More fallout from Obama's AIPAC speech

The latest is from Stephen Zunes on the Foreign Policy in Focus website.  Zunes accuses Obama of playing

"...right into the hands of cynics who have long doubted his promises to create a new and more progressive role for the United States in the world."

"In many ways,  says Zunes, Obama's speech "constituted a slap in the face of the grass roots peace and human rights activists who have brought him to the cusp of the Democratic presidential nomination."

I'm one of those "peace and human rights activists" who voted for Obama on May 20 here in Oregon.  Needless to say, I was sorely disappointed by Obama's "turn to the right" on U.S. foreign policy. 

A few days earlier, Uri Avnery wrote:

"THE TRANSPARENT fawning of Obama on the Israel lobby stands out more than similar efforts by the other candidates.

"Why? Because his dizzying success in the primaries was entirely due to his promise to bring about a change, to put an end to the rotten practices of Washington and to replace the old cynics with a young, brave person who does not compromise his principles.

"And lo and behold, the very first thing he does after securing the nomination of his party is to compromise his principles. And how!"

I've argued that the American Israeli lobby, especially AIPAC, is largely responsible for our misbegotten militarism in the Middle East.  Joseph Massad counters that the "lobby" merely encourages policies that the U.S. has long embraced:

"The United States has had a consistent policy since World War II of fighting all regimes across the Third World who insist on controlling their national resources, whether it be land, oil, or other valuable minerals."

I think that he has it right.  Our "blood for oil" incursion into Iraq is consistent with a long history of American foreign policy adventurism.  Barack Obama's apparent intention to continue those policies is doubly disappointing since he ran, and won, on a platform of "change".

Perhaps even more discouraging is the silence of the American media on Barack's betrayal.  All we hear is that Obama is having difficulty with certain voting demographics.  Or that one of his vice-presidential advisers was let go for some transgression or other.   Nothing about the issues that really matter.

Same is true of our local "progressive water cooler", Blue Oregon, where the only "issue" that matters is how bad the Republicans are --particularly Gordon Smith-- and how valiant their Democratic opponents are, regardless of their progressive credentials.  Never a mention of Obama, who has a huge and ecstatic following at Blue Oregon,  even when he so blatantly dashes the hopes and dreams of Oregon's substantial community of peace activists with his pandering to AIPAC.

Tiresome.

Comments

[Harry Kershner]

Thanks for your principled statement, Terry. One of the ironies of Obama's pandering is that it is likely to increase anti-Semitism of the Jewish kind (Arabs are also Semites, and they are obviously more vulnerable than Jews at this time). I have never in my 62 years encountered as much blatant anti-Jewish or anti-Arab sentiment as I have in the past few years, and Obama's reprehensible conduct merely lends credence to the foolish belief that Jews control U.S. society, i.e., poor Barack wanted to defend the Arabs, but the Jews wouldn't let him.

I agree with you about the media in general and Blue Oregon, to which I post occasionally (Supremes: Gitmo Detainees Can Appeal - I responded several times on this thread), in particular. BO does allow dissent, but the topic is controlled. I recommend that progressively-disposed people post there to move the conversation to the progressive center away from the DP's rightward perch.