Israeli soldiers murder relief workers

Israeli goons doing what they do best:  killing innocent people

From the Associated Press:

JERUSALEM - Israeli commandos rappelled down to an aid flotilla sailing to thwart a Gaza blockade on Monday, clashing with pro-Palestinian activists on the lead ship in a botched raid that left at least nine passengers dead. 

Bloodied passengers sprawled on the deck and troops dived into the sea to save themselves amid hand-to-hand fighting that injured dozens of activists and six soldiers. Hundreds of activists were towed from the international waters to Israeli detention centers and hospitals. -- Read more here.

Israel's heavy-handed treatment of relief workers should come as no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the blood-thirsty Likud Party and its savage, murderous leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.  These are beasts of the first order:  international criminals every bit as heinous and loathsome as any Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong-Il.

It does not appear that the Israeli soldiers boarded the relief flotilla with the intention of murdering civilians.  And yet, in the moment of decision, like any well-trained military personnel, they reacted according to the priorities drilled into them by their superiors.  And Priority One, as we have seen repeatedly over the last 60 years, is to keep the Israeli jackboot on the Palestinian throat!  Under no circumstances should the international community imagine that they can intervene to help the people of Gaza!  Kill, if necessary!

Blood-thirsty, murderous sociopath, Bibi Netanyahu

Predictably, and disgustingly, the United States is doing all it can to soften the diplomatic repercussions of this act of lawlessness by wielding its permanent veto authority within the United Nations.  But the international outrage at this event is huge.  

This whole sickening incident is another reminder to anyone who cares to notice:  Israel will never consent to a Palestinian state; Israel will never consent to real Palestinian self-rule; Israel will stop at nothing.

Israel cries havoc and lets slip the dogs of war

Seven hundred sixty-five dead Palestinians so far. Three thousand wounded. Schools and mosques targeted by Israeli ordinance. Humanitarian aid halted after an Israeli shell hit a UN relief truck, killing two aid workers. Foreign correspondents barred from entering Gaza to report on the situation. It's all right here.

There's no justification for what is going on in Gaza right now, people. Rocket fire, be damned. The Israelis have had their collective thumb on the Palestinians for 60 years now, cramming them into slums, surrounding them with razor wire and minefields, encroaching on their lands with illegal settlements.

It is all made possible because of massive infusions of US greenbacks, year after year. American support for Israel is unqualified, sacrosanct.

And how has Israel shown her gratitude? By infiltrating our highest levels of government with spies and by violating over 50 UN resolutions. By doing as they damn well please and leaving us to clean up the mess.

Still nary a word of criticism from anyone in the United States with any ability to do anything about it. The US could stop this atrocity today if the political will were there. But with a very few exceptions, US political "leaders" are confirming what we've all known: they are cowards and slaves to the AIPAC lash.


The whole thing makes me sick. I do not support it. I condemn it.

Think about it, people: who do the Israelis most resemble with their intentional (yes, intentional) targeting of civilians in apartment complexes, schools, and mosques? Who are the Israelis emulating when they confine people of a particular ethnicity to guarded slums? When they isolate those people from others? When they prevent those people from receiving basic humanitarian aid? When they strive to keep their atrocities hidden from the world?

In today's political environment, to even look askance at Israel is to risk being labeled an "anti-Semite." So, I won't answer those questions. I leave it to you, dear reader. Ask yourself if there is an historical precedent for this kind of behavior. Ask yourself which fanatically nationalistic people showed such contempt for international law, for basic human decency.

Go ahead... ask!

Obama comments on Gaza

Israelis doing what they love to do

Up to now, President-elect Obama has been notably silent about the crisis in Gaza. He surely must be giving some thought to the matter, no? He's had plenty to say about the financial and economic crises that are now upon us, so what gives? Even the statement he made today was non-committal and vague.

I'm very concerned with the conflict taking place there, I'm monitoring the situation on a day to day basis. The loss of civilian life in Gaza and in Israel is a source of deep concern to me. After January 20th I'm going to have plenty to say about the issue, and I am not backing away at all from what I said during the campaign, that starting at the beginning of our administration, we are going to be engaged effectively and consistently in trying to resolve the conflict in the Middle East...

So on January 20th you'll be hearing directly from me on this issue. Until then, my job is to monitor the situation and put together the best possible national security team so we hit the ground running on national security issues. --President-elect Obama, January 6th, 2008

Hardly a definitive statement, eh? So why the reticence when it comes to this full-blown crisis?

Well, I have a couple thoughts...

1. Foreign policy, more than economic or social policy, is the domain of the executive branch of government. Congress can advise or help to shape policy, but it is the president that sets the direction in matters of state. (How bitterly have we rued this truth in the era of Junior and the neo-conservatives?)
   
   While Obama can certainly lobby and pressure Congress to craft economic legislation before he occupies the Oval Office, he has no leverage when it comes to foreign policy until he is actually in the White House. Therefore, for him to make pronouncements before he can shape policy is to make himself vulnerable, politically, while gaining no advantage.
   
2. As I pointed out in a previous post, for Obama to either condemn or support the Israelis or the Palestinians could escalate the violence. If Obama condemns Israel, the Israelis may choose to pull out the stops and start leveling whole city blocks in an attempt to achieve some deranged Likud-inspired goal before Junior leaves office. (Telling, isn't it, that Israel is perhaps the only country in the world where Bush is popular?)
   
   On the other hand, if Obama calls Israeli actions "justified," he alienates large swaths of the Muslim world and severely handicaps his ability to forge more positive relationships there.

At the risk of being labeled an Obama apologist, I'm encouraged by his vagueness. If Obama wanted to play it safe, Congressional leaders, in their typically cowardly manner, have shown the way. Check these quotes:

I think what the Israelis are doing is very important. I think this terrorist organization, Hamas, has got to be put away. They've got to come to their senses. --Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV) on Meet the Press, January 4, 2009

Israel has the right to defend its citizens and territory, as it is doing. The current outbreak of violence is the result of Hamas’ decision to break the ceasefire agreement on December 19. The only way for the violence to end is for Hamas to stop its attacks on Israel immediately, honor the ceasefire agreement and work in good faith to establish a peaceful resolution.”--House Minority Leader John Boenher (R-OH), December 30, 2008

Note that these quotes are from the leaders of both the Democrats and Republicans. That's what you call "political cover." If Obama wanted to put the matter behind him, to end speculation about his position vis-a-vis the crisis, he could simply issue a statement saying "Israel has a right...blah, blah, blah."

Could silence indicate a break from the past?

That he hasn't done so already must make the ghouls at AIPAC just a tad nervous, methinks. Dare we to hope that Obama might really be considering an evenhanded approach to the Palestine conflict? Is it maybe possible that he might actually stand up to Israel? That he might rein in the rabid dogs like Netanyahu?

Given the power of the Israeli spin machine in the US media and halls of power, and the eschatological fervor with which meathead Evangelicals view the Jewish state, and the fading hopes that discredited neo-conservatives place in the concept of warlike Zionism, entertaining hope for a different approach might seem a fool's errand. But, until Obama commits his administration one way or the other, I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Israel pulls the trigger

Gaza burning

I awoke this morning to the news that Israeli ground troops launched an invasion into the Gaza Strip. The invasion is anticipated. Israeli troops have been massing around Gaza for days, while their air force has been pounding sites in the impoverished territory. There are reports of hundreds of civilian casualties, including 5 daughters in one family. Here's a snippet from a column posted on December 30, in Haaretz, an Israeli publication:

Our finest young men are attacking Gaza now. Good boys from good homes are doing bad things. Most of them are eloquent, impressive, self-confident, often even highly principled in their own eyes, and on Black Saturday dozens of them set out to bomb some of the targets in our 'target bank' for the Gaza Strip.

"They set out to bomb the graduation ceremony for young police officers who had found that rare Gaza commodity, a job, massacring them by the dozen. They bombed a mosque, killing five sisters of the Balousha family, the youngest of whom was 4. They bombed a police station, hitting a doctor nearby; she lies in a vegetative state in Shifa Hospital, which is bursting with wounded and dead. They bombed a university that we in Israel call the Palestinian Rafael, the equivalent of Israel's weapons developer, and destroyed student dormitories. They dropped hundreds of bombs out of blue skies free of all resistance. --Gideon Levy, Haaretz

Pity those poor Palestinians. They've got the most ruthless army led by the most fanatical leadership bearing down on them with billions of dollars worth of US-supplied military equipment ($3 billion per year).

