[Marxism] Uri Avnery: TWO AMERICAS

[Walter Lippmann]

The concept of TWO AMERICAS has a long and venerable history. It's
one I first ran across in a 1948 speech by James P. Cannon, but it
is a vehicle which has been used by others to express their hopes
for a better future based on changed social relationships in the
United States of America. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used it in
his "I Have a Dream" speech as have others. It reflects the social
differentiation within the country - that is, that we do NOT all 
share a common interest - and an aspiration for a progressive
resolution of the contradictions which wrack the nation. Paul Reti 
posted this to the Greenleft list, from which I'm reposting it. 

This is, quite frankly, Avnery's endorsement of Obama. Of Barack
Hussein Obama. And while it may make no fundamental, no principled
difference to many of us here in the United States, Avnery explains
how and why the possible election of Obama could make a difference to
a fiercely militant opponent of the Israeli regime like himself, and
along with him, many others in the world who would like to see the
United States play a more positive, or at least a less harmful role
in the world we all live in. And in the absence of anyone on the left
making a notable impact (Cynthia McKinney is still my choice), today
there's no question but that Obama would be the lesser of three evils, 
and that it would be possible he could make some small difference in 
the world we live in, for the better. The campaign to elect Obama, 
obviously endorsed by a wing of the political rulership of the USA
(from George Will to Peggy Noonan to Zbigniev Brezinski, of course)
reflects a division within the ranks of the capitalist world as to
how the United States should function in the world: through a firm
committment to violence no matter what, or to a mixture of that and
negotiations. 

The Barack Obama presidential campaign proves, more than anything,
that the great majority of the people of the United States who see
a need for serious change - however ambiguously they conceive it - 
believe that it must be done through the election of a better 
individual into the government through the Democratic Party and,
until that historical dead weight is removed, little social or
political process will be possible, not to speak of a new social
and political party with a progressive social, and class basis.


Walter Lippmann
New York City


======================================================
TWO AMERICAS
By Uri Avnery
22 March 2008

"WAR IS much too serious a thing to be left to military
men," in Talleyrand's memorable words. In the same spirit,
one could say: The American presidential elections are much
too serious to be left to the Americans.

The US is now the only super-power on earth. It will remain
so for quite some time to come. The decisions of the
President of the United States affect every human being on
this planet.

Unfortunately, the citizens of the world have no part in
these elections. But they may, at least, voice an opinion.

Availing myself of this right I say: I am for Barack Obama.

FIRST OF ALL I must confess: my attitude towards the US is
one of unrequited love. In my youth I was a great admirer.
Like many others of my generation, I grew up on the legend
of the new, idealistic country of pioneers, the world's
torch of freedom. I admired Abe Lincoln, who freed the
slaves, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who hastened to the
rescue of besieged Britain, when it stood alone against the
Nazi monster, and who entered World War II at the decisive
moment. I grew up on Wild West movies.

Gradually, I lost my illusions. Joe McCarthy helped me along
the way. I learned that with depressing regularity, the US
is seized by some hysteria or other. But every time, just
before the brink of the abyss, it draws back.   

During the Vietnam War I took part in demonstrations. I
happened to be in America in 1967, and participated in the
legendary march of the half million to the Pentagon. I
reached the entrance of the building and saw before me a
line of cold-eyed soldiers who seemed to be just itching to
open fire. At the last moment it occurred to me that it
would be unseemly for an Israeli Member of the Knesset to be
implicated, so I jumped from the ledge of the entrance and
twisted my ankle.

Somehow I got on the CIA (or was it the FBI?) black list. I
managed to obtain a visa only with great difficulty, and was
struck forever from the list of invitees to the American
embassy parties in Tel Aviv. I don't know if this happened
because of those protests, or because of my friendship with
Henri Curiel, a Jewish-Egyptian revolutionary who helped us
in our contacts with the PLO. The Americans held him, quite
mistakenly, to be a KGB agent.

At the same time, my name was struck by the Soviets from
every list of people invited from Israel. Perhaps they
considered me a CIA agent (as I was called in the Israeli
Communist party paper). So I was one of the few people in
the world who appeared simultaneously on the black lists of
both the USA and the Soviet Union - a source of moderate
pride to me.

My friend Afif Safieh, now the chief PLO representative in
the US, argues that there are two Americas: the America
which exterminated the Native Americans and enslaved the
blacks, the America of Hiroshima and McCarthy, and the other
America, the America of the Declaration of Independence, of
Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt.

In these terms, George Bush belongs to the first. Obama, his
opposite in almost every respect, represents the second.


ONE CAN arrive at Obama by a process of elimination.     

John McCain is a continuation of Bush. More attractive,
probably more intelligent (which doesn't mean much). But he
is more of the same. The same policy - a dangerous mix of
intoxication with power and simple-mindedness. The same
world of the Wild West myth, of Good Guys (Americans and
their stooges) and Bad Guys (everybody else). A macho world
of sham masculinity, where everything is seen through the
sights of a gun.

McCain will go on with the wars, and may start new ones. His
economic agenda is the same "swinish capitalism" (Shimon
Peres' phrase), which has now brought disaster on the
economy of the US, and the economy of all of us.

Eight years of Bush are enough for us. Thank you.

Hillary? True, there is something very positive in the fact
that a woman is a potential candidate for the leadership of
the most powerful country in the world. As the old Jewish
blessing has it:  Blessed art thou, the Lord, our God, who
let us live to see this day. I believe that the feminist
revolution was by far the most important one of the 20th
Century, since it overturns the social patterns of thousands
of years, and perhaps also the biological patterns of
million of years. This revolution is still going on, and the
election of a woman president would be a milestone.

