Of the 5 aims mentioned, the Congressional resolution addresses 2...the rockets and weapons smuggling....so it would suggest to me they don't fully support it, and tried to say it in a tactful way.

I agree. But why not just say: "We don't support this because it lacks vital elements"? I'm very hesitant to criticize them -- they really have stepped way out into the fire and deserve support. But I just didn't get that statement.

Seems on my reading to NOT support the recent Congressional Resolution. The first sentence is calling for an end to ALL the violence, and near the end calls for an end to the blockade. The last part calls for active American diplomacy to resolve the conflict.

We support Congressional action that endorses these aims.

Of the 5 aims mentioned, the Congressional resolution addresses 2...the rockets and weapons smuggling....so it would suggest to me they don't fully support it, and tried to say it in a tactful way.

I think the point is to, in fact, keep the Gaza situation at the forefront of any attention, particularly given the MSM's one-sided presentation of the situation. I would argue that keeping it in the present addresses the larger idea of the US's actions worldwide and how they (and Israel) continually violate international and domestic law all the while crowing about spreading democracy.

Further, regardless of one's personal view of the situation, it seems almost cruel, and certainly neglectful, to not comment on the tragedy in Gaza because it takes away from domestic issues. Doesn't this attitude only work to further the obsessive US centric view that has dominated the past 8 years? Resulting in a crude interpretation of, "who cares if there is genocide occurring, let's talk about me"? Particularly given that our current actions and blind loyalty to Israel are in fact endangering our future? It would seem to me that pointing out that fact should be done every hour on the hour.

The Israelis have no settlements in Gaza. After the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, they dismantled all settlements and left the borders open to supplies and travel

So if you lived in Florida, and a foreign army invaded the U.S. and occupied all 50 states, you'd be fine as long as they withdrew from Florida but continued to occupy North Carolina, New York and Virginia?

Gazans consider themselves Palestinians and believe they have a grievance if Israel continues to expand in the West Bank. See the Op-Ed from Jimmy Carter (who probably did more for Israel's security than any other U.S. President with Camp David) recounting that one of the key impediments to extending the cease-fire was that Hamas wanted it to apply to the West Bank but Israel would only discuss Gaza:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/07/AR2009010702645.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Moreover, while Israel might have physically withdrawn from Gaza, they continued to control major aspects of Gazan life.

William Tecumseh Sherman said that before four Geneva Conventions and two international organizations were launched to change things. He said it in one of the two wars that precipitated the Geneva Conventions, and modern laws of war. Please refrain from trying to turn the clock back to the Civil War and Solferino, and do what you can to get a ceasefire. 200 children dead to kill 130 Hamas fighters isn't collateral damage it's insanity. The honorable thing to do now is to demand peace.

I'm not GG, but I'll step up to say that I see a connection between the issues. Andrew Bacevich argues in his book on "The New American Militarism" that one of its features is mutual reinforcement between American and Israeli militarism -- including both weaponry and tactics. Torture, information control, arbitrary attacks on civilians, promises that "we will keep you safe" -- it's all there. And the binding glue is made of Jewish and Christian biblical fundamentalists, who see the world the same way despite hating each other's guts. (If you look over the list of J-Street supporters, Conservative and Orthodox Jewish leaders are conspicuous by their absence.)

I had not seen your post. I completely agree with your lofty goal of pointing out the myth of Osama and his band of merry men. On the topic of 911, one should stick to the scientific facts. By the way, why aren't there any Arab names on the official passenger lists of any of the planes thought to be involved in 911?

Last week I happened to catch an ABC nightly news report on the Gaza situation. They showed the damage a rocket did to some elementary school in Israel. So of course the message was look how terrible the Palistinians are, bombing a school. What savages. Funny they didn't show any of damage the Israeli bombs have done to Gaza. They didn't show any of the dead Palistinian children, killed by Israeli bombs. They didn't point out the humanitirian crisis that is occuring in Gaza due to the blockade. You'd be hard pressed to find any mention of the crisis in Gaza, in any "mainstream media" press. A crisis caused by Israel's actions. It's only in the "leftist" media, like Democracy Now, that you see these things pointed out. So it's not only Congress that marches in lockstep with whatever Israel does. The corporate media does as well. All we get is one-sided pro-Israeli propaganda. Considering this fact, it's amazing that most Americans are against what Israel is doing in Gaza.

I think it's funny that Islam is attacked as being a "violent" religion while the other desert religions get a pass on their less than savory innards tucked away in their texts.

Look up Jericho. Odetta's folk song stops before talking about the slaughter of every man, woman and child (except the woman's family that sheltered Jacob's spies).

Was that not genocide? Wiping out the civilian population? Is that God's plan for the Jewish people?

They have different rulers and completely different dynamics. The Israelis have no settlements in Gaza. After the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, they dismantled all settlements and left the borders open to supplies and travel. Only after Hamas violently overthrew the existing Fatah government (throwing bodies from rooftops---but that, of course is OK because it is Arab on Arab violence) and starting shooting rockets and mortars into Israel did the blockade begin. Of course, if Egypt did not agree that the Strip should be blockaded, then there would be no effective blockade.

I agree with you that the West Bank settlements are extremely unproductive for peace...however, let's not forget that the Palestinians were offered 97% of the West Bank and most of East Jerusalem, compensating territory for the 3%, Gaza and a right of way connecting the territories and they turned it down at Taba. I think every thinking person still understands that this is the eventual settlement and the killing that continues is senseless.

However, until someone is strong enough to agree to the inevitable terms, is Israel supposed to accept Hamas lobbing rockets and shells into civilian areas? And if Hamas demands war, is Israel supposed to fight under rules inapplicable to Hamas?

Let me quote William Tecumseh Sherman's famous letter to the Mayor and Council of Atlanta, when he cleared the city for destruction:

"You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace."

War is horrible. It really is. But Hamas demanded war as a political maneuver. When it is ready to make peace, I am sure that Israel will negotiate. Asking Israel to make war gently, however, is ridiculous.