| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:22 pm Post subject: U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution condemning Israel on Gaza |
| Wonder why the US has a terror problem as such unconditional support of the rogue state's brutal oppression of the Palestinians was the PRIMARY MOTIVATION for the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
Video that gets to the Israel question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg...
Additional at following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
General (Ret) James David is mentioned on the cover of Paul Findley's 'They Dare to Speak Out' book:
From: BGJDAVID
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:21:02 EST
Subject: U.S. Vetoes Condemnation of Gaza Strikes
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Our leaders in Washington would prefer the continued slaughter of innocent Palestinians, including the killing of women and children, than to anger American Jews. Pathetic!
U.S. Vetoes Condemnation of Gaza Strikes
By JUSTIN BERGMAN
.c The Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The United States vetoed a U.N. Security Council draft resolution Saturday that sought to condemn an Israeli military offensive in the Gaza Strip and demand Israeli troops pull out the territory.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said the Arab-backed draft resolution was ``biased against Israel and politically motivated.''
``This resolution does not display an evenhanded characterization of the recent events in Gaza, nor does it advance the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace to which we aspire and for which we are working assiduously,'' he told the Security Council.
The draft received 10 votes in favor and four abstentions, along with the U.S. vote against. Britain, Denmark, Japan and Slovakia all abstained.
It was the second U.S. veto this year of a Security Council draft resolution concerning Israeli military operations in Gaza. The U.S. blocked action on a document this summer after Israel launched its offensive in response to the capture of an Israeli soldier by Hamas-linked Palestinian militants.
In Jerusalem, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the resolution was ``very one-sided.''
``It's good that it wasn't accepted by the Security Council,'' he said.
Palestinian U.N. observer Riyad Mansour said he was disappointed by the vote.
``You have conveyed today two wrong messages,'' he told the Security Council. ``For Israel, you have conveyed to them they can continue to behave above international law. For the Palestinian people, you have conveyed that justice is not being dealt with in a proper way.''
Qatar's Ambassador Nassir Al-Nasser said the failure of the Security Council to act on the draft will lead to continued Israeli violence against Palestinians.
``Any lukewarm reaction or response on our part gives the impression we are shirking from our humanitarian responsibilities,'' said Al-Nasser, who sponsored the resolution on behalf of the Palestinians.
Palestinians strengthened calls for Security Council action earlier this week after an early morning Israeli artillery barrage in the northern Gaza town of Beit Hanoun killed 19 people Wednesday.
In an open session of the General Assembly on Thursday, Mansour called the attack ``state terrorism'' and said the perpetrators should be held accountable under international law for war crimes.
Israel has expressed regret for the loss of life in Beit Hanoun but has said it will continue operations to stop militants from launching rockets into Israel. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is scheduled to visit Washington on Sunday to meet with President Bush.
The draft resolution had been weakened slightly in recent days to help improve its chances of passage. A section was added demanding the Palestinian Authority take immediate action to bring an end to violence, including the firing of rockets into Israel.
It also called for the U.N. secretary-general to establish a ``fact-finding mission'' to probe Wednesday's attack in Beit Hanoun, a step below ordering a full investigation.
In addition, it backed off calls for U.N. observers to be placed on the Gaza-Israel border, asking instead for the ``possible establishment of an international mechanism for protection of the civilian populations.''
But in his remarks to the Security Council, Bolton said the draft was still too one-sided. He said it compared legal Israeli military operations with the firing of rockets into Israel - an act of terrorism. He called the fact-finding mission unnecessary and said the text failed to condemn the ruling Hamas party's refusal to renounce terrorism.
Both Bolton and Deputy British Ambassador Karen Pierce voiced support for returning to the internationally backed ``road map'' peace plan, which has been stalled for years.
But Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, said the fact that the council allowed the draft to go to a vote showed the world's frustration with the U.S. not involving other members of the so-called Quartet of Mideast mediators in recent decisions on Israel. The other members are the U.N., the European Union and Russia.
``They don't have a stake in the talks and they are more willing now to force our hand,'' he said. ``A lot of times the world has felt (the U.S.) has been too pro-Israel, but in this case, people are just fed up.''
11/11/06 15:56 EST
U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution condemning Israel on Gaza
Reuters
By Irwin Arieff 33 minutes ago
The United States on Saturday vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning an Israeli attack in Gaza that killed 18 Palestinian civilians and urging a quick withdrawal of Israeli forces from the area.
Nine of the council's 15 members voted for the measure, while four abstained: Britain, Denmark, Japan and Slovakia.
But the "no" vote cast by U.S. Ambassador John Bolton -- his second since he arrived at U.N. headquarters a little over a year ago -- was enough to kill the resolution.
