Jesse Jackson, not a spokesman for Obama but one who certainly believes he knows what’s coming, spoke about key foreign policy changes he sees in an Obama administration.
He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy – saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."
The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel’s interests first" would end.
Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.
First, let’s talk about "first", as in the US "putting Israel’s interests first". First in front of whom, ours? Hasn’t been that was so far. First in front of the myriad countries in the Middle East who have been attacking, or supporting attacks on, Israel? Well sure, but our alliance with a well-functioning democracy — the best in the region — against aggressor nations and gangs is, I would think, a good thing.
I guess the main question would be; which country or countries would get boosted? The Palestinians? The folks who vote in terrorist organizations to run their government and lob rockets virtually daily into civilian Israeli towns? The ones who, while living in Israel, get the right to vote and all? The ones who, when given land for peace, use that land for launching attacks? Yeah, apparently them.
Jackson is especially critical of President Bush’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
"Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss," Jackson says. "Barack will change that," because, as long as the Palestinians haven’t seen justice, the Middle East will "remain a source of danger to us all."
If we’d just wipe Israel off the map, like Hamas wants, we’d all be much safer. Yeah, right.
Second, about those alliances allegedly needing reviving. I think Jackson has believed the media reports that we went into Iraq "unilaterally". A browsing of Wikipedia will dispel that misnomer. Granted, the US has had the vast majority of troops there, but we had more to contribute. Much like the widow’s mite, it’s not so much the absolute amount contributed as it is the sort of sacrifice it may be. You’ll find listed a number of countries freed from Soviet domination when we won the Cold War. You’ll find quite a diverse collection of nationalities, all in support of the US and its policy in Iraq.
You won’t find France on there. That’s because they decided to work with Iraq, under the table and subverting the sanctions, for their own economic gain. When the shooting started, however, they slinked away and waited it out. Yeah, that’s the kind of country I want in my alliance. Revive us today, indeed, Obama.
So our foreign policy may indeed look quite different than it does today, but that’s not necessarily a better thing. Since the Iraq war, many countries (including, just last night, Canada and, interestingly, France) have shifted to the right politically. Zaptero’s Spain tried appeasing terrorism by pulling out of Iraq after a change in administrations, but the Madrid bombings happened anyway. The world has nudged slightly toward the right, and where it hasn’t, in hopes of avoiding confrontation, it’s been hounded by the bad guys anyway.
The world is beginning to see what George W. Bush saw, but unfortunately the United States apparently doesn’t.
