Israel and its apologists still see the rockets fired from Gaza as the trump argument for the blockade and anything else they do. "Poor innocent us, for no reason the rockets were launched against Israel."
The article below, from The Guardian in 2008 gives a clear picture of what was happening. Unlike the US mainstream media (and the supposed liberal media) The Guardian reporter gives the full story. Israel was bombing Gaza, killing civilians virtually at random and rockets were fired back in retaliation. This extended over many years before the December/January 2008/9 Israeli attack on Gaza.
Less than 50 Israelis were killed by Hamas or other Gaza group's rockets and more than 1000 Palestinians died. This is before Cast Lead where 1400 Gazans were killed (nearly all civillians).
WHY WERE THE ROCKETS FIRED FROM GAZA INTO ISRAEL? BECAUSE ISRAEL WAS REGULARLY BOMBING AND SHELLING GAZA. This suggests a policy that Israel could pursue: don't bomb Gaza and see the results...to much for stumblebum hacks like Jerry Nadler or Chuck Schumer to figure out.
Gaza: Israel's previous attacks
Air strikes in Gaza follow series of operations dating back to 2006, when Hamas won Palestinian elections
* Rory McCarthy in Jerusalem
* guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 December 2008 12.56 GMT
* Article history
Israel's four-day bombing campaign in Gaza is the latest in a series of military operations dating back to 2006, when Hamas won the Palestinian elections.
All have had the publicly stated aim of stopping rocket fire into southern Israeli towns. They have claimed hundreds of Palestinian lives.
At the same time, Israel has imposed tighter and tighter economic restrictions, which now amount to a blockade of the Gaza Strip under which only limited humanitarian supplies are allowed in.
Yet these measures have so far failed to halt militant rockets.
As soon as the Hamas-dominated parliament was sworn in, Israel froze contacts with what it called the "terrorist" Palestinian Authority and blocked the transfer of tax and customs receipts, worth about $50m a month.
Israel said Hamas should renounce violence, recognise Israel's right to exist and accept previous peace agreements. It began regular closures of the Karni crossing, the main commercial goods terminal between Israel and Gaza.
Soon the EU – the largest single donor to the Palestinians – and later the rest of the international community suspended all direct aid to the Palestinian Authority.
Over several weeks, the Israeli military fired artillery rounds into Gaza and bombed buildings, killing several Palestinians. Israel said it was trying to stop militant rockets attacks. In late June 2006, after an Israeli soldier was captured by Palestinian militants and taken into Gaza, the military launched a major operation, sending in troops and bombing bridges, buildings, roads and Gaza's sole power plant.
After two months of bombing and ground raids, the Israeli operation – codenamed Summer Rain – had killed at least 240 Palestinians. At least half were civilians, including 48 children.
In November 2006 Israel mounted a six-day ground invasion of the town of Beit Hanoun, in an area of northern Gaza frequently used by militants launching rockets. The raid, codenamed Autumn Clouds, killed at least 50 Palestinians and one Israeli soldier.
The day after the Israeli military withdrew, another 18 Palestinians, all from the same family in Beit Hanoun, were killed when their house was hit by a volley of Israeli artillery shells.
Late the same month, a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza was finally established, running for nearly six months until Hamas started firing rockets again. Israel restarted its air strikes on Gaza and threatened to kill Hamas leaders.
After Hamas seized full control of Gaza in late June 2007, following a near civil war with its rival Fatah, Israel stepped up its air raids. On a single day in June, 12 Palestinians were killed in what an Israeli minister called "preventive measures" against rocket attacks from Gaza.
At the same time, Israel tightened its economic blockade, reducing the flow of goods into Gaza to a bare minimum, stopping all exports and placing severe limits on those Palestinians it allowed to leave Gaza through Israel. By September it had declared Gaza a "hostile territory" as militant rocket attacks and Israeli military raids continued.
A new round of US-sponsored peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians began at a summit in Annapolis, in the US, in November 2007 – but the conflict in Gaza continued. Militants fired rockets into southern Israel and the Israeli military staged small-scale incursions and air strikes, killing dozens of Palestinians, both civilians and militants.
The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said his military was fighting a "true war" against militant groups in Gaza and ruled out the possibility of another ceasefire.
In January this year, Israel launched an incursion into al-Zaitoun, east of Gaza City – in a single day killing at least 18 Palestinians, including the son of Gaza's most powerful Hamas leader.
On the same day, a volunteer farmer from Ecuador was killed by a Palestinian sniper while working at a communal farm across the boundary in Israel. It was the heaviest day of fighting in Gaza for more than a year.
Israel then tightened its restrictions on deliveries into Gaza, including fuel, forcing the power plant to shut down for several days. In late January, crowds of thousands of desperate Palestinians forced their way over the border wall out of Gaza and into Egypt.
Israeli air strikes continued after Hamas claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing in which an Israeli woman and 11 others were injured in the Israeli city of Dimona. It marked the first return to suicide bombings in Israel by Hamas for more than three years.
In late February the Israeli military mounted another major operation in Gaza, this time sending troops into the eastern town of Jabaliya. In the space of five days around 120 Palestinians were killed, at least half of them civilians. Three Israelis died.
But the raid failed to halt the rocket fire, and in the weeks afterwards there were other clashes in Gaza and near the border, killing six Israelis, four of them soldiers, and dozens of Palestinians, among them a Reuters television cameraman and, in a separate incident, a mother and her four children.
Eventually, after much mediation by Egypt, a ceasefire between Israel and militants in Gaza was again established in June. It ran until November, when it began to break down with violations on both sides, and collapsed in mid-December to bring the latest Israeli bombing campaign of Gaza, codenamed Cast Lead, which has so far killed at least 360 Palestinians.
In the past eight years, the militant rockets and mortars fired from Gaza that have become such a powerful issue for the Israeli government have killed 20 people inside Israel. Three of those were killed on Monday, including a soldier, and one died on Saturday when the bombing first started.
Israeli attacks on Palestinian territories
January 2006: Israel fires artillery rounds into Gaza and bombs buildings after Hamas wins Palestinian elections
June 2006: Operation Summer Rain follows the capture of an Israeli soldier. A total of 240 Palestinians are killed in two months of bombing and ground raids
November 2006: Operation Autumn Clouds, a six-day ground invasion of Beit Hanoun, results in at least 50 Palestinian deaths. Another 18 from one family are killed in artillery shelling
June 2007: Israel steps up air raids after Hamas seizes control of Gaza
January 2008: A total of 18 Palestinians are killed in one day in an Israeli incursion into al-Zaytoun
February 2008: Israeli troops go into Jabaliya; around 120 Palestinians are killed in five days
December 2008: Operation Cast Lead is launched. At least 360 Palestinians are killed in the first four days
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
NY Democratic Party "progressives" demand free speech about Israel's piracy and murder be criminalized
AL-AWDA NY , THE PALESTINE RIGHT TO RETURN COALITION
info@al-awdany.org 718-228-8636
Don't Let Enemies of Freedom Suppress the Truth About
Israel's Attack on a Humanitarian Aid Ship!
All Out to the House of the Lord Church 415 Atlantic Ave. Thursday June 17, 7 pm
MAVI MARMARA SURVIVORS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD!
Two weeks ago Israeli naval commandos stormed a Turkish ship loaded with humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza. They murdered 9 unarmed passengers. The oldest, Ibrahim Bilgen, was 61. the youngest, Furkan Dogan, a U.S. citizen born in Troy , N.Y., was just 19.
On Thursday, June 17, two eyewitnesses to this horror, U.S. filmmaker Iara Lee and British political organizer Kevin Ovenden, and Ahmet Unsal, a former Member of Turkey�s Parliament, have been invited to tell their views and stories at a public forum at Brooklyn's historic House of the Lord Church. The meeting is cosponsored by dozens of organizations.
They come with nothing but words. But words of truth strike fear into the hearts of certain hate-filled New York politicians who have voted time and again to turn U.S. taxpayers' dollars into missiles and bombs for Israel's war machine.
On June 14, City Council speaker Christine Quinn, Reps. Jerry Nadler, Anthony Weiner, Carolyn Mahoney, Charles Rangel and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer gathered in Times Square at the behest of the so-called "Jewish Community Relations Council." They demanded that the State Department investigate the invited speakers for "ties to terrorism." They want to prevent or delay their entry the United States. This is a clear attempt to not only deny the passengers' right to speak but to deny the people of the United States the right to hear their words.
The group of politicians who issued this call have supported every act of terror by the Israeli state against the native people of Palestine and its neighbors. They cheered the 2008-9 terror bombing and invasion of Gaza that slaughtered 1,400 people, including hundreds of children. They applauded Israel's 2006 mass murder of 900 Lebanese civilians. They hail the cruel blockade that denies food, medicine, electricity and sanitation to the people of Gaza and they dare to support the killing and kidnapping of Turkish, U.S., British and Irish citizens who tried to break that blockade.
These political hacks now attack our very right to learn and discuss the issues involved. They seek to pin the label of �terrorist� on any who oppose the vicious and immoral blockade of Gaza and the endless stream of U.S. guns and dollars to Israel's brutal war machine. And they want to hide the truth about what happened that bloody night on the Mavi Marmara.
We call upon all people who believe in justice and freedom to resist this attack on our rights. Let your elected representative know that you have the right to hear what the courageous survivors of the Mavi Marmara have to say. And let's pack the House of the Lord Church Thursday night. Let's answer this vile attempt at intimidation with a powerful mass meeting.
Sponsors include Muslim American Society, International Action Center, National Lawyers Guild-NYC, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, American Muslims For Palestine, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, NYC Labor Against the War, Arab Muslim American Federation, Labor For Palestine, FIST, Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine, Action for a Progressive Pakistan, ANSWER Coalition, Anakbayan, Bayan USA, Creative Nonviolent Resistance against Injustice, Gabriela USA, International League of Peoples Struggle--NY/LOC, Middle East Crisis Response, El Beireh Society, The Indypendent, Socialist Action, International Socialist Organization, Westchester Peoples Action Coalition, American-Iranian Friendship Committee
LET THE TRUTH BE HEARD! Please Forward Widely
info@al-awdany.org 718-228-8636
Don't Let Enemies of Freedom Suppress the Truth About
Israel's Attack on a Humanitarian Aid Ship!
All Out to the House of the Lord Church 415 Atlantic Ave. Thursday June 17, 7 pm
MAVI MARMARA SURVIVORS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE HEARD!
Two weeks ago Israeli naval commandos stormed a Turkish ship loaded with humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza. They murdered 9 unarmed passengers. The oldest, Ibrahim Bilgen, was 61. the youngest, Furkan Dogan, a U.S. citizen born in Troy , N.Y., was just 19.
On Thursday, June 17, two eyewitnesses to this horror, U.S. filmmaker Iara Lee and British political organizer Kevin Ovenden, and Ahmet Unsal, a former Member of Turkey�s Parliament, have been invited to tell their views and stories at a public forum at Brooklyn's historic House of the Lord Church. The meeting is cosponsored by dozens of organizations.
They come with nothing but words. But words of truth strike fear into the hearts of certain hate-filled New York politicians who have voted time and again to turn U.S. taxpayers' dollars into missiles and bombs for Israel's war machine.
On June 14, City Council speaker Christine Quinn, Reps. Jerry Nadler, Anthony Weiner, Carolyn Mahoney, Charles Rangel and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer gathered in Times Square at the behest of the so-called "Jewish Community Relations Council." They demanded that the State Department investigate the invited speakers for "ties to terrorism." They want to prevent or delay their entry the United States. This is a clear attempt to not only deny the passengers' right to speak but to deny the people of the United States the right to hear their words.
The group of politicians who issued this call have supported every act of terror by the Israeli state against the native people of Palestine and its neighbors. They cheered the 2008-9 terror bombing and invasion of Gaza that slaughtered 1,400 people, including hundreds of children. They applauded Israel's 2006 mass murder of 900 Lebanese civilians. They hail the cruel blockade that denies food, medicine, electricity and sanitation to the people of Gaza and they dare to support the killing and kidnapping of Turkish, U.S., British and Irish citizens who tried to break that blockade.
These political hacks now attack our very right to learn and discuss the issues involved. They seek to pin the label of �terrorist� on any who oppose the vicious and immoral blockade of Gaza and the endless stream of U.S. guns and dollars to Israel's brutal war machine. And they want to hide the truth about what happened that bloody night on the Mavi Marmara.
We call upon all people who believe in justice and freedom to resist this attack on our rights. Let your elected representative know that you have the right to hear what the courageous survivors of the Mavi Marmara have to say. And let's pack the House of the Lord Church Thursday night. Let's answer this vile attempt at intimidation with a powerful mass meeting.
