Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Democrats and the "Human Shields" Myth
Israelis from across the political spectrum, emboldened by the interim report from the government's Winograd Commission, which investigated Israel's ill-fated assault on Lebanon, are expressing regrets over last summer's conflict with their northern neighbor. Uproar over the way a relatively minor border incident managed to escalate into a full-scale war is leading to demands for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's resignation and other top government officials are under pressure or stepping down.
Meanwhile, in the United States Congress, leaders of both parties are not only still defending Israel's decision to go to war, but its conduct of the war as well.
During the five weeks of fighting, 119 Israeli soldiers and 43 Israeli civilians were killed. It was the Lebanese who suffered the most, however. Massive Israeli bombardments took the lives of more than 1,100 people, the vast majority of whom were innocent civilians, and caused more than $3.5 billion in damage to the country's civilian infrastructure and widespread environmental damage.
Moral and Legal Responsibility
Yet Congress continues to justify last summer's widespread attacks on civilian targets by the U.S.-supplied Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) by claiming that Hezbollah used the Lebanese civilian population as "human shields," thereby seeking to protect America's closest Middle East ally from its moral and legal responsibility for its war crimes.
For example, on April 25, the House of Representatives passed by a near-unanimous voice vote a resolution (H. Res. 125) claiming that "throughout the summer of 2006 conflict with the State of Israel, Hezbollah forces utilized human shields to protect themselves from counterattacks by Israeli forces." In defense of the Bush administration's controversial backing of Israel's 35-day assault on Lebanon, the Democratic-led House cited President George W. Bush's claim that "Hezbollah terrorists used Lebanese civilians as human shields, sacrificing the innocent in an effort to protect themselves from Israeli response" and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's assertion that "`Hezbollah and its sponsors have brought devastation upon the people of Lebanon, … exploiting them as human shields."
In an effort to make the case that it was Lebanese, not the Israeli armed forces, who were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians, the resolution goes as far as claiming that "the majority of civilian casualties of that conflict might have been avoided and civilian lives saved had Hezbollah not employed this tactic."
Similarly, as Israeli peace activists began protests against their country's attacks on civilian targets in Lebanon last summer, the House of Representatives passed a resolution (H. Res. 921) defending the Israeli government's controversial policies, praising "Israel's longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss" and welcoming "Israel's continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties." The resolution, co-sponsored by Tom Lantos (D-CA)—whom the Democrats have subsequently elected to chair the House Foreign Affairs Committee—passed by a 410-8 vote with four abstentions, also condemned Hezbollah for "cynically exploiting civilian populations as shields, locating their equipment and bases of operation, including their rockets and other armaments, amidst civilian populations, including in homes and mosques."
The problem is that it appears that none of these claims appear to be true.
No Evidence Found
Investigations by independent human rights groups during last summer's fighting did not find clear evidence that Hezbollah deliberately used civilians to shield their personnel or equipment from Israeli strikes. For example, a detailed study published at the end of the fighting in August by Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported that they had found "no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack." Similarly, Amnesty International, in a well-documented report published in November observed, "While the presence of Hizbullah's fighters and short-range weapons within civilian areas is not contested, this in itself is not conclusive evidence of intent to use civilians as 'human shields', any more than the presence of Israeli soldiers in a kibbutz is in itself evidence of the same war crime."
Human rights groups noted that the Hezbollah militia—which, like most militias, is a volunteer force whose members lived with their families — did store weapons in or near homes and some of the militia's hundreds of rocket launchers were found within populated areas, which are indeed violations of international humanitarian law since such practices put civilians at risk. However, Amnesty reported that while "The available evidence suggests that in at least some cases Katyushas were stored within villages and fired from civilian areas," it was only long after most of the civilian population had been evacuated and that it was "not apparent that civilians were present and used as 'human shields'."
As Human Rights Watch noted, even the presence of armed personnel and weapons near civilian areas "does not release Israel from its obligations to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian property during military operations." Similarly, Amnesty International noted how Protocol I of the Fourth Geneva Convention also makes it clear that even if one side is shielding itself behind civilians, such a violation "shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians."
Wanton Attacks on Civilian Areas
In any case, the vast majority of Israeli strikes in civilian areas were nowhere near Hezbollah military activity. As Human Rights Watch noted, "In dozens of attacks, Israeli forces struck an area with no apparent military target. In some cases, the timing and intensity of the attack, the absence of a military target, as well as return strikes on rescuers, suggest that Israeli forces deliberately targeted civilians."
Similarly, Amnesty International reported that Israeli forces "carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on a large scale," including "those on civilian infrastructure" and "direct attacks on civilian objects." Furthermore, they reported that "These attacks seem to have been aimed at inflicting a form of collective punishment on Lebanon's people" and that "based on the available evidence and the absence of an adequate or any explanation from the Israeli authorities for so many attacks by their forces causing civilian deaths and destruction, when no evidence of Hizbullah military activities was apparent, it seems clear that Israeli forces consistently failed to adopt necessary precautionary measures."
Though subsequent investigations have only reconfirmed that the large numbers of civilian casualties in Lebanon were a result of actions by the government of Israel, not Hezbollah, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), in a debate on the House floor on April 25 insisted that "The key reason that civilian areas were destroyed was the cynical strategy of Hezbollah guerrillas to stage their attacks from the middle of towns and residential areas" and that "the loss of civilian life in Lebanon was due solely to Hezbollah's cruel and uncivilized use of civilian areas as military bases."
Kucinich Raised Concerns
When Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) raised concerns about Israel's use of cluster bombs in civilian areas which have led to the deaths of scores of Lebanese children both during and subsequent to last summer's fighting, Rep. Ackerman responded by insisting that these dangerous anti-personnel weapons were "used in self-defense."
Despite Ackerman's eagerness to defend and cover-up for war crimes by this important Middle Eastern ally of the United States, the Democrats have elected him chairman of the important House Subcommittee on the Middle East, indicative that the new majority party shares their Republican counterparts' lack of respect for international humanitarian law.
My efforts to ascertain where members of Congress get information to back up their defense of Israeli war crimes have revealed a rather startling inclination to rely on rather dubious right-wing sources for information. For example, following a speech in March, in which Senator Barack Obama repeated the myth that Hezbollah had used "innocent people as shields," I contacted his spokesman as to what evidence the presidential hopeful had to make such charges. He referred me to a report by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies, a right-wing Israeli think tank headed by the former chief of the Mossad which maintains close ties to the Israeli government. Despite repeated requests, Obama's office was unable to provide any other source supporting the senator's charge. This underscores serious concerns among human rights activists that Obama and other leading Democrats, like President Bush, have the same propensity to believe the findings of ideologically-driven right-wing think tanks above those of objective scholarship, reputable journalists, or principled human rights groups and other nonpartisan organizations.
Israel's Use of Human Shields
Ironically, while Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and other reputable human rights organizations—including the Israeli group B'tselem—have demonstrated that, while there is little conclusive evidence that the Hezbollah militia used human shields as a calculated policy, the Israeli Defense Forces have used this illegal maneuver as a standard practice, particularly earlier this decade following a right-wing coalition coming to power in Israel in early 2001. A recent HRW report notes how "Human Rights Watch and Israeli and Palestinian organizations documented numerous cases of Israeli forces using Palestinian civilians as human shields." Similarly, Amnesty International has reported how Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank "have often used Palestinians effectively as human shields, endangering their lives in violation of international humanitarian law.
There have been no Congressional resolutions condemning Israel's use of human shields, however. Congressional Democrats essentially share the Bush administration's practice that if you are perceived as an adversary, your crimes will be exaggerated or even manufactured, while it you are perceived as an ally, your crimes will be covered up.
During the April 25 debate over the resolution condemning Hezbollah for its alleged use of human shields, Representative Dan Issa (R-CA)—a supporter of the measure—pointed out that "The use of human shields in the Middle East is unfortunately widespread" and showed a series of photographs of Israeli forces using Arab civilians as shields, including a 2004 photograph of a 13-year-old Palestinian boy tied to the hood of an Israeli police jeep in the West Bank. In response, Ackerman claimed that soldiers responsible "were charged, and the court found them guilty, and the court banned it." In reality, however, while the Israeli Supreme Court did ban the use of human shields in 2005, no soldiers have been sentenced for engaging in this illegal practice. To the House Democrats' chief spokesman on U.S. Middle East policy, however, the important distinction is that there is "a difference in moral values" between the Arab "perpetrators" and the Israeli "victims" whose only fault is that they may occasionally "go too far . . . in the pursuit of terrorists and evildoers."
From the perspective of Ackerman and most of his colleagues, despite the fact that the majority of Israelis killed in last summer's fighting were soldiers and the vast majority of Lebanese killed were civilians, Hezbollah's violence constitutes "terrorism" whereas the Israelis' violence constitutes "self-defense." In taking this position, these lawmakers are shielding the United States—which provided Israel with most of the ordinance and delivery systems responsible for the carnage and which for weeks blocked a cease fire from going into effect— rom its moral and legal responsibility as well. Indeed, according to this bipartisan viewpoint, neither the United States nor its ally bears any blame for the slaughter of hundreds of Lebanese civilians, since those deaths were actually the fault of their fellow Lebanese.
Discrediting the Human Rights Community
Now having the majority in Congress, the Democrats appear to have made it a priority to use their position to discredit reputable human rights groups in an effort to defend the policies of important U.S. allies. Indeed, some leading Democrats, in a desperate effort to defend human rights abuses by the U.S.-backed Israeli government, have attacked human rights groups directly. For example, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), a member of the Democratic Leadership Team, has said that "a lot of those organizations, Amnesty International in particular, have always had bias against Israel."
In reality, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and similar groups with a universal human rights agenda, rather than demonstrating any bias against Israel or any other state, have been quite rigorous in their uniform standards of reporting human rights abuses. Not only has Amnesty International been outspoken against human rights abuses by Middle Eastern governments opposed by the United States and Israel—such as Syria and Iran—but Amnesty also correctly concluded that Hezbollah, in the fighting last summer, had also "committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes." HRW demonstrated how "the scale of Hizbullah's rocket attacks on towns and villages in northern Israel, the indiscriminate nature of the weapons used, together with statements by Hizbullah's leader, showed that Hizbullah carried out direct attacks on civilians as well as indiscriminate attacks and attacks on the civilian population as reprisal."
Human rights groups are not the only target of Congress in its desperate effort to advance Bush's Middle East policy agenda. Members also appear determined to attack the press for daring to report war crimes by America's most important Middle East ally. For example, House Resolution 125 complains that "the news media made constant mention of civilian casualties but rarely pointed to the culpability...of Hezbollah for their endangerment of such civilians." In reality, media watchdog groups noted that the
American news media actually tended to underplay the civilian casualties in Lebanon and uncritically repeated Israeli claims that Hezbollah was to blame.
Why Democrats Defend War Crimes
Despite claims to the contrary by some Democratic members of Congress, it is not likely that their support for Israel's war on Lebanon has been motivated by a sincere desire to show solidarity with Israel since—as the Winograd Commission's report demonstrated—the war actually harmed Israel's legitimate security interests. The popular reaction in Lebanon to the widespread killing of Lebanese civilians by U.S.-backed Israeli forces and the successes by the Hezbollah in resisting the IDF ground offensive has led to a dramatic increase in popular support with Lebanon and throughout the Middle East of the radical and fanatically anti-Israel Shiite group.
In defending Israel's attacks against innocent Arab civilians, the Democrats and their Republican allies will only embolden hard-liners in Israel to use such immoral, illegal and counter-productive tactics in the future.
Nor do claims by apologists for Congressional supporters of such resolutions that to oppose Israel's illegal and self-destructive assault on Lebanon's civilian infrastructure would endanger their chances of re-election. Polls showed that a majority of Americans found Israel's assault on Lebanon last summer at best to have been excessive and every one of the 11 Democratic members of the House who refused to support H. Res. 921 in July 2006 supporting Israel's attacks on Lebanon was re-elected in November by a bigger margin than they were two years earlier.
Perhaps the ultimate reason is that the Democrats' agenda is essentially the same as the Republican administration and their Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill: to cover up for abuses of international humanitarian law by the United States and its allies and discredit human rights organizations that challenge these practices as a means of enhancing the hegemonic role of the United States in the Middle East and elsewhere.
In insisting that the large number of civilian casualties in Lebanon were a result of Hezbollah using the civilian population as human shields, Congress can try to make the case that—contrary to the findings of reputable human rights groups, United Nations agencies and others — Israel's actions were not illegal. Otherwise, under U.S. arms control laws, the United States would be forced to restrict some of the lucrative arms exports to Israel by the politically powerful arms industry.
In addition, by challenging the credibility of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch in their reports on Israeli violations of international humanitarian law in Lebanon, their reports on U.S. violations of international humanitarian law in Iraq and Afghanistan are less likely to be taken seriously by the American public. Similarly, by depicting Arab militias as sinister terrorists who use innocent civilians as shields, it makes it easier for the United States and its allies—which rely heavily on air power in their counter-insurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the heavy civilian casualties that result -- to deny any legal or moral responsibility, even though the death toll from such air strikes greatly surpasses the numbers of civilians killed by the so-called "terrorists."
Just as the American and Israeli people are beginning to challenge the morality and utility of their respective governments' heavy-handed use of military power to address complex political challenges, the Democrats have decided to join the Republicans in rushing to defend it. As a result, it is imperative for peace and human rights groups to challenge the Democrats in Congress who continue to defend Israeli war crimes as vigorously as we do the Bush administration and Republican members of Congress.
Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics at the University of San Francisco and the Foreign Policy In Focus Middle East editor.
