Cracks Showing in American Support for Israel

This is what the "debate" over the blockade of Gaza looks like in Israel. It's not pretty. A day after the Israeli Defense Force attacked a relief ship in the Mediterranean, Israelis gathered in the port city of Ashdod to express their support for the IDF. Spoiler alert; they aren't very nice people.

Israel should be a warning to us. This is what happens when the farthest rightwing "patriots" are dominant in your government and in your society. The right is always about authoritarianism in the end, with all the talk of liberty and freedom meaning the liberty and freedom to do what you're allowed to do, to say what you're allowed to say, to believe what you're allowed to believe. It's impossible to disagree with the right's position, it's only possible to commit treasonous political heresy -- I am right, you are wrong, automatically and without question. It should surprise no one that many of the political tactics of the Israeli right -- the "us versus them" moral absolutism, the questioning of people's patriotism, the institutional paranoia --  found their way into Bush-era neoconservatism. For rightwing Israelis, all Palestinians are terrorists and no terrorist is a human being. Therefore, no Palestinian is human. They're a disease to be quarantined.

In American politics, Israel has traditionally enjoyed unquestioning support. No matter how bad things get, it's never the Israelis' fault. Even as the international community condemns the raid on the aid flotilla, American politicians seem to be in some sort of competition to see who can support Israel more. The debate in American politics is nearly as one-sided as what we'll laughingly call "the discussion" represented by the video above. If you're pro-Israel, good for you. If you're critical, you get to shut up about it -- if you know what's good for you.





But cracks in the kneejerk "yay for Israel!" mindset are appearing the the American media. NBC News recently ran a segment calling the Gaza Strip a "120 square mile prison," where an entire population is held responsible for the actions of a few. And McClatchy Newspapers is reporting that Israeli arguments of a self-defensive blockade of Gaza are false.

As Israel ordered a slight easing of its blockade of the Gaza Strip Wednesday, McClatchy obtained an Israeli government document that describes the blockade not as a security measure but as "economic warfare" against the Islamist group Hamas , which rules the Palestinian territory.

Israel imposed severe restrictions on Gaza in June 2007 , after Hamas won elections and took control of the coastal enclave after winning elections there the previous year, and the government has long said that the aim of the blockade is to stem the flow of weapons to militants in Gaza .

...in response to a lawsuit by Gisha, an Israeli human rights group, the Israeli government explained the blockade as an exercise of the right of economic warfare.

"A country has the right to decide that it chooses not to engage in economic relations or to give economic assistance to the other party to the conflict, or that it wishes to operate using 'economic warfare,'" the Israeli government said.

But do they?

In another instance of Israel's weakening grip on American media, the Christian Science Monitor asked whether the blockade was legal. The answer was complex, but probably not what Israel-backers wanted to hear.

"There is a clear link between conditions in Gaza and international law that is relevant this week," Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association in London, told CSM. "At the heart of humanitarian law, the laws of war, and human rights law is a need to ensure that civilians are protected and do not disproportionately suffer from the actions of a state... Right now, every objective assessment is that Gazans are suffering. The elephant in the room in flotilla-attack legal debates is the blockade. The real need is a focus on the legality of the conditions of people in Gaza."

As things are now, Gazans are entirely dependent on secret tunnels to meet their needs. Voice of America reports that Gazan have a "tunnel economy for basic supplies and income," according to a report by the International Labor Organization. Israel argues that the tunnels exist almost solely to smuggle in weapons, but the facts show that they're used mostly to smuggle in necessities. According to the ILO, "75 percent of the population is food dependant and 70 percent of the population lives under the poverty line of $1 a day."

Dov Weisglass, an adviser to the prime minister Ehud Olmert, explained the real reason for the blockade in 2006. "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger," he said. The blockade exists to use hunger as a weapon, to get Palestinians to turn against Hamas. The legality of this is extremely questionable, especially in light of Israel's claim of being in a state of war.

"Hamas is not a state," Marcelo Kohen, a law professor at Geneva’s Graduate Institute of International Studies, told Christian Science Monitor. "There is also at present a cease-fire on Gaza." Given these conditions, it's hard to see what wouldn't qualify as "war."

"Under [Israel's] logic one could maintain a maritime blockade unendingly," Kohen said. "It only requires one party to consider itself as being in a 'state of war.'"

So when are American politicians going to catch up with reality? You've got me. For his part, President Barack Obama has called the humanitarian situation in Gaza "unsustainable" and has pledged $400 million in aid. But with the other hand, his 2011 budget calls for $3 billion in military aid to Israel. Four million steps forward, three billion steps back.

The kneejerk pro-Israel mindset is starting to weaken in America. We're getting there, slowly but surely. But you wonder how long the people of Gaza can wait.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

It's Only Hate Speech When Liberals Say It

Unless you've been actively avoiding the news, you've probably heard that Helen Thomas has been forced into retirement. Having been part of the White House press corps since the days of JFK, Thomas has covered every president in many people's lifetime, myself included. Often referred to as a liberal, Thomas cut no one any slack; she was a critical of Clinton as she was of Nixon, as hard on Obama as she was on Bush. You get the feeling that she has an actual distaste for powerful people and always assumes they're lying, which is probably what made her such a great reporter. She was always looking for the flaw in the argument, no matter how popular or unpopular that argument was.

Still, it's hard to find a way to excuse this:

OK, a couple of points here. First and foremost, "Go back where you came from!" is always a crappy argument and this instance is no exception. Yes, Israel is a European colony (before the establishment of the Israeli state, Jews made up only one-sixth of the population of what was then called Palestine), but history shows you can't undo colonialism. Even in a colony as young as Israel. Not only was Thomas's statement offensive to many people, it was also incredibly simplistic.





And then, of course, there's the hypocrisy. For the record, Americans don't get to make this argument. Unless Helen was preparing to hand her house over to an Algonquin, she has no business telling other colonials to give anything back to an indigenous population. Regardless of whether the "Go back where you came from!" argument is good or bad, the vast majority of Americans can't make it with any logical consistency or moral authority.

That said, you'll notice that the clip isn't the most timely bit of footage you've ever seen. The timestamp at the beginning of the video reads, "White House, Jewish Heritage Celebration, May 27, 2010." Israel began to catch a lot of heat for an attack on an aid ship on May 31. The video hit the media last weekend. And suddenly, everyone's talking about Helen Thomas being mean to Israelis, when the story just hours before was about Israelis' being way more than just mean to international peace activists. Mavi Marmara? What's that, some new dish at the Olive Garden? We've all gotta talk about Helen Thomas now! The media has the attention span of a goldfish and the "freedom flotilla" was knocked right off the news.

And, of course, there's evidence that the rabbi who took the footage was a rightwing dick. RaceWire found video of the same man in a "comedy skit," doing a racist parody of a Mexican immigrant. Of course, once that got out, Rabbi David Nesenoff pulled the video from YouTube. You don't delete a video you're able to defend. So, like Helen Thomas, it looks like Rabbi Nesenoff is guilty of some hypocrisy here. Perceived antisemitism is one thing, but undeniable anti-Mexican racism is another, more acceptable (if not defensible) thing, I guess.

And if Helen Thomas had to go, then what special magical protection does Pat Buchanan have? You want an actual, honest-to-goodness antisemite? There ya go. Or maybe someone can explain how advocating the expulsion of all Palestinians from Israel is logically different from what Thomas suggested? That's Mike Huckabee's argument. Where Helen Thomas basically made an unhelpful suggestion, Huckabee's advocating ethnic cleansing. He still works at FOX. No big media controversy there. Fred Malek, Richard Nixon's "Jew counter," is a Republican powerbroker now. This fact is greeted with a yawn by the media. Helen Thomas, being a liberal, is different. She conforms to the media narrative that liberals hate Israel and, by extension and suggestion, Jews. If something contradicts that narrative, it's just ignored.

Israel is automatically right in America, which means any criticism of Israel is automatically wrong -- so long as said critic is liberal. Thomas's comments may have been less than constructive -- even stupid and offensive -- but no more so than anything people on the right say almost daily about Palestinians or Israelis. A long career of excellent journalism comes to an end, because a reporter sinned against the right's version of politically correctness. And careers of idiotic punditry go on, because they operate within the confines of acceptable conservative racism.

-Wisco


UPDATE: Rabbi Nesenoff's video is up at Mediaite, if you're interested. I started watching, but was overcome by the unfunny idiocy of the whole thing. If you can make it through it, you're a stronger person than I.


Get updates via Twitter

Holy Joe's Unholy Alliance

They call the only elected member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party "Holy Joe." Sen. Joe Lieberman is well-known for his faith -- specifically, his Jewish faith. After all, it was Sen. Joe who tried to out-holy Dubya in 2000, with a speech calling on Americans to "reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purposes." Atheists like myself or Buddhists who's gods aren't real (they're karmic illusions) apparently have no place in American life -- although, I suppose we could pretend to pray, just to be polite. It wasn't quite the Orwellian nightmare that Mitt Romney's "Freedom Requires Religion" speech was, but it was scary enough in its own right.

Sen. Joe's faith is a deep, deep river, flowing straight into the heart of Israel. Holy Joe is wholly Zionist. His defection from the Democratic party comes largely from his dedication to fulfilling the neocon prophecy of Israel-friendly democracies sprouting like mushrooms in the middle east. In fact, if the spores of those mushrooms have to be sown with mushroom clouds, it'd be hard to believe that Lieberman wouldn't be proud to push the big red button himself. After all, it was Joe who suggested that we attack Iran. Like most neocons, Lieberman has gotten a little ahead of himself -- there's no real evidence that Iran's enriching uranium to weaponize it and, obviously, this means that Iran doesn't actually have nuclear weapons. But I guess a stitch in time saves nine.

All of which, to the casual observer at least, makes the following story from Max Blumenthal a little hard to figure.

Senator Joseph Lieberman is scheduled to headline Pastor John Hagee's 2008 Christians United For Israel Washington-Israel Summit this July 22. In accepting Hagee's invitation, Lieberman became the most senior elected representative confirmed to appear at the annual gala. Last year, when Lieberman spoke at Hagee's summit, he compared the Texas televangelist to the biblical prophet Moses, dubbing him "an Ish Elochim," or "a man of God." Unless he rescinds his pledge to appear at this year's summit, Lieberman can be expected to deliver another soul-stirring tribute.

He may very well rescind his pledge. Hagee, as you may remember, is the end times nutbag who had endorsed John McCain until it was revealed that Hagee thought Hitler had been sent by God and that the Holocaust was part of God's plan for the Jews.

But the weird thing is that if Joe drops the Hagee event, it'll be because of what it would look like for McCain -- who Lieberman supports -- not because Hagee's a freak. It's extremely likely that Lieberman knows all about Hagee's crazy-assed belief system. In fact, it's extremely likely that McCain has Holy Joe to thank for bringing him to Hagee. Lieberman and the end times nut are tight. John Hagee is a pro-Israel Hitler enthusiast. That may seem contradictory, but with faith, all things are possible.

If that seems a little weird to you, it is. But it's also extremely pragmatic from a Zionist viewpoint. As a Christian fundamentalist, Hagee has some pretty crazy ideas about Jews and the future of Israel. But, as a Jewish fundamentalist, Lieberman doesn't believe that crap any more than I do. Like me, Lieberman knows the "rapture" is never going to happen and, like me, he doesn't lose a lot of sleep worrying about his status as one of the "unsaved."

If it still seems weird to you that Lieberman would be so supportive of someone whose beliefs are as offensive as the Pastor's, let me boil it down to six words -- he's playing Hagee for a chump.

Hagee subscribes to a branch of Protestant theology known as "Premillenial dispensationalism," AKA among the sane as the "rapture right." These are the people who think that Tim LaHaye's Left Behind novels are practically newly discovered books of the Gospels. All of this end times stuff predicts a bunch of stuff about the Jews and Israel. Without Israel, Jesus' glorious return can't happen -- at least, not as prophesied. And God, despite being all-powerful, can't deviate from a plan one bit. I'm not really sure how you explain that one, but there ya go.

So Hagee's the leader of Christians United for Israel -- an evangelical organization that sends aid to Israel and lobbies the US on Israel's behalf. Zionists get a lot out of dispensationalists like Hagee and dispensationalists like Hagee don't want a whole lot in return. If Hagee wants to believe insane BS about Jews, Israel, Hitler, the Holocaust, etc., what does it matter? None of this rapture stuff is ever going to happen, so Hagee's just a nut who shows up on your doorstep with an armload of money and political support. Why turn him away? As far as Zionists are concerned, Hagee and American rapture nuts are useful pigeons, ripe for the plucking.

