Hopes and Prospects: on War & Peace
Barack Obama:
Supports Arab Peace Initiative (two states) with exceptions
The Obama-Netanyahu-Abbas meetings in May 2009 have been widely interpreted as a turning point in US Middle East policy.The consensus calls for a Palestinian state to be established in united Gaza and the West bank after Israel's withdrawal. The Arab
Peace Initiative adds that the Arab states should then normalize relations with Israel. The initiative was later adopted by the Organization of Islamic States, including Iran.
Obama has praised the initiative and called on the Arab states to proceed to
normalize relations with Israel, scrupulously evading the core of the proposal: reiteration of the international consensus. His studied omission can only be understood as [the same] US rejectionist stand that has blocked a diplomatic settlement since the
1970s, with rare and temporary exceptions. There are no signs that Obama is willing even to consider the Arab Peace Initiative. That was underscored in Obama's much heralded address to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, 2009.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.177-178
Jun 1, 2010
Barack Obama:
Continued Israeli settlements in West Bank are illegitimate
In his June 4, 2009 address to the Muslim world in Cairo, Obama once again echoed Bush's "vision" of two states, without saying what he means by the phrase "Palestine state." His intentions are clarified by his one explicit criticism of Israel: "The
US does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. "That is, Israel should live up to Phase I of the 2003
Road Map, rejected at once by Israel with tacit US support, as noted--through the truth is that Obama has ruled out even steps of the Bush I variety to withdraw from participation in these crimes.The operative words are "legitimacy" & "continued."
By omission, Obama indicates that he accepts Bush's vision: the vast existing settlement and infrastructure projects are "legitimate," thus ensuring that the phrase "Palestinian state" means "fried chicken."
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.188-191
Jun 1, 2010
Barack Obama:
OpEd: 2008: Denounced Mumbai attacks, but not Gaza attacks
On Israel-Palestine, rumors began circulating that Obama might depart from the US rejectionism that has blocked a political settlement for over thirty years. The record, however, never provided any basis for taking rumors seriously.Before the
primaries, I reviewed Obama's formal positions at the time. They gave no reason for any expectations beyond enthusiastic support for Israeli crimes. Particularly revealing was his reaction to Israel's sharply accelerated assault on Gaza, opening its
violation of the cease-fire on Nov. 4, 2008, as voters were going to the polls to elect Obama, then breaking out in full fury on Dec. 27 after rejection of Hamas initiatives to reinstate the cease-fire. To these crimes Obama's response was silence--
unlike, say, the late November terrorist attack in Mumbai, which he was quick to denounce, along with the "hateful ideology" that lay behind it. In the case of Gaza, his staff hid behind the mantra that "there is one president at a time."
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.233
Jun 1, 2010
Barack Obama:
OpEd: Relying heavily on drones causes civilian casualties
On Iraq, Obama has frequently been praised for his "principled opposition" to the war. In reality, his opposition has been entirely unprincipled throughout. The war, he said, was a "strategic blunder."Obama's "vision" was to shift forces from Iraq to
Afghanistan. Obama strongly endorsed the Bush administration policy of attacking suspected al-Qaeda leaders in countries Washington has not (yet) invaded. Presumably, Obama also accepts the more expansive Bush doctrine that the US not only has the right
to invade countries as it chooses (unless it is a "blunder," too costly to us), but also to attack others that Washington claims were supporting resistance to its aggression. In particular, Obama is relying more heavily than Bush on the raids by drones
that have killed many civilians in Pakistan. Drones have killed about 14 alleged terrorists and 700 civilians--a hit rate of 2%.
Afghan president Hamid Karzai's first message to President-elect Obama: "End US airstrikes that risk civilian casualties."
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.234-242
Jun 1, 2010
Bill Clinton:
1994 North Korea Framework Agreement largely observed
In 1994. neither the US nor North Korea was fully in accord with its commitments, but the Framework Agreement was largely being observed. North Korea had stopped testing long-range missiles.
It had perhaps one or two bombs' worth of plutonium, and was verifiably not making more. After seven Bush years of confrontation, North Korea has 8 to 10 bombs and long-range missiles, and it is developing plutonium. The
Clinton administration had also worked out a plan to buy out, indirectly, the North's medium and long-range missiles; it was ready to be signed in 2000 but Bush let it fall by the wayside and today the North retains all its formidable missile capacity.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.138-139
Jun 1, 2010
George Bush Sr.:
April 1990: sent Congressional delegation to reassure Saddam
Washington's strong support for Saddam Hussein thought the period of his worst atrocities in the 1980s, when he was so admired in Washington that his most shocking crimes--the murderous slaughter of Kurds--were denied by the Reagan administration and
congressional protests were blocked. The excuse offered is that Iran was more dangerous, but apart from the cynicism, such apologetics cannot be taken seriously. Well after Iraq's war with Iran, the US continued to support Saddam, even to expedite his
development of weapons of mass destruction.In 1990, Pres. Bush I even sent a high-level congressional delegation, led by Sen. Bob Dole, to convey his personal greetings to his good friend and to assure him that he should disregard criticisms by "the
haughty and pampered press," who are out of control.
A few months later Saddam defied or misunderstood orders, and shifted from admired friend to the embodiment of evil. All such matters have been consigned to the usual repository of unwelcome fact.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.127-128
Jun 1, 2010
George Bush Sr.:
2007: Panama declared Day of Mourning about 1989 US invasion
In December 2007, Panama declared a Day of Mourning to commemorate the US invasion of 1989, which killed thousands of poor people, so Panamanian human rights groups concluded, when Bush I bombed the El Chorillo slums and other civilian targets.
The Day of Mourning of the unpeople scarcely merited a flicker of an eyelid here. It is also of no interest that Bush's invasion of Panama, another textbook example of aggression, appears to have been more deadly that Saddam's invasion of
Kuwait a few months later. Similarly unworthy of note is the fact that Washington's greatest fear was that Saddam would imitate its behavior in
Panama, installing a client government and then leaving, the main reason Washington blocked diplomacy with almost complete media cooperation.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.134
Jun 1, 2010
George W. Bush:
OpEd: Chose to confront North Korea; then they built nukes
When Bush II came into office, both North Korea and the US were bound by the Framework Agreement of 1994. Neither was fully in accord with its commitments, but the agreement was largely being observed. North Korea had stopped testing long-range missiles.
It had perhaps 2 bombs' worth of plutonium, and was verifiably not making more. After seven Bush years of confrontation, North Korea has 8 to 10 bombs and long-range missiles, and it is developing plutonium.In Sep. 2005, under international pressure,
Washington agreed to turn to negotiations, within the 6-power framework. They achieved substantial success. North Korea agreed to abandon "all nuclear weapons and existing weapons programs" and allow international inspections, in return for international
aid & non-aggression pledge from the US. The ink was barely dry on the agreement when the Bush administration renewed the threat of force.
After Washington scuttled the promising Sep. 2005 agreements, North Korea carried out a test of a nuclear weapon.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.138-139
Jun 1, 2010
John Kerry:
2006 Arab Peace Initiative is a re-alignment towards peace
Obama's "new initiative" for the Middle East was spelled out most extensively by John Kerry, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and regular emissary to the region, in an important speech at the Brookings Institution on March 4, 2009.
