This is what 42 years of occupation does: In Gaza, Hamas Suddenly Become Moderates, from CNN:
Friday’s clashes were the latest between Gaza’s Hamas rulers, who have said they are moderate Muslims pledged to the Palestinian cause, and more extremist Islamic groups.
Jund Ansar Allah is part of the radical Islamist movement that follows the doctrines of the “Salaf,” or the predecessors — referring to the early generations of Muslims. They reject all modern influences such as politics and government.
Read more.
Impressive how the propaganda and blackmail starts, from MSNBC:
On Sunday, Netanyahu told his Cabinet there would be no limits on Jewish construction anywhere in “unified Jerusalem.”
“We cannot accept the fact that Jews wouldn’t be entitled to live and buy anywhere in Jerusalem,” Netanyahu declared, calling Israeli sovereignty over the entire city “indisputable.”
“I can only imagine what would happen if someone suggested Jews could not live in certain neighborhoods in New York, London, Paris or Rome. There would certainly be a major international outcry,” Netanyahu said.
The international community considers Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem to be settlements and an obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking because they complicate a possible division of the city. Israel does not regard them as settlements because it annexed east Jerusalem after capturing the area in 1967. The annexation has not been recognized internationally.
Someone should tell Bibi, how would people react if Jews bulldozed Palestinian homes in New York, London, Paris or Rome? There would certainly be a major international outcry there, too.
Israel is showing its true colors by talking about a strike on Iran now. Iranians are finally growing the backbone to stand up to this hollow regime, the instant Israel or the US suggests that they will attack Iran, the sooner will Iranians regroup behind the existing regime.
Israel and the US talk a lot about democracies, but Israel is as much of a democracy as Iran is, and hearing Joe Biden reinforce Israel’s potential follies suggest that they need a bogeyman in Iran.
There is so much propaganda on all sides it’s offensive, from The Times of London:
Recent developments have underscored concerns among moderate Sunni Arab states about the stability of the repressive Shi’ite regime in Tehran and have increased fears that it may emerge as a belligerent nuclear power.
Moderate Sunni Arab states? Which one? Saudi Arabia? That’s who they are talking about… Saudi Arabia isn’t moderate by any stretch of the imagination… but I digress.
Some common sense?
CNN: What about a military strike?
Zakaria: It would be bizarre to bomb Iran– which means bombing Iranians — now that we have seen the inside of that country. Moussavi and his supporters want a less confrontational approach to the world. So do many members of the establishment.
Moussavi attacked Ahmadinejad repeatedly for his aggressive foreign policy. So we now know the answer to the question, “Are there moderates in Iran?” Yes, millions of them.
The Israeli Army today closed an internal investigation into war crimes allegedly committed during its Gaza invasion within a fortnight, concluding that soldiers had “purposely exaggerated” their accounts.
Case closed then. Read more.
… and not subservience to a third state.
THIS, is a freaking joke.
I am ashamed to call myself Canadian when I read that nonsense.
Israel’s military was rocked on Thursday by Gaza war veterans’ accounts of the killing of civilians and allegations that deep contempt for Palestinians pervaded its ranks.The soldiers, alumni of a military academy, gathered last month to discuss their experiences in the 22-day Israeli offensive that ended in January, a campaign that Palestinians and human rights groups have said warranted war crimes probes.
Disclosing details of the session, the institution’s director said the soldiers pointed to an atmosphere within the military of “unbridled contempt for, and forcefulness against, the Palestinians.”
“They talked about unwarranted fire on Palestinian civilians. There was also talk of vandalism to property,” Danny Zamir, head of the Yitzhak Rabin pre-military program, told Israel Radio.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak responded to the accusations by repeating Israel’s description of its armed forces as the most moral in the world.
Finally some common sense:
The departure point for a viable peace deal—either with Syria or the Palestinians—must not be based purely on what the political traffic in Israel will bear, but on the requirements of all sides. The new president seems tougher and more focused than his predecessors; he’s unlikely to become enthralled by either of Israel’s two leading candidates for prime minister—centrist Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, or Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu. Indeed, if it’s the latter, he may well find himself (like Clinton) privately frustrated with Netanyahu’s tough policies. Unlike Clinton, if Israeli behavior crosses the line, he should allow those frustrations to surface publicly in the service of American national interests.
The issue at hand is to find the right balance in America’s ties with Israel. Driven by shared values and based on America’s 60-year commitment to Israel’s security and well-being, the special relationship is rock solid. But for the past 16 years, the United States has allowed that special bond to become exclusive in ways that undermine America’s, and Israel’s, national interests.
If Obama is serious about peacemaking he’ll have to adjust that balance in two ways. First, whatever the transgressions of the Palestinians (and there are many, including terror, violence and incitement), he’ll also have to deal with Israel’s behavior on the ground. The Gaza crisis is a case in point. Israel has every reason to defend itself against Hamas. But does it make sense for America to support its policy of punishing Hamas by making life unbearable for 1.5 million Gazans by denying aid and economic development? The answer is no.
Then there’s the settlements issue. In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can’t recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity—including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions—does to the peacemaking process. There is a need to impose some accountability. And this can only come from the president. But Obama should make it clear that America will not lend its auspices to a peacemaking process in which the actions of either side willfully undermine the chances of an agreement America is trying to broker. No process at all would be better than a dishonest one that hurts America’s credibility.
Second, Obama will have to maintain his independence and tactical flexibility to play the mediator’s role. This means not road testing everything with Israel first before previewing it to the other side, a practice we followed scrupulously during the Clinton and Bush 43 years. America must also not agree to every idea proposed by an Israeli prime minister. Our willingness to go along with Ehud Barak’s make-or-break strategy at the Camp David summit proved very costly where more disciplined critical thinking on our part might have helped preempt the catastrophe that followed. Coordinating with Israel on matters relating to its security is one thing. Giving Israel a veto over American negotiating tactics and positions, particularly when it comes to bridging gaps between the two sides, is quite another.
If the new president adjusts his thinking when it comes to Israel, and is prepared to be tough with the Arabs as well, the next several years could be fascinating and productive ones. I hope so, because the national interest demands it. The process of American mediation will be excruciatingly painful for Arabs, Israelis and Americans. But if done right, with toughness and fairness, it could produce the first real opportunity for a peace deal in many years.
How did Iraq turn out, Ehud?
Read more. Had Bush II done what everyone told him, he would have forced Sharon to sit down and make peace with Palestinians… once Palestine would have been established, the ire of the Arab Street would have dissipated, and Iraq would have been forced to focus on getting its standing in the world community back. Iran would have largely been less influential than it is today.
Because of Bush’s incompetence, none of that happened, it is Israel that is now alienated… not even the US can come to her rescue… and Iran’s role is greater than ever, with a Shia block having been propped up in Iran-Iraq-Lebanon.
PLAY
