Israel's stance
Commy
Posts: 4,984
NOAM CHOMSKY: ...I was just quoting the chief of staff—this is thirty years ago, virtually no Palestinian terrorism in Israel, virtually. He said, “Our policy has been to attack civilians.” And the reason was explained—you know, villages, towns, so on. And it was explained by Abba Eban, the distinguished statesman, who said, “Yes, that’s what we’ve done, and we did it for a good reason. There was a rational prospect that if we attack the civilian population and cause it enough pain, they will press for a,” what he called, “a cessation of hostilities.” That’s a euphemism meaning cessation of resistance against Israel’s takeover of the—moves which were going on at the time to take over the Occupied Territories. So, sure, if they—“We’ll kill enough of them, so that they’ll press for quiet to permit us to continue what we’re doing.”
Actually, you know, Obama today didn’t put it in those words, but the meaning is approximately the same. That’s the meaning of his silence over the core issue of settling and takeover of the Occupied Territories and eliminating the possibility for any Palestinian meaningful independence, omission of this. But Eban [inaudible], who I was quoting, chief of staff, would have also said, you know, “And my heart bleeds for the civilians who are suffering. But what can we do? We have to pursue the rational prospect that if we cause them enough pain, they’ll call off any opposition to our takeover of their lands and resources.” But it was—I mean, I was just quoting it. They said it very frankly. That was thirty years ago, and there’s plenty more beside that. "
He was quoting officials 30 years ago, but its important. At the time there was "virtually no terrorism" from the Palestinians.
Naturally, Israel has a right to defend themselves- but not with force. The British had a right to defend themselves too, from Washington and his armies in 1700...and they did. They left.
Actually, you know, Obama today didn’t put it in those words, but the meaning is approximately the same. That’s the meaning of his silence over the core issue of settling and takeover of the Occupied Territories and eliminating the possibility for any Palestinian meaningful independence, omission of this. But Eban [inaudible], who I was quoting, chief of staff, would have also said, you know, “And my heart bleeds for the civilians who are suffering. But what can we do? We have to pursue the rational prospect that if we cause them enough pain, they’ll call off any opposition to our takeover of their lands and resources.” But it was—I mean, I was just quoting it. They said it very frankly. That was thirty years ago, and there’s plenty more beside that. "
He was quoting officials 30 years ago, but its important. At the time there was "virtually no terrorism" from the Palestinians.
Naturally, Israel has a right to defend themselves- but not with force. The British had a right to defend themselves too, from Washington and his armies in 1700...and they did. They left.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Israelis feel chill as US sets out new ground rules
CAN Israel still call the United States its best friend? Not if you believe the media in Israel.
The increasingly tense dialogue between the US President, Barack Obama, and the new Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has taken on all the trappings of a duel here.
Almost every day brings news of another sore point, blighting the once warm relationship between the two countries.
Anyone could be forgiven for thinking the most immediate threat to national security in Israel lay across the Atlantic. That Mr Obama uses almost every opportunity he gets to set the parameters of a final peace agreement between Israel and Palestine is bad enough.
But now officials in his administration are openly using Israeli anxiety at Iran's nuclear program as a bargaining chip to force its hand on giving up control of the West Bank Palestinian territory.
No less a figure than the White House chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel, was quoted this week laying down the law: if Israel wants US help to defuse the Iranian threat, then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank, he was reported to have told Jewish leaders in Washington.
This from a man whose father fought with a militant Zionist group, the Irgun, and whose appointment had provided such reassurance to Israeli officials.
Talkback radio blazed with fury across the country the same day as Israelis protested that no American official had the right to tell them where they could live. Then on Thursday came the news that Mr Netanyahu's planned first meeting with Mr Obama in Washington next month had been called off.
Mr Netanyahu had hoped to capitalise on his attendance at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington to visit the White House, but Administration officials informed his office that the President would not be "in town".
Sources in Washington added that the Administration would not be continuing the tradition that had developed during the Bush years of hosting Israeli prime ministers whenever they showed up in town, sometimes with just a phone call's notice.
Contrary to initial expectations, Mr Obama has wasted no time becoming fully engaged in the Middle East peace process, despite the magnitude of his domestic political agenda.
While Mr Netanyahu has refused to endorse the principle of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict agreed to by his predecessor, Mr Obama has made it abundantly clear that the US will accept nothing less than Israel living side by side with a sovereign Palestinian state.
Mr Obama is also demanding a freeze on all Jewish settlement expansion in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and has dropped the Bush administration's opposition to Hamas serving in a future Palestinian Authority government.
A prominent Israeli political commentator, Maya Bengal, who writes for the country's second largest selling newspaper Maariv, believes the holiday is over.
"As Passover comes to an end, so comes to an end, it seems, the days of grace granted to the Netanyahu Government by the American Administration," Bengal said.
A Tel Aviv barman, Meir Avraham, 30, recently returned after a trip to Australia, said he could feel the tensions being played out between the US and Israel on the street.
"If we lose America, then we are alone. So we must listen to what America wants," he said. "But really I think this is more about the little brother testing the limits of the big brother than a real conflict between Israel and the US."
An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "We know Obama wants to change the relationship, make it seem less cosy but they also want to protect its special nature. We'll all still be friends."
I know the article is a bit exaggerated for effect but after the previous 8 years.. there is some hope in this.
I read somewhere that Obama had pledged $900 million to rebuild Gaza. I can't find a link anywhere now, but I think the AP reported it.
maybe its business as usual. spend a few billion blowing shit up, spend a few billion rebuilding it. buy stocks in raytheon and haliburton right?
but at least they were going to rebuild it. not sure if its still on the table, was pending congress approval(which it will probably never get), but at least it was a change in policy. $900 for rebuilding AND for the government.
I hope you're right.
Yah the pledge happened during the conference on aid for Gaza. If I remember correctly Clinton was in the middle east and pledged the money on behalf of Obama. Here's a link to it
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/washi ... 4gaza.html
I tell you what he's done more in a couple of months than Bush did in 8 years. I know that doesn't say much considering Bush did absolutely nothing on the issue.. probably even set back any peace deal..
"No less a figure than the White House chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel, was quoted this week laying down the law: if Israel wants US help to defuse the Iranian threat, then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank, he was reported to have told Jewish leaders in Washington.".. This was a shocker for me..
I hope so too. Although I read today that Israel turned the volume up on its war-mongering against Iran in response to the reports from America.