The Big Lie- How Netanyahu Pulled A Bush/Cheney And Led Israel To War With Hamas

As the war between Israel and Hamas enters its fourth week, much of the debate has been centered on two major issues. 

The first is the horrific shelling of Gaza and the overall humanitarian tragedy that is being inflicted upon the Palestinian people. Heartbreaking images of murdered men, women and, worst of all, children tear at our collective consciousness, forcing us to question just how humans can inflict such pain, heartache and devastation on one another.

The second issue is a more calculated, practical one: When will a peace deal be achieved that puts an end to all the bloodshed?

Unfortunately, despite his admirable, dogged efforts to secure a cease-fire and, ultimately, a resolution to the conflict, Secretary of State John Kerry seems nowhere close to achieving any kind of peace between Israel and Hamas.

In fact, some feel that he's only making things worse. In a devastating rebuke of Kerry's latest cease-fire proposal, Haaretz reporter Barak Ravid called Kerry's judgment into question, saying "it's as if he isn't the foreign minister of the world's most powerful nation, but an alien, who just disembarked his spaceship in the Mideast."

Whether or not the statement is true, it shows how frustrated Israel is with Kerry and how far apart the sides are when it comes to ending the conflict. Combine this setback with the 9-month long failed peace talks earlier this year and it looks more and more like Kerry is a postmodern Sisyphus pushing a boulder up a Mideast hill, only to watch it roll back down each time, forever. 

However, while our attention is split between these two issues- the crime against humanity taking place in Gaza and the effort to end the bloodshed- we must also remember one very important fact. 

The entire premise for war was based on a lie. 

DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN

While it's true that the Israelis and Palestinians have been deadlocked in a bitter feud for generations and, sadly, violence and bloodshed was bound to break out at some point, this particular war currently being waged between Israel and Hamas didn't have to happen. 

Simply put, it was based on a lie.

Nearly a month ago, three Israeli teens were kidnapped and, after an 18-day search, their murdered bodies were found in a grassy field in Hebron, a small town on the outskirts of Jerusalem. 

Before conducting any kind of investigation of the murders, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu defiantly blamed the killings on Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization that controls Gaza. 

The three teens were "murdered in cold blood by human animals, " Netanyahu said on his Facebook page. "Hamas is responsible, and Hamas will pay." 

In the ensuing days, a chain reaction took place that quickly led to all out war. First, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy was burned alive by Israelis in a revenge-killing for the murdered Israeli teens. Then Hamas began raining down rockets on Israel. Next, before you knew it, Israel began shelling Gaza. Then came the ground invasion.

However, upon further review, the spark that lit the flame for war wasn't true. 

Despite Netanyahu's saber-rattling assurances that Hamas was responsible for killing the Israeli teens, they didn't actually do it. An investigation by Israeli Police proved that the murderers were not part of Hamas, but instead a lone cell that acted on their own "without concern for the repercussions." 

There is no way of getting around it. Netanyahu had pulled a Bush/Cheney- he lied to the public to gain support for war. This time it wasn't about Saddam having WMDs. It was about Hamas having killed the Israeli teens. But in both cases, a blatant falsehood was used to achieve the same goal: whip the public into a frenzy so that the impending war could be not only justified, but backed by popular opinion.

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE

As the bloodshed in Gaza continues and a peaceful resolution seems more and more difficult to reach, it's important to take a step back and remember how we got ourselves into this mess. 

Netanyahu's lie was the straw that broke the camel's back. He should be denounced for pushing his people into a war that was based on a blatant falsehood, just as George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should be denounced for doing the same in the wake of 9/11. 

However, it's also critical to realize that none of this happens in a vacuum. The conditions on the ground in Israel are so inflamed by fear and propaganda- some real, some manufactured- that they make it easy for leaders like Netanyahu to twist facts and incite tensions. 

Through it all, one thing is abundantly clear: the situation on the ground must change.

A peace agreement based on a two-state solution must be reached. Palestine must respect the state of Israel and excommunicate Hamas terrorists from their land. In turn, Israel must respect the state of Palestine and end the prison-like strangulation of Gaza. They must open the borders and allow Palestinians to breathe and move freely. 

Until then, the shared hatred between Israelis and Palestinians will continue, as will the the endless cycle of violence and revenge. And in the process, a public eternally on edge will remain easy pickings for future manipulation by leaders who tell them war is the only answer- even when it's based on a lie.

Impeach Obama? Yeah, Right. If Anyone Should Be Impeached It's Congressional Republicans

In January of 2009, before Barack Obama was even sworn into office, Republican lawmakers met in secret to map out their strategy for the next four years. As Mitch McConnell boastfully admitted, their number one goal wasn't to work with Obama to move the country forward, but instead to do everything in their power to make him a failed, one-term president.

First, they tried to make the case that Obama was ineligible for office because he was born in Kenya, not America. Bloodthirsty birthers like Donald Trump demanded his birth certificate and refused to accept it as legitimate even when it was presented for all the world to see.

Then, following the sweeping Tea Party election of 2010, Republicans re-took the House and began their all-out assault to obstruct Obama at every turn. They voted nearly 50 times to repeal Obamacare. They filibustered everything. They refused to hand him any kind of legislative victory, even if it benefited the American people. They measured their success by the depth of the political gridlock.

Last summer, House Speaker John Boehner lifted the veil on the GOP obstruction machine, saying in an interview that Congress should be judged not by how many laws they enact, but instead by how many laws they repeal.

By their own standards, Republicans have failed on both accounts. Obama was re-elected to a second term (sorry, McConnell) and GOP lawmakers haven't repealed a single law passed under Obama (sorry, Boehner).

But they aren't letting that stop them.

Now they want to sue Obama. And impeach him.


THE DO NOTHINGS

Simply put, today's GOP is the party of "Do Nothing." They've stolen the infamous moniker from their Truman-era predecessors and taken gridlock to a near unprecedented level, rivaling only the secession-hungry confederates of the 1860s.

And the numbers don't lie.

The 112th Congress, run by the Republicans after the landslide election of 2010, was literally the least productive ever. Instead of passing legislation, they focused almost exclusively on political showdowns. From the Debt Ceiling to the Fiscal Cliff, they came perilously close to destroying the economy for the sole purpose of extracting a pound of Obama's flesh. Overall, they passed just over 200 laws, the lowest number since the data began getting recorded in the 1940s.

But as bad as the 112th Congress was, the 113th is even worse. As of this Spring, they have passed just 23 public laws, setting a new record for legislative futility.

Instead of governing, they have chosen to ignore all the major issues facing our country and focus all their attention on investigating "scandals." And even when the manufactured, phony scandals are debunked, like Benghazi, they simply ignore the facts and retreat to their Fox News bubble where reality goes to die.

This is the Republican legacy in the Age of Obama: pass nothing, block everything. Turn a blind eye to the plight of the American people and blame everything on Obama. Wash, rinse, repeat.


A HOLLOW POLITICAL STUNT

Although Congressional Republicans have decided to abdicate their duty as lawmakers, the problems facing our country have not disappeared. In fact, they've gotten worse as a result of congressional inaction.

Following the Sandy Hook massacre, public support for background checks was at an all-time high. But Republican puppets in the pocket of the NRA defied 92% of Americans and blocked the bill, ensuring it failed.

At a time of unprecedented income inequality, Republicans refuse to hold a vote on raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, despite the fact that nearly 75% of Americans support it.

Today, the humanitarian crisis at the border is spiraling out of control. More than 50,000 parentless-children are toiling in jail-like conditions. Everyone seems to agree that our immigration system is broken, yet Republicans refuse to lift a finger even though 86% of GOPers think congress should take action to fix it.

The same goes for Climate change. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that 67% of Americans support Obama's new EPA regulations to limit carbon emissions. Yet many congressional Republicans refuse to even acknowledge the existence of man-made Climate Change or Global Warming, let alone are willing to support laws to curb its effects.

As a result of the Republicans' refusal to work with Obama on anything- even issues that the vast majority of Americans support- Obama has decided to bypass them entirely, focusing on ways to use his executive authority to address the critical issues facing our country.

But in typical GOP fashion, they've decided to ratchet up the obstruction to a whole new level, even for them. Boehner has decided to sue Obama for his use of executive authority even though the case lacks standing and is broadly unpopular with the public.

But if that wasn't enough, now Sarah Palin- the driver of the Tea Party clown car- wants to write up articles of impeachment despite having no particular issue to impeach him over.


PUT OUT THE FIRE

As brilliant as the Founding Fathers were, one situation they may not have foreseen was a Congress that turns a blind eye to the American people and chooses to do nothing in the face of critically important issues that must be addressed.

