[Peace-discuss] Israeli massacre in Gaza [and J Street PAC's call to end the violence and the blockade]

[C. G. Estabrook]

The J Street "call" begins with resistance to "pressure ... to pick a side" and 
ends with (self-)praise for "those of us who see the shades of gray."  It's an 
attempt to stave off what the world recognizes -- where the obvious blame for 
mass murder belongs.

And it "represents the current role of the US as anything in particular" by 
explicitly stating that "The United States ... must not wait - as they did in 
the Israel-Lebanon crisis of 2006 [an interesting way to refer to an Israeli 
invasion BTW] - for weeks to pass ... before intervening."

That's a flat lie about what the US did in 2006. It approved that invasion and 
worked vigorously to prevent any attempt to interfere with it.  It's doing the 
same now, so the implication that it's "waiting to intervene" is equally false.


Stuart Levy wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:13:25AM -0600, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> Naturally I mean that you can't say things that aren't true.
>>
>> The quoted statement as a whole is objectionable. You refer only to the
>> statement's "declining to assign blame" -- rather difficult without falling 
>> into the "all are equally at fault" nonsense, an attempt to equalize the crimes 
>> -- "disingenuous at best."
> 
> No, I don't think that's right.  Consider the atmosphere,
> where so many people, not only Americans and Israeli politicians but also
> Mahmoud Abbas, are saying "This invasion is all Hamas' fault".
> 
> The J St. statement is carefully *not* saying that both
> sides are *equally* at fault.  If they did, it would be
> misrepresentation, and I'd agree they'd be in the wrong.
> Instead they say
> 
>     [...] And there is nothing to be gained from debating which injustice
>     is greater or came first.   What's needed now is immediate action
>     to stop the violence before it spirals out of control.
> 
>> The statement also misrepresents the role of the US as passive or 
>> uninvolved while calling for its intervention -- more nonsense,
>> hardly innocent: they know what they're writing. --CGE
> 
> How does it do that (represent the current role of the US
> as anything in particular)?  Or do you mean that they omitted to
> point out that the US is a massive supplier of arms, political support,
> etc., i.e. a "friend" to Israel?  
> 
> Disturbing the unquestioned passive portion of US support for Israel --
> under which "American politicians are already hearing from those who
> see only one side" -- seems like exactly what this kind of call
> is intended to do!