Seapration/Farewell: The Turkish TV Drama Drama

Or 'The Drama over the Turkish TV Drama'


I guess this is the latest in the Turkey/Israel tensions.

So this is a Turkish TV show that apparently is set in Gaza and shows soldiers killing innocent Palestinians, which is the experience of many, but Israel denies this occurs. Israel and Turkey have a diplomatic relationship. Israel appears to be suggesting Turkey do something about this show that offends them.

There are several caveats and angles, here.

*I'll start with the ironic. One of these broadcasts said the reason we even know anything about this is largely due to the Israeli government's protests about the show... I think we can all agree on that.

*Are Israeli soldiers falling victim to the stereotyping that Muslims face in American movies and TV shows (i.e. always portrayed as a terrorist like in the show 24)? Or is this in the more generally permissible range of us Americans telling our story or side of the events (Vietnam, WW, etc) with poetic license (and our slant) that lets us base movies and books on real events, but make up minor things, fill in conversations, etc?

*This quote contains two big things to think about:

Lieberman added: "Such a drama series, which doesn't even have the slightest link to reality and which presents Israeli soldiers as murderers of innocent children, isn't worthy of being broadcast even by enemy states and certainly not in a state which has full diplomatic relations with Israel."

A. If it has no like to reality and no one's claiming it's a documentary, what's the big deal? I guess it portrays Israel in a negative light, Israel believes, falsely. Israel might have a point, except many an eyewitness and human rights report, including a recent UN (Goldstone) one, address similar concerns. Whether Israel is actually objecting to the perceived lack of basis in reality or extreme similarity to IDF behavior is not necessarily apparent...

B. They seem to be hinting that Turkey should do something about the TV show, but haven't really gone as far as in other spats, like Sweden, for example, where they demanded action. It seems to me that Turkey doing something about the show might repair relations with Israel somewhat, but at the expense of an important aspect of democracy...


Read for yourself:

http://www.linktv.org/video/4482/israel-turkey-no-tv-drama

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLF714261

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121602.html#at

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6876969.ece#at

Settlements- not just talk

While Obama and Netanyahu talk (and talk and talk), some people are actually doing:

ADC Releases Information Detailing Campaign Against Illegal Settlements

“ADC has filed multiple administrative complaints with the with the US
Department of the Treasury, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
requesting investigations into the activities of organizations claiming
tax-exempt status under section 501(c)3 of the US Tax Code yet allegedly raising
funds for the development of illegal settlements in the occupied West
Bank.
Among other allegations, the ADC complaints allege that these
organizations are using assets and income in direct violation of their addressed
purpose, and to support illegal and terrorist activities abroad.”

http://www.adc.org/index.php?id=3437

http://www.imemc.org/index.php?obj_id=53&story_id=56866

A Timeless Theme: Whatever Bibi Wants, Bibi Gets

Someone has summed up my posts on Netanyahu- look for the tag on the right hand side of the blog to list them.

Whatever Bibi Wants, Bibi Gets
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/21/he_got_playedhttp://www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/7399/pid/2254


***

Variation on a theme; same idea, different official:
Olmert’s arrogance-
http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/search/label/Olmert

Admin Won’t Contradict Olmert Claim on Ceasefire
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/14/headlines#8

"In the night between Thursday and Friday, when the secretary of state wanted to
lead the vote on a ceasefire at the Security Council, we did not want her to
vote in favour," Olmert said.
"I said 'get me President
Bush on the phone'. They said he was in the middle of giving a speech in
Philadelphia. I said I didn't care. 'I need to talk to him now'. He got off the
podium and spoke to me.
"I told him the United States
could not vote in favour. It cannot vote in favour of such a resolution. He
immediately called the secretary of state and told her not to vote in favour."

***

And Sharon’s infamous arrogance-
http://www.wrmea.com/html/newsitem_s.htm

Sharon to Peres:

"every time we do something you tell me Americans will do this and will do that.
I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on
Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."

--Occupied Jerusalem: 3 October, 2001 (IAP News, Kol Yisrael Radio)
http://www.rense.com/general45/sharonsinfamouscomment.htm

Israel doesn't spy on us

Israel's espionage history
http://www.al-awda.org/israelsespionagehistory/

This appears to be a bad link, so here's something that may be similar.

A Long History: Israeli Espionage Against the US
http://www.counterpunch.org/husseini08302004.html

The author of this one also wrote a book that might be interesting:
Breaking the "Unwritten Rule" in Israeli Espionage
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/22/couricandco/entry4035870.shtml



These are some older links below. You may remember the Israeli art student debacle where they got caught snoping in classified material and the New Zealand situation, among others.


From an old post on an old blog (of mine):

In this link from 2004, it says Lebanon busted an Israeli spy ring.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3726307.stm

AIPAC Espionage Case Dismissal Gambit Fails
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/gsmith.php?articleid=9517

FBI looks at Pentagon worker in Israel spy probe
http://cnn.org/2004/US/08/28/fbi.spy/index.html

Iran arrests 'spy' faking nuclear company
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1256868.htm

Israeli Art Student Mystery
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html

Israeli Diplomat, Spy Suspect Met
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/national/main639143.shtml

'Mossad spies' jailed over New Zealand passport fraud
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1262362,00.html



Breaking the Taboo on Israel's Spying Efforts on the United States
http://www.alternet.org/story/130891

The Spy Who Loves Us
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20065.htm



More links- mostly with the Franklin/Jane Harmon/ Rosen/ AIPAC stuff:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/themorus.php?q=themorus.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Franklin_espionage_scandal


Justice Department Aborts Attempt to Hold AIPAC to U.S. Law
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS147728+22-Apr-2009+PRN20090422

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



And a post already on this blog:
My post on last year’s Kadish arrest--
http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2008/04/american-accused-of-giving-nuclear.html

Another Israeli spy...

I’ll start with a book suggestion for more info on Israel and their nuclear history (and our reaction of lack thereof) and to some extent spying - The Samson Option by Seymour Hersh.

For spying, I’d suggest By Way of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky. Critics of critics of Israel have numerous criticisms and reasons why this is bogus, but if you read (or search for yourself) the part where Israel tries to prevent the publishing by legal and other channels, you begin not to know whom to believe. And that may well have been Plan B- discrediting it if it does get published. Kind of like when former government officials resign and say a few things the administration wanted to keep a lid on, they find some dirt or other way to discredit him so we’ll forget about what was revealed due to our (intentionally planted) doubts about veracity.



Back to the spy headline of the week, Stewart Nozette…

My question upon hearing this was why the investigation if Israel’s not implicated? They had to know or suspect something in order to decide to pose as Mossad and recruit him. I guess they couldn't go after Israel with the info from the sting, but to draw from that that Israel doesn't spy on us or wasn't involved is rather ridiculous. I find it hard to believe (well, maybe not so much…) that he and others that have top secret info that get tangled up in situations like this go waving it around and soliciting Israelis to give it to. I am quite sure (or hope) that these people intend to honor their agreement and terms of security clearance with our government, but are lured by the various persuasive ( and coercive?) tactics of the Mossad.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/stewart-nozette-picture-s_n_326447.html

This article did detail why the FBI decided to pose as Mossad and why Nozette.

“The complaint does not allege that the government of Israel or anyone acting on
its behalf violated U.S. law. In Jerusalem, Israeli government officials had no
immediate comment.”

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1931321,00.html

The Time article had the concise explanation on why the FBI posed as Mossad:

“But around 2006 or so, investigators became suspicious that Nozette was
secretly working for a foreign government…”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6883118.ece

“A complaint filed at the US District Court in Washington does not accuse Israel
of spying, and senior Israeli government officials insisted yesterday that their
country did not conduct espionage activities in friendly states.”

Yeah, Israel doesn’t conduct espionage activities in friendly states and Dimona is a textile factory!

For those of you who may not know, Dimona is the (or a major?) site of Israel’s nuclear weapons research and or manufacture, which they insisted for decades was a textile factory; they didn’t have any nukes. Their denial of the nukes is much like their insistence today that they do everything possible to minimize casualties in the Occupied Territories.

This article lists Pollard and Kadish at the end- they were convicted. I can think of numerous other situations in this country and other “friendly states” where Israel was implicated, suspected, etc. I expect most of those get thrown out. We wouldn’t want to prove Israel wrong on the no spying on friendly states assertion, would we? That wouldn’t be friendly.

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

"Alan (an Israeli Mossad agent) told us that he had many friends in the U. S. intelligence, 'But I always remember the most important thing. When I am sitting with my friend...he's not sitting with his friend.'"

"They (people) don't understand that the Mossad regards the whole world outside Israel as a target, including Europe and the United States."

- "By Way of Deception" by Victor Ostrovsky, ex-Mossad agent.

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

Our anti-Israel biased media? Yeah. Right.

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


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

I found this while looking for something else---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on settlements...and terror...

An infrastructure of Jewish terror
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1113843.html


The law abiding state, country of laws thing has been repeated many times- seemingly in order to convince and not necessarily as a statement of fact. This article is one of many things that makes that clear.

The Haaretz link discusses how settlements are illegal at a minimum and could be associated with terrorism. We think of settlements as an issue of legality or illegality, but residents on the ground have much greater day to day concerns- their land, livelihoods, etc are disappearing. These concerns are the other side of the coin of a settler's "natural growth" or "normal life". It is the status quo while these never ending and often interrupted negotiations are taking place in Washington and New York.

Another point the article makes clear is how Israel doesn't intend to get rid of settlements or comply with law. Once you get that, you see the only option is the ICC, for which the opportunity may be passing quickly...

PA impedes action on Goldstone report?!

The puppetmaster is hard at work.

The PA is the reason the Goldstone report is not going to the Security Council and will be postponed until March?? At first glance, perhaps you'd call it treason or shooting yourself in the foot or whatever, but when you think who is sitting on the Security Council, maybe it's just admitting the inevitable defeat early on.



In this account I found it odd that the decision to delay was attributed to Abbas and Abbas was launching an internal investigation to see why his government ruled to delay the vote. ??? Was he not there? Is he not a part of this government? Someone made the decision without consulting Fayyad or PLO leadership and Abbas apparently doesn't know who made this decision or why? An investigation of this sort seems rather silly when you are in the situation of those in Occupied Palestine. American pressure was mentioned, and I'll buy it, but this is nuts.

Needless to say, I have to find another source.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1118691.html

***

This one quotes Arab leaders saying this is a missed opportunity and Abbas should step down. I agree that it was a bit of a missed opportunity, but given the US veto, which is a given, maybe I can see why he gave in. I guess when the choices are- stick to you guns and stand up for your rights even though you are sure to be shot down and called uncooperative and shunned --or-- concede and delay the vote and be called slightly less uncooperative and re-enter unending "peace talks" sponsored by the best friend of your Occupier- it would be hard to choose. Maybe it wouldn't matter.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/10/200910694937206242.html

***

The Guardian makes it a bit clearer:

The Palestinian reversal came after "intense diplomacy" by Washington, which told the Palestinians that going ahead with the vote would harm efforts to restart peace talks with the Israelis, according to diplomats quoted by news agencies.

They did help draft a motion in support of the report, but didn't go forward with it due to this threat and the fact that if it were voted down, it would just go away.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/02/united-nations-israel-gaza-war




I still can't help thinking this was a missed opportunity, though...

I'd like to see the leadership stand up for the people now and then. But where would that get them? They'd be accused by the US and Israel of doing a disservice to their people. Being uncompromising on the right of return, the small amount of land left by the 67 borders, Jerusalem, holy sites, and the dismantling of settlements- all of the things supposedly guaranteed them under international law- would get them called Arafat and accused of missing an opportunity for peace. Yet, if they compromise on any of these things, the people suffer and rights are forfeited. Sure, they might get some fleeting influence from the US, but that would be revoked as soon as they stopped conceding their rights back to Israel.

Funny how Palestinians must put off action on reports that detail Israeli war crimes against them, they must meet despite a refusal by Israel to follow the law and dismantle (even freeze) settlements to be considered remotely eligible to be a partner for peace. Israel can boycott elected Palestinian leaders, have leaders that are terrorists, and break laws left and right and still be considered the eternal victim and ultimate partner for peace.

Ahmedinejad- myth vs. fact

Just after doing the Palestine- myth vs fact post, I got an email about Ahemdinejad's not really saying he wants Israel wiped off the map, among other things. I've heard this countless times in the news, in conversations, and I never really questioned it myself, so I was intrigued.

Here it is:

It turns out that Ahmadinejad never said what is being routinely attributed to him. Juan Cole, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at University of Michigan who reads Persian, explains that he actually stated (quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini): "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0605a/iranmisquote.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

http://www.aimislam.com/news/analysis/1355--what-did-ahmadinejad-really-say.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16218.htm

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/206127

http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/091909.html

Palestine/Israel- Myths and Facts

I came across this first article in my inbox and remembered some other myth vs fact sites I've run across over the years.


Think Again: Palestine
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/24/think_again_palestine

"Economic Peace Is Possible."
"Arab Intransigence Blocks Peace."
"Settlements Are Not the Issue."
"Israel's Occupation Is Not Apartheid."


Debunking 6 common Israeli myths
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article865.shtml

MYTH 1: THERE IS NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN SUICIDE BOMBINGS ON THE ONE HAND, AND ISRAEL'S KILLING OF PALESTINIANS ON THE OTHER

MYTH 2: ISRAEL'S INVASION OF PALESTINIAN CITIES AND REFUGEE CAMPS IS SELF-DEFENCE AGAINST SUICIDE BOMBINGS

MYTH 3: ARAFAT REFUSES TO CONDEMN SUICIDE BOMBINGS IN ARABIC

MYTH 4: ARAFAT HAS NOT DONE ENOUGH TO STOP TERRORISM

MYTH 5: ARAFAT SPURNED BARAK'S GENEROUS OFFER AT CAMP DAVID AND BROKE OFF NEGOTIATIONS WITH ISRAEL

MYTH 6: ARAFAT STARTED THE INTIFADA


Do Palestinians Teach Their Children to Hate?
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/hate.html


The myth of incitement in Palestinian textbooks
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article3923.shtml


http://www.palestineremembered.com/ZionistFAQ.html

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/archive/1185383636

***

Why the above rebuttals are necessary:

http://www.mythsandfacts.org/
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19.html

Israel and Iran's UN General Assembly Speeches

The irony in Netanyahu’s talk about the Holocaust, nuclear capabilities, and peace was astounding. I guess it's not really a forum for apologizing for one's mistakes so much as telling why you are so awesome, though. I thought Iran and Israel stood out for exceptional irony. Qaddafi just stood out-- but I'm not going there.

Interestingly, people walked out on Ahmedinejad's speech when he was critical of Israel, not for the legitimate (and obvious?) reason of the disputed elections- if I have heard the news report correctly. He made some good points about double standards and Palestine, but who’s going to listen to this guy what with the dubious election results, aggressive style and his country’s own human rights record?

Netanyahu, in his UN address, started off with condemning Ahmedinejad and Holocaust denial and those who didn’t walk out on him. He used this speech as a platform to “build” a case for invading Iran. He said of the UN and all nations that were either too critical of Israel or not critical enough of Iran that they were on the side of terror (!). I’m having Bush déjà vu. His comparison of Iran and Hamas with the Nazis was gratuitous. Forget about Iran’s disputed elections, it’s always about the Holocaust (the Jewish one, not the one the Jews perpetrated), right? He condemned Iran as backward and fanatic. Nice. That should help diplomatic efforts.

And he’s trying to channel former President Bush here- trying to con people into thinking that his pet project (or diversion) is the real problem of the day:

“The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge?”

Netanyahu also condemned the recent UN report, the Human Rights Council, and the whole UN for daring to say anyone other than Israel is the victim:

“We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.”

No one is allowed to deny or even debate facts surrounding the Holocaust. It’s taboo. Other people died too, but discussing it as anything but a Jewish tragedy is forbidden. But, on the other hand, saying there is no such thing as Palestinians (or making al-Nakba commemoration illegal) is not a problem. On the contrary, it’s a convenient solution. And surprisingly, it’s one people don’t dismiss out of hand. They consider it; they aren’t enraged at the suggestion and they don’t think the person who suggested it is racist or loony- like Holocaust denial or disputing various numbers or events surrounding it. If you say Palestinians didn’t exist, then you massacred nobody and nobody has a claim to the land you “found” totally (and conveniently) empty. You are occupying nobody’s land, oppressing nobody and therefore aren’t committing any crimes. Perhaps this is why Netanyahu is incensed? He’s being blamed for the tragedy of a people that he thinks don’t exist?

Here is an outright lie:

“In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza.”

(Dov Weisglass said the intent of his government at the time was “political formaldehyde,”- his term- the holding off of real negotiations, which would mean peace- for Israel, minus responsibility for past crimes- without justice for Palestinians)

His constant assertion, here, is that Israel wants peace, but his examples are telling. He names Jordan and Egypt as successes, but the only way they got those agreements was by taking Palestinian issues off the table. These agreements were probably of significant importance in subjugating and oppressing Palestinians, since both were regional heavyweights (Egypt- militarily; Jordan- diplomatically or politically), but not so much for solving the main issue causing unrest in the region.

Netanyahu also talks about the ridiculous demilitarized state idea:

“The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.”

He just got finished talking about how it is Israel’s right to defend itself and now he turns around and says Palestinians don’t have this right?? Israel may want peace, but it has to be on Israel’s terms! Notice that mentality where he wants delegates to choose Israel’s side and reject the report or else Israel can’t make any more ‘risks for peace’:

“This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow.”

To his credit, he didn’t mention equality or justice in his speech, so kudos for not lying about wanting or intending to bestow these gifts- I guess.

He goes there- to 1947. The Jews accepted this resolution; Arabs didn’t. Hmmm. What if the UN were to do the same today and give Palestinians 50% of the Israel/Palestine area. Would Jews accept that?? No way! Back then, Palestinians rightfully owned (not occupied) some 95% of the land and the UN decided to divide it in two and give 55% to this small population of Jews. That was crazy to them. Hindsight being 20/20, I guess they should have taken it, right? But, back then, I bet it seemed nuts to accept such an unfair division of their land. They didn’t really have a guarantee, though, that the Jews wouldn’t have invaded and taken more land, seeing as how they had connections to get more people and weapons from escaping Jews and all people against the Holocaust (one example, another).
*In both of those linked examples, you see the appearance of the idea that little David (Israel) was fighting big, evil Goliath (7 Arab armies), but check this, among other sources, before you swallow that whopper.

And there's the nukes. Israel won’t sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, like India and Pakistan, but we’re supposed to crack down on Iran. Israel succeeded in keeping their nuclear weapons program secret for a long time and considers Vanunu, who outed them, an enemy of the state who will never be free. No one thinks this odd, but Iran is assumed to be planning an imminent attack on Israel because it doesn’t want its enemies to know about its capabilities.

Freedom, justice and self-defense are Israel’s right, but not Palestinians’ as evidenced by the reservations to the Roadmap and the conditions under which Netanyahu would accept a Palestinian entity. Nuclear power and weapons are Israel’s right to have or disclose-- or not, but everyone else is subject to rules, inspections or bans.

Apartheid is bad, except when Israel does it. Ethnic cleansing is bad, except if Israel does it (it’s always “self-defense”). I’m starting to see a pattern? Are you?


Full text of the speeches (Sept. 23 & 24, 2009):

Netanyahu Speech at UN: Full Text Transcript and Video
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/netanyahu-speech-un-full-text-transcript-and-video

Transcript of Ahmadinejad's U.N. Speech
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6107339

Israeli voices- we love the right

Anderson Cooper's show the night before last:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/23/acd.01.html

I watched a bit of this, but the panel was rather curious. I don’t know if he called them a panel of experts, but I hope not.

Oren- Israeli ambassador. I’ll give them that, though, you already know what he’s going to say. Defending settlements and Israel’s behavior no matter how crazy or hypocritical the argument.

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/09/un-condemns-war-crimes-in-gaza.html

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/06/clintons-metting-with-terrorist.html


Zakaria- He’s an analyst. I’ll give them that, but he’s CNN, so that’s a little lame.

And last, but not least (?)…
Shmuley Boteach??- Shalom in the Home? Is that what qualifies him? Or the protesting outside the UN? Maybe Supernanny had something to say- let’s get her on. Or me. I’ve written some letters to the president.

***

Reminds me on NPR when Halevy was making the rounds on The Story to tell his story
http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Story

and on Diane Rehm as an analyst.
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/09/02/11.php#24677

At least Diane Rehm had another guest that could present the other point of view!


As for Mr. Cooper, why not call on Illan Pappe or Amira Hass or Neve Gordon or Gideon Levy when you need as Israeli? I thought MSNBC was supposed to be liberal? Maybe it was shout out to the right night? What was the deal? Perhaps Boteach was supposed to keep it light? I give up.

I should cut him some slack, though. I'm not actually that familiar with his show, so maybe he does invite more of a variety than others, but that night was particularly hawk-heavy.

It seems we inordinately hear from the right-most Israeli voices in the US. If we could hear from the Israeli left, maybe more in the US would demand that Israel follow the law? Or we could have a decent discussion without those demanding Israel abide by international law or face consequences being dismissed as terrorist sympathizers.

If you want to hear from the Israeli left, you have to go dig it up yourself. The mainstream as yet seems unable to deliver. It will be well worth your while to do so. Enlightening, maybe.

Gibson's Netanyahu interview this week

Full text:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/09/charlie-gibson-interviews-benjamin-netanyahu-the-full-transcript.html

Article:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/netanyahu-israels-prime-minister-worries-palestinians-iran/story?id=8644832


Basically Netanyahu brushes off the settlement freeze precondition, but adds that Palestinians must recognize Israel (as a precondition?) and Israel needs security (cease-fire or permanent disarming??) Precondition or otherwise, Palestinians or anyone would have to be stupid to even consider disarming!

We’re talking international law, here, versus Israel’s desire (recognition) and result (both recognition and security) of a resolution to the problem – OCCUPATION! Until the problem is addressed, they are just treading water. I’m not saying discussing the illegality of settlements is a bad thing, but the occupation discussion is the only one that will bring the “final status issues” to the forefront, like Obama recently said he wanted to do (has he been reading my letters!?).

The Occupation is the reason for the humanitarian crisis, the reason for the anger, the reason for the attacks on Israel. The denial/ignoring of the Occupation is the reason Israel feels it has a free hand to break the law (or feels it is not breaking the law) and many ordinary Israelis remain blissfully ignorant of the actual situation their neighbors are in.

Netanyahu on the settlement freeze and why it can’t be done:

“You know, they need kindergartens. They need schools.
They need health plans. They're living. I'm committed not to build new settlements. I am committed not to expropriate additional land for existing settlements. But people have to live. You can't freeze life.”

They’ve frozen life for Palestinians for decades. It CAN be done!! It may involve shelling peaceful protesters, bombing, assassinations, massacres, the targeting of civilians and vital infrastructure for demise, poverty, and starvation, like Israel’s done to Palestinians- but it can in fact be done quite effectively.

Normal life (used to be “natural growth”). Illegal settlers deserve normal life? Hmmm. Those breaking the law deserve to continue because it would be too inconvenient to change course? Yeah, let's adopt that here. Empty the prisons! It disrupts their life, after all. Conveniently, this "natural growth" is the status quo, by the way.

What about those from whom this land was taken to build these illegal settlements, those from who the land was taken to build the “security areas” and roads that surround such illegal monstrosities? They are illegal, exist at great cost to Israel (to “defend”), have cost Palestinians much in the very land they sit on as well as their normal life. And then there’s the water. Palestinians can’t get clean water, yet illegal settlers have carefully manicured lawns and full swimming pools. So forgive me if I don’t see the fairness, lawfulness, or sense in giving illegal settlers natural growth (AKA "normal life").

And when facts fail you, blame it on the Palestinians. And old tactic, hey, it works:

“And I think Mamoud Abbas has a great choice to make. We all do. But he has to decide: is he going to be an Arafat or an Anwar Sadat? If he’s an Anwar Sadat, he’ll find in me a partner for peace and we’ll make peace.”

Hmm. A Sadat. That would be good for Israel, wouldn’t it? Lose focus and save face yourself and forget about the Palestinian people or the rest of your allies in the region? When his historic chance came, he negotiated a separate peace with Israel that may or may not have gained him respect with the US, Israel and the world and a fat aid package instead of sticking to the plan that Arab states agreed to, which was to include holding Israel to UN resolutions and international law among other things. Instead, Palestinians did not get any guarantees on rights like- pre-67 borders, refugees, Jerusalem, a state, etc and they had the only serious military force that remotely had the ability and desire to protect them removed from the equation. A lose-lose situation for them.

An Arafat? Really? Some claim Arafat endorsed terrorism and that’s why he was so unacceptable. Abbas may want to stand by a settlement freeze that international law also demands and that’s somehow equivalent to endorsing terrorist methods??? Wow.

***

“There is a growing awareness in Washington, I believe in European
capitals and elsewhere, that the development or acquisition of Iran of nuclear weapons is something that endangers world peace. Iran is the major sponsor of world terrorism.”

Some would argue Israel is a state sponsor of terrorism and given the UN report on their violations, media blackouts, crackdowns on peaceful protestors, apartheid-like policies, they often act more like a terrorist regime than a democracy, albeit mostly in regard to Palestinians. It’s ironic they are so worried about Iran.

His emphasis on Iran is especially ironic given the UN report detailing Israeli war crimes and the fact that their own nuclear program is not open to IAEA inspectors, they are actively engaged in an arms race, refuse to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and until the infamous prisoner Vanunu forced it out of them, refused to admit they had any weapons or even a program.

I guess Iran’s really their only hope to avoid responsibility in past and present conflicts and to delay the peace process in which people are realizing they bear more responsibility than we have admitted before. The onus is increasingly on them, as it should be, and Iran’s the only way out of this.

Palestinian puppets

Sometimes the Palestinian leadership seems oddly disconnected from the people, willing to give up highly valued and sought after rights in return for nothing from the Israelis. This might explain why.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=EL-20090817&articleId=14810

kids say...

I should really write more of the kids' sayings down. I'm going to forget all of it. I guess this and emailing myself stuff is the best I can do now. I hope it will end up in a baby book one day.

I should really submit this one to Parents or something. Classic.
I took my daughter potty at a bridal shower I went to recently and was busy keeping her "on task" and trying to keep her from snooping around. As she poked her head in the shower, she asked when Lori was going to take her shower or if she was going to take the shower after she opened the presents or something like that. My kids' language have always been really good for whatever reason, but you forget sometimes how hard it must be to get some of the meanings we take for granted. Just makes you wonder when you say things and they are silent what mental image they are getting.

She recently slammed the door on her finger and the nail came off. She told her Grandma that she'd grow a new one and show it to her.

My son calls dryer sheets, 'dryer sheeps'. That one's so cute that I haven't corrected him yet. I wonder if he thinks of sheep when he says it.

He also alerts us to dirty diapers with an unsolicited "I not pooping!" if you look at him.

The kids both "call" their aunt on play phones and sometimes we let them do the real thing. A week or so before his 2nd birthday, my husband let him do this and he held an entire little conversation. He sounded so grown up. He'd say, "I'm going to be 2, Ginger," and answered questions like a big boy.

And pay attention when they say they are going to "play deal." It means they are going to shred a piece of paper or preferably (for them) tissues (or an entire box worth).

Playing "I know" is fun for all- yell at the top of your lungs when the vacuum is on. My husband used to do that, so that one may be genetic.

The bigoted 9/11 forwards are alive and well: 'The Budweiser (and Pepsi) Story'

What will I do when people stop making up this crazy stuff? Gotta love the "(not a joke)".

Hopefully by now people when people read things like this, a red flag goes up and they know to check the validity. I'm hoping people have more sense now and maybe have used past events as an opportunity to educate themselves on Arab culture, Arab-Americans, the Arab and or Muslim response, etc.

According to http://www.snopes.com/rumors/budweiser.asp , this is actually a joke- or a lie- your choice. All the files at the end are 9/11 remembrance badges, various representations of US flags, a cartoon soldier, a God Bless America, and of course a beer glass.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blbudweiser.htm
http://septterror.tripod.com/emailmyths_2.html

Enjoy:

The Budweiser Story

(not a joke)

This is TRUE!

How Budweiser handled those who laughed at those

who died on the 11th of September, 2001...

Thought you might like to know what happened

in a little town north of Bakersfield , California

After you finish reading this,

please forward this story on to others

so that our nation and people around the world

will know about those who laughed

when they found out about the tragic events

in New York , Pennsylvania , and the Pentagon.

On September 11th,

A Budweiser employee was making a delivery

to a convenience store in a California town named McFarland.

He knew of the tragedy that had occurred

in New York when he entered the business

to find the two Arabs, who owned the business,

whooping and hollering to show their approval

and support of this treacherous attack.

The Budweiser employee went to his truck,

called his boss and told him

of the very upsetting event!

He didn't feel he could be in that store with those

horrible people. His boss asked him,

'Do you think you could go in there long enough

to pull every Budweiser product and item

our beverage company sells there?

We'll never deliver to them again.'

The employee walked in,

proceeded to pull every single product his

beverage company provided and left

with an incredible grin on his face.

He told them never to bother to call for a delivery again.

Budweiser happens to be the beer of choice

for that community.

Just letting you know how Kern County

handled this situation. And Now



The Rest Of The Story:

It seems that the Bud driver and the Pepsi man

are neighbors. Bud called Pepsi and told him.

Pepsi called his boss who told him to

pull all Pepsi products as well!!!

That would include Frito Lay, etc.

Furthermore, word spread and

all vendors followed suit! At last report, on June 26, 2009,
Fareed Katib closed the store and filed bankruptcy!

Good old American

Passive-Aggressive A$$ Whoopin!

Pass this along, America needs to know

that we're all working together!

If you can read this.

Thank a teacher...

If you are reading it in English....

THANK A SOLDIER!!!

[See the attached file]
[See the attached file]

If you do not send this you have no soul !!!!

[See the attached file]
[See the attached file]
[See the attached file]

UN condemns 'war crimes' in Gaza

UN condemns 'war crimes' in Gaza - I saw this or a similar one Sept 14 or 15, so this is old news, but I meant to comment, preferably before I heard other commentary.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8257301.stm

Goldstone's (he's the head of the fact-finding mission) Op Ed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/opinion/17goldstone.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

***
After this, there are 2 Analysis/Interviews I listened to this week.

“Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev told the BBC the report had been "born in sin" and had no mandate for its investigation.”

Pretty funny description, but at least you can see how Israel feels about this.

It’s good to see this in print and to have something official, but I seriously doubt it will go anywhere. It has 3 and 6 month deadlines. I just don’t see either side launching credible investigations in that time, nor do I see Israel’s case being sent to the ICJ. They’ve got friends in high places, or so I’ve heard. More likely is that Hamas will get charged. Or Iran. Never mind that they aren’t in the report. Israel will find a way. I’m sure they helped develop the “threat of Iraq” and its bogus 9/11 link, so I have more confidence they can turn this around on Iran than they will get charged or have to deal with any unpleasant consequences (reparations, sanctions, etc).

This article details Hamas’ violations more than the others and shows the disdain of Israel for the whole thing (and Hamas).

I think it was the PBS link below where Goldstone tells about the investigation of Israel’s excuses for bombing UN shelters, schools, ambulances, etc and how there was no evidence. It seemed flimsy, but it’s good that it was investigated some.


Analysis/Interview 1:
Finkelstein on Democracy Now discussing the UN report:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/16/un_inquiry_finds_israel_punished_and

He says:

“Goldstone reports Israel guilty of massive war crimes and also faults Hamas.” That’s what a true headline would have read.”

I think he’s getting at what Goldstone will explain in the PBS link up next.

He makes the point that the report is based on laws of war, but it was a massacre; no battles, just bombing. This is an especially good point to think about if you read Goldstone's Op Ed in the NYT.

He mentions this support for the massacre claim - “Breaking the Silence.” Do a search on “insane” to see soldiers complain that they weren’t fighting anyone, it was boring, etc.

Breaking silence on Gaza abuses
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8151336.stm
“You see a house, a window, shoot at the window. You don't see a terrorist there? Fire at the window. In urban warfare, anyone is your enemy. No innocents.”
The quote and link are from my past post- http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2009/07/could-israel-be-getting-conscience.html


He also brings to light that the mandate was for Israeli crimes, but Goldstone wouldn’t do it unless it looked at all sides, plus he’s a supporter of Israel. The bias argument is unfounded in this way in addition to the facts on the ground.

Palmor, Israel’s FM spokesperson, says Israel will look at it carefully/ Oren (below) and others say Israel discounts it. More double-speak. Which is it, people?

How can we constantly hold Israel up as a model democracy and valuable ally when the facts continually and consistently contradict Israel’s official statements? The report is a step in the right direction. The settlement discussion that Obama started in the US is another. There’s a long way to go to get justice and hence peace.


Analysis/Interview 2:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec09/gaza_09-15.html

In the first part, Goldstone himself explains what I started talking about in the last post. Most of the report deals with Israel, not because Hamas didn’t also commit crimes against humanity or it was biased, but because Israel committed a massive number of crimes and they are more so (whether or not they occurred or constituted crimes) in dispute in the current political atmosphere than are Hamas’.

In the second part, Ambassador Oren from Israel tells Israel’s side.

Joe Wilson should meet this guy. He’d (Wilson) actually have a valid point.

His first response to the question, what is right and what is wrong in the UN report, are that Israel’s sorry about the deaths; Hamas isn’t. How is that relevant (we won’t even assess the truthfulness)?

And get this:

“And then, finally, the commission itself, the report, the investigation took place under the auspices of the Hamas-run government in Gaza. Hamas actually picked the witnesses for this commission. So Israel basically was the equivalent of being summoned to a court in which its guilt was already presumed, in which one of the jurors had already declared Israel guilty, and which the witnesses for the prosecution were, in fact, the murderers.

I can't think of any country in the world which would participate in such a farce of justice.”

I can think of one…Israel. This sounds like the “trials” of Palestinians if they are indeed charged with anything while in Israeli jails! But the report isn’t quite as he portrayed it, unfortunately for his analogy.

And when the – ‘the report was conducted under Hamas auspices’ – thing didn’t shut Ifill down, we move to the – ‘if our own investigations (in which Israel is found innocent on every count) don’t satisfy the international community, then it is a victory for terror and concern of free democracies everywhere’ argument. Will this finally close the discussion of these irrelevant unpleasantries?

Next was Ifill’s question:

“Is there any way that you feel that the two of you might at least agree on this point, that maybe this report is not worth the paper it's printed on? Or do you believe that this is a starting point for a deeper conversation and investigation about the conflict?”

He doesn’t appear to want to agree with Hamas there, but also doesn’t think this report has anything to do with getting peace talks back on track. On what planet wouldn’t a report such as this that talks about so many Israeli breaches of law, along with the settlement problem and the refusal to implement the UN approved right of return for refugees and status of Jerusalem be relevant???

The guy criticized the report and was so confident in Israel’s decision to not participate in it, I had assumed he had read it. I was wrong. It’s 570 pages after all. And critical of Israel. Best thing is to discredit it. When can we talk about Iran? He was eager to tell why Israel was not participating- Hamas was running the show (supposedly). When confronted with the other sources of war crimes, witnesses, etc- he says, oh, hmm, I haven’t actually read it. Unbelievable!

So why should we listen to this guy or the government he represents that told him to say such nonsense?

He said the results of the report were prejudged. I guess Israel know something about this concept. Palestinians that are able to make it into the “justice” system are prejudged to be guilty and Israeli soldiers (or military in general) accused of crimes are innocent.

***
Update:
Why The Goldstone Report Matters
http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/09/21/why-the-goldstone-report-matters/

“So why did the Israeli government boycott the commission? The real answer is quite simple: they knew full well that the commission, any commission, would have to reach the conclusions it did reach.”Uri Avnery (Israeli peace activist, and former Knesset member), “On the Goldstone Report” 19 Sept 2009

Other reactions:

"We are going to deploy great diplomatic and political efforts on the
international stage to block and contain the perverse and noxious effects of the Goldstone Commission report," foreign ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told AFP.

The mass-selling Yediot Aharonot said the instinctive reaction to the report is "a polite invitation to kiss our rear end."

J Post- Israel called the Goldstone Commission Report "nauseating"…

Netanyahu – kangaroo court

Danny Ayalon – circus

Regev - report was conceived in sin

Lieberman – The Goldstone report is seeking to bring the UN back to the dark days in which it decided, under the guidance of states with interests, that Zionism is racism, ”

Settler slideshow and talk of bias

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

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

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

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

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

Finkelstein, Holocaust hoaxes and denials

I’ve been trying to put my list of books to read online so I can stop carrying around 100s of tiny bits of paper with titles or authors scribbled on them. I decided to see which ones I could find at my little local library. I found 2 or 3 of the 40 or so. I did find 2 others on the Middle East and The Conflict that sounded interesting. Prisoners was one. Should have left that one on the shelf. So, that brings me to Finkelstein’s book. I searched and found no Pappe, Findley, Segev, etc, but Dershowitz aplenty. Naturally I was pretty surprised to see Finkelstein come up in the search results.

"The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering" by Norman Finkelstein discusses some of these works (of fiction, as it turns out) below and the implications and or possible causes.

I would feel a little sad to read a great memoir of someone who overcomes such tragedy only to find out its a fake. Maybe it wouldn't make much difference, though. A good story is a good story. But there is just something about it being a true account. Maybe, as suggested elsewhere, the story became their own in the course of the writing such that they couldn't separate themselves from it. Creative genius?

Holocaust Memoirs Subsequently Found to be Fictional:

"The Painted Bird" by Jerzy Kosinsky

"Hitler's Willing Executioners" by Goldhagen (Finkelstein calls it “Fragments with footnotes”)

"Fragments" by Binjamin Wilkomirski

"Angel at the Fence" by Herman Rosenblat- outed ~ Dec 2008

***

"In A Nation on Trial" by Ruth Bettina Birn- an exposee on one or more of these frauds

FYI-- Raul Hilberg is thought by Finkelstein to be a Holocaust scholar, in contrast to the above collection

-----------------------------

The Holocaust isn't unique in its hoax production...

Another Hoax:

A Hoax and Honor Lost for Norma Khouri
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/7966
Book: Forbidden Love/ Honor Lost

The Real Deal:

Rana Husseini: Jordanian Journalist Who Exposed 'Honor Killings' Tells Story In New Book
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/28/rana-husseini-jordanian-j_n_246534.html
Book: "Murder in the Name of Honor"


*
*
*

Around the time of the last Holocaust memoir hoax, the BBC discussed Holocaust denial or the taboo of questioning the Holocaust on WHYS. Finkelstein's book also reminded me of this. He comments on this taboo of how it is considered sacreligious to question details or to compare this tragedy with others or its victims with other victims. Both the book and the BBC make interesting points and raise interesting questions probably in a way that no one else can without being labeled anti-Semitic.

Here's the email with the show topic info:

Hi Chloe here,

He was ordered to leave Argentina after the inflammatory comments he made about the holocaust, now the Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson has returned to Britain. Now let's be clear in an interview with Swedish television he didn't deny the holocaust took place, but he did deny the extent of it. He said

"I believe that the historical evidence is strongly against -- is hugely against -- 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.....I believe there were no gas chambers."

More here: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/02/25/holocaust.bishop.britain/index.html

ON AIR: WHAT'S WRONG WITH QUESTIONING THE HOLOCAUST?

Bishop Williamson isn't the first person to step into this area. British historian David Irving was sentenced to a prison term for denying the holocaust

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

Richard Williamson has even been in contact with David Irving about how to present his views
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/02/25/13327/

We're not debating whether the holocaust took place. But is this the one event in history that can't be questioned? Some people would argue that questioning the holocaust is just an opinion, and a minority one at that, so does it matter? Isn't the right to free speech important to protect, even if we find certain views offensive? Have laws outlawing holocaust denial in Germany stopped people having those views?

Or is there a danger that people who question or deny that the holocaust took place are actually legitimising the views of Neo- Nazis.

If you're to question someone's religious faith, you wouldn't be shunned by people or lose your job. But you could be if you questioned holocaust ....Why?

There is a debate taking place already....

http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/02/debating-holocaust-new-look-at-both.html

More here: http://hdot.org/

Speak later,
Chloe

SUGGEST A DEBATE FOR WHYS: http://worldhaveyoursay.wordpress.com/suggest-a-debate/

SUBSCRIBE TO THE WHYS PODCAST: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/podcasts/whys/

Reactions to Obama's Middle East Peace Plan and Settlements

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8242387.stm

So, Israel is again made an announcement to build/expand settlements around the time of talks with the US on a settlement freeze. We are supposed to be a superpower or something, but little Israel sure knows how to make us look like a superfool! We need to boycott, divest and sanction if we want results. Clearly, the decades of asking nicely and ignoring the violations of law aren't inducing them to comply.

In the article, telling it like it is:

"Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to have it both ways."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8241247.stm

I have used a variety of metaphors to explain this, but here it is in plain terms. In the above article, Hanan Ashrawi telling it like it is:

"What Netanyahu is doing is clearly at the scale of a grand deception," said Fatah spokesperson Hanan Ashrawi.

"He thinks that he can deceive the rest of the world... but what he is doing under a variety of pretexts is the continuation of settlements and at the same time demanding a price in return."

Edit: Sept 10, 2009- 2 quotes below are from the article-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8246434.stm

Obama's ready to cave and give Israel what it wants in return for its doing nothing, but the EU's standing firm...for now:

The European Union expressed "serious concern" over Israel's latest moves to expand settlements.

"The European Union reiterates its call on Israel to immediately end settlement activities, including in East Jerusalem," the EU said in a statement.

And a profound truth from Erekat:

"If you could not convince the Israelis to stop settlement activity, will anybody in the Arab and Islamic world believe you can make Israel return to the '67 borders or withdraw from settlements?" he said.

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

Israeli troops 'ill-treat kids'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8186905.stm

Seeing this, it reminded me of folks who have sent me pics of dead Israelis, Palestinian kids in suicide bomber gear, and other images to "see what I think." They ask how could I criticize Israel, why am I "anti-Semitic," why do I side with them- given the gruesome video or picture they forwarded to me. I could return the favor and send them an equally gruesome picture or video of Israelis beating, killing, and maiming Palestinian kids (there are plenty out there), but for the fact that I can't stand looking at these pictures and it makes me sick to see them used to prove whatever messed up, sane, or other point you may be trying to make.

Why I "side with them" is more likely due to my ability to state the obvious, my shock at the entity with the biggest advantage crying victim...and being believed (at least by Americans), a sense of (lack of) justice and shock at the fact that we aren't fighting for it- we're siding with the oppressor. No, I don't like the sight of dead Israelis. Nor do I think empathy for the oppressed should be the basis for accusations of bigotry.