More like this
Barack Obama gambles with bold take on Israel
But on the economy the president is just playing the same old tune, helping Wall Street and the banks to enrich themselves further
A betting man, the morning after Obama's inauguration last week, would surely have found odds-on stakes that the new president's first daring cavalry charge would be an assault on the economic crisis, worsening day by day. Our Wednesday-morning gambler would have found much longer odds being offered on any daring initiative in that graveyard of presidential initiatives sign-posted 'Israel-Palestine'.
But there's been no exciting surprise or originality in Obama's opening engagements with the reeling economy. His team is flush with economists and bankers who helped blaze the path to ruin.
He's been selling his $819bn stimulus program on the Hill, with all the actors playing their allotted roles and many a cheering Democrat not entirely confident that the House Republicans may not have had a point when, unanimously, they voted 'No' on the package
America's economy may be so hollowed out, its industrial base so eroded by 20 years of job exports to China and other low wage sanctuaries, that a bail-out may not turn the tide. Then the Republicans will have their told-you-so's primed and ready to go in the mid-term elections.
The government’s solution is to bail out the bankers and Wall Street
But Obama can scarcely be blamed for putting up his $819 billion pump primer. It was a given, from the moment he got elected. The folly comes with the impending $2-4tr bail-out package for the banks, signaled by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
If anything can make Wall Street smile bravely through the hail of public ridicule for the way it's been handing out the previous wad of bail-out money in the form of bonuses, it's the prospect of getting further truckloads of greenbacks to lend out to Americans already crippled by debt.
As the economist Michael Hudson puts it, "The government's solution, placed in its hands by the financial lobbyists, is to bail out the bankers and Wall Street while leaving the 'real' economy even more highly indebted. Families, businesses and government are having to spend more wage income, profits and tax revenues on debt service instead of buying goods and services. So why is the solution to this debt overhead held to be yet MORE debt? Is there not something crazy here?"
Worse still, Obama's economic team is alerting reporters to their increasing enthusiasm for a so-called 'aggregator' bank that would take over the banks' worst assets. Thus would the new administration play along with the Bush-Paulson script, allowing Wall Street to dump its problems in the taxpayers' laps and go on its merry way.
This is not a long-term cure, and leaves ordinary Americans drowning in debt, as before. It provides temporary relief to the big financial players who are, after all, the largest political campaign contributors and lobbyists these days. It will take further disasters to force Obama and his economic advisors towards the only serious option: to kick the corpse of the present banking mess into the grave and build a rational system under public control.
So Wall Street can feel satisfaction that its investment in Obama seems to be paying off. Can the same be said of the Israel lobby? It rewarded Obama's tireless blandishments last year with enthusiastic pre-election endorsements, to the effect that here was a true friend of Israel.
In his inaugural speech, Obama proclaimed that "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers." Muslims were ahead of Jews in that line, which caused some eyebrows to twitch.
The next morning, in his opening round of phone calls to Middle Eastern leaders, Obama placed the first call to Mahmoud Abbas, and only the next to Ehud Olmert. Hardly had Obama settled in before he appointed a fellow Democrat and former US Senator, George Mitchell, as his peace broker between Israel and Palestine. Mitchell's mother had come to America from Lebanon at age 18, and Mitchell himself, orphaned from his Irish father, was brought up in a Maronite Christian Lebanese family.
Is Obama criticising Israel's strategy of dealing with the Palestinians?Then Obama gave his first formal TV interview to the Dubai-based cable station Al Arabiya, where he remarked at the outset that "I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state - I'm not going to put a time frame on it - that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people..."
Contiguous? You can read that a number of ways, including the possibility that Obama is obliquely criticising Israel's strategy of corralling Palestinians into mini-Bantustans on the West Bank, divided by military roads, walls and Jewish settlements.
As the venerable Israeli peace leader Uri Avnery, whose biography stretches back to Israel’s earliest days, remarked, “These are not good tidings for the Israeli leaders. For the last 42 years, they have pursued a policy of expansion, occupation and settlements in close cooperation with Washington. They have relied on unlimited American support, from the massive supply of money and arms to the use of the veto in the Security Council. This support was essential to their policy. This support may now be reaching its limits."
As a buttress for Avnery's claim that America's "support may be reaching its limits", we can instance a report on CBS's 60 Minutes programme, the most widely watched news show on US television. CBS reporter Bob Simon's filmed report of the arrogance and brutality of IDF and Israeli settlers was, at least in my memory, the single most savage indictment of Israel ever broadcast on network television.
