If Only It Were True...

David came up with another fantastic song.  Here is what he writes about it:

Ever since the rightwing nutjobs started complaining that Barack Obama is a tree-hugging, socialist, immigrant-loving, peace-loving Muslim I've thought, "if only it were true." This morning it occurred to me to write a song about it.

Check it out:

I love the man, there is no other way to put it :-)

The Saker

So is there a difference between Obama and McCain? A guide for non-Americans

The readers of my blog know that I see no substantial difference between Obama and McCain, I have said so many times. The choice between these two is about as meaningful as the choice between the SA and the SS in Nazi Germany or between the Trotskysts and the Stalinists in the Soviet Union. In the context of the USA, I like the following metaphor: the choice between the two Presidential candidates is akin to the choice between (Kosher) Pepsi and (Kosher) Coke when what one really wants to choose is a bottle of good French wine. As the "kosher" label on these two soda-candidates indicates, both have been vetted by the Israel Lobby and both are puppets of the same Neocon puppeteers. To repeat, there is no *substantial* difference between these two puppets and the outcome of the next election will decide exactly nothing in terms of the future of the USA.

But difference do not need to be substantial, there are other, often salient differences which should not be overlooked: style, appeal, etc. And here, in the realm of non-substantial differences, Obama and McCain are dramatically different.

First, there is the personal stuff. Obama has undeniable charm, he has brains, he actually understands most of the issues he discusses and, at times, one can even get the feeling that Obama might have some actual beliefs or values. In contrast, McCain is a drooling idiot, clearly as senile as Reagan was in his late years, McCain has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, and his "personal charm" is one micron think: underneath the nasty nature of McCain's character is obvious. This is why Obama and McCain appeal to very different types of people.

Obama "sells" himself under the "change" slogan and most people voting for him are sick and tired of Dubya and what he has done to the USA. They want a different course for the USA and Obama dangles this hope in front of them: put me in power and I will stop this insanity.

McCain, on the other hand, offers what many have called "Dubya on steroids" - more of the same, only much more of it. Some say that where Dubya was a hollow man, McCain is an evil one. I agree. The reason why most non-Americans are absolutely baffled by the fact that, at least judging by the polls, McCain is trailing Obama by only a couple of points is that they fail to understand a simple truth: McCain appeals to the worst and the most barbarically stupid and ugly Americans out there.

Who are the McCain voters? They are a toxic mix of rednecks, trailer-trash, TV-watching ignoramuses mixed with Bible-thumping Evangelicals, "Dispensationalists", Southern Baptists, inbred hicks, mixed in with the rich guys who made a killing during the Dubya years, mixed in with NRA-types, flag waving militarists, good ole nigger-hating racists and, last but not least, most of the left side of the Bell Curve of American IQ: the amazing variety of morons populating the USA. Truly, the McCain voters are the worst of the worst, not only because they are so gloriously stupid, but because McCain appeals to their worst, most evil character traits.

Yeah, I know - Obama voters are naive as hell, they are kidding themselves, they believe in the constant stream of propaganda the idiot box is spewing at them. Obama voters sometime are ideological Party automatons which would vote for *any* Democrat (even a SOB like Liebermann); others will vote for him only because of the color of his skin. All this is true, but the contrast with the McCain voters could still not be greater.

To sum it up, while Obama voters are gullible McCain voters are evil to the core. Let me repeat this here: Obama voters will mostly vote for Obama because what they think is the good things they see in him. McCain voters will vote for him because of the evil the see in him.

McCain voters want to kill them AYE-rabs and "win" the war in Iraq, they want to teach them Russians and Chinese a lesson about how America is great, they want to kick the "Latinos" back across the Rio Grande, they want guns to shoot at any terrorist who might show up in their trailer park, they want to get cheap gas into their SUVs and fuck up any raghead who dares to mess with the US of A. Either that, or they want to keep the millions of dollars they made during Dubya's reign. Both of these groups have the same message to the rest of the world: fuck the UN! fuck the Eurotrash! fuck all them foreigners who dare to bash America the Greatest! America: love it or leave it! These colors don't run! Support our troops! Nuke all the al-Qaeda bases in Iran and Russia!!!

