HRW: Israel Failed to Probe War Crimes

Perhaps they took lessons from Bush and the GOP.

Human Rights Watch said on Sunday that Israel has failed to properly investigate alleged crimes committed during last winter's devastating Gaza war as demanded by the United Nations.

"Israel claims it is conducting credible and impartial investigations, but it has so far failed to make that case," said Joe Stork, HRW's New York-based group's deputy director for the Middle East.

"An independent investigation is crucial to understand why so many civilians died and to bring justice for the victims of unlawful attacks," Stork said in a statement.

About 1,400 Palestinians were killed during the 22-day onslaught launched by Israel on December 27, 2008, aimed at halting rocket attacks from the Islamist Hamas-ruled enclave. Thirteen Israelis were killed in the fighting.

The UN General Assembly in November called on Israel and Palestinian armed groups to investigate alleged war crimes detailed in a UN report by the respected former international war crimes prosecutor Richard Goldstone.

But UN chief Ban Ki-moon said on Thursday that he had not yet determined whether both sides had adequately probed the accusations.

Last Friday, the UN chief received a 46-page report from Israel in which it denied violating international law but admitted "tragic results" due to the "complexity and scale" of fighting in heavily populated areas.

In his report, Ban highlighted Israel's assertion that two of its senior officers -- a brigadier general and a colonel -- were disciplined for the firing of white phosphorous shells toward a UN compound during the war.

Also on Friday, the UN secretary general was handed a preliminary report from the Palestinian side in which it said a commission had been set up to look into allegations that Palestinian militants committed war crimes.

Hamas also carried out an investigation into the conflict, and has previously absolved its fighters of any wrongdoing, saying they did not deliberately target civilians.

HRW has rejected Hamas's claims, saying that most of the rockets fired during the war hit civilian areas. "Civilians were the target," the group said, and "deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime."… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

I readily acknowledge that war crimes were committed on both sides, so I’m not placing all the blame on Israel.  However, we need to consider the scale of the atrocities here.  Palestinian rockets have killed just a few Israelis.  Without minimizing the tragic loss to the families involved, it does not begin to compare with the 1,400 Palestinians killed.  The use of white phosphorous against civilians is particularly heinous.  I could give a dry description of that horror weapon, but I’ll leave it to one of our Vietnam Vets, who have seen it in action, to give a first hand description in a comment.

A full, independent investigation into war crimes needs to be conducted.  I call on the US to stop covering for Israel’s crimes through the use of our veto in the UN Security Council.

Israeli Officers Fear Prosecution

Could it be because they know they are guilty?

A group of Israeli military officers called off an official visit to Britain last week, fearing they could face possible arrest on war crimes charges, officials said Tuesday.

The four unidentified officers, holding ranks from major to colonel, are the latest in a string of Israeli politicians and military officials to be forced to call off travel to Britain because of fear of legal prosecution.

Britain is one of the European pioneers of universal jurisdiction, a broad legal concept that empowers judges to issue arrest warrants for nearly any visitor accused of committing war crimes anywhere in the world.

Pro-Palestinian activists have sought to use this concept to press charges against Israelis involved in military operations in Palestinian territories, particularly since last year's Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip. British officials have vowed to change the law, which has severely strained relations with Israel.

The Israeli delegation had been invited to visit by the British army. But officials said they were forced to call off the trip after their British counterparts could not guarantee that they would not be arrested.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the matter has become a sore point in relations with Britain. Neither the Israeli military nor the British government would comment.

Tuesday's announcement came as Britain's attorney general, Patricia Janet Scotland, was in Israel on a private visit. Scotland was scheduled to deliver a lecture at an Israeli university later Tuesday, though it was not clear if she would address the war crimes issue.

The British government has pledged to reform its war crimes law so its judges could no longer issue secret arrest warrants against Israeli officials or military officers. But no change has yet been put into effect... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

If we were talking about common soldiers, I would consider it inappropriate to arrest them.  All to often, enlisted personnel have been singled out to serve as scapegoats for the war crimes of their superiors.  Majors and colonels, however, are high enough in the military food chain that  they should have known better.

Frankly, the British law is fine, just the way it is.  Why should Israel get a special exemption?

On a practical note, I wish Britain would issue a special invitation to arrest Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Gonzales, Yoo and a few more.

No Freedom for Israeli Whistleblower

Nobody has questioned that Israel has nuclear weapons for decades, making the following article particularly offensive.

Mordechai Vanunu, who served 18 years in prison after he revealed Israel's secret nuclear program, has been placed under house arrest pending criminal charges for allegedly breaching the terms of his 2004 release, which includes a ban on contacts with foreigners.

A police spokesman, Micky Rosenfeld, said Vanunu was accused of meeting with "a number of foreigners". The spokesman, however, did not specify who the foreigners were or where they came from.Vanunu's lawyer, Avigdor Feldman, said his client had been arrested because his romantic attachment to an unnamed Norwegian woman had come to the attention of the authorities.

"Vanunu was arrested [for] a relationship between a man and a woman, with a Norwegian citizen," he told Reuters. "He is not being accused of giving any secrets. She is not interested in nuclear business - she's interested in Mordechai Vanunu [and he] is probably interested in her."

The woman has reportedly been interrogated by police but has not been charged with any offence.

Vanunu has fallen foul of the no-foreigners rule before. In 2007, he was sentenced to six months in jail for talking to non-Israelis.

Vanunu, a former technician at Israel's Dimona nuclear plant, was first jailed in 1986 after he passed on information about Israel's nuclear program to the Sunday Times. The Israeli authorities argue that he may have kept back some information which could still be of use to a hostile foreign power.

His dilemma is compounded by the fact that most Israelis do not approve of his actions and want no contact with him. Vanunu says the feeling is mutual and he would prefer to live abroad, but is banned from doing so...

...After talking to the Sunday Times, Vanunu was tracked down in Rome where he was kidnapped by Israeli intelligence agents and brought back to Israel to stand trial.

Israel has never publicly acknowledged its nuclear weapons arsenal… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

At the time of Vannu spilled the beans on Israel’s nuclear weapons program, nobody credible had doubted it's existence for several years.  While Vannu did break the law, he did so as an act of civil disobedience, occasioned by Israel’s lack of integrity by continuing to deny what we already knew.  For Israel, letting Vannu go now would prove far less damaging than continuing to expose their own hypocrisy through vengeance.  It is also an embarrassment for the US.  How can Muslim nations take us seriously when we tout nuclear nonproliferation, while winking at Israel’s nukes?

Editorial on Detroit Terror Attack

Another day brings more details about what happened and what our country is trying to do about it.  We’re on the wrong track.

Flying has become much more difficult.

By now, everyone knows the airport drill, its inconveniences offset by its clarity: take off your shoes, pop your laptop in a tray, have your driver’s license at the ready. But in the three days since the attempted terrorist attack on a Detroit-bound airliner, the beleaguered traveler has once again been beset by a confusing and inconsistent set of rules.

Could you keep your blanket, as on Continental, or would it be snatched at the end of the flight, as it was on Lufthansa? Would security measures be visibly unchanged, as they were at the Houston airport, or would passengers be surprised by a careful swabbing of their hands and purses, like those in South Carolina? Would this week resemble Sunday, when JetBlue’s entertainment system was shut down on international flights, or Monday, when the movies began flowing on that airline once more?

“I just wish they’d have something, a list of rules, and stick to it,” said Sherri Hemmer, who made a point of using the bathroom early on her Monday flight from Phoenix to Pittsburgh and was then annoyed to learn that a prohibition against moving around the cabin in the last hour of flight did not seem to apply to her flight.

The Transportation Security Administration has been deliberately vague — and even a little random — about the security measures it has imposed in the last few days, in part to make certain that potential attackers do not know what to expect. Many passengers welcome this.

“It’s no problem,” said Eleonora Gomarasca, who traveled to New York from Milan on Monday. “It’s more control.”

But that careful unpredictability has made life far more confusing and inconvenient for thousands of travelers. After Sept. 11, 2001, stark fears were met with complicity and acceptance, but now many people seem to feel that the government measures are more about reaction than protection.

“I think the security checks on the ground are the ones that make the most difference for safety,” said Daniel Kim, 36, who arrived at Los Angeles International Airport three hours early for his flight to Frankfurt with his wife, Catherine, and their 20-month-old. “The whole one hour before thing, no getting up, what is that going to help, really? Will it get to a point when we can’t get up at all during the flight, or have to raise our hands to go to the bathroom? Where does it end?”

While the new T.S.A. restrictions seem largely confined to international travelers bound for the United States, confusion, delays and the ensuing angst seemed to spread across the nation in the wake of the thwarted attack on a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day.

The slowdown appeared to be particularly intense on flights coming from Canada. Dianne Duncan’s trip to Los Angeles from Toronto, for one, involved a 10-hour security wait, four lost bags, a missed flight and rerouting, a thorough search of her belongings, and a full-body pat-down of her and her 5-year-old daughter.

“It was extremely strict,” said Ms. Duncan, who arrived at the Toronto airport at 9:30 a.m. Sunday morning and did not reach the screening area until nearly seven hours later.

“Take note: there was no toilet, no water and no food for purchase,” she said. “There was one man to screen the men, and one woman to screen the women. There was a full pat-down. It was as if they were specifically searching for something.”...

Inserted from <NY Times>

While it is clear that our transportation safety procedures leak like a sieve, banning passengers from relieving themselves for the last hour of flights is ludicrous.  Anyone wishing to avoid that can go to the can to bomb-up ninety minutes before the flight lands.  I’m not saying that we should not make flights as safe as possible, but no matter what we do, those who wish to circumvent our security will simply adapt their tactics to take advantage of whatever we don’t do.  The way to stop this attack was quite simple.  Abdulmutallab should never have been allowed on the plane.  The Bush/GOP system still in use was designed more to create the illusion of security for propaganda purposes than to provide actual security.  The focus for in flight security needs to shift from dealing with terrorists on planes to keeping them from getting on planes in the first place.  It might help to have an executive in charge of the TSA, but we do not.  Obama’s appointee, Erroll Summers, has not been approved, because GOP Senator DeMint has placed a hold on him.  Perhaps DeMint considers unions a greater terrorist threat than Al Qaeda, because DeMint claims that he fears Summers would allow baggage handlers to unionize.

I’ve been listening to pundits debate Afghanistan/Pakistan/Somalia/Yemen center of terrorism.  The GOP seems to want to attack Yemen.  How absurd!  Yemen’s government is cooperating with the US, bit they have no control over large swaths of their own territory, much like Afghanistan.  We lack the troops to invade and occupy the country.  Our last reserves, the Brownie Scouts, are already committed to defense against Iran.  Here’s the problem.  We’re fighting a 21st century conflict using 20th century tactics.  If we could actually take control of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda would move (as they have) to Pakistan.  If the Pakistanis get control of their territory, they will move to Yemen.  If we occupy Yemen, they will move to Somalia, or Indonesia, or anywhere that we have not conquered.  And we aren’t even talking about the center of Wahhabism, the extreme right wing beliefs AQ uses to justify their existence, Saudi Arabia.  To defeat AQ using conventional means, we need to conquer the entire world.  Going after the leadership won’t work.  AQ is not organized top-down.  They are cellular.  They are not a snake we can decapitate.  They are a hydra.  The only way we will defeat them is to compromise their ability to recruit.  At present we are enhancing it every time a drone takes out innocent civilians with or without the targeted AQ operative.  We enhance their ability to recruit even more in this manner:

I don't know what to say. The United States not only permits this, we subsidize it - at great personal cost to our country. After all, why were we an Al Qaeda target in the first place?

Yes, we'll tie ourselves in knots to keep a taxpayer dollar from getting anywhere near an abortion, yet we continue to fund the slow starvation of the Palestinians.

Very sad:

One year after Israel launched its three-week offensive in Gaza that killed more than 1,300 Palestinians and damaged or destroyed over 50,000 homes in a campaign aimed at stopping Hamas rocket fire, the survivors are still living in rubble. And it is not for want of money that thousands of residents of the coastal enclave remain homeless this winter: Moved by the plight of Gaza's 1.5 million Palestinians who were already reeling from a two-and-a-half year economic siege imposed by Israel with help from Egypt and the U.S. even before Israel's air and ground assault had begun, international donors earlier this year pledged over $4.5 billion to repair war damages. But that aid has failed to reach Gaza, according to Palestinians and relief agencies who accuse Israel of imposing Kafkaesque rules that bar entry to vital reconstruction materials and items as bizarre as glass, most schoolbooks, honey and family-sized tubs of margarine.

Says Chris Gunness, spokesman for the United Nations' Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), "Because the Israelis are not allowing in any reconstruction material, that $4.5 billion is just a paper figure." With over 80% of Gazans now surviving on humanitarian handouts from UNRWA, Gunness adds, "Palestinians are becoming more desperate and more extreme."

Relief officials estimate that Gaza needs 40,000 tons of cement and 25,000 tons of iron to start repairing the homes, hospitals, schools and shops destroyed during Israel's offensive. But so far, according to GISHA, an Israeli legal rights group, the Israelis have allowed only 19 trucks carrying construction material into Gaza since the war ended last January. "You could say that Israel has bombed Gaza back into the mud age," says UNRWA's Gunness, "because that's what they're building their houses out of now — mud."

Without parts to replace machinery damaged in the war, 97% of Gaza's factories have shut down, raising unemployment to over 43%. With scarce sources of income, many Gazans would probably starve if not for food handouts from the U.N. and other agencies. Over 40,000 Gazans have no electricity, 10,000 have no running water in their homes, and because Israel bans entry of the spare parts needed to run its sewage treatment plant, every day 87 million liters of sewage is dumped into the Mediterranean (which washes up on Israel's beaches, too.)

Although the international community occasionally protests Gaza's ongoing tragedy, so far no real pressure has been applied on Israel to loosen its stranglehold... [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Crooks and Liars>

As long as the US remains a party to Israeli atrocities in the region, Muslims will have just cause to believe that the US is conducting a War on Islam.  As long as the US kills innocent civilians while attacking terrorists, Muslims will have just cause to believe that the US is conducting a war on Islam.  As long as the US attacks and occupies Muslim countries, attempting to control their energy resources, Muslims will have just cause to believe that the US is conducting a war on Islam.  As long as Republicans keep spewing hate speech, Muslims will have just cause to believe that the US is conducting a war on Islam.

Are we?  In my opinion we are not, but we were while the Bush/GOP regime was in power.  However, as long as our strategy appears unchanged, how are Muslims to tell the difference?  Until we can convince Muslims by our actions that we are not still conducting the Bush/GOP war on Islam, they will be able to recruit Muslim teabagger types to become terrorists.

Follow up on Detroit Plane Attack

If nothing else, this attack should teach us that we have been wrong, if we thought of Afghanistan and Pakistan as the center of terror for Islam’s religious right extremists.

Regardless of whether or not the Nigerian who tried to blow up a US-bound jet on Christmas Day was instructed in Yemen by Al-Qaeda, the White House insists it is not slacking in its anti-terror battle.

"Airline passengers walk into a security checkpoint inside Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Arlington, VA, near Washington, DC. Regardless of whether or not the Nigerian who tried to blow up a US-bound jet on Christmas Day was instructed in Yemen by Al-Qaeda, the White House insists it is not slacking in its anti-terror battle."

In early December as he ordered 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, US President Barack Obama warned of the "violent extremism practiced by Al-Qaeda," and stressed that "this is no idle danger, no hypothetical threat.

"Where Al-Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold -- whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere -- they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships," Obama said.

His spokesman Robert Gibbs hit the talkshows Sunday to assure Americans after the latest botched attack that there was no let up against Al-Qaeda, and to counter vehement criticism Obama was a soft touch.

"The president certainly has taken steps in his time in office to reorient our priorities as it comes to fighting that war on terror," Gibbs told NBC.

"We're drawing down in Iraq and focusing... on Pakistan and Afghanistan, the place where the attacks of 9/11 originated and where people sit in caves and in houses today planning more attacks in this country, using all elements of American power in places not just like Pakistan, but throughout the world in places like Yemen and Somalia.

"File photo of Murtala Muhammed International Airport in Lagos. US authorities have charged Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, with trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet, using explosives and chemicals he sneaked past security checkpoints in Lagos and then Amsterdam."

"And you've seen already leaders from Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia that have been targeted and eliminated."

Experts and US lawmakers warned that even if no conclusive Al-Qaeda thumbprint is found on Friday's attempt to bring down a plane as it landed in Detroit, the group's radicalized ideology has "metastasized" well beyond traditional safe havens.

US authorities have charged Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, with trying to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet, using explosives and chemicals he sneaked past security checkpoints in Lagos and then Amsterdam.

According to US media citing unnamed US officials, Abdulmutallab confessed once in custody that he had received specific training for the attack from an Al-Qaeda bombmaker in Yemen... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

As expected, the US right is trying to blame this incident on Obama.  One ChickenHawk came out of hiding long enough to confirm such an assertion on Faux Noise.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday that it is "fair" to hold the Obama administration responsible for the a failure to detect an attempted terror attack. Friday, Hoekstra told the Detroit Free Press that the Obama administration needed to "connect the dots."

"You were quoted in the Detroit Free Press [de-linked] this morning as saying that, you know, the key is to connect the dots and maybe the Obama administration will now realize that. Is it really fair to hold the Obama administration responsible here?" asked Wallace.

"Yeah, I think it really is," replied Hoekstra. "Connecting the dots here is not really on this particular case. It's connecting the dots that we've seen over the last 11 months, over the last eight years."…

Inserted from <Raw Story>

This is pure bull.  It took several years to set up the Department of Homeland Security, under complete Bush/GOP control.  It will take several more years to reorganize it in a manner that will actually provide security, not just GOP propaganda.  If Obama has been a little slow in embarking on that task, we must remember that there is no aspect of American life that Bush and the GOP did not leave in chaotic shambles.  Obama is not at fault because the system left in place by his predecessor failed.

As if this is not bad enough, one Republican Senator (even if he calls himself an independent Democrat) has called for war.

Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Senator Joeseph Lieberman (R-CT) [party affiliation corrected], who leads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has a vision of "tomorrow's war."

"Somebody in our government said to me in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen, Iraq was yesterday’s war," Lieberman explained. "Afghanistan is today’s war. If we don’t act preemptively, Yemen will be tomorrow’s war. That’s the danger we face."

Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA), also appearing on the program, seemed to agree, calling an attack against Yemen "something we should consider."

"Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan -- the Army officer who killed 13 people in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in November -- was linked to Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric now based in Yemen," The Hill noted.

Unnamed administration officials told US media in the aftermath of the thwarted attack that their suspect had confessed to traveling to Yemen and receiving training by Al-Qaeda…

Inserted from <Raw Story>

Let us not forget that LIEberman campaigned for McConJob and Mooseolini.  He supported their war policy.  That was nothing more than an extension of Bush’s war polity.  Some do not remember it. Most never knew it, because the regime tried to keep it secret.  Those of you who were with me during the previous incarnation of this blog, may remember this video by General Wesley Clark that explains the GOP’s imperialist intent to conquer several nations.  The subsequent attacks did not occur only because the GOP is so incompetent that they botched the first two wars.

 

Now if you are unhappy with how Obama is handling US security and foreign policy, consider the alternative.  Need I say more?

No Future in the No Future Act of 2010

Big Oil has written their energy bill.  If the Democrats in Congress rubber stamp this the way the Republican always did, I am going to be furious.

After a year of unprecedented spending on federal lobbying to shape public opinion and the policy debate on climate legislation, on December 3 the oil industry released its own version of a federal energy bill entitled the "Creating Renewed Economic Activity through Energy Jobs Act of 2010." 

Industry's CREATE Jobs Act bears little resemblance to the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2010 introduced by Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. The Kerry-Boxer bill was supposed to transition America from our fossil fuel dependency to a clean green energy future. 

Not surprisingly, the industry's bill dispenses with the key word "clean" -- as in clean energy jobs -- in its title and then proceeds to require expedited oil drilling, well, everywhere -- in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain, throughout Alaskan waters including the Arctic Ocean and fish-rich Bristol Bay, and on the Florida Gulf Coast and Panhandle. This would be accomplished by rescinding, waiving, or limiting federal laws, state authority, and people's ability to protect these areas, while expediting judicial review of federal leasing and permitting decisions. 

My guess is that, after spending $80 million on public relations and lobbying last year, the American Petroleum Institute felt Americans were ready to believe their industry scribes. Too bad they didn't just name it the "No Future Act of 2010." That might have tipped off the more gullible Americans as to exactly where this bill would take us. 

The level of certainty that the oil industry demands creates a huge level of uncertainty for the rest of us. Action that leads to increased oil use means dangerous inaction to reduce carbon emissions and minimize impending chaos from climate destabilization. Secure oil jobs mean insecurity and hardship for billions of people and a totally different planet -- if one believes the thousands of climate scientists who are not bought off by the oil or coal industry. 

Environmentally responsible oil development is magical thinking. It doesn't exist, never has, and never will. Why? Because it's not just about oil development. It's about the whole equation -- responsible oil use from cradle to cradle -- which means counting the full costs of our oil dependency with regard to human health, communities, the environment, and the planet. And when this is honestly assessed, it boils down to things like the sky-rocketing rates of asthma associated with breathing ultrafine oil particles from burning fossil fuels in vehicles and power plants. Legacies of contaminated beaches and compromised ecosystems from failed oil spill cleanups like the Exxon Valdez. Ocean acidification and an entire planet heading for ecological catastrophe, which really can't be a good thing for any of us despite the oil industry's spin about the benefits of new shipping routes across the ice-free Arctic and the creation of new jobs (for them). 

The No Future Act should be dead on arrival. There is no balance to decisions made by tallying up the benefits without tallying up the risks. In the debate over our energy future, it really is a no-brainer. Just ask youth leaders like Brower Youth Award winner Alec Loorz who, like all kids, will be stuck paying long-term consequences for the short-term gain of more oil jobs. We can't make buffer zones big enough to protect the climate -- and it's doubtful we can make them big enough to protect our precious coastlines either, given Australia's rig blowout debacle in the Timor Sea or our own experience with Hurricane Katrina's destruction of oil rigs and pipelines. 

The oil industry is a dying industry. If America clings to it, we will go down as well... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

There are three reasons why this bill must be totally discarded and not allowed to influence our nations energy policy in any way, shape or form.  First, it’s only economic effect is to enrich the oil companies at the expense of citizens, by allowing Big Oil to externalize costs.  In simple terms, that means they get all the profits while we pay for cleaning up the mess.

Second, no matter how much we drill, we cannot produce enough oil to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, purchased mostly from the companies, who are funding the terrorist criminals we are already fighting.  As we use our military to protect our oil supply, we further inflame the hatred against our nation in that region.  This weakens our national security.

Third, and most important, the more resources Big Oil gets, the less will be available for green energy, upon which the future of both our economy and our planet depend.

Israel Rejects Palestinian Statehood Bid

Far from the diplomatic settlement I have hoped for in this conflict, the situation in the middle-east is deteriorating.

Palestinian Authority leaders say that they are launching a new diplomatic campaign to gain international backing for a Palestinian state, after which they will unilaterally declare statehood in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem – without waiting for a peace treaty with Israel.

Israel pushed back Sunday, issuing a warning that such a declaration of statehood would destroy previous peace agreements and goodwill.

The already rocky road to peace talks – which the US and other international mediators have for months been trying to coax Israelis and Palestinians back onto – just got rougher.

The statehood push comes just 10 days after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said the he would not seek office in the next Palestinian elections, and phrased his announcement as an effective threat of resignation not just from office but the peace process itself. Israeli intransigence and US ineffectiveness over Israeli settlements were largely to blame, he said.

Now, Mr. Abbas plans to actively solicit worldwide support for a declaration of Palestinian statehood, irrespective of any negotiations with Israel.

Statehood by UN vote

Abbas' chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said in an interview this weekend with the newspaper al-Ayyam that the Palestinian leader was going to turn to the UN Security Council to obtain recognition of a Palestinian state through a vote. In launching this campaign for statehood, aides said Abbas would travel to Cairo Wednesday to discuss the idea with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, after which he would visit other regions – including Europe and Latin America – to shore up support.

The move could be a spark for stalled peacemaking efforts, or it could itself spur further conflict between Palestinians and Israelis – who view the Palestinian proposal to unilaterally declare statehood as an out-and-out threat. Either way, the latest Palestinian moves show the extent to which the Palestinian leadership is frayed by the last few frustrating weeks of failed diplomacy, and appears to have lost faith in a US-brokered peace process bringing genuine results.

"The Israelis impeded negotiations, and therefore we are left with only this option in order to safeguard our national project," says Mohammed Shtayyeh, a member of the Fatah Central Council in Ramallah.

"We have been left with no other choices and nothing to lose," Mr. Shtayyeh says. "How can Abbas or any other Palestinian leader survive in this context without political developments? This is the only thing we can offer our people now. The time is right."

Netanyahu: Only one way forward

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned on Sunday night that negotiation was the only way forward, and that a unilateral move on the Palestinians' part would mean the end of the process begun with the 1993 Oslo Accords.

"There is no substitute for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, and any unilateral path will only unravel the framework of agreements between us and will only bring unilateral steps from Israel's side," Netanyahu told a Middle East policy conference.

Earlier in the day, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned Netanyahu's cabinet at its weekly meeting that the risks of the Palestinians declaring their own state were real, because many countries across the international community could be expected to support the statehood proposal. Israel itself was created by a vote in the United Nations.

"Without an agreement, there is a possibility that support will increase for the Palestinians declaring a state unilaterally," Mr. Barak told the cabinet, according to a statement released afterwards.

Hani el-Masri, a political analyst and columnist in the West Bank city of Ramallah, says that Abbas sees his list of options as running short. Attempts to restart peace talks since President Obama took office in January have not borne fruit, which Abbas blames primarily on Israel's refusal to call a total freeze on settlement growth. Netanyahu says he's ready to come back to talks without preconditions, meaning a settlement slow-down is all that's on offer… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <CS Monitor>

Apparently Netanyahu plans to annex the Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, if Palestine declares statehood.  As I see it, there is no peace possible in the region as long as Israel refuses to negotiate in good faith.  Such negotiation must include a willingness to stop their de facto takeover of Palestinian territory by building settlements within its boundaries.  I find it especially ironic that Israel objects so strongly to Palestine to take the very same path to statehood that Israel took in 1948.  The US must give our objection to settlement building teeth, not just the wink and smile it has had to date.

This Should Not Pass

Over a month ago, I discussed the Goldstone Report, which correctly identified war crimes on both sides of the Israeli attack against Gaza.  The Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee have co-sponsored a resolution trashing that report.

The House of Representatives on Tuesday is poised to pass a nonbinding resolution condemning a controversial U.N. report on alleged Israeli war crimes in the Gaza Strip that has become a major complication in Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's diplomacy in the Middle East this weekend.

Clinton will meet in Abu Dhabi on Saturday with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who has seen his popularity plummet since he initially agreed under pressure from the Obama administration to defer U.N. consideration of the report. He later shifted course, and now the U.N. General Assembly will consider it on Wednesday. But Israeli officials have warned that any effort by the United Nations to add further legitimacy to the report will undermine the administration's efforts to relaunch peace talks with the Palestinians.

The resolution, co-sponsored by the two senior members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), charges that the report by South African jurist Richard Goldstone for the U.N. Human Rights Council is "irredeemably biased and unworthy of further consideration or legitimacy," in part because it was based on "a flawed and biased mandate," and that the militant group Hamas was able to "significantly shape the findings of the investigation." Lawmakers expect it to win easy approval under a fast-track procedure that allows for no amendments.

The White House has taken no position on the House resolution, which is supported by many major Jewish organizations. The administration has previously said that the report is flawed but raises "important issues and serious allegations," and it has urged Israel to investigate its conduct in the conflict more closely.

"AIPAC, in concert with every mainstream pro-Israel organization in the United States, supports this important resolution," said Josh Block, a spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. "In echoing the administration's condemnation and calling for concrete action, Congress will be sending the strong message that the United States will not stand for turning the victim into the perpetrator."

However, a new Jewish organization, J Street, has taken a sharply different tack, saying it could not support the resolution as drafted. "The resolution will pass in its current form," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, executive director of J Street. "Yet it puts members of Congress in an uncomfortable box because it is factually inaccurate and contains gross misrepresentations" about the Goldstone report… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

I was rather surprised at such easy “bipartisanship”, so I did a little more digging.  Berman is progressive on most issues, but he does tend to be very hawkish on foreign policy, especially where Israel is concerned, as this quote clearly demonstrates: “Even before I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist.”  Lehtinen, like most GOP goose-steppers is a strong Israel supporter.

I’m quite pleased with the J Street reaction.

First Annual J Street Conference Receives Gen. Jim Jones

On Saturday I discussed the J Street Project as a replacement for AIPAC.  They Just had their first annual conference, and the Obama administration appears to be taking them very seriously indeed.

When a politician attends the annual conference of the American Israel Political Action Committee, Washington's largest pro-Israel lobbying group, his task is simple: assert his commitment to Israel in the strongest possible terms. At the first annual conference of J Street, a new organization that pitches itself as a liberal alternative to AIPAC, the job is slightly more complicated: assert a strong and unshakeable commitment to both Israel and peace.

So it went at this year's conference, where Gen. Jim Jones, national security adviser to President Obama, delivered the keynote address Tuesday. For all the controversy the conference prompted—several supporters withdrew, participants were criticized, J Street's mission was questioned—the proceedings Tuesday were notable for their reasonableness. Jones said little Obama hadn't said at the United Nations in September or that Jones himself hadn't said earlier this month to the American Task Force on Palestine. "There will be setbacks, challenges, false starts, and false hopes," Jones told the J Street crowd. "But the people of this region have suffered too long for this problem to be neglected."

Judging from the response, Jones delivered. Peace between the Israelis and Palestinians is not just a priority, he said. It's the top priority: "If there was any one problem I'd tell president he should solve, this would be it." (Presumably, Jones and Obama talk, so it's puzzling why he posed this conversation as a hypothetical.) Jones also tied a commitment to peace in Israel with efforts to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. When it comes to preventing a nuclear armed Iran, he said, "Nothing is off the table."

Still, Jones's mere presence mattered almost more than his words. Only a year after its founding, J Street is no longer the obscure liberal lobby that could. It is an influential—and controversial—spokes-group for Jewish Americans who think the United States' approach to Israel has been too narrow. In its first six months, the group raised $580,000. (AIPAC's annual donations top $50 million.) Conservative members of the Jewish community have eyed the organization with suspicion, arguing that concessions in the name of peace put Israel in danger. Several members of Congress removed their names from the group's host committee in recent weeks. (One hundred forty-eight members remain on the list.) Michael Oren, the Israeli ambassador to Washington, declined an invitation to the conference, saying in a statement that the group took stances that "impair the interests of Israel." The White House's decision to send an emissary was thus considered a minor victory. "You can be sure that this administration will be represented at all other future events," Jones said, to applause… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Slate>

Obama appears on the right page here, but his way ahead is tough, especially considering that the Netanyahu government is in power in Israel.  Netanyahu is the right winger, far more militaristic that Olmert.  Unfortunately, Israel’s version of left still sounds pretty right wing to me.

Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister during the Gaza war, would probably face arrest on war crimes charges if he visited Britain, according to a UK lawyer who is working to expand the application of "universal jurisdiction" for offences involving serious human rights abuses committed anywhere in the world.

Neither Olmert nor Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister during the Cast Lead offensive, and a member of Israel's war cabinet, would enjoy immunity from prosecution for alleged breaches of the Geneva conventions, predicted Daniel Machover, who is involved in intensifying legal work after the controversial Goldstone report on the three-week conflict. Neither are ministers any longer.

Prosecutions of Israeli political and military figures remain likely despite the failure to obtain an arrest warrant for Ehud Barak, the defence minister, when he visited the UK earlier this month, he said. In the Barak case a magistrate accepted advice from the Foreign Office that the minister enjoyed state immunity and rejected an application made on behalf of several residents of the Gaza Strip.

"This needs to be tested at the right time and in the right place," Machover said. "One day one of these people will make a mistake and go to the wrong country and face a criminal process — and then it'll be a matter for the courts of that country to give them a fair trial: that's what the Palestinian victims want."…

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

And this is what Israel calls liberal?  A war criminal?  And Netanyahu is nastier that this guy?  Good luck, Barack!  You’ll need it!

Kudos to J Street.  Time to kick AIPAC with their attendant American Taliban to the curb.

American Jews Rethink Israel

J Street Project could evolve into a replacement for AIPAC.

This year has seen a dramatic shift in American Jews' attitudes toward Israel. In January many liberal Jews were shocked by the Gaza war, in which Israel used overwhelming force against a mostly defenseless civilian population unable to flee. Then came the rise to power of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose explicitly anti-Arab platform was at odds with an American Jewish electorate that had just voted 4 to 1 for a minority president. Throw in angry Israelis writing about the "rot in the Diaspora," and it's little wonder young American Jews feel increasingly indifferent about a country that has been at the center of Jewish identity for four decades.

These stirrings on the American Jewish street will come to a head in late October in Washington with the first national conference of J Street, the reformation Israel lobby. J Street has been around less than two years, but it is summoning liberal--and some not so liberal--Jews from all over the country to "rock the status quo," code for AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee).

Sure sounds like a velvet revolution in the Jewish community, huh? Not so fast. The changes in attitudes are taking place at the grassroots; by and large, Jewish leaders are standing fast. And as for policymakers, the opening has been slight. There seems little likelihood the conference will bring us any closer to that holy grail of the reformers: the ability of a US president, not to mention Congress, to put real pressure on Israel.

First the good news. There's no question the Gaza conflict has helped break down the traditional Jewish resistance to criticizing Israel. Gaza was "the worst public relations disaster in Israel's history," says M.J. Rosenberg, a longtime Washington analyst who reports for Media Matters Action Network. For the first time in a generation, leading American Jews broke with the Jewish state over its conduct. New York Times columnist Roger Cohen said he was "shamed" by Israel's actions, while Michelle Goldberg wrote in the Guardian that Israel's killing of hundreds of civilians as reprisal for rocket attacks was "brutal" and probably "futile."

Even devoted friends of Israel Leon Wieseltier and Michael Walzer expressed misgivings about the disproportionate use of force, and if Reform Jewish leaders could not bring themselves to criticize the war, the US left was energized by the horror. Medea Benjamin, a co-founder of Code Pink, threw herself into the cause of Gazan freedom after years of ignoring Israel-Palestine, in part out of deference to her family's feelings. In The Nation Naomi Klein came out for boycott, divestment and sanctions; later, visiting Ramallah, she apologized to the Palestinians for her "cowardice" in not coming to that position earlier... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Nation>

Change will not come overnight, but I’m thoroughly gratified to see a more appropriate and more representative group for Jewish Americans than AIPAC.  Under the guise of representing American Jews, AIPAC is far more representative of American neocons, like Dead-eye Dick Cheney, and theocons like Paul Hagee.  The most beneficial development I can see for Israel is peace in the middle east.  The policies of the current government of Israel, supported by AIPAC, virtually assure the continuation of the conflict.

US Silent on Israeli Nuclear Arms

There has long been a secret agreement between the US and Israel, concerning Israel’s nuclear weapons.  I had hoped that the Obama administration would change that as part of the openness Obama promised us during his campaign.  Sadly, I was disappointed.

Barack Obama, the US president, has agreed to abide by a 40-year policy of allowing Israel to keep nuclear weapons without opening them to international inspection, according to a US newspaper.

In a report on Saturday, The Washington Times quoted three unnamed sources as saying Obama had confirmed to Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, that he would maintain the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

The incident reportedly occurred when the two met at the White House in Washington DC in May.

Neither Israel's embassy in Washington, nor the White House National Security Council would comment on the claim.

Avner Cohen, an Israeli expert and author, was quoted by the paper as saying that under the deal "the United States passively [accepts] Israel's nuclear weapons status as long as Israel does not unveil publicly its capability or test a weapon".

There is no official accounting of the deal, supposedly agreed in 1969 between Richard Nixon, then US president, and Golda Meir, the Israeli prime minister at the time... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

Don’t ask, don’t tell is a lousy way to run our military.  It requires LGBT service personnel to live a lie in order to serve our nation in the military.  A standard of openness requires that they be able to serve with honor without having to hide their sexuality.

In the same way, don’t ask, don’t tell is a lousy way to run our international relations.  A standard of openness requires a level playing field for all participants.  How can we be taken seriously, when we demand that North Korea give up or that Iran not develop nuclear weapons when we look the other way at Israel’s nukes?

Furthermore, this policy poisons our relationships with the Muslim world.  When Muslim countries consider this this policy, they believe, with just cause, that the US considers them second class world citizens, because we give preferential treatment to a nation they consider a foe.  Many of them have to live in Israel’s nuclear shadow, and they are rightly indignant.

Some may argue that Israel, surrounded by enemies, needs nuclear weapons to insure their national security.  However, the US has more than enough power to insure Israel’s security, if we choose to do so, but I can’t see any way that Israel will ever give up nuclear weapons.  I’m not saying we should attempt to force them to do so, just as we have made no such attempts with India or Pakistan.  But why can’t we at least be honest about it?

Israel Blocks Human Rights Groups

Even in time of war, allowances must be made to care for the personal needs of people on opposing sides.  Sadly that does not always allowed.

While the Israeli army's crossings into Gaza have gone into near-lockdown mode since Hamas wrested control of the coastal strip more than two years ago, Israeli human rights organizations have regularly stepped in to intervene, with some success.

That is, until last week. On Sunday, a group of the most active human rights groups here were informed that the government-run body that controls access to and from Gaza will no longer deal with them.

The Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) sent an official letter on Sept. 13 to three human rights groups informing them that they would no longer be able to act on behalf of Palestinians with urgent requests to leave Gaza – generally for medical care, to visit a sick family member, or to attend a funeral. They must instead refer such requests to the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee, in accordance with the Interim Agreement – the basis of Israeli-Palestinian cooperation established in 1995 under the Oslo peace process.

The letter notes that the "longstanding" policy of carrying out such appeals in conjunction with Palestinian authorities has been approved by Israel's High Court of Justice. But the organizations say it is part of the military's increasing resistance to working with human rights groups in the wake of the Gaza war.

The organizations include Gisha: the Legal Center for the Freedom of Movement, Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, and HaMoked: Center for the Defense of the Individual. They say they have increasingly had their appeals ignored since the war in January. This latest step, the groups complain, takes away one of the few avenues of recourse available to desperate Palestinians.

"Gaza residents have no direct access to the [Israeli] military officials who decide their fates, and up until now they had a chance to have an advocate bring their case before the military and get some sense of due process," says Sari Bashi, the director of Gisha, based in Tel Aviv.

Ms. Bashi, a lawyer, says Gisha and other groups only pick up cases where Palestinians who applied for permits – which they are told to do through the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee – either had their applications rejected or were never given an answer.

"The new procedure means that Palestinians no longer have a right to have an advocate that they chose to help them, and everyone has a right to an advocate," Bashi says. [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Christian Science Monitor>

Whether or not people can receive medical care, visit sick family members, or attend funerals has nothing whatsoever to do with the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  To deprive people of these humanitarian needs is cruel.  However, I think the real reason is that allowing human rights groups advocate for people, whose requests Israel’s Palestinian Affairs Committee had rejected, put Israel in the position of granting reasonable requests or having the knowledge of their refusal to do so publically known.  The Netanyahu government wants to maintain cruelty in secret.  I find this hateful, and think The US should stand against this change.

Obama at the UN

Our President had a busy day yesterday, taking on two major issues.  The first is climate change.

"In a historic address to the world today at the U. N. Climate Summit, President Barack Obama acknowledged what no other U.S. president has acknowledged before: That the United States has not been living up to its historical responsibility to respond to climate change: “It is true that for too many years, mankind has been slow to respond to or even recognize the magnitude of the climate threat. It is true of my own country as well. We recognize that. But this is a new day.” In another first he acknowledged that developed countries like the United States “caused much of the damage to our climate” and “have a responsibility to lead.”

This was welcome news to the assembled delegates who received the clearest statement yet of America’s return to the global discussion on addressing our world’s biggest challenge.

Two new announcements stand out from the address.

First, that the United States will embark on a first ever program to track the amount of greenhouse gas pollution emitted throughout the country. The president made this announcement just moments prior to the EPA announcing a new reporting rule to establish an economy-wide program to monitor emissions covering approximately 13,000 large facilities accounting for 85 to 90 percent of U.S. emissions. This program would establish a critical baseline necessary to measure future success for domestic emission reduction programs. It would also go further to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we will have the capacity to measure, report, and verify our reductions, just as we expect developing countries to do eventually.

Second, that the United States will propose a phase out of fossil fuel subsidies at the G-20 meeting later this week in Pittsburgh, PA. This idea was originally floated in a letter to colleagues by White House G-20 leader Michael Froman on September 3 arguing that moving to an elimination of fossil fuel and electricity subsidies would “help energy markets work better and improve our energy efficiency.” While this letter was made public in the press last week the president’s speech today was the first official acknowledgment of this move. Though no details of this proposal are yet public suggestions are for eliminating non-needs based subsidies as well as providing assistance to non G-20 countries who take complimentary steps to reduce their subsidies as well. Both the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the International Energy Agency estimate that eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would reduce global emissions in 2050 by 10 percent. Raising this proposal at a forum that includes Saudi Arabia is a bold and unexpected move."

Read transcript of President Obama's speech here. [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Center for American Progress>

Obama demonstrated bold leadership for which I commend him.  Sadly, the Senate’s decision to put off climate change until next year sends a weak signal to other nations, who will question whether they can depend on the US to follow Obama’s plan.

The second issue is Middle East peace.

President Barack Obama may be laying the groundwork to abandon his quest for an immediate Israeli settlement freeze and instead try to get Israel and the Palestinians directly into peace negotiations.

Obama emerged from talks with Israeli and Palestinian officials on Tuesday without the orchestrated set of steps that he had hoped would allow him to announce a resumption of peace negotiations, which have been on ice since December.

Instead, he was reduced to stressing the urgency of ending the six-decade conflict and exhorting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to show "flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise."

The outcome, analysts said, suggested the limitations of trying to secure confidence-building steps in advance and may presage a drive to go directly to full-blown negotiations even though neither side yet seems ready for them.

"It's clearly a lost cause," Daniel Kurtzer, a retired U.S. diplomat who now teaches at Princeton University, said of Obama's effort to get Israel, the Palestinians and Arab states to make reciprocal gestures before the resumption of talks.

Washington wanted Israel to halt all building of Jewish settlements on the West Bank, which it has occupied since the 1967 Middle East War. It also wanted the Palestinians to do more to prevent violence against Israelis and Arab nations to take steps toward normalizing relations with the Jewish state.

None of these were in place as Obama met Netanyahu and Abbas first separately and then in a trilateral meeting, the highest-level talks between the two sides in nearly a year.

Both sides are at odds over a starting point for any future negotiations on core issues such as the borders and the future of Jerusalem and a Palestinian state.

Inserted from <Reuters>

I think Obama is correct to try to bet  them talking without preconditions.  It’s better than not talking at all.  However, I still see no chance of peace unless Israel stops building settlements in Palestinian territory.  I don’t see Israel doing that without a very hard line from Obama.  If the situation continues, eventually the takeover of Palestinian territory by Israel will eventually become a fait accompli.   I think that’s exactly what Israel wants.  Obama must make settlement building so costly to Israel that ceasing the construction and negotiating in good faith becomes attractive.

Obama Will Meet Middle East Leaders at UN

Achieving Peace in the Middle East is the biggest single accomplishment we need to prevent attacks from the wing-nut fringe of Islam.

President Barack Obama will meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders on Tuesday to try to relaunch peace talks.

Mr. Obama will hold separate talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, before a joint meeting.

Efforts to restart the peace process have so far been blocked by disagreements over Israeli settlements.

A senior US official told the BBC that there was no expectation of an announcement after Tuesday's meetings.

He said the meetings are "clear sign of the President's personal commitment to this issue."

But he added that it was critical to put the discussions "in context".

"Nine months ago there was a war in Gaza," he said. "The Israeli government has only existed for five months.

"And now these three leaders are going to sit down in the same room and continue to narrow the gaps."

Mr Netenyahu's office issued a statement welcoming the invitation to talks and saying they would be held "without preconditions", Reuters news agency reported… [emphasis original]

Inserted from <BBC>

I’m glad that at least they will talk.  The one issue that continues to build settlements in Palestinian territory.  It appears that Israel is only pretending to endorse a two-state solution.  Why else would they continue to populate land that is promised to the Palestinians?  The US cam wield tremendous influence here because of the vast military aid we provide Israel.  Although many in my party oppose it, I believe that the US should make that aid contingent to Israel negotiating with both Palestinian factions in good faith, beginning with the cessation of settlement building.

In the News 9/17/2009

Sorry I couldn’t make rounds yesterday.  I was away for hours helping with a therapy group.  I’ll try to do better today.  I’m guessing that there will be lots of discussion on blogs about the Baucus Health Care Bill.  From everything I have heard, it’s worse that nothing, but I need more time and details to analyze it in depth, so I’ll cover it another day.

Israel has rejected a call from the UN Human Rights Council for a probe into war crimes committed during Israel’s last incursion into Gaza.

Israel on Wednesday rejected a U.N. panel's call to open an independent inquiry into its wartime conduct in the Gaza Strip and launched a diplomatic campaign to thwart any prosecution of its soldiers in an international tribunal.

Officials said President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and other senior ministers were telephoning counterparts abroad in an effort to discredit a harshly critical report by the fact-finding panel. The report concluded that both sides committed war crimes during an Israeli offensive last winter that took aim at rocket-firing militants in the Palestinian enclave but also left hundreds of civilians dead...

Inserted from <Washington Post>

The evidence shows that both sides committed war crimes.  Richard Goldstone led the UN team that investigated the conflict.  The following is an excerpt from his op-ed on the subject.

...In the fighting in Gaza, all sides flouted that fundamental principle. Many civilians unnecessarily died and even more were seriously hurt. In Israel, three civilians were killed and hundreds wounded by rockets from Gaza fired by Hamas and other groups. Two Palestinian girls also lost their lives when these rockets misfired.

In Gaza, hundreds of civilians died. They died from disproportionate attacks on legitimate military targets and from attacks on hospitals and other civilian structures. They died from precision weapons like missiles from aerial drones as well as from heavy artillery. Repeatedly, the Israel Defense Forces failed to adequately distinguish between combatants and civilians, as the laws of war strictly require.

Israel is correct that identifying combatants in a heavily populated area is difficult, and that Hamas fighters at times mixed and mingled with civilians. But that reality did not lift Israel’s obligation to take all feasible measures to minimize harm to civilians.

Our fact-finding team found that in many cases Israel could have done much more to spare civilians without sacrificing its stated and legitimate military aims. It should have refrained from attacking clearly civilian buildings, and from actions that might have resulted in a military advantage but at the cost of too many civilian lives. In these cases, Israel must investigate, and Hamas is obliged to do the same. They must examine what happened and appropriately punish any soldier or commander found to have violated the law…

Inserted from <NY Times>

I remember seeing on the news, at the time that Israel was using white phosphorous munitions in civilian areas.  Perhaps one of our Vietnam Vet readers can comment on just how horrific WP would be if used against civilians.  But I disagree on one point.  Punishing the soldier misses the point unless those responsible for the orders to commit these crimes are not included.

On the wing-nut front, the birther lawsuit against Obama’s election is no more.

Whenever the sentiment of Fox Nation seems to go their way, Fox Nation puts up a thread titled "Another Fox Nation Victory." The resignation of Van Jones was their most recent triumph. They were, however, dealt a defeat with the US Senate Confirmation of Cass Sunstein and now a "birther" suit has been thrown out of court. Not only has US District Court Judge Clay Land thrown out a birther suit brought by US Army Captain, Connie Rhodes, who fought deployment to Iraq based on Obama's illegitimacy as president; but the judge told Rhodes' attorney, Orly Taitz, that she could face serious sanctions if she files another "frivolous" lawsuit in his court. When I last checked Fox Nation, which looks kindly on the birther movement, this wasn't one of the topics. Fox Nation can't win them all! What a shame.

Inserted from <News Hounds>

Does anyone think this will stop their bogus claims, especially the GOP Reichsministry of Propaganda?

On the Obama got this one right front, there will  be no star wars in Eastern Europe.

The White House will shelve U.S. plans to build a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move likely to ease tensions with Russia, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday.

The decision will be based on a U.S. "determination that Iran's long-range missile program has not progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals," the paper said.

It said the findings were expected to be completed as early as next week following a 60-day review ordered by President Barack Obama. The paper cited unnamed current and former U.S. officials for the report.

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who is visiting Baghdad, declined to comment when asked about the report.

The Bush administration had pushed for the defense shield to defend against what it said was the possibility of Iran developing nuclear warheads to put on its long-range missiles.

Washington insisted the plan was not directed against Russia, which said the system was a threat to its own missiles.

Iran denies Western charges that it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and says its missiles are for defense...

Inserted from <Reuters>

In my opinion the only  reason Bush and the GOP planned this at all was to rattle the saber against Russia.  What other point could there be to installing a system that doesn’t work.  If failed most tests even when the exact times and trajectories of the target missiles were known in advance.

That’s it for today.  What would you like to talk about?

In the News – 9/15/2009

Today I’m only going to post one article.  There are half a dozen stories that caught my attention, but no single issue inspired a major post today.

On a personal note, I visited my doctor yesterday.  On the plus side, I am still breathing, I have a pulse, and I got a flu shot.  On the minus side, for my twenty minute appointment, I traveled ninety minutes each way, waited over an hour when I got there, and spent over $100.  :-(   I won my games in both fantasy football leagues I joined, and much to my surprise, I had the best scores in both leagues.  Wooo! Hooo!  TomCat sticks out his chest and struts as if he were macho. ;-)

Joe Wilson lied about more than coverage for illegal immigrants.

Rep. Joe ("You Lie!") Wilson's now-legendary exclamation during President Obama's speech to Congress last week was itself essentially untrue, as we've documented.

But in trying to deflect charges of xenophobia in the wake of the outburst, it looks like the South Carolina congressman again played fast and loose with the facts.

At a Thursday press conference, Wilson was at pains to present himself as a friend of immigrants, declaring:

“We need to be discussing issues specifically to help the American people. And that would not include illegal aliens, these are people-- I'm for immigration, legal immigration, I've been an immigration attorney. But people who have come to our country and violated laws, we should not be providing full health care services.”

We weren't aware that Wilson had been an immigration attorney. So TPMmuckraker went looking for information about his work in the field. And we came up dry.

According to the bio on Wilson's website -- or what's left of the site, after it crashed last week amid the flurry of attention he received -- he's a real estate attorney by trade, who helped found the West Columbia law firm Kirkland, Wilson, Moore, Taylor & Thomas, before entering Congress in 2001. He also has served as a Staff Judge Advocate with the South Carolina Army National Guard.

One lawyer from Wilson's home county of Lexington -- who said he has known Wilson personally since 1985 and described himself as very familiar with Wilson's law practice -- declared flatly to TPMmuckraker: "Joe has never been anything but a real-estate attorney."... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <TPM Muckraker>

OOPS!!  Poor Joe.  Gone are the days that congress people can lie like a Republican and not get caught.  Joe is a perfect example of GOP credibility.

While we’re on the subject of lying fools, here’s a progress report on the campaign to boycott Beck’s advertisers.

Today, Color of Change announced that since it launched a boycott of Glenn Beck’s Fox News show a month ago, the controversial host has lost half of his estimated advertising revenue:

According to the data collected, the amount of money spent by national advertisers on Beck’s program per week was at its highest at approximately $1,060,000, for the week ending August 2, 2009. ColorOfChange.org launched their campaign at the end of that week and since then, 62 advertisers have distanced themselves from Beck. Data collected for the week ending September 6, 2009 shows Beck’s estimated ad revenue at $492,000, equal to a loss of $568,000.

“Fox News Channel has consistently claimed they haven’t lost revenue as advertisers abandon Glenn Beck, but the numbers prove otherwise,” said Color of Change Executive Director James Rucker... [emphasis original]

Inserted from <Think Progress>

Frankly, I don’t think anything we can do will take Beck off the air.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press to anyone fortunate enough to own a press, or its modern equivalent.  Rupert Murdoch is fortunate enough to own lots of them, so it’s his right to keep attack dog on the air.  But if that must be so, let it be Murdoch money that supports Beck, not money from American consumers.

On the healthcare front, there’s some encouraging news for a change.

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin predicts Congress will approve a health care reform bill this fall that includes a public option, saying a "silent majority" of Americans favor such an overhaul.

Speaking with reporters Sunday at a Democratic fundraiser, Harkin promised passage of "a bill before we go home for Christmas." He says the measure will include a government insurance option.

Harkin's views have grown in importance since he was named chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee after the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Harkin says there is little political risk in backing health care reform and that the real danger is opposing changes...

Inserted from <Common Dreams>

The buzz I’m hearing is after the Baucus proposal is announced tomorrow, and once it is marked-up before the full finance committee next Tuesday, the Democrats who constitute a majority of that committee, who have been excluded from the negotiations so far, as though elections did not matter, will be proposing amendments sufficient to clean it up.  I also understand that snake-in-the Grassley and his goose-stepping cohorts will reject even the unacceptably watered-down Baucus version.  The bottom line is this: Democrats will have to proceed without Republicans, unless they are willing to concede to a continuation of the status quo.  Since that is true, they should proceed with what Obama promised, not a measure weakened by the Repuglican Reich, whish they refuse to support anyway.

On the human rights front, the Bush/GOP practice of opposing UN efforts to combat abuses is now over.

U.S. attended its first formal meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council as a member Monday, saying it will try to promote dialogue at a body it once avoided and heavily criticized.

The U.S. was elected in June to the 47-nation council, which was criticized by the Bush administration for primarily denouncing Israel while ignoring abuses elsewhere. Washington left its observer seat on the council vacant during the last six months of President George W. Bush's second term.

"We will strive for discussions that are thoughtful, focused and open to all viewpoints and perspectives," U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Esther Brimmer told the council.

The decision in May to seek a seat on the Geneva-based body after three years of staying on the sidelines was a major shift in U.S. policy in line with President Barack Obama's stated aim to closer cooperate with the United Nations...

Inserted from <AP/Google>

This is a positive development.  It’s time for the US to speak out against Israeli human rights abuses.  Plus, if the Council has ignored abuses elsewhere, we can bring them into focus.

Probably the last place one would expect a discussion of the recent Acorn scandal is on a left-of-center blog.  But I think the issue needs to be aired, and I’ve never been one to avoid hard topics.

The Senate voted Monday to block the Housing and Urban Development Department from giving grants to ACORN, a community organization under fire in several voter-registration fraud cases.

The 83-7 vote would deny housing and community grant funding to ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

The action came as the group is suffering from bad publicity after a duo of conservative activists posing as a prostitute and her pimp released hidden-camera videos in which ACORN employees in Baltimore gave advice on house-buying and how to account on tax forms for the woman's income. Two other videos, aired frequently on media outlets such as the Fox News Channel, depict similar situations in ACORN offices in Brooklyn and Washington, D.C.

The Senate's move would mean that ACORN would not be able to win HUD grants for programs such as counseling low-income people on how to get mortgages and for fair housing education and outreach.

Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., said that ACORN has received $53 million in taxpayer funds since 1994 and that the group was eligible for a wider set of funding in the pending legislation, which funds housing and transportation programs.

Just last week, the Census Bureau severed its ties with ACORN, saying it does not want the group's help in outreach efforts on the decennial count...

Inserted from <AP/Google>

OK, I’ve seen the videos and there is no question in my mind that more than one Acorn employees did advise Faux Noise plants, posing as prostitutes and pimps, on how to break the law.  I cannot endorse their behavior, and neither did Acorn.  Those employees have been fired.  To my knowledge, there is no evidence that this behavior represents Acorn’s policy.

In my opinion, the vote by the Senate and the Census Bureau removing Acorn from outreach are overreactions.  Where is the balance here.  Didn’t they consider all the good Acorn has done for the poor?  And where is the fairness?  Consider Bonner and Associates, who sent forged letters to Representatives.  Did not they break the law?  Is not Congress encouraging them to break the law by continuing to accept campaign cash they raise on behalf of Big Coal?  On the subject of prostitution, consider David Vitter, who could not have encouraged a prostitute to break the law more than he did.  He bought her services.  Has the Senate kicked him out?

My big concern is that it will be a long time before anyone else is organized sufficiently to continue the many services Acorn has provided to those who need them most.  That’s why the GOP objects to Acorn.  They hate it when the government finances services to help the poor.  Every penny spent on the poor, is a penny the GOP can’t spend on a millionaire.

The following Senators had the courage to vote against the tide:

Roland Burris, Bob Casey, Dick Durbin, Kirsten Gillibrand, Patrick Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Bernard Sanders

Finally, there’s some good news on the financial regulation front.

As President Obama traveled to Wall Street on Monday and chided bankers for their recklessness, across town a federal judge issued a far sharper rebuke, not just for some of the financiers but for their regulators in Washington as well.

Giving voice to the anger and frustration of many ordinary Americans, Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued a scathing ruling on one of the watershed moments of the financial crisis: the star-crossed takeover of Merrill Lynch by the now-struggling Bank of America.

Judge Rakoff refused to approve a $33 million deal that would have settled a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission against the Bank of America. The lawsuit alleged that the bank failed to adequately disclose the bonuses that were paid by Merrill before the merger, which was completed in January at regulators’ behest as Merrill foundered.

He accused the S.E.C. of failing in its role as Wall Street’s top cop by going too easy on one of the biggest banks it regulates. And he accused executives of the Bank of America of failing to take responsibility for actions that blindsided its shareholders and the taxpayers who bailed out the bank at the height of the crisis.

The sharply worded ruling, which invoked justice and morality, seemed to speak not only to the controversial deal, but also to the anger across the nation over the excesses that led to the financial crisis, and the lax regulation in Washington that permitted those excesses to flourish.

Implicit in the judge’s remarks were broader questions on the anniversary of one of the most tumultuous weeks in Wall Street’s history: What do the giants of finance owe their shareholders and the investing public? And who will adequately oversee these behemoths?...

Inserted from <NY Times>

Now that’s my kind of judge!!  Perhaps there is hope that the judicial branch of our government might force more action from Congress!  If you missed Countdown last night, Keith was off, but they had an interesting discussion about financial regulation, and I’ll leave you with a video of that.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy