Showing posts with label Palestinian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestinian. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

What is propaganda?




Haaretz: Close encounters: A glimpse of Palestinian reality few American Jews ever see
http://epalestine.blogspot.com/2015/07/epalestine-haaretz-close-encounters.html?m=1
http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.664542


This explains the problem with educating people on the conflict!  


"I think the instinct to talk to Palestinians is important, but I find the propaganda spin artificial to the point where you can't know anything like the real story because what they are saying is clearly not the whole story."  

When Americans hear the Israeli side, we sympathize, think about their struggle, accept it as fact and value it as a person's experience. When Americans hear the Palestinian perspective, they moan about balance, why are we only getting one perspective, why don't you write about other human rights issues (I used to get that one a lot), they consider it propaganda, and immediately explain away Israel's role in Palestinian hardships.

The answer given in the article was perfect and one I have given, too, in a way, when asked about my "one-sided" blog or writing. I always tell them you already have access to the Israeli Jewish perspective whether you are Jewish and visit there or just listen to the news here, so I have read a lot about this and know a Palestinian and this is the other side of the story. Not to mention, why should a program designed to educate about the Palestinian perspective be "equal"?? - and you can take equal to mean pro-Israel. If you didn't actually want to know the Palestinian perspective, you should have stayed in your little bubble and and not signed up for such a trip that doesn't promise you pro-Israel bias and apologetics sold as equality and justice!


Friday, March 6, 2009

2 news items that SHOULD make us think... but won't

Aid Groups Calls for Israel to Lift Gaza Blockade

International aid groups are calling on Israel to lift the blockade of Gaza, because they say it is preventing the Palestinians from rebuilding the Gaza Strip. Israel has banned the importation of cement, steel rods and other material necessary for construction. Over the past month, Israel has also arbitrarily refused entry to items like chickpeas, macaroni, wheat flour, notebooks for students, freezer appliances, generators and water pumps, and cooking gas.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/2/headlines

Ok. Either Israelis are now living in an alternate universe, fearing for their lives from macaroni bombs or chickpea ambushes or they are obviously trying to starve the population. Israel can use white phosphorus, no problem, but don't let those Arabs have macaroni!! The US needs to take stand. Call Israel out! Sanction them! After all, they have stated that the disproportionate force is designed to "convince" the population to turn away from Hamas. Terrorism is violence against innocents to achieve political goals, is it not? Israel can't be guilty, they are the perpetual victims, so we will have to call it something else... security? self-defense? existential threat? Seems a bit extreme for macaroni, but Israel's not guilty, so this is what we Americans have to do- lie. Oh, and since Israel can't be guilty, the Palestinians struggle for rights, food, and place to live, etc must be called terrorism. And suddenly I have fallen into that wormhole into the alternate universe that US/Israeli propagandists live in...


*******
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that Israel's demolition of Palestinian homes in Jerusalem has been "unhelpful" to Mideast peace efforts.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/04/world/main4842144.shtml?source=RSSattr=World_4842144

And the Holocaust was "unpleasant"... (?!?!)

You can do it. Say it with me - illegal settlements, human shields, torture, blockades, collective punishment, occupation, aparthied, violation of our laws = ......... what? sanctions? Well, I doubt that's going to happen in my lifetime, but it's definitely deserving of stronger language than unhelpful!! When other countries do this kind of thing, we invade, we support invasions to stop these things; when Israel does it, we ignore it and call them our friend, pass classified info to them, and otherwise glorify, help them continue to violate the law, and protect them from the criticism of the observant (you don't even have to be that observant, really...).

Monday, February 16, 2009

Israel bans Arab parties, embraces ethnic cleansing

Much is made of Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East, a country over there with our values, their freedom, their equal treatment of Arabs despite what Arabs do to them, etc, but is it past time to re-examine Israel's status both democratically and as an entity we are supporting? It seems to me they are less democratic than people in America want to believe. I believe we just can't come to terms with the US supporting such a regime, so believe Israel’s lines about security, necessity and collateral damage. They have a right to defend themselves. They are under attack like we were on 9/11, except continually and existentially. The truth is that this is code; they don't have our values- unless apartheid and racism are American values. What people are saying with the “Israel has a right to defend herself” line is that Palestinians do not have the right to defend themselves, let alone have their own sovereign country. I know, some folks who think Israel’s actions are reasonable are going to say they support a Palestinian state, but think about the logic and facts on the ground- the two ideas are practically incompatible.

