Thursday, 22 January 2009

To earth with a crash...

"You may have noticed the world's media creaming its collective pants over the Obama inauguration yesterday, with superlatives every bit as hyperbolic as Obama's speech was bland. Gullible liberal columnists couldn't get over the "magic" - it was like being five again, and Santa Claus was coming. Everyone, it seems, got the chance to cry again, and to tell everyone else about how they cried, as well as where they were when they cried. All of that stuff about Obama's disappointing appointments, his bellicose language, the support for TARP and his Wall Street backers, and the silence over Gaza, was forgotten for one spellbound day, sprinkled with fairy dust and dubya pee. Today, it's back to the bad news." The rest of the article is viewable here.

I was going to write my own, but I feel this article illustrates the point far better than I could have.

Redistributed by Abel Koskinen, SL Internationalist Socialists for the SLLU.

Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati Faves♦ ♦Stumble ThisRedditSlashdot it


Mister Crap said...

Actually, he did mention Gaza in a fashion.

Or did you not catch the "unclenching the fist" comment?

That referred to both Gaza and their weapons-suppliers/trainers/brainwashers in Iran.

But I do agree that he should have been a little more broad in his scope there - should have told people to unclench more than their fists.

(Might have saved you the trouble of this blog post, eh)


Keitopop said...

Well yes, he mentioned Gaza once. He stated he supported the 'right' for Israel (an Apartheid state) to 'defend' itself (massacre 1300 civillians, injur thousands more, bulldoze whole villages leaving over 44,000 people homeless, destroy the infrastructure which has meant that much of Gaza now goes without clean water, electricity and swims in its own sewage, and cut off the ration shipments sent in through the tunnel networks post the economic blockade meaning that Gazans will starve in the hundreds at a time).

I would say 'clenched fists' is not only justified, but also an understatement. Obama has asked Palestine to submit to U.S. Imperialism, that's all.

What Obama should do is boycott Israel both politically and economically. That is to say, he should not deal with an apartheid state in any fashion.

That wont happen though, because Israel is far too important an ally for the U.S.

I think the blog post was much more about the farce that is Barack Hussein Obama. There is no change to this at best Moderate Democrat. What Obama is, is a smiley face drawn on the ugly history, present and future that is U.S Capitalism and Imperialism.

One final note:
1. Gaza has the right to defend itself, armed if necessary. Anyone who enables them to do so is not wrong.

1a. The U.S.A supplies a substantial amount of arms to Israel. So much so that the IDF has become the fourth largest military in the world.

1b. Where Hamas and other former resisting parties in Palestine only attack Israel, Israel attacks every single one of its neighbours if required (that is to say, if it is willed by the U.S. or is deemed necessary to protect U.S. interests).

2. Iran havn't brainwashed anyone in regards to Gaza, Palestine, or Apartheid Israel. The furthest Iranian brainwashing goes is the same as anywhere else, especially the United States, and that is brainwashing with the idea that only bureaucrats and suits can change the world, that working people come second because that's just how it is, and that these bureaucrats and suits are the only ones capable of running the show.

Besides, if you want to talk about brainwashing, let's reflect on the election campaign leading up to Obama's inaugaration. The only difference between Obama and former 'nice' presidents in the U.S is the color of his skin. Ohhh, I can feel the change coming already, almost like empty bowels, only we're all underneathe the pooper.

I don't think anything you said was of any substance. Rather than 'maybe saving me the trouble of this blog post' you've merely wasted your own time, and mine.

Mister Crap said...

You say "Apartheid Israel" I say "Terrorist Gaza and West Bank" without using the P-word.

Wow. Buzzwords back and forth. If only there was a way of cutting through the BS and BW to find some deeper truths.

Guess who's right?


Where Israel is multicultural, the proposed Palestinian constitution is, in fact, apartheid in nature. More Judenrein than Nazi Germany or anti-Christian than Wahab Saudi Arabia. Plus, no guarantees or protections for non-Islamic minorities such as the Christian populations, which is why those who haven't subjugated themselves to thq Waqf have done their best to flee. (Bethlehem's population reflects this enthic-religious cleansing by the Islamic authorities, just as many former Christian neighborhoods of Lebanon have been forced into exile or wiped out by the Hezbollah/Shia extremist communities.)

Holy places to Christians and Jews have been firebombed by Muslims, even if those places or hisotircal figures are mentioned in the Koran (which Jerusalem wasn't).

As for right to defend themselves, no rational being would consider sending a suicide bomber into a bus stop, school, or Passover dinner a method of defense.

Or the launching of missiles with the INTENT on them landing on schoolchildren going to and from school, as Hamas (and its fellow Iranian clients) have done to Sderot in Israel.

The civilian deaths in Gaza were a horror, there's no escaping that fact. One of the few rational things Ted Rall has ever penned was the simple phrase: "Death sucks." (But it was to mourn the passing of Charles Schulz, and then Ted went right back off his meds to continue his deranged hyperbolic paranoid view of the world) But unless you consider the dead who were murdered by Hamas themselves (Hamas leaders were praising the wounding and killing of Fateh rivals), killed by returning to boobytrapped homes, killed by willing or unwilling use as human shields, and any other war crime conducted by Hamas, well, your use of the numbers is that of a child hammering its hands on Daddy's calculator and shrieking at the display - irrational and amoral.

*shrug* The schizoid demands of the far-left which cites UN and NGO edicts as gospel, yet ignores the call for a two-state solution when it suits their anti-Zionist (and often anti-Semitic) fancy would be laughable if one could stomach the sheer malignant and calm bloodlust which lies beneath the Marxist surface.


Keitopop said...

Mister Crap, I have spent far too much time rebutting the claims people such as yourself have made already. So I will direct you to the article on the SLLU blog titled 'The Poverty of the Left and Freedom For Palestine.'

I will address this though;

"The schizoid demands of the far-left which cites UN and NGO edicts as gospel, yet ignores the call for a two-state solution when it suits their anti-Zionist (and often anti-Semitic) fancy would be laughable if one could stomach the sheer malignant and calm bloodlust which lies beneath the Marxist surface."

Much of the far left do not cite U.N and N.G.O edicts as gospel, particularly far left Socialist organisations. Primarily due to the opposition we have to the Capitalist State. The Two State solution currently exists, to assume otherwise is complete shit.

Two states, one Palestine, one Israel, living side by side supposedly in peace. What has happened though, is the expansionist nature of Israel has pushed back the borders of Palestine more and more. There is no denying the land seizing by Israel.

There is no bloodlust here. Thats an unsubstantiated claim. I do not need to defend myself such a thing.

But it is good to see that over Obama and Palestine, the political right has finally surfaced. I think this should be a clear sign to the rest of SLLU that much of their Unity are merely moderates who swing the right at the drop of a hat.

Plot Tracer said...

"keitopop"- could you sign your article with your sl name please?

agitprop said...

As stated elsewhere, I think it bears repeating:

It should be pointed out that Abel (Keitopop) does NOT write "for SLLU".

She has been asked to post her point of view as part of a general policy to encourage expression of a wide range of left perspectives.

This does not imply endorsement of her views, nor any kind of representation on her part of SLLU position, analysis, or practice, whatsoever.

I think this attempt on her part to imply that she in some manner represents SLLU is a reflection of insidious duplicity on her part, betraying her actual intentions for insinuating herself into this venue, which is clearly to attack and attempt to discredit SLLU and it's members, in an effort to split the organization.

I would further say that encouraging, and even allowing ultra-zionist trolls like "Mister Crap" to post here does not seem appropriate or at all necessary, in terms of the "wide range of perspectives" SLLU is intended to give voice to.