WHAT ABOUTISM......

 

US Leaders and Media Must Move Beyond the Israeli-Imposed Narrative
 Washington Watch

Dr. James J. Zogby ©
President
Arab American Institute.

Our understanding of an historical event’s meaning is a function of two factors. The first is what we choose to identify as the starting point leading up to the event. The second is the lens through which we view it. This should be obvious, but unfortunately it is not, and the failure to acknowledge or understand it has consequences in everything from public policy to personal relationships.

 
This truth can be ignored due to thoughtlessness, blindness to one’s biases, or just plain ignorance. On some occasions there can be malign intent, including efforts to deliberately hide what one knows to be an event’s antecedents for political or personal reasons. 

Before examining the issue that prompted this column, I want to share an example. The comedian, Dick Gregory once noted that despite what we were taught in school “Columbus didn’t discover America, because it wasn’t lost.” His point seems simple enough, but upon closer examination it reveals deeper truths. 

“Columbus discovered America” erases the history, civilization, and contributions of the indigenous groups who populated the lands that Europeans came to call the New World. Even the term “New World” was a thinly veiled masking of their imperial self-understanding and intent. “We discovered these lands, and they are ours to take, name, and exploit.” 

The American history we were taught was an extension of European history. It began with Columbus. Then moved to the Spanish, British, and French colonialists, culminating in the Revolutionary War and the birth of the United States. The native peoples were treated as bit players in the unfolding story—at times, a footnote, at others an inconvenient obstacle. 

This story of American history results from choosing Columbus as the starting point and using a lens so Euro-centric that it only sees the indigenous peoples who populated this land as less than human and therefore less deserving of defining their own history or even remaining on their land. They were removed and/or massacred, their humanity was ignored, and their treatment was justified because they were of less worth than the Europeans who displaced them. 
This reflection was prompted by the way Israel’s war on Gaza continues to be reported in the press and discussed in policy circles. US reporters appear to be required to include a line in their stories that reads “The hostilities began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas militants attacked Israel killing 1,200 and taking 250 hostages.” It isn’t accidental that this line (or something very close to it) occurs in almost every US print story. 

 
We all must agree that what happened on October 7th was traumatic for Israelis. It was a shock that their security was breached and that some horrible and condemnable atrocities were committed by Hamas and others who joined in their attacks. But history didn’t begin or end on October 7th. 

Recall that just a few weeks before that the Hamas attack, President Biden’s National Security Advisor noted that the Middle East was the calmest it had been in years. This statement gave short shrift to the Palestinian reality and made clear the biased lens through which he saw the region. He was ignoring Israel’s continued economic strangulation of Gaza (which made Palestinians increasingly dependent on Israel or Hamas for their livelihood) and the growing threat of settler violence, settlement expansion, and land confiscations in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.  
A few weeks after October 7th, I met with this same individual and listened to him describe the pain and fear of Israelis and how October 7th evoked the traumas of their history. I told him that I completely understood and agreed that Hamas stood rightly condemned for what they had done. I cautioned him, however, not to ignore the trauma of the Palestinians—their pain and fears—and their history of dispossession. He became angry waving off my comments as “what aboutism.” 

As the weeks and months wore on, when I would write a comment about: the growing Palestinian civilian casualty toll, or the bombing of hospitals, or the denial of water, food, medicine, and electricity, or the deliberate destruction of more than 70% of Gaza’s  buildings, and the repeated forced expulsions of families—the responses I would receive invariably included “Hamas started it,” “what about the hostages,” or worse. In other words, Israeli lives were all that mattered. And the Israeli narrative became the only acceptable one. In other words, since the story began on October 7th, what followed was a justifiable response.

 
The Israelis’ ability to control the narrative has long characterized the conflict. They would say: “The Balfour Declaration gave Israel a legal right to Palestine”; or “In 1948, tiny Israel was attacked by all surrounding Arab armies”; or “In 1967 Israel was only defending itself.” All of these Israeli-defined “starting points” are fictions that ignore everything that led up to them and the stories they tell are seen only through the biased lens of those who have imposed them.

 
This problem of false narratives based on biased histories isn’t just a problem for Israel or the US. It is unfortunately all too common, especially in conflict situations. When those who seek to help resolve a conflict are captive to one side’s definitions and perspective, it’s a recipe for continued tension and ultimately disaster. 

 
Peacemaking requires that an effort be made to rise above false narratives, self-serving starting points and the biased perceptions of one or another side. That’s not “what-aboutism”—it’s leadership. And it’s been sorely lacking in the US.   
***

A very valid and brilliant analysis, even historically at other similar situations of the ongoing barbaric situation in the Middle-East and particularly Gaza, Lebanon and the Palestinian occupied territories, I took the liberty of reforwarding the article through our blog, after receiving it by email from the author, again, strictly to the benefit and better understanding of my readers and friends all over. 
As always, my many thanks to all. 

AN EVERLASTING DIRE SITUATION.......

 

The Turkish newspaper "dailysabah" published a new report discussing the issue of disarmament of "Hezbollah" in Lebanon. And the assassinations carried out by Israel against the leaders and members of the "Party"

The report, translated by Lebanon24 , states that "Lebanon is once again on the brink of a new war with Israel, and this time the danger appears to be more structural than incidental." It adds, "On one hand, the agenda to disarm Hezbollah is being strongly pushed through diplomatic pressure led by..."USAnd its regional allies, on the other hand, Israel continues to broadcast messages of direct military threat through daily ceasefire violations, targeted assassinations, and expanding the scope of its operations.

The report argued that “the assassination of Hezbollah military commander Haitham Tabatabai in late November was not just an isolated security incident, but rather a deliberate indication that Israel does not treat the ceasefire as a binding framework, but as a tactical pause to shape the next phase of escalation.” It added: “Tel Aviv’s strategy does not aim to stabilize the status quo, but rather to exploit the current balance of weakness to prevent Hezbollah from returning as a permanent deterrent force. In this sense, the goal is not mutual deterrence through restraint, but deterrence through structural weakness.”

It added: "Alongside military pressure, diplomacy itself has taken on a more assertive character, and Egypt has recently emerged as one of the key players conveying this pressure. Following previous mediation efforts led by intelligence chief Hassan Rashad, when he visited Beirut with "Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel-Aati. This visit represented a significant departure from previous de-escalation efforts. Unlike earlier initiatives based on restraint and crisis management, this visit underscored for Lebanese officials that unless Hezbollah disarms and Lebanon enters into direct negotiations with Israel, the country could face dire consequences. Most importantly, Egypt moved away from previous proposals that focused on an arms freeze and instead proposed a complete nationwide disarmament.

The report continued: "This change reflects Washington's growing frustration with the slow pace of political engineering in Lebanon. After the regime change in Syria Following the reshuffling of power in Beirut, it was expected that Hezbollah would be quickly squeezed through institutional mechanisms. Indeed, the Lebanese parliament tasked the army with preparing a national disarmament plan by the end of 2025. However, despite the election of a pro-Western president and the formation of a new government, Hezbollah continued to maintain its popular base and political influence, which slowed the implementation of the disarmament project and revealed the limits of external control over Lebanon's fragmented political structure.

It added: "For his part, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun has so far refrained from endorsing any scenario for forced disarmament, and the reason is clear: imposing disarmament through the Lebanese armed forces carries a high risk of triggering internal military divisions, or even civil war. The army itself has expressed these concerns, and it is widely understood that it is trying to remain relatively neutral.

It added, "For Washington, which has invested heavily in strengthening the Lebanese army as a counterweight to Hezbollah, this situation is deeply troubling. From the American perspective, the army's hesitation indirectly reinforces Hezbollah's domestic legitimacy by implicitly asserting that Israel, not Hezbollah has the upper hand. 

It said: “Tensions escalated further when Army Commander Rudolph Haykal publicly criticized Israel’s ceasefire violations, describing it as an enemy. Shortly afterward, his planned visit to Washington was abruptly canceled. Following this, political circles in Beirut began openly discussing the possibility of external attempts to influence the army leadership. Whether these scenarios materialize or not, their very discussion demonstrates the extent to which Lebanese military sovereignty is exposed to foreign agendas.

It continued: "After failing to generate sufficient pressure from within, Israel and the United States turned to intensifying external pressure. Assassinations, financial sanctions, and increasingly explicit threats delivered through intermediaries have become a unified pressure mechanism targeting Hezbollah and the political Lebanese system. Both are taking place, while a broad financial blockade is being imposed to weaken Hezbollah's funding channels. At the same time, the Lebanese state's continued silence in the face of these violations is exacerbating the Israeli situation. The contradiction between declared sovereignty and actual subservience.”

It continued: “This contradiction was further highlighted by the recent maritime border demarcation agreement signed between Lebanon and Southern Cyprus. Although technical discussions date back years, its political timing—coming directly after tensions between the Lebanese army leadership and Washington—was widely interpreted as a gesture of goodwill toward the United States. Given Southern Cyprus’s strategic alignment with Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean, Hezbollah circles framed the agreement as a concession of sovereign rights. In this sense, the deal was not widely viewed as merely a legal arrangement, but rather as a political signal of compliance with the American regional order.

The report continued: “In light of all this, and from Israel’s perspective, three clear messages are now being conveyed to Hezbollah: First, the top leadership is no longer immune from direct targeting; second, Syria is no longer able to serve as a safe rear base; and third, any future confrontation will not be confined to southern Lebanon. All of this represents a qualitative shift in the logic of deterrence. Furthermore, Israel is no longer signaling containment, but rather creating the conditions for a regional escalation under more favorable geopolitical circumstances.”

The report concluded that “for Hezbollah, strategic options are dwindling,” stating: “Since the Gaza war, the party has adopted a principle of strategic patience, enduring repeated Israeli violations and avoiding actions that could justify a full-scale war. However, this patience has come at a high price. Daily border strikes, targeted assassinations, economic strangulation, and psychological warfare are steadily eroding its military capabilities and political maneuvering capacity.” At the same time, the Lebanese government’s failure to confront Israeli aggression leaves Hezbollah operating within a state that speaks the language of sovereignty but lacks the capacity to defend its territory.

The report continued, “In such an environment, we are approaching a dangerous threshold, and the accumulation of pressure may ultimately push Hezbollah to a point where restraint becomes unsustainable. In reality, this would not be an ideological escalation, but rather a forced response to systematic elimination. At the same time, Hezbollah is fully aware that hasty military action could give Israel the pretext it seeks for a full-scale war.”

The report concluded, “For this reason, the parliamentary elections in May 2026 represent perhaps the last meaningful political way out of a catastrophic confrontation. If Hezbollah secures a strong electoral mandate, it may be able to contain the army-centric disarmament project through institutional channels and limit the presidency’s room for maneuver.” For its part, Israel is fully aware of this political timeline, and from Tel Aviv's strategic perspective, the period preceding the electoral rebalancing may represent the most opportune moment to deliver a decisive blow.

The report asserted that "any such confrontation will not be confined to Lebanon, as Hezbollah does not operate in isolation, and any existential threat will inevitably trigger regional reactions." It added, "Iranian signals have already intensified, with Ali Akbar Velayati, a senior advisor to the Iranian leadership, publicly stating that Hezbollah's existence is more vital to Lebanon than bread and water. This message clearly indicates that any campaign of annihilation will not remain a local conflict but will escalate into a multi-pronged regional war."

The report continued, "Although Lebanon entered 2025 with cautious optimism following the formation of a new presidency and government, as the year progresses, it finds itself more embroiled in external power struggles than at any time since 2006. The state, which speaks of sovereignty, is simultaneously powerless to halt Israeli aggression, prevent foreign interference in its military leadership, or protect its territory from becoming a proxy war zone."

It continued: “The contradiction has become clear. There is a government that is unable to stop the occupation and is demanding disarmament; and a state that is unable to protect its borders is seeking to dismantle its basic deterrent force in the country. If Israel launches a preemptive war with an American mandate, the Middle East will not only face another Lebanese war, but will enter a broader and more dangerous phase of regional confrontation. In such a scenario, Lebanon will once again be reduced to a playing field rather than an actor, and its sovereignty will be discussed rhetorically while it is practically dismantled under the weight of external pressure and internal paralysis.

A very lucid and factual report by the Turkish newspaper, It's more of a direct Turkish message than a description of the situation on the ground. Albeit being a bit old, it is a still ongoing situation, more so with the new introduction by Mr. Trump of a new element, of Syria taking care of Hezbollah, a plan that will surely lead to lots of chaos for the area and the partition of Lebanon into several parts, and taken over by Israel in the entire south, Syria under a possible Turkish umbrella in the complete north including the port city of Tripoli,  and the Bekaa valey.  and the creation of couple ethnic entities, as in a Druz enclave adjacent to the Druze south Syrian under Israeli occupation, and possibly a small Maronite/Christian enclave to remind the world of the "good old Lebanon". Now is Iran a complicit in this scenario, more so after the new agreements with the US. Only Time will tell. 

Translated from Arabic, and arranged to fit our blog, with my comments,  for the better understanding and benefit of our blog readers.   As always, my many thanks to all. 

CONDEMNING SETTLER VIOLENCE IS NOT ENOUGH....

 

Now and then, there’s an episode of settler violence in the West Bank that’s so grotesque that it kind of breaks through a little bit in American media. I mean, settler violence—again, especially under this government, especially since October 7th—is so pervasive that generally, it’s just kind of noise for the American media. It doesn’t really get picked up very much, or in the American Jewish community. But occasionally something is so terrible that it breaks through, and it’s interesting to watch the way that Israel’s defenders in the United States tend to respond to this.

Generally, you find that there’s a kind of condemnation of settler violence, and people say this is really terrible. And this is not, you know, this is not who Israel is, this is not who Israel should be. That kind of thing. It’s a little bit similar sometimes to the way those same people talk about Itamar Ben-Gvir. When they have to talk about Itamar Ben-Gvir, they’ll say, Itamar Ben-Gvir is an extremist, he’s a radical, you know, he’s not a good guy, he’s not like those other mainstream Israeli politicians.

I want to suggest that there’s something fundamentally incoherent about this response. That just as Itamar Ben-Gavir can’t be disassociated from Israeli politics as a whole, given that his rise was facilitated by Benjamin Netanyahu, who needed to help broker the deal with him and the other national religious parties in order to bring him into the government to create a coalition. So, he’s not a rogue actor. He’s actually a very critical ally, someone who’s been very critical to Benjamin Netanyahu’s continuing in power.

Settler violence is also not a rogue activity. It’s not something that happens separate from the Israeli state, or the Israeli mainstream. And I want to quote from a report that B’Tselem, the Israeli human rights organization, did, which was called, Settler Violence = State Violence. And they write: ‘the state takes over land openly.’ They’re talking about Israeli state taking over land in the West Bank from Palestinian land. They’re saying:

‘The state takes over land openly using official methods sanctioned by legal advisors and judges, while the settlers, who are also interested in taking over land to further their agenda, initiate violence against Palestinians for their own reasons. Yet in truth, there is only one track. Settler violence against Palestinians is part of the strategy employed by Israel’s apartheid regime, which seeks to take over more and more West Bank land. The state fully supports and assists these acts of violence, and its agents sometimes participate in them directly. As such, settler violence is a form of government policy aided and abetted by official state authorities with their active participation.’

Now, that’s not to say there aren’t Israeli officials who might be genuinely upset or even appalled by things that settlers do. They may think it’s terrible PR. They may even think that they’re morally wrong.

Again, to use a kind of crude analogy, we can imagine a situation in the Jim Crow South where there were things that the Ku Klux Klan did that segregationist leaders wished they hadn’t done. It was a bad reputation. It just wasn’t the way they wanted to do business. But the general thrust of the policy, right, in the Jim Crow South was to keep Black people down, to deny them their basic rights, their basic freedom, through a whole mechanism of violence, some state-sanctioned and some outside of the state, but which could not take place—the Ku Klux Klan could not have operated without the fact that the white-controlled judicial system gave them, you know, almost total impunity.

Similarly, settlers can only do what they do, the settlements require government support to exist in the first place, and the settlers could not continue to act this way against Palestinians without the base large-scale impunity that they exist in a political system in which the people who they are victimizing don’t have citizenship, don’t have the right to vote, are not truly represented by the state, and therefore can’t take meaningful legal action against them, except in the rarest of circumstances.

So, Israel’s defenders who say, this settler violence is terrible. I’m opposed to it. They may genuinely think it’s terrible. They may genuinely think they are opposed to it. But they’re not really opposed to it unless they’re willing to do something that would make it stop. And the thing that would make it stop would be to change U.S. policy towards Israel, right? The only thing that would make it stop would be if there were severe consequences for the Israeli government for allowing it to continue, right?

And so, the question I think one should ask any defender of Israel, whether it’s a, you know, Jewish official, or a politician, or a kind of someone in the media who says, I’m against settler violence, is, would you be willing to condition American military aid—all of it, or even some of American military aid on Israel stopping this settler violence? Would you be willing to support a process in international legal institutions to punish Israel for allowing the settler violence that terrorizes Palestinians?

Overwhelmingly, the answer to that question will be, no, we are not willing to support that. Because although we say we oppose settler violence, our most fundamental commitment is unconditional U.S. military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israel. And so, because of that, we will say we oppose settler violence, but we’re not actually willing to support any of the tangible consequences by which the U.S. could use its substantial leverage over Israel to actually end the status of impunity that allows Israel to do this.

And that’s why I think the claim by supporters of Israel and the United States that they oppose settler violence is fundamentally hollow. Again, they may believe they oppose settler violence, but there’s often a difference between what people believe and what their actions actually do, right? We can tell what people’s truest belief systems are by the actions they pursue, right? And if the actions you pursue is unconditional U.S. support for Israel period, then you’re not actually opposed to settler violence, because you don’t want your government, the United States government, to do the things that might actually stop settler violence.

 1 Billion for Settlement Expansion: This week, the Israeli government decided to fast-track 1 billion shekels (over $300 million) to build dozens of new settlements in the occupied West Bank – a massive win for far-right minister Bezalel Smotrich and the settler terrorists he emboldens.

• “Israeli security and Palestinian freedom are intertwined. As long as the Netanyahu government continues to implement a radical, expansionist agenda, there will never be a path to safety, freedom and dignity for either people,”

Actually it's a continuation of a previous article under the title" A good analysis"  again from the very interesting site by Peter Beinart, I divided the article into two parts to better fit our blog, the other part will appear soon on our blog, the subjects are sort of related, as they deal with Israel and its occupation and behavior towards its Palestinian population by its present political regime. Again this article will shed more light to the sad and tragic situation over there. 

My many thanks to all.  

POPE LEO XIV......

 

The Pope may have just published the most radically humanist text of the year.

With Magnifica Humanitas, the first American pope penned a text on digital colonialism, the new religion of Silicon Valley, and the extreme concentration of tech power. It focuses on those who own the data, the machines, the available minds. On this new elite that no longer owns just the factories (as in the 19th century), but also the flow of attention, the algorithms, and the markets of truth.

Leo XIV wasn't named Leo by chance… In 1891, Leo XIII published "Rerum Novarum," the Church's famous social doctrine. Faced with the industrial revolution, he dared to say that the worker was not a machine part, that capital could not devour human dignity. In 2026, Leo XIV picks up the thread. Faced with the digital revolution, he essentially says: the human being is not a given, not a resource, not a variable for optimization.

What strikes me first is the political power of the text. Leo XIV speaks of slavery. He acknowledges the delay with which the Church and society condemned this scourge. He speaks of a "wound in Christian memory." And he asks for "forgiveness" in the name of the Church. This is rare. It is immense. Because this sentence forces everyone, believers or not, to confront a truth: great institutions sometimes err for centuries when they take the side of the oppressed too late.

Then, as a lawyer, I am struck by the sheer number of references to the major institutions of international law: the UN, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Refugee Convention, and even environmental texts. And Leo XIV adds this weighty sentence: “Moral conquests almost always take the form of a long and arduous path, also marked by setbacks: think of interrupted peace processes or slow implementation of environmental commitments.” One inevitably thinks of Gaza. Of climate change denial. Of everything our era is methodically dismantling, while cynics explain that international law is naive and that force has once again become the only language of the world.

And most impressively, Leo XIV cites the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and the fight against apartheid. He even invokes Hannah Arendt, for the first time in an encyclical, to remind us of this chilling truth: totalitarianism does not triumph simply when people believe lies. It triumphs when they can no longer distinguish truth from falsehood. When facts become opinions. When the press is replaced by noise. When fake news becomes an industry. When everyone is trapped in their own bubble, fed by an algorithm that seeks not truth, but attention.

This is precisely our era. We believe we are free because we scroll. But we are tracked, measured, predicted, and guided. We believe we choose, when in fact our preferences are calculated. We believe we speak, when invisible structures decide what will be seen, amplified, rewarded, or buried. Attention capitalism doesn't just want our money. It wants our time, our anger, our solitude, our inner availability.

And Leo XIV goes even further. He doesn't just criticize the excesses of the market. He attacks the root cause. GDP doesn't measure dignity. Growth doesn't guarantee justice. Inequality isn't simply a problem of redistribution after the fact, once wealth has already been captured. It begins earlier, in the allocation of resources, technologies, know-how, and infrastructure. In other words: if a few giants control the tools of production in the digital world, then they also control a part of our shared future.

This is why the Pope wants to "disarm" AI. He calls for strong public regulation, a decentralization of tech giants, and more open, democratic, and humane governance. Simply put: AI cannot be left to a few private companies that alone decide what we see, what we know, what we desire, and perhaps tomorrow, what we are allowed to become.

Perhaps this is the most relevant lesson of Magnifica Humanitas: the new social question is no longer played out solely in mines and factories. It is played out in data centers, social networks, AI models, attention markets, surveillance systems, confirmation bubbles, and information warfare.

In 1891, the Church asked who would protect the worker from industrial capital. In 2026, Leo XIV asks who will protect humanity from algorithmic capital.

This question concerns all those who refuse to allow the world to become a vast machine for classifying human beings, capturing their desires, predicting their behavior, and selling off their freedom piece by piece.

Human dignity is not an exploitable commodity.

Got this very interesting Pope Leo XIV message by email in French, I'm not sure who the author is or the publisher, translated and arranged to fit our blog for better understanding of these modern times dilemmas facing our entire world population.

As always, my many thanks to all.  

HIDDEN MONEY IS HIDDEN INFLUENCE ....

 
Democratic primaries are increasingly shaped by billionaire-backed dark money — funds routed through PACs and opaque organizations that hide who is paying, who benefits, and what outcomes they are seeking. Recent reporting describes a coordinated network operating behind the scenes of the Democratic Party, quietly influencing which candidates rise and which ideas never gain traction.

That secrecy is intentional. When billionaires conceal their political spending, they can exert secret influence, backing candidates who will protect their financial interests while avoiding public scrutiny. One of the clearest stakes is tax policy: hidden money can help block or dilute efforts to tax extreme wealth more fairly before those ideas ever reach a real vote.

This “party within the party” moves millions through layered entities to shape races in ways voters can’t easily detect. Candidates who might challenge concentrated wealth can be sidelined early, while those aligned with maintaining the status quo receive unheralded but powerful support. The result is a political field tilted long before voters cast a ballot.

That’s why it’s essential to follow the money. When funding is hidden, so are the motives — like preserving and expanding tax advantages that benefit the wealthiest Americans. Dark money doesn’t just influence elections; it shapes the policy agenda by determining which candidates are viable in the first place.

Voters’ trust depends on transparency. Voters can’t identify corruption unless they know who gave the money.

Staying invisible is dark money’s super power. Once its sources, its pathways, and its goals are exposed, it can no longer shape outcomes in secrecy. Voters deserve to follow the money, understand who is influencing their elections, and ensure that policies like fair taxation are decided in the open, not blocked in the shadows.

Few short lines, by the brilliant Robert Reich, on his site "Inequality media" explaining and exposing a major problem nowadays in American politics, and influencing American politicians and legislators, it's becoming an open affair playing most if not all local and national elections and their outcomes. I'm forwarding the article for a better understanding of this old/new phenomenon reigning over America, as well as many other parts of the world. 

As always, my many thanks to all.