Kerry urges that we face the unpleasant fact that our honorable efforts bring about a political settlement have failed, primarily because of the unwillingness of the Arab states to make peace. Furthermore, all of our efforts "to give the
Israelis a legitimate partner of peace," for which Israel has always yearned, have foundered on Palestinian intransigence. Now, however, there is a welcome change. With the Arab Peace Initiative of 2006, the
Arab states have finally signaled their willingness to accept Israel's presence in the region. "This re-alignment can help to lay the groundwork for progress towards peace," Kerry said, as we "re-conceptualize" the problem, focusing on the Iranian threat
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.201
Jun 1, 2010
Noam Chomsky:
Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian elections
Despite the harsh US-Israeli punishment of Gaza, and flooding the West Bank's Fatah-led government with a diplomatic and economic support to persuade Palestinians in both territories to embrace Fatah and isolate Hamas, the opposite is happening: Hamas's
popularity is increasing in the West Bank. Hamas won Palestinian elections in 2006, prompting the Israeli government and the Bush administration to lead a world-wide boycott of the Palestinian Authority. The goal, unconcealed, is to punish the miscreants
who fail to grasp the essential principle of democracy: Do what we say, or else.It is important not to overlook the fact that the US-Israel operate is tandem. Israel relies crucially on US military, economic, diplomatic, and ideological support.
It will proceed as far as the US allows. Its criminal actions are US crimes.
In response to the unfortunate free elections of Jan. 2006, US-Israeli punishment of the people of Gaza is sharply increased, peaking with many killing in early June.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.145-146
Jun 1, 2010
Noam Chomsky:
Iranian nukes are recognized as their right by most of world
The goal of a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone has been endorsed by Iran, and is supported by a large majority of Americans and Iranians. It is, however, dismissed by the US government and both political parties, and it is hard to find even a mentio
in mainstream discussion despite the intense focus on the alleged threat of Iranian nuclear weapons program. The developing countries (G-77, now more than 130), agree that Iran has the "inalienable rights" of all parties to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty "to develop research, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination," rights that would also extend to US allies Israel, Pakistan, and India were they to accept the NPT. When Washington and the media assert tha
Iran is defying "the world" by enriching uranium, they are defining "the world" to be Washington and whoever happens to agree with it at the moment. By definition, Washington is part of the world. London too, almost always.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.169
Jun 1, 2010
Noam Chomsky:
Disallow Israeli settlements by discontinuing US funding
The Obama-Clinton formulation repeats the Bush administration draft of the 2003 Roadmap: "Israel freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)." All sides formally accept the Roadmap, overlooking the fact the Israel, with US
support, at once added 14 "reservations" that render it inoperable.If Obama were at all serious about opposing settlement expansions, he could easily proceed with concrete measures, for example, by reducing US aid by the amount devoted to this purpose
That would hardly be a radical or courageous move. The Bush I administration did so (reducing loan guarantees), but after the Oslo accord in 1993, Pres. Clinton left calculations to the government of Israel. Unsurprisingly, there was no change in the
expenditures flowing to the settlements.
An Obama administration official informed the press that the Bush I measures are "not under discussion," and the pressures will be "largely symbolic." In short, Obama understands, just as Clinton and Bush II did
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.187-190
Jun 1, 2010
Ronald Reagan:
Strong support for Saddam Hussein throughout 1980s
Washington's strong support for Saddam Hussein thought the period of his worst atrocities in the 1980s, when he was so admired in Washington that his most shocking crimes--the murderous slaughter of Kurds--were denied by the Reagan administration and
congressional protests were blocked. The excuse offered is that Iran was more dangerous, but apart from the cynicism, such apologetics cannot be taken seriously. Well after Iraq's war with Iran, the US continued to support Saddam, even to expedite his
development of weapons of mass destruction.In 1990, Pres. Bush I even sent a high-level congressional delegation, led by Sen. Bob Dole, to convey his personal greetings to his good friend and to assure him that he should disregard criticisms by "the
haughty and pampered press," who are out of control.
A few months later Saddam defied or misunderstood orders, and shifted from admired friend to the embodiment of evil. All such matters have been consigned to the usual repository of unwelcome fact.
Source: Hopes and Prospects, by Noam Chomsky, p.127-128
Jun 1, 2010
Page last updated: Jul 19, 2011