Israel was founded by terrorists using terrorism. This perfectly acceptable to us and it is something many Americans think we should defend to our financial and moral detriment. Somehow, the Palestinian struggle for statehood and rights in general is not the same; the context always manages to get separated from the actions in the US and Israeli coverage. These are savages attacking Israel for the sake of “pushing Israel into the sea”; hatred of Jews.

In lists of reasons to support Israel, democracy always is near the top.
In the recent elections in Israel, two of the major Arab parties were banned in Israel for not supporting the Gaza massacre of Dec08-Jan09. What if we banned the Democratic party because too many of them didn't support or had questions about the Iraq invasion?? Is that democratic? Is that free?

Israel disqualifies Arab parties
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7825032.stm

These are just two of the contradictions of Israel as a democracy.


Another code to decipher in this is the Israeli left. It’s not as leftist as you’d think or even perhaps as it used to be. A recent test or proof of this is the popularity and success of well-known racist Avigdor Lieberman.

For those of you who don't follow these things and want to know what the big deal is with this guy, here are three items that should raise the red flag, so to speak:

1. He has proposed a loyalty oath for Arab Israelis who wish to be or remain citizens, which means citizenship can be revoked for those not deemed to be in full support of Israel's policies, etc. You aren't allowed to criticize the government lest you put your citizenship in jeopardy?? Somebody please remind me why they are called the only democracy in the Middle East and why do we support them?? Does this remind anyone of anything?
  • Also problematic is that they are swearing loyalty to a state that only really guarantees the safety, security and rights of Jews. The Declaration of the Establishment of Israel speaks to Jews. It does mention that it will ensure the rights of others, but all the talk of the natural right of Jews to the land and justice based on Israel’s prophets, etc are kind of a slap in the face to aforementioned non-Jewish inhabitants. Why would or should they swear allegiance to that? To agree to that is to deny one’s own God-given rights as though God gave rights and land to Jews and they will generously grant you some of it – if “security” (read: from the whim of an 18 year old soldier to actual terrorist threat) warrants it.

2. He is also the guy who said this:
"It would be better to drown these prisoners (~11,000 people!!) in the Dead Sea if possible, since that's the lowest point in the world." (Avigdor Lieberman, 7 July 2003)
This is the rule rather than the exception for this guy. He is openly for ethnic cleansing where other government officials in recent years have only made veiled threats and cloaked action in some well-meaning and acceptable term like "security measures."

And this:
"At the end of the Second World War, not only the criminals were executed at the Nuremberg Trials, but also those who collaborated with them. I hope that this will be the fate of the collaborators in this house." (May 2006- Lieberman talking about Arab Knesset members who negotiate with Hamas)

Other quotes here:
http://www.peacenow.org/pr.asp?rid=&cid=5933

3. He's a neo-fascist. And you thought Obama was a threat to peace, freedom, and everything good. The “Obama’s a socialist” was a rather trumped up pre-election charge (scare tactic). Lieberman’s for real. No exaggeration.

OK, he's a curious character. But, he's a fringe element and can't possibly be a serious mainstream competitor, right? A few years ago I thought this, but not now. And what’s worse is Israel's election front-runners fought to be more extreme than he! This speaks to the direction Israel is going and why we should reconsider our “special relationship”.

Netanyahu said Lieberman's loyalty policy didn't go far enough because there wasn't a way to enforce it.

Barak, the “leftist”, about Lieberman, said, "This is a lamb in hawk's clothing. And when did he ever shoot anybody by himself?" First, this, from the center left?? Second, transfer and revoking citizenship aren't good enough, you have to have killed Arabs to be a contender??

