Hopefully, Obama is Not a Used Car Dealer

In my article, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Barack Obama, and the Fate of America, I mentioned that one of the things viewed as unacceptable to the political mainstream in this country is “a fair and just solution to the problem of meaningful Palestinian statehood.” With his slavish remarks at the recent AIPAC conference, Senator Barack Obama, issued an uncritical endorsement of the program of the most right wing elements of the Zionist movement, and suggested, at least through his words, that he has no real interest in a fair and just solution to that problem.

Obama’s defenders will argue that he had no choice. He had to make the kind of remarks he made if he hopes to be elected president in November. They are right, if in fact Obama is just another politician, a used car dealer who will say anything to clench a deal. In that case, in order to clench the deal with the Zionist lobby, and in order not to be smeared as the “Hamas” candidate, Obama did have to say what he said.

However, if Obama is the candidate of change, as his campaign declares, if he is the candidate who has built his formidable war chest with small contributions from ordinary Americans, as he boasts, and if he is hence not beholden to the entrenched Washington lobbying establishment, then he definitely did not have to say what he said.

By promising to renounce any Palestinian claims to Jerusalem, he eliminated any meaningful chance for a negotiated settlement to the Palestinian conflict by declaring his opposition to the one point Palestinian negotiators are not willing to compromise on, the retention of Jerusalem as the capital of a future, viable Palestinian state.

By insinuating an unwillingness to talk with the leaders of Hamas, he compromised the most promising pillar of his diplomatic strategy, one designed to demonstrate his movement away from the Bush/Cheney doctrine of preemptive, no room for diplomacy militarism—namely, a willingness to talk, in good faith, with our enemies.

If this is an example of the reality of the an Obama-led foreign policy, it leaves little room for the vaunted change he speaks of. While appeasing in the wildest way the most bellicose elements of the Zionist movement, his statements run counter to the wishes of the majority of Israelis, and leave virtually no room for either Palestinian or Israeli peace activists.

They also send a very clear message to Muslims and Arabs, both in this country and globally. If I could summarize that message it would be, “I need neither your good will, nor your support.” While that may be true domestically, in light of the political weakness of the Muslim community in this country, it would certainly not be true globally.

If Obama’s value as an “African American” candidate is largely symbolic, As Michael Eric Dyson and others, including this writer have argued, then that symbolic value extends beyond the African American community, and America at large. It extends to the people of the world. If Africans, Asians, Europeans and Latin Americans view the thus far successful Obama candidacy as a symbol of a changed social and political climate in America that is a harbinger of policies that will bring the interests of the American empire into closer alignment with the interests of the rest of the world, then the Palestinian issue is a litmus test of sorts as to the sincerity of any American politician to pursue a new type of politics. In this regard, Obama has failed miserably.

Why is that so? In his brilliant assessment of the “electability” of Obama, A Bound Man, Shelby Steele mentions that the greatest question surrounding Obama is that we really do not know exactly what he stands for. Steele asks, fittingly, what are the principles or issues that Obama is willing to give his life for? We do not know. Despite spending twenty years with Minister Jeremiah Wright, we know he would not risk everything for his church or his pastor. Despite his advocacy for the underdog and the downtrodden, we know he was not willing to go out on a limb for the Palestinian people. Despite his opposition to the war in Iraq, we know, in light of his comments at AIPAC, he will not wager everything for peace in the Middle East. We do not even know if Obama believes Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel, as he declared in his AIPAC speech, or a final status issue to be decided between the two sides through negotiations, as he "clarified" a day later. Which of these two positions is he willing to risk everything, possibly even the presidency, defending?

Steele is of the opinion that unless Obama can answer this question, “What does he really stand for?” he will not be elected, because eventually the public will see through him, especially when John McCain can answer this question so clearly and readily. It remains to be seen if his assessment is accurate.

In fairness to Obama, he was not in an easy position when he stood before the assembled forces of AIPAC. What was he to say? He could have simply said that as President he would bring together all of the parties to the conflict and help to facilitate negotiations that lead to a lasting peace in the region that respects the fundamental interests of all involved. He could have said that there is no realistic chance for peace unless all parties to the conflict respect and implement relevant UN Resolutions. He could have said that as President he would work to defuse the climate of hate that leads to such a distortion of the true nature of the area's people, contributing to such a biased American policy in the region.

Many will argue that such demands would be unrealistic for anyone aspiring to the presidency of the United States. Perhaps that is true if we were dealing with normal politicians. Indeed, that could be seen as asking too much. However, Obama has made a case to the country that he is not a normal politician. Maybe he isn’t. Hopefully, he is not a used car dealer either.