England for Obama

Another push for his economic recovery plan:

“As the holiday season comes to end, we are thankful for family and friends and all the blessings that make life worth living.”

Yes, and we’re also thankful that our houses and mosques aren’t being bombed and our women and children aren’t being killed and that our electricity, medical aid, food and water supplies haven’t been stopped by Israeli troops.

I’ve not been posting about the situation in Gaza because a) for now, it’s not Obama’s problem; b) US policy and biased news coverage makes me almost too mad to digest it; and c) a) and b) are related in that Obama’s response to the problem is, unfortunately, more likely than not to be the age-old American response – namely, not only to look the other way when disproportionate slaughter and anti-humanitarian crimes are being committed, but to actively support it. Although, strangely, maybe Obama’s silence on the topic so far indicates that it might not be – and his administration’s primary aim may be to broker peace between Israel and Palestine rather to offer unconditional support to the former. We can only hope.

But for now, I’ll link to this image, this commentary by Ken Livingstone, and this excellent piece by Glenn Greenwald at Salon, in which he analyses America’s pro-Israel stance and draws parallels with the Iraq War.  Some choice passages (his bolding):

“The suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy which typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel — thou shalt not speak ill of Israel, thou shalt support all actions it takes — is in full force with this latest conflict.

Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where (a) citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet (b) the leaders of both parties adopt identical lockstep positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?  More notably still, is there any other position, besides Israel, where (a) a party’s voters overwhelmingly embrace one position (Israel should not have attacked Gaza) but (b) that party’s leadership unanimously embraces the exact opposite position (Israel was absolutely right to attack Gaza and the U.S. must support Israel unequivocally)? Does that happen with any other issue?

…Meanwhile, most of the rest of the world — Europe, South America, Asia, the Middle East, the U.N. leadership – opposes and condemns the attack, all to no avail.  The parties with the superior military might (the U.S. and Israel) dismiss world opinion as essentially irrelevant.  Even the pro-war rhetorical tactics are the same (just as those who opposed the Iraq War were demonized as being “pro-Saddam,” those who oppose the Israeli attack on Gaza are now “pro-Hamas”)…

…The underlying logic of both wars are far more similar than different:  military attacks,  invasions and occupations will end rather than exacerbate terrorism; the Muslim world only understands brute force; the root causes of the disputes are irrelevant; diplomacy and the U.N. are largely worthless.  It’s therefore entirely unsurprising that the sides split along the same general lines.  What’s actually somewhat remarkable is that there is even more lockstep consensus among America’s political leadership supporting the Israeli attack on Gaza than there was supporting the U.S.’s own attack on Iraq (at least a few Democratic Congressional leaders opposed the war on Iraq, unlike for Israel’s bombing of Gaza, where they virtually all unequivocally support it).”

*Update* Simon Tisdall at The Guardian complains about Obama’s silence. But I must say, I would rather he was quiet right now than simply making a statement backing Israel.