"And we think that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves," Clinton said.
And just now on MSNBC. Allyson Schwartz, congressperson from suburban Philadelphia, repeatedly justified the Libya intervention by saying that Ghadfi had killed Americans. Well Israel has killed Americans. Repeatedly. Furkan Dogan, Rachel Corrie. The USS Liberty.
Israel has the right to defend itself violently from unarmed provocateurs.
You see Phil, all those dead Americans, along with their counterparts from Britain, or Turkey and all the others, cocked a snook at Israel so they deserved what they got. According to the highest echelons of US government.
Apparently, the 2008 boats got through after “FCO officials spoke to Israeli officials in advance of the trip and Israel allowed the boats peacefully into Gaza” then minister in charge of Middle East affairs, Kim Howell revealed. Full story after multiple participant videos of this years boats:
link to desertpeace.wordpress.com
The flotilla is avoiding Israeli waters, Hillary.
That is the point,is it not?
According to Israel and the US it’s ALL Israeli waters.
bingo…..and Clinton is not only supporting but repeating lies
There’s only one way to stick it to Hillary et all special interests–hope this new bill in congress has legs: New transparency efforts on Cap Hill–tougher rules for lobbyists, more disclosure from lawmakers link to t.co
They’re not entering into Israeli waters.
What Israeli waters? Does she mean Gazan waters? Or international waters, where the last boats were attacked and people intentionally murdered? So she dutifully reads from the Likud handout too. Spineless, and probably a dereliction of duty, since I would imagine the first responsibility of elected American officials is to Americans, not foreign powers acting illegally.
she’s being intentionally vague. no?
This is a good point. I didn’t think of it that way.
All international waters are Israeli waters.
It all makes sense now!
“What’s mine is mine. What’s yours is mine.”
Israel not only thinks the waters belong to it, but all of the resources beneath the waters, and it threatens the same force it uses against the flotillas if any nation within the waters close to Israel tries to exploit their own resources –
ARABS KEEP OUT! ISRAEL LAYS CLAIM TO ALL THE RESOURCES
So you see, it goes quite beyond ownership of the waters. The USA thinks it owns the world, and Israel thinks it owns the entire region – same values (like Michele Bachman says)…
Israel owns a lot of waters huh? Nothing like a blockade, an act of war on millions of civilians.
“And we think that it’s not helpful for there to be blockades and seiges, and bulldozing homes and squatting, all such activities that try to provoke actions by putting civilians on a stringent diet, and creating a situation in which the Palestininans have the right to defend themselves,” said Hillary’s Methodist conscience–too bad she doesn’t listen.
In a November 7, 1956 seven point speech delivered after Israel had withdrawn its invading forces from the Sinai, Ben Gurion said: (1) The armistice agreement with Egypt is dead and buried and cannot be restored to life. (2) In consequence, the armistice lines between Israel and Egypt have no more validity. … (6) On no account will Israel agree to the stationing of a foreign [peacekeeping] force, no matter how it is called, in its territory or in any of the area occupied by it.
Israel subsequently declared its sovereignty over demilitarized zones and occupied them. When Israel complained about acts of aggression, experts in international law pointed out that it had created a state of war by its own actions.
Similarly, Secretary of State Rusk told the Egyptians that there were those with considerable international legal background who felt that, as long as the UAR maintained a state of war against Israel, Israel could not “commit aggression” against the UAR. See the FRUS link to history.state.gov
Since there was an existing “state of war” on both sides prior to the Six Day War, it is remarkable that Israel did not actually claim the closure of the Straits of Tiran was a “casus belli’, but rather that the blockade was “illegal” in and of itself. See the Telegram from Israel PM to U.S. President Johnson Justifying Military Action
The State Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC recently adopted United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974 as the definition of the crime of aggression. It provides that the term “State” may be used without regard to recognition or UN membership, and that “act of aggression” means the use of armed force in any manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. It specifically provides that the following qualify as acts of aggression:
a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack;
…
c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
The official commentary on the San Remo Manual on international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea Article 102.2 notes that it has been argued that the prohibition on starvation has rendered naval blockade unlawful. Documents obtained from Israel demonstrate that foodstuff and luxury items which do not pose a threat to Israel’s security have been targeted. That means the object of the blockade is collective punlishment, which is strictly prohibited under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The commentary on Article 102.3 stipulates that relief shipments must be allowed to reach the coasts of the blockaded belligerent.
Blockades may also be illegal when they result in a military advantage in favor of one of the belligerents. In the Bosnia genocide case Judge Lauterpacht affirmed a preliminary objection (paras 98-107 on Pages 64-71) which held that the Security Council arms embargo was illegal because it had, in effect, required the member states to assist in Serbia’s genocidal activities, while denying the Bosnians the ability to exercise an inherent right to self-defense.
Whether the United States likes it or not, the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.
“Whether the United States likes it or not, the Palestinians have the right to defend themselves.”
To defend themselves against whom?
Israel?
Definitely.
Jordan?
Certainly.
Egypt?
Probably.
To defend Fatah against Hamas and vice versa?
Absolutely yes.
Should Palestinians be allowed to arm, regional war among entire region will imminently be brought to war which will cause millions of deaths.
Besides that, you are meddling with document meaning
“a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack;
…
c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State”
State
State
State
State
Palestinians – mainly due to efforts of their brethren, who betrayed them later – rejected State 63 year ago.
You are trying to turn back the clock. Do not. You can not.
“the right to defend themselves”
From what? People hauling bags of cement? People transporting medical aid and toys? The great myth of Israel under siege, promulgated since 1948.
Mrs. Clinton can tie the edge of Uncle Sam’s jacket a buoy outside Tel Aviv, but she can’t dictate the global response.
Just curious here:
Which waters off the coast of Gaza are “Israeli waters?”
What “situation” here will constitute Israeli self-defense?
Only in the United States and Israel are a few civilians sailing in international waters considered a mortal threat to the existence of the state of Israel. You can’t make this stuff up.
Gazan waters != Israeli waters what’s she trying to peddle?
Gaza isn’t Israel.
Gaza waters aren’t Israeli waters.
Hillary is just another Zionist whore.
Hillary is just another Zionist whore.
I would think twice about using this kind of language which reminds many of us of darker days….
Darker days? You mean like days when violent militaristic nations were attacking civilian ships in international waters? You mean like days when millions of people were herded behind concrete barriers and barbed wire and told what they could or couldn’t eat? You mean days when Eurocentric nationalists ran people off their property at gunpoint and turned the stolen land over to a privileged migrant class?
Gee, yeah, great that those days are supposed to be over with.
Chaos, hah, the U-boats actually had a code of universal ethics–that’s all gone now. Americans on the Audacity Of Hope are fair game if you know how to play it for PR purposes–you can always count on average American ignorance to help you, as in “Shake n Bake, n Ah heped!”
“Hillary is just another Zionist whore.”
Whore? That’s really quite unnecessary seafoid.
Opposition to the blockade, but not a word about the legitimacy of the blockade or the collective punishment of the Gazan people.
Objectively, the political considerations that give rise to the Obama Administration’s unconditional support of the Israelis are understandable, but the relentlessness and cynicism are getting harder and harder to take.
“Opposition to the blockade, but not a word about the legitimacy of the blockade or the collective punishment of the Gazan people.”
Of course not. You remeber the “marching order” thread the other day, right?? You don’t think Oren hasn’t contacted the State Dept. to deliver their orders, do you?
What about helicopter aid drops into Gaza?
Or would that bring out the F-16’s.
The US State Department issued an ignorant threat saying that US participation in the flotilla may be violating US law. The explanation given is that Gaza is run by Hamas and the US considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization. Providing aid to terrorist is illegal. Thankfully the flotilla participants knew you would bring that up and are only carrying letters to Gazans from US citizens. Delivering letters isn’t illegal. Whoever wrote the warning must not have been paying attention.
Sounds to me like Hilary’s panicking – while Saban lurks behind her shoulder.
They all know if any distinguished American deaths happen in Gaza waters, more American people back home will be putting aipac and israel under a negative microscope – the very American act that all zionists utterly dread.
Goddam zionism – it’s now pitting American politician against American citizen: American against American!
No Taxi, you are wrong. It doesn’t matter how many Americans Israel kills. Today when a microphone was put in front of any State Dept spokesperson they all said the same thing: “Israel is good, Palestinians are bad, help Palestine and die or go to jail, we warned you.” These arrogant and racist Americans are never going to care about Arabs that they can’t squeeze something out of. Therefore, Israel can kill, steal and do all the dastardly deeds it wants and that’s just a “minor” issue according to Obama. We can’t as Arabs sit around and ever think that Americans will be outraged by anything that happens to us or to any American trying to help us. Never. Did the petition to condemn the murder of Rachel Corrie in Congress ever get more than 2 signatures, anyone?
…..”it’s now pitting American politician against American citizen: American against American!”
It’s always done that.
The US was the perfect mark for them because our democracy allowed them to use those same democratic tools to destroy any national traditions and ferment discord and conflict in society for their own benefit.
A scattered, dis-united population is easy to subvert and control.
Perfect example:
The Jewish War Veterans of the United States have submitted a case to the US Supreme Court to remove the cross on the War Memorial in San Diego and to remove all highway crosses some states use to memorialize State Troopers killed in the line of duty.
link to jta.org
What normal person wouldn’t think twice about crosses being used…a cross symbol has been used in these ways since time began.
Arlington Cemetery uses crosses…are they next on the list to have all crosses removed? Maybe we should sue to have any Jews in Arlington disenterred in and moved to seperate section.
They are constantly doing things like this. Why do you suppose that is?
I though you said that America is not a christian country.
If its not, then why would you support a christian religious symbol over a jewish symbol or a muslim symbol?
Given the assumption that the US is not a christian country (unlike Israel which is a jewish country), i would think that you’d support putting jewish, hindu and muslim religious symbols everywhere the christian cross is erected.
I would think that a grave headstone might bear the religion of the person buried there, even if it is in a cemetery reserved for those who died defending their country. If you look hard enough in such US cemeteries you can sometime find stars of David on a headstone amidst all those headstones bearing crosses. I bet now there’s a few bearing Muslim symbols too–Arabs are recent immigrants in US history.
Yes I have said the US should not OFFICIALLY be a christian country.
I don’t support one religious symbol over another…..what I do support is if a majority of some group wants to erect their symbol to commerate some event they should be allowed to do so.
I could care less if Jews wanted to erect some monument with their symbol to an event Jews took part in, that their right……but it’s not their right to constantly attack other group’s symbols.
And they are constantly doing things of this type…trying to tear down some groups traditions.
It’s sick and hostile.
I bet now there’s a few bearing Muslim symbols too–Arabs are recent immigrants in US history.
yes there are, i saw a photo one in a news report.
“what I do support is if a majority of some group wants to erect their symbol to commerate some event they should be allowed to do so.”
And they are allowed to do so. So long as it’s not the government’s land or the government’s money that’s involved.
“And they are constantly doing things of this type…trying to tear down some groups traditions.”
No, what they’re doing is saying that just because most people in this country are Christian that the government can ignore the law in the First Amendment.
I’ve been to Arlington. I think i saw there some stars of David. But as I understood from American they are not complaining about a headstone but about an official Memorial for KIA soldiers who some of them were probably jews.
Some of them were probably Muslims, too.
No, what they’re doing is saying that just because most people in this country are Christian that the government can ignore the law in the First Amendment.
There are a number of Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers”. Among other things, the first amendment contains a limitation on the power of the government to either establish a religion or to interfere in the exercise of one. It isn’t up the government or the courts to say what veterans choose to put on their headstones. It’s one of the more modest benefits that are extended in lieu of pay.
You got that right, Hostage, along with about 150 dollars towards their funeral if they were killed in action. It’s saying a lot about the USA that it gives so much for those who die so Americans can live, and the GI & his or her family can have a job with a few bennies. Why, it’s downright charitable, eh?
There are a number of issues in this regard which the First Amendment could come into play. I noticed on that list that no Scientology symbol is recognized. I fee fairly certain that if the next of kin of a Scientologist sued to have such a symbol included, that a Court would be hard pressed to affirm the rules that don’t permit such a symbol.
I think you’re right here, Woody. Wonder if Hubbard was buried in a military cemetery? There’s instructions on that government link regarding acceptable emblems that includes what to do if you want an emblem not listed.
They are constantly doing things like this. Why do you suppose that is?
Hmmm… Good question. Jews, you know. As always, As anywhere else in the world. Trying to steal our beloved polk.
I am a very normal person. Secular government has no business erecting crosses except when it is done as part of a cemetery program in which the cross is chosen by the next of kin of the person who died, where a comprehensive set of other religious and secular alternative is available, and where the cross is not the “default” monument.
And, no, a cross symbol has not been used this way since time began. Hell, that isn’t even true for most of the world today.
“They are constantly doing things like this. Why do you suppose that is?”
Because of the First Amendment.
“They are constantly doing things like this. Why do you suppose that is?”
Because of the First Amendment.
I’m a secular Jew. I always thought it was because some of us go around actively looking for things to find religiously offensive and then bitching about it. That’s okay, but launching lawsuits is another matter. In any event, I get requests for donations all the time from Jewish and Christian organizations that describe that sort of cultural warfare as their primary mission. I try not to confuse symbols with reality. The number of Christians or Jews who have read the Bible from cover to cover is exceedingly rare and they are definitely out of the political mainstream. So-called Christians and Jews who misuse religion for political purposes are a lot more common and they won’t be going away anytime soon (even if you remove all of the “idolatrous” symbols from our common spaces;-)
I believe that lawsuits are (and have historically been) the most powerful weapon to keep creeping religiousity out of public sphere where it does not belong. As an atheist, I see any movement away from a secular government as a danger and have no illusions that the religious who push for combining church and state, even on a level of symbols, are not doing so for a benign purpose.
US constitutional law books are chock full of cases involving religious symbols in public places, especially on holidays like Christmas. These cases started accumulating in the mid-60′s.
Now I wonder if what Hillary said and what the state department said are a play on words. Our law and policy makers are not brightest I know. But I would think Hillary would choose her words more carefully when speaking about Israel. Gaza waters are not Israeli waters. Neither are international waters. The flotilla participants made it very clear their vessel only contained letters and not aid, so unless the state department is saying they’re guilty by association they need not worry about breaking US law. The blockade is also, as we all know, illegal under international law. Obama, according to an Israeli journalist, once privately said (and I think this was sometime last year) to Bibi that they best avoid another USS Liberty incident.
Since the state department has now issued three warnings in the past few days, I can only imagine the pressure going on behind the scenes. I don’t expect the status quo to change anytime soon, but if any Americans are abused or even killed, our citizens will know and they will not like it one bit. Having Alice Walker among the participants is a big deal. Her recent CNN story has many racist remarks against her in the comments section, most also go on to say the usual Zionist racist remarks against Arabs. I would say that Israel cannot afford a second PR disaster, but I doubt that they know this. I expect them to bring out their worst, as usual, and be left with no excuses this time and an angrier international community which hopefully includes US citizens
Hillary and Bachmann lie down and oblige AIPAC and all is well in the physical world of flotillas and violence and lobbies but in the mental space things are not going so well for Israel.
Liberal Zionist princess Fania Oz-Salzberger , daughter of Amos Oz, is drafted into ha’aretz to reassure the people.
link to haaretz.com
“Recently, the delegitimizing narratives of this history have begun to relegate all Zionist discourse to the domain of propaganda, purporting to show how Zionism was mere colonialism”
I have never seen the term “colonialism” used so profusely in Ha’aretz. This is the last taboo of Zionism.
The criticism is reaching its target. They may hold on to YESHA temporarily but at the risk of losing everything. The narrative, painstakingly built up over 63 years, is in danger of unravelling.
Thanks for bringing this brilliant essay to my attention. I’ll go read it in hebrew now since i have a subscription to this elite newspaper.
Her following line is something that many of the people here should seriously ponder about.
But no historical narrative upholding Palestinian hopes and suffering can dispense with Jewish hopes and suffering. Zionism was an authentic national movement, and any attempt to demonize it (and denounce the State of Israel ) while otherwise “having nothing against” the Jewish people (and disclaiming anti-Semitism ) is a historical non sequitur.
I think ethnic cleansing and racial superiority complexes demonize themselves. They don’t need anyone else’s help.
I’m sure then, Tal, that you will agree that other authentic national movements that, over the years, sought to remove Jews from their countries should not be “demonized” while claiming to have “nothing against” the specific people of those countries. Yes? After all, if its OK for Israeli Jews to ethnically cleanse people of other religions, and to treat those people as lesser human beings because Zionism is “an authentic national movement”, it must be OK for the reverse to happen as well, either in the past or in a possible future.
You do understand that that is what you are advocating, don’t you?
Oh, Hillary …
Every now and then your true thoughts and feelings about the zionist crimes squeak out, but once your Masters over in israel apply some pressure, you snap into position to perform as commanded … disgraceful
They were Gazan waters, until the Palestinians gave all their water rights to Israel a while back to prove they were serious about the peace process. :)
Top Clinton adviser to Hillary in 2008:
Representing Hillary Clinton’s campaign in a March 17, 2008 United Jewish Communities forum in Washington, Ann Lewis was quoted as saying “The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel.”
Need i say more?
Joseph Dana on more dirty tricks in Greece. (Pardon if already posted)
link to 972mag.com
“And we think that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves…”
Madame Secretary deserves credit for warning “Audacity of Hope” passengers in advance of their trip that there will be no timely assistance offered to them in the event that Israel attacks or sinks their ship, and that there will be no after-the-fact investigations should those attacks take place. Crew members of the USS Liberty received no such advance notice.
It’s so discouraging to see American leadership in such a state of boot licking subservience to a foreign power. With each new pledge of allegiance they sink lower and lower.
Allow me this slightly OT: re BDS and Paul Simon. He does Glastonbury UK next Sunday, and was interviewed by Justin Webb on BBC radio4, Friday. “Today” programme, from 02:30. I transcribe:
This abuse of the language is causing people’s heads to explode. No way this is going to end well.
Here’s a question.
Is Jewish and or Zionist tribalism as well as Christian zionism (the religious) and other interest groups arousing tribalism in others?
I ask because I find myself gravitating toward my ‘own tribe’ , meaning what I call normal non ethnic and non religiously fanatical Americans, call it old fashioned live and let live Americans, as a sort of self defense and defense of my country.
I see many of the things that I believed in as an American and what America should be as under attack by these people.
I am having to constantly check myself to keep from becoming “really tribal” about all this.
But I confess I am finding it harder and harder to not think in terms of us vr them although I firmly believe in the ” melting pot” as the ideal and practice that made America great.
My first reaction on reading The Hillary was….O.K. if the zios kill one of ‘ours’ we should kill two of “theirs’…which is about as tribal as one can get.
It’s getting to be struggle for me between my ideals and current reality.
And since I consider myself pretty average I think they are probably a lot of people caught in this pull toward their own ‘tribe’ these days, whichever tribe they consider their own.
This can’t be good…it’s more than the usual liberal vr conservative, it’s becoming a tribal and societal divide in America including the ethnic and religious and the fundmentals of being American in the sense our founders put forth or ‘not’ American.
The melting pot was replaced by the tossed salad years ago under the banner of encouraging diversity. The latest metaphor directive is the stew pot, wherein the stew meld are lumps here there. The concept of diversity encourages all minority cultures but not white majority culture precisely because whites are still in the majority (although they soon won’t be, which will require a new metaphor). There doesn’t seem to have been any real thought behind the use of such rhetoric, which has spawned so many federal programs at the tax-paying expense of more whites than not. Everybody loves food, a diverse menu of it, but food-for-thought evaluating the various sub-cultures
has been missing in action.
“The concept of diversity encourages all minority cultures but not white majority culture precisely because whites are still in the majority (although they soon won’t be, which will require a new metaphor).”
I’m sorry, but this statement is misguided. “White majority culture” is not promoted, because there is no such thing as “white majority culture” in the US. There is a general, popular culture. There is no “white culture” because that is a false amalgam of many sub-cultures. The cultures of white rural southerners and Northeastern urbanites and West Coast whites – to the extent they are distinct from the cultures of non whites in those locales — are not part of a singular larger culture because these participants are all white.
Even in the Northeast, where the formally distinct ethnic cultures of the Irish, Italians, Jews, Poles, etc., has, to a great extent, melted to create a general culture, there is still much diversity that is not shared by all the members of that greater Northeastern culture.
Woody, then there is no other distinct culture either–there’s tons of diversity between even native Americans, and a lot between a secular jew and an orthodox jew, for example. The white majority culture is European in origin, both as to ideas and their comfort foods. They have as much right to claim it as Latinos or Jews or Blacks, or Asians, for example, have a right to claim theirs. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Popular culture today is a total mix of all groups in the USA.
There are distinct cultures (subcultures, really) in America. My point is that there is no one overarching “white” culture. The larger culture will have many elements borne of European culture, as to be expected in a country which is still majority white, but it is not exclusively white. Futher, that does not mean that there is one subculture to which all whites in America are part.
Woody, you are talking in circles. And you have not said anything inconsistent with what I said. So, really, what’s your point? Also, of course all whites don’t belong to one white subculture–if so, then there would be no white subculture. Ever have a yummy squirrel dinner in Appalachia?
My points are simply to object to your assertion (which I believe you made) regarding the “majority white culture” by pointing out that so such thing exists. If you did not assert that such a thing exists, then I apologize for misreading you.
Woody, there is a majority white demographic in the USA (for a few more years), and it does have a culture. You must not live in the USA to not recognize it. It is derived from Europe, same as its people here. I can point to hot dogs and pork chops if you like, or the USA’s founding documents, so steeped in European thought, most particularly, the Enlightenment Period there, or I can point to the constant pop minority references dissing “the white man,” and his POV or brand of “stylin’.” You shouldn’t apologize since you still don’t think majority white culture exists.
There is a majority white demographic, but I disagree that it has a culture. There is a general American culture, but it is not a white culture; it is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic one. It is derived from Europe, but it is separate from it and has been infused with contributions from other cultures for hundreds of years.
To me, to suggest that there is a majority white culture suggests that there is are cultural attributes that white people in NYC, in rural Georgia, and in suburban Southern California share, which they do not share with their non-white neighbors. That doesn’t ring true in my experience.
(And do people say “the white man” any more? I thought that went out back in the stone age in the 1970s…)
Woody, you never heard or read any minority rep (or even self-described feminist rep) refer to “old white males” as the group that needs to be unseated in power in the last decade, right up to the present? Come out of your cave.
It is a lie to say that there is no general American culture that is not derived from Europe, both in terms of civil rights and governance generally. That nonwhite Americans have absorbed both those ideas, for example in America’s founding documents, and in white “comfort foods,” for example, does not weaken European Americans’ claim to their culture, but instead, shows that non-white Americans have conceded this blessing confered on them by white culture. You can’t separate the good and the bad derived from white culture; both exist, same as with any other culture. You need to get out of your cave. Go get a cheese burger. That foody item derives from Germany, same as the hot dog. Or, try some pizza, derived from Italy. Or go get some oriental food, but give each its due in terms of origin. And do the same for the Bill Of Rights.
To me the concept of the melting pot means equal opportunity and equal rights and a kind of live and let live tolorance for differences.
But this diversity on steriods has morphed into a competion for political and social power to create more rights for one group than others and ‘impose ‘ one groups beliefs or agenda on others.
The various tribes in the melting pot or tossed salad now aren’t content to just have their rights, they are now ‘attacking’ other the other tribes.
I was floored when now Justice Kegan said that being “latino” gave her a ‘superior perspective’……unbelievable… that is the last thing you want on the US Supreme court…an feeling of ethnic superiority…imagine if a white woman or man had said being Anglo Saxon gave them a superior view of the law.
My view is once you become an American you damn well better learn to be “imparital’ in your attitude or as I said everyone is going get very tribal.
U.S. State Department abandonment advisory to Americans on the Gaza Flotilla: “Hit the road Jack and don’t you come back no more.”
link to bit.ly
Hilary’s chorus:
link to youtube.com
Our response back to Madam Secretary (do join in folks):
link to youtube.com
Oh and sajepress’s cool cut:
link to youtube.com
zionist entity israel is panicked by the prospect of freedom flotilla 2′s making it to gaza
doesn’t it put itself into a similar emotional roller-coaster whenever there’s a perceived challenge to its authority over the lives and destiny of the palestinian people and their homeland?
and the zionist entity’s fear of delegitimization?
real
one victory
all it’ll take
And from what I heard retired Colonel Ann Wright say at the Move over Aipac conference…Secretary of State Clinton has never responded to her two letters to the State Dept.
It is one thing to ignore a US peasant but to ignore a former Colonel. What the hell. Talk about disrespect for those who have served by putting their own lives on the line. Pathetic
link to open.salon.com
AUGUST 7, 2010 3:01PM
Ann Wright’s two letters to Secretary of State Clinton
Imagine, by analogy, a high level government official giving White Citizens’ Council members the green light to defend themselves against civil rights workers….
Sid Shniad
Vancouver, BC