Obama sits down with Jeffery Goldberg of The Atlantic to wax poetic about the Zionist idea. In this interview it is clear that Obama identifies with idea of colonizing the Holy Land rather than the Afro-Asian struggle against colonialism. Penny Von Eschen's outstanding book Race Against Empire discusses how there was once a rich and vibrant tradition of anti-colonialism among African-American political activists. This tradition was strong in the 1930s and 40s. African American activists like Paul Robeson and WEB DuBois weren't really interested in "civil rights" as such, but were rather more interested in human rights (obviously the mantle that Malcolm X took up a few years later). The Black Freedom Struggle was only part and parcel of the larger global decolonization struggle- these activists identified with decolonization movts the world over, but particularly in places like India and South Africa. However, with 1947 came a huge shift. The Civil Rights Establishment accepted the Cold War consensus (that is that the US would support the remnants of colonial empires against decoloninzation movements) in exchange for greater liberties within the existing American framework. This helps explain the support of the early Civil Rights Establishment's for the Cold War crusade against communism in places like S.E. Asia.
In this interview Barak demonstrates no concern for the hardships imposed on the Palestinian people by the Zionist project. He does state that Israeli settlement policies (colonization) are "not helpful" to the peace process, but is quick to reassure Atlantic readers that US support for Israel is non-negotiable, and that the US would not use any of its considerable leverage to compel the Israeli government to bring its policies inline with international law.
Perhaps this is the dance you have to do if you want to be "leader of the free world" (sort of like wearing an American Flag lapel pin when the occasion calls), and that once he gets into office he'll have a truly transformative affect on American politics and society. I am not ruling this out- the popular pressure on him will continue to mount as economic conditions worsen - and he may respond with populist economic policies including a reduction of American overseas commitments - but at this point he seems pretty committed to the ideological project of preserving and maintaining American global hegemony (whatever the cost), and seems totally unaware that this is an unsustainable (not to mention undesirable ) objective (you can't have Guns and Butter- just ask LBJ...).
I'll "trust" that Obama represents "change we can believe in"- and enthusiastically support him in his struggle against Hillary and McCain- but I think I'll steal a page from the Gipper and insist on "verifying"--- when you've got a senate voting record as ugly as Obama's, trust can really only carry you so far.
Here the Huffington Post suggests that Obama might not even need the the Jewish Vote. Demographically the 6.4 million American Jews don't seem to be all that significant (even if there are significant voting blocs in key states like Florida)- especially given that Obama is employing a new "50 -state strategy" that in some ways bypasses the old party strong holds. The same hold true for his fundraising strategy - he has demonstrated an ability to attract massive financial support and doesn't seem to be dependent on "Jewish donors." And the power of AIPAC is overstated, sure it can wield a lot of influence over the Congress- but a president can easily bypass the lobby and bring an agenda straight to the people. It seems the more fundamental issue is not Israel as such, but Israel as a symbol of American nationalism. A symbol of strength and continued expansion in the post-Vietnam era when apparitions of American hegemonic decline haunt all policymakers. Unconditional ("non-negotiable") support for Israeli expansion has become code for continuity with the the 200+ year American tradition of frontier expansion. By supporting Israeli colonization efforts US policymakers signal their own commitment to "strength" in the face of "barbarism." It seems to me that a radical redefinition of the terms of American nationalism is in order if we're to see a truly transformative change in American politics and society (I don't think that post-nationalism is viable at this point). One way to do this might be to begin to articulate with the Israeli peace movement- and its supporters here in the US (Jewish and non-Jewish alike). The silence of the American Left on the question of Palestine has a paralyzing effect. Until we're ready to recognize Palestine's "right to exist" and take the steps to make it a reality- we'll continue to get run over by R. Pearl, D. Feith, and the like.
1 comment:
I think you're basically correct on all fronts. I suppose, however, that a counterargument can be made in terms of strategy and timing. He may not need the "Jewish vote," which won't of course be monolithic (my guess is something like 60% Obama, 30% McCain, 10% Nader/ Barr/ other), but he may need the institutional support of the generalized "pro-Israel" American political establishment. While towing the AIPAC line might not be necessary in order to "get elected" so far as appealing to and winning support from voters, publicly endorsing a new approach towards peace in Israel/Palestine now would fuel an uproar among neocons, the cult of Lieberman, and other Likud/ Netanyahu allies in Washington who effectively articulate a hegemonic message that filters into all levels of public discourse. This is why Obama enthusiastically pledges his allegiance to the United States of Israel. To the extent that he has a different vision, one inspired more by Edward Said than Bernard Lewis, it will be either during the general election or perhaps more likely after taking office that a strategic Middle East policy review might make the most sense (if I am not mistaken, the new progressive Jewish lobby is set to launch around the beginning of 2009?). Should the GOP and McCain's neocon advisers make Obama's pro-Israel credentials an issue during the general election, which they likely will, that could be the moment to flip the discussion like he did with Rev. Wright and give a national address on peace in the Middle East, opening a mature dialog about US support for the occupation of Palestine and its relationship to terrorism. For that matter, he could bring oil and even colonialism into the national discussion as well. But none of this can be done immediately or all at once, and such key foreign policy reforms will never be implemented by an Obama administration (no matter what he himself does or does not support) unless it is pushed by a popular, grass-roots movement at full throttle. Indeed, Obama may have no interest whatsoever in ending US imperialism, but he is a politician who may ultimately be amenable to pressure from progressive activists. That, I think, is all we can hope for in the realm of electoral politics at the moment. Yet should it prove transformational, perhaps a different paradigm will start to emerge after eight years of an Obama administration. While there is much about Obamania that I remain skeptical of, I appreciate how he seems to understand the point that social and political transformation requires an engaged and active citizenry. As he has proclaimed on the campaign trail, borrowing a phrase attributed to Hopi elders: "We are the ones we've been waiting for."
Post a Comment