Liam redux

, ,

Barack Obama – friend of the Israeli state's murder machine

Change is good. I change my socks every couple of months and my shirt at least once a fortnight when it’s hot. Barack Obama has got himself selected as a candidate for next commander in chief of the US armed forces and head jailer at Guantanamo by using the “c” word a lot. One thing…

Liam
2–3 minutes

Change is good. I change my socks every couple of months and my shirt at least once a fortnight when it’s hot. Barack Obama has got himself selected as a candidate for next commander in chief of the US armed forces and head jailer at Guantanamo by using the “c” word a lot. One thing he has decided not to change, should he get the job, is US imperialism’s attitude to Palestine and the Israeli state. The IDF can continue slaughtering Palestinians and the Israeli state’s government can carry on blockading them back to the Stone Age.

Obama-Surf Every single word of what follows is lifted from his website and is extracted from his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. You can provide your own indignant commentary. To paraphrase Trotsky on Lloyd George – “arsehole”.

He’s not Bush but how did anyone get the idea that there is anything supportable about this character?

We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle, and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.

Flying in an IDF helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean.

I have been proud to be a part of a strong, bi-partisan consensus that has stood by Israel in the face of all threats.

Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.

That starts with ensuring Israel’s qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat – from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As President, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade – investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot.

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

Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.

I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

47 responses to “Barack Obama – friend of the Israeli state's murder machine”

  1. jim jay Avatar
    jim jay

    I know it makes a change for the Democrat candidate not to be a socialist but…

    Obama has the most liberal voting record of any democrat in the Senate. http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings

    Top three priorities? End the war, Energy, Universal health care

    His let’s leave Iraq stance is rather better than McCain’s permanent war position. Also he is not Hillary Clinton.

    His candidature is an opportunity to help fundamentally address attitudes to race in the USA.

    Are there any other candidates that will make this sort of impact?

    Like

    Reply
  2. almata Avatar
    almata

    Jim Jay,

    Top three priorities? End which war? He is totally committed to the occupation of Afghanistan and the “war on terror” he voted for the Patriot Act to be renewed even though he was “against” it when he wasn’t in the Senate. Iraq? He still refuses to put any sort of time or date on it. Palestine? See above. Energy? Mass public transportation? Reinvesting in rail? Solar? Nope; tax breaks to green capitalists and the Big Three for more efficiency for the same old combustible engine with a nod to the coal industry. Universal Health Care? You mean like Canada or Cuba? Nope. He means to give billions of tax payer dollars to pay for-profit private health insurance firms with no national system. He claims that it will be “affordable”, but in these times how affordable is even a hundred dollars a month (it promises to be much more than that)? Fuck a bunch of Barak Obama, honestly. While his potential election would be hugely significant in the history of race in the US his politics are essentially Bill Clinton’s. Reminder: The Nineties Sucked.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    Jim – I’m with almata on this one. The Democrats are a party of US imperialism with some working class support. They are also a major obstacle to the creation of working class political organisations in the US.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Derek Wall Avatar
    Derek Wall

    Obama’s unconditional support for Isreal’s war machine is truly shocking but unsurprising…

    Like

    Reply
  5. SOCIALIST UNITY » Obama supports Israel’s war machine

    […] More from Liam on this here […]

    Like

    Reply
  6. John Avatar
    John

    Disgusting to read the extent of this co-called liberal candidate’s support for Israel’s ethnic cleansing, apartheid and violations of international law vis-a-vis the Palestinians.

    Like

    Reply
  7. alice Avatar
    alice

    Obama……..isn;t this the man who Galloway was recently waxing lyrical about!!!! claimed to have supported him from the off!! Ummm popular frontism lives.

