AS THE WORLD SQUIRMSã
|
Note: Some items contained herein may have additional
formatting, emphasis and hotlinks added for context and perspective ~ Owen |
Saturday, January 10, 2009
SLAUGHTER! 800 Gazans Killed, Thousands Wounded
January 10, 2009
It has now been
two weeks since the Israeli military began its attacks
on the Gaza Strip, and
one week since they began their ground invasion. In that time, over 800 people have been killed in
Gaza, and around 3,300 others have been wounded.
Both the United
Nations Security Council’s resolution supporting a ceasefire and an unrelated
Egyptian-brokered attempt seem to have stalled at this point, with Israel dismissing the former out of
hand and little result from the
first two days of talks on the later. Israeli attacks continued to escalate in the strip, and Hamas fired more rockets deep into Israel, with
one targeting an Israeli Air Force base near Tel Aviv.
Winning Hearts and Minds – Israel/Washington Style
Israel Rejected Hamas Ceasefire
Offer in December
By Gareth Porter
The Huffington Post – via IPS News
January 9, 2009
(Excerpt)
WASHINGTON, Jan 9 (IPS) -
Contrary to Israel's argument that it was forced to launch its air and ground
offensive against Gaza in order to stop the firing of rockets into its
territory, Hamas proposed in mid-December to return to the original
Hamas-Israel ceasefire arrangement, according to a U.S.-based source who has
been briefed on the proposal.
The proposal to renew the ceasefire was presented by a high-level Hamas
delegation to Egyptian Minister of Intelligence Omar Suleiman at a meeting in
Cairo Dec. 14. The delegation, said to have included Moussa Abu Marzouk, the
second-ranking official in the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, told
Suleiman that Hamas was prepared to stop all rocket attacks against Israel if
the Israelis would open up the Gaza border crossings and pledge not to launch
attacks in Gaza.
The Hamas officials insisted that Israel not be allowed to close or reduce
commercial traffic through border crossings for political purposes, as it had
done during the six-month lull, according to the source. They asked Suleiman,
who had served as mediator between Israel and Hamas in negotiating the original
six-month Gaza ceasefire last spring, to "put pressure" on Israel to
take that the ceasefire proposal seriously.
Suleiman said he could not pressure Israel but could only make the
suggestion to Israeli officials. It could not be learned, however, whether
Israel explicitly rejected the Hamas proposal or simply refused to respond to
Egypt.
The readiness of Hamas to return to the ceasefire conditionally in
mid-December was confirmed by Dr. Robert Pastor, a professor at American
University and senior adviser to the Carter Centre, who met with Khaled Meshal,
chairman of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus on Dec. 14, along with former President Jimmy
Carter. Pastor told IPS that
Meshal indicated Hamas was willing to go back to the ceasefire that had been in
effect up to early November "if there was a sign that Israel would lift
the siege on Gaza".
|
Gaza Resolution One-Sided and
Unwise By Rep. Ron Paul January 10, 2009 |
|
Editor's note: The following is Rep. Ron Paul's statement
on H. Res. 34, "Recognizing Israel's
right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza, reaffirming the United
States' strong support for Israel, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian
peace process." Madame Speaker, I strongly
oppose H. Res. 34, which was rushed to the floor with almost no prior notice
and without consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The resolution clearly takes one
side in a conflict that has nothing to do with the United States or U.S.
interests. I am
concerned that the weapons currently being used by Israel against the
Palestinians in Gaza are made in America and paid for by American taxpayers.
What will adopting this resolution do to the perception of the United
States in the Muslim and Arab world? What kind of blowback might we
see from this? What moral responsibility do we have for the violence in
Israel and Gaza after having provided so much military support to one side? As an
opponent of all violence, I am appalled by the practice of lobbing homemade
rockets into Israel from Gaza. I am only grateful that, because of the
primitive nature of these weapons, there have been so few casualties among
innocent Israelis. But I am also appalled by the long-standing Israeli
blockade of Gaza – a cruel act of war – and the tremendous loss of life that
has resulted from the latest Israeli attack that started last month. There are now
an estimated 700 dead Palestinians, most of whom are civilians. Many innocent
children are among the dead. While the shooting of rockets into Israel is inexcusable,
the violent actions of some people in Gaza does not justify killing
Palestinians on this scale. Such collective punishment is immoral. At the
very least, the U.S. Congress should not be loudly proclaiming its support
for the Israeli government's actions in Gaza. Madame
Speaker, this resolution will do nothing to reduce the fighting and bloodshed
in the Middle East. The resolution in fact will lead the U.S. to become
further involved in this conflict, promising "vigorous support and
unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of Israel as a
Jewish and democratic state." Is it really in the interest of the United States to
guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better
to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution
of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning
of the 111th Congress. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. |
He should get tough with Israel.
By Andrew David Miller
Newsweek
January 12, 2009
(Excerpt)
Don't get me wrong. Barack Obama—as every other U.S. president before
him—will protect the special relationship with Israel. But the days of
America's exclusive ties to Israel may be coming to an end. Despite efforts to
sound reassuring during the campaign, the new administration will have to be
tough, much tougher than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush were, if it's
serious about Arab-Israeli peacemaking.
The departure point for a
viable peace deal—either with Syria or the Palestinians—must not be based
purely on what the political traffic in Israel will bear, but on the
requirements of all sides. The new president seems tougher and more focused
than his predecessors; he's unlikely to become enthralled by either of Israel's
two leading candidates for prime minister—centrist Foreign Minister Tzipi
Livni, or Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu. Indeed, if it's the latter, he may well
find himself (like Clinton) privately frustrated with Netanyahu's tough
policies. Unlike Clinton, if Israeli behavior crosses the line, he should allow
those frustrations to surface publicly in the service of American national
interests.
The issue at hand is to find the right balance in America's ties with
Israel. Driven by shared values and based on America's 60-year commitment to
Israel's security and well-being, the special relationship is rock solid. But
for the past 16 years, the United States has allowed that special bond to
become exclusive in ways that undermine America's, and Israel's, national
interests.
If Obama is serious about peacemaking he'll have to adjust that balance in
two ways. First, whatever the transgressions of the Palestinians (and there are
many, including terror, violence and incitement), he'll also have to deal with
Israel's behavior on the ground. The Gaza crisis is a case in point. Israel has
every reason to defend itself against Hamas. But does it make sense for
America to support its policy of punishing Hamas by making life unbearable for
1.5 million Gazans by denying aid and economic development? The answer is no.
Then there's the settlements issue. In 25 years of working on this issue
for six secretaries of state, I can't recall one meeting where we had a serious
discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement
activity—including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions—does
to the peacemaking process. There is a need to impose some accountability. And
this can only come from the president. But Obama
should make it clear that America will not lend its auspices to a peacemaking
process in which the actions of either side willfully undermine the chances of
an agreement America is trying to broker. No
process at all would be better than a dishonest one that hurts America's
credibility.
Second, Obama will have to maintain his independence and
tactical flexibility to play the mediator's role. This means not road
testing everything with Israel first before previewing it to the other side, a practice
we followed scrupulously during the Clinton and Bush 43 years. America must also not agree to every idea
proposed by an Israeli prime minister. Our willingness to go along with Ehud
Barak's make-or-break strategy at the Camp David summit proved very costly
where more disciplined critical thinking on our part might have helped preempt
the catastrophe that followed. Coordinating with Israel on matters
relating to its security is one thing. Giving Israel a veto over American
negotiating tactics and positions, particularly when it comes to bridging gaps
between the two sides, is quite another.
If the new president adjusts his thinking when it comes to Israel, and is
prepared to be tough with the Arabs as well, the next
several years could be fascinating and productive ones. I hope so, because
the national interest demands it. The process of American mediation will be excruciatingly
painful for Arabs, Israelis and Americans. But if done
right, with toughness and fairness, it could produce the first real opportunity
for a peace deal in many years. (Read More)
(Click on Dot Above for most recent edition of - As The World Squirms)
