'Will Palestine always be the issue? Interview with Raymond Deane'

905 wrote:

I'm sure energy security is important but is it the ultimate reason for every war?

The Crusades involved plenty of territorial aquisition too.

I'm guessing I'm never going to convince you that there's not a war on. If I recall it was leaked, not publicly announced.

We're not disagreeing over this, so:

Quote :

any war that wasn't over resources (including territory), and control of them

I don't think the US and Iran are at war, but I do think the US is preparing for it, and trying to create conditions for regime change. That's not to say they will be successful.

Leaked (ha! ha!) - who leaked it? Are they in jail?

Em, I still stand by the proposed Iran war and the Irish civil war. How about the NATO bombing of Serbia back in 1999.

The shrinking map of Palestine:



Leaving aside what happened between 1919 and 1967, which is clearly grounds for legitimate Palestinian protest, EVERYTHING that has happened since 1967 - the seizing of Palestinian lands by violently imposed illegal settlement - all of which has been denounced by the international community - is ongoing. If there is to be war on any country it should be on Israel - to force it to get back inside its own borders. Now they are taking Gaza as well. This isn't 'self-defence', this illegal and vicious invasion - theft of other people's homes because the Zionists see themselves as the chosen people and are bibilically ordained to kill the peoples of this territory in their own intersts. A bit like the Aryan supremacists of Nazi Germany.

Quote :

19/01/2009 - 15:06:31
Israel has said that it intends to take control of the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

It is thought the 22-day offensive has caused nearly $2bn (€1.5bn) worth of damage.

Saudi Arabia says it will donate a $1bn (€0.75bn) to the rebuilding effort.

Israel declared a unilateral ceasefire yesterday.

This is outrageous and illegal.

Could you provide a source?

Outrageous yes, not necessarily illegal. They have asked that the UN let them moniter the lot, the UN hasn't responded. I hope they tell them where to go. If it was Israel's money then fair enough. But I haven't seen any signs of them footing the bill.

Quote :

But Israel made clear it intended to manage the process closely by requiring project-by-project approval, the diplomats said. It has also asked for "guarantees" from the U.N. and other agencies that their projects will not benefit Hamas, an Islamist group viewed as terrorist by Israel and the West.

An Israeli official said U.N. agencies would be required to monitor "each and every dollar they spend" to make sure it goes directly to the local contractors doing the work. The message, he said, was "don't allow Hamas to take credit for anything".

U.N. officials declined to comment on Israel's request. Israel to keep tight grip on Gaza reconstruction

The continued blockade, if used to back up their request would probably make it illegal. Sure the blockade's probably illegal anyway. They're saying they'll lift the blockade in return for young Gilad Shalit.

Sorry, it was Breaking News on our portal. The closure of the border crossings has been added to now by the implicit threat of naval harrassment of any ships under the US/Israeli accord. I agree with you that they should be told to take a running jump by the UN. The EU should not make any deals with Israel until the siege is lifted.

Israel is finding it difficult to get a deal with Eygypt on the border.

Virtually everything the Israeli government has done since 1967 has been illegal.

[img]http://kharita.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/gaza_map_1201093.jpg[/img]

from
Gaza - Map of Bombing Intensity & Casualties, Dec. 27 -12 Jan, 2009






http://kharita.wordpress.com/

Really interesting mediabite interview.


McGurk's analysis in the SBP yesterday was also enlightening. It agreed with the analysis at the end of the most recent medialens piece on the aims and motivations of Israel. i.e. both Israel and the US really don't actually want peace.

The 'peace offensive' is what Tel Aviv fears most. They will (and have consistently) do anything to scupper an attempt at peace from the Palestinian side.

Does Obama really want to take on Israel?
http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/wholestory.aspx-qqqt=TOM+MCGURK-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=5.3.0.0-qqqn=1-qqqx=1.asp

Quote :

...
Israel’s attack on Gaza had two main objectives. The first was to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity. In layman’s language, this basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorise the region into submission, particularly since its defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon.

The second main reason for the attack is because Hamas had begun signalling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border.

That is to say, Hamas was signalling it had joined the international consensus.

Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive and, in order to defeat the peace offensive, it sought to dismantle Hamas.

This crisis will represent Obama’s first presidential test, and already the signals are for no change. During the election campaign, Obama even suggested complete Israeli control of Jerusalem - way in excess of even the Bush policy.

He recently told a Jewish newspaper: ‘‘We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.”

Israel has become the sole political entry point for the US into the Middle East and, Further, into the entire Muslim world.

How Obama can shift or change US global foreign policy without seriously readdressing this relationship remains critical.....

Now that the Israelis have withdrawn and the bombing has stopped the foreign press are finding their way in, and a picture of devastation on a large scale is emerging. Even gardens, fields, olive trees and cemeteries were torn up and destroyed. They've found over 100 bodies since yesterday. Amnesty and others are gathering evidence of war crimes. The yard of one of the UN schools was shown still littered with phosphorus that ignited when disturbed.

I saw a report on Channel4 news about that school. The evidence is damning and irrefutable at this stage.

The Guardian has a video on its main page of White Phosphorous being used.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/20/gaza-white-phosphorus

Quote :

....
The Guardian has obtained vivid footage of the effect of white phosphorus allegedly used by Israel during a bomb attack on Gaza last week.
The
film was made by Fida Qishta, a camerawoman working for the
International Solidarity Movement, a non-governmental organisation
operating in Gaza. It was shot on Wednesday 14 January in Khoza'a, east
of Khan Younis in the south of the Gaza Strip.
It shows clumps of
the burning chemical on the ground as locals try to put it out by
covering it with dust, mud and grass. The chemical, which locals
describe as phosphorus, fails to go out and continues to burn through
the debris piled upon it. As they kick it about, it subdivides into
smaller lumps and continues to burn.
The use of white phosphorus
as a weapon – as opposed to its use as an obscurant and infrared
blocking smoke screen – is banned by the United Nation's third
convention on conventional weapons, which covers the use of incendiary
devices. Though Israel is not a signatory to the convention, its
military manuals reflect the restrictions on its use in that convention.
A
second film reveals the impact of the white phosphorus on the human
body. A 15-year-old boy is shown in a Gaza hospital receiving treatment
for burns to his back and right arm which a doctor explains were caused
by the chemical, which appears to have eaten into his flesh in several
places.....

Pax wrote:

Quote :

Israel has become the sole political entry point for the US into the Middle East and, Further, into the entire Muslim world.

How Obama can shift or change US global foreign policy without seriously readdressing this relationship remains critical.....

What about Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, are they not US entry points too?

905 wrote:

Pax wrote:

Quote :

Israel has become the sole political entry point for the US into the Middle East and, Further, into the entire Muslim world.

How Obama can shift or change US global foreign policy without seriously readdressing this relationship remains critical.....

What about Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey, are they not US entry points too?

Yes I picked up on that one too. The US has many client states within the region but none it can depend on as well as Israel.

For instance Turkey was rebuked for listening to it's own populace and refusing to allow the US in to bomb/invade Iraq. Saudia Arabia is very close (the dictatorship had a lawyer in the white house under Bush) but is not as easygoing with respect to being a willing puppet.

Of course, McGurk's wider point on the fear of a Palestinian peace offensive still stands.

He never explains why the Israelis fear a peace offensive, or why peace should be so disasterous to them.

Livni had been regarded (until the war anyway) as the most dovish political leader in a long time. The Israelis were negotiating with Syria over the Golan Hights. Such as they were, the Annapolis talks could be interpreted in a peacable manner. But all this is ignored.

I warned you about Livni.

You wittered on about Mossad, while ignoring every political move the woman took. She's still the most dovish contender.

905 wrote:

You wittered on about Mossad, while ignoring every political move the woman took. She's still the most dovish contender.

Didn't I witter on about the Irgun, too?

I don't know, did you? Was she a member?

905 wrote:

He never explains why the Israelis fear a peace offensive, or why peace should be so disasterous to them.

Livni had been regarded (until the war anyway) as the most dovish political leader in a long time. The Israelis were negotiating with Syria over the Golan Hights. Such as they were, the Annapolis talks could be interpreted in a peacable manner. But all this is ignored.

No he doesn't explain it. The again, given the mountain of evidence to support the case that Israel consistently scuppers attempts at a "peace offensive",* he (like most people I'd imagine), probably assumes it just - goes without saying...

*
Anyways, that medialens article I mentioned above.

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/09/090112_an_eye_for.php

Quote :

.....Hamas has repeatedly declared its readiness to negotiate a long-term ceasefire with the Jewish state within its pre-1967 borders. But Israel has rejected the offer, just as it rejected the Arab League peace plan of 2002; and just as it has always rejected the international consensus for a peaceful solution in the Middle East. Why? Because the threat of such 'peace offensives' would involve unacceptable concessions and compromises. The well-known Israeli writer Amos Elon has written of the "panic and unease among our political leadership" caused by Arab peace proposals. (Cited, Noam Chomsky, 'Fateful Triangle,' Pluto Press, London, 1999, p.75)

The Palestinians are seen as an obstacle by Israel's leaders; an irritant to be subjugated. Noam Chomsky writes:

"Traditionally over the years, Israel has sought to crush any resistance to its programs of takeover of the parts of Palestine it regards as valuable, while eliminating any hope for the indigenous population to have a decent existence enjoying national rights." ('Chomsky on the US, Israel, and Gaza,' January 8, 2009; http://www.thecommentfactory.com /noam-chomsky-on-the-us-israel-and-gaza-1298)

And so, as Chomsky notes:

"The key feature of the occupation has always been humiliation: they [the Palestinians] must not be allowed to raise their heads. The basic principle, often openly expressed, is that the 'Araboushim' - a term that belongs with 'nigger' or 'kike' - must understand who rules this land and who walks in it with head lowered and eyes averted." (Chomsky, 'Fateful Triangle,' op. cit., p.489).....

also, unfortunately looking at polls within Israel and the popularity of the likes of the far-right Avigdor Lieberman and Obama's position, then things are unlike to change anytime soon.

(apologies about the number of paragraphs quotesd here, but, from my experience, they tend to prevent further repetition or misrepresentation....)

Quote :

....This vision of ethnic cleansing would have been familiar to David Ben-Gurion, one of the main architects of Israel and its first prime minister. The vision is a campaign of bombing, starving and maiming to terrorise the Palestinian population into flight; a terrible echo of 1948. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948, was massive and brutal, but incomplete: 80 per cent not 100 per cent of the Palestinians were expelled.

Cook warns that the political rise of Avigdor Lieberman, an immigrant from Moldova who leads a far-right party, is a sign of things to come. Lieberman, says Cook, "is the likely face of Israel's political future. He has been publicly promoting, and garnering support for, the expulsion of Israel's Palestinian minority, a policy that has been secretly formulated by more mainstream leaders for some time." (Ibid., pp.139-140)

Israeli historian Benny Morris, previously a liberal voice, "is one of a growing number of Israelis espousing this hardline policy of expulsion, or 'transfer' as it is more commonly, and coyly, referred to." (Ibid., p.141)

Cook argues that Israel's real intention is to replicate the apartheid model of South Africa; to transform Palestinian cities into Bantustans in a sea of Israeli-dominated territory, leaving Israeli settlers in possession of the arable land and vital water resources. He warns:

"The apartheid model is unlikely to be the end of the story, however... Another solution - transfer - will be needed. The Israeli public is already being softened up, with government ministers openly subscribing to it. Palestinians will have to be encouraged, or made, to leave their homes and land." (Ibid., pp.149-150)....

[...]

Quote :

....In 1948, David Ben-Gurion argued:

"We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of its Arab population." (Edward S. Herman and Grace Kwinjeh, 'Ethnic Cleansing: Constructive, Benign, and Nefarious (Kafka Era Studies, No. 1),' ZNet, August 9, 2006; http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/3419)

Fifty years later, in 1998, Ariel Sharon made the same point:

"It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonization or Jewish state without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands." (Ibid.)

On May 24, 2006, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told a joint session of congress that "I believed and to this day still believe, in our people's eternal and historic right to this entire land." (Ibid.)

Disturbingly, up to 60 per cent of Israeli Jews support schemes to encourage or force Arabs to leave both the occupied territories and Israel. (Cook, op. cit., p.141)....

[....]

Quote :

....As Chomsky says so well, the violent reactions of Hamas "can be condemned as criminal and politically foolish, but those who offer no alternative have no moral grounds to issue such judgments, particularly those in the US who choose to be directly implicated in these ongoing crimes - by their words, their actions, or their silence." (http://www.thecommentfactory.com /noam-chomsky-on-the-us-israel-and-gaza-1298)

The ongoing assault on Gaza, then, is about far more than restoring military pride, preventing rocket attacks and crushing Hamas. It is about Israel's strategic plan to deliver the Palestinian people to an abysmal fate in pursuit of the Zionist dream.

As is the case for all major US-UK allies, honest analysis of state policy of this level of ugliness is all but unthinkable for a mainstream corporate media that is anything but free and independent.

905 wrote:

I don't know, did you? Was she a member?

Quote :

Born in Tel Aviv,[5] Livni is the daughter of Eitan Livni and Sara Rosenberg, both prominent former Irgun members.[6] Tzipi Livni served as a lieutenant in the Israel Defense Forces and worked for the Mossad for nearly two years during the early 1980s, resigning, because of pressure, in August 1983. It is rumored that she was a terrorist hunter for the Mossad. [7]

The rumour was confirmed that Livni was involved in a Mossad assination group that killed a PLO leader in Europe. Both her parents were Irgun leaders who were involved in bomb attacks on civilians.

So she was not in Irgun. Do you want to discuss her politics:

Quote :

In Sharon's Cabinet, Livni was an avid supporter of the prime minister's disengagement plan and was generally considered to be among the key dovish or moderate members of the Likud party. She often mediated between various elements inside the party, and made efforts to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including successful efforts to have the pullout from the Gaza Strip ratified by the Knesset. On 12 November 2005, she spoke at the official yearly commemoration of Yitzhak Rabin's assassination.... Livni became the first Israeli cabinet minister to explicitly differentiate Palestinian guerrilla attacks against Israeli military targets from terrorist attacks against civilians. In an interview on the US television news show Nightline, recorded on 28 March 2006, Livni stated, "Somebody who is fighting against Israeli soldiers is an enemy and we will fight back, but I believe that this is not under the definition of terrorism, if the target is a soldier."^[21]
wiki