They Are Gazans. Gazans. And Did I Mention "Gazans"?

During much of the years 2009-2016 (or 2015), I never missed an opportunity to criticize President Obama- for roughly the same reason Matt Stoller does here. However, in this tweet he chooses the wrong incident to slam the ex-President because the latter said nothing wrong.

Ultimately Obama never stood for anything except his own celebrity. He built the deeply loathed Democratic party that exists today. https://t.co/mUTs3Tomll

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) April 30, 2026

The website Middle East Eye, widely believed to be funded by Qatar, reported last October

Social media users have accused former US President Barack Obama of dehumanising [sic] Palestinians and "bothsides-ing" genocide for a social media post about the announcement of a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas.

"After two years of unimaginable loss and suffering for Israeli families and the people of Gaza, we should all be encouraged and relieved that an end to the conflict is within sight; that those hostages still being held will be reunited with their families; and that vital aid can start reaching those inside Gaza whose lives have been shattered," Obama posted on X on Thursday.

He continued: "It now falls on Israelis and Palestinians, with the support of the US and the entire world community, to begin the hard task of rebuilding Gaza – and to commit to a process that, by recognizing the common humanity and basic rights of both peoples, can achieve a lasting peace."

Many users criticised the choice to reference "Israeli families" while referring to Palestinians as "the people of Gaza".

The ‘people’ of Gaza are Palestinians. They have survived a genocide and an ongoing attempt to eliminate them for over a century,” Palestinian-American human rights attorney Noura Erakat added.

The people of Saudi Arabia are Saudi Arabians. The people of Nigeria are Nigerians. The people of Ukraine are Ukrainians. And the people of Gaza are Gazans. This should not be so hard. Yet 

Several argued that the distinction was not merely stylistic, but part of a long-standing rhetorical pattern in western political language.

Sana Saeed, a media critic, wrote: “this wasn’t a deliberate demarcation of humanity; it’s reflex. A masterclass in seven words on how Palestinians are rendered faceless and nameless when slaughtered, while Israelis are granted empathy - especially when they are the butchers.”

Obama observed "an end to the conflict is within sight;" that hostages "will be reunited with their families." He suggested also that"vital aid can start reaching those inside Gaza," that "the hard task of rebuilding Gaza" and of achieving "a lasting peace" can begin.

It's unsurprising that eventual peace with Israel and the release of live hostages would be distasteful to Islamists. It's a little more surprising that someone envisioning lasting peace and the rebuilding of Gaza would be scolded (though not much more).

The article continued

"For Obama, Israel has families, but Gaza just has people. Israelis are hostages being held but Gazans are merely 'those' who need aid," posted one user.

“When they deign to mention Palestinians at all, they must always throat-clear by mentioning Israelis first. Thems the rules," said journalist Barry Malone.

If it is unacceptable to address the matter of Israelis while addressing the plight of Palestinians, there is an alternative. "The Palestinians in Gaza are led by a ruthless, evil entity named Hamas which should be wiped off the face of the earth."  O.K., then: Palestinians are mentioned with no mention of Israelis.

Moreover

Several social media users highlighted Obama’s use of the word “conflict” to describe Israel’s assault on Gaza, which the UN, genocide and legal experts, and international rights organisations have concluded constitutes a genocide.

"'Conflict' connotes that this was a war with two equal sides and not a genocide/wiping out of an entire region and its infrastructure," responded one user.

"It’s a GENOCIDE," responded historian Assal Rad. "There is no accountability without acknowledging it, and there is no justice without accountability."

Several users said the framing constituted a “bothsides-ing” of a situation defined by Israeli occupation and siege.

The word "conflict" was used because it was a conflict (unfortunately, still is). Obama was not trying to score points or to litigate the issue of genocide; he was applauding an apparent ceasefire.  

And- for the 173rd time or so I've had to mention: this was, or is, not genocide. Killing lots and lots of people, even unnecessarily, is not genocide. If it were, Russia currently would be accused of genocide against Ukrainians and the USA would be accused of genocide against Iranians (or Persians). Nonetheless, neither major power- and Israel has proven it, too, is a major power- is attempting to wipe out an entire people.

Russia, a nuclear power, could wipe out Ukrainians; it is not. The USA, a nuclear power, could wipe out Irainians; it is not. Israel, generally believed to be a nuclear power, could wipe out Iranians; it is not. The Russian assault against Ukraine is not referred to as war crimes committed against Slavs, but rather against Ukrainians. However, it has become acceptable for Islamists and their allies to define the ongoing Middle East dispute in racial terms. 

This is reprehensible. 

The Israelis are not trying to exterminate a people. If it were trying to eliminate Palestinians, Jordan- at least 50% Palestinian- now would be under brutal asault.  (And it probably would become a wasteland.)

The Islamists who actually were offended by the remarks of ex-President Obama would argue that what Israel has done to Gaza would constitute genocide. However, with the ever-increasing number of people outside of Gaaza who would identify as "Palestinian,"it is odd that "Palestinian" would be considered synonymous with residents of Gaza. I suppose that referring to inhabitants of a strip of land constituting a political entity would fit "the longstanding rhetorical pattern in western political language," as Middle East Eye put it.  Que c'est horrible!

The term "genocide" is one of the best examples of definition creep.  "Genocide" never meant unnecessary killing or even slaughter but something far worse. However, those who wish to accuse Israel of the worst behavior imaginable have employed "genocide" as a weapon against a nation with the gall (chutzpah?) to believe that it has a right to exist.  The expression joins "traitor" and "racist" as among the most commonly abused words whose definition is stretched well beyond its original, justified, meaning.

These were comments posted on social media and everyone has a right to express his or her opinion. However, individuals who find these viewpoints distasteful and- more importantly- absurd should not ignore them.  And it shouldn't be left to the far right, which often attacks such remarks, to expose them as nonsense.

Share |

Bashing Israel, So Routine

On most major liberal/progressive blogs, no month will pass without an impassioned condemnation of the only democracy in the Middle East. And there was no need to fear the intrusion of objectivity into this post from Firedogake, beginning, ominously, "ethnic cleansing kicks off in the West Bank."

It is odd that Israel is accused of initiating a policy of ethnic cleansing with "the first eviction of a Palestinian, Ahmad Sabah, from the West Bank to Gaza, forcibly separating him from his wife and children." If it seems odd to remove forcibly an entire people from an area by evicting men and leaving women and children behind, it's only because it is. (One-by-one, I guess.) And it is extremely inefficient, calling into question hyberbole about "ethnic cleansing." But such it is, in the realm of anti-Zionist propaganda commentary.

The blogger concludes her post by arguing

we as a nation will continue to betray our own founding principles by helping to arm and fund the government of Israel, which is oppressing its Palestinian minority and laying seize (sic) to the people of Gaza.

"Laying siege to the people of Gaza?" Not by any objective measure. Charles Krauthammer, no more impartial than I but entirely accurate, explained
during the Israel-Gaza war early last year

Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis -- 6,464 launched from Gaza in the past three years -- deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people....

At war today in Gaza, one combatant is committed to causing the most civilian pain and suffering on both sides. The other combatant is committed to saving as many lives as possible -- also on both sides. It's a recurring theme. Israel gave similar warnings to Southern Lebanese villagers before attacking Hezbollah in the Lebanon war of 2006. The Israelis did this knowing it would lose for them the element of surprise and cost the lives of their own soldiers.

It was Israel, Krauthammer pointed out, which "gave the Palestinians their first sovereign territory ever in Gaza." He notes the result:

No roads, no industry, no courts, no civil society at all. The flourishing greenhouses that Israel left behind for the Palestinians were destroyed and abandoned. Instead, Gaza's Iranian-sponsored rulers have devoted all their resources to turning it into a terror base -- importing weapons, training terrorists, building tunnels with which to kidnap Israelis on the other side. And of course firing rockets unceasingly.

These are unpleasant facts, but facts nonetheless. But we'll give the last word to what the Middle East Media Research Group says is a communique from "the Gaza-based Salafi-jihadi group Jama'at Al-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad (JTJ)." And a fine excerpt, it is:

As for the descendants of apes and pigs [i.e. the Jews], we bring them the tidings that the wave of jihad is inexorably coming, and they, Allah willing, will taste the bitterness of the blows of the sincere and the harsh imprint of the monotheists [i.e. the Salafi-jihadis] on their lives and their property. Allah carries out his promises and makes his orders come to pass. If in the past they reeled under the blows of the nationalists, the pan-Arabists, and counterfeit jihadists, they will cry [tears of] blood over every drop of Muslim blood they spilled and the [women's] honor and the sanctities they violated when they see the fright of meeting the friends of Allah in battle. They will see men who love to be killed for the sake of Allah as much as they [the Jews] love life, men who throw themselves into the thick of battle and storm fortresses to separate their heads from their necks and to rip their hearts out of their bodies…

Nevertheless, to some people, or at least to one blogger, we "betray our own founding principles" by helping to arm and fund the government of Israel" because, I suppose, there is no threat to the nation by forces inside the Gaza Strip. Even by an organization considering Jews "the descendants of apes and pigs" and which pledges "to separate their heads from their necks and to rip their hearts out of their bodies."

Tough Times In The Gaza Strip

I take a break from Barack Obama to note a situation in the Middle East which, even by standards of the Middle East, is startling.

The New York Times reported on 4/12/08 that on the previous day, at least five Palestinians were killed by Israeli tank and gunfire in central Gaza. The Israeli incursion:

came after militants from Gaza broke through the (border) fence on Wednesday and attacked the Nahal Oz fuel depot, the transfer point from which all fuel is piped from Israel into Gaza. Two Israeli civilians employed by the company that supplies the fuel were killed in the attack. Fuel deliveries into Gaza were temporarily halted, but were expected to resume after the weekend.

Haaretz had reported on 4/11/08 that Palestinian Authority official Hussein al-Sheikh confirmed "Israel had cut off the fuel deliveries after the 4/9/08 attack, then on 4/12/08 announced resumption."

So Israel supplies fuel to the Palestinians of the Gaza Strip, which is controlled by Hamas, a terrorist organization which would find the disappearance of the state of Israel cause for celebration. Hamas in turn diverts half of the gas in order to kill Israelis. This leads The New Republic's Editor-In-Chief Marty Peretz, a staunch supporter of the tiny nation routinely accused of apartheid, racism, and all manner of evil, to ask "are the Israelis out of their f****** minds?"

Yes.