Not Another Political Blog

Kayak.com second to explain ad pull on TLC show

2011-12-16T16:26:00.001-05:00

Before we get to Kayak, the Florida Family Association says 65-75 companies pulled the ads, but apparently this is a misrepresentation. Many placed the ads for a specific number of episodes and are distancing themselves from the bigotry of the current Lowe's /FFA/ All-American Muslim (and Kayak?) problem.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/14/389225/fact-check-most-companies-not-caving-to-intolerance-will-continue-to-advertise-on-all-american-muslim/

***

Kayak.com has pulled ads for the same reason as Lowe's. There is an apology out there. I don't know if they are just backtracking or if they are sorry for the bigotry of the situation.

Initially Kayak said it pulled the ads because TLC was not up front about the nature of the show (which sounds like they could be headed in the same direction as the FFA complaint- how dare TLC air a show that shows Muslims as normal rather than the terrorists we know they are) but I guess it could mean anything.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/travel-site-kayak-pulls-ads-tlcs-american-muslim/story?id=15159617#.Tuu10Dj0tko

Part of Kayak's initial statement using the "lighting rod" terminology like Lowe's:

"It's a worthy topic, but any reasonable person would know that this topic is a particular lightning rod," Birge says in the letter. "We believe TLC went out of their way to pick a fight on this, and they didn't let us know their intentions."

I would like to know more about the above before I decide whether the next statement about pulling the ads because it was simply a bad, poor quality, boring or whatever show is actually true. I tend to think "the show sucked" thing is a cop out and a good way to get out of this without looking as bad as Lowe's if they can get people to believe it.

Kayak does say it was disappointed in the vitriol of the ad pulling campaigners and said those opposing the ad pulling were more civil. I guess that's something. Maybe.

-----
Quote from this site:

“When TLC pitched All-American Muslim to advertisers, it was characterized as a fair-and-balanced look at the life of an American Muslim,” Birge says. “However, what was not disclosed was the preexisting controversy surrounding race, religion and specifically the divide between the Muslim and Christian communities in Dearborn, Mich. Dearborn has been a center of controversy for right or wrong; however, that was omitted by TLC when it pitched the show.”

Also on that site, it says Kayak's first blog post was about this issue (it is sorry to say) and that it has been interacting with critics on Twitter. Interesting...

The first sentence makes it seem like they were headed in the direction of the FFA - hey- this shows Muslims as "too normal."

The other part makes it seem like they just didn't know Dearborn had a large Arab and/ or Muslim population, uncharacteristic of the rest of the country- which is where charges of misrepresentation may occur. But if you want to see how Muslims are living here, it would make sense you'd go there. But as to them not realizing Dearborn was a center of controversy- that's ridiculous. Look at the heat Muslims have taken after 9/11. Any show about them is going to be (considered) controversial. They really should have known that, even if they didn't know much of anything about Dearborn.

-----

Their apology and current position is that they pulled it because it was not a good show, and are sorry it came across as bending to bigotry. Backtracking? Hmmm.

http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2011/12/kayak-on-pulling-all-american-muslim-ads-we-handled-this-poorly/584847/1

*** Lowe's-- additional info ***

A good article on the Lowe's ad pull. Author says ad was pulled due to dozens, not hundreds or more emails, says company:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-12-12/muslim-reality-show-american/51836318/1

Gingrich says Palestinians are an "invented people"

2011-12-13T14:04:00.002-05:00

Perry stumbles and falls, Cain's past (and present) catches up to him, and now the man of the hour is spouting this garbage? It's inaccurate and if it were said about another people, anti-Semitism charges would abound...

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/newt-the-jews-and-an-invented-people.html

Lowe's letter- All American Muslim ads

2011-12-13T10:17:00.000-05:00

My letter to Lowe's Home Improvement:

I, a formerly satisfied customer, am writing to inform you of my extreme displeasure in the recent events with which you have been involved: The so called Florida Family Association got you to pull ads from TLC's All-American Muslim, you made a statement admitting as much, then amid backlash you backtracked saying that you received emails from a broad spectrum of customers which actually only amounted to dozens rather than thousands or hundreds of thousands of letters.

The decision to pull the ads was not only hasty and premature, but also bigoted and cowardly. You obviously didn't investigate the claims of your dozens of Muslim hating customers because if you had, you would have found that TLC's show does not advocate one way or the other on any societal or political issues. All-American Muslim simply depicts the daily life of several members of a community many Americans know very little about. This show has much educational value and it naturally prompts discussion of important issues anyone encounters in life. This show is about life in America as much as any other show that you fund with your ads; I'm very confused as to how this one violates your ad guidelines.

I can only assume Lowe's has Muslim customers. I would have hoped, had you acted after some thought, that you would have been able to stand up for these customers who may or may not write to express their displeasure. Your actions rather said you would rather not be associated with one segment of the American population. Is that true? Do you only offer your products to certain people? I expected you to stand up for the fact that Muslim or Christian or anything else- we are all Americans instead of caving to a minority of bigots. I expected a large corporation like Lowe's to have a backbone and be able to stand up to a dozen emailers or even thousands on the very American value of all men being created equal.

Maybe I was wrong to expect your company to stand for what is right and American. Bigotry has won- unless you have a plan to turn this around.

Maybe it is not possible to buy back your ads for All-American Muslim, but what is needed is a massive sensitive, well-thought out apology and/or campaign to repair your image with those who are Muslim, those who are American and those whose intelligence you insulted by siding so quickly and decisively with those who want us to believe all Muslims are terrorists. I wouldn't know where to begin, so wish you much luck with that.

Or maybe your pulling of your ads from All-American Muslim have effectively highlighted the discrimination Muslims face in America and a boycott of your company will be a lesson in human rights and equality for many.

Peace to you,

NC based Lowes pulls funding from show All-American Muslim

2011-12-12T09:40:00.002-05:00

Holiday wishes from Lowes!

So, I'm wondering, what do they have the problem with, Americans or Muslims? ;)

Did they buy into that idiotic email about Muslims not being "good Americans"? I (probably unreasonably) have had more faith in people than that recently.

The Florida Family Association will play a role, if you read anything about the controversy. A web search for their campaign/petition text yields a "404 Not Found" message, but this site quotes some of it as well as trying to link to it (full FFA letter)...

A one man show??

Whatever the reason- pretty trashy move, Lowes!

Let's go on and post this link to the petition to talk some sense into Lowes (and contacts for Lowe's and TLC):

http://signon.org/sign/defend-our-american-values.fb1?source=s.fb&r_by=1781139
And Lowe's Corporate webform (had to keep deleting, but I got in a few good paragraphs)... or this email execustservice@lowes.com
And TLC viewer relations while we're at it (1500 character limit, I think)...

What do they have to say for themselves (not much- pretty weak, Lowes!):

The North Carolina-based Lowe's issued a statement apologizing for having "managed to make some people very unhappy."
"Individuals and groups have strong political and societal views on this topic, and this program became a lightning rod for many of those views," the statement said. "As a result we did pull our advertising on this program. We believe it is best to respectfully defer to communities, individuals and groups to discuss and consider such issues of importance."

Way to cave to a little pressure, Lowes! So much for socially responsible business. Like Caterpillar and the bulldozing of homes overseas. Wow. NC and Lowes aren't looking too good right about now. All those "Home of this and that" signs across the state might as well say bigot now. "Managed to make some people unhappy"??? I'd rather see "oops, that was racist/bigoted, we'll try and have more respect for fellow human beings in the future, we're sorry for reflecting poorly on NC and the US, guess what we're starting a Muslim scholarship fund (or at least reinstating ads)."

Really?!?! I mean if a bunch of bigoted white people emailed Lowes hate mail about black people, would Lowes fire all black employees? Or stop ads during shows with majority black casts?

Or is it just Muslims that it's OK to discriminate against and or hate?

It's best to defer to bigots? When? On what planet? I mean, where do we live? What decade is this again? We never learn. Come on, Lowes!

On wikipedia:

A chain spokesperson said it was because of "...concerns, complaints or issues from multiple sides of the viewer spectrum", while also telling the association in an e-mail that it had "brought [the show] to our attention."

Multiple sides? Really? Spectrum? Would that be the Christians the hate Muslims, the Jews and hate Muslim and atheists who hate Muslims? We've got FFA and sites like this one (yikes). I'm afraid I can't fathom more than one side on this. I'd like to see some sort of graph or explanation of the spectrum.

Lowes on Twitter (for even less clarity):
Lowe’s values diversity of thought in everyone, including our employees and prospective customers.

We did not pull our ads based solely on the complaints or emails of any one group. It is never our intent to alienate anyone.

Really, Lowes? Because it looks like either your other comments are a lie or these tweets are a lie. I wonder which it is.

I wonder if Lowes has the same feeling about TLC's other shows- Extreme Couponing (I've got a disease similar to hoarding, but it's cool, I'm saving money), 19 Kids and Counting (trying to make a fringe extremist Christian group mainstream- if I were to make a complaint similar to the AAM haters'), Sister Wives (polygamy is illegal- Lowes wants to promote that but not Muslim Americans??). I really don't know if All-American Muslim is the only show Lowes has pulled it's ads from on TLC or on any other network, but I have to ask.

If you watch the show, you see that that could easily be a show about a bunch of Christian families- maybe different denominations or differing levels of "devoutness." They discuss Islam on the show (both in reality and discussion formats), so you don't have to hear about it from hateful people or evangelicals who know nothing about it. You also see that outside of the religion they also struggle with exactly the same things everyone else does.

And I suppose (with all 3 items) therein lies the danger- once you see others as human and there's no one to demonize, you have to look inward- and we can't have that, now, can we? Who knows what we would find.

Another issue- There are Lowes in or around Dearborn. What are they going to do??? Maybe Muslims shop there. (?!?!? The horror!) Are they going to ban Muslims from the stores to save their sorry image and make this evangelical group happy? Do they accept Muslims' money? Lowes needs to poop or get off the pot. Do you have a problem with Muslims or Americans or peace and understanding? Be consistent. If you get rid of the ads, get on with it, put the sign on your door. Take us back to the pre-civil rights era. Get it out there so we can have this thing struck down. Or you could admit you were wrong and headed in a very un-American direction and make amends yourself.

On a different note: Previews after the 5th episode show what looks like Fouad, the football coach, the cast at a memorial service, with the eulogy including something like "when will the violence end." Yikes. Could be several events crammed together by TLC (like all networks like to do) to look exactly like something it isn't, but it looks serious. We'll see!

Also good points on:
http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2011/12/12/387101/lowes-all-american-muslim/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-12-12/muslim-reality-show-american/51836318/1

http://www.thetakeaway.org/2011/dec/12/lowes-pulls-ads-reality-show-all-american-muslim/

Not to get big brother on you, but my Feedjit tool tells what people search for and some crack me up:

muslims hate lowes
lowes says they hate muslims
what is going on between lowes and the muslims
lowes muslim problem

2011-12-05T06:01:00.001-05:00

Israeli propaganda:
http://youtu.be/sVS92TXthg

Electronic Intifada's article on it:
http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/israel-spurned-facebook-friend-worst-propaganda-video-ever#.TtyiUTj0tko

Thanksgiving... and other stuff

2011-11-20T13:40:00.001-05:00

Nothing's ever simple, is it?

In my sorting out the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I've at times thought about our own "origins" here in the US. We've got our own myths like Israel does. Cowboys and Indians. Thanksgiving decorations with the pilgrim, Indian, and turkey hanging out together, BFFs beside a cornucopia and a table full of food.

Shel Silverstein has a poem about looking at holidays from the food's point of view. It's kind of funny as is. But it made me uncomfortable a few months back as we read it as I thought about point of view in general. It doesn't help that I've been wondering how to explain some things to the kids- to tell the truth, but not to instill fear and hate (Thanksgiving and the Israeli occupation, for example). Back to POV- How the winner writes history in war. How the Palestinians in the current and historical conflict have the same problem even though we have the benefit of hindsight and the benefit of it's not being too late to right the wrongs. And Thanksgiving coming up. The kids are old enough to ask questions and notice certain things. One is in school and so she is learning the usual pilgrim myths from what I've gathered so far. Maybe genocide is too tough a topic for them yet, but maybe we can talk about some of the values they had and that these are often better than what the pilgrims brought (disease, superiority, crops that didn't work here, selling to replace giving, etc).

I don't know that I will boycott Thanksgiving, but I certainly want to be like some of the Native American groups who give thanks every day since this is also part of my own faith. I appreciate that this fact was brought up in worship just this morning. There is plenty that is good about it. It is pretty rare that Americans are encouraged to take days off (we like a disgruntled stressed out workforce here- it's great for the economy), so I'm all for anything like Thanksgiving where we can have a dependable widely recognized break. The time to get together with family is important, so I'd hate to see Thanksgiving done away with. On the other hand, I don't want to contribute to the preservation of the pilgrim (good) and Indian (bad) myths in any way. I feel that I should take a stand and bring up Native Americans and learn and ask questions, but most likely we'll focus on being thankful and avoid the pilgrims. I guess I don't have a solid plan on that one. We'll see.

***

I referred to this above...

http://racerelations.about.com/od/historyofracerelations/a/ShouldYouCelebrateThanksgiving_2.htm

Some Native Americans have 13 celebrations of thanks a year and some don't celebrate Thanksgiving because they feel it is against their culture of being thankful every day.

***

I wish it were like this...

Among many of our peoples, showing that you can give without holding back is the way to earn respect.

from http://www.purewatergazette.net/nativeamericanthanksgiving.htm

In my semi-disenchantment with our brand of capitalism, I have often wondered how or if something a little less synonymous with greed and more in line with the Bible could succeed. I listened to a bit on Quaker capitalism but we can also learn from Native Americans. The statement above is opposite of the atmosphere today. Today, it matters how much you have and can get; the method matters a lot less. If you're giving something away, you're seen as a sucker (your loss!) and definitely not respected more. If you're ripping people off, you are savvy, not a thief. Yes, there will always be bad apples, but these attitudes are the norm in society. For a country that prides itself on a Christian foundation and values, this capitalism thing sure is messed up. But for a country who wants to believe that Indians were dirty savages save a handful who helped out, converted to Puritanism and participated in harvest festivities while pilgrim diseases and guns (and subjugation) emptied the land for "discovery" and colonies I guess it's not much of a stretch.

I wonder if our myths aren't part of the reason we are so fond of Israel and theirs (Lucky us- a land without people for a people with no land! After the...er... massacres...).

Reading Lolita in Tehran

2011-11-11T10:33:00.001-05:00

So I'm reading Reading Lolita in Tehran. It reminds me of separation of church and state rants I've done on the blog in some ways.

I had these thoughts while reading the first part of the book. She goes into some description of Iran and compares it with her life abroad. The recent republican debates, Eid stamp hysteria emails, sharia law hysteria, Muslim hearings in Congress, etc have also been in the background of my thoughts on church and state and extremes lately.

Voting according to religion is good, but legislating it is often not- be careful what you wish for- we may end up living up in a Christian version of Iran. Imagine if baptism was the law or baptized individuals received rights others didn't get. The state loses and religion loses. We need to vote our conscience; that is our right and duty. When we start to impose our (or certain) religious rules on others, it becomes a problem. Not only have we taken away their right to work things out for themselves, but it may very well backfire on us. We start with the good intention of shielding children and ourselves from immorality and then the balance of power shifts and suddenly others are telling us how to practice our religion and what's moral and who we can and cannot hire as a preacher (for example).

There is a bit of discussion on the veil in Iran in the book. Before the revolution when you could wear colors and read fiction and laugh in public, the veil was a symbol of a choice. When it became law, the power of the symbol was lost, though the intent of the law was no doubt a moral one. The veil changed from being a personal, religious symbol to one of oppression in a lot of ways.

Sorry- just getting a lot of hits on my Muslim stamp post and listening to the republican candidates and debate highlights (sharia law in the US?!) ...

And another thing occurred to me- about page 209. A thought about the Bush administration. Not to make a direct comparison between Bush and Iran or anything. (Seriously!) She spoke of a mood of resignation and tiredness with all of the bombings and interruptions of life (Iran-Iraq war) when they were forced to hear military marches, news of a "victory", or mourn a "martyr." And then she talks about the complete opposite attitudes of people in the street with anti-war sentiments and the government droning on- "the regime's ideal continued the play itself out undeterred." This sentence reminded me so much of the voices (many experts and former US officials) of doubt about Iraq's possession of WMD, yellowcake and Africa, link to 9/11, etc and the Bush administration's smug superiority when Bush, Cheney or the others would continue to repeat things (Bush doctrine, mushroom cloud, hit them there rather than here, Iraq has WMD, Iraq is linked to 9/11) with the same smug certainty when they were first only suspected as false (by liberals generally-and me, though I hadn't decided what I was at that point but plenty of people told me what I was...) as when they were increasingly known to all as false and maybe lies. I'm not calling Bush a dictator or anything, but there was that same distance so vast it was unbelievable and almost funny (tragic) between the public and the government in both cases. That sentence really struck me as extraordinarily applicable- especially Cheney's certainty and the way he quoted something picked up by the Times, leaked by the administration itself. Bush was always concerned about his legacy and history; he can rest assured that he'll go down in it all right. Legendary.

Oddly enough , a recent event ties in somewhat. It's not the government, but still odd:

Did a Marriot Vacation Club survey and was asked a series of questions about vacations. Also included was a question about believing in 7 day creation and prayer in schools (?). We aren't members, but took a deal that offered a low rate in return to listening to the presentation and offer to do this timeshare thing, etc. I have no problem with discussing these things, but what is the motivation, here? It's none of their business. I am immediately suspicious and have less of a desire to join, not that it was high to begin with! This kind of gets at what I was saying- what if questions like these become routine for everything- businesses you want to enter and buy from, school admission, traffic stops.

ex-israeli president to serve 7 years

2011-11-10T09:30:00.002-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/ex-israeli-president-serve-7-years-rape-091342702.html

I guess it's good news. Everyone's saying how the legal system works or is improving and officials aren't above the law. There is a celebration of rights and freedom, but it begs the question for whom? We know there is a functional democracy for one segment of the population for whom the state and rights were designed- Jews.

And the judge quoted is Salim Joubran. I wonder if he felt the irony of talking about freedom or if he has access to the top tier of the legal system (he has pledged allegiance to the Jewish state?) and so he has no further obligation lest he lose his own station he's achieved.

Joubran seems to be all about Israeli democracy, but Daniel Pipes has branded him a destructive Arab nationalist. I don't know much about him, Pipes' accusations seem overblown and irrational, as usual. I'll try and find something better than Pipes- that's what came up first on Google.

Some links I plan to look up:

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/70074

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=5118555&ct=6957337

http://www.legalnews.com/ingham/948468

Irish and Canadian flotilla seizure, arrest, detention

2011-11-10T09:20:00.004-05:00

November 8, 2011

An update on the newest flotilla. I had posted earlier about the attempt when a Democracy Now correspondent was being held captive.

Here is the scoop:

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/8/israel_deports_democracy_now_correspondent_jihan

No violence of the Mavi Marmara type (thought someone almost got shot for telling the truth) , but still several interesting items to note:

A guard told them: you are not an Israeli, you are in Israel, and we make the laws (asserting jurisdiction over international waters essentially). Maybe they were referring specifically to the special US Israeli relationship? See the next one.

Another interesting fact is the US response to its citizens being held. The Irish delegation came every day and these prisoners had the right to associate in the courtyard, read and write. The US did not respond for several days and discouraged the prisoners from demanding the same rights as other prisoners because they were told this is a foreign country and the US is powerless here and it would be too much to ask as they are trying to work on their release. (???) Perhaps we should hand over our role as mediator in the conflict to the Irish and Canadian. The seem to have both the will and capability to secure rights for people and get things done.

The detainees were pressured to sign a false confession much like in, say, Iran. They were in a supposed democracy, though. Go figure. They were told to sign that they had illegally entered Ashdod even though they were seized in international waters and pulled into Ashdod by Israel. Israel was not their destination. Gaza, which Israel likes to remind everyone they have disengaged from when it suits their purposes, was.

Jihan Hafiz, an American citizen, was assigned the characterization activist rather than journalist simply because they didn't like her reporting. (How convenient for them!) She has DN credentials as well as US government issued credentials that allowed her into the House, Senate, State Department, etc. But what Israel says, goes, right?

The official Israeli position is that it is a clear case of provocation and they have a right to defend their borders. The destination was Gaza. That is not Israel's border.

Israel called the embargo the flotilla was supposedly violating an international embargo, not the Israeli embargo. Interesting. So, Israel is looking to the international community to uphold and take responsibility for this embargo and the lend it credibility and concurrently overlook illegal settlement building, apartheid, disproportionate use of force and human rights violations. (Well, it already overlooks it in practice, but Israel is always complaining when reports are issued about concern over these issues as though they are exempt.)

Palestinians Statehood Bid Friday- no consensus

2011-11-08T16:29:00.003-05:00

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/08/world/meast/united-nations-palestinians/

Wednesday and Friday are big deadlines this week. The 15 members have to look over the report and make changes by Wednesday and the admissions committee meets Friday (which is likely to send it to the Security Council for a vote).

What is up for debate: whether the Palestinians have a defined territory, are a peace-loving state, and are able and willing to fulfill the obligations in the U.N. Charter.

Let's take a look at this.

Well, on the first item, Palestinians' territory is as defined as Israel's, if you think about it. If Israel's a member in good standing, Palestine absolutely should be.

A peace-loving state. I know some people will be "up in arms" about that one. But given Israel's use of disproportionate force, collective punishment, and ethnic cleansing on a captive population, causing humanitarian crises, economic collapse, and massacres, Palestine is at least as peace-loving as Israel.

Willing and able to fulfill obligations. Here we might have a problem. Willing is not a problem. The Palestinian leadership has shown it's eagerness to "fulfill obligations" by offering to give up nearly the full menu of rights just for acceptance. Able. Let's see. Israel won't allow Palestinians a military for their own self defense and frequently targets the police force and infrastructure for raids and deadly/destructive attacks. Able could be an issue.

So, what we have found is that either Israel should be kicked out of the UN and international community (let's make this pariah state thing official) or we should fast track this ending the occupation thing that we've all been neglecting (no, not peace talks, I mean ending the occupation), allow refugees to go home (as directed in the UN resolution that is ignored), and pressure for equality for all citizens (maybe start with creating an Israeli nationality, rather than just Jewish?) and let Palestine and Israel (or Israel/Palestine as a single state) in after the occupation is ended.

A few more details here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20111108/un-un-palestinians-membership/

News flash- Netanyahu's a liar!

2011-11-08T14:39:00.003-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/sarkozy-told-obama-fed-israeli-pm-092347721.html

I know. We all know this already. Netanyahu's a liar, a racist, etc. But to hear world leaders discuss it is refreshing...sort of. I am glad they acknowledge who and what is fishy. Too bad their policies don't reflect these fleeting moments of truth we occasionally witness when there are "technical difficulties." I had hoped Obama was different. Maybe he is. But he can't do anything about it because of those crazy laws that made us stop funding for UNESCO or Congress who takes field trips sponsored by AIPAC and writes humiliatingly obsequious open letters of support to the only so-called democracy who institutionalizes discrimination and depends on that for their so-called existence.

Priceless:

"I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar," Sarkozy told Obama,

"You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you," Obama replied, according to the French interpreter.

OK, so Obama's comments aren't that bad, but at least he's possibly annoyed that he has to deal with Netanyahu, who's going to really end up making us look like idiots every time. For whatever reason we have to give them what they want, which makes us look like we either don't know international law, or know it and don't care anything for justice. What a bother.

Might I make a suggestion? Boycott, divestment, sanctions, anyone???

A few other interesting points in the article:

"I didn't appreciate your way of presenting things over the Palestinian membership of UNESCO. It weakened us. You should have consulted us, but that is now behind us," Obama was quoted as saying.

Really? France should have consulted the US? I disagree. This is the point of votes, to make things a bit more equal so that there isn't this back door dealing and strong-arming!

It weakened us. Boo hoo. Was that not the point? The issue needs a broader audience; the US has failed to deliver and the deck is stacked here such that we cannot ensure justice and equality for Palestinians (you know, the oppressed and occupied ones). To get out from under Israel's thumb, they clearly need to get the conflict resolution out of the US's death grip. This equal blame thing and equal call to the peace table for very unequal rights is a dead end.

Obama wants Sarkosy to tell the Palestinians (this is sounding a little like middle school) they have to stop joining UN organizations, so the US doesn't have to pull funding for the IAEA and Food and Agriculture. I think the Palestinians should go for it. Join as many as possible. It would be a little like the BDS movement in that it would highlight how not in our best interests Israel's occupation, oppression, ethnic cleansing and apartheid are. Or at least we might be forced to ask how committed are we to these crimes Israel commits versus Food and Agriculture, IAEA, intellectual property rights, and everything else.

Irish and Canadian flotilla- preliminary

2011-11-07T10:41:00.002-05:00

Israel's holding a Democracy Now correspondent in the latest flotilla action!

Whether activists of aid workers, I hope they can make a difference.

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/11/4/breaking_israel_detains_democracy_now_correspondent_jihan_hafiz_aboard_gaza_flotilla

I don't have so much to say on this that I didn't way with the last flotilla except that I can only hope the freedom waves idea catches on so that this is a continuous "operation." Go Ireland and Canada!

I think the BDS movement is probably more likely to get the desired results, but things like this are needed as well for raising awareness, challenging injustice and showing solidarity.

PACBI
BDS book

USACBI

Justice= EQUALITY, end to occupation, right of return for ALL refugee (AKA the full menu of rights).

There cannot be peace without justice.

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."

--Desmond Tutu

Jerusalem fight in US

2011-11-07T10:19:00.003-05:00

Seems like I've heard this story before...

High court to weigh whether passport of Jerusalem-born American can say he was born in Israel

A US family is suing to try and get Jerusalem, Israel listed as the birthplace on a passport for their son. An argument they are using is that he was born in West Jerusalem, so only those who don't want Israel to exist would object. Hmmm. Typical. But doesn't really follow international law that the status depends on the final outcome of negotiations.

Why are we even hearing this? Shouldn't this be thrown out? If the courts side with the family, we are essentially making a unilateral decision to say Jews have a right to Jerusalem as the undivided capital since we'd be making a move on this law that was passed but was on hold due to international law concerns. That concern would be gone. We might as well get behind Israel's initiatives to ethnically cleanse (or transfer if you prefer the soft term) Jerusalem and Israel to the 1967 borders of Palestinians. Or a one state solution where all have equal rights. But this is something not even a black president will dare to do. I thought Obama would be able to see the injustice and want to fight it wherever it occurred, but that was a mistake. This is America. Rights are for certain people. And that is determined by us, what's in it for us, and how much economic gain there is for us. This is the part where we forget about our "Christian nation" until the abortion and gay marriage stuff comes up. After we stop talking about money and power and how much we want and have, then let's remember God.

There is or was a law trying to get the embassy moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and this is what this is about.

This is from Bush's unusually wise decision to delay moving the embassy:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/president-bush-delays-moving-u-s-embassy-to-jerusalem-1.207443

The truth is, it is a bit like anything else Israel does (true, these are Americans, but acting in the interest of Israel). Building a wall on Palestinian land, building settlements on Palestinian land, bulldozing homes in East Jerusalem due to building restrictions for Palestinians only. Build a light rail connecting Jerusalem to the settlements in the occupied territory to go with those Jewish only roads. Anything to prejudice the outcome in their favor.

And let's not even mention how these Americans are fighting over putting the word Israel on a passport when they are allowed to have citizenship in Israel free and clear while Palestinian natives in Israel (and refugees abroad while we're at it) have no such right. There is no Israeli nationality; there is a Jewish nationality. Christian and Muslim are not nationalities, so where does that leave them? 93% of the land "belongs" to the JNF and like foundations for Jewish use only. Attempts are often made to ban Arab political parties. The Citizenship and Entry in to Israel Law- disproportionately affects Arabs, if you marry an Israeli, you can't live in Israel and the Israeli must give up citizenship if you live in OPT. Arabs are exempt from military service which makes sense (given that they'd be required to occupy and control fellow Palestinians), but this means a lot of services, benefits, opportunities of citizenship are not open to them since they often have the stipulation that you have to have completed your compulsory service.

Minority Rights in Israel:

(legal organization)

http://www.adalah.org/eng/backgroundlegalsystem.php

Palestinian Rights Absent From Recent Israeli Protest Demands:

(describes some of the institutionalized discrimination)

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7238

***(not described is how institutionalized discrimination is apartheid and should not be supported by the US government or anyone)***

Normal (non-political)

2011-11-07T08:57:00.001-05:00

A break from politics...

What is the meaning of life? What is normal? These are very common questions in society, often meant to evoke a conundrum with so many answers it is impossible to decide, but that's not what I'm getting at here.

So the words not normal were uttered in relation to my daughter recently. I have to admit that along with the anger in frustration simmering, there was concern and doubt. Not normal to me says someone is beating around the bush about a disability (anything from shyness to autism to psychopathology could be implied) and if that's the case, we need to be speaking openly in order to get the best outcome. I honestly don't think that's what is going on, despite my moments of weakness and desire to consider all possibilities. Either way, my daughter is going to need an advocate and I'm the best and worst person for the job. I wonder if that's why I was able to quit my job at precisely the time she started school?

What exactly was meant by not normal? She doesn't participate or play much with other kids. OK...and? She's happy. That's good, right? Do you know what my Kindergarten and maybe preschool and 1st grade teachers said about me? They were worried and couldn't tell if I was happy, sad or bored. I have often thought if the various spectrums for disabilities were as well defined then as now, I'd have been put on there. Who knows. It was also said that my daughter knows the answers when she is asked. So, again, I'm thinking what's the problem? What was probably meant for her was shyness or introversion (which is totally normal to me!) either learned or inherited from me and to some degree and in some ways my husband. I should put this into context because I myself have a hard time with normal given how different what I like, do, and am is from what is expected.

Normal is loud and obnoxious and in your face- needing to sell yourself to everyone all the time. If you know it, show it; if you've got it, flaunt it. This is The American Way. Morals and politeness are for those the "successful" (this, too, has an American definition) will crush to get to the top. That is what American Dreams are made of. That is the reason we Americans have a certain... ahem... reputation. I guess I'm not normal in that I don't share the view that these types of things are positive. Is my personality a result of this view or vice versa? I don't know. I guess it doesn't matter.

When I say doubt at the beginning, I don't just mean about her- is there something wrong or not? I mean doubt about myself, too. I've spend many childhood years (and a few adult moments revisiting these childhood years) convincing myself I am normal and there's nothing wrong with me. The day I learned the word introvert could have been as valuable to my life as baptism was to my soul. Not to make it sound like it was definitely the difference between life and death; I never made it to that place- but I always think, if this or that were different, who knows.

It would explain my fascination with other countries and cultures despite my relatively "normal" American life- I didn't grow up traveling the world and didn't grow up among immigrants (though I have some surprisingly recent German immigrants in the family, no longer living). I figure there's got the be a culture where I fit in. The Japanese think more of reserved people, not less. And the eye contact thing that could make or break you in American first impressions- that not looking people in the eye respects privacy- I completely get that! Personal space is important. In Europe, quiet people are popular (apparently). When I've gone to Honduras and Peru, I know I enjoyed a bit of popularity. That could have been cultural, but it could have also been that fascination with a foreigner that would wear off if I were to stay or the fact that I was nearly the only gringo who spoke enough Spanish to converse. Either way, it was nice to be noticed and not invisible in a good, "normal" way (if I can use that meaningless word again). Being noticed here usually involves being put on the spot and expected to perform- say or do something totally unexpected and entertaining or fantastic.

And it is with such thoughts that I must teach my daughter how to be like me, but better. Normal and not so much. How to fit in or join in where I can't and not sacrifice what is important (to me, not those American traits above). In general terms, it's a universal struggle, but more so if you happen to have been born in the wrong place.

US caves on settlements- again

2011-11-02T06:46:00.003-04:00

This is an extension of my last post, really. Ban Ki-moon called settlements unacceptable and Clinton sometimes views them as inconvenient or whatever. We at one time had the brilliant idea to go with international law on this and so I had hope justice would be served when we said settlement building should be frozen. They should also be dismantled to be fair, but a freeze is a start.

Apparently, that is not our policy anymore. Because George Mitchell's gone? Who knows.

Our new position on settlements:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/in-jerusalem-clinton-hails-unprecedented-israeli-settlement-concessions-1.5060

And as I said in my last post, this settlement issue in which Israel is clearly in the wrong is used as an opportunity to call Palestinians out for throwing in obstacles and pretexts. And not only that! Oh no! Israel gets praise for unprecedented restraint! Good job on doing a little less illegal and unjust behavior?! Really?

Note in the article how Clinton says patience has it's limits with respect to Iran. Ha! What is the limit on Israel?? The sky apparently! We will endure (not that we are the victims and have to endure squat) any amount of injustice and international law breaking from these criminals, but not others. That was in the same article. It shows perfectly the double standard and contradictions of the US.

More than ever, Palestinians and supporters should demand what Desmond Tutu did:

"I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights."

UNESCO vote- YES!!

2011-11-01T20:10:00.003-04:00

Palestine state wins first victory in UNESCO vote:

Clinton insisted that "the decision about status must be made in the United Nations and not in auxiliary groups."

Now this is an interesting change in policy. Seems like just a short time ago Clinton maintained that the UN was not the place for deciding statehood...

Clinton also called this move confusing, which I find confusing.

France said it was "not the time." ??? They want negotiations. ??? The occupied negotiating for human rights with their occupier? It hasn't worked and what can one possibly trade (as is common in negotiations) to get inalienable or fundamental God given rights??? How about boycott, divest, sanction the occupier?

Why are we punishing Palestinians for pursuing a non-violent, smart, international and on top of it all LEGAL move to gain human rights and justice? It just doesn't make sense. It makes even less sense when you consider the US-Israeli special relationship. Israel constructs illegal settlements in teh W. Bank and E. Jerusalem and expands them in violation of international law and often in situations that embarrass us. What do we do in response to this one example of many illegal and unjust moves? Do we think about pulling funding from Israel or occupation sustaining institutions immediately? No, we mumble our position here and there that settlements are unhelpful or counterproductive or some equally ineffective thing that makes Israel think that they have to green light to keep on violating the law! Clearly they aren't getting the message. What does one typically do when a country violates the law repeatedly and doesn't listen to warnings and doesn't respond to diplomacy. If it's anyone but Israel, we attack or sanction or cut funding, or whatever Micronesia and the Coalition of the Willing is up for at the time.

*** *** ***

Of course Democracy Now has something good on this:

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/11/1/us_pulls_all_funding_for_unesco

With this yes vote, it is automatically eligible to join some other groups as well. I found it interesting that as the US pulls funding for UN organizations that let Palestine in, the US vote goes and this could hurt our interests in groups like the one on Intellectual Property Rights and others. I really am curious how this will play out. Will we bend the UN and world to our will or will the US be forced into recognizing reality and support Palestinian equality at the expense of a "special" relationship.

I particularly enjoyed Matthew Lee's questioning of Victoria Nuland, State Department spokesperson. She didn't have any answers for why Palestine joining was undermining peace. She contended that the US was trying to "improve the environment" and apparently Palestine going to the UN rather than sitting down with their oppressor and seeing what rights they are "allowed" to have would make Israel not want to sit down at the table and so it is ill advised. Never mind the imbalance of power. Never mind the fact that Israel's settlement building actually does undermine peace due to the fact that Israel is grabbing land for the to-be-negotiated state in violation of international law (but when Palestinians bring this fact up, they are condemned for obstructing "negotiations" with preconditions).

*** *** ***

This link talks more about the positive side of the UNESCO vote. I also think it will give Palestinians leverage so they won't have to be so dependent on the US and Israel.

Maybe they can soon demand what Desomnd Tutu spoke of:

"I am not interested in picking up crumbs of compassion thrown from the table of someone who considers himself my master. I want the full menu of rights."

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/10/2011103172551498181.html

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle For Palestinian Rights

2011-10-29T17:59:00.001-04:00

Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions: The Global Struggle For Palestinian Rights

(Comments so far)

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/4/bds

***This book brings up many excellent points.

The 3 point BDS Call goals:

1. End occupation, dismantle wall

2. Full equality for Arab Israelis

3. Right of return for refugees

***Three comparisons or terms frequently shunned are explained:

1. People often strongly oppose the use of the word apartheid because Jews are not the minority oppressing the majority. The rest of the definition in the 1973 UN Convention concerning apartheid fits perfectly:

The Rome Statute defines apartheid as inhumane acts "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime."

2. They oppose the word genocide in many cases of collective punishment and siege because, though many acts of Israel toward Palestinians are described in the UN definition, the intent is not clear. A look at article II of the 1948 Geneva Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide leaves little doubt about what is going on. One of Barghouti's examples is that often cancer and disease incidence isn't recorded for Palestinian populations in Israel (by Israel). This is the only thing that causes environmental rules to force companies to stop contaminating groundwater. These companies end up relocating to Palestinian areas, thus causing more pollution and a much higher incidence of birth defects, fertility problems, cancer and other issues.

http://electronicintifada.net/content/never-against-european-collusion-israels-slow-genocide/7309#.Tqxzz4ZY1ko

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/01/200911321467988347.html

Soft ethnic cleansing is often forgotten or not classified as such. This is creating conditions on the ground that force Palestinians to live or work in other Arab countries and also imposing visa and other restrictions that do not allow them to come back to visit for long or live. Soffer has been a big proponent on this if you want read about demography, ethnic cleansing and someone who is proud to espouse these sorts of crimes.

3. The comparison of Israel with the Nazi regime are often considered tantamount to anti-Semitism or at the very least massive exaggeration by most. What most who use this example are actually referencing are not the gas chambers, but the period before that with all of the racist laws.

http://www.rense.com/general39/isrnewlaw.htm

http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israeli-academic-loyalty-oath-resembles-racist-laws-of-1935-1.318275

***Barghouti points out that the more extreme parties supporting armed struggle typically have the more favorable (maximalist) platform with regard to rights and so even though Palestinians have a history of nonviolent resistance, it has been rather weak. The nonviolent movement typically works with the West and has had to water down (minimize) its "demands" to gain an audience, such as allowing a symbolic number of refugees back only, allowing some settlements to stay, etc (refer to any accord the US has signed onto).

***He brings up the point that some one the Israeli left can only support boycott when it is in the context of "saving Israel from itself." This is exactly the attitude in the US that I have seen. When I've talked about it or posted about it, people never hit "like" and they tend to look uncomfortably at you as though you uttered a racial slur but they don't really want to confront you on it. In order to be confident that you will be listened to without people scrunching up their faces in discomfort, you have to talk about your concern for Israel, how the occupation is bad for their economy or society, etc. In this country, you can't just say you want Palestinians to be free from the occupation and have equal rights and be taken seriously. True, more people now realize Israel is not 100% right in all it does than 10 years ago, but you still get "looks" if you express your desire to see Israel sanctions and compelled to follow international law.

***Some think boycotts, ending the occupation, giving refugees their right to return home, giving Palestinians equal rights will destroy Israel. I've heard this many times. If this is true, the particular form of democracy needs to be scrapped. It wasn't worth saving if occupation, apartheid and demographic analysis to maintain ethnic or religious majorities are required to exist. This is considered unthinkable. Are we really going to maintain that Israel has the right to exist as it sees fit even if those conditions prevent others from having fundamental human rights?? This nonsense is the basis for "dialogue" and "peace negotiations."

***He brings up the point that some people argue that a boycott on cultural and academic institutions interferes with academic freedom. I find this objection to boycott rather ridiculous since Israel prevents and disrupts to varying degrees Palestinian education. We should advocate Israeli intellectuals' academic freedom more than Palestinians' right to education??

"Striving for peace divorced of justice is as good as institutionalizing injustice, or making the oppressed submit to the overwhelming force of the oppressor, accepting inequality as fate." (From the book and online here.)

***The concept of ending oppression first before endorsing dialogue, peace and reconciliation initiatives. He addresses the asymmetry between Israel and Palestinians so often forgotten in discussions about the conflict.

***This little tidbit sounds like conspiracy theory and unfortunately could breathe life into the stereotype that Jews rule the world... but it is a real campaign. Brand Israel is a propaganda campaign designed to counter the BDS campaign and bad press resulting from Israel's disproportionate uses of force, occupation, war crimes and collective punishment. It aims to send as many Israeli artists, dancers, authors, etc abroad so others can see Israel has side with culture and ideals, not just a brutal colonial side concerned with the Arab birth rate to genocidal extremes.

Putting Out a Contract on Art (referenced by the BDS book- proof of an actual contract with artists in the propaganda campaign)

EI article on Branding Israel

MIFTAH on Branding Israel

***The next point is controversial for me. I have always been pretty supportive of initiatives that bring Israelis and Palestinians together for scientific, art, dialogue, and whatever. I thought it would be good to get Israel to see Palestinians as human, but I can see the author's point that ignoring the occupation and not taking and demanding a definite stand against it is a big problem that results in its perpetuation. Barghouti makes a good case for the boycott of such things by bringing up UNESCO- pretty timely, I guess. After the ICJ ruling (1971) that S. Africa's occupation of Namibia was illegal, UNESCO convened several conferences on resistance against occupation, sports boycott, sanctions against racist South Africa, etc. There was a similar ICJ ruling in 2004 on Israel's wall and occupation, but no subsequent mobilization of the international community in support of the Palestinian victims. Just this week, UNESCO accepts Palestine as a member. What this means, I have no idea. But I am coming off a nasty sinus infection , so give me a chance.

1 = 1,027

2011-10-24T10:25:00.003-04:00

There are several things that come to mind when you hear about the release of Gilad Shalit in return for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners.

The exchange rate. One Israeli life is worth 1,000 Palestinian lives. Or appears to be, whether in this instance or in the vengeance Israel visits on Palestinians when an Israeli dies in an attack. And it could be more than 1000 when you consider Israel will just round up hundreds more in the next raid.

How many of the 1,027 have had a fair trial (jury, lawyer allowed to see evidence, allowed to see lawyer, etc) and been convicted and how many are being held without charge, without access to lawyer and family, in unsuitable conditions, tortured, or in any other violation of Israeli or international law. How many or what percentage of ALL Palestinian prisoners are political prisoners?

The bias toward Israel in the media and dehumanization of Palestinians. We all know about Gilad Shalit and the plight of his family. This is the same with suicide bombing victims' families of the past. Do we ever get a story on a Palestinian whose house was demolished, whose brothers and father were arrested for no reason, whose family members were killed by "stray bullets" to the head, any IDF operation, being an IDF human shield, or violating curfew? Of course not. We give more airtime to Israeli victims than we did Rachel Corrie, a US citizen killed by the IDF! The most you will see is a few pictures of nameless Palestinian women crying over rubble. There will be no human interest story, no names given, no follow up for the thousands (of innocents) who die at the hands of the Israeli Occupation Army. Often, the justification is given that the deaths are so constant that it takes a major extraordinary event, not just the daily struggle to survive to make news and be worth a journalists' effort to write and send to their boss.

Why not release all the lawmakers and politicians they have arrested so that Palestinians can get on with state building?

Why release the hundred(s) of prisoners that have been proven in a fair trial to have blood on their hands. Is it worth it to free one guy?

The large settlement approval that comes on the heels of Shalit being freed. I thought the deal was to promote peace? Why do something immediately that is blatantly illegal, on a large scale and very public?

So that last one seems surprising until you realize Israel likes to announce these things when American officials visit or when everyone seems to be thinking about coming to the table to talk.

It seems like it isn't often Ban Ki-Moon has anything to say about Israel, but he's calling the recent settlement plan coming in the wake of the release of Gilad Shalit and the PA UN bid unacceptable.

This rabbi makes a good point about Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. They don't get trials, are sometimes tortured, are held in inhumane conditions and if changes to Israel's protocol are made, they could demand the same of Hamas.

I find this sentence in a Telegraph article quite interesting:

Hundreds of those included in the exchange were convicted for their involvement in deadly attacks on Israelis, but the Palestinians regard the detainees as heroes, calling them political prisoners.

Ok. It says hundreds were indeed convicted for deadly attacks. Let's say this is true. I don't know. I haven't been able to find much out about the Palestinian prisoners. And I don't know if those convicted of resisting the occupation army are considered among these hundreds of guilty, which would inflate the number. If hundreds are guilty that leaves hundreds (a majority? who knows.) that have not been tried or are being held even though innocent. These ARE political prisoners! And whether they are found guilty or not, conditions of prisons are deplorable and treatment can border on torture, so that would be reason enough to consider them heroes- Israel's giving them this reason, this badge of honor or surviving conditions in Israeli prisons- but that could be a reason even the guilty are revered. (Though most or many -again, who knows- could be innocent political prisoners.)

A few lists of the names of the prisoners. No word on the status- political prisoners, fair trial, numbers, convicted. The NY Times makes sure you know kidnappers and murders are being released, though. I'm sure the implication is that all in Israeli prisons are treated like they are here and all are guilty, blah, blah, blah.

http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/palestinian-prisoners-names-behind-numbers

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/17/world/middleeast/17shalit-document.html

Palestinian prisoners in general:

http://addameer.info/?cat=71

http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/miftah-waiting-game-about-israeli-detention-policies/

http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/04/commemorating-palestinian-political.html

Boycott, Divest, Sanctions

2011-10-14T11:01:00.002-04:00

Flash Mob at a grocery store. I'm not sure if this was Boycott, divest, Sanctions, but they do have a handy dandy flash mob toolkit :) Ok, the link is for US Campaign to End Israeli Occupation, not BDS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r114HojWQC0

I don't think I see this many people who know a lot about the conflict in my area, let alone that would come out and do THAT! I figure, you've got to have thousands of people talking and caring about the issue to get anywhere near that many people to come out and plan and execute a flash mob.

***

Barghouti's book on the BDS campaign:

http://www.amazon.com/Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions-Struggle-Palestinian/dp/1608461149

I haven't read it, but it's on the list.

***

In thinking about lists I've seen of companies to boycott, I have a few thoughts...

I am familiar with the Ahava campaign, Stolen Beauty, and others. Or Caterpillar. Yes, I've written them. If you're making the claim of social responsibility and your products are famous for bulldozing homes, sorry, you've asked for it. I would guess there are also certain companies you shouldn't buy feta, hummus, dates, olives, falaffel mix and other Middle Eastern foods from, like Sabra, Tribe, Carmel (Agrexco), etc.

Blog post about Sabra "caving"... I think the ardent Sabra supporter author is still justified in promoting Sabra... but whatever...

There is a 729 campaign for the barcode (1st 3 numbers), but not everything made there has these numbers. I think it matters in which country items made in the Occupied Territories are being sold as to what barcode it has, among other factors, so this hasn't proven terribly reliable. If I see "made in Israel" I'll take that as my hint. I won't buy it. I've never seen 729 on these items, by the way. Yes, I check. I'm curious.

As for boycotting Nestle or McDonald's for doing business over there, I think that is an issue to be taken up by letters, protests, getting prominent people to speak up in ads and other public ways.

This flier lists a few companies, mostly in NY to boycott:

http://adalahny.org/images/image/consumer_boycott_flyer.pdf

***

A UK initiative to twin cities with Palestinian ones;

they also have info on buying Palestinian goods:

http://www.twinningwithpalestine.net/shop.html

No to mosque burning, but collective punishment and ethinic cleansing ok?

2011-10-10T10:18:00.002-04:00

Another "Price Tag" attack.

And in case we are in any doubt about who the targets are, a Christian and a Muslim cemetery was vandalized with slogans like "death to the Arabs" and others.

I wonder what Christian Zionists are thinking in times like these? (My post on Christian Zionism) That Christians deserve to pay or should be glad to pay for the Jewish right to oppress others? Oh, wait - Christian Zionists probably aren't thinking anything about this- this wasn't reported in the US. At least I didn't get it from any American source. And the BBC has something, but it is taking a back seat to Arab Spring progress on the web page.

Here's a link from March about Price Tag: http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/price-tag-terror-becoming-the-norm-in-israeli-society/

Anyway, back to Price Tag...

On graves this time. Classy. The Price Tag movement by definition, though, is just that classy. It's a bunch of people (Jewish settlers mostly? Or have more joined in?) who attack innocent Palestinians when their own government shows any movement toward following the law, which began with "dismantling" illegal settler outposts (ignores that ALL settlements are ILLEGAL). Another fact that seems to be overlooked by all is that this is TERRORISM by most peoples' definition, yet we call it Price Tag or refer to it like an isolated attack.

Lately, it has been noted by Ha'aretz that Price Tag Terrorsts don't need a trigger, just opportunity. Will we hold these people responsible for the failure of peace talks and start thinking of all Jews in terms of arsonists and grave vandals? Will this justify flying jets over Israeli cities and dropping one ton bombs all over the place? Shall we erect checkpoints and enact curfews that shut down normal life? Blockades? Will we round up and rough up every young Jew and throw them into prison until they get something useful? Shall we deport the suspects to an Eastern European exile? Of course none of this will happen- Israel isn't fighting a state or a people that has this capability. But what if... Never mind. In reality, the suspects probably won't even face jail time.

Two links on the current attacks:

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=427151

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/muslim-christian-graves-in-jaffa-defaced-with-racist-slogans-in-suspected-price-tag-attack-1.388822

The contradiction that prompted the post:

Livni: Mosque 'Price tag' attack should be condemned

"Burning of mosques goes against the values of Israel as a Jewish state," Livni said.

So this is encouraging, right? I suppose it was more relief actually. You never know what's going to be the official Israeli line. Usually it is something pretty preposterous. 1000 Palestinian dead and they used restraint, have the most moral army in the world, tried really hard to prevent casualties.

They are condemning the mosque attacks. Great. What about the occupation and collective punishment? Does demolishing homes go against Jewish values? Is it a democratic value to continually ban refugees from returning home after war, not allow family reunification, deny visas, erect checkpoints, etc so that you can maintain a certain demographic favorable to you?

More on "Price Tag" (my previous posts):

More Settler Terrorism

"Hebrew slogans" and another reasons settlements should be razed

Sanctions for UN bid; not for Israeli violence??

2011-10-06T12:14:00.000-04:00

Write your representatives here:
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=3124

US to sanction Palestinians for going to UN, but no sanctions on Israel's ignoring UN Resolutions, international law, human rights and decency (i.e. not trashing the place and pooping on the floor when you do your illegal searches and seizures) not to mention causing humanitarian crises, collective punishment and using disproportionate force on captive mostly civilian "targets"???

Punishment for nonviolence. What message are we trying to send? Obviously, we were lying when we said all those years that we can't support Palestinians because of suicide bombings- we had no intention of bestowing statehood on them any which way.

Jul 1-6, 2011 S.Res.185

I found this link about the passage and various Senators' statements on the floor regarding it, but no news articles on S. Res. 185's passage. Well worth reading.

A rewriting of 185... I like it.

Text - thomas.loc.gov

H.Res.268 July 6, 2011

The play by play on H. Res. 268- NY Times

A Green Party (GA) notice on the H. Res. 268 vote that day.

Text- thomas.loc.gov

September 19, 2011 in Haaretz- US urges Netanyahu not to impose stiff sanctions??

October 2, 2011 US Congress compared to playground bullies

Counterproductive? Can we not say i-l-l-e-g-a-l ?

2011-10-04T17:31:00.003-04:00

Israel OKs 1,100 new East Jersusalem settlement homes

The thing that initially caught my eye was Secretary of State Clinton calling this latest settlement building approval (1100 in Arab E. Jerusalem) counterproductive. Counterproductive?! There are so many things they are and counterproductive is way too conciliatory. They are illegal. They violate the Geneva Convention. They undermine the entire process since they are building on land that is internationally recognized to be the future Palestinian state in this two state solution everyone is so keen on nowadays. Their inhabitants burn olive groves, beat farmers, are armed and a danger to civilians and this after stealing the land they build on.

Another thing that comes to mind is the big deal Israel made (or tried to) about the Palestinians' big unilateral move in going to the UN to declare their state. The pot is calling the kettle black. Each new settlement, each expansion of an existing one is an entirely unilateral land grab. What is Israel so bent out of shape about with unilateral moves? I guess if Palestinians succeed in the UN, Israel may not have such a free hand in its unilateral moves! Israel wants Palestinians to beg and plead and offer their weapons, right of return and their capital in return for permission to have a state conditional on who knows what. Does Israel ask Palestinians before they build Jewish only "neighborhoods" (if you want to sanitize it) and Jewish only roads? No. They don't even have to have warrants to enter, search and destroy Palestinian homes even though their law requires it. They answer to no one. Can anyone wonder why Palestinians would want to go another route at the UN?

So that was initially what caught my eye, but look at that title? MSNBC is supposed to be liberal media? Settlement homes? That's how you describe something illegal? Maybe they felt the facts would color things the wrong way? Just report the facts. Illegal is illegal.

And from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15080160

school rant central

2011-10-04T11:34:00.000-04:00

I should have started out by saying that I apologize to any teachers, I probably don't know the half of what your big issues are to deal with. This may make me look pretty ignorant to teachers and administrators in the trenches. This is only the perspective from where I, one parent, am sitting at this moment in time.

I'll start with a link and status from FB this AM.

I had more to say, so I'll blog.

http://www.handwritingforkids.com/handwrite/manuscript/texts/index.htm

As I sit making worksheets I'm wondering A) should I have homeschooled and B) what is she doing all day in Kindergarten 'cause it ain't practicing handwriting step by step like I the "old days."

*** *** *** *** ***

I still feel good about our decision not to send to kids to preschool, but if they are going to expect one to be able to write well and almost read, they should REQUIRE x # years of preschool and make good public ones available. Insert suggestion to invest in our own kids instead of the Israeli Occupation.

And once we sort that out, let's bring music back. I used to love that "break" where you get to sing, play recorder and put on plays and such. I probably learned something about music inadvertently; if nothing else we got introduction and appreciation. Aside from that, I can't see justifying dropping it. Aren't there studies that show that music is good for math skills? It's sad that that won't be a part of my childrens' school experience. I mean, why not replace computer class with music class, unless they are typing or programming or something. I mean, we are kind of to the point that computers are so ubiquitous that teaching kids to use them (I'm not actually sure what goes on in her class) seems unnecessary. Maybe I am way off on that point in some circumstances, but I think music would be a better use of the time, especially if kids have any access to computers, smart boards, and iPads in class.

And don't get me started on school breakfast/lunch. Too late. :) Let's start with breakfast. They talk about reduced lunch and the policy of kids not going hungry. Yes, I think that's good, but when breakfast is a pop tart or super bun (whatever that is- I'm imagining a Honey Bun covered in icing...) I don't think you're helping out all that much. I did notice a few less of those options this month than last, so maybe it just takes them a bit to get organized?

Now, lunch and the potato problem. Yikes. Let me start by listing the "ways with potatoes": oven baked fries, parslied potatoes, baked potato, potato rounds, whipped potatoes, and of course sweet potato casserole (which I'm guessing means marshmallow and brown sugar?). Not so bad, right (except for the last one for which they could sub a baked sweet potato with a little cinnamon...)?

I do see some positives. French fries and deep fried options don't seem to be there. I'll give them that. But when you are replacing a green veggie with a starch, that is a problem. At least I think so. Maybe it is a failure on the parents' part that a Kindergartener won't choose the healthy option independently? Or maybe elementary students shouldn't have so much choice? My thought is that even if we eat healthy food at home and they like it and eat it, the broccoli, turnip greens, peas and green beans I've seen at various schools are soggy, straight from a can, salt-less and flavorless. I probably would let them choose the main course and set the rest- or let them choose main course and have a choice of "equal" veg- peas or green beans, broccoli or mixed veg, etc.

Maybe school lunch is a rite of passage and I should just relax. I can accept that because I think we do a good job at home and enjoy family meals and all the rest. Also, there is the money issue. Budget, budget, budget. Federal government and everyone else is living on credit and borrowed time. I know having Jamie Oliver* come and cook all of the meals would not be in the realm of possiblity, but could we demand more, as in a team of nutritionists or something, than one person who may or may not have a science or nutrition background (I don't know) set menus for the entire county or state or however that's done?

*Jamie Oliver reference- His show is Food Revolution. And here is another can of worms- was there mutiny, did the healthy changes stick, was it real, etc. I think there was a lot in there about how school lunches are set up and how they have to use what they are given...most of which I've forgotten, but I remember coming away with how it is a racket. I thought the premise was good and was hoping it and the revolution would take off.

And in case you are wondering, yes, I am for banning vending machines with soda, sweets and junk also but I guess that's another issue...

Having said all of that, I still think my husband and I made the right choice in schooling for now, despite all of this- what may seem like- complaining from me. I'm an introvert and so I consider myself just more observant, not a big complainer. I notice things. I guess I should have said that when people used to ask me why I didn't talk. Sometimes these observations bother me. Anyway, as a result of our looking at all the school options, I plan to be involved because I think it's as important as if I homeschooled as to how much the kids gets out of it. I guess we can always switch things up if necessary. I still feel the pros and cons are pretty equal either way.

This isn't really the post I set out to write, but I won't delete it. It is what it is, as it is with me.

teaching hate

2011-10-03T11:53:00.000-04:00

I saw someone searched for "Hebrew slogans" on my blog, and I have a relevant addition. People love to flash those pics of Palestinian kids with guns and camo and say how hate is taught. No one tends to believe that Jewish children either are taught or learn the same things from their parents.

I'm reading Raja Shehadeh's When the Birds Stop Singing and he talks about Jewish school children being required to write soldiers notes of encouragement as writing exercises, like I remember writing the President as a class exercise in 1st grade.

Some say Palestinians corner the market on teaching hate, but the Jewish children wrote things like:

*kill as many Arabs as possible
*for me kill at least 10
*ignore the laws and spray them

see also:
The myth of incitement in Palestinian textbooks
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3923.shtml

Occu-mation: Closed Zone and A Land in Fragments

2011-09-27T18:11:00.001-04:00

This is something I've linked to before, but couldn't find it, then found it again. Anyway, it's educational and entertaining.

"Closed Zone": 90 animated seconds on the closure of Gaza

http://www.closedzone.com

---

AFSC

Israel-Palestine: A Land in Fragments

2-minute video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ewF7AXn3dg

---

The Debate on a Palestinian State- the Time article

2011-09-26T17:46:00.000-04:00

This article inspired the title of my last post because I intended to include it, but I kept remembering stuff and it went longer and longer, much like this sentence, so I didn't include it...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2094388,00.html

On FB:

The Debate on a Palestinian State- Time Magazine- Having only read the title, I say the only thing to actually debate is one binational state or two. The fact that Palestinians deserve and need a state should not be up for debate at all- it is a given and too long overlooked. If statehood is the debate, then to be fair, we should also debate whether Israel's statehood should be revoked or not.

On FB, after reading it:

An Israeli minister (Yossi Beilin), president of the Council on Foreign Relations (Richard Haass), a Palestinian journalist (Daoud Kuttab), and Uzi Landau (of the extremist Yisrael Beiteinu party of all things!). Not exactly variety. If we were talking about Israeli politics, this would be a panel. Wow. There is a range of opinion among just Palestinians and they didn't even go there. And to include the party of the extremist settler Foreign Minister Lieberman! Settlers are illegal, so until there is one state or they move back to Israel, they shouldn't even be allowed in office, print, etc. I mean, if you're going to listen to and seriously consider these guys, there is no reason not to get Hamas or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad in on the action. But, then they couldn't get another Palestinian opinion, so the chances of that are nil.

Beilin- To his credit, he thinks Israel should vote yes the a Palestinian state... but likens it to jumping on the train headed for the train wreck to steer it properly and save the day. Israel can avoid disaster (whatever that means- keeping the occupation, run the show, renounce any claim/ownership to/of any land outside the W Bank and Gaza??) and look like the hero for restarting dead negotiations, shocking the world, and graciously letting Palestinians have some of the same rights God apparently gave Israel and the US. He does believe the bid will not preclude negotiations. I agree.

Haass- Our Bush-era Jewish official. Of course he's on team negotiations only. He thinks the bid is a desperation move. It doesn't matter what Abbas' (or Arafat's before him, for that matter) motivation is. The Palestinian people deserve this. It is long overdue. Too much is made of the leaders' motivations when there is no state. He also thinks rightly that Israel would make life unbearable, but wrongly that this is reason to abandon statehood via the UN. Another "reason" to abandon the bid is it would make America look bad to Arabs (and cause an anti-American govt in Egypt which causes instability) since we would have to veto. That just makes me laugh. So do the right thing- don't veto! Also humorous was, "...direct talks, the only proven method of advancing peace in the region." Since I'm quoting, I'll add one I actually believe: "There can not be peace without justice."

Kuttab- Basically says what I'm thinking. Palestinians have no choice. This is the right move and right time. Negotiations have led nowhere despite cooperation, patience and promises. He is not naive- he knows the UN bid won't end the occupation and negotiations are necessary. The goal is to have 2 states negotiate, rather than the occupied and the occupier. A valid point no one ever brings up.

Landau- Where to begin! I can't possibly list every falsehood, wild accusation and myth because I'd be retyping the whole section. If you can think of a misconception, he said it. And Iran's in there at the end. Palestinians are trying to get a free lunch and are abandoning Oslo with this move. Riiight. Abbas' "flaunting past agreements." Check. Auschwitz mention. Check. (And it was in talking about the internationally recognized 1967 borders, not anyone wanting to push Israel into the sea.) Framing of discussion (explicitly) as not about equality, but about how fragile the state with the 4th largest army is. Palestinians have walked away from offers for a state in the hopes of gaining more and destroying Israel (decoded- Palestinians want equality and sovereignty, not institutionalized occupation). (???) Abbas is a Holocaust denier, has made up with Hamas (uuhhh...hello...unity govt...and you include Yisrael Beiteinu, so what's your problem??) and has never reciprocated any of Israel's good faith measures. Whaaa? Good faith measures. Now that's a good one. He wants a Palestinian Sadat. Not possible. Sadat dropped Palestinian issues in order to make a very profitable deal with Israel. I won't say it couldn't happen, but he probably wouldn't live long. He says Abbas is inciting violence by encouraging a state and UN bid because it's only going to cause frustration. And he brings it home with an Iran is "waiting to reap the prize" scare.

At least we ended lighter with a little fiction writing for the 4th and final section. It was almost funny. Almost.

Palestinian Statehood "Debate" / Dear President Obama

2011-09-26T06:08:00.003-04:00

UN begins weighing Palestinian statehood bid- France 24 - 9/26/11

"US President Barack Obama says the UN bid is an unrealistic shortcut that will not produce real and lasting peace on the ground between the Israelis and the Palestinians."

Right? Israel hasn't respected any other UN resolution, so why would this be any different?!

Very perceptive of him, yet wrong conclusion. Just because the UN bid won't solve the whole deal, doesn't mean we shouldn't support it or that it isn't a positive step. And since Israel won't accept a Palestinian state that is equal in every way to any other state, this is actually the only way to get things done.

If this is meant to be a two state deal, then sure, you have to send those settlers packing immediately, which is probably a concern and Israel wouldn't be able to go in and demolish houses, forbid the return of ALL refugees, take hundreds prisoner for whatever reason, hold people without charge, control the water supply, attack power and police infrastructure, control the borders and seas, they'd have to get rid of all those checkpoints, and get out of the new state completely. How to get Israel to comply without using force? That's been the dilemma all along, I guess. A state would make this imperative. I would hope. Not that it shouldn't have before.

In a two state solution that leads to one state, all you'd have to worry about was an apartheid situation and equality and I think since these issues have been dealt with before that the beast could be tamed and democracy achieved. Finally.

***

I have to say that the UN bid was one thing that prompted one of few letters I've written to Obama in his term. The other was a letter asking me to donate. I wanted to respond to their catchy subject line- Will you say yes?? Will he??

Submitted via webform 9/26/2011:

Dear President Obama,

I am writing you to let you know I disagree strongly with your opposition to the Palestinian UN bid for statehood. If we truly believe in the opening paragraphs of our own Declaration of Independence, this is something we need to support, like democratic change in Tunisia and Egypt. The Palestinians have work to do on their own government that can only be accomplished when unfettered by the shackles of Israel's brutal, restrictive, destructive Occupation. We acknowledge and affirm Jews' right to return to their homeland every day and it is time we act on Palestinians' right to a free and normal life in the same homeland that the two peoples must share.

Sharing the land and guaranteeing both peoples' rights to exist in their homeland and return and live freely and equally in that same land is the only way.

***

A past post:

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2011/04/palestinian-statehood-upgraded-status.html

***

2011-09-14T10:58:00.003-04:00

I didn't feel like posting this on the day (wasn't up to the hate mail I was bound to receive), so here it is...

9/11/2011

Ten years.

You can't forget the day even if you want to.

I will remember the victims. They deserve respect. And there's the other side of remembrance. I don't think I want to see any "specials" or "go" to a Facebook memorial service, though. It's complicated; it brings back so many feelings and emotions. I have feelings shared by most, but also ones probably not felt or understood by many, which is why I'm posting a day late. I couldn't even decide if I wanted to post this. Everyone's doing/posting the never forget, America is awesome stuff and that just wasn't my experience.

I feel like the day of remembrance was stolen- by the disappointment I felt in the then president and the country in general in the events that followed; by the massive tragedy we caused in Iraq; and by replacing and renewing the Cold War hatred for all things Russian with hatred and or suspicion of Arabs and Muslims (and those who happen to look (anything) like them). It cannot and will not ever be just about the victims because of the way we reacted.

(and continue to react 10 years later- http://news.yahoo.com/passenger-cuffed-searched-over-appearance-003800344.html)

Like everyone in moments like these, I remember first where I was on that day at that time- about a year into my first real job, pretty green still, an hour into the workday. A crowd gathered by the radio, trying to see what's happening and if it's for real. It was and we were in shock. There was the fear there'd be more attacks in NY and maybe even the country. How big was this thing? Coinciding with this and after this, (for me) was the fear for Muslims' and Arabs' (and as it turns out people with brown skin since no one knows anything about the Middle East...) safety if it was determined that Muslims or Arabs are actually responsible. This time, the knee-jerk report was right. Saudis. What will this mean for me, my future husband's family, their friends and family, and our (future) kids? I didn't know then that we'd be conned into a war with Iraq, so while Japanese internment camps were in the far reaches of my mind, I had hope that we were better than that and learned something from the past. This is America, after all. We don't do that. If I knew then what I know now about Bush's intent, methods and determination to be The Decider rather than right, I would have been terrified for them rather than just concerned about the unknown.

Thankfully, there were no internment camps for Arabs and Muslims. Unfortunately, similar things did happen- extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo, torture and prison scandals. Nothing (except the occasional off hand comment or unfortunate email) happened to anyone I know, but things definitely happened and attitudes shifted: "Patriot Act," NSEERS, wiretapping, FBI mosque crawling, people removed from planes for "talking foreign" or wearing a turban (or "Muslim garb" or having a certain shade of hair and skin), violence, graffiti, and then the general discomfort with Arabs and Muslims and language one hears in the news and in general conversation that was shocking ten years ago and today we think is normal, given the times (Juan Williams, response to Juan Williams, "Ground Zero Mosque").

9/11 is also ironically inextricably linked to Iraq. We (or at least a handful of Bush cronies, anyway) started our march to Iraq on this day as it turns out, which is kind of interesting and equally tragic in that Iraqis had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. I remember Americans hungry for revenge, not justice, saying unbelievably hateful things about Muslims and Arabs on all the radio programs. People wanted not just to catch the mastermind, but wanted an equal or greater number of people to suffer or die because of what happened to us. Where did the America I knew and respected go? I had expected us to take the high road and not just lash out. I was disappointed. I remember American flags waving in support of the unnecessary war on Iraq. Afghanistan I thought was inevitable, even if it wasn't the best choice- carpet bombing a country whose population and government didn't even want the group associated with the 9/11 hijackers to be there. I thought Iraq was all posturing and wasn't really going to happen. This is America and we don't do that. And then it happened with no questions asked. Since when did we not question authority? The silence was deafening; it cost us credibility and soldiers lives and many, many innocent Iraqi lives. I hope people take some time to remember those victims as well. We could have taken all the support and sympathy of all nations to be a leader in any way possible- getting off oil, as a Time author puts forward- but instead we chose reckless, senseless all out war on something no one can possibly eradicate. We were like a pack of rabid dogs, opportunistic and deadly. 9/11 was bad enough and then we repaid senseless violence with more senseless violence on innocent people.

I guess this is not really your traditional moving, inspirational tribute. Nor is it a slogan like "never forget" that to my mind leaves to the imagination what is not to be forgotten- the victims, hatred for Arabs, hatred for Islam, the fury you felt that day so that you can go in and lay waste to other countries, the patriotism you felt that was based in vengeance? It's my reflection on my own experience and what I saw. It is my own form of tribute to see how far we've come- or not- and how we can do better.

On a positive note, I suppose it has made me more aware of issues around peace and justice (or injustice as the case may be). I do like the push to make it a day of service and hope that continues.

Three Cups of Tea or Deceit?

2011-08-04T17:45:00.000-04:00

I'm reading Three Cups of Tea currently. It strikes me as a great and inspiring story of a guy bummed over his failed climb becoming inspired to build schools in a village in or near Afghanistan. The descriptions are profuse and detailed...a little too much, though. And sometimes the descriptions of Mortenson being unbelievably frugal and selling all his possessions to use it all for schools, asking for traditional clothes and asking to learn to pray, etc are a little over the top or obsequious. I wonder if Mortenson took copious notes on his thoughts, etc during this process or if Mortenson told the narrator about his journey and he may have added his own thoughts or Mortenson wrote it and. I'd be curious about how the book came to be. It seems the narrator is quite smitten, however it was accomplished. His personal story is much the same- it seems a little too good to be true. That can be overlooked, though, if the building success is as advertised...

Which brings us to a problem I hadn't been aware of. So, I got my Pixel of Ink email about discounted ebooks. Usually, there's nothing I like, but Three Cups of Deceit caught my eye, since I was planning to read Three Cups of Tea. ($2.99, by the way) Hmmm. Did someone actually uncover some evidence that I'd be interested in or is this some kind of nut with an agenda or vendetta against Mortenson. The latter is pretty unlikely. I mean, I'm used to sorting out disinformation campaigns in my interest in reading books on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That is the norm in that area. This shouldn't be prone to the same thing- I wouldn't think. Maybe there's something to this.

I guess I've got another book to read!

This stuff seems pretty recent- April and May 2011. His book came out in 2007, I think.

Exclusive: Three Cups of Tea Author Greg Mortenson Sued for Fraud, Deceit, Breach of Contract

The link below mentions the 60 Minutes report on this, as well as and investigation by the BBC and others:

http://theadventureblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/bbc-investigates-three-cups-of-tea.html

2011-08-02T21:50:00.000-04:00

"the most humble day of my career"

--Rupert Murdoch

Maybe this is an appropriate use of the word humble, but I think what he was going for was guilty, shameful or embarrassing (as in glad I did it, but sorry I got caught). When I'm humbled by something, I'm thinking someone did something really, really nice for me that I know I don't deserve. I suppose your own guilt can humble you, but I'm just not buying it from this guy.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2084067,00.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/flashes-of-passion-from-rupert-murdoch-on-his-most-humble-day-2317217.html

Time for a diet!

2011-07-31T15:51:00.001-04:00

There is a lot of talk about how we should cut the debt. Cut social security or medicare. I got an email about cutting Congress' and the president's pay. I read in the news about cutting aid to Israel's neighbors.

Why not put Israel on a diet? Cut 'em loose. Cutting aid to Israel won't harm them, unlike the diet terminology Israel used for Palestinians... see the second and third items below.

***
Lower the Debt -- End U.S. Military Aid to Israel

http://blog.endtheoccupation.org/2011/07/our-proposal-for-debt-ceiling.html

***

***

February 2006:
"The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to make them die of hunger." – Dov Weisglass

http://mondoweiss.net/2009/01/the-palestinians-in-israeli-officials-own-words.html

***

Actual number of calories Gazans need to stay alive was calculated. No joke. The result, the facts on the ground are that virtually nothing gets in. How's that for the "only democracy in the Middle East," the "most moral army in the world ??" Sounds like something else to me.

http://occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/state-appeals-to-supreme-court-to-prevent-exposure-of-document-containing-minimal-calorie-requirements-for-residents-of-the-gaza-strip/

It's Easier to Reach Heaven Than the End of the Street by Emma Williams

2011-07-27T15:21:00.071-04:00

It's Easier to Reach Heaven Than the End of the Street by Emma Williams

I'm only on the first chapter and I think I may have hit upon a book Americans can relate to and understand the whole of "the situation" at the same time. She has a respect and understanding for both sides (often said, but rarely the case in this thing) and cuts through and explains the propaganda and myths on both sides. I'm pretty amazed and impressed thus far...

I've finished now, so I'll put my overall impressions up here (I had "in progress, notes as I go" here initially). There are a ton of specifics that I either remember reading in the news when they happened, that I'm impressed she included, etc. I'll just leave them below as examples- I stopped noting them after the first half of the book anyway- there were too many.

This is not your typical memoir. But that's a good thing- and actually probably pretty typical when your memoir is set in Jerusalem and you are as thoughtful as she is and have access to UN, doctors on both sides, and officials. There is a lot of politics and references to historical events and recent events, but I can see this as a memoir because she's honestly trying to sort this out while she's over there. It is one of the most honest attempts I've seen. It is a little hard to tell what her own views are, which is kind of strange in a memoir, but appreciated in anything attempting to explain the conflict. When I first started reading the book, I interpreted the news items and her relating interviews and conversations with a pretty wide variety of people as her own.

My impression due to some of her commentary was that she related to Israelis most- that could be due to a suicide bomber blowing up outside her children's school and near it and in places she frequented. Unlike some who have a strong sympathy for Israel, though, she doesn't ignore or deny Palestinian humanity, rights, the fact that Israel is an occupier, the fact that Israel does wrong. I would be curious how she struck people she lived with in Jerusalem; there were a number of times when her friends would say something against Palestinians and she noted that she remained silent. She definitely seems pretty balanced in the book. She really seems to have sympathy for both people and understand the nuance of both sides' politics. Even if she has bias herself, at least she included pretty balanced historical info and accounts of the recent developments.

What also made the book so good was that it covers a wide variety of issues: Israeli denial of absolute facts- like IDF kills children, UN workers, etc; how she and others self censor depending on who they talk to; media bias; the Wall; American attitudes; among others.

I wondered what could make her so reasonable, besides being British :). Maybe I shouldn't wonder, just enjoy. But this is such a rare occurrence, this genuine sympathy and understanding of both sides, I can't help it.

Maybe being a doctor (she worked in many hospitals, Palestinian and Israeli, in her public health research while there) helped her not be able to ignore the facts. Seeing the maimed and hearing doctors' struggles on both sides must have had an impact on helping her see the similarity in the two sides, the brutality and senselessness of the violence, whatever the source.

Maybe being a UN worker's wife also helped her feel sympathy toward Palestinians. She tells of how an Israeli chased her up the street yelling obscenities in her face upon seeing her UN plates because many Israelis feel the UN is "on the Palestinians' side." I guess that could have driven home what kind of hate could be directed at Palestinians by Israelis, if she didn't get it by listening to her Palestinian friends' experiences.

***

Continuing with specifics...

In just the second chapter, the interviews and exchanges (p34 and 40, esp) she records relates so many things Western audiences would be shocked to know. I have been reading widely on this, so I'm not surprised by what she writes, but it was satisfying to see her refute all of the myths and reservations I hear people repeat when I dare suggest that Palestinians have (or should have) rights and a homeland.

People would call her from the States discussing the situation and tell her (who was eyewitness to the contrary) things like all the Palestinian deaths are terrorist deaths, Palestinians who were fired upon on Temple Mount after Sharon's infamous visit were all armed, Palestinian mothers push their children to the front lines- that's why there's a high death rate for them, Palestinians know Israel is militarily superior and will retaliate so it is actually Palestinians' own fault they are being killed, the occupiers are the victims, etc. People actually insisted they were right (b/c they read it in Time or this or that American outlet) and she, practically an eyewitness, was wrong!

One thing that absolutely disgusted me was hearing about the "game" soldiers would play shooting steel/rubber bullets into children's eyes. Apparently it takes precision. I'd like to show that to people who like to tell me that Palestinians teach their kids to hate and accompany it with a pic of a toddler dressed in military fatigues... And on the subject of pride in hate and destruction... she references this article in Yedioth Ahronoth as well: http://electronicintifada.net/content/i-made-them-stadium-middle-camp/4459. Yikes.

