Biden’s Support of Ethnic Cleansing in Gaza His Dirtiest Deed Ever

The world recoils in horror over Israel’s ongoing 41 day near genocidal ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza. Many thousands reported dead with untold more under rubble of nearly half of Gaza’s buildings destroyed and damaged. Over 1,500,000 of Gaza’s 2,300,000 citizens have been displaced. Yet, the bombs follow them as they head south, away from the carnage in and around Gaza City. Most food, water, medicine and electricity have been shut down. Babies die in dark hospitals that are still standing.

All this largely made possible by Biden’s near total support of billions in weaponry and related military assistance. Biden claims sympathy for the decimated Palestinians. But his deeds enabling their being systematically pushed out are dirty and dastardly indeed.

It takes a lot for over 400 government officials to demand Biden stop this carnage which he is capable of doing. But Biden and his team of ethnic cleansing cohorts have made it easy for them to resist.

Joe Biden has been supporting perpetual US wars, direct on proxy, for his entire 50 year government career. But he’s saved his dirtiest and most foul destruction of human life in Gaza for last.

Walt Zlotow became involved in antiwar activities upon entering University of Chicago in 1963. He is current president of the West Suburban Peace Coalition based in the Chicago western suburbs. He blogs daily on antiwar and other issues at www.heartlandprogressive.blogspot.com.

60 thoughts on “Biden’s Support of Ethnic Cleansing in Gaza His Dirtiest Deed Ever”

  1. Annnddd, for good measure, a few years back Joe called Social Security and Medicare “sacred cows”. So, if the so called “Christian”, Speaker of the House, Johnson, presents a bill that will offer up cuts to the programs, privatize it, make it a block grant, etc., I suspect Joe would sign it. Obama (hope and change) broached the subject of a means test for receiving the benefits. Trump would. I would not be surprised it Bill would have signed off if such a bill hit his desk, seeing as what he did to Glass-Steagall (and don’t give me the “it was veto proof jazz”).

    1. What’s the problem with means-testing government benefits? Those benefits are for the purpose of helping people who need them, not further enriching people who don’t need them.

      1. If everyone contributes, everyone deserves to receive benefits. No one is wealthy forever. Life circumstances are not predictable, and the programs do not “enrich” people. Raise the cap, or eliminate it. Do not allow any means testing or other mechanism that would chip away at the program. Look, when we all deduct from our checks what is necessary, we help others who are at the age to utilize the program, and those who are younger but needs help. It makes us a community, rather than haves and have nots. A kinder society. If you believe we need a society based on Ayn Rand, you are missing what I am saying. In your comment, why didn’t you mention anything about the trillions we pour into the military industrial complex, give bailouts to big banks. If that isn’t corporate socialism, I don’t know what is.

        1. Raising or eliminating the cap might buy the scam a few more years of faux solvency, but it won’t magically make math stop working. Every year ther ratio of workers to retirees goes down. Absent a dramatic drop in post-retirement lifespan that trend will continue, and eventually each worker is going to get tired of trying to support his own family and 200 retirees on one income.

          I’ve always found it surprising that there’s not more opposition to Social Security from the black community, since one of its main effects is to force poor black males (whose post-retirement lifespan is shortest) to subsidize the retirements of middle class white women (whose post-retirement lifespan is longest).

          1. So you’d be engaging in actual racism, as in drawing large-scale stereotypes based on perceived yet irrelevant physical characteristics. The condescension and apathy you’d appear to be displaying towards women in as well wouldn’t appear to be helping either. Engaging in any of those harmful stereotypes for any length of time would if anything hurt your attempted points for a reasonable individual.

          2. How is it “actual racism” to notice that Social Security screws black males (who live to an average age of 71) to subsidize the retirements of white females (who live to an average age of 78), with that demographic divergence increasing as income quintiles go down? That’s not a “stereotype,” if for no other reason than that it’s about the scam, not about the people who are harmed by, or benefit from, the scam.

          3. As in drawing and validating irrelevant physical characteristics in an analysis of the human population. If you’d have wished to avoid going down that path you could have made your statements about the age involved rather than stereotypical judgements on what individual lifestyles would be based on subjective assumptions based on immutable physical characteristics and not the content of their respective characters. And yes, you describing it as “…poor black males” and “…middle class white women” would not appear to make you look particularly better.

          4. And I’m essentially a social conservative whose not the biggest fan of capitalism, my issue here specifically though wasn’t the statistics the user would have cited but the way in which they presented them, for example they could have made the same exact point solely focusing on the participant’s age rather than their immutable physical characteristics.

          5. So what? The black man in the example who died at 71 had the opportunity to partake in Social Security and Medicare. Why did he bring up that example?

          6. The point is that Black people generally don’t get as much benefit, because they generally die younger. That’s why he brought it up.