Due to the loyalty oath requirement for citizenship for Arabs and the fact that two Arab parties were banned from the election, apartheid like situation, neo-fascists like Avigdor Lieberman rapidly gaining popularity I think Israel's racism will become more entrenched, accepted and institutionalized a lot faster than a just peace will be negotiated.

Where I had once believed most Israelis desired peace, but the government was preventing it, I now seriously doubt it. The people are driving the trend toward apartheid and embrace racism. This is in no one's best interest.

Yes, these are government officials I just discussed, so you might say I can’t rule out the Israeli public that way. It just bothers me that they felt they had to be more extreme than the guy who wants to drown Arabs to appeal to their public. Given the reaction (or lack thereof), they are right. The Israeli public voted and either way, Lieberman will probably be asked to form an integral part of the coalition. I thought there was no way this guy would be a force to be reckoned with – ever. His popularity surprised me. In the Democracy Now podcast I reference (http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/11/palestinian_lawmaker_mustafa_barghouti_on_the), they mentioned a student election (or several?) which he won. Maybe it doesn’t matter officially, but it tells us what direction things are going. Students have been more open to the left in the past, they have refused service in the Occupied Territories, but now they are embracing racism and ethnic cleansing en masse.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Your tax dollars at work

"We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and
destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they
are military bases. "This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has
been approved.”

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5950344


They tried to get us to believe disproportionate force was a myth or misrepresentation for so long. Nice to see Israel has not lost the opportunity to radicalize during our economic and political turmoil. Israel is dangerous and a threat to the stability of the region. They cannot be left to their own devices any more than those countries on a terrorist watch list. Every time we turn our backs due to big stories in this country, they take a harder line on "militants" (read anyone in the general vicinity of where they think someone who could be planning something-throwing rocks or bombs- might be. Settlers run wild, sometimes with police help, grabbing land, firing on and beating Palestinians. Settlers who are on the land against International Law.

http://www.imemc.org/article/57224

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Camera or weapon? Who can tell the difference?

Cameras and guns alike are dangerous to Israel. The difference is they have to act like they believe free press and cameras are ok with them; they don't with weapons on suspected terrorists.

A journalist was killed by Israel recently. This is much more newsworthy than the thousands that die (including kids) who aren't famous or journalists, unfortunately. Israel appears concerned...

Government spokesman Mark Regev said Israel understood the role of an independent, free press in a free society.

"These are situations that are faced internationally and we have got to find a better way to try to make sure journalists are not caught up in crossfire," he told the BBC. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7560672.stm



Oh, wait. Not so fast...
The Israeli military will not take action against a tank crew that killed a Reuters television cameraman and eight other Palestinian civilians in Gaza and has defended the decision to shoot as "sound". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/14/israelandthepalestinians.reuters?gusrc=rss&feed=media
So it wasn't concern so much as lip service.


Israel has a lot of these "mix ups". Perhaps they aren't as accidental as they want us to think...

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Israel and children

10-year-old subjected to torture by Israeli soldiers
http://www.dci-pal.org/english/display.cfm?DocId=811&CategoryId=1

How many times have you heard this story in the last week?? If this were an Israeli killed or injured by a homemade rocket, we'd hear it several times a day for several days.

We have very cozy relations with this country, one that we call the only democracy in the Middle East. WHY? It is debatable whether or not they have "democratic values" and respect for human rights. Ok, it's not debatable. They flout international law, continue to build settlements in defiance of international law and our restatement of international law on the subject, and think it's just fine to punish/torture a whole population for the crimes of a few.

McCain, Obama and Hillary Clinton all made appearances at the AIPAC, trying obsequeously to win them over. Obama even abandoned his diplomacy theme (which is something that drew me in) for tough talk on Iran. Our Senators and House members preface their comments in the chamber with prolific praise and examples of how their constituents are friends of Israel. This is disconcerting to say the least, but I'll bet you won't hear them reprimanding their "friend" for this abuse, people that have died at checkpoints, use of human shields, settlement building, etc any time soon.

Why not? We hear about every injury and the periodic death by homemade Palestinian rocket. The Palestinian injuries and deaths mount in almost total silence, though they are almost triple the Israeli deaths. Are there just so many, that people would or have gotten tired of hearing about it? Is it because Israelis look and dress like "us" and Palestinians are brown? Are the Territories just too dangerous to report in, so they look to Israel, which has some action, but not too much? Conspiracy, carelessness, desensitization?

Congress can't speak out or they will lose their AIPAC funding or AIPAC will fund their opponent to get a more pro Israel candidate. Where are the journalists? Journalists seem to love covering hurricanes. They will stand there until they themselves blow away and seem to love every second of it.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Bulldozer attack

The big news is a Palestinian who went on a "rampage", killing three. Given that Israel, with the help of the company, Caterpillar, has bulldozed thousands of homes, made an average of 12 homeless per home, and killed indiscriminately, I'd say we should have expected this a lot sooner. You might call it ironic.

It's called a terror attack, but is it not possible that a Palestinian who's fed up with the Israeli oppression is driven crazy by possibly family being killed by IDF, lack of movement, Israel induced stagnant economy, etc? This one makes the news because the victims are Israeli. The 5000 homes demolished are not worth mentioning because Palestinians are losing everything, sometimes their lives; no Jews were harmed. Rachel Corrie made the news, but our government refused to hold Israel responsible, as it folded to Israel's wishes in the USS Liberty attack. I guess if we gave up our own servicemen to save Israel's rep, why sweat one young girl, right?

Here is the link for the Big Story- Palestinian bulldozes three in terror attack
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/02/israel.bulldozer/index.html?iref=nextin

Everyone is calling this a terrorist act, trying to find a group that will claim responsibility, etc. Israel's home demolitions and associated murders are just administrative moves- journalists don't mention terrorism, collective punishment, land grabs, or even do a follow up with the family ot find out what their next move is (as in other disasters) if they report it at all. The President doesn't call with condolences when Israelis are driving the bulldozers that crush homes, kill people, crush cars, etc. Mention "national security" and murder and destruction of property are immediately justified, no matter how unrelated it is to national security and how little sense it makes otherwise.

I heard a good point mentioned recently: Where were the bulldozers razing the family homes of relatives of the guy who assassinated Rabin? That's Israel's policy, right?

Here are some facts on home demolitions and other examples of Israel's continued commitment to human rights:

http://icahdusa.org/facts

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article1

Monday, May 19, 2008

Ok, you've heard my rant, now here's someone more eloquent :


Bush in Israel

Refugees are the Key

By SAM BAHOUR

“[When David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence it] was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David: a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.”

“You have welcomed immigrants from the four corners of the Earth.”

- President George Bush, May 15, 2008

President Bush addressed the Israeli Knesset to mark Israel’s sixtieth anniversary. The President’s speech was absent of any real insight or policy. Instead of addressing the politics of a region that can only be equated to a powder keg about to explode, he assumed the other worldly role of bestowing on Israel a religious right, one dangerously terrifying because it represents the views of the most rabidly extremist Jews, similar to the Jewish law student that assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the gun-toting Israeli settlers (many holding dual U.S./Israeli citizenship) that populate Israel’s Jewish-only settlements across the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.

President Bush used the out-dated words “Eretz Yisrael” [biblical Land of Israel] to depict the Israeli state. This sort of usage was, and is, exactly what most right-wing Jewish fundamentalists use to refer to an Israel that reaches from the Euphrates River, in what’s left of today’s Iraq, to the Mediterranean Sea.

Adding insult to injury, he went on to praise Israel’s welcoming of immigrants from around the world to populate the newly created State of Israel. It meant absolutely nothing to President Bush that the indigenous Palestinian population, lingering for 60 years only hours away from where he was standing while addressing the Knesset and on whose ruins Israel was built, remains today’s longest standing refugee community.

