Is Barack Obama the silliest man on the planet?

  [silly?  that's glowing compared to the truth]

---

By Stuart Littlewood, 24 May 2011

Stuart Littlewood considers the fallacies, lies and contradictions shown by US President Barack Obama during his speech on the Middle East where he set out one set of standards for Palestinians and Arabs and quite another for Israel whose land theft, lawlessness and violations of Palestinian rights he explicitly endorsed.

In the space of 45 minutes US President Barack Obama showed, on 19 May at the White House, how he is rapidly earning a reputation for being the silliest man on the planet and the most untrustworthy.

He was laying out his vision for a new chapter in American diplomacy in the Middle East. In the process he came out with excruciating remarks that would deeply offend the intelligence of every man on the proverbial Clapham omnibus as well as those aboard a Gaza donkey-cart. Here's a sample.

A very Israel-centric worldview

• “For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons…”

He extravagantly arms Israeli terrorism, subsidizes the illegal occupation of Palestine and has recently stepped up the funding. He does nothing to reduce Israel's huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, the only ones in the region.

• “... securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region...”

Gaza is still under siege after five years. Ships carrying humanitarian cargoes to Gaza are murderously assaulted on the high seas by Obama’s friends. And since when were Palestinians in the West Bank able to trade freely, travel freely even within their own territory or feel the slightest bit secure?

• “...standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.”

The two are not compatible. Israel's security spells insecurity for everyone else. If he hasn’t understood this he understands nothing.

• “We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them.”

Where did he get that idea?

• “Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy...”

Damn right they won’t. America’s democracy [we have a democracy?]  allows a foreign power – Israel – to dictate US policy and milk the US taxpayer. How pathetic is that?

• “The United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region.” [Applause]

Applause or hoots of laughter? Ask the Palestinians, brutally occupied and dispossessed for 63 years, what they think of that remark. [ask Iraqis, Iranians, Libyans, Afghanis, ... ask others: Vietnamese, Chilenos, Argentinians, Guatemalans, Filipinos, Indonesians, Haitians, Mexicans ... ask the planet]

• “The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran.”

But [But? $%$#@] not if you live in Gaza [not if you live in the US, either]. As soon as Hamas was democratically elected in 2006 America slapped sanctions on the Palestinians as a collective punishment and encouraged Israel to tighten its blockade. Despite all the pious preaching, the US administration deliberately poisoned the Palestinians’ fledgling democracy and has done nothing to ensure that their universal rights are respected. Back home Americans are made to suffer if they voice criticism Israel.

• “Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.”

In September the Palestinians are applying to the UN for their own state on their own official borders. How does that "isolate" Israel?

• “As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums.”

More and more Americans are asking: what shared history, what shared values? Why is America shielding from criticism a thieving, lawless entity regarded by most people as the biggest threat to world peace?

• “…It is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them – not by the United States; not by anybody else.”

Wrong. The international community is under an obligation to act and enforce the rule of law and their own rulings, as set out in countless UN resolutions.

• “…The core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, a secure Israel.”

Wrong. The UN has already decided the core issues. They simply need implementing. Besides, nothing meaningful can be negotiated when one party has its military jackboot on the neck of the other. And just for a change, let's have that mantra the other way round - "a secure Palestine, a viable Israel".

• “As for security, every state has the right to self-defence, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself –– against any threat... The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.”

He says every state has the right to self-defense, which means that Palestinians too must be able to defend themselves against any threat. The White House has its knickers in a hopeless twist trying to ignore the fundamental principle that the right of self-defense is universal.

• “…An agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel: How can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist?”

First explain: on what borders should Israel be recognized? Does Israel recognize Palestine's right to exist? Does the US? As Hamas rightly points out, recognizing Israel on anything but pre-1967 borders legitimizes the occupation and Israel’s continuing crimes against the Palestinian people.

• “The United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves. And now we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights.”

Hooray! So we can all expect America to be four-square behind Palestine's application for statehood. [We don't govern ourselves, for pity's sake!  americans have no representation in their govt, none.]

In the speech Obama said pre-1967 borders should be the basis of peace, hardly an earth-shattering statement since that’s what international law says and what US presidents before him have said. But to fudge the issue he suggested land swaps, a clear invitation to the biggest hoodlum on the planet, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, to help himself permanently to the large swathes of prime, strategic Palestinian territory the Zionist regime has already gobbled up. Consulted beforehand, Netanyahu demanded, unsuccessfully, that any reference to 1967 borders be removed from the president’s speech.

Netanyahu claimed: "While Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines … because these lines are indefensible. They don’t take into account certain changes that have taken place on the ground, demographic changes that have taken place over the last 44 years.”

For decades the Israelis have played for time to create irreversible facts on the ground that would help make the occupation permanent. They are still doing it. The settlements were built on stolen Palestinian territory in the fully knowledge that they would eventually have to be handed over if their bluff was called. The Jewish squatters will no doubt be given the choice of moving out or becoming Palestinian citizens. What could be fairer than that?

He complains that Israel’s 1967 borders make it only nine miles wide at one point. Yes, well, the Gaza Strip is only four miles wide in places. Will the Palestinians be allowed to expand their borders for defense purposes?

And if the pre-1967 armistice lines don’t suit Netanyahu, perhaps he’d prefer the 1947 UN partition borders.

Integrity means upholding law and justice

Only in the mind of a hoodlum is giving back the loot you’ve stolen a “generous compromise”.

At the White House press conference after the Obama-Netanyahu meeting Obama said:

"I believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu wants peace. I think he’s willing to take risks for peace... We discussed the issue of Gaza, and I commended Prime Minister Netanyahu on the progress that's been made in allowing more goods into Gaza. We've seen real progress on the ground. I think it’s been acknowledged that it has moved more quickly and more effectively than many people anticipated…"

Since the worldwide outcry and international pledges following Israel’s Cast Lead blitzkrieg 28 months ago, does anyone else think progress has been speedy?

Finally, to underline his loyalty to the foreign power, Obama declared:

"We strongly believe that, given its size, its history, the region that it’s in and the threats that are leveled against us – against it, that Israel has unique security requirements… that's why we remain unwavering in our commitment to Israel’s security. And the United States will never ask Israel to take any steps that would undermine their security interests."

So no worries for Obama about the threat posed by Israel,  bristling with weapons of mass destruction and US weaponry and throwing a psychopathic fit every five minutes, to its regional neighbours and beyond.

Sucking up to America’s pro-Israel lobby

He has just addressed AIPAC (the unbelievably powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee, aka America’s pro-Israel lobby) with the same sychophantic garbage and a few extra gems like this:

• “Because we understand the challenges Israel faces, I and my administration have made the security of Israel a priority. It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels. It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies. And it’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels… we will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge”.

Here’s another magic moment:

• “We ... will stand up to groups like Hezbollah who exercise political assassination… We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace… And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years.”

Lectures on assassination sound good coming from Obama [don't they ever]. No mention of course of Israel’s basic responsibilities or the thousands of Palestinian prisoners rotting in Israeli jails.

• “No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state.”

An ominous statement which reveals that his earlier boast about standing squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights is total bollox.

He then went on to explain how his recommendation three days earlier for peace based on 1967 lines, which ruffled not a few Zionist feathers, didn’t mean that at all.

• “By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on 4 June  1967… It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last 44 years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides.”

Can you imagine anything more calculated to create an endless impasse? It seems he’s pushing for another dragged-out peace process to buy Israel even more time to complete its Greater Israel expansion programme.

When a man is handed the most important job on the planet he’s expected to have integrity in abundance.

And when a man in public life has integrity he doesn’t allow outside individuals or organizations to influence him in the performance of his duties. He remains impartial and fearlessly upholds law and justice for all.

If the most powerful man on the planet lacks integrity he is likely to become the most dangerous.

The second silliest man is here in the UK. And the silliest man arrives this week on a state visit. He brings with him an entourage of more than 500, including 200 security goons, an eight-ton armoured limo that's equipped to turn itself into an impenetrable “panic room” on run-flat tyres as soon as anyone throws a rotten tomato, and a fleet of other specialist vehicles.

Having recklessly authorized the assassination of Bin Laden, denied him due process and thrown his body into the sea he places all Londoners in peril of a revenge attack. I for one feel deeply insulted by the presumption that the silliest man on the planet is deemed so precious that he is allowed to massively disrupt the lives of more sensible people going about their normal business. And he’ll leave us taxpayers to pick up a huge security bill.

The silliest and second silliest are due to meet. They are birds of a feather. Britain’s David Cameron has told his Zionist friends: “In me, you have a prime minister whose belief in Israel is indestructible… I want to be clear, we will always support Israel.” Are they employing the same Tel Aviv-trained speechwriters?

I wonder what unmitigated nonsense they will spout about the spread of democracy to the Middle East and the paramount importance of maintaining Israel’s security at everyone else’s expense.

Is it too much to ask that they actually do something honourable for once and agree to protect the latest Free Gaza humanitarian flotilla sailing next month?

In the meantime, I’m pleased to hear that London’s mayor, Boris Johnson, plans to bill Obama for his embassy’s unpaid parking and inner-London congestion charges. "Maybe when President Obama's hors d'oeuvre plate is whisked away he will find a bill for GBP 5.5m," Boris is reported as saying.

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!