The attack is supposedly in response to rocket fire originating in Gaza and landing in Israeli territory. There have been three Israeli deaths in seven years as a result of this rocket fire; the ordnance is by all accounts primitive, and it is highly unlikely the Palestinians have real means of fighting the Israelis since the blockade Israel has imposed on Gaza prevents even humanitarian supplies from getting through.

To find a motive for this disproportionate response to a few Palestinian firecrackers, one need only look ahead to February 10, when Israel will hold its next elections. The contest is the traditional chaotic mess between the militaristic Likud party, led by Bibi Netanyahu, a vicious (some would say "deranged") right-winger, and the Labor party, Israel's so-called "moderate" wing, led by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. A third candidate, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, chairwoman of the Kadima party is also running. Up to now, the polls had favored Netanyahu. But since Barak has started bombing Gaza his numbers have gone up.

Ehud Barak's poll numbers are on the rise

The Palestinians have no friends in this fight. At least, no friends that can do anything about it. Hamas, the ruling party in Gaza, is viewed by the traditional (and traditionally corrupt) governments in Egypt and Saudi Arabia as being friendly to Iran. So Cairo and Riyadh have no interest in doing anything that might prolong Hamas' tenure. And the AIPAC deathgrip on American political apparatus is stifling.

Junior Bush sent Condi Rice out to vomit some nonsense full of condemnation of Hamas. She laid responsibility for civilian casualties on the Palestinians. Not a word about Israel, perhaps, showing a little restraint. Note that Condi has no plans to fly to the Middle East to try to smooth things out. And Junior himself remains on vacation in his Texas sh*thole. Just as well.

Defenseless Israeli troops

The American media is shockingly biased. Just this morning I saw a CNN anchor consulting "expert" Retired Brigadier General David Grange about the crisis. Grange went on and on about the dangers the Israeli troops are facing as they move into Gaza. Paraphrasing: "This is urban terrain. The Israelis will be at a distinct disadvantage." How, Dave? Are Israeli soldiers in danger of getting headaches if Gazans manage to bounce a few rocks off their steel helmets before being gunned down?

Grange went on. Again, paraphrasing: "And don't forget, Hamas will want to get television coverage of civilian casualties so as to bring international pressure against the Israelis. So Hamas will deliberately hide among the civilians, hoping for an Israeli attack." Yeah. That sounds like a great tactic. Can't you hear the Hamas fighters, now? "We get them to kill our kids and our friends and neighbors. Then, the cameras will come and the international community will issue some strongly-worded condemnations! Then we win!"

Barack Obama has been silent about the crisis up to now. And, frankly, I think that is best for all involved. If Obama were to condemn the attack, the Israelis might be spurred on to even more aggression in some kind of attempt to fulfill their blood-thirsty goals before Inauguration Day. If Obama condemns Hamas, he puts himself in a deep hole vis-a-vis relations with the Moslem world before he even steps into the Oval Office.

It's a mess, pure and simple. There may well be no solution. But I'm disgusted at how the cowards in Washington (and in Cairo, Riyadh, and everywhere else) are willing to let the Israeli blitzkrieg --and, yes, let's call it what it is-- roll over a defenseless people.

All in the AIPAC family

On Wednesday, the day after Barack Obama secured enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee for President of the United States, both he and his vanquished opponent, Hillary Clinton, spoke at a conference hosted by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The organization bills itself as "America's Pro-Israel Lobby," and "A Voice for the U.S.-Israel Relationship." It claims to be a "100,000-member national grassroots movement" that has "worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong."

All in the AIPAC family

AIPAC's web site features photographs of powerful political leaders of both parties (Nancy Pelosi, John (hic) Boehner, Junior Bush, Condi Rice, et alia) yucking it up with AIPAC mucky-mucks.

I'm puzzled. This is, ostensibly, an American organization and one would think that AIPAC would advocate positions that further American interests. But, just breezing through the web site, one detects a pronounced Israel-first bent.

For example,in the About AIPAC section of the web site, a list of AIPAC Achievements brags about how AIPAC secured $2.42 billion dollars in "military aid and refugee assistance" for Israel, "[s]trongly urging the [Bush] administration to take its decision to designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist group," "[p]rohibiting U.S. aid and contacts with the Hamas-led P[alestinian] A[uthority]." In short, AIPAC seems to write US policy toward Israel and Palestine.

There is no deference toward American interests; judging from the web site, AIPAC is completely unapologetic in its assertion that Israeli interests are paramount and non-negotiable. I find it incredibly offensive.

And, apparently, I'm not the only one. AIPAC is surrounded by controversy. In 2006, a report written by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt for the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, argued:

"The overall thrust of US policy in the region is due almost entirely to US domestic politics, and especially to the activities of the 'Israel Lobby...no lobby has managed to divert US foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US and Israeli interests are essentially identical."

Awareness is growing...

Whenever AIPAC is criticized, it seems to respond with shrieks about "anti-Semitism." And the plight of the Palestinians, who have, for 60 years, been systematically humiliated and abused, goes on unrestrained.

This enigmatic, blind and total support for Israel by the highest officials of both major parties, and by every American president since Harry Truman is outrageous. Barack Obama and John McCain have both already kow-towed.

I don't understand it. I resent it.

Israel and Zionism: I just don't get it

House Minority Leader and champion noontime tippler John Boehner (R-Ohio) recently jumped on a remark by Senator Barack Obama, claiming Obama had insulted the state of Israel. Here's what Obama said:

But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that ... I want to solve the problem... -Barack Obama, May 12, 2008 in an interview with The Atlantic.

Boehner called out the remark as a criticism of Israel, which he termed a "critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East." You can read Jake Tapper's analysis of the exchange here. But let's leave aside Boehner's pathetic and desperate attempt to besmirch Obama and examine a different question: Why is United States foreign policy so blatantly biased in favor of Israel?


The bias, of course, is undeniable. Since Israel was founded in 1947, the United States has provided $91 billion in direct aid, most of it for military expenditures, dwarfing aid to any other country in the world. Israeli spies have penetrated the highest levels of the US government. Israel is in violation of over 50 UN resolutions.

Israel continues to build Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories in defiance of all international law, and over the feeble objections of the United States. Israel unilaterally invaded Lebanon in 1982 and again in 2006. In both cases, civilian areas were indiscriminately bombed.

An illegal Jewish settlement in the West Bank

So, again, the question is this: Why? Why does the United States allow this rogue nation to insult, ignore, and abuse? Support for Israel is bipartisan, at least at the highest levels of American government: every president from Truman to Junior has been unflagging in his support. The transparent hypocrisy of this support was never more clearly illustrated than when Junior referred to suspected war criminal (and Israeli Prime Minister) Ariel Sharon, the "Butcher of Beirut," as a "man of peace."

Here's another tidbit from Obama's interview:

"...the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience." -ibidem

I don't understand. What is "fundamentally just" about the idea of a secure Jewish state? Especially when it comes at the expense of a guiltless, impoverished Palestinian people. Barack Obama may be our last, best choice for president, but in this, he shows very little imagination.

Of course, even more telling is Boehner's response to Obama's statements. One can only imagine Boehner, well into his third martini, directing some eager beaver staffer to pore through the Atlantic interview to "shee 'f he said anuhthin' we kin use." Anything less than absolute support for Israel is, for some reason, verboten and deemed as lethal to one's political career.

Israeli justice

To me, to my way of thinking, and, I have to believe to that of the majority of the American public, Israeli misbehavior, brutality, and arrogance wears very thin. I don't believe that public support for Israel is nearly as unqualified as it is with the various power-brokers in Washington.

Israeli policy toward the Palestinians is brutal, demeaning, and carries a whiff of the very treatment to which Jews were subjected during... well, you can finish that thought yourself. So I ask again: why?

Does this scene remind you of anything?