Sponsors include Muslim American Society, International Action Center, National Lawyers Guild-NYC, Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, American Muslims For Palestine, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, NYC Labor Against the War, Arab Muslim American Federation, Labor For Palestine, FIST, Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine, Action for a Progressive Pakistan, ANSWER Coalition, Anakbayan, Bayan USA, Creative Nonviolent Resistance against Injustice, Gabriela USA, International League of Peoples Struggle--NY/LOC, Middle East Crisis Response, El Beireh Society, The Indypendent, Socialist Action, International Socialist Organization, Westchester Peoples Action Coalition, American-Iranian Friendship Committee
LET THE TRUTH BE HEARD! Please Forward Widely
Monday, June 14, 2010
Questions to ask a genuine commission of Inquiry on the attack on the Mavi Marara
Uri Avnery
12.06.10
Who is Afraid of a real Inquiry?
If a real Commission of Inquiry had been set up (instead of the pathetic excuse for a commission), here are some of the questions it should have addressed:
1. What is the real aim of the Gaza Strip blockade?
2. If the aim is to prevent the flow of arms into the Strip, why are only 100 products allowed in (as compared to the more than 12 thousand products in an average Israeli supermarket)?
3. Why is it forbidden to bring in chocolate, toys, writing material, many kinds of fruits and vegetables (and why cinnamon but not coriander)?
4. What is the connection between the decision to forbid the import of construction materials for the replacement or repair of the thousands of buildings destroyed or damaged during the Cast Lead operation and the argument that they may serve Hamas for building bunkers - when more than enough materials for this purpose are brought into the Strip through the tunnels?
5. Is the real aim of the blockade to turn the lives of the 1.5 million human beings in the Strip into hell, in the hope of inducing them to overthrow the Hamas regime?
6. Since this has not happened, but - on the contrary - Hamas has become stronger during the three years of the blockade, did the government ever entertain second thoughts on this matter?
7. Has the blockade been imposed in the hope of freeing the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit?
8. If so, has the blockade contributed anything to the realization of this aim, or has it been counter-productive?
9. Why does the Israeli government refuse to exchange Shalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, when Hamas agrees to such a deal?
10. Is it true that the US government has imposed a veto on the exchange of prisoners, on the grounds that it would strengthen Hamas?
11. Has there been any discussion in our government about fulfilling its undertaking in the Oslo agreement - to enable and encourage the development of the Gaza port - in a way that would prevent the passage of arms?
12. Why does the Israeli government declare again and again that the territorial waters of the Gaza strip are part of Israel's own territorial waters, and that ships entering them "infringe on Israeli sovereignty", contrary to the fact that the Gaza Strip was never annexed to Israel and that Israel officially announced in 2006 that it had "separated" itself from it?
13. Why has the Attorney General's office declared that the peace activists captured on the high seas, who had no intention whatsoever of entering Israel, had "tried to enter Israel illegally", and brought them before a judge for the extension of their arrest under the law that concerns "illegal entry into Israel"?
14. Who is responsible for these contradictory legal claims, when the Israeli government argues one minute that Israel has "separated itself from the Gaza Strip" and that the "occupation there has come to an end" - and the next minute claims sovereignty over the coastal waters of the Strip? ?@
Question concerning the decision to attack the flotilla:
15. When did the preparation for this flotilla become known to the Israeli intelligence services? (Evidence on this may be heard in camera.)
16. When was this brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Cabinet, the Committee of Seven (in charge of security matters) and the IDF Chief of Staff? (ditto)
17. What were the deliberations of these officials and institutions? (ditto)
18. What intelligence was submitted to each of them? (ditto)
19. When, by whom and how was the decision taken to stop the flotilla by force?
20. Is it true that the secretary of the cabinet, Tzvi Hauser, warned of the severe consequences of such action and advised letting the flotilla sail to Gaza?
21. Were there others who also advised doing so?
22. Was the Foreign Ministry a full partner in all the discussions?
23. If so, did the Foreign Ministry warn of the impact of such an action on our relations with Turkey and other countries?
24. In light of the fact that, prior to the incident, the Turkish government informed the Israeli Foreign Ministry that the flotilla was organized by a private organization which is not under the control of the government and does not violate any Turkish law - did the Foreign Ministry consider approaching the organization in order to try to reach an agreement to avoid violence?
25. Was due consideration given to the alternative of stopping the flotilla in territorial waters, inspecting the cargo for arms and letting it sail on?
26. Was the impact of the action on international public opinion considered?
27. Was the impact of the action on our relations with the US considered?
28. Was it taken into consideration that the action may actually strengthen Hamas?
29. Was it taken into consideration that the action may make the continuation of the blockade more difficult??@
Questions concerning the planning of the action:
30. What intelligence was at the disposal of the planners? (Evidence may be heard in camera.)
31. Was it considered that the composition of the group of activists in this flotilla was different from that in earlier protest ships, because of the addition of the Turkish component?
32. Was it taken into consideration that contrary to the European peace activists, who believe in passive resistance, the Turkish activists may adopt a policy of active resistance to soldiers invading a Turkish ship?
33. Were alternative courses of action considered, such as blocking the progress of the flotilla with navy boats?
34. If so, what were the alternatives considered, and why were they rejected?
35. Who was responsible for the actual planning of the operation - the IDF Chief of Staff or the Commander of the Navy?
36. If it was the Navy Commander who decided on the method employed, was the decision approved by the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister?
37. How were the responsibilities for planning divided between these?
38. Why was the action undertaken outside of the territorial waters of Israel and the Gaza Strip?
39. Why was it executed in darkness?
40. Did anyone in the navy object to the idea of soldiers descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship "Mavi Marmara"?
41. During the deliberations, did anyone bring up the similarity between the planned operation and the British action against the ship "Exodus 1947", which ended in a political disaster for the British??@
Questions concerning the action itself:
42. Why was the flotilla cut off from any contact with the world throughout the operation, if there was nothing to hide?
43. Did anyone protest that the soldiers were actually being sent into a trap?
44. Was it taken into consideration that the plan adopted would place the soldiers for several critical minutes in a dangerously inferior position?
45. When exactly did the soldiers start to shoot live ammunition?
46. Which of the soldiers was the first to fire?
47. Was the shooting - all or part of it - justified?
48 Is it true that the soldiers started firing even before descending onto the deck, as asserted by the passengers?
49. Is it true that the fire continued even after the captain of the ship and the activists announced several times over loudspeakers that the ship had surrendered, and after they had actually hoisted white flags?
50. Is it true that five of the nine people killed were shot in the back, indicating that they were trying to get away from the soldiers and thus could not be endangering their lives?
51. Why was the killed man Ibrahim Bilgen, 61 years old and father of six and a candidate for mayor in his home town, described as a terrorist?
52. Why was the killed man Cetin Topcoglu, 54 years old, trainer of the Turkish national taekwondo (Korean martial arts) team, whose wife was also on the ship, described as a terrorist?
