Obama sent Mitchell to the Middle East today to speak with all "the major parties involved". But not Hamas. Apparently they're either not "major" enough for the new President, or "involved" enough for Obama. Or perhaps he only wants US representatives to engage in dialogues with leaders who were democratically elected by their own people...oh wait, Mitchell's already met with Mubarak, there goes that explanation...
And as Obama made his first appearance on an Arab news station, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton assured the world that the US "backed the Israel's [sic] bombardment of Gaza." She voiced her concern that "The [Palestinian] rocket barrages which are getting closer and closer to populated areas [in Israel] cannot go unanswered."
So Hillary Clinton is alarmed by Palestinian rockets which are approaching "populated areas" in Israel, but supports the "bombardment" of Israeli rockets into Gaza-- the most densely populated area on earth. How very humanitarian.
I wonder who was the last US representative to visit the Gaza Strip. I really do. They all seem to be well aquainted with Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Ramallah (once in a while), Cairo...I literally do not recall ever hearing of a US representative visiting Gaza. Even after ALL of this destruction-- the unceasing images of dead and maimed children, the thousands of concrete buildings reduced to rubble, the bombing of graveyards and mosques, the exploded sewage system (yes, that's right-- on top of everything there is a public health crisis of broken sewage systems), the hundreds of thousands of Gazans without electricity, water, or medical attention-- Gaza is still not on the itinerary for US representatives pursuing a "true and lasting peace" in the Middle East.
But then again, it wasn't on the BBC either. Apparently recognition of Gaza's humanitarian catastrophe somehow compromises your "impartiality"...but we can recognize the threats of Hamas rockets into Sderot, and support the people of Sderot's security as "paramount" and remain even handed? What was the final exchange of deaths? 1,400:13? 108:1?
God keep us all from such racist impartiality in the face of barbarity, and give us the strength to continue to give Gazans the honor, dignity, and respect they deserve as we would give any other human on this earth. They are not an exception.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
U.S. impartiality is patently absurd, when Israel is our number one lil' buddy in the Middle East. How can someone be an impartial judge in a murder trial when he bought all the weapons the murderer used, encouraged the murderer's rage and told him to go further (as Elliot Abrams apparently did with Israel in 2006). The United States has near zero credibility as mediator, and it seems we're the only ones who don't realize that. The only reason we will be listened to is our overwhelming might -- not a good position from which to foment the political changes needed to end this conflict. What to do?
ReplyDelete"How can someone be an impartial judge in a murder trial when he bought all the weapons the murder used..." excellent point. Just to clarify, in case there was confusion, I don't actually think the US is impartial-- I was just using their terminology. And the fact that the only "credible voices" in the conflict are those of the Quartet and Israel seems deeply racist and imperialistic to me. Who decides who is credible? Unfortunately, I think you're right-- military and economic might determine it...which bleeds into a bigger discussion about First World vs. Third World and balance of power and reparations...but I digress. What to do? Change US policies from the inside. How? I'm not entirely sure...
ReplyDelete