David Obey, the great Wisconsin congressman, announced his retirement yesterday. He wanted to do it a long time ago, but when he saw George W. Bush coming along, he said, he realized he had to keep his finger in the dyke and try to stop Bush's madness. Well Obey is an "unstinting" critic of AIPAC, and Israel, per the JTA. Here's the key excerpt. Emphasis mine:
He took on Israel and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in
1991-92, when AIPAC sought to overcome through Congress President
George H.W. Bush's threat to withdraw loan guarantees unless Israel
stopped settlement building. Israel was seeking $10 billion in loan
guarantees to help settle the massive post-Cold War influx of Jews
from the former Soviet Union.
Obey warned AIPAC that even if it got the votes on the House foreign
operations appropriations subcommittee, which he chaired at the time,
he would not allow a vote to override Bush to go through.
In his 2007 autobiography "Raising Hell for Justice," Obey recalled
addressing a 1992 meeting in the Capitol that had been convened by
then-Israeli Ambassador Zalman Shoval to consider ways to resist
Bush's threat.
Obey stood on the sidelines before finally speaking up.
"Mr. Ambassador, I want to help Israel settle Soviet Jewish refugees,
everybody in this room probably does, but not at the expense of
gutting the administration's ability to be seen as honest brokers in
the peace process in the Middle East," he said.
"I will not be party to day-in, day-out end runs around the president
on this issue. He is not of my party, but he is our president. He is
defending longstanding U.S. policy and I will not cooperate in any
attempt to undermine that policy."
The confrontation meant that Obey would never again enjoy an intimate
relationship with the pro-Israel community.
This excerpt is a demonstration of what I always say: Palestinian statelessness is an American Jewish achievement. Obey was against settlements in 1991; he said it was American policy on an important question; still, the settlements continued.
The other day at Columbia University, Gershom Gorenberg flashed a memo on the screen that he had turned up during his prodigious research for The Accidental Empire-- an airgram signed Rusk in 1968, meaning that it went out from the State Department under Johnson, saying that creating settlements in the West Bank was "contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention." You cannot transfer population into occupied territories. So for more than 40 years Israel has thumbed its nose at American policy. And how has it gotten away with this? Because of the power of the lobby, which till now has represented the American Jewish community. Yes there are many two-state Jews. But even Peace Now has never walked out of the minyan-- membership in the rightwing Conference of Presidents, which gets access-- over this issue. And of course today only cool grassroots groups like Jewish Voice for Peace are even for divestment targeting the occupation.
So Kosovo gets a state and Turkmenistan and Tajikistan and Pakistan and Ukraine, but 63 years after the world promised one, Palestinians are still without self-determination; and the settlements continue.
Phew, I though Israeli Jews were responsible also (as well as the Palestinians and the Arabs in general). Good to know that is the American Jews that are to blame.
As taxpayers, all Americans pay for the white phosphorous Israel uses against living Gazans, the benefit being a model of bargain basement cremation.
3e,
Not sure if you answered me in a past thread or not, but have you found out who the rightful owner of your house is yet?
Please advise. And please advise if you need some help to this end. I am sure if you published location information, the good folks here could get to the bottom of this quite quickly.
And if successful, maybe we could arrange a Skype conference or something between the two parties. How ’bout that, yes? You could see and even talk to the person on whose land you are now squating. Who knows? You might even become penpals!
Regards –N49.
Nof49,
I answered you and I will again. I have a deed that shows that I own my house. If you think it is illegal, you are welcome to challenge it in court?
By the way is your real name Sitting Bull or Geronimo or Pocahontas? Are you a Native American or a squatter? Unfortunately I cannot put you in touch with the real owners of your land because you killed most of them.
3e,
>> Are you a Native American or a squatter? Unfortunately I cannot put you in touch with the real owners of your land because you killed most of them.
I am Canadian and no, we did not kill most of our natives. Disease was certainly unkind, but there was no intention nor effect of killing anyone. Instead, we signed land treaties with them (except for BC, where this is outstanding). Nowadays, even though this segment of the population is certainly depressed and plagued by social problems, we, that is – “whitey’ – are doing our best to address the problems. For example:
- Natives here get to vote. And in Israel? Oh yes, that’s right, most of them have no vote!
- Natives here get disproportionately more social funding than the rest of the populace. And in Israel? Oh yes, that’s right, they get less or none at all!
- Natives here get free univerisity. And in Israel? Oh yes, dear me, they are sometimes barred from leaving their homes or, if they do leave, they are barred from returning!
- Natives here can travel without being molested by race-based impediments. And in Israel? Deary do, natives are subject to race-based movement restrictions like checkpoints and what have you.
- Natives here haven’t been displaced to another country. And in Israel? Oh my, many of them were violently driven from their lands and now remain refugees in other countries.
Ok, 3e? Pls, do take a page from our book.
Now, on to the former / potentially rightful owners of your house. Why don’t we start with your neighbourhood? That won’t ID you yet at the same time we can start to dig up some history and maybe find some of the people who used to live there. Get some old photos. Maybe some old stories of what it used to be like down at the barbershop. That kinda thing, Ease into, you know?
Whaddya say?
Haha! eee just got another bruiser on the nose from a Canadian!
What I say is the following:
Living conditions for Indigenous people in the prairie regions deteriorated quickly. Between 1875 and 1885, settlers and hunters of European descent contributed to hunting the North American Bison almost to extinction; the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway brought large numbers of European settlers west who encroached on former Indigenous territory. European Canadians established governments, police forces, and courts of law with different foundations than indigenous practices. Various epidemics continued to devastate Indigenous communities. All of these factors had a profound effect on Indigenous people, particularly those from the plains who had relied heavily on bison for food and clothing. Most of those nations that agreed to treaties had negotiated for a guarantee of food and help to begin farming.[73] Just as the bison disappeared (the last Canadian hunt was in 1879), Lieutenant-Governor Edgar Dewdney cut rations to indigenous people in an attempt to reduce government costs. Between 1880 and 1885, approximately 3,000 Indigenous people starved to death in the North-Western Territory/Northwest Territories.[73
And the following:
The attempt to force assimilation involved punishing children for speaking their own languages or practicing their own faiths, leading to allegations in the Twentieth century of cultural genocide and ethnocide. There was widespread physical and sexual abuse. Overcrowding, poor sanitation, and a lack of medical care led to high rates of tuberculosis, and death rates of up to 69%.[82] Details of the mistreatment of students had been published numerous times throughout the 20th century, but following the closure of the schools in the 1960s, the work of indigenous activists and historians led to a change in the public perception of the residential school system, as well as official government apologies, and a (controversial) legal settlement.[83
So basically it was common Canadian behavior to sexually abuse First Nation Indians, I mean those 31% that stayed alive.
First you starve the Indians to death, then you “assimilate” them through sexual abuse and then to the the few that are left you give rights.
Israeli Arabs have been treated much better that you have treated the First Nations. And also the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are treated much better than you treated the natives of Canada.
And I have this interesting document for you to read:
link to akha.org
One small excerpt:
Unlike post-war Germans, Canadians have yet to acknowledge, let alone repent from, the genocide that we inflicted on millions of conquered people: the aboriginal men, women and children who were deliberately exterminated by our racially supremacist churches and state.
3e,
I agree with most of what you are saying, but it is customary to give a source. This appears lifted straight out of somewhere. Where?
I agree that the advent of Europeans had a profoundly disruptive impact on natives here. Please note this was over a hundred years ago, before Leopold went nuts in the Belgian Congo. It was a different era, not to excuse it. But even then, there was no deliberate attempt to “cleanse” the land. It was rather, incidental. Quite different than, say, Plan D, I think you’d agree.
But the main difference is what has happened since this time. Yes? Like — where are we today? Today, natives are free people with full civil rights. The Canadian government has apologized and compensated natives for past wrongdoings. They’ve shown contrition (look that word up, 3e, for it is a word that is likely quite foriegn in Israel).
As pilots are wont to say: the runway that counts is the runway in front of you. Canadians have moved forward to address injustices, past and present.
And Israel? As evidenced by your postings here, they remain in denial, with boot fstuck irmly on throat. You go wag your finger at the mirror, 3e. You go wag.
Re 3e’s 1:30 post:
>>Unlike post-war Germans, Canadians have yet to acknowledge, let alone repent from, the genocide that we inflicted on millions of conquered people:
You see, that’s what happens when you google-troll blind, 3e. You come up half-cocked with the first thing you find. If I may say, you, , blow your load a little early.
Pls see: link to cbc.ca
“Stephen Harper stood in the House of Commons on Wednesday to say sorry to former students of native residential schools — in the first formal apology from a Canadian prime minister over the federally financed program.
“Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today to offer an apology to former students of Indian residential schools,” Harper said in Ottawa, surrounded by a small group of aboriginal leaders and former students, some of whom wept as he spoke.
“The treatment of children in Indian residential schools is a sad chapter in our history.
“Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country,” he said to applause.
“The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian residential schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language,” Harper said.
“While some former students have spoken positively about their experiences at residential schools, these stories are far overshadowed by tragic accounts of the emotional, physical and sexual abuse and neglect of helpless children, and their separation from powerless families and communities.”
You see? Unlike Israelis, we Canadians a) admit our wrongs; and b) pay compensation.
You know, like civilized people.
Crimes of the past are once again used to justify crimes that are on-going, in the present, right now. What a joke(r).
Haha! Another kick to eee’s balls by a Canadian!
Better provide eee with a dictionary to go along with that as I’m not sure he understands the concept.
“What I say is the following:
Living conditions for Indigenous people”
eee you pathetic fraud.
If you’re going to quote material from wiki post a link and do *not* claim those words as your own.
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to en.wikipedia.org
I understanding stealing is a national pastime in Israel but in the civilised world, no.
>he realized he had to keep his finger in the dyke…
Um, don’t you mean “dike”? The dykes I know wouldn’t appreciate his finger…
RE: ” The dykes I know wouldn’t appreciate his finger…” – Norr
MY COMMENT: Oh my! Dear me! Goodness gracious! I’m learning new stuff all the time.
“I’m learning new stuff all the time. ”
Dykes On Bikes are a regular feature of Sydney’s Mardi Gras. Impressive ladies:)
Whatever floats your boat.
Philip ~ you cop a brief mention in David Harris’ latest piece of trash:
link to huffingtonpost.com
He seems a little miffed he didn’t make it to John Mearsheimer’s list of “righteous jews”.
“an airgram signed Rusk in 1968, meaning that it went out from the State Department under Johnson, saying that creating settlements in the West Bank was “contrary to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention.” You cannot transfer population into occupied territories.”
I knew about this, and have a copy: “In 1978, the Legal Adviser of the Department of State [wrote] to the United States Congress concluded that “the establishment of the civilian settlements in those territories is inconsistent with international law.”
(see here) but never heard about the Rusk airgram.
This is worth repeating:
So Kosovo gets a state and Turkmenistan and Tajikistan and Pakistan and Ukraine, but 63 years after the world promised one, Palestinians are still without self-determination; and the settlements continue.
Americans, of all people, shoud be proud of that?
The Palestinians were given a state in 47. They just didn’t like the state they were given and chose the war option to get a better state. If you start a war, better make sure you can win it.
>> The Palestinians were given a state in 47.
Actually, in ’47 they had half their state taken away from them.
Actually, in ‘47 they had half their state taken away from them.
You’re just a big ‘ol pessimist, N49. Can’t you see that the glass was really half full?
What state did the Palestinians have in 47 that half was taken from?
What percentage of the land from the Jordan river to the sea did Jews privately own in 1947?
Provide a source.
From Magnes Zionist:
As long as I’m citing MZ, here’s a very thoughtful post on Israelis (including Haber) living on Palestinian land – a subject mentioned above, on this thread.
Furthermore, the concept of nation-states was a new concept in terms of social and political history.
It’s not that the Palestinians were a special case. The fact of the matter is that many people around the world, especially in the post-colonial era, with the disintegration of the British and French empires, started to establish their own independent states.
The nation-state model was really born out of the French Revolution in the early part of the 19th century.
See NorthOfFortyNine’s post.
They didn’t like the fact that 60% of their land was to be taken away from them by force. The “war” was an attempt to defend their land. I didn’t expect you to be honest about that seeing as you’re a habitual liar.
They chose to defend their land as any sane human being would. Again, it’s not surprising coming from a habitual liar.
True. Israel in the embodiment of the Zionist movement started a war back in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration, a war of legitimacy, and has yet to win that war.
Avi,
You understanding is nil. Their land was not taken from them. Following the partition, all Arab land would remain Arab land. The only thing that changes was which country the land would be.
Arab land?
Saudi Arabia was included in the partition plan?
You make no sense. Talk about a lack of understanding. Who taught you that nonsense, anyway?
eee’s unending stress about the evils of all the world outside of Israel, would have us accept that two wrongs make a right. That does not sound like the logic most of us got from our mothers.
That’s because eee’s mother speaks a different language than the one he learned in grade school. That’s what happens to most Olim Hadashim.
The premise of this post is that the settlements is the primary reason for the lack of the establishment of a Palestinian state. This premise is questionable. The Palestinian insistence on the right of return might be the primary reason for the lack of that state. Also Israeli doubts regarding the Palestinians’ desire for peace is also one of the causes for the lack of the establishment of that state. (i.e. Would the Palestinians be willing to accept a demilitarized state and some type of international force in the Jordan Valley to ensure the demilitarization?)
Maybe the insistence of Israel regarding the Palestinian refugees and assurances regarding the peaceful intentions of the Palestinians are unreasonable and these too are cases where the Israeli lobby is the key to the fact that Israel can make claims for the shape of a peace that are unreasonable. But that is not what the post states.
WJ,
The settlements per se are one thing.and yes, these alone don’t explain the lack of a resolution. But insofar as the settlements reflect a latent and almost congenital drive by Zionists to settle and render “pure” all of mandate Palestine, they offer a portal into the mindset of one of the negotiating parties.
Corroborating this observation is the fact that Israel has never defined its own borders. Isn’t that a little bizarre, WJ? Can’t Israel “name their price”, as it were? That they don’t, and that they keep encroaching on other peoples’ lands, all this for now 60 years plus, suggests, strongly, that Isarel is not a good faith negotiater and has no intention whatsoever in arriving at any sort of fair of equitable solution.
Hey, if it looks like a duck….
“Also Israeli doubts regarding the Palestinians’ desire for peace is also one of the causes for the lack of the establishment of that state.”
It’s human nature to distrust a man when you have kicked him in the teeth.
Pingback: Palestinian statelessness is an American Jewish achievement capital university
Pingback: Tweets that mention Palestinian statelessness is an American Jewish achievement -- Topsy.com
Joe Lieberman’s ‘Terrorism Expatriation Act’ revokes the citizenship of Americans who join foreign terrorist groups… would amend existing law that prevents Americans from joining foreign armies, EXCEPT FOR ISRAEL’S, at the cost of their citizenship.
link to thehill.com
“You cannot transfer population into occupied territories. So for more than 40 years Israel has thumbed its nose at American policy. And how has it gotten away with this? Because of the power of the lobby, which till now has represented the American Jewish community”
How solid is Jewish support for Israel now? When did the Jewish community turn against Israel? What is a reasonable guess at the level of support for Israel and Aipac among U.S. Jews?
Does the view that Palestinian dispossession is the work of U.S. Jews change the view of the sincerity of Jewish actions regarding civil justice in the U.S. at the same time? Supporting Israel’s war on Palestinians (often dishonestly) while condemning much lesser crimes in the U.S. seems hypocritical at best.