Saturday Art: The Right of Return, by Doc Jazz

The music of Tariq Shadid, a Palestinian surgeon, who goes by the nom de web of Doc Jazz, is quite varied.  A self-taught musician, his unique take on aspects of the Palestinian diaspora is gaining traction on the web, and in the Low Countries.  Although recently primarily based in the Netherlands, Doc Jazz has worked in the Gulf States, and was in the USA this fall, performing benefits.  Here is what Doc Jazz wrote about a benefit in Anaheim on October 18, 2012, for the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund:

I ended this sweet little concert with the song I had written especially for PCRF’s amazing efforts: ‘Healing Hands.’ By then, it was time to move on with the other parts of the program, most importantly the reason for holding this annual gala: to raise funds for providing medical treatment for the children of Palestine.

While the impressive efforts of PCRF’s medical projects were being shown on slideshows on two large screens, the generous crowd started making its donations. I was extremely impressed to hear that when it was all over, more than a hundred thousand dollars had been raised, with expectations being expressed of reaching almost double that amount at the closing of the fundraiser.

Knowing that PCRF translates all these finances into direct medical assistance to Palestinian children, was absolutely humbling. I know that words are of enormous importance, in creating awareness for the injustice that befalls these children, but you can’t help but feel forced into a modest attitude when you see the direct relief resulting from real-life medical and surgical treatment of Palestinian children in need.

In an interview by activist author, organizer and blogger, Heather Wokusch, Doc Jazz described his musical beginnings and impetus:

Next to my full-time job as a surgeon, I devoted the larger part of my spare time to supporting the Palestinian cause in any legal way I could think of. I started writing articles for the Palestine Chronicle in 2001, the same year in which I started a website called the ‘Musical Intifadah’. Being a self-taught hobbyist musician, I wrote and recorded, in my home-studio, songs about the Palestinian situation, and published them online, and made an online collection of songs, also by other artists, about Palestine. At that time, I did not believe that speaking up for the Palestinian cause was a feasible or useful thing to do in the Netherlands, so I saw the internet as a useful means to reach out on a more global level. However, then Gretta Duisenberg, wife of the then president of the European Central Bank, did a very courageous thing here. She hung a Palestinian flag from her balcony for several weeks, which caused a small international row, so I started believing there was yet hope for the Dutch situation. I wrote a song about her brave deed in Dutch (my first song in Dutch ever), which brought me into contact with her. When I joined her on her delegation to Palestine, a visit that was followed by the Dutch media on a day-to-day basis, it threw me right in the middle of the Dutch discourse on matters of the Middle East.

Dr. Shadid goes on to describe the role of artists, particularly protest artists, in this discourse:

The interesting thing we see in our modern societies, is that the corporations that finance (control) the media and entertainment business are very aware of the importance of artistic expression. They are always sure to propel their own symbolisms and stereotypes into the minds of people, whenever they get a chance to. Hollywood is one of the best examples of this, and who can deny its world-wide influence?  On the opposition side however, the disagreeing side, you find that many people lose themselves in angry discourse, and make themselves victims in the discussion, by falling into the defensive position. I believe art is one of the ways to reverse this dynamic, since art makes a statement that can not easily be responded to by verbal discourse. If those who are unhappy about the statement in your art try to attack it with their rhetoric, they often unwillingly aid in enlarging the message it is sending out. This way, I believe, art can be more powerful for a cause than any intellectual form of expression, be it a speech or an article. Nevertheless, I have noticed that people who propagate human rights causes often underestimate this effect, and don’t utilize it enough. They should support the efforts of artists who engage in ‘Creative Resistance’, more than they already do. [emphasis added]

From my own experience, I couldn’t agree more.  Doc Jazz’s concern expressed above about “speaking up for the Palestinian cause [being] a feasible or useful thing to do in the Netherlands,” came to my mind this morning, reading this (retweeted by Doc Jazz):

On the night a ceasefire came into effect ending eight days of Israeli slaughter that left 162 people, the vast majority unarmed civilians, dead in Gaza, Dutch columnist and author Leon de Winter proposed adding chemicals to Gaza’s water supply to sterilize the population.

The website PowNed reported that de Winter “made his proposal for forced eugenics yesterday evening in Amsterdam at a solidarity meeting of Dutch Jews,” and that the speech by de Winter was broadcast this morning by Dutch mainstream and publicly-funded Radio 1.

Troubling, but even more troubling:

de Winter responded in his speech to the accusations of genocide leveled against Israel, saying that the population of Gaza had only increased over the last few years. “Maybe we should secretly add some means of birth control to Gaza’s drinking water,” De Winter proceeded to propose.

The suggestion was met with roaring laughter by the public. Among the participants that evening were the Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands, Hiam Devon, and the cheerful leader of the [religious ultra-conservative] SGP party, Kees van der Staaij. [emphasis added]

So, as the Israeli war crimes in Gaza were winding down, the Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands was attending a RWNJ (right-wing nut job) event in the Netherlands, recommending another war crime – genocide!  Why am I not surprised.  Hopefully, somebody will write a song about this.

Here are two performances by Doc Jazz.

The Right of Return:

Children of Gaza:

What more can one say?

Abby Martin Rocks

Hat tip to Prof. Juan Cole.

I've been covering aspects of what is increasingly looking like intentional Israeli targeting of journalists during their failed 2012 Gaza terror campaign, here and in separate articles at firedoglake.

Not many Alaskans get informed from the viewpoint I've been presenting, but both Shannyn Moore, in her interview of Israel expert Max Blumenthal last Tuesday (go to 11/20/2012 - hour two), and Jesse Griffin, at The Immoral Minority did provide alternative coverage here.

Brainwash Update is getting better every month. Go, Abby!

Was There an HRC - Morsi Deal in Cairo Wednesday?

Don't Buy At WalMart

Hey, Obama - Get Off It! - This Planet's Not for Profit

Winona LaDuke, Reflecting on Gaza, Gets Misunderstood at Mondoweiss

Winona LaDuke is a powerful voice in the global fight against a host of evil actions and ideas.  She is as progressive as progressive gets.  In my actions and ideals, I find her as an ally in many areas.  Currently, that has to do mostly with our unconnected fights against insane coal development projects.

On November 16th, she posted this at her main Facebook niche, Honor the Earth:

"...euro-americans in the United States can't talk about Gaza, because we can't talk about Israel. Because we can't talk about the fact that the world is not suffering from a Israeli/Palestinian conflict, but that the world is suffering from the fact that Europe has never been able to deal with it's 'Jewish Question' without some sort of intense barbarity and horror from the Inquisition to the Holocaust. And that Europe, in particular 'Great' Britain, the masters of divide an conquer 'solved' the problem by supporting the radical, terrorist, extremist Zionists and their mad plan to resettle the 'homeland.' We can't talk about Israel because we can't talk about Wounded Knee. Because we can't talk about Sand Creek or Carlisle 'Boarding School.' Because we can't talk about forced sterilization or small pox blankets or Kit Carson and his scorched earth policy in the Southwest. Because we have Andrew Jackson on our twenty dollar bill. Because we are one huge settlement on stolen land. We can't talk about Israel because we are Israel."

Comments at the Facebook post were dominated by a couple or few people who were hostile to anything that might be critical of Israel's actions in Gaza this past week.

Early Wednesday, Adam Horowitz posted LaDuke's Facebook entry in its entirety at Mondoweiss, pretty much without introduction or commentary on it.  Most commenters there perceived LaDuke's brief statement as positive or interesting.  Some did not, possibly misinterpreting what LaDuke was saying.  I was bothered by one long-time Mondoweiss commenter's - American - brief rant:

American says:

November 21, 2012 at 12:27 pm

Actually this is meaningless crap………I could explain why but it would take too long. 

Maybe someone else will feel like spending time on it.

Irritated, I responded:

Philip Munger says:

November 21, 2012 at 4:47 pm

I’ll take your bait, American. 

I’ve been following and writing about Ms. LaDuke for a long, long time. Most recently, I wrote an article comparing her stance on some vital issues to Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog: 

link to my.firedoglake.com 

LaDuke’s view of dispossession of indigenous cultures doesn’t isolate now from the 19th century. It is an account of an ongoing continuum. Find out what she is actually doing right now before you trash her statement as “crap.” 

She does not view the assaults on Palestinians as being independent of similar assaults over a host of issues, resources, religious ideologies, ethnic/tribal competitions or national borders. 

I’ve learned a fair amount from her activities and writings over the years, as have many or my Alaska Native colleagues dealing with cultural, climate change and resource development/ownership issues in Alaska and NW Canada. Being part (a smidgeon) Comanche, I feel some solidarity, but the planet’s survival transcends tribe. 

Ms. LaDuke and I both view the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as less important than its centrality in the mix that keeps us accepting the degradation and distraction resulting from fascination over wars. And the issues the wars distract us from are far more important than the totality of the deaths, injuries and damage they cause: 

1. The people who we killed (including many of my Vietnam War buddies who died slow agonizing deaths) in our Agent Orange campaigns are dead, but the Agent Orange is still there, silently killing. 

2. The people the Israelis killed in the 2006 Hezbollah War in Lebanon are dead, but the effects of the gratuitous Jiyah Power Station oil spill into the Mediterranean continue to stifle life over hundreds of thousands of square miles of the eastern Med. 

3. Deformed babies in the thousands will continue to be born into the next few centuries in areas where depleted uranium and similar very toxic weapons have been or are being used. 

4. Paraphrasing from your comment, “I could go on and on, but it would take too long. Maybe someone else will feel like spending time on it.” 

The most compelling and threatening issues facing mankind are global, not national or tribal: 

1. Vulnerability of aging reactors and their growing spent fuel pools to a host of increasing dangers: plate tectonic changes, rising waters at cooling sources, larger storm surges from climate change, or sabotage. 

2. Other nuclear waste problems (Hanford, Savannah River, several places in the former USSR and China), and nuclear weapon safeguards that are inadequate and aging. 

3. Degradation of soil and water resources through wasteful agricultural practices worldwide. 

4. Global warming itself. 

LaDuke is intensely tuned into that. She creates metaphors that transcend the tribal, while simultaneously defending and promulgating what wisdom she has gained from her heritage.

You can read American's CAP-FILLED response here.

Maybe American misunderstood what this sage woman had written because it was constrained by Facebook's limitations.  So, I decided to create a poem from what LaDuke has posted:

We Can't Talk About Israel 

"...euro-americans
in the United States
can't talk about Gaza,
because we can't talk about Israel. 

Because we can't talk about the fact
that the world is not suffering
from a Israeli/Palestinian conflict,
but that the world is suffering 

from the fact
that Europe
has never been able to deal
with 

it's 'Jewish Question'
without some sort of intense barbarity and horror
from the Inquisition to the Holocaust. 

And that Europe,
in particular 'Great' Britain,
the masters of divide and conquer
'solved' the problem 

by supporting
the radical,
terrorist,
extremist Zionists 

and their mad plan
to resettle the 'homeland.' 

We can't talk about Israel
because we can't talk about Wounded Knee.
Because we can't talk about Sand Creek
or Carlisle 'Boarding School.' 

Because we can't talk about forced sterilization
or small pox blankets
or Kit Carson
and his scorched earth policy in the Southwest. 

Because we have Andrew Jackson on our twenty dollar bill. 

Because we are one huge settlement
on stolen land. 

We can't talk about Israel
because we are Israel."

I hope that helps.

People are edgy in the aftermath of this week-long savagery.  Media pundits are having difficulty accepting why this gratuitous Israeli campaign has attracted so much more worldwide and U.S. media attention than the 2006 Lebanon campaign, the 2008-2009 Gaza campaign, or the May 2011 Gaza flotilla massacre did.  The professional or delusional amateur Hasbarists are unable to make their previous dents in blog comment dialogues, because people are becoming more knowledgeable on these issues.

