President Obama, Israel, Africans & Racism
President Obama has been so busy that it is hard to keep up with him. The news reports that his administration was feverishly discussing whether the United States should have a presence at the United Nations Racism Conference being held in Geneva, Australia. They regrettably decided not to attend because they felt that Israel’s settling of Palestine was being unfairly singled out. It is very interesting that President Obama’s administration chose to look out for the interests of Israel over the objections of the Congressional Black Caucus. This is a tough question but it must be asked. I want to ponder how does President Obama work his way through this diplomatic mine field? Let me take a stab.
It appears that President Obama does not want to acknowledge most of the world’s opinion that the Jewish acquisition in 1948 of land occupied by Palestinians was based on racism. When I use the term racism I am defining it as one human group discriminating against another human group because the one group feels superior by birth over the other group. In other words, for example, the Jews feel they were born superior to the Palestinians so anything that they would do to the Palestinians is alright because of Jewish superiority. This is just an example. I am not saying that racism was the underlying foundation on why Jews decided to forcibly occupy land that Palestinians had traditionally occupied. When Jewish leadership was discussing places to establish a homeland they contemplated Uganda as well as Palestine. They settled on Palestine because the Bible could be used as a tool to justify their aggression. They co-opted the story of Genesis and Exodus as though they were the people of Moses and Palestine was the land promised to them by God as they were freed from bondage in Egypt. Uganda just did not lend itself to this story line. So we see that the issue was not race, but which piece of land could best be used to sway public opinion to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland. Therefore, the question for me is not the term used to identify the wrong. Wrong by any name is a wrong. Let’s muddy the water just a bit.
When Hitler was burning these same Jews in furnaces if President Obama was then President would he boycott a United Nations Conference on racism because the conference singled out Germany? In fact, would the Jewish people whose family and friends were being burned in the furnaces care what name was being given to the wrong that Hitler was bestowing upon their people? I would think not!! I would think the position would be I don’t care what you call the wrong, just do what you can to stop the wrong. Now in my understanding of history, Hitler clearly believed that Germans were superior to Jews so anything thing was fair to be done to the Jews because of German superiority. I am sure that Jewish control of the German economy greatly figured in on Hitler’s decision to try and annihilate the German Jewish population, but that was not the justification that he used to wage his domestic war. Hitler used white German supremacy as the tool to get the German populace to support his genocide. Again I ask, if this were taking place today would President Obama or present day Israel want the world to boycott the United Nations on Racism because Germany was singled out? OK, let’s widen the discussion.
Truly when Britons, or the Dutch, followed Cecil Rhodes to forcibly settle present day Zimbabwe it was a white supremacy philosophy that was used to justify the oppression of the Zimbabwean people. Ian Smith used the same white supremacy philosophy to forcibly occupy present day South Africa. At that time of this history I do not think that either Zimbabwean or South African people would have demanded that their oppressors’ philosophy be called racism before they would accept help from the outside world. Who cares about language if you allow the wrong to continue? The key is not the use of language. The key is stopping the oppressive behavior!! Even right now an argument can be made that the sanctions against Zimbabwe that are supported by the United States government and Britain is an act of racism. I am sure that both governments would vehemently contest being called racist. OK, let’s grant that wish. Let’s grant that the policies of Israel toward the Palestinians, and the U.S. and British policies toward Zimbabwe are not racist. Let’s grant that. However, I would now use the language is these policies fair? Are these policies right? Is it right for Israel, or any country to take somebody’s land because they can? Was it right for white people to take the very land that is now America from the indigenous people who occupied the land? Was it right for whites to take the land of South Africa and Zimbabwe because they could? Forget the term racism. Let’s deal with right and wrong. Is stealing anything from a person right? Whether the theft is land, oil, diamonds, copper, gold, or something as small as a tootsie roll when it is taken without permission then the act is wrong. If anything is/was taken without consent then the acquisition was not right. This is the issue that the United Nations Conference on Racism is trying to deal with. America and all other nations of the world should be there. The God of justice demands our presence. President Obama, your calling is to be the change agent. Don’t let politics taint your calling. The world has been waiting for you. You must engage all players in the world about all the major issues. President Obama, I humbly say, on this one my brother, I believe you should have listened to the Congressional Black Caucus. America’s attendance would have helped the world to decrease the hate and increase the love. Thank you for listening to AjabuSpeaks.
YOU+ME=US