    Like

    Reply
  8. martin ohr Avatar
    martin ohr

    COMMENT DELETED. MARTIN WE ARE FAMILIAR WITH YOUR VIEWS ON GG. THE TOPIC OF THE POST IS LIBERAL IMPERIALISM. STICK TO THAT. LIAM

    Like

    Reply
  9. martin ohr Avatar
    martin ohr

    SEE ABOVE

    Like

    Reply
  10. Dustin the Turkey Avatar
    Dustin the Turkey

    COMMENT DELETED – RAISE YOUR GAME OR STICK WITH THE THEME OF THE POST RATHER THAN THE TROLLS DUSTIN. I’LL CHOP ALL THIS SORT OF STUFF. THERE IS A WORLD OUT THERE BEYOND GG. LIAM

    Like

    Reply
  11. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    Alice – thanks for raising these issues with your customary flair and insight. Questions of such gravity, about which you have repeatedly demonstrated your passion, really don’t deserve to be lost in the ding dong of the comments section on this site. A much larger audience is required. I think it’s best if you visit WordPress.com or Blogger.com so that you can open up a space wholly dedicated to exploring the politics and theory which inform your views. It takes about five minutes. I’ll even put up a link when you’ve got it running.

    Like

    Reply
  12. modernity Avatar
    modernity

    interesting point, what will happen when and if Iran gets the bomb?

    Like

    Reply
  13. martin ohr Avatar
    martin ohr

    liam, thanks, but aren’t you even slightly interested that George Galloway is praying for Obama to get elected?

    Like

    Reply
  14. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    I’m slightly interested in all sorts of things.

    Later this month I’ll post a review of a Radiohead show and I’m absolutely certain that someone will manage to get in some unflattering reference to GG’s attitude to the band.

    More than anything this obsession is tiresome and dull. That’s why I’ll continue chopping cackhanded attempts to raise it.

    Feel free to express your views on this matter anywhere else or to participate in any discussion here that takes your fancy.

    Like

    Reply
  15. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    I think the issue of GG’s support for Obama raises the question of how the left need to relate to the Democrats campaign and the election that will eventually follow this.
    Among some on the left there is a sense of idealism and latitude towards Obama because of the extreme history of racism in the US. It will be significant if he is elected but whether that significance has any positive effect on the position of the majority of black people in the US is highly unlikely. Moving beyond the significance of a black president we are left with his policies and as others have stated they stink. The left can’t afford to have any idealism towards a Democratic or Republican president. We need to expose them for the war mongering capitalists that they are and promote an alternative to the two party system in the States.

    Like

    Reply
  16. modernityblog Avatar
    modernityblog

    but Galloway’s comments are often amusing:

    “The real problem is not in Palestine. It’s not even in London or Washington. The real problem is in the Arab world. From Marrakesh to Bahrain – 300 million Arabs, oil at 136 dollars per barrel… If the Arabs wanted to solve this Palestine problem, they could do so in six days.”

    Is George suggesting that all of the Arab states together use force to solve this Palestine problem? like a 6 day war?

    Like

    Reply
  17. hoot gibson Avatar
    hoot gibson

    “but Galloway’s comments are often amusing”
    the vast majority of humanity, whatever their political views, would find this statement difficult to agree with.

    “I”s George suggesting that all of the Arab states together use force to solve this Palestine problem? like a 6 day war?”
    If you are seriously interested in what he is suggesting, I would suggest you consider the reference to oil barrels. These are not traditionally used as weapons of conventional warfare, so it is more likely that he is suggesting use of the oil weapon to force US/Israeli concessions. I would be happy to assist you with the interpretation of any other Galloway statements that you are too thick or malicious to parse properly.

    Like

    Reply
  18. Liam Avatar
    Liam

    Hoot – please don’t refer to people who leave comments as “thick”.

    Like

    Reply
  19. hoot gibson Avatar
    hoot gibson

    liam,
    ok i am sorry.

    Like

    Reply
  20. johng Avatar
    johng

    I think Obama’s statements illustrate that a more coherent and rational foreign policy should not be equated with a shift to the left.

    Like

    Reply
  21. jen Avatar
    jen

    (SENTENCE DELETED – SEE PREVIOUS COMMMENTS ON THIS) Obama is a Democrat and like most people on this site I think he will serve American Capitalism very well and does not offer a hope to the poor of the USA. It is however significant that he is going to run for the presidency, a sign of progress but also incorporation of the black middle class.
    (ATTEMPT TO STIR UP POINTLESS CONTROVERSY DELETED – FEEL FREE TO INSTIGATE IT ELSEWHERE)

    Like

    Reply
  22. almata Avatar
    almata

    I agree that Obama’s candidacy is significant in the history of race in the US. I would remind readers that in the seventies and eighties we watched a whole host of black “firsts’ none of which dramatically changed the plight of the black working class. Both New York and Los Angeles have elected black mayors. Race is changing in the States and it would be ludicrous to say that things are essentially the same as the were. That said, these “firsts” are pretty insignificant in themselves, though they point to larger shifts. In the States, as a comrade of mine says, “class has a hue”, and capitalism can’t afford what would really crack the race/class dynamic in this country. I wonder, for example, if Katrina would not have destroyed black New Orleans of Obama was President. Of course it would have. I have no opinion on the Galloway thing. Tariq Ali also has a soft spot in his heart for the Harvard lawyer.

    Like

    Reply
  23. jim jay Avatar
    jim jay

    OK – apologies for taking a while to get back to this but this topic is important.

    Obama seeks to be the first President in history to actually have direct talks with Iran. And Cuba. He also thinks talking in general is quite a good thing and includes Venezuela in the Axis of people we should talk to rather than bomb.

    I’m sorry that you don’t think this is important. I mean I’m sure Iranians don’t care whether they get bombed or not, and Cubans don’t care if there is an opportunity to get the sanctions lifted. I’m mean it’s all the same isn’t it?

    Obama may not be putting forward a plan to introduce a social democratic health system. But he is putting forward a plan to ensure that the 45 million americans who have no health insurance at the moment have it. All of them.

    This is the biggest domestic working class issue in the US. Obama wants to be the first US President to ensure no one goes uninsured or under insured.

    I’m sorry you don’t think this is important. I’m sure no one cares whether they have health insurance or not – I mean what’s the difference?

    Obama wants to be the first US President to take Climate Change seriously. Unless we get a US President who does take it seriously we are all in deep trouble. Globally.

    I’m sorry some people think George Galloway’s thoughts on Obama are more important than whether the next US President provokes a massive shift on the two most important global issues and the single most important domestic issue in the US.

    When/if Obama is elected there will be a global streetparty. I guess you’ll all be sulking.

    Like

    Reply
  24. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    Jim Jay you’re misrepresenting those who criticise Obama. Of course we want to stop Iranians being bombed but Obama’s unequivical support for Israel is in direct conflict with that aim. Obama is no less a defender of US imperialism than Bush or Clinton. As for universal health care I seem to remember Clinton making a big thing of this and then very rapidly dropping it. In fact Clinton ushered in even more attacks on the poor and unwell. So the record of the Democrats in office (and this is what we’re talking about here – Obama doesn’t rule alone) is absolutely disgraceful. Now tell me that Galloways support doesn’t require criticism.

    While you’re dancing the night away at the Democrats Presidential Party, black and white workers in the US will be preparing for the Democrats forthcoming neo-liberal attacks on workers around the world.

    Like

    Reply
  25. Andy Newman Avatar
    Andy Newman

    Well ray has convinced me!

    What we need is socialism instead!

    But in the unlikely event that there isn’t a worldwide socialist system fully in place by November 2008, then there will be a real world choice between Barack Obama and John McCain.

    Galloway actualy explained this rather well, that the structural nature of the US electoral system means you need a billion dollars to stand, and Noam Chomsky is never going to win.

    The electoral choice is between two pro-capitaist politicians. By far the better of which is Obama.

    Even at the limited level of stopping John Nightmare McCain, it makes sense in swing states to vote Obama.

