Kathy Kelly: Pushing for Peace in Palestine

America's Middle East policy -- specifically the prospects for peace in Palestine -- is getting a lot of attention this week as President Obama prepares for his visit to Egypt. The world will be listening closely to the words the President will speak to the Arab and Muslim people around the globe. Our President's words will be key in our understanding of how he will steer America's foreign policy in this important region.

I reported last month on the Palestine Office-Michigan's Nakba-61 commemoration on May 16, 2009, as I published the speech by peace activist and respected Middle East policy analyst Phylllis Bennis here. As a companion piece, I have posted below the additional speech from that evening by peace activist, co-coordinator of the Voices for Creative Nonviolence, and three-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee Kathy Kelly. The commentary by Bennis and Kelly add some clarity to the issues that all Americans need to better understand.

-- Rico Thomas Rico

Kathy Kelly of the

Voices for Creative Nonviolence

Will Obama Bring Change to U.S. Policy in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan?

Two of the biggest issues waiting for President-elect Barack Obama are, first, the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and, second, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.  On both counts, we don't know exactly how the new president will handle these hot policy issues.  Obama's political stump speeches and pronouncements -- in typical, non-offensive political fashion -- are too vague to get a clear picture of his intended policy implementation.  The truth won't be revealed until he sets foot in the Oval Office.

While we wait for Obama to take office, America has a clear national leadership vacuum, as both foreign and domestic policy drifts rudderlessly toward January 20th. George W. Bush has been a presidential empty suit for eight years and now the whole suit has disappeared.  In the Gaza Strip in Palestine, the Israeli government is taking full and final advantage of the Bush Administration's 8-year hands-off policy in Palestine.  Obviously, the Israeli government doesn't trust campaign pronouncements either.

I am predicting that once Obama is sworn into office, he is going to meet highly visible American opposition to Israel's outrageous and obviously illegal military actions and activities in Palestine.  His supporters will be less tolerant of -- and more vocal about -- Israel's violations of international law and crimes against humanity as exhibited in Gaza over that last 18 months and more.  His supporters are going to want "change" in American foreign policy toward Israel and Palestine.  "Change" ultimately may be an albatross draped on Obama by his own supporters.  That's my prediction.

At the recent United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) General Assembly in Chicago, Palestinian-American Ali Abunimah addressed the issue of American foreign policy in Palestine and whether Obama may or may not bring "change" to the Middle East arena.  Abunimah's speech is provided below.  Americans should take the time to listen to these words in light of the conflict in the Gaza Strip and as we wait for someone to occupy the Oval Office.    

-- Rico Thomas Rico

              

Ali Abunimuh Speaking in Chicago

at the UFPJ General Assembly

13 December 2008

Check in Hand, Nowhere to Go

Just this one time I wish I had answered the phone.

A phone solicitor was asking for monetary contributions to the presidential campaign of a prominent U.S. Senator from a large Midwestern state. They needed money, I’m sure, for expensive TV ads to be broadcast over the public airwaves. These are the same ads that should, in actuality, cost little or nothing. (What part of “public” airwaves don’t we understand?)

Luckily, they got my wife on the phone.

It seems this particular U.S. Senator – who shall remain nameless for the sake of fairness – had the audacity of hope that we would donate to his campaign after he so rudely pulled out of the Michigan primary. He and a few other Dem candidates pulled out and promised not to campaign here. Of course, Mrs. Slick kept her name on the ballot. And Dennis Kucinich, like any good peacenik liberal with proper street cred, was running late and missed the deadline to pull out of the primary.

So now, the legislature must quickly peel out of their hunting clothes and pass some legislation to add all the names back on the ballot. Pass legislation? Yeah, right.

While we sit around waiting to see how it shakes out, please don’t send me any e-mail messages about how the Democratic Party is disenfranchising people by moving the primary up. For those who make this complaint, I need to remind them that they are already disenfranchised. Each and every time Iowa and New Hampshire leads the presidential election season – with their nonsensical claim to electoral superiority – you are disenfranchised. Usually by the time the primary reaches Michigan, the nominee is nearly locked up and the next thing you know a Michael Dukakis bumper sticker is on your vehicle.

I agree with Carl Levin, my former boss, the nomination choke-hold by Iowa and New Hampshire needs to end. The lead-off states should be rotated every four years to better reflect the make-up of the general population. Both parties would benefit by enabling us to make better decisions about the candidates. It’s all about democracy. Yeah, right.

I’ve got my checkbook out and an easy four-figure donation ready to go to a good candidate. But the candidate will be required to come to Michigan in person to get it. All I can do now is sit by the phone, turn on the TV, and watch “An Inconvenient Truth” while waiting for that good candidate to show up.

-- Rico Thomas Rico