A good way to visualize these guys is to think of Neanderthal on his Harley-Davidson bike with a US flag and a KIA-MIA flag flapping behind his back, or a pimply nerd in a suit and tie on the way to a to a 'mega-church' meeting, or a lawyer or banker with a huge house (usually of breathtaking bad taste) on a lakeside or oceanfront. Sure - these are all very different creatures, but McCain unites them all in one all-encompassing promise of more violence, more boots, more guns, more uniforms, more wars and more money.

Does all this matter? Yes and no. No matter who gets elected, the Neocons and the Zionist Lobby will remain in power. Yes, I know the old "Anglo" guard (Rockfeller, Brezinsky & Co.) is pushing the Obama candidacy while the Neocons and the Israel Lobby (Liebermann, Giuliani & Co.) seem to be uniformly backing McCain, and there is some truth to this, but you can be sure that the ZioCon Puppet Masters have already made plans for the (still likely) victory of Obama and that, should he be elected, he will be as obedient to them as Bill Clinton was.

It is very important to stress here that there is a "Third America" out there. Its the America of Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Cynthia McKinney and, even more so, of the millions who disillusioned Americans from all walks of life who will simply not vote at all. I actually feel that they are the real majority in this country, the political system has simply totally excluded them from any form of representation. This "Third America" does not agree on everything, in fact, they disagree on many important issues, but they agree on a basic set of fundamental principles: they want the USA to be a *normal* country (and not an Empire), they want the USA to be a *republic* and not some bizarre "Fascist Plutocracy", they think that the national interests of the USA are more important than the ones of Israel, they think that wars should be fought only to repel an aggressor and that the USA has no business ruling the entire planet (something which even most Democrats and prospective Obama voters do *not* understand or agree with).

So here is what will happen in November: the worst of the worst will vote for McCain and the naive but generally well-meaning folks will vote Obama. Those who understand the system (be it on a gut-level or analytically) will either vote for Nader or simply say away from this entire circus.

See, the *real* function of the Presidential elections in the USA is *not* to bring the Executive Power in sync with the popular will. The real purpose is to offer a spectacle, a "secular liturgy" if you wish, whose main purpose in to instill a sense of relevance, of legitimacy of the system, into the American public. If for a full year the corporate media bombards the population with debates, polls, talkshows, reports and all sorts of dramatic (if irrelevant) scandals about the candidates this just must be an important event, no?! Actually not. It exactly that: a media-event with absolutely no relevance or purpose other than to numb out an already totally stupidified public.

So how should we, foreigners, look at this amazing "secular liturgy?

Here is my advice to my fellow "aliens" (this is how they call us in the USA). Set aside all other considerations and just remember these basic pointers:

a) if you hate the USA - hope for a McCain victory as he will run the US Empire into the ground even faster than Obama ever will.

b) if you love the USA - hope for an Obama victory: while Obama voters are naive, they are ashamed and disturbed by the burning hatred with which most countries now see the USA and they want to change that. Obama voters do want to be part of Planet Earth and they do sincerely care about the rest of the world (McCain voter don't give a damn and if you oppose them they will "motherfucking nuke you!" to teach you a lesson).

c) and if you love Americans, but hate what the USA has become - then reach out to the "Third America", show it your support and understanding. Never let the "Obama illusion" hide the existence of these millions of "other Americans" who suffer deeply from what is being done to their country and how are forced into a type of internal exile (just like real Russian patriots during the Soviet era).

As for my American readers, I can only urge you *not* to vote for any of the two clowns running for the two factions of the War Party. If you believe that the system can be changed from within, if you have any hope at all, then vote for Nader or McKinney (Ron Paul is not running anymore). And if you think (like I do) that the system is non-reformable, that it is a charade, that is is an integral part of the problem - then stay away from this "secular liturgy" and go and read Alexander Solzhenitsyn's brilliant and still highly relevant piece Live not by the Lie (and remember that the Soviet system was brought down exactly as predicted by Solzhenitsyn).

But whatever you do, do not vote for the presumed "lesser evil". Vote your conscience or don't vote at all.

The Saker

Meet Obama's veep: I am a Zionist

Obama adviser compares Putin to Hitler

Kate Connolly for the Guardian

The former US national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has called on the world community to isolate Russia in protest over its campaign in the Caucasus, likening its tactics to those of "Hitler or Stalin".

Brzezinski, who was the national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, and is now an occasional adviser to the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, said the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, was "following a course that is horrifyingly similar to that taken by Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s".

He said that Putin's "justification" for splitting up Georgia - because of the Russian citizens living in South Ossetia - could be compared to when Hitler used the alleged suffering of ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland as a pretext for annexing Czechoslovakia in 1938.

In an interview with the conservative German daily Die Welt, he said even more striking were the parallels between Putin's strategy against Georgia and Stalin's invasion of Finland in 1939, describing both as "the undermining of the sovereignty of a small, democratic neighbouring state through the use of violence". He added: "Georgia is to an extent the Finland of today, both morally and strategically."

Polish-born Brezinski, 80, who earned a reputation as a hardliner due to his anti-Soviet politics, said the world was now being confronted with the question as to how it should react to Russia and what he saw as its efforts to "reincorporate old Soviet areas into the Kremlin's sphere of control". He said at the heart of the issue was access to oil and specifically who controlled the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline which runs through Georgia.

"If Georgia no longer has its sovereignty it means not only that the west is cut off from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia, but we can also assume that Putin will exercise a similar strategy against Ukraine if he faces resistance. He's already publicly voiced threats against Ukraine."

"If Russia continues on this path it has to be isolated by the international community," he said, including economic sanctions on which all alliances from the European Union to Nato would have to take a joint stand.

He added that Russia's invasion of Georgia was proof of the failure of the White House during George Bush's eight year tenure, to recognise the "Putin regime" for what it really was.

"Two episodes illustrate this better than any others," he said. "First, when Bush met Putin for the first time and said he had looked into his soul and could trust him. Secondly, when Condi Rice, not so long ago, said that the American-Russian relations had never been better than they are today." He said the White House had deceived itself.

Asked why it was that he only spoke of Putin and not of the Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, Brzezinski said: "He [Medvedev] has about as much influence over the current situation as the official head of state in the Soviet Union of the 1950s had over the Soviet Union. Nobody can even remember his name."
-------
Commentary: I thought that Karadzic was Hitler. Or was is Milosevic? Saddam was Hitler for sure (Photoshopped mustache and all). And Ahmadinejad. I don't remember now - was Nasrallah a Hitler too?! Maybe. Oh, and Hugo Chavez, at least potentially ('anti-Semitism is on the rise in Venezuela, the corporate media tells us). This Hitler-inflation is really skyrocketing and its hard to keep track of the "Hitler who is who"...

Obama, who is willing to denounce his own pastor over the latter's mostly fair remarks on the USA will not denounce the lunatic Zbig for this nonsense. Worse, and far more scary, is that he will keep this moron (to whom the USA largely owes 911) as an 'advisor'. Just imagine what an Obama Presidency will look like if the good Barak is told that Medvedev does not, in fact, rule in Russia...

Mc Caine and Obama - who are truly becoming indistinguishable from each other - have both adopted the only politically correct stance possible for them: blame Russia for it all and don't let facts get in the way. In Uncle Shmuel's Empire, this is the only possible position, in particular after a stinging defeat (which is what the war in South Ossetia is for the Neocons).

It is bizarre, illogical, morally repugnant and yet obviously clear that being called a 'Hitler' has become a mark of courage and resistance to the Empire's Borg-like ultimatum: "resistance is futile, you shall be assimilated".

It is the ultimate irony that the Neocons and their Zionist brethern are turning a reference which should evoke disgust and condemnation into something of a compliment, a mark of honor, is it not?

So, who will be the next "Hitler"?

Obama's trip to Yad Vashem: What about Wounded Knee?

By Mike Whitney for Information Clearing House

There were no surprises on Barak Obama's trip to Israel. Everything went by without a hitch. Obama met with all the heads of state and party bosses and raced from one event to another without incident. He skillfully tip-toed through a political minefield that could have ended his presidential bid in a blinding-flash. But he never stumbled. There were no gaffes, no miscues, and no slips of the tongue suggesting that US policy under President Obama would be any more "evenhanded" than it has been under George Bush. Instead, the Illinois Senator made his way from one landmark to the next professing his "unshakable" commitment to Israel, just as expected.

"The way you know where somebody's going is where have they been. And I've been with Israel for many, many years now," Obama proclaimed.

Indeed.

Obama touched down in Jerusalem on Tuesday and was rushed off to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial to pay his respects to the many victims of Nazi extermination camps. Donning a white yarmulke, Obama performed the traditional ritual; rekindled the flame, offered a prayer, and laid a wreath on the marble tomb. All politics; all de rigeur.

“At a time of great peril and promise, war and strife, we are blessed to have such a powerful reminder of man’s potential for great evil, but also our capacity to rise from tragedy and remake our world. Let our children come here, and know this history, so they can add their voices to proclaim 'never again'. And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us, and who have become symbols of the human spirit.”

No mention of the holocaust going on next door in Gaza. No mention of the settlements. No mention of UN resolution 242.

These events are always loaded with the kind of phoniness that politicians love. Bush even wept he was so caught up in his own fake sincerity. But it's all politics and no one in Israel is really fooled by the performance. If Obama has such deep feelings about genocide he doesn't have to go eight thousand miles to prove it. He could just hop a short flight to Wounded Knee in South Dakota where the 7th Cavalry massacred over 300 Lakota Sioux men, women and children in cold blood. Then he could propose something really original, like declaring that he'll make December 29 (the anniversary of Wounded Knee) a national holiday; a fitting tribute to the over 10 million American Indians who were slaughtered by the invading northern Europeans. But Obama won't support a national holiday for America's native people any more than he'll support a memorial to the victims of slavery. After all, that might alienate the pudgy, middle-aged white guys he's trying to win over for the November balloting.

When the creation of a National Slave Memorial was proposed some years ago for the Washington Mall, the idea was scorned in the right wings journals as "an appalling idiocy" that "would inflame both blacks and whites". The article goes on:

"Expediency-minded politicians of both parties may think of a slavery memorial as a cheap way to 'throw a bone' to the black community, A slave memorial is guaranteed to become a magnet for every race hustler from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton down to any local demagogue who can scare up a crowd to go stand in front of the slave memorial and spew venom at American society on TV....What a memorial would do is perpetuate the fraud that slavery was something peculiar to the United States, when in fact it was one of the oldest and most widespread of all human institutions, existing for thousands of years on every inhabited continent, involving people of every race and color as both slaves and slave owners."

There you have it; "compassionate conservativism" in a nutshell, bigotry and all. So, now a memorial to the victims of slavery is nothing more than "throwing a bone' to the black community"?

Nice, eh?

By the way, Obama's signature was nowhere to be found on the list of supporters for the Slave Memorial. He was probably too busy working on his speech blasting black people for not pulling themselves by their own bootstraps.

So, are we supposed to believe that Obama cares more about the Jewish Holocaust than the injustice that was perpetrated against his own people? But, then, maybe we're being hasty. Maybe these aren't Obama's people after all? Maybe his real people are the brandy-drooling, silver spoon, Harvard loafers he surrounds himself with? Is Obama capable of flying over New Orleans and blowing raspberries to the people below like Bush or is that too hard to imagine?

Obama's performance at Yad Vashem is nothing more than political kabuki; pure Hollywood. It simply reminds us of the fundamental power-relationship between Israel and the United States. Presidential candidates have to jump all kinds of Israeli hoops or they won't get elected. It's as simple as that.

“I’m here on this trip to reaffirm the special relationship between Israel and the United States," Obama roared while visiting the Wailing Wall. "My abiding commitment to Israel’s security and my hope that I can serve as an effective partner whether as U.S. senator or as president in bringing about a more lasting peace in the region....The most important idea for me to reaffirm is the historic and special relationship between the United States and Israel. One that cannot be broken. One that I have affirmed throughout my career and one that I will intend to not only continue but actually strengthen in an Obama administration.”

Blah, blah, blah.

What's particularly troubling about Obama, is that he has a good understanding of the core issues in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and yet, he's aligning himself with the more powerful group. That doesn't bode well for the "mothballed" peace process.

Palestinian activist, Ali Abunimah recounts his experiences with Obama in Chicago in the 1990s in Wednesday's UK Guardian:

"Obama grasped the oppression faced by Palestinians under Israeli occupation. He understood that an honest broker cannot simultaneously be the main cheerleader, financier and arms supplier for one side in a conflict. He often attended Palestinian-American community events and heard about the Palestinian experience from perspectives stifled in mainstream discussion."

True. Obama knows exactly what is going on in the occupied territories; the boycott, the sanctions, the check-points, the targeted assassinations, the military incursions, the arrests, the torture, the daily humiliations. He knows it all, but he's also shrewd enough to know what it takes to get elected in the United States.

Abunimah again:

"Every aspect of Obama's visit to Palestine-Israel this week has seemed designed to further appease pro-Israel groups....Other than a cursory 45-minute visit to occupied Ramallah to meet with Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinians got little... Some observers took comfort in his promise that he would get engaged "starting from the minute I'm sworn into office". Obama remained silent on the issue of Jerusalem, after boldly promising the "undivided" city to Israel as its capital in a speech to Aipac last month, and then appearing to backtrack amid a wave of outrage across the Arab world. But Obama missed the opportunity to visit Palestinian refugee camps, schools and even shopping malls to witness first-hand the devastation caused by the Israeli army and settlers, or to see how Palestinians cope under what many call "apartheid". This year alone, almost 500 Palestinians, including over 70 children, have been killed by the Israeli army - exceeding the total for 2007 and dwarfing the two-dozen Israelis killed in conflict-related violence. Obama said nothing about Israel's relentless expansion of colonies on occupied land. Nor did he follow the courageous lead of former President Jimmy Carter and meet with the democratically elected Hamas leaders, even though Israel negotiated a ceasefire with them."

Many people are convinced that Middle East policy will change dramatically under Obama. Don't count on it. In the last few weeks, Obama appointed Dennis Ross to a "prominent advisory role" in dealing with the conflict. The soft spoken Ross is "the founder of an AIPAC-sponsored pro-Israel think-tank." His politics are somewhere just slightly to the right of Ariel Sharon. There's no reason for optimism.

Obama is following the well-worn path of 100 per cent, unwavering support for Israel and the Zionist project. His trip to Israel just proves that he is a skillful politician thoroughly devoid of character. Is this the "hope we can believe in"?

Obama's real disgrace

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

Barak Obama, AIPAC 2008 Conference speech

Many observers were understandably appalled by Obama's AIPAC 2008 speech and many pointed out that by saying that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel Obama pre-judged the outcome of future negotiations. Later Obama "clarified" his statement to the great disappointment of some rabid Zionists. No big deal I would suggest - Obama is a politician and like any politician he zigzags, backtracks, "clarifies", "explains" and "contextualizes" every statement, whether true or false, he makes. But his "Jerusalem comment" is not the most shocking thing he said that day. How about this:

...any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state

Did you catch this?

Think about what this *really* means, what this *really* says:

First, it says that the 20% of Israeli citizens who are not Jews do not have an identity which is relevant to the state they live in. Nevermind the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories. How is that for overt Apartheid?

Second, if by "Jewish" an ethnicity is meant, then this means that Obama believes that Israeli must be "racially pure" in its identity and that, it turn, means that he supports the racist "Law of Return" which says that any Jew, no matter where he was born and where he lives, has the right to live in Israeli whereas the Palestinians who were born there and who were expelled by the Jews have no right to return to their own homes (a gross and abject violation of international law, by the way)

Third, if by "Jewish" one refers to a religion, than Obama's statement is even more bizarre, outright medieval. Simply put, Obama not only excludes all other religions from Israel (including Islam and Christianity to which is pretends to belong), but he even pre-judges of the religious choices of the (ethnically) Jewish people living in Israel. If, say, an Israeli Jew decides to convert to another faith and if his example is followed by a large number of Israelis their change of faith will not be reflected in the identity of the self-declared "only democracy in the Middle-East". Some "democracy", uh?

I find that statement of Barak Obama deeply, deeply offensive. This statement is racist, bigoted, prejudiced, ignorant, immoral and, last but not least, this is an apology for what is an undeniable a crime under international law.

And Obama pretends to embody some kind of "change"?! From his AIPAC speech it is clear that the only kind change Obama represents is a change for the worse.

Sure, Obama is everything Dubya is not: he is highly intelligent, he is charming, he has charisma and he can speak without saying some idiocy every 30 seconds. But that makes his disgusting statements to the AIPAC delegates even more clearly immoral and outright evil. While Dubya would parrot any nonsense whispered to him by his Neocon puppet masters, Barak Obama most definitely understood every word he spoke that evening. And that is his most damning disgrace.

No, I Can't!

by Uri Avnery

AFTER MONTHS of a tough and bitter race, a merciless struggle, Barack Obama has defeated his formidable opponent, Hillary Clinton. He has wrought a miracle: for the first time in history a black person has become a credible candidate for the presidency of the most powerful country in the world.

And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.

That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.

IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.

The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.

The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon.

The most extreme conclusions of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were confirmed in their entirety. On the eve of their visit to Israel, this coming Thursday, the Israel Lobby stood at the center of political life in the US and the world at large.


WHY, ACTUALLY? Why do the candidates for the American presidency believe that the Israel lobby is so absolutely essential to their being elected?

The Jewish votes are important, of course, especially in several swing states which may decide the outcome. But African-Americans have more votes, and so do the Hispanics. Obama has brought to the political scene millions of new young voters. Numerically, the Arab-Muslim community in the US is also not an insignificant factor.

Some say that Jewish money speaks. The Jews are rich. Perhaps they donate more than others for political causes. But the myth about all-powerful Jewish money has an anti-Semitic ring. After all, other lobbies, and most decidedly the huge multinational corporations, have given considerable sums of money to Obama (as well as to his opponents). And Obama himself has proudly announced that hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens have sent him small donations, which have amounted to tens of millions.

True, it has been proven that the Jewish lobby can almost always block the election of a senator or a member of Congress who does not dance - and do so with fervor - to the Israeli tune. In some exemplary cases (which were indeed meant to be seen as examples) the lobby has defeated popular politicians by lending its political and financial clout to the election campaign of a practically unknown rival.

But in a presidential race?


THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.

Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.

And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!

The outstanding thing that distinguishes him from both Hillary Clinton and John McCain is his uncompromising opposition to the war in Iraq from the very first moment. That was courageous. That was unpopular. That was totally opposed to the Israel lobby, all of whose branches were fervidly pushing George Bush to start the war that freed Israel from a hostile regime.

And here comes Obama to crawl in the dust at the feet of AIPAC and go out of his way to justify a policy that completely negates his own ideas.

OK he promises to safeguard Israel's security at any cost. That is usual. OK he threatens darkly against Iran, even though he promised to meet their leaders and settle all problems peacefully. OK he promised to bring back our three captured soldiers (believing, mistakenly, that all three are held by Hizbullah - an error that shows, by the way, how sketchy is his knowledge of our affairs.)

But his declaration about Jerusalem breaks all bounds. It is no exaggeration to call it scandalous.


NO PALESTINIAN, no Arab, no Muslim will make peace with Israel if the Haram-al-Sharif compound (also called the Temple Mount), one of the three holiest places of Islam and the most outstanding symbol of Palestinian nationalism, is not transferred to Palestinian sovereignty. That is one of the core issues of the conflict.

On that very issue, the Camp David conference of 2000 broke up, even though the then Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, was willing to divide Jerusalem in some manner.

Along comes Obama and retrieves from the junkyard the outworn slogan "Undivided Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel for all Eternity". Since Camp David, all Israeli governments have understood that this mantra constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to any peace process. It has disappeared - quietly, almost secretly - from the arsenal of official slogans. Only the Israeli (and American-Jewish) Right sticks to it, and for the same reason: to smother at birth any chance for a peace that would necessitate the dismantling of the settlements.

In prior US presidential races, the pandering candidates thought that it was enough to promise that the US embassy would be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. After being elected, not one of the candidates ever did anything about this promise. All were persuaded by the State Department that it would harm basic American interests.

Obama went much further. Quite possibly, this was only lip service and he was telling himself: OK, I must say this in order to get elected. After that, God is great.

But even so the fact cannot be ignored: the fear of AIPAC is so terrible, that even this candidate, who promises change in all matters, does not dare. In this matter he accepts the worst old-style Washington routine. He is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future - if and when he is elected president.


SIXTY FIVE years ago, American Jewry stood by helplessly while Nazi Germany exterminated their brothers and sisters in Europe. They were unable to prevail on President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to do anything significant to stop the Holocaust. (And at that same time, many Afro-Americans did not dare to go near the polling stations for fear of dogs being set on them.)

What has caused the dizzying ascent to power of the American Jewish establishment? Organizational talent? Money? Climbing the social ladder? Shame for their lack of zeal during the Holocaust?

The more I think about this wondrous phenomenon, the stronger becomes my conviction (about which I have already written in the past) that what really matters is the similarity between the American enterprise and the Zionist one, both in the spiritual and the practical sphere. Israel is a small America, the USA is a huge Israel.

The Mayflower passengers, much as the Zionists of the first and second aliya (immigration wave), fled from Europe, carrying in their hearts a messianic vision, either religious or utopian. (True, the early Zionists were mostly atheists, but religious traditions had a powerful influence on their vision.) The founders of American society were "pilgrims", the Zionists immigrants called themselves "olim" - short for olim beregel, pilgrims. Both sailed to a "promised land", believing themselves to be God's chosen people.

Both suffered a great deal in their new country. Both saw themselves as "pioneers", who make the wilderness bloom, a "people without land in a land without people". Both completely ignored the rights of the indigenous people, whom they considered sub-human savages and murderers. Both saw the natural resistance of the local peoples as evidence of their innate murderous character, which justified even the worst atrocities. Both expelled the natives and took possession of their land as the most natural thing to do, settling on every hill and under every tree, with one hand on the plow and the Bible in the other.

True, Israel did not commit anything approaching the genocide performed against the Native Americans, nor anything like the slavery that persisted for many generations in the US. But since the Americans have repressed these atrocities in their consciousness, there is nothing to prevent them from comparing themselves to the Israelis. It seems that in the unconscious mind of both nations there is a ferment of suppressed guilt feelings that express themselves in the denial of their past misdeeds, in aggressiveness and the worship of power.


HOW IS it that a man like Obama, the son of an African father, identifies so completely with the actions of former generations of American whites? It shows again the power of a myth to become rooted in the consciousness of a person, so that he identifies 100% with the imagined national narrative. To this may be added the unconscious urge to belong to the victors, if possible.

Therefore, I do not accept without reservation the speculation: "Well, he must talk like this in order to get elected. Once in the White House, he will return to himself."

I am not so sure about that. It may well turn out that these things have a surprisingly strong hold on his mental world.

Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people.

If he sticks to them, once elected, he will be obliged to say, as far as peace between the two peoples of this country is concerned: "No, I can't!"

Lasciate ogne speranza...

Obama is the same spineless genuflecting prostitute as the rest of them.

Judge for yourself and click here to read his AIPAC speech.

Ralph Nader is, along with abstention, the only possible choice for anyone with a conscience.

Fidel Castro: My Questions For Obama

Many thanks to Toufic for this very interesting contribution - VS

The brightest and best of the presidential hopefuls seeks to extend a cruel, immoral Cuba blockade

By Fidel Castro

It would be dishonest of me to remain silent after hearing Barack Obama's speech delivered at the Cuban American National Foundation last Friday. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries a favour. I have therefore no reservations about criticising him and expressing myself frankly.

What were Obama's statements? "Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy ... I won't stand for this injustice ... I will maintain the embargo."

This man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate for the US presidency, portrays the Cuban revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the same argument US administrations have used again and again to justify crimes against our country. The blockade is an act of genocide. I don't want to see US children inculcated with those shameful values.

No small and blockaded country like ours would have been able to hold its ground for so long on the basis of ambition, vanity, deceit or the abuse of power, the kind of power its neighbour has. To state otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of our heroic people.

I am not questioning Obama's great intelligence, his debating skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.

Is it right for the president of the US to order the assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext? Is it ethical for the president of the US to order the torture of other human beings? Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the US as an instrument to bring peace to the planet?

Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment to only one country, Cuba, in order to destabilise it, good and honourable when it costs innocent children and mothers their lives? Are the brain drain and the continuous theft of the best scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and justifiable?

Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks? Is it honourable and sane to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military-industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over? Is that the way in which the US expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights?

Before judging our country, Obama should know that Cuba - with its education, health, sports, culture and science programmes, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world, and in spite of the economic and financial blockade and the aggression of his powerful country - is proof that much can be done with very little. Cuba has never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements. We offered the US our help when hurricane Katrina lashed the city of New Orleans. Our revolution can mobilise tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilise an equally vast number of teachers and citizens who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfil any noble purpose, not to usurp rights or take possession of raw materials.

The goodwill and determination of people constitute limitless resources that would not fit in the vault of a bank. They cannot spring from the hypocritical politics of an empire.

· Fidel Castro is former president of Cuba. This is an edited version of an article that appeared in Granma, the Cuban Communist party newspaper granma.co.cu

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/29/barackobama.cuba