Such talk can be undercut by simple reference to the endless instances of Israel's successful sabotage of peace initiatives, decade after decade. Obama may well be smarting from the savage criticism across the world he incurred from keeping his mouth shut about Israel's bloody rampages in Gaza.
The furious public letter denouncing US-Israeli conduct from Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and former intelligence chief, probably also prompted Obama to 'reach out', as they say, to the Arab world - particularly since the US needs all the customers for its Treasury bonds that it can get.
So far the Israel lobby here has held its peace. The Jewish Forward newspaper, a useful bell-wether, has editorialised positively about Obama's moves. But the minute Mitchell comes up with a concrete proposal discomfiting to Israel and to its likely new leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, then the atmosphere could become sulphurous with blinding speed. That will be the testing time for Obama - a true test of leadership and hard-nosed cunning.
A prudent gambler would still have to wager that Obama simply won't want to spend that kind of political capital. But a prudent gambler wouldn't have predicted the moves he's made so far. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
Alex is a marvelous writer. I admire the way he does it.
He has an ideological bent that he will pursue admirably even if inconvenient facts don't fit into his journalistic/ideological scheme of things. I am myself of left-wing persuasion and an old journalist - in that sense like Andy - and do attempt trying to view things and events from outside my own perspective. My accomplishment is small and output even less, sorry to say, because I'm doing other things.
On the other hand: He writes for payment to pander the persuaded, in his effortless and marvelous way. I'll go on reading him, critically. Perhaps the editors and owners of this website would like to add their pence or two to this message? I don't see editorial reaction on this site. Why not?
The "road map" to a Palestinian state was always a fantasy. Now, the very notion of such a state must be disgarded along with it. What must be moved towards is a united secular state where Jews and Arabs can live together in peace. Decades of propaganda from political leaders on both sides have biased and distorted public opinion, encouraging continued resentment, hostility and division. This may have served the ambition of such leaders but it has been a gross betrayal of the best interest of most Palestinians and Isrealis, who, when given the chance, have got on well with each other, worked with each other to their mutual benefit. All Palestinian leaders have, to varying degrees, been been beholden to outside interests in the West and the Arab world. Now we have Hamas with it's links to Iran, Syria and various militant groups, and Abbas, who's loyalty is to the West and the Arab regimes who depend on it for their survival (in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for instance).
Israel of course, is beholden to the USA for its survival, so it ultimately does their bidding.
Until, somehow, both Palestinians and Iraelis create governments that put their interests over and above those of outsiders, we will never see a real peace process take hold. As with Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine is a playground where ourside powers play out their wargames, with continuing misreable results for the people.
As for Obama's comments? He is, like Blair in his heyday, careful to suggest much, but say very little. He will do nothing at all to change things. A careful examination of his comments will reveal this.
According to the Haaretz newspaper 30/01/09.
'Mitchell told Israeli officials that the new administration was committed to Israel's security, to the road map, and to the 2004 letter by president George W. Bush stating Palestinian refugees would not return to Israel and the border between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would take into consideration facts on the ground, meaning large settlement blocs would remain in Israeli hands. ' No change in policy now, is it Mr Cockburn?
I am sure Obama would win world approval by restricting Israel's re-supply of munitions for its army and diverting the subsidies it gives to Israel to the Palestine Authority to assist to rebuild the Gaza Strip. Perhaps a new harbour for Gaza with free access to all countries and the limitation of Israel's Naval stranglehold would be a good start. The democratic governments of both terrorist states of Palestine and Israel should be replaced by an International Government to preserve the important religious centres, particularly Jerusalem , for Islamists, Jews and Christians. Only politicians of peace and goodwill need apply and their appointments be made by The United Nations. Clearly, the U S colony of 60 years has bee a complete failure.
Mr Cockburn is incorrect in his assumptions that pres Obama is changing the American attitude towards Israel. Firstly, in his interview with Al Arabiya, he made it very clear that Israel is a very close ally of the US and will continue to be a close ally of the US. The appointment of George Mitchell is similarly no problem for Israel. He is well known in Israel. George Mitchell had a very pro Israel stance in the senate. He visits Israel regularly and has always noted his warm relationship with the Jewish state. Although the 'Mirtchell report' seemed to be slightly less pro Israel we must remember that it was a report of a Committee of 5 persons which included Europeans and others besides George Mitchell himself, so it does not necessatily mirror his own attitude towards israel.