| Page 227

The Gazan Tragedy: “Tell Me Sir, What Do You Do When A Rocket Is Fired At You?”

Posted on January 22, 2009 by Mike Bock

The Washington Post reports that Israel pulled out of Gaza early Wednesday: “About 1,300 Palestinians were killed and the operation caused an estimated $2 billion in property damage to the already impoverished territory. Thirteen Israelis died during the offensive.”

Tom Dispatch writes: More than 1,400 dead Gazans (and rising as bodies are dug out of the rubble); 5,500 wounded; hundreds of children killed; 4,000 to 5,000 homes destroyed and 20,000 damaged — 14% of all buildings in Gaza; 50,000 or more homeless; 400,000 without water; 50 U.N. facilities, 21 medical facilities, 1,500 factories and workshops, and 20 mosques reportedly damaged or destroyed; the smashed schools and university structures; the obliterated government buildings; the estimated almost two billion dollars in damage; all taking place on a blockaded strip of land 25 miles long and 4 to 7.5 miles wide that is home to a staggering 1.4 million people.”

What a mess. No wonder Israel is so hated throughout the world.

In Bill Moyers’ judgment, Israel’s actions amount to “state terrorism.” In this post, I include powerful commentary by Moyers captured on You Tube. A person identified as “J Quinn” responded, “Tell me sir, what do you do when a rocket is fired at you?”

J Quinn’s premise, in his or her question, is that the Gazan War was all about Hamas firing rockets into Israel. But that premise, I believe, is wrong. Quinn’s question inspired me to review what I’ve already posted over the last several weeks about the Gazan War. My general conclusion is that the Gazan War was an unnecessary war and was initiated by Israel because of domestic politics. I feel that Israel deliberately used harsh, unreasonable and illegal tactics and that the US should have condemned Israel’s Gazan actions.

What follows is a review of some of my recent posts that brought me to these conclusions.

Pat Buchanan is not known for liberal, mush headed ideas. In this post, I reported, “Buchanan says that Gaza is like a concentration camp and that Hamas’ little rockets for six months didn’t kill anyone while Israel is now causing massive destruction and suffering. Buchanan also accuses Israel of using US tax dollars to build illegal settlements on the West Bank.”

What has amazed me is how people who should know better contribute to general misinformation about Gaza. In this article, Report On Gazan War — ABC News With George Stephanopoulos — Was A Shameful Disgrace, I report on an interview on that program with Shimon Peres and how two US senators, Dick Durbin and Mitch McConnell, disgraced themselves by going overboard in their total agreement with Peres. McConnell made this outrageous propaganda statement, in line with J Quinn’s question: “Imagine in this country if somebody from a neighboring country were lobbing shells at our population. We’d do exactly the same thing. I think the Israelis are doing the only thing they can possibly do to defend their population.”

It seems incredible that a US senator would suggest that the US would do the same as Israel has done. It seems incredible that a US senator would excuse Israel’s use of phosphorous, its bombing of homes, schools and mosques, its targeting leaders for assassination, its massive “collateral damage” killing more than 400 children. And it seems incredible that a US senator would suggest that Gaza is simply another country boardering Israel, ignoring Israel’s responsibility in creating the situation there.

In this post I report on an article by Marjorie Cohn, “Israel’s Collective Punishment of Gaza.” Cohn says the Gazan War is all about Israel’s coming elections. She writes: “Israel’s airstrikes and ground assault on the people of Gaza have little to do with the Gazan rockets, which hadn’t killed any Israelis for a year before Israel’s current military operation. Israel’s leaders are bombing and attacking Gaza in order to gain an advantage in the upcoming Israeli elections in February.

I have a lot of respect for Jimmy Carter. In this article I report, Jimmy Carter Says Gazan War Was Not Necessary: Jimmy Carter, writing in the Washington Post, says, that, based on his personal I involvement, ‘the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.’ Carter blames Israel for breaking a “fragile truce”

I have a lot of respect for Dennis Kucinich. I posted two articles showing Kucinich’s views on the Gazan War:

In Kucinich Says Israel’s Attack On Gazan Civilians, Using US Made Weapons, Violates US Law, I write, “Congressman Dennis Kucinich is requesting that Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, investigate whether Israel is in violation of a 1976 law that defines the proper use of US made weapons. Kucinich points out that US made F-16 fighter jets and Apache helicopters were used in an attack of a U.N. School where over 40 Palestinians, women and children, were killed while seeking shelter.”

And this post, Congressman Kucinich Condemns Israeli Attack On Gaza As Violating Geneva Conventions, shows the letter that Kucinich wrote to the U.N. Secretary General. Kucinich wrote: “The attacks on civilians represent collective punishment, which is a violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The perpetrators of attacks against Israel must also be brought to justice, but Israel cannot create a war against an entire people in order to attempt to bring to justice the few who are responsible. The Israeli leaders know better … Civilian populations were attacked, countless innocents killed or injured, infrastructure targeted and destroyed, and civil law enforcement negated. All this was, and is, disproportionate, indiscriminate mass violence in violation of international law. Israel is not exempt from international law and must be held accountable. It is time for the UN to not just call for a cease-fire, but for an inquiry as to Israel’s actions.”

Of course, a lot of politicians disagree with Kucinich. Evidently, it is considered the smart thing, politically, to do. But it is difficult to believe that a smart man like Newt Gingich really believes his own words. I post here that “Newt Gingrich Compares Hamas To Nazis, Suggests There Should Be No Limit To Israel’s Violence In Gaza.” I write, “Newt Gingich, on George Stephanopoulos’ Sunday program, compared Hamas to the Third Reich, and said that like the Third Reich, Hamas has completely forfeited its right to exist. … To compare Hamas to the Nazi regime is amazing. But if you are willing to think of Hamas in Nazi terms — a urgent, demonic and horrible threat — certainly it is a small step to conclude that Israel is well justified to rain down unspeakable violence on Gaza. It is easy to conclude that Israel is justified to kill over 900 fellow humans, including 300 children, entire families; justified to destroy mosques, schools, homes.

Posted in M Bock, Opinion | Tagged gazan war | Leave a comment

Obama Seeks To Be Transformative: Highlights Of His Inaugural Speech

Posted on January 21, 2009 by Mike Bock

Barack Obama covered a lot of ground in his inaugural speech. My ears particulary perked up when he said, “We will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.”

The need for transformation of our public school system is a topic that I keep coming back to. Just last week I wrote, “Throwing Money At Public Education Is Not The Answer, System Change Is Needed.” Obama seems intent on finding solutions to education and seems supportive of such system change as charter schools, but, I’ve got to wonder if Obama understands public school “transformation” in the same way as I’m thinking about it.

Chief Justice Roberts leads Barack Obama in inaugural swearing in ceremony. Michelle and kids look on.

I was interested to read about, Jon Favreau, the 27 year old who is Obama’s chief head speech writer. He helped prepare Obama’s inaugural speech and he will be in charge of speech writing for the White House — a huge job that involves as many as twelve writers.

Here are the parts of Obama’s speech that I highlighted:

Every so often, the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents. So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met. On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
It has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor — who have carried us up the long, rugged path toward prosperity and freedom. For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth. For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions — that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.
A nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: Know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.
We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West: Know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Those values upon which our success depends — hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism — these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility
At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: “Let it be told to the future world … that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive… that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it].”
Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested, we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back, nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations

Posted in Special Reports | Tagged highlights of obaba speech, obama inaugural speech, transform public education | 4 Comments

Rick Warren’s Inaugural Prayer Was: Too Long, Too Doctrinal, And Too Protestant

Posted on January 21, 2009 by Mike Bock

Rick Warren’s inaugural prayer, first of all, seemed way too long. About in the middle of his prayer, I started feeling antsy. As Warren started yet another paragraph, I estimated that his prayer was probably twice as long as what good manners should dictate. Then, his final flourish, with an implicit invitation for listeners to join in — The Lord’s Prayer — I thought was simply out of order, over the top, and inappropriate for the occasion.

My uneasy feeling that Warren was trespassing on inaugural time is verified in the word count. Warren’s inaugural prayer counts out to 492 words. Billy Graham’s 1969 prayer at Richard Nixon’s inaugural was 85 words and Franklin Graham’s 2001 prayer for George W. Bush was 92 words. By the standard’s set by the Graham’s, Warren’s prayer was five times longer than it should have been.

And my gut feeling that Warren had gone too far in his Lord’s Prayer conclusion is verified by at least one religious thinker, Randall Balmer, who said, “I don’t think he (Warren) acquitted himself very well. To lead the nation in saying the Lord’s Prayer, which is so particularly Christian, was a mistake.” Balmer is a professor of American religious history at Columbia University and an editor of the conservative magazine, Christianity Today. He has authored a number of books. His last book is, “God in the White House: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush.”

An interesting article in The Wall Street Journal, printed prior to the inauguration, says that the country has gone through, in effect, three phases of inaugural prayers. It identifies this third phase, that we are currently in, as the “Protestant Only Model,” because lately, to give the inaugural prayer, only protestant clergy have been invited. The Journal says that this Protestant Only Model doesn’t fit the spirit of the Constitution.

It is a common practice in protestant churches that the conclusion to a rousing pastoral prayer is an invitation to the congregation to recite in unison, The Lord’s Prayer — to its peroration: “For thine is the Kingdom and The Power And The Glory Forever. Amen.” It seems to me, by ending the inaugural prayer with the Lord’s Prayer, Warren put the icing on the cake of this Protestant Only Model.

I realize that Warren had some wise and thoughtful parts to his prayer. I liked this portion: “As we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.” Its a great thought: A birth of clarity of aims! Yes. (I certainly know that such a birth is much needed for public education and I have posted about this need a bunch of times.)

Warren continued, “Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all. May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet.” Yes. Yes. And, Yes. We should all pray, hope, and work for such aims. But the fact that this was a “protestant prayer,” I’m thinking, caused a lot of people to not really hear what Warren was saying.

The Journal says, “Including the two prayers at Barack Obama’s inaugural, 12 prayers will have been delivered at inaugurations since 1989. All of them will have been delivered by Protestants. By contrast, in the previous 48 years, fewer than half of the prayers were offered by Protestants. Every president prior to George H.W. Bush had a Catholic and more than half also had a Jewish or Greek Orthodox clergyman.”

According to the WSJ:

The country has gone through, in effect, three phases. In the first, presidents used a religious-diversity model. From 1937, when the first inaugural prayer was offered, until 1985, the presidents (with one exception in 1981) had clergy of different faiths or denominations up on the podium.

During these years, the Christian prayers were not watered down in any way. They often prayed in the name of Jesus Christ. But because there was a rabbi on the platform, no one could be accused of giving a government imprimatur to one particular religion. At Truman’s inaugural, Rev. Edward Hughes Pruden ended his prayer, “Bestow upon us, our Father, the happiness which is reserved for that nation whose God is the Lord, through Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, we pray, amen.”

It easily fit the spirit of the Constitution because he was followed by Rabbi Samuel Thurman of the United Hebrew Temple of St. Louis. “O Lord, make us worthy of all Thy blessings, to the end that both leader and people may continue to find favor in Thine eyes, and so live and serve that Thy glory,” Rabbi Thurman intoned.

Over time, the president reduced the number of clergy on the podium In 1977, Jimmy Carter enlisted two rather than four clergy, prompting protests from Jewish and Greek Orthodox groups. Ronald Reagan used just his personal pastor in 1981, though he returned to the four-person prayer scrum in 1985.

Then in 1989 and 1993 we tried what might be called the “America’s pastor” model. One man, the Rev. Billy Graham, offered both the invocation and benediction. He pulled it off by using broadly inclusive language. In 1989 he referred just to “God” and in 1993 he declared: “I pray this in the name of the one that’s called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, the Everlasting Father and the Prince of Peace.” Note, too, that he used the word “I” rather than “we,” which would have assumed all in the audience were Christian. …

Next came the Protestant-only model. In 1997, Mr. Graham was the only pastor at Bill Clinton’s second inaugural, but this time he made it a fully Christian prayer, ending it “we pray in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

His son, Franklin Graham, then took it a step further in 2001, urging Americans from the balcony of the U.S. Capitol to acknowledge Christ “alone” as their savior. Why did Franklin Graham go this far? To some degree he and Mr. Caldwell probably just prayed the way they normally pray without fully realizing their special roles as the only clergy on the stage that day.

But the politics of evangelicalism had changed, too. By 2001 conservative evangelicals had become a powerful force in American politics, instrumental to electing George W. Bush to the presidency. Part of the evangelical identity, increasingly, was a pugnacious sense that they were being persecuted and should not be cowed into suppressing their faith. “I knew stating that there is no other Name by which an individual can be saved grate on some ears and prick some hearts,” Franklin Graham wrote about his inaugural prayer in his book, “The Name.” “However, as a minister of the gospel, I was not there to stroke the egos of men. My role was to acknowledge the all powerful One and please Him….I want to please my Father in heaven no matter the cost.” The country’s growing religious diversity left evangelical Protestants feeling more defensive and inclined to strut their theological stuff.

When he was criticized by some civil libertarians after the inaugural, Mr. Graham wore their criticism as a badge of honor and used it to warn Christians about their marginalization. “The response to the inaugural prayers is additional evidence of a disturbing trend in American life: Christians who use the name of Jesus and insist that He is ‘the one and only way to God’ are increasingly viewed by many in the liberal media as narrow-minded religious bigots who represent a threat to the rest of society,” he said in his book. Against this tide Franklin Graham had bravely stood, achieving at least one small victory. “The media attention span is short, but at least for a few days in early 2001, the Name Jesus was heard in public discourse as something other than a curse word.”