stephen lendman seems to say it better than muslims can

Obama’s Outreach to Muslims:
Empty Rhetoric, Same Old Policies

Stephen Lendman, Global Research, Jun 8 2009

Samuel Huntington, in a “The Clash of Civilizations” article in the summer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs, and later a 1996 book, wrote that future conflicts won’t be “primarily ideological or primarily economic”:

The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural … The principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

demagogically suggesting a benevolent, superior West confronting a belligerent, hostile, inferior Muslim world. In other words, good v. evil. Post-9/11, it was easier than ever for America to declare war on Islam, abroad and at home — a policy no different under Obama than for eight years under George Bush. Empty rhetoric changes nothing, in Cairo or elsewhere. Facts on the ground are clear, unequivocal, and hostile — in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Occupied Palestine. Also toward Iran, Syria, elected Hezbollah Lebanese officials, the legitimate Palestinian Hamas government, and targeted Muslim Americans at home — for their activism, prominence, charity, religion and ethnicity. It’s the wrong time to be Muslim in the US, and most anywhere else in the world.

Around 1.5 billion Muslims want change and the basic respect they deserve. They’re sick and tired of being colonized and exploited, targeted and slaughtered, vilified as terrorists, occupied and oppressed, falsely charged, convicted, and sentenced in kangaroo-court proceedings, imprisoned and tortured, and viewed as the strange (inferior, Orient, East, them) versus the familiar (superior, Europe, West, us). They deserve much better, yet remain a political target of choice. Until that changes and high-sounding speeches become policy, empty rhetoric will fall on deaf ears. We’ve heard it before, yet the more things change, the more they stay the same under Democrat and Republican administrations. Obama’s Cairo speech was profoundly disingenuous, much like others past and more recently. He decried the “killing of innocent men, women, and children,” yet US forces slaughter them daily in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and supply Israel with billions of dollars and the latest weapons and technology to commit slow-motion genocide against millions of Palestinians, deny their legitimate self-determination, and right of their refugees to return home as international law demands. Also, Iraq and Afghanistan remain occupied, the former with unchanged troop levels for the duration if necessary and thousands more for the latter under a new commander, McChrystal, known for his brutality as leader of the Pentagon’s infamous Joint Special Operations Teams. No exiting timelines are in sight for either country. Human rights abuses and war crimes occur daily, and torture, extraordinary renditions, and military tribunals remain official US policies as they did under George Bush. The US is a serial aggressor and abuser of binding human rights laws. High-sounding rhetoric changes nothing. Obama claimed:

We did not go to Afghanistan by choice, we went of necessity … We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there … Iraq was a war of choice, but I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August, and why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and all our troops by 2012.

Secret provisions in the Pentagon’s 2008 Status of Forces Agreement indicate otherwise. They flagrantly violate Iraqi sovereignty and authorize the building of permanent US bases, camps, and prisons inside the country. They immunize US forces, civilian security, and private contractors from criminal prosecution. They ensure Iraqi “democracy” is illusory. Their officials have no say over US operations, including incursions into other countries. They require Washington’s approval before concluding any agreements with other countries. Key Iraqi ministries stay under US control, including defense, interior, and oil. No timeline is stipulated for the US’s withdrawal. Conditions depend on Iraqi force readiness, the removal of “security threats” in neighboring countries (namely, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine), and national reconciliation (meaning a defeated resistance). Unacknowledged is that the US is in Iraq to stay, and the same holds for Afghanistan. The historical record shows what Obama won’t say. The US came to Japan in 1945 and South Korea in 1950, both close US allies, and remained there ever since. Obama plans the same fate for Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous other strategic countries where the US intends permanent occupations towards its goal of “full spectrum dominance” globally, including by preemptive wars with first-strike nuclear weapons.

Obama also claimed he’s “taking concrete actions to change course and unequivocally prohibit the use of torture,” at a time the practice remains official policy and continues in US-run prisons, including Guantanamo, and secretly in ones in other nations doing our bidding. Obama said nothing about the millions of Iraqi deaths, refugees, and mass human misery since the Gulf War, subsequent sanctions, and 2003 conflict. He ignored the destruction of the “cradle of civilization,” subjugation of a sovereign state, and infliction of the same fate on Afghanistan. He declared his support for democracy, peace, human rights, mutual understanding, and social justice while bringing none to the region and backing its most reprehensible tyrants.

