Showing posts with label US-Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US-Israel. Show all posts

Monday, June 15, 2015

Dual citizenship debacle- or mountain out of a molehill

There was a big stink about Diane Rehm's interview with Bernie Sanders. Maybe because she so rarely makes mistakes and is so far above other people doing this job. Maybe because she's part of the "liberal media" people love to hate. Maybe people love Bernie Sanders that much??? Well, I kind of hope it's the latter.

She did state rather than ask at around 24:20 on her show, you're a dual Israeli citizen, or something to that effect, but I was under the impression she was floating that out there with a pause for him to respond, refute, agree, disagree, etc. I would hardly call it bungling the interview, a massive oops or an accusation, as so many headlines read.

She was just moments before that "accusation" tossing him questions from Facebook, so I wasn't clear as to whether this may have been part of that or not. I also read that an intern may have grabbed the list he is said to be on of dual citizens from a comment on Facebook, so the list has spurious origins/source. True, you shouldn't take these things as fact. But, if there is a rumor that you are a dual citizen, you need to clearly state whether you are or are not and shouldn't be offended unless you have already publicly addressed it, as with the Obama birth certificate issue. If it is legal to be a dual citizen and president, then it will still beg some questions and possibly conflicts of interest. I don't think it is anti-Semitic to ask questions to clarify how this would affect his foreign policy and other positions. Another good reason why I don't think it should be offensive to ask about a dual citizenship rumor given the office he wants to run for and he is in a period of public vetting is that it is so hard to get this information from other sources (also why Diane Rehm should have been skeptical. . .). See this Counterpunch article from a guy who tried.

But now we know it is irrelevant.

So all this for nothing really.

A non issue.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Obama Netanyahu meeting - July 6, 2010

So many reasons for one secular bi-national state...

Obama said the U.S.-Israeli bond is “unbreakable.”

How is a statement like that about any country in our best interests? Unless the other entity is trigger happy and not as democratic as we’d like to believe… perhaps we are scared, not stupid.

Netanyahu said:

I’m committed to that peace.” And he said that reports of the demise of the U.S.-Israel relationship are “flat wrong.”

How committed can you be if you can't hardly bear the two state solution? Unless he really wants a peace prize, I don't think the guy has shown he has much interest in the process.

Netanyahu wants to have talks without preconditions. (Never mind those and these he set on the final outcome- recognize Israel as Jewish with all the implications that holds, the Palestinian "entity" will have no army, demilitarized, no control over airspace and borders- in effect, a legal occupation, not an actual state) I guess that’s alright if you’re the one in the driver’s seat, the one with the food and water and freedom of movement and all that. Not so great for those watching the one in the driver’s seat create facts on the ground (stealing and carving up land that is supposed to be your future state) while saying things that make the American President smile affectionately.

Saeb Erekat makes a good point:

“We want to resume direct negotiations, but the problem is that the land that is supposed to be a Palestinian state is being eaten up by settlements,” he told The Associated Press. He said the Palestinian demand that Israel halt all construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and resume talks where they broke off in 2008 “are not conditions, these are obligations.”

from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38101443/ns/politics-white_house/


I have 20 posts tagged “settlements” if you look to the right of the blog for more on this precondition.
Or click here, here and here for a few.


***

Apparently, Israel has a lot to be thankful for. We won’t press them on nuclear transparency or the NPT, we pushed back on those pesky calls for an investigation into the flotilla massacre, we pushed through an Iran resolution. And we praised them for “restraint” on settlements. (??) Good job on doing slightly less illegal activity- you didn’t stop or dismantle anything, but great job. And the two lived happily ever after. The End. What? Oh. Right. Palestinians…. Hmm… To be continued. If we have the time. Or if there’s land after Israel gets finished making facts on the ground.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/07/06/2739932/obama-netanyahu-summit-looks-good-but-what-are-they-saying


***

Monday, March 2, 2009

Free speech ?


No such thing. Guess it was only a matter of time, really. Perhaps I had way too much faith in people.

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Clinton Says U.S. Must Not ‘Give Up’ on Mideast Peace

‘Clinton Says U.S. Must Not ‘Give Up’ on Mideast Peace’
Clinton Pledges Tough Diplomacy and a Fast Start
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/us/politics/14state.html?_r=1&nl=pol&emc=pola1

US must not give up on Mideast peace?? We want to give up because of lack of progress. Progress is not achieved because we heavily favor one side and support them in a false military solution to a political problem. How can we do more good than harm?

The solution for the problem of making the US a more helpful presence is easy. The impact of us being unbiased or at least in favor of justice and human rights for all in the region will likely be too unpleasant (losing elections…the ultimate horror!!) to ever be implemented.

“Her emphasis on the civilian costs of the violence in Gaza suggested that the incoming administration might be more inclined than President Bush has been to urge restraint on the Israelis.”

For people worried about a change in policy from the status quo- DON’T!
She’s concerned (ok, maybe not concerned, but she’s emphasized) about humanitarian costs. This needs some translation as it is pretty meaningless as is. Notice how she doesn’t call for a cease-fire or end to occupation, which is actually the root cause of the humanitarian situation by the way. What she means to say is that Israel can continue to occupy and punish the captive Palestinian population, just don’t hit them too hard. Keep the body count low enough so as not to cause international outrage at our support for Israel's racist, Zionist operations. I fear any pleas for Israel to not make us look utterly foolish (which is what a call for Israeli restraint is) will fall on deaf ears-- as evidenced by Olmert’s very bold and recent comments about Bush and Rice.

Oh but I guess this “restraint” urged by Clinton would in fact be a break with the Bush administration. Maybe Clinton will rescue our Mideast policy from its current position of falling off the scale into the abyss. Don’t worry- we’ll still be on the extreme right, in bed with the Zionist militant hawkish Israeli right. I guess that’s an improvement. It’s still a long, long way from being in a position to be an effective mediator for a just and lasting peace that protects the rights of everyone in the region.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Nakba

Bush's speech to Knesset
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_mideast_text_1

Two very disturbing themes emerged from this obstacle to peace. One was the specific and repeated references to Israel's "historic" "right" to be there, going back to Abraham. The other was the militaristic pep talk that faded to obsequious silliness towards the end. Had it ended on that note, I would have fully expected Bush to lead the Knesset-army out marching and take over Gaza and the West Bank at the end of the speech.

As usual, I couldn't believe what came out of Bush' mouth. His speech writer must be a member of the AIPAC and a big Zionist bigot.

A reference to Ariel Sharon, man of peace - A moniker that still puzzles me. At least he got the warrior part right. Dude loved a fight.

In one paragraph, he hits on two contentious points.
1. "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate."This is a quote from their Declaration of Independence. The Jews have this right and no one else does, apparently. Why not say all people do, if that's what you believe. They don't believe that, that's why. Israel is a state for Jews, not its citizens and has been since its inception.
2. "...redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael."The previous was a political opinion. Now, here, Mr. Bush, you're messing with the Bible. Not only is this unhelpful in our quest as an unbiased mediator, but it is Biblically incorrect. Bush repeats this misconception that in 1948, a Biblical prophecy was fulfilled about Jews returning to a homeland. At one time, the Israelites were God's chosen. With Jesus' death, resurrection and acension, that is no longer the case. Not to mention that the Israelites and today's Jews aren't the same. God did promise the Israelites land and they obtained it, but keeping it was conditional on following God and they turned away. God told them in detail what would happen if they turned away- kicked off the land, pestilence, wars, etc. Bad stuff. A lot of that happened in AD70 when Jerusalem was invaded and temple destroyed. This was symbolic of the fulfillment of the old and coming of the new (Christianity/Jesus). Talk in the prophets of the returning of God's people to Zion after their rejection is symbolism for everyone coming to God through Christ, rather than literal Jews coming to literal Israel. The language is clear if you read it (also Hebrews discusses it).

"unbreakable alliance", "friendship", "shared spirit of our people, the bonds of the Book, the ties of the soul" - more obstacles that prevent the US from helping in any way. In fact, it is detrimental to any peace, justice or positive development in the region. And there is more still of Bush bestowing on Jews the religious right to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in the name of freedom and democracy.

In a mention of the holocaust, Bush again, wrongly, references the “promise of God,” or Israel.
He quotes Golda Meir. This deluded woman has also said there is no such thing as Palestinians.
In a paragraph about the “struggle” for independence, Bush makes them sound heroic-”in spite of the violence, in defiance of the threats”. The part about welcoming immigrants is a half truth. They are welcome if they are Jewish. The Arabs that have lived there since the beginning and who are citizens aren’t even welcome. I found this lie particularly funny and out of place, seeing how many Americans are aware of Israel‘s war crimes: “love of liberty, a passion for justice, and a respect for human dignity”. Yeah, imprisoning people for political reasons, denying fair trials to Arabs, and treating people like cattle at the many checkpoints, and generally oppressing and collectively punishing an entire population for the crimes of a few. That sounds like liberty and dignity, all right. I guess the Iraq disaster has taught us Israel and the US share a desire to carpet bomb Israel’s neighbors and torture “suspects”. We do have that in common, at least. Worked for peace and fought for freedom?? I’m just not buying it. I’d buy state sponsored terrorism. That fits. Aparthied. I’d buy that. Worked for peace? No. It just doesn’t match the facts on the ground.

He mentions an agricultural miracle?? Whaa??? He’s totally buying into the old myth that Israelis made the desert bloom. What happened was that they expropriated the most fertile land, then diverted most of the Palestinians’ water resources to the dry areas they stole. Today, Palestinians have a serious water crisis and have to look thirstily at the green yards and full swimming pools in illegally built settlements. No miracle there. Palestinians were left with a lot of rocky areas they had to work hard to get any use of- that is more of a miracle, but since it is a positive Palestinian development, it is totally ignored by the US.

Bush mentions several Jewish tourist attractions he visited and said that he’s seen Israel’s character. He didn’t visit any Israeli Arab or Muslim sites (that he mentioned)-guess they don’t factor into Israeli character. Only Jews matter and Bush is applauding and supporting this racist view. He says this, then wants to talk peace and compromise. It is easy to see who will be expected to compromise.

He speaks of moral clarity, value of life, right to a peaceful life, without so much as a nod toward Palestinians.

He says he’s ashamed of the UN for trying to do what no one else dares- to put Israel in it’s racist, oppressive place.

He condemns anti-Semitism (the Jewish kind), which is good, but stops just short of repeating another lie, that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Why don’t free people have the right to examine and question a state’s right to exist, or right to oppress, right to extra-judicially assassinate, right to demolish homes, right to cause a humanitarian disaster, right to influence or control another population’s elections, right to collectively punish?

“On the one side are those who defend the ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.”

Ok…I know where Bush is going with this, but Israel’s definitely in the latter category. I think Bush is of the opinion that terrorists are different than Palestinians in general, but with this speech (and other sentiments like it), you’d never know it. In speeches like this, you’d think all Palestinians or Arabs are terrorists or that there are no Palestinians-just Israeli Jews and the Terrorists.

As for breaking ties with Israel, Bush gives no real reason why we reject it. We just do. He says it’s propaganda, so he must be right. He was right about WMD’s, so, let’s all get on board with this, ok?

He leaves an opening for attacking Iran-home run in Israel. Israelis are ready to elect him PM now. Maybe Bush is trying to get elected over there. Maybe this is a stump speech. It would explain a lot.

“to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope”

He just said a few paragraphs ago that he doesn’t expect anyone to talk to those they deem terrorists and here we are extending tolerance? Extend our vision and offer tolerance?? Seems like everyone has to do it our way and anyone who has a different idea is a terrorist.

A rather anti-diplomacy speech. Political problems need political solutions, not threats of carpet bombing or worse. Peace won’t come without justice. Bush may be right that peace follows democracy, but there is a need for justice that the US is incapable of overseeing. Some may say it’s not our job, but our government seems to think it is. If they are going to do it, I say, do it right. Acknowledge both sides’ suffering, concerns, violations, progress, etc. Dish out criticism to whoever is doing wrong, not just the people you can’t identify with.


If I had just 3 words, they'd be: obstacle to peace.
Until later...

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