Tweet
Hillary Mann Leverett, former State Department and National Security Council official and Middle East expert, appeared on Countdown to discuss the continuing war in Gaza.
She’s been a harsh critic of the Bush Administration’s giving Israel a "green light" on Gaza and its double talk on a "cease fire," but she had some pointed comments about President-elect Obama’s refusal to say anything on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza other than repeating "we have only one President at a time." [Update: Obama expressed "concern" for casualties today, but said little else of substance. (h/t commenter kyeo)]
Yes, we only have one President, but so what? That’s always true, and it hasn’t stopped Obama and his team from issuing numerous statements about what it intends to do differently about Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, energy, health care, taxes and everything else of public interest.
It’s also true that when you’re the leader of your party, and the next leader of the "free world," you’re expected to speak up when doing so might make a difference. And when the current Administration is not only condoning but assisting in a lopsided, barbaric act of war against a trapped and mostly defenseless population, with hundreds of innocent people being blown to bits, it’s your duty to speak out. We didn’t elect you to be silent in the face of such horrors, nor to implicitly endorse current policies.
Leverett adds that Obama’s calculated silence, whatever its value in domestic politics, is rapidly obliterating any credibility he might have had in the Muslim world . . . or, I might add, with folks like me, for what it’s worth.
I understand that speaking out might impact Obama’s popularity with some, and perhaps affect the potential success of his domestic agenda. Welcome to the Presidency, Mr. Obama.
If an incoming President doesn’t have the political courage to even acknowledge, let alone condemn, the killing of dozens of children and hundreds of other civilians in a brutal war condoned by our own government, then his Presidency is not likely to succeed in furthering international peace and justice.
You were elected to change this, Mr. Obama. [And you promised to change the mentality that leads to these horrors.] We only have one President-Elect to hope for, and it’s time for you to speak out.
Update: The President-elect’s CIA and Justice picks Monday are winning well-deserved praise (e.g., see Greenwald) for what they signal about Obama’s commitment to the rule of law and the rejection of torture. Those selections also reveal the kind of moral and political courage that is now needed in addressing the Gaza situation.
Update 2: Via Juan Cole, a roundup of reports on the humanitarian crisis. Selise (comment #3 below) points to more here.
Update 3: Via Siun, UN reports Israeli tanks kill 30 or more in UN school.
69 Comments
Thanks and soon to be Dugg!
from Gideon Levy: And there lie the bodies
Thank you, selise, for all your posts and links.
On some of CNNs videos I saw a young mother lying on a hospital gurney. She was crying and speaking. The narrator said that her 6 month-old baby had died because he had been without food or water for 4 days.
If I were that mother, I’d be working in the tunnels, smuggling, spying, loading rockets and any other damn thing I could to fight back.
i’m not so sure i wouldn’t too. and likewise if i was an israeli and my child was killed. that’s one of the dangers, to say nothing of the moral depravity, of our politicians not speaking out in support of a cease fire.
from Amira Hass: Officials warn: Gaza infrastructures near breaking point
silence is complicity.
A very full plate is no excuse. He has to step up now.
OTOH…
Obama threw a body-block at Feinstein and Rocky. Hopefully a lot more to come.
Thanks for the updates, selise.
sorry to bring more bad news.
awesome post though. thanks.
Digg here.
Obama needs to be reminded that 55% of the population of Gaza is under 18 years. He needs to justify the slaughter of Palestinian children if he can. He needs to tell the world why only Israeli children’s lives appear to matter to him.
I thought about the population of children the other day as well. Pictures of small body bags in Lebanon certainly made me less than sympathetic to the claims of the Israeli government.
A few minutes ago, I posted the following on the LLN thread and was told that Leverett’s interview was a topic here.
thank you for the info. what’s LLN?
Late Late Night
“Late Late Night”
Thanks Scarecrow, dugg.
Leverett was outstanding.
When Obama wants to do something or say something, he does. When he doesn’t, it is “we have only one President at a time.”
BTW Martin Indyk was on Charlie Rose last night along with David Ignatius, a reporter from Haaretz and someone from the American Taskforce on Palestine. It made my head hurt.
They sort of kicked around the various ideas on the attacks but there was a real lack of any coherent view of them. For example, they acknowledged that the Israeli elections played a role in initiating Israel’s assault but they didn’t dwell at all on what it means for a government or its politicians to unleash a murderous set of attacks killing hundreds as a campaign stunt. An Indyk then went on and on about Iran. It all made me think of a game of Risk. They simply ignored any subtlety or nuance. Iran was setting itself up to dominate the Arab world, overlooking that Iran is Persian. They said that Obama would have to accomplish a great deal, that they expected great changes. Again overlooking that Obama has not expressed any desire for such changes. He will talk with more players, Syria and Iran for example but as his current silence makes clear he is unlikely to do anything dramaticly different. Ignatius wondered how Israel would extricate itself from Gaza but never really expressed similar doubts about why Israel went in in the first place.
Like I said, it made my head hurt. These are the experts. They have made very successful careers out of being experts. And yet despite this, they are and remain largely clueless.
i just put this in the previous thread, but it really belongs here:
Jim Lobe (via MofA) writes that Chris Nelson is reporting the following:
Obama “Concerned” by Gaza Casualties
In response to reporter’s question today.
Thanks. I’ll update. Doesn’t say much.
from your link:
for comparison:
about the nov 2008 mumbia attacks from wikipedia:
from wikipedia on the 2008-2009 gaza attacks:
obama made a statement the first day of the mumbai attacks, but took about 10 days to come out with that lame assed statement? and only in response to a question? and on the same day that dennis ross is reported to be the next special envoy to iran?
I wonder if Olmert will be among the guests of “honor” at the inauguration?
Olmert and Rick Warren can have cuddly pillow talk wrt attacking Iran.
Yup.
where does suz keep the brain bleach?
blech!
Okay, I was just pointing out the link. I’m not, like, Obama’s witness for the defense here.
didn’t think you were. i’m sorry my comment implied otherwise. probably all the questions – they were meant to be rhetorical, not directed to you.
If this is how he runs his administration we are in a world of hurt…
It won’t cut it.
As Juan Cole says, “I worry that American targets are closer and easier to hit, and that they will go after the US military as a way of getting at Israel.”
If Obama doesn’t attempt to be more forthcoming and thoughtful on this issue, he directly endangers American lives.
The Obama-ites are having to triangulate an answer that will bring in the Dems AND the GOP because, don’t you know that even with a massive Dem advantage in both houses of congress, you just HAVE to make kissyface with the goddamned discredited and dissolute GOP. You can’t be simply satisfied with trying to merely pry ONE GOP vote to your side to kill filibusters (Franken gives us 59 seats so we ONLY need to draw ONE friggin’ GOPer off the filibuster line on ANYTHING). No, Obama has to try to woo the majority of the GOP.
Total fools errand. And it hurts him in other ways too as Leverett suggests.
Obama’s tepid comments on the Israeli killing spree is yet another disappointment with the annointed one.
He DID make kissybottom at AIPAC before the election. He DID need to be annointed by the blessed ones.
And he has appointed Hillary Secretary of State. I don’t anticipate much change in the nature of the U.S./Israel relationship.
Obama has a lot of power in this matter if he will only use it. Bush is the lamest of lame ducks, like it or not, Israel has to deal with Obama for at least the next four years. I believe a strongly worded statement lamenting civilian casualties and the humanitarian crisis would do much to rein in Israel’s aggression. Obama’s refusal to comment does not bode well for the future in that it suggests his acceptance of the current state of affairs.
I’m guessing that since Obama sees no point in speaking out now, he won’t. I think that’s the wrong approach, though, because the long view is that he will have to deal with this situation eventually. If he’s on record saying he’ll do things differently, then that should let at least one side know that they’d better clean up their act. Maybe both sides.
If Obama wanted to make everything (more) right, all he would need to say is that “Anything and everything Israel does is NOT automatically in the best interests of the United States is not automatically OK.”
That alone would send a message to the murderous Israeli government, the doubly murderous Likkud, the Palestinians, and the Arab world. Basically, no more free ride for Israel.
Hell’s bells, Israel is NOT the 51st state nor is it the capitol of the USA (though it acts like it is). No more (tax) money to keep Israel afloat and at war. It is well past time that they stand up on their own and sink or swim on their own. We keep picking them up and/or propping them up regardless of their actions so that they NEVER learn that their same old shit simply is contrary to to their very existence.
By most accounts, LBJ was frustrated by the realization that as U.S. president he was powerless to end the war in Vietnam. I think something similar could be said of unconditional U.S. support for Israel… I’m not certain Obama could change it if he wanted. Better that he should try and fail than turn a blind eye, though.
I believe that LBJ’s feeling of powerlessness was more his fear of being “the first President to lose a war” rather than it being impossible for him to actually end it.
He COULD have ended it. He didn’t because he feared being labeled by history as the one that “lost” (an already lost) war. Silly and shortsighted.
If you keep doing what you’ve been doing, you’ll keep getting what you’ve got.
US policy MUST change toward Israel and their persistence in playing the victim card.
Israel must change their policy toward the Palestinians who are the real victims. The election of Hamas was the result of Israel’s treatment of the Gazans. But stubborn Israel will never learn this lesson and the violence will continue for even more decades.
Israel would not stop just because Obama said so, if he said that. And it might make things worse, much worse: Iran is on the verge of joining in. I believe Obama has considered all of this. We all want this hell to end. But Obama can’t make that happen today. Sorry.
I disagree. Israel cannot survive without US largess. Their economy REQUIRES the US give them money. If that lifeline is in danger of being cut off then Israel has to actually act like an adult rather than like a criminal.
IMO, the US will not restrain Israel. Bush and Cheney are probably dancing with glee. Israel is their weapon, killing Islams and provoking Iran into coming to Gaza’s aid. If that happens, we join Israel in WW III and proclaim to the world it is self defense.
The Bush Bunch had think tanks trying to come up with ways to provoke Saddam into retaliating. He didn’t take the bait. One of their bright ideas was to paint a big passenger jet to look like a UN plane, shoot it down over Iraq and “prove” it was Saddam. They scrapped that idea.
Just in the last few days the US has stationed soldiers in Israel (for the first time) and Egypt.
I think there is a bigger plan going on here than is obvious.
What is the plan? Are you allowed to tell us?
Have you got a link to some press story on it?
Link to US soldiers to Israel:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3744319
If link doesn’t work, the title is ‘U.S. Deploys Radar, Troops to Israel’
The deployment was 09/21/08,
I don’t buy Obama’s “only one president at a time”.
Not a week has gone by in years that I haven’t read about Ackerman, or Engle or Hoyer or some other congressman flying to Israel to huddle and tell them what they ‘personally’ are going to do to make sure congress does whatever the Jews and Israel want.
And the President elect can’t weigh in?
No Israel isn’t the 51th state ,it’s now America itself ..AIPAC and Israel own congress lock,stock and barrel. And the own even more dems than they do republicans.
Obama is about to find out he isn’t just up against the repubs, he is up against the Israelis in his own party…when Bush I tried to curtail the Israeli illegal settlements by witholding aid, congress, AIPAC and the Jews buried him every other domestic policy he was pushing until he relented…
Nov. 29, 2002 Forward
“On the other hand, Bush Sr.’s principled stand tying U.S. aid to a peace process and a settlement freeze may have cost him his own job.
Pro-Israeli groups pressured the president to release the loan guarantees unconditionally. The elder Bush, the newspaper reminded readers, publicly complained that he was “one lonely little guy” beset by “powerful political forces.” In the waning days of his doomed bid for re-election, Bush withdrew his objection to the loan guarantees, and Israel received the $10 billion under his successor, President Bill Clinton.
out of line to condemn coreligionists.
please stop.
Obama cannot cut off the money today. A threat of that from Obama today would not stop them. It might create an escalation! I won’t make them behave better. Also, the threat would be empty … Bush would still stay what he’s saying, Rice would still do what she’s doing, and the US would still keep the UN deadlocked. Like the boy who cried wolf, it might weaken Obama’s words after the 20th.
And what other consequences would there be? ALL the news would be about Obama dissing Bush and committing treason on a foreign policy issue. The talking heads would go on and on and on and on. Congress might get involved!
And the coverage that is skirting around starting to maybe tell the truth about this war would be totally eclipsed.
I don’t see any upside, any good effect. As horribly sad as that is.
It took years to create this mess.
There’s no doubt the pressure on Obama regarding the ME will be epic. It worries me too.
Recall that when Pelosi went to Syria on a fact-finding mission like all the Rs had done before her on numerous other missions, she was accused of treason. It wasn’t true. She had every right but it was very bad press.
I think that press would cost Obama something now.
It’s not his fault the IDF is committing war crimes. It’s not Obama’s fault that we have funded and armed Israel. It’s not Obama’s fault that we have soldiers and equipment there. He’s not the Commander in Chief until January 20th.
And that is the rule of our constitutional law, too.
Mr. Obama is not speaking out against this phase of the war between the Palestinians and the Israelis at this time.
One might understand from this that he does not agree with the majority of the opinions expressed in these comments or with the opinion of Hillary Mann Leverett.
Perhaps he has more information,
Perhaps he has more information
Information like how Israel and America helped to found Hamas?
http://www.alternet.org/audits…..age=entire
Yeah, maybe he’s confused. Thinks they’re allies or something.
What’s the point in citing how Hamas came to exist?
How does that help in deciding how best to proceed?
Naw, he just knows “what the Jews want” and does their bidding, just like every other elected official in the United States. Ain’t that right, “Carroll”?
Oops, I forgot — anti-Semitism doesn’t exist here at FDL.
if you see it, please point it out. but why the generalized free floating accusations unless you wish to make the accusation to all of us?
Direct quote from comment 37, as you could have plainly seen for yourself.
i don’t read minds (so i didn’t know what comment you were referring to)
and i don’t read every comment (so i didn’t see it).
get a grip. most people here don’t like either anti-jewish or anti-muslim bs.
Thanks, Scarecrow. Here is a comment I made on the Guardian about my research and insights on this issue (under a different screen name). At one point I paraphrase an FDL commenter …sorry I could not remember who said it.
“Here are some thoughts and discoveries I have made. If anyone wants to explore or refute, please do.
*
On NYC local news earlier tonight, a few seconds of flash images of Gaza horror. Then a long story about Sderot family and their psychological torture. It was very moving and I feel for people living under that kind of chronic fear. Then some reporting of Israel military strategy. Later in the program Mayor Bloomberg was shown in Israel and told the camera that Israel is our special friend and deserves our support in their self defense or something like that.
*
Then on was it Rachel Maddow’s radio show someone was asked if Israel feared any political blowback at all from the US. The interviewee said something like, No, they are totally secure in US support. They are more nervous about other Middle Eastern countries. NO BLOWBACK FROM THE US. I made phone calls to Congress yesterday. Then I watch tv news and hear the Israeli propaganda and feel once again so disenfranchised from my own country.
*
Glenn Greenwald at Salon is so eloquent and consciousness raising about this situation. He speaks of the difference between a civilized people and terrorists. Terrorists exhibit a sociopathic indifference to the deaths of innocents, like 9/11, suicide bombers, etc. From what I am witnessing, that seems to be applicable to Israel and my own government leadership.
*
4 decade occupation by a hostile occupier. Someone wrote in an article that this situation is seen by Arabs as the Jewish uprising in Warsaw ghettos held by the Nazis in WWII. Apparently this empathy is elusive to the US and Israel.
*
Greenwald pointed out that the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the Government to allow reporters into Gaza. The Israeli army will not do so. Let us reduce the sight of Gazans as real people, worthy of empathy. So one branch of the government ignoring another one. Wait.. what does that remind you of? Oh, us.
*
Eric Margolis uses the phrase shooting fish in a barrel. Also that the situation of their throwing rocks and rockets is like a prison riot.
*
Here are some facts and insights I have gleaned surfing about this situation:
*
Israeli blockade of Gaza is an international war crime and against the Geneva Convention.
*
1.5 million refugees live on the edge of hunger
70% of Palestinian children suffer from severe malnutrition and psychological trauma.
*
Barak and Livni are trying to prove tougher than Likud party before the Israeli election in 6 weeks. This is their opportunity. Some Israeli right wingers were humiliated by the 2006 defeat in Lebanon and using this opportunity to renew the collective ego.
*
This Israeli attack was strategically planned, the transition time for US administration and the year end holidays.
*
Israel has bombed a mosque, a prison, a university, police stations along with residential buildings.
*
Between June 19 and November 4 Gaza honored the cease fire. Israel ended it Nov. 4th with an airstrike killing 5 people and then launching their siege, probably using the distraction of the US elections with a corporate media Israel-biased, anyway. It resulted in escalated retaliation from Hamas which is now being used as justification for the massacre.
*
This was a premeditated humanitarian disaster being touted as self defense by American and Israeli leadership. Yeah, pre-emptive self defense. More of the Bush doctrine presumably. The Hamas political party was democratically elected, as Helen Thomas pointed out in a US press conference recently.
*
I am not defending Hamas by a long shot, but once again, the US wants pseudo-democracy overseas. Elect your government but contingent to US approval? So blatant and so ugly and hubristic.
*
Arab nations are reluctant to speak out for the Palestinians because they are dependent on U.S. aid.
*
Crazymaking situation. Israel says it warned civilians to flee. To where? They cannot escape across the border. They have no food, no water, no fuel, few medical supplies. Surgeries are performed without anesthetics.
*
In Sept. 2006 70 US senators voted for, 30 against, the right of Israel to use cluster bombs in such places as Gaza. Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Schumer, McCain, Lieberman-yes. The high profile guys. Wow. Dropping those into a densely populated ghettoized population, causing deaths, loss of limbs, grotesque suffering … cluster bombs the bomb that can keep on giving decades later.
*
On FDL commenter claims that of 1.5 million population in Gaza, 44.5% are under 14. In fact, the average age is 17. The commenter said if Israel bought them X-boxes to keep them busy, maybe they wouldnt join up with Hamas.
*
Shock and awe radicalizes populations.
*
Israel has with its timing and actions set up Barack — there is now little real hope and opportunity to set up an evenhanded peace, tragically.”
Elect your government but contingent to US approval. So blatant and so ugly…”
What do you mean? Are you saying that the US (or any other government) must approve of anyone brought to power through election? Is your position that proper election legitimizes any policy or action of those so elected?
Isn’t that exactly what the US has done? The Bush admin pushed for elections to be held in Gaza then got upset when Hamas won instead of (I believe) Fatah so we’ve supported Israel’s attempts to punish Hamas for having the temerity to win an election.
And I think we’ve re-acted similarly when Chavez won in Venezuela, with Allende in Chile and many other times throughout the years, including the “elections” in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think that Israel isn’t punishing Hamas for winning election but rather for it’s actions. I don’t think that should should be confused.
Then why did Israel set-up and push blockades and do nothing but through up roadblocks against Hamas in Gaza starting immediately after the election if they didn’t feel it was their right to dictate the “winner”?
You’re right dakine01. If you go back over the comments of the poster you responded to at your 53, you will see that sarcastic put-downs is his/her purpose, not substantive contribution.
Right, because EVERYONE who dares to show up here and disagree with you Israel-bashing sheep — no matter how reasoned or temperate their comment — is instantly denounced as a troll, or a Likudnic, or a neocon A*PAC operative.
When someone talks about “doing whatever the Jews want,” however — **crickets.**
Thank God Obama DOESN’T give a shit what people like you think. It’s how he got elected, and it’s how he’ll be an effective president.
[Mod Note; vigorous debate of the issues is encouraged but let’s avoid the insults. Thanks]
Perhaps you’re right and I am a sarcastic bastard, but when you end a post with allegations that US troops are moving into Israel and Egypt and suggest that there’s some sinister plan at work, it would certainly be substantive (as well as responsible) to state what you think that plan to be.
Thank you, libby, for your research and outlining it so well for us. I also read and admire Glenn Greenwald’s Salon column.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks, acquarius. I was alarmed to have a section of this share censored (?) on huffpo. I had to separate it up for size and part #2, no matter how often I tried to post (thinking technological prob.) would not go through. It was unsettling.
Again I say that Israel’s actions toward Hamas are not best understood as a reaction to Hamas election but as actions in opposition to Hamas actions.
Would you argue that Hamas actions are based on opposition to one or another of Israel’s political parties ideas or opposition to Israel’s actions?
No ”Mod Note” to ”Carroll,” though. Interesting.
I am not talking “official”, I am talking economic pressure or covert shenanigans.