He declared an “unbreakable” bond with Israelis and demanded that Palestinians “must abandon violence.” He acknowledged “more than 60 years” of their pain and dislocation but was silent on its cause, the vast slaughter and destruction from Operation Cast Lead, the daily incursions in the West Bank and Gaza, the latter Territory under a medieval siege, and the viciousness of a rogue occupier bringing death, destruction, and human misery to a civilian population in violation of binding human rights laws and norms. He referred to a “stalemate” pitting “two people with legitimate aspirations” against each other in conflict. “It is easy to point fingers,” he said, but “the only resolution is for both sides to accept a two-state solution” as stipulated in “the road map” leading solely to isolated bantustans after Israel seizes all valued land, leaves worthless scrub patches behind, and ethnically cleanses large numbers of Palestinians to bordering countries if they’ll have them. The US “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements,” but supplies billions in aid to build them, opposes the legitimate right of Palestinian refugees to return home, backs the corrosiveness of a racist and belligerent Zionism, supports conflicts against an occupied people, and rogue Mahmoud Abbas Fatah elements to divide, conquer, and solidify Israeli hardline rule.

Obama mentioned nuclear weapons as another source of tension, reaffirmed the US’s commitment to a world without them, acknowledged Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear power, ignored Israel’s nuclear arsenal (likely 200 – 400 warheads), and so far as known, Iran’s full compliance with NPT. The US and Israel are nuclear outlaws. Israel is the region’s most destabilizing force. The US has that honor globally. Obama proposed no concrete measures to redress decades of Palestinian grievances, nor those of Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others in Eurasia — the region the US covets for its vast energy and other resource riches. He came, saw, spoke, made empty gestures and no promises, except about the US’s permanent imperial presence in partnership with Israeli rule. Obama puts a new face on long-standing policy, but no change of the US’s global aim — unchallengeable dominance in this resource-rich part of the world with hardline militarism for enforcement. The Arab street harbors few illusions that it’ll be otherwise going forward.

14 Responses to “stephen lendman seems to say it better than muslims can”

  1. moonkoon Says:

    “…ignored Israel’s nuclear arsenal (likely 200 – 400 warheads), and so far as known, Iran’s full compliance with NPT. The US and Israel are nuclear outlaws. Israel is the region’s most destabilizing force. The US has that honor globally.”

    Good to see this getting some attention.

    Any M/E plan that doesn’t address the issue of Israel’s illegal nuclear arsenal exposes itself to be a sham.

    Other essentials include,

    Dismantle checkpoints, allow free flow of people and commerce.
    Withdrawal from West Bank, Golan Heights, Shabba Farms etc. (Jun4?).
    Reverse Bedouin dispossession.
    Sign a non-aggression pact.
    Payment of reparations and compensation
    Right of return. Citizenship for refugees.
    Jerusalem and environs declared an open (acessible to all faiths), neutral city managed by a city council which levies taxes and accepts unconditional patronage.
    Israeli de-militarization and related reorientation of the Israeli economy.
    Establish a joint defense force.
    Start work on establishing greater regional economic and defense integration.
    (I’m all for a regional economic and defense union which incorporates local autonomy for the many culturally distinct groups in the area.)

    The wider issue of international nuclear weapons disarmament may prove to be easier to sort out if the arsenal controlled by the aggressive, threatening and erratic Israeli state is neutralized.

    Feel free to criticize.

    P.S. Further to my earlier suggestion re adopting the term, New Phoenicia as a name for the new union, it now occurs to me to that, Aramaica, may have more appeal. But, hey, let’s not put the cart before the horse!

  2. niqnaq Says:

    I don’t see much sign that any of it is going to happen. I think to a certain degree the vulgar view that Muslims are ‘fatalistic’ may after all be justified. One might say that this ‘fatalism’ (or pessimism, or defeatism) is just the effect of colonial & neo-colonial oppression, or one might say it’s intrinsic to the Qur’anic worldview: at some point, God is going to let the world destroy itself, then He will hold a Day of Judgment among the ruins. Even Hinduism has a version of this (but theirs is cyclical, not one-time-only).

  3. kei & yuri Says:

    We like “Levantine Republic.” It has never been a racially or culturally homogeneous region and its name ought to reflect that. Also we once suggested that Jerusalem be a sovereign city like Danzig or Vatican, administered and guarded by a mission from the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as part of a warming-up strategy with them. It is our belief that the rulers of the DPRK aren’t psychopaths and want only to hang on to their gangster-like positions (Another Mexico). If we guaranteed their sovereignty and prosperity, engaged them (they have a sweat-shop near the infamous border, they had been sending signals that they want to be like the PRC and PRV now) and gave them this sop to remake their image and demonstrate their excellence to the world (the one thing they know how to do is guard stuff) they would jump at the chance and everyone would benefit; besides Koreans are objective here, not like trying to use Jordan or America as a “third” party.

  4. niqnaq Says:

    I should have mentioned that both the Qur’anic and the Christian apocalypses can be interpreted to allow a millennial (i.e., thousand-year) ‘rule of the saints’ first, but eventually everything goes to pot, in both versions, and God calls the Day of Judgment.

  5. Gigi Amoroso Says:

    Old news offer much more value for money.

    “There are people (Muslims) who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another … if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.”

    - British Prime Minister Henry Bannerman, Campbell-Bannerman Report, 1907

  6. niqnaq Says:

    Beautiful. Thanks, Gigi. I suspect you found that here, I just did. It says that this report has never been published, so that means we don’t know whether the quotation from it is genuine (they give no indication how the quotation got leaked, either).

  7. moonkoon Says:

    “…a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation…”

    The Balfour Declaration appears to be an expression of this policy.

    Foreign Office
    November 2nd, 1917

    Dear Lord Rothschild,

    I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on
    behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following
    declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations
    which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

    “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home(?) for the
    Jewish people, and will use their their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object. It being
    clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the
    rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any
    other country.”

    I should be grateful if you would bring this
    declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

    Yours

    Arthur James Balfour

    More interesting background.

    “…The Balfour Declaration was meant to be kept secret from the Palestinian Arabs,… On the other hand, British planes dropped copies of the Declaration over cities in Russia and Eastern Europe which had large Jewish populations. Britain hoped the Declaration would win Russian Jews to the war effort and help stem the tide of revolution against the Czar.

    But five days after the publication of the Balfour Declaration, the Russian revolution swept Lenin and the Bolsheviks into power…. The new Soviet government withdrew from the war, and announced its peaceful intentions towards the previously colonized people of the Middle East and Asia:…

    …As the Bolsheviks had pledged, the Soviet government published all the secret agreements that Russia had made under the Czar. They released a copy of the Sykes-Picot Agreement and news of the Agreement filtered through to the Arab countries. Soon, the Palestinians also learned of the Balfour Declaration.

    The first Arab reaction to the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration was disbelief. The Arabs had fulfilled their part of the bargain with Britain by fighting long and courageously against the Turks. Hussein demanded immediate clarification from Britain. In a series of telegrams, letters and meetings, the British tried to pass off the news of the Agreement as a Bolshevik lie and a plot by the Turks and the Germans to fool the Arabs. The British renewed their pledge of self-determination….

    http://www.newjerseysolidarity.org/resources/roots/chapter03.html

  8. niqnaq Says:

    Well, I’ve thought about it, and I find that quotation increasingly fishy. I don’t think Campbell-Bannerman would have used the expression “the West” in 1907 in the way we use it today. Also, this account of its provenance is unsatisfactory:

    As the report was strategically important it was suppressed, and was never released to the public up till today’s date. But lawyer Antoine Canaan referred to it in a lecture entitled “Palestine and the Law,” which he delivered in 1949 in the universities of Florence and Paris, and in 1957 the Union of Arab Lawyers published it under the same title. Arab historians’ and researchers’ points of view differed on whether the document actually existed until the matter was confirmed by the well informed Egyptian writer Muhammad Hasanin Haikal. Haikal mentioned the final recommendation in his book “Secret Negotiations Between the Arabs and Israel” (Page 110). It seems that the report had never been officially released before now due to its importance and gravity.

  9. Gigi Amoroso Says:

    Fishy? Use it as a wrapping paper then :-) .
    As a matter of fact I stumbled upon it on this blog, while Googling about Medical Establishment & Politics (Dr. M’s is a must read ).
    And as I read your blog…

    Re: provenance, try checking Google Books, it’s a treasure trove.

  10. niqnaq Says:

    Yes, Gigi. There are 3,062 books listed there. Do you happen to have any particular reason for believing that any of them mention this 1907 Report?

    Let me tell you something, especially because you have given yourself such a seductive name. I have come across a certain amount of black propaganda written by Muslims. Not very much, and not very well written, because, bless them, they aren’t very good liars — not like us. I say “us” because, although I have recently embraced Islam myself, I still carry the dubious stains of my hypocritical, sophisticated background.

  11. Gigi Amoroso Says:

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qBdvxmuAwxYC&pg=PA220&dq=Campbell-Bannerman+1907+arabs&lr=

    R.I. Rotberg p.220

    You might want to try to find
    ‘Secret History of the English Occupation of Egypt: Being a Personal Narrative of Events’
    by
    Wilfrid Scawen Blunt, Ahmad Arāhī, al-Misri, John Ninet – Edition: 2 – Published by T. F. Unwin, 1907
    in library.

  12. Gigi Amoroso Says:

    I somehow doubt it was them writing…
    The second book is unavailable in digital form but sounds extremely interesting, esp. the ‘personal account’ part.

  13. niqnaq Says:

    Good gracious, Gigi — I think I’m falling in love :lol:

  14. Richard Says:

    That is an interesting idea of British planes dropping copies of the Balfour Declaration over Russian cities. I don’t know the range of one of those bi-planes, before the days of aircraft carriers, but I bet it wasn’t far enough to take off from the British side of the Western Front and fly all the way (and back) to even the Russian border. Sounds like a porkie to me.

Leave a Reply