Most people don’t know much about Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for President, thanks to a corporate-captured media as a propaganda tool of our corporate-captured government.
Interestingly, Jill Stein is the first Jewish American contender for the U.S. Presidency.
Also, interestingly, Jill Stein insists that the United States is complicit “in the ongoing systematic violation of human rights by the Israeli government.”
Stein maintains that she and the Green Party reflect the views of a growing number of American and Israeli Jews who demand that Israel honor international law and promote peace. She maintains Netanyahu’s “war hungry” policy toward the Palestinians and the Iranians is not shared by the majority of Jewish people.
Dr. Stein:
“Bibi is a threat not only to human rights and to U.S. interests, but also to the security and sanctity of the Jewish people living in Israel-Palestine.”
According to her website, Jill Stein’s Green Party of the United States:
“...urges support for “popular movements for peace and demilitarization in Israel-Palestine, especially those that reach across the lines of conflict to engage both Palestinians and Israelis of good will.” The platform specifically recognizes the rights of self-determination of all peoples in Israel-Palestine, the legal right of return for refugees from the conflict, the suspension of U.S. aid to Israel, the use of boycott and divestment as non-violent means to pressure corporations and the Israeli government to end human rights abuses, and the creation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, “whose inaugurating action would be mutual acknowledgement by Israelis and Palestinians that they have the same basic rights, including the right to exist in the same, secure place.”
Stein has praised the Israeli political party Meretz in calling for a return to 1967 borders, including a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, and for supporting the 2002 Arab Peace Proposal.
Stein is not afraid to talk tough about travesties being perpetrated by Israel that are politically and materially supported by the US. She sees the US as ENABLING the “worst tendencies of the Israeli government.” She cites these toxic policies: occupation, apartheid, assassination, illegal settlements, building of nuclear bombs, indefinite detention, collective punishment, and defiance of international law.”
Stein challenges that the US government, instead of aligning with the courageous voices advocating peace, REWARDS an Israel that consistently ABUSES the human rights of Palestinians.
Declares Dr. Stein:
“There is no peace or justice or democracy at the end of such a path. We must reset U.S. policy regarding Israel and Palestine, as part of a broader revision of U.S. policy towards the Middle East.”
In May of this year Dr. Stein issued some serious and inspiring statements about bringing peace to the Middle East:
“... as President I will put the full weight of the United States behind the establishment of a Palestine and Israel Truth and Reconciliation Commission as the vehicle for shifting from an era of human rights violations to one based on trust and bringing all parties together to seek solutions. Any stakeholder who enters into this process must pledge to work for a solution that respects the rights of all involved. This will bring America’s Middle East policy into alignment with American values. I understand that in the end, a dedicated commitment to justice will further American interests in the region much better than the current policies of supporting abuses and violence by one side against the other. And I believe that this is in the best interests of all people living in Israel and Palestine.”
Jill Stein is taking on international cronyism and its “us” vs. “them” “ends justifies the means” defiance of international and moral law. She insists those who “talk the talk” of peace and justice seriously walk the walk, which the leaders of the US and Israel are so not doing.
She calls out how exercising crony “double standards” with a reckless militarism reveals the hypocrisy of the present and the last US administrations. She calls out the hollow righteous posturing of the US “deciders” on international law and humanitarian intervention when monstrous inconsistent realpolitik actions defy such a holier than thou stance.
Dr. Stein is about substance and long-term positive goals, not rhetorical, jingoistic sound bites. Stein asserts some of her foreign policy intentions as president:
"Consistency in U.S. policy regarding human rights and international law will begin, but not end, with Palestine and Israel. I will apply this same approach to other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Yemen, among others. I will also ensure that the United States begins to honor its obligations to protect human rights, and will expect that the world community will hold us to the same account we hold others.
snip
"On taking office, I will put all parties on notice – including the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority, and the Hamas administration in Gaza – that future U.S. support will depend on respect for human rights and compliance with international law. All three administrations will also be held responsible for preventing attacks by non-state actors on civilians or military personnel of any nationality. The parties will be given 60 days to each demonstrate unilateral material progress towards these ends.
"Material progress will be understood to include but not be limited to an end to the discriminatory apartheid policies within the state of Israel, the removal of the Separation Wall, a ban on assassination, movement toward denuclearization, the release of all political prisoners and journalists from Israeli and Palestinian prisons, disarmament of non-state militias, and recognition of the right of self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians.
"Failure by any party to demonstrate sufficient material progress will result in the end of U.S. military and economic aid to that party. Should the end of U.S. aid fail to cause a party to redirect its policies and to take steps resulting in sufficient material progress within an additional 60 days, I will direct my State Department to initiate diplomacy intended to isolate and pressure the offending party, including the use of economic sanctions and targeted boycott. In this way, U.S. policy will begin to become consistent with its practices regarding other violators of human rights and international law in the region."
Sounds like a doable as well as an honorable plan. Sounds like international "tough love" from a statesperson with a moral compass not a gamesperson with "human rights and welfare off the table."
A President Stein would have a spine!
[cross-posted on correntewire and sacramento for democracy]
------------
There are parts of her stand I agree with and parts I don't.
She's at least talking about applying standards to all parties. That's better than I see on a lot of OS.
I agree with her about Bibi.
I agree with her about 1967 borders (unless another agreement is reached with some sort of compensation) and about East Jerusalem. I've said both elsewhere, multiple times.
The right of return won't happen. Possibly compensation, but the most important thing Israel will want to maintain is demographics that allow it to remain as the only place in the world with a Jewish majority.
Israel has civil rights problems but within its national borders it does not have apartheid. Apartheid would entail things like no votes or limited voting, prohibitions against entering certain businesses, possibly legislation against intermarrying, full separation in education, differences in status on public transportation ("back of the bus"), strong prohibitions on where individual citizens could find housing, etc. Israel is not a country with separate water fountains. The current Israeli administration is guilty of enough without making things up or exaggerating them.
That fence saved an awful lot of lives. Terrorism has dropped to a great extent since it was built. The Israelis will not sacrifice civilians to murder in order to look egalitarian. I don't like the fence either but the fence is not analogous to voter ID laws in the US because the problem it has addressed was very, very real and the difference is way too quantifiable. When the problem reduces, the fence will come down.
When terrorism ends, assassination will end. If the Palestinians really changed tactics, the Israelis would have to. The Israelis will do almost anything if they honestly believe their survival is at stake and, given who we're dealing with, they'll believe that at the drop of a hat, and they won't be kidding.
I don't recall any instance of Israel's threatening another nation with nukes. Israel doesn't even acknowledge their existence. Short of a really serious threat to Israel's existence/survival, those nukes will never be part of the equation. They've probably had them for over 40 years and their existence has never been part of Israel's foreign policy, no matter what party was in power. There's a huge difference between the Israelis and Iranians in that respect: The Iranians continually talk about the elimination of Israel's government, and the Iranians have backed up such rhetoric with supplying weapons and training to Hezbollah, who have killed lots of Israelis, the last time in a conflict that the Israelis had zero role in provoking, having not crossed the Lebanese border in six years prior to that conflict.
The key to all of this is what she says: Whatever the US does has to be uniformly applied. That I would stand up and applaud. My greatest objection, stated in numerous posts (including one case where I threw up my hands in disgust and tried to make this point in Pidgin because English clearly wasn't working) is the lack of uniformity in complaining or outrage.
She also has to be serious about uniformly applying human rights standards. I'm afraid Israel's performance is better than those that surround it. In one online report I read from a human rights organization, on certain parameters the Israelis occupying the West Bank and Gaza were better about human rights than the governments in those places were to their own people. That's not acceptable.
I'm not quite where she is. I'm not far off in a lot of parameters, though.
She's at least talking about applying standards to all parties. That's better than I see on a lot of OS.
I agree with her about Bibi.
I agree with her about 1967 borders (unless another agreement is reached with some sort of compensation) and about East Jerusalem. I've said both elsewhere, multiple times.
The right of return won't happen. Possibly compensation, but the most important thing Israel will want to maintain is demographics that allow it to remain as the only place in the world with a Jewish majority.
Israel has civil rights problems but within its national borders it does not have apartheid. Apartheid would entail things like no votes or limited voting, prohibitions against entering certain businesses, possibly legislation against intermarrying, full separation in education, differences in status on public transportation ("back of the bus"), strong prohibitions on where individual citizens could find housing, etc. Israel is not a country with separate water fountains. The current Israeli administration is guilty of enough without making things up or exaggerating them.
That fence saved an awful lot of lives. Terrorism has dropped to a great extent since it was built. The Israelis will not sacrifice civilians to murder in order to look egalitarian. I don't like the fence either but the fence is not analogous to voter ID laws in the US because the problem it has addressed was very, very real and the difference is way too quantifiable. When the problem reduces, the fence will come down.
When terrorism ends, assassination will end. If the Palestinians really changed tactics, the Israelis would have to. The Israelis will do almost anything if they honestly believe their survival is at stake and, given who we're dealing with, they'll believe that at the drop of a hat, and they won't be kidding.
I don't recall any instance of Israel's threatening another nation with nukes. Israel doesn't even acknowledge their existence. Short of a really serious threat to Israel's existence/survival, those nukes will never be part of the equation. They've probably had them for over 40 years and their existence has never been part of Israel's foreign policy, no matter what party was in power. There's a huge difference between the Israelis and Iranians in that respect: The Iranians continually talk about the elimination of Israel's government, and the Iranians have backed up such rhetoric with supplying weapons and training to Hezbollah, who have killed lots of Israelis, the last time in a conflict that the Israelis had zero role in provoking, having not crossed the Lebanese border in six years prior to that conflict.
The key to all of this is what she says: Whatever the US does has to be uniformly applied. That I would stand up and applaud. My greatest objection, stated in numerous posts (including one case where I threw up my hands in disgust and tried to make this point in Pidgin because English clearly wasn't working) is the lack of uniformity in complaining or outrage.
She also has to be serious about uniformly applying human rights standards. I'm afraid Israel's performance is better than those that surround it. In one online report I read from a human rights organization, on certain parameters the Israelis occupying the West Bank and Gaza were better about human rights than the governments in those places were to their own people. That's not acceptable.
I'm not quite where she is. I'm not far off in a lot of parameters, though.
Before commenting on the post, and this is not a contradiction of ANYTHING in Kosh's comment, it should be noted that avigdor lieberman HAS referred to arab-israelis as a fifth column and in 2009 proposed that their vote should be subject to a loyalty test.
Furthermore, although israel does not have segregated water fountains, it should never be forgotten that they control the flow of water into the occupied territories and have used this control, punitively, as mass punishment on more than one occasion.
This is a violation of the Geneva Conventions of which israel is a signatory.
"But its government argues that the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place.
Israel has over the years often chosen to use the term administered territories to refer to Gaza and the West Bank. It has annexed the Golan and East Jerusalem.
Israel therefore denies the formal, de jure, applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention in the occupied territories."
The article also notes that:
"The position that the 4th Geneva Convention does apply to the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights is supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, UN bodies, and the International Court of Justice."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1682640.stm
As You well know, I am an ardent supporter of Jill Stein, and never paid attention to the fact that she was jewish. It never crossed my mind, although it should have been self evident to me.
The fact that she holds positions You present in this piece (many of which I was unaware of, heretofore), only enhances my esteem for her. The courage to forego the huge monetary support of the "amen lobby" is something that few candidates have ever dared do.
-R-
Furthermore, although israel does not have segregated water fountains, it should never be forgotten that they control the flow of water into the occupied territories and have used this control, punitively, as mass punishment on more than one occasion.
This is a violation of the Geneva Conventions of which israel is a signatory.
"But its government argues that the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place.
Israel has over the years often chosen to use the term administered territories to refer to Gaza and the West Bank. It has annexed the Golan and East Jerusalem.
Israel therefore denies the formal, de jure, applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention in the occupied territories."
The article also notes that:
"The position that the 4th Geneva Convention does apply to the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights is supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, UN bodies, and the International Court of Justice."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1682640.stm
As You well know, I am an ardent supporter of Jill Stein, and never paid attention to the fact that she was jewish. It never crossed my mind, although it should have been self evident to me.
The fact that she holds positions You present in this piece (many of which I was unaware of, heretofore), only enhances my esteem for her. The courage to forego the huge monetary support of the "amen lobby" is something that few candidates have ever dared do.
-R-
If we had a true democracy in America like they do in Venezuela, a candidate who speaks the truth like Jill Stein might have a chance.
Very elegant post about a well thought out policy that demands respect for human rights by both the Israelis and Palestinians. In 1968 there were pundits in the Nixon administration that thought Israeli was an essential ally in protecting US oil interests against a pan-Arab cartel. There seem to be Chinese whispers coming out of Washington that the US-Israeli alliance has outlived its usefulness. The Saudis are much more useful allies because they actually have oil, and Bibi is more and more a pain in the ass. The Obama State Department knows a war with Iran will wipe Israel off the map. The Iranians can't hurt the US, but they can bomb Israel back to the Stone Age. Obama may be prepared to let this happen.
As for the right of return: I disagree with koshersalami. The two state solution is dead because Israel has illegally seized too much territory to make a Palestinian state viable. The only possible solution at this point is a one state solution. Even if Palestinian refugees don't return, Israel has already shot themselves in the foot in terms of demographics. If they absorb the West Bank and Gaza into Israel, they will have a non-Jewish majority. The numbers speak for themselves.
As for the right of return: I disagree with koshersalami. The two state solution is dead because Israel has illegally seized too much territory to make a Palestinian state viable. The only possible solution at this point is a one state solution. Even if Palestinian refugees don't return, Israel has already shot themselves in the foot in terms of demographics. If they absorb the West Bank and Gaza into Israel, they will have a non-Jewish majority. The numbers speak for themselves.
toritto -- absolutely the Green Party focuses on this long-time Palestinian crisis. I think that brave and controversial position, in the US controversial, anyway (but becoming less so as time and some reality leaks through a crony media) makes some people back away from embracing the Green Party! Thanks for commenting! best, libby
kosher, thanks for visiting!
I am heartened to hear you agree with many of Stein's ideas! Especially about Bibi. And about the 1967 borders and about East Jerusalem.
I see apartheid as being the ghetto-izaton of the Gazan and West Bank Palestinians. Especially given the situations and restrictions and oppression in Gaza. That is the "apartheid" context.
Sadly the Israeli government seems as reckless and authoritarian as our government has become.
The rocket ambushes over the years from the Palestinian terrorists create serious terror for vulnerable Israeli towns, granted. But the casualties and brutality of the Gazan War in particular was profound and such "over-kill" of vulnerable innocent people as collateral damage!!! It was monstrous.
The settlement occupations also are outrageous.
Israel may not acknowledge their 400 nukes but they have nuclear weapons on their submarines it has been revealed.
Their war-mongering seems far more provocative than that of the Iranians. And the assassinations of Iranian scientists is horrifying. Imagine if they were being carried out in the US or Israel!
Appreciate your commenting!
best, libby
I am heartened to hear you agree with many of Stein's ideas! Especially about Bibi. And about the 1967 borders and about East Jerusalem.
I see apartheid as being the ghetto-izaton of the Gazan and West Bank Palestinians. Especially given the situations and restrictions and oppression in Gaza. That is the "apartheid" context.
Sadly the Israeli government seems as reckless and authoritarian as our government has become.
The rocket ambushes over the years from the Palestinian terrorists create serious terror for vulnerable Israeli towns, granted. But the casualties and brutality of the Gazan War in particular was profound and such "over-kill" of vulnerable innocent people as collateral damage!!! It was monstrous.
The settlement occupations also are outrageous.
Israel may not acknowledge their 400 nukes but they have nuclear weapons on their submarines it has been revealed.
Their war-mongering seems far more provocative than that of the Iranians. And the assassinations of Iranian scientists is horrifying. Imagine if they were being carried out in the US or Israel!
Appreciate your commenting!
best, libby
Mark, thanks so much for commenting once again.
Thanks for so many disclosures. You write:
"But its government argues that the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place.
snip
"The position that the 4th Geneva Convention does apply to the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights is supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, UN bodies, and the International Court of Justice."
Appreciate those specifics, Mark! There is so much emotionalism so often surrounding the subject of Israel and Palestine without clarity of real circumstances! The fog of assumed "truthiness".
Thanks for the insightful link, Mark. "Belligerent occupation" really seems to describe the reality.
Once again, legal finessing of language re the Geneva conventions and traditionally respected international law by Israel (as by the US) is being used to massively deny human rights!
This was the first I had heard on Stein's website that she is the first Jewish American contender for the presidency! And given her strong support and concern for the plight of the Palestinians it says a lot about her independence and principles.
Thanks, Mark! :-)
best, libby
Thanks for so many disclosures. You write:
"But its government argues that the international conventions relating to occupied land do not apply to the Palestinian territories because they were not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state in the first place.
snip
"The position that the 4th Geneva Convention does apply to the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights is supported by the International Committee of the Red Cross, UN bodies, and the International Court of Justice."
Appreciate those specifics, Mark! There is so much emotionalism so often surrounding the subject of Israel and Palestine without clarity of real circumstances! The fog of assumed "truthiness".
Thanks for the insightful link, Mark. "Belligerent occupation" really seems to describe the reality.
Once again, legal finessing of language re the Geneva conventions and traditionally respected international law by Israel (as by the US) is being used to massively deny human rights!
This was the first I had heard on Stein's website that she is the first Jewish American contender for the presidency! And given her strong support and concern for the plight of the Palestinians it says a lot about her independence and principles.
Thanks, Mark! :-)
best, libby
AP, Jill Stein is a citizen candidate who cares, who is not opportunistic, who has workable and renewing ideas about our economic and jobs crisis and our foreign policy nightmare, who has a strong sense of empathy and justice. Who is courageous and articulate. And even when she was arrested the corporate media looked the other way and ignored it. It was news but they refused to give her air time because her ideas would expose the dooming status quo we are saddled with.
Our corporate media not crazy about Chavez, either! eh?
Thanks for stopping by! best, libby
Our corporate media not crazy about Chavez, either! eh?
Thanks for stopping by! best, libby
Stuart, thanks so much for again contributing your insights to one of my posts.
How interesting the triangulated relationship with US/Israel and US/Saudi Arabia. I need to read more about this. No love lost there though seeming collusion in terms of what happened re Syria and Libya.
I too have read that it is too late for the two-state solution. And the population ratio does suggest a very complicated situation for the Israelis.
I think the realpolitik is still quite dangerous re collusion/codependency of Israel and US. And I am horrified by the obsequiousness of Congress to Israel's present reckless administration.
best, libby
How interesting the triangulated relationship with US/Israel and US/Saudi Arabia. I need to read more about this. No love lost there though seeming collusion in terms of what happened re Syria and Libya.
I too have read that it is too late for the two-state solution. And the population ratio does suggest a very complicated situation for the Israelis.
I think the realpolitik is still quite dangerous re collusion/codependency of Israel and US. And I am horrified by the obsequiousness of Congress to Israel's present reckless administration.
best, libby
Stein supports the Russell Tribunal on Palestine that just met in NYC. Info re RToP:
http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/sessions/future-sessions
"The Russell Tribunal on Palestine (RToP) will be holding its fourth international session in New York City on Saturday, October 6 and Sunday, October 7. It will take place in the Great Hall at Cooper Union located at 7 East 7th Street, New York, NY 10003."
"The RToP is an International People’s Tribunal created in response to the international community’s inaction regarding Israel’s recognized violations of international law. The Tribunal aims to bring attention to the complicity and responsibility of various national, international and corporate actors in the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the perpetuation of Israel’s impunity under international law. Although the RToP has no legal status, like other Russell Tribunals on Vietnam, Chile and Iraq, its legitimacy comes from its universality and the strength that it draws from the will of citizens and the support of international personalities who advocate for an end to the Israeli occupation and Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights. (For more information on the Tribunal, please see: http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/.)
"Following the sessions in Barcelona (which focused on EU complicity), London (on Corporate Complicity) and Cape Town (on the crime of Apartheid), the New York Tribunal will go back to the root of the conflict and focus on UN and US responsibility in the denial of the Palestinian right to self-determination."
http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/sessions/future-sessions
"The Russell Tribunal on Palestine (RToP) will be holding its fourth international session in New York City on Saturday, October 6 and Sunday, October 7. It will take place in the Great Hall at Cooper Union located at 7 East 7th Street, New York, NY 10003."
"The RToP is an International People’s Tribunal created in response to the international community’s inaction regarding Israel’s recognized violations of international law. The Tribunal aims to bring attention to the complicity and responsibility of various national, international and corporate actors in the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories and the perpetuation of Israel’s impunity under international law. Although the RToP has no legal status, like other Russell Tribunals on Vietnam, Chile and Iraq, its legitimacy comes from its universality and the strength that it draws from the will of citizens and the support of international personalities who advocate for an end to the Israeli occupation and Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights. (For more information on the Tribunal, please see: http://www.russelltribunalonpalestine.com/en/.)
"Following the sessions in Barcelona (which focused on EU complicity), London (on Corporate Complicity) and Cape Town (on the crime of Apartheid), the New York Tribunal will go back to the root of the conflict and focus on UN and US responsibility in the denial of the Palestinian right to self-determination."
The only disagreement I have with Dr. Bramhall is whether or not Israel has the ability to return settlement land in order to reach a two-state solution. If they don't, she's right, there will be a one-state solution and Israel will no longer be Israel within about a generation.
Avigdor Lieberman is a Neanderthal putz who is not, thank God, Prime Minister. I don't think the Israelis are stupid enough to elect him PM. That loyalty oath crap is exactly that, and I'm euphemizing considerably here.
I will continue to say that there is a difference between military occupation and apartheid. This isn't to say that military occupation isn't a bad thing, but it isn't the same bad thing. Apartheid is institutionalized bigotry. The reason what Israel is doing isn't apartheid is that in order for that to be the appropriate term the Israelis would have to be segregationist when it came to the Palestinian Arabs in general, but the Israelis aren't the same way to those members of the same ethnic group who are Israeli citizens. The Israeli view of residents of the West Bank and Gaza is closer to being that they're hostile foreigners than that they're an inferior domestic population. Apartheid is the wrong term. One could certainly argue that Oppression would fit but calling it Apartheid damages the credibility of the case against Israel.
Though I think Mark's discussion of water rights is more of a segue from the water fountain point than an analogy to it, he does have a point. Israel is treating the Territories from a legal standpoint like the US is treating Guantanamo Bay: taking advantage of legal limbo to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences to the population in limbo. That is exploitative, particularly when the West Bank government is more reasonable than Israel has seen before at all.
I do not share your (Libby's) comparative assessment of Israel and Iran. What drives them is completely different. What drives most of Israel's behavior is survival because the ultimate goal of many of the entities surrounding Israel has always been Israel's elimination. What drives Iran's behavior, on the other hand, is an increase in regional influence. Your assessment of Iran is far more benign than mine.
There is no excuse, absolutely none, for Iran's hosting of Holocaust denial conferences. There is zero symmetry between the way Israel treats Muslims and the way Iran treats Jews. This factor indicates way too much about the rest of Iran's behavior. Iran has supplied Hezbollah and Hamas (particularly Hezbollah as they present the Iranians with fewer access problems) with weaponry and training. They aided Hezbollah in PR efforts during the last war Israel had with them in Lebanon, a war initiated solely by Hezbollah after the Israelis hadn't crossed the Lebanese border in six years. Iran holds military parades with constant references to Israel as their intended enemy, including the slogans written on the missiles themselves. Many top Iranian officials, emphatically including Ahmedinejad, have made repeated reference to elimination of the regime in Israel. This phenomenon has grown so extreme that Secretary General of the UN Ban Ki Moon traveled to Tehran for a conference and castigated Iran for this in a public speech there.
Is the Iranian regime doing this for humanitarian reasons? Have you heard about a great deal of humanitarian aid from Iran going to the Palestinians? I certainly haven't. As so often happens, the Palestinians are not the issue, the Palestinians are the excuse.
And now the Iranians are developing nukes. As much as I can't stand Bibi, I'm not about to say that his concerns are unreasonable. Why is Iran developing nukes? Has Israel been threatening Iran's existence? Prior to Iran's aggressive actions, partially by proxy, has Israel threatened Iran at all? One might make a case that the Iranians are afraid for their survival because of the American neocons but, if that's the case, why is all of Iran's military rhetoric directed toward Israel?
I apologize for the length of this comment, but I have a lot to answer, particularly given that I'm likely to be the only Zionist here. Just because I'm a Zionist doesn't mean I support Israel's policies across the board, obviously far from it.
What drives Israel above all else is survival. Not for 100% of what they do - the settlements do NOT fall into this category, which is the main reason I think they're a bad thing, nor does exploitation of water - but for most things. That is absolutely what drove the development of nukes and it is absolutely what drives assassinations. In Gaza, they are a reaction to terrorism and attempted terrorism. In Iran, they are an attempt to slow down the development of nuclear weapons without resorting to attacking Iran, justified by the fact that Iran is acting consistently like the target of said weapons would be Israel.
It is also, incidentally, what drove the annexation of the Golan Heights. From what I understand, on a clear day you can see the Mediterranean from the Golan. That made Israel too vulnerable given the hostility of Syria.
As I've said elsewhere: Survival is not only the primary rationale for what Israel does, it's also the primary excuse. The more we feed its use as an excuse, the less change we'll see.
Avigdor Lieberman is a Neanderthal putz who is not, thank God, Prime Minister. I don't think the Israelis are stupid enough to elect him PM. That loyalty oath crap is exactly that, and I'm euphemizing considerably here.
I will continue to say that there is a difference between military occupation and apartheid. This isn't to say that military occupation isn't a bad thing, but it isn't the same bad thing. Apartheid is institutionalized bigotry. The reason what Israel is doing isn't apartheid is that in order for that to be the appropriate term the Israelis would have to be segregationist when it came to the Palestinian Arabs in general, but the Israelis aren't the same way to those members of the same ethnic group who are Israeli citizens. The Israeli view of residents of the West Bank and Gaza is closer to being that they're hostile foreigners than that they're an inferior domestic population. Apartheid is the wrong term. One could certainly argue that Oppression would fit but calling it Apartheid damages the credibility of the case against Israel.
Though I think Mark's discussion of water rights is more of a segue from the water fountain point than an analogy to it, he does have a point. Israel is treating the Territories from a legal standpoint like the US is treating Guantanamo Bay: taking advantage of legal limbo to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences to the population in limbo. That is exploitative, particularly when the West Bank government is more reasonable than Israel has seen before at all.
I do not share your (Libby's) comparative assessment of Israel and Iran. What drives them is completely different. What drives most of Israel's behavior is survival because the ultimate goal of many of the entities surrounding Israel has always been Israel's elimination. What drives Iran's behavior, on the other hand, is an increase in regional influence. Your assessment of Iran is far more benign than mine.
There is no excuse, absolutely none, for Iran's hosting of Holocaust denial conferences. There is zero symmetry between the way Israel treats Muslims and the way Iran treats Jews. This factor indicates way too much about the rest of Iran's behavior. Iran has supplied Hezbollah and Hamas (particularly Hezbollah as they present the Iranians with fewer access problems) with weaponry and training. They aided Hezbollah in PR efforts during the last war Israel had with them in Lebanon, a war initiated solely by Hezbollah after the Israelis hadn't crossed the Lebanese border in six years. Iran holds military parades with constant references to Israel as their intended enemy, including the slogans written on the missiles themselves. Many top Iranian officials, emphatically including Ahmedinejad, have made repeated reference to elimination of the regime in Israel. This phenomenon has grown so extreme that Secretary General of the UN Ban Ki Moon traveled to Tehran for a conference and castigated Iran for this in a public speech there.
Is the Iranian regime doing this for humanitarian reasons? Have you heard about a great deal of humanitarian aid from Iran going to the Palestinians? I certainly haven't. As so often happens, the Palestinians are not the issue, the Palestinians are the excuse.
And now the Iranians are developing nukes. As much as I can't stand Bibi, I'm not about to say that his concerns are unreasonable. Why is Iran developing nukes? Has Israel been threatening Iran's existence? Prior to Iran's aggressive actions, partially by proxy, has Israel threatened Iran at all? One might make a case that the Iranians are afraid for their survival because of the American neocons but, if that's the case, why is all of Iran's military rhetoric directed toward Israel?
I apologize for the length of this comment, but I have a lot to answer, particularly given that I'm likely to be the only Zionist here. Just because I'm a Zionist doesn't mean I support Israel's policies across the board, obviously far from it.
What drives Israel above all else is survival. Not for 100% of what they do - the settlements do NOT fall into this category, which is the main reason I think they're a bad thing, nor does exploitation of water - but for most things. That is absolutely what drove the development of nukes and it is absolutely what drives assassinations. In Gaza, they are a reaction to terrorism and attempted terrorism. In Iran, they are an attempt to slow down the development of nuclear weapons without resorting to attacking Iran, justified by the fact that Iran is acting consistently like the target of said weapons would be Israel.
It is also, incidentally, what drove the annexation of the Golan Heights. From what I understand, on a clear day you can see the Mediterranean from the Golan. That made Israel too vulnerable given the hostility of Syria.
As I've said elsewhere: Survival is not only the primary rationale for what Israel does, it's also the primary excuse. The more we feed its use as an excuse, the less change we'll see.
I don't pretend to be an expert in these matters, but much of what Stein says seems reasonable. On the other hand, Romney? Not so much. Check out this Slate deconstruction of his foreign "policy" speech: http://tinyurl.com/8lgg3mv
Rated. I need to know a great deal more about Ms. Stein before I comment. Admittedly, I don't. One thing I do believe. Israel cannot go back to the 1967 borders. It would cause a civil war.
Ms. Stein sounds as if she's a reasonable alternative.
What your readers may not know is that many US Jews will never, or only very reluctantly vote for a Jew as president (despite 2000) bc they think we're safer when no Jew can be blamed for bad times or Near East policy that may go wrong.
r.
What your readers may not know is that many US Jews will never, or only very reluctantly vote for a Jew as president (despite 2000) bc they think we're safer when no Jew can be blamed for bad times or Near East policy that may go wrong.
r.
Wow...I never thought of that, Jonathan. It's so obvious, too. thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment