Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Israel’

Could The Domestic Social Protests in Israel Be The Greatest Impetus for Moving Towards a Two State Solution?

August 8, 2011 Comments off

Tent 48 - Named for 1948, the Year of the Declaration of Israel as a state

With all of the emphasis (and rightly so) on the domestic economic and political crises here in the U.S. , it may be lost on people that there are huge (and growing) demonstrations against Israeli government social policy going on in Israel virtually as we speak.  Reports are that Saturday night there were 300-350,000 people in the streets.  As Dimi Reider and Azziz Abu Sarah, wrote in an op-ed published last Wednesday,

The protests that are paralyzing Israel began on July 14, when a few professionals in their 20s decided they could no longer tolerate the city’s uncontrolled rents, and pitched six tents at the top of the city’s most elegant street, Rothschild Boulevard. Three weeks later, the six tents have swelled to over 400, and more than 40 similar encampments have spread across the country, forming unlikely alliances between gay activists and yeshiva students, corporate lawyers and the homeless and ultra-Orthodox Jews and Israeli Arabs.

So far, the protesters have managed to remain apolitical, refusing to declare support for any leader or to be hijacked by any political party. But there is one issue conspicuously missing from the protests: Israel’s 44-year occupation of the Palestinian territories, [emphasis added] which exacts a heavy price on the state budget and is directly related to the lack of affordable housing within Israel proper…

Had the protesters begun by hoisting signs against the occupation, they would most likely still be just a few people in tents. By removing the single most divisive issue in Israeli politics, the protesters have created a safe space for Israelis of all ethnic, national and class identities to act together. And by decidedly placing the occupation outside of the debate, the protesters have neutralized much of the fear-mongering traditionally employed in Israel to silence discussions of social issues…

If the protests continue to stir more and more Israelis out of their political despondency, Mr. Netanyahu still holds two possible trump cards: a sudden breakthrough in the negotiations to free the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, held captive in Gaza, or a sudden escalation of armed conflict.

Moreover, the impending United Nations vote on Palestinian statehood in September imposes a deadline of sorts on the protesters. If Palestinians react by marching on Israeli army checkpoints to demand freedom, Israeli protesters will have to choose between losing internal support by siding with the Palestinians, or abandoning any claim of a pro-democracy agenda by siding with the Israeli soldiers charged with suppressing them.

Interestingly, It didn’t get much press reporting here in the U.S., but the night after this op-ed was published, the Israel Air Force conducted several bombing raids in northern Gaza.  However, unless Bibi has some pull with Hamas that nobody is aware of, this was a legitimate (in Israeli terms) response to several rockets that had been launched at Ashkelon and Sderot the previous day.  Obviously, from Didi and Azziz’ point of view, whoever fired these rockets (not necessarily the Hamas government itself – there are various factions both within and outside of Hamas which hold varying degree of militancy) played directly into the hands of Netanyahu  by providing a pretext for this military action which could potentially take the spotlight off of the domestic protests.  For now, the raids have not the averted the attention of the demonstrators – as shown by the fact that the largest turnout yet was on Saturday night.

Bibi finally began to react to the protestors this week with new proposals for more government subsidies for housing and new building.  But the protestors don’t seem to be buying that and Bibi is trying desperately day-by-day to get the situation under control.  

So, we will just have to watch and see what happens.  Certainly, one eventual outcome could be the fall of the current government.  And that is what this post’s title refers to is just that.  If the government does fall – though it might be based solely on domestic issues – it might well be replaced with a new government that at the same time makes a significant change in Israel’s foreign policy.  They might really understand the dangers inherent in the status quo, and do everything possible to make a two state solution happen.

After the Optimism of the Arab Spring – Mayhem Returns All Over the Middle East

August 4, 2011 Comments off

Not much time here, so here is a short list of events – with no attempt to prioritize:

Hama, Syria Under Fire 

1. Syria – Tanks rolling into Hama to violently put down civilian rebellion

2.  Israel – Protests in the streets re: housing, etc and other, mostly economic, issues.  Tent city (Twitter: #tent48) in Tel Aviv

3.  Israel – Settlers disrupt protests by engaging protestors with slurs and obscenities (#j14)

4.  Israel – Gaza fires missiles into Southern Israel (Sderot & Ashkelon) – luckily only minor injuries

rockets - AFP - April 10 2011 An Iron Dome missile outside Ashkelon responding to a rocket launch from the Gaza Strip in April 2011.
Photo by: AFP

5.  Gaza – Just minutes ago, Israel retaliates with large bombing raid on Gaza.  Early reports are a couple of children injured

Gaza IAF airstrike AFP 24.02.2011 A Palestinian man walking at a destroyed beach front facility in Gaza City on February 24, 2011 following an Israeli air strike the previous night.
Photo by: AFP

6.  Israel – Knesset continues to move to the right with its legislation – anti-boycott law, proposals to reduce rights of Israeli-Arabs, etc.

7.  Palestine – Meeting last night to finalize plans to appeal to the UN for recognition

8.  Lebanon – Hezbollah rattling sabres

9.  Egypt – Mubarak going on trial

Visceral anger at Mubarak and his inner circle helped unite Tahrir Square during Egypt’s 18-day uprising [EPA]

10.  Libya – Fighting drags on

11.  Iran – Announces new missile a few weeks ago

Raouf Mohseni/AP – Iranian revolutionary Guards personnel watch the launch of a Zelzal missile during military maneuvers outside the city of Qom on Tuesday.

Other than that, not much going on…

Netanyahu Makes Big New Plan: He has agreed to Sit Down with Palestinians and Negotiate Based on ’67 Borders With Swaps. Of course, this has this been the Understood Basis Since 1993. Oh, and didn’t Someone Else mention this less than three months ago?

August 2, 2011 Comments off

Although for those of us who really care about peace, this could be a really good thing, it would seem to put a bit of egg on the face of a lot of folks here in the U.S.

First, here is the report from the AP via Yahoo News:

TV: Israel agrees to negotiate over pre-’67 lines

AP

“…In a speech about the Middle East in May, Obama proposed negotiations based on the pre-1967 line with agreed swaps of territory between Israel and a Palestinian state. Netanyahu reacted angrily, insisting that Israel would not withdraw from all of the West Bank, though that was not what Obama proposed.

Now Netanyahu is basically accepting that framework, according to Channel 2 TV, offering to trade Israeli territory on its side of the line for West Bank land where its main settlements are located…

Part of the reason, he [an anonymous Israeli official] said, was that Israel is seeking to persuade the Palestinians to drop their initiative to win U.N. recognition of their state next month, something the Palestinians are doing out of frustration with stalled peace efforts.

In an eerie parallel to the debt crisis Kabuki theatre that we have been watching here in the U.S. (and it is far from over, IMHO – this has just been the warm-up, wait until we really get to election season), the Israelis and the Palestinians have each painted themselves into a corner – on opposite side of the room.  Netanyahu’s ‘refusal’ to negotiate based upon ’67 borders with swaps was like taking the negotiations back to square one.  Not only impossible, but insulting.  On the other hand, Abbas’ plan to go to the UN is fraught with dangers – probably more for himself than for Israel.  One of General Sharoni’s points when he was in town last week was that Abbas needs to “deliver some goods” for his people or his leadership will weaken significantly.  On the surface, if the Palestinians are able to obtain “observer State” status in a vote by the General Assembly” (the U.S. will almost certainly veto full admission to the U.N. in the Security Council), it would appear to be a victory for Abbas.  However, nothing on the ground will change.  As a matter of fact, Israel could well tighten its security regimen in anticipation of increased resistance – whether violent or non-violent.  Therefore, the “expectation gap” of the Palestinians in the West Bank could well expand – which could actually bring the situation from simmering to boiling – and could possibly spin out of control.

Bottom line:  Signs are that Abbas will jump on this opportunity right away and use it as a rationale for postponing the push to the UN.  Then, the question will remain as to whether this is just a gambit on Bibi’s part to head Abu Mazen off at the UN pass – or whether he is really ready to move the peace process forward.

But there is another issue that the American Jewish community – and the U.S. Congress for that matter – must face.  Will those who mercilessly criticized  the President back in May, now “apologize” to him?  Shouldn’t they?  Because less than three months after the President was excoriated by Netanyahu, members of Congress, and many in the American Jewish community – the Prime Minister of Israel has now come around to exactly what Obama presented regarding borders in his two speeches (you can read key passages from those speeches here:  https://beyondzs.com/2011/07/23/another-look-at-the-obama-and-netanyahu-speeches-given-in-may/).  I hope that all who criticized the President then, will now come out and admit they were wrong in doing so.  Or, alternatively, I hope they will level the same criticism at Prime Minister Netanyahu as they did at Obama back then. 

Rhetorical Question:  If “1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps” was so terrible in May – how can it be a good idea now?

UPDATE on Danny Ayalon: Twitter Warfare Between Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic and DFM Ayalon Himself

July 29, 2011 Comments off

Seems that Jeffrey Goldberg’s blogpost yesterday inspired a response from Deputy Foreign Minister Ayalon in the flesh (or at least, in the Tweet). Which led to a response from Goldberg, and so on back and forth.

 Marc Tracy of the Tablet Magazine [which, if you are into “Jewish”, is worth checking out] frames the exchange as a twelve round prize-fight.

Ayalon vs. Goldberg, on Twitter

Let’s get ready to rumble!

Gentlemen, you know the rules: Twelve rounds, obey my instructions at all times, no hits below the belt, and keep it to 140 characters. Ding-ding!

After 8 rounds, he has Goldberg up – but judge for yourself.  It’s very clever and an enjoyable read:  http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/73556/ayalon-vs-goldberg-on-twitter/

 

 

Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, Shills For The Settlers

July 28, 2011 1 comment
Daniel Ayalon

Image via Wikipedia

In a very interesting story, Danny Ayalon, Israeli’s Deputy Foreign Minister and one of the notoriously right-wing members of the Netanyahu government has made a video supporting the occupation of the West Bank – er, excuse me, Israel controlling the “disputed territories” (after you watch the video, you will understand).  But, the truly interesting part is that the images used in the video were exactly the same as those used for a pro-settler lobbying group.  Gal Beckerman in the Forward says:

Ayalon’s video is identical, image for image and in large part word for word, with one he made in May for the YESHA Council, the organization that represents and lobbies for the settlers.

Read more: http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/#story-1#ixzz1TLSq1YTs

 

It is a great piece of propaganda.  Watch it here:

 
 

Mid-East Peace? Here Is An Organization You Need To Know About: The Council for Peace and Security

July 27, 2011 2 comments

Gen (Ret) Nati Sharoni - Wouldn't you listen to this General?

Who do you think would be most worried about whether or not Israel has defensible borders?  Who would be most wary of trusting the Arabs?  Who might you think would believe that maintaining the settlements, and particularly the outposts, should be a cornerstone of Israeli defense policy?  The obvious answer would be:  former IDF and security (Shin Bet, Mossad, etc.) officers, right?  Think again.

Some of Israel’s most recognized and decorated soldiers, sailors, airforce personnel, security directors and staff have joined together with other prominent diplomats and academics to form the one thousand strong Council For Peace and Security.  The Council describes itself as a “Non-Profit Organization of Experts on Peace and Security”.  One of the statements in its website’s Profile sums up their point of view:

“It (the Council) considers the support of the Middle East Peace Process to be a necessary component of National Security.” 

The Council’s current President, Gen (ret) Nati Sharoni, is going to be in Chicago speaking this Thursday (July 28) at a private home in the city.  I urge you to come hear him.  If you are interested – please email me directly at beyondzerosum@gmail.com.

To understand more about the Council, here are the Guiding Principles that all members must accept:

  • DELIBERATIONS ON SECURITY ISSUES MUST BE NON-POLITICAL 
  • PEACE IS ACHIEVED BY COMPROMISE 
  • THE OCCUPATION IS CAUSING DAMAGE
  • A PALESTINIAN STATE IS NOT A THREAT
  • JERUSALEM, THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL
  • A PALESTINIAN STATE IS NOT A THREAT
  • ISRAEL MUST REMOVE PROBLEMATIC SETTLEMENTS
  • ISRAEL MUST RESIST PROVOCATION
  • PEACE WITH SYRIA IS A STRATEGIC NECESSITY
  • THREAT OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION 
  • CONSCRIPTION FOR ALL 
  • EQUAL RIGHTS FOR MINORITIES

The members of the Council are not wild-eyed, left-wing radicals whose views can be dismissed with the usual argument of naiveté.  They are seasoned military and security thinkers who have come to the very rational conclusion that Israel’s long term security depends on achieving a two-state solution – as soon as possible.  Disappointedly, I have never heard of the Council For Peace and Security in any of the Jewish circles that I am involved with in the United States. 

To remedy that, J Street is sponsoring nine members to travel the country so that American Jews can listen to the conclusions of these military and security experts.  It is particularly important  because the conclusions they have arrived at are almost 180 degrees opposite from what Mr. Netanyahu’s government is espousing – along with the American Jewish organizations which believe that there should be “no daylight” between American Jews and the Israeli government.  Personally, I think that it is irresponsible  for American Jews not to listen to the point of view of these extremely experienced and battle-hardened military and strategic experts.  Listening only to people who tell you what you want to hear is the easiest way to make tragically wrong decisions.

So, again, if you are available on Thursday night and would like to meet General (Ret) Sharoni (along with Col (Ret) Shaul Arieli), please send me an email at beyondzerosum@gmail.com – and feel free to pass the information along to others who might be interested.

Another Look at the Obama and Netanyahu Speeches Given In May

July 23, 2011 Comments off

Back then, I published a parsing of the speeches given by the President and the Prime Minister.  I believe it is worth republishing this comparison since some may have missed it because the topic may not have been clear from the title.  Back then,  I was upset at how both the MSM (main stream media) and Congress dealt with both the visit in general and more specifically, the speeches that were given. A close analysis of all four speeches shows that they both used virtually the same language in dealing with the topics, yet one would never know it from reading the press accounts or the sound bites of those in the Congress on both sides of the aisle. Additionally, it is worth viewing for yourself the press conference after Obama and Netanyahu’s meeting because you first need to hear what the President said and then listen to Bibi’s response.  My take on it was that rather than Bibi “lecturing” Obama, Bibi simply went off into a soliloquy in which he presented his point of view, but wasn’t really addressing the President.  It would have been nice if at least one journalist had expressed this take on the interchange – but I have yet to see one.

As for Netanyahu’s speeches, one would certainly have expected a warm welcome from the AIPAC attendees, but the love fest in Congress was over the top. Interestingly, on a recent conference call, I heard one Congresswoman characterize the speech as “masterfully written” because just reading the text clearly showed all of the applause points. As she said: “Who isn’t going to stand up for ‘mom and apple pie'”.
What follows is a topic by topic comparison of the language of the four speeches given in the five days surrounding the Israeli Prime Minister’s trip.  These are all direct quotes.

1. Obama at the State Department, May 19

2. Obama at AIPAC, May 22

3. Netanyahu at AIPAC, May 23

4. Netanyahu before Congress, May 24

TOPIC
OBAMA-STATE DEPT
OBAMA-AIPAC
NETANYAHU-AIPAC
NETANYAHU-CONGRESS
 
 
 
 
 
Borders
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.
The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.
 
 
Borders The Sequel
 
By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation
 
The status of the settlements will be decided only in negotiations. But we
must also be honest. So I am saying today something that should be said
publicly by anyone serious about peace. In any peace agreement that ends
the conflict, some settlements will end up beyond Israel’s borders. The
precise delineation of those borders must be negotiated.
Borders III
 
It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides.
 
This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967.
Enough with the Borders Already
 
 
 
We will be very generous on the size of a future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.
Palestinian Right of Return
Open issue
 
 
Palestinians from around the world should have a right to immigrate, if they
so choose, to a Palestinian state. This means that the Palestinian refugee
problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel.
Jerusalem
Open issue
 
 
As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship
for all faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided.
Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel. I know that this is a
difficult issue for Palestinians. But I believe with creativity and goodwill
a solution can be found.
Israel as a Jewish State
 
Israel as a Jewish state and the homeland for the Jewish people, and the state of Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people; each state enjoying self-determination, mutual recognition, and peace. [Emphasis added]
 
My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have
done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I
said… “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It is time for President Abbas to
stand before his people and say… “I will accept a Jewish state.”
Self-Defense
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself — by itself — against any threat
As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat.
 
When we say never again, we mean never again. Israel always reserves the right to defend itself.
Security
Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.[Emphasis added]
Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.
 
So it is therefore absolutely vital for Israel’s security that a Palestinian state be fully demilitarized. And it is vital that Israel maintain a long-term military presence along the Jordan River. Solid security arrangements on the ground are necessary not only to protect the peace, they are necessary to protect Israel in case the peace unravels. For in our unstable region, no one can guarantee that our peace partners today will be there tomorrow.
Obama Admin Commitment to Israel
As for Israel, our friendship is rooted deeply in a shared history and shared values. Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. And we will stand against attempts to single it out for criticism in international forums. But precisely because of our friendship, it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.
 
Yesterday President Obama spoke about his ironclad commitment to Israel’s
security. He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented. He
spoke of that commitment in front of AIPAC. He spoke about it in two
speeches heard throughout the Arab world. And he has backed those words
with deeds.
 
Security Cooperation
 
It’s why we’ve increased cooperation between our militaries to unprecedented levels.
He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented
 
Advanced                        Technologies
 
It’s why we’re making our most advanced technologies available to our Israeli allies
 
 
Military $$
 
And it’s why, despite tough fiscal times, we’ve increased foreign military financing to record levels.
I know these are tough economic times. So I want to thank the president and
Congress for providing Israel with vital assistance so that Israel can
defend itself by itself
Thank you all, and thank you President Obama,
for your steadfast commitment to Israel’s security. I know economic times
are tough. I deeply appreciate this.
Iron Dome
 
That includes additional support – beyond regular military aid – for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. This is a powerful example of American-Israel cooperation which has already intercepted rockets from Gaza and helped saved innocent Israeli lives. … make no mistake, we will maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge.
I want to thank you all for supporting the Iron
Dome missile defense system
 
Agreement Must Be Between the Two Parties
 
These are the facts. I firmly believe, and repeated on Thursday, that peace cannot be imposed on the parties to the conflict.
 
 
Delegitimization
For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.
You also see our commitment to Israel’s security in our steadfast opposition to any attempt to de-legitimize the State of Israel. As I said at the United Nation’s last year, “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” and “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.”…No vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state. And the United States will stand up against efforts to single Israel out at the UN or in any international forum. Because Israel’s legitimacy is not a matter for debate.
 
 
Hamas As a Partner
Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection.
Moreover, we know that peace demands a partner – which is why I said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with Palestinians who do not recognize its right to exist, and we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric.
 
And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel’s
destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only
calls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever you
find them’. Hamas’ leader condemned the killing of Osama bin Laden and
praised him as a holy warrior.
Hamas-Fatah Unification
the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel — how can one negotiate with a party that has shown itself unwilling to recognize your right to exist. In the weeks and months to come, Palestinian leaders will have to provide a credible answer to that question.
And I indicated on Thursday that the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace. No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements
 
 
Israel’s Right to Exist
And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.
 
 
My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have
done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I
said… “I will accept a Palestinian state.” It is time for President Abbas to
stand before his people and say… “I will accept a Jewish state.”
Gilad Shalit
 
And we once again call on Hamas to release Gilad Shalit, who has been kept from his family for five long years.
And you’ve joined
President Obama and me in denouncing Hamas and demanding that it release our captive soldier, Gilad Shalit
 
New Proposals?
 
There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations.…By definition, it means that the parties themselves – Israelis and Palestinians – will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967. It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. [Emphasis added]
 
 
Palestinian intransigence
 
 
 
So why has peace not been
achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.…You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state.
Iran
 
See below
 
A nuclear-armed Iran would ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East…This is why I ask you to continue to send an unequivocal message: That America will never permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.
Obama’s Actions Against Iran
 
You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. At the United Nations, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world. Today, Iran is virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system, and we are going to keep up the pressure. So let me be absolutely clear – we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
 
It is even worse because there
are many who rush to condemn Israel for defending itself against Iran’s
terror proxies.  But not you. Not America. You have acted differently. You’ve condemned the Iranian regime for its genocidal aims. You’ve passed tough sanctions against Iran. History will salute you America.  President Obama has said that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. He successfully led the Security Council to adopt sanctions against Iran. You in Congress passed even tougher sanctions. These words and deeds are vitally important.
Arab Teaching Hatred
For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them.
 
 
They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name
public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to
perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the
descendants of Palestinian refugees.
Related articles

– Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Tomdispatch Presents A Compelling Essay by Lt.Col.(Ret) William Astore About “The Militarization of America”

June 21, 2011 Comments off

TomDispatch, Tom Engelhart’s excellent blog of critical analysis of America’s global political and military activities, published Lt.Col. Astore’s essay which contrasts the founding principles of the United States – the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and their concerns about the allure of military power – with the casual acceptance of military thinking within the political context in our current society.  His points can be summarized by the following passage:

It’s both sensible and logical to argue that our president and elected representatives must serve as a check on the military establishment, rather than issuing blank checks to them. It’s both sensible and logical to argue that all wars, as required by the Constitution, must have a Congressional declaration before American troops and treasure are committed. It’s both sensible and logical to argue that, as good as our military is, it ultimately can’t win someone else’s civil war (Iraq) or nation-build in a place where the concept of “nation” is little more than notional (Afghanistan).

Sensible and logical, yes, but such arguments have been made — and roundly ignored. They aren’t given the time of day among serious policy types in Washington, where to question the efficacy and legitimacy of the forces and tactics being used is simply not acceptable. Sharing one brain and one ethos means being incapable of grasping one’s own militarized rigidity or truly recognizing the perils that have been unleashed on this nation.”  [Emphasis added]

Obviously, this concept of the unacceptability of questions permeates American politics – on both sides of the aisle.  One’s opponents’ ideas not only aren’t worth the time of day – but they must be shouted down.  That in itself says something very telling about one’s own ideas.  If your ideas are good, you should not only allow them to be questioned – you should encourage the toughest of questions.  The conclusion has to be that those who fear opposing ideas, must have little faith in their own

Sadly, this concept can also be applied to most of the Major American Jewish Organizations who vehemently oppose debate when it comes to the topic of Israel.   The argument is that disagreements will give fuel to the enemies of Israel.  Undoubtedly, there is some truth that opponents of Israel will try to use whatever they can to delegitimize Israel.  But, there is a larger, more dangerous, truth:  lack of debate leads to bad (and in the case of Israel, perhaps fatal) decisions.

The Militarization of America: How the Military Mindset Is Permeating Our Political Culture and Society | | AlterNet.

More Disturbing Mid-East News: New Hezbollah-Majority Cabinet Approved In Lebanon

June 14, 2011 2 comments
-/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Druze Protests from NYT via Reuters

New York Times via Reuters has just reported that after five months a new cabinet has been proposed in Lebanon.  Not only does it contain a majority of Hezbollah ministers, but also contains more Sunnis than Shiites.  In a related development, Druze minister Talal Arslan, who was nominated to be Minister of State, resigned the government – leading to street protests by local Druze.

To get an idea of what is likely to come out of this government, Prime Minister Najib Mikati made the following statement:

“Let us go to work immediately according to the principles … (of) defending Lebanon’s sovereignty and its independence and liberating land that remains under the occupation of the Israeli enemy.”

If that weren’t scary enough, he also openly supports President Assad in Syria.

Critical Meeting Between Fatah and Hamas Tomorrow re: Unification Government

June 14, 2011 2 comments

According to previous reports, Hamas has rejected Fatah‘s nomination of Salam Fayyad as the Prime Minister of the unified government.  His selection would almost certainly be viewed favorably by both Israel and the United States.  Whether Hamas can be convinced otherwise may be decided tomorrow.

According to the Palestinian News Network:

Dr Mahmoud al Zahar, member of the political office of Hamas, told newspapers on Monday that the Hamas-Fatah meeting in Cairo on Tuesday will tackle all unsolved issues.

It will be interesting to hear the results.

%d bloggers like this: