The Jordan Times
Ramzy Baroud
George W. Bush departure was the end of a long nightmare, one that Bush epitomised until his last day in office.
Americans may decry the “Bush legacy”, for it brought economic ruin and pushed the country into avoidable, if not completely preventable, wars, disgracing the collective history of a nation that for long imposed its sense of moral authority on the world. The new president is set to change all of that. True, Barack Obama is duly warning against hyped expectations, but, frankly, he can only blame himself for the eagerness and hope, realistic or otherwise, that has engulfed the nation and even the world. During his presidential campaign he made many promises, the gist of which is that an Obama’s administration would be everything that the Bush administration was not. That was enough for “Obamaniacs” to sing and dance the world over.
One cannot expect Obama to have a magic solution for everyone’s problems, everywhere. One must be realistic and simply ask Obama to remedy the problems and conflicts that were introduced or provoked, financed and sustained by his own country.
Regarding the Middle East, Obama seems to have hit the ground running, or so we are told. Shortly after his inauguration, he appointed former senator George Mitchell as special envoy to the region. Mitchell “will bring a wealth of experience and credibility to the job”, said CNN.
Once again, Obama is clearly attempting to delineate an early policy that differs from Bush’s. The latter was affiliated with the infamous Guantanamo Bay, the “gulag of our times”, according to Amnesty International, thus Obama ordered it closed, a year from now that is. Bush was blamed for his late arrival to the Middle East scene, thus Obama makes it clear that the peace process is a priority for his administration. But the question is how different will Obama truly be when his administration is done carrying out a few symbolic gestures to appease the eager public?
Naturally, a new administration, promising a new era, requires a new language. Although inundated with lofty terminology, the outline of Obama’s new administration seems, in some instances, a mirror image of Bush’s.
These are remarks made by Obama (not Bush), on January 22, and seen as the first major statement by his administration regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: “Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats.… Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognise Israel’s right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements. Going forward, the outline for a durable ceasefire is clear: Hamas must end its rocket fire; Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza; the United States and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm.”
Funny how Obama started his statement with “let me be clear”. He cannot possibly be any clearer, as he spent endless hours for many months assuring Israel and its supporters, while condemning Palestinians without any reservation or remorse.
Those who counted on Obama to bring a just peace to the Middle East must have had their hearts broken watching the man charging against Hamas’ terror as thousands of Gazans were killed and wounded, including 430 children, in a matter of three weeks as a result of Israel’s barbarous attacks, using mostly American weapons (and full, unqualified US backing).
And yet, Obama found it fitting to explain that his administration’s foreign policy is not only “critical in terms of projecting … America’s power, but also America’s values and America’s ideals”.
Of course, it was Palestinian trust in those ideals that led them in droves to the polls in January 2006, and subsequently to their starvation and carnage in Gaza. It is no wonder that Palestinians are unimpressed.
Aside from Obama’s unparalleled clarity, thus far, on his utter and “unconditional” commitment to Israel, he, along with his officials, continue to borrow vague slogans that were used enthusiastically by the Bush administrations: national security, national interests, spreading of American ideals, values and all the rest.
Commenting on such sloganeering, Howard Zinn, one of America’s most celebrated historians, said: “We have to think about these words and phrases that are thrown at us without giving us a time to think. And … we have to redefine these words, like “national security”. What is national security? ... having military bases all over the world (or) ... having healthcare, having jobs.”
Americans will have four years to determine how Obama and his administration define these tired slogans, ones that also include democracy and “terrorism” (is the latter an exclusively Arab tendency, never an Israeli, no matter how many it kills?).
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza are homeless and destitute. Moreover, they have little hope and expectations from Obama, or even Mitchell, despite his “wealth of experience and credibility”.
“Obama won’t bring my husband back to life,” Leila Khalil, a Gazan, told AFP. “He was martyred and left me with six children to feed on my own.”
Obama made himself “clear” on the fate of Leila’s husband, and thousands like him: “For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror.”
Luckily, Leila no longer has a TV set to listen to Obama’s remarks. It was, along with her house, pulverised by Israeli missiles, courtesy of the United States. For Gazans, and most Palestinians, things cannot be any clearer.
The writer (www.ramzybaroud.net) is editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is, “The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle” (Pluto Press, London). He contributed this article to The Jordan Times..
No comments:
Post a Comment