Mideast update

There may be a gap in perceptions because I am not in the government and hence have no real consistent source of knowledge; however, my impression as of 2006 was that it was not Iran’s obtaining nuclear weapons per se that bothered the Bush administration. Later, Noam Chomsky confirmed that plans were underway for an embassy in both northern Korea and Iran.

Thus, some of the discussion I am seeing in the media now does not impress me. If Bush were going to attack Iran, it would not have been accelerated on the basis of concerns about nuclear weapons. It would have been about some drivel about regime change.

The “New York Times” keeps reporting verbal changes in Obama administration stance on the Mideast. However, new bombers keep flowing to the I$raeli regime and there is no real change on the ground.

For Obama to say the “truth is” that I$raelis and Palestinians have their own reasons not to make peace is wrong. At the very least, his claim would have more credibility if the Congress had instructed Obama to break the Gaza siege, the same way Amerikans airlifted supplies to Berlin during the Cold War.

Also this past week, Egyptian journalists report hundreds killed or injured in Iraq in three days;(1) yet, today the “New York Times” reports in its lead story in the paper version a change in phrase by the Obama administration on I$rael. If the U.$. media believes the Egyptian reports are disinformation, then there should be articles along those lines.

Reported in several I$raeli and Arab media outlets are the latest Zionist provocations. It seems that the Zionists have prepared to oust thousands of Palestinians from the West Bank, with references to the Palestinians as “infiltrators.” The proposal is being called “ethnic cleansing.” “‘”The Palestinians have been morphed into criminals in their own homes,'” said a Palestinian peace negotiator.(2)

The Democrats look like the more right-wing party to the international proletariat, in part because the Democrats stepped on Palestinian diplomatic cards repeatedly during the Annapolis peace process thus leading to the current predicament. It did not have to be that way, but it turns out that the McCain-Obama deal during the campaign regarding telecomm related scandals did put an end to that leverage in Annapolis negotiations. Obama’s gaffe on “unified Jerusalem” was only the most minor transgression. Also sent was lyncher number three, while negotiations still might have produced something.

British pundits such as those at the “Guardian” have already pointed out that U.$. campaigns are too long. Here I point out nothing particularly communist, merely something any ordinary bourgeois Brit has noticed.

Note:
1. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/993/fr1.htm
2. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/994/fr1.htm

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: