A willingness to stand against hatred and violence whatever its source

Bill Moyers. As usual, reasoned, measured and fueled by an obligation to stand for peace and justice.



The Aaron Miller piece Moyers discusses is here.

H/T Glenn Greenwald.

Isreal's rights and Israel's obligations

It's difficult for me to write with any kind of confidence about what's happening on the Gaza strip because it's a complex situation rooted in centuries of conflict, and I haven't done enough reading to even pretend to have a handle on it.

I do understand this. Israel has a public relations machine that sells their wars as well as the Pentagon has sold ours. And, by and large, the American press prints the press release.

In the first few days of the Israeli bombing, the LA Times printed a simpleton's guide to the conflict in which they reprinted the Israeli justification for bombing which has been repeated and repeated by the American press since the conflict began:

Over the weekend, Israel began airstrikes against the Hamas movement, which controls the Gaza Strip, in response to rocket attacks against nearby Israeli communities launched after a six-month truce expired.

Of course, there was no mention that the Palestinians had been suffering though a devastating blockade which left them without enough food or medicine. And this was on top of Israeli-sanctioned occupation of Palestinian territory, severe restrictions on travel and trade, and a longterm repression of the Palestinian people by Israel.

A lot has been written about Israel's right to defend itself. Of course. But if that's the case then the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves too. Unfortunately, without the support of the world's munitions manufacturers, their means are less specific, more crude, and less effective then the massive show of force, and destruction, Israel is able to muster. And Israel has the support of the most significant powers in the Western world.

Fortunately, the web provides an opportunity to get other perspectives. None of it is pretty. And as a country, we seem content to take Israel at its word as they take us by the hand and lead us down the path to the third world war.

What to do?

Naomi Klein, whose thoughts and intellect I have great respect for, has an idea that might put Israel's lust for oppression into check.

Ready for the first nuclear war

Benny Morris, a professor at Ben-Gurion University, predicts an Israeli airstrike on Iran's nuclear facilities within four to seven months in the New York Times today.

He hopes for the complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities, and barring that, he predicts a nuclear war in the Middle East. His views are based on the assumptions that the intelligence agencies of the world are correct in saying that Iran will have the capacity to produce nuclear bombs within a few years, and that diplomacy, or even a nuclear standoff with the "fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran" would be impossible. Not that the leaders of Israel share any of the same faults as the mullahs, eh?

Morris' editorial is interesting in that it assumes what has been unspoken - that Israel has nuclear weapons, and is ready to use them. And that the US should be the power to make the pre-emptive strike, but probably won't because of a public fed up with a war which began with a pre-emptive strike.

Morris' doomsday scenario should be the kind of insider warning that alerts the world, and particularly the US, that diplomacy is the first answer, war the last.

Creepy Joe™ paints Obama as Israel foe

It's already obvious that Creepy Joe™ Lieberman will stop at nothing to get his way.

Now, he's admitted to painting Barack Obama as unfriendly to Israel, as he touts his own, Republican, candidate for president.

Lieberman has no qualms about saying whatever enters his mind in order to distract voters from any bit of truth they might glean in a political campaign.

We have a new torture czar

The US Senate stayed up late to confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General of the United States. The vote would never have happened if Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer hadn't confirmed him in committee. They betrayed their party, their constituents and the constitution.

Amidst cries of anti-semitism, some commentators are suggesting that Feinstein and Schumer were unduly influenced in their vote by the powerful Israel lobby AIPAC. James Fallows of the Atlantic, commenting on these accusations and the backlash which followed, defends the legitimacy of questioning the influence of any political lobby which represents a foreign nation.

DAILYKOS made the accusation and retreated from it.

People are rightfully careful about making accusations that may stem from, or appear to stem from anti-Israeli predjudice, but if there is a suspicion that such nationalistic influence on US lawmakers exist, it seems legitimate to raise the question.