The Joe Blow Report 2

Everything Is About Something Different

Archive for the ‘Palestinian’ Category

Direct Action That Actually Works

leave a comment »

[Update below]

The Declaration Of Independence starts out by saying:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” [source]

This Declaration was developed and presented to the other nation states by a group of white men as their moral basis and legal justification for rebelling against their rightful government. They assert that “Governments are instituted among men” by those they govern to “secure” certain “rights.” That because these governments are empowered by these same people to govern, the people, should the Government cause the destruction of these, “ it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish” that Government and institute a new Government.” Some people believe that is what happens every four years in America when they can elect a new President. This is NOT what the Declaration Of Independence was about. It was about the very problem existing most noticeably in the past twenty years, even more striking in the last year, everything stays the same regardless the President or Party governing.

When that group of men secured their new government one of the things they did was provide the means for the governed to address their governing representatives, or so everyone believed. They believe in their rights to peaceful protest and demonstration when all other methods fail to promote necessary changes. Changes may come, but they are mostly slow and laborious and not always what serves the people best. Many people justify this method of redress by the works and words of Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi and Martin Luther King. While he did advocate and use non-violence and peaceful resistance he also us non-cooperation considered non-violent activism.

Non-cooperation is extremely effective when properly employed. It requires first, a mindset based upon a strict set of guiding principles and governing rules. This produces and inherent attitude that is self-manifesting of that reality or base way of thinking. When someone says something or advocates a position contrary to your beliefs you immediately resist, object and stop the automatic acceptance of the matter. You simply do not cooperate with their assertions of authority and legitimacy to promote themselves, their opinions, ideas or beliefs. They may have certain rights to those thoughts or beliefs, but they do not have the “unalienable Right” impose them on others. Specially, when they are trying to use those so-called rights to justify getting everyone to go along with their legitimate right to exist.

A good example of this is the Nation of Israel that by force of arms self-ordained its existence declaring the right and legal title to certain lands in Palestine owned and occupied by the Palestinian people. Israels illegal occupation of that land has produced one atrocity after another. Whatever legitimacy they and others may claim the Jew had for occupying that land, their self-same existence decries any of those rights. The only reason Israel is still occupying that land is because of the Palestinians overt and passive cooperation with the Jews. They still think there is a “two-state solution” in the offing. That was joke to start with and used to delay and obfuscate all effort to legitimize the Palestinians. Some Palestinians, however, have figured out that “what goes around always comes around.” In 2005 they started to program for “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” of Israel. On Passover Day, March 30, 2010, this BDS movement is calling for a uniting day of action. You can learn more about the movement and action day here, at the BDS Campaign. [http://www.bdsmovement.net/]

For more on this same subject there was a good discussion between Omar Barghouti and Rabbi Arthur Waskow here. [http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/4/bds] Both men were essentially in agreement, just with a different perspective. Ribbi Waskow, the older man, looked at the issue as it was in the past, compared the Omar Barghouti’s present day reality. Personally, it’s been my judgment that the day for reconciling the two peoples with the Jew’s recognizing the Palestinians legitimate right to exist, specially with some sort of worthless two-state solution defined by the Jews and the US for the Palestinians, has long passed.

Another good example of non-cooperation is set out by Johann Hari a columnist for the Independent in London and a contributing writer for Slate. I am always impressed by these rare young people that are inspiring, knowledgeable, articulate and unafraid to speak truth. You can read or watch the complete interview here, “The Real Climategate: Conservation Groups Align with World’s Worst Polluters.” [http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/9/the_real_climategate_conservation_groups_align]

Here’s the final part of what Johann said about the direct action that works in England:

AMY GOODMAN: Johann Hari, you quote Jim Hansen, the world-renowned climatologist from the NASA Institute—the Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA. You start by referring to Sierra Club’s chief climate counsel, David Bookbinder, ridiculing the center’s attempts to make 350 parts per million a legally binding requirement. He said it was a “truly pointless exercise” and headed to “well-deserved bureaucratic oblivion.” And you ask, “Why would the Sierra Club oppose a measure designed to prevent environmental collapse? The Club didn’t respond to my requests for an explanation,” you said. But you went on to say, “Climate scientists are bemused. When asked about this, Hansen said, ‘I find the behavior of most environmental NGOs to be shocking… I [do] not want to listen to their lame excuses for their abominable behavior.’”

Now, could it be that groups don’t have to receive this money, it’s just kind of insider Washington mentality, even if it’s in the rest of the world, like with the health insurance debate, that they accept the premises of the opposition and they don’t want to go outside of a very small range of what they can ask for, they just don’t believe they can get things done?

JOHANN HARI: I think you’re absolutely right. That is part of it. It’s part of a political culture. Jim Hansen, great man, is not alone. Virtually everyone who doesn’t work for these corporate environmental groups, and a lot of people who do, can’t understand this behavior, except as a result of the combination of corruption and exactly what you say, a kind of dysfunctional political culture.

But again, I don’t want to leave your viewers with a downer, because it’s really important they understand, it doesn’t have to be this way. Here in Britain, we’ve had a really good example of how you work very differently on environmental change, and it works. Instead of trying to work within a corrupt system, instead of constantly praising the pathetic efforts of our governments, a huge coalition of people here in Britain took direct action. An organization called Climate Camp, a very loose, democratic organization, began to physically blockade new airports and coal power stations. They said, “We will not let this pass.” They stood in front of coal trains. And when they were arrested, they said they were acting in their own self-defense, and a jury of their peers acquitted them, saying they were right, this is an emergency, we have got to act. (Emphasis mine.)

And it’s had an amazing effect. All new coal power stations in Britain are under very serious political trouble. They probably won’t happen. And airport expansion, that was seen as absolutely dead cert, supported by all the main political parties, is now dead in the water.

The model of compromise compromise, praise the Democrats, say how wonderful they are, even when they’re kicking you in the face, doesn’t work. The model of really directly taking to the streets, the way that change has always happened in America and in all of the world—Martin Luther King did not praise every peripatetic morsel that came from the Democratic Party. He called people to the streets, and they fought for it. And it took a long time.

The Wrong Kind of Green by Johann Hari printed in The Nation magazine. [ http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hari ]

Then there are the local folks training and gearing up:

Klamath: Direct Action!

Tribal members train with Earth First! in Six Rivers National Forest showdown

You can read the complete story as detailed in the North Coast Journal here. The following is an excerpt:

Tree climbs were only one part of the three-day KJC (Klamath Justice Coalition) training camp. There were discussions of the history and effectiveness of non-violent civil disobedience and demonstrations as well as diagrams of many ways to block a log road or a timber sale. One handout was ambitiously titled “198 Methods of Nonviolent Action” and it ranged from 1) Public Speeches to 30) Rude gestures to 173) Nonviolent obstruction. This was a monkey wrench grad school.

The training was attended by members of Hupa, Karuk and Yurok tribes as well as many non-natives from neighboring communities.

As an old logger that worked for years with local Indian loggers and someone that had first-hand dealings with how the Bureau of Indian Affairs worked with local timber companies to divest local tribes of their old growth Redwood timber lands, I have mixed feelings about what they are doing. Personally, it is the young people that continue to impress me with their ingenuity, resourcefulness and courage. Something their predecessors did not show. Nor did mine.

Non-cooperation works! It all starts with yourself and your neighbor.


[ADDENDUM :: Tuesday, March 9, 2010]

This is a lesson NOT learned in British Columbia,  The water war – Okanagan logging blockade.

“Instead of trying to work within a corrupt system, instead of constantly praising the pathetic efforts of our governments — The model of compromise compromise, praise the Democrats, say how wonderful they are, even when they’re kicking you in the face, doesn’t work.” -Johann Heri

Notice what Mike Geoghegan is a political commentator for Vancouverite News Service says: “Tolko (a timber company) is not the enemy in this situation, government mismanagement and indifference is. The only thing that will change that is if the politicians in Ottawa and Victoria see that there are actually enough people who care about the issue of safe drinking water to make them resolve this conflict.”

He hasn’t come to terms yet with the fact you can’t do business with a corrupt system.

[Picture source]

–Joe

The Amoral Jew

leave a comment »

When I read the following article by Michael Neumann posted on CounterPuch I thought about my recent conversation with Ernie Branscomb on his blog. So, I posted his “Nationalism and the Israel-Palestine Conflict” below because it goes right to the heart of the root issue dividing all peoples, or should I say “races”?

There was an ideology sufficient to drive all those atrocities (“…Nazi ethnic cleansing that antisemitism can’t possibly explain – the genocide against the gypsies and the planned extermination of thirty million Slavs, many of whom died as ‘subhumans’ in inhuman prison camps”).  It fairly stares us in the face.   It was not devised by Hitler, but by 19th Century Romantics – poets and pseudo-historians from Scandinavia across Central Europe and down into the Italian Peninsula and the Balkans.   It was not the Nazis, but Woodrow Wilson who made it a fixture of contemporary politics.  This was the ideology of ethnic nationalism.

From this it becomes easy to see why Woodrow Wilson setup the Third National Bank, the Federal Reserve Banking System, or at least went along with it and its “elastic currency.” Later Wilson stated

“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the Nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men… We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”

To that end and the want to prosecute war to enforce political ends, paper money was printed to pay the cost because there was nothing in reserve as a consequence of President Richard Nixon’s in 1971, causing inflation to grow, which according to John Maynard Keynes

“By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some”.

 It is through this mechanism that the illegitimate opinion-driven ideologues and fanatical believers looted middle-class America and stole their moral standing within the World and left them a fractured melange of contentious races. All that’s necessary is scare everyone a little bit, put a little fear in their hearts then throw them some common “hope” and they all follow along like happy little puppydogs just like the Palestinian people.

What give the Jew the moral high ground? According to Michael Neumann it is the sovereign Jewish State — Israel in occupied Palestine. The Arab Palestinian, however, has no state, no sovereignty, no legal rights and, therefore no moral legitimacy because of their sub-standard status. No never you mind that the Jews with help and support from their American and European friends took and occupy that “state” land by force of arms. They took from another what did not belong to them and used it to justify their right to use it to establish their legitimate right to exist.

Fearsome Words?

By MICHAEL NEUMANN

In April of this year I was invited by the Canada-Palestine Parliamentary Association to speak at one of their meetings.  The meeting was to have taken place in the Parliament building in Ottawa, where I have spoken previously without incident.  John Ivison, in the National Post newspaper, published a not particularly vicious or unbalanced attack on me, deploring the invitation.   After this, without any contact with me and without seeing the content of my talk, the meeting was ‘postponed’.    It is now clear that the postponement was permanent.

This might seem spineless, but it involved more than the National Post article.

Ivison reports that Alykhan Velshi, director of communications for Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney, had the following to say:

“In a free country like Canada, Mr. Neumann has the right to air his noxious views. The corollary, of course, is that we can and must criticize them. Neumann’s farrago of cant, conspiracy theory and hate are completely repugnant to our government, and we make no apology for saying so.”

Bob Rae (former Ontario premier, former head of the New Democratic Party, now a high-ranking Liberal Party leader) is reported to have been ‘”surprised and disappointed” that the parliamentary group thought Mr. Neumann had something positive to contribute’.

Here is the alleged farago of cant, conspiracy theory and hate – unaltered since before the attacks.  Readers may judge for themselves whether the allegations have merit.

* * *

Nationalism and the Israel-Palestine Conflict

For a brief period in the 1970s I worked in the Vancouver used book trade.   I got to know a legend among booksellers –  Bill Hoffer.   Bill was a skilled purveyor of Canadian first editions and a great bluffer.  Once I found him in earnest and extended conversation with one of ‘his’ authors; later I asked Bill whether the guy’s stuff was any good.   “I don’t read it,” said Bill, “I just sell it.”.

Bill told me that the secret of the used book business was ‘gaining moral ascendency’ over the customers (whom he called ‘civilians’).   This meant making them feel like you were more knowledgeable about and more committed to whatever they were interested in.    Intimidate the customer a bit, and your business flourishes.

The Israelis gained moral ascendancy long ago; some reputed people called ‘the Arabs’ never had it.  This involved more than PR skills.   It also involved terrible confusions about nationalism.   They’re the secret weapon of the Zionists and the secret weakness of ‘the Arabs’.

Zionist ideology has always departed from a question:  every people has its state; why not the Jews?   A ‘no’ answer would tie you to that evil of evils, antisemitism.  The rights of ‘the Jewish people’ meant Israel had a morally titanic ‘right to exist’.   It meant that the relentless expansion of Jewish settlement was, far from a mortal threat to the non-Jewish inhabitants of the area, the mere completion of the long Jewish Odyssey.  It was just part of the long journey home.

As for the Palestinians, they described themselves as Arabs.   This sounded like they *had* a home; it was the whole Arab world.  If their ‘Arab brothers’ would not take them in, well, that was no fault of the Zionists.   So if the Palestinians were squeezed ever further into unlivable enclaves, it was the Arabs who were to blame.   The Arabs would rather dispute a tiny strip of their vast possessions than grant the Jews their little homeland.

These claims – we’re just a people like any other, we just want to go home – are the last bastion of lsrael’s crumbling moral stature.   It is hard to imagine a more inappropriate public relations ploy.  Israel’s rhetoric of peoples and homelands constitute a rejection of everything we ought to have learned from the Nazi era.   The confusions that sustain them not only raise racial crusading to a moral imperative; in other ways they bring unjust disrepute and demoralization on the entire so-called Arab world.

If we cannot see the harm in talk of peoples and homelands, it is because our obsession with antisemitism has blinded us to the true origins of Nazi ideology.   Before the Nazis, antisemitism was prevalent all over Western Europe.   There were ugly incidents, one or two outrageous miscarriages of justice, but no genocide and nothing remotely resembling the peasant pogroms of Russia and the Ukraine.   As for Germany, my Jewish parents, born and raised there, staunchly maintained that it was the least antisemitic country in all of pre-Nazi Europe.   Why then is the Nazi genocide attributed to antisemitism, which clearly was necessary but not sufficient to produce it?   And what about the aspects of Nazi ethnic cleansing that antisemitism can’t possibly explain – the genocide against the gypsies and the planned extermination of thirty million Slavs, many of whom died as ‘subhumans’ in inhuman prison camps?

There was an ideology sufficient to drive all those atrocities.  It fairly stares us in the face.   It was not devised by Hitler, but by 19th Century Romantics – poets and pseudo-historians from Scandinavia across Central Europe and down into the Italian Peninsula and the Balkans.   It was not the Nazis, but Woodrow Wilson who made it a fixture of contemporary politics.  This was the ideology of ethnic nationalism.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jew’s Finally Tell the TRUTH

with one comment

Mitchell pushes Middle East talks — Is this a joke?

In the face of Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister’s latest statement (below) this is just another one of President Abama’s pretty facades. Considering his recent Nobel Peace Prize Award, the world continues to hope against hope in this world-class betrayer. What’s he betrayed? Why, all that hope . . .

The Jews objective from day one was to justify taking Palestinian land by discrediting and rejecting the Palestinian people as anyone equal to them. By so doing and with a lot of help from their friends they managed to get most of the world to buy into their lie — that that land, somehow by divine right belongs to them. If the past 60 years of occupation has shown the world anything, it proven that the Jews never wanted peace. Now that they have proven, unabashed and undisputed champions in both Republican and Democratic Administrations they feel no qualms about speaking the truth. How can they not, when they’ve declared war on the Palestinian people?

Israeli official: No peace deal for many years

Foreign minister’s comments cast a pall over the U.S. envoy’s latest efforts

ALiebermanmsnbc.com news services
updated 5:00 a.m. PT, Thurs., Oct . 8, 2009

JERUSALEM – Israel’s powerful foreign minister Thursday said he would tell a visiting U.S. Middle East envoy that there was no chance of reaching a comprehensive peace deal with the Palestinians for many years.

Peacemaking policy in Israel is decided by the prime minister’s office, and not the foreign ministry. But Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman carries significant weight in Israeli decision-making, and his is a sentiment common among confidants of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

[Lieberman is due to meet President Barack Obama’s Middle
East envoy, George Mitchell, in Jerusalem on Thursday
to discuss, among other issues, the stalled peace process.]

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Joe Blow

October 9, 2009 at 4:30 pm

Obama, “Join The World”

leave a comment »

chomsky

Noam Chomsky - photo by John Soares

Noam Chomsky on US Expansion of Afghan Occupation, the Uses of NATO, and What Obama Should Do in Israel-Palestine

If you’re interested in an objective observation on Israel and the United States’ true objectives for the Middle East, read NOAM CHOMSKY’s latest on Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu and what he sees coming up.

Well, Benjamin Netanyahu is on the—you can’t say on the far right anymore, because the country has moved so far to the right that he’s almost centrist. To the far right is his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who has made his first pronouncement yesterday. He said that Israel has no responsibilities for any previous commitments, not the Annapolis commitment to eventually form some sort of Palestinian state, unclear what, only to the road map. Now, that’s what was reported yesterday in the press.

Now, what’s Israel’s commitment to the road map? He knows very well. The road map is the famous decision of the Quartet—US, Europe, Russia and the United Nations. A couple years ago, it sort of laid out vague plans for what ought to be done. It’s worth looking at them. But put that aside, because really it doesn’t matter, because as soon as the road map came out, Israel formally accepted it and instantly added fourteen reservations, which completely eviscerated it. One of the contributions of Jimmy Carter’s book on Israel-Palestine was that he was the first, I think, to give public attention to the Israeli reservations. They’re in an appendix to his book, bitterly condemned book, but nobody ever mentioned the one major contribution.

In effect, Israel said, “We’ll sign the road map, but we’re not going to observe it, because here’s the conditions.” So, for example, the condition—one condition is that nothing can happen until the Palestinians end, of course, all violence, but also all incitement, so anything critical of Israel. On the other hand, it added, nothing can stop Israel from carrying out violence and incitement. It was explicit, approximately those words. And so it continues. There can be no discussion of the existence of settlements, in fact, no discussion of anything that matters. That’s the road map. Now, the US supported that. That means both the US and Israel reject the road map. And Lieberman’s statement yesterday is, well, that’s our only commitment. You know, if we had a functioning media, those would be the headlines.

And there’s much more to this. You know, President Obama appointed a Middle East emissary, George Mitchell, who’s a reasonable choice if he’s allowed to do anything. So far, he’s only allowed to listen to almost everyone, not everyone. For example, he’s not allowed to listen to the elected government in Palestine, the Hamas-led government. Well, it would be hard to listen to them, because half of them are in Israeli prisons, but nevertheless, you know, they have voices. For example, they’ve supported the call for a two-state settlement that the United States and Israel have rejected. So they’ve joined the world on that.

But why are we not allowed to listen to Hamas? Well, because they don’t meet three conditions that were established. One is, they have to accept the road map, which we and Israel reject, but they have to accept it, otherwise we can’t allow them into the civilized world. The other is, they have to renounce violence. Well, we don’t have to discuss the question whether the United States and Israel renounce violence, so we can put that aside. Third, they have to recognize Israel, but, of course, we don’t have to recognize Palestine, nor does Israel. So they have to meet three conditions that we don’t meet and that Israel doesn’t meet. But again, that passes without comment.

Regarding President Obama role right now:

He should join the world. There has been an overwhelming international consensus for over thirty years. It was made explicit in January 1976, when the Arab states brought a resolution to the Security Council calling for the establishment of two states on the international border, which indeed the international border, up until then, was recognized by the United States. It means the pre-June ’67 border. And official US terminology, when it was still part of the world in the late ’60s, was “with minor and mutual modifications,” so maybe straighten out some curves. Almost the entire world agrees with this. It has been blocked by the United States. The United States vetoed that resolution. It vetoed a similar one in 1980. I won’t run through the record, but it’s essentially the same up ’til now.

So what President Obama should do is, in fact, what President Clinton did in the last few weeks of his administration. It’s important to recognize what happened then. There were negotiations in Camp David in the summer of 2000, which collapsed. Clinton blamed Arafat, the head of the Palestinian delegation, for the breakdown, but he backed off of that pretty quickly. By December, he formerly recognized that the US-Israeli proposals at Camp David could not be accepted by any Palestinian, and he presented what he called his parameters, somewhat vague but more forthcoming. He then made a speech, an important speech, in which he said both sides have accepted the parameters, both sides have expressed reservations. Well, they met in Taba, Egypt, in January 2001, both sides, to iron out the reservations, and they came very close to an agreement, which was very close to the international consensus.

What he thinks about the “two-state” solution:

Nobody supports—I mean, you can talk about a one-state solution, if you want. I think a better solution is a no-state solution. But this is pie in the sky. If you’re really in favor of a one-state solution, which in fact I’ve been all my life—accept a bi-national state, not one state—you have to give a path to get from here to there. Otherwise, it’s just talk. Now, the only path anyone has ever proposed —— is through two states as the first stage.

So, there you have it. There’s no peace in the Middle East because Israel and the United States refuse to recognize the Palestinian people’s legitimate right to exist.

Compliments of Democracy Now

Link to Noam Chomsky’s website. [photo by John Soares]

–Joe

Peace, Peace and NO PEACE PARTNER

leave a comment »

President’s first interview since taking office
Obama tells Al Arabiya peace talks should resume
Tuesday, 27 January 2009

Is this the voice of real change?alarabia_obama

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.

hamasThese are President Barack Obama’s words recorded in his interview with Al Arabbiya News Channel.

Previously, on Friday, 23 January 2009 he said:

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.

 


Update:
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.

–Joe

HOPE is a JOKE

leave a comment »

The REAL Mr. Obama begins to show his true colors.

Hope in Hell

Hope in Hell

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.

Obama’s Stance on Gaza Crisis “Approximately the Bush Position”

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.

Gaza Burning

Gaza Burning

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.

Read the rest of this entry »

Israel Thumbs Its Nose at the UN – WORLD

leave a comment »

The noose begins to tighten as the United States and Israel force the world to pick a side; Good versus Evil.

Fresh evidence of Israeli phosphorus use in Gaza emerges

Words and deeds in the Middle East

Qatar suspends ties with Israel :: EU, Israel Suspend Talks as War in Gaza Rages On

Bolivia cuts ties with Israel, seeks genocide charges against Israeli officials

Venezuela, Bolivia break diplomatic ties with Israel

Israel Shells UN Headquarters In Gaza

gaza_un2

"Smoke rises from the United Nations headquarters after it was hit in Israeli bombardment in Gaza City, Thursday, Jan. 15, 2009. Israeli forces shelled the United Nations headquarters in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, setting the compound on fire as U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon was in the area on a mission to end Israel's devastating offensive against the territory's Hamas rulers. Ban expressed "outrage" over the incident."

‘We are creating suicide bombers from the sons of the dead’

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.”

%d bloggers like this: