Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Well.
Alan Fisher on Al Jazeera was saying a moment ago that Hamas negotiators in Egypt have just about reached agreement for a ceasefire brokered by Egypt. As best I can make out, Israel will consider the ceasefire tomorrow, and if there are no rockets fired, IOF forces will pull back to Israeli territory, while negotiations continue on how to deal with the border crossings and tunnels and all. It is expected a ceasefire will be in place before Friday when the Arab Summit meets in Doha.
They would have to acknowledge Israel's right to exist on the way down. That might do it.
Friedman's role as disinformation war criminal is widely understood, but the environment in which he operates is the real issue.
What is most needed now is an alternative peace process, which allows the people of Israel and Palestine a real opportunity to exercise democratic self-determination to end the war between them.
After 60 years of war, 40 years of occupation, and 25 years of negotiation, the governments of Israel and the Palestinians have proven themselves incapable of reaching a peace agreement.
Put simply this conflict costs the whole world far too much for it to be allowed to continue and part of that ongoing war is the so-called Annapolis peace process as currently structured. This process, based on negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, needs to be abandoned for a Regional Peace Treaty, developed through the joint efforts of the European Union, Arab League, and the United Nations, to end the war by plebiscite.
Central to the solution is bypassing the governments of Israel and the Palestinians with a plebiscite in which Israeli and Palestinian populations would vote on the same Plebiscite Day, each by majority vote, to accept or reject a Regional Peace Treaty.
To read more about this proposal: "Peace by Plebiscite: An Alternative End to the Israeli-Palestinian War"
http://www.concordbridge.net/PeacePlan.htm
GWB didn't invent Executive Orders or signing statements, and guess what? Obama isn't going to outlaw them, or refrain from using them himself.-- ScuzzaMan
I only quoted that part of your comment as an example of the rest of it. You also lumped eveyone into (paraphrase) 'Americans think all is well now that we have a nice guy at the seat'. All Americans don't think that way. And around here, the majority of them don't think that way. Neither do some of the Brits and Australians and such that show up here. So why are you lecturing us?
On the signing statements: Bush put out about a thousand or so signing statements. That is something like ten-fold of any other president. So we aren't dealing with general abuse but massive abuse when it comes to the Bush administration.
We are now in the process of doing what we can to have our voices heard by the incoming administration.
It was me, and Julius Streicher is the person about whom I was thinking.
Well, as if you didn't know, you are an asshole and you are pissing on GG's trouser legs.
Next time wait your turn, asshole.
No one thinks that you are a Negro or are bad.
You are just licking your wounds.
STOP ENJOYING IT!
I can't keep up, I'm a post behind.
I haven't been going into my understanding of Hamas' side of things because I don't understand it as well as the Israeli side, and because Glenn's article basically attacked Israel - because Tom Friedman is an ass, which, of all the reasons to attack Israel, is a singularly shitty one.
But I agree, understanding Hamas' perspective is crucial.
"Hamas was elected at the beginning of 2006, meaning that agreement was with Fatah."
As I noted, Abbas, the leader of Fatah and the PA president at the time is no longer President according to Palestine's basic law. One of your chores should be some reading comprehension practice.
One final note: the fact that all sorts of prior wars, including ones waged by Western powers, contain events that could comfortably fit the definition of "terrorism" isn't a refutation of the point I'm making.
Yes it is. It's a fairly obvious rejoinder to the entire emotion-based, logic free, premise of this rant. Punishing civilian populations as an ancillary result of a military attack is the war strategy used in every war on record. We bombed Hiroshima, Nagaski, razed Dresden, bombed villages in Vietnam and half of Iraq.
I'm not justifying these actions. Simply pointing out that for Glenn to call what is obviously a part of every war on record, "terrorism," is to once again betray his fairly obvious biases in his rants.
And the call for a pro-Hamas editorial to "balance" the anti-Hamas editorials is exactly the type of nonsensical false equivalencies that Glenn, you so often decry in the shouting TV media world.
Is the moon made out of green cheese? Some people say yes. Some people say no.
Why are their no pro-green-cheese editorials in our national papers?
This once-great blog continues to swirl down the drain of the now unhinged Glenn Greenwald.
Hey Glenn, check out how Matt Yglesias writes about the conflict. You might learn something.
Hamas shares none of Glenn Greenwald's values except, possibly, an opposition to all manner of things that relate to American national economic and security interests.
This is what happens when you sleep through a couple of presidential terms. Hamas was democratically elected. In this, it most certainly does share Glenn's values as I understand them, and mine as well.
If you think democracy is in opposition to American national economic and security interests---well, you said it, not me.
Last night on Al Jazeera's Inside Story, they had an Israel-first war cheerleader from the AIE (i.e. a neocon nest) to debate the effectiveness of worldwide demonstrations against Israel, chickenhawk coward and self-described neocon, Joshua Muravchik (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Muravchik) showed everyone watching the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the AIE and neoconservatism.
If you want to see it for yourself, look no further then Mr. Muravchik's behavior on Inside Story (he comes on around the 5 minute mark):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsDRhKo3TEw
When asked "How does Israel feel about these demonstrations? What is it doing to their image? etc." he replies passionately with the typical propaganda (paraphrasing):
"The Israelis feel hurt by the willful refusal of some many people around the world to look honestly and objectively at this crisis, and to look fairly at it. Israel is engaged in a pure act of self-defense. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005."
The host raises an issue with the last sentence, and he puts out more propaganda. When the host brings up the 18 month blockcade, Mr. Muravchik loudly claims twice "There was no blockade" before including an "until the attacks on Israel" after screaming it for a third time, and claims that they have their "cause and effect backwards", "nonsense, you're completely wrong", "facts backwards".
When challenged, he started crying and whining like a child, "you have three against one here, so you have to let me keeping get in." "If you want some fairness you have to let me talk."
All he can do is insist that everyone else has it "inside out", and claim "Israel is committing no war crimes in Gaza, Hamas is committing war crimes in Gaza" saying that "human shields are a war crime".
Part 2 goes even farther down the rabbit hole, debating propaganda:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L6-5rYop4Q
When asked about "proportionality", Mr. Muravchik admits that there is no question in the US that Israel has more firepower, but then says:
"But they are unequal in another sense as well. They are morally unequal."
On one hand there is the disproportionality of weaponry, and on the other hand there is disproportionality of moral stature and goals of the two sides.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
