I got upset the other day when the Washington Post identified one of McCain's American Jewish "leaders" as Shlomo Riskin of the Israeli town of Efrat. Efrat is a colonial settlement in the occupied West Bank, in violation of international law. The Post subsequently corrected that geographical point on-line, and did so in hard copy today:
CORRECTION
* An Oct. 20 A-Section article incorrectly identified the location of Rabbi Shlomo Riskin's home town. Riskin lives in the Israeli settlement of Efrat, which is in the occupied West Bank.
That's nice. Could be a little clearer. Now will the Post explain why a transplanted extremist, Riskin, is even in McCain's kitchen cabinet? Whose tail is wagging our dog?
Related posts:
{ 9 comments }
Are you saying that he is an extremist because he lives in a settlement?
Thats quite a character assassination by association.
Of course he's an extremist, and a bigot, for living in a settlement. You have to hate arabs to want to live there.
The Judea/Samaria "settlements" are NOT illegal. On the other hand, the Arabs consider even the settlement called "Tel Aviv" to be illegal, which means that even people who are considered to be "progressive" like Ze'ev Sternhell and Gidon Levy are "extremists" since they live in "illegal settlements" like that as well.
Well , it appears that the neocons still have a few more cards to play… This is in the news just now — the U.S has attacked a Syrian village & killed 8 or 9 civilians and injured many more……. from Iraq, of course….
Of course "it's not illegal" – after all, Israel said it's not illegal! And since when has Israel recognized international law to begin with?
Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 49 :
"The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
There are many Jews that feel a deep commitment to retain access and care to Jewish shrines in the West Bank. Its not necessarily a fanatic sentiment.
The land that was acquired in an arms length exchange should not be contestable, but that is a minority of the land of the settlements.
Most of the land was transferred from British state ownership (with Palestinians often allowed to reside, creating relative ownership rights), to Jordanian (including ILLEGAL ethnic cleansing of Jewish residents), to Israeli state, to the Jewish National Fund, to moshavim and private ownership.
Its the status of the state land transferred, and the denial of the Palestinians' residence based rights that are legitimately contested.
Decree, even by knesset, isn't enough to comprise consent to a legal "rational man".
"There are many Jews that feel a deep commitment to retain access and care to Jewish shrines in the West Bank. Its not necessarily a fanatic sentiment."
Yes it is.
Supporting Phil's point about Bill Maher's undying support for Israel:
on Friday night's "Real Time," Maher and his panel blamed only Christian fundamentalists–not neo-cons (Jewish or otherwise)–for Bush's many disasters.
Thanks, Phil.
Maher hates his Irish-Catholic side, as Obama does his white side–the proof is in the pudding in each case. Hard to blame half-breeds–most take the easy way out and demonize one side or the other.
Comments on this entry are closed.