Obama On His Knees Before AIPAC

Lest there be any doubt that Illinois Senator Barack Obama is in the attack Iran camp, his worshipful stance at the AIPAC policy forum days ago should dispel any doubts that he favors Jewish supremacy first, last, and always. On that occasion he said that "peace through security is the only way for Israel," with security being the usual euphemism for Jewish domination. Obama made sure to mention that he had visited Israel and seen the damage done by Katyusha rockets fired by Hizbollah, which he regards as an independent evil force, as opposed to Israel, which only reluctantly employs force and always in self-defense. Naturally, he made no mention of Israel's cluster bombs leveling Lebanon, among other war crimes. After all, only Jewish lives are precious.

"It is important to remember," said Obama, invoking a common strain of political mythology, "that Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon only to have Iran supply Hezbollah with thousands of rockets." In point of fact, Israel was forced out of Lebanon by Hizbollah, which enjoys overwhelming support among the Lebanese people for this fact alone. The lamentable state of physical security for Israelis has everything to do with the aggressive actions of the U.S. and Israel and nothing to do with Hizbollah.

But in Obama's view Arabs and Muslims are the sole problem in the region. "Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real." We instantly know that Arabs and Muslims are the source of the "violence," not the vast destruction wrought by Israel's war crimes and other violations of international law. "Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision." Unfortunately, the United States' efforts to "help Israel achieve peace" do not appear promising, consisting, as they do, of decades of support for colonization of Arab land, a never-ending avalanche of lethal weaponry, billions of dollars in aid, and diplomatic support for any and all crimes Israel sees fit to commit. This is the path to peace?

"That effort (to achieve peace)," says Obama, "begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point." First of all, Lebanon has been a democracy for some time and the Palestinians have elected leaders repeatedly. Furthermore, it remains a bit of a mystery what sort of "security" can reasonably be expected from a state that refuses to abide by international law and continually colonizes Arab lands based on Biblical injunctions. No doubt this is an anti-Semitic observation, but using a Bronze Age real estate guide to conduct international affairs in the 21st Century doesn't seem the most prudent course of action.

Only canned laughter could redeem Obama's assertion that we need to "rally the world to our values and vision." The Illinois Senator fears that the Iraq occupation will prevent people from seeing our essential goodness. How ungrateful can people get? Of course, it wouldn't do to mention that the Iraq invasion was instigated by neo-con (read Jewish supremacist) advisers in accordance with plans laid out when they worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Not to mention that we are moving dangerously close to human extinction based precisely on having rallied the world to "our values and vision." Since WWII what nation has had a greater impact in shaping world events than the United States?

Nevertheless, the problem in Iraq, says Obama, is not U.S. war crimes and the contempt for international law upon which they are based, but "someone else's civil war." The obvious fact that the "civil war" is a product of the U.S. invasion itself, which has united Iraqis against Washington and its collaborators, is too subtle a point for Obama's discriminating eye to discern. Thank God, he's a lot smarter than the "dummy" Bush.

Obama favors not an end to the Iraq war, but a "phased redeployment" of U.S. troops, a policy geared towards helping a mythical independent Iraqi government "slow the bloodshed and promote stability." In short, with hundreds of thousands dead, Obama wants our victims to bleed slower and refrain from attacking us as we rape and dismember their land. The audacity of hope indeed. With hopes like Obama's, who needs despair?

But Obama is at his worst in his views on Iran and the Holocaust. This is what he told AIPAC: "Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers."

Why is it wrong to question atrocity numbers and whether or not gas chambers existed in WWII? It is no simple matter to arrive at accurate figures for atrocities during periods of mass upheaval, so the questioning of statistics is perfectly legitimate. And if the lack of forensic evidence for the existence of gas chambers arouses skepticism, what's wrong with that? Well, of course, we all know the answer to that. Those in charge of the purity of our morals insist that one must be a Hitler worshiper to think like this. But this is no answer.

Actually, Prime Minister Ahmadinejad claimed that the orthdox version of the Holocaust was a myth, and called the Teheran Conference to investigate what really happened. Western states could have done the same, but slavish devotion to Israel and heresy trials against those who have the audacity to hope that their doubts about gas chambers and atrocity numbers can be given a fair hearing, have made this impossible. How is that Ahmadinejad's fault?

Although Ahmadinejad did not in fact call for "wiping Israel off the map," Obama claims he did: "In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done."

What became of Palestine in 1948? Was it not quite literally "wiped off the map?" And what happened to the Iraqi state of 2003? Was it legally disposed of? According to Barack Obama, now genuflecting at every AIPAC orthodoxy, it was.

Michael Smith