Few speak out for Palestinians in U.S. Congress
By Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON, Jan 9 (Reuters) -http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN09303848?sp=true
Many voices around the world speak up for the Palestinians, but few in the U.S. Congress.
Lawmakers in Washington routinely pass nonbinding resolutions supporting Israel during Middle East crises. The Senate on Thursday backed Israel's battle against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip and the House of Representatives followed on Friday....
The Senate measure offered 'unwavering commitment' to Israel. It recognized 'its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against acts of terrorism' and urged a ceasefire that would keep Hamas from firing rockets at Israel....
That closely tracked Republican President George W. Bush's comments on the crisis, said Ric Stoll, professor of political science at Rice University, who questioned whether it helped U.S. diplomats trying to broker a ceasefire.
'You don't have to say Hamas are nice folks,' Stoll said. '(But) how do you convince supporters of the Palestinians to pressure Hamas to go for a ceasefire, if your statements look like you are tilting heavily towards Israel?'
The House on Friday passed a resolution 'recognizing Israel's right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza' by 390-5. The measure noted that the humanitarian situation in Gaza 'is becoming more acute' but did not rebuke Israel...
The few opponents of... [Congress' pro-Israel resolutions] often include lawmakers of Arab-American descent or from Arab-American communities, and mavericks such as Democrat Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Republican Ron Paul of Texas.
Kucinich, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination last year, charged that the United States was ignoring the current humanitarian crisis in Gaza while facilitating Israel's actions with arms deals worth billions.
Washington 'sniffs at the slaughter of innocents in Gaza,' he said. 'U.S. tax dollars, U.S. jets and U.S. helicopters provided to Israel are enabling the slaughter in Gaza.'
James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, said the Israeli lobby is often seen as the force behind pro-Israel votes, but he thinks it is not that simple.
Some Americans 'don't have a clue' about the Palestinians' history, he said.
It would more accurate to say that what most Americans know about the Palestinian's and Israel's history is largely not true, while those in other nations are much more knowledgeable.
Wallace Shawn's thoughtful commentary in The Nation, "Israel in Gaza: Irrationality," points out that Congress' "pro-Israel" statements are harmful to Israel.
He writes, " As poor and oppressed people around the world are very well aware of the events in the occupied territories, and as they strongly identify with the Palestinian struggle and point of view, the future of the Jews looks increasingly dim.
Consequently it is disgraceful and vile and no favor to the Jews for American politicians--for narrow, short-term political advantage, for narrow, short-term global-strategic reasons and, yes, also in expiation of the residual guilt they feel over what happened to the Jews in the past--to pander to the irrationality of the most irrational Jews."
In his essay he offers insight into the nature of the conflict in Palestine:
"It is not rational to believe that the Palestinians in the occupied territories will be terrorized by force and violence, by cruelty, by starvation or by slaughter into a docile acceptance of the Israeli occupation. There is no evidence that that could possibly happen and mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Many right-wing Israelis and American Jews clearly believe that Jews have always had enemies and always will have enemies--and who can be shocked that certain Jews might think that? To these individuals, a Palestinian throwing stones at an Israeli soldier, even if his life has perhaps been destroyed by the Israeli occupation, is simply part of an eternal mob of anti-Semites, a mob made up principally of people to whom the Jews have done no harm at all, as they did no harm to Hitler. The logical consequence of this view of the world is that in the face of such massive and eternal opposition, Jews are morally justified in taking any measures they can think of to protect themselves. They are involved in one long eternal war, and a few hundred Palestinians killed today must be measured against many millions of Jews who were killed in the past. The agony the Israelis might inflict on a Palestinian family today must be seen in the perspective of Jewish families in agony all over the world in the past.
