(CNN) -- British Prime Minister David Cameron called Gaza a "prison camp" on Tuesday, a blunt description from a major Western leader about the besieged Palestinian territory.
Cameron made the remarks in the Turkish capital of Ankara, which he was visiting to forge a new relationship with Turkey and show his support for Turkey's membership in the European Union.
"Let me also be clear that the situation in Gaza has to change. Humanitarian goods and people must flow in both directions. Gaza cannot and must not be allowed to remain a prison camp," Cameron said, according to a 10 Downing Street transcript of a speech he made on Tuesday.
So while conservatives and Republicans on this side of the pond have been trying to make Turkey into some kind of villian and enemy of the state after the flotilla deaths, David Cameron is on the other side of the pond making nice with them and telling the damn truth.
Unfortunately this issue is an equal opportunity corrupter. There won't be many Democrats lining up with Cameron either on the issue of Gaza and Israel's illegal and inhumane blockaed. And that is a shame we will all wear for some time.
JERUSALEM — The Israeli military said Tuesday that it had indicted “a number of” officers and soldiers for their actions during Israel’s three-week offensive in Gaza in the winter of 2008-9, including a staff sergeant accused of deliberately targeting at least one Palestinian civilian who was walking with a group of people waving a white flag.
The announcement came nearly 18 months after the end of the war, and on the day that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was scheduled to meet in Washington with President Obama in an effort to improve strained ties. A spokesman for the Israeli military denied any link between the timing of the announcement the prime minister’s trip.
According to the army statement, the chief military prosecutor has decided to take disciplinary and legal action in four separate cases, including some highlighted by human rights groups and by a scathing United Nations report on the war. The report, by a committee led by Richard Goldstone, a South African judge, was published in September 2009 and pointed to evidence of possible war crimes.
The offensive came as a response to years of rocket fire against southern Israel from Gaza, and after Hamas, the anti-Israel Islamic militant group, took full control of Gaza in mid-2007. Up to 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed in the war.
Israel refused to cooperate with the Goldstone mission, arguing that the mandate was biased from the outset, and it rejected the report. It also resisted calls by Israeli and international human rights organizations for an independent Israeli investigation outside the military framework.
snip
In a third case, the chief of staff ordered disciplinary action against an officer who ordered an aerial strike on a militant involved in launching rockets. The man was standing outside the Ibrahim al-Maqadma mosque, the army said, and the shrapnel caused what it called unintentional injuries to civilians inside. The Goldstone Report said that an Israeli projectile struck near the doorway of the mosque, in northern Gaza, during evening prayers, killing at least 15 civilians who were mostly inside.
The military said that the officer had “failed to exercise appropriate judgment,” adding that he would not serve in similar positions of command in the future and that he had been rebuked.
In addition, the chief military prosecutor ordered a criminal investigation by the Military Police into an air strike on a house that held about a hundred members of the extended Samouni family in Zeitoun, a district of Gaza city.
That case stirred particular outrage around the world as Palestinian paramedics were prevented by Israeli forces from reaching the house for days after the initial strike. Red Cross officials then publicized their discovery of four emaciated Samouni children who had been trapped in the home with the corpses of their mothers. In all, up to 30 Samounis died.
The white flag episode has been widely publicized. According to Palestinian witness testimony gathered by Human Rights Watch, the Goldstone mission and others, a group of 28 Palestinian civilians from two families set out on Jan 4, 2009 in the Juhr al-Dik area, south of Gaza city, trying to evacuate the area after their homes were shelled.
According to the witnesses, the group was fired on from the direction of some Israeli tanks. They said that Majida Abu Hajjaj, in her 30s, was killed while waving a white flag. Her mother, Rayya, was also fatally shot.
Can't wait to hear all those denunciations from lawmakers that will never come and see all the outrage from pundits on my TV that will never be shown.
And remember that if you even so much as suggested that anything like this happened in the aftermath of the Israeli seige on Gaza you were deemed anti Semetic or insufficiently supportive of Israel.
JERUSALEM — Israeli naval commandos raided a flotilla carrying thousands of tons of supplies for Gaza in international waters on Monday morning, killing at least 10 people, according to the Israeli military and activists traveling with the flotilla. Some Israeli news reports put the death toll higher.
The confrontation drew widespread international condemnation of Israel, with Israeli envoys summoned to explain their country’s actions in several European countries.
The criticism offered a propaganda coup to Israel’s foes, particularly Hamas, the militant group that holds sway in Gaza, and damaged Israel’s ties to Turkey, one of its most important Muslim partners and the unofficial sponsor of the Gaza-bound convoy. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan cut short a visit to Latin America to return home.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled his plans for meeting with President Obama in Washington on Tuesday, an Israeli government official confirmed. Mr. Netanyahu, who is visiting Canada, planned to return home Monday to deal with fallout from the raid, the official said.
Once again Israel has chosen to use their military in a way that could only be described as disproportionate, only this time they weren't firing on "suspected Hamas militants" which gave them the slightest bit of cover last year. No, this time they were firing on unarmed activist on a humanitarian mission quasi sponsored by one of our mor important allied countries int the Muslim world Turkey. So lets check the resposes that others have given so far.
Within hours, diplomatic repercussions began to spread from the Mediterranean to Europe where Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs, called for a full inquiry into the incident and the immediate lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza.
snip
A joint statement from Robert Serry and Filippo Grandi, two senior United Nations officials involved in the Middle East peace process and humanitarian aid to Gaza, condemned the raid, which they said was “apparently in international waters.”
“We wish to make clear that such tragedies are entirely avoidable if Israel heeds the repeated calls of the international community to end its counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of Gaza,” the officials said.
President Nicolas Sarkozy of France called Israel’s use of force “disproportionate,”
snip
Turkey strongly condemned the Israeli military action.
“Regardless of any reasoning, such actions against civilians engaged in only peaceful activities are unacceptable,” said a statement on the Foreign Ministry’s Web site on Monday. “Israel will be required to face the consequences of this act that involves violation of the international law.”
snip
Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, said Israel should provide a full explanation of what happened. News reports said the authorities in Egypt and Jordan, two Arab neighbors which have peace treaties with Israel, had summoned Israeli envoys to protest the action.
That kind of all sounds pretty much the same right? So what has our response been so far?
Bill Burton, a deputy press secretary for the White House, said, “The United States deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries sustained and is currently working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy.”
Working to understand the circumstances? WHAT THE FUCK?
That's pretty much sounds like the same load of bullshit we were fed after Israel assaulted the Gaza strip a little over a year ago now. And you know what? You have a better chance of hitting the lottery....in every state than the chance there is that you will hear anything from the U.S. in any stronger terms than that. Moreso, and definitely more damaging, is that we will probably block any and all investigations into the matter just like we did with the Goldstone report.
How many times will we use a charge of anti Semitism to help excuse this kind of behavior from Israel? How many of our other allies will we have to alienate in the name of covering their asses? And for what? Why exactly are we going to cede all moral high ground yet again to defend the indefensible?
There isn't a politician in Washington who will be willing to denounce Israel over this and that goes all the way up to President Obama. As much as we bemoan bank bailouts and oil spills, that may be a reality that is more perilous to our nation than anything else going on right now. When a country knows that no matter what they do you will never, EVER call them out, what exactly do you expect them to do? How exactly do you expect them to act when any move to hold them accountable for their behavior will be seen as political suicide?
I wish it were not so, but you just wait and see. When its all said and done there will be us and Israel on the one side, and pretty much the rest of the world on the other. It is what it is.
Through much of President Obama's time so far as Commander in Chief many of his supporters including yours truly have likened him to a chessmaster with some of his moves, especially in the area of diplomacy. But now Spencer Ackerman highlights an exchange between Joke Line, uhmm Joe Klein and Bibi Netanyahu along with Secretary Clinton about whether or not a settlement freeze by Israel is still a precondition of peace negotiations with the Palestinians, and asks if for once President Obama himself isn't getting played. I highly recommend you read the post because it asks some tough questions and points out some even tougher potential consequences. It appears for all intents and purposes that Bibi is the one moving towards a checkmate.
I am not quite sure what to make of this yet other than its obvious both that Iran has been lying for years and that we have also known they were lying for years about whether they were building another nuclear facility. It doesn't appear clear whether or not this is evidence that they are trying to build a nuclear weapon or not, but it for damn sure doesn't look good at all. Looks like the rubber is going to hit the road when the P5+1 meets with Iran next week, I guess we had better all be paying a little closer attention to those meetings.
Considering that the instinct in some quarters to panic over the revelation that Iran has a second secret nuclear program, the Obama administration seems to have played this one pretty well. American intelligence appears to have known about the plant for some time, which was part of the reason Iran came forward in the first place. By improving relations with Russia by dismantling the missile shield and making nuclear non-proliferation a focus of the G-20 summit, the president has succeeded in putting the U.S. on high ground diplomatically and embarrassing Iran: first because of the deception, and second because the deception failed. The sanctions that the right has been clamoring for for months can now be applied with more international support.
It also demonstrates to the Iranians the quality of Western intelligence and the difficulty of deception and denial -- especially in the atmosphere of (quite warranted) mistrust of their intentions. That may reduce their reasons to oppose the intrusive inspections and monitoring regime which Gary Sick argues is the most likely reasonable negotiated outcome. Such an outcome would be far more in the interests of the U.S., Iran, and Iran's neighbors than any plausible outcome of a military strike, and has to be the target of the engagement process.
So despite what I expect to see swarming the media in the next few days -- wanna bet that John Bolton or John Bolton-equivalent oped is already in production over at the Washington Times Washington Post (sorry, it's hard to tell the difference on foreign policy issues sometimes) -- I actually think that this public revelation makes war less rather than more likely. The timing of the announcement, immediately following the consultations at the UN and the G-20 and just before the Geneva meetings, makes it seem extremely likely that the Obama administration has been waiting for just the right moment to play this card. Now they have. It strengthens the P5+1 bargaining position ahead of October 1, changes Iranian calculations, and lays the foundations for a more serious kind of engagement. So now let's see how it changes the game.
The report said the U.N. fact-finding mission investigating Israel's conduct during the January 2009 war found evidence of Israeli war crimes. Israel has denied the allegations and said the report's mandate was biased -- an opinion echoed by U.S. officials.
The Obama administration is ready to use the U.S. veto at the U.N. Security Council to deal with any other "difficulties" arising out of the report, the White House official said Wednesday. The administration also has made clear to the Palestinian Authority that Washington is not pleased with a P.A. petition to bring the report's allegations against Israel to the International Criminal Court.
Last week, the State Department said the U.S. had "serious concerns" about the report by the Gaza fact finding commission, which had been headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone.
Now here is the deal, if our government is going to cover for Israel at the U.N. then we should never vote for not a single prosecution of war crimes EVER again with the ICC. If the inference here is that the UN is biased against Israel then we should also pull out of the UN. You simply can not have it both ways anymore.
A blind man can see that Israel's behavior was reprehensible in the Gaza strip earlier this year. By taking the posture that we will veto any action against Israel based on actual evidence collected by UN investigators we have cemented our legacy as enablers of Israel and as being biased against Arabs and Muslims. Can you imagine the US vetoing an action that the UN proposed taking against Palestinians or Lebanese or Syrians?
Hell no you can't.
We can keep saying that no man is above the law but it is now very apparent that at least one nation is. Thanks to us that is.
Overriding Western objections, a 150-nation nuclear conference on Friday passed a resolution directly criticizing Israel and its atomic program for the first time in 18 years. Iran hailed the vote as a "glorious moment."
The result was a setback not only for Israel but also for the U.S. and other backers of the Jewish state, which had lobbied for 18 years of past practice — debate on the issue without a vote. It also reflected building tensions between Israel and its backers and Islamic nations, backed by developing countries.
Of delegations present at the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting Friday, 49 voted for the resolution. Forty-five were against and 16 abstained from endorsing or rejecting he document, which "expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities," and links it to "concern about the threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons for the security and stability of the Middle East."
The result once again exposed the deep North-South divide gripping IAEA meetings.
The United States and its allies consider Iran the greatest proliferation threat, fearing that Tehran is trying to achieve the capacity to make nuclear weapons despite its assertion that it is only building a civilian program to generate power. They also say Syria — which, like Iran is under IAEA investigation — ran a clandestine nuclear program, at least until Israeli warplanes destroyed what they describe as a nearly finished plutonium-producing reactor two years ago.
But Islamic nations insist that Israel is the true danger in the Middle East, saying they fear its nuclear weapons capacity. Israel has never said it has such arms, but is universally believed to posses them.
Here is the deal, it is incredibly unfair for Israel to have nuclear weapons, for everybody to know they have nuclear weapons, but for the international community to continue to look the other way while jacking up arab nations who have nuclear aspirations. Its not that its wrong for the IAEA to be on Iran's and Syria's ass. What is wrong is for them not to be similarly on Israel's ass. The problem of course is that this vote will evoke screams of anti semitism and ultimately it paints the US into the corner of having to defend Israel's right to not have to ever declare their nuclear arsenal, something no other country gets away with, further damaging our image in the Arab/Muslim world. Now the truth is I wouldn't be surprised if I got a comment or two saying I was being antisemetic also for simply saying we should treat everyone the same. Such is the atmosphere now of any major issue dealing with the middle east. I just hope that it doesn't do all that much to hurt efforts at peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
Someone needs to ask Congressman Eric Cantor if he is an American or an Israeli. And fast!
JERUSALEM — The Obama administration's policy on Israel is misguided, puts too much emphasis on the issue of settlements and ignores the bigger threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, a U.S. delegation of Republican congressmen visiting Israel said Thursday.
Led by minority whip Eric Cantor from Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, the delegation of 25 Republicans say their weeklong mission to Israel is designed to show solidarity with the Jewish state and promote Mideast peace. A group of Democratic congressmen are expected to visit next week.
Cantor said that instead of focusing on issues such as Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank, Obama should concentrate on "the primary issue of import ... and that is the existential threat that Iran poses not only to the state of Israel but to the United States."
The congressman said he is "concerned about what the White House has been signaling of late."
No Congressman sets the foreign policy of this country, the President does that. And Cantor going overseas to another country to undermine President Obama's poicy stance is way the fuck out of bounds, even for the GOP. Its time some enterprising journalist actually asked him some tough questions.
People are still freaking out over Vice President Joe Biden's appearance on "This Week With George Stephanopolous" Now here is the deal, its one thing to be upset because you don't agree with his position that the US can't dictate to Israel what they should and shouldn't do in pursuit of their own national security interests. I get that. But what you can not do is make it seem as if this is something new or a "change in tone" or a "hardening of the stance" from Joe Biden. It just isn't true.
Let's check out what he had to say last year a couple of months before the election.
September 3, 2008
Joe Biden had a 20-minute conference call with members of the Jewish media today.
Among other things, when asked about a possible Israeli attack against Iran, he said: "This is not a question for us to tell the Israelis what they can and cannot do. ... I have faith in the democracy of Israel."
The New York Times' Brian Knowlton has a story up which makes it seems as if Vice President Joe Biden said something controversial on "This Week With George Stephanopolous" this morning about the U.S. giving Israel the green light to bomb Iran. This story has now spawned posts on at least two major left leaning blogs concerned that Biden may have been sending the wrong signal today. We know its Joe Biden so most people will just assume he made another gaffe, but did he really?
No he didn't. He repeated basically the same thing President Obama has said over and over and that is that the United States can't dictate to Israel what Israel does with respect to Iran. That is the stance any American president and or Vice President HAS to take publicly. Israel is a soverign nation and we can't go admitting that we can control their actions. That doesn't mean they won't put pressure on Israel behind the scenes to deter them from coming to the conclusion that they "need" to bomb Iran anymore than it means we will allow them to fly over Iraq's airspace to attack Iran. It just means the administration won't give Republicans a target to shoot at by saying anything the GOP can twist into "they don't care about Israel's safety".
For anyone concerned that this was some kind of "gaffe" I would suggest you go and just read the transcript, which unsurprisngly the NYTimes guy didn't link to, and see for yourself in full context if what Biden said was REALLY so earth shattering compared to what Obama has said repeaedly.
Check out the full exchange and see if you come away with the same feeling as you got from reading the NYTimes article
BIDEN: If the Iranians respond to the offer of engagement, we will engage.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the offer is on the table?
BIDEN: The offer's on the table.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it pretty clear that he agreed with President Obama to give until the end of the year for this whole process of engagement to work. After that, he's prepared to make matters into his own hands.
Is that the right approach?
BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?
BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.
What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues.
If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?
BIDEN: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You say we can't dictate, but we can, if we choose to, deny over-flight rights here in Iraq. We can stand in the way of a military strike.
BIDEN: I'm not going to speculate, George, on those issues, other than to say Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests.
Just as a reminder here is what President Obama has said about the same issue.
With respect to concerns Israel might carry out an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, the US president said that since Israel is "right there in the range" of Iranian missiles, "their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute."
Obama remarked that he did not think it was his place to "determine for the Israelis what their security needs are."
Can you find any space between the two statements? Because I can't. Biden really is just toeing the company line here. Shame on the New York Times for trying to invent a controversy.
Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria has an article online making a very strong case that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon. I realize that there is a split in this country between those who believe Iran is trying to get a nuke and those who think they aren't, but I myself have never heard the argument made against them wanting a bomb, for these particular reasons.
Everything you know about Iran is wrong, or at least more complicated than you think. Take the bomb. The regime wants to be a nuclear power but could well be happy with a peaceful civilian program (which could make the challenge it poses more complex). What's the evidence? Well, over the last five years, senior Iranian officials at every level have repeatedly asserted that they do not intend to build nuclear weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has quoted the regime's founding father, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who asserted that such weapons were "un-Islamic." The country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa in 2004 describing the use of nuclear weapons as immoral. In a subsequent sermon, he declared that "developing, producing or stockpiling nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam." Last year Khamenei reiterated all these points after meeting with the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei. Now, of course, they could all be lying. But it seems odd for a regime that derives its legitimacy from its fidelity to Islam to declare constantly that these weapons are un-Islamic if it intends to develop them. It would be far shrewder to stop reminding people of Khomeini's statements and stop issuing new fatwas against nukes.
Following a civilian nuclear strategy has big benefits. The country would remain within international law, simply asserting its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a position that has much support across the world. That would make comprehensive sanctions against Iran impossible. And if Tehran's aim is to expand its regional influence, it doesn't need a bomb to do so. Simply having a clear "breakout" capacity—the ability to weaponize within a few months—would allow it to operate with much greater latitude and impunity in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Iranians aren't suicidal. In an interview last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Iranian regime as "a messianic, apocalyptic cult." In fact, Iran has tended to behave in a shrewd, calculating manner, advancing its interests when possible, retreating when necessary. The Iranians allied with the United States and against the Taliban in 2001, assisting in the creation of the Karzai government. They worked against the United States in Iraq, where they feared the creation of a pro-U.S. puppet on their border. Earlier this year, during the Gaza war, Israel warned Hizbullah not to launch rockets against it, and there is much evidence that Iran played a role in reining in their proxies. Iran's ruling elite is obsessed with gathering wealth and maintaining power. The argument made by those—including many Israelis for coercive sanctions against Iran is that many in the regime have been squirreling away money into bank accounts in Dubai and Switzerland for their children and grandchildren. These are not actions associated with people who believe that the world is going to end soon. One of Netanyahu's advisers said of Iran, "Think Amalek." The Bible says that the Amalekites were dedicated enemies of the Jewish people. In 1 Samuel 15, God says, "Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Now, were the president of Iran and his advisers to have cited a religious text that gave divine sanction for the annihilation of an entire race, they would be called, well, messianic.
Now the religious angle of this issue might be the most persuasive if you ask me. The Supreme Leader can not get up and preach against the morality of nuclear weapons and call them "un-Islamic" and then wink and nod to his followers and have everything work out fine. One of the consequences of a theistic society is that the citizens follow the leader's spirtual teachings for better or for worse. So how would they even find someone to work on a program that they have been taught will guarantee them a corner of Hell? And as Zakaria points out this isn't something that Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has just said in passing. Its something that has been reiterated several time over the years.
Now we have to be honest with ourselves here. If Zakaria can figure this out then obviously people in the WhiteHouse and in Congress surely can and have as well. I think the question now is how much will President Obama and his administration focus on the facts of the situation rather than continuing to rail against Iran for seeking a weapon that they have good reason to believe they aren't actually trying to develop. I was one of those whom cheered on then Senator Obama's position that he would try diplomacy with Iran and give that a chance. But honestly since he has taken office I have been more than a little disturbed with the rhetoric coming from both President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, when it comes to Iran. Yes there has been outreach but there has also been all of the hyperbole about Iran's supposed pursuit of nuclear weapons.
I realize much of that has to do with our government's relationship with Israel but the problem is people believe what a President says. That's why they are usually the biggest movers of public opinion. So when President Obama or Secretary Clinton makes allusions to Iran seeking a nuclear weapon, the average citizen hears that and believes its a foregone conclusion. Just look at how reports of Iran test firing a conventional missle got conflated into "nuclear test" recently. People who aren't political junkies or policy wonks don't spend their time googling NIEs and transcripts of Congressional hearings. So what happens when public opinion grows for strikes against Iran even if they have done nothing to warrant them? What happens if Israel launches a strike on Iran preemptively and public opinion is that Iran deserved even if they decidely didn't? This has nothing to do with coming to the aid of Israel should she come under attack. In that event we will no doubt stand by her side. But this has everything to do with the old Bush doctrine of preemptive war on countries that have not attacked us or our allies.
I don't believe our national security interests are being served well by the use of over the top rhetoric. Its about time that we demand to hear of any evidence our government has that Iran is truly seeking a nuclear weapon. And if there is none its about time that that fact was made well known to the public. We have enough enemies in this world that are real threats to our security without trying to invent one. And I think at this point we have all seen what happens when lies get repeated over and over so many times that they become accepted as the truth. We don't need the kind of march to war with Iran that we had on the march to war with Iraq.
Now I am not saying that Zakaria is the the foremost authority on this issue and that just because he said it makes it true. However what I AM saying is that nobody has made a credible argument for why Iranians would be seeking a bomb other than something along the lines of "they are crazy mooslems". And yet our elected leaders are allowed to repeatedly make statements to the effect that they are seeking a weapon without ever having to quantify their position. It would be nice if our mainstream media sources would press our elected leaders to either put up or shut up. Especially after the embarrasment of the 2007 NIE which also said that Iran wasn't seeking a weapon after years and years of politicians telling us they were. Either give the American people a plausible explanation for why they believe Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon or, if they can't, knock off the fear mongering. This is one movie that doesn't need a sequel.
Just when you thought you had a good grasp on all that President Bush had screwed up in his eight years in office all of a sudden a story like this comes out.
While in Washington, Netanyahu argued that Israel already dismantled settlementsin the Gaza Strip, going beyond the road map, and was rewarded with the takeover of Gaza by the Hamas militant group and hundreds of rockets raining on Israeli towns, Israeli sources said. Still, shortly after he returned to Israel, the government tore down an unauthorized outpost, Maoz Esther. Israel is committed under the road map to remove about 26 such outposts, typically small groups of rudimentary structures with a few families. Settlers began rebuilding Maoz Esther almost immediately.
Netanyahu spokesman Mark Regev said there are no plans for a full settlement freeze. "The issue of settlements is a final status issue, and until there are final status arrangements, it would not be fair to kill normal life inside existing communities," he said.
Regev said the Israeli government is relying on "understandings" between former president George W. Bush and former prime minister Ariel Sharon that some of the larger settlements in the occupied West Bank would ultimately become part of Israel, codified in a letter that Bush gave to Sharon in 2004. In an interview with The Washington Post last year, Sharon aide Dov Weissglas said that in 2005, when Sharon was poised to remove settlers from Gaza, the Bush administration arrived at a secret agreement -- not disclosed to the Palestinians -- that Israel could add homes in settlements it expected to keep, as long as the construction was dictated by market demand, not subsidies.
Elliott Abrams, a former deputy national security adviser who negotiated the arrangement with Weissglas, confirmed the deal in an interview last week. "At the time of the Gaza withdrawal, there were lengthy discussions about how settlement activity might be constrained, and in fact it was constrained in the later part of the Sharon years and the Olmert years in accordance with the ideas that were discussed," he said. "There was something of an understanding realized on these questions, but it was never a written agreement."
Regev said Israeli and U.S. negotiators are discussing the degree to which the terms of the 2004 letter will apply under the new administration, but U.S. officials indicated that Obama wants to move beyond the 2004 letter and hold Israel to its commitments under the road map. "The bottom line is we expect all the parties in the region to honor their commitments, and for the Israelis, that means a stop to settlements, as the president said," a senior administration official said.
So to recap President Bush four years ago entered into a secret agreement with Israel with no guidance from nor connsultation with Congress that was in direct conflict with his public pronouncements of being serious about peace in the Middle East. Thankfully so far President Obama has shown that he is indeed serioous about a two state solution between Israel in Palestine and he has pressed Bibi Netanyahu on halting the settlements as have members of the leadership in Congress, something that hasn’t happened in the past. But that doesn't change the fact that while we were fighting a war in Iraq that many in the Middle East felt was a war against Islam, here was our neocon President unilaterally giving concessions to Israel over land he had absolutely no right to grant them. Who in the hell in his Administration recommended that letter? Was it Colin Powell? Condi Rice? Dick Cheney? What possible benefit would have ever come from such an arrangement?
I think by now most of us realize that one of the major factors threatening our national security is continued unrest between Israel and Palestine and yet Bush effectively insured that not only would that unrest continue, it would probably get worse as the settlements keep expanding. Not only that he probably did more to undermine the more moderate Abbas leader and usher in Hamas just with that one “secret” agreement. Hell is it even legal for President Bush to enter into such an arrangement all on his own? That’s what the hell I want to know. Now lets be real here, Presidents of this country have a long history of allowing Israel more latitude than any of our other “allies” but what Bush did, in my opinion, went way beyond the pale. He had Condi Rice going to promote the “Annapolis” agreements all throughout the Middle East during his second term, knowing full well he already had undermiined those agreements all on his own. And now any road to a true lasting two state solution is made even more complicated than before. Tell me why any Arab countries would trust the US to be an honest broker in these negotiations now after hearing about this secret agreement.
I know many progressives and members of J Street have been anxiously waiting to see how President Obama would handle a meeting with Israel's Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu especially when it comes to a two state peace solution with the Palestinans. Well even though we don't know what was said behind closed doors I would say what President Obama had to say in front of the cameras was encouraging.
One subject that is particularly tricky and contentious is the issue of Israel's settlements in the West Bank. And to my warm suprise President Obama wasn't afraid to address the issue publicly.
Haaretz reports today that “Israel has moved ahead with a plan to build a new settlement in the northern West Bank for the first time in 26 years, pursuing a project the United States has already condemned as an obstacle to peace efforts.” In a much-anticipated press conference today with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, President Obama said that new Israeli settlements “have to be stopped”:
OBAMA: Now, Israel is going have to take some difficult steps as well. And I shared with Prime Minister the fact that, under the road map, under Annapolis there’s a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements, that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward. That’s a difficult thing to recognize, but it’s an important one. And it has to be addressed. I think the humanitarian situation in Gaza has to be addressed
There is a report out that Rahm Emanuel is getting tough with the leaders of Israel with respect to a peace deal. If true this is a very encouraging sign that it will actually get done this time. Money quote.
"Any treatment of the Iranian nuclear problem will be contingent upon progress in the negotiations and an Israeli withdrawal from West Bank territory,"
Undermining the conservative hysteria over the new DHS report that cautions law enforcement about right wing extremists and their efforts to recruit war veterans is the fact that it was based on a 2008 FBI report entitled
"White Supremacist Recruitment of Military Personnel since 9/11,"
Bennie Thompson, a Democrat trying to join in on the conservative hyseria over the DHS report should be mindful of his past statements about right wing extremism.
“DHS must reassess the threat posed by right-wing domestic terrorists and revise its long term planning to address this risk,” the report warns. It adds that “the risk posed by right-wing extremists” should prompt DHS to “give higher priority to this threat.”
Congressman Peter King went on Morning Joe to decry the DHS report and say that in contrast he says they never put out any advisories on Muslims because their would be a public outcry (don't know what planet he's living on) so my question is will he denounce his colleague fellow Representative Michele Bachmann's false and libelous comments aimed at Congressman Keith Ellison that were made purely based on the fact that he is a Muslim.
Surprise Surprise, the New York Times is reporting that not only has the NSA been overstepping it's bounds with respect to wiretapping U.S. Citizens,they also targeted an unnamed U.S. Congressman
Glenzilla PWNS Congressional Dems who backed FISA last year including then Senator now President Obama. I found it insightful that many of the leading Democrats said flat out that they were voting for it on a political basis so that the Republicans wouldn't have a talking point to use against them in the elections last year. It goes to show how powerful the Democrats find the Republicans' messaging and how that fact can imperil honest debate over policy that might be harmful to the country.
On the other hand the Republicans don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to any faux outrage associated with the the revelations about FISA at all.
During Operation Cast Lead, Israeli forces killed Palestinian civilians under permissive rules of engagement and intentionally destroyed their property, say soldiers who fought in the offensive.
The soldiers are graduates of the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military preparatory course at Oranim Academic College in Tivon. Some of their statements made on Feb. 13 will appear Thursday and Friday in Haaretz. Dozens of graduates of the course who took part in the discussion fought in the Gaza operation.
The speakers included combat pilots and infantry soldiers. Their testimony runs counter to the Israel Defense Forces' claims that Israeli troops observed a high level of moral behavior during the operation. The session's transcript was published this week in the newsletter for the course's graduates.
The testimonies include a description by an infantry squad leader of an incident where an IDF sharpshooter mistakenly shot a Palestinian mother and her two children. "There was a house with a family inside .... We put them in a room. Later we left the house and another platoon entered it, and a few days after that there was an order to release the family. They had set up positions upstairs. There was a sniper position on the roof," the soldier said.
"The platoon commander let the family go and told them to go to the right. One mother and her two children didn't understand and went to the left, but they forgot to tell the sharpshooter on the roof they had let them go and it was okay, and he should hold his fire and he ... he did what he was supposed to, like he was following his orders."
According to the squad leader: "The sharpshooter saw a woman and children approaching him, closer than the lines he was told no one should pass. He shot them straight away. In any case, what happened is that in the end he killed them.
snip
The squad leader said he argued with his commander over the permissive rules of engagement that allowed the clearing out of houses by shooting without warning the residents beforehand. After the orders were changed, the squad leader's soldiers complained that "we should kill everyone there [in the center of Gaza]. Everyone there is a terrorist."
The squad leader said: "You do not get the impression from the officers that there is any logic to it, but they won't say anything. To write 'death to the Arabs' on the walls, to take family pictures and spit on them, just because you can. I think this is the main thing: To understand how much the IDF has fallen in the realm of ethics, really. It's what I'll remember the most."
Yesterday Senator John Kerry and Congressmen Brian Baird and Keith Ellison ventured into the Gaza Strip in order to get a first hand view of what life their looks like after Israel's military assault last month. While Kerry took the cowards way out and declined to comment on conditions other than to once again blame everything on Hamas, Baird and Ellison decided to talk about what they had seen. This is particularly perilous for Congressman Ellison as he is the only muslim serving in Congress and there is no doubt that their words will be labeled anti semetic. But shunning any fear of blowback, these two Congressmen gave a very frank and honest assessment of what they found and posted it on the House of Representatives website.
“The stories about the children affected me the most,” said Ellison. “No parent, or anyone who cares for kids, can remain unmoved by what Brian and I saw here.”
“The amount of physical destruction and the depth of human suffering here is staggering” said Baird, “Entire neighborhoods have been destroyed, schools completely leveled, fundamental water, sewer, and electricity facilities hit and relief agencies heavily damaged. The personal stories of children being killed in their homes or schools, entire families wiped out, and relief workers prevented from evacuating the wounded are heart wrenching – what went on here, and what is continuing to go on, is shocking and troubling beyond words.”
snip
“If this had happened in our own country, there would be national outrage and an appeal for urgent assistance. We are glad that the Obama administration acted quickly to send much needed funding for this effort but the arbitrary and unreasonable Israeli limitations on food and repair essentials is unacceptable and indefensible. People, innocent children, women and non-combatants, are going without water, food and sanitation, while the things they so desperately need are sitting in trucks at the border, being denied permission to go in” said Baird and Ellison.
snip
“It’s hard for anyone in our country to imagine how it must feel to have a sick child who needs urgent care or is receiving chemotherapy or dialysis, then be forced to take a needlessly lengthy route, walk rather than drive, and wait in lines as long as two hours simply to get to the hospital. As a health care professional myself, I found this profoundly troubling, no, actually it’s beyond that, it is outrageous,” said Baird.
Now just to be clear here, they didn't absolve the militants in the Gaza Strip either.
“The first and most urgent priority must be helping the people in Gaza. At the same time, the rocket attacks against Israeli cities must stop immediately. Just as the people of Gaza should not be subject to what they have experienced the Israeli civilians should not have to live in fear of constant and indiscriminate rocketing.
But make no mistake, despite those statements and because they dared to reveal the suffering of everyday Palestinians they WILL be targeted by pro Israel groups. But I have to take my hat off to both of those men for not just towing the company line and speaking truth to power about the kinds of outrages that are being inflicted on the Palestinian people. As Americans we can't allow this kind of stuff to continue. Yes the militants HAVE to stop the rocket fire, but those borders also HAVE to be opened if there is ever going to be any peace in the Middle East.
The Washington Post has excerpts of an interview with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan about the recent incident at Davos where he stormed off the stage during a debate with Israeli President Shimon Peres over the Israelis' recent military incursion into Gaza. There are some surprising revelations in the interview including the fact that Turkey was mediating talks between Israel and Syria before the Israelis took military action and that Erdogan felt they were on the brink of a major breaththrough perhaps even securing the release of the Israeli soldier who was kidnapped by Hamas. It definitely changes the dynamic of the discussion I would think for most reasonable people. Two answers in my opinion are the key to the whole interview:
Why do you have such a close relationship with Hamas, which is an arm of Iran and is run by Khaled Meshal, who lives in Damascus?
First of all, Hamas is not an arm of Iran. Hamas entered the elections as a political party. If the whole world had given them the chance of becoming a political player, maybe they would not be in a situation like this after the elections that they won. The world has not respected the political will of the Palestinian people. On the one hand, we defend democracy and we try our best to keep democracy in the Middle East, but on the other hand we do not respect the outcome of . . . the ballot box. Palestine today is an open-air prison. Hamas, as much as they tried, could not change the situation. Just imagine, you imprison the speaker of a country as well as some ministers of its government and members of its parliament. And then you expect them to sit obediently?
Now please remember that Turkey is basically an ally of the United States. Yet their prime minister directly refutes what damn near all of our Congressmen and women said in the aftermath of the Israeli military actions.
It sounds like you and Prime Minister Olmert were on the eve of an actual breakthrough between Israel and Syria.
I'm sharing my excitement with you.
The Israelis have been frustrated that they couldn't talk directly to the Syrians.
We were trying to be their hope. Olmert's last sentence [as he left] was, "As soon as I get back I will consult with my colleagues and get back to you." As I waited for his response, . . . on December 27, bombs started falling on Gaza. There had not been any casualties in Israel since the cease-fire of June 2008. The Israelis claim that missiles were being sent [from Gaza]. I asked Prime Minister Olmert, how many people died as a result of those missiles? Since December 27 there have been almost 1,300 dead, 6,000 injured, no infrastructure left, no buildings left, everything is damaged, Gaza is a total wreck. It's all closed, under total siege. The United Nations Security Council makes a decision, and Israel announces it does not recognize the decision. I'm not saying that Hamas is a good organization and makes no mistakes. They have made mistakes. But I am evaluating the end result.
So on the very precipice of a breakthrough on negotiations Israel decided to drop bombs all over the Gaza Strip. This isn't some random blogger telling you this and it isn't some anti war hippie. Its the Prime Minister of Turkey giving every indications that Israel's actions were not neccessary and in point of fact they were pretty much working in bad faith. When are we going to hear the truth from our elected leaders? Honestly if we don't start being more evenhanded in this situation there is no way there will ever be a lasting peace in the middle east.
Israeli tanks and bulldozers soon took up hilltop positions around Abu Freeh's home, and Khaled Abed Rabbo's five-story house in the valley below was one of those in the line of fire.
More than 70 members of his family crowded into one apartment for days. On Jan. 7 , Abed Rabbo said, the shelling intensified, and they heard an Israeli solider calling for people to come out of their homes.
Abed Rabbo said he gathered his wife, their three daughters and his mother, Souad. Souad Abed Rabbo said that she tied a white robe around a mop handle and two of her granddaughters waved white headscarves as they walked outside.
When they opened the door, they saw an Israeli tank parked in their garden about 10 yards away.
"We were waiting for them to give us an order," Khaled said last week as he stood in the ruins of his home. "Then one came out of the tank and started to shoot." Souad Abed Rabbo said she was shot as she pushed her son back inside and her granddaughters fell on the stairs. When the shooting was over, she said, 2-year-old Amal and 7-year-old Souad were dead.
The allegation is one of at least five such white flag incidents that human rights investigators are looking into across the Gaza Strip . It's part of a growing pattern of alleged abuses that have raised concerns that some Israeli soldiers may have committed war crimes during their 22-day military campaign in Gaza .
"The evidence we've gathered in two of the cases so far is exceedingly strong," said Fred Abrahams , a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch working in the Gaza Strip . "All the research so far suggests they shot civilians that were leaving their homes with white flags."
Now when reading this article I kept thinking about how a lot of people are fine with just dismissing the loss of life in the Gaza Strip as "collateral damage". In trying to come up with why that is I started thinking about a scene at the end of the movie "A Time To Kill". It's hard sometimes to empathize with the "others". So for those who aren't moved by a story like this one I ask that you push play on the video and go to about 2:31 and think about what Matthew Macanoughey is telling the jury. Then look back up and read this account again, and imagine that these kids were relatives of yours. I would bet that it will change your opinion.
I have to say that I am both surprised and heartened by the even handed approach President Obama took today on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. When he first started speaking on the subject I thought he was going to simply recite the stale rhetoric of the United States standing with Israel. But the money quote came at about 10:10
"As part of a lasting ceasefire Gaza's border crossing should be opened to allow the flow of aid and commerce with an approrpriate monitoring regime with the international and Palestinian Authority participating."
If there is to be peace in that region both sides have to participate and the way for that to happen is for our nation to nudge both sides along. That President Obama is willing to state that openly shows that he is truly committed to getting the job done. And that is just another instance of change I can believe in!
Posts
