Trying to figure out what Barack Obama intends to do in the Middle East is like trying to read the leaves in a cup of tea stirred by Jackson Pollock.

Are you Guys Star-gazers or Realists?
I told you what Obama is going to do next, you don't need to read tea leaves for that;->> He is going to enjoy the Kingdom like an African King - you like it like that;->You like your King being unpredictable and pompous however the orders he gives contradictory they can easily be justified according to the Constitution;->So, you sit and wait in utmost expectations and excitements like you are watching a roller-coaster adventure movie such as Indiana(Africana) Jones Temple of Doom, Last Crusade;->
Go ask Steven Spielberg, he would tell you how it will develop and end;->>

Couldn't have put it better myself....

Come on Professor! you can do much, much better than that, just move your fingers on your keyboard and start typing;->

"TE - suppose as Bush declared "the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper" is really a blank paper ...."

You see Professor how easy to start, you wouldn't even get committed with the assumption that "Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper", what is to be afraid of that Mate?!;->>

Grand Sen~or.

The problem, too, is that nobody really seems to want to pay the costs to get out of this situation. If we could get away from most of our economic dependence on oil (aka raise gasoline taxes, since most of the oil goes into the transportation sector), then we could be more flexible. We could get away from our relationship with Saudi Arabia.

Israel is not a democracy -- ask the Israeli Arabs.

Israel does not have Western values: they have imprisoned the Palestinians into essentially concentration camps. They do not allow them full sovereignty: no army, air force, navy. Supplies and people into and out of territories have to go through Israeli checkpoints.

Here is a CBS 60 minutes segment on how the Israeli "Defense" Forces behave:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

Our support of Israel encourages them not to compromise with their neighbors.

Israel has flouted more than 70 UN resolutions -- it is a pariah state. Here is a _partial_ list of the UN resolutions Israel has scoffed at:

UN resolution No. 237 -- 14 June 1967 Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

No. 242 -- 22 Nov 1967 Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict; and termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.

No. 248 -- 24 Mar 1968 Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to property. Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter and the cease-fire resolution. Calls upon Israel to desist from acts or activities in contravention of resolution 237 (1967). (This was an attack against Karameh, Jordan.)

No. 250 27 Apr 1968 Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated for 2 May 1968.

251 2 May 1968 Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military parade in Jerusalem on 2 May 1968 in disregard of the unanimous decision adopted by the Council on 27 April 1968.

252 21 May 1968 Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July 1967. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures taken by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon, which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem, are invalid and cannot change the status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures taken and to desist from further actions changing the status of Jerusalem.

259 27 Sept 1968 Deplores the delay in implementation of resolution 237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General. Requests the Secretary-General to urgently dispatch a Special Representative to the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following the hostilities of 5 June 1967 and to report on the implementation of resolution 237 (1967).

267 3 Jul 1969 Reaffirms the established principle that the acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible. Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Censures in the strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the city of Jerusalem. Urgently calls once more on Israel to rescind all measures taken by it to change the status of Jerusalem and in the future to refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect

271 15 Sep 1969 Grieved at the extensive damage caused by arson to the Holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 21 August 1969 under the military occupation of Israel; calls upon Israel to scrupulously observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing military occupation.
298 25 Sep 1971 Deplores the failure of Israel to respect previous U.N. resolutions concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting to affect the status of the city of Jerusalem. Confirms that all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel … are totally invalid and cannot change that status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all such measures….

338 22 Oct 1973 Calls for an immediate cease-fire and termination of all military activity. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts....

339 23 Oct 1973 Refers to resolution 338 (1973); confirms its decision on immediate cessation of all military actions; and requests the Secretary-General to take measures for immediate dispatch of U.N. observers to supervise observance of the cease-fire.

381 30 Nov 1975 Expresses concern over the continued state of tension in the area. Decides to reconvene on 12 January 1976 to continue the debate on the Middle East problem including the Palestinian question, taking into account all relevant U.N. resolutions.

425 19 Mar 978 Calls for the strict respect for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. Calls upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all Lebanese territory. Decides to establish immediately under its authority a United Nations Interim Force in Southern Lebanon (UNIFIL).

446 22 Mar 1979 Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.

452 20 Jul 1979 Calls upon the government and people of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem.

465 1 Mar 1980 Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Strongly deplores the continuation and persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices. Calls upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water, with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural resources of the territories under occupation.

468 8 May 1980 Recalling the Geneva Convention of 1949 and expressing deep concern at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and of the Sharia Judge of Hebron, calls upon Israel as occupying Power to rescind these illegal measures and to facilitate the immediate return of the expelled Palestinian leaders.

469 20 May 1980 Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to implement resolution 468 (1968). Calls again upon the Government of Israel, as occupying Power, to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron.

471 5 June 1980 Expresses deep concern that the Jewish settlers in the occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms thus enabling them to perpetrate crimes against the civilian population. Calls for the immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these crimes and condemns the assassination attempts on the lives of the Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al-Bireh. Expresses deep concern that Israel, as occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Calls again upon the Government of Israel to respect and comply with the provisions of the Convention as well as with the resolutions of the Council, calls once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied territories. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.

476 30 June 1980 Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Reiterates that all measures taken by Israel which have altered the geographic, demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Reaffirms that all such measures and actions constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Reaffirms its determination in the event of non-compliance by Israel to examine practical ways and means in accordance with relevant provisions of the U.N. Charter to secure full implementation of this resolution.

478 20 Aug 1980 Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with relevant Security Council resolutions. Affirms that the enactment of the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law and does not affect the continued application of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem. Determines that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular, the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith. Decides not to recognize the "basic law" and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek to alter the character and status of Jerusalem. Calls upon all members of the United Nations (a) to accept this decision, (b) and upon those States that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to withdraw such Missions from the Holy City.

484 19 Dec 1980 Expressing grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul, calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Declares it imperative that they be enabled to return to their homes and resume their responsibilities.

508 5 June 1982 Calls upon the parties to the conflict to cease immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. Requests all Member States which are in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear upon those concerned so that the cessation of hostilities declared by Security Council resolution 490 (1981) can be respected. (Beginning of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.)

509 6 June 1982 Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon and demands that all parties observe strictly the terms of paragraph 1 of resolution 508 (1982).

512 19 June 1982 Expressing deep concern at the suffering of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations, calls upon all the parties to the conflict to respect the rights of the civilian populations, to refrain from all acts of violence against those populations and to take all appropriate measures to alleviate the suffering caused by the conflict.

513 4 Jul 1982 Expressing alarm at the continued sufferings of the Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations in southern Lebanon and in west Beirut, calls for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Calls further for the restoration of the normal supply of vital facilities such as water, electricity, food and medical provisions, particularly in Beirut.

515 29 Jul 1982 Demands that the government of Israel lift immediately the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population.

516 1 Aug 1982 Confirms its previous resolutions and authorizes the Secretary-General to deploy immediately, on the request of the Government of Lebanon, U.N. observers to monitor the situation in and around Beirut.

517 4 Aug 1982 Confirms once again its demand for an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Censures Israel for its failure to comply with the above resolutions. Takes note of the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization to move the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut and authorizes the Secretary-General to increase the number of U.N. observers in and around Beirut.

518 12 Aug 1982 Demands that Israel and all parties to the conflict observe strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to the immediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and, particularly, in and around Beirut. Demands the immediate lifting of all restrictions on the city of Beirut

520 17 Sep 1982 Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council resolutions. Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by Israel before 15 September 1982, as a first step towards the full implementation of Security Council resolutions.

521 19 Sep 1982 Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut; reaffirms its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513 (1982), which call for respect for the rights of the civilian populations without any discrimination, and repudiates all acts of violence against those populations. Requests the Secretary-General, as a matter of urgency, to initiate appropriate consultations and, in particular, consultations with the Government of Lebanon on additional steps which the Security Council might take, including the possible deployment of United Nations forces, to assist that government in ensuring full protection for the civilian populations in and around Beirut. (Massacre of Sabra and Shattilla refugee camps while eastern Beirut was under Israeli military occupation.)

573 4 Oct 1985 Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter, international law and norms of conduct; and demands that Israel refrain from perpetrating such acts of aggression or from threatening to do so. (Israeli raid against PLO Headquarters in Hammam Al-Shut)

592 8 Dec 1986 Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenseless students at Bir Zeit University. Calls upon Israel to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. Calls upon Israel to release any person or persons detained as a result of the recent events at Bir Zeit University.

605 22 Dec 1987 Strongly deplores those policies and practices of Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, particularly the opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians. Calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

607 5 Jan 1988 Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories; and strongly requests it to abide by its obligations arising from the Fourth Geneva Convention.

608 14 Jan 1988 Reaffirming resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988, deeply regrets that Israel, the occupying Power, in defiance of U.N. resolutions, has deported Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to rescind the orders and to desist from forthwith deporting any other Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories.

611 25 Apr 1988 Having noted with concern that the aggression perpetrated on 16 April 1988 in the locality of Sidi Bou Said (Tunisia) has caused loss of human life, particularly the assassination of Mr. Khalil Al-Wazir, condemns vigorously the aggression perpetrated against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Tunisia in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter; and urges Member States to take measures to prevent such acts against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States. (Al-Wazir (Abu-Jihad) was the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization.)

636 6 Jul 1989 Deeply regrets the continuing deportation by Israel, the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.

641 30 Aug 1989 Deplores Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.

672 12 Oct 1990 Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into account the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian people. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places of Jerusalem, resulting in over twenty Palestinian deaths and the injury of more than one hundred and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent worshippers. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the Israeli security forces, resulting in injuries and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

673 24 Oct 1990 Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region in violation of resolution 672 (1990).

681 20 Dec 1990 Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by Israel of its resolutions 672 (1990) and 673 (1990). Deplores the decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume the deportation of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories. Urges the Government of Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967

694 24 May 1991 Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.

726 6 Jan 1992 Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume deportation of Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Requests Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.

799 18 Dec 1992 Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians (on 17 December 1992). Expresses its firm opposition to any such deportations by Israel. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem. Demands that Israel ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied territories of all those deported.

904 18 Mar 1994 Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron committed against Palestinian worshippers in Al-Ibrahimi Mosque, on 25 February 1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, and its aftermath which took the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several hundred others. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers. Calls for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign presence, which was provided for in the Declaration of Principles, within the context of the ongoing peace process.

1073 28 Sep 1996 Expresses its deep concern about the tragic events in Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip, which resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries among the Palestinian civilians. Calls for the immediate cessation and reversal of all acts which have resulted in the aggravation of the situation and which have negative implications for the Middle East peace process. Calls for the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians to be ensured. Calls for the immediate resumption of negotiations within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis and the timely implementation of the agreements reached. (The draft resolution was issued officially as a presidential text, which normally indicates unanimity prior to the vote.)

1322 7 Oct 2000 Reaffirms that a just and lasting solution to the Arab and Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, through an active negotiating process. Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places, as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1968, resulting in over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties. Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva. Calls for the immediate cessation of violence, and for all necessary steps to be taken to ensure that violence ceases, that new provocative actions are avoided, and that the situation returns to normality. Stresses the importance of establishing a mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into the tragic events of the last few days with the aim of preventing their repetition.

A couple of months ago Prof. Chomsky of MIT wrote something similar to Gary's piece in Salon:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20090124.htm

Obama on Israel-Palestine
Noam Chomsky

chomsky.info, January 24, 2009

Barack Obama is recognized to be a person of acute intelligence, a legal scholar, careful with his choice of words. He deserves to be taken seriously -- both what he says, and what he omits. Particularly significant is his first substantive statement on foreign affairs, on January 22, at the State Department, when introducing George Mitchell to serve as his special envoy for Middle East peace.

Mitchell is to focus his attention on the Israel-Palestine problem, in the wake of the recent US-Israeli invasion of Gaza. During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president -- a fact that did not silence him on many other issues. His campaign did, however, repeat his statement that "if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that." He was referring to Israeli children, not the hundreds of Palestinian children being butchered by US arms, about whom he could not speak, because there was only one president.

On January 22, however, the one president was Barack Obama, so he could speak freely about these matters -- avoiding, however, the attack on Gaza, which had, conveniently, been called off just before the inauguration.

Obama's talk emphasized his commitment to a peaceful settlement. He left its contours vague, apart from one specific proposal: "the Arab peace initiative," Obama said, "contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative's promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all."

Obama is not directly falsifying the Arab League proposal, but the carefully framed deceit is instructive.

The Arab League peace proposal does indeed call for normalization of relations with Israel -- in the context -- repeat, in the context of a two-state settlement in terms of the longstanding international consensus, which the US and Israel have blocked for over 30 years, in international isolation, and still do. The core of the Arab League proposal, as Obama and his Mideast advisers know very well, is its call for a peaceful political settlement in these terms, which are well-known, and recognized to be the only basis for the peaceful settlement to which Obama professes to be committed. The omission of that crucial fact can hardly be accidental, and signals clearly that Obama envisions no departure from US rejectionism. His call for the Arab states to act on a corollary to their proposal, while the US ignores even the existence of its central content, which is the precondition for the corollary, surpasses cynicism.

The most significant acts to undermine a peaceful settlement are the daily US-backed actions in the occupied territories, all recognized to be criminal: taking over valuable land and resources and constructing what the leading architect of the plan, Ariel Sharon, called "Bantustans" for Palestinians -- an unfair comparison because the Bantustans were far more viable than the fragments left to Palestinians under Sharon's conception, now being realized. But the US and Israel even continue to oppose a political settlement in words, most recently in December 2008, when the US and Israel (and a few Pacific islands) voted against a UN resolution supporting "the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" (passed 173 to 5, US-Israel opposed, with evasive pretexts).

Obama had not one word to say about the settlement and infrastructure developments in the West Bank, and the complex measures to control Palestinian existence, designed to undermine the prospects for a peaceful two-state settlement. His silence is a grim refutation of his oratorical flourishes about how "I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security."

Also unmentioned is Israel's use of US arms in Gaza, in violation not only of international but also US law. Or Washington's shipment of new arms to Israel right at the peak of the US-Israeli attack, surely not unknown to Obama's Middle East advisers.

Obama was firm, however, that smuggling of arms to Gaza must be stopped. He endorses the agreement of Condoleeza Rice and Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni that the Egyptian-Gaza border must be closed -- a remarkable exercise of imperial arrogance, as the Financial Times observed: "as they stood in Washington congratulating each other, both officials seemed oblivious to the fact that they were making a deal about an illegal trade on someone else's border -- Egypt in this case. The next day, an Egyptian official described the memorandum as `fictional'." Egypt's objections were ignored.

Returning to Obama's reference to the "constructive" Arab League proposal, as the wording indicates, Obama persists in restricting support to the defeated party in the January 2006 election, the only free election in the Arab world, to which the US and Israel reacted, instantly and overtly, by severely punishing Palestinians for opposing the will of the masters. A minor technicality is that Abbas's term ran out on January 9, and that Fayyad was appointed without confirmation by the Palestinian parliament (many of them kidnapped and in Israeli prisons). Ha'aretz describes Fayyad as "a strange bird in Palestinian politics. On the one hand, he is the Palestinian politician most esteemed by Israel and the West. However, on the other hand, he has no electoral power whatsoever in Gaza or the West Bank." The report also notes Fayyad's "close relationship with the Israeli establishment," notably his friendship with Sharon's extremist adviser Dov Weiglass. Though lacking popular support, he is regarded as competent and honest, not the norm in the US-backed political sectors.

Obama's insistence that only Abbas and Fayyad exist conforms to the consistent Western contempt for democracy unless it is under control.

Obama provided the usual reasons for ignoring the elected government led by Hamas. "To be a genuine party to peace," Obama declared, "the quartet [US, EU, Russia, UN] has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements." Unmentioned, also as usual, is the inconvenient fact that the US and Israel firmly reject all three conditions. In international isolation, they bar a two-state settlement including a Palestinian state; they of course do not renounce violence; and they reject the quartet's central proposal, the "road map." Israel formally accepted it, but with 14 reservations that effectively eliminate its contents (tacitly backed by the US). It is the great merit of Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, to have brought these facts to public attention for the first time -- and in the mainstream, the only time.

It follows, by elementary reasoning, that neither the US nor Israel is a "genuine party to peace." But that cannot be. It is not even a phrase in the English language.

It is perhaps unfair to criticize Obama for this further exercise of cynicism, because it is close to universal, unlike his scrupulous evisceration of the core component of the Arab League proposal, which is his own novel contribution.

Also near universal are the standard references to Hamas: a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of Israel (or maybe all Jews). Omitted are the inconvenient facts that the US-Israel are not only dedicated to the destruction of any viable Palestinian state, but are steadily implementing those policies. Or that unlike the two rejectionist states, Hamas has called for a two-state settlement in terms of the international consensus: publicly, repeatedly, explicitly.

Obama began his remarks by saying: "Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel's security. And we will always support Israel's right to defend itself against legitimate threats."

There was nothing about the right of Palestinians to defend themselves against far more extreme threats, such as those occurring daily, with US support, in the occupied territories. But that again is the norm.

Also normal is the enunciation of the principle that Israel has the right to defend itself. That is correct, but vacuous: so does everyone. But in the context the cliche is worse than vacuous: it is more cynical deceit.

The issue is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself, like everyone else, but whether it has the right to do so by force. No one, including Obama, believes that states enjoy a general right to defend themselves by force: it is first necessary to demonstrate that there are no peaceful alternatives that can be tried. In this case, there surely are.

A narrow alternative would be for Israel to abide by a cease-fire, for example, the cease-fire proposed by Hamas political leader Khaled Mishal a few days before Israel launched its attack on December 27. Mishal called for restoring the 2005 agreement. That agreement called for an end to violence and uninterrupted opening of the borders, along with an Israeli guarantee that goods and people could move freely between the two parts of occupied Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The agreement was rejected by the US and Israel a few months later, after the free election of January 2006 turned out "the wrong way." There are many other highly relevant cases.

The broader and more significant alternative would be for the US and Israel to abandon their extreme rejectionism, and join the rest of the world -- including the Arab states and Hamas -- in supporting a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. It should be noted that in the past 30 years there has been one departure from US-Israeli rejectionism: the negotiations at Taba in January 2001, which appeared to be close to a peaceful resolution when Israel prematurely called them off. It would not, then, be outlandish for Obama to agree to join the world, even within the framework of US policy, if he were interested in doing so.

In short, Obama's forceful reiteration of Israel's right to defend itself is another exercise of cynical deceit -- though, it must be admitted, not unique to him, but virtually universal.

The deceit is particularly striking in this case because the occasion was the appointment of Mitchell as special envoy. Mitchell's primary achievement was his leading role in the peaceful settlement in northern Ireland. It called for an end to IRA terror and British violence. Implicit is the recognition that while Britain had the right to defend itself from terror, it had no right to do so by force, because there was a peaceful alternative: recognition of the legitimate grievances of the Irish Catholic community that were the roots of IRA terror. When Britain adopted that sensible course, the terror ended. The implications for Mitchell's mission with regard to Israel-Palestine are so obvious that they need not be spelled out. And omission of them is, again, a striking indication of the commitment of the Obama administration to traditional US rejectionism and opposition to peace, except on its extremist terms.

Obama also praised Jordan for its "constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel" -- which contrasts strikingly with US-Israeli refusal to deal with the freely elected government of Palestine, while savagely punishing Palestinians for electing it with pretexts which, as noted, do not withstand a moment's scrutiny. It is true that Jordan joined the US in arming and training Palestinian security forces, so that they could violently suppress any manifestation of support for the miserable victims of US-Israeli assault in Gaza, also arresting supporters of Hamas and the prominent journalist Khaled Amayreh, while organizing their own demonstrations in support of Abbas and Fatah, in which most participants "were civil servants and school children who were instructed by the PA to attend the rally," according to the Jerusalem Post. Our kind of democracy.

Obama made one further substantive comment: "As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regimeÉ" He did not, of course, mention that the US-Israel had rejected much the same agreement after the January 2006 election, and that Israel had never observed similar subsequent agreements on borders.

