Obama's Deadly Silence

[ProgressiveMuslim]

(snip)

Despite pervasive wishful thinking that Obama would abandon America's pro-Israel bias, his approach has been almost indistinguishable from the Bush administration's.

Along with Tony Blair and George W. Bush, Obama staunchly supported Israel's war against Lebanon in July-August 2006, where it used cluster bombs on civilian areas, killing more than 1,000 people.

Obama's comments in Sderot echoed what he said in a speech to the powerful pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, in March 2007. He recalled an earlier visit to the Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona near the border with Lebanon which he said reminded him of an American suburb. There, he could imagine the sounds of Israeli children at "joyful play just like my own daughters." He saw a home the Israelis told him was damaged by a Hizballah rocket (no one had been hurt in the incident).

Obama has identified his daughters repeatedly with Israeli children, while never having uttered a word about the thousands -- thousands -- of Palestinian and Lebanese children killed and permanently maimed by Israeli attacks just since 2006. This allegedly post-racial president appears fully invested in the racist worldview that considers Arab lives to be worth less than those of Israelis and in which Arabs are always "terrorists."

The problem is much wider than Obama: American liberals in general see no contradiction in espousing positions supporting Israel that they would deem extremist and racist in any other context. The cream of America's allegedly "progressive" Democratic party vanguard -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Howard Berman, New York Senator Charles Schumer, among others -- have all offered unequivocal support for Israel's massacres in Gaza, describing them as "self-defense."

And then there's Hillary Clinton, the incoming secretary of state and self-styled champion of women and the working classes, who won't let anyone outbid her anti-Palestinian positions.

Democrats are not simply indifferent to Palestinians. In the recent presidential election, their efforts to win swing states like Florida often involved espousing positions dehumanizing to Palestinians in particular and Arabs and Muslims in general. Many liberals know this is wrong but tolerate it silently as a price worth paying (though not to be paid by them) to see a Democrat in office.

Even those further to the left implicitly accept Israel's logic. Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive, criticized Israel's attacks on Gaza as a "reckless" and "disproportionate response" to Hamas rocket attacks that he deemed "immoral." There are many others who do nothing to support nonviolent resistance to Israeli occupation and colonization, such as boycott, divestment and sanctions but who are quick to condemn any desperate Palestinian effort -- no matter how ineffectual and symbolic -- to resist Israel's relentless aggression.

Similarly, we can expect that the American university professors who have publicly opposed the academic boycott of Israel on grounds of protecting "academic freedom" will remain just as silent about Israel's bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza as they have about Israel's other attacks on Palestinian academic institutions.

There is no silver lining to Israel's slaughter in Gaza, but the reactions to it should at least serve as a wake-up call: when it comes to the struggle for peace and justice in Palestine, the American liberal elites who are about to assume power present as formidable an obstacle as the outgoing Bush administration and its neoconservative backers.


http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10097.shtml

[Libertyfirst]

1. There can only be one President at the time. Remember? n/t

[tekisui]

2. But, I heard today actually, PE Obama laid out some of the details of

his economic stimulus plan. I have heard him hold press conferences on various issues including Russia/Georgia war, Mumbai attacks and the recession we are in.

Why no word on this?

[cali]

3. He could make things worse by saying something before

he's sworn in. Re Mumbai and Russia, he voiced very little, and that was chiefly in line with current U.S. policy.

He has not, to my knowledge, made comments backing up the bushco position of complete support for whatever Israel does, anymore than he's made comments critical.

Nothing he said publically would help matters. And of course we don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

[chimpymustgo]

4. He could call for humanitarian aid, for negotiation of a cease-fire. He could DO THE RIGHT THING.

He's spoken out on everything he's wanted to since the election (only one President at a time). A few calm words now could save hundreds of lives.

[tekisui]

5. So, this issue is TOO serious for Obama to comment on?

I don't buy it. He could signal where the US is heading.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Dennis Kucinich spoke up on the Gaza genocide

Obama hides behind the "one President at a time" excuse.

[Meshuga]

7. If you think about it

The US is in a war in Afghanistan against terrorists who attacked us here in American soil. We know that civilians have been killed in the Afghan war because terrorists make a point of operating in civilian areas. We are also aware that the war in Afghanistan has the support of Obama. So what do you think he is going to say? That he supports a war that is a consequence of Americans being attacked in American soil and at the same time say Israel doesn't have the right to respond?