Iranian Protest Parallels With 1979
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8109101.stm
There are a lot of folks comparing recent events in Iran with 1979 and many Americans are Tweeting and Facebooking their support for demonstrators and declared the election rigged as soon as Ahmadinejad's victory was announced. We may never know for sure if the election was indeed rigged, but there were a lot of suspicious events surrounding it. Too many for a coincidence.
I think we need to be careful who we throw our support behind, especially with us Westerners not being all that familiar with Middle Eastern history. With all the American support and media coverage for demonstrators and the reform candidate, before I did some homework I thought this guy must be a drastic change from the current leader. Maybe he is going to start a new revolution away from an Islamic Republic and toward a Western democracy. Wonderful.
Except that's not exactly the case. All candidates are vetted by the Ayotolla, so really, how revolutionary can these folks be anyway? They are people very much tied to this current government: a PM that led during the Iran-Iraq war, a revolutionary guard commander against Iraq, a speaker of Parliament.
A guest on The Diane Rehm Show summed it up quite well. The fight is not between the government and exiled or illegal opposition, it is a fight within the government. Even if Mousavi were to prevail in a recount or truly free and monitored election, Iran would not morph into a Western liberal democracy (complete with the AIPAC branch?), it would just be a slightly more moderate version of the current government. Our troubles and issues with Iran wouldn't disappear and Israel certainly wouldn't be anymore satisfied or less demanding (of it's demands on us to demand more of Iran), regardless of who wins, unless it changes to a Zionist Western democracy, of course.
I'm all for free and fair elections and I think rigging elections is frustrating and insulting (and shooting peaceful protesters is outrageous), but I also think perhaps the media has made so much of the demonstrations that people mistakenly think that Iran is on the verge of creating a liberal democracy (that will have zero nuclear ambition if the US wants it to).
Further, I am a little worried that all this worldwide attention on Iranian protests is maybe leading to a list of grievances for which a group of nations will want to confront Iran and give it an ultimatum that will result in another war (needlessly). Hopefully, Obama will be more cautious than Bush & Co, but it is unsettling. We in the West are all too eager to jump into war when it's not on our soil, regardless of whether or not we have all the facts. I mean, let's say we jump in and "liberate" Iran and install who we think should have won- Mousavi (or someone else who is actually pro-West and will implement liberal democratic changes). Will we make sure the election was rigged before bombing them to the stone age? The bigger question is- are we sure Mousavi would be that much better than Ahmadinejad and would it justify another war, massive casualties, and all the horrors that go with it??
Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but the media coverage and tone worries me a bit.
Monday, June 22, 2009
If Hilary were KKK, what would our reaction be?
If she got to be the Secretary of State, there would be outrage, and rightly so. She wouldn't make it that far, thankfully, in this country. But in Israel...
We, however, are much more forgiving when it comes to foreign terrorists. We apparently have lost our discretion. George W. Bush took it too far, but this same old pattern of marginalizing elected Palestinian leaders on the basis of terrorism while schmoozing with Israeli terrorists and racists is really sending the wrong message. Or perhaps we don't really want freedom and justice for Palestinians and Israelis. It is possible I have superimposed my own hope for the region on our government. Maybe peace isn't really the goal.
I have continued to see pictures of Clinton and Lieberman together this weekend and today and it makes me mad and at the same time hopeless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QzmC9-SLvs
This picture of the two of them together undermines our position on illegal (all) settlements. He's a settler and represents Netanyahu's government, who doesn't acknowledge the authority of any UN Resolution unless it is the part that created Israel or ones that condemn Arab states.
Having Clinton meet with Lieberman both personally as a settler and bigot and politically as a terrorist representative of his hard line government kind of makes our so-called strong language disappear in thin air. Does anyone know why we are recognizing the legitimacy of this guy, his agenda and beliefs? By talking and standing next to him, Clinton and Obama are essentially saying that we will talk the talk, but could care less if they walk the walk (as usual). Possibly most importantly, we are accepting his status and legitimacy of being able to represent Israel even though he doesn't live there (he is in violation of the very thing we are speaking against) and is illegally staking a claim to Palestinian land. We are talking to a terrorist, but won't include democratically elected Hamas. I guess it's ok to talk to Jewish or Western terrorists. Those Arab terrorists, or those Israel designates a terrorists, are the ones that are off limits. That picture of Lieberman and Clinton together says we are giving legitimacy to the horrible things Lieberman has said about Arabs. This is not the way toward peace. Justice is the only way, but this Netanyahu/Lieberman government only wants to secure Jewish majorities, hegemony, and superiority in every way possible. They can't be bothered with peace at a time when American constituencies are educating themselves on Israel's war crimes and are increasingly against settlements and occupation.
If we want peace, why are we talking to or standing anywhere near this guy? I mean, when we have found Palestinian leaders unacceptable, we have gone in search of ones we feel are more moderate, so why not do that with Israel?
We, however, are much more forgiving when it comes to foreign terrorists. We apparently have lost our discretion. George W. Bush took it too far, but this same old pattern of marginalizing elected Palestinian leaders on the basis of terrorism while schmoozing with Israeli terrorists and racists is really sending the wrong message. Or perhaps we don't really want freedom and justice for Palestinians and Israelis. It is possible I have superimposed my own hope for the region on our government. Maybe peace isn't really the goal.
I have continued to see pictures of Clinton and Lieberman together this weekend and today and it makes me mad and at the same time hopeless.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QzmC9-SLvs
This picture of the two of them together undermines our position on illegal (all) settlements. He's a settler and represents Netanyahu's government, who doesn't acknowledge the authority of any UN Resolution unless it is the part that created Israel or ones that condemn Arab states.
Having Clinton meet with Lieberman both personally as a settler and bigot and politically as a terrorist representative of his hard line government kind of makes our so-called strong language disappear in thin air. Does anyone know why we are recognizing the legitimacy of this guy, his agenda and beliefs? By talking and standing next to him, Clinton and Obama are essentially saying that we will talk the talk, but could care less if they walk the walk (as usual). Possibly most importantly, we are accepting his status and legitimacy of being able to represent Israel even though he doesn't live there (he is in violation of the very thing we are speaking against) and is illegally staking a claim to Palestinian land. We are talking to a terrorist, but won't include democratically elected Hamas. I guess it's ok to talk to Jewish or Western terrorists. Those Arab terrorists, or those Israel designates a terrorists, are the ones that are off limits. That picture of Lieberman and Clinton together says we are giving legitimacy to the horrible things Lieberman has said about Arabs. This is not the way toward peace. Justice is the only way, but this Netanyahu/Lieberman government only wants to secure Jewish majorities, hegemony, and superiority in every way possible. They can't be bothered with peace at a time when American constituencies are educating themselves on Israel's war crimes and are increasingly against settlements and occupation.
If we want peace, why are we talking to or standing anywhere near this guy? I mean, when we have found Palestinian leaders unacceptable, we have gone in search of ones we feel are more moderate, so why not do that with Israel?
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Pentagon report says terrorism is speaking out against Gitmo torture tactics
6/6/09 New York Times finally apologizes for false Guantánamo recidivism story
I think this is the story (with recent Editor's note) that is referred to in the above link- "1 in 7 freed detainees rejoins fight, reports says":
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/us/politics/21gitmo.html?_r=1
The first link describes the situation pretty well, though I don't know anything else about the blog.
I found out about this latest apology from NYT by listening to a podcast of Al Jazeera Listening Post 6/17/09 and they made some good points:
-Some detainees weren't picked up on the battlefield, so the "return" is in question.
-The so-called acts of terrorism they "returned to" included writing an op-ed for NYT against detainee treatment at the prison, talking about their abuse in Guantanamo to the media, appearing in film about Guantanamo, like the "Tipton 3." (I don't know if their names were included in the infamous list, it wasn't clear, but this is a film about Guantanamo)
-Also rather sketchy is that this Pentagon report was dated April 7, 2009, but no one knew about it until the NYT printed the May 21 story, which happened to be the same day Obama gave that major speech on closing Guantanamo, followed immediately by Cheney's speech blaming him for future terrorist attacks, essentially.
-This is not the first time. In 2002 the Bush Admin leaked false info about Iraq's nuclear program and Cheney quoted it the same morning in the circular validation of "facts" to gain public support for war in Iraq. Two years later, the NYT said their article on Iraq lacked rigor and should have been more aggressive. Hoyt issued another similar mea culpa for this debacle.
And here is a blog post from someone (again, I don't know anything about the author or blog other than this article) about a year ago noting problems with a similar claim as the April 7, 2009 Pentagon report:
http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001115.htm
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Clinton's meeting with the terrorist
So, Clinton met with the terrorist FM of Israel yesterday. We won’t meet with a Palestinian government that includes (democratically elected) Hamas, which we have labeled terrorists, but that is debatable, but a card carrying honest to goodness Israeli terrorist and bigot who is a living example of the policy we oppose (himself being an illegal settler of Nokdim) is perfectly welcome on official visits. Makes no sense. Guess it’s the unbreakable bond. But, when that bond is tied to a weight that is determined drown you, it’s time to break out the bolt cutters.
***
It’s always about demographics, Jewish majorities, politically correct ethnic cleansing (transfer, absorbed by another Arab country, etc). The UN and international law means nothing. Except the part that legitimizes Israel’s existence. That they want to uphold, but that stuff about equal rights, borders, etc for others? It’s all garbage. Or a mirage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8106580.stm
"We really don't have any intention to change the demographic balance in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank]," he said.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/06/2009617192532456427.html
"As President Obama, Senator Mitchell and I have said, we want to see a stop to the settlements," she said.
Stopping and freezing is nice, but dismantling, bulldozing, chasing settlers back to Israel or Europe or Russia or where ever they’re from is more like it. That would be justice. That would make a Palestinian state a reality rather than just talk and stall tactics.
***
I found this bit rather interesting. Israel doesn’t have to abide by international laws and agreements to which it is a signatory because why? I wonder how we are responding to this tidbit? Israel- a country of law. That’s becoming a bit of a joke. Who really believes that now?
From June 17, 2009 Democracy Now:
1979 State Dept Ruling: Israel Settlements "Inconsistent with International Law”
Meanwhile, new attention is being paid to a State Department opinion issued during Jimmy Carter’s administration regarding Israeli settlements. In 1979, a State Department legal adviser issued an opinion that stated the establishment of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories is “inconsistent with international law.” The opinion cited Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that an occupying power “shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The legal opinion has never been revoked or revised. On Tuesday, Israel’s newly appointed ambassador to Washington, Michael Oren, claimed that Israel does not have the ability to halt all settlement building.
Michael Oren: “This is a country of law, and citizens of the state of Israel have rights under that law. And if a person has purchased a house, if a person has taken out a contract for building a house, if a corporation is involved in a construction activity, the Israeli government does not have the right under Israeli law to stop them. And if it tries to, they will appeal to the (Israeli) supreme court, and my guess is, the supreme court will view in favor of those appellants.”
The future of the Israeli settlements is expected to be discussed at today’s meeting in Washington between Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman lives in the West Bank settlement of Nokdim.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/17/headlines#11
***
This article might shed some light on the "laws" Oren is talking about, but it is still clear that many more violate even Israel's laws than they will ever admit.
Lawsuit brings murky West Bank land deals to light
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_ISRAEL_DISPUTED_DEAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-06-20-11-09-52
***
Another blog
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2009/06/18/lieberman-meets-clinton/
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Israel's intentions... lets' stop lying to ourselves. Israeli leader's don't.
I heard this quote from Shamir today about Israel's real intent to stall with talks while they create facts on the ground with settlements that will make a Palestinian state impossible. We in the US often make it seem like Israel's trying their utmost and doing everything possible for peace that they can do; we are just waiting on Palestinians to fullfill their obligations. This is far from the truth if you listen to Israeli leaders themselves- Shamir, Sharon, etc.
Democracy Now Monday June 15, talking about Netanyahu's June 14 policy speech:
RABBI ARIK ASCHERMAN: Well, it’s, of course, significant that he even made a policy address. Israeli leaders don’t usually do that. That shows that he—that our prime minister felt a need to respond to President Obama in a very significant way.
I’m, unfortunately, always remembered of the words of our former prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, when he was voted out of office. He had been the prime minister during the beginning of the Madrid process. And he said, “You know, it’s too bad that I was voted out of office. My plan was to keep on talking and talking and talking, all the while creating facts on the ground, so that by the time we actually got anywhere, there would be—it would be moot. There would be nothing really to talk about.”
http://www.democracynow.org/
***
This is the actual quote I found after some digging:
Mission accomplished
Osamah Khalil, The Electronic Intifada, 29 November 2007
After leaving office, Shamir explained why he agreed to attend the 1991 Madrid Peace Conference, stating that although Israel participated in negotiations with the Palestinians, "I would have carried on autonomy talks for ten years and meanwhile we would have reached a half million people in Judea and Samaria." [7]
[7] Joseph Harif, "Interview with Yizakh Shamir," Ma'ariv, 26 June 1992; Avi Shlaim, "Prelude to the Accord: Likud, Labor, and the Palestinians," Journal of Palestine Studies, p 23 (1994).
http://electronicintifada.net/
***
And here is some backpedaling from those remarks at the time, after ruffling feathers of "friends". There are just too many statements by too many leaders to believe anything other than the original impression. Especially if you read some of the other stuff Shamir said (his talk of "Greater Israel", etc).
Shamir remarks on autonomy 'misinterpreted'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/shamir-remarks-on-autonomy-misinterpreted-1530468.html
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
History Lesson- Middle East
In thinking about the reaction to the "new" statements on settlements coming from Washington and American perceptions of the US-Israel relationship and knowledge of the Middle East in general, I am struck by the vast differences in perceptions.
One the one hand, there is a history of dispossession, lies, broken promises and others deciding your fate and on the other there is the account that Arabs were given generous offers many times, but chose violence instead each time due to their intense hatred for Jews, so Israel had to defend itself.
Which is right? I guess that's up to each reader to decide. Here is one version- not without my own commentary- that is likely different from the one Americans tend to want to believe :
Palestinians (and Arabs in general, at first) have really gotten the short end of the stick more often than not. Arabs (Hashimites) teamed up with the British in WWI after negotiating that they would be independent after they help remove the oppressive Turks from power. Sounds good. While they are doing this, Britain is promising France Lebanon and Syria and planning to keep the rest for themselves. Oops. After some shuffling of Arab rulers by France and Britain, Abdullah requested that Transjordan and Palestine be merged. Churchill said no go. Balfour had plans for a Jewish national home in Palestine, which was chosen over Uganda and Argentina due to the influence of the ultra religious Zionists in the bunch. In 1920, the League of Nations makes Britain's Mandate official. Jews begin arriving and the Jewish National Fund begins "buying" land from absentee landlords in Syria and Lebanon out from under Palestinian farmers. In the 30's, Jews come in droves with a goal of owning it all rather than sharing. An Arab revolt is suppressed by the British in 1934-36. Since conflict continued after WWII due to more illegal Jewish immigration, the British turned the area over tho the UN, whose members wanted to partition it into an Arab and Jewish state with an international Jerusalem. There was also a proposal to keep it whole, but this lost out by 2 votes. Arabs storm out at the ridiculous notion that one third of the (rather new and partly illegal) population who owns 6 percent of the land (all of which was originally promised to Arabs by Britain if they helped throw out the Turks) should now get 55% percent of the land because the West says so. What we might call the Israeli War for Independence (or al Nakba) starts at Deir Yassin. This village had a peace pact with it's Jewish neighbors, but the terrorist forces of Irgun and Stern Gang (some of Israel's most senior officials were members, along with our own Rahm Emanuel's infamous father) went house to house massacring families and blowing up houses. This started the Palestinians seeking temporary refuge elsewhere until it was safe, but they haven't been allowed back or compensated for lost land to this day despite UN Resolution 194). There was back and forth fighting, but these forces were not as organized or prepared as the group that took on the Ottoman Empire, so Israel ended up with 78% of the land- considerably more than they should have gotten or the UN gave them. A current Palestinian state will be small consolation and a tiny fraction of this remaining land, so these settlements become a no-brainer in this context. Israel needs to get rid of them, give Palestinians their independence and compensation, and stop the whining. They got more than they deserved from the beginning- be it land or support. Palestinians have been wronged and back-stabbed at every turn. Not just by Britain and the international community, but of course by Arab leaders and prominent figures (i.e. terrorists hijacking the plight for their own personal gain). Our support for Israel makes even less sense in context. The British should have stepped up long ago and fixed what they broke.
---
And since this month was an anniversary of this conflict, the 1967 war:
You can find the Israeli account everywhere in the US, online at Israeli and Jewish sites of the 6 Day War started when terrorists suddenly attacked us in 1965 and kept on until 1967 and Egypt for no reason closed the Strait of Tiran, etc, so Israel HAD to strike. If nothing else, the account below will fill in some very obvious blanks in the account that Americans generally swallow without objection- Arabs bad, Jews good; Arabs always attack, Jews seek peace always; Arabs reject generous agreements, etc. Possibly it is more factual than the account you usually hear. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. All but the 3 quotes in the middle is basically Queen Noor’s (Arab American Queen of Jordan at the time) impression of the situation (or my recollection of it). Her book is really interesting, BTW. It has the right mix of personal and political content to appeal to a variety of people.
Anyway, whether you take or leave the account, you should at least consider it:
In 1965, Israeli settlers plowed land between Israel and Syria to provoke an attack. This is not just Arab spin, as it might sound like. Moshe Dyan in the NYT : "If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. "And then we would use artillery and later the air force also." After one of Syria's predicted responses to Israeli provocation, Israel launched a planned offensive in April 1967. Hmmm. Their strategy hasn't changed much. They did this exact thing in Lebanon and Gaza recently.
IDF put forces on the Syrian border. Egypt prepared itself since it had a defense agreement with Syria. Israel promised Jordan that it wouldn't attack if they were neutral. Jordan didn't really believe it- probably since Israel had attacked a West Bank village not long before (Resolution 228 censured Israel). Hussein knew Arab forces couldn't compare, but didn't want to risk Jordan's security for not joining with Egypt and Syria.
June 5, 1967 Israel launched a surprise attack on Egypt's planes while they were still on the ground, then attacked the ground forces. It is said it was all over before it began.
Some interesting quotes about what Israel knew about Egypt:
***
"Nasser didn't want war. The two divisions he sent to Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war He knew it and we knew it." (Yitzhaq Rabin, Le Monde, February 28, 1968).
"The Egyptian layout in Sinai and the general build up there testified to a militarily defensive Egyptian set-up, south of Israel" (Levy Eshkol, Yediot Ahronot, October 16, 1967).
"In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (August 8, 1982, Prime Minister Menachem Begin, New York Times, August 21, 1982)."
***
There was then a (now puzzling- was it propaganda, pride, was Israel involved) radio announcement of an overwhelming Egyptian victory from the Commander in Chief- details of wiping out 75% of air force and ground troops and even that they had moved into Israel. Egypt ordered the scant Jordanian forces to the already lost war. They made one run and had to refuel; Israel wiped them out while on the ground. Israel was then able to fire on Amman because the Egyptian and Jordanian air forces were gone.
King Hussein went to the UN for a cease-fire 24 hours into the war on June 6. Wording the resolution delayed it another 24 hours. During that time, Israel grabbed land like in 1948. On June 7, the cease-fire finally was announced via radio all over Jordan and the territories, though Israel still fought Jordan for control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank after that point. Israel also ignored the Syrian ceasefire on June 9, grabbing the Golan Heights hours after it was announced.
Israel bombed our USS Liberty in Gaza June 8. It was a communications ship that was listening to Israeli preparation to invade Syria despite the ceasefire, leading many involved to conclude that this was no accident- as Israel would claim (and the US would officially accept).
On November 22, the famous and oft (partially) ignored Resolution 242 was passed- "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" (also in UN charter). Also in there is the stipulation of the withdrawal of Israel to pre-1967 borders for acknowledgement of territorial integrity and political independence of all states, right to live in secure boundaries. Jordan agreed to this "land for peace" deal on the assurance of the US Secretary of State who said Israel would certainly return most of the land in 6 months, max.
---
Also in Queen Noor's book is the Jordanian reaction to Camp David. Coincidentally, I read Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid the week before. Of course, Carter put forth Camp David as the foundation of all peace agreements, a major breakthrough, etc. He does mention the Geneva Initiative, but doesn't mention, as Queen Noor does, that the Geneva Initiative involved more parties than just Egypt, Israel, and Arafat or that Camp David kind of interrupted and sabotaged the Geneva effort. Camp David didn't make solid provisions for a Palestinian state, but rather focused on peace between Egypt and Israel. In taking the Egyptian military might out of the picture, Arabs were left without deterrence for Israel's advances and enforcement for continued violation of international law. That was an interesting perspective and one I hadn't thought about before, really.
One the one hand, there is a history of dispossession, lies, broken promises and others deciding your fate and on the other there is the account that Arabs were given generous offers many times, but chose violence instead each time due to their intense hatred for Jews, so Israel had to defend itself.
Which is right? I guess that's up to each reader to decide. Here is one version- not without my own commentary- that is likely different from the one Americans tend to want to believe :
Palestinians (and Arabs in general, at first) have really gotten the short end of the stick more often than not. Arabs (Hashimites) teamed up with the British in WWI after negotiating that they would be independent after they help remove the oppressive Turks from power. Sounds good. While they are doing this, Britain is promising France Lebanon and Syria and planning to keep the rest for themselves. Oops. After some shuffling of Arab rulers by France and Britain, Abdullah requested that Transjordan and Palestine be merged. Churchill said no go. Balfour had plans for a Jewish national home in Palestine, which was chosen over Uganda and Argentina due to the influence of the ultra religious Zionists in the bunch. In 1920, the League of Nations makes Britain's Mandate official. Jews begin arriving and the Jewish National Fund begins "buying" land from absentee landlords in Syria and Lebanon out from under Palestinian farmers. In the 30's, Jews come in droves with a goal of owning it all rather than sharing. An Arab revolt is suppressed by the British in 1934-36. Since conflict continued after WWII due to more illegal Jewish immigration, the British turned the area over tho the UN, whose members wanted to partition it into an Arab and Jewish state with an international Jerusalem. There was also a proposal to keep it whole, but this lost out by 2 votes. Arabs storm out at the ridiculous notion that one third of the (rather new and partly illegal) population who owns 6 percent of the land (all of which was originally promised to Arabs by Britain if they helped throw out the Turks) should now get 55% percent of the land because the West says so. What we might call the Israeli War for Independence (or al Nakba) starts at Deir Yassin. This village had a peace pact with it's Jewish neighbors, but the terrorist forces of Irgun and Stern Gang (some of Israel's most senior officials were members, along with our own Rahm Emanuel's infamous father) went house to house massacring families and blowing up houses. This started the Palestinians seeking temporary refuge elsewhere until it was safe, but they haven't been allowed back or compensated for lost land to this day despite UN Resolution 194). There was back and forth fighting, but these forces were not as organized or prepared as the group that took on the Ottoman Empire, so Israel ended up with 78% of the land- considerably more than they should have gotten or the UN gave them. A current Palestinian state will be small consolation and a tiny fraction of this remaining land, so these settlements become a no-brainer in this context. Israel needs to get rid of them, give Palestinians their independence and compensation, and stop the whining. They got more than they deserved from the beginning- be it land or support. Palestinians have been wronged and back-stabbed at every turn. Not just by Britain and the international community, but of course by Arab leaders and prominent figures (i.e. terrorists hijacking the plight for their own personal gain). Our support for Israel makes even less sense in context. The British should have stepped up long ago and fixed what they broke.
---
And since this month was an anniversary of this conflict, the 1967 war:
You can find the Israeli account everywhere in the US, online at Israeli and Jewish sites of the 6 Day War started when terrorists suddenly attacked us in 1965 and kept on until 1967 and Egypt for no reason closed the Strait of Tiran, etc, so Israel HAD to strike. If nothing else, the account below will fill in some very obvious blanks in the account that Americans generally swallow without objection- Arabs bad, Jews good; Arabs always attack, Jews seek peace always; Arabs reject generous agreements, etc. Possibly it is more factual than the account you usually hear. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. All but the 3 quotes in the middle is basically Queen Noor’s (Arab American Queen of Jordan at the time) impression of the situation (or my recollection of it). Her book is really interesting, BTW. It has the right mix of personal and political content to appeal to a variety of people.
Anyway, whether you take or leave the account, you should at least consider it:
In 1965, Israeli settlers plowed land between Israel and Syria to provoke an attack. This is not just Arab spin, as it might sound like. Moshe Dyan in the NYT : "If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. "And then we would use artillery and later the air force also." After one of Syria's predicted responses to Israeli provocation, Israel launched a planned offensive in April 1967. Hmmm. Their strategy hasn't changed much. They did this exact thing in Lebanon and Gaza recently.
IDF put forces on the Syrian border. Egypt prepared itself since it had a defense agreement with Syria. Israel promised Jordan that it wouldn't attack if they were neutral. Jordan didn't really believe it- probably since Israel had attacked a West Bank village not long before (Resolution 228 censured Israel). Hussein knew Arab forces couldn't compare, but didn't want to risk Jordan's security for not joining with Egypt and Syria.
June 5, 1967 Israel launched a surprise attack on Egypt's planes while they were still on the ground, then attacked the ground forces. It is said it was all over before it began.
Some interesting quotes about what Israel knew about Egypt:
***
"Nasser didn't want war. The two divisions he sent to Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war He knew it and we knew it." (Yitzhaq Rabin, Le Monde, February 28, 1968).
"The Egyptian layout in Sinai and the general build up there testified to a militarily defensive Egyptian set-up, south of Israel" (Levy Eshkol, Yediot Ahronot, October 16, 1967).
"In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him." (August 8, 1982, Prime Minister Menachem Begin, New York Times, August 21, 1982)."
***
There was then a (now puzzling- was it propaganda, pride, was Israel involved) radio announcement of an overwhelming Egyptian victory from the Commander in Chief- details of wiping out 75% of air force and ground troops and even that they had moved into Israel. Egypt ordered the scant Jordanian forces to the already lost war. They made one run and had to refuel; Israel wiped them out while on the ground. Israel was then able to fire on Amman because the Egyptian and Jordanian air forces were gone.
King Hussein went to the UN for a cease-fire 24 hours into the war on June 6. Wording the resolution delayed it another 24 hours. During that time, Israel grabbed land like in 1948. On June 7, the cease-fire finally was announced via radio all over Jordan and the territories, though Israel still fought Jordan for control of East Jerusalem and the West Bank after that point. Israel also ignored the Syrian ceasefire on June 9, grabbing the Golan Heights hours after it was announced.
Israel bombed our USS Liberty in Gaza June 8. It was a communications ship that was listening to Israeli preparation to invade Syria despite the ceasefire, leading many involved to conclude that this was no accident- as Israel would claim (and the US would officially accept).
On November 22, the famous and oft (partially) ignored Resolution 242 was passed- "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" (also in UN charter). Also in there is the stipulation of the withdrawal of Israel to pre-1967 borders for acknowledgement of territorial integrity and political independence of all states, right to live in secure boundaries. Jordan agreed to this "land for peace" deal on the assurance of the US Secretary of State who said Israel would certainly return most of the land in 6 months, max.
---
Also in Queen Noor's book is the Jordanian reaction to Camp David. Coincidentally, I read Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid the week before. Of course, Carter put forth Camp David as the foundation of all peace agreements, a major breakthrough, etc. He does mention the Geneva Initiative, but doesn't mention, as Queen Noor does, that the Geneva Initiative involved more parties than just Egypt, Israel, and Arafat or that Camp David kind of interrupted and sabotaged the Geneva effort. Camp David didn't make solid provisions for a Palestinian state, but rather focused on peace between Egypt and Israel. In taking the Egyptian military might out of the picture, Arabs were left without deterrence for Israel's advances and enforcement for continued violation of international law. That was an interesting perspective and one I hadn't thought about before, really.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Read the fine print: Netanyahu agrees to two states... or does he?
He didn't agree to two states so much as one apartheid state and one amorphous ( and constantly shrinking) pseudostate with no military (?!?!) with several other provisions that flout international law and past agreements. Like their "recognition" of the Roadmap peace plan, the so-called reservations (check out the Roadmap's 14) for this momentous announcement negate it completely. If you're not going to remove ALL settlements and withdraw completely to pre-1967 borders, as Resolution 242 requires, then you are lying; you are not serious about peace.
Israel has made it clear that Iran is the only item on their agenda and that they think (absurdly) that Iran, not peace with Palestinians, is central to their and the region's peace and stability. This little publicity stunt is probably meant to shift the conversation away from settlements, which most Americans are coming to their senses about. And to warm up the White House for Lieberman's visit. We are a glutton for punishment. First Netanyahu, then Lieberman? What's next? Are we going to host a reunion of all the 1948 terrorists who are still alive? We could invite Rahm Emanuel's dad- we know he's good for some hateful slurs.
Avigdor Lieberman, the terrorist FM and top "diplomat", is coming to Washington this week. We should be banning this guy, not treating him with any sort of respect or credibility! As I have said before- because of this guy, we should be boycotting the entire state of Israel. If we let this terrorist in our country, then we should have NO problem honoring Hamas (the military wing, not the other) in the same way. Break out the red carpet for them and call them men of peace.
Netanyahu sets conditions for new peace talks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090614/wl_mcclatchy/3252418_1
This guy is a fountain spewing doublespeak! He is full of it! Unbelievable. Yet Obama is probably taking this as a sign of his influence. Too bad, Israel is in reality making a fool out of us. That's par for the course, though.
This is clearly a dead end. Who would accept those terms?? But in case you had any doubt, Netanyahu puts the nail in the coffin for peace with his remarks on settlements, all of which are illegal and would need to be removed for a viable Palestinian state.
Principled people do not settle on land stolen by their country. Principled people don't make us believe the lie that Israel wants peace and two states, all the while grabbing land illegally with a goal and belief of a Greater Israel (the equal and opposite of "pushing Israel into the sea").
If settlers are brothers, not enemies, pioneers, and princlipled people, then so are Palestinian suicide bombers and rocket launchers.
But that's not how it is. The double standard says that it is ok for us to talk to terrorist and extremist Jews, but not Palestinians. It's ok to let Israel pick off the (scantily armed) security forces and imprison Parliament members, but fine to condemn Palestinians for lack of control over the area. It's every Jew's natural right to live in Israel (and apparently settlements on Palestinian land), but Palestinians aren't even afforded the right of return guaranteed them by the same UN Resolution Israel uses to justify it's very existance. It's ok for Israel to brutally oppress, imprison and punish the entire Palestinian population for the crimes of a few, but fine for us to ignore atrocities and violations of law ordered by Israel's top officials. In fact, we let terrorist Zionist Jews have state visits, but won't even talk to extremists on the other side. First, the British promise the land to Arabs, France, Zionists (and of course themselves) in an overlaping and deceitful fashion and make a huge mess of things, then we get involved and continue to stir the pot and side with the transplanted Europeans, rather than follow and enforce international law.
Israel has made it clear that Iran is the only item on their agenda and that they think (absurdly) that Iran, not peace with Palestinians, is central to their and the region's peace and stability. This little publicity stunt is probably meant to shift the conversation away from settlements, which most Americans are coming to their senses about. And to warm up the White House for Lieberman's visit. We are a glutton for punishment. First Netanyahu, then Lieberman? What's next? Are we going to host a reunion of all the 1948 terrorists who are still alive? We could invite Rahm Emanuel's dad- we know he's good for some hateful slurs.
Avigdor Lieberman, the terrorist FM and top "diplomat", is coming to Washington this week. We should be banning this guy, not treating him with any sort of respect or credibility! As I have said before- because of this guy, we should be boycotting the entire state of Israel. If we let this terrorist in our country, then we should have NO problem honoring Hamas (the military wing, not the other) in the same way. Break out the red carpet for them and call them men of peace.
Netanyahu sets conditions for new peace talks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090614/wl_mcclatchy/3252418_1
While Netanyahu called for renewed peace talks without preconditions, he outlined a series of demands for the talks.
This guy is a fountain spewing doublespeak! He is full of it! Unbelievable. Yet Obama is probably taking this as a sign of his influence. Too bad, Israel is in reality making a fool out of us. That's par for the course, though.
Along with his call for Palestinians to accept a demilitarized state and explicitly recognize Israel as a Jewish nation, Netanyahu said there would be no discussion of ceding control of any parts of Jerusalem to establish a capital of a future Palestinian state or of allowing Palestinian refugees to return to ancestral homes they fled in 1948 when Israel was established in British-mandate
Palestine.
This is clearly a dead end. Who would accept those terms?? But in case you had any doubt, Netanyahu puts the nail in the coffin for peace with his remarks on settlements, all of which are illegal and would need to be removed for a viable Palestinian state.
But Netanyahu defended the settlers as Jewish pioneers and indicated that he would continue to support settlement construction in the West Bank .
"The settlers are neither the enemies of the people, nor are they the enemies of peace," Netanyahu said. "They are our brothers and sisters. Pioneers. Zionists. Principled people."
Principled people do not settle on land stolen by their country. Principled people don't make us believe the lie that Israel wants peace and two states, all the while grabbing land illegally with a goal and belief of a Greater Israel (the equal and opposite of "pushing Israel into the sea").
If settlers are brothers, not enemies, pioneers, and princlipled people, then so are Palestinian suicide bombers and rocket launchers.
But that's not how it is. The double standard says that it is ok for us to talk to terrorist and extremist Jews, but not Palestinians. It's ok to let Israel pick off the (scantily armed) security forces and imprison Parliament members, but fine to condemn Palestinians for lack of control over the area. It's every Jew's natural right to live in Israel (and apparently settlements on Palestinian land), but Palestinians aren't even afforded the right of return guaranteed them by the same UN Resolution Israel uses to justify it's very existance. It's ok for Israel to brutally oppress, imprison and punish the entire Palestinian population for the crimes of a few, but fine for us to ignore atrocities and violations of law ordered by Israel's top officials. In fact, we let terrorist Zionist Jews have state visits, but won't even talk to extremists on the other side. First, the British promise the land to Arabs, France, Zionists (and of course themselves) in an overlaping and deceitful fashion and make a huge mess of things, then we get involved and continue to stir the pot and side with the transplanted Europeans, rather than follow and enforce international law.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
President Obama's Cairo speech
Here's the link to Obama's Cairo speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09/I thought he did a great job in trying to mend fences that have been left neglected and rotting for 8 years. He clarified a lot of common sense things that Bush obfuscated. I know this wasn't the place to make major policy announcements, but I think that's what I wanted to hear, so I was a bit disappointed. I think the folks are right who say that if he doesn't actually do something soon, the words will be just meaningless words. Overall, the speech was going in the right direction.
I did appreciate how he said that just as Israel has a right to exist, so does Palestine. Settlements were again spoken about, which is important, but Israel will continue to ignore it if we don't do something- like threaten to cut "aid" to them, for instance.
Another biggie was that he kept speaking of Palestinian displacement vs. Israel's having to endure hostility, attacks, old women on buses being blown up, sleeping children being fired on by rockets. "Displacement" is probably the most polite way I have heard it described (esp. if you consider all it encompasses-occupation, crimes, bloodshed- which most won't). On top of this, to contrast it with Palestinians blowing up old women and children is to say that Israel doesn't shoot children on the way to school, blow up families on the beach or in cars, demolish homes, take prisoners for political reasons, the list goes on... It is simply unfair and untrue to imply that Palestinians do this, but Israel does not have as much, if not more, innocent blood on its hands.
To be fair, he did touch on the Palestinian humanitarian situation and called it intolerable. But he fell into the same old American refrain of telling Palestinians they must renounce violence, recognize Israel (As a Jewish state? He didn't say. And didn't Hamas already do this in 2006?), recognize past agreements, without being as straightforward with Israel. This stipulation that Palestinians must renounce violence and disarm, but Israel doesn't, makes no sense. Even if both sides disarmed, where would we be? Palestinian land would still be occupied, they would still be imprisoned without food and water or travel or rights, but Israel would be peachy, so I guess that's all that matters?? Who would accept such conditions as we are expecting Palestinians to accept? The absurdity and inequality goes back to when the Mandate Palestine was formed (and before). Jews owned 6% of the land, but were given 55% under the British Mandate. Everyone always says it's the Arabs' fault for not accepting agreements. Who would? Who in their right mind would not be enraged by a bunch of Westerners suddenly giving away half the land (to new immigrants mostly) already won and promised to them (for helping remove the Ottoman Empire) to finally exercise their independence?
He did call on Israel to "live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society," which is an improvement, I'll give him that, but it is still without the specifics the Palestinians routinely get. This description, along with "dislocation" is rather the whitewashed, cleaner version of actual events. It still gets under my skin that Palestinians are described as "dislocated" (it isn't even said Israel is to blame, but rather something Palestinians suffer without rhyme or reason, like an earthquake), which is rather benign compared to the imagery of Palestinians blowing up old women and sleeping children.
If he'd have stated the specifics of the UN resolutions Israel is ignoring, such as withdraw from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem to pre-1967 borders, tear down the Wall, recognize and allow the Palestinian right of return, evacuate ALL settlements, recognize Jerusalem as an international city, release political prisoners and children, recognize a Palestinian state with control over it's own borders, airspace, and water, THEN I would have called the speech a real turning point.
Here are a few other reactions. The first, I agree with, the other two I think are rather funny given that they focus on one word or sentence, rather than the whole or even a few paragraphs.
*** *** ***
US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation had this, among other things to say about the speech. I thought this point was particularly insightful:
*** *** ***
Fox news focused on the mention of Hamas. Obama was more chastising them rather than promising to treat them as a negotiating partner. As usual, Fox missed the point.
*** *** ***
MSNBC noted the "silence" in response to the one sentence mention of closing the Sunni-Shia divide. IMO, clapping would be inappropriate, as it was talking about the violence as well, so I’d say that the “silence” was more out of respect for the situation rather than a rejection of Obama’s call for unity. And sometimes you need to pause to see where he's going and what he has to say. Clapping after every sentence they agreed with would get tiresome and annoying (for all, I'm sure).
Here's the sentence:
“And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.”
*** *** ***
US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation had this, among other things to say about the speech. I thought this point was particularly insightful:
On the one hand, on the other. President Obama's empathy with the Palestinian narrative and acknowledgment that both Israelis and Palestinians are "two peoples with legitimate aspirations" is certainly an advance over traditional U.S. discourse which over the decades has primarily portrayed Israel as an innocent victim and either downplayed or ignored Palestinian human and national rights. However, there is a danger that the "both sides" rhetoric-"It's easy to point fingers," and "if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth," for example-President Obama employed obscures the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has never been one of equals.
It has been and continues to be today a conflict of Israel, an apartheid state that institutionalizes discrimination against non-Jews, versus Palestinians, a people dispossessed of their homeland through ethnic cleansing. In the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, for the last 42 years it has been and continues to be a conflict of Israel, an Occupying Power defying international law and the Geneva Conventions, versus an Occupied People, the Palestinians who struggle daily to maintain their existence in the face of widespread and systematic human rights abuses by Israel.
Within this framework, it is intellectually dishonest for President Obama to ask Palestinians to give up violence without asking the same of Israel. (In fact, Palestinian civil society is engaging in nonviolent campaigns of boycott, divestment, and sanctions to advocate for their rights, a call which we support.)
It is unrealistic and even cruel to ask Palestinians "to focus on what they can build" when Israel systematically destroys Palestinian civilian infrastructure and maintains a siege of the Gaza Strip under which Palestinians have difficulty importing pasta, much less necessary things like concrete to rebuild after Israel's devastating attacks that left more than 1,400 Palestinians dead and thousands of buildings destroyed. President Obama must do more than just ask Israel "to take concrete steps to enable such progress" toward Palestinian economic opportunity; he must recognize instead that as long as Israel maintains its brutal occupation and siege of Palestinian territories, then Palestinian institution-building and economic development are impossible.
*** *** ***
Fox news focused on the mention of Hamas. Obama was more chastising them rather than promising to treat them as a negotiating partner. As usual, Fox missed the point.
*** *** ***
MSNBC noted the "silence" in response to the one sentence mention of closing the Sunni-Shia divide. IMO, clapping would be inappropriate, as it was talking about the violence as well, so I’d say that the “silence” was more out of respect for the situation rather than a rejection of Obama’s call for unity. And sometimes you need to pause to see where he's going and what he has to say. Clapping after every sentence they agreed with would get tiresome and annoying (for all, I'm sure).
Here's the sentence:
“And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.”
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
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
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
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.
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'.
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.
******
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
******
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.
*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
*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
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".*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)!!'
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.
******
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
Monday, May 18, 2009
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:
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?
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
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/
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/
Thursday, May 7, 2009
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
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
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/
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.
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
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.
Several of these are their obligations under international law and should occur independently and not be conditional upon any Palestinian actions.
Friday, April 17, 2009
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)