Israel is a Serial Killer That Must Be Stopped

 

We have to stop lying to ourselves.  The whole notion of Peace Talks to solve the Israel and Palestine question is a complete and utter sham. Israel has no intention of solving the Palestinian issue by any other means than genocide and ethnic cleansing. The whole world must ask itself, how do you negotiate with a serial killer to stop the killing?  

In a fundamental way, how is the Likud Party any different than Hamas?  Or to be even more blunt and to the point, how is the Likud Party today any different from what the NAZI Party of Germany was in the 1930s?  

The Israelis demand that the Hamas Party “recognize Israel as a Jewish State” before everything else, but why does no one on the world stage demand that the Likud Party “recognize a Palestinian State”? The Likud Party has in its charter the claim of divine right that the Jordan River is the permanent eastern border of Israel and that the Palestinians have no right to a state.  The Likud Party has no intention of allowing Palestinian control of any of the land of “Greater Israel.” As the Likud Party Charter states:

“The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting." 

Thus, the Likud Party has no intention of ever conceding the settlements and only intends the ultimate expansion of the settlements to include all of the West Bank and Gaza and their current leadership of Israel demonstrates by their attacks on Gaza and their apartheid administration of the West Bank their primary intent of gaining the whole territory that they claim is Israel by either genocide or ethnic cleansing of the land. For the Likud Party and their supporters, the end game is the conversion of the entire Palestine Mandate into the Jewish nation of Israel. Yet, where are the current world leaders who dare to criticize this for what it is?  

We in the USA can’t avoid any responsibility for what is happening in Israel and Palestine.  Now, U.S. supporters of Israel are supporting the holocaust in Gaza, are supporting the war crimes of Israel, are supporting genocide and apartheid committed by the Israelis. The government of Israel has ceased to be legitimate by its own acts.

This is not a question of politics, nor is it a question of religion; it is a question of humanity.  As the article “Central to the Achievement of the ‘Zionist Dream’ is theNotion That Jewish Lives Matter More Than Arab Lives”  by Donna Nevel makes clear, at every crossroads of the so-called roadmap to peace, the Israelis have chosen the road that values Israeli lives while dehumanizing Palestinian lives, just as the Nazis dehumanized Jewish lives. 

If anyone thinks this is over stated, and my comparison to the Nazis is just a crass example of “Godwin’s Law” the issue is settled by simply taking any official statement of the Likud Party or the current Israeli government and substituting  the roles with words like “Jewish” changed to “Aryan” and “Isreal” changed to “Germany.”  The language and the intent will be just as clear today as it was in 1930s Germany.

For instance, the Likud Party Charter also states:

"The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river. The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs."

How is this any different from Nazi German propaganda which would have likewise stated:

"The Government of Germany flatly rejects the establishment of a Jewish state north of the Mediterranean Sea. The Jews can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state. Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology, their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Germany’s existence, security and national needs."

Doesn’t that make the very idea of a “framework of self-rule” a complete farce? Of course it does, but this is the official position of the leaders of Israel and the leading party of Israel and the people of Israel who continue to elect Likud and the other right-wing Zionist parties into government.

Israel has become a serial killer.  Out of the depths of despair and the atrocities committed against it, the nation of Israel was born. This is how most serial killers began: abused and tortured as children and then they grow up.  If we look into the lives of serial killers we can feel compassion for their early childhood, for the complete deprivation of empathy and love in their development, for the cruel punishments that twisted parents inflicted upon them, and so too, can we feel compassion for the Jews who suffered and survived the Holocaust that birthed the nation of Israel.  But when the tormented childhood gives birth to the adult personality of the serial killer, no amount of compassion for the child can excuse the acts of the serial killer.  Likewise for Israel, no amount of compassion for the suffering experienced in the Holocaust that has no given birth to the serial killer nation of Israel can condone or excuse the holocaust, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid that Israel is now inflicting on another people while mentally and emotionally protecting itself under the iron dome of propaganda that the people and nation of Israel are more valuable and scared as human beings than the people whose land the Israelis have taken over for their Jewish homeland.

The serial killer nation of Israel must be stopped. Even if it ever was, the government of Israel is no longer legitimate because its actions against the Palestinians are no more legitimate than the Hutu treatment of Tutsis in Rwanda, than the Afrikaner treatment of the native South Africans in South Africa, or than the treatment of the Nazis against the Jews in Germany.

The USA is the only nation with enough power over Israel to stop it.  We are the primary and chief nation enabling Israel’s serial killing spree.  Without the aiding and abetting of US support Israel could not maintain its blockade of Gaza and the West Bank, could not maintain the settlements, and could not maintain the apartheid occupation. At any time, the US has the power to stop vetoing United Nations Security Council review of the conduct of Israel.  The USA is completely hypocritical at the UN Security Council when it demands intervention for nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, yet prevents discussion of intervention to protect the Palestinian people. 

Since the USA won’t act, the only other avenue is for another Nation to take the reins and lead a movement to break the blockade of Gaza and the West Bank in the manner of breaking the 1948 Berlin Blockade.  Some nation of compassion must unilaterally step forward and begin an airlift and sealift to Gaza and airlift to the West Bank to remind the world that the serial killing by Israel must be stopped.  Only by calling Israel’s bluff aimed at other nations, only by directly challenging the legitimacy of Israel’s apartheid occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza and of Israel’s serial killing of Palestinians, will the world wake up from its delusional dream that Israel is and remains a humanitarian nation no matter what is does.

A movement to Break the Blockade must be based on humanitarian principles and avoid any politicization of the issue.  In fact the Break the Blockade movement has already begun with several organizations such as the Free Gaza Movement, and people’s flotillas, such as the Gaza Freedom Flotilla  of May 2010 that attempted to provide aide to Gaza that was stopped and illegally seized by Israel. But no nation came to the Gaza Freedom Flotilla’s protection in international waters and so Israel was allowed to commit piracy on the open seas.  

The second flotilla named “Freedom Flotilla II” was publicly opposed by the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Canada, the “Middle East Quartet” (consisting of the European Union, Russia, the United Nations, and the United States), and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Thus, these are the nations with direct complicity in Israel’s continuing serial killings.  And this is why there must be a nation that comes forward to conduct either a flotilla or an airlift to show that Israel’s attack on attempts to break the blockade are acts of war against humanity that are not condoned and abetted by the so-called “important” nations.  

What nation of stature and compassion could dare to confront the imperial nations of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russia?  The Netherlands, Sweden, Germany, Spain, are possibilities. Could the people of Canada, France, the UK, or even the USA change their governments positions?  Could the General Assembly of the UN formally adopt a call to Break the Blockade and invite nations to conduct sea or airlifts under the authority of the General Assembly?

While the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement is aiming in the right direction, it is only a prelude to the real action necessary to Break the Blockade and reestablish the protection of the human rights of the Palestinians and to stop the serial killing spree by Israel.

Israel is a serial killer that must be stopped, and before any violence is used to stop it, any and all nonviolent means must used. A movement to Break the Blockade is a nonviolent method. If Israel chooses to violently attack a nonviolent sea or airlift, then it will be clear to the whole world who is the real perpetrator of the serial violence.    

 

 

The Only Realistic Solution for Palestinians is the Three-State Solution

Here's another story about the "One-State" solution verses the "Two-State" solution for the Palestinians with still no mention of a "Three-State" solution.

The Donkey of the Messiah

THE PEOPLE who speak now of the “one-state solution” are idealists. But they do a lot of harm. And not only because they remove themselves and others from the struggle for the only solution that is realistic.

Yes, let's be realistic.  What I don't understand about the Palestinian people is why wait for permission to be independent? That is not realistic.  Perhaps it is the Prisoner’s Dilemma or the Stockholm Syndrome, or a bit of both. If Palestinians want to be independent then they have to declare their independence and act accordingly. Asking for permission to be independent from the USA and Israel, the two nations that are enslaving you, is no way to be independent.

 

But also, is the Two-State solution realistic?  As I see it, Palestinians are doing themselves just as much harm by holding on to either the "One-State" or the "Two-State" idea when they are hopelessly separated themselves.  If the people of Gaza and the West Bank can't get their act together to form a single state between themselves, which seems to be the realistic observation, then the only real and realistic solution is a "Three-State" solution with Gaza and the West Bank each declaring themselves independent, with the caveat and hope that they may join in a federation later.

I say this to the people of Gaza and the West Bank: Declare your independence, either jointly or separately, then act independently by (1) writing your constitution, (2) holding elections, (3) forming your government, (4) sending out diplomats to seek recognition from other nations. Don't ask and don't wait for the USA or Israel to give you permission. They have no intention of doing so. 

 

The Difference Over Israel Is Not A Difference Between Being Left Or Progressive.

I agree with Michael A. Dover's comment on Portside that

"It is important to recognize that what is progressive at any one point in history is not necessarily what seems most 'left'."

Many progressives and leftists have never attempted to discern the differences arising from their common ground of honest concern for the welfare of humanity over the welfare of the wealthy.

So how do we tell the difference? In a pinch, a leftist is more concerned about being on the "left side" than anything else. Leftists have the highest regard for their ideological position as a shared value and base their sense of personal integrity on remaining true to the team's point of view. Any deviation from their leftist positioning is seen as betrayal of "Team Left." This sense of honor and faith to the collective base is what makes leftists feel pride in their sense of selflessness. The ideology as a determining factor is always set within a social context in which the consensus about what is left approach is the most important. This high value on the group also places great stress on the group's cohesion, and leads to the fracturing of group identity, such as the well known stereotype of Stalinists verses Trotskyites.

In the same pinch a progressive will ask, "In this situation what will lead to progress toward the betterment of the human situation?" This is a coherent ideal rather than a consistent ideology. As an ideal, the progressive is moved by a guiding star rather than a leftist's guidebook, so that individual's orientation to the situational betterment of the human condition is the central concern. The progressive's main concern is about progress toward betterment of the condition of the most (rather than the conservative's concern for the betterment of the condition for the "best" and the "fewest", i.e., themselves), but the progressive's group betterment goal is set within the personal value of letting people personally define how they are guided by their own star rather than a group consensus upon which constellation to follow. Of course, the downside for progressives is that group integration in a common strategy is weakened as each person is led by the sound of their own drummer when stepping toward progress. The images of herding cats or carrying frogs into a wheelbarrow are appropriate stereotypes for getting progressives to actually do practical political work.

So while leftists and progressives instantly see their shared value of working toward the betterment of the human condition for the widest number of humans possible, they often move away from each other when it comes to putting boots, loafers, sandals, sneakers, and high heels on the ground to march, walk, hike, jog, or stroll toward this goal.

How does this apply to the Israel-Palestine situation? The leftist will have a rule and apply it, and here the general rule is that oppression is always bad and must be aggressively opposed. However, when Israel is the case to which the rule is applied the team factor comes into play. For the mainstream Jewish Left and those who are their close friends, Israel in its very nature is a product of left thinking and the very existence of Israel is a continuing living example of the fight against oppression generally and the oppression of the Jews specifically. Any act that undermines Israel is therefore seen as an act against the left view that fights oppression. Any charge against Israel is discounted on the basis that Israel is protecting itself against the oppression of the attacks on its existence. Of course on the other hand, there is an International Left that reads the current facts as trumping the historical facts, and finds the current oppression of Palestinians by the Israel government and its forces to be just one more example of oppression by the powerful against the weak that now also must be diligently opposed. In this situation, the two versions of what is the true left position will be at odds while both claim to be on the left against oppression.

Similarly, progressives find themselves at odds over how to respond to Israel's behavior. Mainstream Jewish progressives and their close friends will argue that the hope for the betterment of the most people in the Middle East rests upon the continued existence of Israel as a neighborhood example of democracy and human rights. However, progressives with no personal attachment to Israel see the situation quite differently and say that there is no human argument that can condone the current oppression of the millions of Palestinians, and that the progressive thing to do to better the condition of the most in the Middle East is to clearly oppose Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. In this view, Israel is only a sham democracy and is running a con-game when it comes to protecting "human rights" as opposed to merely protecting the economic and military power of Israel.

From the perspective of this analysis, the main difference is not between the left and progressives as between those Jewish Left-Progressives (and their friends) who continue to equate Israel as the protector of Jewish identity as being against oppression and the rest of the left and progressives who see the government of Israel as the central betrayer of Jewish identity and values. I see no way to avoid this very unpleasant and inconvenient conclusion.

I identify my position as being a radical progressive of the kind that says the government of Israel has betrayed the core values against oppression. (Of course it is an open question of history whether or not those values were ever really in play on the ground as Israel was created by the forced ethnic cleansing as the USA was also created, but that is not the issue here.) The international ideal that legitimatized the creation of Israel by the UN was the simple value of protecting people from oppression. Israel has now clearly betrayed that value by oppressing the Palestinian people through collective punishment, committing social atrocities in the building of settlements, and other such oppressions. It is now time that Israel as a government and a nation either (1) guarantee that value against oppression equally for the Palestinians or (2) cease to have any continuing international legitimacy to exist.

Though the human mind has an infinite capacity to rationalize, I see no rationalization that can overcome the plain fact that Israel and the USA are not permitting the people in the Palestinian territories to exist as a sovereign nation.

Honestly, the Palestinians themselves have made a shambles of trying to work together for their freedom, but their inability to do so is understandable when it is seen in the context of their captivity (figuratively and concretely speaking) by Israel. When people are in prison and divided by their captors and guards, it is very difficult to work together effectively. This is why we see ethnic gangs in prisons fighting each other rather than working collectively against the guards and wardens, and it is precisely why the prison authorities keep the prison factionalism alive in order to prevent a concerted action by the inmates against their guards who are vastly outnumbered.

Ultimately, what the UN gave, the UN should be able to take away. UN Generral Assembly Resolution no. 181 of 1947, and subsequent related resolutions, put into effect the previous intent of the League of Nations when creating the "Mandate for Palestine" in 1922. UN Resolution no. 181 recognized that the Mandate of Palestine should be divided into two nations one as a Jewish State and one as an Arab State. The context for the Palestinian request for recognition as a nation and continuing implementation of Resolution no. 181 and its progeny, should be the inherent power of the UN to pass a resolution under its parliamentary plenary power to amend or even repeal its prior resolutions including No. 181. In other words, if Israel and the USA continue to oppose and thwart the recognition of a sovereign nation for the Palestinians and continue to violate Resolution no. 242 by military occupation and blockade, then Resolution no. 181 should be repealed and recognition of Israel should be removed.

I continue to believe that the Palestinians have the best chance for a common sovereignty if they recognize the separate statehood of Gaza and the West Bank and form a federal connection as the expression of their unity rather than attempting to establish a single state with a single government. The fact of their territorial separateness cannot be ignored and just as the different states of the USA allow for a certain amount of both local control and local experimentation, so too will separate states in a unified federal system allow the Palestinians to have the best of local organization and common identity and citizenship. So far, I have not heard of any practical steps in this direction, though I am admittedly a world away from hearing what the insiders are planning in Palestine. However, if they want to have world opinion on their side when the question of their sovereignty comes before the UN, then it would behoove them to have a very practical plan for their nationhood status to present in order to inspire confidence.

At a minimum, their "Outline for Nationhood" should include the following proposals of trust:

1. Declare that the new nation of Palestine will consist of two states of contiguous geographical integrity, i.e., the West Bank and Gaza, bound together in a federal unity.

2. Affirm that there will be a federal constitution defining the powers of the federal government, including issues of legislative, judicial, executive, monetary, military, diplomatic, citizenship, etc., and there will be separate state constitutions for the functioning of the two states within their federal unity.

3. Establish a general timeline for the creation of the constitutions.

4. Ratify the importance of human rights with a statement of commitment to the principles spelled out in the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights and promise that the new Palestinian nation will protect the human rights of its citizens regardless of ethnic or religious identity.

5. Recognize the six basic principles of democracy: (1) The people are sovereign; (2) The people exercise their sovereignty by the rule of law not individuals, cliques, or juntas; (3) The people govern by majority rule; (4) The majority rule is constitutionally limited by minority rights; (5) The governance structure has a separation of powers so that no one branch or government function has all the power; and (6) The governance system has checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power between or within the branches from becoming tyrannical. And that within these "ground rules" of democracy the people of Palestine will create their constitutions and government structure.

6. Affirm that the new nation of Palestine will accept and abide by the unanimously approved UN Security Council Resolution no. 242 of 1967, and affirm that as soon as Israel withdraws its armed forces from the occupied territories as referenced in Resolution no. 242 and ends the blockade of Gaza, then the provisional government of Palestine will officially recognize the territorial inviolability and political independence of Israel according to Resolution no. 242.

If the Hamas and Fatah political organizations can agree on an Outline for Nationhood with a provisional governmental authority, then as soon as they have that agreement, and without waiting for the UN vote of recognition, they should send out diplomatic envoys to all the nations of the world asking for individual diplomatic recognition of Palestinian sovereignty and the provisional government. France has already recognized the Provisional Transitional National Council of Libyan rebels as the rightful Libyan regime. A transitional government of Palestine would have a much greater justification for receiving recognition. By demonstrating their ability to function as a sovereign nation and seek diplomatic recognition on their own without prior approval, the Palestinians would create greater pressure on the UN as a body to officially recognize the nation of Palestine and provide the necessary assistance for the nation building that will be required after the devastation wrought by Israel.

The Confused Voice of the American Empire

I'm in favor of the flotilla of ships sailing under the umbrella of the Free Gaza Campaign. I especially like the punning irony that one of the lead ships is named "The Audacity of Hope" in direct reference to President Obama's autobiographical book that now has been shown by his actions to be nothing more than political rhetoric and propaganda.

Let's be honest, Israel's illegal blockade of Gaza, as collective punishment of a people, has turned Gaza into the largest prison in the world, and I have pointed this out in several previous posts on this blog.

The Consul General of Israel in New York, Ido Aharoni, interviewed yesterday on Democracy Now! brought out all the old lame rationalizations and canards to defend the blockade. Basically, the official Israeli position is that, since Hamas are the bad guys and we are the good guys, we can do whatever we want against them.

Among the interesting tidbits of the interview was that Mr. Aharoni refused to plainly deny that Israeli spies sabotaged several ships of the flotilla. He dodged and weaved to avoid answering the question, and instead tried to turn the question away from the sabotage to claim the flotilla was "not legitimate." In "diplomatic-speak" not answering the question and instead providing as an answer the rationalization why the act in question would have been valid if it had been done simply amounts to an admission.

One particularly egregious and hurtful rationalization proffered by Mr. Aharoni was that Israel has "practically handed over the keys to Gaza. Hamas, instead of turning it into an oasis, turned it into a safe haven for terrorists." To say this is so stupid that it only shows the depth of Israeli self-delusion. First, there is not one shred of evidence that Gaza is "a safe haven for terrorists" from anywhere else in the world. So what Israel is calling "a safe haven for terrorists" merely translates into "a safe haven for Palestinians who continue to fight against the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people" which by Israeli definition is the meaning of "terrorist." In other words, Israel can bomb Gaza and kill thousands of unarmed men, women, and children and Israelis have not become terrorists, but if only one Palestinian from Gaza dares to attack Israel then every Gazan is a terrorist.

But second, is the most insulting claim that suggests the people of Gaza could have turned it into "an oasis" while they were given "the keys" to their prison. This is the point that the Gazans are complaining about! The keys that they were given were only the keys to the cells, not to the prison gates. Israel still has the keys to the prison gates and is blockading the traffic in and out of the prison just like the Soviet Union blockaded the traffic in and out of Berlin in June 1948. The Soviet Union knew that if they controlled the food and fuel going in and out of Berlin that they would have practical control over the city.

Today the Israelis are using the same tactic to control Gaza by controlling what goes in and out of the city. How do Israeli officials dare to cay that Gaza could have been turned into an oasis when Israel controls what goes in and out of the Gaza and Israel does not allow any of the building materials to enter Gaza that would be necessary to build the oasis? Israel is just the prison warden saying why haven't the prisoners sewn new clothes when the warden won't let sewing machines or even needles into the prison because they could be used to make weapons.

Mr. Aharoni also stated that since the flotilla could have been sent to the Egyptian port of El Arish that there was no reason to attempt to dock at a port in Gaza and that to go to Gaza directly is "to create a provocation that is unneeded and will endanger the lives of all the people involved." But what danger is there? Only the danger created by the Israeli Navy itself when it plans to attack the flotilla! This is the age old lunacy of the perpetrator of a crime telling the victim that it is the victim's own behavior that is making them commit the crime. This Israeli logic is the very same logic used by al Queda to claim that the USA provoked the attacks on the Twin Towers.

There is not the slightest provocation in sailing a ship to Gaza except that created by the Israelis themselves. Israel is holding the people of Gaza hostage. What provocation is there in attempting to go speak directly with the hostages? Clearly, only the provocation created by the hostage taker who says you can't go meet directly to the hostages.

While we can understand how a hostage taker would think that speaking directly with his hostages would be "provocative" by calling into question the very legitimacy of the hostage taking, I see no justification for the USA to agree that there is provocation except to the same degree that the USA is in fact a co-conspirator with the hostage takers. No less of an official of the USA than our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has now plainly spoken to announce that the USA has taken sides with the hostage taking Israelis.

Here's an excerpt from a recent Q&A with Madam Secretary Clinton that highlights how the USA Empire is protecting its crony Israel:

QUESTION: And also, Madam Secretary, there’s reports that another flotilla may be headed to Gaza within the next couple days. What is your message to the organizers and participants in that? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we do not believe that the flotilla is a necessary or useful effort to try to assist the people of Gaza. Just this week, the Israeli Government approved a significant commitment to housing in Gaza. There will be construction materials entering Gaza and we think that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves.

First, the USA is acknowledging that Israel, not Gaza, is in control of what can go in and out of Gaza. From Secretary Clinton's view, echoing the view of the Soviet Union in 1948, what problem could there be with a blockade when the blockading power that controls what is going in and out allows a pittance of materials in? In 1948 the USA knew the answer to that question and joining with the UK and other Western Allies organized the Berlin Airlift to break the blockade. Today the USA, like the Soviet Union then, is on the side of blockade, and instead of joining with other nations to break the blockade of Gaza the USA has become the greatest supporter of the blockade outside of Israel. Without the USA's support the blockade of Gaza simply could not be maintained.

Second, Secretary Clinton is claiming that the flotilla is the one being "provoking" by creating the situation! Again, it is Israel holding the hostages and defending the blockade! Attempts to break the blockade by going directly to the hostages may be provoking to the hostage takers, but until the USA admits that this is a hostage situation, what basis is there for the USA to even raise the spectre of provocation by those attempting to break the blockade? If the USA were to say, and mean it, "We are negotiating with the hostage takers to release the hostages and if they do not release the hostages within 60 days, then we will be begin the airlift to break the blockade, and in the mean time separate attempts such as this flotilla are counter productive." Then and only then, would Secretary Clinton's remarks make any sense whatsoever.

Third, and most revealing of the current situation, is the erroneous claim by Secretary Clinton that the flotilla would be "entering into Israeli waters." This is either just plain confusion on the part of Secretary Clinton or is an unintentional acknowledgement by a highest official of the US government that the USA recognizes Israel's national claim to the whole of Palestine, i.e., including Gaza and the West Bank, as being Israeli territory. Anyone who looks at a map of Gaza will see that it is on the shore line of the Mediterranean Sea. As such, according to international laws the territorial waters of Israel do not lie off the coast of Gaza, only off the coast of Israel. The first 12 nautical miles off the coast of Gaza, are the territorial waters of Gaza, and outside this 12 mile zone are the international water with the 200 nautical miles off the coast being the exclusive economic zone of Gaza.

Therefore, the territorial waters off Gaza are in no way "Israeli waters" as Secretary Clinton now openly claims, unless Gaza is a territory of Israel. In other words, in the eyes of Secretary Clinton, Israel is not blockading the territorial waters of Gaza but is merely policing its own territorial waters. By this sleight of hand regarding international law the USA rationalizes it's public delusion that there is no "blockade" and therefore no reason to break the non-existent blockade. So Secretary Clinton's remarks have opened the curtain on the wizard lurking behind to reveal that the USA does indeed support Israel's national claim to Gaza.

The importance of this revelation is that it reveals that what is behind the refusal of the USA to acknowledge Israel's foot dragging on peace accords is that the USA accepts that Israel has no long term intention to ever allow Gaza and the West Bank to become a sovereign nation. The now stated official USA position is that the territorial waters off Gaza are "Israeli waters," so the USA is recognizing Israel's assertion of its national sovereignty over Gaza.

I have previously blogged about my view that because of Israel's refusal to negotiate in good faith for the recognition of the sovereignty of Gaza and the West Bank, that the Palestinians should not delay any longer and should declare their independent sovereignty today, even if it meant a three-state solution to get it done. At the time, I could not foresee that the Hamas and Fatah factions would be able to work together. Today, under the pressure of the Palestinian people in light of the "Arabian Spring," Hamas and Fatah have a fragile accord which may or may not last. While it lasts they have a tentative plan to seek acknowledgment of Palestinian sovereignty by appeal to the UN. I understand this tactic and think that it is a valid tactic, even though I do not agree with it. In my view, there is no reason for the UN to acknowledge the sovereignty of a people who have not yet declared it for themselves. A clear and definite voice of independence by the people of Gaza and the West Bank is needed to counteract the voice of the American Empire that speaks only to cause confusion in the minds of other member nations of the UN.

If the Palestinians want to be taken seriously as a sovereign people, then they should not wait for the UN to act but should immediately declare their national independence and sovereignty, today, now, by the adoption of a founding document to be followed up with a constitutional document. Then they should immediately send out official diplomats to each member nation of the UN asking for diplomatic recognition of their independent sovereignty as the prelude to the request to the UN seeking recognition from the whole body. In this way, the world would be forced to take their claims of independence seriously and they would be going to the UN as independents not as dependents.

The Three-state Solution is the Way to Get Out.

Again, it’s time to recognize that a new path, a new road map, is needed for the resolution of the Israeli and Palestinian situation. I propose once again that the way is neither the One-state Solution” nor the “Two-state Solution” but the “Three-state Solution.” I say “again,” because this is an update on my previous blog of one year ago on January 25, 2008 at
Letter To Hamas and the Valiant Ppeople of Gaza Unfortunately, there has been no change in the political outlook of solutions in the last year, and not surprisingly, apparently the people of Gaza haven’t taken note of my blog. ;-)

I cannot agree with the pessimism of such renown Middle East observers like Juan Cole who say that the time has passed for any reasonable Two-state Solution and that the only three paths ahead are variations on a One-state solution with (1) continued Israeli apartheid by a minority of Israelis managing the majority of Palestinians, (2) actual democracy which would of course mean the end of the Jewish state, or (3) ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza so that a greater Israel may be created by annexation of Gaza and the West Bank. (January 6, 2009, Juan Cole interview on The Young Turks ) Of course, none of these variations of the “One-state option” is realistic, thus leaving anyone who believes these are the only remaining options in a cul de sac of pessimism. First, Israelis will not accept actual democracy with a majority of Palestinians. Second, neither the Palestinians nor the rest of the world will accept the apartheid or ethnic cleansing options. Thus if both the One-state and Two-state solutions are untenable what solution is there. I say the Three-state Solution.

I agree with Mr. Cole that the Two-state solution is dead on arrival because the Palestinians themselves can not act in a unified manner across the territorial and emotional divides between Gaza and the West Bank. The idea that Gaza and West Bank can become a unified Palestinian state is as wrong headed as the notion was that East and West Pakistan could survive as a unified nation. Just speaking practically, there is no realistic way for a sovereign corridor through Israel to be established which would be a necessary condition for a single Palestinian state. The Two-state solution is also not going to happen because as long as it is on the table as an option it allows Israel to continue to play the Palestinians against each other. For example, from the “Israeli viewpoint,” the question of settlements in the West Bank can’t be resolved because of the Gaza situation and the Gaza situation can’t be resolved because of the West Bank settlement problems. Also, there is not way that the people of Gaza and the West Bank can agree on the questions of unified governance and structure. As long as Israel can continue to be allowed to play the Palestinian interests against each other, then Israel is satisfied with the situation and can continue both to encroach on the West Bank and occupy and blockade Gaza as it wishes.

The Palestinians themselves share in the responsibility of playing along with Israel’s strategy of keeping them in a stasis of inaction as long as they grasp onto the dream of a single Palestinian state geographically separated by Israel. Also, as long as the Palestinians refuse to act like people who are ready for independence and sovereignty than the rest of the world won’t view them as being ready for sovereignty.

The problem today with the analysis that says the Two-state solution is dead and the only the unsavory options of the One-state solution are the remaining choices is that it ignores the way out provided by the Three-state Solution. The Three-state Solution allows the questions of Gaza and the West Bank to be delinked and takes out from under Israel its chief excuse for not dealing honestly with the situation.

The Way Forward

The way forward begins with the Gazans. The Gazans must assert their sovereignty as a contiguous territory of sovereign people and announce their independence as a sovereign nation. They can announce that they can keep the door open for a federation or Palestinian Union with the West Bank in the future but in order to establish their independence they must now establish a constitution for themselves and seek international recognition, support, and protection for themselves as a sovereign people.

By asserting their independence the phony issue of the recognition of Israel can be put on the table in an honest way. Israel’s continued complaints about not being recognized as an independent state will now be placed along side the necessity of recognizing Gaza as an independent state as a direct quid pro quo. Today Israel makes its argument against Hamas, not against the Gazans. Israel says it doesn’t have to recognize Hamas as the governing party because Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel and Hamas is a terrorist organization so Israel doesn’t have to recognize Hamas. Though I don’t agree with this logic, it is the logic that Israel hides behind. It is up to the Hamas and the people of Gaza to make this position of Israel untenable by changing the dynamic on the ground. Hamas needs to assert the independence of Gaza and say that if Israel accepts the existence of Gaza then Gaza will accept the existence of Israel. If Hamas won’t take this lead then the Gazans need to tell Hamas it no longer has their confidence and support.

The greatest emotional barrier to the Three-state Solution is that the people of Gaza may feel they are abandoning or betraying Palestinian unity and their family and friends in the West Bank. Not so. By asserting their independence Gaza will take the Gaza situation off the table as a linked obstacle for moving forward in finding a solution to the West Bank settlements. Also the question of a land corridor through Israel can be taken off the table. By asserting its independence, Gaza will help the West Bank be able to assert its own independence. Instead of being a weakened smaller part of the Palestinian “problem” that never gets the attention it deserves at the bargaining table, an independent Gaza would be in a stronger position to help the West Bank Palestinians in their bargaining for the return to the 1967 borders. By having Gaza taken out of the West Bank issues then the West Bank will be in a stronger position to assert its goals including the return of the 1967 borders, the return of settlements and a resolution to the Jerusalem question.

An independent Gaza will be able to establish its own security agreements with neighboring states such as Egypt. An independent Gaza will be able to protect itself and any attack by Israel will be an attack against an independent nation and an act of war instead of an act of occupation. Israel won’t be able to blockade an independent Gaza with the kind of immunity it now has when Gaza is just a disorganized territory.

What can Gaza do to assert its sovereignty? It is not that difficult. First and foremost the Gazans need to simply stand up and assert it vocally. Hamas can issue a Declaration of Independence. This would frame the question of Gazan independence in a way that the people of the United States could not ignore. In its Declaration of Independence, Hamas should promise several steps including a Constitutional Convention of Gazans. Of course Hamas is a political party and can not be expected to be any less partisan then the Republican Party in the USA, however, they can be urged to act in the best interests of the Gazans to let Gazans create a nation of plurality interests rather than a one-party nation. Certainly the USA with a two-party dictatorship can’t complain about any form of democracy that a convention of Gazans may develop. In fact, if Gazans move toward a parliamentary system of proportional representation then their democracy may be potentially more democratic than the USA democracy. In my blog of last year I went into some detail about the three axes of the three dimensions of democracy and the potential for Gazans to develop a democracy based on their own values system without merely adopting an American style of democracy. In fact I wouldn’t wish an American style of democracy on the Gazans.

I suggest that a Gazan Declaration of Independence do the following:

1. - State the necessity for the action to protect the people from the current condition of occupation that violates international law and to seek the aid of free nations for the support of the people of Gaza;
2. - Affirm the right of the people of Gaza to self-rule;
3. - Promise to initiate a process for the creation of a constitution by which the people of Gaza will express their aspirations for democratic self-rule;
4. - Affirm that Hamas accepts and abides by UN Resolution 242 and that as soon as Israel withdraws its armed forces from the occupied territories as referenced in Resolution 242 (i.e., the 1967 boundaries) that the provisional government established by Hamas will recognize the territorial inviolability and political independence of Israel;
5. - Affirm that when the people of the West Bank achieve independence that talks for a Palestinian Union or some form of political federation or reunification between Gaza and the West Bank will be held;
6. - Affirm that Hamas and any provisional government will abide by International Humanitarian Law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the rulings of accepted international tribunals on that law and that Hamas expects that the nations of the UN will also abide by such rulings and specifically come to the aid of Gaza and the people of the West Bank in upholding the ruling of the International Court of Justice that Israel's construction of a wall on Palestinian land violates international law;
7. - Ratify the importance of human rights with a statement of commitment to the principles spelled out in the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights;
8. - Ask for the assistance of the UN and individual nations toward establishing an independent nation of Gaza;
9. - And ask that the nations of the world immediately send diplomatic delegations to Gaza in order to begin the process of mutual recognition and to provide political support and assistance to Gaza for the ending of the blockade.


Following their Declaration of Independence, Hamas should take the lead in the following steps:

1. Organize and convene a provisional independent government of Gaza. In order to show the world that self-rule is not a one-party dictatorship Hamas must include people of other parties and independents in the provisional government.

2. The provisional government should immediately send out diplomatic envoys with the express purpose of requesting help to end the Israeli blockade and guaranteeing the freedom of navigation through international waters under UN Resolution 242. The provisional government needs to start a worldwide campaign for a Gaza Sea and Airlift similar to the Berlin Airlift that ended the Soviet Union’s similar blockade of Berlin.

3. The provisional government should set a date for a constitutional convention and allow for direct election of delegates to the convention on a proportional basis.

4. After the convention put the proposed Constitution to the people for ratification.

5. Ask for UN assistance to prevent incursions by Israel and to prevent rocket attacks on Israel. The provisional government should appeal to the UN to resolve any claims of international aggression by either side. Ask for UN protection of Yasar Arafat International Airport so that it may be reopened to end the air blockade of Gaza..

6. The provisional government should promote municipal autonomy by community elections and governance.

There is no viable One-state Solution and the Two-state Solution is dead. It is time for the Palestinians to take the Three-state Solution. Most importantly, this route to independence doesn’t require approval by Israel or the USA. If the people of Gaza want to convince the world they are ready for independence then they have to take the risk of acting independently and show the world they don’t need approval for their own sovereignty. As soon as some nations recognize the national sovereignty of Gaza then that will make it inevitable for the European Union and eventually the USA to recognize Gaza as an independent nation.

Letter to Hamas and the Valiant People of Gaza

Is it Time to Take an Alternate Route on the Roadmap to Peace?

January 25, 2008

Dear Gazans,

Peace be upon you.

This letter asks you to consider an alternative route on the road map to independent sovereignty and peace. This alternative road asks the people of Gaza to take independent action toward establishing for yourselves a constitutional democracy as a separate and sovereign nation.

Many people in the United States recognize as I do that you are suffering under an illegal and immoral occupation as few other people in the world have suffered. You have shown the world your valiant spirit of perseverance and determination in the face of the greatest odds arrayed against you. We have been told by people who have visited Palestine that this is a time of even greater moral trials and that no one would find you lacking in moral courage if you were presently dispirited by the seemingly unending abuse that you have had to bear.

Perhaps what those of us who support you worry about the most at a time like this is that the pressures of occupation and oppression that you must bear will find expression in attacks among yourselves. This is the human condition of all imprisoned people who see no way out of their entrapment. The recent events of piercing the southern wall with Egypt was a welcome sign that you still have the courage and determination to breakout of your confinement rather than to destroy yourselves with in fighting. Now is also the time to break out of the mental confinement that prevents you from establishing your sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence.

I believe that now is the time for Hamas to lead the way toward an alternative future that accepts the present realities and at the same time shows the world the pride and resilience of your people. Now is the time for Hamas to lead Gazans to independence. While this might be called a “three-state solution”, such a condition may be only temporary until the West Bank can also assert its independence and reunification talks can begin. But for now, this present day, the time is ripe for you to create your own terms for independence. There is no hope of a “one-state solution” that combines Israel with Gaza and the West Bank. Also, In today’s reality with the USA supporting Israel unconditionally, and with Israel making unjust demands as preconditions to a “two-state solution”, there is no practical hope for an agreement to be reached with Israel. Israel will not agree to any arrangement of a two-state solution in which they do not control the terms. Today the reality is that Israel has successfully divided Gaza and the West Bank politically and co-opted the political conditions of the West Bank.

Therefore the only available alternative route on the road map to peace is for the people of Gaza, led by Hamas, to take your destiny in your own hands and set out on your own on the road to independent sovereignty. Do not wait for anyone to give you permission to do this. Such permission will not come, and indeed will not be deserved just because you ask for it. You must show the entire world by your concrete actions that you are committed to both peace and independence and then the world will respond accordingly.

To achieve both peace and independence means that you must show yourselves determined and capable of creating your own sovereignty based on democratic principles, that the people are sovereign and governed by law not by the rule of individuals or juntas. The rule of law is best demonstrated by the creation and allegiance to a constitution, rather than to a person or party. If Hamas were to demonstrate that it is committed to creating a nation with democratic principles, I believe it would secure the faith and loyalty of the Gazan people for generations.

The commitment and determination for a sovereign nation based on democratic principles must be based on a strict policy and determination for peace. This will be the greatest test of Hamas. It will mean a certain amount of determination to not strike back at Israel when Israel can be guaranteed to attempt to provoke violent response in order to undermine the credibility of Gazan independence. But if on the one hand Gazans led by Hamas can show the world that they are committed to building an indigenous democratic governance and on the other hand that they are determined to do it peacefully, then the world will come to the aid of Gaza when it previously has been reluctant to do so.

What do I mean when I say democracy? It is relatively simple. There are three dimensions to democracy and each dimension has two poles making six primary factors:

The Axis of Sovereignty: 1. The people are sovereign. 2. The people exercise their sovereignty by the rule of law not individuals, cliques, or juntas.

The Axis of Self-Rule: 3. The people govern by majority rule. 4 The majority rule is constitutionally limited by minority rights.

The Axis of Protection Against Tyranny: 5 The governance system has a separation of powers so no one branch or group has all the power. 6. The governance system has checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power within a single branch from becoming tyrannical.

Along these three axes, the dimensions of democracy may be measured and plotted.

By using these six benchmarks, any nation’s system of governance that is created under its own local customs, culture, and conditions can be rightly and truthfully called a democratic nation. Today in the USA we have seen our own government stray from these principles and to that extent our own claim to being a true democracy is jeopardized.

I do not presume to tell the people of Gaza what particulars may be adopted to meet your own sensibilities for democratic self-governance. I have full confidence that you have both the cultural and intellectual conditions necessary for meeting together in good faith to craft a democracy that is suitable for your own needs and self expression. Simply apply your historical conditions and culture toward working to embody these six factors of democracy and you will achieve your purpose.

I will point out that the most delicate aspect of democracy is in the Axis of Rule. Many people believe that democracy is sufficient where the majority rule. That is not the case. The rights of the minority must be protected for many reasons, but chief among them for the very practical reason that everyone will be in the minority at one time or another. Also, some people misunderstand what it means to protect minority rights. Some people believe that by giving the minority the ability have a say in debates alone is sufficient. That too is not the case. It is not good enough that a minority must be allowed to participate in a debate if the minority is then exploited or oppressed after the majority has voted against them. The prevention of exploitation and oppression of minorities is something that must be enshrined with equal power and assurance in the commitment to majority rule. A majority that does not restrain itself from exploiting the minority while it has the power is a majority that has become tyrannical and is abusing its power. That is mob rule, not democracy. But how the minority is to be protected, by what specific appropriate rights and how they are to be enshrined in a constitution, this is for the Gazans to determine, not outsiders.

Additionally, I will point out a common misunderstanding that occurs in the Axis of Protection Against Tyranny. When the government is created having a separation of powers within itself, there is always a primary and fundamental question of the reserved right of the people to their sovereign power. It is not enough to say that the people will create a constitutional government and then the government will rule over the people. The sovereignty of the people must always trump the power of government. The people must be acknowledged to be ruling themselves by means of the government, not that the government is ruling the people. This is the most important and primary separation of powers that is the essential context for democracy even though it may not always be explicitly spelled out in a constitutional document, though it should.

Also, because the people are sovereign, the checks and balances of the system of governance must include the power of the people to have free discussion and access to the information that is necessary for that discussion to be both relevant and fruitful. Failure in this regard, where US corporations control the media, is a primary and fundamental problem with American democracy. All of the European democracies have a better system of information and a freer press than the USA. That is one reason that they are not as imperialistic in their world relations as the parochialism of the USA engenders by the failure of a truly free press in the USA. Gazans, as led by Hamas specifically, must create a trusted environment for free exchange of ideas and dissemination of information for democratic self-rule to be effective. This will be the greatest gift that Hamas could ever provide for the people of Gaza.

So what are the steps that Hamas should take on this alternate route?

FIRST, Hamas, as the elected representatives of the people of Gaza, should immediately declare the sovereignty of the people of Gaza to independent self-rule by issuing a Declaration or Testament of Independence. I suggest that such a statement of independence:

1. - State the necessity for the action to protect the people from the current condition of occupation that violates international law and to seek the aid of free nations for the support of the people of Gaza;
2. - Affirm the right of the people of Gaza to self-rule;
3. - Promise to initiate a process for the creation of a constitution by which the people of Gaza will express their aspirations for democratic self-rule;
4. - Affirm that Hamas accepts and abides by UN Resolution 242 and that as soon as Israel withdraws its armed forces from the occupied territories as referenced in Resolution 242 that the provisional government established by Hamas will recognize the territorial inviolability and political independence of Israel;
5. - Affirm that when the people of the West Bank achieve independence that talks for reunification between Gaza and the West Bank will be held;
6. - Affirm that Hamas and any provisional government will abide by International Humanitarian Law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the rulings of accepted international tribunals on that law and that Hamas expects that the nations of the UN will also abide by such rulings and specifically come to the aid of Gaza and the people of the West Bank in upholding the ruling of the International Court of Justice that Israel's construction of a wall on Palestinian land violates international law;
7. - Ratify the importance of human rights with a statement of commitment to the principles spelled out in the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights;
8. - Ask for the assistance of the UN and individual nations toward establishing an independent nation of Gaza;
9. - And ask that the nations of the world immediately send diplomatic delegations to Gaza in order to begin the process of mutual recognition.

There is no reason to delay this step. It will send a shock wave around the world that will get the attention and respect of nations that have heretofore watched from the side lines. This is the only viable way for the people of Gaza to demonstrate that you deserve to be treated with the dignity and respect equal to that given to Israel. No one can give you independence, you must assert it for yourselves.

In such a manifesto of independence, I caution that it is important to show restraint in declaring the necessity of independence in the context of the aggression shown by Israel. Yes it is important that the violations of international law by Israel be clearly stated, including the failure of Israel to provide protections for occupied peoples, the illegal confiscation of property and resources, and the violations by Israel through its policy of collective punishment, but in outlining these violations it is imperative that in order to develop a credible acceptance of independence that you show restraint in their description and keep to Israel’s actual violations against the people of Gaza and not vainly attempt to list whatever you believe to be the ills or outrages of Israel in its own governance of itself.

SECOND, Hamas should immediately begin to organize and convene a provisional government. Hamas must have and show the world that is has the strength of integrity and purpose to work toward the goal of self-rule by including people of opposition parties in the provisional government. Hamas should regularize its armed forces into a legitimate defense force and into regional or municipal police forces. By the one action of demonstrating that Hamas is willing to give up direct control of its armed militia in favor of government controlled defense and police forces, Hamas will show the world that it truly has the best interests of the people of Gaza at heart. Hamas should have no fear of loss of political power, because the people of Gaza will rejoice in the honor and strength shown by Hamas through its commitment to self-rule.

THIRD: The provisional government should immediately send out diplomatic envoys to receptive nations with a request to help the people of Gaza end the Israeli blockade of Gaza. In addition to guaranteeing the freedom of navigation through international waterways under UN Resolution 242, this should include reference to the Berlin Airlift that ended he Soviet Union’s blockade of Berlin and ask the governments of the world to come to the aid of Gaza now with a similar Sea and Airlift to end the illegal blockade. Egypt should be asked specifically to recognize the independence of Gaza and to allow international relief and trade to travel through Egypt to Gaza. Also, Hamas should announce the beginning of reconstruction necessary to reopen Yaser Arafat International Airport (YAIA) in Gaza and seek specific cooperation and aid from any nation that will supply its expertise for this purpose.

FOURTH: Hamas should set a date as soon as reasonably possible for an election of delegates to a constitutional convention. Hamas should request that the Carter Center and the UN assist in guaranteeing that the election will be fair. Hamas has already demonstrated that it can hold fair elections and so this should not be an obstacle. The election of delegates hopefully will be on a proportional basis of representation so that minority voices will be included. Much will depend on the inclusion of minority party voices in a constitutional assembly for such an assembly to have the force of authority to be accepted by the people. Assure that the end product of the constitutional congress will be put to the people for ratification.

FIFTH: Put the proposed constitution to the people for ratification and pledge to enforce the results.

SIXTH: During the term of the provisional government, affirm the commitment to peace and international non-violence by preventing retaliatory attacks on Israel. There will be no greater force for gathering the assistance of the world to rally in support of the people of Gaza than to show that the Gazan people are committed to working through international tribunals, rather than by tit-for-tat attacks, to achieve justice. For every single act of aggression against the people of Gaza committed by Israel, the Gaza response needs to be taken to the UN and world judicial tribunals as well as to direct appeal to the people of the world. Forbearance in violent retaliation will gain far more for the people of Gaza than any meager result of rocket fire. While Gaza is attempting to reopen Yaser Arafat International Airport, if the Israelis attack it and destroy it, then there must be no retaliation but a determined demonstration to the world that the work will continue peacefully in the redevelopment of the airport. Gaza must be prepared to rebuild the airport as best it can many times over in order to get international investment from Western nations in the project which will be the best guarantee that it will not be destroyed by Israel.

SEVENTH: During the term of the provisional government, show that Hamas is willing to work democratically with local areas and neighborhoods by promoting local assemblies to provide input both to the transitional government and to the process of creating the constitution. By providing a measure of local municipal autonomy in districts, Hamas will demonstrate that it has a true commitment to democratic self-rule.

LASTLY, these steps along this alternative route to peace are within the reach of the people of Gaza without waiting for the agreement of either Israel, the USA, or other nations. A truly sovereign people do not need the approval of other nations to establish their independence. By establishing your independence on your own terms while showing the world that you acknowledge the necessary requirements of democratic principles for any nation that embarks on self-rule, Hamas will gain the respect of people everywhere for itself and for Gaza.

Peace be upon you, the people of Gaza.

Gregory Wonderwheel
Santa Rosa, California, USA

P.S. for Blog: Here is a link to other comment on a "three state solution." Use your favorite search engine (mine is clusty.com ) to find more.

New York Sun Editorial


Factoids: Gaza is a little larger than the independent island nation of Granada, over twice the size of the independent nation of The Principality of Liechtenstein and over 150 times the size of the independent nation of The Principality of Monaco. If Gaza became an independent nation it would be the 201st largest nation with approximately 32 smaller nations.

Letter to Senator Barak Obama on Israel

Israel is the issue.
March 10, 2007

Dear Senator Obama,

I'm am very concerned about the reports of your recent speech before AIPAC of Chicago. According to the Jewish Daily Forward, you stated,

“We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians in Mecca last month. The reports of this agreement suggest that Hamas, Fatah and independent ministers would sit in a government together, under a Hamas prime minister, without any recognition of Israel, without a renunciation of violence, and with only an ambiguous promise to ‘respect’ previous agreements…. We must tell the Palestinians this is not good enough.”

Contrary to your statement, there is nothing wrong with the agreement reached in Mecca. The Palestinian people must be given the recognition and sovereignty equal to the people of Israel. If Israel won't allow the Palestinians to be allowed to elect their own government then Israel does not have a right to exist!

There is no basis to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as long as it continues its illegitimate apartheid occupation of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza.

I understand the very difficult situation you are in having to deal with American Jewish organizations regarding Israel, however, if you choose to placate them as your method of dealing with them then I have no interest in voting for you. I will only vote for a candidate who will stand up to the Israel lobby with the truth and facts as they exist.

Did you tell AIPAC that the occupation of the West Bank is illegal? That it is apartheid? That peace in Israel and Palestine will come when Israel acknowledges the right of the Palestinian people to exist as a state?

You see, neither the USA nor Israel have the right to tell the Palestinian people who they can elect to govern them, otherwise the democracy you offer them is just a sham, AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT TO BE A SHAM when Hamas is treated with such prejudice!

You were clear enough to oppose the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the invasion and occupation of the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza should be opposed for many of the same reasons, including that the occupation violates international law.

Israel is a state with the unique history of being created by United Nations approval. Every day that Israel continues to occupy the West Bank and Gaza in violation of UN resolutions, to militarily control the territories, to surround them and prevent travel and business to freely pass their boundaries, to terrorize their citizens, then Israel is indeed forfeiting its right to exist under it UN birthright.

Gregory Wonderwheel

Reality Testing Fails at PBS

Here's a BBC bit about President Bush's recent comments at the Nato summit in Riga:

He rejected the use of "civil war" as a term to describe the fighting in Iraq, preferring to say: "The battles in Iraq and Afghanistan are part of a struggle between moderation and extremism that is unfolding across the broader Middle East."

One wonders why the fierce opposition to the term "civil war"? The Bush administration is doing everything it can to prevent the term "civil war" being given credibility. However, like it's "war on terror" in Iraq even in this war of propaganda the Bush administration is losing. The Los Angeles Times over a month ago began officially using the term civil war for the Iraq situation and this week NBC announced that it too would begin using the term civil war officially.

Last night on PBS's The News Hour with Jim Lehrer there were four "journalists" talking about whether it is a "civil war" in Iraq. Though the foreign editor from the LA Times, Marjorie Miller, described her paper's adoption of the term and the Bush propagandist from Yale DONALD KAGAN, Professor of History, said "I don't see how it helps" to call it a "civil war", none of the four journalists, including the New Hour's reporter JEFFREY BROWN, ever bothered to even state the definition of "civil war." This clearly demonstrates the complete lack of reality testing that is evident today in the national media.

Well for those who like their reality tested by the facts, here is the definition from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:

civil war
One entry found for civil war.
Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

So DONALD KAGAN, a professor of history at Yale University, says,

"It has been very significantly Sunni against Shia, perhaps in a more cloaked form. The majority of the government is, after all, Shiite, as the majority of the country is. The Sunnis have been insurgents because they refuse to accept the fact that their minority will no longer be allowed to lord it over the majority. The first job has always been to convince the Sunnis, however we do it, that they must accept the new realities.

And then he has the audacity to say this is not a civil war. Obviously, KAGAN'S "new reality" doesn't include using language accurately to state the self-evident truths. Whether or not his simplistic description of the fighting as being between Shia and Sunni is accurate, it clearly and unambiguously meets the plain definition of civil war. Yet this professor says it does no good to call it a civil war. How could this be? How could it do no good to use the English language properly?

The answer of course is that like all propagandists, Professor KAGAN, doesn't want the language used plainly when it can be bent to his own ends, which he very clearly stated were the continuation of the Bush agenda in Iraq. KAGEN understands that if people see the fighting in Iraq for what it is as a civil war underneath an occupation, that the reason for the occupation evaporates unless we choose sides. And as we discovered in Vietnam, if we choose the wrong side we lose anyway.

As much as this segment exposed the muddleheaded propaganda of the Yale professor, I can't help but think that the whole piece by JEFFREY BROWN would have made much more sense and benefitted the public discourse to a far greater extent if he had only begun with the simple definition of civil war and measured the words of his interviewees against that conventional reality.

If we return to Pres. Bush’s quote at the top of this piece, we see that Bush does the classic bait and switch by claiming the war in Iraq is not a civil war because it is “part of a struggle between moderation and extremism that is unfolding across the broader Middle East.” Of course whether or not there are similarities in any other country between the sides fighting in Iraq is irrelevant to answering the question of whether the fighting in Iraq is “a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.” The vast majority of deaths in Iraq are Iraqis killed by other Iraqis. That US troops are there killing Iraqis and being killed by Iraqis is only another layer of fighting which makes the occupation a political cover for the civil war.

President Bush’s continuing denial of the civil war in Iraq is like a veterinarian who can’t tell the difference between a horse and a crocodile. He can’t have much to say about how to be of help if he can’t even diagnose the species of the animal he’s dealing with. No one should believe that Bush is that stupid as to believe the propaganda is issues. The underlying problem with our democracy is that the national news media like PBS totally fails to measure the government’s propaganda against something as simple as a dictionary definition.

On another note of failed reality testing by PBS last night was the great presence of ex-President Jimmy Carter being interviewed about his new book "Palestine, Peace Not Apartheid". Here JUDY WOODRUFF, NewsHour Special Correspondent, was in the full glory of inside the beltway bias. There is a funny thing the journalists do when they interview someone like President Carter who presents a politically unorthodox view not countenanced by the opinion makers in the media. They take an adversarial position and call that being "objective." You don't see this approach when they interview people who are the purveyors of political orthodoxy with whom the publishers and editors agree.

Well, I'm happy to report that Pres. Carter gracefully put Ms. WOODRUFF in her reportorial place. Here's the exchange in which Pres. Carter politely outed WOODRUFF's bias.

JUDY WOODRUFF: President Carter, people would listen to what you're saying here, and they would read your book, and they would say, "He's putting the onus here on the Israelis." And many would return that by saying, "But wait a minute. It's the Palestinians who continue to fire rockets into Israeli land. It's the Palestinians who have kidnaped Israeli soldiers. It's the Palestinians that continue to perpetuate terrorist acts against the Israelis."

JIMMY CARTER: Sure, that's what you say, and that's the general consensus in the United States. The fact is that, when the Palestinians dug under the Israeli wall from Gaza and captured the Israeli soldier, one soldier, at that time, Israel was holding 9,200 Palestinians prisoner, including 300 children, almost 300, 293 children, some of them 12 years old, and holding almost 100 women prisoner.

And immediately, the Palestinians who took that soldier said, "We want to swap this soldier for some of our women and children." And the Israelis rejected that proposal and refused to swap at all with the Palestinians in the West Bank. That was the key to the issue.

So it's right that the Palestinians took a soldier, which they should release. But for Israel to keep 9,000 Palestinians and not release any of them is something that you don't mention in the question, and it's generally not even known in this country.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And we want to give you the opportunity to give that side of the story...

JIMMY CARTER: That's why I wrote the book.

JUDY WOODRUFF: ... as well, and that's why we're here talking to you about it.

JIMMY CARTER: I know.

WOODRUFF"S bias was again exposed in her final comments of the segment when she exited with these words:

JUDY WOODRUFF: President Jimmy Carter, with some passionately held views. We thank you very much for being with us on the NewsHour. We appreciate it.

Everyone who knows anything about reportage knows that the words "passionately held views" are code for "emotional and irrational beliefs." So, there she was getting a strong dose of reality testing from Pres. Carter, and her response was to dismiss him by saying in effect, "Well, that was nice, too bad you are irrational."

So much for the ability of PBS reporters to provide reality testing for the public. For now, we the public must gather our reality between the lines, using our own good sense to defend against the beltway propaganda presented by the government with the willing cooperation of the national media..