Obama in Sudan, Pakistan and Palestine

What the American administration is doing in Sudan is exactly what the George W. Bush administration did, even though he did not resort to war and occupation. With the approach of the appointed referendum date, American policies toward Sudan were revealed concerning Sudan’s unity or the secession of the South from [the rest of Sudan].

The Obama administration formally announced that it supports the South’s secession, and it wants it to occur smoothly with aid from the North. It began to offer incentives to President Omar al-Bashir’s government to ensure a referendum which would lead to secession, and it made offers to remove Sudan’s name from the list of countries that sponsor terrorism, to drop the sanctions placed on it and to cover up the case that Ocampo raised against al-Bashir at the International Criminal Court, accusing him of committing war crimes in Darfur.

These incentives reveal the politicization of the International Court, of sanctions and of being put on the list of countries that sponsor terrorism. They even reveal that the administration has proposed to bargain for the passage of “the American Zionist Project,” to divide a number of Arab countries of the region under the pretext of establishing a new Middle East that is formed from a mosaic of small countries established on the basis of race, ethnicity, sect, province or any other reasons.

The most dangerous thing that the Bush administration did in Iraq was to divide it into three or four small countries so that a unified Iraq with an Arab and Islamic identity was gone; it fragmented and was abolished in wars and internal divisions.

When the Obama administration insists on separating Southern Sudan from the North on the basis of race and religion, that must be seen as a prelude to separating Darfur and other regions — since the entity known as Sudan, as it exists today, will be gone — but without a need to occupy it directly, as was the case with Iraq.

And of course, if all that is achieved, God forbid, the “Separation Project” will move to Egypt and from there to other Arab countries.

If the American Zionist Project that was applied to divide Iraq was shamefully exposed, what is going on in Sudan has occurred and is occurring deceptively, while [they are] extending the hand of friendship and intervening to solve the crises that America and the West inflamed, encouraged and supported — beginning with the project to separate the South and ending with the project to unleash civil war in Darfur.

And the sad thing is that the Sudanese voice (government and opposition) did not open fire on American policies, expose them and isolate them as they occurred and are still occurring with their counterparts in Iraq.

The experience proved that there is no use in dialogue with America or being receptive toward it or trying to understand it. The Obama administration — and previously, the Bush administration — knew what they wanted and [attempts] to curry favor [with them] did not dissuade them from carrying out the project to separate the South from the North and then cut off Darfur, thus ripping apart Sudan.

If the opposite occurred, and America was treated like an enemy in Sudan — just like it is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Palestine — then the project to separate the South would be impeded or at least then America would pay the price and not achieve “two positive outcomes”: the first being the division of Sudan and the second being not exposed as it should be.

It proved that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s statement was correct, that: “The price of resistance is less costly than the price of accepting American conditions.” [This is true] for the simple reason that resistance can impede or foil the American Project, whereas accepting America’s conditions — even if only partly — extracts a heavy price, and there is no debating that.

No matter how much the Ramallah authority or the Egyptian government or any Arab government does to comply with the American Project in order to put themselves on equal footing, this project will completely adopt the Likudnik Zionist plan until the end.

Compliance here, as events proved, led to a greater American identification with the Zionist Project, which resulted in (1) adopting the goal of recognizing the Jewish religion of the State, (2) turning a blind eye toward the settlements and (3) covering up the war crimes that were committed.

This price is very high in every respect: with regard to stability and rights and from a political standpoint and the actual results of the course of the conflict, whereas the price which would possibly be paid by resisting would be less than that and its advantage decisive — especially if it became a Palestinian, Arab, Muslim and international position.

Speaking of Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan, he did not go beyond all the policies of George W. Bush. With respect to Pakistan, however, he brought the crowning touch, since he launched a direct and indirect American war in Pakistan, which began to threaten its unity and cohesiveness and afflicted it with heavy losses in terms of civilian lives.

Pakistan under the Obama administration is completely in danger like Iraq, Sudan and Palestine, although the danger to Afghanistan is less. [And this is true] for a simple reason, which is the decisive resistance, which only accepted leaving without chains or conditions or accomplishing the impossible with resolute resistance which did not give way.

Hence the question arises: Isn’t it time for all those who expected great things from Obama, based on captivated hopes, illusions and false sugary speech, to engage in self-criticism since experience confirmed the exact opposite?

Those who rely on the axiom: “We say to those who did well — well done! And to those who did poorly — You did poorly!” — we say to them: You said to someone who didn’t do anything good, “Well done,” but you still have not said to him, “You did poorly!” And he did much worse than any American president who preceded him.

And speaking of all the misdeeds of Obama and his administration that were mentioned above, what American president announced — as Obama did in congratulatory telegrams to Perez and Netanyahu on the anniversary of the “independence” of the Zionist entity — that he is convinced that “historical Palestine is the historic homeland of the Jewish people?”*

In this manner he has wiped away the existence of the Arabs and Muslims in Palestine since he arrived, and the remainder of them said to him that day, “Well done!”

*Editor’s Note: This quote refers to a speech made by President Obama at the U.N. General Assembly, where he stated, “Israel is a sovereign state, and the historic homeland of the Jewish people.”