I finally caught Tim Russert's question in the Cleveland debate Tuesday night about whether Obama would reject Louis Farrakhan's support, a man who once called Judaism "a gutter religion." Russert's follow up was, " What do you do to assure Jewish Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel..."
Three quick impressions:
Obama is the coolest candidate I've ever seen but he seemed close to flustered on these questions. He kept speaking of his support in the Jewish community and support for Israel and his desire to solidify the black-Jewish alliance that played such a role in the civil rights movement. He seemed a little nervous to me. His answer was awful. There was no nuance at all, no suggestion comparable to what he suggested in his meeting with 100 Jews from Cleveland last week, that there has to be a more open debate about Israel in this country and that Israel is not always right. I simply don't believe him when he says what he said in the debate, I believe he's pandering. More craven evidence of the power of the Israel lobby in our politics.
Hillary was worse. She said that Obama should reject Farrakhan, rather than simply "denounce" him, because the consequences of Farrakhan's rhetoric are "so far-reaching." This seemed to me a clear Holocaust reference. How helpful is Holocaust rhetoric to addressing our support for Israel in a presidential campaign? It is purely emotional--demagoguery in its own special category.
Russert also failed the question. Why is it that a candidate must assure Jewish Americans about his being "consistent" on a foreign country, Israel? Isn't this an acknowledgement that American Jews feel dual loyalty? Isn't a call to consistency code for political correctness on this issue, rather than exploration of a miserable situation in Israel/Palestine? Should Russert be honoring dual loyalty feelings, or challenging them? Wasn't Irish-American support for the IRA a controversial issue, rather than a Law of Politics, as Russert seemed to say? And is supporting Israel an American interest or a Jewish American interest? If only the latter, shouldn't that be the subject of journalism?
As I have said several times now, Obama's leftwing background and the groundswell popular movement against Israel in this country assure that there will be a robust debate over our support for Israel before too long. The Democratic debate did nothing to advance the issue.
Obama's comments this week were that the relationship between the US and Israel is sancrosanct. Those are not equivocal words.
They are the words of confidence, that Obama does not regard commitments trivially, merely politically.
It was a statement of backbone, that he doesn't pander, as much as you "hopefully" infer that of him.
By "hopefully" I mean that you seem to be engaging in a hope for "I told you so", the vindication of all intellectuals, all dissenters.
Israel is wrong when it ignores on intentionally harms Palestine and Palestinians. (I don't believe "intentionally harms" accurately characterizes Israeli policy or actions in the vast majority of cases and proportion.)
But, Israel is NOT wrong when it defends its civilians. It is not wrong to seek to protect its civilians in Sderot and now Ashkelon.
That that rocket fire on civilians is excused and encouraged by a "sovereign" government in Gaza, IS an act of war.
Its really up to Israel to determine how to respond to that. Hopefully effectively, and precisely. Shelling civilians in two cities is not nothing. Its not light.
For the US to assert that "we will assist our ally in self-defense" is a good. For a prospective president to assert that, is a good.
That a "lobby" is insisting on that clarity is a positive feature of democracy, not a liability.
Your reference to "dual loyalty" is still imprecise and dangerous, careless in times when idiots derive permission to undertake cruelty.
Multiple concerns is a good. That people are only interested in dual loyalty, rather than many loyalties, is more a problem to me than the implication that leaders should only pursue the "national" interest.
Do you read yourself Phil?
Obama ACED the Israel question.
I don't have a high opinion of Hillary currently, on really any question. She is sounding petty and vindictive.
I think she will concede shortly though, and change her tune.
Maybe not. Maybe the Clintons will comprise a permanently resentful "wing" of the party.
Obama's left wing background? Obama's not even progressive let alone left wing. I'm sure the heart of every Muslim American sank with Obama's bow to the Zionist Extremist status quo. Timid Temple Mouse Barack Obama Turns Into Negro During Last Nights Democratic Debate…link to homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com
/>
The genocide continues in Gaza and we worry about that "a candidate must assure Jewish Americans about his being "consistent" on a foreign country." I want to know why the Government classified the tape of the Mossad spies high fiving and flicking there Bics in Liberty Park, New Jersey as the Towers burned across the river. Why do we let Israel get away with murder?…literally. link to homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com
/>
I watched the debate live, and the question about Israel and Jewish Americans irritated me greatly.
Obama was bullied by Russert and Hillary into spouting the official line vis-a-vis Israel.
Moreover, why Israel comes up in a debate held supposedly to aid Americans in choosing their next president when so many other, more pressing questions were NOT asked, is amazing.
Ralph Nader '08!
