Obama achieves ceasefire in Gaza; Republicans still complain

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ThinkProgress:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Egyptian [Foreign] Minister Mohamed Kamel Amr today announced a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, ending eight days of violence that resulted in nearly 150 dead and more wounded. President Obama dispatched Clinton to the region yesterday and the nation's top diplomat traveled to Jerusalem and Cairo today to help facilitate the deal. 

But in a statement on the Gaza ceasefire today, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) — one day after intelligence officials debunked their attacks on the Obama administration over Benghazi — didn't have any kind words for the president and his team. In fact, the new "Three Amigos" attacked Obama, saying there needs to be "smarter American leadership" in the Middle East. 

Yes, why the hell won't he launch an attack on Iran?! Who the hell does he think he is?!

These clowns are so partisan and so desperate that they can't even give credit where credit is due if it involves the president.

Their interests are their own, not the country's, and with the world looking to the U.S. for leadership (and getting it) in the middle of a bloody powder keg, and with peace a tenuous hope but now, thanks to that leadership, a serious possibility, their comments aren't just stupid, they're foolish, counter-productive, and downright dangerous.

This is a time when unity behind the president, along with the presentation of such unity to the world and especially to the various elements in the Middle East, would go a long way towards resolving this crisis. But that's obviously too much to ask of Republicans these days.

Premeditated violence

By Capt. Fogg

So whether you agree with me or not that Israel's attempt to enforce the blockade of Gaza by boarding a ship which refused normal inspection procedures and the attempt at self defense of the IDF Navy when attacked, was not the outrage it was meant to look like, do you agree that it's all Obama's fault? Sure it was says John Bomb-Bomb McCain. If Obama hadn't insisted that Israel freeze it's West Bank settlement construction, this wouldn't have happened. (insert WTF here!)

Michael Savage tells us that Obama "pressured" Israel into it without offering any of the evidence one would desire to back it up.

"As far as I know, it was Obama's administration that told them how to do this attack. It was probably one of America's peace-loving generals, who knows which one of them did it."

The use of probably by a Fox News member of course is as good as proof to the willfully Foxed, as is "as far as I know." Probably means 'definitively' to the Savage audience. Only a Liberal would question it. Only a Liberal would wonder why "peace loving" should be the equivalent of stupid, duplicitous and incompetent -- if not treasonous.

Of course knees are jerking in the Liberal camp as well, as Dennis Kucinich has written to President Obama suggesting that the country needs to "redefine its relationship with Israel" in the wake of the Gaza flotilla "raid." I'd ask him his opinion on redefining the US Coast Guard's daily practice of stopping and boarding ships with armed gunboats and armed inspectors as "raids." I'd ask him if an attack on the Coast Guard by a vessel refusing to stop and be inspected in wartime or peacetime, would be supported by him or excused by him because we're certainly doing it now in the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Caribbean. I'd ask him whether our entire drug interdiction and human smuggling interdiction policies are " reckless, pre-meditated violence waged against innocent people." I'd try to do it without calling him an idiot and a hypocrite, but I doubt I could manage.

So if you still feel this was "premeditated violence" even when the violence occurred only after the "peaceful passengers" tried to kill the inspectors and threw one overboard, ask yourself what the US should do if a flotilla from Iran attempted to enter Iraq with an unspecified, un-inspected cargo, refused to heave to and be inspected and then brutally attacked our Navy when our Navy attempted to examine that cargo and passenger list.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

The outrage machine

By Capt. Fogg

As a boater, I'm aware that the Coast Guard has the right to board and inspect my vessel at any time and that I'm required to comply. Upon probable cause and perhaps just suspicion, they have a right to impound and literally disassemble my boat looking for drugs or contraband. Sometimes, as I'm given to understand, they've been known to be rather demanding in their searches, and other completely innocent, law abiding yacht captains I know have complained of dirty footprints on the ivory carpeting or greasy hand prints on the cherry paneling and have suggested that too much protest or grouchiness can earn one an extra careful inspection of safety equipment that might entail a ticket.

Of course we have a real problem in our coastal waters and particularly on the Atlantic coast with illegal immigrants arriving rather often, and then there's always the drug smugglers, so when the Coasties hail you it's best to heave to and not make waves, so to speak. In fact the US has a policy of stopping and boarding vessels anywhere on the high seas and at any time they suspect contraband. For an honest captain or crew, the idea of going after the Coast Guard with a boat hook or marlinespike is pretty much as unthinkable as it is counterproductive.

Yesterday however, when I read about the Israeli raid on the blockade runners attempting to bring supplies to Gaza, I was truly angered at what seemed like a pointless and brutal attack on unarmed civilians, and the video then available seemed to confirm that first impression. The media were making charges of piracy and it seemed less than hyperbolic at the time. Then I saw the rest of the video.

Aside from the question of the embargo itself, it has to be mentioned that the "relief" expedition was required to pass inspection before landing in Gaza, there being good reason for Israel to make sure no weapons or explosives or ammunition were being carried, or fugitives, or any persons wanted for questioning. The word of some Turkish political group that it's a peaceful enterprise is scarcely enough, although reports so far seem to gloss over the obvious with a coat of shiny outrage. Of course the flotilla had no intention of complying or of allowing themselves to be boarded peacefully and inspected, which carries the implication that they had indeed something to hide. The Israeli Navy did what any country would have done and boarded them.

The video that was not shown, of course, was the brutal attack by the passengers, who mobbed the inspectors, threw them to the deck and began beating them with clubs and metal rods. One Israeli was thrown overboard. They were vastly outnumbered. They began to defend themselves. There were casualties. It started to look less and less like piracy or even aggression. It began to look like deliberate provocation. It began to look like assault. It began to look like a mission of strategic martyrdom designed to turn Israel's ally Turkey against them. It looks like a success so far.

As usual, those who have their reasons for hating Israel will not compare the incident to trying to run through passport control at the airport and complaining about being tackled and detained. Those who are quite sure Hamas is justified in any act whatsoever that brings about the total annihilation of all Israelis wouldn't care and might rejoice if the ships had been blown out of the water without warning.

There's not much middle ground, there's not much changing of minds and a fortune is being spent on further polarization. This, in my opinion, is just part of that enterprise. The drums of manufactured outrage will continue to boom about mistreatment of "peaceful" passengers so long as doubt remains as to whether their mission had anything do do with anything but creating provocation against "Zionist Aggression." To some, the passengers will continue to be "tourists" and the haters of Israel will use any opportunity to appear as martyrs, but try this, if you dare: load up a flotilla of ships and announce your destination as Turkey and your cargo as aid for Islamist patriots resisting secularist aggression and when it comes time for customs inspection -- refuse to stop and be boarded. Set your "tourists" on the Turkish coast guard and customs inspectors with fence posts and bits of deck railing and furniture and claim that the secular Turkish government is attacking Islam and peaceful Islamists. Go on -- I dare you.




(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Israel, white phosphorus, and the war in Gaza

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I haven't written anything, or much, on Israel's military action in Gaza, but my quick view is this: While Israel does indeed have a right to defend itself, and while there is often good reason to defend itself, not least against enemies who want it wiped off the face of the earth, I'm just not sure that a heavy-handed military operation including both air strikes and a ground campaign is the best way to achieve its objectives.

Back in 2006, I wrote extensively about Israel's brief war against Hezbollah, initially supporting Israel. My views, which were actually quite nuanced, put me at odds with some of my liberal/progressive friends and aroused some opposition from readers. I ended up wondering at the tragedy of it all and thinking that Israel had simply gone too far and that the solution was to be found in diplomacy, not violence.

I continue to be a supporter of Israel, if a conditional one, but it has seemed to me that the current war in Gaza is, once more, too much. Israel pulled its remaining ground forces out today, but the fighting continues and, needless to say, the death toll has been disturbingly asymmetrical: 13 Israelis, more than 1,300 Palestinians.

How does this advance Israel's interests? How does it bring Israel any closer to its objectives? How does it bring peace, lasting peace, any closer? Surely there is some better way for Israel to isolate and disempower its enemies in Hamas. Instead of acting militarily, which, as here, is bound to alienate moderate Palestinians still further, and to lead to massive civilian casualties, why not more aggressively use the levers of soft power to promote progress in the region and with respect to Israeli security? I understand the desire to fight back, with vengeance, against those who want you wiped off the face of the earth, but, as ironic as it may be, the best way to fight back is not to fight back in the conventional way.

It does not help matters at all that the Israeli military may have "used white phosphorous weapons illegally during the Gaza war," as some "some non-governmental organizations" are suggesting:

A military spokesman in Tel Aviv said such weapons were not prohibited under international law if they were used to create smoke-screens or for marking battlefield areas. The spokesman said Israel only used legal weapons.

Human rights groups are concerned about the Israeli use of white phosphorous, illegal if used against civilians, because it can burn flesh like a kind of napalm.

Despite the military's denials, an investigation is underway:

The Israeli spokesman said: “in response to the claims of non-governmental organizations and claims in the foreign press relating to the use of phosphorous weapons, and in order to remove any ambiguity, an investigative team has been established in the Southern Command to look into the issue.”

The spokesman said the investigation was first announced on Jan. 16 and was repeated on Wednesday after the newspaper Haaretz reported that the military was “investigating whether a reserve paratroops brigade made improper use of phosphorus shells during the fighting in Gaza.”

I wrote extensively about white phosphorus back in 2005, when reports broke that the U.S. military had used it in Fallujah (against insurgents, but not civilians, it claimed, after initial denials):

• Has the U.S. used chemical weapons in Iraq?
• Phosphorus in Fallujah
• Pentagon calls white phosphorus a chemical weapon
• What is white phosphorus?

These posts aroused a good deal of indignation from some readers who were critical not of the U.S. military but of me for writing about it. But I stand by my conclusion:

So legally, yes, there might not be a problem. And, indeed, WP may be a useful and legitimate "weapon" when used indirectly on enemy targets -- whether as a smoke-screening agent or as a psychological weapon. But what if WP is used so that the "incendiary effect" becomes primary? Is it then still useful? Perhaps. Legitimate? Maybe (since the U.S. isn't a signatory to Protocol III). But oral? There's the big question.

Pentagon spokesman Col. Barry Venable has admitted that the U.S. used WP as "an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," according to the BBC. He stressed that it isn't a chemical weapon, that it's merely a conventional weapon, and that it's not "outlawed or illegal".

Again, fair enough. But is that where the story ends? For some, yes. The U.S. used it, but it's not a chemical weapon, its use is not prohibited by treaty, and it may be a useful agent on the battlefield -- where, let us not forget, our troops' lives are at risk.

But I come back to this: What message does the use of WP send to those whose hearts and minds the U.S. is trying to win over? After all, they're not interested in whether or not WP is a chemical weapon by definition or whether or not the U.S. is a signatory to this or that convention or protocol or whatever. They're not interested in the chemistry of WP or its deployment on the battlefield as a smoke-screening agent. Rather, they're interested in how the U.S. conducts itself in a war of its own making as it attempts to spread freedom and democracy around the world, in speech if not always in deed.

And does the same not apply to Israel's use of WP in Gaza? Whether it was done "legally" or not, what message does its use send? How does it help win over Palestinian hearts and minds? How does it weaken Hamas' hold on the region? How does it prevent Hamas from winning the PR war against Israel?

For more on this, including Israel's use of WP, see Capt. Fogg's excellent post from earlier this month:

Hamas' strategy is to provoke Israel into vicious insanity -- and it works. As they haven't the manpower or the weapons for anything but barbaric terrorism against innocent civilians, they depend on getting sympathy through the sacrifice of their own innocent citizens -- and it works and as long as it works, they're not going to fix it.

I certainly do not defend Hamas, or Hezbollah, and my conditional support for Israel, my view that it has a right to defend itself, remains. But Israel is also partly responsible for the "vicious insanity" in the region, and its use of WP only contributes to the problem.

Reflections on the War in Gaza

By Carol Gee

The war in Gaza has been a terrible event, terrible for the Palestinians and terrible for Israel. It has been terrible for Hamas and for Fatah, for Gaza and for the West Bank. It has been terrible for those trying to help, the NGOs, the UN, and Egypt.

The loss of life has been astonishingly asymmetrical. And the loss of innocent lives has been just heartbreaking. As a result protest has broken out all over the world, including in Israel. The nation of Israel cannot justify its actions as defensive. And Hamas has been shortsighted and stubborn in maintaining its rocket attacks on Israel. And the United Nations has, once again shown that it is ineffectual at its most basic work.

The timing of the war was chosen because of the transition of power in the United States, and because the Bush administration lost credibility as honest brokers for peace a long time ago. America's interests have not been what is best for the Middle East, but myopic and misguided. The timing took terrible advantage of President-elect Obama's lack of authority of the situation, knowing that he would respect the principle of one president for foreign policy at a time. Congress is out of touch with how widespread the dissatisfaction with what our friend Israel has done in Gaza. It is an unfortunate and unrealistic situation. The timing also has to do with Israel's political calendar. With the current Prime Minister having lost credibility and standing in his country and with elections coming in February, the war inevitably looks like it was fought for political gain at home for the Israelis.

The news about the war has been bad. And it has been badly reported, biased against the Palestinian people who lost their lives as innocents. Opinion makers ignore the astounding loss of life in the Gaza strip, they ignore the politics of the situation in the U.S., Israel and the West Bank. And they ignore the failures of the Bush administration regarding a long-awaited peace agreement in lands that have tried to settle it with violence for many decades.

Terrorists get to their views because of grievances, either real or perceived. Their terrorized adversaries will never be able to kill them fast enough or in enough numbers to attain peace. Because others look on, see what is happening, and take up the cause as soon as they are old enough. Terrorism is a tactic that is not confined merely to those who fit the stereotypical model.

Nations can find themselves getting into vengance-driven responses or aggression that puts them at risk of losing their souls. If nations had such things as "souls." Individuals have souls, nations have values and histories and constitutions and norms and good will to throw away. If they lose their way, as has the U.S., Israel, and Palestine (both parts). People in authority need to step back, take a breath, and open their eyes to the larger reality.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Moyers on Gaza

By Creature

We need more Moyers in America.


[h/t Glenn]

None of them knew what to do

By Carol Gee


Former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter, President-elect Barack Obama, and President George W. Bush posed for a group picture in the Oval Office of the White House Wednesday. (White House photo by Eric Draper.) It was a momentous occasion, requested by President-elect Obama and hosted by our current president (OCP). First there was a private meeting at which reportedly, the old heads advised our new president-to-be on how he could avoid being caught in a White House bubble of group-think, and how a President Obama could make it more possible for his people to bring him bad news. At the end there was a dynamite photo-op for everyone, during which these distinguished gentlemen were discussing the current Oval Office rug.

In an escalating Israeli/Palestinian conflict, at the same time half way around the world, there were people working very hard to kill each other . The headlines had been very troubling for several days: The Raw Story: A Norwegian doctor reports that "Israel intentionally targeted civilians"* (1/5/09). McClatchy: "Airstrike kills 3 at Gaza school-UN"* (1/6/08). Informed Comment: "Israel/Gaza Cyberwar and parallels to Abu Ghraib*" (1/6/09). And, recently, Informed Comment: "Something Horrible has been Discovered"* (1/7/09) Cole's post linked to The Telegraph/UK headline: "Gaza medics describe horror of strike which killed 70" (1/8/09).

Any talk of the Middle East? One could wonder whether the Oval Office occupants had anything to say in their meeting about how the United States has been forever unable to help generations of these determined combatants achieve a lasting peace. In turn each of these powerful "leaders of the free world" have been singularly unsuccessful as Middle East peacemakers. Warmakers, yes; temporary agreements, yes; but peacemakers with permanence, no.

Madeleine Albright's book, "Madam Secretary" recounts a great deal about how hard former presidents have tried for peace. About Carter, elected in 1976, she said:

President Carter was one of our most intelligent chief executives and one who showed a fierce dedication to conflict prevention and individual human dignity both during and after his term in office. He was a proactive President who achieved much in foreign policy, including the historic Middle East Peace Accords at Camp David. . . . Politically, however he was unlucky.

About Bush 41, Albright observed, regarding her work in the Clinton administration in 1997:

People were worried about Saddam's weapons and asking what we were going to do. . . No serious consideration was given to actually invading Iraq. The senior President Bush had not invaded when given the chance with hundreds of thousands of troops already in the region during the Gulf War.

In Albright's Chronology of her diplomatic work are included these pertinent entries: 11/4/92 - Bill Clinton elected President. 6/26/93 - U.S. bombs Iraqi intelligence headquarters in retaliation for assassination attempt against former President George Bush. 9/13/93 - Israeli and Palestinian leaders sign Oslo Declaration of Principles. 1/23/97 - MKA sworn in as 64th secretary of state. 10/15/98 - Middle East talks result in Wye River Memorandum. 7/11-25/2000 - Middle East summit. 9/28/2000 - Israeli politician Ariel Sharon visits the Temple Mount/Haram alSharif, violence breaks out. January 2001 - Last efforts to negotiate Middle East settlement failed.

"More than meets the eye." Following shortly after that we saw the Republicans take over. For a time the Middle East appeared to be quiescent. It was not of great concern to George W. Bush, until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. That tragic loss of American life set the U.S. on a path in the Middle East that largely ignored the unsolved conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Walls went up, Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas won an election, Ariel Sharon left the picture and tensions grew. The war in Lebanon happened. In all of these things the U.S. efforts were absent or made relatively little difference. All eyes have been on Afghanistan and mostly, Iraq.

President-elect Obama has promised to turn attention form Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. And he is not talking much about Israel and Palestine, reminding that "we have one president at a time." At the end of last year an important article appeared on Steve Clemons' blog, The Washington Note: "Daniel Levy: What Next on Israel/Gaza? Why Should Americans Care?" (12/28/08). This brilliant thinker asked a number of important questions that should have prompted some actions or answers from the Republican administration or former Republican leaders or opinion makers.

But these are the stories that appeared. From at-Largely came this story: "John Bolton continues to have no clue but plenty of propaganda..."* (1/5/09). See also Think Progress: "Gaza Crisis Means We Should Attack Iran Now"# (1/1/09). And this appeared at ThinkProgress: "Perino: Ground Invasion Will Help ‘Create A More Stable And Secure Area’ For People Of Gaza"* (1/5/09). AlterNet asks my question: "Why Do So Few Speak Up for Gaza?"* (1/7/08). And now this happy news -- AlterNet: "Israeli Militants Poised to Resettle Gaza After Assault"* (1/7/09).

I have not listened to the news today. Absolutely everything might have changed. It will not make any difference what the Bush administration does because, as Politico says: "Gaza reshuffles [the] Israeli political deck" (1/8/09) for Barack Obama. And none of his predecessors in the Oval Office can tell him what to do, because they do not know. None of them figured out the magic formula. Perhaps there is none. But one thing upon which you can count is that our new President will give it his best. He sees the world with very different eyes than the people in the picture, and that is a good thing.


Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to the leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Sign of the Apocalypse #62: Joe the Plumber, war correspondent and pro-Israeli propagandist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Seriously.

This is the second time that Samuel "Joe" Wurzelbacher has made our SOTA list. First he got a book deal, now he's off to war, sort of:

TOLEDO, Ohio – Joe The Plumber is putting down his wrenches and picking up a reporter's notebook.

The Ohio man who became a household name during the presidential campaign says he is heading to Israel as a war correspondent for the conservative Web site pjtv.com.

Samuel J. Wurzelbacher (WUR'-zuhl-bah-kur) says he'll spend 10 days covering the fighting.

He tells WNWO-TV in Toledo that he wants to let Israel's "'Average Joes' share their story."

That's right, he's being sent over to cover the war for Pyjamas Media's TV arm -- that is, for a right-wing media outlet.

But just who are these Israeli "Average Joes"? Will he really be interviewing average Israelis, many of whom are far more critical of their own government's actions than Israel's defenders, like Joe himself, in the U.S.? I suspect not. More likely, he'll be interviewing his Israeli counterparts, carefully chosen, right-wing regurgitaters of official government propaganda. See, he'll tell his all-too-eager right-wing American audience, these Israelis really want war just as much as you do. Not that Joe himself is smart enough to figure this all out for himself. He's just a tool, a pawn, in the larger propaganda war that Israel and its American allies are waging. (And I say this as someone who, in the past, has been extremely supportive of Israel and her various military excursions, arguing that it has a right to, and that it must, defend itself.)

What would be far more instructive would be to send Joe off to meet some average Palestinian Joes, those who may or may not much care for Hamas but who certainly don't like the Israelis invading them. Perhaps Joe could, for example, ask one of these average Palestinian Joes how he feels about the Israeli attack on that U.N. school. Perhaps he could even talk to someone who lost a loved one in that attack.

But, no, Joe is one of Israel's more mindless supporters, and all we'll get from him -- not that I'll be watching -- is some all-too-predictable pro-Israeli spin.

The situation in Gaza is complicated. A resolution to the current conflict, not to mention to the larger problem, will be difficult to achieve, to say the least. In his own pathetic way, Joe the Plumber just makes it all worse.

God is great

By Capt. Fogg

The explosions look like fireworks but with the bright white stars headed downwards rather than up. Oh Jesus, it's white phosphorus, I said to myself when I realized what I was seeing. I've raged about such weapons when the US used them and it makes me sick to see Israel using them too. Burning phosphorus does horrible things to people.

They shelled everyone in Gaza... they shelled children and hospitals and mosques and in doing so, they gave us legitimacy to strike them in the same way,

said Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar. Of course the hospitals and schools and even the mosques are ammunition dumps and launching pads for the thousands and thousands of missiles Hamas has launched and is launching indiscriminately into Southern Israel for the very purpose of provoking an attack which, seeing as they are hiding in schools and hospitals and apartment houses would generate the kind of inadvertent martyrdom Hamas , in its self-righteous cowardice, likes to assign to innocent people. They're still firing them into towns and villages and still refusing to stop even if it allows a cease fire and the end of the killing.

Of course, it's hard to cite something as a provocation when it follows your prior provocation, but the chain of provocation and response is so long, any party can pick a beginning that suits their arguments -- and of course they do.

Is the Israeli response disproportionate? Of course, but if someone fires a bullet at you would you limit yourself to firing only one in return -- and of the same caliber? I think not. Would we have given Germany back to the Germans or Japan back to the Japanese had they persisted in firing hundreds of rockets at us every day of the week? HaveHamas's rocket attacks and suicide bombing attacks been entirely against civilians? Of course. Have Israeli embargoes and draconian restrictions followed massacres? Yes, and around and around we go.

Is this kind of insanity the ineluctable result of two religious cultures claiming the same ground for religious reasons? In any event, I'm not a believer in any peaceful solution that will allow all concerned to lead decent, secure lives. If Israel were to turn over all territory taken after neighboring states tried to annihilate them, I have no doubt that every square inch would be used as a base of operations to once again attempt to kill every Israeli and every shot would come from behind a screen of women and children. So far, that's just what has happened.

There has been a tense and angry peace between Israel and other neighboring countries, but I see no hope for a Palestinian state in addition to Jordan, unless it's willing to accept Israel's existence -- and Hamas is not about the acceptance of Israel.

Hamas' strategy is to provoke Israel into vicious insanity - and it works. As they haven't the manpower or the weapons for anything but barbaric terrorism against innocent civilians, they depend on getting sympathy through the sacrifice of their own innocent citizens - and it works and as long as it works, they're not going to fix it.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Macho doesn't work as a foreign policy

By Creature

Trying to leave aside every tit for tat, every historical complication, every raw nerve of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and just look at what Israel is doing today (bombing the fuck out of Gaza), it's hard not to see their actions as anything but just plain dumb. If I'm willing to criticize the hawks here in the U.S. for inflaming anger and creating another generation of terrorists, I'll do the same to Israel (a country I have visited, have relatives in, and love, BTW). If the dumbfucks who are leading Israel, Hamas (and America, for that matter) cannot see that bombing people is counterproductive to the ultimate goal of living peaceably, side by side, then I have to assume I am wrong about the ultimate goal and really this is all about continuing the cycle of violence.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)