So, how do you target only terrorists while your strong supporters advocate that civilians are legitimate targets for not having opposed Hamas — for having voted for Hamas?
How do you justify bombing schools, hospitals, and U.N. facilities?
How do you justify the use of white phosphorus in a tightly inhabited Gaza?
Noam Chomsky writes the following at the conclusion of his article, "'Exterminate all the Brutes': Gaza 2009":
Israel is deliberately turning itself into perhaps the most hated country in the world, and is also losing the allegiance of the population of the West, including younger American Jews, who are unlikely to tolerate its persistent shocking crimes for long. Decades ago, I wrote that those who call themselves "supporters of Israel" are in reality supporters of its moral degeneration and probable ultimate destruction. Regrettably, that judgment looks more and more plausible.
Meanwhile we are quietly observing a rare event in history, what the late Israeli sociologist Baruch Kimmerling called "politicide," the murder of a nation — at our hands.
In a later article ("Obama on Israel-Palestine"), Noam wrote what Barack Obama said about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the path to supposed peace as Obama wishes to project it.
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."
Noam's point in raising this concerns Obama's avoidance of the specifics of the Arab League's proposal that is based upon the 1967 "Green Line" borders and a two-state solution where Palestine is a completely autonomous nation-state with all the international legal recognition that the United States enjoys also as an autonomous nation-state. There are other issues, such as the right-of-return, where Palestinians would be allowed to return to their homes and property in what is now called Israel. There is also the issue of full compensation where that doesn't happen. Those are the main points.
I though raise the issue not because Obama is avoiding these issues, although he has so far, but rather because Obama's words attempt to delegitimize Hamas as the duly elected, mundane government, which it was and remains. The U.S. and Israel had no right, and still have no right, to tell the Palestinian people for whom to vote. Noam does also point this out.
Noam states the following:
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.
Israel and the U.S. have attempted to ignore the outcome of democracy simply because they don't like that outcome — Too bad for the U.S. and Israel.
Hamas used to say that it is dedicated to the destruction of Israel; however, it no longer says that. It was dedicated to regaining the property of the Palestinians that was wrongfully taken from them by all manner of evil means. Now though, Hamas sees that it cannot destroy Israel without itself being destroyed. Hamas is a realist. It blusters, as do all mundane parties in such circumstances. That's the psychological device to continue and to get the other side to not succeed in full on its side. Hamas doesn't want to be driven into the sea, as Israel colonies and roads, etc., on Palestinian lands threaten. Hamas is willing to settle for much less than it had initially wanted decades ago. Israel's actions all along have been designed to get as much as it can. It has worked all along to create "facts on the ground" from which it cannot be rolled back. Well, all facts on the ground can be rolled back; and if Israel persists in refusing a reasonable settlement with Hamas and the others, Israel will eventually suffer complete and utter defeat.
Look, Sinn Fein was an extremely well-armed group that definitely engaged in terrorism to achieve their goals. When the Irish Republican Army was negotiating with the British, Sinn Fein was still armed and ready to fight again and again and again. What ended the conflict was when Sinn Fein was allowed into the negotiations. This was done with some preconditions, but the direct negotiations began before Sinn Fein disarmed. It was one of the right decisions by Tony Blair.
Understand here that Sinn Fein was ridiculed every bit as much as is Hamas now. The parallels are uncanny.
The point here is that the smart approach is to declare a ceasefire and negotiate directly with Hamas where the terms of the Arab League are the target. The people of Hamas must be allowed to speak their grievances to the world. They must be treated just as well as has Sinn Fein. Hamas has already said that it will agree to the two-state solution. It is holding out for a few things that no doubt it would give away in negotiations, such as a term of years for a ceasefire. I believe that they could be brought to a permanent ceasefire in writing if they are treated as full human beings rather than dogs, as they are now being treated by the Israelis.
So, why is Obama taking this approach? The answer is money. It isn't going to pay him to support Hamas. He is paid to place more value on the lives of Jews than the lives of Arabs. That's a fact.
Look at the case of Gilad Shalit. Who has heard that name over and over and over, as if his life is more valuable than Osama Muamar's or Mustafa Muamar's. Who are they? They are the two brothers kidnapped the day before Shalit was taken. The Israelis raided Umm al-Nasser, a village in the Gaza Strip, at 3:30 AM on June 24, 2006. They took the two brothers for nothing. The next day, in what Hamas says was retaliation for Israel killing children, Hamas entered Israel, killed two Israeli soldiers, wounded five others, and took Shalit as a prisoner of war. Three members of Hamas were killed. In the meantime during this raid, some 9,000+ Palestinians were being held in Israeli prisons, many of them without benefit of any trial and without any proof on the part of Israel of their guilt for anything other than being Arab Palestinians. (Sources: "Israel Kidnaps Two Brothers." Independent Media Centre Ireland. June 26, 2006.; "Muamar family detention incident." Wikipedia.)
As usual, the information available to the public concerning this matter is very sketchy at best. The Wikipedia article, as of Tuesday, January 27, 2009, is clearly written from a Mossad (Israeli intelligence/propaganda) slant.
Hamas took Shalit to exchange Shalit for 1,000 men and all women and children (under 18-years-old) being held hostage by Israel. Israel refused to make the exchange.
To what may we look forward? We may look forward to the backward Benjamin Netanyahu becoming the Prime Minister of Israel only making things geometrically worse. Benjamin Netanyahu has constant, knowing ulterior motives. What ever he says, he's masking his true motives. He's loaded with hackneyed clichÃ©s about Iran. He said the following:
We're not going to redivide Jerusalem, or get off the Golan Heights, or go back to the 1967 boundaries. We won't repeat the mistake our [political opponents] made of unilateral retreats to merely vacate territory that is then taken up by Hamas or Iran.
(Source: "Iran Is the Terrorist 'Mother Regime': Israel's would-be prime minister says he was mocked for warning of the Gaza rocket threat," by Bret Stephens. The Wall Street Journal. January 24, 2009.)
Now, he's not saying this just so the stated positions will be bargaining chips he may give away without really giving away anything. He really means this stuff. He wants what Israel has now and more. His greed is insatiable. His visions of empire are huge. He extends it out way beyond his own life. He just wants the sense of ego being a part of the possibilities. His name will be in the imperial history books of Israel in centuries to come, he imagines.
What it is, is total self-centeredness.
Look at the religion of the false-Zionists. It is not the Judaism of Jesus Christ. It is some perverse religion of land thieves and killers. Look at what Chief Military Rabbi" Brigadier General Avi Ronzki of the Israeli Defense Force issued. He issued a pamphlet that said that the civilian population of Gaza was guilty as murderers. The pamphlet said to the Israeli troops "not to show concern for a population that surrounds us and harms us..." "Kill the one who comes to kill you. As for the population, it is not innocent." That's why they could kill women and children and bomb hospitals and schools and the U.N. compound, etc. ("." AFP. January 26, 2009.)
It's the synagogue of Satan. There's no doubt about it.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)