These days, for every David Atkins, hired at Hullabaloo (he's certainly driven away a lot of Digby fans, me included), there are now 1,000 or more Glenn Greenwalds.

Back in 2005, when Jane invited me to begin commenting at firedoglake, the opposite was the case throughout the so-called "lefty blogoshpere."  Up until the 2006 Lebanon invasion, if one wrote "AIPAC" in a comment here, one went into moderation, sometimes overnight.  It was filtered.  That has changed - with a lot of hard work, contemplation and search for people like Kevin Gosztola, who are adept at negotiating the  minefields of I/P.

firedoglake, unlike Mondoweiss, has many issues we address having nothing to do with Palestine or Zionism.  This is not to dismiss Mondoweiss, nor its often vibrant comment community and contributing authors.

LaDuke's statement reflects the broadness of our struggle brilliantly.

Gaza Brings Up Two Questions: When Are Journalists Legitimate Military Targets? - & Are Any Israel vs Nazi Comparisons Apt?

I. Israeli government spokesperson Mark Regev is one or the smoothest operators out there among world-class apparatchiks.  Like Israeli Defense Forces spokesperson for the press, Avital Leibovich, he is non-plussed when being asked vexing questions about the dubious morality of Israeli military policy.  Early in the weekend, Leibovich was questioned by RT TV about the bombing of a building in Gaza City which housed offices, equipment and reporters for several news agencies.  She claimed it was impossible to avoid hurting journalists, because Hamas was using them as "human shields."

Now the Israelis have again attacked a building housing news gatherers:

After a second Israeli attack on a media building in two days, this time killing two journalists, the spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister, Mark Regev explains toal-Jazeera English that because the journalists were Palestinian the Israel military considered them legitimate "targets." Regev's remarks were made just a few hours after the November 19, 2012 bombing of al-Shuruq Tower and another building used to house the offices of several media outlets, including both Palestinian and international networks. 

Speaking to al-Jazeera, Regev said, "We took out the target that we wanted to take out." When pressed by al-Jazeera over the injuries of eight journalists the previous day, where one lost his leg, Regev continued: 

"Oh you're talking about... oh first of all maybe we have a discussion about who is a journalist and if you'll allow me I will elaborate on this. There is the al-Aqsa station, which is a station that is a Hamas command and control facility, just as in other totalitarian regimes; the media is used by the regime for command and control and also for security purposes. From our point of view that's not a legitimate journalist." 

Al-Jazeera's correspondent then followed-up by asking, "So what are you saying? That a local Arab journalist life is any less than an internationalist journalist?"Apparently for Regev, yes, in Gaza there are no legitimate Palestinian journalists, only targets. [emphasis added]

I don't think international law makes a distinction between journalists working for outlets within authoritarian regimes and others.  Nor do I think Mr. Regev or Ms. Leibovich care.  There may be Palestinian journalists working in Gaza who are not somehow connected to Hamas, but to get their credentials they have to apply to the local government - Hamas - to get them.

Kevin Gosztola covered the earlier attacks in a great article here early Sunday, titled Israel's Targeting Media is a War Crime.  Here is his accounting of worldwide media reaction:

Five missiles hit the 11th floor offices used by Al-Quds TV and injured four employees— Darwish Bulbul, Khadar Al-Zahar, Muhammad al-Akhras and Hazem al-Da’our. Hussein Al-Madhoun, a freelance photographer working for the Ma’an News Agency was wounded. The office had been serving as a headquarters for various foreign and Palestinian media organizations, including Ma’an News Agency. 

Hours later, around 7 am, a building Reporters Without Borders claims was known as the “journalists’ building”—the Al-Shorouq building—was hit. The two missiles that struck the building wounded three Al-Aqsa TV employees and damaged the offices of Sky News Arabia, the German TV station ARD, Arab TV stations MBC and Abu Dhabi TV, Al-Arabiya, Reuters, Russia Today and Ma’an News Agency. 

“These attacks constitute obstruction of freedom of information,” stated Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Christophe Deloire. “We remind the Israeli authorities that, under humanitarian law, the news media enjoy the same protection as civilians and cannot be regarded as military targets.” 

The Foreign Press Association (FPA) expressed their “concern” with Israel’s strike on a “media building housing FPA members Sky News, Sky News Arabia, MBC TV, Al-Arabiya, ORF and other European broadcasters.” 

Predictably, Israel tried to justify hitting buildings being used by journalists by claiming it was “infrastructure of Hamas’ operational communications” were located inside the civilian building. It targeted the communication devices on the rooftop to “minimize damage.” And, it hit the second building because that building was also “part of Hamas’ operational communications.” They “deliberately located” the devices on the roof of the building, the army claimed. 

Deloire did not accept this official statement, “Even though the outlets targeted are linked to Hamas, it does not legitimize the attacks…Attacks against civilian targets constitute war crimes.” 

Ofir Gendelman, spokesman of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, tweeted that “No Western journalists were hurt” in the attacks on the media buildings, which suggests the lives of non-Western journalists are meaningless to Israel. They can be wounded or killed and that will be fine because it will be easy to suggest they were Hamas sympathizers or were working for the Hamas.

Here is Mark Regev today on Al Jazeera:

And here is Avital Leibovich on RT TV, on Saturday (I carried this clip in an fdl diary on Sunday):

Regev goes further than Leibovich.  She argued that Hamas is using reporters as human shields, so some might get hurt.  Regev states "the media is used by the regime for command and control and also for security purposes. From our point of view that's not a legitimate journalist."
When American reporters become embedded in military units so they might do battlefield reporting, the version of their account that gets published almost always helps "the regime for command and control" in a strategic sense.  The same is often true with British reporters embedded with UK units, and so on.  No doubt reporters embedded with Israeli units help steer the national meme in the preferred direction of the regime in power far more often than not.

But, again - as Kevin Gosztola quoted Sunday:

…Inasmuch as they are civilians, journalists are protected under international humanitarian law against direct attacks unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. Violations of this rule constitute a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I. What is more, intentionally directing an attack against a civilian – whether in an international or in a non-international armed conflict – also amounts to a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court…

Ofir Gendelman's statement about these bombings, that "no Western journalists were hurt" once again betrays the racism that has become so embedded in Israeli society that Bull Conner would be proud.

But when ARE journalists legitimate targets?  If Churchill had been able to call down a Mosquito strike on Lord Haw-Haw's studio, would he have done so?  Would Admiral Bull Halsey have ordered Helldivers and Corsairs to destroy Tokyo Rose's control room, had he known its whereabouts?

Both Lord Haw-Haw and Tokyo Rose were tried in their native countries - the UK and USA, respectively - for treason.  Haw-Haw was hanged and Tokyo Rose served a relatively short sentence, eventually being pardoned by President Gerald Ford.

In World War II, the Nazis and Soviets faced off in an "existential" struggle, and many captured journalists from both sides perished.  These days, it seems that Israel considers every threat, whether it be from artists not wanting to collaborate with Israeli ensembles, or food co-ops not wanting to offer West Bank settlement products for sale, or student groups at colleges, demonstrating against apartheid to be an "existential threat."  They have turned into the nation at arms Napoleon or Ludendorff could only have imagined possible.

Certainly Israel is not alone in its hostility toward reporters seeking honest answers or who are seeking to unearth disturbing truths.  But the degree of justification they seek in explaining the killings non-white reporters is creepy.
So, if you want to back or supplement Regev, when ARE journalists legitimate targets, if ever?

II.  Bringing up World War II in Europe, particularly the Eastern Front, when writing or speaking about Israeli history or current Israeli policy, even tangentially as I have done above, can lead to accusations of unfair comparisons.  I've usually kept far away from comparing Israeli atrocities to those of the Nazis.  I advise others to do the same.

Here are some ground rules:

I recommend against comparing anything done by actors for the Jewish State of Israel with anything done by the actors of the Nazi 3rd Reich. There are more apt historical comparisons to be made:

1) Various tribal wars of European colonist or the American government against our first peoples.
2) French policies in Algeria, particularly after WWII.
3) Rhodesian policies toward Native inhabitants.
4) Portuguese policies in various late 20th century colonies.
5) The Apartheid policies of the Union of South Africa. This is particularly apt, as the State of Israel supported these atrocious policies directly in many ways, extending to the latter offering the apartheid SA government nuclear weapons, in a variety of sizes and flavors.
6) I’m sure there are other non-Nazi examples.

Feel free to add.

I do subscribe to the notion  - Godwin's Law - that “in an argument, the first person who mentions Hitler loses.”
The only comparison between Nazi policies and Israeli policies I have been tempted to make has been that of comparing the 1941-44 900-day siege of Leningrad to that of Gaza. Even there, the metaphor doesn’t strike me as strong enough to be as usable as many viable models that don’t throw Hitler into the equation.

However, in the spirit of inquiry, ARE THERE apt comparisons between Israeli policies or dogma, and anything whatsoever having to do with the Third Reich?

Matt Lee Vs. Victoria Nuland - Round 50-something

Max Blumental on RT TV, Showing His Acuity on the Ongoing Gaza Operation

As Eliminationist Racism Explodes in Israel, Obama Defends Its Consequences

I.  As the civilian death toll in Gaza mushroomed Sunday, the son of long comatose Ariel Sharon invoked mushroom clouds, in a stark metaphor of eliminationism toward the people of Gaza:

The son of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has called on Israel to escalate its current military assault and “flatten all of Gaza”.

In an inflammatory op-ed article for The Jerusalem Post,  Gilad Sharon dismisses any concern over the deaths of innocent Palestinian civilians as a result.

“The residents of Gaza are not innocent, they elected Hamas,” he writes.

“We need to flatten entire neighbourhoods in Gaza. Flatten all of Gaza. The Americans didn’t stop with Hiroshima – the Japanese weren’t surrendering fast enough, so they hit Nagasaki, too.”

Sharon was far from alone.  A line was crossed Saturday when Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai called for a Holocaust against Palestinians:

Palestinian activists routinely claim to be suffering a “shoah” at the hands of Israel, but the Jewish state normally denies any moral equivalence between the suffering of Palestinians today and European jewry under the Nazis.

Matan Vilnai, deputy defence minister, broke that taboo when he used the term “shoah” during interview on Army Radio.

“The more qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves,” he said.

His use of the term reflects the febrile atmosphere in Israel where public opinion demands the government does something decisive to stop the daily barrage of rockets fired from Gaza over the border into Israel.

The Telegraph article was incorrect in its claim of “a daily barrage of rockets fired from Gaza.”  That is certainly the case now, but there have been many extremely long lulls and cessations in the most often innocuous and ineffectual rocket launchings or barrages.  Indeed, the Israelis have killed more Palestinian kids this week than Palestinian rockets have claimed over all the years among all Israelis, let alone innocent children.

Minister Vilnai wasn’t the only government spokesperson to vilify human life itself this weekend in public comments.  Interior Minister Eli Yishai earnestly advocated genocidal war crimes against Gazans:

7:55 P.M. Interior Minister Eli Yishai on Israel’s operation in Gaza: “The goal of the operation is to send Gaza back to the Middle Ages. Only then will Israel be calm for forty years.”

Phil Weiss and Alison Deger, in Israel covering the war for the American blog, Mondoweiss, observed aspects of this despicable racism in a post early Saturday:

And shockingly, several Jewish Israelis I spoke to called for genocide in Gaza. “Kill them all,” said Chen, 23, in Ashkelon.

…..

Several people offered genocidal statements unprompted. What is the solution to Gaza? “Long term? I don’t think you should write it down,” Debbie, an Australian who had emigrated to a town near Gaza, said. “Push delete on Gaza,” said a 22-year-old man standing on a hill in Sederot overlooking Gaza.

“Gaza need to disappear,” said Chen, 23, a clerical worker in a doctor’s office in Ashkelon. “Disappear?” “Yes, kill them all. Of course. One time, and that’s it.” She dusted her hands together. “Nobody’s good there.” Her coworker, Miri, 52, nodded agreement.

When confronted yesterday by RT TV’s Bill Todd on the intentional targeting of two press HQs in Gaza, and on the high number of deaths the IDF is inflicting on Palestinian women and children, IDF spokesperson Avital Leibovitch was non-plussed, not even able to recognize her own deeply embedded racism:

II.  President Obama, on his way to pimp the sellout Trans-Pacific Partnership in Asia, was quick to cover these vile racists’ actions with one of his most hypocritical statements ever:

“There is no country on Earth that would tolerate missiles raining down on from outside its borders,” Obama said Sunday in his first public comments on the fighting. “We are fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend its borders.”

Uh, I guess that doesn’t pertain to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen and other places to where people in padded rooms in Las Vegas or some other stateside U.S. base send “missiles raining down on [sic] from outside its borders.”

Reactions to Obama’s racist comment from the anti-war left are understandably harsh.  Here’s The Agonist:

Umm, did you forget about your own drones raining missiles on people across the globe, Mr. President? Or the bombs sent from outside it’s own borders currently raining down on Gaza? In any case – whether the rockets or Israeli airstrikes came first this time around is a bit of chicken-and-egg question, although the favorite for instigator is actually Israel. Let’s not forget too the ongoing Israeli blockade of Gaza – a military blockade of a civilian population being a textbook act of war.

The fact remains, you don’t support one side’s war crimes even if you think the other side started war crimes first. That’s not how it’s meant to work.

And let’s have some sense of perspective here – at current rates it’d take Hamas over 4 million years to do to Israel what Israel could do to Gaza in a week. Since this new round of conflict erupted last Wednesday, three Israelis have been killed, but 65 Palestinians are dead, most of them civilians. Jonathan Cook relates the tale of a recent “fair an balanced, both sides do it” segment that went very off script.

Here’s Paul Mutter at  Mondoweiss:

[I]n all such instances, past, present and future, I think we can expect the US to offer the same sort of green lighting the White House has delivered this day. Obama was still in transition in 2008 when Cast Lead took place, and “only” received intelligence briefings and Israeli missives on Cast Lead. This week, he has made his views clearer still.

I observed in the comments at Mutter’s piece:

As neo-liberal as Obama is, I can’t imagine he has forgotten all the slights, minor or major, delivered to him and his administration by Natanyahu over the past years. They began with the highly embarrassing treatment of VP Biden when Biden visited Israel in March 2009, and Netanyahu’s administration announced a huge expansion of settlements right before their scheduled meeting, and went on constantly, right down to Netanyahu’s appearance in pro-Romney campaign ads last month. Obama has been kicked in the nuts by Netanyahu so many times and so hard over the past three years, I’m surprised his voice hasn’t gone up an octave. Can’t imagine this sits well with the president. At all.

Obama is going to be very busy, though, setting up the Trans-Pacific Partnership, selling out so-called entitlements, pushing to get the US to surpass Saudi energy production on his watch, and – if he can garner the support – find a way to scam marketization of carbon taxes and carbon sequestration programs into the next big Wall Street bubble. To do this, he will need help from a lot of ardent Zionists in powerful places.

While Obama is sticking up for this sickening campaign, he probably views it as a distraction from more important deal-making afoot as he prepares to duplicate or even outdo the kinds of policies put in place by his Democratic Party predecessor between 1997 and 2000.

image – four dead Palestinian siblings, killed by the IDF on November 18,2012