“Embarrassing” Obama in Free-Fall as Gangster
Morals Kill Peace Process
By Stuart Littlewood
September 26, 2011
Stuart Littlewood argues that a complete lack of morality or
any sense of justice is behind US President Barack Obama’s embracing of Tel
Aviv’s disinformation and his enslavement by Israel, as manifested in his UN
speech in relation to the Palestinian bid for statehood.
connected with the old discredited peace “circus” should be allowed anywhere
near the new quest for justice in the Holy Land. Too many are strangers to
fair play and appear to share the mentality of gangsters and others of loose
The only surprise about the Palestinians' bid for freedom at
the United Nations was the panicky response of US president and the speed
with which he jettisoned all pretence of integrity and political
Obama’s brazen hypocrisy
“After enthusing how "more and more people were demanding
their universal right to live in freedom and dignity", he
[Obama] required the Palestinians to go cap-in-hand to their
tormentor, Israel, and once again haggle for their freedom
and dignity and the return of their stolen property.”
Obama’s speech to the UN overflowed with Tel Aviv disinformation and was
a brazen advertisement for his enslavement by Israel.
how "more and more people were demanding their universal right to live in
freedom and dignity", he required the Palestinians to go cap-in-hand to
their tormentor, Israel, and once again haggle for their freedom and dignity
and the return of their stolen property.
Shrugging off the
international community’s responsibilities, he tried to put the onus for
sorting out the criminal mess on the Palestinians’ shoulders: "Ultimately,
it is Israelis and Palestinians – not us – who must reach agreement on the
issues that divide them: on borders and security; on refugees and
What ignorance. What an embarrassment. Does anyone out
there still look on him as leader of the Western world?
this for unadulterated humbug?
The United States will continue to support those nations that
transition to democracy – with greater trade and investment, so that
freedom is followed by opportunity. We will pursue a deeper engagement
with governments, but also civil society – students and entrepreneurs;
political parties and the press. We have banned those who abuse human
rights from travelling to our country, and sanctioned those who trample
on human rights abroad. And we will always serve as a voice for those
who have been silenced.
Cannot Obama see the excruciating irony of what he says?
Obama “now cuts a pathetic figure, from golden boy to
crap-merchant in less than three years, a freak who
prematurely accepted the top peace prize but still lacks the
moral fibre to earn it.”
The man now cuts a pathetic figure, from golden boy to crap-merchant in
less than three years, a freak who prematurely accepted the top peace prize
but still lacks the moral fibre to earn it. And he’s going for a second
It’s time to take that noble trophy off the mantlepiece, Mr
Obama, and hand it back.
His speech, so heavily larded with lies, was
only surpassed by the rantings of his buddy, Israel's prime minister,
Binyamin Netanyahu, a dangerous imbecile whose finger hovers over
the only nuclear button in the Middle East. Both were desperately
trying to paint the the armed-to-the-teeth bully-boy as the victim. "The
truth is that Israel wants peace, the truth is that I want peace," Netanyahu
said, when all the evidence points the other way. He added that "we cannot
achieve peace through UN resolutions".
He means, of course, that
Israel cannot achieve its greedy ambitions through UN resolutions. On the
other hand, the UN route is the only way Palestinians are ever likely to
Mahmoud Abbas – wrong man for the task
The bid for statehood had to be made, I believe. But was Mahmoud Abbas
the right man to present the case? He lacks legitimacy. His presidential
term expired long ago and he cannot claim to speak for a unified people.
Abbas's speech was good in parts but sadly inept in key respects. Did he
rise to the occasion? No, not really. Not in the way a better man might have
done – with a brighter team of scriptwriters.
"The PLO [Palestine
Liberation Organization] and the Palestinian people adhere to the
renouncement of violence," he said, but demanded no reciprocity. Since
non-violence has got them nowhere, why throw away the option, especially
when Israel uses extreme violence every day?
"We adhere to the option
of negotiating a lasting solution to the conflict in accordance with
resolutions of international legitimacy... The Palestine Liberation
Organization is ready to return immediately to the negotiating table on the
basis of the adopted terms of reference based on international legitimacy
and a complete cessation of settlement activities." Adopted terms of
reference based on international legitimacy? What on earth does he mean? It
needs spelling out.
And is he happy to negotiate while still under
illegal occupation and blockade? Shouldn’t the occupation end before
anything else begins?
“Many would say Abbas should not contemplate or even
mention negotiations while the occupation, blockade and
Abbas said he wants to "build cooperative relations based on parity and
equity between two neighbouring states" but didn't link this to the
necessary requirement for parity to be established first, together with a
level playing field, and for Israel to remove its jackboot from Palestine's
neck. Many would say Abbas should not contemplate or even mention
negotiations while the occupation, blockade and land-grabs continue.
Negotiations, in this case, mean pressuring the Palestinians to forego their
rights under international law and settle for far less than they are
entitled to, just to avoid a kerfuffle in the UN and save the US’s face.
Abbas should insist on securing those rights first and, otherwise, asking
bluntly if the United Nations has now abandoned its raft of resolutions and
is letting the gangsters rewrite international law and the UN Charter in
their own stinking urine to suit Israel's ambitions.
have shot up when he claimed that after being mired is disunity “we
succeeded months ago in achieving national reconciliation..." How much unity
was behind the statehood bid? He mentioned the continuing blockade on the
Gaza Strip only in passing. The vicious strangulation and wrecking of Gaza
is a monstrous war crime perpetrated by Israel and an ugly blot on the
escutcheon of the international community, yet Abbas made nothing of it,
reopening the old question: "whose side is this guy really on?"
Gaza’s cruel suffering has unlocked huge sympathy worldwide and done more
than anything else to focus international attention on the Palestinian
cause. But in preparing the bid Abbas’s team, worse than useless in the
past, seems to have sidelined the 1.5 million innocent people in the
beleaguered coastal enclave. Who can blame Gaza’s Hamas government for
wishing to distance themselves from the whole adventure? Were they properly
consulted? Were they permitted to participate? Were they allowed to preview
"Gaza’s cruel suffering has unlocked huge sympathy
worldwide and done more than anything else to focus
international attention on the Palestinian cause. But in
preparing the bid Abbas’s team, worse than useless in the
past, seems to have sidelined the 1.5 million innocent
people in the beleaguered coastal enclave.”
I now read that Abbas is to have deep discussions with Hamas. Better late
than never, I suppose, but what incompetence (or chicanery, take your pick).
Abbas's speech made a good job of describing the Palestinian people's
plight but a bad job of setting out the action required of the UN to deliver
a solution. Since lopsided negotiations so obviously failed the Palestinians
before and only served to buy the Israelis more time to establish
irreversible facts on the ground, wasn’t it rather silly of Abbas to offer
to play into their hands again?
He harked back to the “22/78 debacle”
of 1993, when negotiators agreed to establish a state of Palestine on only
22 per cent of the territory of historical Palestine. "We, by taking that
historic step, which was welcomed by the states of the world, made a major
concession in order to achieve a historic compromise that would allow
peace,” Abbas reminded everyone. That huge concession – a compromise too far
for many Palestinians – has been repeatedly flung back in the Palestinians’
face. As the 22/78 offer isn’t acceptable to Israel, the default position,
surely, is the 1947 Partition’s 43/56 per cent formula, with Jerusalem a
corpus separatum under UN protection. That was the basis on which the
Israeli state was recognized, although it was declared with no fixed
boundaries. Nobody, as far as I know, actually agreed to fluid,
The outcome of Palestine’s “day at the UN” is
that the Security Council has kicked the bid into the long grass while it
deliberates. Meanwhile, the
Quartet, another tainted and discredited body of peace brokers
that should be terminated, has issued a statement urging both sides to
resume talks and setting a timetable, but not calling explicitly for a halt
to construction of illegal Israeli settlements, the very thing that brought
previous talks to an end. More gangster, then.
As the bid wasn’t
addressed to the Quartet, they and their mouthpiece, the odious Mr Blair,
should at least do us the courtesy of keeping quiet until the Security
Council makes its response.
No sense of fair play
The situation is not complicated. You don't need a degree in politics or
diplomacy to understand. There can be no peace under occupation. To force
"negotiations" when one party has a gun to the other's head is stupid and
immoral. And to force negotiations when one party continues to steal the
other's lands, continues to commit war crimes and breaches every code of
conduct in the book, is not only doubly stupid and immoral – it’s
And continuing this relentless brow-beating – that’s how
gangsters behave in their low-life world.
For the rules of fair play,
you can do no better than look up the Laws of Cricket (as I’ve said in
my musings before). All players were expected to be civilized enough to
know what fair play meant, and for 250 years the Spirit of the game was
unwritten. As the game spread worldwide some players were so warped they
took diabolical “liberties”; so finally, in 2000, it was set down in
The game “should be played not only within its Laws but also
within the Spirit of the Game. Any action which is seen to abuse this spirit
causes injury to the game itself." Respect is a vitally important
For cricket, read “peace-making”. The United Nations has
laws and conventions in abundance but not the will to implement them despite
the high-minded words of its Charter. A large injection of Spirit is needed
As the Great Umpire in world affairs the UN should not
allow itself to be pushed around or deflected from fair play by
pain-in-the-ass gangsters and other low-life.
expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors
and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org.