Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Inheriting Bush's Blinkers
Obama and American liberals readily adopt positions on Israel that they would deem extremist and racist in any other context
"I would like to ask President-elect Obama to say something please about the humanitarian crisis that is being experienced right now by the people of Gaza." Former Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney made her plea after disembarking from the badly damaged SS Dignity that had limped to the Lebanese port of Tyre while taking on water.
The small boat, carrying McKinney, the Green Party's recent presidential candidate, other volunteers, and several tons of donated medical supplies, had been trying to reach the coast of Gaza when it was rammed by an Israeli gunboat in international waters.
But as more than 2,400 Palestinians have been killed or injured - the majority civilians - since Israel began its savage bombardment of Gaza on 27 December, Obama has maintained his silence. "There is only one president at a time," his spokesmen tell the media. This convenient excuse has not applied, say, to Obama's detailed interventions on the economy, or his condemnation of the "coordinated attacks on innocent civilians" in Mumbai in November.
The Mumbai attacks were a clear-cut case of innocent people being slaughtered. The situation in the Middle East however is seen as more "complicated" and so polite opinion accepts Obama's silence not as the approval for Israel's actions that it certainly is, but as responsible statesmanship.
It ought not to be difficult to condemn Israel's murder of civilians and bombing of civilian infrastructure including hundreds of private homes, universities, schools, mosques, civil police stations and ministries, and the building housing the only freely-elected Arab parliament.
It ought not to be risky or disruptive to US foreign policy to say that Israel has an unconditional obligation under the Fourth Geneva Convention to lift its lethal, months-old blockade preventing adequate food, fuel, surgical supplies, medications and other basic necessities from reaching Gaza.
But in the looking-glass world of American politics, Israel, with its powerful first-world army, is the victim, and Gaza - the besieged and blockaded home to 1.5 million immiserated people, half of them children and eighty percent refugees - is the aggressor against whom no cruelty is apparently too extreme.
While feigning restraint, Obama has telegraphed where he really stands; senior adviser David Axelrod told CBS on 28 December that Obama understood Israel's urge to "respond" to attacks on its citizens. Axelrod claimed that "this situation has become even more complicated in the last couple of days and weeks as Hamas began its shelling [and] Israel responded".
The truce Hamas had meticulously upheld was shattered when Israel attacked Gaza, killing six Palestinians, as The Guardian itself reported on 5 November. A blatant disregard for the facts, it seems, will not leave the White House with George Bush on 20 January.
Axelrod also recalled Obama's visit to Israel last July when he ignored Palestinians and visited the Israeli town of Sderot. There, Obama declared: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."
This should not surprise anyone. Despite pervasive wishful thinking that Obama would abandon America's pro-Israel bias, his approach has been almost indistinguishable from the Bush administration's (as I showed in a longer analysis.
Along with Tony Blair and George Bush, Obama staunchly supported Israel's war against Lebanon in July-August 2006, where it used cluster bombs on civilian areas, killing more than 1,000 people.
Obama's comments in Sderot echoed what he said in a speech to the powerful pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC, in March 2007. He recalled an earlier visit to the Israeli town of Kiryat Shmona near the border with Lebanon which he said reminded him of an American suburb. There, he could imagine the sounds of Israeli children at "joyful play just like my own daughters". He saw a home the Israelis told him was damaged by a Hizbullah rocket (no one had been hurt in the incident).
Obama has identified his daughters repeatedly with Israeli children, while never having uttered a word about the thousands - thousands - of Palestinian and Lebanese children killed and permanently maimed by Israeli attacks just since 2006. This allegedly post-racial president appears fully invested in the racist worldview that considers Arab lives to be worth less than those of Israelis and in which Arabs are always "terrorists".
The problem is much wider than Obama: American liberals in general see no contradiction in espousing positions supporting Israel that they would deem extremist and racist in any other context. The cream of America's allegedly "progressive" Democratic party vanguard - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Howard Berman, New York Senator Charles Schumer, among others - have all offered unequivocal support for Israel's massacres in Gaza, describing them as "self-defence".
And then there's Hillary Clinton, the incoming secretary of state and self-styled champion of women and the working classes, who won't let anyone outbid her anti-Palestinian positions.
Democrats are not simply indifferent to Palestinians. In the recent presidential election, their efforts to win swing states like Florida often involved espousing positions dehumanising to Palestinians in particular and Arabs and Muslims in general. Many liberals know this is wrong but tolerate it silently as a price worth paying (though not to be paid by them) to see a Democrat in office.
Even those further to the left implicitly accept Israel's logic. Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive, criticised Israel's attacks on Gaza as a "reckless" and "disproportionate response" to Hamas rocket attacks that he deemed "immoral". There are many others who do nothing to support nonviolent resistance to Israeli occupation and colonisation, such as boycott, divestment and sanctions but who are quick to condemn any desperate Palestinian effort - no matter how ineffectual and symbolic - to resist Israel's relentless aggression.
Similarly, we can expect that the American university professors who have publicly opposed the academic boycott of Israel on grounds of protecting "academic freedom" will remain just as silent about Israel's bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza as they have about Israel's other attacks on Palestinian academic institutions.
There is no silver lining to Israel's slaughter in Gaza, but the reactions to it should at least serve as a wake-up call: when it comes to the struggle for peace and justice in Palestine, the American liberal elites who are about to assume power present as formidable an obstacle as the outgoing Bush administration and its neoconservative backers.
- Posted in
28 Comments so far
Show AllLebanon was the test.
It was a very westernized country, and yet Israel was willing to carpet bomb it-and poison the coastal waters. They even bombed the animal shelter.
It is clear that Israel not only has contempt for palestianisn, but non jews in general.
Only jewish suffering matters(why else do they have school children write messages on bombs dropped on Lebanon)? Fear? lol
They didnt care about South Africa--they supported the apartheid government.
Talk about Palestinians ending attacks is just jibberish.
Its simply about letting Israel do what it wants.
Is this all because of Holocaust guilt? There were 4 Hollywood movies about it released in the last 2 months.
You'd think non else has ever suffered but jews.
Its really time to see the truth.
Israel has contempt for non jews. Putting palestinians on a diet in gaza--is that what you say when you live in terror of suicide attacks?
No--its what you say when you regard yourself as better-and you regard your victims as helpless pawns under your control.
Zionism is based upon the Chosen People myth-which says that there is only one true God, and jews are his favorites.
Just because some jews ran into a similar thing by Aryan supremacists, doesnt mean they cant believe in the same thing.
Japan was bombed by the US who considered it inferior--but Japan considered themselves superior to Chinese, and the Chinese considered themselves superior to Tibetans.
Same is true in Africa and the Americas.
But Israel really gets away with it.
10 years an effort was made to seem fair-but since Bush they dont even try.
Even the fact that Israeli spies were laughing as the WTC happened--no one even cares or is offended.
Bring America Back !!!!*****Hold it there, Webber, be advised that I am
highly offended. Picture this: 3000 innocent humans trapped above the
floors where the Jets impacted' about 400 NYC fireman and police valiantly
trying to get survivors out of the Towers; Hero William Rodriguez opening
hall doors to the stairwells allowing 25,000 to escape, then hearing
multiple bomb explosions thruout the Towers, Rodriguez miraculously gets
himself out, and lives to tell the Truth !!!
All during this, across the Hudson, the Israeli spies are dancing,
high fiving one another as if at a sports event, filming it, taping
the smoking damaged Twin Towers, laughing when they collapse from a
controlled demolition !!!
They are captured, fail lie detector tests, but let go by the FBI
and flee back to their homeland and their safe kibutzzes. Their
false cover of moving company employees was blown, but the Israeli
spies are let go.
This really offends me, Webber, so does Lebanon, so does Gaza, so does
Building #7, World Trade Center on 9/11.. Problem is that these facts
in history have not offended the right folks......YET !!
I don't understand. The liberals adopted positions from the conservatives against India and especially against Hindus, Christians, and anyone who wasn't Muslim or atheist so what's so surprising about them doing it for Israel? Besides, India has endured plenty more terrorist attacks than even Israel and like Turkey, its secular status is being threatened from rightwing Muslim terrorists hell bent on crushing dissent from moderate and liberal Muslims and yet the liberals accept this? No wonder I was wrongly attacked and accused of zionism by howtool, DCBeltway1, suhail, and manatee for bringing up the issue of corrupt Arab dictators silently and conveniently aiding the zionists running Israel even against their own constituents. I guess these people would much prefer the fascist Sharia laws to being secular, wouldn't they? And then they wonder why the battered and povertized in those nations hate their leaders, Israel, Europe, and the US.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Terance I never accused you of being a Zionist and I never denied the Arab leadership also has a role in the conflict. Sigh. You need to accept that when you post something people will debate you here.
India has the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia a fact that seems to escape you and all religious groups in India have attacked each other at different points it seems. I codemn all those attacks regardless of the perpetrators be they Muslim, Christian or Hindu. Actually many Muslims I come into contact with prefer democracy and would love to see true democracy be implemented in the Islamic world. You have a bad habit of generalizing too much.
PS Islam and Fascism have nothing in common. Fascism is when corporations rule governments like in Italy during WWII. Islam is a religion. Try turning off Foxnews as its a lousy place to get your information. Actually Fox and Murdoch are an excellent example of those promoting the principles of fascism.
And I thought Islam and Hinduism were adopted after the Vedic Era in India where women were actually treated equally. Unlike Hinduism and Islam where marriages are usually arranged, in Christianity, marriages are usually out of love as it should be. Plus, I hear women are not treated and respected well in Hindu and Muslim traditions. I'm not saying Islam or Hinduism equals fascism but they're a bit too rigid and strict for me to accept. Sorry. As for Fox News, I don't watch it as much as I used to especially since they sickened my wife and I this past year alone given their anti-Obama smearing but I can't seem to find a better station on the television so I gave up and turned to the Internet.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Obama is the President elect and has no business making specific comments about this. Thankfully Obama knows his place at this point.
Cynthia McKinney is a private person and can say and do whatever she wishes, she represents only herself.
The one statement I've heard from Obama was clearly in support of the Israel's Gaza "response," so he has already committed the impropriety you cite. In any case, this breach of protocol or good manners or whatever pales in comparison to the immense impropriety of Israel's murderous campaign, the horror of which should be decried by any human being, private or public. We expect indecent behavior from zionist thugs, but I believe the operative culprit is the acquiescence of Western leaders and their client states in the Arab world.
I had heard nothing except that he restated our support for Israel and Israels right to protecet herself from attack. Nothing about Gaza. But I may have missed it if you heard it.
He should not have commented on Gaza itself. Its very simple he is not the President yet and we only have one at a time.
I can't comment on the rest as I am still checking this out. I kept thinking there were just two sides to this (of course there are many minor players) but realized that there are 3. Israel, Hamas (with Syria) and the Palestinians.
"I can't comment on the rest as I am still checking this out. I kept thinking there were just two sides to this (of course there are many minor players) but realized that there are 3. Israel, Hamas (with Syria) and the Palestinians."
I agree with Thomas More. I'm glad that Obama is willing to support Israel just as he promised to do. However, I don't think it would be inappropriate for him to make a statement now. Why would it be? He did, after all, have David Axlerod go on Meet the Press to affirm his support for Israel.
I have investigated this conflict and find Israel's reasons for wanting to decapitate Hamas to be quite legitimate. Hamas, by any measure, is a terrorist organization. Israel wanting to get rid of Hamas is no different than the US wanting to get rid of the Taliban. Every country has a right to self-defense. Especially Israel.
I feel Mahoud Abbas could be a partner in peace. But Hamas is committed to terrorism and to the slaughter of the Israeli People. They will not rest until Israel no longer exists. You cannot negotiate with terrorists.
BTW you mentioned "Hamas (with Syria) and the Palestinians." - don't forget Iran.
Hamas is headquartered in Syria with support and financing from Iran and Saudi Arabia, that much I know for sure now. So you are right, I shouldn't have left them out.
Without the support and aid from these three countries, Hamas is nothing.
"I don't think it would be inappropriate for him to make a statement now. Why would it be? He did, after all, have David Axlerod go on Meet the Press to affirm his support for Israel."
Because he is not yet President. What Axlerod says or anyone lese says matters not. They are not the President nor are they going to be. Aside from that it wouldn't be helpful.
To confirm our support for Israel is no news flash. He said that during the campaign. Aside from that even Big Foot knows that US will never abandon support of Israel, if anyone thinks it would happen, I'm sure they still believe in Santa Claus.
"I feel Mahoud Abbas could be a partner in peace."
Abbas has no standing. Hamas is the democratically elected government of Gaza. Hopefully we can work a possible deal with Syria as soon as we dump Bush. Hillary no matter what some say here has credibility in the Arab world that Sleeza never had.
President elects can make comments but they're just void until they're sworn in and then they have to stick with it.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Please cite the law that says Obama cannot make specific comments about human tragedies unfolding here or around the world, refute that he has not already consistently done this throughout his campaign, and during is elect waiting period, explain your logic and how you do not see that he has a obligation to express his feelings about the current genocide in the holy lands.
The people I talk to, all of whom voted for Obama and all of whom were initially willing to wait and see whether there was any beef in his sandwich, are very edgy about his appointments and increasingly disappointed with his conservative statements, especially about Gaza. With dark swarms of Republicans waiting in abeyance for this little spate of common decency to run its course, I'm betting Barack will be a one-termer.
Joe in Gainesville
Particularly striking in this article was the quote attributed to Obama when he imagined his daughters as Israeli: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."
Well, how about let's imagine them as Palestinian and see if that shoe fits, and how it feels to walk a mile in.
There needs to be effort to reclaim the truth; to value the truth, and not just fall back on the false claims so often repeated they become embarrassing to correct and accepted as "historical truth"
The truth below the surface here is that the founding of Hamas was supported by Israel to weaken the strong and secular/Palestinian left. Once again, the unspoken blowback of suppression of leftist political organizing yielding repressive right-wing horrors unfolds before us.
"The truth below the surface here is that the founding of Hamas was supported by Israel to weaken the strong and secular/Palestinian left."
Thank you. I would add that Hamas is headquartered in Saudi Arabia not too far from the royal elites who also conspire with Israel to destroy any traces of secular people. I cannot believe the so-called left in this country supports religious conservatives, Muslim, Christian, Jew, or otherwise.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
TM
"I would add that Hamas is headquartered in Saudi Arabia"
I was thinking that Hamas is headquarterd in Syria where there leadership is.
Back in Sep 2005, another surprising discovery was made about Hamas. Check it out.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2378
That's what I am referring to. Of course, Syria isn't much better but wouldn't you agree that Saudi Arabia was the worst of the lots?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
I question only that Charles Schumer is cream of the liberals. I am still angry at him for standing in front of Stuyvesant High School a few weeks after Sept. 11,2001, the school his daughter was attending, about 4 blocks from the World Trade Center, saying that it was "cleaned" and "safe" for students to return to school. Many of the other parents knew it wasn't true and there was a long fight to get cleanup of the school. The nearby community college,across the street, Borough of Manhattan Community College, part of CUNY (City University of New York)did not have parents making a lot of noise, as Monona Rossol, a clean air activist for the downtown area post Sept. 11,2001, put it.
Schumer, in my memory, has never been good, in my opinion, on Israel's policies and in relation to the Congress supporting Israeli's military. I think Israel is required to spend the military aid from the US government on US made military weapons, planes,etc.
"Liberal elite" is kind of phrase that doesn't say much. It's mostly used by Republicans as code for educated people who disagree with them. What's a "liberal"? I am reminded of Phil Ochs song from the Vietnam War era, "Love Me I'm a Liberal".
I like Ali Abunimah's work. I protested the bombing of Lebanon at the time.
I voted for Obama. I have been "barely a Democrat" for awhile. To be continued.....On some of the article "threads", the conversation is so bizarre that I don't enter into it.
"On some of the article "threads", the conversation is so bizarre that I don't enter into it."
You are so right!
Personally I'd put Shumer on a bus out of town, put a camera aboard and he will surely get on.
Thomas More:That's funny about Schumer, but sadly, he's not alone.
True, there aren't enough camera's to go aropund up there sometime's.
Obama is a fraud. He used his high-flying rhetoric to win the election but now he's going to play the game just like anybody else . . . Biden and Hillary will make sure he toes the line and kisses up to Israel. It's very frustrating for those of us who voted for Obama . . . better than McCain, but not much . . .
.....or perhaps his voters are the "frauds" those of us who saw this coming and were told basically to sit down and shut up and treating like blogging terrorists, can now say well........maybe you will give us due consideration next time, if we have a next time????
Obama promised "change". Surely this must include getting beyond defending a rogue nation like Israel and has to be extended to lifting the illegal embargo against Cuba. I hope that Obama will take a principled stand on US foreign policy and bring about real "change". If he doesn't, then to hell with him. Progressives will need to let him know that we expect real change from him.
I think he is defending Israel with his Extremist Christian cabal in hopes to get to heaven, not "hell".
Bush finally acted!!!
"Hamas rockets are Terrorist Acts!'
He must have read Nir Rosen's article last week:
But I could be wrong !
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/29/gaza-hamas-israel
Gaza: the logic of colonial power
As so often, the term 'terrorism' has proved a rhetorical smokescreen
under cover of which the strong crush the weak
o Nir Rosen
o guardian.co.uk, Monday 29 December 2008 0800
I have spent most of the Bush administration's tenure reporting from
Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia and other conflicts. I have been
published by most major publications. I have been interviewed by most
major networks and I have even testified before the senate foreign
relations committee. The Bush administration began its tenure with
Palestinians being massacred and it ends with Israel committing one of
its largest massacres yet in a 60-year history of occupying
Palestinian land. Bush's final visit to the country he chose to occupy
ended with an educated secular Shiite Iraqi throwing his shoes at him,
expressing the feelings of the entire Arab world save its dictators
who have imprudently attached themselves to a hated American regime.
Once again, the Israelis bomb the starving and imprisoned population
of Gaza. The world watches the plight of 1.5 million Gazans live on TV
and online; the western media largely justify the Israeli action. Even
some Arab outlets try to equate the Palestinian resistance with the
might of the Israeli military machine. And none of this is a surprise.
The Israelis just concluded a round-the-world public relations
campaign to gather support for their assault, even gaining the
collaboration of Arab states like Egypt.
The international community is directly guilty for this latest
massacre. Will it remain immune from the wrath of a desperate people?
So far, there have been large demonstrations in Lebanon, Yemen,
Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. The people of the Arab world will not
forget. The Palestinians will not forget. "All that you have done to
our people is registered in our notebooks," as the poet Mahmoud
Darwish said.
I have often been asked by policy analysts, policy-makers and those
stuck with implementing those policies for my advice on what I think
America should do to promote peace or win hearts and minds in the
Muslim world. It too often feels futile, because such a revolution in
American policy would be required that only a true revolution in the
American government could bring about the needed changes. An American
journal once asked me to contribute an essay to a discussion on
whether terrorism or attacks against civilians could ever be
justified. My answer was that an American journal should not be asking
whether attacks on civilians can ever be justified. This is a question
for the weak, for the Native Americans in the past, for the Jews in
Nazi Germany, for the Palestinians today, to ask themselves.
Terrorism is a normative term and not a descriptive concept. An empty
word that means everything and nothing, it is used to describe what
the Other does, not what we do. The powerful – whether Israel,
America, Russia or China – will always describe their victims'
struggle as terrorism, but the destruction of Chechnya, the ethnic
cleansing of Palestine, the slow slaughter of the remaining
Palestinians, the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan – with
the tens of thousands of civilians it has killed … these will never
earn the title of terrorism, though civilians were the target and
terrorising them was the purpose.
.............
GO TO LINK and keep reading!But I could be wrong !
Bring America Back !!!!..Could I refer our bloggers to the Webber post,
the first post to this thread...and my feeble attempt at an addendum.
Can't help but think the Zionists will reap the Whirlwind for its crimes
against humanity, but the serious question is whether they will take
down their big sister--the USA--right along with them.
The Bush legacy is that the world believes we Americans are right there
committing these Crimes along with the murderous, insane, cabal of Zionists !
Mr. Abunimah speaks of individuals like Obama, Pelosi and Clinton as if they are free agents simply choosing sides when it comes to the Israeli Palestine conflict.
Somehow I get the sense they are not free to choose sides or to be that third person with the objectivity to help resolve this ongoing terror in the holy lands.
It seems instead that we do not yet understand the bigger political relgious reality in which those we vote for reside.
But as an individual I can say I am not aligned for one side or the other, both are filled with people of this earth, and they all have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is extremely unfair and immoral to support one side of humans up against another no matter the reason.
This is my simplistic assessment as a non-fundamentalist and non pro-Israeli Christian member. As I have been told, it seems this allegiance with the Israels displayed by christian extremists types like Obama, has much to do with some fulfillment of some prophecy as misunderstood in the bible, as it does anything.
But anyone who read about Obama's extreme ideas of Christianity as espoused in the Audacity of Hope, would already have a sense of this.
How long will the misuse of spirituality and its true message and meaning be corrupted in the hands of well meaning humans????