Also missing is any reaction to Israel's announcement that it rejected the cease-fire agreement, so that the prospects for it to be "lasting" are not auspicious. As reported at once in the press, "Israeli Cabinet Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who takes part in security deliberations, told Army Radio on Thursday that Israel wouldn't let border crossings with Gaza reopen without a deal to free [Gilad] Schalit" (AP, Jan 22); ÔIsrael to keep Gaza crossings closed...An official said the government planned to use the issue to bargain for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held by the Islamist group since 2006 (Financial Times, Jan. 23); "Earlier this week, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that progress on Corporal Shalit's release would be a precondition to opening up the border crossings that have been mostly closed since Hamas wrested control of Gaza from the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority in 2007" (Christian Science Monitor, Jan. 23); "an Israeli official said there would be tough conditions for any lifting of the blockade, which he linked with the release of Gilad Shalit" (FT, Jan. 23); among many others.

Shalit's capture is a prominent issue in the West, another indication of Hamas's criminality. Whatever one thinks about it, it is uncontroversial that capture of a soldier of an attacking army is far less of a crime than kidnapping of civilians, exactly what Israeli forces did the day before the capture of Shalit, invading Gaza city and kidnapping two brothers, then spiriting them across the border where they disappeared into Israel's prison complex. Unlike the much lesser case of Shalit, that crime was virtually unreported and has been forgotten, along with Israel's regular practice for decades of kidnapping civilians in Lebanon and on the high seas and dispatching them to Israeli prisons, often held for many years as hostages. But the capture of Shalit bars a cease-fire.

Obama's State Department talk about the Middle East continued with "the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and PakistanÉ the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism." A few hours later, US planes attacked a remote village in Afghanistan, intending to kill a Taliban commander. "Village elders, though, told provincial officials there were no Taliban in the area, which they described as a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds. Women and children were among the 22 dead, they said, according to Hamididan Abdul Rahmzai, the head of the provincial council" (LA Times, Jan. 24).

Afghan president Karzai's first message to Obama after he was elected in November was a plea to end the bombing of Afghan civilians, reiterated a few hours before Obama was sworn in. This was considered as significant as Karzai's call for a timetable for departure of US and other foreign forces. The rich and powerful have their "responsibilities." Among them, the New York Times reported, is to "provide security" in southern Afghanistan, where "the insurgency is homegrown and self-sustaining." All familiar. From Pravda in the 1980s, for example.

1948 is sixty years ago.

Arabs have offered peace. There are a couple exceptions to that offer, most notably Hezbollah and Hamas, which have each stated recently that they will NEVER recognize Israel or establish diplomatic relations.

That is unconditional rejection.

If there was a single Palestinian government, and that Palestinian government offered to make peace with Israel, even conditioned at 67 borders, then the statement that Israel "rejects peace" may have merit. You'd have to look at the fine print, as there always is. (Even with the Arab League proposal, after Peres floated, "we can negotiate on that basis", they added the fine print of UNLIMITED right of return, and that any negotiation over the old city of Jerusalem (even the Western Wall) was off the table.)

When faced with unconditional statements of rejection, then it is forced to modify what would be a good neighbor to good neighbor status.

What has occurred, especially with the continuing expansion of the settlements, and path of the wall, is not even a "rational adjustment strictly for defense purposes."

"and allows the Palestinians a state of their own"

How much of a "state" are you willing to give the Palestinians? Can they have an army? Are you going to limit its size? What about trade with other nations? Are you going to let them trade with Iran? What kind of trade will you permit them? Can they purchase a nuclear reactor? Can they purchase tanks and missiles and bombs? If they're a state, who has the right to tell them they can't do any of the above?

A Palestinian state sounds good on paper, but when you start to think about all the "rights" of a state, I don't see how it makes much strategic sense for Israel.

http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/why-they-hate-us/

January 5, 2009...9:34 am
Why They Hate Us

Ah, a new year and a new war. OK, the Israeli attack on Gaza isn’t a new war, it’s just another chapter in an old war. And what a crappy ugly misunderstood war it is. I have pretty much avoided commenting on the Palestine situation, partly because it is such an unpleasant and controversial subject…but mostly because the general level of ignorance about the topic is almost breathtaking. So, might as well wade into the new year by trying to dispel some of the miasma that drips from the so called news media.

The first thing that is ridiculous about this situation is that it is presented as some sort of conflict between two more or less equal parties, as if the Palestinians had some say in the matter. The West bank and the Gaza strip are Israeli occupied territory, they conquered them in 1967 and have ruled them since. Israel controls their borders, their airspace, their power, their water…everything. Israel has also simply seized much of the West Bank and has built settlements and crisscrossed it with roads and security walls that the Palestinians may not use or cross. The Palestinians have citizenship in no country and live in stateless limbo and grinding poverty completely at Israel’s mercy. Think about that, millions of people born in Israeli occupied territory…and they can’t even get passports.

And the situation in Gaza is far worse. It’s one of the most densely populated strips of land on Earth, completely cut off from the outside world. Most of the population lives in near starvation, medical supplies are almost non-existent, and just in general it is simply an open air prison camp run by Israel. And yet somehow, it’s the prisoners fault that the Israeli’s have unleashed the world’s fourth largest military on them? A military assault that was in the planning stages for months? Yes, Hamas or someone fired some toy rockets at Israel, a stupid and counterproductive thing to do. Of course Israel also violated the cease-fire on numerous occasions as well as committing other crimes against the people of Gaza…but that’s completely overlooked in the western news.

Let’s discuss the Hamas “rockets” while we are at it. The media makes it seem like these rockets are some sort of fearsome weapon that is a terrible threat to Israel. They speak of “barrages” of rockets, and rockets “raining” down on Israel. In fact, these are home-made rockets with a few pounds of home-made explosive that fly a few miles. Despite firing hundreds of them over the years they’ve only killed and wounded a minuscule handful of people. A single Israeli warplane carries more explosive than every rocket Hamas has ever launched added up. To put it mildly, the Hamas rockets aren’t a threat to Israel, Israel’s response is like machine gunning your neighbour’s home because his kid fired bottle rockets into your yard. To call Israel’s “response” disproportionate is too mild a word.

And I say “response” because this operation has been planned for months. And it has nothing to do with stopping Hamas’s toy rocket attacks. This is first and foremost about Israeli politics. There’s an election coming up and the ruling party was down in the polls, and since Israel is easily the most militant country on Earth, nothing like killing some Palestinians to get votes. It’s working like a charm, they are going up in the polls about a point for every 50 dead Palestinians. Yeah, democracy at work. This was also timed to occur before Barack took office, Israel knew Bush wouldn’t do a thing and now Barack is basically checkmated before he even swears in.

This was also about gutting the Saudi proposed peace plan that was actually making a lot of progress. The Saudis had proposed that all Arab governments would recognize Israel, guarantee peace, and would recognize Israel’s control of Jerusalem in return for Israel returning to the 1967 borders. Phew, close call, but that’s pretty much a dead letter now. And shows pretty much what the Israeli rulers are all about, they don’t want peace, they want all of Palestine for themselves without the people living there.

I should also mention that this attack is guaranteed to fuel anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli extremism everywhere. It won’t hurt Hamas of course, if anything it will make them more popular than ever. Which is why Israel funded and encouraged Hamas from the beginning, Israel desperately needed extremists in Palestine after the PLO recognized Israel and wanted to make peace.

A a final note, American foreign policy in the Middle East. There hasn’t been one for at least a decade, the US under Bush is simply a cheerleader and sponsor for Israel. What Israel wants and does, the USA supports whole hog. It’s obscene actually because it serves neither the interests of the USA or Israel to simply give carte blanche to whatever the Israelis do. There was a time when people in the Middle East saw the USA as a party who was trying to solve the problems with Israel and Palestine, those days are long gone.

You want to know why Arabs and Muslim’s hate the USA in ever greater numbers? Just turn on the TV and watch the world’s greatest military pounding defenceless Palestinian slums with barrages of US made and supplied weapons and munitions.

Happy New Year everyone, fasten your seat belts and hang on, 2009 is going to be quite a ride.

This really looks like an independent state, yeah?

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

Israel is not a Democracy. It is a Jewish state. One cannot be an ethnocentric state and a democracy at the same time. This should be obvious to all, but evidently is not.