Updated: June 5, 2009 added the full article
By Noam Chomsky
MWC News – A Site Without Borders
June 4, 2009
Chomsky, whose recent books include “Interventions” and “The Essential Chomsky,” sent the following to the Institute for Public Accuracy this morning: “A CNN headline, reporting Obama’s plans for his June 4 Cairo address, reads ‘Obama looks to reach the soul of the Muslim world.’ Perhaps that captures his intent, but more significant is the content hidden in the rhetorical stance, or more accurately, omitted.
“Keeping just to Israel-Palestine — there was nothing substantive about anything else — Obama called on Arabs and Israelis not to ‘point fingers’ at each other or to ‘see this conflict only from one side or the other.’ There is, however, a third side, that of the United States, which has played a decisive role in sustaining the current conflict. Obama gave no indication that its role should change or even be considered.
via MWC News – A Site Without Borders – – Chomsky on Obama Speech (link no longer works)
Rachel Maddow: The 3rd Rail – Obama’s game-changing speech in Egypt
video no longer available
The Grim Picture of Obama’s Middle East
By Noam Chomsky
June 05, 2009 “Information Clearing House”
A CNN headline, reporting Obama’s plans for his June 4 Cairo address, reads ‘Obama looks to reach the soul of the Muslim world.’ Perhaps that captures his intent, but more significant is the content hidden in the rhetorical stance, or more accurately, omitted.
Keeping just to Israel-Palestine — there was nothing substantive about anything else — Obama called on Arabs and Israelis not to ‘point fingers’ at each other or to ‘see this conflict only from one side or the other.’ There is, however, a third side, that of the United States, which has played a decisive role in sustaining the current conflict. Obama gave no indication that its role should change or even be considered.
Those familiar with the history will rationally conclude, then, that Obama will continue in the path of unilateral U.S. rejectionism.
Obama once again praised the Arab Peace Initiative, saying only that Arabs should see it as ‘an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities.’ How should the Obama administration see it? Obama and his advisers are surely aware that the Initiative reiterates the long-standing international consensus calling for a two-state settlement on the international (pre-June ’67) border, perhaps with ‘minor and mutual modifications,’ to borrow U.S. government usage before it departed sharply from world opinion in the 1970s, vetoing a Security Council resolution backed by the Arab ‘confrontation states’ (Egypt, Iran, Syria), and tacitly by the PLO, with the same essential content as the Arab Peace Initiative except that the latter goes beyond by calling on Arab states to normalize relations with Israel in the context of this political settlement. Obama has called on the Arab states to proceed with normalization, studiously ignoring, however, the crucial political settlement that is its precondition. The Initiative cannot be a ‘beginning’ if the U.S. continues to refuse to accept its core principles, even to acknowledge them.
In the background is the Obama administration’s goal, enunciated most clearly by Senator John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to forge an alliance of Israel and the ‘moderate’ Arab states against Iran. The term ‘moderate’ has nothing to do with the character of the state, but rather signals its willingness to conform to U.S. demands.
What is Israel to do in return for Arab steps to normalize relations? The strongest position so far enunciated by the Obama administration is that Israel should conform to Phase I of the 2003 Road Map, which states: ‘Israel freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).’ All sides claim to accept the Road Map, overlooking the fact that Israel instantly added 14 reservations that render it inoperable.
Overlooked in the debate over settlements is that even if Israel were to accept Phase I of the Road Map, that would leave in place the entire settlement project that has already been developed, with decisive U.S. support, to ensure that Israel will take over the valuable land within the illegal ‘separation wall’ (including the primary water supplies of the region) as well as the Jordan Valley, thus imprisoning what is left, which is being broken up into cantons by settlement/infrastructure salients extending far to the East. Unmentioned as well is that Israel is taking over Greater Jerusalem, the site of its major current development programs, displacing many Arabs, so that what remains to Palestinians will be separated from the center of their cultural, economic, and sociopolitical life. Also unmentioned is that all of this is in violation of international law, as conceded by the government of Israel after the 1967 conquest, and reaffirmed by Security Council resolutions and the International Court of Justice. Also unmentioned are Israel’s successful operations since 1991 to separate the West Bank from Gaza, since turned into a prison where survival is barely possible, further undermining the hopes for a viable Palestinian state.
It is worth remembering that there has been one break in U.S.-Israeli rejectionism. President Clinton recognized that the terms he had offered at the failed 2000 Camp David meetings were not acceptable to any Palestinians, and in December, proposed his ‘parameters,’ vague but more forthcoming. He then announced that both sides had accepted the parameters, though both had reservations. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators met in Taba, Egypt to iron out the differences, and made considerable progress. A full resolution could have been reached in a few more days, they announced in their final joint press conference. But Israel called off the negotiations prematurely, and they have not been formally resumed. The single exception indicates that if an American president is willing to tolerate a meaningful diplomatic settlement, it can very likely be reached.
It is also worth remembering that the Bush I administration went a bit beyond words in objecting to illegal Israeli settlement projects, namely, by withholding U.S. economic support for them. In contrast, Obama administration officials stated that such measures are ‘not under discussion’ and that any pressures on Israel to conform to the Road Map will be ‘largely symbolic,’ so the New York Times reported (Helene Cooper, June 1).
There is more to say, but it does not relieve the grim picture that Obama has been painting, with a few extra touches in his widely-heralded address to the Muslim World in Cairo on June 4. Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor (retired) at MIT. He is the author of many books and articles on international affairs and social-political issues, and a long-time participant in activist movements. His most recent books include: Failed States, What We Say Goes(with David Barsamian), Hegemony or Survival, and the Essential Chomsky.
Barack Obama: A New Beginning (Cairo University 06.04.09)
Death At Guantánamo Hovers Over Obama’s Middle East Visit | Andy Worthington
Mr. Obama: Resign Now by Ted Rall
Jesse Jackson on the progressive movement
Barack admits US role in 1953 Iran coup-PressTV
Pingback: Marathon Interviews with Noam Chomsky « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Oil and Islam. Will America Shift Away from Its Past Unilateralist Policies? by Prof. Peter Dale Scott « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: WNYC – The Brian Lehrer Show: Noam Chomsky « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Team Obama/Cult Obama by William Blum « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Turning Point? By Noam Chomsky « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Hold Your Applause by Chris Hedges « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: George Galloway: We Have To Break That Siege « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Obama Stuck to the Script on the Israeli-Arab Conflict in His Cairo Speech By Jeremy R. Hammond « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Not all Israeli youth are fascist and/or racist, but some are « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Bill Moyers Journal: Jeremy Scahill + Brooke Gladstone & Jay Rosen « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Obama’s Speech – America’s Violent Extremism By Paul Craig Roberts « Dandelion Salad
Pingback: Pepe Escobar: Peace be upon Barack « Dandelion Salad
Thanks for the great link to MWC, ds! My pc is slow to get there, but worth it!
Just as Pres. Obama must have felt congnitive dissonance, during his speech (“the killing of innocents is always wrong”, blah, blah), dont you slighlty feel it, Nature Boy, after railing on Obama and then complimenting Maddow, who was most adoring of him?? lol
I shouldnt say always–she has been known to take him on. But, she works for MSM, so, how can she? I liked her much better before she went to work for MSNBC…..
Thanks, KDelphi, glad you liked Chomsky’s take on Obama’s speech.
I kind of like the purple but the glum’s a bit sad..
Maha, it’s the automatically generated icons called gravatars. To chose one for yourself go here: http://en.gravatar.com/signup
Hey! what’s that glum purple face for??
Wow the biggest current mass murderer on the planet lecturing how violence is not goooood, but only good
when USisaelis blow up and torture Arabs of course, and Africans of course, covertly of course..
Obama’s a great actor when the autocue is working..
Maddow has her mouth and nose on side of her face like those popeye characters, sort of perfectly suited to the twisted BS she is churning out.
Notice the poltergeist vampyre brzezinsky glossed over so slickly the 1953 coup by the usa against massadeq by slickly pulling out the hostage card.
Yes drag out tha FRIGGIN PAST, ZBIG, WE WRONGGED FIRST!
I think that man is a horrible, evil, vile destructve vmpire troll, a polish inhuman dracula, maybe not as bad as kissinger, but not far behind. The East is great at producing horrific sztalinistic warmongers. No wonder all the villains in movies have eastern accents.
Withou fail our governments have concocted the most vile inhumane, hawkish people available.
Rachel Maddow is excellent, intelligent, brilliant and wise,