MotherJones Blog: In the Debates, Gaza Is Verboten

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

In the Debates, Gaza Is Verboten

This Fall, Human Rights Watch declared Israel's limitation of fuel supplies to Gaza collective punishment of a civilian population and thus a violation of international law. As the area's humanitarian crisis worsens, grim headlines about the misery of Gazans have become all too familiar. I was moved to search the transcripts of the past 11 presidential debates to see if our presidential hopefuls were addressing the situation in Gaza or the larger issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What I found is troubling, though not entirely surprising given the bipartisan consensus to support Israel, right or wrong.

In nine of the 11 debates, the terms Israel, Palestinians, and Gaza were either never uttered or were mentioned once or twice peripherally. For instance, Joe Biden said at the October 30 NBC debate that Pakistan has missiles that can reach Israel. The two exceptions were the November 15 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, where Bill Richardson, unprompted, briefly outlined his ideas for a two-state solution, and the December 4 Democratic radio debate on NPR, in which moderator Robert Siegel posed the single question about Israel of the past 11 debates. Unfortunately, the query was effectively avoided. Excerpt of Edwards and Obama dodging, after the jump.

"When we do things that policymakers in Washington may think are rational, like very strong support of Israel, that also upsets a lot of those 1 billion Muslims you've described. How would you, Senator Edwards ... answer the complaint that the U.S., in its support of Israel, is so pro-Israeli, it can't be an evenhanded, honest broker of matters and is anti-Muslim?"

Edwards proceeds to ignore the question, makes a point about Ahmadinejad and says to improve relations with Muslims we must "help make education available to fight global poverty." He makes no mention of Israel/Palestine. Siegel then turns to Obama. The senator says we need to close Guantanamo and talk not just to our friends but to our enemies. He, like Edwards, doesn't touch the Israel issue. To their credit, Dodd and Kucinich do a much better job at engaging.

So in the past 11 debates the grand total of references to the Gaza Strip is zero. Considering that Israel is our biggest ally in the Middle East and the biggest recipient of U.S. aid in the world, isn't it about time the candidates were asked what they think of our ally's destructive policies in Gaza? Will any moderator have the courage to pose the question?

—Justin Elliott

Comments

Good article, could not have said it better.

Posted by: Prof Wadsworth on 01/07/08 at 4:31 PM Respond

The only true Messiah is Sam Popack the Messiah from Brooklyn.All others are fakes. Long Sam Popack the King Messiah.

Posted by: Ashmedi on 01/07/08 at 6:48 PM Respond

Google Mike Gravel. Watch his speeches on youtube. He is one of the few presidential candidates not on the take from AIPAC. Gravel believes in a more direct democracy through ballot initiatives, civil rights, and treating other countries as equals (with the exception of human rights abusers).

He has recently been endorsed by both Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader. http://gravel2008.us/

Posted by: Random on 01/08/08 at 6:34 PM Respond

The New York Times bragged about AIPAC on July 6, 1987(20 years later it is even more powerful) as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East." The article also stated that: "The organization has gained power to influence presidential candidates , to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country, and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals."(see The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt) You don't want to cross AIPAC and be sympathetic for third world people's struggles.

Posted by: Latasha J. on 01/08/08 at 7:46 PM Respond

Interesting

Posted by: Dan on 01/19/08 at 4:03 AM Respond

"isn't it about time the candidates were asked what they think of our ally's destructive policies in Gaza?"

I don't understand U.S politics - but I do know that when I argue for withdrawing from all the occupied territories I am undercut by everything that Hamas has done in Gaza. Our (Israeli) government's policy is destructive in that it refuses to withdraw from occupied territories - not that it defends us when we are attacked within the '67 borders. Your candidates should be asked about why they don't seriously condemn our occupation not why we fight those who attack us from places we evacuated.

Posted by: Jonathan Sivan on 02/03/08 at 9:16 AM Respond

I'm sorry, just what is it that the writer doesn't understand? Here, let me help: Mearsheimer & Walt.

Posted by: opeluboy on 02/05/08 at 1:32 PM Respond

Washington Post, “on Faith” 1/7/08, Mahatma’s grandson, President and co-founder of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence.
Jewish Identity Can't Depend on Violence
Jewish identity in the past has been locked into the holocaust experience -- a German burden that the Jews have not been able to shed. It is a very good example of a community that can overplay a historic experience to the point that it begins to repulse friends. The holocaust was the result of the warped mind of an individual who was able to influence his followers into doing something dreadful. But, it seems to me that the Jews today not only want the Germans to feel guilty but the whole world must regret what happened to the Jews. The world did feel sorry for the episode but when an individual or a nation refuses to forgive and move on the regret turns into anger.
The Jewish identity in the future appears bleak. Any nation that remains anchored to the past is unable to move ahead and, especially a nation that believes its survival can only be ensured by weapons and bombs. In Tel Aviv in 2004 I had the opportunity to speak to some Members of Parliament and Peace activists all of whom argued that the wall and the military build-up was necessary to protect the nation and the people. In other words, I asked, you believe that you can create a snake pit -- with many deadly snakes in it -- and expect to live in the pit secure and alive? What do you mean? they countered. Well, with your superior weapons and armaments and your attitude towards your neighbors would it not be right to say that you are creating a snake pit? How can anyone live peacefully in such an atmosphere? Would it not be better to befriend those who hate you? Can you not reach out and share your technological advancement with your neighbors and build a relationship?
Apparently, in the modern world, so determined to live by the bomb, this is an alien concept. You don't befriend anyone, you dominate them. We have created a culture of violence (Israel and the Jews are the biggest players) and that Culture of Violence is eventually going to destroy humanity.(Arun Gandhi is the fifth grandson of India’s legendary leader, Mohandas K. “Mahatma” Gandhi. He is president and co-founder of the M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, now at the University of Rochester in New York)

Posted by: Mahatma on 02/05/08 at 1:42 PM Respond

Read David Icke's books and you will begin to understand what is really going on. His website is www.davidicke.com

Posted by: Belinda on 03/05/08 at 5:54 PM Respond