When it comes to issues involving Israel, politicians in Washington can become quite hysterical, making the dumbest remarks or doing the most illogical things. Evidence of such bizarre behavior abounds, and this week provided several examples.
Taking top prize would be newly-elected Republican Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. Kirk wants the U.S. to use military assets to stop the humanitarian flotilla on its way to Gaza. He wrote that the United States should "make available all necessary special operations and naval support to the Israeli Navy to effectively disable flotilla vessels before they can pose a threat to Israeli coastal security or put Israeli lives at risk".
Apparently it doesn't matter to Kirk that several dozen U.S. citizens are on those ships (including a number of retired U.S. military personnel), and that hostile action by the U.S. military would put the lives of their own citizens at risk. It also doesn't appear to matter to Kirk that with the U.S. actively engaged in several conflicts in the region and U.S. favorable ratings at record lows in the Arab World, a hostile act of this sort against this target would, in fact, only serve to further compromise the U.S. in the Middle East.
Almost as disturbing as Kirk's call for military action was the letter sent this week by Texas Governor Rick Perry to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. Perry, who is widely believed to be considering entering the Republican Presidential primary contest, takes his hysteria over the flotilla in a different direction. In his letter, he says, "More importantly, I write to encourage you to aggressively pursue all available legal remedies to enjoin and prevent these illegal actions, and to prosecute any who may elect to engage in them in spite of your preemptive efforts".
Perry doesn't note which U.S. laws have been violated. Nor does he describe which "legal remedies" should be pursued. What he does reveal is that in his pursuit of the Presidency, he will say or do most anything.
And then there's the action taken this week by the entire U.S. Senate when it unanimously passed a resolution that expresses its: "opposition to the inclusion of Hamas in a unity government... [while noting that] Palestinian efforts to gain recognition of a state outside direct negotiations demonstrates absence of a good faith commitment to peace negotiations ... [which] will have implications for continued United States aid".
In speaking for their aid-threatening bill, the two Senators who introduced it made comments worthy of note. Lead sponsor of the legislation, Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins, accused the United Nations of having a "well documented record of being hijacked" by Palestinians for use against Israel. Collin's co-sponsor, Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin, denounced the UN effort, describing it as a "unilateral attempt by the United Nations to establish a Palestinian State".
Collins, of course, ignores the many times the U.S. Senate has "been hijacked" by supporters of Israel to take actions detrimental to the Palestinians (like this very resolution which threatens to cut U.S. aid or the infamous Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1996, which had a devastating impact on perceptions of the U.S. across the Arab World). And while Cardin's description of the possible U.N. action has been so overused as to become cliché, it is, nevertheless, nonsense, since it defies logic to describe any action taken by a vote of the overwhelming majority of the more than 190 member states of the United Nations as "unilateral". But when it comes to demonstrating loyalty to Israel, logic and good sense are put aside in favor of outlandish displays.
All this might just be dismissed as "political pandering" or more "harmless hot air" from politicians who specialize in both. But it is dangerous and has consequences. In the first place, actions and statements like these send absolutely horrible messages overseas about the inability of American politics to deal fairly with any Middle East issue that involves Israel. And so these behaviors end up undercutting U.S. diplomacy. Secondly, these actions, and the bizarrely skewed, one-sided politics they reflect, tie the hands (or, at times, force the hands) of Administrations, negatively impacting the ability of policymakers to act. And finally, in the end, these comments and actions embolden hardliners in Israel and the Arab World, who both come to believe that there are no restraints on Israeli behavior and no way that Arab concerns will be heard or respected in U.S. policy debates.
And so, far from being harmless hysteria or just plain dumb, all this posturing can be damaging and dangerous. It is a good part of the reason why we are in the mess we are in the Middle East and why a just resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict appears to be so intractable.
Dr. James J. Zogby is the author of Arab Voices: What They Are Saying to Us, and Why it Matters (Palgrave Macmillan, October 2010) and the founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, D.C.-based organization which serves as the political and policy research arm of the Arab American-community.
Follow James Zogby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AAIUSA
David Harris: Floating Some Ideas for the Flotilla Folk
Medea Benjamin: By Torpedoing the Gaza Flotilla, Israel Sunk Its Own Ship
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/top-egyptian-politician-calls-holocaust-9-11-fabrications-1.371820
In their defense, criticizing Israel is no harmless task. If anyone criticizes Israel, AIPAC goes on a rampage to destroy his/her career. Professor Norman Finklestein's career ended that way when AIPAC and Zionist Alan Dershowitz compelled DePaul University to deny him tenure without citing any reasons. All because he criticized Israel for killing 1400 Palestinians in 2008.
While we wage a multitrillion dollar war on so called "terrorism," the Israeli Lobby (AIPAC mainly) and Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp are doing more damage to American than terrorists ever could.
and
State Department Spokesperson Nuland said, "We underscore that delivering or attempting or conspiring to deliver material support or other resources to or for the benefit of a designated foreign terrorist organization, such as Hamas, could violate U.S. civil and criminal statutes and could lead to fines and incarceration."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/24/us-israel-usa-flotilla-idUSTRE75N4A620110624
This wouldn't be the first time the US supports/defends Israel in response to the possible injury/death of an American and it won't be the last but this is the first time our government has announced intentions to prosecute Americans who protest actions taken by Israel.
This is a great mystery to me. What hold does Israel have over the government of the US? Why does our government value Israel over the lives of its own citizens? Why do we continue to put our own security at risk for the sake of Israel? Why do we continue to materially and spiritually support a country whose government doesn't hesitate to kill our citizens?
But the Palestinians are ready to recognise Israel's 1967 borders.The head of the Hamas government in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh has said many times that his movement would respect the terms of a peace agreement with Israel if approved by referendum.
Hamas accept a Palestinian state with full sovereignty over the territories occupied in 1967 and Jerusalem as its capital, and a solution to the refugee issue You can see this on their national reconciliation document, adopted in 2006, But the false propaganda about hamas goes on by readers like Matt..
The movement will respect the result of a popular referendum on any agreement, even if the results contradict the political beliefs of Hamas, and is the highest degree of democracy, “said Haniyeh.
Only Washigton fails to recognise this form of democracy.
Reacting to these reports, an Israeli official said that Mr. Haniya had at no time explicitly says that in these circumstances, Hamas would end its conflict with Israel.
There is no two-state solution on the ground Israel wants both land and peace and security, and this is not possible,” said Hamas leader.
http://www.pisqa.com/12/hamas-ready-for-a-peace-agreement-with-israel-validated-by-referendum/
The "wonder" of religion.
..to finally support tough actions against Iran nuclear sites
One minute.
That will be $10,958,904.00 today.
And tomorrow.
And the next.
Palestine?
$71.77.
$1,712.00 today.
Oops, now we are up to $15,220.70 for Israel & $143.54 for Palestine.
Ill try to type faster next time so it wont be as mind-numbingly expensive.
Obviously, you haven't done much or you'd know that the arabs invaded the Levant in the name of Islam.
Unless you wish to state that Lincoln was wrong, you cannot deny Israel's rights to protect itself in this matter. As for the state of people in Gaza, that is the choice of Hamas. Gen. Grant made the people of Vickburg STARVE when he had them under seige, and many died as a result. They were reduced to eating rats, dogs, and any animal that moved. That is the whole point of such things.
When Hamas decides to honor the previously signed accords, and to stop shooting missiles into Israel, THEN such a blockade can be lifted. The best outcome would be for Hamas to do as Grant demanded the Confederates do, and that is surrender unconditionally and be totally disarmed.
protect itself from crayons and insulin? From toys and cement?
Long before Al Aqsa began shooting unguided rockets at ISrael (in response to Israel artillery shelling) Israel was still making life HELL for Gaza AND the west bank.
Remarkably even handed for the pro-occupation TImes.
"The Israeli position defies a brutal truth: last year’s flotilla made a big difference for the people of Gaza — at a terrible cost in lives — by refocusing international attention on their plight and forcing a change in Israeli policy. Today, twice as many goods enter from Israel as before. Nonetheless, Gaza remains a deeply sad and deprived place"
Still twice as many as almost none, is pretty bad - and the only building materials allowed in since ISraels attack of 2006 have been some gravel and cement for ONE hospital building.
Ben Cardins statement is really disturbing. Here is an elected representative who obviously has no clue what or where the UN is. Does he think its a country? UNland or something? How do people like this get elected? Does this mean democrats are trying to close some airhead gap with the republicans?
...as much as Saudi Arabia is a puppet state controlled by Alaska