Robert Fisk: So far, Obama's missed the point on Gaza...
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
It would have helped if Obama had the courage to talk about what everyone in the Middle East was talking about. No, it wasn't the US withdrawal from Iraq. They knew about that. They expected the beginning of the end of Guantanamo and the probable appointment of George Mitchell as a Middle East envoy was the least that was expected. Of course, Obama did refer to "slaughtered innocents", but these were not quite the "slaughtered innocents" the Arabs had in mind.
There was the phone call yesterday to Mahmoud Abbas. Maybe Obama thinks he's the leader of the Palestinians, but as every Arab knows, except perhaps Mr Abbas, he is the leader of a ghost government, a near-corpse only kept alive with the blood transfusion of international support and the "full partnership" Obama has apparently offered him, whatever "full" means. And it was no surprise to anyone that Obama also made the obligatory call to the Israelis.
But for the people of the Middle East, the absence of the word "Gaza" – indeed, the word "Israel" as well – was the dark shadow over Obama's inaugural address. Didn't he care? Was he frightened? Did Obama's young speech-writer not realise that talking about black rights – why a black man's father might not have been served in a restaurant 60 years ago – would concentrate Arab minds on the fate of a people who gained the vote only three years ago but were then punished because they voted for the wrong people? It wasn't a question of the elephant in the china shop. It was the sheer amount of corpses heaped up on the floor of the china shop.
Sure, it's easy to be cynical. Arab rhetoric has something in common with Obama's clichés: "hard work and honesty, courage and fair play ... loyalty and patriotism". But however much distance the new President put between himself and the vicious regime he was replacing, 9/11 still hung like a cloud over New York. We had to remember "the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke". Indeed, for Arabs, the "our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred" was pure Bush; the one reference to "terror", the old Bush and Israeli fear word, was a worrying sign that the new White House still hasn't got the message. Hence we had Obama, apparently talking about Islamist groups such as the Taliban who were "slaughtering innocents" but who "cannot outlast us". As for those in the speech who are corrupt and who "silence dissent", presumably intended to be the Iranian government, most Arabs would associate this habit with President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt (who also, of course, received a phone call from Obama yesterday), King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and a host of other autocrats and head-choppers who are supposed to be America's friends in the Middle East.
Hanan Ashrawi got it right. The changes in the Middle East – justice for the Palestinians, security for the Palestinians as well as for the Israelis, an end to the illegal building of settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land, an end to all violence, not just the Arab variety – had to be "immediate" she said, at once. But if the gentle George Mitchell's appointment was meant to answer this demand, the inaugural speech, a real "B-minus" in the Middle East, did not.
The friendly message to Muslims, "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect", simply did not address the pictures of the Gaza bloodbath at which the world has been staring in outrage. Yes, the Arabs and many other Muslim nations, and, of course, most of the world, can rejoice that the awful Bush has gone. So, too, Guantanamo. But will Bush's torturers and Rumsfeld's torturers be punished? Or quietly promoted to a job where they don't have to use water and cloths, and listen to men screaming?
Sure, give the man a chance. Maybe George Mitchell will talk to Hamas – he's just the man to try – but what will the old failures such as Denis Ross have to say, and Rahm Emanuel and, indeed, Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton? More a sermon than an Obama inaugural, even the Palestinians in Damascus spotted the absence of those two words: Palestine and Israel. So hot to touch they were, and on a freezing Washington day, Obama wasn't even wearing gloves.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
I like Mr Fisk he tells it as it is and condemns evil whatever its nationality or creed, all that is needed to hear what he says is an open non partisan mind.
The big test will be if the US vetos what appears to be inevitable, a UN resolution calling for a War Crimes Tribunal to investigate the actions of Iraeli politicians and the IDF in this latest Gaza atrocity.
bad Jews, good Arabs
bad Jews, good Arabs
rinse and repeat
actually, a bad jewish regime wrecking havoc over a whole gazan populace due to a bunch of bad gazan boys..
1) why Bush ignored the CIA's warning that OBL was about to do something bad;
2) why just before 911 OBL's family were all flown out of the USA
3) why, O why did the Towers fall down like a demolition job well done
4) why were there explosions at the bottom of the towers which were independent from the plane crashes?
Of course, we will never get these things looked into. Too risky for any politician, much less a black politician who can never be seen to be unfriendly towards the US.
Feel sorry for Obama - he is just another politician with big words doing the political stuff. Generally though, it was pretty shameful to see all these sonsofbitches praying for themselves and not for the slaughter of the 1100 people in Gaza (all done with the help of US munitions thank you very much :) ) - most of them Palestinians who had nothing to do with Hamas - men, women and children. Shameful that not a prayer was offered for the kids targeted by the Jewish soldiers to be shot in the head; shameful that no prayer was offered for the 500, 000 Palestinians displaced by the Jewish offensive; shameful that no prayer was offered for the innocent UN personnel targetted and executed by the Jewish forces in Gaza.
Sure Obama, God bless America, God take pity upon you, God help the innocents to reconcile their losses and to still trust you to do the right thing. For me, you are a loser - just another politician scumbag doing the political thing to stay in office - words, more words and words. Get lost Obama. At least GWB was honest. We knew what he was, he told us what he was and followed through doing exactly what we knew he would do. You on the other hand are a spineless wonder and will be a great disappointment for the USA and the world.
I hope to see stronger and fairer action on the part of the USA.
There are some key facts that are not reported in the media. Like the fact that there are many Arabs in Israel who live without persecution and who have been largely silent concerning Gaza. Also some Gazans have been treated in Israeli hospitals. There are some who want to destroy the Israelis and who teach their children to hate them.
Tim, Worcester
Listen to what some influential Jews have said about the Palestinians...
"All of the Palestinians must be killed: men, women, infants and even their beasts" - Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director Tsomet Institute, Israeli 'Haaretz'
"We must use terror, assassination, land confiscation and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population" Israel Koenig, 'The Koenig Memorandum'
"Let's hope for a new war with the Arab countries so that we may finally get rid of our troubles and acquire our space" Moshe Dayan, 'Israel's Sacred Terrorism'
"Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country." -- David Ben Gurion, the founder and first Prime Minister of israel
It is important that the Palestinians "are made to understand, in the deepest recesses of their consciousness, that they are a defeated people." - Moshe Yaalon, Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces in 2002
"Joined a fighting organization." - Ehud Barak (current Israeli Defence Minister) (In answer to a question from the reporter Gideon Levy in 1999 about what he would have done if he had been born Palestinian)
http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/
What the entire world observed over the last 27 days is the current Terrorist = Israel, so the ground has shifted in the Middle East as well, as should the rhetoric.
We also witnessed Hamas, duly-elected government in an internationally monitored, democratic election, put their lives on the line for their people.
Surely we're ready to move on from demonizing Palestinians -- and Gazans -- if we can elect an Afro-American for President.
I'm not sure exactly what you expected of the man, but whatever it was it was pie in the sky unrealistic, as you're criticizing him as if he's been in office for years. Reasonable people understand the myriad of problems he is facing and will rightly give him some time to implement his policies and make his vision known. And by 'some time' I don't mean three days. As even Fisk half heartedly says in this article, give him a chance. That's all one can really ask of the reasonably minded. As president of the US he is president first to the people of America. He is NOT the Israeli prime minister!
His time to exert pressure on Israel will come as a lot of American Jews are encouraging him to practice 'tough love' on Israel despite what you, blinded by prejudice, cannot see. In fact, for the first time, there's actually a new progressive Jewish Lobby in Washington that was against the Gazan offensive from the start and is growing to provide balance to AIPAC's hawkishness.
Would you rather have had Bush clone McCain as president who would have done nothing?
What is needed is some way to show the American people that Israel is treating the Palestinians, especially in Gaza, just as badly as Nazi Germany treated them. But before that can happen, the West needs to get over its guilt about the Holocaust and realise that the former victims have become the oppressors.
It's going to be a long, hard road.
Why not sprinkle some criticism, to the establish administrations around the world, for their lack of sincere concern and apathy. I refuse to diatribe off and point 'obligatory' fingers at any nation or group particularly. Oh, right, we're the wolrds super power? There for it are 1st priority and only concern?
You, fellow 'citizen', and all your guile and intellect, naively diagnose before allowing a word to be uttered by the patients in this case, to a third party. Is this article, an attempt to spur on a quick recovery regimen of sorts?
Are you that all encompassing? I guess this 'tough love' approach must help sell a bunch of ads and/or papers? Get off your throne and perhaps try an adjustable, telescoping swivel chair for while.
I suggest you try practicing humility on a daily basis, you might find it agreeable, holistically.
Carlo
New York, (The United States of America)
Force Israel to lift the blockade
Recognize the elected government of the Palestinians
Push for a war crimes inquiry
Deny Israel's plans to halt reconstruction in Gaza
I agree with Robert Fisk that it was of no use to resurrect Abu Mazen whose authority is seriously eroded and has no moral standing before Palestinians. But Mr Obama followed the advise of his ill-advised advisors to contact 'President' of 'Palestine' to offer him full support. Here the word Hamas is a taboo. United States repeats Israel's policies regarding Hamas and labels it as a terrorist organisation but what about Israel which has pursued a policy of terrorizing Palestinians. Isn't that 'state terrorism'? The Israel is praised to be a 'beacon' of democracy in the region but then Hamas also won with landslide majority in the elections.
I am one of your greatest admirers.
With regard to the President's speech, it was speaking to many Constituencies and not just the Arab world.
And he signalled an important shift that only the most churlish would fail to recognise. Linguistically, he used the word 'network'. This is was a message if ever I heard one. A network is not a religion.Guatanamo was done within hours. Gaza was horrific. It is a prison. You will note they got out the day before the inauguration. They are also strangers in a new landscape. I have overweening optimism that he will be a positive force for change. In particular, the Israelis have to move to a more nuanced stand [Might is Right is set to be overwhelmed by the demographics] and he will do that, I think.
Aly-Khan Satchu
www.rich.co.ke
I think it was rather wise for Obama to avoid naming any particular country other than his own. Not even when he addressed the people of the world and he mentioned the "grand capitals" and the "city where my father was born" did he name Kenya.
His message is intended to be far-reaching and inclusive, and by getting specific he threatens to alienate others whose causes and homelands they will wish had also been mentioned. With the world looking to Obama to solve most of its problems, it would be imprudent to try to satisfy each and every one of their hopes for mention in a short, memorable speech. For if he mentions one specifically, he must surely mention others, and it's a bad recipe for a speech from which everyone in the world seemed to seek perfection.
If Arabs felt slighted by the absence of a reference to Gaza, consider that there likely would have been many who had felt slighted if he had. Additionally, the timeless nature of the Presidential Inaugural Address would have been ruined. Obama will be making plenty of speeches about Middle Eastern affairs in the days, weeks, months, and years to come. As for Inauguration Day, I think he did the right thing.
A Palestinian father has claimed that he saw two of his young daughters shot dead and another critically injured by an Israeli soldier who emerged from a stationary tank and opened fire as the family obeyed an order from the Israeli forces to leave their home.
Obama is still new and he cannot miss the issue that goes 50 years back. He just does not read the good paper like yours. That is all Folks like the MGM cartoon...
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
Judging him for not mentioning Gaza in his Inaugural speech is pointless drivel, as pbp10 so intelligently pointed out.
I respect Mr Fisk, and have always agreed to a great extent to his articles. But this one was purely over the top. Perhaps he is not familiar enough with American culture to know what an Inaugural speech is supposed to be and what it is not. Perhaps Mr Fisk, in his ardent sensitivity to middle eastern culture, has overcompensated by choosing ignorance when it comes to American culture. His purpose was to unite and not divide. The intent of result of this article by Mr Fisk is to divide.
Peace will only happen between Israel and the Palestinians when both sides want it to happen badly enough. At the moment they're both stuck in the groove of throwing high explosives at one another. The international community can do two things. It can avoid taking sides, and it can act as honest broker to bring the two warring communities to the negotiating table.
Setting up the state of Israel 60 years ago involved taking Arab land without compensation. And since 1967, more Arab land has been stolen in the West Bank especially. Until these thorny issues can be tackled by all involved peace is not going to happen.
Noam Chomsky puts it best:
Aggression always has a pretext: in this case, that Israel's patience had "run out" in the face of Hamas rocket attacks, as Barak put it. The mantra that is endlessly repeated is that Israel has the right to use force to defend itself. The thesis is partially defensible. The rocketing is criminal, and it is true that a state has the right to defend itself against criminal attacks. But it does not follow that it has a right to defend itself by force. That goes far beyond any principle that we would or should accept. Nazi Germany had no right to use force to defend itself against the terrorism of the partisans. Kristallnacht is not justified by Herschel Grynszpan's assassination of a German Embassy official in Paris. The British were not justified in using force to defend themselves against the (very real) terror of the American colonists seeking independence, or to terrorize Irish Catholics in response to IRA terror - and when they finally turned to the sensible policy of addressing legitimate grievances, the terror ended. It is not a matter of "proportionality," but of choice of action in the first place: Is there an alternative to violence?
and
Israel has a straightforward means to defend itself: put an end to its criminal actions in occupied territories, and accept the long-standing international consensus on a two-state settlement that has been blocked by the US and Israel for over 30 years, since the US first vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for a political settlement in these terms in 1976. I will not once again run through the inglorious record, but it is important to be aware that US-Israeli rejectionism today is even more blatant than in the past. The Arab League has gone even beyond the consensus, calling for full normalization of relations with Israel. Hamas has repeatedly called for a two-state settlement in terms of the international consensus. Iran and Hezbollah have made it clear that they will abide by any agreement that Palestinians accept. That leaves the US-Israel in splendid isolation, not only in words.
The whole long article is found in
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/vie