Archive for the ‘War & Peace’ Category
“The PA recognized Israel’s existence in 1993, and now Israel needs to recognize the Palestinian state in line with the 1967 borders.”
Mutual recognition and acceptance, represented in the simple handshake, is the first prerequisite for peace. Israel’s unilateral demand for Palestinian recognition as a legitimate Jewish state – “declare its recognition of Israel as a national home for the Jewish people” – is a demand for surrender and submission.
The New York Times lays out Michael B. Oren’s Israeli position. He is Israel’s ambassador to the United States.
By MICHAEL B. OREN Published: October 13, 2010
NEARLY 63 years after the United Nations recognized the right of the Jewish people to independence in their homeland — and more than 62 years since Israel’s creation — the Palestinians are still denying the Jewish nature of the state.
The reason, as history so clearly proves is that the Jewish people’s so-called “independence in their homeland” is illegitimate. The are simply thieves and plunderers and a mob’s acceptance justifies only anarchy, chaos and war. The proof is the Jew’s abject refusal to recognize the Palestinians as a legitimate people for 63 years. As long as the Arabs, in particular the Palestinian people, reject the legitimacy of a Jewish State regardless of what the United Nations or other exterior countries do, the Jews are without standing and will not hold that land.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports today: Report: “U.S., Israeli warships cross Suez Canal toward Red Sea” – “Egypt opposition angered at government for allowing the fleet of more than 12 ships to cross Egyptian manned waterway, Al-Quds Al-Arabi (an independent pan-Arab daily newspaper published in London since 1989) reports.”
According to the report, thousands of Egyptian soldiers were deployed along the Suez Canal guarding the ships’ passage, which included a U.S. aircraft carrier.
Egyptian opposition members have criticized the government for cooperating with the U.S. and Israeli forces and allowing the ships’ passage through Egyptian territorial waters.
According to eyewitnesses, the U.S. battleships were the largest to have crossed the Canal in many years, Al-Quds reported.
As the US and Israel move to further threaten Iran, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that US intelligence has learned that Iran has the capability to attack Europe with hundreds of missiles.The Jerusalem Post reports today that: Iran: “Our missiles are for defense”
Official:US claims we can rain missiles down on Europe “deception.”
The Jerusalem Post also reports today: “Iran: Sanctions reflect double standard” —“Teheran calls for investigation of Israeli nukes.”
So, what does the future hold for these might empires? How about a lesson from the past? The following commentary by someone that’s worked a lifetime in peace and conflict resolution spoke about the future of America in this world starting in Afghanistan:
I think it will end, by and large, the same way as Vietnam. That means United States becoming irrelevant. ****
And to quote one important exchange of words in that remark, one of the last commanders in Vietnam on the American side said to the top person in North Vietnam, “You were never able to beat us in any open battle.” And the North Vietnamese response was “Correct, but it is irrelevant.” You can be a superpower as much as you want. You’re up against a force, incidentally, which has enormous amounts of world support. That simply is superior.
It’s called the “silent treatment.”
[UPDATE :: Tuesday, June 22, 2010]
The warmongers just keep pushing and pushing. Our beneficent and benevolent government representatives take the lead as they enforce the corrupt ruling elite’s longterm objectives. Here’s the update: Congress unveils hard-hitting Iran sanctions bill.
In my lifetime I was often told: “Talk is cheap.” It’s what you do that tells the truth. For whatever reasons, American’s bought into that cheap suit, “Hope.” Tariq Ali lays out a rather stark assessment of President Obama’s agenda.
If there was ever something to put on this blog worth reading, it is this:
PRESIDENT OF CANT by tariq ali
A year since the White House changed hands, how has the American empire altered? Under the Bush Administration it was widely believed, in both mainstream opinion and much of the amnesiac section of the left, that the United States had fallen under an aberrant regime, the product of a virtual coup d’état by a coterie of right-wing fanatics—alternatively, ultra-reactionary corporations—who had hijacked American democracy for policies of unprecedented aggression in the Middle East. In reaction, the election to the Presidency of a mixed-race Democrat, vowing to heal America’s wounds at home and restore its reputation abroad, was greeted with a wave of ideological euphoria not seen since the days of Kennedy. Once again, America could show its true face—purposeful but peaceful, firm but generous; humane, respectful, multi-cultural—to the world. Naturally, with the makings of a Lincoln or a Roosevelt for our time in him, the country’s new young ruler would have to make compromises, as any statesman must. But at least the shameful interlude of Republican swagger and criminality was over. Bush and Cheney had broken the continuity of a multilateral American leadership that had served the country well throughout the Cold War and after. Obama would now restore it.
Rarely has self-interested mythology—or well-meaning gullibility—been more quickly exposed. There was no fundamental break in foreign policy, as opposed to diplomatic mood music, between the Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 Administrations; there has been none between the Bush and Obama regimes. The strategic goals and imperatives of the us imperium remain the same, as do its principal theatres and means of operation. Since the collapse of the ussr, the Carter Doctrine—the construction of another democratic pillar of human rights—has defined the greater Middle East as the central battlefield for the imposition of American power around the world. It is enough to look at each of its sectors to see that Obama is the offspring of Bush, as Bush was of Clinton and Clinton of Bush the father, as so many appropriately biblical begettings. Read the rest of this entry »
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.
If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander.
As Israel blocks aid ships from reaching Gaza, dock workers in South Africa are refusing to unload Israeli goods at their ports. The South African Transport and Allied Workers Union says it will no longer unload Israeli ships in solidarity with Palestinians. Last year, South African dock workers refused to unload a Zimbabwe weapons shipment in protest of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.
At the State Department Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeated the Obama administration commitment to follow the Bush administration policy of boycotting Hamas.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “I would only add that our conditions respecting Hamas are very clear. We will not, in any way, negotiate with or recognize Hamas until they renounce violence, recognize Israel and agree to abide by, as the Foreign Minister said, the prior agreements entered into by the PLO and the Palestinian Authority.”
The US position has been criticized in part because it refuses to impose the same conditions on Israel. Israel refuses to renounce violence, recognize a Palestinian state and abide by agreements, including a pledge to freeze settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank. [Source]
If you really want peace, then you do the works of peace. You practice what you preach.
If you are a war-mongering criminal, not to mention a liar and a hypocrite, then so be it. If you enable and support such people, then you share their crimes. If you are one of these aberations and my neighbor, expect my boycott.
I was greeted by an above-the-fold Saturday, January 31, 2009 Times-Standard picture of some guy grinning like a Cheshire cat that just ate the canary, under the headline: “Fighting for Hearts and Minds.”
The question I ask is: Whose “hearts and minds?”
Underneath that picture it says, The fight for Baghdad, and Deputy District Attorney Allen Dollison’s role in it.” The T/S reporter Thadeus Greenson makes it sound like this guy’s a rather important “know-it-all” authority. Read the article and that is exactly what he is made to sound like. He rolls out the propaganda like any brain-washed good soldier should. He makes all the “good” excuses ala George W. Bush et al. justifying why no one is at fault for anything, certainly not any of our good and virtuous fighting men and women. Listening to him you’d think we won the war, justified the rape and everything is just peachy in the world. We can rape and butcher another country on lies and at will and it isn’t going to cost us a thing. Well, the few thousand killed and injured compared to the tens of thousands of Iraqi people is a small price to pay just to make a point. Oh, yeah the point, “If you’re not with us, you’re agin us.”
…and this guy is a DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY?