Disappointing Obama? + Stanley Heller:One Nation Rally: Which Nation?

Included below are the first three paragraphs of Stanley Heller's excellent Counterpunch article pointing out or reminding us that the Left seems to be bereft of any mechanism or ability to lobby Obama, no matter the issue or the maelstrom that he's pouring us into.

 

One of my mantras has been that Obama has long ago shown his true colors as a Bush-Cheney manqué (unsuccessful stand-in) and so  if the Republicans don't take at least one  House of Congress, he'll be very disappointed, perhaps devastated. It's called "pulling a Clinton." Clinton left the presidency with a high degree of popularity as a direct result of Republican control of Congress midway in his first term. That way he was able to pose as a leader by vetoing a portion of the worst they had to offer.

 

Since  Obama has gone over to the dark side he'll only be comfortable when his real allies are in control.

(An interesting question is to what extent Obama intends to change course now that he's gotten rid of--if that's what happened--some of the most right-wing people in his administration: Emanuel, Jones, Summers.

 

One of the issues some have been following is the rate at which Obama has fallen behind his predecessor in filling judicial appointments. Could it be a result of his unwillingness to appoint those who would be acceptable to his base?  Until recently I found it hard to believe that he would delay and delay until the Republicans controlled the Senate. Well such has turned out to be the case. Now what's going to happen if it turns out that the Tea Party has thrown a spanner into the works by denying Republican control of the upper House?  Once again, who's going to be the most disappointed person in D.C.? 

***

 

Timidity on the Mall

October 7, 2010

http://counterpunch.org/heller10072010.html

By STANLEY HELLER

 

The “One Nation Working Together” rally was billed as a chance to “demand the changes we voted for”. That slogan was just for the suckers. There was barely any criticism of the Administration from the main stage, just bleats for jobs and justice.

 

You would think that up on the main stage there would be giant banners with progressive slogans, “Obama, Hire Millions Now” “Defend Public Education from the Privatizers”, “Why are a Million Blacks in Prison?”, “Cut the Pentagon Budget in Half”. But there were no banners at all. Instead there were flags, lots of American flags.

 

None of the rally speakers were announced beforehand. That's always a big draw. Was it stupidity or just an effort to avoid showing that “peace” would not be part of the demonstration. Bless his heart, rally speaker Harry Belafonte did vigorously denounce our wars and he actually condemned the Afpak surge saying, “The President's decision to escalate the war in that region alone costs the nation $33 billion”. He didn't challenge the President to bring the troops home, but no one else on the main stage criticized Obama on anything.

 

Read more:

http://counterpunch.org/heller10072010.html

A summary or précis of Walid Khalidi ‘s article “The Hebrew Reconquista of Palestine” in the Autumn 2009 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies  has been posted on the DESIP website at:

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/khalidiMEReconquista.htm 

Professor Khalidi’s article, about twice as long as the précis, addresses some of the myths regarding the transformation of the former Palestine into the State of Israel. 

Here are a few selections from the summary. 

Since the issue [of who should inherit Palestine was divine right], questions of who fired the first shot, and who did or did not accept partition are mere diversions and irrelevancies.

 

The genius of the Zionist narrative is its ability to depict the Palestinians’

resistance to this plan to dispossess them as Palestinian aggression, and the

Zionist drive to impose this revolutionary status quo on the Palestinians by force

of arms as Jewish self-defense. 

Aggression and offensive action were built into the very concept of the UN

partition resolution. The area of the proposed Jewish state was 15 million dunams

(1 dunam = 1,000 sq meters) while Jewish land ownership in 1948 totaled 1.7

million dunams. The UN was effectively saying to the Yishuv: go seize those

additional 13.3 million dunams that you don’t own from those who do.

 

The outcome of the [1948] regular war was already sealed in favor of Israel by the time it

began. The “existential threat” supposedly posed by the Arab armies, like the

ostensible equity and moral viability of the UN partition resolution, is a myth.

 Ben Gurion was without doubt the most capable political leader operating in the

Middle East in the 40s and 50s. He had his priorities right. Unlike the leaders of

the Irgun and Stern gang who fought the British, Ben Gurion understood that the

real enemy was the Palestinians and Arabs. (Although one could argue that it

came down to a question of shared responsibility: Stern and Irgun would fight the

British-–with discreet help from Ben Gurion–-and so Ben Gurion could devote the

bulk of his energies to uprooting the natives.)

 

Perhaps the mother of all ironies is that Ben-Gurion spent 1916 researching the

history of Palestine in—of all places—the New York Public Library. One of the

conclusions of his research was that the Palestinian peasantry were the real

descendents of the ancient Hebrews. 

Read more:

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/khalidiMEReconquista.htm

Walid Khalidi: Reconquering Palestine

A summary or précis of Walid Khalidi ‘s article “The Hebrew Reconquista of Palestine” in the Autumn 2009 issue of the Journal of Palestine Studies  has been posted on the DESIP website at:

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/khalidiMEReconquista.htm

Professor Khalidi’s article, about twice as long as the précis, addresses some of the myths regarding the transformation of the former Palestine into the State of Israel. 

Here are a few selections from the summary. 

Since the issue [of who should inherit Palestine was divine right], questions of who fired the first shot, and who did or did not accept partition are mere diversions and irrelevancies.

 

The genius of the Zionist narrative is its ability to depict the Palestinians’

resistance to this plan to dispossess them as Palestinian aggression, and the

Zionist drive to impose this revolutionary status quo on the Palestinians by force

of arms as Jewish self-defense.

 

Aggression and offensive action were built into the very concept of the UN

partition resolution. The area of the proposed Jewish state was 15 million dunams

(1 dunam = 1,000 sq meters) while Jewish land ownership in 1948 totaled 1.7

million dunams. The UN was effectively saying to the Yishuv: go seize those

additional 13.3 million dunams that you don’t own from those who do.

 

The outcome of the [1948] regular war was already sealed in favor of Israel by the time it

began. The “existential threat” supposedly posed by the Arab armies, like the

ostensible equity and moral viability of the UN partition resolution, is a myth.

 

Ben Gurion was without doubt the most capable political leader operating in the

Middle East in the 40s and 50s. He had his priorities right. Unlike the leaders of

the Irgun and Stern gang who fought the British, Ben Gurion understood that the

real enemy was the Palestinians and Arabs. (Although one could argue that it

came down to a question of shared responsibility: Stern and Irgun would fight the

British-–with discreet help from Ben Gurion–-and so Ben Gurion could devote the

bulk of his energies to uprooting the natives.)

 

Perhaps the mother of all ironies is that Ben-Gurion spent 1916 researching the

history of Palestine in—of all places—the New York Public Library. One of the

conclusions of his research was that the Palestinian peasantry were the real

descendents of the ancient Hebrews. 

Read more:

http://desip.igc.org/MiddleEast/khalidiMEReconquista.htm