Jayapal's comments are a good reminder to those of us on the Left to always keep Aristotle's warning that a virtue in excess becomes a vice. in mind Identifying with the oppressed and advocating for them is not a vice. But excusing, whataboutisming, and other refusals to acknowledge and condemn the oppressed when they engage in acts of pure evil is unambiguously wrong. I'm heartened to see the examples Charlie shared of progressives who get that.
And tell that to "progressives" who think Biden is a stodgy fool who can't/won't do what they want, and go out and vote for Trump. True progressives work with the world they have and try to gain support. They don't whine and take their toys away when others don't feel like they do.
I have always considered myself a progressive but think I will go back to calling myself a liberal. I don't want to be associated with people who hate Jews and refuse to condemn Hamas as a violent terrorist organization.
It isn't just the "progressives" who say that. I see it in some of the comments here. They want an ideal candidate who does what they want. Compromise is a dirty word, working with others they don't like is what they don't want to do. The current GOP is a living example. But there are a few Ds who are just as whiny and blind.
Expecting (demanding) a candidate who perfectly reflects one’s own ideology is, to me, the natural consequence of our National Narcissism. A destructive trait delivered to us by social media, but obviously lying dormant, but fully formed, waiting to be released.
This reminds me of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader's presidential campaign in 2000 that clearly cost the election for Al Gore. His line was there was no difference between Gore and Bush. They were Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Given how Bush got us into the Iraq War with questionable intelligence, one was clearly more evil than the other.
Another great example for Ranked Choice Voting. I'd love to have a system where we could express our disapproval of various candidates without functionally supporting the one we like least.
I hope liberals come to their senses next year. Do they vote for a decent guy who is old but smart, progressive (though not a flaming pro-Hamas leftist,) cares about the country and democracy or do you throw it all away and take a chance that the world's most demented twisted, sociopathic narcissist gets his hand on the reins of power again?
But I was listening to a Podcast and they were saying that the anti Israel pro Hamas protest is a lot smaller than the media makes it out to be.
And by the way, why would liberals support a anti women, pro authoritarian country like Palestine? All the Muslim countries are anti Democratic, anti women and religious fundamentalists. Why would any liberal support them? I think its media propaganda. Most of the US media is all in for Trump. We have to think more critically when digesting "news" today.
And not only that, he says he is banning moslem immigration and outing Muslim Americans. Where is the outrage to that statement? Or do they just tell themselves that Trump wouldn't do that. Don't be stupid, of course he will.
I am suspecting there are a lot of lefties who adopt a position just to stick a finger in the eye of the “establishment”, similar to MAGAs. A version of the “horseshoe” effect that’s based on psychology, not political position. I’m willing to believe Jayapal could be antisemitic, but she could also be devoted to contrarian extremism itself.
And that’s a good thing. But her extremist positions could be hurting the bigger agenda long term if it turns voters off to Democrats - and I think that’s very likely.
Jayapal represents a strain of leftwing politics that sees nearly everything through the prism of color. Because, in their eyes, Israelis are whiter than Palestinians the latter are victims by definition.
Yeah the 200,000 Ethiopian Jews in Israel are White. As are the 400,000 Yemenite Jews. None of whom would have been allowed inside the segregated elementrary school I attended. Not to mention the millions of Mizrachi Jews who are indistinguishable from Palestinian Arabs except for religion.
Yes. I learned about these Jews who had lived in Palestine for over a century in a terrific documentary I watched recently, "How Britain Started the Arab-Israeli Conflict" (https://youtu.be/ZXfuqUhzESg?si=hHImzStT1W1hPaI8). Even the Jews in Israel were divided. The right-wing extremist who assasinated Rabin was a Mizrahi Jew. He had been rejected by the Ashkenazi parents of a girl he was dating because he was Mizrahi.
Quick story: I was in Ireland a few summers ago. We went to Derry in Northern Ireland, the scene of much of the violence during "the troubles". In that conflict, both sides were white, and being Irish (like me), about as white as you can get! The schools in Derry were segregated then. They have just started to be integrated.
I asked our guide, having experienced the color line in the US, how did you know the difference between Catholics and Protestants? It was by where you went to school.
I'm sure the progressives know little about either of those situations because it's not convenient to their "straight/white/male is bad" agenda.
But none of them are in leadership in Israel. Same with the US - any Jews who are visible and powerful are not POC.
Just a quick note on power and the Left. This is the prism through which they view social structures. I got this from Fukuyama's "Liberalism and Its Discontents": The critique of the liberalsim of The Enlightenment that spawned the Declaration of Indepence and the Constitution came from from French philosophers in the 1960s. (I was in college then and although I never read them, they were well-known among the anti-war literati on campus I hung around with.) This point of view came to be known as critical theory and it spawned Critical Race Theory in the 1970s.
The critique is that the domination of the powerful over the oppressed was embedded in liberalism. Any who advocated liberal values such as equality, individual rights, private property, were unconsciously suppressing marginalized groups.
So, for the progressive Left, power is bad. That's the bottom line. It just happens to be held by straight, white, males. Here's the syllogism: Straight, white, male, liberal democracy power is bad --> Israel holds power --> Israel is white.
We are unsophisticated in our racism and descrimination. Folks who grew up with a knowledge of caste systems will be able to teach us new ways to hate and separate. :/
I don't mind Tlaib being compromised since she has ties to the area. That said, your friends are supposed to help you keep it together when you are emotionally compromised a la Chris Pine Star Trek.
Can’t we condemn the killing of innocent Palestinian women and children and the brutal rape and sexual assault of the Israeli hostages? Why does it sink to whataboutism? The subject of the interview was the brutality against the women hostages. The guest tried to change the subject. Good for Dana Bash for not letting it slide!
The text you included from Judge Chutkan's ruling was enlightening. I especially liked her referencing George Washington. His sentence beginning with the warning about "cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be willing to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroylng afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion...." is incredibly applicable to what actually transpired with Trump 220 years later. She really nailed it.
You made me look it up! Apparently, the term had existed for a long time in Europe, but was first applied to the single head of a government at Washington's inauguration in 1789. It was used in the wording of the Constitution and, at the urging of James Madison, in the oath of office. He was certainly the first leader of a government to have that formal title.
Right, the title was in common use for a long time. What I should have said is Washington was the first single head of a Republic (read : nation) to be called President.
Interestingly, Vermont was an independent Republic from 1777 to 1791, but it was officially the State of Vermont and its Head of State was called Governor.
The officer who presided over the Articles of Confederation Congress was called the president.
We had a local gotcha question— who was the first president of the United States? The answer was John Hanson. Our local junior high school was named for him. BTW, my brother was the star pitcher on their champion baseball team c 1964.
Really enjoying this comment and thread, thanks! To me, Washington's stepping down and establishing the precedent for a peaceful transition of power is the most sublime individual political act in US history (I am sure others could make compelling cases for other acts - don't mean to discount others).
I find it mildly ironic that many Republicans on Twitter are expressing outrage at Jayapal for her both sidesing, when not too long ago, they were saying things like:
"If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."- Clayton Williams, R-TX
"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that down."- Todd Akin R-MO
"Rape victims should make the best of a bad situation." - Rick Santorum R-US
Let's also acknowledge the fact that rape is often used in wars as a means of establishing control through fear- ISIS was famous for it, and often used in conflicts in Africa.
Let's keep this outrage over innocent women and children being raped and assaulted in war time going!
You know when the cost of war hit me the hardest (growing up in the 60s and 70s with Vietnam, assassinations and Kent State, mind you) was when we buried my father at Arlington Cemetery. Thousands and thousands of white crosses in every direction, with the average age being somewhere in the 20s. It just takes your breath away how the future of our country is dying in wars.
Lovely sentiment. Now tell Hamas, Putin, and all the other dictators. And yes, I know that even the US has been complicit in violence. That's what organizations like the UN, NATO and others exist - to try to stop wars or at least contain them.
The UN was a great idea, but had no real enforcement mechanism. It stopped nations like Russia from going to war -- until they wanted to go to war. Then, they were powerless.
The P5 in general, and their veto power in particular, seems destined to have crashed the effectiveness as a global peacekeeper, even if everything else worked.
On the other hand, outside conflict zones, the UN still coordinates and delivers an awful lot of humanitarian and development aid (46 and 29% of the budget, respectively).
As I have said previously, the US courts are proving to be as effective at stopping corruption as the French Maginot Line was at stopping the Germans. Trump seems to be able to bully his way though every felony. Spending tens of millions of dollars on lawyers gives access to a completely different legal system. Any other person would have been in jail months ago. In some countries he would have been executed -- which is what he wants to do to all his critics if he gets reelected.
Agree in part. Yeah, TFF*G should have been in jail, and Garland should have sicced Jack Smith on him a lot earlier. But TFF*G has been losing cases in court, including several appeals courts lately. Right now, I think the problem we face is that the courts are trying, as is the DOJ, but many areas of the country/society aren't. The GOP is all in on the whiner-in-chief, including those with some semblance of power, and the rabid voters among them are literally threatening people's lives and families. The few Rs with any balls really need to consolidate their money and strengths and actively, openly, oppose both the Party and Trump. Right now, they seem to be scattered voices fighting the tornado. They need to actually, actively consolidate and open their mouths loudly. Pick Cheney, Christie, Bloomberg, someone sane - which leaves out everyone in the current R "candidates".
Mills of the gods grind slowly but they grind exceeding fine. Fingers crossed. I don't think its good lawyering but the apparent awe of the Office of the President no matter who holds it -- and the fear of the armed MAGA mob. But yes he should have been handcuffed Jan 7 and the courts should be pushing these cases through asap instead of deferring to his nonsense.
I used to feel this way. I was active in the Beyond War movement (http://traubman.igc.org/bwarchive.htm) in the 1980s. I worked at an aerospace company (yeah, lifelong liberal Dem me - I was definitely a fish out of water) where I had a conversation with an engineering manager about the poster popular in those days that said "It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." His response was yeah, that would be good, but we have enemies that want to hurt us.
Yes, because we have hurt them, I thought. That was also the explanation on the Left of 9/11 - revenge for all of our misdeeds in the Middle East. Same with explaining Hamas by citing all of Israel's misdeeds.
But since Trump, now I see the global conflict we are engaged in as the democratic liberal West vs the authoritarian Russia/Iran/China axis. Same with our national conflict.
That's why we are supporting Ukraine, a sovereign, liberal democracy. What will be the result if Ukraine loses to Russia? Almost everyone I read says Russia will be emboldened. They will invade more countries. I just don't see how we can just stop defending them.
Yes, sadly we have learned that we can’t unilaterally declare peace. Ironically, the MAGA Party is ready to do that and turn the world over to Russia, China, and Iran.
Don't forget the Russians who liberated Eastern Europe during WWII. Many of the liberated were more terrified of them than the Germans because of their reputation for rape. Just ask the people of Ukraine.
What struck me about the Jayapal blowback is it was mostly all women bashing another woman. Where are the men condemning rape as in instrument of war? The Russians used the same tactic against Ukrainian women and the press dropped it like a hot potato after nanoseconds worth of coverage. I wonder why that was?
Texas hasn't had a governor worth a shit since Ann Richards. She and another formidable, hurricane force Texas woman (and contemporary of Ann), Molly Ivins, are sorely missed and even more sorely needed today.
I actually med Molly once. I bullshat my way into a job as a reporter for the local paper. About a month into my employment, I was assigned to report on a program at Austin College in Sherman, TX, at which Molly was the featured speaker. Having just arrived in north Texas from northern Minnesota, I had no -I mean none, nada,zero- idea who in the world Molly Ivins was. It didn't take me long to learn.
Are those expressions even comparable? Would it not be better to find expressions of approval for rape/sexual violence in the context of war, or at least in the context of our own military training, staffing and promotion?
Owing to their ongoing efforts to insulate Trump from any accountability, to abet Insurrection, to subvert the law and to install an authoritarian regime, the GOP can never again profess to honor the Founders or the Constitution.
Trump argued in court that former presidents are immune from prosecution for crimes they may have committed while in office. At the same time, Trump is running around talking about prosecuting Biden as soon as he is out of office. Absurd.
But a core of Trump's assertion of immunity is that, absent immunity, prosecutions will be weaponized against former presidents by their successors - and to prove that, he has announced that he will do so when re-elected!
Current presidents are immune. Former presidents are immune. I'd like to see a Dark Brandon meme saying, "Tell me again how I'm immune for anything I do?!?"
Trump does not acknowledge Biden's election. This is important also for those attempting to invoke the 14th amendment, section 3, on insurrectionists holding office. The Confederacy was never recognized as legitimate by the US or by any foreign power. Hence, the general term "office holder" is used -- not the President or Vice President which, in effect, the Confederacy did not have. Those attempting to read 14.3 as exempting a President are delusional.
I do hope those involved in the 14.3 cases read J. Chutkin's opinion; did you notice she clearly sets forth how/why the President is covered as an officer/office holder: "As the Supreme Court has stated, that principle must govern citizens and officials alike: No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it. " The president is the highest officer in the land as commander in chief and as an elected official both.
I remember how excited I was when "the Squad" got to Congress. Man, that feels like it was another century on a different planet.
I'd be totally willing to stipulate that Pramila Jayapal has a big heart and is honest according to her own lights. The tragedy is that her unskilled and ineffective representation is undermining a good cause. What she's doing is not leadership. Being on the "right" side does not excuse second-rate efforts.
In this horrible conflict, I would not trust /anyone/ who (1) cannot sit for a minute with the knowledge of one side's suffering without immediately saying "yes but" or (2) uses this unspeakable suffering to promote /any/ cause.
I shouldn't speak of her physical appearance, but when she's interviewed she seems to alternate between the classic two faces, the face of Tragedy and the face of Comedy.
I get where J-Pal is coming from with respect to highlighting the proportionality argument against the IDF bombing Gaza the way it's bombing Gaza, but doing the whataboutism move on Hamas terror-rape is not the way to get there. The only response to someone highlighting the use of rape against civilians by terrorist organizations in the middle of a terrorist attack is to condemn it unequivocally. Full stop. No comparisons, no whataboutisms, just rank condemnation. That's it.
That said, it doesn't mean you cannot bring up the topic of unproportional bombing of civilian targets by the IDF after addressing the fact that rape-terrorism is not Palestinian resistance and is not okay. At this point, the number of Palestinian civilians that the IDF has killed since 10/7 is literally orders of magnitude more than the number of Israeli civilians Hamas killed on 10/7--even if one were to assume that as much as *half* of Palestinian deaths were somehow all Hamas fighters. You can survive rape with your body intact, but with PTSD in the aftermath. Bombings leave the surviving victims with PTSD and scars also, but bombings also dismember and kill--which are much greater permanent effects than just having the PTSD and scars from a rape and/or torture. If you're upset about the surviving innocent Israeli women who were raped and/or tortured by Hamas, then you should also be even more mad about the innocent Palestinian women and children who were blasted into pieces, crushed by tons of rubble, and died with the air sucked out of their lungs after being bombed by IDF aircraft in their homes where they live and sleep. To be empathetic with the women of Israel who were violated by Hamas but then to not be empathetic to the Palestinian women and children who were grievously wounded and/or killed by IDF bombing means that you're not displaying broad humanism as much as you're choosing sides. It is perfectly fine to empathize with the civilians on both sides. Empathizing with one group who had it bad while not empathizing with the other group who has had it literally orders of magnitude worse says a lot about the so-called humanism of the observer.
The CNN website this morning had a pic of a Palestinian boy of about 10ish. He was sitting with his back to the camera, his hands covering his face as before him lay ruins, complete devastation. The viewer is left to imagine what effect this will have on a boy as he grows into manhood. My guess: rage, desire for vengeance, loss of a balanced identity and love of life. And there seems to be an expectation that I, as a world citizen, should support the disproportionate Israeli response to the terrorist attack it has endured (rape included). That I should be on board as this boy looks around at his world and loses all hope of a good, satisfying life. No.
The medical community's survivor nomenclature in Gaza "Wounded Child, No Surviving Family" (WCNSF) for kids who lost legs, etc. but have nobody left to take care of them is particularly haunting. Especially when considering how many of them there are. That's covered here today in the BBC link below (dare you to look at the article images without feeling like shit). And that's before you talk about the Palestinian kids who died in the bombings since 10/7, of which there are some 6,000+. Gaza in a graveyard of children made of rubble now, and there's no getting around those numbers.
When our kids were little our house flooded to the rafters. With a great deal of help we were able to elevate and repair our home. After more than a year living in a small trailer (and tents in summer) in the yard we were able to move in to a restored, lovely home. Throughout, there was rarely a day that I didn't note in myself a complete absence of anger. If people had been responsible for our situation, I think I would have been permanently enraged.
Glad you guys have recovered from that terrible experience. Yea, I'd say that if something like that came from people rather than nature you'd probably be feeling the way Palestinians feel about the IDF.
Yes, because we have to remember the "age, desire for vengeance, loss of a balanced identity and love of life" that plagued the world for decades after WW2 because of the utter devastation that the Allies wrought on Japan and Germany.
The US and allies dumped money into the Japanese and German economies after WWII, and Germany in particular had learned the lessons of going it the bitter route after what they went through from the end of WWI to the beginning of WWII. Israel isn't exactly dumping money into the rebuilding of Gaza and the Germans and Japanese had started the total war approach before having it turned against them by the allies later in the war. Palestinians aren't exactly reducing whole swaths of Haifa or Tel Aviv to rubble, but the Israelis are doing that in Gaza by comparison.
One significant difference between Israal/Gaza and US/Germany-Japan is that in the latter, there was an unconditional surrender. An acknowledgment that they did not have any further intention of being in conflict with the US. Nothing like that has happened with respect to Gaza.
Right, that's definitely true. But then again it took dropping a novel atomic bomb onto Japan a couple of times (after firebombing some 67 of their cities) in order to extinguish their martyrdom culture at a time when both sides were engaged in "total war." I don't think we're going to get to that place in Gaza with Israel dropping an A-bomb in the middle of the city. A better modern example of extinguishing Hamas probably comes from the US getting Iraqi Sunnis to turn on AQI. The IDF could learn some lessons from that application of counterinsurgency to extinguish a terrorist group embedded in a local/urban civilian populace.
That's a very large amount of money for such a small area, as compared to (West) Germany and Japan. A fraction of the populace too.
So, please explain what the PA/Hamas did with $40Bln over 26 years? Why is it they are absolute desolate areas?
With that much $$ why are they still wanting to destroy Israel - based on your assertion that by giving aid to rebuild, any country would be peace loving?
Hint: Because Hamas/the PA want war, and condition their people to hate.
You cited money going into Gaza from *international* countries rather than from Israel, but how much of all of that money came from Israel and went directly into the hands of the families of the Palestinian civilians it has killed rather than the international money that went to the PA or to Hamas?
When I was in Iraq and we killed civilians on accident (or via escalation of force policy frankly), the guys from the civil affairs group went personally over to the bereaved family and gave them an honest message of condolence and a blood payment of $10k+ in USDs per family member lost. Does Israel do this? No they don't. Know what we didn't do in Iraq though? Level entire swaths of say Baghdad or Mosul just to get at a handful of AQI terror cells. It's kind of hard to win the "hearts and minds" war of separating Hamas from the Palestinian populace it relies on for support if you're not even trying at all to do hearts-and-minds counterinsurgency--which involves weighing tactical means against strategic goals via cost-benefit analysis, and if you're not doing that then all you're doing is setting yourself up to fight another generation of Palestinian terrorists a decade down the road. That's where Israel is fucking up when it comes to money and investment in the Palestinian populace and trying to drive a wedge between the Palestinians and Hamas. Israel isn't really even trying by American standards. They're just converting structures to rubble--killing thousands of children in the process--and then wondering aloud why Hamas still exists and why Palestinians don't like the IDF. So it ain't just Hamas that wants this war to continue, it's the Israeli government by their own tactics. They're just kicking the can down the road to the tune of thousands of dead Palestinian children and then wondering why their grandkids are still going to be fighting the insurgency in Gaza and the West Bank.
Who cares where it came from? It's still money. Why wasn't that money used to build stuff other than missiles and tunnels?
Oh, and weren't you one of the ones lambasting Netanyahu for giving money to Gaza - aka Hamas?
So which is it? Israel giving money to Hamas would have led to peace and prosperity, or "it's Israel's fault" for Oct 7 because they gave money to Hamas?
Thank you. I feel horrible about the Palestinians, but why do they keep voting for a terrorist organization like Hamas? If they had a functioning, reasonable leadership, The US and Israel would have poured even money into their territory. Please don't forget the attack of civilians by Hamas and videos of them joyously killing children and raping women. They did that to illicit a violent response.
Hamas took video of headless babies they killed and laughed about. Those babies won't be scarred in the future because they have no future. Two wrongs don't make a right, but your sympathy is misplaced. Hamas put that boy in harms way on purpose.
In all of this, I have yet to hear anyone suggest a practical alternative. How does one wage war against an enemy that is embedded in a civilian population. Unless a perpetual cease-fire with Hamas is the way to go. You know, so Hamas will build itself up again and do as they promised: Commit the October 7 atrocities again as many times as possible.
Compare what the IDF are doing in Gaza--turning whole swaths of dense urban sprawl into a cratered moonscape--with how the US did its counterinsurgency work in densely-populated urban environments in Iraq like Baghdad, Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi. Did we level whole neighborhoods via air strikes to get a few Al Qaeda in Iraq cells? No. Did we cordon off and clear out entire cities block by block on foot via ground troops? Yes. Did we focus on getting the supporting populace (Iraqi Sunnis) to turn against Al Qaeda in Iraq by building shit for them while also doing everything possible to not produce civilian casualties and then paying families of civilians killed on accident with hard cash ($10k+ per victim)? Yes. Is Israel taking this same kind of approach via appealing to the Palestinian populace and trying to wedge them away from Hamas? No.