But it is not enough that it be a woman. It is also
important which woman it is.

I spent some years struggling against Golda Meir, the worst
Prime Minister Israel ever had. Almost all recent female
leaders of countries have started wars: Margaret Thatcher
started the Falklands War, Golda Meir bears the
responsibility for the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War,
Indira Gandhi made war on Pakistan, the current presidents
of the Philippines and Sri Lanka are conducting internal
wars. 

The usual explanation is that in order to prevail in a man's
world, a woman politician has to prove that she is at least
as tough as the men are. When she comes to power, she wants
to show that she, too, can make war and command armies.
Hillary has already acted tough by voting for the disastrous
Iraq war.

(Years ago, when she came out for a Palestinian  state, Gush
Shalom demonstrated in her honor in front of the US embassy
in Tel Aviv. We wanted to present her with a bunch of
flowers. The embassy people treated us as enemies and
refused to accept the flowers. Since then, Hillary has 
not uttered another word in favor of the Palestinians.)

I don't know how much she was a partner to her husband's
decisions in the White House. The President's wife may be
closest to his ear - and the President's husband will
probably be closest to her ear. Anyhow, in the eight years
of Bill Clinton nothing good for Israeli-Palestinian peace
happened. In his "peace team" there were a lot of American
Jews, but not a single American Arab. He was totally
subservient to the Israel lobby, and on his watch the number
of Israeli settlers in the Palestinian territories more than
doubled.

Israel doesn't really need another term of Billary.

Hillary is a run of the mill politician. If McCain is a
continuation of Bush, Hillary is an extension of the entire
present American political system, the present policy and
the present routine. But the world needs another America.

THE NAME of another America is Obama. Full name: Barack
Hussein Obama.

The very fact that this person can be a serious contender
for the presidency at all restores my faith in the
possibilities inherent in America. After the excesses of
Senator Joe McCarthy there was President John Kennedy. After
Bush there can be Obama. Only in America.

The great message of Obama is Obama himself. A person who
has roots in three continents (and another half: Hawaii). 
A person whose education spans the wide world. A person who
can see reality from the viewpoints of America, Africa and
Asia. A person who is both black and white. A new kind of
American, an American of the 21st Century.

I am not as naïve as I sound. I realize that in his speeches
there is more enthusiasm than content. We can't know what 
he will do once elected president. President Obama may
disappoint us. But I prefer to take a risk with a man 
like this than to know in advance what the two routine
politicians, his competitors, will do. 

I am not overly impressed by election speeches. I have
conducted four election campaigns myself and I know that
there are things one has to say and things one must not say.
It's all with limited liability. But beyond all the
speechifying, one fact is more important than a million
words: Obama opposed the Iraq invasion from the start, when
this took integrity and a lot of courage. Hillary voted for
the war and changed her position only when public opinion
had changed. McCain supports the war even now.

We in Israel know the huge difference between opposing a war
in its first, decisive hour, and opposing it after a month,
a year or five years.

On the other hand, perhaps this very fact - more even than
the color of his skin, his middle name and his "lack of
experience" - will work against him. The voters do not like
a person who was right when they were wrong. It's like
admitting: he was wise and we were stupid. When a politician
wants to be elected, he would be well advised to hide the
fact that he was right.

A personal note: as an optimist from birth, I like Obama's
optimism. I prefer a candidate who brings hope over one
destroying hope. Optimism spurs to action, pessimism
produces nothing but despair.

America needs a complete overhaul. Not just a wash, not just
a wax job, not just a new coat of paint. It needs a new
motor, a change of the entire leadership, a reappraisal of
its position in the world, a change of values.

Can Obama do this? I hope so. I am not sure. But I am quite
sure that the other two will not.

HERE A JEW will pop the classic question: Is it good for the
Jews?

The people who claim to speak for the American Jews, the
"leaders" who were not elected by anyone, the chiefs of the
fetid "organizations", are conducting a dirty campaign of
defamation and sly hints against him. If his middle name is
Hussein and he is black, he must be an "Arab-lover". Also,
he did not distance himself enough from the anti-Semite
Louis Farakhan. 

The same "leaders" are in bed with the most loathsome
racists in the US, obscurantist fundamentalists and
blood-stained neo-cons. But most American Jews know that
their place is not there. The unholy alliance with those
types will inevitably come home to roost. The Jews have to
be where they have always been: in the progressive camp,
striving for equality and the separation between state and
religion.

IT MUST be asked: Is it good for Israel?

All three candidates have groveled at the feet of AIPAC. 
The fawning of all three before the Israeli leadership is
disgusting. They all show a lack of integrity. But I know
that they have no choice. That's how it is in the USA.

In spite of this, Obama succeeded in getting out one
courageous sentence. Speaking before a mainly Jewish
audience in Cleveland, he said: "There is a strain within
the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an
unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, you're anti-Israel
and that can't be the measure of our friendship with
Israel."

I hope that the American Barack (blessed, in Arabic), if
elected, will not turn into a replica of the Israeli Barak
(lightning, in Hebrew).

Real friendship means: when you see that your friend is
drunk, you don't encourage him to drive. You offer to take
him home. I am longing for an American president who will
have the courage and the honesty to tell our leaders: Dear
friends, you are drunk with power! You are speeding along a
highway that leads to an abyss!

Perhaps Barack Obama will be such a friend. This would be a
blessing for us, too.





















.