That's just nonsense. I'll concede he's anti-imperialist, and there's a big overlap in that Venn diagram, but "every single one"? Bollocks. Read what he wrote about Biafra, about the independence of Bangladesh, about Tibet, about a whole bunch of other conflicts. He doesn't mention the US.

I'll concede my knowledge of him is restricted to what he's written in the NS in the last seven years or so. I think my statement accurately reflects that body of work.

I don't recall him writing about any of those subjects you mention - does he write elsewhere? or are they perhaps earlier works? Biafra and Bangladesh is presumably stuff from 30 years ago, yes?

I've read his books - he's been a journalist for decades obviously. I mean yes, obviously the Bangladesh Biafra stuff is old, but then again the Cambodia and Soviet Afghanistan that you brought up is too.

And he writes excellently on Israel/Palestine.

True enough the Cambodian and Afghan things are old - but I know about them up because they are things he has brought up in his column at one point or another and I don't *think* I've seen him bring up Biafra or Bangladesh in that time (not that he'd have had much reason to on either account).

You really ought to read some of that stuff. For example, read all the stuff he wrote on Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia (in the order in which he wrote it). In my recollection he actually directs much of his ire re:Cambodia at the UN rather than specifically the US. But he makes a compelling case as to the way that the international community led by the US enabled the Khmer Rouge. I understand that some people don't like him (mostly it seems because he tells uncomfortable truths), but I think to suggest that he's just some blinkered anti-American is greatly unfair. (It's also well worth reading his history of Australia and its treatment of the aborigines. Not much anti-Americanism in that I have to tell you)

It's a bit unfair to assume that Obama doesn't give a shit about the Palestinians (or for that matter, to assume that McCain doesn't). It's simply a political non-starter in this country to say anything other than total support for Israel and its security. Our country is, collectively, very stupid. I don't know how else to say it.

Then again, Obama has said that he wants more "diplomacy" with Iran and so forth, so that's a big positive over McCain.

I really don't know enough about the Palestinian situation to comment much, but from what I do know it seems like there ought to be a good solution that improves, rather than degrades, Israel's security, since an improvement in the material conditions and security of the Palestinians would obviously take a lot of steam out of the violent elements of the Palestinian cause.

I don't know about Jerusalem. It seems like everyone ought to be able to share it rather than divide it up. But of course, that assumes that the most powerful people in the world will be willing to behave like adults.

QUOTE:
This is John Pilger we're talking about. Why on earth would you get upset about anything he writes?

To my embarrassment, I don't know much about Pilger, but the reason the general line of thought that there's not a difference between Obama and McCain bothers me, is that (a) it's bullshit viewed at any reasonable scale, (b) it drives down turnout on the left (why vote if they're both the same), (c) and it provides no benefit for staking out positions of gradual positive change. As the only likely positive change in the US for the foreseeable future (barring a severe, domestic catastrophe) is going to be gradual, and going to take place when people are in office, rather than running for it, this is a rather serious problem. It's grandstanding, hysterical, moral perfectionism at the cost of a day-to-day, moment to moment, issue-by-issue good.

As to whether Obama is perfectly identical to McCain on foreign policy issues, well, I think you'd have to be relatively uninformed to believe that's the case. McCain is a muscular nationalist, who believes that the solution to any problem is the use of force.

Obama is not this. He's not a pacifist either (see his 2002 anti-Iraq war speech), and you may think his general understanding of the US's place in the world and his assessment of relevant national interests are skewed or completely wrong, but his approach is one that privileges engagement and diplomacy first, and that is not an irrelevant quibble.

I should add that I expect to be disappointed by Obama fairly often if he becomes President, but I expect that disappointment to be much more frequent, and more severe, if McCain wins.

but his approach is one that privileges engagement and diplomacy first,

Except of course he's already managed to alienate the Palestinians already with yesterday's effort. I've seen both Saeb Arakat and Mahmoud Abbas on TV this morning looking angry and deeply upset with the realisation that the possible next president of the US has said things which are even more anti-Palestinian than Bush's policies. I realise he was speaking to a particular audience, but as an approach I'd argue he has does done nothing to privilege engagement and diplomacy first in this case, and indeed has gone in the opposite direction.

Based on the limited evidence of that speech he's yet another democrat who will see his role as to act tougher than the Republicans.

(Oh and by the way, I don't read that article as saying that there is no difference between McCain and Obama, just that Obama is not really likely to offer much difference in the foreign policy arena. If I'd read that article yesterday I'd have said, no, it's wrong, he is very different. But after that speech, I'm kind of inclined to agree at least somewhat)

It's true that he has taken a harder line on Hamas recently, but given his political situation in a general election campaign, he had very little choice. If Hamas had been a little more savvy, they wouldn't have "endorsed" him previously, which caused him to get attacked relentlessly from McCain, Bush, Hillary and the media. Also, I would be surprised if Hamas or Fatah refused to meet with Obama if he offered it, regardless of what he said today.

Assuming that positions taken in an election campaign translate directly into policy when governing is a serious mistake. Paying attention to who someone chooses to advise him, is, in my opinion, much more telling.

Further, and though it may be impolitic to say, but US foreign policy encompasses much more than Israel and Palestine. Obama has taken a tremendous amount of heat for his willingness to engage with Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc. That is not irrelevant.

However, if you think that Obama is no worse than McCain on foreign policy, feel free to lobby your American friends to vote for McCain. We'll see how well a McCain administration works out for the US and the rest of the world.

If, instead, what your saying is that you expected Obama to be a world-healing Messiah figure who is willing to throw away his political career by attempting to single-handedly alter US public perception of Israel and Palestine in a few weeks time, while simultaneously being the first black man to gain a major party's nomination, well, I'm sorry to say that the Messiah-types don't come around as often as one would hope.

Finally, the article also talked about Obama being a slave to corporate interests just like McCain and blind to the needs of the average American, so it wasn't limited solely to foreign policy.

By the way, ad hoc, I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a bit of an asshole, I truly don't intend to. It's just that the realities of the political situation in the US are only somewhat flexible. Expecting Obama, of all candidates, to be able to change things in the heat of a political campaign is to expect something that just cannot be. Hopefully, an Obama administration makes things better, and I think better is the best that can be expected.

I agree. I hadn't realised, though the unprecedented nature of the remark about Jerusalem -ironically today Bush signed his regular six month waiver to a bill which orders the US Govt to move its embassy to Jerusalem.


But then I realised the point of his speech was to do something to got himself condemned by Hamas. They endorsed him, and that's been a big anti-Obama talking point - along with the fact that his middle name is Hussein.

I do think he is more likely to bring about change. The other very intersting part of his speech, and the bit that's underreported is where he says that the US should not interfere with Israeli negotiations.

QUOTE:

I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to support Israel's efforts to renew peace talks with the Syrians. We must never force Israel to the negotiating table, but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israel's leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests. As President, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations. And success will require the full enforcement of Security Council Resolution 1701 in Lebanon, and a stop to Syria's support for terror. It is time for this reckless behavior to come to an end.

What's that all about?

I hope there's a chance for a reorientation in the region and that it is the Saudis (with whom the Bush family had a special relationship) whose poisonous fundamentalism is becoming ever more influential in the region who are the real targets here.

Listen. I'm aware that the US Political system/climate is not liable to lead to some kind of world-healing messiah, and I never expected Obama or anyone else to be that person. But Obama appears to be the most clued in politician who has come to the fore in recent times. So, you'll forgive me, I hope, when that hope is pretty much dashed in the case of Palestine. And if I woke up this morning feeling "shit, that's another 4 years at least of no hope for them" how do you think they felt this morning? Maybe my disappointment comes from having invested some hope in this guy or maybe it's because here seemed to be a man who gave a shit about world affairs.

Here is a man with amazing political capital who could at least have engaged with the issue. He could have talked about the situation under which the Palestinians live as well as talk about people in Sderot. he could have acknoweldged that Palestinians would quite like to live without fear as well. And he certainly should never have said that about Jerusalem. He has in effect said, "As president, I will never ask Israel to compromise on anything, and will continue to fund them militarily as much as they ask". And fuck, yes, that makes me angry and bitter and pessimistic and pissed off.

He is and will be better than McCain of that there is little doubt. And yes, Palestine is not the only issue out there - but it's the one that US has the clearest and most direct influence over and the one that the US could solve (minus a few small details) at one stroke. I was foolishly hoping that Obama might be the man to grasp that nettle. Now I can see he won't - and if he won't no-one will and the Palestinians are fucked indefinitely.

You aren't coming across as an asshole, Gyuri, but I do (really) get the US political system, and what it can and can't allow (I lived there for 6 years, including through the 2000 election and September 11th and its aftermath. Plus being personally attacked by CAMERA which is another AIPAC like anti-Palestinian pressure group). And I think at this moment in time, Obama could have got away with a speech which didn't tie his hands and nail his colours firmly to the Israeli mast, and maybe, just maybe, raise the quality of the debate in the US on this subject.

I'm deeply deeply disappointed. That's all.

Ad hoc, that disappointment is completely understandable, but I really, honestly think that it is much too early to lose hope. This was a highly political speech, at an intensely political time, before one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the world (all of which I know you know). That's why I think it is absolutely essential to keep sight of Gyuri's observation above:

"Assuming that positions taken in an election campaign translate directly into policy when governing is a serious mistake. Paying attention to who someone chooses to advise him, is, in my opinion, much more telling."

I think that an Obama presidency would represent a real chance for change in the US position on Palestine. Not radical change, but incremental change in the right direction. We live in a bizarre world where a combination of Likudnik neo-cons and Fundamentalist nutjobs have hijacked US foreign policy in the Mideast and created a reality where the policy of Israel's essential patron is significantly more radical, belligerent and nonsensical than that of the Israeli government or Israeli public opinion. That reality is essentially what the quote nefertiti questions is about; the fact that hardliners in Israel can rely on the US to ridicule, undermine and destroy peace initiatives that are supported by a significant majority of the Israeli population is nothing short of scandalous.

At the very least, I would expect Obama to end that madness. I very much hope he can do more. I dream that he may actually be able to repair and rebuild the coalition of Blacks and Jews that was largely responsible for many of those things the US has done in my lifetime that I am actually proud of.

I don't expect that to convince you, or to alleviate your disappointment, or to be "enough" in your eyes. Your writing on Palestine is without question among the very best I've read anywhere on the subject, and has changed the way I (and am sure others) think about it. I'm just trying to explain why some of us don't see the future in this realm to be quite as black as you do.

QUOTE:
I don't know about Jerusalem. It seems like everyone ought to be able to share it rather than divide it up. But of course, that assumes that the most powerful people in the world will be willing to behave like adults.

Giving Jerusalem back to Jordan is an idea...

ad hoc, I agree with those who said that it is too early to be disheartened by Obama. As you know, what candidates say on the campaign trail often is not a reflection of what they actually plan to do once they are in office. We can't know Obama's real mind, but that statement sounds a bit like feeding the lions to make sure they won't roar.