Archive for January 2009
For some paranoid reason the United States believes it has the right to wage war on innocent civilian people in any sovereign nation anywhere and at anytime. President Obama bought into this paranoia and is now as guilty as George W. Bush and William Jefferson “Bill” Clinton. President Obama will never prosecute Bush or any of his subordinates now. Not that he ever intended to, anyway.
In Pakistan, outrage continues to mount over a US military attack approved by President Obama. Last Friday, unmanned US Predator drones fired missiles at houses in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA, killing as many as twenty-two people, including at least three children.
President Barack Obama launched his first air strikes into Pakistan indicating that he will continue the Bush policy of unilateral military action against the spoken will of the Pakistani government.This is the first action since Obama took office on Tuesday that is likely to attract some opposition from progressive groups that supported him strongly during the campaign. Vanity Fair has this to say:
Obama can’t be expected to pander to liberals for the next four years. But the decision to double down in Afghanistan carries considerable risk. Like the economy, it is a huge problem. But even the economy can be expected to bounce back sometime in the next few years. If Afghanistan turns into Obama’s Iraq, he may miss the support of the anti-war left, which, it’s worth remembering, helped propel him past Hillary Clinton not so very long ago
This is not defending Democratic Freedom and Justice. This is enforcing Terror and Anarchy.
Barack Obama could become George W. Bush on steroids.
President’s first interview since taking office
Obama tells Al Arabiya peace talks should resume
Tuesday, 27 January 2009
Q: President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, “war on terror,” and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people — Islamic fascism. You’ve always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of —
THE PRESIDENT: I think that you’re making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations — whether Muslim or any other faith in the past — that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith’s name.
And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in
distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda — that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it — and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.
But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.
These are President Barack Obama’s words recorded in his interview with Al Arabbiya News Channel.
Obama warned Hamas fighters, who seized control of Gaza in 2007, that they must halt rocket fire on southern Israel and that Washington would continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself.
“For years Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people,” Obama said.
“To be a genuine party to peace … Hamas must meet clear conditions, recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence and abide by past agreements.”
“To be a genuine party to peace …”or the prerequisite conditions laid down by the aggressor requires the victim to “recognize the legitimate right to exist, renounce violence and abide by past agreements.”
Failure to meet these standards or prerequisites by either side would mean that side is NOT a “genuine party to peace.” Barack Obama says he “cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.”
Who is killing innocent civilians, mostly children? Anyone see the rank hypocrisy here? The Zionist Jews for 60 years refuse to recognize the Palestinian peoples legitimate right to exist, to renounce violence against the civilian population or keep any agreement. Yet that is what Barack Obama demands. That isn’t making peace. That is forced SURRENDER AND RAPE!
It should be noted that what Israel did to the Palestinians in this latest assault shoves Gaza right up America’s derriere.
Addendum :: Wednesday, Jan. 28 2009
The United States and Israel conspire with their Palestine collaborators to justify more assaults on Gaza. Reuters’ latest, Israel strikes in Gaza as Obama envoy holds talks says in part:
Moments earlier, a militant group with links to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah movement claimed responsibility for firing a rocket at southern Israel late on Wednesday.
Israel has said it will hold Gaza’s Hamas rulers responsible for all attacks launched from the coastal territory, and had warned of a stronger response to the killing of a soldier on Tuesday in an explosion by a Gaza border fence.
Mitchell met Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak on Wednesday and will meet Abbas on Thursday.
Western diplomats said Mitchell would not meet Hamas, a group shunned by the U.S. and Europe for it refusal to recognize Israel.
Refusing to recognize the duly and legally elected Hamas government is a refusal to recognize the Palestinian people. Obama is no peace partner.
This is what it all leads to and why: Breaking News: SE Asia Groups Claim to Plan Retaliation for Gaza Killings. Said to Target Israeli Government, Intel in Bangkok, Manila, Singapore. By Allan Nairn
The sources for this report, themselves religious Muslims, say they condemn the groups’ tactics but share their anger at Israeli forces’ repeated killings of civilians.
It is not clear if the planning talk is just bravado, or if it’s true they’ll just target combatants, since — like their Israeli and US counterparts — these groups have repeatedly shown their willingness to kill many civilians to make a point. (Islamist terror leaders like Bin Laden and Abu Bakar Baasyir frequently state this openly; for a rare, frank statement of near-identical Western pro-terror thinking see Thomas L. Friedman, who writes approvingly that in Gaza, Israel was “trying to ‘educate’ Hamas” by attacking not just Hamas combatants but also by “inflicting” “heavy pain on the Gaza population,” just as in Israel’s attack on Lebanon ‘06 “the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians…” Thomas L. Friedman, “Israel’s Goals in Gaza?,” New York Times, January 13, 2009. Also see News and Comment posting of Nov. 28, 2007, “Thomas L. Friedman and the Bali Bombers. Cold-Blooded Celebrity”).
Those that moralize the justification for “inflicting” “heavy pain on the Gaza population Friedman says regarding Lebanon’s Hezbolla:
Israel’s counter strategy was to use its Air Force to pummel Hezbollah and, while not directly targeting the Lebanese civilians with whom Hezbollah was intertwined, to inflict substantial property damage and collateral casualties on Lebanon at large. It was not pretty, but it was logical. Israel basically said that when dealing with a nonstate actor, Hezbollah, nested among civilians, the only long-term source of deterrence was to exact enough pain on the civilians — the families and employers of the militants — to restrain Hezbollah in the future.
need to be taken out and stood against a wall. It is as simple as that.
Back when I first entered the business world, nearly 45 years ago Joe Blow was full of “white” hope and a storehouse of expectations. My father, a “Gypo” logger in those days, bought property, built a modern home, raised his family, had a good reputation within the community, and was moderately properous. When he offered me the opportunity to become his equal partner I jumped at the chance. Some of my goals for the business were to make family and social (community and enviornment) interests as a priority objective. Financially, the goal was to operate from a sound base, never needing to operate or make payments or living from one paycheck to the next. It was obvious to me that the old ways were failing and a fundamentally new approach was required if we were to survive long term. My Father, however, had bought into this idea of “phantom money” as sound wealth. The rest of the story, of course, is history. 50 or more years of dark age thinking based upon the deceptive lies of medieval beliefs has taken America and the World to the point of no return.
Mr. Korton, however, still seems to think that there is a chance for America. Even though he plainly says its very “clear that we have a failed economic system”. Hand in hand with that reality also proven during the past 50 years is that we also have a failed political system. Both systems are an illusion. Hope in hope. Faith in faith. Belief in hope. Belief in faith. Belief in opinion. All are as illusory as smoke. They are the object of themselves, without substance or any basis. Nothing more than superstitious beliefs in the Hoper. It’s obvious Mr. Obama, even at this early stage, do not have the pedigree necessary to fix the failed systems even if he wanted to do so.
Real hope is defined by men like Mr. David Korten. Read what he has to say and why then compare that to Mr. Barack Obama, what he said and what he is currently doing and you just might come to understand the difference.
We encourage you to consider what David Korten offers as a better way, a way we could start or improve on right here in Humboldt County.
David Korten, co-founder of Positive Futures Network and publisher of the magazine YES!. He is also a former professor at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Business and the author of several books, including When Corporations Rule the World and The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community. His newest book is just out, called Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth. In it, David Korten argues the nation faces a monumental economic challenge that goes far beyond anything being discussed in Congress. He writes that now is an opportune moment to move forward an agenda to replace the failed money-serving institutions of our present economy with the institutions of a new economy dedicated to serving life.
DAVID KORTEN: Well, it really starts with being clear that we have a failed economic system. And we’ve seen very dramatically the consequences of the financial failure. But what we’re not talking about is the connection to the environmental failure, the destruction of earth’s living systems, and the social failure of an economic system that by its very design, particularly as manifest on Wall Street, is designed to increase inequality. You know, having worked in international development for many years, I’m very familiar with the argument that the way to deal with poverty is, through economic growth, to bring up the bottom. But, of course, what we see—and we’ve seen this for decades—is that, in fact, economic growth tends to raise the top and depress the bottom.
Now, part of it’s coming to terms with the fact that we live on a finite planet. We’ve got finite resources. And the question is, what are our economic priorities? How do we allocate those resources? And it requires a fundamentally different approach to the economy: evaluating economic performance by the things that we really want, in terms of human and natural well-being, rather than a system that is purely designed to increase financial returns to the already very wealthy.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Your book’s subtitle, From a Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth—what is phantom wealth?
DAVID KORTEN: Yeah. This is part of understanding the current Wall Street system, which is built around an illusion, the illusion that money is wealth, which then translates into the idea that people who are creating—or who are making money are in fact creating wealth. And what Wall Street has become extremely expert at is creating money out of nothing through financial bubbles, through pyramiding lending to create fictitious assets that become collateral for more bank lending, and then combining that with the predatory aspects of usurious lending and deceptive lending and the use of credit cards as a substitute for a living wage—all the games that Wall Street is playing. And it’s actually based on a philosophy that says we don’t need to produce anything as a country, if we can—you know, if we can do all this financial innovation that allows us to create financial assets without producing anything of real value. I mean, it’s absolutely insane. And yet, it is the—it’s been the foundation of our economic policy in this country for decades now.
AMY GOODMAN: You have spent your life focusing on issues of sustainability. You talk about excess consumption. What is the model that you could see right now? What is the model that we have right now? And what is the one you want to see built?
DAVID KORTEN: Yeah, well, the amazing thing is that our system is built on driving increased consumption, but particularly it is driving the most destructive and wasteful forms of consumption, of course, starting with war, moving on to automobile dependence, and which is not just about the energy issue, but it’s about the fragmentation of society, as we move out into the suburbs. It’s about the breakdown of the family, as we put more and more stress on the family. So you have to have two or more people in the household working more than one job each just to keep the household together, which means the children are without caretakers and so forth.
You begin to put this all together, you say, well, if we began to really organize our economic activities around the things that really matter, we’d be looking at things—well, how do we organize our economy so that it actually builds human relationships, so it supports families, so it creates an environment in which our children can grow up both physically and psychologically healthy? And we begin to say, well, first of all, it would be a good idea to end war. And, of course, most of our wars are about competition for resources to maintain our wasteful lifestyle. So let’s really get serious about world peace. Then we’ve got to start reducing our dependence on automobiles and recognize that rather than reemploying autoworkers in making automobiles, we should be employing them in building bicycles, building public transportation and so forth, all the things we need. Instead of investing massively in advertising, you know, redirect those creative communications resources to education. You begin to see, in almost every aspect of our economy, the opportunity to redirect resources in ways that actually increase our well-being—they’re not about sacrifice, ultimately—and bringing ourselves into balance with one another and with earth.
The REAL Mr. Obama begins to show his true colors.
Is he the Princely Savior most everyone thinks he is? Will he free us forevermore of these evil terrorists and corrupt religious extremist that want to rule the world? Is he the champion of all the bottom-feeders and rock-crawlers of this country and the World? Is he the promised Messiah for the poor, the downtrodden and all of us no-named refugees cohabiting on borrowed lands? Will he bring peace and justice to an amoral and corrupt society with all the trappings of self-sacrificing harmony and prosperity? Will he finally give America and Americans that sense of identity and personal worth that defines and establishes our legitimate right to recognize and be recognized as humans with some vague measure of value. Or is he, in fact, the Anti-Christ?
Why would Mr. Obama adopt the same attitude towards the Palestinian peoples that the previous administrations had? Why does it take a couragouse Jew to get out the truth about Zionist Israel’s criminal assaults on innocent civilian people? Here is some of what Noam Chomsky had to say about Mr. Obama and Israel’s burgeoning crimes.
NOAM CHOMSKY: It’s approximately the Bush position. He began by saying that Israel, like any democracy, has a right to defend itself. That’s true, but there’s a gap in the reasoning. It has a right to defend itself. It doesn’t follow that it has a right to defend itself by force. So we might agree, say, that, you know, the British army in the United States in the colonies in 1776 had a right to defend itself from the terror of George Washington’s armies, which was quite real, but it didn’t follow they had a right to defend themselves by force, because they had no right to be here. So, yes, they had a right to defend themselves, and they had a way to do it—namely, leave. Same with the Nazis defending themselves against the terror of the partisans. They have no right to do it by force. In the case of Israel, it’s exactly the same. They have a right to defend themselves, and they can easily do it. One, in a narrow sense, they could have done it by accepting the ceasefire that Hamas proposed right before the invasion—I won’t go through the details—a ceasefire that had been in place and that Israel violated and broke.
But in a broader sense—and this is a crucial omission in everything Obama said, and if you know who his advisers are, you understand why—Israel can defend itself by stopping its crimes. Gaza and the West Bank are a unit. Israel, with US backing, is carrying out constant crimes, not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, where it is moving systematically with US support to take over the parts of the West Bank that it wants and to leave Palestinians isolated in unviable cantons, Bantustans, as Sharon called them. Well, stop those crimes, and resistance to them will stop.
Now, Israel has been able pretty much to stop resistance in the Occupied Territories, thanks in large part to the training that Obama praised by Jordan, of course with US funding and monitoring control. So, yes, they’ve managed to. They, in fact, have been suppressing demonstrations, even demonstrations, peaceful demonstrations, that called for support for the people of Gaza. They have carried out lots of arrests. In fact, they’re a collaborationist force, which supports the US and Israel in their effort to take over the West Bank.
Now, that’s what Obama—if Israel—there’s no question that all of these acts are in total violation of the foundations of international humanitarian law. Israel knows it. Their own advisers have told each other—legal advisers have explained that to them back in ’67. The World Court ruled on it. So it’s all total criminality. But they want to be able to persist without any objection. And that’s the thrust of Obama’s remarks. Not a single word about US-backed Israeli crimes, settlement development, cantonization, a takeover in the West Bank. Rather, everyone should be quiet and let the United States and Israel continue with it.
He spoke about the constructive steps of the peace—of the Arab peace agreement very selectively. He said they should move forward towards normalization of relations with Israel. But that wasn’t the main theme of the Arab League peace proposal. It was that there should be a two-state settlement, which the US blocks. I mean, he said some words about a two-state settlement, but not where or when or how or anything else. He said nothing about the core of the problem: the US-backed criminal activities both in Gaza, which they attacked at will, and crucially in the West Bank. That’s the core of the problem.
And you can understand it when you look at his advisers. So, say, Dennis Ross wrote an 800-page book about—in which he blamed Arafat for everything that’s happening—barely mentions the word “settlement” over—which was increasing steadily during the period when he was Clinton’s adviser, in fact peaked, a sharp increase in Clinton’s last year, not a word about it.
So the thrust of his remarks, Obama’s remarks, is that Israel has a right to defend itself by force, even though it has peaceful means to defend itself, that the Arabs must—states must move constructively to normalize relations with Israel, but very carefully omitting the main part of their proposal was that Israel, which is Israel and the United States, should join the overwhelming international consensus for a two-state settlement. That’s missing.
Noam Chomsky continues to hope for a “two-state settlement,” but the religious bigots in American and their counterpart Zionist Jews foreclosed on the reality when they declared war on innocent women and children with the stated goal of forcing their men to capitulate to the unique superiority of the Jew and their rights to take whatever land they want. In other words they need the Palestinian people to justify their right to exist as a nation or as a legitimate entity. This is why the so-called war an Hamas; they refuse to surrender their manhood and womanhood to the Jew.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Noam Chomsky, I’d like to ask you about the enormous civilian casualties that have shocked the entire world in this last Israeli offensive. The Israelis claim, on the one hand, that it’s the unfortunate result of Hamas hiding among the civilian population, but you’ve said in a recent analysis that this has been Israeli policy almost from the founding of the state, the attack on civilian populations. Could you explain?
NOAM CHOMSKY: They say so. I was just quoting the chief of staff—this is thirty years ago, virtually no Palestinian terrorism in Israel, virtually. He said, “Our policy has been to attack civilians.” And the reason was explained—you know, villages, towns, so on. And it was explained by Abba Eban, the distinguished statesman, who said, “Yes, that’s what we’ve done, and we did it for a good reason. There was a rational prospect that if we attack the civilian population and cause it enough pain, they will press for a,” what he called, “a cessation of hostilities.” That’s a euphemism meaning cessation of resistance against Israel’s takeover of the—moves which were going on at the time to take over the Occupied Territories. So, sure, if they—“We’ll kill enough of them, so that they’ll press for quiet to permit us to continue what we’re doing.”
Actually, you know, Obama today didn’t put it in those words, but the meaning is approximately the same. That’s the meaning of his silence over the core issue of settling and takeover of the Occupied Territories and eliminating the possibility for any Palestinian meaningful independence, omission of this. But Eban [inaudible], who I was quoting, chief of staff, would have also said, you know, “And my heart bleeds for the civilians who are suffering. But what can we do? We have to pursue the rational prospect that if we cause them enough pain, they’ll call off any opposition to our takeover of their lands and resources.” But it was—I mean, I was just quoting it. They said it very frankly. That was thirty years ago, and there’s plenty more beside that.
The noose begins to tighten as the United States and Israel force the world to pick a side; Good versus Evil.
The call came at 11pm on a Saturday. Yitzchak Ben Mocha’s mobile flashed up “unidentified number” but he knew who it was. A recorded voice ordered him to report for duty at eight the next morning. As he packed his uniform he wondered if he was heading to prison. The 25-year-old paratrooper was about to tell his commanders that not only would he refuse to join Israel’s war in Gaza but would not serve in any capacity that helped perpetuate the conflict.
He reported for duty and was ordered to erect tents for combat soldiers.
“I told my officer, I am not going to do this. The next morning I was sent home. They told me they’d call me again if there was need. They have not called yet. In the past the army used to put refuseniks in jail for weeks. When they were released, sometimes they would be arrested again and this would go on for months.
“But now it seems the army doesn’t want to admit publicly there are refuseniks. [It] is embarrassed. It would go against the image of the whole army and country united behind this war.”
The Israeli military has told the press there is so much support for the assault on Gaza that more soldiers have turned up to fight than have been called up for what the local media is characterising as a “righteous war”. Ben Mocha says that obscures the increasing number of Israeli men of fighting age, almost all of whom are military reservists, who are refusing to serve the occupation.
He is disturbed that most of the Israeli public and much of the media is blind to the fact that hundreds of Palestinians have been cut to pieces by Israeli fire power. “In the long run, it’s not a war of defence. We are creating a thousand suicide bombers for the future from the brothers of the dead, the sons of the dead … in the long term, we are creating more terror. You can’t separate the war in Gaza from the fact that the Palestinian nation is under occupation for more than 40 years. I’m not justifying Hamas firing rockets but we Israelis should first look at what we are doing.”
Peace in the Middle East? A two-state solution? Palestinian people equal to the Zionist Jew? Getting the national recognition that is their right? Joe Blow hardly thinks so, based upon the past history since 1948 and in particular the last 20 days. Israel has foreclosed on any peaceful solution the their 60-year land-grab and occupation.
There was a way to legitimize relations where all could live together and occupy the same lands, but the sane and sensible Jew like Avi Shlaim were too few to withstand the lawless corruption and elitism of the Zionist Jew. Interestingly, Avi Shlaim outlines why he believes the Nation of Israel has lost its legitimate right to exist as a sovereign nation. He reaffirms the same logic and reasoning the Joe Blow Report has enunciated. The die is cast.
The following is an interview with
AMY GOODMAN: As you look at what’s happening in Gaza from your vantage point, well, many miles away in Britain, can you talk about the kind of trajectory your evaluation has taken, where you started in your thoughts about Israel and where you are now?
AVI SHLAIM: As you mentioned, I did national service in the Israeli army in the mid-1960s. And in those days, Israel was a small state surrounded by enemies, and the nation was united in face of the surrounding Arab states. We all felt total commitment to the state of Israel and to the defense of the state of Israel. The Israeli army is called the Israel Defense Forces, and it was true to its name.
But 1967, the war of June 1967, was a major turning point in the history of Israel and the history of the region. In the course of the war, Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan and Sinai from Egypt. After the war, Israel started building civilian territories in the occupied territories in violation of international law. So Israel became a colonial power and an imperial power.
And I, for my part, have never questioned the legitimacy of the Zionist movement. I saw it as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. Nor did I ever question the legitimacy of the state of Israel within its pre-1967 borders. What I reject, what I reject totally, absolutely and uncompromisingly, is the Zionist colonial project beyond the 1967 borders. So we have to distinguish very clearly between Israel proper, within its pre-1967 borders, and Greater Israel, which began to emerge in the aftermath of the June ‘67 war and has completely derailed the Zionist project.
AMY GOODMAN: And then, specifically talk about Gaza, how it has developed and where it is today, right now under assault by the Israeli military.
AVI SHLAIM: In a long-term historical perspective, I would begin with the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. I wrote a book, which you mentioned in your introduction, called The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. It is a history of the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1948. It’s a very long book, but I can summarize it for you in one sentence, that throughout its sixty years, Israel has been remarkably reluctant to engage in meaningful negotiations with its Arab opponents to resolve the dispute between them and only too ready to resort to military force in order to impose its will upon them. And the current vicious Israeli onslaught on the people of Gaza is the climax of this longstanding Israeli policy of shunning diplomacy and relying on brute military force.
Words of light by a few courageous Jews offered as a compliment by the Joe Blow Report to the decent people yet remaining upon this earth.
“Catastrophically Misguided and Incomprehensible Policy”–Renowned Jewish Playwright Tony Kushner Speaks Out Against Israel’s Assault on Gaza
TONY KUSHNER: … I think all Jews who talk about this issue deal with a great deal of anguish. I mean, it is a very powerful identification with the history of the Jewish people that led up to the creation of the state of Israel. And Jews have all sorts of different feelings about the existence of Israel and—but I think Jews of conscience feel that it’s an imperative to not stand by silently while the Palestinian people are brutalized and oppressed.
And so, you know, it’s not comfortable, and I find it very painful. I love being Jewish. I love Jews. And I don’t like being screamed at by Jews. But, you know, that’s life. You have to do what you feel like you have to do, and I think this a—it’s immensely important for the Jewish people that we not remain silent because we’re afraid of speaking out. And I think there’s a great deal of pressure from within the Jewish community to be silent. …
JANE HIRSCHMANN: I’m Jane Hirschmann. I’m one of the organizers of this event tonight. We are Jews standing here together. We want our voices counted. We are opposed to the massacre in Palestine. We want the Israelis out of Palestine. We want a ceasefire and an end to the occupation. We feel it’s very important as Jews not to be silenced any longer. And we’re joining with Jews around the world who are saying that the Israeli government does not speak for us. Neither does the US government. Their policies have aided and abetted the slaughter in Palestine and the dehumanization of the Palestinian people, and we want it to end.
ESTHER KAPLAN: My name’s Esther Kaplan. I’m here to raise my voice to try to stop this massacre in Gaza. There was a huge pro-Israel rally yesterday right on this spot with all the major Jewish organizations—AIPAC and the ADL—claiming that this assault is legitimately in Israel’s self-defense. It’s a ridiculous argument, and they don’t speak for the entire Jewish community. That’s what we’re here to say today.
UNIDENTIFIED: Well, I’m a Jew, and I’m very ashamed of what’s happening in the Gaza Strip. And I’m heartbroken, because we’ve been through it. We know what it is to have a person like Hitler decide to kill all the Jews. For us to turn around and do that to other human beings that are so much like us—they look like us, they eat the same food, they helped build up Israel—it’s more than I can stand. So I’m very ashamed. I think they in the Israeli embassy should be very ashamed.
UNIDENTIFIED: I think it’s really important. I mean, in a way, this is a human issue for every person, not just the Jewish people. But I think it’s extremely important right now that Jewish people be out and visible and make it clear that, as Jews, as people who have experienced genocide against our people, that we understand that the Palestinians are today’s Jews. And if we learned the lesson of the Holocaust, the lesson is we need to be out and we need to speak for Gaza, as we had always wanted people to speak for us.
Now, the other side of the coin:
On Sunday, [Jan 11, 09] thousands turned out in New York for a rally to support the attack on Gaza. Speakers included New York Senator Chuck Schumer and Governor David Paterson.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: So how many civilian casualties would it take before you questioned the attack?
ISRAEL SUPPORTER 3: There is not a number involved.
ISRAEL SUPPORTER 4: Nothing good is going to come out of it, unless they keep fighting all the way with this ’til they wipe them all out.
MAX BLUMENTHAL: Wipe them all out?
ISRAEL SUPPORTER 4: Yeah, they got to go strong with this.
ISRAEL SUPPORTER 5: There’s only one way to deal with a cancer. You burn it out or you remove it. And when people don’t want to talk and just want to destroy you and not allow you to live, there’s only one thing you can do.
ISRAEL SUPPORTER 2: They are forcing us to kill their children to defend our children.
An old Jew name Peter (some say the founder of the Christian Church) wrote these words about his fellow Jews over 2,000 years ago. It seems not much has changed for the better with that race of bigoted racist people in all these years. Even when Christianity was brought to them FIRST. This is what he said:
But these [men], like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed, will, in the things of which they are ignorant and speak abusively, even suffer destruction in their own [course of] destruction, wronging themselves as a reward for wrongdoing.
Perhaps Peter learned something from his Teacher, Jesus:
Then Jesus said to him [Peter]: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
Was Jesus right? Are these words of light to live by or just die by?