by Diane V. McLoughlin
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
Apr. 30, 2010: I'm an agnostic, so don't get me wrong, I'm not using the following quote to try to shill for any particular religion, but it seems to me that no truer words could possibly be spoken on the issue of blind defense of Israel than Christ's words attributed to him from the cross: 'forgive them, they know not what they do'.
Israel is not 'their' land, as is so blithely referred to of Jewish Zionists, not those portions owned and lived upon for millenia by Palestinians. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have been murdered or rendered homeless. When one asserts that Palestinian land is not Palestinian, what you are telling the world is that you are for murder.
The process of getting rid of the Palestinians is called ethnic cleansing. It is a disgusting racist enterprise that values one race over another. Let me give you a very direct example of precisely how racist the settler movement can actually be. In recent days, around November of last year, two extremist settler rabbis published a book comprising approximately 230 pages that define when and under what particular circumstances it is permissible to murder non-Jews - including babies.
(See: http://coteret.com/2009/11/09/settler-rabbi-publishes-the-complete-guide-to-killing-non-jews/ )
So when individuals describe themselves as proudly Zionist, one can't help but be more than a little embarrassed for them. I'm naive; I have a need to believe in the inherent goodness in most people, so I continue to assume that most people who instantly come out swinging in defense of 'Israel' have no idea what it is that they defend.
They are like 'Good Germans' of that evil era. Thing is, most people do not seem to be all that forgiving of the 'good German'- Germans who claimed they didn't know what was going on and thought they were just being good citizens supporting their country.
The only real peace possible at this point, in light of how much land has been stolen from the Palestinians, with the continual squeezing of the Palestinians into smaller and smaller prison-like compounds (Jews know such compounds in their European history as 'ghettos') - is one bi-national state with equal rights for all its citizens.
Imagine:: The one thing that Zionists fear above all else is to be forced to accept Palestinians as equal citizens with equal rights. They intrinsically believe that Palestinians are lesser human beings; that this would be the equivalent of the end of the world.
It would not be the end of the world if Israel were one embracing country of all its citizens both Jewish and Palestinian. It would be the beginning of a brighter, more peaceful and more just one. It will require dedicated advocacy from American grassroots organizing, because America's leadership tends to follow rather than lead. This brighter tomorrow must come, it will come and we must all do all that we can to help it to fruition.
April 30, 2010
April 29, 2010
April 26, 2010
Monday - Special Guantanamo phone-in 4/26/2010 - Virtually Speaking on Blog Talk Radio
Phone-in with questions for Gitmo military lawyers.
Special Guantanamo Town Hall 4/26/2010 - Virtually Speaking on Blog Talk Radio
Special Guantanamo Town Hall 4/26/2010 - Virtually Speaking on Blog Talk Radio
April 25, 2010
Comment on Israel is Also Guilty « From a Different Angle
by Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist, Apr. 22, 2010
main website mcloughlinpost.com
Dear Mr. Dahov-Halevi,
It is my considered view that the most serious threat to Jews in Israel are the extremists within who are bent on the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, and the blind apologists without, who, in most cases, I believe really have no idea that their dream of Israel does not match with the reality of Israel’s odious, immoral, cruel behavior.
More than one testament I have read of a Jew’s shocked and painful exposure to the reality of the outrageous mistreatment of the Palestinians. You are a researcher. I am not familiar with your work, but I did read a good piece of yours recently that refuted the black propaganda that smeared Palestinians suggesting they were marrying off girls of ten years of age. I appreciated it.
A researcher must have an unbiased approach and a ceaseless, ruthless need to ferret out the truth no matter in which direction it may lay. To me, your article on Israel's defense suggests you would tailor the facts to support your bias. I could be wrong. I hope I am. Israel’s very insecurity lies in its being torn between right and wrong.
Your beef is that Israel is guilty of not coming out with a strong enough defense against the serious charges of war crimes committed in Gaza. If Israel were truly defensible, surely one would begin – now – today; asking the questions, seeking the facts, then answering the questions and refuting the charges.
If there is any truth to the charges, what then? For a country, as well as a loved individual, do we allow them to continue on the path to self-ruination? Or do we take the harder more rewarding path of reflection, moral conviction, and right choices moving forward? No country, no individual, can reasonably expect blessed peace while committing gross injustices against others. I fear being misunderstood or attacked; I fear my dependence on my own words – poorly chosen and woefully inadequate to the hope – of peace.
Israel is Also Guilty « From a Different Angle; Dahov-Halevi; Shalom Life
main website mcloughlinpost.com
Dear Mr. Dahov-Halevi,
It is my considered view that the most serious threat to Jews in Israel are the extremists within who are bent on the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, and the blind apologists without, who, in most cases, I believe really have no idea that their dream of Israel does not match with the reality of Israel’s odious, immoral, cruel behavior.
More than one testament I have read of a Jew’s shocked and painful exposure to the reality of the outrageous mistreatment of the Palestinians. You are a researcher. I am not familiar with your work, but I did read a good piece of yours recently that refuted the black propaganda that smeared Palestinians suggesting they were marrying off girls of ten years of age. I appreciated it.
A researcher must have an unbiased approach and a ceaseless, ruthless need to ferret out the truth no matter in which direction it may lay. To me, your article on Israel's defense suggests you would tailor the facts to support your bias. I could be wrong. I hope I am. Israel’s very insecurity lies in its being torn between right and wrong.
Your beef is that Israel is guilty of not coming out with a strong enough defense against the serious charges of war crimes committed in Gaza. If Israel were truly defensible, surely one would begin – now – today; asking the questions, seeking the facts, then answering the questions and refuting the charges.
If there is any truth to the charges, what then? For a country, as well as a loved individual, do we allow them to continue on the path to self-ruination? Or do we take the harder more rewarding path of reflection, moral conviction, and right choices moving forward? No country, no individual, can reasonably expect blessed peace while committing gross injustices against others. I fear being misunderstood or attacked; I fear my dependence on my own words – poorly chosen and woefully inadequate to the hope – of peace.
Israel is Also Guilty « From a Different Angle; Dahov-Halevi; Shalom Life
April 22, 2010
To U.K. Socialist Steve on Terrorism and Foreign Occupation
by Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist, Apr. 22, 2010
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
Dear Steve,
I am writing with regard to a letter you apparently submitted to socialist papers in England and Wales, a copy of which you posted to the Yahoo Progressive Talk group (see below.)
There were many points made. I do not wish my non-addressing of all of them to be considered tacit endorsement or rejection of any of them - save one.
There is one argument you and many others make I do wish to respond to, and that is to the issue of whether or not we - Canada, the U.S., Great Britain, et al - should continue our presence in either Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan, etc.
Your position: That to leave allows space for radicals to claim victory; that to leave would lead to a 'big upsurge in terrorist atrocities around the world'; that we should stay to minimize risk to ourselves.
My position: When you are in a hole, stop digging. I categorically reject bloodless, positive-spin notions on foreign occupation and the subjugation of other nations.
To restate, you argue that withdrawing would permit a surge in terrorist activities around the world. That we should, 'stay there, limiting attacks to a minimum, until radicalisation (sic) of the world in a positive, socialist/liberal, direction leads us into a situation where a tiny number of fanatics are massively outnumbered and neutralised (sic).'
Define 'neutralized'.
How is 'radicalization' done in a 'positive' way to 'reduce' fanatics to a 'tiny' number whereby they are 'massively' outnumbered - I mean, seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Because it sounds as if you are slapping a dime-store happy face sticker on f*cking slaughter, mate.
Let's make something crystal-clear: In Iraq alone we are responsible for the murder of over a million people; millions more are refugees; continuing to terrorize and oppress and murder people in foreign lands has a far greater likelihood of encouraging retaliatory actions against ourselves.
People like socialist Steve might gloat when the next terrorist strike occurs on domestic soil that we didn't neutralize enough of them over there to prevent it. On the contrary: we killed more than sufficient numbers of them to cause them to want us dead. After all, presumably the thinking goes that if they neutralize enough of us, maybe the killing of them would end.
'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you': Self-defined 'do-gooders' along with the profiteers, sociopaths, narcissists and troglodytes fail to grasp this simple, obvious rule; how this could elude them continues to reside somewhere far beyond my limited powers of comprehension.
Sincerely,
Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist
mcloughlinpost.com
______________________________________________________________________
--- In ProgressiveTalk@yahoogroups.com, Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialiststeve@...> wrote:
>
> [I submitted the following yesterday, way past the deadlines to Socialist Worker and The Socialist, newspapers of the SWP and Socialist Party of England and Wales respectively, urging them to print it nevertheless to contradict the negative coverage of the LibDem surge that they were otherwise bound to include in their papers. I emailed several of the leaders of the various parties including Alex Callinicos and Peter Taaffe to ensure that their leaderships had a chance to discuss the possibility of such an extraordinary act. I also emailed a slightly extended version of the letter to the Weekly Worker, in time for their deadline. It should appear, probably edited, at http://cpgb.org.uk tomorrow; the SWP have declined to include it this week but the Socialist Party may do so; hopefully they will next week anyway...]
