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?

'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).

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!

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

.