Politics

By Dean Obeidallah
CNN

Did Donald Trump actually believe that raising baseless accusations about the health of Hillary Clinton, who is two years his junior, will somehow cause people to stop supporting her and side with him or a third party candidate?

Even Trump’s new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, seemed to disavow this new health smear, telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Tuesday night that the approach by campaign surrogates was a “strategy” that was not her “style.”

Unfortunately, perhaps, for Conway, plenty of Trump talking heads have been hammering this bogus point for days — people like former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and even the candidate himself, who earlier this week asserted that Clinton lacks the “mental and physical stamina” to be President.

In fact, just hours after Conway’s comments on CNN, former Trump denouncer (and now Trump supporter) Karl Rove appeared on Fox News to launch a flurry of accusations that Clinton was not physically well, even using white boards scrawled with talking points as a visual aid.

And in a bizarre — and somewhat “off-message” — installment of this cooked-up drama, on Wednesday morning Trump surrogate Ben Carson called Trump himself “elderly” (along with Clinton) and declared that they should both “disclose their medical history.”

Which brings us to how this line of attack on Clinton has not hurt her — since there’s zero objective evidence she has any medical issue — but rather produced a backlash that has hurt Trump.

It has caused the media to again focus on Trump’s own health issues.

There is, of course, the media scrutiny of the truthfulness and accuracy of the “doctor’s letter” Trump produced in 2015 that asserted the candidate was in good health.

For one thing, the letter’s over-the-top, salesman-like language and conclusions sound like something Trump could have written himself. It raised only a little attention when it was released back then and was discussed briefly during the primaries but otherwise was quickly forgotten. (In contrast, by the way, Clinton released a far more detailed two-page letter from her physician.)

But now thanks to Trump, the media is taking a closer look. On Wednesday, CNN’s Sanjay Gupta noted that Trump’s physician, Harold Bornstein, who signed the letter, has “questionable” qualifications. Gupta explained that Bornstein, who claimed in that letter he was a member of the College of American Gastroenterology, actually had not been involved with that organization for over 20 years.

And Gupta and others have noted that the letter contains language not typically associated with actual medical doctors. One example is the hyperbolic boast that Trump’s lab results were “astonishingly excellent.” Also odd was Bornstein noting that Trump’s test results were “positive,” which in physician-speak is not good (good test results are negative.)

The closing line? Well, when was the last time you heard a doctor prognosticate something like this? “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”

In her own interview Wednesday night with Conway, Rachel Maddow scoffed at the veracity of this letter and pressed Trump to release more records: “If he was elected, Donald Trump would be the oldest person to ever be sworn in as president … doesn’t he owe it to the American people to release an actual medical report, a more credible, more complete statement?”

(Perhaps Trump can produce his medical records along with his tax returns.)

There are two other points that Trump’s attack on this medical front raises:

First, it reminds Americans about Trump’s self-professed medical disability, which allowed him to avoid serving in the Vietnam War: The wealthy candidate, who loves to talk about the military and our veterans, didn’t serve in America’s military when he had the chance, and for questionable reasons.

The finding of Trump’s doctor that his patient, at 70, is in “extraordinary” health — better even, presumably, than when he needed a medical deferment in his 20s — may be hard for voters to swallow.

Second, this baseless attack on Clinton’s health reeks of the same conspiracy theory junk we have heard before from him. For example, who can forget Trump’s jaw-dropping claim last May that Ted Cruz’s father was somehow involved in the assassination of President Kennedy?

Even the way Trump’s cheerleader-in-chief Rudy Giuliani recently tried to support his claim that Clinton was very ill smacked of typical conspiracy fare: “Go online and put down ‘Hillary Clinton illness’ and take a look at the videos for yourself.”

This may come as a shock to Giuliani, but not everything on the Internet is true, especially when it just leads you to an echo chamber link of Giuliani saying the same thing. (For a helpful look at all this, check out Stephen Colbert’s takedown, and don’t miss the clip of Trump and Giuliani’s little performance with the former New York city mayor in drag.)

Trump’s outlandish attacks may have helped him in the GOP primary but outside his base, it’s hard to believe they will be viewed with anything but alarm about the man who wants to be President.

What else will backfire for Trump? Will his next attack on Clinton make us re-examine his bigoted comments about Latinos and Muslims? Or maybe cause us to revisit the allegations of the class action fraud case pending against him in connection with Trump University?

Given Trump’s track record, it’s entirely possible.

Source: www.kvia.com

Rania Khalek 

The Electronic Intifada

Dwight Bullard, a progressive African American state senator representing Florida’s 39th district, is under attack from Israel lobby groups for visiting the Israeli-occupied West Bank in May on a delegation hosted by the Dream Defenders, a group that supports the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

Unbowed, Bullard has told The Electronic Intifada that he witnessed “segregation and injustice” in Palestine.

Leading the attack against Bullard is the pro-Israel group Miami United Against BDS.

In a press release last week, it accused Bullard of meeting with “terrorists.”

“Bullard took a trip in May to territories under Palestinian control where he met with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), an organization listed by the State Department since 1997 as a foreign terrorist organization,” the group stated.

The US and Israel consider virtually all Palestinian political factions and resistance organizations to be “terrorist” groups.

A desperate smear

Pro-Israel groups are pointing to photos posted to social media during the trip as proof that Bullard met with the PFLP.

In the photo at the top of this article, originally posted to the Dream Defenders’ Instagram account, the delegation is seen posing for the camera in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem with Mahmoud Jiddah, identified in the caption as their tour guide.

Jiddah is an African Palestinian who was a member of the PFLP in the 1960s. He was arrested with his brother and cousin in 1968 and spent 17 years in Israeli prison, accused of planting bombs, before being released in a prisoner exchange.

Today Jiddah is a leader in the African Palestinian community and works as a tour guide in the Old City of Jerusalem.

He can be seen in this 2011 video produced by the Alternative Information Center, talking about his own life and the history of his community in Jerusalem.

“Meeting with the Afro-Palestinian community in East Jerusalem is a must for anyone seeking to understand the continued Palestinian struggle for liberation,” Ahmad Abuznaid from Dream Defenders told The Electronic Intifada.

“The Dream Defenders did not meet with the PFLP, but this attack on the senator shows the true desperation of the efforts to hold back our movement,” he added.

Speaking with The Electronic Intifada, Bullard also rejected the accusation that he met with terrorists.

“When they showed me the picture [of Jiddah], I was like, you mean the guy who gave us a tour of Old Jerusalem? He’s a tour guide,” said Bullard, laughing.

Pro-Israel groups are also outraged over Bullard’s meeting with Omar Barghouti, a Palestinian human rights defender and a co-founder of the BDS movement, which Miami United Against BDS calls “anti-Semitic.”

Amnesty International, among other organizations, has expressed concern at Israel’s threats to retaliate against Barghouti for his political activities. In apparent fulfillment of those threats, Israel has effectively imposed a travel ban on him.

“It is unthinkable to accept that there is someone in the Florida legislature who is willing to meet openly with terrorist groups and other hateful organizations whose values are diametrically opposed to those of Floridians and all Americans. It is our duty to condemn this form of hate and defeat it,” Joe Zevuloni, an Israeli American businessman and founder of Miami United Against BDS, said in the press release.

Zevuloni did not return The Electronic Intifada’s calls seeking comment.

The only national group to throw its weight behind the protest so far is The Israel Project, a politically connected right-wing organization that specializes in feeding anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim propaganda to journalists and policy makers.

“Any Florida state legislator who would go to Israel and choose to meet with those groups, it’s more than troubling, it’s deeply disturbing,” Ken Bricker, The Israel Project’s Southeast regional director, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

“I have to wonder if the constituents in his district [are] aware of who he is and what he believes in,” added Bricker.

Bullard was also attacked as a supporter of hatred by Uri Pilichowski, a West Bank settler.

“Floridians should know about Dwight Bullard’s associations with groups that seek the destruction of Israel and the Jewish People and call for Bullard to cut those ties,” Pilichowski wrote in The Times of Israel.

Picking the “wrong” side
Bullard told The Electronic Intifada that he went on the trip to “develop an understanding” of the Palestinian side that is often missing from the mainstream narrative. He added that he is willing to go on a trip hosted by a pro-Israel group as well, though he is unhappy with the reaction he has received from such groups since his return.

“Had I gone on an AIPAC trip or toured with the [Anti-Defamation League] there would be no outrage or Palestine group protesting outside my office,” argued Bullard, referring to two of the major national pro-Israel lobby groups. “It’s only a news story if you pick the wrong side.”

American lawmakers routinely travel to Israel on delegations hosted by Israel lobbying groups like AIPAC – it’s practically a requirement for politicians at the national level.

Bullard was especially frustrated by the demands from Israel’s supporters that he shut out constituents based on their political views.

“As a public servant I’ve meet with a number of groups that I fundamentally disagree with on 85 percent of issues but I still meet with them. I’m a strong pro-choice advocate but I meet with all the pro-life folks,” he said. “And we go all through it on why I can’t support their issues. I won’t close the door on them.”

Attacking Black leaders
The smear campaign against Bullard is just the latest fault line between pro-Israel groups and African American activists and leaders affiliated with the Movement for Black Lives.

Early this month, pro-Israel groups attempted to discipline MBL for expressing solidarity with Palestinians in its platform.

The Dream Defenders, which endorsed the MBL platform and whose members helped draft it, strongly denounced the reaction from Zionist groups.

After meeting with Palestinians who support BDS and seeing the repressive conditions they live under, Bullard has come to understand the boycott as part of their struggle for their civil rights.

“I think what people need to do is recognize why an African American would feel a sense of alignment with oppressed people,” said Bullard.

“It’s not just hearing about injustices happening to the Palestinian people. When you see it first hand, that’s a game changer,” he added.

“The fact that it was so in your face, you realize your own privilege even in circumstances related to race. We talk about driving while Black [in the US]. The idea that [in Palestine] you have to be carrying a particular ID in order to move freely within spaces in a place that you call home, that stuck with me,” he said.

Bullard was so disturbed by what he witnessed, he felt compelled to wear a kuffiyeh – a Palestinian checkered headscarf – at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia last month, “to show solidarity with Palestine,” he said.

A Jewish Telegraph Agency reporter noticed Bullard’s scarf and snapped a photo of him that was published with a story on Bullard’s trip to Palestine.

“There’s segregation and injustice going on over there,” said Bullard, “and in the words of Dr. King, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Bullied into voting against BDS
Florida is one of several states to have passed anti-BDS laws that bar state investment in, or business with, companies that boycott Israel.

The Florida law is especially draconian in that it makes no distinction between “Israel” and Israeli-occupied territories, effectively punishing even those who boycott goods from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which even the US recognizes are illegal under international law.

Bullard initially opposed the anti-BDS legislation, voting against it twice in subcommittee meetings because he viewed it as a violation of free speech that he said “screams un-American.”

However, Bullard told The Electronic Intifada he was ultimately “bullied” into voting for the law.

“It was the first time I felt pressured to vote in a particular way,” he recounted, adding, “there are probably three or four votes that I’ve taken in my tenure in the legislature that I’m very uncomfortable with having taken.” The anti-BDS vote “is easily in the top three,” he said.

Bullard served in Florida’s lower house from 2008, until he was elected to the senate in 2012.

Israel as a wedge issue
The Miami Herald endorsed Bullard early this week, indicating that the accusations have gained little traction.

Still, Bullard’s district in South Florida is home to a well-organized Jewish voter base that is older and strongly pro-Israel.

In order to capitalize on this, Miami United Against BDS is organizing a protest outside Bullard’s office on 28 August, two days before the Democratic primary election for his senate seat in a redrawn district.

Bullard’s opponent is Andrew Korge, the son of a major donor to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Korge has tried to turn Bullard’s visit to Palestine into a wedge issue on at least one occasion, during a homeowner’s association meeting last month, according to Bullard.

Rejecting the insinuation that he’s anti-Semitic, Bullard said, “I’ve had a pretty solid relationship with Jewish groups. I’ve advocated for and represented Jewish causes, Holocaust memorial and education funding.”

But when it comes to showing support for Palestine, Bullard observed, “all of that easily gets forgotten.”

Source: electronicintifada.net

MSLGROUP

PRNewswire

It is unlikely that Donald Trump will get even twenty percent of the Arab American vote this election. Whether or not people like Hillary Clinton, the Arab American community will maintain its historically support for democrats over republicans, James Zogby said in an interview with Focus Washington host Chuck Conconi.  With candidates on both sides of the aisle making mistakes, this election seems to be impacting how American’s view the Arab American community.

Jim Zogby, President and Co-Founder the of the Arab American Institute and member or the Democratic National Convention Platform Drafting Committee, said he is has seen an increase in the practice of profiling since 2002, despite positive statements from American politicians like President Bush and President Obama. “As the negatives have gone up, the positives have gone up,” he said in regard to support from other ethnic communities. “Groups that wouldn’t give [the Arab American community] the time of day twenty years ago now embrace us.”

Zogby expressed frustration with the distinction between Christian and Muslim Arab Americans in campaign organizing, and the tendency in campaigns to prioritize religious identity over ethnic identity. “We have to be able to define ourselves,” he said about Arab Americans, rather than allowing others to conflate religious and ethnic identities for political purposes. “I do not think religion and politics belong together”

Zogby, who travels extensively, said that throughout the Middle East and even in Europe, he gets a similar response with regard to the reputation of America abroad, “What the hell’s wrong with you people?” America is not putting its best foot forward in this election cycle, he called this “a ‘hold your nose’ election,” and he said, “frankly, you know, we can do better as a country, and we’re not.”

While he said Donald Trump has caused irreparable damage to America, it did not start just with this election cycle, but, much to Zogby’s concern, America has been in a “steady downward spiral.” He suggested that the damage began under Former President Bush, who he said, tarnished the view of America, and continued with President Obama, who built up expectations he could not fulfill and now, with Donald Trump, who Zogby agreed, “is, as Hillary Clinton says, a great recruiter for Isis.” Looking at the election overall, Zogby said, “It troubles me deeply that we [are] presenting to the world a flawed system.”

“The fact [is] that you cannot view America either as fundamentally good or fundamentally evil. We are both,” he said, “We’re the Statue of Liberty and we’re Donald Trump… We’re not just Donald Trump, but we have produced Martin Luther King, we’ve produced people who have taken us to great heights and shown us great promise and done great things.”

Zogby, who is a first generation American, points out that his father was an illegal immigrant, and hanging on the wall in his office are his father’s naturalization papers and a parchment from President Obama, appointing him to a post in the government. To Zogby, that the son of an illegal immigrant can serve the President of the U.S. is the unique story of America. “Never forget we’re capable of doing bad things, but we’re also capable of doing great things,” he concluded.

Source: www.prnewswire.com

Khaled Almaeena

Saudi Gazette

The moment of truth for Americans and the world will be decided on November 8. In the coming weeks, the frenzy of the election campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will reach an all-time high. Of all the US presidential campaigns, this one stands out as the most vicious.

Accusations are hurled, innuendos made and even the personal honesty of the candidates is questioned. The television screen has become a gladiator’s arena!

Both candidates have encouraged their supporters to go for each other’s throat.

Watching the campaign in its entirely gives you a feeling of sitting in the front row of a circus. Trump is quite a performer. He insults without inhibition. He plays the joker knowing that there are those who are fighting for him who will be disappointed if he does not. 

“Is he sadistic?” asked a Gulf national. “Why does he shoot himself in the foot?” wondered another.

Trump spent five days making fun of Khizr Khan the Muslim American whose son was killed in Iraq. He was cruel and insensitive. This cost him a lot of support among veterans.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton was on a tour making economic appeals to a wide group of potential voters many of whom were undecided about her because of past scandals that included Benghazi, emails and undisclosed sources of funding that many thought came from Arab countries.

Trump has not missed any opportunity to ridicule Clinton who is also appealing to different ethnic groups in the US who are nervous because of Trump’s rhetoric of hate which many feel has led violence especially against Muslims. On August 13, an imam of a New York mosque and his assistant were gunned down in broad daylight and left for dead as they walked near their mosque.

In another case, a churchgoing Lebanese Christian Arab was shot dead at point blank range by a person shouting “dirty Arab”. Many Sikhs have been assaulted; they are targeted because of the turban they wear. An Emirati man was badly roughed up at an Ohio hotel after a receptionist, described as dumb by her colleagues, claimed that she “overheard” him state his pledge of allegiance to Daesh (the self-proclaimed IS).

There have also been several cases of Muslim passengers delayed by hyper-sensitive flight attendants. And in one case, a young Italian mathematics professor was dragged off a plane because a fellow passenger was made afraid by his mysterious scribbling on a notepad.

Trump has increased the level of paranoia and xenophobia in American society. What will come next no one knows.

“So what does it mean for us in the Gulf?” one student asked. “Well, we don’t really matter,” another answered. Apart from initially paying homage to Israel and bowing down before the Israeli lobby, Clinton now has no time but to blunt Trump’s attacks. Whoever wins will not have much time to think about our interests, nor will they care about past relations with the countries of the Arab world.

American politicians are pragmatic when it comes to their interests, which are mainly oil, political and economic hegemony and strengthening Israel’s hold on the Middle East. They cannot look further than that.

For us to think otherwise would be an exercise in foolishness. Whoever comes to the White House will only serve their own agenda. So my dear Arabs, please don’t assume anything else.

We have never been on the US radar screen nor will we ever be.

Source: saudigazette.com.sa

By Khaled A. Beydoun 

The Washington Post

Khaled A. Beydoun is an associate professor at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law and an affiliate faculty member at University of California at Berkeley.

Donald Trump’s calls for a ban on Muslims entering the United States and, more recently, for “extreme vetting” of anyone seeking to immigrate to the United States have been condemned as breaks from the nation’s traditions of religious tolerance and welcoming immigrants. Actually, Trump’s proposals reflect a long-standing, if ugly, strain of U.S. immigration policy, one that restricted the entry of Arab and South Asian Muslim immigrants and barred them from becoming citizens until the middle of the 20th century.

The Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited citizenship to “any alien, being a free white person,” drastically restricted the ability of Muslims to become citizens. The requirement meant that immigrants seeking lawful residence and citizenship were compelled to convince authorities that they fit within the statutory definition of whiteness. Arabs, along with Italians, Jews and others, were forced to litigate their identities in line with prevailing conceptions of whiteness — which fluctuated according to geographic origin, physical appearance and religion. Courts unwaveringly framed Islam as hostile to American ideals and society, casting Muslim immigrants as outside the bounds of whiteness and a threat to the identity and national security of the United States.

Long before 9/11 and the war on terrorism, U.S. courts painted Islam as more than merely a foreign religion, but rather as a rival ideology and “enemy race.” In a notable 1891 case, the Supreme Court highlighted “the intense hostility of the people of Moslem faith to all other sects, and particularly to Christians.”

Scores of Muslim immigrants were turned away at U.S. ports in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Christian immigrants suspected of secretly being Muslims were also excluded. In 1913, a South Carolina court rejected the citizenship petition of a Lebanese Christian, saying that his skin complexion, “about [the color] of walnut, or somewhat darker than is the usual mulatto of one-half mixed blood between the white and the negro races,” provided evidence of miscegenation with Muslims. Ahmed Hassan — a native of Yemen and the first Arab Muslim to apply for citizenship — was denied naturalization in 1942, because, a court said: “It cannot be expected that as a class they [meaning Arabs, a term used synonymously with Muslims at the time] would readily intermarry with our population and be assimilated into our civilization.”

The United States’ functional ban on Muslim immigration persisted until 1944, two years before Trump’s birth. It was shifting U.S. geopolitical interests, not evolving perceptions of racial or religious inclusion, that drove dissolution of the restrictions. The post-World War II era saw the United States in direct competition with the Soviet Union over regions of influence, including the Arab world. The naturalization of Arab Muslim immigrants promoted the broader project of enhancing the United States’ profile in strategically important nations, most notably oil-rich Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the first court ruling to grant naturalization to an Arab-born Muslim was for a Saudi man, in Ex Parte Mohriez, in 1944 — and, even then, based only on the finding that Arabs should be considered part of “the white race.”

Despite the Mohriez decision, the Naturalization Act remained the law of the land until 1952, and restrictive immigration quotas stayed on the books. These quotas sought to “preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity” and prevent the entry of Muslim immigrants. Before 1965, the Muslim American population was overwhelmingly composed of native-born African Americans. The dismantling of the Naturalization Act and immigration quotas opened the door to immigrant Muslims from various corners of the Arab world, South Asia and Africa, boosting the U.S. Muslim population from 200,000 in 1951 to more than 1 million in 1971.

Today in the United States, Islam is practiced by 8 million people, a growth rate higher than any other faith group. But the threat of the Islamic State and intensifying Islamophobia has Trump, more openly than any other politician, actively revisiting America’s dark chapter of xenophobia and anti-Muslim animus.

In that sense, “Make America Great Again” is far more than a campaign slogan. It is a racial plea that evokes a time in the United States when whiteness was the legal hallmark of American citizenship, and Muslim identity the embodiment of everything un-American.

Source: www.washingtonpost.com

By Zeina Azzam   The newly released platform of the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL)—a collective of more than 50 organizations representing thousands of Black people across the United States—articulates a powerful and comprehensive vision. Its “policy demands for Black power, freedom, and justice” touch on a multitude of rights and issues, going to great … Continued

President Clinton gestures as Yitzhak Rabin, left, and Yasser Arafat shake hands Sept. 13, 1993. By John Catron Mintpress NEW YORK — Palestinian Authority security forces in the Israeli-occupied West Bank crossed a strange line on Tuesday, firing into the air to disperse Palestinians protesting the construction of a new landfill near Ramallah that would … Continued

By Steven Salatia

The New Arab 

In the United States presidential race, we have officially entered into the moment of lesser evilism, which demands grudging support of the unappealing Democratic candidate in order to prevent the election of an even more deplorable Republican. 

Few things inspire such acrimonious debate among liberals and leftists. Rather than rehearsing the usual (and by now painfully familiar) arguments for and against voting Democrat, let’s explore what lesser evilism means for the communities on the receiving end of the necessary evil. 

Lesser evilism makes sense in the framework of electoral pragmatism. The US two-party system forces voters into terrible choices. Plenty of liberals maintain the system because it works well for them, which isn’t a good reason for anybody else to concede.

The elite enjoy unprecedented power and wealth, no matter who ostensibly runs the country. Analysis that stops short of this recognition is useless to everybody but the ruling class. 

The most explicit discourse of US exceptionalism in existence today, lesser evilism assumes that certain communities are disposable. It apportions people into rigid hierarchies. It judges who is worthy of safety and security.  It asks us to voluntarily defer liberation. Lesser evilism may sound appealing as a practical metric, but it comes with severe human costs.

It’s okay to reject a system that requires complicity in the oppression of fellow human beings. 

But fewer people will be oppressed under the Democrat, the logic goes. It’s a dubious argument, but even if we accept it as true, we’re still put in the terrible position of cosigning somebody’s misery.

The US two-party system forces voters into terrible choices
Our political imagination has to be more humane than these awful moral algorithms. US exceptionalism has always compelled people to ignore or minimise the violence of racism and colonisation. 

As usual, we can turn to Palestine as a spectacular example of the limitations of US electoral pragmatism. Palestinians have suffered equally under Democrats and Republicans, just as they have under Labor and Likud. The seeming inevitability of their dispossession influences the all-too-common liberal acquiescence to imperialism.

To most American liberals, and many leftists, there’s always something more important than Israeli brutality. They merely accept that Palestinians will continue to suffer.  Palestinian suffering thus becomes one of the unacknowledged pillars of lesser evilism. 

But what if we reject that possibility? Why does it seem so radical to even ask the question? When people try to interject Palestine into the discussion, they’re informed, usually tacitly but sometimes directly, that Palestinians simply don’t matter.

Plenty of folk who identify with the Palestine solidarity community circulate or implicitly validate this ugly proposition. I’ve tried again and again and have learned that it’s impossible to affirm Palestinian liberation in a context of US electoral punditry. The simple entreaty to remember Palestine will result in righteous bellowing:  Agitator! Purist! Saboteur! Cynic! Republican! 

This week at the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton, in the crowning moment of her campaign, will get on stage and openly call for war, colonisation, and ethnic cleansing – as she has done dozens of times already. 

On what basis can Palestinians consider this promise to annihilate their national aspirations as less evil than other options? More to the point, on what basis can the advocate of lesser evilism justify the annihilation of Palestinians? 

Those who choose lesser evilism have to account for the settler colonial logic they reinforce. It is not the obligation of the dispossessed to justify why they reject the institutions responsible for their dispossession. Why opt into a system that necessitates violence against black citizens, indigenous peoples, Palestinians, the poor, and many other communities around the globe? 

To most American liberals, and many leftists, there’s always something more important than Israeli brutality
Too often people who make that choice tacitly say “the well-being of this group is more important than the well-being of the other group” or “some people are, unfortunately, destined to suffer”.

Perhaps an explanation can escape the confines of US exceptionalism, but I’ve not seen it happen. We’ve managed to make a worldly politics unthinkable. In the moment of reckoning, one either rejects the expendability of the dark, the strange, the disempowered, the foreign – or that person reverts back to the exceptional comfort of uncomplicated decisions.

What, after all, is more exceptionalist than the silly idea that empowering a plutocratic American political party will save the world from destruction? 

How is it possible that Hillary Clinton supports the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people – yet we’re still supposed to consider her a lesser evil? Ask the question and you’ll hear plenty of explanations, but the most important reason is rarely made explicit: Lesser evilism is possible only because we’re so accustomed to seeing certain people as lesser human beings.  

Source: www.alaraby.co.uk