Pause the Nonsense

Trying to present a pro-Hamas- uh, pro-Palestinian- message, these young women are confused.

“You don’t ‘pause’ a genocide. You pause a TV show. You pause a movie. You pause a video game. You don’t ‘pause’ ethnic cleansing. That’s not how that works.”

DC #ShutItDown4Palestine Rally#FreePalestine #IsraeliNewNazism pic.twitter.com/aIFsInU3uS

— #StopCopCity (@ChuckModi1) November 25, 2023

At a pro-Hamas- I mean, pro-Palestinian- rally in Washington, D.C., one woman speaks and then the other, remarking

We're here to call for a ceasefire. We're here to call for an end to the illegal occupation of occupied Palestine and then Palestinian liberation. And liberation for all, including those who are indigenous to North America.

It's just a guess, but the call for "liberation for all" does not include Israelis, given that the slogan of Palestinian liberation is "from the river to the sea" (the eastern to the western borders of Israel) "Palestine will be free."

One woman continues "They have decided to pause- a humanitarian pause, when in fact there is still a genocide occurring today in the U.S. to indigenous people in America." She proposes consumers avoid buying products on Black Friday or Cyber Monday to stop "genocide of Palestinians and the genocide of people in America."  

The 2023 defense budget stands at $816.7 billion. Although a great deal of that is appropriated for purposes other than weaponry, the inability of the USA military to wipe out- commit genocide- against indigenous people is both startling and terrifying. Even if "indigenous" included everyone born in this nation (as it literally does), the genocide could not fail.

The "Stop Cop City" (in Fulton County, Ga.) tweeter, who is rabidly anti-Israel, is favorably impressed with the message "You don't 'pause' a genocide. You pause a TV show. You pause a movie. You pause a video game. You don't 'pause' ethnic cleansing. That's not how that works."

Exactly- and that's yet more evidence, on top of all the rest, that Tel Aviv is not pursuing genocide. It has agreed to a pause, which is a remarkably foolish means of trying to wipe out a people. As is obvious to any Zionist or any completely neutral observer, Israel is not committing genocide. The first clue is the effort to move civilians from northern Gaza, where Israel has concentrated its attack, to southern Gaza; the warnings it gives remaining  residents before bombing, a second clue; the emphasis upon military targets by a country which could wipe out an entire population if it wished, a third; the disinterest in attacking Jordan, which is probably majority Palestinian, a fourth clue. 

There is far more evidence that Israel is not committing genocide. An additional one is that individuals who claim Israel is committing genocide don't know the meanings of "indigenous" or "Palestine" and assert with apparent sincerity that the USA currently is conducting a genocidal campaign against tribal people in its midst. Whether stupid or bigoted or both, there is a dangerous number of people on the streets and social media these days spouting dangerous and inaccurate disinformation, which may leave a whirlwind of disaster in its wake.

Share |

Issues Raised

There are misconceptions in both Cornel West's tweet and Rashida Tlaib's statement to fellow US Representatives, though here Tlaib is lacking the nastiness of West while including an ironic remark. At 3:24, the congresswoman states

I am grateful to the people in the streets, in the peace movement with countless Jewish-Americans standing up and saying "not in our name." We will continue to call for a ceasefire, Mr. Chair, for the immediate delivery of critical humanitarian aid to Gaza for the release of all hostages and those arbitrarily detained, for every American to come home.

No one in Congress can speak to the genocidal war crimes occurring in Gaza better than Sister @RashidaTlaib. But the derelict duopoly backs AIPAC while stabbing this valiant sister in the back and is complicit with the carnage of incessant militarism against innocent people.… https://t.co/c1c4peoPyM

— Cornel West (@CornelWest) November 8, 2023

They are not Jewish-Americans  but American Jews, just as Tlaib is both a Palestinian-American (national descent) and a Muslim (religious affiliation). However, that is a mistake while though extremely significant, is now commonly made, intentionally or unintentionally.

The war, initiated by Hamas, conducted by Israel and supported by the USA, is not "in our name." It is not being waged for the benefit of American Jews, living in the relative comfort and safety of a nation which is not in daily fear of being attacked and eventually eliminated.  It's difficult to avoid the suspicion that many of these same demonstrators at other moments have bemoaned "white privilege," yet themselves are unaware of the privilege they themselves possess while Jews in Israel have no such assurance. Assuming the war is being conducted for them reflects an unpleasant sense of entitlement. They can speak no more for Israeli Jews than they can for Israeli Muslims.

Aside from Tlaib calling for a ceasefire, which would be tantamount to a surrender by Israel, she otherwise is ironically advocating for action more favorable to Israel (and less to Hamas) than the pause in fighting set to go into effect at midnight at the confluence of Thursday and Friday.  She advocated "the release of all hostages," which by contrast seems unambiguous. She proposed "the immediate delivery of critical humanitarian aid to Gaza," which is directly or indirectly part of the agreement, inasmuch as

Qatar said the deal would include "the entry of a larger number of humanitarian convoys and relief aid, including fuel designated for humanitarian needs."

Senior Hamas official Taher al-Nunu said at least 200-300 aid trucks would enter as part of the truce, including eight carrying fuel and gas.

Tlaib proposed also the release of "those arbitrarily detained," by which she meant all Palestinians in detention in Israel jails, or some of those detained, or something entirely different. By contrast, the deal would proceed in two phases in which

In a first step, 50 hostages and 150 Palestinian prisoners are set to be released during the four-day pause in fighting.

If successful, a second phase could see 150 more Palestinian prisoners freed in exchange for another 50 hostages during an extended truce, the Israeli government said.

While hostages are moved, Israeli reconnaissance of Gaza would be put on temporary hold, Qatar's foreign ministry spokesman Majed Al-Ansari said.

The latter aspect will be of some strategic disadvantage to Israel, though it's a provision Tlaib (and most people) would not have contemplated.

But 150 Palestinians in return for 50 non-Palestinians?  This was not as disproportionate as when more than 1.000 detained Palestinian suspected criminal offenders were exchanged for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in a deal possibly beneficial if Shalit goes on to make a discovery equal to that of say, fire, electricity, or the automobile. 

That was absurd and bound to come back and haunt the nation of Israel, as it now has. It was both misconception and irony when (at 2:40) Tlaib stated

Speaking up to save lives, Mr. Chairman, no matter the faith, no matter the ethnicity, should not be controversial in this chamber. The cries of Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me. Why- what I don't understand- is why the cries of Palestinians sound different to you all.

The congresswoman still has not condemned Hamas for the slaughter of Israelis on October 7, a conscious omission for which she has received considerable criticism. However, her claim that "the cries of Palestinian and Israeli children sound no different to me" has gone unnoticed.

Whatever equivalence  Tlaib draws between Palestinian children and Israeli children (and it's highly questionable that she does), the issue here is not Israeli children and Palestinian children, but Israeli children and Gazan children. Moreover, without the world noticing, Hamas has indirectly acknowledged that it does not rate Palestinian children, even the youth of the Gazan territory it controls, very highly.

No longer is it 1,000 to 1. However, it's still 3 to 1. Israel is sufficiently dedicated to human life that it is willing to give up three individuals to free one, notwithstanding the peril to its medium- and long- term security. For Hamas, Palestinian life so lacks value that three Palestinian lives are equal to one Israeli life.. A Palestinian life is worth only one-third of an Israeli life: that is not my calculation; it is the calculation of Hamas.

Tlaib's speech, though misinformed and misleading, presumably was delivered as someone who wants things to work out in the end and is committed to a cause,  albeit that Israel can go fly a kite. Cornel West, however, gratuitously attacks AIPAC, accuses Israel of purposely directing "carnage' against innocents, and condemns Israel for genocide it does not practice. And in light of his presidential run, the outcome he's pining for is the election of Donald Trump. 

Share |

Spare Us the Political Advice, Congresswoman

The Chinese are right: "aged ginger is more pungent." Also, with age, comes wisdom.

By overwhelming margins, young voters are telling us that the U.S.’ unconditional support of Netanyahu’s war crimes is policy they DO NOT support.@POTUS must use all diplomatic tools to facilitate a #CeasefireNOW, the release of all hostages, and an end to the siege on Gaza. https://t.co/kUHJtWb264

— Cori Bush (@CoriBush) November 20, 2023

It's so refreshing to get strategy advice from Defund the Police lady. who on October 5, 2021 in her first lecture to her Hypocrisy 101 class, declared

I’m going to make sure I have security because I know. I have had attempts on my life and I have too much work to do there, too many people that need help right now for me to allow that. So, if I end up spending $200,000, if I spend 10 more dollars on it – you know what? I get to be here to do the work. So suck it up and defunding the police has to happen, we need to defund the police and put that money into social safety nets.

In an opinion piece in USA Today in 2021 upon the occasion of Juneteenth, Bush wrote

...slavery quite literally lives on today through our system of incarceration and policing. The 13th Amendment explicitly permits slavery "as a punishment for crime." It is no wonder then that Black people and Black communities across this country are devastated by yet another system of bondage- policing and criminalization.

Slavery, bondage, and policing- or as Bush would put it, "redundancy." In November of 2020

James Clyburn, the House majority whip and Democratic “kingmaker” who played an outsized role in Joe Biden’s successful presidential run, has said the “sloganeering” of the Black Lives Matter protests and other social justice efforts this summer might have hampered them at the polls.

Clyburn, a Black South Carolina congressman and prominent figure in the civil rights movement, likened the “defund the police” mantra of certain activists to civil rights efforts in the 1960s, when some public support for the movement’s objectives was eroded by radical messaging.

While recognizing the harsh political impact of the slogan- for which Republicans still tar Democrats- Clyburn did not name names, as he should have. Few Democrats endorsed the defund the police movement nor the label as much as has Bush, who has called the USA "racist AF" (classy!). Along with Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Bush is the original Defund the Police member of Congress and to this day defends not only defunding the police but also the slogan itself. 

There is a parallel between ending the support for Israel the President has given and withdrawing ending funding for police. They are both bad policies. "Defund the Police' represented, and still represents, a mine field for Democrats, while we'd have to be psychic to know for certainty the political impact of a reversal of course by Biden.

Presumably, the move would be initially popular in districts such as that of Bush and very unpopular in districts with many Jewish voters, or sensible ones.  However, as the devastating repercussions of withdrawal of support became clear, the effect would be terrible for the President and other Democrats.

President Biden is- politically- stuck between a rock and a hard place, damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, and all other applicable cliches. Representative Bush, wrong on the policy and politics about policing, rationalizes her faulty values by pointing to sentiment among young voters. In such times as this, though, it would be wise to fall back upon the principle of doing the right thing, as the President has done thus far. 

                                                   HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Share |

Dictator, Dictatorship, and Dictatorial

When President Biden met tyrant Xi Jinping of Mainland China outside of San Francisco on Wednesday, he may have broached the topics of Chinese spy balloons, breach of American cybersecurity by Mainland China, Beijing's support of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine and of North Korea, Tik-Tok, the brutal treatment of the Xinjiang Uyghurs by the Butchers of Beijing. Instead 

Joe Biden said Wednesday he still believes Chinese President Xi Jinping is a dictator, even as the two leaders made progress in their relationship during a meeting outside San Francisco.

“Well, look, he’s a dictator in the sense that he is a guy who runs a country that is a communist country that’s based on a form of government totally different than ours,” Biden told CNN’s MJ Lee. “Anyway, we made progress.”

When asked about Biden’s latest comment at a Chinese Foreign Ministry briefing on Thursday, a spokesperson called it “extremely erroneous” and an “irresponsible political maneuver, which China firmly opposes.”

Alleged journalist Lee had asked "And Mr. President, after today, would you still refer to President Xi as a 'dictator'? This is a term that you used earlier this year.

  "

Newsflash to Lee: Mainland China is a dictatorship run by the Communist Chinese Party completely controlled by Xi Jinping.

She should know that and, absent complete ignorance of world affairs, does. That puts her question in the category of "gotcha." Worse, Lee forfeited an opportunity to ask the head of the world's #1 superpower a question about the world's #2 or #3, superpower, with which the #1 superpower has many points of serious disagreement.

Disappointingly, reporters at The Washington Post responded with 

But in true Biden fashion, he veered off script despite the careful planning of his aides. White House officials had structured the news conference so Biden would take four questions. The president did take the four questions and began to walk away, but couldn’t help himself as a television reporter shouted out another one. Biden turned around and came back to the podium, giving another television reporter time to ask whether the President still believed Xi was a dictator.

“Look, he is. He's a dictator in the sense that he's a guy who runs a country that is a communist country that's based on a form of government totally different than ours,” Biden said.

Video from the news conference showed some of his aides noticeably grimacing. China’s foreign ministry later said it “strongly opposes” the remarks.

President Biden could have avoided the question and been accused, rightly, of being cowardly and intimidated. He could have lied and stated that Xi Jinping is not a dictator, or given an ambiguous answer and been accused, still rightly, of a lack of honesty and transparency. Republicans would have had a field day, and Biden probably would have sealed his defeat next November.

 Or he could have stated the obvious, that Xi Jinping is "a dictator."

It was a "gotcha" question asked by a reporter who, educated beyond 4th grade, knew the answer. Presumably, M.J. Lee asked the question to put the President on the spot and get her on every CNN news segment in the following two days aired about the summit. Alternatively, she had another motive. As of now, in the absence of more evidence, she deserves the benefit of the doubt and simply represents failed journalism.

Share |

Haley's "Girl" Card

It was bound to happen,  The cliche is "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" and Vivek Ramaswamy is right maybe twice a year. The mainstream media is promoting Nikki Haley as the alternative to Donald Trump because the ex-governor is a woman. Additionally, she's also a corporate stooge who has demonstrated that she is not antagonistic to minorities. 

Nikki Haley’s gender-card schtick is pathetic & straight out of the Kamala Harris / Hillary Clinton playbook. There’s a reason why the MSM is propping her up as their token Republican. pic.twitter.com/m6Oe9zZKJv

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) November 16, 2023

Nonetheless, it's the woman's card she's playing for all it's worth.

BREAKING: Nikki Haley is now saying that Vivek is only criticizing her because he 'has a girl problem'pic.twitter.com/y9DJ7bd3u1

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 15, 2023

Haley is seen remarking

Look what happens. He comes out of the gate. He gets the female chair of the party, he gets the female anchor on the platform, and then he hits me. And I'm not saying anything. But he might have a girl problem. 

Now serving her fourth term as chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ronna Romney McDaniel has overseen the party during three bad election cycles, in 2018, 2020, and 2022. By all indications, she has done a poor job and appears to be a gift to the Democratic Party.

Ramaswamy opposes USA support of Ukraine and has been at best, lukewarm toward Israel. By contrast, the ex-UN ambassador supports USA assistance to Ukraine and to Israel, with condemnation of Hamas which has gone beyond that of virtually anyone of prominence. More to the point, Haley is now the main challenger to Trump's nomination. Ramaswamy has been extreme in his praise of the ex-President, probably angling (in vain) to be Trump's running mate, and may even be a proxy for Trump. He's not going to go after the former President; for him, Haley is the most obvious target.

Haley's criticism of Ramaswamy as having a "girl problem" is quite rich, and not only because if any politician said a female candidate had a "girl problem" or even a "woman problem," he'd be driven out of politics in less time than it takes to spell "woke."

Donald J. Trump has been accused of sexual assault or sexual harassment of more than a dozen women, including of E. Jean Carrol, whom a jury in civil court earlier this year found had been sexually abused by Trump in 1996. The leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is the man behind such statements as:

."If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?" 

 "Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that ((Carly Fiorina)? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?" 

She(Megyn Kelly) gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions. You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever."

And so many more. Yet as recently as Wednesday, November 15, Haley stated unequivocally that she would "support the Republican nominee," who is likely to be Trump, and that the latter was "the right President at the right time."  When Dana Perino at the Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library in California asked the candidates "which one of you on the stage tonight should be voted off the island," the obvious answer was "anyone not here to speak to Republican voters," which would have been Trump.  For Haley, it was "are you serious?"

It was a serious question, though drawing upon popular culture, and one which elicited revealing responses.  What Nikki Haley is serious about, as called out by Vivek Ramaswamy, is delivering the shtick of a tough chick act. 

Share |

That Third Rail

When the New York Times/Siena College poll of six swing states was released approximately ten days ago, the main storyline was that Donald Trump was ahead in a one-on-one matchup with President Biden in five of them. The secondary story was that Nikki Haley was ahead in all six.

Of course, polls twelve months ahead of the presidential election are virtually worthless. We don't know whether by then Donald Trump will have been convicted or acquitted in a court)s) of law or whether there even will be a verdict by then. Twelve months ago, there wasn't even a war in the Middle East, and the status of that conflict and that between Russia and Ukraine is unknowable.  It's even more uncertain when we add to that such things as the unpredictable nature of the economy, of the political effect of Republican efforts to roll back reproductive freedom, the impact of third party candidates, the dishonest persuasiveness of artificial intelligence applied to social media, and the outcome of the presidential election.

That has not prevented many of the stars, hosts, pundits, and others, in the mainstream media to speculate that other GOP hopefuls, especially Nikki Haley, would be stronger candidates than Trump.

Bring it (her) on.  Below, the ex-South Carolina, ex-United Nations ambassador can be seen remarking

Social Security is going to go bankrupt in ten years. Medicare is going to go bankrupt in eight. So the way we deal with it is we don't change anyone's retirement or anyone who has been promised in.

This has been the right's mantra for many years now. Conservatives know that Social Security is very popular with the elderly, who know how important it is- and they know that the elderly vote. And they know- or should- that Social Security is not "going to go bankrupt" in ten years.  As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities noted earlier this year

Social Security is largely a “pay as you go” program, meaning today’s benefits are funded primarily by the payroll taxes collected from today’s workers. For over three decades, however, Social Security collected more in payroll taxes and other income than it paid in benefits and other expenses, and the Treasury invested the surplus in interest-bearing Treasury securities, ultimately reaching a total of $2.9 trillion in trust fund reserves. In 2021 Social Security began redeeming those reserves to help pay benefits. Payroll taxes from current workers will continue to pay for the bulk of benefits. The trust fund reserves will make up the difference between income and costs until the reserves are depleted. At that point, Social Security’s income will still be able to pay roughly 80 percent of promised benefits — even in the unlikely event that policymakers fail to act.

She continued

But we go to people like my kids in their '20s when they're coming into the system and we say the rules have changed. We change retirement age to reflect life expectancy. Instead of cost-of-living increases, we'd do it based on inflation. We limit the benefits on the wealthy and expand Medicare Advantage plans.

Nikki Haley tells Bloomberg News "65 is way too low" for the retirement age, advocates attaching it to life expectancy pic.twitter.com/E3yxPl0LIC

— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) August 24, 2023

Understandably, Haley did not explain the difference between cost-of-living increases and inflation, an explanation which would have been enlightening. However, the "change retirement age" is a fairly clear recommendation that we increase the eligibility age..

Haley suggests "we limit the benefits on the wealthy" not because they're unneeded by the rich but because that approach would turn Social Security into a welfare program, at which time support for Social Security as we've known it would diminish.  That would give corporate-friendly Republicans such as Haley an excuse to move to privatization of the system.  Were Haley interested in limiting assistance only to the needy, she'd argue that tax loopholes for the wealthy be eliminated, which she will advocate once Miami receives a major July snowstorm..

Haley hinted at her motive when she recommended the federal government "expand Medicare Advantage plans."  Yet as a Medicare advisory group has explained, the

over-reach of private Medicare Advantage plans is called what it is: Fraud. Medicare Advantage overpayments threaten Medicare’s fiscal sustainability. At the same time, these private plans block access to necessary care with baseless prior authorization and on-going Medicare denials. In short, Medicare Advantage costs the Medicare program and taxpayers more, but provides beneficiaries less when they really need care.

