American-Israeli Politics: Where Bullying is Called Self-Defense

“And I stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel as it defends itself against this shocking violence.” Senator Cory Booker

“Israel is entitled to take the steps necessary to protect itself from destructive rocket attacks from Hamas that are aimed at all Israeli civilians, regardless of their religion,” said Senator Charles Schumer

"We support Israel's right to self-defense.” Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

It was General William Tecumseh Sherman, whom after conducting his devastating campaign against Georgia’s civilian population and burning the city of Atlanta, who said, “War is Hell.” This statement is likely the most concise and appropriate description of war recorded in modern history since the publication of Carl von Clausewitz's great military-theoretical classic On War published in the 1873.  I despise war and the carnage it results in regardless of the factions involved. But what is next in line that I personally find as upsetting, is the cosmetic over simplification used by many, often the oppressor in these exercise, to sanitize what is barbaric brutality in its purest form.

The recent re-start of the incessant military engagement between Israel and Gaza (one that has been going on since 1949), has reared its ugly head again. And as usual, the result is the same, the mass slaughter of mostly innocent civilians, mainly women and children, which outside of newspeak, resembles ethnic cleansing more than a military engagement. However, as noted in the opening quotes, it is the retro chic position of the moment to describe Israel’s actions as SELF-DEFENSE. This misappropriation of the term SELF-DEFENSE defeats reason, logic and any operational definition used in the past to define this action.

By definition, a noun, self-defense refers to the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe they are in danger. Consequently, the force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from said perceived harm such to stop any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue the attack or the use of excessive force. Thus self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property or collective forms of punishment.

The present actions of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) do not meet any of the aforementioned operational definitions.  Even under the purview of “Just War Theory”, which asserts military personnel must take careful aim at his military target and away from nonmilitary targets, and one cannot kill civilians simply because he finds them between himself and his enemies. Simply not to intend the deaths of civilians is not the pragmatic objective in this sense, but rather paramount is to save civilian lives even if it means risking soldiers’ lives.

What is obviated from the discussion is that self-defense means that if the people of a nation are suffering aggression, oppression, or genocide, and are themselves capable of stopping it, they are morally entitled to respond militarily.  Unfortunately Israel cannot claim this position, given that aggression from another nation can only be described in self-defense if it is a last resort, which historically we hasn’t been the case (2012, 2008, etc.). In addition, the self-defense notion under the assumption of military action being a last resort cannot be met also because every other conceivable avenue outside of using military force has not been tried. Moreover, the kidnaping and murder of three innocent individuals, usually a police action cannot be perceived as a last resort or the impetus to start aggressive military action. But when these standards are not met, the result is Gaza: an innocent populous is the victim of a catastrophic attack

Another point of contention is that self-defense is virtuous and practical. What Israel is practicing is more like a George Zimmerman style of self-defense. Instead of self-defense, the actions of Israel are more akin to bullying. Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time. Bullies intend to harm their targets and usually are continuous and sustained. This means that they (bullies) target their victims multiple times, frequently with the same act over and over. More importantly is that the bully intends to harm the target.

I say this because the assertion of self-defense avoids the historical reality of colonial occupation of Gaza by Israel which prevents effort on behalf of the Palestinians living in what has been described as an open air prison, the ability and human right to establish a proper, free society. If Israel was trying to avoid civilian deaths, they would and could, but this is not their desire. They are possessed with an evil dogma of annihilation similar to that we saw in South Africa during apartheid. Their objective is to destroy and kill all who are in the way of their imperialistic desire to control and occupy all of Gaza, inclusive of it rich natural gas and oil reserves. For example, it is a well-known fact that The IDF calculates the number of calories Gaza's civilian population needs to just survive on a daily basis and transports foods into Gaza accordingly. This is not self-defense, it is bullying with the objective to occupy territory accordingly break up the will and lands of the Palestinian people. Ironically, it closely the plan of Adolf Eichmann, the architect of ethnic cleansing, for Hitler. And anyone that cannot accept this, I’m cool, but facts are facts: Soweto 1976 is no different than Gaza 2014.

Since the 1990s, Israel has repeatedly failed to meet and even broke all of the conditions outlined in documented agreements with both parties.  They continue to play this shell game that gives them the privilege to ignore the natural human rights that Palestinians have like all other peoples in the world.  There is an aggression of the worse kind: one that indicates they will always be against a two-state solution, while knowing this is what the majority of Palestinians have agreed with and desire. They should just admit they desire to ethnic cleanse Gaza, and take thier oil and natural gas.

Average Jewish Response to Deaths of 4 Kids in Gaza

The False Gaza Narrative and the Dwight Coward Story

Used to be a time that African American athletes had character, integrity and stood on what was right more than how much they were paid.  This was also the period of intrepid investigative journalism.  Now, both have gone the way of extinction as it was with the dinosaurs at the close of the Mesozoic Era. Men such as Muhammad Ali, Arthur Ashe, Tommie Smith and John Carlos are rare indeed today, as too are men like Dan Rather, Edward Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

As it stands, honesty and integrity, with the exception a few in the media and sports is dead and gone.  Now instead of reporting on the facts, we are often given scripted news reports, funneled from the top of some main office often word for word as dictated by the political powers that exist.  As such, today, with the exception of a Glen Greenwald, we would never have stories reported honestly in the manner in which Seymour Hersh reported on the My Lai Massacre in 1968. Seems as if with the exception of donating to charity, helping their neighborhoods few if any modern African American athletes have the courage to address controversial political issues, regardless of political affiliation. There are a few bright spots, like former NFL wide receiver Donte’ Stallworth, who frequently speaks out publicly about political issues, the economy and even the use of drones, but these individuals are few and far between in their respective fields.

Now why am I saying this? Well it seems as if the mainstream U.S. media is presenting a false narrative on the situation in Gaza.  No matter where you look the focus is on Israel, their right to self-defense and Hamas targeting the man-made nation state with hundreds of rockets.  Never is there a mention of the disproportionate number of air attacks the Israeli defense forces (IDF) rain incessantly upon innocent civilians, rarely are their pictures of the horrendous deaths on the mostly female and children civilians being ripped apart and rarely, is there any narrative to place the entire situation in  perspective.

They never mention that Palestine, or the people in Gaza do not have an Army, Navy or Air force, or that from 2009 to 2018, the United States has committed to GIVE Israel 30 billion in military aid. To be more exact over the past 60 years it is estimated that the U.S. has given Israel more than a quarter trillion in military aid. In 2013 alone the Obama administration sent Israel $3.1 billion in military aid. Israel has used white phosphorus on Palestinians before, and now it’s being reported by many officials that banned DIME weapons are being used against civilians in Gaza, a controversial weapon that emits super heated micro-shrapnel.

Outside of not providing any perspective, many media outlets even create the narrative against all evidence and fact. Fox news wrote a story called “Gaza rockets aimed at Israel: What would you do with just 15 seconds?” They also, fabricated a television byline using bombed building in Gaza destroyed by Israeli missiles with the caption: "Militants fire rockets on Israel." And it just isn’t Fox; Diane Sawyer of ABC News told its viewers that scenes of destruction in Gaza were in Israel. Ironically a segment in which the news anchor starts by saying “We take you overseas now to the rockets raining down on Israel today as Israel tried to shoot them out of the sky.” Next to her is video footage not of Israel or even Israelis, but rather of the destruction caused by IDF airstrikes on Gaza.

Now what does this have to do with sports and professional athletes? Well, on July 12, 2014, Dwight Howard, an NBA all-star who makes more than $21 million annually tweeted #FREEPALESTINE. However, within minutes, it is clearly the powers that be mad him reverse course for which I posted another tweet that read: “I apologize if I offended anyone with my previous tweet, it was a mistake.....previous tweet was a mistake. I have never commented on international politics and never will.” Why would this be so problematic for the star?

The great writer Voltaire wrote, "If you want to know who rules over you just ask yourself who cannot be criticized." Maybe it was NBA Commissioner Adam Silver or Leslie Lee Alexander, the owner of the Houston Rockets who made that telephone call, after all both are Jewish. In a similar vein, we know that Robert Allen Iger the current chairman and chief executive officer of The Walt Disney Company (owns ABC) is also Jewish. Which gives substantial support to the premise of William C. Rhoden’s book, Forty Million Dollar Slaves: The Rise, Fall, and Redemption of the Black Athlete: meaning the easiest answer is that is all about the money. Athletes or the owners, teams or leagues for which they play, do not want to lose it.

Clearly Dwight Howard had someone whisper in his ear, enough so to make him ask for forgiveness and beg for redemption in the manner in which slaves often were made to do so by their masters in the Antebellum south.  For a single moment, Howard was a man, and said what he realized was what was humane in his heart. But it only lasted long enough for master to crack that whip and return him to the coward he actually is.

US and Obama Administration Fight against Palestine Entrance to UN is Palpable Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is a noun that in essence means to act on the stage and to purport to be what one is not or to believe what one is not.Its modern form is a combination of Greek and old French.This is the best word I can use to illustrate the position of the United States and the Obama administration with respect to their blatant efforts to block a vote on the addition of Palestine to the United Nations.

I find it awkwardly detached and unusual for this administration in particular, given a fitted and able discernment of the President’s address at the American University in Cairo. During that address he stated, “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles - principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

These were words stated by President Barack Obama during his address to the American University at Cairo some two minutes into his address. It took him some six more pages before he said, “it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

This threat to veto the vote may serve to destroy any attempt for a desire to serve two terms for the President and worse, increase future attacks against the US by radical fanatics. Obama’s cabal, under the auspices of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in concert with Tony Blair- special envoy to the region, and EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton, has manifested itself in a last ditched effort of brinkmanship to block the Palestinian Authority desire for a vote in the United Nations General Assembly to recognize an independent state of Palestine. The result will be a diplomatic and political disaster for the president, the democrats and any effort to win a second term at the executive level. Especially since by all accounts, the resolution will pass by a large margin, without support from the U.S., and a few other nations. Strange since it was it was Obama who, in his Sept. 23, 2010, to the General Assembly, originally raised the goal of admitting to the UN by September 2011.

Obama continues to say that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is one of his highest priorities, yet he has made less progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace than any administration since the early 1970s.

This sets a major problem in motion for Obama and his plans to seek re-election if the Jewish vote turns against him, especially given the recent special elections in New York’s 9^th district in which a republican won for the first time since the turn of the century. The loss in Tuesday’s special election for the seat formerly held by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) may “send a message” to President Obama concerning his administration’s stance on Israel. This was not from a republican but rather Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.). Not to mention that it was former mayor Ed Koch (D) called on voters to back the Republican businessmanin order to send a message to Obama about his Israel policy. Mayor Koch disagrees with Obama's view that Israel's pre-1967 borders should be the baseline for Middle East peace talks. Thus, the administration’s insistence on trying to persuade Israel to stop building settlements, without success in concert with the aforementioned equals an effrontery to the American Jewish community.

Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has indicated his concern regarding the Palestinian Authority's (PA) bid for the United Nation’s (UN) to recognize their statehood. Barrasso wants the U.S to immediately stop funds it to the PA annually as well as the UN if statehood is recognized. Then there is Sen. Marco Rubio, republican from Florida says if the vote in the United Nations to create a Palestinian state is successful, it would set back the Middle East peace process and would only add to the regional turmoil and instability.Not only is the concern by republicans and the pro-Zionist lobby problematic, but similar concerns have been brought to fruition by Arab states. Saudi Arabia has expressed outrage for Palestinians by many members of Congress, a congress that in voice supports what has occurred in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia but against such in Palestine

Not only has the President been unsuccessful in his efforts to broker a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine, now he seemingly has lost one of his major political allies. The concern is after dealing several defeating blows to terrorism through the deaths of major Al Qaeda leaders, he may be stoking the flames for more attacks from individuals who take his flip flop on the issue of Palestinian statehood as a reason to slash out against the United States again.

The veto in the UN may help save Obama a major voting constituency, however, the question remains, how will this be perceived in the Arab world and if winning an election by any means necessary is more important than ensuring our safety from future terroristic attacks in the future?

IDF runs over babies with tanks

200,000 settler's

For the record, I actually wrote this the same day I wrote the previous post. And as well many of you know that I frequent the subject’s of Asia (the middle east and Israel) and assorted topics. While running for President, Obama indicated that he would continue to be supportive of Israel in the same manner of prior administrations. Strange this is that the current agreement on the table via the Annapolis accord suggest a two state solution. However, from a historical perspective this implies that he would not attempt to force a two state solution on the Zionist government nor will he be willing to negotiate with presupposed terrorist.

But this aint gonna really work since Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu stated Israel's viewpoint in a satellite broadcast to attendees of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's (AIPAC, America's pro-Israeli lobby) annual conference. When Obama addressed the same group before his election, in Chicago last March, Mr. Obama spoke of "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy” and that the US “must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.

From the way I see it, this is contra to a two state solution for such support would only help Israel maintain its military edge over all those in the Gaza area. For the Idea of a two states solution is endorsed by most of the world. Although Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn’t speak of such and only says that he does not desire to govern the Palestinians. Not to mention in order to do such, it would require for Israel to stop expanding settlements in the West bank/ Gaza regions. But this won’t happen because the number of Jewish settlers on the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) is almost 300,000.

In Memphis we got an old saying, scared say ya scared. Its ontological disposition describes actions in the form of being hesitant often always evince uncertainty. The prime Minister don’ and likely won’t talk about ending settlements or a two state solution. This means that He and Obama got to bump heads. And remember, former president George W Bush also wanted two states and the folks we give all them tanks and planes to said ok – but didn’t. So did Secretary of state Condoleeza Rice – but the didn’t. Obama is going to have to have King Kong size testicles if he plans to push this because as they prepare to meet – new settlements are going up now. He needs to tell them what they are "illegal outposts" set up without formal government permission.

So my advice to you Mr. President is not to fall for the okie doke, for we know they will talk all day about Iran, and nuclear weapons, but won’t mention the settlements and a Palestinian state. Truth is to do such would mean that more than 200,000 settlers would have to be removed. Question is does Obama or is Obama willing to carry a big stick and talk loudly? I have my opinion you tell me yours.