Troubling Israel war update: Israel's society and the US government are radicalizing

Some evidence is coming out indicating that Israeli society is radicalizing and losing patience with all of the Palestinians, not just Hamas or Islamic Jihad. There are indications that the US government is also radicalizing against the Palestinians.

The following is commentary and information PD posted here yesterday. 

A culture of repression and scapegoating Palestinians and war-critical Israelis, has gripped Israel at a societal level. Journalists, human rights activists, and protesters for peace in Gaza are all being harassed, doxxed, bullied and, says The Nation, even "summoned to police investigations or questioning simply for 'liking' posts on social media." The full story is in their article, The Crackdown Has Begun: Israel Goes After Its Critics. 

One victim of bullying (added: and threats of physical violence) discussed in the article is a left-wing ultra-Orthodox journalist and outspoken critic of Israeli policy who had to flee from a mob trying to harm him in his own home. He, as it turns out, made a video from an undisclosed hiding place which describes the culture of repression now spreading through Israeli society. He warns those who only a month ago were protesting against the Right Wing zealots who want religious law and an end to judicial review and full democracy that they are now "becoming like the Right Wing government you opposed so recently." Is that what is happening? Here is his video published on YouTube by The Middle East Eye. 

This repressive atmosphere is matched in the US by a chilling effect in the State Dept., where a memo circulated strongly discouraging any criticism of the war for those in the Biden Admin that are supposed to advise and provide feedback to their "higher-ups." The leaked internal memo, reported by HuffPost last week, discourages use of certain phrases like "de-escalate" and "avoid bloodshed" for members of the state dept. when discussing the Israel-Hamas War and US policies related to it.

Also deeply troubling is the fact that three Muslim hosts at MSNBC were sidelined (Germaine edit: shut up) with no explanations. This includes Mehdi Hasan. MSNBC has stated that the "schedule changes are coincidental." The website Semafor originally reported on this. This matter is also discussed in an article in The Nation.

The NYT reports on one state dept. offcial, Josh Paul who oversees arms transfers. His objections to unconditional support for Israel militarily right now, he said, fell completely on dead ears. After 11 years of service, he resigned in protest. He felt his and others' critical input was not even considered or debated, he wrote in a letter explaining his decision to resign.

For me, this news is deeply troubling. I can see a closer merger of toxic authoritarianism, with radical, bigoted theocracy in both Israel and the US. This is really frightening news.

Remember, the 9/11 attacks in the US caused a bloody, catastrophically failed 20 year war in Afghanistan and a needless, bloody, destructive failed war in Iraq. Some experts believe it is possible that Hamas' goal was to force overreactions by Israel and the US in response to its slaughter of Israeli civilians. If that was the goal, this news makes it look like they may be succeeding, regardless of how many innocent, non-combatant Palestinians get slaughtered in the process.

Q: Is Germaine being irrationally alarmist, melodramatic or crackpot, or is there good reason to be scared about how this war could potentially cause great damage to democracy in the US and Israel?

Added info about war propaganda from PD and Matthew:

Channel 4 News (UK) also finds problems with Israel's account/s. This is a very interesting, detailed analysis of the hospital explosion.

Israel lied about never hitting hospitals, reported by Norman Finkelstein.

Trump's stolen election legal strategy Dec-Jan 2020

A fascinating NYT article, Trump Lawyer Acknowledged Political Agenda in Election Suit, Emails Show, describes the legal reasoning that Kenneth Chesebro and other DJT attorneys were discussing before DJT's 1/6 coup attempt. The emails here are evidence in the RICO case in Georgia against DJT and 18 other people, one of which the Kraken (Sidney Powell) who agreed to a plead deal to stay out of jail. 

The bottom line is that the lawyers thought that overturning or stopping the 2020 election in court would fail, but that by filing lawsuits there would be political value in creating a false impression among DJT's supporters that the courts were corrupted and Democrats had rigged the election. The NYT writes:

Kenneth Chesebro’s comments undercut assertions that Donald J. Trump’s lawyers were simply providing legal advice in challenging the 2020 results

On Dec. 24, 2020, Kenneth Chesebro and other lawyers fighting to reverse President Donald J. Trump’s election defeat were debating whether to file litigation contesting Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in Wisconsin, a key swing state.

Mr. Chesebro argued there was little doubt that the litigation would fail in court — he put the odds of winning at “1 percent” — as Mr. Trump continued to push his baseless claims of widespread fraud, according to emails reviewed by The New York Times.

But the “relevant analysis,” Mr. Chesebro argued, “is political.”

Mr. Chesebro’s lawyers have argued that his work was shielded by the First Amendment and that he “acted within his capacity as a lawyer.” They have called for his case to be dismissed, saying he was merely “researching and finding precedents in order to form a legal opinion, which was then supplied to his client, the Trump campaign.”

Mr. Trump has also signaled that one of his possible defenses is that he was simply acting on the advice of his lawyers.

But Mr. Chesebro’s emails could undercut any effort to show that the lawyers were focused solely on legal strategies. Rather than considering just the law and the facts of the case, Mr. Chesebro made clear he was considering politics and was well aware of how the Trump campaign’s legal filings could be used as ammunition for Republicans’ efforts to overturn the results when Congress met to certify the Electoral College outcome on Jan. 6, 2021.

“Just getting this on file means that on Jan. 6, the court will either have ruled on the merits or, vastly more likely, will have appeared to dodge again,” Mr. Chesebro wrote in the email chain. He added that a lack of action by the Supreme Court would feed “the impression that the courts lacked the courage to fairly and timely consider these complaints, and justifying a political argument on Jan. 6 that none of the electoral votes from the states with regard to which the judicial process has failed should be counted.”

Mr. Chesebro wrote that it was “hard to have enormous optimism about what will happen on Jan. 6, but a lot can happen in the 13 days left until then, and I think having as many states under review both judicially and in state legislatures as possible is ideal.”

He said the legal filings could produce a “political payoff” to bolster the argument that “there should at least be extended debate in Congress about election irregularities in each state.” He added that “the public should come away from this believing that the election in Wisconsin was likely rigged, and stolen by Biden and Harris, who were not legitimately elected.”

Responding to the email chain was John Eastman, the conservative lawyer who has also been charged in the Georgia election case. Mr. Eastman said he believed the legal arguments were “rock solid” but the odds of success were “not based on the legal merits, but an assessment of the justices’ spines. And I understand that there is a heated fight underway.”

Mr. Chesebro responded: “I particularly agree that getting this on file gives more ammo to the justices fighting for the court to intervene. I think the odds of action before Jan. 6 will become more favorable if the justices start to fear that there will be ‘wild’ chaos on Jan. 6 unless they rule by then, either way.”

A key point here is that the attorneys knew the election was not stolen, but they wanted to create a false reality of a stolen election in the minds of as many of DJT's supporters as possible. Apparently they did a darn good job. 

Chesebro tried to keep the email out of court, but the judge ruled that the emails are admissible in court under the crime-fraud exception because probable cause had been established that the correspondence or lawyer’s advice (normally shielded from discovery and kept out of court) was used in furtherance of a crime.

What those attorneys were trying to do amounts to treason in my opinion, but that's not how the law  sees it. One can hope that Chesebro gets convicted and spends at least 20 years in jail. The cadre of treasonous stolen election lawyers caused enormous damage to this country.

Rhetorical tactics: Framing issues in politics

In Jan. 2021, I posted a longer version of this:

One of the most common reasons that politicians do not answer questions directly is to avoid stepping into an opponent's frame.[1] It is almost always the case that when one steps into an opponent's frame, one loses the engagement or debate. This is a fundamental truth about how the human mind works. Framing issues leads the mind to see and think about a question within the frame. It is almost always harder to explain one's position within a frame that favors the opponent's argument. The general rule is simple: The more one has to explain themself, the weaker their arguments are seen to be 

In framing political issues, one is presenting their perception of reality, facts and logic to persuade people to agree with them. In essence, a frame is the words, images and the mental and biological effects of how one describes one's own version of reality, reasoning, right and wrong.

Effective frames: Effective frames are ones that are persuasive to the most number of people that can be reached and influenced. Some people aren't persuaded by anything and this tactic fails. Good political frames are characterized by simplicity, stickiness (memorability), appeal to emotion and ideology or values, implicit or explicit identification of the good guys (the framer and his argument), the bad guys (the opposition and their policy) and the victim (people abused by the bad guys and their policies).

Practical and psychological impacts of frames: Frames can be very powerful. Some experts argue that politics for smart politicians is a matter of framing and reframing. Inexperienced politicians make the mistake of ‘stepping into their opponent's frame’, which significantly undermines their argument and power to persuade. If you make that mistake, this is what usually results:
1. You give free airtime to your opponent’s frame, including his images, emotions, values and terminology
2. You put yourself on the defensive
3. You usually have a heavier burden of proof to dislodge the opponent’s frame because lots of contrary evidence and explanation is needed to overcome a little evidence, including lies, that supports the frame
4. Your response is often complex and vulnerable because complicated responses to rebut simple frames are usually needed

Examples of stepping into an opponent's frame include:
1. Trying to rebut the ‘illegal immigrant’ frame by including the phrase ‘illegal immigrant’ in the rebuttal. That just keeps reinforcing the concept ‘illegal’. Instead, the smart politician never steps into that frame and instead always refers to ‘undocumented workers’ or ‘undocumented children’.

2. The frame: An allegation by a politician who wants to get rid of a bureaucracy by arguing that that the bureaucracy has insufficient expertise. Stepping into that frame in rebuttal with multiple true facts: (i) we have lots of expert experts, (ii) they are constantly getting updated training, (iii) the situation is complicated and we are analyzing means for corrective action, (iv) our track record has been excellent in the past. The framer then demolishes the whole in-frame rebuttal by simply asserting: Right, your experts are constantly getting updated training because they don't have the necessary expertise. Those four defenses provided the framer with four opportunities to blow his opponent out of the water.

Lesson: Never step into your opponent's frame. If you do, you usually lose the persuasion war.

This 10 minute video cited by AlextheKay focuses on the power of properly framing issues and debate tactics that America's authoritarian radical right employs. These authoritarian debate tactics avoid the fatal weaknesses that shoots through essentially all of their pro-tyranny and pro-kleptocracy rhetoric and reasoning. The radicals know that they cannot step into their opponent's frame or they will lose the debate. But the pro-democracy forces usually can't resist stepping into the radical's flawed frames, thereby usually significantly reducing their persuasiveness to open minds. Nothing is persuasive to closed minds.

What we know…

• He has never acknowledged that Biden is the POTUS.
• He worked directly with Trump in the scheme to overthrow the 2020 election.
• He is heading the committee that is currently trying to impeach Joe Biden.
• He has never passed a bill in his political life.
• He has been called many names, including a “political terrorist,” by his fellow Republicans.
• He said yesterday that he would not work with the Dems.

Questions:

1. Are you for or against Jordan becoming the new Speaker, and why?
2. Would his becoming the Speaker embolden the Dems chances of taking back the House in 2024?
3. What are your general thoughts regarding Jim Jordan?

News bits: Trump's gag order; The mystery of the exploding hospital; Exploding hospital redux

Some bits from the 3 page court order in DJT's insurrection trial in D.C. with judge Tanya Chutkan:

The defense’s position that no limits may be placed on Defendant’s speech because he is engaged in a political campaign is untenable, and the cases it cites do not so hold. The Circuit Courts in both United States v. Brown and United States v. Ford recognized that First Amendment rights must yield to the imperative of a fair trial. 218 F.3d 415, 424 (2000); 830 F.2d 596, 599 (1987). Unlike the district courts in those cases, however, this court has found that even amidst his political campaign, Defendant’s statements pose sufficiently grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings that cannot be addressed by alternative means, and it has tailored its order to meet the force of those threats. Brown, 218 F.3d at 428–30; Ford, 830 F.2d at 600. Thus, limited restrictions on extrajudicial statements are justified here. The bottom line is that equal justice under law requires the equal treatment of criminal defendants; Defendant’s presidential candidacy cannot excuse statements that would otherwise intolerably jeopardize these proceedings.

Accordingly, and pursuant to Local Criminal Rule 57.7(c), it is hereby ORDERED that:

All interested parties in this matter, including the parties and their counsel, are prohibited from making any public statements, or directing others to make any public statements, that target (1) the Special Counsel prosecuting this case or his staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court’s staff or other supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony.

DJT can still spew his toxic slanders about things like allegedly bad government generally, the allegedly bad Biden administration or the allegedly bad Department of Justice, or that the bad prosecution is politically motivated.

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Who blew up the hospital apparently killing at least 500 innocents? Hamas or Israel? As is the case in what feels to be about 99% of the time when bad or horrible things happen in that cursed part of the world, Hamas blames Israel for the attack on the hospital and Israel blames Hamas. That's standard for the God-forsaken hell called Palestine or whatever it is supposed to be called. Newsweek reports something suspicious about the Israeli version of the horrible event:

Two official Israeli accounts on X, formerly Twitter, posted and later deleted a video that claimed to show a Tuesday explosion at Gaza City's Al-Ahli Arab Baptist Hospital, adding to the confusion surrounding the incident that reportedly killed hundreds of people.

Official X accounts for the State of Israel and Michael Herzog, the Israeli ambassador to the U.S., posted a video that claimed to show a rocket fired from Gaza caused the explosion at the hospital.

However, the video was later deleted from the accounts after Aric Toler, a journalist on the visual investigations team at The New York Times, disputed the accuracy of the footage due to time stamps on the video.

According to messages posted on X by Toler, the time stamps on the video shared by the Israeli accounts showed it was recorded at least 40 minutes after the explosion took place.

Though the posts about the hospital explosion on Herzog and the State of Israel's X posts still contained the original written messages, the video has since been deleted from both accounts.

Toler's post was not cited as a reason for the editing, and Newsweek reached out to the embassy of Israel to the United States via email for comment on Tuesday night.

Toler's public announcement of the time discrepancy

So, who do we believe? The liar Israel or the liar Hamas? Biden said the US would investigate, then should we believe the liar staunchly pro-Israel US government when it finds that Hamas did it?

Qs: Does it make sense to argue that in politics in democracies (maybe not tyrannies) being faithful to actual facts, true truths and sound reasoning constitutes one of the highest moral values and duties that, in most situations (~99%) those in power are obligated to adhere to no matter what? Or is that just a quaint extinct dinosaur of a belief, and the people should be told only what is for their own good or for the sake of the sacred ideology (e.g., God's dogmas), the nation, or whatever other excuse that liars dream up?

For context to that:

“The social incentives to deceit are at present very powerful; the controls often weak. Many individuals feel caught up in practices they cannot change. It would be wishful thinking, therefore, to expect individuals to bring about major changes in the collective practices of deceit by themselves. Public and private institutions, with their enormous power to affect personal choice, must help alter the existing pressures and incentives. ..... Trust and integrity are precious resources, easily squandered, hard to regain. They can thrive only on a foundation of respect for veracity.

[Johnson repeatedly told the American people] ‘the first responsibility, the only real issue in this campaign, the only thing you ought to be concerned about at all, is: Who can best keep the peace?’ The stratagem succeeded; the election was won; the war escalated. .... President Johnson thus denied the electorate of any chance to give or refuse consent to the escalation of the war in Vietnam. Believing they had voted for the candidate of peace, American citizens were, within months, deeply embroiled in one of the cruelest wars in their history. Deception of this kind strikes at the very essence of democratic government.” -- Moral philosopher Sisella Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, 1999

________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Well, the US has spoken about who blew up the hospital. Hamas or someone else other than Israel done it! The NYT writes:

President Biden said that information from the U.S. military led him to conclude that Israel was not responsible for the deadly blast at a Gaza hospital. Palestinians blame Israel for the blast, which has fueled protests across the Middle East.  

After an all-night flight from Washington, Mr. Biden arrived in a country girding for a protracted war against the armed Islamist group Hamas after it carried out the deadliest attack on Israel in generations. He quickly waded into the fray, backing the Israeli government’s denial of responsibility for the explosion Tuesday night at Ahli Arab Hospital, where many civilians were sheltering amid Israel’s daily bombardment of Gaza.

So there we have it. Mystery solved. Right? Damn, that investigation was quick.

Q: Who do you think most likely blew up the hospital?

"They know they're most likely going to die": American Palestinians and their Gaza-trapped loved ones

 Fr. Boston Globe 10/17

They know they are most likely going to die’: Palestinian Americans in Mass. worry for loved ones in Gaza

Hazem Shafai, right, of Plymouth, his nephew, Sharaf Shafai, middle, and his brother, Hani Shafai, left.Hani Shafai

Every morning for the past week, Heiam Alsawalhi has opened her eyes, grabbed her phone, and texted her younger sister to make sure she is still alive.

Alsawalhi, a Palestinian American who lives in Brookline, said her sister and her family, along with dozens of other relatives, are trapped in the Gaza Strip without electricity, clean water, and barely any food and internet connection as Israeli bombings increase ahead of an expected ground invasion.

“She is my baby sister, and she is the world to me,” Alsawalhi told the Globe Monday. “I’m living in fear.”

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza face an increasingly dire humanitarian crisis, with Israel barring entry of essential supplies in retaliation for last week’s deadly rampage by Hamas militants. Meanwhile in Massachusetts, those with family members stuck in the tiny territory move through day-to-day life filled with anguish.

Hazem Shafai, of Plymouth, and his family, are in limbo in southern Gaza, near the border with Egypt, according to Shafai’s brother, Hani, of Rapid City, S.D.

Hazem, his wife, Sanaa Shafai, and their three children, Seera, 13, Yomnah, 10, and Jaser, 2, were visiting Hazem’s father and stepmother on their farm 2 miles south of Gaza’s northern border when airstrikes began Oct. 7.

 

“It’s been really crazy for the kids; a lot of stress, a lot of anxiety,” Hani Shafai said. “And the parents are just as anxious and saddened by everything that is going on and that their children are being exposed to it.”

Shafai said that his extended family and his brother’s family left behind all of their belongings, including livestock, to travel to Gaza’s southern border to try to cross into Egypt, though they have been turned away twice.

“When I talk to my brother, it reminds me of the type of conversation that I’ve had with some of my older friends who are in hospice care,” Hani said. “They know they are most likely going to die, and they are giving me their last instructions: ‘This is what you should do with my kids if I die and forgive me if I’ve wronged you.’ ”

---

Hani said that he and his family are praying for peace and hope that “people can start living together and thinking of each other as humans.”

“I’m glad we’re condemning the action of terrorists, but we should do the same thing for the loss of innocent Palestinian lives on the other side,” he said.

Alsawalhi said her sister Mervat Alsawalhi, or “Miro,” is also in Rafah near the southern border with Egypt, after fleeing her home in northern Gaza after the Israeli military ordered more than 1 million people to evacuate.

Mervat Alsawalhi and her family, including her husband, three daughters, and grandson Jamal, were initially at home in Gaza City in the days following the Hamas attack.

Mervat Alsawalhi held her grandson, Jamal.Heiam Alsawalhi

Nearby, Heiam Alsawalhi said, her own former in-laws had their three-story home flattened in an airstrike, as well as other relatives’ homes. The bombardment was even worse at nighttime, Alsawalhi said.

“They don’t want people sleeping,” she said of Israeli’s military. “It’s a mental war, as well.”

Alsawalhi said her sister’s family attempted to heed Israel’s warning and evacuate to the south, but found no cars, fuel, or taxis available. They began to walk south along with other families carrying their children, but became exhausted and turned around.

On their way home, Alsawalhi said her sister saw “with her own eyes” an explosion Friday, for which Gaza authorities said Israel was responsible, that killed 70 people in convoys fleeing south. The next day, the family was able to get a ride to Rafah, where they are staying with friends, Alsawalhi said.

Though the bombardment is less constant in Rafah, even there a strike hit a building housing displaced families from Gaza City, killing at least 12.

“Wherever you are in Gaza is not a safe place,” Alsawalhi said.

The 139 square mile strip, often referred to by human rights advocates as “the world’s largest open-air prison,” is home to 2.3 million people and surrounded by blockades for 16 years by Israel and Egypt, restricting people’s movements.

Suhad Zendah, a Medford resident whose extended family lives in Gaza City, said all her younger family members with children are making their way south on foot, afraid of being targeted by airstrikes if they join vehicle convoys. Elderly relatives stayed behind, she said, and she has lost all contact with them.

“It’s hard to get sleep or rest or function normally,” Zendah said. “It feels like a nightmare. But then I open my eyes, and I realize that it’s still going on and it’s reality.”

Mahmoud Abdalrahman, 34, of Arlington, is the only member of his family who resides outside of Tal al-Hawa, a neighborhood in the southwest region of Gaza City.

Original article here