Lawn Mowing

THE ABSURD TIMES

I llustration: This is from the great Latuff and is posted here about the Israeli attacks of

the weekend and the interview concerns those. Before simply passing it by, please note that this illustration was done in 2019 during the previous administration. Mark

Twain is quoted as saying "History doesn't repeat itself – it rhymes."

What Happened?

By

Leith the Lucid

This is an interview about the obnoxious behavior of Israel. It is really not a religious issue so much as it is greed and disgust. It does fit in with the great replacement theory somewhat. See, the idea here is to replace the pure white citizens (people who in Stalin's terms become "useful idiots") with low socialist sorts (you know, social security, medicare, safety net programs in general) who are black or brown and even yellow skinned and vote Democratic or are non-MAGA in general. The last version of this term I have heard is MOTHERS AGAINST GREGG ABBOT. At any rate, it is time to get this out and over with. I'm tired.

The death toll from three days of an Israeli military bombardment on Gaza has reached at least 44 Palestinians, including 15 children. At least 350 Palestinians were wounded. Bombing has since stopped after Israel and the Islamic Jihad militant group agreed on Sunday to a ceasefire brokered by Egypt, and border crossings reopened on Monday to allow bare necessities in. We go to Gaza to speak with the journalist and activist Issam Adwan, who says Israel's military operation is meant to bolster the current Israeli government ahead of November elections. "They are using the Palestinian blood to promote a campaign for certain individuals," says Adwan.

---

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: In Gaza, at least 44 Palestinians, including 15 children, have been killed in three days of an Israeli military bombardment before a ceasefire began Sunday. At least 350 Palestinians were wounded. Palestinians accused the Israeli government of launching the attack in an effort to build political support ahead of November's elections. Palestinian children who survived the Israeli assault described horrifying scenes. This is a 9-year-old girl named Leen Matar who was pulled from the rubble.

LEEN MATAR: [translated] I was at my grandfather's house when suddenly the rubble started to fall on us. And we started screaming, and the neighbors came to rescue us. … We don't want to keep going through this. Every year there are strikes, killings of children and injuries. I am happy that I am alive, because I always had a dream to fulfill, which is to become a doctor and help people in such times, to help them because I have been through many problems like this.

AMY GOODMAN: Israel defended the bombardment of Gaza, saying it was a preemptive operation targeting militants with the group Islamic Jihad. Two senior Islamic Jihad commanders were killed in the attack. During the bombardment, Israel also cut off fuel to Gaza, leading to blackouts across the region.

For more, we go to Gaza now to speak with Issam Adwan, Palestinian journalist, activist, researcher and new father.

Issam, welcome back to Democracy Now! This ceasefire has been declared between Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Israel. Can you talk about what has happened over the weekend?

ISSAM ADWAN: Thank you for hosting me.

The scene is, as usually, terrifying for me as a new father of a 2-month infant, as [inaudible] on the other part that we are expecting everything from the Israeli side even during the times of the ceasefire, because several instances before indicated the violation of the times of the ceasefire. The situation is horrifying. We have witnessed 44 Palestinians dying, including 15 children and six women, which represents half of the casualties from the Palestinian side. There are no words to describe the war crimes that have been committed, even with the claims of the Israeli authority that they are targeting PIJ's senior members, military senior members. This included, of course, targeting of residential buildings, killing children and women, of course.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about what started this?

ISSAM ADWAN: So, what started it, just to correct you a little bit in your introduction, that you mentioned that Israel cut fuel supplies to Gaza during the bombardment launched on Gaza, of the operation, of course, but it happened four days before the escalation started, when the Israeli administration decided to close both borders, at Kerem Shalom crossing and Erez crossing, which they are the main crossings of the goods that enters into Gaza, as well as the medical equipment and fuel, as well. So, when they decided to do that, it came along with the provocative action to detain Bassam al-Saadi, a senior member of the PIJ in the West Bank, of course, with no response by the political parties here in Gaza. They have added more violence with the targeting of Tayseer al-Jabari, a senior member of the PIJ in Gaza. Just to give you a sense of understanding about Tayseer al-Jabari, he had been more of a political person rather than being a military.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the two Palestinian Islamic Jihad leaders who were killed and Israel's assertion that this was a preemptive attack on a possible attack against Israel?

ISSAM ADWAN: I don't know how to describe this properly, but what preemptive attacks, when included that the international laws, especially the international humanitarian laws, which prohibit targeting buildings and areas which contains hundreds of civilians? We are talking about Gaza, that is about 365 square kilometers, where 2 millions of people are put with an intentional policy to suffocate every norms of their existence. So, how you can possibly target senior members of the PIJ? And as I stated before, they were more of political persons rather than being military, so, significantly, saying that they were not of a great threat to the Israeli administration.

But following what has been happening inside — I mean, the dispute happening inside the Israeli administration ahead of the pre-elections coming in the future, that they are using the Palestinian blood to promote a campaign for certain individuals, especially with the decreasing of the public support provided to Lapid and Gantz, in particular, during the run of the current government.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the Israeli elections coming up in November and how you feel they weigh in here.

ISSAM ADWAN: It's actually the same. No matter who runs the Israeli government, it's always the same, with the same policy to suffocate the Gaza Strip. We're talking about 15 years of blockade. This blockade killed every existence of people living in Gaza. And there were several individuals running the Israeli government of different opinions and different views and different policies to deal with Gaza, but all the policies were met on a one goal that the Palestinians in Gaza do not deserve to live a normal life. This extent leads us to think that this change inside the Israeli government is just a minor change, just an appearance change of who's leading the government, but the policy remains the same thing, either being the right wing or left wing of Israelis.

AMY GOODMAN: Now talk about the situation in Gaza. What does it mean to have the blackout? And the number of casualties, what's the latest figure? We heard 44, more than a third of them children, over 300 people injured. What's happening in the hospitals? And how do you get these figures?

ISSAM ADWAN: Yes. With the — as I mentioned, as I highlighted before, that the Israeli administration decided — implemented the closure of the Gaza Strip four days ahead of the operation start in Gaza, including a shortage — including blocking the entrance of fuel, which is a — which is Gaza mainly depends to run eight hours a day in the normal cases. With the shortage of the fuel, of course, it influenced — it hugely influenced the capacity of the hospitals to treat those injuries and also to put those dead people in the proper places. This is an indicator of the harsh policies that the Israeli administration has been dealing with Gaza.

And I don't know how to describe this in a human-side level, because even to me personally, I have experienced even — because the media mainly focusing on Gaza whenever there are hundreds of people dying, hundreds of houses bombed, but there are other times during these 15 years of blockade people are dying because of the poverty. People are dying because of the lack of hope, of the lack of job opportunities. And that is what the media is neglecting to cover on the situation of Gaza.

AMY GOODMAN: Israel and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad agreed to a Cairo-mediated truce after three days of intense rocket attacks by Israeli forces.

TAREK SELMI: [translated] Now, for sure, we have reached a deal, and there is an Egyptian commitment to release the prisoners Khalil Awawdeh and Bassam al-Saadi as soon as possible from the Israeli jails. We announced a ceasefire by 11:30, and we welcome the Egyptian efforts that were made to end this battle.

AMY GOODMAN: That's an Islamic Jihad spokesperson. Issam Adwan, can you talk about Egypt's involvement here and where you think this is going at this point?

ISSAM ADWAN: Yeah. As I said before, the ceasefire is never a safe solution for the people of Gaza, because it moves no tangible improvements on the situation in Gaza of day by day and from a war to war, especially the wars of 2008, '12, '14 and 2021 and this current one. The infrastructure of Gaza is hugely damaged. The medical expertise and equipment are barely found.

So, the solution and the ceasefire that happened between the IJ and the Israeli side, there were three conditions, three conditions revealed from the Egyptian mediation, who has been positively in the process, that first to release Sheikh Bassam al-Saadi, who was detained by the Israeli government in the previous days ahead of the escalation, and releasing the Palestinian prisoner Khalil Awawdeh, who has been in a hunger strike for more than a hundred days, with an intentional medical negligence to transfer him to medical care systems. Those demands, they are indications of how much the situation is worsening day by day. And that's why the situation is not improving.

And people do not feel safety, because Israel can determine a new round of escalation throughout assassinating a valuable target, as they claim, despite the fact that even the Israeli media outlets, they do not recognize this as a big of achievement, the killing — and I mean by that the killing of Mansour and Tayseer al-Jabari. As I said before, they were more of a political target rather than being a military. So there is no significant achievement recognized, but the Israeli government keeps bragging about it.

AMY GOODMAN: Israel is saying that a number of the Palestinians killed were killed by the backfiring of Palestinian Islamic Jihad's own missiles. Your response, Issam Adwan?

ISSAM ADWAN: I believe the Israeli side used a video, an anonymous video, that shows nothing, in the middle of the darkness, that during the bombardment of Jabalia refugee camp. So there were no, I would say, clear indications that this is by the PIJ's misfired rocket. We have seen huge bombardment launched on Gaza during the times between 9 p.m. to 12 p.m. During these times, more than 12 targets were hit on Jabalia camp. So there were no clear identification of whether this.

But let's take into consideration the exclusive power. The Israeli side has always undermined the potential, the rocket's potential, of the Palestinian resistance, and now they are recognizing that this missile — this rocket could kill seven individuals, seven Palestinians. I don't think this makes any sense, because Israel exaggerates whenever the exaggeration in its benefits, and they undermine the potential of the Palestinians whenever they see it fit.

AMY GOODMAN: You tweeted, "The ceasefire is never a time to celebrate for Gazans, but rather a moment to mourn the deaths of innocent civilians killed by the Israeli warplane — To barely survive wondering 'am I going to be next?'" Can we end where we started? You're a new father. You have a 2-month-old little girl named Sara. Can you talk about what you see the future as in Gaza?

ISSAM ADWAN: It's really terrifying during thinking about it all the years, even before Sara came to my life, that I have a huge sense of guilt that I brought her into life. It's really pessimist to talk about it, but inside of me it eats me alive that I brought a child into a situation that never rested. I was born in 1993, lived my entire life under the occupation, and for the past 15 years I have been denied the majority of my rights, including the right to have a proper education outside or mitigation in cases of illness. So, imagining the situation applies to my daughter Sara is terrifying me the most, because being a journalist and being exposed to — being exposed, hugely exposed, to cases of slaughtering children and women, it keeps echoing in my mind, it keeps echoing in my heart, and it eats me from inside, that is it going to be next, and if it's not me, it could be my Sara.

AMY GOODMAN: Issam Adwan, we want to thank you for being with us, Palestinian journalist, activist and researcher, joining us from Gaza.

Let's call him 45

THE ABSURD TIMES

Illustration: I know – I can't believe it either: when I first saw it, I had no idea as to what it was supposed to represent. It was wheeled in at the CPAC festival. I rather doubt it is pure gold as that might compromise values. [Made in China.]

Oh, I didn't expect the program below when I wrote this, but it is a good one. It always looked to me as if nobody could criticize Israel here and hope to be elected. Well, they explain all about it at the bottom.

Well, we have the latest from Qanon sent to the GOPq and in effect now. The inauguration will not be on March 4, but April 1. First, the government has to be renewed and Donnie will become the 19^th President. Seems there was some problem involving the Civil Service? Some still think it is March 4, so the military is prepared.  [r so we were told. Remember 45 was still 'ruling' and replaced all of the liaisons with the National guard as soon as he lost the election.He snappened into action, watching the mob on 'tv and eating popcorn or something more appealing./]  

Biden announced that another vaccine is ready, one shot and that's it. Another company will assist in manufacturing it and he moved the expected date up two months. The Governor of Texas, a Republican who thinks the Green New Deal was responsible for the failures in Texas (there is no green new deal and wind and solar out performed the other sources, immediately snapped into action: he ended the mask band and told everybody they can meet indoors and sneeze on one another.

To say this is preposterous is mild, but then every Mayor in Texas hope to defy this order and retain the mask restrictions. Mississippi is close by and NOBODY is going to get more backward than Mississippi and they are angry they didn't think of it first. Well, they are joining in and pretending, I think, they thought of it first.

A nurse in Kentucky mentions that she had helped a woman at the clinic and the woman said "I'm sure glad I didn't have to go through that Obamacare." The nurse told here she was being covered by that and she asked "Well, please don't tell my friends about it." I try to be open minded, but this is worse than the third world. At least they have a reason for being backwards. These people don't HAVE to be backwards – they just CHOOSE to be and that gives them no excuse. Even George Wallace wised up, or at least said he did.

Aware that they seem racist against blacks, the domestic terrorists and the like have taken to beating up asians. See, this way, it doesn't matter if you are black or yellow, they will beat you up. Oh, and they are not very happy with the brown skinned ones either and they are starting to get out of their cages. Looks like trouble ahead.

The last stimulous bill did have money to lend to small businesses, but small businesses are definded as 500 employees or less. Also, the money was distributed by the banks. We don't like the term "mom and pop stores," but who do you suppose got the money last time? Right, now, the bill is limited to 20 employees or less and also hires enough people to help them fill out the beurocratic forms as the applications go directly to the government, not the banks. [Just a side note here: FDR ran "to save my friends from themselves." He called an emergency session of congress and could have nationalized the banks at that time, but that would be socialism. Still, his proposal went through so well, he kept on submitting bills until the time was up. That happened to be 100 days, that's all.]

Finally, if you were wondering why Joe Manchin is so opposed to and increased minimum wage, he has interests in several stores thay pay at that rate.

TOXIC IN AMERICA

Israel and the United States blasted the International Criminal Court's decision to open a probe into Israeli war crimes in the Palestinian territories, as well as crimes committed by Palestinian militant groups. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken tweeted that the Biden administration "firmly opposes" an investigation. Mitchell Plitnick and Marc Lamont Hill, co-authors of "Except for Palestine," say it's an illustration of the "Palestine exception" that makes even supposedly progressive people unwilling to criticize Israel's human rights abuses and its ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories. "We are attempting to show that the American left — those who identify as progressive, radical, liberal, what have you — have not held up the bargain in terms of matching their own ideals and values on this question of Israel and Palestine," says Hill.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The Quarantine Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.

The International Criminal Court has officially opened a probe into Israeli war crimes in the Palestinian territories, as well as crimes committed by Palestinian militant groups. Israel and the United States blasted the decision. Israel is not a member of the ICC, but the Palestinians joined the court in 2015. Israel has argued the court has no jurisdiction over the Occupied Territories because Palestine is not an independent state. On Wednesday, Wasel Abu Yousef of the Palestinian Liberation Organization welcomed the ICC decision.

WASEL ABU YOUSEF: [translated] This decision is so important because it shows that justice will be imposed on those who carry out crimes against the Palestinian people or any crime in the world. The Israeli occupation thought that they were exempt from the crimes that they committed and that they won't be questioned for these crimes. Today, this decision will cut off the ways for occupation to continue committing these crimes. I think the occupation will think deeply about how to defend itself in front of the court.

AMY GOODMAN: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded by claiming the ICC decision is anti-Semitic.

PRIME MINISTER BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: The decision of the International Court to open investigation against Israel today for war crimes is absurd. It's undiluted anti-Semitism and the height of hypocrisy. … This court, that was established to prevent the repetition of the Nazi horrific crimes committed against the Jewish people, is now turning its guns against the one and only state of the Jewish people. It's targeting Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East. But, of course, it turns a blind eye to Iran, Syria and the other dictatorships that are committing real war crimes.

AMY GOODMAN: The Biden administration also criticized the ICC. Secretary of State Tony Blinken said, quote, "The United States firmly opposes and is deeply disappointed by this decision. The ICC has no jurisdiction over this matter. … We will continue to uphold our strong commitment to Israel and its security, including by opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly," Blinken said.

Still with us, the co-authors of the new book, Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics, Marc Lamont Hill, Temple University professor of media studies and urban education, and Mitchell Plitnick, president of ReThinking Foreign Policy, also the former director of the U.S. office of B'Tselem and former co-director of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Marc Lamont Hill, let's begin with your response to the ICC decision to investigate Israel for war crimes.

MARC LAMONT HILL: I am always skeptical of the ability to adjudicate these matters in international criminal courts, not because I don't believe in them, but because I'm often skeptical that they'll actually produce a fair and just outcome. But this is a moment of promise. This is a moment of possibility. The fact that the ICC last month acknowledged that it had jurisdiction and this month says that it's going to actually open up an investigation, I think, is extraordinary.

It's important, though, to respond to what Prime Minister Netanyahu said. First, this is not a probe exclusively targeted toward Israel. Obviously, Hamas will also be investigated — and, ostensibly, the PA could be, although this is largely about Operation Protective Edge, and so it won't focus on them — meaning that any war crimes in the territories and in the area could be investigated.

Second, the idea that the ICC is somehow targeting Israel, to me, is a bit curious, when, quite frankly, the African countries are the only people who seem to get any kind of rebuke or censure or criticism from the international courts, whether it's Muammar Gaddafi, whether we're looking at the LRA in Uganda. I mean, we could look — we could look at Sudan. I mean, the critiques of the — or, the actions of the ICC are largely directed toward African nations, not the West, not Europe and not Israel. And it would be anti-Semitic — it would absolutely be anti-Semitic to only investigate Israel, to only focus on Israel. But the ICC is not attempting to do that.

And then, finally, the argument, somehow, that Palestine is not a state, and therefore is not able to appeal to the ICC, simply is contradicted by international law. It's contradicted by the U.N.'s decision a few years ago. They absolutely have the jurisdiction. And this is an opportunity for not just Israel, but for the United States, to actually reset relations with the ICC and actually move toward an investigation that could produce justice.

And the fact that the Biden administration has resisted that, and that this is one of those areas where Biden has not reversed course from Trump — right? He reversed Trump — he reverses from Trump on Muslim bans, on the Paris accords, on all these issues. But on the ICC, he's making a different choice, and that different choice is very disappointing.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Mitchell, your response to the ICC decision to investigate both Palestinians and Israelis for war crimes? And if you could respond — I mean, Marc said about Netanyahu saying that Israel is being singled out and that it's principally African nations that have been investigated by the ICC. But what about war crimes being committed elsewhere, from Syria to Yemen? Those have not been referred to the ICC. Could you respond to that?

MITCHELL PLITNICK: So, yeah. I mean, first of all, I share with Marc a skepticism about the outcome of the ICC investigation. First of all, the current prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, will be stepping down in June, and her replacement, Karim Khan, is someone — we don't know what he thinks specifically about this issue, but we do know that both the United States and Israel are optimistic about his appointment, so that kind of makes me nervous about where this is going to go.

On top of that, Hamas, because of the nature of the two sides and the weaponry that Israel has versus the weaponry Hamas has, Hamas uses weaponry that is, by definition, indiscriminate. It cannot distinguish between its targets. It's very difficult to aim properly. So it's going to be — it does not meet the standards of international law. Almost by definition, Hamas will be found guilty of war crimes, whereas, with Israel, it's much more — it's more difficult, and there are more questions of international law involved. So I'm skeptical about a positive outcome here, as Marc is, which is not to say that war crimes were not committed. I think that's clear. The question is not, you know, what we know happened, but what we can prove happened. And that's always a problem because of the way international law is constructed. So, starting with that.

As far as what Netanyahu said, first, let me say, as a Jewish person, that using anti-Semitism — and even worse, using the Holocaust — to shield Israel from being investigated for potential war crimes is remarkably contemptible and deeply offensive to me personally, and, I think, to many Jews around the world. The issue is very simple. If you committed war crimes, you should be investigated. If you didn't commit war crimes, what are you worried about? So, I think there is that point.

And there's also — look, you know, the fact is that a major complaint against the ICC has been that it's almost solely focused on Africa, with Yugoslavia having been the only real exception here up until now. And we'll see, again, where this goes. But it's a fair criticism to say that the ICC has not applied standards of justice globally. Part of that is because we see the kind of backlash that it faces when, for example, it goes up against the United States and tries to investigate U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan. It is a lot of this — a lot of this backlash is tied to that, as well. It's not just defense of Israel. It's also the U.S. looking at its own war crimes and not wanting those to be investigated by an international body. So, all of that is kind of coming together here.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And I'd like to turn now, Marc, to the book that the two of you have just brought out, called Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics. Marc, can you lay out the argument there?

MARC LAMONT HILL: You know, Mitchell and I were very excited to write this book, particularly at this moment. We didn't know who would be president. We didn't know that there'd be an ICC investigation. But all the issues that are coming up right now really speak to the various ways that Palestinians have been made the exception to many of our progressive values and politics and actions, if you think about — or, rather, in activist circles. I'll start there, in activist circles. You know, we have this person we call the "PEP" — right? — the person who's progressive except for Palestine. This is the person that's outraged at Trump for his actions at the border, who's disgusted by children in cages, who can't stand to think about the erosion of civil liberties. But when it comes to Palestine, somehow, they don't engage those same ideas in the same way.

And so, in our book, what we attempt to do is lay out the kind of policy groundwork. We lay out the frontier on which these battles are fought. We want people to understand not just the contradictions of the so-called left, but also to understand how those contradictions emerged. So, whether it's questions about the right to exist, whether it's questions about BDS, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or whether it's the attempt to make Trump the exception rather than part of a more aggressive articulation of the American rule, we are attempting to show that the American left — those who identify as progressive, radical, liberal, what have you — have not held up the bargain in terms of matching their own ideals and values on this question of Israel and Palestine. And that's something that we want to raise.

I'll give one quick example. Donald Trump, who we've made the bogeyman — and for good reason — moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And that was seen as outrageous. Of course, him acknowledging Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel goes against international law. It goes against the idea that we'll allow Jerusalem to be a final status issue. But Donald Trump didn't create that rule. Donald Trump actually was acting on decades of American policy. The Jerusalem Embassy Act was actually signed by Congress in 1995 under the times of Clinton. And every U.S. president has simply signed a waiver not to move the embassy, but no one has fought to actually get rid of the legislation. So, this is bipartisan American policy. Again, Trump was an ugly — he was American policy on steroids. But he was part of a bipartisan movement to neglect the values, the needs, the self-determination of the Palestinian people. And in our book, we try to lay that out in what we think is a compelling way.

AMY GOODMAN: And, Mitchell, if you can talk about — more about the weaponization of anti-Semitism, silencing those who might otherwise be critics?

MITCHELL PLITNICK: Yeah. I mean, that is reaching a fever pitch right now. And I think it's actually reflective of where Israel itself has gone. I think Israel has abandoned a lot of the veneer of idealism that it once had and any legitimate idealism it once held for itself, and is now simply — you know, we hear the arguments in Washington about why we support this or that Israeli policy, and it's all about an unbreakable bond and an undying friendship. It's not about geostrategic thinking anymore. It's not about Israel is actually right anymore. It is simply about the idea that this is our ally, and we're going to stand by her. And I think this is part of it.

So, when you're trying to actually engage in the debate, you're not — you don't want to debate the issues. You want to simply say anyone who criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic. And Jews are certainly — as I know your audience is very well aware, we are certainly not immune from that accusation. I'm certainly not. I get called anti-Semitic all the time.

So, we're seeing a lot of arenas. Right now with Facebook trying to collapse the phrase "Zionism" as a proxy, so that you cannot criticize Zionism or Zionist thinking or the Zionist movement without being called anti-Semitic. I mean, that's part of that battle. Of course, the IHRA, International Holocaust Remembrance Association, definition brings in the same problematic language.

And the idea is to shut down all criticism of Israel. And the reason is because Israel can no longer defend itself against that criticism. Supporters of Israel can no longer argue that there's any legitimacy to dispossessing an entire people and holding them without rights for decades, for generations. There's no argument that's going to stand up to that. So, instead, you simply call the person who's making the criticism anti-Semitic.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.