Aref Assaf, Obama, the lesser of two evils?

02-01-2008

As you firm up your vote, here is the scoop on what Senator Obama said to block the recent UN resolution to condemn Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Even the most progressive candidate, Barack Obama, went out of his way to take Israel's side. In a letter to U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, Obama urged the United States not to allow a UN resolution condemning Israel's illegal collective punishment of the Palestinians to pass unless it also acknowledged Palestinian rocket attacks, which Israel's latest closure was a response to. "Israel is forced to do this,"

Obama wrote. Here is the full published text:

Dear Ambassador Khalilzad,

I understand that today the UN Security Council met regarding the situation in Gaza, and that a resolution or statement could be forthcoming from the Council in short order.

I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condemn the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel.

All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families.

However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this. Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians.

The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks. If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.

Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator


Obama's objection to the resolution as one-sided was legitimate -- up to a point. Of course the Palestinian rocket attacks that have killed 18 Israelis in four years are morally indefensible. But as usual with American pronouncements about anything involving the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, Obama's letter completely failed to address the context of those attacks, including the harsh Israeli military actions (including extrajudicial executions) in Gaza that have killed more than 816 Gazans, including 379 noncombatants, since January 2006. And, of course, it failed to mention the most crucial fact: Gaza has been under a brutal occupation for decades.

But even leaving those matters aside, Obama's claim that Israel was "forced" to impose a total siege on the population of Gaza to try to end rocket attacks by Palestinian militants is simply false. Israel was not "forced" to do that any more than America was "forced" to invade Iraq. Yes, Israel has the right to defend itself against the Qassam rocket attacks. But it was not forced to cut off power, medicine and food to do that. It chose to impose that siege (with Bush's obvious, if unspoken, blessing) because it hoped that by punishing the people of Gaza, they would overthrow their Hamas-led government.
Should Barack Obama become our next President, the Israeli-Palestinian situation will remain as impossible to solve if he's not able to challenge this orthodoxy that continually portrays what's happening there in such a skewed light. As an African-American man, though, he would have a unique opportunity to challenge much of the ingrained folklore on the other side of the fence as well. Many in the Arab world still do think of America as a place where minorities are not treated as real Americans. But just having him in the White House is not enough. Obama would have to have the courage to stand up to the powerful Israeli-American lobby and make the tough decisions about protecting the rights of innocent Palestinians that are not always politically expedient.

See my expanded commentary on the subject.