53. Why was the killed man Cevdet Kiliclar, a 38 year old journalist, described as a terrorist?
54. Why was the killed man Ali Haydar Bengi, father of four, graduate of the al-Azhar school for literature in Cairo, described as a terrorist?
55. Why were the killed men Necdet Yaldirim, 32 years old, father of a daughter; Fahri Yaldiz, 43 years old, father of four; Cengiz Songur, 47 years old, father of seven; and Cengiz Akyuz, 41 years old, father of three, described as terrorists?
56. Is it a lie that the activists took a pistol from a soldier and shot him with it, as described by the IDF, or is it true that the activists did in fact throw the pistol into the sea without using it?
57. Is it true, as stated by Jamal Elshayyal, a British subject, that the soldiers prevented treatment for the Turkish wounded for three hours, during which time several of them died?
58.. Is it true, as stated by this journalist, that he was handcuffed behind his back and forced to kneel for three hours in the blazing sun, that he was not allowed to go and urinate and told to "piss in his pants", that he remained handcuffed for 24 hours without water, that his British passport was taken from him and not returned; that his laptop computer, three cellular telephones and 1500 dollars in cash were taken from him and not returned?
59. Did the IDF cut off the passengers from the world for 48 hours and confiscate all the cameras, films and cell phones of the journalists on board in order to suppress any information that did not conform to the IDF story?
60. Is it a standing procedure to keep the Prime Minister (or his acting deputy, Moshe Yaalon in this case) in the picture during an operation, was this procedure implemented, and was it implemented in previous cases, such as the Entebbe operation or the boarding of the ship "Karin A"?
Questions concerning the behavior of the IDF Spokesman:
61. IS it true that the IDF Spokesman spread a series of fabrications during the first few hours, in order to justify the action in the eyes of both the Israeli and the international public?
62. Are the few minutes of film which have been shown hundreds of times on Israeli TV, from the first day on until now, a carefully edited clip, so that it is not seen what happened just before and just after?
63. What is the truth of the assertion that the soldiers who were taken by the activists into the interior of the ship were about to be "lynched", when the photos clearly show that they were surrounded for a considerable time by dozens of activists without being harmed, and that a doctor or medic from among the activists even treated them?
64. What evidence is there for the assertion that the Turkish NGO called IHH has connections with al-Qaeda?
65. On what grounds was it stated again and again that it was a "terrorist organization", though no evidence for this claim was offered?
66. Why was it asserted that the association was acting under the orders of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, when in fact it is close to an opposition party?
67. If it was in fact a terrorist organization known to the Israeli intelligence services, why was this not taken into account during the planning of the operation?
68. Why did the Israeli government not announce this before the attack on the flotilla?
69. Why were the words of one of the activists, who declared on his return that he wanted to be a "shahid", translated by official propaganda in a manifestly dishonest manner, as if he had said that he wanted "to kill and be killed" ("shahid" means a person who sacrifices his life in order to testify to his belief in God, much like a Christian martyr)?
70. What is the source of the lie that the Turks called out "Go back to Auschwitz"?
71. Why were the Israeli doctors not called to inform the public at once about the character of the wounds of the injured soldiers, after it was announced that at least one of them was shot?
72. Who invented the story that there were arms on the ship, and that they had been thrown into the sea?
73. Who invented the story that the activists had brought with them deadly weapons - when the exhibition organized by the IDF Spokesman himself showed nothing but tools found on any ship, including binoculars, a blood infusion instrument, knives and axes, as well as decorative Arab daggers and kitchen knives that are to be found on every ship, even one not equipped for 1000 passengers?
74. Do all these items - coupled with the endless repetition of the word "terrorists" and the blocking of any contrary information - not constitute brainwashing??@
Questions concerning the inquiry:
75. Why does the Israeli government refuse to take part in an international board of inquiry, composed of neutral personalities acceptable to them?
76. Why have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense announced that they are ready to testify - but not to answer questions?
77. Where does the argument come from that soldiers must not be called to testify - when in all previous investigations senior officers, junior officers and enlisted men were indeed subjected to questioning?
78. Why does the government refuse to appoint a State Commission of Inquiry under the Israeli law that was enacted by the Knesset in 1966 for this very purpose, especially in view of the fact that such commissions were appointed after the Yom Kippur war, after the Sabra and Shatila massacre, after the podium of the al-Aqsa Mosque was set on fire by an insane Australian, as well as to investigate corruption in sport and the murder of the Zionist leader Chaim Arlosoroff (some fifty years after it occurred!)?
79. Does the government have something to fear from such a commission, whose members are appointed by the President of the Supreme Court, and which is empowered to summon witnesses and cross-examine them, demand the production of documents and determine the personal responsibility for mistakes and crimes?
80. Why was it decided in the end to appoint a pathetic committee, devoid of any legal powers, which will lack all credibility both in Israel and abroad??@
And, finally, the question of questions:
81. What is our political and military leadership trying to hide?
permlink: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1276348453
12.06.10
Who is Afraid of a real Inquiry?
If a real Commission of Inquiry had been set up (instead of the pathetic excuse for a commission), here are some of the questions it should have addressed:
1. What is the real aim of the Gaza Strip blockade?
2. If the aim is to prevent the flow of arms into the Strip, why are only 100 products allowed in (as compared to the more than 12 thousand products in an average Israeli supermarket)?
3. Why is it forbidden to bring in chocolate, toys, writing material, many kinds of fruits and vegetables (and why cinnamon but not coriander)?
4. What is the connection between the decision to forbid the import of construction materials for the replacement or repair of the thousands of buildings destroyed or damaged during the Cast Lead operation and the argument that they may serve Hamas for building bunkers - when more than enough materials for this purpose are brought into the Strip through the tunnels?
5. Is the real aim of the blockade to turn the lives of the 1.5 million human beings in the Strip into hell, in the hope of inducing them to overthrow the Hamas regime?
6. Since this has not happened, but - on the contrary - Hamas has become stronger during the three years of the blockade, did the government ever entertain second thoughts on this matter?
7. Has the blockade been imposed in the hope of freeing the captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit?
8. If so, has the blockade contributed anything to the realization of this aim, or has it been counter-productive?
9. Why does the Israeli government refuse to exchange Shalit for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, when Hamas agrees to such a deal?
10. Is it true that the US government has imposed a veto on the exchange of prisoners, on the grounds that it would strengthen Hamas?
11. Has there been any discussion in our government about fulfilling its undertaking in the Oslo agreement - to enable and encourage the development of the Gaza port - in a way that would prevent the passage of arms?
12. Why does the Israeli government declare again and again that the territorial waters of the Gaza strip are part of Israel's own territorial waters, and that ships entering them "infringe on Israeli sovereignty", contrary to the fact that the Gaza Strip was never annexed to Israel and that Israel officially announced in 2006 that it had "separated" itself from it?
13. Why has the Attorney General's office declared that the peace activists captured on the high seas, who had no intention whatsoever of entering Israel, had "tried to enter Israel illegally", and brought them before a judge for the extension of their arrest under the law that concerns "illegal entry into Israel"?
14. Who is responsible for these contradictory legal claims, when the Israeli government argues one minute that Israel has "separated itself from the Gaza Strip" and that the "occupation there has come to an end" - and the next minute claims sovereignty over the coastal waters of the Strip? ?@
Question concerning the decision to attack the flotilla:
15. When did the preparation for this flotilla become known to the Israeli intelligence services? (Evidence on this may be heard in camera.)
16. When was this brought to the attention of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense, the Cabinet, the Committee of Seven (in charge of security matters) and the IDF Chief of Staff? (ditto)
17. What were the deliberations of these officials and institutions? (ditto)
18. What intelligence was submitted to each of them? (ditto)
19. When, by whom and how was the decision taken to stop the flotilla by force?
20. Is it true that the secretary of the cabinet, Tzvi Hauser, warned of the severe consequences of such action and advised letting the flotilla sail to Gaza?
21. Were there others who also advised doing so?
22. Was the Foreign Ministry a full partner in all the discussions?
23. If so, did the Foreign Ministry warn of the impact of such an action on our relations with Turkey and other countries?
24. In light of the fact that, prior to the incident, the Turkish government informed the Israeli Foreign Ministry that the flotilla was organized by a private organization which is not under the control of the government and does not violate any Turkish law - did the Foreign Ministry consider approaching the organization in order to try to reach an agreement to avoid violence?
25. Was due consideration given to the alternative of stopping the flotilla in territorial waters, inspecting the cargo for arms and letting it sail on?
26. Was the impact of the action on international public opinion considered?
27. Was the impact of the action on our relations with the US considered?
28. Was it taken into consideration that the action may actually strengthen Hamas?
29. Was it taken into consideration that the action may make the continuation of the blockade more difficult??@
Questions concerning the planning of the action:
30. What intelligence was at the disposal of the planners? (Evidence may be heard in camera.)
31. Was it considered that the composition of the group of activists in this flotilla was different from that in earlier protest ships, because of the addition of the Turkish component?
32. Was it taken into consideration that contrary to the European peace activists, who believe in passive resistance, the Turkish activists may adopt a policy of active resistance to soldiers invading a Turkish ship?
33. Were alternative courses of action considered, such as blocking the progress of the flotilla with navy boats?
34. If so, what were the alternatives considered, and why were they rejected?
35. Who was responsible for the actual planning of the operation - the IDF Chief of Staff or the Commander of the Navy?
36. If it was the Navy Commander who decided on the method employed, was the decision approved by the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister?
37. How were the responsibilities for planning divided between these?
38. Why was the action undertaken outside of the territorial waters of Israel and the Gaza Strip?
39. Why was it executed in darkness?
40. Did anyone in the navy object to the idea of soldiers descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship "Mavi Marmara"?
41. During the deliberations, did anyone bring up the similarity between the planned operation and the British action against the ship "Exodus 1947", which ended in a political disaster for the British??@
Questions concerning the action itself:
42. Why was the flotilla cut off from any contact with the world throughout the operation, if there was nothing to hide?
43. Did anyone protest that the soldiers were actually being sent into a trap?
44. Was it taken into consideration that the plan adopted would place the soldiers for several critical minutes in a dangerously inferior position?
45. When exactly did the soldiers start to shoot live ammunition?
46. Which of the soldiers was the first to fire?
47. Was the shooting - all or part of it - justified?
48 Is it true that the soldiers started firing even before descending onto the deck, as asserted by the passengers?
49. Is it true that the fire continued even after the captain of the ship and the activists announced several times over loudspeakers that the ship had surrendered, and after they had actually hoisted white flags?
50. Is it true that five of the nine people killed were shot in the back, indicating that they were trying to get away from the soldiers and thus could not be endangering their lives?
51. Why was the killed man Ibrahim Bilgen, 61 years old and father of six and a candidate for mayor in his home town, described as a terrorist?
52. Why was the killed man Cetin Topcoglu, 54 years old, trainer of the Turkish national taekwondo (Korean martial arts) team, whose wife was also on the ship, described as a terrorist?
53. Why was the killed man Cevdet Kiliclar, a 38 year old journalist, described as a terrorist?
54. Why was the killed man Ali Haydar Bengi, father of four, graduate of the al-Azhar school for literature in Cairo, described as a terrorist?
55. Why were the killed men Necdet Yaldirim, 32 years old, father of a daughter; Fahri Yaldiz, 43 years old, father of four; Cengiz Songur, 47 years old, father of seven; and Cengiz Akyuz, 41 years old, father of three, described as terrorists?
56. Is it a lie that the activists took a pistol from a soldier and shot him with it, as described by the IDF, or is it true that the activists did in fact throw the pistol into the sea without using it?
57. Is it true, as stated by Jamal Elshayyal, a British subject, that the soldiers prevented treatment for the Turkish wounded for three hours, during which time several of them died?
58.. Is it true, as stated by this journalist, that he was handcuffed behind his back and forced to kneel for three hours in the blazing sun, that he was not allowed to go and urinate and told to "piss in his pants", that he remained handcuffed for 24 hours without water, that his British passport was taken from him and not returned; that his laptop computer, three cellular telephones and 1500 dollars in cash were taken from him and not returned?
59. Did the IDF cut off the passengers from the world for 48 hours and confiscate all the cameras, films and cell phones of the journalists on board in order to suppress any information that did not conform to the IDF story?
60. Is it a standing procedure to keep the Prime Minister (or his acting deputy, Moshe Yaalon in this case) in the picture during an operation, was this procedure implemented, and was it implemented in previous cases, such as the Entebbe operation or the boarding of the ship "Karin A"?
Questions concerning the behavior of the IDF Spokesman:
61. IS it true that the IDF Spokesman spread a series of fabrications during the first few hours, in order to justify the action in the eyes of both the Israeli and the international public?
62. Are the few minutes of film which have been shown hundreds of times on Israeli TV, from the first day on until now, a carefully edited clip, so that it is not seen what happened just before and just after?
63. What is the truth of the assertion that the soldiers who were taken by the activists into the interior of the ship were about to be "lynched", when the photos clearly show that they were surrounded for a considerable time by dozens of activists without being harmed, and that a doctor or medic from among the activists even treated them?
