Israel Works Hard to Stoke the Fires of their Conflict with Palestinians

The Washington Post today (Jan 19, 2016) reported that Israel is destroying homes of relatives of Palestinians who might have been involved in some sort of attack on an Israeli citizen or property.  World Bulletin reported that they are even destroying a family home of a boy who was accused of stabbing an Israeli.  This is clearly a form of "Collective Punishment" which is just another form of terrorism.  The Israeli government, by punishing extended families and neighbors tries to terrorize the Palestinians into compliance with their harsh policies.  All of this is done without fair trials or any reasonable form of just due process.  I'm pretty sure that Israel knows that this won't stop reactions from Palestinians --but probably hopes it will actually make the Palestinian citizens more angry and stir up even more hatred and resentment.  Israel wants the conflict to continue, so they can continue to receive the $1 Billion per year from the US, and financial support from so many other countries.  Israel continues to build more of their settlements on prime Palestinian territory and continues to blockade the Palestinian controlled territories so those people will not have the capability to build a viable economy and government.

During this Syrian refugee crisis, Israel has an opportunity to be a good world citizen.  They could take on Syrian refugees.  They could help refugees come across the border from Syria and help them get on safe boats to get to other countries of refuge.  But it appears they have only provided some assistance to refugees when they arrive at locations like Greek Island of Lesbos.  Instead, they are participating in treatment of Syrian refugees similar to how WW2 Jewish refugees were treated.  

200 Retired Generals Write President and Congress urging NO vote on treaty with Iran

I saw in the news that 200 retired generals are urging congress to vote NO on the treaty with Iran: -- see this link   Here is a link to the content of their letter.  This sounds like "Big News" -- but there are now about 4700 retired generals (see this link) so that only represents a little more than 4% of  the retired US generals, so, from that standpoint, it isn't all that significant.  It is interesting that the Iranians aren't advertising "in favor" of the agreement.  Does our "free press" inhibit those advertisements from appearing?  I'd also like to hear the opinions of the other 4500 retired generals, wouldn't you?
The letter sounded like the Israeli propaganda and paid advertising that Israel and various associated organizations have been pushing, so it is likely that the actual text of the letter was written by a few "pro-Israeli" organizations, or a retired general or two, and then they "arm twisted" the others to become signatories to the letter.
The Los Angeles Times editors this morning had a more reasonable, and well thought out argument in favor of the treaty: See this link  I think I agree with their position, in this case.
I believe the Iran treaty could have put even more constraints on Iran, if we had insisted that Israel undergo the same sort of inspection and controls on their Nuclear and other WMD.  Israel has threatened attacks on Iran many times, and has assassinated Iran's citizens and scientists when out of the country.  Israel has shown aggressive and "first strike" military maneuvers many times throughout their history, so Iran has good reason to feel threatened.  I think if I were an Iranian citizen, that I would certainly want my country to be armed to defend, in some way, against Israel.  If I were in Iran's government, I believe I would try to make sure that my citizens were fully aware of the threats. I remember the "duck and cover" exercises we did in school during the 1950's and 60s in case of a nuclear attack.  Do Iranian citizens do that now?  In hindsight, I doubt if that exercise would have done much to save the lives of children in schools.  However, I'm sure it did a lot to help form public opinion against the Soviet Union, and help justify expenditures of immense amounts of resources in defense.

What Happens if Senate Rejects the Iran Nuclear Treaty?

I saw this Op-Ed by Joseph Cirincione in today's LA Times, and I think I agree with his convincing arguments. What do you think?   I believe the world needs this treaty.  My feeling is reinforced when I see that the "big money" right-wingers are spending millions of dollars on paid advertising against the treaty and distorting the facts. (see this link or this one).  I suspect that Israel or their supporters are behind the paid advertising, using, in some way, some of the billions of dollars that US taxpayers have "donated" to their country.  Meanwhile, Israel maintains their own WMD including nuclear, chemical and possibly biological weapons, and is the only Middle East country who has attacked US naval ships (see this link) and routinely spies on the US (John Pollard, for example). Israel likes to say they are our friend and ally, but never provided any serious support when we needed help in Vietnam, Bosnia, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Why should the US demand inspection of Iran's nuclear processing and weapons, when we don't do the same for Israel's?
Of course Iran should be angry with the US, we have severly mistreated Iran throughout history.  Of course Iran should want nuclear weapons.  All of their neighbors (Pakistan, India, Russia) as well as Israel have them.  Also Israel has assassinated Iranian scientists and their family when traveling outside of Iran (I don't know of any case when Iran has done the same to any Israeli scientists), and Israel launched an unprovoked cyber attack against Iran's nuclear processing industry.  I don't know of any case where Iran has launched any attack of any sort against Israel.  Those were clearly terrorist acts done by Israel, but Israel claims that Iran sponsors "state terrorism"...

$5.4B PLEDGED TO GAZA, HALF FOR REBUILDING | UTSanDiego.com

The Union Tribune says that a lot of countries have pledged an immense amount of money to help rebuild the Gasa strip:

$5.4B PLEDGED TO GAZA, HALF FOR REBUILDING | UTSanDiego.com

However, today's Union Tribune reported that none of the "pledged" money is being "funded" by those donors yet.  The report was made by Tia Goldenberg, who apparently is a reporter/writer for Israeli news organization (so probably can't be trusted to be impartial). See this link: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/81a7db32e60b4b7b89da5af38f6c02ce/palestinian-man-arrested-after-foiled-attack-soldier

  However it is believable.  Why would anyone put up money to rebuild something that will likely get blown up again by the aggressive Israeli's?    In response to the launch of a series of unreliable, inaccurate and somewhat impotent missiles launched by radical factions in Gaza, Israel blew up much of the Palestinian infrastructure (thousands of buildings) and killed a large number (2100) of men, women and children whom they keep trapped in what appears to be a prison camp called the Gaza strip.  Very little damage was done to Israeli property and very few deaths or injuries to its citizens (66 soldiers and 7 deaths according to Tia Goldenberg).

The correct response, in my mind, would have been for Israel to go into Gaza, capture the individuals involved, give them fair and open trials and impose fair and reasonable  punishment when found guilty.  Why must Israel blow up all of the Palestinian's buildings, power plants etc?  That is just crazy!  Why should the Palestinians have to depend upon the charity of other, uninvolved, Arab countries to rebuild?  When the US goes in to a country and blows up everything (which I also think is sometimes too much), we end up paying for the repairs, as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq most recently.  We even helped Germany and Japan rebuild after WWII!  Why shouldn't Israel pay and manage the reconstruction of the Gaza strip?  The US has fully funded Israel's state-sponsored terrorism against their neighbors.  If Israel won't pay for the rebuilding, we should stop sending our money to Israel, and divert it to help the people of Gaza.  Israel and their allies have been paying for advertising on billboards, radio and television to try to convince US citizens that what they have been doing is correct.  I think that is just another example of why we shouldn't be supporting them.



If I were asked to contribute to help Gaza rebuild, I would insist that every building be designed to withstand bombs, and have anti aircraft and anti missile equipment mounted to help defend them from Israel before I would lend them a dime!

The American Studies Association (ASA) says its academic boycott is not discriminating against Israelis. | UTSanDiego.com

It amazes me how "thin skinned" the Israelis are.  Whenever an organization says they aren't going to buy stock in Israeli companies they scream discrimination.  When an organization initiates an "academic boycott" they scream  The American Studies Association (ASA) says its academic boycott is not discriminating against Israelis. | UTSanDiego.com.  When members of the US Government complain about Israel's continuing to build settlements on Palestinian land, they complain loudly and act insulted.  However, on the other side, they have continued to defy the US by building settlements, they have just blown up many Palestinian homes and slaughtered thousands of people calling it "defense".  They say they are a "friend and ally" of the US -- but have not supported the US in any war with troops or weapons, even though the US has bought most of their weapons for them.  I haven't heard of Israel supporting any of our efforts to stop ISIS, even though ISIS is a threat to Israel as well as Iraq.  Also, they are the only Middle East government that has directly attacked US ships, and the only one from whom the US routinely arrests spies.  .

New York Times 2-page ad by John D. Haywood

A two page ad appeared in the New York Times on Sunday, September 21, paid for by a John Haywood who apparently was a candidate for President in 2012.  See this link: http://www.haywoodforpresident.com/. There is also a web site that summarizes his biography and stands on issues: http://votesmart.org/candidate/biography/134878/john-haywood#.VCWVqvndWSo
 I found very little other information about him.  While I like most of his very outspoken positions, it appears to me that he would have difficulty running for any office after expressing these opinions in print. Other on-line pundits believe this one advertisement may have cost him around $100,000.  If I had to guess his mindset, I would say that he is a loyal American, who has serious concerns about how our country is being run.  He probably realizes that he will never get a chance again to implement any of these policies and is "hanging up his spurs."...  However, he wants to use some of his savings to get some of these issues out on the table to get people thinking about them as we approach another election.  I applaud him for sticking his neck out! 

He took firm positions on health care, global warming, income tax reform, US policy on Israel and anti-semitism, recreational drugs, judicial reform, and others. 

I was very surprised to see that I agree with many of the points he presented.  About the only one I completely disagree with is his proposal for a "Hefty Tax on Craig's List."  I get the idea that he is concerned that Craig's List's free advertising has killed the want-ad sections of newspapers, which, in turn is damaging the free press.  The problem is that Craig's list isn't the only place where free or very cheap advertising can be done on the internet.  VRBO, for example has killed off all of the vacation rental advertising in the newspapers.  I was surprised to see his very last proposal was to replace our uranium/plutonium nuclear power reactors with thorium ones.  For decades, I've wondered why the US DOE has not been working on the development of a thorium-based nuclear reactor system.  It would produce much less toxic waste, be safer, not produce weapons-grade materials, and could be lower cost in the long run.  

I also agree with his positions on Israel and calling anyone who disagrees with Israel's policies an anti-semite.  Our country needs to separate opposition to the policies of the Israeli Government, from those of the Jewish religion or people.  

I was surprised that the New York Times didn't seem to allow me to read the advertisement on line without subscribing to the newspaper.  I can see them protecting copyrighted news articles, but I would think their advertisers would want their ads made public.  I was able to copy/paste some of the article from another web site: Campaign Outsider -- I also copy/pasted a blurry photo that was posted on the site of the full two page ad.  Below is the text of the ad:

COMMON SENSE II

BY JOHN HAYWOOD

Efficient Health Care

In a July 13, 2012 interview with Betty Liu of Bloomberg Television, billionaire financier Warren Buffet was asked: “A few weeks ago we heard from the Supreme Court, they upheld the health care reform act, the Affordable Care Act. Was that the right decision?”

Buffet: “Well I think it’s the right decision, but think that the health care problem is the number-one problem of America and of American business. If we have 17 or 18 percent of our GDP going to health care and we’re competing with countries that have 10 percent. That’s seven or eight points. There’s only 100 points in the dollar. And to have a seven- or eight-point disadvantage is huge. And a lot of businessmen complain about corporate taxes….Corporate taxes are less than two percent of GDP. So if you eliminated all the corporate taxes you’ve got seven points against you in health care.”

If the United States adopted Britain’s infinitely more efficient National Health Service (while retaining, as the British have, for-profit care for the 10% that want and can afford it), America’s bill for health care would drop from 17.5% GDP to 9% GDP.

If Helen Thomas Wasn’t Safe, Who Is?

She was the 90-year-old dean of the White House Press Corps. She was also the daughter of Lebanese immigrants. Soon after Mr. Obama’s inauguration Thomas had the audacity to ask him whether any Mideast Country had nuclear weapons. His evasive reply made clear there would be no change in American policy toward Israel.

The following year Thomas was recorded saying the following about the Israelis: “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine; Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land. It’s not Germany, it’s not Poland. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries?” Thomas’s hell was about to begin.

The White House Correspondents’s Assn. publicly called her remarks “Indefensible;” her speaker agency publicly dropped her; her book project publicly terminated; a journalism group’s award named for Thomas publicly “retired;” and a planned commencement speech publicly canceled. Former White House Press secretaries publicly condemned her.

President Obama also went on record, calling her remarks “Offensive.” Her effectiveness as a reporter having come to an end, she resigned her job. On her death in 2012 newspapers across the land reported that she, a Semitic woman, had been an anti-Semite!

Legalize All Drugs, Place Them Under FDA Regulation, Tax Their Sale Moderately, and Treat the Addicts

One hundred years ago, before the first war on drugs began, 3% of Americans were addicted to drugs.

Beginning in 1914 the federal government engaged in a continuing and escalating war on drugs. Each escalation brought more violent crime committed by desperate addicts, more incarcerations, incredible expenditures of taxpayer money, more gang wars, violence in nations producing/transporting the drugs, and monumental profits for criminals.

Yet, today, 100 years later, 3% of Americans remain addicted to drugs. Almost all of them wind up in the clink. Only 11% get treatment even though treatment methods have advanced.

Haywood ran almost a dozen ads in the New Hampshire Sunday News during the 2012 Granite State presidential primary. Which got us to wondering: Is the Times spread a trial balloon for the 2016 race?

Does the term 'apartheid' fit Israel? Of course it does. - Los Angeles Times

In today's LA Times, Saree Makdisi presents a good case why Israel should be described as an apartheid country.  Does the term 'apartheid' fit Israel? Of course it does. - Los Angeles Times:  I thought his argument was reasonable, and was based upon the international legal definitions.

Michael Oren, a previous Israeli ambassador to the US wrote a response to the argument, ( http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-oren-israel-apartheid-20140518-story.html )  which quibbled about the terms involved in the definition of Apartheid.   The overarching argument he presented was that Israel still feels that they are "at war" with the Arabs, and that absolves their treatment of all non-Jews.  During Apartheid, the South African government also felt that they were "at war" with the black majority.  They were trying to defend "their way of life" from the masses of their country.  It isn't clear what the difference is.

During Apartheid in South Africa, the US could have done a lot to stop it.  However our government generally sided with the South African Government.  Israel, and the US helped the Government of South Africa and refused for a long time to support the anti-apartheid movement.  Israel and the US helped provide weapons to South Africa, and the US refused to sign UN documents which defined and condemned Apartheid.

Many people describe Israel as a friend of the US.  But while they accept our billions of dollars in foreign aid, they are the only country in that region who has continually spied on our government, stolen our corporate trade secrets, and  has attacked our military ships.   We ask them to quit building "settlements" and they snub their nose at us.  I wouldn't call that a "friendship" --more like a parasite.  They seem to want to start a war with Iran over nuclear weapons, while they maintain their own -- which is one of the reasons that everyone else in the region feels they need them.  I think we need some "tough love" in dealing with Israel.  I wish the US Jews would see it that way too.  They have made it illegal for US citizens to donate money to any cause but their own.

Yom Kippur, the unnecessary war?

Even back in 1973, I didn't understand why Israel went to war with Egypt.  Now Yigal Kipnis in this article (and his book: 1973: The Road to War) explain that the Yom Kippur war was, in fact, unnecessary, and that peace could have been maintained. Apparently Henry Kissinger was making progress with Anwar Sadat and had a reasonable peace proposal for Golda Meir, who rejected it due to political concerns.
Yom Kippur, the unnecessary war? - latimes.com:
If, in fact, a treaty at that time could have been negotiated, how would history have unfolded in the many decades since?  Would the Palestine problem have been resolved?  Syria been more democratic?  Lebanon would have never self destructed?  Golda Meir's single political decision destroyed immense amounts of infrastructure in Egypt and Israel and resulted in the death of thousands of people.
My question is: why was this fact kept secret for so long?  The answer may be that if the American citizens knew that Israel had an opportunity for peace, but chose, instead to attack Egypt, that it would weaken the US support for the immense amount of foreign aid the US provided (and still provides) to Israel.  Instead, Israel's 6-day war was touted as being a masterful stroke of genius and military skill, when in fact, it was simply won by overwhelming force with the most modern technology.   My guess is that Israel and Israel's supporters will continue to try to downplay this revelation, and most news outlets will either not mention it, or keep it on the back page.
Israel continues to masquerade as a "victim" in the Middle East, while they continue to maintain the most modern of weapons, including nuclear weapons.  Israel argues against any of their neighbors having "weapons of mass destruction" when they probably have more than all of their neighbors combined!
I believe the same sort of thing happened when George W Bush attacked Afghanistan, and Iraq.  Afghanistan was reported to be willing to negotiate a turnover of Al Qaeda operatives to the US, if we would provide some "financial assistance." -- but Bush wanted to start a war to make it look like he was doing something in response to 9/11.  His attack on Iraq also was clearly an impatient response to rumors that Saddam had WMD.   So far, I think the way Obama has handled the Syrian situation makes perfect sense -- if we can extract the chemical weapons without starting a war, we are way ahead.  Yeah, the right-wingers accused him of being "wishy-washy" and indecisive by not attacking Syria, as he threatened to do.  He had to take that heat.  I wish Golda Meir and George W Bush had used better judgment--similar to Obama's. They may have faced criticism from political foes at the time, but waiting to attack was the right thing to do.