From Friends of Lebanon, United Kingdom
14 November 2008
A UK-based group asks Barack Obama how can he reconcile his promise of change with his unabashed support of Israeli crimes in the Middle East, and calls on him to choose between seeking “profit from the illusion of power” or seeking “pride from the reality of respect”.
Dear Mr Obama:
Tell me we haven’t been bamboozled. We need the change you promise, but something just doesn’t seem right. After eight years under a Bush administration that engendered misery at home and around the world, the United States had found itself distrusted, scorned and despised. And so it seems – correct me if I’m wrong here, please – the US did what the US does best: sell.Public relations. Imagine with me, if you will, a room of men, probably old white men, with a problem. How do we, they ask themselves, hold onto our place as the world superpower, yet at the same time get rid of all the bad PR, those annoying threats and censures? How do we, they ask themselves, appease the voices that dare to suggest we’ve gone too far? Without, of course, conceding anything. Epiphany! Change our image, not our style. Ah, the art of American business. Substance is irrelevant, just package it and sell it. They grabbed onto the marketing ploy that has sold many a dubious product: “New and improved.”Change? Those old white men found the packaging solution. How about the biggest change in American history, colour in the white house? Appearance is all that matters. It would have pushed their luck to choose an African American whose ancestors had struggled to rise from having been degraded as slaves. Such a man may have been too empathetic to the oppressed of the world. No, your past and your appearance was enough; their front man need only carry the pretence of change. Mr Obama, look in the mirror. You don’t look like them, those old white men. Marketing ploy extraordinaire: product aside, a different image is new and exciting. “Change,” you advised the world, to an America “where all things are possible.” And we the consumers dared to hope. Maybe he really is, we dreamed, new and improved. The marketers knew the American voters were hungry for talk. Just look at the phenomenal success of YouTube, internet blogging, endless streams of reader-comments, editorial columns, talk shows of every variety. Voters were frustrated – fighting for oil, fighting to make a living – and frustration is vented in talk. With your charming smile you promised dialogue, diplomacy without preconditions; you said “we are nice, you see, we like to talk too.” While the magicians distracted us with your youthful dark appearance, however, while we focused on our new-found open-mindedness, you selected Joe Biden as your vice-presidential candidate. Were you off your game? Or just hoping we wouldn’t dare burst our bubble of self-righteousness by pointing out that this old white man gleefully announced he was a Zionist? The USA’s domestic welfare has been irrevocably intertwined with its foreign policy in the Middle East. And the Middle East is hurting. Now you are an intelligent man, Mr Obama. Did you not think that bringing an unabashed Zionist with you to the White House might tend to dump salt into the wound? Your statement on foreign policy is clearly dominated by Middle Eastern issues. You promise change. You promise dialogue and diplomacy without preconditions to resolve these issues. Yet a truly significant portion of your statement is spent on swearing in the most absolute terms your unmitigated, incontrovertible and permanent allegiance to Israeli interests. And then Biden. Talk about preconditions.In fact, your preconditions are so prevalent that the concept of dialogue is ludicrous. You state that “Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress.” How true. Just what the consumer needed to soothe his conscience. We are not bullies, you assured us, as you offered “direct diplomacy without preconditions to end the threat from Iran.” But wait a minute, Mr Obama, does that statement not presume that there is a threat from Iran? Once upon a time US intelligence documented that there was no threat, a point which has been obfuscated by a smoke cloud of politically-motivated accusation. Perhaps it is time to hire a new team of writers, Mr Obama, because they failed to notice the contradiction between the phrase “direct diplomacy without preconditions” and the undeniable precondition which immediately follows that phrase in flashing lights:
Obama and Biden will present the Iranian regime with a clear choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear programme and support for terrorism, they would offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization. If Iran continues its troubling behaviour, Obama and Biden will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.'
Obama and Biden will present the Iranian regime with a clear choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear programme and support for terrorism, they would offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization. If Iran continues its troubling behaviour, Obama and Biden will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.'
1 opmerking:
Voormalig wapeninspecteur Scott Ritter sprak in New York over oorlog, de miljoenen slachtoffers en over Obama's rol...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afJ1TOW4GOE
Een reactie posten