Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Aug 25, 2025

Democrats Troll as Genocide Horrifies; American Families Gouged

Cartoon America - Democrats' incapacity
to speak to weighty matters hearkens
Reginald Marsh. See above
'This is her first lynching,' 1934
             Image Source Credit: GRANGER 
Democrats No Longer a Serious Party

Commentary

Nine Americans were beaten to death in the West Bank by settler terrorists, or kidnapped and tortured the last two years in death camp Palestine.

Genocide continues, as terror-state Israel maintains its perverse hatred of journalists and medical personnel, slaughtering them wantonly.

Trump threatens more militarization of the National Guard and occupation of more American cities.

American families face skyrocketing costs for college, child care, healthcare, groceries, gas, electricity, taxes, among other costs.

The Democrat response? 

Troll Trump; mock Trump; and pronounce trolling effective; drawing Democrat raves in what passes for victories for this decrepit party, led by California Gov Gavin Newsom.

Trolling is working, Democrats assure the people.

Obvious problem is trolling is not solving problems; not addressing moral catastrophes; not even pretending to bring relief to American families, or stopping wars or genocide.

What matters is major Democrats are drawing views on X, and seeing more Google searches, or crowing that Gaven Newsom has a merch section of his website, just like Trump.

The disconnect between what Americans face on the ground here, and what we and Israel inflict onto the world, especially children is a widening gulf, created by indecency here, and careerism, convenience and compliance.

But, hey, Democrat officeholders mock Trump on social media, even emulate Trump's use of capitalized words, and hyperbole.

So, that's a win for all of us, right? 

I mean, please tell me people see the disconnect between what matters and this shit.

Matt Taibbi and a few others are warning Democrats their moral failings will exact political costs. 

But Democrats won't listen, count on it.

May 11, 2024

Macklemore's Defiaint Song Against Genocide and Joe Biden

Palestinian girl Hind Rajab poses for photograph in this
undated handout picture obtained by Reuters on February 10,
2024 [Palestine Red Crescent Society/Reuters]

Genocide Machine and Joe Biden Under Fire

Singer-songwriter Macklemore just released a powerful opus against Israeli-American genocide in Gaza and the West Bank.
Macklemore's song, Hinds Hall, is named after Hind Rajab joined in song title with Columbia University’s Hamilton Hall.
The six-year-old Gazan girl's family was slaughtered by Israeli Defense Forces, trapping the girl in a car begging for help in her cell phone to the Red Crescent Society.
Israel proceeded to slaughter the rescue party sent by Red Recreant, then murdered  Hind Rajab in a horrid act much of which is caught on audio.
Macklemore's Hinds Hall is below.


Feb 25, 2018

Israel Is a Brutal State Loved by Trump, as Teenage Girl Is Crushed by Fascists

Ahed Tamimi is being crushed by Israel for advocating
peace and human rights in this vicious prison state.
Many fascists are like child molesters, they have a way of recognizing each other.

Donald Trump's long embrace of Israel, and its ally Saudi Arabia, comes not in spite of human rights atrocities, but because the savagery attracts the lunatic in the White House.

A human being under siege by Israel, the now-17-year-old Ahed Tamimi, is a story difficult to ignore in our country moving in the same direction as this repulsive pit of human misery.

Some recent coverage follows.

From Haraatz:

Jewish-American comedian Sarah Silverman is at the center of a Twitter storm after tweeting in support of detained Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi over the weekend.

Silverman, of course, is no stranger to controversy, politics or Israel. She has long been active in progressive Democratic politics – campaigning for Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders – and throws comic barbs at the Trump administration.

If you are not aware of the Tamimi story, read Richard Falk's latest and consider signing the petition from Amnesty International. See also the coverage in Counterpunch and Alternet.
---
From Richard Falk:

It is now known by virtually everyone who follows the Palestinian struggle that a 16-year-old girl, now 17, named Ahed Tamimi, confronted Israeli soldiers on her family’s land shortly after her cousin, Mohammed, was shot in the face with a rubber bullet, causing a coma. The video of her actions has gone viral, showing the world a courageous young woman engaging in nonviolent acts of resistance, and then a day later in the middle of the night being arrested in her home and then charged with a series of crimes; as is standard Israeli practice in the arrest of children, Ahen was hauled off to an Israeli prison facility out of reach of her family and then denied bail. ...

I think these polarized responses to the incident offer a defining metaphor for the current phase of Israel/Palestine relations. The metaphor is given a special vividness because Ahed Tamimi as a child epitomizes the mentality and tactics of an oppressive state. The prospect of Ahed’s case being heard by a military court that finds that more than 99% of defendants are guilty of the crimes of which they are accused. This is reminiscent of South African administration of criminal justice at the height of apartheid racism.

Beyond the legal fate of Ahed’s case is the unspeakable inhumanity of holding a civilian population captive generation after generation. Ahed Tamimi’s act and fate should matter greatly to all of us, and inspire increased commitment to solidarity with the Palestinian national struggle.  

Oct 9, 2011

Interview with Richard Falk on the Palestinian Statehood Bid

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar
who taught at Princeton University for forty years.
Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and
taught at the local campus of the University of California
in Global and International Studies and since 2005
chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
He initiated his blog, Citizen Pilgrimage, partly
in celebration of his 80th birthday.

It is almost a startling pleasure to read Richard Falk's eloquence and decency on the topic of Palestine striving for autonomy against the macabre and violent force of Zionism.

Even more gratifying as we read the fetid combination of imbecility and self-conscious lies of Susan Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, that washes through the corporate media like a polluted river carrying the sewage and hypocrisy that defines U.S. policy in the region.

Via Citizen Pilgrimage

1. What prompted the Palestinian Authority to seek UN recognition for Palestine at this historical juncture in the struggle for justice and the creation of an independent Palestinian state?

I think the essential motivating feature was long overdue disillusionment with the ‘peace process’ as derived from the Oslo Framework of Principles agreed upon in 1993, and looking toward the resolution of final status issues (borders, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, security, water) within five years. More recently Obama in his 2011 speech to the UN General Assembly appeared committed to the establishment of a Palestinians a state within a year, but awkwardly backed away from this kind of assessment in 2012 when he merely declared that it was difficult to achieve peace, and that only hope was direct negotiations without any preconditions. The published Palestine Papers on confidential negotiations behind closed doors between representatives of Israel and of the Palestine Authority, leaked to Al Jazeera several months ago, reinforced the impression that the Israeli leadership was not at all interested in a negotiated end to the conflict even when offered far reaching concessions by Palestinian interlocutors. Negotiations that lead no where serve Israel’s interests far better than would a clear declaration that acknowledges Palestinian rights under international law as the necessary foundation of a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Another line of explanation for the statehood bid relates to the efforts of the PA Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, to engage in state-building while under occupation, both to demonstrate the credibility of a viable Palestinian state able to govern effectively when Israeli withdrawal takes place and as an alternative path to statehood than that offered by direct negotiations. Several international institutions, including the IMF, have been impressed by these efforts to achieve governmentality despite the difficulties of occupation. There are varying assessments of the degree of success of this Fayyad program of action, both in relation to its approach to economic development, societal wellbeing, and Palestinian self-determination.

Finally, it is important to realize that these periodic failed negotiations have not been neutral as between the parties. They are good for Israel, bad for Palestine. Settlement building and its accompanying infrastructure encroach increasingly on the occupied remnant of historic Palestine. To continue with negotiations without a permanent freeze on settlement expansion is to put an end to any prospect of a two-state solution, and thereby threaten the PA role as providing leadership for the Palestinian struggle for self-determination. The United States has further aggravated the situation by treating the unlawful settlements as ‘subsequent developments,’ in Israeli parlance as ‘facts on the ground,’ that are to be incorporated into Israel rather than undone.

2. The US has called UN recognition of Palestine a “mistake,” with Obama apparently threatening Abbas with significant repercussions, but even some Palestinians have questioned the move, saying it would be mainly a symbolic victory and would not change the reality of the Israeli occupation. What are your views on the matter?

Threatening the PA for taking this perfectly legal initiative of seeking recognition of its statehood and gaining membership in the UN shows the extent of America’s willingness to do Israel’s bidding, however unreasonable its behavior. It is coupled with American silence in the face of blatant Israeli criminality as with the Gaza blockade and 1998-99 attacks, the flotilla incident of May 2010, and the recurring instances of excessive use of force by occupying Israeli forces.

There are complexities on all sides of these questions of why Palestinian statehood and why now. If the Abbas leadership is weakened, it increases the possibility of the extension of Hamas influence on the West Bank. Certainly the United States, and probably Israel, fears such a result. It is possible that Israel would be ambivalent in the face of such a development as it would tend to justify the ongoing dynamic of de facto annexation that has been a byproduct of the settlement phenomenon combined with the rise of Israeli extremist leadership that seems disinterested in any outcome that involves the establishment of a Palestinian sovereign state.

On the Palestinian side, there are also critics of the statehood bid. Some are concerned that the PA may be transforming the conflict into an essentially territorial dispute over land, thereby marginalizing if not abandoning the right of return of Palestinian refugees and those several million Palestinians living in exile. Closely related is the concern, especially among some respected Palestinian NGOs and throughout the Palestinian diaspora, that the PA is trying to displace the Palestinian Liberation Organization as the sole representative of the Palestinian people. The PLO, unlike the PA, gives Palestinians living outside of the occupied territories representational rights, including a majority of seats in the now dormant Palestinian National Council. It should be observed that Abbas in his speech tried to provide reassurance as to the PLO role, promising that it will remain the sole representative of the Palestinian people so long as the conflict persists. Also of concern to Palestinians is the fear that Israel will, in effect, tell the Palestinians that now they have their state, and there is nothing more to discuss. The conflict is resolved with Israel retaining control of the borders, internal security, and settlements, producing the sort of surrealistic outcome that apartheid South Africa attempted to impose on the black South African majority by creating ten Bantustans.

3. In his historic speech of September 23rd to the UN General Assembly, Mahmoud Abbas spoke of Israel’s policies as “colonial” and “ethnic cleansing” and violation of “international humanitarian laws.” Does this speech represent a change of strategy for PLO or was it for domestic consumption, i.e., in order to promote solidarity among Palestinian supporters?

The use of this appropriately strong language was the most notable feature of the Abbas speech, and a dramatic shift in tone from earlier appeals to the international community. It is this feature as much as the statehood/membership bid that made the speech ‘historic.’ It also served to enhance the legitimacy of the PA, whose reputation has been eroded by its quasi-collaborative relationship with Israel and the United States.

4. Israel has threatened PLO with “punishment” for taking the move to seek UN recognition of Palestine. What more barbaric actions can it take?

The U.S. can withhold financial assistance, a course of action that is likely to be insisted upon by the U.S. Congress in any event unless the Security Council fails to support the statehood bid by a majority of nine or more of its fifteen members, thereby sparing the U.S. the embarrassment of so inappropriately using its veto. America’s right wing Congress is gunning for the UN in any event, and it will seize upon this Palestinian challenge to demonstrate again its unconditional support for Israel’s demands, however unreasonable and cruel in their effects, and to do so at the expense of the UN will be doubly sweet for Tea Party Republicans.

5. Any intuition into what the future holds for the Palestinian question?

I think the overall regional developments are supportive of the Palestinian struggle for a just and sustainable peace. Any Arab government, especially Egypt, will now find it easier to satisfy their restive public opinion at home by confronting Israel than by enhancing the material wellbeing of their own population. In this respect, politics is easier than economics! Whether this prospect will do more than strengthen the hand of Israeli extremism is anyone’s guess.

Turkey has shown the way in these respects, and has embarrassed Arab governments that have been passive for many years in the face of Palestinian suffering and Israeli outrages, including remaining on the sidelines despite the harsh blockade imposed on the 1.6 million people of Gaza as a collective punishment for their willingness to give electoral support to Hamas in the 2006 national elections. If the international community and the Palestinian solidarity movement exerts sufficient pressure for a just solution to the conflict it may eventually give rise to an internal Israeli involving the rediscovery of Israeli realism. One of the costs of Netanyahu/Liebermann hegemony has been to make Israel unable to understand and act upon its own interests, which not only prolongs the Palestinian ordeal but severely endangers Israel’s own security and wellbeing.

Oct 3, 2011

Chomsky on Israel, Arab Spring, and Occupy Wall Street

Noam Chomsky was recently interviewed on RT (Russia Today), the Russian 24-7, English-language news channel.

Chomsky's appearance carries with it historical irony as it was not terribly long ago that Chomsky's work in cognitive science and linguistics was banned because it was deemed counterrevolutionary, hence his work had to be censored by the state.

Writes Chomsky, "One of the favorite weeks of my life was in about 1980, when I received two dailies denouncing me furiously for my work on transformational grammar: One was Izvestia, denouncing it as counterrevolutionary, and the other was Argentina’s La Prensa (at the peak of the neo-Nazi military dictatorship), denouncing it as dangerously revolutionary. They’re all basically alike ... ."

Jul 22, 2011

Israel Draws International Criticism for Sweeping Anti-Boycott Law

Under the new law, any person, including journalists, calling for the boycott or divestment of Israel or the occupied West Bank can be sued by the boycott’s targets, without their having to prove that they sustained damage

From Democracy Now

We’re joined by Gal Beckerman, the opinion editor at the Jewish daily newspaper, The Forward, which recently issued an editorial claiming "a boycott can be a legitimate use of non-violent protest to achieve a worthy goal."

The editors of the paper then drew a line through the sentence, along with several others, to illustrate the type of reasonable thoughts that will be punishable under the new law.
So, for example, if we say something like: We can understand why reasonable people could advocate a boycott of products made in Israeli settlements in the West Bank because those settlements are deemed illegal under international law and because a boycott is a peaceful way of expressing a moral concern— well, if we say something like that, we could be sued and held liable in civil court.

Bradley Burston in Haaretz writes: "Israel's boycott law: The quiet sound of going fascist. This is where the slope turns nowhere but down. When the Knesset passed the boycott law, it changed the history of the state of Israel."

Actually, Israel has been a bigoted, militaristic place for some time now, but one takes Burston's point.

Jan 21, 2011

The methodical shooting of boys at work in Gaza by Israeli Occupation Force Snipers


Our Silence is complicity Shooting boys at work is nothing new for Israel, nor is shooting anyone else.

The U.S. FBI calls snipers who kill for sadistic pleasure "Long Distance Serial Killers (LDSK)," just another name for snipers who suffer from a criminal, sadistic psychopathology.

I'm not sure I could live with myself if I shot out a girl's eye, or a protester's or any one's. I'm quite sure the snipers in the Israeli Occupation Force sleep well in their smug assurance that they are carrying out God's will.

These are children. And Palestinians are human beings. What blinds you to this understanding, IDF? I really would like an answer.

By David S Halpin FRCS Formerly, orthopaedic and trauma surgeon at the Torbay and Exeter Hospitals Devon UK

Introduction

The deliberate injury of the limbs of 23 boys by high velocity weapons has been logged and described by Defence for Children International – Palestine Branch (DCI-P) since March 2010. (1) Some of the facts have been published in national newspapers. These barbarous acts contravene international and national law but there are no judicial responses. The caring professions see the physical and mental pain of those who suffer and they should be in the vanguard in calling for this great cruelty to cease forthwith. Political leaders have failed to act. The Geneva Conventions Act 1957, which is of central importance in holding war criminals to account in the jurisdiction of the UK, is being emasculated.

Context

Most of the 1.5 million population of the Gaza strip is impoverished. Half are refugees from Mandate Palestine or their children. About 50% of the male population is without work. It has been isolated and occupied for decades. A commercial port was being built in 2000 but that was bombed by Israel. The isolation and the hobbling of its commerce was increased by a siege which was started in March 2006 in response to the election of a majority of Hamas members to the legislature. It was further tightened in June 2007 after the Hamas government pre-empted a coup by the Fatah faction that was led in Gaza by Mohammad Dahlan.

See also Israeli sniper bullet takes 12-year-old girl's life

The misery was further deepened with 'Operation Cast Lead' that was unleashed 27/12/08. This was promised 29/02/08 (2). "The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, [the Palestinians] will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah (holocaust) because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.” - Matan Vilnai Deputy Defence Minister to Israeli Army Radio. There was a massive bombardment which killed 220 adults and children in the first 15 minutes. This was followed by a full scale invasion. 1400 humans were killed and approximately 5000 injured physically. The minds of very many more were injured too. 4000 homes were totally destroyed, almost all the factories and 40 mosques. The two gleaming science blocks of the Islamic University of Gaza were flattened by very powerful thermobaric bombs, the blasts being heard throughout the 360 square kilometres of the Gaza 'Strip'. The siege has been even more draconian since. Cement, ballast and steel rods are only let in at about 5% of the rate needed for rebuilding, the pretext being that 'bunkers' could be constructed. At the present rate it will take 78 years to rebuild Gaza. (3) Chocolate, writing paper and all manner of things have been blocked. The 1,000 tunnels at Rafah have provided a way in for goods but in the face of bombing and roof falls.

See also Israel's dirty secrets in Gaza: Army veterans reveal how they gunned down innocent Palestinian families and destroyed homes and farms

The lack of any work and the extreme poverty of the large extended families has drawn the boys and men to scavenge for broken concrete ('gravel') in the evacuated Eli Sinai 'settlement' and in the industrial zone by the Erez border control post at the northern limit of the 'Strip'. The factories of the industrial zone have been progressively demolished by Israeli shelling etc. They are seen to the west as one enters Gaza through Erez. A donkey and cart, shovel, pick, sieve, muscles and courage are the tools. The rubble is used to make cement blocks and poured concrete with the cement that is imported largely through the tunnels. Many dozens of men and boys do this work for precious shekels in the shadow of manned watch towers and under 'drones' above.

The 23 boys who have been shot between 26/03/10 (Said H) and 23/12/10 (Hatem S) are listed in the table below with skeletal facts. These points are made:-


  • In 18 there were single shots and not automatic fire

  • The reported range in most cases confirms that the weapon was a sniper's rifle in the hands of a sniper

  • Almost always there were many dozens of other men and boys at work; these victims were picked off

  • A leg was the target in most cases. Where the leg was not the target it is likely the sniper was 'aiming up' so the flank, elbow etc was hit instead.

  • No weapons were being borne by the gravel workers so they posed no threat to the Israeli Occupation Force personnel. Instead they were bending their backs to their menial work within their internment camp

  • The histories refer often to the recovery of the injured boy by friends and relatives under fire. This was a feature during 'Cast Lead' or instead the paramedics were barred from getting to the victims so they died without care.


The history of the injury and sequel for each boy are linked to in (1). It has been done meticulously and the translation into English is perfect. The pain, and often the terror, felt by the boy as the bullet struck home are vividly recorded. No bullets have been recovered yet so the calibre/type is unknown.


  • How many boys will regain full, or nearly full function is difficult to judge without the radiographs being present. Cases 3,4, 5,7,13 and 15 are likely to have joint involvement and thus some lifelong disability.

  • In cases 1 and 3 there is nerve injury. If that proves to be an axonotmesis in either, it is possible that a first class repair will not be available in Gaza.

  • The fractures are open by definition and no doubt comminuted. Delayed or non-union is possible. Deep infection is a real risk, antibiotic therapy not withstanding. The risk of deep infection relates to a. the possible inclusion of fabric b. the high energy injury causing irregular and wide devitalisation of the tissues c. the probability that these difficult bullet wounds were not laid open and a complete wound toilet performed. One or two of these boys might end with an amputation.

  • Almost all the boys have been frightened off or forbidden from gravel work. There are few, if any, other means of earning shekels.


The shooting to wound and kill Palestinians is relentless. DCI-P notes that according to a UN study, between January 2009 and August 2010, at least 22 Palestinian civilians in Gaza have been killed and 146 injured in the arbitrary live fire zone adjacent to the border with Israel and imposed at sea. At least 27 of these civilians were children. It also notes that the targeting of civilians is absolutely prohibited under international law, regardless of circumstances.

These quotations from the available stories convey a little of the poverty, the suffering and the courage

  • 'The three of us would wake up every day at around 5:30am and leave to collect gravel. We were not the only ones doing this type of work. Hundreds of youngsters aged between 13 and 22 used to work with us, despite the danger we faced because we were close to the Israeli border.' Awad W- 3
  • The work was exhausting and dangerous. ‘Israeli soldiers would sometimes shoot at us, and sometimes shoot in the air to intimidate us,’ recalls Ibrahim . 'Sometimes they would shoot at the carts, horses and donkeys we used to move the gravel. But we had to do the work despite the dangers, because we didn’t have any other job to do.’ Ibrahim K- 4
  • Mohammad was taught by his neighbours to watch for birds flying away from the watch towers, as this was a sign to start running, as it meant soldiers were climbing into the towers and the shooting would soon begin. Mohammad M - 6
  • 'They killed our three horses and one donkey in four months, and we had to spend the money we earned on replacing them.' ….. ‘They were down on their stomachs pointing their rifles towards us, but they didn’t shoot. We got used to such things.’ Mohammad S – 11

Silence is complicity

Read more at Debbie Menon.

Jan 17, 2011

Israel Targets Free Gaza Movement with Repulsive Propaganda


It is not enough that humanitarian activists on the Mavi Marmara were illegally boarded and attacked in international waters on a peace mission to Gaza. Nor is it sufficient that nine peace activists on the Mavi Marmara were assassinated in cold blood by Israeli terrorist forece—Furkan Doğan, Necdet Yıldırım, Cevdet Kılıçlar, Ali Haydar Bengi, Cengiz Akyür, Fahri Yaldız, Cengiz Songür, Çetin Topçuloğlu and İbrahim Bilgen.

Now, Israel has launched a propaganda campaign targeting the return of the Mavi Marmara and Free Gaza Movement and is calling murdered victims: "Pirates".

The Stand with Us propaganda site says the Israeli massacre on the Mediterranean Sea last May 31st was directed at "Pirates." Incredible as it is revolting.

In the words of Dr. King: "I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.”

Veterans Today stands with all the world-over who speak out against Israeli terror, human rights violations and vicious, utterly disingenuous propaganda. Long live Palestine. Long live the Free Gaza Momement.

Below are suggested propaganda posters from the Stand with Us propaganda site including calls to "investigate" freedom flotilla peace activists.































NYC4NYC4
NYC3Pirates
Investigate The PassengersAta Turk Muhammad Al Hazmi
Hamas free Gilad ShalitTurkey occupies Cyprus
Turkey defying INTL lawTurkey Complicit
Turkey Blood On Hands hirespeace Activists knives clubs hires
peace Activists hamas hiresIsrael We Stand With You

Apr 27, 2010

Sec. Gates and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak Huddle on Iran

Though informed sources who shot down the Bush-Cheney administration's false propaganda program on Iraq are now knocking down the AIPAC-pushed "Iran threat," the Obama administration appears to be playing along at least in rhetoric, as Israel warns against giving Iran too much time‎ to develop a nuclear weapon like Israel has.
Gates Satisfied With U.S. Planning to Counter Iran

By John J. Kruzel
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, April 27, 2010 – Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates today expressed satisfaction with the level of planning by the Defense Department and other elements of the U.S. government to counter threats from Iran.

“I'm very satisfied with the planning process both within this building and in the interagency,” Gates told Pentagon reporters. “We spend a lot of time on Iran, and we'll continue to do so.”

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, appearing alongside Gates after a meeting at the Pentagon, endorsed diplomatic efforts and sanctions to steer Iran away from its nuclear ambitions.

“We think that they should be blocked,” Barak said of Iran. “And I think that the time is clearly, at this stage, time for sanctions and diplomacy.”

Barak backed international economic sanctions in efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying he expects sanctions to be “effective and to be limited in time so we will be able to judge to whether -- what kind of results stem from the sanctions regime.” But he added that “only time will tell to what extent they are really effective.”

The administration of President Barack Obama and U.S. allies are working to build a consensus for pressuring Iran through economic sanctions. Iran contends its nuclear pursuit is for peaceful purposes, while many believe the country seeks to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Speaking about the Obama administration’s stance on Iran’s nuclear pursuit, National Security Advisor Jim Jones last week said Iran failed to show that its program was for peaceful purposes when given the opportunity before an international audience.

“To date, we have seen no indication that Iran's leaders want to resolve these issues constructively,” Jones said at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy here. “Iran’s government must face real consequences for its continued defiance of the international community.”

Iran’s defiance of its international obligations on its nuclear program and the country’s support of terrorism represent “a significant regional and global threat,” said Jones, emphasizing that the U.S. is determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Barak today used similar tones to express his views on threats facing Israel, among them being the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran.

“These threats have broad implications,” he said, “not only to Israeli security, but to the entire region's security and any conceivable world order

U.S.-Israel Political Maneuvers Go Deep and Dark

Steve Clemons at the Washington Note has a piece observing a new development in the increasingly adversarial U.S.-Israeli relationship: More secrecy.

As AIPAC boasts on its website of its influence on our Congress in imposing "crippling sanctions on Iran," AIPAC's long-held position detailed in a letter "[s]igned by over three-quarters of the entire Congress - 81 senators and 366 House members," Clemons notes "AIPAC itself has sent out this past week a roster of statements from Obama administration officials, that showed that much had been done to move the hard edged differences between the administration [and Israel] out of the public and into private channels."

Considering that our republic is founded on the foundation that the consent of citizens direct our elected representatives, this move towards secrecy (private channels) appears antithetical to democratic notions of citizens deciding the direction of public policy.

We are engaged in a political fight with a political enemy, but this fight ought to be discussed endlessly in the public sphere of our country.

In these pages Jeff Gates writes, "[f]orced to face the reality of an enemy within, [Israel], our military leadership signaled Obama that they are prepared to cover his back. The oath of office mandates a defense against all enemies. Yet it also places our defense under civilian control. ..."

Civilian control indeed, American citizen control. Let's reaffirm the alliance between American citizens and our government, a tradition dating back to our first president who warned of the dangers of foreign nations who seek to influence the American people and its government.

Jan 15, 2010

Israeli Threats Against Gaza Grow

by: Ira Chernus, t r u t h o u t Op-Ed -- Israel's hawks are starting to make frightening noises.

If Israel attacks Gaza again, Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant will run the operation. Galant recently said that right now "the sun is shining - but one can see dark clouds in the distance." His soldiers are training to face trouble ahead, and "civilians are rightly preparing themselves for another round of fighting."

A few days later, Galant's predecessor, Maj. Gen. Yom Tov Samia (who still heads the reserves who would invade Gaza), sounded even more ominous: "We are before another round in Gaza," he predicted. "I am very skeptical about the possibility that Hamas will suddenly surrender or change its ways without being hit much more seriously than it was during Cast Lead." Israel must carry out "a more focused strike with long-lasting results."

Always ready to oblige the hawks, the Jerusalem Post reported Samia's words under the fear-mongering headline: "Another war with Hamas is inevitable."

At what "long-lasting results" might Israel aim? Samia would say only that Israel should take control of "certain areas in Gaza" to "create a situation in which Hamas runs out of oxygen." But unnamed "defense officials" told the Post of existing plans for Israel to seize and hold the Philadelphi corridor, the strip of land between Egypt and Gaza that is riddled with underground smuggling tunnels.

That would require Israeli troops to go house to house in the densely populated city of Rafah, to search out and destroy tunnels. When Israel invaded Gaza last year, the same plan was rejected because it was likely to cost too many Israeli casualties and lead to a long-term Israeli occupation of the area. Now, the hawks are pushing their government to consider paying that price.

Why? The official explanation, repeated constantly in the Israeli press, is that rockets are beginning to fly out of Gaza into Israel again, while Hamas brings larger weaponry through the tunnels. So, Israel is "forced" to defend itself.

Yet, Gaza Prime Minister, Ismael Haniyeh of Hamas, has repeated his call for all factions in the Strip to observe and maintain a total cease-fire. The cease-fire is a long-standing Hamas policy, broken in late 2008 only when Israel tightened its economic stranglehold on Gaza beyond endurable limits.

The cease-fire reflects "a moderating trend" within Hamas that has been going on for at least five years, according to Fawaz Gerges' recent detailed analysis of the movement. He lays out "unmistakable signs that the religiously based radical movement" is no longer so radical, that it "has subtly changed its uncompromising posture on Israel." "Hamas has already changed," he quotes top Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. "We accepted the national accords for a Palestinian state based on the 1967 border."

If the Hamas moves toward accommodation are "nourished and engaged," as Gerges says, they "could transform Palestinian politics and the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Predictably, though, Israel is doing just the opposite.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak added fuel to the fire when he publicly charged that Hamas leaders are unable "to control the dissident groups … who are trying to break the tranquility" by firing about 20 crude rockets into Israel in recent days. Though this has already triggered disproportionate and deadly Israeli retaliation, Barak warned of more to come: "Hamas is well deterred from trying another direct collision with Israel. I hope that they will take over - or else."

It's the same old, tragic story. Missing every opportunity to encourage the peace-oriented forces in Hamas, Israel instead escalates the violence.

Amid his vague, bellicose noises, Israeli General Samia gave a clear hint of what might really be driving Israeli policy. Claiming that support for Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Party is "very weak or almost non existent in the [Gaza] Strip," Samia offered the Palestinian leader some advice: "The best chance at returning to power is taking a serious, significant and critical step that would drive Hamas out of power."

It may well be the dream of Israeli leaders to give Fatah rule over Gaza as well as the West Bank. After all, Israel (with US help) was instrumental in sparking the2007 civil war in Gaza, when Fatah tried and failed to impose sole control. All observers of the conflict note that Israel assumes it will get an better deal in negotiations from the apparently more moderate Fatah than from the moderating, but still more demanding, Hamas.

Yet, the idea of destroying Hamas is just as much fantasy now as it was three years ago. And even if Fatah were to take nominal control of Gaza, no peace settlement reached by Fatah without Hamas support would gain broad support among Palestinians. Indeed, Israel has long complained that it cannot negotiate peace because there is no one to represent all the Palestinians.

What Israeli leaders won't say is that they have worked single-mindedly to keep it that way. The fundamental principle of Israeli foreign policy has always been "divide and conquer," especially toward the Palestinians. The one thing Israel fears most is a Palestinian nation united behind a single, popular government and set of leaders. If that were to come to pass, the pressure on Israel to negotiate in good faith - to make genuine compromises for peace - would be irresistible. Israeli leaders would rather go on complaining that they have "no partner for peace."
That's why they've studiously ignored Khaled Meshaal's frequently repeated insistence that Hamas, like Fatah, will accept a two-state solution. Israel needs to keep alive the fiction of a radical difference between Hamas and Fatah to justify its continuing militant anti-Hamas drive, which is the sharp edge of the wedge it drives between the two groups.

The hawkish sounds coming from the Israeli defense establishment may be real warning signals of an impending attack. Or they may be just bluff. Either way, they drown out the sounds of moderation and accommodation coming from Hamas. They make it much harder for the Israeli people to see the possibilities for peace and security that are at hand - which must begin with the unification of Hamas and Fatah, an issue that the two Palestinian factions are still constantly discussing.

Israel can promote that unification, leading both sides to accept a two-state solution. Israel can take more steps toward peace by stopping settlement expansion and agreeing to a genuinely independent and viable Palestinian state on all of the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital (as Israel's former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has urged).

For now, though, the signals from Israel sound like they are moving in the other direction, preparing the Israeli public for more conflict, more insecurity and perhaps more useless death in the streets of Gaza.

Though I write about these events from 10,000 miles away, in the safety of Middle America, I'm not at all detached. Nor is any American. Our own government plays a central role in everything that happens in the Middle East. Israeli columnist Bradley Burston, who takes the bellicose talk at face value, recently wrote a piece titled: "Israel's Looming War in Gaza: Can Obama Stop It Before It Starts?" The US government has the power to put the brakes on Israel's military machine, he pointed out, if it wants to badly enough. And only the US government can do it.
Whether the Obama administration wants to stop the next war badly enough depends largely on how it reads the political winds at home. No one of us alone can create a wind shift big enough to shape administration policy. But every one of us can make our voice heard and help determine which way the wind blows.

Jan 1, 2010

Israel Arrests Nuke Whistleblower ... Again

Won't Israel ever get tired of being anti-liberty, anti-peace, and anti-justice? Israel ought to just join the many Arab autocracies in the region, they have much in common. Israel has arrested Mordechai Vanunu yet again. [I would toss in a place to writer letters of support for the man, but Israel won't allow Vanunu to receive them.]

His crime: "Suspicion" of "meeting with foreigners." Vanunu is not allowed to leave Israel or meet with "foreigners", decades after alerting the world that Israel developed nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
*******
by Daniel Ellsberg

Mordechai Vanunu — my friend, my hero, my brother — has again been arrested in Israel on "suspicion" of the "crime" of "meeting with foreigners." I myself have been complicit in this offense, traveling twice to Israel for the express purpose of meeting with him, openly, and expressing support for the actions for which he was imprisoned for over eighteen years. His offense has been to defy openly and repeatedly ,conditions put on his freedom of movement and associations and speech after he had served his full sentence, restrictions on his human rights which were a direct carry-over from the British Mandate, colonial regulations in clear violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Such restrictions have no place in a nation evincing respect for a rule of law and fundamental human rights. His arrest and confinement are outrages and should be ended immediately.

My perspective on Mordechai and his behavior was expressed as well as I could do it today in the following op-ed published in 2004 on the day of his release from prison. I can only say that I would be proud to be known as the American Vanunu: though my own possible sentence of 115 years for revealing state secrets was averted by disclosure of government misconduct against me which pales next to the Israeli misconduct in assaulting, drugging and kidnapping Vanunu in the process of bringing him to trial, let alone the eleven years of solitary confinement he was forced to endure.

*** [Published 4/21/04 in the Los Angeles Times]
Mordechai Vanunu is the preeminent hero of the nuclear era. He consciously risked all he had in life to warn his own country and the world of the true extent of the nuclear danger facing us. And he paid the full price, a burden in many ways worse than death, for his heroic act — for doing exactly what he should have done and what others should be doing.

Vanunu's "crime" was committed in 1986, when he gave the London Sunday Times a series of photos he had taken within the Israeli nuclear weapons facility at Dimona, where he had worked as a technician.

For that act — revealing that his country's program and stockpile were much larger than the CIA or others had estimated — Vanunu was kidnapped from the Rome airport by agents of the Israeli Mossad and secretly transported back for a closed trial in which he was sentenced to 18 years in prison.

He spent the first 11 1/2 years in solitary confinement in a 6-by-9-foot cell, an unprecedented term of solitary under conditions that Amnesty International called "cruel, inhuman and degrading."

Now, after serving his full term, he is due to be released today. But his "unfreedom" is to be continued by restrictions on his movements and his contacts: He cannot leave Israel, he will be confined to a single town, he cannot communicate with foreigners face to face or by phone, fax or e-mail (purely punitive conditions because any classified information that he may have possessed is by now nearly two decades old).

The irony of all this is that no country in the world has a stronger stake than Israel in preventing nuclear proliferation, above all in the Middle East. Yet Israel's secret nuclear policies — to this day it does not acknowledge that it possesses such weapons — are shortsighted and self-destructive. They promote rather than block proliferation by encouraging the country's neighbors to develop their own, comparable weapons.

This will not change without public mobilization and democratic pressure, which in turn demand public awareness and discussion. It was precisely this that Vanunu sought to stimulate.

Not in Israel or in any other case — not that of the U.S., Russia, England, France, China, India or Pakistan — has the decision to become a nuclear weapons state ever been made democratically or even with the knowledge of the full Cabinet. It is likely that in an open discussion not one of these states could convince its own people or the rest of the world that it had a legitimate reason for possessing as many warheads as the several hundred that Israel allegedly has (far beyond any plausible requirement for deterrence).

More Vanunus are urgently needed. That is true not only in Israel but in every nuclear weapons state, declared and undeclared. Can anyone fail to recognize the value to world security of a heroic Pakistani, Indian, Iraqi, Iranian or North Korean Vanunu making comparable revelations?

And the world's need for such secret-telling is not limited to citizens of what nuclear weapons states presumptuously call rogue nations. Every nuclear weapons state has secret policies, aims, programs and plans that contradict its obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the 1995 Declaration of Principles agreed to at the NPT Renewal Conference. Every official with knowledge of these violations could and should consider doing what Vanunu did.

That is what I should have done in the early '60s based on what I knew about the secret nuclear planning and practices of the United States when I consulted at the Defense Department, on loan from the Rand Corp., on problems of nuclear command and control. I drafted the Secretary of Defense Guidance to the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the general nuclear war plans, and the extreme dangers of our practices and plan were apparent to me.

I now feel derelict for wrongfully keeping secret the documents in my safe revealing this catastrophically reckless posture. But I did not then have Vanunu's example to guide me.
When I finally did have an example in front of me — that of young Americans who were choosing to go to prison rather than participate in what I too knew was a hopeless, immoral war — I was inspired in 1971 to turn over a top-secret history of presidential lies about the war in Vietnam to 19 newspapers. I regret only that I didn't do it earlier, before the bombs started falling.

Vanunu should long since have been released from solitary and from prison, not because he has "suffered enough" but because what he did was the correct and courageous thing to do in the face of the foreseeable efforts to silence and punish him.

The outrageous and illegal restrictions proposed to be inflicted on him when he finally steps out of prison after 18 years should be widely protested and rejected, not only because they violate his fundamental human rights but because the world needs to hear this man's voice.

The cult and culture of secrecy in every nuclear weapons state have endangered humanity and continues to threaten its survival. Vanunu's challenge to that wrongful and dangerous secrecy must be joined worldwide.

Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

--Daniel Ellsberg, a former State Department and Defense Department official, released the 'Pentagon Papers' to the press in 1971.

Jun 9, 2009

Israel Obstructs Human Rights Probe

From the Times:

Israel has refused to cooperate, depriving his team access to military sources and victims of Hamas rockets. ... [T]the chief barrier remains the lack of a court with clear jurisdiction to hear any resulting cases stemming from the investigation into Israel's three-week offensive in Gaza which ended in January...

Though the AP report claims to be looking at Hamas as well as Israeli human rights violations, no serious observer sees an equivalence. Israel is the leading terror state in the region.

Jun 6, 2009

Israeli Fascism on the Air

Militarism typically involves an element of racism with its attendant stupidity. At its base, militarism is infantile. On full display below.

Feeling The Hate In Jerusalem on the Eve of Obama’s Speech in Cairo
- Posted by
Max in June 4th 2009
Max Blumenthal writes:

On the eve of President Barack Obama’s address to the Muslim world from Cairo, Egypt, I stepped out onto the streets of Jerusalem with my friend Joseph Dana to interview young Israelis and American Jews about their reaction to the speech. We encountered rowdy groups of beer sodden twenty-somethings, many from the United States, and all eager to vent their visceral, even violent hatred of Barack Obama and his policies towards Israel. Usually I offer a brief commentary on my video reports, but this one requires no comment at all. Quite simply, it contains some of the most shocking footage I have ever filmed. Watch it and see if you agree. (This video was removed from the Huffington Post on the grounds that it had 'no news value' and 'did not move the conversation forward.')

Feeling The Hate In Jerusalem -- The Censored Video from Max Blumenthal on Vimeo.




Jun 5, 2009

Chomsky and Bennis Want Policy Changes

Update: See also AP: Obama's Islam Success Depends On Israel and Arno J. Mayer's The Future of Israel and the Decline of the American Empire.

As President Obama moves on the Middle East these last few weeks, reactions are mixed.

The rightwing is predictably disingenuous. See National Review's Michael Rubin caught writing about Obama without listening to, or reading the speech and Charles Krauthammer.

Words matters, but action counts more.

Noam Chomsky and Phyllis Bennis remind us how far we have to go to inject some humanism in our foreign policy in that region.

Noam Chomsky:

A CNN headline, reporting Obama's plans for his June 4 Cairo address, reads 'Obama looks to reach the soul of the Muslim world.' Perhaps that captures his intent, but more significant is the content hidden in the rhetorical stance, or more accurately, omitted.
Phyllis Bennis:


The reality of power – that the U.S. is still the financial, military, diplomatic and political superpower patron on which Israel depends – was not reflected in the press conference that followed the meeting.

Jun 4, 2009

Obama to Muslims: Assalaamu Alaykum

Update: National Review's Michael Rubin caught writing about Obama's speech without listening to, or reading the speech. Typical Republican. [Via Jonathan Chait, The New Republic)

Sprinkled with allusions and passages from the Bible, Koran and the Torah [with a lot of RFKesque inspirational language), President Obama's address from Cairo, Egypt this morning marked an unprecedented outreach to the world's Muslim populations.

Entitled A New Beginning, the address was an implicit repudiation of the America-Israeli manichaean conception of Islam and the West and its hostile cultural-political stance against Islam.

"I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam," said Obama.

The tone of Obama's speech is being reported as a "sweeping" and "forceful" address that is "perhaps, the riskiest speech of his young presidency (Zeleny and Cooper, NYT)" made during a political milieu in America of widespread xenophobia accelerated during eight years of wars of aggression committed by the Bush administration.

Many of Obama's political opponents during last year's presidential campaign fought his election to the presidency by appealing to American xenophobia and overt racism.
---
A New Beginning

The full text of President Obama's speech at Cairo University via Salon
Jun. 04, 2009

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam –- at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers –- Thomas Jefferson –- kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words –- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores –- that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not –- and never will be –- at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al-Qaida and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al-Qaida killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al-Qaida chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
That's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths –- more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -– it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future –- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction –- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews –- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people –- Muslims and Christians –- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations –- large and small –- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers –- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them –- and all of us –- to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation -– including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments –- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld –- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action –- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity –- men and women –- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations –- including my own –- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek –- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many –- Muslim and non-Muslim –- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -– that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country –- you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort –- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion –- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples –- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."