The measure, backed by Arab, Islamic and nonaligned nations and formally proposed by Qatar, would have called on the Palestinian Authority to "take immediate and sustained action to bring an end to violence, including the firing of rockets on Israeli territory."
It would have urged the international community to take steps to stabilize the situation, revive the Middle East peace process and consider "the possible establishment of an international mechanism" for the protection of civilians.
It also would have condemned Israeli military operations in Gaza and called on the Jewish state to withdraw all troops from Gaza and end its operations in all Palestinian lands.
Seven children and four women were among the dead in the Israeli shelling, for which Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has apologized, calling it an accidental "technical failure" by the Israeli military.
But Palestinian leaders have called it a massacre.
Bolton said Washington regretted the loss of life in Wednesday's artillery attack in Beit Hanoun but "we are disturbed at the language of the resolution which is in many places biased against Israel and politically motivated."
The suggestion of a mechanism to protect civilians would raise false hopes, he said, adding that he was disturbed the measure made no mention of the Palestinians' elected Hamas government, which refuses to acknowledge Israel's right to exist or renounce violence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/13/1516257
Monday, November 13th, 2006
U.S. Vetoes UN Resolution Condemning Israeli Attack on Gaza, Arab League Lifts Financial Blockade
The United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel's recent attack on the Gaza town of Beit Hanoun that killed at least 19 Palestinian civilians and left dozens wounded. In response, the Arab League announced it would lift the financial blockade on the Palestinians in defiance of the U.S. We go to Ramallah to speak with Diana Butto, the former legal adviser to the PLO. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel's recent attack on the Gaza town of Beit Hanoun that killed at least 19 Palestinian civilians and left dozens wounded.
One family lost 16 members when Israel tanks opened fire on their house. Seven children died, the youngest was just a year old. The UN resolution called on Israel to abide by its obligations and responsibilities under the Geneva Convention.
The U.S veto was widely criticized in part because the United States has repeatedly used its veto to shield Israel from criticism at the United Nations.
Arab League chief Amr Moussa said the veto was incomprehensible. In response, the Arab League announced it would lift the financial blockade on the Palestinians in defiance of the United States.
In other developments, a deal appears to have been reached between leaders of Hamas and Fatah over a new coalition Palestinian government. Under the reported agreement, a former university official named Mohammed Shbeir will become the new Palestinian Prime Minister replacing Hamas leader Ismail Haniya.
Diana Butto, political analyst and the former legal advisor to the PLO. She joins us on the line from Ramallah in the West Bank.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: Diana Butto is a political analyst and former legal advisor to the PLO. She joins us now on the line from Ramallah in the West Bank. We welcome you to Democracy Now!
DIANA BUTTO: Good morning, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the latest news? First, if you can talk about this reported agreement for Haniyeh, the prime minister, to step down?
DIANA BUTTO: Yes, there actually has been an agreement reached, or so we’ve been told, between the two movements of Fatah and Hamas, that are now going to call for the removal of Prime Minister Haniyeh, to be replaced instead by a person who is close to Hamas, but not necessarily a Hamas member. And the reasoning behind this is both because there's a sense that the government needs to be able to move on, but mostly because of the international boycott that has been waged against the Palestinians, a boycott that has resulted in about 80% poverty in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip now.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the UN Security Council veto, the United States vetoing the Security Council resolution condemning Israel’s attack on Beit Hanoun, and all that you know about what has happened in that situation?
DIANA BUTTO: Yes. I can tell you that I certainly was not surprised at the veto, because if you look at the history of the United States and when it has in fact used the veto, if you look at the number of times that the veto has been used, it’s been used about 70 times since the US became a member of the Security Council, and more than half of those times that it has used its veto has been on behalf of Israel, either vetoing something that -- a condemnation that was to be made against Israel or standing up alongside of Israel in order to use the veto to protect one of Israel's allies. And so, it's not at all surprising to most Palestinians that once again the US would use this veto.
What is, however, surprising is that this veto is unlike the use of other vetoes, in that this is one of the first times that you actually have a statement by the Israeli government indicating that they were in fact responsible for what happened. So I’m left a little bit astounded that even in the face of an Israeli agreement that they’ve actually committed a breach of human rights, that they would in fact use the veto in order to not condemn Israel. So it just -- it continues along the same path of just simply showing just how one-sided the United States has become in its support for Israel.
AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of the Arab League saying that they will lift the financial blockade on the Palestinians in defiance of the United States?
DIANA BUTTO: I think that this is actually a very interesting dynamic, and I think we need to read between the lines in terms of what it is that the Arab League is saying, because when Hamas was initially elected to the legislative council, one of the statements that they made was that they were not going to cut off any aid to the Palestinian people and to the Palestinian Authority because of the presence of Hamas, and yet, aid was in fact cut off. And I think that in large part that was because of US pressure that has been brought to bear on the Arab states in order to make sure that this financial boycott, this international boycott sticks.
So, it’s very interesting that it has now taken the actions of the United States -- reprehensible actions of the United States -- to use the veto that has now spurned the Arab governments to actually cut back and to now lift this financial speech that has befallen the Palestinian people. So I think it’s an issue that we really need to look in between the lines and recognize that the United States's action is not just simply that of the United States, but it also has far-reaching consequences in the pressure that it brings to bear on many of its allies.
AMY GOODMAN: Diana Butto, I wanted to ask you about the Human Rights Watch report that says the IDF, the Israel Defense Forces, internal inquiry into the shelling of Beit Hanoun that killed 19 Palestinian civilians and left dozens injured in northern Gaza failed to address key questions around the violations of international law and called for Israel to conduct an independent investigation.
DIANA BUTTO: There really is no such thing as an independent investigation conducted into Israeli actions. And what was most telling is that an Israeli journalist, himself, Gideon Levy, recently wrote an article in an Israeli paper basically alleging that the Israelis are never to blame. He doesn't believe this, but this was the title of his article, saying that there’s never a situation where the Israelis are at fault. This is what the mindset is within Israel. And so, the idea of calling for an independent inquiry looks good to the outside world, it looks good to Israelis, but when you actually get down to the nitty-gritty of examining these so-called independent investigations, they’re never really independent, and they never find fault or very rarely find fault with the Israeli army for the actions that it’s conducted.
But this presents itself a larger picture. The reason that Israel never views itself at fault is because it doesn't recognize the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the West Bank, the Gaza Strip. Israel has argued that it is above the Fourth Geneva Convention and instead that it can act towards the Palestinians in the way that nation-states act towards independent nation-states when they’re at a situation of war. And so, what Israel claims is that it's not an occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and because it’s not an occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it does not need to protect civilian life in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Instead, this is a situation of war. So even if they do conduct an independent or so-called independent inquiry, I’m almost certain that it is not going to come out with the same conclusions that, say, for example, another independent human rights organization would reach, because they ignore the context of occupation.
AMY GOODMAN: Tens of thousands of people came out after the killing of the many people in one family -- overall, 19 people killed -- in Beit Hanoun, I believe 16 in one family. Can you talk about the effect of this both in Gaza and where you are in the West Bank?
DIANA BUTTO: The effect of the protest has been to really shake people and to realize that what Israel is doing is going to continue to happen. Unfortunately, I think the international response, which has been largely muted, has really spurned a lot of Palestinians to feel that they are alone and that nobody really is out there to help them. In fact, in many of the demonstrations and many of the protests, this was a very constant refrain that I was hearing, which is there's nobody out there that’s going to help us, nobody’s out there who’s going to protect our human rights.
At the same time, as I was watching these protests, I thought back to almost a year ago, when almost the exact same thing happened in Gaza in almost the exact same area. And I, too, was left wondering if we’re going to see a repeat of this in a couple of months time, four months time, six months, seven months, whatever, a year, and then left wondering that why is it that it's these big events that really capture the attention of people, rather than the day-to-day killing that’s happening. Already since just June until today, there have been more than 350 Palestinians who’ve been killed in the Gaza Strip. And yet, it's only the big events that actually end up capturing our attention. It leads Palestinians to a very sad reality, that large numbers of them have to die before the international media will actually focus on their plight for freedom.
AMY GOODMAN: Diana Butto, I want to thank you very much for being with us, former legal advisor to the PLO, speaking to us from Ramallah in the West Bank.
To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Vetoes Security Council Resolution Condemning Israeli Attacks...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/11/us-vetoes-security-counci_n_33893.html
The Video Pelosi and AIPAC Don't Want You to See
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=653
Nancy Pelosi and Israel
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=646
US Support of Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinians PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
Look at how 'JINSA John' Bolton serves the interests of Israel before US at the UN:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/03/07/jinsa-israel-firster-john-bolton-named-as-us-ambassador.php
Colin Powell believes that JINSA Neocons have hijacked the Pentagon::
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/10/08/a-war-for-israel-colin-powell-seems-to-think-so.php
The Power of Israel in the USA:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15494.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b]Israel = Nazis? S. African Jewish paper vs Jewish minister of
intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils[/b]
S. African Jewish paper causes storm
Amir Mizroch, THE JERUSALEM POST
Nov. 22, 2006
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378459829&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The South African Jewish Report, published weekly in Johannesburg, is
engaged in a heated public spat with the country's Jewish minister of
intelligence, Ronnie Kasrils, and the South African Freedom of
Expression Institute (FXI), over the newspaper's refusal to publish a
letter by Kasrils that, the paper's editor says, compares Israel's
actions in the Palestinian territories to those of the Nazis during
WWII.
The Report last week refused to publish Kasrils's reply to an article
that questioned his stance on Israel. SAJR editor Geoff Sifrin
initially
approved Kasrils's request to reply to an article by Anthony Posner
entitled "Some Pertinent Questions to Kasrils."
Posner had concluded the article with the challenge: "So Mr Kasrils...
now is your chance to engage in 'civilized discussion.' But perhaps
this
'kitchen' is too hot for you? I am sure that the readers of the SAJR
will be interested to see whether you have the ability to respond in a
rational manner to all the points I have raised in this letter."
Sifrin refused to print Kasrils's reply, arguing in an editorial that
it
would not contribute to constructive debate and would offend the SAJR's
readers.
Kasrils told The Mail and Guardian newspaper he suspected Sifrin had
been pressured not to publish his views. Sifrin rejects that claim. In
a
telephone interview with The Jerusalem Post, Sifrin said he had
initially agreed to publish Kasril's letter but that "what he sent, in
my estimation, was too offensive to publish. It referred to an analogy
to Nazi action in the Warsaw ghetto and Nazi action after [SS leader
Reinhard] Heydrich's assassination after which the Nazis destroyed [the
Czech village of] Lidice. He basically said the Israelis are doing the
same, and that crossed a red line as far as we were concerned."
Sifrin said he had "agonized" over whether to publish Kasril's letter,
and had consulted with the chair of the paper's editorial committee. He
rejected, however, Kasril's claim that he had been pressured into not
publishing the letter.
"It's not true that I came under pressure by the [South African Jewish]
Board of Deputies; nobody called me to threaten me. There is an ethos
of
a newspaper that one operates with, there was no order from anyone not
to publish it. We don't operate in a vacuum. We know our readership -
some of which are Holocaust victims. The editorial committee head and I
agreed we couldn't publish the letter. Its effect would be unfair to
our
readers, and we could not give him a platform for this view, which
basically crossed a red line," Sifrin told the Post. In an open letter
to Sifrin, published by the the South African Jewish Report on November
17, Kasrils accused the paper of "stifling his words" and said the
editorial and Posner's column had distorted what he had written. "This
is a shameful debasement of journalistic ethics, not to mention the
questionable morality and crass intolerance that refuses to allow my
right to reply to questions directly put to me in your columns," wrote
Kasrils.
"You reneged on an undertaking to publish my reply and yet have the
temerity to claim that 'the richness and creativity of Jewish life owes
much to its acceptance of open debate, even if acrimonious.'
"Your utterances fly in the face of a cowardly action last personally
experienced when anything I said or wrote was silenced by an apartheid
government banning order in 1962," Kasrils wrote.
He accused the newspaper of misleading readers into believing that he
was calling for the annihilation of Israel and that he was a Holocaust
denier.
"On the question of my invoking the Nazi parallel with Israel, you fail
to acknowledge that I have consistently and pointedly referred to
certain comparable measures being employed against the people of
Palestine and Lebanon," he said. "I am clearly referring to certain
actions and not a total genocidal system such as the Holocaust,"
Kasrils
wrote.
"Mr. Editor, you and the cowardly cabal behind you can ban and vilify
me, but as long as I have breath I will continue to protest against
Israel's fascist-style brutality and declare 'Not in my name' in the
interest of the true values of Judaism and humanity and in support of
justice and security for all Christians, Jews and Muslims in the Middle
East and further afield."
Kasrils said it was "absolutely dishonest" of the paper to publish
Posner's piece without his reply. Despite his anti-Israel stance, it is
thought that Kasrils has been providing protection from terrorist
threats to South Africa's Jewish community, several Jewish leaders, who
asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter, told the
Post.
"I can't comment on that, because I don't know, but it is certainly
possible he uses his office to provide protection. Nobody is accusing
him of being anti-Jewish. I wouldn't be surprised if he was behind the
scenes doing something like that," Sifrin said.
Regarding the decision not to publish Kasril's letter, Safrin said the
minister's words had the potential to promote anti-Jewish feelings in
South Africa. "The general atmosphere here is pretty anti-Israel.
Comments like these rub off on the Jewish community here. All the
comparisons that are being made between apartheid and Israel are all
over the place, and Kasrils is adding to this. But I wouldn't accuse
him
of being anti-Jewish in any way," Sifrin said.
"We are not excluding Kasrils from the paper, just his letter, which we
couldn't publish," Sifrin said. Kasrils, in an e-mail exchange with the
Post, confirmed that he does use his office to protect South Africa's
80,000-strong Jewish community, but would not go into specifics. Asked
if he thought his comments could inflame anti-Jewish sentiment, he
replied in the negative.
"No, not anti-Jewish sentiment. The black population in general and the
Muslim population in particular congratulate me on demonstrating that
not all Jews support Israel's inhumane treatment of the Palestinian and
Lebanese people. My actions help them to understand that there is a
distinction between Judaism, on the one hand, and Zionism and the
Israeli government on the other," Kasrils told the Post.
"I oppose the brutal treatment of the Palestinian people by successive
Israeli goverments, and like your first agriculture minister, Aharon
Cizling, who in 1948 said to the cabinet, 'Now we too have behaved like
Nazis,' I do compare methods such as the indiscriminate bombings of
civilians, collective punishment and ethnic cleansing as measures
utilized by the Nazis and other fascist regimes.
"I feel it is necessary to remind your government, your military, and
Jews everywhere what is being done by a people who should have learnt
the dreadful lessons of the Holocaust," Kasrils said.
The South African Jewish Report is also going head-to-head with the
South African Freedom of Expression Institute. In a statement released
to the media this week condemning the SAJR's decision not to publish
Kasril's letter, Jane Duncan, director of the institute, wrote, "The
newspaper is engaging in contradictory behavior by publishing an
opinion
piece posing questions and then denying the person to whom the
questions
are being put the right to answer them. The SAJR had the right to
editorial independence, but this was qualified by normal editorial
ethics, which included 'the sacrosanct principle of the right to
reply.'"
Duncan further wrote, "Likening certain policing or military measures
that the Israeli state uses to Nazi measures does not meet the
objective
test [of hate speech]."
What really bothered Sifrin, however, were the following words in
Duncan's press release: The Jewish Report "comes out of this incident
looking like a mere extension of Zionism's repressive project... We
wonder what chance ordinary members of the Jewish community have to be
heard if they voice dissent against the Israeli state's policies of
forced colonial occupation of Palestinian land."
Sifrin said he was writing an editorial for the SAJR's Thursday edition
calling into question the institute's claim to be an independent,
objective watchdog of freedom of information in South Africa, in light
of Duncan's statement.
"This is supposed to be an impartial organization set up for the
freedom
of information. What is this doing in their media release: "Extension
of
Zionism's repressive project, and Israeli state's policies of forced
colonial occupation of Palestinian land," Sifrin asked. "The FXI was
set
up several years ago by respected and well-intentioned editors, and
this
has what became of the organization. This is the organization that is
tearing us to pieces. And I have to ask what their agenda is."
Sifrin said he was never contacted by the FXI for comment before the
institute published its statement. "The first I knew was when I read
the
media release on the Internet. Which again calls into question their
credentials. How can they, as a respected watchdog, insert words like
that? It shows their bias. They have the audacity to then tear us apart
for our editorial policy. Those two phrases are damning, they state it
as fact. An impartial organization would never write anything like
that," Sifrin said.
Duncan sent a lengthy response to the Post outlining why, in her words,
"The FXI has a bias towards poor people resisting colonial occupation."
"We recognize that freedom of expression is heavily mediated by power
and politics. So in interpreting this mandate, we have taken a
strategic
decision to adopt a pro-poor bias, prioritizing marginalized
communities
who are resisting censorship, repression, colonial occupation, racism
and sexism. This is because it is in these communities or sections of
our populations where the bulk of freedom of expression problems
generally lie. Struggling for freedom of expression in South African in
the past meant taking a principled position against apartheid, because
it was apartheid that gave rise to the censorship of the media, the
banning of gatherings, etc. Similarly, we cannot take a pro-freedom of
expression position without taking a position against any ideology or
power structure that is used to justify the denial of rights (including
the right to freedom of expression) of people.
"Zionism is one such ideology in that it denies various rights of
Palestinians and Arabs in Israel and the occupied Palestinian
territory," the FXI statement said.
"Needless to say, the definition of Zionism is contested, but one
constant thread is the assertion that Jews constitute a nation, and
therefore have a right to national self-determination on what was
Palestinian land. "The Israeli nation is therefore not constituted by
all those who live in that particular geographic area, or who have
historic claim to the land in spite of the fact that they may have been
rendered stateless. Israel, not being a state of its citizens but a
Jewish state, is thus an exclusive, not an inclusive, form of
nationalism, and therein lies the problem. In Israel, this has
translated into policies that have denied many people the right to
coexist and enjoy equal rights on the basis that they fall outside the
definition of who should constitute the nation. "While I am alive to
the
complexity of the debate about equating Zionism with apartheid, both
share the common characteristic of having constructed a system of
inclusion and exclusion, rights and privileges, based on ethnic
exclusivity, and institutionalized this system through the state.
"Both have involved the dispossession of land and the repression of
indigenous peoples. The policies can be compared credibly, and to the
extent that they can, they should also be condemned as inherently
censorious. To support freedom of expression is to support a democratic
solution to the national question in Israel/Palestine; it therefore
means opposing the exclusive nationalist solutions that Zionism has
represented. We see no contradiction between calling ourselves
independent, and espousing this position. Perhaps others do, but that
is
their problem, not ours," the statement concluded.
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Nov 25, 2006 10:05 am; edited 8 times in total | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 7:34 pm Post subject: |
| PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY IN US UNDER ATTACK:
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060
Intl. Intelligence
WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) -- Two of America's top scholars have published a searing attack on the role and power of Washington's pro-Israel lobby in a British journal, warning that its "decisive" role in fomenting the Iraq war is now being repeated with the threat of action against Iran. And they say that the Lobby is so strong that they doubt their article would be accepted in any U.S.-based publication.
Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" and Professor Stephen Walt of Harvard's Kenney School, and author of "Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy," are leading figures American in academic life.
They claim that the Israel lobby has distorted American policy and operates against American interests, that it has organized the funneling of more than $140 billion dollars to Israel and "has a stranglehold" on the U.S. Congress, and its ability to raise large campaign funds gives its vast influence over Republican and Democratic administrations, while its role in Washington think tanks on the Middle East dominates the policy debate.
And they say that the Lobby works ruthlessly to suppress questioning of its role, to blacken its critics and to crush serious debate about the wisdom of supporting Israel in U.S. public life.
"Silencing skeptics by organizing blacklists and boycotts -- or by suggesting that critics are anti-Semites -- violates the principle of open debate on which democracy depends," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
"The inability of Congress to conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire process of democratic deliberation. Israel's backers should be free to make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned," they add, in the 12,800-word article published in the latest issue of The London Review of Books.
The article focuses strongly on the role of the "neo-conservatives" within the Bush administration in driving the decision to launch the war on Iraq.
"The main driving force behind the war was a small band of neo-conservatives, many with ties to the Likud," Mearsheimer and Walt argue." Given the neo-conservatives' devotion to Israel, their obsession with Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn't surprising that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli interests."
"The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam's removal from power. The signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) or WINEP (Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy), and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war," Walt and Mearsheimer write.
The article, which is already stirring furious debate in U.S. academic and intellectual circles, also explores the historical role of the Lobby.
"For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel," the article says.
"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?" Professors Walt and Mearsheimer add.
"The thrust of U.S. policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel -- are essentially identical," they add.
They argue that far from being a strategic asset to the United States, Israel "is becoming a strategic burden" and "does not behave like a loyal ally." They also suggest that Israel is also now "a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal with rogue states.
"Saying that Israel and the U.S. are united by a shared terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around," they add. "Support for Israel is not the only source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by Israel's presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians. Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally popular support and to attract recruits."
They question the argument that Israel deserves support as the only democracy in the Middle East, claiming that "some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens."
The most powerful force in the Lobby is AIPAC, the American-Israel Public affairs Committee, which Walt and Mearsheimer call "a de facto agent for a foreign government," and which they say has now forged an important alliance with evangelical Christian groups.
The bulk of the article is a detailed analysis of the way they claim the Lobby managed to change the Bush administration's policy from "halting Israel's expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating the creation of a Palestinian state" and divert it to the war on Iraq instead. They write "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical."
"Thanks to the lobby, the United States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians," and conclude that "Israel itself would probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and U.S. policy more even-handed."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mearsheimer replies to the irate "Israel Lobby"
Letters - The Israel Lobby - From John Mearsheimer & Stephen Walt.
We wrote 'The Israel Lobby' in order to begin a discussion of a subject that had become difficult to address openly in the United States (LRB, 23 March). We knew it was likely to generate a strong reaction, and we are not surprised that some of our critics have chosen to attack our characters or misrepresent our arguments. .... Must Read !!!
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/letters.html
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html
Iran: The Next War (for Israel):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/28/iran-the-next-war-for-israel.php
Additional at following URL:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/03/17/u-s-middle-east-policy-motivated-by-pro-israel-lobby.php
US Support of Israel PRIMARY MOTIVATION for the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
Bamford discusses 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda on MSNBC's 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann':
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/08/07/bamford-discusses-a-clean-break-on-msnbc-s-countdown.php
The following article is right in accordance with the 'A Clean Break' agenda as 'A Clean Break' was written for Netanyahu who is apparently going to replace Olmert:
Honor First?; the liberation of Lebanon :
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14620.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lobby and the Israeli Invasion of Lebanon:
Their Facts and Ours
by James Petras
www.dissidentvoice.org
August 29, 2006
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Petras29.htm
Israel's attack on Lebanon resulted in 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2006/07/17/israel-s-attack-on-lebanon-resulted-in-9-11.php
AIPAC, JINSA and similar have prevented Israel's treacherous attack on the USS Liberty from ever being investigated fully (with the survivors testifying before Congress) because traitorous AIPAC hacks like John McCain have helped to keep the USS Liberty cover-up perpetuated in service of a foreign government:
http://www.ussliberty.org
http://rense.com/Datapages/usslib.htm | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 8:56 pm Post subject: True Lies About U.S. Aid to" Israeli " War Machine |
| True Lies About U.S. Aid to" Israeli " War Machinery
Cost of Israel to U.S. Taxpayers
PalestineFreeVoice
Palestinian remains after Israeli use of Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME)
November 10, 2006
For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies—true lies.
Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.
One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America's foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it's been going on for more than a generation.
Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.
The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.
Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.
All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.
The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.
AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.
Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary,one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications.
Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League. Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well-funded hate group. MORE>
:: Article nr. 28148 sent on 10-nov-2006 19:55 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=28148
:: The incoming address of this article is :
palestinefreevoice.blogspot.com/2006/11/true-lies-about-us-aid-to-israeli-war.ht
ml | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 6:21 am Post subject: |
| Forwarded:
PROTEST ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER OLMERT IN LA
Tuesday, November 14, 4pm
LA Convention Center, 1201 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles
Free Palestine!
Stop U.S.-Backed Atrocities in Gaza!
Right of Return for All Palestinians!
End U.S. Aid for Israeli Aparthied!
For more info call 323-936-7266 or email iacenterla@action- mail.org
Israeli Prime Minister Olmert is a racist and a war criminal. His occupation forces - the misnamed Israeli Defense Forces - are armed by the U.S. with the most expensive hi-tech military equipment in the world, and have been carrying out yet another brutal siege against the people of Gaza. On Wednesday 18 Palestinians were killed from Israeli shelling into civilian homes. In Israel's war against Lebanon this summer, even though the Lebanese resistance soundly defeated them, the Israeli attackers killed more than a thousand people and again destroyed much of the Lebanese economy!
To download the flyer click here!
On Tuesday, Olmert will be in Los Angeles speaking at the convention center.
JOIN THE PROTEST! SAY NO TO U.S. BACKED ISREALI TERROR!
Initiators/Endorser s include (in alphabetical order):
Al-Awda Los Angeles
Al-Awda Riverside
Al-Awda San Diego
ANAKBAYAN
ANSWER-LA
BAYAN-USA
FMLN
Free Palestine Alliance
HABI-Arts
International Action Center
Korea Truth Commission - U.S. Chapter
Korean Americans for Peace
March 25th Coalition for Immigrant Rights
Muslim Student Alliance
National Council of Arab Americans
One Korea LA Forum
Palestinian American Women's Association
Students for Justice in Palestine-UCLA
U.S./Cuba Labor Exchange
Women in Black-L.A | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:07 am Post subject: |
| Subject: [IntelligentMinds] CP: Christisons: The Democrats Don't Care; Screw the Palestinians, Full Steam Ahead
CounterPunch. org
November 13, 2006
The Democrats Don't Care
Screw the Palestinians, Full Steam Ahead
By KATHLEEN and BILL CHRISTISON
At a panel on the defense and foreign policy impact of the midterm election, sponsored two days after the election by Congressional Quarterly, Steven Simon, late of the Clinton administration and still a member of the Democratic, pro-Zionist mainstream at the Council on Foreign Relations, pronounced on prospects for Palestinian- Israeli peace and essentially declared it not worth anyone's effort. Using words, a tone, and a body language that clearly betrayed his own disinterest, he said that Hamas is "there" (exaggerated shrug), that the Israeli government is in turmoil after its Lebanon "contretemps" (dismissive wave of the hand), that both sides are incapable of significant movement, and that therefore there is no incentive for anyone, Democrat or Republican, to intervene (casual frown indicating an unfortunate reality about which serious people need not concern themselves). There is simply no prospect for more unilateral Israeli withdrawals and therefore for any progress toward peace, Simon said in conclusion -- signaling not only a total lack of concern but an utter ignorance of just what it is that might bring progress, as if Israeli unilateralism were truly the ticket to peace.
Thus spake the Democratic oracle. Not that anyone who knows the Palestinian- Israeli situation from other than the selective focus of the Zionist perspective had any expectations in the first place. No one ever thought the new Democratic Congress would hop to and put pressure on Israel to make peace. Just remember John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, to say nothing of Bill Clinton, when any question of the Democrats' stance arises. And don't forget Nancy Pelosi, who rushed to condemn Jimmy Carter for using the word "apartheid" in the title of his new book and for whom, according to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency profile, support for Israel is personal and "heartfelt." One Jewish activist and long-time friend described her as "incredibly loyal" (interesting term) and as feeling Jewish and Israeli issues "in her soul."
For more, click on:http://www.counterpunch.org/christison111320 06.html | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 10:21 am Post subject: |
| Commentary
Israel's reign of terror must be stopped
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Nov 16, 2006, 00:30
While channel surfing the other day I came across a rerun of Gandhi just in time to witness the scene where British troops gun down unarmed fleeing protestors.
As a Brit, I experienced a moment of shame which I was able to quickly suppress with the thought this brutal act happened long ago. Nobody today would fire on a crowd of civilians and if they did they would be prosecuted for war crimes right? There would be an international outcry. The UN would be scrambling to pass condemnatory resolutions or worse. Isn't that right?
Actually that's wrong. There is one country that has virtually been handed carte blanche to commit any atrocity it likes. It can humiliate, imprison and starve an entire people with seeming impunity. It can wage wars on its neighbour, using cluster bombs, depleted uranium tank shells and white phosphorous without barely a peep from the so-called international community.
It can level entire neighbourhoods, murder hundreds of women and children without even a rap on the knuckles from the UN Security Council. It can develop weapons of mass destruction to its heart's content and the international nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, so outspoken on Iran and North Korea, stays silent.
That country is, of course, Israel.
Just days after I watched the Gandhi movie, I saw a real-life rerun of that nightmarish scene in the form of Israeli soldiers firing on unarmed women moving towards a mosque in the town of Beit Hanoun, northern Gaza. They were desperate to protect their men folk who were trapped within the mosque.
These were men without whom those women and their children could not survive. They didn't hesitate to move forward even as the bullets tore at their sisters, felling them to the ground. Their sacrifice was humbling.
One of those women, Jameela Al Shanti, describes how they got the strength and the courage to keep going. "It is not easy as a mother, sister or wife to watch those you love disappear before your eyes," she wrote.
"Perhaps that was what helped me and 1,500 other women to overcome our fear and defy the Israeli curfew last Friday - and set about freeing some of our young men who were besieged in a mosque while defending us and our city against the Israeli military machine."
I couldn't help thinking that deliberately firing at women was a low even for Israel, whose spokespeople later made lame excuses that their soldiers targeted militants dressed as women.
But those whose broken and bloodied bodies were carried to the hospitals and morgues were not gun-toting militants. They were someone's mother, someone's daughter.
But just days later, Israel surpassed itself by shelling residents of Beit Hanoun as they slept. Nineteen civilians died in that attack, including eight children, many of them toddlers. You won't see this massacre on CNN or the BBC.
The sight of lifeless children with missing limbs or eyes is not for the sensitive eyes of Western viewers or advertisers. But those images are out there for anyone with a strong stomach and an even stronger heart.
They've been carried on Arab satellite channels and recorded for posterity on YouTube. There is one in particular taped by a woman who is quietly sobbing in the background.
Vestige of humanity
Anyone with any vestige of humanity or compassion would condemn this massacre termed "a technical error" by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. A technical error is a term used by airlines when planes are delayed or television stations when satellite uplinks fail to materialise.
There was no technical error. It was one more horror in Israel's siege of Beit Hanoun, a hellish city bereft of water, electricity, jobs and freedom.
Once again, the United Nations didn't fail to disappoint. On Saturday, Security Council members voted on a resolution, proposed by Qatar, urging the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and condemning the killing at Beit Hanoun.
And once again, the US, which supplied Israel with the weapons used to kill those women and children, flourished its veto, while its sycophants Britain, Japan, Slovakia and Denmark, fine democracies all, shamefully abstained.
If only the leaders of those proud nations possessed a crumb of the courage displayed by the women of Beit Hanoun, the world would be a better place.
There is, however, one tiny bright spot. The Arab League appears to have woken from its long stupor. On Sunday it condemned the US veto and America's unfriendly stance towards the Arab world.
It further called for an investigation into the massacre and asked for international troops to be sent to protect the people of Gaza from Israeli aggression.
The Arab League has also expressed its intention to break the US-led embargo against delivering aid to the Palestinian National Authority and encourages other countries to follow suit. This is a positive move forward. Let's hope that body will put its money where its mouth is.
The Palestinians can't eat words. They cannot be saved with official declarations or comforting platitudes. Now is the time for Arabs to show just how much clout they have in the international arena.
The Palestinians have been alone and friendless for far too long through no fault of their own. They need their brothers as never before. Don't let them down.
Linda S. Heard is a British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Support of Israel PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic terror attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
Video that gets to the Israel question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg
http://www.IRmep.org/jm.wmv
The Gorilla in the Room is US Support for Israel
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2005/08/gorilla-in-room-is-us-support-for.html
SCANDAL: 9/11 Commissioners Bowed to Pressure to Suppress Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks:
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2006/09/reviews-of-without-precedent-inside.html | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