© 2007 Foreign Policy In Focus
45 Comments so far
Show All"annac21, why are you evading the question I asked? What are you trying to hide, and why are you hiding it?"
Sporos,
I would suggest you play these "friendly" games with somebody else. In other words, manipulate somebody else. Clearly, you fit well into this group. Once again, enjoy your company.
Thanks PJD, for the Manifest Destiny comment/info!
annac21, why are you evading the question I asked? What are you trying to hide, and why are you hiding it?
Sporos,
"Really, I have no guess, it could be either as far as I can see right now. I'd like to know so I can better understand part of the unspoken "underneath" of this discussion you and I are having."
I am reality based and I am talking facts. In other words, you don't have to understand ... whatever ...
Enjoy your company
Bye.
opeluboy,
I think it is just a bug somewhere, my posts sometimes fail too. Always copy what you wrote on the clipboard (rightclick, copy) before hitting submit. And don't be so paranoid.
AIPAC, AIPAC, AIPAC....see?
"I'm curious, if anyone has the time to reply: What are they telling people about Manifest Destiny in the formal educational institutions in the US and at what grade level — what are people's experiences with this?"
If it is taught, it is strictly discussed in the context of Pres. Polk and the "Mexican War" (or more correctly, the "Mexican Land robbery") in the 1840s. The "Manifest Destiny being the supposed god-given destiny to seize all the land from the Mexicans and Indians between the Atlantic and Pacific. Before the Mexican war, Polk also wanted to grab a huge chunk of Canada - up to 54 40' latitude - his campaign slogan being "54-40 or fight!" But the rich elites has cordial ties with the similarly-complected, English-speaking Canucks so, just like the current quiet effort to squash Bush's lust for Iran, they settled for 49 00'.
What is your guess?
I actually have no idea! Your feeling-tone about this would suggest yes -- but then, now that I am thinking about it, maybe not necessarily as it may be that that feeling-tone comes from your own family history in another direction.
Other aspects of your approach suggest no -- something about the focus on indirect knowledge, as well as the lack of explicit consideration that you might be speaking with someone who knows *from more than books* about the existence and horrors of antisemitism. But then again, maybe you're just "armored up" in response to commondreams.org, which is understandable to me given the context of this site.
Really, I have no guess, it could be either as far as I can see right now. I'd like to know so I can better understand part of the unspoken "underneath" of this discussion you and I are having.
What is your guess?
annac21 -- but you didn't answer my question: have you and/or your family had actual lived experience being targeted by antisemitism?
"annac21, I don't agree with your quote that it is "hatred."
It really doesn't matter whether you agree or not.
Some people don't agree that Earth isn't flat. So what?
I disagree with your categorical statements, but unlike you I actually know what I am talking about.
annac21, I don't agree with your quote that it is "hatred." I believe that European/white Jews are positioned in the larger European Christian imperialist system to play a specific role. Antisemitism has a function in the larger system.
Of course, maybe it is hatred at the individual level, but the system level also exists. Like: what role does the refrain "it's the Jews" and this nonsense about a "Jewish Conspiracy" play in relation to the actions and interests of European/white Christian power, domination, spread over the globe?
By the way: books aren't the *only* way to gain knowledge about the reality and horrors of antisemitism. Have you experienced it targeting yourself and/or your family?
Edited to add -- On that last paragraph, for clarification: I'm asking because I am trying to understand if I have been told to read a book about antisemitism by someone who is not Jewish and who has not had direct and family experience being targeted by it.
Not every person at the top of the food chain at Boeing, etc. who is profiting immensely from US support for Israel is a Jew. George Bush and most of the Republican caucus aren't Jews. This isn't about religion at all in the sense of a root cause. Profit motive crosses all racial and cultural divides. Of course there is a conspiracy of sorts behind most of what the US government now does, including its domestic policies, but limiting membership of the conspiracy exclusively to Jews is patently ridiculous. As if the people involved in managing these activities deserves any real religious appellation anyway. They all seek/worship money and power and use religion as a tool when it works as a means to those ends.
Sporos,
I hope the quote below will encourage you to read the book:
"Antisemitism is causeless hatred. The reasons given for it are always rationalizations of a hate already present in the mind of the antisemite. The antisemite needs such rationalizations to tolerate the inner pressure of a passion that might threaten his or her mental stability if recognized as causeless."
p. xviii
I'll be happy to provide more quotes from scholarly publications (I don't accept neo-Nazi websites as sources), as our "discussion" progresses.
Well, hmmm.
Sporos, since you have raised the ugly reality issue -
why don't you actually read about the true historical horror -
antisemitism.
I am afraid, Sporos, it's you who justifies the greatest horror.
The book I mentioned above is a good start.
duplication
Do Americans have the right to the US? Do Canadians have the right to Canada? Aren't they equally descendants of a colonial power?
See now, those are excellent questions! But I differ strongly from the author of those comments. If by "Americans" and "Canadians" the author includes white/European ancestry people, my answer is -- for that group, no!
As I see it -- it is wrong. And I am not coming from some abstract "let's evade responsibility by claiming that this is 'the way the world works'" kind of deal-souled mentality. This is not a theoretical distanced debate abstracting out "for the win."
White people living in the US,Canada, similar countries: Look at the actual reality of where YOU live, where your feet physically hit the ground right now -- the actual history, the real current situations and struggles in these countries. Look at the underlying similarities and connections between actions and ideologies that upset the white Christian/Christian ancestry people so much when it is "Israel"/"The Jews" but don't seem to make it onto the radar screen when it comes to countries like the United States and Canada.
Well, hmm. Maybe that's part of the deep underneath resistance for U.S. and Canadian and any other similarly occupied land white Christians/Christian-ancestry people when it comes to discussions of Palestine/Israel -- maybe some people just don't want to look into the mirror, so to speak, and deal with the ugly realities and implications of their own occupation of land.
And grandy47 -- you're justifying/normalizing horror and wrongness. Your perspective on violence and land occupation turns my stomach.
"The charge of anti-Semitism is the last refuge of scoundrels."
As a quote it's wrong - it was about nationalism.
Even as a paraphrase it's as good as much closer
"Antisemitism most certainly is the last refuge of scoundrels"
Is it possible that a book like
Christian Antisemitism : a History of Hate
by William Nichols
could help?
just saying too
Hmm, I don't know; I haven't read it. But I feel like the problem is likely not only a matter of cognitive-factual-from-a-book information, though that can be very useful and if that book brings it to the table that would be good. But IMO there is something underneath that many white Christian/Christian ancestry people don't want to deal with when it comes to these issues -- and to me that the resistance to "going there" seems like it isn't only on the cognitive level.
The charge of anti-Semitism is the last refuge of scoundrels. It is the place one goes to hide when there are no more answers. The place of sactified saftey where one can avoid all accusations and dwell in the satisfaction of being the constant Jewish victim.
And it's profitable too!
Raphael Lemkin is the Polish-Jewish jurist who, having fled the Nazi invasion of Poland for refuge in the U.S., coined the word "genocide" in 1943. He defined genocide as:
"a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."
Exacty what the Zionist are doing to the pPlestinians, in broad daylight. Jews committing genocide. That's how badly they want all of Palestine.
"I'm sick of rabid Zionist attack dogs calling people "anti-Semitic" for criticizing Israel or AIPAC."
Well, well, well,
I have a couple of questions:
-What qualifications do you have to judge what is or what is not antisemitic (training?, knowledge?, expertise?)
- Could you name a single racist who would call himself "racist"?
It is scientifically proven that people who are capable of the sentences like above are rabid antisemitic dogs attacking innocent people.
There is no "Jewish conspiracy". There is nothing secretive about AIPAC. Most Jews have nothing to do with AIPAC and many Jews are opposed to Israel's actions. This includes Jews in Israel.
That said, the stranglehold AIPAC has on the U.S Congress is frightening. As an American citizen, I have this "insane" notion of wanting my congress to represent my country's interests, not Israel's. I'm sick of rabid Zionist attack dogs calling people "anti-Semitic" for criticizing Israel or AIPAC. Even Amnesty International is practically an extreme anti-Semitic neo-Nazi organization to AIPAC. AIPAC is often to the right of even Israel, so much so that it has become an independent entity sometimes with its own unique interests. What would AIPAC lobbyists do when/if Israel and the Palestinians finally made peace?
The "cure" may be as bad as the disease. Will we come to our senses on Middle East issues, or will we "need" a powerful Arab Muslim lobbying group to neutralize AIPAC's effects? Christian Zionists are just as dangerous, maybe even more so since they are a much larger group, and none of these criticisms of AIPAC and Israel are meant to let Islamic extremists off the hook.
and Israel is not the only country that has mandatory conscription for their youth. Italy does it too, and their threat is what--? Running out of scungili? Rotting tomatoes?
Nazis, Amerikans, Israelis lying to justify crimes they would be outraged about if they were committed by any other nation or people. Hypocrisy is a disease, like Zionism. These cocksuckers are all in the same bed together--I wouldn't support an invasion/occupation by any aggressor--why should I when Amerika/Israel does it? Is it somehow better? Nah. And Asshole (grandy47) must have been one of those animals in L.A. or NYC out in the streets in support of Israel's war crimes. Nice Nazi. To lay claim to land people are living on because of some ridiculous fairy-tale stories in your idiotic story book about who should live where is the height of disillusionment. You oughta look hard into the mirror, face up to some inconvenient truths, and realize why the world is lined up against you.
And I'm tired of the myth of a "liberal Israel." Where are those people all hiding?
Kucinich had a resolution for a ceasefire at the beginning of the bombing.
Is it possible that a book like
Christian Antisemitism : a History of Hate
by William Nichols
could help?
just saying too
Oh and also, I didn't mention in my earlier comment but want to mention now:
In my experience, conversations about Palestine/Israel tend to be pretty evasive and blurry, and to disallow deep insight, when they take place in contexts dominated by white Christian/Christian-ancestry people.
*shrug* ... just saying.
Hmmm ... annac21 gets mighty defensive at any criticism of the IDF or the right-wing Israeli extremists. The first thing I'd like to say to him (and I'm sure he's a man, because his inferior femininity is SO constellated--and if this person IS female, she REALLY needs therapy) is "Be civil or go away! Your hateful attitude only reinforces the arguments of your adversaries."
One wonders what he would say about the large numbers of Israeli peace activists and the millions of Jews worldwide who are risking so much and working so hard to defend the rights of the Palestinian people and help to rehabilitate the worldwide reputation of their country. He would probably call these heroic individuals "self-hating," and fail--or refuse--to recognize the neurotic symptomology that runs rampant in a country in which the historic victims of oppression have themselves become oppressors (a common enough phenomenon in both individual and group psychology). In any case, his intolerance and violent tendencies are really evident in his posts, and he seems incapable of offering rational evidence (as a real "historian" would do) in support of his emotional outbursts.
So neoconned, don't let him get to you. Who would want to be his friend anyway? He's creepy.
This is a surprise? Over 90% of congress answer to AIPAC and not to the US of A. Someone still has yet to explain to me why all the presidential candidates, save for Obama, has been more times to Israel than any other US cities for campaigning. I guess the US of A is now the US of I.
Well, well, well.
"There are a million examples of crimes committed by Israel"
Really?
"They are the sole stumbling block to a Mid-East solution"
Really?
And what is the "solution? I think I heard this word before.
"They are the sole obstructionists to equity peace and peace."
Really?
"We know in advance what they want; All of Judea and Samaria, the West Bank."
This I don't understand. Why would Jews want to live in Judea?
One can only be happy that the rest of the world is full of love, peace, justice and compassion.
I am particularly fond of boiling people in Uzbekistan,
torturing in Egypt, stoning in Saudia Arabia, genocide in Sudan, sweatshops everywhere, people on roofs in New Orleans etc. A wonderful, charming world, except of course ...
Less than fifteen American neocon Jews, who were appointed, not even elected, to the Bush administration, have managed to get us into the most disastrous war in which we have ever been involved. They have managed to wreak a 40-year international system of alliances that the US has built. They broke the US Army. They are breaking the bank.
Does anyone now wonder how Israel has managed over 59 years to defy international law and in broad daylight commit one the world's most egregious crimes against an innocent people? If 15 Jews (yes, and the Zionist Christian right) can do this to America, is there any wonder how they have managed to commit their crimes in the Mid East?
There are a million examples of crimes committed by Israel, some of which this wonderful article details. All of them are repetitiously boring since nothing can be done about them until the criminals in Israel and their America sponsors and stooges are exposed and thrown from the public discourse.
They cannot and will not deal in a fair and open way. They simply must be shunted aside, as the Baker/Hamilton Iraq Study Group recommended. The ISG said that if the US attempts to resolve the major issues in the Middle East, including he Palestinian/Israeli issue with Israel participating, all would be lost. They are the sole obstructionists to equity peace and peace.
The Israelis and their stooges in America must be by past. We do not need their input. They are the sole stumbling block to a Mid-East solution. We know in advance their lies. We know in advance what they will do to the Congress. We know in advance what they want; All of Judea and Samaria, the West Bank. Why are we confused? Since 1947 they have been writing of their intentions. Menachim Began was ballsy enough to say it out in the open.
Forget the Jews and do the deed. Out of the West bank in six months or no more money!
"OK annac21… you're right Israel is not the sole stumblilng block I'll give you"
Thank you very much. It means a lot to me.
"Read some real history my friend…"
I am not your friend, b ..., and I am a historian.
"OK annac21… you're right Israel is not the sole stumblilng block I'll give you"
Thank you.
"Read some real history my friend…"
How dare you?
OK annac21... you're right Israel is not the sole stumblilng block I'll give you that...
There is the US/UK adventure in Iraq, the sabre rattling of a deluded and senile US Vice-President against Iran... again I beg you to read some accurate history not produced by AIPAC or the US media companies that used to cover news...
What you'll find is a population in the Middle East and many other places who are tired of being promised riches and good health while the West steals resources and leaves locals both poisoned and poor in the aftermath of what can only be equated with rape of their own lands.
In Palestine the Israelis are stealing Palestinian farm land and water resources...
In Cote De Ivoire (Ivory Coast) the US and EU steals gold and cocoa beans mined and picked by slaves...
In Iraq the US/UK alliance is attempting to steal oil once again...
In Nigeria the US is stealing the oil and natural gas...
In India Coca -Cola is working feverishly to privatize water...
In Indonesia the US and EU as well as China and Japan steal illegally harvested timber...
On and on, the beat-down goes on and on...
Read some real history my friend... you'll be surprised at how many lies you've been taught to believe...
A starter for anyone interested in some real history is Global Rift by L.S. Stavrianos; a good follow up is Africa; Biography of a Continent by John Reader. It will give a better accounting of how capitalism got its start. Don't worry all you supply and demand delusionists... thes e books are rife with accounts which support the theory of supply and demand... of slavery, genocide and murder.
neoconned wrote: The US has been engaged in this type of behavior uprooting democracies across the globe for over 50 years at least, probably further back than that. Anyone recall "Manifest Destiny" from history class?
Way way further back than 50 years!!!
To my memory, I didn't get taught about Manifest Desiny in school -- or if I did, it was coated in some sort of bland lie that didn't say what it really was and so didn't make an impression at all on me. I do feel that attention to the assumptions of Manifest Destiny are absolutely crucial in understanding anything about the existence and functioning of the United States, not only historically but to this day.
I'm curious, if anyone has the time to reply: What are they telling people about Manifest Destiny in the formal educational institutions in the US and at what grade level -- what are people's experiences with this?
By the way: this same Stephen Zunes has, in the past few years I think, done some pretty good direct analysis of the way that the United States uses Israel, which IMO would be a good antidote to anyone coming into this discussion with that "the Jews are in charge of the US" or "Israel is wagging the US" or some variation on that evasion of responsibility. Unfortunately I can't remember where the articles are but am pretty sure they are online and some might even have been posted on commondreams ... google would probably uncover it.
But anyway, it seems like *most* of the comments here so far are being responsible about the reality of the United States. And I was glad to see that Manifest Destiny reference early on, thanks neoconned.
Check it out for yourselves. The Israeli economy is roughly the same size as the South Korean economy.
South Korea maintains one of the world's largest and most advanced Army, Navy and Air Forces in the world.
South Korea pays for its military by itself.
We, the schumcks in the US, the ones who get to hold the Israeli shit-bag, pay for Israel's war machine. Go figure.
I ask you: If the entire Israeli/Arab conflict would end tomorrow with everyone happy, do you think, Mr. and Mrs., America taxpayer, that the Israeli subsidies, the $6 BILLION per annum would end?
AIPAC and the other Israeli lobbies, acting as Americans, of course, would turn all their considerable monies and efforts to keeping that subsidy flowing to Israel indefinitely.
Register all America/Israeli lobbies for what they are: Foreign agent acting in the interests of a foreign power.
But forget it! They own the Congress. Like the Mafia, the American Jewish/Israeli lobbies (they are one in the same) have deposited on the lawn of the US Congress enough bodies of destroyed senators and congressmen who have questioned our Israeli policies, that the lesson has been indelibly learned.
I do not now how to counter these people when it comes to Israel. They simply act in Israel's interest first and they have the power to thwart all who oppose them. The opposition can barely speak its mind.
I do not know how this will end.
This just goes to show how entrenched AIPAC is into the political parties running the US. Follow the money people... it's all real simple to do. There is no conspiracy where things are done in full public view. There is a responsibility of those of us who know lies are being told to say so. Violence and terrorism are tools of the US and Israeli alliance. The US has been engaged in this type of behavior uprooting democracies across the globe for over 50 years at least, probably further back than that. Anyone recall "Manifest Destiny" from history class? We teach our children to be arrogant in that the world is theirs for the taking then wonder why they grow up to condone the type of behavior we find so appalling today.
The United States has not even the pretense of a real democracy left. Please stop holding me accountable; no vote of mine, no protest of mine, no letter by me, no contribution by me can even make a dimple of a dent in this. If 100,00 people showed up on the White House lawn threatening to storm it, the odds are it would get barely a mention on the news about some minor security breach which was quickly handled; brief footage of Cindy Sheehan being hauled off would be the visual.
"Jewish conspiracy" is not based on anti-semitism. It happens to be fact. AIPAC does work to keep it's propoganda alive at all cost.
2 good examples grandy47 & annac21. Do you really think these two are regular contributors to Common Dreams. There are Jewish groups that have people spend their time (with the help of search sites) key in on certain words or phrases, they then go to that site and fill it with there usual Pro-Israel and revisionist history.
The best thing to do is when they show up on these discussions boards is to just ignore them. You'll never persuade them of anything. They need to stick with the people who believe this reteric and leave us alone.
It is a very scary day, indeed, when I repeatedly hear supposedly educated people continuing to talk about a "Jewish Conspiracy". The world will never change and Jews will always be blamed for all of the world's ills.
You all sit on computers commiserating the state of the world while remaining completely naive to the workings of the world throughout history. Foreign powers conquer a new land and subject the "natives" to new laws and a new society. This new society isn't always desired by the "natives". Didn't it happen 2000 years ago when the Jews were thrown out of Judea? Did the early Muslims not come and conquer the land 700 years later? The Turks took over for 1000 years before the European powers owned the land. Who really has a right to the land?
Think for a second before labeling right vs wrong. Do Americans have the right to the US? Do Canadians have the right to Canada? Aren't they equally descendants of a colonial power? This is the way the world works. One people live in a land until it is conquered by another people who then live in that land for a number of years.
Furthermore, read a little bit into the Israel/Palestinian conflict before making blanket statements about "Jewish Conspiracies." You may just find out that Israel dumps billions of dollars per year in support of the Palestinian lands in the West Bank. You'll find out that Israel provides a water supply for the Palestinian territories. You may even find out that the Palestinians don't want their own country (unless it is all of Israel) because they would then have to provide for themselves of which is being given to them by Israel. Look at the development of that area in the last 60 years. Look at how the Jews developed the desert that had been barren for eternity and created farmland where there was once nothing.
Know this one fact. Israelis want peace more than anything. Do you think that parents want to see their 18 yr olds forced to serve in the military in order to preserve their right to live and exist? They want to see the day when Israel does not need mandatory proscription in order to survive in the world.
Finally, children are born with a clean slate of opinions of the world. Children are taught hatred. I can assure you that Israelis do not teach hatred of anyone. We know the same cannot be said about all Palestinians. A great number of children are trained to hate Israeli neighbors for events that occurred before their parents were born.
Stop making blanket statements about the Jewish conspiracy in the world. It is old news and false news and it makes me sick.
Sorry PJD. My response is a repeat of yours.
Americans of the 18th century were human shields for the minutemen, who were in fact their husbands and fathers and brothers, living at home as is proper for local citizenry. I'm trying to imagine anything more stupid for a guerrilla force such as Hizbullah, whose strength lies in being what Mao called "fish among the populace" than to gather together in some kind of fort ten miles from town where they can be blown to bits easily and without collateral damage.
Ubiquity and patience are the insurrectionists' answer to overwhelming military power. Collective punishment such as the use of clearance-sale cluster bombs, serves only to increase recruitment to resistance groups. Unfortunately, the massacre of civilians is likely to remain the conventional counter-response. Only wholesale genocide is likely to do the trick, and history reveals plenty of bloodthirsty hordes willing to do just that.
That bit of cowardly Israeli-American butchery is the most disgusting and horrifying thing I've witnessed in recent history. Those who supported it (notably Ms. Clinton, but also others) will never have my vote.
I am just so happy that the rest of the world is just so happy,
without any abuses, tragedies, etc., and that every day day (some 50%) we read about only one problematic place in the world.
Truth has never stood in the way of myth in our support of Israel.
While I haven't read this full long article yet, I have always found the whole "human shields" argument, invariably leveled at anyone defending themselves from US or Israeli aggresson, as preposterous, for a couple much simpler reasons:
1. Isn't it tautological that to defend a town, you have to be in the town?
2. Do they expect the defenders, in a thinly vegitated, densely-populated area to just out into a big field and wait to be anihillated by airstrikes?
When the USAns and Zionists present such idiotic allegations, I, and presumubly the Arab people of the Levant, can only feel insulted that they would think we are so stupid to buy their accusations. But, the scarey thing is, the US and Israeli politicians, pundits and military who make these "human shield" accusations seem to believe their own propaganda.
There is a weak, evil and greedy self-survival mentality that pervades all political sides. It's strength is only maintained by the numbers afflicted, yet it's strength could cost the Earth, literally. Any light at the end of the tunnel is likely to be followed by a mushroom cloud.
When redress and accountability no longer function, The Constitution becomes meaningless. We have spineless leaders that have given themselves personal immunity. The very fabric of right and wrong are continually undermined in a storm of power-seeking propaganda. The meek will inherit nothing.