          7. Because it’s never portrayed as one freebie vs another.

            If you talk with Dems, they’ll tell you that spending can just be increased forever. There’s no understanding of limitations, scarcity.

            But eventually we’ll have a loss of the global currency and significant inflation. Then we’ll see choices made, with SS losing support.

            SS supports old white people, not the favored demographic. Young immigrants will prefer free housing, etc.

          8. The federal government telling you that it can’t afford something is like a carpenter telling you that he can’t finish your house because he ran out of inches (Alan Watts). As shown by the U.S. Ukraine proxy war spending, the government can afford whatever it wants.

          9. Republicans tell us that spending can be increased forever,just not on social services. Remember when Dick Cheney, Schrub’s VP said that deficits no longer matter. And NEITHER party brings up the “defense” budget. Ever. Or the increase of the deficit due to TAX REDUCTION.

          10. Well, you have to have something for older people when they want to retire. This is where I part ways with the Libertarian crap. A good society supports everyone, not just the privileged. What the hell are we supposed to do, work until we die?

            A better alternative would be that the government just pays for basics for older people, starting at say, age 60 or 62. Food, clothing, housing, etc. Of course this needs to be means tested and have limits — we shouldn’t pay for people to live in large houses, mansions or estates, nor should we pay for fancy restaurants, etc. But within limits, old people should all be supported. So if you don’t want Social Security, how about my idea?

          11. I’m fine with me and those who care about me taking care of my retirement, and you and those who care about you taking care of yours.

            But IF there is going to be a “Social Security” system, I’ve seen only one reasonable plan put forward by any major party politician in the last decade, and that was Chris Christie in 2016. His plan had two elements:

            1) The means testing you speak of — if you’re earning more than $200k per year, you don’t get a Social Security check that year (they start getting reduced at $80k income per year); and

            2) Raising the retirement age by either one month or two months per year (I remembered it being one month, but a source I just checked says two) until it reaches 69, to account for people living longer and, generally, working longer.

            The main problem I have with that second part is the aforementioned demographic subsidy. Working class black men, on average, collect Social Security for a couple of years and then die having paid a LOT more in payroll taxes than they end up getting as benefits. Meanwhile, middle class white women, on average, live a good deal longer and collect more than they paid in payroll taxes. Not as much as if they’d been allowed to invest those payroll taxes in an indexed mutual fund — they’re still getting skinned alive on the “investment” — but still more.

          12. F*ck that idea. Really. Christie is a man of means. It is curious to me that only men of means come up with ideas to scrap Social Security, Medicare, and any and all social services. Why is that???

          13. He came up with an idea to save the Social Security scam, or at least extend its life. I don’t personally support the plan. I’d LIKE to see the Ponzi unwound in a way that does minimal damage to its victims, but if you’d rather it just collapsed and retirees ended up on cat food, well, I guess you’re entitled to your opinion.

          14. “I’m fine with me and those who care about me taking care of my retirement, and you and those who care about you taking care of yours.”

            That’s the libertarian attitude with which I totally disagree. We all live in and benefit from each other in this society, and we should act and feel that way, including economically. I don’t want old people either having to work until they die, or being forced into homelessness and starving. It’s only fair that if you work your whole life, which almost all of us do, that you be provided for in your old age. I couldn’t be more strongly opposed to this American individualist nonsense. Anyone who wants to live like that should do so, which means no roads, no electricity, no internet, etc. What your system promotes is a selfish, greedy, hoarding attitude and actions.

            And I couldn’t be more opposed to raising the retirement age. To the contrary, I support lowering it.

          15. “We all live in and benefit from each other in this society, and we should act and feel that way, including economically.”

            I agree completely. For example, I don’t want to steal from everyone else, or have the state do so for me at gunpoint. I prefer to be a good neighbor, and to have good neighbors.

            I’m not sure what “system” you think I “promote.”

          16. Anarchism doesn’t imply no rules. It implies no rulers. There’s a difference. And it is entirely possible for an anarchist to simultaneously support abolition of the state AND have preferences as to how things work while the state continues to exist.

          17. I worked until I was 69 (I am 80). I did so because I wanted to. I know folks who are still working in their 80’s. Because they want to, and, they partake in Social Security because it was a benefit they contributed to, and continue to contribute to from their paychecks. Also, except for work that is covered by a union THERE IS NO RETIREMENT STIPEND UPON RETIREMENT. Not even a watch. Just a thank you for your years and out the door. And, NO MEDICAL BENEFITS.

          18. “Also, except for work that is covered by a union THERE IS NO RETIREMENT STIPEND UPON RETIREMENT. Not even a watch. Just a thank you for your years and out the door. And, NO MEDICAL BENEFITS.”

            I’ve worked at non-union companies with pension plans before. As for medical benefits, since it’s almost impossible to NOT enroll in Medicare at 65, why WOULD private employers offer “medical benefits?” There’s no market for them.

          19. What is your answer? Take a cut from “Logan’s Run”,or “Brave New World” and terminate what some Republicans call the elderly, useless feeders, at a predisposed age. Magnificently, as in “Logan’s Run” perhaps? Simply glorious. In your example, the black male supporting the white middle class women, it works the other way too. All races, creeds, religions (or none) participate. It appears to me that you are not in the middle class, and may be in one of the classes aloft if those of us who are in the middle class. What is your problem with us who may not be in your social strata?

          20. You’re right — I’m not in the middle class. My personal income is in the lowest quintile, I own no stocks or 401ks (I don’t even have a bank account), and my personal net worth including everything I own MAY make it into 5-digit territory, but that’s doubtful. My wife’s income does put the family as a whole into the middle quintile, but not anywhere near the top of it.

            I’ve got no problem at all with people like you who are wealthier than me, other than your smug sense of entitlement to ever more at other people’s expense.

        2. The dichotomy needn’t be between Ayn Rand and Lenin. Other options are or should be possible.

        3. We agree on eliminating the cap, but I don’t want my tax money used to further enrich rich people. That’s both immoral and a huge waste of our tax money (nothing compared to the damn military, but waste nonetheless). And you’re dead wrong about people not remaining rich forever. There are families with many generations of wealth.

          As to Ayn Rand, I couldn’t be more opposed to her ideology. What the hell does that have to do with means testing?

          You don’t get what Social Security is supposed to do. The whole purpose is to support older people so they can retire and have a roof over their heads and food to eat (totally inadequate for that nowadays, but that’s another issue). The rich, meaning in this instance anyone who can afford to retire without it, don’t need it, and shouldn’t get it.

          I didn’t mention the military because that wasn’t the issue here; we’re discussing means testing for government benefits. Of course the military is the biggest problem regarding waste and spending in general.

          1. On one hand, I understand this is a personal political opinion. On the other hand, this is just such a cynical way of looking at the world. I’m not particularly a fan of “social security”, but sometimes people support ideas and ideologies because they’d truly want to see the world become a better place.

      2. Actually no, that’s not how they were sold to the american public. Had they been structured as just more welfare (which is what “means testing” does) No one would have supported being raped of over 7 % of their annual income (double that for the employer contribution) if they thought that it was just more taxes to support the indigent. F that.
        Social Security and Medicare have always been presented as something you get if you pay into it; not, you get if you are a loser in life, you pay into it and don’t get if you are successful”.

        1. “Social Security and Medicare have always been presented as something you get if you pay into it”

          Not since 1960, when the Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor that there is no entitlement aspect to Social Security — that it’s just a particular welfare program linked to a particular tax, and that Congress is free to modify either side of the benefit/tax equation at will.

          1. Not quite. My post was directed at the comment that “those benefits are for the purpose of helping people who need them, not further enriching people who don’t need them”. That is incorrect; as it now stands, and as it has been since its creation, the Social Security Act states that those benefits accrue to “qualified individuals” who will receive social security payments, PERIOD, and defines what qualified individuals are.
            The case you cite very specifically concerned the amendment passed by congress to the social security act that withheld payments from individuals deported from the country for illegal acts (being members of the communist party) and the decision simply said that Congress has the right to amend the Social Security Act to account for things like this – and there was a strong dissenting opinion.
            That they might be able to do the same (with an act of congress) for an entire class of people who made the required payments but are now denied their earned benefits (as reported to them, annually, in their Social Security statements) was not discussed, but the dissenting argument stated very clearly that this would be considered a form of “taking”; so would almost certainly end up BACK in the supreme court before it could be implemented.
            So that’s a huge hypothetical, and doesn’t change the validity of my post, notwithstanding that (a future change by congress to the act) the program has ALWAYS been presented as “pay now, earn later” with no qualifiers based on “need”. It still is presented that way.

            That someone, somewhere, might try to force a change through congress, that might or might not survive a legal challenge, is not relevant to that. SSI is NOT a “needs based welfare program”. Had it been presented that way, it would not have any public support.

          2. So just because the Supreme Court TOLD YOU 63 years ago that there is no actuarially required benefit and that it’s up to Congress, you aren’t going to believe that there’s no actuarially required benefit and that it’s up to Congress?

            What WOULD it take to convince you that it is what it is rather than what it’s advertised as?

          3. So because someone told YOU 63 years ago that Congress MAY be able to change the eligibility requirements, there is therefore at present no guaranteed right to benefits? But of course there is, UNTIL congress changes the Act and it survives another supreme court challenge, (good Luck with both of those) because it is very doubtful such a change would be covered under the previous decision. LOTS has to happen before you even have an argument; until then, my comments stands, under the current SSA Act, IF you pay in, you are entitled to take out. PERIOD. No “needs based” bullshit. As long as you don’t get deported for being a communist…

  2. Biden is enabling Israeli genocide in Gaza. It is Holocaust II. It is good that there are Democrats demanding Biden end the siege in Gaza, they should also demand he negotiate with Putin and Zelensky to end the war in Ukraine.

    1. Those demands are nothing but political grandstanding. Biden should be impeached, first for preventing a peace agreement in Ukraine, and now for this. Anything less is BS.

  3. Biden is in bad shape mentally. I’m not convinced Biden knows what he is doing or what is happening in the Near East.

        1. Which was a fraud show. I watched it when I was a kid. I also read about the scandal when it was revealed that some contestants were given answers in advanced. The emcee was Hal March. The main sponsor was Geritol.

        1. Harris? She couldn’t decide which clothes to wear. The ruling class ultimately makes these decisions, but details are left to their lackey politicians. Blinken and Austin have some authority, but I suspect this is beyond them.

  4. “Biden’s Support of Ethnic Cleansing in Gaza His Dirtiest Deed Ever” I agree and don’t disagree at all. But apparently he still enjoys 40% approval rating? Over 100 million Americans would like him to kill more Palestinians?

    1. They support the Dems. Free stuff! Almost no one supports Biden.

      Plus, many just fear/hate Trump/GOP. Tighten your belts so we can drop more bombs, “conservatism.”

      Some issues like abortion seem huge right now. Most Americans just don’t want six week ish bans…

      I suppose some support Biden out of fear of AOC, but she’s a sellout. They’re all fake. It’s just theatre. But maybe the theatre has consequences.

  5. Joe Biden is a corrupt politician and a moral cesspool.

    Hey! Hey! JOE: How many kids did you kill today?

    Hey! Hey! JOE: How many kids did you kill today?

  6. Would Trump act differently? I am extremely grateful that Trump lost in 2020. But from an Israeli perspective, Trump couldn’t have gotten away with ethnic cleansing. It had to be a Dem to do it, theatre.

    Hopefully, Trump sails in 2024 to restore peace.

    1. I voted for Trump knowing he made a big mistake, because he is pro Zionism. I hoped he would come out against this butchering, slaughtering of defenseless Palestinians, but he has told Murderer Netanyahu to do as he pleases. Trump is weak if he does not know the difference between Genocide and soldiers fighting soldiers. Trump can NOT win, Biden can NOT win, both are bending over for the Zionist and have forgotten our Constitution. I hope a TRUE Constitutionalist will run as a Third Party Candidate.

      1. Trump only really cares about his money and his ego. He might care about other things to a lesser degree, but he’s certainly not going to fight for them if he gets any substantial push-back, like he would here.

    2. I don’t see that. No one opposed Trump’s Israel policies, which would only feed stuff like this. He always caved to State Dep’t/neocon pressure, as well. US support of Israel is too strong. https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=66b183b475138e2eJmltdHM9MTcwMDUyNDgwMCZpZ3VpZD0yYzQ1MmIwOS02ZmE5LTZjODctMjgxNi0zOGJjNmU4NTZkN2EmaW5zaWQ9NTIzMQ&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=3&fclid=2c452b09-6fa9-6c87-2816-38bc6e856d7a&psq=WAS+THERE+BOMBING+OF+GAZA+DURING+THE+TRUMP+ADMINISTRATION%3f&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYWxqYXplZXJhLmNvbS9uZXdzLzIwMTkvMTEvMTkvdHJ1bXAtYW5kLXRoZS1wYWxlc3RpbmlhbnMtYS10aW1lbGluZS8&ntb=1

    3. Interesting. Mr. Trump, on December 6, 2017, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, then moved the American Embassy there. Mr. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the INF Treaty and the Open Skies agreement, then, provided Kiev with Javelin missiles. Mr. Trump had Iranian General Soleimani assassinated, when the General was on a peace mission. Mr. Trump outdid the Obama mission with the number of drone strikes. This: The Hill: https://thehill.com/policy/international/4304401-trump-israel-hamas-war-let-things-play-out/ Peace??? BWAHAHAHAHA! You need a Diet Coke.

      1. I meant I want him to win the peace theatre for the right. Theatre.

        He at times appeared to seriously want to be a peace President, mostly just early on. I don’t know if he’ll be good as President again. The symbols, theatre, seems to matter so much. It’s incredibly important, to me, that it be the “left” that commits the unspeakable horrors. If we get another “right wing” sociopath as President… I’d be unhappy about it.

        What happens in the US is reflected around the world.

Comments are closed.