Germany attacks Warsaw Ghetto

Illustrating the merciless power of the Luftwaffe:

Israeli aircraft attacked police and security installations across the Gaza Strip, killing scores of people in the deadliest raid in the coastal region since the 1967 War, security and medical officials said.

As many as 200 people were killed and 750 injured, including women and children, Mu’awia Hassanein, a Palestinian medical-services official in Gaza, said today. Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, called the air strike a massacre and said it would retaliate.

Meanwhile, Vidkun Quisling does his best to ensure the Wermacht isn't unduly inconvenienced:

In sending forces to block anti-Israel protests Saturday, Abbas' government signaled that it is determined to prevent the unrest from spreading. Abbas coordinates some security with Israel and has held peace talks with Israel for the past year. ...

In the West Bank town of Ramallah, just a few hundred meters from Abbas' home, club-wielding Palestinian policemen in white helmets formed a cordon to keep back about 200 Palestinians throwing rocks at an Israeli checkpoint.

And this is just one of the groups of Untermenschen—friends of mine—for whom they've switched from siege warfare and psychological torture to bombing:

It's been six years since I took this picture, and I can only hope they're all still alive and in good health after the hell they've been subjected to by this vicious colonial power.

Comments

[KDelphi]

Do we have ANY evidence that PE Obama will be a more fair dealer when it comes to the Middle East, and, Gaza , in particular?

This is so horrible..

[Donald Johnson]

"Do we have ANY evidence that PE Obama will be a more fair dealer when it comes to the Middle East, and, Gaza , in particular?"

No, not yet. He probably can't be worse.

[John Caruso]

KDelphi: We have just the opposite: unequivocal proclamations of support from Obama, including enthusiastic endorsement of Israel's homicidal assault on Lebanon a few years ago (and its intentional sowing of the entire Lebanese countryside with cluster munitions).

I think Donald's right that Obama can't be much worse—and that's large because the U.S. role for decades has been to provide diplomatic cover (and financial support) for whatever crimes Israel wants to commit. So perhaps the real question is: will Israel be worse with Obama in the White House? And I'd guess they'll be about the same as they've been for the past eight years.

[lover of jazz]

i'm not crazy about the nazi comparisons.

what the israelis are doing is inexcusable, but a lot of people will simply tune out when you compare them to nazis.

just sayin'.

[Donald Johnson]

I agree with lover of jazz about Nazi comparisons, but didn't want to dump on you since I just did a fair amount of that on the other thread.

Besides, if one is reaching for historical analogies some of the closest are probably to the European settlement of the US. You have people oppressed in Europe coming to the Western Hemisphere, usually with the notion that they are the civilized ones with a God-given right to take the land from the heathens who happen to be squatting on it already. Both sides commit atrocities, but the colonialists commit bigger ones, while claiming that the other side is a bunch of "savages" (read "terrorists"). The big difference is that due to disease more than direct killing, the Native American population never posed a "demographic threat", so to speak and were overwhelmed by sheer numbers. That's also why (I would guess) there was no big stink raised ( a generation or two later) about allowing Native Americans "the right of return"--that is, the right to be treated as human beings who could live anywhere they wanted in the land that was originally theirs. Whites didn't feel threatened by this (not in the 20th Century, that is).

[John Caruso]

lover of jazz: what the israelis are doing is inexcusable, but a lot of people will simply tune out when you compare them to nazis.

I agree with you in a narrow tactical sense about avoiding this kind of analogy, depending on the situation. But I also disagree in many ways. One is that the comparison is ok if it's restricted to the senses in which it's accurate. I strongly disagree with people calling what's been (or what's being) done to the Palestinians "genocide"; it's not, and misusing the phrase in that hyperbolic way immediately turns people off. But the comparison to the Warsaw Ghetto could hardly be more accurate, in my mind. And when I was in Jenin in 2002 (a few days after the Israeli army had finished its assault), walking through broken glass everywhere, witnessing the wanton and unnecessary destruction, and seeing the Stars of David the Israeli soldiers had spray-painted on many of the doors, I couldn't help thinking of Kristallnacht.

Also, as a general rule I think it's often more effective to shock people with the truth. That last part is critical: it must be the truth. But if it is (and if you're prepared to explain why, calmly and convincingly), hitting them with it full force can be much more effective in a tactical sense than the incremental approach of carefully tending to their sensibilities and slowly nudging them toward your viewpoint. I may do a posting about that someday.

That's where my tactical agreement with you comes in, though: there are audiences and places where I think that's not appropriate, and where I either wouldn't offer an outright comparison like this or would introduce it much more gently (e.g., noting how shocking and awful it is that the comparison applies). But in this case I'm not trying to gently persuade anyone about anything; these sadistic fuckers are trying to kill people I care about.

[KDelphi]

If Obama supported Israel;s actions in Lebanon, I dont need to know any more. Thanks. (PS It was a war crime--so is Iraq and Afghanistan--that's one of the reasons we dont say more. Others are : MONEY. OIL, Zionism)

I am afraid, that, if we continue to compare the Israeli action in Gaza, to OUR (ancestors, if youre Anglo or Spanish) actions in the Americas, it will become an excuse to do nothing. Or, we can use OUR action s in the Middle East.

Or, we can declare that we were wrong,stop doing what we are doing, and demand that Israel do the same.

[John Caruso]

I am afraid, that, if we continue to compare the Israeli action in Gaza, to OUR (ancestors, if youre Anglo or Spanish) actions in the Americas, it will become an excuse to do nothing.

You make a good point. I've spoken to some supporters of Israel who acted as though the fact that I was demonstrating for a boycott of Israel (in that instance) rather than spending all of my time on Native American issues proved that I was just a hypocrite who must actually be motivated by anti-Semitism. And others who've pointed to the genocide and ethnic cleansing we committed against the native populations here over a century ago and essentially said (though not in so many words): if you did it here, why shouldn't Israel get a turn?

The hypocrisy/double standard argument is very common, and the best way I've found to address it is to point out the moral absurdity of the underlying premise.

[KDelphi]

Yes. It is like the man who was working long lines on a tuna fishery boat. He was pulling in tons, mostly sold to uber-rich in US and Asia. Another fisherman, who was throwing back the largest (that is what is recommended now--they are almost gone), said, "Why dont you save some for asomeone in the future?" He said, "The English here didnt save me any buffalo".

Very tenyuous moral position. Also, consider that we send more money to Israel for bombs, than we send anywhere in the world combined. I am not an anti-Semite. Ask my Jewish brother in law , who belongs to Jewish Voice for Peace, who had a rally in Jerusalem today.

[Donald Johnson]

"'ve spoken to some supporters of Israel who acted as though the fact that I was demonstrating for a boycott of Israel (in that instance) rather than spending all of my time on Native American issues proved that I was just a hypocrite who must actually be motivated by anti-Semitism"

I've heard that too, actually--people on the pro-Israel side using the Native American example as though it somehow supports their side of the argument. It's bizarre, because they are basically tossing away any moral justification for their side. That doesn't mean the analogy isn't a good one and shouldn't be used--it just means some people on the other side of the argument are total wackos.

And anyway, the argument can still be turned against them. Badly as Native Americans have been treated, it's no longer the case that they are forced to stay on the reservations--do Israel-supporters want that aspect of the situation brought up? And only outright racists (like Benny Morris) claim that the whites had the right to do what they did in the 17th-19th centuries.

[strasmangelo jones]

Meanwhile, J Street, the "good" pro-Israel lobby, notes that "this morning's air strikes by Israeli Defense Forces in Gaza can be understood and even justified in the wake of recent rocket attacks," before offering up warmed-over pabulum on the Peace Process and the Two-State Solution. Awesome.

[strasmangelo jones]

And of course the Nazi comparisons are justified. Israel has been engaging in ethnic cleansing since 1948. Call it what it is.

[KDelphi]

Yes, US "response" is always less than helpful...we have to remember , also, that "manifest destiny", which may still be believed by the christian Right(Wrong), is seen, by most civilized countries, now, for what it is. It has outlived any usefulness it had as a cover for the west's imperialism. Zionism does look like manifest destiny--and it is just as wrong.

The idea is to learn from mistakes and stop repeating them. Although Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay's recent rip-off of the Native Am tribes shows , again, just how little the christian fundamentalists have advanced. Hell, the Project for the New Am Century sounds like a blueprint for more US aggression as "god's chosen people" or country. That is why it wasa/is so important for the next president to totally discount the "war on terror". "Islamo-fascism", etc. I wish PE Obama HAD, instead of hiring so many of them on.

[KDelphi]

Obama's response, so far, identical to Bush (Axelerod, and, "talking to Rice")

[SteveB]

I suppose Obama must be very grateful to the Israelis for undertaking this attack before his inauguration. So much easier to avoid doing or saying anything about it. Although I'm confident he'll be able to pull off the same non-performance once he's President.

[KDelphi]

The Israelis are having elections, also. The lame duck, our "war on terror"--Israelis are , quite simply, taking advanteage of us. We may end up losing all of our "special relationships" if we do not confront Israel...

[KDelphi]

Obama apologists are busy saying, "Well, all he said was that Israel has a right to defend itself". BS!

Even the MSM says that Obama's views, so far, are in line with the White HOuse!

If he wants to remove that notion--the press will flock to him! All he has to do is get off of the beach and hold a press conference. He can leave his shirt off, and, the ladies of MSM will swoon!

[John Caruso]

Here's limp Nation-style liberal John Nichols telling Obama what he should do in response to Israel's barbarism, and excusing him for not doing it yet:

Obama and his aides should be openly counseling the Bush administration to use every diplomatic avenue to promote a ceasefire and, above all, to urge against an Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza.

Unfortunately, the president-elect is doing nothing of the sort. Some may imagine that this disengaged approach confirms Obama as a true "friend of Israel."

Yes, what could possibly give some this ridiculous notion?

It's worth scanning the article to see the full range of marching orders Nichols gives the incoming Obama administration (sorry—"the Obama administration that will soon end Bush's reign of error"), to help it avoid the obviously-mistaken impression that it supports Israel's massacre.

[SteveB]

I don't understand your problem with John Nichols. The article you link to is critical of the Israeli attacks, reports on peace demonstrations in Israel, quotes a pro-peace Israeli parliamentarian, and includes a long quote from Jewish Voices for Peace on the attacks. It seems to me like he's on the right side of this issue.

[John Caruso]

I didn't say anything about his position on Israel's attack—just his position on Obama's position on Israel's attack. That in response to KDelphi's mention of "Obama apologists" (or, in Nichols' case, Obama blindness).

His own position seems relatively good (as you say), but the limp Nation-style liberalism is illustrated by the way he's managed to spend years in progressive circles and still hold on to the belief that the problem is a lack of U.S. engagement in the "peace process".

[SteveB]

I don't see where Nichols is claiming that the idea that Obama supports the Israeli attacks is "obviously mistaken." He's saying what he thinks Obama should do, without making a prediction of what Obama will do. In fact, I can't find anywhere in the article where he gives an opinion on what Obama believes or doesn't believe, except for an unremarkable quote from Obama saying he supports the "peace process" (which I agree, is a fraud intended to cover the appropriation of Palestinian land.)

[John Caruso]

The key word was "blindness". And "obviously mistaken" was sarcasm.