This Would Be Change I could Believe In
Unconditional support for occupation would not be a change, nor do I believe in it.Items:
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon deplores an Israeli settlement plan (4 June 2008) to construct new settlement housing units in the occupied east Jerusalem, which UN resolutions consider an 'occupied land'. Ki-Moon is talking about a new plan announced this week to build 800 housing units in the Israeli settlement of Abu Ghonaim hilltop in the occupied east Jerusalem, despite Palestinian-Israeli peace talks on final settlement agreement.
Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control: (5 June 2008): President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government. Iraq's Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is believed to be personally opposed to the terms of the new pact but feels his coalition government cannot stay in power without US boots on the ground.
posted by Vigilante at 6/05/2008 07:04:00 AM
9 Moderated Comments:
We have waited too long to defund this hideous war. It has turned me against the Dems in Congress for not voting to defund the war and forcing Bush to veto over and over until he's out of office. Where is the congress on blocking this West Bank on the Tigris and Euphrates?
We have only ourselves to blame for not speaking out when Busheney stole the election in 2000.
This is change I believe would begin peace.
Vig:
I turn to your blog to enjoy your thoughtful insights of the day. But today's blog entry utterly flummoxes me. I just don't get it.
First you declare that the "banner" pictured at the top of today's blog entry "...would be change I could believe in". Immediately below said banner, you proclaim that "Unconditional support for occupation would not be a change, nor do I believe in it."
The banner, as I read it, speaks to peacefully ENDING the occupations.
The continuing text references Ki-Moon and Bush, and speaks to prolonging two of the occupations.
I'm lost. Did you omit some paragraphs you had intended to include? What am I missing here?
Can you help me "get" it?
Emily, you have so busted me. What prompted me to start on this is that I was coming from Obama & Clinton making such bellicose statements before AIPAC. They seemed to be proclaiming unconditional love for Israel in the same week as new settlements were announced by the Olmert government. This morning's post just didn't come together. Maybe it was caffeine-deprivation? Is that a plea I can cop to? Too late to fix. Too late to rescind. It is what it is. You are a critical reader and I ... got nothin'!
What the Palestinians don't like about Barack Obama's statement is what he said about recognizing Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.
The U.S. Congress passed a law in 1995 describing Jerusalem as capital of Israel and saying it should not be divided, but successive presidents have used their foreign policy powers to maintain the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv and to back negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians on the status of Jerusalem.
U.S. diplomats say that, despite the U.S. legislation, Washington's foreign policy is in practice broadly aligned with that of the United Nations and other major powers, which do not view Jerusalem as Israel's capital and do not recognise Israel's annexation of Arab East Jerusalem following the 1967 war.
And in his post-clinch status, Obama is taking a "broader perspective" on Iraq:
Well, you know, I'd never say there's 'nothing' or 'never' or 'no way' in which I'd change my mind. Obviously, I'm open to the facts and to reason. And there's no doubt that we've seen significant improvements in security on the ground in Iraq. And our troops, and Gen Petraeus, deserve enormous credit for that. And in terms of long-term strategy, I am absolutely convinced that the best thing we can do is to set a clear timetable, tell the Iraqis we are going to start pulling out and do it in a careful fashion.
By any other name, BACK-PEDALING!
Obama's AIPAC speech
Obama does express his love for Israel (in both words and money) and for a two-state solution, and AGAINST expanding settlements, and for SOCIAL JUSTICE and TO HEAL THE WORLD. He is the one, the guy that really wants peace in the Middle East. As a Brit I wonder if this is that much different from how we less formally treat Britain--they even had a terrorism problem once...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home