I found very interesting article in an independent Russian resource http://www.ej.ru/?a=note&id=8365 by Stanislav Belkovsky.
I appreciate, that most of readers would not understand Russian, so I translated the article, skipping some jokes and the part concerning internal Russian problems. I can not translate the title though, because it is very rude. The point of view here belongs to the author, not to the translator.
"Lately, the Kremlin ideologists (or, rather, people, callingthemselves such) spread an interesting version: current Russianelite is selfless, they do not depend on greedy West. The proof iscurrent conflict with the West.I think, they mistake cause and effect. Russian elite wanted to beaccepted in Europe and America, to become a part of Western elite.It is just they could not make it.During the first years of Putin's rule, Putin made mostlypro-Western steps. He calmly closed our military bases, moved outmilitary forces, invited friendly USA forces; in 2000, Putinopenly discussed joining NATO. For internal use, it wasaccompanied by the fairy stories about restoration of RussianEmpire, to calm down Russian people. For external use, he offeredcompletely different story. The problem started in the middle ofthis decade, when the ruling Russian elite recognized that theyfail to become welcome as equal and close on the West. They triedhard and hoped that Russian money and political loyalty will do.It did not happen. Why? There are two reasons.
Russians believe they have right to attack Georgia because USAattacked Iraq. If USA can do as they like, Russia can attacktheir neighbors if they want.Both wars are criminal. Iraq war killed thousands of civilians,forced millions of people from their homes, caused destruction ofIraq's culture.What does it mean now to win this war?The war destroyed moral standing of the US in the world, degradedrespect for international law. People, who started Iraq war usingfalsified justifications should be tried as war criminals. Andthis should be done by our own initiative. Only then we, as UScitizens, will be able to disassociate ourselves from this war.Marina
I just red an article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/13/israelandthepalestinians.usa/print
It turns out, the killer, Sirhan, was a Palestinian terrorist. I wonder, is it a common knowledge? I never heard about it.
The paper in Guardian ends:
"If Israel had never come into existence, or if the United States had not supported it, or if Kennedy had not reaffirmed that support, Sirhan would probably never have pulled his trigger".
I guess, it sounds as direct threat to Obama. The author delicately suggests that Israel should be eliminated, to avoid further Palestinian violence. For me it sound as: "let us help Hitler to eliminate German Jews, then he will be happy and will behave nicely".
The author, Stephen Kinzer, is said to be former New York Times reporter. I like the word "former" here.
I read many articles in press, where authors praise Obama for masterful use of Internet.
I think, this campaign does not use full potential of this site. I have two proposals.
First, I propose to have regular questions and answer sessions, which could be called "Internet townhall". People would post their questions, then Obama or some of his advisors gives official answers from the campaign.
Second, I would like Obama or some of his advisers participate in the discussions on this site, not just post materials for discussion.
(1) With Internet Townhalls, people will get more actively involved in the movement. This is what Obama wanted from the beginning. Obama always says that he will be responsible to people who supported him. These Internet townhalls will be the first step to show that he means what he says.
(2) Now, the site virtually does not have any censoring. Lots of people post messages which contradict Obama's positions. They are not getting any reaction from the campaign, as far we can see. Often, they do not get objections from participants either. Readers may assume that the campaign does not have anything against this content. It makes people doubt Obama's sincerity. It would be good if some adviser actually commented that Obama does not share these views. It would be even better if we could see an explanation too, so people would understand Obama's reasoning.
I looked again at Obama's interview with J. Goldberg.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_on_zionism_and_hamas.php
Several things stand out I did not notice before. Particularly, he says this is "ironic" that his commitment to Israel is suspect, because A-A community blamed him for being too close to Jews - for working with 2 Jewish community organizers, among other similar things. I did not know that working next to Jews can be found objectionable. I did not know that (some?) blacks see things this way. Obama does not reject this point of view as racist in this interview. For him, it is just ironic. Probably, this was the mindset of this Trinity church he rejected just yesterday. I imagin, if somebody from this or similar church works as admin in this site, he will find pro-Israel comments offensive and will approve all anti-Semitic and anti-Israel messages.Another thing: he says the Israeli settlements "justify unjustifiable" actions of military Islamists. Do they "justify" or they do not "justify" - Obama's position is unclear. If the actions are not justifiable, why do we care what do they take for pretext?
