Lies, condemnations, and shame

Today, Israel's invasion of Gaza was condemned by Qatar, Turkey, and Mauritania.
Qatar and Turkey host large American military bases, while Mauritania is one of very few Arab League nations that have chosen to maintain diplomatic relations with Israel.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Morocco are all under heavy domestic pressure to back away from Israel.

story from The Daily Star:

Erdogan blames Israel, Hamad charges 'war crime' and Mauritania pulls envoy
By Agence France Presse (AFP)
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Regional leaders have stepped up their criticism of Israel's blistering assault on the Gaza Strip, as Mauritania withdrew its ambassador to the Zionist state in protest and Turkey's premier accused Israel of provoking the outbreak of fighting. For its part, Qatar continued to push for an emergency Arab summit over the Gaza attacks, which the nation's emir described as a "war crime."

"The Israeli aggression against our people in the Gaza Strip is a war crime," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani said late Sunday in a televised address. He also renewed an earlier call on fellow Arab leaders to hold an extraordinary summit in support of Gaza.

"The mobilization on the Arab street and several peace movements in the world have proven that this is the least the people expect from us. I believed and still do that we can do something," the emir said.

Sheikh Hamad said that "calls for a mutual cease-fire treat the culprit and the victim as equal and justify the aggression."

Mauritania, one of only three Arab League countries that has full diplomatic ties with Israel, has withdrawn its ambassador in protest over the Gaza offensive, a Foreign Ministry source said on Monday.

Since Israel's offensive in Gaza started 10 days ago, Mauritania has seen daily protests, mostly from students who demanded that Nouakchott break all ties with the country.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Monday blamed Israel for the ongoing conflict in the battered Gaza Strip, saying it "provoked" the Islamist movement Hamas, which controls the enclave.

The premier noted that Israel had continued a stifling blockade on Gaza despite pledging to lift it under the terms of an Egyptian-mediated truce, which Hamas had complied with by reining in fighters launching rockets into Israel.

Erdogan told Al-Jazeera: "A return to the situation before the truce happened because Israel continued the blockade, so I consider Israel the one which provoked and incited, not Hamas." - AFP, with The Daily Star

And for what? Apparently to remove Hamas from power. From The Guardian:

Livni's determination reflects a growing confidence in the upper echelons of the Israeli establishment that the assault will fatally damage the foundations of Hamas's control and, in time, drive it from power. Intelligence and military officials have told the cabinet that "not much" remains of the Hamas administration in Gaza and that its ability to take control again has been undermined by the destruction of a large part of the physical infrastructure of administration, including the parliament building and many government offices.
The intelligence services also told the cabinet that they believe the Israeli bombardment is turning Palestinian popular opinion against Hamas and that terms can be forced on the Islamist party that will further weaken its control.
Israeli officials have generally been reluctant to say that the attack on Gaza is intended to force Hamas from power out of concern that it would undermine the international support they have won by portraying the assault as a purely defensive measure to stop Hamas rockets.

So, much like the strategy the U.S.-sponsored "contras" employed in Nicaragua, the idea is to make life so abysmally miserable and the task governing so impossible that a "good" government takes over. We also see the Israeli government is employing sham justifications for public consumption, while promoting a hidden agenda that their allies would be ashamed to support.

Looking back, looking forward

As I see it, this year the bottomless arrogance of the Republican Party was tested and came up wanting.

The Party selected McCain as a candidate in an attempt to win over the centre. Of all the possible nominees, McCain was the one who least represented Republican "core values" and had even made a nominal reputation opposing his own Party. It was a fairly smart move on the part of the Party to distance itself from Bush.

From there, it all went wrong.

The Party pushed McCain to the right, forced 'advisers' on him who were really little more than smear artists, and turned their man into the "anti-Obama" rather than a candidate with superior policies and qualifications. Resting on their laurels, they utterly failed to create state organising efforts or conduct voter registration drives in the period between McCain's nomination and Obama's nomination. Chronically behind in polling, the Party then selected Palin in a horribly misguided belief that women will vote for another woman regardless of their policy positions. And thus, any hope of winning over the centre was lost.

Beyond that, the Party arrogantly took for granted that any state that voted for Bush in 2004 would do so again. By "energising their base", the McCain campaign further repelled the centre. To seal their fate, they then pinned all their hopes on racism.

Now they are left with a Party firmly convinced that the new President is a Muslim radical with a secret agenda, bent on destroying America. Early indications seem to be that the Party intends to move further right, and deeper into the artificial reality created by their media voices. With no capacity for self-reflection (that's for wimps and those who don't understand God's Will), they once again arrogantly believe their own spin. And even more importantly, they believe that the vast majority of the country also believes it. This is not the path back to power.

We still have the same punditry that cheered on the McCain campaign and dutifully passed on all of the Republican smears as truth. In 2009, we can continue to count on the pundits to wring their hands in public over Obama's "excessive liberalism", to second guess every decision, and to constantly point to signs of Obama's "fading popularity". Any policies that do not come straight from the wingnut realm will be portrayed as "divisive". The economy will not improve overnight, and most people realise this. The majority also see that what passed for a "plan" from the Republicans will only make things worse.

The Republican Party lacks the ability to win the electorate over to their side, but they have the ability to make Obama look unpopular. We have to keep asking where the Marxist hell that these people predicted would emerge from Obama's election is. We have to keep making clear what the Republicans would do if they were in office. And we have to stand up to those who insist that not continuing Bush's policies is "divisive".