In this video the assembled are railing against one Ahmed Tibi. You can read about him here, here and here. The Israelis have whipped themselves into a feeding frenzy. This video is one of the ways they do that.
Ali Abunimah ran the above photograph and chronicled the response of some Israelis and to read what they wrote was quite disturbing. Look at some of them and tell me whether their suggestions don’t remind you of something that has already happened
Run the tent over with a truck/Merkava tank/a bus/ whatever it takes to crush and kill these children (Rachael Corrie)….
I’d have thrown nerve gas into the tent and closed it and made them breath it until the end…… (Saddam Hussein)
Put a couple of bullets in their heads and we’re done (Adam Lanza)
My point is these people are suggesting things be done that have been done to or by people that we acknowledge as social psychopaths, deviants who have been killed by us or whose death we cheered. If you read Abunimah’s article you’ll find who some of the people who responded are and its scary because many of them have the means and opportunity to do what it is they are suggesting be done.
Ostensibly, Palestinians think they have a right to celebrate because the UN endorsed the idea of an independent Palestine, ‘giving sweeping international backing to their demands for sovereignty over lands Israel occupied in 1967.’ While we’re happy Palestinians have some sense of optimism about that prospect the truth is the present Israeli government as well as the American one have no intentions of honoring that worldwide consensus and have even begun to scuttle it with the announcement of even more settlements in the ‘occupied territories’…..which have now become known as ‘disputed territories’ as if ownership was ever in doubt.
There is no mystery to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict; it is not some complicated, alien entanglement whose answer lies in an esoteric application of laws, resolutions and formulae. The solution boils down to the willingness of an Israeli government to honor international law and UN resolutions or have the international community impose its will upon the Israelis even up to and including the imposition it made upon the likes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. Obviously, the former is preferred.
If you want to know another perspective about this conflict, Miko Peled a veteran of the Israeli Defense Force and son of zionism who recognizes the perils of the Israeli position had an hours long lecture on the topic, an excerpt of which appears below.
…not as long as Israel’s racist zionism is the cornerstone of its relationships with other countries in the world, and especially America. Here’s why. Suppose you are a faithful and conscientious employee for your boss and a client walks into the establishment where you work and upon knowing that your name is John Doe asks your boss not to have you deal with them because of your name and your ethnicity. You have done nothing wrong; your boss has no problems with your work record; you are fully observant of the rules and regulations of your job in every way down to attire and grooming, but it’s just that sticky issue of your name and the color of your skin that irks your boss’ client, and your boss agrees with his rather racist customer that you shouldn’t deal with him and removes you from that task. When you demand to know why it is you were not able to help the rather bigoted client you are further punished by having your salary reduced by 60% and learn that everyone else with your Anglo-saxon like name and complexion has been similarly treated.
That’s what happened to one Mohammed Arafi, pictured below, who worked for the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, DC when an Israeli delegation came into town and stained the Nation’s capital with their discriminatory notions of doing business. In their case, however, they didn’t want to be served by Muslims such as Mr. Arafi and told his employers as much. Of course, Mr. Arafi complained and as a result was even more disciplined by his employer. Surely it must have occurred to the Mandarin that it was breaking the law by acceding to the Israelis’ demands; however, they compounded an already bad situation by citing a national security directive from the State Department that seem to question Mr. Arafi’s security clearance and barred him from being around the Israelis. Evidently the Israeli concern was not that Arafi was a physical danger to them, it was simply that he was Muslim……Arafi had been cleared to work around no less than a former President of the United States, George W. Bush weeks prior to the Israelis coming to town.
As an American citizen, Arafi has a right to legal redress, which he pursued and thankfully it landed in the lap of US District Court judge Barbara J. Rothstein, who didn’t buy the line that Israel and America can discriminate against American citizens because of Israeli racism, nor did she accept the lame excuse that discrimination against Arafi was because of some made up national security issue, saying
the court determines that the national security exemption does not immunize Defendant (Mandarin Hotel) from liability as to Plaintiff’s (Arafi) retaliation claim…….. Drawing all inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the court determines that Plaintiff has successfully alleged that he engaged in protected activity when he complained of discrimination…… the court determines that Plaintiff’s complaint advances sufficient facts to support his racial discrimination claim.
What’s troubling is that a foreign country’s delegation can insist that an American institution break American law to serve the interests of that foreign power, and what’s frightening is that many are all to willing to do so. However this has become a pattern in US/Israel relations, where the US, a pluralistic society is asked to give up a lot more than a racialist society like Israel in order to maintain relationships across a broad spectrum of activity. Israel has a history of a blatant disregard for the human rights of Arabs and Muslims within its ever expanding borders and has brought that legacy to the shores of America where the likes of Mohamed Arafi are its victims. Luckily for him and us, there are still some in American institutions, like Judge Rothstein pictured above, who believe in the ideals of racial equality that are the antithesis of the Israeli model. Whether Arafi will be successful in his law suit against his employer is not final yet and the ruling by judge Rothstein admittedly is both for and against the plaintiff but it’s a powerful statement to make that racism will not be imposed in the American workplace even by such a strident “ally” as Israel.
Yes, I know they have their own problems, the Egyptians do, with their special brand of democracy and their nose planted firmly in the behind of an American foreign policy which allows for renditions of Muslims from all over the world to their bases to be tortured or disappeared, but it was all in the interest of American interests, right? But now, they have taken a somewhat independent track by their pronouncement that Israeli nukes are a greater threat to security in the region than Iranian ones. In my mind that’s not really saying much since at the moment Iran doesn’t have any nuclear weapons whereas Israel does, but it’s the symbolism that counts, and it’s significant for obvious reasons. A state has taken a critical position against Israel at a time when the Jewish state refuses to accept, acknowledge or even entertain criticism of its actions. There’s no indication the Egyptian statement will be met with anything other than typical Israeli obfuscation and bluster.Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmo’s flippant ‘unless he produces evidence to support his claims’ statement is an indication of that. Would that someone said to Palmo the same when he asserts so vividly that Iran has nuclear weapons it has threatened its neighbors with. (Let’s not forget, Iran has inspectors monitoring its nuclear program, Israel doesn’t. Fancy that.) And all this comes on the news that Israel had a practice run from its border to Gilbraltar in preparation for a strike against Europe…..err make that Iran. Coming so soon after warning the European Union that it would not tolerate criticism of the new government, the flight path of Israeli warplanes practicing for a strike against a country 180 degrees in the other direction clearly is meant to send more than a few signs. In light of that, Egypt was right to say what it said. The “evidence” is rather overwhelming; what’s unfortunate is Egypt lacks the moral authority to make that call; it surrendered it as did the US when it gave in to the dark side of US foreign policy and embraced torture as its rule of law. Unencumbered by such moral indignation, Israel feels free to do whatever it pleases and is taking the world perilously close to another war of death and destruction. Why we continue to embrace an ally who takes us down that path is anyone’s guess.
The bit of news that the Palestinian doctor, Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, who was treating Palestinians and Israelis during the Gaza war has had his name submitted for the Nobel Peace prize is both foul and obscene. It is nothing more than a payoff some people somewhere suggest he receive for the public anguish and humiliation he has had to face at the hands of an indifferent, and scornful Israeli government. I’m sure you all remember the story of this doctor who was informed on Israeli tv live that his daughters had been killed by the IDF. He wasn’t received very well by Israelis who took offense at his suggestion there be peace between Israelis and Palestinians either, so how is it his name was arrived at as a candidate for this prize; why would he even accept it? Nothing he does will bring back his daughters; however, there is something that can prevent his tragedy from being repeated and it’s not anything of his own doing. Israel recognize the territorial sovereignty of its Palestinian neighbors and remove their armed forces from the occupied territories. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish has done enough. Well he could do one thing more and that is come to Washington and convince the current administration to have the chutzpah to just say no to Israeli demands for illegal settlements with US dollars. Or better yet, ask the US government to repudiate the current Israeli leadership that harbors a terrorist as its foreign minister; or perhaps just call for an economic boycott of Israel until it ends its occupation of Palestinian territory. Anything less than that makes the Nobel Peace Prize a cheap trophy to hang up on the mantle Dr. Abu al-Aish has in his tent in some refugee camp.
The Israelis are continuing to pound the defenseless population of Gaza and there’s little hope that will stop short of any international intervention. The reasons for the continued attacks are the operation that left one Israeli soldier dead earlier this week, when a mine or IED went off killing him and wounding others. It’s significant to point out that Hamas did NOT claim responsibility for this breach of the truce, but that wasn’t enough to stop the Israelis from keeping the borders closed and bombing southern Gaza for this latest breach. Moreover another added benefit of this return to hostilities is Israel gets to implore the mantra of being a victim and or self righteous indignation at those who question their retaliation in order to keep headlines such as these off the main pages of newspapers.
The Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded. The rescue team found four small children next to their dead mothers in one of the houses. They were too weak to stand up on their own. One man was also found alive, too weak to stand up. In all there were at least 12 corpses lying on mattresses.
However, all that is not enough to obscure the reality of what Israel has done and is now doing. In a very well written essay by Norman Finkelstein entitled, Foiling Another Palestinian “Peace Initiative”, the reasons and motivations for the continuing violence against the Palestinians is laid out in rather stark detail with quite alot of foresight into what is driving the Israelis.
The fundamental motives behind the latest Israeli attack on Gaza lie elsewhere: (1) in the need to restore Israel’s “deterrence capacity,” and (2) in the threat posed by a new Palestinian “peace offensive.”
Israel’s “larger concern” in the current offensive, New York Times Middle East correspondent Ethan Bronner reported, quoting Israeli sources, was to “re-establish Israeli deterrence,” because “its enemies are less afraid of it than they once were, or should be.”
As Israel targeted schools, mosques, hospitals, ambulances, and U.N. sanctuaries, as it slaughtered and incinerated Gaza’s defenseless civilian population (one-third of the 1,200 reported casualties were children), Israeli commentators gloated that “Gaza is to Lebanon as the second sitting for an exam is to the first—a second chance to get it right,” and that this time around Israel had “hurled [Gaza] back,” not 20 years as it promised to do in Lebanon, but “into the 1940s.
Electricity is available only for a few hours a day”; that “Israel regained its deterrence capabilities” because “the war in Gaza has compensated for the shortcomings of the  Second Lebanon War”; and that “There is no doubt that Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is upset these days….There will no longer be anyone in the Arab world who can claim that Israel is weak.”
The justification put forth… in the pages of the Times for targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure amounted to apologetics for state terrorism. It might be recalled that although Hitler had stripped Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher of all his political power by 1940, and his newspaper Der St?rmer had a circulation of only some 15,000 during the war, the International Tribunal at Nuremberg nonetheless sentenced him to death for his murderous incitement.
Beyond restoring its deterrence capacity, Israel’s main goal in the Gaza slaughter was to fend off the latest threat posed by Palestinian moderation. For the past three decades the international community has consistently supported a settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict that calls for two states based on a full Israeli withdrawal to its June 1967 border, and a “just resolution” of the refugee question based on the right of return and compensation. The vote on the annual U.N. General Assembly resolution, “Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine,” supporting these terms for resolving the conflict in 2008 was 164 in favor, 7 against (Israel, United States, Australia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau), and 3 abstentions. At the regional level the Arab League in March 2002 unanimously put forth a peace initiative on this basis, which it has subsequently reaffirmed.
Hamas was “careful to maintain the ceasefire” it entered into with Israel in June 2008, according to an official Israeli publication, despite Israel’s reneging on the crucial component of the truce that it ease the economic siege of Gaza. “The lull was sporadically violated by rocket and mortar shell fire, carried out by rogue terrorist organizations,” the source continues. “At the same time, the [Hamas] movement tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement on the other terrorist organizations and to prevent them from violating it.” Moreover, Hamas was “interested in renewing the relative calm with Israel” (Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin).
The Islamic movement could thus be trusted to stand by its word, making it a credible negotiating partner, while its apparent ability to extract concessions from Israel, unlike the hapless Palestinian Authority doing Israel’s bidding but getting no returns, enhanced Hamas’s stature among Palestinians. For Israel these developments constituted a veritable disaster. It could no longer justify shunning Hamas, and it would be only a matter of time before international pressure in particular from the Europeans would be exerted on it to negotiate. The prospect of an incoming U.S. administration negotiating with Iran and Hamas, and moving closer to the international consensus for settling the Israel-Palestine conflict, which some U.S. policymakers now advocate, would have further highlighted Israel’s intransigence. In an alternative scenario, speculated on by Nasrallah, the incoming American administration plans to convene an international peace conference of “Americans, Israelis, Europeans and so-called Arab moderates” to impose a settlement. The one obstacle is “Palestinian resistance and the Hamas government in Gaza,” and “getting rid of this stumbling block is…the true goal of the war.”
In either case, Israel needed to provoke Hamas into breaking the truce, and then radicalize or destroy it, thereby eliminating it as a legitimate negotiating partner. It is not the first time Israel confronted such a diabolical threat—an Arab League peace initiative, Palestinian support for a two-state settlement and a Palestinian ceasefire—and not the first time it embarked on provocation and war to overcome it.
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni stated in early December 2008 that although Israel wanted to create a temporary period of calm with Hamas, an extended truce “harms the Israeli strategic goal, empowers Hamas, and gives the impression that Israel recognizes the movement.” Translation: a protracted ceasefire that enhanced Hamas’s credibility would have undermined Israel’s strategic goal of retaining control of the West Bank. As far back as March 2007 Israel had decided on attacking Hamas, and only negotiated the June truce because “the Israeli army needed time to prepare.” Once all the pieces were in place, Israel only lacked a pretext. On 4 November, while the American media were riveted on election day, Israel broke the ceasefire by killing seven Palestinian militants, on the flimsy excuse that Hamas was digging a tunnel to abduct Israeli soldiers, and knowing full well that its operation would provoke Hamas into hitting back. “Last week’s ‘ticking tunnel,’ dug ostensibly to facilitate the abduction of Israeli soldiers,” Haaretz reported in mid-November was not a clear and present danger: Its existence was always known and its use could have been prevented on the Israeli side, or at least the soldiers stationed beside it removed from harm’s way. It is impossible to claim that those who decided to blow up the tunnel were simply being thoughtless. The military establishment was aware of the immediate implications of the measure, as well as of the fact that the policy of “controlled entry” into a narrow area of the Strip leads to the same place: an end to the lull. That is policy—not a tactical decision by a commander on the ground.
After Hamas predictably resumed its rocket attacks “[i]n retaliation” (Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center), Israel could embark on yet another murderous invasion in order to foil yet another Palestinian peace offensive.
The historical context of this conflict is illuminating; that Israel repeatedly has foiled every attempt at peace with its neighbors the Palestinians is clear today, despite the elaborate claims and provocations to the contrary. It’s for this reason I have chided the present Obama administration by saying this handwriting is on the wall; unless a strong Western government says to the Israelis it won’t fall for or accept their spin in the face of repeated attempts by the Palestinians towards peace Israel must face being outed for the pariah it really is…if such an unequivocal statement isn’t made, Israeli genocide and atrocities against the Palestinians will continue and even escalate. The present escalation of the conflict is a clear example.
“I keep the children away from the windows because the F-16s are in the air; I forbid them to play below because it’s dangerous. They’re bombing us from the sea and from the east, they’re bombing us from the air. When the telephone works, people tell us about relatives or friends who were killed. My wife cries all the time. At night she hugs the children and cries. It’s cold and the windows are open; there’s fire and smoke in open areas; at home there’s no water, no electricity, no heating gas. And you [the Israelis] say there’s no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Tell me, are you normal?”
The answer to the question is no. Israel is on a blood lust; driven by their thirst to spread death and destruction, no one is spared. Is it any wonder there are some who may think Israeli Jews come from monkeys and pigs?