>
> Some polls are showing the Liberal Democrats above both the Tories and Labour, and this upward trend for the Lib Dems is bound to continue. The second live TV debate is on foreign affairs and a certain issue of Iraq is bound to help Nick Clegg! The Sun on 20 April has revealed that foreign secretary David Miliband said that they shouldn't have gone to war if they knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, contradicting the positions of both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Meanwhile, shadow foreign secretary William Hague is vague! When asked the same question, he said he would answer it after the inquiry ends, conveniently after the general election!
>
> The Lib Dems do not favour an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. But they certainly don't support the Labour and Tory positions of supporting a war without end, effectively being there forever. Many on the left do mistakenly call for immediate withdrawal, which would give a massive propaganda boost to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, leading to a big upsurge in terrorist atrocities around the world. The answer is to stay there, limiting attacks to a minimum, until radicalisation of the world in a positive, socialist/liberal, direction leads us into a situation where a tiny number of fanatics are massively outnumbered and neutralised. Obamna's deadline for withdrawal is about right. This radicalisation is happening quickly at this very time, largely due to Nick Clegg's brilliant performances and the actions of many ordinary socialist, anarchist and liberal activists in Britain and around the world.
>
> The final live TV debate between Clegg, Cameron and Brown is on the economy. The Lib Dems are the only party to have included costings in their manifesto (of the main three, that is, the Green Party have too). Hopefully, Clegg will point out in the debate that the Tories favour big cuts in corporation tax, highlighting the point that they really intend to give big handouts to their friends in the city and their claims about reducing the deficit are an utter sham!
>
> The radicalisation affect things like football. The two richest clubs in the world, Manchester City and Chelsea lost on Saturday. Those bitter and twisted people who never smile like Arsene Wenger suffer too, hence Arsenal throwing away a two goal lead to Wigan in the last ten minutes to lose 3-2 and any chance of winning the title.
>
> The BNP and UKIP will be marginalised due to this radicalisation. Nick Griffin was utterly demolished and exposed by Nicky Campbell and ordinary listeners on Radio 5 Live on 19 April. The no platform for fascists strategy is out-of-date, but the fascist boot boys in the English Defence League (and their Scottish and Welsh counterparts) should still be confronted on the streets.
>
> The Liberal Democrats are often criticised by Marxists as being "middle class" or "do-gooders". It is my contention, encapsulated in my New Good Intentions Manifesto (google that to find it on the web), that people who genuinely want to help make the world a better place are better allies than those of the same class. After all, many members and supporters of far right organisations (such as the BNP, UKIP and EDL) are working class!
>
> It now looks very likely that the Lib Dems will win the next general election, despite the appallingly undemocratic electoral system being stacked against them. The main barrier to them getting an overall majority will be their record under the ugly right-wing prat Nicol Stephen in the coalition with Labour in the Scottish parliament, voting through measures that they didn't agree with. A minority government, such as with the SNP at present, is far better. This discrediting of the Scottish Lib Dems is reflected by them losing to Solidarity's Tommy Sheridan in the Glasgow North East by-election (and Tommy must stand a good chance of getting elected for the Scottish Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition in Glasgow South West, as must Colin Fox in Edinburgh standing for the Scottish Socialist Party against chancellor Alistair Darling). Perhaps the best outcome for socialists is a Lib Dem minority government relying on socialist and green MPs for support.
>
> Whatever the result of the general election, a mass revolt like in Greece is highly likely, either when cuts are attempted or when international financiers pull the plug on UK plc. It is vital that socialists have an alternative programme to the cuts (or the right will particularly blaming immigration). I particularly advocate closing tax havens and loopholes, plus nationalising all the banks, only compensating pension schemes, and running them democratically from below with most control in the hands of borrowers, savers and workers. That way, what is left of the huge amount of bailout money already spent can be used for the benefit of all!
>
> PS You are strongly encouraged to read the new newsletter of the Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism, with main heading "Vote Socialist, Green or Liberal Democrat and prepare for Greece-style revolt" from http://PRsocialism.org.
>
> --
> Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
> Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...
> Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
Dear Steve,
I am writing with regard to a letter you apparently submitted to socialist papers in England and Wales, a copy of which you posted to the Yahoo Progressive Talk group (see below.)
There were many points made. I do not wish my non-addressing of all of them to be considered tacit endorsement or rejection of any of them - save one.
There is one argument you and many others make I do wish to respond to, and that is to the issue of whether or not we - Canada, the U.S., Great Britain, et al - should continue our presence in either Iraq or Afghanistan or Pakistan, etc.
Your position: That to leave allows space for radicals to claim victory; that to leave would lead to a 'big upsurge in terrorist atrocities around the world'; that we should stay to minimize risk to ourselves.
My position: When you are in a hole, stop digging. I categorically reject bloodless, positive-spin notions on foreign occupation and the subjugation of other nations.
To restate, you argue that withdrawing would permit a surge in terrorist activities around the world. That we should, 'stay there, limiting attacks to a minimum, until radicalisation (sic) of the world in a positive, socialist/liberal, direction leads us into a situation where a tiny number of fanatics are massively outnumbered and neutralised (sic).'
Define 'neutralized'.
How is 'radicalization' done in a 'positive' way to 'reduce' fanatics to a 'tiny' number whereby they are 'massively' outnumbered - I mean, seriously, what the hell are you talking about? Because it sounds as if you are slapping a dime-store happy face sticker on f*cking slaughter, mate.
Let's make something crystal-clear: In Iraq alone we are responsible for the murder of over a million people; millions more are refugees; continuing to terrorize and oppress and murder people in foreign lands has a far greater likelihood of encouraging retaliatory actions against ourselves.
People like socialist Steve might gloat when the next terrorist strike occurs on domestic soil that we didn't neutralize enough of them over there to prevent it. On the contrary: we killed more than sufficient numbers of them to cause them to want us dead. After all, presumably the thinking goes that if they neutralize enough of us, maybe the killing of them would end.
'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you': Self-defined 'do-gooders' along with the profiteers, sociopaths, narcissists and troglodytes fail to grasp this simple, obvious rule; how this could elude them continues to reside somewhere far beyond my limited powers of comprehension.
Sincerely,
Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist
mcloughlinpost.com
______________________________________________________________________
--- In ProgressiveTalk@yahoogroups.com, Steve Wallis <revolutionarysocialiststeve@...> wrote:
>
> [I submitted the following yesterday, way past the deadlines to Socialist Worker and The Socialist, newspapers of the SWP and Socialist Party of England and Wales respectively, urging them to print it nevertheless to contradict the negative coverage of the LibDem surge that they were otherwise bound to include in their papers. I emailed several of the leaders of the various parties including Alex Callinicos and Peter Taaffe to ensure that their leaderships had a chance to discuss the possibility of such an extraordinary act. I also emailed a slightly extended version of the letter to the Weekly Worker, in time for their deadline. It should appear, probably edited, at http://cpgb.org.uk tomorrow; the SWP have declined to include it this week but the Socialist Party may do so; hopefully they will next week anyway...]
>
> Some polls are showing the Liberal Democrats above both the Tories and Labour, and this upward trend for the Lib Dems is bound to continue. The second live TV debate is on foreign affairs and a certain issue of Iraq is bound to help Nick Clegg! The Sun on 20 April has revealed that foreign secretary David Miliband said that they shouldn't have gone to war if they knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, contradicting the positions of both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Meanwhile, shadow foreign secretary William Hague is vague! When asked the same question, he said he would answer it after the inquiry ends, conveniently after the general election!
>
> The Lib Dems do not favour an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. But they certainly don't support the Labour and Tory positions of supporting a war without end, effectively being there forever. Many on the left do mistakenly call for immediate withdrawal, which would give a massive propaganda boost to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, leading to a big upsurge in terrorist atrocities around the world. The answer is to stay there, limiting attacks to a minimum, until radicalisation of the world in a positive, socialist/liberal, direction leads us into a situation where a tiny number of fanatics are massively outnumbered and neutralised. Obamna's deadline for withdrawal is about right. This radicalisation is happening quickly at this very time, largely due to Nick Clegg's brilliant performances and the actions of many ordinary socialist, anarchist and liberal activists in Britain and around the world.
>
> The final live TV debate between Clegg, Cameron and Brown is on the economy. The Lib Dems are the only party to have included costings in their manifesto (of the main three, that is, the Green Party have too). Hopefully, Clegg will point out in the debate that the Tories favour big cuts in corporation tax, highlighting the point that they really intend to give big handouts to their friends in the city and their claims about reducing the deficit are an utter sham!
>
> The radicalisation affect things like football. The two richest clubs in the world, Manchester City and Chelsea lost on Saturday. Those bitter and twisted people who never smile like Arsene Wenger suffer too, hence Arsenal throwing away a two goal lead to Wigan in the last ten minutes to lose 3-2 and any chance of winning the title.
>
> The BNP and UKIP will be marginalised due to this radicalisation. Nick Griffin was utterly demolished and exposed by Nicky Campbell and ordinary listeners on Radio 5 Live on 19 April. The no platform for fascists strategy is out-of-date, but the fascist boot boys in the English Defence League (and their Scottish and Welsh counterparts) should still be confronted on the streets.
>
> The Liberal Democrats are often criticised by Marxists as being "middle class" or "do-gooders". It is my contention, encapsulated in my New Good Intentions Manifesto (google that to find it on the web), that people who genuinely want to help make the world a better place are better allies than those of the same class. After all, many members and supporters of far right organisations (such as the BNP, UKIP and EDL) are working class!
>
> It now looks very likely that the Lib Dems will win the next general election, despite the appallingly undemocratic electoral system being stacked against them. The main barrier to them getting an overall majority will be their record under the ugly right-wing prat Nicol Stephen in the coalition with Labour in the Scottish parliament, voting through measures that they didn't agree with. A minority government, such as with the SNP at present, is far better. This discrediting of the Scottish Lib Dems is reflected by them losing to Solidarity's Tommy Sheridan in the Glasgow North East by-election (and Tommy must stand a good chance of getting elected for the Scottish Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition in Glasgow South West, as must Colin Fox in Edinburgh standing for the Scottish Socialist Party against chancellor Alistair Darling). Perhaps the best outcome for socialists is a Lib Dem minority government relying on socialist and green MPs for support.
>
> Whatever the result of the general election, a mass revolt like in Greece is highly likely, either when cuts are attempted or when international financiers pull the plug on UK plc. It is vital that socialists have an alternative programme to the cuts (or the right will particularly blaming immigration). I particularly advocate closing tax havens and loopholes, plus nationalising all the banks, only compensating pension schemes, and running them democratically from below with most control in the hands of borrowers, savers and workers. That way, what is left of the huge amount of bailout money already spent can be used for the benefit of all!
>
> PS You are strongly encouraged to read the new newsletter of the Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism, with main heading "Vote Socialist, Green or Liberal Democrat and prepare for Greece-style revolt" from http://PRsocialism.org.
>
> --
> Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
> Preferred email address: revolutionarysocialiststeve@...
> Super-blog: http://www.twitter.com/socialiststeve
April 21, 2010
Excerpt: ShalomLife - B'Tselem Director Shocked at Senior Member's Extreme Blog
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
April 18, 2010
Whistle-blowers Virgins Volcanoes...Obamas Democracy
by Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
Re: Glen Greenwald's, 'What the whistle-blower prosecution says about the Obama DOJ'; Salon, Apr. 16, 2010
Glen Greenwald is a superb journalist watchdog of government wrongdoing. In the above-noted article, Greenwald reports on the Obama Department of Justice's indictment against former Bush-era National Security Agency employee, and possible whistle-blower, Thomas Drake. (Greenwald recommends this for more NSA background.)
Greenwald points out that the Bush DoJ never went so far as to prosecute whistle-blowers - although it threatened to do so a few times; but the Obama DoJ is, and - agree totally with Greenwald - how interesting the choice of whom to pursue: Thomas Drake, who allegedly wanted you to know some things - things such as the fact that the NSA could choose not to collect domestic data on Americans while still doing its job of collecting intelligence, but that it seems that both the Bush team before, and the Obama team now, opt to defy constitutional protections, instead.
Still with Glen all the way, here: 'It's not hyperbole to say that Bush's decision to use the NSA to spy domestically on American citizens was one of the most significant stories of this generation. It was long recognized that turning the NSA inward was one of the greatest dangers to freedom...'.
No problem with Glen's take on the whole thing, except - for two bits thrown in, in the middle.
I am not sure I agree with the several assumptions and conclusions embodied in the set of statements that Greenwald makes in the following:
'It's true that leaking classified information is a crime. That's what makes whistleblowers like Drake so courageous. That's why Daniel Ellsberg -- who literally risked his liberty in an effort to help end the Vietnam War -- is one of the 20th Century's genuine American heroes. And if political-related crimes were punished equally, one could accept whistle-blower prosecutions even while questioning the motives behind them and the priorities they reflect. But that's not the situation that prevails.'
First, I disagree with the blanket assertion that it is always illegal to be a whistle-blower on illegal activities of the state; activities that the state attempts to hide by classifying the activities as 'state secrets' or 'classified' information.
Let's say the state, or, more precisely, high-up actors of the state are acting illegally. The problem, obviously, is that high-up state actors are in positions of power to abuse power on the one hand; who may harass whistle-blowers to attempt to silence them on the other. That does not make what they do legal, anymore than it makes whistle-blowing to try to protect the People from abuse illegal.
However, what it does mean is that there are no guarantees that the state is going to do the legal thing or the right thing; it does not mean that a critical mass of responsible individuals within the halls of power will do the responsible, the legal or the right thing and stand by you, either - this is the critical and problematic point.
Yes, whistle-blowers are courageous, but it is not because what they choose to do is always necessarily illegal; it is that the state has the ultimate power to abuse its power to try to shut you up, and/or to make your life a living hell.
It follows that we do not accept as given that there must be a quid pro quo trade-off of accepting punishment of the right-doing whistle-blower, if only we could simultaneously get punishment of the wrong-doing state actor - like the virgins-in-volcanoes superstitious belief that we get only if we give.
Bending over backwards, begging for right to prevail and for state officials and politicians to be prosecuted for high crimes (rather than demanding it) - even if it means sacrificing the best amongst us, the whistle-blowers who risk everything for us? For what?! Sorry. It don't wash with me.
But in Twitter parlance still sending out lots of love Glen Greenwald's way - journalist without peer, shining knight of the round table, defender of liberties par excellence.
Public Notice: If any ambitious, top-drawer lawyers out there happen upon this, Thomas Drake is reportedly tapped out and has had to have a public defender appointed for his defense.
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
Re: Glen Greenwald's, 'What the whistle-blower prosecution says about the Obama DOJ'; Salon, Apr. 16, 2010
Glen Greenwald is a superb journalist watchdog of government wrongdoing. In the above-noted article, Greenwald reports on the Obama Department of Justice's indictment against former Bush-era National Security Agency employee, and possible whistle-blower, Thomas Drake. (Greenwald recommends this for more NSA background.)
Greenwald points out that the Bush DoJ never went so far as to prosecute whistle-blowers - although it threatened to do so a few times; but the Obama DoJ is, and - agree totally with Greenwald - how interesting the choice of whom to pursue: Thomas Drake, who allegedly wanted you to know some things - things such as the fact that the NSA could choose not to collect domestic data on Americans while still doing its job of collecting intelligence, but that it seems that both the Bush team before, and the Obama team now, opt to defy constitutional protections, instead.
Still with Glen all the way, here: 'It's not hyperbole to say that Bush's decision to use the NSA to spy domestically on American citizens was one of the most significant stories of this generation. It was long recognized that turning the NSA inward was one of the greatest dangers to freedom...'.
No problem with Glen's take on the whole thing, except - for two bits thrown in, in the middle.
I am not sure I agree with the several assumptions and conclusions embodied in the set of statements that Greenwald makes in the following:
'It's true that leaking classified information is a crime. That's what makes whistleblowers like Drake so courageous. That's why Daniel Ellsberg -- who literally risked his liberty in an effort to help end the Vietnam War -- is one of the 20th Century's genuine American heroes. And if political-related crimes were punished equally, one could accept whistle-blower prosecutions even while questioning the motives behind them and the priorities they reflect. But that's not the situation that prevails.'
First, I disagree with the blanket assertion that it is always illegal to be a whistle-blower on illegal activities of the state; activities that the state attempts to hide by classifying the activities as 'state secrets' or 'classified' information.
Let's say the state, or, more precisely, high-up actors of the state are acting illegally. The problem, obviously, is that high-up state actors are in positions of power to abuse power on the one hand; who may harass whistle-blowers to attempt to silence them on the other. That does not make what they do legal, anymore than it makes whistle-blowing to try to protect the People from abuse illegal.
However, what it does mean is that there are no guarantees that the state is going to do the legal thing or the right thing; it does not mean that a critical mass of responsible individuals within the halls of power will do the responsible, the legal or the right thing and stand by you, either - this is the critical and problematic point.
Yes, whistle-blowers are courageous, but it is not because what they choose to do is always necessarily illegal; it is that the state has the ultimate power to abuse its power to try to shut you up, and/or to make your life a living hell.
It follows that we do not accept as given that there must be a quid pro quo trade-off of accepting punishment of the right-doing whistle-blower, if only we could simultaneously get punishment of the wrong-doing state actor - like the virgins-in-volcanoes superstitious belief that we get only if we give.
Bending over backwards, begging for right to prevail and for state officials and politicians to be prosecuted for high crimes (rather than demanding it) - even if it means sacrificing the best amongst us, the whistle-blowers who risk everything for us? For what?! Sorry. It don't wash with me.
But in Twitter parlance still sending out lots of love Glen Greenwald's way - journalist without peer, shining knight of the round table, defender of liberties par excellence.
Public Notice: If any ambitious, top-drawer lawyers out there happen upon this, Thomas Drake is reportedly tapped out and has had to have a public defender appointed for his defense.
Haaretz Tries to Save Israel's Soul
by Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist; Apr. 18, 2010
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
One thing no one would argue: Present-day Israel is chockfull of morality plays.
Haaretz newspaper journalist Amira Hass versus the 'infiltrator' military rules; Haaretz journalist Uri Blau and military whistle-blower Anat Kamm - these are but two recent cases in point; cases caught between journalistic as well as state ethics on the one hand, and the higher natural law, or the laws that govern moral order, on the other.
In the strictest sense, journalist Caroline Glick may have scored points in parsing out weaknesses made in reporting by Haaretz journalist Amira Hass and others. But in my opinion, Ms. Glick fails the calling to impart the higher truth to which Hass and others aspire. To be fair, Ms. Glick is far from alone amongst her journalistic fellows in this regard. Throw a dart at a map of the world, she will find company; plenty of it.
A central moral theme: A nationalism that rejects the common humanity we share with others can destroy the soul of a people; or, at least, that part of the soul worth mention.
To Caroline Glick, the greater crime fellow journalist Amira Hass commits is reporting about the 2009 changes to the 1969 'infiltrator' law, when to Ms. Glick these were 'minor' in character.
Ms. Glick, however, chooses not to address the occupation, the oppression or the expulsion of Palestinians that such military orders provide cover for.
However, it is the very fact of the existence of these military powers over an illegally occupied people that draws a world's jaundiced and critical eye toward Israel - not Amira Hass's discussion of it. But apologists criticize the discussion, not the acts themselves, and therein lies the critical difference.
It is a particular wonder that Israel's apologists do not honestly seem to see it for what it all actually is.
Don't look!, they protest at those who protest - at a nationalistic state not quite yet a homogeneous nation; not quite ethnically cleansed of the other, the native Palestinian people who were always there; a people who may actually be direct descendants of Jews who never left.
Don't listen!, they shout, to drown out the truth from reaching the ears of those whose only thought of Israel is of an ancient era when a gentle man walked the earth speaking of love, charity and forgiveness; people who fervently pray he may one day do so again, and who would not tolerate for a second what was being done to the Palestinian people - if they knew.
Don't speak!, they would order the morally brave, both within Israel and without; the truth above all else considered a threat to the state's aims.
To those like Ms. Glick, the greater crime, in the Kamm/Blau case, is the revealing of political assassinations that were committed, against Israeli law. To the apologists, treason is defined as revealing that Israel may have committed war crimes in Gaza - the truth being far more disturbing than extrajudicial execution or war crimes themselves.
It is not Haaretz, or Amira Hass, or Anat Kamm, or Uri Blau that endanger Jews. It is the apologists and the blind supporters of Israel, who do so. The horror of the infiltrator law is the fact that Israel has been terrorizing a captive population for decades with it.
The Palestinians are forced to live out their lives under military siege, occupation and terrorization from both the military and the illegal, violent 'settlers'.
Occupation and foreign colonization enforced at the point of guns: One of the worst of crimes imaginable.
The infiltrator law has been on the books since 1969 - yes. To Ms. Glick, the implication is that this renders it inocuous; harmless. It has, after all, to her, always been there. But the longer a people are yoked to oppression does not make the burden easier to bear or less wrong. Naturally, the story of Moses immediately springs to mind.
The infiltrator military group of orders concerns themselves with which Palestinians are entitled to be here or there. It is invalid, illegal law. It is simply the illegal occupier declaring that it will do what it will - throw you in jail, deport you, tear families apart - and, of course, steal your land - with impunity, whenever and to whomever it wants.
The test is this: Those without the requisite papers are automatically deemed 'infiltrators'. But I challenge anyone to prove otherwise: Palestinians BORN in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem cannot get these permits. The required permits are not given. Or they are given at whim.
This is but one of many freak-you-out forms of state terrorism under occupation.Any Jew who survived the horrors of Nazi terror could tell you all about this form of fundamental, coldly calculating, bureaucratic evil.
As for Anat Kamm, the analysis is the same. Rules of combat or war are there for very good reasons, and they are simple to understand. What we choose to do we should expect no less from our adversaries. In addition, extrajudicial political killing is just wrong. It is a system of murder by which the murdered are denied the right to defend themselves in an open court of law. In its very essence a state resorts to assassination because no ethical court of its own would condone murder; the commission of state-executed assassination verily screams that there is no evidence sufficient to prove the target guilty of any crime.
Sin is defined as causing a degree of spiritual death in the sinner. The word is concerned with the harm done to the one who commits it. Murder makes cold-blooded killers of a country's citizens against the universal code of moral law, thus, weakening the moral fabric of all of society. One could argue that we need look no further for evidence of this moral decay than to the efforts of Ms. Glick and others to silence those who would point out where Israel is wrong. (A silence that may well include a prison sentence for the 23 year-old Anat Kamm of up to twenty years.)
On the outside looking in, state-sanctioned extrajudicial assassination destroys the state's reputation. And ipso facto, state-sanctioned extrajudicial assassination of one's political opponents means that your own political representatives will become targets for retaliation.
It is the mark of the weak and desperate; it is indefensible; and it is illegal under Israeli law. It is why Ms. Kamm tried to expose what she found out - that certain actors were breaking the law, putting the country at risk.
One of the most serious concerns raised by Israeli apologists is that Uri Blau may have discovered that, in the lead up to Operation Cast Lead's assault on Gaza, operational guidelines had been drawn up on the ways in which it was deemed permissible to kill civilians (an odious squaring of the circle if there ever was one.) But their concern does not appear to extend to the question of whether or not it is right. Mr. Blau currently is in self-imposed exile in Britain, fearing reprisals should he return home.
It is all part and parcel of the existential dilemmas the state has yet to resolve: secular or religious? All men are equal or not? Proportionate force in battle, or kill disproportionately - even babies? This last suggestion, from a recently published book by a dean-rabbi team employed at a yeshiva in a settlement in the West Bank:
'There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.'
(Title of book, translated: 'The King's Teaching - INT'. See: Gilad Atzmon's article: 'The Complete Guide to Killing Non-Jews'; Nov. 18, 2010)
It may be fringe, but there are rabbis in Israel that espouse this stuff, and the state permits rabbis to be embedded within the military hierarchy itself.
For all of the reasons discussed above, the individuals that Ms. Glick so blithely would dismiss as traitors, are all in fact trying very hard to save Israel's soul.
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
One thing no one would argue: Present-day Israel is chockfull of morality plays.
Haaretz newspaper journalist Amira Hass versus the 'infiltrator' military rules; Haaretz journalist Uri Blau and military whistle-blower Anat Kamm - these are but two recent cases in point; cases caught between journalistic as well as state ethics on the one hand, and the higher natural law, or the laws that govern moral order, on the other.
In the strictest sense, journalist Caroline Glick may have scored points in parsing out weaknesses made in reporting by Haaretz journalist Amira Hass and others. But in my opinion, Ms. Glick fails the calling to impart the higher truth to which Hass and others aspire. To be fair, Ms. Glick is far from alone amongst her journalistic fellows in this regard. Throw a dart at a map of the world, she will find company; plenty of it.
A central moral theme: A nationalism that rejects the common humanity we share with others can destroy the soul of a people; or, at least, that part of the soul worth mention.
To Caroline Glick, the greater crime fellow journalist Amira Hass commits is reporting about the 2009 changes to the 1969 'infiltrator' law, when to Ms. Glick these were 'minor' in character.
Ms. Glick, however, chooses not to address the occupation, the oppression or the expulsion of Palestinians that such military orders provide cover for.
However, it is the very fact of the existence of these military powers over an illegally occupied people that draws a world's jaundiced and critical eye toward Israel - not Amira Hass's discussion of it. But apologists criticize the discussion, not the acts themselves, and therein lies the critical difference.
It is a particular wonder that Israel's apologists do not honestly seem to see it for what it all actually is.
Don't look!, they protest at those who protest - at a nationalistic state not quite yet a homogeneous nation; not quite ethnically cleansed of the other, the native Palestinian people who were always there; a people who may actually be direct descendants of Jews who never left.
Don't listen!, they shout, to drown out the truth from reaching the ears of those whose only thought of Israel is of an ancient era when a gentle man walked the earth speaking of love, charity and forgiveness; people who fervently pray he may one day do so again, and who would not tolerate for a second what was being done to the Palestinian people - if they knew.
Don't speak!, they would order the morally brave, both within Israel and without; the truth above all else considered a threat to the state's aims.
To those like Ms. Glick, the greater crime, in the Kamm/Blau case, is the revealing of political assassinations that were committed, against Israeli law. To the apologists, treason is defined as revealing that Israel may have committed war crimes in Gaza - the truth being far more disturbing than extrajudicial execution or war crimes themselves.
It is not Haaretz, or Amira Hass, or Anat Kamm, or Uri Blau that endanger Jews. It is the apologists and the blind supporters of Israel, who do so. The horror of the infiltrator law is the fact that Israel has been terrorizing a captive population for decades with it.
The Palestinians are forced to live out their lives under military siege, occupation and terrorization from both the military and the illegal, violent 'settlers'.
Occupation and foreign colonization enforced at the point of guns: One of the worst of crimes imaginable.
The infiltrator law has been on the books since 1969 - yes. To Ms. Glick, the implication is that this renders it inocuous; harmless. It has, after all, to her, always been there. But the longer a people are yoked to oppression does not make the burden easier to bear or less wrong. Naturally, the story of Moses immediately springs to mind.
The infiltrator military group of orders concerns themselves with which Palestinians are entitled to be here or there. It is invalid, illegal law. It is simply the illegal occupier declaring that it will do what it will - throw you in jail, deport you, tear families apart - and, of course, steal your land - with impunity, whenever and to whomever it wants.
The test is this: Those without the requisite papers are automatically deemed 'infiltrators'. But I challenge anyone to prove otherwise: Palestinians BORN in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem cannot get these permits. The required permits are not given. Or they are given at whim.
This is but one of many freak-you-out forms of state terrorism under occupation.Any Jew who survived the horrors of Nazi terror could tell you all about this form of fundamental, coldly calculating, bureaucratic evil.
As for Anat Kamm, the analysis is the same. Rules of combat or war are there for very good reasons, and they are simple to understand. What we choose to do we should expect no less from our adversaries. In addition, extrajudicial political killing is just wrong. It is a system of murder by which the murdered are denied the right to defend themselves in an open court of law. In its very essence a state resorts to assassination because no ethical court of its own would condone murder; the commission of state-executed assassination verily screams that there is no evidence sufficient to prove the target guilty of any crime.
Sin is defined as causing a degree of spiritual death in the sinner. The word is concerned with the harm done to the one who commits it. Murder makes cold-blooded killers of a country's citizens against the universal code of moral law, thus, weakening the moral fabric of all of society. One could argue that we need look no further for evidence of this moral decay than to the efforts of Ms. Glick and others to silence those who would point out where Israel is wrong. (A silence that may well include a prison sentence for the 23 year-old Anat Kamm of up to twenty years.)
On the outside looking in, state-sanctioned extrajudicial assassination destroys the state's reputation. And ipso facto, state-sanctioned extrajudicial assassination of one's political opponents means that your own political representatives will become targets for retaliation.
It is the mark of the weak and desperate; it is indefensible; and it is illegal under Israeli law. It is why Ms. Kamm tried to expose what she found out - that certain actors were breaking the law, putting the country at risk.
One of the most serious concerns raised by Israeli apologists is that Uri Blau may have discovered that, in the lead up to Operation Cast Lead's assault on Gaza, operational guidelines had been drawn up on the ways in which it was deemed permissible to kill civilians (an odious squaring of the circle if there ever was one.) But their concern does not appear to extend to the question of whether or not it is right. Mr. Blau currently is in self-imposed exile in Britain, fearing reprisals should he return home.
It is all part and parcel of the existential dilemmas the state has yet to resolve: secular or religious? All men are equal or not? Proportionate force in battle, or kill disproportionately - even babies? This last suggestion, from a recently published book by a dean-rabbi team employed at a yeshiva in a settlement in the West Bank:
'There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.'
(Title of book, translated: 'The King's Teaching - INT'. See: Gilad Atzmon's article: 'The Complete Guide to Killing Non-Jews'; Nov. 18, 2010)
It may be fringe, but there are rabbis in Israel that espouse this stuff, and the state permits rabbis to be embedded within the military hierarchy itself.
For all of the reasons discussed above, the individuals that Ms. Glick so blithely would dismiss as traitors, are all in fact trying very hard to save Israel's soul.
April 17, 2010
April 16, 2010
April 13, 2010
Guest writer Tim Hartman: Questions Concerning the BDS Movement
special to The McLoughlin Post. Apr. 13, 2010
I am always inspired and reflective after reading Edward Said. He himself talks about the very definition of authority in literature, and if anyone has been an authority in Western discourse for the Palestinian cause, it has been Said. With that in mind, some of my latest readings of Said prompted questions to ask about the global boycott, divest and sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel.
Let me say from the start that I have been, and continue to be, a supporter of BDS. For that matter, I am open to discussing any method of engagement with Israel to force the end of the occupation of the land of Palestine, the enactment of self-determination for the Palestinian people and the total end of all blockades of supplies to the Palestinian people.
As an American citizen, I am responsible in many ways for the continued torment of the Palestinians. It is my tax dollars and the profits from the multinational corporations based in my country that go towards the continued repression of the Arabs in Palestine. I am outraged that the vast majority of Americans are so ignorant when it comes to this fact. Most are unaware of the basic language and geographical/demographic terms of the conflict such as Nakba; Arab Israelis; The Right of Return; West Bank zones A, B and C; Oslo and all its implications; The pre-1967 borders; The Green Line, etc.
It is inexcusable to be uninformed as to the foreign policy of ones country. Our internal problems are not nearly as important as how our dollars affect other nations.
Historically, any movement to blockade, embargo, boycott, divest, or sanction a particular country always hits the citizens of that country harder than its government. In fact, as we saw in Iraq in the 90's, the government can find ways to further enrich itself while the people starve and die by the millions. The same is true today with Israel's blockade of Gaza and with the embargo against the people of Cuba instigated by the United States.
Our responsibility is great. We must step back and examine the minute details of what it is we're doing, and how we plan on freeing Palestine without being counter-productive or downright inhumane. For that reason, this article does not pretend to be an answer. It is a question that I am wrestling with, and one in which I am proposing to my comrades for consideration and deciphering.
How do we cause a change in policy in the Israeli government without hurting the citizens of Israel? How do we continue to keep the elements of Israeli society - that are morally sickened by the occupation - fighting for justice?
I believe, as does Said, that any satisfactory resolution of the torment in Palestine is going to involve the aid of people on both sides of the literal divide. It is the morally upstanding elements of Israeli society that are critical to the process. Will we alienate them and shoot ourselves in the foot by the very process of BDS? It is a question that was raised on the BDS website, but it is one that I believe deserves more thoughtful consideration.
Who will be affected the most by the BDS movement, and how will those results translate to change for the Palestinian people? Are we certain that our actions through BDS are going to cause a change in the century-old process and thought of Zionism, or will the very actions of the movement make Zionism more resolute? Will BDS backfire and cause increased rather than reduced suffering to the Palestinians?
I ask these questions from the perspective of someone who values each human life as equal to the next. It is the very reason for my radicalization both politically and morally. The reactionary politics of individuals and governments are exactly what motivates me to avoid dogmatic assumptions and assertions. It is only through constant questioning and self-examination that we as radicals/progressives can continue to move forward and cause REAL change.
The moment that we become set in a pattern of belief is when we become reactionary ourselves. If we profess to be more open-minded than those whose beliefs we oppose, then we must continue to question.
No one is more pro-justice than I. The struggle against oppression is one that I have adopted as my life's battle. It is my reason for returning to school, for declining jobs in my long radio career, and for my political affiliation with the ISO. I am raising these questions on BDS to help us achieve the maximum results with the minimum of harm. The Palestinians have certainly endured enough, and we can NOT continue the cycle of violence with Israel as a solution.
I do not pretend to be the expert. This is an open-ended discussion that must continue, and my hope is for an honest and critical soul-search on how to best accomplish our goals. It is only through equality that we will reach peace. It is only through valuing the life of the other as much as our own that we can begin to practice justice. I not only welcome your comments, but I hope that we can have an ongoing dialogue on the BDS movement as well as other potential pressures to bring to bear against the racist and unjust Zionists. This statement is meant to start the conversation (from the beginning if necessary), not to end it.
[Please note: The views held are the writer's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of the McLoughlin Post.]
I am always inspired and reflective after reading Edward Said. He himself talks about the very definition of authority in literature, and if anyone has been an authority in Western discourse for the Palestinian cause, it has been Said. With that in mind, some of my latest readings of Said prompted questions to ask about the global boycott, divest and sanctions movement (BDS) against Israel.
Let me say from the start that I have been, and continue to be, a supporter of BDS. For that matter, I am open to discussing any method of engagement with Israel to force the end of the occupation of the land of Palestine, the enactment of self-determination for the Palestinian people and the total end of all blockades of supplies to the Palestinian people.
As an American citizen, I am responsible in many ways for the continued torment of the Palestinians. It is my tax dollars and the profits from the multinational corporations based in my country that go towards the continued repression of the Arabs in Palestine. I am outraged that the vast majority of Americans are so ignorant when it comes to this fact. Most are unaware of the basic language and geographical/demographic terms of the conflict such as Nakba; Arab Israelis; The Right of Return; West Bank zones A, B and C; Oslo and all its implications; The pre-1967 borders; The Green Line, etc.
It is inexcusable to be uninformed as to the foreign policy of ones country. Our internal problems are not nearly as important as how our dollars affect other nations.
Historically, any movement to blockade, embargo, boycott, divest, or sanction a particular country always hits the citizens of that country harder than its government. In fact, as we saw in Iraq in the 90's, the government can find ways to further enrich itself while the people starve and die by the millions. The same is true today with Israel's blockade of Gaza and with the embargo against the people of Cuba instigated by the United States.
Our responsibility is great. We must step back and examine the minute details of what it is we're doing, and how we plan on freeing Palestine without being counter-productive or downright inhumane. For that reason, this article does not pretend to be an answer. It is a question that I am wrestling with, and one in which I am proposing to my comrades for consideration and deciphering.
How do we cause a change in policy in the Israeli government without hurting the citizens of Israel? How do we continue to keep the elements of Israeli society - that are morally sickened by the occupation - fighting for justice?
I believe, as does Said, that any satisfactory resolution of the torment in Palestine is going to involve the aid of people on both sides of the literal divide. It is the morally upstanding elements of Israeli society that are critical to the process. Will we alienate them and shoot ourselves in the foot by the very process of BDS? It is a question that was raised on the BDS website, but it is one that I believe deserves more thoughtful consideration.
Who will be affected the most by the BDS movement, and how will those results translate to change for the Palestinian people? Are we certain that our actions through BDS are going to cause a change in the century-old process and thought of Zionism, or will the very actions of the movement make Zionism more resolute? Will BDS backfire and cause increased rather than reduced suffering to the Palestinians?
I ask these questions from the perspective of someone who values each human life as equal to the next. It is the very reason for my radicalization both politically and morally. The reactionary politics of individuals and governments are exactly what motivates me to avoid dogmatic assumptions and assertions. It is only through constant questioning and self-examination that we as radicals/progressives can continue to move forward and cause REAL change.
The moment that we become set in a pattern of belief is when we become reactionary ourselves. If we profess to be more open-minded than those whose beliefs we oppose, then we must continue to question.
No one is more pro-justice than I. The struggle against oppression is one that I have adopted as my life's battle. It is my reason for returning to school, for declining jobs in my long radio career, and for my political affiliation with the ISO. I am raising these questions on BDS to help us achieve the maximum results with the minimum of harm. The Palestinians have certainly endured enough, and we can NOT continue the cycle of violence with Israel as a solution.
I do not pretend to be the expert. This is an open-ended discussion that must continue, and my hope is for an honest and critical soul-search on how to best accomplish our goals. It is only through equality that we will reach peace. It is only through valuing the life of the other as much as our own that we can begin to practice justice. I not only welcome your comments, but I hope that we can have an ongoing dialogue on the BDS movement as well as other potential pressures to bring to bear against the racist and unjust Zionists. This statement is meant to start the conversation (from the beginning if necessary), not to end it.
[Please note: The views held are the writer's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of the McLoughlin Post.]
April 12, 2010
Donkey to Shrek - or - Letter To Netanyahu on mass expulsions
To: B. Netanyahu
bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il
From: Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
Re: The new IDF so-called infiltrator military order providing the IDF with vastly expanded powers to expel Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, or to jail them for up to seven years at the military occupation's whim.
Dear Mr. Netanyahu,
I am writing to share frankly my views regarding the amendment to the 'infiltrator' military order enabling vastly expanded powers to the Israeli Offensive Forces (IOF) to harass and oppress and harm the Palestinian people.
Is the Israeli leadership oblivious to the fact that the civilized world is aware? That it is now watching, waiting to see what the Knesset chooses to do?
This new law gives the IOF the power to expel tens of thousands of Palestinians from their homes, both in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem for want of pieces of paper referred to as either 'legal permits' or 'certificates' issued by either the West Bank military commander or the Interior Ministry.
The West Bank military commander has never issued such permits. Palestinians who were born in the West Bank have no permits. This law is a farce; a transparent charade.
If this order is not immediately reversed, if, instead, the IOF begins to expel Palestinians from their homeland, Israel will become a full-fledged pariah state. At this point, even if the order is reversed I would argue that the chess pieces are not returned back to the square from which they came. Not after America's recent awakening from Vice President Joseph Biden's visit to you.
It is clear that many of your compatriots are hermetically-sealed in a bubble of self-delusion.
I may not be the best person to try to get through to honorable members of the Knesset. In fact I know I'm not. But somebody has got to try; the situation is too important to leave it to trust that somebody else will.
Israel is faced with four options:
One bi-national state with equal rights for all its citizens;
Two states bordered by pre-1967 boundaries, a shared Jerusalem, with no attempt at swaps of good land for bad thinking that anyone will be stupid enough to call that a bargain;
Repatriation of Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan;
Or, the continued oppression and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians - the status quo.
Should Israel continue to choose the latter, Israel's reputation will be destroyed.
And no option will bring blessed calm and everlasting peace to Israel as long as
Palestinian-Israeli citizens within Israel proper are treated badly.
Israel is now faced with the ultimate, most monumental and moral of decisions. That is how it feels; a moment upon which history will pivot. The world collectively waits to exhale.
Should Israel opt to continue to occupy and live amongst the Palestinians on Palestinian lands while denying the Palestinians their civil rights; should Israel choose to implement this newest military abuse - intensifying the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank - Israel risks provoking a different antisemitism to arise, an antisemitism caused by the racist mistreatment of the Palestinians. All of the backroom dealing in the West attempting to criminalize criticism of Israel will not be able to evade, head off or squelch this: odious cause = horrified effect.
Mr. Netanyahu, I have long wanted to ask you when is the last time you were able to look anyone straight in the eye? Wouldn't you like to be able to, again?
In the children's movie 'Shrek', Shrek calls his friend, Donkey, a stupid, annoying beast of burden. I feel like Donkey. A beast of burden plodding along wanting you to have peace.
And like Shrek, the heroic ogre, you must have, like an onion, many layers of complexity about your character that most people who judge you from the outside might appreciate if they only knew.
In my own defense I would permit Donkey to have the final word: Only a true friend would be so truly honest.
Sincerely,
Diane V. McLoughlin
bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il
From: Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
Re: The new IDF so-called infiltrator military order providing the IDF with vastly expanded powers to expel Palestinians from their homes in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, or to jail them for up to seven years at the military occupation's whim.
Dear Mr. Netanyahu,
I am writing to share frankly my views regarding the amendment to the 'infiltrator' military order enabling vastly expanded powers to the Israeli Offensive Forces (IOF) to harass and oppress and harm the Palestinian people.
Is the Israeli leadership oblivious to the fact that the civilized world is aware? That it is now watching, waiting to see what the Knesset chooses to do?
This new law gives the IOF the power to expel tens of thousands of Palestinians from their homes, both in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem for want of pieces of paper referred to as either 'legal permits' or 'certificates' issued by either the West Bank military commander or the Interior Ministry.
The West Bank military commander has never issued such permits. Palestinians who were born in the West Bank have no permits. This law is a farce; a transparent charade.
If this order is not immediately reversed, if, instead, the IOF begins to expel Palestinians from their homeland, Israel will become a full-fledged pariah state. At this point, even if the order is reversed I would argue that the chess pieces are not returned back to the square from which they came. Not after America's recent awakening from Vice President Joseph Biden's visit to you.
It is clear that many of your compatriots are hermetically-sealed in a bubble of self-delusion.
I may not be the best person to try to get through to honorable members of the Knesset. In fact I know I'm not. But somebody has got to try; the situation is too important to leave it to trust that somebody else will.
Israel is faced with four options:
One bi-national state with equal rights for all its citizens;
Two states bordered by pre-1967 boundaries, a shared Jerusalem, with no attempt at swaps of good land for bad thinking that anyone will be stupid enough to call that a bargain;
Repatriation of Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan;
Or, the continued oppression and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians - the status quo.
Should Israel continue to choose the latter, Israel's reputation will be destroyed.
And no option will bring blessed calm and everlasting peace to Israel as long as
Palestinian-Israeli citizens within Israel proper are treated badly.
Israel is now faced with the ultimate, most monumental and moral of decisions. That is how it feels; a moment upon which history will pivot. The world collectively waits to exhale.
Should Israel opt to continue to occupy and live amongst the Palestinians on Palestinian lands while denying the Palestinians their civil rights; should Israel choose to implement this newest military abuse - intensifying the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in Gaza, East Jerusalem and the West Bank - Israel risks provoking a different antisemitism to arise, an antisemitism caused by the racist mistreatment of the Palestinians. All of the backroom dealing in the West attempting to criminalize criticism of Israel will not be able to evade, head off or squelch this: odious cause = horrified effect.
Mr. Netanyahu, I have long wanted to ask you when is the last time you were able to look anyone straight in the eye? Wouldn't you like to be able to, again?
In the children's movie 'Shrek', Shrek calls his friend, Donkey, a stupid, annoying beast of burden. I feel like Donkey. A beast of burden plodding along wanting you to have peace.
And like Shrek, the heroic ogre, you must have, like an onion, many layers of complexity about your character that most people who judge you from the outside might appreciate if they only knew.
In my own defense I would permit Donkey to have the final word: Only a true friend would be so truly honest.
Sincerely,
Diane V. McLoughlin
April 10, 2010
Update re Is it Legal to Boycott Israel or Not
by Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist, Apr. 10, 2010
main website: http://www.mcloughlinpost.com
Update to: Is it Legal to Boycott Israel or Not?
The short answer is that it is illegal to participate in any way with a foreign-originated boycott against Israel.
But a boycott that originates within the U.S., by citizen or company, is not illegal.
Just as with the international boycott of Apartheid South Africa, there are U.S. citizens and companies that peacefully boycott Israel as a matter of conscience. Boycott is meant to encourage Israel to quit the military occupation of the West Bank and lift the military siege of Gaza.
However, these American antiboycott laws do not really feel like this is an issue under discussion in a free society. I have had e-mailed to me a link to an on-line article circa June 27, 2003 which also discusses this. I include a thoughtful comment which adds to the discussion by Michael Breen. It is troubling that the U.S government orders American companies to file reports on any inquiries they receive from foreign buyers regarding whether or not a company does business with Israel. Millions of dollars in fines have been levied against American companies for not reporting foreign boycott queries to the government's satisfaction.
From the website, 'Unknown News', entitled: 'Company fined for not reporting customer's question 'Is any of this stuff made in Israel?'; by Helen and Harry Highwater:
'A Missouri company has been fined $6,000 for not reporting a [foreign] customer’s question to the federal government. The question that’s punished by law is: Are any of these products made in Israel, or made of Israeli materials?
The Kansas City Star reports:
It sounds more like the USSR than the USA, to punish people for asking a forbidden question, or for not immediately reporting to the government that someone else asked a forbidden question.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Breen adds to the discussion:
main website: http://www.mcloughlinpost.com
Update to: Is it Legal to Boycott Israel or Not?
The short answer is that it is illegal to participate in any way with a foreign-originated boycott against Israel.
But a boycott that originates within the U.S., by citizen or company, is not illegal.
Just as with the international boycott of Apartheid South Africa, there are U.S. citizens and companies that peacefully boycott Israel as a matter of conscience. Boycott is meant to encourage Israel to quit the military occupation of the West Bank and lift the military siege of Gaza.
However, these American antiboycott laws do not really feel like this is an issue under discussion in a free society. I have had e-mailed to me a link to an on-line article circa June 27, 2003 which also discusses this. I include a thoughtful comment which adds to the discussion by Michael Breen. It is troubling that the U.S government orders American companies to file reports on any inquiries they receive from foreign buyers regarding whether or not a company does business with Israel. Millions of dollars in fines have been levied against American companies for not reporting foreign boycott queries to the government's satisfaction.
From the website, 'Unknown News', entitled: 'Company fined for not reporting customer's question 'Is any of this stuff made in Israel?'; by Helen and Harry Highwater:
'A Missouri company has been fined $6,000 for not reporting a [foreign] customer’s question to the federal government. The question that’s punished by law is: Are any of these products made in Israel, or made of Israeli materials?
The Kansas City Star reports:
The anti-boycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. They also require that receipt of boycott requests be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration.We ask: Why is this question forbidden? Why is any question forbidden?
It sounds more like the USSR than the USA, to punish people for asking a forbidden question, or for not immediately reporting to the government that someone else asked a forbidden question.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Breen adds to the discussion:
Regarding ariwatch.com/Links/CompanyFined6000.htm, it may be worth noting for the sake of those who might be cowed rather than angered by US laws protecting Israel from boycott (as if Israel were a US citizen!) that it applies only to cooperation with foreign boycotts, and so permits boycotting where it is not motivated by a wish to comply with another country's foreign policy: http://mcloughlinpost.blogspot.com/2010/04/2002-commerce-official-urges-compliance.html This is implicit, however: the writers of the regulations clearly do not envisage a situation where a US businessperson might *want* to boycott Israel for any reason other than the profit available from trading with boycotting countries. And if the existence of the foreign boycott is found to form any part of the motivation, the company can still be penalized. Example (x) on p16 illustrates: A, a U.S. construction company, enters into a contract to build an office complex in boycotting country Y. A receives bids from B and C, U.S. companies that are equally qualified suppliers of electrical cable for the project. A knows that B is blacklisted by Y and that C is not. A accepts C's bid, in part because C is as qualified as the other potential supplier and in part because C is not blacklisted. A's decision to select supplier C instead of blacklisted supplier B is a refusal to do business, because the boycott was one of the reasons for A's decision. One can envision a US company choosing an Israeli supplier instead of an equally qualified US one merely to protect itself from the thought police. (Such a fearful company could act more fairly by choosing from among equally qualified suppliers by lot, and have the draw witnessed.) However, I would assume that before a penalty could be imposed some evidence would still be required, e.g., a statistically significant pattern of contract awards, a remark a manager is reported to have made at a meeting, etc. In short, under the EAR, it seems that a company that doesn't have any trade with boycotting countries will suffer no penalty for publicly boycotting Israel on its own account. A company that can expect to profit from its position needs to be far more careful. But a company seeking only to avoid a loss in domestic US sales (admittedly still a rather hypothetical entity) should be OK. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and I have not read the regulations in their entirety. Get your own advice before acting.
April 09, 2010
April 08, 2010
The question - How Can the U.S. Strengthen Global Efforts To Stop the Spread of Nuclear Weapons?
by Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist, Apr. 13, 2010
Main website: mcloughlinpost.com
The question: How Can the U.S. Strengthen Global Efforts To Stop the Spread of Nuclear Weapons?
Discourage nuclear energy use.
Encourage development of renewables.
Commit to swift elimination of 'depleted' uranium weapons-use. Admit they were a mistake. Provide clean-up and compensation to areas of the world now polluted by such weapons. Many babies in Iraq are now being born horrifically deformed.
Education: Encourage (concretely) the dissemination of knowledge - facts, figures, statistics, definition of mutually-assured destruction as well as the history - regarding how terrible nuclear weapons and nuclear waste is.
Continued mutually-agreed upon, as well as encouraged reductions in, the global stockpile;
Education, particularly of women - in developing countries education delivers a powerful change - it lowers the birthrate while it raises the bar on family quality of life; this in turn lowers want, deprivation and political instability.
Massively cut back on foreign adventures, the military budget, and the ridiculous number of military bases in the world.
Guard vigilantly against foreign espionage attempts to steal business, technological or state secrets.
Recommit to investing in the domestic economy, and make it much harder for corporations to take the best of America and then abandon her for slave labor abroad.
Encourage social uplift at home and abroad. 'Bread not bullets'.
Punish our domestic war criminals. Cut out the rank hypocrisy. Enforce the law, and demonstrate that no one is above the law.
Lead by example.
Quit interfering in the foreign affairs of other states. Quit deposing some while protecting despotic others to the detriment of the oppressed.
AIPAC must be registered as a foreign agent, as its predecessor rightly was.
The Israeli-Palestinian file must be taken on with a will for justice and peace. The facts on the ground created by Israel are such that, in truth, Israel is an Apartheid state.
Either Israel becomes one bi-national state with equal rights for both Jews and Palestinians or a true two-state according to pre-1967 borders - or cut Israel off of the annual billions in financial aid and military hardware.
Outlaw private financial donations to the State of Israel just as private financial donations are prevented from reaching the victims - the Palestinians.
In short, cut out the double-standards and the hypocrisy; make concrete efforts to reduce the stockpile; education and social uplift; renewables; collaboration; and solving the Israel-Palestine issue.
(No doubt I am forgetting to include other pertinent proposals.) I believe the above would help bring greater calm in international relations and make the world a better, safer place for all.
Main website: mcloughlinpost.com
The question: How Can the U.S. Strengthen Global Efforts To Stop the Spread of Nuclear Weapons?
Discourage nuclear energy use.
Encourage development of renewables.
Commit to swift elimination of 'depleted' uranium weapons-use. Admit they were a mistake. Provide clean-up and compensation to areas of the world now polluted by such weapons. Many babies in Iraq are now being born horrifically deformed.
Education: Encourage (concretely) the dissemination of knowledge - facts, figures, statistics, definition of mutually-assured destruction as well as the history - regarding how terrible nuclear weapons and nuclear waste is.
Continued mutually-agreed upon, as well as encouraged reductions in, the global stockpile;
Education, particularly of women - in developing countries education delivers a powerful change - it lowers the birthrate while it raises the bar on family quality of life; this in turn lowers want, deprivation and political instability.
Massively cut back on foreign adventures, the military budget, and the ridiculous number of military bases in the world.
Guard vigilantly against foreign espionage attempts to steal business, technological or state secrets.
Recommit to investing in the domestic economy, and make it much harder for corporations to take the best of America and then abandon her for slave labor abroad.
Encourage social uplift at home and abroad. 'Bread not bullets'.
Punish our domestic war criminals. Cut out the rank hypocrisy. Enforce the law, and demonstrate that no one is above the law.
Lead by example.
Quit interfering in the foreign affairs of other states. Quit deposing some while protecting despotic others to the detriment of the oppressed.
AIPAC must be registered as a foreign agent, as its predecessor rightly was.
The Israeli-Palestinian file must be taken on with a will for justice and peace. The facts on the ground created by Israel are such that, in truth, Israel is an Apartheid state.
Either Israel becomes one bi-national state with equal rights for both Jews and Palestinians or a true two-state according to pre-1967 borders - or cut Israel off of the annual billions in financial aid and military hardware.
Outlaw private financial donations to the State of Israel just as private financial donations are prevented from reaching the victims - the Palestinians.
In short, cut out the double-standards and the hypocrisy; make concrete efforts to reduce the stockpile; education and social uplift; renewables; collaboration; and solving the Israel-Palestine issue.
(No doubt I am forgetting to include other pertinent proposals.) I believe the above would help bring greater calm in international relations and make the world a better, safer place for all.
April 07, 2010
April 06, 2010
April 04, 2010
Gag orders on criticizing Israel and the advent of the long dark night
by Diane V. McLoughlin, Apr. 4, 2010
main website: http://www.mcloughlinpost.com
The views and convictions currently held by some people are a threat to democracy and civil liberty. They do not seem to realize even after all we have seen, as recently as World War Two, Kent State/Vietnam, to the present-day Patriot Acts, that civil rights and freedoms are extremely fragile and tenuous things.
The framers of the U.S. constitution knew well how fragile liberty is. They warned that the words on paper mean nothing if each generation is not aware that they will have to defend the principles laid down in them.
The only things protecting us from absolute despotism and tyranny are freedom of speech and Habeas Corpus - the latter which refers to the set of laws binding down the state such that the state cannot lock anyone up and throw away the key without making their case in an open court of law. And both of these two requirements for a free and open society are under direct attack.
People lose sight of the crucial fact that laws meant to silence and control will be used to silence and control them. It is a fantasy of monumental proportions to dream otherwise.
On the topic of the crimes of Israel, too many people have their facts wrong. That's all. They do not know what they are talking about. They think that all Israel wants to do in East Jerusalem, for example, is to put up a few townhouses, and that Jews should have that right.
Not true. Choice of words can be used to misrepresent the facts. The correct phrase is 'occupied East Jerusalem'. East Jerusalem is illegally occupied by Jewish settlers.
Those few innocent townhouses referred to are in the hundreds on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians are literally being dragged from their homes kicking and screaming and crying while violent settlers move in.
Jerusalem's Palestinian children take their favorite toys and clothes to school with them because they live with the terror and the anxiety of not knowing if their homes will still be there for them at the end of the day.
It is this that is discussed openly on Canadian university campuses each year during Israeli Apartheid Week. Interestingly, some do not wish students to have the right. They do not want any of us to have the right to openly discuss it.
Some applaud the notion that Canada contemplates enacting law to make it illegal to criticize a country - in this case Israel - a direct attack on free speech, freedom of thought and conscience. There is a small band of unaccountable Parliamentarians who have been quietly holding committee meetings to discuss, what they refer to, as 'the new antisemitism' - criticism of Israel. This group calls themselves the Canadian Parliamentary Committee Combating Antisemitism - the CPCCA, for short.
If and when they succeed in outlawing criticism of the State of Israel's crimes, it will be another rope binding humanity up, frustrating the efforts of people of good will to fight for right - around the entire world.
It is a precedent that must not be established. But I fear that it will be made so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, like me, you are concerned with protecting the civil liberties of freedom of speech, freedom of thought and of conscience, I urge you to sign the Independent Jewish Voices of Canada petition today.
main website: http://www.mcloughlinpost.com
The framers of the U.S. constitution knew well how fragile liberty is. They warned that the words on paper mean nothing if each generation is not aware that they will have to defend the principles laid down in them.
The only things protecting us from absolute despotism and tyranny are freedom of speech and Habeas Corpus - the latter which refers to the set of laws binding down the state such that the state cannot lock anyone up and throw away the key without making their case in an open court of law. And both of these two requirements for a free and open society are under direct attack.
People lose sight of the crucial fact that laws meant to silence and control will be used to silence and control them. It is a fantasy of monumental proportions to dream otherwise.
On the topic of the crimes of Israel, too many people have their facts wrong. That's all. They do not know what they are talking about. They think that all Israel wants to do in East Jerusalem, for example, is to put up a few townhouses, and that Jews should have that right.
Not true. Choice of words can be used to misrepresent the facts. The correct phrase is 'occupied East Jerusalem'. East Jerusalem is illegally occupied by Jewish settlers.
Those few innocent townhouses referred to are in the hundreds on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians are literally being dragged from their homes kicking and screaming and crying while violent settlers move in.
Jerusalem's Palestinian children take their favorite toys and clothes to school with them because they live with the terror and the anxiety of not knowing if their homes will still be there for them at the end of the day.
It is this that is discussed openly on Canadian university campuses each year during Israeli Apartheid Week. Interestingly, some do not wish students to have the right. They do not want any of us to have the right to openly discuss it.
Some applaud the notion that Canada contemplates enacting law to make it illegal to criticize a country - in this case Israel - a direct attack on free speech, freedom of thought and conscience. There is a small band of unaccountable Parliamentarians who have been quietly holding committee meetings to discuss, what they refer to, as 'the new antisemitism' - criticism of Israel. This group calls themselves the Canadian Parliamentary Committee Combating Antisemitism - the CPCCA, for short.
If and when they succeed in outlawing criticism of the State of Israel's crimes, it will be another rope binding humanity up, frustrating the efforts of people of good will to fight for right - around the entire world.
It is a precedent that must not be established. But I fear that it will be made so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If, like me, you are concerned with protecting the civil liberties of freedom of speech, freedom of thought and of conscience, I urge you to sign the Independent Jewish Voices of Canada petition today.
Is it legal to boycott Israel or not?
by Diane V. McLoughlin
Main website: mcloughlinpost.com
I stumbled upon a U.S. government document from 2002 which refers to the 'antiboycott' law. It seemed to suggest that U.S. law prohibited boycott of Israel. I looked into it and this is not quite true. It is illegal to participate in a boycott of Israel if it is a foreign boycott - ie initiated by Arab countries, for example.
But it turns out that it is not illegal for a U.S. citizen or company to choose to boycott Israel if the impetus to boycott originates domestically. For more, see below:
2002 document: From the Bureau of Industry and Security: Commerce Official Urges Compliance with U.S. Regulations Opposing Boycott of Israel:
'Commerce Under Secretary for Industry and Security Kenneth I. Juster today again reminded U.S. companies of the need to comply with laws and regulations prohibiting U.S. persons from taking actions in support of foreign government boycotts against Israel. Juster's comments were in response to recent statements made by certain members of the Arab League's Boycott Office to reactivate the ban on trade with Israel.
"The U.S. Government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted at Israel," Juster said. "The Commerce Department is closely monitoring efforts that appear to be made to reinvigorate the Arab boycott of Israel and will use all of its resources to vigorously enforce U.S. antiboycott regulations."
'The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) administers U.S. antiboycott regulations, which prohibit U.S. persons from taking actions in support of unsanctioned foreign government boycotts, including the Arab League boycott of Israel. BIS has a long record of aggressive enforcement of the antiboycott regulations, with over $26 million in civil penalties imposed and denials of export privileges where violations have been found.
'Questions concerning the Commerce Department's antiboycott regulations can be directed to its Office of Antiboycott Compliance by telephone at (202) 482-2381 or via e-mail.'
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
I wrote to the Commerce Department and asked whether the antiboycott law applied to American citizens or American businesses, if the desire to boycott originated within the American citizen or the American business - not due to pressure, suggestion or duress from a foreign country or foreign citizen.
Here is my e-mail query, dated April 5, 2010:
With apologies in advance, I have
a supplemental query with regard to the antiboycott law.
So far, what I believe I understand from the law (hoping
you will correct me if I am not reading it right) is this:
A U.S. citizen or U.S. company may not boycott or choose not to do
business with Israel if this is something that they are being
compelled to do by a boycotting Arab country in order to do business with that
foreign country.
My question: What if a U.S. citizen or company or other American entity,
of their own accord, wishes to boycott freely themselves from doing business
with Israel based upon their own freedom of thought, belief or conscience?
If they are not being asked to do it in order to do business with
anyone, but the U.S. person or business within themselves wants to not
do business in any way, shape or form with Israel, i.e. until Israel
dismantles its apartheid regime oppressing the Palestinian people
- does the antiboycott law still apply?
Those considering boycott
of Israel to peacefully encourage change is not the same scenario
that was first in mind when the antiboycott law was originally formulated.
Reading the bill, the law appears to only cover antiboycott activities
originating outside of American borders.
If the antiboycott law still applies even though it is originating within
the U.S. person or company rather than being encouraged from beyond
American borders it would be most appreciated if you were able to
cite the section of law specifically applicable to the above scenario, with my sincere
thanks.
I am a person with a deep respect for the rule of law. So I appreciate
your help in furthering my understanding of the antiboycott law.
Again, thank you very much for your prompt reply, and I look forward to
hearing from you.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
This is the entire reply I received to my e-mail query, from GMOHLER@bis.doc.gov :
'The Regulations relate to unsanctioned foreign boycotts. The Regulations are not applicable to boycotts of domestic origin.
BIS'.````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````A bit cryptic, but it seems to answer the question nevertheless. April 03, 2010
April 02, 2010
Israels Ethnic Cleansing of the Palestinian People - God Said Thou Shalt Not
by Diane V. McLoughlin, Apr. 2, 2010
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
To those that justify Israel's actions on religious grounds this is what I would have to say:
God said THOU SHALL NOT COVET; God said THOU SHALL NOT KILL; God said THOU SHALL NOT STEAL; God said THOU SHALL NOT WORSHIP FALSE IDOLS; God said THOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST A NEIGHBOR -
Israel is breaking the above commandments - that is my opinion. Israel covets Palestinian lands; Israel kills Palestinians; Israel steals Palestinian lands; Israel makes of the land a FALSE IDOL; Israel bears false witness against her Palestinian neighbors when it falsely argues that Palestinian land is theirs by divine right. And anyone who justifies it is breaking God's commandments by bearing false witness to Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people.
Happy Easter,
Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist, agnostic
main website: mcloughlinpost.com
To those that justify Israel's actions on religious grounds this is what I would have to say:
God said THOU SHALL NOT COVET; God said THOU SHALL NOT KILL; God said THOU SHALL NOT STEAL; God said THOU SHALL NOT WORSHIP FALSE IDOLS; God said THOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST A NEIGHBOR -
Israel is breaking the above commandments - that is my opinion. Israel covets Palestinian lands; Israel kills Palestinians; Israel steals Palestinian lands; Israel makes of the land a FALSE IDOL; Israel bears false witness against her Palestinian neighbors when it falsely argues that Palestinian land is theirs by divine right. And anyone who justifies it is breaking God's commandments by bearing false witness to Israel's crimes against the Palestinian people.
Happy Easter,
Diane V. McLoughlin, writer, peace activist, agnostic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)