Obama’s rhetoric makes me sick to my stomach

cyberhog

Remarks made by Obama at Cairo

OBAMA: let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/

Obama's Mandate to George Mitchell

MITCHELL: the president himself has said that his administration, and I quote, "will make a sustained push, working with Israelis and Palestinians, to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security."

http://www.meforum.org/blog/obama-mideast-monitor/2009/01/obamas-mandate-to-george-mitchell


This week, in the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva the US explicitly opposed the Palestinian right to self-determination.

One of [five U.S. No] votes was about the Palestinians’ oft-reconfirmed right to self-determination. That resolution (A/HRC/13/L.27),

reaffirms the inalienable, permanent and unqualified right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to live in freedom, justice and dignity and to establish their sovereign, independent, democratic and viable contiguous State; also reaffirms its support for the solution of two States, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security…

The U.S. representative voted against. The other 45 members voted in favor.

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/self-determination.html

There is no doubt about it Obama! You are a duplicitous weasel, through and through.

Overheal

The hint is in Contiguous?

Anyway the first link - June of last year; and the appointment of Mitchell in January of Last year....

14 months have passed, and where the Crescent has been concerned thats a lot of time for the situation to change.

So ask yourself this OP: What changed in the last 14 months.

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

So ask yourself this OP: What changed in the last 14 months.

For the Palestinians not very much. The situation is still intolerable for them.

As for Obama it's pretty clear how he has changed... from promising America wouldn't turn it's back on the Palestinians to being the only country at Geneva to vote against their right to self-determination.

Obama's duplicity over this issue is disgusting and indefensible.

ON 1) Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan
The result of the vote was as follows:

in favour (31): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Africa, Uruguay and Zambia.

against (1): United States of America.

abstentions (15): Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, France, Gabon, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2) The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination
The result of the vote was as follows:


in favour (45): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Zambia.

against (1): United States of America.

abstentions (0):

3) Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan
The result of the vote was as follows:

in favour (46): Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Egypt, France, Gabon, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uruguay and Zambia .

against (1): United States of America.

abstentions (0):

hare05

I believe this quote sums up my opinion on the whole republican vs obama issue:

"These are the same cracker mother****ers who stood around with a beer bottle up their ass with a yellow ribbon around it, staring with slack-jawed vacantness while Bush set up torture camps, stole an election, legalized wiretapping on all Americans, destroyed due process, fired federal lawyers for FAILING to disenfranchise democratic voters(?!?), fired scientists for reporting facts that were inconvenient, lied us into a war, hired a former ****ing cocaine smuggler (!!!!!) to establish a database on all americans’ private lives, turned 75% of the ****ing military over to private contractors, and increased the disparity of wealth to a degree not seen since the robber baron days. And then a black man gets elected on a promise of cheap medical care, and all of a sudden IT’S TYRRANY. I call butthurt on the tyrranized."
-Tokyo Damage Report

cyberhog

hare05 wrote: »

I believe this quote sums up my opinion on the whole republican vs obama issue:

Obama's feigned support for Palestinian statehood is the topic at hand.

Turning this into a republican vs obama issue adds no value to the discussion.

hare05

Sorry.

The simple fact is that American policy on Palestine is a complete joke. Those who have the power don't care, and those who care don't have a chance of being elected.

Palestine wasn't an issue for Obama, it was a way to swing international favor in his direction. Now that the elections are well past, he'll be just as ignorant of the international community as Bush. At least he isn't warmongering though.

I suppose it doesn't help that half the elected democrats are sitting in gold-lined pockets, and all the republicans are out to cause anarchy.

Palestine is important, but it's nowhere near the top of America's list at the moment. I guess that's why they voted no.

cyberhog

Thanks for the reply

hare05 wrote: »

Palestine is important, but it's nowhere near the top of America's list at the moment. I guess that's why they voted no.

Probably not top of the list for the other member countries on the UNHRC either... but you know what? that didn't stop any of them from supporting the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

The US was the only country to oppose that right.

[NO] to: the inalienable, permanent and unqualified right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right to live in freedom [NO], justice [NO] and dignity [NO] and to establish their sovereign, independent, democratic and viable contiguous State [NO]; also reaffirms its support for the solution of two States, Palestine and Israel, living side by side in peace and security…[NO, NO and Hell NO].

Obama is no friend of the Palestinians.

Overheal

Either way Im having trouble finding citation in the media to do my own investigating of the story. Neither can I find the name of the voting representative, or any statement which explains what happened at that resolution hearing or the rationale which may have been behind it.

Nor can I find any acknowledgment of the story aside from a few fringe blogs. All I know is the 5 resolutions against Israel were adopted at that session. One might conclude that in knowing it would pass, the US voiced opposition to remain in favor of Israel, which is still one of its strongest allies in the region.

wes

I trust the mondoweiss blog, they always seem to have some good stuff there, and I have to say it pretty crappy to oppose a peoples right to self determination, and imho the fact that the US has done so again, make it look very bad in my eyes.

The US can support Israel and not deny the Palestinians there rights as well.

hare05

cyberhog wrote: »

Thanks for the reply



Probably not top of the list for the other member countries on the UNHRC either... but you know what? that didn't stop any of them from supporting the Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

The US was the only country to oppose that right.



Obama is no friend of the Palestinians.

What I mean is that a yes vote would result in Obama having to play middleman in between Jewish interests in the US and Palestinian interests in the wider global community. Simply put, he does not care. As he does not care, he chose the option that would mean the least amount of short term work for American interests. He's stalling, nothing more.

I'm sorry to boil it down to that, but there you go.

Overheal

The US can support Israel and not deny the Palestinians there rights as well.

On the contrary it seems like they dont think they could. Again, without direct quotation, we can only speculate.

What I mean is that a yes vote would result in Obama having to play middleman in between Jewish interests in the US and Palestinian interests in the wider global community. Simply put, he does not care. As he does not care, he chose the option that would mean the least amount of short term work for American interests. He's stalling, nothing more.

I'm sorry to boil it down to that, but there you go.

No the least amount of work and Not getting involved would have been an Abstain vote. A No vote, frankly, gets the US involved, in some way.

hare05

Overheal wrote: »

On the contrary it seems like they dont think they could. Again, without direct quotation, we can only speculate.No the least amount of work and Not getting involved would have been an Abstain vote. A No vote, frankly, gets the US involved, in some way.

Considering the amount of for votes, abstaining would cause it to pass. When it passes, he would have to play middleman anyway, but in that situation he wouldn't have gained any side's favor.

Overheal

hare05 wrote: »

Considering the amount of for votes, abstaining would cause it to pass. When it passes, he would have to play middleman anyway, but in that situation he wouldn't have gained any side's favor.

It did pass.

hare05

it did?

wow. I thought this was a UN thing, where a No by the US means a No over all. Or does the security council have no weighting in this (permanent members)? Ah well, what do I know about politics, I'm 19.

wes

Overheal wrote: »

On the contrary it seems like they dont think they could. Again, without direct quotation, we can only speculate.No the least amount of work and Not getting involved would have been an Abstain vote. A No vote, frankly, gets the US involved, in some way.

Well,then the US needs to end there involvment in the peace process, as any reasonable person can see that they are not a "honest" broker, and taking on that positon makes the US look dishonest and untrustworthy in general, as it is really blatant imho. Voting against another groups right to self determination make the US look like the bad guys regardless of the why they are doing it.

Overheal

hare05 wrote: »

it did?

wow. I thought this was a UN thing, where a No by the US means a No over all. Or does the security council have no weighting in this (permanent members)? Ah well, what do I know about politics, I'm 19.

Youre thinking of a UN Security Council Veto. Im not sure its the same thing as a No. I also am not clear as to whether this as an UNSC session.

cyberhog

Overheal wrote: »

Either way Im having trouble finding citation in the media to do my own investigating of the story.

Perhaps because the U.S. media are pathetically and hopelessly beholden to an "Israel can do no wrong" agenda. =P

Anyway here's the right wing Jerusalem Post version of events

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171739

Overheal wrote: »

Neither can I find the name of the voting representative, or any statement which explains what happened at that resolution hearing or the rationale which may have been behind it.

The U.S. rep made a couple of ludicrous assertions about the resolution being "one-sided" and the Council being "exploited" to single out Israel. She then urged other members to join the U.S. in opposing the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination but I'm happy to say that callous plea gained no support.

EILEEN CHAMBERLAIN DONAHOE (United States), in an explanation of vote before the vote, said it was deeply concerned over the ongoing suffering of both the Palestinian and the Israeli people. The only resolution would be for the aspiration of both sides to be achieved with two separate States. All countries should be working to advance the cause of peace, not to hinder it. To achieve a real, lasting peace, both sides had to take meaningful steps. The United States continued to urge Israel to increase the scope and quantity of goods entering and leaving Gaza to improve the humanitarian situation there. It did not accept continued Israeli settlement. It had a clear position on that matter. In light of its overarching goals, the United States was concerned to be presented with a one-sided resolution. The Council was too often exploited as a platform from which to single out Israel. The human rights record of all States should be assessed under a more robust, common rubric. The United States continued to provide diplomatic and financial support to the Palestinian Authority. It also supported programmes designed to support democracy and human rights. Peace was the region’s interest and in the world’s interest. The United State’s commitment to achieving a two-State deal was unwavering. For that reason it called on other Members to vote No.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=9940&LangID=E


resolutions with voting record at the links below

1) Human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan
(voted on 24/03/2010: 31 in favour, 1 against, 15 abstentions)
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/262dd94458ba4ca2852576f000701580?OpenDocument

2) The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination
(voted on 24/03/2010: 45 in favour, 1 against)
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/1197ccf5c5f50a9b852576f1004df61b?OpenDocument

3) Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan
(voted on 24/03/2010: 46 in favour, 1 against)
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/262dd94458ba4ca2852576f000701580?OpenDocument

4) The grave human rights violations by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem
(voted on 24/03/2010: 31 in favour, 9 against, 7 abstentions)
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/272537975c97ead1852576f1004ebb0a?OpenDocument

5) Follow-up to the report of the United Nations Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict
(voted on 25/03/2010: 29 in favour, 6 against, 11 abstentions)
http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.nsf/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/c0ca91e5ae13870c852576f1005084fa?OpenDocument

Overheal wrote: »

One might conclude that in knowing it would pass, the US voiced opposition to remain in favor of Israel, which is still one of its strongest allies in the region.

By choosing to remain in "favor of Israel" the U.S. has turned it's back "on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own."

Obama's speech at Cairo was just empty rhetoric.