Jackson – Obama Foreign Policy includes Apologies and less “Jewish clout”

The Rev. must be out of the doghouse for his “nutty” remarks about Obama’s, er uh, nuts. The NYPost published an interview today between Amir Taheri and Jesse Jackson. Jackson is in France, at a “World Policy Forum,” where he spoke about the foreign policies he feels an Obama administration would pursue.

According to Taheri, Jackson said Obama:

. . . 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.

Read the rest ->

Wow. I guess, for Jackson, “hymietown” is back. Didn’t Obama already get into trouble earlier this election season over remarks about Jerusalem? How about anti-Jewish material on his website? Regardless, such sweeping statements about Isreal, even using “Zionist” is telling about Jackson’s view of Jews. I bet he thinks all Jews are bankers who caused the mortgage meltdown (woooooo – I am being snarky, but would it really surprise anyone if this were the case?) And, just for the record, who is going to do all this “apologizing” Jackson talks about?

Buuuuuutt, you say, how can Jesse speak for Obama? Well, that’s also very interesting, and Jackson, of course, has a non-answer.

Jackson warns that he isn’t an Obama confidant or adviser, “just a supporter.” But he adds that Obama has been “a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.” Jackson’s son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson’s daughter went to school with Obama’s wife Michelle.

“We helped him start his career,” says Jackson. “And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged.”

Look at that second paragraph again. Jackson sounds as if he not only feels Obama owes him but he also appropriates Obama himself into Jackson’s civil rights work. Looks like Jackson thinks he’s Obama’s daddy. Seriously, Jackson is trying to take credit for Obama’s political existence. Fair? I have no idea, but that statement reveals a real lack of finesse. Or maybe finesse isn’t the point.

Don’t forget, Jackson, the de facto “Black American leader,” also has Chicago roots; and his son JJ Jr, is an Obama campaign manager. While Jackson may be a loose cannon, I just can’t see him deliberately placing his son in a precarious position.

And for those of you who might think electing Obama will go a long way to healing the racial wounds of America, think again.

Will Obama’s election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

“No, that chapter won’t be closed,” he says. “However, Obama’s victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades.”

An Obama election will be a “huge step” but not enough. Never enough. Shelby Steele, a notable AA writer and thinker on “Black America” would say that Jackson is signaling that “white America” will never be off the hook. I read it the same way. That’s, well, astounding because Obama’s campaign has touted his ability to be “trans-racial” and “bring people together,” not letting the past rule the present kind of thing. And here is Jackson, promising otherwise. Hmmmmmm.

Jackson was asked about Obama’s potential policies on a variety of issues, and he carefully started with the “I’m only a supporter, not a policy maker” hedge. But his remarks sound more precise than vague wishes on Jackson’s part.

What does Jackson want an Obama economic program to include?

On the economic front, he hopes for “major changes in our trading policy.”

“We cannot continue with the open-door policy,” he says. “We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad.”

“Open door?” Is that relating to trade or immigration as it affects trade, or both?
And how is Jackson channeling Obama with regard to the Iraq war?

Taheri says:

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as “an illegal and unjust act.” But he’s now sure that the United States “will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time.”

What of Obama’s promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting “realities on the ground.”

“We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there,” he says. “We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith.”

And on Iran – what does his non-connection with Obama tell him about that?

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama’s idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. “We’ve got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want,” Jackson says. “Nothing is gained by not talking to others.”

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran’s uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn’t start without preparations.

“Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy,” he says. “He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared,” he says.

Interestingly enough, Jackson doesn’t say WHO prepares the ground. Iran, for its part, thinks the US should abide by some preconditions. Newsbusters notes:

Vice President for Media Affairs Mehdi Kalhor said on Saturday that Iran has set two preconditions for holding talks with the United States of America.

In an exclusive interview with the Islamic Republic News Agency, he said as long as U.S. forces have not left the Middle East region and continues its support for the Zionist regime, talks between Iran and U.S. is off the agenda.
——————————-
On Saturday, Kalhor said Tehran would accept ‘repentance’ on behalf of the US government toward the Iranian people.

“Negotiations would be rational if the US moves out of the Middle East and the US government gives up its widespread support for the Zionist regime,” he said.

Apologies? Zionists? Well, remember what Jackson said:

. . . 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

Is this a response to Obama’s statement about meeting Iran without preconditions? And Obama’s vision for Israel, via Jackson?

“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.”

“Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims,” Jackson says. “Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith.”

Thanks to his BACKGROUND? Obama swears he’s not a muslim, so this must mean his years in Indonesia, right? Ecumenical approach? BLT is ecumenical? Since when? BLT at least excoriates whites, Jews and many other AAs. How ecumenical is that? Or is ecumenical a euphemism for humping the pulpit? (Want to see Rev Wright “riding dirty” again?)

Now, all this is verrrrrrry interesting. Is Jackson acting as a surrogate? His son, an Obama campaign manager, famously said the campaign had to figure out how to attack a white woman (Hillary) in a “post OJ world.” Jackson supposedly went off the reservation sometime later with his “cutting” remarks, accidentally or not, caught on camera and has remained relatively quiet since then. So why is he talking now?

If Jackson IS a surrogate of the easily denied variety, his remarks are worthy of comment although the campaign will surely disavow. The tone of his remarks as well as the substance are likely to offend many Americans. But since campaigns constantly toss out “trial balloons” via the easily denied surrogate, Jackson’s remarks will definitely present just such an opportunity, regardless.

But what if Jackson is lobbing spitballs? If his earlier remark about Obama’s dangles more accurately reflects the reality of the relationship, is this interview his “scissors?” Is Jackson trying to assert authority? Or is he trying to steer Obama’s choices by making public what he feels Obama cannot get away with and enable him to thus get “half a loaf?” And why THIS reporter and THIS paper?

The author, Amir Taheri, is the columnist who broke the story about Obama telling Iraqi leaders to “wait for the next administration.” Presumably, Taheri is no particular friend of the Obama campaign. Odd that Jackson would have consented to an interview with this particular journalist – even more so when you remember Jackson never met a microphone or podium he didn’t want to preen for. He could have talked to anyone. He talked to Taheri.

“Obama is about change,” Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

Is the NYPost the only paper covering the World Policy Forum? You know how Marshall McLuhan famously said “the medium IS the message?” In this case, I think it is as important to ask why Jackson chose this venue as it is to parse his words.

Of course, maybe the Post is the only paper covering this hugely important gathering on the French seaside.

Still, Jackson’s remarks are incendiary in terms of foreign policy and current US relationships. I doubt they’ll play well here at home – so why make them? Is it all a smoke screen? Or is it dead on? Either way, I don’t like the feelings these remarks give me.

There’s much not to like. Jackson’s vague status with Obama makes it difficult to infer from these remarks Obama’s positions. That’s on purpose. The remarks themselves signal some potentially huge shifts in US policy. I’m also not at all comfortable with the idea that such a shift could actually be signaled by Jackson before the US electorate votes.

And I don’t like the tone. The notable thing about his tone is Jackson is both accusatory and promising apologies. Jackson accuses his own country of gross misconduct and promises some form of repentance. Think Jackson will be the one Obama sends over to apologize? It would serve him right, but Jackson has always felt more sinned against than sinning and his remarks reflect that. Jackson may feel his country needs to apologize, but he probably feels he should be on the receiving end of that apology. Forever.