R
ruben
Guest
Whenever I was asked whom I voted for in the last recent Israeli National elections, I proudly responded "My President has been already elected - Obama". So in this sense you can count me perhaps as one of the world Obama's symphatisers, who shares his "Imagine" song views.
I must confess that after his Cairo Reconciliation Speech, I have become in great doubt about who Obama really is and really thinks. I am in doubt not from the Israeli right wing side who sees GWBush as the best the world can have from the USA, but quite from the other side.
The other side who sincerely wishes the USA to take what in my eyes would be a positive role, both in the Middle East and worldwide. In this sense, perhaps you can count me as one of the hundreds of millions in the Muslim world and in the Occident as well, waiting for change.
Obama's speech brought no much new in the text, and some gross things to review.
Under the slogan of forwarding sincerity, Obama forwarded sincerity in what is comfortable to his view to forward, but hided much of the main issues the peoples of the East are worried about.
Let's be sincere about the nuclear Iranian issue, fine. What about the Israeli nuclear capability as part of the vigilance/control package ? Will Mr Obama's vision for a future worldwide de-nuclearization be enough to convince the Iranian people to vote on behalf of an anti-nuclear candidate in next elections?
Let's be truly sincere about the US and the Arab World. What about the issue of oil ? Who controls it, who benefites from it, and specially who doesn't ? Isn't it the main "source of tension" ?
Let's be sincere about democracy, literacy, woman status and all other issues it is not clear in which stand Obama preached them, instead of talking about the control of Arab oil. Any small indication or undirect disaproval of all these problems within the US friendly moderate regimes and their reckless internal secret police repression, Mr Obama ? Not that unfriendly USA regimes are better, but if you sell sincerity, sincerity obliges.
And in my opinion, one of the biggest failures if not a gross lie, was Obama's principle value about Terror and Violence. This issue merits a very cautious approach, and a clear cut disassociation from mass civilian murder.
But Mr Obama, who liked so much to remind Americans about their revolutiionary Fathers tradition, lied when with a wrinkle to the Palestinians he reminded that all subjugated peoples in History advanced their cause thrugh peacefull means only. Was this the way George Washington led the American people to Independence ?
True, to claim that violence is the only way, would be a gross mistake too. And worst than that to mix between violence and terror. What is violence ? It is the right of all oppressed peoples to apply force to liberate themselves. Force can be applyied in very different ways. One of them, and a very clever and recommended one, was the type of force applyied by Mahatma Ghandi, Luther King, and the African National Congress.
But let's not fool ourselves in that in all these cases, it was the underlined threat of violence the one who pressed freedom's adversaries. Yes, better to threat than to fight, and if you have to fight, fight against organized military forced and never against civilians. Never stain your freedom flag. But I don't think any oppressive nation will fade away from her status as such by the begging empty hands of the barefoot.
No one, and I mean no one, has any right to murder, and even less to mass murder under any circumstances, be it clear cut said. But oppressed do have a natural right to fight oppression. Dennying this will denny the American Constitution.
I am somewhat pisted off because the man who told the American People "Yes we can", was very very restrained in extending his hands to a whole world in deep need of friendship by the US and deep need of economic fairness and hi-tech assistance.
He looked very defiant too, as if the millions hearing him were millions of Obama's supporters = an assumption that Obama himself dennyies as a stereotype. So who were you so much challenging beyond your dearest allyies - those hundred of millions hoping the mightest country in the world can bring a positive change. Unclear, Obama, my friend.
Had you to satisfy some dark but mighty corners within the USA ?
So I have not been so happy by seeing Obama freedom preaching hosted by Mubarak's retro oppressive regime. Yet the Palestinians both in the streets and at the political high levels have been quite clever in their reaction. Good intentions -they said on different TVs- they have heard several times - let's see now the dids.
Cheers,
Ruben
I must confess that after his Cairo Reconciliation Speech, I have become in great doubt about who Obama really is and really thinks. I am in doubt not from the Israeli right wing side who sees GWBush as the best the world can have from the USA, but quite from the other side.
The other side who sincerely wishes the USA to take what in my eyes would be a positive role, both in the Middle East and worldwide. In this sense, perhaps you can count me as one of the hundreds of millions in the Muslim world and in the Occident as well, waiting for change.
Obama's speech brought no much new in the text, and some gross things to review.
Under the slogan of forwarding sincerity, Obama forwarded sincerity in what is comfortable to his view to forward, but hided much of the main issues the peoples of the East are worried about.
Let's be sincere about the nuclear Iranian issue, fine. What about the Israeli nuclear capability as part of the vigilance/control package ? Will Mr Obama's vision for a future worldwide de-nuclearization be enough to convince the Iranian people to vote on behalf of an anti-nuclear candidate in next elections?
Let's be truly sincere about the US and the Arab World. What about the issue of oil ? Who controls it, who benefites from it, and specially who doesn't ? Isn't it the main "source of tension" ?
Let's be sincere about democracy, literacy, woman status and all other issues it is not clear in which stand Obama preached them, instead of talking about the control of Arab oil. Any small indication or undirect disaproval of all these problems within the US friendly moderate regimes and their reckless internal secret police repression, Mr Obama ? Not that unfriendly USA regimes are better, but if you sell sincerity, sincerity obliges.
And in my opinion, one of the biggest failures if not a gross lie, was Obama's principle value about Terror and Violence. This issue merits a very cautious approach, and a clear cut disassociation from mass civilian murder.
But Mr Obama, who liked so much to remind Americans about their revolutiionary Fathers tradition, lied when with a wrinkle to the Palestinians he reminded that all subjugated peoples in History advanced their cause thrugh peacefull means only. Was this the way George Washington led the American people to Independence ?
True, to claim that violence is the only way, would be a gross mistake too. And worst than that to mix between violence and terror. What is violence ? It is the right of all oppressed peoples to apply force to liberate themselves. Force can be applyied in very different ways. One of them, and a very clever and recommended one, was the type of force applyied by Mahatma Ghandi, Luther King, and the African National Congress.
But let's not fool ourselves in that in all these cases, it was the underlined threat of violence the one who pressed freedom's adversaries. Yes, better to threat than to fight, and if you have to fight, fight against organized military forced and never against civilians. Never stain your freedom flag. But I don't think any oppressive nation will fade away from her status as such by the begging empty hands of the barefoot.
No one, and I mean no one, has any right to murder, and even less to mass murder under any circumstances, be it clear cut said. But oppressed do have a natural right to fight oppression. Dennying this will denny the American Constitution.
I am somewhat pisted off because the man who told the American People "Yes we can", was very very restrained in extending his hands to a whole world in deep need of friendship by the US and deep need of economic fairness and hi-tech assistance.
He looked very defiant too, as if the millions hearing him were millions of Obama's supporters = an assumption that Obama himself dennyies as a stereotype. So who were you so much challenging beyond your dearest allyies - those hundred of millions hoping the mightest country in the world can bring a positive change. Unclear, Obama, my friend.
Had you to satisfy some dark but mighty corners within the USA ?
So I have not been so happy by seeing Obama freedom preaching hosted by Mubarak's retro oppressive regime. Yet the Palestinians both in the streets and at the political high levels have been quite clever in their reaction. Good intentions -they said on different TVs- they have heard several times - let's see now the dids.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
