Israel vs Palestinians

A few thoughts about another large scale attack on Gaza...

Most of it has been said before, I'm sure.

The Gaza attacks and the recent rocket attack for which Israel “retaliated” are always described as a Palestinian attack and Israeli retaliation- as though they are doing absolutely nothing to deserve such attacks. (???) Attacks by Palestinians always occur in a vacuum unprovoked. Israel is the eternal victim, always on the defensive, always retaliating, never the provocateur- or so they (and everyone) say.

We talk about the two as though they are equal- Israel and Palestine. It is said that both sides should stop violence and both sides have to support peace; both sides in the 2006 Gaza assault should investigate its war crimes.

They aren’t the same, though.

One is a government ordering war crimes. One is a dispossessed and occupied people who have received no compensation for their stolen land and no justice for the crimes against them. (Would any American not be ready to fight when faced with that???)

One gets massive amounts of financial, military, diplomatic and every other kind of aid possible along with the assurance of an unending and unbreakable bond from a superpower; one gets sporadic support, but mostly blame from the same superpower/mediator.

One is the Occupier attacking largely innocent people; one is the Occupied people struggling for their freedom and rights.

As highlighted by the Gaza attacks, this isn’t a struggle between two militaries; this is the Israeli military targeting the already captive and starving Palestinian people.

The Israeli government is punishing the civilian population of Palestine for crimes fringe groups perpetrate fueled by the Israeli occupation, so essentially Israel is attacking for something it is causing. The civilians (and PA- not really an applicable term anymore) are in a lose-lose situation.

Killing one bird with several stones...

I apologize for so many links, but on a story like this, you’re going to have to read from more than one angle to get any real details or anything that makes sense.

Edit: I apologize as well for not telling you what this post is about! There was a murder of a Hamas man in Dubai. About 4 actually did the deed. Apparently a cloud of 6-12 Israeli dual citizens have fake passport troubles (and may have helped in surveillance and other ways) in relation to this case.

Several birds, one stone
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/984/re63.htm
(Interesting and plausible idea that Israel is trying to provoke militants- Israel can claim they weren’t involved in this and so the attack would be “unprovoked” – little, tiny, innocent Israel remains the eternal victim)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1150126.html

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=168902

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8518481.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35426268/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/


I wonder what the US response to this blow up will be? Hmm…

A) Not our problem. No comment. We’ve got an economic crisis to take care of.
(Look how little was done about the non-violent American protester, Rachel Corrie, the IDF killed, not to mention we can't really criticize the extra judicial killing of people we deem terror suspects given our current foreign entanglements)

B) Nothing publicly, but to Israel we tell them they’d better keep this stuff more secret because it has the potential to make us look really bad (like they care- we always assume they do)

C) A public statement that our position remains that both sides must take (keep taking) steps to achieve peace.


Mossad has to be responsible. They have targeted political leaders and those working on a peace deal for murder in the past. Look at who the victim is. Not exactly spotless. There's no question Mossad is involved.

Evidence is also said to point to a "European hit squad." I guess it could be a weapons deal gone wrong, but a Palestinian in weapons has an Israeli target on the back of his head from day 1. Israel will know where he is and want him dead, so I have no doubt that Mossad offed him. Intervening or aiding a weapons deal gone wrong would have provided the perfect cover, but the ID theft thing appears to be the cover. The independent European hit squad is highly questionable. I think either Mossad is the European hit squad, they formed the hit squad or they teamed up with them to do this hit. The Mossad has a hand (or at least a listening device) in everything.

Some will think I've lost it for saying Mossad is everywhere and sayanim help them stay (or appear) inside the law. It sounds unreal and conspiratorial, I know. If you’ve read anything about past Mossad operations, though, Ostrovsky’s book or accounts of Mossad encounters from US government officials, you’ll know I’m not delusional!


Here are a few ideas for possible explanations I had when I read about the faked passports:

“Stolen” identities

• The ID theft victims are sayanim and actually volunteered their old passports
• Members of the stolen identity victims’ families are sayanim and gave passports without the knowledge of the ID theft victims
• Mossad stole dual citizens’ (old?) passports
• If the identity theft victims are actually involved (Mossad ends up being not as amateur as they are looking) with Mossad in more than just a sayanim or helper capacity.

Here are my ideas on …

Why Mossad got caught:

• They aren’t as good as they used to be in the pre-1980s era
• They wanted to be caught on camera for some reason (i.e. to help with an ID theft conviction )
• They don’t care if they’re caught because, honestly, no one can or will really do anything about it
• It’s harder to fake passports than it used to be
• The ID theft victims are actually involved somehow, but that’s how the Mossad plans to get out of trouble- let some (possibly disgruntled or less than perfect) agents take the fall for ID theft rather than admit to being caught assassinating another Palestinian political or military “target” without charge or trial and committing illegal acts on foreign soil.
  

Several of the ID theft victims have spoken to the media. Laying the groundwork for the ID theft story. I wonder if what they say will shed any light on the situation. Probably not. They'll get whacked if they say anything useful. Or suffer the fate of Mordecai Vanunu.


Melvyn Adam Mildiner is widely mentioned and quoted:

"I don't know how this happened or who chose my name or why, but hopefully we'll find out soon,"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100216/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_uae_hamas_israel


There are apparently at least 3 other dual citizens in Mildiner’s position: Michael Lawrence Barney and Stephen Hodes.


My blog posts about Israel spying and assassinating and such:


http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/10/israel-doesnt-spy-on-us.html

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/10/another-israeli-spy.html

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2008/04/american-accused-of-giving-nuclear.html


A Mossad hit from two years ago- not sure I wrote about this one:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-514130/Did-Mossad-blow-Hezbollah-Master-Terrorist-kidnapped-Terry-Waite.html



You may remember other Mossad antics:

Lillehammer- oops we extra-judicially assassinated the wrong guy

The New Zealand passport debacle. NZ took it harder than the US does.

Israeli "art students" who got caught on Capitol Hill snooping in classified material. Oops.

Our anti-Israel biased media? Yeah. Right.

Sorry for the earlier typo (Our pro-Israel biased media. Yeah. Right.)- I was thinking of two different titles...


Our media is only slightly less biased towards Israel than our foreign policy.

I found this while looking for something else---

Don't drink while reading this; you'll have to clean the screen:

http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2009/01/05/herb_denenberg/doc4961c29b5ed1a649711765.txt

My first thought was CNN and Wolf Blitzer, ex-AIPAC operative. Anti-Israel? Really?

The mainstream media may be reporting more now on various UN reports and human rights groups that document Israel's war crimes, but it has never said or implied Hamas is following the law or anything like that. Call me crazy, but when a group the US considers a terrorist group commits 13 murders it isn't going to generate the same hype as a close ally who commits 1300 murders and is accused of war crimes that it refuses to admit occurred. And let's say for the sake of argument that coverage was pro-Palestinian - our political position is staunchly pro-Israel regardless of Israel's crimes, US coverage, or anything else. We haven't forced them to comply with law as long as they've been a state. Bush (HW) came close when he withheld aid. Obama's talking a lot about settlements, but it looks like nothing will come of that- Israel still doesn't have to do anything. We don't care about what Israel did or didn't do in Gaza- we have even "convinced" Palestinians to comply with US/Israeli wishes. Why not give Palestinians the media thing, especially considering that it's not there to begin with?

*** *** ***
This site refutes a similar claim to the one above that CAMERA made:
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9711.shtml

Here are some terms that the US media uses that rather proves a pro-Israel bias. Example: calling settlements neighborhoods instead of illegal under international law.
http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij0912.html

Here is a discussion of an interesting book on the matter...
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/mar09_levine

Settler slideshow and talk of bias

Fervent Believers- a slide show:
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/09/13/world/20090913SETTLERS_4.html

#6 says volumes; #7 is terrorist activity, but you're not allowed to call it that. Remove the Jews with guns and replace them with Palestinians and the criticism of the kids, their parents (oooooh, see?, they teach their kids to hate!!), all Palestinians, all Muslims would be rampant and instantaneous. Settlers generally somehow escape this type of indictment and generalization.

Most of this is rather sympathetic toward these illegal settlers- praying above the sea of lights, washing a kid in the middle of rubble, religious ceremony of the devout. The same sort of photos in a major publication of Palestinian terrorists and those who sympathize with them would result in explosive riots. You can’t even discuss how having your family killed, land stolen, being a refugee three times over might drive one to fight and not care if you live or die. This is considered support for terrorism. Sympathizing and understanding Jewish terrorists and terrorism is second nature to us- they had the Holocaust, after all. Good enough. You don’t even have to say it. All is justified.

Sympathizing with illegal settlers who heckle, beat, and steal, however, is just one’s own opinion to which we all are entitled. Frequent additions include: Freedom of speech. Isn’t this country (/Israel) great? You can say what you think without consequences, unlike in those Arab countries.

Going back to sympathizing with Jewish terrorists being ok versus sympathy with Arab terrorists being a terrorist action itself... I think this sort of thing is where accusation of bias of something being too pro-Palestinian comes from. We are allowed to present the Jewish point of view without an Arab voice, but to present a Muslim or Palestinian POV without the Jewish response is pro-Palestinian and virtually unheard of in the mainstream discussion. Does presenting the (a, some, etc- as there are more than one) Palestinian perspective really indicate bias or does it only seem so because the news is dominated with the Jewish or Christian Zionist perspective? In the recent UN report that officially called Israel out for war crimes, this comes into play. More text was dedicated to Israeli war crimes, so Israel and others discount it as biased. End of discussion. Lets talk about Iran and how we are going to dupe the Americans into taking them out, too. No. More text is needed because exponentially more damage was inflicted by Israel and more accusations are presented (which Israel tries and fails to justify), so more investigation is needed. Also, Israel's crimes are disputed by Israel and the US (and it's veto power) and Hamas' crimes aren't disputed by very many at all so there isn't much to prove or discuss there.

It is what it is: Israel's PA-only Border Stamp

Contact your reps to oppose this policy:
http://capwiz.com/adc/issues/alert/?alertid=13977506


And this is our "special relationship" with Israel in a nutshell. It is clearly more special for some than others. It's almost funny (stop that- no- stop that!- no- stop that!- no)... if it weren't for all those people being denied food, water and rights in the OT because of this nonsense.

It makes me think of a bully in a schoolyard. The teacher kindly and repeatedly says stop and the bully keeps pounding kids into the sand.

Israel's not supposed to build settlements. It's not supposed to treat US citizens of Palestinian origin differently than other US citizens. But what can we do? "It is what it is," as Mr. Kelly says. When Iran or other countries mess with our citizens, we take action. With Israel- "it is what it is" - be it massacres, collective punishment, discrimination of our citizens. There are no consequences, no right, no wrong, no justice, no law. "It is what it is".

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2009/aug/128060.htm

QUESTION: A follow-up on the PA-only stamp issued by Israel to U.S. citizens going into Israel, just to follow up on that. I saw that you guys released --
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- something. You said that you’re engaged with the Government of Israel. Just more clarification. Have you complained to them about this specifically? Have you asked them to stop issuing it to your U.S. citizens, and do you consider it a violation of the Oslo Accords?
MR. KELLY: Oh, well, the latter – the latter issue that’s, I think, something that I probably would want somebody else to pronounce on if it’s a violation of the Oslo because I’m not familiar enough with the Oslo Accords to be able to make a judgment one way or the other.
As our note said last night, we have made it quite known to the Israeli Government, and this is, I think, really on the diplomatic level, that we expect all American citizens to be treated the same regardless of their national origin. And this kind of – these kinds of restrictions we consider unacceptable. And I’d refer you to the Israeli Government for – in terms of their --
QUESTION: So you don’t know if they’re going to stop doing it or not, or if you specifically asked them to stop issuing these specific stamps?
MR. KELLY: We have told them that we think this is – that we cannot accept this kind of practice.
QUESTION: Do you know at what level – do you know if – how many Americans have complained to the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem? How --
MR. KELLY: No.
QUESTION: -- serious you consider this?
MR. KELLY: No. I’m not aware of the kind of numbers of – the number of people who have complained.
Libby.
QUESTION: Different topic.
QUESTION: Wait, wait. Can I – can we go back? First of all, what does that mean we cannot accept this kind of practice? You also can’t accept, you know, continued building of settlements, and they seem to be doing that.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So what exactly does that mean?
MR. KELLY: Well, it means that this kind of practice is something that the U.S. Government believes should not be done. This is not --
QUESTION: Yeah, but you say we can’t --
MR. KELLY: -- something that we can accept.
QUESTION: But it’s not – you have to accept it, if that’s what they’re doing.
MR. KELLY: Well --
QUESTION: What are you going to do if they don’t stop?
MR. KELLY: We will continue to protest.
QUESTION: But that won’t make any difference --
QUESTION: That – I mean, it’s not a question of whether you can accept it or not. They’re doing it.
MR. KELLY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So?
MR. KELLY: It is what it is. We don’t like the practice.

More on the border stamp:

http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=218696

http://www.miftah.org/display.cfm?DocId=20281&CategoryId=13

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1917917,00.html

My Obama-inspired, insane (but comprehensive) settlement rant

To start off-

Pictures:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/06/israeli_settlements_in_the_wes.html

Question: The Palestinian who builds a canal on his own land gets arrested. Where do illegal settlers in settlements, outposts and demolished outposts go??

This conflict is replete with double standards. Where are the investigative journalists? Exposing these and who's perpetuating them could get you a nice journalistic prize..or sent to Guantanamo. Let's face it. If Israel's going to make us go to war with Iran, we can't very well close it, can we?

***

U.S., Israel inch closer to deal on settlement freeze
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1103115.html

“The two are reportedly close to a deal in which Washington would allow a limited number of projects in advanced stages of construction to be completed, but Israel would freeze all other building for an as-yet undetermined period of time.”

They also want to be rewarded with normalization of relations with Arab states if they dismantle illegal outposts. (???)

This is like if I hadn’t paid my taxes in a few years (or decades) and I decided to pay them… at the prodding/threatening of authorities. Jail doesn’t even enter into the discussion- on the contrary- I should be compensated for my extraordinary generosity. I have made great concessions, after all. Totally absurd, right?!

Settlements are illegal. Period. The article said the US is trying to “bridge the gap”?? That can only mean we are going to let them get away with breaking the law. And we thought Obama was different. I might be joining you non-voters in 2012! He’s bending on settlements. He’s letting Israel influence him on Iran, from the people he’s talking to and direction the policy is taking. If we attack Iran preemptively, he might as well be another Bush.

It's laughable that Israel is even attempting to justify *natural growth*+ (and we’re thinking about buying it!) while it denies building permits to Arab Israelis who want to build and demolishes their homes when they build in spite of these racist policies. Note that the Palestinians are Israeli citizens and actually DO own the land they want to build for the same reason Israel is arguing- natural growth.
*=http://www.peacenow.org/policy.asp?rid=&cid=6329 "Top 5 Bogus Excuses for Opposing a Settlement Freeze"
+="normal life" is the favored term of late because it is less controversial and is more all-inclusive. See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443842941&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
***

Palestinians reject any Israel-U.S. settlement deal
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56B0F520090712
Yeah?! As well they shouldn’t! A “deal” implies that Israel gets away with breaking the law. Continuing to break the law, that is.
***

US and Israel strike settlement deal: report
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/07/08/78170.html

Apparently, this is the US and Israel finding common ground:

“Israel has won an agreement from the United States for the continued construction of 2,500 housing units in Jewish settlements in the West Bank, an Israeli newspaper reported on Wednesday, despite U.S. calls for a settlement freeze.”

***

Here’s a little more on Israeli denial of Palestinian natural growth:

The Israel – Palestine Problem: The perspective of a New Zealand Muslim
http://www.aen.org.nz/journal/1/1/rahman.html

Home Demolition and Land Confiscation
http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=81&CategoryId=4
***

Israeli-US settlement freeze talks hit a dead end
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/07/01/77531.html

Besides the allowing Israeli natural growth and saying nothing about denying Palestinian natural growth, there’s the part where a good part of this so-called natural growth is in fact immigration, not natural growth.

“Ophran added Israel's claims of "natural growth" are bogus given that 40 percent of the settler increase is due to immigration to settlements either from within Israel or abroad.

"Natural growth in the settlements is not simply a matter of births from within but includes continuous flow of immigrants," Ophran explained.

Settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem have continued to expand at a rate higher than the population growth inside Israel. Some 180,000 additional Jews have been permitted to settle inside Israel’s Arab sector in East Jerusalem.”

Here’s a chicken and egg question, I guess. Are illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories growing more because of receiving more money or are they receiving more money because they are growing faster than the Israeli population in Israel?

Study: Settlements get more state funding than Israeli cities
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1101829.html

Study: Heavily Subsidized Settlements Skew Israeli Policies
Settlements Get More Funding than Cities, Study Shows
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/07/21/study-heavily-subsidized-settlements-skew-israeli-policies/

And the next question would be...since we give Israel so much money, are we contributing to the violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. Bush said we didn't have to worry about that, though, so we're cool. This article doesn't really talk about government spending, but it does talk about unsuspecting Americans "contributing" to this "cause".

Report: US dollars funding Israeli settlements
http://www.prisonplanet.com/report-us-dollars-funding-israeli-settlements.html


This may explain the growth:

Beautiful Two-Bedroom on One Disputed Acre: How much does an Israeli-settlement home cost?
http://www.slate.com/id/2220531/

About half as much. How’s that for incentive? The money the Israel government is spending on making these homes so attractively priced should be going toward compensation for Palestinians.


If there were one binational secular democratic state, most of these final status, hot button issues would be solved. Settlements, human rights, water rights (maybe), refugees, borders, security, Jerusalem, access to holy sites.

Would there be apartheid? Maybe. Civil war? Only if it was forced on them and the people didn’t choose it themselves.

A step backwards for Israel; a step forward for EU

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/16/avigdor-lieberman-israel

Hardliner Avigdor Lieberman set to become Israel's foreign minister

"Israel needs to explain that the demand for a Palestinian state and the refugees' right of return is a cover for radical Islam's attempt to destroy the State of Israel." Lieberman was a member of the current Israeli government, but walked out in January last year as soon as peace talks restarted with the Palestinians. (from the article)

You can see more gems from Lieberman in my Feb 16, 2009 post.

Sometimes "no partner for peace" is thrown around without much thought. For example, if Israel wants Palestinians to lay down arms, accept occupation, inequalities, injustice and apartheid, but Palestinians hold out for human rights, food, shelter, safety, and justice; Israel declares it has no partner for peace. In the new Israeli FM, Avigdor Lieberman's case, the term is more than adequate!

Solana and the EU are light-years ahead of the US here. Even though the statement is pretty mild, predictable and entirely reasonable, this is no doubt considered radical, biased and maybe even anti-Semitic. The EU appears to have actually set a boundary for this rogue state! We are far too terrified of the repercussions ("Will I get re-elected if I'm on AIPAC's blacklist???") to do any such thing to promote peace and justice.

"We will be ready to do business as usual, normally with a government in Israel that is prepared to continue talking and working for a two-state solution," he said. "If that is not the case, the situation would be different." (from the article)

Heaven forbid Israel should be held accountable for anything or held to any standard whatsoever! This isn't even talking about accountability. They just have to commit to work for peace. Guess that is too much to ask.

One might argue that the EU statement is more biased toward Israel if you buy into the thinking that a two state solution is now impossible. All they have to do is commit to the two state solution and -poof!- we have political formaldehyde just like the Gaza disengagement (looks like a goodwill gesture, actually is the opposite). Opposing the EU/Quartet/Roadmap/US in the two state solution is making them look kind of silly and belligerent at the moment even though agreeing to it would get them what they want without exposing themselves. Guess the current leaders are no Sharon or Weisglass. But they weren't exactly great at hiding motives all the time- I'm still trying to reconcile surgical precision and 1 ton bombs.

Congressmen go to Gaza and What is a balanced resolution anyway?

US Members of Congress visit Gaza
http://endthesiege.blogspot.com/2009/02/us-members-of-congress-visit-gaza.html

Representatives Baird and Ellison (you know, the Muslim people mixed up with Obama and made up that he used a Quran to be sworn in?) visited Gaza and were moved. Good. And so what? Or what now?

On one hand, I’m glad they are seeing things with their own eyes (instead of just parroting Israel and dismissing all else) and I’m glad they agree that the situation is bad. On the other, I know nothing will get done. Even if they were moved to sacrifice their seats and advocate for rights and basic necessities of life for Palestinians as much as everyone is concerned for Jews’ rights to sit in cafes and go to the movies, they are too few. Despite the futility of that scenario, that would be a good thing. But, it won’t happen. Everything will be blamed on Hamas, as usual, as though Israel has done nothing remotely wrong or against the law. War is devastating and has consequences, Palestinians’ troubles are just collateral damage. They’ll say- if Hamas would just do this or Palestinians just do x, y and z, then Israel wouldn’t be forced to “act”.

These Congress people are saddened and moved by the humanitarian situation when confronted with it face to face, but when in Washington, this* is what happens:
(*this= unabashedly pro-Israel resolutions detailing Palestinian faults and blame, not mentioning any Israeli wrongdoing or preconditions, expressing solidarity with Israel, listing instances where they perceive Israel has fulfilled obligations, while paying lip service to the peace process.)

This was introduced during the latest offensive by Israel in Dec 08-Jan 09:

SRES 10 ATS, 111th CONGRESS, 1st Session, S. RES. 10

Recognizing the right of Israel to defend itself against attacks from Gaza and reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel in its battle with Hamas, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 8, 2009

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. KERRY, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. KYL, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. BOND, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. THUNE, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. MARTINEZ, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. CASEY, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. CARPER, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BAYH, Mr. JOHANNS, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. BROWN, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

Recognizing the right of Israel to defend itself against attacks from Gaza and reaffirming the United States' strong support for Israel in its battle with Hamas, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Whereas Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel;

Whereas Hamas has been designated by the Secretary of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization;

Whereas Hamas has refused to comply with the requirements of the Quartet (the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations) that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians;

Whereas, in June 2006, Hamas crossed into Israel, attacked Israeli forces and kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit, whom they continue to hold today;

Whereas Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and mortars since Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew from Gaza in 2005;

Whereas Hamas has increased the range of its rockets, reportedly with support from Iran and others, putting additional large numbers of Israelis in danger of rocket attacks from Gaza;

Whereas Hamas locates elements of its terrorist infrastructure in civilian population centers, thus using innocent civilians as human shields;

Whereas Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a statement on December 27, 2008, that `[w]e strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire and for the renewal of violence there';

Whereas, on December 27, 2008, Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert said, `For approximately seven years, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens in the south have been suffering from missiles being fired at them. . . . In such a situation we had no alternative but to respond. We do not rejoice in battle but neither will we be deterred from it. . . . The operation in the Gaza Strip is designed, first and foremost, to bring about an improvement in the security reality for the residents of the south of the country.';

Whereas, on January 2, 2009, Secretary of State Rice stated that `Hamas has held the people of Gaza hostage ever since their illegal coup against the forces of President Mahmoud Abbas, the legitimate President of the Palestinian people. Hamas has used Gaza as a launching pad for rockets against Israeli cities and has contributed deeply to a very bad daily life for the Palestinian people in Gaza, and to a humanitarian situation that we have all been trying to address';

Whereas the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including shortages of food, water, electricity, and adequate medical care, is becoming more acute;

Whereas Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza with over 500 trucks and numerous ambulances entering the Gaza Strip since December 26, 2008;
(I guess this is supposed to be a statement showing how Israel is fulfilling it’s obligations, but to those of us who know anything about the conflict, 500 trucks is a drop in the bucket. 500 trucks is a reduction from previous levels which were insufficient to prevent a humanitarian crisis.

Whereas, on January 2, 2009, Secretary of State Rice stated that it was `Hamas that rejected the Egyptian and Arab calls for an extension of the tahadiya that Egypt had negotiated' and that the United States was `working toward a cease-fire that would not allow a reestablishment of the status quo ante where Hamas can continue to launch rockets out of Gaza. It is obvious that that cease-fire should take place as soon as possible, but we need a cease-fire that is durable and sustainable'; and

Whereas the ultimate goal of the United States is a sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will allow for a viable and independent Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel, which will not be possible as long as Israeli civilians are under threat from within Gaza: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--

(1) expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizes its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against acts of terrorism;

(2) reiterates that Hamas must end the rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians;

(3) encourages the President to work actively to support a durable, enforceable, and sustainable cease-fire in Gaza, as soon as possible, that prevents Hamas from retaining or rebuilding the capability to launch rockets and mortars against Israel and allows for the long term improvement of daily living conditions for the ordinary people of Gaza;

(4) believes strongly that the lives of innocent civilians must be protected and all appropriate measures should be taken to diminish civilian casualties and that all involved should continue to work to address humanitarian needs in Gaza;

(5) supports and encourages efforts to diminish the appeal and influence of extremists in the Palestinian territories and to strengthen moderate Palestinians who are committed to a secure and lasting peace with Israel; and

(6) reiterates its strong support for United States Government efforts to promote a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a serious and sustained peace process that leads to the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state living in peace alongside a secure State of Israel.


This one was introduced during Israel’s offensive in Lebanon:

H. Res. 921

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

July 20, 2006.

Whereas on September 12, 2005, Israel completed its unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, demonstrating its willingness to make sacrifices for the sake of peace;

Whereas more than 1,000 rockets have been launched from Gaza into Israel since Israel's disengagement;

Whereas in a completely unprovoked attack that occurred in undisputed Israeli territory on June 25, 2006, Israeli Defense Forces Corporal Gilad Shalit was kidnapped and is being held hostage in Gaza by a Palestinian terrorist group which includes members of Hamas;

Whereas Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal, in Damascus, Syria, has acknowledged the role of Hamas in holding Corporal Shalit hostage;

Whereas in a completely unprovoked attack that occurred in undisputed Israeli territory on July 12, 2006, operatives of the terrorist group Hezbollah operating out of southern Lebanon killed three Israeli soldiers and took two others hostage;

Whereas Israel fully complied with United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 (1978) by completely withdrawing its forces from Lebanon, as certified by the United Nations Security Council and affirmed by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan on June 16, 2000, when he said, `Israel has withdrawn from [Lebanon] in full compliance with Security Council Resolution 425.';

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 (2004) calls for the complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon and the dismantlement of all independent militias in Lebanon;

Whereas despite the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, the Government of Lebanon has failed to disband and disarm Hezbollah, allowing Hezbollah instead to amass 13,000 rockets, including rockets that are more destructive, longer-range and more accurate than rockets previously used by Hezbollah, and has integrated Hezbollah into the Lebanese Government;

Whereas the Government of Israel has previously shown great restraint despite the fact that Hezbollah has launched at least four separate attacks into Israel using rockets and ground forces over the past year;

Whereas the failure of the Government of Lebanon to implement all aspects of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 and to extend its authority throughout its territory has enabled Hezbollah to launch armed attacks against Israel and recently to kidnap Israeli soldiers;

Whereas Hezbollah's strength derives significantly from the direct financial, military, and political support it receives from Syria and Iran, and Hezbollah also receives important support from sources within Lebanon;

Whereas Iranian Revolutionary Guards continue to operate in southern Lebanon, providing support to Hezbollah and reportedly controlling its operational activities;

Whereas the Government of the United States has enacted several laws, including the Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-175) and the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172), which call for the imposition of sanctions on Syria and Iran for, among other things, their support for terrorism and terrorist organizations;

Whereas the House of Representatives has repeatedly called for full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559;

Whereas section 1224 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107-228) withholds certain assistance to Lebanon contingent on the deployment of the Lebanese armed forces to the internationally recognized border between Lebanon and Israel and its effective assertion of authority in the border area in order, among other reasons, to prevent cross-border infiltration by terrorists, precisely the criminal activity that has provoked the current crisis;

Whereas President George W. Bush stated on July 12, 2006, `Hezbollah's terrorist operations threaten Lebanon's security and are an affront to the sovereignty of the Lebanese Government. Hezbollah's actions are not in the interest of the Lebanese people, whose welfare should not be held hostage to the interests of the Syrian and Iranian regimes.', and has repeatedly affirmed that Syria and Iran must be held to account for their shared responsibility in the recent attacks;

Whereas the United States recognizes that some members of the democratically-elected Lebanese parliament are working to build an autonomous and sovereign Lebanon and supports their efforts; and

Whereas both Hezbollah and Hamas refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist and call for the destruction of Israel: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) reaffirms its steadfast support for the State of Israel;

(2) condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for engaging in unprovoked and reprehensible armed attacks against Israel on undisputed Israeli territory, for taking hostages, for killing Israeli soldiers, and for continuing to indiscriminately target Israeli civilian populations with their rockets and missiles;

(3) further condemns Hamas and Hezbollah for cynically exploiting civilian populations as shields, locating their equipment and bases of operation, including their rockets and other armaments, amidst civilian populations, including in homes and mosques;

(4) recognizes Israel's longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and welcomes Israel's continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties;

(5) demands the Governments of Iran and Syria to direct Hamas and Hezbollah to immediately and unconditionally release Israeli soldiers which they hold captive;

(6) affirms that all governments that have provided continued support to Hamas or Hezbollah share responsibility for the hostage-taking and attacks against Israel and, as such, should be held accountable for their actions;

(7) condemns the Governments of Iran and Syria for their continued support for Hezbollah and Hamas in their armed attacks against Israelis and their other terrorist activities;

(8) supports Israel's right to take appropriate action to defend itself , including to conduct operations both in Israel and in the territory of nations which pose a threat to it, which is in accordance with international law, including Article 51 of the United Nations Charter;

(9) commends the President of the United States for fully supporting Israel as it responds to these armed attacks by terrorist organizations and their state sponsors;

(10) urges the President of the United States to bring the full force of political, diplomatic, and economic sanctions available to the Government of the United States against the Governments of Syria and Iran;

(11) demands the Government of Lebanon to do everything in its power to find and free the kidnapped Israeli soldiers being held in the territory of Lebanon;

(12) calls on the United Nations Security Council to condemn these unprovoked acts and to take action to ensure full and immediate implementation of United Nations Security Council 1559 (2004), which requires Hezbollah to be dismantled and the departure of all Syrian personnel and Iranian Revolutionary Guards from Lebanon;

(13) expresses its condolences to all families of innocent victims of recent violence; and

(14) declares its continued commitment to working with Israel and other United States allies in combating terrorism worldwide.


UN Resolutions are mentioned and Arab shortcomings are detailed. Israel’s failures (be they failures to implement UN Resolutions or violations of international law) are totally disregarded. If this resolution also detailed Israel’s shortcomings, violations, etc, they would certainly outnumber by far the Arab “whereas” statements of shortcoming.

***
Looking at these resolutions, it is easy for us to forget what Israel is doing to perpetuate the violence, so...

Here are a few places to find Israel’s violations that you’ll never find in a so-called balanced (here, balanced = pro-Israel) Congressional resolution:
***
quick and dirty facts and figures of the conflict
http://www.miftah.org/report.cfm

Israel: New report condemns Israel's 'blatant violation of International Law' in West Bank
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17362

Diaries
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/diaries.shtml

Eyewitnesses
http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?rubrique2

http://www.alhaq.org/

Israel Is Committing War Crimes- Jan 10, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123154826952369919.html

Occasionally has interesting personal stories, diaries, etc in addition to news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2001/israel_and_the_palestinians/default.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7802295.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7822048.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/7270785.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1899387.stm

Interesting project- war crimes
http://www.crimesofwar.org/archive/archive-mideast.html#israel


Specifically about the recent Gaza action:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090112/falk?rel=emailNation

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israeli-armys-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-clear-undeniable-20090119


This article talks about 66 UN resolutions Israel disregards:
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0393/9303040.htm

A quote from the article that I wholeheartedly agree with:

"If the United States really wants peace in the Middle East, it must insist that Israel abide by the judgment of the world community as expressed in resolutions by the United Nations."

***
***

The Congressmen were moved by what they saw in Gaza, yet didn’t ask why things are this bad. It’s Hamas’ fault and the Palestinian people’s for not revolting against the democratically elected leadership. They didn’t ask- is it just this latest offensive that caused such suffering? Is Israel doing enough to prevent such hardship on civilians or are they deliberately creating this situation (terrorism) to induce the innocent population to revolt against Hamas (civil war)? Was it necessary to flatten every structure (security, utilities, telecom, etc) in view and kill so many to achieve the reduction of rocket attacks?

Take a look at these resolutions that place the blame solely on Palestinians and never on Israel, that express such strong support for Israel, that detail every failure of Hamas, that don’t mention a word of Israel’s violations of international law (settlements, role of Occupier, etc) and UN Resolutions and general standard for justice and regard for the civilian population. Anyway, take a look at that, then look at the UN Resolutions the US has vetoed because they are “anti-Israel”. Anything that calls Israel out for it’s deficiencies or holds Israel accountable in any way is considered anti-Israel. I guess that’s what friends do. Lie and cover up each others’ sins, rather than tell the unpleasant truth and truly help them. Israel doesn’t even reciprocate, but no worries, we have a special relationship (whatever that means), right?

++++++++The US veto in the Israel/Palestine conflict++++++++

Two veto lists:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/p-neff-veto.html

One US Rule for Israel, Another for Saddam
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0216-07.htm

Gaza 2005
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-vetoes-biased-un-resolution-attacking-israels-gaza-bloodbath-423993.html

2003- about the veto
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The most recent UN Resolution on this issue is below. We abstained (voted present?) on this one rather than vetoed. There was some snafu over it as we were going to vote for it, then got a call from Olmert which changed "our minds." Anyway, it's hardly anti-Israel, but I guess it's not obsequious enough. In order to be balanced in American eyes, one must reaffirm Israel's right to exist and defend itself as the primary message and demand that all recognize these things, congratulate it on all it's "done" and heavily criticize Palestinians (and other Arab nations if you can fit it in). Above all, you must not allude to any Israeli wrongdoing at all. That would be anti-Israel. That's a bunch of garbage, of course, but you understand the thinking.

John Bolton called this resolution anti-Israel (???) :

UN Resolution 1860
Background

The Security Council met this evening to take action on a draft resolution (document S/2009/23) sponsored by the United Kingdom, which reads as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Recalling all of its relevant resolutions, including resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) and 1850 (2008),

“Stressing that the Gaza Strip constitutes an integral part of the territory occupied in 1967 and will be a part of the Palestinian state,

“Emphasising the importance of the safety and well-being of all civilians,

“Expressing grave concern at the escalation of violence and the deterioration of the situation, in particular the resulting heavy civilian casualties since the refusal to extend the period of calm; and emphasising that the Palestinian and Israeli civilian populations must be protected,

“Expressing grave concern also at the deepening humanitarian crisis in Gaza,

“Emphasising the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings,

“Recognising the vital role played by UNRWA in providing humanitarian and economic assistance within Gaza,

“Recalling that a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be achieved by peaceful means,

“Reaffirming the right of all States in the region to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders,

“1. Stresses the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza;

“2. Calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment;

“3. Welcomes the initiatives aimed at creating and opening humanitarian corridors and other mechanisms for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid;

“4. Calls on Member States to support international efforts to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation in Gaza, including through urgently needed additional contributions to UNRWA and through the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee;

“5. Condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism;

“6. Calls upon Member States to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza in order to sustain a durable ceasefire and calm, including to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition and to ensure the sustained re‑opening of the crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access between the Palestinian Authority and Israel; and in this regard, welcomes the Egyptian initiative, and other regional and international efforts that are under way;

“7. Encourages tangible steps towards intra-Palestinian reconciliation including in support of mediation efforts of Egypt and the League of Arab States as expressed in the 26 November 2008 resolution, and consistent with Security Council resolution 1850 (2008) and other relevant resolutions;

“8. Calls for renewed and urgent efforts by the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognised borders, as envisaged in Security Council resolution 1850 (2008), and recalls also the importance of the Arab Peace Initiative;

“9. Welcomes the Quartet’s consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009;

“10. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”

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.

Transfer?

There has been talk of Jordan fearing Palestinian refugees will become their problem if Israel continues along the current course and does not allow for a state to be created... LinkTV/Mosaic video

Livni sparks Arab 'transfer' row
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7779087.stm
"And among other things I will also be able to approach the Palestinian residents of Israel, those whom we call Arab Israelis, and tell them: 'your national aspirations lie elsewhere.'"

This one references Avigdor Lieberman (you know, drowning prisoners, advocate of bombing crowded areas, etc)
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=178&nid=17740


Moshe Feiglin, a candidate:

He insists there is no such thing as a Palestinian people and that they and Israeli Arabs should relocate, media said, citing a text he had posted on the website of his "Jewish leadership" movement that was removed this week.

"They will have to seek the right to self-determination in Arab states. Israel will encourage the Arabs to emigrate to their countries and assist any Arab who wishes to do so," Feiglin was quoted as saying.

"Arabs don't live in the desert, they create it," he was quoted as saying in 2004.

When Palestinians talk about Israel in these terms, it is proof of Palestinian depravity. When it is Israel, we don't mind a bit and maybe we consider that a valid point of view. Drowning political prisoners, really?! These are government or aspiring government officials, not fringe elements that are discounted by the public.


And of course what was it the father of our Chief of Staff to Obama recently said?

"Obviously, he will influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn't he? What is he, an Arab? He's not going to clean the floors of the White House."

Son of a terrorist in the White House! And people got all hot and bothered about Obama's family having dinner with Rashid Khalidi's family and the terrorist plots probably hatched as a result!

Don't say bomb on a plane...

...or "safe" while "looking Muslim", apparently! Or was it "engine" or "wing" or " the" that scared the woman so much?

Here are a few incidents I read about recently that were pretty ridiculous.

*** *** ***
This family was extra suspicious because the guys had beards and the women wore headscarves…not only that but wait til you hear what they were talking about!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/01/family.grounded/

"We were (discussing whether it was safest to sit near) the wing, or the engine or the back or the front, but that's it. We didn't say anything else that would raise any suspicion."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7809193.stm
"Mr Irfan said when he boarded Thursday's flight, he mentioned something to his wife and sister-in-law about having to sit in the back."

After the FBI questioned and cleared them and spoke to AirTran for them, the airline still wouldn't book them a later flight.

No one else would ever discuss safety on a plane unless they were going to blow it up, right? Keep your eye on those flight attendants who do the safety demo next time you fly.


*** *** ***

“…an Arabic-inscribed T-shirt in an airport was like "wearing a T-shirt at a bank stating, I am a robber…”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090106/ts_alt_afp/ustransportairsecuritymuslimsrights_090106002219

??? No. Sorry. That's not an analogy at all. They are absolutely nothing alike. Had the T-shirt said in any language "I have a bomb" or "I'm a hijacker", that would be like going into a bank wearing a "I'm a robber" shirt.

*** *** ***