The Palestinian refugees symbolize the long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The refugee problem has its roots in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, which ended in the mass displacement of over 750,000 Palestinian Arabs (approximately half of the Arab population). According to historical accounts of the War, including from recent Israeli historians, Jewish Zionist forces precipitated the flight of the Palestinian Arabs as part of a campaign of population transfer. The nascent State of Israel subsequently enacted laws to expropriate the refugees’ property and bar their return. The refugees were left homeless and destitute, mostly dependent on foreign aid for survival. The subsequent Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip resulted in the further displacement of around 200,000 Palestinians.

Today there are over 5.5 million Palestinian refugees and displaced persons who have never been allowed the choice to return to their homes or given redress for their losses. The continued denial of their rights encapsulates the decades-long strife, disenfranchisement and dispossession the Palestinians have suffered.

With the advent of the peace process in the early 1990s, hopes were ignited that the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip would end and the plight of the refugees would be resolved. These hopes were dashed as the negotiations reached an eventual deadlock, leading to a stalemate and Israeli military onslaught on Palestinian areas that continues to plague the region.

Following the breakdown of the talks there was much debate about who was to blame for the failure. But this debate obscures the larger problem stoking the flames of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians: Israel’s unwillingness to comply with rules of international laws, including the rights of the Palestinian refugees, and third party failure to enforce them.

Taking the Palestinian refugee issue as a case in point, the State of Israel, who controls the key to solving their problem, has refused to recognize the right of the refugees to choose whether to return to their homes and denied any responsibility for the problem since 1948. Israel has adopted this position in violation of international law, including UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which affirmed the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or receive compensation. The General Assembly has affirmed this most basic human right of the Palestinian refugees every year since 1948. Additionally, admission of Israel to membership in the United Nations (General Assembly Resolution 273 of May 11, 1949) requires Israel to comply with General Assembly Resolution 194 of December 11, 1948. At the time, Israel stated it agreed to comply with this resolution.

Israel has defended its refusal to concede the right of return on the grounds that the massive return of Palestinian refugees would spell the death of the Jewish state. But admitting its historical responsibility to the Palestinian people and recognizing the rights of the refugees could in fact deliver security and prosperity to Israel. Indeed, Israeli recognition of these basic principles would improve the atmosphere on the ground, help create more parity between the parties, and provide a fair framework for working out the details of a peace plan for resolving the conflict.

Israel’s first Prime Minister said that “the old [refugees] will die, and the young will forget”. A few days ago, Israel’s current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, explicitly stated that Palestinians must, “relinquish your demand for the realization of the right of return.” Following these ill- fated desires, Israel has sought to deny or delay addressing the refugee issue. However, the amount of blood shed since 1948 proves the fallacy and the immorality of the Israeli position. Adhering to it will only lead to more bloodshed.

The rights of the Palestinian people, and in particular the refugees, should be recognized alongside any legitimate rights of the Israeli people. Ultimately, it is through the evenhanded application of international legitimacy that we may be able to get out of the current stalemate and reach real grounds for peace. Otherwise, the failed Israeli practice of “might is right” will prevail and prolong needless death and destruction on all sides.

It does not come as a surprise to Palestinians, and an ever-growing number of non- Palestinians, that President Bush’s speech reflected blindness to the plight of Palestinian refugees. Those Palestinians from the Diaspora, not refugees, but Palestinians with their homes in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along with non-Palestinian foreign nationals trying to assist Palestinians by working and serving in the occupied territory, have become the latest category of victims of the most recent application of the Israeli “might is right” mindset. Israel has been denying entry to scores of foreign nationals, Palestinians and others, trying to enter the occupied territory. The mass majority of these foreign nationals are U.S. citizens and the Bush Administration, although acknowledging that Israel is discriminating against U.S. citizens based on their ethnicity, have done very little in standing up to its “eternal” ally Israel in order to resolve this latest problem.

If U.S. citizens are left to vie for themselves in the face of Israeli intransigence, Palestinian refugees are absolutely correct in not believing that any U.S. mediated “peace process” will lead to the realization of their inalienable rights, including the right of return.

Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism and the author of the infamous novel The Old New Land (Altneuland) and the book The Jewish State (Der Judenstaat), who Bush was keen on recalling in his speech, is surely laughing in his grave at Bush’s visit to Israel and his being more Zionist than Israeli extremists.

Sam Bahour is a Palestinian-American businessman living in the besieged Palestinian City of El-Bireh in the West Bank. He co-edited with Staughton and Alice Lynd HOMELAND: Oral Histories of Palestine and Palestinians (1994) and can be reached at sbahour@palnet.com.

Monday, April 7, 2008

alternate universe- planet Bush

Again, I'm late in commenting on "current" affairs. I would make such a bad reporter. My "news" would always be a month old.

Anyway, I just had a few things to note about Cheney and Rice's visit to the Middle East a few weeks ago.

Settlement Plans Eclipse Rice Talks

Surprise, Surprise. Israel's building more settlements. What happens? Virtually nothing. They flout international law, the roadmap, and other agreements as well as our stated position on the matter and we still have this special love for them. Not so for the Palestinians. It is just the opposite there. Whatever strides they make toward peace and democracy are dismissed because a small fraction of the population exists and has radical beliefs.

Rice still dares to say that we are on track for peace in 2009. Whaaa? Did she visit the same region I know as the Middle East? She definitely took a page from Bush's playbook. It is either super optimistic (bordering on delusional) or delusional to say such a thing. You can change your attitude by this method. Smile and you'll be happier. I buy it. I've done it. It just won't work with world events, though. Sorry, Condi. Even if you say we're on track, we won't be until some things change. The US position being one of them.

***
Hamas 'wrecking Mid-East peace'

If you thought Rice was delusional, this guy's unbelievable. Cheney. Why would we believe anything he says. He was the guy who stuck to his guns about the 9/11 -Al Qaeda link long after that myth had been debunked (on 60 minutes I think).

At least we know Condi is trying. She at least mentions the fact that Israel is building settlements in violation of international law and the US position and that this may pose problems for peace. Cheney just parrots whatever the Israeli spokesperson says, regardless of how ridiculous it sounds in light of facts. He toes the party line- and it's not even an American party! Sometimes I wonder if he's a US government official or Israeli. You really can't tell most of the time. Israel's interests seem to trump American ones for him. Invade Iraq? Done.

Thursday, April 3, 2008

non-violence

Click here for a quick primer on the Palestinian struggle.

I was listening to a piece on Tibet and the recent unrest or potential unrest there. It seems they have employed nonviolence in their struggle for years. Many people say, including US government officials, that if only the Palestinians would renounce or end all violence, then Israel would ever so graciously let them move about freely and maybe even have their own country on a tiny sliver of land in the region. Dare to dream. That just wouldn't happen. If there's no violence, the conflict would get less publicity than it gets now and Israel would feel free to grab more land and collectively punish in silence. Well, the nonviolent approach hasn't worked so well for Tibetans. They are still in a struggle with China and some want to reconsider the nonviolent approach. I have always said the Palestinian struggle is not a matter of terrorists vs democracy or Muslim vs Jew; it is a political struggle that needs a political solution which is occasionally hijacked by fanatics, unfortunately for the Palestinians. Any attempt to call it anything different is an attempt to put off discussing actual solutions: statehood, one state vs two, boundaries, and so called "final status issues".

I'm not advocating violence. I'm saying that political struggles need political solutions. You can't wait on all parties to stop the violence or make up reasons for the violence. While that's great for the population in a sense, it is not a solution. If the US would abandon the "smoke 'em out of their holes", "I'm not talking to terrorists (or people I deem terrorists or people who look at me funny or those who had WMD 10 years ago)" bit, we might be able to be an effective mediator. Maybe those things will die with Bush's presidency. No more cowboy "diplomacy"!!

Monday, March 24, 2008

McCain and Rabbis

This stuff is from last week, but I've got a few things to say about them.

McCain Backs Israeli Actions In Gaza


Ok. Can McCain be any more obvious? He's not visiting the Palestinians at this time. Hmmm. Who's he courting?? Could it be the Jewish vote?? Foreign policy credentials. That's embellishing a bit. You could get by with that if you met with both sides. He's kissing up to American Jews by making nice with Israel and telling them what they want to hear. You are the victims, we'll protect you no mater what, of course you are justified in killing Palestinians etc, etc.

"That is not a way for people to live," McCain said. "No nation in the world can be attacked incessantly and have its population killed and intimidated without responding. That's one of the first obligations of government, to provide security for its citizens."
This quote is absolutely ridiculous in light of facts on the ground. Israel routinely harasses and kills the Palestinian population and that's ok. When Israel faces any sort of retaliation for their actions, suddenly they are being intimidated and justified in a violent response. It has been going on for 30+ years!! Innocents under attack by the Israeli military are in much more danger than those facing crude, homemade Palestinian rockets.

I guess the key is the last statement. Palestinians have no state and so they have no government whose job it would be to provide security for them. I guess if you don't have a state, you have no rights and don't matter. You are invisible. Or might as well be.

***
Arab MK to chief rabbis: Slam rabbinic calls to harm Arabs

Some rabbis are encouraging repayment for the seminary shooting- "measure for measure".
Whenever the radical Palestinians say something like this, it gets broad coverage on every major news network here in the States and is reinterpreted as the whole Palestinian population's view. I heard nothing about this except for this article. When rightist rabbis say these things it is the exception rather than the rule. When Palestinians say them, it is the rule rather than the exception. The news broadcasters (or their company) extrapolate and superimpose the views of extremists onto the whole Palestinian population.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Dovi

The Strangulation of Gaza

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/makdisi

Dov Weisglass, explained that
"the idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to make them die of hunger."

This says so many things. This guy is full of ...well ...garbage. First, to have Weisglass saying this and that the disengagement from Gaza was to be political formaldehyde proves that Washington doesn't really listen (or care?) what Israel says/stands for. That's good because maybe we don't actually support apartheid and collective punishment, etc. That's bad because we are funding these horrible things and tacitly supporting them so that our elected officials can keep their grip on power, be it the presidency or congressional seat. Second, we have from the horse's mouth what Israel's intent really is. They don't hide their sinister motives, yet we in the US tend to cloud these issues in order to make Israel sound righteous and downtrodden so that we are justified in supporting them.

Maybe both things come down to the influence of the AIPAC, the Israel lobby, in the US or perhaps Christian Zionists. The latter are interesting. I have read and chatted online with regards them. I can tell you where they draw from the Bible and what their reasoning is for the most part, and I can tell you it's not Biblical and doesn't make a lick of sense.

Reading that quote just made my blood boil. Why do we Americans continue to think Israel has any real interest or intent in helping us? Saying "they are the only democracy in the Middle East" may be soup for the neoconservative soul, but isn't an answer. It doesn't justify the collective punishment they dish out and roadblock to peace they have become. It doesn't justify the illegal acts, extra-judicial assassinations, imprisonments on false or no charges, fake trials, "mistakes" that can either only be carefully planned or the result of an extremely careless, inefficient, inexperienced, inhumane military machine. Fire from homemade rockets which rarely does any real damage is not grounds for starving an entire population, imprisoning them in their homes, and knocking out power so they are in the dark in winter--especially for a military as well-funded and equipped and trained as they are. It is more like ethnic cleansing than a response to "provocation" (...then there's who provoked whom...).

Thursday, January 17, 2008

These links are from a mailing list I'm on, but I've posted my own comments about the articles below them.

Candidates’ Unconditional Support Isn’t Right for Jewish State by John J. Mearsheimer
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/13/6349/
This really is the heart of the matter, the problem/puzzle in this country regarding Israel. It isn’t so much that our lawmakers love Israel; they love power and don’t want to lose their seat in Congress or other government post. He also puts his finger on a relatively new idea for me and that is that such unconditional support for Israel in foreign policy is detrimental to Israel. I hadn’t really thought about it that way until recently, but he’s correct. This is one of the guys at Chicago who wrote that controversial paper on the Israel Lobby in the US.

