Netanyahu one of Time's 100 Infuential People??

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2066367_2066369_2066504,00.html

At first glance, I said, "Whaaa?" The guy is the two time PM of a country that has succeeded in putting off negotiations for decades. They have been offered 99% of what they demanded of their victims and still denied them statehood. As though Palestinians need their permission...but that is another matter.

Getting beyond the first glance... I guess he could be considered influential in the way Hitler was an effective leader or Satan the way would be charismatic if he took human form. Definitely not in a good way, though. He is on record conceding to the Palestinians a demilitarized state. Doesn't that say it all? Who would accept that?

Palestinian statehood, upgraded status, and Resolution 377

Amid all the nonsense - rapture watch, patriotic network, israpundit, endtimeprophecy, etc (warning of a terror state, imposition on Israel, repercussions of a state, doom and gloom for allowing justice for oppressed people) - I have found what I hope is factual info on this resolution to start us off: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_377 

www.un.org/depts/dhl/landmark/pdf/ares377e.pdf

 ***********

Will the US with the Israel situation join the ranks of the Soviet Union (Korea) and South Africa (apartheid) who have had Res 377 used "against" them because they are obstacles to peace and human decency? 

Shalev: UNGA 'Palestine' resolution may have real impact

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=213794

One can only hope. It may be the only option.

The UN Resolutions are already in place for a Palestinian state, refugees, Jerusalem, etc. Israel won't comply with these or the Geneva convention with regard to treating people and prisoners fairly and occupying/annexing land via settlements. 

What good are negotiations and peace plans? The way is already clear and decided. Israel refuses to move forward in implementing them.

The US will veto every UN resolution criticizing Israel for not complying with these resolutions.

The recent Palestine Papers leaks pretty well prove that Israel will not agree to anything less than 100% of their - the aggressor, the occupier - demands met. Again, what good are negotiations?

I know that some see a Palestinian bias to my writing or think what I say is unreasonable at times. This, however, is not one of those times. The US has vetoed in situations to appease Israel that defy logic, justice, and sometimes law. We have become as obstinate as the old Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa. Something has to be done. The US certainly is not interested in finding a just solution to the impasse. Someone else take the reins, please! 

***

Along these promising lines...

March 7- Britain upgraded the Palestine delegation’s status to mission. 

France, Spain and Portugal have apparently already done this.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/07/uk-britain-palestinian-idUKTRE7265FY20110307

***

Here is a table of the recognition of Palestine.

I remember hearing about Brazil and Argentina, but Venezuela, Dominican Republic, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, Guyana, Peru, Suriname, and Uruguay have recognized it in recent history (since 2009) making a total of 112 yes votes; 6 additional ones are inconclusive.

***

The J Post wants to allay fears that Britain is recognizing a Palestinian state. 

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=211377

They won’t make the mission an embassy until a peace settlement is made. And we’re back to square one. Israel won’t do this unless all it’s demands are met. Which means Palestinians have to give up right of return, accept unfair treatment in Israel, accept a demilitarized permanent occupation/apartheid pseudo state situation. What does Israel have to do? Sit back and play the victim and complain about having no partner for peace until Palestinians are forced to accept Israel’s conditions for “peace” without justice.

***

First Palin, now Trump?? Circus 2012 begins.

I have serious doubts about the Tea Party's decision making skills. Sarah Palin and now Donald Trump?? We've had the discussions about why Palin is unfit for the office of POTUS. 

Donald Trump. Where to begin? Many are admitting GWB was not all they thought he was what with the wars, one of which was not warranted at all and diverted our attention to the real problem that caused 9/11 - not to mention the fact that we put these on credit, the economic situation which was ignored or not noticed until the very end of his term, and the cowboy diplomacy that ruined our reputation. So after that's behind us, let's get behind a guy who will be Bush's worst points amplified. Bush favored big business. Trump IS big business. I don't see any advantages to electing this guy except if he promises to pay off the national debt and gets rid of our credit dependence. Even then, there are a whole lot of disadvantages to consider...

Donald Trump appears to be much closer to the dictator people tried to make Obama out to be. But he is pro life and anti gun control and that's all a lot of people need to know. So what if he's already admitted that instead of diplomats, he'd like to see the slimiest, sleaziest business leaders of New York (that he knows) running the foreign policy show. The mafia maybe? If you don't pass our resolution or get on our bandwagon, consider yourself a target for assassination?? Is that how to get a stronger, better reputation (That's if you go with his view that others view us as weak- I think our reputation got better after Bush, myself...)? He says he doesn't want nice guys in diplomacy or wants to scrap diplomacy altogether and go with sleazeballs. ??? What is this? Throw out negotiation. My way or the highway (Bush) - to the extreme. That's how he wants to deal with other countries. What obout opposition in his own country?? If he doesn't like some Americans' views, what will he do? Declare in reality show fashion- "You're fired!" ?? He thinks other countries view us as weak. Sounds like he's interested in North Korean strength, rather than American values-- at first blush anyway.

This article has 3 interesting reasons he won't run
1. He donated to Democrats
2. He's as divisive as Palin, but has considerably more who hate him than love him.
3. His policies will raise prices dramatically.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0210/Donald-Trump-says-he-might-run-for-president.-Three-reasons-he-won-t


His poll numbers do jump when you look at just "Birthers," though...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/04/15/135446314/poll-donald-trump-birther-darling-leads-gop-field-at-26


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1102/09/pmt.01.html


This guy worries me. He talks like a dictator, not someone interested in representing others. I still need to know more about what he believes, what his governing philosophies are. What I do know makes me uneasy. He sounds like a guy used to getting his own way and not playing well with others which doesn't bode well for the top job in a democracy. Will he play by the rules and respect democratic values or will he find a creative way to get around it in sleazy businessman style? I need to hear a bit more on how he plans to work with and hear those opposed to his views (inside the country; we know he'll railroad his own views through with foreign countries) and how attached he is to our form of government. Does he think of America as a giant business? Lots to consider. Kind of hoping we won't have to consider him.

Even though Huckabee's Christian Zionism would really destroy any progress in the Middle East and cast doubt on how separate church and state would be, I still think he'd be a more stable, sane choice than Trump or Palin, if I were Republican, that is.

Ask Netanyahu a question

http://www.youtube.com/worldview?feature=ticker

My question:

The UN resolutions for resolving the conflict are already in place on borders, refugees, Jerusalem, etc- why do you refuse to comply?

It said there was an error. It probably didn’t go through.

Other ones I wanted to ask:

Why do you think Israel deserves to defend itself given its brutal occupation and expulsion of millions of human beings?

Do you value Jewish human life above Arab human life?

Why do you still occupy Palestinian land (national security is not an answer)?

Do you still subscribe to the myth that Palestine was a “land without people for a people with no land?”

Why do Jews from all over the earth get a free pass to Israel, but you cannot abide by UN resolutions to let Palestinian refugees of Jewish terrorist violence and their descendants go home to Palestine?

If you do believe in democracy and human rights and claim to be part of the civilized world, why then do you have to own and control all of Palestine and deny rights/entry to the native people?

I guess asking questions of Netanyahu is like asking questions to any despot. They won’t tell the truth or the answer will be a predictable non-answer. For example they are allowed to oppress, starve, kill innocents, bulldoze, deny visas, divide families, build walls, grab land, build illegal settlements, control borders, control water, control imports/exports, bomb police and infrastructure, and “combat” non-violence with live fire because of national security, the right to exist, the right to defend oneself. Defense. From what? Why do they get a free pass on the consequences of oppressing a large population whose land they were granted a portion of and kept taking?

Gotta love how everyone looks at this conflict beginning at the middle. Why are Palestinians upset? They have no rights, no freedom. It is said there cannot be peace without justice. What did American colonists do in the face of possibly lesser wrongs? We called it liberation. The British called us savage terrorists. 

There was a bombing in Jerusalem last week. People are horrified. How could Palestinians kill an innocent woman? People don’t want to think about what Palestinians have lived through over the decades. I often wonder how much Americans would take of what Israel is doing to Palestinians before we would take up arms. I’m guessing it would have been a lot sooner. We never ask why do Palestinians have to pay the price for the Holocaust and why do these victims get to victimize others and be shielded from all justifiable (or not) consequences. Why are they not forced to comply with law and UN resolutions that would neatly resolve all of the things Israel insists on starting talks to think about how to talk about these issues?

A Christian view of the Palestinian Israeli conflict

Occupied with Nonviolence: A Palestinian Woman Speaks by Jean Zaru

I'm not quite finished with this one yet, but I feel like I already have a few points to make. 

It is a different perspective than I've been used to reading. Since I'm not a Muslim, I had focused on the Muslim perspective, trying to understand and get some background because experience and my gut were telling me there was more to the story than some would have you believe. You always hear people talking about Muslims oppressing the Christians in the Arab world, Arabs only understand violence, Islam causes terrorism, etc. At some point, even if you trust the source, you've got to find out if this is really true somehow. At least that's what I am compelled to do whether its a stereotype, an email, whatever.

When I started reading, I immediately felt a connection to the author. Her views were very, very familiar. They are very much my own. Not many of the facts are new; I've read quite a bit on this subject. The firm belief in the right of Palestinians to go back home if they want, to be compensated, to form a nation and actually share the land and resources with Israel minus the disclaimer that Israel has the right to exist and defend itself are in fact my own as well. I mean, why should we protect Israel's "right" to defend itself against the consequences of stealing, killing and oppressing hundreds of thousands of people?? 

The adherence to nonviolence is impressive and the understanding of it was insightful. She explains that it's not a passive position in which you let people walk all over you, but where you stand up for truth and justice in a way that you respect the human rights and life of everyone. It reminded me of discussions of meekness and submission in Bible studies. Jesus was meek and submitted to God; we are supposed to be meek and submissive - but this doesn't mean we are weak, scared and letting people trample the truth. On the contrary, true submission is a choice ("power under control" as I once heard it described), not something forced on you as we normally think of psychologically "breaking" a prisoner or animal.

She relates her experiences as a Palestinian Christian under Israeli occupation, which could be pretty eye-opening for some people unfamiliar with the conflict. She sees Israel as the major problem and hurdle and feels brotherhood with Muslims in this struggle in the same way Americans of different faiths come together on matters of national interests and security. She also confronts the issue of the beliefs of the American Christian fundamentalist right who ignore Palestinian Christians rights and safety in their blind support for Jews' Biblical right to live there. (Do they just not know about Palestinian Christians or do Christian Zionists knowingly reject fellow Christians' right to worship and live in peace in favor of the Jewish desire for control?)

More info: My previous post on Christian Zionism

I did take issue with at least one thing. She is one who doesn't appear to believe in a literal reading of the Old Testament. She believes all the mass killings the Israelites were commanded to do against entire nations is against God's character. I don't see how one can be a Christian and have this view. Apart from the Bible, how is one to know God? She seems to be indirectly claiming to know God apart from the Bible and that is a dangerous claim. One we can absolutely reject as false. The inspired writers of the New Testament explain this to those willing to hear. Hebrews, obviously, is a good choice- the Jews are having the old law explained- how the blood of bulls and goats isn't sufficient, elements of the old were types and shadows of the new, if the old had been perfect there wouldn't be a need for the new, and how the death of the testator put the new in force. Hebrews isn't the only place; the New Testament is filled with explanation of the Old. The Old is nailed to the cross (Col 2:13-15), the Old was a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Gal 3:23-35), the Old gives us hope and is for our learning (Rom 15:4). The Old Testament is true and has it's place and the New Testament affirms that. That being said, I do agree with her 100% that one cannot use the Bible to prove Jews today have any more right to live in Palestine than anyone else, especially the residents (Palestinian Israelis) and former residents (refugees). Unlike her, I just don't think you have to reinterpret the Bible to see that; it's right there in the text.

Two links on the Bible and Israel/Palestine with scripture references:

Why Do You Refer To Israel As Palestine?

God and the Nation of Israel

I'm also pretty averse to saying absolutely that the Bible condones war or teaches pacifism or supports banning gay marriage or any other political act or persuasion. I think this is possibly going beyond what is written. The Bible is the guide for our spiritual growth and direction. This is not to say that the spiritual doesn't or shouldn't intersect with politics and such because the teachings of the Bible absolutely should inform our everyday decisions. This may sound contradictory, but it isn't. Maybe the nuance lies in putting each command of the Bible into law to become hollow like in the Pharisees time versus having the freedom to choose to submit to God's will and make these decisions for yourself (as far as the decisions don't hurt others- which is where the real purpose of civil law comes in...). Anyway, I'm with her as far as personally being compelled to help people and to treat others as I'd like to be treated. For example, if I were an occupied and oppressed person, I'd want the world to stand up to the occupying power instead of defending its right to exist on my grandparents property and defending its right to defend itself against my efforts to gain compensation, freedom, dignity and sadly, even basic necessities.


Other Christian Palestinian books or authors:

Mitri Raheb (Palestinian Christian, writes about the Occupation and being Christian)
---I Am A Palestinian Christian
---Bethlehem Besieged

Raja Shehadeh (Palestinian Christian, writes about the Occupation)
---Palestinian Walks
---Strangers in the House
---When the Birds Stopped Singing


Suad Amiry (Palestinian Christian, writes about the Occupation)
Sharon and My Mother-in-Law (under occupation with humor and grace)

Nothing to Lose But Your Life


Maria Khoury- I can't speak for her specific Chrsitian doctrine, but here is more proof that Palestinian Chrsitians are kind of ignored in American Christian support of Israel.


Naim Ateek on suicide bombing


The Kairos Palestine Document


Emma Williams
It's Easier to Reach Heaven Than the End of the Street (Westerner, doctor, mother, eyewitness to the conflict)



Fiction:
Mornings in Jenin by Susan Abulhawa

Bibi's going green!

Recycling, I mean. Nothing to do with St. Patty's Day.  :)

AIPAC's Newest Strategy

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011314135126922189.html

So, Netanyahu's got a new strategy. No partner for peace. It sounds familiar, doesn't it? Arabs are throwing off repression right and left and Merkel and Europe are increasingly critical of Israel since the leaks of the Palestine Papers. At least someone's paying attention! Israel's got to think of something fast to stop this peace and democracy stuff. A recent tragedy just might be the key to painting Abbas with the terrorist brush.

Israel's trying to use this poor (but still illegal) settler family as a way to turn the hate back on Palestinians and blame all that's wrong with the Middle East not on oppression, but on Palestinians. 

It may not even be a Palestinian! 

http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/En/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7PZME4Swq63ae3%2bFqNLQ1mYzHdix%2fLLbtr47kQXfYikZKqv4KRlRlSteS3V59uFMWf7mKk6zwjq17DqsuqHkQN44oOT39XW5RK8L6WpZqG58%3d

Apparently, it very well could be a disgruntled Asian employee. Of course, Israel and everyone is jumping the gun and calling this terrorism, assuming the perpetrator is Palestinian and hauling in all males of a certain age as usual. And as usual, Israeli police or military or whoever is in charge of protecting the illegal settlers is letting settlers terrorize neighboring Palestinians who had nothing to do with it. Netanyahu is making a big deal of making Abbas jump through whatever apologetic hoops; will Israel be required to apologize for the actions of its military when they violate the rights of Palestinians at the drop of a hat or kill children or settlers who throw Molotov cocktails at Palestinians?

Latest rift with Israel: Germany

Merkel chides Netanyahu for failing to make 'a single step to advance peace'

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/merkel-chides-netanyahu-for-failing-to-make-a-single-step-to-advance-peace-1.345539?localLinksEnabled=false

How awesome is this:

Netanyahu told Merkel he was disappointed by Germany's vote and by Merkel's refusal to accept Israel's requests before the vote, the source added. Merkel was furious.

"How dare you," she said, according to the official. "You are the one who disappointed us. You haven't made a single step to advance peace."

 If only all countries could be as truthful as this in dealing with Israel! If everyone started being honest about it, perhaps there would be a solution. The US is acting as though the Palestine Papers are still well hidden and Israel's intransigence is not well known to everyone (not that it took the Papers to tell us this, but it helps bolster an opinion that was neatly dismissed as anti-Semitism.). At least Germany had the guts to react.

Everyone always talks about how difficult the conflict is and how intractable the peace talks are. If one is honest, there is already a path. There is no need for the Roadmap, the Quartet, the Netanyahu plan, this initiative or that. We already have the UN resolutions and Geneva Convention that governs how to get there (i.e don't torture or transfer your population to the territory you occupy). The problem is forcing Israel to stop the stall tactics and comply with the law and UN resolutions.

Second response***Subject: Israel is uncompromising- stop pandering to them

So, I received another response. Yes, I sent her the same one I sent the State Department.

She (or her aides) must read my blog and thought this would be funny since I talked about robots sending these responses back...

This is NOT even good enough for government work.  :)

Subject: Israel is uncompromising- stop pandering to them

My recent letter to my friends at the White House and State Department:

Dear Secretary of State Clinton:

With the leak of the Al-Jazeera Palestine Papers it has become known to us common people what you all in power have known for some time: Israel will not settle for anything less than total Palestinian capitulation. Even when Palestinians are willing to compromise everything- Jerusalem, symbolic refugee return, settlements- it all comes to a screeching halt because Palestinians refused Israel ONE settlement! This is ludicrous!

Why on God's green earth are we still supporting them with military and other aid to the tune or $2 billion or more a year, nonbinding resolutions of support in Congress, and protection from justice at the UN, statements by our President that we have an unbreakable bond??

End the occupation. Hold Israel to account. There will never peace without justice.

Sincerely,

xxx

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

I got a response today! (Ok, I wasn't that excited, given how many letters I've written... and the fact that they didn't really answer my main question, not that I think a real person responds to these things. By now it's probably governed by an algorithm, Google technology, keywords.)

Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support
center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it
within the next 7 days.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.

Subject
------------------------------

---------------------------------
Israel is uncompromising- stop pandering to them


Discussion Thread
------------------------------ ---------------------------------
Response (Support Agent) - 02/28/2011 10:07 AM
Thank you for your message to Secretary Clinton sharing your thoughts and concerns. We value your opinion and will take it -- and the views of all Americans -- into consideration.

U.S. opposition to the U.N. resolution should not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, the U.S. rejects in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. Unfortunately, this draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides.

For more information on the U.S. position on this United Nations Security Council Vote, please visit the following links:

http://www.state.gov/p/io/rm/2011/156841.htm
http://www.state.gov/p/io/rm/2011/156821.htm
http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/2011/156816.htm


Thank you for contacting the U.S. Department of State.

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

Harden positions? Are they kidding? Israel's has been hardened from the beginning and we are still operating under the myth successfully circulated by who knows who that Israel is at the table waiting for Palestinians to lay down their guns and come to the peace table, that Israel is ready to make a generous offer if Palestinians would stop being negative and refusing all the time.

I mean if someone stole your house and everything in it, held your children hostage with just enough food to stay alive, but not thrive and they offered to let you live in a closet, isn't that generous? If you say yes, you need your head examined- in both cases.

Aid to Bahrain/Israel; Read Omar Barghouti's book about protest in protest!

The Monday, February 22, 2011 Democracy Now show had a few items of interest on Israel/Palestine

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/21/headlines#3

The first also has more to do with Bahrain, though it made me think of the Palestinian- Israeli issue. :)

The so-called Leahy Law – which requires the cut-off of U.S. military aid to forces determined to have perpetrated human rights abuses -- “does apply to Bahrain,” since "the U.S. Government provides support to the [Bahraini] Army," Carle said.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0211/US_urges_restraint_on_Bahrain_after_overnight_attack_on_protesters.html

OK, we give a ton of all kinds of aid to Israel. We train them, they train us. Due to certain breaches of human rights and international law, shouldn't we also be reconsidering aid to Israel??

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

Action Alert: US delays visa for BDS leader Barghouti on eve of tour 

The second directly has to do with Israel/Palestine. 

Since we were the only veto on the recent UN resolution on illegal Israeli settlements brought by cosponsors Germany, France and Britain, this piece of news shouldn't surprise us. But it is still shocking if you are one of those people who still believe America is free and just and fair. 

One of the founders of the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement wrote a book and wants to tour. He faces a problem many Palestinians face. Travel. If he were a "self-hating Jew" like Noam Chomsky or Norman Finklestein, he might get hassled and detained, but he'd still get to tour. We will see how this unfolds. I wonder if he's famous enough to get through. I hope more people read his book because of this! :)

Since the topic is rather sensitive in the US, this adds another dimension to the travel hardships. The US government doesn't really want people talking about peaceful ways to protest its complicity in Israel's crimes. Violence is easy. We will not negotiate with terrorists. This is more delicate. We'd like to just sweep it under the rug as quietly as possible so we can get on with protecting Israel's right to defend itself, steal land, murder, kidnap, and collectively punish all for the crimes of a few (or the general feeling of discomfort that future demographics brings...). At the top, I think disagreeing or denying Israel anything is seen as anti-Semitic- though here at the bottom many are beginning to see the nuance through that fog. Or maybe we're just afraid they will detonate a nuke like they threatened to do before- they are trigger happy and they had or have something called the Samson Option. This policy being not inspired by God, it appears as though they care more about killing others than saving their own peoples' lives. Like my post about the NPR: Fresh Air about torture a few posts ago.  It sounds like they have learned quite a bit from their corrupt Arab dictator neighbors. But, you still  have to call Israel a democracy or people will not take you seriously. Until all those people come to the realization that Israel is not in fact the kind of democracy we give them credit for... With Wikileaks, the Palestine Papers, all of these protests, I think it could happen.

More info:

Omar Barghouti kept from entering the U.S. for BDS speaking tour

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/02/omar-barghouti-kept-from-entering-the-u-s-for-bds-speaking-tour.html

Omar Barghouti, Leading Spokesperson of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanction (BDS) Campaign Against Israel, Kept from Entering U.S. for Book Release Tour

 http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2011/02/18/palestinian-bds-proponent-omar-barghouti-unable-to-enter-us-for-book-tour/

Act:

Barghouti tour sponsors are calling on supporters to contact the US Consulate in Jerusalem and the Department of State to ask them to fulfill the promise from the Obama Administration of "promoting the global marketplace of ideas" and grant Barghouti's visa immediately.

US Consulate:
Consul General Daniel Rubinstein
US Consulate General, Jerusalem
18 Agron Road, Jerusalem 94190
Tel.: +972 2 622 7230, Fax: +972 2 625 9270

Email: jerusalemvisa@state.gov and UsConGenJerusalem@state.gov

Department of State:
Visa Services
Public Inquiries Division
202-663-1225
usvisa@state.gov

On Facebook: Join the group "Let Omar Barghouti Be Heard" and invite your friends.

 

My comment for BBC World Have Your Say on Muslim Brotherhood

I have a comment from listening to your (BBC World Have Your Say) program on the Muslim Brotherhood.



They were a bit evasive in some of the answers, but on this issue it is not as simple as yes or no as the moderator seemed to think:



You gave the Muslim Brotherhood quite a time over the question "do you believe Israel has the right to exist." I am an American and even I realize this is a loaded and difficult question. Israel's existence means different things to different people- respecting the rights and security of Jews or accepting the Occupation or respecting the rights of Jews at the expense of Palestinians. It can mean any number of things.



Israel believes it has the right to exist as a Jewish state and won't eliminate "transfer" or other forms of ethnic cleansing to maintain a Jewish majority. Leiberman, whom the US has hosted, has talked about such outlandish "solutions" as drowning Palestinian prisoners in the sea and "loyalty oaths". The current concept of the Jewish state includes occupying Palestinian territory, ignoring international obligations to allow refugees to return after war, making laws in Israel that discriminate against Palestinians (building permits for one example) building settlements illegally, building Jewish only roads to get to illegal settlements, and various forms of collective punishment in the name of "security". So, you see, one can say they have a right to a homeland. Everyone has certain unalienable rights. Does this right to exist or right to a homeland include the minority (which Jews would be if refugees lawfully returned) subjugating a majority or rearranging the borders or population (transfer, ethnic cleansing) so that you remain a majority in the territory you took in addition to what the original UN and or British Mandate agreement intended?



I'm not an anti-Semite, though questioning in any form Israel's existence will get me labeled- of that I am sure. Israel's existence isn't just about not being anti-Semitic, not wanting them pushed into the sea, etc. I think accepting Israel's right to exist is often equated with accepting the Occupation and all of Israel's other demands and actions as legitimate and lawful. Jews deserve a homeland (I suppose the question of why Palestinians were expected to pay for and continue to pay for the Holocaust is another question to explore...not that it makes any difference because I hope no one would take seriously the suggestion that all Jews be transferred out), but they need to be held to the standard of other countries, held to account, and made to face consequences for egregious violations of human rights and international law. They get away with murder and that makes people mad. I can see the apprehension of just getting on the "I believe in Israel's right to exist" bandwagon without clarification.



The question of Israel's existence is much more than a yes or no question.

UN resolution on settlements, hope and futility...

There was a petition to try and get Obama to not use the veto at the UN about a resolution to make Israel comply with international law on settlements.

Guess what happened. 14 members voted for it, the US voted against it. I really thought we'd have a chance for justice after all the people in the Middle East pushing for democracy and the Palestine papers revealing that Israel wouldn't bother with anything less than total capitulation by Palestinians. I guess justice and/ or democracy isn't really what we're after in the Middle East.

Two points I found particularly funny:

The US opposes new settlements but says taking the issue to the
UN will only complicate efforts to resume stalled negotiations between
Israel and the Palestinians on a two-state solution.

All that law and stuff just complicates things. Let's ignore it and resume negotiations?? If we throw out the law, what on earth are the basis for negotiations??? Israel's right to exist??? What kind of mediator are we anyway? Rubbish!

The UN vote came a day after Obama and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas
spoke by telephone, according to Palestinian Authority spokesman Nabil
Aburdeneh. They discussed the uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia and the resolution
on settlements, he said.

He talked to Abbas. Well, that explains it! Might as well have been talking ot Israel. They talked about this resolution the day before the US vetoed it. I bet Abbas was all about that (See Palestine Papers). Wonder when the resolution is to give Israel Gaza and the West Bank, ban refugees, revoke Palestinian citizenship, give away Jerusalem and pay Israel for all the trouble they've had to endure? That's one UN resolution on Israel we'd be all over.


And speaking of futility...


Bil'in marks its sixth anniversary of nonviolent protest against the Wall and Occupation. It is encouraging in a way, but when you think of how the domino effect will miss Palestine and why, it is discouraging for sure.

Palestinians have been at the nonviolence thing for awhile. It's the way resistence started and it continues through present these several towns that hold weekly protests (more famously).

In hearing news that kind of takes the wind out of your sails after listening to all the hopeful voices in Egypt and Tunisia, I think of this quote I heard recently:

"...in order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a
conscience."

---Stokely Carmichael talking about a flaw in Dr. King's theory.


I am against violence for a number of reasons, so where does that leave us? I would suggest the world's largest sit-in in the streets of Israel by Palestinians, but unless they were already in Israel, this would be a problem... This would be far riskier for Palestinians than for Egyptians or Tunisians simply stepping out to protest and going back home to shower- or a two week camp out (not to belittle the Egyptian effort at all). It would involve a series of acts of civil disobedience and risk of life or imprisonment just to get to the site of the protest where we could then talk af the Egypt or Tunisian style risks of arrests, beatings, riot police, tear gas, live ammo, Mossad dressed as Palestinian instigators of violence, etc and not so Egyptian and Tunisian risks of US forces being deployed to rid our "friend" of the "threat."

Violence isn't all Arabs understand?

NPR: Fresh Air 2/14/11

One Man Says No To Harsh Interrogation Techniques

I didn't like all of what I heard, but a few things were interesting.

He said the stereotype that Arabs grew up with violence and that's all they understand or are capable of was prevalent in the military and this led to the use of torture. Prejudice leads to the use of torture- "it's all they understand"- and so you've got to address and change people's minds about Arabs in order to make laws against torture successful.

He mentioned a shift in an America that stands for principles vs one that stands for security. This is an interesting concept.

If you look at Israel, you can see the extreme version of this. He didn't mention Israel at all, but it holds very true to that situation. If you read how their military talks about and thinks about Arabs, you see that prejudice definitely leads to torture and lack of respect for human rights. Even among Israelis, and more often, foreign supporters of Israel, I have heard epithets and slander along the lines of those exact prejudices more times than I can count! And now we have an explanation for why they don't seem to care about Israel's human rights abuses and why security trumps all. The situation Israel finds itself in with Palestinians also demonstrates quite well Alexander's other point that standing for security rather than principles will erode those principles.


Food for thought.

Beck, O'Reilly and the budding romance

But I also wonder if we're seeing a transition. O'Reilly is face of Fox News' past success -- an aggressive, usually conservative-oriented take on the news of the day, laced with a dose of alamism and fear.
Beck is a new voice who takes that alarmism to operatic levels, creating a cult of personality through his show that is focused on the issues he finds compelling. Most recently, he's unveiled a 100-year plan to curb what he calls "progressives" attempts to turn America into a "socialist utopia."

Quote from: http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media/content/why-are-glenn-beck-and-bill-oreilly-touring-together

Caught this while reading some more on the celebration in Egypt...

I thought Sarah Palin was bad. She is, but no one really takes her seriously.

But, these guys, I know for a fact some people respect. And that's sad.

This is Valentine's Day. I hate what comes out of these guys' mouths, but they appear to be having quite the love fest- appearing on each other's shows, laying the compliments on thick.

This was great:

Why Are Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly Touring Together?
http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/media/content/why-are-glenn-beck-and-bill-oreilly-touring-together

Apparently, Beck was on O'Reilly's show Jan 31:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/01/glenn-beck-oreilly-egypt-communists_n_816761.html

And again on Feb 11:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/02/12/glenn_beck_egypt_bill_o_reilly/index.html

I think there were other times, but in these last ones they talk about Egypt some.

Beck actually says he thinks Egyptians don't hate us because of our freedoms, but rather because of our meddling in the rest of the world. This will be a serious breakthrough... or point of serious contention with his audience! :) I couldn't believe he actually said that. I mean, it made sense. Somewhat. I don't think Egyptians hate us, actually.

He then goes on to make a few more typical and ridiculous points (to which surprisingly, O'Reilly is skeptical!):

*the uprising "is being orchestrated by the Marxist Communists and the Muslim Brotherhood"
*if Mubarak goes, it will (he does say "could," but you know what he means) be the start of an Islamic caliphate across the region
(He is at least in part quoting Mubarak! I knew I heard it somewhere before.)

Apparently on the Feb 11 show, O'Reilly challenges Beck on these points. I kind of want to watch it, but don't know if I'll waste the time on these two Islamophobic spreaders of conspiracy theory and urban legend.

I wonder if this is a Presidential ticket or just a money making scheme or passing of the fearmongering torch. The Palin/ Joe the Plumber would be much more entertaining. Who would take which role? Surely neither ego would want the VP slot! It's probably about money.

A response to the protests- and my response to the response

Talk of the Nation - February 2, 2011
What the Protests May Mean For Middle East Peace
(and when we say peace, of course we mean how will this affect Israel...)
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/02/133438978/what-the-protests-may-mean-for-middle-east-peace



In the first minute, Halevy tells how Israel sees the region- Iran "coming closer and closer," Iranian proxy (Hezbollah) to the north, Hamas to the south (sunnis aligned with shi'ite Iran), and then Egypt and the threat of a Muslim Brotherhood takeover. "The ultimate Israeli nightmare," he says.


So, I forgot to put what I was thinking here... Edit 2/10/11:
This view of the region Israel has really explains a lot, which is why it grabbed me. This is the answer to why do they constantly use disproportionate force to the threat, why do they keep who they can under lockdown, why do they disregard international law, etc. They feel they are the victim, the underdog when in fact the reality is that they are Goliath if Goliath had God behind him. I would like to say that I regret the comparison of the US with God for any other implications this might have for anyone, but this is only to make a point and has no other implications whatsoever.


5:17 Neal Conan asks guest Halevy if Israel is regretting having not made peace with the Palestinians in the 30 years it had before things may change with a new leader or new Egypt.

First, Halevy knocks off 15 years by saying that Palestinians didn't recognize Israel until the mid '90s. I was thinking, ok... that's still 15 years. What does he have to say about that?

He repeats the standard Israeli line. A total myth as it's commonly been called by those who respect human rights and recently- exposed to all. He says Israel made several offers. A long standing myth some still stubbornly fall back on... Clinton proposals Dec 2000- Arafat launched 4 year war of suicide attacks, 2008 or 2009 Olmert put a detailed map on the table, offering over 99% of "the territory" (of Israel/Palestine?, of Gaza/West Bank?, of the West Bank?)- didn't lead to an agreement. He says both sides made mistakes, but blames Palestinians. He says the crux of the issue is refugee return (covered in Palileaks...) which he thinks is code for "demographic disruption" which I see as code for we like apartheid and want everyone else to accept it. He says Palestinians must change their position, much like Israelis have in the willingness to give land for peace. Palestinians must offer on their part for a peace agreement a substantial concession on refugees. I say, first, what about international law? Does this matter at all? All people are supposed to have the right to go back home after war. Israel has not allowed this since its beginning. Now there's a backlog of refugees. Whose fault is that, really? Second, Palestinians did offer (in the past 10 years) a substantial concession on refugees and what did it get them? A "we appreciate it" from Livni and a big fat "no; all of our demands must be met, not just 99%."

Did he miss the Palestine papers leaks of recent weeks? Does he discount them? Does he know or suspect they are a pack of lies as Erekat says? Neal Conan missed a chance at a good question. Wish Diane Rehm was there.



~17:00Caller (Yanika in Washington) talks about the paranoia of Israel about its neighbors being exaggerated and compares Israel and Egypt's blockade of Gaza to Warsaw ghetto. This wasn't the focus of the comments, but it is what Halevy zeroed in on.

"What a comment," he said first. You can tell he wants to cuss her out... or laugh. He then justifies the paranoia and extreme military responses and dismisses the Warsaw ghetto comment as offensive. This type of response that nothing can compare with the Nazi holocaust kind of leads to thinking the Jews having a monopoly on suffering or that anything the Jews do to "defend themselves" is justified no matter how brutal because nothing compares to the holocaust. I just don't think you can use the holocaust to justify the type of collective punishment Israel is inflicting on Palestinians. Why Palestinians must pay for Nazi crimes anyway is a mystery that no one has explained. Why must they be the ones to concede on refugees, have a state with no army, accept a foreign army presence, give up Jerusalem, move to another Arab state, etc? They have already had to make the concession to be driven from their homes, have a large number of Europeans living on their soil, in their houses; what are Israelis prepared to offer in return? No one asks that. They didn't give; they took more land in 1967. They are still looking to take. Or at least make more of what they took unable to be contested- permanently. If it weren't for those pesky UN resolutions and international law to muddle things... Back to my other train of thought...

I definitely take issue with this superiority of Nazi holocaust suffering. Maybe that makes me a holocaust denier. There are so many similarities between the two when you look at Israel chasing out the refugees from their homes in 1948, among other times and various forms of collective punishment. Why can't you compare tragedies? The very fact that Israel is so focused on terrorism and yet is willing to torture and terrorize all Palestinians to force political change and that this is the very definition of terrorism is rich with irony that needs to be discussed, especially as the US has such a favorable opinion of that state.

New Dietary Guidelines and the Opposition

Listened to this and it was quite good if you are interested in food and nutrition issues:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-02-01/dietary-guidelines

Apparently, they are better than before, but need a little more help. The experts don't like the term "solid fat". And who can blame them? But they like the recommendation about filling half your plate with fruits and veggies. There is still some disagreement as to whether the meat and dairy industries are influencing these guidelines... Interesting stuff. Also, they go into the current administration's efforts and focus on health and obesity.

I like the focus the First Lady has taken on obesity. The President himself has signed school nutrition legislation. New York I believe is trying to get permission to try out a tax on soda.


A lot of people are against taking vending machines out of school and passing laws against soda and other healthy legislation like that. I have to wonder if they are just against Obama, against "government in our lives" (code for anti-Obama or die hard Republican), or against health. "You should teach your kid to eat right." "It's not the state's job to choose healthy food." "Don't limit my choices." I personally don't think elementary and even middle schoolers are ready to make those decisions without a parent in most cases. Do we tell kids it doesn't matter if you hang out with the wrong crowd or dangle drugs and alcohol in front of them if we want to encourage them to make good choices and stay away from these things?? Why is food a different matter?

Another opinion I have is that above all places, schools and hospitals should be the places where only healthy stuff is offered. Often far from reality, but in a perfect world...

Above, I just listed some opposition off the top of my head I've heard in response to Obama's efforts, the soda tax, the proposed vending machine bans, campaigns for healthier school lunches, etc. Here is is in print.

Some of the opposition to vending machine school bans is just lame. More education? Really? Tell them to eat their veggies, then dangle sweets and sugary drinks in front of them at every turn? Is that how you get kids to stay off of drugs?

Enjoy:

http://www.congresslink.org/print_lp_floorsim_vending.htm

• It is not up to the schools to determine the eating habits of children or teachers. These decisions should be made by those individuals themselves.
• The revenues from these vending machines are used to pay for a range of school expenses, from football team uniforms to band trips. Machines serving healthful alternatives are not likely to generate the same amount of income.
• In banning these machines, the schools are sending a message that some foods are "bad". People should be able to make those determinations themselves and to gain an understanding that most foods are acceptable in moderation. Rather than banning the machines, the schools should provide more education on healthy nutrition and the benefits of exercise.
• Banning these foods on campus will cause many students to leave the school campus during the day in search of their preferred snacks. This will create additional safety concerns and cause potential increases in tardiness.

Shame on us. How dare we vilify a food. Don't call Cokes "bad" or candy bars empty calories. Really?

Face it. Some food is in fact bad or bad for you.

And the last one on the list? I thought that was called skipping school and kids got punished for that. If schools are respected as a soda and junk free zone and if parents helped reinforce this instead of talking junk about the President, government, etc for not allowing us the "freedom" to be fat and lazy in every sphere of life, perhaps kids would catch on as well. Just a thought. And when you go home from school, you can have your sweets in moderation. No one's banning all sweets. Why is it such a big deal that your kid can't access every possible choice of junk at any given time? People seem to be dealing with the peanut butter ban for health reasons just fine. Why not get rid of junk food for health reasons? People seem way more concerned that you might not be able to access junk food at every hour of the day than any aspect of their children's education (of which there's plenty to be concerned about).

Inaction and complicity- Sierra Leone, Israel Palestine

There have been a few instances this week in which I have thought about this topic, so I guess I'll pour it out here.

Today, I was talking about the conflict with someone and they mentioned that it would never end, so why would a Palestinian who lived here and had it pretty good want to go back home and be hassled at every turn? On the one hand, I can see that, but stepping onto someone else's shoes brings a few issues to mind. First, we are free to move wherever we want, so we generally don't think too much of moving. If someone banished you or made your life increasingly miserable in the area your family has lived for hundreds of years, moving would be giving up and giving in to injustice, not simply a choice of job or climate. I mean, why should Palestinians be the ones who had to move out because of what Hitler did. Like when not so long ago white people in this country wanted black people to move out of certain neighborhoods. It could be dangerous, but it could be necessary depending on what you want to leave your children, what you want to teach them, etc. Maybe if you stay, you can be a part of some solution or future justice served. If you move, you will be safe, but can no longer be a fact on the ground for Israel and the international community to face.

In the past, I have thought about getting more involved in activism. How far would I go? Obviously, I've only written some letters and gone to one protest, so I've made my choice- armchair activism. I have thought about what danger I could bring to my family or myself before that. What are the dangers of putting a bumper sticker on? Of going to a protest? Of standing in front of an (American made) Israeli bulldozer. Of monitoring voting in Palestinian election? Would it be selfish of me to bring harm to those I love in order to persue justice for Palestinians- whether they agree with the cause or not? Even though I'm not Palestinian myself I feel the injustice deeply for whatever reason. The fact that one party is so wrong and yet so supported and loved is mind boggling to me. My country is supposed to be all about equality and justice and I just can't see why we're always on the wrong side on this.

I also asked myself this question when worries started circulating about the government watching what you read via the library and being able to subpoena your history without your knowledge. I read a lot on politics, the Middle East and some on terrorism and Islamic extremism, so I was a little worried and thought maybe I should stay away from the library at least while Bush was in office. I finally decided if this was true and as bad as some report I heard, I'd be almost happy to serve a prison term for simply reading a book. I'd view it as military service in the draft.

This week I also listenend to a Diane Rehm Show featuring Aminatta Forna and she said something that really hit the nail on the head. I may have to read her books, but anyway... She was talking about her family's experience in Sierra Leone. Her father studied abroad and married and had kids. She was raised in Sierra Leone and told about how her family was watched and in so much danger (her father was killed in prison) because her father ran against the man who would introduce the one party state.

She said that people told her (and this is a very rough transcription):

"It's a shame your father got involved. I kept thinking how can you
say that? Surely that's what everybody should have done. And if
everybody had, this would be a completely different country."

Her new book is apparently about those people who did nothing and at what point doing nothing makes you complicit. Another interesting dilemma.

She talks with a woman whose parents she interviewed for another book. The woman gets angry about how her parents didn't do anything and her father defended himself this way:

"I had five children. How could I? I couldn't do anything else."

Interestingly, Forna's father, who died opposing dictatorship, could have defended his actions with the same words, Forna said.


I thought that was a brilliant way to illustrate the two sides of the coin in this conflict and also the Israeli Palestinian one.

Palileaks: Jerusalem and refugess...so far...

What we have learned:

• Palestinian leadership wants to give away East Jerusalem and part of the West Bank and only allow 10,000-100,000 refugees out of millions back for nothing except the glimmer of hope that Israel will agree to a deal.
• US has been twisting Palestinian arms more than anyone seemed to believe (in the US). Rice even told Palestinian leaders that there would be no deal unless they gave up the above items
• Israel is proven uncompromising and demanding far beyond what anyone in the US would ever state publicly. It will probably still be considered anti-Semitic for stating this even though it is a proven fact (provided these leaks aren't fake documents). Rice was wrong on the above point-Israel wanted ALL of its demands, not just nearly all.

That is what I learned. All anyone seems to want to talk about is how not ready the Palestinian public is for what the leaders were going to propose. The upside, they believe, is that now Palestinians can get ready to give these things up for peace now that it's out in the open. ??? What about the arm twisting and neglect of international law and bias toward Israel?? What about how everyone in the US is under the impression that Israel has been bending over backwards for peace with no Palestinian partner for 10 years and that has been a big fat lie? I think what warrants some thought and/ or discussion.


http://www.france24.com/en/20110124-mideast-negotiations-leaked-documents-reveal-palestinian-concessions-jerusalem-refugees

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/133172401/leaked-documents-show-palestinian-jerusalem-offer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/24/papers-palestinian-leaders-refugees-fight


What else can they give up?? There are supposed to be several more revelations.

I'm not Palestinian, but I feel a bit like I've had the rug pulled out from under me. Ripped off. I fully expected the US to be firmly in Israel's camp, fighting Palestinian independence and Israeli concessions tooth and nail. What I didn't expect was for Palestinian "leaders" to be giving away their peoples' rights and state. In the US, we expect leaders to stand up for our rights and act in our interest- not so in other countries.

We in the US speak rather figuratively about our leaders not doing what's best for us, I believe. Obama's a communist. I mean, really, who believes that honestly? There is a beef in there somewhere, but we all know he's not a communist. And we all talk doom and gloom about the opposing party becoming president, but we in this country know that there will be a peaceful transfer of power and whoever is president from whichever party won't change things very much, won't give away the ground from beneath our feet, we know we will be a democracy, our borders won't change, etc.

Leaders in this country tend to be more well off than the rest of us and run in elite circles, but we know there is less corruption than in other countries probably due to the fact that we are eager through the press and other means to seek it out and lay everything out in the open.

I say all this to explain how I can't fathom where the Palestinian "leadership" is coming from. They stay pretty insulated and isolated from the average person's struggle and will reap any small benefits a solution might offer. For instance, the 10,000 refugees allowed into Israel. You better believe those slots will be for any and all government officials, ex-PLO, and the like and not regular folks. I guess if you are one who will certainly get a slot, it is pretty easy to "negotiate" away everyone else's place.

Points of international law should not be up for negotiation. Israel must go back to pre-1967 borders. Evacuate settlements on Occupied Territory (or be under Palestinian rule). Get rid of the Wall. Allow right of return. That's the law. If Palestinians can't return, Jewish immigration must also be cut- that's negotiation. Jerusalem should be a shared or international city, as proposed in the UN.

As far as prospects for peace in the future... I hope Palestinians seek new leadership and avoid the US as a mediator. I think getting (or continuing to get) other countries to recognize them (so far in South America) has been a positive, encouraging thing. I also hope people see the US and Israel for what they are and have been- uncompromising, biased toward Israel, unsympathetic to Palestinians, indifferent to international law.

People are saying these revelations might slow things down for a bit and make life difficult for Palestinian leaders. Some say at least now Palestinians know what their leaders have been doing and they can now get the population ready for what they will have to give up for peace. I say Palestinians have given up quite enough and now they know what their leaders were doing behind their backs- time for a change. We have the UN resolutions about Jerusalem, refugees, borders. Israel has never complied. That is our problem.

When people have said Palestinians aren't ready for peace, perhaps this is what they were talking about. I had thought they were saying just that they thought Palestinians were terrorists or some ridiculous generalization like that. The leaders have been making deals, giving up land and rights while telling the public a tale of never giving up on refugees, Jerusalem, and the green line. That's what the public isn't ready for. We have heard various reports before about this Palestinian leader or that getting soft in a meeting. I refused to believe it. It didn't make sense. The Palestinians not being ready for peace meant that they weren't ready to give up even more land and rights than they have lost over the decades, more than they are required to give under the law. That's not peace. That's throwing out the law and might makes right. In a country that ostensibly values justice as we do, you'd think that we'd want to do right by Palestinians so that might doesn't have to make right.


*** *** ***
Duh...

9.47am: The Jerusalem Post is dismayed by the Palestinian reaction to the leaks.

Instead of at least being appreciated by their own people as savvy negotiators constructively working toward the achievement of Palestinian political sovereignty and self-determination, Abbas, Saeb Erekat, Ahmed Qurei and others involved in 2008 talks with former foreign minister Tzipi Livni and former prime minister Ehud Olmert have been castigated by the Palestinian street as traitors..

Of course they are traitors. Savvy? Are you kidding me? Since when is giving away your land and rights guaranteed by international law savvy? And look where it got them! Livni said thanks, but no thanks- you didn't give us all of our demands, just giving us most of them won't cut it. At least we see Israel's true colors. Give and inch and they will take a mile. Haven't some of us been saying this for quite some time? Whatever. They should have stuck by international law. The same amount of progress would have been made, but at least they'd have their principles and dignity.

The story of Esau selling his birthright comes to mind... don't read too much into that...

Flotilla raid inquiry- results are in!

There are the leaked Palestinian papers and in another unsurprising news, Israel clears itself in any wrongdoing whatsoever in the Gaza flotilla raid (contrary to the UN/Goldstone report).

It's basically just all of the stuff the Israeli government said before they really looked at anything. Now, they are claiming they looked into it. Who actually expected Israel to tell the truth or even scratch the surface?

Just one more link in the chain. Par for the course.

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/knau/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1752941/World/Israel.inquiry.clears.government.and.navy.in.Gaza.ship.raid

Khalidi talks about this after the Palestinian papers on Democracy Now:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/24/rashid_khalidi_leaked_palestine_papers_underscore


I think I predicted this result in another post....

Maybe not a prediction, but another inquiry...

http://notanotherpoliticalblog-j.blogspot.com/2010/06/gaza-flotilla-are-weapons-or-video.html

From this entry:
Israel wants to investigate itself without international involvement. Not only that, but the investigation is not to assess guilt or compliance with international law, but just to see if the operation worked. ??? Perhaps we should have let Hitler and Milosovic investigate themselves- not to assess guilt, but just to evaluate the operation. When you put it that way, you see the absurdity. Criminals cannot investigate themselves.

Leaked Palestinian Papers Raise Questions For U.S. | KQED Public Media for Northern CA

Leaked Palestinian Papers Raise Questions For U.S. KQED Public Media for Northern CA:

"As Crowley, the State Dept. spokesman argues, New York is not the place to resolve the conflict.
'The best and only way to fundamentally resolve the core issues, reach an agreement and end the conflict once and for all is through a negotiation not through unilateral statements, unilateral actions,' Crowley says."

Khalidi's got some interesting things to say about this on Democracy Now. In 2008, Palin called him a terrorist associate of Obama and people were terrified he's have a position in government. He isn't a terrorist, but rather a scholar (the same in some people's eyes) and a lot of good could have been done in the Israeli Palestinian issue if he were invited to help the Obama administration.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/24/rashid_khalidi_leaked_palestine_papers_underscore


Did Israel need Palestinian agreement, blessing and permission for going to the UN and declaring itself a state with borders it made up?

Why on earth is it no ok for Palestinians to take the crumbs from their table and claim for their own what everyone already recognizes as their territory? And after listening to the contents of the leaks, you will see the crumbs are a lot less than usually referred to.

The UN is not the place to solve the issue?? We've got to ask ourselves why that is. Because normally it would be the perfect place. It is only not the place when the US will veto anything of consequence that doesn't directly benefit Israel whether it's just words or a resolution of substance that partitions and makes things clear.

Unilateral action is not the way to go? That's what negotiations are in this case. Israel gets exactly what it wants or the "deal" falls through. As these leaks have shown, there is no room for negotiation in Israel's demands.

No unilateral statements? I guess Congress didn't get that memo! They have at least one resolution at a minimum every session about how much they love Israel and it's our duty to protect them no matter what, Palestinians must try harder, Israel's committed to peace, etc... oh and by the way, we hope this thing ends in peace somewhow.

flotilla

Against Goldstone investigation into flotilla raid

Gaza incursion

bipartisan support for Israel, not international law


Neither did Israel for that matter. Unilateral is business as usual for them.

Now, let's talk about the contents of the leaked documents. Wow. Palestinians giving away some of the West Bank and most of E. Jerusalem? What?

The first thing that comes to mind is is this legit? Who would make it up, though? Certainly not Israel. It makes them look pretty bad, rejecting such huge, unpublicized concessions because it didn't meet Israel's demands for complete capitulation. How they refuse is very polite, but if this is real, it says volumes. Volumes to be moved (for most) from the conspiracy theory/ left wingnut shelf firmly to the valid, factual, historical shelf.

Livni reportedly replies to the offer: "We do not like this suggestion because it does not meet our demands, and probably it was not easy for you to think about it, but I really appreciate it."

They really appreciate it. Niiiice. They already have more than intended by the UN. More than is fair. Palestinians offer to make the 1967 land grab and most of it to recent times legal (to name one item) and Israel rejects it because one settlement is left out.

Would Palestinians? It makes Israel look bad, true, but would they sacrifice the consequences of making public giving away all of that land for nothing?

The US surely wouldn't. It makes Israel look bad. That's enough. But, it also makes the US look bad by pressuring Palestinians to make these huge concessions to get nothing in return except making talks succeed. Rice essentially said they had to give up all of that in order for any deal to be struck. That's bleak and maybe Palestinians fell for it. This is in support of violation of international law which states that the settlements are illegal due to the 4th Geneva Convention. Surely we wouldn't want to be seen on the other side of the law, would we?


I say, on to the UN! Or preferably a method the US can't veto...

Clearly, the US and Israel are not interested in anything but Israel's demands.

As dismal as it seems to not deal with the US and Israel, it seems Palestinians have at least as good or maybe better chances if they go it alone or find other business partners.

Another thing the leaks make clear is that all those times we slapped Israel on the wrist, got embarrassed by them, expressed our displeasure, called settlements unhelpful, etc were just feeble attempts at making us look more even-handed. Israel has been in charge of this thing from the beginning and our role of mediator is to get Palestinians to agree to whatever Israel decides it wants.