[Marxism] An Israeli Marxist on Obama's speech

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

http://monthlyreview.org/mrzine/kaminer070609.html
The Constantly Widening Gap between Words and Deeds
by Reuven Kaminer

There are political circles and commentators who live from minute to 
minute.  For them, every squeak from a world leader is a virtual 
earthquake, a real revolution.  This is especially true now that we are 
dealing with a US president, who is handsome, articulate, and even 
eloquent.  The present level of manipulated excitement stems from the 
non-revelation that Barak Obama is against settlements and for the two 
state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  He also sees 
importance in improving the tainted image of the United States in the 
Arab and Moslem worlds.  Now who can ask for anything more?

It is not that I disregard the significance of declarations but these 
must be carefully sifted so as to distinguish changes in the usual 
discourse.  Repetition of old and pious wishes means little, while the 
appearance or disappearance of different formulations and elements is 
worth attention.  But even before seeing how Obama is stacking up to his 
recent declarations, seen in Israel as criticism of Israeli policy, 
there is one new Obama element which demands urgent analysis.

The Normalization Gambit

Obama has added a new, problematic, and dangerous dimension to the 
formula for the solution of the conflict.  He has called on both the 
Palestinians and the Arab countries to take immediate steps, before the 
conclusion of peace with Israel, so as to normalize their relations with 
Israel.  Now this demand is quite embarrassing for the so-called 
moderate pro-USA, Arab countries which already maintain a high level of 
geo-political coordination with Israel despite the occupation. 
Moreover, Obama's demand that an occupied people, the Palestinians, who 
are denied the most basic of rights to their very existence, should 
take steps normalizing their relations with the occupying power as a 
condition for reaching a peace agreement is  ludicrous, to say the 
least.  This idea, coming from Obama, may indicate a certain lack of 
understanding of the conflict.  Any expression of moderation by the 
Palestinians has always been interpreted by Israel and its allies as a 
sign of weakness, and full-scale normalization in the region before 
peace will become the ultimate proof for the Israeli argument that the 
occupation is no barrier to peace.

This scandalous demand for pre-peace normalization is cause for concern 
that regional normalization meets, first and foremost, the requirements 
of US policy, and if normalization before peace and as a condition for 
peace is inimical to the interests of Israeli-Palestinian peace, then 
the Palestinians will just have to wait. . . .  The Israeli right has 
already drawn up a long list of confidence measures that it will demand 
immediately from the Arab world and from the Palestinians.  These will 
be preconditions for moving forward and Obama will be called on to pay 
the bill.  Is this accidental, or just another escape route from peace 
that must be available in case of need?

The Outposts Farce -- Who Is Mocking Whom?

Obama, just like Bush, is against settlements since they are quickly 
destroying the dwindling territorial base for the establishment of a 
Palestinian entity.  The area under discussion is a mere 22% of 
Palestine and choking it with literally hundreds of towns and villages 
is designed to wipe out a country and a people, literally to wipe it off 
the map.  The Netanyahu government, like the Olmert government, is a 
coalition of enthusiastic annexationists, who exploit every opportunity 
to grab land and drive out the local population.  The recent US protests 
against the settlements should be seen as a request that Israel stop 
embarrassing Obama on a daily basis, especially when he is busy trying 
to improve the US image in the Muslim world.

The latest phase of the settlement drive, which resulted in the 
establishment of a spate of tens of illegal outposts, is spearheaded by 
groups of crazed, young religious fanatics, known in Israel as "the 
hilltop youth."  They carry IDF-issued weapons and recognize no secular 
authority as they pursue their goal and simply rebuild any of the shanty 
sites torn down by the IDF.  They are enthusiastically backed by the 
rabbis in the West Bank, who happen to be government employees, and they 
are the darlings of the right-wing politicians.  The IDF acts under the 
assumption that sheet metal and lumber are the guilty party.  The army 
bulldozes the shanties, declares victory, and goes home.  The "hilltop 
youth" rebuild the shanties and are practically immune from prosecution 
as long as they stick to shanty building (on Arab land) and serial 
pogroms against the Palestinian farmers in the area.

A few weeks ago, peace activists from the New Profile underwent a 
degrading police investigation on suspicion that they were encouraging 
youngsters to question their conscription to an army of occupation and 
national oppression.  The settler rabbis inspire lawlessness and 
violence against the state, and the settler provocations go on without 
arrests.

Asides from statements, there is no sign that Obama intends any action 
against Israeli responsibility for the outposts and the "natural growth" 
of the established settlements.

At this point, we have to go back to square one.  In its essence, the 
occupation is not a purely Israeli affair, but a joint US-Israeli 
project.  Indeed, the management is local, but ownership belongs to the 
US as the financial backer and the provider of the political and 
military cover for the operation.  The United States owns this 
occupation and is morally and politically responsible for the continued 
violent repression of the most basic Palestinian rights.

At this point, Netanyahu still fears the settlers more than he fears 
Obama, unless Obama gets serious.  He may move against the outposts only 
to demonstrate that this is a tremendously difficult and politically 
costly action.  He has reasonable hopes of modifying Obama's ban on 
natural growth, as long as Obama is not clear that the settlements 
themselves must be dismantled and not "regulated."  The very existence 
of any settlement over the 1967 border is illegal and should be 
summarily dismantled.  This would solve the natural growth dilemma.

So far, Netanyahu is a bit worried, along with Barak.  His plan is to 
drag out the whole matter until the US loses interest or prefers to 
avoid any confrontation with Israel.  This tactic, it must be noted, has 
succeeded in the past.

Obama in Cairo

It is to be feared that Obama's "dramatic" speech to the Islamic and 
Arab worlds has more to do with cosmetics than with politics.  Obama is 
certainly right about the need to improve the image of the United States 
but, alas, this is not a matter of rhetoric.

The Washington DC, Riyad, Cairo triangle is one of those decaying power 
alliances that hold the fort for the United States.  Obama's Middle East 
partners are not squeamish about torture and jail for their opponents 
who dare to act up.  Mubarak and the Saudi king, Abdullah, are the heads 
of reactionary, brutal regimes.  Of course, they are bastards but they 
are Obama's bastards -- so what else is new?  Even speechwise, there was 
very little of new substance in the Cairo spiel.  Especially, if you 
were at Annapolis.

Once again, we are struck with the gap between words and action. 
Obama's propaganda team is working overtime to present the current 
problems in a limited and almost meaningless framework.  So let's get it 
clear for the n'th time. The twenty-two outposts are not the problem, 
nor is the need to restrict the "natural growth" in the more established 
settlements.  The problem is not the lack of an indeterminate, endless 
peace process.  The problem is not even the need that Netanyahu adopt 
the Olmert-Bush two-state formula.  Are we to become excited at the 
prospect that Obama might nudge Netanyahu back to the negotiating table? 
  Aw, come on!

Even in his strongest suit, rhetoric, Obama is way off base.  The 
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a conflict between two overzealous 
national formations that must learn manners and civility from the 
international community and its leader.  Israel, based on the unique 
advantages of the military, political, and economic support of the 
United States, has been skimming off Palestinian rights and land for 
more than forty years as commission for its pro-US services.  Obama is 
not an honest broker, he is not even a biased broker.  He is a side to 
the conflict and he will be one until he, openly and clearly, makes a 
commitment to cut off the funds and guns which implement policies that 
he opposes -- ostensibly.

Reuven Kaminer blogs at <http://www.reuvenkaminer.blogspot.com/>.

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu