This time it’s not Iraq, but Iran. A must read post about dissent, and a major one at that! Go here.

Cross-posted @ The Cylinder

I thought I would just post the link to this piece from Politico for those following the recent presentation of Barack Obama at AIPAC:

There’s a bit of a furor underway over what Obama meant when he said that Jerusalem “must remain undivided,” an applause line at AIPAC.

The Jerusalem Post, and the conservative Orthodox Union, took him to originally mean that he would oppose any U.S. or Israeli attempt to cede partial sovreignty of Jerusalem.

An Obama aide revised that to mean that he only opposes barbed wire down the middle of the city, but not — if the Israelis choose it — divided sovereignty.

And Obama’s camp says he hasn’t changed sides.

“Barack reaffirmed his previously-stated position that Jerusalem must remain the capital of the Jewish state and must never be re-divided. Jerusalem, which is one of the most sensitive issues in the conflict, is a final status issue, which means that both parties have agreed its status will be resolved in the negotiations. But he believes certain principles should apply to any agreement on Jerusalem. Jerusalem will always be Israel’s capital. And Jerusalem should never be re-divided by barbed wire and check points, as it was from 1948 to 1967. Beyond that, the parties will have to agree on arrangements that they both can live with,” an aide, Dennis McDonough, emailed me.

Indeed, in a position paper for his 2000 congressional race, Obama said Jerusalem should “remain united.” - More

For an interesting discussion, go here.

One comment in particular was rather worrying:

The fact that Obama had never kowtowed to the degree of supporting an “undivided” Jerusalem — and thus guaranteeing that no peace will occur during an Obama administration — was one of the many reasons I’ve supported him. Hillary Clinton did vocally support an “undivided” Jerusalem, which means being to the right of the current Israeli prime minister.

Now Obama’s joined her. At AIPAC he said “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.” Sorry to be so crass, but WTF? This, along with his praise of Leon Uris, of all writers, to Jeffrey Goldberg, I’m seeing less and less daylight between Obama and Clinton or McCain.

This is really disappointing. It assume it’s disappointing to MJ, Daniel Levy, the J Street Project, and anyone else who wants to move away from the maximalist AIPAC line.

MJ, why instead have you basically condoned his speech at AIPAC? Because they applauded him? You imply AIPAC has changed — but where’s the evidence. Instead, Obama has changed, and moved towards AIPAC. Please tell me I’m wrong. (I hope I am.) - Link

On the Jerusalem issue, James Zogby writes:

The AIPAC audience may have cheered, but Arabs, who called me from East Jerusalem, where they were watching the speech on TV, were deeply disheartened, as were Israeli peace activists with whom I spoke. [...] for those who have embraced Obama’s “change we can believe in” slogan, a few doubts have now crept in. - Link

A very interesting development in the US: A new pro-peace, pro-Israel political voice

Via TPIP. More here.

Cross-posted @ The Cylinder

[Click on image]

This short documentary by Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, has been around for a while but I am only discovering now. I thought of posting it again for those who drop by here and have not had a chance of watching it yet.

The Unrecognized “highlights the plight of Palestinian Arab Bedouin citizens of Israel living in the Naqab (Negev) desert, many of whom were forced off their lands following the establishment of the state in 1948.”

Also available at Adalah’s website here [Allow a few seconds for it to download]

More information on Palestinians in Israel.

Related material here.

How can we help the Palestinian cause?

[More later on activism pertaining to the Occupation ... by organized groups and by individuals.]

Meanwhile, you might want to visit the Balata Camp

or if you are only now connecting with the plight of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, you might want to see for yourself what is really going on there.

Cross-posted @ The Cylinder

I came upon this interesting evaluation of the conflict in terms of the solutions that are available to all parties involved: Reflections on the Middle East Without Sharon’s Leadership by Yevgeny Primakov, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences:

I would like to say something that may be a surprise to many readers: It’s a pity that Israel today is not ruled by Ariel Sharon, a strong, can-do politician. Consider his decision, in the face of tremendous pressure, to pull out troops and evacuate all Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip. One might not agree with Sharon’s policy, but he never used it selfishly to strengthen his own position. Sharon, who never feared criticism from the right, would have used this window of opportunity [re. the Arab Peace Initiative] to ensure a real advance toward peace. - LINK

From Prospects for Peace:

Bolton inhabits that neo-con netherworld where philo-Israelism comes exceedingly close to being anti-Israel. Their ideal image of Israel bears little resemblance to the actual Israel that exists or the predicament that it finds itself in. They literally love Israel to death—being almost totally indifferent to the living, breathing Israelis who bear the consequences of the warrior policies that the neo-cons advocate. Their version of Israel is destined to live by the sword in perpetuity, should cede no inch of territory and is thrust into the front line of their clash of civilizations. - LINK

Cross-posted @ The Cylinder

From Rootless Cosmopolitan:

The hole blown by Hamas in the Gaza-Egypt border fence has finally punctured the bubble of delusion surrounding the U.S.-Israeli Middle East policy. In a moment reminiscent of the collapse of the Berlin Wall, through the breach surged some 350,000 Palestinians — fully one fifth of Gaza’s total population, as my friend and colleague Tim McGirk observed at the scene. And what did they do on the other side? They went shopping for the essentials of daily life, denied them by an Israeli siege imposed with the Wehrmacht logic of collective punishment. And the Egyptian security forces didn’t stop them, despite Washington and Israel urging them to, because U.S.-backed strongman Hosni Mubarak would provoke a mutiny among his citizenry and even his own security forces if they were to be ordered to stop hungry Palestinians from eating because Israel has decided that they should starve until they change their attitude. - Link

From Jeff Halper:

I am not a Palestinian; I am not one of the oppressed. I only hope I can use my privilege in an effective way in order to redeem the gift the people of Gaza have given all of us: the realization that the people do have power and can prevail even in the face of overwhelming power*. We may each express our responsibility towards the people of Gaza in whatever way most suits us, but as the privileged we must do something. We owe the Palestinians and the Palestinians writ large at least that. - Link (link added by me)

Hopefully, THIS ONE will be brought down soon … to the satisfaction of both peoples. Fingers crossed!

Cross-posted @ The Cylinder

I know this is not a popular story in the US press or media, but usually we, as a people and our government, at a minimum, condemn governments who take such actions to starve and bomb ethnic minorities over whose territory they exert control. Hell, in Bosnia and Kosovo we put the US Air Force to work bombing Serbian military and civilian targets to get the Serbian government to cease its genocidal activities. But, as we all know, Israel is sacrosanct. Official and /or media criticism of its actions against people living in the “occupied territories” is simply not done. [...]

Because, they’re only Arabs after all. Poor, dirty crazy Arabs. Less than human. They don’t even belong in Greater Israel. So why not starve them out?

But seriously, if collective punishment wasn’t the preferred modus operandi of the Israeli government to punish the many for the sins of a few, maybe Hamas wouldn’t be as powerful a political force in Gaza among ordinary Palestinians as it is today. Because when you trade large acts of violence (air strikes, economic blockades, massive detentions, bulldozing homes, etc.) for smaller acts of violence against you (as we are learning in Iraq) pretty soon everyone who used to be a moderate has been radicalized. But then when have the beneficiaries of “occupation” and “apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing” ever voluntarily surrendered their advantages out of humanitarian concerns for the people they exploit. Not very damn often in this world. - Steven D

]]> http://filasteen.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/escape-from-gaza/feed/ ed~