what's going on? support your president.

From J-Street.

To thunderous applause last night, Newt Gingrich attacked President Barack Obama's policies in the Middle East, promoted military action against Iran, and assailed diplomatic engagement as weakness at AIPAC's conference. [1]

Just before he went on stage, Gingrich told The Jerusalem Post that the President's policy with Israel and Iran was a "fantasy" and that Obama was "endangering Israel" by trying to work toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [2]

Is this some kind of bad horror movie? Just when we thought the 2008 election had finally discredited the disastrous foreign policy of George Bush and Dick Cheney, Gingrich spouts the same old failed ideas in primetime and thinks it's good politics.

We need to fight back right now -- political pundits and journalists might think that Gingrich and those who applauded his remarks speak for the majority of American friends of Israel, when they certainly don't speak for you and me. Congress may consider supporting Gingrich's recycled Bush-Cheney views, which would be a disaster for Israel and the United States.

We've got to make it crystal clear that the majority of our community stands with President Obama on Israel and Iran - so Congress and the media see how politically toxic and substantively wrong Gingrich's views really are.

Click here to defend President Obama from Newt Gingrich's attacks.

We'll use the tens of thousands of signatures we collect to talk to the media about how out of the mainstream Gingrich and his views are - so make sure you add your signature.

On the politics, Newt's got it wrong.

78% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama and over 70% of American Jews support President Obama's policies toward Israel and the Middle East. [3] Gingrich's views represent a small, though politically outspoken, minority of the Jewish community.

On substance, Newt's also dead wrong.

Pursuing a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the single most pro-Israel thing President Obama could do right now. It's the only way to secure Israel as a Jewish, democratic homeland, as well as a building block of regional peace efforts that would normalize relations between all Arab countries and Israel.

On Iran, the President is promoting tough, direct diplomacy to address concerns over their nuclear program, support for Hamas and Hezbollah, and threats against Israel. The President has made clear that the diplomatic road ahead will be tough and that we will not be bound by any illusions. This is the right approach for the time being - and a welcome change after the last President's Axis-of-Evil approach that got us nowhere.

The politics of this moment are incredibly important - imagine if we can collect tens of thousands of signatures from our community rejecting Newt Gingrich's attacks on Obama. Next time someone wants to attack President Obama on Israel and the Middle East, they'll think twice.

Click here to stand up for President Obama's Middle East agenda.

After you've taken action, be sure to spread the word to your friends and family. We'll need to expand our reach if we're going to send a loud enough message that Newt doesn't speak for us.

Thanks so much.

- Isaac

Isaac Luria
Campaigns Director
J Street
May 4, 2009

[1] "Gingrich: remove Iranian regime," by Ron Kampeas. Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 3, 2009.

[2] "Gingrich: 'Obama endangering Israel'," by Hilary Leila Krieger. The Jerusalem Post, May 3, 2009.

[3] "J Street Releases New Poll of American Jewish Community." March 2009.

J Street is the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.

the undemocratic stance of the democrats

...yet another indication of the Democratic majority's lack of concern for human rights. [More than] A few paragraphs taken from a Huffington Post report on the 2009 Omnibus Budget Bill in the United States. The complete article does not solely deal with Israel and Palestine, but a fair bit of it does and that is what I have chosen to feature. The emphasis below are mine (apart from headings).

Sabotaging a Palestinian Unity Government

As European governments and others, recognizing that some kind of government of national unity between Fatah and the more moderate elements of Hamas is necessary for the peace process to move forward, Pelosi and her colleagues are attempting to sabotage such efforts. This year's appropriations bill prohibits any support for "any power-sharing government" in Palestine "of which Hamas is a member," unless Hamas unilaterally agrees to "recognize Israel, renounce violence, disarm, and accept prior agreements, including the Roadmap."

By contrast, there are no such provisions restricting the billions of dollars of aid to the emerging coalition government in Israel, which includes far right parties that have likewise refused to recognize Palestine, renounce violence, support the disarming of allied settler militias, or accept prior agreements, including the roadmap.

In short, to Pelosi and other Democratic congressional leaders, Palestinians simply do not have equal rights to Israelis in terms of statehood, security, or international obligations. The Democrats are willing to sabotage any Palestinian government that dares include — even as a minority in a broad coalition —any hard-line anti-Israeli party, yet they have no problems whatsoever in pouring billions of taxpayer dollars into supporting an Israeli government dominated by hard-line anti-Palestinian parties.

There's a word for such double-standards: racism.

Other Anti-Palestinian Provisions

Migration and refugee assistance are other areas where the anti-Palestinian bias of Pelosi and other Democratic leaders becomes apparent. There are dozens of countries in which the United Nations, assisted in part through U.S. aid, is involved in relief operations, including those dealing with Rwandans, Kurds, Congolese, Afghans, Iraqis, Somalis, and other refugee populations from which terrorist groups operate or have operated in the recent past. However, Pelosi and the Democratic leadership have determined that it's among Palestinian refugees alone that the State Department is required to work with the UN and host governments "to develop a strategy for identifying individuals known to have engaged in terrorist activities."

Pelosi's bill stipulates that not less than $30 million in funds for migration and refugee assistance should be made available for refugee resettlement in Israel. None of the other 192 recognized states in the world are specifically earmarked to receive this kind of funding, which is normally made available on assessment of humanitarian need. In recent years, successive Israeli governments have encouraged immigrants to live in subsidized Jewish-only settlements, illegally constructed on confiscated land in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights, in violation of a series of UN Security Council resolutions and a landmark advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. The inclusion of this funding is widely interpreted as an effort by Pelosi and other Democratic lawmakers to encourage further Israeli colonization in occupied Palestinian and Syrian territory so as to decrease the likelihood of a peace settlement.

Only $75 million in aid is allocated to the West Bank and none of it is allocated to the Palestinian Authority itself. In contrast, annual U.S. economic assistance to Israel (which doesn't include the billions in military aid) goes directly to the Israeli government and has usually totaled more than 15 times that amount, even though the per-capita income of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is less than one-twentieth that of Israeli Jews.

Pelosi's bill contains lengthy and detailed conditions and restrictions on programs in the West Bank, with extensive vetting, reporting, and auditing requirements required for no other place in the world. This year's bill adds requirements that all funds are subjected to the regular notification procedures, also an unprecedented requirement. There are also a number of other stipulations not found for any other nations, such as the provision banning any assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation .

Despite all the additional administrative costs such restrictions require, the bill caps administrative expenses at $2 million; no such limitations exist involving aid to any other nation.

The Democrats' goal appears to be to make it all the more difficult for Palestinians — already suffering under U.S.-backed Israeli sieges — to meet even their most basic needs for health care, education, housing, and economic development.

One target of Pelosi and other Democratic leaders is the Palestinians' desire to regain the Arab-populated sections of East Jerusalem, which have been under Israeli military occupation since 1967. In addition to its religious significance for both Palestinian Christians and Palestinian Muslims, Jerusalem has long been the most important cultural, commercial, political, and educational center for Palestinians and has the largest Palestinian population of any city in the world. Given the city's significance to both populations, any sustainable peace agreement would need to recognize Jerusalem as the capital city for both Israel and Palestine.

In an apparent effort to delegitimize any Palestinian claims to their occupied capital, however, Pelosi's bill prohibits any "meetings between officers and employees of the United States and officials of the Palestinian Authority, or any successor Palestinian governing entity" in Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem "for the purpose of conducting official United States Government business with such authority." Even if the Israelis do agree to end their occupation of Arab East Jerusalem, Pelosi and the Democrats have inserted language that no funds could be used to create any new U.S. government offices in Jerusalem that would interact with the Palestinian Authority or any successor Palestinian government entity

But wait, there is some good news:

Most significant is a provision banning nearly all cluster-bomb exports to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries, an initiative which had been defeated during the last session of Congress thanks to near-unanimous Republican opposition, as well as negative votes from such leading Democratic senators as Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Obama — who, in contrast, voted in favor of the resolution — apparently helped to insure the inclusion of this provision in the bill, which has been applauded by human rights groups. [My note: Israel used cluster bombs in the war on Gaza; Australia signed a convention banning their use in late 2008]

Meanwhile, a number of additional anti-Palestinian amendments introduced from the floor by Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) were voted down after vigorous lobbying by Americans for Peace Now and other liberal groups.[Yaaay! - me]

Conclusion (there is a lot more in the article)- I feel the last clause of the last sentence is the most pertinent:

It will be President Obama, and not the Democratic-controlled Congress, who will ultimately determine the direction of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere in the coming years. Unfortunately, even assuming the best of intentions by a president who came to office in large part due to popular dissatisfaction with the direction of U.S. policy in the region, he won't be able to fundamentally change the direction of that policy if Congress continues to pursue policies supporting militarization, occupation, and repression. Read more: The Budget's Foreign Policy Handcuffs.

a chilling effect on discourse

An Israeli perspective on the withdrawal of the Obama selected Chas Freeman, who was appointed to chair the National Intelligence Council. From The Jewish World in Ha'aretz: The pro-Israel lobby - 'alive, well, and bipartisan?'

Tobin, speaking at a March 15 panel discussion at Queens College, said the lobby's show of force made clear that Obama will not "fall on his sword" to defend appointees perceived as anti-Israel. He said it also suggested that Obama would not spend political capital on fighting with incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Walt agreed. "The worst aspect of the Freeman affair is the likelihood of a chilling effect on discourse in Washington, at precisely the time when we badly need a more open and wide-ranging discussion of our Middle East policy," he blogged at foreignpolicy.com.

Rosen, who is now awaiting trial on charges of communicating national security information, and at the same time is suing his former bosses at AIPAC for more than $20 million, stressed that the lobby could not have succeeded in blocking Freeman if similar attitudes did not already exist in Congress.

"I was taught that AIPAC cannot do anything against the will of its friends in Congress," Rosen said, referring to his 23-year experience with the organization.

Critics respond that through their donations to congressional campaigns, organized Jewish contributors and a network of pro-Israel political action committees do much to help shape that will.Read more.

___________________________________________________________

Also, from In Gaza, very harrowing, but necessary read, on the deliberate targeting of rescue workers amongst other things, during the war on Gaza. She mentions that if a country or an army does something enough, it becomes accepted, other countries adopt it, people are desensitised. Australian politician, Julia Irwin also talked about this side-effect of letting Israel do whatever it wants. This is the first time Israel has attacked Gaza with such force, but it is not the first time it has deployed similar methods in various wars and incursions. Targeting of the rescue workers also reported in Ha'aretz.

we ought to know a good deal

The Huffington Post talks about the Internationals (in particular, the American ones) who risk their lives in the occupied Palestinian Territories:

What drives these Americans to risk their lives against Israeli soldiers on behalf of a subject people half the world away? The answer is a passion for justice, and a commitment to civil rights. Why should any of this be of interest to Americans? For a general reason and a particular one. The general: this is a passion and a commitment that we Americans at our best have been supposed to share; it is the largest single reason we have received the admiration of other people around the world. The particular reason is as obvious but more immediate. Barack Obama, our first black president, and a man who has identified himself as a beneficiary and successor of the tradition of Martin Luther King, has promised $30 billion of military aid to Israel over the next ten years -- with no conditions, no budget-items specified, no limitations spoken of. Barack Obama is known to be a moderate politician, and so we may deduce that the moderate plan, with Israel, is to keep increasing the leviathan-bulk of the American subsidy and not to ask questions.

We ought to know a good deal about a country to which we give such large continuous donations. But Americans who care for public discussion of this subject are obliged to conduct it ourselves, since, if recent history is a guide, we will get no help from the leading American newspapers. Even the appointment today of Avigdor Lieberman, an avowed racist and a believer in the feasibility of the expulsion of all Palestinians, as foreign minister in the new Israeli government under Binyamin Netanyahu -- even this predicted and extraordinary news is not likely to provoke the New York Times or the Washington Post to report with honesty who this Lieberman is, and what he signifies. Nor will the Obama administration do it. They will be as hesitant and mixed and occasionally contradictory in their signals on Israel as they have been on many other subjects; more so, because in this case an organized body of censors and guardians attends to the reputation and support of Israel in the U.S. Let us nonetheless open the discussion by admitting that the Israel we think we know is the Israel of books written sixty and forty years ago, and of movies made from those books.

I first found reference to this article at Mondoweiss.

Note, April 3rd: This 2003 article The Brian Avery shooting: When will we realise that there can't be this many "accidents"?, is worth reading.

hypocrisy comes with an annual three billion U.S. dollar price tag

The U.S. supported the war on Gaza by Israel. It provided Israel with most of its weapons. In fact, Chomsky reports that

on December 31, while terrorized Gazans were desperately seeking shelter from the ruthless assault, Washington hired a German merchant ship to transport from Greece to Israel a huge shipment, 3000 tons, of unidentified "ammunition." The new shipment "follows the hiring of a commercial ship to carry a much larger consignment of ordnance in December from the United States to Israel ahead of air strikes in the Gaza Strip," Reuters reported.

The shipment may not have made it to Israel in time to be used on Gazans, particularly as the Greeks did not want to participate in supplying Israel with weapons, but it will be used, don't worry, sooner or later.

The U.S. failed to condemn the slaughter of 1300 people, including many children, many women, many sick, many old, many civilians. It failed to condemn the fact that civilians had nowhere to flee and they were not able to flee anywhere, due to Gaza being walled in and its borders being closed due to Israeli insistence. It stymied United Nations attempts to pass resolutions to bring about ceasefires, and to initiate possible action. Through this silence, obstruction, the green light that Bush provided, and Obama's silence, it condoned the destruction of Gazan infrastructure and all the above and more. Yet, Hillary Clinton has told:

Abbas that Congress will not approve funding of a Palestinian government that does not recognize Israel's right to exist and renounce violence. She added that if those requirements are not met the U.S.-funded program under the supervision of General Keith Dayton training PA security forces would be the first to be axed.

Considering the fact that the U.S. funded program that trains the PA security forces was probably responsible for the attempted overthrow of Hamas in 2006 (where Hamas, even though democratically elected, are purported to have "violently wrested control" of Gaza from Fatah), and that Fatah are considered corrupt and are not necessarily popular with the people, the suspension of U.S. training of PA security forces might be a good thing. However, Clinton says that that scheme would be the first to be axed.

Under Bush, Chomsky states:

more than $21 billion in U.S. military aid [was] provided . . . to Israel, almost all grants. "Israel's intervention in the Gaza Strip has been fueled largely by U.S. supplied weapons paid for with U.S. tax dollars," said a briefing by the New America Foundation, which monitors the arms trade.

Those arms are not just used on Gazans, but on all Palestinians. I wonder if Clinton will restrict the annual three billion dollars in aid that Israel receives unless Israel recognises the Gazan government (Hamas), and unless Israel relinquishes violence. And it is a very violent state. It seems unlikely that the U.S. could even consider this. It does not seem that it has one iota of interest in peace in this region, and it seems it will have to be the rest of the world, such as the Europeans, who at least have some discourse on the topic, and indeed, many Israelis, who have fled the country, or who are working with peace groups within, who might have a chance of bringing any chance of peace or justice. There are many people in the Arab countries who are sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians, too, but their governments do not necessarily share the same views.

Reagan tried to stave off actions against South Africa's apartheid government, but he was eventually overridden. Hopefully that will ultimately be the case in this situation too. The rest of the world will, little bit by little bit, act, and maybe, if the U.S. can get away from the powerful influence of the lobby, it might be able to act, too, or then again, it might lose one of its best customers for arms.

Remember what Israeli peace activist, Jeffery Halper, said yesterday? It still holds true today:

I mean you know, James Baker called the Palestinian conflict the epicentre of instability in the entire Middle East and if you want to stabilise the Middle East, it you want to deal with Islamic fundamentalism, if you want to deal with Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Arab regimes that are teetering today, you’ve got to deal with the Palestine issue because this is around Jerusalem, which is tremendously important for Muslims, and the idea that Israel is Judaising Israel, which Israel says it is doing, is really something that’s creating a theological conflict that’s going to be very dangerous.

But in addition to that, I think the idea that this is an American-western occupation in which an Arab people is being suppressed and oppressed by a western country and Israel’s not even seen as the main actor. I think most Muslims see this as an American occupation, not an Israeli occupation. I think the west has to understand that the west is not going to get on to business as usual and stabilise the Middle East and the whole global system as long as this conflict continues.