The Hands of Esau by Uri Avnery (also on Bush’s visit)
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1200227323/
A very perceptive article on Bushs visit to the region. Avnery agrees with me that it looks as though Bush is trying to overshadow all the bad stuff he and his associates did while in power and how this is a ridiculous notion considering how he has no real clout his last year in office. The whole trip was a sad, sad joke (is there a word for when something is so hopeless and sad that you have to laugh…is that irony?) to me when I heard about it. What can they hope to accomplish in this last year after having neglected theses issues for the first 7 years in office, the parties knowing they won’t be dealing with Bush next year??

Mike Huckabee, Christian Zionist http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/huckabee_christian_zionist.html
A very good article that identifies the whole rapture, tribulation 100 year reign Tim LaHaye Left Behind doctrine for what it is: Premillennialism; error according to the Bible. He says Huckabee is a believer in this, which is not suprising since he’s a Baptist preacher, however, it is disturbing that he could be in the White House soon. I don’t know that I agree with the author’s last statement, though! Well, maybe I do in that Romney maybe wouldn’t be as inclined to use this pseudo Biblical principle as a guiding principle for the presidency and foreign policy of this country.

Must Read Gulf News Editorial addressed as a "Letter to George W. Bush"
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/08/01/11/10180995.html
This is a pretty good list of all the things that have really infuriated me about Bush, some of which I have blogged about. It is a seemingly never-ending list.

Israel Lobby Unrelenting in Efforts to Stifle Speech It Doesn’t Want Americans to Hear By Ron David
http://www.washington-report.org/archives/December_2007/0712023.html
Less interesting and more specific-it deals with 3 examples-2 of institutions bowing to Israeli lobby influence and coming to their senses and one of Dershowitz’s fear of debating Finklestein.

Good article in the financial times: Of ordinariness and occupation
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d631e05e-c0b0-11dc-b0b7-0000779fd2ac.html

Ron Paul Reggae Song http://ronpaulvoterbomb.blogspot.com/

The Arab vote in Michigan (there are half a million Arabs and Muslims in Michigan; their vote can be critical) See this CNN video:
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/251.6/popup/index.php?cl=5954167

ACTION: Peter Shulman's art exhibit on Palestine will be at Cyclorama at the Boston Center for the Arts between 4 and 10 February. The exhibit is available on loan for the price of shipping. If you are interested please email Linda Elbow at breadpup@together.net
more details at http://breadandpuppet.org/uofmajd.html

Thursday, January 10, 2008

So, President Bush is in the Middle East trying to push a settlement of some sort. Could he be trying to make history for something besides unjustly attacking Iraq, Bushisms, and cowboy politics? It just isn’t going to happen. What did Annapolis accomplish? Nothing. Palestinians are still in a virtual (and actual) prison and Israelis are still running scared of suicide attacks. Israelis still say peace and moving forward is conditional upon Palestinian compliance with Israel’s list of demands. Israel is still not being held accountable for it’s human rights and international law violations and collective punishment of Palestinians. Conferences over the years are called and they talk about talking about peace. Deadlines come and go- didn’t Bush say near the beginning of his presidency there’d be a Palestinian state by 2006?

Bush: `Iran is a threat to world peace'


"Am I nudging them forward? Well, my trip was a pretty significant nudge because yesterday they had a meeting," he said.

-Ha! This is priceless. Classic Bush. Thinking he did more than he did. Trying to claim anything that happens as his doing in case something actually comes out of it. Then, he’d have his “Oslo” moment with photo op.

Rice's comments, published in The Jerusalem Post daily, marked the U.S. administration's strongest criticism yet of Israeli policies in disputed east Jerusalem.


Of unauthorized Jewish outposts in the West Bank, Bush said simply: "The agreement was get rid of outposts -- illegal outposts. And they ought to go."


-Great about the outposts. He’s actually calling Israel out, but all settlements and enlargements of such are illegal by international law, not just new outposts.

I wrote this yesterday.