Philip Weiss indicates that the presence of Har Homa, a settlement built in the 90s around the vicinity of East Jerusalem, is a prime example of how strong Israel's supporters are in Washington, so much so that they were able to paralyse President Clinton in his denouncement of the construction.
"In 1997 the Netanyahu government resolved to build Har Homa, under pressure from the right wing, including Jerusalem mayor Ehud Olmert, now the P.M., who was adamant about the need for the development's 6500 units, for Israeli Jews.
Yasir Arafat was enraged by the plans. Har Homa would serve to cut the southern West Bank off from East Jerusalem, and would violate the Oslo accords, which called on Israel not to establish any more "facts on the ground." Arafat said Har Homa was likely to detonate an "explosion" among Palestinians and he would respond to Har Homa with the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
Arafat felt he had moved Clinton; but when he arrived at Andrews Air Force base to leave the country, he got a call from Dennis Ross. Ross informed him that Netanyahu was refusing to freeze the settlement.
Clinton did send a letter to Netanyahu asking him to postpone construction, the authors report. But Netanyahu blew that off.
The settlements have been a disaster, everyone agrees on that. And they arose from political pressures inside Israel...These settlements have been a pox on the peace process, as threatening to international security as Hamas's rise or Iran's noises about a bomb...Where is the American spine? Can you imagine an American president deferring to any other head of state in similar circumstances? The spinelessness can only be explained politically: that our government also has rightwing constituents engaged on the issue."
It's a sad fact that when a peace process is underway, with concessions forever asked of Palestinians while Israel refuses to define their borders, they accelerate their annexation, preceding to built more settlements in order to delegitimise a future Palestinian state, creating more "facts on the ground" to prevent any sovereignity, only autonomy "through the occupier". (Think Gaza.) All of this is not new. It is a testament as to how strong Israel's apologists are in the circles of policy wonks. Clinton balked. He didn't want to feel the sting of the Lobby. President Bush was helpless to halt Ariel Sharon in his continued building on the West Bank, even more so that he was called "a man of peace" for destroying more Palestinian homes and taking more of their land, at a time when Palestinian violence was rather low. Har Homa is typical. Tanya Reinhart concluded that
"But the new settlement is an irreversible act which eliminates their chances to ever get such rights [over Jerusalem]."
In conjuction, the US Government "vetoed two different UN Security Council resolutions that called on Israel to stop construction at Har Homa. The U.S. was the only country of the 15 members on the council to vote against the resolution." This along with the fact that the US (along with Israel and Micronesia) "were the only countries among the 185 members in the UN General Assembly to vote against an April 1997 resolution demanding an immediate halt to construction at Har Homa."
We hold our hopes in the mediator called the United States; but with all their actions in the Middle East, only a fool could accept such a broker in talks of peace. No one in the Third World is impressed with all the sophistry, no matter how many times you can call it "freedom", or a benevolent occupation, or a "peace envoy", it simply is not. The facts prove another result: that Palestinians are being tortured, assassinated, imprisons children, humiliated, starved, punished, prevented from leaving their homes or going to work, and "voluntarily" transferred.
But all that is necessary for the beauty that is Har Homa.
"As of 2006, there were approximately 2000 families, 8 kindergartens, 2 day care centers, 2 public grammar schools, 3 medical clinics, and 3 shopping centers."
It is important to remember that all of this construction is in violation of international law, further settlements encapsulates Zionist policy towards the West Bank, and continued annexation of Palestinian land is meant to halt any hope of a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. By ignoring this, or perhaps by pre-empting such a fact of contiguity, Israel aims to halt any possibility of a state for Palestinians, that they want them off the land and driven to Jordan (or other neighbouring states). This is common knowledge, especially for any congressman in Washington. But what other state could thumb their noses at the biggest superpower today and adamantly refuse a condition that the US President maintains is an obligation towards a genuine peace settlement in this dialectic?
There are other shining examples of such dualities that seems to escape any scrutiny (but more and more people are seeing the equation for what it is). And the debate rages on. How long can people shut their eyes before they see that these people are dangerous and their cantankerous distortions of policy is detrimental to their so called desires for "peace"? Unless their true intention is an Israel hegemony over the Middle East region, to which it is not us of the left who support "terrorists" but rather the right who support "extremists", then the expose of Israel's espionage should only be intensified.
James Petras reveals in his stunning article that it was the Israel Lobby that pushed for the invasion of Iraq, and the theory of "Big Oil" only clouds the true reason that the war took place, and "[T]he price of the ‘exonerate Israel’ strategy is to overlook the powerful role that the Israel First lobby is playing" to promote future wars (ie Iran) and exculpate the occupier from their duties under the Geneva Accords.
"Analytically, the differences between Israeli state policy and the leading US Zionist organizations are, with very rare exceptions, indistinguishable... An analysis of the relationship between the Israeli state and highly placed Zionist officials in the Bush Administration reveals first and foremost that Tel Aviv laid out the strategic policies of eliminating Middle East regimes opposed to its ethnic cleansing of the occupied territories and unlimited expansion of colonial settlements in Occupied Palestine and the consolidation of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East.
Mearsheimer and Walt describe the pro-Israel power configuration as a ‘lobby, just like any other US lobby’, a ‘loose collection of individuals and groups’ outside of government, acting on behalf of Israel. Nothing could be further from the truth. The power of Israel in the United States is manifested through a multiplicity of highly organized, well financed and centrally directed structures throughout the United States."
Although Petras may have overstated the influence of The Lobby to invade Iraq on Israel's behalf, the ratio between Bush and his corporate constituencies, Israel's good name and Cheney's lunacy is probably a question reserved for the historians of the future to analyse, it is beyond a doubt that the war in Iraq would not have taken place without the likes of "Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Madeleine Albright, Richard Holbrook, Sandy Berger, William Cohen" in Clinton's administration and "Ari Fleischer, Paul Wolfowitz, David Frum, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eliott Abrams, Irving (Scooter) Libby, David Wurmser and others" during Bush's reign calling for the attack of Iraq (and to remodel the Middle East in Likudnik style). With key players in very important posts, offensives against Lebanon last year and Syrian strikes make more sense when juxtaposed with the PNAC strategy set up for Bibi all those years ago. In addition to this, the aggressive Israeli position against the Palestinians, which provoke more retaliation and hatred, hence more "terrorism", is overlooked thanks to the many who want to control what is said about the Jewish State. The list of "anti-Semites" is growing, Zionism is losing its luster, more are aware of Israel's human rights record, and the people who count are getting sick and tired of the war in Iraq. So why is it that the only candidates we can look forward to are just as hawkish as the ones we despise today?
It is because of what we have been speaking about all this time: those settlements, that war in Iraq, the smearing of respected figures in public, contemn of those who are willing to go out of line to reveal the true nature of Israel's occupation and treatment of Palestinians, the belligerent status of Israel's position against its neighbouring states (ie Lebanon and Syria), and the looming war in Iran, one that has military experts clamouring to show that that would be a disaster that makes Iraq look like a cakewalk; the Lobby has usurped the leadership and have seduced the public into thinking that all of this is necessary for Israel's good, which equals to America's well being. We can bet on more bellicose planning for the region, all configured to benefit the Jewish State and accomodate their whims. They wanted Saddam removed: they did it for us. They want Iran to be hit: the tough talk is not just for show. They want to keep Syria at bay besides their desire to improve relations: so they bomb them and can get away with it. They want Iran to be nuke-free while they keep their nukes under wraps: done. They want the Palestinians to continue their suffering and to be decimated, forever removed from reality, removed from history, removed from consciousness: it happens as we speak. What is next can only be speculated.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
Striking Iran is peaceful
Israel's Deputy PM Shaul Mofaz has reached the Orwellian peak by calling for the head of International Atomic Energy Agency leader Mohamed El Baradei, stating that
"the Egyptian...had endangered world peace by neglecting Iran's nuclear programme."
Of course, it is more of a ploy, falling in line with Likudnik thinking, that dissenters either have a choice to join their ranks or be broken. With Iran being played up as the next Boogeyman out there ready to wreak havoc on "world peace", our friends are willing to strike at them for the sake of peace (without seeing the irony of making war to have peace). Naturally, El Baradei has been a thorn in every hawk's side by his findings that Iran still has no weapon, and the fact that if they do choose to proliferate, it takes them almost a decade to do so. But with Pakistan in an imbroglio, concerns about their weapons are still considerably less so than Iran's non-existent ones (or Israel's couple of hundred in their arsenal).
And who else is going to piggyback (or initiate) this attack? Why none other than our neighbour to the south, who has mobilised Iran attack plans.
"US defense officials have signaled that up-to-date attack plans are available if needed in the escalating crisis over Iran's nuclear aims, although no strike appears imminent.
The Army and Marine Corps are under enormous strain from years of heavy ground fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the United States has ample air and naval power to strike Iran if President Bush decided to target nuclear sites or to retaliate for alleged Iranian meddling in neighboring Iraq.
Among the possible targets, in addition to nuclear installations like the centrifuge plant at Natanz: Iran's ballistic missile sites, Republican Guard bases, and naval warfare assets that Tehran could use in a retaliatory closure of the Straits of Hormuz, a vital artery for the flow of Gulf oil."
Tactical air strikes: haven't we been here before (as well as forged intelligence to suit our means)? Iraq has been blundered but that does not mean they cannot redeem themselves in Iran. After all, things have not changed one bit, have they. Here's Vice President Dick Cheney trying to withhold a report that is not to Washington's liking.
"A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear program, and thus make the document more supportive of US Vice President Dick Cheney's militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.
But this pressure on intelligence analysts, obviously instigated by Cheney himself, has not produced a draft estimate without those dissenting views, these sources say. The White House has now apparently decided to release the unsatisfactory draft NIE, but without making its key findings public."
So we're back into an old loop. Bombing nations for peace. Weapons when there are none. Leaving out key findings to support the militant cause. Deriding old realists when they do not follow the script. And a sign of things to come.
"If the NIE includes both dissenting views on key issues, a campaign of selective leaking to news media of language from the NIE that supports Cheney's line on Iran will soon follow, as well as leaks of the dissenting views by his opponents."
Hubris at its best.
"the Egyptian...had endangered world peace by neglecting Iran's nuclear programme."
Of course, it is more of a ploy, falling in line with Likudnik thinking, that dissenters either have a choice to join their ranks or be broken. With Iran being played up as the next Boogeyman out there ready to wreak havoc on "world peace", our friends are willing to strike at them for the sake of peace (without seeing the irony of making war to have peace). Naturally, El Baradei has been a thorn in every hawk's side by his findings that Iran still has no weapon, and the fact that if they do choose to proliferate, it takes them almost a decade to do so. But with Pakistan in an imbroglio, concerns about their weapons are still considerably less so than Iran's non-existent ones (or Israel's couple of hundred in their arsenal).
And who else is going to piggyback (or initiate) this attack? Why none other than our neighbour to the south, who has mobilised Iran attack plans.
"US defense officials have signaled that up-to-date attack plans are available if needed in the escalating crisis over Iran's nuclear aims, although no strike appears imminent.
The Army and Marine Corps are under enormous strain from years of heavy ground fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the United States has ample air and naval power to strike Iran if President Bush decided to target nuclear sites or to retaliate for alleged Iranian meddling in neighboring Iraq.
Among the possible targets, in addition to nuclear installations like the centrifuge plant at Natanz: Iran's ballistic missile sites, Republican Guard bases, and naval warfare assets that Tehran could use in a retaliatory closure of the Straits of Hormuz, a vital artery for the flow of Gulf oil."
Tactical air strikes: haven't we been here before (as well as forged intelligence to suit our means)? Iraq has been blundered but that does not mean they cannot redeem themselves in Iran. After all, things have not changed one bit, have they. Here's Vice President Dick Cheney trying to withhold a report that is not to Washington's liking.
"A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear program, and thus make the document more supportive of US Vice President Dick Cheney's militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.
But this pressure on intelligence analysts, obviously instigated by Cheney himself, has not produced a draft estimate without those dissenting views, these sources say. The White House has now apparently decided to release the unsatisfactory draft NIE, but without making its key findings public."
So we're back into an old loop. Bombing nations for peace. Weapons when there are none. Leaving out key findings to support the militant cause. Deriding old realists when they do not follow the script. And a sign of things to come.
"If the NIE includes both dissenting views on key issues, a campaign of selective leaking to news media of language from the NIE that supports Cheney's line on Iran will soon follow, as well as leaks of the dissenting views by his opponents."
Hubris at its best.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
The wrath of God
Here's an interesting tidbit from Israeli rabbis:
""We wrote to President Bush, a man who believes in the Bible, to warn him against the terrible danger to which he is exposing his country by hosting such a conference," Rabbi Meir Druckman, one of eight signatories, told Army Radio. "The land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel. God punishes anyone who wants to force Israel to give up its land," he said, alluding to the occupied Gaza Strip and West Bank."
Further testament that Israel is unwilling to give up anything for peace. They want to encroach the totality of historic Palestine. It is rather evident that Zionism is still prevalent, and the audacity of negogiations to give up the occupied territories will bring God's wrath to those who "force Israel to give up its land". Nevermind that it belonged to someone else for a century or so. For example, here's a peak into Benny Morris' ideology, an astute Zionist and the leading figure of the new historians:
""A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population." According to him the Zionists made a mistake to have allowed any Palestinans to remain. "If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer of 1948. (...) In other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves (...) in a situation of warfare (...) acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential (...) If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified.""
Coupled with God's intention, the removal of Palestinians is a necessity for Israel's security, and an existential obligation. Or else face the consequences for having the temerity to offer peace:
"There is no doubt the New Orleans flood from the Katrina hurricane was God's punishment for dismantling the settlements...The recent fires in California should be considered the last warning..."
It's great to interpret things so distorted that it suits our ideology. Floods and hurricanes and forest fires; all coined for Israel's security. Even God is on their side.
""We wrote to President Bush, a man who believes in the Bible, to warn him against the terrible danger to which he is exposing his country by hosting such a conference," Rabbi Meir Druckman, one of eight signatories, told Army Radio. "The land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel. God punishes anyone who wants to force Israel to give up its land," he said, alluding to the occupied Gaza Strip and West Bank."
Further testament that Israel is unwilling to give up anything for peace. They want to encroach the totality of historic Palestine. It is rather evident that Zionism is still prevalent, and the audacity of negogiations to give up the occupied territories will bring God's wrath to those who "force Israel to give up its land". Nevermind that it belonged to someone else for a century or so. For example, here's a peak into Benny Morris' ideology, an astute Zionist and the leading figure of the new historians:
""A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population." According to him the Zionists made a mistake to have allowed any Palestinans to remain. "If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer of 1948. (...) In other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves (...) in a situation of warfare (...) acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential (...) If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified.""
Coupled with God's intention, the removal of Palestinians is a necessity for Israel's security, and an existential obligation. Or else face the consequences for having the temerity to offer peace:
"There is no doubt the New Orleans flood from the Katrina hurricane was God's punishment for dismantling the settlements...The recent fires in California should be considered the last warning..."
It's great to interpret things so distorted that it suits our ideology. Floods and hurricanes and forest fires; all coined for Israel's security. Even God is on their side.
Monday, November 5, 2007
The danger of Ha'aretz
The Israeli newspaper is at it again, saying what should not be said about Israel. A fine piece by Uzi Benziman is the paradigm of what is wrong to those who view the Jewish State as incapable of doing anything wrong, whether it be human rights abuses, violations of international law, or outright aggression that goes unpunished (or even unnoticed) by the West. How many even recall the Israeli strike on Syria in early September? Has any criticism been notable as of yet?
In Benziman's article, he sees the mistake in collective punishment of Gazans, in the vain hope of stopping Qassam rockets terrorising Israelis in Sderot:
"Experience teaches that subjecting the Palestinians to collective punishment - roadblocks, curfews or economic pressure - has not brought the desired result. Just the opposite: it increases the terror organizations' motivation to strike at Israel, and increases the number of potential suicide bombers."
Such logic is missing in too many in these times. But those Qassams have to stopped, right?
"So what should be done to combat the Qassams? Instead of trying economic siege and power outages and limited raids and ground campaigns and targeted assassinations - how about trying to reach a comprehensive settlement with the Palestinians founded on a genuine Israeli willingness to give up the territories?"
It makes sense to me. Gaza has been the playground for Israel's demented militancy; it's a giant prison, caged in with guards and checkpoints and IDF incursions imminent every day. With the recent declarations that enable any IDF soldier to be "above the law" to enflict as much damage to Palestinians as possible (in Gaza), Qassam rockets provide the perfect pretext for any future raid into the Gaza Strip. Benziman concurs that,"
"They call the move a 'test': If it works, fine; if not, they'll think of something else."
So anything that happens in Gaza is subject to Israel's whims and desires; if we want to try out some bombs, let's do it in Gaza; if we want to try to snuff out some Palestinians, Gaza is the place to do it. It doesn't matter if it works (although it would be better if it did), because it's just Gaza: they're "hostile" people; they have brought this on themselves. Let's starve them but just enough to keep them alive (to continue starving); let's cut their power and show them how primitive they really are; let's cut their medical supplies and fuel and even curb their banking. So what if it works? I quote Benziman again,
"According to reports by Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel in Friday's Haaretz, the Israel Defense Forces recommended the sanctions even though it knew they would not achieve the declared goal: to stop the rocket and mortar shells."
It won't work but let's do it anyway.
As was showcased in video documenting the Gaza debacle, groups like Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigade, who responsible for the Qassam launchers, are involved in guerrilla warfare, all the while pushing Hamas from their moderate position into encapsulating armed resistance against Israel. In the video, the operation of Qassams were just a band of three to four people, with a tiny setup that has no centrality. A sanctions strategy is not going to deter these radicals who see violence as justified because of Israel's continued oppression and occupation of Palestinians. On the contrary, it will exacerbate an already fiery confrontation, vindicating all the rhetoric that extremist factions such as Islamic Jihad are preaching. While there are some who condemn the acts of sending Qassams (which allure Israel to strengthen its resolve), most Palestinians support them in their resistance against their occupier.
But this reality is something that the folks who unconditionally support Israel to the bitter end don't want you to read. They would rather the typical person be coccooned from all the bad things and bad people, so you can pledge your undying love to the Jewish State (while being in a foreign country). Palestinian suffering has no bearing; what counts is Israeli suffering (since they have suffered for an eternity and have finally found their way home). As of this writing, they are still giving it to Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, this time with two more pieces in the Washington Post. Philip Weiss attests that this is further evidence that such a entity as Jewish Power is an absolute in DC circles.
"I believe the Post has run a series of critical pieces on M & W. Shouldn't they give the authors or those who agree with them space to defend their point of view? (My sources tell me the Post has rejected a couple of pieces that would have backed M & W up...)"
This is only corroborated further by another piece (also commented on by Philip Weiss) that named figures such as John Hannah, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams as instrumental in opposing any initiative to implement the Road Map. When the Prince Abdullah (as well as Jordan's King Hussein) challenged Bush to do something about the Palestinian situation, the "cabal" in Rice's and Rumsfeld's offices opposed stating
"...that negotiation was just a reward for bad behavior. First the Palestinians had to reject terrorism and practice democracy."
So who is really impeding progress here? Any small measure to promote some kind of detente (at least) is rebuffed where it counts, and those who are not in line are derailed. The Palestinians are caught in the middle of a struggle between the elites on what is accepted and what is to be done. We're seeing a strong campaign to keep the Israeli centred viewpoint (even though it still is, most criticism directed at what would be best for Israel's survival, with the Palestinians a mere side factor in the matter), respected public figures such as Tutu, Carter, Walt and Mearsheimer continually subjected to vitriol, and the crusade hitting the institutions to prevent these people to speak (or debate), as well as an offensive against Israel's liberal newspaper which prints what is not fit to be printed. Even more dangerous is the fact that the Larry Franklin case seems to be losing momentum, thanks to more delayed tactics of the defense. This is a man who is undisputably working for Israel's benefit at the cost of American intelligence, and yet we're meant to see this as nothing wrong, all in a day's work. If there ever was a doubt that a Lobby existed to promote Israel's interests, the Franklin case is the stamp that sealed the envelope.
But this is what they don't want you to know. They'd prefer we remain the coccoon, similiar to those Israelis who are just inured to the occupation that the Palestinians don't even entitle a story in the front pages. We will be insulated from all that could potentially harm us, agnate the 9/11 aftermath that had us protected from all covert operations that had "blowback" effects. In the end this will not be the way towards anything besides mutual annihilation. There can be no understanding unless we engage with those we disgree with, and there will be no basis for peace unless Israel recognises Palestinian dolour and their birth of exile. If not then we can expect more "tests" from Israel.
In Benziman's article, he sees the mistake in collective punishment of Gazans, in the vain hope of stopping Qassam rockets terrorising Israelis in Sderot:
"Experience teaches that subjecting the Palestinians to collective punishment - roadblocks, curfews or economic pressure - has not brought the desired result. Just the opposite: it increases the terror organizations' motivation to strike at Israel, and increases the number of potential suicide bombers."
Such logic is missing in too many in these times. But those Qassams have to stopped, right?
"So what should be done to combat the Qassams? Instead of trying economic siege and power outages and limited raids and ground campaigns and targeted assassinations - how about trying to reach a comprehensive settlement with the Palestinians founded on a genuine Israeli willingness to give up the territories?"
It makes sense to me. Gaza has been the playground for Israel's demented militancy; it's a giant prison, caged in with guards and checkpoints and IDF incursions imminent every day. With the recent declarations that enable any IDF soldier to be "above the law" to enflict as much damage to Palestinians as possible (in Gaza), Qassam rockets provide the perfect pretext for any future raid into the Gaza Strip. Benziman concurs that,"
"They call the move a 'test': If it works, fine; if not, they'll think of something else."
So anything that happens in Gaza is subject to Israel's whims and desires; if we want to try out some bombs, let's do it in Gaza; if we want to try to snuff out some Palestinians, Gaza is the place to do it. It doesn't matter if it works (although it would be better if it did), because it's just Gaza: they're "hostile" people; they have brought this on themselves. Let's starve them but just enough to keep them alive (to continue starving); let's cut their power and show them how primitive they really are; let's cut their medical supplies and fuel and even curb their banking. So what if it works? I quote Benziman again,
"According to reports by Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel in Friday's Haaretz, the Israel Defense Forces recommended the sanctions even though it knew they would not achieve the declared goal: to stop the rocket and mortar shells."
It won't work but let's do it anyway.
As was showcased in video documenting the Gaza debacle, groups like Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigade, who responsible for the Qassam launchers, are involved in guerrilla warfare, all the while pushing Hamas from their moderate position into encapsulating armed resistance against Israel. In the video, the operation of Qassams were just a band of three to four people, with a tiny setup that has no centrality. A sanctions strategy is not going to deter these radicals who see violence as justified because of Israel's continued oppression and occupation of Palestinians. On the contrary, it will exacerbate an already fiery confrontation, vindicating all the rhetoric that extremist factions such as Islamic Jihad are preaching. While there are some who condemn the acts of sending Qassams (which allure Israel to strengthen its resolve), most Palestinians support them in their resistance against their occupier.
But this reality is something that the folks who unconditionally support Israel to the bitter end don't want you to read. They would rather the typical person be coccooned from all the bad things and bad people, so you can pledge your undying love to the Jewish State (while being in a foreign country). Palestinian suffering has no bearing; what counts is Israeli suffering (since they have suffered for an eternity and have finally found their way home). As of this writing, they are still giving it to Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, this time with two more pieces in the Washington Post. Philip Weiss attests that this is further evidence that such a entity as Jewish Power is an absolute in DC circles.
"I believe the Post has run a series of critical pieces on M & W. Shouldn't they give the authors or those who agree with them space to defend their point of view? (My sources tell me the Post has rejected a couple of pieces that would have backed M & W up...)"
This is only corroborated further by another piece (also commented on by Philip Weiss) that named figures such as John Hannah, Douglas Feith, Scooter Libby and Elliott Abrams as instrumental in opposing any initiative to implement the Road Map. When the Prince Abdullah (as well as Jordan's King Hussein) challenged Bush to do something about the Palestinian situation, the "cabal" in Rice's and Rumsfeld's offices opposed stating
"...that negotiation was just a reward for bad behavior. First the Palestinians had to reject terrorism and practice democracy."
So who is really impeding progress here? Any small measure to promote some kind of detente (at least) is rebuffed where it counts, and those who are not in line are derailed. The Palestinians are caught in the middle of a struggle between the elites on what is accepted and what is to be done. We're seeing a strong campaign to keep the Israeli centred viewpoint (even though it still is, most criticism directed at what would be best for Israel's survival, with the Palestinians a mere side factor in the matter), respected public figures such as Tutu, Carter, Walt and Mearsheimer continually subjected to vitriol, and the crusade hitting the institutions to prevent these people to speak (or debate), as well as an offensive against Israel's liberal newspaper which prints what is not fit to be printed. Even more dangerous is the fact that the Larry Franklin case seems to be losing momentum, thanks to more delayed tactics of the defense. This is a man who is undisputably working for Israel's benefit at the cost of American intelligence, and yet we're meant to see this as nothing wrong, all in a day's work. If there ever was a doubt that a Lobby existed to promote Israel's interests, the Franklin case is the stamp that sealed the envelope.
But this is what they don't want you to know. They'd prefer we remain the coccoon, similiar to those Israelis who are just inured to the occupation that the Palestinians don't even entitle a story in the front pages. We will be insulated from all that could potentially harm us, agnate the 9/11 aftermath that had us protected from all covert operations that had "blowback" effects. In the end this will not be the way towards anything besides mutual annihilation. There can be no understanding unless we engage with those we disgree with, and there will be no basis for peace unless Israel recognises Palestinian dolour and their birth of exile. If not then we can expect more "tests" from Israel.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Gaza live
Here's a video of the current traumas in Gaza, the forgotten territory left to rot by the world for the sake of security.
(Special mention goes to Tabula Gaza for the link to the video.)
(Special mention goes to Tabula Gaza for the link to the video.)
What the apologists don't want you to read
Here's an editorial from those bad Jews at Ha'aretz. A terrifying piece of work, no?
A new Jerusalem and Babylon
The relations between Israel and the the world's Jews, especially those in the United States, have always been fraught with hypocrisy. While everyone has been careful to pay lip service to Israeli democracy and its citizens' exclusive right to determine their fate, Jewish tycoons have known how to translate the millions they donate into influence and esteem.
The state, which managed to absorb millions of Jews and build a flourishing economy, continued its small-town mentality of kowtowing to the masters from overseas. The national institutions set up to prepare the future state's infrastructure - the Jewish Agency, Jewish National Fund, United Israel Appeal and World Zionist Organization - continued to be run as a hub of Israeli political interests combined with trips abroad to flatter philanthropists.
All Zionist parties are to blame for the present situation. They ceded control of national institutions to political interests and second or third-rate politicians who couldn't get elected to parliament.
A serious and open debate on the necessity and role of these bodies is long overdue. Why do we need an inflated, discriminatory organization like the JNF while forestry, environmental development and managing state lands should be the government's responsibility?
The Jewish Agency has succeeded in renovating itself in recent years by streamlining and focusing on domestic social projects, Jewish education in the Diaspora and fostering an affinity to Israel not merely for aliyah. But the JA will not be able to find a new purpose as long as it is dominated by narrow political interests and the whims of Jewish millionaires abroad.
The threat by a group of prominent donors to halt funds unless the Jewish Agency cuts itself off from the WZO - a blatant and patronizing demand as it may be - could accelerate a very necessary debate. The donors reflect the growing tendency among the large contributors to focus on visible results rather than perks.
When donors funnel millions to the United Jewish Communities, and on to the Jewish Agency, it helps them to rub elbows with the state's leaders. However, many are aware that to make any real difference, they must donate to independent groups like Taglit-birthright or Nefesh B'Nefesh. These are the ones who run the focused projects with Zionist goals.
In a way they are resorting to the methods of the great philanthropists Moshe Montefiori and Baron de Rothschild. Instead of sending money that would have barely sufficed for the Jews here to lead a meager existence, they came here and set up factories to enable independent community life.
The difference is that while those two came to a wasteland, Israel today is a sovereign state. The attempt to create an open, creative Jewish world modeled after Jerusalem and Babylon - activity centers that fertilize each other - will not work as long as the ties between Israel and the Diaspora are fixed in redundant obsolete patterns.
The Lobby unmasked
On Wednesday, Antiwar.com hosted a couple of important articles on The Lobby's current positions. Both Justin Raimondo and Ray McGovern showcased what The Lobby is typifying: distorting US foreign policy in order to promote Israel's "security" needs, at the expense of American dollars (naturally).
Raimondo points to The Lobby's effectiveness in suppressing dissent, and their ability to camouflage its intent to criticise Israel as unmerited attacks with a different agenda:
"What is this "unwritten contract" [with the US]? I'll tell you what it is: it's an agreement to censor anything and everything that offends the Lobby and its glorified, sanitized view of Israel. Here, after all, is a country that practices apartheid, imprisons children, and was founded on ethnic cleansing and bigoted religious obscurantism – and yet they present themselves to the world as a valiant little "democracy," a beleaguered outpost of "the West" in the midst of an Arab sea. It takes a lot of cosmetics to hide the true face of this dog, and that's what CAMERA is all about – prettifying an increasingly ugly reality. The Lobby reserves the right to censor any material that presents Israel in a more realistic light, and anyone who opposes them in their mission on behalf of a foreign power is smeared as an "anti-Semite."
He is relentless in his disgust at the efforts by CAMERA, who are attempting to "level the playing field" for Israel's supporters. There is simply too much outrage hitting the headlines that embarasses the Jewish State, and Levin at CAMERA is having none of it. Israel's policy is not in question: it's those who report on the atrocities are.
"Here is the totalitarian mentality of fanatic nationalists like Levin exposed for all to see: she and her fellow fifth columnists are lobbying a foreign government to interfere with freedom of the press in America, on behalf of foreign interests. It doesn't get much more disgusting than that, now does it?
Yeah, they have a "very free press" in Israel – much freer than our own, thanks to groups like CAMERA. In Israel, of course, newspapers like Ha'aretz regularly report on matters that offend the Lobby – such as, for example, the existence and unmitigated power of the Lobby itself – and CAMERA can't do a damn thing about it because their influence there is minimal. It's only in the U.S. – where they are bold enough to have called on the Israeli government to take legal action against American media – that they have the kind of power they need to close down debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East."
Everyone else can accept it, even Israel itself. But not in America. And it seems that they are steamrolling their way into attacking another Islamic nation starting with an "I". McGovern noted duly:
"The Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel.
Heavy on the chutzpah, he served gratuitous notice on Washington that effectively countering Iran's nuclear ambitions will take a "united United States in this matter," lest the Iranians conclude, "come January '09, they have it their own way."
Meridor stressed that "very little time" remained to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. How so?"
McGovern stresses the most important figure here calling for a strike on Iran is Dick Cheney, who is,
"a big fan of preemption, Cheney has done little to disguise his attraction to Israel's penchant to preempt, such as Israel's air strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.
Ten years after the Osirak attack, then-Defense Secretary Cheney reportedly gave Israeli Maj. Gen. David Ivri, commander of the Israeli air force, a satellite photo of the Iraqi nuclear reactor destroyed by U.S.-built Israeli aircraft. On the photo Cheney penned, "Thanks for the outstanding job on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981.""
And Cheney seems to have a couple of tricks (or yes-men) up his sleeve in order to pull the trigger. All the Ahmadinejad talk, all the amendments that bypass Congress, and the actions that put the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organisation", connecting Iran with American casualties in Iraq, is procured to fit nicely that Iran is out to get the US in Iraq, and "wipe off" their best buddy, the Israelis. Well not on Cheney's watch. Pre-emption is the key.
No evidence. No worries. Repeat it enough times then it becomes a fact.
Here's an example:
"Less than two months after the cancellation of Mearsheimer and Walt’s talk at the Chicago Council, administrators at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, cancelled a scheduled talk by the Nobel Peace Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu... [Julie] Swiler [an employee of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas] was referring to remarks allegedly made by Tutu comparing Israel to Hitler. In the weeks after the University of St. Thomas cancelled Tutu’s appearance, it came to light that those comments attributed to Tutu were a fabrication. In paraphrasing remarks by Tutu in Boston conference, Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, distorted Tutu’s remarks in a ZOA press release. The distorted version worked its way into the media and, in the words of the Jewish Daily Forward, “over time it acquired the status of a factual account.”"
Perfect fit. Put it on the page enough times and it becomes a "status of a factual account". It matters not that it was a baseless lie to vilify a person with stature. Only the marginal can be ignored. Others with prestige have to be accounted for.
Raimondo points to The Lobby's effectiveness in suppressing dissent, and their ability to camouflage its intent to criticise Israel as unmerited attacks with a different agenda:
"What is this "unwritten contract" [with the US]? I'll tell you what it is: it's an agreement to censor anything and everything that offends the Lobby and its glorified, sanitized view of Israel. Here, after all, is a country that practices apartheid, imprisons children, and was founded on ethnic cleansing and bigoted religious obscurantism – and yet they present themselves to the world as a valiant little "democracy," a beleaguered outpost of "the West" in the midst of an Arab sea. It takes a lot of cosmetics to hide the true face of this dog, and that's what CAMERA is all about – prettifying an increasingly ugly reality. The Lobby reserves the right to censor any material that presents Israel in a more realistic light, and anyone who opposes them in their mission on behalf of a foreign power is smeared as an "anti-Semite."
He is relentless in his disgust at the efforts by CAMERA, who are attempting to "level the playing field" for Israel's supporters. There is simply too much outrage hitting the headlines that embarasses the Jewish State, and Levin at CAMERA is having none of it. Israel's policy is not in question: it's those who report on the atrocities are.
"Here is the totalitarian mentality of fanatic nationalists like Levin exposed for all to see: she and her fellow fifth columnists are lobbying a foreign government to interfere with freedom of the press in America, on behalf of foreign interests. It doesn't get much more disgusting than that, now does it?
Yeah, they have a "very free press" in Israel – much freer than our own, thanks to groups like CAMERA. In Israel, of course, newspapers like Ha'aretz regularly report on matters that offend the Lobby – such as, for example, the existence and unmitigated power of the Lobby itself – and CAMERA can't do a damn thing about it because their influence there is minimal. It's only in the U.S. – where they are bold enough to have called on the Israeli government to take legal action against American media – that they have the kind of power they need to close down debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East."
Everyone else can accept it, even Israel itself. But not in America. And it seems that they are steamrolling their way into attacking another Islamic nation starting with an "I". McGovern noted duly:
"The Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel.
Heavy on the chutzpah, he served gratuitous notice on Washington that effectively countering Iran's nuclear ambitions will take a "united United States in this matter," lest the Iranians conclude, "come January '09, they have it their own way."
Meridor stressed that "very little time" remained to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. How so?"
McGovern stresses the most important figure here calling for a strike on Iran is Dick Cheney, who is,
"a big fan of preemption, Cheney has done little to disguise his attraction to Israel's penchant to preempt, such as Israel's air strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.
Ten years after the Osirak attack, then-Defense Secretary Cheney reportedly gave Israeli Maj. Gen. David Ivri, commander of the Israeli air force, a satellite photo of the Iraqi nuclear reactor destroyed by U.S.-built Israeli aircraft. On the photo Cheney penned, "Thanks for the outstanding job on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981.""
And Cheney seems to have a couple of tricks (or yes-men) up his sleeve in order to pull the trigger. All the Ahmadinejad talk, all the amendments that bypass Congress, and the actions that put the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist organisation", connecting Iran with American casualties in Iraq, is procured to fit nicely that Iran is out to get the US in Iraq, and "wipe off" their best buddy, the Israelis. Well not on Cheney's watch. Pre-emption is the key.
No evidence. No worries. Repeat it enough times then it becomes a fact.
Here's an example:
"Less than two months after the cancellation of Mearsheimer and Walt’s talk at the Chicago Council, administrators at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, cancelled a scheduled talk by the Nobel Peace Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu... [Julie] Swiler [an employee of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas] was referring to remarks allegedly made by Tutu comparing Israel to Hitler. In the weeks after the University of St. Thomas cancelled Tutu’s appearance, it came to light that those comments attributed to Tutu were a fabrication. In paraphrasing remarks by Tutu in Boston conference, Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, distorted Tutu’s remarks in a ZOA press release. The distorted version worked its way into the media and, in the words of the Jewish Daily Forward, “over time it acquired the status of a factual account.”"
Perfect fit. Put it on the page enough times and it becomes a "status of a factual account". It matters not that it was a baseless lie to vilify a person with stature. Only the marginal can be ignored. Others with prestige have to be accounted for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)