Sameh Habeeb - I’m not Barack Obama, but I will endorse him
By Mary Rizzo • Jul 15th, 2008 at 8:11 • Category: Features, Israel, Opinions and Letters, Palestine, Somoud: Arab Voices of Resistance
We, Palestinians, are aspiring to any glimpse of hope to establishing our promising country of Palestine. Originally, that glimpse of hope grew when Israelis realized in the nineties that a real peace will not be achieved apart from an Independent Palestinian state. That time, the world agreed on that concept and peace deal (Oslo) was held in Washington D.C, after the first Bush had left office.
Regardless of Oslo and its disadvantages we started the self governing in the West Bank and Gaza Strip awaiting the transitional period in the next stages. But as many expected things went deep down after Israel approved that, it was unconcerned in any peace agreement that relied on giving us land in exchange for peace
With the second Bush administration and his first speech at the White House, our aspirations smashed into a barrier of Zioamerican arrogance! The hope raised back momentously and excessively when the caucuses of American elections started in 2007. Followed by the appearance of Barack Husain Obama, our hope reached a peak once more. We reckoned that by this heroic Black-American we would be able to get our Independent State of Palestine
This positive thought was strengthened for several reasons. Initially, having a black president in the White House means having the history of the Black generation who suffered the tortures of white enslavement and the discrimination as well. Surely, he knows our suffering, thus he will make sure to end our conflict. Accordingly, this president will work hard to liberate us from the occupation that we have been experiencing since 60 years.
From left to right, Michelle Obama, then Illinois state senator Barack Obama, Columbia University Professor Edward Said and Mariam Said at a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Edward Said gave the keynote speech. (Image from archives of Ali Abunimah)
Then, Barack Obama’s support for the Palestinian cause has had lenghty experiences and positive stances. Going back to the nineties, he participated in many activities in solidarity of Palestine.
Ali Abunimah, ex-friend of Obama pointed out, “I knew Barack Obama for many years as my state senator-when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time. I remember personally introducing him onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. And that’s just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation.”
Our desired change is completely inconsistent with Obama’s one currently. The change for us makes us ask why he is turning his back against Palestinians in this race. He was a sincere friend to us once.
“The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004—As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front,” Obama’s friend said.
So, his changing view towards Palestine seems to be unreal since he is looking to power. I, if I would be in his shoes, I would be doing as the same as he is doing.
During a speech I delivered in Lecce in Italy, I was named as Barack Obama due to the way I spoke using some of the rhetorical and public speaking tips. I was asked then, What do you think of Obama?
I was puzzled for a second, then I answered, ” Obama is holding opposing views to Bush in all policies which is so requested to improve the American image in the world. Yet, when it comes to Palestine he is as supportive to Israel as Bush and even more.”
This perspective was so clear during his first speeches after he won the Nomination of his party. At the AIPAC, Obama was reciting some of the Bush ideas and schemes towards the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. He wants to give a livable and a connected state but he didn’t specify more about this state!
Finally, we Palestinians and Arab Americans have to look over this race to the White House wisely. We have two choices now. Barack Obama who is slightly supporting the Palestinians and their promising state. In the other side, we have one of the biggest new Bushes, John McCain, whose stances are more extreme than Bush and all the new conservatives in the US. One of McCain’ s advisors said a couple of weeks ago that Palestinians should go to Jordan and establish their own country. Thus, McCain is so dangerous for us and his ideas are so malicious. So, let’s pick the less worse of the two…Let’s endorse Obama.
SEE ELECTRONIC INTIFADA for more.
–
Sameh A. Habeeb
Freelance Journalist based in Gaza, Palestine
Mob: 00972599306096
E-mail: Sam_hab@hotmail.com
Sameh.habeeb@gmail.com
Web: www.gazatoday.blogspot.com
Mary Rizzo is an art restorer, translator and writer living in Italy. Editor and co-founder of Palestine Think Tank, co-founder of Tlaxcala translations collective. Her personal blog is Peacepalestine.
Email this author | All posts by Mary Rizzo
Quote:
“So, let’s pick the less worse of the two…Let’s endorse Obama.” end quote
=========================================
NO NO NO
I am sick of that logic
Why should we succumb to this oppression?
Why should we accept that our choice will always be one of two evils?
Why should we take part in such illusion of democracy?
People in the “democratic” and “civilized” West need to revolutionize their thinking
They urgently need to address the failure of the trap-system that had enslaved them and limited their ability to choose and even to think
The pathetic idea of “choosing the lesser evil” MUST be CHALLENGED once and for all
.
I am in total agreement with you Nahida. I am strongly opposed to the “lesser of two evils” paradigm, and one has to ask: if the only way to “get the power” in America is to be hard on the Palestinians, then there is something seriously wrong with wanting power in this way and covering the agenda (if indeed it isn’t all a mask to begin with).
I published this here because on the site I give the space to Palestinians who I know are activists and doing things for their liberation to freely express themselves. I sometimes don’t agree with all the interventions, but most of the time I do. This is one I am utterly in disagreement with, but it represents a space to discuss the way a lot of people in Gaza might be thinking, seeing as how the choices are between the devil and the devil’s clone!
Mary, you say:
‘if the only way to “get the power” in America is to be hard on the Palestinians, then there is something seriously wrong with wanting power in this way and covering the agenda (if indeed it isn’t all a mask to begin with). ‘
Well, unfortunately there IS womething seriously wrong with wanting power in the US, or atleast the process of getting it. I can see your point. But realistically, no president openly supportive of Palestinians will ever be elected in the US for a long time, because there are only a minority of Americans who feel that way! I have often talked with Americans for example who support Ralph Nader. I can understand the principle. But true change doesn’t come just by wishing it, or from one day to the next. You can’t expect a US president who will openly take that country to a new direction, because the US PEOPLE just don’t.wan’t.that.direction! As far as Palestine is concerned, its not a case of there existing a strong base of support for the Palestinian cause, but no politician willing to champion it. It really is a case of the US people strongly supporting Israel. That’s a result of decades of misinformation, propaganda, lies and emotional manipulation. If you want real change, you should work step by step to slowly change the attitudes of people over time. But if you want real change, and you are a politician, that means being a hypocrite and taking the positions that will at least not make people immediately turn away from you, so that you can at least engage in those small steps. It may be sad, but it is true.
As for Obama. Honestly, he’s a blank sheet to me, as far as how he will act towards foreign policy (which is my main concern. In domestic issues I’m certain he will be a relatively good choice). I didn’t know about some of the things the article mentioned, like his connections with Palestinians in his university. But I know his ex-pastor preached about Palestinians and was supportive of them, and though he has by now condemned him, it at least shows his close influences aren’t the type usual rich American candidates for president get. So the question is, is his pandering to AIPAC and Israel political manuevering? I could understand that, especially given the nature of the election. McCain is supposed to be the national security expert. Despite the irrationality of that argument, polls show him to be by far the one Americans trust more in national security (though they trust Obama more on everything else). The Republicans are attacking Obama as the inexperience person who will bring the US into danger, and there’s smear campaigns and misinformation all around the country about him being a secret-Muslim, terrorist sympathiser. So I can see why Obama might want to make the US public ‘relax’ by showing ‘mainstream’ (for the US) political views.
So its a gamble. He could be just playing a political game, or he may mean what he is saying. As I said, he’s a blank sheet. McCain though is not. What IS certain is that McCain will be much worse. I am convinced McCain is a madman and war-monger and completely ignorant on Middle East realities, completely reliant on common myths and misperception found in the US. GIven a choice between the two (and it IS a choice between the two, because, as I said, the American people who really want a different choice are far too few), who’s the best one is obvious.
I can see why people do not want to compromise on the ‘lesser of two evil’ choice. But I think realism should go first, and idealism secondly. Better to work for something that will happen, than work ten times as hard for something that will not. I know many people will disagree strongly with that. But politics and policies influence the lives of millions of people- what use is idealism if it leads to nowhere, whereas realism might lead to atleast some lives saved, and some progress being made. They tell me sometimes that all empires fall at some point. True, but most empires are still around today as relatively strong states, whereas a far greater number of smaller and weaker people and nations have vanished forever off the face off history by the actions of the powerful.
So here’s a thought to leave you on. It has been 60 years since the Nakba, and far more since the mandate started. And things only get worse. I see many in the modern activist movement who think that somehow, if we keep strong in our ideals, and keep fighting at the grass things, things WILL get better, and eventually justice will prevail. What a naive position to me. Justice has rarely prevailed in human history. This same kind of activism has been going on for how long, and things keep getting worse and worse. It seems modern activists think they are the first of their kind, and that there haven’t been generations before them who have been doing the same things- and achieved nothing. Yet there is this constant optimism- apparently the only possible future in the minds of activists is one in which the Palestinian people are redeemed. Here’s the truth as I see it. There’s a far greater chance that a Palestinian state will become impossible, Israel will annex more and more land, its power will grow more and more disproportionate to that of its neighboors and enemies, and slowly but surely, the Palestinian people either all disappear and become integrated in other nations, or have to settle for some sort of solution that is no solution at all. Sounds bleak? That’s where history is unfortunately pointing to as I see it. So, if I can somehow influence the US election, what should I do? Try for a change that may at least make this scenario a tiny bit more unlikely? Or act out of idealism and do nothing but in fact help the worse guy win? Is it always the same choice between the lesser of two evils? Yes. But that’s the only choice there is- together with actually working to slowly change the attitudes of the public, to make real change possible ( I was for example disappointed with Obama’s FISA stance, beause I felt that was an issue he did NOT have to compromise on and sacrifice for the sake of pragmatism, but could be an action that would make a small step in showing what is considered an acceptable political position for Americans to hold).
Christos, thanks for that very insightful and complete response. I am one of those who would love to have Nader. I know the Americans wouldn’t be able to have him even as a choice though. But is it realism to want the lesser evil, when it is still pretty bad. I’ve read a lot of the commentary on the site The Black Commentator, which you may have read too. It is very critical of Obama because it says that he has consistently lowered any kind of vindications by putting forth a “everything is fine” stance and acting as if empowerment and equality were realised by his mere presence. He was not promising a thing that would “upset” the majority of voters, whatever that would be, and that means, he is going to go for the money and votes of the big industry, (military industry as well) and his international politics are unoriginal and uninspired.
I really think they are both pretty sad choices, but the Americans don’t seem to understand how necessary it is to change the way of interpreting the world, and they need to stop putting the immediate interests in the forefront. This makes them grab too much and rob other nations of their resources. (Naomi Klein’s recent book was excellent on this point). They invaded Iraq to rob it, which is a violation of all international law, but the Americans neglect this fact and perhaps even feel it was necessary.
And, they ask why the rest of the world “hates” them?
[...] You can read the rest of this blog post by going to the original source, here [...]