Couple of days ago there was a post from Rabbi Michael Lerner.Now, I had chance to read it. I believe the "Rabbi" is a fake. Here are the actual mistakes he does, which betray his true identity.
`` Judaism teachesus to "love the stranger," (the Other'' - Judaism does not teachus to love stranger. True Rabbis point out that this is one offundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity.Requirement "do not oppress", do no harm, is basic and necessary.Requirement "to love" is impossible. Judaism teaches that we owelove to God only.
``For now, suffice it to say that the kind of Zionism that hasemerged in Israel ..'' - Zionism emerged in 19th century inEurope. Any Rabbi would know it.
``Zionism ...is fundamentally incompatible with the highestvalues of the Jewish tradition '' - Zionism is a movement whichcalls upon Jews to return to Palestine. It is based entirely onthe Torah. Any Rabbi know that.
``even as we develop a compassionate attitude toward the Jewishpeople of Israel'' My guess, compassion toward people ofIsrael is what this particular person should develop yet.
``For those who wish to see Judaism survive the twenty-firstcentury, a major first step is to separate the religion from itscurrent identity with the policies of a national state'' - Judaism has as much to do with the policies of Israel asChristianity with the policies of USA.
" Such a state, failing that central commandment...", Aswe know, there are 10 commandments. And "do not oppress stranger"is not among them. No rabbi would make such a mistake. Besides,Israel does not oppress Arabs living in Israel. They are Israelicitizens, they can democratically fight against Israel fromwithin, even in Knesset. It is well known that Arabs in Israel aremuch better off than Arabs in Arab countries. Israel tries its bestto defend herself from the Arabs, who do not live in Israel. Thepeople make hate of Israel their only business. Israel strives tocreate two states, when Arabs will live in their own state, as wasrequired by the 1948 UN resolution, and leave Israel alone. Theproblem is, Arabs do not agree with anything, short of eliminatingall Palestinian Jews.
In his response to Bush’s covered attack, Obama said he plans to talk with Syria and Iran who support Palestinians in their war against Isarel.. He never mentioned talking with Palestinians.
I think he is exactly right. Camp David failed, and it would fail all over again. I think this is because Palestinians ultimately have only one interest: elimination of Israel and Jews from Palestine. They are not interested in any compromise in negotiations, they need an elimination of the partner in the negotiation.
Talking with Syria and Iran is completely different. These countries have interests other than elimination of Israel. If compromise will be achieved, this may be a major victory.
Fear and anger are two powerful emotions, which are commonly used to bring people together and make them to folow a leader.
Barack does not use it. Some people say that Barack uses truth and logic to appeal to people. It is true, but it is not enough. Thuth is complicated and logic is boring. People will not listen to logic, when somebody else appeals to their strong animal instincts of fear and anger.
How does Barack make people listen?
- Barack talks about hope. But it is not just hope that somebody will give us something. Barack helps people to believe in themselves. Many people need it more than anything. It is like Wizard of Oz giving Cowardly Lion a liquid marked "Courage"
- Barack appeals to the best in people. This is property of all great teachers. People belong to the movement because it makes them proud of themselves.
Why do people trust him? Poor Hillary could not do it even if she tried. I think it is because, in his best times. Barack looks like he posesses this innner pease, empathy, courage, and self-confidence we all strive to have. He makes people want to be like him.
This explain Barack's limited appeal as well. Weak and wicked people can not follow his call. If this Cowardly Lion was a coward, he would not even want to drink this "Courage".
I think, by contrast, Hilary appeals to weak and wicked people. May be, this is a result of her adaptation, because these people are out of reach for Obama.
This is official - it will not happen.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/11/clinton.obama/
This is exactly what I wanted to hear. I may even think that our anger and outrage about this suggestion played some role in dropping this idea.
This is good news to end this weekend.
Today, I've posted a message on the thread on main page and I've been mobbed. 10 people attaked me, calling names, expressing their contempt for my point of view and me personally.
Yesterday, several people posted anti-semitic, anti-Israel comments under the thread, where Obama congratulates Israel on 60th anniversary. I was the only person, who tried to fight them back. I reported these comments to Admin, and nothing had been done.
My guess is, the compaign is OK with the anti-semitic statements, contradicting the official Obama's point of view on their official web site. It is when I expressed disagreement with the plan to pay Clinton' debt the compaign started fight.
I guess, I need to think again, why am I supporting Obama. I am not a part of this mob.