Professor of religion and Middle Eastern studies at North Park University in Chicago Donald Wagner explains dispensationalism and the phenomenon of "Christian Zionism" this way:

Briefly stated, Christian Zionism is a movement within Protestant fundamentalism that sees the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and thus deserving of political, financial and religious support. Christian Zionists work closely with the Israeli government, religious and secular Jewish Zionist organizations, and are particularly empowered during periods when the more conservative Likud Party is in control of the Knesset. Both the secular and religious media place Christian Zionism in the Protestant evangelical movement, which claims upward of 100-125 million members in the US. However, one would more accurately categorize it as part of the fundamentalist wing of Protestant Christianity, since the evangelical movement is far larger and more diverse in its theology and historical development.

Joe doesn't care about all that dispensationalist crap -- it's all the product of the southbound end of a northbound horse anyway -- all he cares about is the "political, financial and religious support" for Israel.

I suppose at this point you're wondering, "What's all this have to do with me?" To answer that, we have to dig into the very craziest ideas of the rapture happy. Timothy P. Weber, author of On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend, explains:

There is a downside to the dispensationalist/Israeli friendship. In their commitment to keep Israel strong and moving in directions prophesied by the Bible, dispensationalists are supporting some of the most dangerous elements in Israeli society. They do so because such political and religious elements seem to conform to dispensationalist beliefs about what is coming next for Israel. By lending their support -- both financial and spiritual -- to such groups, dispensationalists are helping the future they envision come to pass.

Throughout their history, dispensationalists have predicted that before the final events of the End Times can take place, the Temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem. According to their scenario, half way through the Great Tribulation, Antichrist will enter the restored Temple and declare himself to be God. To outsiders, such predictions always seemed farfetched. But in the Six-Day War Israel gained control of the entire city of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount. Suddenly all things seemed possible, at least to some people.

The problem is that there's already something where the Temple once stood -- the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque. This is one of the key holy sites in Islam. And Christian Zionists want to see it destroyed. Not surprisingly, this doesn't make Muslims real happy. The alliance between Christian Zionists like Hagee and Jewish Zionists like Lieberman is something that's making enemies of both Israel and the US in the Muslim world.

Not that either group cares. For Christian Zionists, it would clear the way for the Antichrist and, The Omen to the contrary, that'd be a good thing. Jesus doesn't show up until the AC does it first. Remember, for some reason this all-powerful deity can't reschedule things.

Dispensationalists could care less what Muslims think. After all, what they have in mind is the end of the damned world anyway. The unsaved -- Muslim, Jew, Atheist, or whomever -- are all going to burn in the end. It doesn't matter what we want or what's sane, they've got some completely unbiblical rapture to get rolling.

In fact, this explains the Evangelical hatred toward Islam. It's not about terrorism or 9/11, it's all about the Dome of the Rock. Fellow former McCain endorser Rod Parsley called Islam an "anti-christ religion" and made the jawdroppingly insane claim that the US was "founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed." After all, if the only real obstacle to tearing down the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are Muslims, then Muslims are standing in the way of the re-Jesusing of the world. Following this insane logic, Muslims are anti-christ -- despite the fact that Jesus is a prophet in Islam. Islam must be destroyed, prophesy demands it. That hard right Zionists wouldn't mind seeing this happen either is a happy coincidence.

So John McCain may disown Hagee and Parsley. Holy Joe may do what the Almighty cannot -- change his schedule and not appear at Hagee's big "Yay for Israel" event. But as much as things change on the surface, there will be no changes below it. Relations between Israel and the US are informed, in part at least, by completely mad stories of magic horsemen and trumpets played by angels.

McCain may push these guys aside on the public stage, but people like Holy Joe will see to it that they always have a place at the table in private.

-Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; Iran; Iraq; neocon; John McCain; elections; 2008; Republican; Rod Parsley ;Islam; religion; religious right; Zionism; Israel; Joe Lieberman and John Hagee -- BFF

Appeasing the Neocons

It's typical of George W. Bush. He goes to Saudi Arabia to get their help in our energy mess and it doesn't go so well. In fact, the headline in the Telegraph was "Oil leaps after Bush's Saudi trip." Bush's mission did not achieve its desired effect. The Saudis agreed to produce 300,000 extra barrels -- a number the report calls "token." And it's only a token if you believe that Bush had any success at all. The Saudis say that decision had already been made and that Bush's visit had no impact.

Associated Press has a telling paragraph:

When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must "jawbone" oil producing nations and persuade them to drop rates. At that time, oil was nearing $28 a barrel — less than a quarter what it is now.

The Telegraph piece tells us that "investment bank Goldman Sachs [is] predicting an average price per barrel of $141 in the latter half of the year." The price per barrel is now $127.

No wonder Republicans don't see the value of diplomacy -- their guy sucks at it. Which kind of makes Bush's decision to take a slap at Barack Obama's foreign policy ideas a brand-new kind of ridiculousness. In fact, there are a lot of ridiculous bits to Bush's appearance before the Israeli Knesset. Not the least of which is going to the Israeli parliament to talk about Hitler. Doesn't really seem extremely appropriate to me.

For his part, Bush seems to realize that this election cycle is going to be about him and how much he sucks. So Bush has, apparently, decided that if Barack Obama is going to run against Bush, then John McCain should run against Hamas and Iran. McCain has no reason to thank the president for his help. As this campaign unfolds, the White House and Team McCain are going to find out that there are many things more popular Bush -- and that one of those things are Hamas and Iran. The average person is much more concerned with those who would appease Bush.

After all, it's not Hamas or Iran who are screwing up this country -- a vast majority of Americans agree that Bush is doing that. I don't think anyone's taken a poll on the subject, but I'd be willing to bet good money that if you asked people who they were most worried about, Bush would kick Iran's and Hamas' collective asses. So, if George W. Bush believes he has a role to play in this election, Barack Obama should applaud him, while John McCain should curse him.

McCain's problem is that he isn't cursing Bush and chasing him off the campaign trail. John McCain's joining in. The stupidity of this is hard to express in english. There just isn't a word for that mixture of insanity, stupidity, and contempt for your intelligence. McCain seems to believe that agreeing with Bush on foreign policy is a winner. It's hard to imagine how he could be more wrong.

Former dem prez candidate Sen. Joe Biden pointed out the hypocrisy of Bush's big "appeasers" speech.

ABC News:

Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, backed Obama's plan to engage in unconditional talks with the Iranians. "You either talk, you go to war, or you maintain the status quo," he explained. "What's the alternative to talking with a country that's building a nuclear weapon, attempting to, that, in fact, is helping kill Americans by supporting elements in Iraq that are killing Americans?"

Biden also said that Bush should fire Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for being so-called "appeasers." "They both -- Gates, as recently as a week ago -- said, we've got to sit down and talk with the Iranians directly," Biden said.

When asked if the president's comments were hypocritical, Biden explained he was "trying to be more polite, but I shouldn't be. It was ridiculous."

Of course, Bush's "appeasement" argument only works if you allow for a horrific abuse of the english language and a complete ignorance of history. Barack Obama has not, after all, suggested we let Iran annex Czechoslovakia. In fact, he hasn't suggested we give them anything at all. "Appeasement" requires some demand to be appeased. Something on the level of leaving Lebanon because terrorists demanded it. Kind of like what Reagan did.

Of course, I've always defined war as a three step process. First, there's a failure of diplomacy. Then, there's a period of irrational human sacrifice. Finally, there's a return to diplomacy and a diplomatic solution. Any sane person can see that there's a pointless and stupid step in there -- Bush and McCain think it's the first one. After all, you can't count on the diplomacy to fail and if it doesn't, then where are you? Up the creek without a war, that's where.

In the Bush/McCain universe, foreign policy consists entirely of being bullies and dicks. Talk is for weaklings and cowards, leaders get right to the fighting. Diplomacy is war's weak sister. "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever," could just as easily have been said by the neocons. George Orwell's party loyalist only beat them to it. Stupid and brutal people only understand force and violence and, sadly, they also believe everyone is just as stupid and brutal as they are. They use themselves as their models and conclude that diplomacy is guaranteed to fail.

What McCain, who called Bush's "appeasement" speech "exactly right," is saying is that he'd approach the world in the same way Bush has -- with a bomb in one hand and a flag in the other. Baghdad Johnny is telling everyone that he'd be four more years of George W. Bush.

It's hard to see how that'll be a winning argument.

-Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; war; Iran; neocon; elections; 2008; Israel; Somehow, I don't think that running as Bush v.2.0 is going to be a winner for John McCain