It is irrational for the Israeli leaders to imagine that the Palestinians will understand this particular point of view--will understand why Jews might find it appropriate, let us say, to retaliate for the death of one Jew by killing a hundred Palestinians. If a Palestinian killed a hundred Jews to retaliate for the killing of one Palestinian--for that matter, if a Thai killed a hundred Cambodians to retaliate for the killing of one Thai--which, from the point of view of the Israeli leaders, would of course be unjust, that would be racist, as if one Palestinian or one Thai were worth a hundred Israelis or a hundred Cambodians. But if a Jew does it, it's not unjust and it's not racist, because it's part of an eternal struggle in which the Jews have lost and lost and lost--they've already lost more people than there are Palestinians. Well, it's not surprising that certain Jews would feel this way, but no Palestinian will ever share that feeling or be willing to accept it. What the Palestinians see is an implacable and heartless enemy, one that considers itself un-bound by any rules or principles, an enemy that can't be reasoned with but can only be feared, hated and, if possible, killed."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090112/shawn/print
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 24
I don't think so. I think we would respond massively with overwhelming military force and kill a lot of innocent civilians along with some of the bad guys. Wars always do that, especially when the bad guys hide in residential neighborhoods behind the skirts of their women.
Now if Mexico DID attack us like that, it would not be a threat to our sovereignty, to the existence of our nation. But Israelis are surrounded by enemies who have sworn to obliterate their nation.
And you want them to be tolerant and patient.
It is easy to say when you are not in their shoes.
...It's the oldest trick in the book: if they look and sound like us, we are more likely to be sympathetic towards them. Anyone putting an alternative view is immediately cast as anti-Semitic. Our media glibly accept the excuses of the Israeli public relations machine and ignore the horrific realities of Israel's barbaric behaviour in Gaza.
...When the Israeli attacks began, right on cue Western leaders regretted the killing of children but in the same breath condemned Palestinians for firing rockets from their walled ghetto into Israel.
While French President Nicolas Sarkozy called for an immediate ceasefire by both sides, US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called only for Hamas to halt rockets fired from Gaza. They did not call for Israel to halt its bombing.
There was a lot of handwringing by world leaders but no tough talk when it came to the bombing of the Islamic University of Gaza or the killing of 40 civilians in a United Nations school. We saw the same during the 2006 Israeli war against Lebanon.
It all reminds me of an old story from the days of the Roman Empire. The Emperor Nero was upset that his prized lions were being distressed by Christians who ran away from them in the Colosseum. Nero ordered that at the next circus a Christian was to be buried up to his neck in the sand to make things easier for the lions. When the lions entered the ring, the biggest and meanest saw the hapless condemned, swaggered over and stood astride the Christian's head, roaring for approval from the crowd. At that moment, the Christian craned his neck and bit off the lion's testicles. The crowd was shocked. "Fight fair! Fight fair!" they yelled.
It seems that no matter what injustice Palestinians have suffered in the past 60 years, they should be grateful for the privilege of being able to live under the jackboot of Israeli occupation.
For three years since daring to democratically elect a government not favoured by Israel or the US, the people of Gaza have been subjected to a starvation blockade. Yet the civilised world has barely raised a note of concern. Is this the standard by which we judge the behaviour of nations? We talk about Darfur and Zimbabwe but say little of the gross abuse of human rights that occurs daily in the illegally occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/getting-away-with-murder/2009/01/10/1231004352831.html?page=fullpage
"An 11-year-old girl, Jihan Dadush, told B'Tselem that soldiers took her from her home three days later, on February 28, forcing her to open the door of a neighboring apartment and enter ahead of them. The soldiers then took her home, she said.
In her testimony to B'Tselem, Jihan said that after the soldiers left, "I was shaking with fear. I was afraid they would kill me or put me in jail. The only thing I wanted to do was sleep. I am afraid that the soldiers will come back and take me".
B'Tselem said that it was clear from the testimonies that the soldiers believed the houses presented a risk and that they were therefore knowingly placing the Palestinians in danger.
Sarit Michaeli, a spokeswoman for B'Tselem said that the group had written to the judge advocate-general to demand a thorough investigation of the use of human shields. "The use of civilians especially a 11-year-old is very problematic and we want the army to investigate it properly using military police rather than an internal inquiry mechanism."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/mar/09/israel
"During mass arrest raids in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the IDF has in the past used Palestinian civilians as a ploy in capturing wanted militants, by forcing civilians to approach the homes and hideouts of wanted people. In some of these cases, the civilians were caught in the crossfire and were wounded or killed.
Chief Justice Aharon Barak, ruling in response to petitions from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and the Adalah human rights organization, said the practice violates international law.
"You cannot exploit the civilian population for the army's military needs, and you cannot force them to collaborate with the army," Barak said. "Based on this principle, we rule it illegal to use civilians as human shields, and we also rule it illegal to use civilians to pass military warnings from the army to those the army wants to arrest."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=632440
According to Sara Roy, a Harvard University Middle East expert (see the January 2009 London Review of Books), the Israelis actually began the campaign to destroy Hamas on November 4- 5 (only hours after US election results indicated a change of administration was coming in the US). To begin its attacks, the Israelis broke the truce that Hamas had observed for the past several months. Following that attack Israel has squeezed Gaza in virtually every possible way, blocking food supplies for United Nations Relief and Works and the World Food Program, refusing to permit entry of diesel fuel needed to run Gaza's power station, interfering with the operations of Palestinian banks, blocking the movements of Palestinians, and preventing the entry of journalists or other observers into Gaza. There is no other example of a modern military power attacking an unarmed population this brutally and indiscriminately.
As Sara Roy and other observers describe it, the Israeli plan is to turn Gaza into a massive humanitarian problem that is devoid of any political dimension. That means the Israelis want the outside world to forget that the Palestinian people, especially those in Gaza, are the other side of the long-stalled Israel/Palestine peace process. Rather, with the Sederot rocket attacks as the excuse, the Israelis want the outside world to believe that the entire problem is the fault of the Palestinians.
There are other documented articles showing Israel planned this attack since June - even the NYTimes published one by Khalidi on Jan 8 - and got their propaganda program office going to blame Hamas.
Israel's invasion of Gaza is typical of Israel's employing "strategic escalation" since it became a state in 1948 to manufacture a major crisis, if not a war. Moshe Sharett, Israelis first Foreign Minister and successor to Ben Gurion as Prime Minisiter describes this "perpetual war" policy in order to expand Israel in detail.
From June 19 to November 4, due to Hamas compliance and only sporadically violated by a small number of rockets were fired from Gaza , largely in defiance of Hamas. The Israeli-based Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center's analysis of rocket and missile attacks in 2008, determined there were only three rockets fired at Israel in July, September, and October combined. Israeli civilians living near Gaza experienced an almost unprecedented degree of security during this period, with no Israeli casualties. From June until the "ending of the "cease-fire" there were no more than 20 rockets - perhaps Israel had a hand in that?
Israel continually raided the West Bank, arresting and frequently killing "wanted" Palestinians from June to October, which had the inevitable effect of ratcheting up pressure on Hamas to respond. The expectation of Hamas going into the ceasefire was that Israel would lift the siege on Gaza. Israel did not move to ease the siege, which kept the people at a bare survival level. This policy was intended to discredit Hamas and Palestinian support for the ceasefire.
Rhetoric aside, Hamas ' democraticaly elected representatives are on record as agreeing - in concert with President Abbas - to recognize Israel if a Palestinian state was created. Israel refused to talk.
Who has been doing things like the 1972 murder of the Israel Olympics team for decades? You cannot deny that. All the rest of it when you try to talk about it rationally with facts your get a deadlock and it ends up just appealing to people's prejudices, or what looks the worst on TV.
Shoving dead babies in your face, and preventing conversation while denying the other side's right to exist, and shooting rockets at them surrounded by civilians until they react just benefits one side only.
I would be ashamed to be such a dupe as to be manipulated like that.
Maybe that policy might compare favorably with the "perpetual jihad" policy that goes on forever at the expense of civilians on both sides and of countries that do not even have anything to do with this conflict.
> entire problem is the fault of the Palestinians.
I don't think this is true either ... you can find plenty of self-
critical or self-doubting Israelis .... alive and well.
Where are the self-critical or self-doubting Palestinians?
Gone or dead I think, killed by a power structure that will
not consider real democracy or compromise.
Are you a seeking to be the poster child for today's "irrationality" ? Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace.
What seems irrational to me is to use quirky statements like this of yours - "Hamas ' democraticaly elected representatives are on record as agreeing - in concert with President Abbas - to recognize Israel if a Palestinian state was created. Israel refused to talk." compared to the official stance and covenant of Hamas and against its actions.
You say one thing, different facts say another, how would any honest observer know what to think? Just trust in Hamas is what you seem to be saying. Trust that Hamas is dealing in goodwill. Why doesn't Hamas compromise and take real steps to finish this crap? The real obvious answer is that they are living up to what they themselves claim about themselves, that their goal is to destroy Israel.
I don't see anything at all about erring on the safe side when faced with mixed messages? Why do you?
Hamas offer to negotiate (along with Abbas) with Israel is a matter of record . It is a formula for negotiation, the "peace process." If the Palestinians and Israel agree on a Palestinian state , Hamas accepts Israel. What is unclear? Most of the terms Israel and the Palestinians already have agreed on (as at Tabas), and there are small issues left to settle. The majority of Irsaelis and Palestinians already favor such a settlement.
The Hamas declaration or "Charter" that doesn't recognize Israel obviously would be history and no longer relevant. The existence of a Palestinian state would bring recognition of Israel. A state of war and resistance would end as would the declaration.
Israel is already in violation of its UN Charter as a state, and still does not have a Constitution.
I asked, "Are these people nuts? Don't they know that satellites pick
up launch positions instantly?"
The answer was, "Yeah, they know. The Hamas fire the rockets and
run like hell, leaving the hapless civilians in the area to take the
incoming."
Conclusion: If your complaint is that America's elected officials
leave the public holding the bag, how would you feel if you
were a g.d. Palestinian?
"The notion does not lose currency, even as the death toll climbs. By yesterday, the war in Gaza had left at least 905 Palestinians dead, a little less than half of whom were civilians.
Still, in the view of Israeli leaders, diplomats and spokesmen, Hamas is to blame for the carnage, even though the bodies of the civilians may be pocked with wounds meted out by Israeli bombs, artillery and bullets. The slain non-combatants, they say repeatedly, have been used by Hamas as “human shields”.
Under international humanitarian law, the definition of a “human shield” is quite specific: parties to a conflict are prohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or military operations from attack.
A recent study by the International Committee for the Red Cross, the widely recognised arbiter over questions related to the laws of war and war crimes, said the use of human shields generally involves cases “where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attack,” with the individuals often held against their will.
As in previous wars, Israel has used the term “human shield” more loosely during its current operation in the Gaza Strip, which today enters its 18th day.
In the deaths of at least 39 Palestinians at the UN’s Al Fakhoura school last week, it was a default position, apparently designed to blunt criticism that its forces were acting too cavalierly towards civilians in Gaza. Justifying Israel’s attack on the school, Israeli officials at first claimed that their fighters were responding to mortar fire from that location.
Then the spokesman for the UN relief agency in Gaza, Christopher Gunness, said the organisation was “99.9 per cent certain” that there had been no militants or militant activity within the school compound. The agency also said that all its schools and other facilities were clearly marked and that their locations had been provided to the Israel Defense Forces.
Mark Regev, the chief spokesman for Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, replied that Hamas was responsible for the deaths because it had used the civilians as “human shields” to try to make their own positions immune from attack. Mr Regev offered no evidence that Hamas fighters had forced Gazan civilians at gunpoint to provide cover for their attacks or protection from retaliation.
While actual proof that Hamas is using human shields appears to be lacking in this incident and others, the repeated accusation by Israel helps buy time and dilutes international pressure for a ceasefire."
More at: http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090113/FOREIGN/591536290/1140
"A recent study by the International Committee for the Red Cross, the widely recognised arbiter over questions related to the laws of war and war crimes, said the use of human shields generally involves cases “where persons were actually taken to military objectives in order to shield those objectives from attack,” with the individuals often held against their will."
I would have to ask, then, what does the Red Cross say about setting up launch sites in civilian neighborhoods?
"...the High Court of Justice ruled that it was illegal for the IDF to use Palestinian civilians during military actions. The decision was made on a petition that B'Tselem and six other human rights organizations filed in 2002. The petition followed the IDF's use of Palestinian civilians as human shields since the beginning of the second intifada, primarily during IDF operations carried out in Palestinian population centers, as occurred in Operation Defensive Shield.
Soldiers used to pick civilians at random and force the civilians to protect them by doing dangerous tasks. For example, soldiers have ordered Palestinians to:
The method is the same each time: soldiers pick a civilian at random and force him to protect them by doing dangerous tasks that put his life at risk. For example, soldiers have ordered Palestinians to:
enter buildings to check if they are booby-trapped, or to remove the occupants
remove suspicious objects from roads used by the army
stand inside houses where soldiers have set up military positions, so that Palestinians will not fire at the soldiers
walk in front of soldiers to shield them from gunfire, while the soldiers hold a gun behind their backs and sometimes fire over their shoulders.
The soldiers in the field did not initiate this practice; rather, the order to use civilians as a means of protection was made by senior army officials.
Despite the High Court’s decision and army orders preceding and following it, security forces continue to use Palestinians as human shields. In 2007, for example, B'Tselem documented twelve such cases.
The IDF must act in accordance with the High Court’s ruling, issue clear commands and briefings, and direct the commanders to transmit to their forces the absolute prohibition on use of Palestinians to carry out military assignments. Also, the Judge Advocate General’s Office must open a Military Police investigation into every case of suspected violation of the prohibition, and prosecute every soldier, including the senior command echelon, if the findings of the investigation warrant it."
http://www.btselem.org/english/Human_Shields/
"The Israel Defense Forces is still using Palestinians as human shields, in defiance of a High Court of Justice ruling forbiding the practice, Haaretz has learned."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=620507
Savo, all of these kind of problems are always solved when they are solved with reconciliation. Not neverending recriminations.
Clarke, I just cannot picture you talking about the sincerity of Hamas' peace efforts with a straight face. I feel like the few that are left spewing hate at Israel and deifying the Palestinians are so desperate now that just like McCain before the last election you are making the most absurd distortions and claims and as loud as possible. It is the thing that leads me to think there will be peace most of all.
This has got to end, the world is damn sick of it.
Good posts Edward ... don't confuse Felix with the facts.
Who knows, but I bet the Palestinians would be willing to recognize Israel and live in peace, but if they say that they will be killed by either Fatah or Hamas ... some country.
The Israeli and Palestinian negotiators reached an agreement at Tabas but the political leaders on both sides failed to pursue it. The Geneva initiative by Israelis and Palestinians, based on that agreement had mutual support but was rejected by Sharon. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=354881&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y
Hamas is strengthened by Israel's policy and Abbas weakened, although Gaza is only 6% of a possible Palestinian state.
censorship
indiscriminate bombing
the use of illegal phosphorous
duplicity and deceit
genocide
Genocide
GENOCIDE
The most repulsive thing they have said so far is that they have APOLOGISED to, not the Palestinian people but to Ban Ki Moon and the UN! That sickens me to the core. It demonstrates unequivocally 2 things:
1) That their current campaign IS genocide. They do not apologise for the murder of innocent men, women and children, but they do apologise to the Secretary General of the UN, to save face. If he were a worthy leader, Ban Ki Moon would have rejected their apology and demanded these murderers apologise to the dead innocents, maimed, and their families.
2) That not one word these liars utter can be taken at face value.
I have never been so incensed or disgusted by anyone or anything as I am by the fascism of this excuse for a state. It is beyond words and they are beyond redemption.
If they believe their actions are in the name of a shared God, then I would not want to be associated with any God that condones the actions of these murderers.
The Hebrew People, who cling to Yahweh for their very survival, and have for thousands of years, are His chosen people; and though they have made mistakes, like even Christians and the New Testament Church (Catholics and other Christians) have, they are the very Apple of His eye, and He has planned to bless them and to bless the earth through them.
Another Zionist Christian for Israel,
Father St. John of the Cross
P.S. My Rabbi is Jewish!
When and How the Jewish people was Invented
http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=16285&pst=1333138
Israeli journalist Tom Segev summarized, in a review of the Dr Zand's book in Ha'aretz:
"There never was a Jewish people, only a Jewish religion, and the exile also never happened -- hence there was no return. Zand rejects most of the stories of national-identity formation in the Bible, including the exodus from Egypt and, most satisfactorily, the horrors of the conquest under Joshua"