The planned destruction of international law
Monday, April 06, 2009
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/
George Bisharat on the ongoing Israeli plan to weaken international law in order to allow for the atrocities necessary to build Anti-Assimilation-Land:
"Since 2001, Israeli military lawyers have pushed to re-classify military operations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip from the law enforcement model mandated by the law of occupation to one of armed conflict. Under the former, soldiers of an occupying army must arrest, rather than kill, opponents, and generally must use the minimum force necessary to quell disturbances.
While in armed conflict, a military is still constrained by the laws of war - including the duty to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and the duty to avoid attacks causing disproportionate harm to civilian persons or objects - the standard permits far greater uses of force.
Israel pressed the shift to justify its assassinations of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, which clearly violated settled international law. Israel had practiced "targeted killings" since the 1970s - always denying that it did so - but had recently stepped up their frequency, by spectacular means (such as air strikes) that rendered denial futile.
President Bill Clinton charged the 2001 Mitchell Committee with investigating the causes of the second Palestinian uprising and recommending how to restore calm in the region. Israeli lawyers pleaded their case to the committee for armed conflict. The committee responded by criticizing the blanket application of the model to the uprising, but did not repudiate it altogether.
Today, most observers - including Amnesty International - tacitly accept Israel's framing of the conflict in Gaza as an armed conflict, as their criticism of Israel's actions in terms of the duties of distinction and the principle of proportionality betrays. This shift, if accepted, would encourage occupiers to follow Israel's lead, externalizing military control while shedding all responsibilities to occupied populations."
and (the money quote by Daniel Reisner; it will presumably be used at his war crimes trial in the post-sea-bathing period):
"Israel's campaign to rewrite international law to its advantage is deliberate and knowing. As the former head of Israel's 20-lawyer International Law Division in the Military Advocate General's office, Daniel Reisner, recently stated: "If you do something for long enough, the world will accept it. The whole of international law is now based on the notion that an act that is forbidden today becomes permissible if executed by enough countries ... International law progresses through violations. We invented the targeted assassination thesis and we had to push it. At first there were protrusions that made it hard to insert easily into the legal molds. Eight years later, it is in the center of the bounds of legitimacy."
In the Gaza fighting, Israel has again tried to transform international law through violations. For example, its military lawyers authorized the bombing of a police cadet graduation ceremony, killing at least 63 young Palestinian men. Under international law, such deliberate killings of civilian police are war crimes. Yet Israel treats all employees of the Hamas-led government in the Gaza Strip as terrorists, and thus combatants. Secretaries, court clerks, housing officials, judges - all were, in Israeli eyes, legitimate targets for liquidation.
Israeli jurists also instructed military commanders that any Palestinian who failed to evacuate a building or area after warnings of an impending bombardment was a "voluntary human shield" and thus a participant in combat, subject to lawful attack. One method of warning employed by Israeli gunners, dubbed "knocking on the roof," was to fire first at a building's corner, then, a few minutes later, to strike more structurally vulnerable points. To imagine that Gazan civilians - penned into the tiny Gaza Strip by Israeli troops, and surrounded by the chaos of battle - understood this signal is fanciful at best."
There are many, many reasons why we should single out Israel and its JIZ supporters for their crimes, but the intentional destruction of all the norms of international law - a destruction which will deny protection to civilians all over the world until the norms are reconstructed, a difficult process which will take decades and will be ongoing long after the last Israeli Jew is sea bathing - would by itself be sufficient to damn them all for eternity. The difference between Israel and its disgusting supporters and, say, some slaughterers in Central Africa is that the African slaughterers:
do not have a master plan to to destroy international law in order to allow their slaughtering; and
could not destroy international law if they wanted to.
The Human Rights Industrial Complex is completely Jew-dominated, a dominance that would not be a problem but for the fact that human rights protections are constantly perverted for the purposes of building Anti-Assimilation-Land. Note the dance known as the Human Rights Watch (or Amnesty International) shuffle, where an inconsequential Palestinian or Lebanese reaction to terrible provocation - as little as a Palestinian child throwing a stone in the general direction of a group of illegally-stationed Israeli soldiers brutally manning an illegal Israeli checkpoint - is regarded as the moral equivalent of a terrible Israeli counterattack, perhaps the bombing of an entire household. The shuffler then throws up his hands and says everybody committed atrocities, so who is to judge who is right and who is wrong. The new UN investigation will follow this route: it will not absolve Israel, but will hide Zionist atrocities under this fraudulent moral equivalence. Another in the long list of the sins of Zionism: destroying the credibility of all official advocates for human rights.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Stephen Walt: Lobby smear attempt of National Intelligence Council nominee may be backfiring
Have they not a shred of decency?
Sat, 02/28/2009
By Stephen M. Walt
Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s infamous witch hunt against alleged communists in the U.S. government relied primarily on lies, innuendo, and intimidation. Then, at a particularly odious hearing, after McCarthy had falsely accused a young Army officer of being a communist agent, Army counsel Joseph Welch turned on the senator and shot back: "At long last, Senator McCarthy, have you not a shred of decency?"
I am reminded of that moment as I watch the all-too-predictable smear campaign against Charles Freeman’s appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. As soon as the appointment was announced, a bevy of allegedly “pro-Israel” pundits leapt to attack it, in what The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss called a “thunderous, coordinated assault.” Freeman’s critics were the usual suspects: Jonathan Chait of the New Republic, Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Gabriel Schoenfeld (writing on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal), Jonah Goldberg of National Review, Marty Peretz on his New Republic blog, and former AIPAC official Steve Rosen (yes, the same guy who is now on trial for passing classified U.S. government information to Israel).
What was their objection to Freeman? Did they think he’s unpatriotic, not smart enough, or that he lacks sufficient experience? Of course not. Just look at his resume:
Freeman has worked with more than 100 foreign governments in East and South Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and both Western and Eastern Europe. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d'Affaires in Bangkok and Beijing, Director of Chinese Affairs at U.S. State Department, and Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and the Institute of National Security Studies."
What unites this narrow band of critics is only one thing: Freeman has dared to utter some rather mild public criticisms of Israeli policy. That's the litmus test that Chait, Goldberg, Goldfarb, Peretz, Schoenfeld et al want to apply to all public servants: thou shalt not criticize Israeli policy nor question America's "special relationship" with Israel. Never mind that this policy of unconditional support has been bad for the United States and unintentionally harmful to Israel as well. If these pundits and lobbyists had their way, anyone who pointed that fact out would be automatically disqualified from public service.
There are three reasons why the response to Freeman has been so vociferous. First, these critics undoubtedly hoped they could raise a sufficient stink that Obama and his director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, might reconsider the appointment. Or perhaps Freeman might even decide to withdraw his name, because he couldn't take the heat. Second, even if it was too late to stop Freeman from getting the job, they want to make Obama pay a price for his choice, so that he will think twice about appointing anyone else who might be willing to criticize Israeli policy or the special relationship.
Third, and perhaps most important, attacking Freeman is intended to deter other people in the foreign policy community from speaking out on these matters. Freeman might be too smart, too senior, and too well-qualified to stop, but there are plenty of younger people eager to rise in the foreign policy establishment and they need to be reminded that their careers could be jeopardized be if they followed in Freeman’s footsteps and said what they thought. Raising a stink about Freeman reminds others that it pays to back Israel to the hilt, or at least remain silent, even when it is pursuing policies -- like building settlements on the West Bank -- that are not in America's national interest.
If the issue didn’t have such harmful consequences for the United States, the ironies of this situation would be funny. A group of amateur strategists who loudly supported the invasion of Iraq are now questioning the strategic judgment of a man who knew that war would be a catastrophic blunder. A long-time lobbyist for Israel who is now under indictment for espionage is trying to convince us that Freeman -- a true patriot -- is a bad appointment for an intelligence position. A journalist (Jeffrey Goldberg) whose idea of "public service" was to enlist in the Israeli army is challenging the credentials of a man who devoted decades of his life to service in the U.S. government. Now that's chutzpah.
Fortunately, the screeching of Freeman's critics has not worked; Freeman will be the head of the National Intelligence Council. In fact, this heavy-handed behavior, with its McCarthy-like overtones, may even backfire, by showing just how obsessesed his critics are with their own narrow-minded vision of U.S. Middle East policy, a vision they expect all other Americans to share. I would not be surprised if President Obama and other key figures in his administration are angry about these malicious smears, and wisely decide to pay even less attention to these individuals in the future. And rest assured that the smearing will not end. It's also encouraging that some key members of the pro-Israel community, like M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, have come to Freeman’s defense, and influential bloggers like Robert Dreyfuss, Philip Weiss, Richard Silverstein and Matthew Yglesias have also defended Freeman and pointed out what is going on. The Likudnik wing of the Israel lobby is gradually losing influence, because more and more people understand that its policies are disastrous for both Israel and the United States, and because its repeated efforts to smear people and stifle debate are deeply damaging as well as un-American.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Sat, 02/28/2009
By Stephen M. Walt
Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s infamous witch hunt against alleged communists in the U.S. government relied primarily on lies, innuendo, and intimidation. Then, at a particularly odious hearing, after McCarthy had falsely accused a young Army officer of being a communist agent, Army counsel Joseph Welch turned on the senator and shot back: "At long last, Senator McCarthy, have you not a shred of decency?"
I am reminded of that moment as I watch the all-too-predictable smear campaign against Charles Freeman’s appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. As soon as the appointment was announced, a bevy of allegedly “pro-Israel” pundits leapt to attack it, in what The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss called a “thunderous, coordinated assault.” Freeman’s critics were the usual suspects: Jonathan Chait of the New Republic, Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard, Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, Gabriel Schoenfeld (writing on the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal), Jonah Goldberg of National Review, Marty Peretz on his New Republic blog, and former AIPAC official Steve Rosen (yes, the same guy who is now on trial for passing classified U.S. government information to Israel).
What was their objection to Freeman? Did they think he’s unpatriotic, not smart enough, or that he lacks sufficient experience? Of course not. Just look at his resume:
Freeman has worked with more than 100 foreign governments in East and South Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and both Western and Eastern Europe. He has served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Deputy Chief of Mission and Chargé d'Affaires in Bangkok and Beijing, Director of Chinese Affairs at U.S. State Department, and Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and the Institute of National Security Studies."
What unites this narrow band of critics is only one thing: Freeman has dared to utter some rather mild public criticisms of Israeli policy. That's the litmus test that Chait, Goldberg, Goldfarb, Peretz, Schoenfeld et al want to apply to all public servants: thou shalt not criticize Israeli policy nor question America's "special relationship" with Israel. Never mind that this policy of unconditional support has been bad for the United States and unintentionally harmful to Israel as well. If these pundits and lobbyists had their way, anyone who pointed that fact out would be automatically disqualified from public service.
There are three reasons why the response to Freeman has been so vociferous. First, these critics undoubtedly hoped they could raise a sufficient stink that Obama and his director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, might reconsider the appointment. Or perhaps Freeman might even decide to withdraw his name, because he couldn't take the heat. Second, even if it was too late to stop Freeman from getting the job, they want to make Obama pay a price for his choice, so that he will think twice about appointing anyone else who might be willing to criticize Israeli policy or the special relationship.
Third, and perhaps most important, attacking Freeman is intended to deter other people in the foreign policy community from speaking out on these matters. Freeman might be too smart, too senior, and too well-qualified to stop, but there are plenty of younger people eager to rise in the foreign policy establishment and they need to be reminded that their careers could be jeopardized be if they followed in Freeman’s footsteps and said what they thought. Raising a stink about Freeman reminds others that it pays to back Israel to the hilt, or at least remain silent, even when it is pursuing policies -- like building settlements on the West Bank -- that are not in America's national interest.
If the issue didn’t have such harmful consequences for the United States, the ironies of this situation would be funny. A group of amateur strategists who loudly supported the invasion of Iraq are now questioning the strategic judgment of a man who knew that war would be a catastrophic blunder. A long-time lobbyist for Israel who is now under indictment for espionage is trying to convince us that Freeman -- a true patriot -- is a bad appointment for an intelligence position. A journalist (Jeffrey Goldberg) whose idea of "public service" was to enlist in the Israeli army is challenging the credentials of a man who devoted decades of his life to service in the U.S. government. Now that's chutzpah.
Fortunately, the screeching of Freeman's critics has not worked; Freeman will be the head of the National Intelligence Council. In fact, this heavy-handed behavior, with its McCarthy-like overtones, may even backfire, by showing just how obsessesed his critics are with their own narrow-minded vision of U.S. Middle East policy, a vision they expect all other Americans to share. I would not be surprised if President Obama and other key figures in his administration are angry about these malicious smears, and wisely decide to pay even less attention to these individuals in the future. And rest assured that the smearing will not end. It's also encouraging that some key members of the pro-Israel community, like M.J. Rosenberg of the Israel Policy Forum, have come to Freeman’s defense, and influential bloggers like Robert Dreyfuss, Philip Weiss, Richard Silverstein and Matthew Yglesias have also defended Freeman and pointed out what is going on. The Likudnik wing of the Israel lobby is gradually losing influence, because more and more people understand that its policies are disastrous for both Israel and the United States, and because its repeated efforts to smear people and stifle debate are deeply damaging as well as un-American.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Janine Roberts: 'Myth of Exile': Justifying Slaughter in Gaza
from Palestine Chronicle
01/31/2009
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14771
Read more:
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14771
01/31/2009
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14771
Many have been appalled by the seemingly mindless orgy of destruction of families, children, homes, streets, shops and orchards in Gaza carried out by the Israeli armed forces. It left me wanting to know what has happened to make ordinary well-educated Israelis think that it is morally right to do this to their comparatively unarmed neighbors?
I perhaps stumbled on part of the answer in the bookstore at Tel Aviv airport on a recent visit to Israel. A map on display marked all the land from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea as Israel: there was no West Bank, no Gaza Strip. A travel book I admired for its photos of a beautiful land also described it all as Israel. Jericho was in Israel it stated, although deep inside the West Bank.
If this bookstore is as typical as I suspect, then most Israelis are convinced they already own the lands now occupied by Palestinians. It is as if they see them, not as a sovereign people, but as a host of unwelcome and unruly tenants squatting Jewish lands. If this is so, then I thought there is little hope for a “Two State” solution.
This view is deeply rooted in an Orthodox Judaism with increasing influence in the Israeli military. A booklet issued by the Jewish Rabbinate to the troops going to Gaza, "Daily Torah studies for the soldier and the commander in Operation Cast Lead," states there is "a biblical ban on surrendering a single millimeter of it [Israel] to gentiles, though all sorts of impure distortions and foolishness of autonomy, enclaves and other national weaknesses. We will not abandon it to the hands of another nation, not a finger, not a nail of it."
Another publication distributed by the military Rabbinate asks: "Is it possible to compare today's Palestinians to the Philistines of the past?" It cites a Rabbi as answering: "A comparison is possible because the Philistines of the past were not natives and had invaded from a foreign land ... They invaded the Land of Israel, a land that did not belong to them and claimed political ownership over our country ... Today the problem is the same. The Palestinians claim they deserve a state here, when in reality there was never a Palestinian or Arab state within the borders of our country. Moreover, most of them are new and came here close to the time of the War of Independence."
Both of the above quotes are from the "Books of Rabbi Shlomo Aviner," the head of the Ateret Cohanim yeshiva in an Israeli occupied house within the Muslim quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.
The IDF rabbinate also quotes Rabbi Aviner’s advice to troops: "When you show mercy to a cruel enemy, you are being cruel to pure and honest soldiers. This is terribly immoral. These are not games at the amusement park where sportsmanship teaches one to make concessions. This is a war on murderers.”
Read more:
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14771
Monday, February 2, 2009
J-Street: Fight back against CAMERA: Support Bob Simon's report on West Bank Settlements
Two groups--J Street and Gaza Justice--call on you to help:
Earlier this week we asked you to Thank CBS and Bob Simon for their excellent TV report exposing Israeli Apartheid tactics. Thousands like you responded by signing a letter of support. But we just learned from the folks at J-Street, a pro-peace Jewish group, that CBS IS UNDER ATTACK by the anti-Peace pro-Israel network for showing America the truth. If you haven't seen the report you can watch it here.
FIGHT BACK, GET AT LEAST FIVE OF YOUR FRIENDS TO SEND A LETTER OF SUPPORT TO CBS. ACT NOW, USING THE BELOW LINK. WE HAVE DESIGNED AN EASY TOOL TO HELP YOU INVITE everyone you know. Simply click on the below link, upload your email address book OR copy-paste the addresses you want to contact and click send. Our software will do the rest.
CLICK HERE TO INVITE YOUR FRIENDS TO SEND THEIR SUPPORT LETTERS
Here is what J-Street said about the groups behind the attack o CBS:
[CAMERA (the Orwellian-named Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) alerted their activist network - flooding the 60 Minutes' offices and their advertisers with angry phone calls charging media bias. [1] Jewish community leader Abe Foxman fired off a letter calling the piece "a hatchet job on Israel." [2]
Journalists - as well as rabbis, professors and elected officials - know that if they raise questions about what Israel does - they'll often get attacked as anti-Israel. It's one way the forces of the status quo constrain debate and discussion on what's really best for Israel and the United States. We can't let fringe groups like CAMERA define what it means to be pro-Israel through intimidation and fear tactics.]
CLICK HERE TO SEND A THANK YOU NOTE TO BOB SIMON AND CBS. IF YOU ALREADY SENT A NOTE, GET 5 OF YOUR FRIENDS TO SEND A NOTE TOO.
Thank you for continuing to advocate for peace and justice.
GazaJustice. org
Contact Us: mailto:info@gazajustice.org
CBS
60 Minutes | 524 West 57th St. |New York, NY 10019
PHONE: (212) 975-3247
mailto:60m@cbsnews.com;audsvcs@cbs.com
Bob Simon from 60 Minutes under attack.
Fight back with a letter of support.
All week, 60 Minutes' Bob Simon has been under attack for supposed "anti-Israel bias" for this past Sunday's accurate and thoughtful report on the danger that Israeli settlements pose to the chances for Israeli-Palestinian peace. If you haven't yet seen the segment, view it here.
CAMERA (the Orwellian-named Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) alerted their activist network - flooding the 60 Minutes' offices and their advertisers with angry phone calls charging media bias. [1] Jewish community leader Abe Foxman fired off a letter calling the piece "a hatchet job on Israel." [2]
Journalists - as well as rabbis, professors and elected officials - know that if they raise questions about what Israel does - they'll often get attacked as anti-Israel. It's one way the forces of the status quo constrain debate and discussion on what's really best for Israel and the United States.
It's time for a reporter like Bob Simon to know that those of us with balanced views value balanced reporting - and we know how to write letters too! If he's getting an earful from CAMERA and others, then the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement should be showing him support.
Click here to view the segment and send Bob Simon a note of support for his accurate and thoughtful report on Israeli settlements and the occupation.
We hear plenty from American media about the threats that Israel faces from terrorism, rockets, and a nuclear Iran.
While those threats are real and should be covered, Americans also need to hear about another threat that is just as real: that time is running out for a two-state solution with the Palestinians in part due to Israeli settlements and the occupation of the West Bank. Without a two-state solution soon through assertive American diplomacy, Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic homeland is at risk.
During Sunday's 60 Minutes segment, anchor Bob Simon interviewed pro-settlement activist Daniella Weiss who readily admitted that she thinks "settlements prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. This is the goal. And this is the reality."
Simon also restated what Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been saying for years [3] about what would happen if the two-state solution peace process falls apart.
"Demographers predict that within ten years Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Without a separate Palestinian state the Israelis would have three options, none of them good. They could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, or they could give the Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid - have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians, but apartheid regimes don't have a very long life."
Simon also interviewed Israeli Foreign Minister and Israel's chief negotiator with the Palestinians Tzipi Livni who said that evacuating the settlers in the West Bank is "not going to be easy. But this is the only solution."
But groups like CAMERA are opposed to mainstream media reporting that Israeli extremists, in addition to Palestinian extremists, undermine efforts to achieve a two-state solution. CAMERA resorts to claims of anti-Israel bias - when the reality is that Israeli extremists on the West Bank make real peace and security for Israel and the Palestinians more difficult to achieve.
We can't let fringe groups like CAMERA define what it means to be pro-Israel through intimidation and fear tactics.
Bob Simon should receive support from the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement for his accurate and thoughtful assessment of the threat that Israeli settlements pose to the two-state solution peace process.
Click here to write a note of support to 60 Minutes' Bob Simon.
Isaac Luria
Online Director
J Street
January 29, 2009
[1] "CBS's 60 Minutes Scapegoats Israel," Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. January 26, 2009.
[2] "ADL Letter to CBS News' 60 Minutes," Anti-Defamation League. January 26, 2009.
[3] "Olmert to Haaretz: Two-state solution, of Israel is done for," by Aluf Benn, David Landau, Barak Ravid, Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondents and AP. Haaretz. November 29, 2007.
>From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-to-date with the latest news.
Earlier this week we asked you to Thank CBS and Bob Simon for their excellent TV report exposing Israeli Apartheid tactics. Thousands like you responded by signing a letter of support. But we just learned from the folks at J-Street, a pro-peace Jewish group, that CBS IS UNDER ATTACK by the anti-Peace pro-Israel network for showing America the truth. If you haven't seen the report you can watch it here.
FIGHT BACK, GET AT LEAST FIVE OF YOUR FRIENDS TO SEND A LETTER OF SUPPORT TO CBS. ACT NOW, USING THE BELOW LINK. WE HAVE DESIGNED AN EASY TOOL TO HELP YOU INVITE everyone you know. Simply click on the below link, upload your email address book OR copy-paste the addresses you want to contact and click send. Our software will do the rest.
CLICK HERE TO INVITE YOUR FRIENDS TO SEND THEIR SUPPORT LETTERS
Here is what J-Street said about the groups behind the attack o CBS:
[CAMERA (the Orwellian-named Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) alerted their activist network - flooding the 60 Minutes' offices and their advertisers with angry phone calls charging media bias. [1] Jewish community leader Abe Foxman fired off a letter calling the piece "a hatchet job on Israel." [2]
Journalists - as well as rabbis, professors and elected officials - know that if they raise questions about what Israel does - they'll often get attacked as anti-Israel. It's one way the forces of the status quo constrain debate and discussion on what's really best for Israel and the United States. We can't let fringe groups like CAMERA define what it means to be pro-Israel through intimidation and fear tactics.]
CLICK HERE TO SEND A THANK YOU NOTE TO BOB SIMON AND CBS. IF YOU ALREADY SENT A NOTE, GET 5 OF YOUR FRIENDS TO SEND A NOTE TOO.
Thank you for continuing to advocate for peace and justice.
GazaJustice. org
Contact Us: mailto:info@gazajustice.org
CBS
60 Minutes | 524 West 57th St. |New York, NY 10019
PHONE: (212) 975-3247
mailto:60m@cbsnews.com;audsvcs@cbs.com
Bob Simon from 60 Minutes under attack.
Fight back with a letter of support.
All week, 60 Minutes' Bob Simon has been under attack for supposed "anti-Israel bias" for this past Sunday's accurate and thoughtful report on the danger that Israeli settlements pose to the chances for Israeli-Palestinian peace. If you haven't yet seen the segment, view it here.
CAMERA (the Orwellian-named Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) alerted their activist network - flooding the 60 Minutes' offices and their advertisers with angry phone calls charging media bias. [1] Jewish community leader Abe Foxman fired off a letter calling the piece "a hatchet job on Israel." [2]
Journalists - as well as rabbis, professors and elected officials - know that if they raise questions about what Israel does - they'll often get attacked as anti-Israel. It's one way the forces of the status quo constrain debate and discussion on what's really best for Israel and the United States.
It's time for a reporter like Bob Simon to know that those of us with balanced views value balanced reporting - and we know how to write letters too! If he's getting an earful from CAMERA and others, then the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement should be showing him support.
Click here to view the segment and send Bob Simon a note of support for his accurate and thoughtful report on Israeli settlements and the occupation.
We hear plenty from American media about the threats that Israel faces from terrorism, rockets, and a nuclear Iran.
While those threats are real and should be covered, Americans also need to hear about another threat that is just as real: that time is running out for a two-state solution with the Palestinians in part due to Israeli settlements and the occupation of the West Bank. Without a two-state solution soon through assertive American diplomacy, Israel's future as a Jewish, democratic homeland is at risk.
During Sunday's 60 Minutes segment, anchor Bob Simon interviewed pro-settlement activist Daniella Weiss who readily admitted that she thinks "settlements prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel. This is the goal. And this is the reality."
Simon also restated what Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been saying for years [3] about what would happen if the two-state solution peace process falls apart.
"Demographers predict that within ten years Arabs will outnumber Jews in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Without a separate Palestinian state the Israelis would have three options, none of them good. They could try ethnic cleansing, drive the Palestinians out of the West Bank, or they could give the Palestinians the vote. That would be the democratic option but it would mean the end of the Jewish state. Or they could try apartheid - have the minority Israelis rule the majority Palestinians, but apartheid regimes don't have a very long life."
Simon also interviewed Israeli Foreign Minister and Israel's chief negotiator with the Palestinians Tzipi Livni who said that evacuating the settlers in the West Bank is "not going to be easy. But this is the only solution."
But groups like CAMERA are opposed to mainstream media reporting that Israeli extremists, in addition to Palestinian extremists, undermine efforts to achieve a two-state solution. CAMERA resorts to claims of anti-Israel bias - when the reality is that Israeli extremists on the West Bank make real peace and security for Israel and the Palestinians more difficult to achieve.
We can't let fringe groups like CAMERA define what it means to be pro-Israel through intimidation and fear tactics.
Bob Simon should receive support from the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement for his accurate and thoughtful assessment of the threat that Israeli settlements pose to the two-state solution peace process.
Click here to write a note of support to 60 Minutes' Bob Simon.
Isaac Luria
Online Director
J Street
January 29, 2009
[1] "CBS's 60 Minutes Scapegoats Israel," Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. January 26, 2009.
[2] "ADL Letter to CBS News' 60 Minutes," Anti-Defamation League. January 26, 2009.
[3] "Olmert to Haaretz: Two-state solution, of Israel is done for," by Aluf Benn, David Landau, Barak Ravid, Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondents and AP. Haaretz. November 29, 2007.
>From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-to-date with the latest news.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Uruknet: The Wounds of Gaza 2009
The Wounds of Gaza 2009
P U L S E MEDIA
Jan 30, 2009
This first-hand field report and analysis comes direct from UK physicians Dr Ghassan Abu Sittah and Dr Swee Ang in Gaza. Please consider supporting their important medical efforts through any designated charities or through MAP.
Forthcoming dispatches will be published here as received; here is the first which provides background to the situation as well as salient medical and political details often directly garnered on the situation at hand.
Emphasis in bold is editorial.
The wounds of Gaza are deep. Dr Ghassan describes it as multi-layered. Are we talking about the Khan Younis massacre of 5,000 in 1956 or the execution of 35,000 prisoners of war by Israel in 1967? Yet more wounds of the First Intifada, when civil disobedience by an occupied people against the occupiers resulted in massive wounded and hundreds dead? We also cannot discount the 5,420 wounded in southern Gaza alone since 2000. Hence what we are referring to below are only that of the invasion as of 27 December 2008.
Over the period of 27 December 2008 to the ceasefire of 18 Jan 2009, it was estimated that a million and a half tons of explosives were dropped on Gaza Strip.
Gaza is 25 miles by 5 miles and home to 1.5 million people. This makes it the most crowded area in the whole world. Prior to this Gaza has been completely blockaded and starved for 50 days. In fact since the Palestinian election Gaza has been under total or partial blockade for several years.
On the first day of the invasion, 250 persons were killed. Every single police station in Gaza was bombed killing large numbers of police officers.
Having wiped out the police force, attention was turned to non-government targets. Gaza was bombed from the air by F16 and Apache helicopters, shelled from the sea by Israeli gunboats and from the land by tank artillery.
Many schools were reduced to rubble, including the American School of Gaza, 40 mosques, hospitals, UN buildings, and of course 21,000 homes, 4,000 of which were demolished completely. It is estimated that 100,000 people are now homeless.
ISRAELI WEAPONS
The weapons used apart from conventional bombs and high explosives also include unconventional weapons of which at least 4 categories could be identified:
1. Phosphorus Shells and bombs.
The bombs dropped were described by eyewitnesses as exploding at high altitude scattering a large canopy of phosphorus bomblets which cover a large area. During the land invasion, eyewitnesses describe the tanks shelling into homes first with a conventional shell. Once the walls are destroyed, a second shell – a phosphorus shell is then shot into the homes. Used in this manner, the phosphorus explodes and burns the families and the homes.
Many charred bodies were found among burning phosphorus particles.
One area of concern is the phosphorus seems to be in a special stabilizing agent. This results in the phosphorus being more stable and not completely burning out. Residues still cover the fields, playground and compounds. They ignite when picked up by curious kids, or produce fumes when farmers return to water their fields. One returning farming family on watering their field met with clouds of fumes producing epistaxis. Thus the phosphorus residues probably treated with a stabilizer also act as anti-personnel weapons against children and make the return to normal life difficult without certain hazards.
Surgeons from hospitals are also reporting cases where after primary laparotomy for relatively small wounds with minimal contamination find on second look laparotomy increasing areas of tissue necrosis at about 3 days. Patients then become gravely ill and by about 10 days those patients needing a third re-look encounter massive liver necrosis. This may or may not be accompanied by generalized bleeding, kidney failure and heart failure and death. Although acidosis, liver necrosis and sudden cardiac arrest due to hypocalcemia is known to be a complication of white phosphorus it is not possible to attribute these complications as being due to phosphorus alone.
There is real urgency to analyze and identify the real nature of this modified phosphorus as to its long term effect on the people of Gaza. There is also urgency in collecting and disposing of the phosphorus residues littering the entire Gaza Strip. As they give off toxic fumes when coming into contact with water, once the rain falls the whole area would be polluted with acid phosphorus fumes. Children should be warned not to handle and play with these phosphorus residues.
2. Heavy Bombs
The use of DIME (dense inert material explosives) were evident, though it is unsure whether depleted uranium were used in the south. In the civilian areas, surviving patients were found to have limbs truncated by DIME, since the stumps apart from being characteristically cut off in guillotine fashion also fail to bleed. Bomb casing and shrapnels are extremely heavy.
3. Fuel Air Explosives
Bunker busters and implosion bombs have been used. There are buildings especially the 8-storey Science and Technology Building of the Islamic University of Gaza which had been reduced to a pile of rubble no higher than 5-6 feet.
4. Silent Bombs
People in Gaza described a silent bomb which is extremely destructive. The bomb arrives as a silent projectile at most with a whistling sound and creates a large area where all objects and living things are vaporized with minimal trace. We are unable to fit this into conventional weapons but the possibility of new particle weapons being tested should be suspected.
5. Executions
Survivors describe Israeli tanks arriving in front of homes asking residents to come out. Children, old people and women would come forward and as they were lined up they were just fired on and killed. Families have lost tens of their members through such executions. The deliberate targeting of unarmed children and women is well documented by human right groups in the Gaza Strip over the past month.
6. Targeting of ambulances
Thirteen ambulances had been fired upon killing drivers and first aid personnel in the process of rescue and evacuation of the wounded.
7. Cluster bombs
The first patients wounded by cluster were brought into Abu Yusef Najjar Hospital. Since more than 50% of the tunnels have been destroyed, Gaza has lost part of her lifeline. These tunnels contrary to popular belief are not for weapons, though small light weapons could have been smuggled through them. However they are the main stay of food and fuel for Gaza. Palestinians are beginning to tunnel again. However it became clear that cluster bombs were dropped on to the Rafah border and the first was accidentally set off by tunneling. Five burns patients were brought in after setting off a booby trap kind of device.
DEATH TOLL
As of 25 January 2009, the death toll was estimated at 1,350 with the numbers increasing daily. This is due to the severely wounded continuing to die in hospitals.
60% of those killed were children.
Click to join CatapultTheNWOPoliceStateDepopulation agenda
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CatapultTheNWOPoliceStateDepopulation/join
Click to join OpenMindOpenCodeNews
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openmindopencodenews
Denouncing the Morally Corrupt Menace of the Shadow World Govt Military Occupation Command Economy & Order out of Chaos illumiNazi PsychopathClass Ritualized Mass Murder/Eugenics Final Solution!
SEVERE INJURIES
The severely injured numbered 5,450, with 40% being children. These are mainly large burns and polytrauma patients. Single limb fractures and walking wounded are not included in these figures.
Through our conversations with doctors and nurses the word holocaust and catastrophe were repeatedly used. The medical staff all bear the psychological trauma of the past month living though the situation and dealing with mass casualties which swamped their casualties and operating rooms. Many patients died in the Accident and Emergency Department while awaiting treatment. In a district hospital, the orthopaedic surgeon carried out 13 external fixations in less than a day.
It is estimated that of the severely injured, 1,600 will suffer permanently disabilities. These include amputations, spinal cord injuries, head injuries, large burns with crippling contractures.
SPECIAL FACTORS
The death and injury toll is especially high in this recent assault due to several factors.
1. No escape: As Gaza is sealed by Israeli troops, no one can escape the bombardment and the land invasion. There is simply no escape. Even within the Gaza Strip itself, movement from north to south is impossible as Israeli tanks had cut the northern half of Gaza from the south. Compare this with the situation in Lebanon 1982 and 2006, when it was possible for people to escape from an area of heavy bombardment to an area of relative calm – there was no such is option for Gaza.
2. Gaza is very densely populated. It is eerie to see that the bombs used by Israel have been precision bombs. They have a hundred percent hit rate on buildings which are crowded with people.
Examples are the central market, police stations.
Schools, the UN compounds used as a safety shelter from bombardment, mosques (40 of them destroyed), and the homes of families who thought they were safe as there were no combatants in them and high rise flats where a single implosion bomb would destroy multiple families. This pattern of consistent targeting of civilians makes one suspect that the military targets are but collateral damage, while civilians are the primary targets.
3. The quantity and quality of the ammunition being used as described above.
4. Gaza’s lack of defense against the modern weapons of Israel. She has no tanks, no planes, no anti-aircraft missiles against the invading army.
We experienced that first hand in a minor clash of
Israeli tank shells versus Palestinian AK47 return fire. The forces were simply unmatched.
5. Absence of well constructed bomb shelters for civilians. Unfortunately these will also be no match for bunker busters possessed by the Israeli Army.
CONCLUSION
Taking the above points into consideration, the next assault on Gaza would be just as disastrous. The people of Gaza are extremely vulnerable and defenseless in the event of yet another attack. The International Community, if it were serious about preventing this large scale of deaths and injuries, will have to develop a defense force for Gaza if it is considered desirable for Gaza were to continue to be inadequately armed to defend herself.
:: Article nr. 51374 sent on 30-jan-2008 17:49 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=51374
Link: pulsemedia.org/2009/01/30/the-wounds-of-gaza-2009/
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.
P U L S E MEDIA
Jan 30, 2009
This first-hand field report and analysis comes direct from UK physicians Dr Ghassan Abu Sittah and Dr Swee Ang in Gaza. Please consider supporting their important medical efforts through any designated charities or through MAP.
Forthcoming dispatches will be published here as received; here is the first which provides background to the situation as well as salient medical and political details often directly garnered on the situation at hand.
Emphasis in bold is editorial.
The wounds of Gaza are deep. Dr Ghassan describes it as multi-layered. Are we talking about the Khan Younis massacre of 5,000 in 1956 or the execution of 35,000 prisoners of war by Israel in 1967? Yet more wounds of the First Intifada, when civil disobedience by an occupied people against the occupiers resulted in massive wounded and hundreds dead? We also cannot discount the 5,420 wounded in southern Gaza alone since 2000. Hence what we are referring to below are only that of the invasion as of 27 December 2008.
Over the period of 27 December 2008 to the ceasefire of 18 Jan 2009, it was estimated that a million and a half tons of explosives were dropped on Gaza Strip.
Gaza is 25 miles by 5 miles and home to 1.5 million people. This makes it the most crowded area in the whole world. Prior to this Gaza has been completely blockaded and starved for 50 days. In fact since the Palestinian election Gaza has been under total or partial blockade for several years.
On the first day of the invasion, 250 persons were killed. Every single police station in Gaza was bombed killing large numbers of police officers.
Having wiped out the police force, attention was turned to non-government targets. Gaza was bombed from the air by F16 and Apache helicopters, shelled from the sea by Israeli gunboats and from the land by tank artillery.
Many schools were reduced to rubble, including the American School of Gaza, 40 mosques, hospitals, UN buildings, and of course 21,000 homes, 4,000 of which were demolished completely. It is estimated that 100,000 people are now homeless.
ISRAELI WEAPONS
The weapons used apart from conventional bombs and high explosives also include unconventional weapons of which at least 4 categories could be identified:
1. Phosphorus Shells and bombs.
The bombs dropped were described by eyewitnesses as exploding at high altitude scattering a large canopy of phosphorus bomblets which cover a large area. During the land invasion, eyewitnesses describe the tanks shelling into homes first with a conventional shell. Once the walls are destroyed, a second shell – a phosphorus shell is then shot into the homes. Used in this manner, the phosphorus explodes and burns the families and the homes.
Many charred bodies were found among burning phosphorus particles.
One area of concern is the phosphorus seems to be in a special stabilizing agent. This results in the phosphorus being more stable and not completely burning out. Residues still cover the fields, playground and compounds. They ignite when picked up by curious kids, or produce fumes when farmers return to water their fields. One returning farming family on watering their field met with clouds of fumes producing epistaxis. Thus the phosphorus residues probably treated with a stabilizer also act as anti-personnel weapons against children and make the return to normal life difficult without certain hazards.
Surgeons from hospitals are also reporting cases where after primary laparotomy for relatively small wounds with minimal contamination find on second look laparotomy increasing areas of tissue necrosis at about 3 days. Patients then become gravely ill and by about 10 days those patients needing a third re-look encounter massive liver necrosis. This may or may not be accompanied by generalized bleeding, kidney failure and heart failure and death. Although acidosis, liver necrosis and sudden cardiac arrest due to hypocalcemia is known to be a complication of white phosphorus it is not possible to attribute these complications as being due to phosphorus alone.
There is real urgency to analyze and identify the real nature of this modified phosphorus as to its long term effect on the people of Gaza. There is also urgency in collecting and disposing of the phosphorus residues littering the entire Gaza Strip. As they give off toxic fumes when coming into contact with water, once the rain falls the whole area would be polluted with acid phosphorus fumes. Children should be warned not to handle and play with these phosphorus residues.
2. Heavy Bombs
The use of DIME (dense inert material explosives) were evident, though it is unsure whether depleted uranium were used in the south. In the civilian areas, surviving patients were found to have limbs truncated by DIME, since the stumps apart from being characteristically cut off in guillotine fashion also fail to bleed. Bomb casing and shrapnels are extremely heavy.
3. Fuel Air Explosives
Bunker busters and implosion bombs have been used. There are buildings especially the 8-storey Science and Technology Building of the Islamic University of Gaza which had been reduced to a pile of rubble no higher than 5-6 feet.
4. Silent Bombs
People in Gaza described a silent bomb which is extremely destructive. The bomb arrives as a silent projectile at most with a whistling sound and creates a large area where all objects and living things are vaporized with minimal trace. We are unable to fit this into conventional weapons but the possibility of new particle weapons being tested should be suspected.
5. Executions
Survivors describe Israeli tanks arriving in front of homes asking residents to come out. Children, old people and women would come forward and as they were lined up they were just fired on and killed. Families have lost tens of their members through such executions. The deliberate targeting of unarmed children and women is well documented by human right groups in the Gaza Strip over the past month.
6. Targeting of ambulances
Thirteen ambulances had been fired upon killing drivers and first aid personnel in the process of rescue and evacuation of the wounded.
7. Cluster bombs
The first patients wounded by cluster were brought into Abu Yusef Najjar Hospital. Since more than 50% of the tunnels have been destroyed, Gaza has lost part of her lifeline. These tunnels contrary to popular belief are not for weapons, though small light weapons could have been smuggled through them. However they are the main stay of food and fuel for Gaza. Palestinians are beginning to tunnel again. However it became clear that cluster bombs were dropped on to the Rafah border and the first was accidentally set off by tunneling. Five burns patients were brought in after setting off a booby trap kind of device.
DEATH TOLL
As of 25 January 2009, the death toll was estimated at 1,350 with the numbers increasing daily. This is due to the severely wounded continuing to die in hospitals.
60% of those killed were children.
Click to join CatapultTheNWOPoliceStateDepopulation agenda
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CatapultTheNWOPoliceStateDepopulation/join
Click to join OpenMindOpenCodeNews
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openmindopencodenews
Denouncing the Morally Corrupt Menace of the Shadow World Govt Military Occupation Command Economy & Order out of Chaos illumiNazi PsychopathClass Ritualized Mass Murder/Eugenics Final Solution!
SEVERE INJURIES
The severely injured numbered 5,450, with 40% being children. These are mainly large burns and polytrauma patients. Single limb fractures and walking wounded are not included in these figures.
Through our conversations with doctors and nurses the word holocaust and catastrophe were repeatedly used. The medical staff all bear the psychological trauma of the past month living though the situation and dealing with mass casualties which swamped their casualties and operating rooms. Many patients died in the Accident and Emergency Department while awaiting treatment. In a district hospital, the orthopaedic surgeon carried out 13 external fixations in less than a day.
It is estimated that of the severely injured, 1,600 will suffer permanently disabilities. These include amputations, spinal cord injuries, head injuries, large burns with crippling contractures.
SPECIAL FACTORS
The death and injury toll is especially high in this recent assault due to several factors.
1. No escape: As Gaza is sealed by Israeli troops, no one can escape the bombardment and the land invasion. There is simply no escape. Even within the Gaza Strip itself, movement from north to south is impossible as Israeli tanks had cut the northern half of Gaza from the south. Compare this with the situation in Lebanon 1982 and 2006, when it was possible for people to escape from an area of heavy bombardment to an area of relative calm – there was no such is option for Gaza.
2. Gaza is very densely populated. It is eerie to see that the bombs used by Israel have been precision bombs. They have a hundred percent hit rate on buildings which are crowded with people.
Examples are the central market, police stations.
Schools, the UN compounds used as a safety shelter from bombardment, mosques (40 of them destroyed), and the homes of families who thought they were safe as there were no combatants in them and high rise flats where a single implosion bomb would destroy multiple families. This pattern of consistent targeting of civilians makes one suspect that the military targets are but collateral damage, while civilians are the primary targets.
3. The quantity and quality of the ammunition being used as described above.
4. Gaza’s lack of defense against the modern weapons of Israel. She has no tanks, no planes, no anti-aircraft missiles against the invading army.
We experienced that first hand in a minor clash of
Israeli tank shells versus Palestinian AK47 return fire. The forces were simply unmatched.
5. Absence of well constructed bomb shelters for civilians. Unfortunately these will also be no match for bunker busters possessed by the Israeli Army.
CONCLUSION
Taking the above points into consideration, the next assault on Gaza would be just as disastrous. The people of Gaza are extremely vulnerable and defenseless in the event of yet another attack. The International Community, if it were serious about preventing this large scale of deaths and injuries, will have to develop a defense force for Gaza if it is considered desirable for Gaza were to continue to be inadequately armed to defend herself.
:: Article nr. 51374 sent on 30-jan-2008 17:49 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=51374
Link: pulsemedia.org/2009/01/30/the-wounds-of-gaza-2009/
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Xymphora quotes Israeli students and soccer fans: "Death to the Arabs"
Xymphora writes:
You think it's bad now?
You can start to have an inkling of where the idea of the 'blood libel' came from (my emphasis in red):
and:
You think it's bad now?
You can start to have an inkling of where the idea of the 'blood libel' came from (my emphasis in red):
"When the leader of Israel's religious-Zionist Meimad Party recently addressed a meeting of 800 high-school students in a Tel Aviv suburb, his words on the virtue of Israeli democracy for all its citizens were drowned out by student chants of 'Death to the Arabs.'"
and:
"Israeli soccer matches were suspended during the assault on Gaza. When the games resumed last week, the fans had come up with a new chant: 'Why have the schools in Gaza been shut down?' sang the crowd. 'Because all the children were gunned down!' came the answer."
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Mark Crispin Miller on Roberts's "Unconscious" Oath Screw Up
With the whole world watching, Chief Justice Roberts garbled up Obama's oath of office
yesterday--deliberately, some say, since the new president must speak his piece precisely,
and Roberts made that quite impossible (unless Obama had decided to ignore his clumsy
prompts, and do it right entirely on his own).
"I'm relatively certain they re-administered the oath out of view of the masses to make it all
legit," writes a friend. "I say he screwed it up on purpose." That could be, although, if so, it
would be a pretty brazen move.
I'd say that Roberts didn't do it consciously, but that his screw-up was a stark bit of unconscious interference with Obama's swearing-in. Roberts is, of course, a flaming Bush Republican--
and, as such, intent on (further) disenfranchising the very citizens who voted, or tried to vote,
for Obama/Biden.
For example, Roberts has been on (what we might call) the Klan side of every Supreme
Court decision that pertains to voting rights since he was placed on that almighty body.
He voted to uphold the Indiana photo ID law, having made some idiotic arguments defending
it in open court.
The stated purpose of the law was to halt in-person "voter fraud" in Indiana. Replying to
the point that there was not a single case of such fraud ever having been discovered in that
state, Roberts noted that such lack of evidence was no surprise, since "voter fraud" is, by
its very nature, secret, and therefore leaves no traces. (Cf. Rumsfeld's Law: "Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.") And upon hearing that ID-less Indiana voters have
to cast provisional ballots, and then travel to the county seat to get them counted, Roberts
said that that was not a hardship, since county seats in Indiana aren't so far away.
And the Roberts Court has recently decided to take up a lawsuit arguing that there's no
longer any need for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--a move whereby the Court
could simply nullify Congress's extension of the Act back in 2006. (For more on this, see http://markcrispinmiller.com/2009/01/scotus-hopes-to-kill-the-voting-rights-act.html.)
Such moves make very clear that our Chief Justice is a faithful servant of, and true believer
in, his ever-shrinking party and its racist base. Thus is he operating squarely in the
un-American tradition of the Court that gave us Bush v. Gore. (He's also following in the
footsteps on his predecessor William Rehnquist, who made his bones as an anti-democratic
activist way back in the early Sixties, when, as a lawyer for the GOP, he roamed the precincts
of South Phoenix on Election Day, trying to block minority votes.)
In short, Roberts personifies that spirit of fanatical elitism whereby the Bush Regime, and
its bad works, were forced on all the rest of us. Small wonder, then, that Roberts couldn't make
his tongue behave as he stood out there yesterday, half-trying to suppress his rage sufficiently
to swear Obama in. And so he screwed it up, because his heart just wasn't in what he was
saying--just like Bush, whose tongue broke down whenever he was forced to sound a
note of altruism or idealism or inclusiveness, or any other alien notion.
And this won't be the last time that we hear the voice of Bush (or Cheney) piping up in
unexpected places. Much depends on whether our new president will be polite, and let
it resonate, or whether he will shut it down at last, and try instead to say--and do--
what's right.
MCM
CNN: Roberts 'screwed up' oath of office
Mike Sheehan and David Edwards
Published: Tuesday January 20, 2009
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_Roberts_screwed_up_oath_of_0120.html
The oath of office of the President of the United States is perhaps the most hallowed tradition in American politics. It marks the end of an intense election process, the peaceful transition of power, and perhaps even the rise of a new generation.
But today, it was a bungle of supreme proportion.
According to the Constitution, the oath is specified as follows: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Modern tradition has added "so help me God" to the end of the oath.
John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had the honor today of administering the oath to Barack Obama with a Bible used by Abraham Lincoln.
But instead of a smooth delivery, Chief Justice Roberts interrupted Obama early and then switched the order of some of the words, slipping up the new president and causing him to hesitate at one point.
ROBERTS: Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?
OBAMA: I am.
ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama...
OBAMA: I, Barack--
ROBERTS: ...do solemnly swear...
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...
ROBERTS: ...that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully...
OBAMA: ...that I will execute... [pause]
ROBERTS: ...faithfully the office of president of the United States...
OBAMA: ...the office of president of the United States faithfully...
ROBERTS: ...and will, to best of my ability...
OBAMA: ...and will to [the] best of my ability...
ROBERTS: ...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: ...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer later commented that Roberts "had one job to do today and he sort of screwed up."
By law, Obama became president at noon Eastern, regardless of the ceremonial oath of office. But that didn't stop some from speculating and others from kidding.
Chris Wallace of FOX News wondered if, due to the fumbled oath, Obama really was president.
Martin Bosworth of the Boztopia blog quipped, "When you think about how Clarence Thomas tried to derail the changeover by having the Court hear the birth certificate case, you have to wonder."
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press later reported that Roberts, shaking hands with the new president before a special luncheon in the Capitol, "chatted briefly with Obama and appeared to say that the mistake was his fault, not Obama's."
This video is from CNN's Newsroom, broadcast Jan. 20, 2009.
yesterday--deliberately, some say, since the new president must speak his piece precisely,
and Roberts made that quite impossible (unless Obama had decided to ignore his clumsy
prompts, and do it right entirely on his own).
"I'm relatively certain they re-administered the oath out of view of the masses to make it all
legit," writes a friend. "I say he screwed it up on purpose." That could be, although, if so, it
would be a pretty brazen move.
I'd say that Roberts didn't do it consciously, but that his screw-up was a stark bit of unconscious interference with Obama's swearing-in. Roberts is, of course, a flaming Bush Republican--
and, as such, intent on (further) disenfranchising the very citizens who voted, or tried to vote,
for Obama/Biden.
For example, Roberts has been on (what we might call) the Klan side of every Supreme
Court decision that pertains to voting rights since he was placed on that almighty body.
He voted to uphold the Indiana photo ID law, having made some idiotic arguments defending
it in open court.
The stated purpose of the law was to halt in-person "voter fraud" in Indiana. Replying to
the point that there was not a single case of such fraud ever having been discovered in that
state, Roberts noted that such lack of evidence was no surprise, since "voter fraud" is, by
its very nature, secret, and therefore leaves no traces. (Cf. Rumsfeld's Law: "Absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence.") And upon hearing that ID-less Indiana voters have
to cast provisional ballots, and then travel to the county seat to get them counted, Roberts
said that that was not a hardship, since county seats in Indiana aren't so far away.
And the Roberts Court has recently decided to take up a lawsuit arguing that there's no
longer any need for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act--a move whereby the Court
could simply nullify Congress's extension of the Act back in 2006. (For more on this, see http://markcrispinmiller.com/2009/01/scotus-hopes-to-kill-the-voting-rights-act.html.)
Such moves make very clear that our Chief Justice is a faithful servant of, and true believer
in, his ever-shrinking party and its racist base. Thus is he operating squarely in the
un-American tradition of the Court that gave us Bush v. Gore. (He's also following in the
footsteps on his predecessor William Rehnquist, who made his bones as an anti-democratic
activist way back in the early Sixties, when, as a lawyer for the GOP, he roamed the precincts
of South Phoenix on Election Day, trying to block minority votes.)
In short, Roberts personifies that spirit of fanatical elitism whereby the Bush Regime, and
its bad works, were forced on all the rest of us. Small wonder, then, that Roberts couldn't make
his tongue behave as he stood out there yesterday, half-trying to suppress his rage sufficiently
to swear Obama in. And so he screwed it up, because his heart just wasn't in what he was
saying--just like Bush, whose tongue broke down whenever he was forced to sound a
note of altruism or idealism or inclusiveness, or any other alien notion.
And this won't be the last time that we hear the voice of Bush (or Cheney) piping up in
unexpected places. Much depends on whether our new president will be polite, and let
it resonate, or whether he will shut it down at last, and try instead to say--and do--
what's right.
MCM
CNN: Roberts 'screwed up' oath of office
Mike Sheehan and David Edwards
Published: Tuesday January 20, 2009
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_Roberts_screwed_up_oath_of_0120.html
The oath of office of the President of the United States is perhaps the most hallowed tradition in American politics. It marks the end of an intense election process, the peaceful transition of power, and perhaps even the rise of a new generation.
But today, it was a bungle of supreme proportion.
According to the Constitution, the oath is specified as follows: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Modern tradition has added "so help me God" to the end of the oath.
John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had the honor today of administering the oath to Barack Obama with a Bible used by Abraham Lincoln.
But instead of a smooth delivery, Chief Justice Roberts interrupted Obama early and then switched the order of some of the words, slipping up the new president and causing him to hesitate at one point.
ROBERTS: Are you prepared to take the oath, Senator?
OBAMA: I am.
ROBERTS: I, Barack Hussein Obama...
OBAMA: I, Barack--
ROBERTS: ...do solemnly swear...
OBAMA: I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear...
ROBERTS: ...that I will execute the office of president to the United States faithfully...
OBAMA: ...that I will execute... [pause]
ROBERTS: ...faithfully the office of president of the United States...
OBAMA: ...the office of president of the United States faithfully...
ROBERTS: ...and will, to best of my ability...
OBAMA: ...and will to [the] best of my ability...
ROBERTS: ...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
OBAMA: ...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
ROBERTS: So help you God?
OBAMA: So help me God.
ROBERTS: Congratulations, Mr. President.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer later commented that Roberts "had one job to do today and he sort of screwed up."
By law, Obama became president at noon Eastern, regardless of the ceremonial oath of office. But that didn't stop some from speculating and others from kidding.
Chris Wallace of FOX News wondered if, due to the fumbled oath, Obama really was president.
Martin Bosworth of the Boztopia blog quipped, "When you think about how Clarence Thomas tried to derail the changeover by having the Court hear the birth certificate case, you have to wonder."
Mark Sherman of The Associated Press later reported that Roberts, shaking hands with the new president before a special luncheon in the Capitol, "chatted briefly with Obama and appeared to say that the mistake was his fault, not Obama's."
This video is from CNN's Newsroom, broadcast Jan. 20, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