She tells about a French journalist friend who was aimed and shot at by a soldier with an M-16, just missing his heart. He explained that it would have hit his heart due to the angle he was standing at, had it not been for the flak jacket. Even more shockingly, Israeli friend of hers completely denied that it happened despite it being taped and played on the news. I hadn't realized the extent of Israeli denial of what goes on. I guess it's only natural that American denial of Israeli atrocities is so prevalent. I am frequently encouraged that Christians reject Christian Zionism and the Jewish claim to land today based on the fact that God said it's theirs- see the Old Testament. Frequently though, as I heard visiting at another congregation, they follow it up with but we should support them for political rather than religious reasons- we are allies, only democracy in the Middle East ??), etc- the usual. Why is it that people who can separate the political and religious still can't see that what Israel is doing is inexcusable. It is not security. It is revenge. It is punishment for wanting rights, a country, a homeland, a life, to live on the land that was stolen by victims of another war. Suicide bombing and killing Israeli civilians is wrong, but how can people so easily get behind targeting journalists, peace negotiators, shooting kids in the eye, shooting kids for sport (pdf), and many other atrocities?? If it's not religious, is it loyalty to the GOP? I can't help thinking that people just don't know what really goes on, but like the author's Israeli friend, if they did, they'd probably just deny it.

She relates another incident that I am familiar with while listening to the radio. The death toll for Palestinians rises exponentially compared to the Israeli one. Yes, I know that all deaths are bad, but this kind of lends credibility to the stories of IDF brutality. She was listening to the radio and the commentator saying that Palestinians must end the killing and violence. (a familiar, tired refrain) Just after that he reports a settler killed a Palestinian ( but of course a Palestinian could still be to blame even though a settler group claimed responsibility) and three Bedouin women were killed by Israeli tank fire. But, Palestinians must stop the violence.

She also tells in passing of one of many events that made her change her plans. I know people probably thought I was exaggerating when I relayed news (I remember, if not this incident, then ones like it) that the IDF bombed Palestinian towns with F-16s, targeting Palestinian police/security forces for a militant attack on an IDF post. What sense does that make? It says Israel considers Palestinian police (and civilians for that matter) militants and does not want Palestinians to make any progress in self governance that agreements supposedly are trying to promote.

In chapter 8, she delivers her baby at Holy Family in Bethlehem. It had been bombed once or twice before she delivered and she described the damage and several accounts of doctors. IDF officials she spoke to and heard from said the IDF is a humanitarian army; it doesn't do things like that. Another one said there was no tank activity there in October- pretty specific- a total lie. At the end of the chapter she talks to a Palestinian Christian who comments that the American Christians are so strange- they have no feeling for fellow Christians- where is their humanity.

I know I am mentioning quite a bit about the Palestinian side. This is because people rarely seem to believe that things are that bad for Palestinians or that the wacky things they hear about Israel, a democracy, doing this or that, isn't just propaganda. Peppered throughout the book are the author's experience with suicide bombings and her sympathy for Israelis who live in constant fear- I feel like people are pretty well acquainted with this- so it doesn't strike me as amazing as the understanding of the Palestinian point of view. The Israeli point of view is no less valid. Just want to make that clear.

Sharon comes to power or at least becomes very active during her stay in Jerusalem. I know I was completely dumbfounded by Bush's total complicity in crimes of the occupation and Sharon's knowing he can get away with murder and acting on it. I knew he was bad when it was happening. Looking back, I think I was probably kind in any analysis I may have done. Rereading the things that were said and done- it's unbelievable. He was a monster- worse than I probably thought back then. She mentions two things (p169 and p251) I remember I couldn't believe hearing and, further, couldn't fathom how things stayed the same after. Sharon stepped away from his carefully constructed straw man of Arafat (he wants the whole thing, wants to push Jews into the sea) and let slip that Arafat wanted to push Israel back to the 1967 borders (the horror!). The second was Sharon admitting there was an occupation and it was bad for everyone. Amazing- suddenly he was contradicting many fans in US government, AIPAC, etc. Through all of this, Bush never changed anything, never held Israel accountable. Those were truly hopeless times- for Iraq nonsense and for progress in the Palestinian Israeli conflict.

Miral by Rula Jebreal

2011-07-24T16:36:00.002-04:00

Miral by Rula Jebreal

It was written in several parts: Hind, Nadia, Fatima, Miral, Hani.

At first I wasn't sure I'd like it. The first part, Hind, was written from a distant, omniscient point of view rather than stepping into any one character's shoes. It seemed more like instructions for the movie, but more prose than stage direction. This sort of thing wouldn't have been so out of place in a memoir, but in a novel, it left me wondering when it was going to pick up or get a little more personal. It was hard to get into, but this first part was definitely necessary to set the story up. You need the info later. I wish there had been a better way to accomplish it, though. We do meet Miral near the end of this part, so I decided to hold on to see what happens with her.

In Nadia's section, Part II, there is an abrupt change. It seems to have no connection to anything else and I was totally confused. The story begins to be told from Nadia's point of view, which is a definite improvement. Maybe that is why the story grabs me at this point and I decide I will probably finish it.

Fatima's part is pretty much about Nadia. Fatima is in prison for a failed terrorist attack, which is an interesting perspective. Also a good part of this section is that Jebreal takes an opportunity through Nadia to explore an aspect of the identity question- are you Israeli, Palestinian, neither, etc.

Miral is Nadia's daughter and that is the name of the next section. Things are starting to be a little more connected. I thought it was interesting that Nadia thought everyone treated her with more respect because they thought she was in jail for what Fatima was (planning an attack). Jamal, Fatima's brother, moved Miral and Rania to Hind's school and changed their last name in part because the family name was tainted by Fatima's attack. Having to send them to the orphanage/school was so sad- as were the orphans' stories.

The way Haifa is described was something I had heard of Jerusalem (Kai Bird's book) pre-1948 or 1967- Arabs and Jews together, many nationalities, politics consciously ignored, harmony, parties, etc. I had never heard that of Haifa; maybe different cities experienced their times of peace at different times.

I enjoyed the strong, beautiful, independent women with a variety of perspectives as main characters throughout the book. The book focuses on women who don't trust men, who don't follow the predictable path and who want the freedom to find their own way.

One thing I felt was left hanging was that we never really found out what happened to Nadia's first child. She left it with her mother after forgiving her, with the guarantee that her sister and her husband would look after her. In one way, I guess that's enough, but I kind of wanted to know what happened to her, if Miral met her, if she could have been worked into the story- she did find out about her having a different father than Rania. Also, I would have liked to have heard more about Ruba, Nadia's youngest sister. It makes sense that she was much younger and so wasn't as close with Nadia and Tamam, but I wonder if she was abused as well and if she ever saw her mother, Nadia or Tamam.

The personal stories stood out to me. We often group Palestinians into one or two neat categories- Palestinians or Israeli Palestinians, extremist Palestinians or moderates, diaspora or Palestinians in Palestine. This book gives us some food for thought that there are many different reactions to grief and tragedy, different reactions to the occupation, different ways to think of identity. There is occupation related tragedy and the same abuse and death all of us are familiar with (sometimes compounded by the occupation).

Edit:
I ended up really liking the book. I got the movie from Netflix soon after and it was also great, but reading the book first was extremely helpful. I hadn't realized the book was at least partly autobiographical. That added a lot, IMO. I tend to like a memoir more than a novel anyway. :)

This has an interview with the author:

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/03/25/mirals-rula-jebreal-the-palestinian-woman-who-wrote-the-book-that-started-this-big-screening-war/

Cutting aid to Israel's neighbors

2011-07-23T16:06:00.000-04:00

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/20/u-s-republicans-hit-aid-to-israel-neighbors-pakistan/

Cut aid to Israel instead or in addition and free up some serious cash... and our conscience!!! And moving the embassy to Jerusalem in the same bill?! Republicans complain about "activist judges" and they're trying to write international law and preempt negotiations! They are a funny bunch!

And this quote below is pretty hilarious when you consider people like Avigdor Lieberman are sitting in Israeli government, cabinet and positions such as Foreign Minister. I mean we welcomed this guy and talked to him like an equal! But when you consider we are occupiers as well (They understand well that in order to save face and make money and get what you want, you've sometimes got to kill a lot of innocent people, but you shouldn't think too much about that part.), perhaps we feel more of that extra special warm and fuzzy bond people always talk about...

The Republicans would also cut off security assistance to Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority and Yemen if Islamic militant movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas hold any position in government.

And what do people always say about the UN or any criticism of Israel? There must be an equal and opposite action against Palestinians? Or is that a law in thermodynamics... or both. Whatever. Anyway, if they are going to support moving the embassy to Jerusalem for Israel, they should also support Jerusalem as the capital for Palestinians and suggest the Palestinian leadership move there, too. I mean, if you're going to insist that any bill or resolution with criticism of Israel also have criticism of Palestinians to be legitimate or at least not blatant anti-Semitism, we've got to bite the bullet and divide the capital. It's only fair.

This cutting of aid to Israel's neighbors is a problem all the way around. We are handing extremist groups a prime recruiting tool on a silver platter! Not to mention, we'd be grouping entire populations of moderates and the whole spectrum with a few extremists. We are definitely asking for more extremists. I mean, when you are a moderate and are treated like an extremist, what incentive is there to take the high road? Why cooperate with the US? Why not attack us?

Edit: I think since this has been in draft form, this has been rejected in the House, but I can't find where I read or heard that...

Greek frappe

2011-07-19T11:55:00.001-04:00

In the days before I made the cold brew iced coffee, my husband introduced me to the Greek frappe. That could also be why I didn't jump on the iced coffee. This stuff is also really really good. And easy.

Put 2 heaping teaspoons of instant coffee, 2T sugar or some sweetener and 6oz refrigerated cold water and shake well.

Apparently the absence of oil makes a ton of foam or something like that.

Pour over ice and scrape out the foam- that's the best part. Add a half cup of skim milk and 1T half and half or whatever combination you like.

*If you had fancy flavored syrup, you'd add that instead of sugar, but after shaking instead of before.

Some other info:

http://coffee.gourmetrecipe.com/Greek_frappe_coffee_l46

Of course there is this:

http://www.greekshops.com/detail.aspx?ProdID=5201219070180

Iced coffee- not just talk anymore

2011-07-19T11:36:00.002-04:00

So, I finally got around to making iced coffee. (And a week and a half later, I got around to posting it!) It wasn't that big of a deal. I don't know why I thought it would be. I guess some of those sites take a picture of each step- i.e.- this is me measuring the coffee, these are the grounds in the container, this is me filling the water, etc.- make it seem really involved because there are a thousand pictures.

Anyway, I did it and it was awesome!

Here's my post about talking about doing it:

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/08/homemade-iced-coffee.html

I talk about course grind coffee in the post, but some of the links don't specify. I don't know where I got that. I used "random grind". We went to the store and tried to grind coffee for Turkish coffee with cardamom, but it ended up very uneven and decidedly not fine. More like normal to coarse with random beans and chunks thrown in. It was Java Time in case you're wondering the brand. Sometimes I think my husband is testing me to see at what point I will just throw out the bag of random coffee he brings... It wasn't the worst I've had and it was a dark roast, so that was a plus.

Here's what I did:

Added 1 cup of grinds in a 32oz mason jar and filled it with water like the instructions say, leaving an inch at the top. Shook it to wet all the grinds.

Steeped for more than 12 hours. Some people say 8 hours is fine; 12 or more will make it bitter. I'll have to try the 8 hours version.

12 cup coffee filter over a strainer over a bowl, poured half the liquid and waited 0.5 hours. Changed filter, poured rest and waited 0.5- 0.75 hour. Refrigerate.

I used about 4 oz coffee concentrate, 2-3 oz milk, a few tablespoons of half and half, and 2 tablespoons of sweet condensed milk. I didn't try the simple syrup method, but hope to soon. I don't think I'll bother with dissolving sugar or sweetener in cold coffee, given my many unsuccessful attempts at sweetening cold tea up north...for you northerners, the secret is 1.5 cups sugar per gallon boiled with your water (8 teabags)!! Pointing at the Sweet and Low makes me want to point you back to elementary science class. Ok, not really, but restaurants do have the capability to heat water, I'd think.

***

In scanning some recipes and trying to see if the concentrates were the same strength, I ran into the dry measure problem. Not a big deal, but kind of interesting.

My thinking was 2 c = 1lb...

From a cookbook, before I remembered you can find anything online:

For wheat flour, 3.5c = 1lb

For granulated sugar, 2c = 1lb

For cocoa, 4c= 1lb

Online:

One guy measured 5.4 cups in 1 lb Folgers.

Another site said 4.75c = 1lb coarse grind and 5c = 1lb for fine.

Anyway, take that for what it's worth. Or measure your own. And post it online. :)

Flytilla

2011-07-11T07:25:00.000-04:00

Flytilla?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/07/israel-gaza-protest-flytilla

http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=228517

Since this round of flotillas have been overwhelmingly unsuccessful, a few from the flotilla are trying or have done a flytilla. I had thought this would be more impossible than a flotilla, but we'll see. I'm pretty sure they have to fly into Israel and if that's the case, it's not like the flotilla going to Gaza. Going directly to Gaza protests the fact that Israel is supposed to have removed itself completely, but actually still controls it and doesn't allow trade or enough food and supplies in. The fact that you have to fly into Israel also makes kind of the same point, since they're not allowed to fly to the Occupied Territories...

Flotilla failure:

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/7/6/audacity_of_hope_inside_report_aboard

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/why-israels-new-friend-greece-blocking-gaza-flotilla?page=0,0

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1019594--hunt-for-ship-s-captain-as-canadians-linked-to-gaza-flotilla-arrested

http://my.firedoglake.com/ctuttle/2011/07/01/greece-halts-entire-freedom-flotilla/

Baghdad Burning by Riverbend

2011-07-11T06:44:00.000-04:00

This book, Baghdad Burning (I), is the publishing of Riverbend's blog. She's a girl from Iraq and I wish I'd have found her blog at the time of the invasion. I had visited some of the blogs she did, The Angry Arab and Raed in the Middle and Juan Cole, but I don't think I ever saw hers. She really breaks things down (what we did and how it affected Iraqis) and explains customs.

With the whole Gay Girl in Damascus hoax (two more links here and here) and anonymity of the internet, I do wonder sometimes if she's too good to be true and not who she says she is. Either way, I agree with her assessments, but one always wonders...

This will probably be less a review than random things that stood out to me. I've got 4 pages of notes, so I hope it doesn't get long and boring. It brought back some thoughts and feelings I had at the time of the invasion and highlighted things I'd not thought of or forgotten. All those things I didn't know or have forgotten definitely added insult to injury or injury to injury. Each event that came next was more ridiculous than the first. The invasion on false pretenses was bad, but everything that came after...wow. The mismanagement descriptions I heard were very, very kind indeed! Especially when you figure in that some of it was probably intentional. A sad, sad time for the US and Iraq, not to trivialize Iraq's reality at all.

***

The way she describes the idea of the rotating presidency is great. I probably didn't understand a lot of the detail that was going on after the initial attack. I had the luxury of not really having to be invested in the outcome- I opposed the war after all. What was I thinking?!

My major moment was when it was proposed that we were going to attack Iraq. (Probably because I didn't have to see everyone dying and being taken away for questioning, though.) I knew there was serious doubt on the WMD and later 9/11-Al Qaeda link, but I wanted to believe what people told me when I voiced my fears- that the president has more information than us, that we were right in attacking, etc. War is serious, but the quick way it came about with the ridiculous 48 hour ultimatum, virtually no real opposition, no serious journalistic scrutiny left me absolutely stunned. I really thought we'd come to our senses before an attack actually happened- there's be troops for show and a behind the scenes deal of some sort. I woke up to news that we actually did attack Iraq and time stood still- it was an alternate reality- this wasn't supposed to happen. Either that day or that weekend, I remember being at a restaurant with family and hearing the reports of bombings and seeing the video footage. I kept staring- flinching at the explosions. I was so mad I wanted to throw something. It wasn't supposed to happen. Thinking back, being at a restaurant with family while they were getting bombed should have been equally infuriating...

I have forgotten a lot of the details because when I heard about Iraq, I thought of how I opposed it or what I could have done to stop it (stupid, I know) rather than listen to the reports. I'm glad to read them in Riverbend's blog now and get some context on things I may or may not have had an opinion about at that time.

She mentions the firing of the army and people who worked in the government ministries. I do remember sharing her opinion that it was absurd. I couldn't believe how shocked they were that some undesirables infiltrated the border- DUH! I think the subject of talk/news was theories on how/why there was chaos and violence and such and I remember thinking how stupid that was. When you fire all the people who used to run stuff, nothing gets done, people will cross borders. Easy.

National Day. This is one thing I don't remember so well, but I definitely share her disgust about Bush (or whoever is carrying out his wishes) declaring April 9, the day Iraq was invaded (I'm thinking this was March) or Saddam removed, a day Iraqis should celebrate. Of course Bush would see it as an accomplishment, but to make Iraqis celebrate a day in which they were invaded, killed, occupied and bombed to the preindustrial age is crazy. Shows how little we thought about Iraqis in the whole process. Fitting in the backwards, Bush way. It made me think of the way birthdays of leaders in N. Korea are made to be such a big deal and celebrated by everyone with special performances and everyone is supposed to be so happy about it and yet these are the people responsible for the poverty and isolation of the country... National Day should be a day Iraqis take pride in being Iraqi. They should choose some day that has meaning to them- like the day they boot us out or something that doesn't have anything to do with military.

Her descriptions of watching Bush and Rumsfeld are similar to the way I felt back then. I do remember not being able to look at their smug faces, but I had to see what they were saying- I couldn't turn it off. I appreciated getting her view of the consequences of their actions that I didn't have before. I only knew they were wrong and I was infuriated no one here bothered to put any real questions- the media slept- or turned into Bush's mouthpiece. Not too much different than the countries we criticize for no freedoms- yet we did that to ourselves!!

I also didn't realize there was a 9/11 memorial service in Tikrit in 2003! The nerve! She thinks it may be used as proof in the future of the missing 9/11 link- these scenes will be superimposed on the past and treated as evidence for that. In 2011, I say impossible. When I'm old and telling my grandchildren people today (2060) are delusional if they think 9/11 was the reason for the Iraq invasion, I wonder if they'll smile and nod and think I'm totally off my rocker. So I guess the jury's still out.

Earlier in the book she mentions Americans taking over the palaces of Saddam Hussein. It angered me at the time. It still does, but now I see it was pretty fitting since we acted no better and probably worse than Saddam Hussein himself. It kind of set the scene for the US plan for Iraq- take the best for yourself and totally disregard everyone else. But then again the US plan for Iraq also says a lot- our plan for governing a place that isn't ours and supposed to be free...

September 29, 2003 She has an entry about sheiks. I don't recall hearing about this as it happened. The Americans gathered a bunch of them together and wanted them to "cooperate" with them since sheiks have a lot of influence/respect over large groups of people. In return they wanted a timetable for withdrawal and expected they'd get to participate politically, since they won't be able to get their people on board (rightfully so) if they get nothing in return for the bombing, killing, raids, detentions, etc. Jay Garner said no to both. Americans called it a conference and the sheiks' response was that it was just giving orders, no conference. They were then blacklisted and targeted for raids by the Americans. She made the good point that humiliating sheiks hurts democracy more than Iraq's "tribal tendencies." She uses herself and her pre-war job and freedom as an example of how tribes are family and order, not backwardness and chaos.

She says the world is waking up (p91) and gives this ebook or site: Embedded: Weapons of Mass Deception by Danny Schechter at www.channelmedia.org . Another site mentioned is www.malcolmlagouche.com (September 25 post). Apparently some company sells or sold a toy Iraqi house with blood on the walls and a proud American soldier. It's called Forward Command Post? Sickening. I checked snopes- it's no joke. I don't remember this at all. One of the article rightly offers- what if Afghan kids played with burning and collapsing twin towers? The animosity toward "the other" is represented; the only difference is that the average Afghan doesn't support Al-Qaeda, but most Americans support our troops. In looking up the links, I read people saying it was no big deal; kids play with GI Joe and army men... The toy was definitely a Middle Eastern style house and the way the "war on terror" is/was being fought- punishing Afghans for Al-Qaeda who was only loosely associated with the Taliban who weren't representative of Afghans, invading a country on false pretenses (Iraq)- it's more propaganda than a toy for a 5 year old.

She explains some about the significance of jewelry in this part of the world, which is very different from ours. It's the dowry, it's a family's savings (especially in places that become unstable due to conflict such that the value of their currency plummets). In American culture, it's more of a sign of affluence or preference (to have a lot of it) than anything like family savings. She said troops would steal/confiscate it because they thought it suspicious (they must have gotten rich dealing in weapons, drugs, terrorism) for them to have so much gold jewelry...which could be true if you apply American culture to Iraq and ignore the culture of the people. Still no reason to steal, though if it was pocketed by the soldiers. Kind of funny thought I had- their gold jewelry is used as savings and such, but it is more pure, and way more ornate than ours. Our gold is primarily decorative rather than for savings, but it is pretty plain- especially the more affordable stuff. :) I have a few things from the Middle East and they are my absolute favorite.

I enjoyed her description of tea making (p108). Theirs is flavored with cardamom. I didn't realize that. Cool. Earlier bamiya and other food I recognize and eat is mentioned. She describes it all as Iraqi; I had thought of some of it as more Palestinian/ Lebanese... ;)

p112- She tells about an incident where troops have dogs searching Ministry of Oil employees and throwing Qurans to the ground. Outrage ensued. I'm pretty sure this is before the Abu Ghraib story broke. I don't remember hearing about searches and dogs and throwing Qurans except in the prisons. It could be selective reporting or my bad memory. I remember hearing so much about how soldiers are being made to learn about customs and culture so as to be "more effective" and not so ugly American- I wonder if all that press was before or after this? I really thought the troops were making an effort, but can you really teach or force people to hear what you're saying about others and respect others??

p130 Her recipes! I've got to check that out. Hope it's still around. iraqrecipes.blogspot.com

p152 The Bush visit on November 27, 2003. He wanted to show people it was safe, but the story she tells is one of daily dangers- still. I like how she puts it- she wants him to walk on the streets, not drop in on hand selected troops to show how "safe" it is.

p155 Iraq's Nuclear Mirage by Imad Khadduri. I don't remember this, but apparently he is a physicist who had some connection to the nuclear program and wrote a tell all book about how things were shut down in 1991 and teh current WMD things is garbage and everyone knew it.

p161 The Iraq Census Bureau wanted to have a census to have elections by September 1 or something like that and the US said no. I didn't remember that either.

p165 The capture of Saddam Hussein. It seemed like a big deal to Riverbend. I was expecting it not to be I guess, since life under Saddam was better than occupation. There were pro-American demonstrations, which I remembered seeing along with footage of the statue being pulled over and the flag on his head. (Seems like there was some "scandal" where a US flag was on it first, then they decided it was better to put the Iraqi one there.) There were also anti-American and pro-Saddam demonstrations at which women and children were rounded up with men and arrested. I don't recall hearing about those.

p174 She describes Christmas in Baghdad, enjoying the lights and festivities with Christian neighbors. It was interesting to learn about Baba Noel (Santa). He dresses the same way, but doesn't come in to deliver gifts through a chimney because there aren't any chimney's and he's mainly a mascot rather than a FedEx- and no reindeer.

p207 This explanation of the bombing of a shelter full of women and kids in 1991 was so horribly tragic, like hearing about 9/11. And Americans replied that this was a legit target?? Unbelievable. She breaks it down with international law, which was great. I don't know what I thought then. I wasn't as up on world events and various schools of thought in 1991(I was a naive 13) as presently. Now it's clear the legit target thing is garbage.

She talks a few times about America punishing a whole city or area for action against troops. I guess I didn't realize that went on or went on so much. Maybe I have forgotten. War is inherently ugly and so I guess I didn't distinguish between horrors at times. I remember hearing about the 4 contractors that were dragged through the streets and treated brutally and all the outrage in the US. I remember some really sketchy stuff with Blackwater, how they do military tasks, but aren't held accountable in any code of justice and really are mercenaries and criminals. She connects Fallujah and the hundreds upon hundreds dead to this event. I'm not saying it's not true, but I don't remember this in our media. I absolutely believe that is the correct connection and that we called the women and children terrorists- unfortunately I believe it.

I completely can empathize or sympathize with her on the repulsion she felt about Bush speeches. He angered me. I didn't want to hear his voice or see that smug expression, but I wanted to see if he had come to his senses yet. I wondered if he'd ever "man up" and admit wrongdoing on ANYTHING or everything. No luck.

Riverbend explains things so well for us Americans. I have enjoyed the detail and context- not enjoyed descriptions of war- but you know what I mean- it fills in some blanks that were left intentionally by the government and media or my bad memory. It is a new context or perspective.

Two great observations from Riverbend:

1. p262 Americans are shocked at the Abu Ghraib scandal; Iraqis are well acquainted with the events already. Americans were outraged at Iraq showing American POWs on TV- thought Arabs were animals for showing soldiers alive and well, if tired, captive and reading from a script. Americans had no problem showing many images of Iraqi detainees as the recipient of dozens of compromising, embarrassing, immodest and disgusting abuses- what does that say about Americans?

2. Nick Berg (p264). She makes the point that beheading was probably chosen because this would horrify Americans like others things wouldn't (she makes a good point, doesn't she?). In a similar way, Americans chose sexual crimes against Iraqis because this is a fate worse than death to them. I would add the choice of dogs is the same due to the opinion of many Muslims about dogs. Both sides had the same thinking and did horrible, illegal, wrong things, but the US wanted to call Abu Ghraib a "stain" and get rid of it quick.

p276 The picture she paints surrounding her aunt dying of natural causes really got to me. (Natural causes at that time is not so natural with the stress of living under occupation and raids, but that's relative...) It brings up issues I didn't really think about at the time it was happening- so many dead to bury, cemeteries filling up, scheduling nightmares for grief-stricken families. Things they shouldn't have to worry about. Misery on top of misery. As if war doesn't bring enough suffering and upheaval, room in the cemetery is limited, her aunt's space was given away due to necessity (war casualties) and they had to bury her where they didn't plan to. I also didn't think about the scheduling a wakes at mosques being tough because of so many dying that month from non-natural causes.

Her last post included in the first Baghdad Burning book made a good point. She describes a person dying and asks if it was 9/11/01. No, it was Falujah, 9/11/04. I hope it makes people think about what's permissible to do to others. Victims are victims.

My stuff from around the Iraq war, ~2003:

There is at least one letter to the editor about Iraq that I wrote on here:

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/02/digging-in-my-virtual-closet.html

This is my first blog. Check out the second link in the old entries and you'll probably see some entries on Iraq. It's not organized well. Part of that is my fault and part of it is the pitas blogging site. You may have to use the search function because I'd talk about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and add something about Iraq on the end sometimes...Sorry about that!

http://propeace.pitas.com/

I had tried to find a bunch of emails I received when I emailed churches (same beliefs as me, not varying denominations) around the world to see if everyone's take was that the Bible says Bush is doing the right thing or that we must support him, etc, like the consensus in the US. They, like me, questioned the approach, attacking Iraq and considered verses about peace and not just submitting to government.

Here's my blog from ~2006-2007 or so. Yahoo has changed the address several times and annoyed me to no end, so I moved to Google blogger.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/y/blog

Stamp hysteria

2011-07-07T21:10:00.002-04:00

Oh no! Say it isn't so! See my response below.I have not edited the actual email much, only to make it more readable on my background. All punctuation, capitalization and fear-mongering has been preserved in its original form.

==========================================

Subject: Fwd: DON'T BUY IT AND DON'T USE IT !

      GOD BLESS YOU ALL

Subject: FW: DON'T BUY IT AND DON'T USE IT !!!

DON'T BUY IT AND DON'T USE IT !!! REFUSE TO TAKE THEM ANYWHERE! Don't let anyone sell them to you!

Apparently they think That putting hearts and butterflies on the new
Stamp will make most people not realize That the rest is Arabic and probably not
Something we want to support.

New Stamp - the Second one!!!

USPS
New 44-Cent Stamp Celebrates
A Muslim Holiday.
If There is only ONE thing you forward today.. Let It be this!

President Obama has directed the United States Postal Service to REMEMBER and HONOR the EID MUSLIM Holiday season with a new commemorative 44-Cent First Class Holiday Postage Stamp.

REMEMBER
To adamantly & vocally BOYCOTT this stamp,
When you are purchasing your stamps at the post Office.

All you have to say Is "No Thank you, I do not want that Muslim Stamp on my Letters or any of my mail!"

To Use this stamp would be a slap in the face to All those AMERICANS who died at the hands of Those whom this stamp Honors.

REMEMBER The MUSLIM bombing of Pan Am Flight 103!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM Bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of
The Military Barracks in Saudi Arabia!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM bombing of The American Embassies in Africa!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM
Bombing of the USS COLE!

REMEMBER the MUSLIM
Attack on 9/11/2001!

REMEMBER all The AMERICAN lives that were lost in those Vicious MUSLIM Attacks!

Pass This along to Every Patriotic
American that You know and get the word Out!
Honor The United States of America.

=====================

My response:

I have to say this first- I'm not mad at the forwarder at all-- just the creators of the forward and hysteria. I should probably leave this alone or delete it or whatever, but I won't....

I don't know if you looked at this before forwarding... but I have to chime in. I don't mean any offense, but knowing some Arabs and Muslims as I do, I have to say this stamp is nothing to worry about. Please forgive me if I seem a little peeved. I'll add my piece (since you've given me yours) and then I'll be fine.

First, Obama didn't actually tell the post office to issue this stamp. This is another attempt at trying to get people to believe Obama's a "closet Muslim" and lying about being Christian. See snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/stamps/eidstamp.asp

Second, it seems like a pretty crazy, big leap, don't you think? It's Arabic, so don't support it? I have a New Testament in Arabic. This is a pretty broad generalization- don't buy it 'cause of the Arabic. Things like this foster hatred of the unknown and "the other." It tries to tell you- you don't have anything in common with people who speak Arabic- don't bother to translate the script- let's judge them wholesale on their language (or color of their skin...didn't we get over that? No to that too, huh?)- and oppose and boycott whatever they "support".

The tone of this thing is pretty vicious also. "Remember the Muslim bombings," with Muslim in all caps. And if you didn't get the message, the last line implores you to remember all the American lives lost in vicious Muslim attacks. The email doesn't mention that our good friend Israel had some very important knowledge about the Marine barracks incident, but didn't share it due to the nature of the give and take relationship- we give and they take.

From the forward: "To Use this stamp would be a slap in the face to All those AMERICANS who died at the hands of Those whom this stamp Honors."(??!!) MANY nationalities died on 9/11 (is that what they're talking about?), MANY members of MANY religious groups- they were all Americans (or maybe on visas, but you get my point). This line aims to divide Americans. This forward is a slap in the face to Americans. I'd rather boycott emails like this (but I think commenting might do more good- or at least I won't be silently complicit). Muslims serve in our armed forces and Muslims died on 9/11, alongside white, black, German, Swedish, Hispanic, Jewish, Italian, etc Americans. This makes it sound as if this stamp honors terrorists (?!)-- and Arab Americans or Muslim Americans either do not exist or cannot possibly function in a democracy or not be a terrorist in general.

On a practical note, I seriously doubt you would be offered this stamp first or as the only option at a post office anyway. When you go to the counter and ask to buy stamps, they normally just hand out the flag or bell forever stamps- or whatever is on them. If you don't want the Eid stamp on your letters, we do have the option to pick something else. At my small local post office, we usually have 5 or 6 choices and online you have ~100. And in the little vending machines, I have only seen the bell and flag type. I seriously doubt post offices will force this particular stamp on you or require you to have it on your letters. :) My question is--will they use this stamp to "track" Muslims? I'm joking (I think).

I take major issue with using this stamp being unpatriotic (and having all those American flags at the bottom of such a hateful message). That's ridiculous! We believe in freedom of religion, do we not? And God doesn't force Christians to obey; that is our choice (there are definitely consequences for the wrong choice... but my point is we aren't forced, we choose). This is a right as enshrined in law as our right to assemble and demonstrate, to speak our mind, to bear arms.

Sure, don't buy the stamp if you don't want it, but to pressure (or harass) others not to buy it or the post office not to sell it because you don't celebrate the holiday represented on the stamp goes against what America is all about- or should be. Our soldiers died to protect THAT right.

Where's the outrage about Hanukkah (or anything else that has appeared on a stamp that's not Christian)?? I'm sure there's a stamp for that and Christians don't celebrate that either. To be fair we should be making a scene at post offices about that, too. Otherwise, this is just about people thinking all Muslims are terrorists. I don't think that is too big of a leap. I thought we were beyond ignorance like that!

Moving on to more facts... This stamp is for the celebration or Ramadan or the Eid feast, not anything remotely associated with terrorism or any particular country. It is not unpatriotic. Ramadan emphasizes some points Christians and Americans would do well to consider, actually- what it means to be hungry, fasting, prayer, devotion, being kind, not arguing, refraining from foul speech, etc. Is this really something to get upset about or make a scene about (going in and shouting, unprovoked- "I do not want that Muslim stamp on any of my mail")? I guess you certainly have that right, but especially if you are a Christian, you should think about your motivation for doing that, how you might accomplish the same in a more self-controlled, respectful manner, and what others are going to learn from that- a Biblical concept or something opposite.

If you take issue with this as a Christian, I can maybe see that. Maybe. It's a Muslim holiday. Christians don't celebrate it. But- no need to hate it and hate Arabic and stage boycotts and and go into post offices demanding stamps with some "American" writing on it. The solution would be simply not to buy it, not to "adamantly and vocally boycott" and make a big deal about it. It's not applicable to you. Must everything be? Like the Hanukkah one. So what? We have the freedom not to buy it. Choose the flowers. Or flag. Or Elvis. Chinese New Year*. Latin Music Legends. Whatever floats your boat.
*Do be advised that the Chinese New Year one does have Chinese characters on it ;)

It's pretty American to have over 100 choices of what to mail your letters with. It's a letter for crying out loud! If there was only one design, I'd definitely think we were moving towards socialism. ;)

Edits:
-->I was so caught off guard by this one for whatever reason, I didn't mention that whether they're talking about 9/11 or Iraq (Americans dying), my points are basically the same except for the fact that I don't believe soldiers in Iraq are fighting for freedom or that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. This may be clear to most, but this particular post may not have been clear.

-->I also didn't mention the differences between Islam and what terrorists practice (those who claim to kill in the name of Islam). For the most part, terrorism is political. People have a problem with foreign occupation and oppression (go figure). I think it helps them (justification, recruiting) to bring religion into it, but I certainly wouldn't inform myself on Islam from watching or listening to a terrorist who claims to kill in the name of God (in any religion).

** I didn't go into these probably because the main problem was more broad. It's definitely not that I think these issues aren't important. When I looked back at this, I felt I should have addressed them, though.

Islam in the church...and consumerism, too, I guess

2011-07-04T16:11:00.001-04:00

Islam is sometimes mentioned in worship and Bible classes. I'm probably going to seem overly critical, but I'm just trying to sort out what's right- how should I react, what does the Bible say, should I go along with the majority? It's more of an inward criticism or conflict. Or maybe I am hypersensitive on this or maybe it's just one of those things that for me provokes thought endlessly given the political atmosphere and times. There was a lighthearted joke- not a big deal- but it made me think about the way we talk about other religions, etc. It also made me think of some less lighthearted things about Islam I've heard from people I would otherwise consider strong in the faith, as this situation always does.

I also found the strong agreement when radical Islam and suicide bombing was mentioned interesting. That made me think about buzzwords and hot topics that are often mentioned when politics and religion cross over now and then. When certain things are mentioned like abortion, gay marriage, the way culture is going down the tubes because a certain party in in the White House, and I think we can add radical Islam to the list (which is weird since it has very little to do with Islam and nothing to do with Christians), it can really animate and light a fire under a congregation. I use the conservative example here, because this is what situation I am in, but it is the same for the other side as well, I'm sure- same reaction to different buzzwords.

I mean why look at Islam so closely? Aside from the political focus, because I guess that's the real reason. Why poke fun at their beliefs- or things we think are beliefs but are really myths? I see it done with denominations occasionally, but we normally catch ourselves and say we shouldn't be doing that. Not so with Islam. It can be sort of a of a free for all. Maybe it's because when we're poking fun at denominations, we get uncomfortable when we think of a good friend who is involved with one of these groups; whereas many of us don't have this handy check and balance for Islam (I'm just guessing here).

Instead of the jokes, though, I wonder why we don't approach Islam (not just personally, but teach it), or more specifically, radical Islam (since I think this is the focus of the concern), a little more like Paul or Stephen. They both just kept on preaching the truth (wisely- in their case they had the Spirit to lead them to various cities- in our case, we have the Bible that tells us not to provoke, to be be kind, live as we are called) and Stephen even pleaded for their souls as they stoned him to death. I don't recall them spreading rumors about or laughing at their detractors as part of their teaching. They were in more immediate danger than we are from "radical Islam" and yet they were far more sensible about the whole thing (I guess that makes sense, now, doesn't it?). I don't think that they weren't afraid- not at all- but they certainly handled it well and we can and should learn volumes from that. They may have made certain arrangements in their meetings for safety, but I can't really see the superior attitude in the New Testament that I hear sometimes today.

They seemed to have a good understanding of this verse we seem to often forget:

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

And also:

Romans 12:18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.

I have been seeing this focus on Islam in/by the church since the Iraq invasion or since 9/11/2001. There have been lessons, even lectureships, and of course many a post on a message board (breeding ground for sensational email forwards). Why? Maybe this is becoming one of those issues like abortion and gay marriage for which you must preach zero tolerance and draconian measures in order to be a true Republican and in some cases a true Christian? Is it a reflection of the Republican Party's obsession (see post on Muslim Hearings)?

I wonder why we have to be so concerned? It's not really such a safety issue. Yes, there are those who don't like our policies and want to kill for that. True. But nothing like Rome and Christianity back in the day- not by any means.

I do understand that we are to do this:

Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.

On the other hand, there are other issues (I believe) that we should be thinking more closely about than Islam or the smaller minority of radicals. Consumerism. Why do we "need" so much stuff? I'm talking about myself as much as anyone. Having been to the 3rd world, made that vow to do with less, violated said vow so quickly and easily upon return, I reflect on it some. I think we could do with a lot less, but then in a world of excess, you'd look like you were unnecessarily depriving yourself or worse, your kids. It seems much more in style to decry Islam, abortion, or gay marriage than declaring a war on stuff. I don't think it's a sin to want that Kindle or iPad or splurge on shoes, but at some point you do cross that line. Where is the line? And I think a lot of times that line is closer than we are assuming and saying it is. We are quick to say rich people can and do enter heaven when the verses about the rich young ruler or the camel and the eye of the needle come up. Maybe for good reason. Though it might be hard, it is possible. The problem with it is that I don't hear as much in these types of discussions is how little can we do with? What can I do without? I have too much. I'm talking about myself, here, too, no question. I wonder if we should talk more about giving and buying and having less than clarifying various parables that say it's hard to get to heaven if you're rich?

Wow. This kind of ended up in a different place than I expected. And so ends another post I was going to delete, but will go ahead and post. If I deleted as many posts as I wanted to, I'd only have a handful up here! :)

Finding Nouf by Zoe Ferraris

2011-07-04T15:38:00.000-04:00

Finding Nouf was a Middle Eastern fiction I was able to find at my small town library. It was actually a really good story. Maybe bits here and there were contrived, but it really didn't bother me because I enjoyed the story.

I have very few complaints. I was a little put off at how quickly the conservative Nayir was interested in sticking his nose in the not-so-evident crime involving Nouf. The assistant examiner he had to have contact was a woman and his friend/ employer's fiance (he finds out later) that I hadn't expected him to want to get involved with (as in talking to, not romantically). Maybe this was because I hadn't yet gotten into the story. All in all, it was a slight interruption, but wasn't a big deal.

The other thing that stuck out as a flaw to me was the food was never really mentioned. Coffee and tea were often mentioned and that was essential, so I'm glad it wasn't left out, but I think descriptions of food seemed scarce. When we met the American at his house and food was offered, there was some elaboration. In the "families welcome" restaurant, "The Big Mix," the word lunch was used rather than any description of food. I realize food may have been left out because it wasn't the focus of the meeting, etc, but I think it's an essential detail to help us like the characters. What do they eat? What do they like? How does the food in front of them remind them of food from where they are originally from? How do the smells remind them of other experiences? It's an essential part of knowing the characters and it was missing a lot of the time. (Admittedly, the last fiction I read was Crescent, in which food was a major element- but, still!)

Also, it was handy that the main character's uncle happened to have some scientific equipment in his basement- a mass spec of all things and enough stuff to process crime scene samples. That was weird. And kind of unnecessary. Less obvious was Miss Hijazi's job as a tech in a crime lab. It made the story possible, moved it along, but wasn't contrived. It brought an element of women's lib to the table, so she was a great character.

As I mentioned, I did enjoy the mystery very much. I also enjoyed the glimpse into a slice of Saudi culture and the variety of people and attitudes that make up Saudi society. Royalty, the rich, the progressive, the truly and falsely devout, the religious police, vigilantes, Bedouins, and immigrants (the eye doctor and Nayir) were among those discussed.

Several subjects in Middle Eastern culture were woven into the story: hospitality; modesty; attitude toward Americans; helping the American would have been as bad as touching her skin; attitude towards immigrants- even from other Arab countries; contact between or segregation of men and women; women working- various attitudes about it; women driving, escorts/ drivers; concept of such constraints bringing on depravity they were meant to guard against; underground/ hidden brothels and bars; double standards such as it's not as bad to sleep with a non-Muslim prostitute as a Muslim one; there was an interesting but short discussion of the interpretation of the veil- what is should cover- face, bosom, etc (I'd never really heard that one before); there was some Arabic interspersed, which I enjoyed, but I could have done with more! Some of these I I was familiar with, a few were new, some I still didn't understand- all were well done.

I would definitely recommend it. The author is an American who was once married into a Saudi Palestinian Bedouin family. I thought the book was great considering this; I would still like to read more by Arab authors to compare and contrast treatment of various issues like women, religion, etc.

US flotilla to Gaza!

2011-07-02T08:29:00.000-04:00

This is the link for my thoughts below:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/27/we_are_eager_to_get_to

Here's the flotilla site:
http://ustogaza.org/

A US State Department rep is saying that aid not necessary. (?) Aid should go through "proper" channels. (?) I guess to say aid is necessary is to admit Israel is doing something wrong and the US is giving them money to oppress people. We can't have that... well, wait...we can't admit that, now can we?

Israel? The Occupying Power? The proper channel is to go through the oppressor and trust them to provide anywhere near adequately for the people it is subjugating? Do you think they are qualified to be fair when they've calculated the number of calories it takes for people to survive (not thrive and be healthy?)? What about that previous track record, complete with humanitarian crisis??

See: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/02/the-no-humanitarian-crisis-in-gaza-canar d/

This feels awkward, posting my own link, but history tends to repeat itself more frequently in this conflict than in the larger world. Here's the pasta post with the rather ridiculous exchange of someone asking the State Department why pasta isn't allowed. It kind of highlights a broader point, though, I think:

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/06/prohibited-items-in-gaza-what-is.html

Also see humanitarian situation on the sidebar...

Israel has always gotten around crimes of oppression and occupation by saying they have left Gaza. They aren't occupying it. They have unilaterally withdrawn (also known to officials as "political formaldehyde" meant to stall negotiations). Who is buying that, anyway? What's the big deal, then? Let Gaza accept the aid on its shores since Gaza is "free" and Israeli waters aren't involved! Or can we get them to admit they are really still occupying all of Palestine? You can't have it both ways. Unless you are Israel.

Clinton's puzzling take:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters Friday that she didn't think the plan "is useful or productive or helpful to the people of Gaza."

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-24/us/us.gaza.flotilla_1_mavi-marmara-ihh-gaza-strip?_s=PM:US

Greek government obviously isn't up for this challenge due to concerns at home and folds:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/07/01-3

Physical sabotage and psychological, too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13977371

Israel refuses to deny sabotage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwYO0XEUpWY

Israel threatening journalists:

He said journalists who participated in the flotilla would be breaking Israeli law and would be banned from Israel for 10 years, as well as facing confiscation of equipment and other measures.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/26/israel-accused-gaza-flotilla-journalists

Israel backing away from threat:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/27/us-palestinians-israel-flotilla-idUSTRE75Q1MF20110627

Me, the stay at home mom?

2011-06-28T13:26:00.000-04:00

I should note that this was started when I gave my notice at the end of May. I almost deleted it, but instead I've added some and tried to make it more readable. I guess I'll hit post now.

I probably should have numbered this since it doesn't flow all that well. Kind of like my working mom mind. Here goes:

So I've taken the first step to becoming a stay at home mom. I've given my notice. The day I did, it was all I could do to keep the chunks down. I didn't know how everyone would react- and didn't want to know really. It's not like announcing a pregnancy where you know you have a limited time to tell people before they just find out and are insulted that you didn't say anything. And by the way, I apologize if you are finding this news out only my reading this and are in any way offended. :) I guess I think most of the time, people don't care and I don't want to find out that they don't care by telling them and seeing how underwhelmed they are. I generally like flying under the radar. No one expects a whole lot, you come, you go. Very low fuss and low stress as far as fuss-related stress goes.

I often wonder how life at home will be. Up until now, we've left things undone and we've said, "that's ok, both of us work" and so there's no blame. Now, if things don't get done, it's going to be my fault. Also, up to now, we've shared household tasks pretty well. We complain about the way each other does or doesn't do things, but there is that understanding there that since both of us are away from the house the same amount of time, we've both got to be doing everything for this to work. I do understand and agree that I'll pick up more responsibilities; I just hope things don't get out of hand... Also, I'm nowhere near as confident in the kitchen is my husband. Will I ever get comfortable? At least maybe now I'll be able to find stuff- anything- if I'm the one putting it there. Will I end up doing nothing? Will I pick up do at home jobs (yeah, right, I've been searching for this for years and now they will fall from the sky!)? I know people say stay at home motherhood is a full time job, but,- it's not that I don't believe them, I do- how full exactly when I'm used to doing a million and one things, remembering a million and one things, being here and there and everywhere at work and home? It probably won't be less crazy, but different crazy, realistically. I'm kind of hoping for less crazy, though. I could do with that for a bit.

How much of my worth is tied up in work? I didn't think much before, since I don't have a high-powered job or anything close. But when I stop earning a paycheck I wonder if I'll feel like I have to ask permission all the time or if I'll think less of myself. Worse, what if my husband thinks less of me. I don't think he will, but I've never been there. There is what other people think, too, but that matters less. I hope. I feel good about my reasons for quitting work. I want to be involved in their education in a way I wouldn't have been able to before. Who am I kidding- I just want to see them! I keep thinking of things I want to learn and go back to school for and possible career changes. Will that stop, I wonder? There is the fringe benefit of my husband and I getting to see a bit more of each other. It's not like I don't want to work anymore, though I may be a tad burned out at the moment...

I'm reading I Don't Know How She Does It. Good timing. It would have depressed me (or infuriated me), though, if I'd read it before I knew my quitting was possible (the main character ends up quitting, surprisingly). Or maybe it would have made me feel better that others feel some of the working mom guilt (even if the character is fictional). The things she mentions about being embarrassed about not knowing what your kids' favorite things are at all times, guilt over missing so much of their babyhood, the chaos during the times you do see them- as though they cram weeks' worth of emotion (the whole spectrum) and need for attention into such a small amount of time- and then the guilt over wishing for "me time" because of the intensity and acting out. Another bit that was so familiar- the main character makes mental lists all the time. I do this every night! Random things that need doing with the house, things to pick up at the store, birthday plans, cleaning, long-term, short-term, recurring items... I've never done what she did with the buying baked goods and bashing them up to make them look homemade, though. I just opt for feeling guilty bringing store bought stuff or feel guilty for bringing nothing and hope no one wants to discuss what everyone brought...

On a larger scale, I wonder how many years I'm setting back women's equality? Especially if a man takes my place? Maybe that's overly dramatic, but I've seen a lot of women do what I just did and what if that continues? I can't say this was a huge concern, but it ran through my mind more than once. I tend to think me taking up space here in the "world of work" (thanks 8th grade careers class for that bit of vocabulary) is progress in a (cheesy) way. Anyway, education leads to both better conditions for women in general and women working outside the home. If fewer of us work outside the home, maybe fewer will be educated and we'll be undervalued ...again. Hopefully we've reached a baseline of education where we realize that men's and women's lives are equally valuable, whatever our choice after the education, unlike in some parts of the world where only boys are vaccinated, educated, and valued in general.

I will miss the people I've worked with past and present, the multicultural education (for me) and ever changing face of the lab, the pride of knowing you do something well and the challenge of trying. Goodbye to Gyro Thursdays, random beeping of freezers, parking in Mongolia, giant brownies, dodging the hackey sack on the way to the bathroom, mouse surgery with good conversation, the smell of bacteria in the morning... There are obviously things I'll miss more than others :) but overall, I'm ready!

NPR's Fresh Air on the Arab Spring- skip it

2011-06-27T19:58:00.001-04:00

So I was listening to this Fresh Air piece. It certainly is no Diane Rehm Show:

What The Arab Spring Means For Israel And Palestine

Terry Gross seems to think things like protests inspired by the Arab Spring and the Palestinians' bid for recognition at the UN is going to undermine peace talks. She makes that clear right off the bat. She's not the only one, true, but it's her job to try and tear things like this apart, not get behind them and toe the line and push it on us (like Iraq and the media was- not necessarily Fresh Air specifically in that case).

Annoyingly, Terry Gross is fixated (and I mean really wouldn't let it go!) on Hamas, but on the other hand, her guest was pretty cool.

The guest and his NGO, International Crisis Group sounded pretty interesting, though. The NGO makes recommendations to governments about various conflicts (in Malley's case, ME and N Africa). For Malley's part, his father was Jewish and an Arab nationalist. He was not a fan of the US, but wanted his kids US educated. He moved to France, but was so critical of them he was expelled.

They did discuss something interesting in that the Palestinians leadership has played a role in quelling the uprisings and protests because they aren't completely sure the people won't turn against them as well as Israel. I guess this is the problem with the Arab leadership in most cases, though.

One item Gross brought up was the UN Resolution for a Palestinian state. What is it meant to do, she asks. Membership in the UN will be blocked by US. I guess this is her point. The best they can do is get General Assembly countries to recognize the Palestinian state. I say go for it.

The resolution is being discussed because of Arab despair about the process- so the guest says. For one thing, Netanyahu won’t recognize the infamous 1967 borders, saying they are “indefensible.” He also goes into Israel’s reaction. The resolution will make Israel mad since they believe it to be circumventing negotiations- which seems to be the opinion of many in the US and any other "expert" out there. I think that's a bunch of garbage.

Well, I take that back. Maybe it is actually circumventing negotiations, but when that is absolutely the only way, why demonize those who want to move forward (or circumvent)? Are negotiations really the way to go? Not to mention going to the UN makes total sense. Why not go to the very body that the British went to when they were tired of governing and wanted to partition it (between and owners and a minority)? Why not go to the body who recognized Israel? Why not go to the body that told Israel to give back what it took in 1967? Why not go to the body that guaranteed refugees the right of return and said settlements were illegal before they were even built?

(And negotiations! Funny one should talk about and be so attached to those when you think about the history of this thing. Jews come in, decide they want land and take it. So, the fair thing would be to send them packing, but that's not going to happen. In my book, that's already quite a concession. Israel has been dealt with more than fairly; let's see what Palestinians can be offered. Maybe I misunderstand negotiations, though. Maybe it's more about what you can trick people into accepting more than it is about fairness and justice in the give and take?)

Why not go to the UN when Palestinians have offered to give away the right of return (besides a symbolic number), Jerusalem, allow all settlements but a few, and everything else and Israel's answer is still no, we want those settlements, too?

And then Israeli despair is mentioned – because they have discussed Palestinians' despair for awhile, after all. Malley seems to think Israeli despair is warranted and they have a right to wonder when Palestinians will seize the opportunity? Seize the opportunity!? What opportunity are they talking about? You mean the time(s) Palestinians have offered to give up Jerusalem, all but one settlement, all but a symbolic number of refugees returning, the transfer of all Palestinian Israelis to a tiny , non-contiguous, permanent state of occupation- and have been refused because they didn’t meet all of Israel’s demands?? Is that the opportunity we’re talking about, here? If justice were ever on the table, perhaps there would be something to seize!

A common theme (both sides are to blame) reappears when Malley talks about both sides’ despair causing the deadlock. Maybe this is true in a way, but saying both sides are at fault and believe this or that ignores what is truly going on, the power dynamic, the biases, the actual possibilities, etc. It equalizes a situation that is very definitely not equal.

I did appreciate the nuance when it came to the American position. Of course we have the usual reason(s) to veto this thing, but Malley discussed two interesting reasons a veto might be a bad idea:

1. Obama has worked harder than some at repairing US-Arab relations. He gave some great speeches for sure, but action has been a little hesitant and sparse. If we veto something Arab nations support 99%, our words will mean nothing.

2. Obama may be "forced" to veto a resolution on a Palestinian state at the very time he said he'd love to welcome one- Sept 2011. He said that in 2010 in the General Assembly, I think.

And, here, our friend Terry takes it back to Hamas.

She is concerned that one thing that might make the UN vote complicated is the unity government with Fatah and Hamas since Hamas doesn't recognize Israel or its right to exist. If Hamas is part of the Palestinian government, she wants to know what that would mean for relations with Israel.

Good question, Terry. Or not. I was happy to see her effectively shut down on this point. Malley tells her this is a pretext. There hasn't been a peace process for some time, so Hamas isn't the reason things are going wrong.

She interrupts - laughing, clearly unconvinced by this argument and determined to have Hamas denounced as often as possible - "it certainly can't help!" She really wants agreement and discussion on how bad Hamas is, here. She continues on about how having Hamas in the government is a setback. After all, how do you negotiate with someone who refuses to recognize your right to exist?

I don't know, Terry. Ask the Palestinians! Israel doesn't seem to think even the Palestinians within its borders (let alone those in a future Palestine) deserve human/equal rights and yet Palestinians are still expected to come to the table, make concessions, recognize rights and characteristics of Israel that Israel won't, in turn, recognize for Palestinians. No one (considered credible, pro-Israel, non-anti-Semitic, that is) ever asks, "how can Palestinians take talks seriously unless Israel does x, y and z."

Malley responds well in that he makes a broader point about the Palestinian division being bad for all- they can't implement agreements or speak for all of their people, etc- rather than just agree completely with Terry's anti-Hamas rant. But then again he's an expert in conflict resolution... :)

She asked the guest about his conflict resolution process, which actually involves talking to all sides, imagine that, and asked why on earth he'd want to talk to Hamas. What is his "ambition" in that? He did explain that he hadn't recommended the US talk to Hamas (I bet Terry was jumping up and down), but he thought there needed to be a channel of communication so that they knew what was expected should they be included in discussions at some point. This is much more sensible than some previous messages out of Washington- if you're not with us, you're against us; we don't negotiate with terrorists; and other such nonsense that aims to exclude (some of the) people that have to be a part of any solution.

Malley also makes a great point about the Arab Spring and domestic vs foreign policy. People thought that the proof that the Arab Spring was about domestic rather than foreign policy was that no American or Israeli flags were burned, but that's not quite the whole truth. If it wasn't about foreign policy (and Israel-Palestine) as well, regimes like Egypt wouldn't be changing like they are- becoming more representative of the population- and choosing to open the border with Gaza, broker a unity deal with Fatah and Hamas, and have better relations with Iran. Again, good point. I've also heard people try and say the Israel-Palestine thing has nothing to do with the Arab Spring. How much the conflict is affected by it remains to be seen- Palestinians have to figure out whether to get rid of their leadership first or Israel. And there's yet another division to dilute the movement.

Malley has made a ton of great points, but I don't agree with this next one. He talks about Netanyahu's stance and the deadlock and then about taking a step back, finding out what went wrong, find out what the parties want that they haven't been getting in negotiations. This is obvious to me. For Palestinians: JUSTICE! For Israel, they've proven they want all of their demands met or they will say no. I don't think it's time to step back. It's time to pressure Israel.

When asked about the future, he says a few things that people generally don't mention, at least specifically, which was refreshing. He says Palestinian refugees and Israeli settlers are usually talked about rather than to and that these people need to be represented in talks. Iraq and Afghanistan are mentioned and I cringed, but perhaps he's talking about how we took a step back and changed course- then I'd agree. The other two items or suggestions were considering internal Palestinian politics and the less specific getting past feeling like we know what the solution looks like, let's finish up. I know he's probably not thinking along these lines, but the last one made me think about one state. It is not the shape people are thinking the solution will take anymore, but it is the most fair and sensible. When you look at how many problems it solves, I think most people could really get behind it. Both people would absolutely have to be committed to the survival of the other. Some people might think that's unrealistic or naive. I don't.

Either just before or just after the talk of future direction, they talk about the UN Resolution again. It won't mean much on the ground, but more will recognize Palestine and that it is under occupation. True, but I think it's a step. Palestine could possibly go to the UN and officially accuse Israel of occupying it, petition for redress, Israelis would face more fears for arrest while traveling in Europe, etc. Good stuff. Then, Malley states that he wants a resolution more like Obama's recent speech. A whole lot of nothing. No way!

Terry then tries again with the Hamas thing and the UN Resolution fears. Inspired by the Obama speech nonsense no doubt, she asks if a resolution that is less damaging to Israel (as though the one proposed pushes Israel into the sea!), one that also recognizes Israel's right to exist, would be less scary for the US, less likely to be vetoed. She laughs when she asks if Hamas would support such a thing. Perhaps if a just solution were ever on the table, we'd see a different side of Hamas, but we haven't had to worry about that. I'm glad she's not a negotiator! I disagree with Malley that this sort of resolution is a good idea- he and Terry love the idea. He does come through with a sensible point, though. What is usually demanded is that Hamas recognize Israel, renounce violence, abide by past agreements and they respond (or non-respond) by saying Israel doesn't do these; why should we? I don't think Malley really takes this as a serious argument like I do, but he at least realizes there is a way around it; re-frame it so that you call for mutual recognition, mutual cease fire, mutual abiding by agreements (which involves referendum by the people). Now that's actually replacing a kind of silly approach where you pack up and go home because Hamas (and hence all Palestinians of course) won't do what you want, with an actual solution.

I think I would have enjoyed this interview much more had someone like Diane Rehm or Dick Gordon done it. Someone who didn't have to ask about Hamas every other time. I mean, really. Give it up. Maybe there are other reasons for the failures. I'm no fan of Hamas, but maybe Israel had something to do with it? No?

terrorist of freedom fighter?

2011-06-23T09:23:00.000-04:00

So this question frequently comes up (at least for me) since I live in an environment almost as biased toward Israel as Israel itself- maybe more- and I have very different feelings about the matter, having read a bit about the history and causes of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I was listening to the radio (podcast, since I'm hopelessly behind on my daily news fix) - an interfaith marriage piece about a Catholic and a Jew. I enjoyed it for the most part, but when the Catholic described her spouse's parent as a Jewish "pioneer" in Palestine, it struck me as odd. I mean, this person was probably a part of the gangs that, using weapons supplied by Jewish groups all over the world, massacred and cleaned out entire villages of its Palestinian residents and chased many of the rest out on the fear of such atrocities. If this Jewish pioneer wasn't in that group, he or she was almost certainly in the group that walked into (and took/stole as their own) houses that had been vacated only days, weeks or months before with shelves stocked with food and dishes still on the table as though their owners just left for a few hours! How could you move into a house that looked like someone had left in a hurry and thought the land had no people (land without people for people without a land myth) and it was ok for you to take it?? You have to have been lied to and been very naive or lying to yourself.

We freely talk of Jewish pioneers and the necessity and fundamental right of Israel's security in this country. When you describe Palestinians fighting for their rights as freedom fighters, people look at you as though you are a terrorist yourself because you have obviously just expressed support for terrorism. There have been many UN resolutions saying Palestinian refugees can go home (after '48), Israel has to stay in the '67 borders, Jerusalem is to be shared. All laws and conventions governing war and human rights say refugees can go home and the Occupying Power can't transfer its population to the territory it occupies, etc. Palestinians had a history of non-violent protest (general strikes, protests, etc) before the suicide bombing years and I'm happy to see a resurgence in the popularity of non-violent protest. I just wonder why it is ok for us to expect that after so much injustice that Palestinians would bow down before and kiss the feet of Israelis and Americans who offer pseudo-states, demilitarized entities and occupation enshrined in law? Why are Jews who wipe out villages of hundreds of people heroes and pioneers and a Palestinian who bombs a pizza parlor is without question a terrorist? Why would we expect Palestinians to lay down arms in the face of oppression and injustice when Americans fought the British over the same things? In a few short weeks we'll be celebrating this very thing!

I guess it boils down to the fact that the winner writes history (but I ask, should it?). Look at our Thanksgiving story. In school, we're basically taught through pictures and activities and such that pilgrims and indians sat at a giant picnic table with a cornucopia and a table crammed with food. Everyone ate, talked and had a blast. They taught us about growing corn and gave us seeds. We taught them how to wear our more civilized pilgrim outfits. And we all lived happily ever after. This is the story the winners write to make ourselves feel better. And then there is the truth of the matter...

And so all these thoughts from one sentence. Welcome to my world! :)

Muslim hearings

2011-06-22T14:16:00.001-04:00

All this talk of the GOP talking about Muslims and sharia reminded me of those silly hearings going on in Washington.

King's defense: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/10/nation/la-na-muslim-house-hearing-20110311

We could be talking about how to cut the budget. Here's an idea to free up a few billion:

CUT AID TO ISRAEL ALREADY!

Another interesting link:

Muslim hearings recall my life in internment camp

Here's my March reaction to the first round of nonsense:

The modern Committee on Un-American Activities? Yikes! If this is a preview of a Republican White House, I'm scared.

Always one step behind... Bush was stuck in the cold war; today's Republicans are caught up to Muslims being the new Communists... They have yet to realize the problem isn't Islam- it's our irresponsible, discriminatory and/or contradictory policies and occupation!

Congress Begins Hearings On Muslim Radicalization : NPR
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/06/134307733/Congress-Begins-Hearings-On-Muslim-Radicalization

Some say the GOP has an obsession. They might just be right about that.

GOP Debate- June 2011

2011-06-22T07:52:00.004-04:00

June 13 Republican debate:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1106/13/se.02.html

One thing that caught my attention was how the subject of sharia law came up in a GOP debate. It's quite obvious they don't really know what sharia law even is. And that, I suppose, is what makes it such a great point to bring up to rally the base.

MCELVEEN: Thank you.

While we're on the topic of faith and religion, the next question goes to Mr. Cain. You recently said you would not appoint a Muslim to your cabinet and you kind of back off that a little bit and said you would first want to know if they're committed to the Constitution. You expressed concern that, quote, "a lot of Muslims are not totally dedicated to this country."

Are American-Muslims as a group less committed to the Constitution than, say, Christian or Jews?

CAIN: First, the statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn't appoint one. That's the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn't be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey -- there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have -- my term, not his -- a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn't ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let's make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their -- you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization --

KING: When I asked -- I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn't you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew? CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it's not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.

Just after this portion, Romney chimes in with a very reasonable response. I guess there is at least one serious candidate, here. I wasn't at all sure.

He only looked stronger when Pawlenty refused to discuss his references to Obamneycare (the other interesting point of the debate) as it directly relates to the candidate. It was a prime opportunity and he missed it. Hmmm...I wonder if this is indicative of his style? This was handed to him on a silver platter; nothing in the election race or Presidency will be that easy... The image that came to mind was of a perfect baseball pitch where the batter hits the deck and covers his head with his arms instead of going for the home run... :)

***

So what is sharia law anyway? Well, you might start thinking about Muslims chopping off Westerners' heads. This is one of the things I think of (besides the actual definition, which is also far from chopping off limbs):

I read a book, I believe (not sure though, as I read a few around that time) it was Kai Bird's Crossing Mandelbaum Gate in which the author gives an example of sharia law being implemented:

A guy is in a car crash and causes the death of another man. In the West, he'd be in jail for manslaughter. It was described in the book that sharia actually caused less suffering and more healing in that the decision was to have the survivor take care of the man's parents and siblings because a big part of their income was lost with the other man's death. I don't know if the following was part of the official decision or it's just what happened, but the dead man's family ended up treating him like a son.

This could help explain (also has a definition of sorts):

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-12-Sharia-law-in-the-USA_n.htm

***

One other GOP item of note:

Michele Bachmann just announced her candidacy. She was one of those I thought would be a Palin or Trump. Too sensational; not much substance. I have gotten a few of her emails. This was a FB post of mine:

Not sure why I'm getting emails from Michele Bachmann, but this is going to be a fun election season. Funniest parts: the words "money bomb" (as in donate to it), "betrayal of Israel" (??), and reference to diplomacy as "gallivanting". Socialism, Obamacare and prayer (as in this is a difference between conservatives and liberals, we good-you baaad) were also in there, but those made me yawn instead of giggle.

2011-05-31T12:36:00.000-04:00

One Year from Gaza Freedom Flotilla, Another on the Horizon

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/30-0

Amidst all the discouraging news, Obama's speech and inaction in the Middle East, Congress's blind devotion to a state as equally devoted to ethnic cleansing as some of the worst of the worst, we have this bit of hope in the solidarity flotillas. The Mavi Marmara or one like it will sail again. Until the powers that be see there will be no peace without actual justice and equality, Palestinians need to keep up the non-violent protest, flotillas and UN 377 pursuit. I would have liked to see more influence of the "Arab Spring," but when you've got a power of suppression that is far more acceptable- and even beloved- than Iran or Mubarak for that matter, everyone's going to have to get involved.

This flotilla and last year's incident with the Mavi Marmara has been frowned upon by the US, UN and others that also say Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory is unsustainable. What should they do then? Wait on the US and Israel to decide on a palatable (for them) solution that guarantees Israel's absolute control over the area while giving the appearance of a degree of democracy and human rights for Palestinians?

The flotillas are unhelpful (UN) and provocative (Ottawa), but what, may I ask, of Israel's push to rename ALL cities with Hebrew names? Is this effort to erase Palestinian history in Israel not provocative? When white people in this country wanted to erase black history- or their very presence with segregation- what did we call that?

What about bills to enact loyalty oaths to the Jewish state (what if you're not Jewish??) and bills that make commemoration of genocide/ethnic cleansing a crime? Is this not provocative? Who is trying to push whom into the sea these days?

What about the extremist in Israeli gov't behind these things- are we going to deny Israel aid? Say anything about this guy to them? Shall we refuse to deal with them until they "fix" the problem and get someone in there willing to give Palestinians rights?

Why is no one in our government the least bit concerned that Israel can't even treat Palestinian Israelis with dignity, so how on earth are they going to be able to give refugees (those they chased out under threat of death at various times) and neighbors any respect at all??

Some points on Israeli apartheid in case you're still thinking I'm ridiculous for using the term:

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/03/israeli-apartheid-week-a-beginner%E2%80%99s-guide.html

Obama's Middle East speech May 19, 2011

2011-05-24T17:04:00.002-04:00

I was conflicted about the speech. At first I didn't think it was so good. Everyone seemed to think that he was paving a new way by mentioning the '67 borders. Big deal! Hasn't this been around awhile? Democracy Now! brought up a speech Bush made that was nearly the same exact thing. Neither of them addressed Jerusalem. Jerusalem is as occupied as Gaza and the West Bank, yet the US doesn't want to recognize that fact.

Obama did change US policy, but it wasn't with the '67 borders. He referred to the "Jewish state," rather than the "Israeli state." A state for Jews, not a state for all Israelis- Jew, Christian, Muslim, Arab, Polish, American, etc. If he did indeed mean to say that, then he canceled out part of his speech. He is sanctioning, protecting and encouraging discrimination based on religion.

Now, I realize it was in fact a great speech, with the exception of every place he mentioned Israel. And those places he talked about equality and oppression- because I know he was excluding Israel from these lofty goals and very conditional support for Arab nations.

Full text at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east-and-north-africa

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55305.html

First, Obama discussed the "Arab Spring." That part was ok, except he got it wrong when he spoke of Israel.

"Antagonism toward Israel became the only acceptable outlet for political expression."

This sentence may be true of the corrupt Arab leaders, but the implications of it are false. What is implied here when paired with the statement about the West being the source of all ills is that people are brainwashed and there is no reason for the antagonism toward Israel. Israel's original land theft and declaration that this is exclusively their homeland, denial of Palestinian rights and self determination, and continued violation of international law is no reason for antagonism??

In describing America's role in and after the Arab Spring:

"...standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace."

This reflects the same old view that Israel's security is paramount and Arabs still need to (for example) come to the table, try harder to to x, y or z. The only way forward is to value both peoples' security adn human rights equally. Right now, we only value Israel's.

It was good to hear this, but unfortunately, it seems it is limited to the portion of the speech devoted to Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Libya, etc:

"The United States supports a set of universal rights. And these rights include free speech, the freedom of peaceful assembly, the freedom of religion, equality for men and women under the rule of law, and the right to choose your own leaders -– whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus, Sanaa or Tehran."

This is a good message, but as with most of the good things said of the Arab Spring and current and future Arab allies, it does not apply to Israel.

"Our message is simple: If you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States."

They enjoy our support verbally and monetarily and militarily- unconditionally. We ask nothing of the country that owes the most. We support it as though the connection is divine and therefore not open to question. Well, you can question it, but you will be sidelined as an irrelevant heathen if you dare.

When he said this, I immediately thought, why does this not apply to Israel? Is occupation (Territories) and apartheid (in Israel) genuine and inclusive democracy??

"We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy. What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion and not consent. Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and the respect for the rights of minorities."

Why is it ok to ostracize democratically elected Hamas, but embrace the extremist Israeli leaders, including Liberman who was part of a terrorist organization and other officials (PM on down) who were "former" Irgun and Stern Gang operatives?? Never mind that had Israel not interfered in Palestinian elections and prevented them from being able to gather (curfews, closures) and cast votes, Hamas probably wouldn't have had the support that it gained through providing relief and another option during Israeli oppression and incursions to win.

On the up side, these are two lines from two very good sections about women's rights and the right way to aid nations. I thought he hit the nail on the head.

"History shows that countries are more prosperous and more peaceful when women are empowered."

"...focus on trade, not just aid; on investment, not just assistance."

The portion on trade was encouraging. We're going to help Tunisia and Egypt and get others to do the same. Will this right all the wrongs we have committed in the region? No. But I do think it is a necessary and natural step.

The only issue that stands out, again, is Israel. In all this Western helping out of Arab economies, who is going to condemn Israel for crippling trade and economic growth in the Palestinian Territories and fix that? We have given money to Palestinians and that's all well and good, but you need to stop the bleeding and confront Israel with the hard truth already. How can we confront them when we can't bear to utter it ourselves, though? The President and Congress are securely wrapped around Israel's little finger. Individuals can sometimes find the strength to speak against Israel (and I find it hard to believe Obama is as in Israel's pocket as he appears), but as a whole our government is lacking. We can only hope someone else can step up and/or give us a push in that direction.

And now what we've all been waiting for- the word on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

"For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could be blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own."

Even in his opening remarks, the danger to Israelis (the implication is Jews rather than Israelis, though - further proof that either Obama or his speechwriter doesn't know there's a difference between Jews and Israelis) is brought home and made familiar in terms of physical and psychological harm to children; while Palestinian suffering is "humiliation" and the concern is nationhood. This ignores or covers up the fact that Israel kills and imprisons children and so Palestinian parents also worry, Jewish children are also taught to hate and so Palestinian children also suffer (not to mention PTSD due to occupation and attacks), many more Palestinians than Israelis have been murdered, Israel uses disproportionate force and causes more death than necessary for security (they have a demographic problem to solve, after all), and all the other crimes against humanity.

Let's take a look at this one.

"Yet expectations have gone unmet. Israeli settlement activity continues. Palestinians have walked away from talks."

This makes is seem like both sides are at fault and both are equal in guilt. Israel continues to build settlements... in violation of international law. Palestinians have walked away from talks. Really? Would you not walk away from talks, too, if the other side's security were guaranteed and your very rights were on the negotiating table (or chopping block as it were)? If you owned the whole thing and you were "generously offered" half, then smaller and smaller pieces, would you stay and entertain their version of your story or would you walk away?

Palestinians get read the riot act:

"For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist."

When negotiations lead nowhere and Israel refuses to accept anything but 100% of its demands and the US is complicit, it is time to go to the UN and get things done. Declaring a Palestinian state is absolutely not denying Israel the right to exist. Obviously, the message is that the US will fight any attempt at Palestinians gaining independence by any other means than a long, drawn out process in which the terms are wholly decided upon and acceptable to the US and Israel and then taken to Palestinians to see if they will see if they will be willing to sign on. If they don't sign, the event will be marked a failure on Palestinians' part. Of course.

Compare the "riot act" to this glowing description of Israel:

"As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums."

He mentions after this that we have to tell friends the truth, but to tell the truth, we haven't been a great friend in that regard.

He does say or reiterate a few things of value. Israel can't be Jewish and democratic and an Occupier. True. Peace can't be imposed. True.

In talking about the two state solution, there are many problems and Obama created another:

"Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people, each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace."

He has now escalated things and declared Israel a Jewish state. See second paragraph at top.

By saying Israel is a homeland for Jews and Palestine a homeland for Palestinians he seems to be caving to the extremist Jewish demand of "transfer" (a.k.a ethnic cleansing) of Palestinians. As with the "Jewish state" wording, I'm not sure if this reflects policy or is just an oversight of a mistake.

No one seems to want to talk about the fact that Palestinians are going to need more land than the West Bank and Gaza (and E. Jerusalem) if right of return is going to be limited to a Palestinian homeland and Palestinians are going to have an equal right to go to this homeland. I guess we are throwing out the facts of international law and UN Resolutions that say that refugees can go back home after a conflict, so we don't have to talk about Palestinians having a right to go back to what is now Israel. Why throw it out? Let's tell our "friend" the truth, Mr. President!

I'm just going to start by saying, "??? !"

"The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state."

Demilitarized? Why should Palestinians be demilitarized even for a minute if both are expected to defend themselves? I hope this is a short duration rather than permanent demilitarization, but it doesn't really sound that way. Or it seems Israel could stretch out the time if it felt like it. Since Palestinian rights are negotiable in a way Jewish rights aren't. (Yes, I said Jewish rights since Obama is committed to a Jewish state rather than an Israel for all its citizens.)

There is an emphasis on secure Israel and "viable" and contiguous Palestine. Israel withdraws only to a demilitarized Palestine. Palestinians must be able to stop terrorism, stop weapons from getting in and stop Palestinians from getting out. "Viable" meaning capable of protecting Israel and not so much referring to "workability" and getting back what Israel took with settlements, bisecting bypass roads, and a giant concrete wall (Not meant to predetermine borders at all, btw! Wink, wink.).

Jerusalem and refugees are considered by Obama as "issues that remain." This is nuts! You absolutely can't agree on borders and THEN settle these issues. You have to settle these first. There's nothing to settle really. What does the law and UN Resolutions say? E. Jerusalem is Occupied Territory and hence goes to a Palestinian state. Palestinian refugees have the same rights to go home as any other. If Jews from all over can go to Israel, then Palestinians have more than that same right (or at least an equal one in the case of those born in the Diaspora) to back to their homeland be it theirs or their recent ancestors home.

The violence against peaceful protesters in Egypt, Syria and Libya was mentioned and protesters praised. It is interesting how none of the peaceful protest of Palestinians was mentioned at all. Only that a future Palestinians state must protect Israel from terror, Palestinian guns and Palestinian people coming across the border.

"That is the choice that must be made -– not simply in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but across the entire region -– a choice between hate and hope; between the shackles of the past and the promise of the future. It’s a choice that must be made by leaders and by the people, and it’s a choice that will define the future of a region that served as the cradle of civilization and a crucible of strife."

Eloquent words, but we are not telling the truth to our "friend" or ourselves.

Edit: Netanyahu comes to Washington:

Netanyahu chooses to make things worse with Capitol Hill speech http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13553575