There's your alternative model, from right here at home. By 2009, the Iraqi Sunnis had turned against Al Qaeda in Iraq, which ended both the counter-US insurgency *and* the Sunni-Shia civil war that raged there from 2006-2008. Our involvement in Iraq was a ultimately big mistake, but there are real lessons that came out of that mistake that Israel could learn from. The success of this approach to doing counterinsurgency in the urban environment is one of them. Israel clearly didn't take any notes.
Did I say there weren't civilian casualties? No. Did I say that what Israel is doing via airstrikes is orders of magnitude worse than what we did in Iraq? Yes.
Do you even deploy bro? Or do you just read articles about conflicts and then jump on the Dunning-Kruger bandwagon from there?
I don't have "to deploy" to know that a very large number of civilians died in the fight against ISIS, not just in Mosul, but also in other towns/cities. (as many as 40k civilians killed, in a city that was 800k; compare with Gaza with almost 2M people.)
AND that those cities were just about flattened in the combat.
Who was dropping the bombs/artillery? The US.
So, if you think the US was doing something drastically different, you are very wrong.
BTW - you can look up what Amnesty said about the US's precision bombing and minimizing of civilian casualties in the Second Battle of Raqqa (about 80% of buildings destroyed):
The scale of bombing was not the same in Mosul as it is in Gaza (not just via population numbers but via square acreage of urban sprawl reduced to rubble), and I don't think you or Amnesty International is differentiating between airstrikes or the blasts from ground combat (IEDs, ATGMs, etc.). Mosul also unfolded over the course of some 9 months whereas we're only about 1.5 months into the Gaza operation. You can also make a comparison between Fallujah--a city the Us Marines cordoned off and cleared block by block without reducing it to rubble from airstrikes--and Gaza and in viewing that comparison you'll see a whole lot more airstrikes in Gaza compared to Fallujah.
Do you honestly think the IDF couldn't have cordoned off Gaza and cleared it block by block with limited airstrikes called in by fighters on the ground who are actively taking fire rather than doing airstrikes at such a large scale *in preparation for* a ground offensive? Like, they literally could've just did the ground offensive without the massive airstrike campaign that preceded it and it would have literally resulted in thousands of fewer civilian casualties. What was so hard about doing that? Especially considering that they didn't know where the hostages were and could have very easily killed some of them in airstrikes.
Hamas was losing support among Palestinians. They attacked civilians in Israel and committed horrible atrocities and took video of themselves laughing while killing children and rapung women. They posted photos of headless babies. BABIES! And they laughed and bragged about. They did this to provoke a reaction from Israel that they knew would horrific in order to win support from the Palestinians. And they got what they wanted. Hamas' approval rating amoung Palestinians is much higher and Hamas hides behind the population and they don't care. They have more than achieved their goals.
I haven't watched the full interview and am only going off of what Charlie excerpted here, so I only comment on not doing the unequivocal full stop "rape by Hamas is bad" when J-Pal said: "However, I think we have to be balanced about bringing in the outrages against Palestinians." Like, I think she could have just stopped when she said that Hamas was a terror org and that their raping is bad. From there, she could have asked Bash if they could also discuss the atrocities that the IDF is committing against Palestinian women because it's also about the suffering of women that Bash probably would have allowed for that follow up convo. That said, yea, maybe Bash's framing could have contributed to that. Not saying you're wrong here and my only knowledge of the whole convo is the excerpts of it here in today's Morning Shots.
Agree, people should really watch it for themselves because I think Charlie is being dishonest in his framing. I truly don’t understand the anger with Jayapal about this interview.
Are we really arguing over what is not being said enough?
Rape is a subset of war. War is devastating, rape is devastating.
HAMAS IS BAD. They are terrorists whose purpose is to kill Jews and retake the land of Israel. They don't care how many die on the way.
Innocent Palestinians will die before shaky peace is achieved. Hamas' disgusting, devastating, reprehensible acts on Oct 7 do not trigger a blank check on lives.
I am not going to say that any and every action taken by Israel is justified. Give it a break.
" They don't care how many die on the way." Quite true, which is why many of the dead Palestinians died because of Hamas and its use of them as "human shields" (actually, "acceptable human sacrifices"). If you bind and gag someone and place them on the tracks in front of a train you started in motion, knowing that the engineer could not go around the victim, who do you blame for the death, the binder or the engineer?
It's also very telling that every report attributed to an official Gaza spokesman uses the term 'martyr' for every dead civilian. Not 'victims' or 'casualties'. Not "two dozen people killed" but "two dozen martyrs killed". It's obvious that the people in charge in Gaza, those with authority, share the same basic outlook as the leaders of Hamas in their religious delusions that they used to justify the 10/7 attack.
What did it ignite in all the people who said the Hamas attack was justified, or "understandable," or "inevitable"?
Even though Israel had no presence in Gaza since 2005. Even though Hamas targeted a kibbutz known for its acts of kindness toward people in Gaza. Even though the attack was evidently facilitated by intel from Palestinians who had been employed at that kibbutz. Even though the mastermind of the attack had received (free) lifesaving brain surgery from in Israeli doctor, whose nephew is now a hostage of Hamas.
Even though the objection of Hamas is not specific Israeli policies, but the fact that Israel exists at all. Even though Hamas leaders safe in Qatar have said that mass death among civilians in Gaza is necessary for "the revolution." Even though Hamas is driven by an Islamic fundamentalist belief that it has a sacred right to impose its religion everywhere.
What did it ignite in all the many people who began venting rage against Jews who have nothing to do with Israeli policy and might actually be highly critical of it?
You seem to be very angry with me. I can't see how I brought that about except maybe by offering my pov. This is Bulwark, not a trashy social network. In any case, Netanyahu had been making nice with Hamas and trying to help improve or ease up on conditions (albeit, well because it's Netanyahu, in order to discredit the Palestinian Authority). Interestingly, Hamas decided to bait Israel into a conflict. Because they do not want a negotiated settlement that includes Israel existing as a Jewish state.
Are you trying to split the vote? Do you believe the old Russian proverb "the worse the better" in your hopes to see Trump elected and bring on chaos,?
That pretty much never happens in almost every case. The United States is an anomaly and it pretty much crashed less than 100 years into the experiment.
It may have crashed but it didn't get demolished and there wasn't a revolution. Same system with modifications. And a whole host of growing pains. But the founders were really unusual: Their goal was not to punish 'enemies' and upend the entire political/intellectual environment. It was to institute a system that was not authoritarian. Beside, the Revolutionary war was not really a revolution so much as a separation. Bannon, you can be sure , just wants random 'let the chips fall where they may' chaos. And he's an authoritarian to boot.
I used to look down at all the middle-eastern countries who were awash in conspiracy theories. I saw it as a sign of a decadent or broken culture. Never did I suspect that half of America would start believing in all that crap. But sadly my opinion stands: We have become a decadent broken culture.
Progressives tend to be good feminists until liberal, feminist values clash with cultures that are illiberal, non-white, and religiously fundamentalist. I'll say it; in Islamic, theocratic states, the lives of women range from bad to unbearable. Look at how the Taliban treats women. In some of these cultures, honor killings are tolerated. FGM is practiced. Women are their husbands' property. Women are forced to cover themselves head to toe, and when they are raped, they are blamed and shamed for it, and the rapists are exonerated because men cannot be expected to control themselves around women.
At any rate, I think that is 100% what's going on with the reaction to Hamas terrorists raping and killing Jewish women. Saying this is what happens in war, when these atrocities happened during a terrorist assault, is just absurd.
“The women’s rights organization made a similar statement in late November condemning the Hamas attacks, but quickly deleted the post.”
Rape is rape and it must always be condemned. However, just like always, the rape of Israeli women and girls is beside the point.
It’s a distraction from what’s happening. If anyone supports Hamas; they are complicit with Hamas’s attack on Israel, plain and simple.
Every life is sacred, whether Israeli or Palestinian. I don’t think any sane person thinks otherwise. There are progressives that refuse to acknowledge this, but they aren’t the majority of liberals or conservatives in the US or abroad.
The real question is whether Palestinian civilians should pay the price for Hama’s actions? To an extent, Israel has every right to defend itself, yet at what cost to Palestinian civilians; mostly women and children? Sixty percent of the Palestinian population weren’t even born when Hamas took over Gaza. And an additional 20% weren’t of voting age. Since then, Hamas has refused to hold elections.
My point, at what point is when is enough, enough? So far approximately 15k Palestinians have been killed. Even if the death rate is exaggerated, no one can dispute whether the casualty rates are extremely high.
Dana Bash was completely off base with her interview. Her question about Israeli soldiers not raping Palestinian girls and women speaks volumes; especially since Hama doesn’t have an army, they are TERRORISTS, and do not adhere to international standards or norms. What exactly is her point? That Hamas is more brutal? Thanks for that glimpse into the obvious.
That said, let’s not forget that Israel knew of this attack a year in advance. And even after ignoring all the evidence, they still couldn’t get even one army or navy unit to the scene of the attack for seven hours? Seriously?
Has it occurred to anyone that the attack is exactly what Netanyahu and his right-wing cohorts were hoping for; in order to fulfill their policy agenda of forcing more and more Palestinians from Gaza?
Netanyahu’s government spokesman just said as much recently in an interview. “Their goal is to thin the population in Gaza and force other Arab nations to take the Palestinian’s in.”
Why is the media deflecting from Israel’s policy aims and goals, to not enough outrage over Israeli rape victims, and shaming anyone who hasn’t publicly condemned Hamas, or hasn’t condemned them enough.
Personally, as a Jewish person, I am outraged at everyone. From Hamas, to our MSM and politicians, to Netanyahu’s right-wing government which is trying to force most of the Palestinian people to flee their homes.
Yet, a month into this conflict, with casualties mounting on both sides; while Netanyahu is about to implement an even more extreme policy agenda against the Palestinians that will have far reaching consequences for decades, we’re talking about rape!
I’m glad everyone has their priorities straight. It’s a wonder how this world has gotten to this point in time.
“Has it occurred to anyone that the attack is exactly what Netanyahu and his right-wing cohorts were hoping for; in order to fulfill their policy agenda of forcing more and more Palestinians from Gaza? “
Absolutely it has. It’s the (unofficial? Semi-official?) policy of ethnic cleansing. And I have no doubt that if Bibi and his far-right cronies could go further, they would.
Thank you!!! I cannot understand why we are stuck in a loop of 'some of the left are not saying (fill in) enough.' There is a war going on. What is Israel/Bibi's goal right now? Is there an objective? People are DYING, because of a handful (relatively) of men in Israel and Iran? Really?
Watching the bombing of Gaza, some words of Winston Churchill describing the 1919 Amritsar Massacre by British soldiers in India keep popping into my head:
"When the fire was directed upon the centre, they ran to the sides. The fire was then directed to the sides. Many threw themselves down on the ground, the fire was then directed down on the ground."
"George Santos is about to join him there, where he can ponder his legacy as an asterisk on a parenthesis in a footnote — as one of only six congressmen expelled from that august body. (He’s also likely headed to prison, which could hamper his bid to become a Newsmax host.)"
Not so fast. Consider the following scenario:
1) DJT wins the 2024 presidential election.
2a) DJT pardons Santos, among many others who are deemed to be politically persecuted; or
2b) MAGA-friendly justices, appointed by DJT or otherwise, drop cases against or overturn the convictions of those same people.
And Santos and said others wear their good fortune around their necks and go on to their Newsmax job, renewed political careers, or hack employment in service to the new establishment, singing the praises of DJT even louder and revising a traditional song's lyric to "We fought the law, and MAGA won."
It is well within the realm of possibility. I think we too often underestimate the degree to which things would be very, very different if the 2017-2021 administration is revived, with a new cast of movers and shakers who are unencumbered by trivial things such as laws and Constitutions, formerly sacrosanct entities that we now see can be circumvented if enough key people are willing to make it happen. The new rule of order will be that there are no rules anymore, except those that the extremists choose to enforce or, worse, impose. It stands to be a winner-take-all free-for-all against any and all perceived opposition, and what historically stood as guardrails or cultural norms against bad behavior would be discarded as if leftover aluminum foil.
Let us not underestimate the threat that stands before us, even in casual discourse, by assuming that any aspect of the old order will hold true later on just because it is logical and reasonable to do so. For we know what supposedly happens when one makes assumptions. Or, in this case, for many of us, potentially something much worse than simply being labeled an ass.
DeSantis, like Madison Cawthorne, will be persona non grata- he's blabbing on Twitter about other Republicans' ethics problems. Snitches get stitches, not a job in the administration.
That being said, the people Trump will appoint will make Stephen Miller look like a mild mannered accountant.
We should be afraid, but not frozen in fear. Get out and do something, even if it's just posting on Twitter or Facebook or any other social media out there. Push back.
If Trump becomes President again, 100% guaranteed he will hold a press conference with DeSantis next to the podium on his hands and knees wearing a dollar collar and Trump saying, "How do you like my new bitch?" (probably wearing his white boots just for extra humiliation)
As an 80+yo I’ve followed national politics closely since voting for JFK my first time voting for a President. I’ve tended to vote for Democrats though not always, and consider myself a Liberal.
But the rise of the “Progressive” wing of our Party has been troubling, and reminiscent of the right wing Tea Party movement in the GOP of 20+ years ago. While widely divergent in political positions and objectives, both movements have been self-righteous, and intolerant of differing opinions.
In this case of reluctance to forcefully condemn Hamas’ use of Rape as a weapon of war I am shocked, it is so self-evident there is no room for ambiguity. Either you condemn it OR you are giving Hamas a Pass on these atrocities. You Passed, Progressives to your shame!
Certainly, condemn Israel for its excesses in the war, but as a separate matter. There is NO equivalency between the two types of war crimes. One set of crimes does not wash away or minimize the other.
Shame on those who do not recognize Rape as a War Crime.
Yeah! Progressives and the Tea Party are totally the same.
One wants to provide a decent living standard for all, ensure the rights of minorities are protected, create a viable path to immigrants, and expand worker protections.
The other wants to kill welfare programs, ban immigrants, let the cops murder black people, and exterminate LGBT people.
Suggest you read the comparison again. I said the two movements were “...widely divergent in political positions and objectives”, but “...both movements have been self-righteous and intolerant of differing opinions”.
Do you recognize some of that self-righteousness and intolerance in your comments?
I watched the SNL cold opening on Santos. Hilarious. I also read MTG’s and a few others and their comments on the ruling that Trump is not above the law, and going after Andrew Weissman. You know, “be careful what you wish for” nonsense. Another version of whataboutism. The problem with their thinking is their utter refusal to acknowledge all of DT’s illegal actions, including weaponizing the DOJ, for starters. Do their constituents ever question what these idiots have done for them during their term in office? The dems need to go to these places to tout their horns especially where jobs have been created and the GOP has voted against it. It’s enough already. I’m sick of Santos, sick of MTG, and God knows, sick of Trump. His usual rhetoric, “Biden is the most corrupt president in the history” is a joke considering all the lawsuits and indictments against him. I don’t know. Maybe some of his former military men need to speak out more, hold a town meeting. Maybe they can’t but if that’s true, then what the hell is Michael Flynn doing spouting conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory? I truly fear for our country. I live in Montreal where the weather is freezing, the roads are in terrible shape, the healthcare system sucks, teachers and nurses are striking and the province of Quebec is starting to ban English as an official language. All to say, in spite of all this, it’s safer here than what is going on in the US. Americans need to wake up to the dangers of what that orange monster is preaching. I’m guessing none of them have any knowledge of history.
So, we're judging people on the basis of things they haven't condemned now? I mean, there's a ton of actions that have been undertaken by the Israeli government (hell, by people closer to home, too) through just the past 5 years that are pretty horrific, but I don't take the failure to condemn them as a sign that people tacitly approve of them. Should I?
The complaint against the UN in the article is that they failed to issue a condemnation of rape by Hamas. But, they seem to have made no comment about it whatsoever. (The reference to a deleted tweet was for the attack more broadly, despite the attempt to imply otherwise). Is failing to condemn a specific instance of torture support for torture? I've never publicly condemned the genocide of Herero and Nama by the Germans during German South-West Africa; does that make me a supporter of German colonial atrocities? Because though I condemn that genocide, one could easily spin it as "Sherm has never condemned the genocide of the Herero and Nama; can you believe it?"
It's a crummy argument, and he has plenty of examples he could have drawn from without it. So why include it?
Because a reasonable person might not think "rape as a weapon of war" was something that needed specific condemnation when their policy on it generally is already quite unequivocal? UN Women is not known for making exceptions on this sort of thing. That's my point; does a failure to make a specific condemnation negate a broad one that covers the circumstance? Because if it does, that's an awful lot of people who are tacitly pro-arltrocity in here, and we're among them.
I condemned torture by the Dubya administration but I was assured by my Republican "friends" that this was not really torture, but if it was torture it was necessary, and by the way Jesus approved. So apparently we don't all disapprove of torture. Apparently it depends.
Jayapal's comments are a good reminder to those of us on the Left to always keep Aristotle's warning that a virtue in excess becomes a vice. in mind Identifying with the oppressed and advocating for them is not a vice. But excusing, whataboutisming, and other refusals to acknowledge and condemn the oppressed when they engage in acts of pure evil is unambiguously wrong. I'm heartened to see the examples Charlie shared of progressives who get that.
And tell that to "progressives" who think Biden is a stodgy fool who can't/won't do what they want, and go out and vote for Trump. True progressives work with the world they have and try to gain support. They don't whine and take their toys away when others don't feel like they do.
Unfortunately, whining and threatening to take the toys is an eventuality with identity politics.
Sadly. And it might take down the country.
Well said. More evidence they are not adults.
Yes, but butthurt people DO that... and being butthurt often outweighs being progressive or whatever else would tend to make you vote Biden.
I have always considered myself a progressive but think I will go back to calling myself a liberal. I don't want to be associated with people who hate Jews and refuse to condemn Hamas as a violent terrorist organization.
I'm with you.
It isn't just the "progressives" who say that. I see it in some of the comments here. They want an ideal candidate who does what they want. Compromise is a dirty word, working with others they don't like is what they don't want to do. The current GOP is a living example. But there are a few Ds who are just as whiny and blind.
Expecting (demanding) a candidate who perfectly reflects one’s own ideology is, to me, the natural consequence of our National Narcissism. A destructive trait delivered to us by social media, but obviously lying dormant, but fully formed, waiting to be released.
This reminds me of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader's presidential campaign in 2000 that clearly cost the election for Al Gore. His line was there was no difference between Gore and Bush. They were Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
Given how Bush got us into the Iraq War with questionable intelligence, one was clearly more evil than the other.
If I remember correctly, Hilary lost to Trump in 2016 by fewer votes than were cast for Jill Stein.
That is also a condemnation of the Republican Primary process. John McCain would have easily defeated Al Gore -- and would never have invaded Iraq.
Another great example for Ranked Choice Voting. I'd love to have a system where we could express our disapproval of various candidates without functionally supporting the one we like least.
Exactly. If a candidate says he is going to completely change everything to suit you, he's lying.
Why are Democrats evil? Because they compromise? Isn't that the definition of representative government. Not everyone gets everything they want.
I hope liberals come to their senses next year. Do they vote for a decent guy who is old but smart, progressive (though not a flaming pro-Hamas leftist,) cares about the country and democracy or do you throw it all away and take a chance that the world's most demented twisted, sociopathic narcissist gets his hand on the reins of power again?
For a lot of these folks, hating on Israel is worth destroying democracy in the US. If they cared about democracy they wouldn't be supporting Hamas.
But I was listening to a Podcast and they were saying that the anti Israel pro Hamas protest is a lot smaller than the media makes it out to be.
And by the way, why would liberals support a anti women, pro authoritarian country like Palestine? All the Muslim countries are anti Democratic, anti women and religious fundamentalists. Why would any liberal support them? I think its media propaganda. Most of the US media is all in for Trump. We have to think more critically when digesting "news" today.
That thinking led to the GOP gerrymanders after "progressives" stayed home on 2010.
"Progressives" voting for Ralph Nader and Jill Stein gave us W and TFG.
And the huge Black voter turnout for Obama in ‘08, stayed home in 2010. That’s a consistent problem.
In less than 12 months we will learn just how far down the whiny baby non-voters (and voters!) will drag us.
And not only that, he says he is banning moslem immigration and outing Muslim Americans. Where is the outrage to that statement? Or do they just tell themselves that Trump wouldn't do that. Don't be stupid, of course he will.
Jayapal needs to be primaried.
Given the makeup of her district, that’s unlikely.
I think she is in an ethnic neighborhood where most if her constituents are Muslim.
I just don't understand that kind of waffling coming from a so-called progressive.
I am suspecting there are a lot of lefties who adopt a position just to stick a finger in the eye of the “establishment”, similar to MAGAs. A version of the “horseshoe” effect that’s based on psychology, not political position. I’m willing to believe Jayapal could be antisemitic, but she could also be devoted to contrarian extremism itself.
She votes with the Biden agenda 98% of the time.
And that’s a good thing. But her extremist positions could be hurting the bigger agenda long term if it turns voters off to Democrats - and I think that’s very likely.
I think her contrarian extremism is her ticket to glory.
I’ve seen it so much in my personal life over the years, and now it’s rampant in public life too. Our “attention economy” demands it.
Agree!
It's mostly propaganda. The anti Israel contigent is very small and not really liberal.
It's the horseshoe effect, eventually they get so far left, they become far right.
Jayapal represents a strain of leftwing politics that sees nearly everything through the prism of color. Because, in their eyes, Israelis are whiter than Palestinians the latter are victims by definition.
Yep. Jews are white because they are powerful, so they can't be the victim. And anything white is bad.
Yeah the 200,000 Ethiopian Jews in Israel are White. As are the 400,000 Yemenite Jews. None of whom would have been allowed inside the segregated elementrary school I attended. Not to mention the millions of Mizrachi Jews who are indistinguishable from Palestinian Arabs except for religion.
Yes. I learned about these Jews who had lived in Palestine for over a century in a terrific documentary I watched recently, "How Britain Started the Arab-Israeli Conflict" (https://youtu.be/ZXfuqUhzESg?si=hHImzStT1W1hPaI8). Even the Jews in Israel were divided. The right-wing extremist who assasinated Rabin was a Mizrahi Jew. He had been rejected by the Ashkenazi parents of a girl he was dating because he was Mizrahi.
Quick story: I was in Ireland a few summers ago. We went to Derry in Northern Ireland, the scene of much of the violence during "the troubles". In that conflict, both sides were white, and being Irish (like me), about as white as you can get! The schools in Derry were segregated then. They have just started to be integrated.
I asked our guide, having experienced the color line in the US, how did you know the difference between Catholics and Protestants? It was by where you went to school.
I'm sure the progressives know little about either of those situations because it's not convenient to their "straight/white/male is bad" agenda.
Really? There are a lot of Jewish people of color.
But none of them are in leadership in Israel. Same with the US - any Jews who are visible and powerful are not POC.
Just a quick note on power and the Left. This is the prism through which they view social structures. I got this from Fukuyama's "Liberalism and Its Discontents": The critique of the liberalsim of The Enlightenment that spawned the Declaration of Indepence and the Constitution came from from French philosophers in the 1960s. (I was in college then and although I never read them, they were well-known among the anti-war literati on campus I hung around with.) This point of view came to be known as critical theory and it spawned Critical Race Theory in the 1970s.
The critique is that the domination of the powerful over the oppressed was embedded in liberalism. Any who advocated liberal values such as equality, individual rights, private property, were unconsciously suppressing marginalized groups.
So, for the progressive Left, power is bad. That's the bottom line. It just happens to be held by straight, white, males. Here's the syllogism: Straight, white, male, liberal democracy power is bad --> Israel holds power --> Israel is white.
We are unsophisticated in our racism and descrimination. Folks who grew up with a knowledge of caste systems will be able to teach us new ways to hate and separate. :/
Just like her colleague from Michigan.
I don't mind Tlaib being compromised since she has ties to the area. That said, your friends are supposed to help you keep it together when you are emotionally compromised a la Chris Pine Star Trek.
Can’t we condemn the killing of innocent Palestinian women and children and the brutal rape and sexual assault of the Israeli hostages? Why does it sink to whataboutism? The subject of the interview was the brutality against the women hostages. The guest tried to change the subject. Good for Dana Bash for not letting it slide!
The text you included from Judge Chutkan's ruling was enlightening. I especially liked her referencing George Washington. His sentence beginning with the warning about "cunning, ambitious and unprincipled men will be willing to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroylng afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion...." is incredibly applicable to what actually transpired with Trump 220 years later. She really nailed it.
It's a little foggy in my recollection, but I think George Washington actually coined the term "president" to replace "king." One who presides.
You made me look it up! Apparently, the term had existed for a long time in Europe, but was first applied to the single head of a government at Washington's inauguration in 1789. It was used in the wording of the Constitution and, at the urging of James Madison, in the oath of office. He was certainly the first leader of a government to have that formal title.
Thanks for the research. Obviously, TFG does not think it should it apply to him, unless it buys him something.
Pennsylvania had Presidents. One of them was Benjamin Franklin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Executive_Council_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Pennsylvania#Presidents
Right, the title was in common use for a long time. What I should have said is Washington was the first single head of a Republic (read : nation) to be called President.
Interestingly, Vermont was an independent Republic from 1777 to 1791, but it was officially the State of Vermont and its Head of State was called Governor.
https://sos.vermont.gov/vsara/learn/constitution/1777-constitution/
The officer who presided over the Articles of Confederation Congress was called the president.
We had a local gotcha question— who was the first president of the United States? The answer was John Hanson. Our local junior high school was named for him. BTW, my brother was the star pitcher on their champion baseball team c 1964.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hanson
Really enjoying this comment and thread, thanks! To me, Washington's stepping down and establishing the precedent for a peaceful transition of power is the most sublime individual political act in US history (I am sure others could make compelling cases for other acts - don't mean to discount others).
Has Trump ever ventured an opinion on Washington? He would not like to be upstaged by the long-dead General, would he?
Yes...Trump believes he's the one who invented the $1 bill.
And don't forget his victorious recapture of the airports from the British.
He would say that Washington was a chump for imposing a 2-term limit on himself when he could have been king.
“Yes, George, really good guy who’s been doing some good things and getting talked about.” DJT 🤓
HaHa!!!! As consolation for tRump's weakening our government, he's given us a comedy goldmine.
I think Trump shies away from principled figures. The whole cannot tell a lie story about Washington contradicts his lack of ethics and morals.
It sure is. He understood what unprincipled men could be like.
I find it mildly ironic that many Republicans on Twitter are expressing outrage at Jayapal for her both sidesing, when not too long ago, they were saying things like:
"If rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it."- Clayton Williams, R-TX
"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that down."- Todd Akin R-MO
"Rape victims should make the best of a bad situation." - Rick Santorum R-US
Let's also acknowledge the fact that rape is often used in wars as a means of establishing control through fear- ISIS was famous for it, and often used in conflicts in Africa.
Let's keep this outrage over innocent women and children being raped and assaulted in war time going!
Let's stop the wars! They accomplish nothing but death and more wars.
AMEN!!
You know when the cost of war hit me the hardest (growing up in the 60s and 70s with Vietnam, assassinations and Kent State, mind you) was when we buried my father at Arlington Cemetery. Thousands and thousands of white crosses in every direction, with the average age being somewhere in the 20s. It just takes your breath away how the future of our country is dying in wars.
"Where have all the flowers gone" is still true.
Lovely sentiment. Now tell Hamas, Putin, and all the other dictators. And yes, I know that even the US has been complicit in violence. That's what organizations like the UN, NATO and others exist - to try to stop wars or at least contain them.
The UN was a great idea, but had no real enforcement mechanism. It stopped nations like Russia from going to war -- until they wanted to go to war. Then, they were powerless.
The P5 in general, and their veto power in particular, seems destined to have crashed the effectiveness as a global peacekeeper, even if everything else worked.
On the other hand, outside conflict zones, the UN still coordinates and delivers an awful lot of humanitarian and development aid (46 and 29% of the budget, respectively).
They are the organization that gets tasked with trying to clean up the mess created by the wars they can't stop.
Lack of enforcement seems to be a problem in many areas - Supreme Court, Congress (thanks McConnell!), even in the Parties themselves.
As I have said previously, the US courts are proving to be as effective at stopping corruption as the French Maginot Line was at stopping the Germans. Trump seems to be able to bully his way though every felony. Spending tens of millions of dollars on lawyers gives access to a completely different legal system. Any other person would have been in jail months ago. In some countries he would have been executed -- which is what he wants to do to all his critics if he gets reelected.
Agree in part. Yeah, TFF*G should have been in jail, and Garland should have sicced Jack Smith on him a lot earlier. But TFF*G has been losing cases in court, including several appeals courts lately. Right now, I think the problem we face is that the courts are trying, as is the DOJ, but many areas of the country/society aren't. The GOP is all in on the whiner-in-chief, including those with some semblance of power, and the rabid voters among them are literally threatening people's lives and families. The few Rs with any balls really need to consolidate their money and strengths and actively, openly, oppose both the Party and Trump. Right now, they seem to be scattered voices fighting the tornado. They need to actually, actively consolidate and open their mouths loudly. Pick Cheney, Christie, Bloomberg, someone sane - which leaves out everyone in the current R "candidates".
Mills of the gods grind slowly but they grind exceeding fine. Fingers crossed. I don't think its good lawyering but the apparent awe of the Office of the President no matter who holds it -- and the fear of the armed MAGA mob. But yes he should have been handcuffed Jan 7 and the courts should be pushing these cases through asap instead of deferring to his nonsense.
The UN stopped North Korea from taking over South Korea.
I don't know of any other examples, though.
I used to feel this way. I was active in the Beyond War movement (http://traubman.igc.org/bwarchive.htm) in the 1980s. I worked at an aerospace company (yeah, lifelong liberal Dem me - I was definitely a fish out of water) where I had a conversation with an engineering manager about the poster popular in those days that said "It will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." His response was yeah, that would be good, but we have enemies that want to hurt us.
Yes, because we have hurt them, I thought. That was also the explanation on the Left of 9/11 - revenge for all of our misdeeds in the Middle East. Same with explaining Hamas by citing all of Israel's misdeeds.
But since Trump, now I see the global conflict we are engaged in as the democratic liberal West vs the authoritarian Russia/Iran/China axis. Same with our national conflict.
That's why we are supporting Ukraine, a sovereign, liberal democracy. What will be the result if Ukraine loses to Russia? Almost everyone I read says Russia will be emboldened. They will invade more countries. I just don't see how we can just stop defending them.
Yes, sadly we have learned that we can’t unilaterally declare peace. Ironically, the MAGA Party is ready to do that and turn the world over to Russia, China, and Iran.
Yes, because they have what political psychologist Karen Stenner calls the authoritarian disposition, and those countries are led by dictators.
Per Edwin Starr and Eric Burdon:
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, uhh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all
War, huh (good God)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me, oh
War, I despise
'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives
War means tears to thousands of mother's eyes
When their sons go off to fight
And lose their lives
I said, war, huh (good God, y'all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, just say it again
War (whoa), huh (oh Lord)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker
(War) Friend only to The Undertaker
Oh, war it's an enemy to all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest
Within the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die? Oh
War, huh (good God y'all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it, say it, say it
War (uh-huh), huh (yeah, huh)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
It ain't nothing but a heart-breaker
(War) It's got one friend that's The Undertaker
Oh, war, has shattered many a young man's dreams
Made him disabled, bitter and mean
Life is much too short and precious
To spend fighting wars each day
War can't give life
It can only take it away, oh
War, huh (good God y'all)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, say it again
War (whoa), huh (oh Lord)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing, listen to me
It ain't nothing but a heart breaker
(War) Friend only to The Undertaker, woo
Peace, love and understanding, tell me
Is there no place for them today?
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord knows there's got to be a better way, oh
War, huh (God y'all)
What is it good for? You tell me (nothing)
Say it, say it, say it, say it
War (good God), huh (now, huh)
What is it good for?
Stand up and shout it (nothing)
I might still have that 45 somewhere!
Don't forget the Russians who liberated Eastern Europe during WWII. Many of the liberated were more terrified of them than the Germans because of their reputation for rape. Just ask the people of Ukraine.
What struck me about the Jayapal blowback is it was mostly all women bashing another woman. Where are the men condemning rape as in instrument of war? The Russians used the same tactic against Ukrainian women and the press dropped it like a hot potato after nanoseconds worth of coverage. I wonder why that was?
Men are embarrassed to talk about it.
Don't we all?
I remember Clayton Williams comment. Ann Richards (D) won the election and became governor of Texas because of it.
Texas hasn't had a governor worth a shit since Ann Richards. She and another formidable, hurricane force Texas woman (and contemporary of Ann), Molly Ivins, are sorely missed and even more sorely needed today.
Molly Ivins was a force of nature!
What I wouldn't give to be able to see her eviscerate, emasculate and discombobulate Trump in a live, televised interview.
I miss Molly like crazy ! My daughters and I saw her in Santa Cruz....❤
I actually med Molly once. I bullshat my way into a job as a reporter for the local paper. About a month into my employment, I was assigned to report on a program at Austin College in Sherman, TX, at which Molly was the featured speaker. Having just arrived in north Texas from northern Minnesota, I had no -I mean none, nada,zero- idea who in the world Molly Ivins was. It didn't take me long to learn.
Ann Richards was an amazing woman!
The head of the Republican Party was found liable for rape by a jury.
Are those expressions even comparable? Would it not be better to find expressions of approval for rape/sexual violence in the context of war, or at least in the context of our own military training, staffing and promotion?
Owing to their ongoing efforts to insulate Trump from any accountability, to abet Insurrection, to subvert the law and to install an authoritarian regime, the GOP can never again profess to honor the Founders or the Constitution.
Some of the Republicans I'm politics are saying as much.
Trump argued in court that former presidents are immune from prosecution for crimes they may have committed while in office. At the same time, Trump is running around talking about prosecuting Biden as soon as he is out of office. Absurd.
Because in Republican land, those rules are logical and fair. Heads they win, tails we lose.
But a core of Trump's assertion of immunity is that, absent immunity, prosecutions will be weaponized against former presidents by their successors - and to prove that, he has announced that he will do so when re-elected!
Brilliant! You know, this stuff used to be satire. I miss those days!
Sounds like extortion, one of Trumps only foundational philosphies.
The hypocrisy all along, astounds me. What else astounds me, is how so many allow it to continue.
Current presidents are immune. Former presidents are immune. I'd like to see a Dark Brandon meme saying, "Tell me again how I'm immune for anything I do?!?"
Trump does not acknowledge Biden's election. This is important also for those attempting to invoke the 14th amendment, section 3, on insurrectionists holding office. The Confederacy was never recognized as legitimate by the US or by any foreign power. Hence, the general term "office holder" is used -- not the President or Vice President which, in effect, the Confederacy did not have. Those attempting to read 14.3 as exempting a President are delusional.
I do hope those involved in the 14.3 cases read J. Chutkin's opinion; did you notice she clearly sets forth how/why the President is covered as an officer/office holder: "As the Supreme Court has stated, that principle must govern citizens and officials alike: No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it. " The president is the highest officer in the land as commander in chief and as an elected official both.
I remember how excited I was when "the Squad" got to Congress. Man, that feels like it was another century on a different planet.
I'd be totally willing to stipulate that Pramila Jayapal has a big heart and is honest according to her own lights. The tragedy is that her unskilled and ineffective representation is undermining a good cause. What she's doing is not leadership. Being on the "right" side does not excuse second-rate efforts.
In this horrible conflict, I would not trust /anyone/ who (1) cannot sit for a minute with the knowledge of one side's suffering without immediately saying "yes but" or (2) uses this unspeakable suffering to promote /any/ cause.
Is Jayapal aware that 'yes but' is a very Trumpian strategy?
I think we're all doing it, but somehow what's "sauce" for the goose is "move along, nothing to see here" for the gander.
I shouldn't speak of her physical appearance, but when she's interviewed she seems to alternate between the classic two faces, the face of Tragedy and the face of Comedy.
You are right, you should not.
I get where J-Pal is coming from with respect to highlighting the proportionality argument against the IDF bombing Gaza the way it's bombing Gaza, but doing the whataboutism move on Hamas terror-rape is not the way to get there. The only response to someone highlighting the use of rape against civilians by terrorist organizations in the middle of a terrorist attack is to condemn it unequivocally. Full stop. No comparisons, no whataboutisms, just rank condemnation. That's it.
That said, it doesn't mean you cannot bring up the topic of unproportional bombing of civilian targets by the IDF after addressing the fact that rape-terrorism is not Palestinian resistance and is not okay. At this point, the number of Palestinian civilians that the IDF has killed since 10/7 is literally orders of magnitude more than the number of Israeli civilians Hamas killed on 10/7--even if one were to assume that as much as *half* of Palestinian deaths were somehow all Hamas fighters. You can survive rape with your body intact, but with PTSD in the aftermath. Bombings leave the surviving victims with PTSD and scars also, but bombings also dismember and kill--which are much greater permanent effects than just having the PTSD and scars from a rape and/or torture. If you're upset about the surviving innocent Israeli women who were raped and/or tortured by Hamas, then you should also be even more mad about the innocent Palestinian women and children who were blasted into pieces, crushed by tons of rubble, and died with the air sucked out of their lungs after being bombed by IDF aircraft in their homes where they live and sleep. To be empathetic with the women of Israel who were violated by Hamas but then to not be empathetic to the Palestinian women and children who were grievously wounded and/or killed by IDF bombing means that you're not displaying broad humanism as much as you're choosing sides. It is perfectly fine to empathize with the civilians on both sides. Empathizing with one group who had it bad while not empathizing with the other group who has had it literally orders of magnitude worse says a lot about the so-called humanism of the observer.
The CNN website this morning had a pic of a Palestinian boy of about 10ish. He was sitting with his back to the camera, his hands covering his face as before him lay ruins, complete devastation. The viewer is left to imagine what effect this will have on a boy as he grows into manhood. My guess: rage, desire for vengeance, loss of a balanced identity and love of life. And there seems to be an expectation that I, as a world citizen, should support the disproportionate Israeli response to the terrorist attack it has endured (rape included). That I should be on board as this boy looks around at his world and loses all hope of a good, satisfying life. No.
The medical community's survivor nomenclature in Gaza "Wounded Child, No Surviving Family" (WCNSF) for kids who lost legs, etc. but have nobody left to take care of them is particularly haunting. Especially when considering how many of them there are. That's covered here today in the BBC link below (dare you to look at the article images without feeling like shit). And that's before you talk about the Palestinian kids who died in the bombings since 10/7, of which there are some 6,000+. Gaza in a graveyard of children made of rubble now, and there's no getting around those numbers.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67614139
When our kids were little our house flooded to the rafters. With a great deal of help we were able to elevate and repair our home. After more than a year living in a small trailer (and tents in summer) in the yard we were able to move in to a restored, lovely home. Throughout, there was rarely a day that I didn't note in myself a complete absence of anger. If people had been responsible for our situation, I think I would have been permanently enraged.
Glad you guys have recovered from that terrible experience. Yea, I'd say that if something like that came from people rather than nature you'd probably be feeling the way Palestinians feel about the IDF.
Yes, because we have to remember the "age, desire for vengeance, loss of a balanced identity and love of life" that plagued the world for decades after WW2 because of the utter devastation that the Allies wrought on Japan and Germany.
Oh...wait...that didn't happen.
The US and allies dumped money into the Japanese and German economies after WWII, and Germany in particular had learned the lessons of going it the bitter route after what they went through from the end of WWI to the beginning of WWII. Israel isn't exactly dumping money into the rebuilding of Gaza and the Germans and Japanese had started the total war approach before having it turned against them by the allies later in the war. Palestinians aren't exactly reducing whole swaths of Haifa or Tel Aviv to rubble, but the Israelis are doing that in Gaza by comparison.
One significant difference between Israal/Gaza and US/Germany-Japan is that in the latter, there was an unconditional surrender. An acknowledgment that they did not have any further intention of being in conflict with the US. Nothing like that has happened with respect to Gaza.
Right, that's definitely true. But then again it took dropping a novel atomic bomb onto Japan a couple of times (after firebombing some 67 of their cities) in order to extinguish their martyrdom culture at a time when both sides were engaged in "total war." I don't think we're going to get to that place in Gaza with Israel dropping an A-bomb in the middle of the city. A better modern example of extinguishing Hamas probably comes from the US getting Iraqi Sunnis to turn on AQI. The IDF could learn some lessons from that application of counterinsurgency to extinguish a terrorist group embedded in a local/urban civilian populace.
Please...
So what about East Germany? Why aren't they hell bent on taking France?
Some history: US aid to Japan was about $15B in 2005 dollars; to Germany it was about $30Bln. This was over 6 years (1946-1952)
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/RL33331.pdf
How much has Gaza/PA got in 26 years? About $40Bln
https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/international-aid-to-the-palestinians-between-politicization-and-development/
That's a very large amount of money for such a small area, as compared to (West) Germany and Japan. A fraction of the populace too.
So, please explain what the PA/Hamas did with $40Bln over 26 years? Why is it they are absolute desolate areas?
With that much $$ why are they still wanting to destroy Israel - based on your assertion that by giving aid to rebuild, any country would be peace loving?
Hint: Because Hamas/the PA want war, and condition their people to hate.
You cited money going into Gaza from *international* countries rather than from Israel, but how much of all of that money came from Israel and went directly into the hands of the families of the Palestinian civilians it has killed rather than the international money that went to the PA or to Hamas?
When I was in Iraq and we killed civilians on accident (or via escalation of force policy frankly), the guys from the civil affairs group went personally over to the bereaved family and gave them an honest message of condolence and a blood payment of $10k+ in USDs per family member lost. Does Israel do this? No they don't. Know what we didn't do in Iraq though? Level entire swaths of say Baghdad or Mosul just to get at a handful of AQI terror cells. It's kind of hard to win the "hearts and minds" war of separating Hamas from the Palestinian populace it relies on for support if you're not even trying at all to do hearts-and-minds counterinsurgency--which involves weighing tactical means against strategic goals via cost-benefit analysis, and if you're not doing that then all you're doing is setting yourself up to fight another generation of Palestinian terrorists a decade down the road. That's where Israel is fucking up when it comes to money and investment in the Palestinian populace and trying to drive a wedge between the Palestinians and Hamas. Israel isn't really even trying by American standards. They're just converting structures to rubble--killing thousands of children in the process--and then wondering aloud why Hamas still exists and why Palestinians don't like the IDF. So it ain't just Hamas that wants this war to continue, it's the Israeli government by their own tactics. They're just kicking the can down the road to the tune of thousands of dead Palestinian children and then wondering why their grandkids are still going to be fighting the insurgency in Gaza and the West Bank.
Who cares where it came from? It's still money. Why wasn't that money used to build stuff other than missiles and tunnels?
Oh, and weren't you one of the ones lambasting Netanyahu for giving money to Gaza - aka Hamas?
So which is it? Israel giving money to Hamas would have led to peace and prosperity, or "it's Israel's fault" for Oct 7 because they gave money to Hamas?
Thank you. I feel horrible about the Palestinians, but why do they keep voting for a terrorist organization like Hamas? If they had a functioning, reasonable leadership, The US and Israel would have poured even money into their territory. Please don't forget the attack of civilians by Hamas and videos of them joyously killing children and raping women. They did that to illicit a violent response.
Hamas took video of headless babies they killed and laughed about. Those babies won't be scarred in the future because they have no future. Two wrongs don't make a right, but your sympathy is misplaced. Hamas put that boy in harms way on purpose.
In all of this, I have yet to hear anyone suggest a practical alternative. How does one wage war against an enemy that is embedded in a civilian population. Unless a perpetual cease-fire with Hamas is the way to go. You know, so Hamas will build itself up again and do as they promised: Commit the October 7 atrocities again as many times as possible.
Compare what the IDF are doing in Gaza--turning whole swaths of dense urban sprawl into a cratered moonscape--with how the US did its counterinsurgency work in densely-populated urban environments in Iraq like Baghdad, Mosul, Fallujah, and Ramadi. Did we level whole neighborhoods via air strikes to get a few Al Qaeda in Iraq cells? No. Did we cordon off and clear out entire cities block by block on foot via ground troops? Yes. Did we focus on getting the supporting populace (Iraqi Sunnis) to turn against Al Qaeda in Iraq by building shit for them while also doing everything possible to not produce civilian casualties and then paying families of civilians killed on accident with hard cash ($10k+ per victim)? Yes. Is Israel taking this same kind of approach via appealing to the Palestinian populace and trying to wedge them away from Hamas? No.
There's your alternative model, from right here at home. By 2009, the Iraqi Sunnis had turned against Al Qaeda in Iraq, which ended both the counter-US insurgency *and* the Sunni-Shia civil war that raged there from 2006-2008. Our involvement in Iraq was a ultimately big mistake, but there are real lessons that came out of that mistake that Israel could learn from. The success of this approach to doing counterinsurgency in the urban environment is one of them. Israel clearly didn't take any notes.
LOL.
Bro...You really need to read about what happened to Mosul when the Iraqis/US waged war on ISIS.
They literally destroyed the city to save the city.
But sure...great example of how it was done with no civilian casualties.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/09/mosul-iraq-anniversary-islamic-state-liberation-battle-reconstruction/
Did I say there weren't civilian casualties? No. Did I say that what Israel is doing via airstrikes is orders of magnitude worse than what we did in Iraq? Yes.
Do you even deploy bro? Or do you just read articles about conflicts and then jump on the Dunning-Kruger bandwagon from there?
I don't have "to deploy" to know that a very large number of civilians died in the fight against ISIS, not just in Mosul, but also in other towns/cities. (as many as 40k civilians killed, in a city that was 800k; compare with Gaza with almost 2M people.)
AND that those cities were just about flattened in the combat.
Who was dropping the bombs/artillery? The US.
So, if you think the US was doing something drastically different, you are very wrong.
BTW - you can look up what Amnesty said about the US's precision bombing and minimizing of civilian casualties in the Second Battle of Raqqa (about 80% of buildings destroyed):
https://raqqa.amnesty.org/briefing.html
The scale of bombing was not the same in Mosul as it is in Gaza (not just via population numbers but via square acreage of urban sprawl reduced to rubble), and I don't think you or Amnesty International is differentiating between airstrikes or the blasts from ground combat (IEDs, ATGMs, etc.). Mosul also unfolded over the course of some 9 months whereas we're only about 1.5 months into the Gaza operation. You can also make a comparison between Fallujah--a city the Us Marines cordoned off and cleared block by block without reducing it to rubble from airstrikes--and Gaza and in viewing that comparison you'll see a whole lot more airstrikes in Gaza compared to Fallujah.
Do you honestly think the IDF couldn't have cordoned off Gaza and cleared it block by block with limited airstrikes called in by fighters on the ground who are actively taking fire rather than doing airstrikes at such a large scale *in preparation for* a ground offensive? Like, they literally could've just did the ground offensive without the massive airstrike campaign that preceded it and it would have literally resulted in thousands of fewer civilian casualties. What was so hard about doing that? Especially considering that they didn't know where the hostages were and could have very easily killed some of them in airstrikes.
Your points in pp1 and pp2 need better synthesis. Please write a second draft.
Oooof, this is the kind of deep cut I come to my replies looking for. On a Monday sir, how dare you lol.
Hamas was losing support among Palestinians. They attacked civilians in Israel and committed horrible atrocities and took video of themselves laughing while killing children and rapung women. They posted photos of headless babies. BABIES! And they laughed and bragged about. They did this to provoke a reaction from Israel that they knew would horrific in order to win support from the Palestinians. And they got what they wanted. Hamas' approval rating amoung Palestinians is much higher and Hamas hides behind the population and they don't care. They have more than achieved their goals.
I haven't watched the full interview and am only going off of what Charlie excerpted here, so I only comment on not doing the unequivocal full stop "rape by Hamas is bad" when J-Pal said: "However, I think we have to be balanced about bringing in the outrages against Palestinians." Like, I think she could have just stopped when she said that Hamas was a terror org and that their raping is bad. From there, she could have asked Bash if they could also discuss the atrocities that the IDF is committing against Palestinian women because it's also about the suffering of women that Bash probably would have allowed for that follow up convo. That said, yea, maybe Bash's framing could have contributed to that. Not saying you're wrong here and my only knowledge of the whole convo is the excerpts of it here in today's Morning Shots.
Agree, people should really watch it for themselves because I think Charlie is being dishonest in his framing. I truly don’t understand the anger with Jayapal about this interview.
It may not be just this interview. I have been appalled that she has refused to condemn Hamas and as far as I have seen she has refused to do so.
https://jayapal.house.gov/2023/10/25/jayapal-statement-on-israel-resolution-vote/ ok, here you go!
Are we really arguing over what is not being said enough?
Rape is a subset of war. War is devastating, rape is devastating.
HAMAS IS BAD. They are terrorists whose purpose is to kill Jews and retake the land of Israel. They don't care how many die on the way.
Innocent Palestinians will die before shaky peace is achieved. Hamas' disgusting, devastating, reprehensible acts on Oct 7 do not trigger a blank check on lives.
I am not going to say that any and every action taken by Israel is justified. Give it a break.
" They don't care how many die on the way." Quite true, which is why many of the dead Palestinians died because of Hamas and its use of them as "human shields" (actually, "acceptable human sacrifices"). If you bind and gag someone and place them on the tracks in front of a train you started in motion, knowing that the engineer could not go around the victim, who do you blame for the death, the binder or the engineer?
It's also very telling that every report attributed to an official Gaza spokesman uses the term 'martyr' for every dead civilian. Not 'victims' or 'casualties'. Not "two dozen people killed" but "two dozen martyrs killed". It's obvious that the people in charge in Gaza, those with authority, share the same basic outlook as the leaders of Hamas in their religious delusions that they used to justify the 10/7 attack.
Hamas IS the govt/leaders in Gaza.
When there is war, the tally of war crimes, if any, is not known til well after.
Well tell that to Jayapal who is morally bankrupt and/or bigoted enough to be unable to unequivocally condemn rape and torture because "but Israel".
What did it ignite in all the people who said the Hamas attack was justified, or "understandable," or "inevitable"?
Even though Israel had no presence in Gaza since 2005. Even though Hamas targeted a kibbutz known for its acts of kindness toward people in Gaza. Even though the attack was evidently facilitated by intel from Palestinians who had been employed at that kibbutz. Even though the mastermind of the attack had received (free) lifesaving brain surgery from in Israeli doctor, whose nephew is now a hostage of Hamas.
Even though the objection of Hamas is not specific Israeli policies, but the fact that Israel exists at all. Even though Hamas leaders safe in Qatar have said that mass death among civilians in Gaza is necessary for "the revolution." Even though Hamas is driven by an Islamic fundamentalist belief that it has a sacred right to impose its religion everywhere.
What did it ignite in all the many people who began venting rage against Jews who have nothing to do with Israeli policy and might actually be highly critical of it?
Aside from the Egyptian and Israeli blockade of Gaza, what have you got?
You seem to be very angry with me. I can't see how I brought that about except maybe by offering my pov. This is Bulwark, not a trashy social network. In any case, Netanyahu had been making nice with Hamas and trying to help improve or ease up on conditions (albeit, well because it's Netanyahu, in order to discredit the Palestinian Authority). Interestingly, Hamas decided to bait Israel into a conflict. Because they do not want a negotiated settlement that includes Israel existing as a Jewish state.
Are you trying to split the vote? Do you believe the old Russian proverb "the worse the better" in your hopes to see Trump elected and bring on chaos,?
It's a Steve Bannon thing. Tear it all down and assume something better will rise in its place.
That pretty much never happens in almost every case. The United States is an anomaly and it pretty much crashed less than 100 years into the experiment.
It may have crashed but it didn't get demolished and there wasn't a revolution. Same system with modifications. And a whole host of growing pains. But the founders were really unusual: Their goal was not to punish 'enemies' and upend the entire political/intellectual environment. It was to institute a system that was not authoritarian. Beside, the Revolutionary war was not really a revolution so much as a separation. Bannon, you can be sure , just wants random 'let the chips fall where they may' chaos. And he's an authoritarian to boot.
Anti-Semitism flourishes in countries like the U.S. where belief in conspiracy theories in general is widespread.
...a country obsessed with identity and race, a country burning with envy and lust...
I used to look down at all the middle-eastern countries who were awash in conspiracy theories. I saw it as a sign of a decadent or broken culture. Never did I suspect that half of America would start believing in all that crap. But sadly my opinion stands: We have become a decadent broken culture.
Progressives tend to be good feminists until liberal, feminist values clash with cultures that are illiberal, non-white, and religiously fundamentalist. I'll say it; in Islamic, theocratic states, the lives of women range from bad to unbearable. Look at how the Taliban treats women. In some of these cultures, honor killings are tolerated. FGM is practiced. Women are their husbands' property. Women are forced to cover themselves head to toe, and when they are raped, they are blamed and shamed for it, and the rapists are exonerated because men cannot be expected to control themselves around women.
At any rate, I think that is 100% what's going on with the reaction to Hamas terrorists raping and killing Jewish women. Saying this is what happens in war, when these atrocities happened during a terrorist assault, is just absurd.
“The women’s rights organization made a similar statement in late November condemning the Hamas attacks, but quickly deleted the post.”
Rape is rape and it must always be condemned. However, just like always, the rape of Israeli women and girls is beside the point.
It’s a distraction from what’s happening. If anyone supports Hamas; they are complicit with Hamas’s attack on Israel, plain and simple.
Every life is sacred, whether Israeli or Palestinian. I don’t think any sane person thinks otherwise. There are progressives that refuse to acknowledge this, but they aren’t the majority of liberals or conservatives in the US or abroad.
The real question is whether Palestinian civilians should pay the price for Hama’s actions? To an extent, Israel has every right to defend itself, yet at what cost to Palestinian civilians; mostly women and children? Sixty percent of the Palestinian population weren’t even born when Hamas took over Gaza. And an additional 20% weren’t of voting age. Since then, Hamas has refused to hold elections.
My point, at what point is when is enough, enough? So far approximately 15k Palestinians have been killed. Even if the death rate is exaggerated, no one can dispute whether the casualty rates are extremely high.
Dana Bash was completely off base with her interview. Her question about Israeli soldiers not raping Palestinian girls and women speaks volumes; especially since Hama doesn’t have an army, they are TERRORISTS, and do not adhere to international standards or norms. What exactly is her point? That Hamas is more brutal? Thanks for that glimpse into the obvious.
That said, let’s not forget that Israel knew of this attack a year in advance. And even after ignoring all the evidence, they still couldn’t get even one army or navy unit to the scene of the attack for seven hours? Seriously?
Has it occurred to anyone that the attack is exactly what Netanyahu and his right-wing cohorts were hoping for; in order to fulfill their policy agenda of forcing more and more Palestinians from Gaza?
Netanyahu’s government spokesman just said as much recently in an interview. “Their goal is to thin the population in Gaza and force other Arab nations to take the Palestinian’s in.”
Why is the media deflecting from Israel’s policy aims and goals, to not enough outrage over Israeli rape victims, and shaming anyone who hasn’t publicly condemned Hamas, or hasn’t condemned them enough.
Personally, as a Jewish person, I am outraged at everyone. From Hamas, to our MSM and politicians, to Netanyahu’s right-wing government which is trying to force most of the Palestinian people to flee their homes.
Yet, a month into this conflict, with casualties mounting on both sides; while Netanyahu is about to implement an even more extreme policy agenda against the Palestinians that will have far reaching consequences for decades, we’re talking about rape!
I’m glad everyone has their priorities straight. It’s a wonder how this world has gotten to this point in time.
Just some thoughts!...:)
“Has it occurred to anyone that the attack is exactly what Netanyahu and his right-wing cohorts were hoping for; in order to fulfill their policy agenda of forcing more and more Palestinians from Gaza? “
Absolutely it has. It’s the (unofficial? Semi-official?) policy of ethnic cleansing. And I have no doubt that if Bibi and his far-right cronies could go further, they would.
Yes Bibi strikes me as a tyrant and a bully and a lot in common with Trump.
Agreed...:)
You might appreciate this piece from Forever Wars, Spencer Ackerman’s blog:
https://foreverwars.ghost.io/slouching-toward-jerusalem/
Thanks for that link.
A long time ago in a galaxy that now seems so far away I came across this, for those interested in a deeper look at Fundamentalism:
https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentalisms-Observed-Fundamentalism-Project-Martin/dp/0226508781/ref=sr_1_10?crid=NBEDE6HITEGW&keywords=fundamentalisms&qid=1701712607&sprefix=fundamentalisms%2Caps%2C228&sr=8-10
Thank you Tracy. Excellent article and very much appreciated....:)
Thank you!!! I cannot understand why we are stuck in a loop of 'some of the left are not saying (fill in) enough.' There is a war going on. What is Israel/Bibi's goal right now? Is there an objective? People are DYING, because of a handful (relatively) of men in Israel and Iran? Really?
Watching the bombing of Gaza, some words of Winston Churchill describing the 1919 Amritsar Massacre by British soldiers in India keep popping into my head:
"When the fire was directed upon the centre, they ran to the sides. The fire was then directed to the sides. Many threw themselves down on the ground, the fire was then directed down on the ground."
Agreed...:)
"George Santos is about to join him there, where he can ponder his legacy as an asterisk on a parenthesis in a footnote — as one of only six congressmen expelled from that august body. (He’s also likely headed to prison, which could hamper his bid to become a Newsmax host.)"
Not so fast. Consider the following scenario:
1) DJT wins the 2024 presidential election.
2a) DJT pardons Santos, among many others who are deemed to be politically persecuted; or
2b) MAGA-friendly justices, appointed by DJT or otherwise, drop cases against or overturn the convictions of those same people.
And Santos and said others wear their good fortune around their necks and go on to their Newsmax job, renewed political careers, or hack employment in service to the new establishment, singing the praises of DJT even louder and revising a traditional song's lyric to "We fought the law, and MAGA won."
It is well within the realm of possibility. I think we too often underestimate the degree to which things would be very, very different if the 2017-2021 administration is revived, with a new cast of movers and shakers who are unencumbered by trivial things such as laws and Constitutions, formerly sacrosanct entities that we now see can be circumvented if enough key people are willing to make it happen. The new rule of order will be that there are no rules anymore, except those that the extremists choose to enforce or, worse, impose. It stands to be a winner-take-all free-for-all against any and all perceived opposition, and what historically stood as guardrails or cultural norms against bad behavior would be discarded as if leftover aluminum foil.
Let us not underestimate the threat that stands before us, even in casual discourse, by assuming that any aspect of the old order will hold true later on just because it is logical and reasonable to do so. For we know what supposedly happens when one makes assumptions. Or, in this case, for many of us, potentially something much worse than simply being labeled an ass.
DeSantis, like Madison Cawthorne, will be persona non grata- he's blabbing on Twitter about other Republicans' ethics problems. Snitches get stitches, not a job in the administration.
That being said, the people Trump will appoint will make Stephen Miller look like a mild mannered accountant.
We should be afraid, but not frozen in fear. Get out and do something, even if it's just posting on Twitter or Facebook or any other social media out there. Push back.
If Trump becomes President again, 100% guaranteed he will hold a press conference with DeSantis next to the podium on his hands and knees wearing a dollar collar and Trump saying, "How do you like my new bitch?" (probably wearing his white boots just for extra humiliation)
Does seem to be the 'in' thing in Florida GOP circles.
As an 80+yo I’ve followed national politics closely since voting for JFK my first time voting for a President. I’ve tended to vote for Democrats though not always, and consider myself a Liberal.
But the rise of the “Progressive” wing of our Party has been troubling, and reminiscent of the right wing Tea Party movement in the GOP of 20+ years ago. While widely divergent in political positions and objectives, both movements have been self-righteous, and intolerant of differing opinions.
In this case of reluctance to forcefully condemn Hamas’ use of Rape as a weapon of war I am shocked, it is so self-evident there is no room for ambiguity. Either you condemn it OR you are giving Hamas a Pass on these atrocities. You Passed, Progressives to your shame!
Certainly, condemn Israel for its excesses in the war, but as a separate matter. There is NO equivalency between the two types of war crimes. One set of crimes does not wash away or minimize the other.
Shame on those who do not recognize Rape as a War Crime.
Yeah! Progressives and the Tea Party are totally the same.
One wants to provide a decent living standard for all, ensure the rights of minorities are protected, create a viable path to immigrants, and expand worker protections.
The other wants to kill welfare programs, ban immigrants, let the cops murder black people, and exterminate LGBT people.
Totally the same thing.
Suggest you read the comparison again. I said the two movements were “...widely divergent in political positions and objectives”, but “...both movements have been self-righteous and intolerant of differing opinions”.
Do you recognize some of that self-righteousness and intolerance in your comments?
Tim, you read that exactly correct.
When a person is dead they don't live with the memory of the event (as far as we know). Not true for rape.
I watched the SNL cold opening on Santos. Hilarious. I also read MTG’s and a few others and their comments on the ruling that Trump is not above the law, and going after Andrew Weissman. You know, “be careful what you wish for” nonsense. Another version of whataboutism. The problem with their thinking is their utter refusal to acknowledge all of DT’s illegal actions, including weaponizing the DOJ, for starters. Do their constituents ever question what these idiots have done for them during their term in office? The dems need to go to these places to tout their horns especially where jobs have been created and the GOP has voted against it. It’s enough already. I’m sick of Santos, sick of MTG, and God knows, sick of Trump. His usual rhetoric, “Biden is the most corrupt president in the history” is a joke considering all the lawsuits and indictments against him. I don’t know. Maybe some of his former military men need to speak out more, hold a town meeting. Maybe they can’t but if that’s true, then what the hell is Michael Flynn doing spouting conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory? I truly fear for our country. I live in Montreal where the weather is freezing, the roads are in terrible shape, the healthcare system sucks, teachers and nurses are striking and the province of Quebec is starting to ban English as an official language. All to say, in spite of all this, it’s safer here than what is going on in the US. Americans need to wake up to the dangers of what that orange monster is preaching. I’m guessing none of them have any knowledge of history.
So, we're judging people on the basis of things they haven't condemned now? I mean, there's a ton of actions that have been undertaken by the Israeli government (hell, by people closer to home, too) through just the past 5 years that are pretty horrific, but I don't take the failure to condemn them as a sign that people tacitly approve of them. Should I?
The complaint against the UN in the article is that they failed to issue a condemnation of rape by Hamas. But, they seem to have made no comment about it whatsoever. (The reference to a deleted tweet was for the attack more broadly, despite the attempt to imply otherwise). Is failing to condemn a specific instance of torture support for torture? I've never publicly condemned the genocide of Herero and Nama by the Germans during German South-West Africa; does that make me a supporter of German colonial atrocities? Because though I condemn that genocide, one could easily spin it as "Sherm has never condemned the genocide of the Herero and Nama; can you believe it?"
It's a crummy argument, and he has plenty of examples he could have drawn from without it. So why include it?
Because a reasonable person might not think "rape as a weapon of war" was something that needed specific condemnation when their policy on it generally is already quite unequivocal? UN Women is not known for making exceptions on this sort of thing. That's my point; does a failure to make a specific condemnation negate a broad one that covers the circumstance? Because if it does, that's an awful lot of people who are tacitly pro-arltrocity in here, and we're among them.
I condemned torture by the Dubya administration but I was assured by my Republican "friends" that this was not really torture, but if it was torture it was necessary, and by the way Jesus approved. So apparently we don't all disapprove of torture. Apparently it depends.
Here's a thought experiment.
How many Texas Republicans would vote down a proposal that they not associate with socialists?
My guess is none of them.