Settlements- what's the deal?

Israeli settler runs over a three-year-old Palestinian girl 5/2/09
http://www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=37959

--------
This caught my eye on the (less traveled) headlines recently. Maybe because I have a 3 year old. Maybe because settlers under international law, UN resolutions, and previous agreements (not to mention US “pressure”) aren’t supposed to be there in the first place, let alone injuring, harassing, and vandalizing their new neighbors.

They aren’t supposed to be there in the first place, they aren’t exactly there with the intention of living peacefully with their neighbors, and yet we still pour money and praise into this entity. And we wonder about the source of Arab anger toward us and our policies?

Here are some other accounts:

March/April 2009 settler violence summary
http://www.alternativenews.org/settler-violence-reports/1919-settler-violence-report-marchapril-2009-.html

Stonings and vandalism are becoming routine, beatings
http://palestine-updates.blogspot.com/2009/04/settler-violence-on-rise-in-hebron.html

Random shootings and beatings
http://palestinesolidarityproject.org/category/settler-violence/

A list
http://www.eutopic.lautre.net/coordination/spip.php?article4102

Blog mentioning settler violence and hitting the nail on the head→ settlement enterprise=violence
http://a-doctor-in-galilee.blogspot.com/2009/02/novelty-settler-violence-in-hebron.html

Dec 2008 Hebron settler violence makes headlines
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/10/unsteady_calm_following_settler_violence_against

***
And now let's look at the recent talk about settlements and outposts and such. What is going on? I've got 3 articles to try and explain it.
***

"We will dismantle the illegal outposts," Barak said. "If it won't be through understanding, it will be done quickly and by force."

Sounds great, but don’t get too excited. We’ve got to understand what exactly he’s agreeing to do and still not agreeing to do. Once you do that, it’s not nearly the inspiring statement that it seems, but rather the opposite. He’s agreeing to dismantle little pre-settlements without proper permits. He’s not recognizing the Palestinian right to exist or govern themselves or return to their homeland (as Jews have the right to do), not recognizing a two state solution, not agreeing to dismantle ALL settlements (since ALL are illegal).

And let's also address the settlement freeze Obama is actually talking about. While this is encouraging, since Bush would never dare say anything of this nature, it also needs explanation. A settlement freeze is only a good sign if the intent is to force Israel to comply with international law and get rid of ALL settlements in East Jerusalem, Gaza and West Bank. But if the settlement freeze is seen as an end rather than a step toward compliance, then this is nothing more than American acceptance of a large scale Israeli land grab (click for illustration). Speaking of land grabs, the Wall should be addressed as well... I've always said - if you want a wall, build it on your own land. That goes for the US and Israel.

This dismantling of outposts even Israel considers illegal, as they don’t have a proper permit or whatever, is presented as a price, compromise, gesture of peace, painful concession, or some grand gift to the US and Palestinians (as if this is going to make a bit of difference for their national interest given the number and scope of the settlements Israel doesn’t consider illegal!). It is in fact far from a gesture of peace; it is absurd. ALL settlements are ILLEGAL and need to be razed to the ground.

I like how Netanyahu and Barak make clear that the outpost dismantling is not in response to US pressure, it is what “states of law” do. Yet it is considered part of the “price” Netanyahu paid to get Obama to make more concrete statements about Iran and nukes. Sounds like pressure to me, but what do I know?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087132.html

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

Tearing down Maoz Esther, a scattered collection of two concrete structures and several cabins fashioned from metal shipping containers, is "just a public relations stunt," he said.

And here’s someone telling it like it is. Moaz Esther is an outpost without Israeli authorization, as opposed to a settlement, which is still illegal under international law, but which Israel recognizes (and encourages settlement in) as its own “cities”. The problem is that they are built on Palestinian land complete with Jewish only roads and whose yards and pools are watered by depriving Palestinians of their share of the resource.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-settlers22-2009may22,0,1538559.story?track=rss


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

Netanyahu wants Arab states to begin to normalize relations and begin to cooperate on economic and agricultural projects…why?? He agreed to get rid of what Israel calls illegal outposts. Sounds good, right? Sounds like a concession, progress, a compromise. Wait a minute…didn’t he say (see the Haaretz article above) he was cashing in this outpost dismantling for tougher language on Iran? I guess this outpost thing is such a big gesture he figures he can get a little more mileage out of it than that. Has anyone else caught that two for one deal?

Anyway, that’s what Israel wants it to look like. A grand compromise on the scale of Barak’s “generous offer,” that in truth, wasn’t so generous after all. Illegal settlements, according to international and reasonable standards, are ALL settlements on the Occupied Territories, not just puny outposts consisting of a few trailers that aren’t recognized under Israeli law anyway. Bulldoze the outposts (no-brainer), but allow for “natural growth” in established, but still illegal, settlements? This outpost dismantling deal is more of a gain for Israel after all (if we give them "natural growth") - it essentially makes land grabs acceptable. And the US and Israel can still claim they are dismantling settlements (?!), it’s a win-win, right? Oops. Palestinians lose, though. I guess that doesn’t count. On top of this, Netanyahu doesn’t talk about two states, nor does he recognize the natural right of Palestinians to live and rule themselves. What a concession indeed!! This is no compromise, no breakthrough, no change. One could argue that it is an effort to appropriate more Palestinian land for themselves.

In the article, Senator Casey thinks we can meet in the middle on the settlement freeze. Ridiculous. Remove these pea shooter outposts, but allow for “natural growth” on the larger settlements which of course will be able to stand (against the law, btw)? And whose land, may I ask, will they expand upon? Hmmm. Sounds more like a land grab (albeit a well-disguised one to the uninitiated) than compromise.

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1479197

Amira Hass arrested and an interesting podcast on Israel and apartheid

Besides this momentous meeting between Obama and Netanyahu, I came across 2 other interesting items:

Haaretz Reporter Amira Hass Arrested Upon Leaving Gaza
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/12-7

When responsibility for the Strip is spoken about, the response is always- oh, Israel disengaged from there several years ago and has nothing to do with it. Their humanitarian disaster is their problem. If that is the case, I wonder why Israel continues to interfere and control who comes and goes, whether it be journalists or whoever. The disengagement is being seen for what it is: a continued occupation minus the burden of those pesky human rights and other laws.

Hass is Israeli. I thought they were allowed to go wherever they wanted? Maybe she's on the blacklist of peace-loving, self-hating Jews. And a journalist on top of that, so she may report what she sees. They can't have that if they are to construct a myth on which to build and keep American support and love! Down with the facts! To welcome Bibi to power, let's all stick our heads in the sand, forget about peace and justice and declare Israel the perpetual victim. In America, we pretty much do that anyway, so that's a head start for us. Yay.

*** *** ***

This is Apartheid!: Hazam Jujum Speaks on Israeli Practices in Palestine
http://ctl.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=476034

On a less sarcastic note...

This is an excellent discussion of the apartheid-like conditions in the Occupied Territories. There has been some controversy over whether or not the term applies, especially with the publication of Carter's book, Palestine: Peace, not Apartheid. I think after the headlines, most of the hour is about the apartheid situation, so it is fairly comprehensive. Some common arguments against using the term are addressed. Israel is very creative in its use and application of law. I can say that for them.

It's really interesting. Anyone who still doesn't get why Palestinians and Arabs in general are mad at Israel should really have a listen.

Netanyahu ready to resume Mideast peace talks

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30793187/

That is the (rather overly optimistic) headline, but I would add-- Netanyahu ready to resume Mideast peace talks...sort of... if you bomb and invade Iran for us and if the Palestinians give up all rights and claims to 'Greater Israel'.

Netanyahu said he was ready to resume peace talks with the Palestinians immediately but said any agreement depended on their acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

Netanyahu did not respond publicly to Obama's comment that Israel must stop expanding Jewish settlements in West Bank. He also refused again to say he was ready to negotiate a so-called two-state solution to the nearly 60-year dispute with the Palestinians. The plan, endorsed by the United States and other parties pushing for peace between the historic foes, calls for establishment of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel.

This Obama-Netanyahu meeting is portrayed as tough love and a big contrast to the past administration. Even-handedness (???) was also mentioned in the CNN piece. Blunt was the buzzword in the NPR story. I would call the changes subtle at best. There is no real change here. The phrase “no breakthroughs were expected” repeated throughout the coverage should give you the real idea here.

Mentioning settlements is hardly tough or blunt, as CNN and others want you to believe. Settlements are a no-brainer. They are often mistakenly called a "painful concession" or final status issue when in fact, there can be no contiguous Palestinian entity without the total removal of ALL Jewish settlements. Besides this basic fact, they are ALL against the law. That alone should be cause for us to discuss cutting off “aid” to Israel if they don’t comply with the law. That would be just and could perhaps even be called more even-handed.

No, I take that back- evenhanded would be to say- you want Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state ? Great, but before you expect that, deal with two points: (1) you don’t recognize a Palestinian state or two state solution and (2) Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state is ludicrous because they would be giving up their right of return, right to equal protection and treatment under the law, among other things.

That would be just. That would be evenhanded. That will never happen. We for some odd reason are attached to the hip of this apartheid regime and constantly seek it's approval though we don't need it in the least. And neither do they need ours- though they tend to do more slapping us in the face (settlement expansion announcements ahead of visits to the US) than seeking our approval.

******

Netanyahu has long insisted that any Palestinian state forgo the common trappings of statehood, including its own military, control over its borders and authority over electronic communications.

From: Israel's prime minister tells Obama he wants to restart peace talks
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-us-israel19-2009may19,0,3662125.story

All the coverage I read seems to imply that Netanyahu didn't say two state solution, but he wants to- or is on the cusp. This little snippet from LA Times is perhaps more truthful or at least insightful than all I've heard in the past 24 hours.

So, not only won't he say two state solution, he does want indefinite occupation. He has said he doesn't want Israel to govern, so who, I wonder does he propose to "be in charge" ? The basic human belief that all have a God-given right to a state, life, freedom, happiness, yadda, yadda, yadda applies to Israelis (and hence all Jews everywhere forever) and Americans, but definitely not Palestinians. Now that makes sense. Oh. What makes even more sense is how the US and Israel don't think they should be able to be tried in the ICC or be charged with human rights violations, but Palestinians aren't being called out enough.

***
Obama presses two-state solution in U.S.-Israel talks
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE54H0P520090518?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10531

Netanyahu said that it was clear to Obama "that Israel retains the right to defend itself".

In his briefing to reporters, Netanyahu gave no indication he would do so, citing the need for Palestinians to carry out their road map commitments.

*This quote is referring to stopping settlement expansion and is rather funny, especially in light of the first link from LA Times. I mean, really? This is me in a really bad Israeli accent--> 'Uhhhhh...No, we're going to continue to defy international law, but you make those Palestinians follow the Roadmap (which of course we won't follow)!!'

******
These next two links demonstrate the primary goals of each side. It was kind of funny to see this unfold. Both are coming with two different agendas. At one point it seemed like they were giving independent talks or news conferences rather than interacting with each other. I am happy to see that Obama didn't back down and leave out the parts about peace, two states and settlements. If I'm not mistaken, Netanyahu tried to get the agenda set to Iran only, but Obama stuck to his guns and said they could talk about both. He's not wrong to say that they are linked.

"It is in the interests not only of the Palestinians but also the Israelis, the United States and the international community to achieve a two-state solution," Obama told reporters with Netanyahu sitting beside him.

*This is being cast by the media as Obama’s main priority.


***
***
Obama presses Netanyahu over two-state plan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8055105.stm

Our correspondent says Mr Netanyahu came to Washington with his own list of priorities, topped by Iran's nuclear programme.

*Striking Iran, not making peace, is Israel’s priority. Will it become ours? If so, one really has to wonder whose influence is greater. Who is the superpower? I get all mixed up when Israel and the US get to talking.

******
Here's the piece I saw "tough love" in. With tough love like this, parents wouldn't have to worry about disciplining their kids! Just let 'em do whatever. And they'll turn into little monsters. Much like Israel.

Analysis: Obama's tough-love approach to Israel
http://us.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/18/analysis.netanyahu/index.html

Netanyahu and Obama begin key talks in US
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8055105.stm



With regard to Iran, Israel is saying:

"The prime minister will emphatically emphasize the element of urgency,"

Uhhh, does this translate to- you’d better make up a reason to go in there and get ‘em or we’ll nuke ‘em for ya. It doesn’t have to be a good reason, as we’ve seen in Iraq. Just mention national security and maybe 9/11 and mushroom clouds and BAM! You have a population more than ready to sign their sons’ and daughters’ lives away to “fight terror” or “fight for freedom”. Wow. That sounds familiar. It sounds like how people are recruited for extremist groups.

When are we going to learn that doing Israel’s dirty work is not in the interests of us, them or the Middle East as a whole?? I guess the danger is that Israel would go it alone and we’d be blamed for not being able to “persuade” them from starting nuclear war.

So, maybe we have to be involved, but must we simply be yes men?

“Tenders have been issued to build 20 housing units in Maskiot, a former Israeli military base that has been designated for housing settlers removed from Gaza in 2005.”

I wonder if this will come up at all in the meeting. Hmm. It should go something like if you don’t stop building settlements (which are against our policy and international law) then our “aid” to you stops today. If they continue to build, they should have to pay the Palestinians (like a hefty fine) and risk home demolishing (or bombing) by Palestinians. Just a thought. We already know Israel thinks this is fair and acceptable.

We may not have ALL of the issues in the conflict figured out, but this one is a no-brainer. It’s against the law. We should apply pressure, cut off aid, boycott. Do something, at least! All we do is make lame little statements that must get lost on the way over to Israel. They always come back and slap us in the face with plans to expand and build more settlements. We cower and back down every time so that our “stand” becomes more like a “run and hide”. Is that hole we pulled Saddam Hussein out of still open? It’s as though we make a bold statement about dismantling settlements in public, but in private meetings, we must say- settlements? We love settlements. Settlements are great. Keep up the good work. Otherwise, why would Israel keep building these things with absolutely no consequences??

Another interesting tidbit- the American public isn’t holding our elected officials back from holding Israel accountable:

On Israeli Settlement Freeze, Public Has Obama's Back
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/on-israeli-settlement-fre_b_194751.html

Mr Netanyahu has so far been unwilling to endorse a two-state solution, saying only he wants a "fresh approach".

Interesting. We are still meeting with these guys even though they don’t endorse the two-state solution that Hamas, other Palestinians, the US, Europe, etc endorse.

The only other solution is one secular state with equal rights for all--- and we know full well that no good Israeli Jew could ever live with such a thing. Equal rights? Whoever heard of such a silly notion?

I guess there is another solution. Genocide. Is that the “fresh approach” Netanyahu talking about? Maybe not killing everyone, but at least transfer them somewhere out of Israel’s way.



Another interesting article I found:

Obama's Middle East moment of truth
His diplomatic moves are a good start. But does he have the will to challenge Israel?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/03/17/middle_east_obama/

Britain bans Savage and a look at Israel

Maybe some think I'm reaching, here, to compare this thing in Britain with Israel, but really I'm not. It's about freedom of speech and the government's place. What happened in Britain may be surprising, but in Israel, it's chronic-- and there's the whole issue of controlling the West Bank and denying residents entry (this should get at least as much attention as the Savage ban--it's more absurd and wrong!)...

CNN made the point that Savage was getting more publicity from this than going over there quietly, so he should be glad. Kinda funny. They kind of implied that he really couldn't complain like he was and I'd have to say yes and no...

Now on to the post I wrote earlier...

OK, people are up in arms about Britain banning loudmouth Michael Savage. Maybe they aren’t up in arms, but they are talking about it with a hint of surprise or shock in their voices.

Look at Israel’s list of banned individuals. They are supposed to be democratic, Western, open, etc as well. Are we as shocked at Israel’s antics as we are at Britain’s? Do we expect such repressive behavior form Israel that it’s not worth talking about? Or do we prefer to sweep such things under the rug given that we are committed to giving them billions of dollars a year for all eternity and this is really embarrassing?

Some of Israel's banned:
(a comprehensive list of some 3000 or more is beyond my ability, but this is quite lengthy)

Israel deports former pop star Cat Stevens
http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=83179&page=2

Israel bars Arab parties from election
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10187.shtml

Christian deported from Israel for mission work
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/christian-deported.html

deported for human rights work
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/76130/index.php

deported from Israel
http://www.imemc.org/article/53454

many witnesses denied entry
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4859.shtml

Richard Falk denied entry and deported
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/85022

Norman Finkelstein denied entry
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1211434094376
10 year ban
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/27/finkelstein/

The Beatles were banned for some time-- and they may yet deny the Pope, apparently.

Denied entry to Christian clergy
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9177.shtml

Israel denies entry to Muslim wife of Jewish Iranian immigrant
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/848044.html


Here's the West Bank issue and Israel's denial of entry that could be considered ethnic cleansing, as residents aren't allowed back in, Muslim or Arab spouses of Jews are routinely denied in order to force families to move or be torn apart, these are just some examples.

And then there’s the issue of Israel not allowing “foreigners” and foreigners in and out of the Occupied Territories..
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/1/18/entry_denied_palestinian_americans_among_thousands


Number of people denied entry into Israel up 61 percent since 2005
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/992670.html

Palestinian non-violent resistance

I posted these 2 questions on a forum- I think in response to hearing this week about the protests at Bil'in where Israel killed several people.

I can see why Israel wants to silence these people. They've got valid points that they're trying to get across peacefully and they are organized with their own conference and village website. Now that's more dangerous that suicide bombers! It should inspire fear in the hearts of those who thrive on oppression and hatred.

Bil’in’s conference on non-violent resistance
http://www.commongroundnews.org/article.php?id=25400&lan=en&sid=0&sp=0

The village's website:
http://www.bilin-village.org/english/

***
***


How much do you know about the history of Palestinian non-violent resistance?

Do you think there is only suicide bombing and rocket launching?

Were you aware of any non-violent protests currently or in the past?

Do you think these non-violent protests have made a difference?

Should they continue?

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/spip.php?article49

http://qumsiyeh.org/palestiniannonviolentresistance/
(scroll down on this one- it is very detailed when you get there)


***
***


Do you know as much about peaceful Palestinian protest as you do about suicide bombers?
My guess is more Palestinians have peacefully protested than suicide bombed, but that's not the impression you get from the media.

What do you think?

Which do you think are actually more prevalent?

If more people indeed have peacefully protested than suicide bombed, why the opposite impression? Maybe violence sells? What does that say about us? Does it put us on the opposite side of peace?

Non-violent protests against West Bank barrier turn increasingly dangerous
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/27/israel-security-barrier-protests

AIPAC- imminent implosion? Dare to dream.

Read a rather encouraging article recently on AIPAC. Surprising, I know.

I already firmly believe we should get AIPAC listed as an agent of a foreign government. There is no question that's what it is. It seems this organization's members are caught time after time passing classified info to Israel. I wonder how many times they've done it and not been caught? Probably far more than they've been caught. Just a guess.

Justice Department Aborts Attempt to Hold AIPAC to U.S. Law
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090422/pl_usnw/justice_department_aborts_attempt_to_hold_aipac_to_u_s__law


Hopefully, the organization will self destruct. That's really the best hope we have. Lawmakers are too concerned about being labeled anti-Semitic and not getting elected to go after these folks.

Why Steve Rosen is Suing AIPAC
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/04/why-steve-rosen-is-suing-aipac/

Undisputably stolen land in Palestine

The last post with the mention of Avigdor Lieberman and all his racist remarks, as well as Obama's seemingly tougher stance toward Israel made me think of something else that is a no-brainer:

Should Israel be allowed to annex Palestinian land, but not give the residents citizenship?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/29/AR2006052901018.html

"Nor is there mention of the neighboring village of Nuaman, whose lands were annexed to Jerusalem but whose residents hold Palestinian identity cards, and are therefore classified as illegal residents in their own homes."
*this quote from : http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1083089.html

This is unbelievable! People debate about whether refugees for 1948 and the various wars should be allowed back to their homes in Israel (even though this right is as valid as the creation of the state of Israel). You can debate whether the land is Palestine or Israel, which border from which war to recognize, but there can be no defense for this position in the case above. Annex their land, but don't accept them as citizens?? That's theft! No question. No way around it. But what are we going to do about that?? What do we do with governments that violate law like this? From the look of it, pay them, praise them, and continue calling the night day, of course!

Change is great, but not in this case, obviously.

Obama's tougher line on Israel? Are we kidding ourselves?

I will say that I'm glad Obama and Biden are paying lip service to the issue of illegal settlements, unlike some officials. It's a precursor to a good start. I doubt we'll make "aid" dependent on anything Israel must do. Obligations and prerequisites are for Palestinians. Everyone knows that.

Barack Obama hints at tougher line on Israel
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6229180.ece

Lieberman: U.S. will accept any Israeli policy decision
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1080097.html

This is a pretty bold statement by Lieberman, but it does ring true, unfortunately and embarassingly. It renders the leader of the free world rather impotent.
***
***
In other news, it seems the positions of the some parties have flip-flopped. I was going to say side, but Hamas doesn't represent all Palestinians, but it is interesting that they support and two-state solution and the "democratic" "Western" Israeli government doesn't. Interesting. So here we see that aid and support aren't based on support of the peace process after all! It should be crystal clear to all that our support of Israel has nothing to do with the fact that they are willing to sit down and talk peace and Palestinians aren't (as some will still tell you).

Meshal: Hamas seeks Palestinian state based on 1967 borders
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1083183.html
I heard this as a headline the other day, but found articles announcing this from 2006- at first glance. And there are still people who say Palestinians in general deserve the human rights abuses they get because Hamas wants to push Israel into the sea.


Netanyahu won’t back two state solution
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1067553.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3693269,00.html


And then there’s Avigdor Lieberman, the FM - doesn’t talk about two states, rejects all agreements but Roadmap* (?), loyalty oath, “transfer”, drowning prisoners, etc…
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=15055

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/04/avigdor-lieberman-refuses_n_195642.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/5090518/Avigdor-Lieberman-repudiates-key-Israel-Palestine-accord-on-first-day.html


I think I mentioned this before, but the (?) is explained here:
*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

Here are the 14 – totally guts the agreement; they should just say no, we won’t do it.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/road1.html

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

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...