64. What evidence is there for the assertion that the Turkish NGO called IHH has connections with al-Qaeda?
65. On what grounds was it stated again and again that it was a "terrorist organization", though no evidence for this claim was offered?
66. Why was it asserted that the association was acting under the orders of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, when in fact it is close to an opposition party?
67. If it was in fact a terrorist organization known to the Israeli intelligence services, why was this not taken into account during the planning of the operation?
68. Why did the Israeli government not announce this before the attack on the flotilla?
69. Why were the words of one of the activists, who declared on his return that he wanted to be a "shahid", translated by official propaganda in a manifestly dishonest manner, as if he had said that he wanted "to kill and be killed" ("shahid" means a person who sacrifices his life in order to testify to his belief in God, much like a Christian martyr)?
70. What is the source of the lie that the Turks called out "Go back to Auschwitz"?
71. Why were the Israeli doctors not called to inform the public at once about the character of the wounds of the injured soldiers, after it was announced that at least one of them was shot?
72. Who invented the story that there were arms on the ship, and that they had been thrown into the sea?
73. Who invented the story that the activists had brought with them deadly weapons - when the exhibition organized by the IDF Spokesman himself showed nothing but tools found on any ship, including binoculars, a blood infusion instrument, knives and axes, as well as decorative Arab daggers and kitchen knives that are to be found on every ship, even one not equipped for 1000 passengers?
74. Do all these items - coupled with the endless repetition of the word "terrorists" and the blocking of any contrary information - not constitute brainwashing??@
Questions concerning the inquiry:
75. Why does the Israeli government refuse to take part in an international board of inquiry, composed of neutral personalities acceptable to them?
76. Why have the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense announced that they are ready to testify - but not to answer questions?
77. Where does the argument come from that soldiers must not be called to testify - when in all previous investigations senior officers, junior officers and enlisted men were indeed subjected to questioning?
78. Why does the government refuse to appoint a State Commission of Inquiry under the Israeli law that was enacted by the Knesset in 1966 for this very purpose, especially in view of the fact that such commissions were appointed after the Yom Kippur war, after the Sabra and Shatila massacre, after the podium of the al-Aqsa Mosque was set on fire by an insane Australian, as well as to investigate corruption in sport and the murder of the Zionist leader Chaim Arlosoroff (some fifty years after it occurred!)?
79. Does the government have something to fear from such a commission, whose members are appointed by the President of the Supreme Court, and which is empowered to summon witnesses and cross-examine them, demand the production of documents and determine the personal responsibility for mistakes and crimes?
80. Why was it decided in the end to appoint a pathetic committee, devoid of any legal powers, which will lack all credibility both in Israel and abroad??@
And, finally, the question of questions:
81. What is our political and military leadership trying to hide?
permlink: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1276348453
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Is it Dead Yet?
"There exists today widespread propaganda which asserts that socialism is dead. But if to be a socialist is to be a person convinced that the words 'the common good' and 'social justice' actually mean something; if to be a socialist is to be outraged at the contempt in which millions and millions of people are held by those in power, by 'market forces', by international financial institutions; if to be a socialist is to be a person determined to do everything in his or her power to alleviate these unforgivably degraded lives, then socialism can never be dead because these aspirations never die." - Harold Pinter
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
THE "RIGHT TO EXIST" CONUNDRUM: ONTOLOGICAL GEOPOLITICS IN (RE)ACTION
by PM&I correspondent Rick Congress
According to the Israeli government, its PR agency aka The New York Times, ardent Zionists, and holders of elective office standing in mortal fear of AIPAC, the trump argument is always "they don't recognize Israel's right to exist. You can't negotiate, have trade with, countenance, deal with...Them. Them, being the Palestinians, Hamas, Iran, all the Arabs, anti-Zionists, self-hating Jews...whoever is the target of the latest polemic.
Does "right to exist" have any standing under international law? Is a condition of enduring existedness the right of every state or government? The best answer to this question is another question.
"The right to exist? With what borders? To exist as a permanently expansionist state that also has to right to steal land from the Palestinians, who make up about half of the total population currently under the de facto jurisdiction of the ontologically needy state of Israel.
Don't the Palestinian people have a right to exist as a People? The national/Zionist ideology followed by Israel's government and also, it seems, by the majority of the Jews of Israel is based on negating the existence of the Palestinians. How about some existential reciprocity here?
In most states a citizen is a citizen, case closed. But in Israel citizenship doesn't have much standing. 20% of the citizens of Israel are Palestinians. They aren't Jews so they don't really count. Netanyahu el al harp on Israel as a Jewish state, for all the Jews of the world. When the Palestinians don't swear fealty to the state of all the Jews, who want to get rid of them, they are denying Israels "right to exist." they have to deny their right to exist because Israel's right to exist, according to the Zionist regime, depends on the Palestinians not existing.
Artists who refuse to perform in Israel until they stop stealing land from Palestinians and indiscriminately killing them, among other things, are "cultural terrorists" who pose an "existential threat" to Israel.
Did the Apartheid state of South Africa have a right to exist? Most of the world came around to the conclusion that it didn't. It was abolished and now there is a newly created state of South Africa.
Abraham Lincoln and the United States of America didn't concede a right to exist to the Confederate States of America. Was that wrong?
How about Czechoslovakia? Yugoslavia? both in a current state of not existing.
Then there's another aspect of this issue: REALITY.
DEEDS NOT WORDS
Hamas has stated publicly and several times that it doesn't recognize Israel as a legitimate" state. But it does see the obvious, that it does exist whether Hamas likes it or not.
Hamas has also said publicly many times that they would sign a 30 year truce with Israel and would go along with a two-state solution if the majority of Palestinians voted for it.
The much ignored fact is that Hamas and Israel observed a ceasefire for six months June to November of 2008 (no rockets fired and no Israeli air or ground attacks--which had been constant in the years before the Gaza Invasion of December 2008). The truce ended when the IDF staged a ground attack in November 2008 and killed six Gazans. Then rockets were fired and the all out massacre of Gaza by Israel began in December.
If Israel wanted peace and two states it would take Hamas up on its truce and two state offers. but no, first Hamas has to declare that Israel and all of the land of Greater Israel is the Jewish only state. Not only do they have to declare it they have to have it tatooed on their face and cut off their big toe. And if they agree to this, then Israel will think of new demands.
Israel just isn't happy unless it has an existential threat to keep their adrenaline pumping.
According to the Israeli government, its PR agency aka The New York Times, ardent Zionists, and holders of elective office standing in mortal fear of AIPAC, the trump argument is always "they don't recognize Israel's right to exist. You can't negotiate, have trade with, countenance, deal with...Them. Them, being the Palestinians, Hamas, Iran, all the Arabs, anti-Zionists, self-hating Jews...whoever is the target of the latest polemic.
Does "right to exist" have any standing under international law? Is a condition of enduring existedness the right of every state or government? The best answer to this question is another question.
"The right to exist? With what borders? To exist as a permanently expansionist state that also has to right to steal land from the Palestinians, who make up about half of the total population currently under the de facto jurisdiction of the ontologically needy state of Israel.
Don't the Palestinian people have a right to exist as a People? The national/Zionist ideology followed by Israel's government and also, it seems, by the majority of the Jews of Israel is based on negating the existence of the Palestinians. How about some existential reciprocity here?
In most states a citizen is a citizen, case closed. But in Israel citizenship doesn't have much standing. 20% of the citizens of Israel are Palestinians. They aren't Jews so they don't really count. Netanyahu el al harp on Israel as a Jewish state, for all the Jews of the world. When the Palestinians don't swear fealty to the state of all the Jews, who want to get rid of them, they are denying Israels "right to exist." they have to deny their right to exist because Israel's right to exist, according to the Zionist regime, depends on the Palestinians not existing.
Artists who refuse to perform in Israel until they stop stealing land from Palestinians and indiscriminately killing them, among other things, are "cultural terrorists" who pose an "existential threat" to Israel.
Did the Apartheid state of South Africa have a right to exist? Most of the world came around to the conclusion that it didn't. It was abolished and now there is a newly created state of South Africa.
Abraham Lincoln and the United States of America didn't concede a right to exist to the Confederate States of America. Was that wrong?
How about Czechoslovakia? Yugoslavia? both in a current state of not existing.
Then there's another aspect of this issue: REALITY.
DEEDS NOT WORDS
Hamas has stated publicly and several times that it doesn't recognize Israel as a legitimate" state. But it does see the obvious, that it does exist whether Hamas likes it or not.
Hamas has also said publicly many times that they would sign a 30 year truce with Israel and would go along with a two-state solution if the majority of Palestinians voted for it.
The much ignored fact is that Hamas and Israel observed a ceasefire for six months June to November of 2008 (no rockets fired and no Israeli air or ground attacks--which had been constant in the years before the Gaza Invasion of December 2008). The truce ended when the IDF staged a ground attack in November 2008 and killed six Gazans. Then rockets were fired and the all out massacre of Gaza by Israel began in December.
If Israel wanted peace and two states it would take Hamas up on its truce and two state offers. but no, first Hamas has to declare that Israel and all of the land of Greater Israel is the Jewish only state. Not only do they have to declare it they have to have it tatooed on their face and cut off their big toe. And if they agree to this, then Israel will think of new demands.
Israel just isn't happy unless it has an existential threat to keep their adrenaline pumping.
Yet More Evidence of Israel's "vibrant" democracy at work
Arab MP is Israel’s public enemy No1
Jonathan Cook, Foreign Correspondent
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100608/FOREIGN/706079796/1140
* Last Updated: June 07. 2010 11:27PM UAE / June 7. 2010 7:27PM GMT
*
Haneen Zoubi has become a national hate figure in Israel.
Jonathan cook . The National
Nazareth, Israel // An Israeli parliamentary committee recommended stripping an Arab MP of her privileges yesterday in a move to prepare the ground for putting her on trial for participating last week in the Gaza-bound aid flotilla attacked by Israeli commandos.
Haneen Zoubi, who has become a national hate figure since challenging Israel’s account of the confrontation, said yesterday she was facing “a witch-hunt”.
The interior minister, Eli Yishai, has submitted a request for her citizenship to be revoked, and a bill – labelled the “Zoubi Law” – is being considered that would allow a serving MP to be expelled for “inciting” against the state.
Ms Zoubi has been provided with a bodyguard after receiving a spate of death threats. A popular Facebook page in Hebrew is calling for her execution and an online petition for her expulsion from the parliament has attracted tens of thousands of supporters.
Last week, in unprecedented scenes as she tried to address parliament, Ms Zoubi was heckled into silence by Jewish legislators shouting out “terrorist” and “traitor”. Guards only narrowly prevented a far-right parliamentarian from attacking her.
Yesterday’s hearing of the parliament’s house committee was originally intended to consider revoking the immunity of six Arab MPs, including Ms Zoubi, who travelled to Libya in April. All the Arab MPs boycotted the meeting.
However, the committee chairman, Yariv Levin, of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party, switched the focus to Ms Zoubi’s involvement in the flotilla.
Legal advisers said the MP was still being investigated for attempting to enter a closed military area and violence against the commandos. After she disembarked from the Mavi Marmara in Ashdod last week, Ms Zoubi said she had been questioned by police about possessing a weapon.
The committee approved by a majority of 7-1 stripping her of parliamentary privileges that take away her diplomatic passport, reportedly to prevent her fleeing the country, and withdraw help with litigation fees. Parliament must approve the decision.
Mr Levin accused Ms Zoubi of betraying the country and said she must be put on trial. “What Zoubi did crossed the line and even in a democracy there must be red lines. Whoever sails to Hamas is a supporter of terror,” he said.
Ms Zoubi responded: “They conducted a kangaroo court against me. They have called on the public to harm me.”
An editorial in the liberal Haaretz newspaper warned yesterday that an atmosphere of “dangerous incitement” against Israel’s Palestinian minority was developing. Two other Arab members of parliament, Ahmed Tibi and Taleb al Sana, revealed that they too had received death threats.
In addition to the removal of Ms Zoubi’s privileges, she is also facing the revocation of her citizenship. The measure has been used only twice before in Israel’s history – both times against Palestinian citizens accused of terrorism.
Last week, Mr Yishai wrote to the attorney general asking for the go-ahead, saying Ms Zoubi had “headed a group of terrorists” and was “undoubtedly aware of the activists’ preparations for the attack against IDF troops.
Orna Kohn, a lawyer with Adalah, a legal centre for the country’s Palestinian minority, said Mr Yishai’s move was “uncharted legal territory” that could leave Ms Zoubi stateless, in violation of international law. “There is simply no precedent for revoking the citizenship of an MP,” she said.
After Ms Zoubi’s release last week, she said she had seen three passengers shot in the head by soldiers, and two more left to bleed to death. Ms Zoubi has called for an international investigation.
foreign.desk@thenational.ae
Jonathan Cook, Foreign Correspondent
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100608/FOREIGN/706079796/1140
* Last Updated: June 07. 2010 11:27PM UAE / June 7. 2010 7:27PM GMT
*
Haneen Zoubi has become a national hate figure in Israel.
Jonathan cook . The National
Nazareth, Israel // An Israeli parliamentary committee recommended stripping an Arab MP of her privileges yesterday in a move to prepare the ground for putting her on trial for participating last week in the Gaza-bound aid flotilla attacked by Israeli commandos.
Haneen Zoubi, who has become a national hate figure since challenging Israel’s account of the confrontation, said yesterday she was facing “a witch-hunt”.
The interior minister, Eli Yishai, has submitted a request for her citizenship to be revoked, and a bill – labelled the “Zoubi Law” – is being considered that would allow a serving MP to be expelled for “inciting” against the state.
Ms Zoubi has been provided with a bodyguard after receiving a spate of death threats. A popular Facebook page in Hebrew is calling for her execution and an online petition for her expulsion from the parliament has attracted tens of thousands of supporters.
Last week, in unprecedented scenes as she tried to address parliament, Ms Zoubi was heckled into silence by Jewish legislators shouting out “terrorist” and “traitor”. Guards only narrowly prevented a far-right parliamentarian from attacking her.
Yesterday’s hearing of the parliament’s house committee was originally intended to consider revoking the immunity of six Arab MPs, including Ms Zoubi, who travelled to Libya in April. All the Arab MPs boycotted the meeting.
However, the committee chairman, Yariv Levin, of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party, switched the focus to Ms Zoubi’s involvement in the flotilla.
Legal advisers said the MP was still being investigated for attempting to enter a closed military area and violence against the commandos. After she disembarked from the Mavi Marmara in Ashdod last week, Ms Zoubi said she had been questioned by police about possessing a weapon.
The committee approved by a majority of 7-1 stripping her of parliamentary privileges that take away her diplomatic passport, reportedly to prevent her fleeing the country, and withdraw help with litigation fees. Parliament must approve the decision.
Mr Levin accused Ms Zoubi of betraying the country and said she must be put on trial. “What Zoubi did crossed the line and even in a democracy there must be red lines. Whoever sails to Hamas is a supporter of terror,” he said.
Ms Zoubi responded: “They conducted a kangaroo court against me. They have called on the public to harm me.”
An editorial in the liberal Haaretz newspaper warned yesterday that an atmosphere of “dangerous incitement” against Israel’s Palestinian minority was developing. Two other Arab members of parliament, Ahmed Tibi and Taleb al Sana, revealed that they too had received death threats.
In addition to the removal of Ms Zoubi’s privileges, she is also facing the revocation of her citizenship. The measure has been used only twice before in Israel’s history – both times against Palestinian citizens accused of terrorism.
Last week, Mr Yishai wrote to the attorney general asking for the go-ahead, saying Ms Zoubi had “headed a group of terrorists” and was “undoubtedly aware of the activists’ preparations for the attack against IDF troops.
Orna Kohn, a lawyer with Adalah, a legal centre for the country’s Palestinian minority, said Mr Yishai’s move was “uncharted legal territory” that could leave Ms Zoubi stateless, in violation of international law. “There is simply no precedent for revoking the citizenship of an MP,” she said.
After Ms Zoubi’s release last week, she said she had seen three passengers shot in the head by soldiers, and two more left to bleed to death. Ms Zoubi has called for an international investigation.
foreign.desk@thenational.ae
Monday, June 7, 2010
THE HELEN THOMAS OUTBURST: "INDEFENSABLE?" NO, IT'S VERY DEFENSABLE!
"THEY SHOULD GET THE HELL OUT OF PALESTINE AND GO BACK TO WHERE THEY CAME FROM"
by Rick Congress
The remarks by Helen Thomas, who is Lebanese-American, while intemperate and tactless, ring true. They are not outrageous, but factually correct and morally correct. The Jewish Israelis (20% of Israeli citizens are Arab Palestinians, but they have, at best, a second class citizenship) ARE outside invaders from the Western world (USA, UK, Russia, Poland, etc). This colonialist population came with the mindset of arrogant Westerners to displace the "primitive" Arabs and create a European/American society in which they would be the bosses.
And they DID come from somewhere else. Over the last 2000 years the Jewish people and their culture has become rooted in European and American society. Israelis are IN the Mideast but are not and don't want to be OF the Mideast. The Zionist project began in Europe with Hertzl's idea of an exclusively Jewish state. The founders who went to Palestine 40 or 50 years before World War Two, like Ben Gurion and his colegues, came from Germany and Poland other parts of Europe.
What would happen to someone like Thomas who made a public statement deemed offensive to Arabs? or Palestinians? Yes, you are right. Nothing.
-------------------------------------------------(excerpted from Reuters)
Veteran White House journalist Helen Thomas, who has covered every U.S. president since John F. Kennedy, announced her retirement Monday.
The departure of Thomas, 89, as a Hearst Newspapers columnist was announced after she was captured on video saying Israelis should "get the hell out of Palestine" and suggesting they go "home" to Germany, Poland or the United States.
The comments drew widespread condemnation, including from the White House.
Thomas, long considered the dean of the White House press corps, apologized for her statements, recorded in an impromptu interview dated May 27 and posted on a website (excerpted from Reuters)
by Rick Congress
The remarks by Helen Thomas, who is Lebanese-American, while intemperate and tactless, ring true. They are not outrageous, but factually correct and morally correct. The Jewish Israelis (20% of Israeli citizens are Arab Palestinians, but they have, at best, a second class citizenship) ARE outside invaders from the Western world (USA, UK, Russia, Poland, etc). This colonialist population came with the mindset of arrogant Westerners to displace the "primitive" Arabs and create a European/American society in which they would be the bosses.
And they DID come from somewhere else. Over the last 2000 years the Jewish people and their culture has become rooted in European and American society. Israelis are IN the Mideast but are not and don't want to be OF the Mideast. The Zionist project began in Europe with Hertzl's idea of an exclusively Jewish state. The founders who went to Palestine 40 or 50 years before World War Two, like Ben Gurion and his colegues, came from Germany and Poland other parts of Europe.
What would happen to someone like Thomas who made a public statement deemed offensive to Arabs? or Palestinians? Yes, you are right. Nothing.
-------------------------------------------------(excerpted from Reuters)
Veteran White House journalist Helen Thomas, who has covered every U.S. president since John F. Kennedy, announced her retirement Monday.
The departure of Thomas, 89, as a Hearst Newspapers columnist was announced after she was captured on video saying Israelis should "get the hell out of Palestine" and suggesting they go "home" to Germany, Poland or the United States.
The comments drew widespread condemnation, including from the White House.
Thomas, long considered the dean of the White House press corps, apologized for her statements, recorded in an impromptu interview dated May 27 and posted on a website (excerpted from Reuters)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)