Obama’s contradictions at the UN General Assembly

US President Barack Obama’s final speech at the UN General Assembly has been touted as an excellent example of polished political rhetoric. It is, of course, within conventional parameters that such a generic analysis can be applied. As his track record of human rights violations demonstrates, the language of hope was tarnished swiftly by a legacy of indiscriminate murder, increased intervention abroad and, in the case of Palestine, the provision of Israel with the necessary military support in order to consolidate its colonial expansion by brutal military offensives against civilians.

Indeed, in Obama’s rhetoric regarding Palestine, the contradictions are easily discerned. Any negation of such dissonance should be taken as unbridled subservience towards an increasingly encouraged perception that international law and human rights violations are a natural political process, rather than an abomination.

Applying the convenient discourse of equality, Obama stated: “Surely Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognise the legitimacy of Israel [and if] Israel recognises that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land.”

Obama has not only manipulated the terminology used. The substituting of “incitement” for Palestinian resistance is by now routine. However, the issue of recognising Israel’s legitimacy is in direct contradiction with the aim of Palestinian liberation. He has also employed the expected tactic of distinguishing between the more recent settlement colonial expansion and historical Zionist colonial expansion, with absolute disregard for the atrocities committed and subsequent international acceptance of massacres, ethnic cleansing and forced displacement of the Palestinian population.

Obama: ‘Israel cannot permanently occupy Palestinian land’

It matters little that Obama’s notion of Palestinians settling for compromise was a fleeting mention in a speech that touched upon several other issues. The scant attention given to Palestinians is proof that, for the international community, the indigenous population exists as an afterthought, and one that should be subjected to further humiliating tactics in order to preserve the hegemonic narrative. This is because any attempt to achieve the opposite would unravel decades of false narratives, including those woven by the international community for Israel’s convenience.

As the end of Obama’s presidency draws near, there is no doubt that his legacy of furthering Israeli colonisation is, unfortunately, substantial. Despite rifts with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which have been utilised by mainstream media to portray a false sense of impatience with Israel’s belligerent character, Obama’s commitment towards colonisation has been constant and in line with US foreign policy in the region, where its infiltration and interventions have created a tide of forcibly displaced people reminiscent of the historical dispossession of the Palestinians. While the historical ramifications may differ according to each country, the degree of emulation and ensuing disregard of their humanitarian plight is eerily familiar. If one element of the diverse narratives had to be gleaned from the violent conflagration, it would be the insistence of eliminating political violence from the humanitarian context.

This is what Obama has also sought to imply in his brief statement regarding Palestine. It is a call for Palestinians to acquiesce to defeat, to verbalise a humiliation that would tarnish the entire spectrum of Palestinian history and memory. Needless to say, it is unlikely that the demand will reverberate with anyone but those within the upper echelons of the Palestinian Authority. The implications of such an imposition will, however, continue to generate yet more political debacles in which Palestine is even further removed from its history, solely to suit Israeli and international convenience.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.