Rep. Baird returns from Gaza, chides White House, Israel

Jerusalem (CNN) -- After visiting twice last year, Rep. Brian Baird is returning from his third trip to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, giving the Washington state Democrat the unusual distinction of having spent more time in Gaza than any other current member of the U.S. Congress.

He said he was discouraged by much of what he saw.

It's a journey that only two other members of the U.S. government have made since Hamas took over the coastal territory in 2007 and since the end of Israel's three-week offensive just over a year ago against Gaza militant groups firing rockets across the border.

Some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in the fighting and wide swaths of Gaza were left in rubble.

Baird, who is serving his sixth -- and he says last -- term in Congress, spent two days in Gaza on the latest United Nations-led trip. He says more of his colleagues need to visit the region to see the situation for themselves without the filters traditionally applied on interest-group-sponsored trips.

"If all that happens is that you come to this region and you are led around by the hand to see the things that someone wants you to see, hear the stories that someone wants you to hear, you will not get the full impression of what's actually going on," he said. "... If you can't see these things yourself, you're left with the official version of events."

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/02/19/gaza.baird/

The Israeli cold shoulder of Baird is a slap in the face of the Congress, and only reminds us of Obama's capitulation to Netanyahu and the lost promises of the Cairo speech. Obama's was also slapped in the face, only he doesn't seem to recognize it. It was a college student in Tampa FL a day after the SOTU who had to remind him of just how weak he really is.

Is America still a superpower? Well perhaps, but it's unprincipled deference to Israel is certainly not a model for other countries to follow, let alone college students.

He didn't even vote for health care reform!

I don't know who did or didn't vote which way for what and really don't care. If you disagree with what he said in the OP, feel free to point out what you disagree with, though Jimbo's already come in and taken the predictable line of making out he's a Hamas supporter because he dares show concern for the civilians of Gaza, so that line's already gone...

It's estimated that 45000 people die unnecessarily every year in America because of lack of insurance. And they are now tantalizingly close to some sort of (probably limited) health care reform; and it's so close that one vote could conceivably make the difference, especially in the senate. So I can fully understand an American voter judging a Congressman mainly on that!

I have never heard of Baird before, so can't personally comment on his general record.

- not that I agree with him on this specific matter:

What he didn't vote for was a bastardised piece of crap that I wouldn't have supported either. I wonder if all of that posters views are driven by which Democrats did or didn't vote for it, because that would make their life rather complicated. I would also hope that Americans are intelligent enough to be able to separate their views on US healthcare with the situation in Gaza.

..no more than speaking out against rocket attacks by Palestinian militants is supporting the Kahanists...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:boring:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And really, only of the Grand Mufti, who's been safely dead for over thirty years. No living Palestinian leader holds Nazi-like views. Even the Hamas leadership has indicated it's willing to accept Israel within the 1967 lines(and Israel has no right to ask more than that).

The views of dead Palestinian leaders can't justify hatred of everyone living today in Gaza and the West Bank, nor can it justify your sadistic enjoyment of every bit of misery the IDF inflicts on them.

Every decent person agrees that collective punishment is immoral.

If you want to stop the rise of inhumane leaders among a subjugated people, the only way to do that is to treat that people with humanity.

You can't bomb and starve them into changing leaders, and you know it.

THEY are the ones who are the victims in this now...NOT the Israelis(at least not as a group, because the suffering on the Israeli side has been trivial compared to that on the Palestinian side.)

I also know that the state ended up punishing people who had nothing whatsoever to do with that persecution.

The Holocaust was a European crime. Antisemitism is largely a European phenomenon(the animosity between Zsraelis and Palestinians is territorial and not comparable to European antisemitism at all). And the Palestinians never deserved to be treated as though they were the next in the line of infamy after the Romans, the Inquisition, the tsars and Schickelgruber.

I also know that the Mizrahi(the Jewish communities of North Africa) actually ended up being, in many respects, victims of Zionism. Had that nationalist movement not existed, the Mizrahi would likely still be living and living relatively well in the Arab world.

It's not so simple as to say "Israelis=innocent victims-Palestinians=devilhorned subhuman monsters", which is pretty much the way you seem to see it. I don't believe Palestinians are saints or are totally blameless, but they clearly don't deserve your level of hatred.

Those who were driven out of their homes in Palestine in 1948 had a real and deep connection to the land. They were not "generic Arabs" and they did not oppose the creation of Israel because they "hated Jews". They just wanted not to be dispossesed. They weren't evil and they aren't evil now. If the Israeli government could at least admit that the Palestinians were as deeply connected to that land as anyone else, it would help a lot and Israel would lose nothing in the admission.

And yes could have some better leaders, but so could the Israelis.

When you talk about Palestinians, you sound like a southern sheriff talking about black civil rights activists.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

If I've indeed slipped into that kind of worldview, I'll be the first to correct it. But I don't believe that's what's happening.

Here on this thread, for instance, I expressed satisfaction at the killing of a Hamas official - nothing more generalized than that. Again, each reader can decide where the generalizations, and the hatred, are coming from.

That's most definately not expressing satisfaction at the killing of a Hamas official...

It still does not amount to a blanket attack on Arabs in general.

And why do you try so hard to dehumanize your opponents on this issue?

In fact, aren't you doing the sort of thing that yr complaining about being done to you?

mods. Sorry for the confusion, but it was late at night and I was already bored shitless.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Israel's creation is not mainly due to persecution in Europe, at least not the Holocaust. That may have increased the *urgency* of the creation of the State of Israel. But Israel already had a significant Jewish population long before WW2; and the immediate cause of the creation of Israel was the dissolution of the British Empire, which led to many new states being created, some with disputed boundaries and associated conflict.


'Those who were driven out of their homes in Palestine in 1948 had a real and deep connection to the land. They were not "generic Arabs" and they did not oppose the creation of Israel because they "hated Jews". They just wanted not to be dispossesed. They weren't evil and they aren't evil now'

I agree. I think there is too much demonization of Palestinians, as there is of Israelis. However, the only thing that can be done at this stage is to work for a fair a solution as possible (no solution can ever be totally fair), which means two states.

Now here's the bit I really find oversimplified and in some ways a bit like the arguments that colonialists use:


'I also know that the Mizrahi(the Jewish communities of North Africa) actually ended up being, in many respects, victims of Zionism. Had that nationalist movement not existed, the Mizrahi would likely still be living and living relatively well in the Arab world.'

Possibly, or possibly not. The Mizrahi Jews went through better times and worse times in Arab countries. But the point is that very few Mizrahi Jews in Israel (possibly even fewer than Ashkenazi Jews) think that the creation of Israel was a mistake, or that they would prefer to live in their former countries, or are 'victims'. In some ways, this last comment reminds me of those nostalgic imperialists who argue that, because of the violence at the Partition of India and Pakistan, and the ongoing conflicts between the countries, or the still worse conflicts in some other ex-colonial regions, it would be better for the citizens of these countries *not* to have been given their independence. Or, for that matter, of arguments that the Occupation is really doing Palestinians a favour by 'protecting' them from their own bad leadership. Whatever an outsider thinks, few Indians or Africans think that they are 'victims' of independence; few Palestinians would prefer continuation of the Occupation; and few Mizrahi (or other Jewish) Israelis think that they are 'victims' of Zionism.

Also, the fact that some countries in the world object to independent statehood for another (or indeed to any actions by the other) is not a reason for taking things out on citizens of the same ethnicity as that country. Would you consider it appropriate to say that Muslim immigrants in Britain are really 'victims' of Al Quaeda, if BNP members attack them because of anger at 9-11? People are victims of those who directly attack them.

We have to start from where we are. Israel exists. It won't stop existing. Nor will the Palestinians stop existing. Both groups need homelands - and in neither case is it a 'punishment' to others for past oppression; it is simply a need for independent statehood that the world has long ago accepted for most of the ex-colonial countries of the world.

I was saying that the creation of the state probably caused them harm they would otherwise not have suffered. The Mizrahi have also have a considerable struggle within Israel winning recognition for the idea that their culture should be treated as equal with that of the Askenazim elite that founded the state(and who for many years insisted on the idea that Israel should be a place of "European culture" within the Middle East). This is a subject for another thread, but I wanted to clarify my point on that.

Israel does exist. But it needs to radically change the way it acts, and may need to radically change its nature, to make its existence stable and sustainable. It may need, ultimately, to identify as a democratic secular state in which the Jewish traditions are honored and preserved, rather than as exclusively as "Jewish state", in order to resolve the conflict. Certainly, if it continues to build more and more illegal West Bank settlements, it comes closer and closer to making a "two-state solution" impossible and a single state a practical necessity. There's not enough land left for Palestinians, as it stands now, for a Palestinian state to be viable. And it becomes harder and harder to believe that making a Palestinian state impossible is NOT the intent of the continued settlement project.

my point was that in general, progressives (anti-conlonialists) need to consider what people want for themselves in terms of statehood, rather than what someone else might think is good for them. Occasionally I have read articles by pro-Israel writers that suggest that the Occupation and hard-line tactics toward Gaza are really good for the Palestinians because they 'protect' them from their own bad leaders. I have certainly sometimes seen it suggested that conflicts in Asia and Africa mean that the British Empire was really doing the colonized a favour by 'keeping the peace'. I think this argument about Zionism is in the same category in a way. Also, if Arab (or other) countries victimized local Jews because of objections to Israel, then the fault is with the countries in question, not with Israel.

'Israel does exist. But it needs to radically change the way it acts, and may need to radically change its nature, to make its existence stable and sustainable.'

Yes, I agree.

'It may need, ultimately, to identify as a democratic secular state in which the Jewish traditions are honored and preserved, rather than as exclusively as "Jewish state", in order to resolve the conflict.'

But in fact it does so already. It is not an exclusively Jewish state, but less than 80% Jewish. And it is secular in principle. There is certainly too much influence from the religious-right, and there is discrimination against Arabs, and all that should change; but, just as with racism and religious-right interference in America, they are not how the state *identifies* itself.

'Certainly, if it continues to build more and more illegal West Bank settlements, it comes closer and closer to making a "two-state solution" impossible and a single state a practical necessity. There's not enough land left for Palestinians, as it stands now, for a Palestinian state to be viable. And it becomes harder and harder to believe that making a Palestinian state impossible is NOT the intent of the continued settlement project.'

A two-state solution is not ever going to be impossible, but it will be made much more difficult, the more the settlement expansion continues. The settlement expansion is going to have to stop and be reversed one day; so it might as well be NOW.

"just as with racism and religious-right interference in America, they are not how the state *identifies* itself."

I don't think this is accurate. In America and most of the rest of the first world, while racial discrimination is widespread (although in few if any first-world nations is it nearly as ubiquitous as in Israel) it is no longer in any way enshrined in law. In Israel, discrimination in favour of Jews - most obviously in immigration, and I think also in terms of the right to purchase land from the ILA, although I'm not sure about that - is state-enforced.


"A two-state solution is not ever going to be impossible, but it will be made much more difficult, the more the settlement expansion continues. The settlement expansion is going to have to stop and be reversed one day; so it might as well be NOW."

I'm afraid I think this is pure wishful thinking. I don't see any reason why settlement expansion will have to stop or be reversed; I think it more likely that it will continue indefinately. And while I don't think the two-state solution is 100% dead yet, I think it's pretty close to it, and getting closer every day. I think that by far the most likely scenario is the one-state non-solution - Israel slowly but surely expanding, living in peace, prosperity and apartheid, and the Palestinians slowly but surely being squeezed out of the region.

Firstly, Ken didn't say in his post that the creation of Israel was *mainly* due to persecution in Europe. He said it was *in part*. And there's no disputing that it was in part one of the reasons for the creation of Israel....

It's the rest of the post where you found what Ken said to be oversimplified that I tend to disagree with. Of course the Jewish communities of North Africa were victims of Zionism, and I find the argument that if someone doesn't consider themselves to have been a victim of it, then they weren't. So if the PR's really good and somehow indigenous Australians decide that they weren't victims, then what an outsider thinks doesn't matter? I don't think so. For an example of how there were victims of Zionism and I'm not sure and not interested in whether they'd have considered themselves to be victims or not, I'm still reading a book by Tom Segev called 'The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust'. While there'll always be a question over how many more European Jews could have been rescued as no-one can know whether the Nazis were being genuine when they held thousands of people to ransom for large amounts of money, there's no question that throughout WWII the Zionists in Palestine focused exclusively on building a state and only created a paratroop brigade of commando types to go help rescue Jews in Nazi occupied countries towards the end when they realise they'd need the remnants of European Jewry to believe they'd tried to save them. In reality, the ill, professionals, the elderly, and those who wouldn't be suited to a pioneering Zionist life weren't wanted by Ben-Gurion and the Zionists in Palestine. While the Revisionists did attempt to rescue European Jews, the leadership of the yishuv distanced itself for most of the war, at some points asking the media not to dwell on the reports of atrocities and mass murder coming in from Europe as they feared there'd be pressure put on them to do more than they were. They also didn't much care for the philanthopic rescues carried out by righteous gentiles as they wanted to be able to pick and choose who'd go to Palestine. The reality is that there's little they could have done to save anything more than a tiny portion of the victims, but they didn't even try until towards the end. So, while the Zionist movement itself was a victim of the Nazis, the European Jews who could have been rescued but weren't were a victim of the Zionist movement...

btw, that book's a really good one and anyone who's interested in Israel and the Holocaust (it goes from the outbreak of war through to Eichmann's trial and execution) should try to get hold of it...

Blaming the entire conflict on Israel is an automatic fail.

When presented with an opponent that has a real interest in peace, such as Egypt, events move in a different direction.

As to the hate, each reader can decide for herself or himself where it's coming from.

though I doubt that anyone here has been expressing 'sadistic enjoyment of every bit of misery that the IDF inflicts on (the Palestinians).' This thread is about the murder of a Hamas leader, not about collective punishment of ordinary Palestinians, unless a deleted message went seriously off topic.

I do agree that the Palestinians cannot be bombed, blockaded, or otherwise punished into changing leaders. In fact, the more harshly they are treated by Israel, the more likely they are to rally round their own incompetent and very RW leadership. The Gazans are already, according to polls, thorougly sick of Hamas; but Hamas popularity gets a 'bump' when Israel punishes the Gazans - just as the Israeli right becomes more popular when Hamas threatens Israeli civilians.

n/t.

It's bullshit to say that anyone who objects to what Israel has done to Gaza is a Hamas supporter.

You can't punish EVERYONE in Gaza for what the militants have done.

If you defend the idea that you can, you also embrace Hamas' argument for the rockets fired at Sderot, because if everyone in Gaza is responsible for Hamas(and thus fair game for any level of misery), everyone in Israel would equally have to be held responsible for OCL and the continuing siege and embargo AGAINST Gaza.

Are you really gonna accept THAT?

Face it, Slagle, Israelis are no longer the main victims in this conflict, and they haven't been since 1967.

Objecting to the blockade of Gaza isn't loving Hamas - any more than criticizing Hamas means supporting Avigdor Lieberman.

'Third time's the charm' - third time for what?

I wish that more people in the US government (and the US as a whole) actually gave a shit about Gaza. But that'd probably anger Israel if they started showing up en masse. And we wouldn't want to make Israel angry because then our lawmakers wouldn't get those big money handouts from AIPAC and all the other lobbies.

Baird has called for a Berlin Airlift-style operation in which the United States would unilaterally bring in aid via naval ships in coordination with the United Nations.

He argues that such a move would be in America's national interest and that it "would be saying that we do not accept leaving people who are innocent civilians in the kind of conditions that these people have been left in, and we are not going to waste a lot of time in negotiations about pasta or garbanzo beans" -- a pointed critique of Israel which, in addition to prohibiting most building materials from entering Gaza, has also denied imports of some basic food items.

Hard to believe that Egypt would be complicit in tightening the siege given its membership in the Arab League, let alone the fact that collective punishment of this kind is contrary to international law.

:eyes:

If Baird hadn't already announced he isn't running for re-election. It's easier to take a stand when no personal risk is involved.