Haley claimed "sixty-five is way too low"  for eligibility for Social Security. That may go over with her conservative buddies in the professional-managerial class, individuals who are physically able to work into their 70's (and occasionally beyond) because the work takes little toll on their bodies. But tens of millions of Americans, most in the working class which Republicans insist they're so concerned about, have no such luxury. If they do not receive Social Security, they must keep working for a living, and that retirement age which has increased will take a blow along with the lives of the families involved.

If there were any will whatsoever among Republicans, the decline in Social Security solvency could easily be reversed. The cap on contributions toward Social Security not only would shore up the system in the short run but would probably end any revenue shortfall forever. 

But there is no interest among Republicans, including among those such as Haley who are sometimes characterized by the media as "moderates," for taking this obviously needed step. They would prefer to undermine the system. If the former South Carolina governor is nominated, she would play right into what we learned in January is President Biden's wheelhouse.

 

Share |

Long and Winding Road Ahead

During Sunday's State of the Union, Dana Bash of CNN asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

before I let you go, I know you have been asked this several times, but I have had multiple people inside Israel reach out to me knowing that I was going to interview you and say the one thing they want to hear from you is that you take personal responsibility for failing to prevent the October 7 attacks and protecting your people.

I know you say the time for that will come after the war. Why won't you take responsibility now?

When I pressed PM Netanyahu about refusing to take responsibility, he responded by questioning whether FDR was asked that after Pearl Harbor. https://t.co/JT4JnLKR1y

— Dana Bash (@DanaBashCNN) November 12, 2023

Surprise! Netanyahu, though pressed by Bash, would not take responsibility. He would not take responsibility because no politician ever takes responsibility. None. He or she may say "I take responsibility" but none will say "I am responsible." The politician then will go on to explain how he/she is not to blame for whatever was said or done.

The reason is obvious. Once a politician admits responsibility, he or she can be held accountable. Opposing politicians will hold up the concession as proof that the individual is not worthy of continuing to hold office. Once they do that, the media will do what the media does, jumping on the bandwagon and question whether the pol should remain in office. Virtually no one will credit him/her for doing what no other public figure has the integrity to do.

It would be particularly perilous for a wartime head of state to admit responsibility because that leadere would be undermining his or her credibility, which would in turn undermine legitimacy. Bash should have known that and if she in fact has had "multiple people inside Israel." tell her that "the one thing they want to hear from" Netanyahu is that he "take personal responsibility for failing to prevent the October 7 attacks and protecting your people," she has been talking to the wrong individuals. It's unlikely an Israeli politician will do what American politicians won't: admit error. Not going to happen.

However, this was a critical line of questioning:

BASH: "If not the Palestinian Authority, then who?"

NETANYAHU: "There has to be a reconstructed civilian authority. There has to be something else. Otherwise we're just falling into that same rabbit hole." pic.twitter.com/4yWNtVYVWG

— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) November 12, 2023

Bash asked

The U.S. also says that any postwar plan for Gaza must include Palestinian-led governance and Gaza unified with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority. You appeared to reject that yesterday. You said Israel will not accept a -- quote -- "civilian authority there that educates its children to hate Israel."

So I just want to be clear. Are you saying that Israel would not accept giving control of Gaza over to the Palestinian Authority after the war?

After Netanyahu dismissed the Palestinian Authority because it has "unfortunately failed" to "de-militarize" and "de-radicalize" Gaza, he remarked

So, you have to have some kind of authority, civilian Palestinian authority, that is willing to fight the terrorists and educating -- and, importantly, must educate their children for a future of peace, peace, cooperation, prosperity, cooperation with Israel, not the annihilation of Israel.

After the fighting ends and Hamas is subdued (hopefully eliminated), there still will be a Gaza and there still will have to be an authority ruling it. Gazans have little confidence in the Palestinian Authority, western hegemony wouldn't be accepted by the supermajority Muslims, and it's nothing Israel wants to do in perpetuity. Persian Iran is obviously out, so the ultimate answer probably lies in a some combination of Arab states, actors not partial to drowning the Jewish state.

That would be difficult to accomplish. Buy-in would be difficult to obtain from nations which themselves have wanted no part of ethnic Palestinians. There is one more roadblock: it would require some actual acceptance of genuine responsibility. And as with politicians in Israel and the West, that is asking a great deal.

Share |