Sure, the Constitution makes clear that laws must be passed through the Legislative Branch, not the Executive, but what is a President to do when the Legislative Branch abdicates their duties and sits on their hands while the country is in free fall?

If a house is burning down and there is a law that says only firefighters can put it out, does that mean a neighbor is wrong to take matters into his own hands and use his garden hose put out the flames?

Should he just stand there and watch it burn?

While Obama's use of executive authority may be controversial and infuriating for Republicans, one thing most sane-minded Americans can agree with is that when America is faced with big, serious problems that require action, the side that chooses to do nothing is much more at fault than the side that chooses to do something.

And while it may be true that Obama's approval rating is at George W. Bush type-lows, compared to Congress he's as popular as the Beatles in the 1960s. Obama currently rests in the low-to-mid 40s, while Congress is barely above single digits, right there with cockroaches and chlamydia.

Boehner and Palin can cry all they want about lawsuits and impeachment, but if anyone should be booted from office, it's congressional Republicans, not the President.

Obama is holding the hose trying to put out the American house fire. Republican firefighters have turned off the tap and are gleefully watching it burn down.

Hillary Clinton Has A Wealth Problem- And If She's Not Careful She Could Become The Democrats' Mitt Romney

During the 2012 Presidential campaign, Democrats received a gift from God when a secret video of Mitt Romney emerged.

Set in a Gatsby-like dining room, the video showed an unfiltered Romney letting down his guard to a room full of rich Republican donors.

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for [Obama] no matter what," Romney said. "Who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims... these are people who pay no income tax... and so my job is not to worry about these people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The "47% video," as it came to be known, was such a game-changer because it validated all the Democrat attack lines on Romney- rich, out of touch, hostile to the poor, etc.

Romney was never able to recover from the video and, as we know, the rest is history: Barack Obama was re-elected to a second term and the Republicans suffered their second consecutive presidential defeat.

While Hillary Clinton is certainly no Mitt Romney, she is creating a similarly destructive image of herself. Simply put- she has a wealth problem.


SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS

Hillary's wealth problem started earlier this summer when she told ABC that Bill and herself were "not only dead broke, but in debt" when they left the White House.

What Hillary failed to mention is that, while the two did indeed have debts due to a mountain of unpaid legal fees, they also had millions of dollars in assets, including two homes in New York and DC.

The "dead broke" comment is also laughable because it's common knowledge that presidents are all but guaranteed a colossal amount of wealth once they leave office. This comes in the form of book sales, royalties, speaking fees, endorsements and high-paying positions at universities and consulting firms.

As Ohio State University Business Professor Jeffrey Hoopes put it, "Almost any president leaving office can expect tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in future earnings as a result of their having been president."

If hearing a one-percenter shamelessly exaggerate their past "debts" wasn't infuriating enough, just weeks later Hillary committed another similar unforced error.

When asked by The Guardian if her vast family wealth would make her unfit to speak about income inequality, Hillary said "They don't see me as part of the problem, because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off."

In many ways, this comment is even worse than the "dead broke" one.

First off, no average American calls taxes "ordinary." To them, they aren't ordinary- they are the only kind there is. Regular people do not have Swiss bank accounts and tax havens in the Cayman Islands. They have no knowledge of the "unordinary" taxes that the super rich have access to. The fact that Hillary refers to her taxes as "ordinary" shows how out of touch she is with everyday Americans.

Next, she seems to allude to the fact that her massive wealth, despite being valued at $55 million, still doesn't make her "truly well off." To be "truly well off" you need to have hundreds of millions- if not billions. This tells you about the kind of people Hillary surrounds herself with; so insanely rich that she feels small by comparison.

Meanwhile, as Clinton downplays her wealth, she continues to take in $200,000 or more giving speeches. Recently, students at UNLV protested the fact that Clinton will receive $225,000 to give a speech later this Fall while at the same time tuition is spiking 17%.


JUST BE HONEST

Poor and middle class people don't hate the rich. In fact, we envy them. However, the last thing those of us at the lower end of the economic spectrum want to hear- especially at a time of unprecedented income inequality- is a wealthy person downplaying their wealth, acting like they're struggling to make ends meet when they're not.

With income inequality tearing our social fabric apart, creating two America's, the haves and the have-nots, economic populism is on the rise. The fight for the common man to get a fair shot against a corrupt system- an idea popularized by the Occupy Movement and personified by the politics of Elizabeth Warren- is the direction in which the Democrat Party is moving.

With this in mind, Democrats must tactfully select a candidate for 2016 who espouses this position. They must nominate someone who fights for the common man seeking a $10 minimum wage, not the one-percent CEO class who rakes in 95% of all new wealth.

We will probably never see a "47%" video out of Hillary, but after watching her shamelessly downplay her enormous wealth on several occasions recently, she's teetering on the edge of becoming a Romney-like figure in the eyes of the public: rich, out of touch and clueless about what it means to be an average American.

If the image sticks, it could end up losing her an election.

Just ask Mitt Romney.

An Eye For An Eye- With Peace Talks Dead, Palestinian/Israeli Conflict Reverts Back To Violent Status Quo

Earlier this year, it looked as if the planets had finally aligned and peace between the Palestinians and Israelis was actually possible. 

Led by the dogged efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry, the two sides agreed to engage in peace talks, which in and of itself was a major victory simply because for years the two rivals refused to even speak to one another. 

The negotiations continued for nine long months, with Kerry flying back and forth from Washington to the Middle East to relax tensions and hammer out the details of an elusive two-state solution.

Both sides expressed a willingness to make concessions, as Palestine agreed to delay their bid at internationally recognized statehood while Israel offered to release Palestinian prisoners. As time went on, Kerry appeared growingly confident and optimistic that a long-coveted peace deal was finally in reach.

For the first time in ages, it felt as though substantive progress was being made.

But nevertheless, the April 29th deadline for peace came and went without an agreement.

Many critics blamed Israel for blowing up the deal by continuing to build settlements on disputed territories. Others pointed the finger at Kerry, who received stiff backlash from the Jewish community after he said Israel was on the path to becoming an "apartheid state" if they did not come to peace with the Palestinians. 

However, despite the failure of diplomatic efforts, a spiritual case for peace was made that reignited hope, at least in the abstract. In an unprecedented show of solidarity, Pope Francis hosted Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas and Israeli President Shimon Peres at the Vatican to "pray for peace."

The trio planted a ceremonial olive tree together and shook hands, sending a strong message that peace was still possible, despite how improbable it may have felt at the time.

BACK TO REALITY

If peace seemed possible them, it's as good as dead now. 

The defining event occurred in mid-June when three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and found murdered in a field in the small West Bank town of Hebron.

The three teens- Eyal Yifrach (19), Naftali Fraenkel (16) and Gilad Shaer (16)- were students at a religious school and had been missing for 18-days. 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed the killings on Hamas, the Palestinian Militant group.

In response to the heinous murders, Israel launched an all out attack on the Gaza Strip. Rocket after rocket pounded Hamas strongholds, killing an unknown number of militants and civilians.

If that wasn't enough to stoke the flames, a 16-year-old Palestinian boy was found burnt alive in a Jerusalem forest, a suspected "revenge killing" by Israelis in retaliation for the three teens killed weeks earlier.  

ROCK BOTTOM

The latest episode of violence and retaliation is evidence that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has hit rock bottom. Both sides have abandoned any shot at peace, instead reverting back to the "eye for an eye" mentality of revenge that has plagued relations for decades. 

Although noble and well-intentioned, diplomatic and spiritual appeals for peace made by Kerry and Pope Francis now seem naive in retrospect. 

Whether we like to admit it or not, it was wishful thinking to assume that months of diplomatic negotiations and joint prayer sessions can cure generations of deeply engrained hatreds. 

However, this isn't to say that such efforts aren't worthwhile or much-needed. They are. 

It's just that, in the end, international diplomacy and religious goodwill can only do so much. In order to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, both sides must be committed to peace and have the will to see it through.

Until then, it looks as though the cycle of violence will continue, just as it has for decades. 

But as we all know, the eye for an eye philosophy will do nothing to secure a long lasting peace. 

It will only serve to make the Palestinians and Israelis blind.

Not Our Fight- The Millennial Case For Staying Out Of Iraq

Every generation is shaped by a unique set of moments and events that come to define the way they see the world.

The Baby Boomers have a long list of these indelible experiences, which might be why they are considered the most complex, interesting and misunderstood generation of all. From the assassination of JFK and the war in Vietnam to the bloody battle for Civil Rights and the birth of the Beatles, the Boomers are united by a collective history that has come to symbolize the most violent, turbulent, electric and culturally changing era in our nation’s history: the 1960s.

The Greatest Generation- the parents of the Boomers- are defined by arguably the two most important events of the 20^th century: the Depression and World War II.

For Millennials, our worldview has been shaped largely by two distinct events: 9/11 and the subsequent Iraq War. The first was a singular moment that shattered our collective innocence, the second a prolonged disaster based on a lie that made us eternally skeptical of government and forever anti-war.

With Iraq descending back into chaos, the debate over whether or not the US should intervene has reached a fever pitch.

Neo-cons and war hawk interventionists want us to go back. Many so-called moderates think we should return because of the Colin Powell  “you break it, you own it” theory.

One voice you haven’t heard much from is that of Millennials.

Our position is simple: stay out.

A RELIGIOUS DIVIDE

To understand the current crisis plaguing Iraq and the Middle East at large, you must start with religion.

In the Muslim world, the prophet Muhammad is the King of Kings. He is not only credited with founding the religion, but he is also considered the last true prophet of God. The Islamic holy book, the Koran, is believed to be the word of God- or Allah- as spoken to Muhammad.

Upon his death in the year 632, the Islamic religion splintered. Worshippers of the faith disagreed on who should succeed Muhammad and become the new ruler of Islam. As a result of the feud, the religion split in half, creating two competing denominations of Muslims: Sunnis and Shiites.

For going on 1,400 years now, the two factions have been engaged in a brutal civil war. They are not brothers in Islam, but instead arch enemies.

The crisis in Iraq today is the convergence of these two competing forces.

On one side is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, otherwise known as ISIS, a fast rising and powerful Sunni terrorist organization so brutal and ruthless that Al Qaeda has denounced them as too extreme.

On the other side is the Iraqi government, led by Shiite Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki.

This is the backdrop behind which the crisis in Iraq is waged today. What we’re seeing unfold before our very eyes is the apocalyptic judgment day of an ageless religious war.

A GENERATION OF SKEPTICS

So what does the religious war between Sunnis and Shiites have to do with Millennials?

A recent Pew Research poll showed that, unlike the Middle East at large, Millennials are uniquely non-religious.

More closely, one third of Millennials (29%) say that are not affiliated with any religion at all, the highest percentage among any generation on record.

Similarly, only 36% consider themselves a “religious person.”

While Sunnis and Shiites are fighting a holy war waged in God’s honor, only 58% of Millennials say they are “absolutely certain” that God even exists.

In addition to being skeptical of religion, Millennials are also vehemently anti-war.

George W. Bush invaded Iraq while many of us were in middle school. As a result, we learned early on what the blood and carnage of war looks like. We may not have understood it at the time, but we knew we were against it.

In 2008, the first election many of us were old enough to vote in, we turned out in record numbers for Obama mostly because he vowed to get us out of Iraq.

One exit poll from 2008 showed that a whopping 77% of Millennials disapproved of the Iraq War, by far and away the most important single issue for young people.

On a broader scale, this sweeping skepticism of religion and strong belief against war (along with vast support for marriage equality and marijuana legalization) has made Millennials the most liberal generation of Americans since FDR.

And if there’s one thing that liberals hate, it’s war.


NOT OUR FIGHT

Having witnessed first-hand at a very young age the disaster of the Iraq War, Millennials, unlike any other generation of Americans, are fervently against another military engagement in the Middle East. We may be young and devoid of worldly wisdom like our ends, but we also know that after two trillion wasted dollars and 4,500 lives lost it's just not worth it. 

Our opposition is fueled by our anti-war beliefs and aversion to religion. 

We are anti-war because we grew up in an era where body counts in newspaper headlines were as prevalent as weather forecasts. We are largely non-religious because our skepticism of overarching institutions requires us to think for ourselves, not accept the belief of others as gospel. 

It is because of our cynicism of religion and war that we are able to see the situation unfolding in Iraq now for what it is. Our judgment is not clouded by dogma or dollar signs or politics. 

This is a battle between Sunnis and Shiites. They are fighting a religious war that never ends. No amount of money or weapons or American intervention can stop them from killing each other. 

For these reasons (and so many more), we must listen to Millennials and stay out of Iraq. 

US intervention can only serve to fan the sectarian flames. It will do nothing to put them out.