Al Qaeda declares U.S. election for Obama, calls the new prez a "house negro"

After either a meticulous recount or a two-week power outage in the caves, Al Qaeda's quaint, 1950s TV technology has finally and grudgingly called the election for Barack Obama.

Al Qaeda's "Number Two," Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, immediately played the race card, reminding his audience new fewer than a dozen times in his video tirade that Obama is black; and not only black, but negro.

Al-Zawahiri's term for Obama is زنجي البيت (zanjii al-bayt) which al-Zawahiri translated into Arabic after watching Malcolm X refer to docile black Americans as "house negroes." Rebellious blacks like X were in X's words "field negroes," زنوج الحقل (zunuuj al-hiql in al-Zawahiri's translation, or more likely the translation of Adam Gadahn, a.k.a. Azzam the American).

In the video, al-Zawahiri goes on to warn Muslims that the new American prez has "a heart full of hate" for Islam, and he tries to paint Obama as another crusader like George W. Bush. Alas, it seems "Number Two" wasn't following the U.S. election quite as obsessively as the rest of us.

The Middle East press reacts to Obama's victory

They're joyful. They're wary. They're joyfully wary and warily joyful. They love and fear change. They are the Middle East press reacting to
باراك حسين اوباما

Famously edgy columnist Tariq Alhomayeh of Asharq Alawsat tabbed Obama's electoral triumph "a great victory on an international public opinion level," and then he dressed down those Arab regimes who are belching out the "America has changed" rhetoric, asking when are you - the Arab autocracies and Islamists - going to change?

Eminent intellectual Tariq Ramadan, writing in The Star of Jordan, cautioned the Middle East that "we must not succumb to irrational hope"; hope that one man - Obama - is bigger than the American beast itself.

Ditto the Daily Star (Lebanon) editorial, which kept reminding readers that Obama is a "single mortal" (whither Michelle?) who can't undo the monstrosities of the Bush regime overnight.

An op-ed in al-Hayat called the Obama win an "end to illusion" that the so-called war on terror can be won with really big and (mostly) precise missiles.

One Ha'aretz op-ed said, with respect to the tasks facing the prez-elect, that the "American idol of today becomes tomorrow's punching bag." Another exlaimed "Yes, change here too," in reference to the coming Israeli elections.

The more conservative Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronot's main columnist was still making up his mind, noting that "Obama is black, which is bad for Israel, because we are white. But Obama is also young, which is good for Israel." (Because Israel is also young? Or because young black men are better than crotchety old white men?)

An editorial in the Egyptian Gazette noted that Obama's victory offers "a golden chance to put the Arab-U.S. ties in good shape... Obama's triumph as well as his change-oriented agenda may right a long litany of wrongs bequeathed to him by his predecessor." (There's a theme in those words common to almost all sentiments coming from Arab media.)

A Gulf News editorial exhaled that the Bush era of shock and horror will soon pass into more careful hands. It added, poignantly, that "most Arabs will pray that [Obama] not bring back to office members of Bill Clinton's Middle East team, discredited by their failure to advance the peace process and by their excessive partiality to Israel."

Hezbollah's al-Manar TV website actually had the most boring commentary on the Obama revolution. C'mon, guys!

Over in Iraq, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari (speaking on Al Arabiya TV) warned the president-elect to walk softly. "We don't expect any change to happen overnight or any hasty change in U.S. policy and commitment toward Iraq." Translation: we're not sure we believe in change.

Al Jazeera first reported that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad congratulated Barack Obama on his election victory, in a statement released to the press. "The great Iranian nation welcomes real, fundamental and fair changes in America's behaviour and policies, particularly in the Middle East region," said Ahmadinejad. (Um, yeah... "fundamental" - good one.)

And last but not least, Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi called Barack Obama's election as US president a "victory for blacks in America, who were slaves but are now becoming masters." But Qaddafi also said he fears for Obama's safety, reminding us all that transformational presidents such as Honest Abe and JFK were killed for their courage. "The people who physically eliminated Abraham Lincoln... can still be found in the United States. That is why I fear for his [Obama's] safety." You mean, John Wilkes Booth is still on the lam?

Must you always be so negative, Moammar? How 'bout a little dance?

President Barack Obama and the Middle East

OBAMA '08 - YOU ASKED FOR IT, YOU GOT IT!
Welcome to the Tuque Souq's special coverage of the 2008 U.S. presidential elections.

Barack Obama wins the 2008 U.S. presidential elections.

There, we've covered it. It doesn't have much of a catchy "Yes We Can" ring to it, but since we joined the coverage late, we thought we'd call it early.

Barack Obama: a leader sui generis. He's got it. And now he's got a couple of months to celebrate, work on what is sure to be a goose-bump-raising inaugural address, and think that the economy and the environment can dominate his early days in office.

Then it will be time for him to pick up his predecessors' Middle East baton; it bears the scars and scratches of many a presidential head who's bashed himself with it while facing the futility of resolving the Middle East conflict(s). But we expect Obama to try anyway.

But first, a totally unrelated aside...

McCAIN '08 - COUNTRY FIRST, JOHN A DISTANT SECOND
We'll always remember him for his "my friends" brand of folksiness coupled with his cute little "I can't believe this kid is beating me" smirk. Alas, John McCain's "Country First" slogan failed to catapult the Arizonan into the White House, and being a failed campaign slogan it is unlikely to be recycled. That puts McCain in the following company of presidential campaign slogans that utterly, utterly failed:

• Bob Dole (1996): "The Better Man for a Better America"
• Walter Mondale (1984): "America Needs a Change"
• Gerald Ford (1976): "He's Making Us Proud Again"
• Barry Goldwater (1964): "In your heart you know he's right"

Of course, Obama's "Change We/You Can Believe In" now gets lumped alongside winning presidential campaign slogans, including Warren G. Harding's "Cox and Cocktails" in 1920, William McKinley's "A Full Dinner Pail" in 1900, and of course Herbert Hoover's "A Chicken in every Pot and a Car in every Garage" in 1928, just before Hoover presided over the stock market crash and the Great Depression.

While McCain can now go back to working on his legacy, Obama inherits a Middle East foreign policy dossier that has been "misoverestimated" over the past 8 years.

Luckily, those old shoes left behind in the White House coat room aren't too big to fill.

THE 'W' STANDS FOR "WHERE IS YOUR PEACE PLAN NOW, DUDE?"
Remember this guy? Few besides Oliver Stone do. Not long ago he said that a comprehensive Middle East peace deal was possible within a year.

Said he: "We all can do more to build the conditions for peace. So I will call together an international meeting this fall of representatives from nations that support a two-state solution, reject violence, recognize Israel's right to exist and commit to all previous agreements between the parties."

How did it turn out? In its scope, it was as grand as clearing brush at Crawford Ranch. In its execution, it was an exercise in political meekness. And ultimately the 43rd U.S. President torpedoed his own Middle East peace initiative when the Israelis changed their minds and objected to it.

All in all, the Annapolis summit was little more than a news diversion during a particularly boring November of 2007. Nothing changed on the ground in the Middle East. Nobody expected Bush to put his tattered legacy on the line in a futilely Clintonian endeavor to cure the political equivalent of cancer.

So, in essence, in order for Obama to be the "change" candidate with respect to the Middle East peace push, he basically just has to show up. But of course, we'll all need him to do more.

And a few other players will be involved in the next attempt at Middle East harmony.

ISRAEL - TOO MANY CHEFS IN THE COALITION KITCHEN; FIRE BURNS DOWN LIVNI'S RESTAURANT BEFORE IT OPENS
She would have been prime minister of Israel if she had cobbled together a coalition; instead Tzipi Livni must sharper her claws for the coming battle with an old foe.

Coalition efforts broke down just short of the 50%-plus-one of Knesset seats Livni needed on the side of her Kadima party. She got the Labor Party led by former prime minister Ehud Barak, the secular "Pensioners" party, and the left-wing Meretz-Yachad party led by Peace Now founder Haim Oron.

With Kadima's 29, Labor's 19, the Pensioners' 4 and Meretz's 5, she was still 4 votes shy of a majority. Livni went after Shas, the main Haredi party and Israel's third-largest party at present with 12 seats. But Shas demanded of any government that it join that the issue of dividing Jerusalem (i.e. partitioning or sharing the city as 2 capitals of two sovereign states - Israel and Palestine - as the result of a comprehensive peace plan) be taken off the negotiating table.

Livni balked.

Israel has at least 34 active political parties, 13 of whom currently have seats in the Knesset. Right-wing, nationalist parties such as Likud, National Union, and Yisrael Beitenu (32 seats combined) dream of forming their own government some day. The so-called Arab parties - Ra'am, Balad, and Hadash (the latter being the part-communist party) which have only 10 seats combined - tend not to join coalition governments but might be counted upon to vote for a peace deal.

Alas, not even Shas's rival Haredi party - United Torah Judaism - with its 6 seats, was willing to jump in with Livni.

It would have been a tenuous coalition anyway - 5 or more parties ruling together - but no more so than Ehud Barak's One Israel coalition government in 1999 that beat back Likudnik Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu's hard-line approach to peace. Barak and One Israel took the peace process to the brink of obviation at Camp David in 2000, and came within a few miles of a peace deal with Syria up in the Golan Heights. (Of course, they failed to go all the way, but it got our pulses up for awhile there.)

And so, in Israel it's election season again. And speaking of Netanyahu, as the leader of the Likud party he's supremely confident that he can win over disgruntled Kadima party voters who only left Likud to follow Ariel Sharon, and then sing fear-mongering lullabies to the hawkish nationalists and the Haredim about a united Jerusalem, family allowances and getting tough on terror (what terror?).

Expect Barak to try to vulture away Kadima voters, too, with his "At least I've formed a coalition before" experience. But Labor would be lucky see an uptick in results next time around. And enough seats to rule - as they have for 40 of Israel's 60 years? Not gonna happen.

In the meantime, fallen-angel Ehud Olmert can flap yap from his trap about peace, Syria, Lebanon, the Golan Heights and the Sheba'a Farms, the still-treading-water 2002 Saudi comprehensive Arab-Israel peace initiative, sharing Jerusalem, the Right of Return, land swaps, the separation barrier, water and resource rights, settlements and outposts, a divided Hebron, security cooperation, an economic alliance, and the pesky issue of what to do with Hamastan (aka Gaza Strip)... but he'll have no power to do anything about it. (Funny how Israeli politicians get all magnanimous and conciliatory after they lose power.)

In short, Barack Obama may get a pass on Middle East mania until after the polls close in Israel next spring. But when the election is over, Obama might have to put plastic over the linens in the Lincoln bedroom, because Netanyahu has been known to get pissy about peace talk.

PALESTINE - BETWEEN A ROCK, A HARD PLACE, AND 40 OTHER DULL, BLUNTING, CONCUSSION-INDUCING OBJECTS
Depending on whom you ask, the next Palestinian presidential elections will be in 2009, 2010, or never. In the meantime, while we wait for a two-state solution (or, in a perfect world, a one-state solution), the prevailing reality is the 3-sort-of-state non-solution.

President Mahmoud Abbas, with his increasing supply of U.S.-trained and -armed Palestinian security forces, rules the still-occupied (don't forget) West Bank under the Fatah/PLO banner. Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas is Prime Minister, for lack of a more fantastical description, of the poverty-stricken-is-a-generous-term-for-it Gaza Strip.

While just 33 months ago Hamas developed the convenient habit in participating in Palestinian elections, the group is no stranger to meddling in Israeli ones. On the metaphorical eve of the 1996 Israeli polls, Hamas went bomb-crazy and help drive a suddenly terror-wary electorate into the arms of Netanyahu, killing Oslo then and there.

If karma cared, Hamas would drop dandelions this time round and nudge Israelis leftward, away from Bibi. More likely, the bizarre Likud-Hamas marriage of fear and loathing will leave the peace process as well oiled as a Gaza City gas station.

Abbas will likely stay atop the rubble heap of Palestinian politics for the foreseeable future, which doesn't bode well for the advancement of peace. He'll get to keep not making promises to his own people, keep not coming up with new ideas for comprehensive peace, and keep not expanding his legacy beyond that of caretaker (at best) and viceroy (at worst) of post-Arafat, pre-Barghouti Palestine.

Obama should have no qualms about photo-ops with Abbas; the latter has a preternatural inability to surprise and inspire a crowd with his words. But it's unlikely we'll see a meeting between the two before Israel gets its new house in order.

What will be interesting to see is whether Obama or Abbas is more hesitant to feign a smile next to Netanyahu, if and when Bibi wins Israel's elections.

The Tuque Souq is laying 3:1 on Obama, as Abbas has a much longer history of hiding his emotions. Why else would he be the only guy Israel allows to administer its occupation?

MIDDLE EAST CHATTER - GUNS, OIL, & WAR: IN OTHER WORDS, KEEP THAT "CHANGE" BUSINESS AT HOME
As for other countries in the region, here's what they might be telling President Obama come spring:

Iraq: "Take back your troops (to Kuwait... you know, just in case)."
Saudi Arabia: "Two-for-one barrels of oil, this Sunday only. We're committed to winning back our loyal customers."
Lebanon: "Apparently we're having a BBQ soon. We'd invite you but... you know."
Jordan: "As a matter of fact, the King is free for a Camp David summit in the summer of 2016. We'll pencil it in. Thanks in advance for the water pumps."
Iran: "We're still translating 'without preconditions' - we'll get back to you."
Egypt: "Trust us, 'Mubarak' is Arabic for 'He whose leadership is so great it obviates the need for democratic reform.' Now, about that $13-billion worth of arms."
Syria: "Hezbollah? Never heard of him."
Oman: "Oil for golf courses."
UAE: "Oil for indoor skiing."
Bahrain: "Oil for pearl diving."
Kuwait: "Oil for funky towers."
Qatar: "Oil for media empire."
Libya: "Oil for pink satin robes."
Yemen: "Oil for anything. Wait, you said fish oil, right?"

HE'S BA-AAACK: DENNIS ROSS WANTS TO PLAY WITH BARACK
Remember this guy? He was President Clinton's Middle East envoy and shuttle diplomat, liaison during the 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty talks, architect of the so-called Oslo II agreement of 1995; the guy who put together most of the Clinton team's policy positions and talking points at Camp David 2000, who was perhaps the one person that the Palestinians trusted as an honest broker on the pro-Israel American side, and who then blamed the failure of Camp David entirely on Arafat as part of Clinton's strategy to save Ehud Barak's government by villifying the Palestinian negotiators as incompetent and intransigent.*

Well, Dennis Ross is back. He's become a proponent of Barack Obama's Middle East proposals, and is tapping himself to get deeply involved in Obama's administration, and may even be - some are daring to say - a candidate for Secretary of State.

In an interview with Ha'aretz, Ross said that, "on the question of Israel, what I saw during his [Obama's] trip to Israel, how I saw his understanding of the relationship with Israel - he would describe it as a commitment of the head and heart. He looks at Israel and sees us as being two countries with common values. But he also looks at Israel and sees that whatever threatens Israel also happens to threaten the United States.

"At the end of the day his position is [that] we cannot impose peace, because an imposed peace isn't peace at all. He's more than willing to invest in the process, but, then again, how he does it and in what ways will depend very much on the circumstances, and obviously there are many other issues out there."

After reading the interview, the Tuque Souq was convinced that the entirety of it could have been spoken in 1992 - with all the he/his/him references being to Clinton instead of Obama - and been the same argument.

We thought Obama was the candidate for "change." Dennis Ross isn't change. Isn't there someone else out there who knows anything about the Middle East?

* See Ross's book, The Missing Peace, for more of his venomous strikes on Arafat. But you'd best temper it with this book, The Truth About Camp David, by Clayton Swisher.

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE...
Pastor John Hagee, Christian Zionist #1, who backed John McCain, loves Israel this much:

"Those [Jews] who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the holocaust. Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says -- Jeremiah writing -- 'They shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and from the holes of the rocks,' meaning there's no place to hide. And that might be offensive to some people but don't let your heart be offended. I didn't write it, Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel."

McCain got caught with his pants down on this one, and had to denounce Hagee. What, you thought getting into bed with Christian Zionists wouldn't lead to a politically transmitted disease? With Obama, we should get some distance between U.S. policy and the wackiest of the nutjobs pretending to have a stake in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though not all of them.

OBAMA'S LOVE AFFAIR WITH THE ISRAEL LOBBY: ONE-NIGHT STAND BUT NOTHING TOO STEAMY
He called Israel a "stalwart ally" in the first debate and went on to other business, while McCain couldn't slip in the word 'Israel' often enough. In the second debate, asked if he would commit U.S. troops to defend Israel in case of an Iranian nuclear attack, Obama said Israel is our "strongest ally in the region" and again went on to concrete issues.

With a national audience, Barack Obama remained nuanced and somewhat non-partisan about the Middle East. With special interest groups, he's gotten chummy where necessary. So which is he: pro-Israel or balanced? The answer, of course, is both. That's how one gets elected.

In the past, Obama has stood in front of AIPAC crowds and told them how his loyalty to and friendship with Israel will guide his presidency. When accused of associating with the anti-AIPAC book The Israel Lobby, Obama's campaign stiffened and denounced the authors.

With his name, his past associations and his comments in his pre-politics days, Obama has had to carry a lot of baggage to convince pro-Israel types (or at least the ones who vote Democrat, usually) that he's a friend of Israel. And he's needed help.

US congressman Howard Berman, Democrat of California and chair of the powerful Foreign Relations Committee, thought it necessary to write a column for the right-of-centre English-daily Jerusalem Post explaining that "Obama is a true friend of Israel" because he has the support of Chicago's pro-Israel community and because he's more likely than McCain to put a solid, pro-Israel advising team around him (see Ross: Dennis, above).

In another paper, it was "Obama Supports Israel. Period" (after Obama's AIPAC speech last year).

Yes, in straining to pass the foggy rhetorical benchmarks necessary to placate AIPAC-types, Obama has over-exerted himself at the expense of fact, even downplaying the Lebanese civilian casualties inflicted at Qana during the 'o6 war.

(He'd like to talk more about Palestine, Obama told Electronic Intifada co-founder and Chicago activist Ali Abunimah in January, but "we're in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.")

But he has been nuanced on the campaign trail. He told a Cleveland audience that a pro-Likud (which is exemplified in AIPAC) approach to Middle East foreign policy and the peace process "can't be the measure of our relationship with Israel." In Iowa he said, "Nobody's suffering more than the Palestinian people."

Obama to The Atlantic: "I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism. That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel."

The conclusion to all of Obama's Israel shuffling is that, in order to get elected President of the United States, one must pander to the powerful. Reagan, Bush Sr. (at least in '88), Clinton, and Bush Jr. all "won over" the Israel lobby. Obama's done it, too. But there's a difference: that lobby isn't as powerful as it once was.

A candidate like Obama, with so many potential pickable nits on Israel, might have done anything short of buying a house in Kiryat Arba to win over the Israel lobby - if that lobby were indeed as powerful today as 15 years ago.

Bottom line: Obama won the race without fully selling his soul. For those of us in the pro-peace/pro-Israelestine camp, that ain't bad. (That is, assuming Dennis Ross isn't involved.)

Barack Obama and the Middle East: "Yes He Might."

PARTING SHOT
"F*ck the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway." - James Baker, Secretary of State under George H.W. Bush, during the failed 1992 campaign for re-election. Thanks in part to that racist emission, 80% of Jewish voters supported Bill Clinton that year. James Baker endorsed John McCain in 2008.

"Canadian oil is fine," says McCain

Canada's worst fear: We're not foreign!

In an exchange at tonight's third and final US Presidential debate, on the subject of America's addiction to "foreign oil," Senator John McCain let loose a quip that sends shudders down the spines of Canadians. McCain noted that America needs to reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil and on Venezuelan oil. "But Canadian oil is fine." He went on to allege that if America gets tough with Canada - tries to lump Canada in with those "foreign oil" places, as McCain accuses Senator Barack Obama of doing - then "Canada will turn around and sell that oil to China."

Was that a subtle threat? If we sell our oil to China, will we get an Operation Canadian Freedom up our *ss?

And will the Canadian oil market surge tomorrow on the strength of McCain's plan to annex Canada? Stay tuned.

Candidates debate who loves Israel more, Iran less, can pronounce Ah-ma-dee-nuh-jad

For all the cosmetic make-up of the roundtable format of the Canadian election debates - which helps the candidates be nicer to each other, look at each other deferentially, perhaps invite each over for dinner after the show - happily our candidates don't have to take time out from real issues to pander to one recurring sideshow:

Senator Joe Biden:

"[N]o one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden."

"Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing. They are more than - they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon that's able to be deployed."

Governor Sarah Palin:

"An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period. Israel is in jeopardy of course when we're dealing with Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran. Iran claiming that Israel as he termed it, a stinking corpse, a country that should be wiped off the face of the earth. Now a leader like Ahmadinejad who is not sane or stable when he says things like that is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons."

"A statement that he [Obama] made like that is downright dangerous because leaders like Ahmadinejad who would seek to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe off the face of the earth an ally like we have in Israel should not be met with without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first."

"Israel is our strongest and best ally in the Middle East. We have got to assure them that we will never allow a second Holocaust, despite, again, warnings from Iran and any other country that would seek to destroy Israel, that that is what they would like to see."

"We will support Israel. A two-state solution, building our embassy, also, in Jerusalem, those things that we look forward to being able to accomplish, with this peace-seeking nation, and they have a track record of being able to forge these peace agreements."

More analysis soon.

[Full US VP debate transcript here.]