Michael Blaine
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
"That that rocket fire on civilians is excused and encouraged by a "sovereign" government in Gaza, IS an act of war."
But Zionism was/is not an act of war?
Terror, depopulation, transfer?
Colonization is not an act of war?
Acquiring land through violent conflict is not an act of war?
As soon as you realize Zionism is WRONG, Richard, and Sderot was built on ruins of Arab villages, the rockets and bombs might cease.
But as you continue to insist that Zionism is RIGHT, you will continue to be trapped in your cave, like a poor bat with no sonar, instead only Marty Peretz' endless wisdom on the state of Israel, to guide it to freedom.
Poor you.
As a Lutheran raised in Minnesota, I don't care about Zionism much either way.
I just want my government out of the business of supporting Israel.
MB
Someday a candidate is going to respond to that question:
"I would tell the Jewish community that I am running for the president of the United States, not for the President of Israel."
And they are going to win…
Nothing could possibly be more satisfying than watching Phil squirm and lie and blame the Jews when he's given evidence that his pet Negro is not quite as he fantasized.
Almost nothing is that satisfying–but then we also have Michael Blaine urging support for Ralph Nader (may all "progressives" waste their vote on Ralph and we may get my McCain presidency after all!)
and then there are the projected fantasies of MM–Hey MM, whose land is your house built on? What incredible fucking hypocrites people like him are!
God I love this blog!
"Why is it that a candidate must assure Jewish Americans about his being "consistent" on a foreign country, Israel? Isn't this an acknowledgement that American Jews feel dual loyalty?"
Yes.
However, no candidate can speak of the Jewish lobby except with the phrase "I support Israel unconditionally".
Similar to how during an election, no politician can say that he is against the US economic blockade of Cuba.
Like I keep harping, ethnic lobbies acting on behalf of foreign interests (which may or may not be beneficial to American wellfare and goals, but that's beside the point).
But do not expect a vigorous debate about AIPAC during a presidential election. Lets get real.
Well obviously there is only one solution to the US Jewish Israel problem … another holocaust.
Flee!flee! to Israel while you can Witty.
Run quick. LOL
"During an election, no politician can say that he is against the US economic blockade of Cuba."
I disagree vehemently. Obama could say this tomorrow, and – if anything – it would improve his electoral chances.
99.8% of Americans would not mind in the slightest if relations with Cuba were normalized.
And those aware of the blockade's counterproductive nature would actually be in favor.
Michael Blaine
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
I'm sorry: I meant "embargo," not "blockade." It's late.
What do you all think of Hamas shelling Sderot and Ashkelon?
A good thing, a humane thing, an act of self-defense?
An act of a rational state defending its civilians?
Russert's line of questions comprised a code directed over the heads of the American masses and specifically to hardly 2% of the national population. Within the context of guilt by association with religious anti-semites and unconditional support for Israel as our eternal ally, how, Mister Obama, Change Meister Supreme, will you assure Jewish Americans you will be consistent on issues regarding Israel? You won't change THAT too, will you?
Russert didn't pursue Obama's blasphemous Cleveland parsing between pro-Israel and pro-Likud. And Obama kept it at the first
things first level; this was national TV, not a local group. Obama
just said you can sleep at night under my watch for I will keep Israel secure & as a Jewish state.
How about the US secured & as a state with a constitution and bill of rights where all our equal before the law?
As I type Hillary & Obama are engaged in a Saturday Night Live
type battle of TV ads over who will best allow Americans to sleep securely at night, their babies in their cradles next to them. Obama's is a perfect counter: If she has experience, look where it got us (Iraq & loose nukes). I have judgement.
Russert's line of questions comprised a code directed over the heads of the American masses and specifically to hardly 2% of the national population. Within the context of guilt by association with religious anti-semites and unconditional support for Israel as our eternal ally, how, Mister Obama, Change Meister Supreme, will you assure Jewish Americans you will be consistent on issues regarding Israel? You won't change THAT too, will you?
Russert didn't pursue Obama's blasphemous Cleveland parsing between pro-Israel and pro-Likud. And Obama kept it at the first
things first level; this was national TV, not a local group. Obama
just said you can sleep at night under my watch for I will keep Israel secure & as a Jewish state.
How about the US secured & as a state with a constitution and bill of rights where all our equal before the law?
As I type Hillary & Obama are engaged in a Saturday Night Live
type battle of TV ads over who will best allow Americans to sleep securely at night, their babies in their cradles next to them. Obama's is a perfect counter: If she has experience, look where it got us (Iraq & loose nukes). I have judgement.
What do you all think of Hamas shelling Sderot and Ashkelon?
What do you think of Israel shelling Gaza?
A good thing, a humane thing, an act of self-defense?
An act of a rational state defending its civilians?
An excuse to overreact, step up the lop-sided war of civilian attrition?
So, what do you think of shelling Sderot and Ashkelon?
Ashkelon is a city of 100,000+ people.
You can say if you think its a good thing, either that it is effective at advancing the Palestinian national cause, or that it is good that Israeli civilians are held accountable for their states policies.
Or, you can say, its ineffective, or morally wrong to arbitrarily shell civilians.
You apparently formed a judgement about Israel's policies.
What is your judgement of Hamas'?
We "agree" that there are actions and policies that Israel can take to positively change the background conditions.
But, we disagree on the responsibility and form of the responsibility of the Israeli state to protect its civilians.
I believe that Ashkelon is also a fairly multi-cultural town (Arabs and Jews), but my memory may fail me on this one.
NICE
"So, what do you think of shelling Sderot and Ashkelon?"
As far as I am concerned the special 'rapporteur' for the UN, the South African Professor John Dugard gave the common sense answer to that question.
The official Israeli reaction to his report is even more imbecilic and hypocritical than usual. Dugard was 'enflaming the hatred' between Israelis and Palestinians – as if the Palestinians needed Dugard to remind them of the sad realities of their daily life.
From the International Herald Tribune of 2/26:
"A report commissioned by the United Nations suggests that Palestinian terrorism is the "inevitable consequence" of Israeli occupation and laws that resemble South African apartheid — a claim Israel rejected Tuesday as enflaming hatred between Jews and Palestinians.
The report by John Dugard, independent investigator on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the U.N. Human Rights Council, will be presented next month, but it has been posted on the body's Web site.
In it, Dugard, a South African lawyer who campaigned against apartheid in the 1980s, says "common sense … dictates that a distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror, such as acts committed by al-Qaida, and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation against colonialism, apartheid or military occupation."
While Palestinian terrorist acts are to be deplored, "they must be understood as being a painful but inevitable consequence of colonialism, apartheid or occupation," writes Dugard, whose 25-page report accuses the Jewish state of acts and policies consistent with all three.
He cited checkpoints and roadblocks restricting Palestinian movement to house demolitions and what he terms the "Judaization" of Jerusalem.
"Acts of terror against military occupation must be seen in historical context," Dugard says. "This is why every effort should be made to bring the occupation to a speedy end. Until this is done, peace cannot be expected, and violence will continue."
Israel's U.N. ambassador in Geneva slammed Dugard's analysis.
"The common link between al-Qaida and the Palestinian terrorists is that both intentionally target civilians with the mere purpose to kill," Itzhak Levanon said. "The fact that Professor Dugard is ignoring this essential fact, demonstrates his inability to use objectivity in his assessment.
"Professor Dugard will better serve the cause of peace by ceasing to enflame the hatred between Israelis and Palestinians, who have embarked on serious talks to solve this contentious situation."
Dugard was appointed in 2001 as an unpaid expert by the now-defunct U.N. Human Rights Commission to investigate only violations by the Israeli side, prompting Israel and the U.S. to dismiss his reports as one-sided. Israel refused to allow him to conduct a U.N.-mandated fact-finding mission on its Gaza offensive in 2006."
Arie Brand
Arie,
You respond more equivocally than Barack. He uses the word "I" when he speaks. "I support."
And here is another answer I agree with:
From the interview in Counterpunch (Dec. 4 2002)with the distinguished British philosopher Ted Honderich a propos of his book 'After the Terror':
"In the book what I say is morally permissible is the terrorism of the Palestinians in the present situation. It seems to me very similar to the terrorism of the African National Congress against the South Africa of apartheid.
I also say that the only general kind of terrorism that is likely to be justified, in the world as it is, is what you can call liberation-terrorism: the violent struggle of a people to come to freedom and power in their own homeland. The likely justification depends importantly on the fact that the suffering that is caused does have a probability of success. What is wrong with other terrorism is that it is the causing of suffering for no probable gain, with no reasonable hope.
You will notice that what I have said does not amount to a complete answer to the question of what violence is justified. I don't have one worked-out. What does seem to me clear is that the Palestinians have a moral right to their struggle. It seems to be a fact about morality that one can be sure of a particular moral proposition, a particular case, without having a complete answer to the large and general question in the neighborhood.
How do I arrive at the conclusion about the Palestinians? Well, I have a lot of reasons. The book gives various premises for the conclusion. One is my fundamental moral principle, which is the Principle of Humanity, about taking rational steps to getting people out of bad lives. Another is that the Israelis certainly claim a moral right to their state-terrorism and perhaps war. In consistency, which is necessary to actually saying anything, the Palestinians can claim the same, and they can do it truthfully.
Another reason for their moral right is that 50 years of history have proved that the Palestinians have no alternative whatever to terrorism in trying to secure freedom and power in their homeland. What they were offered in the Clinton negotiations at Camp David was not a state, but, if anything, a dog's breakfast of a state. That is proved, incidentally, by the fact that everybody now speaks of their need for a viable state.
But still more has to be said in support of the moral right, and can be. There is no simple proof of the claim about their moral right. That is because there are no simple proofs in morality.
…
Another principal premise for my conclusion about the moral right of the Palestinians is that they have indeed been treated horrifically in their homeland for 50 years. Population figures I give in the book for Arabs and Jews at various stages overwhelm the familiar stuff about who did what in what year in terms of massacres, negotiations and the like. The Palestinians are right to say they are the Jews of the Jews."
Arie Brand
Richard,
You fail to address ANY of Dugard's issues mentioned by Arie. You just jump into some kind of wimpy deflection game.
Personally, I condemn the shelling of Sderot and Ashkelton. However, I do not live under occupation, and I would not presume to tell the Palestinians how to deal with such a fate. I don't think this shelling furthers the Palestinian national cause, nor do I think it's fair to target Israeli civilians, even though I DO consider them responsible in an indirect way for the plight of the Palestinians. However, I do not live under occupation, and I would not presume to tell the Palestinians now to deal with such a fate.
As far as furthering the cause of Palestinian nationalism, I kind of agree with Norm Finklestein when he wonders aloud why the Palestinians don't force a point with the Israelis and ATTACK AND KNOCK DOWN THE APARTHEID WALL the way they did to the Rafah crossing. Sure they will get mown down by the IDF murderers, but at least they will force the point, and the international community will have to take notice and act. After all, international law has declared the APARTHEID WALL illegal.
A quote from Noam Chomsky, from "Keeping the Rabble in Line"
"What is the status of resistance against military occupation?
Well, there is an international position on this. This is again unmentionable. It has the wrong message, so it is never reported. There is a big UN resolution on this – 1986, I think. A major UN resolution on terrorism. Condemns terrorism in all its forms. You know, a big attack on terrorism. It passed 153 to two, the two being the United States and Israel.
Why did the United States come out against the resolution on terrorism? Well, there was a paragraph there which was unacceptable. It says that nothing in this resolution infringes on the right of people to resist racist regimes and military occupation. And the US refuses to accept that, just as, say, Nazi Germany would have refused to accept it in 1943. And for roughly the same reasons, if you think about it."
Arie,
Thank you for the posts. They strike a chord with me. I guess we could kind of sum it up by saying that much of "liberation-terrorism" of the Palestinians is a way of saying…
"NO, therefore I am"
Paul Malfara
sim, I'm a renter, asshole. But I hope someone comes and demolishes your home, and that you won't whine about it afterwards.
Richard, the rockets are an act of desperation in the face of annihilation.
Did you read the link to Der Spiegel's report on the Gaza rocket launchers? They are doing exactly what your sons would be doing, were they victims of Zionism, rather than vicarious benefactors.
What do I think of Hamas? I think it was stupid for Israel to try to balance Arab nationalism by supporting Islamic fundamentalism. I think Hamas is popular because Gaza and the West Bank are occupied and frequently invaded. I think in a democratic binational state, Hamas will lose the war of ideas with more moderate factions.
Richard, what do you think about the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, whose line on Iran you parrot?
What do you think about political assassination, apprehension of delegates, torture, false flag operations, home demolitions, growing numbers of West Bank settlers?
What do you think of the moral imperative of "saving the Jews" never failing to justify Israel's belllicosity and war crimes in the eyes of people like you? Do you think Zionist Jews should have a permanent free pass?
Why not begin the process of integration? To ensure that Arabs and Jews continue living together in Palestine, under equal rights? Is Islamic expansionism really the bogeyman you claim it to be?
"That rocket fire on civilians is excused and encouraged by a 'sovereign' government in Gaza, IS an act of war." – R. Witty
Oh, and Israel's blockade of Gaza's trade, including the cutoff of critical supplies, medicine, and even electricity for 1.4 million people, is NOT an act of war? Its weekly targeted assassinations are not acts of war either? Thank you for your Solomonic clarification, rebbe!
Meanwhile today, the AP reports 33 Gazans dead, versus one Israeli. The 33-to-1 kill ratio is higher than the long-term average of around 6 or 8-to-1. But it falls far short of the ideal 100-to-1 ratio, governed by the moral equation that one Jewish life is worth a hundred gentile lives.
Doubtless the IDF is working overtime to rectify the embarrasing shortfall in Arab corpses. Do dead Arab kids count as full kills, or half-kills? Just asking …
When Zionists bomb childrens hospitals, is that terrorism or self-defense?
According to my death ticker, one Israeli Jew is currently worth about 63 Palestinian Arab lives. If you're holding any Palestinian futures, sell! Sell now!
33 Palestinians killed in clashes
By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 20 minutes ago
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Israeli-Palestinian fighting escalated sharply Saturday, leaving dead 33 Palestinians, including a 13-month-old girl, and clouding peace talks ahead of a visit to the region by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Sixteen civilians were killed, and dozens were wounded, authorities said. In all, 63 people have died since clashes between Israel and extremists affiliated with Gaza's ruling Hamas movement spiked Wednesday. At least 33 were civilians.
An Israeli man was also killed by Palestinian rocket fire that grew more ominous when it struck closer to Israel's heartland. The rocket fire has renewed threats of an Israeli invasion of Gaza.
Hamas said the baby, Malak Karfaneh, died just before midnight Friday in an Israeli strike on Beit Hanoun, a northern town where militants often launch rockets at Israel. But local residents said one of those rockets fell short and landed in the area of the child's house.
…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians
Jim, half point for babies and little girls, full point awarded for dead boys over the age of 5.
Bonus points if the boy was holding a rock or thinking unpleasant thoughts about Israel.
I am also more than a little concerned that some IDF soldiers may need counseling in lieu of the hundreds of dead Arabs they had promised their commanders. Such high expectations in the IDF.
Arie Brand,
Thank you for bringing the report by John Dugard, investigator for the UN Human Rights Council, to our attention. Here's a link to the IHT article you quoted:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/26/news/UN-Israel.php
And, here's a link to the UN Human Rights page. Dugard's report is at the top of the list, dated 21/01/2008. In the rightmost column, E F S A C R are links to pdf versions of Dugard's report in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese and Russian, respectively.
http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?m=91
As John Lennon used to sing … "All I want is the truth. Just gimme some truth!"
Jim Haygood,
Didn't Lennon then sing
"No short-haired, yellow-bellied son of Richard Witty gonna mother hubbard soft soap me with just a pocketfull of soap
It's money for dope, money for rope"
Finally, I can understand what he meant:<}
Why is it that Jews often counter non-Jewish complaints about Israel with a comparison between the founding of the U.S. and the founding of Israel? When an Israeli makes the comparison, it is weak, but understandable. When an American Jew makes the comparison, it shows where his loyalty lies.
I think that we should quit talking about dual loyalty, and just admit that zionists ultimatelty have loyalty only to Israel.
There are many differences between U.S./colonial history and that of Israel. Whatever the similarities are, we don't ask the world to support, finance or ignore our Indian policies.
At the moment, the U.S. has much more in common with Israel than at the founding, and we are now asking the world to support, ignore, and help finance our crimes.
Whatever the historical accuracies of the past are, the present reality is that the U.S. is morally on the hook for Palestine when it shouldn't be. How should a person with loyalty to the U.S. feel about that fact?
"Richard, the rockets are an act of desperation in the face of annihilation."
There is no annihilation occurring in Gaza. There is no genocide. There is suppression.
But the civil war between Hamas and Fatah has made the condition that there is NO SOVEREIGNTY, whether Israel did as well or not is irrelevant.
Gaza has not declared itself to be a state. It has not compromised in a manner that would make a unified Palestine, and therefore is to BLAME for the condition in Gaza.
Shelling civilians, while conducting an internal civil war, is NOT resistance, is not dissent, even as the conditions justify assertive dissent.
Independance is EARNED. Its not just a right. Its a right combined with work. And the primary work are of building institutions, not of guerilla or mosquito actions.
(I call the shelling of Sderot a mosquito action. Irritating, painful. In the case of Sderot more than a mosquito, as it can be deadly. The shelling of Ashkelon though is an escalation from mosquito.
My preference in dealing with mosquitoes is a good repellant. The notion of swatting them incessantly, is a losing proposition. One either concludes to accept the bites, or to spend all of one's time and attention on mosquitoes rather than humans.)
Okay, I read Dugard's 25-page report — highly recommended! He provides chapter-and-verse citations to demonstrate how Israel's forty-year occupation of Palestinian teritories violates international law and the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Toward the end, he explains why the Annapolis peace process is probably doomed to failure (brackets are my insertions, not Dugard's):
"Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides that persons in an occupied territory shall not be deprived of the benefits of the Convention by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territory [the Palestinian Authority] and the Occupying Power [Israel], or by the annexation by the Occupying Power of part of the occupied territory.
"This means that any agreement between the Palestinian Authorities and the Israeli Government that recognizes settlements within the occupied Palestinian teritory, or accepts the annexation by Israel of Palestinian land within the wall, will violate the Fourth Geneva Convention."
Dugard has provided the legal basis for what the Palestinian people are going to conclude via common sense: namely, that any sham 'two-state solution' imposed by the Quartet which creates a dismembered, shrunken Palestinian statelet pockmarked with settlements is NOT BINDING, even if some lickspittle Palestinian puppet figure can be found to sign off on it. Similarly, U.S. common law says that agreements made under duress are not binding.
Chew on that, Condi.
In a war between Hamas and Israel, my loyalty is with Israel.
I pray that Israel and Hamas act in ways that make war not necessary.
It is NOT in the US interest to support Hamas in an either/or game. It would be in the US interest to support Israel.
The art is to make the situation NOT one of war. Not one of either/or.
The "solidarity" perspective is a war-mongering one, as much as those that hold it are likely to resent being called on it. It is RARELY an urging to real neutrality, is in this case the majority of critics of Israel are speaking in opposition, not in advocacy of human neutrality.
I hold the view that Israel is ally. Hamas is at best neutral, currently much less than neutral. If that changed, then the math would change, but it would take substantive changes in Hamas policy and methods, to change that in fact.
I don't know the logistical questions of how the IDF applies the Israeli military's responsibility to defend Israeli civilians in Sderot. So, I won't condemn the actions, even as I genuinely am upset by the results.
At one point, on another site, I attempted to lead prayers for ALL civilians killed in the conflict, identifying anyone under 12 as inevitably civilians (even knowing that 12 year olds can act like total jerks and very violent, and good cover for more malevolent).
I took a great deal of heat from an orthodox poster and a secular Zionist for saying the Kaddish for "enemies".
I took heat from the left for not condemning.
I like my position. I like Obama's stated position.
I don't care if it looks like to you, and Phil that he is pandering to "Israel Lobby".
I don't believe that he should deviate from the statement that the relationship between the US and Israel is SPECIAL and SANCROSANCT.
It is a sober position.
"But the civil war between Hamas and Fatah has made the condition that there is NO SOVEREIGNTY, whether Israel did as well or not is irrelevant." – R. Witty
You're not a lawyer, and it shows. Dugard's report decisively rejects your tendentious pettifoggery.
But let's look at the vicious sophistry underlying this statement. The civil war you mention broke out after USrael nullified Hamas's win in a fair election, seized its Customs revenues, cut off trade and remittances into Gaza, and began propping up a compliant Fatah puppet. It's like sealing up an ant farm, and then cold- bloodedly observing "Oh look, the ants are fighting for food! The little fellers can't get along as we do! They aren't ready for sovereignty." What a transparent crock.
By the way, your comparison of Gazans to mosquitos recalls Hitler's analogy to Jews as bacteria. NOW can I say 'zionazi' without being an anti-semite? I await your favorable endorsement of my humble request.
Witty's blood-sucking mosquitos analogy made me think of the same thing that Jim Haygood did. The NAZI view of the relationship of Jews to the host. Streicher was hanged slowly
for voicing such stuff, croaking all the way down the humanitarian hole on the purposely shredded way. During and since the latest attempt at peace the rockets commenced flying back and forth–and new settlements commenced. A study of
colonial-imperialist attempts to settle what they started over the globe always turn up a golden rule: You have to win the hearts and minds of the occupied to stop the carnage–force never works in the long run because no outside military force can stand against civilian support of the resistence.
The Hamas-Fatah civil war is between Hamas and Fatah. Israel is an external party.
I don't think you can say the term "Zio-nazi" without expressing anti-semitism.
The use of the rhetorical term itself is an example of proceeding further than dissent in your attitude.
Are you interested in exploring the question of whether you harbor anti-semitic sentiments?
Here isn't the place, but there are good counselors that can help you discern that.
How do you think that Israel should regard the actions of Hamas shelling civilians within sovereign Israel?
How do you think the Palestinians should regard the actions of
the IDF shelling civilians with much more expensive (thanks USA!) and accurate projectiles? NAZI Germany was a sovereign
nation too. What do you think of the latest Israeli settlements in the occupied lands?
Hamas is shelling Israel? With what? Are we talking about the qassam rocket, or did Hamas acquire artillery pieces? Unless the qassam rocket has changed recently, hobbyists in the U.S. are allowed better technology.
Israel holds the threat of nuclear weapons over the whole region, and cries about the qassam rocket! I almost laughed when I heard that Israel has instaled early warning systems against the qassam. Unfortunately, I work every day to help pay for Israeli paranoia. Where are the gentile comedians?
Personally I find the term Zio-nazi revulsive.
The Nazis were a very short-lived phenomenon and I am hoping for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to be PERMANENT.
Certainly the Israeli defense minister who suggested a holocaust against the Palestinians would prefer, in his heart, that the Palestinians were not exterminated.
Transfer would make the public relations offensive much easier than outright genocide.
But Israel's hand is forced when unemployed young men built bottle rockets and fly them at Israeli towns, wreaking massive destruction and terror. All in the name of Islamic expansionism. Comparatively, the hundreds of Palestinian lives lost and thousands of homes demolished are a light smack on the rist.
The brutality and land-grabbing aspirations of the Palestinians knows no bounds!
Back to Phil's issue on this thread, Tim Russert's questions and the democratic candidates' responses:
Tim's hole card question:
..snip…
What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?
Notice the heavy-handed conflation of anti-semitism and any possible change (Obama might endorse) in what has been the consistent Israel right or wrong policy?
No comments on Hamas shelling?
The "hobby" rockets, aimed at civilians, have killed.
They are meant to be low-level so that the gullible dismiss their importance, and the overzealous exagerate their importance.
Hamas NEEDS Israel to intervene. It cannot mount a genuine civil disobedience campaign. The people are not soberly sufficiently committed to show up for a non-violent mass demonstration.
Its a dilemma for Israel. The Hamas propaganda machine is relentless, and more opportunistic than Hillary's.
If Hamas shells and Israel intervenes, inevitably there will be collatoral damage, as the "hobbyists" are guerillas and hide back into civilian neighborhoods. So, Israel will be seen as over-reacting, and they get points.
If Israel does not react, then the propaganda states that Israel is on the run. They are cowards that won't even defend themselves. They are desparate, and victory is at hand.
Well, both positions endanger both Palestinians and Israelis.
Especially when the gullible digest it and regurgitate it without any question.
The description is NOT the description of Gandhi's "The purpose of civil disobedience is to evoke a response". The result of non-violent civil disobedience is respect of the other's courage and morality. In contrast, the result of violent resistance (even low level mosquito-like) directed at civilians is fear and hatred.
Do you think beneficial outcomes come out of terror?
It's gullible to mention the overwhelming superiority of Israeli weaponry?
So what if the Palestinians play the propaganda game? They are fighting for their homeland.
As for Phil's article, it would be a shame if some people viewed the whole presidential election through the lens of Israel's interests.
"The Hamas-Fatah civil war is between Hamas and Fatah. Israel is an external party." – R. Witty
Unfortunately, I can't afford a counselor to help me discern the lurking shadows of antisemitism. So I'll just keep it bottled up, and restrict my epithets to 'zioracists.' (Is that okay? I hope so.)
But you cannot get away with calling Israel 'an external party.' Israel illegally impounded $55 million a month of Customs revenues which it collected in trust for the Palestinian Authority, and continued doing do until the arrears amounted to over half a billion.
Israel and the U.S. then refused to recognize the election victory won by Hamas. Israel began arresting Hamas parliamentarians, and still holds some of them. Then, it began using the illegally-seized Customs revenues to prop up President Abbas of the Fatah party, thus bribing the Palestinians with their own stolen funds, while driving a wedge between their two main parties.
Richard Witty is too well read on the minutiae of the I/P conflict not to know these facts. This is classic 'divide-and-rule' strategy, pioneered by the British in India. To pretend, as Israel starves and manipulates them, that Palestinians are simply violent squabblers who can't get their act together is patently dishonest.
It's zioracism, Richard. You need a counselor.
Is Gaza not the new Warsaw Ghetto? If not, why not?
In Louis Fischer's Gandhi and Stalin, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. According to Fischer, Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way. When, in 1942, Gandhi urged non-violent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths.
Perhaps Gandhi, born in 1869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the (hypocritical yet ) Christian British government. The British treated him forbearingly; even if this was as a useful fool, he was always allowed to, and did command publicity. Ghandi believed in "arousing the world," which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing and why. It is difficult to see how Gandhi's methods can be applied to affect a superpower country where opponents of the US-Likud partnership regime are ignored and slandered by a "free press"–If you can't appeal to outside opinion, you can't bring a mass movement into being, or even make your notives and intentions known to those very masses ignorantly funding, supporting with their blood and treasure, the Israeli oppression Ghandi would certainly have opposed.
The death toll keeps rising by the hour. Updated AP report:
————
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Israeli troops backed by tanks and aircraft went after Gaza militants who bombarded southern Israel with rockets and mortars Saturday, killing 46 Palestinians in the deadliest day in Gaza since Islamic Hamas militants seized control in June.
As many as two dozen civilians died in the fighting, including at least two babies and two other children. Two Israel soldiers were also killed. Gaza Health Ministry official Dr. Moaiya Hassanain said 160 people were wounded and 14 were in critical condition. The intense battles pushed the Palestinian death toll to 76 since fighting flared Wednesday. About 40 of them were civilians.
Palestinians leaders called the killings "genocide" and threatened to call off peace talks with Israel. "We tell the world, watch and judge what's happening, and judge who is committing … terrorism," said Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qureia said Palestinian leaders including Abbas recommended suspending peace talks at a meeting Saturday in the West Bank town of Ramallah. "I think it will be suspended," Qureia said. "What is happening in Gaza is a massacre of civilians, women and children, a collective killing, genocide," Qureia added. "We can't bear what the Israelis are doing, and what the Israelis are doing doesn't led the peace process any credibility."
————
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080301/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians
————
So much for the west's carefully-cultivated puppet, Abbas. Even he is fed up now, as civilians are slaughtered by the dozens.
Evidently David Harris's eloquent essay about 'peace-loving Israel' made no impression on the recalcitrant Abbas, if he even read it, the philistine!
Everybody is fed up.
Israel is fed up with Hamas shelling civilians daily for months.
Fatah is fed up with Hamas for conducting and maintaining its coup late last year, and failing to comply with the Palestinian constitutional division of powers.
Israel has an obligation to its citizens to protect them from external terror. That obligation will continue, and will likely not relax in form so long as Hamas continues to shell Israeli civilians.
As frustrating as it is for Hamas, that is a failed strategy.
It kills en-masse. The most humane response that Israel could make in that environment, is only to kill a few Hamas officials and bomb-makers, and only incur a few civilians dead in collateral damage.
But, then how does Israel respond to escalation? Does it then escalate? Or does it refrain, and wait until an opportune time? Or, does it forgive and forget?
In peace, the process is to remember and forgive. In war, the process is to remember and revenge.
Are you peace activists (urging mutual reconciliation, remember and forgive), or in solidarity with war (remember and revenge)?
Phil in this thread discusses Obama's reaction to Russert's pro-Likud Israel's rhetorical questions. If there's even a hint of sympathy for the Palestinians in Obama's responses regarding sympathy for Farakkan's and his church leader's voice juxtiposed to taking the "consistent" pro-Likud position, what do we make of McCain's having free fun and funding unmolested despite Pastor Hagee's endorsement?
Senator John McCain said he was “very honored by Pastor John Hagee’s endorsement.” The Republican presidential hopeful also called Hagee “the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement,” citing the minister’s pro-Israel stance. Hagee called the Catholic Church "The Great Whore," an "apostate church," the "anti-Christ," and a "false cult system."
For the record, Hitler persecuted the Catholic Church and was automatically excommunicated in 1931.
As for doing nothing about the Holocaust, Sir Martin Gilbert reminds us that Goebbels denounced Pope Pius XII for his 1942 Christmas message criticizing the Nazis (the New York Times lauded the pope for doing so in an editorial for two years in a row).
Much to Hagee’s chagrin, Gilbert also says that Pius XII saved three quarters of the Jews in Rome , and that more Jews were saved proportionately in Catholic countries than Protestant countries. Indeed, Israeli diplomat Pinchas Lapide credited the Catholic Church with saving 860,000 Jews. No religion can match that.
Senator Obama has repudiated the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, another bigot. Shoulldn't McCain follow suit and retract his embrace of Hagee?
"But, then how does Israel respond to escalation? Does it then escalate?" – R. Witty
A very timely question, whose answer we can only speculate about.
However, one could infer from today's outsized number of fatalities that in response to Gazan rocketers hitting a city ten times larger (Ashkelon vs. Sderot), Israel's "disproportionate retaliation" policy requires killing ten times as many Gazans in response — which they have done.
In fact, now that two Israeli soldiers are dead, the "disproportionality factor" may have to be upped to 20 or even 50 to 1 to send a resolute message. Guess we'll find out tomorrow.
At least Olmert hasn't threatened to nuke Gaza to cinders yet, though the option probably has been kicked around at cabinet meetings. Such restraint! Such generosity!