Not a War Over Occupation

The tweeted excerpt begins at 1:10 of the video.

Obama: “What Hamas did was horrific, and there is no justification for it. And what is also true is that the occupation, and what’s happening to Palestinians, is unbearable…

“You have to admit that all of us are complicit to some degree.” pic.twitter.com/FtAGFAexz1

— Yonah Lieberman 🔥 (@YonahLieberman) November 4, 2023

"What Hamas did was horrific and there is no justification for it. And what is also true is that the occupation and what's happening to Palestinians is unbearable" significantly contradicts a remark the former President makes later. Can you guess what it is? (Hint- it begins at 1:10).

 At 1:10 of the video accompanying the tweet, ex-President Obama states

And what is true is that there are people right now who are dying who have nothing to do with what Hamas did. And we can go on for a while- but, I mean, we could go on for awhile.... 

Obama correctly notes that "there are people right now who are dying who have nothing to do with what Hamas did." Hamas did what it did without consulting Gazans and without regard to the best interests of Gazans, over whom it rules.

But the 44th President moments earlier had tied Hamas' "horrific" action to "the occupation and what's happening to Palestinians."

"What's happening to Palestinians" has nothing to do with the slaughter by Hamas of Israelis. Nothing. The occupation is taking place in the West Bank, which is not even contiguous with Gaza. The Palestinians in the West Bank are ruled by the Palestinian Authority, controlled by Fatah, the party which is the largest faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization.  It is distinct geographically, politically, even theologically from Hamas. As explained by Reuters

Hamas has run the Gaza Strip since 2007, after a brief civil war with forces loyal to the Fatah movement led by President Mahmoud Abbas, who is based in the West Bank and heads the more secular PLO.

The Hamas takeover of Gaza followed its win in Palestinian parliamentary elections in 2006 – the last time they were held. Hamas accused Abbas of conspiring against it. Abbas described what happened as a coup.

The incursion into Israel and massacre of 1400 or so of its residents and kidnapping of hundreds of individuals has nothing to do with occupation of the West Bank, other than as an excuse provided for individuals hostile to, or at least unsympathetic with, the existence of a Jewish state in an otherwise Muslim-dominated Middle East. Hamas did not invade the West Bank or attack Jewish settlements there. In its invasion of Israel, it targeted civilians rather than military assets.

Tel Aviv will say it is battling Hamas. Whatever its success against that band of wealthy terrorists (the 1% which the race left has little anger toward), the Israeli Defense Forces have killed many Gazans.

That's G-A-Z-A-N-S.  They are not residents of the West Bank and their interests are not identical.

Conflating Gazans and "Palestinians" is a neat- and popular- trick. It is an effort to undermine the Israeli interests and minimize Hamas brutality by drawing upon the concerns, many legitimate, of residents of the West Bank. Merging the aims of Hamas with the needs of other ethnic Palestinians is 

Arguably worse yet, given its broader implications, is the implication that Gazans and Palestinians are identical. As widely presumed, they are very similar- racially. 

And that goes to the heart of a core tenet of Democratic politics, one central to the belief system of many Democrats, with all others too cowed to offer rebuttal. As Bill Maher told Joe Rogan two months ago, "I have always believed, as liberals do, in a color-blind society. The goal is not to see race at all anywhere for any reason. The woke believe race is first and foremost the thing you should always see everywhere, which I find interesting because that used to be the position of the Ku Klux Klan."

We're far from achieving that goal and it will be achieved only in fits and spurts, if at all. However. the means to that end or anything remotely close to it is not to hold race first and foremost. It should not be ignored- but it should not be used as the primary determinant of policy.

Palestinians wherever in the Middle East are typically thought of as brown and thus, with many center-left Democrats (e.g., Obama) and most progressive Democrats (e.g., Rashida Tlaib), it's reasonable to lump Gazans- and Hamas- in with all  Palestinians. Israelis, by contrast, are a mixed lot, due in part to the lineage of some from that region and others from Europe. The nation, moreover, is universally considered to be "an outpost of Western civilization," which is not in vogue with today's race-obsessed Democratic Party.

Racialism is gaining currency throughout society. However, it is prominent in Democratic circles, helped along by one of our mediocre ex-Presidents. and is clouding a clear understanding of a war initiated by terrorists whose tactics and goal are being increasingly condoned by Americans and the world.

Share |

Israel Acts, Reaction Rash

It is, arguably, an ironic headline.

Posting in Slate on Wednesday, Natasha Lennard criticized Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) because on Hardball he had "bemoaned the international community's condemnation of Israel's actions, suggesting it's blown out of proportion compared to other recent global events."

The international community has condemned Israel's actions, rendering Slate's headline "So much for Barney Frank's courage on Israel" less cleverly sarcastic than counter-intuitive. Notwithstanding the ideological or demographic makeup of his district, it does take at least a little bit of courage on the part of Frank- a national figure- to take such a vocal position at odds with that of the international community and most of his liberal/progressive brethren.

Lennard quotes Frank and makes her argument:

"We had an unprovoked attack by North Korea on a South Korean submarine," he said. "46 people killed -- and a great deal of silence and equivocation."

But that's not really true. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's response to the Korean submarine attack was, in fact, nothing short of an unequivocal condemnation.

"We cannot allow this attack on South Korea to go unanswered by the international community," she said. "This will not be and cannot be business as usual. There must be an international, not just a regional, but an international response."

Perhaps Frank, in mentioning "equivocation," was actually thinking of Clinton's statement in response to the flotilla raid on Monday.

The response of the Secretary of State regarding the Israeli incident was, as Lennard implied, measured, though more appropriately so than she apparently believes. She contrasts that reaction to Clinton's remark about the North Korean attack: "This will not be and cannot be business as usual. There must be an international, not just a regional, but an international response."

Clinton was forceful- but Lennard neglects to tell us the outcome, implying, however indirectly, that the international community unloaded on North Korea in much the same way that it has done on Israel.

The attack on the flotilla occurred on Monday May 31, 2010. No time to waste! Less than two days later, in an online article posted at 7:20 p.m. Washington time on June 1, the Times of India reported:

The Security Council also convened an emergency meeting on Sunday to discuss a draft resolution, to call for an international inquiry into the incident and compensation for those who had been killed.

"I condemn this violence," said Secretary-General Ban. "It is vital that there is a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place. I believe Israel must urgently provide a full explanation," he said....

In individual statements, the 15 UNSC members issued remarks, almost all condemning the assault....

While the Security Council discussed a draft statement to condemn the attack, top UN officials came out strongly against the incident.

"I unequivocally condemn what appears to be disproportionate use of force, resulting in the killing and wounding of so many people attempting to bring much-needed aid to the people of Gaza, who have now been enduring a blockade for more than three years," said Navi Pillay, the UN human rights chief.

Meanwhile, South Korea- unlike the Gaza Strip, not ruled by an organization whose raison d'etre is terrorism- begs:

South Korea would like to see the U.N. Security Council issue a political response to the North for its alleged role in the March sinking of a South Korean patrol ship instead of pursuing further sanctions, a high-ranking Seoul official said yesterday (see GSN, June 1)....

"We expect the Security Council to send a political, symbolic and moral message that such acts as the Cheonan incident cannot be tolerated and that North Korea should be held accountable and should not repeat this kind of military provocation," he said.

Seoul accused Pyongyang late last month of carrying out a submarine torpedo attack that sank the warship Cheonan on March 26, killing 46 sailors. The United States and Japan have thrown strong support behind South Korea following the conclusion of an international probe into the ship sinking. North Korea has vehemently denied playing any role in the incident.

Ten weeks later, South Korea is requesting, almost pleading, for a token response. There has been no Security Council "draft statement to condemn the attack" or roughly a dozen member nations of that body condemning the action or angry demonstrations throughout the world. This follows an attack which killed 46, not nine; and apolitical sailors, rather than armed and/or unarmed activists and/or mercenaries.

Details of the raid are in dispute. Fairness of the sea blockade (humanitarian supplies by land are routinely admitted to Gaza) is in dispute. The existence of a double standard? Not so much.

Share|

Even-handed?

It's discouraging when the major party presidential candidate who has demonstrated on the campaign trail the greater knowledge of foreign policy issues makes an ill-considered comment.

And so it was that Barack Obama took a moment during his statement in Amman, Jordan on Tuesday, 7/22/08 to make a misleading or naive comment(s) about the Middle East in response to a question. He said (pp. 5-6 of transcript)

And I do believe.... that the Israelis and the Palestinians are going to both have to make compromises in order to arrive at that two-state solution.... Now, one of the difficulties that we have right now is that in order to make those compromises you have to have strong support from your people, and the Israeli government right now is unsettled. You know, the Palestinians are divided between Fatah and Hamas.
And so it's difficult for either side to make the bold move that would bring about peace.

Sure, both sides have to compromise, and American and world public opinion was more favorable to Israel back when it was the one doing the compromising and was the cute and cuddly victim. Now, it is no longer perceived primarily as victim- but apparently is still the one doing the compromising.

On Wednesday, July 16, 2008 Lebanese terrorist Samir Kantar, four other militants captured in the 2006 war between Lebanon and Israel, and the bodies of 199 Arab fighters were traded for two dead Israeli soldiers in a U.N.-mediated deal.

Kantar, who with the released Hezbollah fighters was greeted by top officials after being flown to Beirut, told cheering crowds at the celebration there that he had returned "to Lebanon only because I want to go back to Palestine with my brothers in the resistance." His humanitarian act? killing an Israeli man in front of his 4-year-old daughter, then killing the little girl by smashing her skull with his rifle butt.

There you have it- bodies of 199 Arab fighters, victims of a war partly spurred by the practice of kidnapping prisoners to bargain for Kantar's freedom; four (live) Lebanese extremists; and one vicious murderer in return for.... remains of two Israelis, whom the Israelis had presumed dead. (That would be 204 to 2.) The prisoner swap, though controversial, largely was supported by citizens of the Jewish state, who long have had a policy of never leaving soldiers on a battlefield.

Over at the Gaza strip, Hamas was so encouraged that it vowed to "capture Zionist soldiers, in order to swap with our sons in prison." (That would be "sons," as in "terrorists.")

So the next time you hear an American politician talking about the need for both sides to "compromise," remember that he really means one party, the side that "has been carrying out unequal prisoner swaps for decades, including handing over 4,600 Palestinian and Lebanese captives in 1983 in exchange for six captured Israeli soldiers." The same side that apparently places a higher value on life.

After Two Days, New York Times Proven Foolish

On April 23, 2008, in an editorial which instantly looked silly, the august editors of The New York Times actually wrote:

The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

Then on April 25, 2008, Michael Goldfarb on "The Blog" (creativity from our conservative Republican friends at weeklystandard.com) wrote

Earlier this month, Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, told WABC radio, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy."

Responding to a question during an interview with bloggers on 4/25/08, John McCain declared

All I can tell you, Jennifer, is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare....If senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.


There you have it: two days after The NYT slammed Hillary Clinton for "demeaning the political process" with a campaign "even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it," John McCain simultaneously links Barack Obama with both Hamas and Daniel Ortega. No Democratic nominee yet, no (Democratic or Republican) convention yet, no general election campaign yet, and John McCain already has made a more vile charge than Hillary Clinton has over the course of her entire campaign for the nomination. So will the New York Times "acknowledge" that the "negativity" for which Senator McCain "is mostly responsible" (actually, totally responsible) "does nothing but harm.... to the 2008 election"?

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.