[Far be it for me to post an article by Robert Fisk, but I enjoyed this article so much that I thought you would too.]
If Obama is elected he will be enmeshed in the Middle East tragedy and forced to take sides
I was in the studios of al-Jazeera – the Qatar satellite channel so democratic in the eyes of Colin Powell that Bush later wanted to bomb it – while Barack Obama was performing his theatricals in the Middle East. “Theatre” is what I called it on air while the anchor desperately tried to suck some Arab hope out of the whole ridiculous fandango. No such luck, I told him. It isn’t going to make the slightest difference to the Arabs whether Obama or McCain wins.
Westerners believe that Obama appeals to the Arabs because of his middle name or because he’s black. Untrue. They like him – or liked him – because he grew up poor. Like them, he understood – or rather, they thought he understood – what oppression was about. But they quickly found out where they stood in the food chain. Forty-five minutes in Ramallah vs 24 hours in Israel was the Obama equation. Yes, I know the old saw. Every US presidential candidate has to make the pilgrimage to the Wailing Wall, to Yad Vashem, to some Israeli town or village that has taken casualties (albeit minuscule in comparison to those visited upon the Palestinians), to talk about Israel’s security, etc. That doesn’t mean, we are always told, that Israel is going to have it easy once the US president is elected. Wrong. Israel is going to have it easy. Because no sooner is he elected than he will be enmeshed in the Middle East tragedy and be forced to take sides – Israel’s, of course – and then it will be time for the next election, so the president’s hands will be tied again and he’ll be talking about Israel’s security (rather than Palestinian security) and we’ll be back on the same old itinerary.
It’s like the Lebanese, who keep believing that a Labour government is better than a Kadima or a Likud government in Israel; a clever idea, but – whoever runs Israel – the bombs keep falling on Lebanon. It’s not that US presidents shouldn’t understand the immensity of Jewish suffering during the Holocaust – it’s a pity the Arabs still won’t acknowledge it – but the Second World War is over and, right now, Israel continues to build colonies for Jews and Jews only on Arab land. Of course, Obama made the usual references to Jewish settlements not being helpful to peace, just as Gordon Brown did a few days earlier. And the Israelis showed what they thought of both men by announcing further colony-building within 24 hours of Obama’s departure.
But hasn’t anyone realised that Obama has chosen for his advisers two of the most lamentable failures of US Middle East policy-making? There, yet again, is Dennis Ross, a former prominent staff member of Aipac, the most powerful Israeli lobby in America – yup, the very same Aipac to which Obama grovelled last month – and the man who failed to make the Oslo agreement work. And there is Madeleine Albright who, as US ambassador to the UN, said that the price of half a million dead children under sanctions in Iraq was “worth it”, and who later announced that Israel was “under siege”. This must be the only time – ever – that a US politician thought Palestinian tanks were on the streets of Tel Aviv.
But this dreary old stage play doesn’t end there. No one follows the narrative any more because it is so repetitive. Take Nouri al-Maliki, the PMIGZ – Prime Minister of the Iraqi Green Zone – who’s suddenly gone from being the Democrats’ favourite target to being their election buddy-buddy, as Max Boot sagely noted in The Washington Post. Maliki suggested to Obama that Iraq will be ready to assume responsibility for its own security by 2010. Bingo. This chimes in perfectly with Obama’s promises.
But wait a minute. In May, 2006, Maliki announced that “our forces are capable of taking over the security in all Iraqi provinces within a year and a half”. Five months later, the PMIGZ said that it would be “only a matter of months” before Iraqi security forces “take over the security portfolio entirely and keep some (sic) multinational forces only in a supporting role”. Then in January, 2007, Maliki boasted that “within three to six months our need for the American troops will dramatically go down”.
Four months later, he was at it again, claiming that Iraqi forces would control all security “in every province” within eight months. Quite apart from the idea that there is a security “portfolio” in Iraq, his own military chums don’t agree with any of this bumph. The PMIGZ’s own defence minister claims his forces can’t assume responsibility until 2012, while the Iraqi commander in Basra wants US troops to stay until 2020!
Even if we ignore all this drivel, what does Obama want to do with his soldiers once he withdraws them from Iraq? He’s going to send the poor devils back to Afghanistan, that graveyard of foreign armies where the Taliban were so utterly defeated in 2001 that they are now stronger than ever. I would recommend that Obama glance through Appendix XXIV of the official British account of the 1878-80 Second Afghan War where he will find the British announcing victory over a massed Afghan force which included a fierce group of fighters known as “talibs”. These men would choose a particular soldier in the British ranks and make a suicidal attack to seize him and cut his throat in front of his comrades.
And I am “minded” (as Jack Straw used to say when he was showing off his English) of the bleak conversation I had with an adviser to the Taliban “elders” of Kandahar, a certain Mullah Abdullah, in the last days of the dark militia’s rule in 2001. “If our people return and take back this lost land, it’s a success,” he told me. “If we are killed trying to do so, we have received martyrdom and this will be a great success for us too… If we are thrown out of Kandahar, we will go to the mountains and start the guerrilla war as we did with the Russians.” The Taliban would fight on, he said. They would ambush the Americans in ever greater numbers. And so today Obama is also going to reinforce his soldiers to fight on in another Muslim country. If he wins.
Al-Fisq speaks so little truth, he doesn’t deserve a rebuttal.
Obama should attend the next Academny Awards! But instead of giving him a golden Oscar or a black Oscar, they can give him an Oscar Meyer Wiener award and he can sing to the world: “IF I WAS AN OSCAR MEYER WIENER – EVERYONE WOULD BE IN LOVE WITH ME!”
Israel was never really a colony, and the only nation in the current Middle East to control it the 20th century was Turkey under the Ottoman Empire, and the Turks are not actually Arabs (they are descnded from people who came from Central Asia).
Just for fun (since anything Fisk writes is rather laughable), rearranging the order of a couple of his sentences, we get (my emphasis):
Indeed!…it is as repetitive a narrative as it is divorced from reality. The questions to ask Fisk, and many other journalists, in order to make the narrative less repetitive and closer to reality is: HOW do you define “Arab land”? WHEN did it become “Arab”? WHO was the legal Arab sovereign of those lands?
And when this is sorted out, HOW do you define a “colony”?
Nobama grew up affluent and priviledged. He grew up in Hawaii and attended private school. Where did this notion come from that he grew up poor let alone “oppressed”. Extreme leftists like fisk automatically assume that every black in America is poor and oppressed.
Actually I think the Muslim Arabs like Obama because he was linked with the notorious anti-Semitic pastor Jeremiah Wright.
I think it is mainly the Muslim Arabs who believe they Shoah never happened (In fact Hitler had great support from the Muslims when he was moving across North Africa to the Middle East). Arab Christians and Druze however know the truth about what happens, which is why you have to distinguish what kind of Arab you mean, because not all Arabs are Muslim (just most of them).
Fisk is a perfect example of a journalist. He has no responsibility for the conclusions he reaches. Support of Israel is no good, war in Iraq is no good, confrontation in Afghanistan is no good. Although he writes an opinion piece, we have no idea what his thoughts are for moving ahead. His pure opposition is an intellectually vacuous stand.
Let us hear his plans for Israel’s future. Let us hear his ideas for redeeming the Afghani people from the fate of the Taliban. What path would he humbly suggest the next president of the United States take in Iraq? Let him enlighten us about nuanced positions that cannot be articulated by our elected officials. Let us understand about accommodations that would lead to accommodations until the cows come home. No doubt Mr. Fisk is paid by the word and not by the cogency of his ideas.