Return to: Home | Politics

Smile on the face of the tiger

John Pilger

Published 11 June 2009

Obama’s speech in Cairo on the Middle East peace process was seductive, but its content was as morally bankrupt as any of Bush’s spiels

At 7.30 in the morning on 3 June, a seven-month-old baby died in the intensive care unit of the European Gaza Hospital in the Gaza Strip. His name was Zein Ad-Din Mohammed Zu’rob, and he was suffering from a lung infection which was treatable.

Denied basic equipment, the doctors in Gaza could do nothing. For weeks, the child’s parents had sought a permit from the Israelis to allow them to take him to a hospital in Jerusalem, where he would have been saved. Like many desperately sick people who apply for these permits, the parents were told they had never applied. Even if they had arrived at the Erez Crossing with an Israeli document in their hands, the odds are that they would have been turned back for refusing the demands of officials to spy or collaborate in some way.

“Is it an irresponsible overstatement,” asked Richard Falk, the United Nations special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and emeritus professor of international law at Princeton University, who is Jewish, “to associate the treatment of Palestinians with [the] criminalised Nazi record of collective atrocity? I think not.”

Falk was describing Israel’s massacre in December and January of hundreds of helpless civilians in Gaza, many of them children. Reporters called this a “war”. Since then, normality has returned to Gaza. Most children are malnourished and sick, and almost all exhibit the symptoms of psychiatric disturbance, such as horrific nightmares, depression and incontinence. There is a long list of items that Israel bans from Gaza. This includes equipment to clean up the toxic detritus of Israel’s US munitions, which is the suspected cause of rising cancer rates. Toys and playground equipment, such as slides and swings, are also banned. I saw the ruins of a fun fair, riddled with bullet holes, which Israeli “settlers” had used as a sniping target.

The day after Baby Zu’rob died in Gaza, President Barack Obama made his “historic” speech in Cairo, “reaching out to the Muslim world”, reported the BBC. “Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” said Obama, “does not serve Israel’s security.” That was all. The killing of 1,300 people in what is now a concentration camp merited 17 words, cast as concern for the “security” of the killers. This was understandable. During the January massacre, Seymour Hersh reported that “the Obama team let it be known that it would not object to the planned resupply of ‘smart bombs’ and other hi-tech ordnance that was already flowing to Israel” for use in Gaza.

Obama’s one criticism of Israel was that “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements . . . It is time for these settlements to stop.” These fortresses on Palestinian land, manned by religious fanatics from America and elsewhere, have been outlawed by the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice. Pointedly, Obama made no mention of the settlements that already honeycomb the occupied territories and make an independent Palestinian state impossible, which is their purpose.

Obama demanded that the “cycle of suspicion and discord must end”. Every year, for more than a generation, the UN has called on Israel to end its illegal and violent occupation of post-1967 Palestine and has voted for “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination”. Every year, those voting against these resolutions have been the governments of Israel and the United States and one or two of America’s Pacific dependencies; last year Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe joined them.

Such is the true “cycle” in the Middle East, which is rarely reported as the relentless rejection of the rule of law by Israel and the United States: a law in whose name the wrath of Washington came down on Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, a law which, if upheld and honoured, would bring peace and security to both Palestine and Israel.

Instead, Obama spoke in Cairo as if his and previous White House administrations were neutral, almost divine brokers of peace, instead of rapacious backers and suppliers of the invader (along with Britain). This Orwellian illogic remains the standard for what western journalists call the “Israel-Palestine conflict”, which is almost never reported in terms of the law, of right and wrong, of justice and injustice – Darfur, yes, Zimbabwe, yes, but never Palestine. Orwell’s ghost again stirred when Obama denounced “violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan [who are] determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can”. America’s invasion and slaughter in these countries went unmentioned. It, too, is divine.

Naturally, unlike George W Bush, Obama did not say that “you’re either with us or against us”. He smiled the smile and uttered “many eloquent mood-music paragraphs and a smattering of quotations from the Holy Quran”, noted the American international lawyer John Whitbeck. Beyond this, Obama offered no change, no plan, only a “tired, morally bankrupt American mantra [which] essentially argues that only the rich, the strong, the oppressors and the enforcers of injustice (notably the Americans and Israelis) have the right to use violence, while the poor, the weak, the oppressed and the victims of oppression must . . . submit to their fate and accept whatever crumbs their betters may magnanimously deign suitable to let fall from their table”. And he offered not the slightest recognition that the world’s most numerous victims of terrorism are people of Muslim faith – a terrorism of western origin that dares not speak its name.

In his “reaching out” in Cairo, as in his “anti-nuclear” speech in Berlin, as in the “hope” he spun at his inauguration, this clever young politician is playing the part for which he was drafted and promoted. This is to present a benign, seductive, even celebrity face to American power, which can then proceed towards its strategic goal of dominance, regardless of the wishes of the rest of humanity and the rights and lives of our children.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

21 comments from readers

EJH
11 June 2009 at 13:31

"This is to present a benign, seductive, even celebrity face to American power, which can then proceed towards its strategic goal of dominance, regardless of the wishes of the rest of humanity and the rights and lives of our children."

I have been waiting about a week now for Mr Pilger's response to Obama's speech. I think the above quote from the end of this essay says it all. Republicans like Bush are in some ways less dangerous than the Democrats because they are at least straightforward about their greedy aims. Democrats like Obama, on the other hand, present a pretty face that has the unfortunate effect of making many people relax and trust America. But Obama is not different from Bush, just slicker. He wants the rape the world just the same. http://theunpeople.blogspot.com/

gondwanaland
12 June 2009 at 07:41

Well said John.

And who could have failed to notice that while Obama was schmoozing the grubby dictators of Saudi, Egypt

and Jordan, the president of Iran was taking part in live TV debates ahead of a democratic election?

In the topsy turvey world of American power in the Middle East, it will take a lot more than a sweet talking president to change the status quo.

duyum
12 June 2009 at 11:16

Obama's words, particularly those directed at muslims, are just hollow words, by a hollow man.

The first time I saw or heard of Obama was on the Oprah show a few years back. I was taken in by his words then and started to have some hope for the future , but in time, the more I listened to his words and the more I looked for proof that his words would turn into positive action, the more I saw that there was no 'backbone' behind his words.

Obama and his words are a big marketing ploy. A balloon full of hot air.

abumallouh
12 June 2009 at 14:18

Dear Mr. Obama,

Action speaks louder than words. Gaza has been under blockaide for four months, there is no roof over most of them, no food, no medication no the basic neceitiies of life. How do you want muslims to trust You if during the war on Gaza you have not mentioned the rights of those people to speak or elect thier leaders freely. America insisted that the palestinians pledge peace and good living to the Israelis and thier basic human rights have been violated since 1948. We have been hearing about palestianian state since the 1991 gulf war agianst Iraq. It was only used to trequilize the arabs and the arab masses. It is important that America stand firm to stop the Israeli settlements, stop construction of the wall which has no value in today's wars. The only reason for this wall is to steal as much land as possible to build new facts on the ground.

It is important to allow the palestinians to elect their leaders and not to be grandfathered in like the rest of the Arab bankrupt regimes. The Arab masses have gotten tired of these leachers (so called leaders).

If Ameirca want to spread democracy in the middle east it can be done simply by allowing free elections with observers from outside and abide by the results of the election if it does not agree with what you want.

muchado63
12 June 2009 at 17:25

To compare Obama's policies directly with Bush's is unfair. Simply based on the fact that many hated Busch and only a few people hate Obama ( I count myself among those people). Given time, more will come to hate Obama and then compare Bush more favourably. What a funny old world it is.

roger
12 June 2009 at 18:24

The moment someone tries to engage with and possibly broker anything that could make society, for some a

little bit better and socialists and so called liberals lambast him.

He'll do something, give the man a break and lets see if his jigsaw will work.

Vietnam Vet
12 June 2009 at 22:42

Just another child victim of the policy of strangulation of the Warsaw Ghetto; oops, I mean of the Gaza Srrip !!

corneilius
13 June 2009 at 04:01

Roger, while you 'give him a break' many more people die, more families lives are shattered by smart bombs ..and drones. Violence either stops or continues.... it's a clear choice.

TJParker
13 June 2009 at 12:44

One of my daughter's first words was "Obama". We live in Thailand and watch TV rarely. Obama is a PR victory and the biggest 'celebrity' on the planet whose friendly facade disguises the rapacious desires of his empire.

http://www.bangkokcrimes.com

Pierre
13 June 2009 at 14:15

The common cancer running through many of the worlds trouble spots is religion.

Would there be trouble in northern Ireland but for religion?

Would there be trouble in Palestine but for religion?

Would there be trouble in Kashmir but for religion

Would there be trouble in the whole middle east but for religion.

Would their be so much poverty in South America, Philippines etc, but for religion.

What tangible benefit does religion provide, the classic farce is the praying to god to help after a natural disaster, when if you are a believer it had to be god that caused the event in the first place.

Etc, Etc,

It is all so asinine

waseem136
14 June 2009 at 09:12

once again well done John Pilger .... i wonder why the analysts in my country (Pakistan) were all praises of Mr. Obama's hollow speech? words do matter but actions speak louder than words and US has to take some concrete actions to win hearts and minds of the Muslim words. A few references to Holy Quran and History will earn you some clapping for a moment but true appreciation will only come with strong, measurable actions. Thanks for a bitter but candid anaylsis Sir.

Camus
14 June 2009 at 16:06

So, he is just another talking head, mouthing off and continuing the same policies as Bush?

Sheer nonsense. He has a lot of opponents in America and he must try to balance about twenty

different issues within a very short space of time. Give him some time before mouthing off in this arrogant

way.

C.H. Newman
14 June 2009 at 19:21

I do think one should give President Obama a chance. I believe he is sincere and has good intentions. I also believe he has many adversaries and so must bide his time. I also agree with you that his speech could have been more direct and hard hitting.

I am especially sad to hear that 'the Obama team" had secretly given the green light to Israel's use of high tech weapons and other ordnance of questionable morality in Gaza. I find this shocking and totally unacceptable.

I have always respected John Pilger and his writing on the situation in the Middle East. I also very much respect Richard Falk and JV Whitbeck. I don't want to be negative about President Obama but I do want him to be courageous and not to lose sight of those values which we share. I think of the Gazans almost every day and agree with Falk's comparison of the treatment of Palestinians with "the Nazi record of collective atrocity"; certainly the massacre which Israel inflicted on Gaza in December and January defies every vestige of humanity or international law known to me and had nothing to do with Israel's security. That is an accepted fact by most of the world. The rest is hypocrisy. Sincerely C. H; Newman

bariloche
15 June 2009 at 14:59

For god's sake! This is criticism for the sake of criticism. I dont know what Pilger expects from Obama. He has done more in his first 5 months for Muslim-West relations than Bush ever did or all the other US presidents combined for that matter. You can criticise Obama on certain issues, but I don't know what Pilger expects him to do. End all support for Israel, tell them to withdraw now from Palestine or just tell them to go to hell? I think John Pilger needs to get in the real world and be more realistic about what is possible here. For good or bad, Israelis have a right to live in the region as well. Obama for his efforts is criticised in Israel as well and posters have been put up in Jerusalem with an Arafat headscarf and is called a Jew-hater and anti-semitic. Why doesnt' John Pilger write about something genuinely bad in the Middle East for once like Ahmadinejad, al-Qaida or the Taliban, rather than this tedious Obama/America bashing.

Camus
15 June 2009 at 16:34

@ barlloche. Well said. If you have the likes of Kasai and whoever is currently running Pakistan and they

are your closest allies in the region then you choose your plays very carefully. I agree - there is a lot to be done to get Israel back to talking, but don't forget that there are decades of conflict that need to be united. Did you slate Blair for the Good Friday agreements Mr. Pilger? Do you ever read these threads or are we all just a gang of bar room bores to you?

max caulfield
16 June 2009 at 09:55

" a benign, seductive, even celebrity face to American power"

This doubtlessly sets off well against a reactionary, war-profiteering, and facist administration(s), and serves the useful purpose of directing, and possibly demarcating, the terms of political discourse and

debates.

Such is the cycle of our legitimate political framework. Many of us respond to the contrasts, the interplays, and draw the necessary conclusions. And when "whatever crumbs their betters may magnanimously deign suitable to let fall from their table", they would be regarded as nothing short of hard fought and well deserved.

Chrisg
17 June 2009 at 21:08

more of the same repetition from Pilger, and unquestioning support from his "followers".....amazing

mf2cd1
19 June 2009 at 09:00

John: Is the current unrest in Iran the result of a CIA (remember 1953) operation to destabilise Ahmadinejad as a pomise Obama gave to Bibi to prevent the IZE from bombing Iran ? Can't have two nuclear powers in South West Asia can we ? And was part of Bibi's "promise" no more settlements ? A "promise" promptly broken in his speech, given as soon as the election and plot were safely under way ? What a hoot. John: your thoughts, please?

philo
19 June 2009 at 12:28

Well said Mr Pilger. I had a faint hope of Mr Obama being the change him and his following so "earnestly" would profess in the beginning, but then the name Soros in the mix of followers more or less did give the game away.

He would have us believe he might be the new Mr Lincon, or JFK, or maybe even the new Martin Luther King. Alas he is none of those but a new suit in the same old closet.

For my thinking he is a new suit at best or at worst another Uncle Tom, and it pains me to use this name for I do not mean it in insult.

What galls me most in my country, (Ireland) is when my national media would have us believe in our elite (Bono and his ilk) to be the cream of society and yet they would be a side-show to this travesty.

Now we are to have Madonna to do a gig in Israel, just like McCartney did pre the Gaza massacer.

For my sins I believe in an after-life where all will be judged and hopefully those who turn a blind eye now, will have no sight as the least of their punishments.

What a pity Mr Pilger there is not a club of sorts where people of your carachter and writing abilities are not put to greater use whereby you would all speak as one voice in defence of the defenceless, and to hell with the elite and empty suits of the world who are just doing their gig or following orders.

When the final judgement comes for those who care not now, I sincerly hope, I was only doing my thing will not be a mitigating circumstance.

Regards,

Mac Clancy.

gnuneo
26 June 2009 at 05:41

so obama says words about Israel stopping settlements, and acts to continue selling Israel the arms used to defend them.

classic blairite 3rd way spin - what a surprise.

"To create man was a quaint and original idea, but to add the sheep was tautology--Mark Twain"

Mohammad Eltohami
03 July 2009 at 18:13

Many realists (including me) realized from the very beginning that Obama's envisaged utopia is a fraud. Obama will not and cannot be any different from those before him. America is not ran by its Presidents, but rather by a congress that blindly supports Isreal. And any one whether be it a senate, a governer, or a president who criticizes and contends against this "pro-isreal" ideology has, unfortunately, no future in the USA's political system. That must be clear.

America needs a revolution not a different President who calls for change but ironically is not any different than the others. Any one who expects an American President to listen to his conscience and for once fight for the truth (the rights of the Palestinians in this case) is a victim of his own idealistic imagination.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

John Pilger

John Pilger, renowned investigative journalist and documentary film-maker, is one of only two to have twice won British journalism's top award; his documentaries have won academy awards in both the UK and the US. In a New Statesman survey of the 50 heroes of our time, Pilger came fourth behind Aung San Suu Kyi and Nelson Mandela. "John Pilger," wrote Harold Pinter, "unearths, with steely attention facts, the filthy truth. I salute him."

Read More

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker