Israel Needs Moral Compass - And This Is a Tough Sell?

First post in what seems like a century. Have changed my priorities and am blogging less, if at all. But some important things still keep popping up. Like Israel's inhumanity. And look at where U.K. weapons go:

UK weapons are still being used against civilian populations.

Ministers confirmed to the MPs that British-built components were almost certainly used as part of Israeli weapons systems against the Palestinians in Gaza.

What about U.S. weapons? Goes without saying. And what is Israel defending? Children, perhaps? Read this post:

Former Israeli military commander Efran Efrati recently testified to the BBC that Palestinian children are ‘routinely ill-treated’ by Israeli soldiers:

“You take the kid, you blindfold him, you handcuff him, he’s really shaking… Sometimes you cuff his legs too. Sometimes it cuts off the circulation.

“He doesn’t understand a word of what’s going on around him. He doesn’t know what you’re going to do with him. He just knows we are soldiers with guns. That we kill people. Maybe they think we’re going to kill him.

“A lot of the time they’re peeing their pants, just sit there peeing their pants, crying. But usually they’re very quiet…

“When the kid is sitting there in the base, I didn’t do it, but nobody is thinking of him as a kid, you know – if there is someone blindfolded and handcuffed, he’s probably done something really bad. It’s OK to slap him, it’s OK to spit on him, it’s OK to kick him sometimes. It doesn’t really matter.”

When will the lessons of the Holocaust ever be learned? When will people ever learn anything? I guess power is a very addictive drug, and it kills the conscience.

Israel Wipes Gaza Villages Off the Map

Jonathan Miller's report exposes the massacre:



This is unconscionable. It is horrific. It is a war crime. It is beyond words. And it is sponsored by U.S. weapons, and a long-standing policy of treating Israel like the spoiled, beloved child who can do no wrong. Congratulations! You're the proud sponsor of mass murder in the time-worn tradition of Security Trumps Compassion.

Israel traded its conscience for its view of security - apartheid, a protected Elite within a fortress, against the world. That's not a vision of the future. That's a vision of atrocities followed by doom. Good luck with that screwed world view.

Do Something to End the Occupation of Palestine by Israel

If you are sick of the slaughter in Gaza, and want to take action, this is your link.

Gaza's Holocaust, Israel's & US's Shame

This introduction by Tom Engelhardt of Tomdispatch to Tony Karon's article on where do we go from here entitled "Change Gaza Can Believe In" sums up the image of Gaza's holocaust - as close as Israel could come, given the time constraints set by President Obama's impending inauguration to power, to wiping the Palestinians (or those trapped in this slice of Palestinian territory) off the face of the earth. Shockingly, Israel is not satisfied. It wanted to wipe them out more literally, more completely. Any attempt to call it "self-defense", or "battling terrorism" or "preventing rocket attacks" is not simply absurd, illogical or baseless - the attempt to excuse this massacre by such paltry, prissy, spoiled-child reasons is itself another crime. And the U.S., by condoning and supporting such slaughter, is not only complicit, but a partner in crime. When the powerful destroy the weak, the devastatingly weak, and the truly defenseless, only because the weak "bother" them or cause them "discomfort" ... when mass murder is committed for political reasons ... or to appease a population who are so out of touch that they genuinely believe Palestinians are somehow "out to get them" ... it is a real-life horror story.

Yes, we now know the ever grimmer statistics: more than 1,400 dead Gazans (and rising as bodies are dug out of the rubble); 5,500 wounded; hundreds of children killed; 4,000 to 5,000 homes destroyed and 20,000 damaged -- 14% of all buildings in Gaza; 50,000 or more homeless; 400,000 without water; 50 U.N. facilities, 21 medical facilities, 1,500 factories and workshops, and 20 mosques reportedly damaged or destroyed; the smashed schools and university structures; the obliterated government buildings; the estimated almost two billion dollars in damage; all taking place on a blockaded strip of land 25 miles long and 4 to 7.5 miles wide that is home to a staggering 1.4 million people.

On the other side in Israel, there are a number of damaged buildings and 13 dead, including three civilians and three soldiers killed in a friendly-fire incident. But amid this welter of horrific numbers, here was the one that caught my eye -- and a quote went with it: Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi, chief of staff of the Israeli Army, told Parliament on January 12th, "We have achieved a lot in hitting Hamas and its infrastructure, its rule and its armed wing, but there is still work ahead."

Work? The "work" already done evidently included a figure he cited: more than 2,300 air strikes launched by the Israelis with the offensive against Hamas still having days to go. Think about that: in a heavily populated, heavily urbanized, 25-mile-long strip of land, 2,300 air strikes, including an initial surprise attack "in which 88 aircraft simultaneously struck 100 preplanned targets within a record span of 220 seconds." Many of these strikes were delivered by Israel's 226 U.S.-supplied F-16s or its U.S.-made Apache helicopters.

In addition, the Israelis evidently repeatedly used a new U.S. smart bomb, capable of penetrating three feet of steel-reinforced concrete, the bunker-busting 250-pound class GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb. (The first group of up to 1,000 of these that the U.S. Congress authorized Israel to buy only arrived in early December.) In use as well, the one-ton Mk84 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) and a 500-pound version of the same. These are major weapons systems. Evidently dropped as well were "Dime (dense inert metal explosive) bombs designed to produce an intense explosion in a small space. The bombs," reported Raymond Whitaker of the British Independent, "are packed with tungsten powder, which has the effect of shrapnel but often dissolves in human tissue, making it difficult to discover the cause of injuries."

Keep in mind that Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups are essentially incapable of threatening Israeli planes and that the Israelis were using their airborne arsenal in heavily populated areas. Though the air war was only one part of a massively destructive assault on Gaza, as a form of warfare, barbaric as it is, it invariably gets a free pass. Yet, if you conduct an air war in cities, it matters little how "smart" your weaponry may be; it will, in effect, be a war against civilians.

Whatever the damage done to Hamas, what happened in Gaza was, simply put, a civilian slaughter.

Tony Karon sees an opportunity for Obama in this destruction to help make peace between Israelis and Palestinians. First, he says:

The Gaza debacle has made one thing perfectly clear: any peace process that seeks to marginalize, not integrate, Hamas is doomed to fail — and with catastrophic consequences.

But I didn't hear Israel calling the result of their slaughter "catastrophic consequences". That description would be on the lips of Palestinians, both in and out of Gaza. Why should Israelis care? For them, the only "consequence" could be bad PR, and they, like other neocon-driven groups, consider bad PR practically a rite of passage. It goes with the territory.

However, the article asks extremely cogent questions and faces Obama, who espoused the unconscionable "standard" US "line" on I/P issues:

Lest President Barack Obama's opportunistic silence when Israel began the Gaza offensive that killed more than 1,400 Palestinians (more than 400 of them children) be misinterpreted, his aides pointed reporters to comments made six months earlier in the Israeli town of Sderot. "If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that," Obama had said in reference to the missiles Hamas was firing from Gaza. "I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."

Residents of Gaza might have wondered what Obama would have done had he been unfortunate enough to be a resident of, say, Jabaliya refugee camp. What if, like the vast majority of Gazans, his grandfather had been driven from his home in what is now Israel, and barred by virtue of his ethnicity from ever returning? What if, like the majority of the residents of this refugee ghetto-by-the-sea, he had voted for Hamas, which had vowed to fight for his rights and was not corrupt like the Fatah strongmen with whom the Israelis and Americans liked to deal?

And what if, as a result of that vote, he had found himself under an economic siege, whose explicit purpose was to inflict deprivation in order to force him to reverse his democratic choice? What might a Gazan Obama have made of the statement, soon after that election, by Dov Weissglass, a top aide to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, that Israel's blockade would put him and his family "on [a] diet"?

"The Palestinians will get a lot thinner," Weissglass had chortled, "but [they] won't die."

The Israeli leadership are people who consider others' suffering a joke. They did not see the universality of the Holocaust experience, and how this should have made the Jews deeply compassionate, among the most passionate supporters of universal human rights. And for many, it certainly did just that. But obviously, that is not true of the Israeli leadership. In fact, Israeli politics in general casts a pall on the notion of anyone having "learned" anything from the Holocaust except the desire to imitate their own tormenters, taking victims of their own to torment and "eliminate" for their own "security" and other "higher purposes".

Obviously, Israelis had no pangs of conscious about this:

Even before Israel's recent offensive, the Red Cross had reported that almost half the children under two in Gaza were anemic due to their parents' inability to feed them properly.

And what was the supposed purpose of starving the civilian population of Gaza? The same purpose of the Nazis: national security. Oh, and keeping the national population "pure", of a "chosen" race. Same game, switched players. Palestinians are now playing Jews to the Israelis' National Socialists. And making this extremely obvious comparison is called, petulantly, "anti-semitic".

The call of "anti-semitic" is used, along with "national security", to cover up and excuse every kind of horror, every sickening atrocity. It just didn't go, thank God, to the extremes of the Nazis, but the same idea is in place. Why don't the Israelis see it? What is wrong with this picture? Ah, but that's another post. I believe it has to do with a right-wing human tendency that comes out when there's a perceived threat to a treasured goal. Ethics become skewed in light of the goal, and the end justifies the means.

Ah, but there are Israelis of conscience. And maybe now is their time to rise up, to shine the light of their hearts on a land scorched by violence and war-hawk insanity. Such as this article by Amira Hass in Haaretz referring to her parents who survived the Holocaust(quoted by Karon):

"My parents despised all their everyday activities -- stirring sugar into coffee, washing the dishes, standing at a crosswalk -- when in their mind's eye they saw, based on their personal experience, the terror in the eyes of children, the desperation of mothers who could not protect their young ones, the moment when a huge explosion dropped a house on top of its inhabitants and a smart bomb struck down entire families...

"Because of my parents' history they knew what it meant to close people behind barbed-wire fences in a small area.... How lucky it is that they are not alive to see how these incarcerated people are bombarded with all the glorious military technology of Israel and the United States... My parents' personal history led them to despise the relaxed way the news anchors reported on a curfew. How lucky they are not here and cannot hear the crowd roaring in the coliseum."

The rest of Karon's article is brilliant in every respect, and well-worth reading. There is a process towards peace to be had, but not via the idiotic present course. You don't pave the road to peace with the bodies of your "negotiating partners".

And, like it or not, Hamas is definitely Israel's "negotiating partner". Fatah has been thoroughly discredited. The only people "against" Hamas are Israelis, the US government, and those who follow along like sheep in their path. Hamas won an election.

For the new Obama administration reinforcing and, as they say in Washington, incentivizing the pragmatic track in Hamas is the key to reviving the region's prospects for peace.

Hamas has demonstrated beyond doubt that it speaks for at least half of the Palestinian electorate. Many observers believe that, were new elections to be held tomorrow, the Islamists would probably not only win Gaza again, but take the West Bank as well. Demanding what Hamas would deem a symbolic surrender before any diplomatic conversation even begins is not an approach that will yield positive results. Renouncing violence was never a precondition for talks between South Africa and Nelson Mandela's ANC, or Britain and the Irish Republican Army. Indeed, Israel's talks with the PLO began long before it had publicly renounced violence.

And people are not hearing the truth about Hamas over stateside.

Hamas made clear that it was committed to good governance and consensus, and recognized Abbas as president, which also meant explicitly recognizing his right to continue negotiating with the Israelis.

Hamas agreed to abide by any accord approved by the Palestinians in a democratic referendum. By 2007, key leaders of the organization had even begun talking of accepting a Palestinian state based on a return to 1967 borders in a swap for a generational truce with Israel.

Hamas's move onto the electoral track had, in fact, presented a great opportunity for any American administration inclined towards grown-up diplomacy, rather than the infantile fantasy of reengineering the region's politics in favor of chosen "moderates."

The US and Israel are pushing the absurd notion that Egypt's dictator, Mubarak, somehow represents moderacy. Mubarak is a tyrant, pure and simple. He is a dictator, hated like hell in his own country. Everyone there prays for his death - hopefully under "enhanced interrogation" circumstances. Hamas is more "moderate" in reality than Mubarak. And yet Mubarak is put in a role of "peacemaker" on the basis of sharing a mutual agenda with Israel - getting rid of Hamas, which is the cousin of the Muslim Brotherhood in, Egypt which is Mubarak's grim reaper-to-be...or shall we say, in waiting?

The world is getting sick of the slaughter, as per this WaPo op-ed. Whole villages have been totally wiped out. It is absolutely, undoubtedly, and ILLEGALLY, genocide. Israel's leaders should be prosecuted for genocide, most certainly. Just as certainly as they never will. Where there's no will...is there a way?

Is President Obama ready to meet this disaster head on? Does he have the courage to defend the defenseless, breaking with long-standing tradition? Does he have the guts to say "No" to AIPAC and the powerful Israel-first commitment? Can he call a slaughter a slaughter? Or will he resort to claiming, like Bushco, that Israel was merely defending itself when it committed these atrocities?

It is in America's interest, and Israel's, and the Palestinians' that Obama intervene quickly in the Middle East, but that he do so on a dramatically different basis than that of his two immediate predecessors.

Peace is made between the combatants of any conflict; "peace" with only chosen "moderates" is an exercise in redundancy and pointlessness. The challenge in the region is to promote moderation and pragmatism among the political forces that speak for all sides, especially the representative radicals.

And speaking of radicals and extremists, there's palpable denial, bordering on amnesia, when it comes to Israel's rejectionists. Ariel Sharon explicitly rejected the Oslo peace process, declaring it null and void shortly after assuming power. Instead, he negotiated only with Washington over unilateral Israeli moves.

Ever since, Israeli politics has been moving steadily rightward, with the winner in next month's elections expected to be the hawkish Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu. If so, he will govern in a coalition with far-right rejectionists and advocates of "ethnic cleansing." Netanyahu even rejected Ariel Sharon's 2005 Gaza pullout plan, and he has made it abundantly clear that he has no interest in sustaining the illusion of talks over a "final status" agreement, even with Washington's chosen "moderates."

Anything like what has been done before - in every case, giving Israel the veto power over everything, a free hand to do as it pleases, and absolutely NOTHING in terms of negotiating cloud to the Palestinians - we will be back to the unacceptable. Not square one, but mutually assured self-destruction. I don't think even Israel likes that option. They cannot survive on slaughter and inertia. There has to be something higher.

And all eyes are on Obama...

Palestinians Eat Grass in Gaza: For Israel, the Ultimate Holocaust Denial

This incredible blog post is all the more powerful for the comments. Meanwhile, the Times reported that:

AS a convoy of blue-and-white United Nations trucks loaded with food waited last night for Israeli permission to enter Gaza, Jindiya Abu Amra and her 12-year-old daughter went scrounging for the wild grass their family now lives on.

“We had one meal today - khobbeizeh,” said Abu Amra, 43, showing the leaves of a plant that grows along the streets of Gaza. “Every day, I wake up and start looking for wood and plastic to burn for fuel and I beg. When I find nothing, we eat this grass.”

Abu Amra and her unemployed husband have seven daughters and a son. Their tiny breeze-block house has had no furniture since they burnt the last cupboard for heat.

“I can’t remember seeing a fruit,” said Rabab, 12, who goes with her mother most mornings to scavenge. She is dressed in a tracksuit top and holed jeans, and her feet are bare.

Israel forgot their own experience from the Holocaust, as described by commenter Sonja:

“I used to get …very hungry,” Blum said. “And then something came to me. I said, ‘The cows eat grass to live. How come I can’t do that?’ So I started hunting for grass. But you couldn’t find grass too many places. You find the roots. I used to clean the grass off the roots and chew on the roots, too. But then I discovered an area behind the kitchen. It was a restricted area. Nobody was allowed to go in, and the grass was growing nice. And I used to smuggle myself inside somehow… I ran in, took a handful [of grass] and ran out.”
By Rosa Blum, holocaust survivor, Romania

Holocaust in Romania, by Matatias Carp (6. Life and Death in Transnistria)
June 10, 1942
The buildings on the right housed deportees who had managed to save some
of their money, or because of their good connections were able to receive
aid in Moghilev. On the left side, however, hunger reigned. A number of
those interned had no choice but to eat grass from the meadows and leaves
from trees.

Yom HaShoah: The Train to Belzac
By Eva Galler (holocaust survivor)
It was cold. In one corner there was a little iron stove but no fuel. We were not given enough to eat. The children looked through the garbage for food. There was not enough water to drink. There was one well in the backyard, but it would not produce enough water for everybody. To be sure to get water you had to get up in the middle of the night. Once I had a little water to wash myself, and my sister later washed herself in the same water.
Some people started to eat grass. They would swell up and die. Because of the unsanitary conditions people got lice and typhus. My brother Pinchas got night blindness from lack of vitamins. Every day a lot of people died.

Holocaust survivors remember Lodz ghetto
Reuters - August 29, 2004
LODZ, Poland - Sam Weinreich remembers the last time he came to Radegast train station in Poland’s second-largest city - the day in 1944 he was forced into a cattle car and sent to Nazi Germany’s Auschwitz death camp.
“They promised us bread, so we came here … when you’re hungry, you’ll eat grass. People in the ghetto became like animals,” said Weinreich, one of some 400 survivors who on Sunday commemorated the liquidation of the Lodz ghetto 60 years ago.

Story of Survival - Holocaust experience remembered
by Johnell Lytle-Davis
“Why do they hate us?” Meisel said she asked her mother. “Because we are Jews,” her mother replied. “At least we are alive.”
Meisel revealed that she survived on about 300 calories in a day. “I would eat grass I was so hungry,” she said.

Thank you, Sonja, for this incredible collection of relevant stories.

It seems Israel has no intention of respecting or remembering, let alone learning from, the Holocaust.

Instead, they are trying to create, on perhaps a smaller scale - but in terms of human tragedy, is the death of children ever small for the conscience? - their own little Holocaust, inflicted on someone else.

And the reason is always the same. Security. For the Fatherland.

Palestinian Dr's Daughters Killed While Interviewed on Israeli TV

There seems to be no limits to the Israeli government's love of atrocity. I haven't been able to keep up with it all. The atrocity that is Israel's invasion of Gaza is beyond description, beyond words. It is totally unconscionable.

Just one case in point: frequently interviewed on Israeli TV, Dr. Ezz-El-Din Abu El-Eish, a Palestinian and resident of Gaza who works at works at Israel’s largest hospital, Tel Hashomer near Tel Aviv, was interviewed by cell phone while his daughters were killed by Israelis as described in this heartwrenching report:

This impressive and peaceful man has been stranded at home during the war. Israel’s Channel 10 TV has regularly interviewed him by phone about the situation. On one occasion, a tank gun aimed at his home - and Israeli media intervention saved him…

What we see in the clip [above] is Israeli anchor Shlomi Eldar holding a cellphone with Dr. Abu El-Eish on the other side, howling with misery. A tank shell has just hit his home and immediately killed three of his children (apparently they cut off the first seconds when the shell actually hit).”

And here's a part of the transcript:

“Eldar: …we have on the line Dr. Abu El-Eish, we have been talking with him over the past period… he [his home] was just shelled, his family is wounded, maybe I can replay…

Dr. Abu El-Eish: No one can get to us… (unclear)… Ya Rabi, Ya Rabi (my god).. [he continues to cry throughout while Eldar talks to the audience]

Eldar: They killed his family, over the past few days we have been… I think I’m a bit overwhelmed too because,… (tearing up) Dr. Abu El-Eish is a Tel Hashomer physician, [to the doctor] Abu El-Eish we are now in the studio, [back to the audience] and he kept fearing his family would get hurt, once this week he went on air to Gabi Gazit [another anchor], because this was the only way [apparently referring to the previous near-miss incident]…. In short, he was now hit, who was hurt Abu El-Eish?

Dr. Abu El-Eish: My girls, Ya Allah, Ya Allah

[around 1:00 into clip]

Eldar: He has eight children whom he has protected throughout the war, at his home in Beit Lahiya, maybe the only thing we can do is to ask someone who can, maybe in the IDF, Abu El-Eish can you tell me where your house is, maybe they will enable ambulances to get there

Dr. Abu El-Eish: (unclear) …to save them, to save them, but they are dead already they were hit in the head, it was in their heads [died] on the spot, on the spot, Shlomi, Ya Allah, … what have we done, what have we done [repeatedly]… they killed the family… [more screams in the background]“

It's an atrocity. The entire invasion of Gaza is a horrific slaughter and a tragedy. And to think this is being done to get votes from Israelis? Do they want the world to think the Israeli public is bloodthirsty, or what? If not, what the hell happened to their brains?

Apparently, their brains went the way of their hearts.

Olmert Plays Pawns Bush, Rice: Israel Dictating US Foreign Policy

For years, many have said that U.S. foreign policy, especially in the middle east, is basically run by Israel. Under Bush II, this rumor has been engraved in granite. In fact, W has seen fit to let Israel basically run wild with whatever right-wing schemes it could come up with. And these schemes tend to run to the bloody, overkill side. But now Olmert is up front and center about it. Or should I say, he's bragging about how he called Bush up in the middle of the night, told him to get Condi to last-minute reneg on her planned support for a cease-fire agreement on the Gaza massacre, so, of course, ol' George cain't say no, and made poor Condi back out in an embarrassing breach of promise.

But then, there is no such thing as a promise from the US to anyone other than Israel, or so it seems. In his own bravado:

Olmert: "It transpired all of a sudden that a vote would be held in 10 minutes' time. I tried to find President Bush, and I was told he was attending an event in Philadelphia. I know that if somebody tried to find me on the phone right now, it would have to be something unusual and extraordinary for them to say: Leave it all and go to some room to talk to me. In this case, I said: I don't care, I have to talk to him right now. He was taken off the podium and brought to a side room.

I spoke with him; I told him: You can't vote for this proposal. He said: Listen, I don't know, I didn't see, don't know what it says. I told him: I know, and you can't vote for it! He then instructed the secretary of state, and she did not vote for it.
It was a proposal she had put together, one she formulated, one she organized, one she maneuvered. It left her rather embarrassed, abstaining in the vote on a proposal she herself had put together. That was why the French and the Brits said she had pulled a fast one on them, she having been the one to spur them to submit the proposals."

The NYT indicates Rice & the State Dept deny any such influence, stating this was their plan all along.

After the vote, Ms. Rice said the United States “fully supports” the resolution, which called for “an immediate, durable and fully respected cease-fire leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza,” but opted to abstain to see the outcome of an Egyptian-French peace initiative.

Well, WAS the call in the middle of a speaking engagement by Bush made by Olmert the reason Rice backtracked on the cease-fire plan she allegedly drafted herself? And was she really embarrassed?

About "embarrassed", I have my doubts. It didn't embarass her when Israel destroyed Lebanon's airport and infrastructure and many civilians were slaughtered because of two kidnapped Israeli soldiers. It didn't embarrass her when Israel invaded Gaza, a civilian population with none but the most rudimentary self-defense. Why would this embarrass her? Ah, according to Olmert, it's her ego that was wounded.

So Olmert's getting bored with killing civilians and destroying lives of millions for political gain. So now he wants to mess with superpower egos.

Let's hope this whole thing backfires. Do tyrants and criminals ever pay a price? After 8 years of Bush and right-wing Israelis, one sincerely wonders. Now Obama's coming, so maybe Israeli neocons are having their bloodthirsty last stand. But will there be a similar sea change inside the borders of Israel itself, a shift to the left?

When the slaughter of innocents becomes how you impress an Israeli citizenry, it seems the opposite is true. Will Obama join the legacy of Bush and others to applaud massacres by standing on the sidelines blaming Hamas? Or will there be hope for the future? We are waiting...and hoping...and hoping...

Naomi Klein: Want Mideast Peace? Boycott Israel

This heartening post by the ever-honest, ever-justice-loving Naomi Klein entitled "Want to End the Violence in Gaza? Boycott Israel" outlines the only path to Mideast Peace. Israel has never faced, and plans that it never will face, any consequences of a serious nature to its actions. It bombed Lebanon's airport to near-extinction, destroyed much of the country's infrastructure, and killed many children, women, and oh, don't forget, men - most of whom had nothing to do with the border skirmish in which two Israeli military men were kidnapped. Kidnap two soldiers of ours? We'll put you back to the stone age.

But Gaza was already hitting the stone age with a blockade that targeted mainly women, children, the sick and elderly. It has nothing to do with war. Israel's actions in the mideast are unconscionable. And then.... they invade. Invade a basically defenseless civilian population. Don't tell me this garbage about Hamas. Hamas was a legitimately elected government, supervised by Jimmy Carter. The U.S. in its infinite contortions of injustice metes out "justice" by labelling various groups of choice "terrorist", a title that means "fair game for invasion, attack, torture, whatever you can come up with."

It's been Bush's policy to say to Israel, "Sic 'em!" and then lean back and watch the sick show of slaughter, in Lebanon in '06 and now in Gaza. Always there's a "good reason": it's because of Hamas. They're terrorists! But Israel? They're defending themselves. Against homemade rockets. With cluster bombs, bombs of other descriptions dropped from supersonic jet fighters. It's a little "unbalanced"? But not terror?

From Naomi Klein:

It's time. Long past time. The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa.

In July 2005 a huge coalition of Palestinian groups laid out plans to do just that. They called on "people of conscience all over the world to impose broad boycotts and implement divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era." The campaign Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions -- BDS for short -- was born.

Every day that Israel pounds Gaza brings more converts to the BDS cause, and talk of cease-fires is doing little to slow the momentum. Support is even emerging among Israeli Jews. In the midst of the assault roughly 500 Israelis, dozens of them well-known artists and scholars, sent a letter to foreign ambassadors stationed in Israel. It calls for "the adoption of immediate restrictive measures and sanctions" and draws a clear parallel with the antiapartheid struggle. "The boycott on South Africa was effective, but Israel is handled with kid gloves.… This international backing must stop."

Yet even in the face of these clear calls, many of us still can't go there. The reasons are complex, emotional and understandable. And they simply aren't good enough. Economic sanctions are the most effective tools in the nonviolent arsenal. Surrendering them verges on active complicity. Here are the top four objections to the BDS strategy, followed by counterarguments.

1. Punitive measures will alienate rather than persuade Israelis. The world has tried what used to be called "constructive engagement." It has failed utterly. Since 2006 Israel has been steadily escalating its criminality: expanding settlements, launching an outrageous war against Lebanon and imposing collective punishment on Gaza through the brutal blockade. Despite this escalation, Israel has not faced punitive measures -- quite the opposite. The weapons and $3 billion in annual aid that the US sends to Israel is only the beginning. Throughout this key period, Israel has enjoyed a dramatic improvement in its diplomatic, cultural and trade relations with a variety of other allies. For instance, in 2007 Israel became the first non–Latin American country to sign a free-trade deal with Mercosur. In the first nine months of 2008, Israeli exports to Canada went up 45 percent. A new trade deal with the European Union is set to double Israel's exports of processed food. And on December 8, European ministers "upgraded" the EU-Israel Association Agreement, a reward long sought by Jerusalem.

It is in this context that Israeli leaders started their latest war: confident they would face no meaningful costs. It is remarkable that over seven days of wartime trading, the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange's flagship index actually went up 10.7 percent. When carrots don't work, sticks are needed.

2. Israel is not South Africa. Of course it isn't. The relevance of the South African model is that it proves that BDS tactics can be effective when weaker measures (protests, petitions, back-room lobbying) have failed. And there are indeed deeply distressing echoes of South African apartheid in the occupied territories: the color-coded IDs and travel permits, the bulldozed homes and forced displacement, the settler-only roads. Ronnie Kasrils, a prominent South African politician, said that the architecture of segregation that he saw in the West Bank and Gaza was "infinitely worse than apartheid." That was in 2007, before Israel began its full-scale war against the open-air prison that is Gaza.

3. Why single out Israel when the United States, Britain and other Western countries do the same things in Iraq and Afghanistan? Boycott is not a dogma; it is a tactic. The reason the BDS strategy should be tried against Israel is practical: in a country so small and trade-dependent, it could actually work.

4. Boycotts sever communication; we need more dialogue, not less. This one I'll answer with a personal story. For eight years, my books have been published in Israel by a commercial house called Babel. But when I published The Shock Doctrine, I wanted to respect the boycott. On the advice of BDS activists, including the wonderful writer John Berger, I contacted a small publisher called Andalus. Andalus is an activist press, deeply involved in the anti-occupation movement and the only Israeli publisher devoted exclusively to translating Arabic writing into Hebrew. We drafted a contract that guarantees that all proceeds go to Andalus's work, and none to me. In other words, I am boycotting the Israeli economy but not Israelis.

Coming up with our modest publishing plan required dozens of phone calls, e-mails and instant messages, stretching from Tel Aviv to Ramallah to Paris to Toronto to Gaza City. My point is this: as soon as you start implementing a boycott strategy, dialogue increases dramatically. And why wouldn't it? Building a movement requires endless communicating, as many in the antiapartheid struggle well recall. The argument that supporting boycotts will cut us off from one another is particularly specious given the array of cheap information technologies at our fingertips. We are drowning in ways to rant at one another across national boundaries. No boycott can stop us.

Just about now, many a proud Zionist is gearing up for major point-scoring: don't I know that many of those very high-tech toys come from Israeli research parks, world leaders in infotech? True enough, but not all of them. Several days into Israel's Gaza assault, Richard Ramsey, the managing director of a British telecom specializing in voice-over-internet services, sent an email to the Israeli tech firm MobileMax. "As a result of the Israeli government action in the last few days we will no longer be in a position to consider doing business with yourself or any other Israeli company."

Ramsey says that his decision wasn't political; he just didn't want to lose customers. "We can't afford to lose any of our clients," he explains, "so it was purely commercially defensive."

It was this kind of cold business calculation that led many companies to pull out of South Africa two decades ago. And it's precisely the kind of calculation that is our most realistic hope of bringing justice, so long denied, to Palestine.

Thank you, Naomi. Finally, someone speaks out. Let's hope others will hear your voice.

Israel's "Up Yours" to Arabs Goes Down Wrong-Way Street

This calls for a toast. Israel, in a celebratory send-off to Favorite Neocon Dick "Mr. Torture" Cheney, is slaughtering "terrorists" (Israeli-speak for Palestinians) en masse in that super-powerful Security Threat, Gaza.

Gaza, where the civilian population has been under an indefinite siege, deprived by Israel of food, medicine, water, gas, and other staples as "collective punishment" for being ... for being ... in Gaza, and somewhat "self-governed" by Hamas. What crime could be worse than "self-government"? Gaza, where unemployment is the highest in the world at 49%. Gaza, where

Half the city's residents receive water only once a week for a few hours.

Gaza, which most of the world recognizes as a "humanitarian disaster." Gaza, where the average income was estimated in better times, last summer, to be about $2/ a day. And that's for those who can find income. Gaza, which has been reduced to living on the dole:

more than one million Palestinians in Gaza live on the modest assistance provided by the UNRWA and FAO in addition to other Arab and Islamic charitable organizations.

Gaza, where no one goes in or out without first passing through a surly Israeli guard at a checkpoint:

The population of Gaza is subject to Israeli closures and checkpoints, which often make it impossible to travel to or work in Israel and the West Bank, and Hamas' leadership are at constant risk of being killed by Israeli security forces.

Gaza also lives under a tight blockade, which often makes it impossible for food, water, medical supplies and other essentials to reach the population.

Gaza, governed as much as that is possible by Hamas, called a "terrorist organization" but which is also a political party and provider of public services in a population which has none of the above - and with less corruption that Yasser Arafat's old party. Gaza, from whose soil Hamas soldiers fired rockets into Israel in protest of Israel's provocative killing of 5 Hamas soldiers. Israel, of course, is always in the process of killing anyone associated with Hamas, having been given that neocon green light for assassination by Bush/Cheney, the darlings of the right-wing in power these days in Israel.

Rockets? Oh, yes, those rockets. Disturbing Israeli civilians. The answer? Death to thy neighbor. And all thy neighbor's wives, children, parents, grandparents, relatives, friends, and anyone and anything that is thy neighbor's. Of course, Gazans are not "neighbors" to Israelis. They are "terrorists". Every man, woman and child.

Oh, yes, Israel must attack Gaza, of all places. After the people have been starved nearly, but not quite, to death. Gaza, a prison masquerading as a "territory" masquerading as a "homeland" masquerading as a "dream". Well, not exactly a prison. Unlike a prison, people can procreate. Unlike a prison, they get no food or water to feed their children. Unlike a prison, they are told to fend for themselves, while being prevented from being able to do just that. Unlike a prison, they are not convicted of any crime, except being Palestinian, which is not a crime, and of defending themselves or fighting for their human rights, which is called "terrorism", which is a neocon crime.

But like am unjust prison, Gaza's only hope of human dignity is for its people to riot. And like a prison, all the power is in the hands of their jailers, guards, and executioners.

But...if all the power is in the hands of their jailers, the Israelis...who are nuclear armed...have supersonic jets...advanced weaponry...a well-trained standing military machine...

WHY THE HELL ARE THEY THREATENED BY A RAG-TAG, STARVING, IMPRISONED POPULATION WITH NO ARMY AND ONLY HOMEMADE OR STON-AGE PRIMITIVE WEAPONS??????

Because Gazans have lots of one things Israelis have less of: powerful motivation. You se, unlike the Israelis, Gazans are fighting to SURVIVE. And everybody knows, ain't no motive like that survival motive. It shoots adrenalin into the brain. It makes guys blow themselves up just to spite their tormentors. It takes people to their extremes, in endurance, in passion, in uniting for a cause. And Israel'[s attacks are increasing that motive, exponentially!

Israelis, on the other hand, have a more amorphous, philosophical motive: The Dream. The Dream of a Homeland for the Jews, especially after the Holocaust. Never mind that to achieve the Dream one must displace millions of inhabitants from that land. Compassion, comesmash'em! It's all about the Dream. It's like, more ideological. We're number one, and you're number nothing!

But what really is problematic here is that the Israelis are also amorphously-guided, by a cloud, as it were. A pillar of fire from the bombing of innocents by night, and a pillar of smoke from their ashes and the ashes of homes, hospitals, schools are more destroyed by day. They have no clear plan, except to react to every little perceived "provocation" like a high-strung cliffhanger on steroids. All they have to go on is a Dream and a Prayer.

The Dream: God told us to take this land OR ELSE.
The Prayer: Please take all those nasty Palestinians offa my land NOW.

The Tactic: Nuke 'em! Screw 'em! Bulldoze 'em! They're not even human! They're terrorists! They hate us! They're out to kill and destroy us! THEY ARE GOING TO DESTROY OUR DREAM!

The Strategy: Kill the Palestinians' motive to survive, their will to live, their human dignity, their pride, their children, whatever they hold dear, to totally annihilate their humanity, so they will agree to be placed in a Gulag Archipelago under Israeli supervision where they can be brutalized and never raise their voices, hands, heads, or hearts in any meaningful way.

Sounds a lot like Cheney's "robust interrogation".

Problem is, it doesn't work. You can't kill the human soul. Correction: when you try to kill the human soul, the only thing you succeed in killing is your own conscience. And with it, your own soul.

Ooops! That means, the Israelis are messing with their own conscience! Their own collective souls! And then...we all know God doesn't "choose" people without a conscience. And...wasn't that the Dream? The Motive? The Biblically sanctioned Holy Land of Israel? Wasn't it supposed to be...divinely ordained? But if God doesn't choose people with dead souls and dead consciences, then he... will choose someone else. A different people... a people who do not idolize the ideals of Dick Cheney and the neocons. A people who don't slaughter to impress their own constituency, as if the Israeli people vote based on bloodlust - whoever slaughters the most Palestinian children gets voted into office. Please tell me it ain't true! It sure as hell looks and sounds like it. But I don't want to believe...

Is THAT what Israel is all about? Is THAT what Israel represents? Power at all costs? Comfort for a few privileged - "comfort" meaning "lack of rocket volleys that shake us up" - at the cost of starvation of millions? Or the direct, deliberate, intentional murder, genocide of hundreds???? Is that the Dream? What the hell kind of a Dream is that, Israel????

This genocide will not go down easy.

Remember when "tough guys" didn't gun down women and children because it was beneath them? When it was too "low" for them to kill those who were weaker than them? How do you talk to Israelis who forgot that murder has consequences? Is it not "murder" when you're in power and using a military "machine" to do the killing? So it has no consequences? So Israel is blame-free? Why do they always attack those weaker than them, at their weakest point? Why don't they ever show that higher ground of "tough guys" in Westerns, of days gone by? Why don't they give a damn about families?

The world may croak like a freshly-slaughtered capon. The Arabs may make Very Strong Statements, signifying nothing. The U.S. may IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, ask ("pretty please") Israel (the beautiful, cruel, temptress girlfriend) to "try" not to kill "too many" civilians. Israel may answer "OK, we'll try, but...we'll won't promise, and we're not gonna stop bombing, invading, etc..."...

Yes, the whole world may join with Cheney in a rousing chorus of "So?"

But you can't eradicate the soul and heart of a nation in order to find the soul and heart of your own nation. It doesn't work that way.

Face it, Israel. Or better yet, say goodbye to right-wing Zionism like we're saying goodbye to Dick Cheney and the discredited neocons. For Israel to survive, it's got to have a goal that INCLUDES the existence of REAL, LIVE, NON-TERRORIST, NON-KOWTOWING, UPPITY, PROUD, HONEST, HUMAN......PALESTINIANS. With dignity. On both sides, not just your side of the border.

And while you're at it, watch your morals when you claim divine rights. Or the disaster you are toasting:
"Up Yours!"
may be your own.

Lawrence of Cyberia: Why Don't Zionists Adopt Gandhi's Methods?

Just discovered this post which makes this astute point:

It takes a special kind of nerve to embark upon a project - Zionism - that can be fulfilled only through the violent destruction of another people, and then criticize the people you are destroying for their failure to adopt non-violence.

Which is followed by this quote from Gandhi, showing his distaste for Zionism:

Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. …Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred.

… I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds.

-- The Jews In Palestine, by Mahatma Gandhi; The Harijan, 26 Nov 1938

According to Gandhi, it was the Zionists, not the Palestinians, who invented terrorism.

Heathlander: Israel Gets License to Kill With Impunity

In spite of much-touted free speech in the blogosphere, it is still rare to find an eloquent advocate for human rights in that most unstable of border/nation disputes, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Heathlander is right at the top of those, in my view, and has brought up a critical issue: Israel's "free hand to kill" journalists, Palestinians, protesters, and other civilians who dislike its policies.

As you may recall, the brains heading up the British Israel Communications and Research Centre claimed in a recent(ish) letter to the Guardian that the death of Reuters cameraman Fadel Shana (pictured) was “accidental” (see my response here). Shana was killed by Israeli forces in Gaza earlier this year when a tank crew fired two shells at him as he was filming from a mile away. Eight other civilians aged between 12 and 20, including six children under 16, were also killed in the attack.

An Israeli military inquiry this week reached the same conclusion, exonerating the soldiers responsible on the grounds that they had “reasonably” mistaken Shana’s camera for a mortar or anti-tank weapon. As excuses go this is nearly as risible as Israel’s claim that Mohammed Omer, a Palestinian journalist who suffered a complete nervous breakdown and several broken ribs after being beaten and tortured by Israeli agents, merely “lost his balance and fell“.

So we're talking about a pattern of behavior, and a pattern of covering up that behavior. There is definitely an almost unwritten code with the mainstream media that Israel is off-limits: nole mi tangere. This unwritten code, translated into something of a phobia, almost a knee-jerk refusal to question Israel's actions, has led to Israel's upping the ante, continuing a policy of Security Sanctions All.

Reuters condemned the decision as “effectively giving soldiers a free hand to kill”, thereby “severely curtail[ing] the freedom of the media to cover the conflict.”

Also noted,

The effect of the ruling, Amnesty concluded, will be to “reinforce the culture of impunity that has led to so many reckless and disproportionate killings of children and other unarmed civilians by Israeli forces in Gaza.”

Read more...

Israel Antoinette Always Gets the Cake, So Why Does She Use Thug Tactics?

Dahr Jamail tells of this harrowing experience suffered by Muhammad Omer, a Palestinian journalist who, along with Dahr Jamail, received the Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in London on 16 June (1).

On his return home, Omer was badly beaten up and physically and psychologically abused by Israel's security forces, Shin Bet. At the Allenby Bridge crossing, from Jordan to the West Bank, he was met by the Dutch official who was to ferry him back into Gaza. The official waited outside as Omer entered the Israeli building. Omer was told to turn off his mobile phone and remove the battery. When he asked if he could call his embassy escort, he was told sternly he was not allowed. A Shin Bet officer searched his luggage and rifled through his documents. "Where's the money?" he asked Omer. "Where are the English pounds you have?" They wanted to confiscate his prize money, which Omer was wise enough not to carry on his person.

Omer was surrounded by eight armed Shin Bet officers. This is how he described what happened next. "A man called Avi ordered me to take off my clothes. I had already been through an x-ray machine. I stripped down to my underwear and was told to take off everything. When I refused, Avi put his hand on his gun. I began to cry: `Why are you treating me this way? I am a human being.' He said: `This is nothing compared with what you will see now.' He took his gun out, pressing it to my head, and with his full body weight pinning me on my side, he forcibly removed my underwear. He then made me do a concocted sort of dance. Another man, who was laughing, said:
`Why are you bringing perfumes?' I replied: `They are gifts for the people I love.' He said: `Oh, do you have love in your culture?'

"I had now been without food and water and the toilet for 12 hours and, having been made to stand, my legs buckled. I vomited and passed out. All I remember is one of them gouging, scraping and clawing with his nails at the tender flesh beneath my eyes. He scooped my head and dug his fingers in near the auditory nerves between my head and eardrum. The pain became sharper as he dug in two fingers at a time. Another man had his combat boot on my neck, pressing it into the hard floor. I lay there for over an hour. The room became a menagerie of pain, sound and terror."

Now you may think this can't be a pattern of behavior, it may be, as reported back in 2000 by the Guardian, typical of the era from '88-'92, the Intifada, and things have since been rectified. And such practices of physical coercion were banned by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1999. Since then it's documented that only "moderate physical pressure" can be exerted against terrorist or other suspects. What that means may be open to interpretation. Perhaps humiliation, sexual degradation, and physical deprivation are "moderate" to Shin Bet.

Or maybe the right-wing in Israel considers all of that irrelevant: declare a self-defense and its battles, and impose a humanitarian disaster on an entire population of men, women and children. Which, of course, means Gaza. As stated here:

The humanitarian condition of the one and a half million men, women and children illegally incarcerated in Gaza is now at its worst point in the last 40 years of Israeli occupation.

Israel’s pitiable attempts to achieve absolute security through absolute domination have only led us all into disaster. The rocket attacks by militants in Gaza against Israeli civilians are as deplorable as they are predictable – given the suffering caused by this blockade – but these attacks are also irrelevant to the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israel’s siege. The one does not justify the other. The one cannot justify the other.

Self-defense to Israel also can mean, say, decimating the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon - like the country's one major airport - in response to the kidnapping by one group of two Israeli soldiers. This is certainly not covered by "torture" statutes. It's war, and all's fair...

Meanwhile, what's wrong with a little incarceration? What's wrong with incarcerating the entire population of Gaza because of the rocket attacks on Israel? What's wrong with incarcerating Palestinian journalists? What's wrong with slanting the news? What's wrong with violating human rights? What's wrong with a little "pressure" now and then? What's wrong with a few lies? What's wrong with being heavy-handed? What's wrong with Israel holding more than 10,000 Palestinian prisoners, many of them without charges, detention being renewable every 6 months??? Israel cannot be held accountable for any of its actions. Israel is above reproach. Israel has not been fully born yet, apparently. Israel considers itself forever under siege, extremely delicate, more so than Marie Antoinette, a virtual fetus trapped in a virtual womb, waiting to be born. Born, presumably, by C-section, judging by the heavy use of the virtual, or actual, sword, or its more explosive surrogates.

As the very astute Seth Freedman of the Guardian said in reporting about Israeli Jews with a totally different attitude towards Palestinians:

Despite the general perception that Israeli Jews are under constant threat of attack when they venture into the Wild West Bank, a group of dedicated volunteers from the Villages Group put paid to that myth on their regular solidarity visits to local Palestinian farmers. "Perhaps we cannot bring about a general peace," reads their website, "but we can perform deeds of peace."

In fact, Mr. Freedman titles his article "Ehud, Noam and Elad disprove the myth that Jews who venture into the West Bank are putting their lives in danger", referring to members of the Villages Group who are dedicated, along with other humanitarian groups, to creating a bridge between Israeli and Palestinian people in spite of all efforts of the Israeli government to keep the two neighbors in a constant state of war, fear, and conflict.

But for every small step forward Ehud and his colleagues make in terms of bridge building, the Israeli government and the IDF make ten massive leaps back. We visited the cave village of Mukfara, whose recently-built, minuscule mosque has just been issued with a demolition order by the army. "Settlers build illegally day after day," said Mahmud Hammada, the muchtar of the hamlet, "whilst we are on our recognised land yet still cannot even build a mosque in which to pray."

As Dahr Jamail pointed out:

The fourth Geneva Convention (GC) (1949) states: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment."

B'tselem documents so much Israeli violation of the Geneva Conventions - to this very day and hour - that it's obvious Israel joins Dick Cheney & George W. Bush et. al. in their disregard for human rights when it comes to human rights-abusers' favorite Reason for All Abuses: security. They seek absolute security. Absolute control. In the case of Israel, absolute authority of Jews over and to the exclusion of all other nationalities. And this is unconscionable. It corrupts absolutely. Let the guilty take responsibility.

The Israeli military regularly bombs and uses snipers to attack Palestinian ambulances. Article 20 of the 1949 GC states: "Persons regularly and solely engaged in the operation and administration of civilian hospitals, including the personnel engaged in the search for, removal and transporting of and caring for wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases shall be respected and protected."

Is it not ethnic cleansing? And why torment journalists for telling the truth? What is Israel trying to hide, if "security" truly justifies all?

Israel has blockaded Gaza, isolating and starving the 1.5 million Palestinians who live there. In 2006 Dov Weisglass, an adviser to the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said: "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet,
but not to make them die of hunger."

He's so out of touch with compassion, he makes a joke out of it.

Article 23 of the 1949 GC states: "Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free passage of all consignments of medical and hospital stores and objects necessary for religious worship intended only for civilians of another High Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It shall likewise permit the free passage of all consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and tonics intended for children under 15, expectant mothers and maternity cases."

The Israeli government has threatened to close orphanages for Palestinian children in Hebron, which would be another violation of international law, for article 24 of the Geneva Convention states clearly: "The Parties to the conflict shall take the necessary measures to ensure that children under fifteen, who are orphaned or are separated from their families as a result of the war, are not left to their own resources, and that their maintenance, the exercise of their religion and their education are facilitated in all circumstances. Their education shall, as far as possible, be entrusted to persons of a similar cultural tradition."

Obviously, GC principles were also violated in Omer's treatment by the Shin Bet.
The Israeli government sees itself as above the Geneva Convention, in much the same way the Bush-Cheney administration sees itself as above the GC, and for the same reason: Security.

Security is the reasons all human rights abusers use to justify their abuse. All dictators use security to justify their abuse of power. And it's the number one reason they "suppress the press." Strongarming journalists is normally the tactic of totalitarians, governments who don't want the people to know what's going on. Is that the case with Israel, or what????

Attacking journalists is not new. On 16 April Fadel Shanaa, a Palestinian
cameraman working for the news agency Reuters, was killed by a rocket fired
during an Israeli military incursion into the Gaza Strip. His assistant, Wafa Barbakh, was seriously injured. Both were in vehicle clearly marked "Press". This appears to be part of systematic targeting of journalists by the Israeli military. Since the beginning of the second intifada in September 2000, the Israeli military has killed at least nine journalists, including an Italian and a Briton. At least 170 other journalists have been wounded by the Israeli military during this period.

Former Dutch ambassador Jan Wijenberg said of what happened to Omer: "This is by no means an isolated incident, but part of a long-term strategy to demolish Palestinian social, economic and cultural life... I am aware of the possibility that Mohammed Omer might be murdered by Israeli snipers or bomb attack in the near future. . . [Omer] is a moderating voice, urging Palestinian youth not to court hatred but seek peace with Israel."
Janet McMahon, managing editor of the Washington Report on Middle East
Affairs, for which Omer writes, says he is still in hospital. "He may go home,
or have an operation. He's still in a lot of pain, and it's hard for him to
swallow, or to breathe deeply. He's being fed intravenously."

Obviously, to the Israeli government, Omer is merely a security risk, not a human being, much less a journalist with certain rights. They don't bother to see if he really poses a threat, but bulldoze him like so much Palestinian ... paraphernalia? what's the term that combines "homes" with "trash"? ... like the unwanted Palestinian presence bulldozed for the ethnically pure settlers whose rights are inalienable, unlike the rights of Palestinians. Is this not racist?? Well, honestly, is not Israeli policy both racist - OPENLY racist! - and at the same time smacks of totalitarianism, if you happen to be born on the wrong side of the DNA tracks.

Israel's "gross imbalance of power" is funded by none other than Uncle Superpower. It's absolutely cool on all sides of the U.S. political spectrum to sing the praises of Israel and vow to defend it tooth and nail, even if it means violating a Geneva Convention clause or two. Who gives a damn about the Geneva Conventions anyway? We want power, security, not "human rights". Damn those "human rights activists", always getting in the way.

That's why "absolute power corrupts absolutely." Human rights are the basis for most moral codes, and abandoning those, even partly, means one has become corrupt.

According to Defence for Children International, Israel has "engaged in gross violations of international human rights and humanitarian law". Between 1967 and 2003, Israel destroyed over 10,000 Palestinian homes, and that continues.

So how can they claim to be any better than Bush, Cheney, or any of a number of dictatorships in Africa, Asia, or elsewhere that we will not name, and whom we dare condemn? How in good conscience can America give a carte blanche to this flagrant affront to justice and goodwill in the name of security? Easy. Do it all the time. In the Middle East, America makes sure Israel Antoinette always gets the cake. And America makes sure she defends it, too. By all means, by all means...

Truce Between Hamas & Israel: Reprieve or Improvement?

From the Guardian:

On Thursday at 6 am, following a furious final burst of activity from Qassam rocket teams against the residents of the towns of the Western Negev, and by Israel's air force against the Qassam rocket teams, silence descended on Gaza and its environs. The six-month "tahdiya" (period of calm) declared between the Hamas rulers of Gaza and Israel is the latest move in a long and exhausting war currently under way in the Middle East. This war pits a coalition of rejectionist (mainly Islamist) forces centered on Iran against pro-western elements in the region. A central goal of the pro-Iranian alliance is the destruction of Israel. Hamas is the main representative of this alliance in Gaza and the West Bank. The "tahdiya" represents a significant achievement for Hamas, and therefore for this camp.
The "tahdiya" is the fruit of the campaign of attacks launched by Hamas against the communities of the western Negev. This campaign began in the days following Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in the summer of 2005. Since that time, of course, Hamas has won PA elections, and destroyed its Fatah opponents in Gaza. The Egyptian-brokered period of calm is a de facto recognition by the government of Israel of the Hamas regime in the Strip.
Hamas gave some ground in the indirect negotiations in the period leading up to the ceasefire. Most significantly, the movement had originally wanted the ceasefire to extend to the West Bank. Israel, fearing the possibility of a creeping Hamas takeover of this area, refused. But this caveat notwithstanding, the tahdiya will allow Hamas a breathing space in which it will consolidate its rule and build up its forces.
According to the ceasefire, Israel will begin to ease its blockade of Gaza if the quiet holds for three days. A week later, again dependent on the maintenance of quiet, Israel will then further ease restrictions on cargo crossings. Talks will then begin over the re-opening of the Rafah Crossing between Egypt and Gaza, and for the release of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit. (The causal relation between these two final aspects is not clear, and it will be interesting to observe whether the Egyptian decision to re-open Rafah will indeed be conditioned on progress regarding Shalit, or whether the one will be quietly de-coupled from the other in the weeks to come.)

Israel's Breach of Conscience Breeds More Terrorism Than Peace

Even when a new "shaky" ceasefire is in place, it helps to consider the plight of Gaza again.
When this came out last May 30

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has denounced the international community for its "silence and complicity" on what he called Israel's "abominable" 11-month blockade of Gaza.

and

The Archbishop, mainly here on a UN mission to investigate what he called the Beit Hanoun massacre of 21 civilians by Israeli tank shelling 18 months ago, said: "All we had heard about conditions in Gaza – deprivation, a sense of despair, the lack of economic activity – had not prepared us for the stark reality which we saw."

Of course, this gets little response, thanks to "fear of AIPAC." But AIPAC may ultimately be working against Israel's long-term interests, and so are others who support the blockade, which has radicalized more moderates and villainized Israel to more people than any "Islamist" propaganda ever could.

Nobody in their right mind expects the candidates to stand in sympathy with Gaza or the Palestinians. Candidates have to be all things to all people, and even more particularly, all things to all power-brokers. So to whom do we turn to stand up to the almighty power of AIPAC about which is said:

Former president Bill Clinton defined it as "stunningly effective". Former speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich called it "the most effective general-interest group across the entire planet". The New York Times as "the most important organization affecting America's relationship with Israel".

and

AIPAC maintains a virtual stranglehold over the US Congress. Critics of the Israel lobby other than Walt and Mearsheimer also contend that AIPAC essentially prevents any possibility of open debate on US policy towards Israel.

Or towards Palestinians. Or towards ... Iraq?

It has become relatively fashionable for some members of the Israeli lobby to deny any involvement in the build-up towards the war on Iraq. But few remember what AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr told the New York Sun in January 2003: "Quietly lobbying Congress to approve the use of force in Iraq was one of AIPAC's successes over the past year."

And in a New Yorker profile of Steven Rosen, AIPAC's policy director during the run-up to the war on Iraqi, it was stated that "AIPAC lobbied Congress in favor of the Iraqi war".

Compare it with a 2007 Gallup study based on 13 different polls, according to which 77% of American Jews were opposed to the Iraq war, compared to 52% of Americans.

Walt and Mearsheimer contend

"the war was due in large part to the lobby's influence, and especially its neo-con wing. The lobby is not always representative of the larger community for which it often claims to speak."

Does this mean AIPAC is overextending itself and in fact, doing the Jews - or actual human beings who identify themselves as Jews - and even Israel in a more long-term sense - more harm than good??

Does that apply also to the Palestinian issue? Of course it does! Look at Amy Goodman, who frequently hosts Palestinian-sympathizing guests and expresses strong opposition to the hawkish Security First line.

Nothing ever gets solved without the willingness to actually discuss and communicate as human beings. Once both sides become Untouchable Aliens, there is no solution but war, violence and suffering. And this doesn't occur in a vaccuum.
The problem also lies in what has been defined as "nationalism" vs. "patriotism".

George Orwell wrote that nationalism was one of the worst enemies of peace. He defined nationalism as the feeling that your way of life, country, or ethnic group were superior to others. These types of feelings lead a group to attempt to impose their morality on any given situation. When those standards were not met, more often then not, war would result.

In contrast he stated that patriotism was the feeling of admiration for a way of life etc. and the willingness to defend it against attack. The obvious difference between the two is that while patriotism is a passive attitude, nationalism is aggressive by nature.

Israel's Security First right wing enforces strong nationalism. Nationalism that displays in US foreign policy that blares to the world "Israel Right or Wrong". It's presented as a patriotic thing, but in practice, with the pre-emptive attack policy, it cannot be described as merely "defense".

On the other hand, Israel has failed to recognize that it actually has neighbors to whom it must prove itself as a good neighbor so as to get off US life-support, finally graduate from Protected Fetus status, and become a viable nation in every sense of the word. In other words, Israel will remain in vitro, a sort of implant in the Middle East, as long as it keeps this "I am God, You are Dirt" attitude. The blockade of Gaza signs, seals and delivers that impression on all those neighbors. Those nasty little vermin anti-semitic terrorists/ tyrants.

Can't you even pretend they're human? Turn on the electricity or open some freaking road so the dying can get treatment in the hospitals? Can't you see how tyrannical, nasty, mean, racist, and downright immoral this looks? The taste of genocide is in the air... where's those talented PR guys??? A token loaf of bread, some baby formula, something...

Israel cannot maintain its current position forever, much to some Israeli right-wingers' disbelief. The US empire is crumbling in the wake of the disastrous so-called "War on Terror" which has proved to be more of an apocalyptic-styled war on any non-totalitarian Muslim society that claims to have an "Islamic" government.

The US and Israel, by their policies, are feeding the fire, creating more terror, more enemies, more worldwide resentment. They are becoming, in the eyes of the rest of the world, pariahs. Their policies are intransigent, highly aggressive, featuring torture and "pre-emptive strikes". What was once the sole domain of Israel and done with some trepidation is now US foreign policy and done without a single pang of conscience.

What is conscience? An inconvenience? A nagging UN-leftwing-bleedingheart-vegan-weenie-antisemitic rant? Or is it that very thing that forces humankind to do what they hate most - consideration for others? It is that painful, dreaded submission of pride to some alien group again.

Conscience is replaced by rhetoric. Discourse is replaced by rant.

On the one hand, we hear citations of numerous threats by Hamas or Hamas sympathizers that they will somehow return Palestine to its original, Jew-free state. Just as Palestinians see Israel's insistence that recognition include the phrase "Jewish Homeland" which they take to mean recognition of the right of Israel to expel all non-Jews from Israel, to create an Arab-free state. But everyone knows reality is never dictated by threats, dreams, commands, or dictates issuing from leaders or governments.

Even Hamas leader Misha'al stated (quoted here)

We have the Palestinian Conciliation Document of 2006, in which all the organizations agreed clearly to a state based on the borders of 1967 including Jerusalem, the right of return and full sovereignty.

At some point, Israel will have to listen to its own people and take them into consideration, not for their fears but for their hopes and aspirations - but realistically. That means facing the ugly consequences of what the Israeli government is doing now so aggregiously, so aggressively, so cold-heartedly. So devoid of conscience. As Desmond Tutu said:

"The entire situation is abominable. I believe the ordinary Israeli citizens would not support this blockade if they knew what it really meant to ordinary people like themselves... My message to the international community is that our silence and complicity, especially on the situation in Gaza, shames us all. It is almost like the behaviour of the military junta in Burma."

And here's the crux of the matter:

... he said that events in both South Africa and Northern Ireland had shown that peace would come through negotiations "not with your friends. Peace can only come when enemies sit down and talk".

Of course, fat chance of that from nationalist Israel:

... less than 24 hours after the Archbishop's visit to Beit Hanoun, 60 Palestinians were arrested during a pre-dawn raid by the Israeli military on the northern Gaza town. Palestinian witnesses said that residents had been summoned to a local square before dozens were taken away for questioning, and that armed military bulldozers had destroyed some farmland in the area.

Some think they can obliterate a population and then, as if committing the perfect crime, simply deny they ever existed, thus exonerating their deed. Others prefer using semantics, calling Palestinians "terrorists" and "antisemites" (implying "racist") while Jews are "God's chosen people" and part of Biblical destiny and "holocaust victims" - meaning not simply victims of the Holocaust, but people who, having collectively undergone such a horrible disaster, now are justified in doing anything whatsoever to maintain their security. It's a feeling, but Israel needs more self-confidence, less defensiveness. Hey, they're nuclear armed in a sea of Arab military nothingness!

Finally, the net result of Israel's blockade of Gaza may be to create more extremism and terrorism in the region, since all Palestinians and Arabs can see of Israel is cruelty and oppression and a callous disregard for their humanity. They don't see that Hamas is also culpable in this, that they may be "abusing" their population in some ways.

Palestinian children in Hamas-controlled Gaza are being taught to take an active role in terrorist operations against Israel and are thus placed in mortal danger by those who should be responsible for their safety and well-being. The children, too young to fully understand even the meaning of death, are taught to aspire to "martyrdom" in children's television shows produced by the Hamas.

The blockade is NOT having the desired effect of limiting Hamas' power, but rather increasing their hold on people who see Hamas, like them, as being victimized. It gives Hamas the role of "voice of the people", a role I believe Israel, in its most nationalistic right-wing dream, would prefer it not to have.

Conscience has its perks. People recognize good works and human consideration for others. They really do. And ultimately, what could hurt Israel in the region is disregard for Palestinians and the human wasteland they've made of Gaza. You can blame Hamas. You can call them terrorists. But what the people feel is that Israel wants to destroy them, not Hamas. And only Israel can have a change of conscience. The US will do nothing with theirs, as long as Bushco and AIPAC remain in their positions of unmitigated power.

Israel Uses Gunfire Against Gaza Protesters

Talk about Israel's "democratic ideals" and "peaceful neighborliness" - those quotes are presumed, not real - and here you've got it! Or check this NYT article.

Israeli troops used gunfire and teargas on Friday to keep more than 3,000 Hamas
supporters from approaching one of the Gaza Strip's main border crossings with
Israel, wounding at least six Palestinians,
witnesses said.
At least two of the wounded were in a critical condition,
Palestinian medical workers said.

Freedom of speech under the gun. I guess the right to protest, to express oneself, to speak one's mind, is VERBOTEN under an OCCUPATION. Wonder why they "resort" to violence? Since when did peaceful means work with Israel???? WHen????

Remember this in Iraq. Israel, the occupier, uses guns because in their minds, Palestinians are not people, they're terrorists! Nothing like a label to destroy human relations. Nothing like guns to destroy peace. It's all about "preemptive strikes", that right-wing catchall for paranoid nationalism. Gee, did anybody ever hear that Nazi Germany was into the same thing? Maybe you should mend some fences with the extreme right, Israel. You have so much in common.

Separately, Palestinian medical workers said a 65-year-old woman died on
Friday from wounds suffered a day earlier.
The Palestinians said the woman was hit during an Israeli army raid near her home in the southern Gaza Strip.

Ahhh, another day, another raid, another dead body, another reason to keep killing each other.

And America is doing the same in Iraq, only more heavy-handedly, unbeknownst to the press. Notwithstanding the dancing GI's with Iraqis celebrating their battle victory over an al-Qaeda "cell". Lots of people in Iraq say they are much worse off now, and democracy is far more difficult to achieve. When will the Republicans ever learn freedom is not by force?

Probably when the Israelis learn civility and peace is not by force, either. You don't get good neighbors by starving their children and bulldozing their homes. Duhhhhh....

Revenge Against Children for Parents' "Crime": Being Arab

Israelis are very defensive. No argument on that point. So they must hate "Save the Children" when that organization described the situation in Gaza as a "man-made, completely avoidable" "humanitarian implosion", laying the blame for the suffering of Gaza's children, who make up almost half of the population, on Israel's morally abhorrent policy of communal punishment on Gazans.

The number of people living in absolute poverty in Gaza has increased
sharply. Today, 80% of families in Gaza currently rely on humanitarian aid
compared to 63% in 2006. This decline exposes unprecedented levels of poverty
and the inability of a large majority of the population to afford basic
food. ...
In June 2005, there were 3,900 factories in Gaza employing 35,000 people. One and a half years later, in December 2007, there were just 195 left employing
only 1,700. The construction industry is paralysed with tens of thousands of labourers out of work. The agriculture sector has also been badly hit and
nearly 40,000 workers who depend on cash crops now have no income....
In September 2007, an UNRWA survey in the Gaza Strip revealed that there was a nearly 80% failure rate in schools grades four to nine, with up to 90% failure rates in Mathematics. In January 2008, UNICEF reported that schools in Gaza had been cancelling classes that were high on energy consumption, such as IT, science labs and extra curricular activities.

This is not the result of some unforeseen tragedy. This is deliberate, calculated "punishment" against children first - for they suffer the most - because of rockets launched by Hamas militants. Did this policy succeed to stop the rockets? No. Did it bring the region closer to peace? Quite the opposite. Did it succeed to kill and sicken innocent children, bringing them to the brink of starvation in front of their desperate, heartbroken, trapped and walled-in parents? Yes!

As the head of UNRWA has pointed out, ‘Hungry, unhealthy, angry communities do not make good partners for peace.’

Someone - wonder who? - said "You shall know them by their fruits." Here are the fruits of the Israeli occupation: Suffering and pain, near-starvation, deprivation of freedom - against children first! They are the most vulnerable, and the ones who bear the brunt of Israel's retribution and thirst for revenge. Is that the nation who celebrates their 60th anniversary? Do I hear a party?
Partying at the expense of whom? Do they feel no shame, dancing on the graves and pain of innocent children? What just God could possibly sympathize with them?

Marketing Ethnic Cleansing: Israel Parties Like It's 1948 on its 60th Birthday

This article is too good to be true - alternet sees through the smoke and mirrors. The title here is your link to one great article on the con job that is Israel, American-style - sans Palestine. The latter is effectively hidden behind a wall of silence, written in the word "terrorism" - a term originally invented by Israelis to obfuscate the issues of Palestinian nationality and counter with a term that criminalizes any resistance to the occupation.

Imagine, this 60th Anniversary "Celebration", on the twin anniversary of the Nakba, the expelling of thousands of Palestinians from their homes to make room for the Zionist dream, and the beginning of a war without end, that has destabilized the middle east and the Muslim world for generations. About the Jews having the right to a homeland after the horrors of the Holocaust, there's a powerful public sentiment in their behalf. About taking that homeland by force from people living already on the land in question - well, not so easy to accept. About what to do now.... requires mind, discipline, and a sense of fairness. Who has that?

Meanwhile,In economic terms, you could say that Israel Independence Day has
"market dominance." When most people think of Israel Independence Day -if they
contemplate it at all- they think of it in terms of Israel's national narrative.
But in spite of all the festivities, Israel Independence Day may
be losing some of its market share. Unable to market the brand to at least two
demographics (Muslim and Arab Americans) and losing market share to a generation transformed by a deeper understanding of military occupation (whether in
Palestine, Iraq or Tibet), a quality of desperation seems to underlie the latest
efforts to sell the holiday.
While advocates of Israel Independence Day still market the holiday to the country as a whole, they're increasingly turning to niche markets like health & wellness and adventure travel to achieve their main objective: market saturation.
But is it working?
...
But the edifice of legend is cracking. M.J. Rosenberg, director of the
Israel Policy Forum, recently wrote about the reluctance of young Jewish
Americans to embrace the Israel of lore, saying in a newsletter that "The
Internet generation is not into tired organizational talking points which mix
facts and myths in equal measure." Rosenberg argues that, "you can't defend the
occupation and sell Israel at the same time."
For those trying to sell Israel
to the public, opinion polls show that, while Americans tend to sympathize more
with Israelis, most people believe that Israelis and Palestinians share the
blame for their conflict -along with the United States. A BBC World Service Poll
released in early April describes the American public as "nearly evenly divided"
in their opinions on Israel. This doesn't jibe with a narrative that casts
Israelis as innocent transplants who got stuck in a bad neighborhood, but are
thriving just the same.
...
There is a new ethos now: If you feel for one side, you should feel for the
other. Those who subscribe to this view condemn all violence. They put the needs
of the people, Israelis and Palestinians, before everything else. You could call
them the People-First Movement.
The advocates of this movement, many of whom are American Jews and Israelis, believe that the official Israeli story has to be outsold by a new narrative. This means, first, acknowledging all that happened in 1948, including al nakba: the organized killings of Palestinians, the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian towns and villages, and the expulsion of over seven hundred thousand Palestinians from their land. And it means looking at the US-backed occupation, and the fact that all Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank live under the reach of Israeli military power.
The most striking thing about this movement is how grassroots it is.
...
In the IPF newsletter cited earlier, Rosenberg describes this trend within
the Jewish community: "They are losing the campus battle big time....I'm talking
about young opinion leaders who are turned off by the occupation and identify
Israel with settlers there and neoconservatives like Feith, Perle, and
Krauthammer here. They hate the paranoid style in which all dissent from the
status quo is deemed anti-Israel or anti-Semitic and, generally, have no use for
the mindless emotionalism and ethnic sentimentality that characterize so much of
the organized pro-Israel community. As third or fourth generation Americans,
they cannot be won over with scare tactics about the Holocaust or Ahmedinejad."
...
Omar Baddar, who works with the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation,
explains that "Activism had died down in the 1990s due to the misconception that
the 'peace process' was working and could achieve something. Once that fell
through, and it became obvious that Israel was choosing illegal territorial
expansion over peace with the Palestinians, people felt the need to get active
on the issue again." Baddar believes the movement is growing because it engages
supporters "democratically and on many different levels." The anniversary of Al
Nakba on May 15 provides a focal point.
...
On April 24, The Washington Post reported on the Bush Administration's
"secret" agreement with Israel to support settlement expansion in the West Bank.
But it's no secret that, even since the Annapolis talks in November, the Israeli
government has authorized a surge of settlement construction in the West Bank
and East Jerusalem. And it's no secret that the US backs virtually all of
Israel's policies: its settlements and separation wall, its occupation and
siege; policies that have strangled the Palestinian people and resulted in many
lost lives on both sides.
...
But the peace movement is growing, and it's drawing support from people
across the country who think that two safe and viable nations will best serve
the Israeli and Palestinian people. Now that would truly be something to
celebrate.

How likely is this to succeed? It depends on the courage of the grassroots. What'll you have - war with fake peace, or real peace with less hype? The choice is yours.