ALERT: Annapolis a Charade: Olmert Plotting Massive Aggression
In Germany, according to historian Richard Evans, in 1931-1932, if enough Germans of conscience had begun to say No -- history would have had an entirely diferent outcome.
If we go any further down this road the tears will be those of conservatives as well as progressives. They will be (Israeli) tears.
The time for weeping has to stop; the time for confronting must begin.
Adapted from "American Tears"
www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/american-tears_b_68141.html
The timing is interesting, given the "Annapolis Conference", which serves to be about PR alone, as Olmert has already ruled out any Negotiations or Compromise in the name of peace.
If you follow the events surrounding Israel's "Disengagement" from Gaza, you will quickly understand that this was the plan all along. While Israel was making a public spectacle of "forcing Jews to leave their homes", it was quietly surrounding the Strip with artillery emplacements, in an operation ominously named "First Rain".
Under this operation, Gaza basically became a "Free-Fire Zone", and several artillery and gunship strikes killed a high number of civilians. Finally, when one of these batteries fired upon and murdered a Palestinian family - picnicking on a beach that had been Segregated "Jews Only" only weeks before, Hamas finally decided to call an end to its unilateral, two-year cease-fire.
(In essence, they took Israel's bait. After all, you can't excuse your Aggression and label it "defense" if you're not being intermittently attacked. Never mind the hypocrisy underlying the entire media's framing of that whole debate ...)
When the Palestinians responded by electing Hamas to power (yes, elected), Israeli Extremists and their Ideological, bought foreign co-conspirators imposed unilateral sanctions on Gaza, a bit of Collective Punishment which increased the hardship of those stuck in the world's largest Concentration Camp.
When they felt Gaza had been substantially weakened, the US and Israel undertook a Coup attempt, using corrupt elements within the Fatah Party, provoking a violent response by Hamas, which expelled the group. Most of the world's media ignored the events leading to this "crisis", and instead only repeated the Propaganda emanating from the US and Israel, which used this to further increase sanctions against Gaza.
Most recently, Israel stepped up its Collective Punishment, except that human rights groups and legal advisors to the Government halted some of its approved measures, because they run contrary to International Humanitarian Law.
This was sold as another "response to rocket attacks" (again highlighting the hypocrisy of the debate's Framing - are the Palestinians allowed to defend themselves from strikes which actually KILL people ... ?), even though high-ranking officials said that this was NOT, in fact, a response to these attacks, but a way to "distance Israel from Gaza's infrastructure".
The real reason for this whole episode, of course, has been to "soften up" the Gaza Strip for a long-planned military attack, a way to undermine the resolve, and hopefully rid this territory of Palestinians altogether.
Olmert signalled long ago that he would not entertain any serious discussions at this summit, essentially selling out the Israeli public's desire for peace.
Now, Israel appears to be preparing to issue the usual 'justifications' for an Act of Aggression they planned long ago, by calling it a response to violence their own behaviour has provoked. The media's silence on these issues in past months signals their readiness to help in this regard.
Seeing the pattern yet?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/386082.html
In Germany, according to historian Richard Evans, in 1931-1932, if enough Germans of conscience had begun to say No -- history would have had an entirely diferent outcome.
If we go any further down this road the tears will be those of conservatives as well as progressives. They will be (Israeli) tears.
The time for weeping has to stop; the time for confronting must begin.
Adapted from "American Tears"
www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/american-tears_b_68141.html
The timing is interesting, given the "Annapolis Conference", which serves to be about PR alone, as Olmert has already ruled out any Negotiations or Compromise in the name of peace.
If you follow the events surrounding Israel's "Disengagement" from Gaza, you will quickly understand that this was the plan all along. While Israel was making a public spectacle of "forcing Jews to leave their homes", it was quietly surrounding the Strip with artillery emplacements, in an operation ominously named "First Rain".
Under this operation, Gaza basically became a "Free-Fire Zone", and several artillery and gunship strikes killed a high number of civilians. Finally, when one of these batteries fired upon and murdered a Palestinian family - picnicking on a beach that had been Segregated "Jews Only" only weeks before, Hamas finally decided to call an end to its unilateral, two-year cease-fire.
(In essence, they took Israel's bait. After all, you can't excuse your Aggression and label it "defense" if you're not being intermittently attacked. Never mind the hypocrisy underlying the entire media's framing of that whole debate ...)
When the Palestinians responded by electing Hamas to power (yes, elected), Israeli Extremists and their Ideological, bought foreign co-conspirators imposed unilateral sanctions on Gaza, a bit of Collective Punishment which increased the hardship of those stuck in the world's largest Concentration Camp.
When they felt Gaza had been substantially weakened, the US and Israel undertook a Coup attempt, using corrupt elements within the Fatah Party, provoking a violent response by Hamas, which expelled the group. Most of the world's media ignored the events leading to this "crisis", and instead only repeated the Propaganda emanating from the US and Israel, which used this to further increase sanctions against Gaza.
Most recently, Israel stepped up its Collective Punishment, except that human rights groups and legal advisors to the Government halted some of its approved measures, because they run contrary to International Humanitarian Law.
This was sold as another "response to rocket attacks" (again highlighting the hypocrisy of the debate's Framing - are the Palestinians allowed to defend themselves from strikes which actually KILL people ... ?), even though high-ranking officials said that this was NOT, in fact, a response to these attacks, but a way to "distance Israel from Gaza's infrastructure".
The real reason for this whole episode, of course, has been to "soften up" the Gaza Strip for a long-planned military attack, a way to undermine the resolve, and hopefully rid this territory of Palestinians altogether.
Olmert signalled long ago that he would not entertain any serious discussions at this summit, essentially selling out the Israeli public's desire for peace.
Now, Israel appears to be preparing to issue the usual 'justifications' for an Act of Aggression they planned long ago, by calling it a response to violence their own behaviour has provoked. The media's silence on these issues in past months signals their readiness to help in this regard.
Seeing the pattern yet?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/386082.html
Note that this was the same day that Israel announced that, as was planned before Annapolis, its military is ready to invade Gaza.
Israeli military announces readiness to invade Gaza
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/386823.html
US Withdraws Mideast Resolution at UN
By EDITH M. LEDERER
The Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS - Because of Israeli objections, the United States suddenly withdrew a U.N. resolution endorsing this week's agreement by Israeli and Palestinian leaders to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement , even though the measure had overwhelming Security Council support.
The U.S. about-face in less than 24 hours on Friday surprised many U.N. diplomats and highlighted Israel's difficult relations with the United Nations, which it contends is anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian (in order to distract from the true cause of consistent UN condemnation of Israeli crimes). But what surprised U.N. diplomats most was that the U.S. didn't consult Israel, one of its closest allies, before introducing the draft resolution on Thursday afternoon.
With virtually every other Mideast resolution, the U.S. has consulted Israel in advance, but on Thursday, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad first presented it at a closed council meeting.
As he left, he welcomed the "very positive" response from council members but told reporters he needed to consult with the Israelis and Palestinians on the text to ensure that the resolution was what they wanted.
It clearly was not what Israel wanted as a first step to support the agreement that emerged at the U.S.-sponsored Mideast conference in Annapolis, Md. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to try to reach a peace settlement by the end of 2008.
(in front of the cameras. Behind closed doors, the current Israeli Regime has no such plans, and as such, certainly would not welcome a Security Council Resolution that may punish them for their rejection of peace.)
Well-informed diplomats said Israel didn't want a resolution because it would bring the Security Council, which it distrusts, into the fledgling negotiations with the Palestinians.
(And level the playing field ... They don't 'distrust" it, they simply son't want to be part of any process they cannot control.)
The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Khalilzad introduced the draft resolution not only without consulting the Israelis and Palestinians but without getting broad support from President Bush's administration.
"It's not the proper venue," Israel's deputy ambassador Daniel Carmon told reporters after Friday's council meeting. "We feel that the appreciation of Annapolis has other means of being expressed than in a resolution."
(Mainly through the mainstream media, in order to garner positive PR. Not to be taken seriously ...)
"We were not the only ones to object," Carmon added, saying the Americans had told the Israelis that the Palestinians also objected. Arab diplomats confirmed the Palestinians were not consulted but said they supported the draft.
Abbas told reporters in the Tunisian capital, Tunis, on Friday, that while he didn't know the details of the draft resolution it was a sign of the United States' seriousness, which he also perceived at the Annapolis conference.
"This means, if what we have learned is verified, that there are serious steps that speak to the existence of an American position supporting the negotiations," Abbas said.
Khalilzad was in Washington on Friday for previously scheduled meetings and it was left to U.S. deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff to announce the U.S. decision to withdraw the resolution.
He said the U.S. had held intensive consultations over the past few days "and the upshot was that there were some unease with the idea" of a resolution.
"The focus, we all realized again, should be placed and remain on Annapolis and the understanding that was reached there," Wolff said.
(Not on actually DOING anything.)
In Washington, the State Department said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had decided a resolution was unnecessary.
"We have looked at this and, at the end of the day, the secretary believes that the positive results of Annapolis speak for themselves and there is really no reason to gild the lily," spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Two U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe Rice's decision to withdraw the draft document, said there were several concerns about the resolution, including the failure to consult the Israelis and Palestinians on the language and the possibility that some on the Security Council might try to add anti-Israeli language to it.
Qatar's U.N. Ambassador Nassir Al-Nasser, the only Arab member on the Security Council, had said Thursday he was "happy with the language" in the U.S. draft and "happy that the council is dealing with this issue."
But it was not to be.
Instead of a resolution, Indonesia's U.N. Ambassador Marty Natalegawa, the current council president, summed up the council's feelings, telling reporters there was "an overwhelming sense of welcome to what has happened in Annapolis."
Council members are "welcoming, supporting and encouraging the parties to diligently follow up," he said.
"There is an absolutely clear message of council unity in supporting Annapolis conference and its achievements, and not to be overly preoccupied at this time on the format or the form of the council's response," Natalegawa said.
,,,
Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report
Israeli military announces readiness to invade Gaza
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/11/386823.html US Withdraws Mideast Resolution at UN
By EDITH M. LEDERER
The Associated Press
UNITED NATIONS - Because of Israeli objections, the United States suddenly withdrew a U.N. resolution endorsing this week's agreement by Israeli and Palestinian leaders to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement , even though the measure had overwhelming Security Council support.
The U.S. about-face in less than 24 hours on Friday surprised many U.N. diplomats and highlighted Israel's difficult relations with the United Nations, which it contends is anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian (in order to distract from the true cause of consistent UN condemnation of Israeli crimes). But what surprised U.N. diplomats most was that the U.S. didn't consult Israel, one of its closest allies, before introducing the draft resolution on Thursday afternoon.
With virtually every other Mideast resolution, the U.S. has consulted Israel in advance, but on Thursday, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad first presented it at a closed council meeting.
As he left, he welcomed the "very positive" response from council members but told reporters he needed to consult with the Israelis and Palestinians on the text to ensure that the resolution was what they wanted.
It clearly was not what Israel wanted as a first step to support the agreement that emerged at the U.S.-sponsored Mideast conference in Annapolis, Md. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to try to reach a peace settlement by the end of 2008.
(in front of the cameras. Behind closed doors, the current Israeli Regime has no such plans, and as such, certainly would not welcome a Security Council Resolution that may punish them for their rejection of peace.)
Well-informed diplomats said Israel didn't want a resolution because it would bring the Security Council, which it distrusts, into the fledgling negotiations with the Palestinians.
(And level the playing field ... They don't 'distrust" it, they simply son't want to be part of any process they cannot control.)
The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said Khalilzad introduced the draft resolution not only without consulting the Israelis and Palestinians but without getting broad support from President Bush's administration.
"It's not the proper venue," Israel's deputy ambassador Daniel Carmon told reporters after Friday's council meeting. "We feel that the appreciation of Annapolis has other means of being expressed than in a resolution."
(Mainly through the mainstream media, in order to garner positive PR. Not to be taken seriously ...)
"We were not the only ones to object," Carmon added, saying the Americans had told the Israelis that the Palestinians also objected. Arab diplomats confirmed the Palestinians were not consulted but said they supported the draft.
Abbas told reporters in the Tunisian capital, Tunis, on Friday, that while he didn't know the details of the draft resolution it was a sign of the United States' seriousness, which he also perceived at the Annapolis conference.
"This means, if what we have learned is verified, that there are serious steps that speak to the existence of an American position supporting the negotiations," Abbas said.
Khalilzad was in Washington on Friday for previously scheduled meetings and it was left to U.S. deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff to announce the U.S. decision to withdraw the resolution.
He said the U.S. had held intensive consultations over the past few days "and the upshot was that there were some unease with the idea" of a resolution.
"The focus, we all realized again, should be placed and remain on Annapolis and the understanding that was reached there," Wolff said.
(Not on actually DOING anything.)
In Washington, the State Department said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had decided a resolution was unnecessary.
"We have looked at this and, at the end of the day, the secretary believes that the positive results of Annapolis speak for themselves and there is really no reason to gild the lily," spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Two U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe Rice's decision to withdraw the draft document, said there were several concerns about the resolution, including the failure to consult the Israelis and Palestinians on the language and the possibility that some on the Security Council might try to add anti-Israeli language to it.
Qatar's U.N. Ambassador Nassir Al-Nasser, the only Arab member on the Security Council, had said Thursday he was "happy with the language" in the U.S. draft and "happy that the council is dealing with this issue."
But it was not to be.
Instead of a resolution, Indonesia's U.N. Ambassador Marty Natalegawa, the current council president, summed up the council's feelings, telling reporters there was "an overwhelming sense of welcome to what has happened in Annapolis."
Council members are "welcoming, supporting and encouraging the parties to diligently follow up," he said.
"There is an absolutely clear message of council unity in supporting Annapolis conference and its achievements, and not to be overly preoccupied at this time on the format or the form of the council's response," Natalegawa said.
,,,
Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report
