Islam and Christianity

This is a post I found in my drafts folder that I didn't have the guts to hit publish on last year when I wrote it. It ties in with my Rom 12 part 2, the political post and I'm cleaning the virtual house, so here goes. I may add an update on what I think now, if I have time or anything else to say.


I found out about these lectures in Florida on March 13-15. Dave Miller presented several talks on Islam. I am always intrigued when I hear this because in general, Christians don't know a lot about Islam, don't come into contact with Muslims, and present a lot of opinion with their facts.

I am all for teaching the gospel, but I am also all for fighting that temptation to belittle others to make your point. I think you can make strong, valid, Biblical arguments against Islam without equating the Quran to Mein Kampf, calling names, arguing the religion of peace or not, Allah or God. These things miss the point, are usually disparaging in nature, and should be avoided.

The last one was a lecture on the conflicts between Islam and the Christian foundation of our society, which is no doubt about our "Christian nation". This gets away from facts and Bible and gets into politics. I think God had great foresight (could be proof of inspiration) to make the Bible rather apolitical- for all people and all times. There seems to be a movement, though, pressuring Christians to make a "moral choice" in politics, which is code for choosing the Republican party (for the "twin evils" of abortion and gay marriage). I have said before that no party has a monopoly on morality, so I think the individual has to reason through all the pros and cons. If by voting, people believe that they are endorsing everything the party and candidate does or stands for, then Christians shouldn't vote. I tend not to go to that extreme. There is also a tendency in this movement to hold the Constitution up -I hesitate to say- as though it were like the Bible. I mean to say that they treat it that way in their approach, not that they think the Constitution is inspired or anything. The Founding Fathers are referenced as though we should be thinking as they thought and as though they meant for the nation never to change from what it was then. I think we Christians defintely have it easier given the history of this being a majority Christian nation. I have gotten off topic a bit, but where I was going with this is that I don't think the Constitution and nature of our nation were meant to be set in stone and if they did want that, I think we should change it. It might be convenient and in line with the Founding Fathers (which I'm not sure it is) to pray in Congress, to legislate according to the Bible, but there can be a slippery slope to the extreme. When we refuse to allow Muslims in Congress or homosexuals to see their partner in the hopsital, would or should we go further to say that only Christians can be in Congress (or only Christians that regularly attend services), or that marriage is valid only if you have never slept with anyone else, aren't having an affair, have never had an affair, etc? I don't know what the Founding Fathers envisaged, but the Bible seems to focus more on your individual life and passing the gospel on to others than putting so much emphasis on the top down approach.

I have heard people say that the fact that our nation is Christian is why we have freedoms and civil liberties. This may be true to some extent, but if we go the way some want us to go , to legislate Bible principles into law, keeping certain religions out of office, etc then it seems we are eliminating civil liberties and forcing Christianity on people which I expect would result in more bad than good if your objective is conversion. If your objective is teaching the truth, I don't see any progress being made.

Danger!! Ants Will Eat Your Brain!!

I have read a lot of silly, bigoted, racist, tear jerking, and dubious forwards, but upon reading this one I almost blew the water I was drinking all over my computer. I should probably just delete all forwards, but I can't resist. :) I hadn't seen one like this before. Enjoy!

To top off the hilarity, it says to forward this email at the end and I must say--- yes, please do! I wouldn't want you all to get that pesky itchiness and headache that accompany ants eating your brain! I mean, people with brain cancer or trauma have pain, seizures, memory problems, etc. When ants eat your brain, you get a headache and itchiness. Makes total sense! Right?

This is not true, but in case you doubt :) :
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/ants-brain-hoax.shtml


The email text I received:
Dear All,

Please read this and advise your friends and family! You may save others' lives!

Incident One: A little boy died because surgeons found ants in his brain! Apparently this boy fell asleep with some sweets in his mouth or with some sweet stuff beside him.

Ants soon got to him and some ants in fact crawled into his ear which somehow managed to go to his brain. When he woke up, he did not realize that ants had gone to his head....

After that, he constantly complained about itchiness around his face. His mother brought him to a doctor, but the doctor could not figure out what was wrong with him. He took an X-ray of the boy and to his horror; he found a group of live ants in his skull. Since the ants were still alive, the doctor could not operate on him because the ants were constantly moving around. The boy finally died. So please be careful when leaving food stuff near your bed or when eating in bed. This might attract ants. Most importantly,

NEVER you or your child eat sweets before going to bed. You or your child might attract ants while you are asleep.

Incident Two: Another similar incident happened in a hospital in Taiwan. This man was warded in the hospital and was constantly warned by the nurses not to leave food stuff by his bedside because there were ants about. He did not heed their advice. Ants finally got to him. His family members said that the man constantly complained about headaches. He died and a postmortem or autopsy was done on him. Doctors found a group of live ants in his head. Apparently, the ants had been eating bits of his brain. So friends, better be safe than sorry. Never leave food stuff beside your bed you when you go to sleep.

Please forward this to your friends and relatives.

Question:Is it reasonable to expect these conditions for Palestinians, but none for Israel?

Is it reasonable to expect (these) conditions for Palestinians, but none for Israel?

Renounce violence – Israel doesn’t

Recognize Israel - Israel doesn’t have to recognize Palestine

Accept Roadmap- Israel rejects (Israel supporters claim Israel follows this, all agreements and ceasefires, but teh 14 reservations that must be in place before it can think about accepting it kind or defeat it's purpose in the first place.)

Roadmap- Israel said they’d sign but had 14 reservations (Palestinians not allowed violence or incitement/criticism, but Israel is, no discussion of settlements, etc) so wouldn’t observe it (??).
Here are the 14 – totally guts the agreement; they should just say no, we won’t do it. But then maybe they'd lose the "man of peace" moniker, so scratch that.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/road1.html

Several of these are their obligations under international law, hence should occur independently and not be conditional upon any Palestinian actions.

GWB Foundation???

With a Reunion Planned, Bush Eases Back Into the Public Eye
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/us/politics/11web-baker.html?_r=1&nl=pol&emc=pola1

Good thing the shindig is in Dallas, or any number of them could be arrested for war crimes!

Seriously, though, a future George W. Bush Policy Institute?? This is just puzzling to me. Optimistically speaking, maybe it will have absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy. I mean, Iraq, 48 hour ultimatums, pre-emptive war, going to war based on WMD rumors and cartoons, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo, illegal combatants, declaring "war on terror", warrantless wiretapping, NSEERS, blind support for Israel (including its violations of law), double standard-requiring Palestinians to meet criteria that Israel refuses to meet, etc. There is a long list of really bad directions and wrong turns that were never corrected.

Maybe someone has learned a lot and will set up a foundation to study how all of these horrendous things happened- or how Bush's original plans (I'd like to think they started out noble enough) went so horribly, horribly wrong. Judging from Cheney and likes of others Bush surrounded himself with, though, I suspect it will be a foundation dedicated to correcting a few glitches (not teh torture, but the getting caught; not the secret prisons, but the public finding out about them, etc) in an otherwise grand and successful plan for a war on Islam, ahem terrorism, and forced American democratization (only recognized if your leader is approved by us, of course!) of the Middle East.

The guy has strong points. He did some good in Africa. Why not expand on that?

Please, please, please stay away from foreign policy!

Question and 'professor fired for speaking out'

Question to anyone who wants to answer: Is having a professor removed or denied tenure (Kovel, Finkelstein) for criticizing Israel at all similar to firing a person for analyzing and/or condemning governments of other countries (i.e. France, China, Iran, Cuba for human rights, communism, lack of freedom of speech, etc.)- or is it apples and oranges or is one more acceptable or crazy to you than the other?

***
Generally, Americans get up in arms about crackdowns on freedom of speech. This is one of the things that makes our country. It's why many come here from other countries to live.

When someone gets fired for criticizing Israel, the crowds clear out, people look the other way. No one wants to be called anti-Semitic for defending (even factually correct) criticism of Israel.

Let me just say it-
CRITICISM OF ISRAEL IS NOT ANTI-SEMITISM!
HATRED OF JEWS (or technically Semites, which would include Arabs, ironically) IS ANTI-SEMITISM!

Here is Joel Kovel's statement after being fired from Bard:
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2009/02/19/joel-kovel-accuses-bard-of-firing-him-for-his-anti-zionist-scholarship/

Here's a piece that goes into the criticism = anti-Semitism bit:
http://www.counterpunch.org/landau03132009.html

The end of this article made me chuckle:

“Long Live Israel,” scream the US fans. “Anyone who doesn’t like our team is an anti-Semite.” I want to shout: “Go Back to Israel where you didn’t come from.”

***

This also got me thinking about those wrongly accused (Sami Al-Arian) and how easy it is for people to accuse and how hard it is to prove innocence and get your reputation back.

http://harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004539

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1116-07.htm

Coke tops for charities

I have been wondering something for several days and finally found my answer. No, I still don't know if or why the US thinks or doesn't know if pasta is a weapon! But at work we have a bucket to collect Coke can tabs for the Ronald McDonald House and I have been wondering why not the whole can? Surely that would get you more money faster. So I Googled and was getting worried because I saw a lot of folks on Yahoo Answers and myth-busting sites that said this is a myth, it's not worth it, etc. Then I found the source I probably should have started at:

"Ronald McDonald Houses collect pop tabs instead of entire aluminum cans because the tabs are pure high-quality aluminum, unlike cans, which consist of aluminum and other alloys. Tabs are also easier to store than whole cans."

(This is from the RMH website)

So I'll continue to save them, unlike sending email forwards upon discovering snopes.com!

Israel's war crimes and Obama on nukes- 3 items

Interesting article about Israeli war crimes in the winter attack on Gaza. I wonder if they are any closer this time to bringing charges or consequences. The level of outrage seems higher and the proof seems to be mounting. I guess it remains to be seen if justice will be done...

Anyway, it's pretty concise if you missed the coverage of the attacks, so do read.

Israel on Trial
By GEORGE BISHARAT
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/opinion/04bisharat.html

"While Israel disputes some of the soldiers’ accounts, the evidence suggests that Israel committed the following six offenses..."

***
Someone on a forum I like to frequent- when things don’t get too, too conservative, that is- had mentioned that Israel isn’t a signatory to the white phosphorus convention (so that means white phosphorus isn’t dangerous, they are allowed to use it in civilian areas, etc???) when I brought that up.

It’s true that the US and Israel are not signatories to the 3rd protocol on conventional weapons, but the fact that both countries deny it’s use at first, then admit to using it (but of course it was used according to international law if at all... :roll: ) upon being confronted with damaging evidence suggests they know they shouldn't be using it or know they abused it (or they have no problems with it whatever (???), but don't want to admit to using it because all other countries think otherwise).

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1231663993052&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

Israel’s military manuals have restrictions on its use and the fact that both countries deny using it (at first) tells us that not being a signatory means they don’t want to be in violation of international law for using something that very obviously needs restrictions and oversight and they "feel guilty" (if a state can- you get my meaning, though- they lied, then admitted to using it).

(Here are alternate sources with the same info if you have a problem with Arab sources:)
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/israeli-armys-use-white-phosphorus-gaza-clear-undeniable-20090119
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/20/gaza-white-phosphorus
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15375119/
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/777549.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7831424.stm

***

Here is one of France 24's headlines in my inbox:

Obama: 'Yes we can' have a world without nuclear weapons
"The United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons," US President Barack Obama said in a speech delivered in Prague before a crowd of tens of thousands.

Interesting. A worthy goal. I'm all for non-proliferation. However, if the US (and Israel) won't disarm, this is unrealistic. I understand us wanting to keep some around in case of emergency, for threatening rogue states, etc, but be honest and stop the non-prolifertaion garbage. The US won’t get rid of it’s stockpile. We know that. Israel won’t either- in fact, they won’t even acknowledge they have them. I don't remember if they are still holding on to the Dimona is a textile factory lie or if Vanunu caused them to abandon that nonsense. The US won’t pressure Israel to do anything it doesn’t want to- after all they have a democracy and need to do what’s best for them. Who cares if they disregard international laws that we force other nations to comply with and have a horrible human rights record. Who cares if they have a card carrying terrorist openly advocating ethnic cleansing in government? We don't. Who cares if we share intel with them, but they withhold vital lifesaving intel from US? Who cares if they bomb us (USS Liberty) and get us to cover it up? They are a democracy. Sort of. If you like South Africa-style apartheid democracies. And I guess we love them!

missed opportunity for real change on Israel/Palestine

Having Chas Freeman on the National Intelligence Council could have been really good for "change". Guess Obama's not looking to get change at the expense of an early lame duck situation (which AIPAC could arrange). We could have really had a real national discussion about our influence in the Middle East, human rights, international law, etc. The choice of Freeman really fit well with Obama's approach of appointing a wide range of people to bounce ideas off of. Except on Israel. We have to placate our Israeli constituency, right? We must appoint people who "love" Israel and would never admit Israel was doing anything remotely wrong (despite the truckloads of evidence to the contrary)-- OR ELSE-- no re-election. That's always the bottom line. Forget peace and justice and the sanctity of life. Power and money are the important things in life. Apparently.

What's kind of sad about this is that Israel, who can't vote in our elections, dictates our foreign policy in the region. That alone would be bad, but what's worse is that they have convinced us it's our idea and that it's "right" and moral. History is not going to look favorably on this. We're going to look like a bunch of idiots.


The Lobby Falters
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n06/mear01_.html

Freeman's statement upon getting dumped:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672847973688515.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Schumer and Emanuel's involvement in the dumping:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/white-house/schumer-privately-tells-white-house-hes-concerned-about-freeman-on-israel/

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/middle-east/schumer-takes-credit-for-getting-chas-freeman-ousted/

Now toilet paper is dangerous!!

"But U.S. and Western officials complain the limited list of humanitarian goods that Israel allows into Gaza changes almost daily, creating major logistical problems for aid groups and donor governments which are unable to plan ahead."
(from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090311/wl_nm/us_palestinians_israel_usa)

Weapons banned. That's debatable. Jam, cheese, toilet paper, pasta, toothpaste, toothbrushes, soap, among other items on an ever-changing imaginary list??? That is a deliberate attempt to starve people, confuse the aid work, and hold up the peace process.

Israeli defense official Peter Lerner said in response: "I'm not aware of any problems with toilet paper, toothpaste, dairy products ... and other food stuffs. Basic necessities are being met and are going in on a daily basis."
(from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090311/wl_nm/us_palestinians_israel_usa)

And of course Israel is "unaware of any problems" and says goods are moving freely. Free is apparently a relative term. Basic, necessity, problem, being met, going in may also beg some serious clarification. Either Israel is incompetent or they are lying to our face. Either way we need to do more than complain. We are a superpower and all we propose to do about Israel terrorizing Palestinians and blocking the peace process is beg and plead??? Why not take $1000 a day from our $4bn gifts until Israel respects international law and commits to a one or two state solution? Or give them 3-4 chances, knocking off $1bn each time? Or cut them off totally? They aren't entitled to our money, they don't need it, and if they break our laws it makes more sense for them to pay us! Sanctions, anyone?

This issue is significantly different from other conflicts. Other times, we are generally will at least sympathize with the oppressed, if not help them. This is not to say we haven't supported and trained some opposition groups that have done much harm (i.e. School of the Americas), but we never have supported a group that continually defies international and our own laws so openly and to the extent we have Israel. We do give aid to Palestinians, the oppressed, but we give so much more to those who are increasingly more vocal about their opposition to peace and desire to starve/kill/whatever Palestinians if it means keeping Israel Jewish (always cast as an existential threat to their lives, rather than the truly racist goal).

We always have said we support Israel because they are committed to peace, while Palestinians aren't, they value freedom and equality like us and Palestinians elect terrorist and corrupt leaders. We really have no basis for the distinction we have made in the past- whether or not it is true. Israel's current leaders aren't committed to the previous agreements, two- state solution, freedom and equal rights for all. We are currently funding terrorism- or what has been referred to as collective punishment, occupation, apartheid. Israel is punishing all for the crimes of a few and is using basic necessities, health and starvation as a method to change the Palestinian political landscape to one it likes better. With Lieberman, the card-carrying, State Department-identified terrorist as FM this should now be more than clear. Shall we nip this in the bud now, or wait until he sets up gas chambers?? They've already got the concentration camps.
(Here's my other bit on Avigdor Lieberman.)

We are funding this nonsense!!

Especially with our nation looking for extra dollars these days, could we not make better use of this money that's funding massacres, Israeli terrorists, the starving of Palestinians, and promising to run peace negotiations off course???


Edit 3/24/09:

"Items banned by the Israeli authorities last week included jam, biscuits and tomato paste, resulting in 498 boxes of USAID cargo and 2,488 boxes of World Vision cargo stopped from delivery to Gaza. According to COGAT*, food parcels containing these foodstuffs, as well as tea, sweets and date bars, will be rejected in the future."

*COGAT - [Israeli military] Coordinator of Government Activity in the Territories

FIELD UPDATE ON GAZA FROM THE HUMANITARIAN COORDINATOR
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

ocha_opt_gaza_humanitarian_situation_report_2009_03_16_english.pdf

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&attid=0.1&thid=1202f92058e51397&mt=application%2Fpdf&pli=1

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.

Prayers for Obama

I have a bit of a rant today, I guess. It's a politics and religion one, so it may rub some people the wrong way. I've been noticing this inconsistency since, oh... around January 20.

James's thoughts on what exactly is pro-life could have inspired this, but since I find myself in the minority among another minority here, I suppose it is always on my mind.

Let me just say first that I am all for praying for the President, the country, the world, etc. Thank God for our freedoms every day. These are all good things and I am all for it. There just seems to be some differences in how this is applied while Democrats vs Republicans are in office and I think that shouldn't be the case. The other problem is when some folks say we should pray for the President, you can read from context and tone of voice that what they mean is- pray that that heathen Democrat you people elected to kill babies and glorify homosexuality doesn't do too much damage before we get another righteous Republican in office. Ok, that's a bit extreme, but you know what I'm saying. We've all heard it. No party has a monopoly on Godliness; all are made up of individuals who will fail from time to time and both parties deal with corruption and the like. Not one of our Presidents was sent from God... any more than any other world leader, that is. And if that is scripturally false, someone please correct me.

These groups were formed on Facebook (some just after the election, it seems):


Millions of Christ Followers Praying for the United States

Stop the Silencing of God-
This country was founded on Christian values
Separation of church and state means the government doesn't restrict my rights as a Christian
If we don't get God back in our country we will collapse


I keep hearing very frequently now about how we need to pray for the President, they're taking God out of schools, things aren't as good as they used to be, pray for the direction of our nation, etc. People seem to be giving the impression that now that Obama's president, the burden of sin is pressing so hard, it will soon envelop and suffocate us all. There wasn't nearly the urgency and frequency of calls to pray for our nation and President. When GWB was President, I occasionally would hear a reminder to pray for our leader and the troops, but other than that, it seemed people thought he didn't need prayers or he was from God so people didn't feel they had to pray the nation back on track (???).

And people, you really need to stop and think what the implication of more church in the state ("going back to our religious roots") means in this country before you ask God for it continually. Do we really want to go back to a time when one denomination ruled and if you weren't a part of that, then you couldn't hold public office or other things and probably would get thrown in prison for preaching anything else?? Or would we like such laws as:

"Settlers who failed to observe the Sabbath lost provisions for a week (first offense), received a whipping (second offense), or were executed (third offense). "

(From Steven Waldman's book, Founding Faith)

You have to remember that putting church in the state will also put state in the church.

I think rather than pushing for public communal prayers in schools, events, etc, we should embrace our freedom of speech and assembly. Perhaps we should think of it another way. If God isn't mentioned much anymore, maybe it's our fault. Maybe we don't use our freedoms to the extent we could. Do we really need the state to "bring God back" ?

Another thing I don't get is that many a Republican will say how they are against government hand outs in monetary form and yet they are up in arms that government isn't handing out religion. They want all these obstacles in the way of government aid to individuals, they are against welfare, and government programs to help the poor which I would think Christians would be in favor of. To be fair, they do often say that the individual Christian should be giving to the church and community instead of the government (which doesn't distribute wisely, etc?). I can understand that to some extent. But, that being said, why criticize Democrats for "taking God out of schools" and public life? In the same vein, shouldn't the individual rather than government be the one to put God in various places (free speech)? If you think the government can't distribute the money to the poor properly, what is it going to do to the Bible and God???

Just seems kind of odd to be ok with the individual tending to the poor (rather than the government) but to turn around and call the other party Godless for applying the same principle to religion.

It also seems that if you value your freedom of religion (freedom to practice as you see fit) that you'd want the church and state separate... maybe that's just me.

And after 4 sessions, I think that's all I've got for now...

Rashid Khalidi (you know, Obama's best friend, the second terrorist professor?)

Remember that professor McCain/Palin was trying (really hard and without success on both counts) to paint as another terrorist and political ally of Obama’s?

"It seems that there is yet another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years," Palin said at an event in Bowling Green, Ohio.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/29/campaign.wrap/index.html


Radical?? I guess that’s the new substitute for calling someone anti-Semitic for criticizing Israel.


Anyway, he was on the Diane Rehm Show March 5 at 11am.
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/03/05.php

On the page for the link I’m giving, you can listen to the segment and see just how radical he is? Or perhaps Palin fits the radical label better and so from her perspective, Khalidi is radical? Or perhaps anyone is radical who expresses a minority opinion, no matter how commonsense- the US shouldn’t torture, the US should have gathered more info before flattening Iraq, the US should oppose war crimes on both sides of the Israeli Palestinian conflict?


Radical is “marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional”, so perhaps that characterization is correct, but when used in combination with the Ayers allusion (or delusion??) and the PLO, which was named a terrorist organization in 2004, she was giving it a bad connotation. Or trying really, really hard to do so.


I’ve got to say that the Ayres and Khalidi digs were a pretty far stretch. She introduced the Khalidi thing in the last week of the campaign when the Ayres thing had all but fizzled out. It looked pretty sad then, but take a listen to Khalidi speaking for himself and it looks even worse. You will see someone who has an understanding of world affairs that far supercedes hers. Obama has his flaws and limitations, but I think we averted disaster in that last election. Speaking of flaws—what about that Limbaugh garbage? Obama needs to stop taking Emanuel’s advice! Giving Limbaugh that much attention was a big mistake (it just boosted his already supersized ego); he’s got a big mouth, but he’s no spokesman.


Anyway, Khalidi’s got a new book, Sowing Crisis in the Middle East, and it touches on things I’ve thought about before as well as some other interesting ideas.


He apparently addresses my thoughts about terrorism being the new communism, as in it being an exaggerated fear, boogeyman, and something that is thrown about without much care in tough political contests or discussions.


He also talks about Cold War remnants and how that carries over to the current situation in the Middle East (and how Bush picked a lot of Cold War “experts”). The US and Israel were on one side and Arabs sided with the Soviet Union on the other. He thinks that this is how Arab nationalism got (wrongly) associated with communism and hence was opposed by the US and its allies on principle.


I don’t know if he talks about this in his book, but his interview led me to think that this could very well be a major reason for our unconditional support for Israel, despite its failure to uphold our values, and reluctance to support Palestinians gaining statehood and rights in general. I mean, think about how much and how carelessly in recent times the communism accusation is still thrown about- a good example would be the recent presidential campaign in 2008. It was used when people disagreed, to describe the run of the mill progressive tax, used to describe Obama, etc. The Cold War is very much alive in American minds, though it has been over for some time in reality.


The reasons I have usually given for our unconditional support for Israel despite the evidence for its human rights violations, war crimes, lack of respect for human life in general, apartheid tendencies, etc are:

*Christian Zionism/religious beliefs/ misunderstanding of Bible prophecy and the Old Testament in general

*Jewish Zionism

*Israel lobby (buying politicians, politicians loving power and money more than justice and freedom)

*Islamophobia and fear of a culture we aren’t familiar with


The Cold War should definitely join the ranks, here. None of these are justifiable for depriving Palestinians the right to freedom, statehood, self-defense, human rights, food, shelter and the like, but I definitely see it as a reason for our position.

Senators also need to check snopes.com!! No kidding!

H. R. 1105 (Omnibus Appropriations Bill)

Amendments 629-631 failed!! Yay!! Leahy's statements opposing the amendments were surprising and welcome. It's the times like these when I have hope that the tide can change and we can have a policy that reflects the current understanding of the conflict, parties involved, peace and justice.

Kyl was trying to ban Palestinians from coming to the US as legitimate refugees based on a news story, aka urban legend. Unbelievable. You can read my letter asking to reject the amendments below, as well as the transcript of some of the discussion of the bill.

See the snopes link and scroll below to Kyl's comments in pink for the short cut- if you don't want to read all of Kerry's stuff.


Kerry and Lehy spoke out against it and some House Republicans wanted to ban aid to UNRWA. Take note in Kerry’s (lengthy) comments I got from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/%7Er111C0Biuf:e85440: (also see http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r111:FLD001:S02900-S02902 for the “menu” of sections of this session) I’m pretty sure Kyl is referencing an urban legend (aka “news story”) his constituents contacted him about!! Somebody should check snopes before making bold statements and actions.
See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/palestinians.asp

Kerry's comments are interesting, but totally ignore Israel's role in the oppression (it's all Hamas's fault, Palestinians are mostly interested in escaping from Hamas's rather than Israel's oppression??) and Palestinian rights for that matter; they were in support of the right end, so I can't complain too much. Leahy showed a bit better grasp of the situation.

***
Here’s my pre-written ADC letter below.

Message sent to the following recipients:
Tim Morrison
Representative Butterfield
Senator Burr
Senator Hagan
Message text follows:

As your constituent, I am particularly appalled by some amendments made to
H.R. 1105 in the Senate. S. AMDT 629 & 631, sponsored by Senator Jon Kyl,
attack a the Palestinian civilian population and do so at a time when this
population is most vulnerable. It is shocking that any American legislator
would seek to deny entry to refugees to our great Nation. Further, these
amendments would also place restrictions on aid being sent to Gaza for
reconstruction after a 22-day war which left much of the already
impoverished strip in ruins.

I urge you to vote against legislation that includes these amendments in
the Senate chamber and, should you have the opportunity to review this
bill in conference I urge you to strike these hateful amendments from the
text.

Of all the deceptive "riders" which can be placed on large bills,
attacking a poor and suffering population in a distant land is a new low.
America should not send this message to the world.
***

from : http://www.senate.gov/galleries/pdcl/index.htm

Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. John Kerry :
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

AMENDMENT NO. 630

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise to talk about two amendments offered by the good Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, amendment No. 630 and amendment No. 629. I say to my friend from Arizona that I regret to sort of be in the position of opposing a couple of his amendments because these are subjects I would have loved to have worked with him on closely and I appreciate the relationship we have and the conversations we have had recently about a number of very important issues in front of the Senate.

So I find myself a little bit in an uncomfortable position, but nevertheless a necessary one, because, first of all, on amendment No. 630--which refers to the issue of requiring a report on whether more United States assistance to Egypt is going to improve Egyptian efforts to counter illicit smuggling in Gaza--we all agree we have to increase the efforts with respect to smuggling.

In fact, we agree so much that over the course of the last administration, and now continuing into this one, we have entered into new agreements with the Egyptians, with new technical means that are going to be applied to this effort, with an increased effort that is going to be taking place right now.

But the problem with the amendment is--it is a well-intended amendment, but again everyone here understands what the effect of this amendment is going to be. It is simply to keep us, if it were to pass, from enacting this bill before the current continuing resolution expires. Because given what we have heard from the House, a vote for the amendment is effectively a vote against the Omnibus appropriations bill and a vote for a year-long continuing resolution at last year's funding levels. That is what is at stake here.

But going from there, given the fact there are so many priorities in this bill we want to pass, and we need to, let me talk for a moment about the substance, just on the substance itself. I personally do not think this is the best moment or best way to go about achieving what we want to achieve with the Egyptians, who have been particularly helpful at this moment with respect to the efforts to try to seek Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, and particularly helpful with respect to some of the issues on the border at Rafah and with respect to the tunnels.

Moreover, the bill that is in front of us states that ``not less than $1,300,000,000 shall be made available for grants only for Egypt, including for border security programs and activities in the Sinai.'' So there is additional money here. There is money available to be spent on this task.

It also reflects the fact we have recently upgraded our efforts with Egypt. I think if we come along now and pass this amendment, we wind up saying that the efforts we have made are insufficient, and it is a slap in the face to the Egyptians in the process. So this is a sensitive time. It is an important time. I hope Egypt's good interventions--and I recently was in Egypt. I met with President Mubarak. I met with General Suleiman and the people involved directly in this effort. I am absolutely confident about their focus on the border, as well as their focus on these reconciliation efforts. So in the context of those efforts, this amendment is, frankly, not helpful to the broader interests in the region at this moment.

AMENDMENT NO. 629

The second amendment, No. 629, would prohibit the use of any funds in the omnibus to resettle Palestinians from Gaza into the United States.

Now, let me first point out, in 2008 the United States did not resettle anyone from Gaza. So this is an amendment, this is a solution in search of a problem. The fact is, there is no problem currently. But let's assume--let's assume for the purposes of argument--in the future a Palestinian escaped from Gaza to get away from Hamas oppression and applied to be resettled in the United States. This amendment would prevent that resettlement.

Now, obviously, any Palestinian refugee ought to be subjected to a complete and thorough battery of security checks, screens, background checks, as we do already for any refugee from anywhere. And, of course, we want to be assured that an asylum seeker does not have ties with Hamas, with Islamic Jihaddists or any other terrorist organization.

But the point is, we already have exactly those kinds of security screens and background checks. We have them in the regular Department of Homeland Security resettlement procedures. So I see no reason to make an exception to the normal procedures that suddenly singles out a resident of Gaza. It also sends a message, not just of indifference, but, frankly, of hostility to tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza who are victims of Hamas.

Now, I just was in Gaza. I became--unbeknownst to me; I did not realize it at the time--the highest ranking American to go into Gaza in something like 8 or 9 years, and I saw thousands of kids roaming around the rubble of Gaza. I met with Fatah businessmen and others, with people who are struggling to make ends meet and pull their lives together. If one of them were to escape because of the oppression of Hamas and wanted to come to the United States, it would seem, given the daily deprivations and brutality of Hamas militants, the United States, commensurate with our highest values and the traditions of this country, would not want to refuse the possibility of asylum to those folks.

In fact, this amendment assumes that every resident of Gaza, regardless of age, background, political opinion or any other distinguishing characteristic, is pro-Hamas and ineligible for consideration for resettlement in the United States, even if they are lucky enough to escape from Gaza. It ignores the fact that a whole bunch of folks in Fatah were killed by Hamas and some of them knee-capped and otherwise assaulted in the course of the recent war because they weren't part of Hamas.

It is unnecessary. There are ample laws on the books which prohibit entry into the United States of any person who has been involved in terrorism or other crimes. During the Cold War, we did not bar Russians from coming to the United States, just as we don't bar Cubans or North Koreans from entering the United States, even though they live in oppressive regimes that we object to--or did live, in the case of the Soviet Union, in that situation. This amendment, therefore, is not only unnecessary but it would establish for the first time since the passage of the 1980 Refugee Act a law that discriminates against a particular nationality in a particular geographic region.

I urge my colleagues to vote against both these amendments, and I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Mr. KYL. Madam President, while my colleague from Massachusetts is still here, let me advise him of two things with respect to amendment No. 629. First of all, it was certainly not my intention that we deal individually with political asylees, but the amendment could have been read that way and I appreciate the point. Secondly, it was a response to a news story which gained a great deal of attention from my constituents related to the January 30 order by the President, ordering $20 million for urgent relief efforts to provide migration assistance to Palestinian refugees. That has gotten a lot of attention from folks. They wanted to know what we were doing.

We have talked to the State Department, and while I haven't withdrawn the amendment yet, we have received assurances from them orally that--and I believe and hope we will receive assurances in writing--that was not the intention of that order. Assuming that is the case, there would be no need for the amendment, and it would be my intention tomorrow to withdraw it. I hope they will have something to us in writing. If not, if they have a spokesman of high enough authority to provide the assurance orally, that will suffice as well, but we will want to get that.

I will speak to the other amendment, but I wished to respond to my colleague.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator. As I said, I know he works reasonably on these things and I look forward to working with him on it and I thank him.


I thought these comments were interesting and worthwhile:

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Sen. Patrick Leahy:

"I have to think back -- I read about my family 150 years or so [ago] when they came to Vermont, on my father's side, the Irish. I'm sure if we had a law like this in place; it is questionable whether they could have come in. The Irish were fighting to keep their land. If they were fighting to keep their rights, fighting for the ability to vote, and they live[d] in what is now the republic of Ireland, they were considered terrorists."

And on the other side of the issue, making a bad resolution even worse:

House Republicans lead by Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), along with Reps. Boehner (R-OH), Cantor (R-VA), Pence (R-IN), McCotter (R-MI), are calling on Senate colleagues to amend the HR 1105 to bar funding for UNRWA and the Palestinian Authority.
http://www.peacenow.org/printview.asp?sid=6&cid=6011&rid=&prevaction=&scrollaction=&purl=roundup.asp

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...).

Free speech ?

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

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.”