    But there is also a possibility that an obama victory will lead to heghtened expectations that society could change for the better.

    Perhaps there is an argument for voting McKinney in some states, but really it is quite simle.

    the better context for left and progressive advance will be if Obama wins, and the worst context will be if mcCain wins.

    Like

    Reply
  26. Adamski Avatar
    Adamski

    A good article by Anthony Arnove, author of Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal on Obama:
    http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/04/will-obama-stop-the-war

    Having made a profound mistake over John Kerry, the left seems to be repeating it over Barack Obama.

    George Galloway’s weakness was exposed when he contrasted “Obama who wants to start pulling troops out of Iraq after 60 days, with McCain who wants them there for 100 years” he bellowed at a caller, “which would you prefer? Someone who may start pulling troops out after 60 days to someone who wants them there for 100 years”.

    The point is that Obama and McCain are both supporters of imperialism and agree on essentials,

    This history of the Vietnam war should show that those who talk of peace are often the most dangerous. Remember Vietnamisation. Remember Nixon!

    Nixon promised peace with honor, when standing to be a presidential candidate, he said: “new leadership will end the war and win the peace in the Pacific.” People voted for him because they believed he had a secret plan to end the war. Nixon seemed to have a more progressive foreign policy – this was the man who was the first President to meet the Leaders of the Soviet Union and China (fastforward JimJays comments on Obama and Cuba!). this was also the man who escalated the bombing of North Vietnam and extended the war into Cambodia (Obama talks about a wider war in the Middle East)

    Like

    Reply
  27. Adamski Avatar
    Adamski

    Arnove states the reality that Obama means business as usual:

    “PEOPLE WHO believe Barack Obama will end the occupation of Iraq are likely in for a rude awakening. Despite talking about withdrawal from Iraq, his plan would keep troops in the country for years to come, likely well beyond his potential first term.

    Obama has also left open the possibility that if he reduces the overall troop levels in Iraq–something that from a military standpoint is very likely, given how overstretched the United States is now–he would increase the number of mercenaries in Iraq.”

    Like

    Reply
  28. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    “But there is also a possibility that an obama victory will lead to heghtened expectations that society could change for the better.”

    We heard the same thing about Clinton and look what happened. And remember the plaudits for Blair who fronted a social democratic party that led us into the war. Obama isn’t a social democrat, if he wins, he’s going to be leading the most imperialistic capitalist state in the world. Obama and Cain are two peas in the same pod. The only reason Obama’s election would be significant is because it might represent a change in perception of a few influential black people in the US. And even that would have no impact on the majority of black people in the US who will continue to experience institutionalised racism. Condoleezza Rice’s position hasn’t helped the majority of black people has it?

    Like

    Reply
  29. hoot gibson Avatar
    hoot gibson

    “Obama and Cain are two peas in the same pod”
    Well if you believe that I hope we won’t be hearing any more about the evil neocons and their fiendish machinations for war and eschewing of negotiations with Iran and Syria, since you plainly believe these to be of no importance.

    Like

    Reply
  30. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    Perhaps, hoot, you could point to where Obama offers an alternative to the usual progression of imperialistic US foreign policy. As for negotiating with Iran, that’s going to be very difficult because Obama has promised to defend the Israeli occupation to the hilt. His rhetoric about withdrawing US troops from Iraq is vague at best. The mistake you make is to believe that Bush, Obama, Clinton make the decisions when in fact the influence of neo-liberalism isn’t going to disappear just because of a change of president.

    If Blair, leader of a social democratic party, made it his policy to pursue Thatcherism then Obama, leader of a capitalist neo-liberal party, won’t hesitate to defend his own class.

    Like

    Reply
  31. hoot gibson Avatar
    hoot gibson

    “Perhaps, hoot, you could point to where Obama offers an alternative to the usual progression of imperialistic US foreign policy”.
    Like I said, he favours negotiation with Syria and Iran.

    “As for negotiating with Iran, that’s going to be very difficult because Obama has promised to defend the Israeli occupation to the hilt”.
    Well negotiations between the US and Iran will certainly not concern the Israeli occupation, so whatever difficulties they encounter that will not be one of them.
    Like I said, if you want to believe that everything will be the same whoever is in power, that’s fine. But in that case don’t come boring us all to death with stuff about the neocons and PNAC etc.

    Like

    Reply
  32. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    “if you want to believe that everything will be the same whoever is in power”

    I don’t believe this but if you have illusions in Obama then don’t come boring “us” to death with your rude awakening when he disappoints you (Thought I’d hurl your rude attitude back at you.)

    Israel is central to any negotitions in the middle east and because Obama is intent on defending it to the hilt then his rhetoric about negotiating with Syria and Iran will amount to very little.

    Like

    Reply
  33. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    “Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was justified to end that threat.”

    “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

    Two comments taken from Obama’s website, hoot, have you bothered to read Liam’s comment that introduces this thread?

    Like

    Reply
  34. hoot gibson Avatar
    hoot gibson

    Ray, Israel is already negotiating with Syria so can hardly object to the US doing so. The central objectives for Iran in its standoff with the US are an abandonment of sanctions and regime change, and recognition of Iran’s enhanced regional role. If you think the mullahs are going to reject a deal with the US for the sake of the Palestinians you should check out your own illusions and indeed your geography. I don’t myself expect anything from Obama but a more rational, competent and realistic approach in US foreign policy than we had under Bush . And I don’t expect to be disappointed on that, it is setting the bar very low indeed.

    Like

    Reply
  35. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    I would place myself rather more on the Obama is shit side of the argument but I think that one thing that people are missing is that while his ‘change’ rhetoric is rather empty, it is still true that if elected he will raise the hopes of millions of ordinary Americans.

    Now this could go two ways, he raises hopes, he fails to meet hopes and people are demoralised.

    or

    He raises hopes, he fails to meet hopes and people are angered, agitated and ready to organise to make the possibility of change that had been raised n their imaginations into a reality through popular mobilisation.

    Like

    Reply
  36. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    which way it goes depends on how the American left relates to this feeling.

    Like

    Reply
  37. Joseph Kisolo Avatar
    Joseph Kisolo

    (amongst other things)

    Like

    Reply
  38. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    Israel’s negotiations with Syria are completely self serving in an attempt to pull Syria away from Iran. Iran supports Hamas who the US & Israel will not negotiate with despite 64% of Israeli’s supporting negotiations. According to the New York Times, two-thirds of the Israeli public oppose a return of the Golan Heights to Syria. There is no will from the majority of Israeli’s to see successful negotiations with Syria or Iran.

    Negotiations with Syria will in no way limit or restrict Israel’s continued role as the US watchdog in the Middle East. Obama knows this and will certainly let you down, hoot. The evidence comes from his own mouth.

    A more rational, competent and realistic approach in US foreign policy than we had under Bush is the most you’re hoping for? Even if, in the unlikely event, US imperialism becomes rational we’re still left with a ruling class who will continue to pursue the neo-liberal policies it is currently benefiting from. Even if he had the will which he doesn’t, how can Obama alter the trajectory of US foreign policy when the US economy depends on it. According to New Scientist, the US has cut virtually all funding for the development of altenatives to fossil fuels. Middle East + Fossil Fuels + Israel = continued conflict.

    I admit that I had a modicum of hope that when Blair was elected he would improve our lot but even though he led a social democratic party he has pursued neo-liberal policies. Obama’s policies are to the right of Blair when he was elected so where do you imagine Obama is heading?

    Like

    Reply
  39. hoot gibson Avatar
    hoot gibson

    Yes, Israel will negotiate in pursuit of her own interests, like any other state. I would however rather it was negotiating with Syria then going to war with it, Israel is of course not going to negotiate its own dismantling, which I suspect is the only thing that would please you, It could however talk with Hamas (of course it already is by backchannels) and take the opportunity offered by the Arab League peace plan. And a US administration could facilitate that. None of this is impossible, and yes, it would be a more rational and realistic imperialist approach which would be a great relief to the people on the ground. For sure, I think some kind of deal with Iran and Syria will be necessary over the next four years in order to find a way out of the Iraqi imbroglio.
    Your quoting of opinion polls makes no sense; are you arguing that the Israeli people have no influence on their government (so their support for talking with Hamas will go unhears) or that they have a veto over their government (so the talks with Syria will go nowhere)?
    Continued US support on fossil fuels means nothing inevitable for Middle East policy since the US has many sources of oil apart from the Middle East. In any case, it is hard to see any connection between oil and support for Israel – it doesn’t have any and has been of no use to the US in any of its recent Middle Eastern wars.
    Finally, there is simply no logic to your argument that because Blair moved to the right Obama must also. He might, he probably will. There is no certainty about it. Blair and most of the PLP supported the Iraq war, Obama didn’t, What doest that tell you about where Obama is heading?

    Like

    Reply
  40. Prinkipo Exile Avatar
    Prinkipo Exile

    Good analysis of Obama and editorial on the problems of the US left in Against the Current, magazine of Solidarity.
    http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1468

    There’s no doubt that in the small space that exists for independent political activity in the USA today, it would be better to support McKinney rather than Obama.

    “Nonetheless the importance of an independent political presence remains vital, both for reasons of principle and in order to be prepared for the inevitable, when people’s faith in a figure like Barack Obama are disappointed — when that object of hope is denied the nomination, or loses the election, or is elected and soon forced to betray the hope that put him or her in office. That’s the movement’s only answer to the stupid dirty politics of the present moment.”

    Like

    Reply
  41. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    Hoot, it tells me that Obama has already accomodated to the reality of the continued US occupation of Iraq for at least a year and a half after his election. This confirms my analysis of Obama’s political consistancy and direction.

    Rather than you predicting my politics let’s focus on yours. You claim that Israel has nothing to do with the US interests in the Middle East yet it’s main ally has been Israel throughout the Gulf Wars. In Iraq, US companies have secured control over one of the worlds largest deposits of oil. Israel’s whole economy is kept afloat by the US. Without US funding and rearming it could not survive.

    Concerning Israels willingness to negotiate, you readily agree that it will not negotiate over occupied territory. When you refer to the Israeli state which manifestation of that do you mean? Israel has been busy appropriating the land belonging to everyone else in the region over the past 60 years so the chances of it negotiating any meaningful change now are negligable. It won’t hand back the Golan Heights or the West Bank for strategic reasons. The point of providing statistics is to demonstrate that regardless of what the popular opinion is in Israel, Israelis don’t call the shots in the Middle East – the US does. The problem in the Middle East is not Iran or Syria but US imperialism. Obama will perpetuate this.

    The issue we are dealing with here is not Israel’s policy of Zionist expansion it’s whether Obama offers any real alternative to Bush and Clinton for people in the US and internationally.

    This is what he says about the economy:

    “I believe that America’s free market has been the engine of America’s great progress. It’s created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It’s led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery…We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other’s success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.”

    So no change from the ideology of neo-liberalism of his predecessor. I won’t bother quoting Obama on Iraq but read the website it makes Blair look like an amateur at spin.

    Like

    Reply
  42. hoot gibson Avatar
    hoot gibson

    “You claim that Israel has nothing to do with the US interests in the Middle East ”
    Plainly I didn’t, but argued that your belief that oil is the sole determining factor in US Middle East policy sits uneasily with the view that unwavering US support for Israeli maximalism is an inevitability.
    “yet it’s main ally has been Israel throughout the Gulf Wars”
    Gosh, a main ally that contributes no soldiers, no bases, no fuelling, no diplomatic support and which was firmly told to stay out even when Scud missils were fired at it. With that kind of main ally, US imperialism really is a paper tiger.
    “Israel’s whole economy is kept afloat by the US. Without US funding and rearming it could not survive”.
    I think you have a rather archaic view of the Israeli economy, in the first quarter of 2008, the top four economies after America in attracting venture capital for start-ups were: Europe $1.53 billion, China $719 million, Israel $572 million and India $99 million. Israel is a lot more economically viable than many other states in the region, and on a surer long term basis than possession of oil supplies. Of course the Egyptian state would certainly not survive without massive US financial support, and the Palestinian National Authority would not survive without EU support. Is there any actual point you are making behind this rhetoric?
    “It won’t hand back the Golan Heights or the West Bank for strategic reasons”
    A deal on the Golan Heights came very close in the 1990s and there is no reason why it should not be possible again.
    “Israelis don’t call the shots in the Middle East – the US does”
    The Israelis began negotiating with Syria against US objections The main feature of the Middle East in recent times noted by all prescient observers is the dramatic decline of US influence. Any new administration will have to register that and react to that. I suspect McCain is more likely to adopt the one last shake of the dice approach advocated by the neocons and continue Bush’s approach with an attack on Iran, and that Obama will be a lot smarter. That opens the door to rapprochement with Iran and Syria and it would also imply a possible end to the blockade of Gaza and the boycott of Hamas, at least as a starting point to broader initiatives. I would welcome that, as my interest is in the welfare of the peoples of the region and the need to avoid any future catastrophic conflicts, rather than student union harrumphing about the evils of Zionism.

    Like

    Reply
  43. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    “I would welcome that, as my interest is in the welfare of the peoples of the region and the need to avoid any future catastrophic conflicts…”

    Well you need to have a greater understanding of the politics of the region to begin with. Your knowledge about the relationship between Israel and the US is so poor.

    The US gave $108 billion in aid to Israel in 2006. Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world’s population. I just had to google this so it’s not difficult to update your information. You might also like to know that the Golan Heights contains essential water supplies and is strategicaly important to Israel for defence. It was easy to wiki that information.

    At least us students deal in facts rather than vague wishful thinking based on misinformation.

    Like

    Reply
  44. hoot gibson Avatar
    hoot gibson

    I don’t particularly need to Google or Wiki for my information, thanks, I have lived on the West Bank and been involved in Palestinian solidarity work for 2 and a half decades, I suspect a long time before some of today’s “anti-Zionists” took any interest in the matter.
    I am aware that the US gives large amounts of aid to Israel so I do not see the relevance of your discoveries. I pointed out that it gives almost as much aid to Egypt and that the Palestinian authority is entirely dependent on EU funding, and asked what point you were trying to make.
    The water supplies of the Golan can hardly be essential since Israel survived them without up until 1967. Strategic importance is only relevant to a conflict with Syria, so would have no relevance if a peace deal is reached with Syria. I have no idea why you believe Israel could not reach a peace deal with Syria, it came close under Barak. Do you think denying the possibility of a deal somehow makes you more “anti-Zionist”, and if so why?

    Like

    Reply
  45. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    “I have lived on the West Bank and been involved in Palestinian solidarity work for 2 and a half decades”

    Well there are Palestinians who’ve lived there all their lives who hold different views. So your length of tenure doesn’t necessarily afford you any more clarity than anyone else.
    The US gave Egypt $28 billion over the last 30 years while Israel received $108 billion in 2006. Are you seriously claiming that there is any comparison? Egypt has received US aid over the last 30 years because of its non-agression pact with Israel. This aid is totaly based on maintaining strategic control by the US in the Middle East.
    The Palestinians stopped receiving $600 million a year in aid from the EU in 2006 when Hamas was elected. If you really have been to the West Bank you would know this and understand why the Palestinians need aid. Their economy is under the boot of Israel.

    You may not think the water supplies and strategic control of the Golan Heights are important to Israel but the US & Israeli governments do. If controlled by a hostile country the Golan Heights would be a strategic nightmare for Israel. This might give you a clue why I don’t believe Obama or Israel will do anything to end US foreign policy in the region:

    “The strategic value of the Golan Heights to Israel cannot be overstated. As with the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), the visual and radar stations located there give advance warning of any approach from Syria. Any attacking ground force would be effectively blocked by having to cross the Golan Heights. Conversely, if held by an enemy as in the past, it puts northern Israel directly under their guns.

    Furthermore, about one third of Israel’s fresh water supply originates there, in the watershed of Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee) and must be protected. In 1964, Syria, then occupying the Golan Heights, tried to divert these critical headwaters away from Israel in a blatant attempt to cripple Israel’s fresh-water supply. The IDF destroyed the Syrian damming project.

    I think you are understating the condition of the Palestinians and the situation in the Middle East because you are sympathetic to Israel perpetuating its racist apartheid state in the region. That’s why you see no difference between the US manipulation of the region through $106 billion aid to Israel and the desperate situation of the Palestinians.

    You really should google because you’d learn more in a few minutes than you have in 25 years.

    Like

    Reply
  46. hoot gibson Avatar
    hoot gibson

    Well I would suggest you learn how to google and read what you’ve googled properly. The figure of $108 billion you give for aid to Israel for 2006 is the cumulative figure for aid from 1949 to 2006. Your estimate for Egypt excludes military aid, and with that the figure for Egypt is c $50 billion. So yes, almost exactly comparable given the different time schedules.
    I don’t blame the Palestinians for the fact that the PA is almost entirely dependent on aid from the imperialist countries, I would simply remark that whatever point you wish to make in relation to Israel’s dependency is somewhat vitiated by this fact. Your obsession with Israel blinds you to the actual nexus of power and influence the US has built in the Middle East.
    You seem to have obtained your information re the Golan Heights from a pro-Israeli website, ironically. The account given of the 1960s clash with Syria is particularly misleading and tendentious. But whereas Likudniks will proclaim the strategic importance of the Golan, joined by you, anybody with any familiarity with history woud be aware that in 1973 Israel had to divert vital troops from the Egyptian front to save the settlements on the Golan – they almost cost Israel the war. In any case, you seem unable to grasp the point that if Syria and Israel are at peace their strategic value will be irrelevant. People like Moshe Dayan once argued that the Sinai was of immense strategic significance to Israel – with more justification – but in the end huge bribes from the US were enough to make Israel disgorge it.
    “you are sympathetic to Israel perpetuating its racist apartheid state in the region”. Oh here we go again. Like I said, you can save this kind of crap for the students’ union meeting.

    Like

    Reply
  47. Ray Avatar
    Ray

    I stand corrected about the amount of aid but that doesn’t detract from the fact that Israel receives a third of the US aid budget with only 0.001% of the worlds population. If you can’t see a link between US imperialism in the Middle East and the funding of Israel then you’re an apologist for Zionism. Israel is the nexus and you are colluding with it. You claim you want peace in the Middle East yet you offer nothing except more US intervention. More US bribes to help maintain Israeli control over Palestinians.

    The Golan Heights information came from wikipedia so unless it’s become a bastion of Zionism (as you attempt to assert) then you are obviously playing down the aggressive attitude that Israel has towards its neighbours. You don’t have to be a Likudnik to promote the Zionist agenda as you are doing. How can the fact that Israel obtains one third of its water from this area be propaganda? Either it does or it doesn’t and that’s easily verifiable.

    If you believe that Israel and the US will bring peace to the Middle East then you are deliberately ignoring the decades of ruthless and aggressive manipulation by them in the Middle East. Obama will do what every other US president has done before him and maintain hegemony in the Middle East via Israel. Obama tell us this in his own words so I suggest you save that “peace for our time” crap for your next Zionist meeting.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment

Trending