Even if they were, by the time they readied and deployed their forces it is likely the war would be over with millions dead and large streches uninhabitable. While Russia could benefit from a war with increased oil prices, it would be an economic catastrophe for China.
It is time to face facts that Iran, and its ally Syria, have sought to cause instability because it brings them benefits. We should all condemn this activity as it merely rewards a few in power at the expense of very large numbers of people across the Middle East. Just look how many people in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Turkey have been killed by the proxy forces of Iran & Syria, most have been Muslims.
(5) 2008-06-09 19:51:12
The author or administrator has closed this item for comments.
 
Ireland Branch
Media Workshops

Search MPACUK.org

Recommended Books