random musings on intervention

love all the love the europeans and americans are showering on themselves for their actions on libya, remember when u all decided to welcome gadaffi with open arms after he pledged his soul to u, opened his markets for ur weapons and started sending oil ur way?
lets not forget the system has not changed and american military and economic interests have not been abandoned for the good of humanity
the ppl of yemen and bahrain have also faced harsh measures and yet even though stopping those atrocities might be easier than doing so in libya considering their military ties with the US, nothing is being done
so once again ur life is only worth protecting if the regime killing u is anti-american
solidarity with the oppressed of the world demands we are always critical and ask questions like why action in libya and not in other places? the war in the congo killed over 5 million ppl over 10 years yet no one scrambled to pass a resolution to protect civilians there and still there is no attempt to intervene and stop the killings and rapes there
the ppl in iraq, afghanistan, pakistan and palestine also wonder if the western interest in protecting civilians would extend to them?

How do you say the people want the fall of the regime in Hebrew?

Politicians and military leaders in Israel have been on the edge of their seats since the revolution in Egypt began. Though many have pointed out that this concern with events in the region stems from a fear that Arab empowerment will lead to a decline in Israel's security or that Palestinians will be able to use this momentum to gain concessions from Israel regarding settlements, borders and the status of Jerusalem, what they really fear is an awakening amongst Israeli Jews of what their state has actually become: a racist, apartheid, militaristic entity which is as repressive to dissent, both Jewish and non-Jewish, as their fellow Arab dictatorial regimes are. Thus as Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Yemenis, Bahrainis and others are uprising against the entire state system that has been oppressing them, those who benefit from the status quo in Israel, mostly the military and weapons manufacturers, are tense that Israelis will no longer be fixated by the "Arab enemy" and begin to examine their own state and the very foundations it is built upon. And this would mean that potentially, the entire Zionist project would be in danger and not from hostile neighbors, but from within, from Jews themselves.

There have been progressive voices within Israeli society questioning and fighting against the militarization of the state and the continuing excuse of security to occupy and humiliate the Palestinians. These include Breaking the Silence, Israeli soldiers openly talking about their experiences in the Occupied Territories, Shministism, Israeli teenagers who refuse to do military service, and Boycott from Within. Even though these Israelis make up a very small percentage of society, the Knesset is on a rampage against any such efforts to question the status quo by creating a parliamentary committee of inquiry to look into the activities of left-wing groups and "their contribution to the delegitimization campaign against Israel."

These regime members are afraid that efforts on the "fringe" now will become mainstream as Israelis become inspired by what their brothers and sisters in the Arab world are accomplishing. And they have a right to worry. Veteran diplomat Ilan Baruch recently quit his post saying he can no longer represent Israel because its foreign policy is "wrong" and that blaming global anti-occupation views on anti-Semitism is "simplistic, artificial."

How do you say the people want the fall of the regime in Hebrew?

protests against israeli officials and such

About two weeks ago, 11 students were arrested at the University of California-Irvine after protesting Israeli ambassador Michael Oren speaking at their campus. This is one of several protests during the past year of Israeli officials including Ehud Olmert and Danny Ayalon.

A recent USA Today article posed the question: On campus, is heckling free speech? Or just rude? One of the professors interviewed in the article (a scholar of protest and civil disobedience) argues that the issue of shouting down these officials is not an issue of free speech and that those who are speaking have a right to be heard. He also claims that these confrontations will not help the Palestinian cause and eventually: "It's only a matter of time until Norman Finkelstein speaks at UCI and Jewish groups shout him down."

As someone who attended the protests against Olmert speaking at the University of Chicago a few months ago, I consider the goal of protesting Israeli officials to be ensuring they understand that the transnational movement for ending the occupation is as vibrant as ever and continues to grow and gain supporters. There are events across the country every day all over campuses that are pro-Israeli and present a narrative that is very much one-sided. No one is protesting those events because even if the information being presented might not be the complete truth, people have a right to believe what they want and share their opinions.

But protesting these Israeli officials, who are directly responsible for crimes like the war in Lebanon in 2006, the Gaza attacks over a year ago and the continuing blockade of Gazans, is not an issue of stifling their right to speak. It is a form of nonviolent action in support of Palestinians and their continuing struggle to end the occupation. While pro-Israeli groups have their own behind-the-scenes methods to achieve their agenda, (Congress's rejection of the Goldstone Report and Finkelstein's denial of tenure at Depaul are only two of a countless number of examples) those working for justice in Palestine/Israel have to take more public actions in order that they can create a space and climate in which serious discussion of continuing blatant Israeli violations can flourish . And the latest planning for going after global peace and human rights groups is a signal that Israel is feeling the pressure from not only the nonviolent actions abroad but also those within the Palestinian territories and within its own borders as well.

And don't worry about those organizing protests against Finkelstein, he always handles himself quite well in such situations.

china needs some lessons from israel

President Obama is planning to meet face to face with the Dalai Lama next week in spite of China urging him to withdraw his decision to meet with the Tibetan leader. It is interesting that the United States, which has a huge trade deficit with China (we import $27.9 million from them while exporting only $5.8 million) would be so willing to put this relationship at risk for the sake of human rights abuses in Tibet. Yet the United States would never dream of perhaps cutting the nearly $3 billion it sends annually over to Israel for the purpose of pressuring them to end their occupation of the Palestinians because of their "special relationship."

What China needs to do is get itself a Chinese style AIPAC. Although Chinese lobbying efforts have expanded over the past decade, it is still far less that the $15 million annual budget of AIPAC and far more friendlier. This Chinese lobby (ACPAC) needs to throw money at American Senators and Representatives, ruin the political careers of anyone who dares question Chinese policy and accuse all those who disagree with them as being anti-Chinese. And most importantly, make sure you gather enough Chinese American supporters whose main concern is the China issue and thus will make decisions about politicians based on nothing other than their support for China.

Trust me, not only will the Dalai Lama never again be invited to meet with a US president, but his reputation of a man of peace will be gone and the media will from now on be labeling him a troublemaker, violent and if ACPAC really does its job, a terrorist.

NYT and its take on Palestinian nonviolence

“These are not sit-ins with people singing ‘We Shall Overcome,’ ” said Maj. Peter Lerner, a spokesman for the Israeli Army’s Central Command, which controls the West Bank. “These are violent, illegal, dangerous riots.” This was focus of a recent NYT article about the tougher stance Israel has been taking against protests in the West Bank against the apartheid wall.

Although one would think it is commendable that the NYT is finally covering the use of nonviolent actions among Palestinians in fighting the Israeli occupation, no media is definitely better than media biased against you. The reporter claims in the video portion of this story that the protests against the wall are nothing more than "a combination of desperate activism and staged theater."

So the reporter has decided that there is no actual nonviolent movement in Palestine and thus these protests are nothing more than a ploy to convince the world that the Palestinians are interested in peace. And to make sure that readers of the NYT don't fall into that ploy, the reporter makes sure Israeli officials are allowed to put their spin on these protests. They argue that since most of these protests end in violence, even if it is instigated by Israeli soldiers after they use rubber bullets and live ammunition to quell the protests, the protests are themselves an action of violence and not nonviolence.

So peaceful protests bring about violent Israeli reaction, which means the protests themselves are violent. Makes lots of sense, right?

It's interesting that Martin Luther King, Jr. address this issue in his letter from Birmingham Jail. He writes: "In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion?"

standing for human freedom and dignity...

"As we have for over sixty years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That is why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. That is why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; and we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity."- Barack Hussein Obama, State of the Union, January 27, 2010.

except when it comes to palestine...

british honesty

"In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country. Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old traditions, in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land."-Lord Balfour, 1919.

You have to admire the honesty of the British back then, so very different than the US today.