Saturday, June 25, 2011

A few things about Obama's May 2011 speech that he either knows or should know are lies

Another look at Barack Obama's May 2011 speech on the Middle East. I originally wanted to just look at the claim about preventing an arms race, but it is packed in closely with other statements that also deserve to be looked at.
Those shouts of human dignity are being heard across the region. And through the moral force of nonviolence, the people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades.

Of course, change of this magnitude does not come easily. In our day and age -– a time of 24-hour news cycles and constant communication –- people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But it will be years before this story reaches its end. Along the way, there will be good days and there will bad days. In some places, change will be swift; in others, gradual. And as we’ve already seen, calls for change may give way, in some cases, to fierce contests for power.

The question before us is what role America will play as this story unfolds. For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.

We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.
"The people of the region have achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades". The people of the region didn't start opposing the US/Zionist colonial structure six months before May 2011. There was a cumulative movement that by the time of his speech and also this writing had, in Egypt and Tunisia removed Mubarak and Ben Ali from power but not put either government under civilian control or formally given accountability to the Egyptian or Tunisian people. There is an astounding amount of potential for change that has been unleashed at least in those two countries, but but little actual formal or effective change.

I'm hopeful, and I think a lot of people are hopeful that this potential can be realized. The United States is very clear that it stands against realizing any potential that Egypt, in line with the values and sympathies of the Egyptian people, would leave its current role as a defender of Zionism.
"Every morning, when I read the papers and see that Jordanian King Abdullah II is healthy and Mubarak is still alive, I know we've earned another day."

Radical Zionist, Arnon Zoffer

"But Mubarak has never resorted to, you know, unnecessary demagoging of the Israel issue, and has tried to maintain that relationship. So I think he has been a force for stability. And good in the region. Obviously, there have been criticisms of the manner in which politics operates in Egypt."

President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama

But it is a serious insult to say that change happened in those six months. It would still be an insult even if there had already been elections by then. A lot of work was done for a long time, against vigorous and brutal US/Israeli and Egyptian resistance to bring about Hosni Mubarak's removal from power.

Also whether Obama likes it or not, opposition to the US/Zionist colonial structure was not always peaceful. The decision on violence is to be made based on considerations of effectiveness and they should be made by the people working for freedom and equality, not opposing it. The United States, Israel or any other the parties that support the dictatorships over more than 100 million people so that about 5.7 million Jewish people in Palestine can have a guaranteed political majority state in that territory don't have valid input into that decision.

Barack Obama could have withheld US cooperation from Egypt in January 2010, and in doing so probably would have forced the regime from power with less loss of life than we actually saw. More importantly, Barack Obama can withhold US cooperation from all of the US colonies: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others right now. Right now Barack Obama can say that the US will not train and equip a 35,000 man force whose job is to maintain the Saudi regime which is not accountable to the the people of the country but instead is accountable to him.

If Barack Obama opposed the US/Zionist colonial structure then we would not need protests. We would not need people to set themselves on fire or demonstrations that stifle the economic and social life of the host countries and that are opposed by the regimes with various degrees of force. We don't need Nato in Libya to bring about democracy. Barack Obama can, right now, tell the dictator and people of Jordan and their relationship with the US will end if there are not elected officials controlling all aspects of policy in six months.

Barack Obama and the United States do not do that exactly because doing it would threaten Zionism, would make a political majority state for 5.7 million Jewish people in Palestine less viable. But because he does not do it, he is on the side of the dictators. He is what the people in Tahrir Square were protesting against.

"We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them." Just a pure lie. Barack Obama knows he is hostile to the idea of democracy for Saudi Arabia and he knows why. He knows that the US/Zionist colonial structure rules over more than 100 million Arabs most of whom do not believe Israel is a legitimate state rather than an historical injustice and who would have access to oil revenues that dwarf what Israel's 5.7 million Jewish people could spend to maintain military dominance over their region.

Statements like this by Obama, not only dishonest but insults to the intelligence of those in his audience who have even a fleeting understanding of the issues he's discussing seriously drain him of credibility. He is presenting himself as the most spectacular Uncle Tom in world history. It would be better just to be quiet than to do these things.

"We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region". This is a subtle lie by Obama. Israel started the nuclear arms race in the region. The US colonies, per orders from the United States, do not participate in the arms race Israel initiated. Obama justifies his sanctions against Iran, meaning US efforts to sabotage the entire economy of over 80 million Iranians as efforts to prevent an arms race. Obama knows that Iran's nuclear program does not threaten to trigger an arms race as long as the US/Zionist colonial structure is intact, as long as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Kuwait and others have governments that are not accountable to their people but instead to the US embassies and military bases on their territories.

The same leverage the US uses to prevent its colonies from responding to Israel's hundreds of active nuclear weapons it will continue to use to prevent its colonies from responding to another Muslim state reaching the legally permissible nuclear threshold that Japan, South Africa, Brazil, Canada, Germany and many other countries have reached.

Israel would not be viable and would relatively quickly go the way of Apartheid South Africa if even Saudi Arabia alone was to free itself of US colonial rule and instead was to be ruled by a democratically or popularly accountable Republic of Arabia. To the degree there ever could be an arms race in the region, it is perpetuated by Obama for the sake of maintaining a political majority state for 5.7 million Jewish people in Palestine.

Some lies were subtle, some were blatant, but Barack Obama is extraordinarily disappointing in the vigor with which he defends the US/Zionist colonial structure that he inherited from previous US presidents. It is true that if Israel's supporters in the United States thought there was any chance that he might take any other position, he could not be president. On the other hand, he is a worse president, a more strident opponent of political freedom for most people in the Middle East than even George Bush I.

And rather than lie, he could just say nothing. If you oppose the people of Egypt voting because they might elect the Muslim Brotherhood, if you oppose the people of what we call Saudi Arabia having a government that is accountable to them because it could prevent Israel from having a military that can defeat all others in its region and you don't want to admit it, you can just not give a speech on the subject. Barack Obama's position on Middle East issues reflects a real personal deficiency on his part.

No comments: